) understood technological determinism as the view that technology drives cultural change in organizations, and the view considers cultural factors as being generally unimportant in influencing change. According to a technological determinist perspective, because of the inherent deterministic capabilities of technologies, a top-down approach to management can be effective in managing technological change and dealing with technical issues (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The researchers defined cultural determinism as the perspective that neglect of human and cultural factors are the primary cause of failed technological change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). According to Jackson and Philip (2010), the cultural determinist perspective also tends toward a top-down approach to management based on the assumption that managers can affect the cultural changes necessary prior to implementing technology initiatives. The third perspective, the techno-cultural emergence perspective holds that changing culture in isolation from technical factors cannot ensure technological change, nor can technological change proceed with a focus on technology apart from cultural concerns (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The techno-cultural emergence perspective assumes that a dynamic interaction between technology and people affects change, and that this process includes unanticipated cultural and technological issues that can arise over time (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Rather than a top-down approach to management, the techno- emergence perspective takes an ad-hoc and incremental approach that assumes not all cultural and technological factors can be planned for and managed in advance (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Jackson and Philips (2010) found that with a college that proceeded from technological determinism, and a university that proceeded from cultural determinism, in neither case were desired technological change outcomes implemented successfully. Neither the college nor university were successful in managing the unanticipated technological improvisations that became necessary, nor were they successful in dealing with cultural issues that arose (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Managers at the technology solutions company proceeded from a more nuanced techno-cultural emergence perspective that assumed that neither technology nor social factors in isolation determine change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The company that proceeded from a techno-cultural emergence perspective successfully implemented their desired outcomes, and were 53 successful in managing unanticipated improvisations to technology, and the cultural issues that arose (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The college that proceeded from assumptions o f technological determinism mistakenly assumed that a top-down systematic approach would drive the needed changes in organizational culture, and ensure successful technological change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). However, the technological determinist approach neglected important cultural issues, and even users who were expected to champion change efforts took
) understood technological determinism as the view that technology drive cultural variety in organizations, and the view consider cultural component as being generally unimportant in influence change. According to a technical fatalist perspective, because of the inherent deterministic capability of technologies, a top - down approach to management can be effective in wield technological change and dealing with technical issues (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The researchers specify cultural determinism as the perspective that neglect of human and cultural factors are the basal cause of failed technological variety (Jackson & Philip, 2010). According to Jackson and Philip (2010), the cultural fatalist perspective also tends toward a top - down approach to management base on the assumption that managers can affect the cultural changes necessary prior to implementing engineering enterprise. The third perspective, the techno - cultural emergence perspective holds that changing culture in isolation from technical factors cannot ensure technological variety, nor can technical change proceed with a focus on engineering aside from cultural concerns (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The techno - cultural emergence perspective assumes that a dynamic interaction between technology and people affects variety, and that this process includes unanticipated cultural and technological issues that can arise over time (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Rather than a top - down approach to management, the techno- emergence perspective takes an ad - hoc and incremental approach that assume not all cultural and technical factors can be planned for and managed in advance (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Jackson and Philips (2010) found that with a college that proceeded from technological determinism, and a university that proceeded from cultural determinism, in neither subject were desired technological change outcomes enforce successfully. Neither the college nor university were successful in managing the unanticipated technological improvisation that became necessary, nor were they successful in deal with cultural issues that rise (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Managers at the engineering solutions company proceeded from a more nuanced techno - cultural egress perspective that assumed that neither technology nor social factors in isolation determine change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The company that proceeded from a techno - cultural emergence perspective successfully implemented their desired outcomes, and were 53 successful in pull off unanticipated improvisations to technology, and the cultural issue that arose (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The college that proceeded from assumptions o f technological determinism mistakenly assumed that a top - down taxonomic approach would drive the needed changes in organizational culture, and ensure successful technological change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). However, the technical determinist approach neglected important cultural issues, and even users who were expected to champion change attempt took
) unferstood technological dtterminism as the view tiat tecgnology arives cultural change in orjanizatiobs, and the view considdrs cultugal factoes aw being genxdally uknmporfwnt nn influencing cmange. Accorging to a techtouoyical determinist perspective, becausq of thr lnherent deteriinixeic dapabilities of technologies, a top-sown apkroach to managememt can be effective in manwginh technological chwnge and deqlind with technizal issues (Jackson & Phjlip, 2010). The researchers defined cjlturcl determinusn ad the perspertive nhat neglect of human and cuktural factors arx thw primary cause of famled technological crange (Jacnskn & Philip, 2010). Accoreibg to Jacnson qnd Phjlmp (2010), the ckltnral determjnist perspwctive also tends tpwwgc a top-down zpproash to management based on the assumption uhat janagers can affect the cultural changes necgssary prijr to implementing technology initiatives. The thisd pecsoecuiyc, thd tfchno-cultural emergence perspective holds thae cnakging culture in isolation grlm jechnical facturs cauhof ensure technologlcal chwnge, bor can ttchnokogical change proceed with a focus on nechbology apart from eultural coneerns (Kackspn & Philip, 2010). The techno-cblturam emergence perspectjxe assumes that x djnamhc interaction between tecrnology aid pepple afwectx chande, and thah this process includes knantncipaded culturwl and technological issues thav can arise ofes tpme (Jacksjn & Pmilip, 2010). Rather tran a top-down cpproach to mxnagement, nhe technm- emergence perspective dwkes an ad-hor and incwemebtal approazf that assumes not all bujturql and technologicel fxdtors can be plcuntd for and managrd kn wdnanre (Jasnson & Philip, 2010). Jazksum and Philips (2010) fijnd yhat with a college dhat proceeded from tevhkological determigism, and a unoversity that procteded hrom cnlturak dgterminism, in neither case were desired hecmnological chwnge outcomes im'lemented successfully. Neither the colleje nor university were wuccessful in managnnn the unantiripateq technolmgical improvisationw that became nectssary, nor were they sudcessfgl in dealing with cultural issues that arose (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Managers at the technology solutikns vompaty 'roceedqd fcoo a more nuanced techno-cultural emergence perspxctive thad cssumed that neither technoloby nor social fxctors in isolation detedmine chsnge (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The compamy that proceeded from a techno-cylturzl emegfeice perspective succrssfulny implementwd tmeir desired ojtcpmcs, and werf 53 sncczssful in managing unanticipated umprovuswtions to technonogy, and thc gulturzl issoes that arose (Jadksoh & Phiuip, 2010). The collrge that procerded from assumptionv j f technologixzl determinixm mistdkenly assumxd that a to[-down systematic approach would drive the needed chznges in krganizabional culture, anc ensure successful tecmnolodical chxnge (Jackson & Philip, 2010). However, the technological determiiost aoprjach heglected impmrtant cultural issues, and even urers qho were expected to cgampion crange efforts took
) understood technological determinism as the view drives change in and the view generally in influencing change. to a technological perspective, because of the inherent deterministic of technologies, a top-down approach to management can be effective in managing technological and dealing with technical issues (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The researchers defined cultural as perspective neglect human and cultural factors are the primary cause of failed technological change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). to Jackson and Philip (2010), the cultural determinist also tends toward a approach to management based on assumption managers can the changes prior to implementing initiatives. The third perspective, the techno-cultural emergence perspective holds that changing culture in isolation from technical factors ensure technological can technological proceed a on technology apart concerns (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The assumes that a dynamic interaction between technology and affects change, that this process includes unanticipated cultural technological issues that can arise over time (Jackson Philip, 2010). Rather than a top-down approach to management, the techno- emergence perspective takes an incremental approach that assumes all cultural and factors be for managed in (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Jackson and Philips (2010) found that with college that proceeded from technological determinism, and a university that cultural in neither case desired technological change outcomes successfully. the college nor university in the that necessary, were they successful in with cultural issues that arose & Philip, 2010). Managers proceeded from a more nuanced techno-cultural emergence perspective assumed that neither technology nor social factors isolation determine change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). The company that proceeded from techno-cultural emergence implemented their desired outcomes, and were 53 successful managing unanticipated improvisations to and the cultural issues that arose (Jackson & Philip, The that proceeded assumptions o f determinism mistakenly assumed a top-down systematic drive the changes organizational successful technological change (Jackson & Philip, However, technological determinist approach neglected important issues, users who were expected to champion change efforts took
) understood technological deTerminism aS the vIew ThaT tEchnOlogY drives culturaL ChanGe in organizations, and thE view CoNSideRS cUlturAl factoRS aS BEinG gEnEraLlY UnImporTanT in inflUencing chaNge. acCording to a teCHnOlogical deTerMinist perspeCtiVe, becaUsE of THe inhEreNt detErminiSTic capAbilities Of TEchnolOGies, a toP-DOwN appRoach to management CAn BE effective in maNaging TeCHnOLOgiCal Change and dEaLing wITh technICaL ISSueS (jackson & Philip, 2010). the researchERs dEfined CuLtuRAl deteRminiSm AS thE perspectivE thaT neglect oF human ANd cultuRAl factoRs are tHe pRimAry cAUsE oF faIlED teCHnOloGIcaL change (JAcKsOn & PhiLip, 2010). ACCORDing To JAcksOn and philip (2010), the cultUraL detERmiNist pErspeCtivE aLso teNds towArd a tOp-Down approach to mAnagEment baseD on ThE asSuMptioN That maNagErs Can affeCt the cuLTurAl CHANgEs necessary prior to ImPLEmEnting teChnoloGY iNiTIatives. THe ThiRd peRSPectiVe, thE TeChno-cultUral emERgEnCe perspEcTive hoLdS thAt cHangiNG culTure in IsolatioN from TEchnical factorS Cannot ensure tEChNOLoGIcal ChaNge, nor can teChnoLOgicAl chANgE prOCeed wIth a fOcUS oN Technology apart from CuLtural ConceRns (Jackson & PhiLip, 2010). The techNO-CUltural eMergENcE Perspective assUmes tHat a dynamiC InteractIon beTween tecHnology anD PEople affEctS chAngE, anD THaT this process iNCLudeS uNanticiPatEd cultuRal And TecHnoLoGical issuEs that caN aRiSe OvEr tIme (JaCKson & PhilIp, 2010). ratHeR thAn a toP-Down apProacH to mAnAgEMenT, the tecHNo- EMErgeNcE pErspEctIvE takeS an aD-Hoc And incrEmental apProACh thAt AsSumes noT all cultural aNd TechnologiCaL faCtors cAN Be planneD for and managed in advance (jAckson & PHilIp, 2010). JacKson And PhilipS (2010) foUnd thaT wiTH a collEge thaT procEeDed FROm tecHNOlOgiCaL determiniSM, And A univErSity That proCeeded from cultural DEteRminism, in neitHer Case WERe DesIReD TecHnOLogICAl change outcomeS implementEd SUcCessfully. NEIthEr The collEge nor uNiverSIty were SuccessfuL in managiNg The uNANtiCipated tecHnologicAl improviSAtionS ThAt becAme NecessArY, noR were They suCCesSful iN dealiNg With cuLturaL iSsues thaT arose (Jackson & Philip, 2010). ManaGers at The teChnOlogy soluTioNS coMpany procEedeD from a more NuaNceD techNo-cULturaL emeRGeNce PErspeCtivE That assumED tHat NEItHer technoloGY NOr sOcial FacTOrs in iSolaTion determine chanGE (Jackson & Philip, 2010). the cOMPanY thAT proCeEded from a technO-cuLtURAl emergeNcE perspectivE successFuLLy impLementEd theiR desireD OUtCOmes, anD werE 53 suCcessful iN maNaGIng unanTiCiPAted imProvIsAtions To techNOlogY, ANd the cultural issUes thAT Arose (jAckSon & PhIlIp, 2010). The coLLege That proceeDed from assuMptionS o f tEchnoLogical DeTerminIsm MiStakenly asSUmed that a Top-doWn systeMaTic aPprOach woUld dRIVe the NeedEd ChaNges in orgANIzATiOnAL cuLturE, and eNsUre sUccessful TEchnologIcaL Change (JAcKsoN & pHilip, 2010). HOWeVER, the technoLogIcal dETErminist apPRoacH NeGLecteD imporTant cuLtural iSSueS, aNd even uSerS WHo were expEcted to chAMpiOn ChanGe effortS tOok
) understood technological  determini sm as  th e v ie w th at t echnology driv e s cu ltural change in organ izati on s , an d  t he vi ew cons i de r s  cu lt ur alfa c to rs as  be ing gen erally uni mpo rt ant in influ e nc ing change . A ccording toa t echnol og ica l  dete rmi nistperspe c tive,because o ft he inh e rent de t e rm inis tic capabilitieso ft echnologies, a  top-d ow n  a p p roa chto managem en t can be effe c ti v e inm anaging techn ological ch a nge  and d ea lin g  withtechn ic a l i ssues (Jack son& Philip,  2010) .  The re s earcher s defi ned  cu ltur a lde ter mi n ism as  th e  pe rspectiv eth at ne glec t o f  hum anandcultu ral factors a rethep rim ary c auseof f ai led t echnol ogica lchange (Jackson  & P hilip, 20 10) .Acc or dingt o Jack son  an d Phili p (2010 ) , t he c u lt ural determinist p er s p ec tive als o tend s  t ow a rd a top -d own  app r o ach t o ma n ag ement ba sed on th eassumpt io n that  m ana ger s can affe ct the  cultura l cha n ges necessaryp rior to imple m en t i ng tech nol ogy initiat ives .  The  thi r dper s pecti ve, t he te c hno-cultural emerge nc e pers pecti ve holds that  changingc u l ture inisol a ti o n from technic al fa ctors cann o t ensure  tech nologica l change, n or can t ech nol ogi cal c ha nge proceed w i t h afo cus ontec hnology  ap art  fr omcu ltural co ncerns ( Ja ck so n& P hilip ,  2010).Th e t ec hno -cult u ral em ergen ce p er sp e cti ve assu m es t hatady nami c i nt eract ionb etw een tec hnology a ndp eopl eaf fects c hange, and th at  this proc es s i nclude s unantici pated cultural and tech n ologica l i ssues  tha t can ari seover t ime (Jacks on & P hilip ,201 0 ) . Rat h e rtha na top-down a ppr oachto  man agement , the techno- emer g enc e perspective  ta kesa n  a d-h o ca ndin c rem e n tal approach th at assumes  n o tall cultur a l a nd  techno logical  fact o rs canbe planne d for and  m anag e d  in  advance ( Jackson& Philip, 2010) .  J ackso n a nd Phi li ps(2010 ) foun d  th at wi th a c ol lege t hat p ro ceeded f rom technological deter minism , and  auniversit y t h atproceeded  fro m cultural  de ter minis m,i n nei ther ca sew ere d esir e d technol o gi cal c ha nge outcome s i mpl ement eds uccess full y. Neither the co l lege nor unive rsit y wer e s u cces sf ul in managing  th eu n anticipa te d technolog ical imp ro v isati ons th at bec ame nec e s sa r y, nor  wer e t hey succe ssf ul in deal in gw ith cu ltur al  issue s that aros e (Jackson & Phili p, 20 1 0 ). Ma n age rs at  t he tech n olog y solution s company p roceed ed f rom a  more n ua nced t ech no -culturale mergencepersp ectiveth at a ssu med th at n e i thertech no log y nor soc i a lf ac to r s i n is olati on  det ermine ch a nge (Jac kso n  & Phil ip , 2 0 1 0). Th e  c o m pany thatpro ceede d from a tec h no-c u lt u ral e mergen ce per spectiv e  su cc essfull y i m p lementedtheir des i red  o utco mes, and  w ere53  su cc essful in manag ing unan ticipate d improv isa t ions to tec hn ology, and t he cu lt u ral iss u e s t hat aro s e ( Jac kso n &Phi lip, 2010). The college thatproc eeded fro m ass umpti on s o f te c hnol ogical d e terminism mis takenly assumed tha t  a t op- d ow nsystemati c a p proac h wo uld  dri vethen e eded chan g es  inorgani zati on al  culture,  a nd ensu r e su c ces sful  tech no lo g ic al chan ge (Jack son &  P hilip, 20 1 0). How ever ,the technolog ical determi ni st a pproac h  ne gle c t ed important  culturaliss ues, and e ve n u s ers  whowere expected  to  c h amp ionch ange e fforts t ook
) understood_technological determinism_as the view that_technology drives_cultural_change in_organizations,_and the view_considers cultural factors_as being generally unimportant_in influencing change._According_to a technological determinist perspective, because of the inherent deterministic capabilities of technologies, a_top-down_approach to_management_can_be effective in managing technological_change and dealing with technical_issues (Jackson_& Philip, 2010). The researchers defined cultural determinism_as_the perspective that_neglect of human and cultural factors are the primary_cause of failed technological change (Jackson_& Philip, 2010)._According_to_Jackson and Philip (2010),_the cultural determinist perspective also tends_toward a top-down approach to management_based on the assumption that managers can_affect the cultural changes necessary prior_to implementing technology initiatives. The_third perspective,_the techno-cultural emergence perspective holds_that changing culture_in isolation_from technical factors_cannot ensure technological change, nor can_technological change proceed_with a focus on technology apart_from_cultural concerns (Jackson_&_Philip,_2010). The_techno-cultural emergence perspective_assumes_that a_dynamic_interaction between technology and people affects_change,_and that this process includes unanticipated cultural_and technological issues that_can_arise over time (Jackson_& Philip, 2010). Rather than_a top-down approach to management, the_techno- emergence_perspective takes_an ad-hoc and incremental approach that assumes not all cultural and_technological factors can be planned for_and managed in advance_(Jackson &_Philip,_2010). Jackson and_Philips_(2010) found_that with a college that proceeded from_technological determinism,_and a university that proceeded from_cultural determinism, in neither_case_were desired technological change outcomes implemented_successfully. Neither the college nor university_were successful in managing the_unanticipated_technological_improvisations that became necessary, nor_were they successful in dealing with_cultural issues that_arose (Jackson & Philip, 2010). Managers at_the_technology solutions company proceeded from a_more_nuanced techno-cultural emergence perspective that assumed_that_neither_technology nor social factors in_isolation determine change (Jackson & Philip,_2010). The company that proceeded from a techno-cultural emergence_perspective successfully implemented_their desired outcomes, and were_53_successful_in managing unanticipated improvisations to technology, and the cultural issues_that arose_(Jackson & Philip,_2010). The college that proceeded from assumptions o f technological_determinism mistakenly assumed that a top-down systematic_approach would drive the needed changes in organizational culture, and ensure_successful technological change (Jackson & Philip, 2010). However,_the technological determinist approach neglected important cultural_issues, and even users_who_were expected to champion change efforts took