Abstract
The institutionalisation of new technologies, information systems, norms, practices and other innovations for improving governance, planning, operational efficiency and service delivery in the public sector remain a challenge. Power dynamics, and politics have also been recognised as playing a critical role in the institutionalisation of information systems for promoting digital transformation of the public sector. This study used data collected through an extensive review of literature and empirical data from a case study of South Africa’s government digital transformation journey. The study explored power dynamics and the role of politics in the institutionalisation of reforms and deinstitutionalisation of institutionalised practices that constrain transformation in institutions. Power dynamics, and politics in institutions were found to have a significant bearing on the institutionalisation of reforms that include information systems in the digital transformation of government. The study found that the digital transformation of the public is more than the implementation technology and requires the holistic view of institutions as social, economic, and political structures.
Keywords
Introduction
Digital transformation of the public sector involves the adoption of digital technologies, processes, and new business models to improve service delivery and efficiency due to increasing pressure for efficient service delivery by citizens, civil society, and business (Manda, 2019). Although this study recognises that digital transformation is broad and extends beyond the implementation of digital technologies and information systems it addresses the issue from an information systems perspective. The study is in the information systems domain and will therefore explore how politics and power dynamics in institutions influence the implementation of technology reforms and supporting processes for promoting digital transformation. The role of power dynamics and politics in understanding the complexity of the implementation of digital reforms (including information systems) has been explored in the literature, although the literature in this area remains sparse compared to other social factors such as culture (Peszynski & Saundage, 2004). Studies such as Markus (1983) and Peszynski and Saundage (2004) explored the role of politics and power dynamics in the implementation of information systems. Markus (1983) concluded that “although the political variant may not be appropriate for every case, it considerably enhances the ability to explain and predict events surrounding the introduction of management information systems into complex organizations”.
Research in this topic has however been complicated “by the multiple paradigms that have been used to understand the interrelationships between power and IT. These multiple paradigms are grounded in a number of disciplines including political science, management, sociology, and marketing. Such diversity makes it difficult to generate continued discussion and to accumulate a foundational body of research” (Jasperson et al, 2002, p. 398). Similarly et al. (2006, p. 6) argue that “the broad literature on power is diverse and complex and its ramifications for the study of organizations have remained largely unexplored”. This is a gap in theory that this study is hoping to contribute to closing Using Institutional Theory and the Circuits of Power framework, the aim of the study is to explore politics and power dynamics in the institutionalisation of information systems innovations, reforms or changes aimed at promoting the digital transformation of government. The use of theory in this study is discussed in greater detail in section two.
The main question addressed in this study is:
How does power and politics in the public sector influence the institutionalisation of information systems reforms aimed at promoting digital transformation?
Review of literature and theoretical framing
Digital transformation of the public sector
Governments are implementing digital transformation strategies to improve operational efficiency and service delivery to benefit citizens (Olphert & Damodaran, May 2015, Manda & Backhouse, 2018). Digital transformation of the public sector involves the adoption of digital technologies, processes, and new business models to improve service delivery and efficiency due to increasing pressure for efficient service delivery by citizens, civil society, and business. South Africa is one of the developing countries that have embraced the digital transformation as a catalyst for inclusive growth (Manda & Backhouse, 2019). In the past decade, South Africa has ramped up digital transformation to transform into a digital, smart and connected society, leveraging the social and economic benefits of the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). Governments are implementing digital transformation initiatives to change their governance models, improve service delivery, operational efficiency and to support their strategies. Digital transformation initiatives have been implemented by governments to achieve strategic objectives such as increased transparency, interoperability, improved structures and citizen satisfaction (Mergel et al., 2019).
Several definitions of digital transformation exist in literature. Digital transformation is generally viewed as an aggregation of modern tools and processes leveraged to solve business problems and satisfy customers (Boulton, 2020). Davenport and Redman (2020) states that digital transformation is about technology, data, process, and organizational change, strategy, culture, and customer experience. In this study digital transformation is defined as “the use of emerging and disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, IOT and blockchain to innovate and adapt business models for strategic and operational efficiency in the face of rapid changes in the 4th industrial revolution to deliver stakeholder value”. This can be distinguished from e-government which has generally been defined as the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) as a tool achieve better governance by governments. Digital transformation thus goes beyond using technology to enhance service delivery but transforms the stakeholder value proposition, business model, operational model and governance model of the institution. The principles of digital transformation are summarised in Table 1.
Principles of digital transformation, OECD (2020)
Principles of digital transformation, OECD (2020)
Institutional Theory has been widely adopted in study of complex phenomena such as politics and culture in the information systems and e-government discipline. Institutional Theory is based on the belief that organisations are influenced by the internal and external social and cultural environment they operate in (Björck, 2004; Jacobson, 2009; Scott, 2014). Institutional Theory highlights the influence of culture on decision making and formal structures and is based on the belief that organisations, and the individuals who populate them, are shaped by rules, norms, values, beliefs, and taken-for-granted assumptions that are part of their own design (Barley & Tolbert, 1997). Institutional Theory according to Scott (2004, p. 261), “considers the processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behaviour”. Institutional Theory helps in understanding the interlinked and complex relationships inherent among institutional mechanisms, technology, socio-economic context and organisational factors in institutions (Luna-Reyes & Gil-Garcia, 2011). It helps in understanding the impact of various organisational factors such as regulations and context. During the adoption and implementation of technology, applying Institutional Theory also helps in conceptualising the dynamic interplay between actors involved and structures in organisations (Nurdin et al., 2012).
The use of Institutional Theory, a theory that has its roots in sociology, political science and economics has gained prominence in information systems and e-government research. This can be attributed to the recognition that information systems are complex social systems that have multiple dimensions (Chae, 2002). Institutional Theory thus provides an “alternative view to the technical/rational theories concerning organizational behaviour” (Lawrence, 2005, p. 60).
According to Scott (2014), Institutional Theory is anchored on three pillars; regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive. Scott’s three pillars framework has been widely recognised as useful in understanding forces that act on institutions. Scott’s three pillars framework is based on the belief that regulative mechanisms, cultural cognitive mechanisms and normative mechanism are critical elements of institutions. The three institutional pillars play a complementary role and situations where the pillars are misaligned are likely to lead to the effectiveness of institutions (Scott, 2014). Thus, for regulative and normative mechanisms to be effective, these must be supported by sanctioning power as well as cultural-cognitive elements such as cultural beliefs (Scott, 2014).
The process of institutionalisation
Institutionalisation “is the creation of structured, stable and social integration of unstable and loosely organised technical activities” (Scott, 2014, p. 146). The institutionalisation of innovation is triggered by coercive isomorphic pressures such as legislation, market forces (mimetic isomorphism) or normative (technological changes) that might require the adoption of new norms and standards (Manda, 2019).
The institutionalisation process involves three processes (Habitualisation, Objectification and Sedimentation). Habitualisation (pre-institutionalisation) involves the creation of new structures in response to a specific organisational problem or opportunity (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). The Objectification process (semi-institutionalisation) involves the development of some degree of social cohesion among organisational leadership concerning the value of a structure, and the increasing adoption by organisations on the basis of that consensus (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Sedimentation (full-institutionalisation) is characterised “both by the virtually complete spread of structures across the group of actors theorized as appropriate adopters, and by the perpetuation of structures over a lengthy period of time” (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996, p. 184). An important part of institutionalisation is the process of deinstitutionalisation where existing institutional norms are deconstructed so that new ones can be established. In this study we explore the power dynamics in each of the stages of institutionalisation of reforms.
From the literature it is clear that there is a strong link between the three pillars of institutions and the institutionalisation process (habitualisation, objectification and sedimentation). The habitualisation stage is synonymous with the regulative pillar where in the early stages of institutionalisation coercive isomorphism is used to institutionalise reforms. The objectification stage is synonymous with the normative pillar (normative isomorphism) where the impetus for institutionalising reforms is both imitation and normative as it is transition stage between pre-institutionalisation and semi-institutionalisation. The sedimentation stage (full institutionalisation) is synonymous with the cultural-cognitive pillar where cultural-cognitive elements such as beliefs, value systems and organisational culture support the institutionalisation process without using coercion. This understanding is summarised in Table 2.
Institutionalisation process and the three pillars of institutions
Institutionalisation process and the three pillars of institutions
Power and politics are clearly visible and have a significant role in the institutionalisation of new systems in institutions (Peszynski & Saundage, 2004). Power, however remains undertheorized. For example, Institutional Theory according to Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips (2006, p. 11) “lost its focus on power after Meyer and Rowan (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983) initiated its renaissance by asking why there are so few types of organizations. Organizations, they suggested, are as they are not for efficiency reasons (as contingency functionalist theorists had argued) but for reasons of social construction”. More so, research studies applying DiMaggio and Powell left out power by concentrating on mimetic isomorphism whilst downplaying the coercive and normative (Clegg et al., 2006).
More recent studies on institutions have moved away from the traditional focus of exploring the role of isomorphic pressures in institutional transformation and have increased the attention given to exploring the role of power and politics in the evolution of institutions (Lawrence, 2008). According to Lawrence (2008, p. 170), “the relationship between power and institutions is an intimate one. Institutions exist to the extent that they are powerful – the extent to which they affect the behaviours, beliefs and opportunities of individuals, groups, organizations and societies”. In this study, we explore how power dynamics and politics in institutions influence institutional transformation or the institutionalisation of reforms. Power, according to Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips (2006, p. 6), is “inseparable from interaction and thus all social institutions potentially are imbued with power”.
The concepts of power and politics are often used interchangeably in many studies, including in information systems. This perhaps stems from how these two concepts are defined and understood. In the next section I discuss the definitions of power and politics and how these are applied in this study.
Politics and institutions
‘Politics’ is an ‘essentially contested’ concept, in the sense that it has a number of “acceptable or legitimate meanings” (Heywood, 2013, p. 2). Mintzberg (1983, p. 72) defined politics as “Individual or group behaviour that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, in the technical sense, illegitimate – sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise”. Similarly, Silva (2007) described politics as actions outside the scope and formal ways of governance (Silva, 2007). Ball argues that “political authority is the recognition of the right to rule irrespective of the sanctions the ruler may possess” (1993, p. 29). Heywood (2013, p. 3) in studying politics identified four different approaches to defining politics as summarised below:
Politics as the art of government: The exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. Politics as public affairs: The second and broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of government to what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. In other words, the distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘the non-political’ coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere. Politics as a compromise and consensus: Politics is seen as a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by compromise, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. Politics as Power: This definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘public’ realm), this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence.
In this study, politics is understood in its broader sense by adopting the concept of “politics at work” in all social activities (politics as power). E-government is a complex phenomenon whose scope extends beyond government and impacts other social spheres. Various approaches such as behaviouralism, rational-choice theory, institutionalism, feminism, Marxism and post-positivists approaches have been used in studying politics. It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss and explain these approaches.
Table 3 summarises the approaches for defining and study of politics proposed by Heywood (2013).
Approaches to defining politics (Heywood, 2013)
This study adopted the institutional approach in understanding institutional change brought about by the adoption and implementation of information systems and e-government. In the institutional approach, political institutions are thus seen “as sets of ‘rules’, which guide or constrain the behaviour of individual actors” (Heywood, 2013, p. 15).
According to Lawrence (2008, p. 174), “power is a property of relationships such that the beliefs or behaviours of an actor are affected by another actor or system”. Power has also been discussed by mainstream organisation theorists in terms of ‘illegitimacy’, seeing power as something exercised by organizational members not formally sanctioned with authority” Gordon, Kornberger and Clegg (2009, p. 16). French and Raven (1959) highlighted the five common types of power:
Reward power which is based on the ability of one to reward Coercive power which is based on one’s ability to mediate punishment. Legitimate power based on one’s legitimate right to prescribe the desired behaviour. Legitimate power is derived from the formal rules of authority (Mintzberg, 1983; Silva, 2007). Referent power based on one’s personal characteristics or traits Expert power derived from one’s knowledge or expertise.
This study explores the extent to which the different types of power impact the institutionalisation of digital transformation reforms in the public sector.
The relationship between politics, power, legitimacy, populism, and institutionalisation deserves some close attention as these phenomena have been widely studied in literature.
Legitimacy
In the study of power dynamics in organisations and institutions, understanding legitimacy is critical. This study adopted the following definition of legitimacy proposed by Suchman (1995, p. 574) defined legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. From the definition, one may argue that legitimacy is about the perception of institutions and their actors as socially acceptable or acting in a socially acceptable manner. It is also about their credibility and adherence to expected norms and rules of governance. Scott (2014) identifies the three bases of legitimacy in the different pillars of institutions. The basis of legitimacy in the regulative pillar is legally sanctioned, in the normative pillar legitimacy is morally governed while in the cultural-cognitive pillar legitimacy is culturally supported.
Self-interest and populist agendas
Institutional theorists seem not to agree on what influences and shape the behaviour of actors in institutions. Scott (2014) believes institutions influence the actions of individual actors and define their interests. DiMaggio, on the other hand, argued that institutional theory fails to consider self-interest behaviour in institutions by arguing that it “denies the reality of purposive, interest-driven behaviour” (DiMaggio, 1988, p. 5). These schools of thought were tested in this study. In this study self-interest is defined as “political behaviour concerned with the goals of the individual, and not with organizational objectives, or with greater good” (Buchanan & Badham, 2008, p. 12).
Populism in governance and the institutionalisation of policy and other reforms has been widely studied in literature. (Bartha et al., 2020, p. 71) for example, argued that “policy heterodoxy, strong willingness to adopt paradigmatic reforms and an excessive responsiveness to majoritarian preferences are distinguishing features of any type of populist policies”. Gidron and Bonikowski (2013) in their study identified several approaches of populism, that is populism as (i) an ideology (i) political style and (iii) political strategy. In this study we adopt the definition by Mudde (2014, p. 543), who defined populism as “a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people”. The role of populist agendas in institutionalisation of digital transformation reforms is explored in this study.
The circuits of power framework
In the Circuits of Power Framework, Clegg (1989) views power in institutions as flowing through three circuits. Each circuit is defined by a different type of power: causal in the episodic circuit, dispositional for social integration, and facilitative for systemic integration (Clegg, 1989). The three circuits are defined below:
The episodic circuit considers power as being causal. It also concerns the ability of A to make B do something, which they may not otherwise have done. In this instance “the use of power as a resource is direct and visible” (Buchanan & Badham, 2009, p. 46). The circuit of social integration places emphasis on dispositional power, with its main elements being the rules that govern meaning and membership in organizations (Silva, 2007). It also focuses on institutional isomorphism (coercive, normative and mimetic pressures) (Clegg, 1989, p. 227). The circuit of systematic integration considers power as being facilitative, that is the ability of power to achieve desired outcomes or goals in an organisation. It is defined by “the techniques of production and discipline of the organization” (Backhouse & Silva, 2003, p. 300).
The Circuits of Power Framework is not an exhaustive theory, and it integrates several concepts of power known as the circuits of power namely, (i) episodic, (ii) social and (iii) systemic integration circuits to account for the process of institutionalization (Clegg, 1989; Silva & Backhouse, 2007). For innovation to be institutionalised, it must become embedded in the three levels of the organisation that correspond with the three circuits of power (Clegg, 1989).
In understanding the relationship between politics, power, and institutions the following can be summarised from the Circuits of Power Framework by Clegg (1989, p. 215).
Complex environments – Each agency defined as “collective forms of decision-making, such as organization” (Clegg, 1989, p. 187) is operative in a highly complex environment of standing conditions.
Strategic interests – Each agency is among many others with strategic interests in each other and in the relations that constitute them as actors in the same system.
Resources – Agencies possess varying control of resources which they have varying means of effectively utilizing in order to produce consequential outcomes for their own and others’ agency.
Resistance – Power at certain levels is invariably accompanied by resistance
Social relations – Existing social relations constitute the identities of agencies
This study explores the relationship between the circuits of power, institutional isomorphism, and the institutionalisation/deinstitutionalisation process in institutions. The circuit framework is highlighted in Fig. 1. I explore the types of power experienced in each of the stages of institutionalisation. Some of the key features of According to Clegg (1989), agencies and the events of interest to these agencies are the two defining elements of any power system.
Circuits of Power Framework (Clegg et al., 2006, p. 242).
This study makes use of Institutional Theory and the Circuits of Power Framework in understanding isomorphic pressures influencing the transformation of institutions. It builds on the work of Silva and Backhouse (2003) and Silva (2007) who argue that in addressing the theoretical and epistemological challenges presented by the study of power and politics in information systems, the use of meta-theories should be complemented by a specific theoretical framework. In this study Institutional Theory fell short in explaining phenomena related to power and politics in the transformation of institutions. An integrated theoretical approach to studying phenomena such as power allows researchers to present different perspectives of its components as well as contradictions and paradoxes that otherwise would not be evident in one-dimensional studies (Jasperson et al, 2002; Silva & Backhouse, 2007). A review of the literature also found little evidence of work that has looked at the relationship between the Circuits of Power Framework and Scott’s three Pillars of Institutions Framework in understanding the institutionalisation of information systems for prompting digital transformation in government. This study may, therefore, be one of the first, which has used the two theoretical perspectives.
Principles of digital transformation
Principles of digital transformation
One of the theoretical gaps in the study of power in institutions over the years has been the simplification and the use of under theorized conceptualizations (Clegg et al., 2006). In his study on epistemological and theoretical challenges for studying power and politics in information systems, Silva (2007) argued that an interpretive study of power, applying meta-theories, should be complemented with a specific theoretical framework such as the Circuits of Power Framework. According to Silva and Backhouse (2003, p. 294), the Circuits of Power Framework is “grounded in organizational theory and social sciences and integrates different perspectives on power. Each perspective unravels a different dimension of power that complements and enriches the others – hence it is a profound tool for analysing a complex phenomenon such as power”. It offers information systems researchers “a set of strong epistemological principles to make sense of a complex and mostly hidden phenomenon, i.e. power and politics.” (Silva, 2007, p. 180). The Circuits of Power Framework conceives of power as fundamentally strategic (Silva & Backhouse, 2007). By Integrating Institutional Theory Circuits of Power Framework, we explore the relationship between power, politics and institutions in this study and their impact in implementation of reforms.
Table 4 summarises the relationship between the principles of digital transformation and the three pillars of institutions. The data driven, openness and user focused principle for example is supported by the cultural-cognitive pillar where values, beliefs and cultural practices promotes shift in focus to support those principles. A culture that restricts the free flow of information and that does not view data as a strategic resource will thus stifle the principle of openness and data driven. The South African government, in 1998adopted the ‘Batho Pele’ (People first) principles as its core value system for service delivery. The principles for example, promote openness and transparency, access to information for citizens and consultation.
Institutional norms (including standards and best practices), for example are central in promoting interoperability, iterative and design driven approaches in developing and implementing digital transformation initiatives. Governments the world over for example have adopted standards and frameworks have for promoting interoperability (sharing of data and information among institutions). The European Interoperability Framework for example, promotes seamless services and data flows for European public administrations (European Commission, 2017). In South Africa, the Minimum Interoperability Standards and the Government Widen Enterprise Architecture (GWEA) are some of the standards and framework that have influenced digital transformation by promoting interoperability, a key principle in digital transformation.
The regulative pillar can help promote compliance to rules, policies, and guidelines for promoting security and privacy. In South Africa, legislation such as the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2013 have been developed to address concerns around privacy in the sharing of personal data. Legislation and policies ca also be used to promote openness and the sharing of information. In South Africa, the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000, for example to give effect to the constitutional right of access to any information held by the State and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) aims to harmonise data protection laws in Europe (European Commission, 2018) and has framed the data security and privacy agenda in Europe.
The conceptual framework
The conceptual framework (Fig. 2) identifies the theoretical constructs from theory and literature that are used to understand phenomena being investigated in this study. Politics, power, and institutions and related concepts such as legitimacy, populism and legitimacy are the main theoretical constructs used in the discussion and analysis of results.
The conceptual framework.
A case study research design was used as the primary method of inquiry in this study. The case study method is gaining popularity in information systems research because of the shift of information systems research from a technical perspective towards an organisational and social perspective where the emphasis is the study of social and organisational issues such as culture, behaviour, and structure in relation to technology (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991; Walsham, 1995; Myers & Klein, 1999). The strengths of the case study method are also derived from “its usefulness in investigating the relationship between information systems and such intangible concepts such as organizational performance and success” (Plummer, 2001, p. 3). The case study method was chosen as it is deemed appropriate for studying and understanding complex phenomena and can be used to build knowledge or reinforce findings from previous studies (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Kothari, 2009).
Semi-structured, also known as focused or guided interviews were used for gathering primary evidence in this study. Semi-structured interviews have been praised for providing rich information and insights into complex issues especially where people are involved as they allow the researcher to probe issues that may not have been obvious for the researcher (Blaxter et al., 2006). Interviews provide an excellent opportunity for understanding organisations and can help the researcher find out people’s perceptions. See Appendix 1 for the list of questions used to interrogate the topic under discussion.
The population in this study included national government departments and senior and executive managers belonging to the Senior Management Service echelon in those departments. The senior and executive managers selected are responsible for policy, e-government, information systems, information technology, information management and intergovernmental relations in national government departments in South Africa. A total of fourteen senior government officials responsible for implementation of digital transformation strategies in the public sector participated in this study.
Purposive sampling was used to select the participants from the relevant institutions leading the digital transformation agenda in the public sector in South Africa. Six of the ten government departments who were invited participated in this study. Twelve of the eighteen officials invited from the six departments participated. Two experts in e-government were also invited to participate bringing the total of respondents to fourteen.
Thematic analysis was used to analyse data. Thematic analysis can be defined as “a general approach for analysing qualitative data that involves identifying themes or patterns in the data” (Wagner et al., 2012, p. 231). Coding of interview and documentary data was done to categorise evidence for easy analysis. The study used both closed (deductive) coding and open (inductive) coding. Deductive coding was used to identify themes based on theory and literature. Inductive coding, on the other hand, was used to identify new themes that emerged during the collection and analysis of data. Throughout data collection and analyses various themes emerging from this study were identified and unique codes were assigned. Some of the main themes used in this study are power, politics, institution, leadership, governance, and resources.
The case study
South Africa is a middle-income developing country in Sub-Saharan Africa that has embraced the digital transformation of government agenda as part of its inclusive growth strategy. The digital transformation of government has been identified as one of the three pillars of building an inclusive digital society by 2030. Despite the development of policies and legislation, standards and norms, challenges remain in the digital transformation journey. Inefficiencies in government, leadership commitment and poor coordination of the digital transformation strategy have been cited as some of the challenges. In understanding some of these challenges, we explore the role power dynamics, and politics play in the institutionalisation of reforms such as policies, norms and information systems aimed at promoting digital transformation.
Analysis of results
Power, politics, and institutions
Power dynamics, and politics in institutions play an essential role in the institutionalisation of information systems (Silva & Backhouse, 2003). The success of digital transformation reforms in government, therefore, require an understanding of the interplay between power, politics and inter-organisational relations in the institutionalisation of new structures, systems and norms in public institutions. In analysing the results
Institutional actors, power and institutionalisation of reforms
In South Africa, power dynamics, and politics have been evident in the prioritisation and implementation of policies and programmes. The role of the so-called “super departments” such as the National Treasury and the Presidency in influencing the prioritisation of policies was confirmed by the majority of participants in this study. Commenting on the role of power dynamics, and politics in policy implementation, Respondent 2 reiterated:
“There are powerful ministries such as the Presidency and the National Treasury who influence the success of policies. National Treasury for example, controls the national budget and when we develop policies from time to time, we negotiate with the treasury to convince them to see the value”.
Respondent 4 also argued that the Presidency played an influential role as it had “the ear of the President”. The Presidency derives its power from its legitimate authority as the driver of South Africa’s development agenda as articulated in the National Development Plan. The National Treasury as one of the key actors in the transformation of government thus derives its power from its control of the national budget. This places emphasis on the resourcing of institutions as the key to the success of the digital transformation of institutions.
The role of actors that hold some form of power in institutions deserves closer attention. Commenting on the role of top political leadership in influencing the success of the smart and digital transformation agenda, respondent 5 reiterated, “Government is about politics and politics is about power, you can’t expect political light-weights to effectively influence policy transformation”.
This study also revealed that actors in institutions are only as powerful as the institutions they are associated with (power by association). Institutions are sources of power and actors derive some of their power from institutions they are associated with. Powerful institutions being led by actors who have political or other forms of power (e.g. expert power) are likely to be more effective in the implementation of reforms for promoting the transformation of institutions. When less powerful political institutions are led by powerful political leaders, they are also less likely to be effective in influencing change.
Evidence in this study revealed that there have been some examples where policies fail because the institution leading the implementation of that policy was weak despite being led by a powerful political actor. Institutions thus derive their power to influence change not just from the individual actors with legitimate or political power but the ability of those institutions to control resources, rules and other activities. A significant example is the National Treasury which controls the national budget. Respondent 12 for example argued, “The National Treasury will always remain a key role player in the success of policy”. Despite changes of political heads leading the National Treasury, its power in controlling the national budget has always remained.
In highly political institutions such as government, power and politics play a role in influencing how institutions transform. In the South African context, this study found that in government individual actors usually derive their power from the authority or legitimate power from holding a position of influence or power respondent 13 and respondent 8, for example, were of the view that individual actors usually derive their power from the authority or legitimate power from holding a position of influence or power.
Commenting on the role of power dynamics, and politics in policy prioritisation, respondent 4, noted that “To get things moving in government, a department needs to speak to the Minister in the Presidency who needs to speak to President who in turn then needs to speak to National Treasury. It is not the personal power that individuals hold but the power derived from institutions they control that is key to policy implementation. This is a view that was reinforced by Respondent 5 who reiterated that “You see, there are powerful individuals in government but that alone is not enough to influence policy direction. It’s about the power that comes with an institution such as the Treasury or the Presidency”. Here again, we see the role of institutional actors as power brokers in the transformation process. Political power broking has often been used to influence policy decisions and prioritisation of policies. On the dark side, it can perpetuate the circumvention of established norms, formal structures and systems in institutions that brings stability to institutions, therefore, risking destabilising institutions.
The ability to influence institutional mechanisms such as policy, legislation and other normative and cultural-cognitive mechanisms is also the source of power for actors or institutions positioned to influence such mechanisms. This study revealed that the current government run by the African National Congress (ANC) has managed to develop a national policy framework that aligns with its social, economic and political agenda at a political party level. This is best explained by the fact that the ANC led government enjoys the privileges and power of being the majority and therefore controls key institutions such as the Parliament that is responsible for promulgating and passing legislation. Government departments are also headed by political heads, predominantly from the ANC, to facilitate the implementation of such priorities. Policies and priorities that are promulgated by the African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s governing party at its policy conference, in the majority of cases, go on to become adopted as national policies and priorities. This is consistent with Scott’s argument that “institutional theorists call attention to the truth that rules themselves are important types of resources and that those who can shape or influence them possess a valuable form of power” (Scott, 1987, p. 508).
Legitimacy and power
Since the dawn of South African democracy in 1994, the South African government has adopted socio-economic policies aimed at promoting socio-economic transformation. Policies that promised socio-economic prosperity have been popular with the majority of the historically socio-economic excluded citizens as reiterated by respondents 4 and 9. This is despite increasing unrest and discontent surrounding the poor state of governance in South Africa and increasing inequality. The implementation of policies meant to promote socio-economic transformation remains slow. Some of these policies remain a source of power for the governing party. For example, about a third (18 million) of South Africa’s estimated 58 million total population receive social grants as part of efforts to improve the standards of living and to redistribute the country’s wealth to create a more equal society. This has led to the criticism of the current government, with critics arguing that this is turning South Africa into a welfare state. This again reflects the difficult role government has to play in balancing the different priorities. An understanding of South Africa’s socio-economic context and socio-historic context is also critical in understanding some of the policy decisions. South Africa’s history of inequality and social injustices explains some of its policy decisions which are aimed at redressing the injustices of the past.
Respondent 4 argued that the social grant system, the brainchild of the ANC led government, is a good example of policies that have played a significant role in ensuring that the governing party remains popular among the ordinary citizens. Respondents 3 and 7 for example argued that, policies and programmes such as digital transformation are still considered a “nice to have” and not critical. This is despite the recognition of digital transformation as a catalyst for inclusive growth and development in the National Development Plan. Until we reach a point when the citizens recognise digital transformation as a catalyst for inclusive growth and development, initiatives aimed at promoting the digital transformation of government and society will less likely be given the recognition they deserve.
The perceptions of institutions or their actions as legitimate or not are influenced by several factors, chief among them are the actions of actors associated with the institution. In this study, it was found that actors in institutions are a mirror through which the institution is reflected. Controversial decisions by political leadership, for example, have influenced the legitimacy of some public institutions in Some Africa. Allegations of poor governance and leadership in some public entities such as the State Information Technology Agency, for example, have tainted the legitimacy of such institutions in leading the digital transformation agenda in government. Commenting on the role of SITA, respondent 3 noted that SITA has lost its credibility, influence and power and no entity was taking them seriously.
Self-interest and populist agendas
Evidence from this study suggested that self-interest driven behaviour is a common phenomenon in public institutions in the South African context. Evidence collected also suggests that self-interest behaviour is more likely to occur during the early stages of institutionalisation of reforms that destabilise long-established norms, values systems and structures. Commenting on self-interests behaviour respondent 2 noted:
“When it comes to the implementation of reforms some actors do not always put the national priorities first. Some are concerned with how such reforms will benefit them or their political career and ambitions”.
In South Africa, some degree of conflict and confusion has been observed in the digital transformation journey. This is evident in turf wars between government departments and other role players leading the digital transformation agenda. Turf issues have consequently compromised collaboration as government entities in some instances avoid collaboration to avoid turf wars as highlighted by respondent 8.
Prioritisation of policy in some instances is driven by political ambition, self-interests and populism, which compromises the success of policy initiatives that are deemed insignificant for gaining political power. This is a notion reiterated by respondent 4, an e-government expert who commented: “The challenge is that self-interests of political leadership influence the prioritisation of policy in South Africa”. For example, the former President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, during the delivery of the OR Tambo memorial lecture on the 28
The digital transformation agenda, for example, is to a larger extent, not a populist policy as it is not an immediate priority for the majority citizens who still lack basic amenities such as decent housing, clean water, sanitation, electricity and decent jobs. Respondent 5 for example noted:
“The challenge is that the political interests of those in power influence the prioritisation of policy in South Africa. The intentions of those in power are not always for the benefit of the citizen but their own selfish agenda”.
Institutional mechanisms are thus bound to fail in the face of self-interest in those holding legitimate and political power. This is a setback in the South African government’s vision of a digitally transformed government as part of promoting the vision of an inclusive digital society
There are however some cases where politics has been used for “social good”. There was a view from some respondents that the current ANC led government has prioritised certain policies which despite being labelled populists policies have benefited its citizens. This suggests that policy implementation thrives when the decision makers have a lot to benefit from the process. Citizens indirectly may benefit from such actions. The question one may raise is; “if politics is used for public good does then that mean politics is the necessary evil”? The broader aim of socio-economic policies adopted after South Africa gained its freedom in 1994, was to create an equal society through reforms aimed at promoting socio-economic transformation for strengthening democracy for all South Africans (South Africa, 2012). The current government has often been accused of using the transformation, social justice and equality agenda to gain political mileage. Whether this is a valid claim or not, this issue will not be explored as it falls outside of the scope of this study. However, one can argue that if the citizenry benefits from these populist agendas then politics cannot always be considered as “evil”. Politics is not necessarily ‘evil’, but individuals often use it for their own selfish or evil gains.
Discussion of findings
I discuss some of the key findings from the results of this study. Power, politics and institutionalisation, legitimacy, self-interests, populist agenda in the institutionalisation of digital transformation reforms are discussed.
Power, politics and institutionalisation of reforms
The study found that in the adoption and implementation of policy, politically motivated decisions in some instances supersede national interests. This reinforces the notion that politics is often viewed as “evil” and driven by self-interest. Scott (2014) asserts that institutional change is likely to happen quickly if projected changes are likely to benefit the institutional actors with access to power. In government, the extent to which reforms were likely to advance leadership’s political agenda was found to impact their commitment. Political will is therefore critical in the successful institutionalisation of digital transformation reforms in the public sector.
This study found that during the various stages of institutionalisation, institutions may experience various degrees of social and political cohesiveness. In the early stages of institutionalisation, social and political cohesive was weak due to mistrust and uncertainty. This observation is consistent with Strang and Sine’s (2002, p. 42) assertion that, “Where cognitive, normative and regulative supports are not well aligned; they provide resources that different actors can employ for different ends”. The “different ends” may thus reflect self-interests that are not aligned to the norms and value systems of the institution. This breeds conflict and confusion as reiterated by Scott (2014).
This study found that political leadership in government derive their power from the authority or legitimate power from holding a position of influence or power. This is contrary to findings from a study by Zheng et al., (2009) that found that leadership in the context of cross-boundary information sharing seemingly relies more on the use of personal power rather than on the position or legitimate power over the participants. This study found little evidence of the use of personal power. This can be explained by that political and legitimate power is often associated with coercion consistent with early stages of institutionalisation. Personal power is more reliant on the traits of the leader and might not always be effective in the early stages of institutionalising reforms or where norms and value systems and culture are unsupportive of reforms.
Evidence of dominance of some institutions such as the National Treasury substantiates the claim that “political power is not distributed evenly in any political system” (Ball, 1993, p. 31). Access and control of resources are seen as playing a key role in the acquisition of power (Ball, 1993; Scott, 2014). According to Markus (1983, p. 440), “position in the formal structure of the organization often provides greater access to specific power resources and the legitimacy required to use them”. Bureaucracy in government often results in the centralisation of power and authority and often slows innovations such as digital transformation projects.
Institutional actors, power and institutionalisation of reforms
Institutions as symbols of power are also influenced by their “actors” particularly those who hold some form of “power”, whether legitimate or illegitimate. In the episodic circuit, for example, powerful actors influence behaviour by using not only coercive mechanisms but normative mechanisms to influence transformation in government. Actors such as top political leadership in institutions driving the transformation agenda have played a significant role. In South Africa, top political leaders have played a significant role in the successful promulgation and implementation of regulative and normative mechanisms such as policies, legislation, standards, values systems, and norms aimed at promoting the digital transformation of government.
Legitimate actions in institutionalisation of reforms
The study found that reforms that do not appeal to the majority are less likely to translate to sources of power for institutions controlling them. Social obligation in this instance is thus used as a basis for attaining legitimacy. This finding substantiates Scott, Ruef and Carmona’s argument that “Organisations require more than material resources and technical information if they are to survive and thrive in their social environments. They also need social acceptability and credibility” (Scott et al., 2000, p. 237). The increasing dependence of the State on other social actors is due to the State’s lack of resources to deliver public service, or its lack of legitimacy or because it faces an environment which is increasingly becoming ungovernable (Pierre & Peters, 2000).
Self-interests and populist agenda in institutionalisation of reforms
Institutional theorists seem not to agree on what influences and shape the behaviour of actors in institutions. Scott (2014) believes institutions influence the actions of individual actors and define their interests. DiMaggio (1989), on the other hand, argued that institutional theory fails to consider self-interest behaviour in institutions by arguing that it “denies the reality of purposive, interest-driven behaviour” (DiMaggio, 1988, p. 5). These schools of thought were tested in this study.
This study found that institutions define and shape the interests of actors in the advanced stages of institutionalisation characterised by a high degree of social cohesion, common beliefs and values systems where institutional norms are embedded in institutional structures and systems. Greater alignment of the three pillars is also more likely at this stage. When the pillars are aligned according to Scott (2014, p. 71), “the strength of their combined forces can be formidable”. This is critical to the success of transformational reforms.
Scott (2014, p. 235) argued that “institutional change is affected by variations in internal organisational dynamics, the more that some subset of actors who have access to power are advantaged by change, the more rapidly the change will occur”. Policy implementation in South Africa has suffered in the face of self-interests, populist agenda and politicking.
Conclusions
The implementation of information systems aimed at promoting digital transformation in the public sector is a complex process that goes beyond technology and requires institutions to take into considerations social, economic, and political aspects such as social cohesion, trust, and power dynamics . Similarly (Mergel et al., 2019), drawing their results from expert interviews concluded “it is necessary to consider digital transformation as a comprehensive organizational approach rather than one that merely makes forms available online or the transition from analogue to digital public service delivery”. The digital transformation of the public sector is thus more than the implementation of technology, it impacts the regulative, normative, and cultural cognitive elements in institutions. The regulative pillar for example needs to address policy and legislation issues such as privacy in the adoption and use of technology. The cultural-cognitive pillar supports the creation of a culture (value systems and beliefs) that promote openness, free flow of information and trust that support the institutionalisation of information systems that support digital transformation. The normative pillar is responsible for the establishment of norms and standards that support interoperability, security and privacy and openness. Self-interest behaviour such as using transformation initiatives for populism and lack of political leadership commitment are some of the constraints realised in institutionalising information systems aimed at promoting digital transformation. Building trust, leadership commitment, social cohesion and appropriate structures are therefore central in institutionalising information systems aimed at promoting digital transformation.
Power dynamics, and politics for example, play a major role in the acceptance and prioritisation of reforms including the allocation resources. The study also found that the success of supporting mechanisms such as regulation, norms and other value systems are also largely depended on the power of institutions (including leadership) to coerce, reward, or persuade actors in institutions to comply. Actions of institutions and actors associated with those institutions impact their legitimacy in the transformation process. In the institutionalisation of information systems aimed at promoting digital transformation, the legitimacy of institutions and their leaders impacts their ability to persuade and coerce other actors to adopt new reforms.
Footnotes
Author Biography
Dr. More Ickson Manda holds a PhD (Information Systems) from the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, a Master of Information Technology from the University of Pretoria in South Africa, a BSc (Hons) Information Science as well as certificate in Advanced Strategic Management. He is currently pursuing a Master of Business Administration with the University of Witwatersrand Business School in South Africa. His research interests include e-government, smart cities, governance, and ICT for development. He has published several book chapters and has presented his work at various International Conferences. He has several years of experience in ICT and knowledge management in various sectors which include public services, international development organisations Non-Profit Organisations, and Innovation, Research and Development institutions. He is currently holding the position of Senior Manager: Strategic Planning at the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Sector Education and Training Authority (MERSETA), an agency of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Education. In his current role, he is responsible for strategic management, digital transformation, knowledge management and research among other things.