-
1. Introduction
Socio-technical systems theory resides, ontologically, in the domain of structural theories of
regulation and stabilization. The theory assumes that productive work-systems rest in a state of
equilibrium between the social-human side; and the technical-structural side; and that this balance is
enabled through design and management. This line of thinking is widely recognized as the
IScommunity’s axis of cohesion [
1
]. One of the main tenets in socio-technical work-systems is to achieve
both economic and humanistic objectives [
1, 2, 3
]. To ensure this, another doctrine holds that technical
innovation must be developed and implemented in recognition of the organizational characteristics,
while humans on the other side, must adapt themselves to new ways of working, made possible by the
new technology [
4
].
Traditionally, in socio-technical systems philosophy, the processes (i.e. mechanisms) that trigger a
stable and productive outcome from a work-system have been labeled technical institutionalization and
technical socialization [
4
]. Technical institutionalization is the process of generalizing value and
behavior patterns, through innovation of technology, to the entire work-system, while technological
socialization is the process through which the work-system then channels and shapes the behavior of
the individuals, and integrates them into a common culture [
4
].
The way these processes influence each-other, have given name to yet another important tenet in
socio-technical systems, namely the safeguarding of a reciprocal balanced relationship between the
technical side and the social side of the work-systems, so that these processes are seen as beneficial and
resulting in both productivity and well-being [
5
].
When scrutinizing IS-research papers [
1
] and practical approaches to planned IT-changes in
worksystems [
3
] it becomes evident that the development of the social-side of organizations, putting forth
humanistic objectives, have had a lesser focus in later years. As such, instrumental outcomes and
economic gains have been favored [
1-3
]. Accordingly, in the pursuit of establishing effective
worksystems with profitable outcomes, managers and IS-researchers have looked at the more tangible side
of costs and the potential of efficiency and competitiveness from information processing technologies
[
1-3
]. With the recent urgency for implementing new digital technology, reaping the benefits of market
data and data-driven decision-making, the focus on IT-infrastructure and IT-investments has risen
sharply [
6
]. Yet, the failure rate from IT-projects are at a staggering high percentage of 83,9 % according
to the Standish Group Survey in 2019 [
7
]. At the same time, employee-engagement and job-satisfaction
are low, just 15% of the entire workforce feel highly engaged and 76% experience high stress levels
[
8
]. These numbers indicate that rapid implementation of an increasing amount of digital technology
into work-systems does not result in job-engagement and well-being. Neither do they result in
successful IT-projects. Some researchers indicate that digital transformation has created a situation
where the social side seems unable to adapt as rapidly [
3
]; and that the vital reciprocal relationship has
been broken, rendering work-systems out of balance [
3
]. With research not providing sufficient
knowledge of how to enable balancing dynamics [
1-3
], organizations are risking to lose knowledge on
how to further develop the organizational capabilities they need in the future to establish sound
workplaces [
3
].
As an IS-researcher, I find it paramount to aid [
1, 2, 3, 9
] in reintroducing socio-technical thinking
into the present world of digital work. Henceforth, this paper is a suggestion to how managers and
researchers can apply a socio-technical philosophical perspective rooted in critical realism (CR), that
draws attention to how digital interventions into work-systems must trigger processes with results of
both efficiency and well-being.
2. Mechanisms in IS-research
As suggested in [
1
], a way to restore balance is to theorize about mechanisms that bring about the
link between humanistic and instrumental outcomes in a synergistic manner [
1
]. Mechanisms explain
“the cause of something”; and what ‘enables’ or ‘leads to’ an outcome [10, p.104.]. In continuation,
mechanisms have the property of serving as theoretical tools and have the valuable property of
abstraction [
11
].
A popular stream of mechanism-research explains cause-and-effect relationships and use
mechanisms as mechanistic accounts of explaining that if X is present, it will lead to Y [
10
]. The
mechanisms of technical institutionalization and technical socialization serve as such accounts in
relation to explaining the outcomes of sound social norms and general behavior patterns, as a response
to technological implementations [
4
].
Lately, theorizing of mechanisms in IS-research have adopted the perspective of CR. In CR
philosophy, self-reinforcing mechanisms explain why certain observable events came to be, but they
cannot predict them [
11
]. As such mechanisms hold a nature of generative capacity, as they contingently
might produce a certain outcome if triggered by and in the system. Ontologically, mechanisms in CR
are non-mechanical (i.e. does not predict a specific outcome), and thus they are different from the more
mechanistic mechanisms theorized in sociology [
10
] and socio-technical systems theory [
3
]. Examples
from IS-research are [
11-16
]. In [
11
] they uncovered three key generative mechanisms that contingently
caused and explained how a digital infrastructure in a Scandinavian Airline company evolved
successfully due to interacting mechanisms of: Adoption; Innovation; and Scaling. Likewise, in [
12
]
they found three generative mechanisms to impact ERP-implementation in a digitalization
transformation process in healthcare, namely: Standardization, Alignment and Convergence. In
addition, in [
13
], they theorized three generative mechanisms that enabled speed and efficiency of
digital innovation within an internal digital platform. These mechanisms were: Modular Upgradability;
Economies of Substitution; and Reproduction. Summative, these studies uncover the interaction of
selfenforcing generative mechanisms triggered in the system through the introduction of enterprise wide
technical systems in different organizational contexts and explain outcomes that exhibit efficiency and
productivity.
A few IS-research papers exist, that uncover generative mechanisms that bring about humanistic
effects in a socio-technical system. In the work of [
14-16
] they explain the activation of generative
mechanisms of divergence and technological individualization, afforded by malleable and mobile
communication and collaboration technology (i.e. UCC), catering to individual autonomy and
flexibility at work. These outcomes have a documented impact on well-being and job-engagement [
17
].
The existing generative mechanisms in [
11-16
], can act as a stepping stone to further theorizing, as
these generative mechanisms contingently can enable each-other and produce balanced outcomes. In
the next section I introduce the concept of universal generative mechanisms that can bring about the
link between humanistic and instrumental outcomes in a synergistic manner.
3. Towards a socio-technical philosophy model rooted in critical realism
In figure 1, a simplified, yet often applied understanding of CR within the IS-discipline, is presented.
In [
18
], CR is explained in terms of its ontological view of reality that is existing independently of
humans and it is stratified in three domains of reality. There is the domain of the real, the actual, and
the empirical. Often these strata are portrayed as an onion, see figure 1. The outer ring – the domain of
the real - contains mechanisms, events, and experiences (i.e., the whole of reality); The middle ring is
the domain of the actual and consists of events that do (or perhaps do not) occur. It includes the inner
circle – the domain of the empirical – which are those outcomes that are observed or experienced [
18
].
In figure 1, I place the generative mechanisms theorized from IS-research [
11-16
], in the outer circle.
In the middle circle I place the actual events of various IS-implementations studied in [
11-16
], and in
the inner circle, I place the observed outcomes from these events. The one-way arrows present how the
mechanisms produce outcomes through their generative capacity.
In the next section I explain in detail the green double-ended arrows, that are labeled universal
sociotechnical generative mechanisms as they have potential to provide the synergistic link between the
generative mechanisms.
4. Self-organization as a core principle – the green arrows
Going beyond the generative mechanisms theorized in prior studies, the more fundamental
dynamic of self-organization delivers a promising path forward. Self-organization is a particular part
of the synchronic build-up development and evolution of social systems. Self-organization is a
“mechanism” that can be interpreted, from a meta-theoretical perspective and from a grand-theory
perspective [
20
].
The synergistic process of integration and differentiation as a meta-theory proceeds as follows [
21
]
” Any system shows a dialectic of integration and differentiation. Agents who
differ from each other bring about the formation of a structure that integrates; this
structure catches up with the differentiation at hand and, at the same time,
conditions a new differentiation of the agents, which brings about a new
integration. […]. As long as the increase in divergence is for the sake of
convergence and the increase in convergence for the sake of divergence, a system
does not fall apart.” [21, p.128].
In a grand theory perspective, self-organizing comes from the synergy between individualization
and socialization [
21
]:
“At the highest resolution, social agents, actors, members of societal systems
are different individuals. Through their action, interaction, and co-action they
bring about the formation of societal relations that condition the generation and
utilisation of commons in an integrated way, which allows the individuals to
differentiate: the more individuals are “individualised”, the better they produce
the common good; the better the common good is “socialised”, the more
individuals can become individuated. That is, socialisation and individualisation
precondition each other.” [21, p.128].
Looking at the generative mechanisms from [
11-16
] in the outer circle of figure 1, we see theorizing
of both convergence and standardization processes triggered by enterprise-wide systems initiatives, and
divergence and individualization processes from the usage and adoption of more mobile and flexible
technologies. We also witness outcomes of an economic and humanistic nature. The green arrows
represent opportunities for what can happen if we become better at stimulating the link between these
generative mechanisms to release the dynamics of self-organization at our workplaces. To obtain and
sustain synergistic effects I suggest the following. When planning or facilitating socio-technical
changes, researchers and managers must have in mind that convergence from enterprise systems must
be for the sake of divergence in other parts of the work-system and vice versa. Standardization of work
processes on the other hand must be for the sake of the opportunity to individualize other practices in
work and vice versa. Thus, socio-technical change interventions must address how to release and
stimulate activation of these more universal generative mechanisms.
Illuminating and stressing “the common good” in work-systems seems pivotal [
21
]. In the research
carried out in [
14
], they found that ‘access to data and information anywhere/anytime’ served as such
‘a common good’ in knowledge work settings. The perception of access to relevant and high-quality
information, allowed individuals to individualize work-practices, while also complying with specific
standard workflows and input formats to produce the common good.
A few organizational researchers similarly argue for adopting the theory of “the common good” to
deliver an organizational re-orientation as a means for departing from a narrow focus on economic
value [
22
]. By adopting such a re-orientation, organizations can develop abilities to respond ethically
to the larger challenges in societies and at workplaces. I suggest that IS-researchers and -managers can
do the same in relation to enable dual outcomes from the IS and take part in developing a perspective
that includes how to stimulate self-organization through the synergistic linking of the aforementioned
mechanisms to obtain both economic and humanistic objectives in the digital workplace.
5. References