Advertisement

Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 130–151 | Cite as

Understanding individual user resistance and workarounds of enterprise social networks: the case of Service Ltd

  • Jyoti Choudrie
  • Efpraxia D Zamani
Research Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the use of Enterprise Social Networks (ESN), namely, Yammer and Chatter, using the lens of resistance and deployment of workarounds among individuals employed in a large, service sector organization. By doing so, we can illustrate the motivation behind individual use of ESN within a large organization, the reasons for not using it and the outcomes of their choices on the organization’s performance and day-to-day activities. The research approach of our study involves employing a qualitative approach and adopting the interpretive research perspective. Our findings illustrate that there are several bottom-up and top-down pressures, which effectively hinder the adequate or successful use of ESN and drive user resistance and workarounds. The contributions of our study are manifold. First, since ESN are actively considered by organizations, our findings can inform policymakers on the issues that might arise beyond implementation, more so, during the actual use of the system. In other words, the results of this research can shed light on the areas where their efforts are best placed. At a theoretical level, our study enriches the extant literature associated with adoption issues, by explaining that ESN involve multi-level organizational characteristics found within a specific context of use, that of ESN.

Keywords

enterprise social networks resistance workarounds case study yammer chatter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The principal author thanks the Royal Academy of Engineering, A. Jones, M.A. Stewart, B. Krepel and University of Hertfordshire for the funding, access to Service Ltd and time afforded to this research.

References

  1. Alter, S. (2014). Theory of Workarounds, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34 (1): 1041–1066.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. (2008). Examining Technology, Structure and Identity During an Enterprise System Implementation, Information Systems Journal 18 (2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azad, B. and King, N. (2011). Institutionalized Computer Workaround Practices in a Mediterranean Country: An examination of two organizations, European Journal of Information Systems 21 (4): 358–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain, P. and Taylor, P. (2000). Entrapped by The ‘Electronic Panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre, New Technology, Work and Employment 15 (1): 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benbasat, I. and Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vardis TAM? Journal of the Associaiton of Informaiton Systems 8 (4): 212–218.Google Scholar
  6. Benbasat, I. and Barki, H. (2009). Quo vadis, TAM? Journal of the Association for Information System 8 (3): 211–218.Google Scholar
  7. Benbya, H. and McKelvey, B. (2006). Using Coevolutionary and Complexity Theories to Improve IS Alignment: A multi-level approach, Journal of Information Technology 21 (4): 284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgatti, S.P. and Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks, Management Science 49 (4): 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boudreau, M.-C. and Robey, D. (2005). Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A human agency perspective, Organization Science 16 (1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Button, G., Mason, D. and Sharrock, W. (2003). Disempowerment and Resistance in the Print Industry? Reactions to Surveillance-Capable Technology, New Technology, Work and Employment 18 (1): 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaghan, G. and Thompson, P. (2001). Edwards Revisited: Technical central and call centres, Economic and Industrial Democracy 22 (1): 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciborra, C.U. (2002). The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the wisdom of systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, F.D. (1980). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and results, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly 13 (3): 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Buiding Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  16. Ferneley, E.H. and Sobreperez, P. (2006). Resist, Comply or Workaround? An Examination of Different Facets of User Engagement with Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems 15 (4): 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernie, S. and Metcalf, D. (1998). (Not) Hanging on the Telephone: Payment system in the new sweatshops. Centre for Economic Performance. London, UK: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  18. Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (1999). Unfairness and Resistance to Change: Hardship as mistreatment, Journal of Organizaitonal Change Management 12 (1): 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franz, C.R. and Robey, R. (1984). An Investigation of User-Led System Design: Rational and Political Perspectives, Communications of the ACM 27 (12): 1202–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected essays, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Ginzberg, M.J. (1981). Early Diagnosis of MIS Imple-mentation Failure: Promising results and unanswered questions, Management Science 27 (4): 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism, The Academy of Management Review 21 (4): 1022–1054.Google Scholar
  24. Griffith, T.L. (1999). Technology Features as Triggers for Sensemaking, Academy of Management Review 24 (3): 472–488.Google Scholar
  25. Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (1994). Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The case for ETHICS, MIS Quarterly 18 (1): 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howard, P.N. (2002). Network Ethnography and the Hypermedia Organization: New media, new organizations, new methods, New Media & Society 4 (4): 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huuskonen, S. and Vakkari, P. (2013). ‘I Did It My Way’: Social workers as secondary designers of a client information system, Information Processing & Management 49 (1): 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Majchrzak, A. (2008). Knowledge Collaboration Among Professionals Protecting National Security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks, Organization Science 19 (2): 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jermier, J.M., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (eds.) (1994). Resistance and Power in Organizations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Joshi, K. (1991). A Model of Users’ Perspective on Change: The case of information systems technology implementation, MIS Quarterly 15 (2): 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kane, G.C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G.J. and Borgatti, S. (2014). What’s Different About Social Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda, MIS Quarterly 38 (1): 275–304.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of The World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media, Business Horizons 53: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keen, P.G.W. (1981). Information Systems and Organizational Change, Communications of the ACM 24 (1): 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kobayashami, I.M., Fussell, S.R., Xiao, Y. and Seagull, F.J. (2005). Work Coordination, Workflow and Workarounds in a Medical Context, in CHI ‘05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Portland, USA, pp. 1561–1564.Google Scholar
  35. Koch, H., Gonzalez, E. and Leidner, D. (2012). Bridging the Work/Social Divide: The emotional response to organizational social networking sites, European Journal of Information Systems 21 (6): 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lankshear, G. and Mason, D. (2001). Technology and Ethical Dilemmas in a Medical Setting: Privacy, professional autonomy, life and death, Ethics and Information Technology 3 (3): 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lankshear, G., Cook., P., Mason, D. and Coates, S. (2001). Call Centre Employees Responses to Electronic Monitoring: Some research findings, Work, Employment & Society 15 (3): 595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lapointe, L. and Beaudry, A. (2014). Identifying IT User Mindsets: Acceptance, resistance and ambivalence, in 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 47), Hawaii, pp. 4619–4628.Google Scholar
  39. Lapointe, L. and Rivard, S. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation, MIS Quarterly 29 (3): 461–491.Google Scholar
  40. Laumer, S. and Eckhardt, A. (2012). Why Do People Reject Technologies: A review of user resistance theories, in Y.K. Dwivedi, M.R. Wade and S.L. Schneberger (eds.) Information Systems Theory. Vol. 28, New York: Springer, pp. 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leonardi, P. and Barley, S. (2010). What’s under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing, The Academy of Management Annals 4 (3): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise Social Media: Defintion, history and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 19: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marakas, G. and Hornik, S. (1996). Passive Resistance Misuse: Overt support and covert recalcitrance in IS implementation, European Journal of Information Systems 5: 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Markus, M.L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation, Communications of the ACM 26 (6): 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1996). Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned Action Models to Predict Utilization of Information Technology by End-Users, in K. Kautz and J. Pries-Hege (eds.) Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology, London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2010). Social Networks and Information Systems: Ongoing and future research streams, Journal of the Associaiton of Informaiton Systems 11 (2): 61–68.Google Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations, Organization Science 3 (3): 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orlikowski, W.J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development, MIS Quarterly 17 (3): 3309–3340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations, Organization Science 11 (4): 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orr, J.E. (1996). Talking about Machines: An ethnography of a modern job, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Orton, J.D. and Weick, K.E. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A reconceptualization, Academy of Management Review 15 (2): 203–223.Google Scholar
  54. Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. (2008). Designing Routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action, Information and Organization 18 (4): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Petrides, L.A., McClelland, S.I. and Nodine, T.R. (2004). Costs and Benefits of the Workaround: Incentive, solution or costly alternative, International Journal of Educational Management 18 (2): 100–108.Google Scholar
  56. Piskorski, M.J. (2011). Social Strategies that Work, Harvard Business Review 89 (11): 116–122.Google Scholar
  57. Prasad, P. and Prasad, A. (2000). Stretching the Iron Cage: The constitution and implications of routine workplace resistance, Organization Science 11 (4): 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ren, Y., Carley, K. and Argote, L. (2006). The Contingent Effects of Transactive Memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know?, Management Science 52 (5): 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riemer, K., Diederich, S., Richter, A. and Scifleet, P. (2011). Tweet Talking – Exploring The Nature of Microblogging at Capgemini Yammer. Business Information Systems Working Paper Series, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  60. Riemer, K., Overfeld, P., Scifleet, P. and Richter, A. (2012). Eliciting the Anatomy of Technology Appropriation Processes: A Case Study in Enterprise Social Media, in European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2012), Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  61. Rosenthal, P. (2004). Management Control as an Employee Resource: The case of front line service workers, Journal of Mangement Studies 41 (4): 601–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwarz, A., Chin, W.W., Hirschheim, R. and Schwarz, C. (2014). Toward a Process based View of Information Technology Acceptance, Journal of Information Technology 29 (1): 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Selander, L. and Henfridsson, O. (2012). Cynicism as User Resistance in IT Implementation, Information Systems Journal 22 (4): 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  65. Sewell, G. and Wilkinson, B. (1992). Someone to Watch over the Surveillance, Discipline and Just-in-Time Labour Process, Sociology 26 (2): 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The problem of human-machine communication, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm, Strategic Management Journal 17 (S2): 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Timmons, S. (2003). Nurses Resisting Information Technology, Nursing Inquiry 10 (4): 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Treem, J.W. and Leonardi, P.M. (2012). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association, Communication Yearbook 36: 143–189.Google Scholar
  70. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Towards a unified view, MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425–478.Google Scholar
  71. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems 4 (2): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing Interpretive Research, European Journal of Information Systems 15 (3): 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Webb, M. and Palmer, G. (1998). Evading Surveillance and Making Time: An ethnographic view of the Japanese factory floor in Britain, British Journal of Industrial Relations 36 (4): 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu, L. (2013). Social Network Effects on Productivity and Job Security: Evidence from the adoption of a social networking tool, Information Systems Research 24 (1): 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yammer (2014). Guide to events. 25 October, [WWW document] https://about.yammer.com/success/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/Guide-to-Events_en_US.pdf (accessed 4 January 2014).

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hertfordshire Business SchoolHatfieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Management Science and TechnologyAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations