Download Impact of Library Automation on Organizational Power: A Study of Academic Libraries and more Study notes Strategic Management in PDF only on Docsity!
Information As a Strategic Contingency 145
Information As a Strategic
Contingency: Applying the Strategic
Contingencies Theory of
Intraorganizational Power to
Academic Libraries
Gregory A. Crawford is Head of Public Services in the Heindel Library at Penn State Harrisburg; e-mail: gac@psulias.psu.edu.
Gregory A. Crawford
This research examines the changes that electronic information tech- nologies have caused on power within organizations. Based on the stra- tegic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power, a model of or- ganizational power is developed and tested. Major features of the model include a technology index, subunit power variables, environmental vari- ables, and bases of power variables (structure, coping with uncertainty, centrality, and substitutability). According to canonical correlation analy- ses, changes in library automation and changes in the environment are related to changes in both the bases of power variables and power itself. The bases of power, in turn, are related to changes in the power of the library as measured by the percent of the institutional budget allocated to the library, the number of library positions, and the percep- tion of power.
zational issues, and issues involving the role of the library.^2 Finding the money to pay for infor- mation technology (IT) is a great chal- lenge for most libraries. The costs of pur- chasing, maintaining, and replacing com- puter equipment; hiring computer ex- perts or consultants; training librarians and other library staff to use the technolo- gies; and acquiring machine-readable records have stretched the budgets of li- braries greatly. Computing and electronic informa- tion technologies may cause changes in
echnology is having a major impact on academic libraries, causing librarians to rethink their positions on collections (e.g., access versus ownership), budgets (e.g., paying for computer hardware and software), buildings (e.g., space needs and wiring for telephone and data connections), staff (e.g., training for new technologies and changes in roles), and services (e.g., educating users about new technologies).^1 As a result, libraries and librarians must face financial issues, social and organi-
146 College & Research Libraries March 1997
certain power payoffs or ìpower shiftsî within organizations.^3 Often these shifts alter the political atmosphere of an orga- nization, increasing the power of those who control the decision-making appa- ratus that distributes needed resources within the organization. This study sought to understand the role that electronic information technolo- gies have played in the distribution of power within organizations, specifically, the power of the library within the lib- eral arts college. The strategic contingen- cies theory of intraorganizational power provided the theoretical base for this re- search. Within this theory, power is con- sidered a dependent variable that changes in response to a subunitís bases of power. The bases of power include the subunitís ability to cope with uncertainty, its substitutability, and its centrality to the organization.^4 A strategic contingency is defined as ìa requirement of the activi- ties of one subunit which is affected by the activities of another subunit.î^5 Infor- mation is one such strategic contingency. As developed by D. J. Hickson et al., the strategic contingencies theory states that the control of contingencies needed by other subunits within the organization is related to the power of the controlling subunit. The more necessary these con- tingencies are for the work of other sub- units, the more power accrues to the con- trolling subunit. Within this study, the exercise of power is specifically concerned with marshaling resources for use within a subunit (the library) of an organization (the liberal arts college). Resources are defined as both monetary (as indicated by subunit budget allocations) and per- sonnel (as indicated by the number of subunit staff). In addition, the perception of power on the part of the library direc- tor is included. In addition to power variables, the proposed integrated model includes vari- ables considered to be the bases of power. These include both structural variables
and variables associated with the strate- gic contingencies theory of organiza- tional power, namely uncertainty, cen- trality, and substitutability. Because power, according to Jeffrey Pfeffer, is first and foremost a structural phenomenon, various structural variables are measured to determine their changes in response to changes in technology.^6 Many previ- ous studies confirm the importance of the existing organizational structure as a base of power.^7 Uncertainty can be defined as ìa lack of information about future events, so that alternatives and their outcomes are unpredictable.î^8 Such uncertainties can involve the sources and composition of inputs, the work flow or production pro- cess, and the market for products. Hickson et al. defined centrality of a subunit as ìthe degree to which its activi- ties are interlinked into the system.î^9 In her research on colleges and universities, Judith D. Hackman defined centrality as how closely a unit matches the central mission of its parent institution and found that a unitís centrality crucially affects the internal resources allocated to it by the institution.^10 Similarly, Richard H. Hall states that from his observations at a number of universities, ìthe central- ity of the operation and the scarcity of personnel are major determinants of the power of a particular organizational unit.î^11 The final factor included in the con- tingency theory of power is that of sub- stitutability. Hickson et al. defined this term as ìthe ability of the organization to obtain alternative performance for the activities of a subunit.î^12 In other words, the functions of one subunit can be taken over by another subunit. Robert Dubin notes that power within a formal orga- nization is based on the importance of the functions performed by the subunit and the exclusiveness with which it per- forms them.^13 The less the activities of one subunit can be taken over by another, the greater that subunitís power.
148 College & Research Libraries March 1997
ganizational power.^17 In keeping with the strategic contingencies theory, power is considered to be the main dependent variable. Finally, the model posits that time is an important variable in its own right. The study is longitudinal so that the ef- fects of technology may appear within both the bases of power and the power measures themselves. The environmental variables provide a way to account for influences on the
power of the library that lie outside the theories used to construct the integrated model. The size of the user population and the size of the collection are impor- tant environmental variables that must be considered. In brief, the model states that as tech- nology within the subunit changes over time, the bases of power react to those changes, and that as the bases of power change, the power of the subunit changes. As a result, the manifestations of power as revealed by the power vari- ables also change.
Research Question One overarching research question guides this research: How has the control of ITs affected power within organizations? In particular, the research question can be made more focused by asking: How has the control of library-related ITs affected the libraryís power within the liberal arts college?
Methodology The unit of analysis for this study was the library within the liberal arts college. The population frame consisted of all those colleges classified as Liberal Arts Colleges I or Liberal Arts Colleges II by
the Carnegie Foundation for the Ad- vancement of Teaching.^18 Only those col- leges that completed both the 1982 HEGIS and the 1990 IPEDS surveys and that were not part of a multilibrary re- porting group were included in the study. The final total population frame for the study was 487 institutions.
Variables in the Model Most of the variables in the tested model used two measures (Time1 = 1981ñ82 aca- demic year and Time2 = 1989ñ90 aca- demic year) to examine changes occur- ring over this time span, although a few measured perceptions of change over the time period using only one. The time periods included in the study reflect the data available from the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) in 1982 and its 1990 replacement, the Inte- grated Post-Secondary Educational Data System (IPEDS). These two dates pro- vided a basis for studying the changes in libraries during the 1980s, a period in which great strides were made in library automation. The dependent variables were three measures of power: (1) percentage change in the institutional budget allo- cated to the library, (2) percentage change in the number of personnel in the library, and (3) perceived change in the power of the library. Independent variables included the technology index and the environmen- tal variables. Intervening variables in- cluded the structural variables, coping with uncertainty variables, centrality variables, and substitutability variables. The technology index was developed recursively using existing measures and various data sources for library automa- tion.^19 The library technology index was calculated simply by adding together the number of technologies incorporated into the library over the time span stud- ied. These included automated acquisi- tions, automated serials, automated cata- loging, automated circulation, online
In keeping with the strategic contingencies theory, power is considered to be the main dependent variable.
Information As a Strategic Contingency 149
public access catalog, network utility membership (OCLC, RLIN, WLN, etc.), network-based interlibrary loan, local area network within library, node on campus network, local/regional consor- tia or networks, telefacsimile, public computing workstations, CD-ROM in- dexes, reference database searching, and librarian/staff workstations. The bases of power consisted of two major groups of variables: structural vari- ables and contingency variables. The con- tingency variables included three sub- groups: coping with uncertainty vari- ables, centrality variables, and substitut- ability variables. These variables acted as dependent variables for analyses involv- ing the technology indexes and environ- mental variables, as independent vari- ables for analyses of the power variables, and as intervening variables in analyses of the entire model. The structural variables examined the personnel of the subunit and consisted of two subvariables: percentage change in the number of personnel classed as professional and percentage change in the number of personnel classed as other. ìOtherî personnel included those indi- viduals not classed as professional, such as support staff, nonprofessionals, and clerical workers. Coping with uncertainty was defined as involvement within the work flow of the organization. Two coping with un- certainty measures were included: workload of the subunit (percentage change in the circulation per staff mem- ber) and instructional service of the sub- unit (percentage change in the number of reference transactions). Centrality examined the ability of the library to support the primary mission of the college. This research used a single measure of centralityóperceived change in centrality. Substitutability referred to the ability of other campus subunits to perform functions similar to those performed by the library. The three substitutability vari-
ables measured changes in the ability of other subunits to perform the libraryís information functions, the difficulty in hiring technologically qualified librar- ians, and the collection development re- sponsibility of librarians. The environmental variables exam- ined changes within the subunitís envi- ronment and included change in poten- tial demand for service (number of stu- dents) and change in collection size as measured by changes in the total title count and the number of periodical sub- scriptions.
Sources of Data The sources of data included a mailed questionnaire and archival data. The questionnaire sought data for the follow- ing variables: amount of library automa-
tion; perceived change in power; per- ceived change in centrality; and per- ceived change in substitutability of func- tions, personnel, and collection development responsibility. Seven-point Likert scales were used for perceived change in power, centrality, and substi- tutability (three measures). A coin flip decided whether each question stressed an increase or a decrease in the variable under consideration. For the technology index, a list of technologies was pre- sented and respondents indicated the year when each technology was made available in their libraries. After pretesting, the questionnaire was sent to the directors of the 487 identified libraries, except those directors who par- ticipated in the pretest. If it was not re- turned within eight weeks of mailing, another copy was sent by mail. Usable responses were received from a total of 416 institutions (85.4%). The HEGIS and the IPEDS surveys
This research used a single measure of centralityóperceived change in centrality.
Information As a Strategic Contingency 151
TABLE 2
Canonical Correlation Analyses of Integrated Model:
Standardized Structure Coefficients (Variate Loadings)
Step One Canonical Variate: 1
Independent Variables (Automation Index & Environmental Variables) Total automation. Change in students. Change in titles. Change in subscriptions -.
Dependent Variables (Bases of Power Variables) Change in professionals. Change in other. Change in circulation. Change in ref. trans.. Perceived centrality. Subs. of functions -. Subs. of personnel -. Subs. of col. dev..
Squared Canonical Correlation:.
Wilks’ Lambda: F32,901.4 = 2.03*
*p<.
Step Two Canonical Variates: 1 2 3
Independent Variables (Bases of Power Variables) Change in professionals .60 .16. Change in other .92 .01 -. Change in circulation -.01 .02 -. Change in ref. trans. .01 -.04 -. Perceived centrality -.07 .95 -. Subs. of functions .06 .02. Subs. of personnel .01 .07 -. Subs. of col. dev. .06 -.01 -.
Dependent Variables (Power Variables) Change in budget -.09 .04 1. Change in staff 1.02 .06 -. Perceived power -.02 .99 -.
Squared Canonical Correlation: .76 .58.
Wilks’ Lambda: F24,850.4 = 44.7* F14,588 = 24.6* F6,295 = 2.2**
*p<.001, **p<. (continued)
152 College & Research Libraries March 1997
ment was small (canonical correlation = .28, variance explained = 12%). The canonical variate for the indepen- dent variables was characterized by the following significant loadings: total li- brary automation index, .30; change in the number of students, .64; and change in the number of titles, .67. For the ca- nonical variate of the dependent vari- ables, the highest loadings were change in the number of professionals (.73), change in the number of other staff mem- bers (.57), change in reference transac- tions (.35), and change in collection de- velopment responsibility (.47). In step two of the analysis, the bases of power were considered the indepen- dent variables and the power variables were the dependent variables. The analy- sis yielded three significant canonical correlations. The first canonical correla- tion (canonical correlation = .87, Wilksí Lambda = .09, F = 44.7, df = 24/850.4, p <. 001) explained the most variance (76%); the second explained 58 percent of the variance (canonical correlation = .76, Wilksí Lambda = .40, F = 24.6, df =
14/588, p <. 001); and the third explained 4 percent (canonical correlation = .21, Wilksí Lambda = .96, F = 2.2, df = 6/295, p <. 05). The standardized canonical coeffi- cients for the dependent variables (i.e., the power variables) showed that each variate had only one high loading: vari- ate 1, change in the number of staff (1.02); variate 2, perceived power (.99); and vari- ate 3, change in the budget allocation (-1.05). For the independent variables (i.e., the bases of power variables), the highest loadings for the first canonical variate were change in the number of professionals (.60) and change in the number of other staff members (.92), showing a strong relationship between the change in the number of profession- als and the change in the number of other staff members variables with the overall change in staff power variable. For the second variate only perceived centrality loaded highly (.95), exhibiting a strong relationship with perceived power. Fi- nally, for the third variate both change in the number of professionals (.70) and
TABLE 2, cont.
Canonical Correlation Analyses of Integrated Model:
Standardized Structure Coefficients (Variate Loadings)
Step Three (Bases of Power Partialed Out) Canonical Variate: 1 2 Independent Variables (Automation Indexes and Environmental Variables) Total automation .19. Change in students -.70. Change in titles .60 -. Change in subscriptions -.23.
Dependent Variables (Power Variables) Change in budget .46. Change in staff -.69. Perceived power .63.
Squared Canonical Correlation: .10.
Wilks’ Lambda: F12,627.3 = 3.5* F6,476 = 2.5** *p<.001, **p<.
154 College & Research Libraries March 1997
study developed and tested a model of intraorganizational power based largely upon the strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power. The strate- gic contingencies theory states that power within an organization can be viewed as a function of a subunitís abil- ity to cope with uncertainty, its central- ity to the organization, and the substi- tutability of its functions and personnel within the organization. The tested model also added automation, structural, and environmental variables to provide an in- tegrated model of intraorganizational power. The main idea expressed in the pro- posed model was that as automation within a library changed, the bases of power of that library also changed. Such changes in the bases of power would then cause changes in the power of the library on campus. The analyses showed that automation and the environment affected specific bases of power variables posi- tively. In accordance with the strategic contingencies theory, the bases of power variables showed significant relation- ships with the power variables. The analyses also revealed a significant posi- tive relationship between automation and the environment and power. These results provide limited support for the major theory presented by this research, namely, that automation is a change agent within libraries. In the
analyses presented in this study, the ef- fect of automation, though significant, was weak. However, the core of the stra- tegic contingencies theory was upheld with the bases of power accounting for 76 percent of the variance of the power variables. Understanding the effects of library automation and obtaining a better view of the nature of power should prove to be beneficial to the directors of liberal arts college libraries. In various comments given by library directors in the course of this research, the directors believed that automation had been a major help in providing the library with increased power. Although automation was shown by the analyses to influence the bases of power, it had only a weak direct relation- ship to power itself. This research provides one way to study the relationship between IT and power. The data presented and the results generated by them can help enlighten li- brary directors as to the state of the field and provide insight into the effects that ITs have had on subunit power within the college. As Pfeffer says, ìPower and politics are often part of organizations, and need to be understood as fundamen- tal and important processes.î^21 This re- search is one step toward such an un- derstanding within liberal arts college libraries.
Notes
- Barbara B. Moran, ìThe Unintended Revolution in Academic Libraries: 1939 to 1989 and Beyond,î College & Research Libraries 50 (Jan. 1989): 25ñ41.
- William G. Potter, ìInsurmountable Opportunities: Advanced Technology and the Aca- demic Library,î in Academic Libraries: Research Perspectives, eds. Mary Jo Lynch and Arthur Young (Chicago: ALA, 1990), 165ñ91.
- Kenneth L. Kraemer and William H. Dutton, ìThe Automation of Bias,î in Computers and Politics: High Technology in American Local Governments, eds. James N. Danziger, William H. Dutton, Rob Kling, and Kenneth L. Kraemer (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1982), 170ñ93; Alvin Toffler, Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (New York: Bantam Bks., 1990).
- D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, C. A. Lee, R. E. Schneck, and J. M. Pennings, ìA Strategic Contingenciesí Theory of Intraorganizational Power,î Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (June 1971): 216ñ29; Ran Lachman, ìPower from What? A Reexamination of Its Relationships with Struc- tural Conditions,î Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (June 1989): 231ñ51; Gerald R. Salancik and
Information As a Strategic Contingency 155
Jeffrey Pfeffer, ìWho Gets Poweróand How They Hold on to It: A Strategic-Contingency Model of Power,î Organizational Dynamics 5 (winter 1977): 3ñ21.
- Hickson et al, ìA Strategic Contingenciesí Theory,î 222.
- Jeffrey Pfeffer, Power in Organizations (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1981).
- W. Graham Astley and Paramjit S. Sachdeva, ìStructural Sources of Intraorganizational Power: A Theoretical Synthesis,î Academy of Management Review 9 (Jan. 1984): 104ñ13; Clyde C. Caufield, ìAn Integrative Research Review of the Relationship between Technology and Struc- ture: A Meta-analytic Synthesisî (doctoral diss., Univ. of Iowa), Dissertation Abstracts International 51 (1989): 553A; C. R. Hinings, D. J. Hickson, J. M. Pennings, and R. E. Schneck, ìStructural Condi- tions of Intraorganizational Power,î Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (Mar. 1974): 22ñ44; Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979); Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, trans. by A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1947); Joan Woodward, Industrial Organi- zation: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1965).
- Hickson et al, ìA Strategic Contingenciesí Theory,î 219.
- Ibid, 221.
- Judith D. Hackman, ìPower and Centrality in the Allocation of Resources in Colleges and Universities,î Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (Mar. 1985): 61ñ77.
- Richard H. Hall, ìPower in an Academic Setting,î in Power in Organizations, ed. Mayer N. Zald (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt Univ. Pr., 1970), 50.
- Hickson et al, ìA Strategic Contingenciesí Theory,î 221.
- Robert Dubin, ìPower, Function, and Organization,î Pacific Sociological Review 6 (spring 1963): 16--24.
- Carol S. Saunders, ìManagement Information Systems, Communications, and Department Power: An Integrative Model,î Academy of Management Review 6 (July 1981): 431ñ42; Carol S. Saunders and Richard W. Scamell, ìOrganizational Power and the Information Services Depart- ment: A Reexamination,î Communications of the ACM 29 (Feb. 1986): 142ñ47.
- Andrew M. Pettigrew, ìInformation Control As a Power Resource,î Sociology 6 (May 1972): 187--204; Jeffrey Pfeffer and Huseyin Leblebici, ìInformation Technology and Organizational Struc- ture,î Pacific Sociological Review 20 (Apr. 1977): 241ñ61.
- Moran, ìThe Unintended Revolutionî; Lewis. D. Cartee Jr., ìIs Library Automation Pro- ducing a New Kind of Manager?î Journal of Library Administration 13 3/4 (1990): 99ñ115; Michael Gorman, ìThe Organization of Academic Libraries in the Light of Automation,î Advances in Li- brary Automation and Networking 1 (1987): 151ñ68; Peggy Johnson, Automation and Organizational Change in Libraries (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1991); Verna L. Pungitore, ìDevelopment and Evaluation of a Measure of Library Automation,î Library and Information Science Research 8 (Jan.ñMar. 1986): 67ñ83.
- Hickson et al., ìA Strategic Contingenciesí Theoryî; Salancik and Pfeffer, ìWho Gets Powerî; Pfeffer, Power in Organizations; Pfeffer, ìPower and Resource Allocation in Organizations,î in New Directions in Organizational Behavior, eds. Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik (Chicago: St. Clair Pr., 1977), 235ñ65; Hackman, ìPower and Centralityî; Saunders, ìManagement Information Sys- tems, Communications, and Department Powerî; Carol S. Saunders, ìThe Strategic Contingen- cies Theory of Power: Multiple Perspectives,î Journal of Management Studies 27 (Jan. 1990): 1ñ18.
- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987).
- Pungitore, ìDevelopment and Evaluation of a Measure of Library Automationî; Maxine K. Sitts, ed., Automation Inventory of Research Libraries (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1987); Beverly K. Duval and Linda Main, Automated Library Systems: A Librarianís Guide and Teaching Manual (Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1992).
- Kenneth L. Kraemer and John L. King, ìComputing and Public Organizations,î Public Ad- ministration Review 46 (Nov. 1986): 492.
- Pfeffer, Power in Organizations, 370.
