Harmony and Stress in Information Systems

Development and Implementation

A Multilevel Theory and Some Empirical Work on the

Crossroads of Work Psychology, Organisational Theory and
Information Systems Research

May 2003

Dissertation submitted by
Steven M. E. Verjans
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of
Philosophical Doctorate (Ph.D.) in
Computer Systems Engineering (Datateknologi) from the
University of Southern Denmark – Odense University.

This dissertation is the result of Industrial PhD Fellowship project EF706, which was a
collaboration between the Department of Organization and Management at the Univer-
sity of Southern Denmark, several private Danish companies and the Committee on
Industrial PhD-Fellowships at the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences (ATV).

This project was co-financed by the Danish Agency for Development of Trade and
Industry under the Ministry of Business and Industry.
Voor Mieke

Mei 2003

ii
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

PART I. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY BUILDING ......................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 1. PROBLEM FORMULATION.................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2. INFORMATION SYSTEMS LITERATURE ................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 3. WORK PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE ................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4. ORGANISATIONAL THEORY LITERATURE ......................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 5. CHARISM: A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL ................................................................... 106

PART II. EMPIRICAL SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 163

CHAPTER 6. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ............................................................................................. 165

CHAPTER 7. WORKING HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................. 183
CHAPTER 8. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................... 196
CHAPTER 9. PIPEVIEWER CASE AT OMICRON .................................................................................... 224
CHAPTER 10. SHOPFLOORPC AT ALPHA .............................................................................................. 250
CHAPTER 11. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 277

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 311

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................ 348

iii
Detailed Table of Contents

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. iii

Detailed Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summaries............................................................................................................................ ix
Sammenfattende redegørelse på dansk .............................................................................................. ix
Executive Summary in English ....................................................................................................... xiii
Samenvatting in het Nederlands ..................................................................................................... xvii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. xxi

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

PART I. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY BUILDING ......................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 1. PROBLEM FORMULATION.................................................................................................... 4

A. Setting the stage ........................................................................................................................... 4
B. Problem area................................................................................................................................. 5
C. Limitations of existing literature .................................................................................................. 6
D. Integrative framework .................................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 2. INFORMATION SYSTEMS LITERATURE ................................................................................ 9

A. The information systems research paradigm: a review .............................................................. 10
B. Situating my research within the IS paradigm ........................................................................... 13
C. Relevant research contributions ................................................................................................. 14
1. IS development ....................................................................................................................... 14
2. IS impact ................................................................................................................................. 19
3. Organisational aspects of IS development / implementation.................................................. 20
4. Psychological aspects of IS development ............................................................................... 24
5. IS evaluation - success criteria................................................................................................ 29
6. Types of information systems ................................................................................................. 31
D. My contribution to IS research................................................................................................... 37
1. Limitations of extant literature................................................................................................ 37
2. New contribution to the IS literature....................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 3. WORK PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE ................................................................................... 44

A. The work psychology research paradigm - A review................................................................. 45
B. Situating my research within the work psychology paradigm ................................................... 46
C. Relevant research contributions ................................................................................................. 47
1. Human needs........................................................................................................................... 47
2. Stress....................................................................................................................................... 52
3. Motivation............................................................................................................................... 57
4. Job satisfaction........................................................................................................................ 59
5. Organisational commitment.................................................................................................... 59
6. Cognitive frames and information processing ........................................................................ 60
7. Meaning in organisations........................................................................................................ 61
8. Attitudes towards technology ................................................................................................. 64
D. My contribution to work psychology research........................................................................... 65

iv
CHAPTER 4. ORGANISATIONAL THEORY LITERATURE ......................................................................... 68
A. Organisational theory - A review ............................................................................................... 68
B. Situating my research within the organisational theory paradigm ............................................. 69
C. Relevant contributions ............................................................................................................... 70
1. Technology in organisations ................................................................................................... 70
2. Contingency theory and the concept of fit .............................................................................. 74
3. Organisational culture and climate ......................................................................................... 83
4. Sensemaking and organisational semiotics............................................................................. 90
5. Organisational change............................................................................................................. 94
D. My contribution to organisation theory.................................................................................... 103

CHAPTER 5. CHARISM: A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL ................................................................... 106

A. An integrative theory of individual mental functioning........................................................... 107
1. Human needs......................................................................................................................... 107
2. Needs portfolios as basis for a typology of individuals ........................................................ 108
3. Integrity and the self-concept................................................................................................ 110
4. Integrity, signification and mental harmony ......................................................................... 113
5. Lack of mental harmony and its relation to stress ................................................................ 114
6. Mental harmony, stress and change ...................................................................................... 115
7. Harmony, motivation, job satisfaction and organisational commitment .............................. 117
8. Harmony and the perception of organisational-level concepts ............................................. 118
9. Harmony and individual attitudes towards technology......................................................... 118
10. Overview of the CHARISM model at the individual level-of-analysis ................................ 119
B. Information technology and the individual .............................................................................. 121
1. Existing IT and mental harmony / stress............................................................................... 121
2. Perception of the fit of existing IT with other organisational parameters............................. 124
3. New IT and mental harmony / stress .................................................................................... 126
4. Flexible IT can accomodate different types of users ............................................................ 129
5. Relating the mental harmony framework back to the IS literature review ........................... 130
C. Organisational harmony ........................................................................................................... 132
1. The organi-self ...................................................................................................................... 132
2. Identifying sense-making stakeholders................................................................................. 133
3. Organisational needs – Needs-based typology ..................................................................... 136
4. Organisational integrity ........................................................................................................ 138
5. Signification and organisational harmony ............................................................................ 139
6. Lack of organisational harmony and organi-stress ............................................................... 141
7. Overview of the CHARISM model at the organisational level-of-analysis.......................... 144
D. Information technology and the organisation........................................................................... 145
1. Existing IT and organisational harmony / organi-stress ....................................................... 145
2. New IT and organisational harmony / organi-stress ............................................................. 149
3. Referring back to the IS literature......................................................................................... 151
E. General overview of the CHARISM framework ..................................................................... 153
1. Cross-level CHARISM model of harmony and stress .......................................................... 153
2. New IT in the integrated model ............................................................................................ 155
3. Relating back to IS discussion .............................................................................................. 157

v
PART II. EMPIRICAL SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 163

CHAPTER 6. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ............................................................................................. 165

A. Research question..................................................................................................................... 165
B. Hybrid research method ........................................................................................................... 166
1. Different phases in the research project................................................................................ 166
2. Aspects of the resulting hybrid research method / strategy .................................................. 173
C. Methodological aspects of the CHARISM framework ............................................................ 176
1. Causal structure..................................................................................................................... 176
2. Normative aspects of CHARISM model .............................................................................. 179
D. Moving down to the practical level.......................................................................................... 180

CHAPTER 7. WORKING HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................. 183

A. Selecting hypotheses and defining working propositions ........................................................ 183
1. Individual-level hypotheses .................................................................................................. 185
2. IT on the individual level...................................................................................................... 186
3. Organisational level .............................................................................................................. 187
4. The role of IT on the organisational level............................................................................. 189
5. Cross-level issues.................................................................................................................. 190
B. Characterising information systems, organisations and individuals ........................................ 192
1. Information system characteristics........................................................................................ 192
2. Organisational characteristics ............................................................................................... 193
3. Individual psychological characteristics ............................................................................... 194

CHAPTER 8. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................................... 196

A. Individual-level instruments..................................................................................................... 196
1. Sources of the RIPOSTI questionnaire ................................................................................. 196
2. Dimensions in the RIPOSTI instrument ............................................................................... 199
3. Overview of the RIPOSTI instrument .................................................................................. 214
4. Interview guidelines.............................................................................................................. 216
5. Participation, observation and informal talks ....................................................................... 217
B. Organisational-level instruments.............................................................................................. 218
1. Participation and Observation............................................................................................... 218
2. Organisational Consultant – OrgCon®................................................................................. 218
3. IS project interviews ............................................................................................................. 220
4. Production-worker-perception questionnaire........................................................................ 220
5. IT mini-interview .................................................................................................................. 221
6. Documents ............................................................................................................................ 221
C. Overview of research instruments............................................................................................ 222

CHAPTER 9. PIPEVIEWER CASE AT OMICRON .................................................................................... 224

A. Data description ....................................................................................................................... 225
B. Organisational description ....................................................................................................... 226
C. Existing information technology.............................................................................................. 227
D. BlueTech project description and analysis ............................................................................... 228
1. Project goals.......................................................................................................................... 229
2. Summary of BlueTech project analysis and link to hypotheses............................................ 230
E. Organisational-level data analysis and discussion ................................................................... 234
1. Summary of organisational data analysis.............................................................................. 234
2. Linking the organisational analysis to the working hypotheses............................................ 235
F. Cross-level links between organi-strain and individual characteristics ................................... 237
G. Individual-level data analysis and discussion .......................................................................... 238
1. Needs portfolios .................................................................................................................... 238

vi
 2. Person-environment fit correlations...................................................................................... 239
3. In search of harmony ............................................................................................................ 240
4. Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 242
5. Comparative statistics ........................................................................................................... 242
H. IT analysis ................................................................................................................................ 244
I. Case summary .......................................................................................................................... 246

CHAPTER 10. SHOPFLOORPC AT ALPHA .............................................................................................. 250

A. Data description ....................................................................................................................... 250
B. Organisational description ....................................................................................................... 252
1. Major organisational change: the “Future Organisation” project ......................................... 252
C. Existing information technology.............................................................................................. 254
D. ShopFloorPC project description............................................................................................. 254
1. ‘Project’ history .................................................................................................................... 255
2. Software description ............................................................................................................. 256
3. Discussion of IT at the organisational level-of-analysis and link to hypotheses .................. 258
E. Organisational-level data analysis............................................................................................ 260
1. Summary of organisational data analysis.............................................................................. 260
2. Link to working hypotheses.................................................................................................. 261
F. Cross-level analysis.................................................................................................................. 264
G. Individual-level data analysis................................................................................................... 265
1. Needs portfolios .................................................................................................................... 265
2. Person-environment fit correlations...................................................................................... 266
3. In search of harmony ............................................................................................................ 266
4. Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 267
5. Comparative statistics ........................................................................................................... 268
6. Before-after and test group / control group analysis of IT introduction project ................... 269
H. IT analysis ................................................................................................................................ 272
I. Case summary .......................................................................................................................... 273

CHAPTER 11. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 277

A. Cross-case analyses.................................................................................................................. 277
1. Between-case differences...................................................................................................... 277
2. Needs-based cluster analysis................................................................................................. 279
3. Correlation analyses.............................................................................................................. 282
B. Overview of hypotheses ........................................................................................................... 287
1. Individual-level hypotheses .................................................................................................. 287
2. IT on the individual level...................................................................................................... 290
3. Organisational-level hypotheses ........................................................................................... 291
4. IT on the organisational level ............................................................................................... 293
5. Cross-level issues.................................................................................................................. 295
C. Recent research ........................................................................................................................ 296
1. IS literature ........................................................................................................................... 296
2. Work psychology .................................................................................................................. 298
3. Organisation science ............................................................................................................. 302
D. Reflections................................................................................................................................ 304
1. Instruments and variables ..................................................................................................... 304
2. Methodological issues........................................................................................................... 305
3. Empirically driven changes to the theory ............................................................................. 306
4. Limitations / Unsolved issues ............................................................................................... 307
5. Return to original research goals .......................................................................................... 308

vii
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 312

A. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 313

1. Theoretical contributions ...................................................................................................... 313
2. Empirical results ................................................................................................................... 322
B. Future research ......................................................................................................................... 324

References.......................................................................................................................................... 326

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 343

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 346

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................ 348

A. The RIPOSTI questionnaire and guide (English)..................................................................... 349

B. The RIPOSTI Questionnaire and guide (Original Danish version).......................................... 358
C. Dimensions within RIPOSTI instrument ................................................................................. 380
1. Needs questions .................................................................................................................... 380
2. EOS questions....................................................................................................................... 385
3. Technology attitudes............................................................................................................. 387
4. System Evaluation Dimensions ............................................................................................ 390
5. Scale comparisons (cf. the discussion in Chapter 8 above) .................................................. 393
D. Overview of RIPOSTI instrument............................................................................................ 407
E. Interview guides ....................................................................................................................... 409
1. Individual level interview guide for production workers...................................................... 409
2. Individual level interview guide for members of management at Omicron ......................... 411
3. OrgCon® Interview guide and dimensions........................................................................... 412
4. IT-related aspects interview guide ........................................................................................ 415
5. BlueTech interview guideline ............................................................................................... 416
F. Individual-level data analysis................................................................................................... 416
1. PE-fit correlations ................................................................................................................. 416
2. Main RIPOSTI correlations per needs-based cluster ............................................................ 418
3. Linear regressions ................................................................................................................. 422
4. Individual variables correlated with organisational and technology perception per needs-based
group .............................................................................................................................................. 427

viii
Executive Summaries

Sammenfattende redegørelse på dansk

Det er ikke nogen nem opgave at udvikle og indføre ny informationsteknologi (IT) i organisationer. I
industrien er der en stigende opmærksomhed og bekymring for kompleksiteten, der ligger i indførelse af ny
IT i organisationer. Erfaringen viser, at kompleksiteten ikke så meget udgøres af tekniske problemer, men
snarere af organisatoriske, sociale og psykologiske problemer. Forskere i flere videnskabsgrene har forsket i
problemet og har foreslået adskillige metoder og teknikker til at løse nogle af problemerne. Afhandlingen
ønsker at bidrage til denne diskussion. Anledningen til denne forskning er BlueTech, et udviklingsprojekt
indenfor firmaet Omicron, som jeg deltog i i starten af mit PhD projekt. BlueTechs mål var at udvikle IT
applikationer til brug for arbejderne inden for produktionsindustrien. Formålet med teknologien var at give
en gruppe af arbejdere muligheden for at organisere deres egen produktion, at støtte dem i deres produktion
og at give dem mulighed for at vurdere og tilrette deres egen virkning. Forholdsvis tidligt opstod der
imidlertid en række psykologiske og organisatoriske problemer, der gjorde de oprindelige programmer
praktisk taget ubrugelige. Disse problemer resulterede i det følgende forskningsspørgsmål:

"Hvilke interaktioner er der ved udviklingen og implementeringen af et computerbaseret organisatorisk

informationssystem mellem de organisatoriske karakteristika, interessenternes psykologiske karakteristika
og informationsteknologiske karakteristika?"

Da litteraturen om ledelsesinformationssystemer ikke umiddelbart kunne give et brugbart svar,

udvikles i denne afhandling en ny og integreret model baseret på teoretiske og empiriske bidrag fra de tre
forskningsdiscipliner. Modellen kaldes CHARISM, hvilket står for "Cross-level HARmony, Integrity and
Stress Model" (Model om harmoni, integritet og stress på to niveauer). Metoden, der blev brugt til at udvikle
den teoretiske model var en blanding af en induktiv teoridannelse og en deduktiv kombination af ideer fra
litteraturen. CHARISM modellen er koncentreret om begreberne harmoni, integritet og stress og har to
niveauer for analyse, det individuelle og det organisatoriske. Modellen går ud fra den antagelse, at personer
så vel som organisationer har bestemte behov og evner, og at de fungerer i socioøkonomiske omgivelser, der
kan opfylde disse behov, men som stiller visse krav til gengæld. Et vigtigt aksiom indenfor teorien siger, at
en tilstand med relativ harmoni opstår, når en person eller en organisation kan skabe balance mellem egne
behov og omgivelsernes ydelser på den ene side og egne evner og omgivelsernes krav på den anden side. Når
der ikke kan skabes balance, eller hvis den eksisterende balance forstyrres, kan der opstå spændinger, og
disse spændinger kan – under visse betingelser – blive til stress. En person eller en organisations behov og
evner sammen med egen opfattelse af omgivelsernes ydelser og krav er delvis bestemmende for personens
eller organisationens subjektive opfattelse af sig selv. Ud fra behov og evner udvikler en person eller
organisation sin egen niche i verden, et relativt stabilt system bestående af socialt acceptable situationer, som
er simplifikationer af omgivelsernes overvældende kompleksitet. Enhver person eller organisation udvikler
en del sådanne situationer, der er karakteriseret ved bestemte rutiner og semiautomatiske procedurer, der
giver personen eller organisationen mulighed for at fungere hensigtsmæssigt. Disse situationer medfører også
en bestemt måde at tænke, føle og handle på, og fungerer derfor som en slags mentalt filter i opfattelsen af
omgivelserne. Den niche, som personer og organisationer fungerer i, giver et stabilt system af
forudsætninger, meninger, normer, regler og mål, men også skabeloner med sociale procedurer og
konventioner. Denne strukturerede helhed af meninger og situationer, dette system, kaldes "den
menneskelige funktions integritet" eller kort sagt "integritet" eller "selvforståelse". Ifølge CHARISM
modellen er denne subjektive integritet relateret til et antal menneskelige psykosociale processer. En
harmonisk integritet hænger sammen med jobtilfredshed, motivation, engagement og mental sundhed,
hvorimod en forstyrret integritet hænger sammen med spænding, stress og sygdom (mental og fysisk).

ix
 En vigtig proces i udviklingen og vedligeholdelsen af integritet er signifikation eller "meningsgivel-
se", en proces der knytter mening til enhver aktivitet – egne såvel som andres – en mening der er bestemt
ikke alene af den sociale gruppe, man tilhører, men også af det eksisterende system af meninger. Den eksi-
sterende integritet fungerer som et filter i den betydning, at både personer og organisationer vil prøve at for-
tolke ny information på en sådan måde at den passer ind i deres eksisterende system af meninger, selv om
den nye information hermed får en mening der ikke oprindelig var tiltænkt. Kun hvis dette ikke er muligt, vil
det være nødvendigt at tilpasse den eksisterende meningsramme, og det er en meget vanskelig proces. Det er
lige præcis denne signifikationsproces, der spiller er vigtig rolle, når der sker ændringer i personers eller or-
ganisationers liv, så som for eksempel introduktionen af ny informationsteknologi. En af grundene til, at
signifikation er så vigtig, er at alle personer og organisationer er forskellige, og ifølge CHARISM modellen
er disse forskelle hovedsageligt baseret på variationer i behovsporteføljens komposition. ”Behovsportefølje”
er et nyt koncept der introduceres i modellen, og det defineres som følger: Personer og organisationer har
bestemte behovstyper, som er relativt mere eller mindre vigtige på forskellige tidspunkter, og ifølge den
teoretiske model er det lige nøjagtig disse behovsporteføljer, der danner baggrund for interessenternes
forskellige signifikationsprocesser i en forandringsproces. For eksempel kan det ske i udviklingen og
indførelsen af ny teknologi, at der opstår signifikationskonflikter mellem software udviklerne,
virksomhedslederne, der bestiller den nye teknologi og brugerne. Hver enkelt af disse grupper kan have
forskellige behov og forventninger og projicerer disse over på de andre interessenter, hvilket kan give
anledning til forvirring og uoverensstemmelse.

Derfor er hovedargumentet i CHARISM modellen følgende: Et nyt teknologibaseret

informationssytem, der skal bruges af personer i organisationen, giver kun mening, hvis det passer ind i den
enkelte brugers integritet på den ene side og ind i organisationens integritet på den anden. Hvis disse to
balancer er samtidigt tilstede, opstår der en harmonisk tilstand, og CHARISM modellen argumenterer, at
chancerne for det nye systems succes derved er meget større. Med andre ord bliver sandsynligheden for, at
systemet accepteres, integreres, og bruges i organisationen, meget større. Hvis et af disse ligevægte ikke er
tilstede, opnås der ikke harmoni, og der opstår risiko for, at enten personen eller organisationen bliver
anspændte eller stressede og vil udvise undvigeadfærd. Derfor består teknologiudviklingsholdets opgave i at
prøve at anslå – både før og undervejs i projektet – eventuelle konflikter, eksisterende eller i udvikling, såvel
hos den enkelte interessent og indenfor organisationen. Faktisk vil det ofte ske, at ny teknologi har en række
”indbyggede” meninger, og at disse meninger medfører konflikter, når de afviger for meget fra personens
eller organisationens integritet. Problemet er imidlertid, at der ikke findes en simpel måde, hvorpå man kan
vurdere, hvorvidt der eksisterer eller kan opstå konflikter. Derfor foreslår afhandlingen en række
karakteristika, der kan bruges til at bestemme, i hvor høj grad der er balance mellem teknologien og dens
brugere på den ene side og mellem teknologien og organisationen på den anden. I denne sammenhæng er det
vigtigt, at personens og teknologiens karakteristika er kommensurable, det vil sige, at de teknologiske
karakteristika er psykologisk og organisatorisk relevante. For hver teknologisk karakteristikum, må
udviklingsholdet forsøge så tidligt som muligt at fastslå den eventuelle betydning, det vil have for brugerne
og organisationen, blandt andet ved at undersøge i hvor høj grad den nye teknologi passer til eller er i
konflikt med personens eller organisationens behov eller evner, men også ved at undersøge om der er
potentielle signifikationskonflikter.

Ud fra denne beskrivelse er det måske blevet klart, at CHARISM modellen er en omfattende
teoretisk ramme, som næppe kan blive fuldstændig udviklet teoretisk og empirisk indenfor rammerne af et
PhD projekt. Ikke desto mindre er ca. 65 teoretiske hypoteser blevet formuleret baseret på teorien, hvilket
opsummerer argumentation. For ca. 25 af disse hypoteser er der søgt empirisk støtte i to casestudier i Danske
tungmetalproducerende virksomheder, der undersøgte projekter hvor informationsteknologi blev introduceret
til brug for produktionsarbejdere. Hos Omicron var projektet et eksperimentelt forsknings- og
udviklingsprojekt med henblik på at vise brugbarheden af visse softwareteknikker uden at implementere
større organisatoriske ændringer, hvorimod projektet hos Alpha bestod af et større omlægningsprojekt for en
hel produktionsafdeling. Hos Alpha blev en omfattende ændring implementeret, hvor ledelsesstrukturen blev
grundigt revideret, lønsystemet blev ændret og arbejderne fik mere kontrol over deres egen virkning. I
forbindelse hermed fik de adgang til en teknologi der tidligere kun blev brugt af deres overordnede.

x
 Undersøgelsesmetoden, der blev brug til at finde empirisk støtte for hypoteserne, er en hybrid blan-
ding af kvalitative og kvantitative teknikker og metoder, der kombinerede interviews af interessenter med en
spørgeskemaundersøgelse. Spørgeskemaet, der blev dannet ud fra eksisterende instrumenter og nye dele,
blev kaldt RIPOSTI, hvilket står for Research Instrument for the Psycho-Organisational Study of Technolo-
gy Implementation (Forskningsinstrument til psyko-organisatorisk studium af teknologi-implementering).
Antallet af deltagere i undersøgelsen (kun mænd) var ret begrænset – ca. 60 fra Omicron og ca. 30 fra Alpha
– hvilket betyder, at den statistiske værdi af det kvantitative resultat kun er vejledende, men det var også me-
ningen. Målet for den empiriske del var alene at finde støtte for et begrænset antal hovedideer og begreber,
på både individuelt og organisatorisk plan.

På det individuelle analyseniveau, blev hovedsageligt kvantitative teknikker brugt til at analysere
svarene på RIPOSTI spørgeskemaet. Det første vigtige resultat fra disse analyser vedrører den potentielle
værdi af det nye begreb behovsportefølje: Hos Alpha og Omicron er der vigtige psykosociale forskelle
mellem grupper af individer med forskellige behovsporteføljer. En anden vigtig trend er, at person-
omgivelser balancen (PE-fit), og – især balancen mellem behov og opfyldelse – ser ud til at være en vigtig
psykosocial parameter, og at der er en klar forbindelse mellem PE-fit og andre psykosociale variabler, så
som jobtilfredshed, motivation og engagement. På den anden side er korrelationen mellem PE-fit og mental
fysisk sundhed mindre klar, hvilket indikerer, at integritet kun delvis er påvirket af den subjektive vurdering
af PE-fit. Andre psykologiske processer, så som tilfredshed og engagement, ser ud til at spille en vigtigere
rolle i bestemmelsen af en persons mentale og fysiske sundhed. En tredje interessant iagttagelse på det
individuelle plan er en klar sammenhæng mellem PE-fit og den enkelte persons opfattelse af hans
organisation, hvilket indirekte er et bevis for den rolle signifikationsprocessen spiller. Endelig fandt
undersøgelsen kun en begrænset sammenhæng mellem den enkeltes integritet og hans opfattelse af
organisatorisk teknologi, hvilket sandsynligvis hænger sammen med den marginale rolle, den nye teknologi
spiller i de to casestudier. Faktisk ser det ikke ud til, at den nye teknologi har iværksat større ændringer i
brugernes arbejde eller integritet.

På det organisatoriske plan – i højere grad end på det individuelle niveau – blev der brugt en
kombination af kvalitative og kvantitative teknikker. En del af RIPOSTI-instrumentet undersøgte
organisatorisk perception, hvorimod interviewene primært rettede sig mod balancen mellem organisation og
omgivelser (OE-fit) og den nye teknologis rolle. Derudover var min deltagelse i BlueTech projektet på
Omicron en vigtig informationskilde. Den første analyse bruger data fra interviews, dokumenter,
observationer og deltagelse til at danne et billede af hver organisation og dens omgivelser. Undersøgelsen
viser, at de to organisationer i øjeblikket befinder sig i en vanskelig markedsposition – ligesom den
europæiske produktionsindustri generelt – og at de prøver at overkomme det ydre pres på hver sin måde. En
anden gruppe af analyser undersøgte internt signifikationsprocesser i organisationen på to måder, først ved
omhyggeligt at sammenligne opfattelsen af de forskellige interessentgrupper, og derefter ved at bede
virksomhedsledere og fagforeningsrepræsentanter om at bedømme produktionsarbejdernes opfattelse af det
interne psykosociale klima. Begge typer af analyser ser ud til at være brugbare metoder til at måle intern
spænding, og de giver temmelig forskellige resultater for begge selskaber. Hos Omicron, ser der ud til at
eksistere en temmelig høj grad af intern uoverensstemmelse, endda i en sådan grad at man kan tale om to
”klaner” indenfor ledelse, hvorimod der ser ud til at være større intern enighed hos Alpha. En tredje
hovedanalyse undersøger OE-fit ved at indføre interessenternes svar ind i et ekspertsystem – Organizational
Consultant – der indikerer hvorvidt der er væsentlige ubalancer mellem organisationen og omgivelserne.
Denne analyse dækker organisatoriske karakteristika så som strategi, ledelsesstil, organisatorisk klima,
produktionsteknologi, produkt diversitet og størrelse på den ene side, og omgivelsesmæssige karakteristika
så som kompleksitet, forudsigelighed og markedssituation på den anden. De svar, der relaterede sig til disse
karakteristika, blev behandlet på to måder. Først blev den enkelte respondents svar sigtet for konflikter i hans
opfattelse af OE-fit, og derefter, blev forskellene mellem respondenterne analyseret. Resultaterne af disse
analyser antyder, at OE-fit forhold i nogen grad diskuteres i begge virksomheder, og at OE-fit især på
Omicron opfattes som problematiske.

Yderligere, spillede ny teknologi temmeligt forskellige roller i begge organisationer, hvilket kan
konkluderes ud fra en detaljeret analyse af interviews, observationer og deltagelse. På Omicron, var Blue-
Tech et lille eksperimentelt projekt, som der herskede temmelig forskellige opfattelser af i virksomheden, og
som iværksatte grundige diskussioner inden for ledelsen. For en gruppe af ledere viste projektet, i hvilken
retning teknologien skulle udvikle sig i virksomheden, hvorimod den anden gruppe opfattede et sådant pro-

xi
jekt som en trussel mod stabiliteten og produktionen indenfor virksomheden. Hos Alpha derimod, var der
næsten ingen uenighed om teknologiens rolle indenfor den nye organisationsstruktur. Der var ingen diskus-
sion om, hvorvidt produktionsarbejderne skulle have adgang til den nye IT, der var nødvendig for deres nye
rolle. Analysen af informationsteknologiens rolle på organisationsniveau afslørede en fuldstændig anderledes
tilgang til forandringsprocesser i de to virksomheder. Hos Alpha, blev alle niveauer i organisationen involve-
ret i ændringerne lige fra projektets start, hvorimod Omicron analysen afslørede en betydeligt højere grad af
konflikt mellem ledelsen og de ansatte. BlueTech projektets komplicerede historie indenfor Omicron gav et
temmelig interessant undersøgelsesmateriale set fra et CHARISM perspektiv, fordi der på forskellige tids-
punkter var konflikter mellem teknologiske karakteristika og slutbrugernes og organisationens karakteristika.

Især BlueTech analysen viser, at en model så som CHARISM kan være meget nyttig i de forskellige
faser i et teknologiudviklingsprojekt, fordi sammenligningen af karakteristika på et tidligt tidspunkt vil
udpege potentielle konflikter. Selvfølgelig kræves der stadig en del forskning for at opnå en præcis definition
af teknologiske karakteristika med organisatorisk og psykologisk relevans. Derudover er der brug for
yderligere omfattende forskning for at demonstrere værdien af nogle af de kernebegreber i CHARISM
modellen, så som behovsporteføljen, PE-fit, integritet, harmoni og stress. Denne afhandling er kun et første
forsøg på en holistisk teoretisk model. Slutteligt er yderligere forskning nødvendig til at finde passende
forskningsinstrumenter og metoder, der kan anvendes på en hurtig og målrettet måde, så de kan komme til at
spille en vigtig rolle i de teknologiprojekter der er i hastig bevægelse.

xii
Executive Summary in English
Developing and implementing organisational information technology (IT) is not an easy task. Within
industry, there is a growing awareness of and concern about the complexity of introducing new IT in
organisations. Research shows that it is not so much technical issues that complicate matters, but rather
organisational, social and psychological issues. Researchers in different fields of science have studied the
problems and have suggested numerous methods and techniques for solving some of the problems. This
dissertation wants to contribute to that discussion. The immediate cause of this research is BlueTech, a
development project within the company Omicron in which I participated at the start of my PhD project.
BlueTech's goal was to develop IT applications for blue-collar workers in production industry. The aim of the
technology was to allow groups of workers to organise their own production, to support them in their
production and to allow them to evaluate and adjust their own functioning. However, rather early on in the
project, a number of psychological and organisational issues appeared, which made the original software
designs practically unusable. Those issues suggested the following research question:

“When a new computer-based organisational information system is developed and implemented, what are
the interactions between organisational characteristics, stakeholders’ psychological characteristics and
information technology characteristics?”

Because the literature on management information systems did not provide a suitable answer, a new
and integrated theoretical model is developed in this dissertation, based on theoretical and empirical
contributions from the three research disciplines. The model is called CHARISM, which stands for “Cross-
level HARmony, Integrity and Stress Model”. The method that was used in developing the theoretical model
was a mixture of grounded-theory building and the deductive combination of ideas from the literature. The
CHARISM model centres around the concepts of harmony, integrity and stress and has two levels-of-
analysis, the individual and the organisational. The model starts from the assumption that individuals as well
as organisations have certain needs and abilities, and that they function in a socio-economical environment
that can supply those needs, but imposes certain demands in return. An important axiom in the theory poses
that a state of relative harmony arises when an individual or an organisation can create a balance between his
(its) needs and the environment's supplies on the one hand, and his (its) abilities and the environment's
demands on the other. When no balance can be created or when an existing balance is disturbed, strain can
arise, and that strain may – under certain conditions – turn into stress. The needs and abilities of an
individual or an organisation together with his (its) perception of the environment's supplies and demands
partly determine the subjective self-image of that individual or organisation. Based on needs and capacities,
an individual or organisation develops his (its) own niche in the world, a relatively stable system consisting
of socially acceptable situations, which are simplifications of the overwhelmingly complex environment.
Every individual and organisation develops a number of such situations, which are characterised by certain
routines and semi-automatic procedures that allow him (it) to function adequately. Those situations also
entail a certain way of thinking, feeling and acting, and therefore act as a kind of mental filter in the
perception of the environment. The niche that people and organisations live in supplies a stable system of
presuppositions, meanings, norms, rules and goals, but also templates with social procedures and
conventions. This structured whole of meanings and situations, this system, is called 'integrity of human
functioning' or for short 'integrity' or also 'self-image'. According to the CHARISM model, this subjective
integrity is related with a number of human psychosocial processes. A harmonious integrity is associated
with job satisfaction, motivation, commitment and mental health, whereas a disturbed integrity is related
with strain, stress and illness (mental and physical).

An important process in the development and maintenance of integrity is signification or 'sense-

making', a process that assigns meaning to all activities – one's own as well as others' – a meaning that is de-
termined not only by the social group to which one belongs, but also by the existing system of meanings. The
existing integrity acts as a filtering device, in the sense that both individuals and organisations will try to in-
terpret new information in such a way that it fits with their existing system of meanings, even if that new in-
formation gets a meaning that was not originally intended. Only if the latter is not possible, will the existing
framework of meanings need to be adapted, and that is a very difficult process. It is exactly this signification
process that plays an important role when changes occur in the life of people and organisations, such as for
example the introduction of new information technology. One reason why signification is so important is that

xiii
each individual and organisation is different; and according to the CHARISM model, those differences are
mainly based on variations in the composition of the needs portfolios – a new concept that is introduced in
the model. People and organisations have certain types of needs that are relatively more or less important at
different points in time, and according to my theoretical model it is exactly those needs portfolios that are the
basis for the different signification processes of the stakeholders in a change process. For example, in the
development and introduction of new technology it may happen that signification conflicts arise between the
software developers, the managers who order the new technology and the end users. Each of those groups
may have different needs and expectations, and project those on to the other stakeholders, which can cause
confusion and disagreement.

Therefore, the main argument in the CHARISM model is the following: a new technology-based
information system that is to be used by individuals in organisations will only make sense when it fits into
the individual users’ integrity on the one hand, and into an organisation’s integrity on the other. If these two
fits obtain simultaneously, a state of harmony arises, and the CHARISM model argues that the chances of
success of the new system will be much better. In other words, the probability of the system's acceptance,
integration and organisational use will be much higher. If either of these fits does not obtain, harmony is not
achieved, and there is a chance that either the individual or the organisation will become strained or stressed,
and may show avoidance behaviour. Therefore, the task of a technology development team consists of trying
to estimate – before the start and in the course of the project – the existence or development of conflicts, both
within the individual stakeholders and within the organisation. Indeed, it will often happen that new
technology carries a number of 'embedded' meanings and that those meanings cause conflicts when they are
too divergent from the individuals' and organisations' integrity. The problem, however, is that there is no
simple way of estimating whether conflicts exist or may develop. Therefore, this dissertation suggests a list
of characteristics that can be used to determine the degree of fit between the technology and its users on the
one hand, and between the technology and the organisation on the other. In this context, it is important that
the characteristics of the individual and the technology are commensurable, i.e. that the technology
characteristics are psychologically and organisationally relevant. For each technology characteristic, the
development team will have to try to determine as early as possible what the potential impact on the users
and the organisation will be, amongst others by checking the degree in which the new technology fits or
conflicts with the needs and abilities of individuals and organisations, but also by checking whether there are
potential signification conflicts.

From this description, it may have become clear that the CHARISM model is an encompassing
theoretical framework, which can hardly be completely developed theoretically and empirically within the
framework of a PhD project. Nevertheless, based on the theory, about 65 theoretical hypotheses were
formulated, which summarise the argumentation. For about 25 of those hypotheses, empirical support was
sought in two case studies in Danish heavy metal production companies, that studied projects in which
information technology was introduced that was to be used by production workers on shop floor. At Omicron
the project was an experimental research and development project that wanted to show the usefulness of
certain software techniques without implementing major organisational change, whereas the project at Alpha
consisted of a major conversion project of a complete production division. At Alpha, a comprehensive
change was implemented in which the management structure was thoroughly revised, the wages system was
changed and the workers were given more control over their own functioning. To that end, they were given
access to the technology that was formerly only used by their supervisors.

The explorative method that was used to find empirical support for the hypotheses is a hybrid
mixture of qualitative and quantitative techniques and methods that combined stakeholder interviews with a
questionnaire survey. The questionnaire that was compiled from existing instrument and new items was
called RIPOSTI, which stands for Research Instrument for the Psycho-Organisational Study of Technology
Implementation. The number of participants in the study (only men) was rather limited – about 60 at
Omicron and about 30 at Alpha – which means that the statistical value of the quantitative results is only
indicative, but that's all that was intended. The goal of the empirical part was only to find support for a
limited number of main ideas and concepts, at both the individual and the organisational level-of-analysis.

xiv
 At the individual level-of-analysis, mainly quantitative techniques were used to analyse the answers
to the RIPOSTI questionnaire. A first important result from those analyses concerns the potential role of the
new concept of needs portfolio: at Alpha and Omicron there are important psychosocial differences between
groups of individuals with divergent needs portfolios. Another important trend is that person-environment fit
(PE-fit) – and especially needs-supplies fit – appears to be an important psychosocial parameter, and that
there are clear associations between PE-fit and other psychosocial variables, such as job satisfaction,
motivation and commitment. On the other hand, the correlation between PE-fit and mental physical health is
less clear, which indicates integrity is only partially influenced by the subjective valuation of PE-fit. Other
psychological processes, such as satisfaction and commitment, appear to play an important role in
determining an individual's mental and physical health. A third interesting finding on the individual level-of-
analysis is a clear correlation between PE-fit and the individual's perception of his organisation, which
indirectly provides evidence for the role of the signification process. Finally, the study only found a limited
association between an individual's integrity and his perception of organisational technology, which is
probably related to the marginal role of the new technology in the two case studies. Indeed, the new
technology does not seem to have initiated major changes in the work or the integrity of the end users
involved.

At the organisational level-of-analysis – more than at the individual level – a combination of

qualitative and quantitative techniques was used. Part of the RIPOSTI-instrument investigated organisational
perception, whereas the interviews were mainly directed at organisation-environment fit (OE-fit) and the role
of the new technology. Moreover, my participation in the BlueTech project at Omicron was an important
source of information. A first analysis used data from interviews, documents, observation and participation
to draw a portrait of each organisation and its environment. The study shows that the two organisations are
currently in a difficult market position – just as European production industry in general – and that they each
try to cope with that external pressure in a different way. A second group of analyses studied internal
signification processes in the organisations in two ways, firstly by carefully comparing the perceptions of the
different stakeholder groups, and secondly by asking managers and union representatives to estimate the
production workers' perceptions of internal psychosocial climate. Both types of analysis appear to be useful
ways of measuring internal strain, and they yield rather different results for both companies. At Omicron, a
fairly high degree of internal disagreement seems to exist, even to such an extent that one may speak of two
clans within management, whereas there seems to be more internal agreement at Alpha. A third main
analysis studied OE-fit by entering stakeholder answers into an expert system – Organisational Consultant –
that indicates whether important misfits exist between the organisation and its environment. That analysis
covers organisational characteristics such as strategy, management style, organisational climate, production
technology, product diversity and size on the one hand; and environmental characteristics such as
complexity, predictability and market situation. The answers related to these characteristics were treated in
two ways. Firstly, each respondent's answers were screened for conflicts in his perception of OE-fit, and
secondly, the differences between the respondents were analysed. The results of those analyses suggest that
in both companies a certain level of discussion exists about a number of OE-fit issues, and that especially at
Omicron OE-fit is perceived as problematic.

Moreover, the role of the new technology was quite different in both organisations, as can be
concluded from a detailed analysis of the interviews, observations and participation. At Omicron, BlueTech
was a small experimental project about which there were rather diverse perceptions in the company, and
which initiated thorough discussions within management. For one group of managers, the project indicated
the direction in which technology development was to evolve in the company, whereas the other group
perceived such a project as a threat to the stability and production within the company. At Alpha on the
contrary, there was hardly any disagreement about the role of the new technology within the new
organisational structure. There was no discussion about production workers getting access to the new IT that
was needed in their new role. The analysis of the role of the IT on the organisational level did reveal a
fundamentally different approach to change processes in the two companies. At Alpha, all levels in the
organisation were closely involved in the changes right from the start of the project, whereas the Omicron
analysis revealed a significantly higher level of conflict between management and the rest of the staff. The
complicated history of the BlueTech project within Omicron provided rather interesting study material from
a CHARISM perspective, because at different points in time there were conflicts between technology
characteristics and the characteristics of the end-users and the organisation.

xv
 Especially the analysis of BlueTech indicates that a model such as CHARISM can be very useful in
the different stages of a technology development project, because the matching of characteristics will
pinpoint potential conflicts at an early stage. Of course, quite some more research is needed in order to
achieve a precise definition of technology characteristics with organisational and psychological relevance.
Moreover, extensive further research is needed in order to demonstrate the value of some of the core
concepts of the CHARISM model, such as needs portfolios, PE-fit, integrity, harmony and stress. This
dissertation is only a first attempt at a holistic theoretical model. Finally, further research is needed for
finding suitable research instruments and methods that need to be deployable in a rapid and targeted way, so
as to play a useful role in fast moving technology projects.

xvi
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
Informatietechnologie (IT) ontwikkelen en in bedrijven installeren is geen eenvoudige opdracht. De
industrie maakt zich meer en meer zorgen over de complexiteit die gepaard gaat met het invoeren van
nieuwe IT in organisaties. Onderzoek heeft intussen uitgewezen dat het niet zozeer de technische aspecten
zijn die een en ander bemoeilijken, maar wel organisatorische, sociale en psychologische factoren. Onder-
zoekers in verschillende takken van de wetenschap hebben er al aandacht aan besteed en hebben talrijke
methodes en technieken ontwikkeld om de problematiek aan te pakken. Dit proefschrift wil een bijdrage
leveren aan die discussie. De aanleiding voor dit onderzoek is BlueTech, een ontwikkelingsproject binnen het
bedrijf Omicron waaraan ik bij het begin van mijn doctoraalproject meewerkte. BlueTech had tot doel om IT-
toepassingen te ontwikkelen voor arbeiders in de productie-industrie. De bedoeling van die technologie was
om groepen arbeiders in staat te stellen om zelf hun productie te organiseren, om hen bij die productie te
ondersteunen en hen bovendien toe te laten hun eigen functioneren te evalueren en eventueel bij te sturen.
Maar al vroeg in het project kwamen een aantal arbeidspsychologische en organisatorische knelpunten
bovendrijven die de oorspronkelijke software-ontwerpen praktisch onbruikbaar maakten. Die knelpunten
resulteerden in de volgende onderzoeksvraag:

“Wanneer in een organisatie een nieuw computer-gebaseerd informatiesysteem wordt ontwikkeld en

geïnstalleerd, welke interacties zijn er dan tussen organisatiekenmerken, psychologische kenmerken van de
betrokkenen, en informatietechnologische kenmerken?”

Omdat binnen de beleidsinformatica niet dadelijk een geschikt antwoord voorhanden was, wordt in
dit proefschrift op basis van theoretische en empirische bijdragen uit de drie disciplines een nieuw en
geïntegreerd theoretisch model ontwikkeld – CHARISM, een letterwoord dat staat voor “Cross-level
HARmony, Integrity and Stress Model”. De methode die werd gebruikt om het theoretische model te
ontwikkelen, was een mengeling van ‘grounded-theory building’ – het opbouwen van theorieën vanuit de
ervaringen uit de realiteit – en een deductief samenbrengen van ideeën uit de bestaande literatuur. Het
CHARISM model is opgebouwd rond de begrippen harmonie, integriteit en stress, en heeft twee
analyseniveaus, met name het individu en de organisatie. Het model gaat ervan uit dat zowel individuen als
organisaties bepaalde behoeften en capaciteiten hebben, en dat ze in een sociaal-economische omgeving
functioneren die in die behoeften kan voorzien, maar in ruil bepaalde eisen stelt. Een belangrijk axioma in de
theorie is dat er een toestand van relatieve harmonie ontstaat wanneer een individu of een organisatie een
balans kan creëren tussen zijn behoeften en de voorzieningen van de omgeving enerzijds, en tussen zijn
capaciteiten en de eisen van de omgeving anderzijds. Wanneer er geen balans gevonden wordt, of wanneer
een bestaande balans verstoord wordt, dan zal dit leiden tot spanning, die in bepaalde omstandigheden kan
overgaan in stress. De behoeften en capaciteiten van een individu of een organisatie maken – samen met de
perceptie van de voorzieningen en eisen van de omgeving – gedeeltelijk het subjectieve zelfbeeld uit van dat
individu of die organisatie. Op basis van zijn behoeften en capaciteiten ontwikkelt een individu of
organisatie zijn eigen niche in de wereld, een relatief stabiel geheel van sociaal aanvaardbare situaties die een
vereenvoudiging inhouden van de overweldigend complexe omgeving. Ieder individu en iedere organisatie
ontwikkelt een aantal van dergelijke situaties die gekenmerkt worden door bepaalde routines en semi-
automatische procedures die hem in staat stellen om op een adequate manier te functioneren. Die situaties
brengen ook een bepaalde manier van denken, voelen en handelen mee, en zullen daardoor als een soort
mentale filter gaan optreden in de waarneming van de omgeving. De niche waar mensen en organisaties in
leven zorgt voor een stabiel systeem van veronderstellingen, betekenissen, normen, regels en doelen, maar
ook sjablonen met sociale procedures en omgangsvormen. Dit gestructureerde geheel van betekenissen en
situaties, dit systeem, wordt ‘Integriteit van menselijk functioneren’ of gewoon ‘Integriteit’ of ook
‘Zelfbeeld’ genoemd. Volgens het CHARISM model gaat die subjectieve integriteit bij mensen samen met
een aantal psychosociale processen. Een harmonische integriteit hangt samen met tevredenheid, motivatie,
engagement en mentale gezondheid, terwijl een verstoorde integriteit samenhangt met spanning, stress en
ziekte (geestelijk en lichamelijk).

xvii
 Een belangrijk proces bij het instandhouden van integriteit is significatie of zingeving, een proces
waarbij aan alle activiteiten – zowel de eigen als die van anderen – betekenis wordt toegekend, een betekenis
die niet alleen bepaald wordt door de sociale groep waartoe men behoort, maar die ook grotendeels beïn-
vloed wordt door het bestaande systeem van betekenissen. De bestaande integriteit treedt daarbij als een
soort filter op, doordat zowel het individu als de organisatie aanvankelijk zullen proberen om nieuwe infor-
matie op een zodanige manier te interpreteren dat ze past binnen het bestaande geheel van betekenissen, zelfs
als de nieuwe informatie daardoor een betekenis krijgt die niet bedoeld was. Pas indien dat laatste niet
mogelijk is, zal men zijn bestaande betekeniskader moeten aanpassen, en dat is vaak een erg moeizaam
proces. Het is precies dit significatieproces dat een belangrijke rol speelt bij veranderingen in het leven van
mensen en organisaties, zoals bijvoorbeeld bij het invoeren van nieuwe informatietechnologie. Het is immers
zo dat zowel individuen als organisaties verschillend zijn, en dat die verschillen volgens het CHARISM
model vooral voortkomen uit anders samengestelde behoeftenportefeuilles – een nieuw begrip dat in het
model wordt voorgesteld. Mensen en organisaties hebben bepaalde types van behoeften die op verschillende
tijdstippen relatief meer of minder belangrijk zijn, en volgens mijn theoretisch model zijn het die behoeften-
portefeuilles die ten grondslag liggen aan de verschillende significatieprocessen van de betrokkenen bij een
veranderingsproces. Zo kan het gebeuren dat er bij het ontwerp en de invoering van nieuwe technologie
significatieconflicten optreden tussen de software-ontwerpers, de managers die de nieuwe technologie
bestellen, en de eindgebruikers. Elk van die groepen kan verschillende behoeften en verwachtingen hebben,
en die dan projecteren op andere betrokkenen, waardoor er betekenisverwarring en onenigheid kan ontstaan.

Daarom is het hoofdargument in het CHARISM model het volgende: een nieuw technologie-
gebaseerd informatiesysteem dat door individuen in organisaties moet worden gebruikt zal vaak slechts
zinvol zijn wanneer het enerzijds aansluit bij de integriteit van de individuele betrokkenen en anderzijds
aansluit bij de integriteit van de betrokken organisatie. Wanneer die twee overeenkomsten gelijktijdig gerea-
liseerd worden, ontstaat er een harmonische toestand en zijn volgens het CHARISM model de slaagkansen
van het nieuwe informatiesysteem veel groter. Met andere woorden, dan is het waarschijnlijker dat het
systeem geaccepteerd, geïntegreerd en gebruikt zal worden. Als er op een van de twee niveau’s een conflict
ontstaat, komt er geen harmonie tot stand, en is er een kans dat ofwel de gebruiker of de organisatie
gespannen of gestresseerd geraakt en ontwijkingsgedrag zal vertonen. De taak van een technologieontwik-
kelingsteam bestaat er dan in om op voorhand en in de loop van het project te proberen in te schatten of er al
conflicten aanwezig zijn of kunnen ontstaan, zowel bij de individuele betrokkenen als in de organisatie. Het
is immers vaak zo dat nieuwe technologie een aantal 'ingebakken' betekenissen met zich meedraagt, en dat
die voor conflicten kunnen zorgen wanneer ze sterk afwijken van de integriteit van de betrokken individuen
en organisaties. Het probleem is vaak dat er geen eenvoudige manier is om in te schatten of er conflicten zijn
of kunnen ontstaan. Daarom worden in dit proefschrift een aantal kenmerken gesuggereerd die gebruikt
kunnen worden om de graad van overeenkomst te bepalen tussen de technologie en zijn gebruikers enerzijds
en tussen de technologie en de organisatie anderzijds. Daarbij is het belangrijk dat de eigenschappen van
individu en technologie vergelijkbaar zijn, d.w.z. dat de kenmerken waarmee de technologie beschreven
wordt arbeidspsychologisch en organisatorisch relevant zijn. Bij elk technologiekenmerk zal een ontwerp-
team moeten proberen zo vroeg mogelijk in te schatten wat de impact is voor de gebruikers en de organisatie,
onder meer door na te gaan in hoeverre de nieuwe technologie aansluit bij of een conflict vormt met de
behoeften en vaardigheden van individuen en organisaties, maar ook door te onderzoeken of er mogelijke
significatieconflicten zijn.

Uit deze beschrijving moge blijken dat het CHARISM model een vrij omvattend theoretisch
raamwerk is, dat onmogelijk binnen het kader van een doctoraalproject volledig theoretisch uitgewerkt én
empirisch onderzocht kan worden. Wel worden er op basis van de theorie een 65-tal theoretische hypothesen
geformuleerd, die eigenlijk een samenvatting van de argumentatie vormen. Voor een 25-tal van die
hypothesen wordt er in het tweede deel van dit proefschrift empirische bevestiging gezocht, in het kader van
twee gevalstudies in Deense productiebedrijven uit de metaalindustrie, waar telkens informatietechnologie
werd ingevoerd die door productiearbeiders moest worden gebruikt. Binnen Omicron ging het om een
experimenteel onderzoeks- en ontwikkelingsproject dat de bruikbaarheid van bepaalde software-technieken
moest aantonen zonder daarbij grote organisatieveranderingen door te voeren, terwijl het binnen Alpha net
ging om een grootschalig omschakelingsproject van een hele productiedivisie. Bij Alpha werd er een
algehele verandering doorgevoerd waarbij de managementstructuur grondig gewijzigd werd, de verloning
grondig werd veranderd en de arbeiders meer zeggenschap kregen over hun eigen functioneren, en daartoe
toegang kregen tot de technologie die eerder alleen door hun ploegbazen gebruikt werd.

xviii
 De exploratieve methode die werd gebruikt om empirische ondersteuning te vinden voor de
hypothesen is een hybride mengeling van kwalitatieve en kwantitatieve technieken en methodes, waarbij
interviews met betrokkenen werden gecombineerd met een bevraging door middel van een uitvoerige
vragenlijst. Die vragenlijst, die werd samengesteld uit bestaande instrumenten en nieuwe vragen, werd
RIPOSTI genoemd, wat staat voor Research Instrument for the Psycho-Organisational Study of Technology
Implementation (onderzoeksinstrument voor het psycho-organisatorisch onderzoek van technologie-
implementatie). Het aantal deelnemers (uitsluitend mannen) aan het onderzoek is vrij beperkt – een 60-tal bij
Omicron en een 30-tal bij Alpha – waardoor de statistische waarde van de kwantitatieve resultaten hoogstens
indicatief is, maar meer werd er ook niet beoogd. De bedoeling van het empirische deel was enkel om voor
een beperkt aantal belangrijke ideeën en concepten empirische ondersteuning te vinden, zowel op het
individuele als op het organisatieniveau.

Op het individuele analyseniveau werden vooral kwantitatieve technieken gebruikt bij het analyseren
van de antwoorden op de RIPOSTI vragenlijst. Een eerste belangrijk resultaat van die analyses is de
mogelijke rol van het nieuwe begrip behoeftenportefeuille: binnen Alpha en Omicron zijn er belangrijke
psychosociale verschillen tussen groepen mensen met uiteenlopende behoeftenportefeuilles. Een andere
belangrijke tendens is dat de overeenkomst tussen individu en omgeving (PE-fit) – en dan vooral tussen
behoeften en voorzieningen – een belangrijke psychosociale parameter lijkt te zijn, en dat er een samenhang
is tussen PE-fit en andere psychosociale waarden, zoals tevredenheid, motivatie en engagement. Anderzijds
is de samenhang tussen PE-fit en mentale en lichamelijke gezondheid minder duidelijk, en dat lijkt er op te
wijzen dat integriteit slechts gedeeltelijk wordt beïnvloed door de subjectieve inschatting van PE-fit. Andere
psychologische processen, zoals bijvoorbeeld tevredenheid en engagement, lijken een belangrijke rol te
spelen bij het bepalen van iemands geestelijke en lichamelijke gezondheid. Een derde interessante bevinding
op het individuele niveau is dat er een duidelijke samenhang is tussen PE-fit en iemands perceptie van zijn
organisatie, wat een indirecte aanwijzing is voor het bestaan van het significatie-proces. Tenslotte is er
slechts een beperkte samenhang gevonden tussen iemands integriteit en zijn perceptie van organisatie-
technologie, hetgeen waarschijnlijk samenhangt met de marginale rol van de nieuwe technologie in de twee
gevalstudies. De nieuwe technologie heeft op zich immers geen grote veranderingen teweeggebracht in het
werk of de integriteit van de betrokkenen.

Op het organisatorische niveau zijn – meer dan op het individuele niveau – zowel kwalitatieve als
kwantitatieve technieken gebruikt. Een deel van het RIPOSTI-instrument onderzocht organisatorische
perceptie, terwijl de interviews vooral gericht waren op de overeenkomst tussen organisatie en omgeving
(OE-fit), en de rol van de nieuwe technologie. Bovendien was mijn deelname aan het BlueTech project bij
Omicron een belangrijke bron van informatie. Een eerste onderzoek gebruikte gegevens uit de interviews, de
documenten, observaties en participatie om een portret te schetsen van elke organisatie en zijn omgeving.
Dat onderzoek toont aan dat de twee organisaties momenteel in een moeilijke marktpositie verkeren – net als
de Europese productie-industrie in het algemeen – en dat ze elk op een andere manier proberen met die
externe druk om te gaan. Een tweede groep van analyses onderzocht de interne significatieprocessen in de
organisaties op twee manieren, ten eerste door de percepties van de verschillende groepen van betrokkenen
nauwkeurig te vergelijken en ten tweede door het management en de vakbondsafgevaardigden te vragen om
de perceptie van de arbeiders over het interne klimaat binnen de organisatie in te schatten. Beide analyses
lijken nuttige manieren om interne spanningen te meten, en leverden nogal verschillende resultaten op voor
beide bedrijven. Binnen Omicron lijkt een tamelijk hoge graad van interne onenigheid te bestaan, in die mate
zelfs dat er sprake kan zijn van twee clans binnen het management, terwijl binnen Alpha meer interne
overeenstemming lijkt te zijn. Een derde grote analyse onderzocht OE-fit door de antwoorden van
beleidsmakers in te voeren in een expertsysteem – Organisational Consultant – dat aangeeft of er belangrijke
conflicten bestaan tussen de organisatie en zijn omgeving. In die analyse komen enerzijds organisatie-
kenmerken aan bod zoals strategie, managementstijl, organisatieklimaat, productietechnologie, product-
diversiteit en omvang, en anderzijds omgevingskenmerken zoals complexiteit, voorspelbaarheid en
marktsituatie. De antwoorden over die kenmerken werden op twee manieren verwerkt. Ten eerste werd per
respondent op zoek gegaan naar conflicten in zijn perceptie van OE-fit, en ten tweede werden de verschillen
tussen de respondenten in kaart gebracht. De resultaten van de analyses wijzen uit dat er in beide bedrijven
een zekere mate van discussie bestaat over een aantal aspecten van OE-fit, en dat vooral bij Omicron de
overeenkomst tussen het bedrijf en zijn omgeving als problematisch wordt gezien.

xix
 Ook de rol van de nieuwe technologie in beide organisaties was erg verschillend, zoals blijkt uit de
gedetailleerde analyse van de interviews, de observaties en de participatie. In Omicron was BlueTech een
klein en experimenteel project waarover binnen het bedrijf erg uiteenlopende visies bestonden en dat
aanleiding gaf tot grondige discussies binnen het management. Voor één groep beleidsmakers gaf het project
de richting aan waarin de technologieontwikkeling binnen het bedrijf moest evolueren, terwijl de andere
groep een dergelijk project als bedreigend ervoer voor de stabiliteit en de productie binnen het bedrijf. Bij
Alpha daarentegen was er geen sprake van onenigheid over de rol van de nieuwe technologie binnen de
nieuwe organisatiestructuur. Dat arbeiders toegang kregen tot de IT die nodig was om hun nieuwe rol te
vervullen, stond niet ter discussie. De analyse van de rol van IT op organisatie-niveau toonde wel een
fundamenteel verschillende aanpak van veranderingsprocessen binnen de twee bedrijven. Binnen Alpha
werden alle geledingen in de organisatie vanaf het begin van het project nauw bij de veranderingen
betrokken, terwijl er binnen Omicron toch meer onderlinge conflicten waren tussen de managers en de rest
van het personeel. De bewogen geschiedenis van het BlueTech project binnen Omicron was vanuit een
CHARISM-perspectief interessant studiemateriaal, doordat er op verschillende tijdstippen sprake was van
conflicten tussen de technologiekenmerken en de kenmerken van de betrokken eindgebruikers en de
organisatie.

Vooral de studie van BlueTech geeft aan dat een model als CHARISM erg nuttig kan zijn in de
verschillende stadia van een technologieontwikkelingsproject, doordat de vergelijking van kenmerken al snel
zal wijzen op mogelijke conflicten. Natuurlijk is er nog veel onderzoek nodig om tot een preciese afbakening
te komen van technologiekenmerken die organisatorische en arbeidspsychologische relevantie hebben. Ook
de waarde van een aantal wezenlijke aspecten van het CHARISM model, zoals behoeftenportefeuilles, PE-
fit, integriteit, harmonie en stress, moet nog door middel van uitgebreid onderzoek aangetoond worden. Dit
proefschrift is maar een eerste aanzet tot een holistisch theoretisch model. Tenslotte is ook verder onderzoek
nodig naar gepaste onderzoeksinstrumenten en -methodes, die snel en gericht kunnen worden ingezet, om
een nuttige rol te kunnen spelen in snel veranderende technologieprojecten.

xx
Acknowledgements

The path towards this dissertation has been rough and full of potholes and sharp bends. At
times, we could not see the forest for the trees. Nevertheless, in the end we arrived where
we wanted to go. At the risk of forgetting someone, I would like to thank the following
people whose help and support have been invaluable.
My supervisor, Prof. dr. Børge Obel, for getting me out of a dead-end street and helping me
in successfully taking a sharp bend in the path. For his continuing support, his optimism
and realism in a project that must have seemed like a never-ending story. For his
understanding and patience during the last two difficult years of the project. In short, for
being a great long-distance guide.
The other members of my supervising team at Omicron, Dansk Management Forum, and
especially Hans Jørgen Lynggaard at OPI and Henrik Bendix at Managers’ Hotline, for
their contributions to the process and content, for their valuable discussions, and their
continuing support. Good luck to them in their start-up companies.
My fadder, Prof. dr. Kai Kristensen, and the members of the jury, for their patience during
the final years of the project.
My university colleagues at the Dept. of Organisation and Management, and at NIS-lab,
and especially Karsten Boye Rasmussen, Jeanette Lemmergaard, Dorthe Døjbæk, Bo
Eriksen, Masood Masoodian, Mona Andersen, Bodil Agger and Merete Bertelsen for their
active support and contributions, and for being great colleagues.
My former colleagues at Omicron, and more especially Carl Erik Skjølstrup, Jesper
Rasmussen, Torben Andersen, Keld Hedal Nielsen, Michael Sellerup, Jan Tuxen, John
Laursen and the workers at the Rørværksted for being helpful colleagues, respondents and
co-financiers in this project
Niels Tvedergaard Larsen, Jørgen Nielsen, Jørn Larsen, Jon Grøn and the rest of the Alpha
respondents for their willingness to cooperate in the research.
Prof. dr. Niels Ole Bernsen and his team at NIS-lab for putting me on this path, and for
inviting me to Denmark in the first place.

My parents, my parents-in-law and the rest of the family for allowing me to ruin many a
weekend, and for letting me keep them on a too high level of strain for the best part of six
years. Also many thanks for their active support in looking after the kids.
Ellen-Margrethe and Erik Adriansen for making me part of their family and accepting me
in their house for nearly half a year.
Thomas, Sarah and Eva, for having to put up with an absent, absent-minded or overworked
father.
And last but by no means least, I want to thank Christine for proofreading, feedback and
valuable comments, but most of all for allowing me to spend time on my PhD that could or
should have been spent differently. In short, thank you for being there when it was needed.

xxi
INTRODUCTION

This doctoral dissertation discusses a new holistic theoretical framework for conceptualising issues
related to the development and introduction of new organisational information systems, together with a lim-
ited empirical exercise intended to substantiate some of the theory’s main hypotheses. The model builds on
contributions from three main scientific disciplines: information systems research, work psychology and or-
ganisational science. The empirical exercise consists of two case studies in two Danish heavy metal produc-
tion companies, in which a number of qualitative and quantitative research techniques were combined.
The dissertation contains two main parts, followed by a general conclusion. The first part contains
five chapters in which the research problem is formulated, relevant contributions from the literature are re-
viewed, and the new theoretical model is developed: CHARISM – a Cross-level HARmony Integrity and
Stress Model. The second part describes the empirical exercise, and contains six chapters with a discussion
of the methodology, a definition of working hypotheses, a description of the research instruments, a sum-
mary description1 of the two case studies, and a chapter with final analyses and discussion.

The structure of the dissertation is illus-

Problem Formulation
trated by this funnel, which symbolises the
Infor mati on course of a PhD project2, in the sense that a
Technolog y
Work researcher necessarily narrows his perspective in
Psychology
Organisation
the course of a research project. At the beginning
Theory of a PhD project, one takes a broad perspective
and studies the whole scientific field in which
Integrati ve Theoretical one’s research is situated, usually by reviewing
Model
CHARIS M
the literature. In the course of such a literature
study, one necessarily narrows one’s focus to
contributions that are relevant to the specific
Methodol ogy problem or research question at hand. Once the
literature has been studied, theoretical hypo-
theses are formulated as a kind of crystallisation
Working
Hypotheses of the researcher’s current state of thinking, and
such a formulation again narrows one’s focus.
On the basis of the research question and the
Research
Instruments formulated hypotheses, an empirical method is
chosen or developed, which again narrows the
Case 1
researcher’s perspective. On the basis of the
Case 2 chosen method, a detailed and in-depth empirical
investigation is performed, which includes for-
Analysis and mulating working hypotheses, selecting or deve-
Discussion loping research instruments and collecting, ana-
lysing, interpreting and discussing data. At the
Conclusion and end of a PhD project, the researcher again puts
Future Research the results of his study into a broader perspec-
tive, by focusing on possible future research.

The funnel will be shown at the start of each chapter as a kind of guide for the reader. It illustrates
where each chapter is situated in relation to the overall flow of the dissertation. The horizontal grey broken
lines indicate the separation of the text in its three parts, the theoretical part, the empirical part and the
general conclusion.

1
For reasons of confidentiality, the complete case study descriptions are only available to a restricted audience.
2
The credit for the concept of the funnel and its relation to a PhD project is due to my supervisor, Prof. dr. B. Obel.
Part I. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY BUILDING

In the first part of this thesis, the research problem is formulated and – based on that formulation –
relevant contributions in the literature are discussed. A new theoretical model is then developed by
integrating contributions from the three main paradigms. Starting from the problem formulation, I situate my
research within extant literature, thereby paying special attention to the theoretical and empirical
contributions that my work builds on. I also indicate the areas where my work either extends or integrates
existing theoretical perspectives, thereby setting the stage for the final chapter of the first part, in which I
discuss my integrated theoretical model in more detail.

The first chapter in Part I describes the starting point of my research by formulating the problem that
will be tackled in the remainder of the thesis. The chapter clarifies the need to adopt a multi-disciplinary per-
spective in order to solve the problem.

After that first formulation, the problem is situated within scientific research by pointing out the
three main paradigms that my work builds on, namely information systems, work psychology and organisa-
tional theory. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 discuss the three paradigms in some detail. Chapter 2 will look more
closely at the information systems paradigm, Chapter 3 at work psychology, and Chapter 4 at organisational
theory. The division of the theoretical basis into three different chapters is somewhat artificial, because there
is such a high degree of overlap between the different research traditions. Especially the information systems
paradigm defines itself as multi-disciplinary, since it has always built on contributions from other areas of
scientific research. The reason why I chose to write three different chapters anyway is that it provides some
more clarity as to the origin and the original purpose and focus of the different contributions.

In Chapter 5 then, I develop a theoretical model based on an integration of some of the concepts dis-
cussed in the previous three chapters. This theoretical model develops the concepts of harmony, integrity and
stress at and across two levels-of-analysis, the individual and the organisation. In order to facilitate the de-
scription, I have labelled the new theoretical model CHARISM, which stands for “Cross-level HARmony,
Integrity and Stress Model”. This model is argued to be broad enough to tackle the different aspects of the
problem that I formulate in Chapter 1.

In Part II then, I will use the CHARISM model as the starting point of an empirical exercise, in
which one of the case studies is related to the IS development and implementation project BlueTech that was
the starting point of the research.

2
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on
Technolog y
Work
Psychology
Organisation
Theory

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy

Working
Hypotheses

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Introducing new information technology in work organisations

3
Chapter 1. Problem Formulation

Within industry, there is a growing awareness of and concern about the complexity of introducing
new information technology (IT) in organisations. Experience shows that it is not so much technical issues
that complicate matters, but rather organisational, social and psychological issues. The research project that I
describe in this dissertation started out with the aim of shedding light onto the complex problem of
developing and implementing computer-based information systems (IS) in organisations. The research
project was amongst others meant to shed some light on a number of practical issues encountered during an
IS development project at Omicron.

A. Setting the stage

In 1996 Omicron3, a large Danish manufacturing company, started a European-Commission financed

information technology (IT) research project – BlueTech3 - in order to develop and test new software that
would allow blue-collar shop floor workers to have more influence and control over their daily work in pro-
duction. This new software was expected to raise the workers’ motivation and commitment and - in the long
run - their productivity. The whole idea was to use BlueTech as an experiment that should show that IT can
act as a catalyst for organisational change. Omicron has a traditional top-down hierarchical functional or-
ganisation, with foremen and supervisors telling their colleagues what to do when and how. Most workers
have a career of more than 20 years with the company, some even more than 40 years, a period in which a lot
has changed technologically at Omicron, but not so much organisationally or culturally. BlueTech, on the
other hand, was implemented by a young research department specialised in developing advanced robot sys-
tems and advanced robot software for manufacturing, a department that was something of an ‘outsider’
within a company focussed on hands-on production.
When I entered the project in 1997, the conceptual system design was well underway. A consultant
company had developed a fictitious organisational design for the production workshops, a structure with
autonomous working groups where the different groups work in mutual competition on their production
tasks. The BlueTech software would then support a kind of stock-exchange scenario, where each team could
make a bid on various tasks, depending on its workload, the experience of its members, etc. The software
would also keep a log of all activities within each team, allowing it to evaluate its own functioning over time,
and in comparison to other teams, and the software would support a system of bonuses depending on the
team’s productivity. In other words, the teams would have control over their planning, their productivity
level, and – in the long run - their own pay (cf. Verjans, 1998, for a detailed description of the software).
However, this design was developed within the research department as part of an experimental
scenario, i.e. there was no intention of applying BlueTech software in production, nor had there been any
debate within the organisation about actually changing into a structure with autonomous groups. Therefore,
there was no relation with the existing situation, nor with the situation as it was envisaged to be by the time
the software would be ready. There was a clear misfit between the experimental organisation and the actual
top-down hierarchical structure. There was also a misfit between the expected self-managing, self-evaluating
workers and the actual workers’ psychology, i.e. being used to taking orders, not showing initiative, etc.
Therefore, when the project financiers demanded that the software be demonstrated in real production
settings, the project was in trouble.
This was a case where it soon became clear that one needed to take a close look at the three research
areas mentioned above. Therefore, my project started out to investigate whether research existed that could
tackle the complex interaction between (a) IS characteristics, development and implementation, (b)
organisational characteristics and (c) psychological issues.

3
The names of the company, project and people involved are fictitious in order to secure confidentiality.

4
B. Problem area

To begin situating my research, I want to start at a very high level of abstraction by pointing out the
different scientific fields that I draw upon. Usually, sciences are classified using a classification as the one in
Figure 1. In this figure, the sciences that are most relevant to my research are underlined and indicated in
italics. Those relevant scientific paradigms all contain contributions related to the development and introduc-
tion of information systems in organisations, each with their own scientific methods and techniques, and
within different scientific traditions. One could roughly describe these traditions as the experimentally ori-
ented science of psychology, the survey-oriented organisational theory, and the engineering-oriented infor-
matics and computer science. These different scientific traditions are reflected in the type of contributions
that will be described in subsequent chapters.

Humanities Social Sciences

Archaeology Economics
History Political science
Ethnology and folklore Sociology
Literature and arts Psychology
Linguistics Geography
Philosophy Management and business studies
Theology Social anthropology
Education and socio-legal studies.
Life, Environmental and Earth Sciences
Biology Medical Sciences
Agriculture Diagnostic and therapeutic medicine
Earth sciences Neurology
Climatology Immunology
Oceanography, etc. Psychology
Clinical studies
Physical and Engineering Sciences Toxicology
Chemistry Human genetics
Mathematics Medicinal biotechnology
Informatics and the computer sciences
Physics
Fundamental engineering sciences
Materials sciences
Technologies research.

Figure 1: Situating the research - This classification is based on the division in Committees found within the Euro-
pean Science Foundation (European Science Foundation, 2000). Relevant sciences are underlined and in italics.

It needs to be mentioned that the problems related to developing and implementing new IT for and
within organisations have mainly been recognised within the information systems (IS) and organisational
theory fields, and have fostered extensive research efforts within these areas. Within the psychology
paradigm on the other hand, one has mainly studied psychological effects of new IT, not so much the
processes involved in the development and implementation of IT.
Problems related to IS development and implementation have been known since the end of the
1970's but continue to exist. There are enough examples of recent IS development and implementation
projects - both large and small - that failed, either completely or partly. A case in point is the Danish Amanda
project, the aim of which was to introduce a new system in all the local agencies of the Danish National
Employment Agency (Arbejdsformidlingen). When the 50 million dollar system – nearly 100% over budget
- was implemented in the spring of 2000, it was completely unusable, both according to the employees and to
IS experts. Fiascos such as this one are not only to be found in public organisations, but also in private
companies. For instance, the recent trend within manufacturing industry to implement Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) systems has often (estimated 40%) resulted in projects that were typically far more
expensive and lasted much longer than expected, (Keller, 1999). Similar experiences were recorded with
Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) projects, i.e. radical IT-driven organisational change projects, which
have been quite popular in the 1990s. Some reports indicate a failure rate of up to 70% of BPR projects
(Cafasso, 1993; Galliers, 1998, p.226). The economical, societal, and human cost of such failures is very
high indeed, so research within the area continues and increases steadily.

5
C. Limitations of existing literature

Research into IS implementation has studied a number of issues at different levels of analysis, ever
since the advent of computing technology. In a 1994 survey article, Ang & Pavri summarise the situation as
follows:
"The impacts of information technology (IT) [...] are complex and defy any
straightforward interpretation. They can be analyzed at the societal, the
organizational, and the individual levels. At the societal level, the urgent issues are
socioeconomic ones, such as employment, quality of work, and sharpening a
nation's competitive edge. At the organizational level, IT impacts such organizational
variables as structure, power shift, and organizational change. IT's impact on end-
user attitudes, such as job satisfaction, user acceptance, and resistance to change,
are the major issues at the individual level. But all 3 levels tend to overlap." (Ang &
Pavri, 1994, p. 122)

The main problem I perceived when studying the literature was exactly that most analyses - within
all three scientific paradigms - focus only on one level of analysis, even though the three levels overlap, as
Ang & Pavri state. However, the practical situation at Omicron seemed to be in need of a theory that could
explain a number of issues at both the organisational and individual level. I needed a theory that covered at
least those two levels simultaneously, and such a theory did not seem to exist in the literature. The reason for
wanting a theory that could cover the individual and the organisational levels of analysis was that none of the
single-level theories seemed to be broad enough to cover the issues that I met during the BlueTech project. In
that project a number of different possible software designs, that were technically possible, were problematic
both for organisational and psychological reasons. The different software designs that were suggested
conflicted with current organisational structure, centralisation, formalisation, culture and climate, but also
with employee attitudes, motivation and commitment.

Moreover, the explanations and solutions offered in the IS and the management literature are often
contradictory (Robey & Boudreau, 1999), and fragmented (Kwon & Zmud, 1987). None of the existing
theoretical models seemed to cover all the relevant issues for the case at Omicron. These models often focus
on a single organisational factor such as ‘organisational structure’ (Robey, 1977, 1981; Allen & Hauptman,
1987; Leifer, 1988; Scott, 1990; Hunter, 1999), or a single psychological factor such as ‘user satisfaction’
(Ives, Olson, & Baroudi, 1983; Baroudi & Orlikowski, 1988; Gatian, 1994; Thong & Yap, 1996).

Next to the limitation of the research to a single factor, researchers have often based their research on
a single causal relationship, such as “How does new IT influence organisational structure?” The quotation
from Ang & Pavri shows that clearly: the research looks at "IT impacts on X." For my purposes, these
approaches, found in the majority of the literature, are too limited. It is only in research starting in the 1990's
that one may find multi-causality assumptions (e.g. Orlikowski, 1992a; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994).

Another problematic limitation of existing theoretical and empirical contributions is related to an

issue already mentioned in 1988 by Markus & Robey, who argued that most research into the organisational
impacts of technology suffers from inadequate and inconsistent operationalisation of the IT variable. They
suggest the generation of a typology of IT, but it seems such an immense task that there has been little work
in that area. As Ang & Pavry (1994, p. 127) mention: "comparison of findings becomes difficult, if not
impossible." However, this problem is not limited to the IT variable, it also applies to the concepts of
'information system', 'organisation', 'user' or 'individual'. These variables are either treated in a very
undifferentiated and generalised way as mentioned above, resulting in comparisons between apples and pears
as it were, or as idiosyncratic entities in case study descriptions, where comparison and generalisation
become next to impossible.

6
D. Integrative framework

To solve the limitations mentioned in the previous paragraph, one needs a theoretical framework that
- covers different levels of analysis,
- is not limited to single-factor analyses,
- does not assume simple causal relations, and
- suffers neither from over-generalisation nor over-specificity.

A theoretical framework that integrates these different requirements does not yet seem to exist in the
literature. I will try to develop such a framework around three main classes of entities, i.e. (types of)
information systems, (types of) organisations, and (types of) individuals, where the central concepts are
broad constructs such as ‘harmony’, 'integrity', 'misfit', 'strain' and 'stress'. These broad 'umbrella' constructs
are assumed to correlate with more operational variables such as satisfaction, commitment or motivation on
the individual level, and stakeholder disagreement, situational misfit or organisational climate on the
organisational level. Moreover, I will not assume simple causal relations between these constructs, but
assume an interactional or emergent perspective.

This framework is in a sense a reply to some of the remarks that Markus & Robey made in their
1988 article, but that have not found a great deal of acknowledgement in the literature so far:
"Prediction in the emergent perspective requires detailed understanding of dynamic
organizational processes in addition to knowledge about the intentions of actors and
the features of information technology. (p.589)
In summary, we believe that process theories are useful precisely because, while
recognizing and accepting the complexity of causal relationships, they do not
abandon the goals of generalizability and prediction. By accepting a more limited
definition of prediction, one in which the analyst is able to say only that the outcome
is likely (but not certain) under some conditions and unlikely under others, process
theorists may be able to accumulate and consolidate findings about the relationship
between information technology and organizational change. (p. 593)
The concepts in macro-level theories are properties of large-scale collectives
(organizations, populations, societies); this level of analysis is favored by
macrosociologists, macro-economists and evolutionary theorists. The concepts in
micro-level theories are properties of individuals and small groups; this level of
analysis is favored by social psychologists and microeconomists. In contrast to our
caution against mixing process and variance theory, we believe that mixing levels of
analysis may be useful in research and theory on information technology and
organizational change. (p. 594)
Central to the emergent perspective is the social meaning ascribed to information
technology. This perspective accounts for conflicting research findings about impacts
by demonstrating the different meanings that the same technology acquires in
different social settings. (Markus & Robey, 1988, p. 595)"

In their 1994 article, Ang & Pavri add the argument, based on (Culnan, 1987) that "IT impact
research is best viewed as a multiple paradigm discipline that lends itself readily to a plurality of research
perspectives." The subsequent chapters will describe relevant contributions from different scientific
paradigms and combine them into a process theory at two levels of analysis, that will aim to predict (in the
limited sense) likely or unlikely outcomes of actions related to the development and implementation of IS.

Please note that Chapter 11 contains a paragraph with a literature update (pp. 296-ff.), a description
of the most recent contributions in the three research areas, i.e. those contributions that appeared in the years
that followed the main theory-building phase.

7
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on
Technolog y
Chapter 2
Work
Psychology
Organisation
Theory

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy

Working
Hypotheses

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Psychological and organisational aspects of information systems development

Chapter 2. Information Systems Literature

In this chapter, I look at relevant literature within Information Systems Research. The first paragraph
provides a brief overview of the IS paradigm, and the fundamental discussions that are to be found regarding
the status of the research paradigm. The second paragraph then situates my research contribution within the
IS field in some more detail by discussing some of the relevant contributions that my work builds on. In the
final paragraph then, I will discuss some of the limitations of the research in extant literature. However, be-
fore looking specifically at the Information Systems research paradigm, I want to situate IS research within
the wider framework of computer-related sciences. The basis for this is a kind of roadmap (Figure 2) pro-
vided by the overview of divisions and sub-divisions (Technical Committees and Working Groups) within
IFIP, the International Federation for Information Processing, a multinational association of scientists work-
ing in IT-related areas.

Technical Committees and Working Groups of the International Federation for Information Processing

TC1: Foundations of Computer Science TC 7: System Modelling and Optimization

WG 1.1 Continuous Algorithms and Complexity WG 7.1 Modelling and Simulation
WG 1.2 Descriptional Complexity WG 7.2 Computational Techniques in Distributed Systems
WG 1.3 Foundations of System Specification WG 7.3 Computer System Modelling
WG 1.4 Computational Learning Theory WG 7.4 Discrete Optimization
WG 1.5 Cellular Automata and Machines WG 7.5 Reliability and Optimization of Structural Systems
WG 1.6 Term Rewriting WG 7.6 Optimization-Based Computer-Aided Modelling and Design
WG 1.7 Theoretical Foundations of Security Analysis and Design WG 7.7 Stochastic Optimization

TC 2: Software:Theory and Practice TC 8: Information Systems

WG 2.1 Algorithmic Languages and Calculi
WG 2.2 Formal Description of Programming Concepts
WG 2.3 Programming Methodology
WG 2.4 Software Implementation Technology
WG 2.5 Numerical Software
WG 2.6 Database
WG 2.7 (= WG 13.4) User Interface Engineering
WG 2.8 Functional Programming
WG 2.9 Software Requirements Engineering
WG 2.10 Software Architecture
TC 3: Education
WG 3.1 Informatics and ICT in Secondary Education
WG 3.2 Informatics and ICT in Higher Education
WG 3.3 Research on Education Applications of Information Technologies
WG 3.4 IT-Professional and Vocational Education in Information Technology
WG 3.5 Informatics in Elementary Education
WG 3.6 Distance Learning
WG 3.7 Information Technology in Educational Management
TC 5: Computer Applications in Technology
WG 5.2 Computer-Aided Design
WG 5.3 Computer-Aided Manufacturing
WG 5.6 Maritime Industries
WG 5.7 Integration in Production Management
WG 5.10 Computer Graphics and Virtual Worlds
WG 5.11 Computers and Environment
WG 5.12 Architectures for Enterprise Integration
TC 6: Communication Systems
WG 6.1 Architectures and Protocols for Distributed Systems
WG 6.2 Network and Internetwork Architectures
WG 6.3 Performance of Communication Systems
WG 6.4 Internet Applications Engineering
WG 6.6 Management of Networks and Distributed Systems
WG 6.7 Smart Networks
WG 6.8 Wireless Communications
WG 6.10 Photonic Networking
WG 6.11 Electronic Commerce - Communicationsystems (provisional)
WG 8.1 Design and Evaluation of Information Systems
WG 8.2 Interaction of Information Systems and the Organization
WG 8.3 Decision Support Systems
WG 8.4 Office Information Systems
WG 8.5 Information Systems in Public Administration
WG 8.6 Transfer and Diffusion of Information Technology
WG 8.8 Smart Cards
TC 9: Relationship between Computers and Society
WG 9.1 Computers and Work
WG 9.2 Social Accountability
WG 9.3 Home Oriented Informatics and Telematics
WG 9.4 Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries
WG 9.5 Applications and Social Implications of Virtual Worlds
WG 9.6/11.7 Information Technology: Misuse and The Law
WG 9.7 History of Computing
TC 10: Computer Systems Technology
WG 10.1 Computer-Aided Systems Theory
WG 10.3 Concurrent Systems
WG 10.4 Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerance
WG 10.5 Design and Engineering of Electronic Systems
TC 11: Security and Protection in Information Processing Systems
WG 11.1 Information Security Management
WG 11.2 Small System Security
WG 11.3 Database Security
WG 11.4 Network Security
WG 11.5 Systems Integrity and Control
WG 11.7 (see WG 9.6) Information Technology: Misuse and The Law
WG 11.8 Information Security Education
TC 12: Artificial Intelligence
WG 12.5 Knowledge-Oriented Development of Applications
WG 12.6 Intelligent Information Management
TC 13: Human-Computer Interaction
WG 13.1 Education in HCI and HCI Curricula
WG 13.2 Methodology for User-Centred System Design
WG 13.3 Human-Computer Interaction and People with Special Needs
WG 13.4 (= WG 2.7) User Interface Engineering
WG 13.5 Human Error, Safety and System Development

Figure 2: Overview of the IFIP Technical Committees and Working Groups (International Federation for Informa-
tion Processing, 2000). The underlined items indicate the areas relevant to my work.

Figure 2 shows that the IFIP covers a wide range of research topics with a number of different fla-
vours: theoretical (TC1, 7 and 12), application-oriented (TC5, 6 and 11), engineering-oriented (TC2 and 10),
but also with a human/social orientation (TC3, 8, 9 and 13). The latter group reflects the different levels of
analysis mentioned above, i.e. the societal (TC9), the organisational (TC8), and the individual level (TC13).
As indicated in the figure, my research is related to working groups 8.1, 8.2, 9.1 and 13.2, but its main focus
lies within WG8.2, the 'interaction of IS and the organisation'.

9
A. The information systems research paradigm: a review

Information systems research - which originated in the 1970's and 80's from organisational theory -
has a somewhat ambiguous status within scientific research because it lacks a single research paradigm, i.e. a
generally accepted methodology using established techniques and instruments. For example, Orlikowski and
Baroudi (1991) studied 155 research articles on information technology in organisations between 1983 and
1988 and concluded that this research is not grounded in a single overarching theoretical perspective.
Moreover, IS researchers can be found at social science faculties, computer science faculties or engineering
departments. IS research does not build its identity on both unity of methodology and unity of research
object, but only on the unity of object. It is a research field that investigates computer-based information
systems within organised human activity, but it investigates its object of study from various scientific
perspectives. This ambiguous status is reflected in many research papers, where the authors usually make
quite an effort to argue for or even defend the research approach they have chosen, an example of which is
the hefty debate between proponents of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Quite a number of
papers have been written in a defensive style (especially in the middle 1980's), arguing for the 'right' of
Information Systems Research to call itself a science, as is reflected in (Bjørn-Andersen, 1985; Galliers,
1985; Klein & Lyytinen, 1985; Kanungo, 1993; Davis, 2000).

However, if one looks at the field as an outside observer, one can distinguish a number of things that
argue in favour of calling information systems research a science paradigm.
• IS is recognised as a separate field within research associations, such as IFIP (Figure 2 above) or the
Academy of Management (Figure 25 in Chapter 4 below),
• There are a number of established journals dedicated to research in the IS field
• MIS Quarterly (Est. 1971)
• Information Systems (Est. 1975)
• Information & Management (Est. 1978)
• ACM Transactions on Information Systems (Est. 1982)
• Journal of Management Information Systems (Est. 1984)
• Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (Est. 1989)
• Information Systems Research (Est. 1990)
• European Journal of Information Systems (Est. 1991)
• Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Est. 1999)
• And there are well-established international conferences dedicated to the field
• International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS)
• European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)
These arguments support the claim that Information Systems Research has become a science paradigm in
and of itself, albeit a multidisciplinary one. Indeed, research in information systems can still be found in
management-oriented journals, such as Harvard Business Review, Management Science, Academy of
Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, but also in more technology-oriented journals, such
as Communications of the ACM, Journal of Systems Management or Journal of Information Technology.

As can be seen in Figure 3 below, the IS research literature contains input from quite a number of
'reference disciplines'. The keyword classification in the figure "has three important functions. First, it de-
fines the field of IS in some detail. Second, it provides a common vocabulary. Third, it provides a tool with
which the evolution of research can be studied."(Barki, Rivard, & Talbot, 1993, p.209) It is the first function
that I want to use in order to situate my research, since the scheme gives an interesting overview of the topics
that are discussed within IS research.

10
 A Keyword Classification Scheme for IS Research Literature

A REFERENCE DISCIPLINES EC Hardware resource management

AA Behavioral science ED Software resource management
AB Computer science EE IS project management
AC Decision theory EF IS planning
AD Information theory EG Organizing IS
AE Organizational theory EH IS staffing
AF Management theory EI IS evaluation
AG Language theories EJ IS control
AH Systems theory EK IS security
AI Research EL IS management issues
AJ Social science
AK Management science F IS DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS
AL Artificial intelligence FA IS development strategies
AM Economic theory FB IS life cycle activities
AN Ergonomics FC IS development methods and tools
AO Political science FD IS implementation
AP Psychology FE IS operations

B EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT G IS USAGE

BA Economic environment GA Organizational use of IS
BB Legal environment GB Users
BC Political environment GC Type of IS support
BD Social environment GD Type of IS access
GE Type of processing
C INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
CA Computer systems H INFORMATION SYSTEMS
CB Software HA Types of information systems
HB IS applications areas
D ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT HC Components of IS
DA Organizational characteristics HD IS characteristics
DB Organizational functions
DC Task characteristics I IS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
DD Organizational dynamics IA IS education
IB IS research
E IS MANAGEMENT IC IS professional societies
EA Data resource management ID History of IS
EB Personnel resource management

Figure 3: Keyword classification scheme for IS research literature. Figure adapted from (Barki et al., 1993, pg. 210).
The issues relevant to my research are underlined and in italics.

In a recent review of IS literature, Claver, González and Llopis (2000) studied issues of MIS Quarterly
and Information & Management between 1981 and 1997 in order to establish the most studied topics and the
most popular research methods. Using a classification based on (Barki et al., 1993), they come up with data
showing a movement in focus from Development of information systems towards IS Management. When
looking in more detail, it seems that throughout the years most attention has focussed on IS Development
(13.2%), Decision Support Systems (8.9%), IS Evaluation (7.8%), IS implementation and Expert systems
(5.2%), IS Alignment / Organizational impact (4.8%) and End-user computing (4.6%).

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
'81-'83 '84-'86 '87-'89 '90-'92 '93-'95 '96-'97
Others 1 6 15 9 13 12
IS usage 3 27 30 44 28 18
Information Technology 12 32 69 64 76 35
IS development / life cycle 35 45 68 51 59 13
IS management 22 46 69 87 80 52

Figure 4: The most popular research topics in MIS Quarterly and Information & Management throughout the last
two decades (figure based on Claver et al. (2000)).

11
With regard to the research methods used, Claver et al.'s data (as presented in Figure 5) shows the co-
presence of different research methods, as well as a clear shift towards more empirical research throughout
the years, the most popular method being the field study4.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
'81-'83 '84-'86 '87-'89 '90-'92 '93-'95 '96-'97
E - Laboratory experiment 6 6 16 16 29 11
E - Field experiment 2 4 1 2 2
E - Field study 13 57 78 110 111 68
E - Case studies 13 37 56 59 50 23
T - Applied concepts 6 6 8 10 5 4
T - Illustrative 28 41 49 27 27 8
T - Conceptual 7 7 40 32 32 14

Figure 5: Most popular research methods in MIS Quarterly and Information & Management (figure based on Claver
et al. (2000)) E stands for empirical research, while T stands for theoretical research.

My research falls within four of the most popular research areas within information systems work, i.e. IS
development, IS evaluation, IS implementation, and IS alignment / organisational impact. Moreover, Claver
et al. would probably classify the research as field study, since the research and analysis techniques are not
purely qualitative.

Now that I have presented the information systems research paradigm in some detail, I will situate
my research within the paradigm and subsequently look at some of the relevant contributions.

4
The authors define the difference between case study and field study as: "the analysis of the information obtained from the case
study is merely qualitative, in contrast to the quantitative methods that are normally used in a field study. (op.cit. p.187)"

12
B. Situating my research within the IS paradigm

The full Barki, Rivard and Talbot classification scheme contains well over 1000 keywords of which
only the main headings are presented in Figure 3. When looking at the more detailed keywords, the list in
Figure 6 below can be withheld as linked to the work described in this dissertation.
The keywords in Figure 6 cover a wide range of issues and topics, but they all somehow link to the
work described in this PhD dissertation. With regard to 'reference disciplines', my research draws from a
number of contributions in behavioural science (which is very closely linked to psychology). It also draws on
(and contributes to) information processing theory, as well as management theory. The link to Artificial In-
telligence consists of the analysis instrument OrgCon® that I will describe in Chapter 4 and that exists of an
expert system built on a multiple-contingency theory of organisational design. A number of 'research' key-
words are also retained in Figure 6, but I will return to those in Chapter 6 when I discuss the research meth-
odology and the analysis techniques used. As regards the 'external environment' keywords, the empirical part
of the research analyses two privately owned manufacturing companies. The 'organisational environment'
keywords under heading D in the figure contain (a) some of the characteristics that will be studied in the case
studies, (b) the organisational levels of the two organisations that were involved in the data gathering stages,
and (c) the aspects of organisational dynamics that I will be looking at. The relevance of the rest of the key-
words under the IS-related headings will become clear in the following paragraphs.
A REFERENCE DISCIPLINES D ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT F IS DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS
AA BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE DA ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS FA IS DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
AA03 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES DA01 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE FA01 TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
AA04 HUMAN INFORMATION PROCESSING DA0101 Psychological climate FA04 EVOLUTIVE DESIGN
AA05 ATTITUDES DA02 ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE FA08 CLIENT-CENTERED DESIGN
AA07 MOTIVATION DA0202 Large business FA10 SOCIO-TECHNICAL APPROACH
AA08 SATISFACTION DA0203 Multinational corporations FA11 OBJECT-ORIENTED APPROACH
AA0801 Job satisfaction DA03 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FB IS LIFE CYCLE ACTIVITIES
AA11 CHANGE THEORY DA0301 Hierarchy of authority FB01 PROPOSAL DEFINITION
AA1101 Change DA0302 Formalization FB0101 Development objectives
AA1102 Resistance to change DA0303 Centralized/decentralized organizations FB02 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
AD INFORMATION THEORY DA04 ORGANIZATIONAL MATURITY FB03 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION
AD01 INFORMATION DA05 ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS FB0301 Information requirements determination activities
AD0102 Information in organizations DA08 ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES FB09 POST AUDIT
AD06 INFORMATION PROCESSING DA09 ORGANIZATIONAL PROCEDURES FD IS IMPLEMENTATION
AF MANAGEMENT THEORY DB ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONS FD01 USER/ANALYST DIFFERENCES
AF03 MANAGEMENT STYLE DB01 GENERAL MANAGEMENT FD02 USER INVOLVEMENT
AF04 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES DB04 HUMAN RESOURCES FD03 USER PARTICIPATION
AF0401 Planning DB07 PRODUCTION FD04 SENIOR MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
AF0404 Control DB08 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FD05 IS IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
AF0404.02 Managerial control DD ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS FD06 USER TRAINING
AF0404.03 Operational control DD01 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE FD07 IMPLEMENTATION POLITICS
AF0411 Environmental scanning DD02 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FD08 USER/ANALYST INTERACTION
AF0412 Environmental analysis DD03 POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS FD0802 Communication gap
AF07 MANAGEMENT LEVEL DD0301 Political perspective
AF0701 Strategic planning level DD04 ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN G IS USAGE
AF0702 Tactical level DD0401 Job design GA ORGANIZATIONAL USE OF IS
AF0703 Operational control level GA01 COMPETITIVE USE OF IS
AF10 CHANGE MANAGEMENT E IS MANAGEMENT GA0102 Competitive IS
AI RESEARCH EI IS EVALUATION GA04 OPERATIONAL COMPUTING
AI01 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY EI01 EVALUATION METHODS GB USERS
AI0102 Case study EI0104 Multiple criteria evaluation GB02 USER ATTITUDES
AI0103 Comparative study EI02 EVALUATION CRITERIA GB03 USER BEHAVIOR
AI0104 Empirical research EIO201 Effectiveness GB04 USER TYPES
AI0106 Exploratory study EI0203 User friendliness GB0404 End users
AI0107 Conceptual study EI0207 User satisfaction GB0406 Novice users
AI0109 Protocol analysis EI0208 IS utilization GB05 USER REQUIREMENTS
AI0113 Longitudinal study EI0209 IS reliability GB07 USER EXPECTATIONS
AI04 MEASUREMENT EI0211 IS impacts GB08 USER JOB TITLES
AI0401 Measures EI0211.01 Organizational impacts GB0805 Entry-level personnel
AI06 STATISTICAL METHODS EI0214 Computer performance
AI0601 ANOVA EI0217 System errors H INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AI0603 Correlation analysis EI0222 Complexity HA TYPES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AI0607 Cluster analysis EI0223 Accessibility HA01 TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEMS
AI0612 Non-parametric statistics EI0226 System acceptance HA14 IMAGE SYSTEMS
AI07 RESEARCH MODELS EL IS MANAGEMENT ISSUES HB IS APPLICATION AREAS
AI0702 Contingency models EL02 IS PROBLEMS HB06 CAD/CAM
AL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EL0202 IS project failures HB22 ORDER-PROCESSING IS
AL03 DEDUCTION AND REASONING EL03 IS SUCCESS HB24 PRODUCTION IS
AL0304 Rule-based deduction EL0301 Defining IS success HB25 PRODUCTION PLANNING IS
AP PSYCHOLOGY EL0302 Measuring IS success
EL04 IS EVOLUTION
B EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT EL0401 IS maturity
BA ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT EL05 IS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
BA02 ECONOMIC SECTOR EL06 IS INTEGRATION
BA0205 Manufacturing sector
BA04 PRIVATE SECTOR

Figure 6: Issues from the Barki, Rivard & Talbot (1993) classification that are part of my research.

13
C. Relevant research contributions

As may become clear from the figure above, a lot of the research within the IS literature can be
mentioned as relevant for the work reported in this dissertation. There are two reasons for this, namely that
the research started with an exploratory perspective, and that it wants to extend contributions within three
main fields of research. From the start, however, my research can be said to build on the rich tradition that
stresses the importance of organisational and human issues when developing technology that is to be used by
people in organisations, i.e. the socio-technical tradition (Markus, 1983; Mumford, 1983; Eason, 1988).

1. IS development
In this first section, I will look at some of the relevant contributions in the IS development (ISD)
area, an area in information systems research that has received quite a lot of attention, and is regarded as one
of the crucial areas of research within the field. I will first look at some work on organisational issues in IS
development, then briefly mention the methodology debate within the field and finally I will look at the
Multiview framework in some detail, because it is closely related to the work described here.

a) Organisational issues during IS development

Historically, information systems development has been preoccupied with technical issues at the
expense of organisational issues. This is strange in view of the long stream of evidence that suggests that the
treatment of organisational issues is perceived as more important than technical issues in determining the
successful outcome of systems development projects (Lucas, 1975; Long, 1987; Hornby et al., 1992; Ewusi-
Mensah & Przasnyski, 1994). One recent example of research in this problem area is a survey performed by
Doherty and King (1998) among senior IT managers in the UK. In this survey, the majority of respondents
(56%) perceived organisational issues as the 'most important issues' or 'more important than technical issues',
while another 38% felt that organisational issues were 'of equal importance to technical issues'. From this
result, one might deduce that things have changed in recent years. However, this perception of importance
was not reflected in the actual treatment that the issues had received in practice. When asked to indicate on a
scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always) the proportion of development projects in which 14 issues (in 5 categories)
had been routinely addressed, the following answers were given.
Table 1: Treatment of organisational issues, as ranked by 107 senior UK IT managers
(From Doherty & King. 1998)
Category of organisational issues Average
1 Systems integration issues 4.38
2 Organisational contribution 3.94
3 Transitional issues 3.49
4 Human issues 3.22
5 Organisational alignment 2.55

Rank Organisational issue Average Category

1 Consider system’s interfaces 4.38 1
2 Undertake cost-benefit analysis 4.16 2
3 Align with information systems strategy 4.11 2
4 Assess training and education requirements 3.99 4
5 Prioritise work to focus on critical areas 3.8 2
6 Consider future needs of the organisation 3.67 2
7 Review timing of implementation 3.67 3
8 Consider level of organisational disruption 3.31 3
9 Re-design jobs to suit system 3.24 4
10 Assess impact on organisational structure 3 5
11 Assess the system’s impact on user motivation 3 4
12 Consider health and safety/ ergonomic issues 2.65 4
13 Assess impact on organisational culture 2.65 5
14 Evaluate the impact on the distribution of power 2 5

When one considers that this research was performed in the second half of the 1990s after more than 20
years of research into the organisational aspects of IS development this is a striking result. Especially the
discrepancy between the importance attributed to organisational issues and their treatment in practice is
interesting.

14
 "This result can probably best be explained in terms of previous research which suggests that
IT professionals have not the time, the tools nor the expertise to effectively address
organisational issues (Hornby et al., 1992; Clegg et al., 1997), no matter how important they
think they are, and consequently their treatment is often woefully inadequate. Consequently,
in too many cases, their treatment is left to chance.
[...] many senior IT professionals accepted that organisational issues are often given a low
priority and only “lip service” is paid to their treatment, because they are generally difficult
to address. The reasons respondents gave for this included their intangible, ambiguous and
politically sensitive nature."(Doherty & King, 1998, p.120)

b) IS development methodologies
Unfortunately, there is more evidence to suggest that organisational issues are still not properly
addressed during the systems development process (Hornby et al., 1992; Clegg et al., 1997), even though
there are numerous methodologies that are devised to address exactly these human and organisational issues.
Indeed, there has been (and continues to be) an extensive methodology debate within the IS community
(Klein & Hirschheim, 1987; Lyytinen, 1987; Hirschheim & Klein, 1989; Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Avison
& Taylor, 1997; Iivari, Hirschheim, & Klein, 1998). In fact, the information systems research community
seems to be one of the sciences that are most 'obsessed' with theoretical and philosophical debates of what
Avison and Fitzgerald (1995) have called the "methodology jungle". One might argue that it is precisely the
existence of "hundreds" of different methods (Bubenko, 1986) and the lack of clarity in the field that cause
problems for system developers, who are often rather technology- and engineering-oriented.
Indeed, the question is in how far all these methodologies are being used in practice, i.e. outside the
realm of academically driven development projects. Currently, a large part of the methodology discussion
does not concern itself with practice:
"[the contrasting] analysis [of IS development methodologies(ISDMs)] was performed solely
on the basis of the published literature and not by studying actual practices of systems
developed, i.e. what practitioners actually do. This leads to an interesting research question,
because there is increasing evidence that organizations apply in-house developed ISDMs,
adapting them on a project-by- project basis (Wynekoop & Russo, 1993)." (Iivari et al., 1998,
p. 187)
Clearly, more empirical research is needed in order to find out how information systems are being developed
in practice. In one of the relatively few papers that study the development of a real-world large-scale
industrial IS, Nandhukumar and Avison (1999) go as far as to describe IS development methods as necessary
fictions, and conclude from that analysis that:
"If methodologies are only valuable in IS development projects as a necessary fiction to
present an image of control or to provide a symbolic status, then alternative approaches that
recognize the particular character of work in such environments are required to provide
suitable ways of supporting and managing IS development. Development work regularly
requires ad hoc problem-solving skills and abilities such as creativity which cannot be easily
pre-planned. The improvisatory character of the developers' work practices, would seem to
be similar to the "bricolage" described by Ciborra (1996) in the development of systems."
(Nandhakumar & Avison, 1999, p. 188)

This concept of "bricolage" or improvisation (Orlikowski, 1996, 2000) is a very appealing one,
which deserves some elaboration. One of the most well-known uses of the term improvisation stems from
jazz music. Indeed – as jazz musicians will tell you – in order to be able to improvise one has to have a lot of
experience in playing, one has to master existing techniques and methods, one needs to know when it is
suitable to improvise and when one is expected to "play" in harmony with the rest of the band. In fact,
improvisation then becomes one of the techniques that one can use, depending – contingent – on the
situation. This contingency concept – adapting one's techniques and methods to the situation at hand –is
probably more fruitful than an approach that imposes one particular solution for all possible situations.

15
c) Contingent IS development methodologies
A number of authors have suggested that there is no best IS development methodology for all situa-
tions (Jackson & Keys, 1984; Avison & Wood-Harper, 1991; Avison & Taylor, 1997), but there is quite
some discussion about how to choose appropriate methods for specific situations. For example, there is dis-
cussion about how to describe situations: Davis (1982) suggested choosing a methodology depending on par-
ticular characteristics of the systems development project, Episkopou and Wood-Harper (1986) used charac-
teristics of the problem solver and problem owner as the basis for choosing appropriate methods, while Avi-
son & Taylor (1997) develop a rough classification looking at (a) problem structure, (b) clarity of objectives,
(c) clarity of user requirements, and (d) level of user interaction expected. Next to the problem of characteris-
ing situations, there is discussion about what one needs to offer analysts, once the situation analysis has been
done. Davis (1982) suggests that analysts choose from the methodologies available, while Benyon &
Skidmore (1987) suggest that analysts choose tools and techniques from a 'tool box'. These approaches are
criticised for lacking guidance and for assuming that analysts master a large number of methods, amongst
others (Avison & Taylor, 1997, p. 77). The more recent 'method engineering' movement (Brinkkemper, Ly-
ytinen, & Welke, 1996), on the other hand, is criticised as inappropriate because of its largely technological
viewpoint.

d) Multiview
Avison & Taylor (1997) and Avison et al. (1998) describe their Multiview framework as a suitable
contingency framework for choosing appropriate system development methods and techniques.
"The Multiview framework is used to inform the emergence of a situation-specific
methodology, which should result from a genuine engagement of the analyst with the problem
situation. The locally-situated methodology provides the context for the choice of methods
and techniques, such as object-oriented design and job satisfaction surveys, that will be used
to get things done." (Avison et al., 1998, p. 126)
Indeed, the Multiview framework is one of the few attempts to jointly look at the three main concepts in my
research, i.e. the technology, the organisation and the individual, from a systems development perspective.
"The foundations of Multiview as an enquiring framework for IS development rest on a
recognition that the needs of computer artefacts, organizations, and individuals must be
considered jointly. An IS development exercise should generate robust technical artefacts
that support purposeful organizational activity and take into account the needs and freedom
of the individual. This concern with negotiating between the technological, organizational,
and personal aspects of IS development has constituted a central theme in the Multiview
framework and differentiates it from other IS development approaches (Bickerton & Siddiqi,
1992)." (Avison et al., 1998, p. 126)
The Multiview methodology (Avison & Wood-Harper, 1990) was developed because the authors perceived a
range of problems with current IS development (ISD) methodologies, one of which was the narrow scope of
conventional approaches. They perceived ISD methodologies as focussing too much on "problems of user-
computer interface, information processing functions and technical solutions" and only rarely on the
"goodness of fit with the people working in the organization - indeed, all stakeholders - and with the aims of
the organization as a whole." As a reaction to these problems with existing methodologies, Multiview1 was
perceived as a hybrid process involving both computer specialists, who would build the system, and users for
whom the system was being built. The authors considered Multiview1 a contingency approach in that it was
adapted according to the particular situation in the organisation, the skills of different analysts, and the
situation within which they were constrained to work. According to the situation, different methods and
techniques were proposed for the five stages in Multiview1:
• analysis of human activity
• analysis of information
• analysis and design of socio-technical aspects
• design of the human-computer interface
• design of technical aspects.
These five stages incorporate five different views deemed necessary in the progressive development of an
ISD project towards a system that was complete in both technical and human terms (Mumford, 1995). One
representation of the methodology is presented in Figure 7.

16
 Figure 7: The Multiview1 framework (Avison et al. 1998, p. 128)

The Multiview1 authors argued that a methodology that wants to be complete with regard to both technical
and human aspects needs to provide an answer to the five questions in the figure above. Whereas a strategic
approach (for example, Business Systems Planning) might address question 1, participative approaches, such
as ETHICS (Effective Technical and Human Implementation & Computer-based Systems, Mumford, 1995),
might address questions 2 and 3. A prototyping approach, such as rapid applications development (Martin,
1991) might address questions 3 and 4 and the conventional and structured approaches, such as SSADM
(Structural Systems Analysis and Design Methodology, Ashworth & Goodland, 1990) address questions 4
and 5. Multiview attempts to address all these questions and to involve all role players or stakeholders in
answering these questions.
During the years that followed the publication of the original Multiview framework, a lot of work
was done trying the framework in development projects, and a number of problems were discovered.
Although the five-stages model was not meant to be followed strictly, a majority of developers perceived
Multiview as a sequential waterfall approach where the output of stage 1 was used as input for stage 2, etc.
This proved to be problematic in that the methodologies in the different stages were far from compatible, and
the transitions from one step to the next were often quite tricky. Moreover, the original framework neglected
or underestimated the political dimension of IS development projects. Finally, the Multiview1 framework
stopped at the software design stage, "leaving the software construction, implementation, operations, and
maintenance activities of the software life-cycle to be dealt with outside of the methodology."
The Multiview2 framework was developed in an effort to overcome some of the limitations men-
tioned above. A broader view is now adopted, where the Multiview framework functions as an interpretative
scheme that mediates between the organisational context and the IS development and deployment effort.
This new framework (Figure 8) is inspired by Giddens' (1984) structuration theory in recognising that organ-
isational context is a structure that constrains possible change actions such as IS development and deploy-
ment. But at the same time change actions are capable of changing the context that constrains them.
structure Organization

Organizational Information
analysis system
modelling

Interpretive
scheme mediation
(modality)

Sociotechnic al Software
analysis development

action IS development and deployment

Figure 8: The Multiview2 framework (Avison et al.1998, pg. 130)

17
 The interpretative scheme of the revised Multiview framework has four components as shown in
Figure 8. The organisational analysis component is concerned with understanding the organisational needs
for an information system, and tries to find out which purposeful activity the new IS aims to support. This
'purposeful activity' concept is not limited to existing practices within an organisation, but tries to analyse
and describe potential future activities and events. A particular aim of this component is to capture as much
of the complexity and pluralism of interests as possible. The information systems modelling component aims
to develop a representation of the IS in technical terms using modern analysis and modelling techniques,
such as object-oriented analysis or business process modelling. The sociotechnical analysis component can
draw from a number of existing approaches, such as ETHICS (Mumford, 1995), ethnography (Avison &
Myers, 1995), as well as the Scandinavian School of participatory design (Ehn, 1988; Greenbaum & Kyng,
1991; Kyng & Mathiassen, 1997; Kensing, Simonsen, & Bødker, 1998). The final component is software
development, i.e. the design and construction of information technology (hardware, software, and communi-
cations), focussing on both the internal functional part and the external human-computer interface part of the
development. The mediation process that governs these four components is inspired by actor-network theory
(e.g. Callon, 1986), where the IS developers are directors / translators that move between the different com-
ponents of the framework and try to achieve some sort of stable configuration (cf. Figure 9).

Figure 9: An elaborated version of the revised Multiview framework (From Avison et al. 1998, pg 136)

In the early stages of an ISD project, there is no clear separation between the four components of the
methodology, since "Information is scarce, contradictory, asymmetrical, and difficult to interpret and use.
Uncertainty rules the day" (Callon, 1991). But as the network of human and non-human stakeholders
becomes aligned and their interests converge, IS analysts can start to focus on specific components. At a
certain stage, the network of stakeholders may achieve a degree of stability and irreversibility that allows
analysts to look back and evaluate the development. When Avison et al. talk of analysts they refer to a role
that can be assumed by IS professionals, user personnel, or consultants, i.e. change agents involved in IS
development.
A final important aspect of the revised Multiview framework in relation to my research is the focus on
multiple perspectives. While the original framework posited a three-way relationship between the analyst,
the methodology and the situation, it provided no further guidance on how this triad relationship could be
used in practice. In the revised framework, the analyst is presumed to look at a situation from multiple
perspectives, an approach related to unbounded systems thinking (Mitroff & Linstone, 1993). In unbounded
systems thinking, Mitroff and Linstone argue that complex problem solving requires the application of as
many disciplines, professions and branches of knowledge as possible, with each one employing different
paradigms of thought. The three perspectives identified in (Linstone, 1985) are:
(1) technical perspective (T);
(2) organisational (or societal) perspective (O);
(3) personal (or individual) perspective (P).
Linstone comments that "each perspective yields insights not obtainable from the others" and that "O and P
perspectives are essential in bridging the gap between analysis and action" (Linstone, 1989, p.314). The non-

18
technical perspectives are used to complement the T perspective, not to replace it. They allow an analyst to
bring in the human and social factors that are omnipresent in complex problems and thus focus on human
beings, both individually and in groups. Any problem can be viewed from any perspective, and the perspec-
tives may reinforce each other, contradict each other, or have a dialectic relation to each other. The multiple
perspective approach complicates the analysis process for the analysts, but the authors argue that all complex
problem situations "will inevitably require the adoption of all three perspectives." (Avison et al., 1998,
p.135). Notwithstanding the refinements in the revised version of the Multiview framework, I want to argue
that is not very specific in operationalising the multiple perspective approach.

2. IS impact
An interesting overview of the literature on the impact of IT is provided in (Ang & Pavri, 1994),
who classify the impacts of information technology on three main levels of analysis: the societal, the
organisational and the individual level. In their analysis, summarised in Table 2, they posit two main
perspectives, the economic and the sociotechnical, except for the individual level of analysis, where they do
not distinguish an economic perspective.
Table 2: Summary of Ang & Pavri's (1994) survey of the impacts of IT.
Societal level Organizational level Individual level
Remarks speculative, anecdotal, or survey- large body of research, no clear blurring of boundaries between
based consensus levels of analysis (e.g.
organizational climate)
Sociotechnic employment: all predictions appear, technological perspective: IT impact on user satisfaction, job
al impacts i.e. increase, decrease and determines behavior of satisfaction, productivity,
stability individuals and organizations organizational climate, work
changing work pattern: remote & organizational perspective: attitudes, user expectations
distributed work organizational needs determine direction of impact not clear
increased productivity the type of IT effective introduction implies
improved communications interactional perspective: assumes no considering behavioral,
enriched jobs causal relationships between IT psychological and social effects
higher quality decisions and change resistance to change: perception of
inadequate operationalization of IT threat to job security and
variable established routines
power of IT specialists vs. users IT results in increase in productivity,
IT implementation versus but at the expense of worker
centralization / decentralization well-being: mental strain, lower
impact on organizational structure self-esteem,...
deskilling versus upgrading

Economic country competitiveness: ability to IT has gained strategic importance in Ø

impacts manage IT
parallel vs. sequential product
development
increased pressure on institutional &
politico-social structures
vertical integration of information-
intensive industries
horizontal expansion of network-
type industries
reduction of internal and external
coordination costs led to further
polarization between haves and
have-nots
organizations: support and
shape corporate strategy
IT is key component in corporate
planning
misalignment of IT with corporate
strategy
business intelligence systems:
executive information systems,
decision support systems, data
mining & warehousing

The authors’ main conclusion is that “the impacts of IT are complex and defy any straightforward
interpretation.” Simple relations do not apply: one finds both job reduction and new job creation at the
societal level; one finds that some jobs become more routine, whereas others are enriched; deskilling takes
place, in other cases workers acquire new skills, in fact, in most both deskilling and upgrading occur
concurrently. The authors argue that more pluralistic and more complex research is necessary to explain the
recorded phenomena, and refer to work on structuration (Orlikowski, 1992a) and multiple-paradigm research
(Culnan, 1987) as possible avenues towards more complete research on IT impacts. A critique can be
formulated as to the lack of the economic impacts at the individual level. One may argue that the impact on
individual well-being will also have economic consequences for developers and end-users.

19
 A similar type of research was performed some years earlier by Swanson (1987), who looked for an-
swers to the six research questions in Table 3 by performing a ‘selective’ review of the literature. In my
view, Swanson’s main contribution is the part where he focuses on research at the organisational level of
analysis, which will be discussed in the next section.
Table 3: Swanson's (1987) typology of research questions on information systems within organization theory
(Swanson, 1987, p. 183)
Explanatory focus
Unit of analysis Determinants Effects
The individual What are the determinants of What are the effects of an
an individual's information individual’s information
(system) use? (system) use?

The organization What are the determinants of What are the effects of an
an organization’s organization’s information
information (system) use? (system) use?

The market What are the determinants of What are the effects of a
a market’s information market’s information
(system) use? (system) use?

This literature is relevant in the sense that my research also aims to look at the impacts of IS, but then from a
pluralistic perspective and not assuming any simple causal relationship.

3. Organisational aspects of IS development / implementation

As discussed above, quite some attention within IS research has focussed upon organisational as-
pects of information systems. Yet, the main conclusions that authors draw when reviewing the literature are
fragmentation (Kwon & Zmud, 1987) and contradiction (Robey & Boudreau, 1999). Also Swanson (1987)
and Ang & Pavri (1994) noted the contradictions in research findings at the organisational level. Swanson
argues that, while most researchers agree on the determinants of an organisation's use of information sys-
tems, "the literature associated with hypothesised effects presents a rather confused picture." (Swanson,
1987, pg. 195). The determinants of an organisation's use of information (and by extension of information
systems) are summarised in Table 4. These determinants clearly reflect the information processing view of
the organisation (Galbraith, 1973, 1974), which states that an organisation's information processing capacity
must match the environment's demand for information processing (cf. also the work by Burton & Obel on
page 74 in Chapter 4 below).
Table 4: Determinants of information (system) use. Based on (Swanson, 1987)
Type Determinants
Need to know about its environmental heterogeneity, environmental instability,
environment assumptions about the analyzability of the environment,
task uncertainty, task variety, task complexity, equivocality,
rational objectives of the organization
Need to influence its need for strategic representation, need for symbolic
environment commitment, distribution of information costs and benefits
within the organization, intrusiveness of the organization in
gathering information

Demographic variables organization's core technology, organization size

that interact with needs

In my view, organisational theory has thoroughly discussed the role of these determinants in organ-
isational information use, but not in organisations' IS use. For example, there is quite some agreement about
the fact that equivocality in the environment calls for a low degree of formalised information processing
within the organisation - i.e. use of rules and procedures for interpreting information. There is, however, no
research on how environmental equivocality determines the use of information systems. Should one have
fewer formalised internal organisational information systems and more off-line information exchange be-
tween decision-makers, or should one have more information systems that scan the environment and inform

20
decision-makers with greater speed about changes in the environment? I will return to this question in sec-
tion D of this chapter, when I describe an attempt at developing an information system typology.
In contrast to the subject of the determinants of organisational information system use, there has
been a lot of research into the effects of an organisation's IS use on a number of organisational parameters.
Within this field, however, there are quite some contradictory findings. Table 5 contains a short overview of
the arguments that Swanson (1987) found in his (rather old) review of information systems in organisational
theory. For references to the literature from which these arguments are taken, I refer to Swanson's paper.

Table 5: Organizational effects of information (system) use. Based on (Swanson, 1987)

Effect Description
Departmentalization Fewer departments: information-processing is centralized vs.
No influence on number or structure of departments
Hierarchy A decrease in the number of levels is expected vs.
More hierarchical levels due to computer taking over control mechanisms
Span of control Reduction in span of control should take place due to centralized computer control vs.
Span of control can be widened
Functional Manager's increase of information processing capabilities permit him to control more complex,
differentiation differentiated organizations vs.
Less task specialization necessary by enhancing employee information processing capacity
Centralized control Computers centralize information processing vs.
IT is associated both with more decentralization and less formalization
Delegation of decision- More decision-making and goal setting to higher organizational levels vs.
making authority More decision-making authority to subordinates, vs.
More routine decisions delegated down the hierarchy
Evaluation More quantitative, measurable evaluation criteria, multitude of outcome measures as opposed to
process measures & more written reports than oral evaluations.
Formalization Implementation of rules and procedures is less necessary since IT takes part of that role vs.
Decision processes will be formalized, since the proportion of information that is formally acquired
and processed will increase
Power IS reinforce existing structures vs.
IS departments become more powerful vs.
An increased concentration of power vs.
Various groups may experience enhanced power
Lateral relations Can be more easily coordinated
Stability & rigidity More difficult to change computerized decision systems, because it is more expensive, and because
fewer people understand the systems vs.
Coordination mechanisms are more flexible, leading to more "adhocracies"
Job routinization Clerical jobs have become more routinized, and middle manager jobs have become less routine vs.
Surveys contradict the deskilling thesis
Institutionalization Information technologies become institutionalized
Competitive advantage IT has a powerful effect on competitive advantage in either cost of differentiation.

As Ang & Pavri (1994) in the previous section, Swanson concludes his paper by arguing for other
research approaches that can overcome limited causal thinking:
"In the case of determinants and effects, we might heed Weick's observation that 'Most
managers get into trouble because they forget to think in circles [...] Managerial problems
persist because managers continue to believe that there are such things as unilateral
causation, independent and dependent variables, origins, and terminations' (Weick, 1979,
p.86). So too do our research problems persist, it might be added." (Swanson, 1987, p. 199)
Moreover, he argues for including variables from at least two levels of analysis in developing theoretical
models, a suggestion that has been mentioned by quite a number of authors.

In a paper that was written more than 10 years after Swanson (1987), Robey and Boudreau (1999)
review evidence of contradictory findings on information technology and organisational transformation, and
find a number of possible explanations. Their main argument is that most of the papers on IT and organisa-
tional change build on a deterministic logic, a fact that has been questioned by several critical reviewers
(Markus & Robey, 1988; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). The alternative approach
they suggest is to explore a 'logic of opposition' to look at the interaction between IT and organisations,
where one explains organisational change by focussing on the opposing forces that promote or oppose
change. They find this logic of opposition in four theories: organisational politics, organisational culture, in-
stitutional theory and organisational learning. A very interesting part of the Robey & Boudreau paper for cur-
rent purposes is the section in which they analyse the contradictions and the strategies that reviewers have

21
suggested for solving those contradictions. Robey and Boudreau find two main types of contradictions: those
across and those within individual studies. For the first type, the contradictions across studies, they find three
strategies that are often suggested for resolving inconsistencies:
• Theories may be elaborated by the addition of additional contingency variables. This strategy also
includes attempts to distinguish between different types of information technologies, "thereby
avoiding the assumption of a universal association between all information technologies and
organizational change." (op.cit. pg.170)
• A second strategy is to look at the validity of research findings in search of studies that have used
flawed research methods. The assumption is that - after removing the flawed studies - the remaining
studies will show more consistency.
• A third strategy is to conduct better reviews on research questions and specific technologies, without
depending so much on narrative reviews, where an author often advocates subjectively favoured
theoretical solutions as a way to solve conflicting views. A possible review technique suggested is
the use of meta-analyses.
For the second group of contradictions, those within individual research studies, Robey and Boudreau
identify three types:
• Studies in which the expected consequences of information technology do not occur (e.g. Bjørn-
Andersen, Eason, & Robey, 1986), and those where unanticipated adaptations of for instance
technology occur (e.g. Johnson & Rice, 1987; Zuboff, 1988; Markus, 1994).
• Studies in which different organisational consequences result from the use of nearly identical
technologies in comparable settings (e.g. Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 1993; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994;
Robey & Sahay, 1996).
• Studies in which contradictory consequences result from the use of the same technology in a single
organisation by different groups of people (e.g. Orlikowski & Gash, 1994; Karsten, 1995), or
unexpected paradoxes and ironies in the use of IT (Markus, 1994).
The authors suggest that researchers should - next to improving methodologies - consider adopting logic that
can accommodate contradiction. They find this logic in the four theories summarised in Table 6.
Table 6: Theories using a logic of opposition (From Robey & Boudreau 1999, pg 173)

Organisational political theory has entered the IS literature at numerous occasions (Markus, 1983;
Trigg & Bødker, 1994; Walsham & Waema, 1994). Political theory uses opposition as the underlying
mechanism for explaining social change, and organisations are perceived as arenas in which the rewards and
contributions of multiple stakeholders are sometimes aligned, often misaligned, and occasionally realigned
(Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 1996). This balancing act is related to a tension concept: "The
tension created by misalignment becomes the source of energy from which efforts to transform organizations
may arise." (Robey & Boudreau, 1999, 173)

Within the discussion of the second theory, organisational culture, Robey & Boudreau point at the
work by Martin (Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Martin, 1992) because it introduces concepts of conflict and
contradiction in the literature on organisational culture. Martin distinguishes three perspectives:

22
 • The integration perspective draws a picture of culture as being unified and consistent, as strong con-
sensus, where values, assumptions, and behaviours are shared. This perspective allows an informed
analysis of resistance to change in relation to new technology. "Resistance to new technologies, in
particular, can be explained by noting their inconsistency with the values and assumptions of a
strong organizational culture (Sproull, Kiesler, & Zubrow, 1984)." (op.cit. pg 175)
• The differentiation perspective on the other hand focuses on the organisation as a collection of
subcultures, where consensus may only exist within the boundaries of a subculture. Depending upon
the subculture individuals identify with, technology may acquire different meaning and provoke
ambiguity and conflict (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994).
• The fragmentation perspective goes beyond that in stating that culture is inherently ambiguous, and
people can simultaneously hold opposing views on cultural symbols, or technology.
The cultural perspective on information systems stresses that the developers, the clients and the users of in-
formation systems may well hold different views on the organisation and on the information systems that are
intended to change the organisation. Moreover, information systems themselves are culturally determined
symbolic entities that reflect the values and assumptions of their developers. I will discuss the cultural as-
pects of IS in some more detail in Chapter 4 below.

On a higher level of analysis, institutional theory is concerned with the persistence of higher-level
social norms and values that influence organisations' actions. "Institutions consist of cognitive, normative,
and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior" (Scott, 1995,
cited in Robey & Boudreau 1999, p. 176). Organisations tend to conform to institutional rules in order to
gain or sustain legitimacy within the larger social and societal environment. While institutions are also fluent
and dynamic entities, they tend to be "somewhat more stable than the entities they influence" (King et al.,
1994, cited in Robey & Boudreau, p. 177). However, while adding stability to organisational environments,
institutions may also pose conflicting demands on organisations (such as economic performance and
efficiency conflicting with societal expectations about meaningful employment and security). With regard to
information technology, institutional theory may inform such topics as conflicting normative pressures or
contradictory social and societal values and norms. Others have pointed out that information technology may
take on institutional characteristics itself, in resisting attempts at modifications such as technical upgrades.

The final theory where Robey & Boudreau discern a logic of opposition is the area of organisational
learning. Systems of organisational learning can contain traces of previous organisational experience, the so-
called organisational memory, that allows a certain amount of learning, a topic that has also been addressed
within human-computer interaction research (e.g. Fischer, 1996; Kelly, Lam, Whittle, Mowles, & Rimmer,
1996; Carroll, 1997). On the other hand, information technology may also disable learning. Robey &
Boudreau mention the well-known examples of Batterymarch Financial Management and Mrs. Fields'
Cookies, discussed by Gill (1995), two companies that at the start achieved competitive advantage by
leveraging information technology, but whose heavy reliance on the computer technology reduced their
learning capacity, resulting in decline.
"In each case, computers and communications were applied to successfully automate tasks
which, in more traditional companies, had served environmental scanning as well as
operational functions. As a consequence, when experiencing the rapid change that is inherent
to complex environments, the companies were deficient in their capacity to engage in the ill-
structured activities of scanning and processing information, which are necessary to learn
about the new environment." (Gill, 1995, p. 55, cited in Robey & Boudreau 1999)

In conclusion, Robey & Boudreau draw some useful methodological implications from their discus-
sion of the logic of opposition. First, researchers are encouraged to identify opposing forces at different lev-
els of analysis. Second, to avoid over-reliance on directional hypotheses, they advise researchers to include
opposing hypotheses in their research design. Thirdly, they argue that process research is needed to focus on
the way opposing forces operate over time. Finally, they argue that a multiple perspective approach is appro-
priate, thereby reducing the tendency to privilege one dominant explanation. This argument is similar to the
one specified in paragraph 1.d) above about the Multiview framework. They conclude their paper by arguing
that other approaches can explain the contradictory outcomes of information technology, such as the popular
meta-theoretical framework of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), amongst others.

23
4. Psychological aspects of IS development
In this section I will discuss some relevant research within the IS literature that deals with the
relation between IS and the individual. A first area of IS research that refers to psychology, is human-
computer interaction; a second paragraph will discuss determinants and impacts of an individual's use of an
IS. The third paragraph looks specifically at research related to IS and occupational stress, while the final
paragraph reviews some literature on sensemaking in relation to IS, i.e. (social) cognitive analyses of IS in
use.

a) Human-computer interaction research

The first field within information technology research that has links to psychology is the area of hu-
man-computer interaction. In his review article, Clegg (1994) presents a characterisation of research in HCI
(cf. Table 7) that in his view reflects the dominant perspective within cognitive psychology.
Table 7: Clegg's proposed commonalities within the HCI field (Clegg, 1994, p.454)

Emphasis on empirical work.

Reactive to technological changes.
Concerned with cognitive mechanisms.
Focused on the individual.
Within an information processing perspective.
Adopting a molecular level of analysis.
Emphasis on experimental rigour (as opposed to ecological validity).
Concerned regarding the links with cognitive psychology and cognitive science.
Less concerned with organizational issues and contexts.

Two of the issues mentioned by Clegg are important for present purposes, namely the molecular level of
analysis, and the lower degree of concern with organisational issues. The molecular level of analysis that the
author mentions refers to the fact that most research within HCI is limited to how a single user will be com-
municating with an information system through its man-machine interface. This communication is often
studied on a very detailed level of analysis, e.g. which keystrokes a user needs to perform a task, how spe-
cific screens, icons and buttons need to be designed in order to communicate in the best and most user-
friendly way. The second important issue is the fact that the user is mostly treated as a single individual that
has to perform certain tasks using an information system. Often the user-level analysis and design is per-
formed without considering the context of work, other relevant people in the work setting or other organisa-
tional issues. There are noteworthy exceptions to the second issue [Bødker, 1989 #43; Carroll, 1997 #53;
Greenbaum, 1991 #104; Kensing, 1998 #232; Kyng, 1997 #233; Nardi, 1996 #26, cf. pg.16], but the major-
ity of the work within HCI does indeed disregard the organisational surroundings of the individual user. To-
gether, the two issues explain why only little research within HCI is relevant for present purposes.

One relevant line of research is the work that relates human activity theory to the design of human-
computer interfaces (Bødker, 1989, 1991; Nardi, 1996). Activity theory is a psychological theory that dates
back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (Vygotsky, 1962; Leontjew, 1978), and that interprets all human work
activity as purposeful, directed towards some goal and/or some object. One of the main arguments of the
theory is that human activities can be broken down into conscious actions, which can then be broken down
further into unconscious sensory-motor operations. The activity of 'driving your car to work', for example,
can be broken down into conscious actions, such as 'going to the garage', 'getting into the car', 'backing up on
to the road', 'driving to work', etc. These actions consist of a number of sensory-motor operations, such as
'taking the key from your pocket', 'putting the key in the lock', 'typing in the PIN-code on the alarm', etc.
Through experience, ever more actions move into the realm of operations (cf. the well-known example of
learning to drive a car). It is only when unexpected or uncommon events occur that operations need to move
back into consciousness (for instance, when you get a new car, or when there are road works on your normal
route to work). Another main point in the theory is that all human experience and competence are rooted in
the practice of the group, and not only the experience of the individual.
When applied to human-computer interfaces, the researchers argue that the computer interface can
only be revealed through its use in real situations, where the interface normally is transparent, i.e. one does
not pay attention to it, it is only a means to serve a certain task-at-hand, the user works 'through' it. It is only
in cases of breakdowns that the interface becomes apparent to the user:

24
 "[T]he human activity approach consider situations in which we act through operations
without conscious planning and execution as the normal state of human activity." (Bødker,
1989, p. 174)
When one applies these ideas to information systems in a more organisational perspective, one could argue
that an IS development/implementation project is not finished when the software code has been generated, or
when the software has been installed on the user machines. It is only through the use of the system that one
can evaluate its functioning and subsequently improve it to avoid breakdowns, and to improve the fit
between the system and the context in which it is used. Another main aspect of the theory for present
purposes is that 'normal' human functioning is not characterised by rationality, planning, and reflection, but
by our ability to act semi-automatically in situations that are more or less familiar to us.

A second type of relevant research within HCI are those approaches that do not try to control the
complexity of situations-of-use, but rather try to exploit that complexity in designing interfaces, by taking
multiple perspectives, by enrolling as many stakeholders as possible. A first example of this is the well-
established stream within HCI research called scenario-based approaches (Carroll, 1995; Bødker, 2000;
Carroll, 2000), which argue for developing complex real-life scenarios when designing human-computer
interfaces in order to capture the complexity of the envisioned use situations of a computer system. A
specific advantage of scenarios is that they provide a common real-world vocabulary between system
analysts / designers and the prospective users.
"In scenario-based design, descriptions of how people accomplish tasks are a primary
working design representation. Software design is fundamentally about envisioning and
facilitating new ways of doing things and new things to do. Maintaining a continuous focus
on situations of and consequences for human work and activity promotes learning about the
structure and dynamics of problem domains, seeing usage situations from different
perspectives, and managing tradeoffs to reach usable and effective design outcomes."
(Carroll, 2000, pg.44)
A second example of complexity-capturing research uses ethnographic and participatory design
methods to try and cover as much of the complexity of organisational life as possible (Suchman, 1987;
Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991; Kyng & Mathiassen, 1997; Kensing et al., 1998). An important axiom within
these approaches is the situatedness of all human activity, which implies that an analyst / designer cannot just
extract functional specifications when designing computer systems (esp. human-computer interfaces) and
then go away and come back with a fully functioning and usable system. Within this school of thought, an
analyst / designer cannot simply abstract away the situation-of-use, and therefore he almost needs to become
a part of the situation, not only by being an observing participant, but also by continually checking ideas and
partial designs with prospective users in their working situation. The ultimate consequence of this axiom of
situatedness is that there are no one-fits-all information system solutions to complex organisational
problems.

b) Psychological determinants and effects

A lot of recent research within work psychology has focussed on the role of information technology
in modern work organisations. In order to keep the theoretical chapters consistent, I will not discuss these
psychology contributions here (cf. Chapter 3), but focus on the psychological issues to be found in the IS
literature. Yaverbaum (1988) for example, presents an overview of some of the research on psychological
aspects of information technology. She notes conflicting results as regards the effect of IT on job satisfac-
tion, where some find an overall increase in job satisfaction (Cheney & Dickson, 1982), while others report
dissatisfaction and a significant increase in worker complaints (Attewell & Rule, 1984). Another main dis-
cussion is whether new information systems deskill or upgrade end users, i.e. whether new information tech-
nology takes the content out of skilled jobs or removes the boredom from very routinised work (Attewell &
Rule, 1984; Attewell, 1987). Yaverbaum also mentions research on computer-related anxiety, which can sur-
face in the form of physical problems.
Moreover, the author identifies research on individual differences that influence how users will perceive new
technology, such as cognitive style (Huber, 1983), motivation (DeSanctis, 1982), and a number of other
characteristics. The factors she identifies are summarised in Figure 10.

25
 Task Factors
Nature of task
Environment End User
Complexity Satisfaction High Satisfaction High
Upgrading High Motivation Productivity
Organizational Factors
Management Support
Management Activity
Training Programs

User Factors
Cognitive Differences End User
User Characteristics Dissatisfaction
Attitude Deskilling
Age Anxiety Low Satisfaction Low
Past Training Complaints Low Motivation Productivity
Education Physical Problem
Job Experience
User Participation

Figure 10: Factors affecting end users (Adapted from Yaverbaum, 1988, pg. 77)

According to Yaverbaum, the figure implies that many user, task, and organisational factors lead to end user
feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This in turn impacts employee motivation and ultimately has an
effect on productivity. Yaverbaum argues that the literature contains too many contradictions and fragmenta-
tion and does not support IS practice. She argues that "Researchers must now take a more holistic approach
to the user environment..." (Yaverbaum, 1988, pg. 77). The author herself goes on to use the Job Diagnostic
Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), which is a more holistic instrument, but also comes up with contradic-
tory findings. In their more recent review, Ang & Pavry (1994) also find research on information technol-
ogy's impact on user satisfaction with the information system (vs. job satisfaction), organisational climate,
and worker well-being (cf. Table 2 on page 19 for an overview of their findings).

c) Information systems and occupational stress

Interestingly, occupational stress has recently received quite some attention within the IS literature.
A first paper (Rouse & Watson, 1994) reviews a number of theories of organisational change in relation to
business process reengineering supported by information system. In this review, the authors also look at
stress and uncertainty as an outcome of these change processes. I will discuss the Rouse & Watson (1994)
paper in more detail in Chapter 4, when discussing the literature on organisational change (pp. 94-ff.). A sec-
ond relevant contribution is work by Korunka and his colleagues at the University of Vienna, who study psy-
chological effects of ISD projects such as stress, satisfaction, etc. In their 1993 study (C. Korunka, A. Weiss,
& B. Karetta, 1993), for example, the measurements were performed 2 months prior to, during and 12
months after implementation of a new information technology tool. They clearly show that stress levels tend
to rise significantly during the implementation process, but usually fall back to lower levels 12 months after
the implementation project. The study also showed that implementation style (including the degree of user
participation) clearly had an influence on the perceived levels of stress and satisfaction. The highest levels of
stress and dissatisfaction were found among those employees with the least participation during the imple-
mentation process and those whose work is described as monotonous. In a more recent study (Korunka,
Zauchner, & Weiss, 1997) the authors find that there are other variables that mediate the stress and
dissatisfaction reactions.
"Both preimplementation values and changes in subjectively experienced stress and
dissatisfaction seemed to be highly influenced by contextual factors at an organizational
level. Regarding job characteristics (decision latitude) and external workload (e.g., family,
children, and household responsibilities), employees with low decision latitude at their
workplaces and a high external workload showed the strongest increases in subjectively
experienced stress after the implementation. Preimplementation levels of subjectively
experienced stress and dissatisfaction also seemed to be affected by decision latitude and
external workload." (Korunka et al., 1997, p. 407)
The Vienna research group's concept of stress is related to the popular Karasek (Karasek, 1979; Karasek &
Theorell, 1990) model of occupational stress. Finally, in a somewhat different vein, the recent paper by
Thong & Yap (2000) looks at occupational stress with the aim of analysing the stressful IS profession. In that

26
light, they present a critical overview of the theoretical models of occupational stress, and argue that there is
no model that is suited to study the profession of information systems developers without modifications.
They argue that the IS profession needs a profession-specific model in order to explain the extremely high
level of stress found.

d) Organisational cognition: Sensemaking in information systems

In the previous decade, a number of researchers have focused on processes of cognition within
organisations in relation to information technology (Robey, 1987; Weick, 1990; Clegg, 1994; Orlikowski &
Gash, 1994; Gallivan, 1996; Swan & Newell, 1998; Lanzara, 1999). These contributions stress the fact that
different people within an organisation do not only have different roles and goals within an organisation, but
may have an altogether different perception of an organisation. "Differences will exist across groups not just
in terms of their information, knowledge, skills and expertise, indeed this is the essential nature of an
organisation; but differences may also exist more fundamentally in the worldviews held and used by these
actors" (Clegg, 1994, pg. 469). These differences are individually held in nature, but they are co-determined
organisationally. Indeed, organisational processes are argued to influence cognitions, but also vice versa, i.e.
cognitions of actors may influence how an organisation is structured and behaves. "The cognition of all
parties help construct, enact and transform the practice of organizing over time" (Weick, 1979). As may have
become clear from this short description, these views resemble some of the ideas in structuration theory
(Giddens, 1984).

These concepts of organisational cognition have found their way to the information systems
literature in some of the work by Robey (1987) and Orlikowski & Gash (1994), amongst others. Robey, for
instance, discusses cognition at the organisational level and argues that
"Only if we know why and how the system was developed and what meanings the participants
attribute to the system can we understand the impact of the system on the organization. [...]
Development history includes the intentions of managers, designers, users, and interested
parties outside the organization (such as vendors, consultants, and customers)." (Robey,
1987, p. 73)
The author builds on Markus' (1984) interaction theory, and argues that
"Interactions among participants with conflicting interests result in decisions to build and
implement systems with particular features. These features sometimes fit into the existing
organizational design, in which case the changes required in the organization are minimal.
At other times the system features do not match the existing organizational design. Then, use
of the system as designed requires organizational changes." (op.cit., pg. 74)
Robey builds part of his discussion on Markus' (1984) model for managing impacts, which distinguishes five
rough phases in the design of organisational information systems, as illustrated in Figure 11.

Organizational
design process
Operating
Implemen- Organisational
Problems / Objectives
tation impacts
Opportunities
System Design
Process

Figure 11: Markus' (1984) model for managing information system impacts.

An important aspect of this model for current purposes is that it identifies problems and opportunities as
stimulants for change. Technological innovation is pursued because stakeholders perceive a gap between
what is currently accomplished and what is possible (now or in the future). According to the model, this gap
should lead to the formulation of objectives, which - as said before - is an interactive process between
participants with conflicting interests.

Another contribution that I want to mention in more detail in this context is the paper by Orlikowski
& Gash (1994) on technological frames, i.e. "those aspects of shared cognitive structures that concern
technology".

27
 "We argue that an understanding of people’s interpretations of a technology is critical to un-
derstanding their interaction with it. To interact with technology, people have to make sense
of it; and in this sense-making process, they develop particular assumptions, expectations,
and knowledge of the technology, which serve to shape subsequent actions toward it. While
these interpretations become taken-for-granted and are rarely brought to the surface and re-
flected on, they nevertheless remain significant in influencing how actors in organizations
think about and act toward technology. Weick (1990, p. 17), for example, has noted that:
'cognition and micro-level processes are keys to understanding the organizational impact of
new technologies.'”(Orlikowski & Gash, 1994, p. 175)
I will discuss this concept of cognitive structure, or frame-of-reference in more detail in Chapter 3 below,
when discussing the relevant literature in psychology. Suffice it to say here that Orlikowski & Gash carried
out a field study by analysing key actors' interpretations of the implementation and early use of a new infor-
mation technology. They found significant differences in the technological frames of two primary groups,
technologists and users. They argue that this incongruence "provides an interesting explanation of the diffi-
culties and unanticipated outcomes associated with the technology interpretation".

In a similar vein, Swan and colleagues (Swan & Clark, 1992; Swan & Newell, 1998) compared case
studies at 7 companies that had recently implemented computer-aided production management (CAPM)
technologies, so-called MRP software5. The analysis encompassed a review of secondary documents and
(retrospective) interviews with key managers within each firm. The interviews focussed on understanding
cognitive dimensions of the innovation process and whether or not these dimensions were important for the
success of the implementation projects. The dimensions they found are listed in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Cognitive and political dimensions found in (Swan & Newell, 1998).
Cognitive Dimensions
Technical knowledge base
Level of internally embedded technical knowledge
Level of external technical knowledge used
Compatibility of innovation with existing systems
Level of understanding of innovation
Organisational knowledge base
Amount of training
Has problem been defined?
Has solution been defined?
Have alternative solutions been evaluated?
Technology strategy?
Clearly defined?
Long- vs. short-term
Autonomy vs. direct control
Quality of communication about innovation
Is innovation altering existing ways of operating or 'entrenching' them?
Restructuring performed?
Cognitive schemata - cognitive maps
Beliefs shared regarding new technology?
Variations in beliefs about new technology admitted?
Cognitive schemata - use of heuristics
Cognitive schemata - use of analogies
Political Dimensions
Problem owned or shared?
Solution imposed or shared?
Confidence in project leaders?
Intra-organisational conflict?

The outcomes of the seven implementation projects were described in terms of appropriation (Clark, 1987)
and integration (Waterlow & Monniot, 1986). The dimensions in the taxonomy were identified from rather
diverse literatures and subsequently used to compare the seven firms. The comparison showed that 3 of the
seven companies had been relatively more successful than the others, and

5
MRP stands for manufacturing resource planning, a type of CAPM that was rather popular in manufacturing companies at the start
of the 1990s.

28
 "this appeared to be, in part, because the people in those very different functions (for exam-
ple, sales, production, finance) had very different understandings of the chosen technological
solution and of the problems it was intended to solve. [...] The important element seemed to
be that different individuals saw themselves as understanding the problems and solutions in
similar ways so that they had a fairly clear sense of the problems that CAPM was intended to
solve. In firms that had attempted to define problems and solutions [...] it was more likely
that individuals across functions shared similar beliefs about CAPM." (Swan & Newell,
1998, p. 115)
The authors finally argued that the comparisons between the seven firms provided some empirical support
for the idea that cognitive and political dimensions involved in choosing and implementing the solution
mediated the outcomes of technology implementation. However, while the analysis was useful in identifying
broad patterns of managerial cognitions, the authors felt that a more detailed analysis method could be useful
in order to supplement the case study method used in the research described above.

5. IS evaluation - success criteria

Part of the diversity and contradictions in the information systems literature can be explained by
studying the success criteria that are used in the different studies. The previous sections in this chapter have
focussed on the factors and variables that are assumed to contribute to the success of information system
implementation projects. There is considerable variety in those factors and variables, but the variety of
success criteria is equally large. In one of the IS literature's most cited studies (Walstrom & Leonard, 2000)
DeLone and McLean (1992) studied the uses of different IS success criteria from research in 8 major
publications from 1981-1987 (with some more recent contributions as well). Their review showed 124
different success criteria in the approximately 100 studies they analysed. In order to create some structure in
that diversity, they classified all success criteria according to six main classes:
• System quality: the desired characteristics of the system itself, e.g. reliability, response time, ease of
use, flexibility of system, etc.
• Information quality: the quality of the information that the system produces, e.g. information
accuracy, precision, currency, timeliness, completeness, usefulness, etc.
• Information system use: whether or not intended users use the computer system. An important
remark that the authors make is that this success measure is only relevant in case of voluntary or
discretionary users as opposed to captive users. They also distinguish between actual use versus
reported use. Amongst the measures used are: frequency of use, regularity of use, time per session,
number of reports generated, etc.
• User satisfaction: Is probably the most widely used single measure of IS success and many papers
try to define a generic measurement instrument of user satisfaction. A key issue here is whose
satisfaction one measures, that of the end users, or that of their supervisors or managers. Some
authors used a single item to measure satisfaction, while others used multi-item scales (up to 39
items). However, studies have found that user satisfaction is associated with user attitudes towards
computer systems, so that user-satisfaction may be biased.
• Individual impact: the effect of information on the behaviour of the recipient. This is a group of
measures that is difficult to operationalise, so the authors found quite some diversity in the actual
measures, e.g. time taken to complete a task, decision quality, improved personal productivity, etc.
Some researchers even asked users to put a dollar value on the information they got from the IS. A
striking fact is that most studies that used an individual impact measure of success were laboratory
experiments, indicating that real-life individual impact is even harder to measure.
• Organisational impact: the effect of information on organisational performance. An interesting
remark in the discussion of organisational impacts is the following. While practitioners agree that IS
effectiveness is of major importance to organisations adopting new technology, academic researchers
"have tended to avoid performance measures (except in laboratory studies) because of the difficulty
of isolating the effect of the IS effort from other effects which influence organizational performance"
(DeLone & McLean, 1992, p. 74). Notwithstanding this remark, a number of studies have analysed
measures such as profit contribution of IS, contribution to return on assets, productivity gains,
modified cost/benefit analysis, etc.
From their review, the authors come to a number of relevant conclusions with regard to the measurement of
IS success.

29
 • The IS researcher has a broad list of individual dependent variables to choose from. No single
measure is intrinsically better than another is so the choice of success measure often depends on the
objective of the study, the level of analysis, etc.
• Progress towards a cumulative IS tradition argues for a significant reduction in the number of
different measures so that research results can be compared. Only 15 papers have tried to use
measures suggested, tested, and validated in previous research, but the authors feel that this does not
yet happen often enough.
• Not enough field study research attempts to measure the influence on organizational performance.
For practitioners, this measure is often of major strategic importance.
• The review clearly indicates that IS success is a multidimensional construct and should be measured
as such. However, only 28 out of the 100 studies use measures from more than one of the six broad
categories.
Especially this final conclusion is crucial in my view. The authors argue that the six classes of measures are
not independent, but rather interdependent. They present a first attempt at a comprehensive model of infor-
mation system success (cf. Figure 12) "as a process construct which must include both temporal and causal
influences in determining IS success" (DeLone & McLean, 1992, p. 83).

System
Use
Quality

Individual Organizational
Impact Impact

Information User
Quality Satisfaction

Figure 12: IS Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 1992, p.87)

In their discussion of the model, DeLone and McLean argue for the interdependence of the IS success
measures and for the use of multiple measures in future research.
"System quality and information quality singularly and jointly affect both 'use' and 'user
satisfaction'. Additionally, the amount of 'use' can affect the degree of 'user satisfaction' -
positively or negatively - as well as the reverse being true. 'Use' and 'user satisfaction' are
direct antecedents of 'individual impact'; and, lastly, this 'impact' on individual performance
should eventually have some 'organizational impact'." (op.cit., p. 83-84)
"An I/S success model, consisting of six interdependent constructs, implies that a
measurement instrument of "overall success," based on items arbitrarily selected from the six
I/S success categories, is likely to be problematic. Researchers should systematically combine
individual measures from the I/S success categories to create a comprehensive measurement.
The selection of success measures should also consider the contingency variables, such as
the independent variables being researched; the organizational strategy, structure, size and
environment of the organization being studied; the technology being employed; and the task
and individual characteristics of the system under investigation (Weill & Olson, 1989)."
(op.cit.., p.87-88)
I want to argue that DeLone and McLean's model of IS success measures is still not complex enough.
Indeed, based on the discussion of the cognitive contributions above one might argue that an individual's
technological frame and attitudes will influence his judgement about system and information quality, even
'before' the latter influence the use and user satisfaction. One might even argue that one's technological frame
influences all subjectively measured success criteria. However, as a first attempt at describing a
comprehensive model of IS success, the DeLone and McLean paper is quite important, as witnessed by its
popularity within the IS community (Walstrom & Leonard, 2000).

30
6. Types of information systems
Finally, I want to discuss a stream of research within IS those contributions that attempt to develop
typologies of information systems, which are important to avoid "the assumption of a universal association
between all information technologies and organizational change" (Robey & Boudreau, 1999, p.170).

The most well-known and most cited IS typology is the one by Gorry and Scott Morton (1971),
which is essentially a mapping of Anthony's (1965) hierarchy of management functions and Simon's (1960)
classification of decision making. Anthony identified three managerial functions closely associated with
different levels of the typical hierarchical organisation: operational control, management control and
strategic planning. Gorry and Scott Morton then proposed seven characteristics of information that vary
among Anthony's types of decision categories: source, scope, level of aggregation, time horizon, currency,
required accuracy, and frequency of use. The authors argue that unstructured decisions require different
information than structured decisions, which is in line with Simon's concern about the degree of structure in
decision-making. The framework described by Gorry and Scott Morton was used as a basis for other
classification schemes, for example the one by Zmud (1983), who associates IS types with managerial
functions.
"Transaction processing systems (TPS) are used for recurring, programmable decisions. At
the other extreme, decision support systems (DSS) are better suited for non-programmable
decisions. Information reporting systems (IRS) fall somewhere between the two extremes,
focusing on exceptions to routine performance." (Kirs, Sanders, Cerveny, & Robey, 1989, p.
185)
The intuitive appeal of the framework (presented in Figure 13) has been empirically validated by Kirs et al.
in 1989, showing that the tenets of the framework can be upheld, and that an IS typology can be associated
with it.

System Classes
TPS IRS DSS
Internal <---------------------------> External INFORMATIONAL DIMENSIONS
Historical <---------------------------> Future Input Attributes
Current <---------------------------> Old
Standard <---------------------------> Tailored Throughput Attributes
Frequent <---------------------------> Infrequent
Time Horizon
Source

Detailed <---------------------------> Aggregate Output Attributes

Currency

Narrow <---------------------------> Very Wide

Model Type

High <---------------------------> Low DECISION CLASS

Frequency
Aggregation

Accounts Receivable Budget Analysis Tanker Fleet Mix Structured

Scope
Accuracy

Production
Variance Analysis Mergers & Acquisitions Semi-structured
scheduling

Unstructured
PERT/Cost Systems Sales & Production R&D Planning

Operational Control Management Control Strategic planning

MANAGERIAL FUNCTION

Figure 13: Information requirements by functional activity (Figure based on the (Kirs et al., 1989) discussion of the
Gorry & Scott Morton (1971) framework). The cells contain typical examples as given by Gorry & Scott Morton.

The Gorry and Scott Morton framework has been used and extended over the past years, as for in-
stance in the handbook by Laudon & Laudon (1997), where the authors define a typology with six types of
IS, based on 4 hierarchical levels within organisations, i.e. the operational, management, strategic, and
knowledge levels. They also give examples of each type of information system within five typical organisa-
tional functions. Their typology is presented in Figure 14, which also provides more recent examples for
each type of IS.

31
 Function
Organisational Sales and Manufactu- Human
Level Types of IS Marketing ring Finance Accounting Resources Typical users
5-year sales
5-year 5-year budget Manpower
Strategic Level Executive Support Systems trend Profit Planning Senior managers
operating plan forecasting Planning
forecasting
Capital
Sales Inventory Annual Relocation
Management Information Systems investment
management control budgeting analysis
Management Analysis
Middle Managers
Level Pricing/
Sales region Production Contract cost
Decision-Support Systems Cost analysis profitability
analysis scheduling analysis
Analysis
Machine Securities Compen-
Payroll
control trading sation
Plant Accounts Training &
Operational Order tracking Operators and
Transaction Processing Systems scheduling payable Development
Level Supervisors
Material Employee
Order Cash Accounts
movement record
Processing management receivable
control keeping
Graphics
Knowledge Work Systems Engineering workstations Managerial workstations
Knowledge workstations Knowledge and
Level Data Workers
Office automation Systems Word processing Image storage Electronic calendars

Figure 14: Information system typology (Adapted from Laudon & Laudon, 1997).

A second relevant classification, which is quite different from the previous type, is that by Lynn
Markus (1984), who argues that
"The diversity of systems makes it desirable to classify systems into types with different
design features. Many commonly used classifications of systems are based on dimensions that
are not strongly related to organizational impacts. [...] However, these types offer few clues
to the likely impacts of systems on dimensions such as organizational structure or job
satisfaction." (op.cit., p.13)
Markus bases her classification on five functions that systems can serve in the organisation in which they are
used.
• To structure work,
• To evaluate performance and motivate people,
• To support intellectual processes,
• To augment human communication, and
• To facilitate interorganisational transactions.
These functions lead her to the following classification of system types, functions and key design features
(Table 9), where the first three types are identical or similar to those found in other typologies of information
systems (e.g. Gorry & Scott Morton, 1971). However, they are quite different in their basis of classification
and definitions of the different types.
Table 9: System types, functions and design features (Based on figures 2.1. and 2.2 in Markus, 1984, p. 14-15)
System types System functions Key Design Features

Operational To structure work Work rationalization

Work routinization

Monitoring and control To evaluate performance and motivate people Standards

Measures
Evaluation
Feedback
Reward

Planning and decision To support intellectual processes Models

Data analysis and presentation

Communication To augment human communication Communication procedures

Communication mediation

Interorganizational To facilitate interorganizational transactions Structuring or mediation of

interorganizational transactions

Markus also indicates possible organisational and individual impacts that each type of system may have, in
view of the fact that the typology was devised in order to assess or predict organisational and individual im-

32
pacts. An interesting fact when looking at the impacts in Table 10, is that the direction of the impact is not
specified. The author presents a procedure for assessing or predicting the impacts of an installed or projected
system in three steps:
• Classifying the system design features,
• Exploring the related organisational features,
• Identifying the area and direction of system impact.
The first step is to understand the functions that the system will serve from an organisational perspective. An
important question to ask in this context is if the system has several subsystems with different features. The
second step is to explore the organisational features related to the system's design features, which means
describing the current, and sometimes the historic, state of each related organisational feature. In this second
step, it is important to get the point of view of every group affected by the system. The last step is to identify
or predict the area and direction of system impact based on the system design features and the related
organisational impacts.
Table 10: System types, related operational features, and impacts (Based on figures 3.1., 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 in Markus,
1984, p. 38-62)
System types and Operational features Impact and nature of impact
functions
Operational: to structure Work force composition Job opportunities: expansion versus
work contraction
Job design Job content and job satisfaction: enrichment
versus deskilling
Organizational structure, work flow Horizontal structure: integration versus
coordination differentiation
Organizational culture Social interaction patterns: involvement versus
isolation

Monitoring and control: Job design Autonomy and control: self-control vs.
to evaluate performance external control
and motivate people Organizational psychology: well-being vs.
powerlessness and stress
Organizational culture Organizational performance: desirable
behavior vs. game playing and abuse of
systems

Planning and decision: to Work force composition
support intellectual
processes Job design
Organizational structure,
centralization vs. decentralization
Organizational culture
Job opportunities and career prospects:
expansion vs. contraction
Job content and job satisfaction: enrichment vs.
deskilling
Decision making: increased centralization vs.
decentralisation of decision making
Power structure: shift in balance of power
Politics: increased vs. decreased political
behavior

Communication: to Spatial and temporal factors Location of work: traditional vs. work at home
augment human (telecommute)
communication Geographic dispersion: increased or decreased
organizational size and/or number of locations
Communication channels and Who communicates to whom: efficiency
networks changes vs. network changes

Interorganizational: to Relations with customers and Interorganizational dependence: greater

facilitate suppliers independence vs. tighter linkages with other
interorganizational Relations with competitors firms
transactions Basis of competition: worsened vs. improved
competitive position

Important in this process is to review the conceptual levels at which impacts can occur, the individual, the
organisational and the interorganisational level. A system may not affect all three levels of analysis, but if it
has impacts on more than one level, these impacts may differ in nature and direction from level to level. In
fact, a system with problems at one level may have beneficial impacts at another.

33
 The third relevant contribution in this context is a paper by Das & colleagues (1991) where the au-
thors develop a content and process definition of strategic information systems planning, and try to match
that to the different organisational strategy types described by Miles and Snow (1978). The Miles & Snow
typology itself briefly outlined the desirable types of administrative mechanisms (including IS) for each of
the three strategies (summarised in Table 11).
Table 11: Desirable characteristics of information systems related to organisational strategy (Based on Miles &
Snow, 1978, p. 552-556)

IS characteristics
Strategy Centralisation Control Flexibility
Defender High High
Analyzer Medium
Prospector Low High

For defenders, the challenge is to "maintain strict control of the organization in order to ensure efficiency"
(Miles & Snow, 1978, p. 552), which requires the use of centralised information systems to facilitate control.
Prospectors, on the other hand, should "facilitate and coordinate numerous and diverse operations" (ibid., p.
554) through the use of decentralised information systems that allow flexibility of communication and
processing. Analyzers, which are in a middle position between defenders and prospectors, should
"differentiate the organization's structure and processes to accommodate both stable and dynamic areas of
operations" (ibid., p.556), which can be handled by moderately centralised information systems.
Das and colleagues further elaborated this characterisation of fit between strategic IS planning and
organisational strategy, and developed the following normative linkage of strategic IS planning dimensions
to fit the Miles & Snow strategy typology, as presented in Table 12.
Table 12: Linking the dimensions of strategic MIS planning with Miles-Snow strategic types (Adapted from Das et
al., 1991, p. 971)
Strategic Types
Dimensions Defender Analyzer Prospector
Strategy Content
Distinctive competence Lowest cost Cost and/or Uniqueness
differentiation Differentiation
Flexibility
Information systems technology
Type Centralized Distributed Decentralized
Computerization level High Moderate Relatively low
Sources of technology Primarily internal Mixed Primarily external
Systems design and development
Contribution by MIS group High Average Modest
Medium of contribution Formally by MIS Hybrid Via cross-functional
teams
Infrastructure
Technical High Moderate Low
Organizational Functional Hybrid Product-type
Administrative
Philosophy Hierarchical Mixed Individualistic
Formal Flexible
Policies Based on technical Combination Based on interpersonal
expertise skills, Flexibility
Strategy Process
Formality
Level Highly formal Moderate Informal, flexible
Type Top-down Top-down Bottom-up
Scope
Breadth of activities Narrow In between Broad
Participation High High High
Influence High Medium Low
Coordination
Means of coordination Formal (primarily) Formal & informal Formal & informal

34
When looking at the table above, one needs to remember that Das et al. do not consider organisational strat-
egy, but only information systems strategy. I will discuss some of the most relevant features of the table be-
low, but refer to (Das et al., 1991) for a full discussion of all aspects in the table.
• Distinctive competence: Whereas a prospector organisation’s distinctive competence is based on
product differentiation or uniqueness, a defender's distinctive competence is based on low cost.
Their IS strategies are also expected to reflect this. Prospectors, on the other hand are expected
to "emphasize flexibility and versatility in information acquisition and processing, and in
reduction of response time required to adjust to changes in the company's definition of its
markets." (Das et al., 1991, p. 973). Defenders' IS strategy, on the other hand, will focus on low
cost "derived from specialization, efficient planning, and economies of scale in information
processing." (ibid., p. 970).
• Information systems technology:
• Type of technology: To support their broad and varied domain, prospectors are expected to
emphasise decentralised systems, i.e. networks with multiple technologies, where each
technology is expected to serve the demands of a particular segment or domain, thus
providing flexibility. Conversely, defenders are expected to use mostly centralised systems,
such as mainframe systems, so as to ensure uniform operational control and enhance
specialisation.
• Level of computerisation: The diversity and multiplicity of products and markets that
prospectors have to handle make it difficult to computerise every operation. Whereas data
processing and end-user computing may be computerised, computers may not support high-
level decision-making. Defenders, on the other hand, will try to automate all their routine
processes and are therefore expected to use computer-based IS and databases throughout the
organisation, thus obtaining quite a high level of computerisation.
• Sources of technology: The diversity of information needs of a prospector organisation
makes it nearly impossible to use exclusively internal sources to meet their IT needs.
Therefore, prospectors are expected to use both internal and external sources, with a
preference for external sources due to their continuing engagement in new businesses and a
need to stay up-to-date. Conversely, defenders are expected to prefer information
technologies and equipment that are produced internally, even though that may involve
intensive internal R&D efforts.
• Systems design and development: these features are not so relevant in this context, they deal with
the way in which the IS department is involved when systems are designed and developed within
the organisation.
• Infrastructure: deals with organisational and administrative management of the IS function in an
organisation, but also with technical infrastructure. The first two are not so relevant in this
context, the third is.
• Technical: Defenders are expected to focus on extensive integration of their information
systems in order to control costs and achieve consistency. This integration can take many
forms, such as consolidation of transaction processing systems, integration of data
representation and knowledge, etc. Moreover, centralised database administration is
expected to prevail, with formalised control over "the collection, entry, maintenance, testing
and processing of corporate data." (op.cit. p. 972). In contrast with defenders, prospectors
are expected to show more flexibility with a lower degree of integration throughout their
information systems, in order to be able to respond quickly to changing markets and
customer needs. Prospector information systems will need to use decentralised databases
with a capability of handling a variety of information needs, and end-user computing is
expected to exist in a higher degree than for defenders. All this may result in a large number
of independent programs tailored for different applications.
• Strategy process factors: are not so relevant in the context of describing IS typologies, because
they deal with the processes that IS managers are expected to go through in formulating their
strategy in accordance with organisational procedures.
Although the Das et al. (1991) paper was not intended as a typology of information systems, but rather as a
taxonomy of IS strategies, one can still interpret part of their framework as an information systems typology
with IS characteristics depending on organisational characteristics. Especially the concepts of flexibility, dif-
ferentiation, centralisation, level of computerisation, level of integration, and formalisation of information

35
input are relevant in this context. Unfortunately, the paper does not propose how these concepts can be op-
erationalised.

A final relevant contribution with regard to a typology of information systems looks at IS from a
more technical perspective, and not so much from an organisational one as the contributions mentioned
above. In their paper, Fiedler, Grover and Teng (1996) empirically derived a taxonomy of IS infrastructures
and related that to organisational structure. They first analysed the literature in search of existing theoretical
typologies, derived three main dimensions of IS structure that were most common in the literature and used
those characteristics as part of a questionnaire that was sent out to 900 IS executives in the U.S. The three
dimensions are (1) the extent to which computer processing is centralised, (2) the degree to which computers
support communication, and (3) the ability of computers to share data and application programs. From the
eight (23) possible combinations of dimensions, only four IT structure types remained after a multistep clus-
ter analysis, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13: Cluster analysis of IT structures (Adapted from Fiedler et al., 1996).
The numbers in parentheses indicate the mean score (on a scale 1 to 7) of subjects in each cluster.

Cluster Processing de- Inter-computer Shared data and Number

centralization communication applications of cases
Centralized computing Low Low Low 82
(2.0) (3.7) (2.4)
Decentralized High Low Low 53
computing (5.4) (4.3) (3.3)
Centralized Low High High 105
cooperative computing (1.9) (5.7) (5.2)
Distributed cooperative High High High 69
computing (4.9) (6.1) (5.7)

The authors proposed a number of relations between IT structure and three characteristics of organisational
structure, namely (1) centralisation of decision making, (2) degree of organisational integration, and (3)
formal organisational structure. The three propositions were (at least partially) supported:
"[The first proposition:] When IT structures supported communication and resource sharing
(centralized cooperative and distributed cooperative structures), organizational decision
making was less extreme, but still directly related to processing decentralization. Only when
IT structures were not supportive of communication and resource sharing (centralized and
decentralized structures) did organizations have highly centralized or decentralized decision-
making structures. The second proposition, which was also partially supported, predicted
that companies with IT structures that supported resource sharing and communication would
have more integrated organizational structures. The third proposition predicted that matrix,
product, and functional organizational forms would be related to different IT structural
types. The proposed relationship was statistically significant. Three specific predictions were
partially supported: (I) matrix organizations would be associated with distributed
cooperative computing structures, (2) product organizations would be associated with
decentralized computing structures, and (3) functional organizations would be associated
with centralized computing structures."(Fiedler et al., 1996, p. 29)
The data that support proposition three are presented in Table 14 below. Although there is a significant rela-
tionship between IT structure and formal organisational structure (chi-square was 15.82, p < 0.015), it is a
rather moderate relationship. The relationship is strongest for the functional organisations, which clearly
have a preference for centralised IT structures, but there is no such clear relationship for the product (or divi-
sional) or matrix organisations.
Table 14: IT structure and formal organisational structure (Adapted from Fiedler et al. 1996, p. 28)
Centralized Decentralized Centralized Distributed
computing computing cooperative cooperative
computing computing
Functional 55 24 71 33
Product 10 14 12 12
Matrix 17 10 20 23
Cells in bold have a subject frequency higher than that expected by chance.

36
In my view, the study by Fiedler and colleagues is relevant, but it has some flaws. In their discussion of the
findings in Table 14, for example, the authors do not recognise technological changes and fashions (such as
the increasing popularity of Microsoft Windows NT networking), which seem to play a major role when or-
ganisations have to implement information technology. Moreover, as the authors themselves indicate, there
is no indication of the effectiveness of some of the combinations found in the study.

D. My contribution to IS research

By way of summary, the first paragraph in this section discusses some of the limitations that were
found in extant literature. The second paragraph then homes in on some of these limitations and offers
preliminary suggestions to deal with them.

1. Limitations of extant literature

Now that my research has been situated within the IS paradigm, I want to look at some of the limitations that
need to be resolved in my view.

a) Single level-of-analysis vs. integration of different levels-of-analysis

While disregarding the societal level of analysis, the theoretical model described below looks at the
individual and the organisational level, and tries to link them, thus providing a multi-level analysis.

b) Single-factor explanatory or predictive analyses

Whereas much of the IS literature focuses on single factors in its attempts to explain or predict certain phe-
nomena, I want to look simultaneously at a variety of issues in the theoretical model. The integrative con-
cepts of ‘harmony’ and 'stress' will be related to a number of the factors that usually appear in IS literature,
as will be explained in Chapter 5.

c) IS as unitary concept vs. organisationally relevant IS typology

A striking aspect of much IS research, it that it seems to assume that the type of IS that one introduces in an
organisation, is not relevant. One studies the impacts of an IS, and then compares them with the results in
other papers, even when there are quite some differences between systems. In the next section, I will
therefore develop a preliminary typology based on some of the contributions discussed above.

d) IS treats 'the organisation' as a unitary concept

Within IS research, there is also a tendency to treat organisations as if they were the same. For example, a
major item of debate has been whether IS leads to more centralisation or decentralisation within
organisations, but again without taking a contingent approach, i.e. without looking at different characteristics
of organisations.

e) IS treats 'the individual - the user' as a unitary concept

Next to the concepts of 'IS' and 'organisation', the concept of 'the user' within IS research is also far too un-
differentiated in my opinion, as if all people are similar, and are thus expected to react in similar ways to or-
ganisational changes involving new technology. Chapter 5 will return to that discussion.

f) IS as rigid entity
Information systems that have been developed for an organisation are rather inflexible once they have been
implemented. Whereas an organisation is a dynamic entity, an IS usually is rather rigid. This may result in an
organisation being prevented from changing, or in the organisation not using the IS. Is there any way of
developing IS so that it can develop together with the organisation? In the next section, I will also discuss
this issue in some more detail.

37
g) Single success criterion vs. multiple success criteria
When discussing the CHARISM model, close attention will be paid to the success criteria to be used. In the
model, there is focus on success criteria in five of the six categories mentioned in the DeLone & McLean
paper. The research instrument that was developed for the empirical part of the research does not contain a
measure of information quality, but covers aspects of the other five categories.

2. New contribution to the IS literature

In this final section of the chapter on relevant information systems literature, I will provide my own
contribution to some of the aspects discussed. I will mainly try to characterise different information systems
by borrowing organisationally and psychologically relevant concepts and relating them to different aspects
and phases of IS development.

a) Information technology structure

The four types of IT structure that Fiedler, Grover & Teng (1996) derived have been empirically
related to organisational structure and centralisation of decision making, and in that respect IT structure is
relevant for this research. As described above, the authors' sample showed statistically significant, though
moderate, variance of IT structure with organisational structure, and a relation between IT structure and
centralisation of decision making. The centralised structures are most common in functional organisations
(esp. the centralised co-operative structure), while the decentralised co-operative structure is mainly found in
organisations with a matrix or divisional structure. Moreover, the co-operative structures (client-server or
networked structures) have been recognised as enablers for organisational change processes, such as
Business Process Reengineering (O'Hara & Watson, 1995).
One might argue that this enabling effect obtains because changes to the IT structures can be made
locally - in the case of local organisational change projects - without disturbing the IT structure of the
complete organisation. I want to extend this assumption by arguing that the IT structure is relevant with
regard to the responsiveness of information systems strategies, in as far as centralised computing usually
makes information processing rather rigid and harder to adapt to changing circumstances. Another argument
for stating that centralised (non-co-operative) IT structures are more rigid is the historical fact that most
centralised structures - built around a mainframe system - depend upon software that is written in rather old
low-level programming languages, such as COBOL or FORTRAN. Because most of the original program
developers have retired, the software has become hard to adapt. This can be regarded as a technical argument
for explaining the high number of co-operative IT structures that Fiedler et al. (1996) found in their sample,
as argued above.
Finally, IT structure may be relevant from an individual psychological perspective: decentralised
systems will probably allow computer users more freedom to tailor their computer to their own needs and
taste (so-called end-user computing), whereas the amount of freedom in centralised structures is expected to
be more limited.

However, in a theory of fits and misfits, it is hard to argue for hard misfits between IT structure and
organisational or psychological parameters. The data in (Fiedler et al., 1996) for example show that
decentralised IT structures do exist in functional organisations and centralised IT structures exist in
divisional or matrix organisations. Moreover, since the authors have not analysed the effectiveness of the
different structures within different organisational configurations, it is hard to theoretically develop
normative arguments. Therefore, I want to argue that it is not so much the IT structure that needs to be
regarded as a contingency factor, but rather the way IT structure is managed.

b) IT structure management and administration

Let me try to explain what I mean by means of an example. At Omicron, the manufacturing com-
pany mentioned above, the IT infrastructure consists of a number of different historically grown systems
(mainframe, stand-alone PC's and Unix workstation) that have recently been connected into a Windows®
NT™ network with quite some shared data and applications on a number of NT servers. All machines have
processing capacity of their own, and the possibility to contain private data, i.e. data that is not shared with
others. Although the Fiedler et al. taxonomy would classify this IT structure as de-centralised co-operative,
the IT structure can better be described as hybrid. Some parts of the network that are related to the old main-

38
frame-based Computer-Aided Design system can be described as centralised non co-operative, whereas oth-
ers such as the new ERP system can be labelled centralised co-operative6.
With regard to this specific case, it is impossible to make any general statements as to the role that
the IT structure plays in supporting or conflicting with organisational structure or centralisation of decision
making. In theory, all information can flow freely between the different sub-structures, thanks to the NT-
based network. In practice, however, it takes quite some effort and resources to make mainframe-based
information available across the network, whereas the information on stand-alone PCs can be easily shared.
Similarly, organisational changes within the mainframe-based sub-structure are limited by the rigidity of the
information system, which prevents major changes.
But let us now consider only the de-centralised co-operative part of the IT structure, i.e. those parts
of the organisation where people work with standalone PC's that are part of the NT-based network. In those
areas it is the management and administration of this network that determines the flow and sharing of
information, and not so much the hardware structure. Network administrators determine whether users are
allowed to change or add software to their PC, which directories users get access to, whether users have
access to e-mail or other communication tools, etc. Therefore, it is the management of the network that
determines the information processing and information flow capabilities of an IT structure. In other words,
the decision on whether or not to centralise or decentralise information flow and processing is an
organisational design decision.

c) Computerisation level
This parameter "represents the capital intensity of the computer technology employed throughout the
firm. It refers to the ratio of operations carried out by personnel with the assistance of various computer
technologies to the operations carried out without such support" (Das et al., 1991). As suggested in (Verjans,
1998) the existing degree of computerisation of an organisation plays an important role when one wants to
implement a new information system. Organisations with a high level of computerisation will experience
high investment barriers when the existing systems need replacement, thus introducing a high level of
organisational inflexibility.
Moreover, a high computerisation level implies that people and groups maintaining and supporting
the existing technology - and not only those using it - will have a high stake in that existing technology.
Their resistance to change can be expected to be quite high. This parameter is linked to the previous one, in
the sense that large centralised systems (such as mainframe-based transaction processing systems) will
present an even bigger cost of change. Large co-operative systems, on the other hand, may enable
technology-based organisational changes, as argued above. A high degree of computerisation of an
organisation will also influence the individual psychology of organisational members, in the sense that the
widespread use of IT probably implies a relatively low degree of computer anxiety. On the other hand, a high
level of 'user-unfriendly' IT may have created a high degree of scepticism towards the technology. Finally, a
high level of computerisation implies the existence of habits and familiarity with existing technology, thus
raising the expected level of resistance (except when the new system is expected to be much better than the
current one).

d) Information sources
This parameter is concerned with the sources of information that an organisational information
system uses (cf. the Gorry & Scott Morton framework). This is related to the orientation of information
gathering that information systems support. Some organisations have IS that only gather and process internal
information such as process data, financial data, accounting, etc. Other organisations have IS that are mainly
focussed on external sources of information, such as news-services, financial data, stock exchange data,
Internet, etc. Clearly, this parameter is mainly related to organisational strategy as specified above. One may
expect that organisations with a prospector strategy will focus on information systems that have an external
orientation, and that can support the external orientation of their decision-makers. Defender organisations on
the other hand are expected to focus mainly on information systems that are oriented towards internal
sources of information, and on integrating these sources as far as possible to allow for smooth information
flows and processes.

6
Actually, the ERP system that was installed at Omicron recently is rather hard to classify in Fiedler et al.'s (1996) taxonomy, since
the individual clients of the system are installed on stand-alone PC's (de-centralised co-operative), but the main information
processing occurs on a number of servers (centralised co-operative).

39
e) Information Centralisation
This parameter is concerned with the destination of information needed for decision-making. Decen-
tralised systems distribute decision-making information to lower management or operators, to allow them to
make decisions at their own level. Centralised systems do not distribute decision-related information, but
reserve it only for management.
This parameter is related to the 'centralised computing parameter' described above, but it is different.
Whereas centralised computing is a technical matter (namely, whether or not the processing of information
happens centrally or not) centralised information usage is a matter of technology management. One could
well imagine a system that processes information centrally and then spreads it through the organisation to
allow de-centralised decision making (for instance a mainframe system that spreads reports or allows shared
information access). On the other hand, the opposite is also quite possible, when de-centralised systems
process information, but then send it to central management where the actual decisions are made (for
instance an organisation where production and marketing calculations are processed locally and then
communicated to headquarters where decisions are made).
The organisational concept of decision centralisation is also quite different from the concept of
information centralisation. The former namely describes whether decisions are made centrally or not, not
whether the information on which decisions are based is available centrally or locally. In other words, the
organisational concept of centralisation is not necessarily directly linked to centralised computing, but may
need information centralisation as a mediating concept.

f) Content restrictiveness (or information formalisation)

The level of content restrictiveness can be defined as the amount of latitude that users get in using an
information system. Restrictive systems do not allow users much freedom to check or add content to an
information system, for instance by using standard input forms and sheets for database entry. Less restrictive
systems will allow users more freedom in the way they add or check information, whereas the least
restrictive systems will allow access to all information and addition to information (for example through the
use of an Intranet or personal Web-pages, unlimited Internet access, unrestricted e-mail, etc.).
The relevance of this parameter regards the fit between existing information systems and
organisational formalisation. Organisations with a high degree of formalisation in their decision and
information procedures are argued to prefer high content restrictiveness in their information systems,
whereas organisations with a low degree of formalisation will probably allow more latitude in their members'
access to information systems. Content restrictiveness also has an influence on individual and group
psychology: high restrictiveness may be in conflict with individuals who have a high need for control and
self-actualisation and can thus be a cause for strain/stress.

g) System rigidity vs. flexibility

Flexible systems are systems whose basic structure and build allow them to be easily reconfigured in
the event of a change in the organisation's conditions. Tailorable systems (MacLean, Carter, Lovstrand, &
Moran, 1990; Trigg & Bødker, 1994) on the other hand are systems that have a number of options and
modules that allow an organisation to actually configure the system to fit its needs. This feature is related to
the cost of changes to information systems, both in terms of financial, human and organisational resources.
Rigid systems have a high cost when they become outdated, since they will need to be thoroughly revised or
even completely replaced. Replacing a system is similar to installing a new system. Flexible and tailorable
systems on the other hand do not require high costs to adapt to changes in the environment or in the
organisation.
This aspect is identified by Miles & Snow (1978) and Das and colleagues (1991) as being relevant
with regard to fit/misfit with an uncertain environment and with a defender or analyser strategy. Moreover,
on the individual level, rigid systems can cause user frustration when it turns out that they do not fit with
their environment.

h) Control-oriented system usage

Control-oriented systems are systems where human activity is logged and registered for purposes of
control, e.g. number of actions taken, duration of activities, etc. However, since most computer systems do
have some form of logging and registration - be it only for purposes of software testing and failure tracing –
it is the use or non-use of the logging data that is crucial in an organisational setting. One could even argue

40
that - for individual psychological purposes - the crucial aspect of this parameter is whether system users
suspect that their computer use is being monitored for control purposes.
This aspect is relevant for establishing possible misfits of existing and new information technology
with (a) motivational management style, (b) organisational climate variables such as trust, conflict,
scapegoating and morale, and (c) with organisational strategy. The latter misfit was already mentioned by
Miles & Snow (1978), when they argued that organisations with defender strategies needed to keep a tight
control of organisational activities.

i) System usage
With this characteristic I try to capture the importance of an IS with respect to the daily activities of
its users. One could operationalise this parameter by looking at the percentage of time that users (are
expected to) spend working with the system on an average working day, or one could try and identify the
number of processes that are affected by the system.
This distinction is relevant in order to assess the amount of disruption that a system causes or will
cause not only for individual workers, but also for entire departments or organisations. Systems that support
or replace only a small part of one's daily activities will probably cause minor disruptions in processes and
habits and will thus not usually involve major changes to an organisation. Systems that are aimed to be used
extensively during a working day may cause major disruptions. Moreover, one can expect them to be met
with a higher resistance to change and an increased individual and group stress level. Finally, when systems
with a high degree of daily usage break down, they can cause a high level of frustration.

j) Voluntary vs. mandatory system usage

This aspect does not need much explanation/definition. Voluntary use implies that the users can
perform their jobs without necessarily having to use the information system. The information system is
usually developed to add an extra tool to the existing portfolio of tools that employees have. An example is
an organisation that introduces e-mail but does not require its members to use it.
In an organisational and individual context, it is extremely important whether the use of an existing
or a new information system is obligatory or voluntary, especially with regard to individual stress and
motivation, but also with regard to the implementation techniques that one chooses. One may expect that the
organisational efforts towards implementation can be more limited for a voluntary system than for an
obligatory system. For instance, the use of a few IS super users/champions may be suitable for voluntary
systems, whereas one will need to apply extensive training, preparation and participation efforts for
mandatory systems. Finally, as stated by DeLone & MacLean (1992) this aspect is important when
organisations (or researchers) define the criteria for evaluating system success.

k) Organisational scope of IS
This distinction tries to determine which part(s) of an organisation will be using the new system. A
system can be thought of as local if it only relates to a limited and well-defined group of people, for instance
a new internet search tool for the marketing department. A cross-departmental system involves more than
one entity within an organisation, for instance a new CAD system for design and engineering departments.
An organisation-wide system involves all entities/units within an organisation to some extent, such as an
Intranet, an ERP system, etc. Finally, an inter-organisational system will try and link different organisations
through one or more information systems. Examples of the latter are EDI-systems, extranets, home-banking
systems, etc.
This parameter will determine the level of management that needs to be involved in the decision
making / development of the IS, but also the number of stakeholders that need to be drawn into the
development and implementation phases of the project (cf. Rasmussen & Verjans, 1998). It will also
determine how many processes and organisational structures need to be adapted.

l) System size & complexity

An important parameter concerning the development of new information systems is their size and
complexity. System size is of course related to the previous parameter, namely the amount of people that will
be using it as well as the number of different groups of users. It is not so easy, though, to define an opera-
tional definition of system size in this respect. One could think about measuring the number of end-users, the
number of computers, the investment needed for the new system, the number of person/hours used to de-
velop it, etc. Moreover, the complexity parameter is closely related to the size of an IS. From an organisa-

41
tional perspective, there is quite a difference between a simple system (e.g. e-mail) with a large amount of
users and computers, and a complex system (e.g. a CAD system) with a large amount of users and com-
puters.
These two parameters are relevant with regard to organisational and implementation issues in the
following ways. The design and development of a complex system will need a high degree of project
management, since it will involve a number of different users with a number of different needs, a number of
suppliers/developers that need co-ordination, a number of different technical modules that need to work
together, etc. Moreover, research has shown that in complex system development, there is a 'need for
participation': complex system developments where users took a great deal of responsibility in the ISD
process were more successful (McKeen & Guimaraes, 1997). Large systems (with a lot of users) will need a
lot of effort and (project) management during implementation, regardless of the type of implementation
approach one chooses. The more users a system has, the more system installations, training and support is
needed. Participative approaches will need more contacts to end-users with a large system. System size will
also play a role in the decision making process inside the organisation. Projects that involve a high number of
users or departments or a substantial amount of money will most probably involve higher management levels
in the decision making, follow-up and implementation of the project.

m) Organisational level
This distinction (Knowledge workers, Operators, Management, Senior Management) determines the
typical employee that will be mainly using the new information system. The distinction stems from
traditional IS typologies (such as Laudon & Laudon, 1997), but there it seems to be limited to standard
business organisations only. It does not cover other types of users, such as students, teachers, customers, etc.,
all of whom will be classified as knowledge workers. For current purposes, it is a relevant parameter, though,
since the organisational level at which a new system is aimed will help determine the implementation
techniques needed for the new system. Moreover, these different types of users will presumably be different
types of personality, with different attitudes, needs, values, goals, etc.

n) Overview
All the parameters mentioned in this section have been summarised in Table 15, which builds a pre-
liminary organisationally relevant typology of information systems.
Table 15: Organisationally relevant IS typology
Parameter Parameter values Relevant for:
IT structure centralised decentralised centralised coop decentralised coop Org. structure, flexibility/rigidity, personal freedom
Computerisation level high medium low Org. flexibility, comp. anxiety, habits (resistance)
Information sources external mixed internal Org. strategy
Information centralisation high medium low Man. style, org. strategy, org. centralisation
Content restrictiveness high medium low Org formalisation, indiv stress
System flexibility high medium low Org. environment, org. strategy
Control-oriented usage high medium low Man. style, org. climate, org.strategy
System usage most of day regular off and on Disruption, res. to change, indiv. stress
Mandatory/voluntary mandatory advisory voluntary Indiv. stress and motivation, implem techniques
Scope of IS local interdepartmental organisational interorganisational Org disruption, man. involvement, # of end-users
System size large medium small Investment, # of dev'ers, # of end-users, project structure
System complexity high medium low # of dev'ers, # end-users involved, high co-ordination
Organisational level knowledge operational management executives Implementation techniques

The first column contains the label of each parameter, the second contains the range of possible values, and
the last column summarises which organisational and psychological factors the parameter is assumed to be
relevant for. I will return to this preliminary typology when discussing my theoretical model and the working
propositions derived from it in Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 below.

Now I will proceed to the discussion of some of the relevant contributions in the psychological
literature that my research draws upon.

42
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work
Psychology Chapter 3
Organisation
Theory

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy

Working
Hypotheses

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Importance of cognitive frames in organisational perception

43
Chapter 3. Work Psychology Literature

As in the previous chapter, I want to start by situating the area of work psychology within the
science of psychology, and then by situating my work within the area of work psychology. In the second
section, I will describe some of the research contributions that my work builds on, and I will end the chapter
by summarising those aspects of my work that can be regarded as novel contributions to work psychology.

Discussing the position of work psychology in the vast science of psychology is not an easy task,
first and foremost because there is no international consensus on the name of the field of research. In the
United States the field is labelled "Industrial and Organizational Psychology" or I/O Psychology, the British
prefer "Occupational Psychology", whereas the Europeans use the term "Work Psychology". Apart from
these descriptors - which can be more or less regarded as synonyms - there are some related terms such as
"Organisational behaviour", which cover an area that is somewhat broader than psychology, and may discuss
other aspects of organisational life, such as organisational design, management, etc.
Secondly, there is little agreement on how the science of psychology can be subdivided into fields of re-
search, as witnessed by the two overviews in Figure 15. The first overview shows the divisions of the
American Psychological Society, while the second - at the bottom of the figure - shows the sections of its
British counterpart. These fields of research are characterised by very specific objects of study (e.g. religion,
addictions, or hypnosis), by specific approaches (e.g. cognitive, experimental, statistical), or by specific per-
spectives on the field (historical, philosophical, etc.). There does, however, seem to be agreement on the
need for defining a work-related field of psychological research.

Divisions of the American Psychological association

1. Society for General Psychology 29. Psychotherapy
2. Society for the Teaching of Psychology 30. Psychological Hypnosis
3. Experimental Psychology 31. State Psychological Association Affairs
5. Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics 32. Humanistic Psychology
6. Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology 33. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
7. Developmental Psychology 34. Population and Environmental Psychology
8. Society for Personality and Social Psychology 35. Society for the Psychology of Women
9. Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues - SPSSI 36. Psychology of Religion
10. Psychology and the Arts 37. Child, Youth, and Family Services
12. Society of Clinical Psychology 38. Health Psychology
13. Consulting Psychology 39. Psychoanalysis
14. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 40. Clinical Neuropsychology
15. Educational Psychology 41. American Psychology-Law Society
16. School Psychology 42. Psychologists in Independent Practice
17. Counseling Psychology 43. Family Psychology
18. Psychologists in Public Service 44. Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues
19. Military Psychology 45. Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues
20. Adult Development and Aging 46. Media Psychology
21. Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology 47. Exercise and Sport Psychology
22. Rehabilitation Psychology 48. Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology Division
23. Society for Consumer Psychology 49. Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy
24. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 50. Addictions
25. Division of Behavior Analysis 51. Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity
26. History of Psychology 52. International Psychology
27. Society for Community Research and Action: Division of Community Psychology 53. Clinical Child Psychology
28. Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse 54. Society of Pediatric Psychology
55. American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy

The Sections of the British Psychological Society

Cognitive Psychology
Consciousness and Experiential Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Education
History & Philosophy of Psychology
Lesbian and Gay Psychology
Mathematical, Statistical & Computing
Occupational Psychology
Psychobiology
Psychology of Women
Psychotherapy
Social Psychology
Sport and Exercise Psychology
Transpersonal Psychology

Figure 15: Overview of different areas of research within the science of psychology, with the relevant areas for this
research indicated in italics. (Sources: Websites of the American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/ -
and the British Psychological Society - http://www.bps.org.uk/)

44
A. The work psychology research paradigm - A review

The roots of work psychology can be traced back to the interbellum, the period between the two
world wars, when there were two types of interest: fit-man-to-job and fit-job-to-man (Arnold, Robertson, &
Cooper, 1995, p. 35-36). In the second half of the 20th century, the psychological study of humans in working
situations has become one of the most studied areas of applied psychological research. During this period, a
number of specific issues have surfaced, such as work motivation, organisational commitment, job satisfac-
tion, organisational learning, occupational stress, etc. The perspective in studying these issues was often an
applied one, in the sense that researchers were looking for applicable theories that could help employers to
make their people perform better. Performance was regarded as both a short-term (e.g. during the selection of
new employees) and a long-term goal (e.g. when studying job satisfaction and work stress). The aim of re-
search in work psychology has often been to study work behaviour in such a way that a limited number of
factors could be found that explain such behaviour, factors that can at a later stage be modified to obtain re-
sults that are desirable to employers and employees. Figure 16 presents two tables of contents from two dif-
ferent research traditions: the left-hand side is a British handbook on work psychology, whereas the right-
hand side shows the contents of a US handbook on organisational behaviour. It is clear that the psychological
tradition has the individual as its main level of analysis, whereas organisational behaviour (OB) is broader
and covers issues at the group and the organisational levels.

Arnold, J., Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Work Carrell, M. R., Jennings, D. F., & Heavrin, C. J. D. (1997).
Psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the workplace ( Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
2nd ed.). London: Pitman. Prentice-Hall International.
Perspectives on work organizations and cultures Introduction
Concepts of the person in work psychology Introduction: What is OB?
Work psychology: its origin, subject-matter and research techniques Understanding behavior in organizations
Basic statistics and data analysis in work psychology Ethical behavior
Minority groups at work The individual
Individual differences Values, attitudes, personality, and perception
Personnel selection: design and validation Decision making, job satisfaction, and work stress
Personnel selection and assessment processes: validity and utility Motivation: the classical theories
Attitudes at work Motivation: effective applications
The analysis and modification of work behaviour The environment of the workplace
Approaches to work motivation The global context of organization
Perceiving people The diversified work force
Decisions and negotiations at work Power and politics within organizations
Leadership The group
Training and Learning at work Autonomous work groups: employee teams
Career choice and development Culturally diverse groups
Work, stress and psychological well-being Communication processes
Managing stress at work Leadership
Job redesign and new technology Conflict resolution
The process of organizations
Organizational structure and design
Organizational culture
Organizational change and development
Quality and innovation within organizations

Figure 16: Areas of interest in work psychology: two tables of contents from two different research traditions. Items
that are relevant for my research are indicated in italics and underlined.

Organisational behaviour is regarded as a fairly young multidisciplinary paradigm, in a similar sense as In-
formation Systems research (cf. Chapter 2 above). Figure 17 presents a view on the organisational behaviour
paradigm. Whereas organisational behaviour often takes an applied management perspective, i.e. studying
behaviour with the ultimate aim of changing it, work psychology may be said to maintain a more research-
oriented perspective, i.e. studying behaviour with the aim of understanding it, or trying to predict it. Since I
take the latter perspective in my research, I chose to label this chapter work psychology.

45
 Behavioural science Contribution Unit of analysis Output

Learning
Motivation
Personality
Training
Leadership effectiveness
Job satisfaction
Psychology
Individual decision-making
Performance appraisal
Attitude measurement
Employee selection
Job design
Work stress
Individual

Group dynamics
Communication
Power
Conflict
Intergroup behaviour
Sociology
Formal organisation theory
Study of
Bureaucracy
Group organisational
Organisational technology
behaviour
Organisational change
Organisational culture

Behavioural change
Attitude change
Social psychology Communication
Group processes
Group decision-making Organisation
system
Comparative values
Comparative attitudes
Cross-cultural analysis
Anthropology

Organisational culture
Organisational environment

Conflict
Political Science Intraorganisational politics
Power

Figure 17: Towards an OB discipline (Adapted from Furnham, 1997, p. 4). Items that are relevant for my research
are indicated in italics and underlined.

B. Situating my research within the work psychology paradigm

In Figure 16 and Figure 17 the items that are relevant for this research have been underlined and
marked in italics. As in the discussion of relevant research within information systems, my research builds
on contributions in several areas of work psychology. I draw on needs-based theories of motivation, a per-
son-environment fit model and a phenomenological theory of work stress. Job satisfaction and organisational
commitment will be discussed as a kind of outcome measures, whereas needs/values, cognitive frames and a
discussion on meaning will form a basis for discerning individual differences. Finally, I will be studying re-
spondents' attitudes towards technology.

46
C. Relevant research contributions

As with the overview of the IS literature, there is a wide variety of issues that are touched upon in
this research project. One of the reasons for this is that the research started out with an exploratory perspec-
tive, a second reason is the integrative aim of the work, as opposed to the rather limited single-factor orienta-
tion of many contributions in extant literature.

1. Human needs
In this first paragraph, I want to discuss the needs concept that has played a major role both in
theories of motivation and in theories of work stress. Some of the early models of work motivation that
survive in the minds of both researchers and practitioners are need-based theories, as described by Maslow
(1943; 1954), Alderfer (1969; 1972) and others. These theories - especially Maslow's - have received little
scientific support and their predictable power was found to be negligible, but still they are very popular,
maybe because they are rather intuitive. Moreover, most other theories of work motivation somehow include
human needs as the basis on which to build their concepts. Locke (1997, p. 290) for instance, concludes that
"needs are the basic set of factors underlying human behavior".
"Humans are wanting animals." This statement of Maslow's (1954, p. 24) reflects a view on human
nature that people - whatever else we might be - are always in need of something, and that much of our
conscious and unconscious behaviour, including work behaviour, is directed towards fulfilling our needs. A
clear definition of needs is very hard, indeed nearly impossible to give, even though every human will
intuitively understand the need concept. Pinder (1998) quotes a definition by Murray (1938, pp. 123-124),
who describes a need as
"a construct (a convenient fiction or hypothetical concept) which stands for a force ... in the
brain region, a force which organizes perception, apperception, intellection, conation and
action in such a way as to transform in a certain direction an existing unsatisfying situation.
A need is sometimes provoked directly by internal processes of a certain kind ... but, more
frequently (when in a state of readiness) by the occurrence of one of a few commonly
effective presses (or features of the environment).... Thus, it manifests itself by leading the
organism to search for or to avoid encountering, or when encountered, to attend to and
respond to certain kinds of press. Each need is characteristically accompanied by a
particular feeling or emotion and tends to use certain modes ... to further its trend. It may be
weak or intense, momentary or enduring. But usually it persists and gives rise to a certain
course of overt behavior (or fantasy) which changes the initiating circumstance in such a
way as to bring about an end situation which stills (appeases or satisfies) the organism."
I want to briefly look at some important features of this definition. Firstly, needs are hypothetical,
and can therefore not be measured. One can ask people about their needs, but the answer will always be a
rationalised interpretation of a mainly unconscious process. Second, needs may be provoked both by internal
processes and external 'pressures'. The latter is important in my view, since it entails that external triggers
may arouse dormant or less important needs. For example, when someone is working late at the office and
has not eaten since lunch, the smell of a pizza may trigger the need for food. That need had been dormant,
probably due to other needs being dominant at that time, such as the need to finish a piece of work before the
weekend. However, the smell of the pizza activates the need for food, and may even be so strong as to cause
the worker to go home at once, no longer bothering about work. Third, needs can manifest themselves in
different behaviours. The need for food in the previous example may cause one person to leave work
immediately, while causing another person to work harder still, so as to finish and go home. One individual
may also show such different reactions, depending on circumstances, current emotions, etc. In an example in
Pinder (1998), people with a high need for esteem may behave very differently. Person A may wear nice
clothes, always have the latest hairdo and most expensive perfume, in order to earn other people's attention
and esteem, while person B may live a quiet secluded life of prayer and meditation, also in order to satisfy
his need for esteem. Of course, the groups of people whose esteem A and B want to earn will be quite
different. What is more, needs do not only cause the organism to search for something, but may also lead to
avoidance behaviour. Our person A will not only do and wear certain things to be appreciated by his social
group, he will also avoid going to certain places or avoid certain behaviour. Fourth, a very important feature
of Murray's definition is that a need may be weak or strong, momentary or enduring. It is not a static entity
that is always present in the same strength or length of time. This feature in combination with the fact that
needs can be triggered or strengthened by something in the individual's environment imply that - for instance

47
 7
in a work situation - the individual's portfolio of needs can be influenced in order to change worker
behaviour. Fifth, the definition states that a need usually persists until a change happens and the organism is
8
appeased or satisfied . This implies that if behaviour directed at satisfying a need is not successful, the
individual may become frustrated. Moreover, fantasy may play an important role in need satisfaction,
especially when the behaviour itself is not feasible or socially acceptable. Finally, the claim that "each need
is characteristically accompanied by a particular feeling or emotion" is an important feature of the definition.
Whereas most theories of work motivation build rational and cognitive models "on top of" the human needs
concept, relatively little work has been done on the emotional aspect of work psychology, although there has
9
been a recent surge of interest in the emotional side of working life .
Another important aspect of needs is that people exhibit the common tendency to "project their own
need-behavior styles into their interpretations of the behavior of others" (Zalkind & Costello, 1962, cited in
Pinder 1998, p. 59). This aspect, together with the fact that a need can trigger a plethora of different
behaviours makes it hard to explain behaviour after the fact, let alone predict behaviour before the fact. To
make things even more complicated, need satisfaction is not always a state that a person reaches after a need
has been removed, it can also be the process of removing the need. Many people in our Western culture, for
instance, enjoy the process of eating more than the state of having eaten. Moreover, greater satisfaction
seems to be reached when more tension is reduced, e.g. when one has 'built up an appetite', the satisfaction of
eating is even greater.

I now want to look at Maslow's (1943, 1954) hierarchy of needs, not because it is the most popular,
but because its five classes are argued to have greater theoretical explanatory power (Ronen, 1994, p. 266)
than for instance Alderfer's (1972) "Existence, Relatedness, and Growth" theory or Herzberg 's (1966) two-
factor theory.

Self-
actualisation

Esteem

Belongingness

Safety

Physiological Needs

Figure 18: Maslow's hierarchy of human needs

Maslow claimed that human needs can be classified in five main categories, as depicted in Figure 18. He
argued that there is a certain hierarchy among these needs, in such a way that individuals will only be
energised by a higher-order need when all needs below have been sufficiently satisfied. He called this the
prepotency or urgency-for-survival hierarchy, i.e. the lower-level needs are more prepotent than the higher-
level ones. The most prepotent ones are of the physiological type, e.g. hunger, thirst, warmth, light, sex, etc.
These needs are characterised by imbalances or shortages of physiological substances, which trigger
behaviour aimed at restoring the balance or filling the deficiency. The next level in the hierarchy is the safety
category, according to Maslow (1954), "if the physiological needs are relatively-well gratified, there then
emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs (security; stability;
dependency; protection; freedom for fear, from anxiety and chaos; need for structure, order, law, limits;
strength in the protector, and so on)" (p. 39, as cited by Pinder (1998), pp. 60-61). The next most prepotent
category of human needs is the love needs, that can gain importance as more physiological and safety needs
are reasonably well satisfied. Other terms used for this class of needs are social or belongingness needs.
These needs are bi-directional in the sense that they include for example both the need to be loved and the

7
I coined the complicated set of strong and weak, temporary and enduring 'needs portfolio', indicating an association with for
instance a portfolio of stocks and options, which is also a mixed set of strong and weak items, sensitive to sudden changes and
triggers, both internal and external.
8
Note that needs, according to for example Locke (1991, p.290), operate cyclically; they are never satisfied permanently.
9
Witness of this is for instance the success of Goleman's (1995; 1998) best-selling books on Emotional Intelligence, also - or mainly
- outside the academic world.

48
need to love. The fourth class of needs, esteem, consist of two sub-classes, namely both the need for self-
esteem and the need for the esteem of other people. Satisfaction of the need for self-esteem leads to feelings
of self-confidence, capability and worth. The need for esteem of other people leads a person to look for
recognition, praise, prestige, dominance, or the attention of other people. Frustration of these two subsets of
needs may lead to neurotic feelings of weakness or inferiority. The less prepotent are the category of self-
actualisation needs, most often interpreted as the "requirement to fulfill one's potential, to become what one
is capable of becoming" (Pinder, 1998, p.62). This latter category is somewhat different in that Maslow
assumes that the satisfaction of self-actualisation needs tends to increase their importance rather than
decrease it (Maslow, 1962), i.e. self-actualisation needs are viewed as being 'addictive'.

Some additional remarks need to be made about Maslow's theory. The needs in the hierarchy can all
operate in parallel, although the theory will posit that their relative strengths will play a major role. "In actual
fact, most members of our society are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied at the
same time. A realistic description of the hierarchy would be in terms of decreasing percentages of
satisfaction as we go up the hierarchy of prepotency. As for the concept of emergence of a new need after
satisfaction of the prepotent need, this emergence is not a sudden, salutary phenomenon, but rather a gradual
emergence by slow degrees from nothingness." (Maslow, 1954, as cited by Pinder, 1998, p.61). Moreover,
Maslow has introduced the concept of reversal, meaning that for some people or in some circumstances the
order in the hierarchy may be reversed, as in the 'starving artist syndrome', i.e. the well-known prototype of
the artist who satisfies artistic needs (i.e. esteem and self-actualisation needs) before more basic
physiological needs. The previous remarks indicate that the basic hierarchy is not intended to be universal
and invariant, although the order described above is assumed to be most common. These remarks are
important, because Maslow's theory, "as seemingly well known as it is, is much more complex and much less
mechanistic than is implied in many management and human relations textbooks" (Pinder, 1998, p. 63). The
portfolio analogy that I introduced before may be more suitable than the hierarchy metaphor, although the
former might imply too little structure, where the latter implies too much structure.

Another important point that I want to repeat here is that needs can be provoked by external forces.
Examples from work psychology can be found in the European production industry in its current economic
crisis due to the low cost of manual labour in developing countries. The Danish Metal Workers Union (DM)
- the trade union of unskilled manual labourers - who used to be the first in line when fighting for better
working conditions or more bonuses, were not very active during recent Danish national strike (spring 1998).
While they used to participate in solidarity strikes with other trade unions, DM are now becoming more
concerned about job security of their members (a physiological and safety need) than before. This example
also shows that individuals may have quite different need portfolios depending on their social status, level of
education or the type of job they perform. This claim is supported by a number of scientists.
More specifically, the type of job that a person has will determine which needs that job can satisfy.
Allow me to elaborate on this major point in my description of human needs. Consider Jon, a fictitious
welder at Omicron, member of the aforementioned trade union. This welder does the same job 8 hours a day,
5 days a week, namely finishing the welding on steel pipes that have been assembled by a colleague. I would
assume that this job does not satisfy Jon's need for self-actualisation or self-esteem. What motivates him to
continue this job may be things that satisfy quite different needs, such as the social atmosphere (need for
belongingness), his reputation as the only one who dares speak up to the foreman (need for esteem of others),
or his activities as the local trade union representative. Jon may have other activities that can satisfy his
needs for self-actualisation (e.g. being the best cyclist in the region, writing critiques of local plays for the
cultural magazine of his hometown, or being member of the local council).

This idea was further developed by researchers such as Warr (1987), who "has a clear concept of fit,
whereby certain personality types or those with specific need profiles would presumably seek out and
respond to jobs that are offered more of these characteristics. To some extent, these are tautological, yet the
concept is important: to the extent that certain jobs fulfil specific needs, it is likely that individuals with these
needs will be satisfied in them. Presumably this relationship is curvilinear rather than linear, so one may use
the concept of the optimal fulfilment of needs." (Furnham, 1997, pp.257-258). The categories of fit are
presented in Table 16. An interesting aspect of Warr's concept of fit is that he relates the fit between what the
environment can offer and the needs that an individual has not only to motivation, but also to job
satisfaction.

49
 Table 16: Possible matching characteristics for each environmental category

Category Possible matching characteristics

1. Opportunity for control (AD) High growth-need strength (ES)
High desire for personal control
High need for independence (ES)
Low autoritarianism (ES)
Low neuroticism
High relevant ability
2. Opportunity for skill use (AD) High growth-need strength (ES)
High desire to use / extend skills (ES)
Relevant skills which are unused
Low neuroticism
3. (a) Externally generated goals: High growth-need strength (ES)
Level of demands (AD) High desire for high workload (ES)
Type B behaviour
High need for achievement
Low neuroticism
High relevant ability (ES)
3. (b) Externally generated goals: High growth-need strength (ES)
Task identity (AD) High desire for task identity
4. Variety (AD) High growth-need strength (ES)
High desire for variety (ES)
5. (a) Environmental clarity: High growth-need strength
Feedback (AD) High desire for feedback
5. (b) Environmental clarity: High need for clarity / intolerance of ambiguity (ES)
Role clarity (AD) External control beliefs (ES?)
Low need for achievement (ES?)
6. Availability of money (CE) High desire for money
7. Physical security (CE) High desire for physical security
8. Opportunity for interpersonal High sociability
contact (AD) Lack of contact in other environments
High desire for social support
9. Valued social position (CE) High desire for social esteem

"ES" = empirical support is available for a significant person-situation interaction in respect of job
satisfaction. "AD" = vitamins that at high levels reduce mental health. "CE" = vitamins that at high
levels do not cause decrement. Source: Warr (1987)

However, not only one's type of job is an external pressure that can activate different needs. Global
economic situation, as in the example of Dansk Metal, can play a major role, as acknowledged by several
researchers.
"In a more practical vein, in reviewing studies of employee needs and expectations in various
countries, it appears that what motivates people to work depends both on what the job can
provide and on what people lack if they do not work. Barrett and Bass (1976) have concluded
that when the motivation to work is closely tied to basic survival, the pattern and diversity of
motives that induce people to work are restricted. Thus, in developed countries, employees
often express the desire for more challenging work and autonomy, but most people elsewhere
in the world still work for basic survival; for them, job security is paramount (Ronen, 1986)."
(Ronen, 1994, p. 265)
This is not to argue that individuals in developing countries do not have self-actualisation needs, but one may
well assume that those needs probably do not play a major role in work motivation. When one considers
these arguments, it is striking to notice that there has hardly been any research into this area. Most research
into work motivation is based on extensions of the concept of self-esteem and self-actualisation, i.e. on the
economic and social situation in rich Western - mainly North-American - countries.

50
 A final point is that the literature on work psychology does not include - to my knowledge - an ex-
planation of how needs develop within human beings. However, I want to argue that the developmental ap-
proach10 may add valuable information about needs as basic psychological forces, and about personal differ-
ences. In cultures where the survival of the individual depends on the functioning of families and other social
organisations, the social need will probably be somewhat stronger than in individualistic societies like the
USA. This assumption finds empirical support in e.g. Ronen's (1994) chapter on "An underlying structure of
motivational need taxonomies: a cross-cultural confirmation". Ronen finds a two-dimensional structure that
accounts for the need taxonomies of Maslow (cf. Figure 18), Alderfer and Herzberg. The dual dichotomy he
empirically distinguishes "supposes the existence of a motivational directionality with two facets to it  an
individualism versus collectivism orientation and a humanistic, nonmaterial versus material orientation" (p.
263).

a1b1
Actualization

a2b1 Esteem a1b2

Social
a2b2
Physiological
Safety
Maslow

Figure 19: Ronen's Two-Facet structure and Maslow's Need Taxonomy, where a1 stands for non-materialism, a2 for
materialism, b1 for individualism and b2 for collectivism. (Figure based on Ronen, 1994, p. 264)

Ronen (1994) found that "variations accounted for by cultural values and national conditions can be
reflected in the composition of the two dimensions." Ronen's two dimensions are "well anchored in previous
research on the dimensionality of social values" (p. 265), but Ronen assumed work values "to reflect the
concepts employed in need theories". Ronen cites work by Meindl, Hunt and Lee (1989) who found that
collectivistic societies were characterized by lower values on achievement, esteem, independence and
growth, and higher values on benefits, security, pay, recognition and working conditions. Ronen concludes
from this that "[c]ollectivists use the group as the unit of analysis of social relationships, while individualists
use individuals. [...] individuals from varied cultural backgrounds are expected to assign different importance
levels to these values" (p. 258).

What are the main items in the preceding description of human needs? The first group consists of
some general features that are relevant.
• Human needs energise a person's behaviour
• Needs direct behaviour toward satisfaction of unmet needs
• All humans basically have similar needs
• Needs can change, influenced by internal and external features
• Individuals have needs in different strengths and combinations (portfolios)

10
Intuitively - this is an example of so-called common sense psychology - one would think that humans develop different need
classes in different stages of their development. One can imagine that for small babies the physiological and - to a lesser degree - the
safety needs are dominant while the esteem and self-actualisation needs will probably be quasi non-existing. During childhood, the
child probably finds out that it needs to be social in order to fulfil some of its physiological and safety needs, and it may also learn
that earning the esteem of other humans produces positive emotions within itself. During puberty then, I would guess that the need
for self-esteem and self-actualisation become dominant. Now what can this developmental perspective add to the motivation
perspective on human needs? Again intuitively I would argue that a person's current need strengths - her portfolio of needs - are
influenced by which needs have been frustrated during his development. An example may illustrate what I mean here: If the safety
needs of a child have not been reasonably satisfied, or repeatedly frustrated, one can imagine that the grown-up child will be looking
for more-than-average satisfaction of safety needs, and thus for instance find job security more important. If there is some truth in
this developmental perspective on needs, one could go on to argue that there must then be cultural differences in the strengths of
needs in people's portfolio.

51
Even more important are the following features of the needs concept that are relevant to my research on
work situations:
• Needs portfolios are partially culturally determined
• Motivation at work is partially determined by the type of job a person has, namely by the needs
that a job can satisfy
• External economic and social circumstances can have a temporary or more permanent influence
on the need portfolio of individuals
• People tend to project their needs onto others (e.g. managers onto workers)
As Katzell and Thompson (1990) note in their review of work motivation theory, "the motivational
imperative inherent in motive/need theory is that it is important to ensure that workers have motives and
values relevant to the type of organization and to the jobs in which they are placed" (p. 146).

2. Stress
A second main topic of interest is related to occupational stress. Within the work psychology litera-
ture on occupational stress, there are quite a large number of different theories and models (Cooper, 1998;
Thong & Yap, 2000). In this paragraph I want to look at two different classes of theory, (1) the person-
environment fit theory, and (2) a phenomenological theory of stress, because they are the basis for the
CHARISM model described in Chapter 5.

a) Person-Environment Fit Theory

An interesting theory is the one described in (Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998), the Person-
Environment Fit theory (PE-fit theory), which starts from the fundamental premise that stress arises from
misfit between a person and his environment. As such, the theory is linked to the concept of frustration
described on page 48 above. However, the relation between needs and stress is not very straightforward. It is
not because one's needs are not satisfied that one automatically becomes stressed. The basic concepts of PE-
fit theory are illustrated in Figure 20.

Contact with
Objective environment reality Subjective environment

Supplies Demands Supplies Demands

Objective Subjective
Coping Defense Strains Illness
PE-fit PE-fit

Needs Abilities Needs Abilities

Objective person Accuracy of Subjective person

self-
assessment

Figure 20: A model of stress as person-environment fit. Solid lines indicate causal effects, whereas broken lines indi-
cate contributions to person-environment comparisons. Concepts within circles are discrepancies between the two ad-
joining concepts. Adapted from (Edwards et al., 1998, p.29)

The model distinguishes between the individual and his environment as two different entities. The
individual has needs that she wants to fulfil and abilities that can be used in order to fulfil needs. The
environment, on the other hand, contains supplies and demands.
• Needs in PE-fit theory are broadly defined as "innate biological and psychological requirements,
values acquired through learning and socialization, and motives to achieve desired ends".
• Abilities include "the aptitudes, skills, training, time, and energy that the person possesses".

52
 • Supplies refer to "extrinsic and intrinsic resources and rewards that may fulfill the person's needs,
such as food, shelter, money, social involvement, and the opportunity to achieve".
• Demands are defined as including "quantitative and qualitative job requirements, role expectations,
and group and organizational norms".

The central concepts within this theory are four different types of fit. The theory distinguishes
between objective and subjective fit on the one hand and needs-supplies fit and abilities-demands fit on the
other. The grey background in the figure indicates the objective representation of the world, which is clearly
distinct from the subjective representation.
• Objective person-environment fit occurs when there is fit between the objective person and the
objective environment.
• Subjective person-environment fit refers to a fit between the subjective person and the subjective
environment.
• Needs-supplies fit (NS-fit) entails that there is a match between the individual's needs and the
supplies in the environment that satisfy the relevant needs.
• Demand-abilities fit (DA-fit) occurs when there is a match between the environment's demands and
the relevant abilities an individual can mobilise to meet those demands.
The objective person refers to attributes of the person as they actually exist, whereas the subjective person
indicates the individual's perception of her own attributes. The objective environment refers to physical and
social situations and events existing independent of the individual's perception, whereas the subjective
environment refers to the individual's perception of situations and events. The concept of contact with reality
indicates the degree to which the subjective environment mirrors the objective environment, whereas
accuracy of self-assessment refers to the degree in which the individual has an accurate view on his objective
needs and abilities.

This clear distinction between objective and subjective is important in that recent versions of the
theory state that "objective PE-fit has little impact on mental health unless it is perceived by the person and
thereby translated into subjective PE-fit" (Edwards et al., 1998, p. 30). However, the relations between
subjective and objective person and environment are not at all clear and unambiguous. Although the
subjective and objective counterparts are causally related, their mutual relationships are imperfect due to
"perceptual distortions (e.g. repression, denial), cognitive construction processes (Weick, 1979), limited
human information processing capacities (March & Simon, 1958), and organizational structures that limit
access to objective information (Harrison, 1978; Caplan, 1987)." (op.cit., p.30). In this respect the current
PE-fit model differs greatly from for instance the Karasek model, which builds on the objectivity of demands
and control measures, an objectivity which remains elusive all too often.

A striking aspect of Figure 20 is that it does not mention the concept of 'stress'. The authors argue
that this is mainly because "the meaning of stress has generated considerable debate in the stress literature
[...]". Edwards and colleagues use the definition proposed by Harrison (1978; 1985): "stress arises when: (1)
the environment does not provide adequate supplies to meet the person's needs; or (2) the abilities of the per-
son fall short of demands that are prerequisite to receiving supplies" (Edwards et al., 1998, p. 31). In contrast
to most definitions of stress, which are limited to a misfit between a person's abilities and the environment's
demands (e.g. Karasek & Theorell, 1990), this definition states that a demands-abilities misfit only causes
stress if "meeting certain demands is required to receive supplies, or if demands are internalized as goals or
motives of the person".

Edwards and colleagues mention two sets of possible outcomes of PE-misfit. The first set comprises
psychological, physical, and behavioural strains. Psychological strains include dissatisfaction, anxiety, or
complaints of restlessness, physiological strains include elevated blood pressure, and compromised immune
system functioning, and behavioural strains include smoking, overeating, or absenteeism. When such re-
sponses constitute risk factors for disease, the cumulative experience of strains over time can lead to mental
and physical illnesses such as chronic depression, hypertension, coronary heart disease, peptic ulcer, and
cancer. On the other hand, a sustained good PE-fit can lead to positive health outcomes. The second set of
outcomes involves efforts to resolve PE-misfit, depicted in Figure 20 as coping and defense. The first
mechanism consists of efforts to improve objective PE-fit, either by changing the objective person (e.g. by
training to enhance one's abilities) or by changing the environment (e.g. attempting to decrease one's work-
load through negotiation). The second mechanism, defense, "involves efforts to enhance subjective PE-fit

53
through a cognitive distortion of the subjective person or environment (e.g. repression, projection, denial)
without changing their objective counterparts (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974)" (Edwards et al., 1998,
p.32).
PE-fit theory hypothesises a U-curve as the representation of the relation between person-
environment fit and strain. Figure 21 represents such a U-curve, which indicates that "the lowest level of
psychological strain on the curve occurs when employee and job characteristics fit each other (P = E). Strain
increases as the employee's abilities or needs respectively fall short of the job's demands or resources (P<E)
or exceed them (P>E)." (Caplan, 1998, p.34.17) This U-shaped relation has been empirically supported in a
study of the relation between PE-fit on job complexity and symptoms of depression in a study of employees
from 23 occupations (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980).

(high)

Strain

(low)
P< E P = E (Fit) P> E

Figure 21: Hypothetical U-shaped relation between strain and PE-fit.

Moreover, the relation between strain and performance has been represented as an inverted U-curve,
ever since the Selye's (1936) work on physiological stress in animals. The well-known inverted U-curve, pre-
sented in Figure 22, implies that, while some level of strain is necessary to achieve effective performance on
the job, too high a level is obviously harmful.
Performance

Strain

Figure 22: Inverted U-curve representing the relation between strain and performance.
The dotted lines indicate a hypothesised optimum.

The empirical findings - summarised by Edwards and colleagues (1998) - "have consistently
suggested that PE-misfit, particularly for needs and supplies, is related to strain." Also interesting is the fact
that needs-supplies misfit has been consistently related to job dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, anxiety, and
exhaustion, and that demands-abilities misfit is related to dissatisfaction, anxiety, and exhaustion. The results
are not so consistent as to the form of the relationship between PE-fit and strain, providing only limited
support for the U-shaped relation hypothesised above.

Finally, an interesting extension of the theory (Harrison, 1985) takes an organisational perspective.
Harrison points out that "just as the person's functioning and survival depend on the fulfillment of needs, the
effectiveness and survival of an organization depend on the fulfillment of the demands it places on its em-
ployees. These demands are manifestations of the needs of the organization, and employees' abilities may be
viewed as supplies by which the needs of the organization can be fulfilled (Caplan, 1983)." When viewed
from this perspective, fit is related to organisational commitment: "organizations that are able to meet de-

54
mands that signify salient employee needs may experience less turnover than organizations that cannot meet
these demands (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992; Irving & Meyer, 1994)" (Edwards et al., 1998,
p.38). A similar fit relation is found by Mottaz (1988), who states that "the greater the perceived congruence
between work rewards and work values, the greater the commitment. Thus, organizational commitment rep-
resents a person-environment 'fit'."

b) Phenomenological framework for the study of work stress

The second contribution in stress-related literature that is relevant for my research is a framework
that was recently presented by Schabracq & Cooper, where "elements from different stress models are
embedded in a phenomenological framework for work and organization stress based on practical insights on
the one hand and ideas and methods from ethology, microsociology, and cultural anthropology on the other.
The framework is compatible with most of the existing research and theoretical views, and pays attention to
some lacunas in these views." (Schabracq & Cooper, 1998, p.625) Schabracq and Cooper's integrative
framework builds on two main concepts when discussing stress, namely situations and integrity.

Situations are defined as "familiar, shared cultural spaces, that enable their actors to fulfill their
recurrent needs (for example, for safety, control, achievement and further development) in standardized
ways, which are repeatedly enacted with the help of integrative scripts. [...] Functioning in repetitive,
standardized ways enables people to develop skills, which allow them to reach the situational goals in ways
that demand less attention and effort." (op.cit., p.626-7). The fact that humans try to reduce their functioning
to familiar situations is related to the limited capacity of our attentional process. Situations are described as a
mediator between an individual and his environment: "From a situational point of view, well-being and stress
can be characterised as outcomes of "integrity," which consists of two fitting principles. First, there is the
adequate fitting of work situations and their environment; second, the adequate fitting of situations and their
individual actors. In this respect, we can speak of "the survival of the fitting" [a term originally coined by
Morgan (1986), for the fitting of organizations and their environment]" (op.cit., p.628).

The concept of integrity is related to what the authors call niches: "Put differently, adequate human
functioning is characterized by a specific ecology: an individual develops a relatively stable niche to live in.
For example, most people live in only one house, together with only a few fixed family members; they have
their invariable daily, weekly, and yearly routines, interact only with a very limited number of other people
in customary ways, have their favorite ways of relaxing, and work in standardized ways and settings"
(Schabracq, 1991). Such a niche resembles animal territory, and disturbances or infringements trigger
similar stress reactions or resistance amongst humans and other mammals, even if the interventions are well
meant. Living in such a niche allows people to build a semi-permanent system of assumptions, meanings,
images, goals, rules, procedures, skills, etc. This system is labelled integrity of individual functioning. An
important remark in this context is that integrity will be experienced quite differently by different people.
Some people will strive for completely structured environments, whereas others need more space, challenges
and variation in order to achieve well-being. Karasek (1998, p.34.11), when taking a generalised
physiological systems perspective, is on a similar line of thought when he says "that stress refers to a
disequilibrium of the system as a whole, even when parts of the system are functioning. [...] Stress (or job
strain) would be an overload condition experienced by the organism's "control system" when it attempts to
maintain integrated functioning in the face of too many environmental challenges."

Schabracq and Cooper also relate integrity to signification as an active social process. A major pre-
requisite for social functioning is the presence of shared meanings. But humans will try at first to protect
their integrity in interpreting meaning of external actions and events, in a way that is similar to the defense
mechanism depicted in Figure 20 above, i.e. "people can apply meanings that best serve their purposes. [...]
As such, signification can be seen as a form of symbolic coping" (op.cit., p.630). In other words, people will
try to interpret their environment first in a way that fits with their integrity. Only when this cannot be done,
will they try to adjust their integrity, i.e. their system of assumptions and meanings. This process of significa-
tion is a major part of my theoretical model, especially when it reaches its ideal state: "an integrated, consis-
tent system of meanings, which serves one's goals in life, is open for further evolution and, at the same time,
is attuned to the prevailing meanings and needs of the relevant others" (op.cit., p.630).

55
The authors list a number of gains provided by adequate integrity:
• it enables one to develop skills for coping with the recurrent problems of life, ensuing from the ne-
cessity of meeting one's cyclical vital needs;
• it provides the individual with meaningful and morally acceptable ways of living, such as working,
in a reality that one can share with other individuals;
• it provides an individual with a morally acceptable identity;
• it positions and anchors an individual life and identity in society;
• it allows room for exploration, learning, and further development;
• it is conducive to individual well-being and health.

In contrast, inadequate integrity is related to stress:

"However, integrity is not always adequate. This may be a matter of underdevelopment,
decay, change, intrusions by external events, or an ongoing stress process. These states of
affairs can be described as (overlapping, and often coinciding) sources of stress and may
initiate or aggravate a stress process, which may result in health problems and breakdown of
all situated activity. The framework distinguishes between stressors that primarily affect the
task itself and stressors that disturb the immediate environment of the task. These stressors
can be described as too much or too little on a number of variables, of which only the
medium range is conducive to adequate integrity."(Schabracq & Cooper, 1998, pp.645-646)
The authors also provide a more elaborate list of conditions that may cause stress (ibid., p. 637), namely
when an actor perceives that:
• work tasks provide insufficient (quantitative task underload) or too much varied activity
(quantitative task overload, too high work pace);
• work tasks are too narrow or provide too varied activity;
• work tasks insufficiently appeal to someone's abilities and personal themes (qualitative task
underload, meaninglessness, irrelevance) or are too complex and too difficult to handle (qualitative
task overload);
• autonomy is too small or too great;
• individual tasks cannot be completed (no task closure), take too long to be completed (too long work
cycles), or are too quickly completed and have to be endlessly repeated (too short work cycles,
monotony);
• working goals and tasks are unclear or too much specified, and feedback about performance is
insufficient or too pervasive (role ambiguity vs. lack of autonomy);
• tasks are incompatible with certain employee's values (value conflict) or convictions (senseless or
even absurd task goals and procedures), or appeal too strongly to their values and convictions
(leading to burnout);
• the future of one's job or organization is threatened (insecurity about the future), or is boring and
inescapable (plateauing; golden cage syndrome);
• tasks are mutually incompatible (role conflict), mutually interfere with each other's performance
(causing task interruptions), or are too loosely connected;
• availability of adequate material resources and equipment is insufficient or too overwhelming (new
equipment which demands new skills);
• ergonomical job characteristics interfere with task performance.
It is quite interesting to note that in the Schabracq and Cooper framework it is again mainly the subjective
experience of inadequate integrity that is important in the perception of stress. Moreover, the framework fits
very well with a person-environment fit model of stress and well-being.

56
3. Motivation
Motivation has played a major role in the literature on work psychology, and that was one of the
reasons why the role of motivation was studied as a possible factor in the analysis of the relation between IT
implementation, users and organisations. As Mitchell (1997:58) states: "Motivation is a major component of
any theory that attempts to predict and explain organizational behavior and performance." This is reflected in
the amount of papers, books, edited volumes, reviews and textbooks that have been published on the subject.
The topic is estimated to cover up to one third of the journal space on organisational behaviour and work
psychology (Cooper & Robertson, 1986). As Mitchell says, the amount of literature is really "overwhelming,
especially for someone who is just becoming acquainted with the area" (1997:59). Many of the large number
of general textbooks on organisational behaviour (e.g. Robbins, 1996; Carrell, Jennings, & Heavrin, 1997;
Gordon, 1999) all have one or two chapters covering motivational theories: usually the first one describes the
theories and the second one discusses practical applications of (one of these) theories. The theoretical
chapter often covers 5 or 6 of the most well known theories in a chronological order, covering "needs-based
theories (Maslow, 1954; McClelland, 1985), equity or social comparison theory (Adams, 1965), expectancy
theory (Vroom, 1964), reinforcement theory (Hamner, 1975), goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1984),
and a task-centred version of intrinsic motivation theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980)" (Shamir, 1991,
p.406). However, as Pinder (1998) argues, most of the literature on motivation in the nineties covers some
detailed aspect or incremental improvement of goal setting theory or Value-Instrumentality-Expectancy
(VIE) theory.

My review of the literature on work motivation reveals that the field has been dominated by such
cognitive theories that stress the fact that human beings consciously and rationally set goals, compare the
value of outcomes with expectancies, and so on. Yet, the most recent literature reviews are opening up their
view and acknowledging other perspectives. For instance, Pinder (1998:462-ff) distinguishes the following
four main perspectives on human nature in his very thorough overview of literature on work motivation in
organisational behaviour:
• Human beings as need-satisfying creatures
• Human beings as perceiving, rational information-processing creatures
• Human beings as emotional creatures, and
• Human beings as learning creatures
He also notes that most of the theories in the literature are based on the second perspective, but he discerns a
growing interest in the other perspectives. The perception that most work motivation theories are based on
individual rational cognitive behaviour is shared by many researchers, but that perception is interpreted
differently within and outside the North-American continent. Most Americans support the dominance of
rational cognitive approaches since they have proven very fruitful in empirical research in the US. Many
European and Asian researchers, on the other hand, value the dominance of the rationalist perspective as
rather less positive, since it cannot explain some of the findings within their work cultures.
"Most psychological theories of motivation, both early and contemporary have their roots, at
least to some extent, in the principle of hedonism (Steers & Porter, 1987, p.8). Their main
focus is on the individual who is assumed to be a rational maximizer of personal utility [...]
Need theories differ from other current theories in that they emphasize 'expressive
individualism' rather than 'utilitarian individualism' [...] but they both focus on individual
satisfaction. In contrast, the highly publicized Japanese model of motivation, for instance,
stresses attachment to the organization and achievement of organizational goals. [...] Other
cultures also emphasize collective concerns more than individual concerns in connection
with work motivation (Hofstede, 1980)." (Shamir, 1991, p.406)
Due to these limitations of modern motivational theories, my research effort focussed on the needs concept,
but with the inclusion of non-individualistic needs. Moreover, I used part of the Values Survey Module
(VSM) research instrument developed by Hofstede as a basis for my needs-related questions (cf. also Ronen,
1994), in order to capture some non-individualistic needs.

57
 A relevant contribution in this context is the theory that Shamir (1991) developed in order to solve
some of the limitations that he found in the current motivational theories. The author proposed therefore
"that general job motivation will be enhanced to the extent that:
1. Job-related identities are salient in the person's self-concept.
2. The job offers opportunities for self-esteem enhancement.
3. The job offers opportunities for increased self worth.
4. Actions required on the job are congruent with the person's self-concept or can be
performed in a way which is consistent with the person's self-concept.
5. Career opportunities are congruent with the person's possible selves.
General job motivation will be lower to the extent that:
1. The job or its context contain elements that are detrimental to the person's self-esteem.
2. The job or its context contain elements that are detrimental to the person's self-worth.
These propositions are interactional in the sense of conceiving job motivation to be a
function of the interaction between the person's self-concept, the attributes of the job and the
context in which it is performed. Accordingly, job motivation is determined by the level of
congruence between the job (and its context) and the person's self-concept." (Shamir, 1991,
p.416)

This theory builds on person-environment fit and the concepts of meaning and self-concept, which are
related to the concept of integrity described above, in the following sense:
"People are also motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-consistency (Gecas,
1982). The self-concept is thought of as pertaining a multiplicity of meanings or elements
(Gordon, 1968). Consistency refers to three dimensions: (a) correspondence among
components of the self-concept at a given time (Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1987); (b)
continuity of the self-concept along the time dimension (Turner, 1968); and (c) congruence
between the self-concept and behaviour (Burke & Reitzes, 1981). People derive a sense of
'meaning' from a sense of unity of their self-concept, from continuity between the past, the
present and the projected future (McHugh, 1968) and from the correspondence between their
behaviour and self-concept. [...] The confirmation of the self-concept has long been assumed
by 'sociological' social psychologists from G. H. Mead onwards to be one of the fundamental
human motives (Turner, 1987)." (Shamir, 1991, p.412-413)

Shamir argues that if there is congruence (fit) between the person and the job and its context (the
environment), then motivation will be enhanced.

A similar theory of motivation as fit was developed by Furnham (1993), who "suggests that people
are most motivated at work when they have realistic expectations of the outcome or benefit at work and of
the value they place on them. People with inappropriate expectancies become disappointed, frustrated and
demotivated. [...] Secondly, and equally important, people value rewards at work differently. For some,
"flextime" is more important than salary; for others, security is rated much more highly than career
opportunity." (Furnham, 1997, p.294) Theoretically, the value one places on a certain outcome is closely
related to the 'need' concept, while the outcome itself can be compared to the supplies in the PE-fit model,
described above.

58
4. Job satisfaction
Within work psychology and information systems literature, job satisfaction - defined in (Arnold et
al., 1995) as a 'pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job
experiences' - has often been used as an outcome measure (dependent variable). Quite some research efforts
have gone into linking job satisfaction with productivity, but there has not been very strong direct empirical
support for that relation.
"Too narrow focus in the analysis of affect may partially explain the persistent lack of
empirical support for a satisfaction-performance relationship, in part because traditional
measures of 'performance' may fail to tap into certain types of constructive (or destructive)
work behaviors." (Organ & Near, 1985)
More indirectly though, job satisfaction has been related to low absenteeism and employee turnover (Orpen,
1979).

Because most theories within work psychology (job design, motivation, stress, etc.) use job
satisfaction as outcome variable, it is impossible to list all variables that have been hypothesised as having an
effect on job satisfaction. Nevertheless, Furnham (1997, p.296-297) distinguishes three groups of variables:
the organisational, the job-related, and the personal characteristics. He suggests that job satisfaction will be a
function of (1) individual characteristics, (2) job characteristics, and (3) the (mis)fit between person and job.
Interestingly, job satisfaction is again seen as the result of an interaction between a person and his
environment. In the discussion of PE-fit above, the empirical results also showed a relation between both
needs / supplies and abilities / demands misfit on the one hand and general (job) dissatisfaction, on the other.

5. Organisational commitment
Organisational commitment has been defined in a number of ways. The most commonly accepted
definition is 'the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in an organization'
(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Like job satisfaction, organisational commitment is usually perceived as
an outcome variable, within both the psychology and the information systems literature. High organisational
commitment is perceived as a positive outcome of organisational changes (such as the introduction of new
information technology). As with job satisfaction, organisational commitment is believed to play a role in
organisational behaviour: "It is generally believed that highly committed employees have greater loyalty,
higher productivity, and are willing to assume more responsibility." (Chow, 1994) Others find that
commitment has an impact on performance, absenteeism or employee turnover. Again, there are mixed
empirical findings, suggesting a far more complex relationship between organisational commitment and
'objective' criteria such as performance or productivity.

Since Mowday, Steers & Porter, organisational commitment has witnessed quite some research
attention. Recently, the concept has been conceptualised as existing of three distinct components: (1)
Affective commitment essentially concerns the person's emotional attachment to their organisation; (2)
continuance commitment regards a person's perception of the costs and risks associated with leaving their
current organisation, while (3) normative commitment indicates a moral dimension, based on a person's felt
obligation and responsibility to their employing organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Arnold and colleagues
(1995) note that "Other observers have pointed out that people feel multiple commitments at work - not only
to their organization, but also perhaps to their location, department, work group or trade union. (Barling,
Wade, & Fullagar, 1990)".

A central theme in much of the research on organisational commitment is the concept of exchange,
where individuals link themselves to an organisation in exchange for some rewards they value. Katz and Van
Maanen (1977) have identified three conceptually and empirically distinct clusters of work rewards. These
clusters include task, social and organisational rewards, where the first group indicates intrinsic rewards from
"doing the job", social rewards refer to those extrinsic rewards derived from interacting with others on the
job, and organisational rewards refer to tangible extrinsic rewards, such as pay, security, benefits, etc.
However, as Mottaz indicates:

59
 "The rewards do vary in terms of their effect. The relative importance of the various rewards
for determining organizational commitment depends on the individual's work values. Work
values refer to what the worker wants, desires, or seeks to attain from work. [...] They are the
standards that the individual uses to assess or judge the work situation. The greater the
perceived congruence between work rewards and work values, the greater the commitment.
Thus, organizational commitment represents a person-environment 'fit'."(Mottaz, 1988,
p.470)
Other researchers have defined organisational commitment as a consequence of person-organisation fit.
Chatman (1989) has demonstrated how the congruence between personal and organisational values can be
assessed. She has developed an interactional model in which commitment, performance and tenure are
related to person-organisation fit, which she defines as "the congruence between the norms and values of the
organization and the values of persons".

What is more, Mottaz' sample consisted of a heterogeneous mix of occupational groups

(professional, managerial, clerical, service and blue-collar), which led him to investigated possible
differences between the distinct professions. This analysis showed some differences between occupations:
"For example, intrinsic rewards were a more powerful determinant among professionals than
among blue-collar workers. On the other hand, extrinsic organizational rewards were a more
powerful determinant among blue-collar workers than among professionals." (ibid., p. 479).
This data seems to indicate that different professions may value different types of rewards, i.e. that different
individuals try to satisfy different portfolios of needs in their work.

6. Cognitive frames and information processing

In the previous chapter the concept of cognitive frames was mentioned when discussing the different
technological frames that play a role in the introduction of information systems in organisations (Orlikowski
& Gash, 1994). The authors argued that different primary groups (stakeholder groups) have different views
on new technology, and that these different views explain part of the tensions and problems that were met
during the introduction of new technology. The role of differentiated interpretations in the acceptance and
integration of organisational changes has met a rising interest in the 1990's, witnessed by such contributions
as (Kraut, Dumais, & Koch, 1989; Isabella, 1990; Gash & Orlikowski, 1991; Quinn, Kahn, & Mandl, 1994).
This approach has been particularly popular in studying technology-related changes, due to the contradictory
and fragmented results that researchers found in this field, when for example two different, but similar
companies implemented the same information system (Orlikowski, 1993).

The paper by Orlikowski & Gash (1994) has been rather influential in the IS literature and has
spawned some follow-up papers, such as the one by Gallivan (1996), who finds that the concept of
technological frames needs some extensions
"in order to identify stakeholders' assumptions regarding the complementary organizational
changes necessary to implement successful technological change. Through analysis of data
from a case study, the paper identifies inconsistencies among various stakeholders' reports of
a change initiative and then identifies a possible resolution to these discrepant reports
through an analysis of how stakeholders develop characteristic frames which shape how they
understand the goals of the technological change efforts, the set of complementary
organizational changes that are required, and their assumptions about what constitutes
progress toward achieving these goals." (Gallivan, 1996, p.107)
In order to achieve this extension, Gallivan gathers and analyses data from the different stakeholders
regarding organisational categories such as organisational structure, decision and co-ordination mechanisms,
incentive and reward systems, etc. Gallivan argues that users' existing conceptual frames with regard to both
technological and organisational issues may well impede a successful integration or acceptance of new
technologies.
"Research on the implementation of new technologies (such as groupware) has shown that, in
the absence of conceptual training (which attempts to shape users' frames around a
particular model of a new technology), users will simply attach a familiar technology frame
to the system (Bullen & Bennett, 1990; Orlikowski, 1992b). Where the goal of technology
implementation calls for transformation or radical change, the outcomes of this inability to
reshape users' frames may lead to results that differ from the designer's or management
sponsor's intentions (Kraut et al., 1989)." (Gallivan, 1996, p.111)

60
This reasoning is very similar to the reasoning followed in the phenomenological framework on stress and
well-being (Schabracq & Cooper, 1998, discussed above), where it was argued that "people can apply
meanings that best serve their purposes". People will try to interpret changes in their environment initially in
a way that fits with their integrity, and only when this can not be done, will they try to adjust their system of
assumptions and meanings. The integrity concept is much wider than the concept of technological frame
(even when extended in a Gallivanian sense), since it covers all fields of human functioning and not just
those related to organisational and technological situations. Seen in this light, the well-known concept of
resistance-to-change - which is a common response to any form of organisational change - can be conceived
as an attempt to protect one's integrity.

I want to argue that one can even extend this reasoning further and adapt it to all forms of
information processing. Within cognitive psychology and cognitive science, human information processing
is a crucial process that is often perceived as a rather straightforward transformation of sensory inputs
through neurological signals to mental representations (Johnson-Laird, 1989). However, the arguments
presented above lead one to question the straightforwardness of this transformation process. Somewhere
along this process, a cognitive filtering (distortion) is hypothesised to occur. One might argue that this
filtering first occurs during the transformation of mental representations to 'meaning', but the filtering may
well happen earlier, i.e. when the neurological signal is transformed to a mental representation, or earlier
still, during the transformation from sensory input to neurological signal. The latter could be illustrated by
such occurrences when one says about someone that 'he only hears what he wants to hear'. The implication
of this argument is that - when studying organisational change processes - one always needs to treat
organisational communications with care, and try to map out the cognitive frames - or mindsets - of all
stakeholders involved. For instance, in an organisation with a high level of conflict between management and
employees, chances are that communications or change initiatives by management will be interpreted
negatively by employees if there is even the slightest possibility of misunderstanding.

7. Meaning in organisations
One of the arguments in the discussion on situations and integrity is that individuals respond to
situations in terms of the meaning that the situations have for them. However, the concept of meaning has
multiple interpretations itself. (a) Meaning may refer to a descriptive cognition of an actual stimulus, such as
'the number of people in this seminar', but it may also refer to (b) a subjective interpretation that reflects a
certain significance of the stimulus to the individual, for instance the impression of 'crowdedness' that the
number of people invokes. Meaning may refer to (c) a primarily non-affective cognitive interpretation: 'there
are many people in this small room', or (d) meaning may be defined in affective/evaluative terms for
affectively loaded objects: 'typical for this organisation to be unprepared for this kind of response'. The last
definition is the one used in the most widely cited study of meaning in psychology (Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957). These four definitions focus on mental operations within an individual and as such they
treat meaning mainly as a phenomenological experience: "This means that the world that people know is the
world they have cognitively constructed via internal representations of environmental information (See
Rotter, 1981; Shaver, 1987)" (James, James, & Ashe, 1990, p.42).

Another school of psychologists, philosophers and linguists regard meaning as a "social or collective
event that cannot be defined or explained in terms of the phenomenological experiences of individual
members of the collective." (James et al., 1990, p.40) As often, the 'right answer' probably lies somewhere in
the middle, with meaning consisting of a social, collective part defined by common rules based on consensus
between members of a culture, while another part will be individual and linked to the personal history and
experiences of the individual. In a context of work-related stimuli, James and colleagues discuss the process
of meaning analysis as follows:
"The attribution of meaning to external stimuli refers to the process of using previously
stored mental representations to interpret - that is, to make sense of - sensory information
(See Shaver, 1987). [...] These stored mental representations reflect beliefs about work
environment attributes that are learned through processes involving actual interactions with
environments, social influences, vicarious learning experiences, self-reflection, and insight.
[...] The stored mental representations are referred to as cognitive categories, percepts,
prototypes, referent bins, schemata, and schemas." (op.cit., pp.41-42)

61
The authors go on to discuss that the schemas that people use are often abstracted and generalised beliefs that
individuals have generated to reduce "the sheer number of stimuli" to levels that are manageable by the lim-
ited processing capacity of the human brain. These abstracted and generalised beliefs - referred to as higher-
order schemas - are similar in nature to the concept of 'situation' discussed by Schabracq and Cooper (1998,
cf. above). In terms of the theory developed by the latter authors, the network of higher-order schemas com-
prises the 'integrity of human functioning'.

The fact that individuals use these subjective higher-order schemas to be able to process larger
chunks of information during meaning analysis "increases the probability that individuals may differ in
regard to how a uniform stimulus or set of stimuli are phenomenologically experienced." (James et al., 1990,
p.43) These differences are referred to as differences in 'acquired meaning', which may reflect the influence
of individual differences (e.g. personality, cognitive structures, needs), interaction between stimulus and the
individual, or the social context surrounding the perception. James and colleagues discuss these differential
perceptions also in relation to the perception of organisational variables such as centralisation of decision
making, functional specialisation, formality of rules and regulations, or technological complexity. "[T]he fact
that perception is involved may open the door to various information processing functions, and thus the role
of perception is not necessarily benign (see Feldman & Lynch, 1988).”

In this context, the concept of 'valuation' (James & James, 1989) is important, i.e. the judgement or
cognitive appraisal of environmental attributes in relation to personal values. Personal value is related to
individual needs in that it is defined as "that which a person wants, or seeks to obtain ..." because it is "that
which one regards as conducive to one's welfare" (Locke, 1976, p.1304). In other words, personal values can
be regarded as (semi-)conscious translations of mostly unconscious needs. Personal values indicate to an
individual what is significant about environments, "because it is the attainment of what is personally valued
that determines one's welfare in a work environment, or one's sense of organisational well-being (James &
James, 1989). James and James argue that personal values will provoke the psychological schemas used to
assign meaning to environmental attributes, exactly because it is those value-based schemas that reflect what
is significant and meaningful in certain work environments. In other words, the valuation process is the
cognitive appraisal itself, i.e. the "judgement of the degree to which a value is represented in or by an
environmental attribute" (James et al., 1990, p.51). The valuation process assesses whether attributes of the
work environment are valuable, significant or meaningful to the individual. In fact, valuation can be regarded
as a kind of value-based filtering process, in that those meanings that are valuable are 'triggered' more
strongly than others are.

James and James (James & James, 1989) continue their discussion by defining the concept of psy-
chological climate (PC) as referring to work environments as they are "cognitively represented in terms of
their psychological meaning and significance to the individual." The authors also note that the subjective
value-based, acquired meanings provided by valuation are often given "designations that reflect the key role
played by valuation in emotion," the rationale being that individuals show emotional responses to environ-
mental attributes as a function of how significant they perceive them to be for their personal well-being. The
purpose of the authors' attempts to link psychological climate to valuation, and then both psychological cli-
mate and valuation to emotionally relevant cognitions, was to argue for the existence of a single, higher-
order factor underlying measurements of psychological climate. This existence of a single latent component -
a general factor or g-factor - that is shared by all emotionally relevant cognitions, was theoretically posited
by Lazarus (1982; 1984) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984). The Lazarus g-factor is a higher-order schema for
judging the degree to which "the environment is personally beneficial versus detrimental (damaging, painful)
to one's sense of well-being". Based on this definition, James & James (1989) define their general psycho-
logical climate factor (PC-g) as a "cognitive appraisal of the degree to which the work environment is per-
sonally beneficial versus personally detrimental to the organizational well-being of the individual." When
applied to the variables of psychological climate that the authors have distinguished, the following hierarchi-
cal model of meaning (presented in Figure 23) results.

62
 Hierarchical influence
Psychological influence
Leader support and
Leader trust and support
Facilitation
Leader interaction facilitation
Leader goal emphasis and facilitation

Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Role Stress and Lack of Role overload
PC-g = generalized
Harmony Subunit conflict
factor of psycho-
Organization identification
logical climate
Management concern and awareness

Job autonomy
Job Challenge and Autonomy Job importance
Job challenge and variety

Work group cooperation

Work Group Cooperation,
Responsibility for effectiveness
Warmth, and Friendliness
Work group warmth and friendliness

Figure 23: A hierarchical model of meaning (Adapted from James et al., 1990, p.55)

Each of the PC variables and the four first-order factors represents a valuation of environmental attributes.
The causal arrows from PC-g to the four PC factors and indirectly to the PC variables signify "that the
acquired meanings reflected in these valuations are a function of a deeper, more pervasive judgment."

A striking aspect about the psychological climate variables that James and colleagues identify, is that
they are quite similar to the variables identified in the literature on work stress (e.g. Cooper, 1984, 1998). A
second resemblance to the research on work stress is that the process of valuation is in essence a perception
of person-environment fit. There is support for this argument in (James et al., 1990) where the authors refer
to a number of studies and conclude: "What little empirical research exists in climate supports the position
that person (P) variables, situational (S) variables and PxS interactions are all related significantly to PC
perceptions [...]" (op.cit., p.57). Finally, there are clear links of the 'meaning' discussion above with the
integrity concept put forward by Schabracq and Cooper (1998):
"[O]ur position is that values and value-engendered schemas may change - that is,
accommodate - as a function of experiences in a new work environment. In general, however,
we assume that individuals first attempt to assimilate information into acquired belief
systems (see Jones & Gerard, 1967). Assimilation connotes that the underlying structure of
value-engendered schemas - that is, the beliefs or standards used to make valuations - is
stable even though contemporaneous perceptions (valuations) of environmental attributes
vary. The stability of the belief structure derives from the rationale that higher-order
schemas (1) are abstract and generalized and thus not highly influenced by specific events in
a particular situation, (2) are familiar to the individual and indeed may be used
automatically (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977), and (3) are salient to the individual in the sense
that they are the product of values (James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni, 1978). The underlying
belief system may nevertheless accommodate, especially in the interest of achieving adaptive
fit with an organization (Schneider, 1975; Jones, 1983; Dieterly & Schneider, 1984). [...]
The preceding discussion allows for both a historical component in belief systems that
produces assimilation and a contemporaneous component that may stimulate accomodation."
(James et al., 1990, p.58)
I will return to the similarities of these different research contributions in the concluding section of this
chapter.

63
8. Attitudes towards technology
A final topic to be discussed in the overview of relevant contributions in work psychology literature
is 'attitudes towards new technology'. When discussing the concept of attitudes, one of the basic works is the
book by Ajzen & Fishbein (1980), who propose that attitudes toward an object arise from the relevant beliefs
about that object. An individual's attitude toward a given behaviour is a function of his or her salient beliefs
about the consequences of performing that behaviour, multiplied by the evaluation of those consequences.
This attitude is combined with subjective norms, which are one's beliefs about the behaviour desired by
others and one's motivation to comply. This combination of attitudes and subjective norms leads to
behavioural intentions, which in turn influence actual behaviour toward the target. This intention then leads
to action. An adaptation of the Ajzen & Fishbein's (1980) theory of reasoned action was proposed in the form
of the technology acceptance model by Davis and colleagues (1989; 1992). According to the technology
acceptance model, computer attitudes are determined both by the perceived ease of use, and the perceived
usefulness of the system. "This model suggests that external variables, such as motivation, influence user
attitudes indirectly; that is by altering the users perception of ease of use and usefulness." (Coffin &
Macintyre, 1999, p.551)

In view of the discussion in the previous paragraphs, one may argue that both perceived ease of use
and perceived usefulness will be complex concepts, highly dependent on individual frames of reference
(schemas). The valuative perception of ease-of-use will depend on previous experiences with similar
technology and on one's general interpretation and evaluation of technology (stability of existing belief
schemas), as well as on the perceived degree of adaptation of the technology to the concrete use situations.
The valuative perception of usefulness will also be related to the use situation, but in a broader sense. To be
acceptable to individual users the technology needs to be either (a) easy to assimilate into existing belief
systems (e.g. by clearly relating to existing structures and procedures), or (b) sensible enough to warrant an
easy accommodation.

64
D. My contribution to work psychology research

The novelty of my contribution to work psychology research lies in the attempted integration of con-
cepts and arguments from different sub-fields. There are a number of recurrent themes in the research contri-
butions discussed above: (a) the hypothesised existence of a single high-level concept of well-being (James
et al., 1990; Schabracq & Cooper, 1998), (b) psychological variables conceived as related to person-
environment fit, and (c) importance of individual differences in perception, interpretation and cognition. I
will briefly develop some of these themes in this paragraph, but I will return to the issue when I discuss the
CHARISM model in Chapter 5.

A first important theme is the hypothesised existence of a single phenomenological high-level

concept of well-being. Schabracq & Cooper (1998) discuss the concept of integrity as an 'integrated
consistent set of meanings' which in its ideal state is conducive of well-being, and which if infringed
becomes a source of stress, while James, James & Ashe (1990) develop the similar concept of 'psychological
climate' as a general factor of meaning. Shamir (1991) referred to yet another similar concept in his
discussion of the importance of the self-concept and people's inclination to maintain self-consistency. The
single high-level factors mentioned in these three quite different contributions are quite similar and have a lot
in common. Their common definition could be formulated as

a stable, integrated and internally consistent set/network of meanings which consists of subjective valuations
of (a) the self,
(b) the environment and
(c) the relation between the self and the environment,
from which people derive a sense of 'meaning'.

Common-sense versions of this 'phenomenon' can be found in common utterances like 'My life just doesn't
make sense', or 'What's the meaning of my life?'

In my view, the concept of person-environment fit - the second recurring theme in my literature
review - is closely related to the previous concept, in the sense that a subjective perception of inadequate fit
between a person/self and his environment leads to strains and stress, whereas subjectively perceived fit
leads to mental well-being. The concept of fit is of course closely related to the concepts integrity,
integrated, and internally consistent in the previous paragraph. Interestingly enough, the concept of person-
environment fit is also related to the psychological concepts of motivation, job satisfaction and
organisational commitment. This leads me to hypothesise that, while inadequate subjective PE-fit will lead to
different types of strain, stress or illness, subjectively perceived adequate PE-fit will lead to well-being that
will be reflected in positive motivation, job satisfaction and commitment.

The concept of fit, in combination with the existence of a single high-level concept of meaning /
self-consistency, leads me to suggest a new metaphor for the rather abstract phenomenon that I am trying to
describe, namely the word HARMONY. The word 'harmony' refers to a consistent and integrated co-existence
of different entities that need to fit together in order to be experienced as positive. The word also suggests a
sense of fragility, in that small objects or minor events to any of the co-existing entities can be sufficient to
disturb a harmonious state. Moreover, the term has a sufficiently high degree of abstraction, while at the
same time being less ambiguous than terms such as 'fit', 'meaning' or 'sense'. Finally, the word harmony has a
number of antonyms, such as disharmony or chaos, which contain a certain gradation that is necessary for
describing situations that are less than harmonious.

The harmony metaphor is also useful in relation to the third common theme in my literature review,
the importance of individual differences, in the sense that every person will have a different conception and
perception of harmony. However, these personal perceptions of harmony do not contradict the existence of
culturally determined perceptions of harmony. In a similar sense, people share many cognitive frames and
interpretations, which allows social activity and organising. However, individuals simultaneously have their
own private cognitive frames of reference, which cause different interpretations and different filtering of in-

65
formation. I want to argue that harmony – or the lack of it – will play an important role when individuals per-
ceive and process organisational information, but I will elaborate this in Chapter 5.

Finally, harmony relates the current work to hermeneutics

“Thus the movement of understanding is constantly from the whole to the part and back to
the whole. Our task is to extend in concentric circles the unity of the understood meaning.
The harmony of all the details with the whole is the criterion of correct understanding. The
failure to achieve this harmony means that understanding has failed” (Gadamer, 1976,
p.117).

66
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy

Working
Hypotheses

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Organisational change, uncertainty and stress

Chapter 4. Organisational Theory Literature

Figure 1 in Chapter 1 outlined the structure of sciences, following the committees of the European
Science Foundation. One of the science groups within the (Applied) Social Sciences was the group of 'Man-
agement and Business Sciences'. Other descriptions one often finds are 'Applied Economics', 'Business Eco-
nomics' (Dewey Decimal Classification), 'Administration Sciences' (Unesco), or 'Business Administration'.
As regards the research fields within this group of Management and Business Sciences, there is considerable
diversity within the literature. Some recurring fields are listed in the following list:

Accountancy
Actuarial Studies
Finance and Financial Services
Human Resource Management
Industrial Relations
International Business
Management and Strategy
Management Information Systems
Marketing
Production, Operation and Manufacturing Management
Public and Non-Profit Management

Figure 24: List of recurring research fields within 'Management and Business Sciences'
(Based on subject list of Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000) under the heading Business Administration)

The main problem in classifying the science paradigms within this group seems to be the definition and
demarcation of the 'Management' field. Whereas most scientists seem to agree that accountancy, finance and
marketing do not classify as 'Management', there is more ambiguity as regards Human Resource
Management, Operations and Production Management, and others. The definitional problem, on the other
hand, lies in the fact that the term Management Science is often identified with 'Operations Management',
and that Management Theory only covers a small part of the field.

A. Organisational theory - A review

Figure 25 below shows an overview of the divisions within the Academy of Management, the largest
international organisation of academics working within the field of management. Those areas that are rele-
vant for my research are underlined and indicated in italics.

Divisions of the Academy of Management

Business Policy & Strategy Managerial & Organizational Cognition
Careers Operations Management
Conflict Management Organization Development & Change
Entrepreneurship Organization & Management Theory
Gender & Diversity in Organizations Organizational Behavior
Health Care Management Organizational Communication & Information Systems
Human Resources Management Organizations & the Natural Environment
International Management Public & Nonprofit Sector
Management Consulting Research Methods
Management Education & Development Social Issues in Management
Management History Technology & Innovation Management
Management, Spirituality and Religion

Figure 25: An overview of the divisions within the US-based Academy of Management (Academy of Management
Online, 2000)

The 'Organizational Behavior' and the 'Managerial and Organizational Cognition' areas are clearly related to
work psychology and were therefore treated in the previous chapter, while 'Organizational Communication
and Information Systems' were discussed in Chapter 2 above. Since 'Organisation Development & Change'
are mainly treated from a theoretical perspective, I chose to label this chapter Organisational theory.

68
B. Situating my research within the organisational theory paradigm

Figure 26 lists all the topic areas within the different divisions of the Academy of Management that
are relevant to my research. Within the Organisation Behaviour division, there are two aspects that I haven't
discussed in the previous chapter. The first one is '3.4.1 autonomous groups', which is relevant in that it re-
fers to one of my case studies, where half of the respondents have switched over to self-managing teams,
whereas the other half have remained in traditional groups. The second topic is '3.9 Climate', which will be
discussed below. The reference to '6.2 Computer-based production and information systems' is relevant since
it again refers to the case studies, where the information systems that were introduced were production- and
operations-oriented.

Topic Areas, Organized by Divisions in the Academy of Management

3 Organizational behavior 8 Personnel / Human Resouces Management

3.1 Individual characteristics
3.1.1 Affect, attitudes, beliefs, values
3.1.7 Satisfaction
3.1.8 Self concepts / self-esteem
3.1.9 Stress
3.2 Individual processes
3.2.1 Cognition, perception
3.2.4 Motivation, commitment
3.4 Group Processes
3.4.1 Autonomous / self-managing teams / empowerment
3.5 Work-nonwork relationships
3.9 Climate
3.10 Person-situation debate / person-environment fit
6 Production and Operations Management
6.2 Computer-based production and information systems
7 Organization and Management Theory
7.2 Organizational components
7.2.1 Environment
7.2.2 Information
7.2.3 Organization design and structure
7.2.4 Organizational size
7.2.5 Structural contingency theory
7.2.6 Technology
7.3 Organizational processes
7.3.2 Conflict / change
7.3.3 Culture
7.3.4 Evaluation of organizational effectiveness
7.3.11 Power / politics / control
8.1 Personnel
8.1.4 Health and safety
8.1.7 Performance assessment and management
8.2 Industrial relations
8.2.2 Employee relations and information systems
8.2.3 Unionization / collective bargaining
8.2.4 Union-management cooperation
9 Social Issues in Management
9.8 Stakeholder, crisis, and issue management
11 Organizational Development and Change
11.1 Change processes
11.2 Consequences of organizational development (OD)
11.3 Organizational diagnosis
11.4 Political dynamics
11.5 Role of change agents
12 Organizational Communications and Information Systems
12.3 Policy and systems
12.3.2 Information processes / systems
12.3.4 Social aspects of IT and information systems
19 Research Methods
19.2 Qualitative
19.3 Quantitative
21 Managerial and Organizational Cognition
21.2 Individual and group level
21.3 Organization and industry level

Figure 26: Topic areas within each of the Divisions of the Academy of Management (cf. Figure 25) with only those
divisions and topics that are relevant for my research.

The topics in '7 Organization and management theory' will be discussed in this chapter, as well as the topics
within division 11 on Organisational Development and Change. Some of the items in the Human Resources
Management division have been discussed above when discussing stress ('8.1.4 Health and safety') whereas
others will be touched upon during the discussion of the case studies, especially with regard to performance
assessment, unionisation and union-management co-operation. The topic of 'Stakeholder management' will
be touched upon in this chapter and in the description of the case studies, where the importance of all stake-
holder groups will be discussed. Finally, the items in division 12 have been discussed in Chapter 2 above
while my research methods will be discussed in Chapter 6 below.

As was the case in the previous chapters on information systems and work psychology the research
that is relevant for my work originates in different areas of the field and draws on different traditions. This is
of course quite normal, since I have taken an integrative approach from the start. My contribution is to ex-
tend the person-environment fit concept to a concept of organisation-environment fit, as suggested by Harri-
son (1985, cf. also the discussion of PE-fit on page 54 above). Whereas psychological strain was defined as a
misfit or imbalance between a person's needs and abilities and the environment's supplies and demands, or-
ganisational strain (organi-strain) will be defined as a misfit between the needs and abilities of the organisa-
tion and the supplies and demands of the environment.

69
C. Relevant contributions

I start this section with a short discussion of the literature on the role of technology in organisational
theory, since it provides a link with the previous chapters. Technology has also received quite some attention
as one of the contingencies that have been studied within structural contingency theories of organisations, a
paradigm that has been and continues to be rather influential within organisational theory. In the second
paragraph of this section, I include a discussion of structural contingency theory and the concepts of fit
within multiple contingency theories. In recent conceptualisations of multiple contingency frameworks (e.g.
Burton & Obel, 1998), organisational climate is introduced as a major contingency. Moreover, organisational
culture and climate are found to play a major role in information systems implementation projects; and they
can be conceptualised as bridging between the organisational and individual levels of analysis. Because of
those reasons, I discuss them in some detail in the third paragraph of this section. A fourth paragraph
discusses two rather novel perspectives on organisational activities that can be regarded as complements to
the concepts in organisational culture and climate theories. The theories of organisational semiotics and
sensemaking focus in more detail on the mental processes involved in organisational activity, i.e. the
interpretative and representational aspects involved in the creation of organisational reality. The final
paragraph in the section discusses contributions in the field of organisational change, because the design and
implementation of information technology is often regarded as an organisational change process.

1. Technology in organisations
There is quite some research within organisational theory on the role of technology, and especially
on the relation between technology and organisation structure. This type of research has been going on for
quite some time (e.g. Woodward, 1965; Perrow, 1967), and has become one of the basic parts of structural
contingency theory, which I will discuss in the next paragraph. I will first look at some of the definitions of
technology that can be found in the literature, after which I discuss a number of different perspectives on
technology in organisations, with a special focus on two of the theoretical frameworks that have been rather
popular in recent years, viz. structuration theory and actor-network theory.

a) Definitions of technology
In their recent chapter in the Handbook of Organization Studies, Roberts & Grabowski (1996)
consider technology as both a product and a process, and take a descriptive as well as a relational view of the
construct within organisation science. In the descriptive part, they quote a selection of definitions of
technology:
1. In contemporary society, the most powerful engines of change are human invention, innovation,
and the applications of scientific knowledge. Collectively, we call these functions ‘technology’.
(Wenk, 1989:6)
2. In defining my concept of technology I restrict its scope to material artifacts (various
configurations of hardware and software). I wish to sustain a distinction – at least theoretically
– between the material nature of technology and the human activities that design or use those
artifacts. (Orlikowski, 1992a:403)
3. To focus on the technology of an organization is to view the organization as a place where some
type of work is done, as a location where energy is applied to the transformation of inputs into
outputs. The concept is broadly defined by organization theorists and includes not only the
hardware used in performing work but also the skills and knowledge of workers, and even the
characteristics of the objects on which work is performed. (Scott, 1992:227)
4. We define technology as the physical combined with the intellectual or knowledge processes by
which materials in some form are transformed into outputs used by another organization or
subsystem within the same organization. (Hulin & Roznowski, 1985:47)
5. Organizations have two other characteristics that might provide a basis for a typology: raw ma-
terials (things, symbols, or people), which are transformed into outputs through the application
of energy; and tasks or techniques effecting the transformation ... ‘Technology’ is not used here
in its commonplace sense of machines or sophisticated devices for achieving high efficiency, as

70
 in the term, ‘technologically advanced society’, but in its generic sense of the study of techniques
or tasks. (Perrow, 1986:141)
6. Technology refers to a body of knowledge about the means by which we work on the world, our
arts and our methods. Essentially, it is knowledge about the cause and effect relations of our
actions ... Technology is knowledge that can be studied, codified, and taught to others.
(Berniker, 1987:10)
7. The central idea is captured by the phrase technology as equivoque. An equivoque is something
that admits of several possible or plausible interpretations and therefore can be esoteric, subject
to misunderstandings, uncertain, complex, and recondite. (Weick, 1990:2)
From the quotes above, it becomes clear that there is a great diversity in the way technology is treated in
organisational research, and it is hard to integrate them, since they are contradictory at times, or have quite
different perspectives. I will be using a definition that is rather broad when discussing the role of technology
in organisations, namely
“Technology is the information, equipment, techniques, and processes required to transform
inputs into outputs.” (Robbins, 1990, p.176)
which is the definition used in Burton & Obel’s (1998) multi-contingency framework of organisational
diagnosis and design. This definition resembles the Scott and Perrow definitions (numbers 3 and 5 above).
However, I will add the subjective perspective suggested by Weick (1990) to supplement the rather
objectivist approach suggested in the definition by Robbins.

b) Different perspectives on technology in organisations

In the chapter by Roberts & Grabowski (1996), two major views are taken with regard to the role of
technology in organisations: the descriptive and the relational views.
From the descriptive view (cf. the definitions in the previous paragraph), the authors discern three
main perspectives on the role of technology in organisations: (1) the technological imperative model, (2) the
strategic choice model, and (3) the model of technology as a trigger for structural change. The first model
treats technology as an independent concept that has unidirectional causal influence on humans and
organisations. The second one perceives technology not as an external object, but as a product of ongoing
human action, while the third model portrays technology as an intervention in the relationship between
people and organisational structure (Barley, 1986).
Whereas the descriptive view takes rather static snapshots of technology or its characteristics, the
relational views of technology and organisations are seen as taking a more process-oriented perspective.
Roberts & Grabowski identify a number of these relational views,
(a) the positional views of structure, such as the contingency view of technology and organisation (cf.
below), that define structure as "the configuration of activities in an organization that is enduring and
persistent and provides the organization's patterned regularity" (Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980) and
(b) the cultural and relational views of structure, which view organisations as networks of systems, people
and groups.
- The cultural tradition focuses on the role of symbols, their meanings and their transmission
through the social system (cf. the discussion on organisational semiotics and sensemaking below),
while
- the relational view focuses on how humans develop and maintain communication linkages, thus
'enacting' an informal organisational structure. In this relational tradition, assessments of
organisational networks focus on technical complexity, uncertainty and interdependence (Scott,
1992).
The work of Galbraith (1973; 1974), who described an information-processing view of organisations, is
classified as such a relational approach to organisations. Galbraith argues that one way of analysing the
demands of technology on organisational structure is to ascertain how much information has to be processed
during the execution of organisational tasks (cf. also the discussion of Burton & Obel, 1998 below).

c) Technology as structuration
The conceptualisation of technology as structuration tries to overcome some of the limitations of the
older views on technology described above.

71
 "[This reconceptualisation] takes into account both the older view of technology as an objec-
tive external force and the newer view of technology as the outcome of strategic choice and
social action. This view is also quite consistent with a merger of positional and relational
views of structure..." (Roberts & Grabowski, 1996, p.417)
The view of technology as structuration builds on theoretical work by the British sociologist
Anthony Giddens (1979; 1984). It has received quite some attention in recent literature on technology in
organisations, and has become a dominant perspective in (information) technology research (Poole &
DeSanctis, 2000), as witnessed by the increasing amount of papers that use structuration theory or expand
upon it (e.g. Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992a; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Avison
et al., 1998; Sarason & Huff, 1998; Orlikowski, 2000).
"The theory of structuration recognizes that human actions are enabled and constrained by
structures, yet that these structures are the result of previous actions. In Giddens' framework,
structure is understood paradigmatically, that is, as a generic concept that is only manifested
in the structural properties of social systems (Giddens, 1979, pp.64-65). Structural properties
consist of the rules and resources that human agents use in their everyday interaction. These
rules and resources mediate human actions, while at the same time they are reaffirmed
through being used by human actors." (Orlikowski, 1992a, p.406)
Structuration theory tries to overcome the traditional dualisms of action vs. structure and stability vs. change
(Poole & DeSanctis, 2000), and as such has produced an interesting alternative conceptualisation. With
regard to - a narrow 'physical-object' view of - technology, the theory has been applied in the following way:
"Technology is the product of human action, while it also assumes structural properties. That
is, technology is physically constructed by actors working in a given social context, and
technologies are socially constructed by actors through the different meanings they attach to
it and the various features they emphasize and use. However, it is also the case that once
developed and deployed, technology tends to become reified and institutionalized, losing its
connection with the human agents that constructed it and gave it meaning, and it appears to
be a part of the objective, structural properties of the organization" (Orlikowski, 1992a,
p.406)
However, in a recent contribution, Poole & DeSanctis (2000) argue that there is a risk of structuration theory
remaining only an interesting theoretical skeleton, and that it definitely needs some empirical flesh in order
to prove its usefulness in practice. On the other hand, they argue that structuration theory is what they call a
meta-theory11, i.e. a theoretical framework that puts forth a particular worldview that is so general and
encompassing that it cannot be definitely refuted or falsified. They continue their argument by stating that
the only way to test the theory is to empirically explore structurational theories that were developed for
particular contexts, such as the organisational deployment of information systems.

In their discussion of the contradictory organisational consequences of IT, Robey & Boudreau (1999,
p.181), argue that a structuration perspective might aid in the explanation of contradictory findings:
"Formulated as a general social theory capable of resolving the artificial separation between
action and structure, structuration incorporates opposition directly by arguing that action
and structure operate as a duality, simultaneously affecting each other (Poole & Van de Ven,
1989). Applied to information technology, structuration illuminates organizational
consequences by observing that technologies are human artifacts, produced and reproduced
through human action, which simultaneously constrain and enable such action (Orlikowski &
Robey, 1991). Thus, paradoxically perhaps, information technologies are produced by the
very social structures that they promise to transform. The understanding of organizational
change can be improved if the mutual influences of action and structure are incorporated
into research efforts."
The problem remains on how to incorporate structuration into empirical research. While Giddens (1984) ar-
gues that researchers necessarily need to choose either an action or a structure perspective when studying
structuration, Poole & DeSanctis (2000) do not believe that one necessarily has to choose. One alternative
they suggest is to switch back and forth between structural and action levels during an analysis. A similar
approach is suggested by the Multiview2 approach for IS development [Avison, 1998 #1356 described in
Chapter 2 above].

11
Robey & Boudreau (1999, p.181) also argue that structuration is a metatheoretical framework.

72
 A similar structuration mechanism can be argued to exist at an individual cognitive level of analysis.
While mental frameworks form the structure of one's mental activities, the interpretation of new information
can be seen as the activity that takes place against the backdrop of the existing (mental) structure. Thus an
individual's existing mental framework both constrains and enables the activity of interpretation, while the
interpretation activity at the same time alters and adapts the existing mental framework.

d) Actor-network theory
Another relevant perspective on technology in organisations is ‘actor-network theory’, which has
become a rather popular approach within information systems literature, even though it “is not a stable and
unified body of knowledge” (Walsham, 1997). The theory is based on work by the French sociologists
Michel Callon (1986) and Bruno Latour (1987), whose research originated within the sociology of science
field (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987), but later included a focus on technology (Latour, 1996a) and
information technology (Latour, 1996b).
Table 17: Summary of Some Key Concepts in Actor-Network Theory (From Walsham, 1997, p. 468)
Concept Description
Actor (or actant) Both human beings and nonhuman actors such as
technological artefacts
Actor-network Heterogeneous network of aligned interests, including
people, organizations and standards
Enrolment and translation Creating a body of alies, human and non-human, through a
process of translating their interests to be aligned with the
actor-network
Delegates and inscription Delegates are actors who "stand in and speak for" particular
viewpoints which have been inscribed in them, e.g., software
as frozen organizational discourse
Irreversibility The degree to which it is subsequently impossible to go back
to a point where alternative possibilities exist
Black box A frozen network element, often with properties of
irreversibility
Immutable mobile Network element with strong properties of irreversibility, and
effects which transcend time and place, e.g., software
standards

A main feature of actor-network theory (ANT) is that it posits the existence of – human and non-
human – actants that form networks because they share an interest. Actants can be individuals or
organisations, but they can also be technological artefacts, such as computers, technical standards or
computer programmes. An important aspect of the theory is the formulation of the enrolment and translation
concepts.
“A major empirical focus of the theory when applied in particular contexts is to try to trace
and explain the processes whereby relatively stable networks of aligned interests are created
and maintained, or alternatively to examine why such networks fail to establish themselves.
Successful networks of aligned interests are created through the enrolment of a sufficient
body of allies, and the translation of their interests so that they are willing to participate in
particular ways of thinking and acting which maintain the network.”(Walsham, 1997, p.469)
Actants are enrolled into the network – often by a director, i.e. some central agent – but this enrolment can
only be done through a translation process, through which the actants’ interests are represented by other
actors in such a way that they fit into the network. However, this translation process is also a reduction
process, in the sense that the actants’ wide variety of interests and goals are reduced so as to be ‘aligneable’
with the actor-network. This reduction process will often create tensions in the network, because actors may
have conflicting interests which can not be translated into the network.

Another important concept in the theory – especially in relation to information technology – is

inscription. Within the theory, non-human actors are seen as delegates, who represent a viewpoint that has
been inscribed in them by their creators. For example, existing software often contains particular
representations that are based on other contexts, or other actor-networks.

73
 “Modern information technologies embed and inscribe work in ways that are important for
policy-makers, but are often difficult to see ... arguments, decisions and uncertainties and the
processual nature of decision-making are hidden away inside a piece of technology or in a
complex representation. Thus, values, opinions, and rhetoric are frozen into codes, electronic
thresholds and computer applications. Extending Marx, then, we can say that in many ways,
software is frozen organizational discourse.” (Bowker & Star, 1994, p. 187)
When one conceptualises software along these lines, it embodies an inscription which can “resist change and
displays properties of irreversibility” (Walsham, 1997). The irreversibility of networks is related to the
notion of stabilisation, which is a kind of measure of success for a network. A network is said to become
more stable when actors’ interests are more aligned. When networks maintain such a stable state for a certain
amount of time, some of the network’s components become irreversible. Another example of inscription is a
working routine, i.e. when working processes attain a certain stability and become more or less irreversible
actors in the network. Seen in this light, actor-network theory contributes to the literature on organisational
change.

In conclusion, one can argue that the inscription and stabilisation aspects of ANT show a great deal
of resemblance to structuration theory as described above. Moreover, ANT adds a dialectic dimension to the
discussion, by stressing the translation and enrolment mechanisms. Actor-network theory also lends itself
quite well to the analysis of time-limited projects, such as IS development projects.

2. Contingency theory and the concept of fit

Within organisation theory, structural contingency theory studies the influence of different
parameters – contingencies12 - on the structure of an organisation. Contingency theories try to explain certain
outcomes (events or parameters) by analysing the interplay of different variables that are expected to
influence the outcome(s). Contingency theories exist in a number of different areas of research, but within
organisation theory, there has been a whole school of thought that has become known as ‘structural
contingency theorists’. These scientists try to identify the contingency variables that influence the structural
design of an organisation, instead of positing “general principles of organizational design to all
organizations” (Robey & Sales, 1994, p.114). Throughout the years, a number of contingencies have been
studied. Authors have studied the relationship between organisational technology and structure (e.g.
Woodward, 1965; Perrow, 1967), or environmental characteristics and structure (e.g. Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967; Galbraith, 1973), amongst others.

a) Multiple contingency model

One of the few attempts to draw a number of contributions together into a comprehensive multiple
contingency model is the work by Richard Burton and Børge Obel (1995; 1998) on strategic organisational
diagnosis and design. The authors take the normative perspective of organisational design, a field of science
that builds on organisational theory, in that “its prescriptive purpose complements the descriptive function of
the positive theory” (Burton & Obel, 1998, p.12). The authors draw together results from a number of
theoretical and empirical contributions in organisational theory, but from those bits and pieces, they develop
a more complex model than the original contributions do. Indeed, in most single-contingency theories “the
relationship has been established between variation in one contextual variable holding the other contextual
variables constant” (p.13).

The basis for bringing these different results together, is Galbraith’s (1973; 1974) information proc-
essing view of organisations. All the contributions that Burton and Obel build their model on, are ‘translated’
into an information processing view, and then combined into a single model. However, Galbraith’s theory
presupposes an unproblematic definition of the information concept, as does the Burton & Obel model. Indi-
viduals in organisations are perceived as ‘mere’ information processors, whose information processing ca-
pacity is modelled according to their level of education and experience. Some of the contributions discussed
develop a more problematic perception of individual information processing, from which the Burton & Obel
model might benefit. The authors have made a start at this by including organisational climate as one of the

12
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Allen, 1990) defines contingency as follows. 1 a future event or circumstance regarded as likely to
occur, or as influencing present action. 2 something dependent on another uncertain event or occurrence. 3 uncertainty of
occurrence. 4 a one thing incident to another. b an incidental expense etc.

74
contingencies, in that different organisational climates will show different information processing character-
istics.
Go a ls M issio n

B o un dary

E nv iro nm e nt Siz e T ec hno lo gy

M a n a ge m e nt
St r at e gy C lim at e
sty le

O r ga n isat ion a l
St r uct ure

Figure 27: Organisational context from a design perspective (Figure from Burton & Obel, 1998, p.12)

The contextual variables that Burton & Obel use in their model are depicted in Figure 27. The basis
for organisational design is the mission and goals of an organisation. An organisation’s goals and mission
determine the boundary between the organisation and its environment, but also its size and technology13. The
choices made with regard to size and technology, however, are influenced by an organisation’s strategy, i.e.
the choices that an organisation makes in trying to translate its goals and mission to the reality of its envi-
ronment. The multiple contingency model of organisational design states that the structure of an organisation
depends on multiple dimensions in the contextual environment, i.e. environment, strategy, size, technology,
management style and organisational climate. The main idea of the model is that effective and efficient or-
ganisations are those where the organisational design shows a good fit with the contingency factors of its
situational environment. Moreover, if an organisation wants to be viable, i.e. exist over a longer period of
time, it needs to retain a fit under changing circumstances. It is important to stress that the model contains a
dynamic perspective in that it posits that organisations need to continuously align and re-align their structure
and their situational environment, in order to remain effective and efficient. The multiple contingency model
developed by Burton & Obel is presented in Figure 28.

The Contingency Factors for Properties and Structural

Organizational Structure Configuration of the Organization

Structural
Configuration

Management Style Simple, functional, divisional,

machine-bureaucracy, matrix,
DESIGN PARAMETER FIT

Climate professional bureaucracy, adhoc

SITUATION FIT

Size/Ownership Properties
CONTINGENCY FIT
Environment Complexity and differentiation
Formalization
Technology Centralization
Span of control
Strategy Rules, procedures
Professionalization
Meetings, Reports
Communications
Media Richness
Incentives
Fit Criteria:
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Viability

Figure 28: The Multi-contingency Model of Organisational Theory (Based on Burton & Obel, 1998, p. 14)

13
Technology is used in its broad definition as “the information, equipment, techniques, and processes required to transform inputs
into outputs”.

75
 The authors distinguish between 4 kinds of fit criterion: contingency fit, situation fit, design parame-
ter fit, and total design fit.
• The first type of fit, contingency fit is illustrated by rules such as: “If the organisation’s strategy is
prospector, then formalisation should be low.” Empirical studies discussed by the authors show that
contingency fit is important for the performance of the firm.
• The situation fit requires that situational contingency variables – the left-hand side of Figure 28 - be
aligned, i.e. that the design situation is internally consistent. For example, an equivocal environment and
a routine technology do not fit. This situation does not make sense, and is identified as a situational mis-
fit, where no design recommendations can be made, without either of the variables changing. “This mis-
fit says that we cannot recommend an organizational design that can keep a routine technology viable in
the face of an equivocal environment” (p. 17).
• Design parameter fit entails an internal alignment of the properties suggested by the contingency fit rules
– the right-hand side of the figure. However, it may happen that different contingency rules will make
contradictory recommendations. In such cases, the different rules will have to be weighed, so that the
more salient recommendations come out stronger. “The concept of design parameter fit is associated
with the notion of equifinality14 (Doty, Glick, & Huber, 1993). The contingency factors may recommend
multiple acceptable properties of the organizational structure but not all combinations are acceptable.
• The final fit criterion is total design fit, which is the most difficult to attain, since it assumes that the
criteria for the other three types of fit have been met, but also that the design recommendations fit
together internally, and fit the actual situation.

The concept of situational misfit is crucial to my research. As the authors state: controlling
situational fits and misfits is key to organisational success. Situational misfits may appear due to changes in
the environment and may be exogenous to the organisation, or misfits may be created through management
decisions. Whichever way the misfits arise, they have to be dealt with, since they constitute sub-optimal
situations.
“In the organizational life cycle model where the organization evolves from the small start-
up organization to the multi-market-multi-product organization, the organization has to pass
through many phases of misfits. Only those organizations that manage to create the proper
misfits and then resolve these will be successful.” (ibid. p.17)
Indeed, one may argue that organisational change is about creating and/or solving misfits. The difference
between situational and contingency misfits from a change perspective is that the situational misfits are
harder to solve, since they relate to variables that are largely beyond the short-term control of managers or
other organisational stakeholders. Organisational properties are assumed to be somewhat easier to change
than situational properties.

An important innovation of the Burton & Obel work is that the authors developed and validated an
expert system based on the knowledge that they found in the contingency theory literature. This expert
system – called the Organizational Consultant, OrgCon® – has the advantage that it makes a large amount of
scientific knowledge accessible to students and practitioners that are working with organisational design. The
users of the expert system need to answer 60 questions about the current organisational design and the
situational contingencies. The system analyses the answers to the questions and provides a number of
recommendations, both with regard to situational and organisational misfits and to the future design of the
organisation. Using the system one can make simulations about future changes in technology, the
environment, the organisational design, etc.

14
Equifinality refers to the idea that different organisations may follow different paths and have different constellations of variables,
but can still be successful, i.e. there is no one best way to manage an organisation (Burns & Stalker, 1961).

76
b) Contingency approach to work designs
At a different level of analysis, Cummings & Blumberg (1987) have studied the design of work in
the context of advanced manufacturing technology. They developed a contingency framework derived from
socio-technical system theory (e.g. Trist, Higgins, Murray, & Pollack, 1963) that links personal factors to
technological factors at the task level, and relates them to an environmental factor. This work is different
from the popular Job Characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) that presumes similar personal fac-
tors (esp. high growth needs) in measuring job characteristics. The Cummings & Blumberg framework is
graphically presented in Table 18.
Table 18: Work designs and contingencies (from Cummings & Blumberg, 1987, p. 44)

Contingencies

Technical Environ-
Technical Growth
inter- mental Social needs
uncertainty needs
dependence dynamics
Work designs Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Traditional jobs x x x x x

Traditional work
x x x x x
groups
Enriched jobs x x x x x
Self-regulating
x x x x x
work groups

Technical interdependence "refers to the extent to which the different parts or phases of the technology are
interrelated requiring co-operation among employees to make a product or provide a service" (Cummings &
Blumberg, 1987, p. 47) and is similar to the converse of Burton & Obel's (1998) concept of technology
divisibility: "Divisibility is the degree to which the tasks can be divided into smaller, relatively independent
tasks."
Technical uncertainty "involves the amount of information processing and decision making that employees
must do during task performance" and compares to the converse of Burton & Obel's (1998) concept of
technology routineness: "Routine technology: Contains easy-to-analyze problems and few exceptions.
Nonroutine technology: Contains difficult-to-resolve problems and many exceptions."
Environmental stability "refers to the extent to which the task environment of the [socio-technical]
manufacturing system is predictable and allows programmed and routine responses." This compares to the
converse of Burton & Obel's concept of environmental uncertainty: "The more uncertain the environment the
more difficult it is to predict the future states of the environment."
Social and growth needs are two of the personal needs that "researchers have found [...] can affect work-
design effectiveness. ...The degree of social needs determines whether or not work should be designed for
individual jobs or for work groups. ... Growth needs determine whether work designs should be routine and
repetitive or complex and challenging ... offering high levels of autonomy, task variety, and feedback of re-
sults." This fits with two of the needs described in Chapter 3 above.

Four pure kinds of work design are related to the different combinations of contingencies:
In traditional jobs, people are expected to do routine and repetitive work, while decision making, planning
and evaluation are delegated to others. Even though this work design has come under increasing criticism,
Table 18 suggests that such jobs can be productive, satisfying, and responsive to the environment when tech-
nical uncertainty and interdependence are low, when people have low social and growth needs, and when the
environment is stable.
Traditional work groups are composed of members that perform routine yet related tasks. The group task is
usually broken down into simpler tasks, while the co-ordination and control is performed by people external
to the group. This work design is most effective when people have high social needs yet low growth needs,
when technical interdependence is high yet uncertainty is low, and when the environment is stable.

77
 The other two work designs are most effective when technical uncertainty is high and the
environment is dynamic. Moreover, they are best suited for individuals with high growth needs.
Enriched jobs provide employees with increased opportunities for decision making, challenge and responsi-
bility. They are most successful when technical interdependence is low and when the jobholders have low
social needs.
Self-regulating work groups finally, are centred around relatively self-complete tasks, where members are
given the necessary autonomy, skills and information to perform, organise and evaluate the tasks themselves.
This work design is most effective when technical interdependence is high, and when jobholders have high
social needs.

The most interesting aspect of this contribution is that it links technology and environment on the
organisational level to psychological characteristics on the individual level, and it does so through a contin-
gency approach, which avoids many of the generalisations that can be found in literature on job design and
empowerment. Indeed, enriched jobs or self-regulating work groups may not suit each type of individual, as
is often tacitly implied in management literature. However, even though the approach is intuitively appeal-
ing, there is little or no empirical evidence to support the relations in Table 18.

c) Multiple conceptualisations of fit

Fit is a vital concept in contingency theory, whose models share the “underlying premise that context
and structure must somehow fit together if the organization is to perform well” (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985,
p. 514). However, there are different ways of conceptualising “fit”. Venkatraman proposed six different
perspectives from which fit can be defined and studied: fit as (a) moderation, (b) mediation, (c) matching, (d)
co-variation, (e) profile deviation, and (f) gestalts. The first three perspectives are bivariate, while the last
three are systems approaches. In a recent paper, Bergeron, Raymond & Rivard (2001) empirically compare
the six perspectives in an analysis of the fit between (1) an organisation’s strategic IT management, (2) the
uncertainty of its environment, (3) its strategic orientation, and (4) its organisational structure.

Figure 30: Fit as mediation

(Figures copied from Bergeron et al., 2001, p.
126)
Figure 29: Fit as moderation

- A view of fit as moderation conceptualises fit as the interaction between two variables. Figure 29 graphi-
cally represents the relationship between the strategic orientation of a firm and its strategic IT management,
which could verbally be phrased as: “The interactive effect of the strategic orientation of a firm and its stra-
tegic IT management will have implications on firm performance” (Bergeron et al., 2001, p.126), or put dif-
ferently: Strategic IT management moderates the relation between Strategy and Performance.
- According to the mediation perspective (Figure 30), “there exists an intervening variable between one or
several antecedent variables and the consequent variable”.

78
 Figure 31: Fit as matching

- A view of fit as matching – as presented in Figure 31 - is quite different from the previous two perspec-
tives, in the sense that there is no direct “reference to a criterion variable, although, subsequently, its effect
on a set of criterion variables could be examined” (Venkatraman, 1989, p.430). In this approach, fit is a theo-
retically defined match between two related variables, a match which is then hypothesised to have a positive
effect on performance.

While the first three perspectives were most appropriate for specifying bivariate fit, “the following
perspectives are appropriate for simultaneously specifying and testing fit among a larger set of variables”
(Venkatraman, 1989, p. 432).
- When describing the perspective of fit as gestalts, Venkatraman (1989) and Bergeron, et al. (2001) refer to
the study of Miller (Miller & Friesen, 1977; Miller, 1981), who conceptualises fit as “archetypes [that] ap-
pear to represent a set of relationships which are in a temporary state of balance. The ... situations which are
described seem to form a number of gestalts. There is something holistic and ordered about the pattern of ...
attributes.” (Miller & Friesen, 1977, p. 264) as cited in (Venkatraman, 1989, p. 432). This implies that “in-
stead of looking at a few variables or at linear associations among such variables we should be trying to find
frequently recurring clusters of attributes or gestalts” (Miller, 1981, p.5), as cited in (Venkatraman, 1989, p.
432). This perspective explicitly acknowledges the equifinality concept, in that it looks at internally consis-
tent configurations that are equally effective. It “seeks to look simultaneously at a large number of variables
that collectively define a meaningful and coherent slice of organizational reality” (Miller, 1981, p. 8) as cited
in (Bergeron et al., 2001, p. 127). The graphical representation of fit as gestalts in Figure 32 is borrowed
from Miller (1981).

Figure 33: Fit as profile deviation

Figure 32: Fit as gestalts (Copied from Venkatraman, 1989, p. 434)
(Figure copied from Bergeron et al., 2001, p.128)

79
- The perspective of fit as profile deviation (graphically represented in Figure 33) assumes that an ideal pro-
file exists, consisting of a particular value on multiple contingencies, and that deviations from this profile
should result in lower performance. Typically, in this approach a small sample of high performers is selected
– a calibration sample – after which an ideal profile is estimated, represented by the full line in Figure 33.
The degree of adherence can then be calculated for each organisation.

Figure 34: Fit as covariation (From Venkatraman, 1989, p.437)

- Finally, fit as covariation is similar in nature to fit as gestalts, in that one looks for “a pattern of covariation
or internal consistency among a set of underlying theoretically related variables” (Venkatraman, 1989, p.
435). However, there are fundamental differences between the two, since gestalts are viewed as “products of
cluster analysis (grouping of observations based on a set of attributes), whereas covariation is modeled as
factor analysis (grouping of attributes based on data from a set of observations)” (ibid., p. 436). The
coalignment among the different variables is specified as “an unobservable theoretical construct at a higher
plane than the individual functional dimensions” (ibid., p.437).

The reason for discussing these different perspectives on fit in such detail is that it is important to
specify precisely which perspective of fit one adopts, since each approach is theoretically and empirically
different. These empirical differences are illustrated by the study that Bergeron and colleagues performed on
a sample of 110 small enterprises. The aggregate findings of the study are represented in Table 19 below.
Table 19: Aggregate findings linking IT fit to organisational performance, based on a sample of 110 small
enterprises. (From Bergeron et al., 2001, p. 138)

For the three bivariate approaches, the table shows whether the fit of strategic IT management with either of
the three other contingency variables predicts or explains performance. Environment – IT management fit,
for example, does not appear to predict performance, while there are contradictory results for the other two
variables, depending on the fit perspective. The three system perspectives also show quite some variation in
the variables that relate fit to performance, but they are consistent in stating the importance of strategic IT
management and strategic orientation for obtaining better performance.
 “Relative to the theory, the results suggest that neglecting to specify the exact perspective of
fit used in earlier studies may have often lead researchers to obtain contradictory, mixed, or
inconsistent results. ... The results of this study on the conceptualization and analysis of fit
lead us to recommend that future research clearly specify the type of fit examined. ... The re-
sults also suggest that a systems perspective of fit is richer and will provide fuller explanation
than bivariate approaches. As to the choice of a particular systems approach, the profile de-
viation and covariation perspectives of fit appear to be better suited to theory testing while
the gestalts perspective would be more appropriate to theory building.” (Bergeron et al.,
2001, p. 139)
The multiple contingency framework by Burton & Obel (1998) is rather hard to classify using the
perspectives described above, due to the different types of fit or misfit that they distinguish, due to the
normative nature of the theory, and due to the use of the intricate expert system. Overall, one might argue
that the theory presents fit as gestalts, since it allows for multiple internally consistent sets of attributes,
which are quite diverse in nature, depending on the situational contingencies. Indeed, the Burton & Obel
framework clearly adheres to the equifinality principle: different organisational designs can be successful
under different circumstances.

d) Dynamic conceptualisation of strategic fit

A final interesting contribution in the discussion of organisational fit is a fairly recent paper by Za-
jac, Kraatz & Bresser (2000). The authors studied longitudinal data from 4000 U.S.-based savings and loans
institutions in order to test a predictive analytical model of strategic fit. The authors identified environmental
and organisational contingencies on the basis of which they predicted changes in a firm's strategy and the
performance implications of such changes, as depicted in Figure 35.

Figure 35: A generic model of strategic fit (Copied from Zajac et al., 2000, p. 432)

The 4000 firms were studied in a period when many institutions considered changing strategic direc-
tion on the basis of changes in the federal and state regulations. More specifically, they came to two main
conclusions. Firstly the timing, direction and magnitude of strategic changes can be logically predicted on
the basis of differences in specific environmental forces and organisational resources. Secondly, organisa-
tions that did not 'follow' the authors' prediction of dynamic strategic fit (i.e. those that changed too much or
did not change enough) experienced negative performance consequences. The study started from four possi-
ble scenarios, as shown in Figure 36.

81
 Figure 36: Four possible scenarios in the pursuit of dynamic strategic fit (Copied from Zajac et al., 2000, p.433)

The four scenarios illustrate how strategic change, dynamic strategic fit and performance are related.
The vertical dimension in Figure 36 captures whether strategic change is necessary to establish dynamic stra-
tegic fit (as suggested by relevant environmental and organisational contingencies), and the horizontal di-
mension captures whether strategic change occurs or not. The four quadrants indicate the following: some
organisations will change as much as they should (top left quadrant), others will not change as much as they
should (top right), yet others will not change and should not change (bottom right), and finally, others will
change more than they should (bottom left). The individual quadrants of this matrix highlight that strategic
change may have very different performance consequences for organisations in a given population. The au-
thors argue that only two of the four quadrants lead to improved performance, namely those organisations
that changed their strategy when such a change was needed and those organisations that do not perform stra-
tegic changes when no change was needed. Those institutions that did not follow the predicted 'line' experi-
enced worse financial performance and higher 'death rates' than those that followed the model. The authors
make the following observation, which relates well to parts of the discussion in the previous paragraphs:

"Our effort to conceptualize fit in a way that is multidimensional, dynamic, and normative
suggests several additional issues relating to beneficial strategic change. First, strategic
change will be more beneficial when it increases fitness with multiple relevant contingencies.
Changes that increase fitness with one contingency but significantly decrease fitness along
other important dimensions are not likely to prove beneficial. Second, we must explicitly
acknowledge that since contingencies will likely vary significantly over time, changes that
are beneficial at one point in time are not necessarily beneficial if undertaken much sooner
or much later. Third, we must recognize that strategic change is not a discrete or a
unidirectional choice. Strategic changes in the pursuit of dynamic strategic fit will likely be
of varying magnitudes and will move in different directions. Finally, an important
implication of considering all these issues is that it highlights the uniqueness (across
organizations and across time) of strategic fit, and that beneficial strategic change needs to
be assessed in organization-specific and time-specific terms." (Zajac, Kraatz & Berger, 2000,
pp. 433-4)

Some of the authors' ideas will be discussed in Chapter 5, when I develop the CHARISM model of
organisation-environment fit.

82
3. Organisational culture and climate
Organisational culture - and to a lesser extent organisational climate - have received a great deal of
attention in recent years. Part of this attention is related to the growing need for models that can support
research into the aspects of organisational change, technology-related or otherwise. The growing need for
research into organisational change in turn is caused by a generally shared perception of increasing pace of
change in the world, which is often attributed to the advent of 'the information society', in combination with
an ever-growing globalisation of economy. Within the research on organisational change, organisational
culture and climate are either perceived as factors constraining the change susceptibility of organisations, or
as factors that promote change. The two constructs are arguably popular because they try to capture the
'human' factor in an attempt to explain organisational phenomena. However, there has been - and remains to
be - quite some discussion on whether the constructs need to be treated as synonyms, or whether they are to
be distinguished as separate constructs:
"Despite more than 25 years of valiant attempts to introduce conceptually clear definitions of
the constructs of organizational culture and climate, the field still lacks clarity (Moran &
Volkwein, 1992). Noting that sometimes the concepts of culture and climate are treated as
synonyms, Moran & Volkwein argue emphatically for their separation, since these are
"perhaps the two most potent constructs available for researchers for understanding the
expressive, communicative, human dimensions of organizations" (p. 22)." (Wilpert, 1995,
p.62)
This ability of the two constructs to capture human dimensions at the group and organisational levels of
analysis makes them relevant in the context of my research. Moreover, they play an important role in the
individual processes of sensemaking within organisations, in the sense that they are part of the individual's
environment and the basis for a large part of his mental framework.

As said before, the concepts of organisational culture and climate are often used to describe similar
issues. In a survey paper, Denison (1996) – as an organisational culture researcher – proposes a compelling
and balanced argument in favour of a more integrated perspective:
“On the surface, the distinction between organizational climate and organizational culture
may appear to be quite clear: Climate refers to a situation and its link to thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors of organizational members. Thus, it is temporal, subjective, and often subject
to direct manipulation by people with power and influence. Culture, in contrast, refers to an
evolved context (within which a situation may be embedded). Thus, it is rooted in history,
collectively held, and sufficiently complex to resist many attempts at direct manipulation. The
two perspectives have generated distinct theories, methods, and epistemologies as well as a
distinct set of findings, failings, and future agendas.
However, at a deeper level, when one begins to compare the individual studies that make up
these two literatures, these seemingly clear distinctions begin to disappear. Over time, the
underlying similarity of the two research topics has led a number of culture researchers to
apply the quantitative, comparative, and Lewinian approaches associated with climate
research, whereas several climate researchers have studied the evolution of social contexts
from a social constructionist point of view that makes it difficult to distinguish from culture
research. Despite these points of convergence, however, considerable effort is still devoted to
the maintenance of a narrow orthodoxy within each literature that makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to build on some of the obvious points of integration...
The analysis in this article has led me to conclude that these two research traditions should
be viewed as differences in interpretation rather than differences in the phenomenon. I also
have argued that this approach will provide a stronger foundation for integration than the
currently held assumption that culture and climate are fundamentally different and
nonoverlapping phenomena.” (Denison, 1996, p. 644-645)

In the following paragraphs, I will discuss each of the concepts in some detail, but in view of the
extent of the literature on culture and climate, this discussion can only scratch the surface of the topic
without going in depth. For a more comprehensive discussion of the literature in the two areas, I refer to
recent review papers such as the one by Denison (1996), or to the thorough discussions in (Schneider, 1990).

83
a) Culture
The concept of culture is argued to have originated within anthropology, but within anthropology
there is no consensus on what the concept means (Smircich, 1983). Some authors even argue that there is
"extraordinary disagreement" about what culture actually is (Alexander, 1990). Avison & Myers (1995, p.51)
cite a taxonomy (Worsley, 1984) of four ideal-type ways of conceptualising culture: the élitist, the holistic,
the hegemonic and the pluralist:
"In the first, culture implies superior values, reserved for the dominant few; in the second, a
whole way of life; in the third, a set of behaviours imposed on the majority by those who rule
there. The last, a relativist sense, recognizes that different communities in the same society
have distinctive codes of behaviour and different value systems – which may even be
opposed." (Worsley, 1984, p.43)
Avison & Myers (1995, p.52) continue: "Even though there is much disagreement and debate within the
discipline, contemporary anthropologists no longer see cultures as something that can be collected and
recorded like rocks on the sea shore. Rather, culture is seen as contestable, temporal and emergent, it is
constantly interpreted and re-interpreted, and is produced and reproduced in social relations." The Avison &
Myers paper argues that the conceptualisation of culture that is used within information systems literature
could benefit from studying the contemporary anthropological view of culture - as something which is
contested, temporal and emergent. They argue that it "has the potential to offer information systems
researchers rich insights into how new information technologies affect or mediate organizational and national
cultures, and vice versa, i.e. how culture affects the adoption and use of IT."

Based on a review of the literature on culture, Hofstede, Neuyen, Ohayv & Sanders (1990) devel-
oped the following overview of the ways in which cultures are argued to manifest themselves (cf. Figure 37).

Figure 37: Manifestations of culture (copied from Hofstede et al., 1990, p.291)

The authors classified manifestations of culture into four categories: symbols, heroes, rituals and values.
"Symbols are words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry a particular meaning within a
culture. Heroes are persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics
highly prized in the culture and who thus serve as models for behavior (Wilkins, 1984). Ritu-
als are collective activities that are technically superfluous but are socially essential within a
culture - they are therefore carried out for their own sake. In [Figure 37], we have drawn
these as the successive skins of an onion - from shallow, superficial symbols to deeper rituals.
Symbols, heroes, and rituals can be subsumed under the term "practices", because they are
visible to an observer although their cultural meaning lies in the way they are perceived by
insiders. The core of culture, according to [Figure 37], is formed by values, in the sense of
broad, nonspecific feelings of good and evil, beautiful and ugly, normal and abnormal, ra-
tional and irrational - feelings that are often unconscious and rarely discussable, that cannot
be observed as such but are manifested in alternatives of behavior. We selected these four
terms from the terminology offered in the literature (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982), because
we believe them to be (1) mutually exclusive and (2) reasonably comprehensive, thus cover-
ing the field rather neatly." (Hofstede et al., 1990, p.291)

84
 Although the work of Hofstede and colleagues is mainly situated at the level of national cultural dif-
ferences, they have also investigated organisational cultures. They argue in their 1990 paper that organisation
culture differences are composed of other elements than national culture differences. Among national cul-
tures (comparing IBM employees in similar jobs in different national subsidiaries) the authors found consid-
erable differences in values, but similar practices. Among organisational cultures, they found considerable
differences in practices for people who held about the same values. They explain the difference in terms of
the different places of socialisation for values and practices. "Values are acquired in our early youth, mainly
in the family and in the neighborhood, and later at school. ... Organizational practices, on the other hand, are
learned through socialization at the workplace (Pascale, 1985), which we usually enter as adults, with the
bulk of our values firmly in place." In Figure 38, one can discern an occupational culture level halfway be-
tween nation and organisation, "suggesting that entering an occupational field means the acquisition of both
values and practices; the place of socialization is the school or university" (Hofstede et al., 1990, p.292)

Figure 38: Cultural differences: national, occupational, and organizational levels

(Copied from Hofstede et al., 1990)

As the authors point out, the core concept in any conceptualisation of culture is 'value', often also referred to
as 'norms'. In the light of the discussion in Avison & Myers (1995), one can argue that Hofstede and
colleagues' conceptualisation of culture is rather static and objectivistic. In the following, we will be mainly
focussing on organisational culture, as opposed to national or occupational culture.

b) Organisational culture
The more popular theories of organisational culture offer a rather static, objectivistic definition:
"Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented,
discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those problems." (Schein, 1984, p.3)
Robey & Boudreau (1999, p.175) argue that "[w]hile early studies were almost exclusively focused on the
issue of identifying ways to build strong, cohesive cultures, cultural analysis has also proven adaptable to the
study of conflict and contradiction within organizations." The authors then discuss Martin's (Meyerson &
Martin, 1987; Martin, 1992) work, which is argued to show this 'conflict and contradiction' approach to or-
ganisational culture. As mentioned in the discussion of organisational aspects of information systems in
Chapter 2 above (p. 20), Martin and Meyerson identify three perspectives for interpreting organisational cul-
ture: integration, differentiation, and fragmentation.
"Integration. The integration perspective portrays culture as unified and consistent; culture is
the glue that holds an organization together and helps to define its distinctive features. Cul-
ture signals areas of strong consensus wherein values, assumptions, and behaviors are
shared. ... Because the original concept of culture was formulated to explain those aspects of
social organization that persist rather than change, cultural theories help to remind re-
searchers of the difficulty of transforming organizations. Cultural “drag” may be too difficult
to overcome even when concerted efforts are made to change. ... . Resistance to new tech-
nologies, in particular, can be explained by noting their inconsistency with the values and as-
sumptions of a strong organizational culture (Sproull et al., 1984)." (Robey & Boudreau,
1999, p.175)

85
In other words, the integration perspective on culture helps to explain the inertia phenomenon in Karl
Lewin's conceptualisation of organisational change that will be described in paragraph 5 below.
"Differentiation. The differentiation perspective describes organizational culture as a
collection of sub-cultures with consensus emerging only within subcultural boundaries. Even
though a homogeneous culture may exist within each group, the differentiation perspective
focuses on differences among those groups. ... Depending on one’s subcultural identification,
technology may acquire different significance and meaning and provoke ambiguity and
conflict (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). Like organizational politics, the differentiation
perspective of organizational culture traces contradiction to the incompatible interests of
different stakeholders." (ibid.)
The differentiation view of culture partly refers back to the discussion on cognitive frames in Chapter 3
above (p. 60). Work by Sackmann (1992), for example, finds empirical support for the existence of sub-
cultures in organisation. More interestingly, however, the study yielded evidence of the coexistence of a ho-
mogenous grouping with several subgroupings.
"Fragmentation. The fragmentation perspective views ambiguity and contradiction as the
pervasive and inevitable essence of culture. ... According to this view, any cultural symbol
can be interpreted in different ways, and irreconcilable interpretations may be entertained
simultaneously. Culture, therefore, is defined as a fragmented and ambiguous social setting
where paradoxes and contradictions abound." (ibid., p.175-176)
The fragmentation perspective on organisational culture is a rather extreme view, which nearly denies the
existence of shared perceptions or interpretations of cultural symbols. Instead of arguing for the existence of
one of the perspectives, one might argue that the three perspectives may well co-exist. One can imagine
organisations (e.g. political parties) where there is a unified culture with regard to major values or norms,
next to several subgroups with regard to other values or norms, and finally that there are some values or
norms where no homogeneity can be perceived.

Within the integrative view on organisational culture, which is still the most popular paradigm, a
number of contributions try to develop a typology of organisational cultures. One of these typologies of or-
ganisational culture is the competing values model (Figure 39).

Flexibility

Develop-
Group
mental
culture
culture
Internal External
Rational
Hierarchical
goal
culture
culture

Control

Figure 39: Competing values approach of organisational culture

(Figure based on Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991, p.132)

The competing values framework was developed at the start of the 1980s (Quinn & Rohrbauch, 1983) and
has been used for capturing the complexity of a number of management issues, such as strategy, human re-
source policies, organisational change, management information systems, management style, as well as cul-
ture and climate (Burton & Obel, 1998, p.113). Zammuto & Krakower (1991), for example, applied the
competing values approach to organisational culture. The cultural types in the competing values approach
describe ideal models, and will probably not be found in their pure form. Real-world organisations will show
a mixture of the forms, with some aspects being stronger than others. The four types are described as fol-
lows: the group culture is an internally oriented and flexible culture, a friendly place where people are shar-
ing. The diametric opposite is the rational goal culture, where there is a results-oriented atmosphere where
leaders are hard drivers. The hierarchical (or internal process) culture is a formalised and structured place to
work, which is internally oriented, and where there is a high degree of managerial control. The developmen-

86
tal culture, finally, is a dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative place to work, with a lot of flexibility. Zam-
muto & Krakower operationalised the four cultural types in the competing values approach in terms of or-
ganisational characteristics (centralisation, formalisation, long-term planning), strategy dimensions (reac-
tive/pro-active orientation) and climate measures (cf. below). It is striking to notice that the authors conceive
of climate as a feature of organisational culture.

c) Organisational culture and Person-Organisation fit

After this short overview of some of the discussions within the literature on organisational culture, I
want to briefly look at some of the contributions that relate organisational culture to individual cognitive
structures. This link has often been made in organisational culture research, and Denison (1996) summarises
the role of organisational culture as follows:
“Culture refers to the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs,
and assumptions held by organizational members. Meaning is established through
socialization to a variety of identity groups that converge in the workplace. Interaction
reproduces a symbolic world that gives culture both a great stability and a certain
precarious and fragile nature rooted in the dependence of the system on individual cognition
and action.” (p. 624)
In this type of research, one tries to establish a person-organisation (or person-culture) fit (e.g. O'Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991), which is different from the person-environment fit described in Chapter 3
above, in that it is limited to the analysis of fit between a person and his organisation, and not the wider envi-
ronment. Kristof (1996), following Muchinsky and Monahan (1987), distinguishes between two types of
organisational fit, supplementary and complementary fit. These various conceptualisations of person-
organisation fit are graphically represented in Figure 40 below. In the supplementary type of fit (arrow a),
one looks for similarity between the characteristics (values, goals, etc.) of the organisation and those of the
individual. In the complementary type of fit, the individual’s abilities (supplies) fill an organisational de-
mand (arrow c), while the organisational supplies fill individual needs (arrow b). Moreover, these demands
and supplies are likely to be influenced by the underlying characteristics of both entities (Hogan, 1991;
Schein, 1992), as indicated by the dotted arrows in Figure 40.
Organization Person
Characteristics: Characteristics:
Culture/Climate Supplementary Fit Personality
Values Values
Goals a Goals
Norms Attitudes

Supplies: Supplies:
Resources Resources
financial time
physical effort
psychological commit ment
Opportunities experience
task-related KSAs
interpersonal task-related
interpersonal
Demands:
Resources Demands:
time Resources
effort
c Complementary Fit b financial
commit ment physical
experience psychological
KSAs Opportunities
task-related task-related
interpersonal interpersonal

Figure 40: Various conceptualisations of Person-Organisation fit.

(KSAs stand for Knowledge, Skills and Abilities. Adapted from Kristof, 1996, p. 4)

Viewed in this perspective, the description of person-environment fit that I have given above is limited to the
complementary fit between person and environment, mainly because my conceptualisation of environment –
following Edwards et al. (1998) – is not limited to the work organisation of a person, but to a broader con-
cept including family and living conditions, where supplementary fit is hard to ascertain. The relevance of
the supplementary fit concept has been demonstrated by O'Reilly et al. (1991) whose analysis showed that

87
person-organisation fit was of predictive validity for individual commitment and satisfaction 12 months after
the measurement as well as related to turnover 24 months after.

d) Organisational climate
Organisational climate has a somewhat longer history within social science than organisational
culture, even though culture has recently been the more popular construct. The climate concept is rooted in
Kurt Lewin’s studies of experimentally created social climates (Lewin, Lippit, & White, 1939; Lewin, 1951).
“Lewin and his associates argued that different leadership styles create "social climates"
that affect productivity in different ways. Their research showed that people were nearly
equally productive under democratic and authoritarian leadership styles, but that they
worked much more harmoniously and were more satisfied under a democratic leader.”
(Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996, p. 9)
This quote illustrates the dominant paradigm within the research field: climate is regarded as an
organisational parameter whose direct or indirect influence on organisational performance is studied. The
methodologies used have been mainly quantitative, with “the assumption that generalization across social
settings not only was warranted but also was the primary objective of the research” (Denison, 1996, pp. 621).
The quote above also illustrates that climate is perceived as linked to other organisational variables, such as
leadership style (cf. also McGregor, 1969).

In contrast to organisational culture, which refers to the deep structure of organisations, rooted in the
values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organisational members, climate is conceptualised as a phenomenon
that is more directly perceivable.
“Climate, in contrast, portrays organizational environments as being rooted in the
organization's value system, but tends to present these social environments in relatively static
terms, describing them in terms of a fixed (and broadly applicable) set of dimensions. Thus,
climate is often considered as relatively temporary, subject to direct control, and largely
limited to those aspects of the social environment that are consciously perceived by
organizational members.” (Denison, 1996, p.624)
This more superficial nature of the organisational climate concept has made it rather attractive to
practitioners, since climate seems more readily changeable than culture.
“Because organizational culture concerns the firmly implanted beliefs and values of
organizational members, it resides at a deeper level of people's psychology than does
climate. Culture captures a less conscious, more subtle psychology of the workplace.
Whereas climate's policies, practices, and rewards are observable, the beliefs and values of
culture are not so directly visible.” (Schneider et al., 1996, p.11)

Schneider and colleagues identify four key organisational climate dimensions, where the first three
are related to function and the fourth to goals:
1. The nature of interpersonal relationships. Is there mutual sharing and trust or conflict and
mistrust? Are relationships between functional units (e.g., between production and sales)
cooperative or competitive? Does the organization support socialization of newcomers or a
sink-or-swim approach? Do people feel that their personal welfare is important to those
around them and to top management?
2. The nature of the hierarchy. Are decisions affecting work and the workplace made only by
top management or are they made with participation from those affected by the decision? Is
the organization characterized by a team approach to work or strictly an individualistic
competitive approach? Does management have special prerequisites that separate them from
their subordinates, such as special parking or dining facilities?
3. The nature of work. Is the work challenging or boring? Are jobs adaptable by the people
performing them, or are they rigidly defined so that everyone must do them the same way?
Does the organization provide workers with the necessary resources (tools, supplies,
information) to get the work done?
4. The focus of support and rewards. Are the goals of work and the standards of excellence
widely known and shared? What gets supported: being warm and friendly to customers or
being fast? Is getting the work done (quantity) or getting the work right (quality) rewarded?
On what bases are people hired? To what goals and standards are they trained? What facets
of performance are appraised and rewarded?

88
Other authors have presented other groups of variables for measuring organisational climate: Litwin &
Stringer (1968), for example, used nine climate dimensions to define organisational environments: structure,
responsibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and identity.

In contrast to the measurement dimensions, there does seem to be some consensus within the
literature on the existence of two distinct climate constructs: psychological climate, and organisational
climate. The first is studied through a perceptual measurement of individual attributes, the second through
measurement of organisational attributes, either purely perceptual, or through a combination of perceptual
and more ‘objective’ measures (Denison, 1996, p. 623).

One model of individual psychological climate (James et al., 1990) was discussed in Chapter 3
above (p. 63), where the meaning of organisations was measured using a generalised psychological climate
(PC) factor, which was defined as a "cognitive appraisal of the degree to which the work environment is per-
sonally beneficial versus personally detrimental to the organizational well-being of the individual" (James &
James, 1989). Next to this rather individually oriented definition of psychological climate, James, James &
Ashe (1990) suggested a perceptual definition of organisational climate “to refer to aggregates of PC scores,
whatever the level of aggregation” (p.70), i.e. individuals in a work environment sharing perceptions about
that environment. On the other hand, the authors base their view of the distinction between culture and cli-
mate on the frame of reference: where psychological and organisational climate use the individual as the
frame of reference, organisational culture uses the system (for instance, group, division, department, etc.) as
the frame of reference. This definition of organisational climate and culture is somewhat different from the
‘consensus’-definition presented by Denison at the start of this paragraph.

Other authors offer different conceptualisations of psychological climate. In their multiple contin-
gency model of organisational design, Burton & Obel (1998) use climate as an important contingency (cf.
Figure 28 on page 75 above). They base their measurement of climate on the competing values framework,
as it was applied in the study by Zammuto & Krakower (1991), who measured psychological climate on
seven dimensions: trust, conflict, morale, rewards, resistance to change, leader credibility, and scapegoating.
The dimensions were measured by asking individuals how they experience that particular dimension within
their organisational unit, i.e. a perceptual measure of an organisational attribute15. The scores on these seven
dimensions are then reduced to four climate types, using the competing values approach: the group, devel-
opmental, rational goal, and internal process climates. I described these four climate types in the discussion
of organisational culture (on page 86 above). Interestingly, the seven Zammuto & Krakower dimensions are
quite similar to the 8 climate scales that Koys & Decotiis (1991) derived from the 80 dimensions of psycho-
logical climate that they had inductively found in the literature (Burton & Obel, 1998, p. 119-122), which
indicates a possible integration of some of the existing work on climate.

e) The role of climate and culture in organisational change

Whichever definition, dimensions or variables the different authors and schools use, there is
widespread consensus on the importance of climate and culture for organisational change.
“It happens all too often. A company introduces changes with high expectations of improving
performance. When the changes fail to take root and produce intended results, the unfulfilled
hopes lead management to introduce other seemingly promising changes. These, too, ulti-
mately fail. The sequence repeats - an unending cycle of high expectations followed by failure
and, inevitably, frustration on the part of management and cynicism on the part of workers.
There are several possible reasons for these dysfunctional spirals. Here, we concentrate on
one key reason: That changes introduced fail to alter the fundamental psychology or "feel" of
the organization to its members. As we detail below, it is this "feel" that directs and motivates
employee efforts. Without changing this psychology, there can be no sustained change. Here
is the central point: Organizations as we know them are the people in them; if the people do
not change, there is no organizational change. Changes in hierarchy, technology, communi-
cation networks, and so forth are effective only to the degree that these structural changes
are associated with changes in the psychology of employees.“ (Schneider et al., 1996, p.7)

15
“A perceptual measure of an organisational attribute” was the definition provided by Denison (1996) for organisational climate,
and not psychological climate. So there seems to remain quite some confusion regarding the terminology.

89
Moreover, Schneider and associates argue that there is a higher probability of sustainable change in an or-
ganisation where there is a positive climate, i.e. “when people feel their work is challenging, when they can
participate in decisions regarding how the change will be achieved, and when their interpersonal relation-
ships are characterized by mutual trust” (p.11). However, change is argued to be sustainable only when an
organisation’s culture also changes, and that is more difficult to do, due to the intangible nature of cultural
beliefs, values and assumptions, which are not directly manipulable. In fact, Schneider, Brief & Guzzo
(1996) argue that culture can be changed through changing the climate of an organisation:
“Basically, we propose that culture can be changed through a focus on climate. Climate
reflects the tangibles that produce a culture, the kinds of things that happen to and around
employees that they are able to describe. Only by altering the everyday policies, practices,
procedures, and routines, thereby impacting the beliefs and values that guide employee
actions, can change occur and be sustained. Change will not occur through new mission
statements, speeches, newsletters, or a big party to kick off a new way of doing things, or
even through changing the organization's architecture. To communicate new values and
beliefs requires changing tangibles-the thousands of things that define climate, that define
daily life in an organization. Deeds, not words, are tangible.” (p. 12)
The discussion of contributions on organisational change in section 5 below, builds on this argu-
ment, namely the importance of psychological processes at different levels. But before tackling that discus-
sion, I want to briefly mention two related – and relatively young – research paradigms on psychological
processes on an organisational level.

4. Sensemaking and organisational semiotics

In his recent review of organisational behaviour (OB) literature – the first European OB review
within the Annual Review of Psychology – Wilpert (1995) finds a major theoretical development in a
number of publications that view organisations as realities which are socially constructed through the
interaction of relevant actors. The author classifies the research streams on organisational culture and climate
amongst these, but also research on organisational symbolism, and on leadership. Some of the contributions
within the latter two streams of research take a distinctly semiotic approach, while others take a modern
cognitive perspective.

a) Semiotics in organisations
Semiotics, or the theory of signs, has a long history that dates back to the ancient Greek philoso-
phers. More recently, John Locke (1690) treats semiotics as one of the three main branches of human knowl-
edge, together with physics and ethics. The term ‘semiotics’ overlaps with the term ‘semiology’, but it has a
different flavour, in that the former tends to relate to the logical aspects of signs, whereas the latter tends to
relate more to the role that signs play in society and language. Semiotics is associated especially with the
work of Charles Sanders Pierce (1931-35), an American logician, while semiology is associated with the
work of Ferdinand de Saussure (1949), a French linguist. The work of both authors dates back to the turn of
the century, but their writings were first published later. The topics of semiotics and semiology are usually
studied by linguists and communication scientists, but have recently become rather popular within other ar-
eas of science, such as organisational theory (Barley, 1983; Fiol, 1989), user interface design (de Souza,
1993; Prates, de Souza, & Garcia, 1997), and information systems research (Holmqvist, Andersen, Klein, &
Posner, 1996; Andersen, 1997; Stamper, Liu, Hafkamp, & Ades, 2000). A new multidisciplinary scientific
field is emerging, called organisational semiotics: “a discipline of study of information and communication
in the context of organisations, with or without the use of information technology” (Call for papers for 3rd
organisational semiotics workshop, 2000). The aim of researchers in that field is to try to introduce a more
robust and structured study of the use of signs, language and information in organisations.

The traditional disciplines studied within semiotics are syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. The
first deals with the structures of signs (mostly language), the second with the meanings of signs, and the third
with the usage of signs. An important addition to these three disciplines was made by Ronald Stamper (1973;
1996; 2000), who added the physics of signs, i.e. the media in which signs are embodied and the hardware
used to transmit and process them, the empirics of signs which treats the statistical properties of sets of signs
when different physical media and devices are used16, and the social dimension of signs. The argument for

16
Stamper (1996) argues that the level of empirics can also be labelled ‘information theory’.

90
adding the last level is that “the most recent advances in semiotics make it clear that we cannot fully account
for the properties of signs without more explicit recognition of the social dimension in which they find their
purpose” (Stamper, 1996, p.351). Stamper’s full semiotic framework, represented as a ladder with six layers,
is presented in Figure 41.

Figure 41: Semiotic ladder (Adapted from Stamper, 1996, p.351)

In a context of information technology, the three lower levels supply the technical platform for an
information system: hardware (physics), telecommunications (empirics) and software (syntactics). As
Stamper (1996) argues: “Strictly speaking all the problems at these levels may be formulated and solved
without any regard for the relationships between the tokens and what they are presumed to represent in the
‘real’ world nor any regard for the people who use them nor their intentions in doing so.” (p. 356-7) The
author further argues that the conventional paradigm of information systems research is oriented towards the
building of systems at this technical level, and that such an orientation is not good enough:
“A totally different paradigm can be developed, oriented towards the need of organisations.
It concentrates on the meanings of signs, the purposes for which they are used and the social
consequences they produce. The technical issues are not just important, they are essential,
nevertheless they are only a means to an end and therefore secondary to the needs of the
organisation.” (p. 364)

Stamper argues that – at the level of ‘social world’ – individual sign users, so-called interpretants,
link signs to cultural and organisational norms in order to establish the meaning of signs. This is related to
Peirce’s semiotic triangle (cf. Figure 42), which represents Peirce’s definition of a sign:
A sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.
The interpretant in the semiotic triangle is the semiotic actor, i.e. the individual who mentally links a
perceived sign to the mental representation of an object (also called referent). This mental linking process is
also called representation or cognition. The representation process happens in a cultural situation, i.e. the
mental linking of signs to mental representations is governed by social norms, which are conventions on how
certain signs are interpreted within a certain culture or subculture.

Figure 42: A version of Peirce's semiotic triangle (Copied from Stamper et al., 2000, p.18)

Within semiotics, there are three quite different semantic principles governing the representation proc-
ess: an objectivist, a constructivist, and a mentalistic principle. The objectivist principle assumes that mean-
ings are mappings from syntactic structures onto objective features of a real world, which is the same to eve-

91
ryone. The constructivist principle assumes that meanings are constructed and continuously tested and re-
paired through people using syntactic structures to organise their co-ordinated actions. Finally, the mentalis-
tic principle stresses the individual’s idiosyncratic choice in mapping signs to mental constructs, depending
on the situation. The latter perspective stresses the multiplicity of semiotic relationships within each individ-
ual, whereas the second perspective stresses the negotiational and conflictual aspects of sign usage within
communities of sign users. Interestingly, these three semantic principles strongly resemble the three perspec-
tives on organisational culture defined by Meyerson & Martin (1987) that I discussed on page 85 on page 85,
the integration, differentiation and fragmentation perspectives.

In Stamper’s ‘totally different paradigm’ of technologically-based information systems, the concept

of norm is crucial. A norm is defined as a generalised disposition to the world shared by members of a
community. Norms reflect regularities in social behaviour, and they will to a certain extent govern how
members behave, think, make judgements and perceive the world. Shared norms are argued to be “what
define a culture or subculture”. In an organisational context, Stamper and colleagues phrase it like this:
“People do not always conform to every organizational norm, but the encompassing,
informal culture will provide the norms that govern how far it is reasonable to depart from
the norms specific to the organization and also how other people will react to those
departures.”(Stamper et al., 2000, p.15)
Each system of norms has an independent existence, in the sense that the people involved come and go while
the norms persist. Moreover, individuals belong to many different norm systems – family, work group,
gardening club, football team, political party, church. Sometimes these norms can be kept apart, but
sometimes they are inconsistent in the different systems. Due to these different norm systems, words and
other signs may have different meanings in different situations, even within a single organisation –
professions, departments, trade unions, project groups.
In applying these principles to information systems design, Stamper and colleagues, use the
MEASUR approach (Stamper, 1994) to identify norms in three stages. Firstly, the total organisational system
is partitioned into a network of unit systems through problem articulation exercises. Secondly, in each unit
system, one analyses the shared perceptual norms that norm-subjects rely upon for establishing shared mean-
ings, the result being an ontology chart (also called semantic model - Figure 43), which maps the vocabulary
and the temporal relationships between the percepts that those words represent. Thirdly, one can associate
the other norms with the start and finish of every item in the ontology chart.

Figure 43: Ontology chart or semantic schema of 'project management' with an example of a norm added
(Copied from Stamper et al., 2000, p.24)

In this way, semantic models define the patterns of behaviour that a system can perform. Moreover, the
norms add business rules and regulations that control the dynamic aspects of events and actions. The authors
argue – from their own experience in a number of design projects – that the approach is particularly well
suited to the study of organisational change, and the enabling or disabling roles of IT. Moreover, the semiotic
approach is argued to provide a degree of clarity and precision to the discussion and modelling of meaning
and information in organisations, that cannot otherwise be obtained.

While Stamper and colleagues are rather precise about the theoretical and philosophical foundations
of semiotics and in the practical implementation of their ideas, they do not specify in detail how one can em-
pirically obtain the shared norms that are to be represented in ontological charts and norms databases. Other

92
authors have been more precise in their descriptions of semiotic data gathering. Stephen Barley (1983), for
instance, describes how he collected data about the organisational and occupational cultures of funeral par-
lours. Through his semiotic analysis of the rules (norms) that regulate the meaning of work, Barley demon-
strated that a recurring underlying value – the denial of death – permeated the firm’s culture and determined
how all work decisions and actions took place. Another detailed semiotic approach is presented by Marlene
Fiol (1989; 1991), who developed a very detailed semiotic coding approach, based on narrative semiotics
(Greimas, 1966), which is quite different from the Peirceian semiotics presented here. Fiol’s (1989) approach
consists of breaking a set of narratives into component parts, characterising each part, and then identifying
patterns in the way the parts are combined. The final analytic phase offers a map of the texts’ underlying
structures, their positions in the semiotic square. She applied the technique to letters of CEO’s to sharehold-
ers discussing the existence and strength of boundaries separating internal organisational subunits and
boundaries separating the company from external environments, as the companies were considering joint
ventures (Fiol, 1989). In her 1991 study, she used the same approach to analyse the visible and invisible di-
mensions of power in terms of opposite leadership values (power to do and not to do vs. powerlessness to do
and not to do) as derived from autobiographies of business leaders such as Henry Ford and Lee Iacocca.

b) Sensemaking in organisations
The growing interest in how organisational members conceptualise and make sense of their organisa-
tional worlds is argued to be one of the most important developments in organisational science during the
past 20 years (Porac, Meindl, & Stubbart, 1996)17. This interest is argued to be consistent with the general
cognitive emphasis of the social sciences, and more specifically two theoretical developments. The first one
stems from the work of Herbert Simon and associates (Simon, 1946; March & Simon, 1958) that is argued to
be the basis of much of modern cognitive science. The second is the questioning of a strictly realist view of
the world in which the environment imposes itself on passive perceivers, which is being replaced by a con-
structionist view in which people actively construct their environment by combining existing knowledge
structures with external information through acts of interpretation (e.g. Weick, 1995). Constructionism can
be regarded as a general approach to knowledge and perception that breaks down a strict distinction between
person and environment by making the environment at least partially contingent on the person or group who
perceives it18.

Historically, the study of organisation in many disciplines has arguably centred around constructs
that had cognitive connotations, e.g. the way the managerial mind uses and combines information on costs,
demands, competitors, and profits; or the cognitive bases of motivation, employee performance, or
leadership. However, Porac and colleagues (1996) perceive a shift of focus that distinguishes more recent
cognitive research from its predecessors, a shift that is to be situated in four distinguishing characteristics.
• Firstly, the focus on cognitive processes, such as the formation of expectations or the calculation of
probabilities, and cognitive structures, such as beliefs or norms, is being replaced by an emphasis on
meaning and knowledge representation, which include concepts such as schemas, scripts, knowledge
structures, causal maps, routines, and semantic networks.
• Secondly, modern cognitive research focuses on sense making, as opposed to calculation. A great deal of
cognitive organisational research has examined how stakeholders make decisions in either certain or
uncertain environments, where the underlying metaphor of mind was one of computation, i.e. calculating
costs and benefits of certain actions, and maximising or at least satisfying a utility function. In modern
cognitive research, the issue of whether a certain choice was correct or incorrect in a mathematical sense
is not meaningful. In a constructionist view, the correctness of a particular decision is contingent on the
point of view that is being used to evaluate it, which implies that the important theoretical substance of
managerial cognition is not in the downstream choice/calculation process, but in the upstream sense-
making process that extracts a pattern of meaning from an ambiguous environment.
• The third distinctive characteristic of modern cognitive research is associated with the previous one,
through an emphasis on the social context of organisational and managerial knowledge, on the inter-
psychic as opposed to the intra-psychic cognitive phenomena (e.g. Weick, 1995). This goes beyond the
recognition that actors think about and make sense of social collectivities, to a strong interest in how so-

17
The book ‘Cognition Within and Between Organisations’ is a collection of articles that previously appeared in the journal
Organization Science in 1994 (Volume 5).
18
Structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), discussed on page 71 above, is an attempt at bridging between realism and constructionism.

93
 cial collectivities – as cognitive communities – shape both the contents and processes of thought itself
(this interest is rooted in the study of collective thought: e.g. Moscovici, 1983; Douglas, 1986)
• Finally, more recent organisational cognitive research is argued to be more eclectic in its choice of re-
search methods, using such divergent methods as text analysis, ethnography, artificially constructed
quasi-experiments, questionnaire surveys, and in-depth interviews to capture managerial and organisa-
tional cognition. Whilst one could argue that methodological breadth is a sign of poor paradigm devel-
opment and a lack of consensus, Porac et al. (1996) argue that it is more an indication that no single
method is sufficient to capture the full range of sense-making within and between individuals and
organisations. Moreover, it is important to situate meaning and cognition within a wider temporal
perspective. An important aspect of modern cognitive research is the willingness of authors to triangulate
the complexity of sense-making processes and structures.

These changes in focus and emphasis within cognitive contributions to social research that Porac et al.
perceive are indeed becoming more widespread, as witnessed by the popularity of the books by Karl Weick
(1995) and Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges (1992; 1994; 1998). Moreover, these novel cognitive ideas have
started to be taken up in other areas, such as information systems research (e.g. Barley, 1986; Orlikowski &
Gash, 1994) and technological research (e.g. Weick, 1990). However, as Stamper argues, they might benefit
from a more semiotic approach, which could add a more thorough perspective on the concepts of meaning.

Clearly, the modern cognitive concepts of meaning and sense-making are quite important in my
research – I have referred to similar contributions in the literature review so far – and they are important in
the subsequent discussion on organisational change.

5. Organisational change
Within IS literature and organisational theory the implementation of new information technology in
organisations has often been treated as a specific form of organisational change (e.g. Robey, 1977; Bjørn-
Andersen et al., 1986; Markus & Robey, 1988). However, the literature on organisational change is quite
extensive and "offers a continuing challenge to investigators that thrive on frameworks (e.g. Mintzberg &
Westley, 1992)" (Weick & Quinn, 1999, p.364). In their recent review, Weick and Quinn (1999, p. 362) sug-
gest that the contrast between the two main philosophies of change, episodic versus continuous change, is
"sufficiently pervasive in recent work and sufficiently central in the conceptualization of change" that they
use it as the framework for their review. This distinction between continuous and episodic - or radical -
change also returns in the IS literature, for instance in Wanda Orlikowski's (1993) discussion of the imple-
mentation of CASE tools in two organisations. Weick and Quinn argue, however, that these different views
are mainly a matter of different perspectives on the organisation:
"The contrast between episodic and continuous change reflects differences in the perspective
of the observer. From a distance (the macro level of analysis), when observers examine the
flow of events that constitute organizing, they see what looks like repetitive action, routine,
and inertia dotted with occasional episodes of revolutionary change. But a view from closer
in (the micro level of analysis) suggests ongoing adaptation and adjustment. Although these
adjustments may be small, they also tend to be frequent and continuous across units, which
means they are capable of altering structure and strategy. Some observers (e.g. Orlikowski,
1996) treat these ongoing adjustments as the essence of organizational change. Others (e.g.
Nadler, Shaw, & Walton, 1995) describe these ongoing adjustments as mere incremental
variations on the same theme and lump them together into an epoch of convergence during
which interdependencies deepen. Convergence is interrupted sporadically by epochs of
divergence described by words like revolution, deep change, and transformation." (Weick &
Quinn, 1999, p.362)
Notwithstanding this argument, the distinction between the two types of change have de facto led to two
different schools of thought.

a) Episodic change
Within the research on episodic organisational change, the work of Kurt Lewin (1951) remains ex-
tremely influential (Rouse & Watson, 1994; Weick & Quinn, 1999), and in the context of this research it is
relevant to mention some of the aspects of his work. The work of Lewin is most known for his 'unfreeze-
change-refreeze' metaphor of organisational change. When one adopts a systems theory perspective in ana-

94
lysing Lewin's view (Rouse & Watson, 1994), an organisation can be viewed as characterised by homeosta-
sis, i.e. a tendency to maintain stability or equilibrium. This homeostasis creates inertia within the organisa-
tion, "in the form of a quasi-stationary equilibrium [which] is the main impediment to change" (Schein,
1996). This inertia may lead to periods of 'divergence', i.e. when organisations are moving away from their
equilibrium conditions. Divergence occurs as a result of "a growing misalignment between an inertial deep
structure and perceived environmental demands" (Weick & Quinn, 1999, p.365). Inertia is said to create a
tension that precedes organisational change, but the change itself is often triggered by different 'triggers',
such as the environment, organisation performance, characteristics of top managers, structure, or strategy
(Huber, Sutcliffe, Miller, & Glick, 1993, p. 223).

Lewin suggested that in order to "break open the shell of complacency and self-righteousness it is
sometimes necessary to bring about deliberately an emotional stir-up" (Lewin 1951, quoted in Weick &
Quinn, 1999). He argued that an equilibrium would change more easily if one unfreezes restraining factors
such as personal defences, group norms, or organisational culture. With regard to the 'unfreezing' part of
organisational change, Weick and Quinn (ibid., p.372) refer to Schein (1996) who identifies three mental
processes in the unfreeze stage:
"(a) disconfirmation of expectations, (b) induction of learning anxiety if the disconfirming
data are accepted as valid and relevant (we fear that "if we admit to ourselves and others
that something is wrong or imperfect, we will lose our effectiveness, our self-esteem, and
maybe even our identity," p.29), and (c) provision of psychological safety that converts
anxiety into motivation to change."
This process can be represented in terms of some of the concepts discussed in Chapter 3 above, namely the
concept of harmony. One could argue that individuals in organisations do not perceive change as long as ex-
ternal information can be integrated meaningfully - either directly or after a mental distortion - into their
mental integrity. Only when such cognitive integration can no longer happen without adapting one's mental
integrity, or when external information can no longer be neglected, will one feel the need for a mental
change. This reluctance to adapt one's mental integrity is similar to the inertia described above, and is related
to the need of humans to have a relatively stable conception of the 'self' in the environment. A similar phe-
nomenon is assumed to exist on the organisational level, where it is referred to as 'identity maintenance'
(Sevón, 1996), i.e. an organisation has a certain concept of self-identity that it wants to maintain as long as
possible within its changing environment. Research by Miller (1993; 1994) shows that:
"[I]nertia is often the unintended consequence of successful performance. Successful
organizations discard practices, people, and structures regarded as peripheral to success
and grow more inattentive to signals that suggest the need for change, more insular and
sluggish in adaptation, and more immoderate in their processes, tending toward extremes of
risk-taking or conservatism. These changes simplify the organization, sacrifice adaptability,
and increase inertia." (Weick & Quinn, 1999, p.369)

The change process itself - after the unfreeze stage - is conceptualised by Schein (1996) as
"cognitive restructuring in which words are redefined to mean something other than had been assumed,
concepts are interpreted more broadly, or new standards of judgment and evaluation are learned" (Weick &
Quinn, 1999). Weick & Quinn also identify three 'images of organisation' compatible with the concept of
episodic change, namely those built around the ideas of punctuated equilibria, the edge of chaos, and second-
order change in frames of reference. Especially the third image resembles some of the concepts discussed in
the previous chapter. The ideas associated with this image of organisation are those of an organisation as an
entity where shared beliefs operate in the service of co-ordinated action (Bougon, 1992; Langfield-Smith,
1992). First-order change is then conceptualised as a "bending" of the shared frames of reference, viz. minor
alterations in current beliefs, whereas episodic or second-order change represents a "breaking" of frames, i.e.
the replacement of one belief system with another. This second-order change "refers to changes in cognitive
frameworks underlying the organization's activities, changes in the deep structure of shared schemata that
generate and give meaning to these activities" (Bartunek & Moch, 1987, as cited in Weick & Quinn, 1999).

The final stage in Lewin's three-phase model is the refreeze stage. This stage seems to have received
less attention in the literature, mainly due to the fact that a lot of episodic organisational changes never reach
it. Mintzberg & Westley (1992), for instance, describe episodic change as less complete because it is seldom
fully implemented, while other research shows that most people who reach the changed behaviour relapse
and change back to previous habits three or four times before they maintain the new behaviour (e.g. Beer,

95
Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990). Schein (1996) argues that refreezing - which embeds the new behaviour and
avoids relapse into the old - is most likely to happen when the new behaviour fits both the target's personality
and the relational expectations of the target's social network.

The main explanation for the number of episodic changes that do not fully succeed is that such a type
of change addresses several systemic levels simultaneously, i.e. individual, group and organisational, to
counteract the inertia. In their systems theory explanation of episodic change, Rouse & Watson (1994, p.515-
6) argue that there are homeostatic mechanisms at each of these levels:
"Individuals can be considered as psychological systems that employ a range of homeostatic
mechanisms to maintain psychological stability. These mechanisms include habituation
(people tend to automate cognitive tasks to conserve limited information processing
resources) and avoidance of ambiguity and uncertainty (which impair human performance).
Groups also operate as systems, and influence and leadership factors act to create strong
group norms to maintain the group. In organizational systems, an additional range of
structural factors act to ensure stability. Selection, training, and formal job design
continually select for and reinforce particular behaviors and attitudes. The interrelated
nature of organizational sub-systems means that change in one is often negated by the
influence of another. As well, the existing distribution of expertise, power and resources
reinforces stability. All these stabilizing mechanisms help to make 'resistance to change' such
an endemic phenomenon."
It is because of the presence of homeostatic processes on all levels that Lewin (1951) argues for bringing
about emotional stir-up. However, other authors warn against negative side effects of strong emotions. While
they may well provide major sources of energy for drastic change, they may also constrain cognition and
performance in ways analogous to those of stress (Driskell & Salas, 1996; Barr & Huff, 1997).

96
 Table 20: Comparison of episodic and continuous change (Table 1 in Weick & Quinn, 1999, p.366)

The left-hand column of Table 20 summarises the discussion above, while the right-hand side discusses
some of the common aspects of continuous change.

b) Continuous change
In contrast to episodic change, continuous change does not have a beginning or an end; it is ongoing,
evolving and cumulative, consisting of small daily changes that can cumulate and create substantial change.
When describing this view on organisational change, researchers focus on "accommodations to and
experiments with the everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities, and unintended
consequences" (Orlikowski, 1996, p. 65). As with episodic change, Weick & Quinn (1999) discern a number
of images of organisation in relation to continuous change, such as those built around improvisation,
translation, and learning.
The concept of improvisation was mentioned in Chapter 2 above when discussing information sys-
tems development methods, where it was also referred to as 'bricolage'.
"The image of organization built around improvisation is one in which variable inputs to self-
organizing groups of actors induce continuing modification of work practices and ways of
relating. This image is represented by the statement that change "is often realized through
the ongoing variations which emerge frequently, even imperceptibly, in the slippages and
improvisations of everyday activity" (Orlikowski 1996, pp.88-89)." (Weick & Quinn, 1999)
Secondly, the image of change as a continuous process of translation derives indirectly from the
work of Bruno Latour (1986), one of the originators of actor-network theory that I described earlier. The
main image of translation is the travel of ideas and what happens when ideas are turned into new actions in
new localities (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996). The act of translation - performed by an active translator -

97
creates a match between an idea, coming from somewhere, and the translator's reality through modification,
deflection, addition, or appropriation.
Finally, the image of organisational change built around the idea of learning is one of a setting
where work and activity are defined by repertoires of actions and knowledge and where learning itself is
defined as "a change in an organization's response repertoire" (Sitkin, Sutcliffe, & Weick, 1998). From an
organisational learning perspective, change is therefore not related to actions, but to changes in the
organisational embedded know-how. Weick & Quinn (1996, p. 377) conclude that "in each of these three
images, organizations produce continuous change by means of repeated acts of improvisation involving
simultaneous composition and execution, repeated acts of translation that convert ideas into useful artifacts
that fit purposes at hand, or repeated acts of learning that enlarge, strengthen, or shrink the repertoire of
responses."

When change is continuous then, the problem is not one of unfreezing and changing an inert
organisation, but of interpreting and redirecting what is underway. The relevant assumptions in continuous
change are summarised by Weick & Quinn as
(a) cyclical assumption (patterns of ebb and flow repeat themselves),
(b) processional assumption (movement involves an orderly sequence through a cycle and departures
cause disequilibrium),
(c) journey assumption (there is no end state),
(d) equilibrium assumption (interventions are to restore equilibrium and balance),
(e) appropriateness assumption (correct action maintains harmony), and
(f) change assumption (nothing remains the same forever).
I analogy to episodic change, the authors also distinguish three phases in continuous change
conceptualisations, namely the freeze, rebalance, and unfreeze stages.

The first stage can be compared to making a series of snapshots or a short video recording from a
distance of a flock of ants moving in separate directions. The one taking the snapshot is the change agent,
who can apply a number of different lenses in order to try to make sense of what is already happening, and in
order to find patterns. To freeze is to capture sequences by means of cognitive maps or schemas. The second
stage then, the re-balancing, consists of a reinterpretation of the series of snapshots in order to remove
blockages. To rebalance is to reframe issues as opportunities, to try to reinterpret history in the light of an
enhanced sense of direction. To unfreeze then, is to resume improvisation, translation or learning with a
renewed sense of purpose, "in ways that are now more mindful of sequences, more resilient to anomalies,
and more flexible in their execution" (Weick & Roberts, 1993, p.380).

An important aspect of the rebalancing stage is the logic of attraction, as opposed to the logic of
replacement in episodic change conceptualisations. The idea is to attract people to change their current
course by showing a 'good example', by showing how to be. Whereas change management can be perceived
as managers telling people what to do, change leadership is perceived as leaders setting the example to their
'subordinates'. Weick & Quinn (1999, p. 380) find this logic of attraction in a number of recent contributions:
"To engage this logic of attraction, leaders must first make deep changes in themselves,
including self-empowerment (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). When deep personal change occurs,
leaders then behave differently toward their direct reports, and the new behaviors in the
leader attract new behaviors from followers. When leaders model personal change,
organizational change is more likely to take place. A similar logic is implicit in Cohen &
Tichy's (1997) recent emphasis on top managers developing a teachable point of view.
Leaders who first consolidate their stories and ideas about what matters undergo personal
change before organizational change is attempted. Subsequent organizational change is often
more effective because it is led by more attractive leaders."
The role of the change agent is seen as one of managing language, dialogue, and identity, whose main role is
to focus on discourse, to make clear that different interpretations of the same information or process exist.
Weick & Quinn refer to Schein's recent work in their discussion of the role of the change agent:
"Schein (1993) argues that dialogue, which he defines as interaction focused on thinking
processes and how they are preformed by past experience, enables groups to create a shared
set of meanings and a common thinking process. "The most basic mechanism of acquiring
new information that leads to cognitive restructuring is to discover in a conversational
process that the interpretation that someone else puts on a concept is different from one's
own" (Schein 1996:31)."

98
This refers back to the discussion in the previous chapter on the importance of recognising different frames
of reference.

Some other aspects of the discussion on continuous change can again be conceptualised in terms of
some of the concepts presented in Chapter 3 above. When discussing the concepts of integrity and harmony,
I argued that people try to incorporate new information into their integrated mental framework, firstly with-
out changing that framework. If this cannot be done, another process will occur, depending on the nature of
the information. If information is perceived as hostile or harmful to one's self-image, then the information
will be integrated after distortion, or will be neglected. If on the other hand, the information is perceived as
friendly and consistent with – or at least closely related to – one's self-image, then it will be integrated into
the mental framework, i.e. the mental framework will undergo a minor adaptation. In this sense, continuous
change can be viewed as repeated minor – non-disruptive – adaptations to an individual's mental self-image
in order to stay in balance with the individual's environment. However, this continuous adaptation process
presupposes that the organisational and extra-organisational environmental structures allow and support al-
terations. In highly formalised bureaucracies, for example, it is often the case that individuals are not allowed
to make even the slightest alterations to the way they process incoming information.

c) Improvisational change model

The improvisational change model that Orlikowski and colleagues discuss (1996; Orlikowski &
Hofman, 1997) was based on research on the implementation and use of information technologies. In their
model, the authors recognise three types of change processes, and in my opinion, these do not all fit easily
into the classes distinguished by Weick & Quinn (1999). In their paper, the latter authors describe continuous
change namely as basically unintentional changes, whereas the intentional changes are mainly classified in
the episodic type.

Figure 44: Graphical representation of three types of change within an improvisational change model
(Figure copied from Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997, p.13)

The three types that Orlikowski & Hofman distinguish build on the distinction between deliberate and
emergent strategies developed by Mintzberg (1987). The three types are graphically represented in Figure
44, and described below.
"[W]e distinguish between anticipated changes -- changes that are planned ahead of time
and occur as intended – and emergent changes -- changes that arise spontaneously from
local innovation and that are not originally anticipated or intended. An example of an
anticipated change is the implementation of e-mail software that accomplishes its intended
aim to facilitate increased, quicker communication among organizational members. An
example of an emergent change is the use of the e-mail network as an informal grapevine
disseminating rumors throughout an organization. This use of e-mail is typically not planned
or anticipated when the network is implemented but often emerges tacitly over time in
particular organizational contexts. We further differentiate these two types of changes from
opportunity-based changes -- changes that are not anticipated ahead of time but are
introduced purposefully and intentionally during the change process in response to an
unexpected opportunity, event, or breakdown. For example, as companies gain experience
with the World Wide Web, they are finding opportunities to apply and leverage its
capabilities in ways that they did not anticipate or plan before the introduction of the Web.
Both anticipated and opportunity-based changes involve deliberate action, in contrast to
emergent changes that arise spontaneously and usually tacitly from people's practices with
the technology over time.

99
 The three types of change build on each other iteratively over time (see [Figure 44]). While
there is no predefined sequence in which the different types of change occur, the deployment
of new technology often entails an initial anticipated organizational change associated with
the installation of the new hardware and software. Over time, however, use of the new tech-
nology will typically involve a series of opportunity-based, emergent, and further anticipated
changes, the order of which cannot be determined in advance because the changes interact
with each other in response to outcomes, events, and conditions arising through experimenta-
tion and use."(Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997, p.13)

This improvisational model of change presupposes again an organisation where there is a fair degree
of openness, flexibility and sensitivity towards changes happening within and outside the organisation. In
fact, the authors suggest at least two sets of enabling conditions as critical to the success of change efforts:
the presence of dedicated resources to "provide ongoing support for the change process" and an alignment of
the three interdependent key dimensions of the change process, the technology, the organisational context
(including culture, structure, roles, etc.) and the change model used to model the change process (cf. Figure
45). Alignment is defined here as being "compatible or, at a minimum, not in opposition".

Figure 45: Aligning the change model, the technology and the organisation
(Figure copied from Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997, p.18)

The alignment defined by Orlikowski & Hofman strongly resembles the Multiview2 contingency
approach to IS development discussed above. For instance, an improvisational change model is most appro-
priate when developing and implementing technology that is new, open-ended, and customisable, such as
groupware, ERP software, or Intranets. Moreover, Figure 45 suggests that all three dimensions need to be
aligned, and not only the change model and the technology. Indeed, using a flexible change model in an or-
ganisation with a "rigid, control-oriented, or bureaucratic" culture would create a misfit. Finally, the new
technology needs to be aligned with the organisation: collaborative technology such as groupware is com-
patible with co-operative, team-oriented cultures, but would again create a misfit with a rigid bureaucratic
organisation.
Orlikowski & Hofman (p.20) use an analogy with a jazz band in their description:
"While each band member is free to improvise during the performance, the result is typically
not discordant. Rather, it is harmonious because each player operates within an overall
framework, conforms to a shared set of values and norms, and has access to a known
repertoire of rules and resources."
In order for harmony to occur in such improvisational change projects, there must exist a minimal level of
cognitive agreement, and a set of shared values. This is supported by other researchers, such as Isabella
(1990), who refers to three crucial assumptions in studies of response to change: a) organization members
enact the reality they inhabit and use different frames of reference to make sense of events; b) individuals
share their frames of reference within the organization, creating a cognitive consensuality; and c) the views
of managers are particularly salient, because managers appear to be at the heart of the cognitive shifts that
occur during organizational change19. Empirical evidence reviewed in (Quinn et al., 1994, p.125) supports
the importance of decision makers' interpretations of events in explaining differential responses to these
events.

19
Cf. also Bendix (1995) on the importance of middle managers in change efforts.

100
 In a recent paper, Orlikowski (2000) combines some of the concepts of improvisational change with
a practical view of structuration theory. The resulting theoretical framework augments the existing structural
perspective (described above) with "a practice orientation which focuses specifically on how people's recur-
rent interaction with technologies enacts distinctive structures of technology use". She convincingly argues
that it is not the technology per se that can increase or decrease workers' productivity, but only their use of
the technology, and that therefore the measures of technology investment or deployment are insufficient in-
dicators of organisational change or effectiveness. The structures of technology use, which she labels tech-
nologies-in-practice, are not fixed or given, but "constituted and reconstituted through the everyday, situated
practices of particular users using particular technologies in particular circumstances" (p.425). The author
stresses the particularity and situatedness of technology use more than in her previous conceptualisations,
and that is rather interesting in the light of my research:
"Use of technologies is strongly influenced by users' understandings of the properties and
functionality of a technology, and these are strongly influenced by the images, descriptions,
rhetorics, ideologies, and demonstrations presented by intermediaries such as vendors,
journalists, consultants, champions, trainers, managers and "power" users (Orlikowski,
Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto, 1995)." (Orlikowski, 2000, p409)
She argues that these first understandings are quite powerful and durable, even after technology has been in
use for some time. Through recurrent use of technologies, users' present use of a technology is shaped by the
previous technologies-in-practice that they have enacted in the past, which then often reinforce the present
use, so that a certain routine and regularity develops. This reinforcement is even stronger if a community of
users engages in similar work practices in similar situations enacting similar technologies-in-practice. Such
repeated 'social' reinforcement may even become reified and institutionalised, i.e. become standard practice,
which may then impede change. However, users always have the potential to change their habits of use, and
thus change the enacted structures.
"Technologies-in-practice can be and are changed as actors experience changes in
awareness, knowledge, power, motivations, time, circumstances, and the technology. They
are changed through the same process that all social structures are changed - through
human action... Even when a technology appears to have stabilized, with the discourse
around its properties and functionality apparently having reached "closure" (Pinch & Bijker,
1984; Bijker, 1995) ... has been established, the stability of the technology and its
applications is only provisional." (ibid., p.411)

Whereas Orlikowski argues that such "stabilisation-for-now" is only an analytic and practical
convenience, I want to argue that the stabilisation often also comprises a mental stabilisation amongst the
majority of users. For example, whereas some computer technology users (such as myself) will always be
adding plug-ins and the most recent toolbars and gimmicks to their Web-browser, the majority of computer
users that I have collaborated with will leave their software untouched once it has stabilised. Even when
technological artefacts are in fact highly malleable and customisable - such as modern web-browsers are -
they are not always understood or represented as such by their users. In the former case, users may not know
that the technology is malleable, in the latter they may not care, even if they know. The latter type of users
will typically see software tools as 'just tools' that they know how to use in their work situation, but for
which they have no further interest.

Another important aspect of Orlikowski's recent paper is the compatibility between users'
technologies-in-practice and designers' intended-use.
"But even as we can explore compatibilities between users' recurrent social practices,
designer's intentions, and technological properties, the practice lens reminds us that use of
technology is always situated and emergent, and hence that users in their recurrent
interaction with technologies may always choose to depart from designers' a priori intentions
and the inscribed properties of the technology"(p. 424)
This argument is important in situations where new (information) technology is intended as a trigger for
structural (organisational) changes. Just as 'ordinary', non-technology-supported organisational changes may
suffer from unpredictable individual or group reactions due to the incompatibility of mental frameworks, so
may technology-driven changes, because incompatible mental representations may have been 'embedded' in
the technology (cf. the concept of inscription in action-network theory).

101
d) Change, uncertainty and stress
A final aspect of organisational change that I want to briefly discuss in this context – since I dis-
cussed it more extensively in Chapter 2 above – is its link to uncertainty, stress and performance (Rouse &
Watson, 1994). I argue that the problem of uncertainty and stress is mainly related to episodic types of
change, since they disturb individual, group, and organisational structures. Due to their wide scope, they risk
being perceived by individuals as intentional attempts to "pull the carpet away from under me". In normal
circumstances, interpersonal relations in groups as well as the stability of organisational structures are used
as powerful coping mechanisms, but this is not so when these are also threatened by instability and change.
Moreover, if coping mechanisms do not work and the change cannot be cognitively reframed as 'making
sense', people will either respond by withdrawing – physically (absenteeism, resignation) or psychologically
– or by reacting irrationally (obstruction, resistance).
"The implication is that if and when discontinuous change is necessary, management must
work significantly harder to manage the human aspects of change. In particular they must
reduce the level of uncertainty and threat perceived by staff. [...] Management must ensure
that staff believe that the organization will succeed in its change efforts. They must also
ensure that staff believe their interests will be protected. This is more likely to occur in
organizations with a past history of success in adaptive change, and a high level of
organizational trust." (Rouse & Watson, 1994, p.520)

Rephrasing this quote, one could state that to avoid stress in episodic change, one needs to make sure
that the suggested change is meaningful to those involved, i.e. that it somehow makes sense as a necessary
step to avoid or repair existing misfits with the organisational environment. In order to be able to
communicate such drastic change effectively, management needs to be aware of possible misinterpretations
of their message, it needs to be aware of existing shared frames of reference and relate to those, and it needs
to have a feeling for the different individual cognitive frames within the organisation. This again stresses the
role of middle management, since they are assumed to be closest to their colleagues and to be most aware of
these frames of reference. Moreover, the need for a high organisational trust - which can be characterised as
a parameter of organisational climate - can also be related to concepts of cognitive integrity or harmony. It
can be argued that there are fewer shared cognitive frames in organisations with a lack of trust. Indeed, one
will presumably find more conflicting frames of reference in organisations with low trust, since employees
will be inclined to distrust management, and hence – more or less deliberately – attach opposite
interpretations to management actions and information.

102
D. My contribution to organisation theory

In this part of the literature review, I have focussed on links between psychological and
organisational factors, such as the role of individual cognition in the interpretation of organisational
attributes; as well as on links between organisational and IT attributes, such as the role of culture and climate
in IT-related organisational change efforts. Finally, I have discussed contingency theory and different
concepts of fit that can be regarded as ways of developing concepts of organisation-environment fit and
harmony on the organisational level. The novelty of my contribution lies in the attempt to duplicate some of
the ideas from work psychology to the organisational level of analysis.

The multiple contingency model (Burton & Obel, 1998) can be perceived of as a model of
organisation-environment (OE) fit, where organisational and environmental attributes need to be in harmony
in order to obtain organisational well-being. In order for an organisation to function, its activities need to fit
to the environment, the existing technology, the people in it, etc. In the psychology chapter, there was much
focus on the importance of the subjective perception of fit or misfit in the relation between person-
environment fit and strain / stress, and not the objective existence of a fit or misfit. In a similar way, I want to
argue that it is the subjective (or rather multi-subjective) perception of OE-fit that is important in
determining the existence of organisational harmony. However, this leads to the tricky problem of defining
‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ at an organisational level of analysis. When discussing the multiple contingency
model, there was no mention of the perceiving actor in relation to the organisational and environmental
attributes. One never finds mention of the identity of ‘the organisation’, one simply assumes that there is an
objective way of determining whether an organisation is centralised or not, whether the management style is
control-oriented or not, whether the organisational climate is characterised by trust or not, or whether the
organisation’s environment is complex and uncertain or not. In fact, when operationalising contingency
theories, researchers have often relied on top management as their source of information, thereby identifying
‘the organisation’ with ‘the CEO’ or ‘the top management team’. I want to argue that relying on
management’s perception alone cannot be sufficient if one wants to determine the well-being of an
organisation, and can not be characterised as objective. One may even argue that there is no way to
objectively determine organisational characteristics. The best that one can achieve is to collect multi-
subjective perceptions from a number of different stakeholders within and outside organisations.

I want to argue that a number of people and groups think and act, and perform sense-making activi-
ties on behalf of the organisation, and if one wants to determine the well-being of an organisation, one needs
to consult a number of these stakeholders. In the sense-making process at an organisational level, a major
role is played by the owners (often represented by a board of directors), senior and middle management,
since they are usually the ones to initiate actions related to the environment (decision-making). The other
stakeholders, such as trade unions, employees, suppliers, customers, minor shareholders, media, financiers or
external analysts usually play a less action-oriented role in the sense-making process, but their perceptions
are important as well (especially those of the employees and their representatives in cultures with participa-
tory management). Again, the idea is to take a holistic perspective, and look at the interplay between the dif-
ferent parameters, and the interpretation that the different groups of stakeholders have of the organisation’s
functioning within its environment. The existence of different interpretations within an organisation is an
integral part of the sense-making processes within an organisation (cf. also Jorna & van Heusden, 2000).
Weick (1995, p. 5) quotes Feldman (1989), who talks about sense-making as an interpretative process that is
necessary “for organizational members to understand and to share understandings about such features of the
organization as what it is about, what it does well and poorly, what the problems it faces are, and how it
should resolve them.” At the organisational level, it is not enough for one group of stakeholders to perceive a
fit between an organisation and its environment. Since organisations are collectives, it is vital that there is an
agreed understanding of the OE-fit amongst all relevant groups of stakeholders. An organisation’s environ-
ment and its actions are interpreted as meaningful if the stakeholders have a minimal shared understanding of
the organisation’s current status and direction. Organisational harmony can thus be defined as a minimal
shared perception of OE-fit. In a similar way as at the individual level, I want to argue that harmony is re-
lated to stability as conceptualised by actor-network theory. A harmonious organisation can be argued to re-
semble a set of relatively stable actor-networks of aligned interests. Moreover, in accordance with Schabracq

103
and Cooper's (1998) integrity concept, I want to argue that organisations, like individuals, prefer to operate
within their familiar, well-know niche.

I also want to introduce two new concepts that are opposite to organisational harmony, namely
organisational strain (organi-strain) and organisational stress (organi-stress)20, in analogy with individual
strain and stress. Organi-strain arises if the organisation and its environment are experienced as being
unbalanced, for example, when there is a misfit between the complexity of an organisation's new technology
and the training level of its employees. In analogy with individuals, organisations can be conceived of as
having needs and abilities that need to be fitted to the supplies and demands from the environment. On the
other hand, organi-strain can also arise if there is disagreement between the different stakeholders to such a
degree that no common vision can be reached. Organi-stress is then defined as caused by one or more
organisational strains that (a) last over an extended period of time, (b) are present in a 'large enough' degree
to exceed a certain threshold, or (c) are not envisaged to end within a foreseeable future. As on the individual
level, one can imagine a U-shaped curve representing the relation between organisational strain and OE-fit,
with different organisations having different stress thresholds. In analogy to individuals, it is argued that
organisations will experience health problems because of persistent stress conditions. Health problems at an
organisational level may be reflected in consistently declining turnover or profits, downsizing, staff turnover,
etc. If such a situation occurs, organisational members will perceive of the organisation as not making any
sense at all.

In the CHARISM model that I will develop in the next chapter, I will also argue that organi-strain or
organi-stress originate as a result of changes within the organisation, or within the organisation’s
environment. The existence of organi-strains (disharmony) may not require specific action on the part of the
organisation, if one expects the environment to change. In fact, some companies deliberately create
organisational strains in order to prepare for expected changes in the environment. However, if there is no
environmental change to be expected, one can only resolve organi-strain (and especially organi-stress) by
initiating an organisational change process. In the event that an organisation is in a situation of high organi-
stress, there may be a need for an episodic change initiative in order to restore harmony. Interestingly,
research shows that it is mainly in cases of such high organi-stress that episodic change projects such as
Business Process Reengineering have a better chance of being successful. Indeed, the existence of
organisational stress can be regarded as a “massive driving force” in the Lewinian sense (Lewin, 1951;
Rouse & Watson, 1994).

In the next chapter, I integrate some of the different contributions in the three paradigms and develop
the integrative CHARISM framework, the “Cross-level Harmony, Integrity and Stress Model”.

20
Note the definitional problem related to the concept of organisational stress. The common definition within organisational theory
and psychology is related to individuals perceiving stress which is due to their functioning within an organisation. My definition
would be related to organisations (as represented by their major stakeholders) perceiving stress which is due to the organisations’
functioning within an environment. In the rest of this dissertation I will consistently refer to the individual-level type of stress as
occupational stress and to the organisational-level type of stress as organi-stress.

104
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory
Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy

Working
Hypotheses

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Organisational harmony leads to organisational well-being

Chapter 5. CHARISM: A New Theoretical Model

In this chapter, I want to present the integrative CHARISM framework, the “Cross-level Harmony,
Integrity and Stress Model”. The main concepts in my theoretical model are integrity, harmony, stress, sense,
meaning, fit and misfit. The main argument is that a new technology-based information system that is to be
used by individuals in organisations only makes sense when it (a) fits into the individual users’ conception of
their world, and (b) fits into an organisation’s conception of its current or future worldview. If these two fits
obtain simultaneously, a state of harmony has been achieved, and I argue that the chances of success for the
acceptance, integration and organisational use of the system will be much higher. If either of these fits does
not obtain and harmony is not achieved, there is a chance that either the individuals or the organisation will
become stressed, and in the long run will show health problems.

In order to explain this rather complex theoretical model, I will need to build a thorough
argumentation in a number of stages. In this discussion, I will try to restrict the number of references to
extant literature, and I will make use of footnotes when referring to the literature. The theory will be linked
to the relevant contributions discussed in chapters 2-4 above, so as to illustrate its integrative aspects.

As I said, the description of the theoretical model will proceed in different stages. While the purpose
of the theoretical model is to capture and explain organisational and individual aspects of information
technology, it is argued that the theory has wider relevance than just information technology. For this
reason, the general theory is described in quite some detail at each level of analysis, before information
technology is introduced into the discussion. At the end of each part of the discussion, the theory is
summarised and a number of general hypotheses – abstract statements based on the theoretical discussion –
are presented. Moreover, the discussion is illustrated with examples.

In this way, the first section discusses an integrative theoretical framework of individual mental
functioning, while the second section specifically discusses the role of information technology at the
individual level-of-analysis. The third section deals with the concept of harmony at the organisational level,
while the fourth section integrates information technology aspects into the organisational model. The final
section describes an integrative overview of the different levels.

106
A. An integrative theory of individual mental functioning

Starting from a description of human needs, I develop the concept of needs portfolios as the basis for
distinguishing between different types of people, and integrity as an active, dynamic process that integrates
individual human mental activities and social functioning. Based on the integrity concept the mental process
of signification is outlined, together with its ideal final state: mental harmony. It is then argued that
inadequate integrity – or mental disharmony – leads to mental strain and stress, and that change processes
are responsible for the development of harmony and stress. Next, I argue for the relation between mental
harmony and disharmony and individual perceptions of organisational characteristics and technology
characteristics. I conclude the section with an overview of the theory at the individual level, the hypotheses
that are deduced from the theory, and a practical illustration of the relevance of the theory.

1. Human needs
The starting point of my theory is that human behaviour is – at least partly – directed at fulfilling
needs, and that there are different types of human needs that result in different behaviour (cf. also the discus-
sion starting on page 47 in Chapter 3 above). The types that are usually distinguished21 are:
• Physiological needs: This class of needs includes the need for food, drink, warmth, light, and sex, and is
characterised by shortages of physiological substances. One could also call these the basic needs that all
living creatures share, irrespective of their being human or animal. If one takes an evolutionary
perspective, the physiological needs are the basis of, for instance, the social behaviour of gregarious
animals. Weaker animals that live in herds have a better chance of satisfying their basic needs. In a
similar way, humans live together in social collectives in order to better fulfil their needs. In return for
being ‘allowed’ to be a member of the ‘herd’, the social collective expects each member to behave
socially – at least to a certain extent – and to contribute to the social collective by using his abilities. In a
way, being a member of a social collective reduces the individual’s ‘freedom of behaviour’, but supplies
the opportunity to fulfil his needs. In an organisational context, physiological needs are usually satisfied
indirectly, i.e. by providing members with a form of ‘pay’, which can then be exchanged for the
substances that can satisfy the physiological needs. In relation to information technology, specific
physiological needs have been studied within the framework of the ergonomics of computer use.
• Safety needs: This class of needs includes the need for security (not being in risk of physical harm),
stability, dependency, protection, freedom for fear, freedom for anxiety, freedom for chaos, need for
structure, order, law, limits, need for strong leader figure (who plays the role of protector in a herd).
From an evolutionary perspective, a large number of these needs can again be related to the human as a
gregarious animal, in the sense that the safety of a herd is a guarantee for fulfilling the individual’s
physiological needs. Another group of safety needs is related to the fear of physical harm and the fear of
death, which are not directly related to the gregarious nature of animals, since they are also exhibited by
solitary animals. The need for stability, order and limits is strongly related to the concept of integrity,
that I want to discuss below. Indeed, as argued above22, human functioning is characterised by the
creation of a relatively stable niche to live in, a niche that is compared to an animal territory. In an
organisational context, safety needs are quite important, since they are related to concepts such as job
security, but also to resistance to change. Moreover, occupational stress is often related to an
infringement of the need for structure and stability, caused by organisational change activities/events.
• A third group of needs are social or belongingness needs, which are described as a craving for affection-
ate relationships with people in general, for a place in a group or family, for companionship. Need theo-
rists have discussed the importance of interpersonal relations among human beings for their health and
survival. Again this class of needs is related to the gregarious nature of humans who “by nature and to be
and remain healthy, must interact with one another”23. Interestingly enough, one can classify a rather dif-
ferent set of needs under this heading, namely the need to help others. In a sense, this is a different type
of need than the others, which are all centred and focussed on the individual fulfilment of one’s own per-
sonal needs, whereas the need to help others takes an altruistic perspective.

21
I use the needs classification of Maslow (1943; 1954) as the basis for distinguishing different types of needs.
22
Cf. the work by Schabracq (Schabracq, 1998; Schabracq & Cooper, 1998), discussed on page 55 in Chapter 3 above.
23
(McAdams, 1988)

107
• The esteem needs are grouped into two sub-sets of needs, namely self-esteem and esteem of relevant oth-
ers. The first sub-set of needs includes desires for “strength, achievement, adequacy, mastery and
competence, independence, freedom, and a fundamental confidence in facing the world.”24 Satisfaction
of these needs leads to feelings of self-confidence, capability and worth. One has the feeling of playing
an important role in the social group. Frustration of these needs, on the other hand, results in neurotic
feelings of weakness, inferiority, and even helplessness. The second subset – the need for the esteem of
others – is related to the social needs, in the sense that one seeks prestige and reputation within the social
group. This need motivates people to seek recognition, praise, dominance, glory, and the attention of
other people. The need for the esteem of others can again be interpreted from an ethological perspective,
namely as the need to be recognised as a valuable member of the herd, or even as a leader of the herd.
• The final set of needs is labelled self-actualisation or growth needs, and is described as “a requirement to
fulfil one’s potential, to become what one is capable of becoming”.24 Interestingly, individuals are quite
different in the way they fulfil these self-actualisation needs. Some will try to establish musical prowess,
while others will try to “be a good father”. This final class of needs is arguably typical of human beings
as compared to other animals.

The original work on human needs posited the existence of a hierarchy between these needs, stating
that physiological needs need to be satisfied before safety needs, etc. Later research has toned down the con-
cept of a strict hierarchy amongst these needs, but “there is some agreement that biologically based needs
(physiological and physical safety) are more important than other needs”, and that there are “some predict-
able patterns among people at various life and career stages in the desires they express on the job.” 24 It is
intuitive to assume, for instance, that the physiological needs are most important for babies, with the safety
needs appearing with the growing awareness of the child’s environment, and social needs arising when the
child learns to live in a family, etc.

2. Needs portfolios as basis for a typology of individuals

Need theories posit that each human has roughly the same types of needs, but there is no agreement
on the hierarchical differences between these needs. Within the literature, there is only a consensus on the
distinction between the lower-order and the higher-order needs, where the former are the physiological and
safety needs, and the latter the social, esteem, and self-actualisation needs. Moreover, researchers seem to
agree that needs operate “in differing degrees of strength for different people as well as in varying levels of
strength for particular people at different times"24. I have labelled this phenomenon need portfolios. The con-
cept of portfolio refers to a well-known concept in financial science, where a separate field of research has
emerged – portfolio theory – which studies how asset portfolios should ideally be put together. However, I
do not use the portfolio metaphor with all the implications it brings with it from financial science. I limit the
concept to the representation of a structured and balanced bundle of items with different characteristics.
Whereas the concept of a hierarchy of needs stressed the high degree of similarity among different individu-
als, the portfolio concept stresses the individual differences. I want to argue (a) that different need portfolios
can be used as a basis for distinguishing different types of people25, and that these differences are important,
(b) that needs portfolios are partly contingent on environmental characteristics, and (c) that an individual’s
needs portfolio is related to the individual’s abilities and skills.

As with financial instrument portfolios, need portfolios show personal characteristics. Some indi-
viduals will have a portfolio of stocks and bonds that has a high risk factor but high returns, while other peo-
ple will try to reduce the risk, in exchange for lower returns. It is important in an organisation to try to ascer-
tain the existence of different types of people based on their needs portfolio. Moreover, it is vital to consider
these differences, e.g. when implementing information systems. This is especially important because people
“often attribute their own motives to other people when attempting to understand or explain the behaviour of
others.”24 Ascertaining different personalities is particularly relevant in relation to the design and implemen-
tation of organisational information systems, as argued above26. Designers and managers often assume a

24
(Pinder, 1998)
25
In her thorough review of motivation theories, Kanfer (1990), for instance, states that “individual differences in needs and values,
as well as activation of commonly held intrinsic motives, are posited to influence the mediating cognitive processes that result in
behavioral variability “ (p.83)
26
For instance in the work on technological and cognitive frames (e.g. Gash & Orlikowski, 1991; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994; Corner,
Kinicki, & Keats, 1996; Gallivan, 1996)

108
number of user characteristics when they are designing the new technology and the new organisational proc-
esses surrounding the technology, and those assumptions often turn out not to fit with reality.

An example may illustrate this. Imagine an organisation where management commands the design of
an information system for blue-collar workers starting from the assumption that these workers have a high
growth need and a need to take initiatives and responsibility on their job. Management wants to support
those characteristics by providing the workers with IT tools that allow them to take initiative and responsibil-
ity. However, if it turns out that the workers have a different need portfolio, which has been strengthened
through years of working in a culture where no initiative or responsibility was expected or even wanted, the
information system project will most probably fail to reach its goals.

Based on this argument I want to argue that individuals with different need portfolios will prefer
different organisational roles and tasks, and that they will have different attitudes towards information
technology. Firstly, it seems obvious that an individual with a high need for (self-) esteem and growth will
strive for roles and tasks which entail a certain degree of responsibility, through which he can prove his
abilities to others. An individual with a low job-related need for self-actualisation and a high need for
belongingness, on the other hand, will not strive for challenging jobs but more for tasks and roles where he
needs to function in a social group with little personal responsibility. Secondly, different need portfolios also
lead to different attitudes toward information technology. For example, individuals with a high need for
control and self-actualisation will prefer systems with low content restrictiveness, i.e. systems that do not
restrict the user’s freedom in using the system.

What is more, needs portfolios show fluctuations depending on environmental circumstances. In

periods of high unemployment, job security may become a stronger need among workers and they may
change their behaviour accordingly. In periods of low unemployment, on the other hand, employees may put
more emphasis on fulfilling esteem and self-actualisation needs in their job because job security is not a
major problem. This type of environmental contingency is important in the context of this research.
The blue-collar workers in the example – who do not normally have much opportunity for satisfying their
growth needs on their job – may find an occasion to satisfy such self-actualisation needs when their working
environment changes due to the implementation of information and knowledge systems. Some needs within
an individual’s portfolio may sometimes be dormant in their working situation, i.e. when the job
environment does not allow satisfaction, but where the need is definitely present.

Thirdly, needs portfolios in an organisational context are related to the abilities and skills of the
individual. For instance, individuals that have high growth needs at their jobs, but whose skills and abilities
do not match the job’s requirements very well, may find it difficult to fulfil their potential.
If it happens that an individual can not satisfy an important need on the job, different scenarios may arise:
(1) the individual may choose not to remain at the job if the satisfaction of that need on the job is important;
(2) the individual may choose to satisfy that need outside his job;
(3) the frustration of the need may lead to withdrawal – becoming unmotivated and uninterested – or
(4) the frustration of the need may lead to strain and stress.
In scenario’s 2 to 4, it is possible that the need has become dormant, i.e. that it can be revived on the job
situation. There are more possible reactions than these four, but it would lead too far to describe them all.

The arguments related to needs portfolios can be summarised in the following general hypotheses:

H1: Different need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing differences between different
types of individuals
H1a: Individuals with different need portfolios will generally prefer different
organisational roles and tasks
H1b: Individuals with different need portfolios have different attitudes towards
information technology
H2: An individual’s needs portfolio is partly contingent on environmental characteristics
H3: An individual’s needs portfolio is related to his skills and abilities

109
 These hypotheses are relevant for IS development projects in a number of ways. Firstly, there is a
fair chance that the needs portfolios of the envisaged users of the system are quite different from those of the
developers of the system or the managers that initiated the IS development project. This leads to the
possibility of ending up with a system that presupposes a quite different type of user, and that may thus
become unusable. Secondly, it is quite important for an IS project to ascertain the needs portfolios of all
envisaged end users of the system to avoid wrong presuppositions. When one has mapped out the different
types of users, one can make an informed choice as to which implementation techniques to use with regard to
the end users, or even choose a differentiated approach for different sub-groups. For instance, a project can
then choose to involve especially those users in the development project whose needs portfolio match best
with management’s or with the designer’s, as a way of avoiding misunderstandings within the development
group. These users can then become a type of super-users who can persuade their colleagues to use a system,
or to be positive about the system. Another approach might be to choose to involve especially those users
who have a different needs portfolio, as a way of drawing in as many ‘extremes’ as possible, and of avoiding
the ‘we-were-never-asked’ remark that is often heard in cases of unaccepted organisational change. The
choice between these two approaches will be determined by a number of other factors, such as which type of
needs portfolio is dominant, in other words how the group climate is, or whether the envisaged super-users
have some influence in their group.

3. Integrity and the self-concept

There is some indirect support in the psychological literature for positing individual differences
based on needs portfolios. In their study of different aspects of work motivation, several authors27 argue that
it might be fruitful to use self-theory as the basis for distinguishing different motivational types of people.
The link between the self and internal needs lies in the general assumption that internal needs, “are ulti-
mately responsible for instigating and directing human behavior”24. The self-theory work is based on the
fundamental notion of a dynamic self-concept, which implies that a person’s notion of his self can be “active,
forceful, and capable of change. It interprets and organizes self-relevant actions and experiences; it has moti-
vational consequences, providing the incentives, standards, plans, rules, and scripts for behavior; and it ad-
justs to challenges from the social environment.”28 Another important premise in this theory is that “human
beings have a fundamental need to maintain and enhance the phenomenal self"29, which is then defined as
“the entire personality of the person – the composite of things and attributes that a person uses to describe
himself". This fundamental need to maintain and enhance the self is a need that cannot easily be classified in
terms of the needs typology described above. It is partly related to the need for stability, as regards the main-
tenance of the self, and partly related to higher needs – self-esteem, esteem and growth – as far as the en-
hancement of the self-concept is concerned. I argue that a major part of the self concept consists of the indi-
vidual’s subjective interpretation of his needs and abilities, and of whether he perceives a balance between
his needs and abilities and the environment.

This concept of self is clearly related to the concept of integrity that I discussed in the context of oc-
cupational stress above (pp. 55-57 in Chapter 3). There, it was argued that humans function in situations –
i.e. socially shared cultural spaces – that enable their actors to fulfil their recurring needs in standardised
ways. By functioning in repetitive, standardised ways, people can develop skills that allow them to reach
their situational goals in ways that demand less attention and effort. The necessity to reduce attention and
effort stems from the limited capacity of our attentional and mental processing capacity. The human mind
cannot cope with the sheer complexity and dynamism of its environment without introducing some reduction
processes. This is graphically illustrated below.

27
(e.g. Snyder & Williams, 1982; Barbuto, 1996)
28
(Markus & Wurf, 1987, pp. 299-300) as cited in (Pinder, 1998, p.469)
29
(Snyder & Williams, 1982, p.257) as cited in (Pinder, 1998, p.470)

110
 ? ?
? ?
? ?
?
?
?
? ? ?

Figure 46: The complexity of the environment is overwhelming (left), but at the same time, the individual relies on
the environment to fulfil his needs (right)

The complexity, unpredictability and dynamism of the environment are illustrated on the left-hand side of
Figure 46. On the other hand, the human relies on the environment to fulfil his needs, which is illustrated by
the questioning arrows on the right-hand side of the figure. In order to cope with this complexity, the indi-
vidual relies upon socially shared simplifications, called situations, illustrated by the small circles in Figure
47. Situations act as a kind of mental filtering devices, that contain integrative scripts, which are semi-
automatic procedures that are socially enacted: “Situations, as the culturally shared building blocks of socie-
tal life, are also instruments of socialization. Socialization here means actively discovering, getting ac-
quainted with and, lastly, identifying with a limited set of situations and their inherent ways of thinking, feel-
ing, and acting. In this way, one becomes a member of one's culture, maintaining and reproducing it by en-
acting its realities.”30

Figure 47: Socially shared situations reduce the complexity of the individual's interaction with his environment.

From a situational point of view, human functioning is characterised by the development of a rela-
tively stable niche to live in, as illustrated by the big circle in Figure 47. The circle can act as a metaphor for
a niche within the complex environment. “For example, most people live in only one house, together with
only a few fixed family members; they have their invariable daily, weekly, and yearly routines, interact only
with a very limited number of other people in customary ways, have their favorite ways of relaxing, and
work in standardized ways and settings."30
The repetition and stability that is inherent in such a life can enable an individual to develop skills to
handle known situations at a more or less ‘automatic’ level of mental activity. In this way, the individual can
focus attention on what is deemed important at that moment, “such as the optimal performance of situated
roles, the solution of specific task-related problems or further development of skills. Reality then becomes a
sequence of familiar stretches of functioning, following a complex structure of temporal cycles. This results
in a predictable life, which constitutes an appropriate home base for exploration and change. Attuned to our
niches, we only need to follow well-specified and, sometimes abundantly signposted paths in familiar situa-
tions in order to become what we are and what we, in our own eyes, are supposed to be.”30 Formulated in this
way a human niche is clearly related to the concept of self in relation to ‘non-self’: part of the definition of
one’s self is a description of the niche one lives in.

30
(Schabracq, 1998; Schabracq & Cooper, 1998)

111
 Indeed, the concept of niche also has implications for the person’s perceptual and cognitive activi-
ties, since the situations that one enacts and the other people one shares situations with, act as filters in the
perception of reality and the mental processing of one’s perceived reality. In fact, the niche that people live
in is compared to the concept of animal territory. “Living in their own niche provides people with a semiper-
manent system of relevant assumptions, meanings, images, goals, rules, templates for (interpersonal) proce-
dures, skills, resources, and equipment. This system gives them in each situation a small number of neatly
arranged options, each with their own set of priorities. Moreover, the system is organized in such a way that
its borders can be guarded by some habitual, almost automatic scanning of a number of set points. As soon as
some disturbance, threat, or infringement is detected, its nature as well as the need for and availability of
coping patterns are assessed. The system enables people to make plans, act in a meaningful and morally re-
sponsible way, and control their functioning in these situations and their outcomes in a socially acceptable
way. We call this system "integrity of individual functioning," or for short: "integrity".”31 This system of
meanings is very similar to the concept of self described above.

An important remark here is that integrity will again be experienced quite differently by different
people, i.e. by people with different needs portfolios. Some people will strive for completely structured envi-
ronments with fixed routines, whereas others need more space, challenges and variation in order to achieve
well-being. “In both cases, however, the intended outcome is an environment adapted to their specific con-
figuration of abilities, values, and needs, which is conducive to well-being and health.”30 At this stage the
authors directly link integrity with needs, values and abilities, which are perceived in a way that is similar to
the portfolios described above: needs, values and abilities form different configurations, and are partly re-
sponsible for the different ways in which people try to achieve an adequate integrity.

H4: Individuals construct a relatively stable niche to live in, a niche which consists of
socially developed situations that reduce environmental complexity and allow semi-
automatic functioning
H5: Through socially situated functioning a semi-permanent set of meanings and
routines is created, the so-called ‘integrity of human functioning’
H6: An individual’s needs portfolio will partly determine the nature of his niche and
integrity

The hypotheses above summarise the discussion and can be applied to information technology in the
following way. The niche concept applies to information technology in organisations, in the sense that
individuals will develop routines in their interaction with information technology32. Use of information
technology – as a form of human functioning – is situationally determined. For instance, many users will
only use part of the functionality of an information system, namely that part that they need and that they are
used to. Other users have a more exploratory nature and will try to look for more advanced functions that can
optimise their usage of the system. Again, the nature of one’s needs portfolio will play a role in determining
the size and nature of one’s IT niche. In summary, an IT-related niche is determined by the environment’s
demands, the individual’s needs and abilities, but also by the social conventions that govern the use of IT.

When one applies the concept of integrity to the two types of users, one might imply that ‘a
computer program’ has a quite different meaning to each of them. For the first group, a computer program
may be an overly complex tool that only needs to be used in a limited situation, so that one only needs to
know a limited set of functions and need not care about the rest, to avoid getting lost in the complexity. To
the second type of user, a computer program is an interesting multi-functional tool that needs to be
investigated in order to be used optimally. For the first group, an information system may be an unknown
entity that causes anxiety, while the second group may perceive it as a tool that triggers curiosity.

31
(Schabracq & Cooper, 1998). References to other literature in the original quote have been removed for the sake of clarity.
32
This reasoning is similar to Orlikowski’s (2000) concept of technologies-in-practice discussed on page 99-ff. above.

112
4. Integrity, signification and mental harmony
Related to the concept of integrity as a system of meanings is a process of signification – or sense-
making. In a social context, people usually apply representations to their own and other actors’ activities in
such a way that the situated and enacted meanings of these activities are shared33. In a social context, this
signification process lends itself to manipulation, for instance by redefining, reframing or modifying shared
meanings to the purposes of the social activity at hand. Examples of this manipulation are the organisational
redefinition of causes, goals, strategies, rationales, actions or difficulties. However, this manipulation process
does not only apply at the social level of signification, it also applies at the individual level. Redefinition and
re-framing of meanings can help a person to construct, adjust, refine and defend his integrity, since people
can apply meanings that serve their purposes. Within the theory of self-concept a similar statement is made:
“All behaviour is perceived as a function of what goes on inside the person and of how the person interprets
objective situations as opportunities for maintaining and enhancing the self-concept.”34 Of course, in a social
context, this redefinition and reframing must occur in such a way that the new meaning has validity for one’s
relevant others, i.e. the new definition of reality must show some internal consistency, should not violate im-
plicit situational rules, and should not be too inconsistent with the frames of reference that are usually ap-
plied within that context. This is also labelled as the world of (personal) politics, in the sense that socially
acceptable meanings need to be negotiated. A similar argument was made in the discussion of culture and
organisational culture above (pp. 84-87).

At an individual level, the process of signification ideally evolves into an “integrated, consistent sys-
tem of meanings, which serves one’s goals in life, is open for further evolution and, at the same time, is at-
tuned to the prevailing meanings and needs of the relevant others.”30 I have labelled this state as mental har-
mony, a fragile state of being that is reached when one’s needs, values and abilities are matched with the so-
cial and physical environment in which one lives and acts, in short when one’s presence in the world ‘makes
sense’. This mental harmony is of course purely subjective in nature, in the sense that maintaining and de-
veloping personal integrity are “experienced as living the only reality possible at that moment. ... Of course,
this is living an illusion – a self-chosen and, partly, self-constructed illusion...”30, but this is argued to be the
case with all experienced realities. The concept of mental harmony is autopoetic35 in the sense that it is con-
tinuously reproduced, but in such a way that one tries to keep the system integrated and consistent.

One tries to defend one’s harmony by avoiding disruptions and infringements. I argue that this is
mainly achieved through a personal process of signification as a multi-stage multifaceted representation
process. When changes in the environment occur, a person’s initial reaction will be to try to map the change
to a familiar situation, in order to minimise the change to his established harmony. In a second stage, if no
such simple mapping is possible, one will try to reframe and redefine the meaning of the change in such a
way that it makes sense, i.e. that it does not conflict with one’s mental harmony. Only when such a reframing
of meanings would be too drastic and no longer (socially) acceptable, will one need to adjust one’s system of
meanings, and will the mental harmony be (temporarily) disrupted.

In general, integrity is argued to lead to a sense of control, safety, self-efficacy and self-esteem and
to allow for a morally appropriate way of functioning in a manageable reality, as well as the development of
an attractive identity. Through its referral to the ‘organisation of human functioning’ integrity is similar to
concepts such as ‘identity’, ‘self’, ‘ego’ and ‘personality’, as I have mentioned before. However, a number of
differences exist in comparison to those other concepts. A main difference is the stress on the dualistic nature
of the integrity concept: on the one hand, it refers to the way in which elements of individual functioning are
integrated; on the other hand, though, it refers to the dialectical interaction of the individual with his cultural
environment. This dialectic interaction makes it (nearly) impossible to make a clear separation between per-
son and situation, since it integrates both individual and environment in a signifying, representational proc-
ess. The dualistic nature of integrity – or mental harmony – is reminiscent of the structuration concept, which
is also based on a dualistic premise, namely that human actions are both enabled and constrained by social
structures, but that these structures are the result of previous human action. In a similar sense, human think-
33
The discussion of signification very much resembles the discussion of organisational semiotics (Stamper, 1996; Stamper et al.,
2000) on page 90, especially with regard to the representational norms that limit the possible meanings of signs.
34
(Pinder, 1998) This process is similar to the constructionism which I discussed in the paragraph on sensemaking in organisations
on page 93 and in the paragraph on meaning in organisations on page 61.
35
Autopoesis is defined as a permanent and structurally coupled adjustment of a living system to its given environment and its
continuous systemic reproduction (Maturana, Varela, & Cohen, 1980).

113
ing is enabled and constrained by existing mental structures – integrity – which have been constructed
through previous mental activity.

H7: Integrity is achieved and preserved through an individual multi-stage signification

process, which entails – amongst others – subjective judgements of person-
environment fit
H8: Mental harmony is achieved when an individual perceives an adequate degree of
integrity
H9: Mental harmony leads to a sense of mental well-being

Hypotheses 7-9 again summarise the argumentation above. When one applies these hypotheses to
information technology, it can be argued that computer-based information systems form an integral part of
an individual’s integrity, and that they have been given a place within the individual’s niche through a
process of signification. This signification process is partly determined by the individual’s needs portfolio as
exemplified by the two different types of users described above.

5. Lack of mental harmony and its relation to stress

While adequate integrity is argued to lead to mental well-being and health – and also to good per-
formance – whereas inadequate integrity is stressful. Inadequate integrity can be the result of some environ-
mental change that has not been successfully incorporated into one’s integrated self-concept. Three forms of
inadequacy have been determined30: the first one consists of an underdevelopment of integrity, the second of
infringements on or losses of integrity that have not been counteracted by adequate coping activities. The
third type consists of reactions evoked by stress reactions, which then become stressors in their own right. In
a work context, underdevelopment of integrity occurs when a task has too little to offer to the task performer
in terms of challenges and goal attainment, and/or when the task places too high demands on the task per-
former. While underdevelopment of integrity is related to the task itself, infringement or loss of integrity is
related to the task environment. Since the task environment is an integral part of the niche that one lives in, it
is usually highly familiar, and can be screened almost automatically for changes that demand attention.
When a task environment is disturbed, disrupted or changed, this leads to interference with the cognitive
processes necessary for ongoing task performance, which may in turn activate an emotional process which
further interferes with adequate cognitive functioning and which may lead to loss of control over task per-
formance.

It is argued that underdevelopment of integrity occurs when there is a chronic misfit between an
individual’s needs and abilities on the one hand, and the environment’s supplies and demands on the other.
In a context of organisational research, the environment is often limited to the realm of the organisation, but
in my analysis I will also look at elements of the wider environment, such as the relation between work and
family, or the area in which one lives, that can account for the underdevelopment of integrity. I have linked
the measurement of this part of mental harmony to the person-environment fit literature36 within work
psychology. In the empirical part of the research, I try to directly determine individual needs, environmental
supplies and demands, and the degree of misfit between demands and abilities, while the degree of misfit
between needs and supplies is established indirectly.

Infringement or loss of integrity, on the other hand, occurs when the task environment – or the wider
environment – changes and disturbs the situated semi-automatic mental processing. This type of change is
argued to occur when major organisational changes are implemented, or when other major changes in an
individual’s environment occur. Due to the drastic effect of this type of changes, they are often experienced
as ‘not making any sense’, and they disturb mental harmony. They cannot be integrated in the individual’s
system of meanings, and are therefore potentially very strong stressors, since they imply a major change in
the person’s integrity.

36
Person-environment fit theory (Edwards et al., 1998) was discussed in Chapter 3 on page 52 and in Chapter 4 on page 87.

114
 H10: Inadequate integrity is caused by
(a) person-environment misfit, or
(b) major changes in the environment
H11: Perceived inadequate integrity is stressful

Applied to organisational information systems, the hypotheses above would imply that information
technology that does not fit with the individual’s needs and abilities will be a cause for stress. For example,
an individual with a high need for control over his own activities will perceive an information system that is
used to control his activities as a misfit, which may in turn be perceived as stressful. Another type of
inadequate integrity occurs when major changes are made to the IT niche that an individual has created for
himself, for example through the implementation of a radically new version of a software tool.

6. Mental harmony, stress and change

Change can turn a state of mental harmony – which leads to well-being and health – into a state of
temporary or enduring disharmony which can in turn give rise to strains and stress, which can eventually
lead to health problems. However, change can also turn a state of mental disharmony – such as a misfit
caused by too high or too low demands – into a state of mental harmony by removing such a misfit, either
through a change in the abilities of the person, or through a change in the environmental demands placed on
the person. In fact, the theory argues that a person will always try to establish or re-establish a state of mental
harmony, a state where the person subjectively perceives a fit with his environment.

In order to illustrate this concept, I want to introduce an adapted version of the U-curve37. The U-
curve in Figure 48 illustrates the relation between subjective perception of person-environment fit, and har-
mony vs. stress. The vertical axis represents the degree of mental strain, while the horizontal axis represents
the subjective perception of the difference between person and environment. When an individual perceives a
fit between himself and his relevant environment, adequate integrity has been established, which results in a
state of mental harmony, the area at the lowest point in the curve, where the person (P) is represented as
equal to the environment (E): P=E.

Stress

Strain
Harmony

P< E P = E (Fit) P> E

Figure 48: Adapted version of the U-curve representing the relation between subjective person-environment fit and
harmony, strain and stress.

When there are one or more perceived imbalances, the individual may experience strain. Once a cer-
tain threshold is exceeded, this strain is experienced as stress. In a sense, well-being and stress are extremes
on a scale. On that scale, the position of the thresholds between well-being, strain and stress will be different
for each individual. What's more, they can also depend on the exact environmental parameter that causes
strain, on the general health condition of the individual, on the synchronous presence of several imbalances,
etc. In line with the crucial role of subjectivity in the experience of strain and stress, I want to argue that
stress is not only caused by a perceived high degree of strain, but also by strains that last over an extended
period of time or strains that are not envisaged to end within a foreseeable future. The circle lying on the
curve represents a ball that can roll on the curve, symbolising the tendency of the individual to maintain or

37
I introduced the U-curve in the discussion of stress as person-environment (mis)fit (on page 52 ff.).

115
(re)establish mental harmony. The ball indicates a hypothetical individual, who is positioned above the stress
threshold, due to the environment being ‘smaller than’ himself, e.g. because the environment places too low
demands on the person, or because the environment fails to supply the needed job security, i.e. the person’s
needs are larger than what the environment can supply (leading to frustrated needs), or the person’s abilities
are larger than what the environment demands (leading to boredom or demotivation).

As argued above, the mechanism that gets the ball to move is change, in the individual, the environ-
ment or both. The different conceptualisations of organisational change that were discussed in the previous
chapter (p. 94 ff.) can be applied here. In the case of episodic change, a sudden large change in the environ-
ment occurs, causing sudden and sharp movement on the horizontal axis, and thus leading to major shifts in
the strain level of individuals who are involved in the change. Whether or not this leads to perceived strain or
stress depends on the position of the ball on the curve before the change started. For example, the individual
represented by the ball in the figure is currently in a state of stress, due to his needs not being fulfilled or
abilities not being used. If the change that occurs implies that the individual’s environment will supply more
needs or make better use of the person’s abilities, this individual may move from a state of stress to a state of
mental harmony. However, episodic change will more often cause infringement of mental harmony, in view
of the disturbance of the status quo. As argued, individuals tend to maintain and enhance their mental har-
mony, so any abrupt change will disturb this normal process. Moreover, whatever the starting position of the
individual on the U-curve was, sudden changes in strain levels are often accompanied by strong emotional
reactions, which can become stressors in themselves.

Continuous change, however, is argued to trigger a completely different reaction in individuals’

levels of mental strain, due to the functioning of the continuous social signification process that is an integral
part of mental harmony. Minor changes in the environment are normally ‘absorbed’ by this continuous
signification process. They may be accompanied by a certain change in individuals’ mental strain levels, but
they will not usually rise above the stress threshold, although this is again a matter of personal differences, as
some people are so dependent on stability that even minor changes will cause substantial increase in strain
levels. As argued in the discussion on organisational change, continuous incremental change can in the long
run lead to major shifts in organisational functioning. The same is argued to apply to individual signification
processes, in the sense that minor shifts in meanings that are accepted by the relevant others, may slowly
build up into major shifts of meaning after substantial amounts of time.

Based on the arguments above, I posit that it is important in organisational change processes to
determine the degree of mental (dis)harmony of the individuals that will be involved in the change, in order
to try and establish potential stress reactions, or the strength of resistance to the change.

The arguments in this section can be summarised by the following general hypotheses:

H12: Mental harmony and stress (mental disharmony) are extremes on a mental strain
scale, where mental strain is a measure of perceived inadequate integrity (person-
environment misfit)
H13: An individual will try to maintain or (re)establish mental harmony, i.e. an individual
will try to prevent mental strain
H14: Changes on the mental strain scale – reductions or increases of strain – are caused
by environmental change and/or personal change
H15: Sudden (dramatic) changes in mental strain level cause disruptions in integrity and
can become stressors in their own right

Again, these general hypotheses can be applied to information systems and especially IS implemen-
tation projects. Information technology is part of the niche that an individual creates, a niche that one tries to
keep as intact as possible. Attempts at preserving the integrity of one’s niche have often been perceived by
researchers in information systems, who have suggested that this ‘resistance to change’ is a major obstacle
for the successful implementation of IS. Indeed, changes to existing information technology are perceived by
users as potential causes of disruption of their niche, disruptions that can cause a (temporary) increase of the
mental strain level.38 The organisational change literature has often reported that any type of organisational

116
change will cause a state of increased mental strain, at least temporary. However, I want to argue that
changes in information technology (like any organisational change) may eventually reduce mental strain if
they cause existing person-environment misfits to disappear. For example, a new information system that
allows production workers to have more control over their own work will remove a misfit for those individu-
als who have a need for control over their own activities.

Hypothesis H14 is rather interesting, especially when studying the literature on occupational stress.
One will often find individually-oriented remedies for cases of occupational stress, in the sense that
companies send individuals on courses where they are taught to handle stress individually. However, stress is
often caused by organisational factors, especially when more individuals within a group or organisation are
under stress, such as during and after the introduction of new information technology. In such cases,
organisational change initiatives (e.g., work redesign) will probably be more successful than individual
change initiatives (e.g. assertiveness training).

This final argument needs to be modified, in the sense that research38 has shown that ‘participation’
plays an important role in organisational IS implementation projects. In a study of seven implementation
projects, the highest levels of strain increase were found among those employees with the least participation
during the implementation process. This indicates that it is important that employees be involved in the
redefinition of their work when new IT is introduced.

7. Harmony, motivation, job satisfaction and organisational commitment

In Chapter 3 above (on pages 57-59) some arguments were presented that linked concepts of person-
environment fit to such ‘outcome’ variables as motivation, job satisfaction and organisational commitment.
From a mental harmony perspective, these arguments seem very sensible. When a person subjectively per-
ceives a balance between himself and the different relevant elements of his environment, it seems straight-
forward that this mental harmony will lead to a general sense of satisfaction (and not only job satisfaction).
Moreover, when the sense of harmony includes a perceived fit between personal needs and abilities, and or-
ganisational supplies and demands, a high degree of commitment to the organisation is to be expected. Fi-
nally, when the individual’s job and his organisation fit his needs and abilities, a high degree of job motiva-
tion can be expected. It is important to note that these three variables are usually treated as quite different
behavioural constructs caused by different individual and organisational parameters. From a mental harmony
perspective, however, they are still different constructs, but generally caused by the same sense of mental
harmony. In fact, satisfaction, commitment and motivation are three independent measures of the degree of
mental harmony that an individual perceives.

With regard to commitment, I also want to argue that studying an employee’s commitment to his
organisation alone is rather too restricted. Because an individual is member of a number of social collectives
– also within the organisation – with different and sometimes conflicting interests, it is important to study his
commitment to those other social groups as well. In order for an individual to establish an integrated mental
harmony, the different relevant parts of an individual’s social environment need to fit together. Through
studying the individual’s commitment to these different parts of his social environment, one can establish the
importance of work as part of the individual’s functioning.

H16: Mental harmony leads to high (job) satisfaction

H17: Mental harmony leads to high (organisational) commitment
H18: Mental harmony leads to high job motivation

38
(e.g., C. Korunka et al., 1993)

117
8. Harmony and the perception of organisational-level concepts
An important argument concerns the relation between subjectively perceived mental (dis)harmony
and the individual’s perception of organisational-level concepts, such as climate, formalisation, or employee
participation in decision making.39 It was argued that individuals live in their own niche, and that the process
of signification is quite important for maintaining the integrity of human functioning. A certain biasing or
filtering of information is important and necessary in this respect. Each individual construes as it were his
own subjective world model. In that context, I want to argue that the state of individuals’ overall mental
harmony is important in the way they perceive their surroundings. In fact, the dualistic nature of integrity
makes it impossible to separate individuals from their situated environments. Therefore, it is impossible to
determine a causality relationship between mental (dis)harmony and the perception of the organisational
environment. Keeping this in mind, I want to argue that individuals who perceive adequate mental harmony
will have a rather positive perception of the climate and culture within an organisation, while individuals in a
state of mental strain (disharmony) will perceive the climate within the organisation more negatively.

The reasoning behind this argument is that an individual’s perception of his mental harmony
provides the backdrop against which evaluations of both the self and the environment are made. I want to go
as far as to say that the state of one’s mental harmony even filters the physical perception of new
information. For instance, if an individual is in a state of mental disharmony caused by a bad relationship
with his superiors, this individual will apply a specific filtering of all information that he receives from
management, for instance by not registering positive messages but only the negative ones. The individual’s
mental state will bias his sensory, representational, processing and evaluating apparatus, but this need not be
a permanent state of mind. In fact, it may only be temporary, if the mental disharmony is only temporary. On
the other hand, if a state of disharmony lasts for a fair amount of time, this biasing may become accepted by
a cultural group or sub-group and it might lead to permanent forms of information filtering, which could also
be labelled prejudice. This perceptually and cognitively biased view of organisational-level constructs will of
course be partly determined by an individual’s needs portfolio. If, for example, an individual needs a high
degree of freedom to make decisions in his work, but is in a state of mental disharmony, he may perceive the
organisation as more formalised or centralised than he would when in a state of mental harmony. Moreover,
for some individuals this subjective perception will not be limited to intra-organisational characteristics, but
also apply to the perception of the fit between the organisation and its environment.

H19: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived integrity and his
perception of his environment, including characteristics of his organisation

9. Harmony and individual attitudes towards technology

A similar signification process occurs in relation to an individual’s attitudes towards (information)
technology40. At a first level of signification – the task environment – the individual’s overall state of mental
harmony will determine how he perceives organisational technology as a part of his environment. For
instance, if a person is in a state of mental disharmony, his perception of organisational technology may be
rather negative, as in “These machines never work the way they’re supposed to.” Similarly, if – as in the
example above – an individual has a rather negative perception of management, a decision to introduce new
technology, will probably get a rather negative reception, mainly because it is a management action, in the
sense of “What are they up to now?” This general attitude towards technology will influence any decision to
implement new technology, even before the individual knows what its aims and purposes are, even before he
knows whether it will suit his needs and/or abilities.

At a different level of signification – the task itself – the acceptance of new technology will be de-
termined by the influence that the technology is expected to have on the person’s needs and abilities (mis)fit.
For instance, if new IT is expected to supplement an individual’s current job with a certain degree of deci-
sion making, and if the individual has a need for a certain degree of control, the new technology may well
get a positive reception, as in “Finally, I get some more control over my own activities.” In this case, the
technology partly solves an existing misfit, and may thus contribute to a state of mental harmony. However,
39
Often referred to in the literature as PDM, participatory decision making.
40
Technology in this case is defined rather narrowly as: advanced tools and machinery used to perform complex jobs.

118
if the same individual perceives the new information technology as an extra tool for external control by his
supervisors, further reducing his decision making possibilities, the new technology may well be rejected, and
if it cannot be rejected, it will add to the individual’s perception of mental disharmony and may be a cause
for strain and stress. A similar process at this second level of signification is related to an abilities-demands
misfit. If a person believes that his abilities do not fit the abilities needed to work with technology, he will
perceive new technology as a possible threat to his mental harmony.

H20: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived integrity and his
perception of organisational technology

10. Overview of the CHARISM model at the individual level-of-analysis

Before moving to the specific role of information technology in this theoretical model, I want to try
to summarise the theoretical model that has been developed so far, the static part of which is graphically rep-
resented in Figure 49 below. Not all the aspects that have been discussed can be represented in one diagram,
so one needs to bear in mind that it is a simplified representation that is limited to the most important con-
cepts and relations of the theory. Moreover, only the static part is represented, because the graphical repre-
sentation of temporal events is quite difficult, and it would make the diagram – which is quite complex in the
first place – unintelligible, and therefore useless.

Person

Physical social environment

Physi cal
Harmony

Needs Abilities entities

Subjective mental

IT
representation

Events

Social
NS-fit DA-fit Signification
Reference
& perception
Integrity Group
Work Organisation
Supplies Demands
Stress

IT IT
Needs Abilities
Environment IT IT

Figure 49: Graphical representation of the CHARISM model on the individual level-of-analysis.
NS-fit stands for Needs/Supplies fit, DA-fit for Demands/Abilities fit, and IT for Information Technology.

Firstly, the theory posits a major separation between the subjective mental representation of the self
and the world that an individual constructs through situated interaction with a select group of relevant others
– the subjective world – on the one hand, and the physical social environment on the other. The subjective
mental representation consists of a model of the self, which includes perceived needs and abilities but also
emotions, values, etc. The subjective mental representation also contains a mental representation of the
environment – both immediate and wider – in which the individual lives and which contains supplies and
demands, but it also contains other immaterial entities such as values and emotions, and more material ones,
such as organisations, machines, tools, money, books, etc. Finally, the subjective mental representation of the
individual contains a perception of the degree of fit between the different perceived aspects of the self and
the environment.

119
The other main entity in the figure is the physical social environment – the objective world41 – that consists
of all physical and social entities and events that exist outside the individual. The figure shows only a few
partly overlapping entities, both physical and social, and focuses on the work organisation. The processes
that connect the subjective to the objective world are signification and perception, two processes that cannot
be separated, since signification is dependent on perception for establishing the existence of entities and
events, and perception is dependent on signification for establishing the socially agreed meanings of the per-
ceived entities and events.

Secondly, both individuals and organisations are argued to have – amongst others – sets of needs and
abilities. There are complex signification and perception processes involved in the exchange of needs and
abilities between these entities. On the individual level, the subjective mental representation contains a sub-
jective perception of the abilities of the environment, which are perceived as possible supplies for the indi-
vidual’s needs. It also contains a subjective perception of the needs of the environment, which are perceived
as demands that the environment imposes on the individual. These two perceptual relations are represented
by the dash-dot lines at the bottom of the figure. The broken lines at the top represent the actual exchange
relation of needs and abilities, i.e. the organisation’s abilities fulfil individual needs and individual abilities
fulfil organisational needs. The figure only shows the needs and abilities of the work organisation, but there
are of course other organisations and entities that provide supplies and impose demands on the individual,
such as family, friends, leisure organisations, religious organisations, but also shops, supermarkets and other
entities that can provide supplies. I will return to the needs and abilities of organisations in section C of this
chapter. It needs to be mentioned here that individual needs and abilities influence each other in the sense
that a lack of relevant abilities may prevent an individual from fulfilling growth needs, or in the sense that a
surplus of abilities can not be used in a work situation, so that the ‘need to use one’s abilities to the full’ can
not be satisfied.

Thirdly, the theory posits that needs/supplies fit and demands/abilities fit are two important
constituents of integrity. Needs/supplies fit occurs when the supplies from the environment meet the needs of
the individual at that specific point in time. Demands/abilities fit occurs when the individual’s abilities fit the
demands that the environment poses. The arrows that lead to the two fit concepts are unidirectional, because
the subjectively perceived needs and supplies are regarded as inputs to a mental function that compares the
inputs and ‘calculates’ the degree of fit. There are other elements of integrity that have not been represented
in the figure, such as the role of task environments – degree of control, predictability, etc. – which partly
determine the sense of coherence and general fit that constitute integrity. Moreover, the dynamic nature of
integrity, fit, person and environment have not been represented in the figure either, but as said above, a
diagram is always a simplification.

Finally, the figure illustrates the argument that integrity determines whether an individual perceives
mental harmony or stress, which are represented as two extremes on a scale. The position of the individual
on that scale is a function of the degree of adequacy of his integrity – or general fit of the environment with
the individual. Since integrity has been defined as the semi-permanent system of relevant assumptions,
meanings, images, skills, resources, etc., an adequate integrity consists of a socially acceptable, integrated
and consistent system of meanings. This adequate integrity constitutes a sense of mental harmony, a
subjective perception of the self as being meaningful within its social and physical environment. On the other
hand, inadequate integrity occurs when the system of meanings is not integrated or consistent, in other
words, when there are entities or events that do not fit in, that do not ‘make sense’ in a person’s view. In this
situation, mental strain – or in the extreme mental stress – is perceived by the individual. And while mental
harmony is argued to be perceived as a feeling of well-being, reflected in mental states of satisfaction,
motivation and commitment, stress is argued to be reflected in dissatisfaction on the one hand, and lack of
motivation and commitment on the other, which can eventually culminate in health problems.

41
As argued above, the objective world is actually to be understood as a multi- or inter-subjective world, i.e. a world containing
entities that are perceived to exist by the majority of individuals.

120
 strain level
S
H
t

Figure 50: Temporal characteristics of harmony-stress scale, where ‘H’ indicates mental harmony
and ‘S’ indicates the stress-threshold of a particular individual.

To conclude this overview, Figure 50 illustrates the temporal characteristics of the harmony-stress
scale. The sharp peaks in the graph indicate – mostly environmental – changes that cause substantial in-
creases in the strain level of an individual. The graph also illustrates the argument that individuals will try to
maintain or (re)establish a sense of mental harmony. The strain level always descends towards the zero level,
and this happens through the process of signification, or through personal or environmental adaptation.

B. Information technology and the individual

There are two main parts to the argumentation of the role of information technology within the
CHARISM model on the individual level-of-analysis. The first one contains arguments related to the role of
existing IT within the work organisation, whereas the second one is related to the development and
implementation of new organisational IT.

1. Existing IT and mental harmony / stress

When taking a snapshot of individuals in modern organisations, one will find that the majority of
those individuals are to some extent confronted with information technology that is being used within the
organisation, either directly42 or indirectly. Indirect confrontation refers to such situations as those where
employees receive a pay-slip in the form of a computer printout, for example, or situations where blue-collar
workers in a manufacturing context receive a printout of a construction plan or a product design on the basis
of which they need to do their work. In both examples, the organisational members do not directly use a
computer in the performance of their tasks, yet there is quite a difference between the two situations. In the
first example, the influence of IT on the individual’s integrity is only minor, because it is not part of the
person’s task or task environment. In the second example, however, information technology has a direct
influence on the individual’s task, since it is a part of the task environment. In normal circumstances, the
performance of the computer system will be a minor part of the task background with little relevance to a
person’s integrity. However, when the computer system does not function normally, or when changes are
made to the system, it will become a relevant part of the task environment, and will thus have an effect on
the individual’s integrity. In cases of breakdown, IT may be a cause of mental strain or stress, especially
when the breakdown prevents the normal flow of activities in an individual’s job.

Moreover, even in situations of indirect confrontation with IT, the technology will be subjectively
assessed through a socially determined signification process. In the second example, for instance, the
information technology may be perceived as a management tool that distributes tasks and commands to the
workers without the latter having any control over their own tasks. However, in the same example IT may
just as well be considered as a great tool that finally allows workers to see the product they are making.
These two perceptions of the same technology are quite different and will affect the individual’s integrity in
a completely different way. The causes of these different perceptions can be very diverse: a different (sub-)
group culture/climate, different historical signification processes, or the (temporary) presence or absence of
individual mental harmony, to name a few.
42
A recent Danish study from 1999 (Burr, 2000) shows that 60% of the Danes used computers at work (in direct confrontation), and
that more than 1 out of 6 uses IT during at least ¾ of their working day.

121
 Direct confrontation, on the other hand, refers to situations where employees (need to) use a com-
puter in their organisation. However, as was the case with indirect confrontation, one can imagine a number
of different situations of use. On the lower end of the scale, one finds those situations where the use of com-
puters is only marginal and not relevant for task performance. An example of this is a situation where em-
ployees use a computer terminal to check in and out of their jobs in the morning or evening, or to report
overtime. At the high end of the scale are those situations where employees use a computer for the major part
of their working day, and cannot perform their job without the information technology, situations which have
become typical of quite a number of clerical jobs in the service industry. Between these two extremes one
will find quite a number of different degrees of direct confrontation with different degrees of IT impact on
task performance. In the literature, the employees that are directly confronted with information technology
are usually called users or end-users, irrespective of the degree in which they use IT in their daily activities.
As is the case in situations of indirect confrontation, technology will be subjectively assessed through a
socially determined signification process.

From the few examples given above, it seems quite relevant to distinguish not only between direct
and indirect confrontation with information technology, but also between different types of use or non-use
situations. More specifically, in my theoretical framework ‘relevance for task performance’ is argued to be
an equally important distinction as direct or indirect confrontation, due to the possible impact of IT on the
individual’s task performance, and thus on integrity. The distinction is especially relevant for projects of
organisational technology-based change, in the sense that also people who are only indirectly confronted
with IT can become stakeholders in the change process.

H21: Organisational information technology is a major part of an individual’s mental

harmony when IT has relevance for task performance, i.e. when the individual’s task
or immediate task environment is contingent on the functioning of IT

The distinction between direct and indirect confrontation with organisational IT, on the other hand,
is related to the demands / abilities fit aspects of mental integrity. Individuals who are only indirectly
confronted with IT do not need to have information technology skills, since they do not use a computer
themselves. In situations of direct confrontation on the other hand, the organisational environment places IT-
related demands on the individual, and specific IT skills become part of the demands/abilities fit relation.

H22: Organisational IT is an integral part of an individual’s perceived demands/abilities

fit relation, when the individual is directly confronted with IT, i.e. when he (needs
to) use IT in the performance of her organisational tasks

In the remainder of this argumentation, I will focus on situations that are at the high end of both
scales, i.e. those situations where there is direct usage of computer systems and a medium to high relevance
for task performance. The argumentation is also valid for the other situations, but the expected influence on
integrity and thus on the individual’s position on the strain scale will be smaller. In Figure 49, small rectan-
gles in the entities in the theoretical model indicate where IT plays a role in those situations where employ-
ees (need to) use computers in their tasks. Existing literature on psychological aspects of information sys-
tems use has mainly focussed on the abilities/demands aspects of the model, i.e. on whether individuals have
the abilities needed to work with IT and on how misfits between individuals’ abilities and organisations’ de-
mands are possible sources of stress, computer anxiety, and the like. In the theoretical framework described
above, work organisations perceive a certain need for information systems in the performance of their activi-
ties, and try to fulfil that need partly through their employees’ IT abilities43. An individual employee will
subjectively perceive those organisational IT needs as environmental demands, and he will try to match those
demands with his IT-related abilities. In this sense, information technology abilities and demands will be
elements in determining abilities-demands fit or misfit, and will thus have an impact on the individual’s per-
ception of integrity, and of his position on the harmony-stress scale.

43
This argument will be elaborated in the discussion of the organisational level of the theoretical model.

122
 A novel element in my theoretical framework is that IT-characteristics can also act as supplies to
some individual needs, such as social needs, the need for self-esteem, esteem or self-actualisation (growth),
and even the need for job security, depending on the type of IT systems individuals (need to) use in their
work organisation. For instance, e-mail or other communication tools can be used to increase social contacts
between people at different remote locations. User-driven planning and scheduling systems can increase an
individual’s control over his tasks and/or fulfil his need for self-esteem. Yet other tools require creativity and
can thus fulfil a person’s self-actualisation needs, while one’s general ability to use the technology can in-
crease the esteem of one’s colleagues or superiors. From these examples, it may become clear how IT can be
instrumental in fulfilling an individual’s needs. Moreover, at a more general level, an individual’s techno-
logical proficiency (ability) can enhance his chances of keeping a job, or getting a new job, and may thus be
instrumental in fulfilling the need for job security in an environment where technological proficiency is
much wanted. In the last example, an important argument of the theory becomes clear, namely that an abili-
ties-demands fit or misfit only becomes important for establishing integrity when there is an underlying need
that can be satisfied. Indeed, it is argued that a demands-abilities misfit only disturbs integrity if “meeting
certain demands is required to receive supplies, or if demands are internalized as goals or motives to the per-
son.”44 In line with this argumentation, it is imperative that IT characteristics be described in terms of indi-
vidual demands and needs, so as to be able to determine the degree of fit between an individual and the in-
formation technology that he uses. The characteristics described in the final section of Chapter 2 above (pp.
38-42) are a first attempt at this.

characteristics
Organisational
I
N

Work Organisation
Supplies

T
Needs

E
Person

G
R
I Characteristics
Demands

of existing IT
Abilities

T
Y

Figure 51: The role of existing IT in the perception of mental harmony. Information technology has characteristics
that may be perceived as offering supplies for individual needs, and others that may be perceived as placing demands
on an individual’s abilities.

Figure 51 illustrates the role of existing information technology in the establishment of mental integ-
rity. The dashed grey arrows that point from organisational characteristics to individual supplies and de-
mands refer to the discussion from section A above, where it was argued that environmental characteristics
act as supplies and demands to an individual. The full grey arrows illustrate the argument that was just made,
namely that IT characteristics also act as demands and supplies to an individual in a work situation. The ar-
gument can be summarised in the following statement:

H23: Organisational information technology places demands on individuals that use it,
but may also satisfy an individual’s needs

44
(Edwards et al., 1998, p.31)

123
2. Perception of the fit of existing IT with other organisational parameters.
While the majority of examples and arguments in the previous paragraph concern the perception of
the role of information technology in individual task performance, and focus on a limited self-directed per-
ception of information technology – “What does IT mean to/for me?” – this paragraph wants to argue for the
existence of another perceptual process. Since an individual is part of a work organisation, he will also have
a subjective view on organisational characteristics such as the organisational culture and climate, the cen-
tralisation of decision making, the level of supervisory control, the formalisation of rules and procedures, the
strictness of hierarchical communication, etc. The perception of those characteristics is an integral part of the
individual’s system of meanings and his integrity (as illustrated by the dashed arrows in Figure 51 above).
Information technology – as part of the organisational technology – is also a characteristic of the organisa-
tion and its functioning, and it will thus be part of the individual’s system of meanings (as indicated by the
full grey arrows, cf. the discussion in the previous paragraph).

An important remark in this context is that not all individuals think on such an organisational level.
For some types of employees, the set of broader organisational characteristics is not part of their immediate
situated niche, and is not something they are concerned about because it does not affect their niche within the
organisation or their immediate tasks. It is part of the larger environment, which only becomes explicit when
a change happens that disturbs their niche. I argue that it is the individual’s needs portfolio that will partly
determine whether or not organisational issues are part of the individual’s system of meaning. For example, a
person who only tries to satisfy basic needs within his work organisation, will not feel a need to be
concerned with the complexity of organisational characteristics as long as the latter do not interfere with his
niche or integrity. This type of individual can be called an ‘organisational minimalist’, i.e. someone for
whom the organisation is limited to his own routines and a limited group of colleagues and supervisors. On
the other hand, a person that tries to fulfil growth or esteem needs in his work will more likely be concerned
with organisational characteristics and their internal fit, since those characteristics need to be dealt with if he
is to grow within the organisation. This second type of individual can be called an ‘organisational
contributor’. I will return to this distinction later in the discussion of different types of organisational
stakeholders, and limit the current discussion to those individuals that are not organisational minimalists.

I want to argue that an individual must perceive an internal fit between the characteristics of the
organisation, in order for his system of meanings to be integrated and consistent. For instance, an
organisational member will perceive an inconsistency in an organisation that wants employees to show some
initiative and be more self-managing, but at the same time has a high level of supervisor control. Such an
inconsistency does not make sense in the perception of the individual, and it will prevent the creation of
adequate integrity until it is resolved in reality, or reframed and redefined through a process of signification,
which may result in the individual concluding that the organisation does not really want him to be more self-
managing at all. In the figure, this first type of fit is illustrated by the double-pointed full arrows between
organisational characteristics (marked as Fit 1), and the large ‘perception (1)’ arrow at the top of the figure.

124
 Fit 1
)
ti on (1
Perc ep

characteristics
Organisational
I
N

Work Organisation
Supplies
T

Needs
Person E
G
Perception (2) Fit 2
R

Characteristics
I

Demands

of existing IT
Abilities

T
Y
Perc ep
ti on (3
)
Fit 3
Figure 52: Information technology plays an integral part in an individual’s perception of the degree of fit between
different characteristics of the work environment.

Individuals will in a similar way try to match characteristics of existing IT systems with other organ-
isational characteristics, and judge the degree of (in)consistency. For instance, if an organisation has a posi-
tive and open climate where individuals work rather autonomously and with a low degree of management
control, yet has information system tools that are used in a strict and supervisory manner, there is a clear in-
ternal inconsistency. These two contradictory organisational characteristics are incompatible to the individ-
ual, and do not make sense. The contradiction will again need to be resolved, either in reality, or through a
process of social signification, before an adequate integrity can be construed. In Figure 52, this subjective IT-
organisation fit is represented by the dash-dotted arrows (Labelled Fit 2), together with the large ‘Perception
(2)’ arrow in the middle of the figure. As in the previous paragraph, it is necessary that information technol-
ogy and work organisations be described in commensurable terms when one wants to determine fit between
IT and organisation, i.e. IT characteristics need to be described in terms that allow comparison with organisa-
tional characteristics.

Finally, individuals that are in contact with more than one computer-based information system will
have a subjective perception of the degree to which these multiple systems fit with each other. For most or-
ganisational members, this kind of fit perception will often be less important and also unconscious, unless a
breakdown occurs and a serious misfit surfaces. Therefore, the perception of this third fit relation (at the bot-
tom of Figure 52) is represented by an arrow with broken lines, marked ‘Perception (3)’. However, for IT
professionals these misfits are more important, since the misfits are part of their immediate task and task en-
vironment. Internal IT misfits can be regarded at a technical level (e.g. incompatible operating systems) and
at an organisational level (e.g. control-oriented system usage combined with low level of content restrictive-
ness). It is especially the latter type of misfits that are relevant in the context of this theory.

The arguments that relate to ‘organisational contributors’ is summarised in the following hypothesis:

H24: For some types of individuals the perception of existing organisational

inconsistencies – internal and mutual misfits within and between organisational and
IT characteristics – will prevent adequate integrity.

125
3. New IT and mental harmony / stress
The development and implementation of new information technology – be it a major upgrade of ex-
isting technology, a new application of existing technology, a new off-the-shelf software tool, or a com-
pletely new custom-made application – adds an extra dimension to the discussion. Firstly, the development
of new technology implies an organisational change, and any change will cause a disruption of the integrity
process. Indeed, it has been argued that any organisational change will cause an increased level of mental
strain within the organisation. Secondly, because information technology entails its own complete and con-
sistent set of meanings, which may be quite different from those that have been socially established by the
individuals within the organisation, it may particularly disrupt ongoing organisational signification proc-
esses. Thirdly, when analysing new information technology one needs to determine the degree of (mis)fit not
only with individual and organisational characteristics, but also with existing information technology, which
makes it an even more complex process. And finally, the new IT will influence the individual’s perceived fit
relations, both within organisational characteristics and between organisational and IT characteristics.

The first issue refers back to the argument that any environmental change will disrupt an individual’s
existing niche, or interrupt an ongoing signification process and thus cause an increase in mental strain, as
stated in hypothesis 14. That increase in mental strain may often be only temporary, but it is something that a
change agent needs to take into account. Research45 has shown that the increase in strain is lower for projects
where users have actively participated in the project, a result that can be explained within this theoretical
framework. If an individual has been actively involved in the signification process that precedes the
development and implementation of new information technology, he has learned the intended meanings of
the new technology and has started his individual signification process. In such cases where users have
participated in a change project the remaining strain is often related to the distinction between intended
meanings and outcomes of the new technology and the actual meanings and impacts that it gets in the real-
world organisational context, and to the fact that the new technology will still disrupt existing routines. The
impact will also be stronger for individuals who have developed very strong routines, and who have thus
constructed a rather inflexible niche for themselves. Other individuals who prefer changes and challenges
will probably show a weaker increase in mental strain.

H25: Implementation of new IT will initially increase an individual’s level of mental

strain, but this increase will be stronger when the individual can not participate in
the development and implementation process

The second argument – that the completed set of meanings embedded in information technology
may disrupt organisational signification processes – is related to the first, in the sense that it also deals with
signification processes. When an organisation implements off-the-shelf software, or when envisaged users of
new technology have not been involved in the development and implementation process, individuals are
confronted with technology that incorporates signification processes from other (groups of) individuals and
other organisational and environmental situations. Within actor-network theory46, this phenomenon was
referred to as the irreversibility of artefacts as ‘frozen organisational discourse’. Indeed, for the developers of
a piece of software, the artefact will to a certain extent entail its own complete and consistent set of
meanings, which will probably be different from those of its users.
This argument does not necessarily imply that one ‘should not’ implement off-the-shelf software
tools, but it does constitute a warning to change agents not to oversee potential conflicts between different
systems of meaning. One way of dealing with such conflicts is exactly to involve envisaged users of the
software in a very active and participatory fashion, so that potential conflicts can be discovered at an early
stage. Resolving such conflicts will often involve a major signification effort on the part of the new users
(since the software tool often is irreversible), and such signification processes can be quite lengthy and
demanding. In cases of extreme conflict, it may be advisable to choose more extreme solutions: one might
drop the implementation project altogether, look for other software tools, or find new users.

45
(C. Korunka et al., 1993; Christian Korunka, Andreas Weiss, & Bernd Karetta, 1993)
46
cf. the discussion on page 73 in Chapter 4.

126
 H26: Implementation of ‘uncustomisable’ information systems may cause strong significa-
tion conflicts and may thus cause strongly increased mental strain

The third argument – that one not only needs to analyse the degree of misfit with individual and
organisational characteristics, but also with existing information systems – refers again to the irreversibility
of the new technology. Individuals in organisations have gone through a number of signification processes
with regard to existing information systems in their organisations, and have established a set of meanings
concerning those technologies. It is important for a change agent to establish the degree to which the new
information technology is consistent with that set of meanings. If the new technology is consistent with
existing meanings, the chances of acceptance are probably relatively large. However, if the new technology
refers to a different set of meanings than the existing technology, the signification process will be
significantly more difficult. For instance, if an individual is used to rather restrictive information systems in
his organisation, then he has a certain preconception about the role of information systems in his
organisation. Therefore, the introduction of a new system that affords more freedom of interaction may
introduce a conflicting meaning, and a more complicated signification process is initiated.

Before moving to the fourth argument, an important remark needs to be made. When an organisation
introduces new information technology in a group or a department, intended users may choose whether or
not they will use the technology, even if the use of the technology is obligatory. Research within IS literature
often tells stories of intended users who either do not use the new IT, use it wrongly, or even intentionally
sabotage it. These reactions can be caused by a number of possible factors, such as group-based resistance to
the new system, perceived inadequacy of the new system, perceived irrelevance of the new system to the
individual or group, or conflicts between existing meaning systems and the new system. In such situations,
signification processes at the individual and group level play a major role in the decision – conscious or
unconscious – to refuse to use the system as intended. In the remainder of the discussion, I will – again for
the sake of simplicity – assume that intended users will use the new system as it was intended by its
developers.

The fourth argument is actually a major argument within the theoretical model. It states namely that
the introduction of new IT will change existing fit relations for those individuals who use the new system,
and that these changes within the individual’s mental integrity occur on a number of levels. Firstly, new IT
will influence an individual’s perceived demands/abilities fit relation, because it adds new environmental
demands to the relation, which may cause misfit. This misfit will usually be temporary, and will often be
solved by the individual’s acquisition of new skills through training courses. However, if the individual
perceives a large discrepancy between his existing abilities and skills and the new abilities and skills, the
misfit cannot simply be solved by training courses alone, because large disturbances of the individual’s
harmony often cause a major stress reaction. For example, an individual who knows that he needs to learn to
use a new system if he wants to keep his job, but who at the same time perceives the system as far too
complex for his abilities, will become very stressed. On the other hand, in some situations the information
system will cause an individual’s skills to become outdated,47 which is another type of abilities / demands
misfit that leads to an increase in mental strain.
Secondly, new IT will influence the individual’s perceived needs/supplies fit relation. When the new
technology fulfils a need that was not satisfied before, an existing misfit may be solved. However, when the
new system has characteristics for which there is no need, or removes an existing need fulfilment, a misfit
may be created. For example, if an individual with a high need for freedom and self-control is confronted
with a system that is used to monitor and control his activities, this system supplies a characteristic for which
there is no need. However, if the same individual is confronted with a system that gives him more control
over his own activities, that system satisfies an existing need and may resolve a misfit.
Thirdly, at a somewhat different level, new IT can influence the organisational characteristics and
the IT characteristics that an individual perceives. For example, when a new information system is
introduced that allows decentralised decision-making, a user may perceive a general decrease in
organisational centralisation. On top of that, the introduction of the same information system may lead the
individual user to perceive an inconsistency between the existing organisational level of decision
centralisation and the characteristic of the new IT system, which allows decentralised decision making.
47
e.g., Orlikowski (1993) describes a case where the implementation of CASE tools (computer-aided software engineering) caused
developers’ detailed programming skills to become obsolete, which in turn caused the developers to resist the new software.

127
 H27: Implementation of new organisational IT may change individual fit relations – by
placing new demands, making abilities obsolete or by satisfying different needs –
and may thus be a potential cause of mental strain
H28: Implementation of new organisational IT may influence individual perceptions of
(in)consistencies at an organisational level – internal and mutual misfits between
organisational and IT characteristics, and may thus be a cause of mental strain

The complex interactions between new IT on the one hand, and the individual and his perception of
the organisation and its information technology on the other are represented by the thick black arrows in
Figure 53. New IT is argued to have an impact on the individual’s needs and/or abilities (arrows A), on the
organisational characteristics (arrows B) and the IT characteristics (arrows C) that the individual perceives.
Indirectly, new IT will also impact on the individual’s perception of the fit amongst organisational character-
istics (Perception 1), between IT and organisational characteristics (Perception 2), and on the perceived fit
amongst IT characteristics (Perception 3).

Fit 1
)
ti on (1
Perc ep

characteristics
Organisational
I
N
Supplies

T
Needs

Organisation
E
Person

G
Perception (2) Fit 2
R

Characteristics
I
Demands

of existing IT
Abilities

T B
Y A
Perc ep
C
ti on (3
)

Fit 3

New IT

Figure 53: The complex impacts of new information technology on individual integrity.

128
4. Flexible IT can accomodate different types of users
Figure 53 shows only unidirectional arrows, implying that new IT is an unchangeable entity, which
of course it does not need to be. If the organisation or its employees have an influence on the development of
the new information system, its characteristics can be adapted in order to obtain a better match with individ-
ual or organisational characteristics, and to prevent major signification conflicts.
Most off-the-shelf software tools allow a certain degree of customisation by their users, but these
customisations often only affect the user interface and not the fundamental functionality of the tools. I want
to argue that a more fundamental flexibility or tailorability of software functionality will allow information
technology to be adaptable to the needs and abilities of the specific users. This also applies to software that is
developed for or adapted to the specific needs of the organisation in which it is to be used. Indeed,
organisations need to take into account that different users will have different needs and abilities, and that
they therefore should (a) develop information systems accordingly, or (b) be prepared for different reactions
by different (groups) of people.

An example of more fundamental tailorability is the following. Consider the IT system that needed
to be developed in the BlueTech project at Omicron, which was the starting point for this PhD. The aim was
to allow workers to do the planning and scheduling of their work more autonomously. Currently, that work is
done by an old mainframe system that optimises the production according to the criteria of optimal use of
production machinery and raw material, while exceptions are handled by a supervisor, leaving individual
production workers as mere order-followers. Based on the theory described above, I want to argue that this
way of working will suit some production workers, while not suiting a number of others. In order to suit a
greater number of workers, one could develop an IT-based planning and scheduling system that also allows
for more user-directed planning processes. This system could be based on intelligent optimisation
techniques, but the application of these techniques would be dependent on the users’ choice. Some user
groups may choose to let the computer system continue to do all their planning and scheduling and just
continue to follow orders, while others may choose to let the computer make a preliminary plan and then
adapt it to their needs. A third kind of user group may choose to do part of their planning themselves and let
the computer optimally fill the blanks in their planning, while a final group may choose to do their complete
planning themselves and then let the computer system evaluate their plan in order to look for contradictions
or conflicts with other production groups. All these scenario’s are possible with a tailorable information
system that is based on the same functional core, but with a number of different user modules. The advantage
of this kind of system is that it can be adapted not only to individual needs and abilities, but also to different
organisational needs. Moreover, it can also be used to assist in a process of gentle organisational change. If
an organisation plans to move from top-down decision making to employee empowerment, and is reluctant
to make the change abruptly, this type of flexible software allows the organisational, managerial and training
processes to proceed more gently without disturbing optimal production.

129
5. Relating the mental harmony framework back to the IS literature review
It is interesting at this stage to look back at some of the research discussed in Chapter 2 above, before
moving to the organisational level of the theory. The links to the psychology literature and to organisational
theory have been made throughout the argumentation, because the argumentation built on those contribu-
tions. This was not the case for the IS literature, so it seems appropriate to briefly relate the individual-level
model to the IS literature in order to illustrate the integrative aspects of the mental harmony theory.

The Ang & Pavri survey of IS impacts (on page 19), for example, named a few areas at the individ-
ual level where IT has been found to have an impact.48 A first group of issues concerned the impact of IT on
user satisfaction, job satisfaction, productivity, organisational climate, work attitudes and user expectations.
The theoretical model that I have developed has also discussed most of these parameters, but from a more
holistic perspective, in the sense that all the parameters have been related to the processes of integrity and
signification. A second important issue in the survey article was that the direction of the impact was not quite
clear, i.e. that it was not clear whether the organisation influences the IT or vice versa. In my theoretical
model, this issue is related to the distinction between customisable and non-customisable software. For the
first type, an interactional matching perspective is taken, namely it is argued that the signification processes
within the organisation and those within the IT development team are to be integrated to obtain adequate in-
dividual integrity. For the second type, the non-customisable technology, the impact is unidirectional in the
sense that the IT has reached a stage of irreversibility and will therefore necessarily impact the organisation.
However, the nature of that impact is unpredictable: users may use the technology as intended, they may use
it in a different way, or not use it at all. Another major issue in the survey article was resistance to change, a
concept that has been thoroughly discussed and argued in the model. In fact, the concept of integrity and
adequacy of the individual’s niche are the basis for the whole model. Also the discussion on deskilling ver-
sus upgrading of individual users has been tackled within the framework of this model, where it is argued
that the impact of a system on an individual’s skills is contingent on the type of individual, the type of IS, the
organisational context of the system, and on the individual’s signification process. Finally, the mental har-
mony model also refutes one argument that is made in the Ang & Pavry article, namely that “IT results in an
increase in productivity, but at the expense of worker well-being, mental strain, lower self-esteem,...” I have
argued that the impact of a new system is again dependent on the type of individual, the type of IS, etc. In
some such situations, individual well-being will indeed be disturbed rather permanently by new organisa-
tional IT, while other situations may see an increase in user well-being after an initial period of increased
mental strain.
On a more general level, the authors argued that effective IT introduction implies considering
behavioural, psychological and social effects, an issue that has clearly been tackled by the mental harmony
model, which bridges between a number of research paradigms, as well as between two levels of analysis.

In Chapter 2 a number of contributions were discussed that dealt with psychological aspects of IS
development. A first group of contributions stemmed from the research area of human-computer interaction
(HCI), where three contributions were particularly relevant: activity theory, scenario-based design and par-
ticipatory design.49 Activity theory argues for applying psychological processes in the design of IT that are
similar to those presented in the mental model theory. The authors argue that the design of computer inter-
faces can only be evaluated in situations of real use, when a fit is established between the system and the
context in which it is used, and when the use of the computer can be characterised as semi-automatic func-
tioning in situations that are familiar to an individual. Scenario-based design, on the other hand, focuses on
developing a common real-world vocabulary between system analysts and prospective users, an issue related
to the signification processes, and the commensurability argument in the CHARISM theory. When the aim is
to achieve shared meanings, users and developers need to establish shared signification. This argument is
even more strongly advocated within the participatory design community, which argues that a system analyst
can only capture the complexity of the interaction between a computer system, a user and his context by ap-
plying ethnographic methods, and by becoming a part of the situation-of-use. All human activity is argued to
be 'situated' and a computer system must capture as many aspects of the use-situation as possible to be us-

48
(Ang & Pavri, 1994)
49
cf. Nardi (1996); Carroll (1995); and Suchman (1987), Greenbaum and Kyng (1991), respectively.

130
able. This is partly achieved by involving prospective users in a design project as much as possible, and not
only as information providers, but as co-designers and decision makers.
A second psychologically oriented contribution from the IS literature50 originated outside the HCI
area and looked at psychological determinants and effects of information technology. The author discerned
contradictory results with regard to job satisfaction, deskilling/upgrading, computer-related anxiety, cogni-
tive style and motivation, amongst others. She also developed a linear causal model of the determinants and
impacts of IT, but failed to find empirical support for that model. The mental harmony model again captures
most of these aspects, but tackles them from a contingency perspective, without inferring strict causal rela-
tions.
A third, specifically relevant contribution was the work by the Vienna group on the impact of new IT
on occupational stress51 that was mentioned in the discussion of the mental harmony model. The Vienna re-
searchers used the Karasek & Theorell model of occupational stress as the basis for investigating the relation
between new IT and stress. They found important differences between different types of applications, differ-
ent types of jobs (degree of routineness and monotony), and implementation style. Their results can easily be
integrated in the mental harmony framework, as discussed on page 126.

Finally, the mental harmony framework is clearly related to those contributions in the IS literature
that deal with organisational cognition and technological frames.52 The signification process, which has been
described as an individual and a social process of meaning creation, captures most of the arguments that are
made in those research contributions. Indeed, the mental harmony framework repeatedly stresses the
importance of individual perception and signification processes for an individual’s relation to his
environment, including its information technology characteristics.

Moreover, I will discuss the organisational cognition aspects of the mental harmony framework in
more detail in the next sections.

50
(Yaverbaum, 1988)
51
(C. Korunka et al., 1993; Christian Korunka et al., 1993)
52
[cf. \ Markus, 1984 #964; Robey, 1987 #927; Orlikowski, 1994 #290; Swan, 1998 #1267, discussed on pp. 27-29]

131
C. Organisational harmony

In this section, I want to argue that a similar theoretical model can be developed at an organisational
level of analysis, where no longer the individual, but the (work) organisation is the focus of attention. As in
the previous sections, I build a thorough argumentation at a general level because of the perceived wide
relevance of the theory, before focussing on the application of the theory to my research problem, the
development and introduction of organisational information systems. I feel that a thorough argumentation is
needed because the theory develops some novel ideas or combines existing ideas in an innovative way. At
each stage of the argumentation, hypothetical statements are formulated, and illustrative examples are
provided.

1. The organi-self
An organisation is a collective entity that consists of a collection of (heterogeneous groups of) peo-
ple. Definitions of organisations often mention that an organisation is not just a collection of people, such as
“shoppers at a supermarket who are there for their own individual purposes”53, but that an organisation has
goals and exists for a purpose, a purpose which – for the most part – is assumed to be shared by the organisa-
tional members. In the previous sections, I have argued for the individual differences between people in an
organisation – based on their different needs portfolios – and from that discussion one might conclude that
there is not always a shared purpose for participating in an organisation, since individuals will have different
need portfolios which they want to satisfy. Because of these – often large – differences, it is not always clear
why individuals with such different needs portfolios are members of the same organisation.
However, there is one minimal purpose which does seem to be shared by the large majority of
members of a work organisation, namely the organisation’s survival. Survival in a free-market context often
means that an organisation must make money and continue to be ‘healthy’ enough do so. The organisation’s
survival is related to the individual’s need to have a stable niche to live in, and the need to make money. In
fact, it is disturbingly often the case in work organisations that quite a number of people are member of the
organisation only because it allows them to earn money to buy the supplies they need to satisfy their
individual needs. This kind of purpose often leads to a low organisational commitment, which means that
quite a lot of organisational members will try and minimise the contribution they need to make in order for
them to continue being members and to continue getting a pay. This type of members could be called
minimal contributors or ‘passive’ members of an organisation. For such organisational minimalists, the
collective is often only an instrument or a vehicle that allows personal need satisfaction. However, for an
organisation to survive, it needs individuals of another type, namely those who find other purposes in being
member of a work organisation, who are committed to actively contributing to its survival. Typically, these
members will have other need portfolios than the passive members. One can often distinguish between these
two types of organisational members by studying the way they talk about their organisation, since active
contributors will use the pronoun ‘we’ when talking about their organisation, while passive members will
often use ‘they’.

The main problem when arguing for mental harmony processes at an organisational level is how ex-
actly one defines an organisational self. What or who is the mental agent that constructs its own subjective
world image, and that tries to make sense of its role within its environment, and thus to determine fit or mis-
fit between a number of characteristics? I want to argue that the organisational self is a function of the mental
processes of its main stakeholders, but also that the existence of a ‘self’ relies on a shared understanding
amongst stakeholders that is broader than just survival. This does not mean that there must be full agreement
within and between stakeholder groups regarding all issues, in fact such a full agreement would be very un-
productive, since it would result in a loss of dynamism within the organisation due to a lack of discussion
and disagreement. No, a shared understanding within and amongst stakeholder groups implies that there is a
minimal common perception of the main characteristics of the organisation, such as its current status and

53
(Burton & Obel, 1998, p. 3)

132
direction. This is what I want to label the organisational self: the common denominator of all relevant stake-
holders’ perceptions of the collective and its purposes and goals54.

Again there might be semantic confusion when using the concept of organisational self, since it
might be understood at an individual level of analysis as ‘that part of an individual’s self that is related to his
work organisation’. The latter conceptualisation of organisational self can be contrasted with for instance the
family-self, the spouse-self, the sports-club-self, the trade-unionist-self, the political-self, and so on. It has
been argued that people have different perceptions of themselves and show distinctive behaviours in each of
those contexts. To avoid confusion, I want to label the organisational self at the organisational level-of-
analysis the organi-self.

Definition:
The organi-self is the common denominator of all relevant’ stakeholders’ perceptions of the
collective – the organisation – and its purposes and goals within its environment

How the organi-self is constituted, i.e. which stakeholder perceptions and needs dominate the organi-
self will be different for each organisation. In most organisations, the organi-self is dominated by the
perceptions and needs of owners/managers, while in other organisations the organi-self is a more balanced
function of the perceptions and needs of owners, managers, employees and union representatives. Moreover,
the organi-self is a dynamic entity that is very sensible to changes and that will be quite different in different
time periods.

2. Identifying sense-making stakeholders

The next paragraphs discuss the role of the major stakeholders in the creation of an organi-self, and
in the sense-making processes that are part of the constitution of an organi-self. I make an analytical
distinction between internal and external stakeholders, although all so-called internal stakeholders are always
outside the organisation as well. In that sense, the organi-self is quite different from an individual self, which
is always purely internal to an individual, while an organi-self is both internal and external simultaneously.

a) Internal stakeholders
The stakeholders that are usually identified as ‘the organisation’, i.e. the ones that try to make sense
of the environment on behalf of the organisation, are the owners/shareholders (often represented by a board
of directors), and senior management, because they are usually the ones to initiate actions related to the
environment (decision-making). In this context, it is important to differentiate between owners and
shareholders, and between management and owners. In relation to the definition of an organi-self, the
presence of a handful of owners / founders / entrepreneurs is quite different from an anonymous – and
usually extremely large – group of shareholders. The former will identify to a large extent with the
organisation and will play a major role in the day-to-day perceptual and sense-making activities within the
organisation, while the latter will often only have an indirect link to the organisation through investment
funds, stock-brokers, analysts or financial institutions. Indeed, it will often be the case that shareholders do
not know that they are shareholders of a particular company, only that they own a share in a portfolio of
financial assets. Only the major shareholders are usually represented in a board of directors, and – even
though these board members will have a more direct identification with and interest in the organisation –
they will still be less involved than a founder-owner will. One may also argue that the role of senior
management is very much contingent on the type of ownership of an organisation. In organisations with a
founder-owner, management will often play an executive role, in the sense that their decisions and actions
are executions of decisions that were taken by the owner(s). In organisations with public shares, management
will usually be more involved in the actual decision making, with the board of directors confirming or
evaluating management decisions. In the former case, the crux of the environmental perception and sense-
making will be in the hands of the owner, in the latter case senior management will be the main sense- and
decision-makers.

54
This is similar to the concept of collective meaning (Smircich, 1983; Ericson, 2001): there is some overlap between the meanings
of several individuals, i.e. “meanings are shared in such a way that interaction can occur without the constant interpretation and re-
interpretation of meaning.”

133
 Owners and senior management are major stakeholders with regard to sense-making, because they
are the ones that are in the best position to interpret the wide environment of the organisation at an organisa-
tional level and to evaluate the demands and supplies of the environment. Moreover, they are often the ones
who perceive and formulate the needs of the organisation with respect to the environment.

Middle managers and supervisors, on the other hand, are in the best position to evaluate the abilities
and skills of the organisation, and to perform internally-oriented perception and sense-making activities.
Middle management’s role is especially important with regard to the perception of the organisation’s human
skills and abilities. They will be able to judge whether the organisational members can live up to the
expectations of management. They will also be the ones that have a good perception of the external
stakeholders of the organisation, such as suppliers and sub-contractors. In a sense, middle managers have a
crucial role as internal sense-makers, since they need to try to negotiate between senior management
representations of environmental demands and supplies, employee representations, and direct environment
perceptions, as well as try to develop a common signification process.

Another major group of stakeholders within work organisations are the non-managerial members –
the people that are often (rather disparagingly in my view) called human resources – and their
representatives, the trade unions. As the term resources indicates, organisational members have often been
perceived as mere suppliers to the organisation, as a bundle of skills and abilities that needed to be used to
the fullest (and otherwise neglected). This limited view on employees has recently started to change in
industrialised economies, due to a number of reasons, such as shortages on (parts of) the labour market, high
degrees of employee turnover, but also high stress levels and absence due to illness.
An awareness is growing for what I want to label human resource maintenance, i.e. the need to
continuously be aware of, evaluate and act upon changing individual and social needs among employees, so
as to avoid human resource breakdowns. The terminology suggests a clear parallel with the maintenance of
machinery and other expensive production equipment, which is regularly subjected to thorough maintenance
during off-hours, so as to avoid breakdowns. I have argued above that individual well-being is achieved
when individuals perceive a sense of mental harmony in their work, and that subjective perceptions of the
characteristics of the organisational environment are an integral part of this process. The way in which
(groups of) individual employees perceive the environment and try to make sense of it, will for a large part
determine if and how managerial decisions are perceived, interpreted and acted upon.
I want to argue that employees are vital internal sense-making agents for an organisation that wants
to achieve a high level of performance. It is argued in the literature that sense-making as an interpretative
process is necessary “for organizational members to understand and to share understandings about such
features of the organization as what it is about, what it does well and poorly, what the problems it faces are,
and how it should resolve them.” 55 If there is no such shared understanding between the (groups of)
members of an organisation, chances are much higher for managerial decisions to be misinterpreted, ignored,
or reacted against. However, individual members can also play a major role in externally oriented sense-
making, i.e. in perceiving the environment from an organisational perspective, especially in those areas of
the organisation’s activities where they are in direct contact with suppliers, customers, regulators, etc.
Especially in such situations, conflicts between different interpretations may arise, and may lead to problems
and loss of performance.

The staff representatives – typically organised in trade unions – play a somewhat different role in
organisational sense-making depending on the society in which the organisations operate. In Scandinavian
countries, for example, trade union representatives are elected into the board of directors, where they
represent the employees’ interests. In other European countries, employers and union representatives are
members of co-operation boards where major employment decisions, such as firings, need to be discussed
before they can be performed. The role of the trade unions in the mental processes of an organisation is
somewhat different from that of the individual employees. Trade unions representatives need to speak and
act on behalf of the majority of employees, but trade unions have often become regional or national
organisations in and of themselves, with their own sense-making processes, but also with their own goals,
which may be somewhat different from the employees’ goals. Moreover, union representatives are often
active contributors to the organisational survival, and may thus belong to a different type of individual than
the majority of their constituents.

55
(Feldman, 1989), as cited in (Weick, 1995, p. 5)

134
 What’s more, trade unions have historically grown in a political and conflict culture and that culture
is still dominant within quite a number of unions, resulting in signification processes which are sometimes
not adapted to the needs of new situations. For example, in the first months of 2001 there were major strikes
of teaching staff in Belgian schools, where the trade unions demanded better working conditions, i.e. extra
support staff and more time for extra-curricular activities, but also a uniform raise of 3%. It turned out that
the majority of teachers supported the first demand, but not the second. Moreover, public opinion was very
negative about the demand for a raise, because teachers are amongst the higher paid trade groups in the
country. However, the conflict between the unions and the ministry of education had culminated to a level
where neither party could give in, even when it became clear that there was no general backing for both
demands. In the end, it resulted in a situation where the teacher trade got even less esteem from the public
than before the strike. In general, the different culture of trade unions – which is often still very conflict-
oriented – has led to a reduction of their constituencies, especially in modern technology-oriented
organisations with their highly-trained staff. The different culture of the trade unions as organisations has
often led to the existence of sub-cultures within companies.

In general, the description of the internal stakeholders within an organisation supports the argument
put forward on page 85 above about the coexistence of the three perspectives on organisational culture,
namely the integration, differentiation and fragmentation perspective. The integration perspective focuses on
culture as a glue that holds the organisation together, the differentiation perspective views organisational cul-
ture as a collection of sub-cultures where consensus only occurs within sub-cultures, and the fragmentation
perspective views ambiguity and contradiction as pervasive. I want to argue that these three types can be dis-
tinguished in the description above. On the one hand, the existence of a common denominator of all internal
stakeholders’ perception and representation of the organisation can be perceived as an integrative argument.
On the other hand, the existence of sub-cultures, such as the trade unions within an organisation, are a differ-
entiation argument, since those organisational members that are also member of a trade union will have a
different perception of a number of organisational characteristics, a perception which is ‘biased’ by their un-
ion membership. Finally, I have stressed the individual signification process as a mix of individual meanings
and social meanings derived through interaction with relevant others, a process which will often lead to
fragmentation, and to individuals entertaining multiple conflicting meanings simultaneously.

b) External stakeholders
Apart from the internal stakeholders of the organisation (owners56, management, employees and
trade union representatives), there are a number of stakeholders outside the organisation, whose perception
of the organisation is crucial to the organisation’s existence, well-being and survival.

The most important external stakeholders are arguably the organisation’s customers, whose
perceptions and/or behaviour will have a major impact on the organisation and its sense-making processes.
Indeed, the customers’ perception of an organisation has become the number one driver of organisational
changes, especially in the service sector. Specialised departments continuously measure customers’
perceptions of product or service quality, customer satisfaction, etc. in order to continuously adapt the
organisation’s processes, activities and products to customer needs. The organisation tries to perceive itself
through the eyes of its customers, because it wants to continue supplying its products to its customers, in
order to continue to be profitable.

A second major group of external stakeholders are the organisation’s competitors, locally, nationally
and internationally. Their mutual perceptions of each other’s actions can play a major role in determining
sense-making processes. At this level of analysis, competitors belong to the group of the socially relevant
others who play a major, though indirect, role in the signification process. When making decisions or taking
actions, organisational members will try to predict how the competition will interpret the actions and react to
them. In another sense, competitors are directly influenced by the actions of an organisation, actions that can
be crucial in determining their own existence and well-being. In that sense, competitors do have a stake in
the actions of an organisation.

56
I have classified owners as internal stakeholders, even though they are less internal than managemers, employees and local union
representatives. Nevertheless, they are internal due to their representation in the major decision-making body within the organisation.

135
 Another important group of external stakeholders are the organisation’s suppliers and financiers. As
with competitors, it is the mutual perceptions that can play a role in determining organisational sense-making
processes, and the organisation and its suppliers and financiers are mutually dependent on each other for
their well-being. If financiers or suppliers have a negative perception of an organisation’s well-being, they
will not be very willing to invest more money, or supply more goods and services. They will first and fore-
most protect their own interests, and not their customer’s.

News media – financial and general – are another important external stakeholder, whose perception
of the organisation can influence the perception of quite some others, such as current members of the
organisation, potential new members, (potential) customers, (potential) investors, suppliers, or regulatory
bodies. Again, there is an important difference between privately owned organisations and companies whose
shares are on the market. The role of the media is much more important for the latter group, because the
survival of the company is partly dependent on the perception that investors have of the organisation, which
determines whether they are willing to pay for shares in the company or not. In addition, the perception of
investors is determined to a large degree by how external analysts and financial news media perceive the
organisation. However, in relation to information technology, news media play another special role, since
they can partly determine which technologies an organisation decides to invest in. Especially with regard to
IT, the managerial investment agenda is often characterised by trends created by ‘specialised media’.

Other external groups of stakeholders may also influence the perception of an organisation, but they
do not usually play a major role, although their influence should not be underestimated. Examples of such
groups are local politicians and organisations that depend on the organisation’s survival, sports clubs that are
sponsored by the organisation. Moreover, next to these external stakeholders, there are large social groups in
an organisational environment that influence the sense-making and signification processes in an organisation,
without being direct stakeholders. Examples of such groups are employer associations, cross-industry
forums, scientists and researchers, environmental activists, local, national and international politicians and
regulatory entities, religious organisations, etc. The list of these relevant others depends of course on the type
of activity that an organisation is engaged in and the complexity of the environment, but the list can be quite
long. The roles of these others are quite diverse: they may partly set an organisation’s agenda (e.g.
regulators, environmentalists) or they may contribute to the creation of the socially shared meanings within
an organisation (e.g. religious organisations, scientists and technologists).

c) Stakeholders and the organi-self

I want to argue that only the internal stakeholders contribute directly to the constitution of the
organi-self.57 It is only the internal stakeholders who can directly perceive and act on behalf of the
organisation, and who thus contribute to the organisational sense-making process. External stakeholders may
well influence the sense-making processes within the organisation, but they do so only indirectly, i.e. through
influencing the perceptions and sense-making processes of internal stakeholders. For example, customers
will hardly ever directly influence the activities of an organisation, but always through internal stakeholders,
such as the members of the customer relations, marketing or sales departments. They will perceive customer
needs and demands, interpret them from the perspective of the organisation, and introduce them into the
organi-self’s sense-making processes, where discussion and re-interpretation processes amongst the internal
stakeholders will integrate the customer perspective into the shared system of meanings.

3. Organisational needs – Needs-based typology

As argued in the first paragraph of this section, the different internal stakeholders have different
goals within an organisation, and these goals are often conflicting. It was also argued that the only organisa-
tional purpose that is shared by all internal stakeholders is the survival of the organisation. I want to argue
that – in a similar way as with individuals – organisations will need to fulfil a number of needs if they want
to survive. The behaviour of organisations is partly directed at fulfilling those needs. While some organisa-
tional needs are directed at immediate physical survival, others are more long-term oriented. As with hu-
mans, one can distinguish between a number of needs types, and between basic needs and higher needs (in-

57
Except in exceptional situations, such as when a court of law appoints commissioners to ‘sort out’ organisations that are in trouble,
for instance under the application of the so-called Chapter 11 in the U.S.A..

136
dicated by the dash-dotted line in Table 21). The table contains some examples of the different types of
needs that organisations may want to fulfil, and compares them to the individual’s needs discussed above.

I want to argue that positing the existence of organisational needs allows for interesting argumenta-
tion. One will for instance find that different stakeholders within the organisation have different perceptions
of organisational needs, such as when owners and senior management emphasise the need to extend and
grow, while employees and unions perceive the maintenance of a status-quo as most important, in order not
to lose their customer base. These different perceptions of the organisation’s needs will not only occur be-
tween stakeholder groups, but also within those groups. Although this may seem like stretching the compari-
son between humans and organisations too far, I even want to argue for the existence of organisational needs
portfolios. Each organisation will perceive itself as having some needs that are stronger than others. There
will probably also be a single need that is dominant within an organisation. How the needs portfolio is con-
strued and which need will be dominant at a given point in time, will be determined both by the internal poli-
tics within the organisation, and by the environmental contingencies at that point in time.

Table 21: Typology of human and organisational needs

Need types Humans Organisations

Using one's abilities, learning new Meeting its goals, using its resources,
Self-actualisation
things, making a difference learning, extending, growing

Being appreciated by self and relevant Being appreciated by its members,

(Self-)esteem
others customers, competitors, etc.

Being accepted by and part of a social Being part of a network of organisations.

Belongingness
group Being accepted by social communities.

Feeling physically and psychologically Feeling secure, protected. Maintaining a

Safety
safe and unthreatened stable relation to environment

Having enough food, drink, money, sex, Having enough money, physical space,
Physiological
etc. to survive electricity, information, etc.

The organisational needs portfolio can also be used as a basis for a typology of organisations. In fact,
I want to argue that existing typologies of organisational strategy can be interpreted as based on different
needs portfolios. For instance, the Miles & Snow typology of strategy, that was briefly outlined on page 34
above can be used as an illustration of this argument. Defender organisations, for example, focus on their
existing competencies and abilities, and do not search for new opportunities outside their domain. They de-
vote their attention mainly to the improvement of existing processes. The defender type can be argued to
have a needs portfolio where safety and physiological needs are dominant. Prospector organisations, on the
other hand, are usually looking for new opportunities and new ways of doing things. They stress the need to
keep changing with – or ahead of – their environment. The prospector type can therefore be argued to have a
needs portfolio where self-actualisation needs are stronger than basic needs of safety.

Based on this argumentation, the following individual-level hypotheses can be ‘transplanted’ to the
organisational level:

H29: Organisations have needs that they want to fulfil in order to survive and remain
healthy
H30: Different organisational need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing between
different types of organisations
H30a: Organisations with different need portfolios will generally prefer different roles and
tasks within their environment, i.e. different needs portfolios are reflected in
different strategic orientations

137
 H30b: Organisations with different need portfolios have different attitudes towards infor-
mation technology
H31: An organisation’s needs portfolio is partly contingent on characteristics of its
environment
H32: An organisation’s needs portfolio is related to its skills and abilities

Hypothesis 30a is important because it links the mental harmony framework to the work on multiple
contingencies that was discussed in Chapter 4, where organisational strategy is one of the contingencies in
the model. Hypothesis 30b, on the other hand, establishes a first link between organi-self and information
technology. The statement is based on a similar reasoning as at the individual level of analysis, namely that
for instance an organisation with a high level of safety and physiological needs – defender organisations –
will be reluctant to make large changes to their existing systems, which are typically quite large and rather
rigid because defender organisations tend to specialise in those things that they are good at.
The argument that an organisation’s needs portfolio is partly dependent on its environment (H31) is
self-evident. For example, an organisation with a strong growth need – prospector organisation – that gets
into a financial crisis due to environmental circumstances, will show stronger physiological needs, at least
until the financial crisis is over.
Finally, the last hypothesis is rather obvious in the sense that an organisation’s abilities and skills
limit the possible needs that an organisation can satisfy. For example, an organisation that has no research
activities is limited in the product development needs (a type of self-actualisation need) that it can satisfy.

4. Organisational integrity
In a similar way as an individual, an organisation relies on its environment to satisfy its needs. On
the other hand, the environment is often too complex, unpredictable and dynamic for an organisation to
understand completely. Indeed, since organisations are collectives of humans with a limited span of attention
and mental processing, organisations will – a fortiori – also have a limited span of attention and processing.
This tension between dependence on the environment and limited mental processing capacity also leads
organisations to function in socially shared situations that enable organisations to fulfil recurring needs in
standardised ways. Examples of such socially shared situations at an organisational level are the use of
accounting standards and annual reports for reporting financial status of organisations, or the use of specific
monthly or weekly processes for paying employees, etc. Some of these socially negotiated processes have
been formalised in national and international business legislation or legal contracts between organisations,
but others are more informal. Socially situated functioning also contributes to the reduction of environmental
complexity inside organisations. Techniques used to achieve this reduction are for example formalisation of
situated action in procedures and rules, division of authority and attribution of limited competence areas to
different functional groups. Organisational socialisation then becomes a matter of getting to know the
organisational situations, both the internally and the externally oriented.

From a situational point of view, organisational functioning is also characterised by the development
of a relatively stable niche to live in. The repetition and stability that is inherent in such a life is argued to
enable an organisation to develop skills to handle known situations at a more or less ‘automatic’ level of
mental activity. In this way, the organisation can focus attention on what is deemed important at that
moment, such as the optimal performance of existing processes, the solution of task-specific problems or
further development of organisational skills and abilities. As argued at the individual level of the theory:
“Living in their own niche provides [organisations] with a semipermanent system of relevant assumptions,
meanings, images, goals, rules, templates for (interpersonal) procedures, skills, resources, and equipment.
This system gives them in each situation a small number of neatly arranged options, each with their own set
of priorities. Moreover, the system is organized in such a way that its borders can be guarded by some
habitual, almost automatic scanning of a number of set-points. As soon as some disturbance, threat, or
infringement is detected, its nature as well as the need for and availability of coping patterns are assessed.
The system enables [organisations] to make plans, act in a meaningful and morally responsible way, and
control their functioning in these situations and their outcomes in a socially acceptable way. We call this
system "integrity of [organisational] functioning," or for short: "[organisational] integrity".”58

58
(Adapted from Schabracq & Cooper, 1998)

138
 An important remark here is that integrity will again be experienced quite differently by different or-
ganisations. Some organisations will strive for – and fit in – completely structured environments, whereas
others need more space, challenges and variation in order to achieve well-being. “In both cases, however, the
intended outcome is an environment adapted to their specific configuration of abilities, values, and needs,
which is conducive to well-being and health.”58 At this stage of the reasoning, organisational integrity is
linked with needs, values and abilities, which are partly responsible for the different ways in which organisa-
tions try to achieve an adequate integrity of functioning.

Of course, from an organisational perspective it is important that the relevant internal stakeholders
agree about the nature and characteristics of the niche that the organisation identifies and develops for itself.
This agreement usually exists to a fairly high degree, in the sense that owners, management and employees
often agree upon the major activities, markets, and products of the organisation. When there are
disagreements between these stakeholders, they usually pertain to the organisation’s goals, methods, or
resources.

The arguments above can be summarised in the following statements:

H33: Organisations construct a relatively stable niche to function in, a niche which
consists of socially developed situations that reduce environmental complexity and
allow semi-automatic functioning
H34: Through socially situated functioning a semi-permanent set of meanings and
routines is created, the so-called ‘integrity of organisational functioning’
H35: An organisation’s needs portfolio will partly determine the nature of its niche and
integrity

The niche concept (H33) also applies to organisations’ attitudes towards information technology, in
the sense that organisations will develop routines in their use of information technology. Use of information
technology – as a set of tools for functioning in an environment – is situationally determined. For instance,
many organisations use only a limited part of the available information technology, namely that part that they
really need and that they are used to. Other organisations have a more exploratory nature and will try to look
for more advanced functionality that can optimise their usage of information systems. Again, for each
organisation the nature of its needs portfolio will play a role in determining the size and nature of its IT
niche. In summary, an IT-related niche is determined by the environment’s demands, the organisation’s
needs and abilities, but also by the social conventions that govern the use of IT, for example within the same
industry.
When one applies the concept of integrity to the two types of organisation, one might imply that
‘computer technology’ has a quite different meaning to each of them. For the first group, computer
technology may be perceived as overly complex and over-hyped technology that they only want to use as
long as they can automate and optimise existing processes, and need not care about the overwhelming and
ever-increasing complexity of all currently available technology. To the second type of organisation,
information technology is interesting multi-functional technology that they want to investigate in order to
find new opportunities. For the first group information technology is ‘a necessary evil’, while the second
group may perceive it as a way to open up new opportunities.

5. Signification and organisational harmony

At the organisational level, the concept of integrity as a system of meanings is equally related to a
process of signification, through which organisations apply representations to their own activities and those
of other actors in such a way that the situational and enacted meanings of these activities are shared. Part of
the signification process is directed at conveying shared meanings, while another part of the process is
directed at ‘manipulating’ shared meanings by redefining, reframing or modifying them in order to fit the
purposes of the social activity at hand. Organisational signification can entail quite complex processes, with
quite specific systems of meanings.
For example, when a sales department communicates with a potential customer, the customer will
apply his ‘sales-talk’ filter, i.e. a specific way of interpreting meanings that is typical of sales situations in his

139
specific industry, which entails a number of signification conventions. An experienced customer will know,
for example, that he is being manipulated into buying specific products, and will in turn convey specific
meanings in order to try to manipulate the sales department. Interestingly, both partners in the signification
process are usually aware of the fact that they are using shared meanings and at the same time modifying
them to fit their purposes.
Next to its two externally oriented mechanisms – conveying shared meanings and 'manipulating'
shared meanings – signification also entails an inward oriented mechanism where redefinition and reframing
are used to help an organisation construct, adjust, refine and defend its integrity by applying meanings that
serve its purposes.

However, due to the collective nature of an organisation, there will be multiple signification
processes occurring simultaneously, and these will not always coincide. Therefore, organisational
signification can lead to different subjective representations of the external and internal events and entities,
thus effectively leading to the construction of different subjective realities. Through a process of
organisational politics stakeholders can negotiate shared, socially acceptable meanings, but the same process
can also lead to a culmination of contradiction and conflict, both internally in the organisation and in relation
to other actors in the environment. However, when a certain degree of organi-self has been developed,
behaviour will arguably be perceived in function of how the organisation interprets objective situations as
opportunities for maintaining and enhancing the self-concept.
The process of organisational signification will ideally evolve into an integrated, consistent set of
meanings, shared by the major internal stakeholders, which serves the organisation’s goals, is open for
evolution and negotiation and, at the same time, is attuned to the prevailing meanings and needs of the
relevant others (external stakeholders, competitors, etc.). I want to label this state organisational harmony, a
fragile state of being that is reached when the organi-self’s perceived needs, values and abilities are matched
with the multi-subjectively perceived supplies, values and demands of the social and physical environment,
in short when the organisation’s presence in its environment ‘makes sense’ to the internal stakeholders.

Organisations will try to defend their integrity by avoiding disruptions and infringements in their
semi-permanent system of meanings. Avoiding disruptions in integrity is mainly achieved through a multi-
step process of organisational signification, similar to the individual-level process. When changes in the
environment occur, an organisation’s initial reaction will be to try to map the change to a familiar situation,
in order to avoid changes to its established harmony. In a second stage, if no such simple mapping is
possible, the organisation will try to reframe and redefine the meaning of the change in such a way that it
makes sense, i.e. that it does not conflict with the organisational harmony. Only when such a reframing of
meanings would be too drastic and no longer (socially) acceptable, will the organisation need to adjust its
system of meanings, and will the harmony be (temporarily) disrupted.
In general, integrity is argued to lead to a sense of control and safety, and to allow for a morally
appropriate way of functioning in a manageable reality, as well as the development of an attractive identity.
Moreover, I want to argue that organisational harmony is related to stability, in the sense of actor-network
theory. A harmonious organisation can be said to resemble a super-set of relatively stable actor-networks of
aligned interests, where the diverse sets of needs and abilities of the actors are reduced/translated so that they
fit with the agreed purpose of the organi-self.

H36: Organisational integrity is achieved and preserved through a multi-stage

organisational signification process, which entails – amongst others – multi-
subjective judgements of organisation-environment fit
H37: Organisational harmony is achieved when an adequate organi-self perceives an
adequate degree of organisational integrity
H38: Organisational harmony leads to organisational well-being

I want to clarify these hypotheses with some arguments illustrating that organisational IT forms an
integral part of organisational signification in a number of ways.
Firstly, information technology partly determines the production, gathering and flow of organisa-
tional information and thus influences the signification process. For example, an organisation with highly

140
content-restrictive information systems59 will be severely restricted with regard to the kind of information
that it can gather. New types of information, which do not fit into the pre-defined categories in the system,
cannot be stored or processed and thus can not become part of the shared organisational knowledge. For in-
stance, imagine an organisation whose financial department only keeps track of European stock markets in
its investment decisions. If a major event happens in the US, such an event usually also has an effect on the
European market, but this organisation will only find out when it is too late. The situation can be compared
to a sailor who uses advanced binoculars with night vision to scan his environment (the sea that he is sailing
on), but whose binoculars can only look north and east, but not south and west. In this sense, all organisa-
tional information systems determine the perception and signification processes within an organisation.
Secondly, information systems do not only limit the perception and representation of information,
they also add – often unwanted – meanings to organisational signification processes. This occurs because IT
systems have often been developed for contexts that are different than their situations-of-use (remember the
discussion on frozen organisational discourse within actor-network theory) and they are the products of
completely different signification systems and have become systems of meanings that may again disturb
ongoing signification processes. For instance, imagine an organisation that chooses to adopt an ERP system
that was developed for one specific product type with its specific characteristics. Such a system will inherit
all the meanings of the specific product type for which it was developed, and may introduce signification
conflicts in an organisation that produces a different product or service.
Finally, an organi-self has a perception of its IT-related needs and abilities as part of its set of
characteristics, a perception that is an integral part of the overall judgement of organisational integrity.
Therefore, if an organi-self is in a state of organisational harmony, this argument implies that there are no
perceived IT-related misfits within the organisation.

6. Lack of organisational harmony and organi-stress

As with individual integrity, organisational integrity is argued to lead to organisational well-being
and health, which are reflected in good performance and a relative stability in functioning. On the other
hand, inadequate integrity will be experienced as stressful to an organisation. As on the individual level,
three forms of inadequacy can be determined: underdevelopment of integrity, infringement of integrity, and
reactions evoked by stress reactions. The first type of inadequacy - underdevelopment – is argued to occur
when there is a fundamental and chronic misfit between an organisation’s needs, values and abilities on the
one hand, and the environment’s supplies, values and demands on the other. For example, one might argue
that most of the dot.com companies that have emerged in the 1990’s have suffered from chronic
underdevelopment of integrity, since most of those companies have not succeeded in becoming profitable
businesses, notwithstanding the large investments in their activities. I want to argue that these organisations
have an underdeveloped organisational integrity and suffer from organi-strain.
The second type – infringement or loss of integrity – occurs when a familiar organisational
environment is disturbed, disrupted or changed, and when this disruption has not been counteracted by
adequate signification activities, i.e. internal organisational learning or change. This type of environmental
change is experienced as not making sense to the organisation, because it cannot be simply integrated in the
organisation’s system of meanings. Changes in the organisational environment are therefore potentially very
strong stressors, since they often imply major changes in the organisation’s integrity.
The third type of inadequate integrity occurs when stress reactions – such as for example major
organisational change as a reaction to expected environmental change – become a source of organi-stress in
their own right, due to their unnecessary disturbance in stable organisational sense-making processes. For
instance, if an organisation performs a major restructuring and downsizing operation because it wants to free
financial resources in order to prevent a possible hostile take-over, this organisational change can become a
major source of organi-stress in its own right.
The latter two types of inadequate integrity are clearly related to the theory of dynamic strategic fit,
discussed in Chapter 4 above60, where two types of dynamic strategic misfit were discussed, insufficient stra-
tegic change and excessive change. The former situation occurs when strategic change is needed to establish
dynamic strategic fit, but does not occur. The latter situation arises when no strategic change is needed to
establish fit, but the strategic organisational change does occur. Each of the three types of inadequacy will be

59
Content-restrictive was defined as ‘not allowing users much freedom in adding information to an information system’ (p. 40). In a
sense, all information systems are to some extent content-restrictive, because they are formalised algorithms, but there are different
degrees of content-restrictiveness.
60
Cf. the discussion of the recent paper by Zajac, Kraatz & Bresser (2000) on page 81

141
perceived as a (temporary) loss of organisational harmony, and will therefore be experienced as an organi-
strain.

In relation to the concept of inadequate organisational integrity, I want to argue for the existence of
an organi-strain scale with organi-stress and organisational harmony at its extremes. The same diagram as at
the individual level (Figure 54) can be used to illustrate the concepts of strain and stress as areas on an or-
gani-strain scale that are related to different subjectively perceived degrees of organisation-environment
(OE) fit, where the circle again symbolises a rolling ball that illustrates the tendency of an organisation to
establish, maintain or re-establish a sense of organisational harmony. Organisational harmony occurs when
(a) an adequate organi-self has been established, and (b) the organi-self perceives relative fit – i.e. lack of
major misfit – between organisational characteristics on the one hand, and between the organisation and its
environment, on the other.

When there are one or more perceived misfits, or when no adequate organi-self has been established,
the organisation will subjectively experience strain, which is characterised by a temporary raise of ‘blood
pressure’, i.e. a temporary increase in non-automatic activity within the organisation.
When the level of organi-strain crosses a subjective threshold, it will be experienced as organi-stress.
This is argued to happen when (a) the degree of strain is perceived as extremely large – caused by one or
more fundamental misfits – but also when (b) strain lasts over an extended period of time or when (c) the
strain is not envisaged to end within the foreseeable future.
Organi-stress can cause organisational health problems, just as individual stress can cause health
problems. Health problems at the organisational level will be reflected in declining turnover, declining
customer-base, declining profits, downsizing, high employee turnover, strikes, etc.

Organi-stress

Organi-strain
Harmony

O<E O = E (Fit) O>E

Figure 54: Adapted U-curve representing the relation between subjectively perceived organisation-environment fit
and organisational harmony, organi-strain and organi-stress.

As argued above, the mechanism that gets the ball to move is change, either in the organisation or in
the environment, or both. The existence of organi-strains (disharmony) may not require specific action on the
part of the organisation, if one expects the environment to change. In fact, some companies deliberately
create organi-strains in order to prepare for expected changes in the environment. However, if there is no
environmental change to be expected, one can only resolve organi-strain (and especially organi-stress) by
initiating an organisational change process. In the event that an organisation is in a situation of high organi-
stress, I want to argue that there may be a need for an episodic change initiative in order to restore harmony.

Indeed, the different conceptualisations of organisational change can again be applied, i.e. episodic
and continuous change. Whether or not change will lead to a decline of the organi-strain level will depend on
the starting position of the ball, and the direction of the change. Moreover, a change in one organisational
characteristic will often cause misfits in other parts of the organisation, since organisations are tightly
coupled systems of meaning, where one single change may have a domino effect and cause spreading
changes.

There is a fundamental difference between the two types of change, in the sense that episodic change
will typically show this domino effect and cause increased levels of organi-strain in areas that need not have
been affected by the original stressor, because dramatic change will often cause major and multiple in-

142
fringements on organisational integrity. Moreover, dramatic change will often be accompanied by strong
emotional reactions within the organisation, which can become stressors in their own right. Therefore, epi-
sodic change is only adequate in cases of high organi-stress, i.e. in those situations where there is an extreme
and fundamental misfit. In other situations, continuous change is argued to be more appropriate from an or-
gani-strain perspective, because it can make use of the signification process that should normally be able to
‘absorb’ minor changes in the organisation or the environment.

Based on these arguments, I posit that it is extremely important in processes of organisational change
to establish the existing degree of organisational (dis)harmony, as perceived by the different constituents of
the organi-self, before introducing a new potential source of disharmony, such as a new information system.

H39: Inadequate organisational integrity is caused by

(a) inadequate organi-self (no common perception among internal stakeholders)
(b) perceived organisation-environment misfit, or
(c) major changes in the environment or the organisation
H40: Perceived inadequate organisational integrity is stressful

Applied to organisational information systems, hypotheses H39 and H40 above would imply that an
environmental demand that does not fit with the existing IT needs and abilities will be a cause for stress. For
example, the change to the year 2000 – the so-called Y2K problem at the end of the previous century –
caused a misfit with existing IT systems in most organisations in 1999. Another type of inadequate integrity
occurs when major changes are made to the IT niche that an organisation has created for itself, for example
when an organisation’s customers or suppliers change to a new version of a shared information system.

H41: Organisational harmony and organi-stress (organisational disharmony) are

extremes on an organi-strain scale, where organi-strain is a measure of perceived
inadequate integrity (organisation-environment misfit)
H42: An organisation will try to maintain or (re)establish organisational harmony, i.e. an
organisation will try to prevent organi-strain
H43: Changes on the organi-strain scale – reductions or increases of strain – are caused
by environmental change and/or organisational change

Again, these general hypotheses can be applied to information systems and especially IS
implementation projects. Information technology is part of the niche that an organisation creates, a niche that
it tries to keep intact. Therefore, an organisation will perceive environmental changes as potential causes of
disruption of its niche. Imagine, for example, a traditional production organisation that has a niche based on
top-down hierarchical decision-making, including the use of control-oriented information systems to monitor
its employees. If such an organisation is faced with a changing labour market where manual workers want to
work autonomously and participate in daily decision-making, the organisation will have a hard time
attracting new workers. This misfit between organisational abilities and environmental demands will cause
an increased level of organi-strain, which can only be solved if the organisation drastically changes its niche.
There are a number of options that can be chosen: the organisation may relocate and look for another labour
market, or the organisation may change its structure and processes, but then it will also need to change its IT
niche. However, it is clear that the organisation will need to change if it wants to re-establish organisational
harmony, and that not changing would result in organi-stress due to an acute lack of production workers.

143
7. Overview of the CHARISM model at the organisational level-of-analysis

Managers’ Owners’ Members’

perceived perceived perceived
purpose purpose purpose
and goals and goals and goals
Multi-subjective mental representations

Physical
Events
entities
Common denominator

Physical social environment

Competitors
Organi-self
Harmony

Suppliers
Needs Abilities
IT IT Media

Reference
Legislators,

Social

Group
etc.
NS-fit DA-fit Signification
& perception
Organisational integrity

Customers
Organi-

Supplies Demands
Stress

IT IT
Needs Abilities
Environment IT IT

Figure 55: Graphical representation of the CHARISM model on the organisational level.
NS-fit stands for Needs/Supplies fit, DA-fit for Demands/Abilities fit, and IT for Information Technology.

Before moving to a more specific discussion of the role of IT in organisations, I want to summarise
the arguments so far on the basis of an adapted version of the diagram used to summarise the individual level
theory (Figure 55).

There are two major differences when comparing the organisational level overview with the individ-
ual level of analysis. The main difference between the two levels is of course related to the definition of the
main entity in the model, situated on the left-hand side of the diagram. While the individual person was a
single unit in Figure 49, the organi-self is a complex function of the perceptions, needs, values and goals of
the relevant internal stakeholders. The second difference is that there is no longer a clear separation between
the left- and the right-hand side of the diagram – the (multi-)subjective organisational reality and the outside
world – since all organisational members are also members of the world outside the organisation. This cre-
ates a complex dualistic situation, in the sense that the internal organisational stakeholders are not only
members of the organisation, but also entities in the environment of the organisation with their own sets of
needs and abilities. However, I still want to argue for an analytical separation of the two, partly because most
organisational members do experience an ‘us vs. them’ separation, and partly because organisational mem-
bers will often also experience a separation between ‘the self within the organisation’ and ‘the self outside
the organisation’.

Apart from those two differences, the diagram in Figure 55 is similar to the representation of the in-
dividual level in Figure 49. The representation of the organi-self and its perceived environment (on the left-
hand side of the diagram) is simplified in the sense that it focuses on needs and abilities, and does not show
other immaterial and material characteristics of the organisation (values, emotions, attitudes, but also ma-
chines, buildings, money, etc.). The representation of the ‘outside’ world on the right-hand side is also rather
simplified. It represents only a limited number of relevant social, physical and temporal entities, together
with some details of only one of those entities, the group of customers as an example of a relevant external
stakeholder.

144
 As on the individual level, organisation and environment are represented as having – amongst others
– needs and abilities, where the organisation perceives the environment’s needs as demands that are imposed
in exchange for supplying goods and services to fulfil the organisation’s needs. At the organisational level, it
becomes especially clear that only those environmental demands are relevant which are imposed in exchange
for goods and services for which there is an organisational need. Again, it is not the amount of demands or
supplies that is relevant for organisational integrity and well-being, but the multi-subjectively perceived fit
between needs and supplies on the one hand, and abilities and demands on the other. Another possible type
of inadequate organisational integrity is extreme disagreement amongst the internal stakeholders, i.e. the lack
of a common organi-self, to such a degree that the normal functioning of the organisation becomes
impossible. Finally, the degree of adequacy of organisational integrity determines whether the organi-self
perceives organisational harmony or stress, which are again perceived as extremes on a scale – the organi-
strain scale.

An important final remark in this context is that there are different ways for an organisation to
achieve adequate integrity within its environment, cf. the equifinality principle that was briefly discussed
above. It is therefore practically impossible to establish ‘the perfect fit’ of the different characteristics that
can be viable and lead to well-being. In practice, the theory will aim at establishing the existence of misfits,
rather than to try to determine a general fit relation.

D. Information technology and the organisation

Also at the organisational level, I want to distinguish between existing IT and new IT in relation to
organisational harmony and stress when discussing the role of IT in organisational harmony. I will end the
section by relating the harmony framework back to the literature in Chapter 2 above.

1. Existing IT and organisational harmony / organi-stress

The left-hand side of Figure 55 above shows an organisation’s perception of IT-related needs / sup-
plies and abilities / demands and the fit relations between them. It is argued that – for an organi-self to ex-
perience harmony – its IT abilities need to fit the environment’s demands and the environment’s supplies
need to fit the organisation’s IT needs.

a) Environmental IT demands and organisational IT needs

It is not always as easy to determine the IT demands that the environment places on the organisation
as it is to determine the IT demands that an organisation imposes on an individual. The way an organisation
determines the environment’s demand for IT is by consulting customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders,
by studying its competitors, by studying similar industries or similar countries, or by reading specialised
magazines and journals to find out whether there are any useful innovations in the field. In fact, there is no
major difference in the way organisations determine environmental IT demands from the way they establish
other (technological) demands.61 IT demands are often perceived by specialised IS departments within an
organisation, but not necessarily so. Other individuals or departments may indicate specific demands from
external stakeholders for specific systems. For example, customers may inquire about the possibility of using
credit-card payments over the Internet, an inquiry that is perceived by the sales department as an
environmental demand, but also as an opportunity. After a period of cost/benefit analysis and internal
organisational evaluations, such environmental demands will often become internalised as organisational
goals, i.e. external demands are often represented as internal organisational needs.

Moreover, organisations also perceive IT needs that do not originate in their environment but that
have their origin in a perceived misfit or opportunity within the organisation. For example, an organisation
that has a number of incompatible systems running in parallel may want to integrate its systems so that its IT
infrastructure becomes more transparent and information can be exchanged between the systems. As long as
this need exists, and has not been satisfied, it may be experienced as a misfit and be a cause of organi-strain.

61
However, the role of fashion, trends and hypes in organisational IT applications is a major factor in perceiving environmental
demands – as is the case for other advanced technology or even for management practice in general. Quite a number of information
systems – such as for example Intranets – have been introduced into organisations partly “because everyone else had one...”.

145
 H44: Organisational information technology is an integral part of the organi-self’s per-
ceived demands / abilities and needs/ supplies fit relations, which play a major role
in establishing organisational integrity

I also want to argue that different organisations will perceive different environmental demands for
computer-based IT systems, as will the different stakeholders within an organisation. Within an organisation,
establishing external IT demands is yet another negotiation process and different stakeholders will support
their perceptions with different arguments, depending on their perspectives and on their group’s needs
portfolios. The internal discussions and negotiations about IT needs and demands are an integral part of an
organi-self’s signification process.
Differences between organisations will be dependent on the organisational needs that are dominant
within an organisation’s portfolio, i.e. on the organisation’s strategic orientation. For instance, prospector
organisations will probably perceive a higher demand for innovative information technologies that support
their diverse activities, while the perception of defender organisations is expected to focus on information
technologies that maximise efficiency and effectiveness within the organisation. Depending on an
organisation’s needs-based perception and evaluation of its environment, it will determine whether flexibility
or cost-effectiveness will be most needed.

H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs and environmental IT
demands and will therefore contribute different perspectives to the organi-self’s
signification process. When no common perspective can be developed, organi-strain
may arise
H46: Due to their different needs portfolios, different organisations will perceive different
environmental IT demands and internal IT needs

b) Organisational IT abilities and skills

When looking at IT abilities and skills, there is an interesting difference between organisations and
individuals. While individuals can only acquire skills and abilities by learning or experience, organisations
can acquire IT skills by buying them, e.g. by sub-contracting IT tasks to organisations outside the
organisation itself – i.e. through outsourcing. Again, different stakeholders will have different views on the
way in which the organisation should acquire IT skills, i.e. through internal learning or through outsourcing.

There is currently much debate on the advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing information
technology, and harmony theory can add a perspective to that discussion. When information technology
processes are outsourced to another organisation, quite different signification processes will come into play.
Employees of sub-contractors may be physically and socially integrated into the ‘customer’ organisation, but
they will still have a different set of needs, assumptions and meanings, due to their membership of another
organisation. The primary purpose of those subcontractors is their own survival and well-being, and not that
of their customer. The survival and well-being of the customer is of course an indirect goal, but it often does
not have the same status or priority. For many individual ‘outsourcees’ the situation is very ambiguous, due
to a loyalty to both their employer and the customer, which can cause conflicts of interest, which can in turn
result in inadequate individual integrity and mental strain. Moreover, sub-contractors will have quite
different perspectives in determining the environment’s IT demands than the customer organisation, due to
their different sets of basic needs, but also due to their different (more technology-oriented) outlook on the
environment.

In summary, the risk of misunderstandings between organisations and sub-contractors is argued to be

much higher than between different sub-groups or departments within an organisation, due to a smaller set of
shared meanings and assumptions. On the other hand, when an organisation supplies its IT needs by training
its members, the stability of members’ existing integrity may hinder the acquisition of the required learning
attitude, unless the organisation starts an intentional process of signification in order to change some of the
shared meanings and assumptions among its members.

146
c) Organisation-IT-environment fit
The fit relations between organisational, IT and environmental characteristics are represented in
Figure 56. I argue that organisational harmony obtains when
(a) an adequate organi-self has been established, and
(b) there are no major misfits between
(1) organisational characteristics internally,
(2) IT characteristics internally,
(3) between IT and organisational characteristics,
(4) between organisation and environment, and
(5) between IT and environment.

Those are strong requirements for an organisation, and yet it is not impossible to obtain general fit
within and between these categories of characteristics. In fact, the continuing existence of a large number of
commercial organisations shows that a majority of organisations succeeds in finding such a balance.

Organisational integrity -
Shared stakeholder perceptions

Environmental characteristics
Organisational
characteristics
Organisation

FIT?

Characteristics
of existing IT

Figure 56: The role of existing IT in establishing organisational harmony

The diagram in Figure 56 is again a representational simplification, in the sense that organisational
and IT characteristics are very tightly coupled. The separation suggested in the figure is made for analytical
purposes only, just as the separation between the organisation and its environment.
The main axis of relations within the figure is the fit between organisational characteristics and the
environment, which reflects the strategic activities of an organisation, i.e. determining which organisational
choices are made in relation to the dynamic environment and how to prioritise between alternatives. The left-
hand side of the figure shows that the characteristics of the organisation and its IT are closely linked, which
implies that a change in one characteristic can create imbalances in fit relations with other characteristics.
Changes in characteristics can be caused by changes in the environment, or by changes within the
organisation. The lower part of the left-hand side indicates some fit relations between characteristics of
existing organisational IT. Some of these characteristics are also influenced by environmental factors, as
illustrated by for example the Year2000 problem that dominated most of the IT industry and the IT
departments within organisations during the year 1999.
However, those external environmental influences are usually not as important in an organisational
context as the fit between ‘purely organisational’ and IT characteristics, the so-called ‘strategic alignment’,
i.e. the alignment of business and IT strategies and processes. An important aspect of the fit between
organisational and IT characteristics is the difference in cognitive frame between technology- and business-
oriented members of the organisation. Research has shown that it is often the divergence between those
frames that explains organisational difficulties in aligning IT and business strategy. It is often as if the two
groups speak different languages, even though they are members of the same organisation.

147
 Finally, the curved lines between environmental characteristics – on the right-hand side of the figure
– indicate the interdependency of environmental characteristics, e.g. the relation between economic growth
and interest rates, or between the coldness of a winter and fuel prices.

A crucial remark in this context is again the need for commensurable measures in order to allow
comparisons between organisational and IT characteristics. I argue that it is imperative that organisations and
their information systems can be described in terms that allow comparison, such as the ones proposed in
Chapter 2 on page 38 and following. An example of such a measure is the IT-related concept of ‘centralisa-
tion of decision information’, which can be matched with the organisational concept of ‘centralisation of de-
cision making’, and where the former is a pre-requisite for the latter.

d) IT within the multiple contingency framework

When determining organisational characteristics in the empirical exercise in Part II, I will be making
use of the multiple contingency framework described above. In that framework, the role of information sys-
tems has not really been tackled yet, but the organisational concepts in the framework can be matched with
the preliminary IT-related concepts that I developed in Chapter 2 above. When one looks at the framework,
the role of information technology can in fact be integrated at two places in the model, as illustrated in
Figure 57.

Go a ls M issio n

B o un dary

E nv iro nm e nt Siz e T ec hno lo gy

M a n a ge m e nt
St r at e gy C lim at e
sty le

O r ga n isat ion a l
St r uct ure
In f o r m a tio n
te c hn o lo gy

Figure 57: Integration of IT in a multiple contingency framework (adapted from Burton & Obel, 1998).

In the multiple contingency framework, one can distinguish between what I would call production-
or product-oriented IT and organisational IT. The first type of information technology is related to the
creation of the organisation’s product or service, while the second one can be regarded as a feature of the
organisational design, i.e. it supports management and decision processes. The first type of information
technology can best be classified as part of the organisation’s technology, i.e. those machines, processes and
abilities that are needed to convert inputs to outputs. By regarding this type of IT as technology, it becomes
one of the contingency variables that determine the design of the organisation.

The second type of IT, which could be labelled organisational information systems, is regarded as
part of the organisational design because it supports information gathering, process control and decision-
making within the organisation. This type of IT is not directly involved in the conversion of inputs to
outputs, but in the management of the organisation, and therefore becomes contingent upon the other classes
of variables, such as size, environment, etc.

The discussion on the role of IT in establishing organisational integrity especially focuses on those
information systems that can at least partly be characterised as belonging to the second type, but in the
theoretical model that I have described above, the distinction between the two types has become fuzzy. In
addition, the distinction between contingency variables and organisational design variables has been partially
removed, since all organisational characteristics are treated as inputs to a matching function.

148
2. New IT and organisational harmony / organi-stress
The introduction of new information technology is an organisational change process that will have
an impact on organisational integrity and will cause a change on the organi-strain axis. The development and
implementation of a new information system is often initiated (a) on the basis of a perceived misfit within
the organisation or between the organisation and its competitors, or (b) on the basis of a perceived new
opportunity (Markus, 1984). The perception of a new opportunity can also be regarded as a kind of misfit –
more precisely as a future misfit – in the sense that one may expect competitors to perceive the opportunity
as well, and if they make use of it and implement a new information system, this IS may give them a
competitive edge. The competitive edge of its competitors will change the environment of the organisation
and may be perceived as an infringement of organisational integrity.

When a new information system is introduced to ‘solve’ an existing misfit, organi-strain is expected
to decrease after the successful implementation and uptake of the system. However, one needs to take into
account that every organisational change will initially cause an increase in organi-strain, because of the
changes to existing systems of meaning and routines. Moreover, solving one misfit may create one or more
new misfits, so one needs to take a holistic perspective of the organisation and its environment when
implementing organisational change. Recent research within the multiple contingency framework supports
this argument by empirically showing that it does not really matter whether an organisation has one or more
misfits, and that it is only the absence of misfits that can be related to better organisational health.62

H47: Implementation of new organisational IT is an organisational change project that

will initially increase the level of organi-strain, due to changes to existing
organisational niches
H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of resolving existing
misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease existing organi-strain, but it may also
unintentionally create new misfits

An important distinction needs to be made with regard to the role of new information technology in
organisations, namely whether the new IT is unchangeable or customisable, i.e. the degree to which the in-
formation technology can be adapted to the organisation in which it will be used. As argued in the paragraph
on actor-network theory (pp. 73-74) and in the discussion of the individual level (p. 127) information tech-
nologies are instances of “frozen organisational discourse”, which have a number of meanings and assump-
tions embedded in them. These embedded meanings and assumptions often reflect quite different organisa-
tional and environmental circumstances than the ones in which the information system will be used, even
when the technology has been developed for a wide market. The cognitive and technological frames of the
organisations and individuals that developed information technology artefacts are often quite different from
those that are to be found in the organisations that will be using the information technology.

However, the problem of incompatible meanings and assumptions does not only apply to non-
customisable software, it also applies to situations where information technology is custom-made for a par-
ticular organisation by an internal or external group of technologists, albeit to a lesser degree. The organisa-
tional perception of technology suppliers will often be quite different from that of the managers that ordered
the new information technology for a specific purpose, or that of the organisational members that will be us-
ing the technology. These divergences between different organisational perceptions do not need to be re-
solved completely for a new IT tool to be successful, but the divergences need to be discussed openly, and
need to be acknowledged by all the parties that are involved in the design and implementation of the tech-
nology. IS development techniques such as participatory design, socio-technical design or user-centred de-
sign are attempts to draw together different perspectives within an organisation. If assumptions and percep-
tions can be expressed, they can be mapped and discussed, and the relevant stakeholders can try to reach a
shared common understanding of the issues that are involved. This reasoning applies to all types of organisa-
tional change, but especially to information technology, since it can impose meanings on its users without
them being aware of it.

62
A survey performed amongst small and medium Danish production companies shows that organisations without misfits have a
significantly better financial performance over a two-year period that those with one or more misfits (Burton, Lauridsen, & Obel,
2000, Forthcoming).

149
 H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may introduce incom-
patible meanings and perceptions, and create signification conflicts within an or-
ganisation, especially when the systems are ‘uncustomisable’
H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation projects can be
minimised b y involving as many relevant stakeholders as possible in the
signification process before, during and after the introduction of new IT

As I have argued in the discussion of the individual-level model, organisations can benefit from
developing flexible information technology solutions that can be adapted to different organisational settings.
This type of technology allows organisations to develop ‘organically’ with their environment and to
introduce changes gradually, without disturbing the organisational and individual integrity too dramatically.
Flexible technology also has the advantage that it can adapt to future changes in an environment, which is
often not the case with current technologies, such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. This type
of technology is modular, and the modules and the overall structures are often customised to the needs of an
organisation at a particular moment in time. Experience shows that organisations often freeze their existing
operational and management processes by introducing such systems. The organisations are able to operate
more effectively and efficiently by using ERP technology, but only as long as the assumptions upon which
the system is built do not change, and the environment is stable or evolves according to expectations.

Before implementing a new information system in an organisation, one needs to determine possible
misfits with existing IT and with other organisational characteristics. When an organisation is in a state of
harmony before the introduction of a new system, one will need to try and predict which – if any – existing
fit relations will be disturbed, which consequences this may have, and then consider whether other initiatives
or processes can be started to prevent or alleviate possible imbalances. When an organisation is in a state of
disharmony due to the existence of one or more misfits, then the stakeholders will need to determine whether
the new technology can remove one or more of these misfits, whether new misfits may be introduced, and
which parallel measures are needed to make the changes necessary to remove the misfits.

Finally, when an organisation is in a state of disharmony caused by inadequate development of

organi-self, i.e. by major disagreements between the internal stakeholders, new IT will be perceived quite
differently by the different groups of stakeholders, and may cause the disagreements to become larger still.
An example of the latter situation is when employees perceive an integrated information system such as an
ERP system as a way for management to increase control, when this is clearly not intended by management.
I argue that the disagreements need to be solved in such situations before an information system
development project will be successful, in order to avoid further escalation and organi-stress.

H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important contingency when developing

and introducing new IT. Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can help
predict and prevent potential new misfits
H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately developed organi-self,
i.e. an organisation with fundamental disagreements between internal stakeholders,
will further increase existing organi-strain levels

150
3. Referring back to the IS literature
Before moving to a discussion of the integration of the two levels of the framework, I want to relate
the organisational level arguments to the IS literature review in Chapter 2. A main part of the literature re-
view was concerned with organisational issues within information systems research. I mentioned two review
articles that studied organisational issues, determinants and impacts of information system use,63 I discussed
different information systems typologies and discussed my perception of the limitations of these approaches.
I also discussed some contributions that I felt were more in line with my argumentation, such as the discus-
sion on the role of organisational cognition in IS, the discussion of the contradictory results of IS research
and a contingent IS development methodology64. In the following paragraphs, I want to briefly refer back to
those discussions.

In my review of the study of organisational issues within the IS literature I noted that the majority of
contributions have been characterised by limited causal thinking and a fragmentary treatment of variables.
The harmony framework deals with a number of classical IS research themes. Firstly, my perspective is
clearly interactional as opposed to the more limited deterministic perspectives, the technological and
organisational imperative. The CHARISM model assumes no causal relationships between IT and
organisational change, but rather a complex, multi-level relationship of fit. Secondly, the signification
processes within the CHARISM model are arguably more fine-grained and complete than the contributions
on organisational power found in the literature, contributions which – in my view – simplify the complex
balancing processes that occur within organisations between managers, IS developers and users. Thirdly, the
debate within the literature on whether IT leads to more centralised decision making or not, and on what the
impact of IT on organisational structure is, has clearly little relevance within the CHARISM framework. In
my model, I argue that no general causal predictions can be made in any direction if one does not account for
the diversity of organisations, users and information systems, and the situatedness of all organisational
behaviour. Finally, the harmony framework also removes the distinction between determinants and effects of
information systems and their use, because the degree of organisational harmony is argued to be the
determinant, the effect and the context of IS development and implementation at the same time.

One of the arguments in the organisational review articles, is that the operationalisation of the IS
variable is often inadequate. In section 6 of the literature review in Chapter 2, I looked at some of the IS ty-
pologies that have been suggested by researchers to try and solve that problem. The problem with the major-
ity of popular typologies is that they often lack organisational and psychological relevance. They provide
interesting theoretical distinctions that are of little or no use in the organisational decision, development or
introduction processes. However, I also reviewed some contributions that had more relevance, because they
tried to link system aspects to organisational and psychological characteristics, and found some arguments
that were relevant from a harmony perspective, so I used some of their arguments and variables in my own
list of relevant IS characteristics65.

Another relevant group of contributions was the work on cognition in organisations (also referred to
as cognitive frames or sensemaking), which argues for the importance of individual and organisational
cognition in understanding IS development and introduction. These contributions argue that different
organisational stakeholders may have fundamentally different worldviews and that the impact of an
information system can only be understood if one knows which meanings the IS has to the different
stakeholders. In other words, cognition and individual-level processes are argued to be the key to
understanding organisational impacts of new technologies. In fact, these arguments bridge between the
individual and organisational levels, by arguing that individual cognitions play a role on the organisational
level.
These arguments are largely reflected in the discussion of the signification process in the CHARISM
framework, where perception and sense-making by the organi-self are argued to play a decisive role in estab-
lishing levels of organi-strain and organisational harmony – and the organi-self was defined as the common
denominator of stakeholder perceptions and meanings. The difference between the literature contributions
and the CHARISM framework lies precisely in this concept of organi-self. Where the literature contributions

63
Cf. the discussion of (Ang & Pavri, 1994) and (Swanson, 1987) on pp. 19-21
64
Cf. the discussions on pages 27-29, 21-24 and 16-19, respectively.
65
Cf. the contributions of Markus (1984), Das & colleagues(1991) and Fiedler & colleagues (1996)

151
mainly stress the differences in organisational cognition between the stakeholders, the harmony framework
stresses the importance of both the differences and the commonalities between stakeholder perceptions.

In a sense, the contributions on organisational cognition are one way of explaining contradictory re-
sults of IS research, which has been discussed in another relevant literature review66, where the authors refer
to the deterministic logic on which most of the papers that discuss organisational IT are based. Instead, they
suggest studying a logic of opposition that they discern in four existing theories: organisational politics, or-
ganisational culture, institutional theory, and organisational learning. When looking at those four theories, it
is striking that they can all be related to the CHARISM framework (cf. Table 6 on page 22). Organisational
politics studies the political processes of internal groups with incompatible opposing interests, a theory that
is related to the organisational signification processes within the harmony model. Organisational culture the-
ory studies how IT is produced and interpreted as cultural artefacts that reflect a variety of values, beliefs and
assumptions, which clearly relates it to the organisational cognition theories described above, and to individ-
ual and stakeholder signification processes within the harmony model. Institutional theory is related to the
concepts of niche and integrity, in the sense that it studies institutionalised patterns and practices that sustain
organisational legitimacy and are unlikely to change. Organisational learning refers back to integrity and sig-
nification processes in the sense that existing organisational memory may impair new learning, an argument
that is clearly present within the mental harmony framework. Finally, the authors also refer to strategies that
have been suggested in the literature, which are meant to resolve contradictions. One of those is the addition
of more contingency variables, such as the distinction between different types of information technologies, a
strategy that is clearly supported within the CHARISM framework.

In the next section, I want to try and link the individual level model to the organisational-level
model.

66
Robey & Boudreau (Boudreau & Robey, 1996; 1999)

152
E. General overview of the CHARISM framework

In the first paragraph of this final section, I want to try and integrate the two levels of analysis into a
single model. In a second paragraph, I want to zoom in on the role of new IT in the cross-level model. And in
the third paragraph, I want to discuss a possible method for practically applying the theory in ISD projects.

1. Cross-level CHARISM model of harmony and stress

The integrative CHARISM framework – the “Cross-level Harmony, Integrity and Stress Model” – that I
have described so far is in fact a double model, in the sense that there is one for the individual level of analy-
sis and one for the organisational level. In this section, I want to argue that the two levels need to be inte-
grated into a cross-level theoretical model of the role of information systems in organisations. This integra-
tion can be done because each individual member contributes to the organi-self (indicated by the thick grey
dash-dotted arrow in Figure 58), but also because an organisation perceives the degree of harmony of each of
its members, as well as the degree of fit of the individual within the organisational harmony. Figure 58
graphically presents the theoretical model, as yet without the addition of new IT.

Organi-self - Shared stakeholder

perceptions of organi sational INTEGRITY

Environmental characteristics
Organisational
a characteristics b d c
External
Organisation

fit?

Internal
fit?

Characteristics
of existing IT

Supplies Demands

INTEGRITY

Needs Abilities

Individual

Figure 58: Cross-level Harmony, Integrity and Stress Model - CHARISM. The full grey arrows indicate the multi-
subjective perceptions of the organi-self, the broken grey arrows indicate the subjective perceptions of the individual,
and the dash-dotted arrow indicates that the individual – as member of the organisation – contributes to the organi-
self. The thin broken lines indicate the fit of the individual’s needs and supplies with the organisation, the IT and the
environment, while the thin straight lines indicate the external fit between environmental characteristics on the one
hand, and organisational and IT characteristics on the other.

153
 There are four main entities in the cross-level theoretical model: the organisation, the environment, the
organi-self, and the individual. Note that all four entities partly overlap at the corners. The organi-self – de-
fined as the common denominator of all internal stakeholders’ perceptions of the collective and its purposes
and goals – was argued to be both internal and external to the organisation, so it overlaps with the organisa-
tion and the environment. A similar reasoning applies to the individual, who is a member of the organisation,
but also part of the external environment – both from an organisational perspective, in the sense that the in-
dividual is regarded as an entity with abilities that can supply the organisation’s needs, and from an individ-
ual perspective, in the sense that individuals can often mentally separate the self-in-the-organisation from the
self-in-the-world-outside-the-organisation.
The thin dotted arrows between the individual and the organisation represent the relation between
individual representations of organisational supplies/demands and the objective – multi-subjective –
organisational and IT characteristics. A similar arrow between the individual and the environment represents
the relation between individually perceived environmental supplies/demands and the objective
environmental characteristics. Based on the subjective perception of organisational/IT and environmental
needs and abilities, the individual determines the degree of fit between his needs and abilities and the
environment’s supplies and demands. The degree of fit will determine the degree of individual integrity that
the individual perceives, which will in turn determine the position of the individual on the mental strain scale
with individual harmony and stress as its extremes. Mental strain is argued to turn into mental stress when
the amount of mental strain crosses the individual’s personal threshold, when misfits last over an extended
period of time, or when misfits are not envisaged to end in the foreseeable future.
The thin straight arrows between organisation and environment, on the other hand, represent the fit
relation between single organisational/IT characteristics – needs and abilities – and single environmental
characteristics, as perceived by the organi-self.
The thick grey arrows that start from the organi-self indicate (a) the organisation’s perception of itself
– its needs, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. – and its IT characteristics; (b) the organisation’s perception
of internal fit, i.e. the internal and mutual fit of the sets of organisational and IT characteristics; (c) the
organisation’s perception of the environment; and (d) the organisation’s perception of external fit, i.e. the
overall fit between organisational/IT characteristics and environmental characteristics. These perceptions
will determine the degree of organisational integrity that the organisation perceives, which will in turn
determine the position of the organisation on the ‘organi-strain’ scale. Organisational harmony is reached
when the organi-self has a strong consensual perception of itself and its environment, and when the organi-
self perceives both external and internal fit. Organi-stress arises when there is strong disagreement between
stakeholders regarding their perceptions of the organisation, the environment, internal or external fit. Organi-
stress may also arise when the organi-self perceives strong internal or external misfits, when misfits last over
extended periods of time, or when misfits are not envisaged to end in the foreseeable future.
The thick broken lines represent a somewhat different relation, namely the ‘filtered’ individual
perception of the organisation, the degree of internal organisational fit, the organisational environment, and
the degree of external fit between the organisation and its environment. These perceptions are strongly
influenced – filtered – by the individual’s perception of individual integrity and harmony, which is why the
perceptual arrows in the figure start at the ‘integrity’ rectangle. It was argued though that not all individuals
will have a perception of internal or external fit, since the wider organisational context may not be part of
their individual niche.

Organisational and individual integrity are mutually related in this theoretical model, in the sense that
the individual’s integrity is strongly influenced by the perceptions that his social sub-group within the
organisation hold – especially if he has a strong need to belong to and get esteem from the sub-group.
Conversely, organisational integrity is strongly influenced by the presence or absence of shared perceptions
within and amongst the different sub-groups. This implies that the presence of organisational harmony – a
high degree of consensus amongst the internal stakeholders – will have a positive effect on individual mental
harmony, and that the presence of organisational disharmony caused by lack of consensus will have a
negative effect on individual harmony. But the reverse also applies: the presence of many individuals with
high levels of mental stress will have a negative effect on organisational harmony, and especially the mental
harmony or stress of leading individuals will have a strong impact on the perceived level of organi-strain.

Hypotheses H53-H56 summarise the cross-level arguments:

154
 H53: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the world
view and mental harmony of his relevant others both within and outside his
organisation
H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the level
of organisational integrity he perceives / experiences
H55: Organisational harmony is strongly influenced by the mental harmony of its leading
individuals, i.e. the leaders of its internal stakeholder (sub-)groups
H56: Organisational harmony is influenced by the mental harmony of its members, and to
a lesser extent by the harmony of its external stakeholders

2. New IT in the integrated model

When an organisation develops and implements new information technology, it causes an organisa-
tional change that can ‘create ripples throughout’ the whole organisation, as presented in Figure 59. Because
the introduction of new IT changes the IT characteristics of an organisation (Arrow A), it may cause changes
in organisational characteristics and/or in the internal fit between organisational and IT characteristics. And
when IT or organisational characteristics change, changes may occur in the external fit relation between the
organisation and its environment. A change in any one of these sets of characteristics may change the overall
perception of organisational integrity, often in ways that were unintended, and a change in the level of or-
gani-strain may in turn cause a change in the organisational perception of individual members. The size of
the change in the level of organi-strain will depend on the characteristics of the new IS, such as its size and
complexity, the scope of the IS, and the organisational layers that are affected.

Organi-self - Shared stakeholder

perceptions of organi sational INTEGRITY

Environmental characteristics
Organisational
characteristics
External
Organisation

fit?

Internal
fit?
New IT
A
Characteristics
B
of existing IT

Supplies Demands

INTEGRITY

Needs Abilities

Individual

Figure 59: The role of new IT in the CHARISM model is indicated by curved arrows.
Arrow A indicates the direct influence on the organisation, while arrow B indicates the direct influence on the indi-
vidual. The dashed arrows indicate indirect effects.

155
 Next to organisational changes, the introduction of new IT also causes changes in the mental
harmony of individuals who are (directly or indirectly) confronted with the technology. Individual changes
are mainly caused by altered environmental demands on the individual and/or changes in the environmental
supplies (Arrows B in the figure). Changes in the mental harmony of individuals may in turn ‘ripple' through
the individual’s social (sub-)group and change the organisational perception of a whole group of
stakeholders within an organisation, and thus cause a change in the adequacy of the organi-self and thus alter
organisational harmony. The size of an individual’s change in mental harmony will depend on the strength of
added and removed misfits, and by other characteristics of the new IT, such as its flexibility, whether its use
is mandatory or voluntary, how big a role the new system will play in the sum of all the individual’s tasks,
etc.

The theory can not make any general predictions about the nature of the changes caused by
introducing new information systems, because that will depend on the degree of the organisational and
individual mental (dis)harmony before the introduction of the new IT, as well as on the nature of the
different fit and misfit relations that cause the state of (dis)harmony. Moreover, the type of organisation and
the type of individual – as determined by their needs portfolios – will affect the potential impacts of the IT
implementation, as described in the previous paragraphs, as well as the characteristics of the new IT.
However, the theory can predict that a new IT system that causes a substantial change in the organi-
strain level, will have an effect on the majority of individuals within the organisation. For instance, when a
new IT system causes an infringement on the political processes within the organi-self and causes major
disagreements between stakeholders, this is often reflected onto the majority of organisational members. For
instance, when worker representatives reject an information system because of a high degree of potential
control-oriented usage, the majority of unionised members will have a negative attitude towards the new
technology and the management that wanted to introduce the system. These negative attitudes may have a
negative effect on individual signification processes and on mental integrity. On the other hand, an
organisation where all internal stakeholders jointly decide to provide PCs to employees as a company
benefit, may experience a positive effect on attitudes towards management and towards information
technology.
The converse also applies: when a new IS system drastically changes the mental harmony of a leading
member of an organisation (or a sufficient number of members), this change in harmony will ripple through
to one or more constituents of the organi-self, and thus have an effect on the organi-strain level. An
interesting aspect of this argument is that negative changes to mental strain levels will have a stronger
disrupting impact on organi-strain than positive changes. Indeed, the creation of organisational integrity was
argued to be a complex process that – if successful – results in a fragile state of harmony, which can easily
be disrupted. A similar argument is often heard in work on organisational culture, where it is almost a truism
that a positive culture or climate often takes years to build, but only seconds to destroy.

H57: A new organisational information system that has a substantial impact on the level
of organi-strain, will have an influence on the mental strain level of all members of
an organisation
H58: A new organisational IS that has a substantial impact on the mental strain level of a
leading member of an organisation (or a sufficient number of members), will have
an effect on the organi-strain level
H59: The effect of hypotheses H57 and H58 will be stronger when the introduction of a
new IS increases (mental or organi-)strain levels

A final important cross-level aspect of the theory concerns the role of the change agent (or agents)
who is responsible for the development and/or introduction of a new IS. Since the change agent plays a
mediating role in the organisational and individual signification processes involved in the introduction of
new IT, his degree of mental strain may have a strong influence on mental strain levels of those individuals
that are involved in the process, but also on the organi-strain level, since the change agent is often (directly
or indirectly) involved in the signification processes at the level of the organi-self.

156
 H60: The mental strain level of the change agent in a project of information system devel-
opment and introduction, will have a strong influence both on individual mental
strain levels and on the organi-strain level

3. Relating back to IS discussion

I want to conclude this chapter by referring back to some of the contributions from the IS literature
that have not been related to the CHARISM framework yet, and try to illustrate some of the similarities and
differences.

a) Success criteria in the harmony model

Within the CHARISM theory, the success of an IS development and implementation project will be
measurable by a comparison of the degrees of organisational and individual mental strain before and after the
project. If individual and organisational strain is lower than before the change project, one may consider the
project successful. In theory, these strain levels are simple measures of success, but due to the complexity of
the strain concept measuring strain levels in practice is not an easy task at all.

System
Use
Quality

Individual Organizational
Impact Impact

Information User
Quality Satisfaction

Figure 60: I/S Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 1992, p.87)

In terms of the success criteria discussed above – cf. Figure 60 and also the discussion in Chapter 2
above (pp. 29-ff.) – harmony theory directly or indirectly considers all classes of success variables simulta-
neously: information quality, system quality, use of system, user satisfaction with the system, and individual
and organisational impact. Indeed, poor information or system quality will be reflected in an infringement of
the task or the task environment, and will lead to frustration and mental strain. Whether or not a system will
be used, and whether or not the user will be satisfied with it, will depend on the different fit relations of
which the system is a part, and on the individual’s perception of the system, as influenced by the individual’s
current state of mental harmony. The two final success criteria, individual and organisational impact, are ar-
gued to be the main determinants of system success, and the unidirectional causal link between them is not
nearly as strong as implied by the model in Figure 60. As the previous paragraph argues, there is a link be-
tween individual and organisational integrity, but it is not very strong and not unidirectional.

Indeed, harmony theory does not support the causal model implied in the IS success model, because
the existing perceptions of a new system are argued to play a role even before an individual starts using it.
Moreover, an individual’s existing perception and opinion of a new system will filter and bias his perception
of system and information quality. For example, if a group of employees feel that they will be getting a
control-based information system that they do not want, their judgement of system and information quality
will be negatively biased, and their use of the system and their satisfaction with the system will also tend to
be more negative, independent of system and information quality.

With regard to the link between individual and organisational impact, I argue that individual harmony
is determined by individual harmony and vice versa, but only partly. The two impacts are rather independent,
because individual and organisational misfits are at different levels of analysis and because their determi-
nants are quite distinct. Individual IS impact is determined by the role of the IS with regard to perceived per-
son-environment fit, in which organisational harmony is only one of the many determinants. Organisational
IS impact is determined by the role of the IS with regard to its perceived fit with existing strategy, organisa-

157
tional processes, environmental demands, etc. The impact on individual organisational members is again
only one of a number of determinants.

b) A process theory
In this paragraph, I want to sketch how the CHARISM theory can be conceptualised as a process
theory that can be applied during the different phases of a project of IT design, development and implemen-
tation, thus referring back to some of the discussion on IS development techniques (cf. pp. 14-ff.)

Imagine a specific IS development project. The situation from which the project starts, is one where
someone within an organisation has decided to develop and implement a new computer-based information
system (IS) that is to have certain characteristics. A change agent is then appointed who is to co-ordinate the
design, development and implementation of the new technology. Figure 61 shows a temporal overview of the
different stages at which my theory can inform the change agent.

Individual Existing Psychological IS design &

characteris-tics information Characteris- change development Individual
IS result
tics of new IS activities activities result
systems

s s’ s” s ’’’

Organisa- Organisatio-
tional char- nal change Organisatio-
activities nal result
acteristics

Misfit analysis
Initial state
Misfit analysis
Envisaged state
Misfit analysis
Change state
Misfit analysis
Result state
t

Figure 61: Graphical representation of a prototypical application of the theory in an IS development project.
The circles represent temporal states.

When the change agent enters the project, there is a certain initial situation – state s – in the
organisation that he can analyse for possible misfits by looking at (a) individual characteristics of the group
of users and other (direct and indirect) stakeholders, (b) organisational characteristics, and (c) characteristics
of existing information systems (computer-based and others), in order to determine the degree of individual
and organi-strain.
Based on the results of the initial misfit analysis, the change agent can then analyse the intended
characteristics of the new computer-based information system, and see if 'the system' might solve existing
misfits or problems and/or introduce new misfits or problems. One could label this state the misfit analysis of
the envisaged state, i.e. how stakeholders imagine the levels of organisational and individual strain to be after
'the system' has been introduced. This is presented as a new state – s' – because it represents a changed
perception on account of the change agent.
At that stage, the results of the analysis are probably best discussed with stakeholders, because
important decisions need to be made at that point in time. If the agent has discovered potential new misfits
based on his analysis, he needs to make sure that all parties are aware of those, and that they are intentionally
pursuing that course. On the other hand, the parties may not have been aware of possible new misfits, and
may therefore decide to make changes, either at the organisational level or at the level of the intended
characteristics of 'the system'. Finally, the parties may decide to cancel the new development project
altogether.

State s'' assumes that the organisation has decided to pursue the development of a new system, and
that it has started a number of activities to design, develop and implement the new IS. As the boxes with
broken lines in the figure indicate, the IS development activities may or may not be accompanied by
organisational or psychological change activities.67 Depending on the duration of the development and
implementation project, one may choose to perform a misfit analysis 'underway', i.e. while a number of
change and development activities are ongoing.

67
However, the theory does suggest that all three types of activities always be undertaken simultaneously, because of the changes in
meanings and assumptions that happen in relation to new technology.

158
 Finally, the change agent can perform an analysis at the result state – state s''' – which is some time af-
ter the formal change and development activities have finished. The analysis of the result state can be used to
compare the start state with the end state, and thus to determine the degree of success of the project.

c) Limitations
In the problem formulation in Chapter 1 and the IS literature review in Chapter 2, a number of limi-
tations of the extant IS literature were discussed. Firstly, I argued that the problem situation at Omicron
needed a theory that integrated the organisational and individual levels of analysis, but that I did not find
specific contributions in the literature that covered both levels of analysis. The harmony model seems to
partly solve this limitation, since it relates the two levels into a cross-level model, where organisational-level
issues influence individual mental harmony, and individual-level issues partly determine organisational har-
mony. In fact, I want to argue that the two levels of analysis cannot be treated separately without losing some
of the theory’s explanatory power. The individual mental harmony is so strongly determined by the climate
and culture of the group and organisation in which the individual lives and functions, that one cannot simply
neglect those issues. On the other hand, organisational harmony is so strongly determined by the perceptions
and harmony of the members of the different stakeholder groups that constitute the organi-self, that one
needs to take these individual mental harmonies into account in the organisational analysis.

Secondly, I argued that too much research was limited to single-factor analyses that can only explain
part of a problem, and only consider one success criterion. I found that a more holistic theoretical model was
needed to explain the complexity of IS development projects. The CHARISM model arguably provides such
a holistic perspective, and considers a range of success criteria that are theoretically linked to changes in
levels of individual and organisational harmony.

A third limitation was related to the single causality that is inherent in most contributions, where one
finds unidirectional arguments, such as: 'information technology will determine the level of centralisation in
an organisation'. The CHARISM model is a model based on multiple fit-relations between different entities
and does not assume or presuppose a unidirectional causality. It is the fit between the different entities that
determines the success or failure of the individual, the organisation and the information system.

A final main limitation that I perceived in the existing IS literature was that existing IS literature of-
ten treats ‘information systems’, ‘organisations’ and ‘users’ as too general or too specific concepts. One finds
quite some contributions that try to measure the impact of ‘information systems’ on ‘organisations’ or ‘us-
ers’, but also contributions that look at only one single case and argue that the results of that case study can
not be generalised. The CHARISM framework tries to develop a kind of middle theory, by positing the exis-
tence of different types of people based on individual needs portfolios; of different types of organisations
based on organisational needs portfolios; and of different types of information systems, based on the differ-
ent characteristics in the IS typology (cf. pages 38-42).

d) Remaining relevant contributions

However, next to its limitations, the literature I reviewed in Chapter 2 also contained some contribu-
tions that I found relevant in relation to the problem I found at Omicron.

A first contribution that I discussed in some detail in the IS chapter was the contingent IS develop-
ment method Multiview68, because it has many similarities with the CHARISM framework. The Multiview
framework (presented in Figure 62 below) views an IS development methodology as a set of processes that
emerge through the confrontation of analysts with a situation where a network with human and non-human
stakeholders needs to become aligned. The authors view their framework as an interpretative scheme that
mediates between the situated aspects of the organisation and the IS development and introduction project,
an interpretative scheme that has four components: organisational analysis, information systems modelling,
socio-technical analysis and software development. Moreover, analysts are advised (a) to take multiple per-
spectives when analysing a situation: a technical, an organisational and a personal perspective, and (b) to
relate the analysis to as many disciplines and branches of knowledge as possible.

68
[Cf. the discussion of \Avison, 1998 #1356, on pp. 16-19 ]

159
 In essence, the CHARISM framework that I have developed in this chapter has a similar aim as the
Multiview framework, namely to take a broad view on the development of organisational information sys-
tems, but I want to argue that CHARISM provides an argumentation that is theoretically more integrated
even though it is developed on the basis of a number of different paradigms. The concepts of niche, integrity
and signification are powerful instruments to explain individual and organisational functioning, thus
covering two of the three perspectives suggested by the Multiview authors. The technical perspective is
admittedly more limited in the harmony model, but I want to repeat the importance of using commensurable
measures when analysing and describing IT, individuals, and organisations.

Figure 62: The Multiview framework (Figure copied from Avison et al., 1998)

A second contribution is related to the CHARISM model as a process theory. Some of the argumen-
tation in CHARISM strongly resembles the (1993) paper by Orlikowski that was briefly mentioned in
Chapter 2. It compares two CASE (Computer-Aided Software Engineering) tool implementation projects
from a structurational perspective. In both projects, she interviewed a large number of participants, and she
developed the theoretical framework that is presented in Figure 63 through a process of grounded theory
building. For current purposes, a number of similarities and differences are relevant:
- A first interesting aspect of the paper is its level of analysis. Whereas the CHARISM framework
contrasts either individuals or organisations with their environment, Orlikowski’s model
distinguishes between ‘strategic conduct’ – which can be regarded as being on project level – on
the one hand, and ‘institutional context’ on the other.
- Similar to the CHARISM framework, the implementation and use of new organisational IT (in
this case CASE tools) is argued to happen through an iterative process. In this process, the
actions of the project members are influenced by the institutional context, but at the same time
reinforce or change that context. Interestingly, context is perceived on three levels of analysis:
the wider environment, the organisation, and the IS department.
- In a similar way as the CHARISM model, the Orlikowski model in Figure 63 looks at the role of
different stakeholders in the adoption and use of IS, both internal and external.
- Interestingly, in one of the companies she found two quite distinct reactions to the new tools
amongst individual system developers, depending on their orientation. Developers that were
very technically oriented experienced de-skilling, since their technical programming skills were
becoming obsolete and superfluous. Business-oriented developers on the other hand, felt that
their jobs were being upgraded, since they no longer had to deal with technical details, and could

160
 be more involved in the business aspects of their products. These individual differences are ar-
guably based on different portfolios of needs and abilities.

The main difference of the Orlikowski paper with the CHARISM framework lies in the hypothesised
existence of the holistic concept of harmony at the individual and organisational levels.

Figure 63: Process of organisational change around CASE tools - Key concepts and interactions
(Figure copied from Orlikowski, 1993, p. 318)

This finishes the discussion of the CHARISM framework and of its links with existing literature. In
the second part of the dissertation, I will try to empirically substantiate some of the hypotheses presented
above.

161
Part II. EMPIRICAL SUPPORT

An important remark to make at this stage, is that the aim of this research has been exploratory from
the start, and necessarily so. The reason for the exploratory nature of my research is related to a certain dissa-
tisfaction with existing theoretical models, as described in Chapter 1. When one deviates from well-trodden
itineraries within research, one necessarily has to take an exploratory approach, in order to build new theory.
That theory can then in later stages of research be tested, falsified and revised. It is important that the reader
keep this remark in mind in the remainder of this dissertation. Indeed, while the previous chapters have fo-
cussed on exploratory theory building, the empirical part of the thesis will try and find support for some of
the core ideas and statements of the cross-level harmony theory developed in the previous chapter. But the
remaining chapters can by no means provide a complete testing apparatus for such a broad theory, let alone
perform multiple synchronic and diachronic tests of the theory. One might even argue that – similarly as in
the discussion of structuration theory in Chapter 4 above – the CHARISM framework is in fact a meta-
theory, i.e. a theoretical framework that puts forward a particular worldview that is so general and encom-
passing that it cannot be definitely refuted or falsified.

For that reason, the remaining chapters will necessarily only investigate fragments of the harmony
framework, but fragments that can support some of the core issues. Some of those core issues are: (a) the
relevance of commensurable characteristics of the main entities in the framework, (b) to find support for the
importance of need portfolios in distinguishing individual differences, (c) the relation of person-organisation
and organisation-environment fit with stress and harmony, and of course (d) the role of existing and new IT
in the previous issues.

Now that the CHARISM framework has been developed in answer to the problem formulation and
the limitations of extant literature, it is time to return to the empirical world and try and find out how this
complex theory can be substantiated and how some of its aspects can be operationalised. I have sought
empirical support through a number of techniques, using a number of different research instruments in two
case studies: one extensive, in-depth study over 3 years, and one small-scale longitudinal study over a period
of 6 months. For reasons of confidentiality, the extensive case studies are only available to the jury of this
dissertation and the participating companies as restricted appendices. In the public part of the dissertation I
will limit myself to a short description of the case studies and a discussion of the relevance of the case
analysis for the theoretical model developed above.

Part II consists of the following chapters: The first one– Chapter 6 – discusses a number of
methodological issues related to the empirical part of the project. Chapter 7 then combines the theory with
the methodological considerations in order to determine which aspects of the theory will be empirically
investigated. In that chapter, a number of working hypotheses are developed. Chapter 8 then discusses the
research instruments that were used in the gathering and analysis of the empirical data. Chapters 9 and 10
discuss the two case studies that were performed, the first at Omicron, and the second at Alpha. Finally,
Chapter 11 completes the empirical analysis and provides a discussion of some of the issues that were treated
in the empirical part of the study. Moreover, the chapter contains a short overview of recent literature that
was published (or discovered) after the completion of the theoretical part of my study.
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working
Hypotheses

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Interpretation of survey results

Chapter 6. Methodological Issues

When trying to substantiate a broad complex theory such as the CHARISM framework, a number of
methodological choices need to be made, choices that limit the kind of working hypotheses that can be
empirically investigated. In this chapter, I will describe the methodological choices that were made
throughout the project and I will present the argumentation that supports those choices. This argumentation
will be presented in the framework of the research project history with all its limitations and improvisations.

The chapter begins with the formulation of the research question, then it discusses the history and
aspects of the research method that was followed throughout my PhD project, and it concludes with a
discussion of the methodological aspects of the resulting CHARISM theory.

A. Research question

As I mentioned in Chapter 1, the starting point of this research project was the IS development and
implementation project BlueTech at Omicron, a large Danish manufacturing company, where I was em-
ployed at that time. The task I got within BlueTech was to study the organisational aspects of new IT, more
specifically to find out whether new IT could become a catalyst for organisational change. After working in
that project for some time, it became clear that looking at organisational aspects of IT implementation alone
was somewhat too limited, since psychological aspects also seemed to play an important role in the BlueTech
project. So, quite soon after the start of my PhD project, the following research question was formulated.

“What is the interaction between organisational characteristics, stakeholders’

psychological characteristics and information technology characteristics when a
new computer-based organisational information system is developed and
implemented?”

This question can be graphically represented as in Figure 64, where the three main constructs are de-
picted, together with arrows that link the three entities. The arrows indicate that no explicit causal direction-
ality was presumed, i.e. that the option of finding mutual influences was kept open.

IS Design / Work
Implementation psychology

?
Organisational
parameters

Figure 64: Research question.

Starting from this research question, a first literature review round was performed in search of
theoretical models that could provide an answer. But, as I have argued in the literature review chapters
above, no satisfactory theoretical contributions were found that covered the three areas simultaneously and
that could be easily adapted to the problem at Omicron.
For example, the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) has been used in a number of
IS-related case studies (e.g. Yaverbaum, 1988). It incorporates a number of job characteristics and is argued
to predict motivation and job satisfaction on the basis of those characteristics. However, a closer analysis of
the popular instrument revealed that it had mainly been applied to situations where individuals have the pos-
sibility to satisfy growth needs, i.e. jobs for knowledge workers with a high degree of autonomy, variation,
etc. In the case of the manufacturing workers at Omicron, this instrument was not relevant, since it would
have predicted low motivation and satisfaction, simply because its questions do not refer to relevant aspects

165
of production work. It soon became clear that the best way to answer the research question was to take an
exploratory perspective, and to develop a new theoretical framework with new research instruments.

B. Hybrid research method

Developing a new theoretical approach for such a complex topic as the development and
implementation of organisational information systems is not an easy matter, especially if one wants to look at
the issue from three different perspectives simultaneously, and ground the theory in an ongoing development
project.

Indeed, while the BlueTech project was a major source of information, it was also a source of
methodological frustration. At the outset of the PhD project, I started from a clearly qualitative research
design, which was based on the assumption that BlueTech tools would be applied in a number of production
departments at Omicron. This first research design had the following qualitative aspects. Firstly, it was based
on principles of participatory action research (Whyte, 1991), since I was both a participant (and also local
project manager) of the BlueTech project, and a PhD student studying organisational and psychological
aspects of the project. Secondly, the design contained multiple field studies within Omicron that would be
based on similar software tools, thus allowing interesting comparisons between the different internal cases.
Thirdly, the idea was that the rich data that I could gather from the multiple cases within the same
organisation would allow a thorough grounded theory approach. Finally, the research at Omicron was
designed to be a longitudinal study, with a before and after analysis of the implementation projects.

However, reality kept messing up the picture by changing project deadlines, changing the
organisational contexts in which the project was embedded, and changing the system development project
itself. The pre-conditions upon which the research design was based kept changing constantly and
dramatically, so a lot of improvisation was needed in the course of the research project, and the resulting
research methodology is a hybrid solution, consisting of qualitative and quantitative techniques applied in
different settings.

1. Different phases in the research project

In my view, the best way to describe the hybrid research methodology that finally led to the
CHARISM model and to the empirical results that I will describe below, is to situate the different phases of
the research project on a timeline (cf. Figure 65) and discuss their relevance for the research design. I have
chosen this chronological research presentation because I argue that it is more informative than a retrospec-
tively ‘cleaned and re-framed’ methodological overview.

166
 1997 1998 1999 2000
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Literature study

Theory building (1) (2) (3)

(5)
BlueTech project (4) (7)

Research instruments

Data collection and analysis (6)

t
Figure 65: The timeline of the PhD project illustrates different phases in the research. The project years have been
divided into 3-month periods. The dark areas of the bars indicate periods of intensive activity, while the numbers in
parentheses indicate the different phases described in the text. Double-pointed arrows indicate reciprocal influence of
different processes, while single-pointed arrows indicate unidirectional influence.

a) Phase 1 – The very start – First literature search

At the very start of the PhD project, I was – in my status as human aspects consultant for the Blue-
Tech project – confronted with the problem that I described at the start of the thesis, namely the misfit of the
envisaged system design with existing organisational and psychological characteristics. With this particular
problem in mind, a literature search was started in the information systems literature, in search of a theory
that looked at characteristics of organisational culture and climate, but also at worker motivation and satis-
faction. As I indicated on the previous page, several contributions were found that looked at a number of
such aspects, but a more in-depth analysis of these theories showed their inappropriateness for the problem at
hand. In this way, the literature search and the BlueTech project informed each other at the start of the re-
search project, a process which is represented by the arrow with number (1) in Figure 65.

b) Phase 2 – Year 1 – Theoretical focus: IS development methodology

At a later stage (start of 1998), my task in BlueTech expanded and became that of local project
manager at Omicron, which caused the focus of attention in the literature search to shift to IS development
theories that could be useful and actively help solve the misfit. After some more time, a theory was starting
to take shape, informed by (a) the ongoing activities within the BlueTech project (e.g. organisational change
efforts, functional specifications of information system) and (b) the literature on IS development and
implementation, and their effect on user motivation and satisfaction. This first phase of theory building –
which is marked by the number (2) in the Figure – was again characterised by a strong interaction with the
BlueTech project, which limited the applicability of some theories, and the literature study, which provided
new ideas and a broader perspective for the practical problems of the BlueTech development. The ideas at
that stage have crystallised into two conference papers (Verjans, 1998; Verjans, Mogensen, & Lynggaard,
1998), and in a position paper for a joint workshop of the PDC and CSCW conferences (Rasmussen &
Verjans, 1998).

The focus in this first preliminary theory was on the relations between a limited set of organisational
and IT aspects (a first version of the list of IS characteristics on pages 38-42 in Chapter 1), and on the devel-
opment and implementation of flexible software solutions as a way of smoothing IT-based organisational
changes (cf. the discussion on page 129 in Chapter 5). There was only limited attention for psychological
aspects in those papers, because at that stage of the BlueTech project a high degree of focus on organisational
and software development aspects was needed.

c) Event – End year 1 – major change

Shortly after the first theory formulation period, the theory building process was reduced to virtually
zero due to major problems within the BlueTech project, dramatic organisational changes within Omicron,

167
and major changes within my PhD project. This change period is indicated by the zigzag line in Figure 65,
and was a major disruption in all the activities within the research and the IT development project. At that
time my participation in the BlueTech project was also ended, in order for me to fully concentrate on my
PhD research, while the BlueTech project itself was suspended for a number of months.

The organisational changes at Omicron and especially the suspension of BlueTech forced major
methodological changes on my research project. Due to different organisational priorities, time pressure and
lack of resources it was no longer possible to develop an extensive set of software tools within the BlueTech
project, or to implement them in more than one production department. This meant that the original research
aim of (a) focussing on IS development methodology and (b) analysing multiple implementations of a major
technological change using (c) in-depth quantitative methods had become unrealistic and useless for the
following reasons.

Since I was no longer involved in decisions regarding the software development method, and since
there were too few resources to do any major IS development, there was no point in spending much time in
the development of elaborate theories of IS development methodology that could not be empirically
corroborated or tested in the BlueTech project. Since there was to be only one implementation of a very
limited software tool, I would not be able to comparatively study different implementation processes within
Omicron, and the remaining implementation process was not going to involve any major change in the
organisation or in the users’ job. Indeed, in-depth longitudinal analysis using observation and interviewing
techniques on such a limited project would be an ‘overkill’.

A new research design was needed, in which the reduced Omicron case could still be used, for
example as a kind of pilot project, and in which two or three other implementation projects would be studied,
one within Omicron – but not related to BlueTech – and one or two in other companies. Moreover, due to
time constraints and a lack of contacts in other organisations, it did not make sense to plan time-consuming
qualitative analyses of ongoing implementation projects in those other companies. Therefore, it was decided
to develop a data gathering strategy that could more easily be adopted in a number of organisations, and that
would not be too intrusive or time-consuming, so that it would not scare potential participating companies
too much. The reason why the Omicron case could not simply be dropped in favour of another case was that
Omicron financed my PhD and wanted some practical result of my research in return for the financing.

Nevertheless, since the research aim was to investigate aspects of IS development, organisational
characteristics, and individual psychological issues simultaneously, a research design was needed that would
allow a level of detail that was high enough to study those aspects and their interaction.

d) Phase 3 – Year 2 – Theoretical focus: Organisational behaviour

The research strategy that was developed at this stage entailed the further development of a
preliminary theoretical model, on the basis of which a number of research instruments were to be developed.
These instruments would then have to be approved by Omicron management, after which they would be
tested in the department that would be using the developed BlueTech tool. After testing, the instruments
would be used to gather data in one or more different Omicron production departments and in two other
Danish manufacturing organisations that were also introducing worker-oriented information systems. If
possible, the data gathering stage would be repeated in a before-after setting in order to obtain longitudinal
data.

This second phase of theory building (indicated by the arrows with number (3) in Figure 65) is
methodologically different from the first phase (indicated by number (2)) in the sense that there is no longer
a reciprocal influence between the theory and the BlueTech IS development project. In a sense, the theory
building process became less tightly coupled to an organisational reality, even though the experience gath-
ered in that project retained a strong influence on the direction of the theory building.

As I mentioned before, the theory building process shifted focus, away from IS development
methods and more towards the psychological and organisational aspects of IS implementation in production
settings, and especially at the individual level of analysis. Moreover, the BlueTech project had demonstrated
the importance of contextual organisational events in understanding the success or failure of IS development
and implementation projects.

168
 My initial focus during this second theory-building phase was on the concepts of motivation and
satisfaction, since they had been investigated rather often in IS contexts before. However, it turned out that
the popular models of motivation were not really relevant when applied to individuals in manufacturing
settings. This was not only the case for the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) that I
mentioned before, but also for goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) and other motivational theories.
The reason why they are not relevant in this context is that those theories assume that employees have a
certain degree of control over their activities, that they can set their own goals, etc. In short, these models
pre-suppose job situations which offer the individual possibilities for satisfying self-actualisation and growth
needs.

Due to the perceived insufficiency of modern motivation models, focus shifted to the classical needs-
driven motivation models, which did seem to offer other possible explanations of motivation, such as the
fulfilment of basic, social or (self-) esteem needs, explanations which are more relevant in a context of
repetitive manual work. However, through my reading of the literature on work psychology and
organisational behaviour, an awareness grew of the limitation of focussing on a single factor such as
motivation or satisfaction. Several contributions seemed to posit that needs satisfaction was the basis for a
number of psychological processes under study; motivation, but also job satisfaction, organisational
commitment, and occupational stress are argued to be based on needs satisfaction. This led to a perception
that there might be an underlying basic mental process that caused such diverse psychological processes as
mentioned above. This perception again influenced the literature search, which became more directed at
finding more holistic contributions about such underlying mental processes. This re-directed literature search
in turn led to a ‘discovery’ of the work on person-environment fit in relation to occupational stress (Edwards
et al., 1998). However, the perception remained that ‘something’ was missing that could link all these
concepts together. They were still rather fragmented aspects of working life, while there was this awareness
of an underlying basic principle.

The second temporary theoretical model that was taking shape also crystallised in a presentation to
an international audience in the third quarter of 1999 (Verjans, 1999), this time in a small international
workshop on Organisational Semiotics, where an interesting discussion contributed to the theory building.

e) Phase 4 – End of Year 2 – Development of research instruments

Towards the end of Year 2 the theory building process needed to be temporarily put on hold again in
order to prepare the research instruments that were going to be used in the Omicron case. This phase of the
project is represented by the number (4) in Figure 65, where the arrows indicate that the process of develop-
ing the research instruments was influenced by the theory building process and the characteristics of the
Omicron case, and that parts of the instruments came from the literature.

The development of the research instruments was rather ambiguous with regard to research
methodology. To explain what I mean by ambiguous, let me briefly describe more standard research designs
in information systems research and social sciences.
In purely confirmatory research designs, a researcher starts from a completely elaborated theory – be
it often rather fragmentary and factor-oriented – from which a number of hypothetical relations between a
number of variables are derived. These hypotheses can then be tested through the use of pre-tested
questionnaires that are distributed to a statistically correct sample of IT managers. If the researcher reaches a
satisfactory response rate, statistically relevant tests can be performed that will then either confirm the
starting hypotheses or not. On the basis of these results, the original theory is either confirmed or adapted. In
the latter case, further research is needed to confirm the adapted theory, while in the former case some
conclusions are developed which comment on conflicting or similar research contributions. Other possible
confirmatory techniques are experiments or field experiments.
In a purely explorative research design, the research instruments are for instance unstructured
interviews in which one tries to learn about a certain specific project and sometimes asks questions that are
specifically directed towards the constructs that one is investigating. These interviews are then analysed
using specific techniques, and theories are inductively developed from the data that was gathered. These
theories are then compared to both conflicting and similar literature contributions. Other possible exploratory
techniques are observation or document analysis.

169
 Part of the ambiguity of my research strategy was situated in the fact that it was neither purely con-
firmatory nor purely explorative. As I have argued, pure confirmatory research was impossible, since no
elaborated theory was available because existing research contributions were perceived as inadequate. On the
other hand, pure explorative research was not possible either, because the projects to which I had access were
not rich enough to shed light on the research question at hand, and there was no time to start looking for
other projects that would be rich enough.

This ambiguity led to the development of a set of research instruments on the basis of a theory that
was not fully elaborated, a theory where not all relevant variables had been established, but which already
did contain quite a number of potentially relevant variables. The solution I adopted to solve the ambiguity
was to combine quantitative and qualitative instruments. The quantitative instrument – a questionnaire – was
to be used in gathering information about those variables that had been identified as potentially relevant,
such as needs, demands, commitment, satisfaction, stress, health, etc. The qualitative instruments, on the
other hand, were used to identify variables or relations that were not part of the theoretical model yet. The
qualitative sub-set contained the following instruments: semi-structured interviews, observation, project
documents and public information sources, such as newspapers.

The most difficult part in developing the research instruments was the creation of the questionnaire.
The aim at the outset was to use existing instruments for those variables that had been identified in the pre-
liminary theory. But the questions in most research questionnaires in the literature were not relevant for the
manufacturing context of the Omicron case, because most existing instruments presume types of jobs in
which individuals have either some control over their work, or perform knowledge work. It took some effort
to find existing instruments that could be used in a manufacturing setting, but in the end a basis was found in
a recent Danish research questionnaire on ‘Psychosocial well-being’. This questionnaire is an extensive in-
strument with a focus on organisational stress, which contains questions about a number of different work
psychology variables (Kristensen & Borg, 2000). I will describe the instrument in more detail in Chapter 8,
but the important point here is that it is a large instrument that also contains some sensitive questions regard-
ing health, smoking and alcohol habits, sick days, etc. Moreover, this instrument was extended with ques-
tions from other sources (e.g. regarding human needs and organisational issues) and self-developed questions
(e.g. regarding technology attitudes), in order to cover as many potentially relevant issues as possible. This
process resulted in a large draft questionnaire with 25 pages of questions, which was presented to Omicron
management for acceptance at the end of 1999.

From a methodological perspective, the use of such a broad instrument was justified by (a) the
research question, which contains individual, organisational and IT issues, (b) the perceived relevance of a
number of variables, and (c) the exploratory nature of the research. However, from a practical and
organisational-political perspective, the use of such a large and potentially sensitive instrument was not so
easy to justify. When the first draft of the instrument was presented, it was deemed far too extensive, and
management could not see the relevance of the instrument for studying information technology projects.
Moreover, their perception of organisational research was more confirmatory than mine. They had envisaged
a very different research project where an existing theoretical model with a limited number of fixed
hypotheses would be investigated by the use of a small questionnaire and some interviews. Therefore, it was
hard for them to see the point of studying so many variables, especially since there was no theoretical
integration of these variables yet. Moreover, its relevance for IT implementation projects was not clear to
them. So, management could not accept the instrument as it was, they wanted it reduced in size and they
wanted each of the question sets to be justified by a hypothesis from a coherent theoretical model.

170
f) Phase 5 – Start of year 3 – First theoretical consolidation and research instrument revision
This problem with the creation of adequate research instruments is probably a situation that many re-
searchers face, namely that it is hard to develop acceptable research instruments on the basis of an explora-
tory research aim and on the basis of preliminary theoretical constructs. The situation had an interesting
methodological effect though, in the sense that the theory building process was all of a sudden very much
influenced by the process of developing an acceptable research instrument. This methodological effect is il-
lustrated in Figure 65 by the double-pointed arrows labelled (5). The full arrow indicates that theory building
and instrument design mutually influence each other. An integrative theoretical construct was needed that
could justify the breadth of the questionnaire, a construct that would in turn change the formulation of some
of the question sets in the questionnaire. The dotted arrow indicates that the renewed theory building effort
triggered a renewed literature search with a focus on finding an integrative concept. It was this renewed lit-
erature search that led to the ‘discovery’ of the phenomenological work on stress (Schabracq & Cooper,
1998), a contribution that allowed the pieces of the puzzle to be put together into a theoretical model based
on stress that was consistent enough to convince Omicron management.

So at the start of year 3 (2000) the revised research instrument69 was approved by the management
committee that was appointed to follow-up on my research. Interestingly this second meeting of the follow-
up committee had an important influence on the design of my research in two ways. Firstly, the vice-
president for production – who was part of the follow-up committee because he needed to approve the use of
the instruments in production departments other than the original BlueTech department – had remained so
adamantly opposed to the research project that I had presented, that he did not allow the use of the
instrument outside the original BlueTech setting. Secondly, between the first and second meeting of the
follow-up committee the personnel manager was replaced by a younger person who was very positive
towards this type of research, partly because he had been involved in the BlueTech project from the start as
the head of the original pilot department. One consequence of this meeting was that suddenly only one case
study remained at Omicron, and then only the one which had been intended as a pilot project, where the
relevance of the research instruments would be tested before applying them in other cases. A more positive
consequence was the support of the new personnel manager, which allowed a fluent collaboration with both
management and union representatives, so that the data gathering phase in the pipe production department at
Omicron could actually be performed in the second quarter of Year 3.

Before the second meeting of the follow-up committee, the questionnaire had been submitted to two
test processes. In a first test, the local manager of the pipe production department and I went through the
questionnaire together, question per question, to check whether the questions made any sense in a manufac-
turing situation and whether they would be understandable to the workers. This manager had been in the de-
partment for 25 years, first as a worker, then as a union representative and later as supervisor-foreman, so he
was in a good position to judge the relevance of the questions, and whether they would generally be under-
standable. He had not seen the questions before, so the test was also a good way for me to observe immediate
reactions to specific questions. As a result of this test, some formulations were simplified (avoiding too many
negative questions), one set of questions was completely reformulated, and some awkward questions were
dropped (regarding smoking and drinking habits). In a second testing round, the questionnaire was tested for
wording, complexity and interpretation by two other individuals. The first person was a neutral individual
with limited Danish language skills, which allowed me to mimic the low literacy level of some of the in-
tended participants. The second one was an Omicron employee from another department who tested the clar-
ity of the formulations, tested for possible local ambiguities, and judged the time it would take to complete
the questionnaire. As a result of this second test process, a few minor changes were made in the formulation
of some of the questions. The final questionnaire was a 20-page booklet with some 200 questions (cf. Annex
B on page 358).

g) Phase 6 – Data gathering in two organisations

Once the instrument had been approved, the actual data gathering could proceed, both at Omicron
and at the second participating organisation, Alpha. This process is represented by block (6) in the figure
above.
The main methodological issue in the data gathering process was that respondents always filled out
the questionnaire before I (or my colleague) interviewed them. There were four main reasons for doing the

69
Some sensitive questions regarding smoking and drinking habits were removed, and some questions were reformulated.

171
interview after the questionnaire. The first reason was that the content of the questions was very different
from the respondents’ daily work and their normal pre-occupations. Presenting the questionnaire before the
interviews had two advantages: (a) that the respondents ‘got into the right mind-set’, i.e. they knew which
type of topics we would be discussing in the interview, and (b) that the whole group of respondents had been
through the same exercise. Secondly, precisely because the completion of the questionnaire was a group ac-
tivity, the rest of the group also knew what kind of questions were being asked in the interviews. If the inter-
views had preceded the filling out of the questionnaire, the interviewees would have returned to their activi-
ties with a different attitude, something in the line of “You’ll never guess what kind of questions this guy is
asking.” This would have had an influence on the group’s attitude towards the study and this group attitude
might have biased individual answers to the questionnaire. The third reason for doing the interview after the
questionnaire was that the interview might have biased the interviewees’ answers to the questionnaire, and
might not have produced the same impulsive answers. Finally, the interview could also be used to ask re-
spondents about the questionnaire, its content and formulations, and how they felt about being asked these
questions.

In the interviews at Omicron, it appeared that the respondents had no major problems with the
questionnaire. Most respondents were fairly satisfied with the formulation, depth and thoroughness of the
questions, while most respondents did feel that there were rather many questions, and that they sometimes
had to answer very similar questions. Nevertheless, most respondents answered all the questions.

The actual data gathering process was rather different at the two companies. Firstly, at Omicron
there was only one round of data gathering, some 9 months after the implementation of the PipeViewer tool.
At Alpha there were two rounds, one that was performed the week before the implementation of a new
information system, and one that was performed some 5 months after the first round.
The second difference between the two cases is situated in the procedure that was followed to get
answers from the blue-collar production workers. At Omicron, all workers were gathered in a meeting room
on a Tuesday morning, two hours before lunch, together with their supervisor and manager. This whole
group filled out the questionnaire in a single session, after which coffee and cake were offered as a kind of
reward. The interviews with the workers were performed on the next day. At Alpha, this same procedure had
been planned, but due to a misunderstanding, the questionnaires were distributed by the trade union
representative, and the workers filled them out at home or during their lunch hour. This resulted in a fairly
low response for the first round. To avoid this problem in the second round, the same procedure as at
Omicron was applied. Workers on two different production shifts were gathered in the canteen during
working hours, where they were offered a cup of coffee and a snack. The advantage of this procedure is that
respondents feel that their organisation supports the research, if it is willing to pay for it during work hours.
The third difference is situated in the nature of the working groups that were investigated. At
Omicron, all respondents were from the pipe production department, where only a minority of respondents
used the PipeViewer tools, so here a comparison is possible within the same department. At Alpha two
distinct groups from different departments participated in the research, and only one of those groups had
made the transition to self-management, while the other was still functioning in the traditional way. This
allowed a comparison of the target group with a kind of control group in another department.

A final aspect of the data gathering process that is methodologically interesting, is that the
quantitative and qualitative data of each single respondent can be compared, even though the data gathering
for the production workers was anonymous. This was achieved by asking the local union representatives to
draw up a small list of names of the interviewees and give each of them a number. At Omicron, the union
representative was also given numbered questionnaires that he could hand out to those colleagues that would
later be interviewed. During the interviews the next day, people would identify themselves with their
number, thus allowing me to couple their interview data to their questionnaire data. It is important to note
here that I had not looked at the questionnaires before I interviewed the workers, in order to avoid bias on my
part. A similar process was used at Alpha, where the numbers allowed me to track the evolution of individual
workers over time. A final remark in this context is that the questionnaires and interviews of union
representatives and managers were not anonymous.

h) Phase 7 – Second half of Year 3 (2000) – Final theoretical consolidation

The qualitative data analysis of the Omicron data was performed in the summer of year 3, and this
analysis substantiated some parts of the theory, as I will discuss in Chapter 9 below. However, also the writ-

172
ing process of a conference chapter (Verjans, 2000) and not in the least also the process of writing this dis-
sertation were important for the consolidation of the theory. When writing up different draft versions of
complex theory in a structured way, some new aspects kept popping up, which could then be double-checked
in the data and in the literature. This iterative process of moving back and forth between writing, reading and
checking data – illustrated by the arrows numbered (7) in Figure 65 – was very informative, and has been
instrumental in consolidating the CHARISM framework discussed in Chapter 5.

2. Aspects of the resulting hybrid research method / strategy

Throughout the project history, the research method has arguably gone through a number of
evolutions, and I want to discuss some of those evolving aspects in this paragraph. But by way of summary, I
want to first list these evolutions. The method evolved
- from purely exploratory to mixed exploratory-confirmatory
- from mainly data-driven to mainly theory-driven
- from interventionist through interpretative to mixed interpretative-reductionist, and
- from mainly qualitative data to mixed quantitative-qualitative,
while the research focus has shifted
- from mainly oriented to IS development to the organisational behaviour aspects of IS.

While many aspects of the research process changed throughout the PhD project, some aspects
remained constant, such as its reliance on multiple field case studies, and its link to worker-oriented
technology. In a sense, my experience throughout the research project was similar to the one that Eileen
Trauth (1997) describes, when she discusses the improvisations that were needed to keep the “methodology
focused on the research goal rather than existing as an end in itself” (p.225).

The chronological description of my PhD project has illustrated the causes of the methodological
decisions that needed to be made throughout the project, and the arguments behind those choices. The
research method that I ended up with is arguably quite hard to characterise, even retrospectively, and that is
the reason why I have labelled it ‘hybrid’70.

a) Research purpose: exploratory vs. confirmatory aspects

The CHARISM model is the result of a case-based exploratory research approach, which allowed me
to relate aspects of the BlueTech case in an iterative fashion to contributions from the literature and to theory
building. Practical problems at Omicron would repeatedly cause my literature search to focus on quite
different issues, while some of the research contributions in the literature that were interesting at first sight
could be discarded on the basis of particular aspects of the BlueTech case. So, in a sense the theory building
happened in a very exploratory way.

Within IS methodology literature, exploratory research is contrasted with hypothesis-testing

research, for instance in the paper by Franz & Robey (1987). Within the literature on the implementation of
information systems, the authors distinguish between the factor (or variance) and process research
paradigms, which they argue reflect the more general distinction between the scientific goals of predicting
and understanding. Next to the discovery/testing distinction, they find ‘time’ to be a second crucial parameter
in determining the appropriate type of research. The dimension of time will also be discussed in the next
section. The two dimensions lead Franz & Robey to the following typology of research strategies.

70
The term hybrid is also used in (Shaw & Jarvenpaa, 1997) to indicate research models that lie between pure process and pure
variance models, as discussed by Mohr (1982) and Markus & Robey (1988), but I will return to that discussion in the next section of
this chapter.

173
 Table 22: A typology for research strategies (adapted from Franz & Robey, 1987)

Time Frame
Single Period Multiple Periods
Observe Current State Observe Ongoing Processes
Discovery (generate ideas for factor (generate ideas for process

Purpose
theories) theories)

Test Static Associations Test Dynamic Changes (cause

Testing
(correlational analyses) and effect)

The left-hand column of Table 22 contains those research strategies that are aimed at studying phe-
nomena in a single time frame, while the right-hand column contains strategies that study phenomena over
several time periods. The bottom row strategies are argued to be adequate when one wants to find support for
existing theoretical hypotheses, while the top row strategies are adequate when one tries to discover relations
between phenomena without having pre-formed theories.

At the start, the theoretical model was the result of a discovery effort during multiple periods of the
BlueTech project. Because of a perceived lack of a satisfactory theory within extant literature, ideas were
generated for a new process theory that could explain the complexity of the phenomena that were observed at
Omicron. But towards the end of the project, the research also acquired some confirmatory characteristics,
when attempts were made to test some of the ideas in the new model through the use of several instruments.
However, this testing retained an exploratory flavour, in the sense that it did not make use of thoroughly
tested or validated research instruments.

b) Theory-building: data-driven vs. theory-driven

The original idea was to ground the research in extensive empirical data from the BlueTech project
and other similar projects, and build a theory on the basis of these data – as suggested in Eisenhardt’s
classical (1989) “roadmap for building theory from case study research”. However, circumstances forced a
shift of the research towards a theory-driven project. The data and experiences that were gathered in the first
phase of the project informed the literature search and the theory building. They provided a practical and
production-worker-oriented perspective that allowed extensive filtering of the literature and focussing of the
theory building, but otherwise the theory-building was not really thoroughly grounded in the data.

What happened was that the BlueTech project embodied a specific problem formulation and a kind
of situation that – at least to my knowledge – had not been satisfactorily investigated in the literature before.
This specific problem was then ‘lifted’ to a higher level of abstraction, and by combining existing concepts
and ideas in an exploratory way, a theory was developed that can inform a wide range of IS development and
implementation problems. Finally, in order to support that claim of general applicability, some empirical
support was sought in two small case studies that could substantiate at least a limited part of the complex
theoretical framework.

In short, I want to argue that the problem formulation was grounded in a real-life situation, but that
the theoretical solution was only partly driven by inductive reasoning on the basis of those data. Instead, the
theory was mainly developed by adductively combining theoretical concepts from research in other areas. At
the end of the project, some empirical support was sought by deductive analysis of the qualitative and
quantitative data.

c) Epistemology: intervention vs. interpretation vs. reduction

While research methods are typically classified into two categories according to their epistemologi-
cal status, i.e. positivist vs. interpretivist (Galliers, 1985; Galliers & Land, 1987), Vidgen and Braa (1997)
argue for a ‘cleaner’ research framework with a third category, namely intervention. Positivist research
wants to reduce the complexity of the area of research in order to be able to make reliable predictions, and
interpretative is concerned with making a reading of history in order to gain understanding. However, the
authors argue that each of the research types also intervenes in social reality, and can therefore affect the
situation (cf. also Adair, 1984). Therefore, the authors have developed a triangular research framework,
shown in Figure 66. The points of the triangle represent intended research outcomes: prediction is associated

174
with the reduction of a positivist approach, understanding is the aim of an interpretative approach, and
change is aligned with an interventionist approach. These points represent ideal types, which are not attain-
able in practice, as represented by the bounded area of the triangle. The dotted lines inside the triangle indi-
cate movement towards the ideal types. The process of reduction should allow greater explanatory power,
predictive power and statistical generalisability (traditionally obtained through experiments). The process of
interpretation is associated with greater richness of insight (usually achieved through case studies). The proc-
ess of intervention allows the researcher to learn at first-hand about the mundane realities of IS and IS devel-
opment in organisations (usually achieved through action research). On the basis of this triangle, the authors
identify three “purified forms of research – field experiment, soft case study, and action research – together
with three hybrid research methods – quasi-experiment, hard case study, and action case” (p. 527).

change

intervention

reduction interpretation

prediction unde rstanding

Figure 66: An IS research framework (Adapted from Vidgen & Braa, 1997, p.527)

Using this framework, the authors classify research projects by plotting them on the three dimensions
and studying evolutions in research focus throughout time. In Figure 67, I have used this technique and plot-
ted the different epistemological shifts of my research project in the different phases that I represented on the
timeline in Figure 65 and discussed in the previous paragraph.

change

(1-2)

(3)
(4)

prediction unde rstanding

Figure 67: Epistemological evolution of PhD project through time.

The numbers in parentheses refer to the different phases identified in §1 above.
The circles represent the purified research types and the ellipses the hybrid types.

At the start of the PhD project (phases 1 and 2), the epistemological focus was on intervention, since
my task was to co-ordinate the creation and implementation of a new IS system. This phase was not purely
focused on intervention, since a major part of the work was to understand the organisational and job charac-
teristics of the new software tools. When my participation in the BlueTech project ended (phase 3), my re-

175
search project went through a major shift which led away from the interventionist approach and more to-
wards an effort to try and understand the problems encountered during my participation in the BlueTech pro-
ject. In phase 4 then, especially during the design of the research instruments, the project moved slightly to-
wards the prediction perspective and still further away from the interventionist approach. In terms of the
Vidgen and Bra paper, the research shifted from action research through action case to hard case.

My final epistemological stance can again be characterised as a hybrid that is situated somewhere
between the desire to make rich interpretations of complex situations (understanding) and the need to reduce
complexity by suggesting a number of organisational, individual and IT characteristics (variables), whose
mutual relations can be used as a basis for predicting misfits. Another ‘predictive’ aspect of the research is
that the Alpha Industry case has a minor experimental flavour, through the use of a target and a control
group. The research project has not completely renounced its interventionist perspective, though, since one
of the aims of the resulting theory is to make suggestions for improving practice. But in my view the main
perspective remains that of an interpretative field study (Klein & Myers, 1999), even though the data
gathering and analysis is both qualitative and quantitative.

d) Nature of empirical data: quantitative vs. quantitative

A final methodological shift in my research project was from purely qualitative data to mixed
methods research. An important remark needs to be made here on the distinction between qualitative and
quantitative research, terms which are often used interchangeably with the dichotomies (a) interpretativist vs.
positivist (which focuses on epistemological stance) and (b) process vs. variance (which focuses more on the
logical structure of theories). In this context the distinction qualitative / quantitative refers to the type of data
used in research, and I want to argue that I have used a mixed method as regards data collection and analysis.
Mixed method research is defined as empirical research that meets the following conditions (Gallivan, 1997,
pp. 419-420):
- at least two different methods are used for collecting data
- at least one of the data collection methods is qualitative (e.g., interviews)
- at least one of the data collection methods is quantitative (e.g., surveys)
- both qualitative and quantitative data are presented
- both qualitative and quantitative data are analysed
- the research addresses a theoretical question rather than providing description only

As will become clear in the discussion of the two field studies below, the two types of data were of a
complementary nature, and the insights of both methods were crucial to the understanding of each case.

C. Methodological aspects of the CHARISM framework

Now that I have described the research methods that I have used to develop the CHARISM
framework, I want to look in some detail at the research-philosophical aspects of the resulting theoretical
model. As was the case with the research methods that were used to develop the theory, the resulting model
can be described as hybrid. In this final section of the methodological chapter, I want to oppose some of the
characteristics of the theoretical model that make it into a hybrid construction.

1. Causal structure
In their well-known 1988 paper, Lynne Markus and Daniel Robey discuss theoretical structure in
existing literature on IT and organisational change. They discern three dimensions of theoretical causal
structure in “theories about why and how information technology affects organizational life” (Markus &
Robey, 1988, p.583), namely causal agency, logical structure and level of analysis.
Causal agency refers to the beliefs that a researcher has about the nature of causality, i.e. whether ex-
ternal forces such as technology causes change (technological imperative), whether people act purposefully
to accomplish intended goals (organisational imperative) or whether change emerges from the interaction of
people and events (emergent perspective). Logical structure refers to the time span of theory (static versus
dynamic) and to the hypothesised relationships between antecedents and outcomes. These relationships are
either perceived as invariant, necessary and sufficient (variance models), or as a recipe of sufficient condi-

176
tions that occur over time (process models). Finally, level of analysis refers to the entities that the theory is
about: individuals, collectives or both. The three dimensions of causal structure are summarised in Figure 68
below.
Causal agency Logical Level of analysis
structure
Technological
Macro
imperative Variance theory
Emergent
Mixed
perspective
Organizational Process theory
Micro
imperative

Figure 68: Dimensions of causal structure (Adapted from Markus & Robey, 1988)

The dimensions that Markus & Robey distinguished have often been used by authors in IS literature
in order to situate their own research contributions. I want to use the dimensions for the same reason, but not
without a small comment on their logical generality. While the second and third dimension can be generally
applied to any type of sociological research, the first dimension is somewhat more limited in its application.
Therefore I want to argue that another, more general, terminology is needed to reach the same degree of
generality for the dimension of causal agency, such as for instance ‘Environmental imperative’ and ‘Human
action imperative’.
The term ‘Environmental imperative’ stresses that human action – at whichever level of analysis – is
restricted and determined by environmental characteristics, and that social phenomena can best be explained
by referring to environmental characteristics. When applied to information systems, this perspective would
view technology as such an environmental – exogenous – force that determines or strongly constrains the
behaviour of individuals and organisations. However, the term ‘environmental imperative’ suggests that
there are other exogenous forces that determine human behaviour.
The term ‘Human action imperative’ suggests that human action is the main causal agent, i.e.
humans can freely choose their behaviour and that human actions shape social phenomena. When applied to
information systems, this perspective suggests that human actors design information systems to satisfy
organisational needs. Again human actors need to be conceptualised on more than one level of analysis, i.e.
both individuals and organisations can be perceived as the main causal agents in relation to their
environment. The disadvantage of the term ‘organizational imperative’ that Markus & Robey use is that it
only focuses on the organisational level of analysis.

In terms of the dimensions in Figure 68, the CHARISM model can be characterised as follows. It
takes an emergent perspective, focuses on a mixed level of analysis and can be situated somewhere between
process and variance theories. In the following paragraphs, I will argue for these characterisations in some
detail.

a) Emergent vs. deterministic aspects (Causal agency)

The environmental and the human action imperative can both be regarded as models that have
deterministic perspectives, i.e. either humans or their environment determine social behaviour, i.e. a
unidirectional causal relation is argued to exist. The emergent perspective, on the contrary, holds that human
social behaviour emerges from complex social interactions: “behavior cannot be predicted a priori either by
the intention of individual actors or by the conditions of the environment” (Pfeffer, 1982, p. 9). Within IS
literature there have recently been quite some contributions that take such an emergent perspective,
contributions which have often been related to specific social theories, such as actor-network theory
(Walsham, 1997; Avison et al., 1998), or structuration theory (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991;
DeSanctis & Poole, 1994).

The CHARISM framework clearly takes an emergent perspective, since it posits the importance of
both individual/organisation and environment, and more specifically of the complex dynamic fit relations

177
between their characteristics71. Another argument for classifying CHARISM as an emergent theory is the
signification process that is so crucial in the model. Signification is argued to be a socially determined indi-
vidual sense-making process, where meaning creation is perceived as an emergent process. Indeed, meaning
as a process is neither a purely individually or socially determined phenomenon, but an emergent phenome-
non that unfolds through the situated interaction of an individual with his environment. Indeed, it is argued
that the social meaning ascribed to information technology is central to the emergent perspective.

Within the emergent perspective the task of predicting organisational changes associated with
information technology becomes an extremely complex task, which requires “detailed understanding of
dynamic organizational processes in addition to knowledge about the intention of actors and the features of
information technology.” (Markus & Robey, 1988, p.589)

b) Process vs. variance aspects (Logical structure)

Another dichotomy that is often used to identify and classify a research model is the second
dimension in Markus & Robey’s discussion of theoretical structure, namely the distinction between process
and variance models (cf. also Mohr, 1982; Shaw & Jarvenpaa, 1997). The difference between the two types
is explained in terms of the hypothesised relationships between logical antecedents and outcomes. In
variance theories, an invariant relationship is posited to exist between causes and effects when the contingent
conditions obtain. Process theories, on the other hand, assert that the outcome can happen only under these
conditions, but that the outcome may just as well not happen. A process theory is conceived as a “recipe that
strings [necessary conditions] together in such a way as to tell the story of how [the outcome] occurs
whenever it does occur” (Mohr, 1982, p.37, as cited in Markus & Robey, 1988, p. 590).

While both Mohr and Markus & Robey warn against mixing process and variance theories, other re-
searchers (e.g. Shaw & Jarvenpaa, 1997) have argued that hybrid models do exist and that they are able to
“make valuable contributions to our knowledge of IS.” (op.cit., p.70). Shaw and Jarvenpaa developed a ty-
pology of research models where the pure process and variance models are extreme types in the typology. In
their study, they have also classified existing literature contributions (except those that were pure variance
models). Table 23 shows the Shaw and Jarvenpaa typology, together with the number of research contribu-
tions for each type. It is important to remember that variance theories in the literature have not been included
in the study, even though some authors experience that variance theories are “more common” (Markus &
Robey, 1988, p. 592).
Table 23: Process-variance typology of research models (Table adapted from Tables 1 and 2 in Shaw & Jarvenpaa,
1997)
Sequential Concepts Predictable Model IS studies
No Process 16
Events
Yes Hybrid -
No Hybrid 3
Sequential Mixed
Yes Hybrid -
No Hybrid 2
Variables
Yes Hybrid 3
No Hybrid -
Events
Yes Hybrid -
No Hybrid -
Temporal Mixed
Yes Hybrid -
No Hybrid -
Variables
Yes Hybrid 3
No Hybrid -
Events
Yes Hybrid -
No Hybrid -
Non-temporal Mixed
Yes Hybrid -
No Hybrid -
Variables
Yes Variance ?

71
Markus & Robey (1988) mention Gasser’s (1986) study as an example of an emergent theory. Gasser’s analysis of the integration
of computing and routine work examined the misalignment between demands of the work setting and the computing resources avail-
able, thereby focusing on the dynamic interplay among actors, context, and technology.

178
 The three dimensions in the Shaw & Jarvenpaa typology are ‘concepts’, temporality, and predictabil-
ity, each of which I want to briefly describe now. After that description I will argue for my classification of
the CHARISM model as a hybrid research model that is (a) sequential, (b) based on events and variables,
and (c) inherently unpredictable.
The dimension of ‘concepts’ refers to the nature of the concepts that form the research model.
Concepts in a variance model are variables that can take on multiple values, while the concepts in a process
model are events or possibly states that can either occur or not occur. When a theoretical model contains a
mix of variables and events, it is classified as a hybrid.
The second dimension is temporality or sequence. In Mohr’s (1982) view, sequential and temporal
are synonymous, but Shaw & Jarvenpaa make a distinction between the two. They argue that sequential
relationships are necessarily temporal, but not vice versa. They argue that it makes sense to call a research
model temporal but not sequential, if it is based on the measurement of the same concept at two points in
time. This also implies that a sequential relationship can only occur between two different concepts. Non-
temporal relationships can be found in pure variance models, where the variables coexist simultaneously.
The third dimension is based on the predictability of the relationship between concepts. In process
models, the path from one event to the next is probabilistic, or subject to random external forces, which make
it inherently unpredictable. In a pure variance model, the relationship between variables is consistent over
time, because it is not affected by such external forces.

In their review of the IS literature, the authors have only found theories in 6 of the theoretically 18
possible theory types in the taxonomy, where the majority of contributions where pure process models. The
authors found 4 types of hybrid theoretical models. Where does the CHARISM theory fit into this typology?
Firstly, it is arguably sequential in the sense that it studies existing states of individual and organisational
harmony, then studies the characteristics of the new information technology, and suggests the type of
organisational and psychological initiatives that are needed to prevent greater misfits from arising.
Secondly, the concepts that the model is built of, are both variables and events. The model suggests
studying the temporal evolution of such variables as satisfaction, commitment, stress, technology attitudes,
etc. in order to judge the degree of individual and organisational strain or harmony at different stages in an
IT development and implementation project. But the model also suggests studying (and/or influencing) the
events that occur between the different measurements in order to understand the reasons for potential
changes in the value of the variables. Eventually the aim of the model is to be able to prevent stress states to
arise, and to suggest actions for (re-)establishing harmony.
Thirdly, the theoretical model is too complex to allow a researcher to predict relations between
concepts. It may well be able to judge whether certain misfits are probable given a certain situation, but it
will not be able to predict with any degree of certainty.

c) Levels of analysis
The level of analysis issue, the third dimension in Markus & Robey’s typology of theoretic structure,
has been discussed before in this dissertation, since the CHARISM model was intended to solve the single-
level limitation of existing literature. The CHARISM framework has been conceived as a model on two lev-
els of analysis, but each level is also mixed, as argued in the discussion of the cross-level aspects of the
model (cf. p. 153). In the discussion of the individual concepts of integrity and harmony, the perceptions of
the group play a major role in shaping the individual’s signification process. In the discussion of the organ-
isational level concepts of organi-self, organi-strain and harmony, the individual perceptions of leading indi-
viduals play a decisive role. And in the discussion of the role of new IT, it was argued that the individual-
and organisational-level effects could not be separated. So one could conclude that the CHARISM model
clearly is a mixed-level theoretical model.

2. Normative aspects of CHARISM model

Markus & Robey (1988) also discuss normative aspects of the different theoretical structures, espe-
cially with regard to the causal structure. They argue that analysts who take a technological imperative per-
spective propose policies and remedies that “center on stopping, slowing or accelerating the rate of change in
information technology or selecting information technologies with particular packages of features” (p.589).
Organisational imperative analysts tend to “prescribe improved design and resource allocation methods and
better implementation strategies and tactics” (ibid.). For analysts with an emergent perspective, the norma-
tive aspect is often less clear, since they argue that outcomes are unpredictable. Some analysts avoid inter-

179
vention, “arguing that prediction is impossible and outcomes are indeterminate; others advocate “emancipa-
tory” strategies, such as extensive user participation in the analysis, design, and implementation of informa-
tion technology” (ibid.).

The position of the CHARISM model in this discussion is again a mixture of a number of these
aspects, depending on the types of fit or misfit between individual, organisational and IT characteristics.
Firstly, since the theory can pinpoint probable misfits, interventions are not a priori rejected, in fact the
theory is meant to support analysts in performing interventions that are more informed. For instance, when
the new technology has a low degree of customisability and is hard to change, better implementation
strategies may prevent the creation of organisational misfits. In other cases, misfits may be prevented by
adapting the IS development or implementation processes, or by adopting different technologies. Secondly,
the theory supports the argument that a high degree of user participation is always helpful because it supports
the individuals’ signification processes.

The type of interventions that can be performed on the basis of the theory will depend on the
position of the analyst, but it will always involve informing the relevant group of stakeholders and supplying
arguments for the analyst’s perception of potential misfits. When the analyst has been able to participate in
an organisation’s functioning, he will probably be more capable of identifying the relevant stakeholder
groups and the main signification processes within the organisation, than when he is an external consultant
on a short-term contract. On the other hand, when the analyst has become too involved in the political
organisational processes surrounding an IS development project, there are two major risks. His judgement
may become politically biased, and/or his judgement may be perceived as politically biased by organisational
stakeholders, even when it isn’t. In my view, some of these internal political discussions can be avoided if an
analyst uses both qualitative and quantitative arguments for supporting his argumentation. Due to historical
and educational reasons quite a number of organisational decision makers are still more sensitive to
quantitative arguments – so-called hard facts – than to qualitative arguments, so it is important to be able to
provide such quantitative data as questionnaire results. On the other hand, qualitative data allow an analyst to
argue for the complex processes that may cause certain quantitative phenomena, so that decision makers can
develop tools to change certain processes. As one of the researchers that Shaw & Jarvenpaa (1997)
interviewed puts it:

“The reason for our existence in the business school is to provide prescriptions to managers
on how to improve things. Only the process approach can lead to these prescriptions.” (p.71)

D. Moving down to the practical level

In this chapter, I have described the research question, argumented for the research methods that
have been used in this PhD project, and described methodological aspects of the CHARISM theoretical
framework. These issues are represented in Figure 69 below, where the thick grey arrows indicate the flow of
the dissertation (which is also represented by the hourglass figure at the start of each chapter), and the thin
arrows represent some of the parallel research processes that I discussed in this chapter.

180
 Abstract level
CHARISM
Hypotheses
theory

Research Working
Literature
Instruments hypotheses

Empirical level
BlueTech
Cases
problem

Theory building Empirical support

Figure 69: Research flow of PhD project, as described in this chapter.

The thick grey arrows indicate the flow of the dissertation, while the dotted line separates levels of abstraction.

As discussed before, the flow of the research was such that it started with a practical problem at the
empirical level, then moved up to an abstract level of analysis, where a theory was developed and hypotheses
were formulated. At the next stage I move (back) down to the empirical level.

In the next chapter I want to indicate which of the hypotheses I will be investigating at the empirical
level, and argue how the abstract hypotheses can be operationalised. Chapter 8 will present the research
instruments in some detail, and the two subsequent chapters will discuss the two case studies in some detail.

181
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working
Hypotheses Chapter 7

Research
Instruments

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Different signification processes at work – the creation of an organi-self

Chapter 7. Working Hypotheses

After describing the CHARISM framework and the methodological aspects of the theory and its
creation, I want to move to a more practical level. In this chapter, I will describe which hypotheses were
selected for further empirical investigation, and the arguments upon which the selection is based. I will also
define operationalised working propositions for the hypotheses, and briefly describe the techniques that will
be used to empirically substantiate the hypotheses. In a second section, I will briefly discuss how the
hypotheses that were not selected can be operationalised through the definition of closely interrelated
dimensions.

A. Selecting hypotheses and defining working propositions

As I have argued before, it is not possible to try and substantiate all 64 statements from the
CHARISM theory in the empirical part of my research. A first reason for this is that the data gathering
process was undertaken before the theory was fully consolidated, which means that parts of the theory were
only shaped after the data gathering process. A second reason is related to the practical limitations of any
research project, such as for instance the problem of getting access to companies willing to participate in
research of a potentially sensitive nature, the changing schedules of IS implementation projects within
companies, etc. Thirdly, some hypotheses demand a longitudinal analysis over quite a lengthy time period,
for example, those hypotheses that deal with the changes within individual strain level before, during and
after implementation projects. A final reason is that some of the theoretical statements concern the
hypothesised existence of quite abstract high-level constructs such as integrity or harmony, an existence that
is quite hard to establish empirically, especially within the limited framework of a PhD project.

In practice, the selection of working hypotheses was guided by the following considerations. Firstly,
I had access to two projects at two Danish manufacturing companies in the metal industry, where worker-
oriented information systems were being developed and/or implemented. The main focus of attention was
therefore on the individual psychological level, and not so much on the organisational level. Secondly,
because the environment for both companies is very similar, the influence of the environment on individual
harmony is hard to establish. Thirdly, because the new information system is only used by very few people at
both sites – and on a voluntary basis at Omicron – there is not much to learn with regard to the effects of the
new system on individual harmony. Fourthly, the IS implementation at the two sites were completely
different as regards their organisational embedding. At Omicron, the project had only experimental status,
while the IS implementation at Alpha was part of a major organisational turnaround.

183
 Table 24: Individual level hypotheses. The ticked boxes indicate the hypotheses that will be ‘tested’.

H1: Different need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing differences between
different types of individuals
H1a: Individuals with different need portfolios will generally prefer different
organisational roles and tasks
H1b: Individuals with different need portfolios have different attitudes towards
information technology
H2: An individual’s needs portfolio is partly contingent on environmental
characteristics
H3: An individual’s needs portfolio is related to his/her skills and abilities

H4: Individuals construct a relatively stable niche to live in, a niche which consists of
socially developed situations that reduce environmental complexity and allow
semi-automatic functioning
H5: Through socially situated functioning a semi-permanent set of meanings and
routines is created, the so-called ‘integrity of human functioning’
H6: An individual’s needs portfolio will partly determine the nature of his/her niche
and integrity
H7: Integrity is achieved and preserved through an individual multi-stage
signification process, which entails – amongst others – subjective judgements of
person-environment fit
H8: Mental harmony is achieved when an individual perceives an adequate degree of
integrity
H9: Mental harmony leads to a sense of mental well-being

H10: Inadequate integrity is caused by (a) person-environment misfit, or (b) major

changes in the environment
H11: Perceived inadequate integrity is stressful

H12: Mental harmony and stress (mental disharmony) are extremes on a mental strain
scale, where mental strain is a measure of perceived inadequate integrity (person-
environment misfit)
H13: An individual will try to maintain or (re)establish mental harmony, i.e. an
individual will try to prevent mental strain
H14: Changes on the mental strain scale – reductions or increases of strain – are
caused by environmental change and/or personal change
H15: Sudden (dramatic) changes in mental strain level cause disruptions in integrity
and can become stressors in their own right
H16: Mental harmony leads to high (job) satisfaction

H17: Mental harmony leads to high (organisational) commitment

H18: Mental harmony leads to high job motivation

H19: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived integrity and his/her
perception of his/her environment, including characteristics of his/her
organisation
H20: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived integrity and his/her
perception of organisational technology

184
1. Individual-level hypotheses
On the individual level-of-analysis a number of hypotheses were not selected for empirical substan-
tiation for the following reasons (cf. Table 24). Firstly, because both research sites are within the same indus-
try and in the same society, their environment is too similar to investigate hypothesis 2, which links individ-
ual needs portfolios to such environmental characteristics as local economic situation.
A second argument is the level of abstraction of some hypotheses (H4, H5, H6, H7, H8 and H12).
These hypotheses are at a very high level of abstraction because they posit the existence of the concepts of
situational niche and integrity. The project’s research setting did not allow such high-level concepts to be
investigated. Moreover, the concepts of niche and integrity had not become part of the theory during the
design of the data gathering strategy. Nevertheless, there was some discussion about the existence of a single
concept of sense during the interviews, but not very thoroughly.
Finally, the lack of a really longitudinal research setting prevented the investigation of the
hypotheses that are related to the time-related processes of strain (H10, H13, H14, and H15).

The remaining hypotheses will be investigated by analysing mainly the quantitative data gathered
with the questionnaire, and they will be operationalised in the following working propositions.
• The hypotheses on the role of needs portfolios will be studied by performing a cluster analysis on the
needs-related answers (18 items) of all respondents. The working propositions are formulated as follows:

P1: Analyses of variance of respondents grouped by needs-based clusters show

statistically significant differences.
P1a: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters hold different job types
P1b: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters have different attitudes
towards technology
P3: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters have different education
levels

• The other hypotheses will be investigated by studying the correlations between different variables. The
integrity and harmony concepts are operationalised as person-environment fit, (consisting of needs-
supplies fit and demands-abilities fit). PE-fit is correlated with individual parameters of mental health,
stress, satisfaction, commitment, and motivation, but also with the individual’s perception of
organisational characteristics, and the individual’s technology attitude. The propositions are therefore
formulated as follows.

P9: PE-fit is positively correlated with mental well-being

P11: PE-fit is negatively correlated with stress indicators
P16: PE-fit is positively correlated with job satisfaction
P17: PE-fit is positively correlated with organisational commitment
P18: PE-fit is positively correlated with motivation
P19: PE-fit is correlated with perceptions of organisational characteristics
P20: PE-fit is positively correlated with a positive technology attitude

• Finally, the answers of both test sites that are related to individual psychological dimensions (except for
needs-related issues) will be compared to Denmark’s average and the average of Denmark’s metal
industry workers. That comparison will allow the stress-related issues to be investigated more
thoroughly.

185
 The existence of the main theoretical constructs in the CHARISM framework is not investigated
empirically, but their existence is assumed in the propositions listed above, where PE-fit is identified as a
substitute for integrity. However, next to using PE-fit as a substitute for integrity / harmony, I will explore
the quantitative data looking for an underlying variable that correlates with the main substrate variables (PE-
fit, satisfaction, etc.). If such a variable is found, it does not prove the existence of a harmony variable, but it
would indicate that it might be worthwhile to investigate the issue further.

2. IT on the individual level

At the start of the chapter, I mentioned that the role of the new information systems at the two
research sites is rather limited. At Omicron, the PipeViewer is a tool that is used on a voluntary basis by a
small group of pipe-smiths, at Alpha the ShopFloorPC is only used by a small number of workers in the
newly established self-managing teams. This limited use of computers is not expected to have a big impact
on the individual users, i.e. statistically significant differences between users and non-users are not expected.
Nevertheless, the data will be explored in order to find indications about the hypothesised relations.
Especially the longitudinal data at Alpha will be studied, in order to see whether the introduction of the new
way of working and the ShopFloorPC have changed the mental harmony of its users.
Table 25: Hypotheses about IT aspects at the individual level of analysis. The ticked boxes indicate the hypotheses
that will be ‘tested’.

H21: Organisational information technology is a major part of an individual’s mental

harmony when IT has relevance for task performance, i.e. when the individual’s
task or immediate task environment is contingent on the functioning of IT

H22: Organisational IT is an integral part of an individual’s perceived

demands/abilities fit relation, when the individual is directly confronted with IT,
i.e. when (s)he (needs to) use IT in the performance of her organisational tasks

H23: Organisational information technology places demands on individuals that use it,
but may also satisfy an individual’s needs
H24: For some types of individuals the perception of existing organisational
inconsistencies – internal and mutual misfits within and between organisational
and IT characteristics – will prevent adequate integrity.
H25: Implementation of new IT will initially increase an individual’s level of mental
strain, but this increase will be stronger when the individual can not participate
in the development and implementation process
H26: Implementation of ‘uncustomisable’ information systems may cause strong
signification conflicts and may thus cause strongly increased mental strain
H27: Implementation of new organisational IT may change individual fit relations – by
placing new demands, making abilities obsolete or by satisfying different needs –
and may thus be a potential cause of mental strain
H28: Implementation of new organisational IT may influence individual perceptions of
(in)consistencies at an organisational level – internal and mutual misfits between
organisational and IT characteristics, and may thus be a cause of mental strain

The lack of longitudinal data gathered over a longer period of time prevented the investigation of the
hypothesis about the effect of new IT on the individual strain level (H25). The hypothesis on
‘uncustomisable’ IS (H26) cannot be investigated, because at Omicron and Alpha only an uncustomisable
system has been introduced and comparison is not possible. Hypothesis 24 and 28 were not investigated
because they were not part of the theory at the time of the data collection, and because they are extremely
hard to operationalise.

186
 Hypotheses 21, 22, and 23 will be investigated by exploring the differences between users and non-
users of the ShopFloorPC at Alpha, while hypothesis 23 and 27 will be studied by comparing data from the
two data gathering rounds for both the target group and the control group. Propositions are rather hard to
formulate, because no strong phenomena are expected. Nevertheless, an attempt is made in the following
statements:

P21-22: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows

differences with regard to integrity and strain
P23a: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows
differences with regard to environmental demands and needs satisfaction.
P23b: Users’ levels of needs satisfaction and environmental demands show remarkable
differences before and after the introduction of the new system
P27: Users’ PE-fit relations show remarkable differences before and after the
introduction of the new system.

Next to these quantitative analyses, the qualitative data will also be explored in an effort to
substantiate the hypotheses regarding the role of IT in establishing mental harmony.

3. Organisational level
While the focus at the individual level was on quantitative analysis of working propositions, the data
analysis at the organisational level is mainly qualitative and makes only limited use of quantitative
techniques. There are a number of reasons for this rather large distinction.

Firstly, the research design does not allow a cross-sectional analysis on the organisational level, so
quantitative analysis would not have been meaningful. Moreover, in contrast to the individual level of
analysis, the organisational level theory almost fully consists of new concepts, for which no existing
quantitative operationalisations exist. Therefore, the organisational level analysis has a much more
exploratory character. The main purpose was to get a feel for the theoretical potential of copying individual-
level concepts to the organisational level. Finally, the organisational level analysis has much more of a
process theory flavour, because it was intended as a study of how organisational processes and events might
explain some of the individual-level phenomena, and how the IS development and implementation process is
related to individual and organisational outcomes.

Nevertheless, there are two types of quantitative data analysis at the organisational level. The first
type concerns the dimensions in the OrgCon® instrument72 that were gathered during interviews with the
different stakeholders at the two research sites, i.e. top and middle managers, and trade union representatives.
These questions were not asked to production workers, because they are designed for individuals who have a
complete overview of the organisational situation, which was not the case in the two manufacturing compa-
nies. This first type of data is used to establish the different stakeholders’ views on internal and external mis-
fits, which are analysed as a substitute for (a) the adequacy of the organi-self (Hypothesis H36 in Table 26)
and (b) the level of organisational integrity (Hypothesis H39).
The second type of quantitative data concerns stakeholders’ views on workers’ mental harmony.
Through these questions, the different stakeholders were asked to indicate their perception of worker
psychology, for instance with regard to organisational commitment, job satisfaction, or job insecurity. This
type of data is used to investigate the existence of different signification processes amongst the different
stakeholders (Hypothesis H36), and to find out whether management and trade union’s perception of the
employees are somewhat accurate.

72
Cf. the discussion on the work of the multi-dimensional contingency theory (Burton & Obel, 1998), that was discussed in Chapter
4 on pages 74-77.

187
Table 26: Organisational-level hypotheses. Ticked boxes indicate hypotheses for which a quantitative analysis will
be performed.

H29: Organisations have needs that they want to fulfil in order to survive and remain
healthy
H30: Different organisational need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing between
different types of organisations
H30a: Organisations with different need portfolios will generally prefer different roles
and tasks within their environment, i.e. different needs portfolios are reflected in
different strategic orientations
H30b: Organisations with different need portfolios have different attitudes towards
information technology
H31: An organisation’s needs portfolio is partly contingent on characteristics of its
environment
H32: An organisation’s needs portfolio is related to its skills and abilities
H33: Organisations construct a relatively stable niche to function in, a niche which
consists of socially developed situations that reduce environmental complexity
and allow semi-automatic functioning
H34: Through socially situated functioning a semi-permanent set of meanings and
routines is created, the so-called ‘integrity of organisational functioning’
H35: An organisation’s needs portfolio will partly determine the nature of its niche and
integrity
H36: Organisational integrity is achieved and preserved through a multi-stage
organisational signification process, which entails – amongst others – multi-
subjective judgements of organisation-environment fit
H37: Organisational harmony is achieved when an adequate organi-self perceives an
adequate degree of organisational integrity
H38: Organisational harmony leads to organisational well-being
H39: Inadequate organisational integrity is caused by (a) inadequate organi-self (no
common perception among internal stakeholders), (b) perceived organisation-
environment misfit, or (c) major changes in the environment or the organisation

H40: Perceived inadequate organisational integrity is stressful

H41: Organisational harmony and organi-stress (organisational disharmony) are
extremes on an organi-strain scale, where organi-strain is a measure of perceived
inadequate integrity (organisation-environment misfit)
H42: An organisation will try to maintain or (re)establish organisational harmony, i.e.
an organisation will try to prevent organi-strain
H43: Changes on the organi-strain scale – reductions or increases of strain – are
caused by environmental change and/or organisational change

188
This results in the following few propositions for the quantitative analysis:

P36a: Organisational signification is measured by comparing different stakeholders’

perception of the characteristics of the organisation and its environment.
P39a: Large differences within and between stakeholder groups in the perception of
organisational and environmental characteristics indicate inadequate organi-self
and thus inadequate integrity
P36b: Organisational signification is measured by comparing workers’ average answers
regarding psychological climate with other stakeholders’ expectations of workers’
answers.
P39b: Large differences between (a) average worker climate perceptions and (b) the other
stakeholders’ opinion of those perceptions indicate inadequate organi-self and thus
inadequate integrity.
P40: Inadequate organisational integrity is correlated with stakeholders’ perception of
organisational strain.

However, the main part of the organisational level discussion will be based on qualitative data. As
indicated above, the qualitative data from both research sites will be analysed mainly in order to find support
for some of the theoretical concepts, rather than support for the relations between the concepts. This makes
the analysis at the organisational level rather more exploratory than that at the individual level. This part of
the qualitative analysis will be based on the interviews that were performed at both sites.

4. The role of IT on the organisational level

The role of the new information systems at the two research sites is rather limited, as will become
clear in the discussion of the cases. At Omicron, the only tool that was eventually installed was the Pipe-
Viewer tool, which has little or no organisational ‘impact’, in the sense that there are only few potential users
and the use of the tool is voluntary. At Alpha on the other hand, the ShopFloorPC was only a minor part of a
major organisational change effort, which involved personnel reduction, new wages systems, self-
management, etc. Some of those differences are reflected in Hypothesis H46 (cf. Table 27 below), which
claims that different organisations (even within similar industries) will perceive different IT demands and
needs. Indeed, at Alpha, the new ShopFloorPC was an integral part of a major change effort (H44), which
was started because of a major internal and external misfit (H48), and was a project involving all major
stakeholders (H50). The issue of different internal IT perceptions within an organisation (H45) will be inves-
tigated on the basis of the Omicron data, as will the issue of the introduction of incompatible meanings and
perceptions (H49).

On the other hand, the lack of a more longitudinal research design again prevented the investigation
of the dynamic aspects of organisational stress (H47, H51 and H52).

In summary, the qualitative analysis at this level will mainly be aimed at exploring the organisational
processes that were involved in the development / introduction of the new technology at both sites. Since the
systems were quite different, one may also expect important differences in the organisational and
developmental processes that occurred. Since the organisational-level IT issues will be investigated in a
qualitative manner, the formulation of research propositions – as I did for the more quantitative research
issues above – is not very meaningful.

189
 Table 27: CHARISM hypotheses at the organisational level of analysis. The ticked boxes indicate those hypotheses
for which qualitative support may be found.

H44: Organisational information technology is an integral part of the organi-self’s

perceived demands / abilities and needs/ supplies fit relations, which play a
major role in establishing organisational integrity
H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs and environmental
IT demands and will therefore contribute different perspectives to the organi-
self’s signification process. When no common perspective can be developed,
organi-strain may arise
H46: Due to their different needs portfolios, different organisations will perceive
different environmental IT demands and internal IT needs
H47: Implementation of new organisational IT is an organisational change project,
that will initially increase the level of organi-strain, due to changes to existing
organisational niches
H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of resolving existing
misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease existing organi-strain, but it may also
unintentionally create new misfits
H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may introduce
incompatible meanings and perceptions, and create signification conflicts within
an organisation, especially when the systems are ‘uncustomisable’
H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation projects can be
minimised by involving as many relevant stakeholders as possible in the
signification process before, during and after the introduction of new IT
H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important contingency when developing
and introducing new IT. Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can
help predict and prevent potential new misfits
H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately developed organi-
self, i.e. an organisation with fundamental disagreements between internal
stakeholders, will further increase existing organi-strain levels

5. Cross-level issues
The final hypotheses are those related to the cross-level issues of the CHARISM theory. As was the
case with the organisational level of analysis, these hypotheses will be investigated in a more qualitative way
for similar reasons. Firstly, the lack of quantitative instruments at the organisational level of analysis
prevents analysis of relations between organisational-level concepts and individual-level concepts. Secondly,
the case-based research design does not allow cross-sectional variance techniques that would be needed to
quantitatively analyse some organisational concepts.

Again, half of the hypotheses have not been selected for empirical substantiation for a number of
reasons (see Table 28). Hypotheses 57 and 58 have not been retained for further analysis, because they pre-
sume the implementation of an organisational information system with substantial impact, which was not the
case at either research site. Hypothesis 59, which builds on the two preceding ones, can therefore not be in-
vestigated either. Hypothesis 53 was not part of the research instrument nor the interview, because it only
became part of the theory during the final consolidation period.

The remaining hypotheses (H54, H55, H56 and H60) will be substantiated by analysing the history
of the Omicron project and comparing the quantitative individual-level data with the interview data.

190
 Table 28: CHARISM hypotheses related to cross-level issues. The ticked boxes indicate those hypotheses that will
be further investigated in the next chapters.

H53: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the world
view and mental harmony of his/her relevant others both within and outside his/her
organisation
H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the level
of organisational integrity (s)he perceives / experiences

H55: Organisational harmony is strongly influenced by the mental harmony of its

leading individuals, i.e. the leaders of its internal stakeholder (sub-)groups

H56: Organisational harmony is influenced by the mental harmony of its members, and
to a lesser extent by the harmony of its external stakeholders

H57: A new organisational information system that has a substantial impact on the level
of organi-strain, will have an influence on the mental strain level of all members of
an organisation
H58: A new organisational IS that has a substantial impact on the mental strain level of
a leading member of an organisation (or a sufficient number of members), will
have an effect on the organi-strain level
H59: The effect of hypotheses H57 and H58 will be stronger when the introduction of a
new IS increases (mental or organi-)strain levels

H60: The mental strain level of the change agent in a project of information system
development and introduction, will have a strong influence both on individual
mental strain levels and on the organi-strain level

The selection process leaves 29 hypotheses to be ‘tested’, but as I have argued before, this testing is
not a robust falsification process but an exploratory attempt at substantiating some of the many new concepts
and claims in the CHARISM model. In view of the limited empirical data, this testing process should
therefore be regarded as a first attempt, but also as a small guide into the methods and instruments that can
be used to empirically substantiate such a complex theoretical framework.

191
B. Characterising information systems, organisations and individuals

Before moving to the detailed description of the research instruments, I want to briefly discuss how
some of the dimensions that have not been empirically investigated in this project can be operationalised for
use in more quantitative research settings. I want to specifically discuss the instruments that could be
developed for studying the fit between the three types of characteristics.

In Chapter 5 I argued for the need to use commensurate measurements when one wants to judge the
degree of fit between organisational, IT and individual characteristics. By way of example, I will be discuss-
ing some characteristics of information systems and some well-known organisational characteristics from
such a multiple-fit perspective in the next paragraphs. This discussion is by no means exhaustive, but illus-
trates how the CHARISM framework can be employed for informing the design of new research instru-
ments.

1. Information system characteristics

In Chapter 2, I briefly introduced a new typology for organisational information systems, based on
characteristics that are organisationally and psychologically relevant (pp. 38-42). By way of example, I want
to look at two of these characteristics and their link to organisational and individual characteristics.

The ‘computerisation level’ parameter "represents the capital intensity of the computer technology
employed throughout the firm. It refers to the ratio of operations carried out by personnel with the assistance
of various computer technologies to the operations carried out without such support" (Das et al., 1991).
At the organisational level, the existing degree of computerisation plays an important role when an
organisation wants to implement a new information system. It can be argued that organisations with a high
level of computerisation will experience high investment barriers when the existing systems need
replacement, thus introducing a high level of organisational inflexibility. In terms of organisation-
environment fit, the organisation has a low degree of ‘flexibility’ skills, which may give rise to misfits if the
environment imposes a high flexibility demand.
At stakeholder group level, the existing degree of computerisation is important when one looks at the
groups or departments within the organisation – or outside the organisation in situations of IT outsourcing –
which are responsible for the maintenance and support of the technology. These groups and individuals will
have developed a relatively stable niche to function in, and can be expected to show a relatively high degree
of resistance to change. In other words, they have a high stake in maintaining the status quo, because changes
might make their skills obsolete or superfluous.
At the level of the individual users, a high level of computerisation may be related to two types of
consequences. Firstly, a high level of computerisation implies the existence of individual niches where habits
and familiarity with existing technology are important constituents, thus raising expected level of resistance
to new systems or major changes to existing ones. Secondly, a high computerisation level might imply a high
degree of scepticism (individual and group signification processes) towards information systems, especially
when existing systems are perceived as non-user-friendly or unusable.

A second example of an IS-related characteristic is the level of content restrictiveness, which can be
defined as the amount of latitude that users get in using an information system. Restrictive systems do not
allow users much freedom to check or add content to an information system, for instance by enforcing the
use of standard input forms and sheets for database entry. Less restrictive systems will allow users more
freedom in the way they add or check information, while the least restrictive systems will allow access to all
information and addition to information (for example through the use of an Intranet or personal Web-pages,
unlimited Internet access, unrestricted e-mail, etc.).
At the organisational level, this parameter is related to the organisational formalisation, i.e. the
amount of rules, regulations, processes, function descriptions, etc. that are written down, and that function as
a set of strict laws. Organisations with a high degree of organisational formalisation in their decision and in-
formation procedures are argued to prefer high content restrictiveness in their information systems, whereas
organisations with a low degree of formalisation will probably allow more latitude in their members' access
to information systems. Or to put it differently, a highly formalised organisation creates a misfit when it has

192
information systems with a low degree of content restrictiveness. The argument for this statement is situated
in the concept of organisational control. For example, imagine a highly formalised organisation that uses
rules, regulations and procedures as a basis for controlling the correctness of its members’ behaviour. When
such an organisation introduces systems with low content restrictiveness, it creates an ambiguous situation
for its members.
Content restrictiveness also has an influence on individual and group psychology: a new information
system with high restrictiveness may cause conflict for those individuals who have a high need for self-
actualisation and control over their own activities and behaviour. This conflict may be perceived as a needs-
supplies misfit, and may lead to an increased level of mental strain.

These two examples illustrate how characteristics of information systems can be related to
organisational and individual characteristics, in order to determine fit or misfit. The remaining problem is
how to operationalise these characteristics into questions that can be used in quantitative or qualitative
research settings.

2. Organisational characteristics
The IS characteristics discussed in the previous paragraph are – for the most part – new concepts
developed in the course of this research. The organisational characteristics73, on the other hand, are well-
known organisational parameters that have been widely used in organisation and management science. I will
discuss the details of the organisational dimensions in the next chapter when I describe the research
instruments. For present purposes, I want to illustrate how organisational characteristics are related to
individual and IT characteristics.

The first example refers to the concept of organisational size, which is one of the dimensions that
have received most attention in the organisational theory literature. Organisational size is a major parameter
in organisational design, since it influences not only the type of configuration, but also other design
parameters such as degree of formalisation or centralisation.
Organisational size can be related to individual characteristics in a number of ways. Firstly, because
size is usually related to organisational age, a job within a large organisation will provide the worker with a
higher sense of job security than a job in a smaller organisation. Indeed, one expects that a large organisation
that has existed for a number of years will be efficient and viable, and that it will not be likely to disappear.
This job security will play a role for a large number of people, but will be most important for those with a
high need for security. Secondly, large organisations are usually more known in the local or national
community, and can thus provide a higher degree of esteem to the people working there. Thirdly however,
large size is often also related to a lower degree of influence for single members, thus reducing the possible
impact one may have. Because individuals with a high need for self-actualisation may perceive conflicts
when working in a large organisation where their potential impact is rather small.
Because the size of an organisation greatly influences the amount of internally- and externally
oriented information co-ordination and communication that needs to be performed, it is also related to IS
characteristics. Large organisations need much more information processing capability to handle internal co-
ordination and control than small or medium-sized organisations, and they need to process more
environmental information. Therefore, the size of the organisation influences the level of computerisation,
thus affecting the cost of information system changes. For large organisations, the cost of information
systems change is often a barrier to flexibility, as I have discussed in the previous paragraph.

A second example is the concept of technology routineness, a concept that refers to a technology that
contains easy-to-analyse problems and few exceptions, and is the opposite of uncertainty or variability. A
low degree of routineness implies that an organisation needs to have a greater information processing
capacity and that individuals need a high degree of flexibility.
At the individual level, an organisation with a highly routine technology may run the risk of not
challenging individuals enough, and not fully use their skills. Highly routine technology may therefore
frustrate an individual’s growth need.

73
I base this discussion on the organisational and environmental parameters used in the multi-dimensional contingency theory of
Burton & Obel (1998).

193
 With regard to organisational information technology, highly routine organisational technology
matches with a highly formalised and routine information system that has a high focus on internally oriented
data collection and processing, especially at the operational level. On the other hand, other types of informa-
tion technology are needed for organisations with non-routine technology. In such situations, information
systems that support human decision-making can assist managers who are faced with more uncertain, unpre-
dictable technologies.

3. Individual psychological characteristics

It may have become clear from the four examples above, that quite many organisational and IT-
related characteristics can be related to individual needs and demands, and can thus be used within the
framework of a person-environment fit theory as the CHARISM model. I will not provide any extra
examples of individual characteristics, because these have been thoroughly discussed in previous chapters.

In conclusion, I want to argue that this process of defining and formulating commensurate measures
of organisations, individuals, and information systems can be a fruitful avenue to a better understanding of
the complex interactions between individuals, organisations and organisational information technology. As
shown in the previous examples, the argumentation for the links between these dimensions can be grounded
in the concepts of the CHARISM framework (person-environment fit, organisation-environment fit,
individual and organisational niche, etc.). Once these measures have been developed and psychometrically
tested, they may be used to perform cross-sectional quantitative analyses.

194
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working
Hypotheses Chapter 7

Research
Instruments Chapter 8

Case 1
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

Developing research instruments for human resources management

Chapter 8. Research Instruments

In this chapter, I will describe the research instruments that I have used in the data collection process
at Omicron and Alpha. At the organisational level of analysis, the data collection used mainly qualitative
methods, but did contain some quantitative measures as well, such as the organisational and environmental
characteristics used in the OrgCon® system.74 At the individual level of analysis, the data collection used
mainly quantitative instruments, namely the Research Instrument for the Psycho-Organisational Study of
Technology Implementation – RIPOSTI – questionnaire that was completed by the majority of respondents at
both research sites. The development of the latter questionnaire required quite some effort, as I have argued
above.

The description of the research instruments will start at the individual level of analysis, and continue
with the organisational level. The final section of the chapter will describe which instruments were used for
each type of respondent.

A. Individual-level instruments

The individual-level hypotheses will mainly be investigated using the quantitative data that were col-
lected with the RIPOSTI questionnaire. While Chapter 6 discussed the development history of the question-
naire, the following paragraphs will describe the instrument in some detail. Next to the questionnaire data, I
will also describe the content of the interviews and of the other qualitative data sources.

1. Sources of the RIPOSTI questionnaire

There were two main reasons for giving the questionnaire a name. Firstly, it makes the discussion of
the instrument easier than when one has to refer to ‘the individual-level questionnaire’ and secondly, it
provides an identity to a rather voluminous set of questions. Moreover, the name RIPOSTI is not only an
acronym for Research Instrument for the Psycho-Organisational Study of Technology Implementation, but
also an Italian word that means ‘answers’, so the name has an ambiguous touch (just as the acronym
CHARISM).

a) AMI questionnaire – COPSOQ (COpenhagen PSychOsocial Questionnaire)

The main part of the RIPOSTI questionnaire builds on a major research project of the Danish
National Institute of Occupational Health (Arbejdsmiljøinstitut – AMI), a government-supported research
and service institute. The research project was called the ‘Tredækker projekt’ (the three-deck project – 1997-
1999) and aimed at developing and validating a questionnaire that can measure a number of factors in the
psychosocial work environment. The questionnaire was developed in three versions with increasing
complexity and length: 1) a short and simple questionnaire for use at work site level, 2) a ‘middle’
questionnaire to be used by work environment professionals and 3) a research questionnaire (Kristensen,
2001, 2002). The project collected and used validated scales from 15 Danish and international
questionnaires, in combination with new questions. The total questionnaire was tested on 4000 adult persons
between 20 and 60 years old, a random selection of the Danish population from the Central Person
Register.75 Since the start of the project, the instrument has become quite popular in Denmark and the rest of
Scandinavia and is now officially known as the COpenhagen PSychOsocial Questionnaire or COPSOQ.
As can be seen in Table 29, the three-deck questionnaire covered the following factors: influence,
variation in the work, demands (incl. different kinds of demand), social support and social network, mean-
ingfulness, predictability, violence, harassment, role conflicts, and group processes. It also included ques-

74
Based on the multiple contingency framework described above (Burton & Obel, 1998).
75
The selected population was randomly assigned to telephone interview (1/3) and mailed questionnaire (2/3). 56% of the people
who were assigned to telephone interview agreed to do an interview. The rest were offered a questionnaire, and an extra 11%
completed and returned this. The overall response rate for the telephone list was 68%. Among those that were sent a questionnaire by
mail, 58% completed and returned the questionnaire after two reminders. Therefore, the overall response rate of the study was 61%.

196
tions on self-rated health, vitality, mental health, different types of stress reaction (emotional, cognitive, psy-
chosomatic, and behavioural), and absence from work. Finally, the instrument contained questions on sense
of coherence, coping strategies, work-family interface, life style, and socio-demographic factors.
Table 29: Questions and dimensions in RIPOSTI from the AMI three-deck questionnaire.

AMI's Three-deck Project Number of questions

Dimension Research Middle Short RIPOSTI

Quantitative Demands 7 4 3 4
Cognitive Demands 8 4 4
Emotional Demands 3 3 2 6
Demand for Hiding Feelings 2 2 1 1
Sensory Demands 5 4 3
Control (decision authority) 10 4 3 6
Control (skill discretion) 7 4 2 5
Degrees of Freedom 4 4 1 10 1
Meaning in the Work 3 3 2 3
Involvement in / Commitment to Work 4 4 2 4
Predictability 2 2 2 2
Role Clarity 4 4
Role Conflicts 4 4
Management Quality 8 4 2 10
Social Support 4 4 2 2
Feedback 2 2 2 2
Social Relations 2 2
Social Community 3 3 2 2
Job Insecurity 4 4 4 4
Satisfaction with the Job 7 4 4 7
General Health 5 5 1 1
Mental Health 5 5 5 5
Vitality 4 4 4 4
Behavioural Stress 8 4 4
Somatic Stress 7 4 4
Cognitive Stress 4 4 4
Sense of Coherence 9
Action-oriented Coping 2
Selective Coping 2
Resignative Coping 2
Number of Questions 141 95 44 72
Number of Dimensions 30 26 8 21

The reasons for choosing the AMI questionnaire as the basis for the RIPOSTI instrument were the
following. Firstly, it allowed me to measure many of the concepts that are part of the CHARISM framework,
such as: demands, meaningfulness, satisfaction, involvement/commitment, health, mental health, and
different kinds of stress. Secondly, it had been developed by a well-known institute that is well-respected by
both employers and trade unions, which was a major argument in getting the RIPOSTI instrument accepted
by the stakeholders at Omicron and Alpha. Thirdly, the instrument had been used in a general survey of the
Danish population, and the results became available in the form of a software tool (Kristensen & Borg, 2000)
in the course of my data analysis. Using this tool, I was able to compare the AMI-part of my data with the
average Danish answers, but also with the average of Danish metalworkers. Finally, the instrument was
available in Danish, which was a major advantage to me as a non-native Danish speaker.

However, one of the problems with the AMI instrument was that it is very large and that even the
middle version with its 95 questions – together with the extra items that I needed to measure – was too large

197
for the Omicron management. From my exploratory perspective, the large number of different dimensions
was a positive aspect of the AMI instrument, but from Omicron’s organisational perspective, the large num-
ber of items was rather problematic. They perceived the majority of questions as rather too sensitive for us to
be asking the production workers.
Therefore, it was necessary to make a selection of questions, even if that meant that the results could
not be statistically compared with the AMI results. The final selection of questions is indicated in the right-
most column of Table 29 above. The first selection I presented to Omicron was built on the minimal version
of the questionnaire, except for some dimensions, such as demands, satisfaction and stress, where a broader
selection was deemed necessary in order to find better support for some of the CHARISM ideas. However,
this original selection was still too large for Omicron and was therefore somewhat reduced, especially by
removing questions that were felt to be too sensitive, such as emotional demands or demands to hide feel-
ings, but also questions about smoking and drinking habits. Moreover, some formulations were changed, and
some scales were altered. These questions are indicated in the Table in italics, and I will briefly discuss them
below where I describe the different dimensions and the questions related to them. Moreover, in all ques-
tions, the formal 2nd person pronouns (‘thee’) were replaced by the more informal ‘you’.

Finally, because the research project was ongoing at the time of my first data analysis, I did not have
access to the detailed overview of the dimensions in Table 29, so my first analyses were performed with di-
mensions that were found through exploratory data analysis. In the discussion below I will compare my own
dimensions with the AMI dimensions whenever relevant (cf. also Annex C5 starting on page 393).

b) Value Survey Module (VSM)

Another source of questions was the Value Survey Module (Hofstede, 1982 - VSM) that was devel-
oped in 1982 by Geert Hofstede and colleagues on the basis of their cross-cultural management research that
I described in Chapter 4 above (Hofstede, 1980). The items in the VSM measure so-called work values, i.e.
self-reported level of importance of various job aspects, and these work values are argued to possess charac-
teristics that are usually associated with more basic values that transcend various life domains (Ronen, 1994,
p. 248). Ronen also argues that work values reflect “the concepts employed in need theories”, i.e. needs. The
author therefore uses data from previous work values studies as the basis for his study of human needs. In
fact, he focuses specifically on 14 items from one of Hofstede’s older instruments (Hofstede, Kraut, & Si-
monetti, 1977). I have decided to use the more recent 1982 version, because a Danish language version of
that instrument was available, and because I had hoped to get access to data acquired with this instrument.
For the RIPOSTI questionnaire I chose the first 18 questions of the VSM instrument, because they are the
updated version of the 14 items used by Ronen. These 18 items are used to measure the importance of differ-
ent needs, and are the basis for the measurement of needs portfolios and needs-supplies misfits. The wording
and formulation of the items were not changed from the original Danish version, except for a substitution of
the formal pronouns ‘De/Dem/Deres’ by the more informal ‘du/dig/din’.

c) Organisational climate and management style from the OrgCon® instrument

Next to the individually oriented questions, the RIPOSTI also contains questions about the
individual’s conception of organisational characteristics. Seven items measuring organisational climate come
from the OrgCon® instrument that I will discuss below. The seven items are based on Zammuto &
Krakower’s (1991) seven dimensions of organisational climate. Another item drawn from that instrument
measures management style.

d) Employee Opinion Survey

The other source of items about organisational characteristics is the Employee Opinion Survey
(Lawthom, Maitlis, Patterson, & West, 1992), an instrument that was developed to measure organisational
climate from the perspective of the Competing Values Approach (cf. West et al., 1997). From this
instrument, I selected 12 items that refer to employees’ perception of organisational communication, worker
participation and formalisation. Because the final results of this research project have not been published yet,
I did not have access to the exact dimensions that were meant to be measured with the items, so an analysis
was performed that came up with the three dimensions above.

198
2. Dimensions in the RIPOSTI instrument
In the following paragraphs, I want to walk through the final RIPOSTI questionnaire and briefly dis-
cuss the different groups of questions and dimensions, the source they come from, and also the changes that
were made to the original items (if any). Moreover, between the data gathering at Omicron and that at Alpha,
some minor changes were made to a few questions. These changes will also be discussed. I refer to Annexes
A and B for a full overview of the RIPOSTI questionnaire in English and Danish.

a) Needs
The first set of questions asks respondents to imagine an ideal work situation and indicate the
importance that they would attribute to 18 work values. The answers can be indicated on a labelled 5-point
Likert scale that ranges from ‘extremely important’ (1) to ‘not important’ (5). The second set of questions
then asks them to judge the same work values, but this time on the basis of their current work situation. The
18 items in the first set of questions are taken from the 1992 VSM instrument:

1.Imagine an ideal job – without considering your current job. If you could choose the ideal
job, how important would it be for you ...
1.1 To have a job that leaves you enough time for personal and family life
1.2 To get challenging tasks, that give you a feeling of contributing something
1.3 To be able to prevent tension and stress
1.4 To have good physical working conditions (good climatic and lighting conditions, etc)
1.5 To have a good working relationship with your direct superior
1.6 To have security of employment
1.7 To get considerable freedom in the way you do your job
1.8 To work with people who work well together
1.9 To be consulted by your direct superior in his decisions
1.10 To have a job that allows you to contribute considerably to the success of your organisation
1.11 To have an opportunity for high earnings
1.12 To be able to make an effort for your country
1.13 To live in an area that is desirable to you and your family
1.14 To have the opportunity to advance to higher positions
1.15 To have variation and the opportunity to have exiting experiences on the job
1.16 To work for a well-esteemed organisation
1.17 To get a chance to help other people
1.18 To work in a well-defined job situation where demands are clear

The answers to the first set of questions are the basis for calculating needs portfolios, which are
calculated by a cluster analysis of all 18 questions for all respondents. The 18 needs questions are not
subdivided into dimensions a priori, but a certain internal structure is assumed to exist. A factor analysis was
performed in order to find this internal structure, using all Omicron answers and those of the second data
collection round at Alpha, with the exclusion of one respondent who had answered ‘extremely important’ to
all items.
Table 30: Needs dimensions and their reliability scores

Item # Cronbach α
Factor 1 - Basic Needs 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 18 ,83
Physiological 1, 4, 13 ,68
Security 3, 6, 11, 18 ,79
Factor 2 - Social Needs 8, 10, 12, 16, 17 ,81
Factor 3 - Esteem Needs 7, 9 ,68
Factor 4 - Self-actualisation 2, 14, 15 ,65
Factor 5 - Boss relation need 5

The 5-factor solution – cf. Annex C1 on page 380 for a full discussion – reveals 5 groups of needs:
basic needs, social needs, esteem needs, self-actualisation needs and the need to have a good working rela-
tion with one’s direct superior. The reliability analysis of the resulting dimensions, represented in Table 30,
also shows that the basic needs can be grouped into two sub-dimensions (physiological and security needs),
and that these sub-dimensions also show satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach alpha > .60).

199
 Interestingly, the dimensions calculated on the basis of my sample are rather similar to the 5 types of
needs in the Maslow model, except for the 5th dimension, the ‘relation to one’s superior’, which is a social
need.

b) Needs-supplies misfits
The formulation of the second set of questions is somewhat different, in that it asks to indicate how
well a statement corresponds to their current work situation. This formulation allows me to measure the
subjectively perceived supplies. The respondents are asked to answer on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘fits precisely’ (1) to ‘does not fit’ (5). The second set contains the same 18 questions, but reformulated
as in the examples below.

2. In respect to your current job, how good do the following statements fit, in your view?
2.1 I have a job that leaves me enough time for personal and family life
2.2 I am able to prevent tension and stress
...

The answers to questions one and two are then subtracted to obtain the degree of needs-supplies fit
with the function

(1) Fit k = Supply k – Need k

Positive values indicate that a respondent has a low supply but a high need, i.e. that his need is
stronger than the environment’s supply. Negative values indicate that the environment’s supply is higher
than the person’s need, while a zero value indicates fit.

c) Demands
The AMI questionnaire is based on the Karasek model of occupational stress (Karasek, 1979;
Karasek & Theorell, 1990), a model that relates stress symptoms to situations where workers are met with
high demands and little control over their job situation. Therefore, there are many items that measure
demands and job control in the AMI instrument. Within the CHARISM framework, demands are argued to
be important mainly when they are out of balance with a person’s abilities.
Following the AMI instrument, all demands questions use a labelled 5-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘always’ (1) to ‘(almost) never’ (5). The following 3 groups of questions indicate the items that are
related to quantitative, cognitive, and sensory demands respectively, while the last item asks about the
demand to hide feelings.

3. These questions are about which demands your work places on you
Quantitative Demands
3.1 Is it necessary to work very fast?
3.2 Is your work unevenly spread?
3.4 Do you need to work overtime?
3.13 How often does it happen that you can not get all your tasks done?
Cognitive Demands
3.3 Do you need to keep track of many things simultaneously?
3.5 Does your work demand that you remember much?
3.7 Does your work demand that you make difficult decisions?
3.10 Does your work demand that you’re good at getting ideas?
Sensory Demands
3.6 Does your work demand high precision?
3.9 Does your work involve seeing very clearly and precisely?
3.11 Does your work demand constant attention?
Demand to hide feelings
3.8 Does your work demand that you do not speak your mind?

The AMI survey data shows significant differences between the different types of demands. While
the demands to hide feelings show the strongest correlations with stress, tiredness and health, cognitive
demands show no correlation at all. For that reason, it is important to differentiate between the different type
of demands, and continue to work with the 4 dimensions throughout the analysis.

200
d) Demands-abilities misfit
The task of developing commensurable demands/abilities measures was somewhat more difficult
than with the needs/supplies dichotomy. While the AMI instrument supplied well-established sets of demand
questions, the measurement of the corresponding abilities was impossible. One cannot formulate questions
such as “are you able to work very fast?” and expect to get a relevant answer. Therefore, it was decided to try
and formulate questions that could measure the degree of fit or misfit of the demands. To avoid the exclusive
use of biasing negative statements such as “My work demands too much precision”, also positive statements
were used, such as “I could very well handle a job that demands that I’m good at getting ideas”. Thus, we
ended up with the following set of statements, where the respondents were asked to indicate their agreement,
ranging from ‘fully agree’ (1) over ‘neither agree, nor disagree’ (3) to ‘fully disagree’ (5).

4. It is hard to find a job that suits one perfectly. In the previous question, you described the
different demands that your work places on you. In this question, we want to ask you to
answer the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
Quantitative demands-abilities misfits
4.1 I could very well work faster.
4.2 I feel that it happens all too often that my work is unevenly spread. (R)
4.4 I could very well work some more overtime.
4.13 It happens all too often that I can not get all my tasks done. (R)
Cognitive demands-abilities misfits
4.3 At my job, I need to keep track of too many things simultaneously. (R)
4.5 My work demands that I remember much too much. (R)
4.7 I could very well handle a job where I need to make more decisions that are difficult.
4.10 I could very well handle a job that demands that I’m good at getting ideas.
Sensory demands-abilities misfits
4.6 My work demands too much precision. (R)
4.9 My work demands too much of me with respect to seeing very clearly and precisely. (R)
4.11 I could very well handle a job that demands even more attention.
Misfits regarding demand to hide feelings
4.8 My work demands too often that I do not speak my mind. (R)

For calculating the average misfits within the dimensions, all negative items were reversed – by
subtracting the score from 6 – and then re-centred – by subtracting 3 – such that the middle answer (‘neither
agree, nor disagree’) gets the value zero, and indicates a fit between abilities and demands. A negative value
thus indicates that a person’s abilities are larger than the environment’s demands, while a positive value
indicates that the environment’s demands are larger than the person’s abilities. Let me illustrate this by way
of an example. If a person indicates ‘fully agree’ to the statement ‘My work demands too much precision’,
the score ‘1’ is re-calculated in the following way.

(3) Misfit = (6-1) – 3 = 5-3 = +2

In this way, the degree of misfit ranges from +2 to –2, where the positive values indicate too high
demands and the negative values indicate a surplus in personal abilities. Again, the overall degree of
demands/abilities misfit can be represented by the average of the 12 items, or by counting the number of
extreme misfits, i.e. those with an absolute value of 2.

e) Control – decision authority (also called ‘influence’)

As I argued above, the AMI instrument has Karasek’s Demand/Control model as its basis, a
theoretical model which argues that stress and stress-related health problems are mainly caused by high
demands combined with a low level of control. This control dimension is often treated as two sub-
dimensions: decision authority, or ‘Influence’, and skill discretion, or ‘Development options'. The latter sub-
dimension will be discussed in the next paragraph, and I will briefly discuss the ‘Influence’ sub-dimension in
this paragraph.
Research has indicated that a low degree of decision authority increases the risk of sickness, stress,
low well-being, sick leave, personnel turnover, etc. So from my exploratory perspective, this sub-dimension
was an important element to be included in the RIPOSTI instrument, especially since the AMI survey finds a
clear correlation between influence and health, stress and tiredness. The first three items below were retained
from the short AMI questionnaire, while the following three items were added from the research question-

201
naire, and a new item was formulated (cf. Annex C5 for a comparison of the two scales). These additions
were made because it was felt that the issue of decision authority was a major part of the intended techno-
logical change. Indeed, the original BlueTech solution and the ShopFloorPC project intended to increase the
level of control, and it was interesting to find out the current degree of decision authority. The answering
scale for all items was a labelled 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘always’ (1) to ‘(almost) never’ (5).

5. These questions are about influence in the job

5.1 Do you have a big influence on the decisions that concern your job?
5.2 Can you influence the amount of work you need to do?
5.4 Do you have influence on WHAT you do in your job?

5.5 Do you have influence on your speed of working?

5.7 Do you have influence on your working environment?
5.8 Do you have influence on the quality of your work?

5.6 Do you have influence on WHEN you do your work?

f) Control – skill discretion (also called ‘development options’)

The second sub-dimension of the ‘control’ concept deals with the possibilities that the individual has
to use his skills or develop new skills in his job. Low skill discretion has been found to relate strongly to low
well-being, higher absence and more health problems. AMI’s survey amongst Danish employees found that
low skill discretion was correlated to higher stress, more tiredness and lower self-reported health. In the con-
text of my research, this was again an important dimension, since one of the aims of both technology projects
was to increase production workers’ skills. The answering scale for the first item was a labelled 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from ‘always’ (1) to ‘(almost) never’ (5), for the others ranging from ‘to a very
high degree’ (1) to ‘to a very low degree’ (5). The first four items were taken from the medium AMI ques-
tionnaire, while the last was added from the research version. The 4- and 5-item versions of the dimension
are again compared in Annex C5.

3. These questions are about which demands your work places on you
3.12 Does your work demand that you are full of initiative?

7. These questions are about meaning in your job

7.1 Do you have the opportunity to learn new things through your work?
7.4 Is your work varied?
7.5 Can you use your skills and abilities in your job?

7.6 Does your work give you the opportunity to develop your skills?

g) Degree of freedom
A dimension that is closely related to the control dimensions, is the degree of freedom that a person
has in his work. The freedom dimension is part of the RIPOSTI, partly because the AMI survey shows clear
and significant correlations between a low degree of freedom and stress, tiredness and bad health. For this
dimension, only one item was retained, namely that which is part of the short AMI questionnaire. The item is
measured on a scale from ‘always’ (1) to ‘(almost) never’ (5).

5. These questions are about influence in the job

5.3 Can you decide WHEN you take a break?

h) Meaning in the job

The dimension of meaning is very important in the CHARISM framework, where it was argued that
a person in a state of harmony experiences his role as meaningful, as making sense, while an inadequate in-
tegrity is perceived as senseless. A similar argument is included in the AMI argumentation (Kristensen &
Borg, 2000, p.10). A person who cannot see any sense in his work is argued to have a tendency to view the
negative aspects of his work as dominant. On the other hand, most people who perceive their job as mean-
ingful will be able to ignore the inevitable problems and difficulties that happen during a working day. The

202
AMI survey supports this argument, and shows a very strong correlation between lack of meaningfulness and
bad health, stress and tiredness.
In the RIPOSTI instrument I used all three AMI items to measure meaning, but I changed the
formulation of the third item (the question in italics shows the original formulation), because it creates
ambiguity with the next dimension, namely involvement / commitment. By combining the concepts of
motivation and involvement / commitment in one question, the scores on the meaning and involvement
dimensions may become muddled. Next to being part of the meaning dimension, question 7.7 is also the only
question that is related to job motivation. The items of the meaning dimension are measured on a scale that
ranges from ‘to a very high degree’ (1) to ‘to a very low degree’ (5).

7. These questions are about meaning in your job

7.2 Are your tasks meaningful?
7.3 Do you feel that you do an important job?
7.7 Do you feel motivated in your work?
Do you feel motivated and involved in your work? (AMI formulation)

i) Involvement / commitment
In the AMI instrument, job involvement or organisational commitment is regarded as a dimension
that is closely related to the meaning dimension. Within the CHARISM framework, commitment is regarded
as reflecting the degree of person-environment fit (in a similar way as satisfaction and motivation). The
analysis of the AMI survey shows a correlation between involvement and good health and a low degree of
stress and tiredness. The first four items below are all the involvement items from the AMI lists, while the
fifth is a new one that was created to measure organisational commitment as a link between organisational
strain and individual strain. A comparison of the two scales (cf. Annex C5 on page 397) indicates that the 5th
item also measures organisational commitment. This is an interesting connection of the ‘Organisational
commitment’ concept to the concepts of individual and organisational strain.

10. The following questions are about commitment in your work.

10.1 Could you imagine being at your current company for the rest of your working life?
10.2 Do you enjoy telling other people about your place of work?
10.3 Do you feel that your company’s problems are your problems too?
10.4 Do you think your place of work has big personal significance for you?

10.5 When your company is under pressure, do you also feel pressured?

Next to these five items, a set of possible commitment objects was developed that intended to
measure whether there are other types of commitment than organisational commitment. Nine potential
‘commitment objects’ were included in the first measurement at Omicron and Alpha, but a preliminary data
analysis showed that a tenth item needed to be added in order to capture the full range of possible work-
oriented objects. The low score of the ‘trade union’ commitment indicated that Danish employees
differentiate between their trade union as a national organisation and their trade union as a local sub-group of
workers.

11. Commitment: To which degree do you feel committed to ...

11.1 ... your company?
11.2 ... your trade union?
11.2a ... the local trade union clubs in your organisation?
11.3 ... your department in the company?
11.4 ... the project / task you are working at right now?
11.5 ... your customers / suppliers?
11.6 ... your direct superior?
11.7 ... the company management?
11.8 ... your subordinates?
11.9 ... the world outside your work?

Both sets of commitment questions were rated on a 5-point scale that ranged from ‘to a very high
degree’ (1) through ‘somewhat’ (3) to ‘to very low degree’ (5).

203
j) Predictability
The AMI study mentions predictability as another major stress-related dimension. Predictability is
regarded as a matter of knowing about major changes that may be expected, not about minor changes in day-
to-day functioning. Such major changes might be the introduction of new technology or major restructuring.
Within the CHARISM framework, predictability can be regarded as an aspect of the signification process, in
the sense that knowledge of future changes can help a social group in the process of interpretation and
mental adjustment.
The AMI survey measures predictability with 2 items, with scales ranging again from ‘to a very high
degree’ (1) through ‘somewhat’ (3) to ‘to very low degree’ (5). Their results show strong correlations be-
tween predictability and mental health and vitality. In the RIPOSTI instrument, three items – suggested by
AMI – were added that intend to measure predictability in relation to the organisation and to technology. The
comparison of AMI’s 2-item scale and my 5-item scale (cf. Annex C5 on page 399) shows that the two
scales are very similar, but that the 5-item scale has a more satisfactory reliability.

6. These questions are about information, goals and working conditions

6.1 At your job, do you get information about for example important decisions, changes or future
plans in good time?
6.2 Do you receive all the information that you need in order to do your job well?

6.3 Are the company’s goals clear and well-known?

6.4 Do you have all the appliances, methods and tools you need for your daily work?
6.5 Do you think that for example technology and other instruments work satisfactorily?

k) Social aspects in the job

Within stress research, the presence or absence of social support is a third major factor in
determining the level of mental strain. Situations with high demands combined with low control and low
social support are argued to be the most stressful. Within the CHARISM framework, social support is part of
the signification process, but it has not been given much attention as yet. From an explorative perspective, it
was felt necessary to include the minimal versions of the AMI scales related to social aspects.
In fact, the AMI study distinguishes three sub-dimensions in relation to social aspects, namely
‘social support’, ‘feedback’ and ‘social community’. The three sub-dimensions are measured by two items
each, all of which are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘always’ (1) to ‘(almost) never’ (5).

9. The following questions are about situations, where you need help or support in your
work.
Social support
9.1 How often do you get help and support from your colleagues?
9.2 How often do you get help and support from your direct superior?
Feedback
9.3 How often do you talk with your superior about how well you do your work?
9.4 How often do you talk with your colleagues about how well you do your work?
Social community
9.5 Is there good co-operation amongst the colleagues at your work?
9.6 Do you feel like part of a community at your work?

The analysis of the AMI survey shows strong correlations between social support and good self-
reported health, mental health and high vitality. On the other hand, the feedback sub-dimension shows only
weak correlations with stress and health. While the first two sub-dimensions were intended to measure the
presence or absence of social support and feedback, the final two items measure the quality of social
relationships. The AMI study reports very strong correlations between social community and stress, tiredness
and bad health. In fact, lack of social community shows stronger correlations with bad health and well-being
than any of the other variables.

Next to the 6 items above, I introduced another item in order to measure social relations from a more
altruistic or collectivistic perspective. Items 9.1 through 9.4 show a striking focus on “What can the others do
for me?” which is a very individualistic focus. It was felt to be important to find out whether the collecti-
vistic and individualistic perspectives were both present in an equal degree. The detailed dimensional analy-

204
sis in Annex C5 on page 401 supports the different status of this item, which will be treated separately in the
analysis chapter.

9. The following questions are about situations, where you need help or support in your
work.
9.7 How often do you give help and support at your work?

l) Job insecurity
An important aspect that is related to mental well-being is the degree of job security that individuals
perceive. From a CHARISM perspective, one can represent job insecurity as a potential infringement of
individual integrity, which is argued to have a potentially large impact on the level of mental strain.
Therefore, it is an important dimension to include in a study of mental harmony. The 5-point rating scale in
the RIPOSTI differs from the binary Yes / No scale in the AMI study for two reasons. Firstly, it was felt that
yes / no did not provide enough rating options, and secondly, it continued a pattern of 5-point scales that was
familiar to the respondents. The AMI instrument uses the following 4 items to measure job insecurity, items
which are rated between ‘to a very high degree’ (1) to ‘to a very low degree’ (5).

8. Are you worried about –

8.1 – losing your job?
8.2 – becoming ‘superfluous’ because of new technology?
8.3 – having a hard time finding a new job, when you would lose your job?
8.4 – being moved to another job against your will?

m) Satisfaction
In the CHARISM theory, satisfaction is a major concept that is argued to reflect the perceived degree
of mental integrity. High satisfaction is hypothesised to reflect good person-environment fit, adequate integ-
rity and thus mental harmony. Low satisfaction, on the other hand, is argued to be a sign of bad person-
environment fit, inadequate integrity, and thus high mental strain. Interestingly, the AMI survey does indeed
find very strong correlations between satisfaction and health, tiredness and stress. In RIPOSTI, I have not
only used the 4 items from the middle and short version, but all 7 items from the research version of the AMI
questionnaire. Moreover, as indicated below, I have included an eighth item to measure satisfaction with
company management, in parallel to satisfaction with department management. I have also adapted the rating
scale of the items. AMI used a 4-point scale (very satisfied, satisfied, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied), but it was
deemed better to also use a 5-point scale here, which contains a middle answer, formulated as ‘neither satis-
fied, nor unsatisfied’. A comparative analysis of the 4-item and the 8-item dimensions (cf. Annex C5 on page
403) shows no major differences between the two scales. However, a more detailed analysis of the 8-item
scale reveals that there may well be a number of sub-dimensions within the satisfaction concept. I refer to the
Annex for a discussion of that detailed analysis.

12. Regarding your job in general. How satisfied are you with -
12.1 – your future prospects in the job?
12.3 – the physical working environment?
12.6 – the way in which your abilities are being used?
12.8 – your job as a whole, everything considered?

12.2 – the people you work together with?

12.5 – the way your department is managed?
12.7 – the challenges and skills that your job involves?

12.4 – the way the company is managed?

n) Work – family interface

An important factor in determining stress is the so-called work-family interface. Within the
CHARISM framework, the importance of this dimension is related to the establishment of a stable niche and
the related establishment of mental integrity. It is argued that a problematic work-home interface will prevent
the establishment of a stable personal niche, because the domains of work and family are in conflict and are
not in balance. The long version of the AMI scale has two questions related to work-home interface, while

205
the middle and short versions do not measure that dimension. It was decided that the issue was so important
in relation to the CHARISM framework that it should be included in the RIPOSTI instrument.

21.Does it happen that there is a conflict between your job and your private life, in such a
way that you would prefer to be “at both places at the same time”?
(1.Yes, often; 2.Yes, regularly; 3.Seldom; 4.No, never).

22.Do you feel that your work takes so much of your energy that your private life suffers
from it?
(1.Yes, definitely; 2.Yes, to a certain extent; 3.Yes, but only a little; 4.No, not at all)

o) Characteristics of work rhythm

A related dimension to the work-family interface are the different characteristics of work rhythms, such as
working in shifts, working regular or irregular hours, or working during weekends. Research has shown a
strong relationship between health problems and irregular or shift work. Within the CHARISM theory, work
rhythm is again related to the establishment of a stable niche to live in, and is closely related to work-home
interface. The following four items are aspects of the work rhythm dimension:

17. How many hours do you usually work per week?

18. At which periods of the day do you usually work?

(1. At fixed hours during the day; 2. evening; 3. night; 4. shift work without nights; 5. shift work,
including nights; 6. Other: ...)

19. On which days of the week do you usually work?

(1.Workdays; 2.Weekends; 3.Both workdays and weekends)

20. How does your working day usually look?

(1.Regular – follows a particular repetitive pattern; 2. Irregular – does not follow any regular
repetitive pattern)

p) Self-reported / self-assessed health

There has been quite some discussion within the scientific community about the value of self-
assessed health, because it has long been perceived as a too subjective measure of health, in comparison to
for example health as assessed by a medical doctor. However, in recent years there has been more evidence
that self-assessed health is a good predictor for death, illness, use of medical services, etc. In fact, some
research has shown that it is a better predictor than health as assessed by a doctor. The middle and long
version of the AMI instrument use 5 items to judge self-reported health, while the short version uses only
one item. In the RIPOSTI instrument, only the single item was used because of the perceived ‘sensitive’
nature of too many health-related questions, and because of the total length of the instrument. Therefore,
self-reported health is measured with the following item, using a scale from ‘outstanding’ (1) to ‘bad’ (5).

23.How would you characterise your health, in general?

q) Number of sick days

A more objective measure of health from the long AMI questionnaire was also included in the
RIPOSTI instrument, namely the number of days of sick leave. It will be interesting to analyse whether there
are any relations between number of sick days and any of the other dimensions.

r) Mental health
Mental health is argued to be one of the major aspects of a person’s health. It is not only regarded as
a valuable state in and of itself, but also as a cause of many negative effects, ranging from drug (ab)use to
suicide. Within the CHARISM theory, mental health is argued to reflect the degree of mental integrity and
mental strain, and to indicate an adequate degree of person-environment fit. The dimension is measured with
5 items (3 negative and 2 positive) that are rated on a 6-point scale ranging from ‘all the time’ (1) over ‘some

206
of the time’ (4) to ‘at no point in time’ (6). When calculating the average score, the items marked (R) are re-
versed, i.e. their are subtracted from 7.

25. The next questions are about how you have felt in the past 4 weeks. How much of the
time during the past 4 weeks -
25.2 – have you been very nervous? (R)
25.3 – have you been so far down, that nothing could cheer you up? (R)
25.4 – have you felt calm and relaxed?
25.6 – have you been in a sad mood? (R)
25.8 – have you been happy and content?

In the AMI survey, positive mental health is correlated mainly with social community, social
support, meaning and predictability, while there was no correlation with cognitive or sensory demands.
Interestingly, people that have to hide their feelings at work, have a particularly negative mental health.

s) Vitality
In the AMI study, vitality is regarded as the positive extreme of a scale from exhaustion and
tiredness to vitality and energy, where vitality is strongly (negatively) correlated with burnout. In this sense,
vitality can be regarded as the converse of burnout. As is the case with mental health, vitality can be regarded
as a positive characteristic in and of itself, but it also shows strong correlations with social community,
predictability, meaning and the demand to hide feelings. Again, there is no correlation with cognitive or
sensory demands. The vitality items use the same scale as the mental health items, ranging from ‘all the
time’ (1) to ‘at no point in time’ (6).

25. The next questions are about how you have felt in the past 4 weeks. How much of the
time during the past 4 weeks -
25.1 – have you felt good-humoured and full of life?
25.5 – have you been full of energy?
25.7 – have you felt worn-out? (R)
25.9 – have you felt tired? (R)

t) Self-reported stress
In the set of questions that is used to measure mental health and vitality, a new item was added that
is meant to measure the respondent’s subjective perception of stress. This was not done within the AMI
study, but the question was felt to be a good addition to the instrument, in parallel with the measurement of
self-reported health. The same scale is used as in the previous 2 dimensions.

25. The next questions are about how you have felt in the past 4 weeks. How much of the
time during the past 4 weeks -
25.10 – have you felt stressed?

u) Behavioural stress symptoms

Whereas item 25.10 measured the perception of stress, the following three dimensions measure three
types of stress symptoms, namely behavioural, somatic and cognitive. The AMI study has chosen to use
rather broad measures of stress-related behaviour, because they argue that it is hard to measure specific types
of behaviour, because they are quite diverse. Indeed, stress can cause many different and complex
behaviours, which may differ from person to person. The following four items from the middle AMI
instrument were used. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘fits precisely’ (1) to ‘does not fit’
(5).

26. Take a stand on each statement, and cross out that option that fits best how you have
been in the past 4 weeks.
26.1 I have not felt up to dealing with others.
26.2 I have not had time for relaxation or amusement.
26.3 I have been easily irritable.
26.4 I have not taken any initiative.

207
 In the AMI survey, behavioural stress symptoms are mainly correlated with lack of social
community and the demand to hide feelings at work, but there is no correlation with cognitive demands. In
the CHARISM theory, behavioural stress symptoms are argued to reflect inadequate mental integrity and a
lack of mental harmony.

v) Somatic stress symptoms

The physiological reactions that are triggered by increasing stress – increased blood pressure,
increased adrenaline, etc. – may lead to somatic (bodily) symptoms that can be recognised by the individual,
such as dry mouth, tendency to sweat, belly aches, muscle tension, etc. In normal work situations, these
bodily symptoms – caused by an instinctive ‘fight or flight’ reaction – have no function, because one just
cannot fight or run away, but they may lead to physical problems when these symptoms occur frequently.
Indeed, increased stress can in some situations be functional, but chronic stress is often regarded as
damaging and undesirable, both for the individual’s health and for colleagues and the work place in general.
Again, four items are used to measure somatic stress, and they are rated on a 5-point scale from ‘always’ (1)
to ‘(almost) never’ (5). In AMI’s survey, somatic stress symptoms are especially correlated with the demand
to hide one’s feelings and with bad social community. Again, there is no correlation with cognitive demands.

27. In the past 4 weeks, how often have you –

27.1 – had stomach pain or problems with your belly?
27.2 – had felt a weight on your chest or pain in the chest?
27.3 – been dizzy?
27.4 – had tensions in different muscles?

w) Cognitive stress symptoms

The final group of stress symptoms in the AMI instrument contains four items that measure
cognitive stress symptoms. Indeed, within stress research awareness is growing that stress can have a
negative impact on cognitive processes. Also cognitively, stress can be functional in the sense that it narrows
the individual’s span of attention to focus on those events or phenomena that are causing stress. This
increased focus often helps solve problems or issues more quickly or more productively. Again however,
chronic stress situations may overload a number of cognitive processes, and thus reduce their functioning in
the long run.
Within the CHARISM framework, cognitive stress is argued to be important because it effects the
signification process. In situations of chronic stress, where imbalances in one’s mental integrity continue to
exist, the signification process will become dysfunctional after a certain period due to overload. Indeed, too
many attempts to ‘blend’ new events or phenomena into the existing mental integrity will either lead to a
dramatic disruption of mental integrity, or to strong negational reactions, such as withdrawal or denial.
Moreover, when the signification process gets overloaded and consumes an abnormal amount of mental
energy, one may argue that other cognitive processes such as perception or memory will receive less energy,
and may also become dysfunctional. The following 4 items deal exactly with this type of dysfunctional
cognitive processes. The items use the same scale as the somatic stress symptoms, ranging from ‘always’ (1)
to ‘(almost) never’ (5).

27. In the past 4 weeks, how often have you –

27.5 – had trouble concentrating?
27.6 – found it hard to make decisions?
27.7 – found it hard to remember things?
27.8 – found it hard to think clearly?

The AMI survey shows that cognitive stress is mainly correlated with lack of social community, with
the demand to hide one’s feelings at work, and with lack of meaning in the job. Again, there is no relation
between cognitive stress and cognitive demands or sensory demands.

The fact that there is only a weak correlation or no correlation at all between the level of demands
and the different dimensions of health and stress seems to indicate that the Danish AMI data do not support
the Karasek model of occupational stress. This was also the last dimension that was borrowed from the AMI
instrument. The rest of the dimensions in the RIPOSTI have other origins.

208
x) Organisational climate (Organisational tension and Resistance to change)
Organisational climate is measured by two dimensions: organisational tension and resistance to
change. This conceptualisation of climate and its items are taken from the OrgCon® instrument, in which the
organisational climate dimensions are based on the competing values approach (Koys & Decotiis, 1991;
Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991). The organisational tension dimension resembles the
concept of organi-strain in the CHARISM model, especially organi-strain caused by inadequate organi-self
in the sense that it indicates a high degree of friction and disharmony amongst the organisation’s members
and stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, the organi-strain concept is much broader in the sense that it can also
reflect other types of misfit relations at the organisational level. The concept of resistance to change is of
course related to the rigidity of the organisation’s niche within its environment. It reflects the employees’
perception of the organisation’s way of functioning in its environment.

I will discuss the organisational climate dimensions in more detail when I discuss the OrgCon®
instrument later in this chapter. For now, it is important to mention that these organisational dimensions are
part of the individual-oriented RIPOSTI instrument in order to study correlations between an individual’s
score on such dimensions as mental health, and the individual’s perception of organisational characteristics.
The items are formulated in such a way that they clearly measure the individual’s perception of his
organisation, while all previous questions were focussed on the individual himself / herself.

Six out of seven items are rated on a 5-point scale76 ranging from ‘high’ (1) to ‘low’ (5), while the
seventh item was rated on a 5-point scale76 from ‘very equitable’ (1) to ‘unequitable’ (5). The first six items
measure the level of ‘Organisational Tension’ (Cronbach alpha = .75), with a high score indicating high ten-
sion and a low score indicating low tension. The final item, then, measures the resistance to change.

28. How would you describe the climate in your company?

28.1 The level of trust (will to share, openness, trust) in the company is ...
28.2 The level of conflict (disagreements, friction) in the company is ...(R)
28.4 Management’s credibility (respect, inspiration, acceptance) is ...
28.5 The level of scapegoating (avoid taking responsibility for unsuccessful actions) is ... (R)
28.6 The morale in the company (sharing, enthusiasm) is ...
28.7 Rewards are given in an equitable fashion ... (*Different scale)

28.3 The company’s resistance to change is ... (R)

y) Management style
While the OrgCon® measures management style using 6 items (see below), only one of those items
is relevant from a worker perspective, namely the one that deals with motivational style. The other items are
rather irrelevant for production workers: top management making general vs. operational decisions, long-
term vs. short-term, etc. This kind of information is not only irrelevant for production workers, but the work-
ers do not even know this kind of thing. So the only remaining item from OrgCon® regarding management
style is the following, with a 5-point76 scale ranging from ‘manage through motivation’ (1) to ‘mainly
through control techniques’ (5).

29. How would you describe the management style in your company? Does management
prefer to manage through motivation before execution or through control after execution?

z) Organisation under pressure

The next item was an attempt to determine whether the employees’ perception of the level of
pressure that the organisation is under, can be a measure of organi-strain. Moreover, it was interesting to
determine whether this dimension is related to individual dimensions. As such, it is an exploratory attempt at
substantiating some cross-level issues within the CHARISM framework. The 5-point scale of this item
ranges from ‘to a very high degree’ (1) to ‘to a low degree’ (5).
76
The original scale of all OrgCon® items was only a 3-point scale, and this original scale was used in the Omicron data collection.
However, the subsequent interviews showed a 3-point scale to be too narrow. Respondents often wanted to be able to answer
‘moderate, but more towards the high end of the scale’. In order to allow comparisons between Omicron and Alpha answers, the
former were re-coded from a 3-point into a five-point scale: 1-2-3 became 1-3-5, respectively. At Alpha Industries, the 5-point scales
were used.

209
 30. In your opinion, to which degree is the company under pressure?

aa) EOS organisational aspects

The following set of 12 questions stems from the Employee Opinion Survey (Lawthom et al., 1992 -
EOS), a rather extensive instrument that was developed at the Institute of Work Psychology at the University
of Sheffield. The instrument measures organisational climate and is based on the Competing Values
approach, in a similar way as the OrgCon® climate dimension. I chose some of the items from this
questionnaire to supplement the rather rudimentary items from OrgCon®, which are mainly intended to be
used by managers. The formulation of the items in the EOS was intended for use by production workers,
clerical workers, and managers, so the items were better adapted to the intended RIPOSTI audience. Because
I did not know the instrument’s intended dimensions, a random selection of items was made, in which I
picked out the twelve items below, which were somehow related to the organisational issues of
communication and training, formalisation and centralisation of decision making. The items were rated on a
5-point scale ranging from ‘fits precisely’ (1) to ‘does not fit at all’ (5).

31. How do the following statements fit with the situation in your company?
Organisational humanity
31.1 Management involves people when decision are made that affect them
31.2 People feel they can influence decisions that concern them
31.6 Management lets people make their own decisions most of the time
31.7 People are strongly encouraged to develop their skills
31.8 This company tries to look after its employees
31.9 Changes are made without talking to the people involved in them (R)
Organisational information flow
31.3 People are properly trained when there is a new machine or bit of equipment
31.4 Communication is often a problem around here (R)
31.11 People can quickly get hold of information when they need it
Organisational formalisation
31.5 It is necessary to follow procedures to the letter around here
31.10 Everything has to be done according to the book

31.12 Management keeps too tight a reign on the way things are done around here

A principal component analysis was performed on the 12 items in order to find out whether the data
showed dimensional structure. For this analysis, all Omicron data were used, together with the data from the
second data collection round at Alpha. The full analysis, which can be found in Annex C2 on page 385, re-
sulted in three dimensions that span the first 11 items and that explain approximately 65% of the total vari-
ance in question 31. Item 12 was not included in the dimensions, because it showed equal loadings on two
factors, and because it had a negative influence on the reliability of those two dimensions.

The grouping of the items into dimensions is indicated in the item overview above. The first
dimension (which explains 32% of the total variance of the rotated solution and has a reliability value77 of
.88) is interpreted as ‘organisational humanism’, because the items measure a particular ‘humanistic’ view
on employees. A low score on this dimension indicates that employees are treated as people who can make
their own decisions, who should be involved in changes that pertain them, who should be encouraged to
develop their skills, and who need to be ‘looked after’. The second dimension explains 18% of the variance
(alpha = .70) and includes three items that are related to the flow of information within the organisation:
training, communication and information accessibility. The two items in the third dimension (15% of the
variance, alpha = .68) are related to organisational formalisation, i.e. the degree to which formal rules,
regulations and procedures.

bb) Use of technology at work

The following three questions attempt to measure the IT-related skills of the respondents by asking
about technologies that the respondent uses in daily work. Question 32 measures the intensity of technology
use for 4 types of technology, while question 33 measures the PC-related skills at work. Question 38.2 is in a

77
The reliability values are Cronbach Alpha values.

210
way a repetition of question 32.4, but this time in the context of questions about the newly introduced IT sys-
tem. This results in a calculated measure of computer use (alpha = .84) that combines the score of items 32.4
and 38.2 with the number of software tools indicated in item 33. Next to this measure, the three other meas-
ures of intensity of technology use will be used in subsequent analyses.

32. How much do you use one of the following technologies in your daily work?
(1.Most of the day; 2.Several hours a day; 3.One or more times a day; 4.Every once in a while;
5.Never)
32.1 Large production machines with manual control
32.2 Large computer-controlled production machines
32.3 Robot stations
32.4 Computers

33.If you use a computer on the job, what do you use it for? (Multiple answers allowed)
(I do not use computers in my work; Planning of tasks; Stocks or materials control; Control of
production machines; Production support; Product design; Finance or accounting; Office programs
(Text processing, spreadsheet or database); E-mail; Other Internet software; Others, please specify)

38.Do you use the implemented system yourself? Or other IT systems?

(1.Yes, many times a day; 2.Yes, daily; 3.Yes, seldom; 4.No, but I know it; 5. No, not at all)
38.2 Do you use another IT system in your work?

cc) Use of IT at home

These two questions are intended to measure PC skills and interest in computers. While the first
question has a binary scale, the sum of the software tools in the second question allows a certain ranking of
PC use at home.

34. Do you have a PC at home? (If not, please move to question 36 - Yes – No)

35. If you have a PC at home, who uses it for what? (Multiple answers)
(Yourself – Your spouse / partner – Children – Others) (Text processing; Spreadsheet; Database;
Internet; Games; Learning software; Music / drawing software)

dd) Technology attitudes

The following set of questions contains 8 items that measure respondents’ general attitudes towards
technology, and their perception of their own technological skills. The items use a 5-point scale ranging from
‘to a very high degree’ (1) to ‘to a very low degree’ (2). Again, no a priori dimensions were identified during
the formulation of the items, so a principal component analysis was performed to find dimensional structure
within the group. The full analysis – reported in Annex C3 on page 387 – reveals the presence of two dimen-
sions, Technology attitudes (alpha = .80) and Perceived technology-related abilities (alpha = .49), while a
third factor with items 2 and 4 is uninterpretable and is not used as a dimension. The reliability of the second
dimension is also rather low, but the conceptual similarity between the two items justifies treating them as a
single dimension.

36. The following statements deal with your opinions and expectations of new technology.
Technology attitudes
36.1 Technology can make my work more interesting and varied
36.3 Machines and technology can make my work more boring / routine (R)
36.7 I expect that technology will make my work more boring / routine (R)
36.8 I expect that my work will be more interesting because of new technologies
Perceived technology-related abilities
36.5 I am afraid that I will not be able to keep up with technological developments (R)
36.6 I have the skills that are needed to learn to work with information technology

36.2 Technology threatens jobs

36.4 Machines and computers never work as expected

211
ee) Evaluation of the newly introduced information system
The following two sets of questions were aimed at establishing (a) who used the new information
system and to what extent, and (b) how the respondents – both users and non-users – evaluated the system.
Question 38.1 is a subjective measure of computer usage, and not an objective one. Within the IS literature
there has been quite some discussion on the issue of measuring system usage, but within the CHARISM
framework it is mainly the subjective perception of usage that is important, since that will play a role in
signification and integrity processes, and not the objective use.
Question 37 contains 11 items that try to measure how the respondents evaluate the quality of the
system, the quality of the support, the impacts of the system and of the implementation process. The items
are rated on a scale from ‘fully agree’ (1) to ‘fully disagree’ (5). During the formulation of the items, no a
priori dimensions were implied, so I again performed a principal component analysis in order to find a di-
mensional structure in the answers. This analysis is discussed in Annex C4 on page 390, and it lead to a solu-
tion where 10 of the items were regrouped into 4 dimensions as presented below. The 11th item (37.1) did not
combine with any of the four items, so it was removed from the analysis, but I will analyse the answers to
this item, because it measures a crucial system result, especially at Omicron.

38. Do you use the implemented system yourself? Or other IT systems?

(1.Yes, many times a day; 2.Yes, daily; 3.Yes, seldom; 4.No, but I know it; 5. No, not at all)
38.1 Do you use the implemented IT system yourself?

37. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements about the
implemented information system. The important thing is your personal assessment, whether
you are a user or a non-user.
Low system and support quality
37.5 The system often does inexplicable things
37.8 The system often just does not work
37.9 When there are problems with the system, it is hard to get support
37.11 I was adequately consulted / involved during the introduction of the system (R)
IT system insufficiency
37.6 The system contains only a small part of the necessary information
37.10 I would like to help in making the system more comprehensive
Negative impact on climate
37.3 The system leads to bigger differences within the work group
37.4 The system gives me a sense of being monitored
Increased work time and complexity
37.2 The system leads to the work taking more time than before
37.7 The system is generally hard to use

37.1 The system results in a more faultless production

Table 31 shows that the reliability scores of the resulting dimensions are satisfactory, and that the
four components together explain 71% of the total variance of the 10 items. 78
Table 31: System evaluation dimensions
Variance
Item # Cronbach α explained
Factor 1 - Low system and support quality 5, 7, 8, 9, 11(R) .81 27%
Factor 2 - System insufficiency 6, 10 .60 15%
Factor 3 - Negative impact on climate 3, 4 .60 15%
Factor 4 - Increased work time & complexity 2, 7 .60 14%

For the remainder of the analysis in the next chapters, the four dimensions will be calculated as the means of
their respective item scores.

78
The individual variance values are those that obtain after Varimax rotation.

212
ff) Demographics
Finally, the RIPOSTI instrument contains a number of demographic items that were borrowed from
the AMI instrument. They include tenure, number of years at department, job type, but also gender, age and
education.

13a.What is your current department / work unit?

13. What is your current position / function?

14. How would you describe your work more precisely?

15. How long have you been employed at your current company? Approx. ... years.

16. How long have you been in your current department / work unit? Approx. ... years.

39. Are you (1.a woman; 2.a man)

40. How old are you?

(1.- 25; 2.25-34 years; 3.35-44 years; 4.45-54 years; 5.55-64 years; 6. 65 years or more)

41. How many years of education have you had? Education means time at school,
apprenticeship and other formal training.
(1. 10 years or less; 2.11 or 12 years; 3.13 or 14 years; 4.15 or 16 years; 5. 17 or 18 years; 6.19
years or more)

The formulation and rating scale of two of these items have been changed in comparison to the
original items in the AMI questionnaire.

For the age item, AMI asked for an exact age, but I have introduced a scale of age ranges, because
the exact age was felt to compromise the anonymity of the respondent. Indeed, the combination of
department, function, tenure and age data would have made it quite easy to identify individual workers.

The educational item was adapted for three reasons. Firstly, the original formulation contained
specifically Danish categories, which were felt to be rather confusing by some of my colleagues. Secondly,
these Danish categories would not have been suitable in other settings, and thirdly, the categories represented
a nominal scale, and could not be used in correlational analyses. The advantages of the new scale are the
clarity and generality of the categories, and the fact that ratio scale allows more analyses on the item.

213
3. Overview of the RIPOSTI instrument
The previous pages include a large number of dimensions, especially if one considers that there are
often two sets of dimensions for certain concepts, those that I developed exploratorily and those that were
part of the middle AMI instrument. Comparative analyses of the pairs of dimensions (cf. Annex C5, starting
on page 393) have shown that they usually have similar reliability scores, and that they correlate equally
strongly with other dimensions. In other words, in most cases the pairs of dimensions show the same result.
In order to simplify matters, I have chosen to drop my own dimensions, and focus on the smaller AMI di-
mensions in the remainder of the data analysis. Another advantage of using the AMI dimensions is that the
results of the analysis will be comparable to the Danish data from the AMI survey (and the data of the metal
workers profession, which is a subgroup of the survey results).

Table 32 presents a compact overview of the RIPOSTI dimensions, together with their origin, the
number of items per scale, the respective Cronbach alpha values for multi-item dimensions, and also the
minimum and maximum value and the meaning that these values present. The latter data are important for
the readers that want to interpret the analyses that will be presented in the next chapters, in order to under-
stand the direction of the correlations and the meaning of the mean values in ANOVA analyses. For that rea-
son, a copy of the tables is also available in Annex D on page 407. For some dimensions, the Cronbach alpha
values are put between parentheses because the dimensions either (a) originate in a validated instrument, or
(b) because the dimensions are misfit measures, based on basic needs or demands dimensions, and for those
dimensions the Cronbach alpha was considered less important than the theoretical value of the dimension.

Table 32: Overview of the RIPOSTI dimensions, their characteristics and their source

Scale Characteristics
Dimension Source # items Minimum value Maximum value Cronbach α
Physiological needs 3 1 Extremely important Not important 5 .68
Security needs 4 1 " " 5 .79
NEEDS

Social needs VSM 5 1 " " 5 .81

Esteem needs 2 1 " " 5 .68
Self-actualisation needs 3 1 " " 5 .65
Boss-related needs 1 1 " " 5 -
Physiological NS-misfits 3 -4 Supplies > Needs Needs > Supplies +4 (.34)
NEEDS-SUPPLIES

Security NS-misfits 4 -4 " " +4 (.52)

Social NS-misfits 5 -4 " " +4 (.71)
MISFITS

Esteem NS-misfits SVE 2 -4 " " +4 (.71)

Self-actualisation NS-misfits 3 -4 " " +4 (.72)
Boss-related NS-misfits 1 -4 " " +4 -
Average NS-misfits 18 -4 " " +4 (.88)
Count Extreme NS-misfits 18 0 No misfits Many misfits 18 (.79)

Quantitative demands 4 1 High Low 5 (.49)

MANDS

Cognitive demands 4 1 " " 5 (.88)

DE-

AMI
Sensory demands 3 1 " " 5 (.61)
Demand to hide feelings 1 1 " " 5 -
Quantitative demands 4 -2 Abilities > Demands Demands > Abilities +2 (.33)
DEMANDS-
ABILITIES

Cognitive demands 4 -2 " " +2 (.46)

MISFITS

Sensory demands SVE 3 -2 " " +2 (.33)

Demand to hide feelings 1 -2 " " +2 -
Average DA-misfits 12 -2 " " +2 (.51)
Count extreme DA-misfits 12 -2 No misfits Many misfits +2 (.62)
PE-FIT Count all extreme PE misfits SVE 30 0 " " +30 (.78)

(cont.)

214
 Table 32 (cont.): Overview of the RIPOSTI dimensions, their characteristics and their source

Scale Characteristics
Dimension Source # items Minimum value Maximum value Cronbach α
Decision authority 3 1 High Low 5 (.81)
TROL

AMI
CON-

Skill discretion 4 1 " " 5 (.79)

Degree of freedom AMI 1 1 " " 5 -
Meaning AMI 3 1 " " 5 (.80)
Commitment AMI 4 1 " " 5 (.80)
Commitment objects SVE 11 1 " " 5 11 items
Predictability AMI 2 1 " " 5 (.69)
Social support 2 1 " " 5 (.73)
ASPECTS
SOCIAL

Feedback AMI 2 1 " " 5 (.50)

Social community 2 1 " " 5 (.79)
Help and support others SVE 1 2 " " 6
Job insecurity AMI 4 1 High insecurity Low insecurity 5 (.78)
Satisfaction AMI 4 1 High Low 5 (.79)
Work-family interface AMI 2 1 Bad interface Good interface 5 (.70)
Work rhythm AMI 4 Various 4 items
Self-reported health 1 1 Outstanding Bad 5 -
HEALTH

AMI
Number of sick days 1 0 Good Bad ? -
Mental health AMI 5 1 High Low 6 (.75)
Vitality AMI 4 1 " " 6 (.67)
Self-reported stress SVE 1 1 " " 5 -
STRESS

Behavioural strains 4 1 " " 5 (.71)

Somatic strains AMI 4 1 " " 5 (.68)
Cognitive strains 4 1 " " 5 (.86)
All strains SVE 12 1 " " 5 .85
ORGANISATIONAL

Organisational tension 6 1 Low High 3/5 0.75

Org. resistance to change OrgCon 1 1 High Low 3/5 -
ASPECTS

Management style 1 1 Motivation Control 3/5 -

Org. under pressure SVE 1 1 High Low 5 -
Organisational humanity 6 1 " " 5 .88
Org. information flow EOS 3 1 " " 5 .70
Org. formalisation 2 1 " " 5 .68
Intensity of PC use on job 3 0 None High 8 .84
TECHNO-

ASPECTS

Intensity of techology use 3 0 None / Low High 1 3 items

LOGY

PC use at home SVE 1 0 None High 8 -

Technology attitudes 4 1 Positive Negative 5 .80
Technology abilities 2 1 High Low 5 .49
EVALUATION

Use new IS? SVE 1 1 Intensively Not at all 5 -

IS USE &

System & support quality 4 1 Negative Positive 5 .81

System insufficiency 2 1 Insufficient Sufficient 5 .60
KBR
Impact on climate 2 1 Negative Positive 5 .60
Work time & complexity 2 1 Increase Decrease 5 .60
Demographics AMI 8 Various 8 items

215
4. Interview guidelines
A sample of respondents was interviewed after they had completed the questionnaire, and for those
semi-structured interviews, different guidelines were prepared.

a) Production workers
In each data collection round, production workers were interviewed shortly after they had completed
the questionnaire. At Omicron, this happened the day after the collective questionnaire session; during the
first round at Alpha, the questionnaires had been filled out some days before the interview on an individual
basis. For the second round at Alpha then, I interviewed respondents immediately after the collective ques-
tionnaire sessions. The full interview guideline of these interviews can be found in Annex E1 on page 409.
The interviews lasted about 30 minutes per respondent and discussed individual psychological aspects, or-
ganisational stress, and information technology, and concluded with brief discussions of their opinion of the
questionnaire and the research project more generally, as presented in the overview in Table 33.

Table 33: Overview of topics in production worker interviews

1. Individual issues 3. Information Technology

- Needs
- Demands misfits
- Meaning
- Worry / insecurity
- Satisfaction
2. Organisational stress
- Skills / abilities
- Existing systems
- Specific new IS
- Other IT potential
- Role of IT in change
4. Questionnaire

In the first part of the interview, the intention was to find out if respondents differentiate between (a)
their different reasons to work, (b) what motivates them in their work, (c) what gives meaning to their work,
and (d) whether their work could become more meaningful. In fact, the main purpose was to compare the
words and formulations they used in the different descriptions of the meaning of their work.
The first part also included items that are related to the misfit concepts: (a) whether the demands that the job
places on them are too high or too low, and (b) whether their job situation could change so it would become
more satisfying.
And finally, we discussed some major changes that had been going on at both sites in the months that
preceded the interview. At Omicron, an accident caused major damage to production equipment, and this
caused a temporary lockout of all production personnel during the month of December 1999. At Alpha,
major personnel reductions and other big changes were performed during the year that preceded my data
collection effort. These incidents were a way of discussing their degree of insecurity, how they dealt with
that, and whether they felt it to be a cause for stress.
The second part of the interview dealt with concepts related to organisational stress, and how
respondents would conceptualise and formulate such an issue. I also tried to find out whether organisational
stress and individual stress were related, in other words, I inquired into the cross-level aspects of stress and
whether the two types were related. At Alpha, I also tried to find out whether either type of stress had risen
or fallen between the two interviews.
The third part of the interview focussed on the respondent’s perception of information technology,
their skills, their evaluation of the impact of the respective systems, the relevance of computers for their jobs,
and whether technology could play a role for their work in the future. At Alpha, there was some discussion
about what had changed after the major reorganisations and which role technology played in the process.
The interviews were concluded with a brief discussion of their comments on or perceptions of the
questionnaire or the research project in general.

The interviews with production workers were anonymous, but through the use of identification
numbers, I was able to link the interview data to the questionnaire data. I felt that this was an important
triangulation mechanism, especially with regard to comparing needs- and demands-related issues.

216
b) Trade union representatives
All interviews with trade union representatives at Omicron also contained the issues in Table 33. The
aim was to find out whether there were remarkable differences between the answers of production workers
and their representatives. Next to these individual-level issues, the interviews with trade union members also
contained organisational-level aspects, but those will be discussed in the next section. In contrast to the in-
terviews with workers, the trade union members did not insist on anonymity towards me as a researcher.

c) Management representatives
In the interviews with managers, the individual-level aspects were dealt with in a somewhat more
condensed form. The full guideline for that part of their interviews can be found in Annex E2 on page 411.
The reduction of the individual-level part of the interview was necessary, because most managers only had
one hour till 90 minutes to be interviewed, and I wanted to focus especially on the organisational-level inter-
views, which absorbed almost an hour. The aim of interviewing them about individual-level issues was again
to be able to compare their perceptions of meaning, misfits and organisational stress with those of production
workers and trade union representatives.

5. Participation, observation and informal talks

An important instrument in the first 18 months of my research project was the participation and
management of the BlueTech project. These activities were a good way of finding out about the problematic
relationship between the ‘future-and-potential’-oriented nature of technology-directed development projects
and the ‘now-and-limitations’-oriented nature of manufacturing work. Moreover, if I had not been the local
manager in BlueTech, I would not have been able to appreciate the complex and often mutually conflicting
organisational processes that were involved in the project. If I had been a mere participant in the project,
these processes would not have become so clear. On the other hand, I was never ‘just’ a participant or local
project manager, I was always a PhD researcher looking for patterns or for theoretical contributions that
could shed light on some of the issues that had to be dealt with. In this way, the participation in BlueTech can
indeed be regarded as a research technique, as I discussed in the description of the project chronology in
Chapter 6 above.

A related research instrument – again mainly used at Omicron – consisted of ‘observation’ of

activities in the pipe production workshop and informal talks with the workers. My use of the word
‘observation’ should not in any way be perceived as referring to the research technique that is used in
ethnographic research methods, but more as an informal and sporadic observation of (a) production flow and
activities and (b) the use of the new information system.
When I first entered the workshop at Omicron in September 1997, my observation activities started
off on the wrong foot, mainly because I could not yet speak Danish at that time, but also because I was
wearing a helmet with the wrong colour – as I found out much later. The language barrier immediately
caused me to be classified as ‘strange’, especially as I was part of BlueTech, a research project that had had
its ups and downs in its relations with the pipe workshop. The white colour of my safety helmet immediately
classified me as ‘related to management’, with all the implications that such a classification has. For some,
the white helmet caused a negative reaction in the sense of “What does he think he is doing here? Are we
being monitored or what?” For others, the white helmet caused a closing reaction, in the sense of “Oops, a
manager. I’ll make sure to look as if I’m busy minding my own business.”
However, as it turned out that I was quickly able to speak and understand Danish, that I was not a
manager and that I was interested in learning about their activities and states of mind, I was no longer
regarded with the same scepticism. The repetitive observations and visits to the workshop went on for about
3 years, during which I also had quite a number of informal talks with the pipe shop employees. The pipe
production workshop at Omicron is the type of workshop where any stranger is immediately noticed, and
where ongoing activities are suspended in order to either stare at the visitor, or walk up to him and start an
informal chat in order to find out his purpose.

These informal talks were important means of ‘measuring’ the social climate and the working
atmosphere, especially in the production departments that I visited. At management level, the informal talks
were good ways of hearing about perceived changes in the balances-of-power-and-influence, especially
during the management transition period in 1997-1998. These balances-of-power issues lead me to the
organisational level of analysis, which I will discuss in the next section.
217
B. Organisational-level instruments

The main instruments at the organisational level of analysis were qualitative. Especially the one-and-
a-half year period during which I participated in and co-ordinated the BlueTech project at Omicron have
been very informative with regard to the organisational aspects of information technology development and
implementation projects. During that period, visits and informal interviews were the major source of
information for the development project. At a later stage in the development project, the main sources of
information were departmental and cross-departmental meetings about the actual implementation and
deployment processes.

After my participation in the project ended, the organisational data collection became more formal,
and consisted of pre-arranged semi-structured interviews, where the major part consisted of the guideline that
is based on the multi-contingency framework OrgCon® (Burton & Obel, 1998). The answers to those
questions were later entered into the OrgCon® expert system that determined the existence of situational and
organisational misfits. Another part of the organisational-level interviews was related to the respective
development projects at both sites, and other parallel ongoing changes. A third main part of the interviews
was a small ‘talking questionnaire’ on production-workers-perception, where the representatives from trade
unions and management were asked to indicate what answers they thought the production workers had given.
Fourthly, respondents who were somehow related to the IT function at Omicron were interviewed about the
preliminary IT classification. Finally, the analysis of documents contributed both internal and external views
on organisation-environment fit issues.

1. Participation and Observation

At the organisational level, the main research instrument has been project participation and
management and the observation of organisational stakeholders. During the 18-month period in which I was
local project manager of the BlueTech project at Omicron, the intricacies and politics that can surround
organisational change projects have been extremely informative. Both the internal politics within Omicron,
the politics within the project consortium and the politics involved in the communication with the project
financier have been of crucial importance for interpreting the limited success of the project.

But my participation in the project has not only been important for understanding the project
management aspects of technology development and implementation. The effects of organisational
characteristics on the intended user group could also be observed through participation in the development
project and through informal discussions with the different stakeholders in the project, i.e. production
workers, supervisors, middle managers, and local union representatives.

The fact that I was an employee at Omicron also allowed unobtrusive observation of the different
sub-cultures and the climate differences in the different parts of the organisation. One may expect that
external researchers will not get the same unfiltered information, because they will most probably be treated
as guests, and will be shown the positive side of things. Indeed, both individuals and organisations tend to
use window-dressing activities in their confrontation with external stakeholders. For instance, at Alpha, I was
never able to get the same depth of insight into the culture and sub-cultures of the organisation, even though
I interviewed different types of stakeholders.

2. Organisational Consultant – OrgCon®

The full Organisational Consultant – OrgCon® – interview guide is presented in Annex E3 on page
412. In fact, the OrgCon® part of the interview with organisational stakeholders is not really an informal
interview, it has more characteristics of a ‘talking questionnaire’, since it entails the answering of 60 ques-
tions on different organisational and environmental characteristics. However, the questions have often
caused more in-depth consideration of certain organisational aspects, and sometimes the discussion touched
on the relations between the organisational characteristics and the technology development and implementa-

218
tion projects. So in fact, that part of the interviews can be characterised as something in between a structured
interview and a ‘talking questionnaire’.

The interview about the organisational characteristics had two main objectives: gathering answers
that could afterwards be entered into the OrgCon® expert system, and comparing the different stakeholders’
answers in search of inconsistencies and conflicts. The first use of the data allowed me to see if the
individual respondents’ perception of the organisation contained any misfits, when analysed in the multiple-
contingency framework of organisational design. The second way of using the data allowed a comparison of
the signification processes within and across stakeholder groups. I have focussed on the differences and
conflicts between the different answers in search of organi-strain, but these multiple-respondent data can also
be used in another way, namely as a basis for an organisational intervention. Such an intervention is often
aimed at reaching consensus about organisational and environmental characteristics, in order to come to a
higher level of shared understanding, i.e. a higher degree of organi-self. Such a shared understanding can
then in turn become the basis of a more informed organisational (re-) design effort.

When one looks through the list of OrgCon® questions, it becomes clear that they are targeted at
stakeholders that have a fairly high-level perception of the organisation, such as top and middle managers
and organisational-level trade union representatives. The formulation of the questions is not suitable for use
with lower-level supervisors or production workers, except for the climate-related questions and a single
question on management style, which are rather more general. The latter questions were found suitable for
the RIPOSTI instrument, which is intended for all types of organisational stakeholders. The OrgCon®
questions were of course never designed for all types of organisational respondents. In fact, the instrument is
mainly intended for use by external consultants and top management people.

The dimensions that the OrgCon® instrument is intended to measure are summarised in Table 34.
The left-hand side of the table lists the current organisational design dimensions, while the right-hand side
lists the contingency factors.
Table 34: Overview of OrgCon® dimensions

1. Current configuration 5. Size

2. Current complexity
- Horizontal differentiation
- Vertical differentiation
- Spatial differentiation
3. Current formalisation
4. Current centralisation
6. Age / ownership
7. Product diversity
8. Technology
9. Environment
10. Management profile
11. Strategy factors
12. Internal climate factors

These dimensions provide a thorough overview of relevant organisational and environmental

characteristics, which are then analysed by the OrgCon® expert system in search of misfits and design
recommendations. It is especially the misfits that are relevant for my purposes, while the design
recommendations are useful for people who want to use the OrgCon® as a decision support tool for
organisational (re-)design.

The misfit analysis can detect three types of misfits. Firstly, there are the situational misfits, which
are misfits between the contingency parameters on the right-hand side of Table 34. A second type of imbal-
ances are the design parameter misfits, which are conflicting characteristics between parameters of organisa-
tional design (the left-hand side of the table). A final type of misfits are contingency misfits, which are mis-
fits between left- and right-hand side parameters, i.e. between current organisational design parameters and
contingency parameters.

Since I have not made any changes to the research instrument79, a discussion of the different dimen-
sions and misfits would lead too far within the framework of this description. Please refer to the brief discus-

79
The only change made, was the use of a 5-point scale instead of OrgCon’s 3-point scale for measuring some of the items (e.g. in-
ternal climate). This change of scale is reflected in the OrgCon® analysis by the use of differential weighting of the answers.

219
sion of the multiple-contingency framework in Chapter 4 on page 74, and to the book of Burton and Obel
(1998).

3. IS project interviews
At the time of the formal interview round at Omicron, the BlueTech project was finished, which
meant that I could include a short historical-reconstruction section in the interviews with those managers and
trade-union representatives that had been involved in the project. The guideline of that part of the interview
is included in Annex E5 on page 416. The aim of that interview was to determine different perceptions on
the history of the organisational aspects of the project, and of the political aspects related to that.

At Alpha, the technology manager was interviewed about the ShopFloorPC project, in order to
establish the development and implementation history. But since the ShopFloorPC was not a separate
project, but an integral part of the organisational turnaround, there had not been given much attention to the
development or implementation aspects.

4. Production-worker-perception questionnaire
A final part of the interviews with managers and trade union representatives consisted of a small ques-
tionnaire that was intended to measure the adequacy of organisational signification processes (working
propositions P36b and P39b on page 189). As part of the interview, managers and trade union representa-
tives were asked to ’guess’ the production workers’ answers to some of the RIPOSTI questions (cf. Table
35). The aim of this questionnaire was to ascertain to which degree stakeholder perceptions of workers’ psy-
chological climate coincided with workers’ perceptions.
Table 35: Worker-perception questionnaire items
Meaningfulness
• Do workers perceive their tasks as meaningful?
• Do they feel their job effort is important?
• Do they perceive their job as varied?
• Do they feel motivated in their job?
Are workers worried about:
• Becoming unemployed?
• Becoming superfluous because of new technology?
• Having a hard time finding a new job, in case they become unemployed?
• Being transferred to another job against their will?
Commitment
• Do they enjoy talking to other people about their company?
• Do they feel that the company’s problems are their problems as well?
• If the company is under pressure, do they feel pressured as well?
• To which degree do they feel committed to their company?
How satisfied are they with:
• Their future perspectives on the job?
• The people they collaborate with?
• The physical work environment?
• The way the company is being managed?
• The way their department is being managed?
• The way in which their capabilities are used?
• The challenges and abilities their job entails?
• Their job as a whole?
How do they perceive organisational climate?
• Level of trust
• Level of conflict
• Resistance to change
• Management credibility
• Tendency to find scapegoats
• Job morale
• Equitability of rewards
Management style: control or motivation?

220
 To which degree do they perceive the company is under pressure?

5. IT mini-interview
Next to the issues that I have discussed above, the interviews with IT-related people at Omicron also
contained a short part in which I tried to get some ideas and discussion about the IT characteristics that I
have described at the end of Chapter 2 above. The interview guideline for this part is presented in Annex E4
on page 415. The dimensions discussed in the interview were the following:
Table 36: Overview of IT-related interview guideline

1. IT infrastructure
2. Level of computerisation
3. Sources of information
4. Information centralisation
5. Restrictiveness
6. Flexibility / rigidity
7. Control orientation
8. Organisational scope

This part of the interview lasted between 20 and 30 minutes.

6. Documents
A final qualitative research instrument consists of a variety of internal and external documents that
were consulted in the course of the three-year project.

At Omicron, I had – of course – access to all documents that were related to the BlueTech project, a
set of documents that consisted of management and progress reports, project plans and budgets, but also
technical specification documents and descriptions of software prototypes. Next to those BlueTech
documents, I had access to internal newsletters, the organisation’s Intranet, and the annual reports of the
company. I also consulted the online archives of Danish newspapers in search of environmental information,
and of external stakeholder perceptions of the company.

At Alpha, my access to documents was naturally more limited. I was given access to some
confidential documents about the strategic change plans that were implemented in the course of the years
2000-2001. Next to that, I consulted external sources of information, such as the company website (which
also contains annual reports), and online newspaper archives.

221
C. Overview of research instruments

By way of conclusion, Table 37 presents an overview of the research instruments, classified by re-
search site and type of respondent.
Table 37: Overview of research instruments per respondent type and research site

Omicron Alpha Industries

Produc- Produc-
tion Mana- IT mana- Union IT deve- tion Mana- IT mana- Union IT deve-
workers gers gers reps. lopers workers gers ger reps. lopers
RIPOSTI
X X X X X X X X X
questionnaire
Individual-level

Worker interview
X X X
guide
Management
X X
interview guide
Participation and
X X X X
observation

Participation and
X X X X
observation
OrgCon interview
X X X X X X
Organisational level

guide
Worker-perception
X X X (x) X X X
interview guide
IS project interview
(X) X X X (x) (X) X X X
guide
IT characteristics
X (x)
interview guide

XX Documents X

The difference between the two research sites becomes clear when one sees the large number of
empty spaces on the right-hand side of the table. The case at Alpha is indeed less comprehensive than that at
Omicron, especially with regard to participation and observation (at both levels of analysis), and the
individual-level interviews. Moreover, since there was no new software development in the Alpha case, I
have no data from IT developers. Finally, I had access to many more documents at Omicron, which is
indicated by the double mark in that category. These differences are of course related to the length of time
that I worked on each case. The Omicron case lasted over 3 years, while the Alpha data were collected in a
period of 6 months.

The marks between parentheses in each case indicate that the interviews about that aspect did not
closely follow the guidelines, while the small marks in the ‘IT-developer’ category indicate that only one
developer participated in those interviews.

In general, the table shows that the data collection at both sites has resulted in a wide range of
qualitative and quantitative data for the different groups of stakeholders. I will discuss these data in the next
three chapters.

222
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working
Hypotheses Chapter 7

Research
Instruments Chapter 8

Case 1 Chapter 9
Case 2

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

The importance of top management commitment in technology development projects

Chapter 9. PipeViewer Case at Omicron

At the start of the case study descriptions, the reader needs to keep in mind that the description
below is only a brief summary of the actual case study. For reasons of confidentiality, the full analysis and
description are only available to the jury of the dissertation, the supervising team and the participating
companies in the form of two confidential appendices.

The first case study is related to the development and introduction of the small software tool
PipeViewer in the steel pipe production workshop at Omicron Steel Production Ltd80, a major manufacturing
company in Denmark. This software tool was developed as part of BlueTech, a European-funded
collaborative R&D project that aimed to design information technology tools for supporting shop-floor
workers in manual and semi-automated production environments. The rich empirical data were gathered
from representatives of top, middle and lower management, trade union representatives, blue-collar workers
(PipeViewer users and non-users) and software developers. The data collection activities span a period of
three years (from 1997 to 2000), with a major concentration of effort in the first half-year of the year 2000.

The BlueTech project had a rather problematic status within Omicron, and the results of the project
were rather mixed. The project was a technological success, but the organisational goals were only partially
fulfilled. From my vantage point – studying the co-evolution of organisational, psychological and
information-technological factors – the history of the BlueTech project is an important and interesting object
of study. Within BlueTech, the organisational and - to a lesser extent - psychological factors prohibited the
planned implementation of more software tools. How and why this was the case, is one of the main parts of
the analysis in this chapter.

The structure of this chapter is as follows:

- Firstly, I describe the data that were collected during a 3-year period.
- Secondly, I provide a brief organisational analysis.
- Thirdly, existing information technology at Omicron is described.
- Fourthly, I provide a description of the BlueTech project, with a focus on the importance of the project
for the working hypotheses, especially those that look at IT on the organisational level.
- Fifthly, I briefly describe the quantitative and qualitative data analysis, again focussing on the
importance of the results with regard to the working hypotheses. This data analysis and discussion
consists of four main parts:
- a) organisational-level data analyses,
- b) cross-level analyses,
- c) individual-level analyses, and
- d) IT issues at the individual level of analysis.
- The final section then provides a summary of the main results of the case study.

80
Note that the names of the organisation, the project and the software are fictitious, for reasons of confidentiality.

224
A. Data description

The data gathered at Omicron were collected from representatives of a number of stakeholder groups
using a number of research tools, as listed in Table 38. The total number of respondents was 63, with 13
members of Omicron management, 4 representatives of blue-collar worker trade unions, 42 production
workers from the pipe production workshop, and 4 members of IT-related departments, three of which were
involved in the development of PipeViewer. Two of the supervisors in the group of 13 management respon-
dents were members of the local trade club of supervisors at Omicron, but they are treated as managers. An
interesting fact is that all respondents were male.
Table 38: Overview of Omicron data

RIPOSTI Interview
question- Individual Worker-
naire Issues perception OrgCon BlueTech IT
Top Managers (n=4) 2 2 3 4 2 1
Middle Managers (n=6)* 4 5 5 5 6* 3
Supervisors (n=3)** 2 2 2 1
Union Representatives (n=4)** 4 2 2 2
Pipe Production Workers (n=42) 42 11
IT Staff (n=4) 4 1 1
(Total n=63) 58 22 13 12 8 5
* One of the middle managers had left the company at the time of the interview
** Two of the supervisors represent the supervisors' union

The data for this case study were gathered over a period of nearly three years, as shown below. The
top bar in Figure 70 represents the duration of the BlueTech project with the dotted part indicating the project
extension after 36 months. The bottom bar in the figure indicates the data gathering activities, where the dot-
ted line at the start indicates the period in which I only participated in the project. The PipeViewer tool was
installed in the pipe workshop in August 1999, which means that the structured data gathering took place
some 7 months after the installation of the software tool.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

BlueTech Project PipeViewer

installed
Project participation and management Structured
data gathering t

Figure 70: Timeline of BlueTech project and data gathering activities.

The data collection activities resulted in 25 interviews (280 pages of transcripts), 58 questionnaires,
and some hundreds of pages of documents. Moreover, well over 1200 hours were spent at Omicron during
my 18-months’ project participation.

225
B. Organisational description

In this paragraph, I will briefly introduce Omicron in order to situate the case study. Omicron is a
fairly traditional Danish manufacturing company within the metal industry. However, it is also known as a
technological leader within its industry, especially with regard to product design and production technology.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the work at Omicron consists of manual labour that is performed within a
traditional functional organisational structure with a fairly complex vertical hierarchy. Next to the formal
management hierarchy, Omicron has a long tradition of trade union presence and involvement, as do most
companies in the metal industry. The strong presence of trade unions factually constitutes a strong informal
hierarchy that co-exists with the official hierarchy.

Omicron is a company with a long history and tradition in Denmark and it belongs to a broad
industrial conglomerate that covers many areas of economic activity. The history of Omicron is characterised
both by continuity (“we work the same way we’ve always worked”) and by disruptive changes – often
caused by external circumstances – that usually lead to major personnel reductions. As is the case for all
traditional industries in Europe, Omicron is under constant international pressure from countries with lower
labour cost, and the company tries to respond by improving its productivity and efficiency, while
maintaining a high level of quality. These internal change projects are most often rather slow and thorough.
In the remainder of this paragraph I want to briefly describe two important internal changes.

Omicron has a tradition of fairly stable management, where CEO’s often remain for periods of 10
years or longer. Just before the start of the case study in 1997, the former CEO (CEO1) had moved to
another position and the current CEO took over. This change was also a subject of conversation during the
interviews with management and union representatives because it seems to have had quite some influence on
the psychological climate, mainly within middle management. The majority of interviewees note that the
new CEO has raised the level of centralisation and formalisation in the company, thereby leaving middle
management somewhat less discretion. Moreover, most interviewees feel that there has been a change of
focus within management: whereas CEO1 was very long-term and strategy-oriented, the current CEO is felt
to be more short-term and operations-oriented. Whether this change was mainly a consequence of increased
environmental pressure, or whether it mainly reflects a different inherent management style on the part of the
CEO, is rather hard to determine.

Another relevant organisational change is the start-up of a process called the 'basisgroup81 project'
that aims to achieve a form of production teams at shop-floor level consisting of self-managing blue-collar
workers. Each ‘basisgroup’ consists of a supervisor and the blue-collar staff that report to him, independent
of their profession. The aim of these ‘basisgroups’ at the time of the data gathering was to enhance
communication through two-weekly or weekly meetings with a fixed agenda. Management's aim with the
‘basisgroups’ is to slowly change the existing work culture, where workers were not supposed to take any
responsibility, to one where as much responsibility as possible is delegated down to shop-floor level. In the
context of my research the ‘basisgroup’ project is rather important, because it is closely related to the ideas in
the BlueTech project, and because it is an ongoing organisational change which is trying to replace the
existing "old-fashioned" centralised and hierarchical organisational culture.

81
Basisgroup is a Danish word that is equivalent to ‘consciousness raising group’.

226
C. Existing information technology

The existing information technology infrastructure at Omicron is quite large and complex. Omicron
has always been at the forefront of technological developments in such areas as product design (CAD/CAM),
or materials control (MRP and ERP), mainly because of the extreme complexity of its products82.

Another reason for the complexity of the information system infrastructure at Omicron is the parallel
use of different computing platforms. While some old parts of the production support system run on
mainframe computers, the CAD/CAM system uses Unix workstations, and the administrative systems are
using Windows NT machines. Yet another complicating factor is that Omicron has often chosen to develop
its own customised systems in order to cope with the extreme complexity and processing power that was
needed. For example, the current CAD/CAM system was developed in a joint venture with another main
player in the industry. These custom-made systems are often more difficult to integrate into new structures.
Finally, Omicron’s robots and other numerically controlled machines further contribute to the complexity
and diversity of the IT infrastructure. In fact, in the 1990’s Omicron has become a major technological player
in the industry as regards automation of production and assembly processes.

Notwithstanding this complexity, 95% of all computers were linked to a Microsoft NT network, and
over 80% of the systems was able to exchange data at the time of the data gathering. At the end of the
1990’s, Omicron has done major efforts to integrate its existing systems into this NT network, and projects
were underway to move the majority of non-Windows-based systems over to the NT platform. Within the
framework of the recent ERP project, a number of those older systems were replaced by the new NT-based
enterprise resource planning system.

The three major information systems at Omicron are the custom-made CAD system, the de-
centralised planning system (DPS), and the new ERP system. Together these three systems provide most of
the information that is needed for the production of Omicron products. Next to these major systems, there are
quite a number of specialised systems in the different administrative departments, but also in the research-
and technology-oriented departments. Within the administrative and technology-oriented departments, e-mail
has become a major means of communication, while the production function still relies very much on paper-
based and oral communication. Omicron does not use any kind of management information system or
enterprise information system, but it has recently started implementing an Intranet system. At the time of
writing, the Omicron Intranet was mainly used within the administrative departments, but it is intended to
become a major source of information for all departments within the company.

In the context of BlueTech, it is important to discuss Omicron’s planning system in some more
detail. Omicron uses a custom-made advanced planning system called the de-centralised 'ABC planning'
system. A-plans are made at the highest level of the organisation and contain the main deadlines in the
production of a product, namely: when can we start the design, how many design and production hours do
we need and when do we deliver? Based on the A-plans, B-plans are developed for each function and pro-
duction unit. For this purpose, products are divided into main parts, assembly activities, etc. These B-plans
are then further refined into C-plans, in which each single department gets to know its production goals.
"... the whole planning machinery, which we call "the de-centralised planning system" is
extremely centrally controlled. And there is an extremely high level of discipline surrounding
it. And that is of course one of the reasons why we have never had delays. It is amazing,
really, to think that we have never had delays.” (senior manager)
As this quote indicates, the planning system does seem to work quite well as a co-ordination device of all
activities at the company. A number of respondents called it the most important system in the company.

The majority of computer systems are to be found in the white-collar functions within the company.
And even while Omicron is one of the most automated and computerised companies within its industry, the
majority of production workers never uses information technology, but produces manual labour (building,

82
CAD/CAM stands for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. MRP stands for manufacturing resource planning,
ERP stands for enterprise resource planning.

227
welding and assembly). This is not to say that production workers are never confronted with information
technology. In fact, all design, planning, production preparation and post-production information originates
in computer systems, but the workers get this information only in printed form, or through the directions of
their supervisors. With the exception of robot and CNC-machine83 operators, production workers do not have
access to computers themselves, since most information retrieval from and reporting to the information sys-
tems is carried out by supervisors or area managers. However, production workers are expected to make in-
creasing use of IT in their daily work, for example by using barcode readers to identify work pieces.

A final issue that needs to be mentioned in this context, is the recent joint initiative by management
and trade unions to provide all Omicron employees with the possibility of buying a personal computer
through a special government-financed scheme. In this scheme, the employees get a multimedia PC with free
Internet service from the company at a reduced price. The cost of the computer is then deducted from the
employees’ wages in instalments. The great majority of employees has responded positively to this initiative,
and has thus obtained their own PC.

D. BlueTech project description and analysis

The BlueTech project was one of the projects within the automation research and development
(ARD) department at Omicron. At the start of my PhD project, this department consisted of some 50 full-
time engineers, software developers and technicians. While the majority of application projects were
financed solely by Omicron, most of the research-oriented projects were co-financed with national or
European research funds. One such project was the BlueTech project, which received 50% of its funding
from the European ESPRIT research fund for advanced information technology projects. The aim of
BlueTech was to develop and test new software that would allow shop floor workers to get access to
planning- and production-related information, in order to have more influence and control over their daily
production work. The project was related to the software development activities of the ARD department.

BlueTech started in September 1996, and ended on the 31st of March 2000, after a 7-month exten-
sion. The project finally resulted in the implementation of PipeViewer, a small software tool in the pipe pro-
duction department that can be used to view the steel pipes that are to be produced in 3 dimensions during
their production. Next to this implementation, the BlueTech project also developed an advanced shop-floor
scheduling and control module for another production workshop, but that prototype was not ready to be
tested in production settings. Figure 71 shows the main screen of the PipeViewer module.

Figure 71: Screen image of the PipeViewer tool

83
CNC-machine stands for computer-numerically-controlled machine, a production machine that is mainly controlled by a computer.

228
1. Project goals

BlueTech’s general project goals are defined in the following official project summary:
The tough competition in the global market between European industries and those from the
Far East makes it evidently necessary to reorganise production structures in Europe.
Increasing labour and production costs accompanied by decreasing motivation of shopfloor
workers due to lower responsibility in the overall production cycle has led to a strong decline
in efficiency. Inflated management structures in typically hierarchically organised industries
add fixed costs which are normally not leading to an increase in productivity.
Several European industries have realised the mentioned problems and now switched over to
a new way of thinking: 'Turning production hierarchy upside down!'.
The trend is to turn the production 'lines' into production 'cells' in a distributed production
environment, handling stand-alone 'jobs' on a common 'market place', leaving as much
responsibility as possible to the shop-floor people and thereby conveying the idea of
competitive cooperation to the workers on the shop-floor. The shop-floor people will be
directly involved in several decision making processes within the company, work planning is
done internally, best 'prices' for work tasks (i.e. added value to the product) can be
calculated in respect to the 'cost' (i.e. time, schedules, material prices), input and output as
well as quality can be clearly measured and will be visible in the final products.
This concept has proven to be effective, and the number of companies following this new idea
and trying to apply it to their own production, is multiplying.
Three highly innovative European companies have started the development of a generic
architecture for supporting management of distributed production environments, providing
the necessary support functions for responsible decision making to shop-floor people as well
as providing excellent facilities for managing their internal work and coping with the
behaviour of machines and processes.
Prototype installations will directly target the markets of small-batch or one-of-a-kind
manufacturing houses. The involved end-user, Omicron, will be provided with the necessary
equipment and tools by two technology suppliers/developers, experienced in multimedia
information technology and user interfacing. The impact on human resources, motivation and
social effects will be evaluated in close cooperation not only with the company's internal
institutions but also with trade unions from Denmark and Germany. Workshops within the
lifetime of the project will enable external experts as well as interested companies to
participate actively in the dissemination and use of results.
Project summary on Esprit home page - http://www.cordis.lu/esprit/

The project summary shows the project's focus on managerial and business topics as underlying
goals for the project. Moreover, what's striking in the text is its stance regarding the relationship between
factors of organisational psychology and job performance (efficiency). The text specifically mentions
declining worker motivation as one of the sources of declining efficiency. Moreover, the authors state that
the declining level of motivation is caused by "lower responsibility in the overall production cycle". This
reasoning can be summarised as follows

Low responsibility → decreasing worker motivation → low efficiency

The “new way of thinking” has become "leaving as much responsibility as possible to the shop-floor
people". The tool for reaching that goal is said to be the redesign of old line production processes into
production cells that operate like 'players' in a market situation. The workers are then meant to work in
"competitive cooperation".

Most technical goals were achieved in the prototype, but what was tested in actual production was
only a small part of the intended worker-directed information, namely the information about the work piece
under production (CAD drawing). The rest of the prototype was developed, but not installed in production,
and the impacts on “human resources, motivation and social effects” that are mentioned in the description of
the general goals could not be evaluated.

229
2. Summary of BlueTech project analysis and link to hypotheses
As indicated at the start of this chapter, the confidential appendices to this dissertation contain a
thorough analysis of the project. Here I want to summarise the analysis of the BlueTech software develop-
ment project and refer to some of the arguments that different managers have given during the interviews. I
will also refer back to the hypotheses concerning IT on the organisational level that were formulated in
Chapter 7 above, and see whether the BlueTech analysis can support any of them.

a) Summary of BlueTech analysis

The project analysis is mainly based on the interviews with top management and union
representatives, in combination with my own observations. The full analysis contains
(a) a detailed description of the origin and goals of the project – both general and technical,
(b) an analysis of management and structure of the project – within the consortium and at Omicron,
(c) a thorough description of the stakeholders at all levels of the project, and
(d) a detailed history of the project with all its main achievements and incidents.

The main argument that keeps returning in the analysis is that a major reason for the limited
implementation results of the BlueTech project at Omicron was the change in management culture when
CEO became general manager. This change in management culture is described as a ‘clash’ of cultures,
where the old culture was based on major delegation of authority, combined with a long-term view of the
company’s strategy and mission, also with regard to technological dominance. The new culture was a more
operational one, in combination with a need to have more centralised decision-making, and the need for top
management to have full control of everything that went on inside the company.

This change in management style, combined with the worldwide economic problems in 1997/1998,
led to a strong pressure on the department that was responsible for the development of the software, which in
turn resulted in a lack of resources. The lack of management support caused by the change of CEO and the
change of general strategy is also reflected in other relevant areas of the company, such as the personnel
department and the production departments. Some respondents view this lack of support on middle
management level as an explanation of the problems that BlueTech encountered, even though there were
similar projects – such as the ‘basisgroup’ initiative – running in parallel with the BlueTech project.

On the other hand, cultural differences had existed before the change of CEO, but at that time, the
‘strategist’ clan was dominant, at least with regard to research and development activities. In fact, these
cultural differences had clearly been established over a longer period of time. As one of the respondents puts
it:
“Production people were never asked if they wanted a robot station, were they? We [the
technologists] would present our financial request to CEO1, who would have it approved and
signed by the chairman of the board. Those projects would then be implemented in the
production area, where CEO was vice-president, without asking him anything. That wasn’t
very nice, I admit.
But it’s just that, if we had asked him, we would never have implemented a single robot.
That’s the disadvantage of consensus- and motivation-based management styles. The demand
to have full consensus when making decisions can become a bottle neck with regard to
agility, to an organisation’s ability to change.”

A final reason that is cited for the problems in BlueTech is the frequent change of local project
manager, which was rather negative for the continuity of the project. But this was partly related to the lack of
resources within the department.

230
b) Link to the hypotheses concerning the role of IT at the organisational level
In Chapter 7, I pointed out that I wanted to use the BlueTech analysis to try to substantiate some of
the hypotheses from the CHARISM theory that focus on the role of IT on the organisational level of analysis.
In this paragraph, I will discuss the relevance of the BlueTech analysis for some of the hypotheses.

H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs and environmental IT
demands and will therefore contribute different perspectives to the organi-self’s
signification process. When no common perspective can be developed, organi-strain
may arise

The change of management that I mentioned before has also changed the dominant perception of IT
needs and demands within Omicron. Before the change of management, there was in fact a two-tier strategy,
in the sense that part of the organisation focussed on optimising and integrating existing systems, while
another part of the organisation looked at the external world, perceived changing environmental demands,
and started development projects to try and meet those demands. In contrast, the dominant perception at the
time of the interviews was that the major IT effort for the subsequent years was to integrate the existing IT
infrastructure as much as possible, also with regard to the integration of new subsidiaries. This change is
illustrated in the following quote from one of the non-technology-related middle managers.
”It is clear – if we get some kind of signal about the existence of something really smart, or
something, for which there is documentation that we can do things in a better or more
rational way, then we go ahead and do it. But to jump out into that which is called
development – and where will it bring us – that does not happen for the moment, not at all.”
Where Omicron previously went out and scanned the technological environment actively, it will now wait
for technological innovations that have already proven their efficiency.

These differences in perspective were most obvious where production planning was concerned. For
some of the senior and middle managers and supervisors, the existing de-centralised planning system should
not be tampered with. What’s more, they wanted to increase the level of top-down planning, so as to get even
better control from the top. For these respondents, production planning by workers was expected to result in
complete chaos. Other managers, however, felt that it would be best to allow production planning to happen
at the lowest possible level in the organisation, closest to where real production was happening. These
respondents felt that full top-down planning was a myth, and that it was better to have systems that could
flexibly and intelligently support reality and that allowed for frequent changes. At the time of the interviews,
all exceptions such as changing deadlines or machine breakdowns had to be tackled outside the computer-
based information system.

These different perspectives existed also within top management, as illustrated by the following
remark by one of the vice-presidents about the production planning system at Omicron:
“One has to take care not to go too far down in detail, and I think that I’m quite different
from typical production-oriented people, who would like to have things in far more detail.
But actually, I think that – if they want to have something in the basisgroups, have some
possibilities for self-determination – then there should be something left for them to decide. ...
They need to have some [IT] tools, and then they need factual information. And I think that –
on the basis of that – they’ll need to make sure to deliver the goods in time.”
This quote illustrates that there were different perceptions about which type of IT was needed within the
organisation. In the case of the BlueTech project, one could say that these different perceptions were a cause
of strain within the project, but also within the organisation. The other interviews show that supervisors and
production workers were expecting major changes from the ‘basisgroups’ – also technologically – such as
the ones described by the senior manager above, but the dominant group within management did not intend
to implement such changes, at least not in the short run. In a sense, the existence of organi-strain caused by
these different perceptions of the organisation’s IT needs was an important aspect in the development
process of BlueTech, because they proved to be an important source of organisational resistance.

231
 H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of resolving existing
misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease existing organi-strain, but it may also
unintentionally create new misfits

The description of the BlueTech goals at the start of this paragraph can be interpreted as a
formulation of an existing organisational misfit. A decrease of efficiency within European industry was
perceived, a decrease that was not only caused by increasing labour and production costs, but also by
decreasing motivation of shop-floor workers, which was in turn caused by a low degree of responsibility in
the overall production cycle. The initiators of the project perceived the creation of BlueTech software
modules as a possible way to help solve that misfit. Of course, it is important that all major stakeholders
perceive such a misfit; otherwise one might well create new misfits in the organisation. It can be argued that
the latter was the case at Omicron. The perception of this particular misfit seems to have been limited to a
small number of managers, while the majority of ‘operationalists’ did not perceive it. And by trying to
develop and implement tools that would allow shop-floor workers to ‘mess up’ the planning system, the
‘technologists’ introduced a change that was perceived as a misfit by the ‘operationalists’.

H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may introduce

incompatible meanings and perceptions, and create signification conflicts within an
organisation, especially when the systems are ‘uncustomisable’

This hypothesis again received partial support from the BlueTech case, in the sense that the
introduction of the stock-exchange software tool – that was originally intended to be developed – would have
introduced a whole new set of meanings and perceptions in the organisation. When that original software
design was discussed with a ‘visionary’ worker representative at the early phase of the project, he noted that
this was so completely different from what people were used to, that it would never be acceptable, neither by
management, nor by the shop-floor workers. Later discussions with different people in the company
confirmed the rather big incompatibility of the competitive self-managing team idea with existing ideas of
how production should be organised at Omicron. There clearly were signification conflicts between the
BlueTech concepts and the existing organisational meanings at Omicron. It often became clear during
discussions that managers and potential users simply could not understand the ideas of BlueTech, because
they just could not relate those ideas to the organisational reality in which they lived.
When this signification conflict became clear, the BlueTech ideas were adapted, and the ideas of the
tailorable planning and scheduling software were put forward as a way of slowly adapting the two significa-
tion processes to each other [cf. the discussion on p. 129 in Chapter 5 above, and \Verjans, 1998 #180]. The
idea of this tailorable software was that intelligent planning systems could be developed in such a way that
they would allow a gradual transition between the existing top-down management-driven planning system,
and a new bottom-up local planning system where shop-floor workers have a direct impact on their own
work organisation.

H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation projects can be

minimised by involving as many relevant stakeholders as possible in the
signification process before, during and after the introduction of new IT

In the BlueTech project it became very clear that not enough stakeholders were involved in order to
implement more extensive software tools. In the second half of the project, quite some efforts were made to
involve as many stakeholders as possible, but apparently, those efforts came too late. At that stage, most
relevant managers seemed to have concluded their signification process with regard to the project, in the
sense that they had rejected it for a number of reasons. Firstly, they had not been involved early enough in
the process and had not had a chance to be part of the idea-generating phase. At that late stage, they were
confronted with ideas that conflicted strongly with their own. Secondly, they did not agree with the idea of
using production departments as ‘experimentation area’ for a project with such a high level of innovation.

232
 If the project had involved managers and representatives from shop-floor workers from the start,
then these signification conflicts would probably not have become so strong. But then again, the BlueTech
initiators did not intend the implementation of their software in production, so they thought that such a broad
involvement was not necessary.

H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important contingency when developing

and introducing new IT. Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can help
predict and prevent potential new misfits

Hypothesis H51 is closely related to the previous one in the case of Omicron. There was a fairly high
level of disagreement within and between stakeholder groups (as became clear in the organisational analysis)
as regards the current situation of the company and its vision of the future. These disagreements did have an
influence on the perception of the different stakeholders as to which kind of technology was needed to
support the organisation.
The main question in this context is whether these disagreements were serious enough to cause
organi-strain and prevent organisational harmony. I want to argue that they were, and some technology-
related managers expressed the same perception in the interviews, in the sense that they felt the 1998-1999
episode of internal changes in the technology departments – which was in fact a result of the major
disagreements within management on the role of technology – to be a major shock to the company. The
degree of internal disharmony was clearly an important contingency during the development of BlueTech, a
contingency that was underestimated by all those involved in the project.

H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately developed organi-self,

i.e. an organisation with fundamental disagreements between internal stakeholders,
will further increase existing organi-strain levels

This hypothesis is partly supported by the BlueTech project, even though not much of the intended
software was installed, and even though the project never made much of an impact. Each attempt at trying to
get the software accepted by the dominant ‘operationalist’ management group seemed to increase the
existing levels of strain within the organisation. Every time an effort was undertaken to increase
understanding of the project, the disagreement with operational management became somewhat stronger.

233
E. Organisational-level data analysis and discussion

Until now, I have mainly focused on the participation and interview data about the BlueTech project
in order to substantiate some of the working propositions regarding the introduction of IT at the
organisational level. The interview data and the statistical analysis of the questionnaire data at the
organisational level provide further support for some of the inferences that were made in the BlueTech
analysis. Again, a detailed organisational analysis is only available in the confidential appendix. In fact, quite
a number of analyses were performed on the available data about Omicron. All the statistical analysis
techniques were non-parametric and used exact measures of significance, because of the small size of the
sample and because of the non-normal distribution of the data.

1. Summary of organisational data analysis

Firstly, the discussion of ‘organisation under pressure’ was thoroughly analysed, because it dealt
with the perception of external organi-strain. The data show that there is quite some agreement about the
presence of a high level of external pressure on the organisation. A linguistic analysis of the discussion
revealed a remarkable difference in signification regarding ‘the organisation’. Whereas management clearly
talked about the organisation as ‘we’ – both in passive and in active contexts –, the other respondents had a
more ambiguous attitude. They talked about the organisation as ‘we’ when discussing the external pressure
upon it, but switched to ‘they’ in active contexts, i.e. when discussing how the organisation dealt with the
pressure.

Secondly, the organisational items in the RIPOSTI questionnaire were analysed, i.e. the organisation
as viewed by the 54 respondents that completed the questionnaire. These items contained questions about
organisational climate and management style from the Organizational Consultant (OrgCon) instrument, and
items concerning humanity, information flow and formalisation from the Employee Opinion Survey (EOS)
instrument. The analysis showed quite some disagreement about these items, both within and between
stakeholder groups. In an analysis-of-variance, three items even showed statistically significant between-
group differences, which illustrate that different stakeholder groups perceive some aspects of the
organisational climate differently, especially with regard to organisational formalisation. Cluster analyses
were performed that suggested the existence of two signification groups within the organisation that cut
across the different stakeholder groups. The two clusters could be interpreted as a positivist and a negativist
cluster, with top management belonging to the positivist group, supervisors in the negativist group, and all
other stakeholder groups spread almost evenly across the positivists and negativists. These differences within
and between stakeholder groups regarding issues of organisational climate are argued to indicate a fairly
inadequate level of organi-self and can thus act as sources of internal organi-strain.

Thirdly, the workers’ answers regarding issues of psychological and organisational climate were
compared with the interviewees’ estimates. For this analysis, two techniques were used: (a) average
stakeholder group scores were compared with workers’ average scores, and (b) stakeholder estimates were
scored against the first and third quartile of the workers’ answers. The latter technique compared each
interviewee’s answer to the ‘average 50%’ of worker responses. Divergent stakeholder answers were
therefore radically different from the dominant perceptions amongst the production workers. The first
analysis showed that supervisors were worst at guessing worker answers, especially regarding their
perceived level of anxiety about their future. Other stakeholder groups were better at estimating workers
perceptions. The second analysis showed that stakeholders were rather good at estimating workers’
psychological climate, but rather poor at ‘guessing’ the perceived organisational climate. In general,
stakeholders underestimated the level of organisational tension, overestimated the organisation’s perceived
resistance to change, and thought workers perceived a more motivation-oriented management style than is
the case. A comparison of the different stakeholder groups again showed that the direct supervisors were
worst at estimating workers’ perception.

Fourthly, a thorough analysis of the OrgCon interviews was performed. Most striking in this analysis
was the high number of situational misfits that were detected by the OrgCon system. This indicates that the
respondents have a perception of Omicron, which is problematic in the sense that it contains misfits between

234
the organisation and its environment. Most respondents indicate that Omicron has a complex and/or uncer-
tain environment, but still has a defender strategy – which is more suited for a simple, well-known and rather
stable environment. Secondly, there is a strikingly high degree of variation in the respondents’ perception of
Omicron’s organisational environment and functioning, especially with regard to aspects related to technol-
ogy, formalisation and centralisation, but also regarding issues of pricing and strategy. A cluster analysis of
the OrgCon responses reveals two groups that cut across stakeholder groups, which again indicates different
organisational perceptions at all levels in the Omicron organisation. A third conclusion is that the between-
group differences are not very high, except maybe for the perceived level of formalisation. A fourth conclu-
sion is that the within-group differences are particularly high, especially for technology and centralisation
items. Finally, the level of variation is often higher within the group of senior managers than within middle
management. On the whole, the OrgCon analysis shows that there are quite different perceptions of Omi-
cron’s organisational situation within management, and that the organisation’s relation with its environment
is problematic.

In general, the organisational analysis shows a company where there is disagreement about
fundamental issues such as the price-level of its products and the current strategy of the company. The
interview data suggest that some of these differences have been discussed within the company, whereas
others have not become apparent yet. The high level of disagreement amongst stakeholders, in combination
with an inaccurate perception of the climate issues amongst production workers, point in the direction of an
inadequately developed organi-self and a relatively high level of organi-strain, both internally and externally.
Externally, Omicron does not seem able to cope with the complexity and uncertainty of its environment, as
witnessed by frequent staff reductions and a low profit level. Internally, there is a high level of divergence in
the perception of organisational and psychological climate, which reflects a medium to high level of organi-
strain. This high level of organi-strain partly explains the difficulties that were met during the design and
development of the PipeViewer system.

2. Linking the organisational analysis to the working hypotheses

The analysis described in the previous paragraph can again be related to the working hypotheses.
The first two working hypotheses defined in Chapter 7 were related to the techniques used to measure organ-
isational signification:

P36a: Organisational signification is measured by comparing different stakeholders’

perception of the characteristics of the organisation and its environment.
P36b: Organisational signification is measured by comparing workers’ average answers
regarding psychological climate with other stakeholders’ expectations of workers’
answers.

The combined analysis of the quantitative and the qualitative data seems to support the suitability of
the two techniques for measuring differences and similarities in organisational signification. Differences that
were found in the quantitative data were often supported by the interview data and vice versa. The first
technique of comparing answers to the OrgCon questions provides a good way of analysing signification
differences amongst the most organisationally active stakeholder groups, i.e. those that have a rather
complete overview of the organisational situation. The second, on the other hand, seems to be a good way of
analysing signification differences between workers – who have a more limited organisational perception –
and other stakeholders.

235
 The remaining working hypotheses were related to the ‘detection’ of inadequate organi-self and
inadequate organisational integrity.

P39a: Large differences within and between stakeholder groups in the perception of
organisational and environmental characteristics indicate inadequate organi-self
and thus inadequate integrity

It is rather difficult to determine whether the many disagreements that were found within and
between stakeholder groups should be interpreted as inadequately established organi-self and thus as sources
of organi-strain, or whether they should be perceived as a normal level of inter-organisational disagreement.
I have argued that some of the disagreements concern rather fundamental aspects of the organisation, such as
the price-level of its products or the current strategy of the company. Moreover, there are many statistically
significant differences, which indicates fundamentally different perceptions of the same organisational
reality. Finally, the interview data suggest that there are some disagreements that have been discussed within
the company, but also that other differences have not become apparent yet.
So, I would argue that P39a is at least partly supported by the qualitative and quantitative data.

P39b: Large differences between (a) average worker climate perceptions and (b) the other
stakeholders’ opinion of those perceptions indicate inadequate organi-self and thus
inadequate integrity.

The analysis has also shown that there are many inaccurate perceptions of the organisational and
individual attitudes amongst the shop-floor workers. It is rather troublesome that mainly the supervisors in
my sample have an inaccurate perception, because they are in closest contact with shop-floor workers, and
one would expect them to have the most accurate perception of their ‘sub-ordinates’. The interview with one
of the supervisors partly explains the phenomenon, where he states that the existing organisation of the
production departments did not allow him much time for ‘people management’. This might explain why their
perception is rather inaccurate.
However, there seems to be a more general problem of inaccurate perception among stakeholders.
Especially the underestimation of the degree of worry and the general overestimation of organisational
commitment and job satisfaction can be interpreted as an inadequately developed organi-self.

P40: Inadequate organisational integrity is correlated with stakeholders’ perception of

organisational strain.

The substantiation of this hypothesis is more problematic, because of the difficulty of measuring
perceived organisational strain. It can be argued that the item asking about ‘organisation under pressure’ only
measures external organi-strain, while the summary climate dimension ‘organisational tension’ only
measures internal organi-strain.
The high degree of perceived external pressure can be related to the misfit between the organisation
and its environment, which is reflected by the situational misfits that the OrgCon® expert system came up
with. These misfits can be interpreted as symptoms of inadequate organisational integrity, in the sense that
Omicron seems unable to adequately cope with the complexity and uncertainty of its environment.
In contrast with external organi-strain, internal organi-strain is perceived by most respondents as low
to moderate, and is as such not related to inadequate organisational integrity. However, the high level of
divergence in the perception of organisational climate is argued to be a source of inadequate organisational
integrity.

236
F. Cross-level links between organi-strain and individual characteristics

By way of transition to the individual level-of-analysis, I tried to link significant findings at the
organisational level to differences in individual mental integrity. This cross-level analysis consisted of
analysis-of-variance on the basis of two cluster analyses that were performed in the organisational analysis.
The two cluster analyses that were based on OrgCon items – one for all respondents based on Climate items,
and one for all interviewees based on the OrgCon items – show that answers to organisational questions are
associated with answers to individual questions.

The first cluster analysis distinguished a group with a perception of a high-tension organisational
climate84 and a group with a perception of a low-tension climate. The non-parametric analysis-of-variance on
the basis of those clusters shows quite a number of significant individual-level differences. Those
respondents that perceive a high-tension climate report
• a higher degree of person-environment misfit,
• a below-average level of job control,
• a lower degree of
o predictability,
o meaningfulness,
o motivation,
o social community,
o organisational commitment and
o satisfaction with some aspects of their job,
• a lower degree of organisational humanity and a more problematic information flow
• more negative technology attitudes, as well as
• a higher degree of PC usage at home.
Interestingly, the high-tension-climate group also shows significant demographic differences: they have a
shorter average history at the company and their department, they are slightly younger and they have had a
slightly longer education.

The second analysis shows similar phenomena for the smaller group of interviewees – when grouped
by all OrgCon items. Again, a grouping according to organisational perception also reflects individual-level
differences, but to a much smaller extent – due to the smaller size of the groups.

These differences are quite interesting from a CHARISM perspective, because they suggest that
differences in organisational perception are related to differences in individual signification. When
interpreting these statistics, the reader does need to keep in mind that they do not imply that the respondents’
perception of organisational climate determines the other variables. The statistics only show that a different
perception of organisational climate is associated with significantly different perceptions of individual-level
variables. There is no causal relation between organisational climate and the other variables.

Therefore, the causality that was implied in hypothesis H54 is not supported. The data do show a
partial support for an association between perceived organisational integrity and individual-level variables.

H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the level
of organisational integrity he perceives / experiences

A possible re-formulation of the hypothesis could therefore be:

H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly associated with the level
of organisational integrity he perceives / experiences

84
A high level of tension is a measure of climate that summarises low levels of trust, employee morale, leadership credibility and
reward equitability and high levels of conflict and scapegoating.

237
G. Individual-level data analysis and discussion

In contrast to the rather qualitative and exploratory nature of the organisational-level analysis, the
individual-level analysis will be more quantitative and confirmatory, in the sense that the discussion will be
centred on the working hypotheses. In fact, the quantitative analyses on the individual level-of-analysis show
important results with regard to the CHARISM theoretical framework.

1. Needs portfolios
The first main group of working hypotheses was related to the hypothesised existence of needs
portfolios, and their importance in distinguishing between different types of individuals.

P1: Analyses of variance of respondents grouped by needs-based clusters show

statistically significant differences.
P1a: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters hold different job types
P1b: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters have different attitudes
towards technology
P3: Individuals that belong to different needs-based clusters have different education
levels

In order to substantiate these hypotheses, a number of cluster analyses were performed, based only
on the 18 items in the first question. The aim of those cluster analyses was to combine those respondents
whose answers to the 18 needs questions were most similar. The analysis shows that needs portfolios can be
an interesting parameter in distinguishing types of individuals for work-related research purposes. Non-
parametric (Kruskal-Wallis) analysis-of-variance techniques with needs portfolios as independent variable
reveal that individuals with different need portfolios show significant differences regarding types of jobs,
level of education, and attitudes towards technology. Moreover, they show quite different scores with regard
to a number of psychosocial issues: person-environment fit, perceived environmental demands, commitment
and satisfaction items, but also dimensions related to ‘worry about changes and future’, self-reported health,
stress indicators and even number of sick days. So actually, all the propositions are supported by the data – at
least partially. These results suggest that needs portfolios play an important role in individual signification
processes, and that individuals with different need portfolios have different ways of establishing mental
integrity and harmony.
On the basis of the significant between-group differences and the strengths of the different needs
dimensions, I have tried to characterise the members of the different clusters. The Cluster2 members could
be called the self-actualising individuals, because their esteem and self-actualisation needs are stronger than
their basic or social needs, and because they worry least about changes or about their future. Cluster1 people
– the largest group – could be called the equilibrium-seekers, because they have the most regular working
hours and the best home/job interface, and because they have the highest degree of worry about their future
and about changes. Cluster3 can be characterised as the job-negativists, because they perceive the highest
degree of person-environment misfit, are the least committed to their company, and most committed to the
world outside their job. Cluster4 members are the hardest to characterise. Their relatively low degree of
commitment, low self-reported health, regular hours, and high degree of needs/supplies fit are hard to
interpret. The most remarkable aspect is the low level of social needs that they report, which could be
interpreted as a high degree of individualism. This results in the following preliminary typology of people at
Omicron:

Cluster1: Equilibrium-seeker
Cluster2: Self-actualising person
Cluster3: Job-negativist
Cluster4: Individualist

238
2. Person-environment fit correlations
Secondly, non-parametric Spearman correlation analyses were performed in order to investigate the
suggested role of PE-fit with regard to other psychological dimensions. The first set of propositions
suggested a relation between PE-fit on the one hand, and mental well-being and stress on the other.

P9: PE-fit is positively correlated with mental well-being

P11: PE-fit is negatively correlated with stress indicators

Working hypothesis P11 is only partially supported by the Spearman correlation analyses, in as far as
somatic strain symptoms are negatively correlated with needs/supplies fit (security and ‘relation to superior’)
and sensory demands/abilities fit. The degree of sensory D/A fit is also correlated with cognitive strain
symptoms, overall stress, and with self-reported health. The number of sick days (in the 12 months preceding
the data gathering) is also significantly correlated with person-environment fit (social N/S fit and ‘hide
feelings’ D/A fit). Also proposition P9 is only partially supported by the Omicron data. Both vitality and
mental health are correlated with the ‘hide feelings’ demands/ abilities fit. The hypotheses are only partially
supported, because only a few of the sub-dimensions show significant correlations, and the most general
dimensions are not so strongly correlated at all.

P16: PE-fit is positively correlated with job satisfaction

P17: PE-fit is positively correlated with organisational commitment
P18: PE-fit is positively correlated with motivation

A second set of hypotheses was related to the link between PE-fit and motivation, commitment and
job satisfaction. The analyses show quite strong support for these hypotheses, and they also reveal that it is
mainly the needs/supplies fit that is correlated with commitment, satisfaction and motivation. A close
analysis shows that (a) organisational commitment and motivation are most strongly correlated with social
needs/supplies fit, that (b) satisfaction is most strongly correlated with self-actualisation N/S fit and the sum
of extreme N/S misfits. In contrast to the analysis of strains and mental health, hypotheses P16-P18 are
supported, because the overall dimensions are strongly correlated, and not just the sub-dimensions.
Moreover, the correlation coefficients are higher than those for well-being and stress.

P19: PE-fit is correlated with perceptions of organisational characteristics

Working hypothesis P19 related individual integrity – as measured by the degree of person-
environment fit – to an individual’s perception of organisational characteristics. The correlation coefficients
partly support that proposition. Again, it is mainly needs / supplies fit that is correlated with perceived
organisational characteristics, more specifically the measures of organisational tension (OrgCon) and the
measure of organisational humanity (EOS). The data show that individuals with a good needs/supplies fit
perceive the lowest level of organisational tension, while a decrease of fit coincides with a perception of
higher organisational tension. An interesting difference with the scores in the previous paragraph is that
organisational tension and humanity are mainly related to social and esteem needs/supplies fit, and not so
much with self-actualisation and ‘relation to boss’ fit.

P20: PE-fit is positively correlated with a positive technology attitude

The final working hypothesis that was related to person-environment fit suggested a relation between
PE-fit and attitudes towards technology. This relation could not be substantiated. The only significant result
suggests that those individuals with a negative demands/abilities misfit – i.e. those respondents who report a
surplus of abilities – have a more positive attitude towards technology. However, there are indications that
there might be a curvilinear relation between needs-supplies fit and technology attitudes, in the sense that
those respondents who have the most positive technology attitudes report needs-supplies fit.

239
3. In search of harmony
Up to this point, the discussion of the data has shown mixed support for the role of person-
environment fit as an operationalisation of individual integrity and mental harmony. Firstly, there is strong
support for the relation between PE-fit and satisfaction, commitment and motivation. Secondly, there is only
partial support for the relation between PE-fit and stress measures, on the one hand and PE-fit and
perceptions of organisational characteristics, on the other. Finally, there is only sparse support of the relation
of PE-fit with individual attitudes towards technology. In summary, one might conclude that individuals who
perceive a fit between themselves and their environment are more satisfied and committed than those who
perceive a number of misfits, but that those perceived individual misfits are not strongly reflected in a higher
degree of strain or lower mental health.
In the discussion of the working hypotheses, it was stated that the existence of the main theoretical
constructs – integrity and mental harmony – could not be empirically investigated, except where PE-fit was
identified as a substitute of mental integrity. However, it was also suggested that an exploratory investigation
of the data might provide some more support for the existence of a concept of individual harmony. I want to
argue that this was the case for the Omicron data, in which quite strong correlations were found between the
main individual-level variables, as described below (please refer to Table 39 below for the statistics).

(a) Firstly, person-environment fit shows the following significant correlations: Needs/supplies fit is
correlated with perceived skill discretion (the opportunity to use one’s skills and abilities), perceived
meaningfulness, a sense of social community and a high degree of satisfaction and organisational
commitment, but not with measures of mental health or stress.
Demands/abilities fit on the other hand shows only a weak correlation with satisfaction and subjective health.

(b) Secondly, there are quite strong correlations between perceived skill discretion and meaningfulness and
the other variables. Individuals who perceive their job as meaningful and who feel they have the opportunity
to use/develop their skills and abilities have a more positive outlook on their situation. They feel that they are
part of a social community at work, they are more committed to their organisation and more satisfied with
their job, they are more vital and report a better mental and general health; and they report fewer stress
symptoms and a lower absenteeism.

(c) The perception of a social community at work shows similar correlations as skill discretion and
meaningfulness, albeit somewhat weaker.

(d) Organisational commitment and job satisfaction are strongly correlated with each other, and they show
similar correlation patterns with the other variables, but job satisfaction generally shows somewhat stronger
correlations. The main difference between the two variables’ correlation patterns is related to vitality and
mental health, where satisfaction has strong and organisational commitment has weak correlations.

(e) The measures of mental health, stress and self-reported health are strongly correlated with each other,
with the exception of absenteeism. Interestingly, the number of sick days is not correlated with stress, self-
reported health, vitality or mental health, but only with meaningfulness, organisational commitment, job
satisfaction and social community. The strongest correlations within the group of ‘strain and health’
parameters are found between vitality and self-reported health, stress symptoms and mental health. In fact,
vitality and mental health show quite similar correlation patterns, because they are both strongly related to
perceived meaningfulness, job satisfaction, reported stress symptoms, stress-perception and self-reported
health.

(f) Stress is correlated with all other variables, except PE-fit, absenteeism and home/job interface. Self-
reported health is strongly correlated with meaningfulness, vitality, mental health and reported stress
symptoms. Interestingly, perceived conflict between home and job is only strongly correlated with subjective
stress perception, and weakly correlated with mental health.

240
 Table 39: Correlations of the major individual-level variables suggest the existence of individual mental harmony

All strains averaged

Social Community

# of sich days last

Satisfaction mean

Subjective health
All D/A Misfits

Skill discretion
All N/S misfits

mean (control)

Organisational
Meaning mean

Mental health
Vitality mean
Commitment

Do you feel
stressed?
Mean
mean

mean

mean

year?
All N/S misfits mean 1.00 -.081 .347** .315* .319* .425** .479** .002 .131 -.083 -.107 .034 .237
All D/A Misfits Mean -.081 1.00 -.107 -.020 -.185 -.136 -.289* .113 .115 -.183 -.110 .316* .081
Skill discretion mean (control) .347** -.107 1.00 .633** .581** .485** .530** .243 .239 -.350** .146 .292* .243
Meaning mean .315* -.020 .633** 1.00 .523** .547** .542** .386** .487** -.371** -.181 .365** .349**
Social Community mean .319* -.185 .581** .523** 1.00 .452** .558** .265* .201 -.299* -.115 .112 .272*
Organisational Commitment .425** -.136 .485** .547** .452** 1.00 .560** .232 .327* -.300* -.164 .119 .351**
Satisfaction mean .479** -.289* .530** .542** .558** .560** 1.00 .369** .420** -.335* -.089 .113 .333*
Vitality mean .002 .113 .243 .386** .265* .232 .369** 1.00 .597** -.599** -.364** .641** .129
Mental health mean .131 .115 .239 .487** .201 .327* .420** .597** 1.00 -.396** -.386** .451** .046
All strains averaged -.083 -.183 -.350** -.371** -.299* -.300* -.335* -.599** -.396** 1.00 .347** -.546** -.180
Do you feel stressed? -.107 -.110 .146 -.181 -.115 -.164 -.089 -.364** -.386** .347** 1.00 -.234 .204
Subjective health .034 .316* .292* .365** .112 .119 .113 .641** .451** -.546** -.234 1.00 -.018
# of sich days last year? .237 .081 .243 .349** .272* .351** .333* .129 .046 -.180 .204 -.018 1.00
Home / Job interface -.095 -.151 .189 -.056 -.156 -.029 -.123 -.180 -.278* .222 .541** -.023 .130
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

In general, I want to argue that there is an underlying sense of harmony correlated with such
variables as perceived meaningfulness, skill discretion and social community. In a sense, these variables
reflect a sense of mental integrity, in that people feel they make a useful contribution, do a meaningful job,
get to use their skills and abilities, and are part of a social community. This underlying harmony is related to
PE-fit, and when positive, it is related to higher organisational commitment and job satisfaction on the one
hand, and higher vitality and mental health on the other. At the other extreme of the scale, lacking harmony
is correlated with stress symptoms, lower self-reported health, and a higher number of sick days. Because of
their strong correlations, one might argue that the concepts of vitality and mental health in turn act as
mediators between harmony and stress. However, these conclusions are only preliminary and further
research on larger samples is necessary to really substantiate this argument. Nevertheless, the correlations
indicate a potentially interesting line of investigation.

Interestingly, the harmony variables of meaningfulness, skill discretion and social community also
show strong correlations with organisational perception and attitudes towards technology. Positive
perceptions of organisational climate (low tension or high degree of humanity) and the perception of a
motivation-based management style are not only correlated with needs/supplies fit, but also with a high level
of skill discretion, perceived meaningfulness, a sense of belonging to a social community, and a high
organisational commitment and job satisfaction. A positive climate is also related to high vitality and mental
health, low stress and a high self-reported health. Please note that these correlations again do not imply
causal relationships. It is impossible to determine whether a positive perception of climate causes a feeling of
harmony, or whether the feeling of harmony causes a positive perception of climate.

There are also correlations of technology variables with harmony variables, and especially the
‘technology attitudes’ dimension shows rather strong correlations. People with positive technology attitudes
tend to report better general health, fewer sick days, lower stress levels, and a slightly higher level of
satisfaction. They also perceive their work as more meaningful and they report a higher level of skill
discretion than individuals with a more negative technology attitude.

As argued before, a causal relation between these dimensions cannot be stipulated, but it is neverthe-
less useful to look at some preliminary practical consequences of these findings. If an individual has a gener-
ally positive sense of harmony, he is more likely to have a more positive perception of his organisation and a
more positive attitude towards technology. There are a number of potential practical implications of this
finding: when introducing new technology, one can either (a) focus on the ‘positivists’ in a user group and
try to have them ‘on board’, (b) focus on developing a positive organisational climate in the expectation that

241
this will have a favourable impact on technology perception, or (c) try to achieve a higher sense of individual
harmony for each single user in the expectation that this will have a favourable effect both on the organisa-
tional climate and on the perception of technology. Arguably, options (b) and (c) are much harder to achieve,
but they may result in a more lasting positive situation than option (a).

4. Demographics
Before moving to a comparative analysis of the Omicron respondents with the large Danish AMI
survey, it is important to look at the demographics in my sample, and see whether they play a role in mental
harmony, organisational perception or technology attitudes. In the discussion of the demographics, it is
important to remember that the sample is rather biased by the number of shop floor workers (n= 41) as
compared to the number of ‘others’ (n= 16).

In general, on the basis of the demographic analyses that were performed, one can conclude that the
demographic variables of profession, age and education show rather strong correlations with the RIPOSTI
variables, while the other demographic variables are less important or cannot be investigated in a meaningful
way due to the small sample. The question then arises whether the correlations discussed above remain
significant when they have been corrected for profession, age and education. This correction can be obtained
by calculating partial correlation analyses on the two groups, the workers and the non-workers, in which the
correlation coefficients are controlled for age and education effects85. From the partial analyses that were
performed, it becomes clear that the majority of correlations that were discussed in the paragraphs above
remain significant after the effects of profession, age and education have been removed.

5. Comparative statistics
The final paragraph within the discussion of the individual-level results compares the Omicron
scores on the AMI dimensions with the average scores of the AMI respondents. The advantage of comparing
my respondents with the average Danish worker is that it allows me to judge whether my respondents are
extremely different from the Danish average. For the shop floor workers at Omicron, a comparison is also
possible with the Danish metal workers in the AMI sample. For the other stakeholder groups, such compari-
sons were not possible due to the small size of the groups. Figure 72 below shows the comparison of Omi-
cron respondents and Danish metal workers with the median scores of all Danish AMI respondents (n = ap-
prox. 2400) on the different dimensions. The 50% line in the middle of the graph indicates the median score
of all respondents. Omicron and metalworker scores are significantly different from the average Danish score
when they fall below percentile 40 or above percentile 60, indicated by the dashed lines.

The diagram indicates that Omicron workers perceive significantly worse demands than the Danish
average and than the metal workers in the sample: qualitative and sensory demands are higher, as well as the
demand to hide one’s feelings, while the cognitive demands are significantly lower. The pipe shop workers
report significantly lower degrees of control (decision authority and especially skill discretion), and
perceived meaningfulness. The predictability of their work, the social support and feedback on the job are
significantly worse than average, and the workers’ degree of insecurity is extremely high. Nevertheless, they
report an average level of satisfaction, mental health, vitality and stress and a high level of organisational
commitment.

85
A methodological problem arises when calculating partial correlations, in the sense that a major statistical assumption for the use
of partial correlations is not met, namely the assumption that the data have a bivariate normal distribution. In the case of my data, this
assumption is violated, so the results of the partial analyses need to be interpreted with care and can merely be used as indicative.

242
 Index Score n 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 Quantitative demands 70.71 42

2 Cognitive demands 18.81 42

3 Hide feelings 66.42 42

4 Sensory demands 74.60 42

5 Decision authority 33.21 42

6 Skill discretion 9.92 42

7 Meaning in the job 19.71 42

8 Organisational commitment 61.06 42

9 Predictability 38.51 42

10 Social support 15.89 42

11 Feedback 31.56 42

12 Insecurity 98.60 42

13 Job satisfaction 56.47 37

14 Mental health 42.31 42

15 Vitality 55.49 42

16 Behavioural stress 56.83 42

17 Somatic stress 59.44 42

18 Cognitive stress 50.00 42

Figure 72: Comparison of Omicron pipe shop workers with Denmark’s average. The 50% line indicates the median
scores of the 2400 Danish respondents of AMI’s survey. All scores that fall between percentile 40 and 60 are consid-
ered to be average scores, while all others are significantly different (indicated by striped bars). The wide background
bars indicate the average score of the metal workers in the Danish sample, while the foreground bars indicate Omi-
cron scores. The bars with light stripes indicate a score that is better than average, the dark stripes indicate worse
scores.

These results are quite striking, because they seem to contradict the Karasek & Theorell (1990) model
of stress – the demand/control model – on which the AMI questionnaire was built. The Karasek model
predicts that high environmental demands in combination with low control should lead to high levels of
stress, but this does not seem to apply to the workers in my sample. All demands are significantly worse than
average, the perceived level of control is significantly lower, but still respondents’ stress levels are average
or just above average.

From a CHARISM perspective, these results are also quite interesting, mainly because the high de-
gree of job insecurity does not seem to influence the perceived level of stress, satisfaction or organisational
commitment. In the theoretical description in Chapter 5 above, it was argued that perceived job security
played an important role in the perceived degree of mental integrity, but that argument is not supported by
the data. An alternative interpretation of this phenomenon is that the lack of job security has become such an
integral part of Omicron workers’ job perception that it does not play a decisive role in determining mental
integrity. Indeed, the results seem to suggest that certain job situations inherently have ‘bad’ psychosocial
characteristics, but that this does not prevent workers from being satisfied, committed and having average
levels of stress and mental health. From a CHARISM point-of-view, such a result is not necessarily surpris-
ing. One can argue that the high demands and the low degree of control, low meaningfulness, etc. are inte-
gral parts of the job of a production worker at Omicron, and that the individuals do not expect – or need –
their jobs to be otherwise. The high average tenure of the employees supports this interpretation, since it

243
shows that the employees stay at their job, notwithstanding job conditions that are far below average. An in-
teresting consequence of this result is that it seems difficult – not to say impossible – to make general predic-
tions about correlations between psychosocial variables without taking the specific job situation of the re-
spondents into account.

Job insecurity seems to be a returning factor at Omicron, as witnessed by the high insecurity levels of
the other stakeholder groups. As said before, these scores are not statistically significant due to the small
sizes of the respondent groups, but they do indicate certain similarities across groups. All groups perceive a
level of quantitative demands and job insecurity that is significantly higher than average, but those above-
average scores do not yield higher levels of stress. In fact, all respondent groups report a higher level of
organisational commitment than the Danish average, and their level of job satisfaction and other mental
health indicators tend to be more positive than average. By way of conclusion, the comparative analysis
seems to imply that Omicron is a demanding and uncertain work place, but it has succeeded in developing a
high level of commitment amongst its employees, in combination with a low to average level of strain and an
average level of mental health.

In general, the individual level analyses show that different types of individuals with different needs
will have different perceptions of their mental and organisational state, and also different views on
technology and its role in an organisation. The results also show that person-environment fit – and especially
needs-supplies fit – plays a role in the individuals’ signification processes, and in the establishment of mental
harmony. The data also suggest that mental harmony is more than just PE-fit, and that further investigation is
needed into the role of other psychosocial dimensions. Finally, the results suggest that the signification
processes of managers, IT developers and Omicron end-users were quite different – not only with regard to
technology attitudes – and that it is important for the success of a technology implementation process to be
aware of these differences and to try and cope with them. In the case of the PipeViewer project, these
different signification processes were not really taken into account, which may again explain part of the
problems in the course of the project.

H. IT analysis

Even though the PipeViewer system is thought to have been of little influence in the workers’ daily
work routines, it is interesting to study the differences between the group of workers that use the new system
and the group of non-users. The reader is reminded that at the time of the data gathering, the PipeViewer
system had been in use for about 7 months. In previous chapters, the following propositions were made with
regard to the use of the new system.

P21-22: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows

differences with regard to integrity and strain
P23a: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows
differences with regard to environmental demands and needs satisfaction.

These propositions are only sparsely supported by the data. In a non-parametric analysis-of-variance, I
looked at the statistically significant differences between the group of workers at Omicron that use the
PipeViewer system more or less regularly (n=11) and those workers that do not use the system (n=28).
However, the grouping variable (use of IT system) does not explain much variance86, i.e. the resulting
differences between the two groups may be statistically significant, but they are not very important.
The limited support for proposition P23a can be found in the significant difference of the ‘level of se-
curity needs’, but this result may also be related to the demographic difference between the two groups. In-
deed, the most striking result from the analysis is that there are significant differences in tenure between the

86
This conclusion is based on the low values of eta-squared. “Eta-squared is interpreted as the proportion of the total variability in
the dependent variable that is accounted for by variation in the independent variable. It is the ratio of the between groups sum of
squares to the total sum of squares.” (From SPSS10.0 Help file)

244
group of users and the group of non-users: the PipeViewer system is mainly used by the more inexperienced
workers in the pipe workshop (on average 5.63 years of experience vs. 15 years of experience in the depart-
ment). The lower level of security needs may well be related to this difference in tenure: those workers that
have been in the company and the department longest have arguably achieved a high level of routine – both
in their work and private life – and wish to retain that routine and security as long as possible. However, an-
other interpretation is possible: people with a high need for security are more reluctant to try new things, and
are therefore not inclined to use the new technology.
There is also little support for propositions P21-22 regarding PE-fit and stress: PipeViewer users report
a higher sensory demands/abilities misfit – they judge their sensory abilities (precision, attention, seeing)
higher than the environment’s demands – and a lower degree of somatic strain (tension in muscles, stomach
pains, etc.). Both these items may again be related to the demographic differences between the two groups, in
that the PipeViewer users are younger than their colleagues in the other group. Younger people are better at
handling precision and attention (and may therefore perceive a surplus of sensory abilities), and they tend to
have fewer somatic stress symptoms than their elder colleagues.

Another interesting result from the analysis is the score of the commitment items. Whereas the
difference between the groups regarding organisational commitment is not significant, there are some
commitment items that do have a significant score: the PipeViewer users are (a) less committed to their trade
union, (b) more committed to the task or project that they are currently working on. These may again be
related to the significant differences in tenure. In recent years, the role and power of Danish trade unions
have been growing less important, and this seems to be reflected in these scores. One might argue that the
pipe-shop workers that do not use the computer system are more old-fashioned than the users: they are more
committed to trade unions and less to their tasks, i.e. they are more concerned with maintaining the
traditional organisational focus on the process and routine, and not so much with the current task or project.

Overall, the IT-related analysis seems to support the propositions stated above, but only partially.
Firstly, only a limited number of the RIPOSTI dimensions show significant differences. Secondly, those
differences may be more related to demographic differences than to the use of the PipeViewer system.
Finally, the number of respondents in both groups is rather small.

245
I. Case summary

In the Omicron case description, analyses of quantitative and qualitative data were used to try to
substantiate some of the working hypotheses. The focus of the case study was the development and
introduction of the PipeViewer visualisation tool, a small information system that was installed on 4 personal
computers in the steel pipe production workshop of Omicron in August 2000. Data were collected about 7
months later from a variety of respondents from the major internal stakeholder groups. The data obtained
consisted of questionnaires, interview data, and internal and external documents. Moreover, I have been an
active participant in the PipeViewer project for almost 2 years. During the data analysis, I have tried to
triangulate those subjective participation data with data from other sources in order to raise the level of
objectivity.

Table 40 and Table 41 show an overview of the hypotheses that were discussed in this chapter.
Table 40: Overview of hypotheses discussed in Omicron case (part 1)
INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL HYPOTHESES Analysis Result
H1: Different need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing between Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA
different types of individuals Strong support.
(Kruskal-Wallis)
H1a: Individuals with different need portfolios will generally prefer
different organisational roles and tasks Cluster analysis / Cross-tabulation Strong support.

H1b: Individuals with different need portfolios have different Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA
attitudes towards information technology Partial support
(Kruskal-Wallis)
H3: An individual’s needs portfolio is related to his/her skills and Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA
abilities Partial support
(Kruskal-Wallis)
H9: Mental harmony leads to a sense of mental well-being Spearman (and partial) correlations of PE-fit
Limited support
and mental health
H11: Perceived inadequate integrity is stressful Spearman (and partial) correlations of PE-fit
Partial support
and stress indicators
H16: Mental harmony leads to high (job) satisfaction Spearman correlations of PE-fit and job
Strong support.
satisfaction
H17: Mental harmony leads to high (organisational) commitment Spearman correlations of PE-fit and
Strong support.
organisational commitment
H18: Mental harmony leads to high job motivation Spearman correlations of PE-fit and job
Strong support.
motivation
H19: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived
integrity and his/her perception of his/her environment, Spearman correlations of PE-fit and
Partial support
including characteristics of his/her organisation organisational characteristics

H20: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived Spearman correlations of PE-fit and
integrity and his/her perception of organisational technology Sparse support
technology attitudes

IT ON INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Analysis Result

H21: Organisational information technology is a major part of an
individual’s mental harmony when IT has relevance for task Mann-Whitney test of differences between
performance, i.e. when the individual’s task or immediate task Sparse support
test and control group
environment is contingent on the functioning of IT

H22: Organisational IT is an integral part of an individual’s

perceived demands/abilities fit relation, when the individual is
directly confronted with IT, i.e. when (s)he (needs to) use IT in idem as for H21 Sparse support
the performance of her organisational tasks

H23: Organisational information technology places demands on

individuals that use it, but may also satisfy an individual’s idem as for H21 Sparse support
needs

246
 Table 41: Overview of hypotheses discussed in Omicron case (Part 2)
ORGANISATIONAL-LEVEL HYPOTHESES Analysis Result
H36: Organisational integrity is achieved and preserved through a Qualitative: Interview analysis -
multi-stage organisational signification process, which entails Quantitative: A) Between- and within
– amongst others – multi-subjective judgements of Partial support
stakeholder group differences. B)
organisation-environment fit Perceptions of worker psychology
H39: Inadequate organisational integrity is caused by (a)
inadequate organi-self (no common perception among internal Partial support for
stakeholders), (b) perceived organisation-environment misfit, A) Between- and within stakeholder group existence of inadequate
or (c) major changes in the environment or the organisation differences. B) Perceptions of worker organisational integrity
psychology C) Linguistic analysis (We/they) caused by (a), (b) and
(c)

H40: Perceived inadequate organisational integrity is stressful Exploratory discussion of 'Organisation Substantiation is
under strain' - Analysis of OrgCon climate difficult to measure.
variables Limited support

IT ON ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL Analysis Result

H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs
and environmental IT demands and will therefore contribute
different perspectives to the organi-self’s signification process. Interview analysis Partial support
When no common perspective can be developed, organi-strain
may arise

H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of

resolving existing misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease Partly perceived by
existing organi-strain, but it may also unintentionally create Interview and case analysis
middle management.
new misfits
H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may
introduce incompatible meanings and perceptions, and create
signification conflicts within an organisation, especially when Case analysis Partial support
the systems are ‘uncustomisable’
H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation
projects can be minimised by involving as many relevant
stakeholders as possible in the signification process before, Case analysis Partial support
during and after the introduction of new IT
H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important
contingency when developing and introducing new IT.
Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can help Case analysis & OrgCon analysis Partial support
predict and prevent potential new misfits
H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately
developed organi-self, i.e. an organisation with fundamental
disagreements between internal stakeholders, will further Case analysis Partial support
increase existing organi-strain levels

CROSS-LEVEL ISSUES Analysis Result

H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly
influenced by the level of organisational integrity (s)he Cluster analysis based on climate perception.
Partial support
perceives / experiences Mann-Whitney test of cluster differences

The tables provide an overview of the hypotheses discussed, the techniques used to substantiate the
hypotheses and the results from the Omicron case. The results are rather mixed: there is quite strong support
for some of the individual-level propositions, while there is only partial support for others. The overall
conclusion from this case study with regard to the CHARISM model is that some of the main concepts in the
model – especially on the individual level of analysis – are promising avenues for further research.
A typology of individuals based on needs portfolios is a first interesting research path. The Omicron
data suggest that individuals with such different portfolios have a quite different perspective on their work
situation, their organisation and on the role of technology. It may be worthwhile to establish the existence of
such differences in a group of organisational members, before starting a technological innovation project, or
any organisational change project.

247
 The Omicron data analysis has also shown intricate patterns of correlation between some of the
psychosocial variables that are most often studied in mainstream work psychology, such as motivation, job
satisfaction, organisational commitment and stress. These strong correlations seem to support the suggested
existence of a more general concept of mental harmony, which is a second interesting itinerary.
Thirdly, the concept of PE-fit also seems promising, even though it may not be quite as important for
establishing mental harmony as I argued in the discussion of the theoretical model. Other dimensions such as
meaningfulness, skill discretion and social community may be more important, but this needs to be studied in
other organisational settings.
Fourthly, the data also suggest that different psychosocial parameters may be more or less important
in establishing mental harmony depending on the specific job situations of the respondents. What I want to
suggest is that a typology of job situations may prove to be an important research goal for scientists that want
to study psychosocial mechanisms in work situations, in the same way as the typology of individuals that I
have introduced.

The analysis and discussion of IT at the individual level-of-analysis has shown that the PipeViewer
tool only played a marginal role in the work situation of the respondents. I want to argue that it is partly for
that reason that the data provided only very limited support for the working hypotheses. Since the system
made virtually no impact on the everyday situation of its users, it did not play a major role in their individual
signification processes.

The discussion of the BlueTech project and its position within Omicron provided somewhat stronger
support for the propositions regarding IT at the organisational level. Management had such diverging
perspectives on the role of shop-floor workers regarding planning and decision-making within the company
that there were also quite different signification processes regarding the suggested BlueTech technologies.
There was also evidence of a fairly high level of general organi-strain, which amplified the conflicts with
regard to the changes suggested by the BlueTech project.

This existing level of internal and external organi-strain was suggested by a number of different
analyses, which all pointed in the same direction, namely an inadequate organi-self. There is strong external
organi-strain and there is quite some disagreement internally about how the organisation is to handle that
external strain. The data reveal at least two major ‘clans’ within management with quite different
signification processes, which I have labelled the ‘strategist’ and the ‘operationalist’ clans. These two groups
have quite different perspectives on the organisation and suggest quite different solutions to its problems,
which in turn suggests an inadequate organi-self.

Finally, the data suggest a close relation between an individual’s perception of his individual
situation and his perception of organisational reality. These cross-level issues imply that there is a close
relation between individual mental integrity and the individual’s perception of organisational integrity.

Overall, the case has also shown that different research techniques are needed in order to substantiate
different parts of the complex CHARISM model. Only a small part of the model could be investigated in the
current research setting, but this has already demanded a wide variety of techniques. I will return to a more
general discussion in Chapter 11 below, where I will also look at some cross-case results. But before that, I
want to discuss the case at Alpha Production.

248
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory
Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working Chapter 7
Hypotheses

Research Chapter 8
Instruments

Chapter 9
Case 1
Case 2 Chapter 10

Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusion and
Future Research

The role of perceived organisational fit for individual mental harmony

249
Chapter 10. ShopFloorPC at Alpha

The second case study is related to a major organisational change project at the production division
of Alpha, a Danish manufacturer within the metal industry. This second case has a completely different feel,
mainly because I have not been a participant in that project and because the case only came into the research
project in the second half of the project. The first contacts with the company date back to June 1999, while
the main data collection activities were performed in May-June 2000 (first round) and November 2000
(second round).

Alpha is a world market leader in the design, development, production and maintenance of heavy-
industry solutions for the production of steam, heat and power. The company has production facilities in
Denmark, but also in Indonesia, Brazil and China. This case study concentrates on the production facility in
Denmark, a factory that employed some 460 people in April ’99, and some 300 in November 2000. The
Alpha group in total employed some 1700 people in 2000.

The case is related to the implementation of a set of software tools within the framework of a major
organisational change effort. The change project aimed at changing the old hierarchical production
organisation into a flat structure with self-managing teams, where the workers have a high degree of
responsibility for their own performance. The software tools that were implemented were meant to support
that change process. Because the project and the software tools were implemented incrementally, I was able
to define a test group and a control group. The test group moved over to the new way of working after the
first data collection round, while the control group had not yet made the change at the time of the second data
gathering round.

The Alpha case has a completely different flavour than the Omicron case, as will become clear in the
description below. Whereas the BlueTech case was mainly interesting because of its problematic status
within the organisation, the ShopFloorPC case is mainly interesting because it allows a limited before-after
comparison for a small group of respondents. Another major difference is the status of the two projects.
BlueTech was a research project and did not entail any organisational change, whereas ShopFloorPC was a
small part within a major organisational change project. However, there are also many important similarities
between the two projects, at least from a research perspective, in the sense that both projects are aimed at
shop-floor production workers in the Danish heavy metal manufacturing industry.

A. Data description

The data for Alpha were gathered over a period of approximately 18 months, from a first contact in
April 1999 through to the second data-gathering round in November 2000. The first year of my contacts with
the company were aimed at establishing relations with the contact person, and trying to get an overview of
the ongoing projects and their time frame. In May 2000, the decision was made at Alpha that allowed me to
get access to two groups of production workers of 10 to 15 people each. I was allowed to do a questionnaire
analysis and interviews of both groups at two points in time. Figure 73 shows the timeline of the data gather-
ing activities in the Alpha case study.

1999 2000
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ShopFloorPC project

R1 R2
First First Management Test group
Contact Interview Acceptance get PC t

Figure 73: Timeline of data gathering at Alpha

250
 In the first round, the trade union representative distributed the RIPOSTI instrument (without
questions 37 and 38 that deal with the evaluation of the new information system), and the workers completed
them on a voluntary basis. This resulted in 12 completed questionnaires out of a total of 24-26, which is a
response rate of about 50%. The first interview round was performed during the week that preceded the
organisational change for the test group. During that first interview round, I talked to three members of the
test group, and three members of the control group. During that round in the beginning of June, I also
interviewed two middle managers. Those interviews were related to the ongoing change projects and their
goals, and also contained an OrgCon analysis.

In the second round then, Alpha management agreed to allow the workers to fill out the questionnaire
in the company canteen during working hours in order to get a higher response. This resulted in the
completion of 15 questionnaires, out of a possible total of 24 (5 people had been fired or moved in the period
between the first and the second round), which equals a response rate of 62.5%. During that round, I
interviewed 5 of the 6 workers from the first round again (the 6th respondent was also no longer available for
interview). The second round also comprised a larger interview round with management and trade union
representatives.
Table 42: Overview of respondents at Alpha’s Production division. Each column contains the numbers for both data
collection rounds, the left-hand side for Round 1 and the right-hand side for Round 2.

RIPOSTI Interview
question- Individual Worker- Shop-
naire Issues perception OrgCon FloorPC
Top Manager (n=1)* 1 1 1 1
Middle Managers (n=4) 4 4 24 22
Union Representative (n=1) 1 1 1 1
Production Workers (n=17) 12 15 65
(Total n=23) 12 21 65 06 26 24
* The top manager in this case is the head of the division

Table 42 summarises the data that were collected at Alpha. In contrast to Omicron, the table does not
contain a ‘supervisor’ classification, and this is because the concept of production supervisor was disappear-
ing because of the strategic change effort that I will describe below. In the overview, I distinguish between
the data gathered in the first and the second round, but not between the test and the control groups. In order
to avoid too much complexity, this overview is presented in a separate table below.
Table 43: Overview of comparable data for both rounds

Control
Test group group Total
Questionnaire 5 6 11
Interview 3 2 5

The overview in Table 43 presents only the numbers for those respondents in each group that have
participated in both rounds. As was the case at Omicron, the use of respondent numbers makes it possible to
compare interview data with questionnaire data, but also to compare the data for each respondent between
Round 1 and Round 2.

Finally, to round off the data description, I need to mention that the data set from Alpha contains a
limited set of internal and external documents. I was given access to an internal strategic report on the
change project that was being carried out, next to some technical documentation of the software tools that are
being used. The external data consists of annual financial and management reports, documents from Alpha’s
website, and some articles from a Danish financial newspaper.

251
B. Organisational description

As mentioned above, the unit-of-analysis for the Alpha case study is the Danish product supply
facility of the Alpha group. Both the Alpha group and the Danish product division have gone through a
rather turbulent period in recent years. While the Alpha group has grown steadily through international
acquisitions, the Danish production division has continuously been downsized. From the point of view of my
analysis, the Alpha group level can be perceived as the external environment of the company that I am
studying. Indeed, the production division is an autonomous business unit or ‘cost centre’, which implies that
– for all purposes – it is treated as a separate company within the group.

At the start of my first contacts with Alpha, there were plans to close down all production activities
in Europe. Through its acquisitions, Alpha Group was able to produce its products in low-labour-cost
countries in other parts of the world, so the Danish production division had become ‘expensive’ and it was
asked to develop a number of strategic alternatives with regard to its own future. The group’s pre-requisite
for maintaining production activities in Denmark was that it could prove its long-term viability. On the basis
of this, a strategy was suggested that involved radical changes in size, structure, organisation, etc. The
division argued that it could be viable and profitable if it succeeded in drastically reorganising the company,
and if it focused on the standardisation of its products and processes. The group management accepted this
strategy, and at the end of 1999 a major strategic project was started, which was called “Production 2000 -
Alpha Production in a global production context.” One part of this strategic project is of special interest in
the context of this research, namely the part that deals with the “Future organisation in Alpha Production”. A
mixed management/worker project group was set up and this group analysed current production and
processes through interviews, document consultation, but also by visiting other companies, and comparing
those organisations with their own. The goals of this sub-project were to find ways of saving on direct and
indirect costs through a number of actions such as the establishment of self-managing teams, changes to the
reward system, implementation of information technology tools, etc.

At the same time, however, the whole Alpha group was going through a period of insecurity, due to
a change of ownership. The owner of Alpha – Lambda Group – had made it publicly clear that Alpha was no
longer part of its core business, and that it was interested in selling Alpha. After a year, Alpha was sold to a
group of investors, including three of its top managers. This was interpreted as a clear sign that the new
owners perceived the company’s activities as viable and profitable, and that they believed in the future of the
company. When it became clear that the new owners wanted to continue with the strategy that had been
adapted two years earlier, the uncertainty in the Production division also largely disappeared. At the end of
May, the division started with the implementation of the “Production 2000” plan, and especially the “Future
organisation” sub-project. I will describe that programme in more detail later in this paragraph. Another part
of the Production 2000 project was the development and implementation of advanced robot technology in the
production hall, with the aim of reducing the number of person/hours needed in production.

After the implementation of the Production 2000 project and the change of ownership, a new
strategic plan was developed for the Alpha group for the period 2001-2005, called “Vision 2005”. This
focuses mainly on global growth, organic as well as acquisitive. However, because the 2001 Annual Report
also mentions that the production activities in Denmark “failed to meet our expectations during 2001”, new
reorganisations were planned, which included a change of management, but also a further reduction in the
number of production workers. In other words, the major change project that I will describe in the next
paragraph was not yet drastic enough to secure long-term viability of the Danish production unit.

1. Major organisational change: the “Future Organisation” project

In the “Future Organisation” project, the original functional organisation with its four levels of hier-
archy and its top-down control was reduced to a flat organisation with only two layers of management and
consisting of self-managing production teams. The wages system was changed, thus taking away ‘borders’
between the different professions, and reducing the 5-6 different professions to two: skilled and non-skilled
workers. At the same time, the number of workers in the Danish production division was drastically reduced.
Table 44 below summarises the vision on the new organisation, as described in the report of the “Future or-
ganisation” project group.

252
 Table 44: Vision for the new organisation of Alpha Production division
(Source: Internal Alpha document)
Organising principle • Responsibility is shared by all employees
• Everyone works in a self-managing group
• Groups consist of approximately 10 people, organised according to products or
processes
• Only 'appropriateness' is a criterion in the division of tasks
• The limited size of the company is turned into an asset
Critical success factors • Committed, independent and competent employees
• Optimised material flows
• Standardisation of products and processes
• Minimal service functions
• Economic competitiveness is the overall goal
Ground rules • The work group has full responsibility for delivery time, quality and financial
status of its own work
• Overall production co-ordination is handled by a production management
supported by a logistics function
• Management on the shop floor is performed by everyone
• Groups show large degree of self-discipline in relation to the defined goals and
conditions
Competencies • There is a shared authority basis
• There is overlap between all specialist functions
Control and co- • All production information and control happens in a coherent information
ordination system (EPOS), to which all production workers get direct access
• Information is fed into the system by the co-ordinators of the logistics function
• Each group has the specific responsibility of following up on orders in progress
Measurement and • The necessary control parameters are measured, and only those
rewards • Each group can use the information system to track the financial consequences
of the efforts within the company and within their own group
• Everyone contributes to company profit and therefore gets a share of the result-
based bonus according to the group’s contribution

This vision was accepted in March 2000 and the implementation started during the spring of that
same year. As can be seen in Table 44, an important aspect of the organisational change project was that it
took a holistic approach, in the sense that not only the structure of management was changed, but also the
wages and bonuses system, the information flow, the access to information systems and the performance
evaluation. The change was implemented incrementally, i.e. group per group, but nevertheless in one single
week per group. In practice, this meant that a production group would show up in the beginning of the week
and would then go off on a 3-day intensive course on self-management, team building, etc. On their return, a
PC was installed, they were given a short course on the use of the different information systems, and they
could start working in their new organisation. In this way, the old and the new organisation co-existed for a
number of months, until all groups had gone over to the new way of working.

At the time of the first round of data gathering, the first group of workers in Hall 3 was preparing to
go off on their 3-day course. At the time of the second round of data gathering, about one third of the
production groups had changed to the new way of working. This gradual incremental approach was intended
to avoid too much disruption, and not – as was the case at Omicron – as a kind of experiment. Indeed, one of
the main principles of the change effort was that it was so comprehensive and presupposed so many changes
in behaviour of all those involved, that it was impossible to ‘try it out’ in one group, and then return to the
old situation if the experiment didn’t work.

Finally, it is important to note that there was another major difference with the Omicron case,
namely in the role of the trade unions. Due to the smaller size of the factory, there is only one ‘common
representative’ for all blue-collar workers, who acts as sparring partner to the factory manager. The main
difference with Omicron is exactly that this lack of trade barriers has made it possible to implement the
change process described above, especially the change in the wages and bonus systems. As I argued in the
previous chapter, it is especially the trade barriers and the extremely complicated bonus systems at Omicron
that are perceived as important barriers for organisational change. Another difference is the involvement of
the trade union representative in all aspects of the change operation. For me as an outside observer, it was
almost as if the factory was managed by two people, which was an important contrast with the more
‘conflictual’ atmosphere at Omicron.

253
C. Existing information technology

The existing information technology infrastructure in the production division is not nearly as
complicated as at Omicron, for two reasons. Firstly, the products that are manufactured have a significantly
lower degree of complexity and size, as illustrated by the fact that the 200 production workers at Alpha
produce on average 250 products per year, while the 2200 workers at Omicron produce on average 4
products per year. This means that the planning and co-ordination activities are much less demanding.
Secondly, at Omicron the IT infrastructure supports all activities from marketing, sales, design, construction,
production and administration, while the infrastructure at the production division of Alpha only needs to
support production and administration.

At the time of the divisionalisation of Alpha in 1994, the production division also implemented a
completely new information system, EPOS, which handles everything from wages, accounting, and
acquisition to stocks and production control. This was an off-the-shelf MRP (manufacturing resource
planning) product made by a small Danish company, but it has been customised throughout time to fit the
needs of Alpha. For example, a detailed production scheduling system was added specifically for Alpha, but
also some other separate modules, such as calculation tools, a job ordering system, a bonus calculation
system, and a production error reporting system.

This EPOS system, which is a text-based system, is called the division’s nervous system, even
though it is perceived as incomplete and somewhat unwieldy when it needs to handle large amounts of data.
Moreover, even though the tailoring of the system to the needs of Alpha is perceived as an asset, it has also
led to a high degree of complexity and a perceived lack of transparency. It is felt that some modules are so
specific for some parts of the production that nobody really has a complete overview of the quality of the
data in the system. When the “Future organisation” project analysed the organisation and all its processes, it
indicated that a more streamlined and transparent system was needed in order for all employees to have
access to all information. I will discuss the IT aspects of the new organisation in the next paragraph.

Next to the MRP system with its customised modules, the production division also made extensive
use of e-mail for internal communication. This was primarily the case for the administrative and managerial
part of the organisation, but the use of e-mail will be widened in the new organisational design. Finally, the
division uses office software tools for its communication and administrative activities.

D. ShopFloorPC project description

The description of the ShopFloorPC project will be much shorter than the BlueTech description in
the previous chapter. In fact, there never was a formal ShopFloorPC project. At the time of my first contacts
with Alpha, there were some ideas for an experiment that was informally called PC on shop floor, but there
was never an intention to turn that into a formal project with a separate budget, structure or milestones. At a
later stage then, when the strategic “Production 2000” project was launched, the idea of installing PC’s and
software on the shop floor became an integral and organic part of the overall change project. In fact, the
technology manager described it in September 1999 as “a minor thing in this context”. Again, there was no
separate budget, time plan or project structure for that part of the strategic change. So, talking about a project
is not entirely correct, but it does make it easier to discuss the initiative from my perspective, so I have
labelled the installation of PCs on shop floor within the framework of the “Production 2000” project the
‘ShopFloorPC’ project.

254
1. ‘Project’ history
The initial goal of installing PCs on the shop floor – by way of experiment – was to make the work-
ers acquainted with computers and with the existing MRP system. In the old organisation, only managers and
supervisors had access to the information system, but now the goal was to slowly make production workers
more responsible for their own tasks. This experimental installation of PCs was to be carried out in the sum-
mer of 1999, but the investment decision was postponed because of the strategic decision process that was
not finished at that time. The implementation was therefore postponed until after a decision of the board of
directors, which was expected in November 1999.

At that time, however, some other information technology was installed in the production
workshops, namely a set of small terminals that are used to register start and finish times of tasks and
subtasks. These terminals replaced the old system of job cards that had to be put in a punch clock at the start
and finish of jobs. The use of that system was very expensive, in the sense that it demanded that the
information from the job cards be manually entered into the MRP system and the bonus system87.

After the decision of the board of directors in November, the “Production 2000” plan was activated,
and the “Future Organisation” sub-project described above, was started. The installation of PC’s was imme-
diately perceived as an integral part of the organisational change effort, so it was decided that the PC installa-
tion and the change to the self-managing groups would happen simultaneously. When the report of the “Fu-
ture Organisation” project group was accepted by the steering committee, the change project started with the
negotiations about the new wages system. It was felt that the whole change project hinged on the change in
the wages system, and if the employees would reject that part of the plan, it was felt that the change would
not succeed. However, the new wages system was accepted, and so the actual change could proceed. The
first self-managing group of workers was started at the end of June 2000, and the first PC was installed in the
same week. Figure 74 presents the main events in the history of the ShopFloorPC project, limited to the time
period of my research project.

1999 2000
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ShopFloorPC project

Start of
First plans 'Future Project plan First self-
for PC on organisation' accepted - Wages managing group -
ShopFloor project negotiations start First PC installed t

Figure 74: Timeline of ShopFloorPC 'project'

At the actual start of the organisational change implementation, again no specific project structure
was deemed necessary for the implementation of the PC’s, since there were no plans to develop any new
software specifically for the production workers. What happened was that the existing software that was used
by the supervisors was now installed on the PC’s on the shop floor. As I said before, the workers received
half a day’s course and training in the use of the software, and it was expected that the more IT-skilled
workers would naturally become a kind of super-users. Within the new self-managing teams, all members
have access to the computer system, but the groups appoint a spokesperson who takes care of the co-
ordination of the group’s activities and it is often this spokesman who uses the information system most.

87
An interesting anecdote in this context is that the job cards system continues to exist at Omicron, but without the punch clock.
Management has tried to introduce the punch clock several times during some periods, but somehow those clocks kept breaking
down regularly, and the task of repairing punch clocks had become a full-time job for one or two of the maintenance staff. In some
workshops, the punch clocks that were repaired in the morning would often be broken again in the evening. Currently, the job cards
need to be signed by the shop supervisor at the end of the day. The cards of all 2200 workers are then gathered and sent to the wages
department in the administration building, where all the data are manually entered into the ERP system.

255
2. Software description
This paragraph contains a brief description of the different systems that the worker groups use in
their production activities. The first subsystem is the EPOS system, which is presented in Figure 75. The sys-
tem contains detailed information on the status of the different materials that are needed in the production, or
those that are being produced. As said before, the EPOS system is a text-based system (but the software sup-
plier is developing a full Windows-based version).

Figure 75: Screen view of the EPOS system

However, the software suppliers have developed a production-scheduling module for EPOS, espe-
cially according to the demands of the Alpha production division, and this module (Figure 76) does have a
graphical user-interface. It is used to view existing schedules, to change existing schedules in case of excep-
tions or delays, and it can be used to report start and finish times of different components.

256
 Figure 76: Screen view of the production-scheduling module

These two systems are the main systems during production preparation, production planning and ac-
tual production. The third system, shown in Figure 77, is another Windows-based graphical module that is
based on the data in the EPOS system. This module is in fact a Microsoft® Access™ graphical report of the
status of the group effort. It allows the group to monitor and evaluate its performance in relation to pre-
determined goal levels, and it allows them to see the evolution of their annual bonus.

Figure 77: Screen view of the effort evaluation module

257
 These are the main information systems that the self-managing groups were using at the time of my
second data-gathering round. Next to this, each group has an e-mail address within the company, so that
messages about changes in delivery or production can be sent to the group or from the group to the
production management, or from one group to another.

It is important to note here that I have not gathered data about the users’ evaluation of or satisfaction
with the different sub-systems. Both the RIPOSTI and the interview treat the different modules namely as
‘the new information system’, and the respondents’ views of the system as a whole are elicited. The next
sections of this chapter will discuss the analysis of these data.

3. Discussion of IT at the organisational level-of-analysis and link to hypotheses

The discussion of IT at the organisational level-of-analysis has a completely different flavour for the
Alpha case than for the Omicron case. Firstly, at Omicron, I was a participant in the efforts to achieve
organisational change, and therefore I was able to describe in detail how the stakeholders differed in their
signification about the intended information system. At Alpha, I was an outside researcher with only limited
access to the organisational processes that were involved in the major changes that took place. Secondly, the
stakeholders at Alpha appear to have reached a fairly high level of consensus about the changes that were
needed to solve some of the misfits between the organisation and its environment. This consensus included
general access to information systems for all organisational members as an important part of the change
effort. At Omicron, there was no such consensus, and there were rather strong signification conflicts
regarding the role of IT. These signification conflicts were argued to have prevented a major organisational
change, such as the one that took place at Alpha. Thirdly, the BlueTech project started as an experiment and
involved none of the stakeholders that would be affected by an organisational change as intended by the
project financiers. At Alpha, all relevant stakeholders were involved in the decision-making process from the
start, through project working groups, interviews with major project team members and general staff
meetings.

From a CHARISM perspective, one may argue that the mixed management / worker project team
reached a consensus concerning the new vision for the organisation, and that this consensus precluded major
differences in signification, both about the organisational change as a whole, and about the integrated role of
information technology in the change project (Hypothesis H45). It is not clear whether the different
stakeholders had different perceptions that were ‘bundled’ into a common perspective, or whether they had
similar perceptions at the outset.

H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs and environmental IT
demands and will therefore contribute different perspectives to the organi-self’s
signification process. When no common perspective can be developed, organi-strain
may arise

Hypothesis H48 argued that IT is often introduced with the aim of resolving existing misfits. In the
case of ShopFloorPC one may argue that IT was introduced at the shop floor to prevent a misfit. In the new
way of organising – with autonomous groups – the lack of IT support would have created a misfit, and to
avoid that future misfit, the ShopFloorPC was introduced. Similarly, it can be argued that no incompatible
meanings were introduced at Alpha. The software in the ShopFloorPC was originally developed in order to
support the group supervisor, and that role is now taken over by the group itself. Management also
communicated the role of IT in a similar formulation, thus avoiding signification conflicts.

H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of resolving existing
misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease existing organi-strain, but it may also
unintentionally create new misfits
H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may introduce
incompatible meanings and perceptions, and create signification conflicts within an
organisation, especially when the systems are ‘uncustomisable’

258
 With regard to Hypothesis H50, I want to argue that the early and continuous involvement of all
stakeholders contributed to the low level of signification conflicts – in as far as I was able to judge from the
interviews. However, I do not want to claim that stakeholder involvement will always prevent signification
conflicts. The only supposition is that close involvement of and regular discussions with all relevant
stakeholders can aid in clearing away differences in signification.

H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation projects can be

minimised by involving as many relevant stakeholders as possible in the
signification process before, during and after the introduction of new IT

In the case of Alpha, it is safe to assume that there was a fairly high level of external organi-strain,
caused by the precarious economic environment, and the need to reorganise the Danish production facility if
it wanted to survive. However, the degree of internal harmony seems to have been rather high – again, as far
as I can judge from the interviews. There seems to have been broad agreement amongst all stakeholders that
major changes were needed in order to keep their jobs. Therefore, Hypotheses H51 and H52 do not seem to
apply in the Alpha case, except maybe for the second part of H51. The thorough and holistic analysis of the
existing misfits at Alpha has resulted in a coherent and well-developed vision of the future organisation,
which may have contributed to the prevention of new misfits in the introduction of the new technology.

H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important contingency when developing

and introducing new IT. Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can help
predict and prevent potential new misfits
H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately developed organi-self,
i.e. an organisation with fundamental disagreements between internal stakeholders,
will further increase existing organi-strain levels

By way of summary, one can argue that it was next to impossible to separate the role of the new IT
implementation from the rest of the organisational change effort at Alpha’s Danish production plant.
Moreover, there was no remarkable ‘project history’ to provide supporting material for the theoretical
hypotheses. At Alpha, there never seems to have been any doubt or disagreement about the need to support
the organisational change with the necessary technological tools to allow real decision-making and process
evaluation at shop-floor level. The document and interview analysis revealed that the new IT was hardly a
topic of discussion in the whole of the change effort. In the organisational analysis that was performed as
part of the change effort, IT was one of the many important aspects that were discussed. From a CHARISM
point-of-view, there seem to have been no signification conflicts regarding IT within the whole of the change
effort. Therefore, no major organi-strain was found in relation to the new IT.

259
E. Organisational-level data analysis

As was the case in the previous chapter, the details of the data analysis are only available to the jury
of this PhD thesis. In the remainder of this chapter, I will describe the analyses that were performed and
summarise the main results. The organisational-level analysis for the Alpha case is somewhat different than
for the Omicron case. Due to the low number of respondents for the organisational interviews (n = 4),
comparing stakeholder groups was not very useful as a means of establishing potential lack of harmony.
However, I did perform this stakeholder comparison for the organisational items in the questionnaire (n =
22).

1. Summary of organisational data analysis

The first group of data analyses at the organisational level-of-analysis studies the organisational
questions in the RIPOSTI-questionnaire. For this analysis, the data from the second data collection round are
considered, so there were 22 respondents: 16 production workers, 1 top manager, 4 middle managers and the
joint union representative. First the OrgCon climate items are analysed and a cluster analysis on the basis of
the OrgCon items is performed in order to establish whether there are radical differences in opinion.
Secondly, the EOS items are studied and grouped according to respondent function and according to the
clusters based on OrgCon climate items. On the whole, the following conclusions can be drawn from the
analysis of the organisational items in the RIPOSTI questionnaire. Firstly, there is a small group of 3
production workers that have a radically negative perception of the organisation, with regard to the majority
of items related to organisational climate, management style, organisational humanity and organisational
communication. Secondly, management and workers have a rather similar perception of their organisation,
except for those items that concern management style, organisational formalisation and management control.
Interestingly, these are items about which managers and workers are bound to disagree. Finally, the types of
climate that the OrgCon analysis calculates are rather more divergent than for the Omicron case, which is a
further indication of disagreement within the organisation.

In the second group of analyses, stakeholder perceptions of the organisation are analysed in more
detail on the basis of the OrgCon interview. For this part of the analysis, four respondents’ answers were
compared in detail: the factory manager, two middle managers and the joint union representative. On the
whole, there are no major differences between the respondents in the way they perceive their organisation.
There are some differences with regard to organisational dimensions such as formalisation and centralisation,
and contingency parameters such as strategy type, but these differences are not so strong as to suggest an
underdeveloped sense of organisational identity. Indeed, all respondents agreed that the Danish production
division of Alpha was under a lot of pressure (high level of uncertainty and equivocality), due to the
relatively high price of its products. During the interviews, some respondents stressed the importance of the
ongoing changes as a way of dealing with this problem – more specifically the initiatives with regard to
process and organisational innovation, while others stressed that these initiatives might not suffice. These
two perspectives explain part of the variance that was found in the OrgCon analysis discussed above, but on
the whole there was agreement about the course that was being taken to try and ‘survive in a difficult time
for European heavy-metal industry’.

In a third main part of the organisational-level analysis the production workers’ answers to items
about psychological and organisational climate are compared with the stakeholders’ estimates. In this part of
the interview, stakeholders were asked what they thought the workers’ average answer was to items about
the meaningfulness of their work, their worry about changes, their organisational commitment and satisfac-
tion. Finally, they were asked about how they thought workers perceived organisational climate and pressure.
In order to establish the ‘correctness’ of estimates, a special technique was used, which compares stakeholder
answers with percentiles 25 and 75 of the workers’ answers. Stakeholder answers that fall between the per-
centile 25 and 75 scores, are treated as correct, all others are rated as ‘underestimate’ or ‘overestimate’. In
this way, stakeholder answers were compared to the 50% most average worker scores. On the whole, these
data show a group of stakeholders that is fairly good at judging their co-workers’ psychosocial state-of-mind,
but rather poor at judging their perception of the organisational climate. The latter is somewhat strange, as
the previous analyses showed that there are no significant differences between the two groups’ perception of

260
the OrgCon organisational climate items. Whereas the OrgCon data suggested a high degree of organisa-
tional identity with regard to climate, these data suggest that there is a certain degree of organi-strain with
regard to organisational climate. Somehow, stakeholders think that the production workers have a perception
of organisational climate that is rather different from their own, but this does not seem to be the case.

A final analysis at the organisational level-of-analysis looks at how the workers’ scores on the items
of psychological and organisational climate have changed after the organisational and technological change,
and compares these changes with the changes that stakeholders expected to happen. Interestingly, the
changes that stakeholders expected after the organisational changes and the introduction of the ShopFloorPC
system were very limited (85% of the items were expected not to change). A fairly strong increase in
perceived meaningfulness was expected as well as a fairly strong increase in organisational commitment.
Some respondents expected job satisfaction to increase slightly, while the top manager expected one item in
the organisational tension - employee morale – to increase slightly. In the 5-6 months that passed between
the two data gathering moments, over 40% of the workers’ answers changed, both for the test and the control
group, i.e. for the group that had started using ShopFloorPC and the group that had retained its traditional
way of working. But the changes are not as straightforward as expected by the interviewees, and none of the
changes are statistically significant. The conclusion from this part of the analysis is that the organisational
changes and the introduction of ShopFloorPC have not had the straightforward effect on production
workers’ psychological and organisational climate that the major stakeholders expected.

2. Link to working hypotheses

The analysis described in the previous paragraph can be related to the working hypotheses on the
organisational level-of-analysis in the following way.

P36a: Organisational signification is measured by comparing different stakeholders’

perception of the characteristics of the organisation and its environment.
P36b: Organisational signification is measured by comparing workers’ average answers
regarding psychological climate with other stakeholders’ expectations of workers’
answers.

Propositions P36a and P36b were related to the techniques used to measure organisational
signification. Firstly, the suitability of the OrgCon data comparison (P36a) could not be established, due to
the small number of interviewees that was available and the lack of observation data. At Omicron, the
interview data but mainly the data acquired during my participation in the PipeViewer project provided
support for the quantitative data and vice versa. At Alpha, it was much more difficult to draw conclusions
about the adequacy of the organisational signification processes on the basis of quantitative data and the few
impressions that I got during my visits. This seems to imply that the observation during my time at Omicron
was an important source of data, and that triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data is the most
important instrument in determining the level of organisational integrity. On the other hand, the quantitative
techniques used to analyse internal signification based on the organisational data from the RIPOSTI
questionnaire seemed again quite suitable. The comparison of stakeholder groups was naturally more limited
than at Omicron, but the clustering technique has again shown its particular value in establishing divergent
perceptions. Nevertheless, proposition P36a is only partially supported by the Alpha data, and the following
addition to the proposition is suggested:

P36a: Organisational signification is measured by comparing different stakeholders’

perception of the characteristics of the organisation and its environment. This
comparison is based on a triangulation of quantitative data with as much
qualitative data as possible (interviews, but mainly observation/participation).

In the ShopFloorPC case, two techniques were used to compare stakeholders’ expectations with
workers’ answers (P36b), the first synchronically, and the second diachronically. The first technique seems
quite suitable, in that it detects rather detailed, but also significant differences in signification between work-
ers and other stakeholders. The second technique is mainly suited for objectively determining stakeholder

261
expectations about the effects of change initiatives, but also for comparing the actual changes with the stake-
holders’ expectations.

P39a: Large differences within and between stakeholder groups in the perception of
organisational and environmental characteristics indicate inadequate organi-self
and thus inadequate integrity
P39b: Large differences between (a) average worker climate perceptions and (b) the other
stakeholders’ opinion of those perceptions indicate inadequate organi-self and thus
inadequate integrity.

Working hypotheses P39a and P39b were related to the detection of inadequate organi-self and
organisational signification differences. The results of the analyses suggest a fairly high level of agreement
between the different stakeholders at Alpha, but not for all topics. The climate analyses of all respondents
revealed that a small group of ‘radical negativists’ at Alpha perceive a high-tension organisational climate,
and that – except for these radicals – there is a similar perception of the internal organisational functioning,
except for items where managers and workers are apt to disagree. Indeed, for the items of management style,
organisational formalisation and management control there are significant differences between the
production workers and the other stakeholders, but also within the groups there is quite some disagreement
on these topics. These results suggest that there is a moderately adequate organi-self as far as internal issues
are concerned.

The analysis of the OrgCon interview data shows that the decision-making stakeholders have a
similar view of their organisation’s functioning, but there are some differences of opinion. However, for an
external observer it is hard to interpret these differences and judge whether they are a source of inadequate
organisational identity. There was some disagreement as to the strategy of the organisation – which is the
organisation’s way of dealing with the uncertainty of the environment – and this might be a reason to assume
a slight level of organi-strain about the organisation’s functioning in its environment.

Finally, the comparison of stakeholders’ (synchronic) estimates with workers’ scores shows that the
managers and trade union representative at Alpha have a fairly good perception of the psychological climate
amongst their workers, but also that they are rather poor at judging the perceived organisational climate. The
diachronic data shows that stakeholders were somewhat too optimistic in expecting positive effects from the
organisational and technological change initiatives.

P40: Inadequate organisational integrity is correlated with stakeholders’ perception of

organisational strain.

The final organisational-level working hypothesis is again the most difficult to substantiate, because
of the difficulty of measuring perceived organisational strain. The item that asks about ‘organisation under
pressure’ and the OrgCon analysis of the external environment and the organisation’s strategy measure
perceived external organi-strain, while ‘organisational tension’ measures perceived internal organi-strain.
The data show that Alpha respondents generally perceive a high level of external pressure on the
organisation, mainly due to the competition from the non-European production units within the Alpha group.
This high pressure is reflected in the OrgCon analysis by a perception of medium to high environmental
uncertainty. The analysis also suggests that the organisation has troubles coping with that environment. All
situational misfits that are found are related to strategy, so the Danish production unit of Alpha clearly has
some difficulty in the way it tackles its relation with the external environment. Arguably, there is a certain
level of externally oriented organisational strain, as was the case at Omicron.

In contrast with the situation at Omicron, the level of internal organi-strain is low. There is little dis-
agreement about the low organisational tension within the Danish production unit of Alpha, and the non-
production workers are rather good in perceiving the psychological climate in the organisation. The only
possible sources of internal organi-strain are the presence of the radically negativist sub-group amongst the
production workers, and maybe the significantly different perception of management style, organisational

262
formalisation and management control. The latter is not necessarily a major problem, since it concerns issues
about which workers and managers are bound to disagree.

In general, the organisational analysis shows a company where the major decision-making
stakeholders agree about most organisational issues, but where some important issues remain to be resolved.
Management does not have a common view of Alpha’s relation with its external environment, but there
seems to be a high level of agreement about the initiatives that are taken in order to ameliorate the production
unit’s competitive position within the group. However, at the time of writing, it turns out that those
initiatives have not yet been sufficient to secure such a better position. Internally, the different stakeholder
groups have a shared perception of most organisational and climate issues, but there remains significant
disagreement between workers and management / trade union as regards a number of important issues.
Moreover, a small group of radical negativists does not share the perception of a company with a rather low
level of internal tension. Finally, managers and the trade union representative have a rather imprecise
perception of how workers perceive the organisational climate at Alpha, as well as imprecise expectations of
the effect of the organisational change efforts. Together, these remaining disagreements and inaccurate
perceptions are potential sources of internal organi-strain, but due to a lack of observational and participatory
data, it is impossible to know whether the existing organi-strain has reached a level where it becomes
problematic.

263
F. Cross-level analysis

Now, before moving to the individual-level analysis, I want to briefly discuss the cross-level analysis
at Alpha as discussed in the CHARISM framework. One way of looking at cross-level issues is to see
whether there is a relation between respondents’ organisational perception and their individual psychological
signification. In the above discussion of the organisational analysis of all RIPOSTI respondents, a cluster
analysis was performed based on the seven OrgCon climate items. This analysis revealed a small group of
production workers who had a significantly different perception of the climate at Alpha. This group was
referred to as ‘radical negativists’, because in their perception there was a high-tension climate at Alpha.

A non-parametric analysis-of-variance based on the two clusters shows that this radical group also has
a significantly different individual signification. The members of the radical cluster feel that their current job
does not fulfil their needs for security, esteem and self-actualisation, does not place high enough cognitive
demands, and leaves hardly any decision authority and skill discretion. These person-environment fit issues
are reflected in a significantly lower degree of organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Moreover,
the radicals perceive a low degree of meaningfulness in their job, they feel that their job is unpredictable (in
the sense that they don’t get any information about changes or decisions), and they report a lower level of
social community. As discussed above, the radicals perceive a high degree of organisational tension, a
management style based on control, and a low level of organisational humanity. Next to that, they feel that
the organisation is ‘only’ under moderate pressure. The radicals do not use the new ShopFloorPC at all, but
still they feel that the new system has increased the duration and complexity of their tasks. In other words,
their negative attitude extends as far as their evaluation of the new system, even though they never use it.

These cross-level relations are quite interesting from a CHARISM perspective. When interpreting
these statistics, the reader does need to keep in mind that they do not imply that the respondents’ perception
of organisational climate determines the other variables. The statistics only show that a different perception
of organisational climate is associated with significantly different perceptions of individual-level variables.
There is no causal relation between organisational climate and the other variables. Therefore, the causality
that was implied in hypothesis H54 is not supported. However, the data do show rather strong support for an
association between perceived organisational integrity and individual-level variables.

H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the level
of organisational integrity he perceives / experiences

A possible re-formulation of the hypothesis could therefore be:

H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly associated with the level
of organisational integrity he perceives / experiences

Again, these are not ‘real’ cross-level issues, because arguably the respondent at both ‘levels’ is the
individual organisational member. However, the focus of the questions is different, and it can be argued that
a respondent will have a different frame-of-reference when answering questions pertaining to personal issues
or questions pertaining to organisational issues. Within the CHARISM framework, these significant cross-
level phenomena suggest that differences in organisational perception are related to individual signification,
and vice versa.

In the next section of the analysis, I will look in more detail at those individual-level variables.

264
G. Individual-level data analysis

For the Alpha case, I will not study the synchronic individual-level data in such great detail, because
I am mainly interested in those propositions that study the longitudinal aspects of the CHARISM model, and
in those that compare the target group with the control group. I will, however, briefly comment on the data to
see whether they provide further support for the propositions or not.

1. Needs portfolios
The first working hypotheses to be investigated at the individual level of analysis are those
propositions related to needs portfolios. Let me start by mentioning that there is a major difference between
the clustering techniques used for the Omicron and the Alpha data. The Alpha data on their own are not
suitable for a separate needs-based cluster analysis, because there are too few respondents (n= 22) to allow a
proper clustering based on 18 variables. In order to solve this technical problem, I used the cluster seeds88
that resulted from the Omicron analysis as the basis for a new cluster analysis on all respondents, because
that allowed me – at a later stage in the analysis – to compare the cluster membership of Alpha respondents
in the two data collection rounds.

In contrast to the Omicron case (29 out of 85 items), the non-parametric analysis-of-variance based
on needs-based clusters shows only few statistically significant differences (9 out of 85 items). The data
shows partial support for working hypothesis P1, although it is much weaker than was the case at Omicron.
The explanation for this much weaker support may lie in the fact that the group of respondents at Alpha was
much smaller than at Omicron. The limited number of significant items makes it also impossible to interpret
the clusters as I did in the previous chapter.
Proposition P3 is also supported by the Alpha data. There seems to be a significant relationship
between an individual’s needs portfolio and his level of education.

P1: Analyses of variance of respondents grouped by needs-based clusters show

statistically significant differences.
P3: Individuals that belong to different needs-based clusters have different education
levels

In contrast to Omicron, however, proposition P1a and P1b are not supported. The different scores for
the technology items are not statistically significant, so for the group of respondents at Alpha, one cannot
claim that a needs-based typology is related to technology attitudes. At Omicron, most members of
management belonged to cluster 2, but at Alpha most managers belong to cluster 4, while there is also 1
middle manager in clusters 1 and 2. It is interesting to note, however, that production workers tend to belong
to either cluster 1 or cluster 4, as was the case at Omicron.

P1a: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters hold different job types
P1b: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters have different attitudes
towards technology

By way of summary, one could posit that these results again support – albeit to a somewhat lesser
degree – the hypothesis that needs portfolios play an important role in individual signification processes, and
that individuals with different need portfolios have different ways of establishing mental integrity and
harmony.

88
A cluster seed is the value for each of the 18 issues of a cluster centre. The cluster seeds for the 4 clusters consists therefore of 4
groups of 18 values.

265
2. Person-environment fit correlations
As for the Omicron case, a number of Spearman correlation analyses were performed in order to in-
vestigate the suggested role of PE-fit with regard to other psychological dimensions. The first set of proposi-
tions suggested a relation between PE-fit on the one hand, and mental well-being and stress on the other.

P9: PE-fit is positively correlated with mental well-being

P11: PE-fit is negatively correlated with stress indicators

The data show a quite different situation than at Omicron. For the Alpha respondents there are strong
positive correlations between needs-supplies misfit and mental well-being, which supports P9, but the
correlations with demands-abilities misfits are not so clear. In contrast, the data at Alpha only marginally
support proposition P11. There is only one significant correlation, namely between cognitive D/A misfit and
somatic strain indicators. This correlation shows that if the respondents’ cognitive abilities are larger than the
demands from the environment, the respondents tend to perceive a higher degree of somatic strains.

P16: PE-fit is positively correlated with job satisfaction

P17: PE-fit is positively correlated with organisational commitment
P18: PE-fit is positively correlated with motivation

A second set of hypotheses was related to the link between PE-fit and motivation, commitment and
job satisfaction. The analyses show that there is again a strong correlation between PE-fit and commitment,
satisfaction and motivation. The measures of satisfaction, commitment and motivation show similar results:
strong correlations with N/S misfits, and somewhat weaker correlations with D/A misfits. Interestingly,
commitment, satisfaction and motivation are most strongly correlated with esteem and self-actualisation
needs-supplies fit, and less with security and social needs-supplies fit, as was the case at Omicron.

P19: PE-fit is correlated with perceptions of organisational characteristics

The support for proposition P19 is as strong as for the previous group of propositions, but not all
organisational perception measures are equally correlated. Amongst the Omicron respondents, the measure
of ‘perceived organisational tension’ showed rather strong correlations, especially with needs-supplies
misfits, but at Alpha, these correlations are not statistically significant. At Alpha, it is again the measure of
cognitive D/A fit that shows the highest number of correlations amongst the measures of PE-fit. As for the
perceived organisational characteristics, there are strong correlations between perceived management style
and organisational humanity on the one hand and measures of needs-supplies fit on the other. In general, the
correlations of PE-fit with perceived organisational characteristics are much stronger than at Omicron, but
PE-fit correlates with other organisational measures.

P20: PE-fit is positively correlated with a positive technology attitude

The proposition at the individual level-of-analysis that is least supported by the data – both at Omicron and
at Alpha – is P20. There are only few statistically significant correlations with PE-fit, and then only for ‘PC
use intensity’ and ‘Technology attitudes’.

3. In search of harmony
In the previous chapter, an exploratory test of the correlations between the main individual-level
measures provided some indication that there might well be an underlying concept of mental harmony. The
Alpha data show similarly strong correlations between the main measures. Regarding PE-fit, it is again
mainly the Needs/Supplies aspect of PE-fit that is strongly correlated with the other measures, as the De-

266
mands/Abilities measure does not correlate significantly with any of the measures. The correlations are
strongest for the measures of satisfaction and commitment, which correlate with N/S fit, skill discretion,
meaningfulness and social community, but also with perceived vitality, mental health, and self-reported
health. Interestingly, a number of measures again strongly correlate with the reported number of sick days,
but hardly any correlate with the general measure for stress (except for mental health and vitality). The latter
observation was not the case at Omicron, where the stress measures correlated with a number of other indi-
vidual variables, and not only with vitality and mental health.

The data again suggest the existence of an underlying sense of mental harmony, which is correlated
with measures of perceived meaningfulness, skill discretion and social community. These variables reflect a
sense of mental integrity in the sense that respondents feel that they make a useful contribution, do a
meaningful job, get to use their skills and abilities, and are part of a social community. This underlying
harmony is correlated with PE-fit and seems to be reflected in (a) job satisfaction and organisational
commitment, (b) perceived vitality and mental health. As argued above, the latter two variables can be
conceived of as mediators between mental harmony and stress.
The data also show that individual-level measures are not only strongly correlated with organisational
tension and organisational harmony (as was the case at Omicron), but also with management style. The
interesting conclusion from this seems to be that there is a clear correlation between an individual’s mental
harmony and the way that individual perceives his organisation.

4. Demographics
Before moving to a brief comparison of the Alpha results with the average Danish scores, it is again
important to look at the demographics in my sample, and especially at the large group of production workers
(n=16) as compared to non-production workers (n=6). Moreover, the sample at Alpha is significantly
smaller. My discussion of the demographics will therefore again be rather limited, and is mainly aimed to
allow comparison with the Omicron data.
Interestingly, there are remarkably fewer statistically significant differences between workers and
non-workers amongst the Alpha respondents than there were in the Omicron sample. At Omicron, twelve of
the variables showed significant differences, whereas only eight variables show significant differences at
Alpha. When comparing the Alpha data with the Omicron data above, there are a few interesting differences.
At Omicron, there were significant worker/non-worker differences with regard to education, perceived
meaningfulness, stress symptoms and perceived stress, and attitudes towards technology. These differences
are not significant at Alpha. The difference with regard to education is probably related to the differences in
age. The production workers at Alpha who participated were on average much younger than those at
Omicron, and therefore have gone through more years of education.89 This age difference might also be
related to the difference regarding technology attitudes. Younger people tend to have a more positive attitude
towards technology. Regarding perceived meaningfulness, the non-production-workers at Omicron were
slightly more positive and the production workers slightly more negative, which accounts for the difference
in statistical significance. When one compares the stress-related variables, it is interesting to note that the
average answers at Omicron and Alpha for both groups are converse. On average, production workers at
Alpha indicate that they feel more stressed than the non-production workers, but they have a lower score on
stress indicators. At Omicron, the opposite situation occurred: Production workers scored higher on stress
indicators than their colleagues, but reported a lower sense of stress.

In general, the results at Alpha are rather different from those at Omicron, in the sense that there
were many more significant correlations at Omicron. There are also some similarities, in that the variables
of age and education are more important amongst the group of production workers than in the group of
‘others’. Again, the question then becomes whether the correlations that have been discussed above remain
significant when they have been corrected for profession, age and education. This correction can be obtained
by calculating partial correlation analyses on the two groups, the workers and the non-workers, in which the
correlation coefficients are controlled for age and education effects. From the partial analyses that were
performed, it becomes clear that the majority of correlations that were discussed in the paragraphs above
remain significant after the effects of profession, age and education have been removed.

89
The more recent educational system in Denmark keeps people at school for more years than was the case for the elder respondents,
who often started work much younger.

267
5. Comparative statistics
The comparison of the Alpha Industry scores with the average Danish scores needs to be regarded
with caution, due to the small size of the sample. Such comparisons are only statistically significant for
groups of respondents that contain more than 20 individuals, so the results from Alpha need to be regarded as
only indicative. Figure 78 shows the results of the largest group of Alpha respondents, the production work-
ers for both data gathering rounds. This allows not only a comparison with the Danish and professional aver-
age, but also a comparison over time. Moreover, the stars on the graph indicate the Omicron scores, thus
allowing a comparison between the two case sites.

Index Rnd1 n Rnd2 n 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 Quantitative demands 60.70 11 63.90 12

2 Cognitive demands 42.90 11 34.10 12

3 Hide feelings 33.20 11 37.30 12

4 Sensory demands 74.20 11 63.60 12

5 Decision authority 51.40 10 51.40 12

6 Skill discretion 24.20 11 18.30 12

7 Meaning in the job 23.70 11 26.50 12

8 Organisational commitment 56.60 10 48.50 12

9 Predictability 27.70 11 29.60 12

10 Social support 26.20 11 14.70 12

11 Feedback 32.20 11 24.30 12

12 Insecurity 99.70 11 99.50 12

13 Job satisfaction 58.00 8 61.90 11

14 Mental health 48.50 10 40.10 12

15 Vitality 54.30 10 49.80 12

16 Behavioural stress 27.90 10 37.50 12

17 Somatic stress 39.30 10 40.20 12

18 Cognitive stress 51.60 10 54.50 12

Figure 78: Comparison of Alpha respondents with Denmark’s average and with Danish metal workers. The 50% line
indicates the median scores for all Danish respondents, while the wide bars in the background show the average score
of metal workers. The top bar for each parameter shows the scores for Round 1, while each bottom bar shows the
scores for Round 2. The light bars indicate a score that is better than average, the dark bars a score that is worse,
while the medium grey bars indicate a score that falls between percentile 40 and 60. The stars indicate the scores of
the Omicron production workers.

The chart shows that the Alpha workers perceive significantly higher demands than the Danish
average, except for the demand to hide their feelings. Especially the quantitative and sensory demands are
higher than average. They perceive an average decision authority, but little skill discretion. The respondents
perceive little meaning in their work, and have an average organisational commitment. Predictability, social
support and feedback are significantly lower than average, whereas their worry about the future is extremely
high. Nevertheless, they report an average job satisfaction, mental health, vitality and cognitive stress, but
their behavioural and somatic stress tends to be lower than average.

The comparison with the Danish metal workers reveals that the Alpha respondents perceive a similar
level of low cognitive demands and high sensory demands as the average metal worker, and a similarly low
demand to hide their feelings. Their levels of predictability, mental health, vitality and cognitive stress tend
to be similar as well. The most striking differences are the extremely high level of insecurity, the relatively

268
high quantitative demands, the low level of predictability and social support, all of which are probably re-
lated to the ongoing organisational restructuring and the recent staff cuts. The low levels of skill discretion
and perceived meaningfulness are striking, but also the lower levels of behavioural and somatic stress. Posi-
tive differences with the Danish metal workers are the significantly higher levels of decision authority, or-
ganisational commitment and job satisfaction. So, notwithstanding the extremely high insecurity, the high
demands and negative scores on a number of other dimensions, the Alpha respondents are significantly less
stressed, more committed and more satisfied than their Danish colleagues. Again, these results seem to con-
tradict Karasek & Theorell’s (1990) demand/control model of stress, which predicts that the combination of
high environmental demands and low job control should lead to high levels of stress.

The comparison of the Alpha respondents with Omicron workers shows the following differences.
Cognitive demands at Alpha are higher, and the demand to hide one’s feelings is significantly lower. Alpha
respondents perceive a higher level of decision authority, and a somewhat higher level of skill discretion.
Perceptions of meaningfulness, commitment, social support, feedback, insecurity, job satisfaction, vitality,
mental health and cognitive stress are fairly similar, but the reported levels of behavioural and somatic stress
are significantly lower. A possible interpretation of these differences is that the levels of behavioural and
somatic stress are lower than at Omicron, because the workers at Alpha have a somewhat higher level of
control over their job, and because the perceived levels of demands are somewhat more positive.

A final comparison based on Figure 78 is that between the answers from Round 1 and Round 2 at Al-
pha. A close look at the figure reveals that there are only minor changes in the second data gathering round,
the most striking of which are the decrease of sensory demands and social support (more than 10% down).
Next to that, cognitive demands, skill discretion, organisational commitment, feedback, mental health and
vitality have decreased by more than 5%, and behavioural stress has increased by more than 5%. Interest-
ingly, job satisfaction has slightly increased as well. Keeping in mind the low statistical significance of these
changes (due to a small sample), the small differences might be interpreted along the following lines. The
changes that were happening at the time of the data gathering seem to have had a minor influence on mental
health. Admittedly, demands have decreased somewhat, but the social fabric in the organisation seems to be
in decline (support & feedback), as well as commitment and skill discretion. In combination with the con-
stantly high level of insecurity, this seems to have led to a decrease in mental health and vitality, and an in-
crease in behavioural and somatic stress. On the other hand, job satisfaction seems to have increased some-
what, and this is not so easy to interpret.

6. Before-after and test group / control group analysis of IT introduction project

The static individual-level analyses up to this point were only treated briefly, because they were ‘only’ meant
to investigate whether they provided further support for the working hypotheses. In this paragraph, some of
the diachronic aspects of the CHARISM theory will be studied, and they will be treated in some more detail.
Again, one needs to bear in mind that the samples at Alpha are so small, that the statistical value of the
results can only be indicative. The diachronic propositions were studied in three different ways.

a) Summary of analyses
Firstly, the changes over time were studied for the two groups separately using the non-parametric Wil-
coxon Signed Ranks test, which looks at the magnitude of the difference between each respondent’s answer
at time T1 and time T2. These differences are represented as ranks or ties, thus allowing interpretation of the
changes over time. Ties are those instances where the respondents’ answer for Round 1 and Round 2 are the
same, negative ranks are those instances where the score for Round 2 is lower than for Round 1, while posi-
tive ranks are those instances where the score for Round 2 is higher than for Round 2. Because of the small
samples, exact significance90 tests were used. This test offers no support for the propositions listed above,

90
“Exact tests enable you to obtain an accurate significance level without relying on assumptions that might not be met by your data.
For example, results of an entrance exam for 20 fire fighters in a small township show that all five white applicants received a pass
result, whereas the results for Black, Asian and Hispanic applicants are mixed. A Pearson chi-square testing the null hypothesis that
results are independent of race produces an asymptotic significance level of 0.07. This result leads to the conclusion that exam results
are independent of the race of the examinee. However, because the data contain only 20 cases and the cells have expected frequen-
cies of less than 5, this result is not trustworthy. The exact significance of the Pearson chi-square is 0.04, which leads to the opposite
conclusion. Based on the exact significance, you would conclude that exam results and race of the examinee are related. This demon-

269
since the only significant difference that was found reported that the test group uses PC’s much more inten-
sively at work.

Secondly, changes over time were studied for the whole group of respondents that participated at both
points in time. The second analysis looks at the complete group of respondents that participated in both data
collection rounds (n=11). The aim of this analysis is to see whether there have been changes in the major
RIPOSTI dimensions for the whole group of respondents over time. These differences are argued to reflect
organisational or environmental changes that have affected all participants, such as the changes in the wages
and bonus systems or the continuing redundancy of colleagues. Three differences were found (when not con-
sidering the differences in PC use intensity):
- The number of positive ranks for the dimension “self-actualisation needs” shows that 6 out of 11
respondents have a higher score than before, which indicates that self-actualisation has become a
significantly less important need at T2 than it was at T1. Two of the other respondents report the
same level of self-actualisation needs (a tie), while three others report a slight increase in self-
actualisation needs.
- There is an increase in the number of positive ranks for “social needs-supplies misfits”, which
indicates that a social ‘problem’ has arisen between T1 and T2, in the sense that 10 out of 11
respondents now have a positive score, which indicates that the environment no longer offers enough
supplies for the individuals’ social needs.
- Finally, the number of negative ranks for “sum of all extreme PE-misfits” indicates that for 5 out of
11 respondents, the number of extreme person-environment misfits has gone down. This indicates
that, on the whole, the respondents report a better fit between their person and the environment. This
seems to contradict the previous finding, but the two measures are quite different, so there might
well be no contradiction. The former dimension measures the degree of misfit on one PE-fit scale –
consisting of 5 items – whereas the latter counts the number of strong misfits amongst all 30 PE-fit
items. The fact that the number of strong misfits has gone down considerably over time does not
preclude one or other type of misfit to increase slightly, yet significantly.
A final analysis for the combined test and control groups looks at needs-based cluster membership of the
respondents at both data gathering rounds. The data show that membership of the needs-based clusters is
rather constant throughout time, since 8 out of 11 respondents are in the same cluster at both moments.
Interestingly, the three respondents that change cluster all move to cluster 4 – one coming from cluster 2 and
two coming from cluster 1. The three respondents that changed to cluster 4 all reported a decreased
importance of the social needs as well as the self-actualisation needs at T2. This seems to indicate (1) that
most individuals’ needs are rather stable over time, but also (2) that for some individuals a major
organisational change can change the needs portfolio to a certain extent.

The third analysis studies the significant differences between the test and the control groups at the
two data gathering rounds. These analyses are important both synchronically and diachronically. However,
the data are hard to interpret synchronically, because there are significant demographic differences between
the two groups. The test group is significantly older than the control group, and has a much longer average
history at the company (25 as opposed to 12½ years). These significant demographic differences ‘mess up’
the image, in the sense that it is hard to determine whether for example the significant difference in
satisfaction between the test group and the control group is related to age or company history, or whether it is
a difference between the two groups. A close analysis suggests that most of the synchronic differences
between the test and the control group are presumably not so much related to the experimental setting, as to
the fact that the members of the test group are older than those in the control group. However, the fact
remains that – notwithstanding the role of the age difference between the two groups – the number of
significant differences increases significantly between T1 and T2. Six between-group differences were
significant at both points in time. Four significant differences disappeared between T1 and T2, but the most
interesting result of this analysis is the fact that 19 new parameters showed significant between-group
differences at T2, i.e. after the organisational change and the introduction of ShopFloorPC. The changes can
be found in a number of dimensions: PE-fit (+5), commitment (+3), meaningfulness and social support (+3),
vitality (+1), organisational perception (+3), and technology use and evaluation (+3).

strates the importance of obtaining exact results when the assumptions of the asymptotic method cannot be met. The exact signifi-
cance is always reliable, regardless of the size, distribution, sparseness, or balance of the data.” (From SPSS 11.0 Help file)

270
b) Link to working hypotheses
On the whole, the support for the working propositions is not straightforward.

P21-22: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows

differences with regard to integrity and strain

The data show significant differences between users and non-users, especially with regard to integrity, but
not really with regard to stress. Moreover, the hypotheses are only partially supported, because the
differences between the two groups are strongly influenced by demographic parameters. There is a
significant difference in age and ‘tenure’ between the two groups, so the differences are not clearly
attributable to the effect of the organisational and technological intervention. Moreover, because the
technological intervention happened as part of a major organisational intervention, one cannot attribute the
differences to the technology. In fact, the technological change was only a minor aspect in the whole change
process.

P23a: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows

differences with regard to environmental demands and needs satisfaction.

Again, the data show significant differences between users and non-users with regard to environmental
demands and needs/supplies fit, but the effect of the age parameter ‘messes up’ the picture, as it did for the
previous working hypothesis. However, the significant increase in the number of significant test-/control
group differences suggests that these differences are not only related to the age difference between the
groups. Therefore, the proposition is only partially supported, again especially because the effect of the new
information technology was probably only minor within the framework of the whole change effort.

P23b: Users’ levels of needs satisfaction and environmental demands show remarkable
differences before and after the introduction of the new system
P27: Users’ PE-fit relations show remarkable differences before and after the
introduction of the new system.

Propositions P23b and P27 receive only minimal support from the data. The analysis of the test group alone
showed no significant changes in needs satisfaction, environmental demands or PE-fit relations. The minimal
support for the propositions is derived from the comparison of the differences between the test- and control
groups at the two points in time. At this stage, it is again important to refer to the minimal importance of the
information system within the context of the organisational change process, as well as to the limited use of
the system within the whole of a user’s working day. Moreover, the second data-gathering round was only
few months after the change took place, i.e. at a point in time when the long-term effects were not
measurable yet. Still, the short-term effects of such a large change on the workers’ mental integrity were
expected to be somewhat larger than they turned out to be.

271
H. IT analysis

Even though interviews reveal that the ShopFloorPC system is thought to have been of little
influence in the workers’ daily work routines, it is interesting to study the differences between the test group
that use the new system and the control group that does not have access to the new system. At T2, the
ShopFloorPC had been in use for about 5 months. In previous chapters, the following propositions were
made with regard to the use of the new system.

P21-22: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows

differences with regard to integrity and strain
P23a: Analysis of variance of respondents grouped by users and non-users shows
differences with regard to environmental demands and needs satisfaction.

A first main part of this analysis was discussed in the diachronic data analysis above, when the
differences between the test and the control group were analysed. That analysis compared the group of
ShopFloorPC users with a group of non-users at two points in time. The conclusion was that there were quite
a number of differences between the two groups (and especially at T2), but that the interpretation of those
differences was extremely hard, because the two groups were significantly different with regard to age and
tenure in the organisation.

One more analysis was performed, namely a detailed look at the system evaluation items, and
differences between the test and the control group at T2. The analysis shows that the two groups have similar
average scores for about half the items, and the average scores are often quite close to the neutral response
“neither agree or disagree”. There are, however, two items where the test group have a significantly more
positive score, i.e. the dimension “Low system and support quality” and one of its items, “When there are
problems with the system, it is hard to get support”. The high eta-squared91 score for these items also
indicates that group membership is a powerful factor in explaining the variance in the answers. Interestingly,
the test group members on average report that it is not hard to get support, while the control group thinks that
it is not so easy to get help when needed. One other item shows a rather strong difference between the two
groups (significance of .06). With regard to system usability (‘The system is hard to use’), the control group
evaluated the new system more negatively than the test group. On the whole, the test group has a slightly
more positive evaluation for most issues, except for the impact of the new system on the climate within the
organisation. However, the most striking aspect in the system evaluation is – as was the case at Omicron –
that the respondents are rather careful in evaluating the new system. Only six items get a slightly less neutral
score from one of the groups. This rather neutral evaluation seems to support the assumption that the system
has had little impact on the daily routine of the respondents.

On the whole, the IT-related analysis can be argued to support the propositions stated above, but
only marginally. Firstly, only a limited number of the RIPOSTI dimensions show significant differences.
Secondly, those differences might be more related to demographic differences than to the use of the
ShopFloorPC system. Fourthly, the effect of the technology cannot be ‘filtered out’ from the effect of the
total change process. Finally, the number of respondents in both groups is very small.

91
“Eta-squared is interpreted as the proportion of the total variability in the dependent variable that is accounted for by variation in
the independent variable. It is the ratio of the between groups sum of squares to the total sum of squares.” (From SPSS10.0 Help file)

272
I. Case summary

In contrast to the Omicron case, I have not been a participant in the organisational change effort at Al-
pha’s production unit in Denmark. In this case study, I was an outsider who visited the company three or four
times during a period of one and a half years. During this period, questionnaire data was gathered (at two
points in time: T1 and T2) together with interview data. The group of respondents consisted of 23 stake-
holders of all levels within the production division. The first data-gathering round (T1) was in May 2000,
just before the test group changed over to a new way of working, in the form of a computer-supported
autonomous production team. The second data-gathering round (T2) was in November 2000, some 5 months
later, at a time when the control group still had not changed to the new way of working. By way of summary,
Table 45 and Table 46 show an overview of the hypotheses that were discussed in this chapter.
Table 45: Overview of hypotheses discussed in the Alpha case (part 1)
INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL HYPOTHESES Analysis Result
H1: Different need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing between Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA
different types of individuals Partial support
(Kruskal-Wallis)
H1a: Individuals with different need portfolios will generally prefer
different organisational roles and tasks Cluster analysis / Cross-tabulation Not supported

H1b: Individuals with different need portfolios have different Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA
attitudes towards information technology Not supported
(Kruskal-Wallis)
H3: An individual’s needs portfolio is related to his/her skills and Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA
abilities Partial support
(Kruskal-Wallis)
H9: Mental harmony leads to a sense of mental well-being Spearman (and partial) correlations of PE-fit
Strong support.
and mental health
H11: Perceived inadequate integrity is stressful Spearman (and partial) correlations of PE-fit
Limited support
and stress indicators
H16: Mental harmony leads to high (job) satisfaction Spearman correlations of PE-fit and job
Strong support.
satisfaction
H17: Mental harmony leads to high (organisational) commitment Spearman correlations of PE-fit and
Strong support.
organisational commitment
H18: Mental harmony leads to high job motivation Spearman correlations of PE-fit and job
Strong support.
motivation
H19: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived
integrity and his/her perception of his/her environment, Spearman correlations of PE-fit and
Strong support.
including characteristics of his/her organisation organisational characteristics

H20: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived Spearman correlations of PE-fit and
integrity and his/her perception of organisational technology Limited support
technology attitudes

IT ON INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Analysis Result

H21: Organisational information technology is a major part of an
individual’s mental harmony when IT has relevance for task Mann-Whitney test of differences between
performance, i.e. when the individual’s task or immediate task Partial support
test and control group
environment is contingent on the functioning of IT

H22: Organisational IT is an integral part of an individual’s

perceived demands/abilities fit relation, when the individual is
directly confronted with IT, i.e. when (s)he (needs to) use IT in idem as for H21 Partial support
the performance of her organisational tasks

H23: Organisational information technology places demands on

individuals that use it, but may also satisfy an individual’s idem as for H21 Partial support
needs
H27: Implementation of new organisational IT may change
individual fit relations – by placing new demands, making
abilities obsolete or by satisfying different needs – and may idem as for H21 Partial support
thus be a potential cause of mental strain

273
 Table 46: Overview of hypotheses discussed in the Alpha case (part 2)
ORGANISATIONAL-LEVEL HYPOTHESES Analysis Result
H36: Organisational integrity is achieved and preserved through a Qualitative: Interview analysis -
multi-stage organisational signification process, which entails Unable to establish -
Quantitative: A) Between- and within
– amongst others – multi-subjective judgements of due to little partici-
stakeholder group differences. B)
organisation-environment fit pation data
Perceptions of worker psychology
H39: Inadequate organisational integrity is caused by (a)
inadequate organi-self (no common perception among internal Partial support for
stakeholders), (b) perceived organisation-environment misfit, A) Between- and within stakeholder group existence of inadequate
or (c) major changes in the environment or the organisation differences. B) Perceptions of worker
organisational integrity
psychology C) Linguistic analysis (We/they)
caused by (b) and (c)

H40: Perceived inadequate organisational integrity is stressful Exploratory discussion of 'Organisation Substantiation is
under strain' - Analysis of OrgCon climate difficult to measure.
variables Not supported

IT ON ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL Analysis Result

H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs
and environmental IT demands and will therefore contribute
different perspectives to the organi-self’s signification process. Interview analysis No data available
When no common perspective can be developed, organi-strain
may arise

H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of

resolving existing misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease
existing organi-strain, but it may also unintentionally create Interview and case analysis Indirect support
new misfits
H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may
introduce incompatible meanings and perceptions, and create
signification conflicts within an organisation, especially when Case analysis Indirect support
the systems are ‘uncustomisable’
H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation
projects can be minimised by involving as many relevant
stakeholders as possible in the signification process before, Case analysis Indirect support
during and after the introduction of new IT
H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important
contingency when developing and introducing new IT.
Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can help Case analysis & OrgCon analysis Indirect support
predict and prevent potential new misfits
H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately
developed organi-self, i.e. an organisation with fundamental
disagreements between internal stakeholders, will further Case analysis Not applicable
increase existing organi-strain levels

CROSS-LEVEL ISSUES Analysis Result

H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly
influenced by the level of organisational integrity (s)he Cluster analysis based on climate perception.
Partial support
perceives / experiences Mann-Whitney test of cluster differences

The tables provide an overview of the hypotheses discussed, the techniques used to substantiate the
hypotheses and the results from the Alpha case. The results are rather mixed: there is quite strong support for
some of the individual-level propositions, whereas there is only partial support for others. However, the list
of hypotheses will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. At this stage, I want to briefly summarise
the case study results.

Firstly, the individual level analyses show that different types of individuals with different needs will
have different perceptions of their mental and organisational state, but they will not necessarily have differ-
ent views on technology and its role in an organisation. The results also show that person-environment fit –
and especially needs-supplies fit – plays an important role in the individuals’ signification processes, and in
the establishment of mental harmony. The results also suggest that the signification processes of managers,

274
and Alpha’s production workers were quite similar, which might explain that the organisational change has
gone rather smoothly – at least for those workers that were not fired in the course of the restructuring. How-
ever, the data are not conclusive as to the effect of the organisational change on the psychosocial state of
mind of the participants.

Secondly, as regards the role of IT at the individual level of analysis, the major conclusion from the
analysis seems to be that the ShopFloorPC by itself has only had a minor impact on the production workers
at Alpha, because it was part of a major change effort. However, the interview data suggest that it would
have been difficult to achieve the organisational goal of ‘decentralising responsibility and making the
working groups more autonomous’ without the ShopFloorPC computer system.

Thirdly, the organisational description and analysis shows a Danish production unit that is going
through a quite difficult period mainly caused by the competition of low-cost production units within the
Alpha group. This difficult period is characterised by a high level of uncertainty with regard to the future
plans of the group, an uncertainty that was enhanced by the change of ownership of the whole group. The
Danish production unit tries to ‘survive’ within the group by initiating major internal changes in the way of
organising production work and by introducing new robot technology. These changes are causing a period of
high uncertainty amongst all stakeholders regarding their role and position in the division. Interestingly,
Alpha has chosen to drastically change the remuneration and bonuses system and to decentralise
responsibility and decision authority, in the firm belief that these measures will reduce costs and increase
worker productivity. At Omicron, rather the opposite phenomenon occurred, in the sense that top
management has increased the level of decision centralisation, while simultaneously starting an extremely
slow process of higher worker participation, but without changing the remuneration system. Overall, the
different parts of the organisational-level analysis at Alpha have revealed an organisation that is under
substantial external organi-strain, but with a limited internal organi-strain.

Fourthly, as regards IT at the organisational level-of-analysis, it was next to impossible to separate

the role of the new IT implementation from the rest of the organisational change effort at Alpha. Moreover,
there was no remarkable ‘project history’ to provide supporting material for the theoretical hypotheses. At
Alpha, there never seems to have been any doubt or disagreement about the need to support the
organisational change with the necessary technological tools to allow real decision-making and process
evaluation at shop-floor level. The document and interview analysis revealed that the new IT was hardly a
topic of discussion in the whole of the change effort. In the organisational analysis that was performed as
part of the change effort, IT was one of the many important aspects that were discussed. From a CHARISM
point-of-view, there seem to have been no signification conflicts regarding IT within the whole of the change
effort. Therefore, no major organi-strain was found in relation to the new IT.

Finally, the ‘cross-level’ analysis clearly showed that the perception of organisational issues is
associated with the perception of individual psychosocial issues. Again, these are not ‘real’ cross-level
issues, because arguably the respondent at both ‘levels’ is the individual organisational member. However,
the focus of the questions is different, and it can be argued that a respondent will have a different frame-of-
reference when answering questions pertaining to personal issues or questions pertaining to organisational
issues. Within the CHARISM framework, these significant cross-level phenomena suggest that differences in
organisational perception are related to individual signification, and vice versa.

The general conclusion for this chapter is that the case study at Alpha has provided further support
for a number of CHARISM working hypotheses, whereas the data do not support some other propositions.
But at the same time it has shown the potential role of some of the research techniques for studying
diachronic effects of organisational change. Together with the Omicron case, it has shown that a new
computer system by itself may not suffice to achieve organisational objectives. However, such more general
analyses and discussion will be provided in the next chapter.

275
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working
Hypotheses Chapter 7

Research
Instruments Chapter 8

Chapter 9
Case 1
Case 2 Chapter 10
Analysis and
Discussion
Chapter 11

Conclusion and
Future Research

The role of signification processes in the evaluation of organisational events

Chapter 11. Analysis and Discussion

In this chapter, I want to bring a number of issues together. First, I want to briefly recapitulate the
empirical part of my thesis. In Chapter 6 some methodological issues of my research work were discussed,
and the hybrid research strategy that emerged throughout the project was described. In Chapter 7 a selection
of the CHARISM hypotheses was made and they a number of working hypotheses was developed, while
Chapter 8 described the research instruments that were developed in order to find support for the working
hypotheses. Chapter 9 and Chapter 10 described the two cases studies that were investigated, together with a
summary of the empirical results for each case study.
In this chapter , I want to gradually move back from the empirical to the theoretical, in the following
way: I first discuss a number of data analyses that were performed across the two cases, more specifically
those related to needs-based clusters and some of the correlation analyses about the major variables in the
study. The second part of the chapter then provides a brief general summary of the empirical results of my
project by discussing the working hypotheses that were selected in Chapter 7. When reading this overview,
the reader needs to remember the exploratory nature of the research effort. This implies that the data analyses
and discussions should not be interpreted as proof of some of the CHARISM concepts, but rather as indica-
tions that the concepts deserve further investigation. The third paragraph moves even further into the theo-
retical realm, in the sense that it summarises a number of research contributions that were published during
the last three years. More specifically, the paragraph contains some contributions from the three research
paradigms that I felt contained relevant contributions or points of comparison to the CHARISM framework.
The final section then contains a number of methodological and theoretical reflections about some of the re-
maining issues in this research project.

A. Cross-case analyses

In this first section, I want to discuss some statistical analyses that were performed on the complete
group of respondents. The complete group consists of 80 different individuals, 58 at Omicron and 22 at
Alpha. For Alpha, the responses at the second round of data gathering were used. Cross-case analyses are
only meaningful for the individual-level issues, since these issues are argued to be largely independent from
the particular organisation in which the respondents are employed. In a first paragraph, this claim is analysed
by comparing the data for the two groups of respondents. It turns out that there are indeed only a few
significant differences between the two groups. In the second paragraph, I discuss the hypotheses related to
needs portfolios, and in the final paragraph, I look in some detail at the individual-level correlations.

1. Between-case differences
In the previous chapters, the responses for each of the participating companies were compared with
Denmark’s average, and some minor differences were found between the two cases (cf. Figure 78 on page
268 above). A statistical comparison reveals that there are also a small number of significant differences be-
tween the two groups (cf. Table 47).
It is important to look at these differences, because my two-case research design assumed that the
two companies were similar in some respects, while they were different in others. Both information systems
development projects were aimed at shop-floor production workers in the Danish heavy metal manufacturing
industry. The differences between the two cases were situated in the organisational status of the two projects,
the type of change project as well as the available data.

277
 Table 47: Significant differences between Alpha and Omicron respondents.

Mean Mann-Whitney test

Point
Omicron Alpha Mann- Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Proba- Eta
(n=58) (n=22) Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z (2-tailed) (1-tailed) bility squared
Physiological needs 1.82 2.09 469.0 2180.0 -1.843 .065 .033 .00 .03
Social needs 2.27 2.68 379.5 2090.5 -2.804 .005 .002 .00 .07
Sensory Demands Mean 2.05 2.47 459.0 2170.0 -1.944 .052 .026 .00 .05

sum of extreme demands misfits 1.74 0.73 413.0 666.0 -2.541 .011 .005 .00 .07
Sum of all extreme PE-misfits 3.09 1.82 460.0 713.0 -1.951 .051 .025 .00 .03

Organisational Commitment 2.31 2.67 435.5 2146.5 -2.197 .027 .014 .00 .04
Commitment to world outside job 2.26 2.77 412.5 1843.5 -2.118 .034 .018 .00 .07
Satisf. with colleagues (2) 2.21 1.82 476.5 729.5 -2.032 .049 .025 .00 .05
Organisational formalisation 2.84 3.25 428.5 2081.5 -2.224 .026 .013 .00 .05

Do you use the new IT system? 4.23 3.05 278.5 488.5 -2.918 .003 .002 .00 .15
Time of day (shifts) 1.14 2.73 341.5 1994.5 -4.841 .000 .000 .00 .28
How many years at dept.? 11.81 6.69 452.5 705.5 -1.723 .086 .043 .00 .05
Age 3.66 3.09 460.5 713.5 -1.974 .048 .024 .00 .04
Education 2.55 3.27 405.5 2001.5 -2.480 .012 .006 .00 .07

Table 47 is a combination of a number of statistical tables: the left-hand side contains the mean
scores for the two subgroups; the middle part contains the statistics of the Mann-Whitney test – a non-
parametric two-independent-samples test that analyses between-group differences – together with the exact
significance values; and the right-hand side contains the eta-squared value, which is an indication of the de-
gree of variance that is explained by the independent variable, in this case the membership of Omicron and
Alpha. In the table, the boldface numbers indicate that significance values are at least at the ‘p < 0.05’ level.
The most interesting result in the table is that only 14 out of 85 RIPOSTI variables are significantly
different at Alpha and Omicron. This low number of differences confirms that the respondents at both
companies are fairly similar. Interestingly, four of the differences concern demographic variables:
respondents at Omicron are older, have been in the same department for many more years, and have a
significantly lower level of education. Moreover, there are hardly any shift-workers amongst the Omicron
respondents. Another factual difference is related to the usage of the new system: the percentage of
ShopFloorPC users at Alpha is higher than the percentage of PipeViewer users at Omicron, which is related
to the way in which the samples were defined.
The top half of the table contains the psychosocial variables that were significantly different. These
are hard to interpret, due to the demographic differences between the two groups. For example, the stronger
physiological and social needs at Omicron could indicate psychosocial differences between the respondents
at both organisations, but they could also be related to the existing differences in age and education.
Still, it is interesting to study Table 47 more carefully. At Omicron, physiological and social needs are
stronger, as well as the perceived sensory demands. This may be related to the higher number of extreme
person-environment misfits in the following way: when needs are stronger, but supplies are similar, then the
level of misfit is higher at Omicron. Similarly, when demands at Omicron are higher and abilities are similar,
the number of extreme demands-abilities misfits is higher. Organisational commitment at Omicron is higher
than at Alpha, but the same is true of commitment to the world outside the job. In contrast, respondents at
Alpha are significantly more satisfied with their colleagues. A final difference is related to an organisational
issue: the Omicron organisation is perceived as more formalised than Alpha.

In general, however, the differences between Alpha and Omicron respondents are few and not very
important, as indicated by the low eta-squared values in the table. Therefore, I want to argue that the
subsequent analyses performed on the total group of respondents from both companies are hardly influenced
by the minimal differences between the two groups.

278
2. Needs-based cluster analysis
Within the CHARISM framework, the theory about individual needs portfolios is argued to be
largely independent of the particular organisation in which the individual is employed, so it is interesting to
look at the complete group of respondents when studying needs portfolios in more detail.
1

5
Cluster1 (n=28) Cluster2 (n=14) Cluster3 (n=12) Cluster4 (n=26)
Physiological needs mean 1.58 2.29 1.31 2.28
Security needs mean 1.66 3.18 1.38 2.66
Social needs mean 2.19 2.26 1.38 3.12
Boss relation need 2.18 2.43 1.50 2.54
Esteem needs mean 2.14 1.54 1.54 2.63
Self-actualisation needs mean 2.77 2.00 2.17 3.14

Figure 79: Average needs dimension scores per needs-based cluster (n=80)

a) Needs values per cluster

The needs scores per cluster are presented in Figure 79. The bar chart shows some rather interesting
aspects about needs portfolios. Firstly, in clusters 1, 3 and 4 the physiological needs are the strongest, but not
for cluster 2, where the esteem and self-actualisation needs are strongest. What’s more, the 3 clusters clearly
show a downward slope that resembles the Maslow hierarchy described above (the slope lines were added by
me to illustrate the phenomenon). This downward slope is somewhat less pronounced for cluster 3, where all
needs – except the self-actualisation needs – are almost equally strong. Secondly, the respondents in cluster 2
are rather exceptional because of the low importance they attach to security needs, and the high importance
of esteem and self-actualisation needs. Finally, the most striking aspect of cluster 4 is the relatively low im-
portance of the social and altruistic needs of its members.

b) Further substantiation of the working hypotheses

Arguably, the interpretation of the needs-based clusters does not yet support the hypothesised role of
needs portfolios as a basis for distinguishing between different types of people. I argued that this is only the
case if these needs-based differences between respondents also lead to significant differences in other
RIPOSTI dimensions. These differences clearly exist in my sample, as was illustrated by the case
descriptions above. Interestingly, the number of significant differences is larger for the full group of
respondents that for the two sub-groups. Whereas the Omicron group revealed 29 differences related to
needs portfolios, and the Alpha group 9, the complete group shows 40 significant RIPOSTI dimensions
related to different needs portfolios. This finding strengthens the support for the first working hypothesis,
and increases the potential interest of the concept of needs portfolio for research on psychosocial
phenomena.

P1: Analyses of variance of respondents grouped by needs-based clusters show

statistically significant differences.

279
 Table 48 shows the statistics for the significantly different RIPOSTI dimensions when the group of
respondents is grouped according to their needs portfolios. The table contains the average scores for each
cluster, together with the statistics of the non-parametric analysis-of-variance92 and the value of eta-squared
which gives an indication of the variance explained by cluster membership.
Table 48: Cluster means overview of statistically significant cluster-based differences (n=80)
Cluster means Kruskal-Wallis test
Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Cluster4 Chi- Eta
(n= 28) (n= 14) (n=12) (n=26) Square df Sig. * Squared
Physiological N/S Misfits .55 .38 1.25 .29 9.75 3 .018 .16
Security N/S Misfits .81 -.04 1.27 .23 23.18 3 .000 .30
Social N/S Misfits .54 .16 .88 -.04 12.70 3 .004 .18
Boss relation N/S misfit .11 -.36 1.33 .25 12.16 3 .005 .15
All N/S misfits mean .63 .22 1.18 .21 17.60 3 .000 .24
Sum of extreme needs misfits 1.11 .57 3.42 .85 9.84 3 .020 .19

Quantitative Demands Mean 2.70 2.34 2.69 2.87 11.55 3 .009 .13
Cognitive Demands Mean 3.07 1.89 2.94 2.98 18.55 3 .000 .22
Sensory Demands Mean 1.90 2.52 1.58 2.53 16.96 3 .001 .22
Hide Feelings Demand 3.32 4.29 3.58 3.81 9.25 3 .020 .11
Hide Feelings D/A Misfit .07 1.29 -.08 .46 12.52 3 .004 .16
Sum of all extreme PE-misfits 2.71 2.36 5.75 1.58 10.73 3 .009 .18

Decision authority mean (control) 3.02 2.05 3.06 3.08 12.12 3 .006 .15
Skill discretion mean (control) 2.96 1.96 2.90 2.82 15.42 3 .001 .20

Freedom to take break 3.43 2.14 3.42 3.00 10.82 3 .010 .13

Organisational Commitment 2.46 1.93 2.63 2.51 8.01 3 .043 .08

Commitment to company 2.21 1.50 2.36 2.31 13.07 3 .003 .13
Commitment to task / project 2.14 1.46 2.36 2.31 13.88 3 .002 .14
Commitment to management 2.67 1.93 2.00 2.88 10.67 3 .012 .14
Commitment to subordinate 2.43 1.46 2.00 2.55 16.21 3 .001 .23
Commitment to world outside job 2.42 2.07 1.82 2.88 12.64 3 .003 .19

Satisf. with dept. management (5) 2.81 2.00 2.75 2.72 10.71 3 .012 .10

Anxiety Mean 2.71 4.05 2.94 2.99 17.99 3 .000 .23

Home / Job interface 3.07 2.39 2.96 2.87 8.84 3 .025 .12

Subjective health 2.64 1.93 2.50 2.85 11.47 3 .007 .12

# of sich days last year? 7.75 .86 12.58 8.04 12.08 3 .005 .05
Vitality mean 2.64 2.20 2.46 2.88 11.29 3 .008 .09
Somatic Strain Mean 4.08 4.89 4.19 4.27 19.84 3 .000 .18
Cognitive Strain Mean 4.29 4.52 4.31 3.89 10.53 3 .013 .13
All strains averaged 4.24 4.66 4.19 4.17 10.39 3 .014 .11

Organisational formalisation 3.04 3.14 2.13 3.15 16.23 3 .001 .21

PC use intensity 1.42 3.25 1.28 1.78 16.54 3 .001 .25

PC Use at Home 1.36 2.50 .67 2.00 8.86 3 .030 .10
Technology attitudes 2.85 1.90 2.90 2.65 14.31 3 .002 .20
Technology abilities 2.86 2.00 2.63 2.54 8.73 3 .028 .13
Negative Impact on Climate 3.15 3.75 3.00 3.57 8.55 3 .035 .14

Avg. # of working hours 37.52 43.82 37.59 38.78 10.23 3 .013 .24
Time of week (weekends) 1.21 1.71 1.17 1.08 8.84 3 .024 .11
Regular working hours (1 or 2) 1.07 1.43 1.08 1.15 9.44 3 .020 .12
Education 2.44 4.00 2.45 2.54 14.23 3 .002 .22
* Monte-Carlo Sig. based on 10000 samples. Computer memory was insufficient for calculating exact sig.

92
Please not that the table contains Monte-Carlo estimates of significance, and not the usual exact sig’s. The Monte Carlo Estimate is
“An unbiased estimate of the exact significance level, calculated by repeatedly sampling from a reference set of tables with the same
dimensions and row and column margins as the observed table. The Monte Carlo method allows you to estimate exact significance
without relying on the assumptions required for the asymptotic method. This method is most useful when the data set is too large to
compute exact significance, but the data do not meet the assumptions of the asymptotic method.” (SPSS 10.0 Help file)

280
 The first remarkable aspect of Table 48 is the relatively high value of eta-squared for the signifi-
cantly different variables: on average, needs-based-cluster membership explains 16% of the variance within
the variables in the table. The second remarkable aspect is that significant differences are found in quite
many RIPOSTI variables: individual psychosocial variables related to person-environment fit, control, com-
mitment, anxiety, health and stress; but also an organisational variable – perception of organisational forma-
lisation; and technology-related variables. Finally, different needs portfolios are also reflected in the demo-
graphic ‘education’ variable, and in three other factual measures (cf. the bottom of the table).

P1b: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters have different attitudes

towards technology
P3: Individuals that belong to different needs-based clusters have different education
levels
P1a: Individuals belonging to different needs-based clusters hold different job types

At Omicron hypotheses P1b and P3 were supported, while they were not supported at Alpha. Inter-
estingly, there is rather strong support for both when the analysis is based on the joint group of respondents.
The members of Cluster 2 (the self-actualising individuals) have had a significantly longer education than the
others, and they also show the most positive technology attitudes. The only hypothesis – related to needs
portfolios – where there is only partial support from the whole group of respondents is P1a. There is strong
statistical support for this hypothesis in the Omicron case, where the large majority of non-production work-
ers belongs to cluster 2, but the situation at Alpha is quite different, as is shown in Table 49.
Table 49: Cross-tabulation of job type and cluster per organisation

Cluster based on Omicron SAS seeds

Case 1 2 3 4 Total
Omicron case Recoded 1 1
jobtype
IT Person 1 3 4
Middle Manager 5 1 6
Top Manager 2 2
Unionist 2 2 4
Worker 19 1 11 10 41
Total 21 13 11 13 58
Alpha case Recoded Middle Manager 1 1 2 4
jobtype
Top Manager 1 1
Unionist 1 1
Worker 6 1 9 16
Total 7 1 1 13 22

There is partial support for the hypothesis in the sense that cluster 3 contains only production
workers, and cluster 2 mainly ‘others’. Moreover, the majority of production workers are distributed across
clusters 1 and 4. This distribution suggests that needs portfolios are associated with the type of job of the
respondent, but the distribution is not statistically significant. Further research on more balanced samples is
needed in order to find further support for this association.

In general, the analyses described above provide strong evidence for the potential importance of the
needs portfolio concept. When the data for 80 respondents in two different companies categorised by the
answers to 18 needs-based questions shows significant differences for about half of the independent
variables, this is an extremely strong indication for the importance of a typology of individuals in
psychosocial research and practice. In my research, I have used a needs-based typology since it fits into the
CHARISM framework, but other typologies exist that may be a basis for differentiating between types of
individuals.

281
3. Correlation analyses
The correlation analyses for the combined group of respondents provide quite some support for some
of the hypotheses in the CHARISM framework. The PE-fit measures are correlated with measures of mental
health and stress, but not as strongly as expected. An exploratory analysis suggests that the concept of mental
harmony is rather more complex than first assumed. I will discuss this issue more thoroughly in this
paragraph, but I first want to present the results of the data analyses regarding PE-fit correlations.

a) PE-fit correlations
The following working hypotheses were formulated with regard to PE-fit – as a measure of mental
harmony – and there is partial support for these hypotheses, as shown in the tables in Annex F1 on page 416
below, but the support is not as strong as expected, especially with regard to mental well-being and stress.

P9: PE-fit is positively correlated with mental well-being

P11: PE-fit is negatively correlated with stress indicators
P16: PE-fit is positively correlated with job satisfaction
P17: PE-fit is positively correlated with organisational commitment
P18: PE-fit is positively correlated with motivation
P19: PE-fit is correlated with perceptions of organisational characteristics
P20: PE-fit is positively correlated with a positive technology attitude

Annex F1a) provides the data related with propositions P9 and P11, Annex F1b) supplies the results
that substantiate propositions P16-P18, and Annex F1c) shows the correlations for propositions P19 and P20.

The first table shows that only few PE-fit measures are correlated with mental health and stress. The
strongest correlations exist between measures of needs-supplies fit and the absence-from-work of the re-
spondents. Next to that, only one summary measure shows a significant correlation: demands-abilities misfit
is correlated with self-reported health. In general, the table shows only sporadic correlations, and the sum-
mary measure of stress is not correlated with any of the PE-fit measures. Finally, the correlation coefficients
in the table are never very strong, especially when compared with Table 50 below.

The values of the correlation coefficients in the second table are remarkably higher than in the first,
and there are many more significant correlations. In fact, all measures of needs-supplies fit are correlated
with the three psychosocial dimensions of commitment, satisfaction and motivation, while only some of the
demands-abilities fit measures show significant correlations. In general, one can conclude that there is very
strong support for propositions P16-P18.

Finally, the third table shows a similar situation as the first, in the sense that only some of the PE-fit
measures show significant correlations with organisational and technological variables. Interestingly,
measures of needs-supplies fit correlate strongly with measures of organisational perception, and not with
technological measures, while partial measures of demands-abilities fit correlate with measures of
technological and organisational perception. The summary measures of organisational tension and
organisational humanity show the most and the strongest correlations with needs-abilities fit, while there is
no single technology measure that reveals more than a few significant correlations. In general, the third table
provides rather strong support for proposition P19, but only partial support for proposition P20.93

93
At this stage, I want to remind the reader that the correlations in the tables in this section are non-parametric Spearman
correlations. Throughout the statistical analyses, I have used such non-parametric techniques because of the small size of my sample
and the non-normal distribution of the responses.

282
 On the whole, I want to argue that the PE-fit measures that I have developed are potentially powerful
psychosocial constructs. In my sample, they are strongly related to job satisfaction, organisational commit-
ment and work motivation on the individual level, but also to measures of organisational perception. How-
ever, their relation with measures of mental health and stress is not as straightforward as expected. The
CHARISM theory suggested that a subjective perception of good PE-fit would lead to mental integrity,
which would in turn lead to mental harmony (reflected in mental health and low stress). The converse was
also hypothesised: a subjective perception of PE-misfit was expected to lead to inadequate integrity which
would in turn lead to stress. This was formulated in the following theoretical hypotheses.

H7: Integrity is achieved and preserved through an individual multi-stage signification

process, which entails – amongst others – subjective judgements of person-
environment fit
H8: Mental harmony is achieved when an individual perceives an adequate degree of
integrity
H9: Mental harmony leads to a sense of mental well-being
H10: Inadequate integrity is caused by
(a) person-environment misfit, or
(b) major changes in the environment
H11: Perceived inadequate integrity is stressful

The data from Alpha and Omicron suggest that subjective judgements of person-environment fit are
not strongly correlated with mental health (as a measure of mental well-being) or stress. Indirectly, this
finding provides support for one aspect of hypothesis H7, in the sense that subjective judgements of PE-fit
are not the only factors in an individual’s signification process, i.e. in achieving and preserving integrity. On
the other hand, the strong correlations of PE-fit with measures of commitment, satisfaction and
organisational perception do suggest that PE-fit plays a role in achieving integrity and mental harmony.

An exploratory analysis of the correlations between the main psychosocial measures in my data
reveals that other dimensions may also play a role in achieving mental harmony. The next paragraph
discusses this exploratory data analysis.

b) Other variables related to integrity and mental harmony

Table 50 on the next page provides the correlation coefficients of all major individual variables,
whereas Table 51 on page 286 shows the correlations of the major individual dimensions with measures of
organisational and technological perception.

283
 Table 50: Spearman correlations of the main psychosocial dimensions

mean
Mean
mean
mean
year?
interface

stressed?
Home / Job

Do you feel

Commitment
Vitality mean
Mental health

mean (control)
Organisational

All N/S misfits

Skill discretion
Meaning mean

All D/A Misfits

Subjective health

Satisfaction mean
# of sich days last

Social Community
All strains averaged
All N/S misfits mean 1.000 -.085 .395** .388** .321** .482** .519** .115 .202 -.044 -.061 .113 .297** -.092
All D/A Misfits Mean -.085 1.000 -.068 -.084 -.192 -.176 -.303** .018 .007 -.085 -.071 .264* .036 -.130
Skill discretion mean .395** -.068 1.000 .654** .578** .498** .569** .302** .250* -.299** .143 .278* .263* .087
Meaning mean .388** -.084 .654** 1.000 .542** .591** .609** .421** .480** -.290** -.100 .358** .358** -.066
Social Community mean .321** -.192 .578** .542** 1.000 .442** .581** .232* .231* -.288** -.044 .132 .256* -.130
Organisational Commitment .482** -.176 .498** .591** .442** 1.000 .593** .332** .377** -.278* -.129 .215 .425** -.043
Satisfaction mean .519** -.303** .569** .609** .581** .593** 1.000 .430** .424** -.335** -.043 .180 .345** -.130
Vitality mean .115 .018 .302** .421** .232* .332** .430** 1.000 .606** -.542** -.312** .582** .217 -.193
Mental health mean .202 .007 .250* .480** .231* .377** .424** .606** 1.000 -.421** -.341** .440** .116 -.164
All strains averaged -.044 -.085 -.299** -.290** -.288** -.278* -.335** -.542** -.421** 1.000 .338** -.430** -.196 .137
Do you feel stressed? -.061 -.071 .143 -.100 -.044 -.129 -.043 -.312** -.341** .338** 1.000 -.035 .178 .412**
Subjective health .113 .264* .278* .358** .132 .215 .180 .582** .440** -.430** -.035 1.000 .118 .019
# of sich days last year? .297** .036 .263* .358** .256* .425** .345** .217 .116 -.196 .178 .118 1.000 .093
Home / Job interface -.092 -.130 .087 -.066 -.130 -.043 -.130 -.193 -.164 .137 .412** .019 .093 1.000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
 The most striking feature of Table 50 is that the middle block of correlations between rows and col-
umns three and ten (marked by the dotted-line rectangle) contains only significant correlations, which indi-
cates that the following eight variables are significantly associated. Based on the strength of the correlation
coefficients, two groups can be distinguished within this block of measures: those that are related to one’s
job situation (the first 5 variables) and those that are related to individual health (the latter 3).

- Skill discretion (the opportunity to use one’s skills and abilities)

- Meaningfulness of one’s job
- The existence of a social community at work
- Organisational commitment
- Job satisfaction

- Vitality
- Mental Health
- Stress indicators

I want to argue that this block of significant correlations provides rather strong – albeit indirect –
support for the existence of an underlying concept such as integrity or mental harmony. In the literature on
work psychology, the psychosocial dimensions in the table are often treated as ‘stand-alone’ concepts that
are investigated in a rather fragmentary way. Some efforts towards integration have been undertaken, such as
(Locke, 1997), but these efforts are rather exceptional. Moreover, they are based on a theoretical
combination of different empirical findings, and not so much on a single empirical effort. That kind of work
often leads to rather complex models consisting of conscious and unconscious mental concepts and processes
that interact and are then argued to predict a certain dependent variable. On the basis of the correlation
coefficients in the table, it is impossible to argue that a certain variable is a predictor for another. For
instance, job satisfaction and organisational commitment are strongly correlated, and the literature contains
studies that support causality in both directions, i.e. some studies find that job satisfaction predicts
organisational commitment, while other studies find that organisational commitment predicts job
satisfaction. In my theoretical view, both dimensions are expressions of integrity and mental harmony, which
are not necessarily mutually predictive. It may well be that (a) commitment predicts satisfaction for one type
of individual, that (b) satisfaction predicts commitment for a second type of individual, and that (c) there is
no predictive relation between the two variables for a third type of individual.

By way of exploration, I have performed preliminary linear regression analyses on some of the major
individual-level dimensions in the model. The aim of linear regression analyses is to try and find out whether
models – consisting of a linear combination of one or more independent variables and a constant – can pre-
dict the value of a single dependent variable. In each analysis, 1 of the 14 variables from Table 50 was the
dependent variable while the 13 others were independent variables. The results of those analyses are avail-
able in Annex F3 on page 422, and illustrate the potentially complex associations between the different indi-
vidual dimensions. However, these linear regression analyses must be treated as indicative, because (a) my
sample is not large enough, and (b) my data do not have a normal distribution. The most striking aspect of
those preliminary analyses is the low explanatory value of the resulting models (adjusted R-squared). The
linear models often explain less than half of the variation in the dependent variable, and are therefore not
very valuable. For example, the model that suggests that job satisfaction is one of the three variables that
predicts organisational commitment only explains 48% of the variation in organisational commitment. One
possible explanation for this low predictive power is that other variables than the 14 RIPOSTI dimensions
play a role in explaining commitment. A second explanation for the low predictive power of the linear mod-
els is the existence of a more fundamental concept underlying psychosocial dimensions such as commitment.
The combination of the linear regression analyses results in a rather complex model of relations between the
major variables (represented in a diagram on page 422). I will not discuss this model in detail, because it is
based on preliminary analyses of a small sample, but also because I do not think there is any value in such a
discussion for the following reasons. Firstly, my theoretical conviction is that there is an underlying concept
of integrity that influences the ‘surface’ variables in different ways, depending on internal and external cir-
cumstances, and secondly, I have argued that different types of individuals have different signification proc-
esses. I do not believe that one single model can explain human psychosocial functioning within a rather di-
verse group of respondents.

285
 Indeed, while the correlations in Table 50 are valid for the whole group of respondents, there are re-
markable differences when the respondents are classified according to their needs portfolios. The correlation
tables for those subgroups are available in Annex F1 on page 416-ff. Those tables show different associa-
tions between the main variables for each cluster, but there are also quite some similarities. In the four sub-
groups, the five job-related variables remain significantly correlated, and in two of the clusters, the three
health-related variables are also strongly associated. This finding provides further indirect support for two
suppositions from the theory: (a) the constant significant correlations between the five job-related variables
indicate that those dimensions could be expressions of a – rather constant – underlying entity (integrity or
mental harmony), and (b) that individuals with different need portfolios have different ways of developing
integrity. The tables also indicate that the association between integrity (as represented by the 5 job-related
variables) and mental health / stress is only significantly strong for some types of individuals and not for oth-
ers. Moreover, the role of needs/supplies-fit is also different for the four clusters: for two of the groups, all 5
job-related variables are correlated with NS-fit, for the other two, only three of the 5 variables are correlated.
Again, the groups are too small to perform statistically valuable detailed analyses, but I did perform linear
regression analyses by way of exploration (cf. Annex F3, p.423-ff.). Those analyses indeed seem to indicate
that the four needs-based groups have rather different signification processes.

However, the fact remains that the five job-related variables are significantly inter-correlated for all
four needs-based groups. Interestingly, it is also those five variables that are most strongly correlated with a
number of measures of organisational perception, as is shown by the dotted-line rectangle in Table 51. The
correlations with measures of (mental) health are not as clear as those with the five job-related measures.

Table 51: Non-parametric correlations of the main psychosocial measures with measures of organisational and tech-
nological perception (n=80).
Organisational

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational
formalisation
Resistance to
tension mean

Management

Technology

Technology
information

PC Use at
humanity

attitudes
intensity

abilities
change

PC use

Home
Style

flow

All N/S misfits mean .411** -.176 .320** .357** .250* -.169 -.161 .008 .139 -.064
All D/A Misfits Mean -.134 .035 -.083 .031 .111 -.024 -.086 -.142 .307** .156
Skill discretion mean (control) .445** -.234* .422** .529** .181 -.135 -.362** -.168 .340** .214
Meaning mean .514** -.272* .333** .543** .268* -.076 -.133 .043 .255* -.045
Social Community mean .570** -.227* .454** .564** .166 -.183 -.055 -.017 .118 -.021
Organisational Commitment .467** -.231* .318** .429** .330** -.128 -.267* -.028 .191 -.053
Satisfaction mean .558** -.228* .552** .483** .447** -.162 -.159 .084 .094 -.012
Vitality mean .312** -.099 .419** .436** .292** .023 -.200 -.125 .228* .088
Mental health mean .326** -.265* .328** .369** .290** .016 -.188 -.064 .194 .104
All strains averaged -.243* -.019 -.224* -.251* -.018 .187 .199 .181 -.187 -.214
Do you feel stressed? -.053 .078 -.097 -.067 -.195 -.098 -.094 -.125 .108 .194
Subjective health .220 .075 .244* .371** .092 -.033 -.342** -.246* .383** .262*
# of sich days last year? .213 .067 .098 .179 .163 -.185 -.249* -.083 .289** -.022
Home / Job interface -.133 .090 -.113 -.208 -.306** -.230* -.287** -.311** .244* .278*
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The right-hand side of the table – containing the correlations with measures of technology perception
– reveals a rather different image than the left-hand side. The latter provides strong support for the
hypothesised association between the job-related measures of integrity and organisational perception, while
the former shows only partial support for the association with technology-related measures. Interestingly, the
different needs-based groups show significant differences in the way in which individual-level variables are
associated with measures of organisational and technology perception. But I will not discuss those tables in
detail, again because of the small size of my sample. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that these
analyses provide preliminary support for the existence of an underlying concept of mental harmony, and for
the importance of a typology of individuals.

286
B. Overview of hypotheses

In the previous section as well as in the previous chapters, I have tried to maintain the link between
the data analysis and interpretation on the one hand, and the working hypotheses on the other. In this way, I
have tried to achieve a fairly tight coupling between the cases and the theoretical framework. However, the
focus of the chapters was on the empirical data and its analyses. On the basis of the data, I tried to find sup-
port for the working hypotheses that were formulated in Chapter 7. The following step in this process is to
move still further away from the data and look at the theoretical hypotheses on which the working proposi-
tions were based. In this part of the process, it is important
1) to investigate the link between the theoretical hypothesis and the working proposition, then
2) to study the amount of support for the working proposition, and then
3) to evaluate the consequences for the theoretical hypothesis.

This section of the chapter contains 5 paragraphs, with a similar order and structure as Chapter 5 and
Chapter 7. First, I summarise the hypotheses at the individual level of analysis, followed by those that pertain
to the role of IT at that level. Then I look at the organisational-level hypotheses, followed by those related to
IT at the organisational level. And finally, I take a brief look at some cross-level issues. Each paragraph in
the section contains a table with an overview of the relevant hypotheses. The middle column of each table
contains a summary of the analysis techniques used, and the right-hand column contains the results of each
case study, as well as those of the cross-case analyses.

1. Individual-level hypotheses
The first group of hypotheses – the needs-related items H1, H1a, H1b and H3 – were operationalised by
introducing the following substitutions:

1. needs portfolio → importance attached to each of a bundle of 18 needs items

2. different type of individual → membership of a needs-based cluster
3. differences between types → analyses-of-variance of clusters for RIPOSTI dimensions
4. organisational roles and tasks → organisational function (job type)
5. skills and abilities → level of education of respondents.

The first substitution is rather straightforward in the sense that it considers the importance that each
respondent attaches to 18 items that reflect a specific human need. Different individuals will attach different
importance levels to each of the 18 items. I want to argue that this is a valid operationalisation of the
‘portfolio’ concept as a “structured and balanced bundle of items with different characteristics”.
The second substitution is based on a grouping of the respondents in clusters. The clustering technique
groups those respondents together for which the reported importance of the 18 needs items is most similar. In
this way respondents with similar needs patterns are grouped together, and a needs-based typology is created.
The third substitution operationalises ‘difference between types’ as analyses-of-variance between needs-
based groups of respondents for all major RIPOSTI dimensions. The analysis-of-variance technique tests
whether different groups of responses have significantly different distributions, and is thus an appropriate
way of finding differences between groups.
The fourth substitution considers the organisational function of an individual as a straightforward way of
looking at organisational roles and tasks. For example, the organisational function of a middle manager
contains different roles and tasks than the function of a blue-collar production worker.
The fifth substitution is different from the others, in the following sense: measuring skills and abilities in a
generalised way is not straightforward, especially in view of the variety of backgrounds of the respondents,
so the research instrument did not contain measures of skills and abilities. Therefore, the only way to
measure skills and abilities at a general level was to investigate the number of years of education of the
respondents.
The support for the working hypotheses for this first group can be found in Table 52, which contains
all theoretical hypotheses about psychosocial issues at the individual level-of-analysis, together with the
analysis techniques that were used to substantiate the working hypotheses, as well as the results of those
analyses, for both cases separately, as well as for the combined group of respondents.

287
 Table 52: Overview of hypotheses at the individual level of analysis
Analysis Result
H1: Different need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing differences between Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA Omicron: strong support.
different types of individuals (Kruskal-Wallis) Alpha: partial support.
Combined: strong support

H1a: Individuals with different need portfolios will generally prefer different Cluster analysis / Cross-tabulation Omicron: strong support.
organisational roles and tasks Alpha: not supported.
Combined: partial support

H1b: Individuals with different need portfolios have different attitudes towards Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA Omicron: partial support.
information technology (Kruskal-Wallis) Alpha: not supported.
Combined: strong support

H2: An individual’s needs portfolio is partly contingent on environmental

characteristics
H3: An individual’s needs portfolio is related to his/her skills and abilities Cluster analysis / Non-param. ANOVA Omicron: partial support.
(Kruskal-Wallis) Alpha: partial support.
Combined: strong support

H4: Individuals construct a relatively stable niche to live in, a niche which consists of
socially developed situations that reduce environmental complexity and allow semi-
automatic functioning
H5: Through socially situated functioning a semi-permanent set of meanings and
routines is created, the so-called ‘integrity of human functioning’
H6: An individual’s needs portfolio will partly determine the nature of his/her niche
and integrity
H7: Integrity is achieved and preserved through an individual multi-stage signification Exploratory Spearman (and partial) Combined: indirect support
process, which entails – amongst others – subjective judgements of person- correlation analyses of major
environment fit psychosocial variables
H8: Mental harmony is achieved when an individual perceives an adequate degree of
integrity
H9: Mental harmony leads to a sense of mental well-being -> Mental harmony is Spearman (and partial) correlations of Omicron: limited support;
strongly associated with a sense of mental well-being PE-fit and mental health Alpha: strong support;
Combined: limited support

H10: Inadequate integrity is caused by (a) person-environment misfit, or (b) major

changes in the environment
H11: Perceived inadequate integrity is stressful Spearman (and partial) correlations of Omicron: partial support;
PE-fit and stress indicators Alpha: limited support;
Combined: limited support

H12: Mental harmony and stress (mental disharmony) are extremes on a mental strain
scale, where mental strain is a measure of perceived inadequate integrity (person-
environment misfit)
H13: An individual will try to maintain or (re)establish mental harmony, i.e. an
individual will try to prevent mental strain
H14: Changes on the mental strain scale – reductions or increases of strain – are caused
by environmental change and/or personal change
H15: Sudden (dramatic) changes in mental strain level cause disruptions in integrity and
can become stressors in their own right
H16: Mental harmony leads to high (job) satisfaction --> Mental harmony is strongly Spearman correlations of PE-fit and job Omicron: Strong support;
associated with job satisfaction satisfaction Alpha: strong support;
Combined: strong support

H17: Mental harmony leads to high (organisational) commitment --> Mental harmony Spearman correlations of PE-fit and Omicron: Strong support;
is strongly associated with (organisational) commitment organisational commitment Alpha: strong support;
Combined: strong support

H18: Mental harmony leads to high job motivation --> Mental harmony is strongly Spearman correlations of PE-fit and job Omicron: Strong support;
associated with job motivation motivation Alpha: strong support;
Combined: strong support

H19: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived integrity and his/her Spearman correlations of PE-fit and Omicron: Partial support;
perception of his/her environment, including characteristics of his/her organisation organisational characteristics Alpha: strong support;
Combined: strong support

H20: There is a strong relation between an individual’s perceived integrity and his/her Spearman correlations of PE-fit and Omicron: not supported;
perception of organisational technology technology attitudes Alpha: limited support;
Combined: partial support

288
 The table shows mixed support for the working hypotheses concerning the role of needs portfolios:
P1 and P3 were rather strongly supported, while P1a and P1b show mixed results for both cases. The statisti-
cal analyses show significant differences between the four clusters that were found on the basis of the indi-
cated importance of needs items. These significant differences are found in the education level of the respon-
dents, but also in quite a number of psychosocial measures.
I want to argue that the theoretical hypotheses H1 and H3 are clearly supported by the data from the
two cases. The main conclusion from this part of the analysis is that needs portfolios are a potentially
powerful psychosocial concept that can explain differences in psychosocial behaviour between different
types of individuals. There are also indications that different types of people – distinguished by their needs
portfolios – may hold different organisational functions and may have different attitudes towards technology.

For hypothesis H7 no working hypothesis was developed, as it is very theoretically oriented.

However, H7 is indirectly supported by the exploratory correlation analyses of the major RIPOSTI
dimensions. It can be argued that this indirect support does not prove the existence of the ‘integrity of
functioning’ concept, nor of the suggested signification processes. However, the analyses do clearly indicate
that PE-fit plays a partial role in the respondents’ psychosocial functioning within their work organisation.
Moreover, the strong correlations between the major dimensions provide strong indications for the existence
of a unifying psychosocial mechanism through which perceptions of PE-fit, satisfaction, mental health and
stress are integrated.

For the other hypotheses in Table 52 the following substitutions were made for the working hypothe-
ses related to mental harmony:

1. Mental harmony → PE-fit (calculated as described on page 199 ff. in Chapter 8)

2. Leads to → is (positively / negatively) correlated (based on non-parametric Spearman correlations)
3. Perceived inadequate integrity is → PE-misfit

In the course of the case analyses, a problem was found in relation with substitution 2. This
substitution was found to be too directional, in the sense that the data do not allow us to make assumptions
about causality in the relationship between mental harmony and other psychosocial dimensions. For this
reason, the theoretical hypotheses in the table were reformulated: ‘Leads to’ was replaced by ‘is strongly
associated with’. The data analyses resulted in quite strong support for the majority of propositions. Only the
relations between PE-fit on the one hand and mental health (P9), stress (P11) and technology parameters
(P20) on the other got limited support. This limited support for some of the crucial hypotheses in the theory
led to an exploratory investigation of other candidate variables that could be considered as valid reflections
of an underlying ‘integrity’ or mental harmony. That exploratory analysis revealed that there were a number
of variables – other than PE-fit – that could be treated as reflections of mental harmony. Those other
variables revealed rather stronger correlations with measures of mental health and stress than did PE-fit, but
the correlations with technology-related measures remained rather weak.
With regard to the theoretical hypotheses H9, H11 and H16-H20, one may conclude that the
empirical data provide rather strong indirect evidence for the existence of a unified concept of integrity or
mental harmony, and that the concept of person-environment fit plays a role in the development /
maintenance of mental harmony, as well as other psychosocial dimensions, such as meaningfulness, social
community, etc. However, it was impossible – on the basis of the current empirical data – to determine
which of these dimensions are input variables and which are output variables, e.g. does PE-fit contribute to
the development of integrity or is it an outcome of the integrity process; or is job satisfaction needed in order
to develop a state of mental harmony, or is job satisfaction a reflection of an acquired state of mental
harmony. Much more research is needed if one wants to unravel the processes that are at work in the
establishment of such underlying generalised states as integrity or mental harmony.
Finally, the strong support for H19 suggests that an individual’s general state of mental harmony is
an important factor in his perception of the organisational reality that he operates in. Moreover, my empirical
data seem to suggest that PE-fit and mental harmony also play a partial role in the individual’s general
perception of organisational technology. Moreover, the exploratory analysis suggests that there also is an
association between an individual’s perception of his organisation and his perception of technology.
However, the support for H20 is not as strong as for the other hypotheses, which suggests that more
processes are at play in an individual’s perception of organisational technology.

289
2. IT on the individual level
Two types of substitutions were performed in the development of working propositions related to the
role of IT at the individual level: (a) for P21-23 the influence of new IT was studied by comparing test and
control groups at one point in time, i.e. after the introduction of a new IT system, and (b) for P23 & P27 the
role of new IT was studied by comparing respondents at two moments in time (for the Alpha case). In this
way, the synchronic and diachronic effects of new information technology were statistically analysed using
the following techniques:
1. synchronic comparison → analysis-of-variance between test and control group (Mann-Whitney
test) on all RIPOSTI dimensions
2. diachronic comparison → non-parametric tests of each group (test and control) at T1 and T2
3. diachronic comparison → non-parametric tests of combined group at T1 and T2
4. diachronic comparison → comparison of synchronic analyses-of-variance between test and
control group at T1 and T2
Table 53 shows that there was only little or partial support for the synchronic propositions P21, P22,
P23a, and the diachronic propositions P23b and P27. At Omicron, the new IT system seems to have made
little impact, and the significant differences between the test and control groups may well be attributed to
demographic differences. At Alpha, the ‘pure’ diachronic tests (numbers 2 and 3 above) show only few sig-
nificant differences. However, the comparison of the synchronic differences (number 4) shows that the dif-
ferences between the test and control groups have grown between T1 and T2, which indicates that the
changes that took place between the two points in time have made a substantially different impact on both
groups. At Alpha, the organisational and technological changes have had a certain impact, but it is impossi-
ble to ‘filter out’ the role of the new information system in the complex system of changes that took place in
parallel within the test group. The interview data confirm the limited impact of the IT system in both cases.

With regard to the theoretical hypotheses, one needs to conclude that the empirical data in the two
case studies do not provide clear and unambiguous support for the role of information technology in the
development / maintenance of integrity or mental harmony.
Table 53: Overview of hypotheses concerning IT at the individual level
Analysis Result
H21: Organisational information technology is a major part of an individual’s mental 1) Wilcoxon signed ranks test on test Omicron: limited support (only
harmony when IT has relevance for task performance, i.e. when the individual’s group and control group; 2) Wilcoxon test 3 at 1 point in time);
task or immediate task environment is contingent on the functioning of IT signed ranks test on combined group; 3) Alpha: partial support (mainly
Mann-Whitney test of differences test 3)
between test and control groups at T1
and T2

H22: Organisational IT is an integral part of an individual’s perceived idem as for H21 Omicron: limited support (only
demands/abilities fit relation, when the individual is directly confronted with IT, test 3 at 1 point in time);
i.e. when (s)he (needs to) use IT in the performance of his/her organisational tasks Alpha: partial support (mainly
test 3)

H23: Organisational information technology places demands on individuals that use it, idem as for H21 Omicron: limited support (only
but may also satisfy an individual’s needs test 3 at 1 point in time);
Alpha: partial support (mainly
test 3)

H24: For some types of individuals the perception of existing organisational

inconsistencies – internal and mutual misfits within and between organisational
and IT characteristics – will prevent adequate integrity.
H25: Implementation of new IT will initially increase an individual’s level of mental
strain, but this increase will be stronger when the individual can not participate in
the development and implementation process
H26: Implementation of ‘uncustomisable’ information systems may cause strong
signification conflicts and may thus cause strongly increased mental strain

H27: Implementation of new organisational IT may change individual fit relations – by idem as for H21 Alpha: partial support (mainly
placing new demands, making abilities obsolete or by satisfying different needs – test 3)
and may thus be a potential cause of mental strain
H28: Implementation of new organisational IT may influence individual perceptions of
(in)consistencies at an organisational level – internal and mutual misfits between
organisational and IT characteristics, and may thus be a cause of mental strain

290
3. Organisational-level hypotheses
The empirical results at the organisational level-of-analysis are of a quite different nature. Firstly,
because the theoretical hypotheses were based on a theory that was more innovative than at the individual
level, there was little existing theoretical groundwork. Secondly, the theoretical model contains some
concepts that are hard to develop empirically, such as organisational needs portfolios, organi-strain or
organisational signification. Finally, the two-case research design allowed quantitative analyses across
multiple (types of) individuals, but not across multiple (types of) organisations.
Therefore, many of the hypotheses have not been investigated empirically, as witnessed by the empti-
ness of the middle and right-hand columns in Table 54. And the others were mainly investigated through
qualitative techniques, with only a limited use of quantitative techniques. Before discussing the empirical
results, I will briefly describe the substitutions that were made in the development of the working proposi-
tions.
Table 54: Overview of hypotheses at the organisational level of analysis.
Analysis Result
H29: Organisations have needs that they want to fulfil in order to survive and remain
healthy

H30: Different organisational need portfolios are a basis for distinguishing between
different types of organisations

H30a: Organisations with different need portfolios will generally prefer different roles
and tasks within their environment, i.e. different needs portfolios are reflected in
different strategic orientations
H30b: Organisations with different need portfolios have different attitudes towards
information technology

H31: An organisation’s needs portfolio is partly contingent on characteristics of its

environment

H32: An organisation’s needs portfolio is related to its skills and abilities

H33: Organisations construct a relatively stable niche to function in, a niche which
consists of socially developed situations that reduce environmental complexity and
allow semi-automatic functioning
H34: Through socially situated functioning a semi-permanent set of meanings and
routines is created, the so-called ‘integrity of organisational functioning’

H35: An organisation’s needs portfolio will partly determine the nature of its niche and
integrity

H36: Organisational integrity is achieved and preserved through a multi-stage Qualitative: Participation & Interview Omicron: partial support;
organisational signification process, which entails – amongst others – multi- analysis - Quantitative (both Alpha: unable to establish - due
subjective judgements of organisation-environment fit synchronically & diachronically): A) to little participation data
Betweeen- and within stakeholder group
differences. B) Perceptions of worker
psychology

H37: Organisational harmony is achieved when an adequate organi-self perceives an

adequate degree of organisational integrity

H38: Organisational harmony leads to organisational well-being

H39: Inadequate organisational integrity is caused by (a) inadequate organi-self (no A) Betweeen- and within stakeholder Omicron: Partial support for
common perception among internal stakeholders), (b) perceived organisation- group differences. B) Perceptions of existence of inadequate
environment misfit, or (c) major changes in the environment or the organisation worker psychology C) Linguistic organisational integrity caused
analysis (We/they) by (a), (b) and (c); Alpha:
Partial support for inadequate
integrity caused by (b) and (c)

H40: Perceived inadequate organisational integrity is stressful Exploratory discussion of 'Organisation Substantiation is difficult to
under strain' - Analysis of OrgCon measure. Omicron: limited
climate variables support; Alpha: not supported

H41: Organisational harmony and organi-stress (organisational disharmony) are

extremes on an organi-strain scale, where organi-strain is a measure of perceived
inadequate integrity (organisation-environment misfit)
H42: An organisation will try to maintain or (re)establish organisational harmony, i.e.
an organisation will try to prevent organi-strain

H43: Changes on the organi-strain scale – reductions or increases of strain – are caused
by environmental change and/or organisational change

291
 Hypothesis H36 and H39 were each developed into two working propositions (a and b), which use the
following substitutions:

1. multi-subjective judgements of organisation-environment fit → comparing different stakeholders’

perception of the characteristics of the organisation and its environment
2. multi-subjective judgements of organisation-environment fit → comparing users’/workers’ average
answers regarding psychological climate with other stakeholders’ expectations of workers’ answers

Moreover, propositions P39a and P39b added substitution nr.3, and P40 introduced an operationalisation
of ‘stressful’ at the organisational level-of-analysis.

3. inadequate organi-self (no common perception among internal stakeholders) → large differences in
perception within and between different stakeholder groups
4. stressful → stakeholders’ perception of organisational strain

The empirical data provide only partial support for working propositions P36a and P36b, which were
related to the suitability of the techniques used to measure organisational signification. The data analysis at
Alpha revealed that no solid conclusions can be drawn based on quantitative data alone, and that the
interviews were not sufficient either. Differences that were found in the quantitative data were often
supported by the interview data and vice versa, but the close observation during my participation allowed a
more valid interpretation of the findings. At Omicron, it was mainly my own experience as observer /
participant in the organisation that supported the suggestion that there was a certain level of internal and
external organi-strain. The problem with this interpretation is that my own experience as a member of the
Omicron organisation may have acted as a filter in the interpretation of the data. That is why the
triangulation of the different data sources at Omicron was important, since it allowed a more objective
analysis of the data.
Both empirical techniques (items 1 and 2 above) provide information about internal organisational
signification, but in a different way. The first technique – comparing answers to questions about the
organisation and its environment (OrgCon) – provides a good way of analysing signification differences
amongst the most organisationally active stakeholder groups, i.e. those that have a rather complete overview
of the organisational situation. The second, on the other hand, seems to be a good way of analysing
signification differences between workers – who have a more limited organisational perception – and other
stakeholders.
Based on the combined qualitative and quantitative techniques, I think that there is partial support
for the existence of internal and external organi-strain. Both organisations report a high level of external
organi-strain, mainly due to the international market situation of European manufacturing companies. With
regard to internal organi-strain, it is especially Omicron where there is a fairly high level of disagreement
within and between stakeholder groups, which points in the direction of an increased level of organi-strain.

On the whole, one may conclude that the combination of qualitative and quantitative empirical
instruments was useful in determining signification processes and levels of organi-strain within the context
of a case study – ideally in combination with a certain level of observation / participation. However, further
research is needed to enhance the techniques and make them usable in different research settings. Moreover,
it remains difficult to determine respondents’ perception of organi-strain.

At the theoretical level, one may conclude that there is only partial support for the existence of the
concept of organisational integrity. It is difficult to draw conclusions with regard to the hypotheses, mainly
because of the highly speculative nature of some of the main theoretical concepts. As yet, little is known
about the nature and functioning of organisational-level signification processes. It can be argued that
organisational climate and culture reflect aspects of such signification activities, but more research is needed
to establish the existence and functioning of this kind of processes. Finally, the association between the
‘objective’ presence of organi-strain and respondents’ perception of organi-strain remains a topic for further
research.

292
4. IT on the organisational level
In contrast to the previous paragraphs, no working hypotheses were developed for this part of the
theory and no substitutions were made. Therefore, the evaluation of the hypotheses is limited to a discussion
of the support that was found in the interview and case analyses. Of course there were major differences
between the two cases regarding the role of IT. The experimental status of the BlueTech project at Omicron
turned out to be rather interesting case material that provided direct partial support for some of the
hypotheses. At Alpha, the ‘unproblematic’ role of IT in the whole of the organisational change only provided
indirect support for the hypotheses.
For example, it can be argued that the experimental status of the BlueTech project and the status of the
developing department led to a low involvement of stakeholders in the development project, which in turn
resulted in signification conflicts within Omicron. As such, this is partial – but direct – support for
hypothesis H50. At Alpha, all stakeholders have been involved throughout the whole change process, and
there was hardly any discussion about the need to have the necessary IT-tools to support the new role of the
production workers. There do not seem to have been signification conflicts regarding the role of IT, partly
because it was only a minor part of the overall change process. As such, this lack of signification conflicts is
only indirect support for the importance of stakeholder involvement in IT implementation projects.

Overall, the two cases provide only partial support for the hypotheses in Table 55. The project at Al-
pha is an example of a case where a holistic approach resulted in a major change effort in which the new in-
formation technology was an integrated part. The aim of the IT-implementation was to provide workers with
the necessary tools for their new working situation, i.e. it prevented a potential misfit (H48) where self-
managing workers were lacking the tools to be really self-managing. The new IT system was incompatible
with the old way of working at Alpha, but it fitted into the new way of working (H49), and therefore did not
create signification conflicts at the time of the organisational turnaround. All relevant stakeholders were in-
volved in the decision-making regarding the organisational change (H50), and that may have contributed to a
rather ‘smooth’ transition, without major signification conflicts regarding the new technology. The organisa-
tional change project was preceded by a thorough organisational analysis (H51), which revealed that a major
change was needed to solve existing misfits between the organisation and its environment.
Table 55: Overview of hypotheses regarding IT at the organisational level
Analysis Result
H44: Organisational information technology is an integral part of the organi-self’s
perceived demands / abilities and needs/ supplies fit relations, which play a major
role in establishing organisational integrity
H45: Different internal stakeholders will perceive different IT needs and environmental Interview analysis Omicron: Partial support;
IT demands and will therefore contribute different perspectives to the organi-self’s Alpha: No data available
signification process. When no common perspective can be developed, organi-
strain may arise
H46: Due to their different needs portfolios, different organisations will perceive
different environmental IT demands and internal IT needs

H47: Implementation of new organisational IT is an organisational change project, that

will initially increase the level of organi-strain, due to changes to existing
organisational niches
H48: New information technology is often introduced with the aim of resolving existing Interview and case analysis Omicron: Partly perceived by
misfits, i.e. in order to remove or decrease existing organi-strain, but it may also mid-man; Alpha: Indirect
unintentionally create new misfits support.
H49: Implementation of new organisational information systems may introduce Case analysis Omicron: Partly supported ;
incompatible meanings and perceptions, and create signification conflicts within Alpha: Indirect support
an organisation, especially when the systems are ‘uncustomisable’
H50: The chance of signification conflicts during IT implementation projects can be Case analysis Omicron: Partly supported;
minimised by involving as many relevant stakeholders as possible in the Alpha: Indirect support
signification process before, during and after the introduction of new IT
H51: The existing degree of (dis)harmony is an important contingency when developing Case analysis & OrgCon analysis Omicron: Partly supported;
and introducing new IT. Thorough and holistic analysis of existing misfits can help Alpha: Indirect support
predict and prevent potential new misfits
H52: Introducing new IT in an organisation with an inadequately developed organi-self, Case analysis Omicron: Partly supported;
i.e. an organisation with fundamental disagreements between internal stakeholders, Alpha: not applicable.
will further increase existing organi-strain levels

293
 The project at Omicron, on the other hand, is an example of a case where a piecemeal approach
resulted in a rather small implementation project that triggered little organisational change. Different
stakeholders perceived quite different IT needs, and had different perspectives on the role of information
systems within the organisation, especially in relation to the production planning system (H45). The idea of
introducing the BlueTech system was to achieve a higher involvement of production workers in their work
by allowing them to do their own production planning, and thus to remove an existing misfit. However,
allowing workers to ‘mess up’ the strict production planning was perceived by many managers as creating a
misfit, because it deviated too strongly from the existing organisational processes (H48). Moreover, the
original systems design (the stock-exchange tool) would have introduced a completely new set of meanings,
and would have created major signification conflicts within the organisation (H49). Next to that, the original
experimental status of the project implied that not enough stakeholders were involved in the decision-process
or in the development of the system, which resulted in signification conflicts (H50). The organisational
analysis has shown that there was a significant degree of disharmony at Omicron regarding the current and
future situation of the company, and these disagreements were also reflected in the opinions on the role of
technology. As such, they were an important contingency in the project (H51). Finally, the disagreements
between the opposing ‘clans’ within the organisation were strengthened by the last-minute efforts to increase
understanding for the BlueTech project and its goals (H52). The different participants had finalised their
signification processes and were unwilling to re-negotiate their now-fixed opinions of the project.

Overall, the two case studies provide partial support for the theoretical hypotheses that were
formulated regarding the role of IT within the organisational level-of-analysis in the CHARISM framework.
There is no strong support for the existence of the postulated processes, but the empirical data suggest that
the CHARISM theory constitutes a potentially interesting research approach to the topics involved in the
implementation of new organisational technology.

294
5. Cross-level issues
Table 56 presents the hypotheses from the CHARISM theory regarding those issues that provide a link
between the organisational and the individual levels-of-analysis. Only one of those hypotheses could be
tested in the context of the two case studies and two substitutions were made:
1. level of perceived organisational integrity → cluster analysis based on RIPOSTI items concerning
organisational climate
2. an individual’s world-view and mental harmony → remaining psychosocial RIPOSTI variables
The two cases provide quite some support for the resulting working hypothesis:
Table 56: Overview of hypotheses regarding cross-level issues of the CHARISM theory.
Analysis Result
H53: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by the world
view and mental harmony of his/her relevant others both within and outside his/her
organisation
H54: An individual’s world-view and mental harmony is strongly influenced by Cluster analysis based on climate Omicron: partial support;
associated with the level of organisational integrity (s)he perceives / experiences perception. Mann-Whitney test of Alpha: partial support
cluster differences
H55: Organisational harmony is strongly influenced by the mental harmony of its
leading individuals, i.e. the leaders of its internal stakeholder (sub-)groups

H56: Organisational harmony is influenced by the mental harmony of its members, and
to a lesser extent by the harmony of its external stakeholders

H57: A new organisational information system that has a substantial impact on the level
of organi-strain, will have an influence on the mental strain level of all members of
an organisation
H58: A new organisational IS that has a substantial impact on the mental strain level of
a leading member of an organisation (or a sufficient number of members), will
have an effect on the organi-strain level
H59: The effect of hypotheses H57 and H58 will be stronger when the introduction of a
new IS increases (mental or organi-)strain levels

H60: The mental strain level of the change agent in a project of information system
development and introduction, will have a strong influence both on individual
mental strain levels and on the organi-strain level

Please note that the working proposition focuses only on a single aspect of perceived organisational
integrity, namely the perception of internal organisational climate. The technique used to support this
proposition clusters respondents into two extreme groups according to their perception of the organisational
climate, and then investigates whether the two groups are significantly different in their perception /
reporting of individual psychosocial variables. In both cases, quite a number of statistically significant
differences were found, indicating a strong association between measures of individual psychosocial
functioning and measures of organisational perception.

At the theoretical level, the causality implied in hypothesis H54 cannot be supported by the
statistical technique that was used. Therefore, the wording of the hypothesis was changed from ‘is strongly
influenced by’ to ‘is strongly associated with’. The conclusion from this paragraph seems to be that an
individual’s perception of his own state-of-mind and his perception of the social and organisational
environment are closely related, and that it is difficult to separate the two in practice.

This concludes the overview of the empirical results of my research projects. In the next section, I
want to pick up with extant literature by briefly summarising some research contributions that were
published in the last three years, i.e. since the start of the empirical part of my research.

295
C. Recent research

In the course of any lengthy research project, a lot of relevant research is published in books and
journals while the researcher is working on the empirical part of his project. In order to avoid having to
perpetually re-write the theoretical chapters that were at the start of this thesis, I decided to add a separate
section in this discussion chapter. In this section, I want to briefly refer to some of the relevant literature that
appeared after – or which I first discovered after – the final theory-building phase of my project. Of course,
this overview is by no means complete, nor meant to be complete. I only want to briefly refer to some of the
research within the three research paradigms that has high relevance for the concepts and constructs in the
CHARISM theory.

1. IS literature
A recent bundle of papers edited by Clarke, Coakes, Hunter & Wenn (2003) presents a number of
relevant contributions within the socio-technical research paradigm. Whereas Avison & Wood-Harper
(2003) reflect on the history and future of their Multiview framework94, Tatnall (2003) discusses the possible
relevance of actor-network theory for research in information systems. Koskela and Kazi (2003) discuss the
limited success of IT in the construction industry and conclude – amongst others – that more emphasis needs
to be placed on how organisational and managerial changes can be effectively supported by IT rather than by
utilising IT as the driving force for organisational change. In the Omicron case, the latter assumption was
also made, namely that IT could act as a catalyst for organisational change, and there too it was shown that
organisational and managerial changes were needed in parallel with or even prior to the introduction of IT.
du Plooy (2003) discusses another point that has some relevance for my work, namely the social role of IS
developers, more specifically the frequent incompatibility of the goals and assumptions of the IS professional
with those of the (people in the) organisation for which the IS is being developed. du Plooy argues that it is
the responsibility of IS professionals to "recognise and understand the consequences of the adoption and use
of information systems", or more generally, to "cultivate and nurture [the] human environment" which he
defines as the sum of all the ethical, philosophical, social, political and organisational issues that relate to
information systems adoption and use. A similar argumentation was presented in Chapter 5 above, where I
discussed the role of the change agent as an intermediary in the signification process. Major signification
differences between the participants in an IS development project can be the cause of an increased level of
strain. A similar discussion is presented in (Howcroft & Wilson, 2003), a journal paper that discusses the so-
called Janus role of the systems developer, who is often 'caught' between the sponsors and the envisaged end-
users of an IS: "The analogy of the two-headed Roman god, Janus, is made in relation to the role of the sys-
tems developer, in order to emphasize the incompatibility of needs of organizational members."
The most interesting chapter from the point of view of my research, however, is the one by Doherty
and King, who present an update on their previous work, which I discussed in Chapter 2 on page 14 above.
Doherty & King (2003) provide a provisional definition of the term ‘organisational issue’ and discuss a
methodology for ‘organisational impact analysis’. Organisational issues are “[t]hose issues which need to be
treated during the systems development process to ensure that the individual human, wider social and eco-
nomic impacts of the resultant computer-based information system are likely to be desirable.”(Doherty &
King, 2003, p.25) The authors regard organisational impact analysis as the “mechanism by which the project
team should align the capabilities afforded, and the constraints imposed, by the technical system with the
requirements and characteristics of an organisation and its individual employees”(ibid.) The type of align-
ment that the authors suggest strongly resembles the type of fit – at the organisational and individual levels
of analysis – which I discuss in the CHARISM theory. They stress the importance of the capabilities and
constraints of the information system on the one hand and the requirements and characteristics of (a) the or-
ganisation and (b) the individual users on the other.
In their chapter, Doherty & King propose a proactive and flexible approach for treating organisa-
tional issues. The ideal approach according to the authors would be one where the development team per-
forms regular impact analyses for each of the issues enumerated in Table 57 – an approach that is similar to
the one I suggested in my discussion of the process aspects of the CHARISM framework in Chapter 5
(p.158). Doherty and King suggest that, when it looks like the project might produce undesired results (mis-

94
Earlier work by these authors was discussed in Chapter 2.

296
fits), the development team needs to carefully consider and choose options to avoid – or repair – those re-
sults. The authors provide a flowchart that specifies those options for different situations. Those options in-
clude alterations to the intended systems design, organisational change measures, and even total project abor-
tion to avoid ever-increasing costs (cf. also Keil & Montealegre, 2000, Lyytinen, 2000 #1370). Interestingly,
the authors use the same proactive approach not only if the IS development project is set to produce unde-
sired results, but also if it looks like the project might not produce the desired results. The latter is an
interesting addition to my theory, since I have mainly focused on misfits as undesired results, but one could
argue that a misfit also occurs when a desired result does not obtain.
Table 57: Classification of organisational issues according to (Doherty & King, 2003).

Category Specific Issues / Areas of Impact

* Ability to satisfy current needs of organisation

Organisational Contribution: Issues * Capacity to support future needs of organisation

relating to the extent to which it is
envisaged that the financial, operational
and strategic performance of an
organisation will be enhanced through
the introduction of a new system.
* Prioritisation of tasks, in line with organisational
needs
* Degree of alignment with information systems
strategy

* Assessment of impact on key business processes

* Assessment of health & safety/ergonomic

Human-Centred Issues: This category
focuses on issues relating to the
interface between individual users and
the proposed system. These issues can
significantly affect the system's usage
and ultimately its level of success.
implications
* Evaluation of user motivation / needs
* Assessment of implications of user working styles /
IT skills
* Consideration of job redesign implications

* Impact on organisation's structure

Organisational Alignment: This
group of issues focuses upon the degree
* Implications for organisational culture
of alignment between a proposed
system and its organisational context.
* Effect on distribution of power

Transitional Issues: This class is

* Consideration of timing of implementation
concerned with those practical issues
which might affect the successful
transition to the new system. * Assessment of organisational disruption

Another interesting aspect of Table 57 is that some of the issues are quite similar to some of the
CHARISM issues, both at the organisational and the individual level. At the individual level the authors con-
sider (a) health implications (in the second group of issues), which may include stress and well-being, (b)
evaluation of user motivation and user needs, and (c) assessment in terms of skills – though limited to IT
skills. At the organisational level (a) organisations are argued to have needs – both current and future – that
need to be satisfied, (b) impacts on organisational structure and culture are analysed, and (c) the level of or-
ganisational disruption (organi-strain and –stress) are assessed. It can be argued that the CHARISM frame-
work is within the same school of thought as the Doherty & King chapter, as regards the main issues. How-
ever, the authors indicate that more research is needed in order to develop instruments for organisational im-
pact analysis, and that that will be the next step on their research agenda. Arguably, the instruments that I
used in the empirical part of my research are a step in that direction.

297
Amongst the other relevant papers within the IS literature I want to mention the following two.
- Capretz (2003) describes a short study in which he studied personality types of software engineers in the
US, using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument, one of the most often used instruments
for this type of analysis. His conclusion is that software engineers are "a unique group of individuals. Al-
though software engineering attracts people of all psychological types, certain traits are clearly more
represented than others in the field." More specifically, software engineers (80% of his sample were
men) tend to be more introvert (vs. extravert) and thinking (vs. feeling) than the average American. From
a CHARISM perspective, this is an interesting result, because this means that – on average – software
engineers will have different signification mechanisms than the people they need to work with in
development projects. The author formulates it in the following way: "As a matter of fact the software
field is dominated by introverts, who typically have difficulty in communicating with the user. This may
partially explain why software systems are notorious for not meeting users' requirements. [...] In fact,
the greatest difference between software engineers and the general population is the percentage that
takes action based on what they think rather than on what somebody else feels." (p.214)
- A final interesting contribution is a paper by Han, Yoon & Kim (2000) on the role of computer-based
information systems in organisational growth. They developed a simple typology of information systems
based on two major dimensions, each of which contains three categories, resulting in a 3 x 3 matrix
where Purpose of information processing contains the categories (a) processing high volumes of data,
(b) processing a variety of information, and (c) processing a high quality of information. The second
dimension Scope of information processing is further divided into (a) intra-process, (b) inter-process,
and (c) inter-organization. The authors used this framework to investigate the roles of information
systems in the different stages of the organisational life cycle, by performing a longitudinal study of a
major South-Korean car production company. They showed that the company focused on different IS
roles during the different stages of its organisational growth. From a CHARISM perspective, this paper
offers two main contributions. Firstly, the authors have developed a simple typology of information
systems that seems to be an interesting complement to the draft typology that I discussed in chapters 1
and 5. And secondly, they posit a kind of 'alignment' or fit between the stages in the organisational life
cycle and the roles of the organisational information system

2. Work psychology
A first interesting contribution within the literature on work psychology / organisational behaviour,
is a paper by Ely Greenblatt (2002), in which she presents research on work/life balance with a focus on is-
sues of Personal Resource Management (PRM). She argues convincingly that it is becoming a major chal-
lenge for organisations to find and retain the most talented employees, and that organisations will have to
carefully consider implementing strategies of work/life balance as a source of competitive advantage. "Sim-
ply put, achieving work/life balance depends on obtaining and managing sufficient resources to do, have or
be those things that are most important to people. For most, this means meeting one's real and perceived
personal and work obligations, and thereby satisfying the key needs of both oneself and those one is commit-
ted to support." (p.179) The three types of resources most often discussed in relation to work/life balance are
temporal resources, financial resources and control. However, these three types of resources are the products
of social contracts, accomplished through negotiations that are situated in a number of carefully balanced
social systems, which in turn are easily disturbed. Next to these three major types, the author discusses a
fourth type of resources: the so-called personal resources, which are to be found in the physical, psychologi-
cal, cognitive, and social realms. Personal resources are argued to provide "the fuel necessary for an individ-
ual to engage with and accomplish all of life's activities." The author argues that employers and employees
will have to make sure that they find the right balance for each individual between obligations at work and at
home, to avoid depleting the individual’s personal resources. In this context, the author defines the concept
of average personal resource level (APRL): the relative amount of energy and ability available to him or her
from all four key personal resources. The author distinguishes four ranges of personal resources: the optimal,
normal, reserve and burnout ranges. Figure 80 shows how an individual's APRL can fluctuate through time
and how certain events or actions can enhance or deplete one's personal resources. Depending on the range in
which an individual's APRL is situated, depleting or enhancing events or actions will have different effects.
If a person's APRL is within the reserve or burnout range, an enhancing event will have a much weaker ef-
fect than if the person's APRL is within the normal or optimal ranges. On the other hand, a weak depleting
event (e.g. a slight remark by one's manager) can have an enormous depleting effect when one's personal

298
resource level is in the reserve or burnout range, while it only has a minor effect (or no effect at all) when the
individual's personal resources are in the normal or optimal range.

Figure 80: Personal resource model (from Greenblatt, 2002, p.183)

The Greenblatt paper describes a model that has several similarities with the CHARISM model.
Firstly, the model takes its point of departure in the individual's needs that are to be satisfied both at work
and at home. Secondly, the individual's personal resources are defined as energy and ability and can thus be
conceptualised as similar to a person's abilities, as meant in the CHARISM model. On the whole, the
Greenblatt model can very well be considered as complimentary to the PE-fit model. Finally, perhaps the
most striking resemblance between the two theoretical models is the conceptualisation of personal resources
through time, which is very similar to the dynamic model of individual strain. The strain model also
contained a number of ranges, with harmony as the state where person-environment fit obtained, strain as the
state where there was a 'bearable' level of strain, and stress as a state where the strain-level had crossed an
individual ‘problematic’ threshold level. Indeed, the burnout range in Greenblatt's model can be compared
with the stress range in my model, while the optimal range can be compared with the harmony level in my
model. However, the ranges between these two extremes are different in the two models: Greenblatt specifies
the normal and the reserve ranges, whereas I only specified the strain range. It is worthwhile to briefly
reflect on the absence of a normal range in my model. Is there a ‘normal’ state in the PE-fit model, and if so,
how could that be conceptualised? Is the state of harmony the normal state or can one think of a certain level
of strain / PE-misfit as being normal, while a higher level of strain / PE-misfit would be considered as using
up reserve energy? Or can one consider the reserve range as a range where the stress threshold has been
crossed, with burnout as an extreme case of stress? These are interesting reflections, and will need to be
considered in future research efforts.

From the other research that has been published in this area in the last three years, I want to briefly
mention a few interesting ones. The first five studies are related to research on occupational strain.
- Firstly, the Commission of the European Communities has dedicated quite some attention to the issue of
work-related stress in recent years, as witnessed by a number of initiatives, such as the European Week
for Safety and Health at Work in November 2002. In general, there has been an increased awareness of
the economic and social impact of work-related stress throughout the EU, especially around the turn of
the century (Cox, Griffiths, Rial-González, & European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2000).
This has been reflected in a number of reports published by the recently established European Agency
for Safety and Health at Work, especially on psychosocial issues and the practical application of those
issues (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2002).

299
- Stress-related research has also continued outside the context of the European institutions. A longitudinal
Danish project at the Arbejdsmiljøinstitut – which used part of the COPSOQ instrument that I used – re-
cently published a methodological report (Nielsen, Kristensen, & Smith-Hansen, 2002), as well as an in-
ternal working paper (Nielsen & Smith-Hansen, 2002). The major findings concern the statistical validity
and reliability of the instruments, but the study also shows that health-related absence from work is re-
lated to gender, age, 'social level', but also strongly to perceived psychosocial climate. Interestingly, the
study shows that after an intervention targeted at ameliorating the psychosocial climate the absence from
work decreased significantly, while there was no decrease in those organisations where no intervention
took place. The researchers argue that this finding is strong support for a causal link between psychoso-
cial climate and health-related absence from work. This kind of research is relevant, in the sense that it
shows the economic and social importance of psychosocial climate, but also because it supports the reli-
ability of the instruments that I used.
- The same institute has recently published another interesting study by Jensen, Netterstrøm & Borg
(2003). In the ARIT study (ARbejdsmiljø indenfor IT-branchen), Jensen and her colleagues studied the
psychosocial climate amongst 808 IT-people in 6 participating companies within the Danish IT industry.
The study was performed through a number of interviews and a questionnaire that used parts of
COPSOQ, the same AMI-instrument that I have used as the basis for RIPOSTI. The researchers found
that the IT industry was characterised by a high level of job involvement and commitment, but also by a
high level of stress, probably related to extreme quantitative demands (accumulation of work), high job
insecurity (especially in more recent years) and bad conflict resolution on the part of management. One
can safely assume that IT-workers have a rather different needs portfolio than the participants in my
research, a portfolio that is probably characterised by a high need for self-actualisation and esteem. One
of the reasons for organising the study was the high level of ‘stress’-casualties in recent years, when the
so-called dotcom hype caused IT-workers to spend most of their time at the job, working much too many
hours and under an immense pressure to keep coming up with the most innovative technologies. The IT-
industry has come to realise that – if it wants to remain or become a viable industry – it needs to pay
much closer attention to the psychosocial working climate of its employees. The ARIT study had
interesting results with regard to the CHARISM framework. The most interesting result is related to my
interpretation of organisational and job commitment as an expression of individual harmony. In my two
cases, I argued that the high correlations between commitment, satisfaction and mental well-being
suggested that these variables were related to an underlying sense of mental harmony. However, the
ARIT study suggests that too high a level of commitment can also be a source of organi-strain, in the
sense that people with such an ‘extreme’ level of commitment do not ‘know when to stop’ working, and
risk exhaustion and burnout due to the high speed of work and the high number of working hours. The
consequences of this finding for the CHARISM model, are firstly that motivation and commitment may
not be ‘simple expressions’ of mental harmony, but that these dimensions may well have a threshold,
above which they can become detrimental for one’s mental health and psychosocial well-being. A
second consequence is that there may be an even more important role for a mediating concept such as the
needs portfolios. One can imagine that people with a high need for self-actualisation and a high level of
motivation and commitment are a ‘risk group’ for stress and burnout when faced with high quantitative
and cognitive demands. Thirdly, it is important to note the differences in needs portfolios and job
circumstances amongst software and system developers on the one hand and their clients on the other.
Change agents and other project members need to take into account the circumstances under which a
large group of IT-workers need to function when they plan the tasks and involvement of the IT-workers
in technology implementation projects. IT-workers will have a hard time participating in their client’s
signification processes due to their own mental and physical overload. On the whole, the ARIT paper
provides an interesting description of the psychosocial climate of IT-workers, and as such can be a very
useful instrument for further research.
- A recent paper by van Veldhoven and colleagues (van Veldhoven, de Jonge, Broersen, Kompier, & Mei-
jman, 2002) – within the Karasek school of thought on stress – looks at the relations between psychoso-
cial variables and strain and well-being, at three levels-of-analysis: the individual, the department and the
organisation. They performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study on 2565 workers in 188 departments
in 36 organizations in the Netherlands, and developed a three-level regression model that explained
about 35% of the total variance in both work-related strain and well-being. They found that quite some
unexplained variance for strain and well-being is located at the individual level, while the departmental
level-of-analysis only shows unexplained variance for well-being. These results suggest that there are a
number of unexplored individual-level variables that play a role in a respondent’s perception of strain,

300
 other than the one’s measured in the Karasek model (psychological job demands, job variety and control,
and social support). The relevance of this study for the CHARISM framework is that it shows the limited
value of generic measures of job-related strain and well-being. I want to repeat the argument that this
type of study probably overlooks a number of relevant variables in their search for sources of job-related
strain.
- Another Danish study by Pousette and Hanse (2002) among 1042 workers in 4 different occupations
shows that it may be important to “examine different occupational contexts in detail to better understand
how certain psychosocial factors at work influence strain in different occupations.” Their research
shows that occupation-specific statistical models were more strongly supported than a single cross-
occupational model. Therefore, the authors conclude: ”Since job characteristics can potentially be
amended, the findings have important implications for the differentiation of prevention and intervention
in different occupations.” The occupations that the authors studied were blue-collar worker, white-collar
worker, elderly-care workers and child-care workers. This finding indirectly supports the important
contention I made at the start of my research, namely that not all studies (or research instruments) are
equally suitable for different occupations. Moreover, the study also clearly shows that it is hard to draw
generic conclusions about the relations between psychosocial work variables and strain / well-being. It is
important to somehow make distinctions between groups of people, either on the basis of their
occupation (as in the Pousette & Hanse study) or on the basis of more inherent properties, such as needs
portfolios.

- One study that tried to identify more enduring individual-level variables, is a paper by Ilies and Judge
(2002), who studied the dynamic relationships among personality, mood and job satisfaction. A group of
27 employees was asked to complete mood and job satisfaction surveys at four different times during the
day for a period of four weeks, resulting in a total of 1907 observations. The results show amongst others
that personality traits – which are assumed to be rather stable – can predict variability in mood and job
satisfaction and that those traits impact the degree of association between mood and job satisfaction. The
relevance of these findings for my research is that the paper indicates the importance of more enduring
individual-level typologies, such as personality traits or needs portfolios. On the other hand, it also
shows that mood and job satisfaction can be very fluctuating.
- A final study that I want to discuss in this paragraph is described in a paper by Harpaz and Fu (2002),
who have studied another stable entity within the literature on work psychology, namely the structure of
the ‘meaning of work’ concept. Just as the concepts of needs, values and attitudes, ‘meaning of work’ is
assumed to be a rather stable psychological entity. In a study of two samples of the Israeli labour force at
two moments in time (1982 and 1993) the authors found general support for the hypothesised stability of
the structure of respondents’ perception of ‘the meaning of work’. This research is relevant, because it
shows that an individual’s perception of what makes his work meaningful remains rather stable over
time, whatever changes or events may happen. This stability is similar to the discussion on an
individual’s signification process that was developed in Chapter 5 above, where it was argued that the
relatively stable niche that an individual develops provides the backdrop against which all new incoming
information is interpreted and integrated. In this way, the individual’s perception of his integrity of
functioning can stay rather stable through time, in order to allow the person to function socially in the
complex environment.

301
3. Organisation science
A first interesting contribution within the organisational science literature of the last three years is
related to concepts of sense-making and signification (Ericson, 2001). Ericson describes a conceptual
framework regarding the potential role of sense-making approaches to issues of strategic change. His
framework was based on an extensive case study of strategic change within a Stockholm university hospital
in the 1990s, and on sources in the literature. The paper is interesting because it applies some of the concepts
that Weick (1995) describes in his book on sensemaking. Ericson’s discussion of the concepts of collective
bracketing (bracketing degree) and collective cognitive schemes (cognitive profile) is strongly related to
parts of the discussion on signification. Ericson argues that for complex processes such as strategic changes
to be successful, the group of stakeholders needs to have a fairly similar perception of the issues that are at
hand (high bracketing degree), and a fairly high level of agreement of the meanings that are assigned to these
issues (heterogeneous cognitive profile). Some of Ericson's ideas are fairly similar to the discussion in the
two case studies in the previous chapters.
A second interesting contribution is a paper by Burke and colleagues (Burke, Borucki, & Kaufman,
2002) who review and compare three different approaches to psychological climate analysis. The first ap-
proach is the one described in Chapter 4 above when discussing organisational climate (on page 88-ff.),
namely the so-called social constructionist perspective. The second one is the one proposed by James and
colleagues described in Chapter 3 in the discussion of meaning in organisations (on page 61-ff.), i.e. the so-
called general psychological climate perspective. The third one is the one presented by Burke et al., an ap-
proach labelled the multiple stakeholder perspective. About the final approach, the authors argue "that indi-
viduals cognitively appraise their work environment with respect to the impact of work environment charac-
teristics on personal well-being as well as with respect to the well-being of each of the other relevant stake-
holder groups." In general, the authors argue that the three approaches are complimentary in nature. The
paper is relevant for my research in the sense that it complements the discussion on organi-self in Chapter 5
above. I have argued that it was important to take the perceptions of all stakeholder groups into consideration
in the identification of the organi-self. The multiple stakeholder perspective on psychological climate sug-
gests that each group of stakeholders be asked how they expect certain work environment attributes to im-
pact members of other stakeholder groups than themselves. In this sense, the discussion on psychological
climate comes rather close to the discussion on organisational sense-making described above.
Also within the literature on organisational fit, a number of relevant papers were published in the last
years, two of which I want to briefly mention here.
- In a first study, Goold and Campbell (2002) describe a practical framework for obtaining fit between the
organisational design and situational variables. This framework consists of nine tests that can be used to
either evaluate an existing organisational design or create a new one. When comparing the Goold and
Campbell (2002) work with the framework developed by Burton and Obel (1998), there are a number of
similarities (such as the broad range of issues that are tested), but also major differences. Whereas the
former research stays at a rather conceptual level, the latter provides a practical tool for performing fit
analysis. Moreover, the latter is based on a unified theoretical basis – the information processing
perspective of the organisation – whereas the former seems to consist of a number of – rather
unconnected – issues that were identified through years of experience and consulting. On the other hand,
each of the frameworks looks at a number of issues that the other does not tackle, so in some sense they
are complementary. With respect to the CHARISM framework, the Goold and Campbell paper provides
a possible alternative for studying organisation-environment fit, and thus the existence of organi-strain.
- The second study was performed by two Dutch researchers (Heijltjes & van Witteloostuijn, 2003) who
studied multi-contingency fit among a number of Dutch and British companies in two sectors of the
manufacturing industry, and compared the degree of fit with the companies' profitability. In their study,
the authors looked at (a) competitive strategy, (b) market environment, and functional strategies in the
areas of (c) manufacturing technology, and (d) human resource management policies. The authors devel-
oped four types of ideal co-alignment fit profiles, and the data in general confirmed that companies with
a perfectly consistent profile performed better-than-average, with performance measured as the return on
sales (ROS). In order to measure the two functional strategies, two new typologies were developed, one
for advanced manufacturing technologies, and one for human resource management. The relevance of
this paper is that it provides additional support for the role of organisational fit for the 'health' of an or-
ganisation. In a sense, this shows that organisational harmony – as measured by multi-contingency fit –
is a promising research path. Interestingly, the approach of Heijltjes and van Witteloostuijn differs from

302
 the Burton & Obel approach in the sense that the former only distinguish four 'good' fit solutions, while
the latter consider that many more 'good fit' solutions can be distinguished, and therefore look for misfits
in stead of 'fits'.

A final pair of interesting contributions were recently published in the Harvard Business Review. At
first sight, those contributions appear to be only marginally related to the work in this thesis, but in my view
they are interesting examples of the validity of some of the arguments made. The two papers discuss –
amongst others – the role of psychological framing and sense-making in the course of business management.
- Firstly, a paper by Gilbert and Bower (2002) presents research on companies' reactions to disruptive
change. The authors argue that "managers' perceptions of the disruption influence how they respond to
it. If, for instance, they view the disruption as a threat to their core business, managers tend to overreact,
committing too many resources too quickly. But if they see it as an opportunity, they're likely to commit
insufficient resources to its development." The authors' main argument is that the cognitive frame of the
managers in the 'threatened' company is so much oriented to their current products and markets (the
organisation's niche), that it is hard to 'think outside the box' and have the necessary cognitive flexibility
to view the disruptive change as anything else than a threat or an opportunity. The authors argue that
both stress reactions – panicky reactions to the perceived threat or enthusiastic reactions to the perceived
opportunity – are too extreme. This argumentation bears a striking resemblance to some of the arguments
I made in relation to the signification processes in individuals and organisations, especially with respect
to the incorporation of major changes in a rather stable 'integrity of functioning'. Gilbert and Bower
argue that one should try as much as possible to react to the disruptive change by (a) building a separate
organisation where it's possible to reframe a threat as an opportunity; (b) funding the new business in
stages as new markets emerge rather than all at once; and (c) continuing to pay attention to the old
business. The advantage of starting a separate organisation, is that one can leave some of the existing
cognitive frames behind, and start afresh. The idea of funding the new business in stages forces the new
managers to carefully develop viable business plans that are convincing to the 'old' financing company.
The authors also suggest hiring people from outside the 'mother' company to attract new frames of
reference, but to appoint an integrator at the top of the new venture, i.e. a person that has enough
influence in and some of the 'old way of thinking' from the old organisation to get funding if needed.
- Finally, the article by Watkins and Bazerman (2003) discusses what they call predicted surprises, i.e.
unexpected events (sometimes "disasters") that companies should have anticipated. The authors find
three types of causes for this kind of predicted surprises: (a) psychological, i.e. cognitive biases that
leave individuals 'blind'; (b) organisational, i.e. barriers within companies that impede communication
and dilute accountability; and (c) political, i.e. flaws in decision making that result from granting too
much influence to special interests. Both the psychological and the organisational barriers are again very
similar to the 'niche' functioning of individuals and organisations that limits and 'distorts' unfamiliar
information so that it can be fit into existing individual and organisational signification processes. As
Watkins and Bazerman put it: "All of these biases share something in common: They are self-serving. We
tend to see the world as we'd like it to be rather than as it truly is."

303
D. Reflections

Following on to this review of recent literature, I want to retain a more distant perspective, and try to
formulate a number of general reflections about this research project. This section aims to discuss a number
of issues regarding the methodology and research instruments that were used, but also to look at some of the
lessons that were learned in the empirical exercise. Finally, I want to evaluate whether my original research
goals were met, and which issues remain unsolved, i.e. what the limitations of my research projects were.

1. Instruments and variables

A first group of reflections is related to the instruments and variables that were used in the empirical
part of my work. Firstly, one might argue that there were all too many variables in the RIPOSTI instrument,
especially for the relatively small number of respondents. Secondly, the RIPOSTI instrument was only one
of the research instruments. Arguably, this high number of instruments makes replication of the research in
other settings rather unwieldy. Finally, one might question the suitability of some of the variables and the
sufficiency of others.
The first issue to be discussed regards the fairly high number of variables in the RIPOSTI instru-
ment. Some respondents – especially amongst the production workers – noted that there were too many ques-
tions. The participants were not used to participating in research projects, and the list of questions was rather
extensive. Some respondents also felt that some questions were asked more than once. However, apart from
these 'subjective' arguments, there are other arguments against the extent of the questionnaire. The high
number of variables in combination with the small number of respondents drastically limits the statistical
value of the results. My justification for that high number of variables was threefold – as mentioned in
Chapter 6. Firstly, the research project studied information systems, work psychology and organisational is-
sues, and there had to be questions for each of those issues. Secondly, the theoretical model contains a high
number of potentially relevant variables at two levels-of-analysis, variables that might act as substitutes or
indicators of harmony and strain. And thirdly – and most importantly – the research approach was explora-
tory, which implied that I wanted to study which psychosocial dimensions might be relevant in relation to the
research questions at hand.
Moreover, there is admittedly an imbalance between the different focus points in the questionnaire, that is to
say that the individual psychosocial questions were somewhat over-represented. This imbalance is related to
the targeted respondent group and the research design. The respondent group consisted mainly of production
workers, who have only a limited view of the organisation and the way it functions in its environment, so
naturally the number of questions related to OE-fit were limited to issues of internal processes. Within the
project’s research design, the organisational issues were treated through interviews with stakeholders, and
not so much by using the questionnaire, mainly because the issues of OE-fit were treated in a more
exploratory way.
The second issue concerns the replication of this type of research, which is rather difficult in view of
the high number of research instruments at both levels-of-analysis. However, the exploratory and holistic
perspective of the study implied that a number of instruments were needed to shed light on the issues from a
number of different perspectives. Moreover, the use of both qualitative and quantitative techniques allowed a
certain level of triangulation of the data, which aided in the data interpretation. Thirdly, the starting point of
my research has never been to develop a methodology or instrument that was to be replicated in a purely
'quantitative' sense. In fact, the hybrid research method that was used combines elements from process and
variance theory, and is therefore not suited for pure 'variance' purposes.
The final issue regards the suitability and sufficiency of the research instruments, which is more
complicated. Due to the complex and holistic nature of the theoretical framework and the two levels-of-
analysis that were investigated, it is hard to evaluate whether the instruments used were suitable or sufficient.
As regards the sufficiency of the instruments, one might argue that the high number of hypotheses that were
not empirically investigated suggests that there were not enough instruments to study all aspects of the
theory. On the other hand, such a complex theoretical framework cannot be investigated in a single research
setting, or even in a single research project. Arguably, the instruments with regard to technology issues and
technology evaluation could have been more elaborate, but then again this was precluded by the limited role
of the technology in both cases, as well as by the limited technology information available to the majority of
respondents (the production workers).

304
As regards the suitability of the instruments, I want to argue that the research setting and methodology that
were chosen did not allow many alternatives to the instruments that I have used. However, during the data-
gathering phase I felt that a questionnaire instrument for collecting data about organisational needs and
abilities and for measuring the perceived fit between organisational needs and abilities would have been
useful, especially for non-managerial respondents. The OrgCon-based questionnaire that I used did not allow
me to measure whether respondents perceived a fit between the organisation and the environment, and thus it
was rather difficult to judge whether a certain degree of subjective organi-strain was present. Moreover, for
the non-managerial respondents there was no instrument for measuring perceived organisational fit, and this
was perceived as a drawback.

2. Methodological issues
In this paragraph, I want to briefly reflect on some methodological issues. Firstly, one may wonder
whether the methods used were appropriate or whether other methods would have been more suitable for the
kind of research questions asked. In other words: what were the advantages of using the methods that were
used, and what where their disadvantages? Secondly, it is interesting to consider how some of the hypotheses
that were not investigated might be empirical studied, and which instruments could be used in this effort.

In the empirical part of the research, a number of methods and techniques were used, both qualitative
and quantitative. As I have argued in Chapter 6, the final research method was a hybrid solution that resulted
from a number of drastic events and changes in the course of the PhD project. A number of choices were en-
forced by circumstances and lack of alternatives, but most choices were justifiable and the resulting method
succeeded in shedding light on a number of issues in the CHARISM theory.
- The observation and participation at Omicron allowed an analysis of the process aspects of the
CHARISM framework. The influence of the organisational-political issues on the course of the IS devel-
opment project would have been hard to establish in another way, except maybe through extensive inter-
view analysis. But then again, my participation as change agent added another dimension to the analysis,
namely the intervention approach (cf. the discussion in Chapter 6). On the other hand, the disadvantage
of the participation in the Omicron project was that the study risked becoming too subjective. However,
as I argued before, triangulating the data from the different sources mitigated this risk.
- The interview data allowed a historical analysis. Whereas my participation only shed light on the issues
at the time of the project, the interview data allowed a historical analysis of the different management
styles and positions throughout the company's recent history. Without this historical perspective, the
events at Omicron would have been interpreted differently. Arguably, a second round of interviewing
and discussion would be extremely useful in order to discuss interpretations and to learn about the
respondents' perception of organisational and individual fit.
- The questionnaire data contributed yet another perspective, in the sense that it allowed a thorough
analysis of psychosocial issues within a number of respondent groups. In this way, the data afforded a
more in-depth study of the psychosocial entities that could play a role in the establishment and
maintenance of harmony and strain. Moreover, the questionnaire afforded brief comparative analyses (a)
with a Danish baseline study, (b) between test and control groups, (c) between the 'before' and 'after'
states in the Alpha case, and (d) between the two cases. The major problem with this method was that
my sample was too small to allow any sensible statistical analysis, which implied that the results from
the questionnaire analysis were mere indications of potentially interesting research directions.
- In the Omicron case, the combination of long-term observation/participation, interview and
questionnaire data allowed a triangulation that increased the level of objectivity of the analysis and data
evaluation. As I argued in the previous chapter, in the Alpha case the long-term observation/participation
data were lacking and that prevented me from drawing more definite conclusions about the presence or
absence of internal organi-strain.

However, a large group of hypotheses was not empirically investigated, especially at the organisa-
tional level-of-analysis and regarding technology issues. In order to investigate some of the organisational
issues, a cross-sectional analysis is probably best suited, and for such an analysis the following steps are
needed. Firstly, more theoretical consolidation of some of the organisational concepts is needed, in combina-
tion with in-depth interviews with managerial and non-managerial organisational members. Secondly, a suit-
able instrument (or instruments) needs to be developed that can be used to measure respondents' perception
of organisational needs, organisational abilities and the fit between those characteristics and the environment.

305
A challenging aspect of the instrument is that it needs to be – at least partly – usable by different organisa-
tional stakeholder groups, also non-managerial ones. Thirdly, the instrument needs to be validated and tested,
and then sent to a number of organisations. Usually, only one or two managers are asked to participate in
such cross-sectional research, but in this case, one should try to get answers from different members of dif-
ferent groups, and that is never an easy task.
For investigating information technology issues, a number of different methods might be used.
Firstly, at the organisational level, an organisationally relevant typology of information systems is needed.
This typology can be developed starting from existing theoretical contributions, but I have argued that they
are not very well suited for investigating issues of IS-organisation fit. I have suggested a number of
dimensions for such a typology in the first part of my thesis, but that was only a first and very rough draft.
Such a typology can be further developed and tested by using a number of different methods, both qualitative
and quantitative. However, it is important that this happens in parallel with work on the organisational
instruments, since the typology – and the instrument based upon it – is meant to measure the degree of fit
between the information system and the organisation. Moreover, the resulting instrument on the fit between
organisation and information technology would need to be directed at different relevant stakeholders, since it
is important to establish whether different views exist.
Secondly, at the individual level-of-analysis the fit between the technology and the individual also needs
much more study before a relevant instrument can be developed. A quantitative instrument would be rather
valuable in the context of fit research at the individual level-of-analysis, since it seems useful to study large
groups of respondents in order to ascertain the role of technology fit for the individual.
- One can design studies in such a way that they indirectly study the fit between the individual and the
technology, in the sense that one compares a before- and after-position of the individual with regard to a
number of psychosocial issues, as I tried to do in the Alpha case. This approach has the advantage of not
requiring a specific instrument tailored to the specific technology that is being implemented. The
disadvantage is that a number of events and changes might have occurred between the two points in
time, in parallel with the technology implementation, and then one has no way of knowing whether the
technology had any real effect.
- A study that directly measures the degree of fit would need to inquire about which needs and abilities a
person has in relation to technology. After the implementation, one would need to inquire about the level
of supplies and demands that the new technology implies, but also ask the respondent about his
subjective perception of fit or misfit.
In the development of both instruments, a number of qualitative techniques are recommended for
establishing the relevance, suitability and clarity of the questions. For instance, observation of different types
of users could be informative, as well as in-depth interviews with technology users and non-users. These
techniques may pinpoint the most important needs and abilities, as well as possible ways of ‘measuring’ fit
between the individual and the technology. When an instrument has been developed, it will again be
important to try and have as many different ‘types’ of technology users participate in the research, so that the
results allow a good overview of the expected variety of ‘technology needs portfolios’ and different
perceptions of fit.

3. Empirically driven changes to the theory

Based on the empirical results, a number of remarks were formulated with regard to the CHARISM
theory, as described above. Firstly, a number of corrections were made to some of the hypotheses in which
too strong a directionality had been formulated. It was hypothesised that mental harmony would lead to a
number of psychosocial phenomena, which implied a certain degree of causality, but my research method did
not allow me to substantiate those hypotheses. Only the presence of a strong association between mental
harmony and other phenomena could be documented. Secondly, PE-fit was hypothesised to be a major con-
tributor to an individual’s mental integrity and harmony as well as to strain and mental health, but the sup-
port for those hypotheses was only partial. This limited support for one of the main assumptions of the theo-
retical model is rather problematic, since it might undermine the rest of the theory that is built on top of the
PE-fit concept. Nevertheless, I want to argue that the support for most hypotheses was strong enough to re-
tain PE-fit as a fundamental building block in the establishment of mental integrity and harmony, even
though the empirical results seem to suggest that PE-fit is only one of the psychosocial dimensions associ-
ated with mental well-being and strain. Moreover – as mentioned above – the size of the sample does not
allow any firm conclusions based on the questionnaire data, it only allows one to indicate possibly interesting
avenues for further research. Such further research would need to look in more detail at the relationships be-

306
tween measures of PE-fit and other measures of psychosocial well-being, such as meaningfulness, social
community, satisfaction, etc. Moreover, the role of organisational and technological entities in the establish-
ment and deterioration of mental integrity needs to be more firmly determined. Indeed, the data suggests that
there is a strong correlation between individual well-being and organisational perception, but the role of or-
ganisational technology seems to be rather limited, at least in the two case studies in this study.

4. Limitations / Unsolved issues

In the previous paragraphs, I have mentioned a number of limitations of the methods and instruments
that were used. In the next paragraph, I want to return to my original research goals, and discuss whether
they have been met. However, first I want to briefly recapitulate the limitations of my research project as
well as a number of unsolved issues. Any research project, especially within the framework of a PhD project,
is necessarily limited, and it is important for both the researcher and his readers to be aware of the
limitations, both the intentional and the unintentional.
A first limitation is related to an intentional choice, i.e. the hybrid research method that was used in
the empirical part of the work. That method was chosen partly because of project circumstances and events
and partly because it had certain advantages that made it well suited for shedding light on some aspects of
the research question and the suggested theory. The research method has both process and variance aspects,
which allowed a combination of in-depth case analysis and a broader psychosocial climate analysis. The
study combined qualitative and quantitative techniques, which allowed a triangulation of data and therefore a
more balanced and objective evaluation of the findings. The study was performed in two organisations that
were at the same time very similar and very different, which allowed comparison of some issues, and
opposition of others. However, each choice of research method precludes a number of other choices, and
therefore lacks a number of potential advantages. For instance, one of the advantages it lacks is clarity of
results, viz. a research project that stays within one of the main paradigms is easily classified, and its results
can be evaluated according to the research principles of that paradigm. A research project such as this one
crosses a number of paradigm borders in order to tackle more complex questions, but as a result it tends to
‘fall between the cracks’, in the sense that a scientific evaluation on the basis of either of the paradigms is
next to impossible, and its results are hard to classify. For instance, it may be difficult to find leading
scientific journals to publish results that are so unclear as regards research paradigm. Another disadvantage
is that the project is hard to replicate in either research paradigm, and that its results may therefore remain
solitary indications of potentially powerful theoretical concepts and empirical instruments.
A second limitation is related to the intentional choice of developing a theory for two levels-of-
analysis simultaneously. With regard to the empirical validation of the theory, the two levels demand quite
different research designs and settings, but the circumstances only afforded a limited empirical validation.
Consequently, the individual level-of-analysis was somewhat over-represented in the quantitative data
analysis, while the organisational level-of-analysis was given a more qualitative empirical treatment. Again,
this intentional imbalance has advantages and disadvantages. An advantage is that the study made maximal
use of the available research material from the two research sites, while a disadvantage is that the findings
are again hard to scientifically validate and evaluate. An advantage of focussing on two levels-of-analysis is
that one can study mechanisms that are similar on the two levels, and focus on those issues that mediate
between the two levels. But then again, this is also a disadvantage, because one cannot do enough justice to
the mechanisms that operate on each level separately.
A major limitation of the study – this time unintentional – is the limited impact of the technological
innovation projects in the two case organisations. In the Omicron case, the history of the project and its fail-
ure to enrol more organisational support provided an interesting topic for research at the organisational level-
of-analysis, but left me with no quantifiable impact results at the individual level-of-analysis. In the Alpha
case, the limited – but crucial – role of the technology in the whole of the change project made it equally im-
possible to quantify the effect of the technology at the individual-level-of-analysis, but also left me with an
interesting topic for comparison as regards the potentially beneficial effect of a holistic approach to technol-
ogy-related organisational change. However, in view of the main starting points of my research, i.e. the role
of technology development and implementation regarding individual and organisational functioning, the re-
sults at the individual level were rather meagre. This does not mean that the CHARISM model becomes less
valid or valuable in its contribution to the state-of-the-art, but it does leave one with a somewhat unsatisfac-
tory feeling, and one starts to wonder whether the CHARISM model is too broad and complex for studying
projects with such little ‘technological’ impact as the ones that were investigated. Should one limit this type
of model to large and complex technology implementation projects? But then again, the CHARISM model

307
did afford an interesting and novel interpretation of the organisational history of the BlueTech project, and in
that case analysis the two levels-of-analysis did contribute simultaneously to the interpretation. Individual
and organisational signification processes among the major stakeholders were closely related and contributed
significantly to an understanding of the events in the project.
A fourth limitation concerns an intentional bias in the sample at the individual level-of-analysis, i.e.
the overrepresentation of the blue-collar workers as opposed to the other stakeholder groups. Again, this
choice contains a number of advantages and disadvantages from a quantitative point-of-view. One of the
advantages was that a needs-base analysis of the respondent group revealed the incorrectness of treating
stakeholder groups as unitary groups. If each stakeholder group had been equally represented, there might
have been a tendency to treat each group as a homogeneous unit. My analysis showed that there are
differences in signification even within a group that is assumed to think and act rather homogeneously. A
major disadvantage of this sampling technique is that the stakeholder samples were not representative in the
strict statistical sense, i.e. the distribution of respondents was biased especially as regards age, education, and
tenure. Therefore, the sample was not representative of the population within the organisation, and the
findings regarding psychosocial climate (such as PE-fit, commitment, satisfaction, strain) cannot be
generalised to the organisation, nor can the four types of needs portfolios be generalised.
Overall, the major limitation of a broad theoretical framework as the CHARISM model is the lack of
focus. In a limited research project such as a PhD study, one can only focus on the empirical study of a few
aspects of such a theory. Therefore, it may often be difficult for the reader to relate certain findings to the
overall model or to see the relevance of a certain statistical result. A research project that studies for instance
the effect of a technology implementation project on job satisfaction within an established research paradigm
will be much more focused, and will therefore allow a more rigid research approach. I have argued that such
an approach was too fragmented and too limited for my purposes, but it would have had the advantage of
focus and straightforwardness.

Due to these limitations, my empirical study has left a number of important issues unsolved, issues
that were originally perceived as rather important contributions of my theoretical work. A first issue that may
be important for future research purposes is the suggested IS typology from Chapter 2. The different charac-
teristics in this typology are argued to be important for studying fit with existing technology and with exist-
ing organisational and individual characteristics, but I have not been able to empirically support the rele-
vance of the suggested dimensions. This is an important topic for future research, since it will allow an op-
erationalisation of some of the organisational-level concepts in the CHARISM framework. A second issue is
closely related to the issue of technology dimensions, in the sense that a similar typology of organisations is
needed, i.e. a typology that contains dimensions that are technologically and psychosocially relevant and that
will allow one to establish the degree of fit between an organisation and (a) its technology, as well as (b) its
members. Both these issues are instances of a more general issue that was mentioned before, namely the is-
sue of commensurability. At both levels of analysis, it is important to develop instruments that are formu-
lated in commensurable terms, i.e. in terms that allow a good measure of fit, such as the “centralisation of
information within the organisation” and the “centralisation of information in existing and new information
systems”. In a theoretical framework that hinges on the concept of fit between a number of entities, it is im-
portant that this fit can be measured, and for that purpose one needs to formulate as many characteristics as
possible in sensible and relevant commensurable terms. This is one of the main topics for future research, but
I will return to some of those topics in the conclusion at the end of this dissertation.

5. Return to original research goals

Before moving on to a final summary of the major conclusions of my research project, I want to
return to the research goals that I formulated in the problem formulation chapter at the start of this
dissertation. I want to briefly discuss to which degree the CHARISM framework and the empirical exercises
have contributed to the solution of the four issues that were seen as problematic at the start of my research
project?

The first issue was the perceived need of a theoretical framework that covers different levels of
analysis simultaneously. It was felt that the BlueTech project presented some issues that needed to be consid-
ered at two levels-of-analysis simultaneously. Now, the CHARISM framework clearly focuses on two levels-
of-analysis, namely the individual and the organisation, but does it look at the two levels simultaneously?
The last word is crucial in the evaluation of my theoretical and empirical findings. The question then moves

308
to a more philosophical level and becomes: “Can one focus on two levels-of-analysis simultaneously?” For
instance, if one asks an individual respondent about his perception of organisational reality, at which level-
of-analysis is such a question situated? This issue is an eternal problem within the social sciences, namely
the problem of how to investigate issues at a group or organisational level-of-analysis. The respondents
within an organisation are often individuals, whose answers reflect individual perceptions. Within social sci-
ence, those individual answers are usually aggregated in order to reflect the organisational-level reality. The
CHARISM model suggests a number of organisational-level concepts such as organi-self and organi-strain,
which are more than just the average or the sum of the individual answers. However, these concepts need
much more refinement and investigation before one can judge whether they are organisationally valid.
Therefore, at this stage of the research, it is impossible to say whether my model works at two levels-of-
analysis simultaneously. The empirical results seem to suggest that there is a strong correlation between an
individual’s perception of the self, and his perception of the (organisational) environment, but the exact na-
ture of that correlation remains unclear. The CHARISM model offers a first attempt at defining similar theo-
retical concepts at the two levels-of-analysis, and in that sense it provides an answer to the issue of the “in-
suffiency of single-level models” but the exact nature of the concepts as well as their mutual relations need a
great deal of further study.

The second issue formulated was a perceived need for a theory that was not limited to single-factor
analyses, such as ‘the effect of organisational technology on organisational centralisation’. The exploratory
approach that I took clearly was not limited to the investigation of a single factor or a single variable. The
CHARISM theory suggested that a number of psychosocial processes are at play in the establishment and
maintenance of individual and organisational harmony, and the empirical findings seem to support that
suggestion, at least at the individual level-of-analysis. A number of psychosocial factors showed strong
associations, which suggested the existence of underlying concepts such as harmony or strain.

I want to argue that the suggested CHARISM theory and the empirical research method also solved
the third issue. This issue was related to the limitations of existing theoretical models that are based on
‘single-causality’ assumptions, such as “the use of information technology makes an organisation less
centralised”. The concept of “fit” offers a solution to such ‘single-causality’ theories, in the sense that it
suggests that certain combinations of characteristics may be problematic. Such contingency approaches do
not imply simple cause-result relations, but indicate that certain combinations are theoretically (a)
problematic or (b) preferable. The formulation of such beneficial or detrimental combinations is often based
on theoretical deduction and/or on empirical induction.

The solution of the fourth issue is closely related to the third one, in the sense that the matching of
characteristics in order to establish fit or misfit cannot be performed if the theoretical constructs that one
operates with are too general or too specific. The fourth issue was related to my perception that most existing
research is based on over-generalisations such as “IT makes organisations more centralised” or over-
specifications where single-case studies are performed that do not afford options for generalisation. The
CHARISM framework starts from the assumption that typologies of individuals, information systems and
organisations can be developed, based on commensurate characteristics, and that these characteristics can
then be matched in order to establish whether misfits are present or might be caused by events or changes. In
this sense, hypotheses can be constructed along the following lines: “Organisations with a high level of
decision centralisation may introduce a misfit if they implement an information system that supports a high
level of decision decentralisation”. Such hypotheses are argued to be at the right level of specificity to be
both generalisable to more than one case study and specific enough to be of practical use to change agents
that need to perform impact analyses of new organisational technology projects.

On the whole, I want to argue that the CHARISM framework constitutes a first draft of a holistic
theoretical model that can be valuable in organisational and individual impact analyses in the course of tech-
nological innovation projects. The CHARISM framework tackles a number of issues that were perceived to
be lacking in existing models, but the model has a number of limitations and remaining issues that need a
great deal of further research to be settled. More specifically, a lot of work remains in the operationalisation
of the model at both the individual and organisational level-of-analysis. In this chapter, I have suggested a
number of potential research methods and techniques that could be used to empirically validate larger parts
of the model. In the concluding chapter, I want to draw some general conclusions from my research project,

309
and pinpoint a number of future research paths that could be followed to further develop the CHARISM
model.

310
 Problem Formulation Chapter 1
Informati on Chapter 2
Technolog y
Work Chapter 3
Psychology
Organisation
Theory Chapter 4

Integrati ve Theoretical
Model Chapter 5
CHARIS M

Methodol ogy Chapter 6

Working
Hypotheses Chapter 7

Research
Instruments Chapter 8

Chapter 9
Case 1
Case 2 Chapter 10
Analysis and
Discussion
Chapter 11

Conclusion and
Future Research Conclusion

The health effects of long-term exposion to excessive quantitative demands

311
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This doctoral dissertation discussed a new holistic theoretical framework for conceptualising issues
related to the development and introduction of new organisational information systems, together with a lim-
ited empirical exercise intended to substantiate some of the theory’s main hypotheses. The resulting
CHARISM model was built on contributions from three main scientific disciplines: information systems re-
search, work psychology and organisational science. The empirical exercise consisted of two case studies in
two Danish heavy metal production companies, in which a number of qualitative and quantitative research
techniques were combined.

The immediate cause of this research was BlueTech, a development project within the company
Omicron in which I participated at the start of my PhD project. BlueTech's goal was to develop IT applica-
tions for blue-collar workers in production industry. The aim of the technology was to allow groups of work-
ers to organise their own production, to support them in their production and to allow them to evaluate and
adjust their own functioning. However, at a rather early stage in the project, a number of psychological and
organisational issues appeared, which made the original software designs practically unusable. Therefore, the
following research question was formulated:

“When a new computer-based organisational information system is developed and implemented, what are
the interactions between organisational characteristics, stakeholders’ psychological characteristics and in-
formation technology characteristics?”

The research methodology that I used was a hybrid mix that resulted from a number of intended and
unintended fundamental changes in the course of the research project.
- The research purpose was mainly exploratory, but had some confirmatory aspects as well, in the sense
that the empirical exercise was aimed at testing some of the CHARISM hypotheses. However, this test-
ing retained an exploratory flavour, in the sense that it did not make use of thoroughly tested or validated
research instruments, and was based on very small samples.
- The theory-building phase was a process that mixed inductive reasoning based on the BlueTech experi-
ences (grounded-theory building) with deductive reasoning on the basis of theoretical contributions from
the three scientific disciplines.
- The epistemological stance can also be characterised as hybrid. It is situated somewhere between the de-
sire to make rich interpretations of complex situations (understanding) and the need to reduce complexity
by suggesting a number of organisational, individual and IT characteristics, whose mutual relations can
be used as a basis for predicting misfits (prediction). The research project has also retained a limited in-
terventionist perspective, since one of the aims of the resulting theory is to make suggestions for improv-
ing practice (change).
- Finally, the project used a mixed method as regards data collection and analysis, since it addressed a
theoretical question rather than providing description only, and it combined a number of qualitative and
quantitative techniques for collecting, presenting and analysing data. The data collection techniques
comprised project participation and management, observation, stakeholder interviews and a question-
naire survey

In the following pages, some of the answers to this research question will be summarised by way of
conclusion and the most promising avenues for further research will be formulated at the end of the chapter.

312
A. Conclusions

In this section, the most important conclusions from both the theoretical and the empirical part of
this PhD project are recapitulated.

1. Theoretical contributions
The CHARISM model contains a number of new theoretical contributions as well as new ways of in-
tegrating existing concepts and ideas from the literature. Starting from a number of contributions in the psy-
chology literature related to occupational stress and needs-based theories of motivation, and based on experi-
ences within the BlueTech development project, an argumentation was developed that resulted in a holistic
theoretical framework at the individual level-of-analysis. The individual-level model was then duplicated to
the organisational level, where it was argued that similar concepts and processes could be found. This dupli-
cation was argued to add an integrative perspective to existing contributions in the literature, and to provide a
new perspective for looking at organisational sense-making. Thirdly, some cross-level issues were discussed.
Finally, in the theoretical chapter (Chapter 5) the arguments were summarised by formulating theoretical hy-
potheses. The number of hypotheses that were deduced (some 65) illustrates the complex and holistic nature
of the CHARISM model.

From a research-philosophical perspective, it was argued that CHARISM is a hybrid model, in the
following sense. Firstly, as regards causal agency, the model was argued to take an emergent perspective, in
the sense that it denies unidirectional perspectives in which either the technology or the individual / organisa-
tion determine organisational impacts. Indeed, the CHARISM model posits the importance of both individual
/ organisation and environment, and more specifically of the complex dynamic fit relations between the
characteristics of these entities. Secondly, the model has aspects of both process and variance theories, as
regards logical structure. In variance theories, an invariant relationship is posited between causes and effects
when the contingent conditions obtain. Process theories, on the other hand, assert that the outcome can hap-
pen only under these conditions, but that the outcome may just as well not happen. Thirdly, the CHARISM
model was argued to be situated on a mixed level-of-analysis, through its attention for both the individual
and the organisational levels, but this will become clear in the rest of this section.

In this theoretical section of the concluding chapter, I want to recapitulate the main arguments in the
model, thus summarising the theoretical contributions that were developed in the CHARISM model.

a) Individual level-of-analysis
The main concepts in the CHARISM framework at the individual level-of-analysis are needs portfo-
lios, person-environment fit, situational functioning, integrity of functioning, harmony, strain and stress. The
main processes in the framework are signification and change. Those concepts and processes will be briefly
summarised below, followed by a description of their role with regard to information technology.

(1) Needs portfolios

‘Needs portfolio’ is a novel concept that refers to the psychological basis of most human behaviour:
need fulfilment. Research in the last 50 years has demonstrated that most human behaviour is directed at ful-
filling different types of physical and mental needs, and that different people have different sub-sets of
needs. The portfolio metaphor stresses that there are only a limited number of different needs types, and that
all individuals have roughly the same types of needs, but also that the importance or weight of each need
type in the bundle will be different across individuals. Moreover, the composition of an individual’s needs
portfolio is argued to remain rather stable through time, even though it is sensitive to important changes in
the individual’s situations. For instance, a loss of job will most probably have an impact on the portfolio
composition, in the sense that financial and security needs will become stronger. In the context of the
CHARISM model, needs portfolios are regarded as the basis for distinguishing between different types of
people, because the different compositions of needs portfolios are argued to lead to significantly different
sense-making processes and different behaviour, within and outside work organisations.

313
(2) Person-environment fit
The concept of person-environment fit (PE-fit) is related to human needs in the following way. In
order to fulfil needs, humans have to rely on their physical and social environment for supplies. However, in
return for supplying an individual’s needs, the environment places certain demands on the individual. The
personal evaluation of PE-fit is a complex mental process that compares the individual’s needs with the envi-
ronment’s supplies and the individual’s abilities with the environment’s abilities, in both the objective and
the subjective world. The CHARISM model posits that an individual’s subjective evaluation of PE-fit will
have important consequences on his mental (and physical) state of health. When an individual subjectively
perceives that his needs are sufficiently satisfied (needs-supplies fit), and that his situation allows him to
adequately use his abilities (demands-abilities fit), a balance (PE-fit) may be experienced. When no balance
can be created or when balance is disturbed by the presence of a misfit – either a needs-supplies misfit or a
demands-abilities misfit – a state of increased strain will arise. This increased level of strain may result in
stress, which can not only be caused by the perception of an excessive degree of strain, but also by strains
that last over an extended period of time or by strains that are not envisaged to end within a foreseeable fu-
ture. An important remark in this context is that – in order to measure person-environment fit – the main
entities need to be expressed in commensurable terms, in terms that allow a matching of characteristics.

(3) Situational functioning in a self-constructed niche

Based on his bundle of needs and abilities, an individual develops his own niche in the world, a rela-
tively stable system consisting of socially acceptable situations, which are simplifications of the overwhelm-
ingly complex environment. “Situations, as the culturally shared building blocks of societal life, are also in-
struments of socialization. Socialization here means actively discovering, getting acquainted with and, lastly,
identifying with a limited set of situations and their inherent ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. In this
way, one becomes a member of one's culture, maintaining and reproducing it by enacting its realities”
(Schabracq & Cooper, 1998). Every individual develops a number of such situations, which are characterised
by certain routines and semi-automatic procedures that allow him to function adequately. By functioning in
repetitive, standardised ways, people can develop skills that allow them to reach their situational goals in
ways that demand less attention and effort. The necessity to reduce attention and effort stems from the lim-
ited capacity of our attentional and mental processing capacity. The human mind cannot cope with the sheer
complexity and dynamism of its environment without introducing some reduction processes.

(4) Integrity as a structured whole of meanings and situations

Those situations also entail a certain way of thinking, feeling and acting, and therefore act as a kind
of mental filter in the perception of the environment. Indeed, the concept of niche also has implications for
the person’s perceptual and cognitive activities, since the situations that one enacts and the other people one
shares situations with, act as filters in the perception of reality and the mental processing of one’s perceived
reality. The niche that people live in supplies a stable system of presuppositions, meanings, norms, rules and
goals, but also templates with social procedures and conventions. The system enables people to make plans,
act in a meaningful and morally responsible way, and control their functioning in these situations and their
outcomes in a socially acceptable way. This structured whole of meanings and situations, is called 'integrity
of human functioning' or for short 'integrity'. The concept of integrity is very similar to the concept of ‘self’.
Integrity will be experienced quite differently by different people, i.e. by people with different needs portfo-
lios. Some people will strive for completely structured environments with fixed routines, whereas others
need more space, challenges and variation in order to achieve well-being. In both cases, the expected out-
come is a situational environment, adapted to the specific configuration of needs, values and abilities. If ade-
quate integrity can be achieved, this is conducive to well-being and health.

(5) Mental harmony

A subjective sense of PE-fit combined with an adequate integrity – i.e. a stable niche consisting of a
structured whole of meanings and situations related to one’s functioning in the social environment – is ar-
gued to constitute a state of mental harmony, a fragile state of being that is achieved when all aspects of
one’s life are felt to make sense. Therefore, mental harmony is associated with a certain degree of job satis-
faction, motivation, commitment and health; a general sense of well-being and meaningfulness. An impor-
tant aspect of mental harmony is that one tries to defend it by avoiding disruptions and infringements, be-
cause they cause strain and stress and interrupt or remove the sense of well-being. The process that causes
disruptions – but also re-establishment – of mental harmony is change.

314
(6) Change
Change can turn a state of mental harmony into a state of temporary or enduring disharmony which
can in turn give rise to strains. However, change can also turn a state of mental disharmony – such as for ex-
ample a misfit caused by too high or too low demands – into a state of mental harmony by removing such a
misfit, either through a change in the abilities of the person, or through a change in the environmental de-
mands placed on the person. In fact, the theory argues that a person will always try to establish or re-
establish a state of mental harmony, a state where the person subjectively perceives a fit with his environ-
ment, because it is the state with the lowest level of mental strain.

(7) Signification: a complex representation process

An important process in the development and maintenance of integrity and mental harmony is signi-
fication or 'sense-making', a process that assigns meaning to all activities – one's own as well as those of oth-
ers. Meaning is determined not only by the social group to which one belongs, but also by the existing sys-
tem of meanings – the existing integrity. The existing integrity acts as a filtering device, in the sense that an
individual will try to interpret new information in such a way that it fits in with the existing system of mean-
ings, even if that new information gets a meaning that was not originally intended. In this way, the individual
can avoid disrupting his integrity and mental harmony. Only if it is not possible to interpret the information
in such a way that it fits in with the existing integrity, the framework of existing meanings will have to be
adapted, and that is often a very difficult process. Exactly this signification process plays an important role
when environmental changes occur, such as for example the introduction of new information technology.
One reason why signification is so important is that each individual is different; and according to the
CHARISM model, those differences are mainly based on variations in the composition of the needs portfo-
lios. Therefore, the signification processes related to environmental changes will often be very different for
the different stakeholders involved in the changes. Each individual construes as it were his own subjective
world model. In that context, it was argued that the state of an individual’s mental harmony is important in
the way he perceives his surroundings, amongst others the organisational environment. In fact, the dualistic
nature of integrity makes it impossible to separate individuals from their situated environments. For instance,
it was argued that individuals who perceive adequate mental harmony have a rather positive perception of
the climate and culture within an organisation, while individuals in a state of mental strain (disharmony) will
perceive the climate within the organisation more negatively. Similarly, individuals have different percep-
tions of organisational IT, since it forms an integral part of the organisational environment.

(8) Role of existing organisational information technology for the individual

Up to now, the main concepts and processes of the CHARISM framework were summarised in some
detail, because they are relevant for understanding the model’s specific contribution to information systems
research. In this paragraph and the next, the CHARISM concepts and processes are applied to organisational
information systems. Before discussing the role of new information technology, it is important to discuss the
role of existing IT in the establishment of individual integrity. Existing information technology is related to
an individual’s integrity in three different manners.

Firstly, organisational information technology is part of the person-environment fit relationship. In-
dividuals that work with IT need to have certain IT-related abilities, and these abilities are an integral part of
the demands-abilities fit function. Moreover, organisational IT not only places demands on individuals that
use it, but may also satisfy an individual’s needs. For instance, e-mail or other communication tools can be
used to increase social contacts between people at different remote locations. User-driven planning and
scheduling systems can increase an individual’s control over his tasks and/or fulfil his need for self-esteem.
Yet other tools require creativity and can thus fulfil a person’s self-actualisation needs, while one’s general
ability to use the technology can increase the esteem of one’s colleagues or superiors.

Secondly, the CHARISM view on IT does not limit its focus to a self-directed perception of informa-
tion technology – “What does IT mean to/for me?” – but it also takes a broader view. Since an individual is
part of a work organisation, he will also have a subjective view on organisational characteristics such as the
organisational culture and climate, the centralisation of decision making, the level of supervisory control, the
formalisation of rules and procedures, the strictness of hierarchical communication, etc. The perception of
those characteristics is an integral part of the individual’s system of meanings and his integrity. Information
technology – as part of the organisational technology – is also a characteristic of the organisation and its

315
functioning, and it will thus be part of the individual’s system of meanings. Each individual will have a per-
ception of the characteristics of the IT in his organisation, for instance as being user-friendly, rigid, too im-
portant, etc. Organisational and technology characteristics are part of the individual’s signification process
with regard to his environment, and will thus play a role in the adequacy of his integrity.

Thirdly, individuals will also have a perception of fit or misfit within an organisation and between
the organisation and its environment, and these perceptions also contribute to mental integrity. It was argued
that three kinds of fit relation are part of an individual’s organisational perception: (a) the fit amongst organ-
isational characteristics, (b) the fit between organisational characteristics and IT characteristics, and (c) the
fit amongst IT characteristics. An example of the first type of fit is the following: an organisational member
will perceive an inconsistency in an organisation that wants employees to show some initiative and be more
self-managing, but at the same time has a high level of supervisor control. An example of the second type of
fit is the following: there is a clear internal inconsistency in an organisation that has, on the one hand, a posi-
tive and open climate where individuals work rather autonomously and with a low degree of management
control, and on the other, information system tools that are used in a strict and supervisory manner. The third
type of fit is related to potential conflicts between different IT characteristics, but this applies mainly to indi-
viduals that are in contact with more than one computer-based information system, who will have a subjec-
tive perception of the degree to which these multiple systems fit with each other.

(9) Individual perceptions of new information technology

An extra dimension to this discussion is added by the development and implementation of new in-
formation technology – be it a major upgrade of existing technology, a new application of existing technol-
ogy, a new off-the-shelf software tool, or a completely new custom-made application. Firstly, the develop-
ment of new technology implies an organisational change, and any change will cause a disruption of the in-
tegrity process, and thus an increased level of mental strain within the organisation. Secondly, because in-
formation technology entails its own complete and consistent set of meanings, which may be quite different
from those that have been socially established by the individuals within the organisation, it may particularly
disrupt ongoing organisational signification processes. Thirdly, new IT arguably needs to fit not only with
individual and organisational characteristics, but also with existing information technology, which makes it
an even more complex process. And fourthly, the new IT will influence the individual’s perceived fit rela-
tions, both within organisational characteristics and between organisational and IT characteristics.

An important argument in relation to the development and implementation of new IT is related to the
tailorability of information systems. If the organisation or its employees have an influence on the develop-
ment of the new information system, its characteristics can be adapted in order to obtain a better match with
individual or organisational characteristics, and to prevent major signification conflicts. Most off-the-shelf
software tools allow a certain degree of customisation by their users, but these customisations often only af-
fect the user interface and not the fundamental functionality of the tools. It was argued that a more funda-
mental flexibility or tailorability of software functionality will allow information technology to be adaptable
to the needs and abilities of the specific users, but also to their signification processes. This applies especially
to software that is developed for or adapted to the specific needs of the organisation in which it is to be used.
Indeed, organisations need to take into account that different users will have different needs and abilities, and
that they therefore should (a) develop information systems accordingly, or (b) be prepared for different reac-
tions by different (groups) of people.

An example of more fundamental tailorability is the following. Consider the IT system that needed
to be developed in the BlueTech project at Omicron. The aim was to allow workers to do the planning and
scheduling of their work more autonomously. At that time, that work was done by an old mainframe system
that optimised the production according to the criteria of optimal use of production machinery and raw mate-
rial, while exceptions were handled by a supervisor, leaving individual production workers as mere order-
followers. Based on the theory described above, it was argued that this way of working will suit some pro-
duction workers, while not suiting a number of others. In order to suit a greater number of workers, one
could develop an IT-based planning and scheduling system that also allows for more user-directed planning
processes. This system could be based on intelligent optimisation techniques, but the application of these
techniques would be dependent on the users’ choice. Some user groups may choose to let the computer sys-
tem continue to do all their planning and scheduling and just follow its orders, while others may choose to let
the computer make a preliminary plan and then adapt it to their needs. A third kind of user group may choose

316
to do part of their planning themselves and let the computer optimally fill the blanks in their planning, while
a final group may choose to do their complete planning themselves and then let the computer system evalu-
ate their plan in order to look for contradictions or conflicts with other production groups. All these scenarios
would be possible with a tailorable information system based on the same functional core, but with a number
of different user modules. The advantage of this kind of system from a CHARISM point-of-view is that it
can be adapted not only to individual needs and abilities, but also to different organisational needs. More-
over, it can be used to assist in a process of gentle organisational change. If an organisation plans to move
from top-down decision making to employee empowerment, and is reluctant to make the change abruptly,
this type of flexible software would allow the organisational, managerial and training processes to proceed
more gently without disturbing optimal production.

b) Organisational level-of-analysis
The argumentation developed at the individual level-of-analysis was duplicated to the organisational
level, and it was argued that – apart from a number of differences – a similar model could be developed for
looking at organisations and the role of information systems at the organisational level. In this paragraph, the
main differences with the individual level-of-analysis will be summarised.

(1) Organi-self
The main problem when arguing for mental harmony processes at an organisational level is how ex-
actly one defines an organisational self. What or who is the mental agent that constructs its own subjective
world image, and that tries to make sense of its role within its environment, and thus to determine fit or mis-
fit between a number of characteristics? It was argued that the organisational self is a function of the mental
processes of its main stakeholders, but also that the existence of a ‘self’ relies on a shared understanding
amongst stakeholders about the needs and abilities of the organisation, its purposes and goals. Arguably, a
minimal shared understanding amongst all internal organisational stakeholders is that the main need and pur-
pose of the organisation is to survive. Survival in a free-market context often means that an organisation
must make money and continue to be ‘healthy’ enough do so.

However, organisational stakeholders usually agree on more than the survival of the organisation. A
shared understanding within and amongst stakeholder groups often implies that there is a minimal common
perception of the main characteristics of the organisation, such as its current status and direction. This is
what was labelled the organi-self: the common denominator of all relevant stakeholders’ perceptions of the
collective and its purposes and goals. How the organi-self is constituted, i.e. which stakeholder perceptions
and needs dominate the organi-self will be different for each organisation. In most organisations, the organi-
self is dominated by the perceptions and needs of owners/managers, while in other organisations the organi-
self is a more balanced function of the perceptions and needs of owners, managers, employees and union rep-
resentatives. Moreover, the organi-self is a dynamic entity that is very sensible to changes and that will be
quite different in different time periods.

(2) Organisational needs & needs portfolios

It was argued that – in a similar way as with individuals – organisations will need to fulfil a number
of needs if they want to survive. The behaviour of organisations is partly directed at fulfilling those needs.
While some organisational needs are directed at immediate physical survival, others are more long-term ori-
ented. As with humans, one can distinguish between a number of needs types, and between basic needs and
higher needs. It was also argued that positing the existence of organisational needs allows for interesting ar-
gumentation. One will for instance find that different stakeholders within the organisation have different per-
ceptions of organisational needs, such as when owners and senior management emphasise the need to extend
and grow, while employees and unions perceive the maintenance of the status quo as most important, in or-
der not to lose their customer base. These different perceptions of the organisation’s needs will not only oc-
cur between stakeholder groups, but also within those groups.
Although this seemed like stretching the comparison between humans and organisations too far, the
existence of organisational needs portfolios was suggested. Each organisation perceives itself as having some
needs that are stronger than others. There will probably also be a single need that is dominant within an or-
ganisation. How the needs portfolio is construed and which need will be dominant at a given point in time,
will be determined both by the internal politics within the organisation, and by the environmental contingen-
cies at that point in time.

317
 The organisational needs portfolio can also be used as a basis for a typology of organisations. In fact,
it was argued that existing typologies of organisational strategy can be interpreted as based on different
needs portfolios. Defender organisations, for example, focus on their existing competencies and abilities, and
do not search for new opportunities outside their domain. They devote their attention mainly to the im-
provement of existing processes. The defender type can be argued to have a needs portfolio where safety and
physiological needs are dominant. Prospector organisations, on the other hand, are usually looking for new
opportunities and new ways of doing things. They stress the need to keep changing with – or ahead of – their
environment. The prospector type can therefore be argued to have a needs portfolio where self-actualisation
needs are stronger than basic needs of safety.

(3) Organisation-environment fit & organisational situational functioning

The concept of organisation-environment fit (OE-fit) is related to organisational needs in the follow-
ing way. In order to fulfil their needs, organisations have to rely on their physical and social environment for
supplies. However, in return for supplying an organisation’s needs, the environment places certain demands
on the organisation. In contrast to the individual level, OE-fit is a multi-subjective process within the organi-
self that perceives fit or misfit between needs and supplies on the one hand, and abilities and demands on the
other, and not a single-subjective ‘self’.
In a similar way as an individual, an organisation relies on its environment to satisfy its needs. On
the other hand, the environment is often too complex, unpredictable and dynamic for an organisation to un-
derstand completely. Indeed, since organisations are collectives of humans with a limited span of attention
and mental processing, organisations will – a fortiori – also have a limited span of attention and processing.
This tension between dependence on the environment and limited mental processing capacity also leads or-
ganisations to function in socially shared situations that enable organisations to fulfil recurring needs in stan-
dardised ways. Examples of such socially shared situations at an organisational level are the use of account-
ing standards and annual reports for reporting financial status of organisations, or the use of specific monthly
or weekly processes for paying employees, etc. Socially situated functioning also contributes to the reduction
of environmental complexity inside organisations. Techniques used to achieve this reduction are for example
formalisation of situated action in procedures and rules, division of authority and attribution of limited com-
petence areas to different functional groups. Organisational socialisation then becomes a matter of getting to
know the organisational situations, both the internally and the externally oriented.
From a situational point of view, organisational functioning is also characterised by the development
of a relatively stable niche to exist in. The repetition and stability that is inherent in such a life is argued to
enable an organisation to develop skills to handle known situations at a more or less ‘automatic’ level of
mental activity. In this way, the organisation can focus attention on what is deemed important at that mo-
ment, such as the optimal performance of existing processes, the solution of task-specific problems or further
development of organisational skills and abilities.

(4) Organisational integrity

Those situations also entail a certain way of thinking, feeling and acting, and therefore act as a kind
of mental filter in the perception of the environment. Indeed, the concept of niche also has implications for
an organisation’s perceptual and cognitive activities, since the situations that the organisation enacts and the
other organisations that it shares situations with, act as filters in the perception of reality and the mental
processing of its perceived reality. The niche that organisations live in supplies a stable system of presuppo-
sitions, meanings, norms, rules and goals, but also templates with social procedures and conventions. The
system enables organisations to make plans, to act in a meaningful and morally responsible way, and to con-
trol their functioning in these situations and their outcomes in a socially acceptable way. This structured
whole of meanings and situations, is called 'integrity of organisational functioning' or for short 'organisation
integrity'. Of course, from an organisational perspective it is important that the relevant internal stakeholders
agree about the nature and characteristics of the niche that the organisation identifies and develops for itself.
This agreement usually exists to a fairly high degree, in the sense that owners, management and employees
often agree upon the major activities, markets, and products of the organisation. When there are disagree-
ments between these stakeholders, they usually pertain to the organisation’s goals, methods or resources.

318
(5) Organisational signification
At the organisational level, the concept of integrity as a system of meanings is equally related to a
process of signification, through which organisations represent their own activities and those of other actors
in such a way that the situational and enacted meanings of these activities are shared. Part of the signification
process is directed at conveying shared meanings, while another part of the process is directed at ‘manipulat-
ing’ shared meanings by redefining, reframing or modifying them in order to fit the purposes of the social
activity at hand. Organisational signification can entail quite complex processes, with quite specific systems
of meanings. Next to its two externally oriented mechanisms – conveying shared meanings and 'manipulat-
ing' shared meanings – signification also entails an inward oriented mechanism where redefinition and re-
framing are used to help an organisation construct, adjust, refine and defend its integrity by applying mean-
ings that serve its purposes.
However, due to the collective nature of an organisation, there will be multiple signification proc-
esses occurring simultaneously, and these will not always coincide. Therefore, organisational signification
can lead to different subjective representations of the external and internal events and entities, thus effec-
tively leading to the construction of different subjective realities. Through a process of organisational poli-
tics, stakeholders can negotiate shared, socially acceptable meanings, but the same process can also lead to a
culmination of contradiction and conflict, both internally in the organisation and in relation to other actors in
the environment. However, when a certain degree of organi-self has been developed, behaviour will arguably
be perceived in function of how the organisation interprets objective situations as opportunities for maintain-
ing and enhancing the self-concept.
Organisations will try to defend their integrity by avoiding disruptions and infringements in their
semi-permanent system of meanings. Avoiding disruptions in integrity is mainly achieved through a multi-
step process of organisational signification, similar to the individual-level process. When changes in the en-
vironment occur, an organisation’s initial reaction will be to try to map the change to a familiar situation, in
order to avoid changes to its established harmony. In a second stage, if no such simple mapping is possible,
the organisation will try to reframe and redefine the meaning of the change in such a way that it makes sense,
i.e. that it does not conflict with the organisational harmony. Only when such a reframing of meanings would
be too drastic and no longer (socially) acceptable, will the organisation need to adjust its system of meanings,
and will the harmony be (temporarily) disrupted.

(6) Organisational harmony, organi-strain and organi-stress

The process of organisational signification will ideally evolve into an integrated, consistent set of
meanings, shared by the major internal stakeholders, which serves the organisation’s goals, is open for
evolution and negotiation and, at the same time, is attuned to the prevailing meanings and needs of the
relevant others (external stakeholders, competitors, etc.). This state was labelled organisational harmony, a
fragile state of being that is reached when the organi-self’s perceived needs, values and abilities are matched
with the multi-subjectively perceived supplies, values and demands of the social and physical environment,
in short when the organisation’s presence in its environment ‘makes sense’ to the internal stakeholders.
As with individual integrity, organisational harmony is argued to lead to organisational well-being
and health, which are reflected in good performance and a relative stability in functioning. On the other
hand, inadequate integrity will be experienced as stressful to an organisation. In relation to the concept of
inadequate organisational integrity, the existence of an organi-strain scale was suggested with organi-stress
and organisational harmony at its extremes. Organisational harmony occurs when (a) an adequate organi-self
has been established, and (b) the organi-self perceives relative fit – i.e. lack of major misfit – between organ-
isational characteristics on the one hand, and between the organisation and its environment on the other.
When there are one or more perceived misfits, or when no adequate organi-self has been established, the or-
ganisation will subjectively experience strain, which is characterised by a temporary raise of ‘blood pres-
sure’, i.e. a temporary increase in non-automatic activity within the organisation.
When the level of organi-strain crosses a subjective threshold, it will be experienced as organi-stress.
This is argued to happen when (a) the degree of strain is perceived as extremely large – caused by one or
more fundamental misfits – but also when (b) strain lasts over an extended period of time or when (c) the
strain is not envisaged to end within the foreseeable future. Organi-stress can cause organisational health
problems, just as individual stress can cause health problems. Health problems at the organisational level will
be reflected in declining turnover, declining customer-base, declining profits, downsizing, high employee
turnover, strikes, etc.

319
(7) Role of existing information technology for the organisation
Also at the organisational level, I want to distinguish between existing IT and new IT in relation to
organisational harmony and stress when discussing the role of IT in organisational harmony. As regards ex-
isting IT, it was argued that – for an organi-self to experience harmony – its IT abilities need to fit the envi-
ronment’s demands and the environment’s supplies need to fit the organisation’s IT needs.

However, it is not as easy to determine the IT demands that the environment places on the organisa-
tion, as it is to determine the IT demands that an organisation imposes on an individual. The way an organi-
sation determines the environment’s demand for IT is by consulting customers, suppliers, and other stake-
holders, by studying its competitors, by studying similar industries or similar countries, or by reading spe-
cialised magazines and journals to find out whether there are any useful innovations in the field. In fact, there
is no major difference in the way organisations determine environmental IT demands from the way they es-
tablish other (technological) demands. For example, customers may inquire about the possibility of using
credit-card payments over the Internet, an inquiry that is perceived by the sales department as an environ-
mental demand, but also as an opportunity. After a period of cost/benefit analysis and internal organisational
evaluations, such environmental demands will often become internalised as organisational goals, i.e. external
demands are often represented as internal organisational needs.
Moreover, organisations also perceive IT needs that do not originate in their environment but that
have their origin in a perceived misfit or opportunity within the organisation. For example, an organisation
that has a number of incompatible systems running in parallel may want to integrate its systems so that its IT
infrastructure becomes more transparent and information can be exchanged between the systems. As long as
this need exists, and has not been satisfied, it may be experienced as a misfit and be a cause of organi-strain.
When applied to IT characteristics, it was argued that organisational harmony obtains when
(a) an adequate organi-self has been established, and
(b) there are no major misfits between
(1) organisational characteristics internally,
(2) IT characteristics internally,
(3) IT and organisational characteristics,
(4) organisation and environment, and
(5) IT and environment

(8) Role of new information technology for the organisation

The introduction of new information technology is an organisational change process that will have
an impact on organisational integrity and will cause a change on the organi-strain axis. The development and
implementation of a new information system is often initiated (a) on the basis of a perceived misfit within
the organisation or between the organisation and its competitors, or (b) on the basis of a perceived new op-
portunity. The perception of a new opportunity can also be regarded as a kind of misfit – more precisely as a
future misfit – in the sense that one may expect competitors to perceive the opportunity as well, and if they
make use of it and implement a new information system, this IS may give them a competitive edge. The
competitive edge of its competitors will change the environment of the organisation and may be perceived as
an infringement of organisational integrity.
When a new information system is introduced to ‘solve’ an existing misfit, organi-strain is expected
to decrease after the successful implementation and uptake of the system. However, one needs to take into
account that every organisational change will initially cause an increase in organi-strain, because of the
changes to existing systems of meaning and routines. Moreover, solving one misfit may create one or more
new misfits, so one needs to take a holistic perspective of the organisation and its environment when imple-
menting organisational change.

As at the individual level, an important distinction needs to be made with regard to the role of new
information technology in organisations, namely whether the new IT is unchangeable or customisable, i.e.
the degree to which the information technology can be adapted to the organisation in which it will be used.
Information technologies are instances of “frozen organisational discourse”, which have a number of mean-
ings and assumptions embedded in them. These embedded meanings and assumptions often reflect quite dif-
ferent organisational and environmental circumstances than the ones in which the information system will be
used, even when the technology has been developed for a wide market. The cognitive and technological
frames of the organisations and individuals that developed information technology artefacts are often quite
different from those that are to be found in the organisations that will be using the information technology.

320
 However, the problem of incompatible meanings and assumptions does not only apply to non-
customisable software, it also applies to situations where information technology is custom-made for a par-
ticular organisation by an internal or external group of technologists, albeit to a lesser degree. The organisa-
tional perception of technology suppliers will often be quite different from that of the managers that ordered
the new information technology for a specific purpose, or that of the organisational members that will be us-
ing the technology. These divergences between different organisational perceptions do not need to be re-
solved completely for a new IT tool to be successful, but the divergences need to be discussed openly, and
need to be acknowledged by all parties that are involved in the design and implementation of the technology.
IS development techniques such as participatory design, socio-technical design or user-centred design are
attempts to draw together different perspectives within an organisation. If assumptions and perceptions can
be expressed, they can be mapped and discussed, and the relevant stakeholders can try to reach a shared
common understanding of the issues involved. This reasoning applies to all types of organisational change,
but especially to information technology, since it can impose meanings on its users without them being
aware of it.

Before implementing a new information system in an organisation, one needs to determine possible
misfits with existing IT and with other organisational characteristics. When an organisation is in a state of
harmony before the introduction of a new system, one will need to try and predict which – if any – existing
fit relations will be disturbed, which consequences this may have, and then consider whether other initiatives
or processes can be started to prevent or alleviate possible imbalances. When an organisation is in a state of
disharmony due to the existence of one or more misfits, then the stakeholders will need to determine whether
the new technology can remove one or more of these misfits, whether new misfits may be introduced, and
which parallel measures are needed to make the changes necessary to remove the misfits. Finally, when an
organisation is in a state of disharmony caused by inadequate development of organi-self, i.e. by major dis-
agreements between the internal stakeholders, new IT will be perceived quite differently by the different
groups of stakeholders, and may cause the disagreements to become larger still.

c) Cross-level HARmony, Integrity and Stress Model – CHARISM

The integrative CHARISM framework – the “Cross-level Harmony, Integrity and Stress Model” –
that was described so far is in fact a double model, in the sense that there was one for the individual level of
analysis and one for the organisational level. It was argued that the two levels needed to be integrated into a
cross-level theoretical model of the role of information systems in organisations. This integration was argued
to be valid because each individual member contributes to the organi-self, but also because an organisation
perceives the degree of harmony of each of its members, as well as the degree of fit of the individual within
the organisational harmony.
Organisational and individual integrity are mutually related in this theoretical model, in the sense
that the individual’s integrity is strongly influenced by the perceptions that his social sub-group within the
organisation hold – especially if he has a strong need to belong to and get esteem from the sub-group. Con-
versely, organisational integrity is strongly influenced by the presence or absence of shared perceptions
within and amongst the different sub-groups. This implies that the presence of organisational harmony – a
high degree of consensus amongst the internal stakeholders – will have a positive effect on individual mental
harmony, and that the presence of organisational disharmony caused by lack of consensus will have a nega-
tive effect on individual harmony. But the reverse also applies: the presence of many individuals with high
levels of mental stress will have a negative effect on organisational harmony, and especially the mental har-
mony or stress of leading individuals will have a strong impact on the perceived level of organi-strain.

By way of conclusion, I want to argue that the CHARISM is a complex holistic theoretical model
that provides a possible answer to the research question formulated at the start of the project. Moreover, it
provides a novel way of conceptualising individual and organisational functioning, and of the effects of this
functioning on technological change projects.

321
2. Empirical results
From this description, it may have become clear that the CHARISM model is an encompassing theo-
retical framework, which cannot be completely developed theoretically and empirically within the frame-
work of a PhD project. Nevertheless, based on the theory, about 65 theoretical hypotheses were formulated,
which summarise the argumentation. For about 25 of those hypotheses, working propositions were formu-
lated and empirical support was sought in a research design with two case studies in two Danish companies,
Alpha and Omicron. The method that was developed to find empirical support for the hypotheses was a hy-
brid mixture of qualitative and quantitative techniques that combined project participation and management,
observation, stakeholder interviews and a questionnaire survey. As far as possible, data from qualitative and
quantitative sources were triangulated.
The number of participants in the study (only men) was rather limited – about 60 at Omicron and
about 30 at Alpha – which means that the statistical value of the quantitative results is only indicative, but
that is all that was intended. The goal of the empirical part was limited to finding support for some of the
main ideas and concepts, at both the individual and the organisational level-of-analysis.

a) Research instruments
The research instruments were developed or borrowed from other sources, and they were discussed
in detail in Chapter 8. The questionnaire that was compiled from existing instruments and new items was
called RIPOSTI, which stands for Research Instrument for the Psycho-Organisational Study of Technology
Implementation. The RIPOSTI instrument was an extensive questionnaire consisting of about 20 pages, and
it contained questions pertaining to individual-level issues, organisational perception and technology issues.
Next to the RIPOSTI instrument there were interviews relating to (1) individual perception of psychosocial
climate, (2) stakeholder judgement of worker climate perception, (3) perception of organisational and envi-
ronmental characteristics (using the questions from the OrgCon® instrument), and (4) the IT implementation
project. Finally, the instrument bundle was complemented with internal and external documentation about
the two companies, and – only at Omicron – participation and observation.

b) Two-case research design

The case studies were performed in two Danish heavy-metal production companies that had imple-
mented projects in which information technology was introduced for production workers on shop floor. At
Omicron the BlueTech project was an experimental research and development project that wanted to show
the usefulness of certain software techniques without implementing major organisational change, whereas
the ShopFloorPC project at Alpha consisted of a major conversion project of a complete production division.
At Alpha, a general change was implemented in which the management structure was thoroughly revised, the
wages system was changed and the workers were given more control over their own functioning. To that
end, they were given access to the technology that was formerly used only by their supervisors.
The Alpha case was rather different from the Omicron case. Whereas the Omicron case was mainly
interesting because of its contested status within the organisation, the Alpha case was mainly interesting be-
cause it allowed a limited before-after comparison for a small group of respondents, as well as a limited ex-
perimental set-up with a test and a control group. Another major difference is the status of the two projects.
BlueTech was a research project and did not entail any organisational change, whereas ShopFloorPC was a
small part within a major organisational change project. However, there are also many important similarities
between the two projects, at least from a research perspective, in the sense that both projects are aimed at
shop-floor production workers in the Danish heavy metal manufacturing industry.

c) Individual-level results
At the individual level-of-analysis, mainly quantitative techniques were used to analyse the answers
to the RIPOSTI questionnaire. A first important result from those analyses concerns the potential role of the
new concept of needs portfolio. Respondents were clustered into groups according to the composition of
their needs portfolios, and both at Alpha and at Omicron there were not only important psychosocial differ-
ences between the groups, but also their perception of their organisational environment was significantly dif-
ferent. A second important trend is that person-environment fit (PE-fit) – and especially needs-supplies fit –
appears to be an important psychosocial parameter, and that there are clear associations between PE-fit and
other psychosocial variables, such as job satisfaction, motivation and commitment. On the other hand, the
correlation between PE-fit and mental physical health is less clear, which indicates that integrity is only par-
tially influenced by the subjective valuation of PE-fit. Other psychological processes, such as satisfaction

322
and commitment, appear to play an important role in determining an individual's mental and physical health,
and seem to be closely linked to the hypothesised underlying sense of mental harmony. A third interesting
finding on the individual level-of-analysis is a clear correlation between PE-fit and the individual's percep-
tion of his organisation, which indirectly provides evidence for the role of the signification process. Finally,
the study only found a limited association between an individual's integrity and his perception of organisa-
tional technology, which is probably related to the marginal role of the new technology in the two case stud-
ies. Indeed, the new technology does not seem to have initiated major changes in the work or the integrity of
the end users involved.

d) Organisational-level results
At the organisational level-of-analysis – more than at the individual level – a combination of qualita-
tive and quantitative techniques was used. Part of the RIPOSTI-instrument investigated organisational per-
ception, whereas the interviews were mainly directed at organisation-environment fit (OE-fit) and the role of
the new technology. Moreover, my participation in the BlueTech project at Omicron was an important source
of information. A first analysis used data from interviews, documents, observation and participation to draw
a portrait of each organisation and its environment. The study shows that the two organisations are currently
in a difficult market position – just as European production industry in general – and that they each try to
cope with that external pressure in a different way. A second group of analyses studied internal signification
processes in the organisations in two ways, firstly by carefully comparing the perceptions of the different
stakeholder groups, and secondly by asking managers and union representatives to estimate the production
workers' perceptions of internal psychosocial climate. Both types of analysis appear to be useful ways of
measuring internal strain, and they yield rather different results for both companies. At Omicron, a fairly
high degree of internal disagreement seemed to exist, even to such an extent that one may speak of two clans
within management, whereas there seemed to be more internal agreement at Alpha. A third main analysis
studied OE-fit by entering stakeholder answers into an expert system – Organisational Consultant – that indi-
cated whether important misfits existed between the organisation and its environment. That analysis covered
organisational characteristics such as strategy, management style, organisational climate, production tech-
nology, product diversity and size on the one hand; and environmental characteristics such as complexity,
predictability and market situation on the other. The answers related to these characteristics were treated in
two ways. Firstly, each respondent's answers were screened for conflicts in his perception of OE-fit, and sec-
ondly, the differences between the respondents were analysed. The results of those analyses suggest that in
both companies a certain level of discussion exists about a number of OE-fit issues, and that especially at
Omicron OE-fit is perceived as problematic.

e) Role of new technology in the two organisations

Moreover, the role of the new technology was quite different in both organisations, as can be con-
cluded from a detailed analysis of the interviews, observations and participation. At Omicron, BlueTech was
a small experimental project about which there were rather diverse perceptions in the company, and which
initiated thorough discussions within management. For one group of managers, the project indicated the di-
rection in which technology development was to evolve in the company, whereas the other group perceived
such a project as a threat to the stability and production within the company. At Alpha on the contrary, there
was hardly any disagreement about the role of the new technology within the new organisational structure.
There was no discussion about production workers getting access to the new IT that was needed in their new
role. The analysis of the role of the IT on the organisational level did reveal a fundamentally different ap-
proach to change processes in the two companies. At Alpha, all levels in the organisation were closely in-
volved in the changes right from the start of the project, whereas the Omicron analysis revealed a signifi-
cantly higher level of conflict between management and the rest of the staff. The complicated history of the
BlueTech project within Omicron provided rather interesting study material from a CHARISM perspective,
because at different points in time there were conflicts between technology characteristics and the character-
istics of the end-users and the organisation. Indeed, especially the analysis of BlueTech indicates that a
model such as CHARISM can be very useful in the different stages of a technology development project,
because the matching of characteristics will pinpoint potential conflicts at an early stage.

In general, the empirical results suggest that some of the CHARISM concepts and processes are
promising instruments and tools for conceptualising the complex interaction between organisational informa-
tion systems, organisations and technology users.

323
B. Future research

In this final section, some suggestions for future research are presented, together with potentially
suitable methods, techniques and instruments.

a) Commensurable characteristics
A search for commensurable characteristics is a first important research path. For each of the entities
in the model, different relevant characteristics need to be (a) found in the literature or (b) theoretically devel-
oped. These characteristics are extremely important in order to allow an adequate matching process. The fol-
lowing matching relations have been described in the dissertation:

- organisational needs vs. environmental supplies (OE-fit)

- organisational abilities vs. environmental demands (OE-fit)
- organisational supplies vs. individual needs (PE-fit)
- organisational demands vs. individual abilities (PE-fit)

- organisational characteristics (needs, abilities, values, processes) vs. IT characteristics

- organisational characteristics vs. organisational characteristics
- IT characteristics vs. IT characteristics

- individual characteristics (needs, abilities) vs. IT characteristics

- individual characteristics (needs, abilities) vs. organisational characteristics (needs, abilities, values,
processes)

This is an extensive list, and it will be a difficult research process to determine which characteristics are rele-
vant and which are not. One possible technique is to put on a ‘CHARISM’ filter during literature review, i.e.
for each organisational, individual, environmental or IT characteristic that one meets in a research paper, one
can stop to think what the impact of this characteristic might be on one of the other entities in the model.
Moreover, it seems most promising to think in terms of potential conflicts or misfits, since that list will pre-
sumably be shorter than a list of fits. A first attempt at inductively developing such a list of IT characteristics
was described in Chapters 2 and 6 above.

b) Needs portfolios
A second topic for future research is a more extensive and in-depth study of the potential role of
needs portfolios, at both the individual and the organisational level-of-analysis.
At the individual level-of-analysis, the data from Omicron and Alpha suggest that needs portfolios
are potentially strong concepts for defining human types, but a broader and more thorough questionnaire
analysis is needed to confirm the usefulness of the concept. In a first stage, such an analysis may be per-
formed within a limited number of large companies, so that the role of organisational and environmental ef-
fects can be minimised. If such an analysis confirms the strong correlations between needs portfolios and
other psychosocial measures, then in a second stage the analysis can be performed in a more cross-sectional
effort, but still one would need a fairly large group of respondents from each participating organisation.
At the organisational level-of-analysis, a first future research effort needs to be directed at deepening
the theoretical understanding of the concept of organisational needs and at defining a better list of organisa-
tional needs than the one suggested in Table 21 (p. 137). On the basis of such a list, a second step would be
to develop an instrument that allows the researcher to measure the potential role of organisational needs port-
folios with regard to relevant organisational and environmental characteristics, such as financial perform-
ance, level of innovation, level of employee turnover, strategy, etc.

c) Organisation-environment fit
A third topic for future research concerns a further development of the concept of organisation-
environment fit. A lot of theoretical work is needed to determine the potential of OE-fit as conceptualised in
the CHARISM model. This work should not only be directed at the organisational needs-supplies fit, but also
at demands-abilities fit. Perhaps some of the work within the ‘resource-based view of the firm’ can provide a
first input towards this latter fit relation. Indeed, one can argue that organisational abilities and organisational
resources are similar concepts, and therefore a literature review of that area may provide a first contribution
324
to this line of research. A second step in an OE-fit research agenda would be to develop a first theoretical
model, and test the validity and relevance of some of its concepts and relations through qualitative interviews
and peer-group discussions. A third step could then be to try to develop a more quantitative instrument that
would measure OE-fit, but also a number of ‘outcome variables’ such as performance, strategy, employee
turnover, etc. The OrgCon® instrument was a first attempt at measuring OE-fit, but a more complete instru-
ment is needed, in which one also asks the respondents to rate their subjective perception of (a) the fit be-
tween separate needs/supplies and demands/abilities, as well as (b) the general degree of OE-fit. Such an in-
strument could be used in a cross-sectional research setting for determining the role of OE-fit in relation to
organisational outcome measures, but also within a single organisation (in combination with a PE-fit instru-
ment) for investigating signification processes and issues of organi-self adequacy.

d) Person-environment fit
A fourth topic for further research pertains to developing a more thorough understanding of PE-fit,
and its relation to other psychosocial processes. In my view, a revision of the RIPOSTI instrument should
contain direct questions about the respondent’s perceived fit for each separate item, as well as his perception
of general person-environment fit. Such a revised RIPOSTI could then be used to quantitatively study the
role of PE-fit in two stages. In a first stage, the instrument would be applied within a limited number of large
organisations, again in order to minimise the role of organisational and environmental differences. In a sec-
ond stage, a cross-sectional analysis would be appropriate.

e) Information technology issues

A fifth topic for further research concerns a thorough investigation of the role of (information) tech-
nology issues within the individual and organisational signification processes. Firstly, a number of qualita-
tive techniques are recommended for establishing the relevance, suitability and clarity of the issues. For in-
stance, observation of different types of users could be informative, as well as in-depth interviews with tech-
nology users and non-users. These techniques may pinpoint the most important technology-related needs and
abilities, as well as possible ways of ‘measuring’ fit between the individual and the technology. Secondly,
quantitative instruments can be developed, since it seems useful to study large groups of respondents in order
to ascertain the role of technology fit for the individual, as well as for the organisation. When an instrument
has been developed, it will again be important to try and have as many different ‘types’ of technology users
participate in the research, so that the results allow a good overview of the expected variety of ‘technology
needs portfolios’ and different perceptions of fit. Two different confirmatory research designs (at the indi-
vidual level-of-analysis) could be useful in this context.
- One can design studies in such a way that they indirectly study the fit between the individual and the
technology, in the sense that one compares a before- and after-position of the individual with regard to a
number of psychosocial issues, as I tried to do in the Alpha case. This approach has the advantage that it
does not require an instrument specifically tailored to the technology that is being implemented. The dis-
advantage is that a number of events and changes might have occurred between the two points in time, in
parallel with the technology implementation, and then one has no way of knowing whether the technol-
ogy had any real effect.
- A study that directly measures the degree of fit would need to inquire about which needs and abilities a
person has in relation to technology. After the implementation, one would need to inquire about the level
of supplies and demands that the new technology implies, but also to ask the respondent about his sub-
jective perception of fit or misfit.
At the organisational level-of-analysis, a set of relevant IT characteristics needs to be defined and validated
before the organisational issues – such as the fit between IT and organisation – can be properly investigated.

f) General validation of the CHARISM framework

Finally yet importantly, the main concepts and processes of the CHARISM model, as well as the
overall framework need a general theoretical validation, in the sense that their relevance and appropriateness
need to be validated within the scientific communities from which their theoretical basis was derived. This
validation can be achieved in a multi-stage process: firstly through discussions with a few selected authors
who have published related ideas and models, secondly in scientific workshops, and thirdly by attempting to
publish parts of the model in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

___________________________________

325
References

Academy of Management Online. (2000). The Academy of Management. Available: http://www.aom.pace.edu/ [2000, 2
october].
Adair, J. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: a reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 69, 334-345.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 267-300). New York: Academic Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 4, 143-175.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness and Growth. New York: Free Press.
Alexander, J. C. (1990). Analytic debates: understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In J. C. Alexander & S.
Seidman (Eds.), Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative com-
mitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Allen, R. E. (Ed.). (1990). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (8th. ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Allen, T. J., & Hauptman, O. (1987). The influence of communication technologies on organizational structure: a con-
ceptual model for future research. Communication Research, 14(5), 575-587.
Andersen, P. B. (1997). A Theory of Computer Semiotics: Semiotic Approaches to Construction and Assessment of
Computer Systems (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ang, J., & Pavri, F. (1994). A survey and critique of the impacts of information technology. International Journal of
Information Management, 14(2), 122-133.
Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Arnold, J., Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Work Psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the work-
place (2nd ed.). London: Pitman.
Ashworth, C., & Goodland, M. (1990). SSADM: A Practical Approach. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Attewell, P. (1987). The deskilling controversy. Work & Occupations, 14, 323-346.
Attewell, P., & Rule, J. (1984). Computing and organizations: what we know and what we don't know. Communications
of the ACM, 27(12), 1184-1191.
Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (1995). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Avison, D. E., & Myers, M. D. (1995). Information systems and anthropology: an anthropological perspective on IT
and organizational culture. Information Technology & People, 8(3), 43-56.
Avison, D. E., & Taylor, V. (1997). Information systems development methodologies: a classification according to
problem situation. Journal of Information Technology, 12, 73-81.
Avison, D. E., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1990). Multiview: An Exploration in Information Systems Development. Maid-
enhead: McGraw-Hill.
Avison, D. E., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1991). Information systems development research: an exploration of ideas in
practice. Computer Journal, 34, 98-112.
Avison, D. E., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (2003). Bringing social and organisational issues into information systems devel-
opment: the story of Multiview. In S. Clarke, E. Coakes, M. G. Hunter & A. Wenn (Eds.), Socio-Technical and
Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems (pp. 5-21). Hershey (PA): Information Science Publishing.
Avison, D. E., Wood-Harper, A. T., Vidgen, R. T., & Wood, J. R. G. (1998). A further exploration in to information
systems development: the evolution of Multiview2. Information Technology & People, 11(2), 124-139.

326
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (1996). The organizational transformation process: the mi-
cropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
477-506.
Barbuto, J. (1996). Motivation in the 1990's.Unpublished manuscript.
Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). A keyword classification scheme for IS research literature: an update. MIS
Quarterly, 17(2), 209-226.
Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 28, 393-413.
Barley, S. R. (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.
Barling, J., Wade, B., & Fullagar, C. (1990). Predicting employee commitment to company and union: divergent mod-
els. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 49-61.
Baroudi, J. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1988). A short-form measure of user information satisfaction: a psychometric
evaluation and notes on use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 4(4), 44-59.
Barr, P. S., & Huff, A. S. (1997). Seeing isn't believing: understanding diversity in the timing of strategic response.
Journal of Management Studies, 34, 337-370.
Barrett, G. V., & Bass, B. M. (1976). Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dun-
nette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1st. ed., pp. 1639-1686). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Bartunek, J., & Moch, M. (1987). First order, second order, and third order change and organization development inter-
ventions: a cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483-500.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi-
ness School Press.
Bendix, H. W. (1995). Middle managers as implementors of intensive change. København: Samfundslitteratur.
Benyon, D., & Skidmore, S. (1987). Towards a tool-kit for the systems analyst. Computer Journal, 30, 2-7.
Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2001). Fit in strategic information technology management research: an em-
pirical comparison of perspectives. OMEGA, 29(2), 125-142.
Berniker, E. (1987, November). Understanding technical systems. Paper presented at the Symposium on Management
Training Programs: Implications of New Technologies, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bickerton, M., & Siddiqi, J. (1992). The classification of requirements engineering methods. IEEE, 182-186.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New
Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Papers of a Workshop Held at the University of Twente
in July 1984. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bjørn-Andersen, N. (1985). Conference review: IS research - a doubtful science. In E. Mumford, R. A. Hirschheim, G.
Fitzgerald & T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems - Proceedings of the IFIP WG
8.2 Colloquium, Manchester Business School, 1-3 September, 1984 (pp. 273-277). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub-
lishing Corporation.
Bjørn-Andersen, N., Eason, K., & Robey, D. (1986). Managing Computer Impact: An International Study of Manage-
ment and Organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bødker, S. (1989). A human activity approach to user interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 171-195.
Bødker, S. (1991). Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Bødker, S. (2000). Scenarios in user-centred design-setting the stage for reflection and action. Interacting with Com-
puters, 13(1), 61-75.
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (1996). Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering. Information
Technology & People, 9(4), 40-57.
Bougon, M. G. (1992). Congregate cognitive maps: a unified dynamic theory of organization and strategy. Journal of
Management Studies, 29, 369-389.

327
Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1994). Knowledge and information in international information management: Problems of
classification and coding. In L. Bud-Frierman (Ed.), Information Acumen: The Understanding and Use of
Knowledge in Modern Business. London: Routledge.
Brinkkemper, S., Lyytinen, K., & Welke, R. J. (Eds.). (1996). Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction
and Tool Support. London: Chapman & Hall.
Bubenko, J. A., Jr. (1986). Information system methodologies – a research view. In T. W. Olle, H. G. Sol & A. A. Ver-
rijn-Stuart (Eds.), Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice. Amsterdam: North-
Holland.
Bullen, C. V., & Bennett, J. L. (1990). Learning from user experience with groupware. Proceedings of the Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (October, Los Angeles, CA), 291-302.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Kaufman, J. D. (2002). Contemporary perspectives on the study of psychological cli-
mate: a commentary. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 11(3), 325-340.
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly,
44(2), 83-92.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Burr, H. (2000). Danskernes anvendelse af computere på arbejdet i 1999. København: Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet.
Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2000). Fit and misfits in the multi-dimensional contingency model: An organ-
izational change perspective (LOK report No. 1-2000). Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (Forthcoming). The opportunity cost of extreme situational and contingency
misfits.
Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1995). Strategic organisational diagnosis and design. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1998). Strategic organisational diagnosis and design: Developing theory for application
(2nd ed.). Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cafasso, R. (1993, March 15). Rethinking reengineering. ComputerWorld, 102-105.
Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law & A. Rip
(Eds.), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London:
Macmillan.
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on
Power, Technology and Domination (pp. 132-161). London: Routledge.
Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit: Past, present, and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress Research (pp. 35-
78). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives,
and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.
Caplan, R. D. (1998). Person-Environment Fit. In J. M. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and
Safety (Vol. 1, pp. 34.15-34.17). Geneva: International Labour Office.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. J. (1980). Job Demands and Worker
Health. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.
Capretz, L. F. (2003). Personality types in software engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
58(2), 207-214.
Carrell, M. R., Jennings, D. F., & Heavrin, C. J. D. (1997). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Carroll, J. M. (1995). Scenario-based design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 46, 501-522.
Carroll, J. M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 43-60.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.

328
Cheney, P. H., & Dickson, G. W. (1982). Organizational characteristics and information systems: an exploratory inves-
tigation. Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 170-184.
Chow, I. H.-s. (1994). Organizational commitment and career development of Chinese managers in Hong Kong and
Taiwan. International Journal of Career Management, 6(4), 3-9.
Ciborra, C. U. (1996). What does groupware mean for the organizations hosting it? In C. U. Ciborra (Ed.), Groupware
and Teamwork (pp. 1-19). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, P. A. (1987). Anglo-American Innovation. London: Routledge.
Clarke, S., Coakes, E., Hunter, M. G., & Wenn, A. (Eds.). (2003). Socio-technical and human cognition elements of
information systems. Hershey (PA): Information Science Publishing.
Claver, E., Gonzalez, R., & Llopis, J. (2000). An analysis of research in information systems (1981-1997). Information
& Management, 37(4), 181-195.
Clegg, C. (1994). Psychology and information technology - the study of cognition in organizations. British Journal of
Psychology, 85, 449-477.
Clegg, C., Axtell, C., Damadoran, L., Farbey, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R., & Tomlinson, C.
(1997). Information technology: a study of performance and the role of human and organisational factors. Er-
gonomics, 40(9), 851-871.
Coffin, R. J., & Macintyre, P. D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related affective states. Computers in
Human Behavior, 15(5), 549-569.
Cohen, E., & Tichy, N. (1997). How leaders develop leaders. Training Development, 51, 58-74.
Cooper, C. L. (1984). Executive stress: a ten country comparison. Human Resource Management, 23(4), 395-407.
Cooper, C. L. (Ed.). (1998). Theories of Organizational Stress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (1986). Editorial foreword. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. ix-xi). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Corner, P. D., Kinicki, A. J., & Keats, B. W. (1996). Integrating organizational and individual information processing
perspectives on choice. In J. R. Meindl, C. Stubbart & J. F. Porac (Eds.), Cognition Within and Between Or-
ganizations (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cox, T., Griffiths, A., Rial-González, E., & European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Eds.). (2000). Research
on Work-related Stress. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of management information systems, 1980-1985: a co-citation
analysis. MIS Quarterly, 11, 341-353.
Cummings, T., & Blumberg, M. (1987). Advanced manufacturing technology and work design. In T. D. Wall, C. W.
Clegg & N. J. Kemp (Eds.), The Human Side of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (pp. 37-60). Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of Ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), Translating Organiza-
tional Change (pp. 13-47). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1992). Exploring Complex Organizations: A Cultural Perspective. London: Sage.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1994). The Three-Dimensional Organization: A Constructionist View. Lund: Chartwell Bratt.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1998). A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions.
Das, S. R., Zahra, S. A., & Warkentin, M. E. (1991). Integrating the content and process of strategic MIS planning with
competitive strategy. Decision Sciences, 22(5), 953-984.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two
theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the work-
place. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111-1132.
Davis, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal, 21, 4-30.

329
Davis, G. B. (2000). Information systems conceptual foundations: looking backward and forward. In R. Baskerville, J.
Stage & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology: IFIP TC8
WG8.2 International Working Conference on the Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and
Practice in Information Technology. June 9-11, 2000, Aalborg, Denmark. (pp. 61-82). Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
de Saussure, F. (1949). Cours de Linguistique Général. Paris.
de Souza, C. S. (1993). The semiotic engineering of user interface languages. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 39, 753-773.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures:The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, MA: Ad-
dison-Wesley.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Informa-
tion Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's
point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 1-21.
DeSanctis, G. (1982). An examination of an expectancy theory model of decision support system usage. Unpublished
PhD dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration
theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.
Dieterly, D. L., & Schneider, B. (1984). The effect of organizational environment on perceived power and climate: A
laboratory study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 316-337.
Doherty, N. F., & King, M. (1998). The importance of organisational issues in systems development. Information Tech-
nology & People, 11(2), 104-123.
Doherty, N. F., & King, M. (2003). From technical change to socio-technical change: towards a proactive approach to
the treatment of organisational issues. In S. Clarke, E. Coakes, M. G. Hunter & A. Wenn (Eds.), Socio-
Technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems (pp. 22-40). Hershey (PA): Information Sci-
ence Publishing.
Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two con-
figurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1198-1250.
Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). An examination of the alternative forms of contingency theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 514-539.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (1996). Stress and Human Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
du Plooy, N. F. (2003). The social responsibility of information systems developers. In S. Clarke, E. Coakes, M. G.
Hunter & A. Wenn (Eds.), Socio-Technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems (pp. 41-
59). Hershey (PA): Information Science Publishing.
Eason, K. (1988). Information technology and organisational changes. London: Taylor & Francis.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory: conceptual foundations, em-
pirical evidence and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress
(pp. 28-67). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artefacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Episkopou, D. M., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1986). Towards a framework to choose appropriate IS approaches. Compu-
ter Journal, 29, 222-228.
Ericson, T. (2001). Sensemaking in organisations - towards a conceptual framework for understanding strategic change.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1), 109-131.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Ed.). (2002). How to tackle psychosocial issues and reduce work-
related stress. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Science Foundation. (2000). ESF. Available: http://www.esf.org/ [2000, 2 october].
Ewusi-Mensah, K., & Przasnyski, Z. H. (1994). Factors contributing to the abandonment of information systems devel-
opment projects. Journal of Information Technology, 9(3), 185-201.

330
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude,
intention and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421-435.
Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order Without Design. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fiedler, K. D., Grover, V., & Teng, J. T. C. (1996). An empirically derived taxonomy of information technology struc-
ture and its relationship to organizational structure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1).
Fiol, C. M. (1989). A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries and joint venturing. Academy
of Management Journal, 34(2), 277-303.
Fiol, C. M. (1991). Seeing the empty spaces - towards a more complex understanding of the meaning of power in or-
ganizations. Organization Studies, 12(4), 547-566.
Fischer, G. (1996). Seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding: constructing, capturing and evolving knowledge in
domain-oriented design environments. In A. G. Sutcliffe, D. Benyon & F. van Assche (Eds.), Domain Knowl-
edge for Interactive System Design (pp. 1-16). London: Chapman & Hall.
Franz, C. R., & Robey, D. (1987). Strategies for research on information systems in organizations: a critical analysis of
research purpose and time frame. In R. J. Boland, Jr. & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical Issues in Information
Systems Research (pp. 205-225). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W. L., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G. Coelho, D. Ham-
burg & J. Adams (Eds.), Coping and Adaptation (pp. 316-333). New York: Basic Books.
Furnham, A. (1993). Expectations about work (Unpublished manuscript). London: University College London.
Furnham, A. (1997). The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organization. Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). The historicity of understanding. In P. Connerton (Ed.), Selected Readings (pp. 117-133). Har-
mondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36.
Galliers, R. D. (1985). In search of a paradigm for information systems research. In E. Mumford, R. A. Hirschheim, G.
Fitzgerald & T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems - Proceedings of the IFIP WG
8.2 Colloquium, Manchester Business School, 1-3 September, 1984 (pp. 281-297). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Galliers, R. D. (1998). Reflections on BPR, IT and organizational change. In R. D. Galliers & W. R. J. Baets (Eds.),
Information Technology and Organizational Transformation: Innovation for the 21st Century Organization
(pp. 223-243). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Galliers, R. D., & Land, F. F. (1987). Choosing appropriate information systems research methodologies (Viewpoint).
Communications of the ACM, 30(11), 900-903.
Gallivan, M. J. (1996). Contradictions among stakeholder assessments of a radical change initiative: a cognitive frames
analysis. In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Technology and
Changes in Organisational Work. Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 working conference on information technol-
ogy and organisational changes, December 1995 (pp. 107-130). London: Chapman & Hall.
Gallivan, M. J. (1997). Value in triangulation: A comparison of two approaches for combining qualitative and quantita-
tive methods. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research -
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Re-
search, 31st May-3rd June 1997, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 417-443). London: Chapman & Hall.
Gash, D. C., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Changing frames: towards an understanding of information technology and
organizational change. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 51st Annual Meeting (Miami
Beach, August 1991), 189-193.
Gasser, L. (1986). The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 4(3),
205-225.
Gatian, A. W. (1994). Is user satisfaction a valid measure of system effectiveness? Information & Management, 26(3),
119-131.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

331
Gilbert, C., & Bower, J. L. (2002). Disruptive change - When trying harder is part of the problem. Harvard Business
Review, 80(5), 94-+.
Gill, T. G. (1995). High-tech hidebound: case studies of information technologies that inhibit organizational learning.
Accounting, Management Information Technology, 5(1), 41-60.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working withEmotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (2002). Do you have a well-designed organization? Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 117-+.
Gordon, C. (1968). Self-conceptions: Configurations of content. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The Self in Social
Interaction (pp. 115-135). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gordon, J. R. (1999). Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Gorry, G. A., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1971). A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management
Review, 13(1), 55-70.
Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Greenblatt, E. (2002). Work/Life Balance: Wisdom or Whining. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2), 177-193.
Greimas, A. J. (1966). Sémantique Structurale. Paris: Larousse.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hamner, W. C. (1975). Reinforcement theory and contingency management in organizational settings. In R. M. Steers
& L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and Work Behavior (pp. 477-504). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Han, J., Yoon, J., & Kim, Y. (2000). A study on the role of information systems in organizational growth: a longitudinal
case study. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 2(2).
Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. N. (2002). The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst change. Human Rela-
tions, 55(6), 639-667.
Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress At Work (pp.
175-205). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Harrison, R. V. (1985). The person-environment fit model and the study of job stress. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat
(Eds.), Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations (pp. 23-55). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Heijltjes, M., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2003). Configurations of market environments, competitive strategies, manufac-
turing technologies and human resource management policies : A two-industry and two-country analysis of
fit. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(1), 31-62.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.
Higgins, E. T., Klein, R. L., & Strauman, T. J. (1987). Self discrepancies: Distinguishing among self-states, self-state
conflicts, and emotional vulnerabilities. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and Identity: Psychosocial
Contributions (pp. 173-186). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hirschheim, R. A., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the
ACM, 32(10), 1199-1216.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequence: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1982). Values Survey Module - Version 1982 - Danish. Maastricht: Rijksuniversiteit Limburg - Institute
for Research on Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC).
Hofstede, G., Kraut, A., & Simonetti, S. H. (1977). Development of a core attitude survey questionnaire for interna-
tional use. JSAS Catalogy of Selected Documents in Psychology, 7(1439), 7-21.
Hofstede, G., Neuyen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and
quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 873-919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

332
Holmqvist, B., Andersen, P. B., Klein, H. K., & Posner, R. (Eds.). (1996). Signs of Work: Semiosis and Information
Processing in Organisations. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Hornby, P., Clegg, C. W., Robson, J. I., MacClaren, C. R. R., Richardson, S. C. S., & O’Brien, P. (1992). Human and
organisational issues in information systems development. Behaviour & Information Technology, 11(3), 160-
174.
Howcroft, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janus role of the systems developer. In-
formation and Organization, 13(1), 1-24.
Huber, G. P. (1983). Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ado about nothing? Management Sci-
ence, 26(5), 567-579.
Huber, G. P., Sutcliffe, K. M., Miller, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1993). Understanding and predicting organizational
change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign (pp. 215-265). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1985). Organizational technologies: effects on organizations' characteristics and indi-
viduals. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 39-86).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hunter, S. D., III. (1999). Information Technology and Organization Structure. Unpublished PhD, Duke University,
Durham, NC.
Iivari, J., & Hirschheim, R. (1996). Analyzing information systems development: a comparison and analysis of eight IS
development approaches. Information Systems, 21(7), 551-575.
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R. A., & Klein, H. K. (1998). A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems develop-
ment approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 164-193.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfac-
tion: A field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2),
1119-1139.
International Federation for Information Processing. (2000). IFIP. Available: http://www.ifip.or.at/ [2000, 2 october].
Irving, P. G., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Reexamination of the met-expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 79, 937-949.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers construe key organizational events.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7-41.
Ives, B., Olson, M. H., & Baroudi, J. J. (1983). The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of
the ACM, 26(10), 785-793.
Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. Journal of Operations Research, 35,
473-486.
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of
meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739-751.
James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social
learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psychology, 31, 781-813.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 40-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jensen, B. C., Netterstrøm, B., & Borg, V. (2003). ARIT - Arbejdsmiljø Indenfor IT-branchen: en forskningsrapport fra
Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet & Arbejdsmedicinsk Klinik, Hillerød Sygehus. København: Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet
(Danish National Institute of Occupational Health).
Johnson, B. M., & Rice, R. E. (1987). Managing Organizational Innovation: The Evolution from Word Processing to
Office Information Systems. New York: Columbia University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Computer & the Mind: An Introduction to Cognitive Science. Harvard: Harvard University
Press.
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of Social Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 721-742.
Jorna, R., & van Heusden, B. (2000). Reconsidering the standard: A semiotic model of organisation(s). Paper presented
at the 3rd International Workshop on Organisational Semiotics, July 4th, 2000, Stafford.

333
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consult-
ing Psychologists Press.
Kanungo, S. (1993). Information systems: theoretical development and research approaches. Information Systems,
18(8), 609-619.
Karasek, R. (1998). Demand/control model: A social, emotional, and physiological approach to stress risk and active
behaviour development. In J. M. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety (Vol. 1, pp.
34.36-34.15). Geneva: International Labour Office.
Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Karasek, R. A., Jr., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work, Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life.
New York: Basic Books.
Karsten, H. (1995). "It's like everyone working around the same desk": organizational readings of Lotus Notes. Scandi-
navian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 3-32.
Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-
153.
Keil, M., & Montealegre, R. (2000). Cutting your losses: extricating your organization when a big project goes awry.
Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 55-68.
Keller, E. L. (1999). Lessons learned. Manufacturing Systems.
Kelly, T. P., Lam, W., Whittle, B. R., Mowles, A., & Rimmer, R. (1996). Diary of a domain analyst: a domain analysis
case-study from avionics. In A. G. Sutcliffe, D. Benyon & F. van Assche (Eds.), Domain Knowledge for Inter-
active System Design. (pp. 19-33). London: Chapman & Hall.
Kensing, F., Simonsen, J., & Bødker, K. (1998). MUST: a method for participatory design. Human-Computer Interac-
tion, 13, 167-198.
King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., & Yap, C.-S. (1994). Institutional factors in
information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 5, 139-169.
Kirs, P. J., Sanders, G. L., Cerveny, R. P., & Robey, D. (1989). An experimental validation of the Gorry and Scott Mor-
ton framework. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 183-197.
Klein, H. K., & Hirschheim, R. A. (1987). Social change and the future of information systems development. In R. J.
Boland, Jr. & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (pp. 275-305). Chich-
ester: John Wiley & Sons.
Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1985). The poverty of scientism in information systems. In E. Mumford, R. A. Hirsch-
heim, G. Fitzgerald & T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems - Proceedings of the
IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, Manchester Business School, 1-3 September, 1984 (pp. 131-161). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in in-
formation systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1).
Kluwer Academic Publishers. (2000). Available: http://www.wkap.nl/ [2000, December 7th].
Korunka, C., Weiss, A., & Karetta, B. (1993). Die Bedeutung des Umstellungsprozesses bei der Einführung neuer
Technologien. Eine interdisziplinäre Längsschnittstudie - Importance of the reorientation process during the
introduction of new technologies - an interdisciplinary longitudinal-study. Zeitschrift Fur Arbeits-Und
Organisationspsychologie, 37(1), 10-18.
Korunka, C., Weiss, A., & Karetta, B. (1993). Effects of new technologies with special regard for the implementation
process per se. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(4), 331-348.
Korunka, C., Zauchner, S., & Weiss, A. (1997). New information technologies, job profiles, and external workload as
predictors of subjectively experienced stress and dissatisfaction at work. International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 9(4), 407-424.
Koskela, L., & Kazi, A. S. (2003). Information technology in construction: how to realise the benefits? In S. Clarke, E.
Coakes, M. G. Hunter & A. Wenn (Eds.), Socio-Technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information
Systems (pp. 60-75). Hershey (PA): Information Science Publishing.
Koys, D. J., & Decotiis, T. A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, 44(3), 265-285.

334
Kraut, R. E., Dumais, S. T., & Koch, S. (1989). Computerization, productivity and quality of work-life.
Communications of the ACM, 32(2), 220-238.
Kristensen, T. S. (2001). A new tool for assessing psychosocial factors at work: The Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire. Paper presented at the Conference on Occupational Health Psychology, Barcelona, October
2001.
Kristensen, T. S. (2002). Improvements of the psychosocial work environment on a scientific basis: The Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire. Paper presented at the 16th International Symposium on Epidemiology in
Occupational Health, Barcelona, September 2002.
Kristensen, T. S., & Borg, V. (2000). AMI' spørgeskema om psykisk arbejdsmiljø - AMI's Questionnaire on
Psychological Working Environment. København: Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet (Danish National Institute of
Occupational Health).
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and
implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In R. J.
Boland, Jr. & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (pp. 227-251).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kyng, M., & Mathiassen, L. (Eds.). (1997). Computers and Design in Context. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Langfield-Smith, K. (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 349-
368.
Lanzara, G. F. (1999). Between transient constructs and persistent structures: designing systems in action. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 8(4), 331-349.
Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action, and Belief. London: Routledge & Kegan.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1996a). Aramis or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1996b). Social Theory and the Study of Computerized Work Sited. In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R.
Jones & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work: Proceedings of
the IFIP WG8.2 working conference on information technology and changes in organizational work,
December 1995. London: Chapman & Hall.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (1997). Management Information Systems: New Approaches to Organization and
Technology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Patterson, M., & West, M. A. (1992). Employee Opinion Survey. Sheffield: Centre for
Economic Performance - Institute of Work Psychology.
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019-
1024.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124-129.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Verlag.
Leifer, R. (1988). Matching computer-based information systems with organizational structures. MIS Quarterly, 12(1),
63-73.
Leontjew, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates.
Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
Linstone, H. A. (1985). Multiple perspectives: overcoming the weaknesses of MS/OR. Interfaces, 15(4), 77-85.
Linstone, H. A. (1989). Multiple perspectives: concept, applications, and user guidelines. Systems Practice, 2(3), 307-
331.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and Organization Climate. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate
School of Business Administration.

335
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1350). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 288-299.
Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: what we know. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in
Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375-412). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Locke, J. (1690). Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Unabridged 1959 ed.). Dover, New York.
Long, R. J. (1987). New Office Information Technology: Human and Managerial Implications. London: Croon Helm.
Lucas, H. C., Jr. (1975). Why Information Systems Fail. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lyytinen, K. (1987). A taxonomic perspective of information systems development: theoretical constructs and
recommendations. In R. J. Boland, Jr. & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems
Research (pp. 3-41). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
MacLean, A., Carter, K., Lovstrand, L., & Moran, T. M. (1990). User-tailorable systems: pressing the issues with
buttons, Proceedings of the ACM CHI'90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 175-182).
New York, NY: ACM Press.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444.
Markus, M. L. (1984). Systems in Organizations: Bugs and Features. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Markus, M. L. (1994). Finding a happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social
life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 119-149.
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and
research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.
Martin, J. (1991). Rapid Application Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organization: Three perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(370-396).
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. J., & Cohen, R. S. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realisation of Living. Boston,
MA: Reidel.
McAdams, D. P. (1988). Personal needs and personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal
Relationships (pp. 7-22). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
McClelland, D. (1985). Human motivation. Chicago: Scott-Foresman.
McGregor, D. (1969). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McHugh, P. (1968). Defining the Situation: The Organization of Meaning in Social Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merril.
McKeen, J. D., & Guimaraes, T. (1997). Successful strategies for user participation in systems development. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 14(2), 133-150.
Meindl, J. R., Hunt, R. G., & Lee, W. (1989). Individualism-collectivism and work values: data from the United States,
China, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Suppl. 1,
59-77.
Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: an integration of three different views. Journal of Management
Studies, 24(6), 623-647.

336
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D. (1981). Toward a new contingency approach: the search for organizational gestalts. Journal of Management
Studies, 18(1), 1-26.
Miller, D. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 116-138.
Miller, D. (1994). What happens after success: the perils of excellence. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 325-358.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1977). Strategy making in context: Ten empirical archetypes. Journal of Management
Studies, 14, 259-280.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65(July-August 1987), 66-75.
Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 39-59.
Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 19, 1997 (Vol. 19, pp. 57-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mitroff, I., & Linstone, H. (1993). The Unbounded Mind, Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Thinking. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moran, E. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of organizational climate. Human
Relations, 45(1), 19-47.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Moscovici, S. (1983). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social
Representations (pp. 1-83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mottaz, C. J. (1988). Determinants of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 41, 467-482.
Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus
complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
Mumford, E. (1983). Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS Method. Manchester, UK:
Manchester Business School.
Mumford, E. (1995). Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach to Computer
Systems Design. London: Macmillan.
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., & Walton, A. E. (1995). Discontinuous Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nandhakumar, J., & Avison, D. E. (1999). The fiction of methodological development: a field study of information
systems development. Information Technology & People, 12(2), 176-191.
Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge
(MA): MIT Press.
Nielsen, M. L., Kristensen, T. S., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2002). The Intervention Project on Absence and Well-being
(IPAW): design and results from the baseline of a 5-year study. Work & Stress, 16(3), 191-206.
Nielsen, M. L., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2002). Psykisk arbejdsmiljø og fravær: resultater fra første spørgeskema 1996-97
og fraværsdata 1996-98 (Arbejdspapir). Copenhagen: Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet / National Institute for
Occupational Health.
O'Hara, M. T., & Watson, R. T. (1995). Automation, business process reengineering and client server technology: a
three stage model of organizational change. In V. Grover & W. J. Kettinger (Eds.), Business Process Change:
Re-engineering Concepts, Methods and Technologies (pp. 143-164). Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
O'Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture - a profile comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognition vs affect in measures of job satisfaction. International Journal of
Psychology, 20, 241-253.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992a). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.

337
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992b). Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. Proceedings of
the 1992 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (November, Toronto, Canada), 362-369.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in
systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309-405.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective.
Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in
organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and
assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in
organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Hofman, J. D. (1997). An improvisational model for change management: the case of groupware
technologies. Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 11-21.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information
Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: The
metastructuring of technology in use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423-444.
Orpen, C. (1979). The effects of job enrichment on employee satisfaction, motivation, involvement and performance.
Human Relations, 32(3), 189-217.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Pascale, R. T. (1985). The paradox of 'corporate culture': Reconciling ourselves to socialization. California
Management Review, 27(2), 26-41.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organization. American Sociological Review, 32(2),
144-208.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and Organization Theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pierce, C. S. (1931-35). Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and
the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Science Studies, 14, 399-441.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. London: Prentice-Hall.
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (2000). Methods for the study of structuration in information technology. Paper presented
at the Organization Science Winter Conference, Winter Park, CO.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
Porac, J. F., Meindl, J. R., & Stubbart, C. (1996). Cognition within and between organizations: introduction. In J. R.
Meindl, C. Stubbart & J. F. Porac (Eds.), Cognition Within and Between Organizations (pp. ix-xxiii).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pousette, A., & Hanse, J. J. (2002). Job characteristics as predictors of ill-health and sickness absenteeism in different
occupational types - a multigroup structural equation modelling approach. Work and Stress, 16(3), 229-250.
Prates, R. O., de Souza, C. S., & Garcia, A. C. B. (1997). A semiotic framework for multi-user interfaces. SICHI
Bulletin, 29(2), 28-39.
Quinn, R. E., Kahn, J. A., & Mandl, M. J. (1994). Perspectives on organizational change: exploring movement at the
interface. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior - The State of the Science (pp. 109-133). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbauch, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach
to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

338
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis
of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Research in Organizational Change and Develop-
ment, 5, 115-142.
Ranson, S., Hinings, B., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25, 1-17.
Rasmussen, K. B., & Verjans, S. (1998, 11-18 Nov 1998). Bringing IT to a production shop floor: on defining the scope
of context. Paper presented at the Workshop on "User-Centred Design in Practice: Problems and Possibilities" -
Joint workshop of the Participatory Design Conference'98 and the ACM Computer-Supported Cooperative
Design'98 conference, Seattle (WA).
Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Application. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P. (1996). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roberts, K. H., & Grabowski, M. (1996). Organizations, technology and structuring. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R.
Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 409-423). London: Sage Publications.
Robey, D. (1977). Computers and management structure: some empirical findings re-examined. Human Relations,
30(11), 963-976.
Robey, D. (1981). Computer information systems and organization structure. Communications of the ACM, 24, 679-
687.
Robey, D. (1987). Implementation and the organizational impacts of information systems. Interfaces, 17(3), 72-84.
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information
technology: theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 167-
185.
Robey, D., & Sahay, S. (1996). Transforming work through information technology: a comparative case study of
geographic information systems in county government. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 93-110.
Robey, D., & Sales, C. A. (1994). Designing Organizations (4th ed.). Burr Ridge, Illinois: Irwin.
Ronen, S. (1986). Comparative and Multinational Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ronen, S. (1994). An underlying structure of motivational need taxonomies: a cross-cultural confirmation. In H. C.
Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol.
4, pp. 241-269). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social-learning theory. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a
Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective (pp. 169-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rouse, A., & Watson, D. (1994). Some classic theories of organizational change, and their implications for business
process innovation and reengineering. In B. C. Glasson, I. T. Hawryszkiewycz, B. A. Underwood & R. A.
Weber (Eds.), Business Process Re-engineering: Information Systems Opportunities and Challenges -
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 Open Conference on Business Process Re-engineering - Information Systems
Opportunities and Challenges, Queensland Gold Coast, Australia, 8-11 May, 1994 (Vol. 54, pp. 513-523).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sackmann, S. A. (1992). Culture and subcultures - an analysis of organizational knowledge. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37(1), 140-161.
Sarason, Y., & Huff, A. S. (1998). Structuration theory: an expanded theoretical framework for organizational identity.
Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, MOC: B1.
Schabracq, M. J. (1991). De inrichting van de werkelijkheid (The design of Reality). Meppel/Amsterdam: Boom.
Schabracq, M. J. (1998). The ethological theory of stress: About work stress and wisdom. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Theories of organizational stress (pp. 220-245). Manchester, UK: Oxford University Press.
Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Toward a phenomenological framework for the study of work and
organizational stress. Human Relations, 51(5), 625-648.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3-16.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organization Dynamics, 21, 40-51.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of managed
learning. Systems Practice, 9, 27-47.

339
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.
Schneider, B. (Ed.). (1990). Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change.
Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Scott, R. W. (1990). Technology and structure: an organizational-level perspective. In P. S. Goodman & L. Sproull
(Eds.), Technology and Organsizations (pp. 109-143). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Selye, H. (1936). A syndrome produced by diverse noxious agents. Nature, 138, 32.
Sevón, G. (1996). Organizational imitation in identity transformation. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.),
Translating Organizational Change (pp. 49-67). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organisations. Organization Studies, 12(3), 405-424.
Shaver, K. G. (1987). Principles of Social Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shaw, T., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1997). Process models in information systems. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau & J. I. DeGross
(Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research - Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International
Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, 31st May-3rd June 1997, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 70-100). London: Chapman & Hall.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual
learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
Simon, H. A. (1946). Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The New Science of Management Decisions. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (1998). Organizational learning. In R. Dorf (Ed.), The Technology
Management Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
Snyder, R. A., & Williams, R. R. (1982). Self theory: An integrative theory of work motivation. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 55, 257-267.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 237-261.
Sproull, L. S., Kiesler, S., & Zubrow, D. (1984). Encountering an alien culture. Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 31-48.
Stamper, R. (1973). Information in Business and Administrative Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stamper, R. (1994). Social norms in requirements analysis - an outline of MEASUR. In M. Jirotka & J. Goguen (Eds.),
Requirements Engineering: Technical and Social Aspects. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Stamper, R. (1996). Signs, information, norms and systems. In B. Holmqvist, P. B. Andersen, H. K. Klein & R. Posner
(Eds.), Signs of Work: Semiosis and Information Processing in Organisations (pp. 349-397). Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter.
Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations - a
semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(1), 15-27.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (Eds.). (1987). Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: the problem of human machine communication. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swan, J., & Newell, S. (1998). Making sense of technological innovation: the political and social dynamics of
cognition. In C. Eden & J.-C. Spender (Eds.), Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Theory, Methods
and Research (pp. 108-129). London: Sage.
Swan, J. A., & Clark, P. A. (1992). Organizational decision making in the diffusion and appropriation of technological
innovation: cognitive and political dimensions. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2, 103-127.
Swanson, E. B. (1987). Information systems in organization theory: a review. In R. J. Boland, Jr. & R. A. Hirschheim
(Eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (pp. 181-204). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

340
Tatnall, A. (2003). Actor-Network Theory as a socio-technical approach to information systems research. In S. Clarke,
E. Coakes, M. G. Hunter & A. Wenn (Eds.), Socio-Technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information
Systems (pp. 266-283). Hershey (PA): Information Science Publishing.
Thong, J. Y. L., & Yap, C.-S. (1996). Information systems effectiveness: A user satisfaction approach. Information
Processing & Management, 32(5), 601-610.
Thong, J. Y. L., & Yap, C.-S. (2000). Information systems and occupational stress: a theoretical framework. OMEGA,
28(6), 681-692.
Trauth, E. M. (1997). Achieving the research goal with qualitative methods: Lessons learned along the way. In A. S.
Lee, J. Liebenau & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research - Proceedings of the
IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, 31st May-3rd
June 1997, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 225-254). London: Chapman & Hall.
Trigg, R. H., & Bødker, S. (1994). From implementation to design: tailoring and the emergence of systematization in
CSCW. Paper presented at the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (October 1994, Chapel
Hill, NC).
Trist, E., Higgins, G., Murray, H., & Pollack, A. (1963). Organizational Choice. London: Tavistock.
Turner, J. H. (1987). Toward a sociological theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 52, 15-27.
Turner, R. H. (1968). The self conception in social interaction. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The Self in Social
Interaction (pp. 93-106). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
van Veldhoven, M., de Jonge, J., Broersen, S., Kompier, M., & Meijman, T. (2002). Specific relationships between
psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: A three-level analytic approach. Work and Stress, 16(3),
207-228.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy
of Management Review, 14(3), 423-444.
Verjans, S. (1998). IT-supported organisational changes in a production shop floor: a case study. Proceedings of the
24th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society - IECON'98, 1932-1935.
Verjans, S. (1999, 12-14 October). The multidimensional relation between organisational parameters, work psychology
and information systems development. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Organisational
Semiotics, Almelo (NL).
Verjans, S. (2000, 4-7 July). Organisational and psychological analysis of the implementation of information
technology in production settings: Sense-making and stress at two levels of analysis. Paper presented at the
3nd International Workshop on Organisational Semiotics - ICEIS2000, Staffordshire University.
Verjans, S., Mogensen, L. K., & Lynggaard, H.-J. B. (1998). Interactive collaborative production scheduling.
Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society - IECON'98, 1926-
1931.
Vidgen, R., & Braa, K. (1997). Balancing interpretation and intervention in information systems research: the action
case approach. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research
- Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative
Research, 31st May-3rd June 1997, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 524-541). London: Chapman &
Hall.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. In A. S. Lee, J.
Liebenau & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research - Proceedings of the IFIP TC8
WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, 31st May-3rd June 1997,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 466-480). London: Chapman & Hall.
Walsham, G., & Waema, T. (1994). Information systems strategy and implementation: a case study of a building
society. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 150-173.
Walstrom, K. A., & Leonard, L. N. K. (2000). Citation classics from the information systems literature. Information &
Management, 38(2), 59-72.
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer
attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288-297.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, Unemployment and Mental Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

341
Waterlow, G., & Monniot, J. (1986). A study of the state of the art in computer-aided production management.
Swindon: Report for ACME, Science and Engineering Council.
Watkins, M. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2003). Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming. Harvard
Business Review, 81(3), 72-+.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as an equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman & L. Sproull
(Eds.), Technology and Organisations (pp. 1-44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-
386.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
Weill, P., & Olson, M. H. (1989). An assessment of the contingency theory of management information systems.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), 59-85.
Wenk, E. (1989). Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a High Tech World. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
West, M. A., Patterson, M. G., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Nicolitsas, D., & Nickell, S. (1997). The Sheffield
Organizational Effectiveness Programme: A description of methods (IWP Memo 96). Sheffield: Institute of
Work Psychology.
Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Wilkins, A. L. (1984). The creation of company cultures: The role of stories and human resource systems. Human
Resource Management, 23, 41-60.
Wilpert, B. (1995). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 59-90.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Worsley, P. (1984). The Three Worlds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wynekoop, J. L., & Russo, N. (1993). Systems Development Methodologies: Unanswered Questions and the Research-
Practice Gap. Paper presented at the Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando,
FL.
Yaverbaum, G. J. (1988). Critical factors in the user environment: an exploratory study of users, organizations, and
tasks. MIS Quarterly, 12(1), 75-88.
Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. K. F. (2000). Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to
strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 429-453.
Zalkind, S. S., & Costello, T. W. (1962). Perception: some recent research and implications on administration.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 218-235.
Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Qualitative and quantitative studies in organizational culture. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 5, 83-114.
Zmud, R. W. (1983). Information Systems in Organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Scott-Foresman.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books.

342
List of Figures

Figure 1: Situating the research - This classification is based on the division in Committees found within the European
Science Foundation (European Science Foundation, 2000). Relevant sciences are underlined and in italics. .....................5
Figure 2: Overview of the IFIP Technical Committees and Working Groups (International Federation for Information
Processing, 2000). The underlined items indicate the areas relevant to my work.................................................................9
Figure 3: Keyword classification scheme for IS research literature. Figure adapted from (Barki et al., 1993, pg. 210). The
issues relevant to my research are underlined and in italics................................................................................................11
Figure 4: The most popular research topics in MIS Quarterly and Information & Management throughout the last two
decades (figure based on Claver et al. (2000))....................................................................................................................11
Figure 5: Most popular research methods in MIS Quarterly and Information & Management (figure based on Claver et al.
(2000)) E stands for empirical research, while T stands for theoretical research. ...............................................................12
Figure 6: Issues from the Barki, Rivard & Talbot (1993) classification that are part of my research....................................................13
Figure 7: The Multiview1 framework (Avison et al. 1998, p. 128).......................................................................................................17
Figure 8: The Multiview2 framework (Avison et al.1998, pg. 130)......................................................................................................17
Figure 9: An elaborated version of the revised Multiview framework (From Avison et al. 1998, pg 136) ...........................................18
Figure 10: Factors affecting end users (Adapted from Yaverbaum, 1988, pg. 77) ................................................................................26
Figure 11: Markus' (1984) model for managing information system impacts. ......................................................................................27
Figure 12: IS Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 1992, p.87)............................................................................................................30
Figure 13: Information requirements by functional activity (Figure based on the (Kirs et al., 1989) discussion of the Gorry &
Scott Morton (1971) framework). The cells contain typical examples as given by Gorry & Scott Morton. .......................31
Figure 14: Information system typology (Adapted from Laudon & Laudon, 1997)..............................................................................32
Figure 15: Overview of different areas of research within the science of psychology, with the relevant areas for this research
indicated in italics. (Sources: Websites of the American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/ - and
the British Psychological Society - http://www.bps.org.uk/) ..............................................................................................44
Figure 16: Areas of interest in work psychology: two tables of contents from two different research traditions. Items that are
relevant for my research are indicated in italics and underlined. ........................................................................................45
Figure 17: Towards an OB discipline (Adapted from Furnham, 1997, p. 4). Items that are relevant for my research are
indicated in italics and underlined.......................................................................................................................................46
Figure 18: Maslow's hierarchy of human needs ....................................................................................................................................48
Figure 19: Ronen's Two-Facet structure and Maslow's Need Taxonomy, where a1 stands for non-materialism, a2 for
materialism, b1 for individualism and b2 for collectivism. (Figure based on Ronen, 1994, p. 264)...................................51
Figure 20: A model of stress as person-environment fit. Solid lines indicate causal effects, whereas broken lines indicate
contributions to person-environment comparisons. Concepts within circles are discrepancies between the two
adjoining concepts. Adapted from (Edwards et al., 1998, p.29) .........................................................................................52
Figure 21: Hypothetical U-shaped relation between strain and PE-fit...................................................................................................54
Figure 22: Inverted U-curve representing the relation between strain and performance. The dotted lines indicate a
hypothesised optimum. .......................................................................................................................................................54
Figure 23: A hierarchical model of meaning (Adapted from James et al., 1990, p.55)..........................................................................63
Figure 24: List of recurring research fields within 'Management and Business Sciences' (Based on subject list of Kluwer
Academic Publishers (2000) under the heading Business Administration).........................................................................68
Figure 25: An overview of the divisions within the US-based Academy of Management (Academy of Management Online,
2000)...................................................................................................................................................................................68
Figure 26: Topic areas within each of the Divisions of the Academy of Management (cf. Figure 25) with only those divisions
and topics that are relevant for my research........................................................................................................................69
Figure 27: Organisational context from a design perspective (Figure from Burton & Obel, 1998, p.12)..............................................75
Figure 28: The Multi-contingency Model of Organisational Theory (Based on Burton & Obel, 1998, p. 14) ......................................75
Figure 29: Fit as moderation..................................................................................................................................................................78
Figure 30: Fit as mediation (Figures copied from Bergeron et al., 2001, p. 126) ..................................................................................78

343
Figure 31: Fit as matching .....................................................................................................................................................................79
Figure 32: Fit as gestalts (Figure copied from Bergeron et al., 2001, p.128).........................................................................................79
Figure 33: Fit as profile deviation (Copied from Venkatraman, 1989, p. 434)......................................................................................79
Figure 34: Fit as covariation (From Venkatraman, 1989, p.437)...........................................................................................................80
Figure 35: A generic model of strategic fit (Copied from Zajac et al., 2000, p. 432) ............................................................................81
Figure 36: Four possible scenarios in the pursuit of dynamic strategic fit (Copied from Zajac et al., 2000, p.433) ..............................82
Figure 37: Manifestations of culture (copied from Hofstede et al., 1990, p.291) ..................................................................................84
Figure 38: Cultural differences: national, occupational, and organizational levels (Copied from Hofstede et al., 1990) .....................85
Figure 39: Competing values approach of organisational culture (Figure based on Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991, p.132) ..........................86
Figure 40: Various conceptualisations of Person-Organisation fit. (KSAs stand for Knowledge, Skills and Abilities. Adapted
from Kristof, 1996, p. 4) .....................................................................................................................................................87
Figure 41: Semiotic ladder (Adapted from Stamper, 1996, p.351)........................................................................................................91
Figure 42: A version of Peirce's semiotic triangle (Copied from Stamper et al., 2000, p.18)................................................................91
Figure 43: Ontology chart or semantic schema of 'project management' with an example of a norm added (Copied from
Stamper et al., 2000, p.24) ..................................................................................................................................................92
Figure 44: Graphical representation of three types of change within an improvisational change model (Figure copied from
Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997, p.13) ....................................................................................................................................99
Figure 45: Aligning the change model, the technology and the organisation (Figure copied from Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997,
p.18)..................................................................................................................................................................................100
Figure 46: The complexity of the environment is overwhelming (left), but at the same time, the individual relies on the
environment to fulfil his needs (right) ..............................................................................................................................111
Figure 47: Socially shared situations reduce the complexity of the individual's interaction with his environment. ............................111
Figure 48: Adapted version of the U-curve representing the relation between subjective person-environment fit and harmony,
strain and stress.................................................................................................................................................................115
Figure 49: Graphical representation of the CHARISM model on the individual level-of-analysis. NS-fit stands for
Needs/Supplies fit, DA-fit for Demands/Abilities fit, and IT for Information Technology. .............................................119
Figure 50: Temporal characteristics of harmony-stress scale, where ‘H’ indicates mental harmony and ‘S’ indicates the stress-
threshold of a particular individual. ..................................................................................................................................121
Figure 51: The role of existing IT in the perception of mental harmony. Information technology has characteristics that may
be perceived as offering supplies for individual needs, and others that may be perceived as placing demands on an
individual’s abilities..........................................................................................................................................................123
Figure 52: Information technology plays an integral part in an individual’s perception of the degree of fit between different
characteristics of the work environment. ..........................................................................................................................125
Figure 53: The complex impacts of new information technology on individual integrity. ..................................................................128
Figure 54: Adapted U-curve representing the relation between subjectively perceived organisation-environment fit and
organisational harmony, organi-strain and organi-stress...................................................................................................142
Figure 55: Graphical representation of the CHARISM model on the organisational level. NS-fit stands for Needs/Supplies fit,
DA-fit for Demands/Abilities fit, and IT for Information Technology. ............................................................................144
Figure 56: The role of existing IT in establishing organisational harmony .........................................................................................147
Figure 57: Integration of IT in a multiple contingency framework (adapted from Burton & Obel, 1998). .........................................148
Figure 58: Cross-level Harmony, Integrity and Stress Model - CHARISM. The full grey arrows indicate the multi-subjective
perceptions of the organi-self, the broken grey arrows indicate the subjective perceptions of the individual, and
the dash-dotted arrow indicates that the individual – as member of the organisation – contributes to the organi-
self. The thin broken lines indicate the fit of the individual’s needs and supplies with the organisation, the IT and
the environment, while the thin straight lines indicate the external fit between environmental characteristics on
the one hand, and organisational and IT characteristics on the other. ...............................................................................153
Figure 59: The role of new IT in the CHARISM model is indicated by curved arrows. Arrow A indicates the direct influence
on the organisation, while arrow B indicates the direct influence on the individual. The dashed arrows indicate
indirect effects. .................................................................................................................................................................155
Figure 60: I/S Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 1992, p.87).........................................................................................................157
Figure 61: Graphical representation of a prototypical application of the theory in an IS development project. The circles
represent temporal states...................................................................................................................................................158

344
Figure 62: The Multiview framework (Figure copied from Avison et al., 1998) ................................................................................160
Figure 63: Process of organisational change around CASE tools - Key concepts and interactions (Figure copied from
Orlikowski, 1993, p. 318) .................................................................................................................................................161
Figure 64: Research question...............................................................................................................................................................165
Figure 65: The timeline of the PhD project illustrates different phases in the research. The project years have been divided
into 3-month periods. The dark areas of the bars indicate periods of intensive activity, while the numbers in
parentheses indicate the different phases described in the text. Double-pointed arrows indicate reciprocal
influence of different processes, while single-pointed arrows indicate unidirectional influence. .....................................167
Figure 66: An IS research framework (Adapted from Vidgen & Braa, 1997, p.527) ..........................................................................175
Figure 67: Epistemological evolution of PhD project through time. The numbers in parentheses refer to the different phases
identified in §1 above. The circles represent the purified research types and the ellipses the hybrid types. .....................175
Figure 68: Dimensions of causal structure (Adapted from Markus & Robey, 1988)...........................................................................177
Figure 69: Research flow of PhD project, as described in this chapter. The thick grey arrows indicate the flow of the
dissertation, while the dotted line separates levels of abstraction. ....................................................................................181
Figure 70: Timeline of BlueTech project and data gathering activities................................................................................................225
Figure 71: Screen image of the PipeViewer tool .................................................................................................................................228
Figure 72: Comparison of Omicron pipe shop workers with Denmark’s average. The 50% line indicates the median scores of
the 2400 Danish respondents of AMI’s survey. All scores that fall between percentile 40 and 60 are considered to
be average scores, while all others are significantly different (indicated by striped bars). The wide background
bars indicate the average score of the metal workers in the Danish sample, while the foreground bars indicate
Omicron scores. The bars with light stripes indicate a score that is better than average, the dark stripes indicate
worse scores......................................................................................................................................................................243
Figure 73: Timeline of data gathering at Alpha...................................................................................................................................250
Figure 74: Timeline of ShopFloorPC 'project'.....................................................................................................................................255
Figure 75: Screen view of the EPOS system .......................................................................................................................................256
Figure 76: Screen view of the production-scheduling module.............................................................................................................257
Figure 77: Screen view of the effort evaluation module......................................................................................................................257
Figure 78: Comparison of Alpha respondents with Denmark’s average and with Danish metal workers. The 50% line
indicates the median scores for all Danish respondents, while the wide bars in the background show the average
score of metal workers. The top bar for each parameter shows the scores for Round 1, while each bottom bar
shows the scores for Round 2. The light bars indicate a score that is better than average, the dark bars a score that
is worse, while the medium grey bars indicate a score that falls between percentile 40 and 60. The stars indicate
the scores of the Omicron production workers. ................................................................................................................268
Figure 79: Average needs dimension scores per needs-based cluster (n=80) ......................................................................................279
Figure 80: Personal resource model (from Greenblatt, 2002, p.183)...................................................................................................299

345
List of Tables

Table 1: Treatment of organisational issues, as ranked by 107 senior UK IT managers (From Doherty & King. 1998)......................14
Table 2: Summary of Ang & Pavri's (1994) survey of the impacts of IT. .............................................................................................19
Table 3: Swanson's (1987) typology of research questions on information systems within organization theory (Swanson,
1987, p. 183) .......................................................................................................................................................................20
Table 4: Determinants of information (system) use. Based on (Swanson, 1987) ..................................................................................20
Table 5: Organizational effects of information (system) use. Based on (Swanson, 1987).....................................................................21
Table 6: Theories using a logic of opposition (From Robey & Boudreau 1999, pg 173) ......................................................................22
Table 7: Clegg's proposed commonalities within the HCI field (Clegg, 1994, p.454)...........................................................................24
Table 8: Cognitive and political dimensions found in (Swan & Newell, 1998).....................................................................................28
Table 9: System types, functions and design features (Based on figures 2.1. and 2.2 in Markus, 1984, p. 14-15)................................32
Table 10: System types, related operational features, and impacts (Based on figures 3.1., 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 in Markus, 1984, p.
38-62) .................................................................................................................................................................................33
Table 11: Desirable characteristics of information systems related to organisational strategy (Based on Miles & Snow, 1978,
p. 552-556)..........................................................................................................................................................................34
Table 12: Linking the dimensions of strategic MIS planning with Miles-Snow strategic types (Adapted from Das et al., 1991,
p. 971).................................................................................................................................................................................34
Table 13: Cluster analysis of IT structures (Adapted from Fiedler et al., 1996). The numbers in parentheses indicate the
mean score (on a scale 1 to 7) of subjects in each cluster. ..................................................................................................36
Table 14: IT structure and formal organisational structure (Adapted from Fiedler et al. 1996, p. 28) ..................................................36
Table 15: Organisationally relevant IS typology ...................................................................................................................................42
Table 16: Possible matching characteristics for each environmental category ......................................................................................50
Table 17: Summary of Some Key Concepts in Actor-Network Theory (From Walsham, 1997, p. 468) ..............................................73
Table 18: Work designs and contingencies (from Cummings & Blumberg, 1987, p. 44) .....................................................................77
Table 19: Aggregate findings linking IT fit to organisational performance, based on a sample of 110 small enterprises. (From
Bergeron et al., 2001, p. 138)..............................................................................................................................................80
Table 20: Comparison of episodic and continuous change (Table 1 in Weick & Quinn, 1999, p.366) .................................................97
Table 21: Typology of human and organisational needs .....................................................................................................................137
Table 22: A typology for research strategies (adapted from Franz & Robey, 1987) ...........................................................................174
Table 23: Process-variance typology of research models (Table adapted from Tables 1 and 2 in Shaw & Jarvenpaa, 1997) .............178
Table 24: Individual level hypotheses. The ticked boxes indicate the hypotheses that will be ‘tested’. ..............................................184
Table 25: Hypotheses about IT aspects at the individual level of analysis. The ticked boxes indicate the hypotheses that will
be ‘tested’. ........................................................................................................................................................................186
Table 26: Organisational-level hypotheses. Ticked boxes indicate hypotheses for which a quantitative analysis will be
performed..........................................................................................................................................................................188
Table 27: CHARISM hypotheses at the organisational level of analysis. The ticked boxes indicate those hypotheses for which
qualitative support may be found......................................................................................................................................190
Table 28: CHARISM hypotheses related to cross-level issues. The ticked boxes indicate those hypotheses that will be further
investigated in the next chapters. ......................................................................................................................................191
Table 29: Questions and dimensions in RIPOSTI from the AMI three-deck questionnaire. ...............................................................197
Table 30: Needs dimensions and their reliability scores......................................................................................................................199
Table 31: System evaluation dimensions.............................................................................................................................................212
Table 32: Overview of the RIPOSTI dimensions, their characteristics and their source .....................................................................214
Table 33: Overview of topics in production worker interviews...........................................................................................................216
Table 34: Overview of OrgCon® dimensions .....................................................................................................................................219

346
Table 35: Worker-perception questionnaire items...............................................................................................................................220
Table 36: Overview of IT-related interview guideline ........................................................................................................................221
Table 37: Overview of research instruments per respondent type and research site............................................................................222
Table 38: Overview of Omicron data ..................................................................................................................................................225
Table 39: Correlations of the major individual-level variables suggest the existence of individual mental harmony .........................241
Table 40: Overview of hypotheses discussed in Omicron case (part 1)...............................................................................................246
Table 41: Overview of hypotheses discussed in Omicron case (Part 2) ..............................................................................................247
Table 42: Overview of respondents at Alpha’s Production division. Each column contains the numbers for both data
collection rounds, the left-hand side for Round 1 and the right-hand side for Round 2. ...................................................251
Table 43: Overview of comparable data for both rounds.....................................................................................................................251
Table 44: Vision for the new organisation of Alpha Production division (Source: Internal Alpha document)....................................253
Table 45: Overview of hypotheses discussed in the Alpha case (part 1) .............................................................................................273
Table 46: Overview of hypotheses discussed in the Alpha case (part 2) .............................................................................................274
Table 47: Significant differences between Alpha and Omicron respondents.......................................................................................278
Table 48: Cluster means overview of statistically significant cluster-based differences (n=80)..........................................................280
Table 49: Cross-tabulation of job type and cluster per organisation....................................................................................................281
Table 50: Spearman correlations of the main psychosocial dimensions ..............................................................................................284
Table 51: Non-parametric correlations of the main psychosocial measures with measures of organisational and technological
perception (n=80)..............................................................................................................................................................286
Table 52: Overview of hypotheses at the individual level of analysis .................................................................................................288
Table 53: Overview of hypotheses concerning IT at the individual level............................................................................................290
Table 54: Overview of hypotheses at the organisational level of analysis...........................................................................................291
Table 55: Overview of hypotheses regarding IT at the organisational level........................................................................................293
Table 56: Overview of hypotheses regarding cross-level issues of the CHARISM theory..................................................................295
Table 57: Classification of organisational issues according to (Doherty & King, 2003). ....................................................................297

347
 ANNEXES

to

Harmony and Stress in Information Systems

Development and Implementation
A Multilevel Theory and Some Empirical Work on the
Crossroads of Work Psychology, Organisational Theory and
Information Systems Research

Dissertation submitted by
Steven M. E. Verjans

APRIL 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... 348

A. The RIPOSTI questionnaire and guide (English)..................................................................... 349
B. The RIPOSTI Questionnaire and guide (Original Danish version).......................................... 358
C. Dimensions within RIPOSTI instrument ................................................................................. 380
1. Needs questions .................................................................................................................... 380
2. EOS questions....................................................................................................................... 385
3. Technology attitudes............................................................................................................. 387
4. System Evaluation Dimensions ............................................................................................ 390
5. Scale comparisons (cf. the discussion in Chapter 8 above) .................................................. 393
D. Interview guides ....................................................................................................................... 409
1. Individual level interview guide for production workers...................................................... 409
2. Individual level interview guide for members of management at Omicron ......................... 411
3. OrgCon® Interview guide and dimensions........................................................................... 412
4. IT-related aspects interview guide ........................................................................................ 415
5. BlueTech interview guideline ............................................................................................... 416
E. Individual-level data analysis................................................................................................... 416
1. PE-fit correlations ................................................................................................................. 416
2. Main RIPOSTI correlations per needs-based cluster ............................................................ 418
3. Linear regressions ................................................................................................................. 422
4. Individual variables correlated with organisational and technology perception per
needs-based group................................................................................................................ 427

348
A. The RIPOSTI questionnaire and guide (English)

DESCRIPTION

My name is Steven Verjans; I am an industrial PhD student at the Institute for Organisation and
Management at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense, where I work at my research project. That
project is co-financed by DMF and Omicron, where I performed this questionnaire study in the pipe
production workshop.

This questionnaire study is part of my research project. in that project, I try to find out if there is a relation
between the introduction of new information technology on the one hand, and work climate, stress,
satisfaction and other psychological factors on the other hand. At Alpha, PC’s were recently installed in
some work groups. Some of the questions are related to those PC’s.

In order to be able to measure such factors as work climate, which is a shared understanding of the co-
operation in an organisation, it is not sufficient to ask only production workers to fill out the questionnaire.
Therefore, also trade union representatives and managers will complete the questionnaire.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The study is completely anonymous. The completed questionnaires will be collected by your trade union
representative. Next to that, he will also appoint those colleagues that I will interview, and I will not be
asking for your names.

The questions have been formulated in such a way that individuals can not be recognised. On top of that, I
will be the only one who has access to the completed questionnaires. Your management, colleagues and
union representatives will only receive summarised analysis results.

DETAILS

• Filling out the questionnaire takes three quarters of an hour to one-and-a-half hours (45-90 minutes) and
takes place in the cafeteria. You are allowed to fill out the questionnaire during working hours, so that
you do not need to use private time to participate. On top of that, there will be coffee when you are
finished.

• The interview takes place this afternoon, and is expected to take some 30 minutes.

When my analyses are finishes, all people in the different departments will of course get feedback about the
results, just as your managers and union representatives will. I sincerely hope that the results will initiate
positive discussions about your working environment. Therefore, it can be of major importance that you say
what’s on your mind.

SENSITIVE AND STRANGE QUESTIONS

Some of the questions can be regarded as sensitive. During the development of the questionnaire, my
colleague and I have removed and reformulated those questions that were regarded as too sensitive, but they
can not be completely avoided. Factors such as stress, health and co-operation are indeed very important if
one wants to determine work climate.

349
On top of that, there are some questions that you may find strange or dumb. This is partly because the
questionnaire is intended for many different people in the company, and partly because most questions
originate in other studies. I would therefore like to ask you to fill out the strange questions as well.

DO NOT THINK TOO MUCH BEFORE YOU ANSWER

It is important for my research that you do not think too much about single questions.
It’s your spontaneous thoughts that I am interested in. Therefore, I would also like to ask you NOT to skim
through the questionnaire before you start filling out the questions.

PLEASE GO AHEAD AND START

350
NEEDS AND DEMANDS
The first questions deal with fundamental needs and to which degree that I have been fulfilled

1. Imagine an ideal job – without considering your current job. If you could choose the ideal job, how im-
portant would it be for you ...
(Scale: 1.Extremely important; 2.very important; 3.important; 4.Less important; 5.Not important)
1.1 To have a job that leaves you enough time for personal and family life
1.2 To get challenging tasks, that give you a feeling of contributing something
1.3 To be able to prevent tension and stress
1.4 To have good physical working conditions (good climatic and lighting conditions, etc)
1.5 To have a good working relationship with your direct superior
1.6 To have security of employment
1.7 To get considerable freedom in the way you do your job
1.8 To work with people who work well together
1.9 To be consulted by your direct superior in his decisions
1.10 To have a job that allows you to contribute considerably to the success of your organisation
1.11 To have an opportunity for high earnings
1.12 To be able to make an effort for your country
1.13 To live in an area that is desirable to you and your family
1.14 To have the opportunity to advance to higher positions
1.15 To have variation and the opportunity to have exiting experiences on the job
1.16 To work for a well-esteemed organisation
1.17 To get a chance to help other people
1.18 To work in a well-defined job situation where demands are clear

2. In respect to your current job, how good do the following statements fit, in your view?
(Scale: 1.Fits precisely; 2.Fits very well; 3.Fits well; 4.Fits somewhat; 5.Does not fit)
2.1 I have a job that leaves me enough time for personal and family life
2.2 I get challenging tasks, that give me a feeling of contributing something
2.3 I am able to prevent tension and stress
2.4 I have good physical working conditions (good climatic and lighting conditions, etc)
2.5 I have a good working relationship with my direct superior
2.6 I have security of employment
2.7 I get considerable freedom in the way I do my job
2.8 I work with people who work well together
2.9 I am consulted by my direct superior in his decisions
2.10 I have a job that allows me to contribute considerably to the success of my organisation
2.11 I have an opportunity for high earnings
2.12 I can make an effort for my country
2.13 I live in an area that is desirable to me and my family
2.14 I have the opportunity to advance to higher positions
2.15 I have variation and the opportunity to have exiting experiences on the job
2.16 I work for a well-esteemed organisation
2.17 I get a chance to help other people
2.18 I work in a well-defined job situation where demands are clear

351
DEMANDS ON THE JOB
The next two pages deal with the demands that your work places on you and to which degree you think they
fit you. Some of the questions fit better to you and your work than others, but please answer all questions for
the sake of the research results and mark that answers that fits best with your work.

3. These questions are about which demands your work places on you
(Scale: 1.Always; 2.Often; 3.Sometimes; 4.Seldom; 5.(Almost) never)
3.1 Is it necessary to work very fast?
3.2 Is your work unevenly spread?
3.3 Do you need to keep track of many things simultaneously?
3.4 Do you need to work overtime?
3.5 Does your work demand that you remember much?
3.6 Does your work demand high precision?
3.7 Does your work demand that you make difficult decisions?
3.8 Does your work demand that you do not speak your mind?
3.9 Does your work involve seeing very clearly and precisely?
3.10 Does your work demand that you’re good at getting ideas?
3.11 Does your work demand constant attention?
3.12 Does your work demand that you are full of initiative?
3.13 How often does it happen that you can not get all your tasks done?

4. It is hard to find a job that suits one perfectly. In the previous question, you described the different de-
mands that your work places on you. In this question, we want to ask you to answer the extent to which
you agree with the following statements.
(Scale: 1.Fully agree; 2.Agree; 3.Neither agree nor disagree; 4.Disagree; 5.Fully disagree)
4.1 I could very well work faster.
4.2 I feel that it happens all too often that my work is unevenly spread.
4.3 At my job, I need to keep track of too many things simultaneously.
4.4 I could very well work some more overtime.
4.5 My work demands that I remember much too much.
4.6 My work demands too much precision.
4.7 I could very well handle a job where I need to make more decisions that are difficult.
4.8 My work demands too often that I do not speak my mind.
4.9 My work demands too much of me with respect to seeing very clearly and precisely.
4.10 I could very well handle a job that demands that I’m good at getting ideas.
4.11 I could very well handle a job that demands even more attention.
4.12 I could very well handle a job that demands that I’m full of initiative.
4.13 It happens all too often that I can not get all my tasks done.

If you have any comments to these first questions on needs and demands, you can write them here...

MEANING AND INFLUENCE ON THE JOB

The first sets of questions asked about the job you’re currently in, and how that relates to how you wish it
were. For the rest of the questionnaire, we kindly ask you to consider only your current job.

5. These questions are about influence in the job

(Scale: 1.Always; 2.Often; 3.Sometimes; 4.Seldom; 5.(Almost) never)
5.1 Do you have a big influence on the decisions that concern your job?
5.2 Can you influence the amount of work you need to do?
5.3 Can you decide WHEN you take a break?
5.4 Do you have influence on WHAT you do in your job?
5.5 Do you have influence on your speed of working?
5.6 Do you have influence on WHEN you do your work?
5.7 Do you have influence on your working environment?
5.8 Do you have influence on the quality of your work?

352
6. These questions are about information, goals and working conditions
(Scale: 1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a low degree; 5.To a very low
degree)
6.1 At your job, do you get information about for example important decisions, changes or future
plans in good time?
6.2 Do you receive all the information that you need in order to do your job well?
6.3 Are the company’s goals clear and well-known?
6.4 Do you have all the appliances, methods and tools you need for your daily work?
6.5 Do you think that for example technology and other instruments work satisfactorily?

7. These questions are about meaning in your job

(Scale: 1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a low degree; 5.To a very low
degree)
7.1 Do you have the opportunity to learn new things through your work?
7.2 Are your tasks meaningful?
7.3 Do you feel that you do an important job?
7.4 Is your work varied?
7.5 Can you use your skills and abilities in your job?
7.6 Does your work give you the opportunity to develop your skills?
7.7 Do you feel motivated in your work?

8. Are you worried about -

(Scale: 1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a low degree; 5.To a very low
degree)
8.1 – losing your job?
8.2 – becoming ‘superfluous’ because of new technology?
8.3 – having a hard time finding a new job, when you would lose your job?
8.4 – about being moved to another job against your will?

If you have any comments to these questions on meaning and influence, you can write them here...

COLLEAGUES AND MANAGEMENT

These questions deal with your co-operation with colleagues and manager

9. The following questions are about situations, where you need help or support in your work.
(Scale: 1.Always; 2.Often; 3.Sometimes; 4.Seldom; 5.(Almost) never)
9.1 How often do you get help and support from your colleagues?
9.2 How often do you get help and support from your direct superior?
9.3 How often do you talk with your superior about how well you do your work?
9.4 How often do you talk with your colleagues about how well you do your work?
9.5 Is there good co-operation amongst the colleagues at your work?
9.6 Do you feel like part of a community at your work?
9.7 How often do you give help and support at your work?

COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION

These questions deal with how committed you are to your company and how satisfied you are

10. The following questions are about commitment in your work.

(Scale: 1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a low degree; 5.To a very low
degree)
10.1 Could you imagine being at your current company for the rest of your working life?
10.2 Do you enjoy telling other people about your place of work?
10.3 Do you feel that your company’s problems are your problems too?
10.4 Do you think your place of work has big personal significance for you?
10.5 When your company is under pressure, do you also feel pressured?

353
11. Commitment: To which degree do you feel committed to ...
(Scale: 1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a low degree; 5.To a very low
degree; 6.Not relevant)
11.1 ... your company?
11.2 ... your trade union?
11.2a ... the local trade union clubs in your organisation?
11.3 ... your department in the company?
11.4 ... the project / task you are working at right now?
11.5 ... your customers / suppliers?
11.6 ... your direct superior?
11.7 ... the company management?
11.8 ... your subordinates?
11.9 ... the world outside your work?

12. Regarding your job in general. How satisfied are you with -
(Scale: 1.Very satisfied; 2.Satisfied; 3.Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied; 4.Unsatisfied; 5.Very unsatisfied;
6.Not relevant)
12.1 – your future prospects in the job?
12.2 – the people you work together with?
12.3 – the physical working environment?
12.4 – the way the company is managed?
12.5 – the way your department is managed?
12.6 – the way in which your abilities are being used?
12.7 – the challenges and skills that your job involves?
12.8 – your job as a whole, everything considered?

If you have any comments to these questions on colleagues and management, commitment and satisfaction,
you can write them here...

EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
The following questions deal with your conditions of employment and your day-to-day working situation.

13a.What is your current department / work unit?

13. What is your current position / function?

14. How would you describe your work more precisely?

15. How long have you been employed at your current company? Approx. ... years.

16. How long have you been in your current department / work unit? Approx. ... years.

17. How many hours do you usually work per week?

18. At which periods of the day do you usually work? (1. At fixed hours during the day; 2. evening; 3. night;
4. Shift work without nights; 5. Shift work, including nights; 6. Other: ...)

19. On which days of the week do you usually work? (1.Workdays; 2.Weekends; 3.Both workdays and
weekends)

20. How does your working day usually look? (1.Regular – follows a particular repetitive pattern; 2. Irregu-
lar – does not follow any regular repetitive pattern)

21. Does it happen that there is a conflict between your job and your private life, in such a way that you
would prefer to be “at both places at the same time”?
(1.Yes, often; 2.Yes, regularly; 3.Seldom; 4.No, never).

354
22. Do you feel that your work takes so much of your energy that your private life suffers from it?
(1.Yes, definitely; 2.Yes, to a certain extent; 3.Yes, but only a little; 4.No, not at all)

STRESS; HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

The following questions deal with your health and personal well-being.

23. How would you characterise your health, in general?

(1.Outstanding; 2.Very good; 3.Good; 4.Not so good; 5.Bad)

24. How may sick days and periods have you had at your job during the last 12 months?
(1.Number of days, approx. – 2.Number of periods, approx.)

25. The next questions are about how you have felt in the past 4 weeks. How much of the time during the
past 4 weeks -
(Scale: 1.All the time; 2.Most of the time; 3.A major part of the time; 4.Some of the time; 5.Small part of
the time; 6.At no point in time)
25.1 – have you felt good-humoured and full of life?
25.2 – have you been very nervous?
25.3 – have you been so far down, that nothing could cheer you up?
25.4 – have you felt calm and relaxed?
25.5 – have you been full of energy?
25.6 – have you been in a sad mood?
25.7 – have you felt worn-out?
25.8 – have you been happy and content?
25.9 – have you felt tired?
25.10 – have you felt stressed?

26. Take a stand on each statement, and cross out that option that fits best how you have been in the past 4
weeks.
(Scale: 1.Fits precisely; 2.Fits very well; 3.Fits well; 4.Fits somewhat; 5.Does not fit)
26.1 I have not felt up to dealing with others.
26.2 I have not had time for relaxation or amusement.
26.3 I have been easily irritable.
26.4 I have not taken any initiative.

27. In the past 4 weeks, how often have you –

(Scale: 1.Always; 2.Often; 3.Sometimes; 4.Seldom; 5.(Almost) never)
27.1 – had stomach pain or problems with your belly?
27.2 – had felt a weight on your chest or pain in the chest?
27.3 – been dizzy?
27.4 – had tensions in different muscles?
27.5 – had trouble concentrating?
27.6 – found it hard to make decisions?
27.7 – found it hard to remember things?
27.8 – found it hard to think clearly?

If you have any comments to these questions on stress and health, you can write them here...

355
ORGANISATION CLIMATE
The following questions deal with your view on the climate in your company.

28. How would you describe the climate in your company?

(Scale: 1.High; 2.Between moderate and high; 3.Moderate; 4.Between moderate and low; 5.Low)
28.1 The level of trust (will to share, openness, trust) in the company is
28.2 The level of conflict (disagreements, friction) in the company is
28.3 The company’s resistance to change is
28.4 Management’s credibility (respect, inspiration,, acceptance) is
28.5 The level of scapegoating (avoid taking responsibility for unsuccessful actions) is
28.6 The morale in the company (sharing, enthusiasm) is
28.7 Rewards are given in an equitable fashion
(Scale: 1.Very equitable; 3.moderately equitable; 5.Unequitable)

29. How would you describe the management style in your company? Does management prefer to manage
through motivation before execution or through control after execution?
(1.Manage with motivation; 2.Both, but mainly motivation; 3.A combination of motivation and control;
4.Both, but mainly control; 5.Mainly through control techniques)

30. In your opinion, to which degree is the company under pressure?

(1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a lesser degree; 5.To a low degree)

31. How do the following statements fit with the situation in your company?
(Scale: 1.Fits precisely; 2.Fits very well; 3.Fits somewhat; 4.Does not fit very well; 5.Does not fit at all)
31.1 Management involve people when decision are made that affect them
31.2 People feel they can influence decisions that concern them
31.3 People are properly trained when there is a new machine or bit of equipment
31.4 Communication is often a problem around here
31.5 It is necessary to follow procedures to the letter around here
31.6 Management let people make their own decisions most of the time
31.7 People are strongly encouraged to develop their skills
31.8 This company tries to look after its employees
31.9 Changes are made without talking to the people involved in them
31.10 Everything has to be done according to the book
31.11 People can quickly get hold of information when they need it
31.12 Management keeps too tight a reign on the way things are done around here

MACHINES AND TECHNOLOGY

The following questions deal with your perception of machines and technology.

32. How much do you use one of the following technologies in your daily work?
(Scale: 1.Most of the day; 2.Several hours a day; 3.One or more times a day; 4.Every once in a while;
5.Never)
32.1 Large production machines with manual control
32.2 Large computer-controlled production machines
32.3 Robot stations
32.4 Computers

33. If you use a computer on the job, what do you use it for? (Multiple answers allowed)
(I do not use computers in my work; Planning of tasks; Stocks or materials control; Control of produc-
tion machines; Production support; Product design; Finance or accounting; Office programs (Text proc-
essing, spreadsheet or database); E-mail; Other Internet software; Others, please specify)

34. Do you have a PC at home? (If not, please move to question 36 - Yes – No)

356
35. If you have a PC at home, who uses it for what? (Multiple answers)
(Yourself – Your spouse / partner – Children – Others) (Text processing; Spreadsheet; Database; Inter-
net; Games; Learning software; Music / drawing software)

36. The following statements deal with your opinions and expectations of new technology.
(1.To a very high degree; 2.To a high degree; 3.Somewhat; 4.To a low degree; 5.To a very low degree)
36.1 Technology can make my work more interesting and varied
36.2 Technology threatens jobs
36.3 Machines and technology can make my work more boring / routine
36.4 Machines and computers never work as expected
36.5 I am afraid that I will not be able to keep up with technological developments
36.6 I have the skills that are needed to learn to work with information technology
36.7 I expect that technology will make my work more boring / routine
36.8 I expect that my work will be more interesting because of new technologies

EVALUATION OF THE NEWLY INTRODUCED INFORMATION SYSTEM

Recently, system X was introduced in your department. The following questions ask for your evaluation of
the system, even if you do not use it yourself.

37. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements about the implemented information
system. The important thing is your personal assessment, whether you are a user or a non-user.
(Scale: 1.Fully agree; 2.Agree; 3.Neither agree nor disagree; 4.Disagree; 5.Fully disagree)
37.1 The system results in a more faultless production
37.2 The system leads to the work taking more time than before
37.3 The system leads to bigger differences within the work group
37.4 The system gives me a sense of being monitored
37.5 The system often does inexplicable things
37.6 The system contains only a small part of the necessary information
37.7 The system is generally hard to use
37.8 The system often just does not work
37.9 When there are problems with the system, it is hard to get support
37.10 I would like to help in making the system more comprehensive
37.11 I was adequately consulted / involved during the introduction of the system

38. Do you use the implemented system yourself? Or other IT systems?

(1.Yes, many times a day; 2.Yes, daily; 3.Yes, but seldom; 4.No, but I know it; 5. No, not at all)
38.1 Do you use the implemented IT system yourself?
38.2 Do you use another IT system in your work?

GENDER, AGE AND EDUCATION

Finally, we kindly ask for some general information about yourself.

39. Are you (1.a woman; 2.a man)

40. How old are you?

(1.Under 25; 2.25-34 years; 3.35-44 years; 4.45-54 years; 5.55-64 years; 6. 65 years or more)

41. How many years of education have you had? Education means time at school, apprenticeship and other
formal training.
(1. 10 years or less; 2.11 or 12 years; 3.13 or 14 years; 4.15 or 16 years; 5. 17 or 18 years; 6.19 years or
more)

Do you have any more comments about your job, about your company, about technology – or about this
questionnaire? Please write them here

THANKS FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

357
B. The RIPOSTI Questionnaire and guide (Original Danish version)

PROJEKT OM TEKNOLOGI OG ARBEJDSMILJØ

SPØRGESKEMAUNDERSØGELSE
ALPHA

Erhvervsforskerstuderende Steven Verjans

Institut for Organisation og Ledelse
Syddansk Universitet - Odense
7. Version – 5. november 2000
Skema20001105.doc

358
BESKRIVELSE
Mit navn er Steven Verjans. Jeg er erhvervsforsker og er tilknyttet Institut for Organisation og Le-
delse på Syddansk Universitet i Odense, hvor jeg arbejder på mit forskningsprojekt, der er medfinan-
sieret af Omicron, hvor jeg har gennemført denne spørgeskemaundersøgelse i rørværkstedet, og DMF.

Denne spørgeskemaundersøgelse er en del af mit forskningsprojekt. I dette projekt prøver jeg at fin-
de ud af, om der er sammenhæng mellem indførelse af ny informationsteknologi på den ene side og ar-
bejdsklima, stress, tilfredshed og andre psykologiske faktorer på den anden side. I denne sammen-
hæng kigger jeg på indførelse af ny teknologi som en forandring i en afdeling eller organisation. Hos
Alpha er der for nyligt opstillet Pc'er i nogle arbejdsgrupper. Nogle af spørgsmålene drejer om de
Pc'er.

For at kunne måle på sådanne faktorer som arbejdsklima, som er en fælles forståelse af samarbejdet i
en organisation, er det ikke nok kun at bede produktionsmedarbejderne om at udfylde skemaet. Der-
for vil også tillidsrepræsentanter og AALP's ledere udfylde skemaet.

Ved siden af dette spørgeskema, der bliver udfyldt af samtlige medarbejdere i 3 arbejdsgrupper, vil
jeg også interviewe nogle af jer der arbejder med det nye computersystem, og nogle der ikke arbejder
med det. Interviewene er nødvendige for at afprøve om jeg har fat i alle vigtige bemærkninger og fak-
torer der spiller med i sådanne forandringsprocesser.

FORTROLIGHED
Undersøgelsen er fuldstændig anonym. De udfyldte skemaer indsamles af din tillidsmand.
Derudover vil han udpege de medarbejdere der skal interviewes, og jeg vil ikke spørge om navne.

Spørgsmålene er udformet på en sådan måde at man ikke kan genkende enkeltpersoner. I øvrigt er det
kun mig der får adgang til de udfyldte skemaer. Ledere, kollegaer og tillidsrepræsentanter modtager
kun sammenfattende analyseresultater.

DETALJER
• Udfyldelsen af spørgeskemaet tager tre kvarter til halvanden time (45-90 minutter) og finder
sted i kantinen. Du får lov til at udfylde skemaet i din arbejdstid, så det er ikke noget du behøver
at bruge din private tid til. Derudover er der kaffe når du er færdig med at udfylde skemaet.

• Interviewet finder sted om eftermiddagen, og forventes at vare 30 minutter.

Når analysen er afsluttet, får alle i afdelingen selvfølgelig en tilbagemelding om hvad resultaterne var,
ligesom dine ledere, og tillidsmænd får resultaterne. Der er mit håb at resultaterne vil give anledning
til positive diskussioner om jeres arbejdsmiljø. Derfor kan det have en stor betydning for dig at sige
hvad du har på hjerte.

359
FØLSOMME OG MÆRKELIGE SPØRGSMÅL
Nogle af spørgsmålene kan synes følsomme. Ved udviklingen af skemaet har vi udeladt og omformuleret
de spørgsmål, som viste sig at være alt for følsomme, men de kan ikke helt undgås. Faktorer som
stress, helbred og samarbejde er nemlig meget vigtige for at kunne bedømme ens arbejdsklima.

Derudover er der nogle spørgsmål du vil måske synes mærkelige eller dumme. Det er dels fordi det
samme skema skal udfyldes af mange forskellige mennesker i virksomheden, og dels fordi de fleste
spørgsmål stammer fra andre undersøgelser. Jeg vil gerne bede dig om alligevel at svare på de mærke-
lige spørgsmål.

TÆNK IKKE FOR MEGET FØR DU SVARER

Det er vigtigt for min undersøgelse at du ikke tænker for meget over de enkelte spørgsmål.
Det er dine spontane tanker jeg er interesseret i. Derfor vil jeg også bede dig IKKE at gå skemaet
igennem før du begynder at udfylde det.

VÆRSGO AT GÅ I GANG

360
BEHOV OG KRAV

De første spørgsmål handler om grundlæggende behov og i hvor høj grad de er opfyldt.

1. Forestil dig et idéelt job - uden at lade dit nuværende job komme i betragtning. Hvis du
skulle vælge et idéelt job, hvor vigtigt ville det da være for dig ...
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linje)

Særdeles vigtigt

Mindre vigtigt
Meget vigtigt

Ikke viktigt
Vigtigt
At have et arbejde, som levner dig tilstrækkelig tid til dit
1 1 2 3 4 5
privatliv eller familieliv.
At få udfordrende opgaver, som giver dig en følelse af at have
2 1 2 3 4 5
udrettet noget.

3 At kunne undgå stress og overanstrengelse. 1 2 3 4 5

At få gode fysiske arbejdsbetingelser (godt klima og gode

4 1 2 3 4 5
lysmæssige forhold, passende arbejdsplads osv.).

5 At få et godt forhold til din direkte overordnede. 1 2 3 4 5

6 At få tryghed i din ansættelse. 1 2 3 4 5

7 At få betydelig frihed i den måde, du udfører dit arbejde på. 1 2 3 4 5

8 At arbejde med mennesker, som samarbejder godt med hinanden. 1 2 3 4 5

At blive taget med på råd af din direkte overordnede i

9 1 2 3 4 5
forbindelse med dennes beslutninger.
At få et arbejde, som giver dig mulighed for at kunne yde et
10 1 2 3 4 5
virkeligt bidrag til virksomhedens fremgang.

11 At få gode indtjeningsmuligheder. 1 2 3 4 5

12 At kunne gøre en indsats for dit land. 1 2 3 4 5

13 At bo i et område, der er tiltalende for dig og din familie. 1 2 3 4 5

14 At få mulighed for forfremmelse til højere stillinger. 1 2 3 4 5

At få afveksling og mulighed for at få spændende oplevelser i

15 1 2 3 4 5
jobbet.

16 At det drejer sig om en velanset og succesfuld virksomhed. 1 2 3 4 5

17 At få lejlighed til at hjælpe andre mennesker. 1 2 3 4 5

At arbejde i en velafgrænset jobsituation hvor kravene er

18 1 2 3 4 5
klare.

361
2. I forhold til din nuværende arbejdssituation, hvor godt ville du sige at de næste udsagn pas-
ser?
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

Passer ganske godt

Passer nogenlunde
Passer præcist

Passer ikke
Passer lidt
Jeg har et arbejde, som levner mig tilstrækkelig tid til mit
1 1 2 3 4 5
privatliv eller familieliv.
Jeg får udfordrende opgaver, som giver mig en følelse af at have
2 1 2 3 4 5
udrettet noget.

3 Jeg kan undgå stress og overanstrengelse. 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg har gode fysiske arbejdsbetingelser (godt klima og gode

4 1 2 3 4 5
lysmæssige forhold, passende arbejdsplads osv.).

5 Jeg har et godt forhold til min direkte overordnede. 1 2 3 4 5

6 Jeg har tryghed i min ansættelse. 1 2 3 4 5

7 Jeg har betydelig frihed i den måde, jeg udfører mit arbejde på. 1 2 3 4 5

8 Jeg arbejder med mennesker, som samarbejder godt med hinanden. 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg bliver taget med på råd af min direkte overordnede i

9 1 2 3 4 5
forbindelse med dennes beslutninger.
Jeg har et arbejde, som giver mig mulighed for at kunne yde et
10 1 2 3 4 5
virkeligt bidrag til virksomhedens fremgang.

11 Jeg har gode indtjeningsmuligheder. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Jeg kan gøre en indsats for mit land. 1 2 3 4 5

13 Jeg bor i et område, der er tiltalende for mig og min familie. 1 2 3 4 5

14 Jeg får mulighed for forfremmelse til højere stillinger. 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg får afveksling og mulighed for at få spændende oplevelser i

15 1 2 3 4 5
jobbet.

16 Det drejer sig om en velanset og succesfuld virksomhed. 1 2 3 4 5

17 Jeg får lejlighed til at hjælpe andre mennesker. 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg arbejder i en velafgrænset jobsituation hvor kravene er

18 1 2 3 4 5
klare.

362
KRAV I ARBEJDET

De to næste sider handler om de krav, dit arbejde stiller til dig og i hvor høj grad du synes de krav
passer dig. Nogle af spørgsmålene passer bedre til dig og dit arbejde end andre, men besvar venligst
alle spørgsmålene af hensyn til undersøgelsens resultater og marker det, der passer bedst på dit ar-
bejde.

3. Disse spørgsmål handler om, hvilke krav dit arbejde stiller til dig.
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

(Næsten) aldrig
Somme tider

Sjældent
Altid

Ofte
1 E r det nødvendigt at arbejde meget hurtigt? 1 2 3 4 5

2 E r dit arbejde ujævnt fordelt? 1 2 3 4 5

3 Skal du overskue mange ting på én gang i dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

4 E r det nødvendigt at arbejde over? 1 2 3 4 5

5 Kræver dit arbejde, at du husker meget? 1 2 3 4 5

6 Kræver dit arbejde stor præcision? 1 2 3 4 5

7 Kræver dit arbejde, at du tager svære beslutninger? 1 2 3 4 5

8 Kræver dit arbejde, at du lader være med at sige din mening? 1 2 3 4 5

9 Medfører dit arbejde, at du skal se meget tydeligt og præcist? 1 2 3 4 5

10 Kræver dit arbejde, at du er god til at få ideer? 1 2 3 4 5

11 Kræver dit arbejde konstant opmærksomhed? 1 2 3 4 5

12 Kræver dit arbejde at du er initiativrig? 1 2 3 4 5

13 Hvor ofte sker det, at du ikke når alle dine arbejdsopgaver? 1 2 3 4 5

363
4. Det er svært at finde et arbejde der passer en på alle måder. I det foregående spørgsmål
beskrev du i de forskellige krav som dit arbejde stiller til dig. I dette spørgsmål vil vi bede
dig besvare, hvor enig du er i følgende udsagn.
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

Hverken enig eller uenig

Helt uenig
Helt enig

Uenig
Enig
1 Jeg kunne sagtens klare at arbejde hurtigere. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Jeg synes at mit arbejde alt for ofte er ujævnt fordelt. 1 2 3 4 5

3 I mit arbejde skal jeg overskue alt for mange ting på én gang. 1 2 3 4 5

4 Jeg kunne sagtens klare mere overarbejde. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Mit arbejde kræver, at jeg husker alt for meget. 1 2 3 4 5

6 Mit arbejde kræver alt for stor præcision. 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg kunne sagtens klare et arbejde hvor jeg skal tage flere
7 1 2 3 4 5
svære beslutninger
Mit arbejde kræver alt for ofte at jeg lader være med at sige
8 1 2 3 4 5
min mening.
Mit arbejde kræver alt for meget af mig, med hensyn til at se
9 1 2 3 4 5
meget tydeligt og præcist.
Jeg kunne godt klare et arbejde der kræver at jeg får mange
10 1 2 3 4 5
flere idéer.
Jeg kunne godt klare et arbejde der kræver endnu mere
11 1 2 3 4 5
opmærksomhed
Jeg kunne godt klare et arbejde hvor jeg skal være mere
12 1 2 3 4 5
initiativrig.
Det sker alt for ofte at jeg ikke kan klare alle mine
13 1 2 3 4 5
arbejdsopgaver.

Har du nogle kommentarer til disse første spørgsmål om behov og krav, kan du skrive her:
______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

364
MENING OG INDFLYDELSE I ARBEJDET

De første spørgsmål spurgte om det arbejde du laver nu, og hvordan det forholder sig til det du kunne
ønske dig. For resten af skemaet bedes du kun at tænke om dit nuværende arbejde.

5. Disse spørgsmål handler om indflydelse i arbejdet.

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

(Næsten) aldrig
Somme tider

Sjældent
Altid

Ofte
1 Har du stor indflydelse på beslutninger om dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

2 Har du indflydelse på mængden af dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

3 Kan du bestemme, hvornår du holder pauser? 1 2 3 4 5

4 Har du indflydelse på hvad du laver på dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

5 Har du indflydelse på dit arbejdstempo? 1 2 3 4 5

6 Har du indflydelse på hvordan du udfører dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

7 Har du indflydelse på dit arbejdsmiljø? 1 2 3 4 5

8 Har du indflydelse på kvaliteten af dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

6. Disse spørgsmål handler om information, mål og rammer i arbejdet.

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)
I meget ringe grad
I meget høj grad

I ringe grad
I høj grad

Delvist

Får du på din arbejdsplads information om f.eks. vigtige

1 1 2 3 4 5
beslutninger, ændringer og fremtidsplaner i god tid?
Får du al den information, du behøver, for at klare dit arbejde
2 1 2 3 4 5
godt?

3 Er målsætningen med virksomhedens arbejde klar og kendt? 1 2 3 4 5

Har du de hjælpemidler, metoder og "værktøjer", som du har brug

4 1 2 3 4 5
for i dit daglige arbejde?
Synes du, at f.eks. teknologi og andre arbejdsredskaber fungerer
5 1 2 3 4 5
tilfredsstillende?

365
7. Disse spørgsmål handler om mening i arbejdet.
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

I meget ringe grad

I meget høj grad

I ringe grad
I høj grad

Delvist
1 Har du mulighed for at lære noget nyt gennem dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

2 Er dine arbejdsopgaver meningsfulde? 1 2 3 4 5

3 Føler du, at du yder en vigtig arbejdsindsats? 1 2 3 4 5

4 Er dit arbejde varieret? 1 2 3 4 5

5 Kan du bruge din kunnen eller dine færdigheder i dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

6 Giver dit arbejde dig mulighed for at udvikle dine evner? 1 2 3 4 5

7 Føler du dig motiveret i dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

8. Er du bekymret for –
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

I meget ringe grad

I meget høj grad

I ringe grad
I høj grad

1 - at blive arbejdsløs? 1 2 3 4 Slet ikke

5

2 - at du på grund af "ny teknik" bliver overflødig? 1 2 3 4 5

3 - at du får svært ved at finde nyt job, hvis du bliver arbejdsløs? 1 2 3 4 5

4 - at du mod din vilje forflyttes til andet arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

Har du nogle kommentarer til spørgsmålene om mening og indflydelse, kan du skrive her:
______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

366
KOLLEGER OG LEDELSE

Disse spørgsmål handler om dit samarbejde med kolleger og leder.

9. Følgende spørgsmål handler om situationer, hvor du har brug for hjælp eller støtte til dit ar-
bejde.
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie.)

(Næsten) aldrig
Somme tider

Sjældent
Altid

Ofte
1 Hvor ofte får du hjælp og støtte fra dine kolleger? 1 2 3 4 5

2 Hvor ofte får du hjælp og støtte fra din nærmeste overordnede? 1 2 3 4 5

Hvor ofte taler du med din overordnede om, hvor godt du udfører
3 1 2 3 4 5
dit arbejde?
Hvor ofte taler du med dine kolleger om, hvor godt du udfører dit
4 1 2 3 4 5
arbejde?

5 E r der et godt samarbejde blandt kollegerne på din arbejdsplads? 1 2 3 4 5

6 Føler du dig som en del af et fællesskab på din arbejdsplads? 1 2 3 4 5

7 Hvor ofte giver du hjælp og støtte på din arbejdsplads? 1 2 3 4 5

367
ENGAGEMENT OG TILFREDSHED

Disse spørgsmål handler om hvor vidt du er engageret i virksomheden og hvor tilfreds du er

10. Disse spørgsmål handler om engagement i arbejdet

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

I meget ringe grad

I meget høj grad

I ringe grad
I høj grad

Delvist
Kunne du tænke dig at være på din nuværende arbejdsplads
1 1 2 3 4 5
resten af dit arbejdsliv?

2 N yder du at fortælle om din arbejdsplads til andre mennesker? 1 2 3 4 5

3 Føler du, at arbejdspladsens problemer også er dine? 1 2 3 4 5

Synes du, at din arbejdsplads har stor personlig betydning for

4 1 2 3 4 5
dig?

5 N år virksomheden er under pres, føler du dig så også presset? 1 2 3 4 5

11. Engagement. I hvor høj grad føler du dig forpligtet overfor / engageret i ...
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie. Hvis spørgsmålet ikke er rele-
vant for dit job, marker så venligst "Ikke relevant".)
I meget ringe grad
I meget høj grad

Ikke relevant
I ringe grad
I høj grad

Delvist

1 ... din virksomhed? 1 2 3 4 5

2 ... din fagforening? 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 ... de lokale faglige klubber i virksomheden? 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 ... din afdeling i virksomheden? 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 ... det projekt / den opgave du arbejder på lige nu? 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 ... dine kunder / leverandører? 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 ... din direkte overordnede? 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 ... virksomhedens ledelse 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 ... dine underordnede? 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 ... verden udenfor dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5 6

368
12. Angående dit job i almindelighed. Hvor tilfreds er du med -
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie. Hvis spørgsmålet ikke er rele-
vant for dit job, marker så venligst "Ikke relevant".)

Hverken tilfreds eller utilfreds

Meget utilfreds
Meget tilfreds

Ikke relevant
Utilfreds
Tilfreds
1 - dine fremtidsudsigter i arbejdet? 1 2 3 4 5

2 - de mennesker, du arbejder sammen med? 1 2 3 4 5

3 - det fysiske arbejdsmiljø? 1 2 3 4 5

4 - måden, virksomheden ledes på? 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 - måden, din afdeling ledes på? 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 - måden, dine evner bruges på? 1 2 3 4 5

7 - de udfordringer og færdigheder, som dit arbejde indebærer? 1 2 3 4 5

8 - dit job som helhed, alt taget i betragtning? 1 2 3 4 5

Har du nogle kommentarer til disse spørgsmål om kolleger og ledelse, engagement og tilfredshed, kan du
skrive her:

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

369
ANSÆTTELSESFORHOLD

De næste spørgsmål handler om din ansættelsesforhold og din dagligdag

13a.Hvad er din nuværende afdeling / arbejdsgruppe?

___________________________________________________________________________________

13. Hvad er din nuværende stilling?

(F.eks.: finmekaniker, svejser, smed, værkfører, kontorchef, m.m.)

___________________________________________________________________________________

14. Hvad er dit arbejde mere præcist?

(Hvad er det vigtigste i dit arbejde, f. eks.: arbejder ved drejebænk, leder arbejdet på lageret, m.m.)

___________________________________________________________________________________

15. Hvor længe har du været ansat i din nuværende virksomhed?

Cirka : _______ år

16. Hvor længe har du været i din nuværende afdeling / arbejdsplads?

Cirka : _______ år

17. Hvor mange timer plejer du at arbejde om ugen?

Antal timer: ____________

18. På hvilke tidspunkter i døgnet arbejder du sædvanligvis?

(Sæt kun ét kryds)

1 Fast dagarbejde (overvejende mellem kl. 06 og 18)

2 Fast aftenarbejde (overvejende mellem kl. 15 og 24)

3 Fast natarbejde (overvejende mellem kl. 22 og 06)

4 Skiftende arbejdstider uden natarbejde

5 Skiftende arbejdstider med natarbejde

6 Andet: ______________________________________

370
19. På hvilke ugedage arbejder du sædvanligvis?
(Sæt kun ét kryds)

1 På hverdage

2 I weekenden (mellem fredag kl. 15.00 og mandag morgen kl. 7.00)

3 Både på hverdage og i weekenden

20. Hvordan ser din arbejdstid sædvanligvis ud?

(Sæt kun ét kryds)

1 Regelmæssig (foregår efter et bestemt mønster, der normalt gentager sig efter en bestemt pe-
riode)

2 Uregelmæssig (skifter uden noget bestemt mønster og gentages ikke efter en bestemt perio-
de)

21. Sker det, at der er konflikt mellem dit arbejde og privatliv, sådan at du helst ville være
"begge steder på én gang"?
(Sæt kun ét kryds)

1 Ja, ofte

2 Ja, jævnligt

3 Sjældent

4 Nej, aldrig

22. Føler du, at dit arbejde tager så meget af din energi, at det går ud over dit privatliv?
(Sæt kun ét kryds)

1 Ja, helt sikkert

2 Ja, til en vis grad

3 Ja, men kun lidt

4 Nej, slet ikke

371
STRESS, HELBRED OG TRIVSEL

De næste spørgsmål handler om dit helbred og personlige velbefindende

23. Hvordan synes du, at dit helbred er alt i alt?

(Sæt kun ét kryds)
1 Fremragende

2 Vældig godt

3 Godt

4 Mindre godt

5 Dårligt

24. Hvor mange sygedage og sygeperioder har du haft på dit arbejde inden for de sidste 12 må-
neder?

Antal dage, cirka : _______ Antal perioder, cirka: ________

25. Disse spørgsmål handler om, hvordan du har haft det i de sidste 4 uger. Hvor stor en del af
tiden i de sidste 4 uger -
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)
Det meste af tiden

En hel del af tiden

På intet tidspunkt
Noget af tiden

Lidt af tiden
Hele tiden

1 - har du følt dig veloplagt og fuld af liv? 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 - har du været meget nervøs? 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 - har du været så langt nede, at intet kunne opmuntre dig? 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 - har du følt dig rolig og afslappet? 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 - har du været fuld af energi? 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 - har du været trist til mode? 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 - har du følt dig udslidt? 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 - har du været glad og tilfreds? 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 - har du følt dig træt? 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 - har du følt dig stresset? 1 2 3 4 5 6

372
26. Tag stilling til hver enkelt udsagn og sæt kryds ud for, hvor godt det har passet på dig i de
sidste 4 uger!
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

Passer ganske godt

Passer nogenlunde
Passer præcist

Passer ikke
Passer lidt
1 Jeg har ikke orket at beskæftige mig med andre 1 2 3 4 5

2 Jeg har ikke haft tid til afslapning eller fornøjelser 1 2 3 4 5

3 Jeg har været lettere irritabel 1 2 3 4 5

4 Jeg har været initiativløs 1 2 3 4 5

27. Hvor ofte har du i de sidste 4 uger -

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

(Næsten) aldrig
Somme tider

Sjældent
Altid

1 - haft ondt i maven eller problemer med maven? 1 Ofte 2 3 4 5

2 - haft trykken for brystet eller brystsmerter? 1 2 3 4 5

3 - været svimmel? 1 2 3 4 5

4 - haft spændinger i forskellige muskler? 1 2 3 4 5

5 - haft koncentrationsbesvær? 1 2 3 4 5

6 - haft svært ved at tage beslutninger? 1 2 3 4 5

7 - haft svært ved at huske? 1 2 3 4 5

8 - haft svært ved at tænke klart? 1 2 3 4 5

Har du nogle kommentarer til spørgsmålene om stress og helbred, kan du skrive her:

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

373
ORGANISATIONSKLIMA

De næste spørgsmål handler om dit syn på virksomhedens klima

28. Hvordan vil du beskrive klimaet i virksomheden?

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

Moderat
Stor

Lille
Mængden af tillid (vilje til at dele, åbenhed, tiltro) i
1 1 2 3 4 5
virksomheden er
Mængden af konflikter (uoverenstemmelser, gnidninger) i
2 1 2 3 4 5
virksomheden er

3 Virksomhedens modstand mod ændringer er 1 2 3 4 5

4 Ledelsens troværdighed (respekt, inspiration, accept) er 1 2 3 4 5

Tilbøjeligheden til at finde syndebukke (ansvarsforflygtigelse ved

5 1 2 3 4 5
mislykkede handlinger) er

6 Arbejdsmoralen i virksomheden (tiltro, entusiasme) er 1 2 3 4 5

Meget uretfærdig
Meget retfærdig

Moderat

7 Belønninger gives på en retfærdig måde 1 2 3 4 5

29. Hvordan ville du beskrive ledelsesstilen i din virksomhed? Foretrækker ledelsen at lede gen-
nem motivation på forhånd eller gennem kontrol efter udførelse?
(Sæt kun ét kryds)
1 Fortrinsvis at lede med motivation

2 Lidt mere motivation end kontrol

3 En kombination af motivation og kontrol

4 Lidt mere kontrol end motivation

5 Fortrinsvis at bruge kontrol teknikker

374
30. Efter din mening, i hvor høj grad er virksomheden under pres?

(Sæt kun ét kryds)

1 I meget høj grad

2 I høj grad

3 Delvist

4 I mindre grad

5 I ringe grad

31. Hvordan passer følgende udsagn til din virksomhed?

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

Passer ganske godt

Passer nogenlunde

Passer ikke helt

Passer slet ikke

Passer præcist
Ledelsen her på stedet involverer medarbejdere hvis der skal
1 1 2 3 4 5
træffes beslutninger der angår dem.
Folk fornemmer at de kan have inflydelse på beslutninger der
2 1 2 3 4 5
angår dem.
Folk bliver tilstrækkeligt uddannet når der kommer en ny maskine
3 1 2 3 4 5
eller værktøj.

4 Kommunikation er ofte et problem her på stedet. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Her skal man overholde forretningsgangene til punkt og prikke. 1 2 3 4 5

6 Ledelsen lader for det meste folk tage deres egen beslutninger. 1 2 3 4 5

7 Medarbejderne opmuntres til at udvikle deres evner. 1 2 3 4 5

8 Virksomheden prøver at sørge for sine medarbejdere. 1 2 3 4 5

9 Forandringer gennemføres uden at inddrage de involverede. 1 2 3 4 5

10 Alt skal foregå efter reglerne. 1 2 3 4 5

11 Folk kan nemt få fat i information når de har brug for den. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Ledelsen holder for meget styr på hvordan tingene foregår her. 1 2 3 4 5

375
MASKINER OG TEKNOLOGI

De næste spørgsmål handler om dit forhold til maskiner og teknologi

32. Hvor meget bruger du en af følgende teknologier i dit daglige arbejde?

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

En eller flere gange om dagen

Flere timer om dagen
Stort set hele dagen

En gang imellem

Aldrig
1 Store produktionsmaskiner med manuel styring 1 2 3 4 5

2 Store produktionsmaskiner med computerstyring 1 2 3 4 5

3 Robotstationer 1 2 3 4 5

4 Computere 1 2 3 4 5

33. Hvis du bruger computer på dit arbejde, hvad bruger du den til?
(Sæt gerne flere krydser)
1 Jeg bruger ikke computer på arbejdet

1 Planlægning af opgaver

1 Lager- eller materialestyring

1 Styring af produktionsmaskiner (NC, Robot, o.l.)

1 Produktionsstøtte (produktfremvisning, produktionsparameter, o.l.)

1 Produktdesign / Tegnestue (CAD-CAM, o.l.)

1 Regnskabs- eller bogholderiprogrammer

1 Kontorprogrammer, såsom tekstbehandling, regneark eller database

1 E-post

1 Andre Internetprogrammer (f.eks. søgning)

1 Andet, skriv hvad: ________________________________________________

376
34. Har du en PC derhjemme?
(Hvis nej, så venligst gå videre til spørgsmål 36)
Ja Nej
1 2

35. Hvis du har en PC derhjemme, hvem bruger den til hvad?

(Sæt gerne flere krydser)
Musik- /
Tekstbe- Lærepro- Tegne-
handling Regneark Database Internet Spil grammer program

1 Du selv 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 Din ægtefælle / samlever 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 Børn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 Andre 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

36. Disse udsagn handler om dine opfattelser af og dine forventninger af ny teknologi.

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

I meget ringe grad

I meget høj grad

I ringe grad
I høj grad

Delvist
1 Teknologi kan gøre mit arbejde mere interessant og varieret 1 2 3 4 5

2 Teknologi truer arbejdspladser 1 2 3 4 5

Maskiner og teknologi kan gøre mit arbejde mere kedeligt /

3 1 2 3 4 5
rutinemæssigt

4 Maskiner og computere fungerer aldrig som forventet 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg er bange for ikke at kunne følge med i den teknologiske

5 1 2 3 4 5
udvikling
Jeg har de evner der skal til for at lære at arbejde med
6 1 2 3 4 5
informationsteknologi
Jeg forventer at teknologi vil gøre mit arbejde mere kedeligt /
7 1 2 3 4 5
rutinemæssigt
Jeg forventer at mit arbejde vil blive mere interessant på grund
8 1 2 3 4 5
af nye teknologier

377
VURDERING AF DET INDFØRTE INFORMATIONSSYSTEM

For nylig blev der indført ny informationsteknologi i nogle arbejdsgrupper. De næste spørgsmål spør-
ger om din vurdering af systemet, selv om du ikke bruger det. Du bedes besvare alle spørgsmålene.

37. Du bedes angive hvor enig du er i de følgende udsagn med hensyn til det indførte informa-
tionssystem. Det vigtige her er din personlig vurdering enten som bruger eller ikke-bruger.
(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)

Hverken enig eller uenig

Helt uenig
Helt enig

Uenig
Enig
1 Systemet giver en mere fejlfri produktion 1 2 3 4 5

2 Systemet betyder at arbejdet nu tager længere tid 1 2 3 4 5

3 Systemet fører til større forskelle indenfor arbejdsgruppen 1 2 3 4 5

4 Systemet giver mig en fornemmelse af at være overvåget 1 2 3 4 5

5 Systemet foretager sig ofte uforklarlige ting 1 2 3 4 5

6 Systemet indeholder kun en lille del af den nødvendige information 1 2 3 4 5

7 Systemet er generelt vanskeligt at bruge 1 2 3 4 5

8 Systemet virker ofte slet ikke 1 2 3 4 5

9 Ved fejl i systemet er det vanskeligt at få hjælp 1 2 3 4 5

10 Jeg vil gerne arbejde for at systemet bliver mere omfattende 1 2 3 4 5

Jeg er blevet taget passende med på råd ved indførelsen af

11 1 2 3 4 5
systemet

38. Bruger du selv det indførte IT-system? Eller andre IT-systemer?

(Vær venlig kun at markere ét svar med en ring på hver vandrette linie)
Ja, mange gange om dagen

Nej, men jeg kender det

Ja, men sjældent

Nej, slet ikke

Ja, dagligt

1 Bruger du selv det indførte IT-system? 1 2 3 4 5

2 Bruger du selv et andet IT-system i dit arbejde? 1 2 3 4 5

378
KØN, ALDER OG UDDANNELSE

Til sidst vil vi bede om nogle generelle baggrundsoplysninger.

39. Er du: Kvinde 1 eller Mand 2

40. Hvor gammel er du?

1 mindre end 25 år

2 25-34 år

3 35-44 år

4 45-54 år

5 55-64 år

6 65 år eller mere

41. Hvor mange års uddannelse har du gennemført? Med uddannelse menes sammenlagt skoletid,
læretid og anden uddannelse.

1 10 år eller mindre

2 11 eller 12 år

3 13 eller 14 år

4 15 eller 16 år

5 17 eller 18 år

6 19 år eller mere

42. Har du udfyldt skemaet før? Ja 1 eller Nej 2

Har du flere kommentarer om dit arbejde, din organisation, om teknologi  eller til skemaet?
Skriv venligst her:

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________Tak for hjælpen!

379
C. Dimensions within RIPOSTI instrument

This annex contains some analyses of new RIPOSTI dimensions, i.e. those that were not part of the
AMI instrument, which did have a priori dimensions.

1. Needs questions
For this analysis, all answers from Omicron (minus 1) and from the second Alpha data collection
round were used. The Omicron respondent who was left out had rated all needs as ‘extremely important’.

1. Imagine an ideal job – without considering your current job. If you could choose the ideal
job, how important would it be for you ...
(1.Extremely important; 2.very important; 3.important; 4.Less important; 5.Not important)
1.1 To have a job that leaves you enough time for personal and family life
1.2 To get challenging tasks, that give you a feeling of contributing something
1.3 To be able to prevent tension and stress
1.4 To have good physical working conditions (good climatic and lighting conditions, etc)
1.5 To have a good working relationship with your direct superior
1.6 To have security of employment
1.7 To get considerable freedom in the way you do your job
1.8 To work with people who work well together
1.9 To be consulted by your direct superior in his decisions
1.10 To have a job that allows you to contribute considerably to the success of your organisation
1.11 To have an opportunity for high earnings
1.12 To be able to make an effort for your country
1.13 To live in an area that is desirable to you and your family
1.14 To have the opportunity to advance to higher positions
1.15 To have variation and the opportunity to have exiting experiences on the job
1.16 To work for a well-esteemed organisation
1.17 To get a chance to help other people
1.18 To work in a well-defined job situation where demands are clear

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N

Time for family (1) 1.90 .87 77
Exciting tasks (2) 2.09 .80 77
Avoid stress (3) 2.16 1.09 77
Physical conditions (4) 2.08 .85 77
Relation to boss (5) 2.22 .82 77
Job security (6) 1.94 .92 77
Freedom in job execution (7) 1.97 .79 77
People work well together (8) 1.84 .69 77
Supervisor asks advice (9) 2.29 .84 77
Contribution to firm (10) 2.09 .81 77
Good pay (11) 2.06 .83 77
Contribution to country (12) 2.84 1.10 77
Appealing area to live in (13) 1.77 .84 77
Promotion options (14) 3.62 .83 77
Diverse & exciting (15) 2.36 .84 77
Well-known company (16) 2.65 1.00 77
Get to help other people (17) 2.56 .97 77
Well-defined job with clear demands (18) 2.82 1.12 77

An initial principal components analysis with 4 factors (all factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1)
resulted in the following rotated component matrix.

380
 Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
Time (1) .475 .564 -.342
Exciting tasks (2) .766
Avoid stress (3) .722
Physical conditions (4) .680 .268
Relation boss (5) .459 .632
Job security (6) .778 .255
Freedom (7) .700
People Co-operate (8) .349 .566
Boss asks advice (9) .723
Contrib. to org. (10) .514 .395 .553
Good pay (11) .628 .298
Contrib. to country (12) .294 .809
Appealing area (13) .625 .308
Promotion options (14) .703
Diverse & exciting (15) .302 .435 .391
Well-known org. (16) .281 .698
Help others (17) .764 .347
Well-defined (18) .741 .269

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 22 iterations. Values below .25 are not shown.

This solution was uninterpretable, for the following reasons: (a) some items loaded similarly high on more
than one factor (item 1, 10, and 15), (b) factors 3 and 4 were combinations of needs that did not seem to
make sense, and (c) the reliability values (Cronbach Alpha) of factors 3 and 4 were rather low.

Scree Plot
6

2
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Component Number

When looking at the scree plot above, one can see a second rather steep ‘dip’ to the right of compo-
nent number 4. This dip indicates that it might be interesting to analyse a 5-factor solution, even though the
eigenvalue of the 5th component is lower than 1. And this five-factor analysis was indeed rather easier to in-
terpret. It is this analysis that I have retained, and that I will present below.

381
 Communalities

Initial Extraction
Time for family (1) 1.000 .695
Exciting tasks (2) 1.000 .722
Avoid stress (3) 1.000 .570
Physical conditions (4) 1.000 .645
Relation to boss (5) 1.000 .695
Job security (6) 1.000 .742
Freedom in job execution (7) 1.000 .640
People work well together (8) 1.000 .495
Supervisor asks advice (9) 1.000 .793
Contribution to firm (10) 1.000 .757
Good pay (11) 1.000 .542
Contribution to country (12) 1.000 .749
Appealing area to live in (13) 1.000 .561
Promotion options (14) 1.000 .687
Diverse & exciting (15) 1.000 .697
Well-known company (16) 1.000 .598
Get to help other people (17) 1.000 .748
Well-defined job with clear demands (18) 1.000 .652

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

The communalities table above shows that the 5-factor analysis has an item variance of more than
60% for 14 out of 18 items. Only items 3, 8, 11, and 13 were lower. The total variance table below shows
that the five factors together account for 66.6% of the variance of the 18 items, which is a satisfactory level.
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.276 29.312 29.312 5.276 29.312 29.312 3.586 19.922 19.922
2 3.027 16.817 46.129 3.027 16.817 46.129 2.898 16.099 36.021
3 1.425 7.919 54.048 1.425 7.919 54.048 2.066 11.476 47.497
4 1.308 7.267 61.315 1.308 7.267 61.315 1.873 10.407 57.904
5 .951 5.281 66.596 .951 5.281 66.596 1.565 8.692 66.596
6 .808 4.489 71.085
7 .738 4.101 75.186
8 .693 3.850 79.036
9 .625 3.475 82.511
10 .584 3.242 85.753
11 .481 2.670 88.423
12 .468 2.598 91.021
13 .375 2.082 93.103
14 .365 2.025 95.128
15 .305 1.696 96.824
16 .229 1.273 98.097
17 .184 1.024 99.121
18 .158 .879 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Moreover, from the theoretical discussion of human needs 5 factors were expected, namely physio-
logical, safety, social, (self)-esteem and self-actualisation needs. However, the factor analysis groups the
needs somewhat differently, as becomes clear in the component and the rotated component matrices below.

382
 Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5
Time for family (1) .397 .691
Exciting tasks (2) .616 .502
Avoid stress (3) .582 -.464
Physical conditions (4) .616 -.411 .289
Relation to boss (5) .400 .694
Job security (6) .454 -.505 .495
Freedom in job execution (7) .539 .438 .315
People work well together (8) .664
Supervisor asks advice (9) .436 .579 .283 -.427
Contribution to firm (10) .560 .582
Good pay (11) .611 -.302
Contribution to country (12) .713 -.420
Appealing area to live in (13) .663
Promotion options (14) .606 .349 .367
Diverse & exciting (15) .407 .506 .513
Well-known company (16) .687 -.276
Get to help other people (17) .655 -.487
Well-defined job with clear demands (18) .582 -.551

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 5 components extracted. Values lower than .25 are not displayed.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5
Time for family (1) .596 .473
Exciting tasks (2) -.302 .608 .500
Avoid stress (3) .717
Physical conditions (4) .760
Relation to boss (5) .760
Job security (6) .604 -.252 .556
Freedom in job execution (7) .712
People work well together (8) .318 .580
Supervisor asks advice (9) .257 .818
Contribution to firm (10) .569 .379 .327 .407
Good pay (11) .610 .307
Contribution to country (12) .279 .816
Appealing area to live in (13) .617 .345
Promotion options (14) .400 .719
Diverse & exciting (15) .257 .784
Well-known company (16) .302 .687
Get to help other people (17) .736 .366
Well-defined job with clear demands (18) .726 .274

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 18 iterations. Values lower than .25 are not displayed.

383
 The five components identified in the rotated component matrix can be interpreted as follows. Factor
1 explains 20% of the variance in the rotated solution and groups all basic needs, i.e. both the physiological
and the safety-related needs. The second component, which explains 16% of the variance, can be interpreted
as a group of socially oriented needs, since it includes collectivistic needs such as contributing to organisa-
tion and country, and helping other people. The third component explains another 12% of the variance refers
to the need of an individual to have either freedom in the way one does one’s job (self-esteem), or at least to
have an influence in decisions that are taken (esteem). The fourth component explains another 10% of the
variance and can be interpreted as referring to self-actualisation or growth needs, such as promotion, chal-
lenges, variation and excitement. For factor 5, which explains 8.6% of the variance, only one item has the
highest loading, the need to have a good relation with one's superior. This may seem strange, since one
would expect this to be a social need, but the item does not correlate significantly with the other social needs,
so in our sample of individuals, it may indeed have a separate status. The variance percentages indicate that
basic and social needs are stronger ‘predictors’ of the needs-based differences within my sample of respon-
dents.

Basic needs
Physiological needs
1.1 To have a job that leaves you enough time for personal and family life
1.4 To have good physical working conditions (good climatic and lighting conditions, etc)
1.13 To live in an area that is desirable to you and your family
Safety-related needs
1.3 To be able to prevent tension and stress
1.6 To have security of employment
1.11 To have an opportunity for high earnings
1.18 To work in a well-defined job situation where demands are clear
Social needs
1.8 To work with people who work well together
1.10 To have a job that allows you to contribute considerably to the success of your organisation
1.12 To be able to make an effort for your country
1.16 To work for a well-esteemed organisation
1.17 To get a chance to help other people
Esteem needs
1.7 To get considerable freedom in the way you do your job
1.9 To be consulted by your direct superior in his decisions
Self-actualisation needs
1.2 To get challenging tasks, that give you a feeling of contributing something
1.14 To have the opportunity to advance to higher positions
1.15 To have variation and the opportunity to have exiting experiences on the job
Need to have good relation with superior
1.5 To have a good working relationship with your direct superior

The table below shows the reliability coefficients of the dimensions that result from this factor analy-
sis. In an exploratory context such as this one, a Cronbach alpha value of more than .60 is regarded as satis-
factory, so the scores for all dimensions are satisfactory. The table also shows that one could subdivide the
basic needs dimension (factor 1) into two sub-dimensions – physiological and security needs – and that both
sub-dimensions also show satisfactory reliability.

Item # Cronbach α
Factor 1 - Basic Needs 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 18 ,83
Physiological 1, 4, 13 ,68
Security 3, 6, 11, 18 ,79
Factor 2 - Social Needs 8, 10, 12, 16, 17 ,81
Factor 3 - Esteem Needs 7, 9 ,68
Factor 4 - Self-actualisation 2, 14, 15 ,65
Factor 5 - Boss relation need 5

For the remainder of the analysis, the needs dimensions will be calculated as the mean of the respec-
tive items.

384
2. EOS questions
31. How do the following statements fit with the situation in your company?
(Scale: 1.Fits precisely; 2.Fits very well; 3.Fits somewhat; 4.Does not fit very well; 5.Does
not fit at all)
31.1 Management involve people when decision are made that affect them
31.2 People feel they can influence decisions that concern them
31.3 People are properly trained when there is a new machine or bit of equipment
31.4 Communication is often a problem around here
31.5 It is necessary to follow procedures to the letter around here
31.6 Management let people make their own decisions most of the time
31.7 People are strongly encouraged to develop their skills
31.8 This company tries to look after its employees
31.9 Changes are made without talking to the people involved in them
31.10 Everything has to be done according to the book
31.11 People can quickly get hold of information when they need it
31.12 Management keeps too tight a reign on the way things are done around here

The principal component analysis of the 12 questions from the Employee Opinion Survey reveals 3
factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1. The tables below show the results of the analysis.

Descriptive Statistics Communalities

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N Missing N Initial Extraction

Q31-1 2.87 .94 76 3 Q31-1 1.000 .607
Q31-2 3.16 .89 77 2 Q31-2 1.000 .653
Q31-3 2.79 .89 78 1 Q31-3 1.000 .670
Q31-4 3.01 .97 78 1 Q31-4 1.000 .502
Q31-5 2.95 .85 78 1 Q31-5 1.000 .752
Q31-6 3.31 .92 78 1 Q31-6 1.000 .625
Q31-7 3.17 1.04 78 1 Q31-7 1.000 .682
Q31-8 2.76 .81 78 1 Q31-8 1.000 .506
Q31-9 3.40 1.10 78 1 Q31-9 1.000 .709
Q31-10 2.99 .95 78 1 Q31-10 1.000 .763
Q31-11 2.87 .89 78 1 Q31-11 1.000 .640
Q31-12 3.19 .87 78 1 Q31-12 1.000 .680

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Compo
nent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 4.621 38.510 38.510 4.621 38.510 38.510 3.825 31.875 31.875
2 1.849 15.412 53.922 1.849 15.412 53.922 2.181 18.173 50.048
3 1.320 10.996 64.919 1.320 10.996 64.919 1.784 14.871 64.919
4 .741 6.175 71.094
5 .694 5.784 76.878
6 .615 5.122 82.000
7 .551 4.595 86.595
8 .472 3.937 90.531
9 .374 3.120 93.651
10 .336 2.802 96.453
11 .265 2.211 98.665
12 .160 1.335 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

385
 Component Matrixa Rotated Component Matrixa

Component Component
1 2 3 1 2 3
Q31-1 .772 Q31-1 (Involve employees in decisions) .718 .297
Q31-2 .807 Q31-2 (People feel they have influence) .698 .404
Q31-3 .505 -.627 Q31-3 (Proper training for new equipment) .806
Q31-4 -.589 .383 Q31-4 (Communication is problematic) -.318 -.633
Q31-5 .642 .567 Q31-5 (Must follow procedures) .805
Q31-6 .789 Q31-6 (People can make own decisions) .708 .352
Q31-7 .811 Q31-7 (People encouraged to develop skills) .778 .275
Q31-8 .645 .296 Q31-8 (Company looks after employees) .687
Q31-9 -.757 .251 -.269 Q31-9 (Changes made without involvement) -.830
Q31-10 .850 Q31-10 (Everything accordingn to the book) .866
Q31-11 .637 .315 -.368 Q31-11 (Information easy to get hold of) .322 .710
Q31-12 -.276 .713 -.311 Q31-12 (Management keeps tight reign) -.523 .327 .547

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. All values below .25 are not shown.

Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2 3
1 .867 .497 .029
2 -.200 .296 .934
3 .455 -.816 .356

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

The factor analysis results in three factors, which together explain about 65% of the total variance of
the 12 items. Moreover, the communalities table shows that the three factors explain more than 60% of the
individual variance of most of the items, except for item 4 and 8. The factor loadings in the rotated compo-
nent matrix show clear values except for item 12, which loads equally high on factor 1 and factor 3.

Item # Cronbach a Incl. #12

Factor 1 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9(R) ,88 ,86
Factor 2 3, 4(R), 11 ,70
Factor 3 5,10 ,68 ,64

Cronbach alpha analyses of the resulting dimensions show satisfactory values for the three factors,
but also shows that addition of item 12 to either factor 1 or 3 decreases the alpha value of the dimensions. So,
it does not make sense to include item 12 in any of the three dimensions.
The interpretation of the rotated factor solution shows that factor 3 (14% of the variance in the ro-
tated solution) is clearly related to ‘Organisational Formalisation’. Factor 2 (18% of the variance) bundles
training, communication and information, and can be labelled ‘Information Flow’. Factor 1 (32% of the vari-
ance) is somewhat more difficult to interpret, in that it seems to combine a number of different concepts.
While the majority of items (1, 2, 6, and 9) are related to ‘participation in decision making’, the two remain-
ing items (7 and 8) have a different status. ‘People are strongly encouraged to develop their skills’ and ‘this
company tries to look after its employees’ are not related to participatory decision making. The six items do
share a humanistic view on employees, i.e. employees are treated as people who can make their own deci-
sions, should be involved in changes that pertain them, should be encouraged to develop their skills, and
need to be ‘looked after’. So, the first factor will be labelled ‘Organisational Humanism’.
The three dimensions are calculated as the means of their respective items.

386
3. Technology attitudes
36. The following statements deal with your opinions and expectations of new technology.
36.1 Technology can make my work more interesting and varied
36.2 Technology threatens jobs
36.3 Machines and technology can make my work more boring / routine
36.4 Machines and computers never work as expected
36.5 I am afraid that I will not be able to keep up with technological developments
36.6 I have the skills that are needed to learn to work with information technology
36.7 I expect that technology will make my work more boring / routine
36.8 I expect that my work will be more interesting because of new technologies

The principal component analysis of the 8 items related to technology attitudes reveals that 3 factors
have an eigenvalue of more than 1, and that it is easy to interpret. Moreover, the 2-factor shows extraction
communalities below .50 and is uninterpretable, while the 4-factor solution is also hard to interpret. The
three-factor solution explains 69% of the variance in question 36.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N

Tech can make work more varied (1) 2.56 .89 71
Tech endangers jobs (2) 3.59 .99 71
Tech can make work boring (3) 3.38 1.01 71
Tech never works properly (4) 3.38 .76 71
Afraid can't follow tech (5) 3.59 .93 71
I have tech skills (6) 2.72 1.02 71
Tech will make work boring (7) 3.62 .92 71
Tech will make work more interesting (8) 2.82 .90 71

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.736

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 171.777

Sphericity
df 28
Sig. .000

Communalities

Initial Extraction
Tech can make work more varied (1) 1.000 .665
Tech endangers jobs (2) 1.000 .530
Tech can make work boring (3) 1.000 .726
Tech never works properly (4) 1.000 .644
Afraid can't follow tech (5) 1.000 .785
I have tech skills (6) 1.000 .745
Tech will make work boring (7) 1.000 .710
Tech will make work more interesting (8) 1.000 .723

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

387
 Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.268 40.854 40.854 3.268 40.854 40.854 2.631 32.893 32.893
2 1.226 15.330 56.185 1.226 15.330 56.185 1.507 18.834 51.727
3 1.034 12.924 69.109 1.034 12.924 69.109 1.391 17.382 69.109
4 .777 9.711 78.820
5 .709 8.857 87.677
6 .423 5.285 92.962
7 .312 3.903 96.865
8 .251 3.135 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
Tech can make work more varied (1) -.635 .476
Tech endangers jobs (2) .545 .467
Tech can make work boring (3) .796 .280
Tech never works properly (4) .778
Afraid can't follow tech (5) .511 -.718
I have tech skills (6) -.632 .540
Tech will make work boring (7) .780 .274
Tech will make work more interesting (8) -.796 .269

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 3 components extracted.

Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2 3
1 -.842 -.459 .284
2 .262 .112 .959
3 -.471 .881 .026

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3
Tech can make work more varied (1) .749 .271
Tech endangers jobs (2) -.394 .606
Tech can make work boring (3) -.771 .348
Tech never works properly (4) .794
Afraid can't follow tech (5) -.856
I have tech skills (6) .338 .792
Tech will make work boring (7) -.743 .385
Tech will make work more interesting (8) .801 .283

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

388
 The resulting three-factor solution can be interpreted as follows. Factor 1 explains 33% of
the variance in the rotated solution and contains four items that reflect the individual’s perception of the role
of technology in his own job situation. The second factor explains 19% of the variance and contains two
items that reflect the respondent’s perception of his technology-related abilities. The third factor, which ex-
plains 17% of the variance in question 36, is more difficult to interpret and combines two more general atti-
tudes, one concerning the societal role of technology (endangers jobs) and one concerning the quality of
technological systems (does not work). It is rather hard to find a shared interpretation for these two items.
Moreover, the reliability value of the resulting dimension is very low, which indicates that it does not really
make sense to treat these items as a dimension. On the contrary, in the 4-factor solution, item 4 becomes a
new factor on its own, while item 2 becomes part of a new factor with items 3 and 7. This seems to indicate
that item 2 can be seen as another attitude related to factor 1 items, but when I tested the reliability of this 5-
item dimension, the Cronbach alpha score went down, which indicates that the item does not contribute to
the internal consistency of the dimension.

Item # Cronbach α
Factor 1 - Technol. Attitudes 1, 3(R), 7(R), 8 ,80
Incl. Item 2 ,78
Factor 2 - Technol. Abilities 5(R), 6 ,49
Factor 3 - Technol. Fatalism? 2, 4 ,33

The internal consistency score of factor 2 is also rather low, but these two items clearly refer to similar con-
cepts, so it was decided to treat them as a separate dimension.

389
4. System Evaluation Dimensions
Finding dimensions in the 11 items that are intended for measuring the respondents evaluation of the
new information system, is not an easy task. When one looks at the scree plot of eigenvalues below, it is
clear that a 3-factor solution will retain all those components that have an eigenvalue of more than 1. How-
ever, the three-factor solution was hard to interpret and the resulting dimensions had unsatisfactory Cronbach
alpha values. So, other factor solutions needed to be investigated. However, the form of the curve in the
scree plot does not really support the analysis, since it does not show a clear ‘dip’ where the curve suddenly
flattens. The only way to solve this problem was to try out the 2-, 4-, 5-, and 6-component solutions and
compare the interpretability of the resulting scales. During this investigation, it turned out that item 1 often
produced an interpretability problem, and that it ‘kept switching’ between components, i.e. it did not show a
clear correlation with any combination of the other items.

The solution that was finally chosen as the most interpretable, was one where the first item was re-
moved from the analysis and the 10 remaining items ‘combined’ in 4 factors. In this solution, the resulting
dimensions showed satisfactory reliability (.60 or more). The resulting 4-factor solution explains 71% of the
variance in the 10 remaining items, and all extraction communalities have a value of .6 or more, which indi-
cates that the 4-factor solution explains a satisfactory proportion of the variance in each item.

Scree Plot
4

1
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Component Number

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N

Work takes more time (2) 3.42 .76 62
Bigger within-group differences (3) 3.15 .74 62
Sense of being monitored (4) 3.50 .86 62
Inexplicable system behaviour (5) 3.21 .87 62
Only small part of info (6) 3.06 .72 62
System hard to use (7) 3.34 .75 62
System often does not work (8) 3.45 .78 62
Hard to get support (9) 3.21 .83 62
Help make system comprehensive (10) 2.68 .70 62
Adequately involved (11) 3.10 .90 62

390
 Communalities

Initial Extraction
Work takes more time (2) 1.000 .805
Bigger within-group differences (3) 1.000 .731
Sense of being monitored (4) 1.000 .797
Inexplicable system behaviour (5) 1.000 .652
Only small part of info (6) 1.000 .721
System hard to use (7) 1.000 .726
System often does not work (8) 1.000 .696
Hard to get support (9) 1.000 .611
Help make system comprehensive (10) 1.000 .686
Adequately involved (11) 1.000 .688

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.454 34.542 34.542 3.454 34.542 34.542 2.739 27.391 27.391
2 1.566 15.660 50.201 1.566 15.660 50.201 1.511 15.114 42.506
3 1.156 11.558 61.760 1.156 11.558 61.760 1.497 14.966 57.472
4 .935 9.349 71.108 .935 9.349 71.108 1.364 13.637 71.108
5 .738 7.381 78.489
6 .628 6.281 84.770
7 .482 4.815 89.585
8 .403 4.025 93.610
9 .334 3.341 96.951
10 .305 3.049 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
Work takes more time (2) .429 -.264 .549 .499
Bigger within-group differences (3) .412 .373 .601
Sense of being monitored (4) .670 .397 -.432
Inexplicable system behaviour (5) .740 -.290
Only small part of info (6) .811
System hard to use (7) .654 .522
System often does not work (8) .778 -.297
Hard to get support (9) .743
Help make system comprehensive (10) .813
Adequately involved (11) -.709 .429

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 4 components extracted.

391
 Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2 3 4
1 .830 .010 .414 .373
2 -.004 .955 .188 -.227
3 -.552 -.030 .696 .458
4 -.074 .293 -.556 .774

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4
Work takes more time (2) .858
Bigger within-group differences (3) .270 .796
Sense of being monitored (4) .369 .783
Inexplicable system behaviour (5) .700 .401
Only small part of info (6) .842
System hard to use (7) .477 .706
System often does not work (8) .813
Hard to get support (9) .725 .251
Help make system comprehensive (10) .819
Adequately involved (11) -.827

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. Values below .25 are not displayed.

The four factors can be interpreted as follows. Component 1, which explains 27% of the variance,
loads high on 4 items that are related to low system quality (inexplicable behaviour, often does not work) or
unsatisfactory technical support. Interestingly, the last item also scores high on this component, which indi-
cates a strong correlation between the perceived quality of the system, and the respondents’ satisfaction with
his involvement in the introduction of the system. I want to label the dimension ‘Low system and support
quality’. These four items show consistent high loadings for the different factor solutions, which indicates
that they are strongly related. The second component explains 15% of the variance and has a high loading for
the two items that indicate both the insufficiency of the current system, and the will to help make the system
more comprehensive, so I have labelled the dimension as ‘System insufficiency’. The third component –
which explains 15% of the variance – can be labelled ‘Negative impact on climate’, because it shows a high
loading for the two items that are related to effects on the working climate. The first one (item 3) refers to an
increase in the differences within the workgroup, and the second one referring to an increased perception of
surveillance. The fourth factor explains 13.5% of the variance and refers to the low usability of the system
(item 8) and the delays caused by the system (item 2). Both items are related to the concepts of time and
complexity, so I labelled the dimension ‘Increase in work time and complexity’.

Item # Cronbach α
Factor 1 - Low system and support quality 5, 7, 8, 9, 11(R) ,81
Factor 2 - System insufficiency 6, 10 ,60
Factor 3 - Negative impact on climate 3, 4 ,60
Factor 4 - Increased work time & complexity 2, 7 ,60

392
5. Scale comparisons (cf. the discussion in Chapter 8 above)

a) Decision authority (AMI) vs. Influence (SVE) dimensions

Correlations

Decision
authority mean
(control) Influence (sve)
Spearman's rho Physiological needs mean (Alpha=.68) -.271* -.188
Security needs mean (Alpha=.79) -.279* -.208
Social needs mean (Alpha=.81) .069 .099
Esteem needs mean (Alpha=.68)' .368** .349**
Self-actualisation needs mean .327** .300**
(Al h 65)
Boss relation need .170 .139
Physiological N/S Misfits mean .210 .169
Security N/S Misfits mean .234* .191
Social N/S Misfits Mean .313** .244*
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .326** .258*
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits Mean .292** .237*
Boss relation N/S Misfit .176 .182
All N/S misfits mean .346** .264*
Count extreme N/S misfits .333** .282*
Quantitative Demands Mean .038 .015
Cognitive Demands Mean -.300** -.319**
Sensory Demands Mean .052 .029
Hide Feelings Demand -.400** -.372**
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean .038 .015
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.300** -.319**
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean .052 .029
Hide Feelings D/A Misfits Mean .473** .453**
All D/A Misfits Mean -.004 -.017
Count extreme D/A misfits .067 .040
Count all extreme PE-misfits .269* .204
Decision authority mean (control) 1.000 .917**
Skill discretion mean (control) .777** .715**
Freedom to take break mean .352** .355**
Meaning mean .526** .477**
Organisational Commitment .387** .353**
Predictability mean .490** .432**
Social Support mean .314** .364**
Feedback mean .238* .231*
Social Community mean .489** .477**
Anxiety Mean -.326** -.241*
Satisfaction mean .485** .500**
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

(cont.)

393
 Correlations (cont.)

Decision
authority mean
(control) Influence (sve)
Spearman's rho Home / Job interface .043 .009
Number of working hours -.370** -.310**
Q18 .208 .142
Q19 -.303** -.271*
Regular working hours (1 or 2) -.285* -.243*
Subjective health .205 .164
# of sich days last year? .213 .173
Mental health mean .245* .223*
Vitality mean .261* .247*
Do you feel stressed? .089 .053
Behavioural Strain Mean -.076 -.152
Somatic Strain Mean -.299** -.286*
Cognitive Strain Mean -.109 -.112
All strains averaged -.195 -.222*
Organisational tension mean .398** .357**
Organisational resistance to change (R) .195 .193
Management Style .337** .316**
Organisation under pressure -.034 -.034
Organisational humanity (EOS .88) .464** .441**
Organisational information flow (EOS .235* .283*
70)
Organisational formalisation (EOS .68) .147 .219
PC use intensity = -.303** -.273*
( 32 4 2)
PC Use at Home -.041 -.011
Technology attitudes (Alpha=.79) .184 .120
Technology abilities (Alpha=.49) .081 .084
Do you use the new IT system? .234 .238
Low System and Support Quality -.307* -.352**
(Al h 81)
System Insufficiency (Alpha=.60) -.209 -.131
Negative Impact on Climate -.008 -.082
(Al h 60)
Increase in work time and complexity -.228 -.262*
(Al h 60)
How many years at company? .018 .066
How many years at dept.? .028 .084
Age -.012 .036
Education -.218 -.180
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The AMI dimension ‘Decision Authority’ has 3 items (alpha = .81), while my exploratory analysis
dimension ‘Influence’ has 7 items (alpha = .80). The correlations above show that the AMI dimension is of-
ten more strongly correlated with the other variables than my dimension, but that they are very similar in
general.

394
b) Skill discretion (AMI) vs. development (SVE) dimensions
Correlations

Skill discretion Development

mean (control) (sve)
Spearman's rho Physiological needs mean (Alpha=.68) -.331** -.345**
Security needs mean (Alpha=.79) -.344** -.380**
Social needs mean (Alpha=.81) .067 .039
Esteem needs mean (Alpha=.68)' .353** .337**
Self-actualisation needs mean .400** .376**
(Al h 65)
Boss relation need .082 .062
Physiological N/S Misfits mean .232* .203
Security N/S Misfits mean .274* .269*
Social N/S Misfits Mean .283* .279*
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .323** .317**
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits Mean .413** .409**
Boss relation N/S Misfit .334** .322**
All N/S misfits mean .371** .367**
Count extreme N/S misfits .405** .403**
Quantitative Demands Mean -.145 -.113
Cognitive Demands Mean -.336** -.337**
Sensory Demands Mean -.037 -.020
Hide Feelings Demand -.460** -.468**
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean -.145 -.113
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.336** -.337**
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean -.037 -.020
Hide Feelings D/A Misfits Mean .512** .512**
All D/A Misfits Mean -.108 -.085
Count extreme D/A misfits .038 .059
Count all extreme PE-misfits .253* .269*
Decision authority mean (control) .777** .792**
Skill discretion mean (control) 1.000 .985**
Freedom to take break mean .448** .495**
Meaning mean .641** .636**
Organisational Commitment .479** .446**
Predictability mean .482** .477**
Social Support mean .350** .348**
Feedback mean .363** .349**
Social Community mean .562** .577**
Anxiety Mean -.255* -.304**
Satisfaction mean .553** .539**
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

(cont.)

395
 Correlations (cont.)

Skill discretion Development

mean (control) (sve)
Spearman's rho Home / Job interface .129 .156
Number of working hours -.481** -.475**
Q18 .035 -.010
Q19 -.360** -.356**
Regular working hours (1 or 2) -.379** -.420**
Subjective health .249* .231*
# of sich days last year? .238* .214
Mental health mean .222* .201
Vitality mean .275* .238*
Do you feel stressed? .191 .195
Behavioural Strain Mean -.111 -.112
Somatic Strain Mean -.391** -.381**
Cognitive Strain Mean -.119 -.096
All strains averaged -.272* -.257*
Organisational tension mean .435** .454**
Organisational resistance to change (R) .273* .257*
Management Style .404** .392**
Organisation under pressure -.077 -.071
Organisational humanity (EOS .88) .511** .484**
Organisational information flow (EOS .155 .142
70)
Organisational formalisation (EOS .68) .231* .198
PC use intensity = -.356** -.351**
( 32 4 2)
PC Use at Home -.148 -.168
Technology attitudes (Alpha=.79) .314** .310**
Technology abilities (Alpha=.49) .206 .209
Do you use the new IT system? .198 .187
Low System and Support Quality -.353** -.326**
(Al h 81)
System Insufficiency (Alpha=.60) -.196 -.227
Negative Impact on Climate -.154 -.155
(Al h 60)
Increase in work time and complexity -.175 -.201
(Al h 60)
How many years at company? -.032 -.002
How many years at dept.? .067 .084
Age -.081 -.039
Education -.332** -.355**
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The comparison of the two skill discretion scales, the AMI with 4 items (α = .79) and my extended
version with 5 items (α = .85) again shows very similar correlation strengths with the other variables. But the
reliability of my scale, as indicated by the Cronbach alpha value, is somewhat higher.

396
c) Organisational commitment dimensions
Correlations

Organisational
Organisational commitment
Commitment (sve)
Spearman's rho Physiological needs mean (Alpha=.68) -.259* -.260*
Security needs mean (Alpha=.79) -.082 -.076
Social needs mean (Alpha=.81) .076 .088
Esteem needs mean (Alpha=.68)' .232* .257*
Self-actualisation needs mean .139 .140
(Al h 65)
Boss relation need .011 .045
Physiological N/S Misfits mean .357** .366**
Security N/S Misfits mean .276* .284*
Social N/S Misfits Mean .479** .452**
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .330** .348**
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits Mean .342** .332**
Boss relation N/S Misfit .425** .408**
All N/S misfits mean .462** .465**
Count extreme N/S misfits .308** .282*
Quantitative Demands Mean -.180 -.173
Cognitive Demands Mean -.367** -.339**
Sensory Demands Mean -.057 -.058
Hide Feelings Demand -.290** -.307**
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean -.180 -.173
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.367** -.339**
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean -.057 -.058
Hide Feelings D/A Misfits Mean .250* .271*
All D/A Misfits Mean -.222* -.201
Count extreme D/A misfits -.140 -.138
Count all extreme PE-misfits .105 .085
Decision authority mean (control) .387** .377**
Skill discretion mean (control) .479** .472**
Freedom to take break mean .130 .087
Meaning mean .575** .579**
Organisational Commitment 1.000 .982**
Predictability mean .467** .483**
Social Support mean .306** .303**
Feedback mean .191 .182
Social Community mean .420** .395**
Anxiety Mean -.005 -.002
Satisfaction mean .577** .554**
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

(cont.)

397
 Correlations (cont.)

Organisational
Organisational commitment
Commitment (sve)
Spearman's rho Home / Job interface -.006 -.006
Number of working hours -.341** -.369**
Q18 .100 .087
Q19 -.345** -.335**
Regular working hours (1 or 2) -.258* -.256*
Subjective health .182 .199
# of sich days last year? .406** .385**
Mental health mean .353** .364**
Vitality mean .306** .323**
Do you feel stressed? -.092 -.071
Behavioural Strain Mean -.164 -.128
Somatic Strain Mean -.305** -.294**
Cognitive Strain Mean -.164 -.154
All strains averaged -.249* -.229*
Organisational tension mean .448** .457**
Organisational resistance to change (R) .271* .297**
Management Style .297** .313**
Organisation under pressure .204 .251*
Organisational humanity (EOS .88) .408** .435**
Organisational information flow (EOS .309** .321**
70)
Organisational formalisation (EOS .68) .144 .105
Do you use the new IT system? .147 .136
Low System and Support Quality -.220 -.260*
(Al h 81)
System Insufficiency (Alpha=.60) -.005 .053
Negative Impact on Climate -.115 -.151
(Al h 60)
Increase in work time and complexity -.101 -.128
(Al h 60)
PC use intensity = -.258* -.256*
( 32 4 2)
PC Use at Home -.006 -.015
Technology attitudes (Alpha=.79) .159 .192
Technology abilities (Alpha=.49) -.067 -.042
How many years at company? -.281* -.250*
How many years at dept.? -.339** -.322**
Age -.439** -.404**
Education -.054 -.083
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The addition of item 10.5 ‘When your company is under pressure, do you also feel pressured?’ does
not really have much influence on the correlation of the ‘Meaning’ dimension with the other RIPOSTI vari-
ables. While the 4-item AMI version has a Cronbach α of .798, my 5-item version has an alpha value of
.834. All this seems to clearly indicate that the 5th item also measures organisational involvement.

398
d) Predictability dimensions
Correlations

Predictability Predictability
mean (sve)
Spearman's rho Physiological needs mean (Alpha=.68) -.192 -.138
Security needs mean (Alpha=.79) -.266* -.080
Social needs mean (Alpha=.81) .032 .055
Esteem needs mean (Alpha=.68)' .204 .207
Self-actualisation needs mean .111 .108
(Al h 65)
Boss relation need -.027 .153
Physiological N/S Misfits mean .257* .193
Security N/S Misfits mean .452** .382**
Social N/S Misfits Mean .385** .310**
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .457** .390**
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits Mean .382** .261*
Boss relation N/S Misfit .304** .201
All N/S misfits mean .533** .435**
Count extreme N/S misfits .386** .194
Quantitative Demands Mean -.045 .007
Cognitive Demands Mean -.276* -.214
Sensory Demands Mean .023 .048
Hide Feelings Demand -.468** -.328**
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean -.045 .007
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.276* -.214
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean .023 .048
Hide Feelings D/A Misfits Mean .288** .303**
All D/A Misfits Mean -.055 -.001
Count extreme D/A misfits -.005 -.041
Count all extreme PE-misfits .213 .050
Decision authority mean (control) .490** .387**
Skill discretion mean (control) .482** .399**
Freedom to take break mean .265* .182
Meaning mean .457** .427**
Organisational Commitment .467** .415**
Predictability mean 1.000 .836**
Social Support mean .122 .115
Feedback mean .335** .272*
Social Community mean .393** .292**
Anxiety Mean -.275* -.178
Satisfaction mean .598** .518**
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

(cont.)

399
 Correlations (cont.)

Predictability Predictability
mean (sve)
Spearman's rho Home / Job interface -.027 -.103
Number of working hours -.303** -.261*
Q18 .219 .166
Q19 -.273* -.251*
Regular working hours (1 or 2) -.162 -.157
Subjective health .141 .146
# of sich days last year? .398** .322**
Mental health mean .295** .293**
Vitality mean .363** .354**
Do you feel stressed? -.036 -.043
Behavioural Strain Mean -.149 -.120
Somatic Strain Mean -.230* -.205
Cognitive Strain Mean -.095 -.111
All strains averaged -.174 -.169
Organisational tension mean .560** .470**
Organisational resistance to change (R) .154 .242*
Management Style .569** .442**
Organisation under pressure .139 .012
Organisational humanity (EOS .88) .536** .610**
Organisational information flow (EOS .467** .520**
70)
Organisational formalisation (EOS .68) -.102 -.035
PC use intensity = -.288** -.280*
( 32 4 2)
PC Use at Home .046 .012
Technology attitudes (Alpha=.79) .252* .281*
Technology abilities (Alpha=.49) .104 .158
Do you use the new IT system? .201 .172
Low System and Support Quality -.513** -.614**
(Al h 81)
System Insufficiency (Alpha=.60) -.055 .033
Negative Impact on Climate -.500** -.483**
(Al h 60)
Increase in work time and complexity -.403** -.357**
(Al h 60)
How many years at company? -.017 .007
How many years at dept.? -.059 -.104
Age -.086 -.019
Education -.165 -.175
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

The addition of three items to the 2-item scale that the AMI instrument uses to measure predictabil-
ity has not made major changes to the correlation of ‘Predictability’ with the other RIPOSTI dimensions.
Some correlation coefficients are stronger, while others are weaker, but in general, the differences are minor.
The reliability value of the 5-item scale (α = .7936), however, is somewhat more satisfactory than that of the
2-item scale, where Cronbach’s alpha is only .687.

400
e) Social aspects dimensions
The analysis of the social aspect scales reveals some interesting information. The scales were inves-
tigated to see whether the 7th item that I introduced (‘9.7 How often do you give help and support at your
job?’) was related to either of the three AMI dimensions. But a closer analysis was also needed to try and
explain the low reliability value of the ‘Feedback’ dimension. For those reasons, I performed some explora-
tory principal component analyses. The scree plot of the eigenvalues below indicates a dip at component 3,
but also that there are only two components with an eigenvalue above 1.0.
Scree Plot
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
Eigenvalue

.5

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Component Number

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.736 39.080 39.080 2.736 39.080 39.080 2.147 30.674 30.674
2 1.450 20.708 59.788 1.450 20.708 59.788 2.038 29.113 59.788
3 .921 13.162 72.950
4 .801 11.437 84.386
5 .584 8.350 92.736
6 .288 4.109 96.845
7 .221 3.155 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Communalities
Component
Initial Extraction 1 2
Get help and support from colleagues (1) 1.000 .664 Get help and support from colleagues (1) .391 .715
Get help and support from boss (2) 1.000 .750 Get help and support from boss (2) .866
Get feedback from boss (3) 1.000 .653 Get feedback from boss (3) .806
Get feedback from colleagues (4) 1.000 .289 Get feedback from colleagues (4) .434 .318
Good co-operation amongst colleagues (5) 1.000 .782 Good co-operation amongst colleagues (5) .878
Part of community (6) 1.000 .682 Part of community (6) .816
Give help and support to others (7) 1.000 .366 Give help and support to others (7) .605
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

401
 The tables on the previous page show the 2-factor principal component analysis, which explains
about 60% of the variance. The table of communalities shows unsatisfactory values for items 4 and 7, and
the factor loadings for item 4 are not very clear either, which indicates that this is not a good solution.
What’s interesting, is that item 7 loads strongly on the same component as items 5 and 6, which indicates
that they have a fairly strong correlation.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Communalities
Component
Extraction 1 2 3
Get help and support from colleagues (1) .677 Get help and support from colleagues (1) .365 .707
Get help and support from boss (2) .879 Get help and support from boss (2) .929
Get feedback from boss (3) .696 Get feedback from boss (3) .725 .408
Get feedback from colleagues (4) .904 Get feedback from colleagues (4) .938
Good co-operation amongst colleagues (5) .783 Good co-operation amongst colleagues (5) .808 .356
Part of community (6) .730 Part of community (6) .834
Give help and support to others (7) .438 Give help and support to others (7) .659
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

The 3-factor solution in the tables above explains 73% of the variance, and has a better communality
value for item 4 (since that has a very strong loading on the new 3rd factor), but the communality value for
item 7 is still unsatisfactory. An interesting aspect of the right-hand table is that the three factors that are
found do not coincide with the three a priori AMI dimensions. The problem is situated in the ‘Feedback’ di-
mension, which combines items 3 and 4. In my respondent group, there is not a very strong correlation be-
tween getting feedback from one’s superior and getting feedback from one’s colleagues, which is also the
explanation for the low Cronbach alpha value (.50) of that dimension.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Communalities
Component
Extraction 1 2 3 4
Get help and support from colleagues (1) .677 Get help and support from colleagues (1) .697 .361
Get help and support from boss (2) .891 Get help and support from boss (2) .931
Get feedback from boss (3) .706 Get feedback from boss (3) .715 .397
Get feedback from colleagues (4) .957 Get feedback from colleagues (4) .962
Good co-operation amongst colleagues (5) .849 Good co-operation amongst colleagues (5) .863 .268
Part of community (6) .863 Part of community (6) .908
Give help and support to others (7) .965 Give help and support to others (7) .964
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

The 4-factor solution confirms the problematic nature of a single feedback dimension, but it solves
the problem of the new item’s low communality value, in that the new item ‘gets its own factor’. In other
words, giving help or support is seen as closely related to the social community dimension, but it is still
rather different. The analysis of the reliability values confirms this. Items 5 and 6 together have an alpha
value of .79, which decreases to .70 when item 7 is added.

This detailed analysis shows that two of AMI’s dimensions are valid for my sample, namely ‘Social
support’ (items 1 and 2 – α = .73) and ‘Social community’ (items 5 and 6 – α = .79). However, any analyses
that includes the feedback dimension needs to be treated with care. With regard to item 7, the analysis shows
that its collectivistic perspective is related to social community aspects, but that it still has a somewhat dif-
ferent status.

402
f) Satisfaction dimensions
Comparison of the reliability values of AMI’s 4-item satisfaction scale and my 8-item scale shows a
normal increase in the Cronbach alpha value from .79 to .87. Also a comparison of the correlations of the
two scales with the other RIPOSTI variables shows no differences. However, from an exploratory perspec-
tive it was interesting to see whether the 8-item scale had any underlying dimensionality, since it does com-
bine satisfaction judgements about quite different work aspects. Principal components analysis results in one
single factor when one uses the eigenvalue as the criterion for determining the number of factors. However,
this 1-factor solution explains only 53% of the variance, and it shows rather low communalities, which indi-
cates that there might indeed be more than 1 satisfaction dimension. Also the scree plot indicates that there
might be two or more factors in the data.
Scree Plot
Communalities 5

Initial Extraction
4
Future prospects (1) 1.000 .591
Colleagues (2) 1.000 .346
3
Physical environment (3) 1.000 .313
Company management (4) 1.000 .393
2
Department management 1.000 .523
Use of abilities (6) 1.000 .682
Eigenvalue

1
Challenges and skills (7) 1.000 .727
Job as a whole (8) 1.000 .683
0
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Component Number

The two-factor solution raises the communality values somewhat and explains 65% of the variance,
but remains problematic for items 2 and 4.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Communalities
Component
Initial Extraction 1 2
Future prospects (1) 1.000 .751 Future prospects (1) .861
Colleagues (2) 1.000 .346 Colleagues (2) .481 .339
Physical environment (3) 1.000 .819 Physical environment (3) .903
Company management (4) 1.000 .405 Company management (4) .459 .441
Department management 1.000 .644 Department management .405 .692
Use of abilities (6) 1.000 .749 Use of abilities (6) .830
Challenges and skills (7) 1.000 .727 Challenges and skills (7) .693 .498
Job as a whole (8) 1.000 .756 Job as a whole (8) .836
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

In the three-factor solution (which explains 76% of the variance), all communality values are over
.650, but a problem remains for item 4, ‘company management’, which has an almost equal loading for fac-
tor 1 and 2. Finally, the four-factor solution separates that 4th item into a fourth component. In this solution,
all communalities are over .760, and 84% of the variance is explained. Moreover, the components can be
interpreted from a CHARISM perspective.

403
 Rotated Component Matrixa Rotated Component Matrixa

Component Component
1 2 3 1 2 3 4
Future prospects (1) .819 .282 Future prospects (1) .746 .329 .295
Colleagues (2) .261 .880 Colleagues (2) .294 .884
Physical environment (3) .896 Physical environment (3) .934
Company management (4) .596 .501 -.282 Company management (4) .325 .877
Department management .341 .613 .437 Department management .646 .543 .318
Use of abilities (6) .829 Use of abilities (6) .826
Challenges and skills (7) .684 .449 Challenges and skills (7) .727 .439
Job as a whole (8) .831 Job as a whole (8) .867

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

The first factor combines all the individualistic aspects of satisfaction, namely one’s own future
prospects, the use of one’s abilities and skills, and the challenges the job poses. Interestingly this first factor
also contains the ‘Overall satisfaction’ item. This seems to indicate that it’s mainly the individualistic aspects
of work that explain overall satisfaction, which is confirmed by a stepwise linear regression analysis. This
shows that the 3 remaining items in factor 1 explain 62% of the variance (adjusted R-square value), while the
other items do not significantly contribute to the overall satisfaction. The second factor contains those items
that are related to the immediate social context of an individual, i.e. colleagues and local management. The
alpha values of the two sub-scales of satisfaction are .874 and .624, respectively, which means that the reli-
ability of factor 1 is somewhat higher than that of the 8-item dimension that was .867.
Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered
1 Use of abilities (6)
2 Challenges and skills (7)
3 Future prospects (1)
a. Dependent Variable: Job as a whole (8)
Variables
Removed Method
Stepwise (Criteria:
. Probability-of-F-to-enter <= .050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Stepwise (Criteria:
. Probability-of-F-to-enter <= .050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Stepwise (Criteria:
. Probability-of-F-to-enter <= .050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).

The following two pages contain correlation tables of the different satisfaction scales and subscales
with the other RIPOSTI variables. Interestingly, the sub-scales show correlations with some items where nei-
ther the 4-item AMI scale, nor my own 8-item scale shows significant correlation, such as for subjective
health, cognitive strain or PC use intensity. But for the most part, the 4-item AMI scale, my 8-item scale and
the sub-scales show similar correlations.

404
 Correlations

Individual Social Company Physical

Satisfaction Satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction manage- environ-
mean mean (sve) subscale subscale ment (4) ment (3)
Spearman's Physiological needs mean (Alpha=.68) -.119 -.161 -.107 -.214 -.027 -.084
rho
Security needs mean (Alpha=.79) -.079 -.106 -.117 -.103 -.090 .020
Social needs mean (Alpha=.81) .082 .044 .024 .074 .012 .172
Esteem needs mean (Alpha=.68)' .225* .268* .208 .287* .265* .084
Self-actualisation needs mean (Alpha=.65) .066 .103 .040 .214 .042 .116
Boss relation need .022 .034 -.008 .031 .148 -.026
Physiological N/S Misfits mean .351** .348** .286* .294** .076 .390**
Security N/S Misfits mean .320** .317** .291* .240* .280* .306**
Social N/S Misfits Mean .424** .477** .471** .361** .357** .212
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .322** .324** .305** .270* .191 .311**
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits Mean .555** .526** .543** .321** .279* .372**
Boss relation N/S Misfit .309** .315** .310** .281* .087 .292*
All N/S misfits mean .501** .511** .480** .379** .340** .392**
Count extreme N/S misfits .551** .544** .499** .395** .236* .399**
Quantitative Demands Mean -.247* -.228* -.290** -.200 -.078 .083
Cognitive Demands Mean -.468** -.444** -.422** -.309** -.210 -.319**
Sensory Demands Mean -.271* -.241* -.221* -.095 -.111 -.113
Hide Feelings Demand -.345** -.455** -.390** -.461** -.393** -.148
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean -.247* -.228* -.290** -.200 -.078 .083
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.468** -.444** -.422** -.309** -.210 -.319**
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean -.271* -.241* -.221* -.095 -.111 -.113
Hide Feelings D/A Misfits Mean .315** .375** .374** .355** .266* .102
All D/A Misfits Mean -.353** -.301** -.330** -.150 -.108 -.089
Count extreme D/A misfits -.061 -.047 -.128 -.010 -.081 -.009
Count all extreme PE-misfits .281* .292** .218 .227* .094 .250*
Decision authority mean (control) .485** .543** .468** .543** .307** .237*
Skill discretion mean (control) .553** .637** .551** .568** .432** .282*
Freedom to take break mean .302** .288* .246* .260* .079 .245*
Meaning mean .594** .691** .619** .631** .503** .307**
Organisational Commitment .577** .634** .601** .557** .350** .328**
Predictability mean .598** .632** .574** .397** .624** .344**
Social Support mean .235* .292** .185 .408** .120 .279*
Feedback mean .154 .231* .122 .287* .253* .103
Social Community mean .565** .666** .638** .604** .366** .148
Give help and support to others (7) .262* .282* .289** .307** .089 .013
Anxiety Mean -.040 -.038 -.071 -.063 -.109 .005
Satisfaction mean 1.000 .945** .943** .629** .545** .616**
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

(cont.)

405
 Correlations (cont.)

Individual Social Company Physical

Satisfaction Satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction manage- environ-
mean mean (sve) subscale subscale ment (4) ment (3)
Spearman's Home / Job interface -.096 -.091 -.056 -.017 -.165 -.100
rho
Number of working hours -.315** -.334** -.330** -.323** -.177 -.189
Q18 .091 .030 .092 -.052 .012 .003
Q19 -.272* -.335** -.305** -.324** -.230* -.113
Regular working hours (1 or 2) -.170 -.238* -.270* -.222* -.221 .048
Subjective health .146 .207 .084 .320** .244* .305**
# of sich days last year? .324** .324** .337** .228* .172 .080
Mental health mean .401** .424** .356** .424** .253* .334**
Vitality mean .408** .409** .369** .318** .336** .315**
Do you feel stressed? -.003 -.021 .013 .013 -.135 -.062
Behavioural Strain Mean -.297** -.347** -.299** -.341** -.150 -.141
Somatic Strain Mean -.303** -.351** -.264* -.372** -.196 -.335**
Cognitive Strain Mean -.175 -.196 -.145 -.177 -.153 -.250*
All strains averaged -.309** -.357** -.282* -.361** -.192 -.304**
Organisational tension mean .545** .604** .559** .476** .448** .305**
Organisational resistance to change (R) .268* .312** .293** .290* .148 .191
Management Style .538** .548** .549** .328** .426** .291*
Organisation under pressure .183 .144 .173 .023 -.006 .190
Organisational humanity (EOS .88) .465** .521** .473** .464** .446** .241*
Organisational information flow (EOS .70) .430** .388** .367** .236* .357** .317**
Organisational formalisation (EOS .68) .106 .091 .070 .135 .020 .071
PC use intensity = -.180 -.191 -.169 -.224* -.164 -.106
( 32 4 2)
PC Use at Home .109 .094 .103 -.018 .151 .051
Technology attitudes (Alpha=.79) .059 .085 .069 .076 .064 .075
Technology abilities (Alpha=.49) -.025 -.024 -.020 .028 .029 -.029
Do you use the new IT system? .200 .195 .171 .138 .098 .209
Low System and Support Quality -.351** -.333** -.324** -.206 -.374** -.186
(Al h 81)
System Insufficiency (Alpha=.60) -.139 -.142 -.167 -.059 -.019 .003
Negative Impact on Climate (Alpha=.60) -.308* -.347** -.236 -.255* -.465** -.240
Increase in work time and complexity -.236 -.219 -.246* -.114 -.298* -.083
(Al h 60)
How many years at company? -.208 -.158 -.251* -.018 .037 -.005
How many years at dept.? -.177 -.148 -.211 -.025 -.069 .011
Age -.326** -.259* -.343** -.069 -.046 -.138
Education -.122 -.165 -.107 -.223 -.121 -.065
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

406
D. Overview of RIPOSTI instrument

Overview of the dimensions in the RIPOSTI instrument, together with their characteristics and their source.
Part 1: PE-fit measures

Scale Characteristics
Dimension Source # items Minimum value Maximum value Cronbach α
Physiological needs 3 1 Extremely important Not important 5 .68
Security needs 4 1 " " 5 .79
NEEDS

Social needs VSM 5 1 " " 5 .81

Esteem needs 2 1 " " 5 .68
Self-actualisation needs 3 1 " " 5 .65
Boss-related needs 1 1 " " 5 -
Physiological NS-misfits 3 -4 Supplies > Needs Needs > Supplies +4 (.34)
NEEDS-SUPPLIES

Security NS-misfits 4 -4 " " +4 (.52)

Social NS-misfits 5 -4 " " +4 (.71)
MISFITS

Esteem NS-misfits SVE 2 -4 " " +4 (.71)

Self-actualisation NS-misfits 3 -4 " " +4 (.72)
Boss-related NS-misfits 1 -4 " " +4 -
Average NS-misfits 18 -4 " " +4 (.88)
Count Extreme NS-misfits 18 0 No misfits Many misfits 18 (.79)

Quantitative demands 4 1 High Low 5 (.49)

MANDS

Cognitive demands 4 1 " " 5 (.88)

DE-

AMI
Sensory demands 3 1 " " 5 (.61)
Demand to hide feelings 1 1 " " 5 -
Quantitative demands 4 -2 Abilities > Demands Demands > Abilities +2 (.33)
DEMANDS-
ABILITIES

Cognitive demands 4 -2 " " +2 (.46)

MISFITS

Sensory demands SVE 3 -2 " " +2 (.33)

Demand to hide feelings 1 -2 " " +2 -
Average DA-misfits 12 -2 " " +2 (.51)
Count extreme DA-misfits 12 -2 No misfits Many misfits +2 (.62)
PE-FIT Count all extreme PE misfits SVE 30 0 " " +30 (.78)

(cont.)

407
 Overview of the dimensions in the RIPOSTI instrument, together with their characteristics and their source.
Part 2: Other psychosocial measures, organisational perception dimensions and technology perception meas-
ures.

Scale Characteristics
Dimension Source # items Minimum value Maximum value Cronbach α
Decision authority 3 1 High Low 5 (.81)
TROL

AMI
CON-

Skill discretion 4 1 " " 5 (.79)

Degree of freedom AMI 1 1 " " 5 -
Meaning AMI 3 1 " " 5 (.80)
Commitment AMI 4 1 " " 5 (.80)
Commitment objects SVE 11 1 " " 5 11 items
Predictability AMI 2 1 " " 5 (.69)
Social support 2 1 " " 5 (.73)
ASPECTS
SOCIAL

Feedback AMI 2 1 " " 5 (.50)

Social community 2 1 " " 5 (.79)
Help and support others SVE 1 2 " " 6
Job insecurity AMI 4 1 High insecurity Low insecurity 5 (.78)
Satisfaction AMI 4 1 High Low 5 (.79)
Work-family interface AMI 2 1 Bad interface Good interface 5 (.70)
Work rhythm AMI 4 Various 4 items
Self-reported health 1 1 Outstanding Bad 5 -
HEALTH

AMI
Number of sick days 1 0 Good Bad ? -
Mental health AMI 5 1 High Low 6 (.75)
Vitality AMI 4 1 " " 6 (.67)
Self-reported stress SVE 1 1 " " 5 -
STRESS

Behavioural strains 4 1 " " 5 (.71)

Somatic strains AMI 4 1 " " 5 (.68)
Cognitive strains 4 1 " " 5 (.86)
All strains SVE 12 1 " " 5 .85
ORGANISATIONAL

Organisational tension 6 1 Low High 3/5 .75

Org. resistance to change OrgCon 1 1 High Low 3/5 -
ASPECTS

Management style 1 1 Motivation Control 3/5 -

Org. under pressure SVE 1 1 High Low 5 -
Organisational humanity 6 1 " " 5 .88
Org. information flow EOS 3 1 " " 5 .70
Org. formalisation 2 1 " " 5 .68
Intensity of PC use on job 3 0 None High 8 .84
TECHNO-

ASPECTS

Intensity of techology use 3 0 None / Low High 1 3 items

LOGY

PC use at home SVE 1 0 None High 8 -

Technology attitudes 4 1 Positive Negative 5 .80
Technology abilities 2 1 High Low 5 .49
EVALUATION

Use new IS? SVE 1 1 Intensively Not at all 5 -

IS USE &

System & support quality 4 1 Negative Positive 5 .81

System insufficiency 2 1 Insufficient Sufficient 5 .60
KBR
Impact on climate 2 1 Negative Positive 5 .60
Work time & complexity 2 1 Increase Decrease 5 .60
Demographics AMI 8 Various 8 items

408
E. Interview guides

Annex E contains the full version of the different interview guides that were used during the differ-
ent types of interview that were made with different organisational representatives.

1. Individual level interview guide for production workers

NOTE FOR THE READER: The interview topics were slightly different for the Omicron and Al-
pha cases. Moreover, at Alpha there were two groups of respondents: those who had changed to
self-managing teams, and those who hadn’t. Also those differences are indicated.

Introduction:
This interview is linked to the questionnaire that you have filled out. The questions I will be asking
you are related to the questions that were asked in the questionnaire.

a) Individual parameters

(1) Needs (the aim is to be able to reach a kind of hierarchy of needs)

- What is the main reason for you to go to work?
- Are there other important reasons?
- What motivates you to come to work?

(2) Demands
- The demands that your work puts on you, are they too high or too low?

(3) Meaning
- What gives meaning to your work?
- Is your work meaningful enough? Could it be more meaningful / interesting? Is it good the way
it is?
- What should be changed in your working day so that it becomes more meaningful?

(4) Worry / insecurity

(Omicron)
- What was your reaction when the acci-
dent happened? Where you afraid of
being fired?
- How do you feel about changes in your
everyday working life?
- How to you feel about the basis group
project?
(Alpha)
- How do you feel about changes in your
everyday (working) life?
- Could you tell me about the changes
that the company has gone through in re-
cent years? (Especially your attitude)
- Are you worried about your future?
- What do you expect from the changes
that will be happen in the next few months?

(5) Satisfaction
- Who should change what so that your working day becomes more positive?

409
b) Organisational stress
- Do you think the company is under much pressure? Where does it come from? How much? Can
the company deal with the pressure?
- Do you think management is under much pressure? Where does it come from? How much? Can
management deal with the pressure?
- Do you think the employees in the company are under much pressure? Where does it come
from? How much? Can the employees deal with the pressure?
(Extra Omicron question)
- Is the pipe workshop under pressure? Any group in particular?

c) Information technology

(1) Skills / abilities

- Can you use computers? How long have you used computers? How do you feel about using
computers?

(2) Existing systems

- Are there many computers in your department? What are they being used for? Who uses them?
How often?
- Do you think computers have a big influence on the work in your department?

(3) (Omicron) PipeViewer (3) (Alpha) New systems?

- Do you think the PipeViewer has had
a big influence on the work in the de-
partment? How?
- What was different before the system
was implemented?
- Were you more or less satis-
fied with your job?
- Was there more or less varia-
tion in your work?
- Were you more or less
stressed before PipeViewer was
introduced?
- Do you want new systems to be imple-
mented?
- (Round 1) What do you expect will change
when the system is introduced?
- Will it have influence on your working
day? (variation, content, meaning)
- (Round 2 – control group) What do you
expect will change when the system is in-
troduced?
- Will it have influence on your work-
ing day? (variation, content, meaning)
- (Round 2 – test group) What changed
when the system was introduced?
- Has it had influence on your working
day? (variation, content, meaning)

(3a) (Alpha round 2) Role of technology in change

project?

(4) Other IT potential

- Do you expect to get more information after the introduction of the system?
- Would you like to receive more information through computer systems?
- What type of information?
- Is there anything that a computer system could do to make your working day better?

d) Remarks about questionnaire

- Did you write down any comments while you were completing the questionnaire? (Yes – No)
- Is there anything about the questionnaire that you want to discuss?

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP

410
2. Individual level interview guide for members of management at Omicron
Introduction:
This interview is linked to the questionnaire that you have filled out. The questions I will be asking
you are related to the questions that were asked in the questionnaire, but we will not be covering all
topics again.

a) Remarks about questionnaire

- Did you write down any comments while you were completing the questionnaire? (Yes – No)
- Is there anything about the questionnaire that you want to discuss?

b) Individual parameters

(1) Needs (the aim is to be able to reach a kind of hierarchy of needs)

- What is the main reason for you to go to work?
- What motivates you to come to work?

(2) Demands
- The demands that your work puts on you, are they too high or too low?

(3) Meaning
- What gives meaning to your work? Does everything somehow have to fit together?

(4) Worry / insecurity

- Are you worried about your own future prospects? For the organisation’s future?

(5) Satisfaction
- Who should change what so that your working day becomes more positive?

c) Organisational stress
- Do you think the company is under much pressure? Where does it come from? How much? Can
the company deal with the pressure?
- Do you think management is under much pressure? Where does it come from? How much? Can
management deal with the pressure?
- Do you think the employees in the company are under much pressure? Where does it come
from? How much? Can the employees deal with the pressure?

d) Information technology

(1) Skills / abilities

(2) Existing systems

- Do you think that computers have a big influence on the work in the company? Which are the
most important systems? Who uses them?

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP

411
3. OrgCon® Interview guide and dimensions

a) Current organisational configuration

- Simple / functional / divisional / matrix / (machine or professional) bureaucracy / other

b) Current complexity
Horizontal differentiation
- How many different job titles (specialities) are there? (<3, 4-8, 9-15, 16-25, >26)
- Which percentage of employees has a higher education or many years of specialised experience?
(0-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-75, 76-100)
Vertical differentiation
- What is the highest amount of vertical levels that separates top management from the lowest
level in the organisation? (1-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12, 12+)
- How many levels are there on average? Are there major differences between departments? (1-2,
3-5, 6-8, 9-12, 12+)
Spatial differentiation
- At how many different locations (incl. headquarters) are employees located? (1-2, 3-5, 6-15, 16-
30, 30+)
- The average distance between these locations and headquarters is (1-10 km, 11-100 km, 101-500
km, 501-3500 km, 3500 km, 1 location)
- Which percentage of the organisations total staff is located at these separate locations? (1-10, 11-
25, 26-60, 61-90, 90+, 1 location)

c) Current formalisation
- Which type of employees has written job descriptions? (Employees only or management only,
employees and supervisors, employees, supervisors and middle managers, all employees excl.
top management, all employees incl. top management)
- Where written job descriptions exist, how closely are employees supervised to ensure compli-
ance with standards set in the job description? (very loose, loose, moderately close, close, very
close)
- How much latitude are employees allowed from the standards (a great deal, large amount, a
moderate amount, very little, none)
- What percentage of non-managerial employees is given written operating instructions or proce-
dures for their job? (0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100)
- Of those managerial employees given written instructions or procedures, to what extent are they
followed? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal, no written instructions)
- To what extent are supervisors and middle managers free from rules, procedures and policies
when they make decisions? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- What percentage of all the rules and procedures that exist within the organisation is in writing?
(0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100)

412
d) Current centralisation
- How much direct involvement does top management have in gathering the information they use
in making decisions? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- To what degree does top management participate in the interpretation of the information input?
(0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100)
- To what degree does top management directly control execution of a decision? (0-20, 21-40, 41-
60, 61-80, 81-100)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have in establishing his or her budget?
(none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have in determining how his or her unit
will be evaluated? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have in hiring and firing personnel?
(none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have over personnel rewards – (i.e., sal-
ary increases and promotions? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have over purchasing equipment and
supplies? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have over establishing a new project or
program? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)
- How much discretion does the typical middle manager have over how work exceptions are han-
dled? (none, little, some, a great deal, a very great deal)

e) Size
- How many employees does the organisation have?

f) Age / ownership
- How old is the organisation? (young, mature, old)
- What kind of ownership does the organisation have? (private, incorporated, public / state owned,
subsidiary)

g) Product / services diversity

- Does the organisation have many different products? (few, some, many)
- Does the organisation operate in many different markets? (few, some, many)
- Does the organisation operate in more than one country? If yes, is the activity level abroad
greater than 25%? (no, yes <25%, yes >25%)
- Does the organisation have many different products in the foreign market? (few, some, many)

h) Technology
- What is the major activity of the organisation? (production, service, retail, wholesale)
- What kind of technology does the organisation have? (mass, process, unit)
- Does the organisation have a routine technology? (no, some, yes)
- Is the technology divisible? (little, somewhat, highly)
- Does the organisation have a strong or weak dominant technology? (weak, average, strong)
- Does the organisation use or plan to use an advanced information system?

i) Environment
- Is the organisation simple or complex? (simple, some, complex)
- What is the level of uncertainty of the environment? (low, medium, high)
- Is the equivocality of the environment low or high? (low, medium, high)
- Is the organisational environment hostile? How tough is the competition? (low, medium, high,
extreme)

413
j) Management profile
- Top management may prefer to make most of the decisions themselves; or, they may prefer to
delegate numerous decisions to other managers, i.e. greater preference for decentralisation. What
kind of decisions does top management prefer to make? (General policy decisions, both general
and some operational, general and operational decisions equally)
- Top management may prefer to make long-term decisions or short-time decisions. What kind of
decisions does top management prefer to make? (short-term, both long- and short-term, long-
term)
- Top management may prefer to use very detailed or very aggregate information when making
decisions. What level of detail does top management prefer to use when making decisions? (very
aggregate, medium detailed, very aggregate)
- Top management may prefer to be proactive in its thinking, anticipate future events and take pre-
emptive actions. It may be reactive; wait and see and then act. What is the top management’s
preference on taking action? (reactive to events as they occur, some proactive and some reactive,
proactive anticipating future events)
- Top management may be risk averse in its decision making, or it may have a preference to as-
sume risk. What is top management’s attitude towards risk? (risk propensity, risk neutral, risk
averse)
- Top management may prefer to manage through ex ante motivation, or ex post control tech-
niques. What kind of motivation and control does top management prefer? (motivation through
inspiration, a combination of motivation and control, using control techniques)

k) Strategy factors
- Does the organisation operate in an industry with a high or low capital requirement? (high, me-
dium, low)
- Does the organisation have a high or low product innovation? (high, medium, low)
- Does the organisation have a high or low process innovation? (high, medium, low)
- Does the organisation have a high or low concern for quality? (high, medium, low)
- How is the organisation’s price level compared to its competitors? (high, medium, low)

l) Internal climate factors

- The level of trust – sharing, openness, confidence – is: (high, medium, low)
- The level of conflict – disagreement, friction – in this organisation is: (high, medium, low)
- The employee morale – confidence, enthusiasm – in this organisation is: (high, medium, low)
- Rewards are given in an equitable fashion: (highly equitable, moderately equitable, inequitable)
- The organisation’s resistance to change is: (high, medium, low)
- The leadership credibility – respect, inspiration, acceptance – is: (high, medium, low)
- The level of scapegoating – shifting of responsibility for actions which fail – is: (high, medium,
low)

414
4. IT-related aspects interview guide
This guideline was used when interviewing managers that were related to the IT decisions at Omi-
cron. This was intended to measure characteristics of existing IT systems, but mainly to have a discussion of
the relevance of the concepts, and to find out whether they thought these characteristics would help explain
organisational aspects of IT.

a) IT infrastructure (Fiedler et al., 1996)

- What percentage of data processing is de-centralised?
- What percentage of the computers can communicate with each other?
- What percentage of the data and applications are shared?

b) Level of computerisation
- On average, which percentage of the company’s activities is performed on a computer?
- Are there big differences between departments?
- How big is the IT investment level (in comparison to comparable companies)?

c) Sources of information
- To which degree are the company’s systems internally oriented?
- To which degree are the company’s systems externally oriented?

d) Information centralisation
- To which degree does information ‘flow up’ to management through IT systems (as compared to
other non-computerised information systems)?
- To which degree does information ‘flow down’ to middle management and employees through
IT systems?
- Are there many ‘confidentiality firewalls’ in the organisation?

e) Restrictiveness
- To which degree are systems restrictive?
- Do employees have freedom in the way they enter information into organisational information
systems, or are there fixed formats or rules that they need to follow?

f) Flexibility / rigidity
- To which degree are systems flexible?
- To which degree are systems rigid?

g) Control orientation (supervision / monitoring)

- To which degree CAN existing systems be used to log activities?
- To which degree DO these systems actually log employee activities?
- To which degree does management analyse and USE these log files?

h) Scope
- Which percentage of the systems is used in only one department?
- Which percentage of the systems is inter-organisational (EDI, extranet, etc.)
- Which percentage of the systems is used throughout the organisation?
- Which percentage of the systems is used in a limited number of departments?

415
5. BlueTech interview guideline

- History of the project:

- How did the project come into being?
- How was the decision taken to start the project?
- Who took the decision?

- How do you explain the problems that arose with regard to lack of resource and management
support?

- What was the role of top management style? Was there a difference between the two CEO’s?

- Would you consider Omicron at this moment as a better place for developing BlueTech-like pro-
jects?

F. Individual-level data analysis

This annex contains full tables with relevant statistical analyses for the cross-case items at the indi-
vidual level-of-analysis. For the discussion of the data, please refer to page 277-ff. of Chapter 11 in the dis-
sertation.

1. PE-fit correlations

a) Well-being/health/stress

Spearman Correlations of PE-Fit with measures of mental well-being and stress

Strain Mean

Strain Mean

Strain Mean
Behavioural
health mean

Do you feel
Subjective

All strains
Cognitive
stressed?

averaged
days last
# of sich

Somatic
Vitality
Mental
health

year?

mean

Physiological N/S Misfits mean .083 .246* .060 .055 -.060 .017 -.132 .102 -.002
Security N/S Misfits mean .193 .253* .174 .146 -.145 -.047 -.258* .057 -.093
Social N/S Misfits Mean .099 .246* .288* .114 -.197 -.225* -.187 -.068 -.204
Boss relation N/S Misfit .215 .270* .172 .178 .044 -.033 -.215 -.059 -.107
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .201 .164 .190 .119 -.016 .080 -.032 .050 .041
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits Mean -.026 .131 .222 .069 .024 -.037 -.112 .034 -.041
All N/S misfits mean .113 .297** .202 .115 -.061 -.029 -.174 .079 -.044
Sum of extreme needs misfits .116 .192 .162 -.010 .062 .008 -.124 .049 -.007
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean .140 .021 -.085 -.062 -.081 -.012 .031 -.015 .019
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean .040 -.094 -.137 -.091 .052 .066 .209 -.030 .104
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean .290** .102 -.042 .006 .011 -.046 -.244* -.096 -.179
Hide Feelings D/A Misfit .199 .172 .329** .278* -.089 -.115 -.205 -.160 -.192
All D/A Misfits Mean .264* .036 .007 .018 -.071 -.062 -.046 -.123 -.085
sum of extreme demands misfits .083 -.040 -.062 -.126 .109 -.024 -.056 .134 .016
Sum of all extreme PE-misfits .111 .019 .070 -.080 .056 -.040 -.088 .109 -.001
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

416
b) Commitment, satisfaction & motivation

PE-Fit measures correlate with commitment, satisfaction & motivation

Organisational Satisfaction Do you feel

Commitment mean motivated?
Physiological N/S Misfits mean .382** .375** .288*
Security N/S Misfits mean .304** .346** .270*
Social N/S Misfits Mean .499** .446** .418**
Boss relation N/S Misfit .447** .336** .356**
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .354** .346** .301**
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits .367** .572** .437**
M
All N/S misfits mean .482** .519** .411**
Sum of extreme needs misfits .336** .570** .495**
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean -.139 -.204 -.092
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.373** -.472** -.281*
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean -.017 -.223* -.060
Hide Feelings D/A Misfit .278* .340** .404**
All D/A Misfits Mean -.176 -.303** -.068
sum of extreme demands -.097 -.023 -.002
i fit
Sum of all extreme PE-misfits .139 .308** .299**
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

c) Organisational and technological variables

PE-fit correlations with organisational and technological variables

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational
formalisation
Resistance to
tension mean

Management

Technology

Technology
information

PC Use at
humanity

attitudes
intensity

abilities
change

PC use

Home
Style

flow

Physiological N/S Misfits mean .187 -.058 .120 .144 .061 -.100 -.061 .037 .052 -.139
Security N/S Misfits mean .257* -.106 .192 .239* .183 -.084 -.205 -.121 .214 .085
Social N/S Misfits Mean .423** -.101 .243* .308** .219 -.237* -.099 .027 .151 -.119
Boss relation N/S Misfit .218 -.109 .296* .243* .119 -.101 -.138 -.002 .107 -.005
Esteem N/S Misfits Mean .433** -.314** .362** .533** .368** .004 -.169 .006 .180 .018
Self-actualisation N/S Misfits .332** -.109 .378** .249* .174 -.274* -.178 .037 .090 -.028
M
All N/S misfits mean .411** -.176 .320** .357** .250* -.169 -.161 .008 .139 -.064
Sum of extreme needs misfits .382** -.094 .345** .238* .139 -.141 -.051 .195 .072 -.150
Quantitative D/A Misfits Mean -.098 .043 -.072 .000 .190 .051 .146 .013 .100 -.070
Cognitive D/A Misfits Mean -.277* .180 -.342** -.208 -.092 .031 .104 -.050 .180 .101
Sensory D/A Misfits Mean -.107 .020 .026 .077 -.023 -.127 -.403** -.268* .330** .319**
Hide Feelings D/A Misfit .254* -.293** .348** .397** .142 -.112 -.199 -.125 .216 .083
All D/A Misfits Mean -.134 .035 -.083 .031 .111 -.024 -.086 -.142 .307** .156
sum of extreme demands .078 .024 .054 .113 -.137 .050 .017 .071 -.054 -.179
i fit
Sum of all extreme PE-misfits .266* -.072 .284* .226* .002 -.028 .010 .214 -.064 -.231*
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

417
2. Main RIPOSTI correlations per needs-based cluster

Non-parametric correlations between individual psychosocial measures for Cluster 1 (Equilibrium-seekers – n=28)

mean
Mean
mean
mean
mean
health

Social
interface

averaged
stressed?
last year?

All strains
Subjective
Home / Job

Community
Satisfaction
Do you feel

Commitment
Vitality mean
Mental health
# of sich days

mean (control)
Organisational

All N/S misfits

Skill discretion
Meaning mean

All D/A Misfits

All N/S misfits mean 1.000 .086 .118 .538** -.043 .388* .394* .030 .130 .137 -.193 .202 .202 -.261
All D/A Misfits Mean .086 1.000 -.052 .006 -.071 .102 -.173 -.055 -.020 -.089 .043 .335* .063 -.209
Skill discretion mean (control) .118 -.052 1.000 .441** .650** .319* .332* -.158 -.051 .076 .141 .162 -.177 .015
Meaning mean .538** .006 .441** 1.000 .326* .563** .298 .103 .398* .101 -.311 .178 .247 -.469**
Social Community mean -.043 -.071 .650** .326* 1.000 .286 .270 -.125 -.089 .021 .063 .003 .043 -.084
Organisational Commitment .388* .102 .319* .563** .286 1.000 .492** .114 .216 -.057 -.202 -.048 .489** -.164
Satisfaction mean .394* -.173 .332* .298 .270 .492** 1.000 .119 .235 .060 .014 -.109 .335* .086
Vitality mean .030 -.055 -.158 .103 -.125 .114 .119 1.000 .570** -.325* -.348* .381* .084 -.198
Mental health mean .130 -.020 -.051 .398* -.089 .216 .235 .570** 1.000 -.023 -.290 .236 .237 -.141
All strains averaged .137 -.089 .076 .101 .021 -.057 .060 -.325* -.023 1.000 .316 -.167 -.030 .319*
Do you feel stressed? -.193 .043 .141 -.311 .063 -.202 .014 -.348* -.290 .316 1.000 -.071 -.154 .423*
Subjective health .202 .335* .162 .178 .003 -.048 -.109 .381* .236 -.167 -.071 1.000 -.202 -.233
# of sich days last year? .202 .063 -.177 .247 .043 .489** .335* .084 .237 -.030 -.154 -.202 1.000 .021
Home / Job interface -.261 -.209 .015 -.469** -.084 -.164 .086 -.198 -.141 .319* .423* -.233 .021 1.000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).

418
 Non-parametric correlations between individual psychosocial measures for Cluster 2 (Self-actualising individuals – n=14)

mean
mean
mean
mean

Mean
Social
health
interface

averaged
stressed?
last year?

All strains
Subjective
Home / Job

Community
Satisfaction
Do you feel

Commitment
Vitality mean
# of sich days

Mental health

All N/S misfits

mean (control)
Meaning mean
Organisational

Skill discretion

All D/A Misfits

All N/S misfits mean 1.000 -.531* .680** .517* .555* .529* .607* -.035 -.301 .269 .298 -.047 -.076 .304
All D/A Misfits Mean -.531* 1.000 -.768** -.703** -.788** -.653** -.775** -.607* -.300 .116 .137 -.473* -.300 -.544*
Skill discretion mean (control) .680** -.768** 1.000 .839** .860** .766** .884** .186 .059 .134 .301 .130 .077 .580*
Meaning mean .517* -.703** .839** 1.000 .779** .559* .734** .397 .089 -.214 .084 .416 .125 .620**
Social Community mean .555* -.788** .860** .779** 1.000 .733** .899** .520* .196 -.096 -.071 .183 .206 .378
Organisational Commitment .529* -.653** .766** .559* .733** 1.000 .740** .192 -.038 .193 .111 .133 .078 .416
Satisfaction mean .607* -.775** .884** .734** .899** .740** 1.000 .358 .123 .190 .164 .028 .259 .357
Vitality mean -.035 -.607* .186 .397 .520* .192 .358 1.000 .535* -.533* -.687** .592* .200 .014
Mental health mean -.301 -.300 .059 .089 .196 -.038 .123 .535* 1.000 -.599* -.593* .084 .007 -.276
All strains averaged .269 .116 .134 -.214 -.096 .193 .190 -.533* -.599* 1.000 .805** -.371 -.139 .000
Do you feel stressed? .298 .137 .301 .084 -.071 .111 .164 -.687** -.593* .805** 1.000 -.309 -.119 .248
Subjective health -.047 -.473* .130 .416 .183 .133 .028 .592* .084 -.371 -.309 1.000 -.031 .449
# of sich days last year? -.076 -.300 .077 .125 .206 .078 .259 .200 .007 -.139 -.119 -.031 1.000 .376
Home / Job interface .304 -.544* .580* .620** .378 .416 .357 .014 -.276 .000 .248 .449 .376 1.000
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).

419
 Non-parametric correlations between individual psychosocial measures for Cluster 3 (Job negativists – n=12)

mean
Mean
mean
mean
mean
health

Social
interface

averaged
stressed?
last year?

All strains
Subjective
Home / Job

Community
Satisfaction
Do you feel

Commitment
Vitality mean
Mental health
# of sich days

mean (control)
Organisational

All N/S misfits

Skill discretion
Meaning mean

All D/A Misfits

All N/S misfits mean 1.000 -.042 .664** .668** .521* .645* .763** .483 .593* -.395 -.672** .200 -.182 -.521*
All D/A Misfits Mean -.042 1.000 -.032 .041 -.125 -.233 -.232 .207 .106 .009 .025 .497 .353 -.022
Skill discretion mean (control) .664** -.032 1.000 .799** .605* .406 .848** .619* .800** -.796** -.769** .169 .040 -.630*
Meaning mean .668** .041 .799** 1.000 .837** .546* .813** .796** .887** -.702** -.858** .340 .178 -.751**
Social Community mean .521* -.125 .605* .837** 1.000 .679** .860** .627* .759** -.706** -.913** .395 -.014 -.907**
Organisational Commitment .645* -.233 .406 .546* .679** 1.000 .685** .495 .611* -.475 -.701** .401 .082 -.694**
Satisfaction mean .763** -.232 .848** .813** .860** .685** 1.000 .605* .774** -.788** -.922** .247 -.196 -.822**
Vitality mean .483 .207 .619* .796** .627* .495 .605* 1.000 .914** -.803** -.777** .699** .159 -.630*
Mental health mean .593* .106 .800** .887** .759** .611* .774** .914** 1.000 -.847** -.905** .626* .154 -.789**
All strains averaged -.395 .009 -.796** -.702** -.706** -.475 -.788** -.803** -.847** 1.000 .843** -.512* .020 .709**
Do you feel stressed? -.672** .025 -.769** -.858** -.913** -.701** -.922** -.777** -.905** .843** 1.000 -.569* .099 .879**
Subjective health .200 .497 .169 .340 .395 .401 .247 .699** .626* -.512* -.569* 1.000 .102 -.493
# of sich days last year? -.182 .353 .040 .178 -.014 .082 -.196 .159 .154 .020 .099 .102 1.000 -.083
Home / Job interface -.521* -.022 -.630* -.751** -.907** -.694** -.822** -.630* -.789** .709** .879** -.493 -.083 1.000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).

420
 Non-parametric correlations between individual psychosocial measures for Cluster 4 (Individualists – n=26)

mean
Mean
mean
mean
mean
health

Social
interface

averaged
stressed?
last year?

All strains
Subjective
Home / Job

Community
Satisfaction
Do you feel

Commitment
Vitality mean
Mental health
# of sich days

mean (control)
Meaning mean
Organisational

All N/S misfits

Skill discretion

All D/A Misfits

All N/S misfits mean 1.000 -.208 .472** .299 .395* .766** .612** .465** .294 -.129 .010 .149 .604** -.232
All D/A Misfits Mean -.208 1.000 -.077 -.026 -.190 -.411* -.236 .191 .138 -.097 -.403* .182 -.184 -.143
Skill discretion mean (control) .472** -.077 1.000 .558** .532** .425* .526** .502** .111 -.228 .317 .229 .471** -.114
Meaning mean .299 -.026 .558** 1.000 .521** .508** .633** .335* .293 -.312 .429* .381* .535** .103
Social Community mean .395* -.190 .532** .521** 1.000 .414* .614** .366* .262 -.433* .322 .282 .582** -.065
Organisational Commitment .766** -.411* .425* .508** .414* 1.000 .625** .270 .347* -.288 .169 .249 .686** .005
Satisfaction mean .612** -.236 .526** .633** .614** .625** 1.000 .558** .311 -.465** .312 .337* .712** -.214
Vitality mean .465** .191 .502** .335* .366* .270 .558** 1.000 .392* -.562** -.043 .567** .463** -.300
Mental health mean .294 .138 .111 .293 .262 .347* .311 .392* 1.000 -.426* .011 .651** .162 .161
All strains averaged -.129 -.097 -.228 -.312 -.433* -.288 -.465** -.562** -.426* 1.000 .138 -.520** -.308 .063
Do you feel stressed? .010 -.403* .317 .429* .322 .169 .312 -.043 .011 .138 1.000 .257 .381* .168
Subjective health .149 .182 .229 .381* .282 .249 .337* .567** .651** -.520** .257 1.000 .339* .090
# of sich days last year? .604** -.184 .471** .535** .582** .686** .712** .463** .162 -.308 .381* .339* 1.000 -.162
Home / Job interface -.232 -.143 -.114 .103 -.065 .005 -.214 -.300 .161 .063 .168 .090 -.162 1.000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).

421
3. Linear regressions
This annex contains the ‘Harmony models’ for the whole group of respondents and for each cluster – based
on linear regression analyses. The analyses are only indicative – both because the groups are too small for
formal linear regression analyses and because linear regression techniques assume normal distribution.

a) WHOLE GROUP

Number
of sick
days

Needs- Org. Self-

Meaning-
supplies commit- reported
fulness
fit ment stress

Demands- Job satis- Mental

Vitality
abilities fit faction health

Self-
reported Stress
health

Social
commu-
nity

Number of sick days = .414(Meaningfulness) +.229(Self-reported stress) -31.706

Adjusted R-squared=.149

All strains averaged = -.397(Vitality) -.242(MentalHealth) -.234(SocialCommunity) +5.666

Adjusted R-squared=.459

Vitality = .433(SubjectiveHealth) -.255(Self-reportedStress) +.217 (JobSatisfaction) -.197(Stress) + 3.308

Adjusted R-squared=.591

MentalHealth = .311(Vitality) +.326(Meaningfulness) -.219(Stress) +1.879

Adjusted R-squared=.484

Job Satisfaction = .324(NS-fit) + .278(Meaningfulness) +.238(SocialCommunity) -.209(DA-fit) +.196(Vitality) + .823

Adjusted R-squared=.637

Org. Commitment = .275(Satisfaction) +.337(Meaningfulness) +.248(NS-fit) +.479

Adjusted R-squared=.484

422
The following four pages indirectly support the hypothesis that people with different need portfolios have
different ways of constituting integrity and mental harmony.

b) Cluster 1 (n=28 – Equilibrium-seekers)

Number
of sick
days

Needs- Org. Self-

Meaning-
supplies commit- reported
fulness
fit ment stress

Demands- Job satis- Mental

Vitality
abilities fit faction health

Self-
reported Stress
health

Social
commu-
nity

Number of sick days = No linear model found

Adjusted R-squared=

All strains averaged = No linear model found

Adjusted R-squared=

Vitality = .532(MentalHealth) + .1.315

Adjusted R-squared=.256

MentalHealth = .532(Vitality) + .934

Adjusted R-squared=.256

Job Satisfaction = .677(Org.Commitment) + 1.406

Adjusted R-squared=.437

Org. Commitment = .537(Satisfaction) +.366(Meaningfulness)

Adjusted R-squared=.538

423
c) Cluster 2 (n=14 – Self-actualising individuals)

Number
of sick
days

Needs- Org. Self-

Meaning-
supplies commit- reported
fulness
fit ment stress

Demands- Job satis- Mental

Vitality
abilities fit faction health

Self-
reported Stress
health

Social
commu-
nity

Number of sick days = No linear model found

Adjusted R-squared=

All strains averaged = .810(Self-reportedStress) +2.825

Adjusted R-squared=.627

Vitality = .612(MentalHealth) + .527(Self-ReportedHealth)

Adjusted R-squared=.626

MentalHealth = 1.642(Satisfaction) – 1.147(Stress) -.951(SocialCommunity) -.473(Meaningfulness) + 11.664

Adjusted R-squared=.843

Job Satisfaction = .889(SocialCommunity) + .536

Adjusted R-squared=.774

Org. Commitment = .781(Satisfaction)

Adjusted R-squared=.578

424
d) Cluster 3 (n=12 – Job negativists)

Number
of sick
days

Needs- Org. Self-

Meaning-
supplies commit- reported
fulness
fit ment stress

Demands- Job satis- Mental

Vitality
abilities fit faction health

Self-
reported Stress
health

Social
commu-
nity

Number of sick days = No linear model found

Adjusted R-squared=

All strains averaged = .934(Self-ReportedStress) + 2.077

Adjusted R-squared=.860

Vitality = .608(Meaningfulness) + .487(Self-ReportedHealth) -.577

Adjusted R-squared=.945

MentalHealth = .543(Meaningfulness) +.454(Satisfaction) -.921

Adjusted R-squared=.895

Job Satisfaction = .908(MentalHealth) + 1.186

Adjusted R-squared=.807

Org. Commitment = .810(NS-fit) + 1.243

Adjusted R-squared=.622

425
e) Cluster 4 (n=26 – Individualist)

Number
of sick
days

Needs- Org. Self-

Meaning-
supplies commit- reported
fulness
fit ment stress

Demands- Job satis- Mental

Vitality
abilities fit faction health

Self-
reported Stress
health

Social
commu-
nity

Number of sick days = .443(Commitment) –18.856

Adjusted R-squared=.161

All strains averaged = -.503(SocialCommunity) -.460(MentalHealth) + 5.786

Adjusted R-squared=.521

Vitality = .746(NS-fit) -.542(Commitment) -.420(Stress) +.286(Self-ReportedHealth) + 5.070

Adjusted R-squared=.667

MentalHealth = .555(Self-ReportedHealth) + .370(Commitment)

Adjusted R-squared=.481

Job Satisfaction = .487(NS-fit) + .390(Meaningfulness) -.272(Stress) + 2.603

Adjusted R-squared=.697

Org. Commitment = .638(NS-fit) -.318(DA-fit) + 2.246

Adjusted R-squared=.507

426
4. Individual variables correlated with organisational and technology perception per
needs-based group
The following four tables contain the (Spearman) correlation coefficients of the 14 main individual variables
with measures of organisational and technology perception, grouped per needs-based cluster.

a) Cluster 1 (n=28 – Equilibrium-seekers)

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational
formalisation
tension mean

Resistance to

Management

Technology

Technology
information

PC Use at
humanity

intensity

attitudes

abilities
PC use
change

Home
Style

flow
All N/S misfits mean .372* -.052 .167 .260 .315 .077 -.026 .358* .082 -.480**
All D/A Misfits Mean .246 -.184 .136 .217 .364* -.203 -.138 -.256 .353* .025
Skill discretion mean (control) .137 -.420* .439** .575** -.016 .049 -.251 -.098 -.160 .096
Meaning mean .378* -.398* .118 .496** .281 .013 -.001 .209 .037 -.308
Social Community mean .400* -.407* .202 .488** -.058 -.021 .030 -.092 -.178 -.096
Organisational Commitment .356* -.362* .235 .335* .380* -.303 -.076 .119 .234 -.187
Satisfaction mean .238 -.131 .282 .151 .361* -.094 -.101 .219 -.181 -.261
Vitality mean -.058 .036 .193 .028 .043 .020 -.084 -.340* .001 -.025
Mental health mean .264 -.109 .121 .129 .312 .018 -.235 -.160 .151 .097
All strains averaged .008 -.053 -.047 .151 .374* .348* .072 .220 .215 -.161
Do you feel stressed? -.023 -.182 .061 .118 -.012 -.095 -.093 -.211 .228 .148
Subjective health .249 -.060 .218 .309 -.038 .144 -.170 -.345* .179 .088
# of sich days last year? .299 -.306 -.158 -.005 .369* -.180 .049 .226 .432* -.206
Home / Job interface -.038 .008 .049 -.058 -.009 .200 -.001 .136 .187 .067
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).

b) Cluster 2 (n=14 – Self-actualising individuals)

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational
formalisation
Resistance to

Management
tension mean

information

Technology

Technology
PC Use at
humanity

attitudes
intensity

abilities
change

PC use

Home
Style

flow

All N/S misfits mean .464* .018 -.052 .420 .264 -.385 .011 .056 .471 .390
All D/A Misfits Mean -.683** .298 -.602* -.613** -.539* .651** .280 .156 -.540* -.271
Skill discretion mean (control) .737** -.321 .380 .545* .331 -.504* -.244 -.131 .719** .376
Meaning mean .619** -.321 .304 .432 .191 -.630** .030 -.156 .752** .197
Social Community mean .894** -.518* .623** .808** .611* -.434 -.143 .014 .632* .221
Organisational Commitment .766** -.127 .381 .598* .628** -.509* -.359 -.106 .566* .304
Satisfaction mean .802** -.560* .591* .725** .519* -.404 -.080 .213 .543* .142
Vitality mean .433 -.525* .555* .534* .599* -.186 -.019 .049 .156 -.125
Mental health mean .242 -.309 .528* .248 .141 .113 -.338 -.176 -.160 .197
All strains averaged -.151 .060 -.231 -.036 -.050 .101 -.085 .232 .072 .048
Do you feel stressed? -.220 .206 -.332 -.245 -.410 -.069 .068 .000 .332 .172
Subjective health .010 -.047 -.013 -.073 .057 -.544* -.109 -.498* .261 -.188
# of sich days last year? .268 -.182 .658** .205 .310 -.277 .428 .456 -.051 -.360
Home / Job interface .317 .068 .180 .039 .035 -.744** -.122 -.304 .615* .085
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).

427
c) Cluster 3 (n=12 – Job negativists)
Correlations

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational
formalisation
Resistance to

Management
tension mean

Technology

Technology
information

PC Use at
humanity

attitudes
intensity

abilities
change

PC use

Home
Style

flow
All N/S misfits mean .791** -.582* .763** .695** .593* .077 -.115 .121 .374 .105
All D/A Misfits Mean -.071 .244 .039 .162 .307 .179 -.033 -.602* .517* .473
Skill discretion mean (control) .775** -.551* .460 .639* .610* .289 .140 .072 .550* .038
Meaning mean .770** -.438 .582* .822** .382 .503* -.017 .077 .449 -.155
Social Community mean .691** -.097 .590* .667** .278 .444 .070 .343 .150 -.240
Organisational Commitment .532* -.052 .650* .545* .381 -.056 -.396 .289 .067 -.231
Satisfaction mean .836** -.424 .698* .686** .559* .287 .141 .358 .266 -.040
Vitality mean .657* -.270 .744** .760** .548* .243 -.258 -.093 .629* .220
Mental health mean .831** -.386 .712* .787** .544* .340 -.150 .038 .610* .004
All strains averaged -.682* .147 -.546 -.572* -.589* -.195 -.029 -.159 -.476 -.176
Do you feel stressed? -.886** .293 -.753** -.710** -.510* -.400 -.057 -.323 -.387 -.006
Subjective health .441 .206 .661* .362 .394 .131 -.271 -.060 .548* .387
# of sich days last year? -.396 .365 -.381 .080 -.072 -.071 -.517* -.568* .373 -.212
Home / Job interface -.635* .107 -.737** -.745** -.528* -.271 .051 -.071 -.349 .116
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).

d) Cluster 4 (n=26 – Individualist)

Correlations
Organisational

Organisational

Organisational

Organisational
Resistance to

Management

formalisation
tension mean

Technology

Technology
information

PC Use at
humanity

attitudes
intensity

abilities
change

PC use

Home
Style

flow

All N/S misfits mean .408* -.396* .492** .495** .467** .074 -.202 .029 -.190 -.196
All D/A Misfits Mean -.390* -.078 -.151 .061 .084 -.222 -.071 .061 .377* .164
Skill discretion mean (control) .432* -.196 .589** .402* .450* -.166 -.267 -.014 .216 -.029
Meaning mean .382* -.200 .529** .491** .247 -.056 -.163 .103 -.052 .027
Social Community mean .590** .034 .741** .595** .296 -.289 -.076 .042 .093 -.038
Organisational Commitment .436* -.431* .368* .355* .251 .178 -.257 -.158 -.240 -.193
Satisfaction mean .473** -.091 .792** .541** .523** -.163 -.303 -.009 -.144 .074
Vitality mean .301 -.108 .600** .574** .355* -.218 -.367* -.050 .108 .199
Mental health mean -.050 -.340* .237 .289 -.012 -.212 -.193 -.129 -.058 .118
All strains averaged -.136 .108 -.302 -.498** -.175 .289 .158 .103 -.173 -.229
Do you feel stressed? .413* .167 .155 .090 -.006 -.009 .038 .089 .084 .254
Subjective health .087 -.070 .208 .536** .016 -.076 -.350* -.063 .316 .395*
# of sich days last year? .462** -.016 .488** .377* .309 -.056 -.164 -.010 -.036 .009
Home / Job interface -.336* -.090 -.109 -.281 -.597** -.150 -.284 -.459** .112 .425*
*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).

428