Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholders’ enactment of competing logics in IT governance: polarization, compromise or synthesis?

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Governing IT while incorporating stakeholders with diverse institutional backgrounds remains a challenge. Stakeholder groups are typically socialized differently and may have different perspectives on IT governance dilemmas. Yet, extant literature offers only limited insight on socialized views on IT governance. This study uses an institutional logics lens to examine how competing institutional logics get connected in IT governance practices through dominant stakeholders’ enactment patterns and how these enactment patterns may affect the organization’s IT performance. We find that logics were coupled to the three dominant stakeholder groups, but only loosely so. Congruence between the three logics they enacted depended on the IT governance dilemma at hand. Our findings demonstrate how within a triad of competing logics, switching rivalry among hybrid logics may develop. Here, the enactments led to two hybrid logics, none of which became dominant. Remarkably, the IT professionalism logic accommodated polarization between medical professionalism and the managerial logic, causing unstable IT governance. We propose that IT professionalism offers room for agency and is crucial in determining the resulting enactment patterns: polarizing, compromising or even synthesizing. This study may raise managers’ awareness of the competing logics underlying IT governance practices and clarify the pivotal role of IT professionalism in IT governance debates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott A (1988) The System of Professions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agresti W (2011) Toward an IT agenda. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 28(1), 255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai RJ and Lee GG (2003) Organizational factors influencing the quality of the IS/IT strategic planning process. Industrial Management and Data Systems 103(8), 622–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balka E and Whitehouse S (2006) Whose work practice? Situating an electronic triage system within a complex system. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 130, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley SR and Tolbert PS (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies 18(1), 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14(3), 312–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn P, Burgoyne S, Crompton V, Macdonald T, Pikcering B and Munro S (2009) Boundary factors and contextual contingencies: configuring electronic templates for healthcare professionals. European Journal of Information Systems 18(5), 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra A and Van Offenbeek M (2010) Towards consistent modes of e‐health implementation: structurational analysis of a telecare programme’s limited success. Information Systems Journal 20(6), 537–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton AC and Zmud RW (1987) Information technology planning in the 1990’s: directions for future research practice and research. MIS Quarterly 11(1), 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley RV, Byrd TA, Pridmore JL, Thrasher E, Pratt RME and Mbarika VWA (2012) An empirical examination of antecedents and consequences of IT governance in US hospitals. Journal of Information Technology 27(2), 156–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown AE and Grant GG (2005) Framing the frameworks: a review of IT governance research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15, 696–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell J, Mcdonald C and Sethibe T (2009) Public and private sector IT Governance: identifying contextual differences. Australian Journal of Information Systems 16(2), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie WL and Guah MW (2007) Conflicting institutional logics: a national programme for IT in the organizational field of healthcare. Journal of Information Technology 22(3), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Haes S and Van Grembergen W (2009) Exploring the relationship between IT governance practices and business/IT alignment through extreme case analysis in Belgian mid-to-large size financial enterprises. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22(5), 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debreceny RS (2013) Research on IT governance, risk and value: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Information Systems 27(1), 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon G, Coss D and Paton D (2010) Strategic IT/IS leadership and IT governance. In Strategic Information Systems Management (Grant K, Hackney R and Edgar D, Eds), pp 300–341, Cengage Learning EMEA, Cheriton House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich RJ (2005) After year one—automating IT controls for Sarbanes–Oxley compliance. Information Systems Control Journal 5(3), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doolin B and Lawrence S (1997) Managerialism, information technology and health reform in New Zealand. International Journal of Public Management 10(1/2), 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drnevich PL and Croson DC (2013) Information technology and business level strategy: toward an integrated theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 483–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elberse JE, Caron-flinterman JF and Broerse JE (2011) Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives. Health Expectations 14(3), 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enteman WF (1993) Managerialism: The Emergence of a New Ideology. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein D (2013) The making of institutions of information governance: the case of the internet governance forum. Journal of Information Technology 28(2), 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairly RE (2008) Principles of Software Engineering. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M and Hawkings C (2005) The non-spread of innovations: the mediating role of processionals. Academy of Management Journal 48(1), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn D and Du Y (2012) A case study of the legitimation process undertaken to gain support for an information system in a Chinese university. European Journal of Information Systems 21(3), 212–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R, Oliver C, Guddaby R and Sahlin-andersson K (2008) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman IR and Stanton JM (2009) IT occupational culture: the cultural fit and commitment of new information technologists. Information Technology & People 22(2), 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman IR, Stam KR and Stanton JM (2008) The occupational culture of IS/IT personnel within organizations. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 39(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes N and Rajão R (2011) Competing institutional logics and sustainable development. Information Technology for Development 17(1), 4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeks R (2006) Health information systems: failure, success and improvisation. International Journal of Medical Informatics 75(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R and Klein HK (1989) Four paradigms of information system development. Communications of the ACM 32(10), 1199–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang R, Zmud RW and Price RL (2010) Influencing the effectiveness of IT governance practices through steering committees and communication policies. European Journal of Information Systems 19(3), 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen TB, Kjaergaard A and Svejvig P (2009) Using institutional theory with sense making theory: a case study of information system implementation in healthcare. Journal of Information Technology 24(4), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewer J and Mckay KN (2012) Antecedents and consequences of board IT governance: institutional and strategic choice perspectives. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 13(7), 581–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchener M (2002) Mobilizing the logic of managerialism in professional fields: the case of academic health centre mergers. Organization Studies 23(3), 391–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling R (1980) social analyses of computing: theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Computing Surveys 12(1), 61–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köbler F, Fähling J and Krcmar H (2010) IT governance and types of IT decision makers in German hospitals. Business & Information System Engineering 6(2), 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korica M and Molloy E (2010) Making sense of professional identities: stories of medical professionals and new technologies. Human Relations 63(12), 1879–1901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer K, King JL, Dunkle DE and Lane JP (1989) Managing Information Systems, Change and Control in Organizational Computing. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe L and Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS-Quarterly 29(3), 461–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn S (2001) ‘Two-way windows’: clinicians as medical managers. Organization Studies 22(4), 593–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury M (2002) Institutional transformation and status mobility: the professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal 45(1), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutchen M and Collins A (2005) IT governance in a healthcare setting: reinventing the healthcare industry. Journal of Healthcare Compliance 8(1), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson J (2010) Professional analysts and the ongoing construction of IT governance. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance 1(2), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcpherson CM and Saunder M (2013) Logics in action managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly 58(2), 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcelheran K (2012) Decentralization vs. centralization in IT governance: it is not as simple as you might think. Communications of the ACM 55(11), 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville N, Kraemer K and Gurbaxani V (2004) Information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly 28(2), 283–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignerat M and Rivard S (2009) Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research. Journal of Information Technology 24(4), 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok HN (2010) A review of the professionalization of the software industry: has it made software engineering a real profession? International Journal of Information Technology 16(1), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD and Newman M (2007) The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Information and Organization 17(1), 2–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf KA (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigam A and Ocasio W (2010) Event attention, environmental sense making and change in institutional logics: an inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton’s healthcare reform initiative. Organization Science 21(4), 823–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Numerato D, Salvatore D and Fattore G (2012) The impact of management on medical professionalism: a review. Sociology of Health & Illness 34(4), 626–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olakivi A and Miira N (2016) Rethinking managerialism in professional work: from competing logics to overlapping discourses. Journal of Professions and Organization 4(1), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’reilly D and Reed M (2011) The grit in the Oyster: professionalism, managerialism, and leaderism as discourses of UK public services modernization. Organization Studies 32(8), 1079–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Barley SR (2001) Technology and institutions: what can research on IT and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly 25(92), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi J (1989) The information systems profession: myth or reality? Office Technology and People 4(1), 13–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan P and Eisenhardt KM (2009) Origin of alliance portfolios: entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 52(2), 246–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrakaki D and Klecun E (2015) Hybridity as a process of technology’s ‘translation’: customizing a national electronic patient record. Social Science and Medicine 124(11), 224–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault A and Kraemer KL (1993) The impact of information technology on middle managers. MIS Quarterly 17(3), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault A and Kraemer KL (1997) Middle management downsizing: an empirical investigation of the impact of information technology. Management Science 43(5), 659–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postman N (1992) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. A.A. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay T and Hinings CR (2005) The recomposition of an organizational field: healthcare in Alberta. Organization Studies 26(3), 351–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay T and Hinings CR (2009) Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies 30(6), 629–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribbers P, Peterson R and Parker M (2002) Designing information technology governance processes: diagnosing contemporary practices and competing theories. In Proceedings of the Thirty Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Sprague Jr. RH, Eds), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.

  • Sambamurthy V and Zmud RW (2000) Research commentary: the organizing logic for an enterprise’s IT activities in the digital era- a prognosis of practice and a call for research. Information Systems Research 11(2), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz A and Hirschheim R (2003) An extended platform logic perspective of IT governance: managing perceptions and activities of IT. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 12(2), 129–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR, Ruef M, Mendel P and Caronna C (2000) Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M and Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senior B and Swailes S (2010) Organizational Change. Pearson Education, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicer A (2005) The political process of inscribing a new technology. Human Relations 58(7), 867–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoodley ID (2009). IT Professionals’ Experience of Ethics and Its Implications for IT Education. Ph.D. thesis. Queensland University of Technology. Brisbane.

  • Swick HM (2000) Toward a normative definition of medical professionalism. Academic Medicine 75(6), 612–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesch R (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. The Falmer Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PH and Ocasio W (2008) Institutional logics. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Greenwood R, Oliver C and Suddaby R, Eds), pp 99–129, Sage, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vassilakopoulou P and Marmaras N (2015) Investigating technology-induced transitions in healthcare: work practice adaptations within their overall context. Health Policy and Technology 4(3), 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Nordenflycht A (2010) What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review 35(1), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren CAB (2001) Qualitative interviewing. In Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method (Gubrium J and Holstein J, Eds), pp 83–101, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (2004) Don’t just lead, govern: how top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Quarterly Executive 3(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill P and Ross JW (2004) IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage it Decision Rights for Superior Results. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill P and Ross JW (2005) A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. MIT Sloan Management Review 46(2), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington R (1992) Putting Giddens into action. Journal of Management Studies 29(6), 693–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willson P and Pollard C (2009) Exploring IT governance in theory and practice in a large multi-national organisation in Australia. Information Systems Management 26(2), 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooten M and Hoffman AJ (2008) Organizational fields: past, present and future. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Greenwood R, Oliver C and Suddaby R, Eds), pp 132–148, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue Y, Liang H and Boulton W (2008) information technology governance in information technology investment decision processes: the impact of investment characteristics, external environment, and internal context. MIS Quarterly 32(1), 67–96.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Innovation Management and Strategy, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, 9747AE, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Albert Boonstra, U. Yeliz Eseryel & Marjolein A. G. van Offenbeek

Authors
  1. Albert Boonstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. Yeliz Eseryel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marjolein A. G. van Offenbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albert Boonstra.

Additional information

Author name is by alphabetical order. Authors have contributed equally to the article.

Editor: Prof. Frantz Rowe Associate Editor: Prof. Régis Meissonier

Appendix

Appendix

See Figure 5.

Figure 5
figure 5

Interviewee identification. (Interviewees’ departmental positions are indicated with stars. In some cases multiple interviewees were at the same position).

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boonstra, A., Eseryel, U.Y. & van Offenbeek, M.A.G. Stakeholders’ enactment of competing logics in IT governance: polarization, compromise or synthesis?. Eur J Inf Syst (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0055-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0055-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation