Fooling Around: The Corporate Jester as an Effective Change Agent for Technological Innovation

  • Tom McMaster
  • David Wastell
  • Helle Zinner Henriksen
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 180)


In this reflective paper, we examine the roles and attributes of the change agent in the context of the organisational innovation adoption process. Various skills and qualities are required and expected of such a role, however wit and humor are not among those qualities typically emphasized in the subject literature. Yet these may be essential ingredients in the successful management of change. We examine the role of humour in the workplace in particular, as an empowerment tool on one hand, and as a display of subversion on the other. We note that the traditional role and attributes of the court jester exude those very qualities that might be missing in traditional descriptions of the change agent: deep insight, wit, and the ability to exert strong influence through humor. We consider the notion of the corporate jester and discuss whether such a role may hold any merit for the process of change management.


Change Agent Subject Literature Copenhagen Business School System Development Method Organizational Harmony 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackoff, R. L. “The Corporate Jester,” Systems Practice (6:4), 1993, pp. 333–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacharach P., and Baratz, M. “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review (56), 1962, pp. 641–651.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, C. K., and Pratt, M. “From Threat-Rigidity to Flexibility: Toward a Learning Model of Autogenic Crisis on Organizations,” Journal of Organizational Change (13), 2000, pp. 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsoux, J-L. “Why Organizations Need Humor,” European Management Journal (14:5), 1996, pp. 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin, R. “Managing IT-Enabled Change” in Human Organizational and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, D. Avison, J. E. Kendall, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Amsterdam: North Holland, 1993,381–298.Google Scholar
  6. Bovey, W. H., and Hede, A. “Resistance to Organizational Change: The Role of Defense Mechanisms,” Journal of Management Psychology (16:7), 2001, pp. 534–548.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, D., and Story, J. “Role-Taking and Role-Switching in Organizational Change: The Four Pluralities” in Innovation, organizational change and Technology, I. McLoughlin and M. Harris (Eds.), London: International Thompson Business Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, L-J., and Powell, P. “Towards a Framework for Business Process Re-Engineering in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Information Systems Journal (8), 1998, pp. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciborra, C. The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, L. The Essence of Change, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. Davenport, T. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Dawson, P. Reshaping Change: A Processual Perspective, London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Dent, E. B. “Challenging Resistance to Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (35), 1999, pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
  14. Dyer, W. G. Strategies for Managing Change, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company Inc., 1984.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenstein, E. L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (Volumes 1 and 2), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. Egan, G. Change-Agent Skills A: Assessing and Designing Excellence, San Diego, CA: University Associates Inc., 1988a.Google Scholar
  17. Egan, G. Change-Agent Skills B: Managing Innovation and Change, San Diego, CA: University Associates Inc., 1988b.Google Scholar
  18. Gersick, C. “Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multi-Level Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm,” Academy of Management Review (16), 1991, pp. 10–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardgrave, B. C, Davis, F., and Riemenschneider, C. K. “Investigating Determinants of Software Developers’ Intentions to Follow Methodologies,” Journal of Management Information Systems (20), 2003, pp. 123–151.Google Scholar
  20. Hirschhorn, L. The Workplace Within: The Psychodynamics of Organizational Life, Boston: MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. Iivari, J. “Why Are CASE Tools Not Used?,” Communications of the ACM (39:10), 1996, pp. 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahn, W. “Toward a Sense of Organizational Humor: Implications for Organizational Diagnosis and Change,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (25), 1989, pp. 25: 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kautz, K., and McMaster, T. “The Failure to Introduce System Development Methods: A Factor-Based Analysis” in Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, L. Levine (Ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, 1994, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
  24. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. “The Organizational Fool: Balancing a Leader’s Hubris,” Human Relations (43:8), 1990, pp. 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knights, L. C. Some Shakespearean Themes, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, and London: Chatto and Windus, Ltd., 1959.Google Scholar
  26. Kovoor-Misra, S., Clair, J. A., and Bettenhausen, K. L. “Clarifying the Attributes of Organizational Crises,” Technology Forecasting and Social Change (67), 2001, pp. 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laver, M. Information Technology: Agent of Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B. Science in Action, Boston: Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  29. Lewin, K. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics,” Human Relations (1:1), 1947, pp. 5–41.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. McMaster, T., Vidgen, R., and Wastell, D. “Technology Transfer: Diffusion or Translation,” in Facilitating Technology Transfer Through Partnership: Learning from Practice and Research, T. McMaster, E. Mumford, E. B. Swanson, B. Warboys, and D. Wastell (Eds.), London: Chapman and Hall, 1997, pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
  31. Menzies-Lyth, I. Containing Anxiety in Institutions: Selected Essays, London: Free Association Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. Molinsky, A. L. “Sanding Down the Edges: Paradoxical Impediments to Organizational Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (35:1), 1999, pp. 8–24.Google Scholar
  33. Nielson, J. The Change Agent and the Process of Change, Michigan State University, 1961.Google Scholar
  34. Orlikowski, W. “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in System Development,” MIS Quarterly (17:3), September 1993, pp. 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Otto, B. K. Fools Are Everywhere: The Court Jester Around the World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. Porra, J. “Colonial Systems,” Information Systems Research (10:1), 1999, pp. 38–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Redman, T., and Mathews, B. P. “Managing Services: Should We Be Having Fun?,” Services Industries Journal (22:3), 2002, pp. 51–62.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.), New York: The Free Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.), New York: The Free Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  41. Sambamurthy, V. “IT as a Platform for Competitive Agility,” in IT Innovation for Adaptability and Competitiveness, B. Fitzgerald and E. Wynne (Eds.), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2004, pp. 467–468.Google Scholar
  42. Sibbald, V. “Romano Wonders if Everyone Will Love Mooseport,” Movie News, February 9, 2004.Google Scholar
  43. Sittenfeld, C. “He’s No Fool (But He Plays One Inside Companies),” Fast Company, November 19, 1998, p. 66.Google Scholar
  44. Taylor, P., and Bain, P. “Subterranean Worksick Blues: Humor as Subversion in Two Call Centres,” Organization Studies (24:9), 2003, pp. 1487–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas, A. B., and Al-Mashati, H. “I Suppose You Think That’ Funny! The Role of Humor in Corporate Learning Events,” International Journal of Human Resource Management (8:4), 1997, pp. 519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, J. R., Grude, K. V., and Thurloway, L. (Eds.). The Project Manager as Change Agent, London: McGraw-Hill, 1996.Google Scholar
  47. Van de Ven, A. H. “Managing the Process of Organizational Innovation” in Organizational Change and Redesign, G. Huber and W. Glick (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 269–294.Google Scholar
  48. Vince, R. Managing Change: Reflections on Equality and Management Learning, Cambridge, UK: The Policy Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  49. Wastell, D. G. “The Fetish of Technique: Methodology as a Social Defense,” Information Systems Journal (6:1), 1996, pp. 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wastell, D. G. “Learning Dysfunctions in Information Systems Development: Overcoming the Social Defenses with Transitional Objects,” MIS Quarterly (23:4), December 1999,pp. 581–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wastell, D., Kawalek, P., and Newman, M. “Plus ça Change: Defensive Translations and Resistance to IT-Enabled Change in Local Government” in Proceedings of the 11 th European Conference on Information Systems, M. Martinez, M. D. Marco, C. Ciborra, A. Carignani, and R. Mercurio (Eds.), Naples, Italy, 2003.Google Scholar
  52. Welsford, E. The Fool: His Social and Literary History, London: Faber and Faber, 1935.Google Scholar
  53. Westwood, R. “Comic Relief: Subversion and Catharsis in Organizational Comedic Theater,” Organizational Studies (25:5), 2004, pp. 775–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom McMaster
    • 1
  • David Wastell
    • 2
  • Helle Zinner Henriksen
    • 3
  1. 1.University of SalfordSalfordUK
  2. 2.University of Manchester and Nottingham Business SchoolUK
  3. 3.Copenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations