This document provides an overview of a presentation on changing technologies, organizations, and minds. It discusses how technologies are shaped by narratives and assumptions. Technologies not only change organizations but are also shaped by existing organizational structures and decision-making processes. The presentation explores how examining narratives around technologies can help identify underlying assumptions and power dynamics that influence organizational adoption and use of technologies. It argues for the need to consider concepts like affordances, brands, connections of time and place through data, and existing organizational assumptions when seeking to change minds and technologies within an organization.

1. Changing Minds,
Changing
Organizations,
Changing
Technologies
Gigi L. Johnson, EdD
Maremel Institute
MOC PDW
AoM 2012

2. Who is telling what technology story?
For what end?
To “get user to adopt”?
Or to change organizational beliefs,
routines, and decisions?
Our Adventure Today

3. Technology: A Fixed Answer?
Measured
Mgmt. Selection Implementation “Penetration”
Of Use

4. Technology: Changing Minds
Frames &
Intentional Pre-Decisional
Assumptions Selection(s)
Narratives? Patterns
(inc. Time)

5. Our Path Today
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives

6. Concepts
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives

7. Org. Structures Create/Created By
Technology Frames
Technology
Frame • Legitimization
Organization • Signification
Structuration • Domination
Technology Technology
Frame Frame
Technology Frames: Orlikowski & Gash,1994
Structuration: Giddens, 1979; Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991

8. Embracing a Nexus of Organizational
Decision-Making
Theories • Bounded rationality
(e.g., March, 1978;
Technology Simon, 1956; Todd &
Adoption (e.g., Benbasat, 2000)
Burkman, 1987; Moore, • Decision-making
1991; Rogers, 1962/1983; rubrics
Narrative Analysis Rogers & Shoemaker, (e.g., Beach & Mitchell,
1971; Surry, 1997) 1978, on the
(e.g., Clandinin &
Contingency Model)
Connelly, 2000,
Stories driving • Pre-decisional factors
Czarniawska, 2004) (Payne, Braunstein, &
technology routines
• Seeking narrative Carroll, 1978)
chunks • Routines and values
• Patterns of Identity,
Social Theories of Technology (Nelson & Winter,
power, role relations, • Technology as tools, text, or 1982; Pentland &
repetition. system (Nardi & O'Day, 1999; Feldman, 2008)
• Storytelling routines in Winner, 1977) • Information and
stories. • Technology as recipe (Dosi & stories in power and
Nelson, 2009) behavior
• Affordances (Gibson, 1977) (Galbraith, 1971;
Goldstein &
• Technology Frames (Orlikowski &
Busemeyer, 1992;
Gash, 1994)
Hadfield, 2005;
• Technology as time and space Orlikowski, 1991)
(e.g., Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., • Values in second-order
1999)
learning (Argyris &
• Technology as politics and power Schoenberg, 1996)
(Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977)

9. First…

10. What is
technology?

11. "Technology is anything that was
invented after you were born”
--Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010
What is
technology?

12. "Technology is anything that was
invented after you were born”
--Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010
What is
technology?
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com

13. What, then, is Technology?

14. What, then, is Technology?
• Tools that extend our abilities?
• Tools that we use in our given context(s)?
• System(s) including people, other tools, and
unspoken rules?
– Yes, guided and defined in part by “affordances”
– Often not discussed.
Technology as tools, text, or system (Nardi & O'Day, 1999; Winner, 1977)
Technology as recipe (Dosi & Nelson, 2009)

15. Changing Narratives, Changing
Technologies, Changing Minds
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives

16. A Tale of Two Cases
Case 1 Case 2
• K-12 School District • Major University
• 2010-2011 (Johnson, 2011) • 2012 (not yet published)
• 40 participants, both as 1-4 • 22 participants, 1-4 hour semi-
hour semi-scripted interviews scripted interviews
(20) and focus group
participants • Participants in nearly every
• Participants from every school and major department;
location and level mostly staff and senior faculty
• Purposive sampling and • Purposive sampling and
snowball sampling (Grinnell & snowball sampling (Grinnell &
Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin,
1995) 1995)

17. Affordances:
Possible and Perceived Uses
All "action possibilities" recognizable in an
environment
– Gibson, 1977, The Theory of Affordances
All action possibilities of a technology or
interface as perceived by the user; based on
likelihood and perceptions of use
– Norman, 1988, The Design of Everyday Things

18. Brands: Online Tools
• Yah. I mean…I shouldn’t say, there is an online connection, I use Facebook.
Um. Send a lot of email. Um. But I’m not a huge Facebook user. I dabble.
You know, go on a couple times a week and look at what other people are
doing.
• Everyone uses Google, I think.
• I’m, I’m not on Twitter…I am on Facebook.
• Not as much, I'll use examples from Wikipedia, and stuff like that too,
show students where they are supposed (to be going to).
• I Google lots of things.
• I probably wouldn’t Google that.

19. Minimal narrative to expand
affordances and options
• Brands become shortcuts in conversation and decisions,
undiscussed as to affordances
• “Closure” on options and future change happens quickly
– Organization in Case 1 inadvertently locked into roles,
structures, and habits around purchased Brands, and
stopped considering and exploring cheaper, new
alternatives
• Perceived affordances can become limited to what is designed
into the Brand and assumed to be the same between users

20. Case 1:Narrative Example:
What is a cell phone? .
• G. What else is a cell phone? 02: Social network.
• 05: It’s a camera. ((lots of gently overlapping 01: A reader. Like a Kindle. Access to…restaurants,
comments here, as people try to add something)) theater….hotels.
• G: ((G’s cell phone alarm rings)) It’s a stupid 04: GPS.
alarm clock. 03: GPS.
• 01: Clock. Alarm. 01: Locator.
• 02: It’s a way to consume and organize
04: Tracking your children.
personal media.
01: Mapping.
• 05: Phone book.
02: I just got this. This is a Droid. I just got this, like, I
• G: Watch purchases are down 30% this year.
don’t know, like a week ago, a week and a half ago.
• 05: It’s also a phone book. And it’s just like… I don’t even call it a phone. It’s a
• 03 and 01: Phone book. handheld computer.
• 01: Photo album. G: I haven’t heard any of you talk about it as a
• 05: Photo album. learning device for your students yet. ((muffled
• 01: Music library reaction))
G: Well, NO, that’s ((mumble))
02: Distraction! ((laughter and loud multiple voices))
26

21. Case 1: Identified Themes and Frictions
Driver Stories Value
We don't have time; technology My time, not yours; existing class time
Time
costs money structures and routines
Technology Brand name technology, limited
and Perceived Technology costs money measurement and re-evaluation
Resources paths
Identity; Technology Heroes and Pilots; Limited problem-based-learning or
Power; student achievement narratives collaboration narratives; focus on
Teaching and centered on testing and presentation and measurement of
Success measurement textbook and test drivers
22

22. Time/Place/Data Connections
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives

23. Technology Extends Senses
 Connects Time and Place
• Telephone
• Pen
• Clock
• Telescope
• Recording devices
• Cell phone
• Digital storage Technology as extensions
of embodiment (McLuhan, 1967);
Technology as time and space (e.g.,
Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., 1999)

24. “Technology” connects whole
industries’ “Where” and “When”
Time
Space
Connections
• Time of Capture • Time of
• Place of Capture Consumption and
• Rules of Purchase
Capture/Editing/ • Place of
Context Consumption and
Purchase
• Metaphors/rules of
13
consumption

25. Case 1: Time = Value = Narratives
EXSTENSIVE Stories of Time
• “Time” as a scarce resource
– limits being externally applied
– efforts to push back uses and obligations of time
– Few stories about saving time or new technologies saving time
– Few stories about using time WELL together to adopt new technologies
– Only one story of understanding time needed to teach differently or digest different content
with new technologies.
– Lots of stories of decisions made without any consideration of other people’s time or valuing
time as a decision resource across the system, including in wiki implementation, email systems
for enhanced communication, SMART Board content needed for visuals, etc.
– Value in play and time to play as learning
• “Past” stories about extensive stories of how things used to be as reasoning
for present
• “Future” stories about hopes and aspirations , which mostly were limited in
scope

26. Case 2: Consideration of Time
• Buy, Build, and Share
– Internal time with non-hourly staff NOT counted in any
work of any kind
• Time for Information
– “No time” to look outside program, department
– No value for that connection – no time delegated or valued
• Open Source: Internal Time not measured or valued
– SUNY Academic Commons – also big internal benefits of
shared time, but not valued or measured for boundary
spanners (Rothwell & Zegveld, 1985; Swanson, 1994;
Tushman & Scanlan, 1981)

27. Organizational Assumptions
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives

28. Unspoken Pre-Decisional Routines
• How do we improve the flow of information about
great ideas while valuing time?
• Who do we assume makes decisions?
• How does the prior decision affect the next?
• How do we measure decisions and results to adjust
them for further improvement? Or stop them?
• Who gets rewarded?
• How do we set up healthy decision processes that
learn from past events?

29. Corbin (1980): Paths of Decisions,
broken into assumptions
• Problems? Or Opportunity formulation?
• Who is allowed to identify opportunities? Who feels they can? Eval./measurement?
• What are the sources of new ideas? Spread and measurement of pilots?

30. Pre-Decisional Focus
These Two Cases: Focusing on Pre-decisions
• Who brings what into consideration?
• How are alternatives filtered and
encouraged?
• When is a decision closed? Who decides?

31. Muddy Mix on How We Decide
Cyert & March
Cohen, March,
Witte (1972) (1963) Mating
& Olsen (1972)
Iterative, not Theory of
garbage can
Linear Search – passive
method
matchup
Mintzberg, et al.
Nutt (1984) rare
(1976)
normative
overlapping and
patterns
non-linear

32. Technology is a human construct, created by engineers, marketing teams, and
consumers who buy it and modify it
• Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977
Sociotechnical ensembles where relevant social groups look at problems and
solutions, and in that friction in-between, come up with interpretive flexibility and
craft new meanings
• Bijker, 1995
The reality of the technology and the needs for it differ by group
• Hård, 1993
Power struggles can start a technology change and closure in technology relates to
those power struggles
• Hård, 1993
Technology: Politics & Power

33. How can we help leaders look at flow
of organizational change narratives?
• Trace ideas
– Who can have an idea?
– What paths do innovations flow? (Hellström, C., &
Hellström, T., 2002)
– Where do new ideas come from?
• Map change
– Where has change come from in the past?
• Closure
– Who makes the decision that change is done?
– When is it done?

34. Closure: Case 1
Time “ends” upon delivery and short training
• Minimal measurement and fine-tuning except for Data
Director
• No visible thought process on developing users’ long-
term skills (or students’ long-term skills) in embracing
technology into work/lives
• No apparent re-evaluation processes
• Adoptions seen as one-time events instead of as a
continuum of resources and systems
• Minimal apparent transparent evaluation of pilots or
propagation of good uses

35. More Identity and Role: Case 1
Learning stories of how “I” work •From peers, tutorials, learning networks
and engage •“Professional development” assumed to be a ½-1 day training on user interfaces of a specific technology
Stories of past district leadership
about Ghosts and Heroes
Who “we” are in stories,
illustrated with district and
school descriptions and how we
know what they are
•Heroes (pseudonyms): Franklin (middle school teacher); Marcy (elementary principal); Jerry (secondary
principal)
People as Symbol Stories •People as Functions (by name, not role)
•People as Symbols: New CTO; District Office; Principals
•Ghosts: 2006 CTO, past Superintendent; 2 past principals

36. Case 1: Metaphor-driven stories on
assumptions, limits, and rules
“Technology” as an undefined thing, • Definitions of Tech: Brands as shorthand for unspoken concepts
tool, etc. (e.g., we need technology,
we cannot afford technology, we are • Certain techno-ecological systems are better without discussion
behind in technology) (e.g., Dell, Apple, Smart, Mobi/Interwrite)
Email as uncontrolled use of time and
attention
Conformity stories, in conjunction
with School Loop and Pacing Guides;
tacitly accepting conformity as an
organizational norm
• Technology costs and does not save money.
• Technology is hardware and software purchases, not system
Technology as limited by the system implementations across social processes.
(money, budget, measurement, • Money is driven by grants, their assumptions, and their related
information) social systems; spending by grant parameters instead of seeking
own opportunities for development except by one participant
(who is leaving at the year-end).

37. Case 1: Missing or Thin Stories
“My Job” -- No participants
Seeking teaching resources
claimed that their job is Taking Time -- Understanding Economic considerations
(for use with enhanced
responsible for educational connecting to resources (have & have nots; teachers
technologies) or curriculum
technology in the classroom; takes time and/or time of also were have-nots as well
planning stories other than
each of the 22 pointed to others in decision-making as half of the students)
pacing guides
someone else
Collaboration or inclusion
Collaboration except in Invisible technologies
with school technology
Innovation informal teachers teaching (printers, overheads,
support personnel or school
teachers speakers, phone)
librarian
Leaving others behind/non-
Information seeking and inclusion: Ethnicity of
Student Creation or
sharing as a collaborative community and families;
Inclusions Stories (2 stories
action; minimal knowledge Library/librarian or Reward or Success Stories
about student use out of 22
management for teaching or technology aide as resource;
interviews)
decision-making second class citizen, non-
inclusion or consideration

38. Changing Narratives
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives

39. Narrative Drivers Can Limit Choices
Action and
Leadership
Internal Perspectives • Personal action
External Perspectives
• Information • Information
routines • STEP, especially
• Time
• New narrative fuel budget/policy
• Identity and roles
Routines•reduce perceived
Nature of
• Competition
• Unclear and
uncertainties and frames choice;
technology simplify
contradictory social
and social context
limit alternatives through
• Values
perspectives
information, search, role and Information reinforcement
assignments in choices, Belief reinforcement
Technology
recognition of gaps, lack of Choice: narratives
Missing
Considerations
feedback of Alternatives

40. Technology-Specific Narrative Drivers
Action and Shifts power
Leadership relations
Internal Perspectives • Personal action
External Perspectives
• Information • Information Transparency –
routines • STEP, especially social elements
• Time
Time, Place, • New narrative fuel budget/policy invisible to many –
• Identity and roles
and People: • Competition social elements
• Nature of
Realigns • Unclear and become
technology frames
contradictory social unintended
Connections and social context
perspectives consequences and
• Values
technological drift
Technology
Choice:
Considerations
of Alternatives

41. Narrative shifts could shift technology
frames and decision routines
Action and See holes of missing
Leadership narratives
Internal Perspectives • Personal action
External Perspectives
• Information • Information
routines • STEP, especially
• Time
• New narrative fuel budget/policy
• Identity and roles
• Competition
• Nature of
• Unclear and
technology frames
contradictory social
and social context
perspectives
• Values
Provide fuel for new
narratives
Technology
Choice:
Make routines visible Considerations
of Alternatives reinforcement
Information
Belief reinforcement
Missing narratives

42. Narrative shifts can shift alternatives
• Build Understanding
• Build Capacity for Change?
Action and
Leadership
Internal Perspectives • Personal action
External Perspectives
• Information • Information
routines • STEP, especially
• Time
• New narrative fuel budget/policy
• Identity and roles
• Competition
• Nature of
• Unclear and
technology frames
contradictory social
and social context
perspectives
• Values
Technology
Choice:
Considerations Needs changing drivers to change
of Alternatives
perspectives:
• Narrative leadership
• Friction on perspectives from
external forces

43. Both Case 1 and Case 2:
Narrative Leadership?

44. Maremel Institute
Dr. Gigi L. Johnson
@maremel
gigi@maremel.com
http://maremel.com
http://gigijohnson.net
626-603-2420

45. References
Argyris & Schoenberg, 1996
Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of
radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. doi:10.2307/2392767
Beach L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management
Review, 3(3), 439-449. doi:10.2307/257535
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowker, G. C. (1995). Second nature once removed: Time, space and representations. Time & Society, 4(1), 47-66.
doi:10.1177/0961463X950004001003
Burkman, E. (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 429-455).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly,
17(1), 1-25. doi:10.2307/2392088
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2),
189-211. doi:10.2307/249688
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46. References
Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2009). Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. LEM Papers Series, Laboratory of
Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy. Retrieved from
http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2009/07
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organizational design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25059090
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological
psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Goldstein, W. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1992). The effect of "irrelevant" variables on decision making: Criterion shifts in preferential choice?
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(3), 425-454. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90028-6
Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (2007). Social work research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hadfield, M. (2005). Knowledge production, its management and action research. Educational Action Research, 13(2), 301-311.
doi:10.1080/09650790300200281
Hård, M. (1993). Beyond harmony and consensus: A social conflict approach to technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18(4), 408-
432. doi: 10.1177/016224399301800402
Hellström, C., & Hellström, T. (2002, June). Highways, alleys and by–lanes: Charting the pathways for ideas and innovation in organizations.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(2), 107-114. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00242
Hörning, K. H., Ahrens, D., & Gerhard, A. (1999). Do technologies have time?: New practices of time and the transformation of communication
technologies. Time & Society, 8(2), 293-308. doi:10.1177/0961463X99008002005
Johnson, G. (2011). Reframing Technology Narratives and Routines to Energize Organizational Change.[published dissertation]. ProQuest.
March, J.G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608.
doi:10.2307/3003600
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976, June). The structure of “unstructured” decision process. Administrative Science Quarterly,
21(2), 246-275.

47. References
Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technologies with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University.
Nutt, P. C. (1984). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 414-450.
doi:10.2307/2393033
Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control?: The contradictory implications of information
technology. Accounting Management and Information, 1(1), 9-42. doi:10.1016/0959-8022(91)90011-3
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research,
2(2), 143-169. doi:10.1287/isre.2.2.143
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM
Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207. doi:10.1145/196734.196745
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action.
Information and Organization, 18(4), 235-250. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001
Pettigrew, A. M. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6(2), 187. doi:10.1177/003803857200600202
Pfiffner, J. M. (1960). Administrative rationality. Public Administration Review, 20(3), 125-132. doi:10.2307/973965
Rothwell, R., & Zegveld, W. (1985). Reindustrialization and technology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information systems: Innovation among organizations. Management Science, 40(9), 1069-1092.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.9.1069

48. References
Surry, D. W. (1997, February 12-15). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New
Mexico. Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
Payne, J. W., Braunstein, M. L., & Carroll J. S. (1978). Exploring pre-decisional behavior: An alternative approach to
decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(1), 17-34. doi:10.1016/0030-
5073(78)90003-X
Rogers, E. M. (1962/1983). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York, NY: Free
Press
Simon, H. A. (1956, March). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138.
doi:10.1037/h0042769
Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (2000). The impact of information technology on decision making: A cognitive perspective. In R.
Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future . . . through the past (pp. 1-14).
Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their
antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305. doi:10.2307/255842
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Witte, E. (1972). Field research on complex decision-making processes—the phase theorem. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 2(2), 156-182. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.