Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Information and organisational politics
Davenport et al., (1992) use the term information politics to refer to the power play one is likely to fmd in any organisation as a result of the unique information people have. Attempts to implement information management or to become information-based companies have failed in many organisations studied by Davenport and his colleagues because, in their views, the politics of infonnation was not properly managed.
They foliDd that the bigger the emphasis placed by the organisation on infonnation, the less people are likely to share it. Five models of information politics are defmed by Davenport and his colleagues (1992: 55):
• Technocratic Utopianism. This is foliDd where a strong emphasis is placed upon technology. Usually driven by the information systems department, the aim is to provide technology to each and every desktop so that infonnation can be delivered instantaneously. The information itself and its contents are often given little or no attention. In this model it is believed (by the technocrats) that those having information of value will share it willingly with others; from there the expression « Utopia ».
• Anarchy. Organisations fitting this model have no prevailing political infonnation model and exist in a state of anarchy. It usually happens where no key executive realises the value of common infonnation and everyone is allowed to keep his own infonnation.
• Feudalism. This model was encoliDtered most by the researchers. In this model each key executive control the infonnation within his area of responsibility. In this model it is extremely difficult for the central authority to make informed decisions for the common good.
• Monarchy. In this model power is centralised in one person; either the CEO or someone empowered by him.
• Federalism This is the preferred model, according to the research of Davenport and colleagues. It treats information politics as natural and legitimate and let people with different interests work out between themselves something acceptable to all. It is suggested that an organisation frrst determine the model applicable to it, then to select the model it ideally wants, taking its culture into account. They recommend only two models found to be viable, namely, monarchy and federalism. Federalism is more difficult to implement as it relies on the cooperation of its employees to willingly share information. For this reason monarchy is easier and can be just as effective (Davenport et al., 1992: 60). Davenport and his colleagues make a very valuable contribution towards understanding how information is treated by both employees and the organisation. It is naive to expect managers and other users of information to suddenly start sharing information willingly based on a few policy and procedural statements. The reason for this relates back to the information-ispower concept or, as Davenport and his colleagues (1992: 54) state so elegantly: « One reason the stakes are so high in information politics is that more than information is at stake ».
Information and forms of Government
Control over information by the State puts it in a powerful position. Should the ruling government take the form of an autocracy, it would be important for the state to control information strictly. Only information favouring such a government would be disseminated to citizens. In this regard information technology could play a strategic role. In this regard, Lyon (1991: 95) quotes South Africa as an example. He refers to the pass law system which, without technology, the » … white minority government could not keep track of black employment and housing without the [IBM based] automated system ». With the right technology, the state has the infrastructure needed to record all sorts of personal information regarding its citizens so that surveillance becomes a reality. The linking of all the different bits of data contained in many different data bases, both those of the state and private ones, would indeed put a state in a very powerful position, a position which could easily be put to use for political gain. Most governments have the infrastructure needed to accomplish this kind of « electronic surveillance » systems already in place, for example, (West) Germany with their computer readable identity card system, the United Kingdom with electronic surveillance of motor car licence plates and the National Security Agency in the USA (Lyon, 1991: 95- 96). These are only examples – some with legitimate applications – but with the potential of « Big
Brother » watching over citizens. The last decade saw a demise of socialism with the dramatic fall of the soviet republics as the stronghold. Naisbitt and Aburdene (1990: 77) argue that this demise can be attributed to (i) the global economic forces at work (insustainability of a closed, self-sufficient economy), (ii) technology as an enabler for the global economy and (iii) the failure of a centrally planned economy to make way for decentralisation and market-driven entrepreneurship.
In addition, an contrast to earlier times, the individual has become much more important; a focus away from the state to the individual. This was acknowledged by the Soviet Union in its acceptance of glasnost which is nothing other than openness and transparency; a free flow of information and communication. The opening up of communication channels via television, the printed media and, in general, freedom of speech cannot be underestimated. The wide-spread use of technology has empowered individuals: « Computers, cellular phones, and fax machines empower individuals, rather than oppress them, as previously feared » (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990: 281 ). Global television networks such as CNN make people aware of what is happening elsewhere. This access to « foreign » information coming in via transborder television, lead to the demise of East Germany. In Poland the state tried to suppress the use of satellite dishes using feeble arguments relating to the environment( » … the landscape has to be preserved »), but satellite dish companies cannot keep up with the demand (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990: 96). People want information and they will not be stopped in their quests for it.
On the other hand, the State could go a long way in obtaining understanding from its citizens by sharing information with them. It could even allow them to participate or, at least, to influence decision making through interactive cable television, called push-button polling or the « electronic town hall ». The Canadian parliament broadcasts press conferences and committee hearings over 104 television channels (Lyon, 1991: 88) while the House of Lords in London and the House of Representatives in the U.S. are covered by 1V (Lyon, 1991: 91). It is possible to send hard copy letters through CompuServe or the InterNet, two of many global electronic networks, to members of the US Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Vice President or the President.
These are all examples of how the state can use technology to disseminate information to and solicit opinions from its citizens. Technology enables participation. The prophets of the information society see a society being given a wider choice regarding politics and participation in decision making nationally (Lyon, 1991: 12). With the use of information technology, citizens could participate almost instantaneously in decisions affecting them (Lyon, 1991: 86). This electronic recording of opinions and even votes, however, has a serious ethical implication and raises many moral questions as to privacy, ownership and other issues as discussed earlier.
The change from autocratic forms of government to focus on the individual, its rights and its participation in the governance of the nation, is facilitated by information technology and its ability to let information flow freely. Without modem technology such as real-time television from around the globe, computers and computer networks (data highways), cellular phones and fax machines, empowerment of the individual would have been much more difficult, if not impossible. Once again, information helps to shape the world and how we, as society, are living and being governed in it.
CHAPTER I PURPOSE, RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY AND STRUCTURE
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Purpose of research
1.2.1 BackgrolU1d
1.2.2 Problem definition
1.2.3 Objectives of the study and research questions
1.2.4 Contribution of the study
1.3 Research philosophy and approach
1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.2 Information Management: Natural science or social science?
1.3.3 Social research
1.3.3.1 A taxonomic framework
1.3.4 The research approach followed
1.4 Structure of the thesis
1.5 Conclusion
