Opening the black box:
The consequences of a perceived mismatch
What if your colleagues’ behavior deviates from what has been
verbally communicated during an IT change?
Master Thesis MSc BA - Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business
May 23, 2014
Thomas Bakker s1912461 David Spanjarstraat 12 8017 DD Zwolle +31 (0) 6 30602412 Email: Thomasbakker.90@gmail.com Supervisor University: Drs. B. Müller Second Assessor University:Drs. J.C.L. Paul
Word count: 13473
Acknowledgement:
2
Opening the black box:
The consequences of a perceived mismatch
What if your colleagues’ behavior deviates from
what has been
verbally communicated during an IT change?
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to explore the unknown consequences when change recipients perceive that their colleagues’ actual behavior (work related colleagues, middle-, top- and change managers) differs from what was communicated during the IT change, and how these change recipients deal with this discrepancy. Verbal communication and the observed behavior are the elements composing the perceived mismatch. Data was mainly gathered by conducting interviews among Dutch employees of a small business enterprise, who were involved in a large ERP implementation. This resulted in 12 interviewees. The outcome showed that a perceived mismatch during an IT change, influences trust and affective organizational commitment, while it does not influence technology acceptance. Nevertheless, the change recipients indicated that such a mismatch results in frustration, irritation, sadness, delay, loss, lower customer satisfaction and, ultimately, a lower company success. Accordingly, this study found that trust in internal colleagues is hardly affected when change recipients perceived a mismatch at them. Although trust in external colleagues, e.g. consultants, is affected. Additionally, multiple change recipients put the perceived mismatch on the table and if necessary they will even take it to a higher level. The constraints of this study, the implications of its outcome, and the possibilities for future research are discussed.
Keywords: Information technologies, IT change, Recipients perceptions, Verbal
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION... 6
1.1. Organization under study ... 8
Change project ... 8
1.2. Research focus ... 9
1.3. Reader Guide ... 11
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 12
2.1 Change Recipients: Key user and end user ... 12
2.2 Components of a mismatch ... 12
Verbal communication ... 12
Observable behavior ... 13
2.3 Perceived Mismatch ... 15
Work related colleagues ... 16
Middle manager ... 16 Top management ... 16 Change agent ... 17 2.4 Behavioral Antecedents ... 17 2.5 Possible Consequences ... 19 Trust ... 19
Affective organizational commitment ... 20
Technology acceptance ... 21
2.6 How to deal with it ... 23
Upward communication ... 23
4 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 25 3.1 Data collection ... 25 3.2 Data measures ... 27 Perceived mismatch ... 27 Trust ... 27
Affective organizational commitment ... 28
Technology acceptance ... 28
Upward communication ... 28
3.3 Data Analysis ... 28
Validity and reliability ... 29
4. RESULTS ... 31
5. DISCUSSION ... 36
5.1 Revised Conceptual Model ... 41
6. CONCLUSION ... 42
6.1 Implications... 42
Theoretical implications ... 42
Practical implications ... 42
6.2 Limitations and Future research ... 43
6.3 Conclusion ... 45
5
8. APPENDICES ... 63
Appendix 1: Introduction mail to the employees ... 63
Appendix 2A: Interview in Dutch ... 64
Appendix 2B: Interview questions in English ... 66
Appendix 3A: Descriptions of interview concepts in English ... 68
Appendix 3B: Descriptions of interview concepts in Dutch ... 69
Appendix 4: Measurement Scales as guideline ... 70
Appendix 5: Citations related to measurement scales ... 72
Appendix 6: Overview interviewees ... 75
6
1. INTRODUCTION
Information Technology (IT) is omnipresent in today’s organizations! Every organization has to deal with the more comprehensive and more extensive new information technologies that arise on the horizon each day. Technologies have evolved, organizations have restructured, and the use of technology has changed, as has technology management. IT functions have gone through profound transformations over the years. Whenever a new information system is introduced, a multitude of expected and unexpected consequences in the users’ environment is generated (Griffith, 1999; Weick, 1990; Boonstra, 2005a). An essential success factor for any IT change is the human factor, because IT systems are developed, maintained and used by people. That is the reason why IT is not primarily a technical system, but a social system (Boonstra, 2005a).
A multitude of researchers have concluded that employees play a major role in the success or failure of change in their organizations (Kotter and Cohen, 2002; van Knippenberg, Martin and Tyler, 2006; Whelan-Berry, Gordon and Hinings, 2003). Change recipients’ reactions to change thus play a key role in determining the change’s potential for success (e.g., Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006). However, the recipients are influenced by social factors when using the IT system, because information technologies are designed to be used by a group of people, and not for the use of a single person (Brown, Dennis & Venkatesh, 2010; Sarker and Valacich, 2010). Ultimately, change recipients are influenced both by messages about the expected behavior and the observed behavior of others (Herath, 2008).
7 Therefore this study aims to explore the effects of a word-deed misalignment more broadly and at multiple levels (Simons, 2002). For instance, a change recipient might observe that the actual behavior of his or her colleagues is not in line with the expectations or agreements that were verbally communicated throughout the organization. Change recipients may also observe and perceive a mismatch at one person who communicates how to use the system, how to behave or with whom they have made a verbal agreement, and who subsequently actually behaves differently. This undeveloped issue will be addressed in this study as the concept ‘perceived mismatch’. There is no explicit academic literature about such a mismatch, therefore closely related concepts have been used that discuss almost the same principle (Broström & Davidsson, 2012; Simons, 2002; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003).
The influence and consequences of a perceived mismatch are still a black box in academic literature, which makes this study exciting and interesting. Nevertheless, it’s about how the individual perceives the mismatch and what kind of consequences this perception might have for the individual employee, as well as for the organization as a whole (Buelens, van den Broeck, Vanderheyden, Kreitner & Kinicki, 2006). Accordingly, it is fascinating to know how change recipients deal with such a perceived mismatch.
8
1.1. Organization under study
This study was performed at Hemmink B.V., a small medium enterprise (SME) situated in the business-to-business industry. It is a distributor of electro-technical fittings, fasteners, cable components, wire and cable, safety equipment and technical tapes. Hemmink B.V. is a reliable importer within the electrical and cable television market since 1951. This SME is still active in the luxurious residential, utilities and industry market segments. The company sees investing in its people as a critical success factor, because after all, people make the difference. Currently, Hemmink B.V. employs 65 people, who are highly educated, experienced and committed and who are continuously trained to advise quickly and efficiently. Hemmink B.V. strives for continuous improvement and the management is motivated to bring the company to a higher level. The decision to implement a new ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system was also motivated by the management’s devotion to this goal.
Change project
The company HSO guides Hemmink B.V. to improve its business performance by increasing the productivity and effectiveness of the logistical and financial organization. For this, the following modern technology for business applications, based on standard Microsoft software has been used: Microsoft Dynamics AX.
Microsoft Dynamics AX is an integrated trading, logistics and financial platform for operations across multiple sites, multiple countries, multiple languages and currencies. It is built from the viewpoint of flexibility to support the distinctiveness of the various activities and to respond to changes in the organization, products and processes flexibly. In addition, new employees can quickly become productive using this platform because of its familiar Microsoft look-and-feel.
There are three main objectives in the project:
1. Optimal support of the logistics and sales process between supplier, Hemmink and the target/end customer.
2. Promoting cooperation in the chain.
9 Microsoft Dynamics AX is an ERP system, which is a comprehensive, integrated cross-functional system containing selectable software modules that address a wide range of operational activities in an enterprise, such as accounting and finance, human resources, manufacturing, sales, and distribution (Robey, Ross and Beaudry, 2002). The management of the ERP system determines the success and not the system itself (Boonstra, 2005b). Therefore, good project management is required. But this is not possible without a valid method in which control of multiple aspects is anchored. A control method that has been used within Hemmink B.V. is the Business Release methodology, which implies that the entire project is divided into smaller sub-projects; each sub-project is aimed at achieving clear, measurable and business-oriented goals.
Moreover, different groups were formed within Hemmink B.V. with the goal to make the change process more appropriate and successful. For instance, work groups were established within the different functional areas, consisting of key users. And the key users within the workgroups were supported by consultants of the company HSO. The work groups were responsible for the implementation of the project. During the project, HSO has had the role of designing the system of core applications that will support the expert users and application administrators. This means that standards were delivered, décor advice was given and that the key users were trained in the beginning of the change project. The project maintains the principle of ‘‘shoulder to shoulder’’, which means that both the consultant and the key user organize the system in a joint effort. The key users train and help the end-users during the Deploy and Operation Phase based on the work instructions, which they themselves have drawn up in an earlier phase of the project, to support the first operational weeks. Currently, the ERP implementation finds itself more in the Operation phase. Both the key user and the end user undergo the ERP implementation as change recipients (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). Ultimately, they will hopefully accept the new operational system.
1.2. Research focus
10 principle. Summarizing, the theoretical foundations in the literature are weak and need to be explored. Therefore, these foundations were tested in and exposed to an organization.
As mentioned before, the perceived mismatch can entail two scenarios in this research. First of all, a recipient might observe that the actual behavior of his or her colleagues deviates from what has been verbally communicated through the organization. Secondly, recipients can also observe and perceive a mismatch at one person who communicates how to use the system, how to behave or with whom they have made a verbal agreement, and who subsequently actually behaves differently. This mainly has to do with behavioral integrity, which is defined as “The alignment pattern between an actor’s words and deeds as perceived
by another person” (Simons, 2002).
The choice to investigate the consequences of a perceived mismatch by change recipients was motivated by the following: (1) The undeveloped and unknown concept; a perceived mismatch, aroused the interest to investigate its importance, its consequences and how change recipients deal with it. (2) The belief that this study has added-value for researchers and managers, because it provides a better understanding of the influence and importance of a perceived mismatch, which might be an important concept that affects even the success of an IT change. (3) The mismatch is common, active and present in real life as it is during the ERP implementation at Hemming B.V.. Additionally, it is also interesting to investigate this mismatch phenomenon during an ERP implementation, because the percentage of ERP implementation failures is over 60% (Liang, Saraf, Hu and Xue, 2007).
Closely related concepts will be incorporated in this study to determine possible consequences of a perceived mismatch, which will be discussed in the literature review. However, this does not mean that other consequences will be overlooked. The actual consequences of a perceived mismatch will be based on the conducted interviews which might, or might not, be in line with the possible consequences. The consequence of how change recipients deal with a perceived mismatch is also taken into account. The conceptual model based on the literature will sensitizes the researcher to go beyond that.
11 the information needed to answer the main research question properly. In order to investigate the consequences of a perceived mismatch the following research question is proposed:
Research question
‘’What are the consequences if change recipients perceive a mismatch between verbal communication and observed behavior; and how do they deal with this during an IT change?’’
1.3. Reader Guide
12
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this chapter the academic concepts and scientific literature will be discussed briefly. First of all the “key user” and “end user” will be explained, followed by the components “verbal communication” and “observable behavior”, which subsequently comprise a mismatch. Additionally, the dependent concept “possible consequences” will be discussed. With regard to this information, several sub-questions will be put forward in this chapter to support the main question. Finally, a conceptual model will be presented.
2.1 Change Recipients: Key user and end user
At the heart of events, however, and a main determinant of the extent to which any change can succeed, is how change recipients react to organizational change (Oreg et al., 2011). In this study, the change recipients are the key users and end users of a system.
The key users of the new system train the end users, based on the work instructions that they have drawn up to support the first operational weeks. The key users are defined as: “influential users who may influence other users” (Yang & Tang, 2005). Unfortunately, there is no general definition for the end user. However, Cotterman & Kumar (1989), explain that end users are “people who interact with computer-based information systems only as consumers of information”. In other words, it an end-user is a person who simply uses the product.
2.2 Components of a mismatch
First of all the components encompassing the mismatch will be discussed, starting with verbal communication, followed by the actual observed behavior.
Verbal communication
13 working efficiently towards and during the change. However, communication is defined as
’’the exchange of information between a sender and a receiver, and the inference (perception) of meaning between the individuals involved’’ (Bowditch & Buono, 1997,
p.120).
Verbal communication includes oral and written communication that can be used to describe and explain certain expectations about how to behave (Buelens et al., 2006, p. 294). Oral communication is the most frequent means of communication. Think of presentations, group discussions, face-to-face conversations, and meetings. Moreover, oral communication is fast and allows immediate feedback. Words are helpful because they are one of a manager’s most potent tools for guiding subordinates at all levels of the company (Simons, 2002). However, a major disadvantage arises when a message has to be passed on by many people before it reaches its destination. The greater distance between the receiver of the message and its originator, the greater the chance that communication will be distorted.
To avoid this, organizations typically use a lot of written communication: letters, emails, meeting minutes, manuals, newsletters and reports. Written communication is tangible and it can be verified easily (Buelens et al., 2006). However, it is not merely the amount of communication and information that determines recipients’ reactions to change but also the content and quality of this communication and information (Oreg et al., 2011). Bouckenooghe et al. (2009, p. 599) define the quality of change communication with the aid of Miller, Johnson and Grau (1994): “How change is communicated and the clarity, the
frequency and openness determine whether or not communication is effective”.
Researchers are in relative agreement that communication or the provision of information constitutes a vital component of any successful implementation plan (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991; Lewis & Seibold, 1998; Elving, 2005; Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish & DiFonzo, 2004).
Observable behavior
In contrast to verbal communication, the observable behavior is composed of the actual deeds that are performed. According to Sundel and Sundel (2004), behavior is defined as: ‘’any
observable or measurable movement or activity of an individual’’. The behavior can be
14 or private responses are measurable but are not observable. Cognitive behaviors include thoughts, perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. Much of this behavior is described as “self-talk,” the things that people say to themselves, or think, in response to antecedent and consequent stimuli (Sundel, Sundel, 2004).
It is fascinating to acknowledge that people often follow examples, that they will perform certain actions or non-actions because many other people do the same (Herath, 2008). A good example is the well-known conformity experiment of Asch, which shows that the degree to which an individual's own opinions is influenced by those of a majority group (Asch, 1951, 1952). Furthermore, Schmitz and Ryu (1995) found that employees’ cognition and behaviors regarding email systems use, were significantly associated with the attitudes and behaviors of their supervisors and five closest workers.
Additionally, several authors argue that many learning phenomena resulting from direct experiences can occur on a vicarious basis, such as through observations of behaviours and consequences (Bandura, 1986; Kim & Miner, 2007; Nadler, Thompson, & van Boben, 2003).
Moreover, observed behavior can be in line with post adoptive behavior, because post-adoptive behavior can be seen as the myriad feature adoption decisions, feature use behaviors, and feature extension behaviors made by an individual user after an IT application has been installed, made accessible to the user, and applied by the user in accomplishing his or her work activities (Jasperson, Carter and Zmud, 2005).
With regard to verbal communication and observed behavior, it is interesting to know the importance of these concepts during an IT change in order to get a better understanding about the elements composing a perceived mismatch. Therefore the following sub question is proposed:
Sub question 1: What is the importance of verbal communication and observed
15
2.3 Perceived Mismatch
The mismatch is perceived by end users and key users (Yang & Tang, 2005; Kotterman & Kumar, 1998). The section above has already discussed already the elements composing the mismatch, which make enable people to perceive a mismatch during the IT change.
As mentioned before, a mismatch occurs if an individual observes that colleagues do not behave in accordance with what has been communicated. For example, he or she may observe that a person’s behavior is not in line with what was said previously, or observe behavior which is not in line with what was personally agreed upon. Additionally, a person may also observe that his or her colleagues’ not behaving properly, thus opposing for instance their managers’ or change agent’s communication. As mentioned before, there is no explicit academic literature about such a mismatch, therefore closely related concepts have been used that discuss almost the same principle.
Thereby, it is about how the change recipients perceive the mismatch. Perception is a cognitive process that enables us to interpret and understand our environment. It involves the way we view the world around us and adds meaning to the information gathered via the five senses (Buelens et al., 2006, p. 128).
According to Broström and Davidsson (2012), a mismatch is defined as ‘’if one or more
constructs failed to match with any other level’’. In organization research a fit is defined as ‘‘an internal contingency among key strategic decisions’’ (Ensign, 2001). However, this
research focuses explicitly on a perceived mismatch between two components.
The discussed mismatch is closely related to behavioral integrity (BI), because it is defined as ‘’the alignment pattern between an actor’s words and deeds as perceived by another person’’ (Simons, 2002). In other words, it is the extent to which employees perceive that their manager, or a group of managers, is keeping their promises and accurately representing themselves and their values in communications. In the worst case, an inconsistency between words and deeds can even cause the change effort to fail (Poole, 1998).
16
Work related colleagues
Work related colleagues focus on the employees who are active in their near environment, with whom they work regularly. There is no generally accepted definition of the term ‘colleague’. However, Henderson and Agyle (1985) describe workmates as ‘’People at work seen simply through formal work contacts and with whom interactions are relatively superficial and task-oriented, and not characterized by either liking or dislike’’.
Middle manager
For the middle manager there is again no general definition. However, a frequently used definition in middle management literature is Likert’s (1961) definition: ‘’Middle managers
are linking pins’’. In other words, the role of the middle manager is a tie between top
management and operational workers (Vogler, 2007). According to Caldwell (2003), middle managers are now often expected to be key drivers of change. Middle managers have to implement corporate change initiatives, while also confirming that the organization is maintaining its core business (Balogun, Huff & Johnson, 2003). As a result, which is underlined by numerous studies, middle managers play a crucial role during organizational changes (Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Balogun and Johnson, 2005; van Vuuren & Elving, 2008; Elving, Bennebroek Gravenhorst and Werkman, 2005; Hales, 2005; Huy, 2002; Delmestri & Walgenbach, 2005). The middle managers are linking pins between top management level; in which change is initiated, and the individual level; in which the emotional needs of the work force are recognized and balanced (Balogun and Johnson, 2005).
Top management
17
Change agent
Local change agents can be seen as coaches for change or as change project managers (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Bouckenooghe, 2008). The local change agents have to genuinely support the change as top management does, due to the fact top management appointed these local change agents (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts & Walker, 2007). The change agents need the ability to lead the change recipients to the change process (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). A change project manager will coordinate the planning, manage logistics, track the team’s progress toward change targets, and manage the adjustments needed along the way (Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012). Moreover, the internal change agent is an employee of the organization while the external change agent is from outside the organization (Cawsey et al., 2012).
The discussed mismatch might have multiple behavioral antecedents, however, literature provides mainly five comprehensive behavioral antecedents that can influence the perceived mismatch (Simons, 2002). This will be shortly discussed in dept below, in order to gain a better understanding about the discussed phenomenon.
2.4 Behavioral Antecedents
18
TABLE 1
Possible behavioral antecedents
Behavioral Antecedents Meaning Manager’s need to satisfy diverse constituencies
Managers’ needs to manage the impressions of multiple and often diverse stakeholder groups. Managers are frequently charged with the task of satisfying multiple, often contradictory, constituencies, both inside and outside the organization. Relaxed demands for consistency allow them to better accomplish this task (Brunsson 1989, Simons, 2002; Pfeffer 1981).
Managerial fads & fashion
Managerial fads and fashions (Abrahamson, 1991) and the organizational and managerial responses to such fads are another key source of low fit between words and actions (Simons, 2002). Two items that are covered by this behavioral antecedent are:
1) Multiple partial change efforts over time, mixed jargon.
2) Poorly integrated use of management techniques & technologies. Organizational
Change
A perceived mismatch can emerge from partial or sequential abortive change efforts, but may also emerge during the process of sustained change efforts because change can lead to confusion and
miscommunication, and different elements of the organization frequently change at different paces (Weick 1995; Schein, 1992). Three items that are covered by the organizational change antecedent are:
1) Poorly integrated policies and procedures. 2) Espousal of not-yet-implemented aspirations. 3) Individual manager ambivalence &/ or confusion. Manager’s
awareness of own values
Self-knowledge can be expected to affect the actual alignment between managers’ words and deeds. A lack of self-understanding can easily lead to unintended inaccuracies in self-portrayal, and to unanticipated changes and inconsistent behavior (Simons, 2002; Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Manager’s
personality traits
One can anticipate that personality attributes of individual managers might affect their pattern of actual word-deed alignment (Simons, 2002).
19 given that indicates how change recipients deal most probably with a perceived mismatch. As mentioned before, this will be discussed in the following sub-chapter.
2.5 Possible Consequences
The mismatch will have certain consequences for the individuals who perceive it. However, the consequences of a perceived mismatch are still a ‘’black box’’. Therefore, it is useful to take a look at existing consequences entailed by behavioral integrity (Simons, 2002) to get a better understanding about the possible consequences of a mismatch. The most common consequences of behavioral integrity are the degree of trust in one’s manager and affective organizational commitment (Simons, 2002, 2009; Kannan-Narasimhan and Lawrence, 2011; Yang, Tsai and Liao, 2014). However, there is still the need for further exploration of these concepts (Simons, 2002).
The discussed mismatch has also to do with the social influence concept, because social influence is the extent to which social networks influence members’ behavior through messages and signals that help form perceptions of the value of an activity (Venkatesh & Brown, 2001). According to Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis (2003), social influence is defined as ‘’the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or
she should use the new system’’ (p. 452). Furthermore, several studies have explored and
shown a significant effect of social influence on technology adaptation in general (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Therefore, it interesting and logical that a mismatch might influence the actual system acceptance and system use (Olschewski, Renken, Bullinger & Moslein, 2013). Nevertheless, the consequences of a mismatch have hardly been researched so far, and therefore, it is interesting to investigate and explore what consequences a perceived mismatch might have. Three possible consequences are discussed below, followed by one specific kind of action that indicates how to deal with a perceived mismatch.
Trust
20 credibility when they simply do what they say they will do (Kouzes and Posner, 1993). Thereby, there is substantial agreement that a perception that another’s words tend to align with his deeds is critically important for the development of trust (McGregor, 1967). Previous research has even identified that leader behavioral integrity is an important antecedent to trust in the leader (Palanski and Yammarino 2011; Simons et al., 2007). Thereby, Simons et al. (2007) found that perception of leader’s behavioral integrity is positively related to employees’ trust in these same leaders. Behavioral integrity is a key antecedent to trust (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, and Levin, 2003; Simons 2002, 2008; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner, 1998).
Scholars have used diverse definitions of the construct trust (Bigley and Pearce 1998, Kramer 1999). One of the most useful ways to interpret trust is to view it as resulting from an individual’s perceptions of the characteristics or qualities of specific others (Clark & Payne, 1997). Therefore the definition of Cook and Wall (1980) is chosen to define trust "the extent
to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words and actions of other people” (p.39).
However, this research is not only limited to the degree of trust in their leaders (Simons, 2002). The level of trust in work-related colleagues, middle-, change or top managers might also be influenced if change recipients perceive a mismatch at that level. The question still remains: “Does a perceived mismatch actually influence the degree of trust in a person?”.
Affective organizational commitment
Behavioral Integrity (BI) is a logical antecedent that has been repeatedly shown to influence organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Although previous studies have verified that a correlation exists between BI and affective organizational commitment (Simons et al., 2007). According to Simons and McLean-Parks (2000), behavioral integrity is an important antecedent for follower organizational affective commitment.
Affective organizational commitment can be defined as ‘’employees’ affective or emotional
attachment to the employing organization’’ (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Rhoades, Eisenberger &
21 commitment (Simons, 2009; Yang et al., 2014; Leroy, Palanski & Simons, 2012). These results are consistent with those reported by Simons et al. (2007).
Adopting the perspective of Vandenberghe and Bentein (2009), the study of Yang, Tsai and Liao (2014) defined affective commitment ‘’as the perception of identifying with, being
involved in, and emotionally attached to the organization ‘’. Employees who are personally
identified with the organization are willing to work hard, take initiative, and adapt to changes (Griffin et al. 2007; Meyer et al. 2004). It seems hard to image that an employee is feeling affective commitment to a company, when salient representatives of that company, demonstrate broken promises.
Technology acceptance
The discussed mismatch mainly has to do with the social influence concept, because social influence is the extent to which social networks influence members’ behavior through messages and signals that help form perceptions of the value of an activity (Venkatesh & Brown, 2001). According to Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis (2003), social influence is defined as ‘’the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or
she should use the new system’’ (p. 452). Nevertheless, the role of social influence in
technology acceptance decisions is still complex and subject to a wide range of contingent influences (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Several theoretical models have been employed to study user acceptance and usage behavior of emerging information technologies. However, a tool for assessing and predicting user acceptance of emerging IT that has gained popularity in recent years is the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1986; Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Davis, 1993). It is widely used by researchers and practitioners to predict and explain user acceptance of information technologies (Davis, 1986; Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Davis, 1993). According to Davis et al. (1989), TAM was intended to “provide an explanation of the determinants of system acceptance that is general, capable of explaining user behaviour across a broad range of end-user computing technologies’’.
22 acceptance. According to Davis (1989), perceived ease of use is defined as ‘’ the degree to
which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort" and
perceived usefulness is defined as: ‘’the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would enhance his or her job performance’’.
Clearly defining what ‘acceptance of technology’ is and how it should be measured is also an important step towards understanding the factors that influence acceptance (and/or rejection). Dillon (2001) defined user acceptance as the ‘’demonstrable willingness within a user group
to employ information technology for the tasks it is designed to support’’. Acceptance of
technology was most often defined in terms of adoption and use (Van Ittersum, Rogers, Capar, Caine, O’Brien, Parsons and Fisk, 2006). Rogers defines technology adoption as ‘’the
relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a system’’ (1995).
However, there is no accepted definition of the ‘system usage’ construct in the IS literature. Still, Burton-Jones and Straub define individual-level system usage as ‘’an individual user’s
employment of one or more features of a system to perform a task’’ (2007).
The importance of social influence was shown in a first pretest having a strong direct effect on actual system use (Olschewski et al., 2013). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) use the construct of subjective norm to capture social influences in their model of TAM2 and TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).
With regard to this information the actual consequences of a perceived mismatch are still unknown. Therefore it would be valuable to examine whether these possible consequences are actually influenced by a perceived mismatch and what other consequences could still be hidden in the black box. This results in the following sub question:
Sub question 2: What are the consequences of a perceived mismatch and does it
influences trust, affective organizational commitment and technology acceptance?
23
2.6 How to deal with it
Sometimes employees choose to speak or sometimes they choose to be silent if they perceive a problem. People often turn to credible leaders and colleagues to help them absorb uncertainty and make sense of confusion (Buelens et al., 2006). This might even be the case for a perceived mismatch. One logical response is given that relates in all probability to a perceived mismatch.
Upward communication
Individuals have a general reluctance to convey negative information because of the discomfort associated with being the conveyer of bad news (Buelens et al., 2006; Larson & King, 1996). They tend to modify or distort information when they aspire to move upward and when they do not trust their supervisor (Fulk & Mani, 1986). Saunders, Sheppard, Knight and Roth (1992) found that employees’ willingness to voice work-related concerns and suggestions to their bosses depended on how approachable and responsive they perceived their supervisor to be. Though, upward communication is not only affected by characteristics of the communicator, the message, and the organizational context, but also by the characteristics of the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Glauser, 1984). A favourable context is where top management is perceived to be willing to listen, the culture is supportive, and there is relatively little uncertainty of negative consequences (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes & Wierba, 1997). The purpose of communication is to allowing them the freedom to discuss the issues involved openly (Burnes, 2009). Although, timely and valid hierarchical communication can promote individual and organisational success (Buelens et al., 2006). Nonetheless, research is needed to examine how they deal with a perceived mismatch.
Therefore the following sub questions is proposed, in order to gain a better understanding of what recipients do when they observe a behavior that is not in line with what was communicated:
Sub question 3: What kind of actions do change recipients undertake when they
24
Possible Action
In the following sub-chapter the conceptual model is discussed, including a visual representation of the discussed concept in the literature review.
2.7 Conceptual Model
This study provided three sub questions in order to get a plausible answer to the research questions. With regard to all this information and concepts, a better understanding is created about the behavioral antecedents, the components of the mismatch, the mismatch itself, the possible consequences and how to deal with it. This results in the following conceptual model:
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model including all concepts
25
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the way data has been collected and analyzed. Data collection, data measures and data analysis will be discussed subsequently. This research is based on the theory building to examine the earlier stated research question. The method used in this study is primary a research case study, because this research case is used as empirical evidence to convince other researchers of the applicability of a particular theory or proposition (Myers, 2009). The purpose is to contribute to knowledge in a particular field (Myers, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989). Therefore the most evidence will come from interviews (qualitative research). It is quite suitable for trying to understand and interpret the mismatch phenomena perceived by change recipients, their motivations and actions, and the broader context within which they work and live (Cooper & Schindler, 2008; Myers, 2009). This qualitative method was chosen because the consequences and understanding of a perceived mismatch may adequately captured in qualitative analysis and in-depth analyses can result from this approach (Cooper & Schindler, 2008; van Aken, Berends & van der Bij, 2012).
3.1 Data collection
The data collections for this study consist of journals, databases and interviews (Myers, 2009) Interviews were used to gather information from the field. This took place within Hemmink B.V. The interviews were collected in the ‘impact’ period, as the event happens (Folkman, 1992). The data collection is strengthened by the information that is given in the plan of approach, which elaborately discusses the ERP implementation within the company.
26 The perceived mismatch is a relevant topic for exploratory research, because, so far, hardly any research has been published on this particular topic (Coopers & Schindler, 2008).
Initially, three conversations were held with the company’s management to get a better understanding of the company and its implementation. Together we established our plan of approach and which employees would be relevant for this study. The primary goal was to get the purpose and goal straight of this research. A total of twelve interviews were conducted (female & male), since the full range of thematic discovery usually occurs almost completely within the first twelve interviews (Guest, Bunce and Johnson, 2006). The interviews enabled us to obtain rich information from people with different roles and situations (Myers, 2009). The purpose of qualitative, interview-based research is to describe and clarify people's experiential life “as it is lived, felt, undergone, made sense of and accomplished by human beings ” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 84).
All the interviews took place at Hemmink B.V. and lasted approximately 40 minutes each. The interviews were semi-structured, which involved the use of some pre-formulated questions, but there was no strict adherence to these questions. New questions might emerge during the conversation, and such improvisation is encouraged. It creates the opportunity to add important insights as they arise during the conversation (Myers, 2009; Van Aken et al., 2012). Semi-structured interviewing uses an incomplete script and so requires flexibility, improvisation, and openness. Suitable and well-defined interview questions were obtained by refining and sharpening the questions with the company’s management. The interviews were conducted with managers and particularly end- and key users who were involved in the change program. An overview of the respondents can be found in Appendix 6. However, two of the twelve respondents were chosen via the snowball sampling approach (Cooper & Schindler, 2008; Van Aken et al., 2012). In this approach respondents identify other respondents that would be suitable for the sample. The other ten had already been chosen because of their position and role within the organization.
27 these are listed in Appendix 3.
The interviews aimed at understanding how each concept relates to the other concepts. The conducted interviews were tape-recorded and fully transcribed to enable data-analysis in sufficient depth. It is important to tape the conversations, because an exact quote is much more credible than a paraphrase of what someone else has said. However, full anonymity has been guaranteed to the interviewees with regard to these transcripts.
3.2 Data measures
Multiple existing scales have been used as a tested foundation for drawing up the interview questions and to relate the answers to the relevant item. This will be discussed briefly. However, all the items that function as a guideline can be found in Appendix 4 (Simons et al., 2007; Cook and Wall, 1980; Allen & Meyer, 1990; Davis, 1989). Nevertheless, open questions were asked to examine what the actual consequences and actions are if change recipients perceived a mismatch (Cooper & Schindler, 2009).
Perceived mismatch; verbal communication and observed behavior
First of all, the importance of verbal communication and observed behavior must be determined. People are free to indicate the importance of verbal communication and observed behavior. Subsequently, the interviewees are allowed to explain why these components result in a mismatch in their eyes and accordingly, what influence this has on trust, affective commitment and technology acceptance.
One item that Simons et al. (2007) used for measuring behavioral integrity is ‘’There is a
match between my manager’s words and actions’’. This is transformed in the interview as: Does it happen that your colleagues actually behave differently from what was communicated? The perceived mismatch will be compared by the guidance items that already
exist for behavioral integrity (Simons et al., 2007). However, the answers given in the interviews make use of the well-known scales.
Trust
28
colleagues can be relied upon to do as they say they will do’’. Another item that poses trust
is: ‘’I feel confident that managers will always treat me fairly’’. The other non-listed items can be found in Appendix 4.
Affective organizational commitment
The given answers will be linked to the measurement scale of Allen and Meyer (1990), which provide several items. One of them is: ‘’I really feel as if this organization's problems are my
own’’. The items given in Appendix 4 provide a common ground of the concept, which is a
useful guideline for answering the sub question.
Technology acceptance
This construct will be guided by the concepts that are the common foundation of the originally TAM model (Davis, 1989). These concepts contain: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to predict in this research the acceptance of the system. A item that is used to indicate perceived usefulness is ‘’I find the system to be easy to use’’ and an item for perceived ease of use is: ‘’I find the system to be useful in my job’’.
Upward communication
The following question will be asked with regard to their specific perceived mismatch ‘’How
do you deal with it? or in other words ‘’What kind of action do you undertake if you perceive it?’’. The opportunity is given to explain why and how this is the case.
3.3 Data Analysis
29 approaches. At first, the interview texts were divided into large parts based on the different elements like mismatch and consequences that were included in the interviews. With this technique, a preliminary list of codes was developed. With this list in mind, the axial coding process was started. Axial coding zooms in on a smaller area or category and collects all the relevant data around this category (Verhoeven, 2007; Boeije, 2005). It involved putting the coded data back together in new ways by grouping codes that were conceptually similar (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). It is important to notice that axial coding is still largely inductive and, thus, there is no completely pre-fabricated list of codes. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), inductive coding ensures a more open minded and context-sensitive researcher.
The data gathered in the interviews will be manually coded and subsequently this will be used to answer the three sub questions (See Appendix 7). The coding provides citations of the interviewees, which will be used in the following chapter.
Validity and reliability
This research conducts the same kind of interviews, to make this study more reliable (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Reliability is defined as ‘’the degree to which the construct is free from
random error’’ (Hoyle et al., 2002), or ‘’the degree to which the measures of the construct are consistent in what they are intended to measure’’. Repeating the same interview
questions enabled better determination as to the degree in which the measurement results differed from each other. Next to that, the researcher has tried to keep a well-structured and comprehensive repository of all materials. In doing so, close contact with one principal of the company was executed (Verhoeven, 2007).
To increase the construct validity, this research has generated clear questions and made sure that the interviewee had the same definition of certain concepts in alignment with the researcher (See Appendix 3A). Just to make sure that they were on the same track. The respondents had different roles and functions. This led to great variety in roles and functions and improved the reliability of this research (Van Aken et al., 2012).
30 state. For qualitative research Baarda et al. (2005) stress the importance of inter-subjectivity instead of reliability and validity during the analysis of data. Therefore, a measure was taken by having a friend, of the University of Groningen, code two of the conducted interviews. These codes were compared and discussed with the codes of the first researcher.
31
4. RESULTS
In this section, the results of the interviews will be presented. The three sub questions are answered by the information that is provided by the interviewees. The citations are linked to existing measurement items (Simons et al., 2007; Cook and Wall, 1980; Allen and Meyer ,1990; Davis, 1989) (See Appendix 5 & 7). First of all, an answer is given to the first sub question (SQ1), followed by answering the second sub question (SQ2) and finally the last sub question (SQ3) is examined.
SQ1: What is the importance of verbal communication and observed behavior?
Both verbal communication and observed behavior are extremely important, the majority of the interviewees confirmed this. The importance of verbal communication is brought to light in this citation: ‘’This is of course a crucial aspect. It is important to communicate well
(R1)’’. A couple of reasons were mentioned, but the next citation adequately elaborates on
this importance: ‘’It is of importance that everybody knows what needs to be done and how it
needs to be done. Units also need to know what the other units do (R7)’’. Another
consequence of clear communication is described as follows: ‘’I think that good
communication removes a lot of uncertainty and it prevents you from raising many questions (R9)’’. This citation is more or less in line with: ‘’Indistinctness always causes friction (R6)’’.
These citations indicate that verbal communication has an enlightening role among colleagues. The following citation is an admirable one: “You better communicate everything
to the people, instead of only the good things (R8)”. Verbal communication generates
expectations among its recipients, because: ‘’If they don’t meet your expectations, to deliver
for example a piece of software were we agreed upon, than it will result in more friction (R11)’’. Therefore it is a wise lesson to: ‘’Communicate your expectations to each other. If I don’t tell you what I expect from you, we will not be able to relate to each other (R10)’’.
Most interviewees indicated that observed behavior from colleagues does have an impact on them. Many used the following phrasing to describe this: ‘’If you have positive colleagues,
32
excited about it (R9)’’. Although it is fascinating to notice that not every person goes along
with the flow. A few interviewees made it clear that: ‘’If somebody is negative I try to look at
the things that are going well (R6)’’ and even more, some of them take action to explain why
something happened, or they try to help this person and fix the negative feeling. People are even influenced by the feeling of responsibility, which is indicated in the following citation: ‘’That is huge, it has a big influence, especially as a project manager. The behavior of
colleagues influences me, because it is my responsibility to bring the project to the next level (R11)’’. He is responsible for the project, it is thus very important to him that his colleagues
behave correctly, because: ‘’The behavior of my colleagues is, in my eyes, really the
fundament for the success of a project (R11)’’.
This information shows that both verbal communication and observed behavior are very important to the success of a change project. The following two citations indicate that both aspects are important. One interviewee stated, for instance, that: ‘’Behavior must be in line
with the goals that need to be accomplished (R2)’’, and another person stated that: ‘’Firstly, it is important that the instructions are followed and that we are a step further, but, it is also important what people do (R1)’’. Summarizing, both concepts play an interesting and
amazingly important role during an IT change. The importance of these two constructs is valid and confirmed. But what if observed behavior is not in line with verbal communication?
SQ2: What are the consequences of a perceived mismatch, and does it influences trust, affective organizational commitment and technology acceptance?
First of all, the concepts of trust, affective organizational commitment and technology acceptance are examined as possible consequences of a perceived mismatch. After that the newly discovered consequences will be discussed.
Possible consequences
Multiple interviewees indicated that a perceived mismatch within the company does not really affect their degree of trust in those concerned. People gave the following answers to the question if a perceived mismatch influences their trust in the relevant people: ‘’Not really,
because I have known them all for a very long time and I know they will do their best (R3)’’
33
it (R1)’’. This indicates that trust is hardly affected when employees know each other well,
and when they believe that they will all do their best. On the other hand, some look at this differently: ‘’If a person does not meet my expectations, then I draw the conclusion that the
person does not belong in the project (R11)’’.
In contrast to the internal perceived mismatch, it is important to acknowledge that a mismatch perceived at external people immediately influences their degree of trust in them. This is shown in the following citations, which are the result of a mismatch perceived at their supplier: ‘’At a certain moment your trust is gone (R3)’’, ‘’Yes, your confidence decreases. At
a certain moment we had reached rock- bottom in terms of trust (R10)’’ and ‘’At a certain moment your trust is gone. In the beginning you give them the chance and shit sometimes happens, but when it happens more often than it reduces your trust (R7)’’. One citation
concludes nicely the impact of a perceived mismatch on trust: ‘’Well, externally it brings
more feeling with it instead of internally (R11)’’. There is thus a difference between
perceiving a mismatch internally or externally. Internal people have a personal bond with each other, while the bond with external people from a supplier is more business oriented.
A perceived mismatch can influence affective commitment in multiple ways. A few interviewees stated that it can have a more positive influence, because: ‘’It influences me a lot
if I see that people have conflicts and if they do something else than what was asked of them. I am more than committed to resolve this (R1)‘’. Those people want to resolve the
mismatches, and therefore they put in more positive energy in the project. Another response that is given to the question if a mismatch influences their affective commitment is: “No, I am
committed to the company, or else I would not be working here. I don’t think it has an influence on the affective commitment, because I think it is still there (R7)’’. And also:
‘’Personally it has no effect on me (R10)’’. The majority of the change recipients expressed that a mismatch does not really influence their affective organizational commitment.
Finally, the results show that a mismatch does not have a big influence on the acceptance of a new system. The majority of the interviewees expressed this in the following responses: ‘’I
34 faith in the new system, which is nicely expressed in the following citations: ‘No, I think we
have a bad perspective, but I still think it is a beautiful system (R6)’’ and ‘’I still see a lot of opportunities and possibilities (R6)’’.
Additional consequences
The main purpose of this research is to better identify the consequences of a perceived mismatch. Interestingly, a few consequences came to the surface during the conversations. This is elaborately discussed below.
First of all, multiple recipients examined that a perceived mismatch during an IT change results in delays and losses for the company. A few quotes from the recipients bring this forward as a result of a mismatch: ‘’It has a big influence on the processes, there is delay and
as a result much is lost (R1)’’ and ‘’Your project suffers from it, because it runs out of schedule (R10)’’. This confirms that running out of schedule results in delays and losses. This
is particularly apparent in the following citation: ‘’You will not meet your planning by not
fulfilling agreements or by people not living up to expectations, which affects the project in width’’. The following quote introduces the financial losses explicitly: ‘’ In terms of hours you run out of schedule, thus also in money. The budget is exceeded by far (R10)’’.
Another fascinating consequence that change recipients experienced as a result of a mismatch is personal frustration. Multiple recipients emphasized this, a common reasoning being: ‘’It
frustrates me if people do not do what they have communicated to us (R7)’’ and another
recipient said: ‘’If people come with a lovely conversation and subsequently they do not give
any meaning to those lovely words, that frustrates me (R9)’’. This shows once again that a
perceived mismatch triggers personal frustration, which is strengthened by the following citation: ‘’If they don’t meet your expectations, to deliver for example a piece of software,
were we agreed upon, than it will result in more friction (R11)’’. With regard to this
information it is logical to assume that frustration arises among the change recipients if they perceive a mismatch during an IT change.
Only a few people indicated that a mismatch has the following consequences: ‘’It makes us a
little bit sad (R10)’’ and ‘’ It does not feel good and at a certain moment you become skeptic, right? (R7)”. Eventually, two change recipients each stated a comprehensive consequence
35
as people expect it from us, anymore (R4)’’ and ‘’Finally, it has influence on the success of the company (R1)’’. These two consequences are more or less the end-result of perceived
mismatches.
SQ3: What kind of actions do change recipients undertake when they perceive a mismatch?
As mentioned before, the consequences show that a perceived mismatch influences change recipients. This is strengthened by the following citations about a mismatch: ‘’Personally I
find it very unfortunate (R1)’’. In other words, people attach value to it. Someone hit the nail
on the head by saying: ‘’People can only build on you if you’re doing what you’re saying
(R2)’’.
But how do individuals deal with a perceived mismatch? A common response of the interviewees is: ‘’By indicating the mismatch, gathering people around the table and crush
the problem (R2)’’. They want to resolve the problem immediately and go on with the
project. However, it might happen that the behavior is still not in line with the expected- or agreed upon behavior, illustrated here: ‘’Just talk about it, show them that their own manner
negatively affects the efficiency. If they don’t behave accordingly, than I will talk with the team leader (R5)’’. Thus, if change recipients can’t resolve the problem mutually, they will
take it to a higher level. This is in line with this statement: ‘’If something goes wrong or is
delayed, than we take a look at why it happened and if we don’t find a solution, than we will go to a person with more decision-making power (R10)’’. Each person deals differently with
the situation, and some people will more readily report it to a higher level than others: ‘’I
communicate it to a higher level (R1)’’. Nevertheless, everyone indicated that they would
36
5. DISCUSSION
This section contains the discussion. The objective is to generate new insights and to gain a better understanding of the qualitative study that examines the consequences when a change recipient perceives a mismatch among his or her work-related colleagues, middle managers, top managers or change agent, and how they deal with it.
In this study the answer to this main question has been broken down into three sub-questions, thus generating a better understanding of the elements composing a mismatch, the consequences of a perceived mismatch and how change recipients deal with such a perception. In this study the key users and end users were the change recipients and the consequences were divided into possible consequences and additional consequences.
The most interesting finding of this research provides evidence that a perceived mismatch has multiple consequences for the company and the change recipients, which in all probability influence the success of an IT change. In other words, the results of this study have provided evidence that the perceived mismatch is of importance during an IT change and, subsequently, that this results in the indicated consequences and affects how change recipients deal with it.
In support of the first sub question, the results indicated that verbal communication and observed behavior are indeed crucial aspects during a change. The change recipients indicated that verbal communication needs to be straightforward and clear, even if the message is not positive, because clear communication, between all the people and departments involved, reduces uncertainty and the number of questions during the change. This support the theory that the manner of how change is communicated, the clarity, the frequency and the openness determine whether communication is effective (Miller et al., 1994; Bouckenooghe et al., 2009) and that lack of communication during the change can lead to uncertainties (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991).
37 apparently feel more responsible for the project. The finding that change recipients follow the majority is in line with Herath (2008). Additionally, the results indicated that observed behavior does influence change recipients, which is in line with the framework of social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986). Nevertheless, the fact remains that observed behavior influence change recipients during an IT change.
In support of sub-question 2, the results indicated that a perceived mismatch does not necessarily influence the possible consequences. An interesting finding is that a perceived mismatch influences trust stronger if the change recipients don’t have a personal bond with external consultants, while trust in internal colleagues is hardly affected by a perceived mismatch. People who work in the organization know each other and they share the same belief that every person is supportive and will work very hard to make the best of a bad situation. In other words, change recipients understand that the people who perform a mismatch have to deal with multiple requests from colleagues’ and departments. Therefore they will not blame their colleagues (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Contrary to this, the degree of trust in external consultant is dramatically influenced, because the change recipients have a business relation with them and not a personal relation. Literature shows that behavioral integrity of a manager is a key element of trust (Abrams et al., 2003; Simons 2002, 2008; Whitener et al., 1998) and that perceptions of leaders’ behavioral integrity are positively related to employees’ trust in these leaders (Friedman, Liu, and McLean Parks, 2007). However, the results specifically indicated that trust is dramatically influenced if change recipients perceive a mismatch at an external consultant, instead of at internal colleagues (Cawsey et al., 2012).
38 mismatch is aimed at external consultants. This is quite in line with the fundamental attribution error, because individuals view other individuals' behavior as a trait rather than a factor influenced by situational concepts (Ross, 1997).
Furthermore, the majority of interviewees indicated that affective organizational commitment is not really influenced by a perceived mismatch, only a few said it made them more committed. Therefore it is not in line with the work of Simons (2009) and Yang, Tsai & Liao (2014), who showed that BI (word-deed alignment) has a significantly positive influence on affective organizational commitment. The researcher expected that a perceived mismatch could have a more negative effect on affective organizational commitment, because BI has a slightly positive effect on affective organizational commitment. A simple explanation for this inequality might be that behavioral integrity entails a match, in contrast to a perceived mismatch. Another plausible reason could be that the change recipients’ willingness (Metselaar, 1997) and organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) have already been extremely high from the start, and they still believe and acknowledge that these factors are the key to a successful ERP implementation.
Thirdly, the results indicated that a perceived mismatch does not have an influence on the acceptance of the system. While Olschewski et al. (2013) made clear that the importance of social influence was shown in a first pretest having a strong direct effect on actual use, and even on the intertwined concept technology acceptance. The reason for this difference can be allocated to the differences that exist between the factors perceived mismatch and social influence (Brown et al., 2010; Dennis et al., 2003; Schepers, de Jong, Wetzel & de Ruyter, 2008). Social influence with regard to technology acceptance and/or system use still needs more exploration (Eckhardt et al., 2010). And the role of social influence has been controversial (Venkatesh, 2003).
Commonly, the different results are most likely linked to the closely related concepts which are involved in a perceived mismatch. Behavioral integrity and social influence are logically not the same as the discussed perceived mismatch, and besides that, the situation differs and the change recipients might avoid negative thoughts towards the organization (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
