A Model of Users' Perspective on Change: The Case of Information Systems Technology

Implementation
Author(s): Kailash Joshi
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 229-242
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249384 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 19:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Model of Users'
Perspective on
The Case of
Change:
Information Systems
Technology
Implementation
By: Kailash Joshi
School of Business Administration
University of Missouri
8001 Natural Bridge Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63121
Abstract
Change is a fundamentaltheme in human life.
Yet some organizational behavior and MIS
researchershave noted thatindividualsgenerally
resist changes. MIS researchers have also at-
tributedmanyimplementation problemsto users'
resistanceto change. However,thereis no funda-
mental resistance to every change. Individuals
readilyadoptchanges such as a pay raise orpro-
motion. Thisarticleproposes thatindividualsat-
tempt to evaluate most changes. Changes that
are considered favorableare not resisted and
may even be sought after and welcomed, while
changes considered unfavorableare likelyto be
resisted. The equity-implementation (E-l)model
provides a theory-basedunderstandingof infor-
mation systems users' resistance to change. It
describes the processes employed by users in
assessing the change associated withthe imple-
mentationof an information system or technology
in an organization. The model is based upon
equity theory, which is a well-established and
widely used theory in social sciences. Users
employ three levels of analysis in evaluatingthe
change introducedby an implementation.At the
firstlevel of analysis, a user is viewedas assess-
ing a change in terms of the gain or loss in his
or her equity status. At the second level of
A similarpaper was presented at the TIMS/ORSAJoint
NationalMeetingin Nashville,Tennessee, May 15, 1991.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
analysis, the user is viewed as comparinghis or
her relativeoutcomes withthat of the organiza-
tion.Finally,at the thirdlevel of analysis,the user
is viewed as comparinghis or her relative out-
comes withthat of other users in the reference
group. Users who evaluate the change to be un-
favorablein termsof inequityor loss of equityare
likelyto be distressed by the change and resist
it. The E-lmodel providesa useful frameworkof
analysis, for improving our understanding of
users' assessment of a change. Managers will
findthe model useful forovercomingresistance
to change duringimplementation.
Keywords:Resistance to change, systems im-
plementation,equity theory, power,
user behavior, user acceptance,
behavioral factors, organizational
change, user involvement
ACMCategories: H.O,J.O,K.0,K.4.0,K.4.3,K.6,
K.6.0, K.6.1, K.6.4
Introduction
Successful implementation of modern
technologies, innovations, and management
science is criticalfor enhancing the productivity
and the competitiveposition of an organization
(Clemons,1986;Joshi, 1990c).However,the suc-
cessful implementationof modern computer-
based automationtechnologies in organizations
remains a challenge. Researchers have noted
widespreadfailuresin the implementationof in-
formationsystems (Bostrom, 1977; Kumarand
Welke, 1984, Lucas, 1978; 1981; Zmud, 1983).
A numberof differentapproachesand theoretical
perspectives have been adopted in examining
and explaining the sources of implementation
problems.
Some MISresearchersviewthe qualityof the pro-
cess of implementationas a majordeterminant
of the success of implementation(Ginzberg,
1979; 1981). This view recognizes systems im-
plementationas a change process and systems
designers as change agents (Ginzberg, 1979;
Zmudand Cox, 1979). Inrecognitionof the need
to managechange, differentperspectivesand ap-
proaches have been proposedforunderstanding
and managing the change process. These in-
clude the planned-changeapproachproposedby
MIS Quarterly/June1991 229
User's Perspective on Change
Lewin (1952) and Schein (1961) and further
elaborated by Kolb and Frohman (1970), the
innovation-process approach (Wetherbe and
Dickson, 1985), and the socio-technicalsystems
approach (Bostrom, 1977; 1980; Mumfordand
Wier, 1979).
MISresearchers have also viewed the dynamics
of implementationas a politicalprocess, where
the sequence and the directionof implementa-
tion can be explained in terms of the conflicting
interests of differentuser groups. Differentuser
groupsare viewedas competingto increasetheir
power, to control information(Danziger, et al.,
1982; Kling,1980; Markus,1983; Pfeffer,1981),
to obtaina greatershare of computingresources
(Keen, 1981; Klingand lacono, 1984; Markus,
1981; 1983; Mumford and Pettigrew, 1975;
Robey and Markus,1984) and to achieve pre-
ferred task allocation (Mumfordand Pettigrew,
1975). Markus (1983) explains resistance to
change and implementationdifficultiesprimarily
in termsof the conflictamong users forincreased
power. She notes that the politicalperspective
appears to be primarilyapplicable for systems
cutting across multipleuser departments.
Some other factors considered relevantby MIS
researchers in determining users' acceptance
and assessment of a system includeease of use
and usefulness (Davis, 1989), priorexpectations
(Ginzberg,1981), user involvement(Baroudi,et
al., 1986), and impact on work environment
(Nichols, 1981; Turner, 1984). Ginzberg, et al.
(1984) considered various individual, organi-
zational, and system characteristics in their
proposed model of implementation. These
characteristics include management support,
user decision style, user knowledge, user job
characteristics,user confidence in system, user
demographics, goal congruence, and user in-
volvement.
These studies and perspectives provide many
useful insightsintoimplementationproblemsand
extend our understanding of implementation
issues. MISresearchers recognize user accep-
tance of systems as a majorobjectiveof systems
implementation(Ginzberg, et al., 1984). While
there are various perspectives on resistance to
change, there is consensus that understanding
and explainingresistanceto change is important
(Swanson, 1988). These explanations,even if in-
formalor implicit,guide the behaviorof systems
implementors(Markus,1983). MISresearchers
230 MIS Quarterly/June1991
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
recognize that bettertheories or models of user
resistance would lead to better implementation
strategiesand desiredimplementation outcomes.
This articleexamines the issue of IS implemen-
tation and resistance to change from an equity
theoryperspective.Equitytheoryis a well-estab-
lishedtheorywhose predictionshave been found
to be applicablein nearlyall social settings (Wal-
ster, et al., 1978).The importanceof equityissues
in an organizationalcontexthas been recognized
in the literature(Greenberg, 1982).
This article uses equity theory to develop an
equity-implementation modelthatattemptsto ex-
resistance to The model is based
plain change.
upon the premise that there is no fundamental
resistance to every change. For example, in-
dividuals readilyadopt changes such as a pay
raise or promotion.Itis proposed,therefore,that
individualsattempt to evaluate most changes.
Changes that are considered favorable should
notbe resistedand mayeven be welcomed.How-
ever, changes considered unfavorableare likely
to be resisted. The model utilizes equity theory
to identifythe processes through which users
may evaluate changes introducedby IS imple-
mentationto assess whetherchanges are favor-
able or unfavorableto them. The model provides
a frameworkfor integratingsome of the previous
MISresearch studies. The model also suggests
some guidelines for managing implementation.
It should be noted that the focus of this article
is on a specific implementationor change rather
than the whole MISenvironment.
Previous equity research in the MISarea iden-
tified proceduralfairness, distributivefairness,
and reciprocalfairness as the main dimensions
of equityinthe overallMIScontext(Joshi,1989b).
Research has also demonstratedthe influence
of equityon user attitudessuch as user informa-
tion satisfaction.This research has also discov-
ered that procedural fairness is the most
importantfairness issue for users, followed by
distributiveand reciprocalfairness(Joshi,1990b).
Equityhas been foundto have the highestcausal
influenceon the overalluser information satisfac-
tion (UIS)compared to the other knownfactors
that are likely to influence UIS (Joshi, 1991).
Equitytheoryhas also been used to explainuser
behaviorsrangingfromunfairbehavior(e.g., po-
liticalbehaviorand user conflicts) and reactive
dysfunctional behavior (e.g., non-usage and
non-cooperation)to fairbehavior,such as seek-

ing of fairstructuralarrangementsforthe alloca-
tionof MISresources (e.g., steeringcommittees,
user controlover budgets, decentralization,etc.)
(Joshi, 1990a).
The next section analyzes a user's view of
changes (introducedby an implementationfrom
an equity theory perspective) and presents the
equity-implementation (E-l)model.The following
section presents three examples from the MIS
context to illustratethe applicationof the model.
Next is a discussion of the implicationsof the E-l
model along withsome guidelines for managing
the implementationprocess. The finalsection in-
cludes a discussion of contributionsof the re-
search, limitations, and directions for future
research.
Model
Equity-Implementation
Equitytheory suggests that in every exchange
relationship,individualsare constantlyconcerned
abouttheirinputs,outcomes, and the fairness of
the exchange. Individualsare also constantly
comparing themselves with others in their
reference group to assess whether the relative
gains are the same (Adams,1963; 1965;Walster,
et al., 1978). In such an environment,when a
change is introducedit is likely to change the
inputs and outcomes of individualsand other
parties involved in the exchange. When the
changes in inputs and outcomes are such that
on the whole the individualperceives a decline
in his/her net gains, or inequity compared to
others, the individualis likelyto be distressed.
Equitytheory suggests the greater the inequity
or decline in net gain, the greater the resulting
distresswouldbe. Individuals who experiencethe
distress of inequityor loss of equity are likelyto
resent the change and resist it by attemptingto
minimizetheir inputs and others' outcomes as
well as by attemptingto increase others' inputs.
On the other hand, individualswho perceive an
increase in theirequityare likelyto welcome the
change.
An importantstep in developing the model is to
identifythe differentevaluationprocesses a user
may employ in determininga change in equity
due to an implementation. Giventhatwe are deal-
ing with an organizationalcontext, the task of
identifyingrelevantequityevaluationprocesses
can be guided by the likelycomparisons within
an organizationalcontext.Inthe followingdiscus-
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
sion the organizationis termedthe employerand
an affected individualis termed the user. The
modelin Table 1 identifiesthree levels of analysis
thatan individualmayuse in assessing the equity
situation. These three levels of analysis are
discussed below.
Firstlevel of analysis
Atthe firstlevelof analysis,a user wouldevaluate
the impactor likelyimpactof the implementation
of a new system in termsof the resultingchange
in his/her outcomes and inputsas noted above.
Ifthe net gain due to change (i.e., AOutcomes
- A Inputs)is positive,users wouldbe favorably
inclinedtowardthe change. However,if the per-
ception of the net gain is negative, users would
view the change as unfavorableand resent it.
Changes in outcomes are defined as the per-
ceived benefitsor losses thatthe implementation
of a system bringsabout for the user. Some ex-
amples of change in outcomes may be better
workingconditions,less tension, loss of seniori-
ty, or increased riskof losing one's job. Similar-
ly, changes in inputs are the additionalefforts,
skills, or abilitiesthat a user may need to bring
to the job. Some examples of changes in inputs
may be increased workload,increased cognitive
effort,or fewer physicaltasks. Table2 lists some
likely changes in the outcomes and inputs for
users due to an information
system or technology
implementation.
Second level of analysis
When new technologies or systems are intro-
duced the resultingimprovementsin productivi-
ty are likelyto generate benefits for employers.
Users who participatein the implementationof
the new technology are likely to feel that they
should also share fairlyin the benefitsgenerated
on accountof users' and employer'scollaborative
effort in introducingthe new system or tech-
nology. Users are likelyto expect thatthe profits
or benefits should be shared in proportionto the
deservingness of each party.
Therefore,at the second level of analysis, a user
is likelyto comparethe change in his/herrelative
outcomes withthatof the employer.(Table1 pre-
sents the conceptual formulationfor an assess-
ment of change in relativeoutcomes.) Leventhal
(1976a) identifiedthat in additionto the contribu-
MIS Quarterly/June1991 231
User's Perspective on Change

Table 1. Equity-ImplementationModel:
Process Employed by a User in the Assessment of
the Impact of an Implementation on His/Her Equity Status

Level of
Analysis Focus Criterion Operational Definition

1 Self Change in equity Net change in

status of self equity status = A Outcomes - A Inputs
2 Self and Fair sharing of A Relative vs. A Relative
and the profits(benefits) outcomes* outcomes
employer between self and of self of the employer
the employer
3 Self and Asymmetryin A Relative vs. A Relative
other the impact on outcomes outcomes
users equity when of self of other users
compared with
other users in
the reference
group

*Change in relative outcomes may be expressed as:

A Outcomes
A Relative outcomes =
on account of Deservingness
the change
and
Deservingness = Weighted average of outcomes expected based upon contributions
(inputs), merit, equality, or other criteria
tions criterion(i.e., inputs),individualsmay also users' perceptions of fairness in the outcomes
expect outcomes based upon criteriasuch as receiveddue to the change (Joshi, 1989b;Leven-
equality (a special case where inputs of all are thal, 1976b). For example, if some change is
considered the same), need, or merit(a relevant made on an arbitrarybasis withoutusers' involve-
input). Therefore, the expected deservingness ment, users may perceive greater inequitycom-
may be viewed as a weighted average of out- paredto the introductionof the same change with
comes or gains expected based uponthe criteria properbargainingor involvementprocess. Thus,
identified above. A user is likely to evaluate the issue of proceduresused in determiningthe
whetherthe gains have been shared betweenthe relativeallocationmay also be relevantin some
employer and himself/herself in proportionto contexts.
each one's respectivedeservingness. Ifthe user
feels that the employer (or the stock holders'
group)has obtained greater relativegains com-
paredto himself/herselfor his/hergroup,the user Thirdlevel of analysis
is likely to become distressed and view the
At the thirdlevel of analysis, a user is likelyto
change as unfavorable.
compare his/her relative outcomes with that of
In some instances the issue of proceduralfair- other users in the reference group. Some rele-
ness may also be relevant. This can influence vant questions would be: Does the new system

232 MIS Quarterly/June1991

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Table 2. Possible Changes in Outcomes and Inputs on Account of Implementation
Increase in Outcomes
* More pleasant work environment
* Less tension, more job satisfaction
* More opportunitiesfor advancement
* Better service to customers
* Recognition, better visibility
* Salary increase, grade increase, or
higher-leveltitle
* Increase in power and influence
* Learninga marketableskill
* Reduced dependence on others
* Usefulness of the system
Decrease in Outcomes
* Reduced job satisfaction
* Reduced power
* Reduced bargainingpower relative
to the employer or others
* Threatof loss of employment
* Loss of value of marketableskills
* Reduced importance,control
* Increased monitoring
* Reduced scope for advancement
* More role conflict and ambiguity
* Potentionalfailure in learning and
adopting the new system
impact all users similarly,or does the system
resultin increasingsome users equityand lower-
ing others? Ifa user feels that some other users
or user groups have benefitedfromthe new sys-
tem while he/she has not benefited at all or not
as much,the user is likelyto experience inequity
and assess the change as unfavorable.As dis-
cussed above, in some instances the issue of
proceduralfairnessmayalso be relevantin deter-
mining the fairness perceptions in the relative
allocationof resources to differentuser groups.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
Increase in Inputs
* Morework in entering data
* Moretension
* Bringinghigher level skills to the job
* Effortin learning a new system
* Assignment of additionaltasks
* More effort in performingtasks in
view of increased monitoring
* Need to spend more time
* Fear of unknown(e.g., failure)and
the resultinganxiety
Decrease in Inputs
* Ease of usage
* Less effort
* Reduced search for solutions or
information
* Reduced manual effort
* Reduced cognitive effort
* Less reworkdue to fewer errors
Allthree levels of analysis are likelyto be impor-
tant in determiningthe equity perceptions of a
user. In addition,however, to considerationsof
his/herown outcomes and inputs,a user's equi-
ty perceptions may also be influenced by con-
siderationof changes in the outcomes and inputs
of his/her groupor department.Stronggroup or
departmentalidentificationor affiliationmay pro-
vide a frameof reference for the user to assess
his/her own outcomes and inputs on the basis
of the outcomes and inputs of the group (Joshi,
MIS Quarterly/June1991 233
User's Perspective on Change
1989b). The strengthof group identificationand
its influence on equity perceptions may depend
upon the nature of the group, the size of the
group, and the type of outcomes and inputs be-
ing considered.
Users' assessment of changes in theirown and
others' inputsand outcomes is an importantas-
pect of the determinationof the impact of a
change on equity. Differentusers are likelyto
consider differentfactors as relevantinputsand
outcomes and may assign differentvalues to dif-
ferentfactorsin arrivingat the overallassessment
of inputsand outcomes. Therefore,outcomes or
inputsinthe modelrepresentbenefitsor contribu-
tions adjusted for their relativeimportance.For
example, a benefitsuch as a $200 pay raise may
be considered a greater outcome compared to
a benefitsuch as a $200 increase in the budget.
Even the same factor may be considered as an
input by some users and an outcome by other
users. Forexample, learninga new system (e.g.,
a popularwordprocessingpackage)may be con-
sidered as an effort (i.e., an input) by an old
employee who is unlikelyto rise furtheror seek
a change in his/her job. But learning the new
system may be considered as the acquisitionof
a marketableskill(i.e., an outcome) by a young,
ambitiousemployee who may be able to take ad-
vantage of the new skill in seeking a better job
or promotionover time. Thus, it is not unusual
that different users may evaluate the same
change differently.
The next section providessome insightsintothe
nature of inputs and outcomes considered by
users throughthree examples fromdifferentim-
plementationcontexts. The examples also help
us understandthe natureof the evaluationpro-
cess and the three levels of analysis in determin-
ing the overall impact of change on equity.
Examples illustratingthe E-l model
Example 1: Introductionof ComputerSystems
for Clinical Laboratory Personnel
Inthis section we examine the details of a case
study reportedby Kaplanand Duchon(1988) in-
volving computer systems implementedfor re-
porting laboratorytesting results in a hospital.
Essentially,Kaplanand Duchonreportedthat in
theirquestionnairesurvey, differences in users'
(clinicallaboratorypersonnel)reactionsto the in-
234 MIS Quarterly/June1991
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
troductionof new computer systems could not
be explained by factors such as job characteris-
tics, role conflict and ambiguity,departmental
technology, and leader-member relationships.
However,an analysis of data obtained from in-
terviews and open-ended questions suggested
that users' reactions to computer systems can
be explained by their assessment of change in
workloadand change in results reporting.
Kaplan and Duchon used a process-oriented/
product-orientedclassificationof users in order
to explaintheirresults. Users were viewed to be
process-orientedifthey believed that theirwork-
load increased and product-orientedif they be-
lieved that the service providedto doctors and
nurses improved.However,the validityand gen-
eralizabilityof the new user characterizationpro-
posed by Kaplanand Duchon are questionable
and have not been established.
Clinicallaboratorypersonnel'sdifferentreactions
to implementationcan be explained by the E-l
model withoutresortingto a new characteriza-
tionof users. Atthe firstlevelof analysis,all users
are likelyto view increased workloadas an in-
crease in inputs,thoughthe magnitudeassigned
maydiffer.Users may also view as outcomes the
reduction/elimination of interruptionson account
of frequent telephone calls from doctors and
nurses, better service provided, and faster
delivery of results. Users are likely to vary in
terms of value they assign to these outcomes.
Some users may not even consider some of the
above factors as relevantoutcomes. Users who
view increased workloadas a significant addi-
tional inputthat outweighs the outcomes on ac-
count of reduced interruptions,better service,
fewer errors,etc., are likelyto perceive a loss of
equityand viewthe new system unfavorably. This
is supportedin Kaplanand Duchon'sstudy. Sim-
ilarly,users who felt that outcomes on account
of better service and less interruptionsout-
weighed an increase in the inputson account of
increasedworkloadshould reactfavorablyto the
new system. This is also supportedin Kaplanand
Duchon'sstudy. The magnitudeof a user's posi-
tiveor negativereactionto the system willdepend
upon the user's perceptionof the magnitudeof
net change in equity status. The E-l model also
recognizesthatusers who feel thatadditionalout-
comes nearlymatch the additionalinputs need-
ed are likelyto be relativelyindifferentto the new
system.

The modelalso suggests some otherrelevantin-
puts and outcomes not consideredin Kaplanand
Duchon'sstudy.These may be the effortto learn
the new system, impacton wages or promotion
prospects,computermonitoringof laboratoryper-
sonnel, etc.
Atthe second level of analysis is the question of
sharingthe benefits of the new system between
the hospitaland the laboratorypersonnel. Inthis
case it appears that the benefits may be some-
whatambiguousor intangible;therefore,the im-
pact on equity at this level of analysis may not
be very significant. It would not be surprising,
however,ifsome clinicallaboratorypersonnelex-
pect higher pay or job levels due to their in-
creased inputsand the benefits that the system
may bringto the hospital.
The thirdlevel of analysis considers the issue of
the impactof the new system on the relativeequi-
ty positionof differentuser groups. Inthis case,
the new system appearsto have nearlythe same
impact for all laboratorypersonnel. However,
there are differencesin change in equityposition
when doctors and nurses are considered. Some
laboratorypersonnel are likelyto view that the
system increases their own workloadwhile it
benefits doctors and nurses substantiallyby im-
proving communication and service to them.
These lab users may not consider betterservice
to be an outcome.Thisasymmetryinthe benefits
of the system is a possible source of distress for
laboratorypersonnel.
Whilethis example has been presented primar-
ily as an illustrationof the applicationof the E-l
model,the modelsuggests an explanationof the
findings of Kaplanand Duchon withoutrelying
on a new characterizationof individuals.Unlike
Kaplanand Duchon's analysis, the model also
recognizes that some users may be indifferent
to the new system. The model is also useful in
identifyingadditional new factors that may be
relevant in this context.
Example2: Introductionof ComputerSystems
in Indian Banks
Employeeunions in publicsector banks in India
have traditionally
resistedthe introductionof com-
putersystems (Joshi and Sauter, 1991). The E-l
model can be used to explain the basis for this
resistance. At the first level of analysis, bank
employees may feel that the new system would
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
requireadditionalinputs in the formof learning
and understandingnew technology. Employees
may also be apprehensiveabout possible nega-
tive outcomes such as computermonitoringand
reportingof theiractivities, loss of promotionor
advancement opportunities in a possibly
thinned-outorganization,and loss of controlover
workand bargainingpowerin an automatedbank
(i.e., reductionin impact of any likelystrike ac-
tion, as noticed in a recent strikeby a telephone
company's employees). Although,the govern-
ment has given fullassurances that none of the
employees would be laid off or terminated,the
possibilityof transferto an undesirablelocation
also remainsa likelynegative outcome forsome
employees. Some likelyincreases in outcomes
maybe fewererrors,bettercustomerservice,and
less fatigue. However,in view of strongernega-
tive outcomes, the first level of analysis may
returna possible net loss for employees.
At the second level of analysis, employees also
realizethatthere is likelyto be an increasein pro-
ductivity and profits due to computerization.
These benefits may be kept solely by the banks.
Therefore,one of the conditionsthat employees
have persistentlyadvanced for accepting com-
putersystems is that theirsalary scales and job
classificationsshould be upgraded.This is to en-
sure that benefitsof improvementsin productivity
are shared between employers and employees
on what employees consider to be a fair basis.
All of this appears to be in line withthe second
level proposed in the model. Further, if the
changes are not negotiated with the unions
throughthe normalbargainingprocesses, users
may perceive proceduralinequityand question
the fairness of the outcomes.
Atthe thirdlevel of analysis, bankemployees are
likelyto be concerned about the distributionof
outcomes among differentemployees. Recently
the Indiangovernmentagreed to pay increases
for bank employees in branches where compu-
ters are to be installed. However, the bank
unions, who view the deservingness of all bank
employees to be the same, are insistingthatthe
pay increase should apply uniformlyto all em-
ployees, includingthose in the morethan 95 per-
cent of bank branches where computersare not
yet scheduled to be installed.
Thus, the E-l model appears to explain the
dynamicsof employeeresistanceto computeriza-
MIS Quarterly/June1991 235
User's Perspective on Change
tion in Indianbanks. Allthree levels of analysis
appear to be relevant in this context.
Example 3: Introductionof FourthGeneration
Languages
MISresearchershave generallyexaminedusers'
resistance to change. Reportsof traditionalpro-
grammers' resistance to the adoption of fourth
generation languages have also appeared in
trade publications.The E-l model suggests the
likelyreasons. Fourthgenerationlanguages may
reduce the employmentand advancementpros-
pects for traditionalprogrammers,resulting in
negative outcomes. Traditionalprogrammers
may also fear the loss of marketvalue and com-
petitiveadvantage in a skilldeveloped over time,
which is also a negative outcome. Further,addi-
tional inputs may be required to learn fourth
generation languages. Some likelypositive out-
comes may be faster customer service and re-
duction in backlog and overtime. Because
negative outcomes seem to dominateat the first
level of analysis, there appears to be a net loss
for traditionalprogrammers.Atthe second level
of analysis, the advantages of productivityim-
provement are likely to be mostly realized by
employers due to the programmers'generally
poorbargainingpower.Finally,at the thirdlevel,
when traditionalprogrammerscompare them-
selves with new programmerswho learn fourth
generation languages, there is a stronger case
for inequity.New programmersmay be able to
achieve the same outcomes as traditionalpro-
grammerswithfarfewer inputs.Thus, manytra-
ditional programmers are likely to view the
changes introduced by fourth generation lan-
guages unfavorably.
Guidelines for Managing
Change During
Implementation
The E-l model suggests the importance of
managing equity perceptionsfor successful im-
plementation.A necessary first step may be to
identifypossible equity concerns of users with
respectto the implementation. Actionsto improve
equityperceptions can be taken alongtwodimen-
sions. Attemptscan be made to improveequity
by altering the actual outcomes and inputs of
users, or by attemptingto alterusers' perceptions
236 MIS Quarterly/June1991
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of their own and others' inputs and outcomes.
Table3 summarizessome of the possible actions
that may be taken.
A numberof steps can be taken to increase the
actualoutcomes of users. Users can be given ad-
ditionaloutcomes in the formof an appropriate
wage or job status increase. This may be par-
ticularly relevant if the new system involves
development and use of higher-level skills by
users. Users' outcomes can also be increased
throughchanges in workingconditions(e.g., flex-
ible time schedule or reductionin the numberof
hours worked per week). Even if it is infeasible
to providethe above outcomes, otheractionscan
be undertaken.Forexample,the secretarieswho
learn a new word processing package can be
given appreciation letters, special skill cer-
tificates, recognition,and small awardsforcoop-
erating in the implementationand for learning
and using the new system. Users' fear of nega-
tive outcomes can be mitigatedif employees are
not discharged or laid off upon successful im-
plementation.Ifassurances can be givento users
as soon as possible on this issue, it may reduce
their negative outcomes.
The strategyof positiveequity(oroverequity)can
also be used to obtain user cooperation and a
favorable response to implementation.Equity
researchers have noted that positive equity is
also discomfortingto individuals (Greenberg,
1982). Mostindividualswho experience positive
equityin a relationshipfeel obligedto reciprocate
by increasing the outcomes of the participants
in the relationship(Krebs, 1982). The positive-
equitystrategyis used in manydifferentcontexts,
ranging from advertising, sponsorships, dona-
tions, sales and marketing,to social contexts
(compliments,entertaining,and gifts).
Some means for creating positive equity in the
MIScontext, such as givingappreciationletters,
praise, recognition,and awards for help in im-
plementationefforts,have been identifiedabove.
Additionalsteps may be to give users a posh
treatmentin trainingprograms,design reviews,
and briefingsessions. Manyprofessionaltrainers
wouldattest to the value of good food, plushsur-
roundings,souvenirs, and elegant trainingma-
terials in inducing positive equity among
participants.Participantsmayview such training
programsas an outcome ratherthan an effortor
input.
 User's Perspective on Change

Table 3. Suggestions for Improving Equity Impacts of Implementation

Strategy Objective Actions

Alteringactual Reduce users' * Well-designedtrainingprogramsto reduce learning

inputs and inputs effort and frustrations
outcomes *
Help line/on-demandhelp
* Extratemporarystaff or overtime help during
implementation
Increase users' * Positive equity through "royal/plushtreatment"in
outcomes trainingprograms,design reviews, or briefing
sessions
* Praise, recognition,awards
* Salary/gradeincrease
* Job reclassification
* Alleviateconcerns about loss of employment,future
prospects

Altering Reduce users' * Emphasize learning new skills as outcomes rather

perceptions of inputs than inputs
inputs and Increase users' *
outcomes Emphasize the status and prestige of workingin a
outcomes modern environmentwith latest technology/
(through innovation
suitable
training, * Emphasize the outcomes on account of learning new
communication, marketableskills
andfair * Explainemployer's inputs and deservingness (e.g.,
Employer'sinput
procedures) and outcomes risks, investment, R & D effort, etc.)
* Explainthe need to pass on the benefits to
customers on account of the competition
Other's inputs * Explainbetter-treatedusers' deservingness
and outcomes
Users' * Fair procedures for user involvement,bargaining,
perceptions of and negotiations with user representatives
procedural
fairness

Implementorscan also take steps to minimize
users' inputs.Some inputsthatusers have to pro-
vide in implementationincludelearningeffort,ad-
ditional tasks to be performed,and additional
time requirements.The effortinvolvedin learn-
ing new systems can be reduced throughbetter
teaching materials,personal attention,and on-
demand help in diagnosing and solving prob-
lems. Implementorscan also attempt to an-
ticipate the additional workload and provide
additionaltemporaryhelp or monetarycompen-
sation (e.g., overtime pay). It may be easier to
offer such help if it is already planned and
budgeted for in the projectcost.

MIS Quarterly/June1991 237

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
The second strategy for improving equity is
through altering users' perceptions about their
own and others' inputs and outcomes. Equity
researchersrecognizethe importanceof training
and communicationin alteringindividuals'per-
ceptions about inputsand outcomes. Forexam-
ple, Greenberg(1982)discusses howsupervisory
trainingprogramscan lead the newly promoted
supervisorsto view their increased responsibili-
ty as a desirable goal, i.e., an outcome fromthe
new job.
Trainingand communicationare likelyto be im-
portant tools for managing user perceptions
about inputsand outputs and the distributionof
benefits, particularlywhen users' perceptions
may be formedin the absence of pertinentinfor-
mation. Users can be influenced to view learn-
ing as an outcome that willimprovemobilityand
job prospects ratherthan as an input.The bene-
fits of the new system can be emphasized in im-
provingworkingconditions and qualityof work.
Trainingprogramscan also present the use of
the latest technology and systems as outcomes
for users.
The question of distributionof benefits among
employer and employees is also important.As-
suming that a fair attempt has been made to
share the benefits, users can be convinced to
viewthe company'ssurvivaland financialviability
against the competitionas a desirable outcome
that would bring stability and security to their
jobs. This should mitigate users' perception of
unfairallocation.Forexample, no airlinecan sur-
vive without computerizationof reservations.
Therefore, in a highly competitiveenvironment
the employermay be forcedto pass on the bene-
fits of computerizationto consumers. Properly
disseminatingthis informationshould help miti-
gate perceptions of inequityby employees.
Users' perceptions of inequity can also be
mitigatedby explainingthe deservingness of the
better-treateduser groupsthroughsuitabletrain-
ing and communicationprogramsdesigned to re-
duce the perceived inequity.Forexample, in the
clinicallaboratorycase study (discussed earlier),
lab personnel may feel that the system favors
doctorsand nurses. Inequityon this account can
be mitigatedby explainingthe deservingness of
doctors and nurses by highlightingissues such
as the very highcost of theirtime, time pressure,
urgency of reportsfor saving patients' lives, im-
238 MIS Quarterly/June1991
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
portanceof patientservice for hospitalbusiness,
etc. Thus, the E-l model suggests guidelines for
focusingthe objectiveand contentof trainingand
communicationprograms.
Finally,the establishmentof fairprocedures for
determiningthe relative outcomes for different
user groups and forthe employerand users may
also contributeto loweringthe perceptionof in-
equity in the relative allocation of outcomes.
Changes that are introducedthroughsome fair
procedure,such as bargainingwithtradeunions,
negotiations,and user involvementand participa-
tion,are likelyto be viewedbetterat least interms
of proceduralfairness.
Whilethe above analysis providesguidelinesfor
managingimplementationefforts,all implemen-
tationproblemscannot be overcome. Forexam-
ple, the distress of inequityexperiencedby users
who are about to lose theirjobs due to the new
system cannot be overcome despite the best ef-
fortsof implementors.The decision to terminate
users may be beyond the controlof implemen-
tors. However,to the extent possible, such ex-
treme inequities should be avoided. Highly
inequitabletreatmentof some users, such as ter-
mination,is likelyto influencethe equitypercep-
tions of other users as well. Equityresearchers
have recognized the importanceof group iden-
tification in determiningan individual'sequity
perceptions (Joshi, 1989b). When a user views
other inequitablytreated users as belonging to
his/hergroup(e.g., clericalgroup,departmental
group, lab technologists' group, etc.), even the
better-treatedusers may develop perceptionsof
inequity. For example, if a clerical user is dis-
charged, other clerical users in the reference
group may also feel inequitablytreated.
Conclusion
This articledevelops a theory-basedunderstand-
ing of informationsystems users' resistance to
change. It describes a three-level process em-
ployed by users to evaluate a change in terms
of its impacton theirequitystatus. To assess the
change in equity,users are viewed as evaluating
theirnet gain based uponchanges in theirinputs
and outcomes and comparingtheir relativeout-
comes withthat of other users/user groups and
the employer.

of the research
Contributions
The modelprovidesan alternatetheoreticalbasis
for explaining and predicting resistance to
change as well as differentuser assessments of
the same change. The frameworkof analysispre-
sented inthe model is likelyto be usefulforprac-
tioners as well as researchers. Some guidelines
for implementationidentifiedin this article may
be usefulformanagingIS implementation. Unlike
some previous models, it can be appliedto any
level of change or implementation,rangingfrom
the implementationof a word processing pack-
age involvingone or moreusers to the implemen-
tationof largeintegratedsystems involvingmany
users in one or more departments.
Previous MIS research, based upon different
theoretical perspectives, has made substantial
progress in understandingusers' resistance to
changes introducedby IS implementation. There-
fore, one importantaspect of elaboratingthe con-
tributionsof this study wouldbe to examine how
this study improves upon previous work. The
three levels of the E-l model should be appro-
priate for organizingthis discussion.
Atthe firstlevelof analysis,previousstudies have
identifiedand focused upon one or two specific
factorsat a time. Forexample, Davis(1989)iden-
tifiedease of use (less inputs)and usefulness (an
outcome);Markus(1983)identifiedpower(an out-
come);Turner(1984) identifiedstress (a negative
outcome)and job satisfaction(an outcome);Joshi
(1989a) identifiedrole conflictand role ambigui-
ty (negativeoutcomes);and Kaplanand Duchon
(1988) identifiedimprovedcustomer service (an
outcome)and increasedworkload(an input).This
studysuggests thatthese differentfactorsshould
be viewedas inputsand outcomes and thatusers
are likely to consider all of them together in
assessing a change. The model identifiesusers'
concern foran equitybalance in theirinputsand
outcomes and the need for a net gain in equity
balance fora change to be consideredfavorable.
Models that consider only a few inputs or out-
comes may be omittingimportantvariablescon-
sidered by users. The model clarifiesthe issue
of relevantinputs and outcomes; therefore,the
search forotherrelevantfactorscan be facilitated
in futureresearch.Forexample, itwas notedthat
trained secretaries may view their higher-level
skills as an additionalinput.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
The second and thirdlevels of analysis consider
the interestsof differentgroups. PreviousMISre-
search has focused mainlyon the thirdlevel of
analysis. Markus(1983) identifiedthe issue of
conflictand struggleamongdifferentuser groups
as providingmotivationforresistanceto change.
Twokey elements of this politicalperspectiveare:
conflictbetween differentuser groups, and their
attemptsto gain power and otherresources (out-
comes). Inthe E-l model, conflictor struggle for
poweris not necessary. The E-lmodeldescribes
a process of comparisonthat can occur with or
withoutany direct interactionor conflictamong
differentgroups. Thus, the model makes less re-
strictive assumptions. According to equity re-
searchers, the process of comparisonis likelyto
be relevant in most settings, even among par-
ticipantswho do not interactdirectly.Therefore,
the model has a widerapplicabilitycomparedto
the politicalperspectivein explainingresistance
to implementation.Further,the relevant issues
forcomparisonshould be the overallrelativeout-
comes, which involve consideration of a wide
range of inputs and outcomes, in addition to
powerand computingresources.The modelalso
identifies the issue of comparison with the
employer (which may include stock holders) in
the second level of analysis.Comparisonwiththe
employer is not the same as comparison with
managers or other users, as clarifiedin the ex-
ample on Indianbanks.
Inthe contextof user acceptance of change, MIS
researchers have identifiedthe need for "an in-
tegratingparadigmto guide theorydevelopment
and to providea commonframeof referencewith-
in whichto integratevarious research streams"
(Davis, et al., 1989, p. 983). The E-l model has
the potentialto fulfillthis need. Itcould provide
an integratingframeworkforthe implementation,
user acceptance, and resistance to change re-
search. Whilefutureresearchshouldassess this
potential,there is some evidence to encourage
consideration of the model for this role. The
model provides an opportunity to integrate
separate streams of implementationresearch,
such as those pursued by Markus(1983) and
Davis(1989),underone framework.The relation-
ship between the workof Markusand Davis has
not been adequately recognized in the previous
research, as evident from the fact that Davis
(1989) does not cite Markus(1983). The three
levels of analysisproposedin the modelconsider
MIS Quarterly/June1991 239
User's Perspective on Change
a wide range of issues undera single framework
and, therefore,offeradditionalinsightsintousers'
assessment of implementation,as suggested by
the three examples discussed earlier.
Finally,the model also identifiesthe limitations
of implementorsin overcominguser resistance.
It identifies the issues that may be beyond the
authorityof many implementors(e.g., the issue
of pay raise or promotion).It may be necessary
to involvethe upperor top management to deal
with some of these issues. An appreciationof
user concerns as provided by the E-l model
should be useful for management in arrivingat
better, well-informeddecisions.
Limitations
The modelneeds to be tested inthe MISenviron-
ment.The fullrangeof inputsand outcomes con-
sidered by users also needs to be identified.
Some limitationsin the evaluationof inputs and
outcomes should also be recognized.There may
be some limitationsand weaknesses in users'
evaluationand decision-makingprocesses that
may limitthe objectivityof users' assessment to
some extent, although the extent of such dif-
ficultiesremainsto be fullyunderstood.Possible
fear and uncertaintyaboutthe natureof changes
may also make it difficultfor users to make an
objective assessment. Users may also lack
awareness of some outcomes and inputs.There-
fore,as additionalinformationbecomes available,
users may change theirassessment. Users may
also have mixed feelings about a given change.
However, once a system is installed, it should
be possible for users to make a better assess-
ment. If the change is viewed unfavorably,
resistance may develop and continueeven after
implementation.
Althoughthe model identifiesthe relevantissues
and problems considered by users, it does not
mean that there is an easy solution to some of
these issues. Issues such as fair sharing of
benefits with employers and increasing the
monetaryoutcomes of users may be beyondthe
control of many implementors.
Directionsfor futureresearch
The E-l model presented in this article raises a
number of research questions and opens up
240 MIS Quarterly/June1991
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
directionsforfutureresearch.The model can be
evaluated through case studies and empirical
studies in field settings. Research may be con-
ducted to identifythe relevant inputs and out-
comes considered by users in different imple-
mentation contexts. The relationshipbetween
perceived changes in inputs and outcomes and
users' assessment of a specific implementation
can also be investigated empirically.Develop-
ment of suitable instrumentsis also needed to
assess users' perceptions of equity impacts of
an implementation.
The effectiveness of strategies foralteringactual
inputs and outcomes and strategies for chang-
ing users' perceptions about inputs and out-
comes can also be investigatedthroughsuitable
interventionin fieldsettings and possiblythrough
laboratoryexperiments.
Acknowledgements
The authorwouldliketo thankProfessorMichael
Ginzberg,the associate editor,and the reviewers
for theirvaluable feedback and suggestions for
improvingthe article.
References
Adams, J.S. "TowardsAn Understandingof In-
equity," Journal of Abnormal and Normal
Social Psychology (67), 1963, pp. 422-436.
Adams, J.S. "Inequityin Social Exchange," in
Advances in Experimental Psychology, L.
Berkowitz(ed.), Academic Press, New York,
NY, 1965, pp. 267-299.
Baroudi,J.J., Olson, M.H.,and Ives, B. "AnEm-
piricalStudyof the Impactof User Involvement
on Systems Usage and InformationSatisfac-
tion," Communicationsof the ACM (29:3),
March1986, pp. 232-238.
Bostrom, R.P. "A Socio-Technical Perspective
on MISImplementation,"paper presented at
ORSA/TIMSNationalConference, Colorado
Springs, CO, November 1980.
Bostrom,R.P. and Heinen,J. "MISProblemsand
Failures:A Socio TechnicalPerspective:Part
I: The Causes," MIS Quarterly (1:3),
September 1977, pp. 17-32.
Clemons, E.K. "InformationSystems for Sus-
tainableCompetitiveAdvantage,"Information
and Management(11:3), 1986, pp. 131-136.

Danziger, J.N., Dutton, W.H., Kling, R., and
Kraemer,K.L.Computersand Politics,Colum-
bia UniversityPress, New York, NY, 1982.
Davis, F.D. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived
Ease of Use, and Acceptance of Information
Technology," MISQuarterly(13:3), Septem-
ber 1989, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw,P.R.
"User Acceptance of ComputerTechnology:
A Comparisonof Two TheoreticalModels,"
ManagementScience (35:8),August1989, pp.
982-1003.
Ginzberg, M.J. "A Study of the Implementation
Process," TIMSStudies in the Management
Sciences (13), 1979, pp. 85-102.
Ginzberg, M.J. "Early Diagnosis of MIS Im-
plementationFailure:PromisingResults and
Unanswered Questions," Management
Science (27:4), April1981, pp. 459-478.
Ginzberg,M.J.,Schultz, R., and Lucas, H.C. "A
StructuralModelof Implementation,"in Ap-
plicationsof ManagementScience: Manage-
ment Science Implementation,R. Schultz
(ed.), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984.
Greenberg, J. "ApproachingEquityand Avoid-
ing Inequityin Groups & Organizations,"in
Equity&Justice in Social Behavior,J. Green-
berg and R.L.Cohen (eds.), AcademicPress,
New York, NY, 1982, pp. 389-436.
Joshi, K. "Role Conflictand Role Ambiguityin
Systems Design," Omega: The International
Journalof ManagementScience (17:4), July
1989a, pp. 369-380.
Joshi, K. "TheMeasurementof Fairnessor Equi-
ty Perceptions of Management Information
Systems Users," MIS Quarterly(13:3), Sep-
tember 1989b, pp. 343-358.
Joshi, K. "UnderstandingInformationSystems
User Behavior," working paper, School of
Business Administration,Universityof Mis-
souri, St. Louis, MO, 1990a.
Joshi, K. "AnInvestigationof Equityas a Deter-
minant of User InformationSatisfaction,"
Decision Sciences (21:4), Fall 1990b,
pp. 786-807.
Joshi, K. "The Role of Systems Designers in
Organizations," Omega: The International
Journal of Management Science (18:5),
1990c, pp. 463-472.
Joshi, K. "A Causal Model of the OverallUser
AttitudesTowardthe MISFunction:The Case
of User InformationSatisfaction,"Information
and Management, forthcoming,1991.
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
User's Perspective on Change
Joshi, K. and Sauter, V.L. "Opportunitiesand
Constraints in the Formulationof an Infor-
matics Policy:The IndiaExperience," Infor-
mationand Management,forthcoming,1991.
Kaplan,B. and Duchon, D. "CombiningQuali-
tativeand QuantitativeMethodsin Information
Systems Research: A Case Study," MIS
Quarterly (12:4), December 1988, pp.
571-586.
Keen, P.G.W. "InformationSystems and Orga-
nizationalChange," Communicationsof the
ACM(24:1) January 1981, pp. 24-32.
Kling, R. "Social Analysis of Computing:
TheoreticalPerspectives in Recent Empirical
Research,"ComputingSurveys(12:1),March
1980, pp. 61-110.
Kling,R. and lacono, S. "The Controlof Infor-
mation Systems Developments After Im-
plementation,"Communicationsof the ACM
(27:12), December 1984, pp. 1218-1226.
Kolb,D.A.and Frohman,A.L. "AnOrganization
DevelopmentApproachto Consulting,"Sloan
Management Review (12:1), Fall 1970, pp.
51-65.
Krebs, D. "Prosocial Behavior, Equity, and
Justice," in Equity & Justice in Social
Behavior,J. Greenbergand R.L.Cohen(eds.),
Academic Press, New York, NY, 1982, pp.
261-308.
Kumar, K. and Welke, R.J. "Implementation
Failure and System Developer Values:
Assumptions, Truisms and Empirical
Evidence," Proceedings of the FourthInter-
nationalConferenceon InformationSystems,
Tuscon, AZ, December 1984, pp. 1-17.
Leventhal,G.S. "TheDistributionof Rewardsand
Resources in Groupsand Organizations,"in
Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology
(Vol. 9), L. Berkowitz,and E. Walster(eds.),
Academic Press, New York,NY, 1976a, pp.
91-131.
Leventhal, G.S. "Fairness in Social Relation-
ships," in ContemporaryTopics in Social
Psychology, J.W. Thibaut,J.T. Spence, and
R.C. Carson (eds.), General LearningPress,
Morristown,NJ, 1976b, pp. 211-240.
Lewin,K. "GroupDecisionand Social Change,"
in Readings in Social Psychology, T.L.
Newcomband E.L.Hartley(eds.), HenryHolt
and Company, New York, NY, 1952, pp.
459-473.
Lucas, H.C. "EmpiricalEvidence for a Descrip-
tive Modelof Implementation,"MISQuarter-
MIS Quarterly/June1991 241
User's Perspective on Change
ly (2:2), June 1978, pp. 27-41.
Lucas, H.C. Implementation:Key to Successful
InformationSystems, Columbia University
Press, New York, NY, 1981.
Markus,M.L."Implementation Politics:Top Man-
agement Support and User Involvement,"
Systems, Objectives,Solutions (1), 1981, pp.
203-215.
Markus,M.L. "Power, Politics and MIS Imple-
mentation," Communications of the ACM
(26:6), June 1983, pp. 430-444.
Mumford,E. and Pettigrew, A. Implementing
Strategic Decisions, Longman, London,
England, 1975.
Mumford,E. and Weir,M.ComputerSystems in
WorkDesign: The Ethics Method, Halstead
(Wiley),New York, NY, 1979.
Nichols,M.L."ABehavioralAnalysisforPlanning
MIS Implementation,"MIS Quarterly(5:1),
March1981, pp. 57-66.
Pfeffer, J. Power in Organizations, Pitman
Publications, Marshfield,MA, 1981.
Robey, D. and Markus,M.L."Ritualsin Informa-
tion Systems Design," MIS Quarterly(8:1),
March1984, pp. 5-15.
Schein, E.H. "ManagementDevelopment as a
Process of Influence,"IndustrialManagement
Review (2:2), Spring 1961, pp. 59-77.
Swanson, E.B. InformationSystem Implementa-
tion: Bridgingthe Gap Between Design and
Utilization,Irwin,Homewood, IL, 1988.
Turner,J.A. "ComputerMediatedWork:The In-
terplay Between Technology and Structured
Jobs," Communicationsof the ACM(27:12),
242 MIS Quarterly/June1991
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 19:34:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
December 1984, pp. 1210-1217.
Walster,R., Walster,G., and Berschied,E. Equi-
ty: Theoryand Research, Allynand Bacon,
Needham Heights, MA, 1978.
Wetherbe,J.C. and Dickson,G.W. TheManage-
ment of InformationSystems, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 1985.
Zmud, R.W. InformationSystems in Organiza-
tions, Scott Foresman and Company, Glen-
view, IL, 1983.
Zmud,R.W.and Cox, J.F. "The Implementation
Process:A ChangeApproach,"MISQuarterly
(3:2), June 1979, pp. 35-43.
About the Author
KailashJoshi is assistant professorof MISat the
Universityof Missouri-St.Louis.He received his
Ph.D. in managementinformationsystems from
IndianaUniversityin 1986. He has also worked
for 10 years in industryin the areas of purchas-
ing, materials,production,and systems. His cur-
rent research interests include user behavior,
user attitudes, management of MIS,user infor-
mation satisfaction, the politicalperspective of
MIS,information systems applications,computer
applicationsin developingcountries,and produc-
tionand materialsmanagement.Hisotherpapers
have appeared or are forthcoming in MIS
Quarterly,Decision Sciences, Informationand
Management,Omega: The International Journal
of ManagementScience, Journalof Purchasing
and MaterialsManagement,and Productionand
InventoryManagementJournal.