Managing Foreign Subsidiaries Remotely: The Role of Culture in Techno-Stress Appraisal and Well-Being

Abstract

Multinational enterprises’ increased dependence on work-enabling technologies to manage global operations may contribute to foreign subsidiary employees’ techno-stress (i.e., stress from interacting with technology). However, techno-stress may have either a positive or negative effect on employee and customer engagement, depending on the employee's appraisal of the techno-stressors. Drawing on transactional stress theory, the authors provide a conceptual model and research propositions to introduce the concept of techno-stress to international marketing scholars. The authors explore the role of the information systems environment and culture in employees’ appraisal of techno-stressors and their ultimate effects on employees’ well-being and performance. These propositions aim to encourage research that provides a fuller context of the technology-related challenges that multinationals may face in building employee and customer engagement across their subsidiary networks.

Keywords

techno-stress transactional stress theory remote work culture employee engagement customer engagement

Technology is crucial to managing international marketing (IM) teams, with global information technology spending to support remote work expected to grow 5% to more than $330 billion in 2021 (Wheeler 2021). The IM literature has many examples of how technology aids multinational enterprises’ (MNEs’) global operations, such as in facilitating knowledge transfer and collaboration among marketing teams across MNEs’ subsidiary networks (e.g., Griffith and Lee 2016; Lee, Chen, and Lu 2009). Importantly, technology also helps marketing teams drive customer outcomes. Organizations that invest to improve customer-facing technology can increase customer satisfaction by 15%–20% and reduce costs by up to 40% (Diebner et al. 2020). However, despite the benefits of technology to marketing teams, its use may also have a dark side, which has been well-documented in the information systems (IS) and organizational behavior literatures (e.g., Pirkkalainen et al. 2019; Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019) but less so in IM. To fully explore the relationship between technology use, employee engagement, and marketing outcomes, we define engagement as “the attitude, behavior, [and] the level of connectedness” between employees and customers (Kumar and Pansari 2016, p. 498), which can drive important firm-level outcomes such as new product development via customer participation or cocreation (Griffith and Lee 2016; Leung, Tse, and Yim 2020). Therefore, to effectively meet their customers’ needs, MNEs need to understand how employees’ reliance on technology impacts both engagement at work and customer engagement, as a greater proportion of customer interactions occur virtually (Breuer et al. 2020).

A key concept of growing significance that describes a potential downside of technology use is techno-stress, the stress that results from using work-enabling technologies (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019), including hardware (e.g., mobiles, laptops) and the software that enables virtual collaboration (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Slack). Foreign subsidiary employees (FSEs) are tasked with exploiting the MNE's resources (e.g., technological capacity) in complex international markets (Meyer, Li, and Schotter 2020) and are thus critical in implementing the MNE's global strategy. However, headquarters (HQ) managers also need to be aware that country-level differences in the IS environment and FSEs’ cultural orientations will influence how they experience techno-stress, which has consequences for engagement. Given the recent shift in work structures that favor a greater reliance on technology for customer interaction, this article aims to encourage IM research that helps scholars and HQ managers better understand how culture influences their FSEs’ appraisal of techno-stressors and the subsequent impact on engagement, an important variable in driving global marketing performance.

Transactional Stress Theory and Techno-Stress

Drawing on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional stress theory (TST), Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich (2019) conceptualized techno-stress as a multistep process involving (1) an interaction with technology that exposes individuals to techno-stressors, prompting the individual to (2) appraise the techno-stressors as either challenging (positive appraisal) or threatening (negative appraisal) (3) and decide on a coping strategy, (4) which results in psychological, physical, or behavioral outcomes.

Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich (2019) identified five techno-stressors, defined in Figure 1. Stressors are neither positive nor negative by nature (Hobfoll et al. 2018). Rather, individuals engage in a cognitive exercise to assess whether the perceived techno-stressors create opportunities for growth (challenging appraisal) or the potential to thwart the achievement of personal goals (threat appraisal) (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019). We make a distinction between the perception of techno-stressors, being a physiological experience of environmental stimuli, and appraisal, being the psychological processing that occurs after perceiving the techno-stressors. TST adequately addresses this “open-to-interpretation” nature of stressors and proposes that the appraisal of stressors will be influenced by individual differences (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Despite the inherently negative connotation of techno-stress, TST proposes that individual differences are responsible for why some employees appraise techno-stressors as challenging (positive), rather than threatening (negative) (LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine 2005). For instance, self-efficacious individuals tend to appraise stressors as challenging, leading to greater creative performance, whereas the same stressors appraised as threatening by less self-efficacious individuals thwart creativity (Li, Chen, and Lai 2018).

Figure 1.

Techno-stressor definitions.

Given the importance of individual differences in techno-stress appraisal, the literature would benefit from more theoretical investigation into boundary conditions that differentiate the appraisal of techno-stressors (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019). Drawing on our conceptual model (Figure 2), we develop propositions for research to enhance our understanding of how techno-stress affects employee engagement and, subsequently, customer engagement. We discuss how characteristics of the IS environment influence FSEs’ perception of techno-stressors and the moderating role of culture in techno-stress appraisal. Our discussion concludes with the proposed effects of techno-stress appraisal on employee and customer engagement based on engagement orientation (Kumar and Pansari 2016).

Figure 2.

Techno-stress model for IM research based on TST.

The Technology Environment and Techno-Stressors

According to TST, the first step of the techno-stress process involves an interaction with technology, which exposes the individual to techno-stressors (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019). FSEs rely on technology such as videoconferencing and email to collaborate with colleagues and to serve customers (Badrinarayanan, Madhavaram, and Granot 2011). Such technology aiding in remote work has been shown to improve communication, structure problem-solving processes, and enable goal attainment (Hertel, Geister, and Konradt 2005). However, studies have shown that characteristics of the IS environment such as reliability, mobility, and ease of use have the potential to create demands during technology use (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019). Because our discussion aims to provide HQ managers with a more nuanced understanding of techno-stress across their global subsidiary network, we suggest that infrastructural and cost elements of the IS environment may also create demands. For example, the average download broadband speed in the United States and most of Western Europe is above 50 megabytes per second (mbps), but it is rarely above 10 mbps in many South American, African, and Asian countries (Cable.co.uk 2021). Download speed affects the amount of time individuals search for information on computers, with slower speeds increasing users’ physiological stress (Trimmel, Meixner-Pendleton, and Haring 2003). Consequently, we expect unfavorable characteristics of the IS environment to contribute to inefficiencies in using technology, which could trigger various techno-stressors. For instance, poor-quality technology-supporting infrastructure could mean that FSEs are unable to achieve their objectives within official working hours (driving techno-invasion), are slower at getting accustomed to new technology (driving techno-complexity), and experience barriers to meeting important job commitments (driving techno-insecurity). Thus, we propose,

P₁: Unfavorable characteristics of the host countries’ IS environment increase FSEs' perception of techno-stressors.

Influence of Culture on Techno-Stress Appraisal

Culture is a complex and dynamic system of shared meanings, with norms, beliefs, and values that influence cognition and offer prescriptions for behavior (Chun, Moos, and Cronkite 2006). Culture influences the appraisal of techno-stressors because individuals with different cultural orientations have different attitudes toward technology (Baker and Delpechitre 2013). However, despite the importance of culture in influencing individuals’ decision-making process and attitudes toward technology (Il, Hong, and Kang 2010), there is scarce knowledge on how culture influences individuals’ appraisal of techno-stressors. Krishnan (2017) proposed that the Big Five personality traits and culture have a direct effect on the appraisal of techno-stressors, but this study was not grounded in the TST process, as it did not explore the direct relationship between the IS environment and techno-stressors. According to TST, variables such as personality and culture are individual differences that influence the appraisal of techno-stressors and thus play a moderating role in the techno-stress process (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019). Nevertheless, Krishnan’s research provides clues on how we might expect culture to influence individuals’ techno-stress appraisal.

We discuss culture as a boundary condition of techno-stress appraisal by drawing on the Hofstede framework. Despite limitations, including theoretical and methodological inconsistencies, the Hofstede framework continues to be relevant in cross-cultural research across several management disciplines and has been the most popular framework used in IM and IS research (Lee, Trimi, and Kim 2013; Leonidou, Skarmeas, and Saridakis 2018).

Power Distance

Individuals in higher-power-distance cultures tend to conform to norms and defer to authority, whereas individuals in lower-power-distance cultures value freedom of choice and autonomy in decision making (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Technology use is likely to be mandated from top management in high-power-distance cultures (Engelen and Brettel 2011). Consequently, in high-power-distance cultures, given a higher respect for authority, we would expect FSEs to make sustained efforts to use technology despite lapses in the IS environment. However, because low power distance is related to lower conformity, FSEs in such cultures would be less motivated to find solutions to IS usage difficulties brought on by the IS environment. In addition, employees in low-power-distance cultures make decisions independent of hierarchical expectations and thus would perceive less pressure to contribute to group performance targets (Il, Hong, and Kang 2010) when faced with increased techno-stressors. Therefore, taking into account the subsidiary's IS environment and employees’ place on the power distance spectrum, we propose,

P₂: FSEs higher (lower) in power distance are more likely to appraise the increased perceptions of techno-stressors driven by unfavorable characteristics of the IS environment as challenging (threatening).

Individualism

A collectivist mindset creates an environment where employees are considerate of their colleagues’ perspectives and accommodating of lapses in the IS environment, whereas an individualist mindset would see employees less willing to share knowledge, thus creating an environment where they find it more difficult to navigate an unreliable IS environment (Krishnan 2017). Employees in individualist cultures are independent decision makers and more likely to engage with technology out of self-interest depending on their perception of how useful it is to their personal development rather than organizational goals (Baker and Delpechitre 2013; Lee, Trimi, and Kim 2013). In addition, because individualists are less likely to have access to societal resources (Hobfoll et al. 2018) that allow them use technology more efficiently, they are more likely to appraise techno-stressors as threatening in an unfavorable IS environment. However, employees in collectivist cultures are more likely to have a supportive community to help troubleshoot lapses in the technology environment, increasing the likelihood that they recognize the benefits that technology will bring (Krishnan 2017), and they may thus appraise techno-stressors as challenging. Furthermore, the collectivist employee's need for acceptance from the MNE manager will be related to their fear of reprisal for nonconformity (Baker and Delpechitre 2013). This assertion is confirmed by the strong relationship between collectivism and high power distance (Il, Hong, and Kang 2011). Therefore, the collectivist FSE is more likely to tolerate an unfavorable IS environment, appraising techno-stressors as challenging to align themselves with the MNE's goals. Taking into account the subsidiary's technological environment and FSEs’ place on the individualism–collectivism spectrum, we propose,

P₃: FSEs higher (lower) in individualism are more likely to appraise the increased perceptions of techno-stressors driven by unfavorable characteristics of the IS environment as threatening (challenging).

Long-Term Orientation

Long-term-oriented cultures have attitudes that orient them to future rewards, whereas short-term-oriented cultures are more concerned with immediate results (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Long-term orientation is linked to Confucian values of hard work and perseverance, as well as dynamic thinking and accepting radical changes (Sharma 2010), which implies that such employees are more likely to appraise techno-stressors as challenging in an unfavorable IS environment. In addition, these FSEs would not mind sacrificing their personal time to accommodate longer work hours in adapting to lapses in the IS environment, because they expect harder work to reap career rewards (Krishnan 2017). However, short-term orientation would enhance FSEs’ appraisal of techno-stressors as threatening, because the inefficiency of navigating an unfavorable IS environment can detract from short-term goals, make it difficult to meet deadlines, and increase feelings of insecurity (Krishnan 2017). Therefore, taking into account the subsidiary's IS environment and FSEs’ place on the long-term orientation spectrum, we propose,

P₄: FSEs higher (lower) in long-term orientation are more likely to appraise the increased perceptions of techno-stressors driven by unfavorable characteristics of the IS environment as challenging (threatening).

Masculinity

Masculine cultures are success-oriented, valuing attributes such as assertiveness, competitiveness, and material success in an environment that emphasizes high performance; whereas feminine cultures are process oriented and more likely to encourage a collaborative environment (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). We expect masculine attributes to drive an employee's willingness to master technology despite lapses in the technology environment, thus enhancing their appraisal of techno-stress as challenging. Employees in a masculine culture are more likely to prefer the efficiency and effectiveness that remote work technology offers (Sun and Zhang 2006) and would be more willing to take on heavy workloads to satisfy ego-enhancing goals (Krishnan 2017) such as securing promotions and bonuses. Given that the attributes of feminine culture foster collaboration (Krishnan 2017), we expect employees in such cultures to have dependable colleagues to lean on, should unfavorable characteristics of the technology environment increase techno-stressors. As a result, employees in feminine cultures should also be more likely to appraise an increase in techno-stressors as challenging. However, because feminine cultures place a greater value on interpersonal relationships than personal goals (Krishnan 2017), prefer the context richness of face-to-face communication, and consider technology to be less useful in maintaining relationships (Sun and Zhang 2006) such as with customers, we believe that the positive moderating effect on techno-stress appraisal will be weaker than in masculine cultures. Therefore, taking into account the subsidiary's IS environment and managers’ place on the masculine–feminine spectrum, we propose,

P₅: FSEs at both high and low levels of masculinity are likely to appraise the increased perceptions of techno-stressors driven by unfavorable characteristics of the IS environment as challenging. However, we expect this effect to be weaker for FSEs with lower masculinity.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Cultures higher in uncertainty avoidance tend to be threatened by ambiguity, whereas cultures lower in uncertainty avoidance are less fazed by novelty and experimentation (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Because employees in higher-uncertainty-avoidance cultures tend to take fewer risks and engage less in proactive behavior (Kreiser et al. 2010), we expect them to be less comfortable working with technology (Il, Hong, and Kang 2010), especially in situations where the IS environment proves unpredictable and undependable, (e.g., frequent power outages, intermittent slowdown in broadband speed). In contrast, employees in lower-uncertainty-avoidance cultures should find an increased perception of techno-stressors less daunting. They would more easily adapt to working with tight schedules and changing their work habits to accommodate an undependable IS environment (Krishnan 2017). In general, higher uncertainty avoidance creates a perception of having to constantly fight threats, which heightens stress and anxiety, whereas FSEs in lower-uncertainty-avoidance cultures could consider uncertainty an opportunity for innovation (Engelen and Brettel 2011). Therefore, taking into account the subsidiary's IS environment and managers’ place on the uncertainty avoidance spectrum, we propose,

P₆: FSEs higher (lower) in uncertainty avoidance are more likely to appraise the increased perceptions of techno-stressors driven by unfavorable characteristics of the IS environment as threatening (challenging).

Influence of Techno-Stress Appraisal on Engagement

FSEs’ techno-stress appraisal will impact their work engagement (Tarafdar, Cooper, and Stich 2019), a strong indicator of employee well-being (Bakker and Demerouti 2017) and an important driver of organizational success (Eldor and Harpaz 2016). In conceptualizing engagement for this discussion, we draw on engagement orientation (Kumar and Pansari 2016), which offers a marketing-centric explanation of engagement, defined as the level of connectedness between customers and employees in a firm. The central thesis of engagement orientation is that engaged employees (comprising employees’ satisfaction, organizational identification, commitment, loyalty, and performance) drive customer engagement (i.e., customer purchases, referrals, social influence, and knowledge sharing) (Pansari and Kumar 2017).

TST (Lazarus and Folkman 1984) explains that individuals respond to stress using coping behaviors consistent with their appraisal of techno-stressors, which drives well-being outcomes such as engagement. Individuals who appraise techno-stressors as challenging are more likely to act proactively to make technology work for them (Pirkkalainen et al. 2019). However, a threat appraisal of techno-stressors could lead to threat-coping behaviors such as disparaging the organization and its policies, a likely precursor to organizational disengagement and poor performance (LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine 2005; Maynes and Podsakoff 2014).

FSEs’ challenge appraisal of techno-stressors should allow for proactive behavior that helps them cope with work stress by encouraging communication with colleagues and managers to find innovative ways to solve customer problems, thus driving employee engagement. In turn, engaged employees are more likely to have positive interactions with the firm's customers, driving customer engagement (Kumar and Pansari 2016). However, an FSE's threat appraisal of techno-stressors could lead to antiorganizational behaviors indicative of dissatisfaction and emotional instability (LePine, Podsakoff, and LePine 2005), thereby negatively affecting employee engagement. Although threat coping behaviors help individuals “let off steam,” they also rationalize an inability to work well with the technology and minimize further interaction with technology (Pirkkalainen et al. 2019), which would negatively impact customer engagement, especially as customer interactions become increasingly virtual. Thus, we propose,

P_7a: FSEs’ challenge appraisal of techno-stress is positively related to employee engagement, which in turn drives customer engagement.

P_7b: FSEs’ threat appraisal of techno-stress is negatively related to employee engagement, which in turn negatively impacts customer engagement.

Conclusion

Understanding how the techno-stress process impacts employee engagement across different cultures is important, as MNEs’ global operations increasingly depend on virtual employee and customer interactions. In this research note, we proposed future research opportunities to better understand the effects of techno-stress across an MNE's subsidiary network, because a “one-size-fits-all” approach to managing global remote marketing teams is unlikely to be effective. Importantly, we propose that TST can provide a more nuanced understanding of how culture impacts employees’ appraisal of techno-stressors, which has consequences for employee and customer engagement. This article should serve as a point of reference for future empirical research expanding our knowledge of the effects of techno-stress on MNEs’ marketing performance.

Footnotes

Associate Editor

Petra Riefler

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

James Adeniji

Reika Igarashi

References

Badrinarayanan

Vishag

Madhavaram

Sreedhar

Granot

Elad

(2011), “Global Virtual Sales Teams (GVSTS): A Conceptual Framework of the Influence of Intellectual and Social Capital on Effectiveness,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31 (3), 311–24.

Baker

David S.

Delpechitre

Duleep

(2013), “Collectivistic and Individualistic Performance Expectancy in the Utilization of Sales Automation Technology in an International Field Sales Setting,” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 33 (3), 277–88.

Bakker

Arnold B.

Demerouti

Evangelia

(2017), “Job Demands-Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22 (3), 273–85.

Breuer

Ralph

Fanderl

Harald

Hedwig

Markus

Meuer

Marcel

(2020), “Service Industries Can Fuel Growth by Making Digital Customer Experience a Priority, McKinsey & Company (April 30), https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/service-industries-can-fuel-growth-by-making-digital-customer-experiences-a-priority.

Cable.co.uk (2020), “Worldwide Broadband Speed League 2021,” (accessed March 6, 2022), https://www.cable.co.uk/broadband/speed/worldwide-speed-league/.

Chun

Chi-Ah

Moos

Rudolf H.

Cronkite

Ruth C.

(2006), “Culture: A Fundamental Context for the Stress and Coping Paradigm,” in Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping, Paul T.P. Wong and Lilian C.J. Wong, eds. Boston: Springer, 29–53.

Diebner

Rachel

Silliman

Elizabeth

Ungerman

Kelly

Vancauwenberghe

Maxence

(2020), “Adapting Customer Experience in the Time of Coronavirus,” McKinsey & Company (April 2), https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/adapting-customer-experience-in-the-time-of-coronavirus.

Eldor

Liat

Harpaz

Itzhak

(2016), “A Process Model of Employee Engagement: The Learning Climate and Its Relationship with Extra-Role Performance Behaviors,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37 (2), 213–35.

Engelen

Andreas

Brettel

Malte

(2011), “A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Marketing Departments’ Influence Tactics,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (2), 73–94.

10.

Griffith

David A.

Lee

Hannah S.

(2016), “Cross–National Collaboration of Marketing Personnel Within a Multinational: Leveraging Customer Participation for New Product Advantage,” Journal of International Marketing, 24 (4), 1–19.

11.

Hertel

Guido

Geister

Susanne

Konradt

Udo

(2005), “Managing Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Empirical Research,” Human Resource Management Review, 15 (1), 69–95.

12.

Hobfoll

Stevan E.

Halbesleben

Jonathon

Neveu

Jean-Pierre

Westman

Mina

(2018), “Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences,” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–28.

13.

Hofstede

Geert

Hofstede

Gert Jan

Minkov

Michael

(2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Hong

Seongtae

Kang

Myung Soo

(2011), “An International Comparison of Technology Adoption: Testing the UTAUT Model,” Information and Management, 48 (1), 1–8.

15.

Kreiser

Patrick M.

Marino

Louis D.

Dickson

Pat

Mark Weaver

(2010), “Cultural Influences on Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Impact of National Culture on Risk Taking and Proactiveness in SMEs,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (5), 959–84.

16.

Krishnan

Satish

(2017), “Personality and Espoused Cultural Differences in Technostress Creators,” Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 154–67.

17.

Kumar

Viswanathan

Pansari

Anita

(2016), “ Competitive Advantage Through Engagement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (4), 497–514.

18.

Lazarus

Richard S.

Folkman

Susan

(1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

19.

Lee

Ruby P.

Chen

Qimei

Xiongwen

(2009), “In Search of Platforms to Increase Market Responsiveness: Evidence from Foreign Subsidiaries,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (2), 59–73.

20.

Lee

Sang-Gun

Trimi

Silvana

Kim

Changsoo

(2013), “The Impact of Cultural Differences on Technology Adoption,” Journal of World Business, 48 (1), 20–9.

21.

Leonidou

Constantinos N.

Skarmeas

Dionysis

Saridakis

Charalampos

(2018), “Ethics, Sustainability, and Culture: A Review and Directions for Research,” in Advances in Global Marketing, Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Saeed Samiee, and Bilge Aykol, eds. Berlin: Springer, 471–517.

22.

LePine

Jeffery A.

Podsakoff

Nathan P.

LePine

Marcie A.

(2005), “A Meta-Analytic Test of the Challenge Stressor-Hindrance Stressor Framework: An Explanation for Inconsistent Relationships among Stressors and Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 764–75.

23.

Leung

Fine F.

Tse

Caleb H.

Yim

Chi Kin

(2020), “Engaging Customer Cocreation in new Product Development Through Foreign Subsidiaries: Influences of Multinational Corporations’ Global Integration and Local Adaptation Mechanisms,” Journal of International Marketing, 28 (2), 59–80.

24.

Fuli

Chen

Tingting

Lai

(2018), “How Does a Reward for Creativity Program Benefit or Frustrate Employee Creative Performance? The Perspective of Transactional Model of Stress and Coping,” Group and Organization Management, 43 (1), 138–75.

25.

Maynes

Timothy D.

Podsakoff

Philip M.

(2014), “Speaking More Broadly: An Examination of the Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences of an Expanded Set of Employee Voice Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (1), 87–112.

26.

Meyer

Klaus E.

Chengguang

Schotter

Andreas P.J.

(2020), “Managing the MNE Subsidiary: Advancing a Multi-Level and Dynamic Research Agenda,” Journal of International Business Studies, 51 (4), 538–76.

27.

Pansari

Anita

Kumar

Viswanathan

(2017), “Customer Engagement: The Construct, Antecedents, and Consequences,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (3), 294–311.

28.

Pirkkalainen

Henri

Salo

Markus

Tarafdar

Monideepa

Makkonen

Markus

(2019), “Deliberate or Instinctive? Proactive and Reactive Coping for Technostress,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 36 (4), 1179–1212.

29.

Sharma

Piyush

(2010), “Measuring Personal Cultural Orientations: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (6), 787–806.

30.

Sun

Heshan

Zhang

Ping

(2006), “The Role of Moderating Factors in User Technology Acceptance,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (2), 53–78.

31.

Tarafdar

Monideepa

Cooper

Cary L.

Stich

Jean-François

(2019), “The Technostress Trifecta-Techno Eustress, Techno Distress and Design: Theoretical Directions and an Agenda for Research,” Information Systems Journal, 29 (1), 6–42.

32.

Trimmel

Michael

Meixner-Pendleton

Monika

Haring

Sandra

(2003), “Stress Response Caused by System Response Time When Searching for Information on the Internet,” Human Factors, 45 (4), 615–22.

33.

Wheeler

John A.

(2021), “IRM 2021: The Year of Uncertainty and Change,” Gartner (January 31), https://blogs.gartner.com/john-wheeler/irm-2021-the-year-of-uncertainty-and-change/.