impact of it subculture on the adoption of cloud computing

2016

TheimpactofITsubcultureontheadoptionofcloudcomputing:Acriticalexploration

MBADISSERTATIONSTEVENCHARLTON(W1535566)

StevenCharlton(w1535566) ITSubculture&CloudAdoption 1

Acknowledgements

I’dliketothankmyresearchsupervisor,theintervieweesandmostimportantlymywifefortheirsupportwiththisproject.


ContentsAcknowledgements..................................................................................................................1

ListofTablesandFigures.........................................................................................................3

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................4

2. ResearchAims&Objectives.............................................................................................6

3. LiteratureReview.............................................................................................................7

3.1 DefiningCulture&Subculture...................................................................................7

3.1aDefiningCulture........................................................................................................7

3.1bDefiningSubculture..................................................................................................8

3.2SourcesofCulture........................................................................................................10

3.3PerspectivesofCulture................................................................................................12

3.4Identification&ClassificationofCulture......................................................................14

3.5Culturalinfluenceonadoptionofnewtechnology......................................................14

3.6ImplicationsofLiterature.............................................................................................16

4. ResearchMethodology..................................................................................................18

4.1ResearchApproach......................................................................................................19

4.2SecondaryResearch.....................................................................................................23

4.3PrimaryResearch.........................................................................................................23

4.3aCollectionMethodology.........................................................................................24

4.3bDataAnalysis..........................................................................................................24

4.3cLimitations..............................................................................................................25

4.3dEthicalConsiderations............................................................................................26

4.4Validity&Reliability.....................................................................................................26

5. Findings..........................................................................................................................26

6. Discussion.......................................................................................................................29

6.1CharacteristicsofITSubculture....................................................................................29

6.2SourcesofSubculture...................................................................................................32

6.3ImpactofSubcultureontheadoptionofcloudcomputing?.......................................34

7. Conclusion......................................................................................................................36

7.1LimitationsoftheResearch..........................................................................................36

7.2Implicationsoftheresearchformanagers..................................................................36

7.3Implicationsforscholarsandfutureresearch..............................................................37

7.4Reflectiononlearning..................................................................................................38

Appendix1.............................................................................................................................39

Datacoding........................................................................................................................39


References..............................................................................................................................42

ListofTablesandFiguresTableI.....................................................................................................................................20Figure1...................................................................................................................................21Figure2...................................................................................................................................21Figure3...................................................................................................................................22


1. IntroductionThisresearchpaperisanexplorationofthethemesrelatingtotheinfluenceofITsubculture

onanorganizationsabilitytoadoptcloudcomputingtechnology.

Theadoptionofnewtechnologybyanyorganisationisasignificantchallenge.Everyyear

billionsofdollarsareinvestedbybusinesses,bothlargeandsmallinIT&IS(Information

Technology&InformationSystems)withavarietyofaimsincluding,butnotlimitedto

increasingproductivity,improvingcostefficiency,enhancingorganizationalagility,or

hasteningdecisionmakingtonamebutafew.Unfortunately,manyoftheseprojectfailto

deliverthegainstheypromise,with$140billioninvestedinfailedprojectsin2003alone

(DalcherandGenus,2003).

Thereanumberoffactorsthatmightinfluencewhethertheadoptionofanewtechnology

willbeasuccess,withperhapsoneofthemostsignificantbeingthatoforganisational

culture&subcultures.

CIO’s(ChiefInformationOfficers)andITDirectorsareoftenresponsibleforthe

identificationandintroductionofnewtechnologiesintoanorganisation,&willin

partnershipwithotherfunctionsofanorganisationtoaligntechnologiestowardsbusiness

objectives.ByunderstandingtheculturalchallengesfromwithintheorganisationsIT/IS

subculture,theseindividualsaswellasthoseexternalpartnerorganisationstheyworkwith

maybebetterabletounderstand&anticipatepotentialroadblocks,identifyingpartners

withintheIT/ISorganisation,andelsewheretoimprovethechancesofaprojectssuccess.

PreviousresearchinthisfieldwascarriedoutrecentlybyJacksonin2011inthepaper

“OrganisationalCultureandISAdoption:AThree-PerspectiveApproach”.(Jackson,2011)

ThispaperassessesacasestudycarriedoutbyJacksontoassesshowcultureandsubculture

influencetheadoptionofInformationSystemsinanorganisation.Heusesacombinationof

(Martin,2002a)threeperspectivesonculturegridandgroupculturaltheorytoassessthe

influenceofcultureontechnologyadoption,andconcludesinhisfindingthatthatthereisa

coherencybetweenthepower&distancerelationbetweenemployeesandmanagement.

Additionally,healsohighlightsthatnon-permanentworkers(i.e.contractors&other


temporaryworkers)aremoreflexibleinadoptingorrejectingnewtechnology,incontrastto

permanentworkers,whilemostlikelytobenefitfromnewtechnologies&organisational

improvements,oftenexperienceadeteriorationinmotivationandaptitudeovertime.

TherewereanumberofadditionalpointsdiscussedinJackson’s(Jackson,2011)paper,with

onestatementbeingthat“toomanyISadoptioninitiativesfailduetoamisfitbetween

cultureandtheISintroduced”andanotherthat“cultureisbecomingincreasinglyimportant

giventheadoptionofinternetbasedsystemswhichsupportcrosscollaboration”.Bothof

thesestatementshighlightthepivotalroleofcultureinanorganisationssuccessorfailurein

adoptingnewtechnologies.

Jackson’sgoesontostatethatfurtherresearchshouldbeundertakentoexplorethe

influenceofsubcultureontechnologyimplementation.Thelackofresearchinthisareais

succinctlyemphasisedby(LeidnerandKayworth,2006)whostatesthatofthemultitudeof

papersreviewed85%consideredcultureattheorganisationallevelwithonlyasmall

proportionconsideringthesubculturalview.Leidnerwentontosummarisethat“the

degreeoffitbetweensocialgroupsvalues,andthevaluesembeddedintheIThasemerged

asanimportantconstructforstudyingtherelationshipbetweenvaluesandtheITadoption”.

Itisclearfromthisresearchthatsubculturehasbeenlargelyignoredbyresearchersin

exploringtheroleitplaysontechnologyadoption,howeverasemphasisedbyLeidner

“oftenblamedwhenorganisationsexperiencefailure”.

Whenexploringtheroleofsubcultureintheadoptionofnewtechnologyitisnecessaryto

restricttheresearchtoaparticulartype.Oneofthemostsignificantareasoftechnology

investmentforUKbusinessaccordingtoComputerWeeklyiscloudcomputing.Asurvey

carriedoutbythepublicationin2014showedthat57%ofUKcompaniesintendedto

implementcloudcomputinginsomeform,witharecentsurveybyTheEconomistindicating

thatthemajorityofparticipantsbelievethatorganisationsshouldbemigratingmoreof

theircomputingrequirementsintothecloud,yetadoptionratesappeartobesignificantly

lowerthananticipated.


Perversely,despitethegreatchangeswithinITandbusinessinthelast10yearsspecifically

withthedevelopmentofcloudcomputing,(consideredbytheITindustryandmediaasa

‘game-changer’inhoworganisationsconsumeIT/ISservices)manyorganisationsfailto

successfullyleveragethetechnology.Frequently‘organisationalculture’isblamedforthe

failureoftheseprojects,andwhilethereisawealthofresearchexploringthis,an

explorationofthecultureofITprofessionalswithinanorganisation,thosewhoaremost

dramaticallyaffectedbythistechnologyseemstobelacking.Furthermore,muchofthe

researchisfocusedonidentifyingwhatanorganisationscultureis,andwherethevaluesof

aculturearepresent.Inordertounderstandhowthe‘subculture’oftheITfunctionaffects

technologyadoptionamorebeneficialexplorationwouldfocusinsteadonhowsubcultures

comeabout,andwhytheyexistatall.ThisviewisreinforcedbyJacksoninhissummation

thatthereneedstobeashiftfromresearching“what”and“where”culturalvaluesexist,to

understanding“how”theycometobe,and“why”.Thefocusofmyexplorationwillbeto

explorethis.

2. ResearchAims&ObjectivesTheaimsofthisexplorationaretoidentifywhysubculturesexist,wheretheyoriginateand

whatinfluencetheyhaveonanorganizationsabilitytoadoptcloudcomputingtechnologies.

Extrapolatedfromtheseaimsarethefollowingobjectives:

1. ToidentifythecharacteristicsofITsubculture

2. ToexplorethesourcesofITsubculture

3. ToexploretheimpactofITsubcultureontheadoptionofcloudcomputing


3. LiteratureReviewThepurposeoftheliteraturereviewistoidentifyframeworksandperspectivesthatcanbe

utilizedtoenabletheresearchertorecognizethepresenceoforganizationalsubcultures,

andexplorethesourceofthosesubculturesandtoprovideframeworkstoassesstheimpact

ofsubculturesoncloudcomputingadoption.Thisliteraturereviewalsoservestoaidthe

researchertoidentifythefocusofpreviousresearchinthisfield,andthethemesthat

emergedfromit.

Theformatofthisreviewistoprovidethereaderwithanunderstandingofwhatconstitutes

anorganizationalculture&subculture.Thisreviewthenprovidesanoverviewoftheory

relatingtothesourcesoforganizationalculture,&researcherperspectivesofculture.The

finalelementofthisreviewincludesculturalidentificationandclassificationframeworks,

andananalysisofpreviousresearchintohowcultureimpactstheadoptionofnew

technologies.

Leidner(2006)identifiedanumberofelementsrelatedtocultureandtechnology.Inorder

tomeettheobjectivespreviouslystatedthispaperwillfocusononeofthoseelements–

culture,ITadoption,anddiffusion.WhiletheotherelementsidentifiedbyLeidnerare

relevantinthebroadestsense,theyareexcludedfromthispaperduetothelimitedtime

andresourcesavailable.Consequently,theliteraturereviewedisfocusedonorganizational

cultureandsubculture,andexcludesothercategoriessuchasnationalculturewhichare

heldtobeaconstantsoasnottobiastheresearch.

3.1 DefiningCulture&Subculture

Thefirstchallengeinthisareaofresearchistounderstandwhatexactlyisorganizational

culture,&subculture.

3.1aDefiningCulture

(Bower,1966)definescultureas“thewaywedothingsaroundhere”,leadingthereaderto

believethatthebehaviors,andprocessesofanorganizationarewhatdefinesa

culture.Certainlythishassomemerit,butisratherlimitedasitappearstoignorethefact

thatthevaluesofindividualswillinherentlyaffecttheirbehavior,andnotalwaysinlinewith


organizationalculture.(Deal,2000)definedorganizationalcultureas“acohesionofvalues,

myths,heroes,andsymbolsthathascometomeanagreatdealtothepeoplewhowork

there”.Thislatterdefinitionappearstobewidelyacceptedandinagreementwith

definitionsbyotherauthorsincluding(Brown,1998),(HoffmanandKlepper,2000),

(HofstedeandSanders,1990).(Belassietal.,2007)definescultureassomethingthat

“prescribesandproscribesindividualbehaviorinorganizations”.(Belassietal.,2007)isalso

criticalofotherresearchincultureseffectoninnovation,asthereisanoverfocuson

nationalculture,makingthecommentthat“shouldhavedirectedtheirattentiontowards

organizationalcultureinstead”.Whilethereappearstobesomeconsensuswithregardsto

definewhatacultureis,thedefinitionsarevagueandbroad.Inallofthesedefinitions

cultureisviewedasasingularelement,withnoacknowledgementoftheexistenceof

subcultures.Thismakesthesedefinitionsofuseonlyinsofarasthesamefactorsidentified

by(Deal,2000)canbeextrapolatedtoidentifythemicrocosmthatsubculturerepresents.

3.1bDefiningSubcultureConsensusfordefinitionsofsubculturedoesnotappeartohavebeenreached.The

dictionarydefinitionis“aculturalgroupwithinalargerculture,oftenhavingbeliefsor

interestsatvariancewiththoseofthelargerculture.”(Oxforddictionaries.com;2015)).

Usingthisdefinition,organisationalcultureisitselfasubcultureofanationalculture,andis

inturnmadeupofdifferentsubcultures.

Accordingto(Deal,2000)inanyorganisationtherewillbevariationsinbehaviourbetween

differentbusinessdivisions,departments,teams,andoperationalfunction.Eachof

thesedemarcationsofsubculturearenormalinanyorganisationandwilloftenreflectthe

role(s)andcharacteristicsofthepeoplethatareemployedwiththissubculture.

Analternativeviewisexpressedby(Gregory,1983)“thesmallhomogeneous-society

metaphorisofteninappropriatetothoseorganisationsthatarelarge,internally

differentiated,rapidlychanging,andonlycommandpart-timecommitmentfrommembers.

Suchorganisationsmorenearlyresemblethecomplexsocietyofwhichtheyareapart.In

largecomplexsocieties…therobustnessofanygroupasacultureisquestionable.Societies,

&manyorganisations,canmorecorrectlybeviewedintermsofmultiple,cross-cutting


culturalcontextschangingthroughtime,ratherthanasstable,bounded,homogenous

cultures”.

Ananalysisoftheseviewpointsleadstoconclusionsthataresurmisedby(Smircich,1983)

whereametaphorofaplantisused.Inherpapershedescribesorganisationalcultureasa

plant,withthevalues,myths,heroes,andsymbolsofthemultiplesubculturestherootsthat

growintotheplant.Shefurthergoesontosaythatcultureisn’tsomethinganorganisation

has,butrathercultureissomethinganorganisationis.

(Clarke,1974)presentssubcultureasa“distinctsegmentofaculturalgrouping,thatmay

sharesomeofthevaluesofthedominantculture,butalsoevidenceitsown(competing&

complimentary).”Hefurtherexpandsonthisbyidentifyingsubculturesasthosegroupsthat

deviateinpartorfullfromthedominantculture.AccordingtoClarkesubculturesare

definedbyanumberoffactors;

• Whois‘in’&whois‘out'

• whatismeanstobe'in'

• whatkindofpersonis‘in'

• isbeing‘in'significant?

Hegoesfurthertosaythatpartoftheprocessofdefiningwhattheboundariesofa

subcultureisidentifyingwhataspectsoflifeitdoesnotaffectandwherethedominant

culturerules,andthedegree&mannerinwhichmembersofasubculturederivetheir

identityfromthesubculture.

Accordingto(FineandKleinman,1979)itisoftenassumedthatsubculturescanbe

identifiedthroughdemographicfeatures(age,occupation,gender,position).Fineetal

positsthatsubculturescanbeidentifiedthroughnon-demographicfeatures.Exampleof

thiswouldbedress,espousedvalues,ordisplayedbehaviours.Fineetalgoesontosuggest

thatnotallsub-culturesarehomogeneous,closedsocialentitieswhichareisolatedfromthe

largersocietyandthattheymayinfactoverlapwiththedominantculturewithmembership

ofasubculturebeingfluid.


(Peters,2004)statethat‘successfulorganisationstendtobethosethathavefoundwaysof

breakingdownthebarriersbetweensubcultures&enforcingco-ordinationandcontrol’.

Thisviewimpliesthatsubculturesnotonlyexist,butareassumedtodoso.(Peters,2004)

positionappearstosupportadifferentiationperspectivewhendeterminingorganisational

culture,andthattheroleoforganisationalcultureistobridgethegapbetweendifferent

subcultures.

(TriceandBeyer,1993)takeamoreintegrationistviewofsubcultures,presenting

subculturesasbeingtheresultofsocialconditions.Thisviewignorestheconceptof

individualsorgroupswithinanorganisationalfieldinfluencingorganisationalculture,and

appearstosupportthehierarchicalviewofcultureandsubculture.

Inseekingtoidentifysubcultureitisnecessarytodefineit.Whilethedefinitionsaboveare

vagueinwhatasubcultureis,theconsensusappearstobethatasubcultureisaderivative,

ofanotherculture,sharingsomeoftheelementsoftheprimaryculture.Forthepurposes

ofthispapersubcultureswillbedefinedasthosecultureswhicharepresentinan

organisation,butarenotinthemselvesthedominantorprimaryculture.

3.2SourcesofCultureThesecondchallengeinunderstandingorganisationalsubcultureisinidentifyingits’source.

(Brown,1998)statesthatthereareessentiallythreeacceptedsourcesofanorganisations

culture;thenationalculturewithinwhichanorganisationisphysicallysituated;thevision,

managementstyle&personalityofanorganisationsfounderorotherdominantleader;and

thetypeofbusinessanorganisationconducts&thenatureofits’business

environment.Thisisinagreementwiththestatementsofotherresearchersinthefield

(Hofstede,2005,Deal,2000,Schein,2006).

Accordingto(Deal,2000)“thebusinessesenvironmentisthesinglegreatestinfluencein

shapingcorporateculture”.(Schein,2006)promotestheviewthatastrongleadercan

createanorganisationalculture.(Johnson,2008)postulatesthatorganisationalcultureis

drawnfromseveralelements;values,beliefs,behavioursandassumptions.Hegoesonto

presentthatanorganisationalfield(suchasaprofessionalbody,sector/market)willalso


determineanorganisationsculture,expandingonthebusinessenvironmentelementof

(Deal,2000).(Johnson,2008)furtheraddstothisbyidentifyingbusinessfunction,orother

groupingasasourceofculture,structureofanorganisation,andcommandandcontrol

formsalsoinfluencingorganisationalculture.Hegoesontostatethatwherethevalues,

beliefs,behavioursandassumptionsofacultureiswithintheacceptedstandardsofthe

organisationalfielditisgivenlegitimacybythosewithinandoutsidetheorganisation.

Researchintoorganizationalcultureappearstoindicatethatit’ssourcesaremultiple,with

(Deal,2000)positingthatwhiletherearemultiplesources,notallareequal.Assumingthat

multipleelementsmayberesponsibleforthecreationofanorganisationsculture,itwould

bereasonabletoextrapolatethatthesameelementsmayalsobethesourceofsubcultures

withinanorganization.


3.3PerspectivesofCultureWhenseekingtoobserveandidentifyorganizationalcultureandsubculture,cultural

manifestationsandbehaviorstheperspectiveoftheculturalobserverandwhatthe

observerdeemsculturallyrelevantwillimpacthowtheyidentifyandcategorize

culturallyrelevantmanifestationsandbehaviors.(Martin,2002b)identifiedthree

theoreticalperspectivesofcultureinorganizations;integration,differentiation,and

fragmentation.

Thesedifferentperspectiveseachprovidetheculturalobserverwithadifferentlens

throughwhichtofocusonanorganizationsculture.(Martin,2002b)succinctlyuses

metaphortodescribeeachoftheselenses.Notalloftheseperspectivesacceptthatan

organizationsculturecanandwillincludesubcultures.

Theintegrationperspectivepresentscultureasasingularhomogeneousandharmonious

element,andthatanythingoutsideofthisisnotpartofanorganizationsculture.Ifthis

werethecasethenorganizationssuchastheBritishArmywouldbeunabletofunction,as

eachregiment&corpshasauniquecultureasdefinedby(Deal,2000).TheBritishArmyhas

acultureofitsownthatisespousedasdominating,withthesubcultureofeachregiment

andcorpsexistinginharmonywiththedominantculture.

Thedifferentiationperspectiveviewsorganizationalcultureasacollectionofsubcultures&

focusesonculturalmanifestationsthatifviewedoutsidetheirownsubculture.The

differentiationperspectiveleadstotheculturalobserverviewingorganizationalcultureas

beingcomprisedofanumberofsubcultureswiththeirowncharacteristics.Fromthe

differentiationperspectivethesesubcultureseachhavetheirownculturalmanifestations

withaconsensuswithinthesubcultureastotheirmeaning,butwhichisinconsistentacross

thebroaderorganizationalculture.Eachsubculturemayexistharmoniously,independently

orinconflictwithothersubcultures,butitisonlywithinaspecificsubculturethatthereisa

clearculturalidentity.Beyondtheseboundariescultureisambiguous,andlackinginclarity.

TooncemoreusetheanalogyofculturewithintheBritishArmy,eachregiment&corps

indoctrinatesitsmemberswiththeirvaluesandbehavioralexpectations.Toeachmember


ofthatregiment&itssubculturethemeaningbehindthemythsandsymbolsisclear.For

eachregiment&subculture,thesameistrue.However,interpretationofcultural

manifestationsbetweendifferentregimentswillbeinconsistent,reflectingthecultural

perspectiveoftheobserver.Themeaningbehindeachculturalmanifestationbecomesless

clear.Itisthisambiguitythatmakestheidentificationofanysingularculturemore

challenging.(Martin,2002b)usesmetaphorappropriatelyheretodescribetheissue.

“subculturesarelikeislandsofclarityinaseaofambiguity”.

Thefinalperspectiveisthatoffragmentation.Thisperspectiveviewstherelationship(s)

betweenculturalmanifestationsasbeingneitherconsistentnorinconsistent,butare

ambiguouslyrelatedtooneanother.Itisthisambiguitywhichisatthecoreofan

organizationalculture.Whencultureisviewedthroughthislens,culturecanbeviewedas

somethingthatisambiguousandintangible.Cultureisasetofsharedvaluesthatareonly

appliedinanygivensituationasviewedtobeappropriatetotheindividual.Tousethe

previousanalogy,differentregimentshavedifferentvaluesvieweddifferentlybyeach

memberoftheregiment.Thesevaluesareonlyconsideredbytheindividualshoulda

situationarisewheretheyviewthemtobeappropriate.

Whiletheseperspectivesareallrelevantinresearchingthistopic,astheywillalloffer

differentinterpretationofwhatisandisculturallyrelevantitisnecessaryfortheremitof

thispapertoselectonethatismostappropriatewhenassessingthepresenceof

subcultures.Itisassumedbytheresearcherthateveryorganizationwillpossessacultureof

itsown,anditistheidentificationofcultureswithinthisorganizationalculturethatthe

researcherisseekingtoidentify.Thisleadtotheresearchertodiscounttheintegrationist&

fragmentationperspectivesasonerecognizesviewsallcultureasbeingpartofthe

organizational,anddiscountsthepresenceofsubcultures,whereastheinverseistruefor

theotherrespectiveperspective.


3.4Identification&ClassificationofCultureIdentification&classificationofcultureisbiasedaccordingtotheperspectiveofthecultural

observer.(Deal,2000)approachisdeterminedbytwofactorsinthemarketplace,the

degreeofriskandthespeedoffeedback.Fromthesetheythengoontocategorizecultures

asbeingoneoffour(tough-guy,workhard/playhard,Bet-your-company&Process

cultures).(Handy,1993)alsodelineatesculturesinto4differentclasses,basedonacultural

hierarchyandfocusofpower&influence(web,Greektemple,lattice,&personculture).

(MartinandSiehl,1983)identifiesthreedifferenttypesofsubculture;

• Enhancing

• Orthogonal

• Counter-cultures

Eachofthesetypeshasitsowncharacteristicsinhowtheirsubculturealignsandshares

withthedominantorganizationalculture.

Inseekingtoidentifythepresenceofsubcultureswithinanorganizationsculture,these

modelsmaybeextrapolatedtoprovidesomeinsightintowhatcanbemeasuredtodetect

theirpresence,aswellastoascertainwhattypeofsubcultureispresent.Whilethese

modelsseemoverlysimplistic,forthepurposesofthisresearchtheywillprovidesome

insightintothecharacteristicsofthesubcultures,ifanyarepresent.

3.5CulturalinfluenceonadoptionofnewtechnologyUnderstandinghowcultureaffectstheadoptionofnewtechnologies,isanareaofresearch

thatspansanumberofareas,particularlymarketing,projectmanagement,Information

Technology,&changemanagement.Whiletheadoptionofatechnologymightnotbe

innovativeinrelationtotherestoftheworld,oreventotheirindustryitcanbeinnovative

forthecompanyandsoliteratureencompassingthisareahasalsobeenreviewed.

(Yazici,2009)statesthatculturehasasignificantinfluenceonprojectperformance&the

longtermsuccessoforganizations.(HoffmanandKlepper,2000)buildingontheframework

of(GoffeeandJones,1996)states“Managersoftechnologyinmercenaryorganizations

typicallyenjoyhighsolidaritywithaclearvisionofthefutureandabetterchanceof

widespreadagreementontheaims&objectivesofnewtechnologyandtheresourcesand


governancenecessarytoreapthepotentialbenefits.Personinhigh-solidarityorganizations

aregenerallyreceptivetomasteringnewrolesdemandedbyanewtechnologythat

supportscorporatestrategy.Lowsociabilityofmercenaryorganizationsalsofavor

successfulassimilationbybluntingtheinfluenceofthosewhoseopinionsaretangentialto

theconcernsofthenewtechnologyproject.”Essentiallyheissayingthatinorganizations

withaculturethatisacceptingofchange,technologythatarticulatedaspartofaclear

visionisgenerallymoreeasilyadopted.

(Cabreraetal.,2001)expandsonthisviewusingtheHofstedeculturalmodelinhispaper

“TheKeyRoleofOrganizationalCultureinaMulti-Systemviewoftechnologydriven

change”.Inthispaperhehighlightsthatchangesintechnologyhaveeffectsthatgobeyond

thetechnologyarena.Hegoesontosaythatthealignmentbetweennewtechnology,

capabilitiesofanorganization,anditsstrategyisrequiredtoensuresuccessfuladoption.

Foranorganizationtosuccessfullyadoptanewtechnology,itwillhavetoadaptits

structure&itshumanresourcearchitecture,allowingittobeusedbytherightpeople,in

therightwayattherighttime.Hisstatement“therearenouniversallygoodtechnologies”

clarifiesthattechnologyinisolationisnotacriticismoftechnologies,butalludestohis

argumentthattheadoptionofatechnologyencompassesmorethanisimmediately

apparent.

(Belassietal.,2007)identifiesanumberoffactorsthataffectinnovationinanorganization

(seebelow)butalsostatesthatthe“conceptoforganizationalcultureresistsacommon

definitionorsharedtheoreticalparadigm”.

• Positiveworkenvironment

• strongmanagement&leadership

• motivatedemployees

• clearandopencommunication

(LeidnerandKayworth,2006)presentsaconceptofIT-Cultureconflict.Inhispaperhe

positsthatakeycomponenttotheacceptance&adoptionofanewtechnologyiswhatthe

generalvaluesofthecultureanditsmembersaboutInformationTechnologyingeneral.


Whenyoustarttogetmorespecific,andinvestigateparticulartechnologies(inthisinstance

cloudcomputing)apaperby(SultanandvandeBunt-Kokhuis,2012)examinestheinfluence

oforganizationalcultureondisruptiveinnovation(cloudcomputing).Inthispaperhe

discussesthatwhileculturecanbeagreatenablerforanorganization,andcanalsoprohibit

&slowsomeactivities.Sultanetalreferstothisnegativefacetoforganizationalcultureas

culturalinertia.Hegoesontopositthattheadoptionofcloudcomputingwillrequire

fundamentalshiftsinanorganizationsculture,it’sperceptionsofIT/ISresources,howit

conductsitsbusiness&howitpreparesforthefuture.

Whenevaluatingthepointsmadeinthisbodyofresearch,itisclearthatthekeyelements

toconsideronhowasubcultureaffectstheadoptionofanewtechnologyincludehowthe

technologyisperceivedbythesubculture,andhowitalignstothevaluesofthatsubculture.

Additionally,thewayinwhichthesubcultureviewschangeisalsoafactor,notjust

technologicalchange.Duetotherateofchangeintechnology,aswellaslimitationsof

access,oneofthechallengesofthisliteraturereviewwasinthesourcingofrecent

literature.Consequently,someoftheresearchedliteraturemaybeoutdated,andshould

beconsideredaccordingly.

3.6ImplicationsofLiteratureItisclearfromthisliteraturereviewthatthereareanumberofareaswhereresearchinto

organizationalcultureanditsimpactontheadoptionofnewtechnologiesissparse.While

definitionsoforganizationalculturehavereachedaconsensus,theapproachofmany

researchersappearstobetoregardcultureasaunifiedforce.Ahierarchicalframeworkis

constructedbymanywithclassificationsassignedtodifferentculturalelements,and

typographyusedtoorganizethem.Whilethereissomerecognitionofsubculture,thisisfor

themostpartviewedasaresultofdeviationofcultureratherthanasacontributing

elementinanorganizationsculture.Theabsenceofsubculturefrommanyofthese

definitionsisworthyofinvestigationinitself,withthosethatacknowledgethepresenceof

subculturesperhapsbeingastartingpointforsuchresearch.

(Martin,2002a)effectivelyidentifiesthreeperspectivesforculturalobservation,withmuch

ofpreviousresearchtakinganintegrationistviewofculturealthoughsomeresearcherssuch


as(Smircich,1983)takeamorefragmentedperspective.Whenyouconsiderthesourcesof

culturethereappearstobesomeconsensusamongstresearcherswithregardstothe

influenceofthebusinessenvironmentoftheorganization.Theinfluenceofleadersand

managersonanorganizationscultureappearstobeviewedasasecondaryfactorifan

influenceatalleventhoughcontrol,processesandstructureallhaveaninfluenceonan

organizationsculture.Analysisofthiswouldleadtheresearchertothinkthatperhapsthe

sourceofanorganizationscultureisacombinationofmultiplefactors,andthatthe

adoptionbymanyresearchersofanintegrationistperspectivehasblindedthemtothis.

Whileitcanbeacceptedthattheremaybeanespousedcultureinanorganizationthatis

dominant,differentleadersinanorganizationwillinherentlycreateaculturewithintheir

owndomainbasedontheirinterpretationoftheorganizationsculture,andontheirown

values,beliefsandassumptions.Anexplorationofhowaleaders’personalityaffectshis

teams’interpretationoforganizationalculturewouldcertainlybebeneficial.

Theframeworksofclassificationforcultureprovideresearcherswithausefulwayto

categorizecultures,butacriticalevaluationoftheseindicatesthattheseframeworksare

themselveslimiting.Culturalmanifestationsthatfalloutsidetheseframeworksarewontto

beignoredasnotpartoftheorganizationalculture.

Duetothefocusofthisresearch,thestanceofthispaperisthatculturalmanifestationsthat

arenoteasilycategorizedmayindicatethepresenceofasubculture.Whenlookingatthe

roleofsubcultureandhowitaffectstheadoptionofanewtechnology,thereislittleinthe

wayofresearch.Whilesomeresearchersacknowledgethatthepresenceofsubculturescan

hastenorslowdownadoption,thereisanabsenceofresearchintowhetheraparticular

subculturewillprecludetheadoptionofanewtechnologyentirely.Researchthathasbeen

doneindicatesthatsubculturesthataremostimpactedbyanewtechnologywillresistthe

change.Intheinstanceofcloudcomputingaquotefrom(SultanandvandeBunt-Kokhuis,

2012)papersurmiseswhatmaybeanissue.“themainchallengeisthatcompanieswillsee

theirITdepartmentsresistingthemovetothecloud&turkeysdon’tvoteforChristmas”.


4. ResearchMethodologyInascertainingthecorrectmethodologyfortheaimsandobjectiveshighlighted,reference

wasmadeofthemethodsemployedbypreviousresearchersinthefield.Inmostinstances

acasestudyapproachhasbeenused,within-depthinterviewsatalllevelsofan

organization(Jackson,2011,Cabreraetal.,2001).Interviewshavebeensemi-structuredin

previousstudiesinordertoprovideabreadthofdatafromtheinterviewees,withoutthe

researcherdirectingleadtheinterviewee.Thisallowsintervieweesanopportunityto

discussbehaviors,andbeliefsthatmaybehiddentotheresearcher.

Quantitativeresearchmethodsarebytheirnaturerestrictive,andnotconducivetothe

explorationofthetopic.Theclosedquestioningthroughwhichdataisgatheredusing

quantitativemethodsleadsinterviewees,andcanobfuscatedatathatmayprovideinsights

nothithertoconsideredbytheresearcher.

Duetotheexploratorynatureofthispaper,theresearcheradoptedaqualitativeapproach

baseduponthe‘groundedtheory’(Saunders,2012)method.Thisenabledtheresearcherto

allowintervieweestoleadthediscussion,providingongeneralthemesforthediscussion.

Bynotlimitingthequestioningto‘yes’and‘no’answers,theresearcherwasabletoachieve

agreaterbreadthofdatathancouldbeachievedusingquantitativemethods.Anoverview

ofthephasesofresearchispresentedintheappendices.


4.1ResearchApproachAshighlightedin(LeidnerandKayworth,2006)paper,thevolumeofresearchon

organizationalsubculturesislow.Thiscombinedwiththenatureofthedatasoughtleadto

theresearcherusingthe‘GroundedTheory’(Saunders,2012)approach.Theresearcher

soughttoidentifyanycommonpatternsorthemesfromthedataprovidedbydifferent

interviewees.Fromthisdatainsightwassoughttoreachconclusionsastothoseelements

thatmettheresearchobjectives.

TableIgivesanoverviewoftheresearchobjectives,withabreakdownofthespecific

questionsaddressedandthemethodthroughwhichdatawasgathered.Figure1givesan

overviewoftheresearchprocess,andFigure3thetimescalesplanned,andactual.

Theselectionofintervieweeswasdoneusingthesnowballresearchmethodology,with

differentintervieweesinformingtheresearcherofdifferentelementsintheirresearch.

Figure2providesanoverviewofthis.


TableI

ResearchObjective ResearchQuestion MethodToIdentifythecharacteristicsofsubculture

Howtoidentifysubculture? • SecondaryresearchofacademicliteratureWhatistheappropriateobserverperspective?

• Secondaryresearchofacademicliterature

WhatcharacteristicsarepresentinIT/ISsubculture?

• Semi-structuredinterviews

ExplorethesourcesofITsubculture

Whatinfluencesculture? • Secondaryresearchofacademicliterature• Interviews/Discussionswith

HR/OrganizationalDevelopmentpractitioners

Whatistheroleofleadersonculture?

• Secondaryresearchofacademicliterature• Semi-structuredInterview/Discussions

withHR/OrganizationalDevelopmentpractitioners

• Semi-structuredinterviewswithIT/ISprofessionals(tenured&non-tenured)

Whatistheroleofenvironmentonculture?

• Secondaryresearchofacademicliterature• Semi-structuredInterview/Discussions

withHR/OrganizationalDevelopmentpractitioners

• Semi-structuredinterviewswithIT/ISprofessionals(tenured&non-tenured)

ExplorationoftheimpactofIT/ISSubcultureonadoptionofcloudingcomputing

Whatistheimpactofpreviouslyidentifiedsubculturecharacteristicsonadoptionofcloudcomputing?

• DiscussionswithITChangeManagementProfessionals

• Semi-structuredinterviewswithITManagementprofessionals,tenured&non-tenured

HowdoescultureofIT/ISteamaffectadoptionofcloudcomputing?



Howdothevaluesofthesubcultureconstrainorassistintheadoptionofcloudcomputing?




Figure1

Figure2

Phase1:Identificationof

TargetOrganizations

• Sourcingofcompanyliterature• Personalnetworks• LinkedInresearch• Validationofofthemeswithindustryexperts(s)• Searchofreleventindustryandacademicliterature

Phase2:ThemeIdentification&

Validation

• DiscussionswithHR/Org.Dev.onthemes• Sourcingofindustryarticlesregardingidentifiedthemes.

Phase2:InterviewPlanning

• StructurePlanning• Approachintervieweesandarrangemeeting

Phase3:Sourcenew

Interviewees

• Blog&ForumcreationsolicitingexperiencesfromITprofessionals.• Approachmadetoindividualsratherthanorganizations.

Phase4:Interviews

• Discussionofidentiedthemes• Explorationofthemesandexperiencesofinterviewees.

Phase5:Analysis

• Analysisofinterviewdatatoidentifysubculturalcharacteristics• Analysisofinterviewdatawiththemes

Phase6:Relatefindingstoliterature

• Criticalexplorationofthemesinliterature&interviews

Phase7:Collatefindings&submit

• 1stdraftproofreadbysupervisor• Finaldraftsubmission

HR/OrgDevelopmentInterviews

• Focusedonidentifyingwhyorganizationsmightfeelreluctancetodiscusssubculture.

• Validatedthemesofresearch.

• Directedresearcher toITChangeManagersasa'bridgingrole'betweenIT&therestofanorganization.

ITChangeManagerInterviews

•GaveoverviewofstructureofmanyorganizationsITfunctions.HighlightedthatITfrequentlyhavetheirownculturalvaluesthatdifferfromtherestofthebusiness.

• ITvs.TheBusinesscultureresultofdifferentfocus.• ITfrequentlyundermanagementofCFO/FD,&notontheboard.ThisleadstoIThavingthefinanceculturalvalues'pushed'uponthem.Createsadversarialenvironment.

• SuggestedIfocusonindividualsnotorganizations.• SuggestedIlookatcontract&tenuredworkers.

ITManagementInterviews

• Selectedonwillingnesstotalkontheassumptionoftotalanonymity

• Allintervieweeshadaminimumof10yearsofexperience.

• Allintervieweeshadman-managementresponsibility.

• Cross-industryexperience•Havebeentenuredandnon-tenuredworkers.

Figure3

PERIODS05/10/2015 12/10/2015 19/10/2015 26/10/2015 02/11/2015 09/11/2015 16/11/2015 23/11/2015 30/11/2015 07/12/2015 14/12/2015 21/12/2015 28/12/2015 04/01/2016 11/01/2016 18/01/2016 25/01/2016

PLAN

ACTUAL

PLAN

ACTUAL

PLAN

ACTUAL

PLAN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

ACTUAL

PLAN

ACTUAL

PLAN

ACTUAL

PLAN

ACTUAL

PLAN

ACTUAL

Phase7

Phase8

Interviews

Analysis

Relatefindingstoliterature

Collatefindings&submit

PLANTIME

ACTUALTIME

Phase5

Phase6

IdentificationofOrganizations

ThemeIdentification&Validation

InterviewPlanning

SourceNewInterviewees

Phase1

Phase2

Phase3

Phase4

4.2SecondaryResearchSecondaryresearchwasfocusedonreadingacademicliterature,readingtheITindustry

presssuchasComputerWeekly,TechCrunch,andGartner,alongwithdiscussionswithIT

ChangeManagementprofessionals.Thepurposeofthiswastodevelopinsightintowhat

shouldbeconsideredtobeculturallyrelevant,howorganizationsidentified&managed

culture,andtoexplorethelevelofrelevancethatculturehasontheadoptionofcloud

computing.Thebreadthofliteraturereviewedwasextensive,andcanbefoundinthe

bibliography.

4.3PrimaryResearchInitialplanningwasforamini-casestudyof5organizations,selectedfromcontactswithin

theresearchers’personalnetwork,aswellasthosecontactsthatcouldbeintroducedusing

theresearcherspersonalnetworkusingthesnowballsamplingmethod.

Acasestudyapproachwasfelttobemoreappropriateduetotheuseofthismethodby

previousresearchersinthefield,(SultanandvandeBunt-Kokhuis,2012,Jackson,2011)

beingtwoofthemostrecent.

Othermethods,suchasquestionnairesandfocusgroupswereconsidered,howeverwere

felttobeinappropriatetothetask.Questionnaireswerefeltbytheresearchertobetoo

limiting,andconstraininginthedatatheywouldprovide,andwouldbynaturerestrictthe

dataprovidedbytheinterviewees.Focusgroupswerenotfeasibleprimarilydueto

logisticalchallenges.

InitiallyinterviewsweresoughtwithtenuredITprofessionalswithinselectedorganizations,

atamanagementandtenuredworkerlevel.Althoughinitialresponseswerepositive,each

oftheorganizationselectedtowithdrawfromtheresearchcitingschedulingconflicts.An

alternativewasforworkerstocontributeviaonlineforum,howeverthisalsoproved

unsuccessful.Discussionswithpractitionersinthefieldledtoalternativeinterviewees

beingsought.


4.3aCollectionMethodologySourcingofintervieweeswasasignificantchallenge.Initialattemptsfocusedonoutreachto

CIO’s,ITDirectors,&ITManagersintheresearcher’spersonalnetwork.Initially5candidate

organizationswereselected,withseniorITManagementagreeingtoparticipate.

Duetounforeseencircumstances,allintervieweescancelledwithinaweekofinterviews

commencing.Officiallythiswasduetotheneedsofthebusiness,however‘offtherecord’

conversationswithsomeoftheintervieweesrevealedthatthenatureoftheresearchwas

notsomethingthatseniormanagementwantedtoparticipatein.

Followingthis,analternativeplanwasconceivedutilizingsocialmediaandonlineforumsto

offerpotentialintervieweeswithaforumtodiscusstheissues.Despitepromotionviasocial

mediatools,thisprovedtobeunsuccessful.

Inordertogatherdata,theremitwasexpandedtoincludeUKbasedITcontractorswitha

minimumofsevenyears’experienceimplementingcloudcomputingtechnologyinUK

commercialorganizations.Thesewereidentifiedthroughconveniencesnowballsampling.

Intheendfourintervieweeswereidentified.

Toprovideexplanatoryandexploratoryinformation,semi-structureintervieweeswere

conductedoverthetelephone.

Theformatoftheinterviewswassemi-structured,withintervieweesnotifiedpriorofthe

themestobediscussedviaemail.Thisinterviewstructurewasselectedasitallowedthe

researchertorespondtoissuesthathadnotbeenanticipated,aswellastoevolvethe

natureofquestioningoverthecourseoftheinterviewstobuildonthedatafromeach

other.

4.3bDataAnalysisInanalyzingthedata,acodingapproachwasadoptedtoidentifythethemesdiscussedin

theresponsesofeachinterviewtothesamequestions.Asthiswasanexploratorypaper,

thethemesfocusedonwererelatingtotheresearchobjectives;theoriginofthesubculture,

&thecharacteristicsofsubculture.


4.3cLimitations(Jackson,2011)statesthat“cultureisdifficulttostudy,partlybecauseitisnotaneasy

concepttodefine”.Thestrengthofthisstatementwashighlightedtotheresearcherwhen

itcametoconductingtheprimaryresearch.

Initiallyacombinationofacasestudyapproachaswellassemistructuredinterviewswere

tobeused,withtenuredstafffromanumberoflevelswithanorganizationsITfunction

beinginterviewed.Thecasestudyapproachwasconsideredmostbeneficialasitwould

allowtheresearchertodevelopanin-depthunderstandingofthedominant,&espoused

organizationalcultures,aswellasexplorethepresenceofsubcultureswithinthe

organizations.Unfortunately,eventsconspiredtopreventthisapproachfrombeing

enacted.

Followingthewithdrawalfromtheresearchofthetenuredinterviewees,thealternative

wastointerviewcontractors,whobytheirnatureareoutsideanorganizationsculture.

Furthermore,asnon-tenuredworkers,contractorsdonothavethevestedinterestsheldby

tenuredworkers,itwashypothesizedthattheymaybeabletoofferinsightsinamoreopen

manner.However,oneofthelimitationsisthattheymaynotalwaysbewithinan

organizationforsufficienttimetodevelopanunderstandingoftheorganizationscultural

dynamic.

Afurtherlimitationisthesmallsamplesize.Inanideaworldalargersamplewouldhave

beenused,howeverwiththeresearcherhavinglimitedtimeandresources,andhaving

attemptedtogatherdatathroughamultitudeofmethods,theresearcherhadtoworkwith

whatwasavailable.

Inanidealscenario,acasestudyapproachwouldhavebeenusedallowinginterviewsto

takeplaceacrossanorganizationsworkforce,atalllevelsoftheorganization,withatleast5

organizationstakingpart.Thiswouldprovidemoreinsightfuldatawithregardstothe

presenceofsubcultures,aswellasmoredatathatmayhelpidentifythesourceof

subculturesandtheirimpactovertime.


4.3dEthicalConsiderationsDuetothesensitivityofthethemesdiscussed,alloftheintervieweeshaveaskedthatthey

beanonymized.Furthermore,theyhavealsoaskedthatthenamesoftheorganizations

theyhaveworkedforberedacted,alongwithanyotherpersonallyidentifiableinformation.

4.4Validity&ReliabilityThedataproducedfromtheinterviewsiscomprisedofkeystatementsmadebythe

interviewees.Alloftheintervieweeswereaskedthesamethreequestions,toensure

consistencyacrossallinterviews.Asalloftheintervieweeswereofasimilarexperienceand

managementlevel,withexperienceoftenuredandnon-tenuredITrolesinUKbusinesses,

thedataisvalidforthepurposesofthispaper.Shouldthesameresearchbeconducted

withtheinterviewees,similardatawouldbegatheredatthetimeoftheinterviews.

However,asacultureandperceptionchangesovertimethiswouldchangeinduecourse.

Thereliabilityofthedatamaybequestionedduetothelackofrecordingoftheinterviews

themselves,aswellasthelackofasecondaryobserver.Furthermore,eachofthe

intervieweeswasknowntotheresearcher,whichmayhaveledthemtodiscusselements

thatperhapswouldnotbediscussedwithothers.

5. FindingsWiththeinterviewsbeingsemi-structuredinnature,thequestionsaskedwerebroadin

nature,withtheintervieweesthenbeingallowedtobroadlydictatethedirectionofthe

interview.Theroleoftheinterviewerwasprimarilytoprobe&clarifywithinthe

boundariesidentified.

Thecodingchartusedtoidentifythekeythemesisfoundwithintheappendix.

Therewereanumberofthemesthatwereprevalentacrossalloftheinterviews,particularly

focusedonhowITculturehasevolvedoverthecourseoftheintervieweescareers.The

mainpointswere:

• FearisastrongelementinmanyITsubcultures.

• ITculturehasundergone,andcontinuingtoundergosignificantchange.


• OriginofITsubculturearearesultoforganizationalculturalchanges.

Throughthecourseofdiscussionswiththeinterviewees,acommonthemewasthatin

manyorganizationsIThasalwayshadaseparatesubculture,differenttoanyotherpartsof

anorganization.ItwastheviewoftheintervieweesthathistoricallyITwasregardedin

manyorganizationsas’Important,they’rethewizardsinthebasement’andaslongastheIT

systemsofanorganizationfunctionedwhentheyweresupposedto,theywerealmost

beyondreproach.ITprofessionalsweren’theldtothesamestandardsofbusinesspractice

asperhapsotherdepartments,suchassales,marketing,andfinance.Productivity

optimization,RoI,TCO,&customerservice,wereconceptsthatwerenotheldasrelevantto

theITdepartment.SolongastheITsystemsworked,andprovidedtherestofthe

organizationwithwhattheyneeded.Budgetsweregenerous,withITfrequentlyableto

accessresourcestoimproveinfrastructurewiththevaguestofbusinesscases.IT

departmentsweredescribedbyallintervieweesasbeinghomogeneous&collaborativein

nature,witheachpersonpitchinginwheretheycould,bringingtheirskillstobearwhere

required,andlearningnewonesastheywent.

ITworkersweregenerallytenuredprofessionalslikemostotherfunctions,andwere

focusedonprovidingthebestITsystemstheycould.Asoneinterviewerexpressed“there

wasasenseofmagic,andwewerediscoveringnewwaysofdoingthingsallthetime”.The

subcultureoftheITteamwascharacterizedbyanembracingofchange.Newtechnologies

wereemergingfrequently,andITworkerswereusedtolearningandadaptingasthe

opportunitypresenteditself.Theneedsoftheorganizationwereparamount,theSysAdmin

thatworkedallnighttorestorepayrolldatathedaybeforeemployeeschequesweresent

outwasa‘wizard’ofthehighestorder,andaherotohiscolleagues.

Whiletheintervieweesmayhavebeenreminiscingwith‘rosetintedglasses’,thepointthey

wereseekingtomakeisclear.TheInformationTechnology/InformationSystems(IT/IS)

workersinorganizationshaveahistoryofformingasubculturewithintheirparent

organizations.ITworkerswereinfluential,andheldinawebytherestoftheorganization.


Itiswiththispointofreferencethatdiscussionswiththeintervieweeshighlighteda

significantchangeinthissubcultureinmorerecentyears,awayfromwhatwasintheirview

ahighlycollaborative,technocratic,innovativeandforwardthinkingsubculture.

Anumberofcommentsweremadeduringtheinterviewsthathighlightthechangeinhow

IT/ISdepartmentsareviewedinorganizationstodaywhencomparedtothesubcultureofIT

functionsinthepast.

‘We’rejustacost-center,wedon’tdriverevenueandsohavetojustifyourexistencebecause

there’stheimpliedthreatwe’llbeoutsourced,offshored,ormaderedundant.”Another

comment‘IThasbecomeverycustomerservicefocused.Icanteachthetechnicalbit,people

skillsarethemostimportant’,andfinally“we’rejustanothercoginthemachine”.

AllthesealludetothedeathofITsubculture,yetIT&Businessleadersstilltalkabouta

culturaldisconnectbetweenIT&therestofanorganization,withITleadersstillgettingto

gripswithhowtoevenspeakthesamelanguageasthebusiness

(http://www.computerworlduk.com/it-leadership/tips-for-speaking-like-business-strategist-

3501211/).WhichleadsonetoquestionwhetherITsubculturehasreallydiedasthe

intervieweesallude,ornot.


6. DiscussionThepurposeofthispaperwastoexplorethesourcesofsubcultureswithinanorganizations

ITfunction,andtheimpactthesesubcultureshaveontheabilityofanorganizationtoadopt

newtechnologies,specificallycloudcomputing.

6.1CharacteristicsofITSubcultureExplorationofwhatconstitutesasubcultureisnecessarybeforeexploringthesource.

(Clarke,1974)definedsubculturesthroughacombinationoffactorsalreadyexplained

earlierinthisdocument.Hisdefinitionofasubculturewasthatofa“distinctsegmentofa

culturalgrouping,thatmaysharesomeofthevaluesofthedominantculture,butalso

evidenceitsown(competing&complimentary)”.

Acommonthemetoinalloftheinterviewswasthatbusinessvalues,andbehaviorshad

beenforceduponITdepartments.Inthelast10yearstheimplementationofITSM

practiceshaveintroducedprocessesakintothosefoundinotherfunctionsofan

organization.TCO&RoIoncetheconcernoffinanceprofessionalsarenowconsiderations

foranyIT/ISproject.Customerservice,oncethefocusofsalesdepartmentshasbecome

thefocusformanyITsupportteams.

Commentsmadebyintervieweesalludetothesebehaviors&valuesbeingpushedontoIT

departments.ITsupportworkersarenow‘customerfocused’,andarerequiredtohavea

“callcentermentality”.ThishasinturnaffectedwhatskillsarefelttobeofvaluetoanIT

function.Whereasinthepasta‘technocraticmeritocracy’iswhatisrecalledbyatleastone

interviewee,thefocuson‘softskills’hasledtoachangeinthetypeofworkerthatinhabits

thisneworganization.Technicalknowledgeisnolongerasvalued,asonemanager

explained“technicalskillscanbetaught,customerserviceandpeopleskillsarewhatIhire

for”.Thisculturalshiftinemphasisfromtechnicaltosoftskillsisrepresentativeofhowthe

culturalvaluesofbusinesshavecometodominateITdepartmentsintheexperienceofthe

interviewees.Sodoesthismeanthatthetechnocracycultureofoldhasbeenneutered?


Quitethecontraryisarguedbysome.Acharacteristicofasuccessfulorganizationcanbe

saidtobethatithasfoundawaytobuildbridgesbetweensubcultures,toweavetheminto

theorganizationasawhole.(Peters,2004)

Whilemanyorganizationshaveassertedtheculturaldominanceoftheorganizationover

theITsubculture,discussionswiththeintervieweesalludetoITculturestillbeingdistinct,

havingnotbeenkilled,butmerelyadapted.Whenyouconsiderthatthesubculture

describedbytheintervieweesatearlierstagesoftheircareerwasconsideredtobemore

adaptablethanthatofthelargerorganization,alongwiththeviewofPetersthatsuccessful

organizationsbringsubculturestogetheritisfeasiblethatthesubcultureofITteamstoday

incorporatestheculturalvaluesofthebusinessandtheoldtechnocracy.

AlloftheintervieweesagreedthatthereisanITsubcultureinmostorganizationstoday,but

differsfromthesubcultureexperiencedwhentheybegantheircareers.

ITsubcultureshaveintheintervieweesmindcometosharemanyofthevaluesofother

businessfunctions,suchascostefficiency,processmanagement,customerservice,task

specialization,andcontrol.Inthewordsofoneinterviewee“costcutting&opsefficiency

arethefocus,alongwithcontrol”.SowithITculturenowseemingtoincorporatethevalues

ofthelargerorganizationthefocusneedstobeonthosebehaviorswhichmayidentify

thosevaluesthataredivergentfromthewhatisviewedasthedominantcultureof

businessesbytheinterviewees.

Oneofthemostvisiblecharacteristicsaccordingtooneintervieweeisthechangeinhow

knowledgeissharedinmanyITdepartments.Whiletheabsorptionofproductivityvalues

hasledtoskillspecialization(alongwiththerapidexpansionoftechnologies),ITteamshave

becomeprotectiveaboutsharingtheirknowledgeoutsidetheirimmediateteam.This

‘guardingofknowledge’behaviorismostvisibleinthehierarchywithinmanyIT

departments,withtheservicedeskatthebottom,andtheotherteamsaboveaccordingto

theleveloftechnicalknowledgetheyareperceivedtohave.Astheintervieweephrasedit,

“DesktopsupportlookuptoServersupport”.Thisisfurtherreinforcedbythecommentsof

anotherinterviewee,that“Servicedesktendtohavelotsofenthusiasmbutknownothing”.


Thishierarchybetweenteamshasfurtherexasperatedwhatoneintervieweecalledthe

‘siloing’ofknowledge,andleadstoanimositybetweenteams.Astheworkersineachteam

don’tsharetheirknowledge,eachteamspeaksitsownlanguageandhasitsownsetof

assumptionsaboutwhattheotherteamsdo.

Whiletheculturesattitudetowardsthesharingofknowledgechanged,thevalueplacedon

technicalknowledgeremainshigh.Oneintervieweeexpandedonthisbycommentingthat

whiletechnicalknowledgeisvalued,andcanearntherespectofothersintheITteam,often

themoreknowledgeablemembersoftheteamcanbearrogant,andpossessiveoverthat

knowledge.

AnothercharacteristicofITsubcultureistheapparentchangeinthetermsofemployment

formanyworkers.Alloftheintervieweescommentedontheshiftfromtenuredtonon-

tenuredworkersinmanyorganizationsintheirexperience,andtheeffectthatthishashad

ontheculturewithinITdepartmentstheyhaveworkedin.(Jackson,2011)alludedtoa

differenceinthevaluesandattitudesbetweentenuredandnon-tenuredworkers,with

tenuredworkers’aptitudeandmotivationdecreasingovertimewhencomparedtonon-

tenuredworkers.Whenthispointwasraisedwiththeinterviewees,therewasbroad

agreementthattenuredstafftendedtobemoreresistanttochange.Oneinterviewee

statedthatsometimestenuredworkersseektomakethemselvesindispensabletothe

organizationbynotsharingtheirknowledge,soprotectingthemselvesintheirviewfrom

redundancy&othercostcuttingmeasures.Itwasagreedbythemajorityofthe

intervieweesthatnon-tenuredworkershoweverwerebetterabletoadapt,andinfactwere

ofteninstrumentalinthedeploymentofnewtechnologies.Theywerehappytosharetheir

knowledgeinmostinstances,andsoughttoleadtechnologicalimprovement.

OneofthekeycharacteristicsofITculturetodayintheviewoftheintervieweesistheIT

teamsfocusonserviceprovisiontothewiderorganization.Intheexperienceofthe

intervieweesoneofthekeyvaluesofcurrentITsubcultureisinthevalueof‘customer

service’.ThevaluepermeatessodeeplyinsomeorganizationsthatITdepartmentsare

fearfulofsayingnotothebusiness.AstheparentorganizationdemandsmoreoftheIT

function,theITteamsarefearfulofsayingnoduetowhatoneoftheintervieweesreferred


toastheimplied‘threatofredundancy,offshoring,oroutsourcing’ifthebusinessdoesn’t

getwhatitwants.IntheviewofoneintervieweethisleadstoITteamsagreeingtodeliver

whatisimpossibletodoso.

Fearappearstobeacharacteristicthatwasfrequentlyraisedbytheinterviewees.ITteams

havedevelopedafearoffailureasthereisabeliefthatthismayleadtotheirbeing

outsourced/offshored/redundancy.There’safearofsharingknowledge,asthiscanlead

makingindividuals,andeventeamsbeingreplaced.There’safearofchange,asthisalso

canleadtothesameaforementionedactions.Inthewordsofoneinterviewee“ITteams

havebecomeriskaverse”.

Fromthediscussionswiththeintervieweesitisclearthattheviewpresentedby(Clarke,

1974)hassomevalidity.Thevaluesoftheparentorganization(s)ofeachofthe

intervieweeshavebecomepartoftheITsubculture,therearesomevalueswhichdiffer.In

theinstancesdiscussedwiththeinterviewees,thedifferencesfrommanyorganizations

appeartobe:

• Knowledgeoftechnologyisheldinhighregard.

• Risksaresomethingtobeavoided.

• Knowledgeistobeguarded.

• Fearisasignificantelementoftheculture;fearof

outsourcing/offshoring/redundancy.

6.2SourcesofSubcultureIdentifyingthesourceofasubcultureprovidesanopportunitytomoldit.Iforganizations

canunderstandwhereasubculturecomesfrom,theycantakeactiontomanageitbetter,

oreventoabsorbthesubculturesvaluesintothedominantorganizationalculture.

Identifyingthesourceofasubculturepresentsachallengeinthisresearchduetothe

singularaccesstoorganizations,thebiasoftheinterviewees,aswellastheshorttime

frameoverwhichthisresearchwascarriedout.

Accordingto(Jackson,2011)thegreatestinfluenceonorganizationalcultureisthebusiness

environmentinwhichtheorganizationoperates.Ifthelogicbehindthisviewweretobe


extrapolated,intheviewofthisresearcheritwouldbefairtoconcludethatasubculture’s

greatestinfluenceisthedominantcultureitisderivedfrom.Intheinstanceofthisresearch

thegreatestinfluenceonITsubculturewithinanorganizationisthevalues&cultural

dynamicoftheparentorganization.Commentsmadebytheintervieweesappearto

reinforcethisview.Allintervieweesmadecommentsalludingtothefocusonthevaluesof

cost-effectiveness,&operationalefficiencybeingasignificantinfluenceonITculture,along

withthesometimeshighproportionofnon-tenuredworkerswithinmanyITdepartments.

ThesefactorsareexternaltotheITdepartment,butappeartohaveaprofoundimpacton

theculturewithinthisoftenimportantfunctionofanorganization.Fromtheinterviewsit

wouldbereasonabletointerpretfromthecommentsthattheITsubculturehasthe

characteristicsitdoesasaresultoftheenvironmentinwhichitoperates,namelythelarger

organization.Non-tenuredworkersareoftencharacterizedasbeingmercenary,theirfocus

beingonthetaskathand,anddon’thaveavestedinterestintheorganizationtheyare

workingwithin.Asaresult,theymaybepartlyresponsibleforthedifferencesinculture,

andmorethanoneintervieweealludedtothis.

Greaterdepthmustbesought,fortheenvironmentmayindeedbethemoresignificant

influence,butthevaluesandattitudesofanyorganizationareembodiedinits’sleaders.

(Schein,2006,Deal,2000)makesitclearthatinhisviewleadersaretheresponsiblefor

creatingaculture,astheyaretheonesthatrewardcertainbehaviors,andpunishothers.If

ITsubcultureispossessedoftheaforementionedcharacteristics,thensurelytheleadersare

partlyresponsible?Theyhaverewardedself-protectionistbehaviorthathasledtothenon-

diffusionofknowledgeacrossteamdisciplines.Thosesameleadershaveallowedthe

organizationalfocusonefficiencyandservicetocreateacultureoffearintheir

organizations.Themotivationforallowingsuchaculturetocometopassisbeyondthe

scopeofthispaper,butitcertainlyappearstobecountertothepurposeofthosevaluesin

mostorganizations.

Baseduponthedatagainedfromtheinterviews,itisclearthatfearhasbeenthesingle

greatestinfluenceonthesubcultureofITdepartmentsintheirexperience.Fearofbeing

unemployedthroughavarietyofways,appearstohavemadeITdepartmentsinwardfacing,

seekingtomaintainthestatusquo,resistingchange.Oneinterviewmadeacommentthat


perhapsisinsightfulintohowleadershaveshapedthisculture“therearemanyinITthat

havebeenherealongtime,andcan’tkeepup.Theyneedtogodosomethingelse”.

PerhapsITleadershavethemselvesfueledworkersfearoffailure,socreatingabarrierto

change.

6.3ImpactofSubcultureontheadoptionofcloudcomputing?Understandinghowtheenvironmentandtoalesserdegreeitsleadersinfluencesa

subcultureisvaluableinunderstandingwhatimpactitmayhaveonanorganizationasa

whole.OneareathatITdepartmentscouldberegardedasbeingattheheartofisinan

organizationswillingnessandabilitytoadoptcloudcomputing.

Cloudcomputingisregardediscurrentlyoneofthe‘hottechnologies’formany

organizations,asalreadystatedatthebeginningofthispaper.Fororganizationstoutilize

thistechnology,itisrequiredforknowledgefrommultipletechnicaldisciplinesto

collaboratetogetherwithaclearvisionofwhatbenefitthetechnologywillbringtothe

organization,andtotheITdepartment.Aswithanynewtechnology,acertainelementof

riskisinvolved.Likeallnewtechnologies,oncetheriskisunderstoodthenitcanbe

mitigatedandmanaged.

IndeterminingtheeffectofITsubcultureonanorganizationsabilitytoadoptthenew

technology,considerationoughttobegiventotheviewsof(Yazici,2009)whopositedthat

culturehasasignificantinfluenceonprojectperformanceandthelongtermsuccessofany

organization.Theindividualsinterviewedalludedtothefactthatintheiropinionthe

subcultureofITdepartmentshadasignificanteffect.Intheopinionofanumberofthe

attendeesthereasonforprojectfailurewasoftenthecultureoftheITdepartment.Thisis

inlinewiththefindingsofanotherresearcher,(SultanandvandeBunt-Kokhuis,2012)who

statedthatculturecanbeagreatenablerforanorganization,butcanalsocreatecultural

inertia.

Inanenvironmentsuchasthatwhichhasbeendescribedbytheinterviewees,thelackof

cross-disciplinecommunication,&knowledgesharingwouldprovetobeasignificant

challengetoanorganizationseekingtoadoptcloudcomputing.ForanITdepartmentthat


hasthesubculturedescribed,theverynatureofcloudcomputingtechnologywouldbea

perceivedasathreattotheworker’stenure.Cloudcomputingisbydefinitionelastic,

allowingorganizationstoexpandandcontracttheirITinfrastructureatwill,astheneedsof

theorganizationchange.

Inasubculturethatisalreadyfearfulduetothepushingofwiderorganizationalcultural

valuesofprocessandcostefficiency,thefearofchangeisdeeplyembedded.FormanyIT

workers,changemeansredundancyandunemployment.Knowledgeofexistingsystemsis

perceivedasoneofthefewmethodsfortheseworkerstopreservetheirtenure.Theycan’t

preventorganizationsfromadoptingcloudcomputing,buttheyslowitdown.Toborrowa

quotefrom(SultanandvandeBunt-Kokhuis,2012)“turkeysdon’tvoteforChristmas”.


7. ConclusionTheresearchobjectivesareoutlinedbelow,aswellashighlightinghowthisresearchas

soughttomeetthem.

Objective1:Interviewdataappearstohighlightthatfearisadominantcharacteristicinthe

experienceoftheinterviewees.Self-protectionistbehavioralsoappearstobethenew

normal,withmanyindividualworkersseekingtorefrainfromknowledgesharing.The

intervieweesalsoalludedthatIThasbecomemorehierarchical.

Objective2:ThedataleadstheresearchertoconcludethatthesourceofthecurrentIT

subcultureisexternaltotheITfunction,andtosomeextenttotheorganizationasawhole.

Objective3:ThecultureoffearinmanyITfunctionsleadstoalackofcollaborationacross

disciplines,andknowledgesharing.Additionally,ITarebeingpushedtobecomeaservice

provisionaryratherthanprovider,whichhasledtoresistancetothischange.

7.1LimitationsoftheResearchAlimitationofthispaperisthesmallsamplesize,andthefactthatallintervieweeswere

themselvesITmanagementprofessionals.Unexpectedissuesaroseinthesourcingof

suitableinterviewcandidates,asalmostallwerereluctanttogo‘ontherecord’withtheir

commentsduetoconcernsofhowitmayaffecttheiremployment.Theobjectivesofthe

researchcouldbeviewedasbeingbroad,yetwhenconsideredinlightofthelackofother

researchintoorganizationalsubcultures,andthelackofdataavailableinthisfielditserves

asastartingpointforfurtherresearch.

7.2ImplicationsoftheresearchformanagersFromtheaccountsoftheinterviewees,ITworkersarescared,fearfulofsharingtoomuch

informationwithoneanotherlesttheotherpersongainssufficientknowledgethatthey’re

nolongerrequired.Furthermore,ITsupportteamswithinthesedepartmentsappearto

havebeenreducedtocustomerservicerepresentatives,requiredtokeepthecustomer

happyandgivethemwhattheywant,nomatterhowdubiousthedemand.Inthemidstof


thisITdepartmentsareconsistentlybeingrequiredtojustifythemselves,bydemonstrating

theircost-effectiveness,processefficiencyandincreasedproductivity.

IfITdepartmentsaretrulyasfearfulasthedatasuggests,seniormanagersneedtoconsider

thewayforward.ITculturehaschangedfromafocalpointfordynamicinnovation,and

improvementtoanorganization,tobeingfearfulofthenextchange,thenextbudgetcut,

thenextrestructuring.ITworkerslovetechnology,butratherthanembracingchangeand

seekingtoinnovateabusinesswithtechnologyareinsteadhoardingtheirknowledge.

Oneapproachmightbetoestablishhowtheorganizationvaluesareimpartedtodifferent

functionsacrossabusiness,notjustIT.AnothermightbetoconsiderwhatvaluetheIT

functionwouldprovidetotheorganization,andthenassessifthecultureofthe

organization,theleaders,andtheexistingworkersisinalignment.

7.3ImplicationsforscholarsandfutureresearchThispapervalidatespreviousworkthatsubculturesdoexistinorganizations.More

importantlytheresearchshedssomelightonwheresubculturesoriginate,andthe

implicationstheyhaveforanorganization.Researchintothisfieldneedstocontinue,as

thereisashortageofcasestudiesandotherresearchspecificallyonsubculturewithin

organizations.Muchoftheresearchintoorganizationalculturetakesanintegrationist

perspective,ignoringthepresenceofsubculturesbutoverthecourseofthisstudyaclear

subculturehasbeenidentified.

Thepromotionofnon-ITvaluesintoITfunctionshasclearlyhadaneffectonthefunctionin

someorganizations,andfurtherresearchiswarrantedintounderstandingwheretheother

valuesoriginate.TheintervieweesmentionedthatfrequentlytheITfunctionisnot

representedatboardlevel,andisoftensubservienttotheCFO/FDpositionholder.

Certainlythevaluesofcostefficiency,andprocessefficiencyseemtobeperceivedbysome

tooriginatewithinthefinancefunctionofmanyorganizations.Furtherresearchintothe

sourceoforganizationalcultureiscertainlymerited,aswellashowthatculturediffuses

withintheorganization.


7.4ReflectiononlearningThisstudyhasprovidedmewithaninsightintohowcultureaffectsanorganization,aswell

asthepowerofcultureininfluencinganorganizationssuccessorfailure.Ibeganthis

researchinitiallywithaviewtoidentifyingthe‘perfectculture’thatwouldallowevery

organizationtosuccessfullyadoptcloudcomputing,oranyothertechnology.InthisIwasa

consummatefailure.Cultureisn’tsomethingthatcanbecreated,managed,orbuilt.Itis

somethingthatanorganizationhas,asaresultofthepeoplethatmakeuptheorganization

andthesocio-economicenvironmentinwhichitoperates.

Anorganizationscultureisanamalgamationofthevalues,beliefsandassumptionsofevery

memberofthatorganization,ateverylevelofmanagement.Understandingculture

providesaninsightintounderstandinghowalloftheseinterconnect,overlap,andconflict.

Itprovidesleadersandmanagerswithafocusforcreatingrelationships,andunderstanding

people.It’spartofeverythingacompanydoes,andmayevenbewhyitdoesthingsa

certainway.It’snotsomethingthatcanbemandated,ormanaged.It’spartofthefirm,

andisfromallofthepeoplewithinit.


Appendix1DatacodingInterviewee Statement Theme

C

Drivingcharacteristicisa‘cost-centre’’theydon’tdriverevenue.Createsacultureof‘justification’. Values

Focusonprovingtheirreasonforexistence. FearITManagement–Directivetovalidateactivity(scientificmanagementfocus) Fear

Toolsfocused,tickedsystems;wanttoproveefficiency. FearITmustsupportitself,workforcemusthavetoolsitneedstowork Values

Reversalto10yearsago=ITregardedasimportant"wizardsinthebasement",don'tcareaboutwhatitcosts. Values

ITnowregardedas'necessaryevil' FearAsusershavebecomemoretechknowledgable,'awe'ofIThasdisappeared Fear

Dev'srequiredtoproduce'something'alwayshaveexcusesfornot. Fear

QA'swillbehungouttodryif'polishedproduct'notshipped Fear

Supportpersonnelona'timer'fortheiractivity. FearDev'saremostclannishvs.others,tendtobeintroverts. ValuesQA'stendtobemorediversepersonalities,notnecessarilycollaborative. Values

QA'stendtobe'nutsandbolts'engineers,mindetofanM&Eengineer.

ValuesSupport-'ForgottenChildren';mostabusedofITstaff.Alwaysthreatenedbybusinesswithoffshoring/outsourcing=cultureoffear. FearIncompanieswhere'ITistheirbusiness'thereisno'drivingadoption',it'smandatedbymanagement.Notneededbecauseusersaretechcomfortable. ValuesDevteamshatechange;pushbackastheyoftenfeelthreatened,andcomplains. FearQA'stendtobeapathetic. Supportpeopletendtobescaredtocomplain,especiallyinnon-techcompanies. FearMakesthemveryriskaverse. FearEnvironmentcreatestheleader;theleadercreatestheculture. Origin

InmostorganizationswhereITisn'tthebusiness,ITisblamedforfailuresinthebusiness,butnotrecognisedforbenefits.

Fear


Wherethereisanegativeperceptionofsupportfunctionsingeneral,includesIT.BecauseofnegativeperceptionITconstantlyfocusedon'hyper-justifyingthemselves'. FearImpactonnewtechadoptionisthatprojectsoftenfail. FearProjectsaren'tperceivedsuccessful,merely'concluded'. Fear

M1

ITlovesnewtechnologyandgadgets;fearlessofchange. ValuesNotinterestedinnewapplicationswhichtheydon'tseethelongtermbenefitfrom. ValuesITareforwardthinking,heldbackbybudgetconstraints. ValuesProjectdriven ValuesLongtermtenuredstaddaremoreresistanttonewtechnologies,juniorstaffaremorefocussedonimprovements. FearITcultureisvery'customerservice'focused. ValuesTechskillscanbetaught,softskillsmostimportant.There'sacallcentrementality. ValuesCulturecomesfromthecompany,nottheteam.Inlargercompaniesyou'reacoginthemachine. OriginHighvolumeofcontractorsleadstoimprovredchangeadoption. ValuesFeartosaynotobusiness. FearITagreeingtodoimpossible. FearIToftenignored. FearTechknow-howisvaluedinIT,butbreedsarrogance. ValuesFearoffailure;failuretodeliverleadstocostcutting/offshoring/outsourcing. FearIThasbecometheunifyingforcein'group'companies.Highlycollaborativewithotherelementsofthefirm. OriginITculturecomesfromleaders,behaviorofleadershasarippleeffect. OriginLeardersareveryinstrumentaltoteamculture. OriginFearoffailurecomesfromthe'business'. Values

X

Culturehaschangedfrom'giftedamateurs'toServiceDelivery;costcutting&opsefficiencyarefocusofculture&control. ValuesBusinesspracticesarestronglyembedded. Values

ITisviewedasthe'fix-it'guys,likeplumbersandelectricians.Values

Cultureofbeingalwaysavailable;keepthingsworking. Fear3rdlineteamabletodowhattheywant;they'reveryresistanttochange. FearDesktopsupportlookuptoserversupport. ValuesITisturningintoamoreServiceDeliveryapproach. ValuesSomeanimositybetweenteams;elitismofsomeskillsetsvsothers. Fear


HierarchybetweenITteamswithinITfunction;alongwithsiloingofknowledge. FearCultureofteamsisdictatedbyorganizationalculture;divisionbytechnology. ValuesWhereresourcesarescare,teamsdevelopadversarialculturetowardsotherteams. FearFearofredundancycreatesanimosity;cultureis'self-protectionism';oftenbycontrollingknowledgeshare. FearPeopletrytomakethemselvesindispensabletopreventthemselvesbeingmaderedundant. FearITILprincipleshavebeenextendedfromhardwaretopeople/skillsinITfunction. ValuesCustomerserviceisnowthebiggestvaluefocus.Softskillsbehaviorvaluedmorethantechskills.Techskillscanbetaught. ValuesLeadershipisgenerallyhierarchicial.Valuesaredemonstratedbyleaders,buttheycomefromtheteam. IToftenviewedaspartofthe'GreatUnwashed'.

M2

ITwasverycollaborative,nowadaysspecialismofknowledgepreventscollaboration ValuesDesiretominimisetenuredworkers&relyontransientworkersleadstopoorteammeshing,andalackofknowledgeretention. FearCross-disciplineassumptionsforeachdisciplinewithoutabilitytotocommunicateassumptionsduetolackoflanguageofothers. ValuesITareveryresistanttochange,inparticularroles. FearFousonserviceisagoodthing;knowledgetransferisagoodthing,butdoesn'thappen. ValuesITfocusonspecialization&costefficiencyisresultoffocusonbusinesspushingandshifttocostcentrementality. ValuesSelf-protectionismleadstohightranscienceofstaffastechnologymakespeopleredundant. FearCIO/CEOdon'tarticulatetoITtheBusinessStrategy,thisleadstoreactiveITbehavior. FearCulturecan'tbeimposedinashorttime(undertenyears)byleaders. ValuesBestteams&culturesarethosewithbestcommunication&leadership,Understandhowtheybenefittheorganizationasawhole. Values

Overlystrong,andcohesiveteamscanbeabarriertochange.Values


References

Belassi,W.etal.(2007).Newproductdevelopmentprojects:Theeffectsoforganizationalculture.ProjectManagementJournal.38(4),12-24.

Bower,M.(1966).Thewilltomanage.McGraw-Hill.

Brown,A.D.(1998).Organisationalculture.2nded.ed.London:London:Pitman.

Cabrera,Áetal.(2001).Thekeyroleoforganizationalcultureinamulti-systemviewoftechnology-drivenchange.InternationalJournalofInformationManagement.21(3),245-261.

Clarke,M.(1974).Ontheconceptof'sub-culture'.BritishJournalofSociology.428-441.

Dalcher,D.andGenus,A.(2003).Introduction:AvoidingIS/ITimplementationfailure.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement.15(4),403-407.

Deal,T.E.(2000).Corporatecultures:theritesandritualsofcorporatelife.[Rev.ed.,withnewintrod.]ed.Cambridge,Mass.:Cambridge,Mass.:Perseus.

Fine,G.A.andKleinman,S.(1979).Rethinkingsubculture:Aninteractionistanalysis.AmericanJournalofSociology.1-20.

Goffee,R.andJones,G.(1996).Whatholdsthemoderncompanytogether?HarvardBusinessReview.74(6),133-&.

Gregory,K.L.(1983).Native-viewparadigms:Multipleculturesandcultureconflictsinorganizations.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly.359-376.

Handy,C.(1993).Understandingorganizations.PenguinUK.

Hoffman,N.andKlepper,R.(2000).Assimilatingnewtechnologies:Theroleoforganizationalculture.InformationSystemsManagement.17(3),.

Hofstede,G.andSanders,G.(1990).StudyacrossTwenty.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly.

35286-316.

Hofstede,G.H.(2005).Culturesandorganizations:softwareofthemind.[Rev.andexpanded2nded.]ed.NewYork:London:NewYork:London:McGraw-Hill.

Jackson,S.(2011).Organizationalcultureandinformationsystemsadoption:Athree-perspectiveapproach.InformationandOrganization.21(2),57-83.

Johnson,G.(2008).Exploringcorporatestrategy.8thed.ed.Harlow:Harlow:PearsonEducation.


Leidner,D.E.andKayworth,T.(2006).Review:areviewofcultureininformationsystemsresearch:towardatheoryofinformationtechnologycultureconflict.MISQuarterly.30(2),357-399.

Martin,J.andSiehl,C.(1983).Organizationalcultureandcounterculture:Anuneasysymbiosis.OrganizationalDynamics.12(2),52-64.

Martin,J.(2002a).Organizationalculture:mappingtheterrain.London:London:SagePublications.

Martin,J.(2002b).Organizationalculture:mappingtheterrain.London:London:SagePublications.

Peters,T.J.(2004).Insearchofexcellence:lessonsfromAmerica'sbest-runcompanies.

London:London:Profile.

Saunders,M.,1959-(2012).Researchmethodsforbusinessstudents.6thed.ed.Harlow:Harlow:Pearson.

Schein,E.H.(2006).Organizationalcultureandleadership.JohnWiley&Sons.

Smircich,L.(1983).ConceptsofCultureandOrganizationalAnalysis.AdministrativeScience

Quarterly.28339-358.

Sultan,N.andvandeBunt-Kokhuis,S.(2012).Organisationalcultureandcloudcomputing:copingwithadisruptiveinnovation.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement.24(2),167-179.

Trice,H.M.andBeyer,J.M.(1993).Theculturesofworkorganizations.Prentice-Hall,Inc.

Yazici,H.J.(2009).Theroleofprojectmanagementmaturityandorganizationalcultureinperceivedperformance.ProjectManagementJournal.40(3),14-33.

impact of it subculture on the adoption of cloud computing

Documents