Power dynamics in organisations and the role of information systems

Abstract

The motivation for this special issue on ‘Power dynamics in organisations and the role of information systems’ originated from the (re)emerging interest and a lack of theorising about the role of power in Information Systems (IS) research (Jasperson et al., 2002; Silva, 2007; Silva & Backhouse, 2003; Simeonova & Galliers, 2022; Simeonova, Galliers, & Karanasios, 2020). Thus, the aim of this special issue is to reinvigorate interest in power and IS research; specifically, to further understand power dynamics in organisations with a view to developing a theory to explain the role of power in IS phenomena. As an intangible and often difficult to observe the phenomenon, there are different perspectives on how to define power (Jasperson et al., 2002). For instance, legitimate power links power to organisational hierarchies, where people occupying higher levels have the ‘legitimate’ right to influence the actions and behaviours of others (French & Raven, 1959). Expert power links power to the individual's expertise and knowledge, while referent power concerns access to resources (French & Raven, 1959). The functionalist perspective on power distinguishes between the pluralist view, which refers to overt stakeholder behaviours, and the rationalist view, which refers to the legitimate authority of management and their decision-making activities (Bradshaw-Camball & Murray, 1991). The interpretivist view considers power as controlling others without their awareness of the control mechanisms used (Bradshaw-Camball & Murray, 1991). The radical perspective considers power as inscribed in social interactions and inscribed in a structure of rules (Bradshaw-Camball & Murray, 1991). Additional definitions from the Foucauldian perspective, Clegg's (1989) Circuits of Power perspective, and Lawrence, Malhotra, and Morris's (2012) Episodic and Systemic Power perspective are outlined in the next section. In this introductory editorial to the special issue, we provide an overview of current trends on power in IS research and outline several dominant theoretical perspectives employed by IS scholars. Building on these, we develop a framework to help scholars to conceptualise power in IS research in the hope of helping to guide future research. We introduce the papers in this special issue. Power issues are typically neglected in IS research or have been considered from a uni-dimensional (Dhillon, Caldeira, & Wenger, 2011) and functionalist (Cendon & Jarvenpaa, 2001; Fleming & Spicer, 2014) perspective. That is, they tend to consider a negative view of power (Fleming & Spicer, 2014; Ravishankar, Pan, & Myers, 2013). We emphasise that such limitations are linked to the epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and practical challenges of studying power (Silva, 2007; Simeonova et al., 2020; Simeonova & Galliers, 2022). Silva (2007) reviewed theories employed in IS research and concluded that these well-established theories have limited ability to study power. Following this, recent studies have utilised and extended less established approaches such as activity theory to research and understand power dynamics (e.g., Kelly, 2018, 2019; Simeonova, 2014, 2018; Simeonova, Karanasios, Galliers, Kelly, & Mishra, 2018). Two of the dominant perspectives used by IS scholars, namely, Foucault's knowledge/power (Foucault, 1991) and Clegg's circuits of power (Clegg, 1989), are discussed in the following paragraphs, followed by Lawrence et al.'s (2012) episodic/systemic power, which we build on in this editorial. IS researchers interested in power considerations have typically utilised the work of Foucault on power/knowledge (e.g., Doolin, 2004; Heizmann, 2011). Foucault's work is influential as it provided new understandings of power away from its inscription in actors and structures towards the notion that power is everywhere, diffused and inscribed in discourse, knowledge and regimes of truth (Foucault, 1991). Foucault (1980) argues that power should be considered as something produced and evolving through social interactions and discursive norms as opposed to as a resource. An influential aspect of Foucault's perspective that has been utilised in IS research is the role of IS as a tool for work as well as a means of surveillance or forms of an electronic ‘panopticon’ (e.g., Doolin, 2004; Orlikowski, 1991; Zuboff, 1988). For instance, health IS used by paramedics in an ambulance is considered as a tool for paramedics but also a ‘panoptic gaze’ for managers (Allen, Brown, Karanasios, & Norman, 2013). Another example of the utilisation of Foucault's perspective is to demonstrate power issues in routine IS design projects (Sefyrin, 2019). Clegg's (1989) ‘circuits of power’ perspective outlines the production and organising of power through three distinct ‘circuits’. In the episodic circuit, causal power refers to episodes where an actor causes another actor to act in ways they otherwise would not act. In the social integration circuit, dispositional power provides the conditions for actors to exercise power. In system integration, circuit power is described as techniques of production and discipline used to facilitate control, dominance, electronic panopticon, compliance, and discipline. Silva and Backhouse's (2003) influential article using the circuits of power framework demonstrated how it could be used to study power and the institutionalisation of an IS. Smith, Winchester, Bunker, and Jamieson (2010) demonstrated the utilisation of the circuits of power perspective to interpret power, resistance, norms, and culture in the process of IS security compliance. Lawrence et al.'s (2012) perspective on power differentiates between episodic power (‘power over’) and systemic power (‘power to’). Episodic power is considered as something that is possessed, a capacity and resource which has limiting and controlling manifestations, such as coercion, domination, self-interest, resource dependence and authority (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006; Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2012; Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2012). Systemic power is considered as enacted through practice and empowerment (Clegg et al., 2006; Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2012; Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2012). We utilise this distinction in this editorial because of its emphasis on actors, behaviours, attitudes, systems and technologies, and hence we follow the definition of power provided by Lawrence et al. (2012, p. 105) ‘the dimension of relationships through which the behaviors, attitudes, or opportunities of an actor are affected by another actor, system, or technology’. We build on Lawrence et al.'s (2012) perspective of episodic and systemic power to provide an alternative point of departure for studies on power. We follow this perspective on power because of its emphasis on actors, behaviours, attitudes, systems and technologies, which permits us to study and understand different types of power and their dynamics. As noted by a range of scholars, extant theories and approaches have limitations to studying power (Silva, 2007; Simeonova et al., 2020; Simeonova & Galliers, 2022). Along with the changing nature of work and recent technological advancements, there is a need to continuously develop new approaches and reconsider existing approaches of studying power: ‘as with any analytical concept, the swiftly changing world of organizational life requires theories of power that are up-to-date and current with the emerging trends shaping business and society’ (Fleming & Spicer, 2014, p. 38). Important for the conceptualisation of power is that power is considered contingent: ‘one person's “power to” may involve asserting “power over” many other people; the effects of power as productive or negative are strictly contingent, so for some people, the effect may be positive while for others it will be negative’ (Clegg et al., 2006, p. 191). We would elaborate on this notion to theorise and demonstrate power as dynamic and transient, and to include the role of actors and the role of IS. We develop a framework of power – ‘Power-IS Framework’, which is presented in Figure 1. The Power-IS framework outlines the dynamics of different types of power, actors, and IS. It presents the manifestations of power along two axes: power (episodic power, systemic power) and locus (role of actors, role of IS). The framework considers that power is inscribed in systems, which change behaviours, redistribute or reinforce actors' power. We postulate that power is transient and the exercise of one type of power might transform into another type of power with different effects on actors, behaviours and the utilisation of IS. The Power-IS framework categorises the following quadrants of different types of power differentiating between episodic and systemic power, the role of actors and the role of IS. The ‘Power as possession’ quadrant is characterised as power from the episodic and actor perspective. The manifestations of power as possession are as follows: hierarchical, authoritative, legitimate, resource, self-interest. These generally have negative connotations, for instance where power is possessed by people occupying higher hierarchical roles or where power is utilised for self-interest (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008; Raman & Bharadwaj, 2012). The exercising of power as possession limits opportunities of the lower levels (e.g., employees, subordinates) to contribute and express their opinions (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011; Heizmann, 2011) or may limit their resource access (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2016; Constantinides & Barrett, 2006). Power as possession is also characterised as control of resources, control of decision-making, resource dependence, power asymmetries (Simeonova et al., 2020; Simeonova & Galliers, 2022). These manifest as unequal consideration of ideas and discrimination (Busquets, 2010; Heizmann, 2011). The ‘Power as control’ quadrant is characterised from the episodic and IS perspective and refers to power inscribed in systems, which manifest through rules, monitoring, surveillance, compliance, information asymmetries. The power as control perspective outlines the utilisation of IS to increase the power of the higher authorities (Silva & Hirschheim, 2007), for monitoring, surveillance, and performance management (Lightfoot & Wisniewski, 2014; Zuboff, 1988), control of resources and information and communication which create information asymmetries (Ghobadi & Clegg, 2015; Lightfoot & Wisniewski, 2014). Instances of power as control could enable digitally-led exploitation (Simeonova & Ravishankar, 2022). The ‘Power as practice’ quadrant is characterised from the systemic and actor perspective. The manifestations of power as practice are as follows: community interests, communities of practice, social capital, network, empowerment. These generally have positive connotations where power is diffused, with an emphasis on communities of practice and networks that are aligned around community interests (Contu, 2014; Cendon & Jarvenpaa, 2001; Busquets, 2010). The exercising of power as a practice is evident in creating networks, removing resource constraints and dependence (Chuang, Jackson, & Jiang, 2016), access to information and resources (Constantinides & Barrett, 2006; Leong, Pan, Bahri, & Fauzi, 2019; Leong, Pan, Ractham, & Kaewkitipong, 2015), community empowerment (Leong et al., 2015). Power as a practice also manifests through participation in decision-making, empowerment (Simeonova et al., 2020; Simeonova & Galliers, 2022), ‘sensemaking’ and ‘sensegiving’ (Simeonova & Galliers, 2022). The ‘Power as facilitation’ quadrant is characterised from systemic and IS perspectives. The manifestations of power as facilitation are as follows: transparency, autonomy, multivocality, decision-making, organisational culture. Power as facilitation denotes the utilisation of IS to reduce communication barriers between hierarchical levels and remove status differentials and power asymmetries (Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013; McAfee, 2006). Instances of power as facilitation could enable digitally-led emancipation (Simeonova & Ravishankar, 2022). Power as facilitation may manifest through autonomy and organisational culture (Simeonova et al., 2020; Simeonova & Galliers, 2022). As noted in the trends on power the current literature typically outlines examples of the unidirectional effects emphasising the negative connotations (Dhillon et al., 2011; Fleming & Spicer, 2014). We postulate that power is multi-dimensional, dynamic, transient and contingent, where instances of one type can enact another type of power and have different effects for the different actors. For example, the strict hierarchy could be mitigated through informal practices, networks and the use of IS (Simeonova, 2014, 2018), in that ‘power as possession’ enacts ‘power as practice’. The opposite dynamic is also evident where a community of practice gains control of resources and legitimate power (Simeonova, 2014, 2018): ‘power as practice’ transforms as ‘power as possession’. The role of IS predominantly depends on the actors and how those actors utilise IS could enact its facilitative or its restrictive characteristics. However, with increased algorithmic capabilities, the implementation and use of IS could challenge the status quo and the power of actors, or exacerbate power divides (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Rinta-Kahila, Someh, Gillespie, Indulska, & Gregor, 2021). IS from ‘power as control’ limits the role of actors; for instance, where decision support systems and big data restrict the autonomy of actors in strategic decision-making (Aversa, Cabantous, & Haefliger, 2018; Demetis & Lee, 2018). Another example of transient power could be observed where ‘power as facilitation’ triggers ‘power as practice’. For instance, where social media creates new collaborative resources amongst employees (Forsgren & Byström, 2018), which is often the reason some managers consider it as a threat to their status (Koch, Gonzalez, & Leidner, 2012). Hence ‘power as facilitation’ has different effects for different users and levels, demonstrating the contingent aspect of power. The Power-IS framework can thus illustrate recursive links, interactions, and emergent changes between these types of power, explicating the nuanced power dynamics, transient and contingent aspects between different types of power, actors and IS. For the Special Issue we received ample paper contributions and following a review process have selected the following papers for publication. The papers provide an array of perspectives on power and contexts and contribute to the power and IS research. The paper ‘Mechanisms of power inscription into IT governance: Lessons from two national digital identity systems’ by Medaglia, Eaton, Hedman, and Whitley (2022), investigates the inscription of power in the governance of digital identity systems demonstrated through case studies in Denmark and the UK. The paper utilises the circuits of power (Clegg, 1989) perspective on power and outlines the following power mechanisms: power cultivation and power limitation. Power cultivation was observed in the Denmark case and it is characterised by the dominance of the systemic and the social circuits of power. Power limitation was observed in the UK case and it is characterised by the episodic circuit of power. The paper outlines an important contribution on power and its effects on IT governance through configurations of power circuits and power mechanisms: power cultivation and power limitation. Another paper utilising the ‘circuits of power’ perspective is the article by Rowlands and Kautz (2022) ‘Power relations inscribed in the enactment of systems development methods’. The paper describes how different forms of power are inscribed in and enacted through an IS development methodology. Their aim is to advance the understanding of different forms of power, obtrusive and unobtrusive power, and to demonstrate how IS development concepts and their enactment influence developers and clients utilising the ‘circuits of power’ perspective in interpreting an exploratory case study within an IT division of a large international bank. A major finding is the disempowerment of the developers when cooperating with their clients. The findings of their study are outlined as propositions that help to explain how obtrusive and unobtrusive power is inscribed in IS development methodologies and the effects that such inscription has on their enactment. These propositions can provide helpful guidance for further research into this important topic. The paper ‘Power dynamics in software platform ecosystems’ by Hurni, Huber, and Dibbern (2022) investigates power dynamics between ecosystem platform owners and complementors to determine the success of platform ecosystems. The paper utilises the Fleming and Spicer (2014) framework in six exploratory platform ecosystems case studies. The findings demonstrate power as a reciprocal process of three cycles. ‘The centre power’ cycle where the complementors evaluate whether to comply with the platform owners domination power and requirements. ‘The adaptation cycle’ is where the platform owners and the complementors dynamically adapt their needs to ensure the success of the platform ecosystem. And the ecosystem ‘reconfiguration cycle’ where manipulation and coercion of the complementors and over-subjectification are exhibited for the advantage of the platform ecosystem. The paper provides an important contribution by explaining power cycles and changes in platform ecosystems. The paper by Coelho, Pozzebon, and Cunha (2022), ‘Citizens influencing public policy-making: Resourcing as a source of relational power in e-participation platforms’, investigates the role of power in governmental e-participation platforms. The paper examines citizen participation on three urban mobility platforms in three major Brazilian cities with a view to examining how power is associated with resourcing. The paper outlines a contribution to the literature on e-participation by explaining how a relational view of power is helpful in increasing the understanding of citizenship participation in public policy. Another contribution concerns their integration of the concept of resourcing not just as a source of relational power but also as a constitutive element of relational power. A process-based model of resourcing is developed which outlines distinct power resourcing phases. The paper by Kumar, Singh, Chandwani, and Gupta (2022), ‘Locating resistance to healthcare information technology: A Bourdieusian analysis of doctors' symbolic capital conservation’, considers aspects of doctors' resistance to healthcare information technology (HIT) from a radical power perspective. Through Bourdieu's social practice theory, the authors examine doctor-patient-HIT interaction and the doctors' regard and social standing within the community. Their ethnographic inquiry was in a large corporate healthcare organisation in India and links doctors' historical high social standing to the symbolic recognition of their emotional capital that exists alongside their habitus. The authors note that the former allows for the accumulation of other forms of capital – institutionalised, social and economic – each of which contributes to their social status. While they observe that the doctors produced emotional capital by enacting their habitus into practice, the HIT challenged doctors and created a perception of threat to emotional capital. The authors conclude that the doctors' resistance to the HIT is a ‘conservation strategy’, designed to retain their historical social standing. The paper by Brooks, Ravishankar, and Oshri (2022) ‘Status differentials and framing in the implementation of IT-enabled task migration strategies’ examines how high-status organisation units frame their IT-enabled task migration actions and contrast it with how a low-status unit frame and accounts for the actions of the high-status units. The paper outlines a qualitative case study of a distributed finance function in a global logistics organisation utilising the notion of framing, to explain the diverse, retrospective, and conflicting interpretations of actors with different statuses in the organisation hierarchy. The findings demonstrate how high-status units frame their actions as ‘protecting’, ‘supporting’ and ‘monitoring’ the migrated tasks, while the low-status unit frames these set of actions as ‘resisting’, ‘interfering’ and ‘hypercriticizing’. The paper develops propositions to describe the different frames and the implementation of IT-enabled task migration strategies. The paper by Hekkala, Stein, and Sarker (2022) ‘Power and conflict in inter-organisational information systems development’ investigates power in inter-organisational IS projects. Through the perspectives of systemic (‘power to’) and episodic power (‘power over’), and an organisational conflict model, the paper reports on a qualitative case study that explores power and conflict and their effects in an inter-organisational IS development project. The study demonstrates that the bureaucratic, and the technical configuration of the project forms a foundational system from which power practices emerge. The power practices have restrictive and productive effects on conflict, but the practices cannot easily escape the confines of the foundational system and continue to cause different manifestations of latent conflict in the system. Hence, ‘power to’ and ‘power over’ may escalate project conflict. The paper provides a model and a description of different manifestations and theoretical implications for power and conflict in inter-organisational IS projects. The selected articles emphasise the role of power in IS research rather than treat it as a peripheral theme. The papers also outline different ways of conceptualising power and new insights into how different types of power yield different understandings of the role of IS and to IS research. We hope that this introductory editorial, in particular, the Power-IS framework and the papers accepted for publication provide a basis for further research in this important topic area. We thank Prof. Robert Davison for guiding this special issue and the team of associate editors (Prof. Jason Dedrick; Prof. Niall Hayes; Prof. Donald Hislop; Dr Federico Iannacci; Dr Marco Marabelli; Dr Stella Pachidi; Dr Arisa Shollo; Dr Mira Slavova) and the expert reviewers. We acknowledge helpful comments from Dr Paul Kelly.