Information governance and power relations: Reflections on archival education in Québec

2.1 Negotiated information governance

Our study adopts a negotiated information governance perspective. The information governance concept emphasizes the disciplinary intersections that must underlie the complex reality of information management in organizations. Thus, it can be defined as “[a] strategic, cross-disciplinary framework composed of standards, processes, roles, and metrics that hold organizations and individuals accountable for the proper handling of information assets. The framework helps organizations achieve business objectives, facilitates compliance with external requirements, and minimizes risk posed by substandard information-handling practices” (ARMA, 2018, p. 19).

The implementation of an information governance program must meet legal, political, economic, and ethical requirements (White et al., 2007). The dimensions to be taken into account are, among others, archival, technological, administrative, and legal. Information governance includes several areas of specialization, notably those relating to data management, big data, records management and archives, information management,2

The collaborative approach to governance offers some insights about the type of information governance to be implemented in organizations. Since the 1990s in the field of management, governance has increasingly been perceived as a collaborative decision-making process to achieve a common goal on the basis of participation between organizational actors rather than imposing decisions “from the top”. Governance can be defined as a “set of collective rules and processes, formalized or not formalized, by which the actors involved participate in the decision and the implementation of (…) actions that are a result of constant negotiation between the many actors involved, each possessing a certain form of power” (Lacroix & St-Arnaud, 2012, p. 26, our translation).

In an interactionist sociology perspective (Berger & Luckman, 1967), an information governance strategy could only truly succeed as a result of the interaction and collective action of the administrative units in charge of managing information contents or information technology. There are some impacts on adopting a perspective where organizational actors with possible divergent interests must reach a consensus in order to face common issues. On the one hand, power and negotiation constitute intrinsic components of any consensus (Strauss, 1978), and cannot be ignored. On the other hand, deliberate strategies imposed by senior managers often result in failures if they are not compatible with the organization’s culture (Schein, 2010).

Our study focuses on the role of archivists in an integrated archival perspective. In the province of Québec, Canada, archivists apply the concept of “integrated records and archives”, which sees a continuity between the records created in the context of business activities, and the percentage of those records that will be preserved as “historical archives”. The term archives “means the body of documents of all kinds, regardless of date, created or received by a person or body in meeting requirements or carrying on activities, preserved for their general information value” (Québec Archives Act, RLRQ, c. A-21.1, art. 2). The Québec Archives Act applies to all bodies deemed public. By law, these organizations are required to have records and archives management tools that cover the records life cycle.

This approach to archival science in Québec has implications for archival training programs, whether it be formal education or continuing education. Formal education in a university context must take into account this integrated perspective in the course content design, in order for graduates to meet the needs of their future employers. Depending on the university, archival training programs may be attached to a history department or a school of information studies. Furthermore, there are archival training programs at the undergraduate level (full-time academic one-year program) or at the graduate level (full-time academic two-year master’s degree in history or in information studies, with a specialization in archival science). In Québec, five universities offer undergraduate and/or graduate archival training programs.

2.3 Organizational power, influence, and politics

From a negotiated information governance perspective, archivists must be able to ensure a strong presence that is recognized by other organizational actors. Therefore, they have to assert themselves in their organization politics. They must identify their sources of influence and those of the other information governance players, as well as identify the allies with whom they could develop projects.

Power, influence, and politics are part of organizational life (Mintzberg, 1983; Pavy, 2002) and must be taken into account in interactions between organizational actors. In this study, we understand power to be the ability of a person or administrative unit to influence others to deliver the desired results. Influence refers to the power that people have over others (Daft, 2016). Power can be exercised vertically (thus hierarchically, and be related to authority), or horizontally (between units) (Mintzberg, 1983). Authority is a concept linked to that of power, but of more limited scope. It is also a leverage mechanism to achieve the expected results, but only as prescribed by the organization’s formal chain of command (Daft, 2016).

The sources of power and influence can come from situations where a unit provides resources or expertise that are essential to others. This can create a situation of dependency, particularly if these resources or expertise are deemed pivotal for the success of projects (Ouimet, 2008). Organizational politics include power and influence. It can be defined as “the informal processes for assembling and exercising intra-organizational influence, persuasion, and power by individuals, groups, and units. These informal processes deviate from a strictly rational model for deciding the best interests of the organization through a formal authority structure” (Windsor, 2017, p. 247).

Sources of power and influence are diverse and must be modulated according to the status of individuals or units in the organization (Lainey, 2015). Structural sources of power could be connected to the legitimate power of authority and therefore to such power as reward or coercion; they may also arise from the power to allocate resources; etc. Personal sources of power are related to characteristics such as the expertise or specialized skills of a person which help to establish their credibility and therefore their influence at a unit or organization level.

2.4 Strategic competencies

The concept of competency can have different meanings depending on the discipline. In general, competency is the articulation between knowledge, skills, and behaviors that is “required to perform a specific job or contribute to a specific profession” (ARMA, 2017, p. 1). Strategic competencies help organizations respond quickly to changes in the business environment (Croteau & Raymond, 2004, p. 179).

Professional and academic literature in management identifies key strategic competencies to ensure adequate management of organizational resources and respond to the strategic needs of organizations. With increased concern for information governance, professional associations such as ARMA International and the Association for Intelligent Information Management (AIIM), have embraced these strategic competencies to integrate them into the areas of competencies of information professionals.

Several professional associations in the field of information sciences have developed competencies reference frameworks. Beyond the core competencies of the field, these frameworks also include cross-curricular competencies, often including communication, managerial, and leadership skills. Leadership can be defined as the ability to inspire trust and to influence the behavior of others to enable a group to achieve the intended goals (Moran & Morner, 2017). According to the literature in management, the main roles associated with leaders rather than managers are to encourage innovation, to inspire and manage change, to adopt a long-term strategic perspective, and to propose a vision to which other actors of the organization will want to join (Moran & Morner, 2017; Gottlieb & Carmicheal, 2019).

Cross-curricular or transversal competencies are attitudes, procedures, and tools that can be transferred from one professional setting to another (Torres-Corona et al., 2014). Moreover, these skills must be modulated according to the type of position occupied by the organizational actor: professional, line manager, middle manager or senior manager (Bucur, 2012).

The areas of competencies reveal a growing emphasis on non-disciplinary skills, such as aligning actions with the organization’s strategy and business objectives (AIIM, 2014; ARMA, 2017). In the context of the implementation of an information governance strategy, the leadership competency is essential, as well as specific skills such as business relationship building, negotiation, persuasion, and strategic thinking (AAQ, 2016; ARA, 2016-2017; Zwarich et al., 2016; ARMA, 2018).

4.1 Information governance actors

The concept of information governance highlights the need for a concerted approach among professionals. The results from our studies show that the territory of information in organizations is shared by different professionals representing several specialties that span beyond archival science. Table 1 presents the job categories involved in information governance, as identified by the respondents. The numbers indicate how many respondents identified the job categories. We can observe the diversity of the job categories that share the territory of information governance in its different aspects. This diversity of actors is all the more present since the implementation of electronic records management projects. Without surprise, archivists are the most frequently mentioned because our respondents were mostly archivists. But there are also: information technology managers, professionals responsible for access to information and protection of personal information, and lawyers. This diversity of actors suggests the presence of information issues that are managed differently (depending on the professional field of each) and of their different interests.

The results also show the presence of multidisciplinary committees that allow decisions and concerted actions in information governance, in which various professionals participate. The respondents identified two types of committees (Table 2). There are high-level committees in which senior executives or senior middle managers are involved. The mandate of these committees is to establish best practices, define strategic direction, coordinate and advise on information governance initiatives, and promote information culture. One respondent summarizes his role within such a committee:

“(…) there’s a committee, [Information Management/Information Technology joint committee], that’s where we take the recommendations, and then, either committee approves it, or if the committee doesn’t feel they have a consensus or authority or are comfortable approving, they make a recommendation to the management board, so then we go to management board for the next level of approval. Certain decisions can be made at the [IM/IT joint committee], which is chaired by my boss, and I’m assisting her in that; when she’s not there I chair it; there is participation from the directors of other branches, so all sectors are equally represented in that way.” (F-A-04).

There are also operational-level committees with a more specific scope. They can be driven by an archivist. Their mandate is more focused and consists generally of making recommendations regarding information management orientations. But, these committees can also make decisions on different information management topics, such as the capture, sharing and disposal of information, and information security.

As for the archivists, it is interesting to note that they are not necessarily involved in high-level decision-making committees related to information governance. The results from our 2015 study showed that one of the main obstacles to the implementation of information governance initiatives is that, in many cases, archivists lack the leadership to carry out such an implementation and that they must have competencies that go well beyond archival functions (Maurel et al., 2017). These results raised concerns on, not only the competencies of archivists, but also their positioning and recognition of their expertise.

In some circumstances, organizational actors must not only possess all the skills necessary to conduct projects, but also be able to (and willing to) play the political game in order to achieve the desired results for their unit. In this section, we will first present the administrative units that are considered major business partners by the respondents and identify the sources of power that characterize these partners.

The archivists that participated in our studies have identified units that they considered business partners within their organization. These business partners are units with which our respondents formed alliances or partnerships that are deemed necessary to conduct projects. In order to form a partnership, it is important that both units have some common understanding of information issues. Among the main business partners, were identified for instance Information Technology, Legal Affairs, Risk Management, Finance, and Infrastructure. The information technology respondents identified the Records Management & Archives unit as one of their main business partners (Table 3).

The respondents mentioned that some business partners have more influence than others in their organizations. Therefore, they identified a number of sources of power and influence that are inherent to the most influential units (Table 4).

Some respondents identified more than one source of power for their business partners. The hierarchical status and formal authority of managers were mentioned by several respondents. This source of power refers to the formal position (or rather formal status) that can also be designated by law, such as the Chief Information Officer under the Québec Act Respecting the Governance and Management of the Information Resources of Public Bodies and Government Enterprises (RLRQ, c. G-1.03).

The availability of resources was also mentioned by several respondents. It refers to the resources available to certain administrative units for implementing projects (which would indicate the weight of each unit in an organization and its predominant role in meeting the needs of its organization). As a result of this criterion, we also have the degree of dependence of organizational actors in relation to each other. For example, in an organization, all units are generally dependent on information technology to do their job, and therefore depend on the IT unit. As a result, organizational units with more resources seem to have more influence and power in the organization.

Also important are expertise and disciplinary competencies of other actors who do not necessarily hold a position of formal authority. It is often the case for archivists who occupy professional-level positions, but who can capitalize on competencies in classification, metadata management, etc.

As for the interest of organizational actors, it refers to what the actors want (e.g. how interested they are in collaborating in projects), what are they going to take away as benefits, and what are they planning for the future of their unit? Another source of power and influence lies in the credibility, reputation, and charisma of professionals or managers. A respondent illustrated this source of power by mentioning a case related to organizational risk, which has an impact on credibility (and involving internal auditors): “We rely on records that were created by another body that has credibility, so when we use this definition [meaning, a definition about critical risk provided by said body], there is no one who will come to question that.” (U-A-01).

The moral weight was mentioned for the personnel working in the Internal Audit Office. A respondent told us: “…and the Internal Auditor, who still has a significant moral weight. You know, I can say something and it has an “ × ” weight, but if it’s the Auditor’s Office that says the same thing, it has a different weight. (…) A moral weight, because they can report to the [University] Council, then say “Well, look, this case, it does not work”. While I can think the same thing but it will not have the same resonance.” (U-A-01).

Two respondents stressed the sense of “timing”, the opportunity to seize, and the positioning of certain actors (who are at the right place at the right time to propose relevant projects). Finally, the strategic sense of certain organizational actors was mentioned. It implies that these actors know how to “read” a strategic plan and take advantage of it for the benefit of their own administrative units.

The results highlight the perceived sources of power and influence of the business partners of records & archives management units and other information management actors. When asked, archivists believe that their own influence and power lie in the following: their expertise and their disciplinary skills as well as their abilities to be good influencers. Therefore, their main leverage is based on the archival education they received. What about the other competencies required for archivists to be able to influence the different actors involved in information governance?

Given the diversity of actors involved, the results showed that multiple competencies are deemed essential to conduct or participate in information governance initiatives. These competencies are even more important in organizations where archivists hope to play a strategic role. The respondents identified the development of both disciplinary and transversal competencies (Table 5).

Archival competencies, according to the respondents, ensure their credibility with organizational actors (which makes it possible to influence their business partners). For example, one university respondent found that when he puts forward the specialized competencies and jargon specific to his field, this is a source of credibility and therefore of influence. Also, another respondent stated that his knowledge in organization of information and classification gives him a complete understanding of the activities and records of his organization. Therefore, the competencies developed during their training as archivists contribute, not only to a better understanding of information issues, but also to a better understanding of the organizational processes.

In addition to archival competencies, transversal competencies are required for archivists to play a leading role: they include several competencies that can be mobilized across disciplines or jobs. For example, respondents identified change management to facilitate staff adherence to new practices, communication skills to convince others on information issues as well as skills to create and deliver training, and project management. Some respondents emphasized the importance for archivists of mastering information technology. The development of political skills for better support of higher authorities has also been identified. One respondent explains the importance for archivists to possess strong disciplinary and transversal competencies:

“I think having an understanding of information management is important, but it’s probably not sufficient anymore. I think people are moving away from just compliance, and you actually have to move towards enabling business. In order to do that, I think you have to understand business; so, I would say, your networking skills, your listening skills, your understanding of not just vertical, but horizontal linkages between areas. It starts becoming very important (…). (…) Our view of information management is always going to be a secondary role within the mandate of an organization, so you’re always going to have to be trying to demonstrate that you’re adding value to the business operations, and that you’re not just an add-on. So, I think the only way that you can do that is listening to what the needs are, of the operational areas, and then, coming up with solutions to try to enable them.” (F-A-05).

The responses provided are quite consistent with what is found in the competencies models developed by various professional associations. Nevertheless, the respondents raised concerns about the strategic aspect of their responsibilities and, by extension, of the archival education. As such, they highlighted, in the disciplinary competencies, the importance of strategic information management. In transversal competencies, they insisted on the importance of leadership and strategic skills. It seems that strategic, power and influence skills can be found in many, if not all, of the categories mentioned in Table 5. Considering the increasing needs for a multi-faceted approach to resolve and manage information issues, the archivists must ensure their positioning, on a daily basis, among the other actors in their organization.

5.1 What does it mean for archival training programs in Québec?

In order to become an archivist in Québec, two types of archival education are offered. First, four French-speaking universities offer undergraduate certificates in archival science that cover both records management and the management of historical archives. The second type of archival training programs are master’s degrees in information studies with a specialization in archival science (one French-speaking university and one English-speaking university) and a master’s degree in history with a specialization in archival science (one French-speaking university). These masters offer numerous courses on archival science. Both types of archival training programs were created during the 1980s and focused, upon their creation, on the management of analog records (Gagnon-Arguin, 1992). Over the years, these archival training programs have evolved significantly. Indeed, with the increasing use of information and communication technologies, new content has been added to these training programs in order to train students to the current realities and to respond to the prevailing needs of the field (Soyez, 2015).

As previously mentioned, our results showed that there are lots of actors participating in information governance initiatives. Whatever the archival projects and purposes, archivists must necessarily mobilize managerial and transversal competencies alongside their disciplinary competencies (Soyez, 2015). In order to meet these new challenges, archivists need to develop new competencies as they will have to position themselves as full-fledged players in information governance. Although there is significant awareness among faculty about the development of these transversal competencies, their integration in the coursework remains unequal and not necessarily formalized in the course descriptions.

Each course syllabus usually lists the general and specific objectives to be achieved, as well as the detailed content of each lesson. These elements make it possible to identify the disciplinary and transversal competencies which the students must acquire. During the program review process in which the authors were involved, new course syllabi had to be drawn up. This exercise made it possible to establish an overall vision as well as continuity in the teaching of disciplinary and transversal competencies between all courses. The official (short) course descriptions are available on the universities’ websites, but it is not necessarily the case for the syllabi. Consequently, it can be difficult to finely validate which transversal competencies are provided for in all archival training programs in Québec. In this regard, further study remains to be done.

During the program review process, several transversal competencies which had gained consensus among faculty were taken into account. These transversal competencies focused on professional environment behaviors and management tools, for example: communication, project management, evaluation and performance indicators, mapping of power, and political skills.

While it can be argued that archivists come to develop these transversal competencies later in their careers (e.g. communication, leadership, etc.), we think that by including transversal competencies in archival formal training programs, emerging professionals will be better equipped to recognize the organizational structure and politics that will undoubtedly tint their projects and their range of action. Also, we can argue that the majority of emerging professionals will, from the beginning of their career, mobilize the same transversal competencies but not in the same extent as senior archivists. Therefore, it is certainly interesting, in the context of evaluating and reviewing university programs in archival education, to propose a competency model of maturity (combining disciplinary and transversal competencies). Maturity levels can thus reflect the progression of an employee in their career: from entry-level to proficiency-level to executive level. Competencies can be grouped by domains (e.g. disciplinary, management, communication, technology, etc.). This corresponds to the approach proposed in some maturity models, for example ARMA’s Records and Information Management Core Competencies (2017).

If one considers the acquisition of competencies from the perspective of a maturity model, one must also take into account the individuals and the type of position they hold in their institution. In other words, individuals must have the ability to evolve in their organization, to have career advancement opportunities (e.g. management) and thus to develop other skills.

Beyond disciplinary and transversal competencies, it should be remembered that leadership, strategy, and “politics” (power and influence) competencies should normally be considered at each level of maturity and not just at the “executive-level” (only for managers). Each level of employee must be able to ensure the positioning of their profession and their projects in relation to other organizational actors. This is the case for archivists who are one category of actors occupying the territory of information, records, and archives. Archivists must therefore acquire new tools borrowed from management to refine their tactics.

5.2 The “political” model within organizations and the cartography of power

Three management approaches, and therefore three types of leaders, can coexist in organizations: management (manager), leadership (leader), and politics (“political” leader) (Ouimet, 2008; Daft, 2016). Managers who combine competencies specific to these three approaches would be more seasoned to play the political game in the workplace. They would be better suited to understand the internal and external environments of their organization, and to identify and analyze the relationships with other information governance actors. Thus, they would have the ability for a more informed understanding of the success criteria of an information governance strategy. In order to strategically position themselves among various stakeholders, archivists should integrate these three approaches: manager, leader, and “political” leader.

The “political” model in organizations can be defined as the use of power to influence a decision, in order to achieve the desired results (Lainey, 2015). It implies setting up activities or projects necessary to acquire, develop, and use power or other resources to achieve the expected results. This involves knowing and applying not only power and political skills, but also tools such as stakeholder analysis.

Stakeholder analysis (or power mapping) consists of an analytical framework whose purpose is to identify and analyze the relationships between individuals or administrative units (Lainey, 2015). This strategic approach must be based on defined criteria such as: who are the organizational actors at stake (identity, relationships); what can the actors do (resources, means of action); what do the actors want (interests); what do the actors foresee (stakes); where do the actors evolve (organizational and information culture) (Ouimet, 2008; Lainey, 2015). Such an analysis would provide archivists with data on the influencing factors at play among the organizational actors involved in information governance. In the end, the analysis helps to assess the level of “importance” and “influence” (from “low” to “strong”) of the stakeholders in relation to information governance projects. “Importance is assessed in terms of their role in achieving the project’s outputs and purpose. Influence is judged in terms of the power that they can exert over the project’s process and outcome” (IIED, 2005, p. 19). Therefore, an organizational actor considered to have a strong importance and a strong influence should be closely involved in information governance projects. Whereas, an organizational actor considered to have less importance and influence does not have to be closely involved in the project but should be kept informed of the outcomes (IIED, 2005).

Among our respondents, records managers working in universities have identified the following units as important and influential stakeholders in information governance: IT, Legal Affairs Office, Access to Information, Risk Management Office, and Student Affairs. Of lesser importance and influence in information governance projects in development, due to the nature of the projects, were the Library and the Current Awareness Office.

Power and influence games are organizational realities. Graduates must grasp the importance of this to strategically position themselves in an information governance strategy. It therefore seems normal for archival training programs to introduce students to these competencies.