Keywords Management styles, Leadership, Service industries, ... in a service setting, paying attention to the use of software for planning and coordinating ..... Implementing a help desk, or on-site support are possibilities to ... Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm
MSQ 15,6
Leadership styles in technology acceptance: do followers practice what leaders preach?
496
Jeroen Schepers and Martin Wetzels Department of Technology Management, Organization Science and Marketing, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and
Ko de Ruyter Department of Marketing and Market Research, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Abstract Purpose – Service firms recognize the need to introduce new technologies to stay in the market, or to retain their competitive advantage compared to their rivals. Introducing new technologies in an organization is by no means easy and poses many challenges like the acceptance and adoption of new technologies by employees. The technology acceptance model (TAM) has often been applied to explain individual technology use. In previous studies, the model has been extended with many different constructs, including personal and technology related factors. Also management support and training have been shown to positively influence technology acceptance. However, the influence of leadership style in this context has not been studied before. This study models and tests two leadership styles (transactional and transformational) as antecedents to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of new technologies. Design/methodology/approach – This is an empirical study in a service setting. Findings – In the surveyed company transformational leadership positively influences perceived usefulness of the technology. This was fully accounted for by the sub-dimension of intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership did not display any significant effects. Research limitations/implications – Since data analysis was conducted in a single company, future research is needed to generalize the current findings. Furthermore, a longitudinal design would allow for statements regarding the stability and durability of the observed effects. Practical implications – Besides technology support and training, leader behavior can influence an individual’s perception of a technology, ultimately resulting in usage. Originality/value – Insight has been given to which extent a leadership style can influence technology acceptance and through which mechanisms. Keywords Management styles, Leadership, Service industries, Communication technologies Paper type Research paper
Managing Service Quality Vol. 15 No. 6, 2005 pp. 496-508 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-4529 DOI 10.1108/09604520510633998
Introduction With the ever changing business landscape of more and innovative competitors, most service firms recognize the need to introduce innovations and new technologies within their organizational processes to stay in the market, or to retain their competitive advantage compared to their rivals. Introducing new technologies in an organization is by no means an easy job and poses many challenges like their acceptance and adoption
by employees. One of the most often used models explaining technology acceptance is the technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis et al. (1989). It was the first model to state that psychological factors, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the new technology, are central in influencing its use. Since the model allows for the addition of external variables, numerous extensions have been made. These relate to technology-based factors like perceived enjoyment and perceived attractiveness (Van der Heijden, 2003, 2004), personal factors like personal innovativeness (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998, 1999), or interpersonal factors like trust (Gefen et al., 2003). Also concrete management actions like offering training and education, and organizational technical support have been shown to play a role in influencing individual usage of innovations (Schillewaert et al., 2005). Less attention, however, has been given to the influence of the overall leadership style in an organization. We, therefore, extend TAM with two styles: transactional leadership and transformational leadership. These concepts were developed by Burns (1978) on the basis of observing political leadership, and extended by Bass (1985). Despite the fact that the styles cannot be seen as opposite ends of a continuum (Avolio and Bass, 1991), they are different in nature. We expect them to play similar roles in the context of technology acceptance, but via different mechanisms. Unlike many other papers based on TAM we tested our conceptual model in a service setting, paying attention to the use of software for planning and coordinating service activities on a laptop by service employees. The paper is structured as follows. First, a short literature overview is given on the concept of leadership styles. Secondly, a conceptual framework is built by formulating hypotheses on the effects of leadership styles on TAM-related variables. Thereafter the empirical study is described and its results will be presented. The paper concludes with a discussion on the theoretical and managerial implications of this study, directions for further research are given as well. Leadership There are different approaches to studying leadership. Yukl (1994) considers the trait approach and the charismatic/transformational leadership approach as two major research avenues to the concept of leadership. The first, focusing on personal attributes of successful leaders, has mainly been used in psychology. In organizational studies, the second approach is used more often. Originally the theory of charismatic leadership was coined by House (1977), stating that a charismatic leader is generously accepted and obeyed by followers by having a strong need for power and a high self-confidence. Parallel to this conception of charismatic leadership, the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership were developed by Burns (1978) on the basis of observing political leadership. Bass (1985) further extended these notions and applied them in an organizational setting. In his theory transformational and transactional leadership are not defined to be on a single continuum, but as two separate concepts. A leader could possess elements of both styles. The transformational style of leadership is characterized by charisma, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation. Charisma can be defined as the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways that cause followers to identify with the leader (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) or the amount of faith, respect, and inspiration he instills (Bass, 1985; Bycio et al., 1995). Individual consideration refers to the ability of a leader to consider subordinates individually, by delegating projects to stimulate people, creating learning
Leadership styles
497
MSQ 15,6
498
experiences, and paying attention to the personal needs of these followers. Intellectual stimulation is the act of encouraging new ways of thinking, reasoning before acting, and enabling subordinates to analyze problems from many different viewpoints (Avolio and Bass, 1988). Finally inspirational motivation is inspiring and empowering followers to enthusiastically accept and pursue challenging goals and a mission (Bass, 1985). Transactional leadership on the other hand is characterized by contingent reward and management-by-exception. The former refers to whether a leader rewards his followers when they act in accordance with contracts, rules, norms, agreed-upon objectives, or expend the necessary effort on a certain task (Howell and Avolio, 1993). The latter applies when a leader does not give any directions if the current ways of doing a job still apply, or are still effective. Only if mistakes are made, something has gone wrong, or performance standards are not met any more, the leader takes action. Next we will build our conceptual model based on the leadership styles described above. Conceptual model and hypotheses Over the years, strong empirical support has been established in favor of TAM (Adams et al., 1992; Davis, 1989; Igbaria, 1993; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), making it a robust theory since it holds across persons, settings, and times (Cook and Campbell, 1979). Two central hypotheses in TAM state that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use positively influence an individual’s attitude towards using a new technology, which in turn influences his behavioral intention to use it. Finally, intention is positively related to actual use. The mediating role of attitude has been doubtful from the start and was, therefore, not considered in later assessments of the model. Analogous to Schillewaert et al. (2005) we focus on current usage of technology, measured by perceived actual use, meaning that there is no need to examine intentions to use. Hence, we hypothesize: H1. The perceived usefulness of the new technology positively influences technology usage. H2. The perceived ease of use of the new technology positively influences technology usage. Another TAM hypothesis indicates that perceived ease of use influences perceived usefulness. Intuitively this makes sense, a technology will be more useful for somebody if it is easier to use in general, or as Davis et al. (1989, p. 987) put it, “effort saved due to improved ease of use may be redeployed, enabling a person to accomplish more work for the same effort”. Therefore, H3. The perceived ease of use of the technology positively influences the perceived usefulness of the new technology. The goal of our study is to examine whether leadership styles have an effect on individual acceptance of information technologies within service organizations. Since TAM assumes that factors influencing behavior only do so indirectly by influencing perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, or their relative weights (Davis, 1989), transactional and transformational leadership can influence both factors to be consistent with the theory. Regarding perceived usefulness, if a leader clearly states the
benefits of a technology, for example, by indicating that using the system is the only way to reach specified targets, employees might find it more useful to work with. This transactional leadership style has a cost effectiveness focus which could also potentially reveal the usefulness of a technology given that technologies are often introduced out of cost reduction considerations. Transformational leadership style applies another mechanism by challenging people to be more creative and exploratory. With this attitude it is likely that people will more easily grasp the usefulness of a technology. Hence, we hypothesize: H4. Transactional leadership positively influences the perceived usefulness of the new technology. H5. Transformational leadership positively influences the perceived usefulness of the new technology. Regarding perceived ease of use, if a leader is stressing in-role behavior and cost efficiency (transactional leadership), employees use the technology in a very rigid way to increase the quantity and quality of their output. They do not have the freedom to experiment with the technology and explore difficult features, as they will only use the system in a clearly predefined way. This reduces the potential complexity of a technology for an individual. Analogous to the case of perceived usefulness, transformational leadership is another mechanism influencing perceived ease of use. If a leader encourages creativity and open-mindedness, employees will be more used to experimenting with new technologies and procedures, and more quickly learn the features. Since previous learning experiences build up some latent innovativeness, the newly introduced technology appears easier to use. We, therefore, hypothesize: H6. Transactional leadership positively influences the perceived ease of use of the new technology. H7. Transformational leadership positively influences the perceived ease of use of the new technology. While leadership styles are abstract and broad in nature, organizational facilitators can be regarded as more concrete actions taken by a leader and/or implemented in an organization. Conditions and events that create a positive environment for technology adoption such as training and education and organizational technical support can be seen as elements of organizational facilitators (Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002; Schillewaert et al., 2005). Training, education and technical support can affect the way an individual applies a technology in a useful way and/or finds it easy to use (Venkatesh, 1999). Giving hands-on sessions and feedback can illustrate functions and features of a technology, thus influencing perceived usefulness. Besides, in general, if somebody demonstrates a technology it is perceived easier to use then if an individual has to learn it by himself. Hence, it is hypothesized: H8. Organizational facilitators positively influence the perceived usefulness of the new technology. H9. Organizational facilitators positively influence the perceived ease of use of the new technology.
Leadership styles
499
MSQ 15,6
500
Together the above hypotheses constitute the conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1. Empirical study Setting and sampling The research was conducted using the after-sales service department of a Dutch, high-technology company, which operates globally. For the study, 327 questionnaires were handed out personally to boundary spanning service employees in The Netherlands. A total of 236 questionnaires were returned yielding a response rate of 72 percent. Of the returned questionnaires, ten were not filled out for the greater part and these were excluded from data analysis resulting in 226 completed questionnaires to be examined. The median age of the respondents is between 31 and 40 years (30.1 percent), and the median level of education is secondary education with an application course (60.2 percent). The median tenure with the company is more than 20 years (32.6 percent) and the median working time in a similar function to the current one is more than 15 years (35.6 percent). Measures Multi-item scales were employed based on previously published scales and translated in Dutch by means of a translation – back translation procedure (Brislin, 1986). Transformational and transactional leadership were measured using the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), version 5X developed by Avolio and Bass (1988). It has oftentimes been shown to be a reliable scale (Lowe et al., 1996) and since it is also more parsimonious in comparison with alternative versions of the scale (e.g. MLQ-Form 10 in Howell and Avolio (1993)), we apply MLQ5X in our research. In the instrument charisma is measured by eight items. Individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation are assessed by four items each. The contingent reward component measuring transactional leadership was operationalized by a four-item scale while management-by-exception was
Figure 1. Conceptual model
conceptualized as an eight-item scale. All items were answered on a seven-point Likert scale, where respondents had to indicate whether described situations happened sporadically (1), sometimes (4), up to often (7). Technology usage, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use were measured by an instrument developed by Davis (1989) and Venkatesh and Davis (1996). Technology usage was measured by three items while perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use both had four items. Organizational facilitators were measured on a six-item scale based on Schillewaert et al. (2000, 2005). All these items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, where respondents had to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a given statement, ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7). Descriptive statistics on the constructs are given in Table I.
Leadership styles
501
Methodology and results We used partial least squares (PLS) analysis as implemented in SmartPLS to estimate both the measurement model and the structural model (Hansmann and Ringle, 2004). This technique is considered adequate in the current research since the distribution of the data deviates from normality and PLS makes no distributional assumptions (Fornell and Cha, 1994). The evaluation of the model fit was conducted in two stages (Chin, 1998; Hulland, 1999). First, the measurement model is assessed, in which construct validity and reliability of the measures are key. Secondly, the structural model with hypotheses is tested. Validity and reliability We first assessed construct validity and reliability of the measurement instruments. Convergent validity can be evaluated by inspecting all item loadings on their respective constructs (Hulland, 1999; Tenenhaus et al., 2005). Observing the item loadings in Table II we removed the italicized items from our analysis (SL , 0.5). The next step was to assess discriminant validity. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct should exceed the correlation shared between the construct and other constructs in the model. Table III shows the details of this analysis. The square root of the AVE of transformational leadership is slightly too low, but is still deemed high enough for a valid analysis. A second test for discriminant validity assessed the cross-factor loadings of the measures (Hulland, 1999). The measures should not exhibit any loadings substantial in magnitude on constructs for which we have not hypothesized so. Moreover, the correlations of residual terms (Q) across blocks should not exceed 0.20 in absolute terms (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). These criteria were satisfied for our study. Measure Technology usage PU PEOU Organizational facilitators Transformational leadership Transactional leadership
Mean
SD
a
Composite reliability
5.93 5.44 5.72 4.63 4.64 4.01
1.07 1.23 1.13 1.19 0.92 0.87
0.878 0.904 0.865 0.892 0.912 0.653
0.931 0.935 0.912 0.908 0.914 0.535
Table I. Descriptive statistics of measures
MSQ 15,6
502
Table II. Item loadings
Perceived usefulness PU 1 PU 2 PU 3 PU 4 Perceived ease of use PEOU 1 PEOU 2 PEOU 3 PEOU 4 Organizational facilitators OF 1 OF 2 OF 3 OF 4 OF 5 OF 6 Usage U1 U2 U3 Transformational leadership TFL – Charisma – 1 TFL – Charisma – 2 TFL – Charisma – 3 TFL – Charisma – 4 TFL – Charisma – 5 TFL – Charisma – 6 TFL – Charisma – 7 TFL – Charisma – 8 TFL – Individual consideration – 1 TFL – Individual consideration – 2 TFL – Individual consideration – 3 TFL – Individual consideration – 4 TFL – Intellectual stimulation – 1 TFL – Intellectual stimulation – 2 TFL – Intellectual stimulation – 3 TFL – Intellectual stimulation – 4 TFL – Inspirational motivation – 1 TFL – Inspirational motivation – 2 TFL – Inspirational motivation – 3 TFL – Inspirational motivation – 4 Transactional leadership TAL – Contingent reward – 1 TAL – Contingent reward – 2 TAL – Contingent reward – 3 TAL – Contingent reward – 4 TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception – TAL – Management-by-exception –
0.8785 0.8867 0.9301 0.8428 0.7166 0.7381 0.7898 0.7990 0.8580 0.8982 0.8611 0.6241 0.7259 0.7139 0.8931 0.9283 0.8920 0.4355 0.2387 0.7250 0.5940 0.6302 0.6297 0.6877 0.7032 0.6986 0.3782 0.6801 0.7560 0.5142 0.5750 0.6846 0.5970 0.4891 0.6629 0.5826 0.6417
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.5771 0.5544 0.4359 0.3903 0.3632 0.0678 0.4201 0.4061 0.5018 0.5719 0.5199 0.5896
A reliability analysis of the measures using Cronbach’s a and composite reliability was conducted. The internal consistency reliability estimates (a’s) are all above the commonly used threshold value for acceptable reliability of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), except for the construct transactional leadership which had an overall reliability coefficient of 0.65. Given the small difference compared to the cutoff value, we still render this construct sufficiently reliable. For composite reliability, a value of cut-off value of 0.70 is suggested as well (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Again, all values were well above this threshold except for transactional leadership (0.535) indicating that the reliability of this construct is not optimal and proving a slight limitation. Cronbach’s a and composite reliability scores are given in Table I.
Leadership styles
503
Hypotheses testing The results for testing the hypotheses are summarized in Table IV. The t-value of each coefficient was obtained by applying a bootstrap procedure of 250 resamples (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993). Our results supported the original TAM, with perceived usefulness (b ¼ 0.417; t ¼ 5.114) and perceived ease of use (b ¼ 0.378; t ¼ 4.956) positively influencing technology usage thus supporting H1 and H2. Also consistent with most TAM literature, perceived usefulness has a slightly stronger positive effect on technology acceptance than has perceived ease of use (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997; Straub et al., 1997; Szajna, 1996). The positive relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (b ¼ 0.482; t ¼ 7.256) supports H3 and is supported in
PU PEOU OF U TAL TFL
PU
PEOU
OF
U
TAL
TFL
0.885 0.257 0.305 0.653 0.124 0.071
0.762 0.423 0.161 0.348 0.300
0.786 0.192 0.227 0.176
0.904 0.014 0.087
0.688 0.582
0.565
Notes: PU ¼ perceived usefulness; PEOU ¼ perceived ease of use; OF ¼ organizational facilitators; U ¼ usage; TAL ¼ transactional leadership; TFL ¼ transformational leadership
Relationship Perceived usefulness ! usage Perceivede ease of use ! usage Perceived ease of use ! perceived usefulness Transactional leadership ! perceived usefulness Transformational leadership ! perceived usefulness Transactional leadership ! perceived ease of use Transformational leadership ! perceived ease of use Organizational facilitators ! perceived usefulness Organizational facilitators ! perceived ease of use
Table III. Construct correlations (square root of AVE on diagonal)
Coefficient t-value p-value Conclusion 0.417 0.378 0.482 0.010
5.114 4.956 7.256 0.099
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9212
Fail to reject H1 Fail to reject H2 Fail to reject H3 Reject H4
0.137 0.111
2.049 0.806
0.0416 Fail to reject H5 0.4211 Reject H6
20.032 0.091 0.359
0.241 1.494 4.628
0.8098 Reject H7 0.1366 Reject H8 0.0000 Fail to reject H9
Table IV. Results of hypotheses testing
MSQ 15,6
504
the majority of studies involving TAM. Analyzing the influence of leadership styles, only one of the four hypothesized paths turned out to be significant. Transformational leadership positively related to perceived usefulness (b ¼ 0.137; t ¼ 2.049), thus yielding support for H5. The same leadership style did not have a significant effect on perceived ease of use, rejecting H7. Transactional leadership style did not display any significant relationship to either of the two technology perceptions, rejecting H4 and H6. Concerning organizational facilitators, these displayed a strong significant effect on the perceived ease of use of the system (b ¼ 0.359; t ¼ 4.628), supporting H9. Perceived usefulness was however not affected by organizational facilitators, rejecting H8. To allow for more detailed statements on the influence of transformational leadership style on perceived usefulness, we tested a second model where we related all sub-dimensions of the two leadership styles directly to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. We obtained t-values by applying a bootstrap procedure consisting of 250 re-samples. Our results showed that contingent reward and management-by-exception, being sub-dimensions of the transactional leadership style, did not display any significant relationships to either perceived usefulness or perceived ease of use (0.339 , t , 1.440). Focusing on the significant relationship between transformational leadership and perceived usefulness, our additional analysis shows this effect is fully accounted for by the sub-dimension of intellectual stimulation (b ¼ 0.094; t ¼ 1.900). The other sub-dimensions remained non-significant. Model fit PLS has no proper single goodness-of-fit measures, although the R 2 values of the endogenous constructs indicate whether a particular PLS model accomplishes the objective of maximizing the variance explained (Hulland, 1999). The current model displays R 2 values of 0.341 for perceived usefulness, 0.134 for perceived ease of use, and 0.507 for usage. In accordance with the categorization of R 2 effect sizes by Cohen (1988) (small: 0.02; medium: 0.13; large: 0.26) we can conclude these effect sizes to be medium (perceived ease of use) to large (perceived usefulness and usage). Recently, Tenenhaus et al. (2005) developed a global fit measure for PLS based on R 2 values. By taking the square root of the product of the average communality of all constructs and the average R 2 value of the endogenous constructs a fit measure between 0 and 1 is calculated. Based the categorization by Cohen (1988), and using 0.5 as a cut-off value for commonality (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), GoF criteria for small, medium, and large effect sizes would be 0.1, 0.25 and 0.36. For the current model this fit is 0.405, indicating a good fit of the model to the data. The model of the additional analysis performed slightly better in terms of model fit. However, with decomposed leadership styles this was expected. R 2 values of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and usage were 0.394, 0.176, and 0.506, respectively. Based on the Tenenhaus et al. (2005) statistic, this leads to a GoF value of 0.436. Conclusion and discussion While numerous studies have already verified TAM (Legris et al., 2003), to our knowledge no attention was paid to leadership styles before. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of two leadership styles, transactional leadership and transformational leadership, on TAM factors. We hypothesized both styles to
positively relate to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, albeit using different mechanisms. Our findings show that only the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived usefulness was significant. Additional analysis illustrates that this effect is fully accounted for by the sub-dimension of intellectual stimulation. This indicates that encouraging new ways of thinking and enabling subordinates to analyze problems from many different viewpoints will indirectly yield a better individual technology acceptance level within the organization (mediated by perceived usefulness). Charismatic leadership, individual consideration and inspirational motivation might be less effective with this goal in mind. Together with perceived ease of use transformational leadership explained more than 34 percent of the variance in perceived usefulness. The hypotheses concerning transactional leadership style did not display significance. So, pointing out the usefulness of a technology by means of setting targets and objectives that require the use of a technology might not be very effective in stimulating the use of a technology. The non-significance could be due to the fact that the reliability of the construct measured by Cronbach’s a was slightly below the commonly accepted cut-off value of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Concerning organizational facilitators, these displayed a strong influence on an individual’s perceived ease of use of the technology. Consistent with previous research (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004; Venkatesh et al., 2002), we state that training and more general end-user support are of importance in enhancing individual technology acceptance as well. Implementing a help desk, or on-site support are possibilities to communicate organizational commitment to employees. Management should also think about the less tangible aspects, however, a positive word-of-mouth in an internal marketing campaign can serve a useful purpose too. These actions only influence individual technology usage via perceived ease of use, however, as there was no significant relationship between organizational facilitators and perceived usefulness of the technology. With regards to the limitations of our research a couple of points can be mentioned. First, perceived actual use was used as opposed to objective measures. Using the latter might lead to superior analysis. Secondly, the results are based on findings in one company only, which limits the generalizability of the results. Further research in different countries and industries is needed to be able to make stronger statements. The observation by Igbaria et al. (1997) that results with respect to relationships between internal support and internal training on the one hand and PU and PEOU on the other hand might differ between small and large firms only adds to this statement. Furthermore the use of cross-sectional data instead of a longitudinal research design inhibits to make statements on causal relationships. As a last limitation, the low reliability of transactional leadership could have caused non-significance in some of the hypothesized relations. It could be explored whether this might be due to a potential formative nature of the relationship of the indicators with the construct. With regard to future research a couple of opportunities arise, ranging from replicating this type of research in small companies to making cross-cultural comparisons. A longitudinal study could be beneficial as well, as it would allow making statements on the stability and durability of the observed effects. To get a more fine-grained analysis of the impact of leadership on technology acceptance, authors could also link other leadership theories and constructs (e.g. leader characteristics) to TAM.
Leadership styles
505
MSQ 15,6
506
References Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-48. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1997), “The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 557-83. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204-15. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999), “Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 361-91. Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Salam, A.F. (2004), “An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 731-45. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond”, in Hung, J.G. et al. (Eds), Emerging Leadership Vistas, Lexington Books, Lexington, MD, pp. 29-50. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), The Full Range of Leadership Development, Bass, Avolio and Associates, Binghamton, NY. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 137-64. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468-78. Chin, W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Business Research Methods, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-30. Davis, F.D., Bagolli, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1993), An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, 57, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Fornell, C.R. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), “Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory”, Journal of Market Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 440-53. Fornell, C.R. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 57-78.
Fornell, C.R. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 39-50. Frambach, R.T. and Schillewaert, N. (2002), “Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 163-76. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90. Hansmann, K.W. and Ringle, C.M. (2004), SmartPLS manual, University of Hamburg, Hamburg. House, R.J. (1977), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 189-207. Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902. Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial lease squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204. Igbaria, M. (1993), “User acceptance of microcomputer technology: an empirical test”, Omega, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 73-90. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A.L.M. (1997), “Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 279-302. Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-68. Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003), “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 191-204. Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M.J., Frambach, R.T. and Moenaert, R.K. (2000), “The acceptance of information technology in the sales force”, working paper, eBusiness Research Center. Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M.J., Frambach, R.T. and Moenaert, R.K. (2005), “The adoption of information technology in the sales force”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 323-36. Straub, D.W., Keil, M. and Brenner, W.H. (1997), “Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study”, Information & Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-11. Szajna, B. (1996), “Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 85-93. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205. Van der Heijden, H. (2003), “Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 541-9. Van der Heijden, H. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonistic information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 695-704.
Leadership styles
507
MSQ 15,6
508
Venkatesh, V. (1999), “Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 239-41. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (1996), “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 451-82. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-205. Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. and Morris, M.G. (2002), “User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 297-316. Yukl, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. (Jeroen Schepers MSc is a PhD candidate in Organization Science and Marketing at Eindhoven University of Technology in The Netherlands. Before becoming a PhD candidate he studied Information Management at Tilburg University. His research interests include technology adoption and organizational innovation management. Martin G.M. Wetzels currently is a Full Professor of Marketing with the Faculty of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. His main research interests are: new product development, electronic marketing, quality management, (online) marketing research, service marketing and management, relationship marketing and innovation and technology management. His work has resulted in more than 40 articles in international journals including Management Science, Marketing Letters, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Journal of Economic Psychology, Industrial Marketing Management, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Management Studies and Total Quality Management. Finally, he has contributed more than sixty papers to conference proceedings. Ko de Ruyter is Professor of Marketing and Head of the Department of Marketing at Maastricht University, The. He has published six books and numerous scholarly articles in among others the Journal of Marketing, Management Science, Journal of Retailing International, Journal of Research in Marketing, Decision Sciences, Marketing Letters, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of Service Research, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Journal of Business Research, Information and Management, European Journal of Marketing and Accounting and Organisation and Society. He serves on the editorial boards of various international academic journals, among which, the Journal of Service Research and International Journal of Service Industry Management. His research interests concern international service management, e-commerce and customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction.)
