|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
In order to develop and bring to fruition strategic information systems (SIS) projects, chief information officers (CIOs) must be able to effectively influence their peers. This research examines the relationship between CIO influence behaviors and the successfulness of influence outcomes, utilizing a revised model initially developed by Yukl (1994). Focused interviews were first conducted with CIOs and their peers to gain insights into the phenomenon. A survey instrument was then developed and distributed to a sample of CIO and peer executive pairs to gather data with which to test a research model. A total of 69 pairs of surveys were eventually used for data analysis. The research model was found to be generally meaningful in the CIO--top management context. Furthermore, the influence behaviors rational persuasion and personal appeal exhibited significant relationships with peer commitment, whereas exchange and pressure were significantly related to peer resistance. These results provide useful guidance to CIOs who wish to propose strategic information systems to peers.
Keywords: Chief information officers, influence, influence behaviors, information systems, PLS
ISRL Categories: EH0101, AA01, EH0208
Introduction
Since no idea is intrinsically strategic or important, the give-and-take of senior managers about what matters largely determines which initiatives are implemented (Dutton and Ashford 1993; Floyd and Wooldridge 1996). Within this give-and-take context, a critical part of the chief information officer's (CIO's) strategic role is to provide thought leadership to other top executives, making them aware of the potential for information systems to support and enhance the strategy of the firm (Earl and Feeny 1994; Stephens et al. 1992). One way CIOs do this is to effect proactive influence behaviors to convince other top managers to allocate attention and resources to strategic information systems (SIS) projects (Lederer and Mendelow 1988; Marron 1997; Rockart 1988; Smith 1998). Indeed, as Fiegener and Coakley (1995) have pointed out, CIOs have an inherent responsibility to do so:
A CIO's hesitance to exert influence may increase the risks that the agenda for IS will be shaped by other, less knowledgeable sources (p. 58).
Effective organizations recognize that having line managers take ownership of critical IS projects increases the likelihood of appropriate IS deployment and organization success (Rockart 1988; Sambamurthy and Zmud 1997). If a CIO wants a strategic application proposal implemented, he or she requires the commitment of the top management team, without which the project would stand a lesser chance of success (Feeny et al. 1992). Similarly, the practitioner literature suggests that effective CIOs must skillfully apply their powers of influence to encourage other functional heads to become partners with them and embrace ownership of these initiatives (McDougall and McGee 1999; Mitchell 2000; Smith 1998).
In the past, when most CIOs were not part of the top management team, they often needed to apply different forms of upward influence to convince top management to seriously consider SIS projects, with varying degrees of success (Applegate and Elam 1992; Lederer and Mendelow 1988; Rockart 1988). More recently, as they have gained acceptance on their firms (1) top management teams, CIOs require skills at applying lateral influence, in order to convince their peers in other functional areas to commit to SIS initiatives (Maruca 2000; Ross and Feeny 2000). There is evidence that CIOs may be less effective than their executive counterparts in proactively exerting peer-level influence (Marron 1997; Smith 1998). For example, Earl and Feeny (1994) have pointed out that CIOs often mistakenly attempt to use "hard' tactics such as edicts, which do not work as well as "softer" tactics like persuasion and participation.
The research literature has not systematically examined CIOs' influence behavior usage patterns--which influence behaviors CIOs use to convince their peers to commit to SIS projects or their effectiveness at doing so--despite the fact that this as an important topic for examination (Earl and Feeny 1994; Fiegener and Coakley 1995; Lederer and Mendelow 1988). The present study draws primarily upon survey data to address the question: Which lateral CIO influence behaviors result in successful influence outcomes in the SIS--peer context?
The next section provides a literature review, discusses the research model, and develops propositions based on the extant literature and, to a lesser extent, anecdotal evidence from a series of executive interviews. Subsequently, we provide the research methodology used for data collection and analysis in the main study and describe the results. The final section of the paper discusses the implications of this study both for future research and practical application.
Theory and Proposition Development
Literature Review and Research Model
In order to clarify the CIO--peer influence context, it is important to distinguish between influence and authority. Simon (1953) views authority as the legitimate exercise of decision making that affects the behavior of individuals. Thus, subordinates agree without question to the decisions of a superior and are willing to set aside any judgments about the suitability of a superior's request or behave as if they agreed with the superior. Similarly, Tannenbaum (1958) views authority as designated across hierarchical management positions. It is also commonly recognized that a superior relies on advice or information from others, including subordinates. This advice or information comprises influence (Tannenbaum and Massarik 1950). Thus, a person exerts influence by offering information, providing advice, persuading, and the like. Importantly, in contrast with authority that flows downward, influence can be multidirectional. Thus, individuals have the capacity to influence superiors or colleagues. The dispersion of influence permits actors from all levels in the organization to make their expertise felt in specific decision areas (Bacharach and Lawler 1980, p. 31). The distinction between authority and influence is important in situations where CIOs do not possess formal authority. Specifically, CIOs must rely primarily on influence to affect the thinking and behavior of their peers.
The research literature on senior IS management provides some other important insights into the CIO-peer influence context. For example, it illustrates the conditions under which a CIO's influence behaviors can be most effective when he or she attempts to initiate SIS projects that require peer commitments. Good working relationships with peers are a necessary condition for the success of IT executives (Earl 1993; Henderson 1990; Keen 1991; Stephens et al. 1992). The CIO requires integrity and interpersonal skills in order to develop these important relationships (Kotter 1982). These effective working relationships set the stage for CIOs to successfully approach peers in a "personal informal" style (Pyburn 1983), to make casual contact with peers to discuss these initiatives and build support before a formal proposal is discussed (Feeny et al. 1992).
Other IS research has examined the ways in which CIOs communicate with other executives to build shared understanding and knowledge around the issue of IT alignment with the business (Applegate and Elam 1992; Earl 1993; Feeny et al. 1992). IS projects that are aligned with the overall strategic direction of the firm will be more successful and readily accepted than those that are not (Chan et al. 1997; Earl 1993; Earl and Feeny 1994). A shared vision of the role of IS in the business is an important determinant of SIS project success (Earl and Feeny 1994). Effective communication and shared vision among senior managers form a chain that impacts the overall success of the organization (Reich and Benbasat 1996). CIO influence behaviors comprise an important part of the CIO-peer communications that lead to the development of shared vision and SIS project success.
Little research has focused directly on the issue of CIO influence (e.g., Earl and Feeny 1994; Hayashi 1997), despite the fact that effective influence exertion is of interest to CIOs (Marron 1997; Smith 1998). The literature has only discussed a few influence behaviors at the CIO's disposal. For example, coalition and consultation tactics have been effectively used to convince executives of the potential strategic impact of IS (Lederer and Mendelow 1988), to gain acceptance of other executives (Stephens et al. 1992), to achieve a shared vision of IS's role in the organization (Earl and Feeny 1994), and to create a positive impression of the IS department (Fiegener and Coakley 1995). Rational persuasion has been used to identify new uses of IT (Rockart 1988), create a positive view of IS (Earl and Feeny 1994; Fiegener and Coakley 1995), and to convince top managers of the need for greater central IT coordination (Ross and Feeny 2000). Finally, CIO tactics used to overcome resistance to IS implementation inclu de bargaining with IS resources (i.e., exchange), and co-opting opposition (i.e., consultation) (Keen 1981).
More broadly, there has been little systematic research on top executives' lateral influence behaviors. What we do know is based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from interview data gathered to compare effective with ineffective managers (Cohen and Bradford 1989; Kotter 1979 1982; Pfeffer 1992). More effective general managers used a wider variety of influence methods and spent less time on influence activity (Kotter 1982). This suggests there may be significant differences between top executives' and middle level managers' influence behaviors. Nonetheless, since there are no systematic studies in this area, it is uncertain whether senior executive influence behaviors are significantly different than those of lower-level managers. However, the related work conducted with middle-level managers and supervisors provides a framework for research on CIO influence behaviors.
An important series of studies by Kipnis et al. (1980) examined influence tactics in which the agent (i.e., initiator) of an influence attempt tried to gain something from the target (i.e., recipient). Based on these studies, they developed a survey from narrative descriptions of how individuals "got their way." The survey was administered to 754 lower-level managers. Factor analysis revealed eight influence dimensions: exchange, sanctions, ingratiation, rationality, coalitions, assertiveness, upward appeals, and blocking. This survey was published as the...
|
