User Personality and Resistance to Mandatory Information Systems in Organizations: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Test of Dispositional Resistance to Change
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2016
User Personality and Resistance to Mandatory Information Systems in Organizations: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Test of Dispositional Resistance to Change
This research is driven by the assumption made in several user resistance studies that employees are generally resistant to change. It investigates the extent to which employees' resistance to IT-induced change is caused by individuals' predisposition to resist change. We develop a model of user resistance that assumes the influence of dispositional resistance to change on perceptual resistance to change, perceived ease of use, and usefulness, which in turn influence user resistance behavior. Using an empirical study of 106 HR employees forced to use a new human resources information system, the analysis reveals that 17.0–22.1 percent of the variance in perceived ease of use, usefulness, and perceptual resistance to change can be explained by the dispositional inclination to change initiatives. The four dimensions of dispositional resistance to change – routine seeking, emotional reaction, short-term focus and cognitive rigidity – have an even stronger effect than other common individual variables, such as age, gender, or working experiences. We conclude that dispositional resistance to change is an example of an individual difference that is instrumental in explaining a large proportion of the variance in beliefs about and user resistance to mandatory IS in organizations, which has implications for theory, practice, and future research.
AgarwalR., and PrasadJ. (1999). Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technology?Decision Sciences30(2): 361–391.
2.
AjzenI. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A theory of planned behavior, in KuhlJ., and BeckmannJ. (eds.) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior B2 – Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, New York: Springer.
3.
AllportG.W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
4.
BagozziR.P. (1979). The Role of Measurement in Theory Construction and Hypothesis Testing: Toward a holistic model, in FerrellO.C., BrownS. W., and LambC. W.Jr. (eds.) Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
5.
BagozziR.P., and YiY. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
6.
BhattacherjeeA., and HikmetN. (2007). Physicians' Resistance Toward Healthcare Information Technology: A theoretical model and empirical test, European Journal of Information Systems16(6): 725–737.
7.
BrownS.A., MasseyA.P., Montoya-WeissM.M., and BurkmanJ.R. (2002). Do I Really Have To? User Acceptance of Mandated Technology, European Journal of Information Systems11(4): 283–295.
8.
BudnerS.N.Y. (1962). Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable, Journal of Personality.30(1): 29–50.
9.
CampellD.T., and FiskeD.W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin56(2): 81–105.
10.
CarminesE.G., and ZellerR.A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
11.
CenfetelliR.T. (2004). Inhibitors and Enablers as Dual Factor Concepts in Technology Usage, Journal of the Association for Information Systems5(11): Article 3.
12.
ChinW.W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling, MIS Quarterly22(1): vii.
13.
ChinW.W. (2000). Frequently asked questions – partial least squares and PLS- Graph.
14.
ChinW.W., and NewstedP.R. (1999). Structural Equation Modelling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares, in HoyleR.H. (ed.) Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research B2 – Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 307–341.
15.
ChinW.W., and GopalA. (1995). Adoption Intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs, ACM Sigmis Database26(2-3): 42–64.
16.
ChinW.W., ThatcherJ.B., and WrightR.T. (2012). Assessing Common Method Bias: Problems with the ULMC technique, MIS Quarterly36(3): 1003–A11.
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
18.
CohenJ. (1992). A Power Primer, Psychological Bulletin112(1): 155.
19.
DavisF.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
20.
DavisF.D., BagozziR.P., and WarshawP.R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1, Journal of Applied Social Psychology22(14): 1111–1132.
21.
DevarajS., EasleyR.F., and CrantJ.M. (2008). How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use, Information Systems Research19(1): 93–105.
22.
DicksonG.W., and SimmonsJ.K. (1970). The Behavioural Side of MIS: Some aspects of the ‘people problem’, Business Horizons13(4): 59–71.
23.
EckhardtA., LaumerS., MaierC., and WeitzelT. (2014). The Transformation of People, Processes, and IT in E-Recruiting: Insights from an Eight-year Case Study of a German Media Corporation, Employee Relations36(4): 415–431.
24.
EckhardtA., LaumerS., MaierC., and WeitzelT. (2015). The effect of personality on IT personnel's job-related attitudes: Establishing a dispositional model of turnover intention across IT job types. Journal of Information Technology(JIT), Advanced Online Publication, 16 December 2014, doi: 10.1057/jit.2014.27.
25.
EdwardsJ.R. (2001). Multidimensional Constructs in Organizational Behavior Research: An integrative analytical framework, Organizational Research Methods4(2): 144–192.
26.
FerneleyE.H., and SobreperezP. (2006). Resist, Comply or Workaround? An Examination of Different Facets of User Engagement with Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems.15(4): 345–356.
27.
FishbeinM., and AjzenI. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
28.
FornellC., and LarckerD.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and statistics, Journal of Marketing Research18(3): 39–50.
29.
GallivanM.J. (2001). Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and application of a new framework, ACM SIGMIS Database32(3): 51–85.
30.
GallivanM.J. (2003). Examining Gender Differences in IT Professionals' Perceptions of Job Stress in Response to Technological Change. in Proceedings of the 2003 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 10–23.
31.
GaurA.S., and GaurS.S. (2006). Statistical Methods for Practice and Research: A guide to data analysis using SPSS, New Delhi: Response Books.
32.
HenselerJ., RingleC.M., and SinkovicsR.R. (2009). The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in international marketing20: 277–319.
33.
HirschheimR. (2007). Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Quo Vadis Tam – Issues and Reflections on Technology Acceptance Research, Journal of the Association for Information Systems.8(4): 9.
34.
HirschheimR., and NewmanM. (1988). Information systems and user resistance: Theory and practice, The Computer Journal31(5): 398–408.
35.
HullandJ. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management research: A review of four recent studies, Strategic Management Journal20(2): 195–204.
36.
JohnsG. (1998). Aggregation or Aggravation? The relative merits of a broad withdrawal construct, Journal of Organizational Behavior19(5): 453–462.
37.
JunglasI.A., JohnsonN.A., and SpitzmullerC. (2008). Personality Traits and Concern for Privacy: An empirical study in the context of location-based services, European Journal of Information Systems17(4): 387–402.
38.
KelleyK., and PreacherK.J. (2012). On effect size, Psychological Methods17(2): 137.
39.
KimH.-W., and KankanhalliA. (2009). Investigating User Resistance to Information Systems Implementation: A status quo bias perspective, MIS Quarterly33(3): 567–582.
40.
KlausT., WingreenS.C., and BlantonJ.E. (2010). Resistant Groups in Enterprise System Implementations: A Q-methodology examination, Journal of Information Technology25(1): 91–106.
41.
LapointeL., and RivardS. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation, MIS Quarterly29(3): 461–491.
42.
LangS., LaumerS., MaierC., and EckhardtA. (2011). Drivers, Challenges and Consequences of E-Recruiting – A Literature Review. in Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference, San Antonio (TX).
43.
LaumerS., MaierC., and EckhardtA. (2010). Why do They Resist? – An Empiric nformation Systems. in Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information System (ECIS), Pretoria, South Africa.
44.
LaumerS., and EckhardtA. (2012). Why Do People Reject Technologies: A review of user resistance theories, in DwivediY. K., WadeM. R., and SchnebergerS. L. (eds.) Information Systems Theory, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 63–86.
45.
LaumerS., EckhardtA., and WeitzelT. (2010). Electronic Human Resources Management in an E-Business Environment, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research (JECR)11(4): 240–250.
46.
LaumerS., and EckhardtA. (2012). Why Do People Reject Technologies: A Review of User Resistance Theories, in DwivediY. K., WadeM. R., and SchnebergerS. L. (eds.), Information Systems Theory, New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 63–86.
47.
LaumerS., MaierC., and EckhardtA. (2015). The Impact of Business Process Management and Applicant Tracking Systems on Recruiting Process Performance: An empirical study. Journal of Business Economics (JBE) 85(4): 421–453.
48.
LeeI. (2007). An Architecture for a Next-Generation Holistic E-Recruiting System, Communications of the ACM50(7): 81–85.
49.
LiangH., NileshS., HuQ., and XueY. (2007). Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management, MIS Quarterly31(1): 59–87.
50.
LuftmanJ., KempaiahR., and RigoniE.H. (2009). Key Issues for it Executives 2008, MIS Quarterly Executive8(3).
51.
MacKenzieS.B., PodsakoffP.M., and JarvisC.B. (2005). The Problem of Measurement Model Misspecification in Behavioral and Organizational Research and Some Recommended Solutions, Journal of Applied Psychology90(4): 710.
52.
MaierC., LaumerS., and EckhardtA. (2011). Dispositional Resistance to Change and Social Network Site Adopters' and Non-Adopters' Attitudinal Beliefs – An Empirical Analysis. in Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information System (ECIS), Helsinki, Finland.
53.
MaierC., LaumerS., EckhardtA., and WeitzelT. (2013). Analyzing the Impact of HRIS Implementations on HR Personnel's Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention, Special Issue: eHRM22(3): 193–207.
54.
MaierC., LaumerS., EckhardtA., and WeitzelT. (2012). Using User Personality to Explain the Intention-Behavior Gap and Changes in Beliefs: A longitudinal analysis. in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Orlando (FL).
55.
MaierC., LaumerS., WeinertC., and WeitzelT. (2015). The Effects of Technostress and Switching Stress on Discontinued Use of Social Networking Services: A study of facebook use. Information Systems Journal25(3): 275–308.
56.
MarkusM.L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation, Communications of the ACM26(6): 430–444.
57.
McAdamsD.P. (1996). Personality, Modernity, and the Storied Self: A contemporary framework for studying persons, Psychological Inquiry7(4): 295–321.
58.
McCraeR.R., and CostaP.T. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52(1): 81.
59.
MeissonierR., and HouzeE. (2010). Toward an ‘It Conflict-Resistance Theory’: Action research during IT pre-implementation, European Journal of Information Systems.19(5): 540–561.
60.
NovO., and YeC. (2008). Users' Personality and Perceived Ease of Use of Digital Libraries: The case for resistance to change, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(5): 845–851.
61.
OregS. (2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an individual differences measure, Journal of Applied Psychology.88(4): 680–693.
62.
OregS. (2006). Personality, Context, and Resistance to Organizational Change, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology15(1): 73–101.
63.
OregS., BayazitM., VakolaM., ArciniegaL., ArmenakisA., BarkauskieneR., BozionelosN., FujimotoY., GonzálezL., HanJ., HřebíčkováM., JimmiesonN., Kordačov'J., MitsuhashiH., MlačićB., FerićI., TopićM. K., OhlyS., SaksvikP.Ø., HetlandH., SaksvikI., and van DamK. (2008). Dispositional Resistance to Change: Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 nations, Journal of Applied Psychology.93(4): 935–944.
64.
OregS., VakolaM., and ArmenakisA. (2011). Change Recipients' Reactions to Organizational Change, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science47(4): 461–524.
65.
PaunonenS.V., RothsteinM.G., and JacksonD.N. (1999). Narrow Reasoning About the Use of Broad Personality Measures for Personnel Selection, Journal of Organizational Behavior20(3): 389–405.
66.
PodsakoffP.M., MackenzieS.B., LeeJ.-Y., and PodsakoffN.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology.88(5): 879–903.
67.
PodsakoffP.M., and OrganD.W. (1986). Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Management.12(4): 531–544.
68.
PolitesG.L., and KarahannaE. (2012). Shackled to the Status Quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance, MIS Quarterly36(1): 21–A13.
69.
PolitesG.L., RobertsN., and ThatcherJ. (2012). Conceptualizing Models Using Multidimensional Constructs: A review and guidelines for their use, European Journal of Information Systems21(1): 22–48.
70.
PolitesG.L., and KarahannaE. (2013). The Embeddedness of Information Systems Habits in Organizational and Individual Level Routines: Development and disruption, MIS Quarterly37(1): 221–246.
71.
Ragu-NathanT.S., TarafdarM., Ragu-NathanB.S., and QiangT. (2008). The Consequences of Technostress for End Users in Organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation, Information Systems Research19(4): 417–433.
72.
RingleC.M., WendeS., and WillA. (2005). Smartpls 2.0.M3, www.smartpls.de.
73.
RomeroE., VillarP., LuengoM.Á., and Gómez-FraguelaJ.A. (2009). Traits, Personal Strivings and Well-Being, Journal of Research in Personality43(4): 535–546.
74.
SlovicP. (1972). Information Processing, Situation Specificity, and the Generality of Risk Taking Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology22(1): 128.
75.
StewartW.H., MayR.C., McCarthyD.J., and PufferS.M. (2009). A Test of the Measurement Validity of the Resistance to Change Scale in Russia and Ukraine, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science45(4): 468–489.
76.
TurelO., SerenkoA., and GilesP. (2011). Integrating Technology Addiction and Use: An empirical investigation of online auction users, MIS Quarterly35(4): 1043–1062.
77.
VenkateshV. (2006). Where to Go from Here? Thoughts on Future Directions for Research on Individual-Level Technology Adoption with a Focus on Decision Making, Decision Sciences37(4): 497–518.
78.
VenkateshV., MorrisM.G., DavisG.B., and DavisF.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
79.
WeitzelT., EckhardtA., and LaumerS. (2009). A Framework for Recruiting IT Talent: Lessons from siemens, MIS Quarterly Executive8(4): 175–189.
80.
WilliamsM.D., DwivediY.K., LalB., and SchwarzA. (2009). Contemporary Trends and Issues in IT Adoption and Diffusion Research, Journal of Information Technology.24(1): 1–10.
81.
ZmudR. (1979). Individual Differences and MIS Success: A review of the empirical literature, Management Science25(10): 966–979.
82.
ZuckermanM., and LinkK. (1968). Construct Validity for the Sensation-Seeking Scale, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology32(4): 420.
