Technology-Mediated Communication [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110860542, 9783110134193

Citation preview

Technological Innovation and Human Resources 3 Technology-Mediated Communication

Technological Innovation and Human Resources This de Gruyter series brings together research, critical analysis, and proposals for change in a dynamic and developing field: technological change and its effects on human resources. The series cuts across traditional academic boundaries through its multidisciplinary perspective. Management researchers and managers, policymakers, legal and labor relations scholars, engineers, psychologists, sociologists, economists, information systems and computer science specialists, and many others share their research findings and insights, giving readers access to a broad field of expertise in a single comprehensive volume. Technological Innovation and Human Resources examines both the management of technological developments - computers, information systems, telecommunications, artificial intelligence, avionics, and biotechnology - and the changes in management implied by the use of these developments. Special emphases include the focus on human resource concerns. Articles also examine the management of technological change as it links with nationality, ethnicity, type of industry, jobs, skills, organization, and labor market stratification. The series explores technological, legal, and demographic trends, international and multinational comparisons, as well as theoretical and methodological developments. Other volumes include: Volume 1: Managing Technological Development - Strategic and Human Resources Issues Volume 2: End-User Training Volume 4: Women and Technology (in preparation). Series Editor: Urs Ε. Gattiker, The University of Lethbridge, Canada. Managing Editor: Rosemarie S. Stollenmaier, Innotech Associates, Canada. Editorial Board: Niv Ahituv, University of Tel Aviv, Israel - Deepti Bhatnagar, Indian Institute of Management, India - Julie Billings ley, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey, USA - Max Eiden, University of Houston at Clear Lake, USA - Steven Floyd, University of Connecticut, USA - Janet Fulk, University of Southern California, USA Connie Gersick, University of California at Los Angeles, USA - Boris Kabanoff, University of New South Wales, Australia - Seisuke Komatsuzaki, Research Institute of Telecommunications and Economics, Japan - Laurie Larwood, University of Nevada at Reno, USA - Danny Miller, University of Montreal, Canada - Malcolm Munro, University of Calgary, Canada - Richard Osborn, Wayne State University, USA - Margit Osterloh, University of Zurich, Switzerland - Roy Payne, University of Manchester, United Kingdom - Johannes Pennings, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, USA - Jeffrey Pfeffer, Stanford University, USA - Daniel Robey, Florida International University, USA.

Technological Innovation and Human Resources is abstracted or indexed in Sociological Abstracts, Ergonomics Abstracts, and other leading indexing and abstracting services.

Technology-Mediated Communication Editor: Urs Ε. Gattiker Managing Editor: Rosemarie S. Stollenmaier

w DE

G

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1992

Urs Ε. Gattiker, Ph. D., is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Technology Management and Director of the Centre for Technology Studies at the Faculty of Management, The University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. He also currently serves as Assistant Dean of Research and Graduate Studies.

The editor gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided to this book series by the Burns Endowment Fund, Faculty of Management, The University of Lethbridge.

® Printed on acid free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Technology-mediated communication/editor, UrsE. Gattiker; managing editor, Rosemarie S. Stollenmaier. p. cm - (Technological innovation and human resources ; 3) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 3-11-013419-5 (alk. paper) 1. Technology-Social aspects. I. Gattiker, Urs Ε. II. Series. 92-5545 T14.5.T446 1992 CIP 302.2-dc20

Die Deutsche Bibliothek

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Technology-mediated communication / ed.: Urs Ε. Gattiker. Managing ed.: Rosemarie S. Stollenmaier. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1992 (Technological innovation and human resources ; 3) ISBN 3-11-013419-5 NE: Gattiker, Urs Ε. [Hrsg.]; GT

ISSN 0940-7928 © Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., W-1000 Berlin 30. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Typesetting and Printing: Saladruck, Berlin - Binding: Dieter Mikolai, Berlin - Cover design: Hansbernd Lindemann, Berlin - Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgement

I extend my gratitude to the many individuals who provided editorial help and other critical assistance with this volume, particularly Stella Kedoin, HelenJane Shawyer, Suzanne Kiely, and Donna Schulz. I also appreciate the assistance of the following ad hoc reviewers who evaluated manuscripts: Dennis Adams, Julie Billingsley, Aaron Cohen, Gregor Durrenberger, Steven Floyd, Robert Gephart, J. Griese, Paul Hart, Hal Hendrick, Beryl Hesketh, Michael Hitt, Sid Huff, Catherine Kirchmeyer, Katherine Klein, Allen Lee, Richard Long, Dan Paulson, Ron Rice, Larry Smeltzer, Marc Sokol, Charles Steinfield, Margaret White, Rolf Wigand, Kelvin Willoughby and Sajjad Zahir. Your time and effort do not go unrecognized. I was fortunate enough to write the Introductions and the Summary for this volume during my stay at the Department of Accounting, University of the South Pacific (USP), Suva, Fiji. Special thanks to Tony Lowe for his hospitality, for providing me with work space, and most important, for offering intellectual stimulation. The section entitled "Where Do We Go From Here?" in the conclusion to this volume was written during my stay as a visiting scholar at the Department of Management, University of Western Australia (UWA). I would especially like to thank Robert Wood and Kelvin Willoughby for providing me with office space and allowing me to test some of my ideas. Special thanks are also due to Anna Willoughby and Dr. Suzanne Willoughby for their gracious hospitality. Beryl Hesketh provided some helpful criticism during my stay at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and Boris and Nina Kabanoff provided me with physical exercise by enlisting my help in moving into their new house, thereby giving me the incentive necessary to relax. Several changes have occurred with the editorial board. Felix Frei and Horst Wildemann will be withdrawing due to work-related overload. Thank you both for your past contributions. Julie Billingsley, Steven Floyd and Connie Gersick have joined as editorial board members, having demonstrated commitment and expertise as ad hoc reviewers in the past and having expressed a willingness to participate in the series in a more formal manner. Welcome aboard! As always, my wife and my daughter Melanie provided unfailing support, encouragement and patience. Danke schön. Thanks again to all those who have helped to make this series a success.

Contents

Urs Ε. Gattiker Series Editor's Introduction

1

Information for Potential Contributors

9

Section 1: Technology-Mediated Communication: A Structural Approach Urs Ε. Gattiker Introduction

11

Rachid Zeffane Chapter 1: The Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements in an Organizational Context

15

Sue Conger Chapter 2: An Exploration of the Use of Information Technologies for Inter-Unit Coordination

63

Angelo S. Soares Chapter 3: Telework and Communication in Data Processing Centres in Brazil 117

Section 2: Moving from Macro to Micro Urs Ε. Gattiker Introduction

147

Concetta M. Stewart Chapter 4: Innovation is in the Mind of the User: A Case Study of Voice Mail

151

Gema Lopez Monies Chapter 5: Is Interaction the Message? The Effect of Democratizing and Non-Democratizing Interaction in Video-Conferencing Small Groups on Social Presence and Quality of Outcome

187

VIII

Contents

Section 3: Developing the Discipline: An Attempt to Further Develop the Paradigm Urs Ε. Gattiker Introduction

225

Robert Rodgers Chapter 6: Antidotes to the Idiot's Paradox

227

Conclusion Urs Ε. Gattiker A Brief Summary of Volume 3

275

Urs Ε. Gattiker Where Do We Go From Here? Directions for Future Research and Managers

289

Author Index

313

Subject Index

321

Technological Innovation and Human Resources Vol. 3 Technology-Mediated Communication Urs Ε. Gattiker (Editor) Ο 1992 Walter de Gruyter • Berlin · New York

Series Editor's Introduction Urs Ε. Gattiker

As Volume 2 of this series illustrated, one of the most important issues in technology management is end-user training. Effective end-user training provides the individual with the computer skills needed to perform the job as effectively as possible. Gattiker suggested that in defining computer or communication technology skills one should consider them as part of the technology skills1 category (Gattiker, 1990 a, chap. 12; 1990 b). The acquisition of communication technology skills can be defined as follows: Using various means of training, communication technology skills are "learned behaviors needed for achieving desirable performance levels when doing job related tasks, while the content and type of computer skill required for doing a job is in part a relational phenomenon (i.e., how many and what type of people have or don't have the necessary skills). Achieving satisfactory performance (during learning and, thereafter, on-the-job) hinges first upon individual abilities (motor and cognitive process capabilities, e.g., information processing), second, the degree of substantive complexity and autonomy-control offered/ required by the job and third, upon the mix of declarative and procedural knowledge the person has in basic, social, conceptual, technology, technical and task skills before training starts as well as the mix to be acquired during training" (Gattiker, 1992). This definition suggests each employee possesses certain communication technology skills and will, depending on his/her abilities, make satisfactory use of them when doing job-related tasks. Volume 2 outlined training issues which must be considered in order to provide employees with appropriate skills for working effectively with communication technology. The chapters in that volume examined (1) how the individual can

1 Gattiker (1990 a, chap. 12; 1990b) proposed a categorization suggesting that transferability of skills decreases from basic (reading, writing and arithmetic), to social (interpersonal skills, as well as the person's ability to organize his/her own effort and task performance, and possibly that of his/her peers and subordinates), to conceptual (includes planning, assessing, decision-making about task- and peoplerelated issues, and judging or assessing tasks done by self or others), to technology (encompasses appropriate use of technology, such as a computer, thereby preventing breakdowns/accidents), to technical (physical ability to transform an object or item of information into something different), and finally, to task skills (usually jobspecific).

2

Urs Ε. Gattiker

acquire skills necessary for communication technology-mediated work, and (2) the training characteristics required to increase subsequent transfer from learning to the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Skill acquisition is vital to an effective corporate strategy for communication technology. Nonetheless, one of the many issues remaining is how the increasing information load, due to improved communication technology (e.g., voice mail, electronic mail and fax), may affect organization structure and workflow in firms using such technology. While having the necessary skills is important, the ultimate limitation on human goals is not human intelligence, skills or technology. Rather, it is our ability to work effectively within organizations. Consequently, organizations' structure, their functioning and performance, as well as the behavior of groups and individuals within them, ultimately determine how and why communication technology is applied in certain ways to transform input into output. Thus, Volume 3 represents a continuance of issues discussed in earlier volumes of this book series. In this context a definition for the term "communication technology" seems warranted. The literature in this domain has usually seen information technology/systems as a technical domain. However, more recently management information systems (MIS) have also introduced software and system design concerns, as well as human factors and ergonomics2 to the discussion of the management of communication and information technology. In the context of this book, communication technology has two dimensions: (1) Hardware and software: Consisting of the technology itself (e.g., computer memory enabling the processing of data) and the software enabling the individual to provide the technology with the appropriate instructions to make use of the hardware (e.g., voice mail and electronic mail) and; (2) The communication process: That is, the behavioral activity of (a) people communicating with others using verbal or non-verbal means in face-to-face or technology-mediated communication (e.g., the telephone), or (b) humans "communicating" with a machine-based system (i.e., mechanism which cannot be assumed to be "living" in the true biological sense) processing data given to it (e. g., program instructions

2 Ergonomics is a science concerned with the study of the functional relationships between human beings and technology such as computers. Ergonomics considers people's characteristics when designing and arranging technology and workspace, thereby increasing the effectiveness and safety of interaction. It is concerned primarily with physical and sensory-motor aspects of humans and not intellectual aspects. Ergonomics is one facet of the person-computer interface.

Series Editor's Introduction

3

via voice or written means) to execute some tasks, or (c) machines "communicating" with machines (e.g., exchanging data). At this point it is important to show a clear link between Volume 3 of this series and Volumes 1 (1988) and 2 (1990). Section 2 in Volume 1 suggested that the effective use of any technology requires organizational adjustments involving the firm's structure, division of labor and workflow. Increased mechanization and sometimes even automation of parts of the manufacturing process have led to changes in supervisory duties and responsibilities (Ettlie, 1988). As a result, workflow and structural changes may be needed to assure end-users make the most effective use of new technology {Floyd, 1988). We can also make a link between this volume and Volume 2 of the series. Our definition of communication technology suggests that training is crucial to learning about communication hardware and software, as well as about the communication process itself. Accordingly, the firm must decide whom it wishes to train and what kind of training it will employ to assure effective use of technology-mediated communication. Section 1 of this volume addresses some of the issues raised in Section 2 of Volume 1 (1988). Specifically, Section 1 explores how the organization's grouping of functions, coordination and task allocation are intertwined with communication technology. A firm's subsidiaries, which may be located around the globe, require a system allowing them to sufficiently communicate with headquarters (e.g., frequency and length of communication) in order to achieve the desirable coordination of activities. As well, communication between various organizational units requires structural adjustments. Chapters 1 and 2 specifically address how the basic organization structure and operating mechanisms are used in organizations to reinforce that structure with the use of communication technology. Finally, Chapter 3 in Section 1 illustrates how an organization may revert to Taylorism, using communication technology to rearrange work processes so as to minimize labor unions' influence and curtail their ability to bargain for better work conditions and quality of work life (e.g., up-skilling) for their members. Such attempts at decentralization with the help of communication hardware and software may also increase job fragmentation and de-skilling of operators3. In summary, Section 1 of this volume deals with organizational structure, workflow and design issues in relation to the use and integration of communication technology in a firm's production process.

3 De-skilling is seen as an attempt by management to transfer control of work to itself by depriving the employee of his/her skill. Hence, integrated, self-controlled craft work is replaced by centralized design, standardized procedures and products, and the fragmentation of skills into "detail" work in un-skilled, specialized roles. Accordingly, removing job autonomy may in fact result in de-skilling for the employee.

4

Urs Ε. Gattiker

Section 2 shifts the focus from structural macro to micro issues by studying how individuals and groups can use technology-mediated communication channels differently. Chapter 4 reports on a three-year study investigating the use of voice mail. This technology's use has been spreading rapidly for the last decade and is disseminating quickly from North America to many other countries. Thus, the "North American experience" may help firms in other parts of the world avoid some of the technology's pitfalls. Chapter 5 in this section analyzes videoconferencing technology utilized by groups, specifically, the effect of the mode of interaction on the quality of outcome. Section 3 is somewhat of an anomaly since one chapter is not a group. Consequently, one could argue that a special section is unnecessary and, therefore, Chapter 6 should become part of either Section 1 or Section 2. Regardless of these points, we chose a separate section for this chapter for several reasons: First, it is the only theoretical piece in the book and it discusses some philosophical, conceptual as well as paradigm development issues applying to both dimensions of communication technology, i.e., hardware and software as well as the process of communicating. Second, this chapter uses a mezzo approach by merging both macro- and microrelated issues. Thus, issues of workflow and production processes, as well as specific means of communicating using computer-based technology are examined. In addition, the chapter relates to Volumes 1 and 2 of this series by addressing concerns about quality of work life arising from job deskilling. This section, in combination with the other two, suggests that technology-attributed changes in work content and autonomy (e.g., Volume 1, Part 2) can also affect the use of communication technology in work settings. Each of the three sections of this book has an introduction briefly summarizing the content of each chapter. The introductions differ from abstracts in that they attempt to establish in a few sentences how each chapter may be seen as (a) a building block to the previous section/chapter and (b) related to or belonging within "the house of communication studies" in the technology domain. Moreover, each of the three introductions outlines how issues not addressed in a previous chapter may be in the subsequent one. This, in turn, should allow the reader to get a quick overview of the book's aims and how these fit into one's personal interests and biases. Most important, each introduction points out potential weaknesses, controversies and other difficulties entailed in the chapters, sometimes even suggesting remedies. Hence, it is hoped they will generate reader discussion and even future research! Contributors for this issue come from various backgrounds and bring diverse insights to the study of communication technology in organizational settings. While some call their disciplinary "home" organization studies or

Series Editor's Introduction

5

management, others come from industrial sociology, information systems and public administration. Nevertheless, all authors share a common interest in communication technology. Only two of the six authors (i. e., Lopez Monies and Stewart) consider their disciplinary roots to be in communication studies itself. This might, in part, be explained by the fact that communication is a relatively new area of study. In fact, some have argued that it is not a social science discipline at all but, instead, simply represents an activity. That issue is beyond the scope of this book. Naturally, for real progress to be made, knowledge amassed in communication studies, as well as related findings from other disciplines, should facilitate understanding of communication technology's impact on the process in organizational and other settings. While Part 3 of this volume represents a nice start, more contributions reflecting and integrating past research efforts are needed in order to conceptualize and develop metaphors and paradigms into a theoretical framework while applying them to the communication technology domain. What made communication studies prosper in the context of technology in organizational settings was probably best characterized by a book edited by Rice and Associates (1984). In a nutshell, it gave a timely synopsis of the type of research done at the time dealing with computers and communication in the broadest sense. More recently, a book edited by Fulk and Steinfield (1990) has tried to further develop these issues as they pertain to organizational contexts. Volume 3 not only builds upon these earlier works, but expands the scope of these discussions by (1) showing how organization theory, sociology, skills and decision-making theories/concepts relate to communication technology in firms; (2) striving to discuss and study these issues, both from a macro and from a micro perspective, thereby using a mezzo approach; and (3) analyzing communication technology in the larger context of this book series, specifically in relation to earlier volumes and those still in the preparation stage (e. g., Women and Technology, Volume 4, scheduled to appear in Spring of 1994). Although Volume 3 gives an in-depth synopsis of specific communication-related concerns, what we have noticed (at least from the submissions we have received, including the chapters in this volume) is the relationship between the topics discussed here and elsewhere in this bookseries (i.e., Volume 1 on research and development issues, as well as Volume 2 on enduser training). Concerns relevant to communication technology, as technology, also entail training, skills and organizational structure issues. This means we often find that sociological issues and organization theory concerns (such as skills, workflow and organization structure), as well as economic and political environment matters, are integral aspects of communication technology.

6

Urs Ε. Gattiker

Playing devil's advocate, one might, as some have suggested, look at communication simply as an activity rather than as a social science discipline. Following this line of reasoning, while accepting its potential flaws, one might then question whether it is to the advancement of scientific knowledge to see communication as a social discipline itself. Would doing so further our understanding of social and technical processes? While the chapters in this book are far from providing a solution to this lively controversy they do, however, yield some insights for future research. Moreover, the multidisciplinary focus of the chapters included suggests that while communication studies might be a social science discipline it is, nevertheless, at an early stage of paradigm development. Supporting this argument are the authors' frequent borrowings of terminology from disciplines with more advanced paradigms than communication studies (e.g., decision sciences and economics), in order to communicate their ideas as effectively as possible! As a discipline, communication studies, especially in the context of technology-mediated communication in organizations, may not yet be rich enough to allow a stream of insightful work founded in its own disciplinary roots. Nonetheless, it is hoped that this volume will help advance paradigm development by identifying commonalities. Without a common group, it is increasingly difficult to conceptualize those theory elements crucial to a proper comparative strategy of verification. Interestingly enough, while we have made every possible attempt to select authors from a wide variety of cultural and geographic backgrounds, the majority of submissions and final contributions come from the U. S. A. One author is from Australia while another is from Brazil. The latter is a "first" for this bookseries in that it offers a study of technology from the unique vantage point of a developing nation with economic woes which are hard for a reader from an industrialized country to comprehend (e.g., unstable political environment and rampant hyperinflation). Another "first" is that the book has two contributors whose "home" is not in academia, but who work in private firms. Similarly to Volume 2, this volume includes contributions using a variety of research methodologies. Field studies as well as laboratory studies are presented. Attitudinal as well as behavioral measures were utilized for assessing structural and other impacts of technology on the communication process. Managers, support personnel and students were used as research subjects. As with Volume 2, qualitative and quantitative methodologies were used to analyze data discussed in this volume's chapters. Thus, the book represents a multimethod research approach, heeding the call by some to advance our knowledge about technology in the workplace by applying various research methodologies to field or laboratory work.

Series Editor's Introduction

7

References Baldwin, Τ.T. & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personal Psychology, 41, 63-105. Ettlie, J . E . (1988). Taking charge of manufacturing: How companies are combining technological and organizational innovations to compete successfully. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Floyd, S.W. (1988). A micro level model of information technology use by managers. In U. E. Gattiker and L. Larwood (Eds.), Studies in technological innovation and human resources (Vol. 1), Managing technological development: Strategic and human resources issues (pp. 123-142). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Fulk, J. & Steinfield, Ch. (Eds.) (1990). Organizations and communication technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Gattiker, U . E . (1990a). Technology management in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Gattiker, U . E . (1990b). Where do we go from here? Directions for future research and managers. In U. E. Gattiker (Ed.), Studies in technological innovation and human resources (Vol.2), End-user training (pp.287-303). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Gattiker, U. E. (1992). Computer skills acquisition: A review and future directions for research. Journal of Management, 12, in press. Rice, R. E. & Associates. (1984). The new media: Communication, research and technology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Information for Potential Contributors Inquiries about contributions for any subsequent volume of Technological Innovation and Human Resources are encouraged. Future calls for papers will be issued in relevant publications of various professional associations around the world and distributed at several international conferences. The review process for papers is stringent. The paper is first scanned for content (does it apply to the topic of the volume?) by the editor. Next, a double review process occurs with a group of three anonymous reviewers, comprised of one reviewer from a country other than that of the author, one from the author's discipline, and the third being a knowledgeable other. Authors are expected to do their own rewrites based on reviewers' comments. After the two reviews, an editorial decision is made and final editing is done. For Volume 3, 20 per cent of the submissions were accepted. Although approximately 30 per cent of the submissions were non-North American, this percentage is, unfortunately, not reflected in those accepted. We must ask for submissions to be in English, and recommend that papers from nonnative speakers be reviewed by an English-speaker before submission. All papers are reviewed on content alone; please prepare your paper to allow for an anonymous review process. Interested authors should submit five copies of their article to Urs Ε. Gattiker, Director, Centre for Technology Studies, Faculty of Management, The University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Τ Ι Κ 3M4, Canada, Telephone: 403/320-6966; Fax: 403/ 329-2038; E-mail: [email protected]. All chapters must be scholarly, original, and written expressly for Technological Innovation and Human Resources. They must be suitable for an academic audience beyond the confines of a single discipline, and should be accessible to managers and other policy and decision makers. The literature references should be comprehensive and current, with it being desirable if research from a number of disciplines is cited. Further editorial guidelines will be provided as necessary.

Section 1 Technology-Mediated Communication: A Structural Approach Urs Ε. Gattiker

Introduction As mentioned previously, Part 1 of this book has a macro focus and deals with structure, organization and co-ordination within firms. Obviously, communication technology must be (1) available (e.g., computer or decision-support system installed on the firm's mainframe), (2) accessible to the worker (at or near the workspace), (3) appropriate and, equally important, (4) well suited to an organization's structure. This section explores the last point in some detail. Chapter 1 (Zeffane) confronts the more general issues of organization structure and communication technology. Specifically, it addresses how a firm's structure may influence the use of communication technology. The author distinguishes between two dimensions of dual character: (1) how executives may perceive technology as providing primarily operational gains in productivity and cost-savings, and (2) information benefits, namely communicative advantages such as decision-making and information-passing. Zeffane explores how either dimension might be perceived as predominant in a firm, due to tendencies of structural control and modes of organizing. This chapter sets the stage for a look at how structural consideration might affect the perceived outcome of communication technology. Chapter 2 by Conger indirectly expands upon Zeffane's work by studying ways in which communication technology may be coordinated by intraorganizational business units (e.g., subsidiaries). Specific organization modes may, in part, explain why technology-associated benefits are perceived as primarily operative or communicational. Nonetheless, since structural characteristics may differ between organizational units, there must be compatibility of communication, so that an effective communication process between sub-units will be assured. Hence, coordination mechanisms must be used. Conger addresses this issue by building both on the organization-management discipline and on the more specialized management information systems (MIS) literatures. One difficulty she encounters is that researchers from the two disciplines use different ter-

12

Urs Ε. Gattiker

minology, tools and research techniques. For instance, while communication technology is seen as the independent variable in MIS work, organizational behavior/theory researchers assume task and work design as well as communication content to be the independent variables. Consequently, technology is the dependent variable for organizational behavior/theory researchers! Conger's chapter builds on Zeffane's work in two ways: (1) It outlines some of the difficulties encountered in doing research grounded or based in a discipline which is itself still in its infancy. In such a case, the research cannot fall back on a generally accepted paradigm. Although one may borrow from other disciplines, MIS and organizational behavior/ theory disciplines' divergent, if not conflicting, conceptual approaches illustrate vividly how this may make borrowing paradigms and values from more established disciplines a near impossibility when researching technology-mediated communication. (2) Increased organization size necessitates coordination of communication methods across a variety of cultures (e.g., multinational firms). Modes of organizing (see Zeffane) may differ from unit to unit, resulting in differing perceptions of communication technology-related outcomes! In contrast to Zeffane who used managers from various firms, Conger used non-managerial personnel from accounting departments in the financial industry. This research design allowed Conger increased control of variables used in the field by concentrating on (a) one type of department (accounting) in (b) one industry (financial) only. The downside may be that generalizations from such data are difficult to make, thereby suggesting limited applicability of findings beyond the particular industry. The last chapter in this section, by Soares, provides a clear link between structural issues and Volume 2 of the series (Gattiker, 1990). Soares inquires primarily into the effect of structural characteristics upon job classification and design. The chapter's final sections depict the root of the challenge for firms, unions and employees, namely the up-skilling versus de-skilling debate (see Volume 2 of this bookseries for a detailed discussion of this and related issues and their link to end-user training). Communication technology can affect whole job groups and/or classifications positively or negatively. Soares' paper becomes even more mezzo in nature (i.e., integrating both macro and micro issues) by studying work groups in one organization performing identical tasks in geographically separate locations. As a result group interaction and union organizing efforts on technology· related issues are limited. In contrast to both Zeffane and Conger, Soares uses two levels of analysis, namely data-entry clerks and their immediate superiors. One might argue that this chapter's applicability, while discussing deskilling and Taylorism is interesting, is limited to such countries where

Section 1

13

unions play a minor role in labor markets. This might be a valid criticism, especially since unions in most industrialized countries have the power and legal means to assure that communication technology's effect upon the quality of work life, workflow and job design are perceived as positive by members (e.g., Betriebsrat, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, 1988). What weakens such criticisms, thereby further strengthening Soares' findings, is that similar results have been reported in manufacturing plants in the U.S.A. (e. g., Kraft & Dubnoff, 1986). Up-skilling versus de-skilling may depend not only upon the degree of industrialization, but also on the interplay of such factors as a union's negotiation agenda and its clout in the labor market. Labor laws, in combination with workforce skills, may determine what changes in work structures are possible. For instance, high turnover and limited workforce tenure may make extensive training for new employees (e. g., on-the-job, in the classroom or combination thereof) too costly for firms to provide. Functional illiteracy may also limit employees' ability to deal with job complexity and autonomy. Therefore, Soares' findings go beyond the Brazilian context. On a more reflective note, a critical reader might suggest that the root of the problem is not organizational structure nor modes of coordination per se, but rather national and organizational culture, union militancy and power (Gattiker, 1988) as well as workflow integration (Gattiker, 1990). The pieces in this section may, however, convince the reader that organizational structure is at least an important part of the technology equation. Especially, Soares' piece suggests that communication technology may ultimately have triggered the radical change in workflow introduced by management. The upgrading of such technology and subsequent new possibilities for its use may have motivated management to decentralize the production process. In contrast, Zeffane's and Conger's chapters suggest that a more gentle approach, intended to achieve a fit between workflow, organization structure and communication technology might be more effective in securing long-term benefits. This is especially important, since longterm benefits (economic and social) are ultimately the factors which justified the introduction of communication technology in the first place. Section 1 may leave a behaviorist somewhat dissatisfied because, although individuals' attitudes toward technology-related changes are assessed, the papers focus primarily on macro issues and ignore intervening variables which could be micro-based. Section 2 tries to bridge this gap by building upon structural issues, while at the same time propelling the discussion forward. This is accomplished by addressing how individual- or group-related factors might eventually influence organization structure, and by outlining how this interrelationship might affect the firm's use of communication technology.

14

Urs Ε. Gattiker

References Betriebsrat, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung. (1988). Entwurf einer Betriebsvereinbarung zu individueller Datenverarbeitung im Max-PlanckInstitut für Bildungsforschung zu Berlin (Draft policy statement on individual data processing at the Max-Planck-Institut in Berlin). Berlin: Author. Gattiker, U . E . (1988). Where do we go from here? Directions for future research and managers. In U. E. Gattiker & L. Larwood (Eds.), Studies in technological innovation and human resources (Vol. 1), Managing technological development: Strategic and human resources issues (pp. 213-217). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Gattiker, U . E . (1990). Where do we go from here? Directions for future research and managers. In U . E . Gattiker (Ed.), Studies in technological innovation and human resources (Vol.2), End-user training (pp.287-303). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Kraft, P. & Dubnoff, S. (1986). Job content, fragmentation, and control in computer software work. Industrial Relations, 25, 184—196.

Technological Innovation and Human Resources Vol. 3 Technology-Mediated Communication Urs Ε. Gattiker (Editor) Ο 1992 Walter de Gruyter · Berlin • New York

Chapter 1 The Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements in an Organizational Context* Rachid Zeffane Department of Management, Australia

University of Newcastle,

About the Author Rachid M. Zeffane is currently a Senior Lecturer of Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management at the University of Newcastle in Australia. He received his Ph. D. in Management and Organizational Analysis from the University of Wales (Cardiff, U.K.). Rachid has strong research interests in the areas of organization structure and design; participative management; the structural effects of computerization; cross-national comparative management and organizational performance. His most recent publications appear in the 'Journal of Management Studies'; Organization Studies' and 'Social Science Research'. He has also been consulting to public and private sector organizations in the areas of organizational analysis and job design. Mailing Address: Department of Management, The University of Newcastle, Drive, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia. Phone: (049) 21-5996. Fax: (049) E-Mail: mgrmz@cc. newcastle.edu.au.

Rankin 21-6911.

Abstract This paper explores the potential achievements of computer technology (as perceived by top executives) in an organizational context. It is based on a survey of 149 organizations, from a variety of industries, operating in Australia. The data show that computer-related achievements cluster around two main types. These clusters designate those achievements of a predominantly informational nature and those of a predominantly operational nature. Further tests revealed a relative predominance of the informational types of achievement in comparison with the operational types of achievements. Differences in patterns of association between structural characteristics and these nodal types of achievements were also found. These suggest that varying degrees of informational and operational

* I would like to thank the two anonymous book-series reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on previous drafts of this article. The project upon which this article is based was supported by a Griffith University Grant.

16

Rachid Zeffane

computer achievements are associated with different types and degrees of organizational structuring. Theoretical, practical and future research implications of the findings are discussed. Keywords achievements, character, computers, context, dual, informational, operational, organizational, standardization, structure.

Introduction In these final decades of the twentieth century, many long-standing assumptions about how work should be organized are being challenged by the presence of new technology. Advanced computer-assisted information technology is providing platforms which enhance productive and communicative activities (Child, 1984; Rice, 1984, 1987; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler & McGuire, 1986; Zuboff, 1985). However, the intrinsic contribution of this technology in varying organizational settings remains unclear. It is not clear, for instance, whether the widespread adoptions of computer technology are proving (or perceived to be) more fruitful in the operational areas of productivity-gains and cost-savings or whether in fact they are proving more 'rewarding' in communicative (or informational) activities such as decision-making and information-passing. Further, it is not clear whether or not the intrinsic achievements attributable to these adoptions are in any way related to different modes of organizing and to aspects of structural control. The present article is an attempt to address the above issues. It draws on a study of 149 organizations, from a variety of industries, based in Australia. In general, technology and its impact on social systems has always been a topic of keen interest. Early theses supporting the technological imperative advanced by early writers (Woodward, 1958; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Thompson, 1967) have been disputed (Child & Mansfield, 1972; Pugh & Hickson, 1976; Skinner, 1984). However, the advent and spread of computer technology has provoked a flurry of renewed academic concern on their potential relevance in varying organizational settings (Leavitt & Whisler, 1958; Robey, 1976, 1977; Blau, Falbe, McKinley & Tracy, 1976; Reimann, 1980; Chesney & Dickson, 1982; Carter, 1984; Child, 1984, 1987; Morden, 1985; Gattiker & Nelligan, 1988; Burn, 1989). A great deal of this concern revolves around the potential impact of new technology on job structuring (Walton, 1984; Long, 1984; Warner, 1984; Blacker & Brown, 1985; Brass, 1985; Land, 1986) with moderate consideration of the wider organizational effects (Leavitt & Whisler, 1958; Whisler, 1970; Robey, 1976; Carter, 1984; Camillus & Lederer, 1985; Child, 1987; Little, 1988; Tavakonian, 1989).

Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements

17

However, much remains to be known of the potential achievements that have arisen from introducing computer technology and the underlying relationships of these achievements to different modes of organizing. In many instances, the question of potential computer achievements has been approached with skepticism (O'Reilly, 1982; Boddy & Buchanan, 1983; Wildawsky, 1983; Yaverbaum & Sherr, 1986). Admittedly, the roles and related achievements of computer technology are extremely varied. Such variation is inherent in the breadth of contemporary applications that computers have come to encompass. However, by its very nature computer technology is characterized by a fundamental duality which has only been awarded implicit recognition in previous research. It is said to (1) increase productivity, reduce costs, provide competitive advantages and improve manpower control through more sophisticated forms of automation (Burlingame, 1961; Buchanan, 1982; Starr & Biloski, 1984; Jones & Webb, 1985; Zuboff, 1985; Rice, 1984, 1987; Ebers, Berger & Lieb, 1987); and (2) facilitate the storage, processing and diffusion of information for managerial and organizational purposes (Connolly, 1977; Markus & Pfeffer, 1983; Markus & Robey, 1983; Carter, 1984; Camillus & Lederer, 1985; Sullivan, 1985; Zuboff, 1985; Lucas, 1986; Child, 1987; Storey, 1987; Burn, 1989). These roles are embedded in its sophisticated means of transforming inputs into outputs and in its capacity to store, gather, transform and dispatch information (Child, 1984; Zuboff, 1985; Carter, 1984; Burn, 1989). This fundamental dichotomy is what may be referred to in terms of the 'operational' and the 'informational' attributes of computer technology. At the abstract level, the operational attributes may be conceived of in terms of computer-supported activities aimed at securing economic advantages, while the informational attributes are most saliently reflected in computersupported activities aimed at improving managerial and organizational actions. The former attributes may be more distinguishable in terms of their closeness to economic efficiency endeavours. The latter attributes may be more distinctly identified in conjunction with their closeness to desired capacities of harnessing and disseminating information for decisional, managerial and organizational purposes. Within the framework of such distinctions, two important queries are warranted: (1) Do these attributes bear any prominence over one another, in contemporary organizations? In other words, are computers offering (or perceived to be offering) greater 'operational' contributions in organizations or are they playing (or perceived to be playing) a more substantial 'informational' role in that context?; (2) In that same distinctive framework, are there any underlying organizational tendencies that might relate to varying emphases on either types of attributes? In other words, do computer-related achievements (as perceived by key members) bear any relationship with given tendencies in structural control and modes of

18

Rachid Zeffane

organizing? In an attempt to address these questions, this paper explores the relative importance of informational and operational achievements attributable to the adoption of computing technology in an organizational context. It focuses on data from 149 Australian work-units and explores: (a) the relative computer-related achievements as perceived by key informants (top executives) and (b) likely patterns of association between these achievements and structural modes of organizing. In addition, the study seeks to illuminate the advantages of distinguishing between these two types of achievements for future research.

The Dualistic Character of Computer-Related Achievements Operational Achievements At the operational level, computer technology may be regarded as an extension of the premises of automation and an effective means of extending the underlying attributes of scientific management ( Z u b o f f ' , 1985). As an immediate corollary of automation, it is implemented for its potential contribution in finding ways of carrying out complex operations quickly and economically. At the same time it may be targeted at finding ways of simplifying operations so that a more efficient total system could be developed; a system where both human and machine resources could be most effectively utilized (Burlingame, 1961). In this perspective, four main areas of potential operational achievements may be identified. Computers may contribute (1) to increasing productivity (Buchanan, 1982; Child, 1984; Starr & Biloski, 1984; Gerwin, 1985; McLoughlin, Howard & Clark, 1985; Ebers et al., 1987); (2) towards improving cost-efficiencies by reducing operational costs (Burlingame, 1961; Gold, 1973; Carter, 1984; Child, 1984; Jones & Webb, 1985; Burn, 1989); (3) to offering better ways of controlling human resource activities (Child, 1984; Kavanagh, Gueutal & Tannenbaum, 1990) and (4) to sharpening the competitive strength of the organization as a consequence of improvements in product quality and innovations resulting from tighter quality control at the operational level (Boddy & Buchanan, 1983; Child, 1984; Tavakonian, 1989).

Increased productivity The most argued case for the introduction of computer-assisted systems at operational levels is that of their potential contribution to increases in

Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements

19

productivity (Buchanan, 1982; Carter, 1984). This is a widely shared expectation despite noted skepticisms ( B o d d y & Buchanan, 1983; Zuboff, 1988; Rule & Attewell, 1989). Studies focussing on the operational roles generally admit to the computer-productivity nexus despite critical occurrences that may emerge from implementation at various levels {Gold, 1973; Buchanan, 1982; Boddy & Buchanan, 1983; Starr & Biloski, 1984; McLoughlin et al., 1985; Gerwin, 1985; Ebers et al., 1987). However, managers typically invest in new technology because they believe it will allow them to increase outputs with similar (or reduced) amounts of inputs (Buchanan, 1982). In a manufacturing environment, microprocessor-based devices can be integrated and linked to a hierarchy of computer systems which help minimize hold-ups and stoppages and thereby increase outputs (Ebers et al., 1987). Output improvements may also be accompanied by reductions in machine and man-hours which enhance productivity gains. On the whole, the strongest case made in favour of considering and adopting new manufacturing systems is that of productivity improvements (Ebers et al., 1987; Meredith & Hill, 1987). Such systems are often awarded high regard and may be adopted because existing machines or systems are incapable of handling the production volumes required.

Reduced costs In essence, developments in computer technology have created new potentials in reducing variable costs (Starr & Biloski, 1984) while improving the flexibility in processes that warrant variety, flexibility and improved product quality (Buchanan, 1982; Tavakonian, 1989). Child (1984) identifies three main areas of computer-related cost savings: computing technology provides savings (1) by means of direct or partial substitution of manpower; (2) by improving stock-control; and (3) by means of better scheduling which minimizes wastage and operator error. These savings are, however, most apparent in advanced manufacturing systems (Ebers et al., 1987). They appear to be closer to the operational aspects of production systems than they are to those aspects necessitating greater informational compositions. These advantages also appear to be most prominent in core activities than in peripheral ones (Carter, 1984; Jones & Webb, 1985; Burn, 1989).

Manpower control The rapid spread of computer technology for human resource operations has led to major changes in the control of human resources (Grant, Higgins & Irving, 1988; Kavanagh et al., 1990). Sophisticated human resource

20

Rachid Zeffane

management information systems are now readily available in the form of computer softwares. These are generally aimed at systematizing the manpower planning, selection (weighed application blanks) and the compensation function. They also serve the purpose of controlling and monitoring employee performance, attendance and mobility. In this arena computers are said to offer better modes of planning and controlling workers' activities and performance through more readily available information (Buchanan, 1982). In a production context, computer technology is said to provide a means of reducing human intervention and thereby errors in workflow scheduling (Buchanan, 1982). Through the enhanced availability of information, control of workers' performance and manpower planning procedures may be rendered more systematic and above all more standardized at the organization-wide level.

Competitive advantages Recent developments in information technology have put computers to some practical marketing use. Gerrity and Rockart (1986) found that these developments have made it possible for firms to use information technology to distinguish themselves from their competitors by locking up a distribution channel. Through knowledge-based systems and artificial intelligence, computers can catalog information gained on competitors which can then be used in formulating marketing policies, including pricing (Magee, 1985). Knowledge-based support systems can approach the lines of thinking of the experienced proposal/contract managers with the added dimension of speed and consistency. Computer technology can also offer improvements in quality resulting from the technical accuracies pertaining to advanced automated equipment {Child, 1984). Greater accuracy in testing, for instance, could provide competitive advantages via improved modes of product quality control (Meredith & Hill, 1987). The adoption of up-dated forms of processing systems, has also been noted to mark desires to meet changing market conditions at both national and international levels (Buchanan, 1982).

Informational Achievements Four main areas of achievement may be attributed to the informational character of computers in an organizational context. First, computers may help in diffusing formal information across the organization, including rules, procedures and company policies (Rice, 1984; Story, 1987). Secondly, they may be used for the purpose of achieving better coordination between

Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements

21

units and/or sub-units within the organization (Child, 1984; Rice, 1987). Thirdly, they may be orchestrated towards achieving more standardized management information systems (Markus & Pfeffer, 1983; Markus & Robey, 1983; March, 1987). Fourthly, they may be staged for the purpose of securing information for decision-making by means of speedier recording, analyzing and disseminating of past/future records (Connolly, 1977; Carter, 1984).

Diffusion of formal information Computers may help in diffusing information both within the organization (Storey, 1987) and between the organization and other organizations (Rice, 1984; Sullivan, 1985). Computers help provide dramatic increases in the speed, accuracy and volume of information that can be exchanged. New media, for instance, permit flexible interpersonal communication through electronic mail (Rice, 1984). Such media have also brought about major improvements in group communication through video conferencing and other novel forms of media communication such as Videotext. On the whole, new ways of displaying, transmitting and distributing information appear most overtly in the form of new communication technologies (Rice, 1984). The nature of the information that can be stored and disseminated might be extremely varied and could include organization charter, rules, work procedures and company policies. In most organizations, a widespread knowledge, through appropriate and easy access to such information, is seen as vital. For instance, sophisticated computer systems able to cope with the often complex amount of procedural information contained in staff and student handbooks are already finding their way into some universities. Once in place, such systems would provide instant information on formal requisites for staff entitlements and student enrolments. This type of system might be highly valued in the more bureaucratic structures, particularly in organizations where rules and regulations need to be played up in order to compensate for the loss of control generated through decentralization (Child, 1972; Zeffane, 1989a, 1989b).

Better coordination Computers are often introduced to support or reinforce the desired type of organization structure. In this perspective, they could serve a coordinating function in organizations, allowing for more effective management of emerging aspects of differentiation (Warner, 1987). More specifically, they may be used for the purpose of achieving better coordination between units and/or sub-units within the organization (Child, 1984; Rice, 1984). This may

22

Rachid Zeffane

be gained through easier access to information by higher echelons and the desire for less cumbersome centralized control. While becoming more diversified and multinational, some organizations need to find ways to coordinate and integrate their activities. Computer networks, for instance, offer encouraging promises to strengthen coordination and integration (Sullivan, 1985).

Standardized information systems Computer technology may be orchestrated towards achieving more standardized management information systems. One of the greatest attractions of the new generation of computers resides in their ability to store, process and dispatch large amounts of data/information. For many organizations, this attraction is only viable if it eases data/information exchange and aggregation across different units {Rice, 1984, 1987). These possibilities for exchange and aggregation are in themselves extremely attractive, particularly in large organizations. However, to cater for these possibilities organizations may require to put in place a minimal amount of standardization. For instance, data/information exchange (or consolidation) of inventories between different retail stores of the same firm is only possible if the inventory classification systems used by all stores are similar. This calls for standardized management information systems across different units in the organization which in turn may facilitate centralized control (Moynihan, 1985). Computers are said to facilitate control through increasing possibilities of centralizing information. However, information can only be conceivably centralized if minimal uniformity (in the way the information is classified and recorded) exists between different information sources. Desires for uniformity create strong needs for standardization. Computer-assisted systems in accounting practices and reporting typify this area (Markus & Pfeffer, 1983; March, 1987). One of the primary roles of computers is embedded in their capacity to generate and provide generally standardized information and to facilitate access to such information. While not always apparent, this is perhaps one of the prime justifications for the increased attractions of computer-assisted information systems (March, 1987; Storey, 1987). Standardized information may offer better means of coping with problems of variety and magnitude (of information) by facilitating the consolidation of outputs from diverse information sources. Storey's recent research in the insurance industry provides an insightful remark in this regard. His findings led him to stress that (among other things) "what the new technology really does is to furnish an incentive for management to push standardization a good deal further" (Storey, 1987, p. 56). Change in

Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements

23

the direction of greater inter-unit uniformity is often difficult to implement. The introduction of computer technology might be a way of easing the change process. This is often achieved by putting the need for technological advancements as the prime justification of the need for change.

Improved decision-making The process of decision-making relies heavily on the availability of relevant and timely information. Computer usage can improve decision-making by providing information which leads to better problem awareness, more systematic problem analysis and better selection of alternatives (Sanders, 1970; Lucas, 1986). For instance, computers can quickly signal conditions requiring corrective action when actual performance deviates from what was planned. The use of computers can free the manager of clerical datagathering tasks and permit him/her to concentrate more on analytical matters. Computer simulations, for instance, make it possible for managers to do a better job of identifying and assessing probable economic and social effects of different courses of action {Lucas, 1986). Computers may also be brought to some use in the implementation stages of the decision-making process (Connolly, 1977; Sanders, 1970); when decisions have been made, the computer can assist in the necessary development of subordinate plans that will be needed to implement these decisions. Computer-assisted techniques of scheduling project activities, for instance, are among the best examples of this role at the implementation stage (Meredith & Hill, 1987). The above areas of computer-related achievements may, in practice, be seen as strongly interrelated. Reductions in costs, for instance, may be strongly associated with improvements in productivity, manpower control and competitive strength or vice-versa. Also, better means of diffusing information may in themselves be conducive to improved decision-making. However, these associations may occur to differing degrees in different organizations. It is the levels of functional precedence that computers may be fulfilling (in practice) that is of foremost interest. Hence, hypothetically, all of the above potential areas of achievement may be regarded as distinct. The real question is "Which of these is being (or perceived to be) achieved most as a consequence of the adoption and use of computers?". The precedence that might be taken by each type of achievement is essentially contextual. Different forms of organization structure (Galbraith, 1973) and varying strategies of structural control {Child, 1972; Zeffane, 1989 a) could give rise to different expectations from computer adoptions.

24

Rachid Zeffane

Computer Technology and Modes of Organizing The adoption of computers is inevitably associated with the wider organizational context. This association derives from the need to erect and develop means of achieving both operational and strategic objectives (Camillus & Lederer, 1985; Child, 1987; Markus & Robey, 1988; Tavakonian, 1989). As a consequence, the role of computer technology in organization design bears strong integrational values (Morden, 1985). The integrational role stems largely from desires to establish balanced relationships across organizational units and sub-units for the fulfilment of these strategies (Camillus & Lederer, 1985; Child, 1987). This role underlines a connection between computers and various aspects of organization structure.

Computers and Forms of Organization Structure Computer technology is said to facilitate the provision of requisite degrees of integration and information sharing between functions with less dependence on coordinating intermediaries and hierarchies (Leavitt & Whisler, 1958; Burlingame, 1961; Robey, 1976; Child, 1984). To this extent, different types and degrees of structuring may call for different degrees of informational and operational requisites. For instance, computer-assisted improvements in operational control are said to be made possible with minimum reliance on the traditional support from intermediary hierarchical levels. Burlingame (1961) argued that this impact will contribute to widening the gap between top and lower hierarchical layers. Computers are also said to bear some associations with the chain of command (or span of control) manifested in the number of hierarchical levels. Whisler (1970) found and argued that such associations were more in the direction of reductions in the number of levels. This reduction would be reflected in varying intensity depending on the relative emphasis given to each type of computer-related achievement. Different modes of structuring (functional, divisional and matrix forms) may create different sets of expectations from computer adoptions (BjornAnderson & Pedersen, 1980; Camillus & Lederer, 1985; Child, 1987). Because of their emphasis on routineness, specialized tasks and expertise (Galbraith, 1973), functional structures might exert greater pressure upon managers to put more emphasis on the operational roles of computers. In contrast, because of their emphasis on responsiveness and adaptation, divisional structures (i.e., structures by products or by geographical locations) would influence managers to focus more on potential informational achievements. This is because the need for responsiveness and adaptation requires greater capacity and timeliness in processing and analyzing informa-

Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements

25

tion. Also, because divisional structures are often complex and decentralized, they may exert greater requirements for coordination and control. In this perspective, the informational role of computers may be seen as more prevalent.

Computers and Structural Control By far, the most intriguing debate on the new technology-organization design nexus is that involving implications on dimensions of structural control ( Z e f f a n e , 1989 b). In this context, substantial attention has been paid to aspects of decision-making (Burlingame, 1961; Robey, 1976; Child, 1984; Carter, 1984; Moynihan, 1985; Burn, 1989; Zeffane, 1989b). Some have argued against any technological imperative as far as associations between computing technology and centralization are concerned {Robey, 1976; Moynihan, 1985). The argument is that organizations may use computer technology to reinforce the degree of centralization considered appropriate to their situation. In contrast, Leavitt and Whisler (1958) consider that information technology facilitates and encourages centralization by allowing more information to be organized more simply and processed more rapidly. In this perspective, information technology could be perceived as a 'two-edged sword'. On the one hand, it may encourage centralized control by facilitating the availability of decisional information at higher echelons (Robey, 1977). On the other hand, it may act as an effective means of encouraging decentralization via its provision of easy access to information by lower echelons (Child, 1984). Carter (1984) made the useful observation that studies conducted prior to the year 1970 have, by and large, tended to support the view that computer use increases the degree of centralization while those studies carried out after that period have tended to espouse the opposite view. One of the explanations provided for this trend is that, prior to 1970, organizations might have been (on average) less familiar with innovative technology and its applications which would have impacted on the degree and spread of its usage. However, despite the remaining widespread belief that computers encourage centralization, the more recent empirical research showed that the extent of computer use is actually associated with greater decentralization (Carter, 1984; Zeffane, 1989b). Given recent advancements in the implementation of computer systems in both administrative and operational activities, this trend may have a much stronger value by reference to contemporary use of such systems than it did in the much earlier frameworks of implementations. That is, in earlier times, computer use may have been more confined to the need to resolve problems of economic efficiency at operational levels.

26

Rachid Zeffane

More recently, there may have been a shift in such needs in favour of a greater concern over aspects of control and co-ordination (Child, 1987). In the context of such a shift, greater attention may be paid to the use of computers for achieving administrative and decisional uniformities with the expectation of achieving more effective structural control in the face of organizational complexity ( Z e f f a n e , 1989 b). It is in this context that the computer-decentralization nexus may be perceived more clearly. The challenges posed by increased uncertainties have forced organizations to endorse greater structural flexibility by way of greater delegation. Decentralized structures put more pressure on the need for control and coordination which in turn pose greater requisites on the informational capacity of computer systems. Also, emphasis on the informational potentials of computer technology may be seen as a compromise to the loss of centralized power generated through delegation. With standardized management information systems (including decision support systems) senior management may still feel that they can impose uniformity and henceforth retain control. Computers have been found to play a crucial role in shaping the extent of structural formalization by way of increased use of rules and procedures (Zeffane, 1989 b). However, because of lack of empirical research on this issue, it is difficult to draw a hard line. Nevertheless, some studies did report significant relationships between computerization and the extent of procedural standardization (Pfeffer & Leblebici, 1977; Storey, 1987). There are two basic arguments explaining the computer-formalization nexus. First, the effective implementation of computer systems may in itself require the back-up of procedures and policies (O'Reilly, 1982; Morden, 1985). For instance, access to data-banks intended for common use by several units, sub-units or individuals may enhance the need to provide general procedural frameworks and policies to monitor and control effective access and use of that data. Second, computers may, in themselves, be expected to support highly formalized (or bureaucratized) modes of structural control. This is most apparent in the case where management is concerned with making information normally contained in written documentation (such as organization charts, information booklets; job descriptions, manuals of work procedures; research and development reports, etc.) accessible to a wider range of employees. This is quite common in large public sector organizations, such as government agencies, where the basic operations are strongly governed by the need for timely and accurate knowledge of up-to-date governmental guidelines/ policies (Kraemer & King, 1986; Shangraw, 1986; Hyde, 1988). Both of the above arguments underline expectations on the informational front. However, the latter argument is more prevalent on this front; for in the case of manufacturing concerns, the former argument could also be associated with some degree of expectation on the operational front. This is

Dual Character of Computer-Related Achievements

27

because instructions to use computers and associated devices could also encompass productivity outcomes, manpower usage and cost reduction guidelines. While a great deal of literature dealing with computers and organizations has been concerned with vertical authority and control issues, there has been relatively less concern about horizontal differentiation, or the lateral complexity of organizations. As in the case of centralization, the body of evidence is extremely varied and opinions range from those contending that the use of computers is associated with increased lateral differentiation (Whisler, 1970) to those who purport the opposite relationship (BjornAndersen & Pedersen, 1980; Robey, 1981). However, the more recent research shows that increased computer usage is associated with greater departmental differentiation (Carter, 1984; Zeffane, 1989 b). In this context, computers are viewed as alternative strategies for tighter lateral relations imposed by increases in the number of functional units and subunits. That is, as organizations become more departmentalized (through the introduction of new units and sub-units) the requirements for integrating and coordinating the overall activities become more intense. In this perspective, the adoption of computerized systems might be expected to facilitate structural integration by making information readily available to different departments through joint terminals and access to common files, for instance (Child, 1984). Hence, the informational potentials of computer systems might be of greater value to organizations facing the problem of intense departmental differentiation and thereby requiring greater integration (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).

Hypothetical Views The present study is essentially exploratory. However, stemming from the above discussions, three fundamental hypothetical views may be formulated: 1. The roles of computers in organizations are characterized by a dichotomy featuring informational and operational characteristics. 2. The contemporary roles of computers are more crystallized in their informational characteristics. In contemporary organizations, such characteristics may be given significant precedence over the more conventional operational characteristics. 3. This dual character of computers and their concomitant areas of achievement may relate differently to varying types of organizational structures and degrees of structural control.

28

Rachid Zeffane

Data and Method Sample The data reported here were gathered by means of a mailed survey addressed to chief executives of five hundred organizations operating in Australia. Specific executive names, drawn from the Kompass Directory of Industry, were used in the mailing process. The sample of work-units approached was selected on a loosely randomized basis as representative coverage of size ranges and industrial sectors had to be catered to. Because the addressing system used was personalized, a number of organizations simply returned the questionnaire (uncompleted) on the grounds of recent changes in their top personnel make-up. Thirty-four uncompleted questionnaires were received from organizations in this category. Overall, 149 completed questionnaires were returned which represent approximately a 30 % response rate. The overall sample was made up of 92 % private-sector organizations. In terms of status, 43% were independent organizations; 27% were wholly Australian owned subsidiaries and 28% were branch-

Table 1: Sample Distribution by Size and Type of Industry Industry

1. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2. Oil and Mining 3. Metal, Mechanical and Electrical Products 4. Construction, Engineering and Building Materials 5. Textile, W o o d and Paper Products 6. Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Rubber Products 7. Food Products 8. Commerce and Transport 9. Banking, Insurance and Other Services 10. Other (Diverse Industrial) Total

Size-Bands (N of Full-Time Employees) Total 1Η

< £

.Α Ω Β Υ

Οί Β

Ο

18 Ι

Ί

Β .2

U Β.

Ω Ε

I « .5

•α Ö I

S S

Ο Ο

u

Δ

-2

S

Ε

.Ο ΝΒ

_

1

Η fc on Ο

u u ο

ο

c ω

"3 χ c

vi CS

Ε

— — J2 „ ω— D ο > ω > Ά

ft

Β ω s ε

ε .2

I

1 PU

Ή. ε

α

S f S Q

ω

ε .ε

°

I £Λ

ο

ΙΤ3 13 •S ε ^ (Λ

Rachid Zeffane

56

•g e 55 ο ο£ c« •η O.T3 - § ? ^ ω§

Ο Ή

ov0τ-Η0τc-Ηo Γτ-Η ο τ-Η τ-Η τ-Η

ον

COτ-Η (Ντ-Η τ-Η τ-Η τ-Η τ-Η

v esoes 0ο0 0τ-Η0CS rp-H οrH CCrHSS O CS v rH rH rH rH rH rH

C Oο τ-Η COC COS rH rH rH

Π ovρ-0 ιη ον000

-Η es Ο Ό P~οΤ—1 V 00τΟ ν00Tf OSvTl- c0o0 O 00v V 0O 0 Ο σ;O00ocov C ei es es CS* (ΝCSCNcö CScöCO CSes' es' CSCS CS CSes' es'

00 OO v cs TfrV Tf m C OV 00 oO vV •"O frrH σν CSτ-ΗCScs' CSCNrH

TH - oo Ti- ο CO00 CO C O Tt CSCSCS CScs' es'

ro COCOV mO

CSCSCS

COCSCS es' CSes'

TH ro OV COV 00 OO v P-; in in in

Tf CO1O /v-) ο in in "Al wo

C S rH CO CO in in mi

C inS VOOv in in in

ε

S - aβ Ή S πι

Ή Ο C 55 ' •δ*· 2 3Μ •S ε 1 -y '3 > ced V C ecd

< D

T^HVO ΟC ^fr OP-; Ο in in in CS

C S r» C TH -O CO in in in

H rH T Tf rH 00vOvC V OΟ CO00 Ovv o CO OVΟr00 OV vO Ov COO)·v οCO ο O ο 00 Tf O οO ρp- ο - CS T^ CSCS CSCSτ-Η CSTH - CSrH CSrH es CS CS CSTH

Hο OvrΓ-; ο ο COCS•>t •>t

HV οCSrΓ-; οOο TTCO

O οVO τ-Η οο •η V vO Μ1 C OCO COTf

rH CO O00 οOnv -H O OV cs 00 O OvvT O vC 00 Οf m IN o οCS00 τ-Η C rH CS^H Nτ-Η CS τ-Η CS CS rH rH CS

C OCOV 00 inOOv CS CS cö cö

οο (τΝ -Η 00 00 οTt

s

-α 55 Νg ή>Η Irε Μ ω ω >ω t/ί cd C _ c Ö J , .5 — Λο ϋ tu 2 « « £? 3 73 οΞ Ε •s a· ηυ ο ® ο β ω c1> c — .3 "cεd .ms "5 >? > ο ^ ΐ ϊ SΟIÄ δ $s οi 5g fkf äi S οj >ι>,32