Transformational discourse: ideologies of organizational change in the academic library and information science literature - Qualitative Research

Library Trends, Spring, 1998 by Mark Tyler Day

INTRODUCTION

All civilizations exhibit fissures in their cultural foundation. These breaches are caused by contradictions in the structural principles upon which they were founded (Giddens, 1979, pp. 131-64). The social tensions that build along these fault lines usually are controlled or dissipated in ways that prevent major dislocations from occurring. Sometimes, however, a major realignment occurs and triggers the release of tremendous cultural energy which transforms the social landscape. Academic libraries currently are caught up in a cultural tsunami caused by just such a realignment in the principles upon which modern Western civilization was founded.

The resulting waves of rhetoric inundate us daily with proclamations about the transformational changes occurring in this turbulent environment and about the need for individuals and their organizations to adapt by transforming themselves. This flood of what can be called "transformational discourse" began around 1970 with the publication of Alvin Toffler's (1970) best-selling Future Shock and has by now overflowed into nearly every field of endeavor. Library and Information Science has both helped to create this form of discourse with its visions of electronic libraries and scholarly workstations and has been heavily influenced in turn because the application of information technology is everywhere assumed to have a transformational effect on modern organizations, especially organizations such as academic libraries that specialize in "knowledge work." The question then becomes, how do we know it will have a transformational effect, and what do we really mean by that? To pursue these questions, we first need to understand how modern organizations came into being as social institutions designed to promote and maintain the foundational principles of modern industrial society.

FOUNDING THE INSTITUTIONS OF MODERN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE

These principles were developed by Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers and doers whose aim was to reconstruct medieval society on a more humanistic and rational basis. Their labors have resulted in the four great institutional edifices of modernity: (1) cultural institutions committed to the unfettered creation and accumulation of knowledge; (2) governmental institutions dedicated to the equitable organization and use of power; (3) religious institutions consecrated to the universal pursuit and defense of human dignity; and (4) economic institutions devoted to the efficient accumulation and distribution of wealth (Wallace, 1994, p. 65). This impressive institutional monument to humanistic enlightenment values is maintained by numerous individual organizations--business corporations, churches, state agencies, academic libraries, and so on--that embody these values in practice. Internally, organizations support these values through a combination of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures (Scott, 1995a, 1995b; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996; Zucker, 1977). Among organizations, common institutional values are constrained by social environments in which each organization is expected to play by the rules (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Thus, one useful way of studying interaction among organizations is to consider them as players whose strategic behavior follows the regulations and fashions of their particular institutional "field" (Stearns & Allan, 1996; Thornton, 1995).

The modern conception of an organization as a legally incorporated virtual person originated

during the Late Middle Ages, as natural persons strove to break the

power monopoly of the Church and State [and] created juristic, legal or

"corporate" persons. ... In the U.S. ... an 1886 Supreme Court ruling

explicitly recognizes the rights and obligations of the

corporation-as-person. (Cheney & McMillan, 1990, p. 96)

Using this metaphor, organizations are often talked about as if they were human actors who have missions and needs, who have rights and responsibilities, who can plan strategies, who can learn, and whose behavior can become dysfunctional. At the same time, organizations are treated as agents--the organs (from the Latin "organum"; tool, instrument) of society--designed to achieve the goals of society in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Organizations thus serve as a powerful manifestation of the instrumental rationality that characterizes modern Western civilization. Their ability to produce a high level of social power has been a major factor leading to the rise of the West (McNeil, 1963). Modern theorists and practitioners have always treated organizations primarily as rational agents of society. Variations on the theme of designing more effective organizations continue to fill the literature.

Working together in an organized manner, people can accomplish much more than they can working alone or in an uncoordinated fashion. This is particularly true when it comes to making large physical changes in the world (Wallace, 1994, p. 26). Thus, before the industrial revolution, most large social projects used organizations that were similar in many ways to modern ones. The traditional religious values that such organizations institutionalized, however, differed from the secular rational values that characterize modern organizations. These values in many ways create one of the important fault lines in modern culture--what may be called the paradox of"creative destruction." This image