7-days of FREE Audio papers, translation & more with Prime
7-days of FREE Prime access
7-days of FREE Audio papers, translation & more with Prime
7-days of FREE Prime access
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1309514
Copy DOIJournal: SSRN Electronic Journal | Publication Date: Dec 1, 2008 |
Since the 1960s, new Information Systems (IS) have been routinely associated with a capacity for resolving coordination and cooperation problems. A coordination problem refers to the difficulty in creating expectations of mutuality about the enactment of information, identities and authority. A cooperation problem, on the other hand, refers to the difficulty in overcoming tendencies of self-interest and opportunism. Despite the pervasiveness of magic bullet discourse in managerial practice, the following questions have remained unanswered. Who exactly in companies has been using magic bullet discourse since the 1960s and with what purpose? What, if any, is the historical relation between the use of such discourse in IS projects and the actual resolution of coordination and cooperation problems? Finally, if there exists a significant historical relation, how and why does it develop? Drawing on the historical case-study of a large European bank, I demonstrate how successive generations of change agents used magic bullet discourse in IS projects, with the support of top management, and with different purposes. A first generation of change agents used such discourse to resolve a coordination problem. Coordination issues were still used in the magic bullet discourse of successive generations, albeit increasingly for fronting purposes only. With time, the actual purpose of change agents shifted to resolving a cooperation problem. In terms of an historical relation, I find that the repeated exaggeration of the coordination capacity of new IS in change agents' discourse, institutionalized cooperation problems across different generations of IS projects. Drawing on a critical realist methodology, I analyse how this negative historical relation between magic bullet discourse, coordination and cooperation problems developed. I find that the use of magic bullet discourse increases the likelihood of successive generations of change agents making the same misjudgement about how to control mechanisms of politicization: through unrealistic expectation building. Although there is no necessary causal relation between magic bullet discourse and misjudgements, I find that once such a misjudgement is made in the presence of magic bullet discourse, a negative relation sets in which is easily institutionalized across different generations of projects and agents. Highly problematic is that, beyond a tipping point of institutionalization, any kind of change discourse - realistic or not - is considered cheap. From that moment onwards, the capacity of change agents to contribute positively to the resolution of coordination and cooperation problems through discursive means is marginal.
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.