Information Systems in Business Efficiency

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over time, information systems have evolved to an imperative competitive element for all industries across the economy (Laumer, Maier, Eckhardt and Weitzel 2016). Successful adoption of an information system plays an integral role in helping an organisation gain a market competitive position given that information systems improve the efficiency and effectiveness across the function of the firm (Dang, Zhang and Morgan 2017). Today, almost all organisations use some type of information systems to automate organisational processes while enhancing business efficiency. Research has shown that new information systems have the ability to offer firms more potential to better conduct their functions as compared to traditional systems. For example, enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems help organisations easily integrate data and resources, which results to enhanced business efficiency (Mahmud, Ramayah and Kurnia 2017). On the other hand, knowledge management systems have proven effective for their ability to facilitate knowledge sharing within an organisation thus ensuring all employees have adequate skills to handle their assigned tasks, which improves organisational performance (Li, Liu and Liu 2016). Despite the proven efficiency and effectiveness of information systems, it is not always true that employees and organisations will successfully implement a new information system. According to Laumer, Maier, Eckhardt and Weitzel (2017), between 30% and 60% of all information systems implementation initiatives fail. In agreement, Bateh, Castaneda and Farah (2013) write that in spite of the benefits associated with ERP systems in improving organisation efficiency, the implementation rate remains low. Researchers agree that the implementation of information systems has not been easy and the commonly cited reason is employee and organisation resistance. Lin, Huang and Chiang (2018) write that in most cases, the implementation of information systems fail at the beginning for employees who passively or actively decline using these systems. Instead, employees prefer to retain the existing systems even in the presence of more effective systems, which has always been associated with people’s propensity to avoid change. Though resistance to implementation of information systems is evident in organisations across all sectors, Jacob, Schindler and Strathausen (2016) write that the legal professions is likely to be the most challenged given past reluctance in using technology. This is in light of the fact that lawyers are trained in a manner that makes them risk-averse as they seek to protect for the rights and interests of their clients (McGinnis and Pearce 2013). Nonetheless, literature reveals that law firms have already started implementing artificial intelligence to assist in document analysis aimed at increasing the speed at which reviews are done (Slovak and Stehr 2017). This implies that despite the high rate of IS resistance in law firms, it is not completely impossible that lawyers will adopt and embrace the implementation of information systems. With the high rate of IS implementation failure, various researchers have developed models and theories to better understand what causes this resistance. Among these models are technology acceptance model (TAM), TAM2, TAM3, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology UTAUT, UTAUT2 and the Delone and McLean IS Success Model among others (Okumus, Bilgihan, Ozturk and Zhao 2017). Though effective in some cases, these theories have been criticised for solely focusing on the system being implemented and ignoring other factors, such as the influence of the system that is being replaced. The critics suggest it is equally important to focus on the features and functions of the old system, as this could be what keep employees loyal to it.

Li (2013) posits that organisations seeking to successfully implement information systems should be proficient at managing employees’ perceptions of the systems and its associated benefits. Though various studies have been conducted aiming and understanding why employees resist implementation of information systems, there are still gaps and the challenges for organisations are yet to be fully established. With such conflicting views, it is essential that future researchers investigate this topic and give deeper understanding of why employees resist implementation of information systems. In light of the above information, the primary aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of why legal professionals resist change related to deployment of information systems in law firms. The focus of this study is Foot Anstey, which is a law firm located in South West of England.

About Foot Anstey

Foot Anstey is a law firm located in South West of England. The company has been ranked among the top 100 law firms in the UK. Foot Anstey has over 50 partners, and it is an employer to more than 500 people. The primary strategy for Foot Anstey is to achieve and maintain consistent growth and strong financial performance, which will enable it to continue offering exceptional and efficient services to its clients. Since its launch, Foot Anstey has been a very agile company, which has helped it gain a competitive advantage. Successful management in this firm has also significantly contributed to its success over the years. However, the company has not been very successful in implementing and adopting the use of information systems, which is likely to impair its success. This study, therefore, seeks to explore the reasons behind this change resistance.

Problem Statement

Literature suggests that traditional approaches to human capital management, change management, and innovation have become ineffective after the rise of technology. New information systems and ways of managing human capital have proven more effective in promoting organisational success, which implies that companies still using traditional methods are likely to lose competitive advantage (Garg and Garg 2013). Foot Anstey among other companies are yet to implement new methods of managing change and human resources, which is a strong factor likely to contribute a reduction in the company's revenue. According to Anderson et al. (2005) lawyers are not convinced that the implementation of information systems in their firms could be effective and therefore resent this change. This tendency has also been evident at Foot Anstey. One of the reasons why lawyers resist change could be insufficient training in change management they receive in their courses. Additionally, the education that lawyers receive makes them risk averse, which implies they are unwilling and closed to change and this translates even to their willingness to embrace change (Gonzalez 2010). In most law firms, lawyers with management positions always receive more training to help them embrace change and encourage their subordinates to embrace organisational change (Slovak and Stehr 2017).

The rationale for the study

This study explores the concept of change management particularly in the implementation of information systems and the experience resistance. Further, the study investigates how knowledge management affects the operation of law firms, which helps understand the consequences if the employees resist this change. The study is worth conducting as the results will help understand the role of human resources in creating organisational culture through effective implementation of policies. Additionally, the study will identify the factors that promote employees in law firms resist change, which will help in developing a strategy to favour the implementation of information systems. Thus, the study results will not only be significant to Foot Anstey but also to other law firms as they will be essential in helping the management endorse change that is effective in driving organisational performance. According to Pishdad and Haider (2013), user resistance significantly contributes to failure in information systems implementation. This could imply that change resistance is among the factors hindering successful implementation of information systems in law firms. This underscores the need for studies investigating the determinants of employee resistance and its role in hindering adoption of information systems. Having established the activators driving user resistance to implementation of information systems, organisations will have an idea of steps that can be taken to break such resistance. Therefore, this study is imperative in helping Foot Anstey identify why its employees are resistant to change. Having understood the activators of this resistance, Foot Anstey will be able to handle these activators one at a go and eventually succeed in implementing information systems. Thus, this research is a basic step to helping Foot Anstey among other law firms successfully adopt the use of information systems, which will give them a competitive advantage. Additionally, the study will contribute to the existing literature of change resistance in law firms.

Aims and Objectives

The primary aim of this study is to identify factors influencing change resistance towards implementation of information systems in law firms particularly Foot Anstey. The study is limited to sectoral and cultural factors that promote change resistance thus hindering use of technology at Foot Anstey. To attain its purpose, the study will be guided by the following objectives:

To identify the need for implementing new technology solutions in law firms To explore the hierarchies and levels at the organisation where change resistance exists To establish the factors influencing change resistance To recommend approaches to successful change management at Foot Anstey

Chapters Overview

This paper is divided into 5 chapters including an introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, and conclusion. The introduction lays a foundation to the study helping readers understand the background of the study, the problem that prompts the study, as well as the study objectives. The literature review critically evaluates and analyses previous works on change resistance and change management helping the researcher gain a deeper understanding of what has already been attained so that this work worth fully contributes to existing literature. The methodology chapter details the actions and the approaches the researcher takes in order to fill the gaps identified in the literature review. The findings chapter presents and interprets the results of the researcher's work. The conclusion chapter sums up the major findings of the study and makes recommendations on effective change management in law firms.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Change resistance was initially recognised in the late 1950s in human behaviour and by 1970s, researchers had managed to study the reasons behind change resistance as well as its consequences: since then, change resistance has been a topic of interest for many researchers, particularly in IS implementation (Benn et al. 2014). This chapter aims at reviewing studies on change resistance in order to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that influence change resistance and its consequences, particularly to law firms. First, the chapter will define key terms as they are used in the study and then proceed to review related studies.

Organisational Change

Change can be defined as the process of moving from the present state to the desired state always undertaken by persons, organisations or groups and normally triggered by changing internal and external factors (Ahmad and Cuenca 2013). On the other hand, AF Ragab and Arisha (2013) define organisational change as the process of continually renewing the direction, capabilities, and structure of an organisation in order to meet the dynamic needs of customers. Further, Pietersea and Ulijnb (n.d.) define organisational change as the process undertaken by organisations in order to continuously adapt to trends in the society and remain competitive. Literature reveals that organisational change is ever-present and an imperative feature of organisational life both at a strategic and operational level (Hornstein 2015; and Benn, Edwards & Williams 2014). Other researchers have sought to understand the factors that influence change in organisations. According to Bateh, Castaneda and Farah (2013), the change process is influenced by various strategic factors such as the need for better and integrated ways of working, the need for improved organisational performance and the need for increased employee productivity among others. In this study, the strategic factor influencing the adoption of information systems is the need to increase organisation efficiency thus helping the firm gain a competitive advantage. The necessity of change has also been studied by various researchers: Doppelt (2017) writes that it is necessary for organisations to keep identifying areas they need to be in the future and take the necessary steps to align to attaining those destinations. Consistently, Kuipers et al. (2015) state that change management is an important concept for every organisation that seeks to gain a competitive advantage. Among the most outstanding changes in our organisations today is the implementation of information systems, which has been successful in some firms and unsuccessful in other. Information systems are technological systems devoted to the processing of information, which constitutes capturing, transmitting, storing, retrieving, manipulating, and displaying information (Gopal and Gosain 2010). Information systems are of different types and in this study, attention is paid to knowledge management systems and enterprise resource planning systems. According to Hislop, Bosua and Helms (2018), knowledge management systems are a category of information systems that facilitate organisational learning through capturing knowledge and availing it to employees as they need it. Thus, knowledge management systems focus on capturing knowledge and sharing it through technology to ensure all employees have the skills they need to complete their tasks. Here, knowledge can be termed as a process that occurs in the mind where comprehension, learning, and understanding are attained but can also be influenced by external factors such as interpersonal interaction (AF Ragab and Arisha 2013). The use of knowledge management systems in law firms has been explored by a few researchers. The following paragraphs review the use of KM systems in law firms. Traditionally, the legal profession has been founded on skills and knowledge that require effective use of information (Akhavan, Jafari and Fathian 2012). Historically, lawyers depended on traditional methods of gathering and analysing information to protect the interests of their clients. However, with technological advancements, law firms are facing stiff competition due to an increase in specialisation and the development of systems that promote information analysis (Kang, Snell and Swart 2012). In order to realise and maintain a competitive advantage, some law firms are turning to knowledge management systems to help increase their efficiency. However, the adoption and implementation of knowledge management systems in law firms remain low. Various researchers have explored barriers to adoption of knowledge management systems by law firms. The culture of individual practices is among the factors most cited for hindering adoption of knowledge management systems by law firms. According to Friedman (2017), law firms are naturally guided by a culture of individual practices. On the other hand, Kraakman and Hansmann (2017) state that the legal profession is considered effective if the practitioners are able to use and organise knowledge that is not easily accessible to their competitors. In such a culture, lawyers are encouraged to focus on their clients and how the interests of the client can be protected. Therefore, a good lawyer is one that has outstanding abilities to successfully plead the cases of the clients. Given this culture, lawyers are less likely to share their tactical knowledge with colleagues, which hinder the adoption of knowledge management systems. In an agreement, Hogan and Coote (2014) wrote that lawyers are paid based on the time they spend with a client thus a team-based approach to problem solving cannot be effective in this profession as no lawyer will be rewarded for sharing his/her skills with others. Consistently, Ashley and Empson (2013) posit that in the legal profession, clients hire individual lawyers based on personal reputation. Additionally, the stronger the reputation, the higher the pay a lawyer gets, which hinders sharing of knowledge. Therefore, the literature reveals that lawyers may resist the adoption of knowledge management systems because of the individual culture governing this profession. Other studies have revealed that lack of time is another factor hindering adoption of knowledge management systems by law firms. According to Liu (2017), lawyers operate on a tight schedule and spend most of their time with clients thus do not have time to feed their skills in computers. Consistently, Friedman (2017) establish that the billable hour requirements only give lawyers an opportunity to offer their clients direct services, which leaves lawyers very minimal time for personal needs: this implies that lawyers are less likely to spend their left minimal time on computers. Briscoe, Tarique and Schuler (2012) state that successfully implementation of knowledge management systems requires a substantial amount of lawyer’s time and given the tight schedules lawyer operate, any information system requiring a lot of lawyer’s time is bound to fail. According to Ashkenas (2013), incentives can be used to entice lawyers into documenting their skills and knowledge into computers for them to be shared with others. Literature has also revealed that inability to measure returns is a factor hindering adoption of knowledge management systems in law firms. Researchers are yet to develop effective metrics of measuring the financial returns of knowledge management systems, which hinder their adoption in law firms (Akhavan, Jafari and Fathian 2012). In an agreement, Friedman (2017) state that the billing structures remain unchanged, which implies the adoption of knowledge management systems may not have any financial benefits to law firms. This is confirmed by Massingham and Massingham (2014) who state that billing continues to be based on hourly basis thus lawyers are less likely to welcome systems and innovations that would take up their time without any proof of associated financial benefits. Therefore, it is likely that law firms will continue resisting implementation of the knowledge management system until clear financial return metrics have been established.

Ashenfelter, Bloom and Dahl (2013) write that most law firms use an incentive structure, which hinders the adoption of knowledge management systems. In this case, lawyers are likely to be penalised for any efforts they make to transfer their knowledge since this has the ability to reduce their billable hours, which is a loss not only to the lawyer but also to the firm. In support, Xu and Quaddus (2012) write that by nature, there are no factors that would encourage a law firm to adopt the use of knowledge management systems since such systems are only deemed to create inefficiencies for a lawyer and legal organisations. In addition, Rhoads and Liggett (2012) write that the legal profession believes that knowledge should be hidden such that competitors do not understand the logic one uses to protect the interests of the client. Thus, knowledge management systems are never welcome in the legal profession. Numerous studies have established that in law firms, issues of communication breakdown are very common and this is a factor that hinders adoption of knowledge information systems. According to Ashley and Empson (2013), information sharing whether internally or externally happens by chance or through one-on-one communication in law firms, which implies that not all professionals receive the message. As such, only those that receive the information are more likely to accept the change. Lack of teamwork is another factor associated with change resistance in law firms: Sinsheimer and Herring (2016) write that team-work is not welcome nor rewarded in legal institutions, which encourages professionals to keep their skills to self. Further, legal professionals are overwhelmingly busy, which limits the time they take in reflection thus cannot effectively compile a report to be shared with their colleagues. Moreover, individuals are only rewarded based on the extra and exceptional skills they possess, which implies that sharing such skills would lower their income. Quinn (n.d) adds that lawyers spend very minimal time with their colleagues as much of their time is spent with clients, which implies interpersonal communication with colleagues is flawed. These factors contribute to failure in the adoption of knowledge management systems in law firms.

Resistance to Information Systems

Some researchers state that the user resistance behaviour is influenced by employees’ perceptions of the systems and lack of clear understanding of the role of the system (Cram and Brohman 2013). On the other hand, other researchers write that employees resist the implementation of information systems for lack of understanding of how the systems will affect their work routines (Cram, Brohman and Gallupe 2014). User resistance can be defined as a lack of willingness by employees to embrace the use of implemented systems or the unwillingness of organisations to implement change (Besson & Rowe 2012). In this case, user resistance can be seen as the lack of desire by law firms to implement information systems despite the effectiveness associated with these systems. Additionally, user resistance can be seen as a lack of employees' willingness to take up changes resulting from the implementation of information systems. According to Turel (2015), change resistance can be categorised into two: user resistance behaviour, which is normally the negative behaviour portrayed by employees that inhibit adoption of change and dispositional resistance to change, which is normally viewed as human's proclivity to oppose change naturally. Literature suggests there are various factors that influence change resistance, which will be explored in the next section. Resistance to change can occur at an individual level or at the organisational level. At the individual level, researchers have identified three theories that explain the causes of resistance, which are cognitive dissonance theory, dispositional resistance theory, and psychological contract theory. From the cognitive dissonance perspective, employees tend to resist or accept change based on consistency in attitudes and behaviours (Venkatesh, Brown and Bala 2013). If an employee experiences inconsistency, he/she becomes psychologically uncomfortable, which forces him/her to try and establish consistency once more (Li, Liu and Liu 2016). This implies that the presence of inconsistencies will motivate employees to reduce inconsistencies. Since change is a major cause of dissonance, employees tend to reduce dissonance by resisting this change. Thus, employees are only likely to commit to activities that do not cause inconsistencies between their attitudes and behaviours. From the psychological contract perspective, resistance to change is influenced by perceptions, mutual beliefs, and informal obligations between an employee and his/her employer (Ali, Zhou, Miller and Ieromonachou 2016). In every organisation, there are unwritten expectations that guide the relationship between the employee and the employer. For example, an employer expects the employee to be committed, show effort in their work, be responsible and be loyal among other expectations. On the contrary, an employee expects to be pay, promoted, trained, and other rewards. If the organisation violates or modifies a part of the psychological contract without employees' consent and as such fails to yield to the expectations of the employees, the employees are likely to resist the actions of the organisation (Marchington 2016). This implies that for any change to be accepted, the organisation must inform its employees and prepare them to rest they will resist. From the dispositional concept of change, employees are seen as the main cause of resistance. This is so because naturally, people tend to avoid change influenced by their short-term focus and cognitive rigidity (Michel Todnem and Burnes 2013). A study by Nov and Schecter (2012) reveals that employees that naturally avoid changes are less likely to voluntarily lead changes and are also more likely to form negative attitudes towards changes they encounter. From this perspective, an organisation can only succeed in implementing change if it first creates a positive perception of change in the minds of the employees, as those with positive perception towards change are less likely to resist it. In an agreement, Battistelli, Montani and Odoardi (2013) state that successful implementation of change is dependent on the ability of leaders to manage the change process. At the organisational level, change may be resisted based on the effect it will have on the organisation as a whole (Li et al. 2016). If the organisation perceives the change to require a high level of employee commitment, then such an organisation is more likely to resist change. In an agreement, Besson and Rowe (2012) state that if an organisation thinks a new intervention will cause employees huge psychological impact, then the organisation is less likely to implement the change. Therefore, this perspective of change resistance is built on the relationship between an organisation’s view of change and the impact on employees’ psychological makeup. Researchers have categorised resistance theories into three including system oriented resistance, people oriented resistance and interaction theories of resistance. The people-oriented theory of resistance posits that users are likely to resist the implementation of information systems because of personal factors. In an agreement, Offord, Gill and Kendal (2016) write that people-oriented resistance may be influenced by user’s factors such as values, beliefs, and understanding of the new information system. In the same vein, do Canto Cavalheiro and Joia (2013) write that people-oriented resistance is psychologically based on the level of each individual. Here, the authors argue that this resistance stems from an interaction between a system and the person’s condition at work: if the system is likely to alter the way in which the person completes his/her duties, then the higher the likelihood of the user resisting the information system. This is so because employees value their initial experiences at work and always avoid change that could alter their normal routine. Consistently, Volkoff and Strong (2013) write that if employees perceive information systems as objects that threaten their normal routine, they are more likely to demonstrate resistance behaviours in an active or passive way. The system oriented theory of information systems resistance holds that resistance might be influenced by features of the system. In this case, factors such as the perceived usefulness of the system, its relative advantage, compatibility with existing systems, value, ease of use, and complexity among other system features influence user resistance to an information system that has just been implemented (Polites and Karahanna 2012). In an agreement, Besson and Rowe (2012) write that perceived threats, the benefits associated with switching, as well as the cost of switching to influence user resistance in the implementation of information systems by organisations. Janssen Charalabidis and Zuiderwijk (2012) state that the systems oriented approach to resistance is influenced by technology-related factors such as performance security, user interface, the degree of centralisation, and ease of use. In this case, systems that are user friendly and easy to use are likely to be highly adopted in organisations as opposed to systems that require employees to acquire technical skills to operate them. Other factors such as the speed at which the system processes information, the rate at which it crashes, the quality of its output, and its availability and essence during critical times also inform whether organisations will implement an information system or not (Li et al. 2016).

According to Bambang Purwoko, Simatupang, Utomo and Hermawan (2015), the involvement of users in the development process of a system determines the extent to which users will implement the system. Here, the authors state that is system users are involved in the development process, their views are more likely to be incorporated, which implies that system will be able to complement the roles of users. This way, the system will be more effective at helping users complete their tasks and the users are less likely to resist such a system. On the other hand, if users are not involved in the development of the system, there is a higher possibility users will experience technical issues with the system, which increases their likelihood of resisting the information system. The interaction theory of user resistance posits that interaction between a user and the system influences resistance. Other researchers term this theory as the work routine theory stating it has received less attention. From this perspective, information systems implementation resistance arises from the perceived workload in the users' work routine (Laumer and Eckhardt 2012). On the other hand, Rivard and Lapointe (2012) write that if employees require new skills to operate the system, they are less likely to embrace its implementation in fear of declined performance. Additionally, Van Offenbeek, Boonstra and Seo (2013) state that the interaction theory is found on the premise that various social and political factors influence the use of different information systems in different settings and this requires users to acquire a wide array of skills, which discourages them from embracing the change. Some researchers have associated work routines with change resistance. Work routines can be defined as the temporal structures within an organisation that employees follow as they accomplish their tasks (Laumer, Maier, Eckhardt and Weitzel 2016). On the other hand, Selander and Henfridsson (2012) term work routines as patterns of behaviour that employees posit as they complete their roles within an organisation. In most firms, employees are guided by customs and rules as they complete their responsibilities, which imply that work routines are imperative in guiding employees. Research has established that technology always affects work routines and disrupts the system theory of work (Laumer et al. 2016). When an organisation implements a new system, the patterns that employees followed change, which welcomes resistance in most cases. Unless a system is aligned to the work routine of the employee, it is guaranteed to disrupt the order in which an individual completed his/her tasks, which welcomes resistance. From this perspective, the core determinants of user resistance to new information systems are the perception that the system will disrupt the employee’s work routine.

Overcoming User Resistance

Several studies have explored how user resistance can be overcome and several approaches have been established including participative, directive, coercive, and supportive approach (Zouine and Fenies 2014). The directive approach to user resistance management entails the use of managerial power and authority to make employees adopt the change. In their powers, leaders are perceived to be able to offer training, rewards to cooperative employees, and document new routines to make sure employees embrace a change (Bin Taher, Krotov and Silva 2015). Though effective in some situations, this approach to overcoming user resistance has been criticised for treating employees as objects of use by those in power. The participative approach is concerned with involving system users in the development and selection of the systems to be implemented: the organisation is required to share its vision with its employees and then collect feedback from employees of systems that could help the organisation attain the desired goals (Haddara and Moen 2017). If this is observed, employees feel they own the change and are therefore willing to adopt it. Additionally, employees will be aware of what the organisation is trying to achieve, which encourages them to work hard and endure challenges they might encounter with the new systems. According to Bouchlaghem and Erdogan (2012), the participative approach to change management is more effective as employees become more committed to change. In an agreement, Rivard and Lapointe (2012) write that the participative approach to change management has been effective in promoting system acceptance in various organisations. The supportive approach to change management focuses on moral support that the managerial team offers employees during change implementation. According to Li et al. (2016), employees are more likely to implement change if the organisation supports them by offering the skills required to manage their new tasks. Other than support, Laumer et al. (2016) write that employee empowerment is a crucial element in change management and an organisation that empowers its employees if less likely to encounter change resistance. In an agreement, Haddara and Moen (2017) state that if an organisation can offer orientation sessions before implementing change, the employees would be more aware of their expected roles and responsibilities and therefore more likely to embrace the change. Staff appreciation has also been established effective at minimising staff resistance to change (Selander and Henfridsson, 2012). Therefore, if employees are competent with the functions of the implemented system and have been empowered to operate it, they are likely to invest in the system without resistance. In the coercive approach to change management, the leaders impose the change on employees. The leader also deals ruthlessly with those that reject the change and may fire them, suspend them, transfer them, or threaten their promotion (Shidane 2017). Some researchers argue that the coercive method is the most effective approach to change management. Other researchers have argued in favour of strategic leadership when it comes to overcoming change resistance. The theory of strategic leadership pays attention to top managers and their role in encouraging subordinates to accept change. Over the years, transformational and transactional leaders have emerged effectively at helping organisations manage change (Carter, Armenakis, Feild and Mossholder 2013). According to Shao, Feng and Hu (2016), transactional leaders focus on what can work while aspiring to meet set timeframes and doing what seems to be the most risk-free tasks. Therefore, transactional leaders look into changing only conditions that seems relevant with an aim of helping the organisation attain its operational objectives. Contrary, transformative leaders focus on raising the standards of colleagues, clients, subordinates, among other people within an organisation and are proactive in most cases. Various authors have argued in favour of transformational leadership in change management as transformational leaders act as facilitators of change and given they already have a positive relationship with their subordinates, they encounter little or no resistance (Heinzelmann 2017). This study will attempt to identify the most effective leadership style that would help in overcoming change resistance in law firms.

Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to critically review recent literature on change management in organisations particularly on resistance to the implementation of information systems. The review finds out that change resistance is common in many organisations but to a greater extent in the law firms. It is also clear that law firms have a culture of individual practice, which hinders the implementation of knowledge management systems. Further, it is clear that change resistance can be influenced by system factors, organisational factors, and individual factors. The chapter also establishes that effective leadership can play an effective role in overcoming change resistance. These insights inform the theoretical framework of the study. First, the study will explore the concept of change management at Foot Anstey particularly implementation of knowledge management systems and information systems. Second, the study explores the factors influencing change resistance at Foot Anstey while mapping the resistance behaviours lawyers in this firm portray. Further, the study investigates the role of effective leadership in overcoming change resistance at Foot Anstey.

Chapter 3: Methods

Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to detail the researcher’s approach to the study. The study considers the research philosophy adopted by the researcher, the research approach, the research design, the time horizon, the sampling technique, and the sample from which data was collected. Additionally, the chapter details the data collection method used, the approach to data analysis, measure to ensure validity, reliability and generalizability of the study results, as well as the ethical issues considered during the study.

Research Philosophy

The adopted research philosophy informs the readers how the researcher views the world and also informs the research strategy and methods the researcher will adopt for the study (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009). The philosophical view that determines the approach a researcher adopts is the relationship between knowledge and how it was developed. According to Denzin (2001), the most important basic in a research is not to ensure a it is philosophically informed but to able to reflect upon the philosophical choice made and defend it according to the options adopted for a study. There are two foundations of different research philosophies namely ontology and epistemology. Ontology focuses on the nature of reality thus analyses the assumptions researchers hold about the way the world operates: the researcher either remains objective or subjective (Ormston et al. 2014). In objectivism, researchers hold that social entities exist in reality but external to social actors that are concerned with their existence (Lucas 2014). On the other hand, subjectivism portrays that social phenomena arise from individual perceptions and actions that arise from social actors concerned with their existence (Ormston et al. 2014). Social interaction plays a pivotal role in subjectivism in that the more a researcher interacts with others, the more likely the held perceptions will change. Contrary, epistemology is concerned with the elements of acceptable knowledge in a field of study. Therefore, the researcher conduct different studies and collect different types of data based on what they consider as acceptable knowledge. From this perspective, positivist philosophy and interpretivist philosophy are of great importance. The positivist philosophy is concerned with the resources a researcher deems necessary for use while the interpretivist philosophy has to do with the feelings a researcher adopts for use in the study (Aram and Salipante 2003). In most cases, researchers that adopt the positivism philosophy adopt the position of a natural scientist and thus work with an observable social reality. What the researcher observes is used to develop a hypothesis that is then tested through the data collected to inform the study conclusion. Interpretivists find it necessary that researchers should understand the difference between humans and the role they play as social actors. In this study, the subjectivist approach adopted. The primary purpose was to identify the factors that influence change management particularly in the implementation of information systems in law firms, therefore; the researcher must collect data from various persons on their assumption of how the world operates. The researcher remained subjective holding that resistance to change arises from the lawyers' perception of information systems and how these perceptions influence their behaviour.

Research Approach

There are two approaches to research namely deductive and inductive research approach. In the deductive approach, a researcher develops a hypothesis and theory then designs a research strategy to test the hypothesis. Contrary, the researcher collects data, analyses it, and develops a theory in the inductive research approach. The deduction is commonly adopted for scientific research where a researcher has to develop a theory after rigorous tests. A hypothesis must be developed first: a hypothesis refers to a proposition about the relations between two variables that can be tested. According to Burke (2007), a researcher must remain independent of what is being observed in order to pursue the principle of scientific rigour. On the other hand, Easterby- Smith, Thorpe, Jackson and Lowe (2008) write that high level of objectivity results to fewer convincing inferences, which underscores the need for a researcher to remain subjective in the choice of questions developed to collect data for hypothesis testing. The primary purpose of the induction research approach is to collect data, analyse it, and use the results to build a theory. Researchers that argue in favour of this approach hold that establishing a cause-effect link between variables without an understanding of the interpretations made by humans in their social world is invalid, which implies that the deduction research approach is not reliable. Therefore, the inductive approach seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the way in which humans interpret the social world and use the insights to develop a theory. Critically, Maylor, Blackmon and Huemann (2016) state that researchers that adopt the inductive research approach are likely to be particularly concerned with the context in which an event occurs, which requires a low number of participants. With such a limited number, the study results cannot be generalised to the entire study population, which is among the weaknesses of the inductive research approach. This study adopted the deductive approach to research. The researcher held that user resistance in the law firms is high and therefore set out to collect data to prove this theory while establishing the factors that influence IT user resistance among legal professionals. The researcher was also concerned with the need to generalise data to all law firms and therefore the deductive approach was found to be the most suitable. For this to be attained, there was the need for the researcher to select a representative sample, which could not be attained using the inductive research approach.

Research Design

The research design is a general plan of how a researcher will go about answering the formulated research questions. The purpose of the research informs that design that a researcher uses to conduct the study. In terms of purpose, researcher studies are categorised as exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory. The purpose of this study was exploratory in nature as the researcher sought to gain a deeper understanding of why legal professionals resist implementation of change particularly the implementation of information systems. Therefore, this study was exploratory in nature. Exploratory studies are associated with deeper understanding of the topic under study as they explore all the possible variables around a study and as a result, the researcher may understand the phenomena in new perspective (Collis and Hussey 2003). This is among the reasons the exploratory approach was adopted for this study. One of the limitations of exploratory studies is that if the researcher is not careful, he/she may end up collecting data irrelevant to the study objectives (Hakim 2000). To overcome this limitation, the researcher structured the interviews based on the study objectives. Based on the purpose of the study, there are various research strategies a researcher can employ, which include experiment, case study, survey, action research, ethnography, grounded theory, and archival research (Ormston et al. 2014). Informed by the purpose of this study, the researcher chose to adopt the case study design. A case study can be defined as a way of conducting research that involves an empirical investigation of a specific contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence (Tumele 2015). According to Hancock and Algozzine (2016), the case study approach to research is particularly essential if the researcher wishes to gain a deeper understanding of the context of research as well as the process in use. Additionally, the case study approach can establish answers to the why, what, and how questions, which implies it can be relevant for exploratory and explanatory studies. In this study, the researcher sought to gain a deeper understanding why IT user resistance is high in law firms, therefore the case study approach was found the most effective. The choice of using the case study approach was influenced by its advantages in research. According to Cronin (2014), a case study research is highly legitimate and appropriate for both qualitative and quantitative studies that seek to understand change and relationship between variables. On the other hand, Lindvall (2007) writes that the basic advantage of case studies is that they provide detailed analysis to an individual case. With such a detailed analysis, a researcher can find information that he/she did not anticipate from the start, which improves the quality of the study findings. However, Flyvjerg (2006) states that with case studies, validity, reliability and generalizability of the results cannot be attained but other than these, case studies remain popular. There are four case study strategies that a researcher can choose from a namely single case, multiple cases, holistic case, and embedded case. A single case normally represents a critical case or a unique case thus provides a researcher with the opportunity to observe and analyse a situation that few others have considered before (Lewis 2015). The single case strategy was adopted for this study because very few researchers have focussed on IT user resistance in legal firms. Additionally, the researcher felt that limiting the population to a single legal firm could be more beneficial while reporting on the factors influencing IT user resistance. Meyer (2015) writes that with case studies, the results cannot be generalised to the entire population in statistical terms. In this study, the researcher focussed and was only interested in Foot Anstey, which implies a case study would help only collect and analyse data valid to this firm.

Time Horizon

There are two time horizons in research namely cross-sectional and longitudinal horizons. Cross-sectional studies are conducted at a particular time while the longitudinal studies are conducted over long time periods normally above 12 months (Muthén and Muthén 2015). This study was cross sectional as it was conducted for academic purpose thus constrained in time. The time constraint could not have allowed for a cross-sectional study. The study was carried out in three phases and focused on two key groups involved in the innovation process, that is, the management team responsible for implementing information systems and employees that are affected by organisational changes. During the first phase, the study was concerned with how the management team understand their role in implementing changes and the perceived impact of the change on the organisation. During the second phase, the researcher focused on employees' perception of change and factors that influence them to resist change implemented in the organisation. The third stage involved designing and conducting a survey based on the gaps identified in the literature.

Sampling Technique

There are two types of sampling techniques namely probability and non-probability sampling. The probability sampling gives each of the subjects in the population an equal chance of being selected as a study sample. On the contrary, the non-probability sampling does not give each subject a known probability of forming the study sample. The probability sampling technique is known to yield a more representative sample, which implies that the results can be easily generalised to the entire population. On the other hand, a researcher may generalise the study results to the entire population with non-probability sampling but not on statistical grounds (Uprichard 2013). Given that the researcher was not concerned of full generalizability of the study results, the non-probability sampling technique was adopted for this study. There are various sampling techniques under non-probability sampling including quota sampling, purposive sampling, snowball sampling, convenience sampling, and self-selection (Vehovar, Toepoel and Steinmetz 2016). The researcher adopted purposive and convenience sampling techniques for this study. Purposive sampling allows a researcher used judgement to select cases that will perfectly answer the research questions that will help meet the study objectives. Additionally, purposive sampling is best fit for use when the samples are small such as in a case study and the researcher aspires to have the most informative sources (Etikan, Musa and Alkassim 2016). In this study, the researcher felt that the management was the most suitable source of information to answer the question on the levels where resistance exists as well as factors influencing change resistance among those hierarchies. Therefore, some members of the management team were purposively selected to help shed more light on these questions. Convenience sampling, on the other hand, involves unevenly selecting cases that are easy to obtain from the population. The researcher unsystematically selects subjects until the required sample size has been attained. This type of sampling is commonly used for its ease of use as well as ease of reaching the selected subjects (Etikan, Musa and Alkassim 2016). In this study, the time constraint required the researcher identifies a sample he could easily access to collect data. Employees based in Bristol and Exeter offices were deemed more accessible and thus the researcher chose to select them as study participants.

Sample

A sample refers to a subset that is selected from the entire study population from which data is collected. According to Denscombe (2014), a sample should be representative of the entire population and for this to be attained; it should be more than 10% of the whole population. Foot Anstey is an employer of over 500 people across the United Kingdom, which implies that a sample of over 50 persons would accurately represent the entire population. In this study, a sample of 55 respondents was selected: 15 persons were purposively selected from the management team while 40 persons were conveniently selected from among the employees in Bristol and Exeter offices. Data was collected from these 55 respondents. The respondents were asked of their age, gender, a position they occupied in the organisation, and the duration for which they had worked at the organisation. The table below scores the respondent’s data.

From the table above, Foot Anstey employees are spread across different demographics defined by age, gender, and experience.

Data Collection

Data collected can be defined as the process through which a researcher obtains information from the study sample. There are various tools a researcher can collect data including observation, questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis among others. In this study, in-depth interviews were used as data collection tools. An interview can be defined as a purposeful discussion between two or more people (Doody and Noonan 2013). The use of interviews can help a researcher gather reliable and valid data that is relevant to the research objectives. There are various types of interviews that a researcher can choose from based on the purpose of the study including structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, and in-depth interviews (Jamshed 2014). The in-depth interviews were used for data collection in this study. These interviews are informal and therefore set a good mood that a researcher can explore an area of interest in details. This type of interview does not require the researcher to have predetermined questions to work through the situation but it is necessary that the researcher clearly understands the aspects of interest (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls and Ormston 2013). During the interviews, the researcher gave interviewees a chance to talk freely about behaviour, beliefs, or events in relations to the topic of change management while the researcher noted down the main points made by the respondents. This allowed the researcher collect rich data, which was essential in analysing the assumptions the respondents held about reality thus contributing to the ontology foundation of the study. To ensure relevant information was collected, the researcher had a list of questions that were used as probes. The choice for the in-depth interviews was influenced by the friendly environment this type of interview is conducted: this implied the respondent was free to give more information, which promoted the value of data collected. During the study, the interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis and on a group basis. With the management team, the researcher opted to hold sessions with single respondents but during the second phase, the researcher grouped the respondents into fours totalling to ten groups that were interviewed. For the one-on-one interviews, every session was scheduled to take 60 minutes but for the group interviews, every session was scheduled 45 minutes so that every respondent would have a chance to give their opinions. Some of the one-on-one interviews were conducted over the phone while others were conducted face-to-face based on the availability and preference of the respondent. In both approaches, the researcher talked on very rare occasions: only when asking a question or guiding the direction a conversation should take, which ensured respondents had ample time to share their opinions.

Data Analysis

The collected data was analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and presented in tables and figures. Through the tables and figures, readers would be able to compare various scores. In analysing qualitative data, the researcher came up with themes. Presentations were then made based on meanings expressed through words. Since the researcher had not begun with a formulated hypothesis, the researcher analysed the collected information to see recurrent themes and issues that he later concentrated on. The grounded theory guided the researcher in developing the themes under which data was analysed. According to Charmaz and Belgrave (2012), the grounded has considerable significance in research as it provides explicit and sequential guidelines for collecting data, extends the nature of data to be collected, and advances the conceptual analysis of qualitative data. This approach helped the researcher construct middle-level theories directly from the data analysis.

Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability

Reliability can be defined as the extent to which the employed data collection materials collect the information they were intended (Leung 2015). During the interviews, the researcher explained the aim of the study to make sure the respondents understood the nature of the information required. Additionally, the researcher used questions to probe the right response. Further, the researcher collected information from employees and managers in order to counter participant bias. Validity focuses on the extent to which the established results are accurate (Trotter II 2012). To promote the validity of the results, the researcher collected data from various persons both employees and managers. This helped consider various viewpoints. Generalizability refers to the extent to which the research findings can be applied to other organisations (O’Brien and Toms 2013). Given that the researcher selected the case study research design, the purpose of this research was to try to explain what was happening in Foot Anstey rather than producing a theory generalizable to all populations.

Ethical issues

Among the ethical considerations in this study were privacy, voluntary nature of participation, participant consent, and confidentiality. In promoting privacy, the researcher ensured any information that could lead to tracing back the source was not a salient feature of the study: in this case, respondent names, titles, and other personal details were not sought. In selecting the study sample, the researcher only included respondents that were willing to participate in the study: the participants were also given the right to withdraw from the study in the process of data collection. A consent form was also developed that the participants were required to fill and submit back to the researcher. This ensures only participants that consented to the study formed part of it. No form of deception was used and the participants were not given any rewards for being part of the study. Additionally, the researcher maintained the confidentiality of the collected data: pseudo codes were assigned to ensure anonymity. Finally, the researcher remained sensitive to the respondents ensuring no one was hurt or stressed having participated in the study.

Conclusion

This chapter sought to elaborate on the researcher’s actions to ensure data relevant to the research objectives was collected. The researcher selected the subjectivist approach, the inductive approach and the case study design. The study was conducted over the cross sectional time horizon. Non-probability sampling techniques were prioritised for this study particularly convenience and purposive sampling. Data were collected from a sample of 55 respondents and analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Among the ethical issues observed were privacy, confidentiality, informed consent, withdrawal at will, and the voluntary nature of participation.

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Presentation

4.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to analyse and present the generated information. Data was collected through in-depth interviews and from 55 respondents. The interview guide was structured into five sections including personal information, change management, nature of the law firms, use of knowledge management systems in legal profession, and implementation of information systems in the company. These sections were intended to help the researcher collect information relevant to the research objectives. This chapter has several subtitles intended to guide the readers through the collected data. These subtitles revolve around the need for implementing new technology in law firms, existence of change resistance in law firms, factors influencing change resistance in law firms, and approaches that can be adopted to promote change acceptance in law firms.

4.2 Personal Information

4.3 Change Management

The change management section of the interview guide had various questions all aimed at exploring the extent to which law firms face change and the response these organisations as well as their employees give. Given the interviews were held with both employees and managers, the questions were asked on the set of respondent that appeared more knowledgeable to answer. For example, managers would be asked of their role in facilitating change but this would not be asked to the employees. This section has 10 questions and the responses obtained are presented and analysed below.

4.3.1 Frequency of change in law firms

This question was asked to both the employees and managers. On a scale of 1 to 4, the respondents were to indicate the extent to which they encountered change in their profession. The figure below summarises the results.

In figure 1 above, 4% indicated that the experience change very often, 38% indicated they experience change often, 56% of the respondents indicated they rarely experience change, while the remaining 2% indicated they do not experience change at all. The researcher was concerned how some of the respondents had not experienced any sort of change in the organisation. In response, the respondent indicated that the legal profession is surrounded by changes but that organisation was active in shielding the employees and therefore as an employee who had been in the organisation for less than a year, this respondent has not experienced any change. Another respondent who was also an employee indicated that changes were there but if the management resist them, then they do not affect employees and as a result, employees experience very few changes or none at all. This was consistent with a statement given by one of the managers who indicated that the organisation is faced with many changes but there are various factors the management has to consider before accepting or resisting change and in most cases, changes are resisted. Therefore, it can be concluded that even if there are many changes around the legal profession, Foot Anstey rarely experience change at the organisation or individual level.

4.3.2 Manager’s Role in facilitating Change

This question was only asked to respondents that held managerial positions in the organisation. After analysing the information collected from the 15 managers, the researcher identified that managers played two roles in facilitating change in the company. First, managers felt responsible for evaluating if there was need for the change and second, managers felt responsible for preparing employees for change. this is consistent to the findings of a study conducted by Bin Taher, Krotov and Silva (2015), which concluded that managers in their power should determine what is good for the organisation and use their power to move employees in that direction. In their first role, one of the respondents indicated that a cost-benefit analysis must be conducted to ensure the change is profitable to the organisation. In this case, if the cost is higher than the benefits, then the managerial team must resist the change but if the benefits outweigh the risks, then the management should implement the change. this concurs with the findings of a study conducted by Laumer and Eckhardt (2012), which established that failure to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when considering implementing a new system could increase the workload of employees, which promotes resistance. Once the change is deemed beneficial to the organisation, then the manager has a role of preparing employees for the change. In preparing employees for change, the researcher identified five actions that managers have to take to ensure employees accept the change. First, the manager should clearly communicate information about the change to the employees. Here, one of the respondents indicated that he had the role of convincing employees the change is beneficial to the organisation in order for the employees to see the need for implementing the change. Second, the respondent indicated he was responsible for demonstrating personal support to implement the change: he said that managers must act as role models for the employees to emulate. Another respondent felt she was responsible for training employees aiming at equipping them with necessary skills while preparing them for change. Further, a manager felt that he was responsible of creating an environment in which the change can be successfully implemented. He said that in such an environment, employees must feel supported to work through the change. Another respondent indicated that he felt responsible for acting as resistance managers. He added that a manager must identify resistance and control it to ensure employees remain committed to the change. the five strategies to preparing employees for change are also detailed by Rivard and Lapointe (2012) who state that these steps helps ensure employees have the required skills and ability to operate a new system and as much more likely to accept change.

4.3.3 Change acceptance in law firms

Both managers and employees were asked how easy it was for them to accept change. The figure below scores the responses.

From figure two, it is evident that 85% of the respondents indicated it is not easy for them to accept change while only 15% indicated it is easy for them to accept change. Given these are the same employees and managers expected to manage change in the organisation; we can conclude that change resistance at Foot Anstey is high. This led to the following question that explored the factors that influenced the respondents to resist change the table below captures the reasons for change resistance.

Table 2 scores the reasons people at Foot Anstey resist change. The first reason is self interest in that they do not want to lose anything of value such as their jobs, power and control, and status they have in the organisation. This concurs to the findings of Venkatesh, Brown and Bala (2013) who posit that at the individual level, employees are likely to resist change based on fear of the results. Second, employees resist change if they are not interested in the new system or lack proper understanding of the new system. This is consistent to the findings of Cram and Brohman (2013) who established that employees may resist change if they lack clear understanding of the system’s role in the organisation. For example, employees may not be sure how to operate the new system, which may result to resistance. The table also shows that employees resist change if they assess the need for the system differently from the way the management perceives it. It is possible for the management to view the system beneficial but the employees on the other hand resist the system on account of the needed skills to operate it (Polites and Karahanna 2012). The table also shows that employees may resist change for the associated efforts in terms of training required.

4.3.4 The Perceived Cost of Switching

The researcher established that the switching cost was the most common reason the organisation and its employees resisted change. The analysis show that Foot Anstey experiences high switching cost in the company context as well as at the individual level. At the organisational level, one of the managers indicated that the company not only has to purchase the new equipment but also pay for the installation cost, train employees on how to handle the new equipment, and in some instances hire new employees with advanced skills. Another manager indicated that the company has to spend in ensuring employees remain committed to implementing the change rest the implementation fails. At the employee level, several costs were outlined including more time and energy required, employees have to acquire new skills, fear of work overload before fully switching, increased stress, reduction in job satisfaction, loss of power and control, and increased job insecurity among others. Therefore, the study results reveal Foot Anstey may experience high switching cost, which hinders change acceptance. This is in agreement with the findings of a study conducted by Besson and Rowe (2012) which found out that if an organisation perceives the change to have a considerably high impact on employees mental and physical capacity, then the change is more likely to be resisted. Also, the study findings concur with those of Li et al. (2016), who posit that if a change call for high employee commitment, then the organisation is less likely to consider the change.

4.3.5 Other factors influencing change resistance

Among the questions the researcher asked was whether the respondents have experienced fear of being excluded from the group for voicing different opinions. Most of the respondents indicated that fear of voicing different opinions is common in that one always want to be like those airing similar opinions. One of the respondents indicated, “I don’t want to be the different one and forever be blamed by colleagues for disrupting their work routine.” Therefore, the respondents indicated that they air their opinions based on the views of the majority. Hence, we can decipher than in-groups are a factor promoting change resistance in Foot Anstey. This concurs with Huczynski, Buchanan and Huczynski (2013) who state that employees are likely to exists as groups, which hinders collective voice to change implementation. The researcher also explored the extent to which employees at Foot Anstey were willing to share their ideas. The respondents indicated that in most instances, employees are hesitant to share ideas especially when they do not want a certain change implemented. One of the respondents indicated, “you just have to conform to the wishes of many and keep personal ideas to self. All the same, it makes no difference sharing your idea when all the others are of contrary opinion. No one listens.” This is consistent to the findings of a study conducted by Zeide and Liebowitz (2012), which revealed that employees in law firms are not willing to share their ideas unless there are incentives and rewards for knowledge sharing. Of the 55 respondents, 37 highlighted that the company does not have defined metrics of measuring the effectiveness of change, which makes it hard for the management to communicate the need for change to employees. This has been established to be a possible cause of user resistance: according to Ashley and Empson (2013), the management must be clear on the benefits of a new system and how it will improve work efficiency for employees in order to win them into the change. Therefore, having defined metrics of measuring the benefits of a change would be essential in helping win employees’ trust in the change. Out of the 55, 23 respondents indicated the company does not have a way of differentiating between those people willing to implement change from those resisting change and in some instances changes are implemented when a good number of the employees struggle with the change, which may result in failure in implementing the change as highlighted by Xu and Quaddus (2012).

4.4 Nature of Change management in Law Firms

Of 55 respondents, 51 indicated that law firms are profitable businesses and as such the sense of change urgency is limited while 4 saw the need of change despite the profitability of the law firms. Additionally, 46 respondents highlighted that successful change depends on dominant personalities/ individuals working in a company while the remaining 9 indicated everyone in a company has a role to play in change management. The respondents who believed that change implementation was dependent on dominant personalities in the organisation were expected to list some of these persons. Among the identified persons were leaders, supervisors, head of departments, managers, and all senior staff. The respondents indicated that these individuals have power and authority and therefore if they believed in the change, they had the power to ensure it was successfully implemented in the organisation. From this perspective, we can conclude that leaders have a significant role in facilitating successful change implementation, which concurs with the findings of a study conducted by Zouine and Fenies (2014). Out of the 55 respondents, 29 indicated that change is imposed to particular departments without receiving compliance from employees while 26 refuted this statement. This implies that there are some aspects of coercive leadership in Foot Anstey. Those that agreed that to the statement highlighted that such departments have been able to manage change as compared to other departments in the organisation, which implies that coercive leadership could be effective at promoting change acceptance. This is in line with the findings of a study conducted by Shidane (2017), which terms coercive leadership as a tool of overcoming change resistance. Most of the respondents (51) indicated here is no mutual trust between the lawyers as the sector demands high competitiveness (billable hours targets, promotions / partnering based on delivered profit) while 4 said no to this statement. This finding proves there is a culture of individual practices in law firms as posited by Friedman (2017). From the scores in this section, it is evident that professionals in legal firms do not see the need for change as they already perceive legal firms to be profitable. Second, it is evident that leadership is essential in successful change management in legal firms. This is consistent to the findings of a study conducted by Ionescu, Meruţă and Dragomiroiu (2014), which revealed that leaders have various roles to play in change management, which eventually determines employees’ behaviour: either resistance or acceptance to the change. Third, it is evident that imposing change on employees in the legal sector could help promote change acceptance, which underscores the need for bureaucratic leadership in legal firms. According to Shidane (2017), coercive leadership is an approach to overcoming change resistance, which implies imposing change on employees could be essential in information system implementation. The study results also show that there is little diversity in legal firms, which makes change management very difficult. When employees share similar ideas, it is difficult for others to voice different opinions, which implies there is no one to challenge lawyers on the need for change. Consistently, Zeide and Liebowitz (2012) state that lawyers are resistant to cultural change and have cultivated an individualistic culture, which may hinder change acceptance. Finally, the study results reveal that there is no mutual trust between lawyers as each seeks to build his/her personal profile in an attempt of remaining competitive. This implies that lawyers would see no need for IT systems that would bring the need for knowledge sharing. This is consistent to the findings of Zeide, E. and Liebowitz (2012) who state that knowledge management systems in law firms could be hard to implement unless there are attached rewards.

4.5 Knowledge Management Systems

In this section, the researcher was interested in exploring the need for knowledge management systems in legal firms as well as their acceptance. The findings are scored below.

4.5.1 The need of nurturing a culture of knowledge sharing

From the figure above, 93% of the participants indicated they saw no need of creating a culture of knowledge sharing while only 7% saw the need of nurturing a knowledge sharing culture. Therefore, we can conclude that employees at Foot Anstey law firm do not see the need of creating and nurturing a culture of knowledge sharing. This is consistent with the findings of a study conducted by Friedman (2017), which revealed that lawyers are guided by a culture of individual practises: such a culture is among the factors law firms resits adoption of knowledge management systems.

4.5.2 Benefits of using knowledge management systems

In this question, 50 respondents indicated they did not see the benefits of using knowledge management systems in the firm while 5 respondents indicated that use of knowledge management systems could be beneficial to the firm. One of the managers who spoke in favour of knowledge management systems indicated that if employees in legal firms could embrace use of knowledge management systems, skills could be easily transferred from one person to the other, which would help hone the skills of each employee in the firm. As a result, every lawyer in the firm could be productive, which would increase organisational performance of the firm helping it realise a competitive advantage. On the other hand, an employee speaking against use of knowledge management systems in legal firms said they would require one to have new skills, use more time feeding data, and disrupt the normal work routine. Additionally, the employee indicated that his hard-earned skills would just be accessed by colleagues, which would increase the level of competition in the firm and as a result he could end up losing his clients. From his perspective, the respondent indicated use of knowledge management system could lower his income thus not beneficial to him in any way. With over 90% of the respondents speaking against the use of knowledge management systems in law firm, we can conclude that employees at Foot Anstey do not perceive knowledge management systems beneficial to their firm. This concurs with the findings of Hogan and Coote (2014) who write that lawyers are paid based on their special skills, thus knowledge sharing could do more harm than build their profiles.

4.5.3 Frequency of coaching

Here, the researcher asked respondents how often they coached others and how long every session lasted. The researcher was also interested in establishing whether the study participants enjoyed coaching their colleagues. Most of the respondents (more than 80%) indicated they do not coach their colleagues unless very close friends who they give advice in cases they could be struggling with. Most of the respondents (over 90%) indicated that even if they were to coach their colleagues, they have tight schedules that limit the time spent in coaching: most of their time is spent with clients. Further, the study participants indicated they do not enjoy coaching as they have to share their skills, which markets them: to the lawyers, sharing your skills is lowering your demand in the job market. Another respondent indicated that she does not enjoy coaching as she is paid based on the number of hours spent with clients: coaching robs this time thus lowering income levels. From this information, we can conclude that coaching is not frequently in Foot Anstey and employees do not enjoy coaching each other.

4.5.4 Rewarding knowledge sharing activities

All the respondents indicated that knowledge sharing activities are not rewarded in Foot Anstey, which implies that the organisation does not have a way of appreciating its employees for sharing knowledge. One of the respondents indicated that the only reward she ever received was from her friend whom she had been offering private lessons but the organisation did nothing to reward her. This respondent indicated that failure of rewarding employee for sharing their skills with colleagues discourages knowledge sharing in the firm and limits knowledge sharing among employees with close relations only influenced by friendship bonds. Therefore, we can infer that failure of Foot Anstey to reward its employees for sharing knowledge is a major factor that discourages knowledge sharing in the firm. This is in support of the findings of a study conducted by Zeide and Liebowitz (2012), which established that recognition and reward systems for encouraging knowledge sharing in law firms help build and nurture a knowledge sharing culture.

4.6 Information Systems User Resistance

This section explored the reasons the study participants resisted implementation of information systems. The researcher categorised the reasons into three: system factors, organisation factors, and individual factors. The study results are presented below.

4.6.1 Types of user resistance

From the above table, the reasons employees at Foot Anstey resist implementation of information systems can be categorised into system factors, organisational factors, and individual factors. This is in line with the findings of a study conducted by Offord, Gill and Kendal (2016) and those of do Canto Cavalheiro and Joia 2013. System factors are comprised of the features of a system that make employees and the organisation willing to use it or not; for example, the easiness of operating the system, compatibility with existing systems, and the physical appearance of the system (Polites and Karahanna 2012). Organisational factors are related to the organisation’s perception of the system and its credibility (Rivard and Lapointe 2012). The individual factors are based on the perception of the employees on how the system will disrupt their work routine and whether the system will make their work easier or harder (Volkoff and Strong 2013). Even if system, organisation, and individual factors influenced IS user resistance at Foot Anstey, the respondents indicated that individual factors are the most significant in hindering IS implementation.

4.6.2 User Resistance Behaviour

Having established that employees are Foot Anstey resist implementation of information systems, the researcher was interested in exploring the behaviours that employees posit to show they are not interested in the change. The table below summarises the responses.

From the above table, the study participants indicated they can resist change is a non-destructive way, in a proactive way, and in a passive way. In the non-destructive way, employees avoid contact with the new system and may request job transfer, quit the job, and display high absenteeism rates. According to Shang and Su (2004), employees are more likely to display non-destructive behaviour in system resistance when the system is perceived to burden them. Proactively, employees resist change by openly destroying the system through deliberate mistakes. Passively, employees are likely to resist implementation of information systems by silently failing to comply with the requirements. For example, employees might be reluctant to attend training sessions.

4.6.3 Strategies to promoting user acceptance

The study participants indicated that the management team and organisational leaders are at the core of ensuring successful IT systems implementation. The table below summarises the leadership styles and strategies the respondent felt could be effective at promoting IT systems implementation at Foot Anstey.

Foot Anstey uses the participative management style and some of the respondents indicated it could be among the factors promoting change resistance in that employees feel they have the same authority as their leaders. Such respondents indicated that a shift to directive or coercive leadership would promote change acceptance, in that such a leadership approach would give the leader more authority to oversee change implementation. This is consistent to the findings of a study conducted by Shidane (2017), which established that coercive leadership leaves employees no choice but to comply with the managers’ guidance. However, other respondents indicated that participative leadership would also be effective in that it would involve employees in development of the system, which implies the needs of employees would be considered. From such respondents, such a system would have desirable features and be user-friendly, which would promote employee commitment to change. Therefore, we can conclude that mixing leadership and managerial styles would help in promoting change acceptance in Foot Anstey.

Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to present and analyse the data collected from the study respondents. The chapter has established that change management is challenging in law firms given the individual practices culture in this industry. The chapter has also established that implementation of knowledge management systems is more likely to fail in law firms given that special skills make lawyers more marketable. Additionally, the chapter finds out that system factors, organisational factors, and individual factors influence change resistance. System factors have to do with compatibility of the system with the existing systems, organisational factors are mostly associated with the cost of switching while individual factors have to do with employees’ perception of the change and the effect it will have on the work routine. The chapter finds out that employees at Foot Anstey are more resistant to change, which implies it is challenging to successfully management implementation of IS and knowledge management systems.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

The study extends our understanding of user resistance to successful implementation of information systems in law firms. The findings indicate that law firms experience high level of resistance when it comes to implementation of information systems and knowledge management systems. The culture of individual practices that govern practitioners in the legal profession is the greatest factor contributing to failure of knowledge management systems. The study also establishes that lawyers work with a tight schedule and most of their time is spent with clients, which also hinders adoption of knowledge sharing systems. Additionally, the analysis shows that resistance to information systems is influenced by system factors, organizational factors, and individual factors. System factors incorporate the features of the system at hand as well as its compatibility with other systems in the organisations. At the organisation level, implementation of information systems is resisted based on the coat of shifting as well as the perceived benefits of the system to the organisation. At the individual level, IS resistance is influenced by personal perception of the system as well as the efforts employees need in order to successfully operate the new system. Though system, organizational, and individual factors influence IS resistance at Foot Anstey, the analysis indicates user resistance is the most influential factor. The analysis also identified three resistance behaviours including non-destructive behaviour, proactive destruction, and passive destruction. In non-destruction resistance, employees eliminate contact with the new system and may take actions as seeking job transfer, quitting the job, and been highly absent. In proactive destruction, employees resist change by directly damaging the new system while in passive resistance, employees resist change by passively damaging the process of the new system. The study also investigated strategies to overcoming IS resistance in law firms. The analysis shows that leadership is at the core of successful change management. Here, directive and coercive are established the most effective forms of leadership when it comes to successful management of change. The results also indicate a leader has five roles in preparing employees for change. First, the leader should clearly communicate the change; second, the leader should demonstrate personal support towards the change; third, leaders should train employees to equip them with necessary skills of operating the new system; fourth, leaders should create an environment in which the change can be successfully implemented; and fifth, leaders should manage resistance to ensure all employees accept the change.

Practical Implications

The study suggests that law firms should reward lawyers that are active at sharing knowledge in order to promote acceptance of knowledge management systems. Additionally, the study suggests that law firms should drop the participative leadership style as it empowers employees to resist change. Instead, law firms should adopt coercive and directive leadership in order to promote change acceptance. Further, law firms should seek to clearly communicate the desired change to employees and support employees through the change in order to limit change resistance. Finally, law firms should conduct intensive training on all employees in order to equip them with the desirable skills in managing a new system: this will change employees perception of the burden associated with implementation of information systems.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has some methodological constraints that could be addressed in future research. First, the study adopted the case study design, which limits the generalizability of the findings. This implies that the study findings cannot be applied to all organisations, which underscores the need for future researchers to conduct a similar study using other research strategies that promote generalizability. Second, data was collected from managers and employees but the study does not clearly structure the analysis in terms of the respondent. As a result, it is difficult to determine the factors that hinder IS implementation from the perspective of employees and from the managers perspectives. This justifies the need for future researchers to conduct independent studies on employees and managers. Third, the study was conducted with a sample of 55 respondents. Given the large number of employees in the legal profession in UK, the sample is not a fair representative of all law firms, which limits the generalizability of the results even across UK law firms. This underscores the need for future researchers to conduct a similar study with a more representative sample. The study results support the argument that the culture of individual practices in law firms hinders successful implementation of knowledge management systems. As such, the study encourages future researchers of related topics to use this perspective in considering other factors and variables of user resistance.

Recommendations

1. Law firms should reward lawyers that are active at sharing knowledge in order to promote acceptance of knowledge management systems.

This action should be implemented by the human resource departments in law firms. For the implementation to be successful, the management needs to communicate the need for this change and welcome suggestions from the lawyers on the rewards that would be valuable to appreciate those that are active at sharing knowledge. This would ensure that lawyers attach value to the rewards and as such be more willing to share knowledge (Reeve 2013). This implementation would cost the organisation some money that would be used to purchase the rewards in case employees prefer rewards of monetary value. Additionally, the implementation would cost the human resource department time when designing the rating system. In case the organisation chooses to use external professionals in designing the rating system, the outsourcing cost would be incurred.

2. Law firms should drop the participative leadership style as it empowers employees to resist change.

Instead of the participative leadership, law firms should adopt coercive and directive leadership as they are associated with higher likelihood of change acceptance (Shidane 2017). This recommendation should be implemented at the management level. For effective implementation, the organisation needs to plan a training session for leaders aimed helping them understand the concepts of directive and coercive leadership and their roles in these types of leadership. It would be more beneficial if the organisation outsourced trainers as these leadership styles are new in the organisation. This implies that the organisation have to meet the cost of hiring trainers. Other expenses would be refreshments that would be provided to the leaders during the training session.

3. Law firms should seek to clearly communicate the desired change to employees and support employees through the change in order to limit change resistance.

Clear communication should be a responsibility for everyone in any organisation (Goetsch and Davis 2014). This implies that law firms should seek to equip all their employees from the line managers to their subordinates with effective communication skills. Therefore, Foot Anstey among other law firms should hold communication skills trainings for their employees. For this to be effective, the first session should aim at equipping managers and other executives with communication skills and in the second session, ordinary employees should be addressed. This structuring would ensure that both managers and employees are free to attend the training sessions and willing to share their experiences. For the executive managers, the organisation must outsource trainers and thus incur the outsourcing cost. For the employees, the organisation could use the trained managers or outsource trainers, whichever will be deemed more effective.

4. Law firms should conduct intensive training on all employees in order to equip them with the desirable skills in managing a new system

Negative employee attitudes towards implementation of IS is among the leading causes of user resistance (Michel Todnem and Burnes 2013). Therefore, proper and intensive training would be effective at changing employees perception of the burden associated with implementation of information systems. This recommendation should be implemented by the management. Once any change is to be implemented, the management should survey the employees in order to establish their ability of operating the new system. This should be followed by intensive training aimed at bridging the identified gaps in skills. The implementation cost involves outsourcing trainers as well as outsourcing personnel to guide the employees in operating new systems before they can competently operate new systems on their own. The organisation would also have to conduct performance reviews and keep mapping employees’ progress in using new systems until the workers are competent and confident in operating the new systems.

Personal Reflection

Initially, I was eager to complete the dissertation but worried if I would meet the word count requirement at the same time. I knew I had to choose a very interesting topic so I could remain motivated throughout the study. I was also afraid of having irrelevant content in an attempt of meeting the word count. After completing the introduction chapter, I found out there is extensive literature of change management and management of information systems, which helped me remain positive I would successfully complete the dissertation. From the studies I referred to in the introduction chapter, I gained a better understanding of the research problem and was able to define the research objectives. This made work easier for me as I knew the other chapters would be informed by these objectives. After the literature reviews chapter, I was more confident and I established that the legal profession has a culture of individual practices, which hinders adoption of knowledge management systems. I also established that lawyers are busy professionals and many IS are perceived a burden, which promotes resistance. Additionally, I established that leadership p-lays an effective role in successful change management. With these insights, I was ready to step out to the field to find out if this was true to Foot Anstey workers and managers. Selection of study participants was not challenging but data collection was. Most of the respondents have busy schedules with their clients and I had to keep adjusting my interview schedule in order for them to fit in. I had planned that every interview session would last 30 minutes but this was too much time for some of the respondents and I just had to collect information as time would allow them to give. Here, I learnt that it is essential to be flexible when conducting research studies. Initially I had purposed to analyse data using descriptive analysis but with the nature of data I collected, thematic analysis was essential. I therefore used the grounded theory to establish the patterns I would analyse data in. even though effective, I learnt that in-depth interviews could lead to collection of some irrelevant data, which makes analysis difficult and lengthy. Thus, in future I would prioritise semi-structure and structured interviews in case I opt use of interviews in data collection. Overall, I learnt it is important to be knowledgeable on what you want as a researcher to ensure only relevant data is collected. This was, research studies are more likely to generate data relevant to the study objectives.

References

AF Ragab, M. and Arisha, A., 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), pp.873-901.

Ahmad, M.M. and Cuenca, R.P., 2013. Critical success factors for ERP implementation in SMEs. Robotics and computer-integrated manufacturing, 29(3), pp.104-111.

Akhavan, P., Jafari, M. and Fathian, M., 2012. Exploring the failure factors of implementing a knowledge management system in the organizations.

Ali, M., Zhou, L., Miller, L. and Ieromonachou, P., 2016. User resistance in IT: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 36(1), pp.35-43.

Anderson, S. and Bluhm, M., Anderson Steven B. and Bluhm Mark A., 2005. Systems, methods, software and interfaces for integration of case law with legal briefs, litigation documents, and/or other litigation-support documents. U.S. Patent Application 11/028,465.

Aram, J.D. and Salipante Jr, P.F., 2003. Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management, 14(3), pp.189-205.

Ashenfelter, O., Bloom, D.E. and Dahl, G.B., 2013. Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(3), pp.399-423.

Bambang Purwoko, K.B., Simatupang, T.M., Utomo, S.P. & Hermawan, P. 2015, "Actors’ interaction in the ERP implementation literature", Business Process Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 222-249.

Battistelli, A., Montani, F. and Odoardi, C., 2013. The impact of feedback from job and task autonomy in the relationship between dispositional resistance to change and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), pp.26-41.

Bouchlaghem, D. and Erdogan, B., 2012. Change management framework: Bilge Erdogan, Dino Bouchlaghem and Yasemin Nielsen. In Collaborative Working in Construction (pp. 170-183). Routledge.

Carter, M.Z., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Mossholder, K.W., 2013. Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), pp.942-958.

Cram, W.A., Brohman, M.K. and Gallupe, R.B., 2014. Addressing the control challenges of the enterprise architecture process. Journal of Information Systems, 29(2), pp.161-182.

Dang, Y.M., Zhang, Y.G. & Morgan, J. 2017, "Integrating switching costs to information systems adoption: An empirical study on learning management systems", Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 625-644.

do Canto Cavalheiro, G.M. and Joia, L.A., 2013, September. Examining Sources of Resistance to the Implementation of a Patent Management System in a Developing Country: Evidence from a Case Study of the Brazilian Patent Office. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 262-273). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Garg, P. & Garg, A. 2013, "An empirical study on critical failure factors for enterprise resource planning implementation in Indian retail sector", Business Process Management Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 496-514.

Gopal, A. and Gosain, S., 2010. Research note—The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development outsourcing: Implications for project performance. Information Systems Research, 21(4), pp.960-982.

Hancock, D.R. and Algozzine, B., 2016. Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. Teachers College Press.

Hoch, J.E. and Dulebohn, J.H., 2013. Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), pp.114-125.

Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y. and Zuiderwijk, A., 2012. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4), pp.258-268.

Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. and Van der Voet, J., 2014. The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public administration, 92(1), pp.1-20.

Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A. & Weitzel, T. 2016, "Work routines as an object of resistance during information systems implementations: theoretical foundation and empirical evidence", European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 317-343.

Li, J., Liu, M. and Liu, X., 2016. Why do employees resist knowledge management systems? An empirical study from the status quo bias and inertia perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, pp.189-200.

Liu, S., 2017. Globalization as boundary-blurring: international and local law firms in China’s corporate law market. In Law and the Market Economy in China (pp. 231-264). Routledge.

McGinnis, J.O. and Pearce, R.G., 2013. The great disruption: How machine intelligence will transform the role of lawyers in the delivery of legal services. Fordham L. Rev., 82, p.3041.

Nov, O. and Schecter, W., 2012. Dispositional resistance to change and hospital physicians' use of electronic medical records: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), pp.648-656.

Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M. and Snape, D., 2014. The foundations of qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2, pp.52-55.

Pietersea, J. and Ulijnb, J., Understanding the relation between professional discourse and organizational change: A discourse study into the influence of poly-vocality on the effectiveness of organizational change in three Dutch organizations.

Rivard, S. and Lapointe, L., 2012. Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects. MIS quarterly, pp.897-920.

Shao, Z., Feng, Y. & Hu, Q. 2016, "Effectiveness of top management support in enterprise systems success: a contingency perspective of fit between leadership style and system life-cycle", European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 131-153.

Slovak, M.B. and Stehr, K.R., LEXISNEXIS A DIV OF REED ELSEVIER Inc, 2017. Computerized system and method for creating aggregate profile reports regarding litigants, attorneys, law firms, judges, and cases by type and by court from court docket records. U.S. Patent 9,734,241.

Turel, O., 2015. Quitting the use of a habituated hedonic information system: a theoretical model and empirical examination of Facebook users. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(4), pp.431-446.

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A. and Bala, H., 2013. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 37(1).

Zouine, A. & Fenies, P. 2014, "The Critical Success Factors Of The ERP System Project: A Meta-Analysis Methodology", Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1407-n/a.