Controlling information systems development (ISD) is a fundamental but also highly challenging task (Kirsch, 1996). Managers (controllers) exercise control – including the use of formal policies and standards, periodic status reports, as well as socialization and empowerment strategies – in an attempt to influence and align the behavior of subordinates (controllees) with organizational objectives (Flamholtz et al., 1985; Ouchi, 1979; Eisenhardt, 1985). Existing ISD research provides valuable insights into how task and stakeholder characteristics relate to the selection of specific controls (Kirsch, 1996, 1997; Choudhury and Sabherwal, 2003; Tiwana, 2010), as well as the effects of such controls on ISD performance (Henderson and Lee, 1992; Tiwana and Keil, 2009; Maruping et al., 2009). Despite these theoretical advances, two research gaps in prior literature are particularly noteworthy. First, existing research primarily focuses on the controller, including the organizational and process-oriented factors that should be considered when designing and implementing controls. This focus largely neglects salient controllee-centric factors including the perceptions of, and reactions to, ISD controls (Cram, 2011; Alvarez, 2002; Wiener et al., 2016). This is problematic since, without explicitly considering controllee attitudes and preferences, managers may inadvertently select and implement controls that contribute to subordinate dissatisfaction and stress, potentially leading to negative side-effects on ISD performance (e.g. efficiency, quality, speed). A second, related gap concerns the inconsistent research results regarding control effects on ISD performance. While some studies find empirical support for the direct and positive effects of ISD controls on performance (Henderson and Lee, 1992; Liu et al., 2010; Tjornehoj and Mathiassen, 2008) and related dimensions (Keil et al., 2013; Maruping et al., 2009; Kautz, 2011), other studies fail to observe direct performance effects of ISD controls (Tiwana and Keil, 2007) and even observe negative effects (Tiwana, 2010; Tiwana and Keil, 2009). One potential explanation for these inconsistencies is that the link between ISD controls and performance is moderated or mediated by controllee-related variables not included in previous studies (Narayanaswamy et al., 2013; Tiwana and Keil, 2009). One such variable may be the extent to which subordinates perceive the controls implemented by their manager to be legitimate. This explanation is consistent with prior research outside of the IS field, which provides evidence for the link between perceptions of legitimacy and performance-related variables such as trust (Suchman, 1995), commitment and motivation ( Jaffee, 1991; Workman, 2009), and job effectiveness (Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, 2010; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). If a relationship could be established between control activities, control legitimacy, and ISD performance, it may help to clarify why inconsistencies have existed in past research.