Why do IS specialists need to
become better agents of
organizational change?
Reasons
• Change Agentry will become a large part of IS
work
• To improve IS specialist credibility
Reasons
• Change Agentry will become a large part of IS
work
• To improve IS specialist credibility
Reasons
• Change Agentry will become a large part of IS
work
• To improve IS specialist credibility
Two Basic Issues
Substantial disagreement in theory and practice
about what is means to be “an agent of
organizational change”
Two Basic Issues (cont’d)
• Change agent roles grow out of, and are maintained
by, various structural conditions
o Structural conditions are social and economic arrangements, e.g. reporting
relationships and policies, that influence the processes of IS work
Change agentry models
• Traditional IS Change-Agent Model
o Role Orientation
o Consequences
o Structural Conditions
• The Facilitator Model
• The Advocate Model
Role Orientation
IS specialists don’t have to ‘do’ anything to make
change other than build systems or install
technology
Role Orientation
• The specific goals of technical change should
be set by others, usually organizational
managers.
• NO responsible for achieving change or
improvements in organizational performance
Role Orientation
EXPE
RT
Technical matter
in Business matter
Behavioral issues
involving the use of
systems.
Many IT failures
‘Implementation’ problems
rather than technical problems
Many IT failures
We’re [the IS group is] a common carrier – we make
no guarantees about data quality. As for the problem
of obsolescence, if they [the users] don’t know it by
now it is not my job to tell them. (Orlikowski and Gash,
1994)
Consequences
IS inhibiting change
• Block organizational change rather than promote it
• Technical change creates problems and
vulnerabilities
Consequences
IS inhibiting change
• Block organizational change rather than promote it
• Technical change creates problems and
vulnerabilities
• Increases in workload and working hours
Consequences
Reduced IS credibility
Change agents may have low credibility because
clients perceive them to be ‘heterophilous’ (different
in background, beliefs systems, interests) (Rogers,
1995) or to lack ‘value congruence’ (Sitkin and Roth,
1993)
Feel good when
expertise is used.
Distrust & Withold Data
Incorrect diagnoses and
solutions
Lack commitment to
implementing solutions
Resistance is often people’s reaction to the change
agents, not necessarily to the change itself. (Lawrence
(1969) )
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• IS is sole-source provider of services
• Clients have limited technical and sourcing
options
• IS has ‘staff’ function
• IS is centralized, responsible for many clients
• IS builds systems
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Systems are bought, not built
•Outsourcing IS
• Decentralized IS
• New technologies that demand different
‘implementation’ activities
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Role Orientation
Intervene in (facilitate) group
and organizational processes in
ways intended to increase
the capacity and skills
of the clients to create
change
Facilitator
‘So long as they act effectively, facilitators are not
responsible for the group’s ineffective behavior or its
consequences’ (Schwarz, 1994).
Why might IS specialists benefit
from moving in the direction of the
facilitator model?
Consequences
Greater attention to building user capacity
might increase project success and IS credibility
o Provide full valid information about the alternatives
o Encourage open discussion
Consequences
IS has responsibility for IT education and training for
clients/users and ensure the training is done right
Structural conditions
• Avoidance of expertise displays
• Non-member status
• Lack of line or staff authority over
people or performance, not responsible
for business result
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Valuable expertise in technical or
business subject matters
• Staff control over clients’ processes,
decisions, behaviors
• Authority for technical outcomes
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• Avoidance of expertise displays
• Non-member status
• Lack of line or staff authority over
people or performance, not responsible
for business result
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Valuable expertise in technical or
business subject matters
• Staff control over clients’ processes,
decisions, behaviors
• Authority for technical outcomes
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• Avoidance of expertise displays
• Non-member status
• Lack of line or staff authority over
people or performance, not responsible
for business result
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Valuable expertise in technical or
business subject matters
• Staff control over clients’ processes,
decisions, behaviors
• Authority for technical outcomes
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• Avoidance of expertise displays
• Non-member status
• Lack of line or staff authority over
people or performance, not responsible
for business result
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Valuable expertise in technical or
business subject matters
• Staff control over clients’ processes,
decisions, behaviors
• Authority for technical outcomes
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• Avoidance of expertise displays
• Non-member status
• Lack of line or staff authority over
people or performance, not responsible
for business result
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Valuable expertise in technical or
business subject matters
• Staff control over clients’ processes,
decisions, behaviors
• Authority for technical outcomes
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Structural conditions
• Avoidance of expertise displays
• Non-member status
• Lack of line or staff authority over
people or performance, not responsible
for business result
Compatible
with role
orientation
• Valuable expertise in technical or
business subject matters
• Staff control over clients’ processes,
decisions, behaviors
• Authority for technical outcomes
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Role orientation
• Focuses on inspiring organizational
members to embrace IT-enabled
organizational change.
• Uses any means including overt
persuasion, covert manipulation, symbolic
communication, and sometimes exercise
of formal power to effect desired
change.
Role orientation
• Focuses on inspiring organizational
members to embrace IT-enabled
organizational change.
• Uses any means including overt
persuasion, covert manipulation, symbolic
communication, and sometimes exercise
of formal power to effect desired
change.
Consequences
• Effectively understand what users want and
what they need
• Emphasis on communication
o Induce improvement on credibility
o Enhances interoperability between departments
• Fit the issues of IT infrastructure
o consensus decision-making approach may result in the optimal
organizational result
Structural conditions
•No formal managerial authority and no
delegated control
• Line authority over the change targets and
responsibility for achieving business outcome
•Occupy staff positions in the organizations for
which change targets work
Compatible
with role
orientation
•Absence of managerial authority over target
• Staff control over target’s processes, decisions,
behavior
Incompatib
le with role
orientation
Implications
• IS specialist have different levels of skill in client
contact & involvement in bringing organizational
change
• Suggestions:
o Intellectually familiar with, behaviorally skilled in, and highly adaptable to the
3 models
o To increase credibility and contribute to organizational success with IT
Traditional
IS model
•Technology causes change
•IS specialist has no change responsibilities beyond building technology
•Specialist is not responsible for achieving change or improvements in organizational
performance
•View themselves as technical expert
Facilitator
model
•Clients make change using technology
•Facilitator promotes change by helping increase clients 'capacity for change
•Facilitator does not hold self responsible for change or improvements in organizational
performance but clients are
•View themselves as experts in process, not content
Advocate
model
•People, including the change advocate, make change
•Advocate increases targets’ awareness of the need for change by using communication,
persuasion, shock, manipulation, power
•Advocate and change targets are responsible for change and performance improvement