Between acquiescence and manipulation: responses from project managers from IS to institutionalized practices

Abstract

A number of information systems (IS) project management practices can now be considered
institutionalized. While traditional institutional approaches assume that actors – in search
of legitimacy - passively adopt such practices, others posit that there is a broad range of
responses to institutional pressures. These responses vary from acquiescence to manipulation,
including compromise and defiance. Our study adopted this perspective to examine IS project
managers’ responses to institutionalized practices. The study addressed the following
questions: Are IS project managers institutional actors who unquestioningly adopt institutionalized
practices or do they consciously comply? Or else, do they adopt avoidance or defiance
strategies? We conducted a multi-method study to address these questions. First we conducted
a field study during which we interviewed 46 IS project managers after which we
conducted two case studies. We offer the following contributions. From an empirical point of
view, the study reveals how IS project managers may apprehend project management practices
that they are presented as being norms. The study also has a theoretical contribution, in
that it combines and enriches extant frameworks pertaining to actors’ responses to institutional
pressures; these strategies are contrasted with the notion of mindfulness. From a practical
point of view, our results can help organizations better understand how IS project managers
may apprehend institutionalized practices. The originality of our approach consists in
the operationalization of Oliver’s (1991) famous framework in an IS context.