Upload
gigi-johnson
View
1.720
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Academy of Management (AoM) 2012 Professional Development Workshop (PDW), hosted by the Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division (MOC) and organized by Gigi Johnson, EdD, Maremel Institute. This set of slides summarizes the discussions and data from a three-hour workshop for academics and practitioners who work toward changing organization stories around what is possible with technology.
Citation preview
Changing Minds, Changing
Organizations, Changing
Technologies
Gigi L. Johnson, EdDMaremel Institute
MOC PDWAoM 2012
Our Adventure Today
NOT ME…NOT MY JOB…
Who is telling what technology story?For what end?
To “get user to adopt”?Or to change organizational beliefs,
routines, and decisions?
Technology: A Fixed Answer?
Mgmt. Selection ImplementationMeasured
“Penetration”Of Use
Technology: Changing Minds
Frames &Assumptions
(inc. Time)
IntentionalNarratives?
Pre-Decisional Patterns Selection(s)
Our Path Today
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives
Concepts
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives
Org. Structures Create/Created By Technology Frames
Technology Frame
Technology Frame
Technology Frame
Organization Structuration
Technology Frames: Orlikowski & Gash,1994Structuration: Giddens, 1979; Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991
• Legitimization• Signification• Domination
Embracing a Nexus of Theories
Technology Adoption (e.g., Burkman, 1987; Moore, 1991; Rogers, 1962/1983; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; Surry, 1997)
Organizational Decision-Making• Bounded rationality
(e.g., March, 1978; Simon, 1956; Todd & Benbasat, 2000)
• Decision-making rubrics (e.g., Beach & Mitchell, 1978, on the Contingency Model)
• Pre-decisional factors (Payne, Braunstein, & Carroll, 1978)
• Routines and values (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Pentland & Feldman, 2008)
• Information and stories in power and behavior (Galbraith, 1971; Goldstein & Busemeyer, 1992; Hadfield, 2005; Orlikowski, 1991)
• Values in second-order learning (Argyris & Schoenberg, 1996)
Social Theories of Technology • Technology as tools, text, or
system (Nardi & O'Day, 1999; Winner, 1977)
• Technology as recipe (Dosi & Nelson, 2009)
• Affordances (Gibson, 1977)• Technology Frames (Orlikowski &
Gash, 1994)• Technology as time and space
(e.g., Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., 1999)
• Technology as politics and power (Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977)
Narrative Analysis (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, Czarniawska, 2004)• Seeking narrative
chunks• Patterns of Identity,
power, role relations, repetition.
• Storytelling routines in stories.
Stories driving technology routines
First…
What is technology?
What is technology?
"Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010
What is technology?
"Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com
What, then, is Technology?
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)
Changing Narratives, Changing Technologies, Changing Minds
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives
A Tale of Two Cases
Case 1• K-12 School District• 2010-2011 (Johnson, 2011)• 40 participants, both as 1-4 hour
semi-scripted interviews (20) and focus group participants
• Participants from every location and level
• Purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)
Case 2• Major University• 2012 (not yet published)• 22 participants, 1-4 hour semi-
scripted interviews• Participants in nearly every
school and major department; mostly staff and senior faculty
• Purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)
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
CELL PHONEE-MAIL
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.
iPad?
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
Case 1:Narrative Example: What is a cell phone?
• G. What else is a cell phone?• 05: It’s a camera. ((lots of gently
overlapping comments here, as people try to add something))
• G: ((G’s cell phone alarm rings)) It’s a stupid alarm clock.
• 01: Clock. Alarm.• 02: It’s a way to consume and organize
personal media.• 05: Phone book.• G: Watch purchases are down 30% this
year.• 05: It’s also a phone book.• 03 and 01: Phone book.• 01: Photo album.• 05: Photo album.• 01: Music library
. 02: Social network.01: A reader. Like a Kindle. Access to…restaurants, theater….hotels.04: GPS.03: GPS.01: Locator.04: Tracking your children.01: Mapping.02: I just got this. This is a Droid. I just got this, like, I don’t know, like a week ago, a week and a half ago. And it’s just like… I don’t even call it a phone. It’s a handheld computer.G: I haven’t heard any of you talk about it as a learning device for your students yet. ((muffled reaction))G: Well, NO, that’s ((mumble))02: Distraction! ((laughter and loud multiple voices))
26
Case 1: Identified Themes and Frictions
22
Driver Stories Value
Time We don't have time; technology costs money
My time, not yours; existing class time structures and routines
Technology and Perceived
ResourcesTechnology costs money Brand name technology, limited
measurement and re-evaluation paths
Identity; Power;
Teaching and Success
Technology Heroes and Pilots; student achievement narratives centered on testing and measurement
Limited problem-based-learning or collaboration narratives; focus on presentation and measurement of textbook and test drivers
Time/Place/Data Connections
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives
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)
“Technology” connects whole industries’ “Where” and “When”
• Time of Consumption and Purchase
• Place of Consumption and Purchase
• Metaphors/rules of consumption
• Time of Capture• Place of Capture• Rules of
Capture/Editing/Context
TimeSpaceConnections
13
Data
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
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)
Organizational Assumptions
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives
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?
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?
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?
Muddy Mix on How We Decide
Witte (1972) Iterative, not Linear
Mintzberg, et al. (1976) overlapping
and non-linear
Cyert & March (1963) Mating
Theory of Search – passive matchup
Nutt (1984) rare normative patterns
Cohen, March, & Olsen (1972) garbage can
method
Technology: Politics & Power
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
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?
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
More Identity and Role: Case 1
•From peers, tutorials, learning networks•“Professional development” assumed to be a ½-1 day training on user interfaces of a specific technology
Learning stories of how “I” work and engage
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
People as Symbol Stories
Case 1: Metaphor-driven stories on assumptions, limits, and rules
• Definitions of Tech: Brands as shorthand for unspoken concepts• Certain techno-ecological systems are better without discussion
(e.g., Dell, Apple, Smart, Mobi/Interwrite)
“Technology” as an undefined thing, tool, etc. (e.g., we need technology, we cannot afford technology, we are
behind in technology)
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 as limited by the system (money, budget, measurement,
information)
Case 1: Missing or Thin Stories“My Job” -- No participants
claimed that their job is responsible for educational
technology in the classroom; each of the 22 pointed to
someone else
Taking Time -- Understanding connecting to resources takes time and/or time of others in
decision-making
Economic considerations (have & have nots; teachers also were
have-nots as well as half of the students)
Seeking teaching resources (for use with enhanced technologies)
or curriculum planning stories other than pacing guides
Innovation Collaboration except in informal teachers teaching teachers
Collaboration or inclusion with school technology support
personnel or school librarianInvisible technologies (printers,
overheads, speakers, phone)
Information seeking and sharing as a collaborative action; minimal
knowledge management for teaching or decision-making
Leaving others behind/non-inclusion: Ethnicity of community and families; Library/librarian or
technology aide as resource; second class citizen, non-inclusion or consideration
Student Creation or Inclusions Stories (2 stories about student
use out of 22 interviews)Reward or Success Stories
Changing Narratives
Concepts
Affordances & Brands
Time/Place/Data Connections
Organizational Assumptions
Changing Narratives
Narrative Drivers Can Limit Choices
Technology Choice:
Considerations of Alternatives
Internal Perspectives• Information• Time• Identity and
roles• Nature of
technology frames and social context
• Values
Action and Leadership• Personal
action• Information
routines• New
narrative fuel
External Perspectives• STEP,
especially budget/policy
• Competition• Unclear and
contradictory social perspectivesRoutines reduce perceived
uncertainties and simplify choice; limit alternatives through information, search, role and assignments in choices, recognition of gaps, lack of feedback
Information reinforcementBelief reinforcementMissing narratives
Technology-Specific Narrative Drivers
Technology Choice:
Considerations of Alternatives
Internal Perspectives• Information• Time• Identity and
roles• Nature of
technology frames and social context
• Values
Action and Leadership• Personal
action• Information
routines• New
narrative fuel
External Perspectives• STEP,
especially budget/policy
• Competition• Unclear and
contradictory social perspectives
Time, Place, and People:
Realigns Connections
Shifts power relations
Transparency – social elements invisible to many – social elements become unintended consequences and technological drift
Narrative shifts could shift technology frames and decision routines
Technology Choice:
Considerations of Alternatives
Internal Perspectives• Information• Time• Identity and
roles• Nature of
technology frames and social context
• Values
Action and Leadership• Personal
action• Information
routines• New
narrative fuel
External Perspectives• STEP,
especially budget/policy
• Competition• Unclear and
contradictory social perspectives
Make routines visible
See holes of missing narratives
Provide fuel for new narratives
Information reinforcementBelief reinforcementMissing narratives
Narrative shifts can shift alternatives
Technology Choice:
Considerations of Alternatives
Internal Perspectives• Information• Time• Identity and
roles• Nature of
technology frames and social context
• Values
Action and Leadership• Personal
action• Information
routines• New
narrative fuel
External Perspectives• STEP,
especially budget/policy
• Competition• Unclear and
contradictory social perspectives
• Build Understanding• Build Capacity for Change?
Needs changing drivers to change perspectives: • Narrative leadership • Friction on perspectives from
external forces
Both Case 1 and Case 2:
NOT ME…NOT MY JOB…
Narrative Leadership?
Maremel InstituteDr. Gigi L. Johnson
@[email protected]://maremel.com
http://gigijohnson.net626-603-2420
ReferencesArgyris & 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.
ReferencesDosi, 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.
ReferencesMoore, 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:10.2307/973965Rothwell, 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
ReferencesSurry, 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 PressSimon, 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.