Summaries mandatory literature WODA (2019-2020)
Structuration and Affordances: the key theoretical framework and lens
• Orlikowski, W. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in
Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
• Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective. In P.
M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and Organizing (pp. 1–22). Oxford University
Press.
Data and Analytics
• Zuboff, S. (2015). Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization,
Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89.
• Barbour, J. B., Treem, J. W., & Kolar, B. (2017). Analytics and expert collaboration: How individuals
navigate relationships when working with organizational data. Human Relations, 90(10), 1–29.
• Brayne, S. (2017). Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–
1008.
Robotics
• Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2012). Reconfiguring Boundary Relations:
Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work. Organization Science, 23(5), 1448– 1466.
• Sergeeva, A., Huysman, M., & Faraj, S. (2018). Losing touch: How robots transform the practice of
surgery. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018 (1), 11429.
• Beane, M. (2019). Shadow learning: Building robotic surgical skill when approved means fail.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 87-123.
New Ways of Working
• Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of
Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337–1357.
• Rockmann, K. W. & Pratt, M.G. (2015). Contagious offsite work and the lonely office: The unintended
consequences of distributed work. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 150-164.
• Aroles, J., Mitev, N. & de Vaujany, F-X. (in press). Mapping themes in the study of new work practices.
New Technology, Work & Employment.
Gig Work
• Rosenblat, A. & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s
drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758-3784.
• Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J. & Wrzesniewski, A. (2018). Thriving in the gig economy. Harvard Business
Review, March-April (2018).
Algorithms
• Scott, S. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2012). Reconfiguring relations of accountability:
Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 26–
40.
• Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., and Neysen, N. (2019). Working for an algorithm: Power
asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly.
, The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski (1992)
Rethinking prior conceptualization of technology
Prior conceptualizations of technology have focused selectively on some aspects of technology at the
expense of others with the result that the current state of knowledge about technology in
organizations is ambiguous and conflicting.
Two important aspects of technology:
Scope: what is defined as comprising technology;
Role: how is the interaction between technology and organizations defined.
Two views on scope of technology:
Technology as “hardware”: the equipment, machines and instruments that humans use in
productive activities. But these are only useful for manufacturers;
“Social technologies”: the generic tasks, techniques and knowledge utilized when humans
engage in any productive activities. It recognizes that there is more than just the hardware,
this generic approach to technology creates boundary and measurement ambiguity.
Three definitions of the roles of technology:
Technology is an objective, external force that would have deterministic impacts on
organizational properties such as structure;
Technology is a product of shared interpretations or interventions;
Technology is an external force having impacts, but these impacts are moderated by human
actors and organizational contexts.
Three streams of the scope and role of technology in organizations:
The Technological Imperative model: technology is an
objective, external force that has deterministic impacts
on organizational properties such as structure. It is
about the impact of technology on organizational
dimensions (structure, size, performance), as well as
individual level dimensions (satisfaction, task
complexity, communication, productivity). Technology
can be measured and predicted. Ignores the action of
humans in developing, appropriating and changing
technology.
The Strategic Choice model: focus on the human action
aspect of technology, seeing it more as a product of
shared interpretations. Technology is a product of
ongoing human action, design and appropriation.
Technology is a dependent variable, contingent on other
forces in the organization, mostly human actors. There is
focus on the manner in which technology is influenced by
the context and strategies of technology decision makers
and users;
, The model of Technology as Trigger of Structural Change: technology is posited as an external
force having impacts, but where these impacts are
moderated by human actors and organizational
contexts. Technology is an intervention into the
relationship between human agents and
organizational structure, which potentially changes it.
Technology is understood as a social object whose
meaning is defined by the context of use, while its
physical form and function remain fixed across time
and contexts of use. While technologies may appear
to have objective forms and functions at one point,
these vary by different users, by contexts of use and
by the same users over time.
What is still lacking is a new conceptualization of technology and its relationship with organizations.
This will allow us to move to an alternative conceptual basis from which to conduct future research.
A structurational model of technology
Structuration is a social process that involves the interaction of human actors and structural features
of organizations. This offers a solution to the dilemma of choosing between subjective and objective
conceptions of organizations. The theory of structuration recognizes that human actions are enabled
and constrained by structures, yet these structures are the result of previous actions.
Human actors are knowledgeable and reflexive:
Human actors are highly learned in respect of knowledge which they possess and apply;
o Discursive knowledge: knowledge the actors are able to articulate (what is said);
o Practical knowledge: tacit knowledge that actors are able to draw on in action but are
unable to express (what is simply done);
Reflexivity: the capacity of humans to routinely observe and understand what they are doing
while they are doing it.
Duality of structure: through the actions of knowledgeable and reflexive actors, patterns of
interactions become established as standardized practices in organizations. Over time, these practices
become institutionalized (structural properties of organizations). These structural or institutionalized
properties are drawn on by humans in their ongoing interactions.
When humans interact they create and recreate three fundamental elements of social interaction:
Meaning
Agency perspective: via interpretive schemes, humans draw knowledge on their ongoing
interaction of the world, this enables shared knowledge and communication;
Institutionalized properties perspective: interpretive schemes represent organizational
structures of signification, which represent the organizational rules for interaction.
Power
Agency perspective: power enters into human interaction through providing organizational
capabilities for humans to accomplish outcomes. Power is a transformative capacity: the
power of human action to transform the social and material world.
Institutionalized properties perspective: they constitute organizational structures of
domination, which reflect the fact that all social systems are marked by an asymmetry of
authoritative and allocative resources. However, there always remains the potential for agents
to act to change a particular structure of domination (the dialectic of control).
, Norms
Agency perspective: norms are organizational conventions or rules governing legitimate or
“appropriate” conduct. Interaction in organizations is guided by the application of normative
sanctions, expressed through the cultural norms prevailing in an organization.
Institutionalized properties perspective: a moral order within an organization is articulated
and sustained through rituals, socialization practices and tradition.
Premise of a Structuration Model of Technology
Technology is created and changed by human action, yet it is also used by humans to accomplish some
action. This is explained by two terms:
Duality of Technology: technology is physically constructed by actors working in a social
context, but also 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 materialized and institutionalized,
losing its connection with the human agents that constructed it or gave it meaning, and it
appears to be part of the objective, structural properties of the organization.
The Interpretive Flexibility of Technology: the degree to which users of a technology are
engaged in its constitution (physically and/or socially) during development or use. An attribute
of the relationship between humans and technology and hence it is influenced by
characteristics of the material artefact (hardware and software comprising the technology),
characteristics of the human agents (experience, motivation) and characteristics of the context
(social relations, task assignment, resource allocations).
Time-space discontinuity: the processes of development and use of many types of technology are
often accomplished in different organizations. Many of the actions that constitute the technology
(vendor organization) are often separated in time and space from the actions that are constituted by
the technology. This is why users treat technology as a closed system or black box.
The structurational model of technology posits artefacts as potentially modifiable throughout their
existence. It is useful to discriminate between human action which affects technology (design mode)
and that which is affected by technology (use mode).
Components of the structurational model of technology:
Human agents: technology designers, users and
decision makers. Who has the power to do
something, who has control. Who has the power to
make the technology do what he or she wants it to
do;
Technology: material artefacts mediating task
execution in the workplace;
Institutional properties of organizations:
organizational dimensions such as structural
arrangements, strategies, culture, operating procedures, expertise, communication patters as
well as environmental pressures such as government regulation, competitive forces, norms,
knowledge about technology and socio-economic conditions.