Designing Teams for Enhancing Individual Added-Value Use of Technology

  • Stefano Basaglia
  • Leonardo Caporarello
  • Massimo Magni
  • Ferdinando Pennarola
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the team contextual characteristics that may support or hinder individuals’ exploration of a new technology. By adopting a multi-level framework we show how team-level and individual-level attributes influences individual exploratory behaviors. Moreover, we show how team level and individual characteristics interact in shaping individual exploration. Our paper offers directions for future research and insights for managers supporting them to design teams that are going to adopt a new system.

Keywords

Team Technology introduction Added value use 

References

  1. 1.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ross, J. W., & Weill, P. (2002). Six IT decisions your IT people shouldn’t make. Harvard Business Review, 80(11), 84–91.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. (1999). Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 23(3), 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future from the past (pp. 85–104). Cincinnati: Pinnaflex Educational Resources.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciborra, C. U. (1991). From thinking to tinkering: The grassroots of strategic information systems. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Information Systems, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahuja, M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burton-Jones, A., & Straub, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. T. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burton-Jones, A., & Gallivan, M. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 657–679.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 289–297.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cooper, R. B. (2000). Information technology development creativity: A case study of attempate radical change. MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bem, D., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gill, S., Stockard, J., Johnson, M., & William, S. (1987). Measuring gender differences: The expressive dimension and critique of androgyny scales. Sex Roles, 17, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharit, J., & Czaja, S. J. (1994). Ageing, computer-based task performance, and stress: Issues and challenges. Ergonomics, 37(4), 559–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith, K. G., Collins, J. C., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41–58.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005). Location-level links between diversity and innovation climate depend on national power distance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1171–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 572–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mroczek, D. K., & Almeida, D. M. (2004). The effect of daily stress, personality, and age on daily negative affect. Journal of Personality, 72, 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bozionelos, N. (1996). Psychology of computer use: Prevalence of computer anxiety in British managers and professionals. Psychological Reports, 78, 995–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of E-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(8), 1–30.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahuja, M. (2002). Information technology and the gender factor. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2007). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 395–406.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hofmann, D. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53, 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Basaglia
    • 1
  • Leonardo Caporarello
    • 2
  • Massimo Magni
    • 2
  • Ferdinando Pennarola
    • 2
  1. 1.Bergamo UniversityBergamoItaly
  2. 2.Bocconi UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations