Legitimacy and Novel Technology Adoption
By Will Brown — 11/03/2024
The world of industry is defined by constant change. Whilst technological advancement is ongoing, seemingly inevitable changes in adopted practices and technological capacities run the risk of alienating those who have invested their livelihoods in certain trades, working practices or areas of knowledge. Therefore, the ‘right’ technology to adopt is contingent upon who is asking the question. One way to take into account the various and often competing points of view is to consider the legitimacy of utilising a new technology. This post will look into the multi-faceted concept of legitimacy and its relation to the adoption of novel technology.
The Cambridge University dictionary defines legitimacy as “the quality of being reasonable and acceptable”.1 Yet, this is vague. What is reasonable and acceptable? To which standards are they held to? Also, according to whom is something reasonable and acceptable? Thankfully, Mark C Schuman, author of Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, an article cited over 23,000 times, has defined legitimacy as
a generalised perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.2
Here we can observe some key elements of legitimacy. Firstly, there is a dichotomy between the ‘actions of an entity’ and, in essence, an audience observing it, thereby determining whether it is legitimate or not. There is also an emphasis upon the norms, values, beliefs, and definitions of a social system — but what constitutes these beliefs, etc? According to Suchman, there are three ‘primary forms’ of legitimacy: pragmatic, moral and cognitive. These are the lenses through which legitimacy, or indeed otherwise, is assessed.
Pragmatic legitimacy is grounded in the idea that something is legitimate because it is in my best interests. This can be in terms of exchange (I will gain from this), influence (this serves my best interests) or disposition (I agree with the values of this). Whilst the pragmatic adopts a cost benefit perspective of legitimacy, the moral form concerns what is ‘right’. This could be by focusing on the consequential (the ‘end goals’), the procedural (the ‘means’), the structural (the structure of the organisation/object is legitimate) or the personal (the personal qualities of someone/organisation makes it legitimate) elements. Finally there is the cognitive form of legitimacy, which corresponds to the individual perceptions of what is legitimate. This could be in relation to that which is taken-for-granted (legitimate because it is well established or inevitable) or comprehensible (legitimate because I understand it).
Let’s apply these three forms to a hypothetical adoption of a novel technology, in this case machine learning to streamline an administrative process. Machine learning has the potential to significantly increase the efficiency of tasks associated with the sorting and application of data, such as administration, but has significant moral implications, including alienation from work and job loss. However, whilst a simple dichotomy of efficiency and morality plays out on the surface, by adopting a ‘legitimacy lens’, we can take a more nuanced perspective of how this technology could impact a business. This is demonstrated in the table below.
Here we can see in this scenario that there are different elements to consider for each form of legitimacy. However this understanding of legitimacy is somewhat limited, for whilst Schuman’s observations concerning legitimacy are influential, as discussed above, he only approached legitimacy as if it is a ‘property’ of an organisation or object.
Building out from Schuman’s observations, Roy Suddaby et al3 argue that there are three different ways to view legitimacy: as a property, as a process or as a perspective. Legitimacy as a property is demonstrated above, with something being legitimate because it will either benefit me, it is the right thing to do (according to my values or the values of an organisation) or because it is understood to be so, either because it is something we have always done or because I/we can understand it. Yet, how are these properties formed? According to Suddaby et al there are two ways this could occur.
Either through a process of defining legitimacy through social means (a group determines what is legitimate through the discussions within it) or by the weight of individual perspectives combining to produce a conceptualisation of what is legitimate. It must be said however, that these three views of legitimacy should not be viewed as competing claims or as distinct entities, rather, they are different means of ascertaining what is legitimate. Therefore, objects do have legitimate properties, these properties are determined through a social process identifying what is pragmatically, morally or cognitively legitimate and this process is produced by individual perceptions of whether something is legitimate or not.
This observation calls back to a key element of understanding legitimacy — the fact that there is a dialogue between the ‘thing’ and an audience who deem whether that ‘thing’ is legitimate or otherwise. To this end, legitimacy is negotiated. This occurs in three stages:4 the generation of the object/thing of legitimacy, the reaction of the audience to it, and a further generation which has taken this into account. Therefore, for the adoption of machine learning to be viewed as legitimate, the ‘audience’ must deem it to be so. The question, therefore, is who are the audience? This is essential to understand, for technologies have different forms of legitimacy depending upon who is in the audience. For example, a rapper can legitimate the use of a private jet along the lines of ease of movement or enhancing their personal brand (through displays of ostentatious wealth in their music videos), but someone with environmental concerns could deem it as highly illegitimate — owing to the significant carbon emissions emanating from its use.
Therefore, to pursue the ‘legitimate’ adoption of a novel technology, it is of use to consider three elements. Firstly, to gain support from the audience, clarity in the rationale underpinning the adoption of that technology is key, for if the reasons behind it are not clear, the audience cannot deem it to be legitimate or otherwise. This follows into the second element: it is of importance to understand who is in the audience — this is how the implementation or adoption of a novel technology is deemed to be a legitimate course of action. Finally, consider the process of ‘negotiation’ between the legitimising object/thing and the audience. How will their perspectives be accounted for and allied? For ‘people led digitalisation’ to occur, a consideration of these three elements, along with the three forms of legitimacy (pragmatic, moral and cognitive) and how they are viewed (product, process and perspective) need to be accounted for.
Ultimately, legitimacy is a useful concept to deploy when holistically thinking about the implementation of novel technologies, serving as a means of surfacing various levels of support and apprehension across not just the technological aspects, but how this technology will be embedded within the organisation and those who comprise it.
By Dr Will Brown
Formerly of the Centre for People Led Digitalisation
University of Cambridge
References:
- Cambridge University Dictionary, 2023., Legitimacy Definition [online] Available at <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legitimacy+definition&ia=definition> [Accessed 01/08/2023]
- Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp.571–610.
- Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A. and Haack, P., 2017. Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), pp.451–478.
- Beelitz, A. and Merkl-Davies, D.M., 2012. Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy:‘CEO-speak’ after an incident in a German nuclear power plant. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, pp.101–120.
