•  
  •  
 

Journal of Information Technology

Document Type

Research Article

Abstract

This paper critiques three prominent information systems (IS) contributions to the development of social (work) systems, namely ETHICS, UTOPIA and Multiple Perspectives. They are based on the socio-technical Quality of Working Life and generally rely on systems design for improving working conditions by allowing employees to appreciate a holistic work experience, instead of being treated as a cog in the profit-making machinery of capitalism. However, this paper argues that ETHICS and Multiple Perspectives in fact shy away from the ideo-political differences that cause workplace conflict in the first place. Their pluralist means of resolving workplace conflicts through discussion and negotiation fail to problematize the colonizing or hegemonic influence of economic rationalism in obscuring the feasibility of alternative modes of workplace relations. They play down the asymmetrical power relations that perpetuate the exploitation of weaker stakeholders in real-life employment negotiations. Hence, political quietism in social IS approaches fail to acknowledge the ideological causes of conflict, that is the pursuit of profit at any cost, as opposed to a more sustainable and ethical approach to workplace relations. This paper presents a study of an organizational accounting IS system and uses it for illustrating the ideological roots of differences in employee–employer needs and priorities and revealing how reflexive decision makers are alienated when they attempt to distance themselves from the myopic ethos of economic rationalism. Despite these criticisms, the paper concludes on a relatively positive note. It argues that, since the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future was released in 1987, there has been increased awareness that organizations cannot continue to exploit our resources (and ourselves) blatantly in the name of profit maximization. This process of redefinition opens the door for more realistic and politically challenging systems approaches.

DOI

10.1080/0268396022000017743

Download

Share

COinS