The Intersection of Technology and Organizational Culture

Implementation of new technology forces change. We adopt new technologies to enhance our core work functions, affecting related policies, administrative functions, and inevitably every component of the organization. For educational institutions, this outcome is due in part to pressures to integrate technology for teaching and learning, and to provide related services and training for faculty, staff, and students. With this all-consuming project comes the need to protect privacy and intellectual property, ensure data integrity, and maintain civility on the Internet and in the organization. The transforming power of technology goes beyond the "what we do" to the "who we are" as individuals and as an organization.

The more fluid the culture of the organization, the greater the potential for core work functions and policies to generate a positive organizational synergy. Hierarchical structure does not necessarily preclude a lack of fluidity. The definitions of leadership under which an organization functions determines fluidity and ultimately the ease with which technology can be utilized to further the mission of institution.

Implementation of new technology is perpetual, affecting decision-making on multiple levels. Organizational culture and the type of leadership exercised has significant impact on how we respond to change and technology implementation strategies. The answer to "What are we as leaders going to attend to?" has a significant effect on organizational culture.

When we focus only on the technology without attending to cultural and personal elements, we fail in both arenas. Constant flux has become the nature of technology and our organizations. Where the decision-making processes are attentive to the people-side and cross-functional nature of all endeavors, our viability is enhanced. It also facilitates compliance when initiating new technology and the related policies.

James O'Toole (1996) said:

. . . treating people with respect is what moral leadership is about, and nothing could be harder. But when there is organizational or social necessity for change, nothing can be more practical.

Peter Block (1993) spoke of stewardship as a central value to leadership:

Part of the meaning of stewardship is to hold in trust the well-being of some larger entity - our organizations, our community, . . . placing service ahead of control . . . There is humility in stewardship, it evokes images of service. Service is central to the idea of stewardship. (p. 41)

In a proposal to Educause entitled "Client Advocacy: Client-Centric Approach to Technology and Related Services", Corcoran and Cotter (2000) describe an example of such stewardship in the role of the Client Advocacy Office (CAO) at Michigan State University.

Stewardship and advocacy on behalf of clients can ensure institution-wide success. The creation of the Client Advocacy Office demonstrates the effect of HOW integration of client advocacy into the initiation and delivery of services, data resource administration, implementation of institutional policies, and procedures can create significant synergistic results.

 

The extent to which an institution addresses and integrates client advocacy into technology development and services may provide a means to measure the success the institution as a whole will accrue in the future. To provide a voice for our clients, we need to ensure that advocacy is fully factored into our organization, throughout the process of design, implementation, data resource management, measurement, and the evaluation of technology services. Redefining what information is attended to and input sought is the challenge.

 

It must be noted that advocacy is not synonymous with consulting. Advocacy is complimentary to technology advisory structures. Furthermore, the role of a client's advocate must be held separate, at times, from the policy or decision-making bodies.

Where stewardship is fostered, the institution will wrestle with a number of critical questions. What are the organization's needs as an entity? What are the individual needs? How do technology services fit into that mission? How do we engender connectedness with those we serve? What are the technology needs of the first generation learner, the adult learner, the distance learner, and the persons with disabilities? Can we foster confidence in our clients as technology users?

How do the diverse populations within our institution relate to technology - as a tool, a toy, a necessary evil, or an extension of self? What are the needs specific to professors, staff, students, or administrators? How do we best to serve the broadest spectrum of individuals in a 24/7/365 environment? How do assist our staff in capturing a vision of stewardship in their realm of providing services?

Though not readily apparent, answers to these questions do have a significant impact on the culture of the organization, on successful technology adoption, and in the development and delivery of effective technology training. Stewardship elementally changes how we think, speak, relate, handle difficult situations, and learn.

Michigan State University's The New Educator recently published "Touching the Future", an interview with Provost Lou Anna K.Simon. In that interview, Simon (2000) identified some relevant issues at Michigan State University - and I believe for other educational institutions.

One of the things I think about, one of the continuing challenges, is blending knowing and being. The land-grant university... had a characteristic that its students would have this extraordinary competence and knowledge... . ...I think our unique challenge in the years ahead is not simply to chase technology as an additional skill, but to really think about what it means in the context of balancing the being and the knowing. How do we think about the educated citizen for this new world? ...It's time to look at the root value that was here in 1855 and to think about how it translates to our time... focusing on how the organization can be fluid enough to be adaptive and responsive. So as I look to the future, it isn't about being like a business, but finding the right set of characteristics so that we can stay both grounded in our academic values and roots and at the same time have the ability to see those values manifested in different programs and organizational structures.

Without finding those "right set of characteristics" and seeing the "values manifested in different programs and organizational structures", we cannot provide technology services and training or assist faculty or any other group in a way that supports their function at the University. If we attend to the "who", we will better be able to handle the "do". As significant technology issues develop and new technology services evolve, adopting a stewardship frame contributes significantly to the success of our institutions, allowing us to better represent and serve our diverse populations.

References

     Block, P., (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self interest. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
     Corcoran, C. K., & Cotter, R. D., (2000). Client advocacy: Client-centric approach to technology and related services. Proposed paper for conference presentation at Educause 2000. Available on line: http://www.msu.edu/~corcora1 /edprop2000.html.
     O'Toole, J., (1995). Leading change: The argument for values-based leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
     Simon, L. A. K., (2000, Spring). Touching the Future. New Educator, 6 (1).

For other related information by this author, please see:

http:// www.educ.msu.edu/units/dept/ead/teamlead/comptech.html

http://www.msu.edu/user/c orcora1/comstyles.html

http://www.ms u.edu/user/corcora1/educom98/ed98prop.html