IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v32y2021i1p18-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing

Author

Listed:
  • Stella Pachidi

    (Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, United Kingdom)

  • Hans Berends

    (School of Business and Economics, KIN Center for Digital Innovation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands)

  • Samer Faraj

    (Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada)

  • Marleen Huysman

    (School of Business and Economics, KIN Center for Digital Innovation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Abstract

When actors deem technological change undesirable, they may act symbolically by pretending to comply while avoiding real change. In our study of the introduction of an algorithmic technology in a sales organization, we found that such symbolic conformity led unintendedly to the full implementation of the suggested technological change. To explain this surprising outcome, we advance a regime-of-knowing lens that helps to analyze deep challenges happening under the surface during the process of technology introduction. A regime of knowing guides what is worth knowing, what actions matter to acquire this knowledge, and who has the authority to make decisions around those issues. We found that both the technologists who introduced the algorithmic technology, and the incumbent workers whose work was affected by the change, used symbolic actions to either defend the established regime of knowing or to advocate a radical change. Although the incumbent workers enacted symbolic conformity by pretending to comply with suggested changes, the technologists performed symbolic advocacy by presenting a positive side of the technological change. Ironically, because the symbolic conformity enabled and was reinforced by symbolic advocacy, reinforcing cycles of symbolic actions yielded a radical change in the sales' regime of knowing: from one focused on a deep understanding of customers via personal contact and strong relationships, to one based on model predictions from the processing of large datasets. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for the introduction of technology at work and for knowing in the workplace.

Suggested Citation

  • Stella Pachidi & Hans Berends & Samer Faraj & Marleen Huysman, 2021. "Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 18-41, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:18-41
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2020.1377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1377
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2020.1377?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie-Claude Boudreau & Daniel Robey, 2005. "Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 3-18, February.
    2. Martha S. Feldman & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2011. "Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1240-1253, October.
    3. Diane E. Bailey & Paul M. Leonardi & Jan Chong, 2010. "Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 713-730, June.
    4. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Susan V. Scott, 2014. "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 868-891, June.
    5. Andrew M. Pettigrew, 1990. "Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 267-292, August.
    6. Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2014. "What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57602, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    8. Diane E. Bailey & Stephen R. Barley, 2011. "Teaching-Learning Ecologies: Mapping the Environment to Structure Through Action," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 262-285, February.
    9. Diane E. Bailey & Paul M. Leonardi & Stephen R. Barley, 2012. "The Lure of the Virtual," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1485-1504, October.
    10. Gerardo Patriotta & Jean‐Pascal Gond & Friederike Schultz, 2011. "Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justifications," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(8), pages 1804-1836, December.
    11. Nicholas Berente & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo & John Leslie King, 2016. "Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 551-572, June.
    12. Sarah Kaplan, 2011. "Strategy and PowerPoint: An Inquiry into the Epistemic Culture and Machinery of Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 320-346, April.
    13. Anne-Laure Fayard & Emmanouil Gkeredakis & Natalia Levina, 2016. "Framing Innovation Opportunities While Staying Committed to an Organizational Epistemic Stance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 302-323, June.
    14. Michael Barrett & Eivor Oborn & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2012. "Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1448-1466, October.
    15. Raymond F. Zammuto & Terri L. Griffith & Ann Majchrzak & Deborah J. Dougherty & Samer Faraj, 2007. "Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 749-762, October.
    16. Poole, Marshall Scott & Van de Ven, Andrew H. & Dooley, Kevin & Holmes, Michael E., 2000. "Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195131987.
    17. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    18. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2002. "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    19. Cambrosio, Alberto & Keating, Peter & Schlich, Thomas & Weisz, George, 2006. "Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 189-199, July.
    20. Liette Lapointe & Suzanne Rivard, 2007. "A Triple Take on Information System Implementation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 89-107, February.
    21. Nicholas Berente & Youngjin Yoo, 2012. "Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 376-396, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haefner, Naomi & Parida, Vinit & Gassmann, Oliver & Wincent, Joakim, 2023. "Implementing and scaling artificial intelligence: A review, framework, and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. Ribeiro, Barbara & Meckin, Robert & Balmer, Andrew & Shapira, Philip, 2023. "The digitalisation paradox of everyday scientific labour: How mundane knowledge work is amplified and diversified in the biosciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    3. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl, 2022. "Radiologists’ Usage of Diagnostic AI Systems," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(3), pages 293-309, June.
    4. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Omid Omidvar & Mehdi Safavi & Vern L. Glaser, 2023. "Algorithmic Routines and Dynamic Inertia: How Organizations Avoid Adapting to Changes in the Environment," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 313-345, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Matt Beane & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2015. "What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1553-1573, December.
    3. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    4. Gärtner, Christian, 2013. "Cognition, knowing and learning in the flesh: Six views on embodied knowing in organization studies," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 338-352.
    5. Joe Nandhakumar & Nikiforos S. Panourgias & Harry Scarbrough, 2013. "From Knowing It to “Getting It”: Envisioning Practices in Computer Games Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 933-955, December.
    6. Diane Bailey & Samer Faraj & Pamela Hinds & Georg von Krogh & Paul Leonardi, 2019. "Special Issue of Organization Science: Emerging Technologies and Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 642-646, May.
    7. Katherine C. Kellogg & Jenna E. Myers & Lindsay Gainer & Sara J. Singer, 2021. "Moving Violations: Pairing an Illegitimate Learning Hierarchy with Trainee Status Mobility for Acquiring New Skills When Traditional Expertise Erodes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 181-209, January.
    8. Paola Perez-Aleman, 2011. "Collective Learning in Global Diffusion: Spreading Quality Standards in a Developing Country Cluster," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 173-189, February.
    9. Anne Kokkonen & Pauli Alin, 2015. "Practice-based learning in construction projects: a literature review," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(7), pages 513-530, July.
    10. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    11. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    12. Emma Stendahl & Svante Schriber & Esther Tippmann, 2021. "Control changes in multinational corporations: Adjusting control approaches in practice," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(3), pages 409-431, April.
    13. Paul M. Leonardi & Diane E. Bailey & Casey S. Pierce, 2019. "The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 665-686, June.
    14. Paul Spee & Paula Jarzabkowski & Michael Smets, 2016. "The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 759-781, June.
    15. Fleur Deken & Paul R. Carlile & Hans Berends & Kristina Lauche, 2016. "Generating Novelty Through Interdependent Routines: A Process Model of Routine Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 659-677, June.
    16. Anne-Laure Fayard & Emmanouil Gkeredakis & Natalia Levina, 2016. "Framing Innovation Opportunities While Staying Committed to an Organizational Epistemic Stance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 302-323, June.
    17. Adrian Yeow & Siew Kien Sia & Christina Soh & Cecil Chua, 2018. "Boundary Organization Practices for Collaboration in Enterprise Integration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 149-168, March.
    18. Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Swan, Jacky & Goussevskaia, Anna & Newell, Sue & Robertson, Maxine & Bresnen, Mike & Obembe, Ademola, 2007. "Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 529-547, May.
    20. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:18-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.