M. Lynne Markus
Abstract
Theories of resistance to management information systems (MIS) are important because they guide the implementation strategies and tactics chosen by implementors. Three basic theories of the causes of resistance underlie many prescriptions and rules for MIS implementation. Simply stated, people resist MIS because of their own internal factors, because of poor system design, and because of the interaction of specific system design features with aspects of the organizational context of system use. These theories differ in their basic assumptions about systems, organizations, and resistance; they also differ in predictions that can be derived from them and in their implications for the implementation process. These differences are described and the task of evaluating the theories on the bases of the differences is begun. Data from a case study are used to illustrate the theories and to demonstrate the superiority, for implementors, of the interaction theory.
- 1 Alter, S.L A study of computer aided decision-making in organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1975,Google Scholar
- 2 Bariff, M.L., and Galbraith, J.R. Intraorganizational power considerations for designing information systems. Accounting Organizations and Society 3 (1978), 15-27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 3 Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital. Monthly Review Press, New York, 1974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 4 Crozier, M. The Bureauchratic Phenomenon. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.Google Scholar
- 5 Dalton. M. Men Who Manage. Wiley, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
- 6 Ginzberg, M.J. A detailed look at implementation research. Rept. CISR-4, Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1974.Google Scholar
- 7 Ginzberg, M.J. Implementation as a process of change: A framework and empirical study. Rept. CISR-13, Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1975.Google Scholar
- 8 Hedberg, B., Edstrom, A., Muller, W., and Wilpert, S.B. The impact of computer technology on organizational power structures. In E. Grechla and N. Szyperski (FAJS.), Information Systems and Organization Structure, Ne w York, 1975, pp. 131-148.Google Scholar
- 9 Keen, P.G.W. Information systems and organizational change. Rept. CISR- 46, Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1980.Google Scholar
- 10 Kling, R. Automated information systems as social resources in policy making. Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1978, pp. 666-674. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11 Kling, R. Automated welfare client tracking and service integration: The political economy of computing. Comm. ACM 0une 1978), 484-493. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12 Kling, R. Defining the boundaries of computing in complex organizations: A Behavioral approach. Working Paper, Univ. California, Irvine, 1982.Google Scholar
- 13 Kling, R. Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recant empirical research. Comput. Surv. 12, 1 (1980), 61-110. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14 Laudon, K.C. Computers and Bureaucratic Reform. Wiley, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
- 15 Lawler, E. and Rhode, J.G. Information and Control in Organizations. Goodyear, Palisades, Calif., 1976.Google Scholar
- 16 Lucas, H. Why Information Systems Fag. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
- 17 Markus, M.L. Implementation politics--Top management support and user involvement. Systems, Objectives, Solutions (1981), 203-215.Google Scholar
- 18 Markus, M.L. Understanding information systems use in organizations: A theoretical explanation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, Ohio, 1979.Google Scholar
- 19 Markus, M.L. and Pfeffer, J. Power and the design and implementation of accounting and control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society. In press,Google Scholar
- 20 Mechanic, D. Sources of power of lower participants in complex organization. Administrative soi. Quart. (Dec. 1982). 349-364.Google Scholar
- 21 Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., and Theomt, A. The structure of "unstructured" decision processes. Administrative SOL Quart. 21,246-275.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 22 Noble, D.F. Social choice in machine design: The case of automatically controlled machine tools, and a challenge for labor. Monthly Bey. (1979).Google Scholar
- 23 Pettigrew, A.M. Information control as a power resource. Sociology (May 1972), 187-204.Google Scholar
- 24 Pfeffer, J. Organizationa Design. AHM Publ. Corp., Arlington Heights, m., 1978.Google Scholar
- 25 Pfeffer, J. Power in Organization. Pitman Publ. Co., Marshfield, Mass., 1981.Google Scholar
- 26 Robey, D., and Taggart, W. Measuring managers' minds: The assessment of style in human information processing. Acod. Manag. Bey. 6 (3), 1981.Google Scholar
- 27 Strauss, G. Tactics of lateral relationship: The purchasing agent. In Kolb et el. (Eds.), Organizational Psychology A Book of Readings, 2nd ed., Prentice- Hall, Engleweod Cliffs. N.J. 1974.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Power, politics, and MIS implementation
Recommendations
Politics and Firm Boundaries: How Organizational Structure, Group Interests, and Resources Affect Outsourcing
How does managers' pursuit of their own intraorganizational interests affect decisions about what work to outsource and how to contract with vendors? I study this question using a qualitative study of outsourcing in the information technology department ...
The Politics of Emotion: Exploring Emotional Labor and Political Skill across Job Types within the IT/IS Profession
In this study we examined the relationship between two interpersonal constructs, emotional labor and political skill, finding that they are related. People who possess high levels of political skill and people who perceive high expectations to express ...
Politics and Information Technology Investments in the U.S. Federal Government in 2003-2016
Information technologies IT act as an enabler for policy implementation in the U.S. federal government. While federal agencies increasingly rely on advanced digital technologies to execute new policy initiatives, many agencies are struggling with ...
Comments