BEYOND ACCEPTANCE: HOW THE SOCIAL AFFECTS EFFECTIVE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USE
How expressive ties affect effective IT use and how motivational focus plays a role in that process
MSc BA Change Management University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
February 2nd 2016 Assessor: dr. B. Müller Co-Assessor: H.C. Bruns MA M.V. Hulscher Vinkenstraat 39A 9713 TC Groningen e-mail: m.v.hulscher@student.rug.nl student number: S2509091
Word count (excl. ref. and append.): 15.443
1
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT page 2
INTRODUCTION page 2
LITERATURE REVIEW page 4
Effective Use page 4
Social Networks page 8
Internal Closure and External Bridging page 10
Motivational Focus page 11
Effective Use, Expressive Ties and Motivational Focus page 12
METHODOLOGY page 13
Research Approach page 13
Case Description page 14
Data Collection page 15
Data Analysis page 17
RESULTS page 18
Asking Advice page 19
Imitating Behavior page 20
Emotional Support page 20
Group Norms page 21
Innovation and New Perspectives page 22
Other Influences of the Social page 23
Working Individually page 25
Motivational Focus page 25
DISCUSSION page 25
Discussion of the Findings page 26
Linking Social Factors to Effective Use page 29
CONCLUSION page 30
Theoretical Implications page 31
Managerial Implications page 32
Limitations page 32
Ideas for Further Research page 33
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS page 33
REFERENCES page 34
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL page 39
APPENDIX II: CODEBOOK page 43
2
ABSTRACT
This study tried to find how social factors affects effective use of an information technology (IT) system. Drawing on the model of effective use of Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) and social network theory, it is argued that social ties within and across teams affect effective use and that employees that are extrinsically motivated are more susceptible for social ties than employees with an intrinsic motivational focus. It appeared that instrumental ties are more important than expressive ties through a) asking and imitating peers with more relevant knowledge, b) discussing the use of the system in evaluations and, c) approach project members and/or teams that have influence in relevant project teams, in order to adapt the system in such a way that it can be used more effectively. Furthermore, the perceived complexity of the system strengthens the relationship between the group openness for discussion and effective use. Intrinsic motivated individuals seem more inclined to make use of their instrumental ties.
INTRODUCTION
Imagine an information technology (IT) system that is used because it is obligatory or expected: according to various studies (e.g. Mathieson, 1991), an IT implementation will be marked as successful because employees use the system. However, when goals are not reached nor do employees see the added value of the system, such a system is a big expense and a waste of time, energy and money. In this case, it is the
effective use that is lacking and it is of key importance to improve this. This illustrates the shifting interest
in the domain of information systems (IS): from IT use to effective IT use. Simply using an IT system without doing it in a way that helps achieve the goal will not make the use effective and will therefore be costly (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Effective use is not simply using the system the way it is designed, it goes beyond that (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Burton-Jones and Grange (2013, p. 633) define effective use as “using a system in a way that helps attain the goals for using the system”. The difference with the term ‘use’ is in the notion that ‘use’ is about performing the system and ‘effective use’ is about using it in a way that helps attain the relevant goal.
So far, little attention has been paid to how effective use is achieved, while that is the ultimate aim of an IT system. A study of Weeger, Neff, Gewald and Haase (2014) has focused on which misfits restrains IT systems from being used effectively. The research of Strong and Volkoff (2010) has described the organization-enterprise system fit, using six dimensions. Weeger et al. (2014) used these dimensions to find which misfits affects effective IT use. They found that mostly functionality misfits impedes IS systems to flourish, meaning that “the way processes are executed using the IS does negatively impact process
3
effective use; little by little more knowledge is created about how effective IT use is achieved. However, one of the key things that is still lacking is how social factors play a role in this process. In contrast, social factors have been widely acknowledged as a key determinant for IT adoption behavior (e.g. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). Therefore, studying how social factors affect effective IT use might be an interesting addition to the already existing knowledge of the achievement of effective use.
Previous studies (e.g. Bettman & Sujan, 1987; Mervis & Rosch, 1980), including IT research (Venkatesh, 2000), have suggested that individuals’ perceptions are influenced by general and/or abstract criteria, which includes complying with the perceptions of peers and superiors. This is especially the case when individuals do not have any direct behavioral experience with the target object, which in this case can be an IT system. According to Burton-Jones and Grange (2013), an individual can take adaptation and/or learning actions to achieve effective use. Additionally, in line with IT research, Ajzen (1991) and Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that individuals who experience social support are more likely to take actions. This indicates a need to understand how individual user behavior is influenced by peers and superiors.
The social network theory is a decent and often tested theory that researchers can use to detect and describe the ‘others’ that influence employees’ perceptions. The existence of a social network could create a positive or negative attitude through the social network, restraining individual technology use and promote resistance to change, or creating conditions for the technology to flourish (Magni, Angst & Agarwal, 2013). Despite the growing body of research, the effects of social factors on effective use remains unclear. This study tries to contribute to this knowledge by giving insight in how an individual is affected by his/her social network and what that does with the effective use of the system.
Remember the situation at the start of this section: employees use the system, but not because goals are reached nor because employees see the added value. When improving the use of an IT system or implementing a new system, it is important to know how effective use is achieved and what determinants play a role in this process. When having a clear understanding of how social factors plays a role in achieving effective use, an implementer or program manager knows on whom to focus and which conditions needs to be created to let the IT system flourish. For example, the responsible manager might want to create conditions in which effective use is seen as favorable and create a social support network in order to keep employees motivated and eager to learn. This knowledge should lead towards a more sophisticated way of implementing an IT system and/or improving the usage, ultimately leading towards a higher rate of IT systems attaining their goal.
4
Ryan, 2000). People are motivated because of something that does not have to do something with the work itself, but with comes with, in this case, the IT system. Intrinsic motivation is defined as “a psychological
force arising from personal enjoyment or the internalized value of work” (Deci & Ryan, 2000 in Ke, Tan,
Sia & Wei, 2013, p. 261). People with such a motivation find the work itself interesting or in some way satisfying (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994). Consequently, this might mean that an individual with one motivational focus is more susceptible for the effects of social factors than an individual with another motivational focus.
Research so far have not been able to address the effects of social factors on effective use in the context of an IT system. Additionally, the motivational focus of the individual as a moderating effect has not been investigated before in this context, which ultimately can give insight in where and on whom a program manager should focus, also considering the motivational focus of an employee. Given this research gaps, the research question is as follows: How is an individual affected by social factors in aiming for
effective IT use and how does motivational focus play a role in this process?
This paper begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research. The third chapter is concerned with the methodology used for this study. The fourth section presents the findings of the research, focusing on core outcomes. Next, the discussion will follow. The conclusion of the study completes this paper. This includes the theoretical and managerial implications, limitations and ideas for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
From the previous section it became clear that there are three concepts that are central to this study and needs to be further explored. Effective use, social factors and motivational focus are the concepts that will be elaborated upon in this section.
Effective Use
To obtain maximum benefits from IT systems they must be used effectively. Although this sounds obvious, most IS literature only focus on use and adoption (e.g. Technology Acceptance Model [Davis, 1986]): If an IT system is used, and not how and in what way. Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) studied this phenomenon and created a model for effective use, because they believe that only with effective use maximum benefits can be obtained. The underlying theory for defining effective use is the representation theory. To understand the phenomenon ‘effective use’ representation theory needs further explaining.
5
personnel information system. Representation theory states that “the purpose of an information system is
to faithfully represent a real world domain” (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013, p. 636). Burton-Jones and
Grange (2013) extend the representation theory by adding an external view. Wand and Weber (1990; 1995), the founding fathers of the representation theory, only focus on the internal view, as they do not look at the organizational and social context, but solely focus on the information system as an artifact. Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) believe that effective use is especially interesting to investigate within the social context. At the core of this study is that users need to do something with the information they have to attain a certain goal. This activity is more successful when the representation is faithful, or in other words, if they represent what they have to represent (Dennis, 1996). This ultimately leads not only to usage of the system, but also to effective usage.
Following this line of reasoning, effective IT use is not solely about the design of the system, neither if the task can be executed with the help of the system. Effective use has much more to do with how the individual user can employ the system to carry out a specific task. How the individual is affected by social factors around him/her might determine how s/he uses the system in order to execute a specific task. This goes beyond the existing IS literature that already includes social factors, where the focus has mainly been on the pressure peers exert to the individual (Sykes, Venkatesh & Gosain, 2009). Additionally, Govindarajulu (2002) found that IT support staff cannot fully help in resolving users’ problems, because they do not have the business domain expertise that is needed. Because of this lacking expertise it is the social support system around the individual that might give the needed help in fully resolving users’ problems. This provides opportunities to study how social factors affect IT use in a different manner than is already done. Aiming for a full understanding of how effective IT use is achieved asks for a richer research focus than the current IS literature, in such a way that the elements system and task as well as user are included (Burton-Jones & Straub, 2006).
Based on the representation theory, Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) have defined a model that explains the drivers of effective use. They state that users can take actions to improve the quality of their use, ultimately leading to more effective use and better performance. First, they identified three dimensions of effective use, namely transparent interaction, representational fidelity and informed action. Transparent
interaction is the extent to which an user has access to the system; representation fidelity is the extent to
which an user is “obtaining representations from the system that faithfully reflect the domain being
represented” (p. 642) and informed action is the extent to which a user can use the system to improve
6
activates the informating potential of an IS, representational fidelity ensures that this potential is positive and informed action leverages it” (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013, p. 644).
Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) state that users can take actions to increase effective use. They identified two major types of actions, namely adaptation and learning actions. Both adaptation and learning actions might be influenced by social factors around the individual. Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) also found that employees can both adapt to a new system by learning and altering their work processes, as well as by influencing the system. Learning is about improving a system’s representation of the domain of interest or improving her/his access to the system, adapting is about learning how to use the system, about the domain it represents or how to engage in more informed actions (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Both learning and adapting actions can be seen as coping efforts.
Various studies suggest (e.g. Bala & Goyal, 1998) that peers may play a critical role in coping with new situations. This peer-based learning can involve both observing peers’ practices and active teaching by peers (Arrow, 1994). Each individual makes coping efforts; performing different actions to deal with a (new) situation (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005). Coping is defined as “thoughts and behaviors that people
use to manage the internal and external demands of situations that are appraised as stressful” (Folkman &
Mozkowitz, 2004, p. 746-747). Coping efforts can be categorized as problem- or emotion-focused (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Problem-focused coping is about dealing with the specific aspects of the situation at hand, by changing the environment or changing one’s self, for example by learning new skills (Folkman & Mozkowitz, 2004). Emotion-focused coping aims at changing one’s perception of the situation, but does not change the situation itself. Emotion-focused coping are efforts that reduces the negative emotions associated with the problem (Folkman & Mozkowitz, 2004). Coping efforts that are emotion-focused aims at, among others, minimizing the consequences of threats, positive comparison, situation redefinition, passive acceptance and seeking psychological or emotional support (Folkman & Mozkowitz, 2004).
7
influenced by social factors and can be in the form of imitating behavior, active teaching, emotional support and changing one’s perception.
To improve transparent interaction, users can either adapt the system or learn how to use it. This also goes for representational fidelity; learn what you need to know, what the system represents or adapt the representations. Finally, representational fidelity alone is not enough to take informed actions. When representational fidelity and transparent interaction are on a decent level and the user has learned how to leverage the information, users are more likely to take informed actions. Thus, for the final dimension the action ‘learning’ is appropriate. The described dimensions and actions are summarized in figure 1.
* When an individual has learned much on transparent interaction and representation fidelity, s/he is much more able to adapt the structure or the representation, because s/he knows better why and how to change.
Figure 1. Adapted and simplified from ‘The Drivers of Effective Use’ (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013)
Learning about and adapting the various components of effective use have immediate benefits for effective use and it is therefore important to know how these actions are influenced by social factors. According to Ajzen (1991) and Deci and Ryan (1985) individuals are more able to take actions when they have the knowledge or if they experience social or organizational support. It is the social support system
Actions to improve effective use Effective use
Transparent interaction Representation fidelity Adapting structure Learning structure Adapting representations Learning fidelity Learning to leverage
representations Informed action
*
8
around the individual that is at the heart of this study, because this study wants to enhance our understanding of the relevant social processes when aiming for effective IT use.
From other studies that focuses on user behavior and the relationship with social factors, such as the UTAUT, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003), it became clear that social influence does play a role in IT usage, although as said, mainly to exert power in whether or not one should use the system (Sykes et al., 2009). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) appeared to be the first researchers that created a foundation for social influence in the IS literature, in their Theory of Reasoned Action. They called the social influence subjective norm (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which they define as the way people that are important to the user think that the user should use or not use the system. This implies that the people around the user are important when deciding to use the system. Other well-known models that are developed after the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) have almost all included subjective norm, which indicates that social influence is seen as an accepted determinant of user behavior.
Social Networks
There are two underlying perspectives that needs further explaining to help understand social influence, namely social network theory and social information processing theory. According to social network theory, the structure of a team’s social network can be seen as the configuration of team members’ social relationships within the team as well as in the broader social structure of the organization (Oh, Labianca & Chung, 2006). The way individuals are connected to one another within and across teams will determine the volume of resources that can move throughout the network, thus affecting individual and team outcomes.The social network theory assumes that social networks affects individual attributes and actions, and that in many cases, the relations are more important in explaining behavior than the attributes of actors themselves (Flaherty, Lam, Lee, Mulki & Dixon, 2012).
Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) also underlines this, by illuminating a number of mechanisms through which an individual’s social ties might influence his/her perceptions and behavior. As Salancik and Pfeffer (1978, p. 224) point out, “the process of attributing
attitudes or needs from behavior is itself affected by commitment processes, by the saliency and relevance of information, and by the need to develop socially acceptable and legitimate rationalizations for actions”.
9
it, and in turn form an intention to use it in that same manner. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) draw the conclusion that this must lead studying the informational and social environment within which that behavior occurs and to which it adapts. According to them, this is the one area we can learn the most from (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).Thus, taken the social network theory and social information processing theory together, social ties seems to be an interesting phenomenon in studying social influence on effective IT use.
On top of that, according to Kwahk (2011), social networks have various functions in overcoming IT induced change. It helps individuals acquire new knowledge through informal knowledge sharing and transfer with peers. This can be seen as problem-focused coping efforts and can make sure that, with the help of social networks, certain knowledge barriers can be overcome. Additionally, when looking at emotion-focused coping efforts, Kwahk (2011) mentions that social networks can help reduce uncertainty and anxiety and through communicating with peers restore their psychological balance (Griffith, 1999).
There are two main, broad and sometimes overlapping types of social ties: instrumental ties and expressive ties (e.g. Fombrun, 1982; Ibarra, 1995; Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Podolny & Baron, 1997). Instrumental ties can be seen as work-related-advice ties and involves a person gathering information, advice, and resources necessary to accomplish a task. Expressive ties can be seen as friendship ties and can be both positive and negative, which could then be seen as enmity ties. Overall, expressive ties involve expressions of interpersonal affect. Positive expressive ties include sources of social support, provide a sense of identity and personal belonging, and serve to set normative standards (Coleman, 1988). Expressive ties are associated with commitment, emotional attachment and shared understanding, clear communication and acceptance of partners’ suggestions (Morrison, 2002; Sias & Cahill, 1998). Negative expressive ties include interpersonal dislike and can be a threat to one’s security and identity. Negative expressive ties can serve as counter-role models, when an employee want to strive to be dissimilar to a person he or she dislikes (French & Raven, 1959).
10
supervisor or coworker held in high esteem resists and refuses to learn how to work effectively, it could be serving as a joint effort to resist. Thus, assumed is that one rather observes and imitates behavior from a person that s/he likes than from a person that s/he does not like. In line with emotion-focused coping efforts, it is suggested that individuals want to receive support from peers held in high esteem. According to Hansen (1999), expressive ties can give individuals the confidence they need when using how to learn to work with the system, which can lead to a high state of adaptation. It is also argued that informal ties contributes to organizational learning: Some studies see informal ties as reduced learning costs (Gulati, 1995; Lazerson, 1995) and Uzzi and Lancaster (2003) find that the embeddedness of social ties affects various forms of organizational learning.
To date, what relationships are involved in achieving effective IT use and which tie is more important than the other is something that has not been completely discovered yet. The influence of instrumental ties on user behavior have been researched before by Magni, Angst and Agarwal (2013) and they call for further research with the impact of expressive ties. This study tries to dissolve this gap by mainly focusing on the expressive ties and how this affect effective IT use. We suggest that learning behavior is positively affected through imitating people that an individual have held in high esteem, and receive support from people they like, thus uses both problem- and emotion-focused coping efforts to learn how to use the system. Hence, expressive ties can affect learning and adapting behavior by a) imitating behavior from supervisors or coworkers because they are held in high esteem and, b) receiving emotional support from coworkers one likes.
Internal Closure and External Bridging
Information and norms flow through internal and external relationships (Burt, 2000), or in other words, social ties can exist within and across teams. The amount and density of social ties within a team is called internal closure (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987). Integrative perspective indicates that teams with a high level of internal closure leads to a more fluid communication process, the feeling that an individual is not judged by his/her colleagues and strong group norms (Austin, 2003; Soda, Usai & Zaheer, 2001; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne & Kraimer, 2001). One could assume that this would lead to high degrees of psychological support and complying with the perception and use of coworkers. High internal closure does not have the negative effects of in-group biases, because there is an environment based on trust (Austin, 2003). Thus, members are not afraid of saying what they really mean or asking critical questions about the use of the system, which are good conditions for learning and adapting an IT system.
11
ultimately leads to a higher degree of learning and innovation.Additionally, individuals that have strong ties with others outside the team are more likely to experience enhanced creativity (Hansen, 1999) and improved performance (Hackman, 1987). With this interaction individuals have a greater access to other ideas, information and experience, which can bring him/her to gain respect and support (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).
Internal closure and external bridging thus can have a different influence on effective use, while both leading towards more learning and adaptation behavior. Next to the imitating behavior and social support, it is expected that effective IT use can be influenced by group norms. Group norms would primarily exist within teams and can exert certain usage. The social support is also especially expected within teams, because of high levels of trust. Imitating behavior can exist both within and across teams. Additionally, contacts with peers held in high esteem outside the team might lead to innovation and new perspectives.
Motivational Focus
Some studies have shown that people who are intrinsically motivated put more effort in completely getting the system to work and thus affects the extent of users’ exploratory usage and satisfaction with the exploration process (Amabile et al., 1994). There are two universally acknowledged categories of motivation: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic motivation is the drive to obtain externally administered rewards, such as career advancement, prestige and positive evaluations from others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). People are motivated because of something that does not have to do something with the work itself, but with what they receive when accomplishing the task, which in this case can be using the IT system effectively. Intrinsic motivation is “a psychological force arising from personal enjoyment or the
internalized value of work” (Deci & Ryan, 2000 in Ke et al., 2013, p. 261). People with such a motivation
find the work itself interesting or in some way satisfying (Amabile et al., 1994).
Deci and Ryan (2000) underline the statement of Amabile et al. (1994) by stating that for an IT induced change, which is a complex, innovative and extra-role task, individuals need to be intrinsically motivated.However, what we are trying to understand here is how expressive ties affect the learning and adaptation skills of individuals. It can be assumed that individuals with a stronger intrinsic motivation are more likely to put effort in learning. Fenwick and Olsen (1986) describe that extrinsic motivation has been shown to significantly affect worker participation, where participation depends upon the result their behavior will have.
12
themselves to the societal norms. Additionally, because they like what they do, they might need less psychological support from their colleagues. Also, the expectation is that individuals who are extrinsically motivated are more susceptible to expressive ties, which is in line with the definition from Deci and Ryan (2000): It can be assumed that they are in more need for psychological support from people they like, because it probably are these people that the user wants approval from.
Effective Use, Expressive Ties and Motivational Focus
In sum, representation theory forms the basis of the model of effective IT use of Burton-Jones and Grange (2013). The process of seeing and/or adapting the system representing what it needs to represent and learning how to leverage these representations might be influenced by social factors around the individual. As social network theory assumes: social networks affects individual attributes and actions and the relations are more important in explaining behavior than the attributes of actors themselves (Flaherty, Lam, Lee, Mulki & Dixon, 2012). Additionally, social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) discusses that when an individual develops statements about attitudes or needs, s/he uses information about past behavior and about what others think. This indicates that social factors can be important in striving for effective IT use. On top of that, Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) points out that individuals are more inclined to be affected by people held in high esteem, thus it can be assumed that expressive ties are of key importance in achieving effective use. Next to that, when looking at the description of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational focus, it is proposed that individuals with an extrinsic motivational focus are more susceptible for the influences flowing through their expressive ties. All in all, this leads to the following research question: How is an individual affected by social factors in aiming for effective IT use and how does
motivational focus play a role in this process?
13
expectations towards the use of the system can be created. Hence, it is expected that expressive ties within teams leads towards adapting and learning behavior.
Next, expressive ties across teams might affect problem-focused coping efforts in a way that these ties canstimulate innovativeness and new perspectives on the use of the system, which could affect adapting the system or the perception on it. Because individuals get in touch with peers from other teams, this might give new insights on the use of the system. It is assumed that individuals adopt new insights from peers that they keep in high esteem and less from people they do not keep in high esteem, therefore proposing that expressive ties are an important part of this process.Thus, it is assumed that expressive ties across teams contributes to adapting and learning behavior. However, when peers held in high esteem hinder effective IT use, expressive ties can also work as a joint effort to resist the system being used effectively.
Additionally, it is expected that individuals who are intrinsically motivated are less susceptible to the influence of expressive ties, thus making the relationship between expressive ties and effective use weaker. This is because these people experience joy when using the system and do not feel the need to comply with group norms nor have the need for psychological support. Additionally, these people might adopt new perspectives inspired by peers, but not because they like these peers, but because it can actually help making the use of the system more effective. Individuals who are extrinsically motivated might be more susceptible to the influence of expressive ties, thus making the relationship between expressive ties and effective use stronger.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research approach. The research and case description will be touched upon. Afterwards, the way this study is executed and how data is gathered and analyzed will be explained.
Research Approach
14
The unit of analysis is the individual’s perception towards his/her journey towards effective IT use or against it and how his/her user behavior is affected by social factors. Additionally, the individual’s perception on how motivational focus plays a role in that process of influencing is also part of the unit of analysis. To find out what these perceptions are, the unit of observation is the individual. The level that is analyzed is the individual, team and organizational level, making this study a multi-level research. This is because this research tries to find out how within and across teams certain relationships exist, by looking at the individual.
Interviews are the main source that is used to answer the research question. Literature has helped establishing the interview protocol and in preparing the initial coding scheme. In the process of theory development there is a continuous comparison of theory and data. It started with a research focus with some reference to literature (Eisenhardt, 1989). Interviews were held at a company in the Netherlands that implemented a new IT system. More information about the case can be found in the next section.
Case Description
The context that is used to answer the research question is a non-profit organization in the Netherlands. The organization is responsible for the safety of the country and for the strengthening of it. It is a nationwide company divided in 25 regions. Each region operates rather independent, but some things are governed nationwide. Each region consist of eight ‘home teams’ (as of now: team), which all operate independently. They, roughly speaking, only operate together when there is a crisis and they have to bundle their knowledge and decisiveness to control the incident. On a daily basis each team has a different task, but all in the area of national and civil society safety, and acts as an independent organization. When there is a crisis, each team has its own niche in which they have to act, but mostly in consultation with the other teams.
15
Figure 2. Home teams and temporary team
The nationwide organization has implemented System X, a system in which every team needs to work when there is a crisis. In a crisis, the representatives are called and they come together in a specially arranged room. In the old situation there was not a system where every team could work in simultaneously. Communication went through meetings, phone and quick scribbles. The new system have replaced most of this. The main goal of the system is information sharing: Making it possible that everyone has access to the same information and in that way getting every team up to the same speed. Each team has its own section in the system where they are responsible for sharing what happened in their niche and what they are doing.
The system is gradually implemented, starting in 2009. Almost all regions are using the system now. Because of feasibility one region became the focus of this study. In this region the system was implemented July 2011. Every team had the same training and was prepared in the same way. Besides the use of the system in a crisis, every employee that has a standby function as a GC is expected to check the system every once in a while to work fluently with the system. Multiple times a year fictitious disasters are organized, where employees get to practice with controlling an incident with the help of the system. Since the implementation in 2011 there have been seven times a genuine crisis and multiple times a fictitious disaster where the system is used.
Data Collection
16
information. Initial conversations have been held prior to the interviews to get a feeling with the system, the organization and the various tensions in the process. This conversations also helped identifying the right employees to interview and provided the researcher with secondary data, such as plans of action and relevant overviews to get a basic understanding of the organization and the way of working, ultimately leading towards a more solid understanding of the different phemenona during interviewing and analysis.
For this study it is important that respondents have experience with working with the system both inside and outside the team. The respondents that have been interviewed have all been involved in a genuine crisis or a fictitious one and most of them are working with the system since implemented. Two interviewees started working later on with the system. Because of feasibility reasons four teams are chosen. These four teams are chosen based on their opinion towards the system. Beforehand, the researcher knew that one team was struggling with the system and one team did not have any problems with the system. For the other teams it was unclear how they were thinking about the use of system. From team A five people were interviewed, team B one, team C one and from team D three employees, both male and female. Most interviewees were approached because of their meaningful role to the research, one interviewee was approached by using the snowballing technique. Only GCs are interviewed, to stick to one role group. This was because of comparison reasons. This implicitly holds that the overarching functions are neglected in this study. All results are made anonymous by referring to the respondents as Respondent 1 (R1) until Respondent 10 (R10) and by using him/her and s/he in the result section. Because of anonymity reasons respondents are not categorized according to their team.
17
been maintained during analysis. Adjustments were, for example, about other systems that were used in the past. One interview is not recorded, however, this transcript is made by memory of the researcher and after reading approved and completed by the interviewee.
As stated before, the focus of this study, social ties, has its roots in social network theory. Social network theory makes a difference between an ego and an alter (Scott & Carrington, 2011). An ego is the individual, the one s/he experience a relationship with is displayed by an alter, connected by a line, which is called a node. By plotting these relationships a raster is created. In quantitative studies relationship raster’s are being made to see how various relationships exists within and between teams. Both egos and alters are questioned (Scott & Carrington, 2011). However, this is only suitable when it is not about discovering what the underlying mechanisms of the nodes are. In this study these underlying mechanisms are what is trying to be discovered. It is therefore chosen to focus only on the egos and ask about the relationships that they experience, without also interviewing the alters. As stated before, ten respondents are interviewed, which are all seen as egos. However, it is not ruled out if these are also alters for another respondent, they are only approached as egos.
Data Analysis
Data has been analyzed from an interpretivist perspective. As Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) state, “interpretive studies assume that people create and associate their own subjective and intersubjective
meanings as they interact with the world around them” (p. 5). The researcher has tried to analyze the data
by assessing the meaning the interviewee assigned to the phenomena s/he described. Trying to understand the deeper phenomena is what is underneath this perspective (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). This is also in line with the way social network theory is encountered in this research: it is the meaning that the ego assigns to the relationships. The relationships, the nodes, that are mentioned have not been tested with the alters, thus an objectively defined relationship cannot be measured.
18
phenomena. The development of the codes was an on-going process while transcribing and coding all ten interviews (Rowlands, 2005).
In the next phase, transcripts were compared with each other, in such a way that codes and categories could be compared and reestablished. This resulted in minimizing the various categories and codes. Some original codes did not seem to answer the research question, other codes appeared to be highlighting the same phenomenon. The former was deleted, the latter pooled. Codes that remained or emerged were tried to give meaning through comparing the phenomenon to existing literature, while keeping a close look at the meaning the interviewees assigned to the various phenomena. All codes were classified in categories that seem to cover the same phenomenon. This way of working did happen both in the within-case and cross-case analysis. For example, the code Effective use is established by looking at the perception of the individual towards his/her own use. If they said that they can use System X effectively, the code Effective use was given. This also worked the other way around with the code Ineffective use. As for another example, the Instrumental ties - Across teams – approach projectteams code is given for chunks of text where respondents explained how their use of the system is improved or how they tried to improve it, by approaching projectteams and/or projectmembers that had the right connections in adapting the system. This was a code that was not on the ‘start list’ of codes, but because one or multiple respondents named this as an important instrument in striving for effective use, this is one of the codes that emerged during analysis. It was because one or multiple respondents named this as important, therefore the code was created and maintained. This was also the way of working for other codes that were not on the ‘start list’.
Ultimately, six categories and 26 codes have been used. Based on these categories and codes, analysis could have been done and conclusions were drawn. The complete codebook can be found in Appendix II.
RESULTS
19
Asking Advice
What occurred during analysis within teams is how peers can be approached and how you can learn from each other. This says nothing about asking questions specifically to someone one likes, but based upon how peers react and if that fits with the expectation one has. As one respondent said:
“In that sense, of course, you always have your personal preferences, for how they react, how they explain
things, whether they have or do not have time or do not wish to make time, whether they want to make time today or next week, or if they just say ‘come back in a few months’. Yes, that does matter in how you respond to each other”1 (R9).
When the researcher directly asked to a respondent if it is more likely that s/he asks for help from someone s/he likes, the answer was: “No, that is too suggestive”2 (R4). Additionally, two other respondents
said that if they approach someone for help, this depends on tasks and trust in the others’ knowledge, and does not depend on whether they like someone or not. Within some teams it is clear who has the most affinity and the most knowledge of the system: those are the ones that are approached, said seven respondents. This is illustrated by the following quote: “S/he introduces you in the system and makes you
familiar with the system, because s/he knows best how the system works”3 (R6). This can also make people
being more motivated, as one respondent put it: “[because of him/her] yeah, well, I began to actually like
it”4 (R5).
The peers with the most knowledge are also approached across teams. Generally speaking, they are also the ones who provided the initial training sessions. Six respondents said that they ask these people for help when they encounter difficulties in using the system, both during and outside an incident, which is illustrated by the following quote: “Normally I am collecting a few questions and then I make an
appointment. And when I do not know something in the meantime, I can easily call one of them (employees from the back office)”5 (R8). Besides asking for help, two respondents said that the ones that are responsible
for the introduction and functional management were also of most influence for them in using the system. One respondent noticed that people are more likely to ask him/her for help once they have met. S/he also mentioned that peers that are located in the same building as s/he are more likely to ask him/her
1 Originally: “Heb je in die zin natuurlijk altijd je persoonlijke voorkeuren voor hoe ze reageren, hoe ze dingen
uitleggen, hoe ze open staan en of ze wel of geen tijd hebben, of geen tijd willen maken, of ze dat vandaag nog willen doen of volgende week, of zeggen kom maar over een paar maand terug. Ja dat maakt wel uit in hoe je naar elkaar reageert”
2 Originally: “Nee, dat is te ingevuld”
3 Originally: “De mevrouw/meneer die daar bij zit, nou die maakt je dan wegwijs want die weet het beste hoe het
systeem werkt”
4 Originally: “[het kwam door hem/haar] dat ik het wel, wel ja leuk begon te vinden”
5 Originally: “Meestal hoop ik een aantal vragen op en dan maak ik even weer een afspraak. En als ik tussentijds
20
for help. One respondent mentioned that the people s/he normally ask for help are people that s/he regularly see or speak and are easy to approach. However, s/he does not mention a friendship relationship.
Although respondents did say that they ask those people for help that have the most knowledge, three respondents also mention that personal preferences do not matter anymore during a crisis, indicating that outside a crisis it does matter. This does not appear from the data. As one respondent put it: “You cannot
argue about what we need to write down or not [in a crisis], we have to solve it”6 (R3). And as another
respondent said: “As I know my colleagues, I think everyone feels like ‘now we really have to work hard
because yeah, now you really need to stand there’”7 (R9).
Imitating Behavior
Every respondent said that they watch how other teams use the system. They mainly watch how others behaved in previous incidents. Five respondents used this information only for clarity, but did not change their way of working because of what they saw. Discussing this issue, one respondent answered: “No, I just
looked at what someone else did (..), but it did not brought me to changing my way of working”8 (R10). The
other five respondents are sometimes affected by what they have seen, although mainly as a refresher of what they already knew.
Within teams it is less common to look at what others do or did, only two respondent named this. For one respondent it did not affect his/her way of working, for one respondent it worked as an evaluation for his/her own way of working. One respondent mentioned that s/he imitated behavior from peers from functional management, so not from other teams or direct peers. This is illustrated by the following quote: “The guys/girls that I mentioned from Organization X, they are very handy with the system and they have
a certain way of working, well, it is quite nice if you copy that”9 (R8). Other respondents gave the same
signal, although not put specifically into words.
Emotional Support
When asking about the way interviewees handle when the system does not work the way they want it to work, they said they approach their colleagues for advice. When proposing that they use their peers for psychological and emotional support and the effects that that may have, almost everyone said that they did
6 Originally: “Je kan niet uitgebreid ruzie maken [in een crisis] over wat we nou op moeten schrijven of niet, dat
moet je toch een beetje praktisch oplossen”
7 Originally: “Mijn collega’s kennende, denk ik dat iedereen dan zoiets heeft van nou nu moeten we even heel erg
met de schouders eronder want ja dan moet je er ook echt staan”
8 Originally: “Ik heb alleen even gekeken wat een ander heeft gedaan (..), maar het heeft mij niet gebracht tot iets
van dat ga ik ook doen of dat ga ik anders doen”
9 Originally: “De heren/dames wat ik aangaf van Organisatie X, die, die daar heel handig mee zijn en die hebben
21
not need such support. Two respondents mentioned that they nag and scold sometimes in such situations, but not to receive any support nor do they expect opposing voices or someone that can cheer them up again. They believe that this will not help in ultimately mastering the system and they therefore said that they do not need that kind of emotional support.
Group Norms
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they have the feeling that, based on group norms, it is expected that they master the system. Eight respondents answered positively on the within team group norms: They do have the feeling that it is expected from them. All these eight respondents see it as something positive, but three respondents also mentioned an example in which it appears to have a negative effect on effective use. They said that because the group does not have attention for the system, it will not be further discussed. On top of that, four respondents state that they have the feeling that it is expected that they can use the system, but in what way is not defined nor explicitly felt. The quote from one respondent illustrate this:
“We actually expect that you can use it, but whether it is a 60, 70 or 80 percent.. and what is ‘to use it’?”10(R10). One respondent said that in his/her team people feel the need to comply with a certain degree
of using the system, and when they feel that their skills are lagging behind, they become more motivated to attend training sessions. Two respondents do not feel the pressure from his/her direct colleagues to comply with group norms. As one respondent answered to the question if s/he feels the pressure or if it is expected: “Apparently not, because there is always someone that can help”11 (R1). The other respondent said: “I do
not know, I have never asked them”12 (R4), indicating that s/he does not feels the pressure.
Every respondent replied positively on the question about group norms across teams: they all experience some sort of pressure to comply with group norms. Simply using the system is something that is felt, everyone is more or less inclined to use it. In this case, three respondents make the notion that how to use it and to what degree one should master the system is not defined. None of these three respondents see that as a shortcoming. Talking about this issue, one interviewee said: “Yes, it is certainly expected that
we can work with the system and that we share information [in the system], but not exactly how we should do that”13 (R7). In a recent meeting it appeared that four out of eight teams use the system in a different
manner, as one respondent said: “That is obviously mad. Organization X must be shocked by that, I
believe”14 (R7). However, that same respondent said that nothing has changed since that meeting. The
10 Originally: “We verwachten eigenlijk dat je er mee om kan gaan, maar of dat nou een 60, 70 of 80% en wat is er
mee om gaan..”
11 Originally: “Kennelijk niet, want haha, er is altijd wel iemand die kan helpen” 12 Originally: “Dat weet ik niet, dat heb ik ze nooit gevraagd”
13 Originally: “Ja er wordt zeker verwacht dat we met het systeem kunnen werken en dat we informatie delen, maar
hoe precies niet”
22
respondent that did not experience pressure based on group norms within the team, did feel some sort of pressure based on group norms from the other teams. However, s/he feels that the team has to comply with the norms, not the individual.
Innovation and New Perspectives
Within teams the use of the system is discussed after incidents during formal evaluations. After almost every crisis, fictitious or not, for six respondents the use of the system is discussed within the team. They said that it is a way of learning on how to use the system more effectively. One respondent mentioned: “It
is by constantly using the system and afterwards evaluating, what went well and what did not, discuss those things with each other”15 (R3). The peers that are part of that discussion depend on who was involved in
the incident. In contrast to the evaluations within teams, the use of the system is not always discussed in evaluations across teams. There is always an evaluation across teams after incidents, however, only one respondent said that the use of the system sometimes comes to the front.
Three respondents argued that the degree to which the use of the system is open for discussion within the team leads to more effective use. Where one respondent said that s/he feels the possibility to ask his/her colleagues about their use, two respondents did feel an impediment to ask critical questions about others usage. They said that it feels unsafe. As one respondent put it: “We ask each other [things like]:
'okay why do you do this in that way and how you do this and why? and we learn from that”16 (R7). Another
respondent said: “Perhaps, eh, if you see someone doing something, sometimes it is difficult to talk to each
other about that. It makes you think ‘apparently that is the way we do things around here’”17 (R9). Another
respondent, when asked about the consequences of the lack of discussion, said: “We cannot reach the depth
of the essence”18 (R4), illustrating the notion that the use cannot reach a higher level without having
discussion about each other’s usage. This only appeared in one team. Another team rarely sees each other, but do not mention the way one can approach a peer as something that would contribute to effective use of the system.
Three respondents noticed that if they wonder why other teams use the system in a certain way, they will not ask why. Various reasons have been mentioned for this, as is illustrated by the following quotes: “In general, every team has its own processes. (..) I want to stay out of that”19 (R9) and “If we see
15 Originally: “dit is wel constant door, door het systeem te gebruiken en later te evalueren, wat ging er goed wat
ging er niet, discussie met elkaar aan gaan”
16 Originally: “(..) vragen we aan elkaar van ‘oké waarom doe je dit zo en hoe doe jij dit en waarom dan?’ en daar
leren we dan van”
17 Originally: “ja, mocht je iets iets zien van een ander dat dat ook wel lastig is om elkaar daar op aan te spreken.
Dat je denkt van nou oke kennelijk doen we het hier zo”
18 Originally: “We komen niet aan de diepte van de essentie"
19 Originally: “Over het algemeen doet iedereen zijn eigen processen (..). Daar wil ik allemaal niet zoveel mee te
23
that another team is working with the system in a completely different way, we will not say ‘hey guys, why are you doing it like this and this?’, that is not our position”20 (R7). During interviews it appeared that
every respondent see differences between teams in use, which only a few see as an undesirable situation. They are not discussing this with other teams outside evaluations, because of position or because they do not want to get involved in processes of the other, and they do not see this as something that would contribute to an effective and coherent way of working. When looking at searching for innovation and new perspectives, this was not something that was acknowledged both within and across teams.
Other Influences of the Social
Other mechanisms that were not included in the research model but did come to the front during interviewing, will be discussed in this section.
Multiple times it appeared that individuals approach peers within the team that are part of project teams that in some way have influence in the functionalities of the system. With contacting them they hope that something can change within the system. Thus, they first look for someone in their own team that is part of such a project team, and that person is addressing the issue in the project team. Three respondents mentioned this. Four respondents approached (members of) project teams outside the team directly. They all have the feeling that this contributes to effective use.
Another way of how social ties appeared during analysis, is the incompetence of others. Three respondents said that because peers from the same team are not really competent in using the system, they are more motivated to master the system. Discussing this issue, one respondent said: “I am extra motivated
to make sure that all the relevant information is written down properly”21 (R7). This also goes for across
teams: three respondents experienced some sort of incompetence from other teams; as a consequence they are more careful in using the system. As a reply on questioning what that does with his/her way of working, one respondent said: “It makes you more cautious”22 (R3).
Third, one respondent said that s/he becomes motivated to dive in the system again when s/he hears peers talking about struggles they had during incidents, as s/he said: “The more often it comes along, the
more it works as a stimulus”23 (R9).
Four respondents mentioned that they practice(d) with and approach(ed) their direct colleague, when wanting to learn more about how to use the system effectively. It is the colleague that they have a so-called “standby service” with, so they work together in a crisis situation.
20 Originally: “Maar als we zien dat een team heel anders met het systeem werkt dan zeggen we niet van hey jongens
waarom doen jullie dat zo en zo, dat is niet onze positie”
21 Originally: “Dan ben ik extra scherp op dat ik wel goed alle relevante informatie er in zet” 22 Originally: “Het maakt je in ieder geval extra op de hoede”
24
Fifth, what appeared as important during interviewing is the attitude of the supervisor towards the system. Three respondents mentioned that this was of influence on them. Because the supervisor did not have a clear vision on how to use the system and it appeared that s/he did not see the use of the system as a priority and also showed that, three respondents did not feel the urgency to learn how to work with the system. Talking about this issue, one respondent said: “In the beginning it was, at least within the team, a
bit like ‘we have to but yeah, whatever’. (..) That does not make you work harder than necessary”24 (R9).
This did not have anything to do with the expressive tie the respondents had with the supervisor, but was based on his/her function.
In sum, the mechanisms where social factors are involved that occurred during data analysis are shown in the following table:
Social influences Occurred within
and/or across teams
Approaching peers that react the way one desires Within
Approaching peers that have the most affinity with and knowledge of the system Within/across Approaching peers that one has met and/or see/speak regularly Within/across
Looking at behavior from others for clarity Within/across
Imitate behavior from functional management Across
Complying to group norms, either in a positive or negative fashion Within/across
Discussing the use during formal evaluations Within/across
Group openness for discussion Within/across
Approaching peers that have influence in project teams Within/across
Incompetence of others Within/across
Hearing peers talk about the struggles they had while working with the system Within
Contact with direct colleague, “stand-by partner” Within
Attitude from supervisor towards the system Within
Table 1. Social influences on effective use that occurred during data analysis
24 Originally: “In het begin was het hier, in ieder geval binnen het team, een beetje zo van ‘nja het moet allemaal
25
Working individually
When asking how respondents learned to master the system, eight respondents said that they had learned it by themselves, whether or not combined with practicing with a colleague. For example, one respondent said: “A lot of trial and error in the beginning, I will do it for myself, play a little bit with it and see what I
can do with it”25 (R7). This was not only right after implementation, respondents said that they still learn it
or refresh their memory by working with the system on their own.
Motivational Focus
Five respondents mentioned that they like working with the system and trying to master it, three respondents are not IT minded, as they said themselves. One respondent said that s/he feels the obligation to use it to, instead of wanting to use it. From two respondents it did not become clear in what way they are motivated. The respondents that are motivated because they like to work with it, all appeared to frequently ask for help and in a way are affected by others in their behavior. As one respondent said, indicating that s/he wants to cooperate with peers who have the same vision on the system as him/her:
“[I’ll ask those peers] who work with it regularly and that also have a certain vision about what you, eh, ..
because you also have a lot that people that [think like]: ‘that new stuff, pf, no way’, well, you should not ask them”26 (R2).
From the three respondents who are not IT minded and do not really enjoy working with the system, two of them are less asking for help and are less affected by the behavior of others in comparison to the ones that are intrinsically motivated. As one respondent put it: “I think it just happened to me. I am not so
inquisitively in this [field]”27 (R1). The other respondent was asking for help and put a lot of effort in
learning how to use the system, in contrast to the respondents who are also extrinsically motivated.
DISCUSSION
This study has addressed the following research question: How is an individual affected by social factors
in aiming for effective IT use and how does motivational focus play a role in this process? In order to answer
this question a case study has been conducted within a non-profit organization in the Netherlands, which is concerned with the strengthening of the safety of the civil society. Combining Burton-Jones and Grange’s (2013) model of effective IT use and social network theory, multiple underlying mechanisms emerged in
25 Originally: “Veel trial and error in het begin, dat doe ik dan voor mezelf, een beetje er mee spelen en kijken wat
kan ik er mee”
26 Originally: “[Ik vraag die mensen] die ook regelmatig er mee werken en die ook een bepaalde visie hebben wat je
er mee eh, .. want je hebt ook een heleboel mensen, [die denken] nou die nieuwe zooi, alsjeblieft zeg van, nou, die moet je niet gaan vragen”
26
which social factors might affect effective IT use (see Table 1). Expressive ties have been used as the main research focus, in such a way that can be studied how individuals are affected by the personal relationships they experience with peers. A distinction has been made between relationships within and across teams. Suggested was that individuals will be influenced by peers within their own team by complying with group norms, receive emotional support and imitate behavior from peers they have held in high esteem. Next, it was suggested that individuals will be influenced by peers across teams by innovation and discovering new perspectives. Additionally, by looking at the motivational focus of the respondents, this study tried to find out if motivational focus affects the degree to which an individual is influenced by social factors. It was suggested that employees that are intrinsically motivated are less susceptible for expressive ties than employees with an extrinsic motivation.
The remainder of this section is organized as follows: the next paragraph discusses the findings in relation to existing literature. Next, the results will be discussed in relation to the model of Burton-Jones and Grange (2013) and a revised research model will be introduced.
Discussion of the Findings
Several studies in the IS literature (e.g. Venkatesh et al., 2003) have concluded that user behavior is influenced by social factors. These studies have almost all focused on user acceptance. To date, the influence of social factors on effective use was unclear. This study has tried to fill this gap by focusing on how expressive ties affect effective IT use by looking at coping efforts. The most important findings will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Coping efforts. It was suggested that social factors come into play when striving for effective IT
use, in the form of coping efforts. Both problem- and emotion-focused coping efforts were suggested to be affected by social factors around the individual. First, emotion-focused coping efforts were not found in the case study. Respondents did not believe that these coping efforts would bring them closer to mastering the system and therefore did not need such emotional support. Nonetheless, problem-focused coping efforts seem of vital importance.
27
are explained in the literature review. Table 1 provides an overview of the way social factors are of influence in the process of striving for effective IT use.
These results are in line with earlier research, where the influence of instrumental ties has been tested and found. For example, Lazarus (1966) and Sparrowe et al. (2001) found that informational networks have a relevant role during the process of change, because these ties are used for gaining new and more knowledge and to get assistance and guidance. Additionally, Magni, Angst and Agarwal (2011) found that instrumental ties within a team has a positive effect on usage when the density of the instrumental ties are beyond a certain point, in such a way that knowledge can flow through the ties.
A possible explanation for this result is that it might be the case the individual keeps him/her peers in high esteem because they have more knowledge than s/he does, instead of whether s/he likes the person or not. In that case it is not about friendship relations, but about looking up to someone with great respect and therefore liking someone. However, if this is true, it is still the degree to which the peer has more knowledge that would decide whom to approach for questions. This reasoning is in line with, among others, Ibarra (1995), stating that instrumental and expressive ties are intertwined and overlapping.
Another possible explanation for the contrasting results to what was suggested is whether the influence of social factors is a conscious and/or unconscious process. According to Hopper (2001), the influence of social factors is both conscious and unconscious. People are not aware of those influences, do not acknowledge the influences or, if they acknowledge it, do not see it as problematic to be influenced by social factors (Hopper, 2001). This can explain why respondents only mention to be influenced and affected by peers that have more knowledge or have more influence in adapting the system, and do not recognize the effects of their expressive ties.
Group norms. Suggested was that group norms within teams would make individuals feel that they
should comply with the behavior of others in using the system. This appeared to a certain degree. It appeared that individuals feel the pressure to use the system because, based on group norms, it is expected from them. However, respondents said that they should use it according to group norms, but not to what degree and not in what way. Thus, it appeared that group norms are important in user acceptance instead of in the way it should be used. This did not only occur within teams, but also across teams. These findings are in line with the study of Venkatesh et al. (2003), where they define social influence as “the degree to which an
individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system” (p. 451).
