Governing+Enterprise+2.0+

Transcription

1 Governing+Enterprise+2.0+ Cand.Merc.IMM+ Master+thesis + + Hand%in'date:'December'7 th '2012' Defense'date:'January'14 th '2013' Grade:'12'(A)' Thesis'advisor:'Robert'D.'Austin' ' Authors:' Cecilie'Hoffmann%Petersen' Henrik'Kærsgaard'Hansen' '

2 Preface' Throughout the process of writing this thesis, we have received a number of highly appreciated contributions. We would like to especially acknowledge the help of the following. For providing feedback on our writings, we thank Christina Donslund Steen, Erik Hoffmann- Petersen and Martin Larsen. For participating in expert interview, we thank Professor Niels Bjørn- Andersen. For participating in practitioner interviews, we thank Mona Håkansson, Bo Falkenberg, Respondent X, Jonas Andersen, Christoffer Malling and Martin Sønderlev Christensen. And for clear, wise and inspiring counseling, we thank Dean Robert D. Austin. We hope readers will find this thesis inspiring. Cecilie Hoffmann-Petersen & Henrik Kærsgaard Hansen

3 Executive)summary) The purpose of this thesis is to study the governance challenges facing organizations implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems, resulting in a best practice framework answering the research question: How should organizations govern their employees, to allow the freedom and autonomy necessary to benefit from the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, while maintaining a level of control in order to minimize the risks concerned with Enterprise 2.0 systems? Empirical data for this thesis have been collected via qualitative interviews with an expert from CBS and 6 practitioners from 5 organizations IBM, Company X, Podio, Wemind and Socialsquare - all specializing in developing, implementing and/or consulting on Enterprise 2.0 systems. The thesis contains 3 primary parts. First, a literature review of Enterprise 2.0 literature provides insight into the mechanisms driving Enterprise 2.0 benefit realization. We found that the fundamental design principles of Enterprise 2.0 systems are network effects, authoring, freeform, emergent structure and an architecture of participation and transparency, which among other things result in an improved collective intelligence and -creativity in the organization. Second, as the act of governing is essentially an execution of power, we performed an analysis of the power structure within Enterprise 2.0 systems improving our understanding of the power basis for executing governance. With an outset in power theory and the empirical data, we found that Enterprise 2.0 systems are characterized by a democratic and meritocratic power structure, emphasizing the informal power bases and decreasing the influence derived from formal power bases. Third, the governance analysis is divided into three sections. In the first section 8 management actions derived from our empirical data are presented, which together provide a framework for good practice of Enterprise 2.0 governance. The second section seeks to discuss and explain the underlying mechanisms ensuring regulation of employee behavior when direct control is loosened: Managerial-, social-, self-regulation and culture. This analysis is finalized by a discussion of the main aspects of the governance analysis, relating it to the power analysis and literature review. The contributed best practice framework of this thesis is aimed at supporting practitioners as well as researchers in providing an empirically and theoretically grounded theory for creating more value through Enterprise 2.0 systems.

4 Table)of)content) Executive)summary)...)1) Table)of)content)...)2) Table)of)figures)...)5) 1.)Introduction)...)6) 1.1)Field)of)analysis)...)7) Problem(statement(...(8( 1.2)Purpose)of)thesis)...)9) Relevance(for(researchers(...(9( Relevance(for(practitioners(...(9( 1.3)Assumptions)...)9) 1.4)Delimitations)...)10) 1.5)Clarification)of)key)concepts)...)10) 1.6)Structure)of)the)thesis)...)11) 2.)Methodology)...)13) 2.1)Philosophy)of)science)...)13) Inductive(and(retroductive/abductive(logic(...(17( Retroduction(...(18( Abduction(...(18( Level(of(conclusion(...(18( Summary(of(philosophy(of(science(...(19( 2.2)Operative)paradigm)...)19) Methodical(procedure(...(20( Literature(...(20( Empirical(sources(...(22( Documentation(of(data(...(26( Coding(empirical(data(...(27( Metodic:(Project(plan(...(30( 3.)Enterprise)2.0)...)33) 3.1)Enterprise)2.0)in)a)historic)context)...)33) Web(2.0(...(34( 3.2)Enterprise)2.0)defined)...)35) Platforms(...(36( Use(...(39( Emergent(...(39( Social(software(...(41( Page 2 of 115

5 Organizations(in(pursuit(of(their(goals(...(41( 3.3)Outcomes)of)Enterprise)2.0)investments)...)42) Benefits(of(Enterprise(2.0(...(42( Risks(of(E2.0(...(43( 4.)Power)and)Enterprise)2.0)...)46) 4.1)Power)theory)...)46) Elitist(perspective(on(power(...(47( Explicit(power((Robert(A.(Dahl)(...(48( Implicit(power((Peter(Bachrach(&(Morten(S.(Baratz)(...(50( Strategic(Relational(power((Michel(Foucault)(...(51( Bifactorial(Theory(of(Power(...(53( Formal((position)(power:(...(54( Informal((personal)(power:(...(55( Morgan(...(56( Practical(approach(to(power( (how(is(power(achieved:(...(57( 4.2)Power)analysis)...)61) Control(of(technology((formal(and(informal)(...(61( Control(of(boundaries(...(63( Expert(power(...(64( Referent(power(...(66( Legitimate(power(...(67( Reward(power(...(68( Coercive(power(...(69( Implicit(power(...(69( Informal(implicit(power( (an(illusion?(...(70( Summarizing(the(power(analysis(...(71( 5.)Governing)Enterprise)2.0)...)75) 5.1)Governance)theory)...)75) Corporate(governance(...(76( IT(Governance(...(76( Three(perspectives(on(governance(...(77( Rationalist(perspective(on(governance(...(77( Structuralist(perspective(on(governance(...(80( Culturalist(perspective(on(governance(...(82( Synthetic(perspective(on(governance(...(83( Summary(...(84( 5.2)Governance)analysis)...)85) Page 3 of 115

6 Managerial(regulation(...(86( Action(#1:(Management(should(show(clear(support(of(Enterprise(2.0(and(lead(by(example(...(86( Action(#2:(Management(should(set(frames(but(abstain(from(micro_management.(...(87( Action(#3:(Management(should(set(clear(performance(goals(...(87( Action(#4:(Management(should(explicate(norms(and(values(by(creating(social(guidelines(...(88( Action(#5:(Management(should(intervene(when(necessary(...(89( Action(#6:(Management(should(make(room(for(mistakes(...(90( Action(#7:(Management(should(assign(community(managers(and(ensure(training(...(91( Action(#8:(Management(should(trust(the(emergent(mechanisms(of(Enterprise(2.0(...(91( Underlying(mechanisms(of(governance( (the(real(level(...(92( The(disciplinary(mechanism(...(92( The(Panopticon(...(93( The(Panopticon(in(the(context(of(Enterprise(2.0(...(94( The(mechanism(of(social(regulation(...(96( The(mechanism(of(self_regulation(...(97( Summary(...(97( 5.3)Discussion)...)99) 6.)Conclusion)...)105) 6.1)Limitations)and)further)research)...)107) 7.)References)...)110) NB. All appendixes have been removed from this version of the thesis. Page 4 of 115

7 Table)of)figures) Figures Figure 1: Structure of thesis.. 13 Figure 2: Full method awareness Figure 3: The three domains of the real Figure 4: Project plan 33 Figure 5: One-to-many vs. many-to-many Figure 6: The panopticon Figure 7: Regulating mechanisms and culture Tables Table 1: Ontological differences and similarities Table 2: Relevance of empirical sources Table 3: Summary of power theories Table 4: Powerbases for analysis Table 5: Summary of power analysis Table 6: 3 dominant paradigmes of governance Page 5 of 115

8 1.)Introduction) Throughout the last decade a number of innovations in Internet product and service design have had a significant influence on the way we use the Internet. Some of these changes have given rise to the term Web 2.0, or in daily terms social media or social software. This expression covers design changes providing amateur users the ability to easily publish, communicate, collaborate and find content online. A prominent example of these new technologies is the social networking site facebook.com, which has had explosive growth in the 8 years it has existed 1. Most of the Web 2.0 tools have evolved and function in the consumer space, however from the beginning, technological visionaries, analysts and researchers have argued that social software additionally stand to have a large impact inside organizations. In 2006 professor A. McAfee summed up these thoughts and termed the corporate deployment of the social Web 2.0 technologies for Enterprise 2.0. Wattal, Racherla et al., notes that social computing tools can be the catalyst to help create a true learning organization characterized by collaboration and sharing, and collective knowledge creation and assimilation (Wattal, Racherla et al. 2009, p1, quoted in Backhouse et al. 2009: 5). On an even larger scale, Tapscott notes that Enterprise 2.0 has been seen as "enabling new business strategies and designs... It s a new model of the firm" (Tapscott, 2006). Harnessing the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 is of great interest to C-suite managers and is given increasing focus in organizations. Recent studies by Gartner Group, Forrester Research, IDC, Mckinsey, IBM, the Cutter Consortium and SocialSemantic.eu 2 testify that within the last few years, organizations have been rapidly increasing their investments in Enterprise 2.0 technologies and investments are expected to continuously grow throughout the next five years. While it is yet too early to witness the full consequences of the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies within the enterprise i.e. Enterprise 2.0, the preliminary results of these investments have been varying (Andriole 2010). While scholars have researched deployments of enterprise-it systems for years, the management research on Enterprise 2.0 is still scarce, due to the relative newness of the technologies. It has however been observed that the way for organizations to capture benefits from Web 2.0 technology in the enterprise probably differs substantially from the way they attended to other enterprise information system (IS) projects in the past (De Hertogh, Viaene, & Dedene, 1 Per October 2012 facebook registered 1 billion active users per month, till that point Facebook has recorded 1.13 trillion Likes, billion friend connections and 219 billion shared photos since it launched in February More than 300m photos are uploaded every day and 62.6m songs played. In June 2012 there were 552 million daily active users on average. ( Page 6 of 115

9 2011, p. 124). As will be discussed in this paper, Enterprise 2.0 in many ways represents a new way of managing data and information, a new way of communicating, and ultimately a new way of working i.e. daily processes and tasks (A. McAfee, 2009). Backhouse (2009, p. 8) notes that as with all technology used in the organizational context, the introduction of social media to the enterprise is no silver bullet. Since the tools for social media are freely and readily available, any competitive advantage will emerge not from the tools themselves [anyone can buy them] but from well selected and well managed implementations of social media. Hence, realizing the objectives of a software implementation depends heavily on how the organization and its constituents will interact with the given technological artifacts and sustain the use thereof within the fabric of the enterprise (De Hertogh et al., 2011). Consequently, the usefulness of social technology is not as much a technical issue as it is a direct function of the level of adoption and the effectiveness of people using it (Mathaisel, 2011). In other words, a large aspect of obtaining the benefits of an Enterprise 2.0 system is getting users to embrace the appropriate behavior for working with information in an Enterprise 2.0 system (Dvorak, Holen, Mark, & Meehan, 1997; A. McAfee, 2009). 1.1)Field)of)analysis) As the success of an investment in Enterprise 2.0 systems is dependent on stimulating user engagement and appropriate conduct, it is vital that the management supplement the investment in hardware and software with a style of governance, which forms a suitable user behavior supporting the benefit driving mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0. Authors argue, that to realize the potential benefits of Enterprise 2.0, managers should adopt a bottom-up emancipatory style of governance, rather than a top-down, control-oriented style (De Hertogh et al., 2011; A. McAfee, 2009). As will be elaborated in this thesis, the fundamental mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 require that employees acts with a considerable level of autonomy when using the new tools. De Hertogh et al. (2011, p.124) notes: The successful introduction of Web 2.0 for the enterprise will require a move away from predesigned paternalistically imposed communication strategies and structures, toward carefully stimulating a many-to-many, decentralized emergence of bottom-up communicative connections. Providing users with a great level of freedom concerns managers. Managers generally prefer to maintain control of their organization or department (Barnard, 1968; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, & Schneck, 1995; March & Simon, 1993). As business managers they are not only responsible for the success of the Enterprise 2.0 system, but also accountable for the proper conduct of their employees Page 7 of 115

10 and the performance of their business unit. As a result business managers are often highly focused on potential risks of adopting new technologies in the organization, Enterprise 2.0 systems being no exception. McAfee reports examples of the initial concern business managers expresses, when first introduced to Enterprise 2.0 tools; all essentially concerns unwanted behavior or content: What if someone posts hate speech or pornography? Can t an employee use forums or blogs to denigrate the company, air dirty laundry, or criticize its leadership and strategy? Don t these technologies make it easy for valuable information to seep out of the company and be sold to the highest bidder? If we use these tools, how can we avoid breaking agreements with partners about information sharing? What if rivals use customer-facing websites to air grievances or malign our products and service? Are we liable if people give incorrect information or bad advice on the forum we host? Won t employees use the collaboration software to plan social events instead of work-related activities? (A. P. McAfee, 2011, p. 2) 3. Problem)statement)) The level of autonomy required to support the underlying mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, hereby allowing the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 to emerge, can seem quite contrary to managers need of control, and thus presents a conflict. This thesis is an attempt to address the concerns stated by managers when looking to invest in Enterprise 2.0 systems: how do we control the use of these systems? What happens, when we are no longer in control to the extent we were before? How do we ensure proper use of the systems? And how do we allow for the benefits to emerge, while minimizing the related risks? All these questions relate to governance of an Enterprise 2.0 system or, more precisely, the employees using the system, and the immediate conflicts that arise when freedom and empowerment of employees meets managers wants and needs to control these systems and the people using them. These conflicts are, what we are seeking to address and analyze in this thesis, which leads to the research question: How should organizations govern their employees, to allow the freedom and autonomy necessary to benefit from the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, while maintaining a level of control in order to minimize the risks concerned with Enterprise 2.0 systems? Before elaborating on how the field of analysis was approached methodically, the purpose, assumptions, delimitations, key terms and structure of this thesis will be briefly introduced. 3 See Webber (2012), or our interview transcripts in appendix 7-12 for more examples of typical concerns regarding Enterprise 2.0. Page 8 of 115

11 1.2)Purpose)of)thesis) The purpose of this thesis is to develop best practice theory on Enterprise 2.0 governance, to the benefit of both practitioners and the scientific community. Relevance)for)researchers) Enterprise 2.0 comprise a new research field and a need exists for further, empirically grounded and solid research addressing challenges of Enterprise 2.0 governance (De Hertogh et al., 2011). To our knowledge no research focusing on the power structures of Enterprise 2.0 systems exists, and empirical findings on Enterprise 2.0 governance are still scarce and have not been systematically related to the large literature base on governance as will be done in this thesis. Our ambition is to build original and solid theory on Enterprise 2.0 governance, contributing to the growing literature and knowledge base within the field of Enterprise 2.0. Relevance)for)practitioners) As mentioned above, organizations are increasingly investing in Enterprise 2.0 implementations. The possible benefits of these systems are of great value, especially to large international and geographically dispersed organizations, which are in need of more effective ways to utilize the intellectual capital of human resources to compete in a complex and globalized world. As the underlying mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems are quite different from traditional Enterprise-IT, they demand that user behavior changes accordingly (De Hertogh et al., 2011). There is an immediate need for empirically grounded and theoretically solid knowledge, aiding managers in governing Enterprise 2.0 systems to obtain organizational benefits and increase the competitive advantage for organizations. We aim at providing recommendations that are understandable and immediately usable for practitioners. 1.3)Assumptions) This thesis holds two primary assumptions: We assume that Enterprise 2.0 systems are not merely passive constituents of an organization: Reciprocity exists between the constructed systems of Enterprise 2.0 and the social systems of an organization. Further, this thesis is based on an assumption of broad Enterprise 2.0 system-integration. An implementation of only one Enterprise 2.0 tool, e.g. a blog, will have limited effects on an Page 9 of 115

12 organization, and will thus not necessarily result in much change in the organization. Thus, the findings of this thesis are built on a broad implementation of Enterprise 2.0 systems. 1.4)Delimitations) In order to maintain focus of the research, and secure thoroughness and depth while taking the resource restraints into account, the research in this thesis holds some limitations. Throughout the thesis, focus will solely be on usage of Enterprise 2.0 systems within the organizational boarders of an organization 4. Using Enterprise 2.0 for communicating with customers, suppliers or any other external stakeholders will as such not be part of our analysis 5. We are aware that including these external relations in an Enterprise 2.0 system would have had an influence on the analysis and likely create additional value as well as further complexity, as the underlying mechanisms for internal and external communication are different. We therefore urge members of the scientific community to expand this research further, and test the results from this thesis focusing on organizations, which have adopted a more open structure and usage of Enterprise 2.0 systems. While adopting a strategic perspective on governance of Enterprise 2.0, details regarding the technical aspects of either soft- or hardware will not be analyzed, as this area is constantly evolving, and a discussion among technically educated researchers would be more suitable than between organizational researchers such as ourselves. Although defining motivational strategy and designing incentive structures are generally a part of governance, we have chosen not to address this in our thesis. This is solely due to the limited resources of time and space. We will however occasionally make reference to this in our discussion and analysis, and we encourage other researchers to examine the different types of motivational approaches, e.g. extrinsic or intrinsic motivation, and their relation to successful Enterprise 2.0 governance. 1.5)Clarification)of)key)concepts) To ensure a shared understanding of main concepts used in this thesis, we will provide a brief definition below. This will facilitate the reading process and the understanding of propositions and findings. These concepts are: 4 We are aware of the large stream of research arguing that organizational boarders have become more fluent and cannot be easily defined anymore. 5 However, examples of these types of usage will be presented. Page 10 of 115

13 Enterprise 2.0 governance Enterprise 2.0 governance entails not only governance of IT systems, but also governance of the behavior of employees maneuvering within the IT systems. Contribution A contribution to an Enterprise 2.0 system is the creation and/or sharing of any type of content by a user, including blog posts, contributions to wikis, tagging, commenting, liking, reposting etc. Content In the context of IT systems content refers to all types of data or objects a user has contributed to the system. This includes all types of text (blog post, additions to a wiki, status updates, etc.), links, pictures, videos, documents, etc. In some Enterprise 2.0 literature content added to an Enterprise 2.0 system is referred to as a social object as social interaction is generally centered around an object i.e. content of interest. Mechanism Mechanisms are defined as the relationship among entities that is thought to cause the events. In the context of this paper, the term mechanism is used for the hidden phenomena that can explain the reality and the empirical events in an organization. Transparency Transparency is present when it is easy for others to see what actions are performed, and implies an open architecture, open communication, and accountability. 1.6)Structure)of)the)thesis) To answer the overall research question in a structured and comprehensive manner, the thesis is divided into four main parts, Enterprise 2.0 a literature review, Analysis 1. - The implicit power structure of Enterprise 2.0, Analysis 2. Governing Enterprise 2.0 and finally a discussion, which will synthesize the findings of the former parts. Each part will focus on exploring and expanding on the fundamental building blocks, which together provide the information necessary to develop a full and thorough answer to the research question. The structure of the thesis is presented below in figure 1 and the different parts are presented in section 2.2 methodic. Page 11 of 115

14 Figure 1: Structure of thesis Source: Own Creation Page 12 of 115

15 2.)Methodology) This chapter will clarify how the field of analysis was approached. As a guiding principle our choice of methods supports the principle of full method awareness, meaning the study is based on a choice and use of methods that are legitimized by an overarching methodology (Jensen, 1996) 6. When full method awareness is used, the field of analysis is linked with the philosophy of science through an operative paradigm 7 consisting of methodical procedure and methodic (Figure 2). Figure 2: Full method awareness Source: Arbnor & Bjerke (1997), p. 17 When applying full method awareness, possible methods for a study is limited; consistency is needed between the philosophy of science and the manner in which the field of analysis is examined (methods and methodic). In the following we will first introduce the philosophy of science used in this thesis. Then we will present the operative paradigm, which links the philosophy of science and the field of analysis. 2.1)Philosophy)of)science) The philosophical view on science is the basic foundation on which scientific research is based, and thus also this project. This section will cover what, from an epistemological view, can be defined as knowledge, and how 'reality', from an ontological view, can be defined in regard to this research project (Christensen, 2002). The purpose of this section is to provide initial insight into the worldview that determines our theoretical and practical methods of choice, and more importantly 6 Hans Rask Jensen distinguishes between full method-awareness, limited method-awareness and inverse methodawareness. Full method-awareness is based on a study where choice- and use of investigative techniques are legitimized by an overarching philosophy of science and from here it is derived how the impending problem must be considered and resolved. Limited method awareness means choice- and use of study techniques are not legitimized by a general method-perspective. It may have the consequence that the resulting studies have little value, since they might not be a product of the perspective from which they are assessed. Inverse method awareness is indicated by a priori liked solution determines the investigation and the choice of techniques and ultimately the character of the problem formulation. As such the solution to the problem is highly influenced by the researchers biases/prejudice (Jensen, 1996). 7 As defined by Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997 Page 13 of 115

16 what type of knowledge we can, and cannot, expect to generate from this study. The section therefore focuses on the main points of this study s philosophy of science, which in later chapters will be brought forward and related to the theory and context of this thesis. This thesis adheres to the philosophical view of science critical realism. In the following section, we will define critical realism and on key areas relate it to two of the dominant philosophies of science, positivism and social constructivism 8 9. We will also argue for our choice of scientific approach as well as explain which effects it has on the thesis. Critical realism originated from Roy Bhaskar, who first founded the basic principles of critical realism in his book "A Realist Theory on Science" from 1975 (republished in 1997). It combines the ontological realism from positivism, with the epistemological relativism from social constructivism. Bhaskar claims, that these two philosophies of science both contains major mistakes in their world view; whereas positivists claim that knowledge equals reality - the knowledge we have is the reality, they do not recognize subjective constructions or a deeper understanding of reality - social constructivists go in the completely opposite direction and claim, that knowledge equals being/existing - there exists no definite truth, the reality is a social construction (Alvesson, 2010). Instead critical realism possesses a duality, where a reality does exist regardless of human action and interaction, but it is not necessarily possible to know the exact reality because of human interaction and interpretation (Danermark et al., 2002). Table 1: Ontological differences and similarities Social constructivism Critical realism Positivism Ontological perspective Relativistic Realistic Realistic No truth exists, everything is a social construction An objective truth exists An objective truth exists Epistemological perspective Relativistic Knowledge and truth is a social construction Relativistic Knowledge is the truth interpreted by the individual Realistic Reality is what we (can) know of the world Source: Own Creation 8 The term social constructivism is sometimes used interchangeably with the term interpretivism 9 We have decided to relate critical realism to positivism and social relativism as one can argue critical realism is placed between these two opposing views, hereby meeting valid scientific criticism on both positivism and social constructivism. Page 14 of 115

17 Bhaskar believes, that it is the rationality of man that helps the researcher find the best possible explanation of the reality. It is not up to critical realism as a philosophical view on science to determine what is the reality surely, this task is best left to the scientists themselves (Bhaskar, 1989:4). The human rational sense of judgment is what connects the ontological realism with the epistemological relativism in the critical realism; through rationality we can accept the transitive 10 explanation of science, which comes closest to the intransitive 11 reality. This belief in the human rationality makes critical realism avoid reducing reality to what we construct as the reality (the ontological fallacy of social constructivism) and to confuse that, which exists, with the knowledge we have about it (the epistemological fallacy of positivism) (Alvesson, 2010). Put simply: "Critical realism [is] able to combine and reconcile ontological realism, epistemological relativism and judgment rationality" (Archer et al., 1998; in Danermark et al., 2002:10). Many have argued for the usefulness of critical realism as a philosophical underpinning for the social sciences in general 12 as well as economics 13, organizational and management research 14, marketing 15, health and social work 16, education 17, and social science evaluation 18. Within the information systems literature, Mingers 19 has been the most active at promoting critical realism along with a few others 20. This growing popularity stems in part from its ability to transcend some of the classic dualisms in the social sciences such as positivism vs. interpretivism, and structure vs. agency 21. This transcendence occurs through a new conceptualization of ontology (Smith, 2006). 10 The transitive objects are the raw materials of science the artificial objects fashioned into items of knowledge by the science of the day (Bhaskar, 1998a, p. 16 quoted in Smith, 2006, p. 200) 11 Intransitive objects are the world of things and structures that are independent of our knowledge of them (Smith, 2006, p. 200). 12 Removed from quote: (Carter & New, 2004; Danermark, Ekstrom, Jokobsen, & Karlsson, 2003; George & Bennett, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Robson, 2002; Sayer, 2000; Stones, 1996) see Smith, 2006 for reference. 13 Removed from quote: (Lawson, 1998) see Smith, 2006 for reference. 14 Removed from quote: (Fleetwood & Ackroyd, 2004; Mingers, 2000; Tsoukas, 1989) see Smith, 2006 for reference 15 Removed from quote: (Zink- han & Hirschheim, 1992) see Smith, 2006 for reference 16 Removed from quote: (Houston, 2001; Kazi, 2003) see Smith, 2006 for reference 17 Removed from quote: (Maxwell, 2004) see Smith, 2006 for reference 18 Removed from quote: (Pawson, 2004; Pawson & Tilley, 1997) see Smith, 2006 for reference 19 Removed from quote: (2004b, 2004c, 2004d) see Smith, 2006 for reference 20 Removed from quote: (Carlsson, 2003; Dobson, 1999, 2002) see Smith, 2006 for reference 21 Removed from quote: (Bhaskar, 2002, pp ) see Smith, 2006 for reference Page 15 of 115

18 Bhaskar states that from a critical realistic perspective there are different ontological levels of domains: The empirical, the factual and the real domain (Bhaskar, 1997). The empirical domain consists of what we experience, directly or indirectly, and what we can observe things that happen and exist according to our immediate experience Figure 3: The three domains of the real and subjective interpretation. The empirical domain is narrow and can be seen as a consequence of the other two domains (figure 3). The EMPIRICAL: events actually observed and experienced The ACTUAL: events (and nonevents) generated by the mechanisms The REAL: mechanisms and structures with enduring properties Source: Mingers 2004, p. 94. In the actual domain "events happen whether we experience them or not. In other words, what happens in the world is not the same as what we experience" (Danermark et al., 2002:20). Here, Bhaskar distinguishes between social and natural sciences; the empirical and the actual domain are mostly the same within natural sciences, whereas a difference is almost always present in social sciences as these are built on human perception and interpretation. As this thesis falls under the latter category, this distinction between the three domains applies. The real domain is what is said to produce events and other 'surface phenomena' in the world, what Bhaskar calls generative mechanisms. The generative mechanisms are "nothing other than the ways of acting of things" (Bhaskar, 1997:3). According to critical realism, the task of science is to explore the real domain and how it relates to the other two domains (Alvesson, 2010). In critical realism, Bhaskar (1997) shifts the emphasis from epistemology that concerns what and how we are able to know, as is typically the main focus in both positivism and social constructivism, to ontology, which concerns 'what actually exists'. Critical realism thus assumes, that reality exists independently of our own perception of it, however, everything is interpreted by the subjective individual and for this reason the concept of reaching absolute truth does not exist (Fuglsang & Olsen, 2004:160). Critical realism recognizes the importance of multi-level analysis, as noted by Alvesson (2010:40): Critical realism seeks to identify those deeper lying mechanisms which are taken to generate empirical phenomena. From this it becomes clear that critical realism emphasizes the identification of mechanisms rather than focus on events. As such, "scientific work is [ ] to investigate and Page 16 of 115

19 identify relationships and non-relationships, respectively, between what we experience, what actually happens, and the underlying mechanisms that produce the events in the world" (Danermark et al., 2002:21). To put this into the context of this thesis, we aim at approaching the field with a multilevel perspective focusing on the different domains. There will be a focus not only on the empirical level, i.e. our interviews, but also a focus on finding and discussing the underlying mechanisms, meaning investigating and identifying firstly, the benefit driving mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0; secondly, the relationship between Enterprise 2.0 systems and potential changes in power distribution; thirdly, the mechanisms that can contribute to solving the conflict between providing user autonomy, while still securing control and risk minimization. Critical realism presents a methodological challenge as no precise procedures for applying critical realism methodically exist (Jespersen 2008, p.57). As such, critical realism endorses or is compatible with a relatively wide range of research methods, but it implies that the particular choices should depend on the nature of the object of study and what one wants to learn about it (Sayer, 2000). Hence, we are left with acting after our best judgment as researchers. We have approached this freedom of method in a number of ways in an attempt to secure the quality of our work and results. Firstly, choosing to adhere to the principals of full method awareness secures that our operative paradigm method and methodic, are aligned with both critical realism and our field of study. Secondly, we adhere to a transparency principal, as does all good research, meaning we attempt to explicate and express the process, thoughts, and choices throughout the thesis, both regarding strengths and weaknesses of our research. In this way we have continually and explicitly reflected on the approach and method, including the implications they have on the findings in this thesis. This has ensured a sensible and rational method for collecting and analyzing data, allowing us to create valuable and well-founded findings and conclusions in this thesis. In the following we will discuss the logic of reasoning applied to this study in the light of critical realism and as such on which level we can conclude. Inductive)and)retroductive/abductive)logic) Critical realism is generally said to accept both inductive and deductive elements, however the central logic is retroduction or abduction, which we will elaborate on below (Easton, 2010; Fuglsang & Bitsch Olsen, 2004; Reichertz, 2009). Page 17 of 115

20 Retroduction+ Retroduction is a...mode of inference in which events are explained by postulating (and identifying) mechanisms which are capable of producing them... (Sayer, 1992). As such retroduction involves moving from a conception of a phenomenon of interest to a conception of mechanisms that could generate the given phenomenon (Easton 2007). Retroduction can be described as a method that incorporates the main elements of induction (observations, apparent regularities), followed by a deductive hypothesis formulation, while taking into account the subject's ontological character. Further, the arguments can be stochastically formulated. Thus it applies only to a "certain (and sometimes unknown) probability" (Fuglsang & Bitsch Olsen, 2004, p 156). Retroduction is in other words the thought operations that you must take to get from something to something else. But it is also very much about transactual argumentation, i.e. argumentation, which is on the other side of the empirical facts, namely the structural conditions that enable the phenomenon to be analyzed (Benton & Ian, 2001). Abduction+ Abduction, sometimes used interchangeably with retroduction, can refer to interpretations of actions in relation to action theories, i.e. to attempt different interpretive frameworks. However, within the framework of critical realism, abduction refers to gaining knowledge on structures and mechanisms behind the immediate empirical evidence (incident/event). Abduction can be characterized as "detective work", attempting to reach hypotheses about how i.e. a crime could have occurred. Observations are made meaningful by being interpreted. As such, abduction to some extent concerns the creativity of the researcher - a thought operation where new ideas are introduced (Danermark & Al., 1997). Level)of)conclusion) It is important to understand the epistemological and ontological reasoning behind this study hence to be attentive to which level of truth one may analyze and conclude. The ambition of this thesis is to create theory: A best practice framework for Enterprise 2.0 governance specifically addressing the challenge of managerial control vs. user autonomy. The study will result in a multifaceted answer to the research question. However, the answers should be considered as hypotheses. They are theoretical statements created from the empirical and theoretical synthesis via inductive and retroductive/abductive techniques. This thesis provides probable, rationally plausible Page 18 of 115

21 answers regarding the truth 22 and the conclusions should be regarded exactly so. To gain further knowledge of the truth, or to confirm or refute the findings more studies would need to be conducted. We therefore urge the scientific community to further develop these results as discussed in chapter 6.1. Summary)of)philosophy)of)science) As the title of our chosen philosophy of science states, we relate critically to reality, in the sense that we are aware that subjective interpretation cannot be avoided, thus we can never state that we have found the absolute truth. However, we do believe that there exist theories and perspectives that are more 'true' than others. It is this perspective that gives room for interpretation, evolvement and allows us as researchers to choose the theoretical and empirical data, that we find most relevant and plausible for our research, all explicitly argued for. It allows us to arrive at conclusions as to a best practice, or at least better practice, for governing Enterprise 2.0 systems. We are curious to find whether there are actions that are more appropriate than others. Thus, it must be made clear that the results of this paper are an expression of perception of the optimal solution to the governance issues presented in this thesis. The results however remain hypotheses and have not been quantitatively validated. 2.2)Operative)paradigm) The operative paradigm is the way in which the research techniques are adapted to the field of analysis, hereby maintaining a methodical continuity with the philosophy of science. As such, the framework for developing the operative paradigm is therefore largely contingent upon the critical realist perspective. An operative paradigm consists of two things: methodical procedure and methodic. Methodical procedure refers to the way in which existing investigative techniques are incorporated, developed and/or modified within the scope of the philosophy of science. A technique only becomes a method when it, through the use of a deliberate methodical procedure, is argued in relation to the chosen philosophy of science and the analysis field. The Methodic is the way in which these methods are associated with a 'project plan' i.e. the manner in which the study is actually designed and executed (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997). In the following two sections the methodical procedure and methodic of this thesis will be presented. 22 The truth being represented by the actual domain according to critical realism (Bhaskar, 1997). Page 19 of 115

22 Methodical)procedure) Below we shall account for our considerations regarding choice of research techniques. Each technique will be related to our philosophy of science and more importantly, will provide the reader with insight into the practical research of this study. It is our wish that both the strengths and potential weaknesses of our methodical choices are presented openly, for this thesis to adhere to the principal of transparency as discussed above. Literature+ Throughout this thesis we have consulted the existing scientific literature to gain insight into what the scientific community has already unveiled within our field of study. The critical realistic perspective on science has enabled a mix in the use of predominantly constructivistic theory as well as theories and literature more firm in their understanding of the truth leaning towards a positivistic philosophy of science. In the following we will present our criteria for selecting literature, channels for finding literature and how the processes unfolded, ensuring a rational judgment of the theory used in this thesis in accordance with critical realism. We will also evaluate our choice of literature in order to be transparent regarding potential weaknesses in our research. Criteria for selecting theory Before starting our literature search we defined a set of criteria for selecting literature to guide our search and help securing knowledge of high quality: 1. Articles used should be published in recognized scientific journals to the extent possible. This ensured minimal use of non-scientific data created by the technology media and independent blogwriters, as well as potentially biased whitepapers published by vendors and consulting companies. 2. Books used should be written by recognized academics, be based on solid research and experiences, and acknowledged within the scientific community. 3. Whenever possible and rational 23, primary sources should be used. This ensures minimal bias in the interpretive process by one author of the work of another interpretation of an interpretation. Process of selecting theory The process of selecting theory can roughly be divided into 3 phases. 23 When getting an overview of a new and large field of study we generally started with secondary literature such as review articles and books. Page 20 of 115

23 Our initial interest in the field of Enterprise 2.0 and our willingness to build an understanding hereof constituted Phase 1. To get an overview of the existing research within the field, we started by primarily focusing on secondary literature. To understand the current trends and most prominent issues within the field we scrutinized recent non-scientific publications i.e. blog posts, technology media, etc. From these sources we discovered a number of valuable pieces of primary literature. This initial research evoked interesting questions, which had not yet been researched in depth. Most writings about Enterprise 2.0 were on implementation, and Enterprise 2.0 governance had not been thoroughly addressed. The literature within this area is relatively scarce (De Hertogh et al., 2011) and predominantly non-academic, which constitutes a need for a structured analysis concerning the challenges of governing Enterprise 2.0 within an organizational context. These initial readings and the following discussions with practitioners and experts helped define the final research question. Phase 2 of the literature research was designed to deepen the understanding of different approaches to governance and underlying assumptions and mechanisms at work. This revealed the importance of the interrelatedness between governance and power, which led to the third phase of the literature review. In Phase 3 focus was on secondary and primary literature on power theory. As the subject of power has been researched for decades, the attempt of this thesis is not to provide new theory on power, rather to apply existing theory to the field of analysis. Thus, this phase provided insight into some main perspectives on power and gave a valuable understanding of the interrelatedness of governance and power, clarified the impossibility of separating the two, and allowed us to deepen our analysis of Enterprise 2.0 governance further. Critique of literature While we have strived to uphold the above-mentioned criteria for selecting theory, the novelty of our field of study (Enterprise 2.0) presented some challenges. First of all, not much literature from peer-reviewed sources is available (De Hertogh et al., 2011). The amount, scale and scope of scientific studies within the field of Enterprise 2.0 seems insufficient, whereas research performed by commercial sources appears to be abundant in some areas. Hence, scientific literature has been supplemented with reports and articles from companies such as McKinsey, IBM and PWC, representing a potential source of bias due to possible preconceptions by authors, the lack of a peerreview process, and a lack of transparency of data and methodology. Page 21 of 115

24 Empirical+sources+ In order to develop a solid theory primarily founded on empirical data it is of great importance to adhere to a structured and thoroughly considered process of data collection and analysis. To adhere to our principle of transparency, we will present our methods for data collection and analysis below. Mode of data collection We have chosen to collect empirical data using the qualitative approach, which in relation to critical realism is generally considered appropriate, especially in relation with intensive studies 24 as this thesis (Sayer, 2000). The qualitative method emphasizes the understanding of the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 402). In other words, by using a qualitative method, one attempts to view the world from the perspective of the interviewees and hereby gain an insight into the interviewees experiences. The qualitative method is generally preferred when building understanding of a new phenomenon. It allows the researcher to investigate the problem field using a less rigorously structured process compared to the quantitative method (Blumberg, R. Cooper, & S. Schindler, 2005). More specifically we have collected data by conducting semi-structured interviews 25. Interviews can have multiple purposes 26, however, when interviews are conducted based on the critical realist perspective, focus is on increasing awareness and visibility of hidden and underlying conditions and mechanisms within the problem field. According to Blumberg (2005), semi-structured interviews has two main objectives: On the one hand the researcher wants to known the interviewee s perspective on the issues but, on the other, they also want to know whether the interviewee can confirm insights and information the researchers already holds (p. 193). This correlates with the method for data collection used in this thesis. The semi-structured interview allow the freedom to explore unanticipated experiences, phenomena and thoughts, which the interviewee might bring forward during the interview. It also allows us to challenge the perspectives presented by the 24 Sayer argues that critical realism is relatively tolerant with respect to different research methods. Compared to positivism and interpretivism, critical realism endorses or is compatible with a relatively wide range of research methods, but it implies that the particular choices should depend on the nature of the object of study and what one wants to learn about it (Sayer, 2000, p.19). He suggests that there are two broad types of research method; extensive and intensive. The former employs large scale surveys, formal questionnaires and statistical analyses, looks for regularities, patterns and similarities, accepts given taxonomic categories, privileges replication and has restricted ability to generalize to other populations and limited explanatory power. The latter focuses on individual agents in context using interviews, ethnography and qualitative analysis, asks the question what produces change?, employs causal groups, produces causal explanations which are, however, limited to the situation studied so that testing is by corroboration. (Easton 2007). 25 See appendix 7-12 for transcripts of the individual interviews or listen to the attached CD containing recordings of the interviews. 26 Within the positivistic perspective interviews are mainly used for explanatory purposes; in the hermeneutic tradition, for an understanding-oriented purpose, and in the social constructivist perspective they are used to gain insight into the interviewees interpretations and discursive constructions. Page 22 of 115

25 interviewee, as well as to test ideas and perspectives derived from the initial analysis and literature review. In accordance with critical realist thinking, we were open to exploring experiences that deviate from the current theoretical stance. Often these deviations are what can lead to new insights regarding the underlying mechanisms of a phenomenon. Criteria for selecting empirical sources To collect high quality data for the analysis, the search for empirical data and interviewees was approached with the same rigor as the theoretical data. Before selecting and contacting companies we defined a number of criteria that would guide the search for data. 1. We found it necessary, that the organizations already use Enterprise 2.0 systems. Thus the interviewees would necessarily have rich personal experiences as well as potentially theoretical knowledge. 2. The organizations should preferably consult customers on the usage of Enterprise 2.0 systems as part of their business. This criterion was chosen based on the assumption that practitioners consulting customers on the implementation, governance and utilization of Enterprise 2.0 systems have better insight into the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems and the organizational effects of these systems. This presented the opportunity to utilize and benefit from both personal experiences with Enterprise 2.0 systems, and the broad experiences and reflections these accumulated from consulting and assisting customers on implementing Enterprise The organizations should preferably be international organizations, with offices geographically distributed in different countries. This criterion would permit exposure of potential mechanisms rooted in the physical and potentially cultural separation of users. Locations in different countries with different national cultures might also influence the behavior in usage and in governance of Enterprise 2.0. We assumed this would entail that the interviewees were used to operating in an international context and have faced challenges of communicating, sharing knowledge and leading when being outside the proximity of their peers. 4. In order to gain insight into potential phenomena and mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 governance and power issues related to the size of an organization, interviewees was chosen from small organizations of 7 members as well as large organizations of more than members. 5. The interviewees should preferably have intimate knowledge of the organization s usage of Enterprise 2.0 systems. The interviewees are, in other words, among the most experienced and knowledgeable individuals regarding Enterprise 2.0 in their organizations. Page 23 of 115

26 Relevance of empirical sources In table 2 we have listed the 5 organizations and the 6 interviewees that have agreed to participate in this research project. Table 2: Relevance of empirical sources Interviewee International presence # of employees Relevance of interviewee Relevance of organization Company IBM Mona Håkansson - MH (Client Technical Professional) & Bo Falkenberg - BF (Client Technical Professional) Multinational company with customers and office locations throughout the world. Multinational employee base In addition to working with enterprise IT for more than 20 years, both MH and BF have specialized in Enterprise 2.0 and worked within this field internally as well as externally for a number of years. Higly relevant. IBM develop and use Enterprise 2.0 systems internally. They sell and advice customers on the implementation and governance of these systems. Higly relevant. Company X Respondent X - XX (Senior Consultant, Phd.) Multinational firm with customers and office locations all over the world. Multinational employee base. X Respondent X has worked with Enterprise-IT for a number of years, however she has not as such specialized in Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Somewhat relevant. Company X uses some Enterprise 2.0 systems internally, however they are not widely used. They do advice customers on the potential and risks of Enterprise 2.0 systems, however it is not their main focus. Somewhat relevant. Podio Jonas Andersen - JA (Process consultant, Master) Costumers in every country in the world, except 5. Employees comprises 15 nationalities. Office locations in USA and Denmark 31 JA has specialized in Enterprise 2.0 and social business. He focuses on organizational processes and dynamics rather than the technical aspects of Enterprise 2.0. Relevant. Podio develops and use Enterprise 2.0 systems intensely. The also advice customers on the implementation and use of these systems. Highly relevant. Wemind Christoffer Malling CM (Strategic advisor & project manager, Master) International and national customers. Employees are all Danish and the company only has locations in Denmark. 19 CM has specialized in Enterprise 2.0 systems and social business and consults organizations on their use. Highly relevant. Wemind develop and use Enterprise 2.0 systems. They also advice customers on implementation and governance. Highly Relevant. Socialsquare Martin Sønderlev Christensen MSC (Partner, Phd.) Customers include multinational and international companies. Company is only located in Denmark and employees are all Danish 7 MSC is highly specialized in Enterprise 2.0 and both consults and lectures on the area. Highly relevant. Socialsquare use some Enterprise 2.0 systems internally. The advice large customers on implementation and governance of these systems. Relevant. Source: Own creation Critique of chosen organizations and interviewees While most of the participating organizations matched all the above-mentioned criteria, few exceptions were made in terms of internationality and geographical distribution. Being relatively Page 24 of 115

27 small companies, Socialsquare and Wemind were only located in one physical location and hence did not live up to the international criterion. In spite hereof these two companies were included, as they have excellent reputations and considerable experience within the field of Enterprise 2.0 consulting. In addition, these companies advise several large international and physically distributed organizations on Enterprise 2.0 and thus have experiences within these areas. Although we purposely chose consultants due to their specialized experience with Enterprise 2.0, this can be a source of bias. Firstly, the consultants may construct overly optimistic narratives of Enterprise 2.0. This can be caused by their roles as salesmen of Enterprise 2.0 systems or by their utter belief in these systems as the right way to work. Also, consultants are presumably primarily involved with the initial stages of implementation, and are thus not necessarily confronted with the challenges arising in the later stages of governing an Enterprise 2.0 system. Keeping these disadvantages in mind, we estimate that the advantages from the choice of interviewees mentioned in the previous section outweigh these disadvantages. Interview guide Before conducting interviews, we created an interview guide 27. As interviews were conducted throughout the course of this thesis, the interview guide did change in the process, eventually including more detailed questions and leaving out questions that had proven irrelevant. The questions were not chosen in order to test hypotheses presented in the literature, instead they were questions related to phenomena gaps and potential conflicts that had occurred during previous interviews and readings. The interview guides provided an overall structure and direction of the conversations, while allowing for the freedom to explore interesting topics that emerged during the interviews 28. In accordance with critical realism, we are aware that everything is interpreted, thus, the interviewees will have interpreted our questions, as well as we interpret their answers. However, being aware of this, we have strived to decrease any uncertainties by defining clear questions, with minimal room for faulty interpretation. The interview guide contained 21 questions related to four themes (Introduction, Enterprise 2.0, Power and Governance) and the interview guide was slightly customized for each interview to fit the interviewee s professional background and the organizational profile. 27 See appendix 5 28 While designing the interview guide we strived to minimize our influence on the interviewees by formulating the questions in a manner, which did not guide (or misguide) the interviewees in a certain direction. The questions where also arranged to minimize potential influence on our part. This said, we are aware that some influence on our behalf is very difficult to prevent. Page 25 of 115

28 Conducting practitioner interviews Most interviews were conducted face-to-face, with the exception of the interview with MSC, which was conducted over Skype. The interviews were performed on a venue of the respondents choosing 29. Whenever possible, we conducted the interviews together. Being two interviewers meant that the roles could be distributed with one as the primary interviewer, engaging in the interview, creating rapport, probing and guiding the conversation, and the other as observer, ensuring relevance of the conversation, controlling time and most importantly observing and listening for interesting perspectives and phenomena, which the primary interviewer did not pick up on. A number of potential sources for bias can occur when conducting qualitative interviews. Being aware of these biases may help prevent some of these, however a bias-free interview is not likely. First, there is a risk of self-reporting bias, where interviewees consciously present themselves or their organizationmore positively than truth is (Flick, 2006). Further, interviewees may leave out relevant information, as they mistakenly deem it unimportant for the study, or they may not be allowed due to non-disclosure contracts. Finally, a lack of self-awareness may be a source of bias, although it is nearly impossible to prevent, as interviewees are seldom aware of this. Conducting Expert interview To supplement the practitioner interviews and literature review, we conducted a semi-structured interview with professor Niels Bjørn-Andersen, Head of the ITM department at Copenhagen Business School. The interview was conducted later in the research process with the purpose of challenging and further developing the initial assumptions regarding power distribution and governance of Enterprise 2.0. The interview was performed in the ITM department offices. A separate interview guide was developed for this interview 30. Documentation+of+data+ For initial documentation of the data all interviews were recorded 31. Recordings were only begun after explicitly obtaining consent from the interviewees 32. To secure precise information, meta- 29 Interview locations varyed from office to cafés to the private homes of the interviewees. The location may have had some influence on the tone of the interview and the way in which the interviewees responded and carried him-/herself. Generally, the interviews conducted at the office of the interviewee had a more formal tone, whereas the interviews conducted at cafés and in the respondent s homes seemed to have a more informal, relaxed tone, where the respondents more freely conveyed the negative aspects of the organization at which they worked. This, however, is only our subjective experience of the situation. 30 See appendix 6 31 All recordings are available as MP3 files on the attached CD-ROM Page 26 of 115

29 information on all interviews was noted immediately after, including interview location and time, interviewers present and roles taken, atmosphere of the interview, and initial impressions and thoughts. After conducting the interviews an 'approximate transcription' 33 was carried out. This entails transcriptions of exact words spoken with the exception of those parts of the interview, where the conversation strayed and became irrelevant to the context. As an additional verification of our work, both researchers listened to every recording and read transcripts providing feedback and corrections on the work, hereby increasing the quality of the transcriptions. Coding+empirical+data++ As mentioned above, the primary ambition of this thesis is to develop new theory grounded in empirical data and related to existing literature. We have chosen to interpret our empirical data drawing inspiration from the coding method theoretical coding (grounded theory) as developed by Glacer and Strauss (1967), Strauss (1987) and Strauss and Corbin (1990/1998) 34. Theoretical coding is the procedure for analyzing data, which have been collected in order to develop a grounded theory (Flick, 2006). The interpretation of data is the core of this empirical procedure. It is through the process of interpreting texts that we develop new theory, lay the foundation for collecting additional data and for choosing the next data source (Flick, 2006). Our interpretation process has included different stages and different procedures for coding the data closely inspired by the 3 most commonly used stages by grounded theory practitioners i.e. open coding, axial coding and selective coding. The systematic use of this method ensured a rational interpretation, ensuring approximation to the truth in accordance with critical realism. The stages will be elaborated below, it should however be stressed that, while the different stages are presented sequentially and have mostly been applied in this manner, they have not been strictly temporally separated but have been followed in an approximate manner. Often they overlapped, and occasionally new ideas and insights developed leading to a reediting of the former work. 32 High-quality sound recording was important in order to minimize difficulties in the transcription process. As these recordings was of high significance to the data analysis, they where conducted despite the argument by Flick (2006), that the mere presence of a recording device can obscure the naturalness of the situation and create tension with the interviewee. In an attempt to neutralize this effect the less obstructive machine (Flick, 2006), a smartphone, was chosen. Interviews were recorded simultaneously on two devices for data safety reasons. 33 See all transcriptions in appendixes While grounded theory was firstly introduced by Glacer and Strauss (1967), these authors have since created what today is considered two different schools within grounded theory, the Glacerian school and Straus and Corbins school. We adhere to the school laid out by Strauss and Corbin. Page 27 of 115

30 Stage 1. The interpretation process was initiated by readings of the transcribed interviews and gaining an initial overview. Hereafter began a systematic process of segmenting (or disentangling) the data by marking paragraphs of text and applying codes that characterized the meaning of the paragraph. This segmentation was performed on paragraphs or sentences, depending on the density of topics in the transcriptions. The codes where primarily in vivo codes i.e. codes derived directly from the text. Later in the process, however, some codes were inspired by the theoretical findings i.e. constructed codes (Flick, 2006). The codes developed and applied to the first interviews, were often additionally applied to the following interviews. The codes were regularly compared and similar codes were merged. After the initial coding process, the codes were categorized around phenomena of particular relevance for this research. These categories were then linked to new concepts that were developed to provide a clear representation of the categories. These were more abstract than the initial codes. Stage 2. In the second stage focus was on refining and differentiating the categories. From the multitude of categories and codes developed in stage 1, the central codes were selected for further elaboration. These codes were then reapplied to the transcriptions attached to all data appropriate. Finally, the chosen categories were related to each other, creating hierarchies containing primary and subcategories 35. This process of coding implies shifting between inductive and deductive thinking. Initially, inductive thinking was applied in developing concepts, categories, and relations from the transcriptions and initial coding in stage 1. Later, deductive thinking was applied in testing the concepts, categories, and relations in the transcriptions, focusing on passages which were different from those from which the concepts or categories had been derived (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This circular analysis continued until a level of confidence had been reached, that the remaining result and categories were overarching the data. Stage 3. The final stage of the coding process formed the structure of the analysis. In this phase the hierarchies made in phase 2 were analyzed in relation to each other, which provided the main categories essential for the analysis. After this point new patterns did not emerge and we felt confident that theoretical saturation had been reached. 35 See appendix 1 and 2 Page 28 of 115

31 Grounded theory is criticized for being a continual process of induction and deduction with no instructions for, when coding is finished; new codes can always be applied, new relations between codes discovered etc. As the coding process could continue infinitely, the researcher is responsible for assessing the thoroughness of the coding process (Flick, 2006). Thus, as a perception of reaching the tentative core of the data and field of interest occurred, the coding was discontinued. In the early theoretical coding i.e. grounded theory (GT), there were two strands, In the inductive variant by Glaser and Strauss, knowledge concepts or theories were officially and explicitly founded on induction (while the theoretical strand worked in the background), and in the later variant by Strauss and Corbin, theory was officially and explicitly founded on theoretical knowledge (while the inductive strand worked in the background) (Reichertz, 2009). We have primarily applied the latter, thus, the empirical data has been used interchangeably with theoretical data. The systematic synthesis of these sources of knowledge enable rational sense of judgment and the creation of educated guesses i.e. hypothesis about the truth in relation to our field of study. This logic is known as retroduction or abduction, and is in accordance with both Strauss & Corbin s method and with critical realism. Power analysis The power analysis was structured a little different than the governance analysis, by drawing on the vast literature on power instead of attempting to develop new theory. The originality of the analysis is the application of power theory to the field of Enterprise 2.0 and the empirical data focusing on this. As such a linear inductive process from empirical sources to theoretical concepts has not been followed. Instead, a continuous reciprocal movement between a power framework chosen from existing literature and the empirical data, and between induction and deduction characterized the process. Where the abovementioned primary analysis mainly used in vivo codes the subsequent power analysis also used constructed codes derived from the literature review in chapter 4.1. In this way all transcript passages that somehow related to the different powerbases were isolated and further interpretation was conducted in order to determine the basic effects on the power bases. Documentation of coding process The primary part of the coding was conducted in a dedicated software system for qualitative data analysis ( capable of processing individual interviews as well as cross-analysis of the interviews (See appendix 1 for example screenshots from this part of the coding process). The axial coding was conducted using post-it s (See pictures in appendix 2 for documentation of Page 29 of 115

32 Governing Enterprise 2.0 this process) and the coding related to the power bases was conducted in excel (See appendix 3 for screenshots from this part of the coding process). Example pictures from the coding process: See more pictures from the coding process in appendix 1-3 Metodic:)Project)plan) As previously stated, methodic is the affiliation or assignment of the selected methods to a project plan. In this section we will provide a brief overview of the project plan for this thesis. This is done in order to adhere to the ideals of full transparency of our scientific work, to ensure a rationally sensible process that can be scrutinized and criticized. Figure 4 (Below) presents an overview of the phases the project went through. The individual research phases are presented in the middle blue column. In the left green column the empirical phases are presented and related to the research phases. In the red column on the right the literature phases are presented and related to the individual research phases. The phase of analysis has been illustrated as a parallel and cyclical process due to the cyclical movement back and forth between data, theory and the different analysis conducted. The research project spanned a period of approximately 7 months in total. Page 30 of 115

33 Figure 4: Project plan Source: Own creation Below the 4 primary parts of the thesis analysis will be briefly presented and argued against the problem statement. Enterprise 2.0 a literature review This part of the thesis consists of chapter 3 and is a review of the current literature of Enterprise 2.0. The chapter provides insight into the history of Enterprise 2.0, what constitutes Enterprise 2.0 systems and into the mechanisms enabling potential benefits. It also focuses on the potential outcomes of implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems, hereunder the potential benefits and the potential risks. The purpose of this part of the thesis is to provide a strong foundation for our governance and power analysis by developing a clear and common understanding of the field of analysis especially focusing on the mechanisms supporting the benefit realization. Page 31 of 115

34 Analysis Part 1 Power and Enterprise 2.0 When initiating this thesis, the conceptual power analysis was not part of the thesis plan, however, initial analyses clarified the inseparable relationship between power and governance; that governance cannot be analyzed without taking power relations in to account. In other words, power relations are a fundamental premise for governance (Weiss, 2000). The purpose of this section is to determine whether an implicit power structure within Enterprise 2.0 systems exists, what characterizes the potential implicit power structure, and if the introduction of this type of organization-wide communications and collaboration system have an effect on organizational power structures. This knowledge is important as an implicit power structure of Enterprise 2.0 systems might affect the appropriateness of different governance approaches. This part of the thesis consists of chapters 4.1 and 4.2. Chapter 4.1 provides a review of main theoretical perspectives on power and concludes with the power bases most relevant for the analysis. Chapter 4.2 constitutes the analysis of power structures within Enterprise 2.0, drawing on the power bases derived in the subsequent chapter, the findings in chapter 3 and our empirical data. Analysis Part 2 Governing Enterprise 2.0 This part of the thesis consists of chapters 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 and is an empirical and theoretical analysis of Enterprise 2.0 governance. Chapter 5.1 contains a literature review of the major theoretical perspectives on governance. These findings will be presented an integrated with our empirical findings in the subsequent discussion, 5.3. In Chapter 5.2 we will first present the empirical analysis of Enterprise 2.0 governance, hereafter we will discuss the underlying mechanisms of behavior regulation drawing on classic literature and relating it to our findings in prior chapters. Discussion The aim of our discussion is to summarize and synthesize the rich material of the prior analysis and literature reviews. Page 32 of 115

35 3.)Enterprise)2.0) In this chapter, we seek to ensure a clear understanding of Enterprise 2.0 and the mechanisms enabling the organizational benefits. By reviewing current Enterprise 2.0 literature we will create a baseline for analysis and discussion. First, we will provide a brief historic review of the developments leading to the rise of Enterprise 2.0, secondly, a formal definition of Enterprise 2.0 will be presented, and the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 discussed, and thirdly, we will discuss the outcomes scholars believe can be achieved through implementing Enterprise )Enterprise)2.0)in)a)historic)context) Organizations have searched for proactive opportunities to leverage on IT solutions since the late 1970s and early 1980s (Peppard & Ward, 2004). The use of IT within organizations to support communication, collaboration, sharing or finding of knowledge also started very early; the first conference about Computer-Supported Collaborative Work was held in 1984 (Koch, 2008) and computer vendors have offered dedicated groupware and knowledge management software for decades (A. McAfee, 2009). The first major group-level technology was Groupware. Ellis et al. (1991) defined Groupware as: computer-based systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment. In other words, Groupware is a catchall label for software such as Lotus Notes or Microsoft SharePoint, which allows members of work-teams to message each other, share documents and schedules, and occasionally even build customized applications. Though Groupware became quite widespread in the 1990s, organizations found that Groupware applications did not solve the challenge of knowledge management particularly well (A. McAfee, 2009). One 2004 review of Groupware research concluded that "In practice, Lotus Notes... is merely a glorified program" (Chauhan & Bontis, 2004). The next major group-level technology was software dedicated towards knowledge management. It was developed and widely deployed in the 1990s. The idea behind knowledge management systems was a database where employees, managers and experts could document their experience, learning s, and knowledge regarding organizationallyrelevant subjects. Over time the system would then accumulate the knowledge within an organization, making it accessible to all workers and hence raise the overall productivity. This goal has, however, rarely been successfully accomplished Page 33 of 115

36 (Davenport, 2005; A. McAfee, 2009). Grossman et al. notes that Traditional KM systems are typically top-down, highly centralized and do a poor job of capturing and making visible the tacit knowledge of knowledge workers, which is reflected in their work practices. Such tacit activities, require the making of judgments and the integration of knowledge from exchanges with coworkers, customers, and suppliers, and constitute the bulk of business transactions (Grossman & McCarthy, 2007). Proponents of Enterprise 2.0 argue that the solution to organizational knowledge management challenges, organization wide collaboration etc., can be found by looking at the Internet and the last years of development that has given rise to what has been termed Web 2.0. Web)2.0) Web 2.0 includes a range of Internet consumer technologies such as: blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, mashups, sites that permit sharing and labeling of content (comments, photos, videos) and sites that enable social networking 36. The term Web 2.0 was originally coined in 2005 by technology writer and publisher Tim O Reilly (Backhouse et al., 2009; A. McAfee, 2009) to reflect a perceived change in the service design and usage of the Web rather than any technical change in underlying Internet and Web technology (O Reilly, 2005a). Backhouse notes: O'Reilly and others noted the growth of web sites that highlighted user-generated content (UGC), participation and interactivity in contrast to the traditional 'publish' mode that previously prevailed for most web sites (Backhouse et al. 2009: 2). O Reilly performed a number of case studies trying to capture and define this change. While O Reilly s first attempt at defining Web 2.0 (O Reilly, 2005a) did not provide a very precise definition, he tried to correct this in two subsequent blog posts (O Reilly, 2005b, 2006) providing a more precise, yet still somewhat amorphous definition and understanding of Web 2.0 (Backhouse et al., 2009). In the latest attempt O Reilly states: Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them (O Reilly, 2006). O Reilly stresses the importance of harnessing network effects. The utilization of network effects are as such nothing new (e.g. the telephone or telegraph) and are quite well understood (A. McAfee, 2009). However network effects are fundamental to the workings of Web 2.0 and thus to Enterprise 36 Well-known Web 2.0 sites and some of the most visited sites in the world include Wikipedia (sharing content), Blogger.com (blogs), YouTube (video sharing), Facebook (social networking), Flickr (photo sharing), Twitter (microblogging and short messaging) and del.icou.us (labeling or Tagging content) (Fitzgerald 2012; Backhouse et al. 2009). Page 34 of 115

37 2.0, as both types of social software rely heavily on users for content generation, social networking and interaction (Delaney, 2006). O Reilly (2005a) calls this characteristic an architecture of participation. It should be noted that the mechanisms of Web 2.0 has had a tremendous impact on the Internet. In 2011 around half of the worlds 10 most visited websites are primarily build on ideas and design principles from Web Sites like Facebook 38, YouTube, Google, BlogSpot are among the top 10 most visited websites year after year 39. This serves as an indicator of, that users all over the world have learned to operate the Internet in new ways, and, more importantly, that users are inclined to expect Web 2.0 features to be present in modern IT. The success of Web 2.0 and the innovative solutions that have brought this to existence is what organizations are hoping to adopt into the organizational context when implementing Enterprise 2.0. Below we explore the formal definition of Enterprise 2.0 and further discuss what constitutes Enterprise 2.0 in more detail. 3.2)Enterprise)2.0)defined) Enterprise 2.0 was termed by Professor Andrew McAfee in the article Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration from McAfee uses the term Enterprise 2.0 to put focus on those platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers (A. P. McAfee, 2006); a practice, which McAfee argues, will ensure organizations significant benefits, as will be discussed in a subsequent section (no. 3.3). McAfee s formal definition of Enterprise is: Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms by organizations in pursuit of their goals (A. McAfee, 2009). There are 5 important factors included in this definition, which will be elaborated below: platforms, use, emergent, social software, and organizations in pursuit of their goals. 37 Based on estimates, thus the results vary depending on the source and which model they have used. See or 38 The most visited site in the world for a number of years and 40 McAfee generally use the acronym SLATES together with his definition of Enterprise 2.0. We have however chosen to incorporate the elements of SLATES in the text below. Here is a short definition of SLATES as summed up by Grossman & McCarthy 2007: Search to enable users to find what they are looking for. Links to provide users with a guide, which indicates what is important and structures online content. The best pages are the ones most frequently linked to. Authoring to allow users to contribute, whether it is knowledge, insight, experience, comments, etc. Tags to let users dictate the way content is categorized Extensions use algorithms to automate some of the categorization and pattern matching (.e.g. Amazon s recommendation system) Signals to alert users when new content of interest appears. Page 35 of 115

38 Platforms) There is a fundamental design difference in the types of information systems that knowledge workers typically use for communication (A. McAfee 2006; 2009 & 2011). Most of these technologies fall into two categories: channels and platforms. Channels are communication technologies such as and instant messaging. They are characterized by the fact that digital information can be created and distributed by anyone, but the degree of commonality of this information is low. (A. P. McAfee, 2006). In other words, channels are closed for all but the people that have been explicitly added to the conversation i.e. sender and receiver in an thread or an instant message chat. Platforms are, in a way, the opposite of channels as platforms are collections of digital content where contributions are globally visible (everyone with access to the platform can see them) and persistent (they remain visible, and can be viewed, edited and searched for) (A. McAfee, 2009). Platforms are technologies such as intranets, web sites and information portals. As such platforms are nothing new, more or less every webpage on the Internet is a platform, where contributions are widely available. Most platforms provide the ability to restrict access to the platform to certain groups 41 but the main goal of platforms is to make information publicly and permanently available. Traditional platforms have many limitations. Historically, platform-editing privileges have been primarily centralized. The responsibility for content production has been reserved for intranet administrators, chosen knowledge experts, journalists reporting from the field or employees capable of writing HTML and navigating the technical back-end interface. This has historically meant that platforms were technologies where most users consumed knowledge rather than produced it. Furthermore, the successful data-search performed by knowledge workers on traditional platforms leaves no trace and hence do not help others in finding similar useful information. A problem that often increases with the size of the organization and hence the size of the platform 42. In 2005 knowledge researcher Thomas Davenport (Davenport, 2005) conducted a large study on knowledge workers use of information technology and found, that though knowledge workers 41 e.g. employees in a specific department, only paying members, or only the employees who are engineers, 42 As an example, large organizations often have thousands of pages in their intranet. Finding the right content can be a hard challenge. Page 36 of 115

39 frequently visited both internal and external platforms, they primarily used channels for their work 43. Extensive use of channels, however, comes at a price. First, channel-communication often includes both important and non-important information 44, and is pushed between workers often at the initiative of the sender, instead of pulled from a common platform by the workers when needed. For many, this leads to information overload. Tom DeGarmo at PWC expresses it this way The reality today is that we receive far more invitations to interact in the electronic domain than we ever did in the world of physical mail. Most of us already ignore many of them, leaving unread and even unseen vast numbers of electronic communications directed at us. But our approaches are inefficient and inaccurate we often miss important messages while deleting low-value ones (DeGarmo, 2011a). Attempts to control this extensive information flow that is pushed to each employee, can, as DeGarmo mentions, lead to workers missing important information or to employees feeling overwhelmed by information. Secondly, knowledge contained in these channel conversations are not viewable, consultable or searchable for others, neither do others know that the communication have taken place (A. McAfee, 2009). This type of communication is of course most suitable in some situations e.g. if confidentiality is needed. However, often it is beneficial if the content of a conversation is widely visible. More importantly, much valuable knowledge is created or transferred in these unstructured day-to-day conversations. If this knowledge is hidden in channels, the organization cannot utilize the knowledge. Enterprise 2.0 systems, or Emergent Social Software Platforms (ESSP) as McAfee also calls it, addresses the limitations of traditional platforms, via one of the fundamental design principles of Enterprise 2.0 authoring (McAfee 2006). Authoring entails that Enterprise 2.0 technologies should be designed in a way that enables all users to easily contribute content to the platform. The format for this contribution may vary 45, however, everyone can begin or participate in a conversation on an ESSP. McAfee writes: Blogs let people author individually, and wikis enable group authorship. Content on blogs is cumulative (individual posts and responses to them accumulate over time), while it is iterative on wikis (people undo and redo each other s work). When authoring tools are deployed and used within a company, the intranet platform shifts from being the creation of a few to being the constantly updated, interlinked work of many. This 43 As this study was conducted before Enterprise 2.0 technologies was made readily available for organizations, this seems reasonable, as knowledge workers are generally producing and sharing knowledge, not just consuming it (A. McAfee, 2009). Hence the centralized editing and authoring limitations of classic platforms were not suitable. 44 e.g. s containing the latest budgets, birthday invites, policy changes, etc. 45 I.e. the authoring of a personal-, departmental- or company blog post, posting a status message, commenting on a webpage or contributing to a wiki etc. Page 37 of 115

40 naturally raises questions in terms of the quality of contributions made, which will be addressed in more detail later. For now let us note that platforms such as Wikipedia have proven that group authorship can result in convergent and high-quality content (A. P. McAfee 2006). This design principle is vital in allowing emergent patterns to arise, as will be discussed in a subsequent section. Authoring means that ESSPs can contain both explicit knowledge output, i.e. reports or a blog post, and ad hoc, unstructured conversations containing levels of tacit knowledge 46, which are absent on traditional platforms. To summarize the above discussion it is useful to distinguish between a one-to-many broadcast communication paradigm and a many-to-many communication paradigm. The use of channels and the traditional use of platforms fall in to the category of one-to-many or one-to-one systems. Contrarily, Enterprise 2.0 facilitates many-to-many communications as everyone can choose to author, publish and contribute to ongoing conversations. These design qualities of ESSPs facilitates open and transparent conversation allowing for collective thinking about issues. This is also referred to as collective intelligence or group-brain. In figure 5 the attributes of a one-to-many and a many-to-many communication paradigm are summarized. Figure 5: One-to-many vs. many-to-many Source: Morrison & Parker, Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal or explicit knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it (Wikipedia). Page 38 of 115

41 Use) As discussed above, Enterprise 2.0 has its origins in Web 2.0 software, thus Enterprise 2.0 software also builds on an architecture of participation. In other words one of the fundamental mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 is network effects; the value increases when more people contribute, consume, network, etc. The system simply facilitates this communicative activity, but the continual contribution- and consumption of information creates the value that companies are hoping for. If users do not contribute to an Enterprise 2.0 system, it will lose or never gain its relevance and value (McAfee, 2009). Emergent) Emergent means that the software is freeform and contains mechanisms that let patterns and structure inherent in people s interactions become evident over time. (A. P. McAfee 2011: 1). First, Freeform means that the software has many or all of the following characteristics: its use is optional; it does not predefine workflows; it is indifferent to formal hierarchies; and it accepts many types of data (A. P. McAfee 2011: 1). As such freeform represents a somewhat radical shift away from traditional enterprise software designs. Historically they have been characterized by a topdown approach, where users had to adapt their preferences, e.g. for work processes, to fit the predefined standards and structures of any given enterprise system - not the other way around (A. McAfee, 2009). Classic enterprise systems such as ERP, CRM or SCM systems are examples hereof; while they differ in a number of areas, they share the notion that structure should be defined and deployed in a manner that standardizes how users interact with the systems. The underlying logic of this approach can be traced to Frederick Winslow Taylor s scientific management theory 47 and was further refined in the quality revolution led by W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and others. The quality revolution is based on the assumption that the best way to ensure consistent, satisfactory outcomes was not to focus on the outcomes themselves, but rather to control the process. Securing good results via imposed standardized structures and tight control is clearly appropriate in many circumstances, although it should be questioned whether good results cannot come from unstructured processes. Much collaboration is de facto not structured; it constitutes a series of unforeseen changes and challenges. This implies the need for a system that allows for more agile and organic structuring, a system build on emergent principles. 47 Taylorism or Scientific management is one of classic methods for planning of production, which was introduced and widely used during the industrialization. Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced it in his 1903 book Shop Management, which in 1911 was followed by the book The Principles of Scientific Management. Page 39 of 115

42 Second, McAfee draws attention to mechanisms that enable emergence of structure. Complexity science 48 defines emergence as follows: Emergence is the appearance of global structure as the result of local interactions (A. McAfee 2009, p.66). In the context of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 these local interactions are actions such as Tagging 49 or Linking 50 to specific content. In other words, the web is emergent because it is the dynamic creation of countless people around the world [continually] interacting with one another via links as they create new content (A. McAfee, 2009). For something to be emergent a number of standard criteria adhere: Local interactions 51 should be performed by many agents 52, which should act independently, with great autonomy and in their own self-interest (A. McAfee 2009). In this way the high-level structure 53 is disconnected from the low-level structure 54. Emergent structures become more dependable as more actors participate and more interactions occur; a trait that corresponds well with the notion of network effects as discussed above. As the Internet has a considerable number of users and contains billions of pages, it is unproblematic to get enough interactions for a reliable emergent structure to develop. For small or medium-sized organizations it may be harder to achieve enough user activity to obtain the benefits of a dependable folksonomy, at least in the short run. Over time more and more interactions will be made with the content and the high-level structure becomes more dependable. 48 Complexity science is an interdisciplinary loosely organized academic field, seeking answers to some fundamental questions about complex adaptive systems. (Based on wikipedia.org, Accessed Oct. 4, 2012; 49 Tags is when people use few, simple one-word descriptions of a peace of data. In the case of this thesis it might be: Thesis, Enterprise 2.0, Governance, Power. This type of categorization system allows for an emergent i.e. bottom-up approach to developing and overall structure, which is referred to as a folksonomy, i.e. a categorization system developed over time by folks. A folksonomy can in some ways be viewed as the opposite of a taxonomy, which is a categorization scheme developed up-front e.g. by an expert. This change means that the categorization of data, e.g. on a company intranet, reflect the names, information structures and relationships that people actually use, instead of the ones that were planned for them in advance (McAfee 2006 & 2009). 50 While the web was first considered an absolute unstructured source of huge amount of content, search engines started to appear. First, using classic hierarchical taxonomies to try to classify all the content, this approach, once again imposing a top-down structure, appeared unsustainable as the Internet grew rapidly in all sorts of directions. The second generation of search engines allowed search via keywords. These search engines used automatic web crawling to index sites metadata and text. However, the queality of results started to diminish as web site- and web shop owners, acting out of personal incentives, started to trick the system by adding false metadata in order to attract more traffic to their sites. The third generation of search engines, headed by Google, solved the chaos by realizing that, though the web seemed to be highly unstructured, it was in fact very structured, if one were to look at the right place, namely links. Websites link to each other and users/authors link more to high quality Web sites, or very useful ones, than to low value ones. Utilizing this emergent link structure allowed search engines to find Web sites containing specific keywords and presenting users with the ones that were most valued i.e. linked to. 51 E.g. linking, tagging, etc. 52 E.g. spread over a digital platform 53 This could be a folksonomy 54 I.e. the behavior of individual users, and cannot be reliably predicted by looking at low level behavior: one user. Page 40 of 115

43 Social)software) Enterprise 2.0 systems facilitate social interactivity around content. McAfee defines social software in the following way: Social software enables people to rendezvous, connect, or collaborate through computer-mediated communications and to form online communities (A. P. McAfee 2011: 1). The term is often used interchangeably with the terms social media and social networking. Social media emphasizes user-generated content. It includes technologies, which makes authoring easy (e.g. blogs) and facilitates user interactivity such as user comments, cocreation (Wikis) or discussions and social networking technologies, which emphasizes people and their connections. These technologies work on a 'circle of friends' model, where people set up personal profile pages, which are linked to the profile pages of their friends/contacts, hereby creating a complex network of relations (Delaney, 2006). Social software often combines the traits of social networking tools and social media by generally displaying the name and a link to the profile page of the author of content. In this way a search on the Enterprise 2.0 system for a specific type of expert information, may lead to a blog post (Social media) with answers, which links to the profile page of the author (Social networking technologies) of this blog post, leading to an actual conversation regarding the issue and a new valuable contact (McAfee, 2009). The underlying notion of social software is, that people have something to contribute, whether it is knowledge, insight, experience, a comment, a fact, an edit, a link, etc. Organizations)in)pursuit)of)their)goals) Finally, for a software-platform to be characterized as an Enterprise 2.0 tool it must be implemented and used by organizations in pursuit of their goals. In other words, McAfee emphasizes the rationale and functionality of using these tools. They are meant for work, and to create actual results. Not for wasting time on irrelevant content. The effects organizations are hoping to achieve will be discussed in section 3.3. This concludes the presentation of the technical features and underlying logic of Enterprise 2.0 systems 55. It should be noted that not all technologies are necessarily present in one organization s 55 The above discussion of McAfee s definition of Enterprise 2.0 has covered the fundamental elements of what constitutes Enterprise 2.0. However, two of the primary mechanism of Enterprise 2.0, which McAfee draw attention to fall under the category of automation: The use of IT to automate activities that you would otherwise perform manually or outsource. The two mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems are extensions and signals. Extensions is the usage of algorithms to analyze users former actions e.g. contributions, links, tags, participation in interest groups etc., and using this information to generate recommendations; If you liked this, by extension you will like this or You should connect with John Doe, as you share many interests. This phenomenon is called knowledge accidents, where new, relevant information is discovered and valuable connections are made, without the user actively finding the information (A. P. McAfee 2006). Page 41 of 115

44 Enterprise 2.0 system. Many companies choose to start with only one or two simple Enterprise 2.0 technologies. In this thesis we will adopt a broader perspective on Enterprise 2.0, thus we will not differentiate between specific technologies in our analysis, but rather address the overall effects Enterprise 2.0 technologies have on an organization. 3.3)Outcomes)of)Enterprise)2.0)investments) Today most organizations, whether private, public, or non-profit, are fundamentally dependent on their information systems and would quickly cease to function should the technology that underpins their activities ever come to a halt. In the words of Rockart (1988), information technology has become inextricably intertwined with business Consequently, commercial organizations are increasingly looking towards the innovative application of technology to provide them with a source of competitive advantage (Peppard & Ward, 2004). Investments in Enterprise 2.0 technologies are driven by hopes for an increase in competitive advantage. With most new initiatives, however, risks also arise. In this chapter, we will first provide a brief structured overview of the beneficial effects that scholars argue are attainable via the use of Enterprise 2.0; Secondly, we will focus on potential risks i.e. unwanted effects of Enterprise 2.0. Benefits)of)Enterprise)2.0) When reviewing the Enterprise 2.0 literature, it becomes clear that scholars agree that Enterprise 2.0 can lead to a number of beneficial effects for organizations. Some of these represent smaller changes, other larger changes depending in part on the outset of the organization. Below the potential benefits of Enterprise 2.0 have been listed. It should be noted that the list is not exhaustive but contains the benefits most often mentioned in review literature. Enterprise 2.0 technologies: 1. Enable gathering of collective intelligence 56 (De Hertogh et al. 2011; Mathaisel 2011; A. McAfee 2009 & 2011) 2. Leads to increases in organizational innovation (Backhouse et al. 2009; A. McAfee 2006, 2009, & 2011) 3. Leads to better decisions (Mathaisel 2011; A. McAfee 2009 & 2011) Signals are used to alert users when new content of interest is added. This technology is used to decrease the amount of time users have to spend looking through sites, blogs, groups and so forth, for new information. The technology can work via notifications, but RSS-feeds and corresponding RSS readers are used more and more to perform this task (A. P. McAfee 2009). 56 The terms Collective intelligence, the wisdom of crowds and Group-Brain are used interchangeably in the literature. Page 42 of 115

45 4. Creates better information management (DeGarmo 2011a; Mathaisel 2011 & Backhouse et al. 2009). 5. Creates better knowledge management (De Hertogh et al. 2011; A. McAfee 2006, 2009 & 2011; Andriole 2010) 6. Help locating expertise more easily (Mathaisel, 2011; A. McAfee, 2009) 7. Let employees build, maintain, and profit from large social networks (A. P. McAfee 2009 & 2011): 8. Increases customer/supplier intimacy 57 (Backhouse et al. 2009; De Hertogh et al. 2011). 9. Creates better activity awareness across the organization(mathaisel 2011; Backhouse et al. 2009) 10. Reduces duplication of work (A. P. McAfee 2011) 11. Improves productivity (Backhouse et al., 2009; Chui et al., 2012) When grouping together the potential effects listed above it seems evident that Enterprise 2.0 carry potential for creating large organizational effects. These benefits are of great interest to any organization. Especially large international organizations with intellectual resources spread all over the world stand to gain considerable value by better cross-organizational utilization of these resources, as the system facilitates effective internal communication, networking, innovation and knowledge management. In the next section we will consider the potential risks and downsides from implementing Enterprise 2.0 tools, and discuss the potential, unwanted effects of Enterprise 2.0 that managers are typically concerned with. Risks)of)E2.0) As discussed in the introduction, managers are often highly focused on potential risks when considering new investments. Being responsible for the wellbeing and growth of the organization, along with a regard for shareholders and other stakeholder, requires managers to have a responsible attitude towards risk, which is both helpful and potentially limiting for a company. Managers thus evaluate every new initiative, taking costs, potential benefits and potential risks into consideration. McAfee (2009) reports that when business managers are first introduced to Enterprise 2.0 tools, they often voice concerns about what happens when direct control is surrendered and employees can freely contribute on organizational-wide communication-platforms. As mentioned in the introduction, typical concerns fall into the category of unwanted behavior or content, such as: 57 This of course implies that the Enterprise 2.0 tools are used beyond the walls of the enterprise / the firewall. Page 43 of 115

46 distributing inappropriate information or pictures, writing controversial statements, creating confusion or starting rumors by poor communication or by lying, or simply wasting time chatting to colleagues online, etc. These types of reservations were also mentioned in most of our interviews (MSC, CM, JA, MH). One consequence of these risks could of course be not investing in Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Though this decision may seem as an easy solution, even this comes with potential risks, which should be considered. Firstly, declining to invest in Enterprise 2.0 obviously means passing the opportunity for the organization to obtain the potential benefits of Enterprise 2.0. In doing so the organizationmay endanger its competitive position relative to competitors who do invest in Enterprise 2.0 and therefore may advance through obtaining the potential benefits hereof. Secondly, it may have unwanted consequences within the area of recruiting. Marc Prensky coined the term digital natives, referring to people born into the digital era, and through interaction with digital technology from an early age, has a greater understanding of its concepts 58. They have embraced consumer focused Web 2.0 tools completely and utilize them competently 59. One can therefore argue, that organizations exclusively using traditional enterprise systems and channel communication will seem old-fashioned and have difficulty attracting candidates from this generation, or have difficulties utilizing and keeping the candidates they do attract, because of these communication restrictions 60. Thirdly, if organizations choose not to implement Enterprise 2.0 tools in a controlled manner inside the organizationalfirewall, given social media s position as an established communication channel, there is a risk that it will enter in an uncontrolled manner. As noted by Allan et al. (2008, quoted in Backhouse, 2009, p. 5)"... Social networking technology is going to come into business through the back door". The corresponding risk, as noted by DiMicco et al., is that employees will engage in social media communication outside the enterprise and thus move "critical communication and information outside the firewall" (DiMicco et al. 2008, p. 719 quoted in Backhouse et al. 2009: 5), hence outside the control of the company. Consequently, investing in Enterprise 2.0 systems may, in time, not only be a choice of potential competitive advantage, but a prerequisite for successful operation for many types of organizations. One might thus argue, that it is no longer a question of implementing or not implementing an 58 in most cases, the term focuses on people who grew up with the technology that became prevalent in the latter part of the 20th century and continues to evolve today. 59 In primetime media they are often refered to as the facebook generation. 60 Aspects of external communication and/or branding value of Enterprise 2.0 systems will not be dealt with in more detail in this thesis, as mentioned in our delimitations. Page 44 of 115

47 Enterprise 2.0 system. Rather the question is how to implement and govern Enterprise 2.0 systems in a fashion that yield benefits and minimizes risks. While this thesis will not address the question of whether or not to invest, it will provide insights to the latter question, focusing on Enterprise 2.0 governance. This concludes our literature review of Enterprise 2.0 systems and the potential outcomes hereof. Most notably, we have found that the fundamental design principles of Enterprise 2.0 systems are based upon or generate a number of mechanisms: network effects, emergent structures and transparency (architecture of openness). We have also found that for these mechanisms to function it is a prerequisite that users are given and act from a certain level of autonomy, they must be enabled to author, to share, to freely interact with published content and each other, and to structure workflows, networks and content after their own preferences. These mechanisms and prerequisites have consequences for the style of governance that is appropriate to adopt in order to obtain the benefits and minimize the risks. As governance is essentially an execution of power in an organization it is necessary to analyze the inherent power distribution within Enterprise 2.0 systems, as this will have an effect on the governance mechanisms that can be applied in these systems. Thus, it is not possible to provide a thorough analysis of governance, without first having analyzed power. Before conducting our analysis of appropriate governance style for Enterprise 2.0 in an answer to our research question, we will confront the aspect of power. In the power analysis we will draw upon the findings of this chapter and analyze if and in what way the design principles, mechanisms and prerequisites of Enterprise 2.0 influence the power structure within Enterprise 2.0. We will further discuss if implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems have an influence on the organizational power structure. Page 45 of 115

48 4.)Power)and)Enterprise)2.0) When initiating this thesis, the conceptual power analysis was not part of the thesis plan, however, initial analyses and literature reviews clarified the inseparable relationship between power and governance; that governance cannot be properly analyzed without relating to power relations. Governance is essentially control of behavior, influencing other people in a specific direction, regulating behavior and presenting some form of authority. Governance is said to be the act of power; when management governs an organization, they are making use of the power, authority and influence they hold over an organization or group within the company. Whenever people, groups, organizations, or countries are governed, an element of power is at play; the management, government, CEO etc. has some kind of power over the employees to govern them in a certain direction. In other words, power relations are a fundamental premise for governance (Weiss, 2000). Thus, we find it impossible to provide a thorough answer of the research question of this thesis relating to Enterprise 2.0 governance without, without first analyzing the power relations and potential power changes in an organization as a consequence of implementing organization wide Enterprise 2.0 systems. If it is found, that a change in power relations occur through implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems, this will have an effect on the governance approaches that are suitable, and the findings will be integrated into our later analysis. 4.1)Power)theory) Only few scholars have dealt with the question of power changes in Enterprise 2.0 systems, and the literature only discusses the topic superficially; to our knowledge no deep and structured analysis of power distribution within organizations as a result of implementing Enterprise 2.0 has been published. Backhouse et al. (2009: 7), reflects briefly upon the question of power, yet provide no full answers: Will the use of Web 2.0 tools in the enterprise induce more structural change by empowering lower and middle-level layers of management? Such tools will almost certainly engender change in workflows and associated business processes but these changes are largely procedural. More direct access to customers and suppliers will impact procedures at relevant customer-facing organizations, or in equivalent supply chains, potentially resulting in some flattening of organizational hierarchies. Social media may make it simpler for ideas and innovation to flow from the lower and mid levels of the organizations to upper-level managers. However, even if this is the case, upper-level management will still be making the final determination on the overall strategic direction of the enterprise. This brief reflection points to some interesting aspects, Page 46 of 115

49 however it seems the change in power is uncertain, yet is of great importance, as changes in power distribution impacts how an organization operates and functions. Such changes may affect how, by whom and at what speed decisions are made, and may affect the quality of the decisions. All are elements that can greatly influence the performance of the company. Furthermore, it may change the roles of each employee and manager. In other words, there is a need to understand the implicit power structure of Enterprise 2.0 and how this may affect implementing organizations. Before commencing an analysis of power in Enterprise 2.0, in search of an inherent power structure in Enterprise 2.0, we need to ensure a shared understanding of power. Thus, we will begin with a conceptual analysis of, what power is, where it exists, and how it is achieved. As the discussion of power is not new, much of the theory we use is of quite old age, and some theories have had slightly different approaches in the study of power; studying power either in the context of classes in societies, power relations in prisons, in companies, in organizations, and personal relations etc. Although these vary, we believe that it will not have much influence on our use of them, as they each provide different aspects of power power bases. Also, many comparisons can be made between the different contexts, as they all include relations between people, groups, etc. which is the ultimate condition of power. Despite the age of the theories, they are still highly relevant and useful, as the concept of power itself has not changed, although many conditions in our society have. Therefore we will build our conceptual analysis chronologically, building on the understanding of power as we go along. This will ensure a deep understanding, as well as different aspects of power, which will be useful in our analysis in section 4.2. The theories presented in the following sections have been carefully selected to ensure a chronological understanding of the development of power theory, while also securing relevant theories, which all present perspectives on power that are useful for our analysis. As a reference to the governance theory presented later in the thesis, the distinction between formal and informal governance is important, and the most widely used theory throughout the analysis, the bifactorial power theory, ensures outcomes from the analysis that can be directly transferred to the governance analysis. We will start with a classical power theory and built from this to form the thorough understanding on which we have built our analysis of power. Elitist)perspective)on)power)) The elitist perspective on power is also known as the classical power theory, and is merely presented to clarify the changes that have occurred in power theory. Thus it will form as a reference Page 47 of 115

50 point in our conceptual analysis. Among the most important elitist theorists are Vilfredo Pareto 61, Gaetano Mosca 62 and Robert Michels 63. They were the first to specify this perspective on power, which C. Wright Mills later developed in his book The Power Elite from Although there are some differences in the aspects of their perspectives on power, they do share many of the same assumptions that are general to the elitist perspective. The main assumption is, that there exists two groups in society: Elites an organized, competent minority that rules: A small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and/or (political) power. Masses an unorganized, incompetent majority being ruled. The power elite is characterized by the organizational structure through which its wealth is acquired 64. According to Mills (1956, p. 147), part of the power elite is "the managerial reorganization of the propertied classes into the more or less unified stratum of the corporate rich." Domhoff (1997) further clarified the differences in the two terms: "The upper class as a whole does not do the ruling. Instead, class rule is manifested through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions... Leaders within the upper class join with high-level employees in the organizations they control to make up what will be called the power elite" (Domhoff, 1997). The elitist perspective on power, thus, represents a highly structure oriented view on power, and does to a lesser degree address the personal characteristics of the people holding power. This elitist notion of power was challenged by explicit power theorists, who believed that power was not only dependent on position, but that a more specific definition of power could be found. In the next section the explicit power theory will be presented. Explicit)power)(Robert)A.)Dahl)) The notion of formal power is primarily ascribed to Professor Robert A. Dahl of Yale University and his article The Concept of Power from In his article, he does not attempt to create a single, coherent, consistent theory of power, as he believe that power is not one thing, but that it can be many things. Instead he attempts to make a formal definition of power that will catch something of one s intuitive notions as to what [power] is (Dahl, 1957, p. 202). He does, however, focus on 61 The most important theoretical contribution from Vilfredo Pareto, was the Pareto Principle, coined by Joseph M. Juran, also known as The Law of the Vital Few: Roughly 80% of the effects (value) come from 20% of the causes (vital few people, companies etc.). 62 Gaetano Mosca emphasized the sociological and personal characteristics of elites. 63 Robert Michels wrote the classical power theory book The Iron Law of Oligarchy. 64 Unlike the social formation based on heritage and social ties, which was called the ruling class. These two differ, as for the power elite, wealth was acquired through work. Page 48 of 115

51 power as the explicit mechanisms that are salient and clearly expressed or stated what can be measured with relative ease. With this is meant, that focus within the explicit perspective on power is on conflict and the visible expressions of power. The article is one in a series of multiple articles (Dahl, 1957, 1986) that seeks to challenge the past classical theories (elitist perspectives) of power, which they believe to be relatively imprecise or vague in their definition of power (Dahl, 1957, 1986). The main critique on traditional theories of power is the notion that power is concentrated around individuals holding high positions in society/organizations. Dahl takes a pluralistic perspective in believing that power is a relation, and [ ] it is a relation among people (Dahl, 1957). The objects of this relationship, actors, can be individuals, groups, roles, offices, governments, nation-states or other human aggregates. Dahl describes three properties of the power relation. The first is, that there exists a time lag from the actions of the actor who exerts power to the responses of the respondent. Secondly, there is no action at a distance. Unless there is some connection between the actor and respondent, then no power relation can be said to exist. However, he does not define this connection or connectedness, but simply states the significance. If there is no connection or even opportunity for connection, one needs to proceed no further [in the quest of defining the power relation] (Dahl, 1957). The third property of the power relation is, that exerting power depends on the success of the actor in influencing the respondent towards a behavior he/she would not have had otherwise. With these properties, Dahl describes a causal relation between the actor and the respondent: The closest equivalent to power is the causal relation (Dahl, 1986). How much power A has over B can, according to Dahl, be specified by comparing A and Bs opinions with the actual decisions made. Herein lies the emphasis on a conflict: the extent to which A has power over B depends on the measurability of the power exerted, which can only be measured when conflict of interests exists. Thus, he views decisions already made, and awards most power to the people whose opinions are closest to the decisions actually made (Dahl, 1957). His approach to research on power lies within the so-called decision perspective, focusing on who best controls the decision processes, and thus shows most power in the relation. Dahl and other pluralists belong to the positivistic approach to philosophy of science, which can be detected in the assumptions that the reality is observable: 1) the actors preferences can be observed and defined, 2) the conflict is assumed to be visible, and 3) the overriding or disregard of a respondent s preferences is assumed to be apparent and known to the surroundings. Especially the Page 49 of 115

52 notion of visibility of conflict was what Bachrach & Baratz challenged in their implicit power theory, which we will now address. Implicit)power)(Peter)Bachrach)&)Morten)S.)Baratz)) As a critique to Dahl s definition of power, Bachrach & Baratz wrote the article Two Faces of Power in Overall, they share much of the same critique on the elitist perspective on power as Dahl and other pluralists; they oppose to the elitist belief that there exists an ordered system of power, a power structure in organizations, that power is stable over time, and that reputed power can be equated with actual power. Bachrach & Baratz further argue, that some of the critique that Dahl had directed towards elitists in their definitions of power, he has not himself overcome in the article from Bachrach & Baratz (1962, p. 947) writes, that while [the pluralists] criticisms of the elitists are sound, they, like the elitists, utilize an approach and assumptions which predetermine their conclusions. Here they imply, that just as the elitists assume that someone holds power, and thus does not question where the power lies, the pluralists assume that power lies in the disagreement over an issue, and thereby disregard the possibility of power lying outside of disagreement. The main critique they have of Dahl and the pluralist s notion on power is, that the pluralists concentrate their attention, not upon the sources of power, but its exercise. Power to them means participation in decision-making and can be analyzed only after careful examination of a series of concrete decisions. (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, p.61). Instead Bachrach & Baratz believe, that it is important to look at the extend to which and the manner in which the status quo oriented persons and groups influence those community values and those political institutions [ ] which tend to limit the scope of actual decision-making to safe issues (Bachrach & Baratz, 1969, p. 61). Thus, it is not only a matter of using personal or group power to influence choices and decisions made, but also to control which choices to decide between, to influence the opportunities available. To Bahcrach and Baratz it is obvious that power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B. But they believe, that power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A's set of preferences" (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962). Thus power is not only present in the explicit decisions but also implicitly in the non-decision-making processes by filtering the Page 50 of 115

53 potential opportunities and subjects for the decision-making (Thomsen, 2000). A conflict of interest does exist although in a hidden form, as the groups that identify with controversial subjects (which are not on the agenda), are knowingly suppressed and thus recipients of implicit power power is exerted through covering and avoidance of direct conflicts of interests (Thomsen, 2000). However, like with the pluralist perspective, conflict is still a significant assumption in the power-relation. Without conflict there is consensus, and without conflict, it is not possible to assess if a given action is an attempt to stop a subject from reaching the (political) agenda. Both the explicit and implicit perspective on power can be relatively easily applied scientifically (Thomsen, 2000). However, they have been criticized for denying the possibility of an existence of hidden power dimensions, and for neglecting the relevance of structural and institutional influence on power relations. Furthermore, they can be criticized for limiting the scientific approach to power, by exclusively identifying power with conflict (explicit or implicit), and thus exclude the possibility that power can be seen also as a constructive phenomenon. These two points of critique was to a wide extent met by the strategic relational power theory created by Michel Foucault, which we will present in the following section. Strategic)Relational)power)(Michel)Foucault)) Foucault belongs to the category of social scientists within the discourse analytical school as do Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Foucault and Laclau & Mouffe are skeptical of the perception of power as a static possession. Instead, they (discourse analytics) believe, that power relations are best analyzed from a more dynamic perspective (Thomsen, 2000). Power is not something one possesses or owns, but rather is created through political and institutional practice (Foucault, 1980; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). Discourse analytics do not deny the classical control perspective, however, they are more interested in understanding the influence power relations have on the identity of the implicated. Foucault describes power as a complex strategic situation, where a lot more is at stake than one group s attempt to dominate another group (Foucault, 1994, p. 99) the power relation affects the social actors identity. Foucault thus puts emphasis on, that power should be tied to the processes and institutions that create identity: the individual is an effect of power (Foucault, 1987, p. 234). From the perspective of the discourse analytics, power should not be understood as a single event or a one-way process, where especially the person exercising power stays unaffected (Foucault, 1994). The identity of the person exercising power (the dominant actor) will be directly conditioned by the resistance effectuated by the objects of power (group or person). Thus, it is not merely as important Page 51 of 115

54 to define who has the most power (the central aspect in the traditional theories of power), rather, it is interesting to look at which relations and mechanisms that are established between the groups linked by a strategic process. By focusing on the process of power, Foucault distances himself from the condition of both Dahl s and Bachrach & Baratz theory on power, who states that the preferences of all parties involved in a power relation are static and known. In these classical power theories, exercising power is rather a clash between fully established preferences, but the clash of preferences does not change the preferences in themselves (Thomsen, 2000). Foucault claims that because of this, the traditional power theorists are not capable of understanding power (or influence) as a creation of new preferences. He points out, that power relations do not just contain repressive aspects, but certainly also productive aspects; both A and B changes (their opinion/behavior) as a result of a clash in preferences, and from this a power-strategic situation arises power is viewed as a circular and productive process (Thomsen, 2000). What Foucault describes is a process oriented approach that continuingly draws the lines for the possible, the acceptable, the legitimate, the appropriate, the rational, the ethical and the culturally acceptable etc. (Thomsen, 2000). Foucault believes, that the ability to direct the decision-making process is based on a definition-power ; the strategic opportunity to formulate the agenda or the symbols that will consolidate the content in the actual reality (Thomsen, 2000) an understanding that is closely linked to the implicit theory of power from Bachrach and Baratz as described above. In conclusion, Foucault places himself in extension of the traditional theorists while emphasizing a new aspect of power. The elitists, Dahl, Bachrach & Baratz and Foucault all agree that power has a repressive aspect: Power is exercised on someone resulting in a loss on their part. However, the new aspect that Foucault emphasizes, which all the above mentioned abstains from, is that power can have a productive aspect. In the before mentioned theories, power is equated with suppression. Forcing through opinions without consideration of the opinions of the unstructured majority minions, subordinates etc. This view of power as suppressive (power exerted through principality, dictatorship, oligarchy etc.) is, from a classical theorist point of view in complete contrast to democracy, where the majority sets the agenda. From the perception that power and democracy are opposites, execution of power can only be viewed as repressive and negative. Thus, the attempt on the part of the classical theorists is to limit power in order to create democracy. Foucault, in contrast, emphasizes the negative, suppressive aspect of power and the productive aspect of power. Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free (Foucault, 1983, p. 221). Here free subjects are subjects that encounter a field of opportunities in which several reactions, behaviors, ways of appearance can be chosen. Thus power and freedom cannot be Page 52 of 115

55 separated but are both part of a mutual relation, where one cannot be separated from the other (Foucault, 1983). He agrees that democracy is a goal in itself, however, what is crucial hereafter are the means in the search for democracy. To this he would state that power need to be executed in the quest for more democracy, as one cannot assume, that the groups with power and privileges will willingly give them up (Thomsen, 2000). A main difference in the approach to a definition of power between Dahl and Bachrach & Baratz on one side and Foucault on the other side is their approach to the philosophy of science. The first are part of the positivistic school whereas Foucault, as a social constructionist, distances himself from the belief of an absolute truth. Instead he believes, that the reality is a social construction, and dependant on the discourses held by the group or individual. What this means to his conception of power is, that: It seems to me that power is always already there, that one is never outside it [ ] But this does not entail the necessity of accepting an inescapable form of domination (Foucault, 1980). In short, power can never be taken out of the equation of social relations: A society without power relations can only be an abstraction (Foucault, 1983). Although Foucault presents a much more nuanced perspective on power than the previous theorists, he does not specifically seek to present a theory, making it difficult to apply scientifically (Foucault, 1983; Thomsen, 2000). The abstractness of his definition of power and the social constructivistic philosophy of science behind it, makes it necessary to present a theory containing many of these valuable points, while having the advantage of applicability. This we found in the bifactorial power theory, which will be presented below. Bifactorial)Theory)of)Power) French & Raven initially described the bifactorial theory of power in their article The Bases of Social Power from The basic belief in this theory is, that there exists two factors of power: formal and informal. In short they defined power as following: A. Formal power includes legitimate, reward and coercion power bases, and informal power includes referent and expert power bases B. Formal power is associated with hierarchy C. Formal power is anti-symmetrical and informal power is reciprocal D. Conflict is negatively related with informal power These hypotheses are based on and supported by findings from a bidirectional analysis an analysis of the power sent and the power received (Raven, 1993). According to Peiró & Meliá (2003) the Page 53 of 115

56 bifactorial theory of power in organizations includes propositions about (a) the structure of the bases of power (how bases of power are in fact grouped in organizations), (b) the relationship between dimensions of power and hierarchy, (c) the relationship between sent and received power, and (d) the relationship between these dimensions and interpersonal conflict. The consideration of all these relationships in the frame of role-set theory opens a wider approach to the study of interpersonal power compared to both the explicit and implicit theory of power, and also includes the relational power, that Foucault emphasizes in his theory (Thomsen, 2000). With direct inspiration from French & Raven, Peiró & Meliá (2003) believes that power can be understood in two ways: A social condition and a personal ability. The social condition is what Dahl and Bachrach & Baratz define as power, but the personal ability what is here called informal power is neglected in their definitions as described above. Foucault does include the emphasis on the impact power relations have on the identity of the people involved, which Peiró & Meliá (2003) are including in their conception of power. A relatively clear definition of the two types of power is given by Bass (1960), who states that position power stems from a person s formal position and implies the legitimate authority to use positive and negative sanctions such as reward and coercion, e.g. the existence of organizational hierarchies that renders management abilities to control the behavior of others and to change the organizational structure and processes. Personal power instead refers to expertise, referent power and charisma of a person, e.g. power sources connected to particular abilities, skills, and expertise of an actor. These two types of power, although they can be related under certain circumstances, are conceptually independent from each other (Munduate & Dorado, 1998; Peiró & Meliá, 2003; Rahim, Antonioni, & Psenicka, 2001). However, they do recognize that other forms of legitimacy, rewards and coercive sources are associated to the person and not to the hierarchy that may exist, as well as other forms of expertise and referent sources can be linked to the position (Peiró & Meliá, 2003; Raven, 1999). In short it can be stated that formal power is asymmetrical while informal power is reciprocal. Formal+(position)+power:+ Formal power is role determined by social and impersonal parameters based on structural power sources related to hierarchical positions, to which informal (personal) power is not necessarily connected (Peiró & Meliá, 2003). In other words, most organizations are organized in hierarchical structures, characterized by an uneven distribution of information, resource control, and decisionmaking power among positions. Among the several bases of social power only that of legitimate Page 54 of 115

57 power is wholly implied by the formal structure. Other power differentials are typically conferred along with formal authority, for example, differential access to information or resources for rewarding or coercion (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964, p. 192). Most classical studies focus on that agents of influence and the respondents are of different hierarchical positions. Although different task dependencies (sequential vs. reciprocal 65 ) have very different power implications, it is generally accepted, that there is a direct, inverse relation between hierarchical dependence and formal power: The more a person depends hierarchically on an agent, the more the agent exerts formal power on him or her (Peiró & Meliá, 2003). Formal power is based on the availability or capability to control the exchange of socially valued restricted goods whose distribution is related to the position in the organizational hierarchy. Formal power is exercised in a top-down manner. The superiors exert Formal power on their subordinates while the opposite is not the case. Therefore, it can be expected that a power agent holding a higher hierarchical position than that of the target will hold more formal power over the target than peers or subordinates. Informal+(personal)+power:+ Informal power is based on positive personal relations involving the exchange of social support, referral relationships, or knowledge, all socially valued unrestricted goods. Informal power, not necessarily being associated with formal structure, can flow in all directions (Peiró & Meliá, 2003). Peiró & Meliá (2003) does, however, argue, that formal positions affects the development of personal relationships, which means that the two types of power can never be completely separated from each other, but does describe two different phenomena of power within organizations. It also means, that given the dissimilar distribution of formal power, the informal power should be highest among equals people in similar positions within the hierarchy, where no difference in formal power will unbalance the power relation. Dyadic cohesion develops through an affective process, characteristic of equal power relations that can be obstructed by unequal relationships that characterize formal power relationships (Lawler & Yoon in Peiró & Meliá, 2003, p. 19). As Foucault emphasizes, the bidirectional analysis of power allows the researcher to look at the relationship between sent and received power, however, it does not imply if these bases of power are equally shared between agents and targets. Formal power of the agent implies a lack of formal 65 Sequential Task Dependency: Tasks moves in one direction (e.g. an assembly line) Reciprocal Task Dependency: Tasks flow in a back-and-forth manner between the agents: outputs of one department of an organization becomes the input of another department, with the addition of being cyclical Page 55 of 115

58 power with the recipient in the power bases associated with hierarchies. Informal power, in contrast, requires that the recipient accepts the influence of the power agent and that the recipient develops a feeling of control and empowerment (Goldberg & Campbell, 1997). Thus, to receive informal power, the power agent needs to take into account the demands and desires from the recipient of influence. Informal power thus implies the need for developing some degree of trust and acceptance of the agent, which allows for reciprocity of influence, although it is not necessarily symmetrical (Peiró & Meliá, 2003). This creates empowerment, which according to Liden & Arad (1996, p. 207) represents a means of power acquisition that has not been included in models of power. Unlike other forms of power acquisition, empowerment is unique in that it involves an intentional and often formal process of structural and behavioral change, designed to grant power to individuals or groups who previously did not enjoy structural advantages that provide power. While use of formal power (hereunder mainly coercion) to some degree can be said to be damaging to the relationships, the use of informal power is a much more valued and long-term effective approach. Informal power is reciprocal and thus available to both sides of the power relation: the more informal power A has over B, the more informal power B has over A (Peiró & Meliá, 2003; Raven, 1993). When used effectively emphasizing their communicability and mutuality, we might find less distancing, less distrust, greater cooperation and de-escalation of conflict (Raven, 1993). This corresponds with research that has shown, that efforts made to extend managers power bases from purely position- to include personal bases of power has a positive impact on attitudes and behavior of subordinates (Peiró & Meliá, 2003). In their theory Peiró & Meliá (2003) uses the term influence much in relation to informal or personal power. It should be clear that influence is the equivalent of the productive aspect of power that Foucault describes in his conception of power, and thus it can to a certain extend be difficult to completely separate Foucault s conception of power with the bifactoral theory of power, although the latter seems to be more distinct and sharply defined. Morgan+ In an extension of French & Ravens power bases, Morgan (1983) defined 14 rather narrowly specified power bases. Many of the power bases are parallel to or subgroups of the definitions from French & Raven (as appears in the footnote 66 ), most of which are not specifically relevant for our 66 Morgan s 14 power bases are*: Formal authority (L/Rw/C); Control of scarce resources (L); use of organizational structures, rules and regulations (L/E); Control of decision processes (L/Rf); control of knowledge and information (E); Control of boundaries (partly by L/Rf); ability to cope with uncertainty (partly by Rf/E); control of technology (partly by L/E/Rf); interpersonal alliances, networks and control of informal organization (Rf); control of counter- Page 56 of 115

59 analysis, which is why we have chosen to keep French & Raven s definitions. Two of these power bases, however, bring forth important aspects in this context, that we find have not been covered from the above mentioned power theories: control of boundaries 67 and control of technology 68. Practical)approach)to)power) )how)is)power)achieved:)) Before summarizing the practical approach to power we will use in this thesis, we find it beneficial to summarize this section and the different aspects of power, that we have included in our conceptual analysis. This is done in table 3 below, and includes the main differentiations within the power perspectives presented in this conceptual analysis, including main theorists, subjects and objects of power, foundation of analysis and of course the definition of power made in each theory. organizations (partly by C/Rf, but not important to this thesis); symbolism and the management of meaning (Rf/E); gender and the management of gender relations (partly by Rf, but not important to this thesis); structural factors that define the stage of action(l/rf/e); the power one already has (E). *Brackets represents the power bases from the bifactorial power theory that covers somewhat the same aspects/problems: L=Legitimate, Rw= Reward, C= Coercive, Rf= Referent and E= Expert power. 67 Groups and departments often try to control key skills and resources, which influences in-group/out-group decisions (Morgan, 1983) 68 Organisations often become dependent on some form of core technology, which influences interdependence and power relations. People are able to manipulate control over technology to their advantage.(( Page 57 of 115

60 Table 3: Summary of power theories Elitist power Explicit power Implicit power Strategic Relational power Bifactorial power Author V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels and C.W. Mills R. A. Dahl P. Bachrach & M.S. Baratz M. Foucault J.R.P. French & B.H. Raven and J.M. Peiró & J.L. Meliá Subjects of power Power elite and subordinate masses Actors: Groups / individuals Actors: Groups / individuals Discursive formations Actors: Groups / individuals Objective of power Control over masses, achieving and holding maximum wealth Control over behavior Control over agenda Discipline and voluntary selfregulation Ensuring power and achieving influence through knowledge of origin Foundation of analysis Structure of society Decisions Decisions / nondecisions Disciplinary and self-regulating techniques Origin of power / achieving power Power definition Ruling elite controls the unstructured masses and holds most of society's wealth Source: Own creation A can make B do something, he/she would not otherwise have done When A, through control over agenda, prevents B from making decisions against As will Power is a network of complex, strategic relations of strength Power can be formal or informal; power is achieved through structural positions or personal characteristics In the next section we will analyze the inherent power structures in Enterprise 2.0 tools, and the effects this have on the power structures and distribution within an organization. Before we begin this analysis, we will summarize some main points from this conceptual analysis, so it can be applied more easily to the analysis. Below we have created a model with brief definitions of the power bases we will analyze in the context of an organization with an Enterprise 2.0 system. This includes the five categories of power from French & Raven (1959), which was further developed by Peiró & Meliá (2003). Definitions of power from elitists have been excluded, as we do not find their definition of power relevant to the context of our thesis, although it served the purpose of defining the outset of power theory and setting the subsequent theories in context. The pluralist s definition of power, we find, is included in formal power within legitimate, reward and coercive power, which Page 58 of 115

61 all refer to making the recipient of power act against their own will. The model includes Bachrach & Baratz definition of power, implicit power, which will be relevant for our analysis. As mentioned above, in addition, we have decided to include two of Morgan's (1983) definitions of power. Combined, these theories form a thorough perspective on power, and the critical realistic perspective on science has the advantage of enabling such combinations of theories holding different philosophies of science (Baskhar, 1989). The applicability and practical features of these theories, the combination of perspectives creating a thorough and whole image of power, as well as the highly respected reputation and acknowledgements of these theories supports the choice of theories used in this thesis. Again we will make references to critical realism, as we as researchers have set out to find the rationally best theories for our analysis. This combination of theories is what we, in accordance with critical realism, have judged to be the best stance for our power analysis. The power bases we will take vantage point from in our analysis are summarized in table 4. In the model, the power bases have been structured as formal or informal power bases, as this is a distinction we find useful and will draw on in the power analysis and in the later chapters. As some power bases described above have not originally been explicitly categorized as either one or the other, we have in some instances chosen to divide them based on the definitions, as the power bases mostly have both formal and informal aspects, which are highly interesting for our analysis. Implicit power, which is the power to determine the organizational agenda or the frames within which possible solutions or choices are made, has been placed as both a formal and an informal power, despite the outset from Bachrach & Baratz (1962). They claimed, that to determine the agenda is a formal power determined by status and position. In this thesis, we argue, that within Enterprise 2.0 systems this power base changes; defining the agenda or raising issues and questions is no longer reserved for specific hierarchical positions or dependent on status; as a result of authoring and transparency everyone can now do so (MSC, MH, BF, JA, CM, McAfee, 2009). Morgan also does not distinguish between formal and informal power bases, we have however found that, control of technology holds both aspects: Control of technology can entail formal control of technology, which origins from a positional feature, e.g. the power to decide which technologies to invest in and implement in the organization, and the power to define user-rights. Control of technology can, however, also entail informal power, which origins from expertise, and the ability to navigate and utilize these systems. The short descriptions below will be revisited in the following chapter, to ensure a structured examination of power within Enterprise 2.0. Page 59 of 115

62 Table 4: Powerbases for analysis Formal power (Anti-symmetrical relation) Informal power (Reciprocal relation) Legitimate power (French & Raven) Power derived from a job, position, or status hierarchical power. Referent power (French & Raven) Influence over others, acquired from being well liked or respected Reward power (French & Raven) The extent to which an entity can control the dispensing of rewards or benefits. Expert power (French & Raven) Ability to influence others based on expertise, knowledge, and past experience. Coercive power (French & Raven) Power that is dependent on fear, suppression of free will, and/or use of punishment or threat, for its existence. Implicit power (Bachrach & Baratz) Formal authority to define the agenda and possible decisions Implicit power (Bachrach & Baratz) Informal influence to effect the agenda and possible decisions Control of boundaries Controls access, also known as gatekeepers. (Morgan) Control of technology (Morgan) Decision power regarding technology control. Control of technology (Morgan) Ability to navigate technology, status symbol, expertise. Source: Own creation Page 60 of 115

63 4.2)Power)analysis) In this section we will present the findings from the analysis of the power relations within Enterprise 2.0 systems. To ensure a thorough and adequate examination of the effects on power when implementing Enterprise 2.0, the analysis has been divided into the eight power bases derived from the literature review above and summarized in table 4. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this analysis is not to create new theory on the concept of power; rather, it is to assess the power relations within Enterprise 2.0 systems and systems. Based on this analysis, we have been able to address on a broader scale (1) that Enterprise 2.0 systems contains an implicit power structure, and (2) what characterizes this power structure. The analysis is partly based on the analysis of the interviews and on theoretical argumentation drawing on the theory reviewed in the previous chapters 3 and 4.1. A screen-shot of the coding of all interview excerpts related to power can be seen in appendix 3. Before looking at the individual powerbases it is important to establish a significant aspect verbalized by MSC: [Enterprise 2.0] is no longer a tool, it is a support of our real world (MSC, our translation 69 ). Thus, the systems functions in the context of the real world the non-virtual world. The real organization and the virtual organization influence each other, and thus they function in a reciprocal relationship. The extent to which the power structures changes will depend on the implementing organization. Thus, the analysis builds on a general notion of power, and the specific power changes within a specific organization should be analyzed based on data from that particular organization. However, general aspects do apply to this area, and it is these, that we will address in the following sections. Structured by the eight power bases defined above, we will now present the findings from the analysis. The power bases will not be presented sequentially as organized in table 4, instead the analysis will be structured chronologically according to the extend a power base is estimated to be influenced by Enterprise 2.0. This chapter will conclude with a summation of the findings in the context of the reciprocal relationship between the real and the virtual. Control)of)technology)(formal)and)informal)) Control of technology is first and foremost the authority to decide which technologies to invest in and to implement. This authority is in most organizations still reserved appointed positions (XX, NBA, MSC). However, given the design principles of Enterprise 2.0, the control over technology 69 Original text: det er ikke længere et værktøj, det er en understøttelse af vores virkelige verden, Page 61 of 115

64 entails more aspects than merely choices of technology. An aspect that was mentioned in the Enterprise 2.0 section is that a fundamental design principle of Enterprise 2.0 is that the use hereof should be optional. In other words, this design principle means that ideally employees should have the ability to decide if they want to use the software, and which parts of the system or content they choose to engage in. This is one of the aspects supporting emergent structures. Although this notion was supported by the empirical data (MH, JA, CM), it was also expressed that the extent to which employees can freely access system and voluntarily choose what aspects of the system to engage with, depends on the governance approach within an organization (MH, BF, JA, MSC). An organization may choose to limit access to certain information due to sensitivity of data or even due to a perceived need of control (MSC, MH, BF, McAfee, 2009). In this relation is must be noted that the theory created by McAfee (2009) explicates the optimal conditions of implementation, which provides the highest probability of success. Despite the apparent shortcoming of this theory, it still explains essential aspects of Enterprise 2.0 systems. Whether the use of these systems is completely optional, or if management directs the extent to which it should be used, the notion of these systems entails, that the benefits sought after can only be obtained by a certain degree of openness within the systems and by a lenient approach to user management; Enterprise 2.0 systems make less room for micro-management of processes and standards, instead it empowers the users to structure the content as they wish (CM, JA, MSC). This has an effect on the power distribution, as JA explains: all of a sudden I have the power to shape the technology instead of having to adjust my work processes to what someone assumed about technology two years ago, when we started the project (JA, our translation 70 ). The flexibility and openness of these technologies limits the formal power of control of technologies. How individuals grow or maintain their social networks, which they choose to follow, connect and communicate with is optional, unless restrictive access has been purposely ensured. Enterprise 2.0 systems can as such be said to grow organically. In other words, the employees are given autonomy to use these tools. Thus, while most legitimate control over technology remains, the formal power that was previously reserved for top management by control over technology is now more evenly distributed over the entire organization. Managers are less able to formally control the behavior of users through structural traits, and are in some ways forced to distribute some formal control over technology of Enterprise 2.0 in order to obtain the benefits hereof. The new form of control over technology is rather an informal power such as expert and referent power, as a superior ability to 70 Original text: lige pludselig har jeg magten til at forme teknologien istedet for at jeg bliver nødt til at tilpasse mine arbejdsprocesser til hvordan der er nu lige er nogen der har lavet nogen antagelser om teknologien en eller anden gang for 2 år siden da vi startede projektet. Page 62 of 115

65 navigate in an Enterprise 2.0 system, to know the unspoken rules of interaction, and to hold the communication skills to make valid and relevant contributions will define the degree of power held (MSC, NBA, JA). We will elaborate more on this in later subsections. Control of technologies also covers control of communication channels 71. As mentioned in section 3.1, mass communication 72 was previously reserved for the formal keepers of power or agents. A shared feature between these types of media is that holders of formal (legitimate) power define the communication flow in a top-down manner without open interaction. Because of their formal position they held the power to control, which information was made widely accessible, and which information was kept hidden. They controlled who could communicate, which messages were communicated and often to whom. Enterprise 2.0 systems changes this as everyone can now contribute with new information, raise questions or issues, and create new networks or relations (MSC, JA, McAfee, 2006). Control)of)boundaries) Control of boundaries can be either formal or informal. The formal control of boundaries lies in the authority to control access: To information, people, approvals, etc. This phenomenon is also called gate keeping. Gate keeping is typically associated with middle managers, secretaries, receptionists, and administrative employees employees that control flow of information, reduce it to ensure that only highly relevant information flows to the managers or employees processing or using the information (D. J. Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Daniel J Brass, 1984; Burt, 2001, 2004; Sozen, 2012). This has the advantage of reducing time spent by busy employees on irrelevant work. However, gate keeping has the potential downside of preventing relevant information or request from flowing to other areas of the organization due to faulty judgment of relevance or malign motives. Gatekeepers often also include division managers, responsible for the performance of a division, who often, intentionally or unintentionally, create silos and prevent organization wide collaboration by holding back or not sharing information. According to our analysis this distribution of tasks or creation of intermediaries, gatekeepers, changes to a certain degree when implementing Enterprise 2.0. MSC explains: We are able to produce, distribute and consume within the same media, whereas we used to have [constituents] e.g. in the media business; here it is written, there it is pressed, and there it is read. Today, we work within the same tool. The value chains or the intermediaries we used to have for distributing 71 This powerbase is closely related to control of boundaries below. 72 broadcast technology such as newspapers, television stations, or early web sites demanding advanced technical knowhow or simply with centralized editing privileges Page 63 of 115

66 knowledge are merged into one media, there are no longer many steps between something being thought and read it is at the same place. Earlier we have implemented intermediaries, people, systems, even culture, which have resulted in the introduction of multiple stages between something being thought and read. This is something we cannot maintain anymore, it does not make sense to introduce these types of systems digitally, simply because it is a barrier (MSC, our translation 73 ). Thus, the control of boundaries change; the boundaries are no longer determined by formal positions; rather, it is determined by the ability of employees and managers using the system (JA, MSC, XX). When wide adoption of an Enterprise 2.0 system is in place, individuals are enabled to find, communicate, and connect with colleagues that are outside their immediate network, proximity, department, has different expertise etc. As employees before had to rely heavily on their immediate network for assistance or information, now, Enterprise 2.0 systems enable them to communicate with and maintain larger personal networks via social networking tools, and to increase their networks via easy accessibility to distant employees (A. McAfee, 2009). From a structural or technical perspective, one can argue that this open architecture of Enterprise 2.0 decreases the formal positional power held by individuals previously functioning as network hubs or gatekeepers. The connectedness and openness creates a more efficient organization, which in the process decreases the power of having control of boundaries. In other words, adopting Enterprise 2.0 causes more fluent organizational boundaries, degradation of internal barriers, and removal of intermediaries hereby creating a more open cross-organizational communication and visibility both horizontally and vertically 74. Expert)power) Our analysis indicates that informal power bases have a prominent role within Enterprise 2.0 systems. From the analysis, as briefly mentioned above, a strengthening of the informal power 73 Original text: Vi kan både producere, distribuere og konsumere i det samme medie, hvor man før havde haft, fx. medie branchen; her bliver den skrevet, her bliver den trykt og her bliver den læst. I dag er det det samme værktøj vi arbejder i. De værdikæder eller mellemled, de medier vi har haft til at distribuere viden med er faldet samme i samme medie, så vi har ikke længere samme led mellem at noget bliver tænkt og læst - det er samme sted. Der har vi jo tidligere indført en masse mellemmænd, folk, systemer, kultur som gør at vi har indført en masse led mellem når noget bliver tænkt og læst. Men det kan vi ikke opretholde mere, det giver ikke mening at indføre sådanne systemer digitalt, fordi det simpelthen bare er en barriere 74 Some organizations even open up their internal communications- and operation systems to their customers. During the interview JA tells a story of one of PODIOs customers who invites their customers into the workspace used to collaborate and communicate internally on the customers project, allowing full access to all internal information and communication. In this way the customer can bypass sales and support teams and get in direct contact with the technician on the floor working on the customer s product. Transparency increases. This has major organizational consequences. The organization must be attuned to itself. It must work as a unit. Page 64 of 115

67 bases partly at the expense of formal power seems to appear within Enterprise 2.0. The analysis further shows that due to the open infrastructure in terms of equal access to information and to people or networks, organizations implementing Enterprise 2.0 become more meritocratic (JA, MSC, MH). JA expresses: Does [Enterprise 2.0] transform the social systems that make up organizations? The answer is: yes, I think so. I think to the degree that you can become much, much more specialized and become even more of a geek it will be geeks who inherit the world. Instead of it being someone with stars on their shoulders, it will be people with expertise who will lead (JA, our translation 75 ). MSC describes this mechanism of meritocracy: you excel based on merits rather than seniority. If you look at development societies and open source societies; you solve the problem that is most important, and the one solving it best wins. My decision is not better than your decision; it is because I have shown that I can solve this problem in the best way, it could be fastest or most intelligent, that my solution wins (MSC, our translation 76 ). Another aspect of expert power, regardless of power being obtained in the real or the virtual organization, is the ability to be respected and accepted as an expert by diverse social groups. In order to gain influence or acceptance in a social group, one must show proper qualifications to the group one is trying to enter or influence (JA, MSC, A. P. McAfee, 2006; Sozen, 2012). Understanding the rules of the given social system, operating within them and contributing in a meaningful way is of high importance. JA explains: there are a lot of myths about this social : That social opens up everything and everyone can participate, and suddenly information is available for all. This is in principle technically true. But if you go to some geek forum and write something random, you will be thrown out fast. So it becomes more specialized and it will be the geeks who [rules within this system]... So yes, you can read what others have made, but to be a part of this [social] system you will have to contribute and you will have to qualify. In this way, it has become more exclusive (JA, our translation 77 ). It can therefore be argued, that to gain influence via Enterprise 2.0 system one must contribute meaningful content in an appropriate fashion, and posses 75 Original text: Forandrer det de sociale systemer som udgør vores arbejdsorganisation? Svaret er Ja, det tror jeg. Jeg tror at det gør det i den grad hvor man kan gå ind og blive meget meget mere specialiseret og blive endnu mere en nørd. Det bliver nørderne der arver verden. Og i stedet for at det er nogen der har stjerner på skuldrene, så er det nogen der har ekspertise på en eller anden måde som lige pludselig bliver nogen førerne. 76 Original text man kommer frem pga. sin merit frem for sin anciennitet. Hvis man ser udviklingsmiljøer og open source miljøer; man løser det problem der er væsentligst, og den der løser det bedst vinder. Det er ikke sådan at min beslutning er bedre end din beslutning, det er fordi at jeg har vist at jeg kan løse dette problem på den bedste måde, det kan være hurtigst eller mest intelligent, så vinder min løsning 77 Original text der er sådan en masse myter om det her "social". At social åbner alting op og alle kan være med og lige pludselig er alt information tilgængelig for alle. Det er også i princippet teknisk set rigtigt. Men hvis man går ind på et eller andet nørd forum og skriver et eller andet "random" så bliver du immervæk bootet rimelig hurtig. Så det bliver mere og mere specialiseret og det bliver ligesom nørderne der ejer det her. så ja du kan gå ind og læse hvad de andre har lavet, men for ligesom at være en del af det her system(social system) så bliver du nødt til at byde ind og du bliver nødt til kvalificere dig selv. På den måde er det blevet mere eksklusivt. Page 65 of 115

68 the right competences including communication skills. In addition, as was briefly mentioned under control of technology, technical abilities will increase the expert power base; having the technical abilities to navigate Enterprise 2.0 tools will provide an advantage. This is a result of the emphasis on contribution; people with the ability to create and share high value content in an Enterprise 2.0 system and/or produce impressive results, will gain more influence and peers will be more attentive to these contributions in the future. In combination, these skills enable individuals to create sound arguments presented in a thoughtful and convincing manner that is adapted to the medium. The best argument wins. JA explains that at Podio formal leaders defines the overall strategy but on the operational level, it is quite meritocratic in the sense that the good argument generally wins (JA, our translation 78 ). If the power structure within Enterprise 2.0 systems incline towards meritocracy, it is of course the entire performance and merit that is important, not only abilities made visible in the Enterprise 2.0 system. It should be noted that experts might not have high formal power; they gain power from having valuable and vast knowledge, and by demonstrating their abilities in practice (MSC, JA, MH). Expert power is often closely linked to and achieved in combination with referent power, as superior communication skills and social skills are considered a referent power. This we will analyze below. Referent)power) As explained in chapter 4.1, referent power concerns the power acquired from being liked and respected. As certain aspects of communication differs from actual interactions some people may be able to position themselves differently virtually than in real-life, e.g. introverts may gain more influence in a virtual space where communication is written and not in the same way dominated by extroverts. Valuable competences for gaining informal power are social skills, including understanding the rules of social interaction and being able to present oneself confidently and competently in social situations, regardless the situation occurring virtually or in person (Raven, 1993). One reason is, that social skills help build better relationships. As stated in chapter 4.1, informal power bases are reciprocal, thus, when relations are made, both parties involved will increase their informal power. While networks become easier to create and sustain because colleagues and peers have become more accessible, good communicators will have the possibility of increasing their referent power immensely (A. P. McAfee, 2006; Raven, 1999). As additionally stated in chapter 4.1, referent power is typically largest in equal relationships, thus referent power is 78 Original text på det der operationelle niveau er det sådan meget meritokratisk på den måde, at hvis man har det gode argument så vinder det som regel Page 66 of 115

69 generally strongest between employees on the same or equivalent levels in the organizational hierarchy. However, as we described earlier, Enterprise 2.0 systems are indifferent to hierarchies. Thus, referent power can to a certain degree be obtained on an equal basis throughout the organization and across the organizational hierarchy (Peiró & Meliá, 2003; Raven, 1993). Managers sharing thoughts and opening for dialog will gain valuable insights from the employees responding. But due to the reciprocity of the informal power bases, this also increases employees informal power, meaning managers might be challenged by employees that criticize suggested ideas, suggest better ideas, challenge the manager s opinions etc. - everything openly displayed (JA, CM, MSC, MH). CM explains that managers should be aware that implementing Enterprise 2.0 and entering a dialog means: Changing the way you communicate with employees. Once you have taken that step, you will have a hard time going back to shouting out orders. If you first tell your employees now we will open our doors, you can write openly here, we can talk etc, and then close it down afterwards, then you have a problem. At least, you have to justify to the employees why you do not bother listening anymore. So yes, they [the management] may feel threatened, because it is a way to challenge the power structure (CM, our translation 79 ). As such, entering a dialog and attempting to utilize informal power is a potentially risky, but also potentially highly rewarding action, and the management must be aware of the implications to the decisions they make. In many ways they must change their way of thinking and acting in the organization (JA, MSC, CM, MH). This will be explained further within the governance analysis. Legitimate)power) The literature review revealed that the structural design and the formal positions within an organization is determinant of potential changes in legitimate power. As a result of the inherent difficulty of micromanagement within the system, more freedom is allowed for the employees to make their own judgments and decisions regarding usage of the system (JA, MH, CM, MSC). This suggests that legitimate power is slightly diminished. The degree of legitimate power present in organizations is also connected to the notion described in chapter 3.2: Enterprise 2.0 systems being indifferent to formal hierarchies, which explicates that contributions are generally not valued or emphazised differently because of hierarchical status or positions. Also, it does not necessarily explicate the contributors formal positions within the 79 Original text her går I ind og ændrer den måde I taler med medarbejderne. Dvs. når I først har taget det skridt, så har I svært ved at gå tilbage til bare at brøle ordrer ud, hvis I først siger til medarbejderne "hey, nu vil vi åbne vores dør, I kan skrive åbent her, vi kan snakke sammen" osv., og så lukker de ned bagefter, så har man jo pludselig et problem. Så skal man i hvert fald retfærdiggøre over for medarbejderne, hvorfor man ikke gider at lytte mere. Så jo, de kan godt føle sig truet, fordi det er jo en måde at udfordre magtstrukturen. Page 67 of 115

70 organization, unless intentionally customized to do so, or unless names and positions are known beforehand. The organizational structure can be said to become less visible within Enterprise 2.0 systems, and importance of contribution thus more dependent on quality of content rather than as a result of formal authority and hierarchical positions (MSC, JA, MH, BF, McAfee, 2009). However, if titles are explicitly attached to the contributions, it might influence viewers, and thus contributions made by managers gain more influence than contributions made by individuals in the lower layers of the organization (MH, JA). Thus, some legitimate power seems to be sustained within the system, however, only if transparency of contribution, authors, includes organizational titles (MSC, NBA, BF). Furthermore, that Enterprise 2.0 systems do not predefine workflows will likely diminish the direct influence managers may have on the tasks of the employees to a certain extent (BF, MSC, JA, CM). While, the fundamental design principles of Enterprise 2.0 systems may deemphasize individuals formal position and hence their legitimate power, Enterprise 2.0 systems are existing in and are an extension of the real world, which often maintain focus on positions within a hierarchy, as discussed earlier. Thus, the empirical data points to a contradictory circumstance regarding the influence of Enterprise 2.0 systems on positions i.e. legitimate power: While XX expresses, that being active on Enterprise 2.0 systems will likely not influence your formal power position in any meaningful way (XX, our translation), MSC states that, the organizations we will see in the future are built on the idea of a distributed way of doing things, it does not make sense to have the same hierarchies in the same way as during the industrialization. Conversely, I would say that I don t believe that we will abandon organizations, that you don t have managers, that you unboss everything then it will collapse (MSC, our translation 80 ). From this we can conclude that legitimate power will still remain in the organization, however, some conditions changes the degree or strength of the power base, making it less influential within Enterprise 2.0 systems. Reward)power) The power to reward employees we find is unaffected. As hierarchies will not necessarily be dissolved or even necessarily changed, the people holding the power to reward, which is a consequence of formal position or responsibilities within organizations, will hold this power disregarding the use of Enterprise 2.0. However, due to the transparency of contributions in these 80 Originalt text: De org. former vi kommer til at se i fremtiden er bygget på ideen om en distribueret måde at gøre tingene på, det giver ikke mening at ha de samme hierarkier på samme måde vi har haft under industrialiseringen. Omvendt vil jeg så sige, jeg tror ikke man går væk fra at have en organisation, at man ikke har chefer, man unbosser det hele, så falder det jo sammen. Page 68 of 115

71 systems, individual competences, contributions and results will also become more visible and as such the rewards may be distributed to a larger extend and more fairly, as Enterprise 2.0 will enable a new performance parameter on which issuing rewards can be based (MH, BF). Our conclusion is thus, that reward power will remain unchanged, although a potential of extending this power base exists. Coercive)power) The use of coercive power is the use of fear, punishment, threats or suppression to achieve a wanted result. A natural concern by employees to maintain their jobs remain, and organizational hierarchies are upheld, suggesting that the authority to exert this power is in principle unchanged. Nevertheless, we have found, that the architecture of transparency has an influence on coercive power. Unreasonable use of coercive power is more difficult to enforce; employees can express their opinions more freely, and thus create attention and wide resistance to such behavior (MSC, CM, JA, MH, BF). This will create a pressure and negative attention on whomever attempting to enforce coercive power, which often will result in a limited effect and an abstaining from this behavior in the future (MSC, JA, Peiró & Meliá, 2003). Thus, coercive power generally remains unchanged, although the enforcement of it without wide negative consequences to legitimacy becomes more difficult. Implicit)power)) As was explained in the conceptual analysis of power, implicit power has in this thesis been placed as both a formal and an informal source of power due to the change in ability to influence the agenda. CM articulates that, it is a democratization, because everyone can make their voice heard (CM, our translation 81 ). He continues to explain: there is [an implicit power structure in Enterprise 2.0] because everyone can have their say It might be that no one is listening, but you can certainly write, and you might get a response if you are capable [of contributing with relevance]. Yes, it is a highly democratic process (CM, our translation 82 ). Being capable of getting responses and perhaps inspire others is highly dependent on the individual s ability to contribute with relevance and gain support for the ideas and thoughts published, thus, rather an expression of referent and expert power than an expression of formal power. Offering employees this opportunity to express their opinions and thoughts via Enterprise 2.0 systems, i.e. authoring, provides everyone 81 Original text: det er jo en demokratisering, fordi alle kan få sin stemme ind 82 Original text: det er der, og det er der jo fordi at alle kan komme til orde Det kan godt være at der ikke blev lyttet, men man kan i hvert fald skrive, og man kan måske få resposn, hvis man er i stand til det. Jo, det er en yderst demokratisk process. Page 69 of 115

72 the possibility of influencing the organizational agenda (NBA, CM, JA, MSC). NBA explains: The opportunity we have been given, starting with the , where you can go across the organization, obviously gave an opportunity to influence some processes. Since then... [Enterprise 2.0] has arrived and those capable of expressing themselves in writing are able to obtain more influence (NBA, our translation 83 ). In other words, the open architecture of Enterprise 2.0 and the design principle authoring enables individuals to easily communicate their ideas to a large audience. As was established above 84, gaining influence is however not only a question of IT infrastructure; as NBA states that personal assets such as good written communication skills among other abilities will have an influence on the effectiveness of the influence or power one can hold. Contrarily one can argue that formal keepers of implicit power may still be in a position to choose what reaches the formal agenda of the organization or a meeting, however, if an issue is raised by an employee and gains much attention and support from other employees or managers, pressure will be on the formal holders of power to address the issue (CM, JA, MSC). In this way informal implicit power can influence the holders of formal implicit power. Informal)implicit)power) )an)illusion?) Thus far it seems that Enterprise 2.0 systems hold an inherent power structure that empowers users and as such provides them with more freedom and autonomy (CM, JA, MSC). However, XX indicates that: One of the things I think is very interesting, is the duality in that you can get many people to believe that they have more power and influence, but in reality they do not. And it is amazing that there are a lot of very happy people thinking, now something has really happened and the world has become a new place etc. but unfortunately it is rare that an actual development has occurred in the organization. It is rare that so much autonomy actually exists in these social media (XX, our translation 85 ). NBA elaborates on this phenomenon: The most sublime power is the indirect power, which creates a framework within which the individual can only do what is 83 Original text Den mulighed vi har fået, startende med , hvor man kunne gå på tværs i organisationen er jo klart det gav en mulighed for at få indflydelse på nogle processer. Sidenhen er det selvfølgelig at de andre medier så er kommet til og hvor den der er i stand til at kunne formulere sig skriftlig på de her medier, er i stand til at få en større form for indflydelse 84 In the section beneath on informal power bases, more specifically expert and referent power we shall examine this closer. 85 Original text En af de ting jeg synes er enormt interessant, det er den dualitet der ligger i at du kan få rigtig mange folk til at tro på at de har fået mere magt og indflydelse, men at de i virkeligheden ikke har. Og det er jo helt fantastisk at der går en masse mennesker rundt og er rigtig glade og tænker, nu er der virkelig sket noget og verden er blevet et nyt sted osv., men desværre er det jo sjældent at det rent faktisk har udviklet noget ude hos virksomheden. Det er jo sjældent at der rent faktisk er så meget selvbestemmelse gennem de her sociale medier. Mange steder er det jo det samme, det er bare blevet klædt pænere på og det ser bedre ud og man stempler ikke ind og ud ovre ved døren [ ] men der er nogle der har gjort det selvfølgelig, og hvor det er seriøst og du har virkelig den mulighed, men det er svært! Page 70 of 115

73 appropriate for the organization. It is often hidden or not identified, one can say. So it may well be that the bank clerk is better able to provide larger loans for various purposes, but we have some clear instructions for what they should do and we measure how they do it, both the customer s experience and the outcome. Hence, a disciplining occurs, a regimentation or a conformation of the employees (NBA, our translation 86 ). In other words, while an Enterprise 2.0 system technically provides employees more freedom to act e.g. structure their own working processes, communicate openly, etc., the employees may in fact experience this power as stronger than it actually is. They are held accountable for their performance on different parameters, everything written in an Enterprise 2.0 system is automatically documented and can be used against them: The possibility of being fired or reprimanded if mistakes are made in other words functions as a disciplining of the employees to act in accordance with the interests of the organization an expression of coercive power. The power within the system might be less explicit, however, might still be present in the form of other mechanisms limiting the influence and actions of employees. These mechanisms, we will analyze and seek an understanding of in the governance analysis. Summarizing)the)power)analysis) The main findings of the above power analysis have been summarized in table 5 below. Our analysis has shown that there is an implicit power structure in Enterprise 2.0. Enterprise 2.0 systems does not result in disappearance of power, rather, the sources of power will change (CM, MSC, PA, XX, NBA). The formal powerbases are of less importance in the context of Enterprise 2.0 and as such influence derived from formal control over technology and control over boundaries decreases, while legitimate, coercive and reward power in essentially unaffected. Instead more emphasis is put upon the informal power bases, increasing expert and reference power. The analysis further showed that formal and informal implicit power is influenced in that structurally everyone have equal possibilities for setting/framing the agenda in the context of Enterprise 2.0 systems. 86 Original text Den mest sublime magt er jo den indirekte magt, hvor man skaber nogle rammer indenfor hvilket den enkelte kun kan gøre hvad der er hensigtsmæssigt for virksomheden. Den er ofte skjult eller ikke identificeret kan man sige. Så det kan godt være at bankassistenten får bedre mulighed for at give større lån til flere forskellige formål, men samtidig så har vi nogle klare instrukserne om hvad de skal og vi måler op på hvordan de gør det. Både kundens oplevelse af det og vi måler på outcome bliver senere hen ikke. Dvs. der sker faktisk en disciplinering eller en regimentering eller en ensretning af medarbejderne. Page 71 of 115

74 Table 5: Summary of power analysis Formal power (Anti-symmetrical relation) Informal power (Reciprocal relation) Control of technology (Morgan) While management maintain the power to control the choice of technology, to delete inappropriate content, and to control access to certain information, once implemented, the freeform design of Enterprise 2.0 systems causes this power base to be more evenly distributed throughout the organization. Or rather, it alters the power from formal to informal. Control of technology (Morgan) Once Enterprise 2.0 is implemented, control of technology shifts from formal to informal as individuals highly capable of navigating Enterprise 2.0 tools will gain more influence. Control of boundaries (Morgan) Enterprise 2.0 enables direct contact to the subject of interest, reducing the problem of redundant intermediaries. This decreases the power obtained by holding a structural position as gatekeeper. Legitimate power (French & Raven) The legitimate power vested in formal positions remain present post Enterprise 2.0, however the democratic nature of these systems will likely cause a decrease in this power base. Referent power (French & Raven) The structural dynamics of Enterprise 2.0 increases the potential reach and influence of people of high referent power. Certain aspects of communication differs from actual interactions, some people may be able to position themselves differently virtually than in real-life. Page 72 of 115

75 Reward power (French & Raven) The extent to which a formal entity can control the dispensing of rewards or benefits is essentially unaffected. Yet the transparency of contributions and performance via Enterprise 2.0 systems creates new measurements on which rewards can be based. Thus, the possibility of enlarging this power base exists. Expert power (French & Raven) Individuals of high expertise, with the willingness to share knowledge, will gain more informal power via Enterprise 2.0 systems. Enterprise 2.0 systems may help increase the reach and influence of experts. Coercive power (French & Raven) Coercive power is essentially unaffected. However, unjust use of coercive power in the organization is less probable, as the level of transparency will likely reveal such actions. Implicit power (Bachrach & Baratz) Despite the enabling of employees to affect the organizational agenda via Enterprise 2.0 systems, the management ultimately maintains control of strategy and direction the frames within which the organization operates. Implicit power (Bachrach & Baratz) Due to the design characteristics of Enterprise 2.0 employees are given more power to influence the organizational agenda through the possibility of raising questions, issues, critique, alternative ideas etc. Source: Own creation However, while employees may create more attention to issues raised, defining the formal agenda of the organization is still ultimately up to the formal holders of power. In other words, while employees may increase their influence via the informal power bases, it presupposes that the management is willing to listen to the employees (JA, MSC, CM, MH), the likelihood of which is depended on the aspirations to obtain maximum benefits of Enterprise 2.0. Revisiting the notion that Enterprise 2.0 systems are an extension of the real organization: The reciprocal relationship between the real and the virtual controls or restrains the influence each will have on the other. Thus, according to our analysis the real organization will be affected by the introduction of Enterprise 2.0 and on the inherent power structures of these systems. However, the extent to which the systems will influence the organization depends on the leadership and governance style held within the organization. Thus, to a certain degree the real organization is only affected when the management let it become affected, which again is depending on the result sought and the perspective on the employees, which we will elaborate on in the governance analysis in chapter 5.2. Page 73 of 115

76 The results of the power analysis can be summarized to the following statements: Enterprise 2.0 contains an implicit power structure, which will have an influence on the power structures/relations of the implementing organization. The power structures within Enterprise 2.0 systems are democratic, meritocratic, and enables increased informal power throughout an organization. This concludes our power analysis and in doing so we have established a more thorough understanding of the power structures implicit in Enterprise 2.0. This helps us answer the research question of this thesis as we now have an understanding of the power structures on which governance can be based. In the next chapter we will return to the concept of governance. During the governance analysis, we will resume to the results of this analysis, as they will function as preconditions for the governance analysis. Page 74 of 115

77 5.)Governing)Enterprise)2.0) This chapter entails the primary analysis directly addressing the research question of this thesis. The chapter will start with a literature review of governance literature creating the theoretical foundation we will draw on in the later discussion. Following is our analysis, which constitutes three parts. Firstly, we will present and discuss the managerial actions that the empirical analysis have shown is good Enterprise 2.0 governance, following, we will discuss the underlying mechanisms of behavior regulation primarily from a theoretical perspective. Lastly, we will discuss the findings of both the governance analysis and the power analysis, relating them to the dominant governance perspectives found in the following literature review. 5.1)Governance)theory) The definition of the verb to govern 87, is mainly concerned with what academics describe as formal governance (Wittek, 2007), where control, regulation and influence is mainly done through policies and the use of authority. However, Wittek (2007) has outlined a definition of governance, which differentiates between formal and informal governance. As these terms will serve a purpose later in the thesis, we will briefly describe the difference between the two: Formal Governance is defined by having the following characteristics: (1) The major determinant of individual action is material incentives, and it is the supervisor or management who decides about positive or negative sanctioning of organization members. The decisive element of a sanction is material gains or losses (e.g., career opportunities or pay raises). (2) Management defines interdependencies and specifies the obligations associated with each formal position in the hierarchy. The resulting structures are defined by a clear web of power relationships and mainly serve the purpose of information flow and control. Compliance with the rules is ultimately monitored and sanctioned by management. (3) Compliance with the rules defined by management is legally enforceable, because they are based on legitimate power (Wittek, 2007, p. 81). Informal governance in contrast combines the following elements: (1) The major determinant of individual action is social incentives, as they are realized in social exchange processes and through 87 The common understanding and original meaning of the word can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (2012). According to this, the term governance is derived from the verb to govern, which is defined as either 1) to control, influence or regulate, or 2) to conduct policy, actions and affairs with authority. The English word comes from the old French word governer, which in turn is derived from the Latin gubernare meaning to steer or to rule, which again is derived from the Greek kubernan meaning to steer. Page 75 of 115

78 the allocation of esteem and behavioral confirmation. Peers i.e., other organizational members occupying formally similar positions in the hierarchy are at least as important as a source of social incentives as are supervisors or management. (2) Positions and roles in informal social networks determine access to information, and form the starting point for the emergence of norms. The power to define rules and expectations does not rest primarily with management or superiors, but depends on the structure of the network and an individual s position in the informal structure. (3) Legitimacy of rules is not grounded in a formal-legal basis. Non-compliance, therefore, also cannot be legally enforced (Wittek, 2007, p. 81). Before describing the different paradigms that exists within the theory of governance, we will briefly describe two contexts in which governance is often used. This will serve the purpose of setting our theoretical analysis in the specific context of our thesis, and clarifying, what is meant by the term in our analysis. Corporate)governance) Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled" (Cadbury Committee, 1992). Theory on corporate governance covers the responsibilities of the board of directors of an organization in relation to its stakeholders. Stakeholders include external stakeholders, such as debt holders, shareholders, suppliers and customers, and internal stakeholders such as executives and other employees. Evidently, given the definition of the term, corporate governance involves compliance with regulatory and market mechanisms, steering the organization in the most advantageous direction for the organization in terms of i.e. growth and profit and in compliance with organizational statutes. It also involves controlling the behavior of executives, to ensure alignment between organizational goals and personal goals. However, corporate governance is rarely involved in the specific actions of an organization, rather the direction, strategy and control of the organization and executives. In terms of governance of specific actions within the organization, it is generally up to the executive team to manage and control in compliance with the overall corporate guidelines and strategy (Rose, 2004). IT)Governance) Governance is an organizational design activity that serves to simultaneously restrict and enable management. [ ] The activity of governing involves defining expectations for the organization and its constituents; specifying allocation rules and guidelines for deploying the resources to help accomplish these expectations; and defining the framework to verify the organization s performance. IT governance, in particular, according to Weill & Ross intends to encourage Page 76 of 115

79 desirable behavior in using IT (De Hertogh et al., 2011, p. 126). Although we in this thesis are looking at governance of an IT system and the people using it, the differentiation between IT governance and Corporate Governance is not of immediate importance, as both concepts draw upon the same principles; steering the people and the system in a favorable direction, delegating decision power, creating and ensuring incentives to work according to the management s wishes, and ensuring accountability within the organization. Thus, we will refrain from using a specific type of governance in the review below. Below, we will present three main perspectives on governance, which we will draw on later in the discussion. This literature review will provide a theoretical foundation to which the findings of our empirical analysis will be related, focusing specifically on combining our findings on Enterprise 2.0 governance with the solid and vast literature base on governance in general, hereby further ensuring the quality and depth of our results. Three)perspectives)on)governance) There are three main theoretical perspectives on governance that has had a great influence on the governance styles that are used today and in the past. They are all based on different axioms of humankind; the basic assumptions have shaped the governance theories in different directions, reflecting the underlying beliefs in the incentive structures and management perspectives. To address these different axioms of the three perspective, we have chosen to include, Professor McGregor s motivational theory of theory X and theory Y, as it neatly portray two main and diametrically opposite perspectives on people and thus employees. In his theory, McGregor is differentiating between Theory X, which is comparable with classic management theories, stating that people in general are lazy, are incapable of self-direction and autonomous work behavior, and have little to offer and Theory Y, where the underlying assumptions are that: employees are: Not inherently lazy, capable of self-direction and self-control, and capable of providing important ideas and suggestions that will improve organizational effectiveness (Kopelman, Prottas, & Davis, 2008, p. 255). This theory will be brought forth in the following sections to explain the axioms of human behavior that each governance perspective is implicitly built on. Rationalist+perspective+on+governance+ The earliest perspective on governance is the rationalist perspective on governance. This perspective is based on the theory on humanity and business, which is the oldest of the three. It is a Page 77 of 115

80 development of Adam Smith s classic theory of homo economicus or the Economic human 88. Homo economicus is seen as rational in the sense that wellbeing is optimized given the perceived opportunities available. Wellbeing in this sense is defined by a utility function; the individual seeks to attain maximum value of specific and predetermined goals with the least possible cost or effort. From this perspective, rationality does not mean that the individual's actual goals are rational in an ethical, social, or human sense; it means that the options are weighed with a rational objectivity maximum value is sought achieved at minimal cost (Dopfer, 2004). However, only naïve applications of the Homo economicus model assume that this hypothetical individual knows what is best for his long-term physical and mental health and can be relied upon to always make the right decision for himself (Persky, 1995). Agency theory, also known as game theory, is the baseline model within the rationalist perspective on governance and was created in the early 1970 s. The basic thought within Agency theory is, that governance is best done through monetary bonuses and benefits. A principal will hire an agent to perform a task or service, if the costs of hiring an agent are lower than performing the task themselves, and the agent will accept if the payoff or benefits exceed the costs of performing the task or service; if information is reasonably complete, then the person hired can perform a task or service at a lower cost than the person doing the hiring (Gardner, 2003, p. 271). In Agency theory a principal can be defined as any person or firm that hires another person or firm to perform services, whereas an agent is any person or firm hired to perform services for a principal (Gardner, 2003, p. 271). Thus, agency theory can in principle be applied to any relation, either between companies, between the board of directors and the management of an organization, or between management and employees within an organization. This perspective emphasizes the need for the Principal to control the Agent s behavior and actions through monetary incentives, and that the Agent in turn will do whatever gets him/her most value. A general critique on this model is, that it does not take into account any other motivational factors than monetary or material rewards, and thus is too rigid to work in reality. Studies have shown, that not only extrinsic motivation (salaries, bonuses etc.) has an effect on performance, but also intrinsic motivational factors (image, respect, recognition, a feeling of helping others, etc.) have an effect on motivation, performance and in turn on control or on steering of behavior (Amabile, Coon, Herron, Conti, & Lazenby, 1996). 88 Although this term is often known as the Economic Man, it has been noted by McCloskey, that homo economicus is better translated as economic human since a male adult would usually be designated by vir in Latin, while homo has a broader meaning (McCloskey in Persky, 1995). Despite the term being invented much later, it is widely attributed to Adam Smith in his famous work Wealth of Nations (Persky, 1995). Page 78 of 115

81 Another source of critique to this theory is, that it only takes formal governance into account, and thus not emphasize the fact that informal governance often is likely to be present in a relation, whether internally or externally of an organization. To meet these sources of critique, rationalists have developed reward theories that incorporates the aspect of informal authority (Wittek, 2007, p. 76) and hence included other types of incentives in the models than merely salary or bonuses. Among these are crowding-theories and gift-exchange theories. A variety of theories have been developed within these categories, which will not be described in too much detail here, as it is not of high relevance to this thesis. However a brief description of the categories is helpful, as it also serves the purpose of clarifying the shortcoming of the early rationalist perspective on governance. Crowding-theories attempt to include the aspect of intrinsic motivation to the baseline model. As has been found in several studies, applying extrinsic motivational factors can in certain situations damage the intrinsic motivation and thus lead to poor performance (Amabile et al., 1996; Frey & Oberholtzer-Gee, 1997). Therefore crowding theories emphasize that incentives can be immaterial, and that a baseline incentive scheme should be restricted in such a way, that material incentives are only applied where they will lead to better performance where intrinsic motivation was not present beforehand (Wittek, 2007). Gift-exchange theories emphasize the relational aspects of rewards. Wages exceeding those of other companies are viewed as relational signals, which in turn, mobilize a normative orientation in which reciprocity, cooperation and fairness are salient motives (Wittek, 2007, p. 77). The point is to motivate employees to contribute with more effort than is required by their employment contract. Thus, the theory of relational signals also limits the scope of the baseline model: higher rewards increase individual effort only if the employer complies with the normative principles of gift exchange, and the reward is perceived as a credible relational signal (Wittek, 2007, p. 77). All reward theories take into account the assumption that social approval is used to manipulate or influence the behavior of other actors. They consider social incentives as one major instrument for exerting social control. The necessary assumption that individuals are interested in social approval by others can be integrated into the core assumptions of egoism and the full rationality of the rationalist approach (Flache 2002) (Wittek, 2007, p. 77). Despite the subtle differences in the extended models within the rationalist perspective on governance, all three groups share an emphasis on the need for and use of material or monetary or at least external incentives, however with different ways of meeting the critique by incorporating the notion of intrinsic motivation and including the aspect of informal authority. These will be Page 79 of 115

82 summarized in model 6. From this review of the rationalistic perspective on governance, and from the emphasis it holds on rewards and incentive structures, it can be argued that the underlying view on employees is, what McGregor would call a personality X (Kopelman et al., 2008). Structuralist+perspective+on+governance+ The structuralist perspective on governance is mainly concerned with interdependencies between actors (networks), and the resulting structures, positions and power relations play a central role. This perspective has primarily been developed from contingency theory (Thomson in Wittek, 2007, p. 79). Contingency theory was developed in the 1960s and 1970s as a counter theory to the conventional management theories created by Frederick Winslow Taylor or Max Weber (Scott, 1981), as it claims that there is no best practice to organize and manage companies or to make decisions. According to Scott (1981) "The best way to organize depends on the nature of the environment to which the organization must relate". Thus, the best governance approach for an organization is depending on internal and external factors contingency factors such as organizational strategy, size, task uncertainty and technology (Donaldson, 1999). The purpose of applying contingency theory to an organization is, to identify the contingency factors that the organization needs to adjust to. Having been developed from contingency theory it becomes apparent that the structuralist perspective are concerned with interdependencies among actors, networks, in this relation network theories are receiving increased attention, most notably social capital theory (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2001). Network theories perceive organizations as a network or group of networks and are concerned with the relations that are created within an organization. Within social capital or - network theory, social networks have two main purposes: to act as an instrument of social control, and to help facilitate learning and sharing of information (Buskens & Raub, 2002). However, some differences exist in the definition of social capital theory, as described below. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is widely ascribed as making the term social capital more commonly known and used. His definition of the term is that: Social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Burt, 2001, p. 32). Putnam has a definition that separates itself from the previous theorists, as he describes the relations within an organization are entities rather than networks: Social capital [ ] is not a single entity but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the Page 80 of 115

83 structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence (Putnam in Burt, 2001, p. 32). Thus, his hypothesis is, that a group of people can achieve more together than each individual on their own, in a sense 1+1 = >2. Coleman (in Burt, 2001, p. 31) also includes softer aspects of social organization to his definition of social capital: social capital [ ] refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action. Despite the different definitions on social capital, they share the understanding of social structure as a kind of capital that can create or contain competitive advantage, as Burt (2001, p. 31) writes: Social capital is a metaphor about advantage. Structuralist perspective on governance has much resemblance with network theories and social capital theories, which create a more complex view on governance and motivation than rationalist perspective does on governance. Whereas rationalists believe in a positive relation between effort and reward, at least whenever actors are not intrinsically motivated, structuralists are more concerned with the legitimacy of governance and believe that other factors will have an influence on effort, e.g. networks, close relations, and social context. For example, close relationships between actors in a network can have either a positive or negative impact on effort. On one hand cooperation can be increased in dense networks, since a potential loss of social relations will counteract free riding, as relations could be damaged from little or no effort from an actor. On the other hand, close relationships between actors could damage collaboration since criticism and sanctions against free riders will be seen as a violation of friendship norms, and thus will be avoided despite the negative impact on effort and cooperation (Wittek, 2007). In general, structuralists often equate formal governance with larger, more complex and hierarchical organizations with strict rules and thorough task descriptions, where informal governance is often equated with flat organizational structures, self-managing teams and dense informal social networks (Wittek, 2007). Differences in informal and formal governance are, therefore, based on the social and formal structure of organizations. Revisiting McGregor s motivational theory, the structuralistic perspective on governance lies in a gray area of his theory. With the emphasis on the need for incentives, and the simultaneous regard for intrinsic motivation, it repeals the strict boundaries between the two opposing archetypes presented by theory X and theory Y. Thus, a more nuanced picture is created in this governance perspective, that employees can hold both aspects, although at different times in different situations. Page 81 of 115

84 Culturalist+perspective+on+governance+ From the culturalist perspective, (material) incentives are insufficient in explaining individual action (Wittek, 2007). In a sense the cultural perspective can be said to be the opposite of rationalist perspective in that they emphasize the cognitive aspect of governance [ ]: subjective interpretations, symbols, and legitimacy. Culturalist theories of action consider culture in the sense of shared knowledge and norms as the major action generating factor (Wittek, 2007, p. 78). The individual interests are, according to the culturalistic view, not necessarily directed towards maximization of self-interest; rather, they are closely tied to identities. Control is secured through shared meanings, sensemaking, group identities, internalized norms and the acceptance and legitimacy of governance (Weick, 1995; Wittek, 2007). Whereas rationalist approaches define away informal governance (Wittek, 2007, p. 78), it seem that almost the opposite holds true for culturalist approaches. The strong emphasis on sensemaking, norms, cultural meaning and symbolic legitimization, makes formal and informal governance undividable, since the basic belief is, that everything is culturally mediated. This also applies for the style of governance. However, culturalists believe that: organizations can be distinguished according to the content of their cultures (e.g., professional, bureaucratic, entrepreneurial, etc.), on the one hand, and the degree of normative consensus with regard to core domains of the cultural meaning system, on the other hand. Where consensus is high, an organizational culture is defined as strong (Wittek, 2007, p. 78). In this context, informal governance is defined as the pressure peers exert for an individual to abide by informal group norms. However, as informal norms can also be directed towards the goals of the management, the definition of informal governance holds little analytical value. Two lines of reasoning within the culturalist perspective have been most influential in addressing the problem of informal governance: Neo-institutional theories (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) and hegemony theories (Vallas, 2003). Neo-institutional theory has its roots in institutional theory, which focuses on the deeper aspects of governance and social structure. It considers the processes by which structures (schemes, rules, norms, and routines) become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior (Scott, 1981). Neo-institutional organization theories emphasize that an organization will only survive if its practices are considered to be legitimate by its environment. Three mechanisms of legitimization are distinguished: legal enforcement, normative pressure, or imitation (Wittek, 2007, p. 79). Hereby they reject the rational actor models, the homo economicus, of classical economic theory, Page 82 of 115

85 and instead look for cognitive and cultural explanations of social and organizational phenomena. Organizations have to make use of governance practices that are accepted in the environment, not necessarily the practices that, rationally, would provide better solutions, since a form of governance that is not legitimate will not succeed. Hegemony theories see organizational cultures as the result of a deliberate manipulation by management ( management of meaning ), with the intention to foster the internalization of the goals set by management, and to impede the development of oppositional solidarity (Wittek, 2007, p. 79). Originally it was an indirect form of government of empirical dominance in which the hegemon (leading state) rules the subordinate states by implied means of power (the threat of the threat) rather than direct use of force. Thus, traditional forms of governance based on coercion and formal hierarchy are gradually replaced by more subtle normative and ideological forms of control. In classical bureaucratic forms of formal governance, managers legitimize expectations by referring to their formal authority and power position. Within hegemony theories, emphasis is put on communication how the messages are presented; this determines the value of the information as reliable or unreliable, as true or false, legitimate or illegitimate for the recipient. Hence language is essential to the imposition, establishment, and functioning of the cultural hegemony, that influences what and how people think about the status quo within the organization. It is, so to speak, a question of forming the culture, imposing a shared sense of meaning managing employees meaning to ensure agreement and to achieve the goals of the organization. In modern organizations, one increasingly encounters strategies of functional legitimization of orders and expectations Where these strategies are successfully implemented remarkable increases in effort, cooperation and performance can be observed (Wittek, 2007, p. 79). Again making references to McGregor s motivational theory, the culturalistic perspective assembles the basic assumptions of theory Y, with the emphasis on governance through norms, values and culture instead of through extrinsic incentives (Kopelman et al., 2008). Synthetic+perspective+on+governance++ Many discussions have taken place on whether or not an integration of the three previous perspectives on governance and their core elements into one model, thus a combination of incentives, structures and norms, is advantageous or even possible (Wittek, 2007). These have lead to two opposing views; one side arguing that an integration of the different paradigms into one single approach is both advantageous and possible, the other side arguing, that integration of the different paradigms is impracticable as the underlying assumptions often contradict each other (Lichbach in Wittek, 2007). We believe some aspects from the different paradigms can be Page 83 of 115

86 combined into a model, which is more beneficial for governing Enterprise 2.0 than others. This perspective will be discussed in section 5.3. Summary) We will conclude this literature review with summarizing the primary findings. Whereas in the rationalist paradigm, there is an emphasis on the motivation of the individual, there is an emphasis on networks and structural/hierarchical relationships in the structuralist paradigm, and finally a broader focus on culture, groups and entities in the culturalist paradigm. Each of the paradigms has an aspect of formal or informal governance, which has been summed up in the model below. Table 6: 3 dominant paradigmes of governance Paradigm Rationalism Type of Governance Formal Institutional Economic Theories 1. Financial incentives 2. Sanctions by superior Informal Gift-Exchange Theories, Reward models, Crowding- Theories 1. Social incentives 2. Sanctions by peers Structuralism Contingency Theory, Theories of Managerial Strategies 1. Control through formal interdependence and power structures 2. Rules and expectations defined and monitored by management Social Capital Theory, Brokerage Models 1. Learning through informal social network structures 2. Rules and expectations defined and monitored by peers Culturalism Bureaucracy Theories 1. Authoritarian legitimization of expectations 2. Formally enforceable expectations Neo-institutional theories and hegemony theories 1. Functional legitimization of expectations 2. Formally non-enforceable expectations 1. = Central theoretical construct 2. = Possible empirical indicator Source: Wittek (2007, p. 82) However, despite the differences in approach within the three paradigms, there is a general tendency within the definition of the two forms of governance; whereas formal governance, to some extent, is revolving around top-down approaches and coercion the management imposing rules, Page 84 of 115

87 tasks, norms etc., informal governance is more related to the softer verb: to influence. Informal governance is about using more subtle ways of power; making subordinates act in accordance with the management s will by making it easier or more apparent to choose the actions that the management wants to achieve. This tendency logically correlates with the theoretical findings on formal and informal power from the conceptual analysis of power in chapter 4.1, as governance basically is the execution of power (Weiss, 2000). In chapter 4.2 we found that the power structure of Enterprise 2.0 will influence the organizational power distribution. Although the extent to which the organizational power distribution is influenced will be determined by the degree to which Enterprise 2.0 tools are implemented, and by the degree to which the management will allow influence, the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0, which was described in chapter 3.2, will ensure the possibility of more informal power and influence to the employees. The informal power bases increases, and to some extent at the expense of the formal power bases. Thus it seems logical to assume, that the formal governance perspectives will seem less suitable for Enterprise 2.0 governance than the more informal approaches to governance. In the next chapter we will address the research question of this thesis directly by presenting the results of our governance analysis, hereunder address the underlying mechanisms that we argue can substitute direct formal control by the management, which will allow more employee autonomy, while still ensuring a level of control over employee behavior. 5.2)Governance)analysis) This analysis is twofold. Revisiting the critical realistic theory, the truth is sought by looking at the three ontological levels of critical realism: The empirical level that can be observed and investigated, the underlying mechanisms that create events in the world, and the actual level, what actually happens in the world. The actual level is what is ultimately sought explained, but cannot truly be reached. The purpose is instead to get as close to the truth as possible, which is only possible by analyzing the observed and by seeking to explain the underlying mechanisms that creates the reality. Thus, we will first present the results of our analysis of the empirical data, the empirical level, which will consist of specific actions that should be conducted to adhere to good Enterprise 2.0 governance. To begin at the empirical level is in accordance with critical realism, as we as critical realists seek to explain the relationship between what we experience, what actually happens, and the underlying mechanisms that produce the events in the world" (Danermark et al., 2002:21). We will thus begin with presenting what is experienced. Secondly, we will analyse and discuss the underlying mechanisms that ensure proper behavior within Enterprise 2.0 systems, and Page 85 of 115

88 that ensures minimal risk of usage. This will help explain why we conclude as we do in the following chapter which mechanisms that ensures Enterprise 2.0 governance and how they work is important in answering the research question. This chapter will create concrete actions in an answer to our problem statement, and represents the key findings of this thesis. Managerial)regulation) Managerial regulation represents the actual actions that the management can conduct to regulate the behavior of employees. Many different perspectives on managerial governance or regulation exist. The three dominant ones was presented in chapter 5.1 above. In this section the purpose is to present specific actions and perspectives that the management should adhere by to ensure good Enterprise 2.0 governance and to ensure the best foundation of success through these systems. The analysis resulted in eight best-practice actions, which the management can perform in order to control and regulate the behavior of employees, while still providing employees the freedom needed to support the benefit-driving mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0. It is a fine balance between managerial directions and letting the results emerge by empowering the employees. MSC describes the risk of too much control in relation to Enterprise 2.0 systems: you begin by saying you have to do this, and [then] you introduce rules, governance, and organizational structures on top of something that does not have an organizational structure [Enterprise 2.0 systems], and people stop using it, become annoyed or [communicate] somewhere else. What formal actions can the management then take without overstepping this boundary? Our analysis showed, that when governing Enterprise 2.0 systems, the management needs to change their role within the organization: The manager should rather be an inspirer than an administrator, the middle managers should rather be facilitators than controllers, project managers should be initiators rather than bottlenecks. So all in all, you can have the same organizational structure, but people should do things in a different way (MSC, our translation 89, also expressed by JA). In extension of this our analysis revealed a number of bestpractise actions managers should initiate. These will be presented and discussed in the following sections. Action+#1:+Management+should+show+clear+support+of+Enterprise+2.0+and+lead+by+example+ It is OK if you say we want [influence and empowerment] but if you don t get leadership from the top management, it will never work truly well. If it is not visible that it is an acceptable, 89 Original text: lederen skal ligesom være mere inspirator end administrator, mellemleder skal være mere facilitatorer end de skal være folk der kontrollerer ting, projektledere skal være mere igangsættere end de skal være flaskehalse. Så i og for sig kan man godt ha den samme org. strukturer, men folk skal bare gøre tingene på en anden måde. Page 86 of 115

89 approved behavior, it will never work truly well (BF, our translation 90 ). As expressed by BF and supported by MH, JA, XX and MSC, it is important that the top management show clear support of the Enterprise 2.0 systems. This should be done by actively leading the way by using the systems, hereby showing support and providing guidance by example. This is pivotal in getting Enterprise 2.0 systems fully integrated into the organization as it sends a clear signal to employees: This is the way we do things, and in addition functions as governance by example. Action+#2:+Management+should+set+frames+but+abstain+from+microJmanagement.+ While our analysis showed that the role of management should still be to define the overall direction and goals, they should refrain from defining and imposing strict and detailed standards for task execution, workflows, processes, and the structure of information and communication. Instead management should define frames, within which employees are free to maneuver as they see fit (JA, MSC, XX, NBA). As MSC explains: basically no one is dictating that you have to go there and you have to go there (MSC, our translation 91 ). In other words, the management should abstain from micromanaging. JA, explains how management act at Podio: Rather than saying do this and that, they say we want to achieve this get started, ask for help the management is good at setting boundaries and let employees work within them on the operational level it is a highly meritocratic, if you have good arguments then you generally win. Whereas the management of course set the direction. (JA, our translation 92 ). This is an example where managers take responsibility for framing and setting the direction, while providing the employees freedom to solve the problem and work in the way they prefer. This entails releasing some direct control and empowering the employees. In this way the employees will have the necessary autonomy in their usage of the Enterprise 2.0 systems to support the mechanisms driving benefits. Action+#3:+Management+should+set+clear+performance+goals+ In extension of the previous action, it is beneficial to secure a shared and clear understanding of good and bad performance, when providing autonomy and empowering employees. This is as a way of ensuring that each employee is working towards the vision and mission of the organization (XX, 90 Original text: det er fint nok, som du siger, vi kan lave det "bottom up", men hvis ikke du får noget lederskab fra topledelsen, så bliver det aldrig rigtig godt. Hvis ikke det bliver synligt at det er en acceptabel, godkendt adfærd, så bliver det aldrig rigtig godt. Den anden ting der også er i det her, det er, at hvis ikke vi bruger det til at løse en opgave eller et pain point... Hvis ikke vi har et fælles mål... Hvis ikke du forsøger at adresserer noget der gør ondt, eller forsøger at gøre noget hurtigere eller forsøger at gøre noget bedre med et formål, hvorfor så bruge det 91 Men grundlæggende er der ikke nogen der sidder og siger at "du skal gå derhen og du skal gå derhen" (MSC) 92 Original text: fra at sige "gør sådan og sådan og sådan". Så siger de måske "vi vil opnå det her" sæt igang. Spørg om hjælp hvis du der syntes jeg at folk er gode til at sætte rammerne og så lade folk arbejde derinde for... Så på det der operationelle niveau er det sådan meget meritokratisk på den måde, at hvis man har det gode argument så vinder det som regelt. Hvorimod er der selvfølgelig en ledelse der sætter en retning. Page 87 of 115

90 MSC, NBA). As NBA describes: if we leave it to the individual to decide how much time she will spend on something, we should preferably have very clearly defined goals regarding what is good performance and less good performance (NBA, our translation 93 ). In this way individuals have more freedom in how they perform their tasks and how they utilize Enterprise 2.0 systems, while being held accountable for the results of their work. This will give the freedom and power to work autonomously, which supports the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0, while maintaining control that the employees are working in the same direction the direction decided upon by the management. Action+#4:+Management+should+explicate+norms+and+values+by+creating+social+guidelines++ Our analysis showed that explicitly establishing norms and values through social guidelines are an effective tool for decreasing risk. Common guidelines establish a common point of reference, which employees can glance to when commencing their individual judgment. These are a tool from management to guide employees in situations of doubt by the explicating of organizational norms, values, and directions. However, as opposed to strict rules and procedures, guidelines are more gentle hints, nudges and reminders from the management to the employees. Guidelines as directions for behavior are precisely laid out as employee guidelines, not as rules (BF, our translation 94 ). This is an important distinction, as they are not meant for micromanaging employees and directing every action; rather as nudges or reminders of what the organization stands for, and what is generally accepted and valued in a broader sense. IBM is one of many organizations which have implemented social guidelines, with the purpose of guiding the employees in situations of doubt, hereby ensuring a certain level of shared norms, values and behavior within the Enterprise 2.0 system: We have actually published these [social guidelines] so they are available even outside of IBM So in principle we have laid out the field and said read this, understand it, follow it and then we take appropriate action if necessary (MH, our translation 95 ). Guidelines are a way of setting frames; it is an execution of implicit power. As MH describes it Today, social guidelines are a part of the Business Conduct Guidelines, and actually the frame 93 Original text: Hvis vi lader det være op til den enkelte at bestemme hvor meget hun vil bruge af tid på det ene og det andet, så skal vi også helst ha nogle meget klart defineret mål omkring hvad der er god performance og mindre god performance. 94 Original text: [de] netop bliver lagt ud som medarbejder guidelines, ikke som regler. 95 Original text: Det vi har gjort det er, at vi faktisk har publiceret de her [Social guide lines] så de lægger ude., så der er frit tilgængelige også udenfor IBM Så i princippet så har man ridset banen op og man har sagt; læs det her, forstå det, følg det og så tager man the appropriate action hvis det skulle være nødvendigt Page 88 of 115

91 within which we define what is allowed and what is not allowed but mainly what is allowed we frame the garden or put up fences and say out here the kids can play and then we will se what happens. If they start running around with dangerous things, and things start to get risky, then we must intervene. That is for example made possible by flagging inappropriate postings by and large we have a set of guidelines that tells what is allowed, and then it is up to us to adjust (MH, our translation 96 ). NBA also expresses this implicit power: The most sublime power is the indirect power where you create the frames within which the individual can only do what is appropriate for the organization (NBA, our translation 97 ). Through these guidelines, it is thus possible to create empowerment and autonomy in the daily work, and create an impression of being very open and democratic, while still maintaining control of the overall direction and goals. Apart from creating a supporting framework for employees in doubt, the social guidelines also enable informal disciplinary actions by managers, community managers (as will be elaborated in later sections) and peers. They can all legitimize the addressing of improper behavior by referring to these common guidelines, as these hold greater authority than personal opinions. Guidelines can in addition hold a legitimizing effect in regards to formal disciplinary action by the management Action+#5:+Management+should+intervene+when+necessary+ Our analysis shows that it is important that managers do take action and intervene if an employee crosses the line and acts inappropriately (BF, MH and NBA). This can be done in milder somewhat informal ways such as commenting on or responding to inappropriate content in context on the Enterprise 2.0 system, however it may also be by editing or deleting the original content or taking other formal actions such as disciplinary conversations in real life or even through punishment. Our interviewees (BF, MH, JA, MSC) argue that responding to highly inappropriate content creates trust in the management as the frames are sustained and adhered to, however management should be sensitive in responding too harshly too fast. When loosening control there will be more mistakes, hence, management should be attentive to the learning curve for using the systems appropriately 96 Original text:.. I dag er social guidelines en del af business conduct guidelines og er egentlig rammen som definerer hvad er det vi må og hvad er det vi ikke må, Men snarere mere, hvad er det vi må. Jeg har en kollega der plejer at sige, at vi rammer ind haven og siger at herude må ungerne gerne lege og så har vi så sagt, at så må vi se hvad der sker, agtigt. Og hvis nu de begynder at løbe rundt med farlige ting, altså at det begynder at blive farligt, så må vi ligesom gribe ind der. Og det gør man også blandt andet ved at man f.eks. har mulighed for at "flagge" inappropriate ting som bliver lagt ud på en nog eller i et community. Man kan også vælge, altså hvis man nu virkelig vil og er bange for at folk snakker for meget. så vil man også kunne ha en premoderation af et community f.eks. sådan at man tjekker det inden. Men på den store bane så har vi et sæt regler der siger, at det er det her vi må. Så er det op til os at tiltpasse os under de her regler. 97 Original text: Den mest sublime magt er jo den indirekte magt, hvor man skaber nogle rammer indenfor hvilket den enkelte kun kan gøre hvad der er hensigtsmæssigt for virksomheden Page 89 of 115

92 and therefore loosening demands for perfection and allow more (minor) mistakes. This we will explain below. Action+#6:+Management+should+make+room+for+mistakes+ An aspect that was raised by the interviewees was the need to create a culture with room for experimenting and making mistakes (MSC, CM, JA). While inappropriate actions should be corrected and addressed, mistakes should be more widely accepted as part of the culture and part of an improvement and learning process. As MSC expresses: In many organizations it is notorious that you do not fail, and if you do, then you never attempt a similar thing again. We say that a mistake is when you have learned something that needs to be adjusted why didn t it work? Because of xx, then we must try to correct it rather than say that it will probably never work the faster you learn from your mistakes, the faster you can move on. It is a notorious difficult thing for companies to fail, or at least admit to mistakes (MSC, our translation 98 ). Here MSC expresses that creating a higher tolerance or even valuing mistakes as part of a learning process, should be part of the organizational culture. In extension of promoting a culture of allowing mistakes and failing, it might seem contradictory to suggest management intervention as we did in the previous section. The point being, management should approach mistakes from a different perspective; correcting inappropriate behavior or intervening when content is clearly out of line is still necessary, however employees should be allowed more leeway for smaller mistakes and careful consideration of how the intervention is performed should be done, including a reflection of the potential consequences. BF, MH and MSC emphasize the use of post-correction instead of pre-approval. This is important, as increasing the autonomous activity and contribution level in Enterprise 2.0 systems means, to get people to act without having to ask for permission (MSC, our translation 99 ). He continues, There are companies so occupied by doing everything so correctly that they almost stall they [should have] a post-filtering rather than a pre-filtering, post-decisions rather than pre-decisions you do something and then you change it. Our principle is, that good enough is perfect, perfect in the world we live in today leads to no action at all (MSC, our translation 100 ). Thus, management 98 Original text: i mange org. er det notisk at man ikke fejler, og hvis man fejler, så gør man det aldrig mere igen. Der hvor vi prøver at sige, en fejl er når man har lært noget som man skal ha rettet til hvorfor virkede det ikke? Det var pga xx, jamen så må vi prøve at ændre det, fremfor at sige at så virker det nok aldrig Så jo hurtigere man kan lære af sine fejl, jo hurtigere kan man komme videre. Det er en notorisk svær ting for virksomheder at fejle, eller i hvert fald at indrømme at det var en fejl. 99 Original text: få folk til at gøre noget uden at man skal spørge om lov 100 Original text: de er en virksomhed der er så optagede af at gøre alting så rigtigt at de nærmest gå i stå nogle gange man [bør have] en postfiltrering fremfor prefiltrering, postbeslutning fremfor prebeslutning, så man gør noget og så Page 90 of 115

93 should not seek perfection in all content on Enterprise 2.0, instead, they should encourage action and scalability of contribution and realize that OK is perfect (MSC, our translation 101 ), supporting what was stated earlier, that managers should refrain from micromanagement. Action+#7:+Management+should+assign+community+managers+and+ensure+training+ Assigning key employees as community managers or advocates for use and for proper conduct within the systems is another aspect of ensuring proper behavior within Enterprise 2.0 systems. CM expresses the need to dedicate employees as for example community managers employees that functions as ambassadors and advocates for a new way of thinking within the organization (CM, our translation 102 ). He continues to explain; we need to create some kind of community around the social object and the technological platform that we have bought, made or use. That we need to do by exciting the users both digitally and physically (CM, our translation 103 ). These advocates, or community managers as CM calls them, should both promote the use of the systems, ensure proper conduct and use of the systems according to the social guidelines, as well as train peers when needed (BF, CM). These community managers or advocates should also carry out what CM describes as the classical moderator-virtues that is known from the Internet (CM, our translation 104 ). By the moderator-virtues he refers to the possibility of intervening when inappropriate behavior occurs e.g. by altering or deleting posts. Action+#8:+Management+should+trust+the+emergent+mechanisms+of+Enterprise+2.0+ Our analysis showed that most Enterprise 2.0 systems have features that, based on peer evaluation, visibly or structurally emphases quality content and deemphazes content which is inappropriate or of poor quality, all based on peer evaluation. Over time quality content will be acknowledged, viewed and promoted by many and hence become more visible. Inappropriate content or simply content of low quality will become less visible as it wil not be viewed nor reposted. It may even be frowned upon or corrected by peers. Thus, better quality comes not from removing all that is ændrer man det. Og flere virksomheder har svært ved bare at gøre noget. Vi har et princip der hedder "godt nok er perfekt", perfekt i den verden vi lever i idag gør at man ikke når noget. 101 Original text: Godt nok er perfekt - de perfekte værktøjer skalerer bare ikke, så man bliver nødt til at arbejde efter et 'det her er godt nok' princip hvis vi skal ha noget til at ske, så bliver vi nødt til at gå ned på kvalitet, og den nye kvalitet er i virkeligheden skalerbarhed, og ting der kan skaleres de kan distribueres, konsumeres, redigeres, editeres osv. 102 Original text: dedikere nogle medarbejdere til sådan noget som community management - nogle medarbejdere der er ambassadører og bannerførere for en ny måde at tænke på i organisationen 103 Original text: Under den har vi det er hedder community management, som betyder; vi skal skabe et eller andet fællesskab om det sociale objekt og den teknologiske platform som vi har købt,lave teller bruger. det skal vi gøre ved at begejstre brugerne både digitalt og fysisk. 104 Original text: klassiske moderator-dyder som man kender det fra internet fora og store sites Page 91 of 115

94 inferior, but by emphasizing high quality content. These are features that are built into the emergent mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 and managers should learn to trust in these mechanisms and hence allow for more mistakes when trusting these mechanisms will unfold. The mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems that were referred to here are a manifestation of underlying mechanisms, which we will now analyze and discuss. Again referring to critical realism, in attempting to find the truth one needs to understand the underlying mechanisms that creates the events in the world. Understanding these mechanisms will allow us to explain why good Enterprise 2.0 governance is based on the actions presented above, and which mechanisms ensure proper behavior via Enterprise 2.0 systems despite decreased managerial control. Underlying)mechanisms)of)governance) )the)real)level In this section we will explain and analyze the underlying mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 governance. The analysis will be based in sound theories and logically coherent argumentations. As was established in the Enterprise 2.0 chapter, some control should be released from the top management to provide employees autonomy to support the emergent mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems. Several managers and many organizations assimilate less detailed control of the actions of employees with high risks, as the management is ultimately still responsible for their actions (Barnard, 1968; Hinings et al., 1995; March & Simon, 1993). However, as is expressed by several of our interviewees, although control is released, inappropriate incidents are rather rare, and it is even rarer that they happen on purpose (MSC, XX, MH). We will now look at why that is, and at which mechanisms that substitutes top-down control and strict regulation. The+disciplinary+mechanism++ As previously argued, transparency is a key characteristic of Enterprise 2.0 it is where the benefits lye, it is where the challenges and risks lye, and it is a driver of changes in an organization when implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems. Of course, the magnitude of change needed or occurring is ultimately dependent on the outset, the state that an organization is in, the culture an organization has when introducing Enterprise 2.0 tools, and the governance approach the organization or the management has chosen. The transparent characterisics of Enterprise 2.0 systems creates conditions where surveillance is made very easy, which have some similarities to the panopticon. To help visualize the disciplining mechanisms caused by transparency in a social system such as an organization, we will briefly describe the panopticon and the origins and reasoning behind this Page 92 of 115

95 model. The Panopticon is highly relevant because it describes the mechanisms of discipline and observation, which is the first of the three underlying mechanisms identified in the analysis. The+Panopticon+ The British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (15 February June 1832) created the Panopticon in The Panopticon was meant as a prison building, round in shape with an observation tower Figure 6: The panopticon Drawn by Willey Revelly, 1791 in the middle and cells surrounding it, with large windows towards the centre: The cells are like small theatres in which each actor is alone, perfectly individualized and constantly visible (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983, p. 189). The approach was a disciplinary advancement, where a prison guard could sit in the observation tower and observe every inmate, without them knowing if they are observed or not: The inmate cannot see if the guardian is in the tower or not, so he must behave as if surveillance is constant, unending, and total. The architectural perfection is such that even if there is no guardian present the apparatus of power is still operative (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). Bentham believed, that the behavior of inmates would be altered and disciplined by the mere possibility of having someone observing them. Thus, the Panopticon was designed for the perfect form of surveillance and technique of disciplining inmates. Although the Panopticon prison design was not realized during Bentham's time, it has been seen as an important development and has had a great influence on society 105. In its complete form, it remains a theoretical concept 106 and a foundation of power. According to Michel Foucault, the Panopticon was not a utopian setting, located nowhere, meant as a social critique and reformulation of all aspects of society, but a plan for a specific mechanism of power (Dreyfus & 105 Along with reforming prisons and founding the surveillance society, the concept had an important influence on later generations of thinkers. Foucault argued that the Panopticon was paradigmatic of several 19th-century disciplinary institutions. 106 No true Panopticon prisons to Bentham's designs have ever been built. The closest are the buildings of the now abandoned Presidio Modelo in Cuba. Although most prison designs have included elements of surveillance, the essential feature of Bentham's design where custodians were able to watch inmates at all times was never realized ( and Page 93 of 115

96 Rabinow, 1983). Foucault saw it as a metaphor for modern disciplinary societies and their pervasive inclination to observe and normalize behavior. The idea behind creating the Panopticon was an attempt to show the power of discipline and surveillance: This power is continuous, disciplinary, and anonymous. Anyone could operate it as long as they were in the correct position and anyone could be subjected to its mechanisms. The design is multipurpose For if the prisoner is never sure when he was being observed, he becomes his own guardian (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). Here, the inmate becomes the object of information, never a subject in communication (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). The Panopticon creates a consciousness of permanent visibility as a form of power, where no bars, chains, and heavy locks are necessary for domination (Allmer, 2012) - the Panopticon is a clear example of how power operates (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). As Dreyfus & Rabinow (1983, pp ) puts it: It is a mechanism for the location of bodies in space, for the distribution of individuals in relation to one another, for hierarchical organization, for the efficient disposition of centers and channels of power This is not so much an architectural model which represents or embodies power, but a means for the operation of power in space. It is the techniques for the use of the structure, more than the architecture itself, that allows for an efficient expansion of power. With the Panopticon, discipline in relation to organizational management is often connected to Tayloristic, bureaucratic and administrative production systems, as mentioned earlier. The metaphor of the panopticon is quite clear in these relations, where the guardian is the manager or inspector and the inmates symbolizes the employees. Discipline is created through division, specialization and specification of tasks and workers into units or teams as well as through the surveillance and sanctioning by the manager. The+Panopticon+in+the+context+of+Enterprise+2.0+ When the Panopticon is clearly based on classical management theory, why is it relevant for this thesis? Zuboff (1988) wrote about the information Panopticon, and although Enterprise 2.0 technologies were not invented until many years later, as written in the beginning of the thesis, even the early enterprise IT systems sought to achieve, what the current technologies are achieving. About this she wrote: Such systems can become information panopticons that, freed from the constraints of space and time, do not depend upon the physical arrangement of buildings or the laborious record keeping of industrial administration. They do not require mutual presence of objects of observation. They do not even require the presence of an observer. Information systems can automatically and continuously record almost anything their designers want to capture (Zuboff, 1988). Page 94 of 115

97 Information technologies have the advantage of recording every contribution made, every document created, and contain the possibility of tracking every source of information. Compared to an actual Panopticon, you can obtain all data and surveillance- and disciplinary effects without having to be present at a certain time or place. This has the effect, that the people being monitored do not only have to consider their actions and the consequences of their actions in the moment, but have to consider, that their actions will be visible at all times and directly traceable as the source of a contribution will be visible when made on an Enterprise 2.0 system (in comparison to the internet, where statements and contributions are often anonymous) (McAfee, 2009). According to NBA and XX, this creates a willingness to work to the best of ones abilities, and to think about ones actions and contributions in advance. As JA formulates it: It does not pay off to break the rules, it does not pay off to be an idiot, because everyone can see it just as I don t walk around the office yelling something stupid (JA, our translation 107 ). Although the risks of misuse of the systems are among the highest perceived risks using Enterprise 2.0 systems, JA believes that asking about what will happen if we provide employees with more freedom is kind of a funny question, which has its roots in experiences with old systems and ways of thinking and working (JA, our translation 108 ), as people generally wishes to do right by their workplace, if not for the good deed, then to keep their jobs. McAfee (2011) support these statements by stating, Although anonymity is the default on the Internet, on organizational intranets attribution is the norm. Users are circumspect and unlikely to flame 109 colleagues. If workers do misbehave, companies can identify, counsel, educate, and if necessary, discipline them. (A. P. McAfee 2011: 2-3). Again, this emphasizes the transparency of the system as having a disciplinary effect on employees as well as managers. Enterprise 2.0 systems seem to create an evolved transparent interpretation of the Panopticon, rather than the classical definition based on physical presence as described above. In this evolved version, the Panopticon is no longer divided into cells, where only the guardian (manager) can observe; the walls between the cells are broken down and the observers within the tower are no longer invisible. Transparency is total; the employees can see the management, but they can also see each other, independently of organization size and number of employees. This openness and transparency does not diminish the effects or mechanisms of the Panopticon, rather, the effects seem to be magnified and more effective. The disciplinary observations are no longer restricted to the surveillance by 107 Original text: Det kan ikke betale sig at bryde reglerne. Det kan ikke betale sig at være en idiot fordi alle kan se det. Så for ens sociale kapital er det simpelthen skidt for forrentningen. Jeg går jo heller ikke nede på PODIO og råber et eller andet åndsvagt 108 Original text: Det er lidt et sjovt spørgsmål der bunder i erfaringer med gamle systemer og måder at tænke systemer og arbejde. 109 Flaming also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users, often involving the use of profanity. (Wikipedia) Page 95 of 115

98 management, but everyone can now keep an eye on everyone; each employee can be observed by peers and the management can be observed by employees at any given time. This was neatly summarized by NBA: there arises disciplinary, regimentation or alignment of the employees (NBA, our translation 110 ). The+mechanism+of+social+regulation+ The mechanisms from the classical Panopticon are maintained and reinforced by the various directions that possible observations can come from. This can be associated with a form of social control that was articulated in the structuralistic perspective on governance, where focus is on networks, social norms and social contexts. As JA expresses: just because [interaction] is via IT, it doesn t have to entail that other social rules are suspended we use a different kind of control: social control. That means that every time you do something via PODIO 111, everyone can see it including your bosses and colleagues (JA, our translation 112 ). This is a testimony that the individual has to adhere to social rules and norms in order to be accepted into the group or social context within an organization, as was also mentioned in the power analysis. This creates incentives for the individual to only contribute with relevant information in a certain context as Socially it [ ] is mechanisms of exclusion that come into play. You really have to contribute in that catforum, if you start asking questions about dogs, you re out, they will be pissed (JA, our translation 113 ). Thus, these social norms and unwritten rules become a disciplinary factor, only multiplied by the transparency of Enterprise 2.0 systems. As several of our interviewees expressed, the Enterprise 2.0 systems are an extension of real life (MSC, JA, CM), thus the same rules apply and social norms are still in play, if anything, transparency strengthens the social norms and unwritten rules, and reinforces the social regulatory mechanisms, such as discipline. Again this is supported by McAfee (2011): Participants usually feel a sense of community and react quickly if they feel that someone is violating the norms. Counterproductive contributions are usually met with a flurry of responses that articulate why the content is out of bounds, reiterate the implicit rules, and offer correction. Again, transparency and emergence seems to be key factors of Enterprise 2.0 systems as contributions can be traced back to its origins and changed. Thus, if you want your 110 Original text: der sker faktisk en disciplinering eller en regimentering eller en ensretning af medarbejderne 111 PODIO is an Enterprise 2.0 system created by Podio, the company. It is a SAAS solution made to support organizational collaboration and communication. 112 Original text: At det er på IT behøver jo ikke at medfører at alle andre sociale spilleregler lige pludseligt bliver sat ud af spil... Vi bruger en anden form for kontrol der hedder social kontrol. Det vil sige at hver gang du gør noget med PODIO så kan alle se det inklusiv dine chefer og kollegaer. 113 Original text: Socialt er det [ ] eksklusionsmekanismerne der er i spil. Du skal eddermane til at levere noget inden på det der katteforum, hvis du begynder at stille et hunde spørgsmål så er du bare ude De bliver pist Page 96 of 115

99 contributions to remain unchanged within a system, you will have to ensure high quality and relevance. This, again, is a mechanism of regulation that exists within Enterprise 2.0 systems. The+mechanism+of+selfJregulation+ It is not the actions of observation and monitoring in themselves that create the regulating and disciplining effects; rather, it is the mere possibility of being observed that creates the effects of the Panopticon (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). As described above, the original purpose of the Panopticon was not to monitor and observe the inmates at every given time, rather, it was the possibility of being observed that would provoke good behavior at all times. In prolongation of this, the purpose of the transparent Panopticon is not that everyone will observe and control each other, but rather that the possibility of being observed, and knowing that each contribution can be viewed at all times, will ensure good behavior on an Enterprise 2.0 platform. This creates a form of self-awareness and attention toward ones own actions and contributions. Transparency of Enterprise 2.0 systems is a key factor, which also have an influence on the individual s personal narratives and as a result on their identity. This has been touched on by the culturalistic perspective on governance, which believes in governance through culture and social norms. However, whereas the structuralistic perspective relies on governance through social norms in networks and social contexts, the culturalistic perspective emphasizes the internalization of social norms; that the social norms and rules becomes part of the organizational identity and a part of the identity of the organizational members. In the context of Enterprise 2.0 this can help explain why individuals will be reluctant to break the social norms; behaving badly or against the norms in an organization will not only counter the colleagues beliefs and opinions, it will affect the stories created around that individual and hence the individual s identity. Contributions and behavior becomes part of the individual s self-image, and thus part of their identity. Thus, the personal desire 114 will be to create an identity that will position him/herself best according to their own ideals, the opinions of others and to their hopes and wishes for the future (Hermansen, Løw, & Petersen, 2004; Nielsen, 2006). These are some mechanisms that explain the notion of self-regulation. Summary+ From the analysis above, we found that there exist social disciplinary mechanisms, which work in conjunction with a form of self-regulation or self-governance. These exist both inside Enterprise 2.0 systems and outside of them, however, as MSC expresses that is what is so interesting about [Enterprise 2.0 tools]; that it comes so close to what we do in reality, it is no longer a tool, it is 114 Given it is a reasonable person content with their job and work place Page 97 of 115

100 directly supporting our real world (MSC, our translation 115 ). The self-regulating mechanisms and social disciplinary mechanisms are thus enhanced and reinforced, as every contribution can be controlled or viewed at any given time, and social discipline is enforced between people who may not know each other and have never met in person. These mechanisms represent a key aspect of the answer to the research question of this thesis. They are the key reason why management can still have (indirect) control, when providing employees more freedom in order to support the benefitdriving mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0. These regulating mechanisms are why management does not run excessive risks when implementing Enterprise 2.0, why employees will not go beserch and why management may be able to obtain the best of both worlds. It does however require trust in the mechanisms. In the next chapter we will discuss the implications of our findings in more detail and relate them to the 3 governance perspectives presented above in chapter Original text: Det er også det er interessant ved det her, det er kommet så tæt på det vi i virkeligheden gør, det er ikke længere et værktøj, det er en understøttelse af vores virkelige verden Page 98 of 115

101 5.3)Discussion) In the governance analysis we saw that there are three types of mechanisms that have a regulating and governing effect when implementing Enterprise 2.0: Managerial governance, social regulation and self-regulation. In the model below we have illustrated how these mechanisms affect Figure 7: Regulating mechanisms and culture each other, and how all are affected by culture. Although culture is a highly important aspect of governance, a study of organizational culture is outside the scope of this thesis. We will however briefly address how culture influences the regulating mechanisms in the following section, where we will discuss the relationship between these effects, and relate this to the governance Source: Own creation theory described in chapter 5.1. As can be seen in figure 6, the three mechanisms of regulation each affect the other, and all are affected by the organizational culture. The managerial top-down regulation represents the strongest influencer and consists of actual actions that the management can conduct to regulate or steer the behavior of employees. In the governance analysis, we presented this mechanism of regulation and described the main actions that management can and should conduct to adhere to good Enterprise 2.0 governance. In addition the social- and self-regulating mechanisms were presented and explained, since an understanding of these mechanisms is vital for trust in the workings of these very mechanisms. It must be understood, that the mechanisms do not work separately, they are interrelated and inseparable, securing a deeper and more comprehensive form of control and regulation of behavior than either mechanism could individually. Culture has an influence on all three mechanisms. In this relation it can be said that organizational culture holds a duality; on the one hand the culture can and does limit the array of governance tools, which can be used in an organization, and on the other hand it is in itself a tool that can be used for governance. In other words, an organizational culture based on openness, unity, and a high degree of autonomy, with governance based on norms and values will limit the formal governance tools that can be Page 99 of 115

102 applied and accepted by the employees, however, it may function as a basis for peer regulation, freeing the management s time for other tasks than micromanagement and control of employees 116. In extension of this it should be mentioned, that management should also be attentive to cultural differences across organizational departments and countries. While studying employees of IBM across multiple countries and cultures, Hofstede (2006) found that there were significant cultural differences between employees from different countries, despite the fact that they were all employees at the same organization and as such presumably influenced by the common culture of this organization. These differences can have an impact on the expectations the employees have to the management and which form of governance approach is accepted within the organization (Hofstede, 2006). Although a culture study is outside the scope of this thesis, and could represent a thesis on its own, we argue that the findings regarding the three mechanisms in this thesis are generally applicable across country-borders, however the concrete actions of managers suggested in our analysis may have to be adjusted to local cultural conditions. For management to adhere to the style of governance, which has been argued for in this thesis, relying on a higher degree of social regulation and governance through internalized values, one aspect is required as MH describes it all in all it is about trust (MH, our translation 117 ). It comes down to if you actually believe in your employees. MSC argues that management generally implement structures because they don t trust in each other (MSC, our translation 118 ). In this respect it is relevant to include the findings from the power analysis where we found that Enterprise 2.0 contains an implicit power structure, which will have an influence on the power relations of the implementing organization. Furthermore, the power structures within Enterprise 2.0 systems are democratic, meritocratic, and enable increased informal power throughout an organization. Especially this last finding is important here; as previously mentioned, governance is the execution of power, and thus the informal power and informal governance mechanisms are very closely connected, just as formal power bases and formal governance mechanisms are. The informal governance relies on informal power aspects; people only increase influence on others by increasing their own power (e.g. via developing expertise within a field), thus, when informal power bases increase, it leads to an increase in informal governance. When the informal power bases increase 116 We suggest that an organization wanting to implement Enterprise 2.0 systems should start by conducting a thorough cultural study within the organization. If it is found that the organizational culture does not match with the inherent power structures and mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, efforts should be focused on changing the organizational culture before implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems to ensure success with these systems and the maximum effects/benefits of the three regulating mechanisms. 117 Original text: Alt i alt så handler det om tillid 118 Original text: Det kommer jo også ned til at tror du rent faktisk på dine medarbejdere man indfører nogle af de her strukturer fordi man ikke har tillid til hinanden Page 100 of 115

103 within Enterprise 2.0 systems, each individual will gain the ability to grow their individual influence, and thus the ability to affect the informal governance mechanisms by the possibility of regulating other people s behavior. Thus, the informal governance mechanisms are allowed to work to a much larger extent and to grow much stronger. The reciprocal relationship of formal and informal power and governance ensures a decrease in formal governance, as we also saw in the governance analysis. The decrease in formal power results in a less strict managerial governance and entails that management should rely more on informal governance mechanisms, such as selfand social regulation, rather than strict micromanagement, as was seen in the previous analysis. This will ensure legitimacy of governance, as is stated to be highly important in the structuralistic and culturalistic perspectives alike (Wittek, 2007). Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude, based on this argument as well as our entire analysis, that the informal governance mechanisms are more aligned with the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems. Governance cannot be conducted in the same strict, top-down manner as it previously has been control should be released from the top management in order to ensure results from the systems. Thus, best-case governance of Enterprise 2.0 systems represents a balanced approach between classical, formal managerial governance and informal governance hereby utilizing and trusting more in the social and self-regulating mechanisms. As we found in the chapter 4.2, using Enterprise 2.0 systems will lead to an organization where power is more distributed and employees are generally more empowered. Thus, it seems reasonable to state, that centralized organizations with a low level of trust in employees individual judgment and a high degree of top-down governance, based on strict control and micromanagement, will seem less suitable for introducing Enterprise 2.0 systems, or at least less likely to succeed with these types of systems. The Tayloristic paradigm of top-down micromanagement and tight control of employees and processes are designed into many traditional enterprise IT systems allowing IT managers to tightly control user rights and processes, adding little credit to the judgment of the user. According to XX this constant mistrust slows down work and irritates competent knowledge workers. She adds: there must be a minimum expectation to people's intelligence and maturity, instead of the management being afraid, that if people are allowed, gain rights, to change something or do something, then there could of course go something wrong. Yes, that could happen, but the chance is very small, and the chance of that happening intentionally even smaller (XX, our translation 119 ). Again, we can make reference to McGregor s theory X and Y. Traditional 119 Original text der må da være et minimum forventning til folks intelligens og modenhed, i stedet for at folk er så bange for at hvis folk får lov, rettigheder, til at ændre et eller andet eller gøre et eller andet, så kunne der jo gå et eller andet galt Ja, det ku der, men chancen for det er meget lille, og chancen for at det sker med vilje er endnu mindre. Page 101 of 115

104 bureaucratic companies primarily containing a perspective of employees being of type X will again seem less likely to succeed with an introduction of Enterprise 2.0 systems. It seems reasonable to conclude, that flatter companies with a more open culture, containing a perspective on employees as being of type Y will be more suitable for the introduction of Enterprise 2.0 systems. As JA says: It is not for everyone it takes a certain culture, where for example it is okay that everyone sees my document even though I have not finished writing it So it is a certain type of organization that will [use these technologies] or a certain type of teams (JA, our translation 120 ). XX also expressed: I would say that it is more flat organizations, it is innovative organizations, organizations that understands that they need to live off the ideas the employees gets it is organizations that knows it doesn t help to just buy a new IT tool or system. IT has never been the solution; it has been a means to get somewhere. But it requires that the organization change its structures and their way of managing and governing. And the management needs to be prepared for this, so they can change the procedures and processes that leans against this, to ensure that it is integrated into the way the organization acts and sees themselves, because it will not be used if it is not part of the organizational backbone, structure and organization (XX, our translation 121 ). This misalignment between Enterprise 2.0 systems and the notion of limited trust and micromanagement tells us, that governing through the rationalistic perspective provides little value and guidance, as it, to a large extent, relies on a belief of employees as being of theory X. Thus, there is a conflict between the Enterprise 2.0 systems and this type of governance, making it the least suitable of the three. However, the rationalistic perspective does hold one aspect of governance, which is little accounted for by either the rationalists or the culturalists; that rewards (monetary or non-monetary) can at times help improve performance, when intrinsic motivation is not present. This suggests that small aspects of the rationalistic approach to governance might be beneficial to include in the governance strategy. An example is the use of gamification 122, which many organizations are currently experimenting with (MH, BF). 120 Original text: Det er ikke for alle Det kræver en bestemt kultur, hvor det f.eks. er okay at alle ser mit dokument selv om at jeg ikke er færdig med at skrive det Så det er nok en bestemt type organisationer der vil gøre det, eller en bestemt type teams. 121 Original text: Jeg vil sige, det er mere flade organisationer, det er innovative organisationer, org. der virkelig ved at de skal leve af de ideer medarbejderne kommer med, det er org. der kommer med det udgangspunkt at de ved godt at det ikke hjælper noget bare at købe et nyt IT værktøj. IT har aldrig været løsningen, det har været et middel til at komme nogen vegne. Men det kræver at org. ændrer sine strukturer og sin måde at lede på. Og det skal ledelsen være indstillet på, så de kan ændre alle de procedurer og de processer der læner sig op ad det her, for at være sikker på at det bliver en integreret del af den måde som org. handler på og ser sig selv på. For det bliver ikke brugt, hvis det ikke bliver en del af org. backbone, struktur og organisering. 122 Gamification refers to service design aiming to provide game-like experiences. In practice gamification commonly applies to non-game applications and processes. The purpose of gamification is to make routine tasks via technology more engaging, by encouraging users to engage in desired behaviors via game theory, extrinsic motivational initiatives, Page 102 of 115

105 Revisiting the structuralistic perspective, the usability of the informal aspects rather than the formal aspects become apparent. The strong emphasis on social networks having two main purposes: to act as an instrument of social control, including defining and monitoring rules and expectations, and to help facilitate learning and sharing of information (Buskens & Raub, 2002) supports our findings of underlying mechanisms presented in the previous chapter, hereunder primarily the social regulating mechanisms. The formal aspect of the structuralistic perspective, however, again holds limited value, since it also relies on formally defined rules and monitoring of employees. This is in conflict with the results of our analysis, suggesting that management should rely on guidelines, rather than rules and strict regulations, should abstain from micromanagement, and should empower the employees. Formal structuralistic governance should as such not be relied on for Enterprise 2.0 governance. Whereas the two previously mentioned perspectives on governance holds a clear distinction between the formal and informal governance, the culturalistic perspective dissolves this distinction, which best represents the interdependent relationship of the three mechanisms of regulation, both with each other and with the organizational culture. The aspects of culturalistic governance, which comes closest to formal governance emphasizes formally enforceable expectations and authoritarian legitimization of expectations rather than strict rules and control, and is as such in accordance with the finding from our analysis. The aspects of culturalistic governance which leans more toward the informal aspects of governance, has in our analysis shown to be the most ideal perspective, since it promotes governance through the values and norms of an organization and emphasizes that individual interests are closely connected to identities (Weick, 1995; Wittek, 2007). If the strategy, mission and vision of the organization are strongly connected to the culture, it can be used to ensure that employees behave in the best interest of the organization at all times. The proper behavior will be that which is in accordance with the social norms and culture, it is therefore important to ensure a culture and social norms that supports the overall strategy and goals of the organization (Wittek, 2007). From the above discussion we would argue, that a synthetic use of the governance theories presented in chapter 5.1 seems to be optimal. The degree to which an organization should make use of each perspective on governance should be dependent on a number of aspects, such as size of the organization, the degree to which the management will allow freedom for the employees, the structure of the organization, etc. However, the analysis shows that governance through the and by taking advantage of humans' psychological predisposition to engage in gaming. Early examples of gamification are based on giving reward points to people who share experiences on location-based platforms ( Page 103 of 115

106 culturalistic approach should represent the strongest aspect of governance. The management should rely on building and governing through the organizational culture, through an understanding of shared goals, shared norms and values, and through the creation of an organizational identity. Page 104 of 115

107 6.)Conclusion) The purpose of this chapter is to respond to the research question with justified nuances and summarize the correlation between method, theory and empirical data. The main finding of this thesis is, that best-practice Enterprise 2.0 governance relies on three different underlying mechanisms of regulation: Managerial regulation, social regulation and self-regulation. The managerial regulating mechanism is the actual actions the management can conduct to regulate employees behavior. Our analysis has shown that a management style enforcing less direct control and more indirect influence is beneficial. 8 best-practice management actions are recommended. Management should: show clear support of Enterprise 2.0 and lead by example, set frames but abstain from micromanagement, set clear performance goals, explicate norms and values by creating social guidelines, intervene when necessary, make room for mistakes, assign community managers and ensure training, and trust the emergent mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0. Through these actions management maintain some control and guidance, while providing employees freedom and autonomy by abstaining from direct control and micromanagement. The social regulating mechanisms are the social regulation that is based on norms and values, where employees through liking, sharing, commenting, etc. enforce an informal regulation legitimized by the social guidelines. In the analysis we found, that this mechanism is to a greater extent than before made possible by the open architecture and emergent mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems. The selfregulating mechanism is the process each individual undergoes whenever making a contribution within and outside the Enterprise 2.0 systems. It too relies on the transparency of contribution within the system, making each contribution a visible and observable part of the individual s professional identity, for which they can potentially be held accountable. This results in selfdisciplining as the intrinsic motivation to perform well, and to be part of the community within the organization creates incentives to adhere to the social norms and values. These three mechanisms work in extension of each other and are all influenced by and influence the culture of an organization. In relying on all three mechanisms of regulation, managers can allow the freedom and autonomy necessary to benefit from the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, while maintaining a level of control in order to minimize the risks concerned with Enterprise 2.0 systems. In the course of our research, we found that in answering the research question thoroughly, it was necessary to analyze if a power distribution within Enterprise 2.0 systems existed. This was done, as governance is essentially execution of power, and thus an inherent power structure of Enterprise Page 105 of 115

108 2.0 influences the governance approach most appropriate for the systems. In the power analysis we found that Enterprise 2.0 systems contains an implicit power structure, which will have an influence on the power structures of the implementing organization. We further found that the power structures within Enterprise 2.0 systems are characterized by being democratic, meritocratic, and emphasizes influence derived from the informal power bases. From the findings in this thesis we have argued, that a synthetic use of the governance theories presented in chapter 5.1 seems to be optimal. While ensuring adherence to the eight management actions presented in section 5.2, the degree to which an organization should make use of each perspective on governance should be dependent on aspects individual for each organization. However, the analysis shows that governance through the culturalistic approach should represent the strongest aspect of governance. The management should rely on building and governing through the organizational culture, through an understanding of shared goals, shared norms and values, and through the creation of an organizational identity. In basing the findings on the synthesis between theory resulting from the interviews and theory resulting from our interpretive reflection in the analysis and discussion, we have been able to pull interesting nuances out of the empirical data. The findings reflect most importantly the data we collected when conducting qualitative interviews with key informants from the six companies IBM, Company X, Podio, Wemind, Social Square and the expert interview at CBS, but also implicitly or explicitly maintains cues from McAfee, de Hertough, Bhaskar, French & Raven, Morgan, Wittek, Foucault, Dreyfus & Rabinow and more. Through literature enfolding exercises these theories and theorists have strengthened the foundation of our final saturated conclusions. This thesis contributes to the research field of Enterprise 2.0 governance by focusing on providing new insights by developing the theoretical concept from empirical data and by avoiding settling on confirming or disconfirming existing theory. The contribution to practisioners is predominantly that this thesis incorporates recent developments in technology with best-practice experience from a number of first-mover companies and experienced practitioners as well as academically solid theory, thereby provides an up-to-date conceptual framework of the requirements and best-practice actions for governing Enterprise 2.0 systems. The theoretical concept resulting from this thesis is solidly grounded in empirical data that has undergone a structured process of analysis and in well-founded, acknowledged academic literature, and can thus be verified as good theory. The fit between the theory and the data that leads to the theory is displayed in great detail throughout the thesis and proves a close logical coherence. Page 106 of 115

109 Finally, that this thesis is able to spur new insights confirms that the originality of our approach has led us to bring value to the research field studying Enterprise 2.0 governance. In conclusion, the managers of today will meet major challenges as a consequence of the shifts in technologies, which affect their role in the organizations. The concept of Enterprise 2.0 governance developed during this thesis provides the tools for meeting those challenges and securing high performance of organizations using Enterprise )Limitations)and)further)research)) Now, we will briefly reflect upon the limitations of our research, as well as describe some of the limitations of the overall current knowledge base on Enterprise 2.0, which we found in the process of this thesis, but have not been able to cover due to restrictions in time, scope and focus. In doing so, we hope others will take it upon them to further develop the knowledge base within this fairly new and interesting field. When discussing the limitations and aspects for further research, we will distinguish between empirical, theoretical and analytical limitations. The empirical limitations of our thesis hold four features, which deserves further research. First, due to our choice of method and limitations in resources the theory developed in this thesis have not been tested quantitatively. Research focusing on the consequences of applying the management actions in practice and explicitly testing the underlying mechanisms would be valuable in further validating our theoretical concept. Second, in focusing the empirical data collection intently on candidates that advice others on the implementation, governance and usage of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, we may have missed potentially valuable information, such as how the governance actions are interpreted by the receivers of governance, or specific practical experiences with Enterprise 2.0 governance. We encourage further research focusing on the executers of governance, managers, and the receivers of governance, employees in organizations implementing Enterprise 2.0, as this may reveal other perspectives on governance than what is provided by our interviewees. Third, as all our empirical data originates from informants working in companies, our conclusions are not necessarily directly transferable to other types of legal organizations. Researching organizations such as NGOs, governments, less technically oriented companies or companies with varying risk aversion or risk attention, might present interesting data nuancing our results. Perhaps other challenges and solutions may be revealed and further develop our understanding of the Page 107 of 115

110 underlying mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0, power in Enterprise 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 governance. Hence, developing the accumulated knowledge base on Enterprise 2.0. Fourth, this research has taken a broad approach to Enterprise 2.0 technologies, not discerning between the characteristics and outcomes of the specific tools such as a wiki or a blog. Research focusing more narrowly on these specific tools could provide deeper insights into the organizational effects and governance issues pertaining the individual technologies, hereby providing valuable knowledge to practitioners implementing and governing Enterprise 2.0 systems. Should any of this research be conducted with an outset in the findings developed in this thesis it would provide valuable affirmation and/or improvement of our theoretical concept. While many aspects regarding choice of and limitations of our theory could be mentioned, one in particular deserves more attention. The theories used in this thesis where chosen to further develop and support the primary findings and topics of this thesis and as such focused on Enterprise 2.0, power and governance. Other literary directions focusing on subtopics such as culture or motivation theory could have been further developed and nuanced our analysis. There have been the following limitations in our analytical approach. First, the analysis is based on a wide empirical base; analyses based in an in-depth case study and perhaps designed as a longitudinal study following an organization from prior Enterprise 2.0 to e.g. a year post implementation, could provide some very interesting insights to both our power and governance analysis. Second, our analysis was based in qualitative methods and grounded theory, an analysis based on other approaches such as quantitative network analysis or observations of interactions within Enterprise 2.0 systems could reach different conclusions or interesting perspectives. Third, to create an in-depth study, this thesis has focused on the internal use of Enterprise 2.0. Further research focusing on external usage of Enterprise 2.0 could be of immense interest. This could include studying the effects and governance of using Enterprise 2.0 systems to create closer relations to customers or suppliers. Fifth, while the analysis focused on creating a best-practice framework for Enterprise 2.0 governance, there has been an underlying prioritization on answering the question of how managers could retain control, while still empowering employees. This has allowed us to focus more intensely Page 108 of 115

111 on this aspect, hereunder the underlying mechanisms hereof i.e. the panopticon. This means, however that there are other aspects of governance that have been given less focus or have been neglected alltogether. Future research providing a more in-depth analysis of these other aspects of Enterprise 2.0 governance will provide a valuable contribution to the growing knowledge base of Enterprise 2.0. After reflecting on the choices and limitations of this thesis, it seems possible to raise some questions that we find particularly interesting in terms of developing the field of Enterprise 2.0 governance theory: Which type of incentive structure is most appropriate for driving behavior and wanted outcomes in an Enterprise 2.0 system? What are the most effective methods for creating and sustaining a culture supportive of the underlying Enterprise 2.0 mechanisms? Which specific challenges arise when relying on culture, hereunder norms and values, in international organizations where different national cultures also affect the culture of a subsidiary? What are the long-term effects of Enterprise 2.0 systems? What is the return-on-investment on Enterprise 2.0 systems, and how can it be measured? What is the effects and ROI on the specific types of Enterprise 2.0 technologies? Many more could be added to this list. We leave it to other researchers to continue the development of knowledge within this field and hope that the contribution of empirically grounded and theoretically reflected knowledge developed and presented in this thesis will provide valuable for both members of the scientific community and practitioners. Page 109 of 115

112 7.)References) Amabile, T. M., Coon, H., Herron, M., Conti, R., & Lazenby, J. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. University of Southern California, 39(5). Andriole, S. (2010). Business Impact of web 2.0 Technologies. Communications of the ACM, Retrieved from Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for creating business knowledge (Second edi.). SAGE Publications Inc. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), doi: / Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1969). Two Faces of Power. In W. E. Conolly (Ed.), The Bias of Pluralism (pp ). New York: Atherton Press. Backhouse, J., Technology, I., & Engineering, E. (2009). SOCIAL MEDIA!: IMPACTING THE ENTERPRISE!?, 2009, 1 9. Barnard, C. I. (1968). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press. Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, Psychology and Organizational Behavior. New York: Harper. Benton, T., & Ian, C. (2001). Philosophy of Social Science. Benton, Ted Ian Craib. Houndmills: Palgrave. Blumberg, B., R. Cooper, D. &, & S. Schindler, P. (2005). Business research methods (pp ). McGraw-Hill Education. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential Power and Power Use: an Investigation of Structure and Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), doi: / Brass, Daniel J. (1984). Being in the Right Place!: A Structural Analysis of Influence in an Individual Organization. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes. The social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural Holes vs Network Closure as Social Capital. Social Capital: Theory and Research (pp ). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), doi: / Buskens, V., & Raub, W. (2002). Embedded Trust: Control and Learning. Advances in Group Processes. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Chauhan, N., & Bontis, N. (2004). Organisational learning via Groupware: A path to discovery og disaster? International Journal of Technology Management,, 27(no. 6). Chui, M., Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., Sarrazin, H., Sands, G., et al. (2012). The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundation of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard. Committee, C. (1992). The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioural Science, 2(3), Dahl, R. A. (1986). Rethinking Who Governs? New Haven Revisited. In R. J. Waste (Ed.), Community Power: Directions for Future Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. Page 110 of 115

113 Danermark, B., & Al., E. (1997). Att förklara samhället. Lund. Studentlitteratur. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers. Harvard Business School Press. De Hertogh, S., Viaene, S., & Dedene, G. (2011). Governing Web 2.0. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 124. doi: / DeGarmo, T. (2011a). Tackling the challenge of information overload with social tools. PwC Technology Forecast, (3), 4 5. DeGarmo, T. (2011b). Tackling the challenge of information overload with social tools. Technology Forecast, (3), Delaney, C. (2006). Social Media: Promising Tool, Double-Edged Sword. In I. for P. D. & the I. J. B. Germany (ed) (Ed.), Person-to-Person-to- Person: Harnessing the Political Power of Online Social Networks and User-Generated Content (pp ). Domhoff, G. W. (1997). Who Rules America Now? Touchstone Books. Donaldson, L. (1999). Studying Organization: Theory and Method, Del 1. Studying Organizations: Theory & Method (pp ). SAGE Publications Ltd. Dopfer, K. (2004). The economic agent as rule maker and rule user: Homo Sapiens Oeconomicus. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(2), doi: /s Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dvorak, R. E., Holen, E., Mark, D., & Meehan, W. F. (1997). Six principles of high-performance IT. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), doi: /j.indmarman Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. L. (1991). Groupware - Some Issues and Experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), Fitzgerald, B. (2012). Most Popular Sites 2012: Alexa Ranks The 500 Most-Visited Websites. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed., pp ). SAGE Publications Ltd. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (C. Gordon, Ed.). London: Harvester. Foucault, M. (1983). How is Power Exercised? Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1987). Disciplinary Power and Subjection. Power (pp ). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Foucault, M. (1994). Overvågning og straf. DET lille FORLAG. Frey, B. S., & Oberholtzer-Gee, F. (1997). The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out. The American Economic Review, 87(4), Fuglsang, L., & Bitsch Olsen, P. (2004). Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne: På tværs af fagkulturer og paradigmer. (2 udgave..). Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Gardner, R. (2003). Games between a Principal and an Agent. Games for Business and Economics (2nd ed., pp ). Leyh Publisher LLC. Page 111 of 115

114 Goldberg, D., & Campbell, F. (1997). Empowerment: A three-session intervention. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, (2), Grossman, M., & McCarthy, R. V. (2007). Web 2.0: Is the Enterprise Ready for the Adventure. Issues in Information Systems, VIII(2), Retrieved from Hermansen, M., Løw, O., & Petersen, V. (2004). Kommunikation og samarbejde. Alinea, Egmont. Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, R. E. (1995). Structural Conditions of Intraorganizational Power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(1), Hofstede, G. (2006). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. (W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler, Eds.)Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Center for Cross- Cultural Research, Western Washington University. Jensen, H. R. (1996). Erhvervsøkonomisk undersøgelsesmetodik (2. udgave.). Samfundslitteratur, København. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Occupational Stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley and Sons. Koch, M. (2008). CSCW and Enterprise towards an Integrated Perspective. Computer (Vol. 60, pp ). Association for the Sociology of Religion. doi: /j x Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Davis, A. L. (2008). Douglad McGregor s Theory X and Y: Toward a Construct-valid Measure. Journal of Managerial Issues. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony & Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. Liden, R. C., & Arad, S. (1996). A power perspective of employment and work groups. Implications for human resources management research. Research in personnel and human resources management (pp ). Greenwich: Jai Press. Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. March, J., & Simon, H. (1993). Organizations revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(3), 299. Mathaisel, B. (2011). The CIO s role in social enterprise strategy - Transforming collaboration demands an evolutionary approach. Technology Forecast, (3), McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization s Toughest Challenges (p. 240). Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from Challenges/dp/ McAfee, A. (2011). When Social Meets Business Real Work Gets Done - Fostering Innovation. AIIM, White Paper. Retrieved from for McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0!: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), McAfee, A. P. (2009). INNOVATION How a Connected. Harvard Business Review, 87(December), 80. McAfee, A. P. (2011). Shattering the Myths About Enterprise 2.0. Center for Digital Business RESEARCH BRIEF, XIII(1), 1 6. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Page 112 of 115

115 Morgan, G. (1983). Images of Organization. SAGE Publications Ltd. Morrison, A., & Parker, B. (2011). The collaboration paradox. Technology Forecast, (3), Munduate, L., & Dorado, M. A. (1998). Supervisor Power Bases, Co-operative behavior, and Organizational Commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), Nielsen, K. S. (2006). Fortællinger i organisationer - narrativ praksis. Hans Reitzels Forlag. Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). O Reilly, T. (2005a). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from O Reilly, T. (2005b). Web 2.0: Compact Definition? Retrieved from O Reilly, T. (2006). Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again. Retrieved from Peiró, J. M., & Meliá, J. L. (2003). Formal and Informal Interpersonal Power in Organisations: Testing a Bifactorial Model of Power in Role-sets. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1), Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), doi: /j.jsis Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives The Ethology of Homo Economicus. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press. Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A Structural Equations Model of Leader Power, Subordinate s Style of Handling Conflict, and Job Performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, (49), Raven, B. H. (1999). Power/Interaction and Interpersonal Influence. The Use and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption (pp ). Psychology Press. Reichertz, J. (2009). Abduction!: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,, 11(1), Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach, (2nd. ed.). London: Routledge. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London. SAGE Publications Ltd. Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall Inc. Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16(3), doi: /j.infoandorg Sozen, H. C. (2012). Social networks and power in organizations: A research on the roles and positions of the junior level secretaries in an organizational network. Personnel Review, 41(4), doi: / Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Page 113 of 115

116 Tapscott, D. (2006). Winning with the Enterprise 2.0. Learning (pp. 1 59). New Paradigm Learning Corporation. Retrieved from Thomsen, J. P. F. (2000). Magt og indflydelse. Magtudredning. Vallas, S. (2003). The Adventure of Managerial Hegemony. Teamwork, Ideology, and Teamwork Resistance. Social Problems (pp ). Webber, A. (2012). Guarding the Social Gates!: The Imperative for Social Media Risk. Altimeter. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE Publications Ltd. Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), doi: / Wittek, R. (2007). III. Governance A Sociological Perspective. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Speyer, Germany. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. Basic Books Inc. Page 114 of 115

117 This version of the thesis Governing Enterprise 2.0 does not contain appendixes Page 115 of 115