Fon Sundaravej
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory
and Research
By M. Lynne Markus and Daniel Robey
This article initiates examines theories in terms of their structures about the relationship
between information technology and organizational change. Three dimensions of causal
structure are considered: causal agency, logical structure, and level of analysis. Causal
agency refers to beliefs about the nature of causality among technological, organizational,
and emergent perspectives. The technological imperative views technology as causal
agent. The organizational imperative views human begins as agents of social change. The
emergent perspective attributes causality to complex in-determinant interactions between
technology and human actors in organizations. Logical structure refers to the time span of
theory: static versus dynamic, and to the hypothesized relationships between antecedents
and outcomes: variance and process models. In variance theories, antecedents or causes
are conceived as necessary and sufficient conditions for the outcomes to occur. The
causes and outcomes in variance theories are conceptualized as variables or entities
which can take on a range of values. In process theories, antecedents are necessary but
not sufficient. These antecedents and outcomes in process theories are conceived as
discrete or discontinuous phenomena. As such, process theories cannot be extended or
static, while variance theories are dynamic. Level of analysis refers to the entities about
which the theory poses concepts and relationships: individuals, collectives, or both. The
macro level of analysis focuses on societies and formal organizations; whereas the micro
level addresses individuals and small groups. Since organizational theories are difficult to
confine naturally to one level of analysis, mixed level of analysis has been explored.
An innovative view to build or evaluate an organizational and management theories
presented by Daft (1983) can be determined as an original standpoint that differs from
prior literature with a narrow scope of the theory construction. Some elements to
construct or to evaluate an organizational theory are contradict and similar to other
articles in the same organizational theory building domain. Markus and Robey (1988) are
ones of those theorists trying to shape a scope on criteria to construct or evaluate an
organizational theory. They claim that level of analysis, which refers to the entities about
which the theory poses concepts and relationships: individuals, collectives, or both,
should be taken into a consideration while evaluating a theory of IS and organizational
change. Poole and Van De Ven (1989) in the article “Using Paradox to Build
Management and Organization Theories” also suggest the level of analysis to evaluate an
organizational theory. Examples of this analysis are part or whole, macro or micro, and
individual or society.
IS 7890: IS Research Seminar
Spring 2006