- 1 -
CUI BONO?
A consideration of how reactions to technological change are dependent upon people’s perceptions of its value for them, their customers and their organisation – but not necessarily in that order!
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
Tricia Le Gallais
Senior Lecturer/Researcher
UCE
Birmingham
Abstract
This paper arose from a startling discovery on my part. Not everyone is techno-averse! Whilst this is clearly an obvious statement, previous research into the impact of technological change in an educational setting (Le Gallais 2002) had led me to anticipate that where technological change occurred, techno-stress (Morgan et al. 2000) and techno-phobia would emerge as serious change inhibiters. Research conducted by Stam et al. (www2005[1]) with social service caseworkers and Edwards & Walton (www2005) with academic librarians supported my own findings (Le Gallais 2001 & 2002) . However, having recently undertaken a wider exploration of current change literature I am now obliged to reconsider this perception.
Daniel & Millward (1993), for example, found - to their stated surprise - that the workers they interviewed from industry and business overwhelmingly welcomed new technology. In the competitive atmosphere of global markets, such constant attention to technological upskilling gave the workers a feeling of confidence and job security. Other writers note similar findings (Preece 1995; Clark 1995). Moreover Preece (1995: 100) observes that ‘UK survey evidence shows that instances of worker opposition to new technology are very rare; indeed, it is much more accurate to talk about employees welcoming the introduction of new technology’. In contrast, Stam et al.’s (www2005) research participants consider the introduction of new technology to be a retrograde step with regard to their core role of service and Edwards (www2005) notes workers’ anxieties about their professional status and lack of competence in the face of new work practices involving technology.
This diversity of responses identified by researchers seems to be, to some extent, dependent upon the type of organisation facing technological change. It is an interesting point that business organisations and industries appear more positive about technological change than respondents in educational and social service settings. Seeking to understand these contrasting reactions to technological change I reviewed the case study I had carried out with construction lecturers (Le Gallais 2002). This group of lecturers entered teaching from the construction industry who possess perspectives from both industry and education.
My findings indicated that an important issue for them was the question ‘cui bono?’ – who benefits from the change? They sought to ensure that the change envisaged was grounded in motivations that matched their core values of service to their students and to their industry. Much of their initial resistance arose from concern that this was not the case. There were naturally other factors involved, namely techno-stress, fear of loss of face with their students due to their vulnerability with the new technology, poor communication and a lack of a shared workplace vision. However, as the potential benefits of the new technology for their customers became more apparent, a shift from change resister to embracer took place, despite their personal anxieties and concerns.
Taking this opportunity to revisit past research into technological change and resistance and to reflect upon it has indicated to me an obvious motivation I missed the first time around. Whilst workers in industry and business quite rightly consider the competitive edge of industrial survival, many of those who see the service ethic to be a vital component of their professional identity place considerable emphasis upon ensuring that any envisaged change acknowledges the rights and needs of their clients.
Introduction
During my three years working as a researcher with construction lecturers at an Advanced Technology Centre (ATC) in the West Midlands, I had plenty of time to observe their reactions as they faced the daunting task of moving across from a paper-based to a totally multi-media Information Communication Technology (ICT) based delivery of construction training (Le Gallais 2002). My particular interest lay in how the lecturers responded to the management mandated changes and to the introduction of new technology. A consideration of drivers for and resistance to technological change in the workplace formed part of this research.
Whilst my findings did not offer a single uniform response from all the lecturers to the introduction of ICT at Riverford College’s ATC, nonetheless, there were common threads regarding their resistance to the introduction of ICT as the medium of delivery. These included techno-stress (Morgan et al. 2000) and techno-phobia. Vulnerabilities concerning the threat to their professional expertise were evident in many cases, although not all. The research of Edwards &Walton (www2005) with academic librarians shows marked similarities with my own findings (Le Gallais 2001 & 2002). Concerns were also expressed by the lecturers with regard to the impact of the changes upon their clients, i.e. the students and the construction industry.
Although this concern was identified at the time (Le Gallais 2001a) I realise now that it was perhaps not accorded the degree of attention it deserved. Research conducted by Stam et al. (www2005) with social service caseworkers caused me to reflect upon the part played by the service ethic in workforce resistance to change. The ‘career anchors’ (Schein 1993) which reflect the values binding them to their career and the performance of their professional role reinforced the importance of this aspect of the lecturers’ motivations.
However, the waters were muddied still further when, having recently undertaken a wider exploration of current change literature, I read the following quotation:
UK survey evidence shows that instances of worker opposition to new technology are very rare; indeed, it is much more accurate to talk about employees welcoming the introduction of new technology.
(Preece 1995: 100)
This statement that technological change is not always resisted as a threat but is indeed welcomed by large numbers of employees challenged my previous assumption that resistance was likely to be a major issue when implementing technological change. This reinforced my interest in the motivations for resistance and the part played by the type of organisation in which employees work.
This paper seeks to explore the above issues through a consideration of drivers for change, both macro and micro and reasons for resistance to change, both general and technology-specific. Case studies will play an important part in examining possible pathways to an understanding of the anomalies identified above.
Driving Change
Most firms today have never faced a more competitive environment…The pressure to adapt, the quest for competitive advantage, has produced a period of unprecedented corporate re-invention and change…the almost universal response to market changes has been the pursuit of greater cost efficiency.
(Scott 2000: 1)
There are many reasons why an organisation embarks upon a process of change. It may be in response to external pressures, such as increasing local and global competition and/or government policies (Clark 1995; Edwards & Walton www2005).
In line with Giddens (1990), Edwards & Walton (www2005) also identify various drivers for change, namely political, such as ‘increased control from central government’, economic, such as the ‘increased demand for value for money’ and cultural, where change is challenging traditional norms and values. For individual organisations externally mandated technological change may be used to facilitate internal restructuring of work practices in the guise of increased efficiency (Stam et al. www2005).
The degree to which change recipients accept the rationale offered by their management for the change is dependent upon their past experiences (Stam et al. www2005) and upon the level of trust within the organisation in that trust in the management can affect both the ‘justification’ for the change and the ‘credibility’ and hence ‘legitimacy’ of the reasons offered by management (Rousseau & Tijoriwala 1999: 515). In Rousseau & Tijoriwala’s (1999) study, for example, the management’s stated reason for change is to improve quality but the employees also identify economic and self-interest on the part of managers as drivers for the envisaged change.
Embracing Change
Having read of many examples of employee resistance to change, particularly technological change, I was surprised to read Daniel & Millward’s (1993) findings concerning the introduction of technological change into the workplace. Their analysis of the data, which is drawn from British Workplace Industrial Relations Surveys of over 2,000 companies, leads them to conclude that ‘the introduction of new technology smoothed the path of changes in working practices that were less readily accepted in its absence’ (ibid: 56).
The rationale for such a positive attitude to technological change on the part of the workforce appears to lie in the workers’ belief that ‘new technology represented progress and advance (ibid: 62). Such change afforded the workers confidence in management’s commitment to the future of the company and provided evidence of their organisation’s ability and/or intention to maintain a competitive edge. Such constant attention to technological upskilling gave the workers a feeling of job security (Preece 1995; Clark 1995). Far from opposing technological innovation it appears to be ‘much more accurate to talk about employees welcoming the introduction of new technology’ (Preece 1995: 100).
Such findings seemed to be at variance with my own initial observations of resistance to technological change in educational settings (Le Gallais 2001a, 2001b & 2002) and with those of Stam et al. (www2005) and Edwards (www2005). Prior to considering these examples of technological resistance in detail it is appropriate to reflect upon change inhibiters and factors which fuel resistance.
Resisting Change
Research into change management identifies a range of reasons for recipients’ resistance to change. One such reason concerns people’s preference for the status quo when faced with change (Macri www2005; Edwards www2005; O’Toole 1996; Kotter 1996). Edwards’ (www2005) research offers the example of academic librarians unwilling to adapt to the new challenges of technology:
The desire to retain the status quo in the form of traditional library hierarchies where staff ‘know their place’ within the structure, remains strong in many academic institutions…the tendency to fight to remain the same…persists.
(ibid.)
This adherence to the status quo is mirrored in Macri et al.’s (www2005) study of a small firm, where they observe that the staff actively pursued a state of inertia rather than accept change. Macri et al. (ibid.) see such resistance as inevitable when change is perceived to be a threat to people’s ‘security or ingrained habits’ or a ‘loss of status’.
Perceived loss of status is identified in other research to be a serious concern for change recipients, particularly where professional status is an issue (Le Gallais 2002; Edwards www2005). Similarly Macri et al.’s (www2005) reference to ‘the association of change with loss of one's control, one's routines, one's traditions and relationships’ is also evidenced in Edwards & Walton’s (www2005) research, in which a research participant comments that they have never felt ‘so unconfident about (their) grasp of some of the most essential technologies that are driving the future of the operation (they) manage’. Such a statement is indicative of the vulnerability felt by staff when they are challenged by technological change which throws their professional expertise into question (Edwards & Walton www2005; Le Gallais 2001a & b).
When the status quo is challenged by change, it can result in resistance triggered by a fear of the unknown (O’Toole 1996; Boyett & Boyett 1998; Edwards www2005) not only with regard to the recipients’ competence to deal with the envisaged change but also because all too often change is undertaken without creating a shared ‘workplace vision’ (Kling & Zmuidzinas 1994, cited in Stam et al. www2005). Shared vision is essential in times of change. Everyone should be involved in the change process, both ‘Chiefs’ and ‘Indians’ (Kanter 1995:181) – change must become everybody’s business (Peters 1989). Stam et al.’s (www2005) research reinforces the importance of this point in that their findings clearly show how the staff’s resistance to technological change might have been alleviated ‘through the development of a shared worldview or ‘workplace vision’ between the two groups.’
However, there is a need for realism in the midst of this call for shared visions. If the sharing and empowering is only superficial, or if the cause for anxiety about the change concerns matters the management cannot or choose not to address, change is unlikely to be achieved democratically. A possible example of such a situation is to be found in the research of Stam et al. (2005), which examines the issue of resistance to change where it is perceived to challenge the quality of service to clients. Apart from my own brief acknowledgement of such motivations (Le Gallais 2001a) and a reference in Rousseau & Tijoriwala’s (1999: 514) research to nurses, who challenge changing work practices which might endanger their patients because they want ‘to care for patients not paper’, Stam et al.’s (www2005) research is the first article I have found which considers this issue in depth. It is for this reason that I have allocated the following section to an analysis of their research
A study of professional ethics and resistance to change
Stam et al’s (www2005) study examines how a group of agency social workers in America respond to the introduction of new technology into their work practices. US government laws and regulations had recently led to the mandatory use of new information technologies by all agencies receiving funding from the state. The social service agency concerned intended to ‘use the new requirements as a springboard for substantial streamlining of their work processes’ (ibid.). This would entail the caseworkers carrying laptops with them on field visits to make notes in clients’ homes prior to downloading the data on their return.
Stam et al. (ibid.) note that
Employees' resistance to this mandate, seemingly out of proportion with the usual reluctance to learn new technologies, pointed to issues fundamental to their assumptions about their professional practices and, indeed, their very status.
Their reluctance appeared to have nothing to do with the ‘character or capabilities of the technology itself’ (ibid.). This led Stam et al. to widen their approach beyond the most widely used Technology Acceptance Models[2] (TAM) developed by Davis et al. (1989) in order to include questions of human and social change processes alongside social influence – these might include factors such as: bringing all staff on board, perceived usefulness and ease of use of the technology and the question of voluntary/mandatory usage of technology.