Changing a management information system ... - Springer Link

Employee Responsibilitiesand Rights Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1990

Changing a Management Information System: Managing Resistance by Attending to the Rights and Responsibilities of Employees Kerry D . Carson ~ and Rodger W . Griffeth 2

The purpose o f this article is to explore the human issues related to the redesign of a management information system. When a management information system is implemented or changed, the responsibilities o f organizational members can be drastically altered. Employee resistance is one outcome of this process. However, resistance can be reduced, if not eliminated, by attending to the rights of employees through engagement in the active participation in all aspects of the implementation process- a position often overlooked by management. The reader is familiarized with components of the change process as well as characteristics of innovation adoption encountered during redesign o f the computer-based information system. Further, behavioral strategies are provided for overcoming the resistance frequently encountered during change. KEY WORDS: managementinformationsystem;plannedchange; organizationalchange; empowerment;

innovation; participation.

INTRODUCTION Since the key ingredient in every organization is people, changing the management information system (MIS) requires more than just "system model" thinking. An awareness of the needs and behavior of the people affected is also necessary. This is important because a change of the computer-based information system represents a type of organizational change (Tait & Vessey, 1988) in which the responsibilities of organizational members can be substantially altered. The impact affects not only their duties, but also their interpersonal relationships. In addition, this change can affect employees' attitudes toward the workplace (Zmud & Cox, 1979). Underestimation of the negative attitudes and perceptions of organizational change may lead to the unsuccessful implementation of the MIS system and unfavorable consequences for the personnel affected. 1Department of Management, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. 2Department of Management, GeorgeMason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. 47 0892-7545/90/0300-0047506.00/0 9 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation

48

Carson and Griffeth

One way that change agents deal with these negative outcomes is through involvement of employees (Swanson, 1974; Franz & Robey, 1986). Employees can be helpful with the implementation process if they know why the MIS is being implemented and how it will affect their lives in the organization (Zmud & Cox, 1979). Historically, management's motive for employee involvement has been to avoid unsuccessful outcomes (Scott, 1988). However, managerial effectiveness is not the only reason to involve employees. Another reason is based on managerial ethics (Sashkin, 1984). Work organizations, operating in democratic societies, offer an appropriate setting for involvement-oriented management (Lawler, 1988). When the society is committed to individual rights, workers may have a moral right to contribute to an agreed solution about important issues such as the design of the MIS (Land, 1987; Mumford, 1981). Since the MIS has such a substantial impact on the whole organization, managers must take a close look at both the MIS and the human aspects which are inexorably linked with the modification of this channel of communication (Carroll, 1982). It is the purpose of this paper to review the behavioral processes associated with such change. To achieve this goal, two phases will be used. In the first, a discussion will be presented of both driving and resisting forces that can be encountered during redesign and implementation of the computer-based information system. The second stage deals with managing the change process. Here, guidelines will be provided for overcoming the forces that hamper the acceptance and effectiveness of the MIS. This should not be interpreted to mean that resisting forces are not desirable in a change process. Open controversy, with cooperative rather than competitive interaction, can facilitate decision making (Tjosvold & Deemer, 1980). An appropriate level of conflict can help achieve desired goals (Vecchio, 1987) since necessary questions can challenge change agents and contribute valuable information for the success of the MIS.

THE CHANGE PROCESS

In one case, a not-for-profit organization in a midwestern state experienced several months of delay when attempting to implement an MIS. The employees of this organization were generally hostile toward the new system. They saw no advantages in the new system. In fact, they thought the MIS would generate more unneeded paperwork. In contrast, top management believed the MIS would enhance survivability of the organization since they perceived the environment as increasingly competitive. These different perspectives of employees and management involve many complexities. To grasp the significance of the process along with its problems and implications, it is necessary to understand the change process (Rasberry, 1986) and characteristics of the diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1976, 1983). The individual's perception of the relative advantage of the technological change helps determine the rate of adoption of an innovation. In addition, the innovation's compatibility with values and past experiences, the complexity in understanding and usage, the divisibility into small tasks, and the observability of results also determine the rate (Rogers, 1983). In order to offer an increased understanding of adoption

Changing a Management Information System

49

of the computer-based MIS in organizations, these characteristics of the diffusion of innovation will be incorporated into the change process and its management.

Planned Change Approach The focus of the planned change approach is on managing behavioral and organizational change. The planned change approach "leads us to consider the entire process-from initial planning and feasibility testing through installation and evaluation-rather than only the 'action stage' which has traditionally been viewed as synonymous with implementation" (Ginzberg, 1978, p. 59). Important change has to be a truly complete and integral part of the organization. Adoption of the MIS requires high involvement from the employees because of the high cognitive processing required. This adoption demands considerable learning on the part of the employee. Moreover, the complex nature of organizations complicates this process (Gatignon & Robertson, 1985). The key to employees' reaction is their perception of newness (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973) since the more radical the MIS seems, the greater the perceived risks for employees (Dewar & Dutton, 1986). Innovation can be described as continuous, dynamically continuous, or discontinuous (Robertson, 1967; 1971). We are concerned primarily with the discontinuous since technological innovation tends to be quite disruptive. This disruption requires the establishment of new behavioral patterns by organizational members (Anderson & Ortinau, 1988; Dickerson & Gentry, 1983). Rasberry (1986) suggested a framework for describing these changes based on the three-stage process of Kurt Lewin and Edgar Schein. To create successful change, each stage should be internalized by the individual to make change a success.

1. Unfreezing Unfreezing, the first stage of the process (Schein, 1987), refers to the creation of motivation and readiness to change. In the MIS context, it could mean that a system was inadequate for dealing with a particular situation. From the perspective of the employees in the not-for-profit organization, there was no apparent reason for change. However, an environment is needed where people feel a need to change existing stable behavior patterns. In human systems, this means changing perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. In order for employees to become motivated to change, three necessary conditions must be met. First, the individual must be faced by disconfirming information. For example, deadlines are not met because the current system is too slow or antiquated for dealing with an increase in business. Second, guilt or anxiety must be induced (Schein, 1987). Thus, when a manager points out to employees that work is taking too long or is substandard, this disconfirming information will initiate a change process only if it represents an important goal or personal ideal to the individual. These two conditions are inadequate for change unless management creates the most elusive one (Schein, 1987), psychological safety. If the employees' basic sense of self-worth is threatened, they may find defense mechanisms that distort or in other

50

Carson and Griffeth

ways undo the disconfirming evidence. The threat can be reduced by the change agent adopting the role of "helper" and using a problem-solving approach rather than the more traditional role of "judge" (Maler, 1973). If interaction is cooperative and not competitive, then employees are less likely to reject new ideas (Tjosvold, 1987; Tjosvold, Wedley & Field, 1986). Because of the complexity of the change and the high cognitive processing involved, one would expect the interpersonal communications (Weimann, 1982; Gatignon & Robertson, 1985) between employees to have a major effect on the adoption process.

2. Changing If the technological innovation is compatible with the individual's background, it is likely to be more readily adopted (Rogers, 1983). If it is not compatible, adoption becomes a problem. In the not-for-profit health care organization, almost all the employees lacked experience about computers, thus prolonging the rate of adoption. This firm employed different types of professionals but their points of view and training were similar. Therefore, the staff was unable to synthesize different perspectives in order to come to a better understanding of the MIS (Dewar & Dutton, 1986). When there is lack of expertise among organizational members, the change phase of the process can occur by two different mechanisms. The first mechanism involves finding a role model with whom to identify. Often, the system specialist becomes the target of identification. This may have a negative outcome because it limits the employee to only one source of information. A preferred mechanism is scanning (Schein, 1987) or searching the environment for information or concepts relevant to the problem. The change agent can facilitate scanning by encouraging the employees to read relevant MIS publications, to talk to various other system specialists, and to attend MIS seminars.

3. Refreezing Process-oriented studies have shown that the stage most strongly associated with success is "refreezing" (Ginzberg, 1978, p. 59). It means to establish a new dynamic equilibrium at the desired state. It is in that portion of the process that the change is embedded within two separate, yet related mechanisms. The first mechanism, called personal refreezing, refers to the extent to which a change can comfortably fit into the person's self-concept and can be integrated with the rest of the personality (Schein, 1987). The second mechanism, relational refreezing, refers to the idea that employees' personal change must fit into the expectations of those around them (e.g., their supervisor, peers, and subordinates). With discontinuous technological innovation, there may be employees who are innovators and others who are late adopters (Rogers, 1983). The late adopter may need more experience with the MIS than the innovator, who, in contrast, may be more likely to risk trying the new technology (Anderson & Ortinau, 1988). Late adopters and innovators not only verbally exchange information to determine the


51

reference group's evaluation of the technological innovation but will also observe behaviors of reference group members (Moschis, 1976; Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Through this process, change will be either reinforced or disconflrmed (Schein, 1987). Resistance to C h a n g e

The introduction of an MIS has a profound impact. It confronts employees with a communication and information technology that influences their organizational relationships and needs. Change has the potential for placing them into a kind of vacuum between the old and new. Technological innovation disrupts wellestablished habits and introduces three types of perceived risks. These include adverse social and economic consequences, performance anxiety, and unintended side effects (Sheth, 1981). To facilitate a smooth transition, management and specialists should be aware that change increases perceived risks, threatens stability, and causes conflict. The belief that there is a simple inertia in human nature is one of the sources of resistance to change (Stanislao, 1983). If things are satisfactory, there is little tendency to want to make things "better" and want to change the system. To explain different attitudes toward change, Kast (1985) speaks of the "sunk cost concept." In contrast to shorter-tenure employees, employees with longer tenure have higher stakes in the organization and are likely to oppose change in their equilibrium. "While the proposed change may benefit the organization as a whole, it is likely to adversely affect many individuals and for them the cost of change in terms of lost power, prestige, responsibility, salary, or other benefits will not be sufficiently offset by the rewards associated with change" (Riley, 1981, p. 285). This limits the relative advantage of change (Rogers, 1983) for the more-tenured employees. Methods used to communicate the need for change can influence employees' behavior. Whenever the purpose or potential consequences of a change are not decidedly understood, employees are likely to resist it. Communication obstacles, like "computer jargon," for example, often create the impression that specialists want to demonstrate superior knowledge and, hence, power. Once the employees have the feeling that they no longer control the MIS, but rather are controlled by it, conflict may result because of insecurity and uncertainty. The computer has the reputation of "replacing people with machines" and "the desire to resist is greater when risk of unemployment is involved in the change" (Stanislao, 1983, p. 76). Management needs to assure security through training and retraining if commitment is the goal (Walton, 1985). Related to the issue of labor displacement is the view recently espoused by Land (1987) that information systems can degrade and "deskill" work, reducing the quality of working life. As part of this view, Land (1987) suggests that employees have the right to defend themselves against such uses of the technology, to reject systems that may have an adverse effect on morale, and to become involved in the design of the systems in which they work. Land (1987) also observes that this position is institutionalized through laws in several European countries. For example, when changes in technology lead to changes in work practices, Norwegian workers are rightfully consulted.

52

Carson and Griffeth

Introduction of the MIS may result in a redistribution of power, disrupting existing social relationships. System changes usually cause the emergence of a "new elite," made up of persons with knowledge and interest in the new system whose prestige and power increases. This implies that another group, the "old elite," will lose prestige and power. There is a tendency to resist this change (Stanislao, 1983). This problem is amplified when the introduction of MIS often calls for a redefinition of departmental boundaries. This reorganization tears the social network, and further upsets the informal structure, and may cause a reduction in social-need satisfaction. Thus, there is an unwillingness to give up familiar responsibilities and relationships. Roles, norms, and expectations cause pressure to conform to organizational goals. People who cannot cope with the change may experience a decrease of their job status and envy those who were able to adapt to the new situation. "Reduction in the skill required, or the importance of the job, or the responsibility of the worker involved may raise resistance of the worker to a new idea" (Stanislao, 1983, p. 76). One cannot expect managers and' employees to support changes that threaten their position. If previous changes have not established an atmosphere of trust and confidence in organizational change, unfavorable perceptions will arise and discourage widespread use of MIS. Dysfunctional reactions to systems, such as lowered morale, can become an insurmountable problem in the change process.

MANAGING CHANGE A well-designed MIS is useless as long as its introduction fails to consider the human side (Carroll, 1982). MIS primarily affects people, and information systems can only function efficiently when their design and implementation make organizational and individual behavior more effective. Since developing a computer-based information systems is costly, it is crucial to familiarize oneself with concepts that improve the change process. Technology is important, but managing change means attending to the rights and responsibilities of organizational members. The alteration of an MIS is a planned change activity. Success with the new system requires focus on employees and their behavior. Research in organizational behavior has led to the conclusion that appropriate employee involvement in decision making can result in improvement of performance (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Longnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988) and increased job satisfaction (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Schweiger & Leana, 1986). Indeed, as Franz and Robey (1986) point out, there is general agreement that the success of MIS can be improved by involving employees in the development of the system. Involvement is greater when employees "participate" in defining their needs and developing systems to meet them (Land, 1987; Nicholas, 1985, p. 23). Influencing employee attitudes and perceptions is the key to systems acceptance, and a feasible implementation strategy will take this into consideration. Several approaches are available to management when implementing a system change. The typical approach is the one-way ("top-down") channel of communication where management, with the advice of the systems specialist, imposes system without considering the effects on the employee. Here, the responsibility of implementing


53

the system lies solely with the system specialists. Employees' involvement begins after the system is operational. This strategy does not elicit employee commitment (Walton, 1985). On the other hand, the shared approach considers employees and systems specialists as co-workers. User involvement may range from assistance to active involvement in defining the problems and implementing the MIS. According to Lucas (1985), this participation strategy has several distinct advantages: 9 Participation is ego-enhancing and builds self-esteem, which results in more favorable attitudes. 9 Participation can be challenging and intrinsically satisfying, leading to positive attitudes. 9 Participation usually results in more commitment to change; commitment in this case means that the system will likely be used more. 9 Participating employees become more knowledgeable about the change. Therefore, employees get to control more of the technical qualities of the system and become better trained to use it. 9 Technical quality will be better because participants know more about the old system than the information services department staff. 9 Employees retain much of the control over their activities and should have more favorable attitudes. In a third approach, the responsibility for the system change is delegated to the employee. The system specialist acts as a consultant who has the role of a catalyst giving advice and guiding employees on their way from system definition to system implementation. Employee-developed criteria evaluate the quality of the MIS. This empowerment strategy fosters self-determination and self-efficacy making the employee feel more powerful (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Since employees do not surrender control, their motivation is likely to be high, creating a system that fits their information needs. This delegation of responsibility results in psychological ownership, which helps the employee to understand the system and apply it during later operations. The delegated and shared approaches pay tribute to the fact that cooperation is required as more complex and interdependent systems develop. Empowerment strategies that provide a supportive atmosphere and strengthen beliefs in personal competency can foster persistence in task behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Effective communication and interaction between employees and system specialists may result in an operable MIS that is on time, within budget, and will not "surprise" the people affected. The individual has to play an active role to improve the change process, for the achievements of an organization are the result of the combined efforts of each employee. With the demand of change placed on them, they must learn the meaning of change and their own capacity for change. If these goals are not reconciled, a planned MIS change is likely to face trouble. To succeed, management has to make the design and implementation a joint effort, convincing employees that their time and commitment are required (Ginzberg, 1978, p. 62). Managing change need not be, nor should it be, a unilateral approach.

54

Carson and Griffeth Change Agents

Change agentssuch as system specialists and top management can facilitate patterns of behavior that are likely to lead to a successful change process. Both top management and systems specialists have five key tasks: 9 9 9 9 9

Establish credibility with the organizational members affected by the change. Gather information necessary for identifying and solving the problem. Establish a supportive environment for change. Implement the approaches necessary to achieve the desired change. Establish procedures for stabilizing, evaluating, and monitoring the change (Rasberry, 1986, p. 413).

Without credibility, it is impossible for systems specialists to fulfill their roles as change agents. Credentials, references, professional appearance, and support from top management are necessary to establish a climate conducive to achieve the organizational goal of changing a MIS. However, one needs more than mere formal credentials. From the outset of the change, systems specialists have to consider employees as individuals, each with unique background, experience, and expectations. To gather the necessary data about employees' information needs in decision-making situations, it is important to encourage them to become involved in the project at the start and remain involved throughout. Change agents should attempt to keep employees involved throughout the entire project and make sure they understand where the project is going and permit them to contribute substantially to set its direction (Ginzberg, 1978). Change agents do not have high general status or legitimate power. Instead, employees probably view them as having high technological competence or expert power. Therefore, the change agent cannot dictate change but, instead, can stimulate collective decision making (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). Listening to the employees' needs and giving them the opportunity to voice counter-arguments helps both employee and system specialist to design a MIS that can be successfully integrated into the organization's operations. Specialists should realize that it is easier to learn the language of the employee than vice versa and, thus, should make every effort to show how the MIS can help employees achieve their goals. A supportive climate demands that specialists should not dominate but, rather, support the change process. They should strive for mutual understanding and view the employee as a co-worker. To ensure a clarity of the system employees should be exposed to the MIS at the outset so that they can familiarize themselves with the operation and maintenance of the system. It is helpful if the specialist understands that people learn from mistakes, and a supportive climate allows people to admit error without fear of recrimination (Fisher, 1989). It encourages people to try things out and take the risk for change as an opportunity for both themselves and the organization. Finally, it is the specialist's task to stabilize the new dynamic equilibrium. This requires that they not regard the change process as finished until employees have started to use the MIS in their organizational environment. If it fails to satisfy the organizational member, it may be supplanted by unofficial procedures (Land, 1987).


55

The ultimate responsibility for managing change is with top management. They decide on the way to induce change and their readiness to get involved is the key to discovering strengths and weaknesses of MIS for the organization. They are responsible for coordinating the efforts of both specialists and employees to ensure MIS success. To do so, they have to identify and clarify organizational objectives and problems about the introduction of MIS. Also, they need to provide adequate resources for achieving satisfactory levels of operation (Tait & Vessey, 1988). Successful introduction of an MIS in an organization is not only dependent upon the attitude of top management but is also influenced by power (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). In the case of the not-for-profit organization, there was neither a clear sense of centralization or decentralization of power. Unfortunately, the executive staff wanted to centralize power in order to facilitate the adoption of the MIS. However, the professional staff did not identify with management nor with their work unit. Instead, they identified with their respective professional associations. Because management was unable to use control techniques or foster commitment, implementation of the MIS was crippled. After a period of little progress, management in the not-for-profit organization adopted a strategy to reinforce change. Their strategy was to phase in the implementation of the MIS. Initially, management provided only a few standard reports to employees. Over time, they generated more specialized and sophisticated reports. This divisibility of the implementation and the observability of the importance of the reports (Rogers, 1983) eventually reinforced the value of the compnter-based MIS. As time went by, technological disruption was less, and employee resistance decreased. Timeframe is very important for the acceptance of change. Implementation at too fast a pace often causes confusion and anxiety because of errors that could have been avoided. Sufficient time should be given to employees to familiarize themselves with the concept of change through MIS. Open lines of communication are means to keep the people informed during the change process. Information provided to employees can be rich or lean. It is considered rich when it provides greater understanding. Face-to-face interaction is very rich (Daft & Lengel, 1984) and is best for communication about complex changes (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) such as MIS implementation. In personal interaction, there are opportunities for immediate feedback and for exchanging many cues. There are spoken words, body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions to interpret. Meherabian (1971) suggested that up to 90~ of the information transmitted in personal interaction is by voice tone and facial expression. This quality of information helps employees understand both the need for change and the effects on their work patterns. This level of understanding helps prevent the organization from returning to the status quo. In their capacity as leaders, management's attitudes toward an information system will be reflected in what employees will feel about it. To prevent negative perceptions and resistance to change, management should whole-heartedly support MIS and encourage employee participation. To enhance acceptance of the MIS, top management should: 9 Be aware of environmental and human factors critical to the introduction of MIS.

56

Carson and Griffeth

9 Pinpoint immediate strengths and long-range advantages of MIS to the employees affected. 9 Prepare a strong orientation program and keep the entire organization informed and current on events. 9 Sincerely support and promote MIS to employees and management. Make sure that MIS objectives are known and not hidden. 9 Put affected employees at ease about any systems change and maintain personal contact. 9 Use subordinate and management strength to help implement the system. (Riley, 1981, p. 288). One of management's goals should be to convey this clear sense of purpose and direction to their work force in order to reduce resistance to change (Fisher, 1989). Managers can use the MIS itself either to enhance employee commitment or to increase management control. Computer-based technological applications "can narrow the scope of jobs or broaden them, emphasize the individual nature of tasks or promote the work of groups, centralize or decentralize the making of decisions, and create performance measures that emphasize learning or hierarchical control" (Walton, 1985, p. 82). Responsible leadership in a democratic society can promote an organizational philosophy that continually involves high performing, committed employees in decision making and in learning.

CONCLUSIONS It is tempting to conclude at this point that following a few guidelines will solve all organizational problems when changing an MIS. This is certainly not the case, and, as Dickson points out, "there is no single factor that represents a panacea for behavioral ills. Each situation must be analyzed carefully to determine the optimal procedures for preventing or curing dysfunctional behavioral consequences surrounding the modification or installation of a system" (1970, p. 71). Consideration of the psychological dispositions of the employees, their values, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions, is necessary in order to tailor a system that fits the employee's needs. Employee participation in decision making is not a panacea. However, participation is responsive to the rights of organizational members, and it can help in reducing the effects of resistance to change. The effective change of an MIS is a complex process and requires commitment from all parties. This commitment involves two aspects. There needs to be commitment to the project, i.e., both management and users must do what is necessary to develop the system. Second, there must be commitment to change. This commitment requires the willingness to make needed changes in responsibilities (Ginzberg, 1981). Understanding the human side of MIS is an important step toward assisting the organization in obtaining the benefits from a well-designed computer-based information system. Acceptance of the MIS can occur through partnership and attention to the rights of employees. In this light, we view the MIS as an opportunity for growth and continued organizational effectiveness.


57

REFERENCES Anderson, R. L., & Ortinau, D. J. (1988). Exploring consumers' postadoption attitudes and use behaviors in monitoring the diffusion of a technology-based discontinuous innovation. Journal of Business Research, 17, 283-298. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183-194. Carroll, A. B. (1982). Behavioral aspects of developing computer-based information systems. Business Horizons, 25(1), 42-51. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482. Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 8-22. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings rEds.). Research in OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 6, pp. 191-233. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355-366. Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433. Dickerson, M. D., & Gentry, J. W. (1983). Characteristics of adopters and nonadopters of home computers. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 225-235. Dickson, G. W. (1970). The behavioral side of MIS. Business Horizons, 23(4), 59-71. Fisher, K. K. (1989). Managing the high-commitment workplace. OrganizationalDynamics, 17(3), 31-50. Franz, C. R., & Robey, D. (1986). Organizational context, user involvement, and the usefulness of information systems. Decision Sciences, 17, 329-356. Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 849-867. Ginzberg, M. J. (1978). Steps toward more effective implementation of MS and MIS. Interfaces, 8(3), 57-63. Ginzberg, M. J. (1981). Key recurrent issues in the MIS implementation process. MIS Quarterly, 5, 47-59. Kast, F. E. (1985). Organization and Management-A Systems and Contingency Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Land, F. (1987). Social aspects of information systems. In N. Piercy (Ed.), Management Information Systems: The Technology Challenge. New York: Nichols Publishing, pp. 20-57. LaMer, E. E., III. (1988). Choosing an involvement strategy. The Academy of Management Executive, I1, 197-204. Locke, E., & Schweiger, D. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI, pp. 265-339. Lucas, H. C. (1985). The Analysis, Design and Implementation of Information Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maier, N. R. F. (1973). Psychology in Industrial Organizations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Meherabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Moschis, G. P. (1976). Social comparison and informal group influence. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 237-244. Mumford, E. (1981). Values, Technology, and Work. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. Nicholas, J. M. (1985). User involvement: What kind, how much and when? Journal of Systems Management, 36(3), 23-27. Rasberry, R. W. (1986). Effective Managerial Communication. Boston: Kent Publishing. Riley, M. J. (1981). Management Information Systems. New York: Holden-Day. Robertson, T. S. (1967). The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Marketing, 31, 14-19. Robertson, T. S. (1971). Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 290-301. Rogers, E. M. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovation (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations, (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management is an ethical imperative. OrganizationalDynamics, 12(4), 5-22. Schein, E. H. (1987). Process Consultation, Vol. II: Lessons for Managers and Consultants. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

58

Carson and Griffeth

Schweiger, D., & Leana, C. R. (1986). Participation in decision making. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from the Laboratory to Field Settings. MA: Lexington Books, pp. 147-166. Scott, W. G. (1988). The management governance theories of justice and liberty. Journal of Management, 14, 277-298. Sheth, J. N. (1981). Psychology of innovation resistance: The less developed concept (LDC) in diffusion research. Research in Marketing, 4, 273-282. Stanislao, J. (1983). Dealing with resistance to change. Business Horizons, 26(4), 74-78. Swanson, E. B. (1974). Management information systems: Appreciation and involvement. Management Science, 20, 178-188. Tait, P., & Vessey, I. (1988). The effect of user involvement on system success: A contingency approach. MIS Quarterly, 12, 91-108. Tjosvold, D. (1987). Participation: A close look at its dynamics. Journal of Management, 13, 739-750. Tjosvold, D., & Deemer, D. K. (1980). Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competitive context on organizational decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 590-595. Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., & Field, R. H. G. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7, 125-138. Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Organizational Behavior. Chicago: The Dryden Press. Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. HarvardBusinessReview, 85(2), 77-84. Weimann, G. (1982). On the importance of marginality: One more step in the two-step flow of communication. American Sociological Review, 47, 764-773. Zaltman, G. N., Duncan, R. B., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Zmud, R. W., & Cox, J. F. (1979). The implementation process: A change approach. MIS Quarterly, 3, 35-43.