Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 183–213 | Cite as

Beyond Acceptance and Resistance: A Socio-Technical Approach to the Exploration of Intergroup Differences in ICT Use and Non-use at Work

  • Thale Kvernberg AndersenEmail author
Original Paper


Through a socio-technical approach and based on abductive case study analysis, this work explores the antecedents of differences in ICT use between two different employee groups in the same organizations. Prior to the large-scale implementation of a complex ERP system, one of the groups consisted of experienced ICT users, while the other consisted of inexperienced users. The significance of the nature of the interplay between task-technology fit, the leadership and the ICT-organization integration processes, and employees’ levels of self-determination, is investigated in relation to different user practices, and in particular, how it may institutionalize involuntary non-use for the group of inexperienced employees. Previous experience is a moderating variable, together with participation and interaction possibilities in everyday work. In a perspective of sociomateriality where user practices are seen as developing through situated everyday actions and interactions, the relationship between demands, control and support and inherent need satisfaction is elaborated. This study shows that employees’ use or non-use of new ICT has to do with how leadership behaviors affect the ICT-organization integration process and its outcomes, and how this process may serve the experienced employee group over the inexperienced, and as such contribute to involuntary non-use of new ICT for the latter.


ICT non-use Resistance ICT-based organizational change Leadership Organizational behaviors Socio-technical systems 



The Norwegian Researh Council (Grant number 173122/S30) funded this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The author confirms to have the informed consent of all involved participants from the three case organizations throughout the study. The participation was voluntary for all involved. Additionally, all data was anonymized and the study in its totality was conducted according to the Norwegian law of personal information protection.


  1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84(5):888–918. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen TK (2015) Employees’ involuntary non-use of ICT influenced by power differences: A case study with the grounded theory approach. IJIKM 10:117–143.
  3. Angrosino MV, Mays de Pérez KA (2003) Rethinking observation: from method to context. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 673–702Google Scholar
  4. Baumer EP, Burrell J, Ames MG, Brubaker JR, Dourish P (2015) On the importance and implications of studying technology non-use. Interactions 22(2):52–56. doi: 10.1145/2723667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaudry A, Pinsonneault A (2005) Understanding user responses to information technology: a coping model of user adaptation. MIS Q 29(3):493–524.
  6. Becker MC (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. ICC 13(4):643–678. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth026 Google Scholar
  7. Boudreau MC, Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organ Sci 16(1):3–18. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkerhoff J (2006) Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. J Res Tech Edu 39(1):22–43. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calás M, Smircich L (1992) Using the “F” word: feminist theories and the social consequences of organizational research. In: Mills A, Tancred P (eds) Gendering organizational analysis. Sage, London, pp 227–253Google Scholar
  10. Casciaro T, Piskorski MJ (2005) Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: a closer look at resource dependence theory. Adm Sci Q 50(2):167–199. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.167 Google Scholar
  11. Coetsee L (1999) From resistance to commitment. Public Adm Q 23(2):204–222.
  12. Compeau D, Higgins C (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and individual test. MIS Q 19(2):189–211.
  13. Compeau D, Higgins CA, Huff S (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Q 23(2):145–158.
  14. Cooper RB, Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Manag Sci 36(2):123–139. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.36.2.123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. JOM 31(6):874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602 Google Scholar
  16. Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
  17. Davis CJ, Hufnagel EM (2007) Through the eyes of experts: a socio-cognitive perspective on the automation of fingerprint work. Mis Q 31(4):681–703.
  18. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1991) A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In: Dientsbier RA (ed) Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, vol 38, pp 237–288Google Scholar
  19. Dent EB, Goldberg SG (1999) Challenging “resistance to change”. JABS 35(1):25–41. doi: 10.1177/0021886399351003 Google Scholar
  20. Denzin NK (1978) The research act: a theoretical orientation to sociological methods, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Dubois A, Gadde LE (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res 55(7):553–560. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV (1994) Organizational images and member identification. Adm Sci Q 39(2):239–263.
  23. Eriksson K, Lindström UA (1997) Abduction—a way to deeper understanding of the world of caring. Scand J of Caring Sci 11(4):195–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.1997.tb00455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychol Rev 81(1):59–74. doi: 10.1037/h0035872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Groth L (1999) Future organizational design. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammersley M (2005) Assessing quality in qualitative research. Paper presented to ESRC TLRP seminar: Quality in Educational Research, University of Birmingham, UK, 7th July.
  27. Heinssen RK Jr, Glass CR, Knight LA (1987) Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Comput Hum Behav 3(1):49–59. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(87)90010-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hintikka J (1998) What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34(3):503–533.
  29. Järvensivu T, Törnroos JÅ (2010) Case study research with moderate constructionism: Conceptualization and practical illustration. Ind Market Manag 39(1):100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jian G (2007) “Omega is a four-letter word”: toward a tension-centered model of resistance to information and communication technologies. Commun Monogr 74(4):517–540. doi: 10.1080/03637750701716602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johansson R (2003) Case Study Methodology. A key note speech at the International Conference “Methodologies in Housing Research” organized by the Royal Institute of Technology in cooperation with the International Association of People–Environment Studies, Stockholm, 22–24. September 2003.
  32. Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK (2001) The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol Bull 127(3):376–407. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karasek R, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Knippenberg D, Schie E (2000) Foci and correlates of organizational identification. J Occup Organ Psychol 73(2):137–147. doi: 10.1348/096317900166949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuklick H (1996) After Ishmael: the field tradition and its future. In: Gupta A, Ferguson J (eds) Anthropological locations. Boundaries and grounds of a field science. University of California Press, Berkely and Los Angeles, pp 47–65Google Scholar
  36. Kvale S (1997) Det Kvalitative Forskningsintervju. Gyldendal Ad Notam, OsloGoogle Scholar
  37. Lapointe L, Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q 29(3):461–491.
  38. Mael F, Ashforth BE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav 13(2):103–123. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Molund T, Møkleby R, Vassbotn M (2013) Kompetanseforskriften-organisasjonsmessige endringer i tre nettselskaper. Master Thesis University of Nordland.
  40. Mossberger K, Tolbert CJ, McNeal RS (2008) Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation 1.
  41. Niiniluoto I (1999) Defending Abduction. Philos of Sci 66:436–451.
  42. Orlikowski WJ (2007) Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organ Stud 28(9):1435–1448. doi: 10.1177/0170840607081138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2008) 10 sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Acad Manag Ann 2(1):433–474. doi: 10.1080/19416520802211644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organ Sci 3(3):398–427. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Øyum L, Andersen TK, Saksvik PØ (2006) Good Leadership in Healthy Change Processes. In: Paper presented at the 7th Conference for the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology, pp 191–193.Google Scholar
  46. Pelto PJ, Pelto GH (1978) Anthropological research: the structure of inquiry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piderit SK (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Acad Manag Rev 25(4):783–794. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2000.3707722 Google Scholar
  48. Rallis S, Rossman G (1998) Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  49. Riley V (1989) A general model of mixed-initiative human-machine systems. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 33(2):124–128. doi: 10.1177/154193128903300227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robey D, Ross JW, Boudreau MC (2002) Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):17–46. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8022(99)00017-X Google Scholar
  51. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Råholm MB (2010) Abductive reasoning and the formation of scientific knowledge within nursing research. Nurs Philos 11(4):260–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00457.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saksvik PØ, Tvedt SD, Nytrø K, Buvik MP, Andersen GR, Andersen TK, Torvatn H (2007) Developing criteria for healthy organizational change. Work Stress 21(3):243–263. doi: 10.1080/02678370701685707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salin D (2003) Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum Rel 56(10):1213–1232. doi: 10.1177/00187267035610003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Selwyn N (2003) Apart from technology: understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technol Soc 25(1):99–116. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00062-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Slater M (1986) Non-users in industry and commerce. Manag Res News 9(2):15–17. doi: 10.1108/eb027880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sheldon KM, Ryan RM, Rawsthorne LJ, Ilardi B (1997) Trait self and true self: cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(6):1380–1393. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steers RM, Porter LW (1991) Motivation and work behavior. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomas G (2010) Doing case study: abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inq 16(7):575–582. doi: 10.1177/1077800410372601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thompson RL, Compeau D, Higgins C (2006) Intentions To Use Information Technologies: Towards an Integrative Model. J Organ End User Comput 18(3):25–46. doi: 10.4018/joeuc.2006070102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson RL, Higgins CH, Howell JM (1991) Personal computing: towards a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q 15(1):125–143.
  62. Trist E (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional paper, 2.
  63. Van de Ven AH, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):510–540. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080329 Google Scholar
  64. Venkatesh V (1999) Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Q 23(2):239–260.
  65. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478.
  66. Venkatesh V, Bala H, Sykes TA (2010) Impacts of information and communication technology implementations on employees' jobs in service organizations in India: a multi-method longitudinal field study. Prod and Op Manag 19(5):591–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01148.x
  67. Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  68. Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L (2003) Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technol Disabil 15(1):231–238Google Scholar
  69. Wyatt S, Henwood F, Hart A, Smith J (2005) The digital divide, health information and everyday life. New Media Soc 7(2):199–218. doi: 10.1177/1461444805050747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  71. Zuboff S (1988) In the age of the smart machine. the future of work and power. Basic Book, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementThe Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and Group of Work ResearchTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Technology ManagementSINTEF Technology and SocietyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations