-------- Forwarded Message --------
Special Issue: Information Systems Journal
Power dynamics in organisations and the role of information
systems
While power is described as an integral part of organisations, it
is also stressed that power dynamics are under-theorised
(Blackler, 2011; Contu and Willmott, 2003; Jasperson et al., 2002;
Marabelli and Galliers, 2017). The aim of this special issue is to
unpack power dynamics in organisations and explore the role of
information systems in these dynamics.
An ambiguous concept, there is a plethora of views on what
constitutes power (Jasperson et al., 2002). The following provides
a summary. Power has been explained variously as legitimate,
expert and referent (French and Raven, 1959); functionalist,
interpretive and radical (Bradshaw-Camball and Murray, 1991);
episodic and systemic (Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2012).
Legitimate power relates to power stemming from organisational
hierarchies, where people occupying higher levels have the
'legitimate' right to influence the behaviours of others. Expert
power stems from the expertise and knowledge people possess, while
referent power is related to the access to resources (French and
Raven, 1959). Within the functionalist perspective,
Bradshaw-Camball and Murray (1991) differentiate between the
pluralist view, which "focuses on overt stakeholder behaviours
such as coalition formation and bargaining" and the rationalist
view, which "focuses on the legitimate authority of top management
and the intended rationality of its decision making activities"
(Bradshaw- Camball and Murray, 1991, p. 381). The interpretivist
view of power sees it as being exercised by controlling others
without them being aware of the control mechanisms being used to
achieve goals. From the radical perspective, power is found in
social relationships and it is embedded in a structure of rules
(Bradshaw-Camball and Murray, 1991). From an episodic/'power over'
perspective, power is seen as a restraining force and is linked,
for example, to control, coercion, influencing others and
authority (Clegg et al., 2006; Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al.,
2012). From a systemic perspective power, can be seen as a
productive force with systemic 'power to' being embedded in social
relations (Clegg et al., 2006; Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al.,
2012).
Power issues and dynamics are often conceptualised as tensions,
paradoxes and conflicts (e.g., Smith et al., 2017), and are
analytically manifested in the form of, inter alia, status
effects, majority issues, conformance pressure, deviance and
non-conformity, gender, and generational differences that can have
a negative impact in organisations (e.g., Bunderson and Reagans,
2011; Heizmann, 2011; Raman and Bharadwaj, 2012). Examples of
power dynamics in organisations are evident in the following
contexts and activities:
* - Organisational change;
* - Strategising;
* - Knowledge management;
* - Coordination, learning and collective action;
* - Inter- and intra-organisational work and across organisational
hierarchies;
* - Organisational structure, rules, social networks;
* - Communities of practice;
* - Leadership, interpersonal power;
* - Technology use and technology implementation;
* - Roles, social relationships, empowerment.
Notwithstanding this extensive research on power and power
dynamics in organisations, and the seminal work of Markus (1983)
for example, research on the role of IS in this regard is still
limited. This is surprising given the increasing role of digital
technology in organisations and the consequent research undertaken
on the use of social computing and collaborative tools to
transform organisations (e.g., Baptista et al., 2017; Forsgren and
Byström, 2018). While some research on power issues in the IS
field has considered, for example, the role and use of boundary
objects, communication and collaboration (Sapsed and Salter,
2004), knowledge sharing (Simeonova, 2017), how technology impacts
organisational power relations (Allen et al., 2013; Jasperson et
al., 2002) and workarounds (Malaurent and Avison, 2016), few other
studies have been undertaken. In light of this, scholars have
argued for further research on power dynamics in organisations
specifically in relation to the role that IS might play (Koch et
al., 2013). Moreover, it has been stressed that the predominant
orientation taken on power within the IS, Management and
Organisation Studies literature remains the episodic/'power over'
perspective (Hislop, 2013).
In order to rebalance and advance research on power dynamics in
organisations and IS, this special issue encourages submissions
exploring different forms and manifestations of power. We make
this call in the belief that such research is particularly
pertinent and timely in light of the emergence and growth of
digital innovation, online communities; work transformations, and
new ways of organising.
Objectives and Criteria for Submissions for the Special Issue
Thus, the objective of this Special Issue is to examine issues
around IS and power by drawing on extant research in the fields of
IS,
Management and Organisation Studies. We seek relevant and rigorous
submissions that address a combination of the following in the
context of power dynamics as outlined above:
· Effects of IS on transformations of power dynamics in
organisations;
· Power dynamics in organisations. Effects of different forms of
power (episodic/power over and systemic/power to) as well as
status effects, majority issues, conformance pressure, deviance
and non-conformity, gender, and generational differences;
* Dimensions (different levels of analysis, multiple perspectives)
- individual, organisational, social, technological;
* Novel theoretical and methodological approaches;
* The role of technology in reinforcing power structures or
emancipating actors;
* Consequences for the field of IS, and reflections on its
trans-disciplinarity.
Submissions should broadly address or relate to the aforementioned
aspects in their contribution to theory and practice. Ideally,
submissions will provide new understandings of IS in work and
social settings and the transformations taking place. Submissions
will be evaluated using rigorous criteria associated with high
quality academic research.
Authors are encouraged to submit an extended abstract for early
feedback. The extended abstract should not exceed 5 pages,
including a cover page (containing title, keywords, and author
details), an explanation of the rationale for the study/paper, an
overview of the research and analysis undertaken, details of
expected contributions, consideration of fit with the special
issue, and a list of illustrative references. The extended
abstracts and the full papers should meet the ISJ formatting
guidelines and be submitted using the online submission system.
Indicative Timetable
1st December 2018: Deadline for full papers
February 2019: Reviews returned
August 2019: Revised papers submitted
November 2019: Second reviews returned
March 2020: Final papers submitted
Special Issue Guest Senior Editors
Dr Boyka Simeonova, Loughborough University, UK
Prof. Bob Galliers, Bentley University, USA and Loughborough
University, UK
Dr Stan Karanasios, RMIT University, Australia
Special Issue Guest Associate Editors
Dr Alessia Contu, UMass Boston, USA
Prof. Jason Dedrick, Syracuse University, USA
Prof. Niall Hayes, University of Lancaster, UK
Prof. Ola Henfridsson, Warwick Business School, UK
Prof. Donald Hislop, Loughborough University, UK
Dr Marco Marabelli, Bentley University, USA
Dr Stella Pachidi, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge,
UK
Dr Arisa Shollo, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Bibliography
Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013).
How should technology- mediated organizational change be
explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism
and activity theory. MIS Quarterly, 37, 835-854.
Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S.
(2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new
capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 322-336.
Blackler, F. (2011). Power, politics, and intervention theory:
Lessons from organization studies. Theory & Psychology, 21,
724-734.
Bradshaw-Camball, P. & Murray, V. V. (1991). Illusions and
other games: A trifocal view of organizational politics.
Organization Science, 2, 379-398.
Bunderson, J. S. & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and
learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22, 1182-1194.
Clegg, S., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006). Power and
Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness:
The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization
Science, 14, 283-296.
Forsgren, E. and K. Byström (2018). Multiple social media in the
workplace: Contradictions and congruencies. Information Systems
Journal, doi:10.1111/isj.12156.
French, J. R. & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power.
In: Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (eds). Classics
of Organization Theory, Cengage Learning.
Heizmann, H. (2011). Knowledge sharing in a dispersed network of
HR practice: Zooming in on power/knowledge struggles. Management
Learning, 42, 379-393.
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge Management in Organizations: A
critical introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jasperson, J. S., Carte, T. A., Saunders, C. S., Butler, B. S.,
Croes, H. J. & Zheng, W. (2002). Review: Power and information
technology research: A metatriangulation review. MIS Quarterly,
26, 397-459.
Kärreman, D. (2010). The Power of Knowledge: Learning from
'Learning by Knowledge- Intensive Firm'. Journal of Management
Studies, 47, 1405-1416.
Koch, H., Leidner, D. E. & Gonzalez, E. S. (2013). Digitally
enabling social networks: Resolving IT-culture conflict.
Information Systems Journal, 23, 501-523.
Lawrence, T. B., Malhotra, N. & Morris, T. (2012). Episodic
and systemic power in the transformation of professional service
firms. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 102-143.
Malaurent, J. & Avison, D. (2016). Reconciling global and
local needs: A canonical action research project to deal with
workarounds. Information Systems Journal, 26, 227-257.
Marabelli, M. & Galliers, R. D. (2017). A reflection on
information systems strategizing: The role of power and everyday
practices. Information Systems Journal, 27, 347-366.
Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation.
Communications of the ACM, 26, 430-444.
Raman, R. & Bharadwaj, A. (2012), Power differentials and
performative deviation paths in practice transfer: The case of
evidence-based medicine, Organization Science, 23, 1593- 1621.
Sapsed, J. & Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge: local
communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization
Studies, 25, 1515-1534.
Simeonova, B. (2018). Transactive memory systems and Web 2.0 in
knowledge sharing: A conceptual model based on activity theory and
critical realism. Information Systems Journal, 28, 592-611.
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W. & Tracey,
P. (2017). Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and
Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization
Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of
Innovation and Change. Organization Studies, 38, 303-317.
_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org