Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

From Competing Commitments to Workthink as a Tactic of Resistance


Affiliations
1 Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia
2 University of Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This paper considers social and political aspects of organizational change arising from the selection of a new informaiton system, and emphasizes the importance of understanding how competing commitments can lead to workthink as a tactic of resistance to organizational change. Perceptions play an important role in the political decisions made by various groups during organizational change, and this can be seen in the interactions of staff during the meetings. Workthink can be defined as an act of agreeing to a particular action so that the participant can return to a task that he or she perceives to be more important than the reason for the meeting. Workthink can have significant impact on the success of a change implementation, especially if workthink actions are reinforced by informal communications amongst staff. This paper reports a particular change event brought about by the selection and recommendation to implement a new information system. The steering committee for the project comprised members drawn from various departments throughout the organization. The use of workthink as a political strategy explains some of the reactions of the committee members to the meetings. Given that not all members attended committee meetings on each occasion, their workthink strategy may explain the apparent haste to conclude the meetings, or the disinterest that some members related that they felt during the meetings. In this case, workthink can be further interpreted as a form of resistance in which delaying decisions and the manipulation of tasks would provide opportunities to build up coalitions with other committee members who did not attend the meeting.

Keywords

Power, Knowledge Gatekeeper, Groupthink, Workthink, Competing Commitments, Cognitive Dissonance.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Barki, Henri, and Jon Hartwick. 2001. "Interpersonal Conflict and Its Management in InformationSystem Development." MIS Quarterly 25, no. 2: 195-228.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press.
  • Butler, Tom. 2003. "An Institutional Perspective on Developing and Implementing Intranetand Internet Based Information Systems." Information Systems Journal 13, no. 3:209"231.
  • Butler, Tom, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2001. "The Relationship between User Participation andthe Management of Change Surrounding the Development of Information Systems:A European Perspective." Journal of End User Computing 13, no. 1: 12-24.
  • Clegg, Stewart R., David Courpasson, and Nelson Phillips. 2006. Power and Organisations.London, UK: Sage.
  • de Bruijn, Hans 2011. Managing Professionals. Oxon, Uk: Routledge.
  • Elias, Steven 2008. "Fifty Years of Influence in the Workplace. The Evolution of the Frenchand Raven Power Taxonomy." Journal of Management History 14, no. 3: 267-283.
  • Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
  • Forsyth, Donelson R. 1990. Group Dynamics. 2 ed. Pacific Grove, Cal: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  • French, John R. P., and Bertram H. Raven. 1968. "The Bases of Social Power." In Group Dynamics:Research and Theory, edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander,259-269. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row.
  • Introna, Lucas D. 1997. Management, Information and Power, edited by I. O. Angell, InformationSystems Series. Basingstoke, Hants: MacMillan Press Ltd.
  • Janis, Irving L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  • Janis, Irving L., and eon. Mann. 1977. "Emergency Decision Making: A Theoretical Analysisof Responses to Disaster Warnings." Journal of Human Stress 3, no. 2: 35-45.
  • Jermias, Johnny. 2001. "Cognitive Dissonance and Resistance to Change: The Influence ofCommitment Confirmation and Feedback on Judgment Usefulness of AccountingSystems." Accounting, Organisation and Society 26, no. 2: 141-160.
  • Kegan, Robert and Lisa Laskow Lahey. 2001. "The Real Reason People Won't Change."Harvard Business Review 79, no. 10: 84"93.
  • Kelman, Herbert C. 1970. "Process of Opinion Change." In Foundations of CommunicationTheory, edited by Kenneth K. Sereno and C. David Mortensen, 267-277. New York,N.Y.: Harper & Row.
  • McAvoy, John and Tom Butler. 2006. "A Paradox of Virtual Teams and Change: An Implementationof the Theory of Competing Commitments." International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC) 2, no. 3: 1-24.
  • McKnight, D. Harrison, and Norman L. Chervany. 1996. "The Meanings of Trust." CarlsonSchool of Management, University of Minnesota Available from http://misrc.umn.edu/wpaper/WorkingPapers/9604.pdf
  • Mednick, Sarnoff A., Jerry Higgins, and Jack Kirschenbaum. 1975. Psychology: Explorationsin Behavior and Experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Morgan, Gareth. 1998. Images of Organisation: The Executive Edition. New York: Barrett-Koehler & Sage.
  • O'Keefe, Daniel J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and Research, edited by Jesse G. Delia. 2 ed,Current Communication: an advanced text series. Thousand Oaks, Cal: Sage Publications.
  • Tan, Margaret. 1994. "Establishing Mutual Understanding in Systems Design: An empiricalstudy." Journal of Management Information Systems 10, no. 4: 159-182.
  • Weber, Max, 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M.Henderson, and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wells, Marilyn A. 2009. "Perceptions of Knowledge Gatekeepers: Social Aspects of InformationExchange in an Organisation Undergoing Change." College of Business, School ofManagement, University of Western Sydney. Available at http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/45372
  • Wells, Marilyn A, and Gabriela. Coronado. 2007. "Knowledge Gatekeepers and the GroupthinkPhenomena: Some Reflections on Workthink and the Politics of Information SystemsImplementations." Working Paper. Faculty of Business and Informatics, Central Queensland University.

Abstract Views: 175

PDF Views: 0




  • From Competing Commitments to Workthink as a Tactic of Resistance

Abstract Views: 175  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Marilyn Wells
Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia
Gabriela Coronado
University of Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Abstract


This paper considers social and political aspects of organizational change arising from the selection of a new informaiton system, and emphasizes the importance of understanding how competing commitments can lead to workthink as a tactic of resistance to organizational change. Perceptions play an important role in the political decisions made by various groups during organizational change, and this can be seen in the interactions of staff during the meetings. Workthink can be defined as an act of agreeing to a particular action so that the participant can return to a task that he or she perceives to be more important than the reason for the meeting. Workthink can have significant impact on the success of a change implementation, especially if workthink actions are reinforced by informal communications amongst staff. This paper reports a particular change event brought about by the selection and recommendation to implement a new information system. The steering committee for the project comprised members drawn from various departments throughout the organization. The use of workthink as a political strategy explains some of the reactions of the committee members to the meetings. Given that not all members attended committee meetings on each occasion, their workthink strategy may explain the apparent haste to conclude the meetings, or the disinterest that some members related that they felt during the meetings. In this case, workthink can be further interpreted as a form of resistance in which delaying decisions and the manipulation of tasks would provide opportunities to build up coalitions with other committee members who did not attend the meeting.

Keywords


Power, Knowledge Gatekeeper, Groupthink, Workthink, Competing Commitments, Cognitive Dissonance.

References