changing minds, changing organizations, changing technologies

Changing Minds, Changing

Organizations, Changing

Technologies

Gigi L. Johnson, EdDMaremel Institute

MOC PDWAoM 2012

Our Adventure Today

NOT ME…NOT MY JOB…

Who is telling what technology story?For what end?

To “get user to adopt”?Or to change organizational beliefs,

routines, and decisions?

Technology: A Fixed Answer?

Mgmt. Selection ImplementationMeasured

“Penetration”Of Use

Technology: Changing Minds

Frames &Assumptions

(inc. Time)

IntentionalNarratives?

Pre-Decisional Patterns Selection(s)

Our Path Today

Concepts

Affordances & Brands

Time/Place/Data Connections

Organizational Assumptions

Changing Narratives

Concepts

Concepts




Changing Narratives

Org. Structures Create/Created By Technology Frames

Technology Frame

Technology Frame

Technology Frame

Organization Structuration

Technology Frames: Orlikowski & Gash,1994Structuration: Giddens, 1979; Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991

• Legitimization• Signification• Domination

Embracing a Nexus of Theories

Technology Adoption (e.g., Burkman, 1987; Moore, 1991; Rogers, 1962/1983; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; Surry, 1997)

Organizational Decision-Making• Bounded rationality

(e.g., March, 1978; Simon, 1956; Todd & Benbasat, 2000)

• Decision-making rubrics (e.g., Beach & Mitchell, 1978, on the Contingency Model)

• Pre-decisional factors (Payne, Braunstein, & Carroll, 1978)

• Routines and values (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Pentland & Feldman, 2008)

• Information and stories in power and behavior (Galbraith, 1971; Goldstein & Busemeyer, 1992; Hadfield, 2005; Orlikowski, 1991)

• Values in second-order learning (Argyris & Schoenberg, 1996)

Social Theories of Technology • Technology as tools, text, or

system (Nardi & O'Day, 1999; Winner, 1977)

• Technology as recipe (Dosi & Nelson, 2009)

• Affordances (Gibson, 1977)• Technology Frames (Orlikowski &

Gash, 1994)• Technology as time and space

(e.g., Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., 1999)

• Technology as politics and power (Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977)

Narrative Analysis (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, Czarniawska, 2004)• Seeking narrative

chunks• Patterns of Identity,

power, role relations, repetition.

• Storytelling routines in stories.

Stories driving technology routines

First…

What is technology?

What is technology?

"Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010

What is technology?

"Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com

What, then, is Technology?

What, then, is Technology?

• Tools that extend our abilities?• Tools that we use in our given context(s)?• System(s) including people, other tools, and

unspoken rules?

– Yes, guided and defined in part by “affordances”– Often not discussed.

Technology as tools, text, or system (Nardi & O'Day, 1999; Winner, 1977)Technology as recipe (Dosi & Nelson, 2009)

Changing Narratives, Changing Technologies, Changing Minds

Concepts




Changing Narratives

A Tale of Two Cases

Case 1• K-12 School District• 2010-2011 (Johnson, 2011)• 40 participants, both as 1-4 hour

semi-scripted interviews (20) and focus group participants

• Participants from every location and level

• Purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)

Case 2• Major University• 2012 (not yet published)• 22 participants, 1-4 hour semi-

scripted interviews• Participants in nearly every

school and major department; mostly staff and senior faculty

• Purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995)

Affordances: Possible and Perceived Uses

All "action possibilities" recognizable in an environment

– Gibson, 1977, The Theory of Affordances

All action possibilities of a technology or interface as perceived by the user; based on likelihood and perceptions of use

– Norman, 1988, The Design of Everyday Things

CELL PHONEE-MAIL

Brands: Online Tools• Yah. I mean…I shouldn’t say, there is an online connection, I use Facebook.

Um. Send a lot of email. Um. But I’m not a huge Facebook user. I dabble. You know, go on a couple times a week and look at what other people are doing.

• Everyone uses Google, I think.• I’m, I’m not on Twitter…I am on Facebook.• Not as much, I'll use examples from Wikipedia, and stuff like that too,

show students where they are supposed (to be going to).• I Google lots of things.• I probably wouldn’t Google that.

iPad?

Minimal narrative to expand affordances and options

• Brands become shortcuts in conversation and decisions, undiscussed as to affordances

• “Closure” on options and future change happens quickly– Organization in Case 1 inadvertently locked into roles,

structures, and habits around purchased Brands, and stopped considering and exploring cheaper, new alternatives

• Perceived affordances can become limited to what is designed into the Brand and assumed to be the same between users

Case 1:Narrative Example: What is a cell phone?

• G. What else is a cell phone?• 05: It’s a camera. ((lots of gently

overlapping comments here, as people try to add something))

• G: ((G’s cell phone alarm rings)) It’s a stupid alarm clock.

• 01: Clock. Alarm.• 02: It’s a way to consume and organize

personal media.• 05: Phone book.• G: Watch purchases are down 30% this

year.• 05: It’s also a phone book.• 03 and 01: Phone book.• 01: Photo album.• 05: Photo album.• 01: Music library

. 02: Social network.01: A reader. Like a Kindle. Access to…restaurants, theater….hotels.04: GPS.03: GPS.01: Locator.04: Tracking your children.01: Mapping.02: I just got this. This is a Droid. I just got this, like, I don’t know, like a week ago, a week and a half ago. And it’s just like… I don’t even call it a phone. It’s a handheld computer.G: I haven’t heard any of you talk about it as a learning device for your students yet. ((muffled reaction))G: Well, NO, that’s ((mumble))02: Distraction! ((laughter and loud multiple voices))

26

Case 1: Identified Themes and Frictions

22

Driver Stories Value

Time We don't have time; technology costs money

My time, not yours; existing class time structures and routines

Technology and Perceived

ResourcesTechnology costs money Brand name technology, limited

measurement and re-evaluation paths

Identity; Power;

Teaching and Success

Technology Heroes and Pilots; student achievement narratives centered on testing and measurement

Limited problem-based-learning or collaboration narratives; focus on presentation and measurement of textbook and test drivers


Concepts




Changing Narratives

Technology Extends Senses Connects Time and Place

• Telephone• Pen• Clock• Telescope• Recording devices• Cell phone • Digital storage Technology as extensions

of embodiment (McLuhan, 1967); Technology as time and space (e.g., Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., 1999)

“Technology” connects whole industries’ “Where” and “When”

• Time of Consumption and Purchase

• Place of Consumption and Purchase

• Metaphors/rules of consumption

• Time of Capture• Place of Capture• Rules of

Capture/Editing/Context

TimeSpaceConnections

13

Data

Case 1: Time = Value = Narratives

EXSTENSIVE Stories of Time• “Time” as a scarce resource

– limits being externally applied– efforts to push back uses and obligations of time– Few stories about saving time or new technologies saving time– Few stories about using time WELL together to adopt new technologies– Only one story of understanding time needed to teach differently or digest different content

with new technologies. – Lots of stories of decisions made without any consideration of other people’s time or valuing

time as a decision resource across the system, including in wiki implementation, email systems for enhanced communication, SMART Board content needed for visuals, etc.

– Value in play and time to play as learning• “Past” stories about extensive stories of how things used to be as reasoning for

present• “Future” stories about hopes and aspirations , which mostly were limited in

scope

Case 2: Consideration of Time

• Buy, Build, and Share– Internal time with non-hourly staff NOT counted in any work

of any kind• Time for Information

– “No time” to look outside program, department– No value for that connection – no time delegated or valued

• Open Source: Internal Time not measured or valued– SUNY Academic Commons – also big internal benefits of

shared time, but not valued or measured for boundary spanners (Rothwell & Zegveld, 1985; Swanson, 1994; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981)


Concepts




Changing Narratives

Unspoken Pre-Decisional Routines

• How do we improve the flow of information about great ideas while valuing time?

• Who do we assume makes decisions?• How does the prior decision affect the next?• How do we measure decisions and results to adjust

them for further improvement? Or stop them?• Who gets rewarded?• How do we set up healthy decision processes that

learn from past events?

Corbin (1980): Paths of Decisions, broken into assumptions

• Problems? Or Opportunity formulation?• Who is allowed to identify opportunities? Who feels they can? Eval./measurement?• What are the sources of new ideas? Spread and measurement of pilots?

Pre-Decisional Focus

These Two Cases: Focusing on Pre-decisions

• Who brings what into consideration?

• How are alternatives filtered and encouraged?

• When is a decision closed? Who decides?

Muddy Mix on How We Decide

Witte (1972) Iterative, not Linear

Mintzberg, et al. (1976) overlapping

and non-linear

Cyert & March (1963) Mating

Theory of Search – passive matchup

Nutt (1984) rare normative patterns

Cohen, March, & Olsen (1972) garbage can

method

Technology: Politics & Power

Technology is a human construct, created by engineers, marketing teams, and consumers who buy it and modify it

• Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977

Sociotechnical ensembles where relevant social groups look at problems and solutions, and in that friction in-between, come up with interpretive flexibility and craft new meanings

• Bijker, 1995

The reality of the technology and the needs for it differ by group

• Hård, 1993

Power struggles can start a technology change and closure in technology relates to those power struggles

• Hård, 1993

How can we help leaders look at flow of organizational change narratives?

• Trace ideas– Who can have an idea? – What paths do innovations flow? (Hellström, C., &

Hellström, T., 2002)– Where do new ideas come from?

• Map change – Where has change come from in the past?

• Closure – Who makes the decision that change is done? – When is it done?

Closure: Case 1

Time “ends” upon delivery and short training• Minimal measurement and fine-tuning except for Data

Director• No visible thought process on developing users’ long-term

skills (or students’ long-term skills) in embracing technology into work/lives

• No apparent re-evaluation processes• Adoptions seen as one-time events instead of as a

continuum of resources and systems• Minimal apparent transparent evaluation of pilots or

propagation of good uses

More Identity and Role: Case 1

•From peers, tutorials, learning networks•“Professional development” assumed to be a ½-1 day training on user interfaces of a specific technology

Learning stories of how “I” work and engage

Stories of past district leadership about Ghosts

and Heroes

Who “we” are in stories, illustrated with district and school

descriptions and how we know what they are

People as Symbol Stories

Case 1: Metaphor-driven stories on assumptions, limits, and rules

• Definitions of Tech: Brands as shorthand for unspoken concepts• Certain techno-ecological systems are better without discussion

(e.g., Dell, Apple, Smart, Mobi/Interwrite)

“Technology” as an undefined thing, tool, etc. (e.g., we need technology, we cannot afford technology, we are

behind in technology)

Email as uncontrolled use of time and attention

Conformity stories, in conjunction with School Loop and Pacing Guides;

tacitly accepting conformity as an organizational norm

Technology as limited by the system (money, budget, measurement,

information)

Case 1: Missing or Thin Stories“My Job” -- No participants

claimed that their job is responsible for educational

technology in the classroom; each of the 22 pointed to

someone else

Taking Time -- Understanding connecting to resources takes time and/or time of others in

decision-making

Economic considerations (have & have nots; teachers also were

have-nots as well as half of the students)

Seeking teaching resources (for use with enhanced technologies)

or curriculum planning stories other than pacing guides

Innovation Collaboration except in informal teachers teaching teachers

Collaboration or inclusion with school technology support

personnel or school librarianInvisible technologies (printers,

overheads, speakers, phone)

Information seeking and sharing as a collaborative action; minimal

knowledge management for teaching or decision-making

Leaving others behind/non-inclusion: Ethnicity of community and families; Library/librarian or

technology aide as resource; second class citizen, non-inclusion or consideration

Student Creation or Inclusions Stories (2 stories about student

use out of 22 interviews)Reward or Success Stories

Changing Narratives

Concepts




Changing Narratives

Narrative Drivers Can Limit Choices

Technology Choice:

Considerations of Alternatives

Internal Perspectives• Information• Time• Identity and

roles• Nature of

technology frames and social context

• Values

Action and Leadership• Personal

action• Information

routines• New

narrative fuel

External Perspectives• STEP,

especially budget/policy

• Competition• Unclear and

contradictory social perspectivesRoutines reduce perceived

uncertainties and simplify choice; limit alternatives through information, search, role and assignments in choices, recognition of gaps, lack of feedback

Information reinforcementBelief reinforcementMissing narratives

Technology-Specific Narrative Drivers

Technology Choice:



roles• Nature of


• Values



routines• New

narrative fuel




contradictory social perspectives

Time, Place, and People:

Realigns Connections

Shifts power relations

Transparency – social elements invisible to many – social elements become unintended consequences and technological drift

Narrative shifts could shift technology frames and decision routines

Technology Choice:



roles• Nature of


• Values



routines• New

narrative fuel





Make routines visible

See holes of missing narratives

Provide fuel for new narratives

Information reinforcementBelief reinforcementMissing narratives

Narrative shifts can shift alternatives

Technology Choice:



roles• Nature of


• Values



routines• New

narrative fuel





• Build Understanding• Build Capacity for Change?

Needs changing drivers to change perspectives: • Narrative leadership • Friction on perspectives from

external forces

Both Case 1 and Case 2:

NOT ME…NOT MY JOB…

Narrative Leadership?

Maremel InstituteDr. Gigi L. Johnson

@[email protected]://maremel.com

http://gigijohnson.net626-603-2420

mailto:[email protected]

http://maremel.com/

ReferencesArgyris & Schoenberg, 1996

Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. doi:10.2307/2392767

Beach L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439-449. doi:10.2307/257535

Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bowker, G. C. (1995). Second nature once removed: Time, space and representations. Time & Society, 4(1), 47-66. doi:10.1177/0961463X950004001003

Burkman, E. (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 429-455). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. doi:10.2307/2392088

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211. doi:10.2307/249688

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ReferencesDosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2009). Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. LEM Papers Series, Laboratory of Economics

and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2009/07

Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organizational design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25059090

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goldstein, W. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1992). The effect of "irrelevant" variables on decision making: Criterion shifts in preferential choice? Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(3), 425-454. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90028-6

Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (2007). Social work research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hadfield, M. (2005). Knowledge production, its management and action research. Educational Action Research, 13(2), 301-311. doi:10.1080/09650790300200281

Hård, M. (1993). Beyond harmony and consensus: A social conflict approach to technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18(4), 408-432. doi: 10.1177/016224399301800402

Hellström, C., & Hellström, T. (2002, June). Highways, alleys and by–lanes: Charting the pathways for ideas and innovation in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(2), 107-114. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00242

Hörning, K. H., Ahrens, D., & Gerhard, A. (1999). Do technologies have time?: New practices of time and the transformation of communication technologies. Time & Society, 8(2), 293-308. doi:10.1177/0961463X99008002005

Johnson, G. (2011). Reframing Technology Narratives and Routines to Energize Organizational Change.[published dissertation]. ProQuest.

March, J.G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608. doi:10.2307/3003600

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976, June). The structure of “unstructured” decision process . Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246-275.

ReferencesMoore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technologies with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Nutt, P. C. (1984). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 414-450. doi:10.2307/2393033

Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control?: The contradictory implications of information technology. Accounting Management and Information, 1(1), 9-42. doi:10.1016/0959-8022(91)90011-3

Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169. doi:10.1287/isre.2.2.143

Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207. doi:10.1145/196734.196745

Pentland, B. T., & 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. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001

Pettigrew, A. M. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6(2), 187. doi:10.1177/003803857200600202

Pfiffner, J. M. (1960). Administrative rationality. Public Administration Review, 20(3), 125-132. doi:10.2307/973965Rothwell, R., & Zegveld, W. (1985). Reindustrialization and technology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information systems: Innovation among organizations. Management Science, 40(9), 1069-1092. doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.9.1069

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-8022(91)90011-3

ReferencesSurry, D. W. (1997, February 12-15). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annual

Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/

Payne, J. W., Braunstein, M. L., & Carroll J. S. (1978). Exploring pre-decisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(1), 17-34. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90003-X

Rogers, E. M. (1962/1983). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York, NY:

Free PressSimon, H. A. (1956, March). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2),

129-138. doi:10.1037/h0042769 Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (2000). The impact of information technology on decision making: A cognitive perspective.

In R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future . . . through the past (pp. 1-14). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources.

Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305. doi:10.2307/255842

Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Witte, E. (1972). Field research on complex decision-making processes—the phase theorem. International Studies of Management & Organization, 2(2), 156-182. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90003-X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Rogers

http://books.google.com/books?id=zw0-AAAAIAAJ

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0042769

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255842

changing minds, changing organizations, changing technologies

Education

technology routines

technology orinterface

technology simon

technology story

learning argyris technology

rubin rubin

options brands

online tools