How does Techno-stress Influence the Adaptation Behaviour of the Aging Workforce during an IT-Implementation?

How does Techno-stress Influence the Adaptation Behaviour

of the Aging Workforce during an IT-Implementation?

University: University of Groningen Supervisor: dr. M.L. Hage/ dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

Co-assessor: prof. dr. J.D.R. Oehmichen Student: Wander Noordam Student Number: S3259269

Abstract

Table of Content

1. Introduction………... 4

2. Theoretical Background………... 6

2.1 Techno-stress and the transactional view……… 6

2.1.1 Techno-stressor……….……… 6 2.1.2 Techno-stress Inhibitors……… 8 2.1.3 Techno-strain……….………....……… 8 2.2 Coping Process………. 8 2.2.1 Appraisals………..……… 9 2.2.2. Coping Efforts………..……… 9 2.3 Adaptation behaviour………..………. 10

2.4 Age and Techno-stress………. 12

2.5 Summary and Conceptual Model ……… 12

3. Methodology……….. ……… 15 3.1 Research Context………. ……… 15 3.2 Research approach………... ……… 15 3.3 Data collection……….……… 15 3.4 Data analysis……… ……… 17 4. Results……… ……… 18

4.1 Results Part I……… ……… 18

4.1.1 Technology Characteristics………...……… 18

4.1.2. Social Factors……… ……… 19

4.1.3. Social Factors: Other People’s System Use and Narratives……….. 20

4.1.4. Social Factors: The Customer………... 21

4.2 Results Part II………... 23

4.2.1. Appraisal and Strain……….……… 23

4.2.2. Adaptation Behaviours………. 25

4.2.3. The Role of Age………..………. 25

4.2.4. Techno-stress Inhibitors: Organisational Support and Training………….. 26

5. Discussion & Conclusion……….. ……… 27

6. Theoretical Implications………... 29

6. Practical implications………...………. 30

7. Limitations and Future Research……… 30

References……….. 32

Appendix A – Interview Guide (Dutch)……….. 35

1. Introduction

Techno-stress has a negative aftermath on IT adaptation. Research shows that elderly people find it troublesome to cope with new technologies and therefore struggle to adapt. What makes this topic especially relevant is the fact that our societies are aging. According to the Dutch national statistical office CBS (2017), the Dutch population, and thus workforce, is greying. This phenomenon is not only common in the Netherlands, but can be observed in almost every country in the world (United Nations, 2017; Kulik et al., 2014; Chand & Tung, 2014). Another relevant trend, expressed by Tams et al. (2014), is the development of information technology (IT). Mason (1986) already found that the information technology is indispensable. He explains that because we live in an information society, investments in IT are needed. Over the last decades IT has been developing in a fast pace (James, 2009).

The rise of the latter development has brought beside some real benefits also some complications to societies. Working properly with IT requires employees to cope with it, which can be troublesome for people in some way and lead to the perception of stress. This phenomenon is called techno-stress (Brod, 1984; as cited in Nimrod, 2017). The concept of techno-stress was first brought up by Craig Brod (1984) and defined as: ‘a modern disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope with new computer technologies in a healthy manner (as cited in Nimrod, 2017, p.1). Stress in general, can result in health issues, such as physical illness, mental disorders and fatigue (Tarafdar et al., 2007). The same authors explain that exposure to stress eventually leads to decreased performance, absenteeism and high turnover.

The relationship between IT and the aging workforce has been hotly debated over the last decade (White & Wheaterall, 2000; Cutler, 2005; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Tams et al., 2014; Peng et al., 2017). Recent research by Tams et al. (2014) contributes to this topic by explaining that mental models of elderly people will be incongruent with technological developments in the future. The dynamic character of technology could be an important reason for the continuity of the aging workforce problems related to IT-adoption and adaptation on the workplace. Besides, Tams et al. (2014) stress their concerns that the existing gap between younger system designers and older system users is likely to persist. This might lead to persisting coping problems by elderly people while adapting to IT. Charness and Boot (2009) expect that future aging workers will still experience troubles in IT-adoption, despite the fact that they have grown up with computers.

process of IT-implementations. Nimrod (2017) echoes this statement by finding that elderly people experience adaptation problems during IT-implementations, which in turn lead to techno-stress.

Techno-stress has been hotly debated over the last decade, in terms of well-being (Riedl et al., 2012), organizational consequences (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008), and in terms of explaining the concept itself (Ayyagari et al., 2011). However, until now, techno-stress studies have failed to exclusively focus on older employees (Nimrod, 2017). Studies that have been concentrating on the aging workforce and its impact of techno-stress are inconsistent in their findings. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) explain that older workers are better in assimilating to techno-stress than younger co-workers, whereas Nimrod (2017) found that techno-stress do impact the well-being of especially older employees. Besides, Nimrod (2017) underlines the need for more explorative research about the consequences of techno-stress among aging IT-users.

To the best of my knowledge, there is little research identifying how techno-stress influences the adaptation behaviours that aging employees show during an IT-implementation. Due to a lack of research, Tams et al. (2014) and Nimrod (2017) plead for more research where the concept of ‘age’ plays as a central role, regarding techno-stress and post-adoption. Moreover, research in this area is becoming more urgent due to the greying workforce, the expected persistency of incongruent mental models of elderly people to cope with IT and the dynamic character of IT. Therefore the research question of this paper is stated as follows:

“How does Techno-stress influence the adaptation behaviour of the aging workforce during an IT-implementation?”

The aim of the paper is to extend and contribute to the literature and provide new insights in how techno-stress influences behaviours of elderly users during the adaptation of an IT. More explicitly, I hope to contribute to fill the existing literature gap, as Nimrod (2017) suggests. Besides, by shining a light on this topic I try to provide useful insights into better understanding how organizations could face problematic situations regarding older users and techno-stress in the (near) future. My second contribution aims at finding socio-techno-stressors and in that way extend the current techno-stress literature. Since users of different ages work in teams it is likely that socio-techno-stressors exist. The current literature about socio-techno-stressors is mainly focused on the technological antecedents and therefore it misses a social angle.

2. Theoretical Background

In this section techno-stress will be explained as well as the way in which it is related to adaptation behaviour. More explicitly, I will explain that the coping process, including appraisals and coping efforts, is a crucial element in the techno-stress literature (Cooper et al, 2001). It is the same coping process that determines what kind of adaptation behaviours individuals will show, according to Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005). After that the adaptation theory will be explained. The relationship between age and techno-stress will be uncovered as third. Finally, I will synthesize the preceding discussion by proposing a conceptual model.

2.1. Techno-stress and the Transactional View

The concept of stress has been debated over centuries and many might consider it a common state of being (Cooper et al., 2001). A great number of definitions have been given to the phenomenon of stress, with the consequence that the present stress research varies in directions along with a wide variety of possible explanations of the concept. Traditional views characterize stress as a response, a stimulus or an outcome of an interaction between the two (Cooper et al., 2001). Yet, the same authors stress that these traditional views on stress were limited in their ability to account for individual differences or showing causal relationships. As research and knowledge developed, new views arose that moved the stress definition into a new direction of a so-called ‘transaction’ (Cooper et al., 2001). More specifically, the focus has been shifted from views that see stress as a somewhat one-way process, where individuals try to deal with environmental demands, to views that identify stress as a dynamic interaction. During these dynamic interactions emphasis is placed on the identification of processes that tie the individual with the environment (Cooper et al., 2001). Thus, stress is not solely a process that comes from the external environment nor does it reside only in the individual. Two psychological mechanisms make the transactional approach specifically dynamic, namely: cognitive appraisals and a coping process (Cooper et al., 2001).

According to the transactional view, the stress process starts with a stressor, followed by appraisals and a strain. The stressors can be defined as stimuli that the individual encounters. The appraisal process is where the individual makes sense of what is going on and tries to identify different coping resources to deal with the possible threat. The strain is explained as the individual response to the stressor, this response can be expressed psychologically, behaviourally or physically (Cooper et al., 2001). During the remainder of this paper I will follow the transactional view of stress since it is the appraisal and coping process that tie both the techno-stress and adaptation literature together, as will become clear in this paper.

which stress occurs as a result of technology. Tarafdar et al. (2007) identified these different kinds of techno-stressors and categorized them into five different factors, which are: (1) techno-overload, (2) techno-invasion, (3) techno-complexity, (4) techno-insecurity and finally (5) techno-uncertainty. This categorization has become a standard for later researchers since many of them adopted these techno-stress factors in their studies (Wang et al., 2008; Tarafdar et al, 2010; Srivastava et al, 2015; Suh & Lee, 2017; Atanasoff & Venable, 2017; Nimrod, 2017). The techno-stress factors are explained in Table 1.

Techno-stressor:

Explanation:

Techno-overload Situations where ICTs potentially "force users to work faster and longer" (p.315). Techno-invasion Describes a potential “invasive effect of ICTs in terms of creating situations where

users can potentially be reached anytime, employees feel the need to be constantly “connected,” and there is a blurring between work-related and personal contexts" (p.315).

Techno-complexity Describes potential “situations where the complexity associated with ICTs makes users feel inadequate as far as their skills are concerned and forces them to spend time and effort in learning and understanding various aspects of ICTs" (p.315).

Techno-insecurity Relates to potential situations “where users feel threatened about losing their jobs, either as a result of a new ICT replacing them, or to other people who have a better understanding of the ICT" (p.315).

Techno-uncertainty Refers to situations where continuously changing ICT’s, and updates in ICT, potentially “unsettle users and create uncertainty for them, in that they have to constantly learn and educate themselves about the new ICTs" (p.315).

Table 1: Definitions of techno-stressors (Tarafdar et al, 2007)

However, there seems to be ambiguity about the term techno-stressor in terms of appraisal. In Table 1 it seems that the appraisal processes are incorporated in some of the techno-stressors definitions. For example, the fourth techno-stressor is explained in terms of threating feelings. Yet, prior researches (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Ayyagari et al., 2011) have not dealt with the appraisal process in their papers. Since it is of relevance for this paper to include the appraisal process, due to its importance in both the techno-stress and adaptation literature, I follow the stress literature that places the appraisal after the stressor. Cooper et al. (2001) already explained that a stressor is a stimuli, event or properties of events encountered by the individual, which is followed by the appraisal process. This is echoed by recent techno-stress literature where Turel and Gaudioso (2018) explain that the stressor leads to strain via primary and secondary appraisals. However, the techno-stressors, as explained in Table 1, are still of relevance since Tarafdar et al. (2007) explain well which techno-stressors there are and how they have the potential to be perceived as stressful.

environmental demands and someone’s abilities to cope with these demands (Ayyagari et al., 2011). For example, constant connectivity can lead to a conflict in individuals’ work-life balance, which corresponds with the techno-stressor ‘Techno-complexity’ in Table 1. Thus, although it may seem that the techno-stressors have some ‘social’ aspects, for example constant connectivity, prior research explains techno-stressors simply in terms of technological characteristics.

2.1.2 Techno-stress inhibitors. Organizational mechanisms that could potentially weaken or even diminish the effects of techno-stress are called techno-stress inhibitors (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). Ragu-Nathan and colleagues divided inhibitors in three categories, namely: (1) technical support provision (2) literacy facilitation, and (3) involvement facilitation. The first entails a form of support that solves IT-problems for the end-user. The second can be explained as techniques or mechanisms that stimulate generating and sharing the IT-knowledge within the organization. Finally, involvement facilitation is a mechanism that should continuously inform the users about the reasons why new technologies will be introduced, how it will affect them, as well as promoting users to use the system (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008).

2.1.3 Techno-strain. Techno-strain can be explained as the responses of an individual regarding to the techno-stressor, which can be expressed psychologically, behaviourally or physically (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Cooper et al., 2001). Prior research shows that work-exhaustion, anxiety, scepticism and inefficacy are examples of techno-strain (Turel & Gaudioso, 2018; Salanova et al., 2013). Until now, most studies focused on the psychological aspects of strain, (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008), whereas this research also focuses on the behavioural aspects of strain, namely adaptation behaviours.

2.2 Coping Process

As already explained, this paper focuses on the transactional view of stress, where two psychological mechanisms are especially important since they make this view specifically dynamic. These mechanisms are coping and cognitive appraisals (Cooper et al., 2001).

environment, clash with the cognitive processes of the individual. Hence, individuals have to cope with these continuous demands (Cooper et al., 2001). This coping process starts with the concept of appraisal, which will be explained in the following section.

2.2.1 Appraisals. The evaluation of potential consequences of an event is called an appraisal (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005). A distinction can be made between primary and secondary appraisals. A primary appraisal can be explained as follows: when individuals evaluate the nature of the IT-event as well as the importance and relevance for the individual concerned (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005). For instance: Individuals may assess if the event will harm or benefit their own self-esteem, and if the event will jeopardize the health of loved-ones or their own physical well-being (Folkman et al., 1986; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). According to Folkman (1984) there are three types of stressful appraisals. Two of them, (1) harm/loss and (2) threat, have negative consequences, and one of them has rather positive consequences, namely: (3) challenge. The first one can be explained as the harm or loss that has happened in the past, whereas the second one can be explained as the possibility of harm or loss in the future. The last one refers to the potential for growth, gain or mastery (Folkman, 1984). According to later research by Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) there are only two primary appraisals, which are ‘opportunity’ and ‘threat’.

A primary appraisal is followed by a secondary appraisal where individuals ask themselves what they can do when they encounter harm/loss, threat or challenge (Folkman, 1984). By raising this question, coping resources are evaluated (Folkman, 1984) and it is from this moment on that the coping process starts (Dewe & Guest, 1990). Examples of coping resources could include: social, material, physical or psychological assets (Folkman, 1984). In essence, individuals ask themselves during the secondary appraisal how much control they will have over the situation in order to take action. When individuals perceive high controllability over the situation, they tend to choose for a problem-focused strategy. When low controllability is observed, a more emotion-focused strategy is more likely to occur (Dewe & Guest, 1990). In the next section both strategies are explained. Recent studies about IT-adaptation adopted this concept in their models and extended the theory; examples are the CMUA-model (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005) or the research model of Bala and Venkatesh (2016).

selective attention and expressing avoiding- or distancing behavior (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The same authors stress that both coping efforts can restrain and facilitate each other when an individual encounters stress. Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) show that this distinction between problem- and emotion focused adaptation- or coping efforts also exists during adaptation to an IT-event. Besides, the authors stress in their paper that the more complex IT-events will be, the more users will rely on both coping efforts.

In conclusion, it is the coping process that makes the transactional view of stress dynamic. During this coping process individuals appraise the IT and show coping efforts. According to Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005), it is the coping process that explains adaptation behaviors, which will be discussed in the next part.

2.3 IT-adaptation Behaviour

Since this research is trying to find out how techno-stress influences adaptation behaviours, it is the research of Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) that helps by tying together both concepts. The authors explain that user adaptation is quite similar to the concept of coping. The stress literature already explained that the coping process, including both appraisals and coping efforts, is important to determine if individuals will perceive stress (Cooper et al, 2001). Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) explain in their coping model of user adaptation (CMUA) the importance of the coping element in individuals’ adaptation process to IT.

Due to the significance of the coping element within adaptation, this paper aims to focus on the adaptation process. The adaptation process is explained as cognitive and behavioral efforts exercised by individuals to handle the consequences with regard to a considerable IT-event (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005). The theme adoption relates merely to the question if users do or do not adopt an IT (Lauterbach & Mueller, 2014). This scope is too narrow for this research, since employees might not have a choice whether they want to use the IT as it might be considered as a part of the job (Czaja et al., 2006). A focus only on the final part of the adaptation process, called appropriation, is too narrow in a sense that they exclude certain behaviors, for example resistance behaviors (Lauterbach & Mueller, 2014). It might be that stress results in those resistance behaviors, which is why this paper is focused on the whole process of adaptation. Through adaptation and learning users will eventually achieve effective use, where the individual is able to use the IT properly in order to complete their tasks with the IT (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Hence, the adaptation process eventually ends when effective use is achieved.

states four adaptation behaviours have been developed, which are: (1) benefit maximizing, (2) benefit satisficing, (3), disturbance handling and (4) self-preservation (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005).

The first strategy, benefit maximizing, is pursued when users appraise the IT-event as an opportunity while feeling in control over the situation. All following adaptation efforts are problem-focused, since the user will be willing to fully utilize the new IT-event and reap all the personal benefits it has to offer. Examples of behaviours could be improving performance, working faster and diminishing errors. Pursuing the second strategy, users appraise the perceived consequences of an IT-event also as an opportunity, however it differentiates itself from the first strategy in that users perceive limited control over the situation. Adaptation efforts are assumed to be limited, since users simply will not feel a necessity to decrease tensions nor will they see possibilities to exploit or take advantages of the IT. The third strategy is characterized by appraising an IT-event as a threat, however users do feel in control of the situation. Both problem-focused and emotion-focused adaptation behaviours are likely to occur, since the user feels in control and thus tries to manage the situation while trying to recover emotional stability that has been impaired by the IT-event. Adaptation efforts, resulting from the third strategy, will presumably be self-oriented (e.g. search for training), task-oriented (e.g. adjust work procedures to fit with the IT) and technology task-oriented (e.g. change features). Finally, when a user shows self-preservation he or she perceives the consequences of the IT-event as a threat and at the same time the user feels limitary control over the situation. Adaptation efforts will likely be merely emotion-focused to recover emotional stability and try to reduce tensions caused by the IT-event. Examples of behaviours resulting from the last strategy are distancing, avoidance or self-deception (Beaudry and Pinsonneault, 2005).

Thus far, from research by Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) can be concluded that (1) how the IT-event is appraised and (2) how much control over the situation is perceived, influences users’ adaptation behaviours. Sun (2012) takes a different angle in his research to what he calls: ‘adaptive system use’. The authors explain that users adapt to new IT-events in different cycles of adaptation. In their research it is found that individuals’ adaptation efforts are influenced by observations of how others use IT-features (Sun, 2012). This finding might be of special relevance since it shows social influences on adaptation behaviours.

2.4 Age and Techno-stress

This research tries to find out if older employees will appraise the stressor in a different manner than younger colleagues and in that way behave distinctively. Current literature has been inconsistent in its findings about the relationship between techno-stress or adaptation and age. As mentioned in the Introduction, research by Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) shows older workers are better in assimilating techno-stress than younger workers since they have more organizational specific experience. However, later research by Nimrod (2017) explains that techno-stress among older employees actually does impact the subjective well-being of the IT-user. This might be due to the fact that older workers have been introduced to technologies relatively late, whereas younger employees have grown up with technology (Nimrod, 2017). Another explanation of why older workers might experience more techno-stress than younger workers is a decrease in cognitive abilities, which is explained by research of Verhaeghen and Salthouse (1997). Their research shows a relationship between age and decreasing cognitive abilities, including: speed, spatial ability, reasoning and episodic memory. Czaja et al. (2006) find that cognitive abilities are important for users when applying to new technologies and are important predictors of technology use. Tams et al. (2014) expects that mental models of older workers will be grounded in the past and hence be incongruent with future developments in technology. Thus it is likely that decreased cognitive abilities lead to techno-stress. However, there are other aspects related to age that influence users’ technology use, which are: personality, culture, experience and sensorimotor abilities (Tams et al., 2014). Hence, caution must be applied since a relationship between age and techno-stress might not merely be explained by a decrease in cognitive abilities.

2.5 Summary and Conceptual Model

explained in previous chapters, during the primary appraisal process individuals will ask themselves what the importance and relevance is of the technology-characteristic (primary appraisal). Subsequently, the individual asks him or herself what they can do about it and how much control they have over the situation (secondary appraisal). From this moment on the coping process starts where the stress leads to a techno-strain that is the ultimate manifestation of stress (Ayyagari et al., 2011). This strain can be expressed psychologically, behaviourally or physically (Cooper et al., 2001).

This strain is most likely to become visible in my model during adaptation behaviours of users. This is why I follow and build on the model of Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) from this point on, and expect that the appraisals and the perceived degree of stress will lead to different adaptation behaviours. As Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) propose in their model, there are four types of adaptation behaviours that are on individual level and can lead to reappraisal of the IT. How an individual appraises a techno-stressor and thus how much stress he or she eventually will perceive, can be induced by the moderator: ‘Techno-stress inhibitors” (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). Furthermore, prior research is ambiguous in their findings about the relationship between techno-stress or adaptation and age (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Nimrod, 2017; Tams et al., 2014). In Figure 2, age is placed above the appraisal process since age is a personal characteristic (individual level) and due to decreased cognitive abilities among elderly (Verhaeghen and Salthouse, 1997) it has most likely influence on their appraisal process and in turn their adaptation behaviours.

The first contribution this paper aims at is to show how techno-stress is influencing adaptation behaviours among older employees. Previous literature and the conceptual model, as shown in Figure 2, show the relationship between the techno-stressor and the strain, via the appraisal process. How techno-stress influences adaptation behaviours, especially among older employees and if they perceive it differently, has to be investigated. It is assumed that older workers appraise a techno-stressor differently and in that way show different adaptation behaviours compared to younger colleagues.

3. Methodology

This paragraph is concerned with the methodological aspects of this study. First the research context will be discussed, followed by research approach, data collection, and the data analysis.

3.1 Research Context

The data for this research was collected within the Dutch division of a global telecom organization that counts 8000 employees. The organisation remains confidential and is named in this report as: Phonecom. This organization was chosen, since the organization often implements IT and the HR-director of Phonecom recognized the existence of techno-stress within the organization. Due to a merger with another telecom retailer, the retail division of the company adapted to a new system in December 2017. Local shop managers explained that the employees still have trouble with adapting to the system. The latter makes the organization perfectly suitable for this research since employees are still in the adaptation phase (i.e. most never made it to the effective use phase) that is a necessity for this research. The data was collected within local shops of the retail division. Depending on the size of the shops, the average number of employees is around eight, including a shop-manager and his assistants. Their task is to advise and help the customers with their telecommunication demands and deliver service when necessary. The system that has been adopted focuses on the service aspect. 3.2 Research Approach

To contribute to the literature and fill the remaining unexplored gap of how techno-stress influences individuals’ adaptation behaviours, this research should remain on the individual level. Qualitative research offers an effective way in understanding behaviours, beliefs, emotions and processes on individual level (Hennink et al., 2011). Besides, qualitative research is especially suitable for explorative research, and helpful in determining how and why phenomena occur (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Moreover, qualitative research is helpful in explaining and understanding social phenomena (Myers, 1997), in understanding the social interactions among people and in identifying the social, physical and cultural context in which activities take place (Hennink et al., 2011). The last named advantages are especially important since I also hope to find social-factors that trigger the techno-stressor.

3.3 Data Collection

In order to find out how and why individuals perceive techno-stress and how it influences the individual adaptation behaviours, semi-structured interview was an appropriate method due to its focus on the individual’s beliefs, perceptions, emotions, behaviour and feelings (Hennink et al., 2011). Moreover, it gave the researcher both the possibility to prepare questions and the ability to deeply delve into matters of social and personal nature by asking probing questions when the opportunity arose (Dicocco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).

A focus group discussion complemented the interviews in a way that it allowed me to delve deeper into group-processes, where interviews tend to be more on an individual level (Hennink et al., 2011). More specifically, a focus group was suitable due to its focus on group processes, behaviour and social cultural norms (Hennink et al., 2011). These group level elements should be identified in order to find out how and under what circumstances socio-techno-stressors are formed by social factors and technological characteristics. In addition, since very little was known in the research area, according to Nimrod (2017) and Tams (2014), focus group discussions were suitable (Hennink et al., 2011). Hence, during the interviews, the focus was mainly placed on the individual aspects of the conceptual model, which incorporates the appraisal process, adaptation behaviours and techno-stressor. The focus group discussion focused on the group and social aspects, such as other peoples’ IT use, which entail mainly the social factors in the conceptual model (Figure 2). Furthermore, I noticed that certain information gathered in the interviews returned in the focus group discussion. I used the opportunity to confirm the phenomenon or to delve deeper and get more compelling information.

To include ‘age’ in this research, two age groups were defined: full-time employees below 35 and full-time employees above 50. It was the aim that both age groups were equally represented. Mainly the interviews focused on age. Considering that age is a personal matter and possibly influences the perception of stress and in turn adaptation behaviours, which is also researched on individual level. Hence, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted (6 fulltime employees <35, and 6 fulltime employees >50) and took approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The six participants of the focus group discussion were randomly selected. Since age was not the main focus during the focus group discussion, all respondents were below the age of 35. The focus group discussion took around one and a half hour. Protocols for both information gathering techniques can be found in Appendix A and B.

In the end the participants opened up to a discussion about their own feelings, which is surprising since participants usually speak of their emotions and feelings in interviews rather than in focus group discussions, as is explained by Hennink et al. (2011). However, this information was useful in complementing the interviews where participants found it hard to differentiate feelings from thoughts and emotions. One final remark concerning the focus group discussion is that the participants knew each other before since they form a team, and that the manager was participating as well. The latter is unusual, however, since the company is characterized by low levels of hierarchy, the manager is still adapting to the system as well and other participants found it not threatening, it was chosen to include him in the discussion.

According to Yin (2013), researchers should ensure the construct-, internal-, external validity and reliability of their work. The construct validity can be ensured since the interview transcripts were checked on validity before the information was gathered. In terms of internal validity, all information was gathered in one time-period and interviewees were excluded as participants in the focus group discussion. In this way discrepancies in findings of the same participants were excluded. The relevance of ensuring internal validity for this study was doubtful, since Yin (2013) explains that internal validity is highly important for explanatory or causal studies. By including multiple cases to the study, the external validity could be ensured (Aken et al., 2012). However, this seemed to be too ambitious and unrealistic because of limitations in time. The reliability of the study was ensured in a way that the instrument bias was prevented due to the use of triangulation. Also, a respondent bias was prevented because the outcomes will be based on multi-level perspectives (individual level with interviews and group level with the focus group).

3.4 Data Analysis

4. Results

In this part of the paper, the results are presented. This section has been divided into two parts. The first part is concerned with results related to the socio-techno-stressor and how it is triggered by IT characteristics and social factors. In the second part results will be shown related to the process of how socio-techno-stressors influence adaptation behaviours, including the role of age in this relationship.

All interviewees and respondents of the focus group discussion will remain anonymous which is ensured by using code names. In this section and those that follow, interview participants are indicated as Participant# and respondents of the focus group discussion are indicated with Respondent#. The distribution of both age groups among interviewees can be found in Table 2. Participants younger than 35 Participants older than 50

P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 & P6 P7, P8, P9, P10, P11& P12 Table 2: Age distribution

4.1 Results - Part 1

4.1.1. Technology characteristics. Focusing first on the techno-stressor and its origin, participants came up with certain characteristics that may trigger stress. Remarkably, all participants named at least one. Participant 2 was one of the five participants that named complexity, he explains: “The system looks complex. So I can imagine that people feel a certain barrier, when it looks hard and think let it be, this is too complex for me”. Four of the 12 participants, mainly older workers, expressed themselves about the overkill of information, for example participant 8 explains: “Due to the overload of information it is hard to find the right place of where u have to be”. Participant 1, who has been echoed by 3 other participants, explains the cumbersome login: “The system was unclear and you had to log-in in an odd way”. Also 4 out of the 12 participants spoke of unclear and unstructured interfaces, as participant 6 expresses himself: “I find the symbols and names used in the system devious and not clear, which frustrates me”. Finally four participants made themselves clear regarding the slowness of the system, including participant 6: “Slow, I find it annoyingly slow”. In conclusion, characteristics found can be categorized in complexity, over-kill of information, login difficulties, unclear and unstructured interfaces and the speed of the system itself. The latter can probably be seen as a Techno-overload stressor, as explained in Table 1, because a slow working system might force the user to work longer and faster. Since these remaining characteristics make users feel inadequate regarding their skills, and force them to learn and better understand the various aspects of the IT, these characteristics can be related to the techno-stressor Techno-complexity, as explained in Table 1. Considering that both age groups responded in a similarly, a clear difference between the age groups was not found, except from the over-kill of information.

younger ones. As participant 10 argued: “We have so many systems and log-in codes. The IT is that big that I think: stop, I am not going to do more”. Also participant 7 experiences problems regarding an overkill of systems: “Oh system number 20. We have so many systems, and now in addition also this system…”. So it seems that not only the characteristics of one IT-system could lead to a stressor, but also its overarching level, which is the whole IT-facilitation of an organisation, especially the number of systems used. This latter could result in the techno-uncertainty stressor, as explained in Table 1. This stressor has the potential to create situations where employees have to constantly learn and educate themselves due to continuously changing ICT’s, which creates uncertainty for them. Due to the overload of existing IT systems employees felt threatened by yet another system, and probably with all the extra efforts it brings in order to effectively use the system. The number of systems they have been adapting to during their years of working experience might explain why older workers perceive the overload of systems as more cumbersome than younger ones. Hence, mainly older employees experienced the overkill of systems and information, whereas the other characteristics were experienced similarly between the two age groups. All discussed technological characteristics are shown in Figure 3.

4.1.2. Social factors. In this paragraph findings related to the social factors and their role in the socio-techno-stressor will be elaborated on. All the social factors found during this research are shown in Figure 4. First of all, it became clear that employees play an important role for each other while adapting to an IT, which is especially true for older employees. Employees are often dependent on each other, especially when the system is not effectively used. Participant 10 argues: “I have two colleagues who know everything of this system. I am really dependent on them. They will help me out and tell me what to do”. In this situation the older employee is not able to work with the system, so he needs the help of his younger co-workers. However, even when the older participants are able to work with the system, he or she shows a form of dependency, as participant 12 states: “A couple of times, how to do things correctly, and then I asked another colleague to check if it is correct what I have

group discussion adds: “Yes, colleagues reacted nice and explained clearly how it worked, that feels good. I can always go to my colleagues, thanks to my colleagues and the atmosphere”. Hence, when employees adapt to the system, and are insecure about their actions, their colleagues and the atmosphere in the shop play a major role in employees’ striving to effective use.

However, it must be noted that hierarchical and power positions might hinder employees from asking colleagues. As Respondent 3 explains during the focus group discussion: “Well there will be shop managers who really would mind that his or her employees know more about the system than they know. Well, to me it just helpful. I used to have problems with this and I barely dare to ask colleagues, but nowadays I find it helpful”. Respondent 2 continues: “I can imagine, when I came here a couple of months ago, I degraded from shopmanager to advisor, at that time I had to ask many things to colleagues who must have been thinking that I would have known that as ex-shop manager”. Hence, a fear of losing prestige or respect with regards to their power position might strengthen the stressor they face and might be of influence in how they use the system. However, caution must be applied while interpreting this finding since there are several possible explanations, it is also likely that the personality of the individuals concerned might have been the reason for this phenomenon.

In the system employees have some sort of dependency as well, as participant 2 is explaining: “However, when cases are longitudinal, and more colleagues have been working on it, you can read the memo’s. That is helpful, not sure if this is really a dependency. But working together with people is being more simply due to this program”. In order to have full and complete information about a customer’s process, memos from other employees are important for helping the customer well.

Hence during IT adaptation employees show certain dependencies on others, in forms of memos in the system, and asking for help and confirmation. It is found that especially older workers ask colleagues for help and confirmation during their adaptation efforts. These findings stress that employee’s act in social work environments. However, the results of this research did not indicate that the previous discussed social factors strengthen the socio-techno-stressor. Yet, the social factors discussed in the following paragraphs appeared to strengthen the socio-techno-stressor.

system can either help them in adapting or it may hinder them. Participant 11 gets frustrated when he sees others offering help he or she is not able to offer due to a lower ability to use the system: “Yes frustration… You just want to be of the same great help as your colleague is offering”. So system use of colleagues influences how individuals will adapt to the system or will not adapt and use workarounds. Even watching colleagues using workarounds, and thus not using the system, might have its influence on individuals who are still adapting to the system. Participant 1 explains: “If one colleague is not using it, others won’t follow”. Hence, other people’s use might strengthen the stressor in a way that the system might be perceived as more difficult than it really is for them due to other people’s struggle. Besides, watching other people using the system effectively, while the person still is in the adaptation phase, can cause a feeling of time pressure that might strengthen the stressor.

4.1.4. Social factors: the customer. In the social environment that we call workplace another actor plays an important role, which is the customer. The presence of the customer and his demands may cause another type of pressure that could strengthen the techno-stressor. One of the mostly named pressures was the assumption that the customers want to be helped as fast as possible. This assumption is most clear in the quote of participant 6: “I feel rushed because you want to help the customer as fast as possible so he can continue as well. And I understand his perspective as a client as well, he must be thinking what takes so long”. So, even when the customer does not admit to be in a hurry, the presence of the customer may result in a stressful situation for the employees. Evidence that the presence of the customer could be perceived as stressful comes forward in the following quotes. As participant 3 argues: “Well, the customer won’t punch you. The customer has a certain expectation, and when they make it clear what they want you just want to help them. When you are not able to, it gets me frustrated”. Participant 4 also made himself clear that he perceives stressful emotions due to the presence of the customer: “What it does to me is that I perceive a little stress, because the customer has already been waiting for 40 minutes, now I have to work a bit faster. I guess other colleagues will perceive the same, but that is an assumption”. How the presence of the customer relates to the techno-stressor becomes apparent in the argument of participant 10: “And also when the customer is watching how many buttons I have to click on, he must be thinking wow this takes a long time”. Participant 10 speaks of the amount of buttons he has to click on, which could mean that the system is complex and thus might be perceived as challenging. However, due to the presence of the customer it is perceived as more challenging. Hence, customer expectations and even its presence on its own strengthen the socio-techno-stressor that might result in different adaptation behaviours, as becomes apparent during the focus group discussion.

Respondent 3 gave a great example of how he worked around the system due to its complexity and the presence of the customer: “Sometimes I just pretend I am doing something in the system, not sure if you have done this before as well. But I will open the system, and I say well everything is right, but that’s the only thing I can see”. Participant 12 has the same troubles and explains: “I won’t search that out on that moment, it will get worse. Because you will see that the customer gets annoyed and frustrated”. Participant 8 feels the same pressure but is more inventive and places the client on the other side of the desk so he can’t watch the screen, as he said: “I just want to check it out well and quietly. Most of the time, there is not space and time for this. I place most clients on a chair on the opposite of my desk, so they can’t look on what I do”. Where respondent 3 and participant 12 will not use the system due to the presence of the customer, participant 8 does, but changes the setting, so that he perceives it as less bothersome or stressful.

conversations because you need to assist clients as fast as possible”. When this type of pressure is felt, employees tend to work around the system as participant 4 explains: “Uhm, what I just said, a downside of me is that when it is really crowded in the shop and I do not know the system well enough I tend to call to the dealerdesk”. During the focus group discussion respondent 3 echoed this argument: “It has more to do with the bustle. This can be a busy place, and when it is that busy I cannot start to use the system”. Hence waiting customers have influence on how employees work with or around the IT.

A final way of how the customer might influence the employees came to light during the interview with participant 4. He or she explains that the customers themselves feel the pressure of other customers waiting to be helped, when they have questions that demand a lot of effort from the employee. Participant 4 argued: “Searching is not a problem, but customers experience a pressure on busy moments. What I often hear is: don’t you have troubles with these crowds in the shop while you have to do all these things for me?”. Hence the customers play an important role in the social context of the workspace of the employee. However, no explicit difference in perception was found between age groups regarding the presence of the customer. All the technological characteristics and social factors influencing the socio-techno-stressor are shown in Figure 4. Regarding age, in comparison to their younger colleagues, only the overkill of information and -systems tend to be perceived as a higher threat among older employees.

4.2. Results - Part 2

In this part of the result section, the results will be shown related to the process of how socio-techno-stressors influence adaptation behaviours, including the role of age in this relationship. Since age is of major relevance, the age of the participants will be explicitly stressed. The age below the 35 years is indicated with (<35) and the age above the 50 years with (>50).

4.2.1. Appraisal and strain. From the results discussed in part 1 and quotes given, it can be derived that the stressor is not always positively appraised. However, some participants did appraise the IT as Figure 4: Results found in this research regarding to the Social Factors in

neutral or as an opportunity during their primary appraisal and did not feel any stressful emotion at all. As Respondent 4 (<35) said: “No problem, I will adapt”. Also respondent 5 (<35) expressed himself in this matter: “Change is something positive”. However, most seem to appraise the new system as a threat, as participant 10 (>50) argues: “We have so many systems and log-in codes. The IT is that big that I think: stop, I am not going to do more”.

How participants perceive and react on the appraised techno-stressors, as being called strain in this research paper, is varying. Participant 3 (<35) for example, he reacted as follows: “Frustrated, angry. Well, I was not miserable, but sad. Yes, maybe a bit frustrated. Yes that is where it tends to”. Participant 6 (<35) told how he appraised the stressor: “Impatience, you want to be quicker, and you become frustrated”. Participant 8 felt (>50) irritated, as he explains: “It is irritating, because lots of things and issues in the shop have to be handled in the highest gear”. Participant 10 (>50) felt, also impotence next to irritation, like he said: “I feel impotence. And you have to ask a colleague if they want to help me out”.

As will also become clear in paragraph 4.2.2, participant 10 (>50) is one of many who see the new IT as a threat. Therefore it is more likely that people will pursue rather emotion-focused coping efforts, where they show selective attention and express avoiding- or distancing behavior. Participant 8 (>50) gives another example of avoidance behaviour: “Because there is an overload of information, finding where you need to be is not always easy. When you call you get someone on the phone who explains everything and offers a great solution”. Problem-focused coping efforts were seen less, since most employees appraised the new system as a threat. Although participants 8 (>50) and 10 (>50) appraised the new system as a threat, age did not play a significant role regarding differences in appraisal. Interestingly, differences in age groups were found regarding their adaptation behaviours (strain); this will be discussed in paragraph 4.2.3.

Regarding age, the following observations during the interviews might be noteworthy. Two older employees (>50) were asked during the interviews to login and show how the system is used, since a computer in the room facilitated this opportunity. Both had troubles with entering the system and were obviously frustrated, even when one of them just spoke out not to have troubles with the system and never would be stressed out or perceive the stressor as negative. Hence, it makes clear that, even though some participants said not to experience stress or any other negative emotion when confronted with a stressor, they might have felt it some way but either do not experience it as stressful or do not want to tell.

Notably, from the data it seems that both age groups experience troubles while adapting to the system, however, especially during adaptation older workers experience problems due to seniority. This will become clearer, and will be explained by participants, in the next paragraph.

4.2.3. The role of age during adaptation. The explanations of the role of age in the appraisal process and its influence on the adaptation behaviours came to light during the interviews. As participant 7 (>50) explains: “I notice that younger generations adapt quicker”. Participant 1 (<35) echoes the existence of a generation gap: “Well, younger generations have less problems with adopting. Nowadays, there are many systems like this which might look more complicated for older generations while younger generations find it very normal”. Reasons for the existence of this gap might be related to a fear of doing wrong as participant 12 (>50) made clear: “Because you can do so many things in the system, that you do not know exactly what to do and what to fill in. A mistake can be made easily and then you have to correct everything afterwards”.

Participant 1 (<35) spoke of another relevant observation: “Older employees tend to fall back in old habits easily, since younger ones have no old habits, they tend to adapt faster”. Hence, habits might a plausible argument for the noticed age difference as well. A third reason might be a decrease in cognitive abilities due to old age. As participant 10 (>50) explained: “I could watch my employees work with the system, but I won’t remember what I see, I only think; nice the customer has been helped out. But its not like I will remember what I see and be able to perform on my own next time. I still can’t”. Participant 7 (>50) continues: “When I was younger I was really fast and could process it really fast. But the more I became older; I noticed that I became slower. I need more time to learn”. Especially this last quote describes that the participant noticed a decrease in his or her cognitive abilities. This loss of cognitive abilities makes it harder for older employees to work and adapt to new systems, which result in longer adaptation processes and thus more use of workarounds. Hence, both age and personality, as earlier discussed, seem to have influence on the appraisal process since both are of influence on the individual and determine the view of how individuals look at the stressor and how it will be appraised.

Employees prefer trainings to be more practical, as participant 11 (>50) suggested: “It would have been nice if there was something like a practical training. It’s a system where you have to work with. Learning some theory is not the problem, but what do you do when you are confronted with the system in a practical way? I find that important, there has to be a practical training”. Four other participants shared this opinion. So a more practical training would have been more appropriate since employees in this industry might learn better from it, as participant 1 (<35) suggests: “I take more information during practical than during theoretical learning; I guess this holds for most people”.

Besides training, most participants condemned the lack of organizational support, as became clear in the argument of participant 8 (>50): “Yes, it was lacking support. It still is”. Respondent 2 (<35) explains: “The way the organisation dealt with the situation has had influence on me. Because it was announced and got no further attention”. So, organizational support has also influence on how employees might use the IT. Other forms of a lacking organizational support were the communication and motivation. As participant 2 (<35) made clear: “The communication related to the system was not perfect. We would be able to use it, then only limited access, then they told us we were not getting it, then suddenly we had our own login codes. This does not give me a comfortable feeling”. During the focus group discussion, targets were discussed as possible motivators, since the organisation was lacking in motivating employees. Respondent 1 (<35) argued: “Sure, in that case we have to use it. So we will use it because we have to”. Respondent 3 (<35) continuous: “The best example is service repair. On a sudden moment we got a list with how often we used service. And from that moment on I started to do way more service via that system, but I did this only because of the targets”. However, respondent 2 (<35) had a critical note regarding targets: “A negative effect, because when someone is performing out of intrinsic motivation you will get quality. However, I think that when you motivate by setting targets, quality will be poor”. Thus targets might not be the best way to motivate.

If the organizational support, training, communication and motivational efforts were better organised, it might have mitigated the perceived strength of the stressor because employees were better trained or motivated to work with the system. Communication and support could have brought more clarification about what the new system means for them in terms of change.

5. Discussion & Conclusion

This study aimed to answer the main question of how techno-stress influences the adaptation behaviour of the aging workforce during an IT-implementation. During this section I hope to answer this main question and relate the findings to existing literature.

(techno-techno-stress literature by finding social factors influencing the (techno-techno-stressor, which makes the term socio-techno-stressor more appropriate to use. Sun (2012) already noted that other people’s use of IT is of influence on adaptation efforts. Findings of this research are consistent with the finding of Sun (2012), however, this research found more social factors, including: negative narratives and the presence of a customer. It must be mentioned that with regard to the social factors no difference between the age groups was found.

These social factors bring in a certain social pressure and in that way strengthen the techno-stressor. For example, many participants found the system complex. This characteristic can be linked to the techno-stressor “Techno-complexity”; since it has the potential to make users feel inadequate due to a lack of skills, and it forces them to spend time and effort in education to better understand the system. When the employee has time, he or she can open a training or manual to find out how to use the system to perform his task. However, when a customer is brought into the situation, it brings a certain pressure. The employee has not all the time to open up a training or manual to learn how to use the system to perform his task, because the customer expects that he or she help him within a certain time and space. This finding is in line with research by Sergeeva et al. (2017) about the onlooker, which is an actor that is not directly involved to technology user but exposed to traces of use. The authors found that the onlooker is influenced by technology use and in turn affects the technology use of individuals. This tends to be true since individuals draw on frames, views and opinions of others when they engage with IT. Hence, customers, and possibly co-workers, can be defined as onlookers since he or she is not directly involved in technology use but is exposed to it during shop visits. Besides, the onlooker has influence on the IT use of employees as became clear in this research.

As the results show, narratives about the system can influence others. When narratives are negative, they might appraise the stressor as a higher threat and more stressful than it in reality is. However, narratives have more functionalities than influencing others. According to Sonenshein (2010), narratives shape individuals’ understanding (sensemaking), influence the understanding of others (sensegiving) and may function as an outcome of collective development of meaning during change situations. Sonenshein (2010) acknowledges that negative narratives lead to resistance and negative attitudes towards change. Notwithstanding, Sonenshein (2010) explains as well that organisations have the possibility to influence how individuals perceive a changing situation by influencing the narratives that are told, which turns out to be a very powerful strategy.

CMUA-model that when an event is perceived as a threat, it is likely that it will result in rather emotion-focused instead of problem-emotion-focused behaviors. However, Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005) distinguish more adaptation behaviors. The authors stress that individuals in this case might show a disturbance handling or self-preservation strategy. The less an individual feels in control, the more likely he or she wants to restore emotional stability and thus show self-preservation strategies. In agreement with Beaudry and Pinsonneault (2005), this research shows that people who appraise the stressor as a threat are likely to show disturbance-handling (search for training, adjust work procedures to fit with IT) or self-preservation strategies (distancing, avoidance or self-deception behaviors).

In line with the research of Verhaeghen and Salthouse (1997), this research shows that older employees perceive decreases in cognitive abilities. How the stressor was appraised differently due to this decreased cognitive abilities remained unclear from the data. However, it was noticed that it is more likely that older employees show self-preservation or disturbance-handling strategies due to this decrease in cognitive abilities. As participant 10 (>50) explicitly said not to use the system for this reason, and participant 7 (>50) explained to take longer time to learn it and thus shows disturbance-handling behaviors. Another reason of why older employees found adapting troublesome was a generation gap. Consistent with the research of Nimrod (2017), older employees have been introduced to technologies relatively late in comparison to younger colleagues, and in that way experience more problems to adapt to IT. A note of caution is due here since these findings are based on a small sample size of 12 interviews. Besides Tams et al. (2014) explained that there are other aspects related to age that influence users’ technology use, including culture and personality. This also accords with unexpected findings of this research, which shows that personality was of influence since it determines if individuals are amenable to stress or not.

Referring back to adaptation behaviors, it must be noticed that participants were more likely to show disturbance handling or self-preservation behaviors due to the absence of specific techno-stress inhibitors. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) found in their paper certain ways to diminish the effects of the techno-stressor, as they call techno-stress inhibitors. As became clear in this research, many participants blamed the organisation for a lack of support, communication, motivation, and practical training sessions. Hence, the findings of this study show how essential inhibitors are during IT adaptation, which they determine how employees appraise the IT/stressor.

6. Theoretical Contribution

contribution three social factors have been identified during this research, which are: other people’s IT use, negative narratives and the presence of customer (onlooker). Current techno-stress literature explains that techno-stressors come to existence merely via technological characteristics. Findings of this research indicate that the techno-stressor is not only shaped by technological characteristics, but also by social factors. Noteworthy, these findings might not be generalizable since not every work environment facilitates a role for onlookers and a possibility to watch others use the IT or talk to colleagues about the IT. However, it stresses perfectly the impact social factors can have on the socio-techno-stressor.

7. Practical Implications

The findings of this research do have implications for practise. First of all, this research shows the impact of age on how the stressor is appraised, and thus on the adaptation process. Organizations should anticipate on this phenomenon before adopting IT. Furthermore, the findings show that, besides technological characteristics, social factors are important to consider regarding techno-stress before adopting an IT. Especially the power of narratives and the presence of onlookers since this research found these factors have the possibility to strengthen the socio-techno-stressor and thus negatively influence IT adaptation-processes. Organizations should actively be involved and, instead of fearing, embracing the power of narratives and use them as a tool to influence employees in times of change, as suggested by Sonenshein (2010). Considering the onlooker, organizations should be aware of possible influences on their employees’ adaptation efforts. Ways of diminishing these socio-techno-stressors could be using inhibitors as training, communication and organisational support. This research stresses the importance of these inhibitors since the lack of them will result in disturbance handling or self-preservation behaviors. Finally the role of management should not be underestimated, since this research found that subordinates see managers as a leader in change.

8. Limitations and Future Research

This research has some limitations that should be taken into account while interpreting the results. One source of weakness in this study that could have affected the measurements was related to the case study. The system was not that central as hoped, some employees did not even use the system on daily basis. Thus if employees have no pressure to use the system, it could have affected the results of this study. Besides this research is based on a relatively small sample of participants. Hence, future research should test, with multiple cases, if the results of this research still hold and are generalizable. While doing research with multiple cases, the external validity is ensured as well, which seemed to be too ambitious and unrealistic for this research due to limitations in time.

Besides, the questions might have been too open which resulted in poorer results, for example regarding age.

References

Aken, J. E., Berends, J. J., & Bij, J. D. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: a methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge University Press.

Atanasoff, L., & Venable, M.A. (2017). Technostress: Implications for Adults in the Workforce. The Career Development Querterly, 65(4), 326-338.

Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological Antecedents and Implications. MIS quarterly, 35(4), 831-858.

Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2016). Adaptation to Information Technology: A Holistic Nomological Network from Implementation to Job Outcomes. Management Science, 62(1), 156-179.

Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault A. (2005). Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493-524.

Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault A. (2010). The Other Side of Acceptance: Studying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Emotions on Information Technology Use. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 689-710. Burton Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2013). From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory

Perspective. Information System Research, 24(3), 632-658.

CBS. (n.d.). Bevolking, Kerncijfers (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 18, from

http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37296NED&D1=8-21&D2=0,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50-58,60,66-67&HDR=T&STB=G1&VW=T

Chand, M., & Tung, R.L. (2014). The Aging of the World’s Population and its Effects on Global Business. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 409-429.

Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J., & O’Driscoll, M.P. (2001). Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory, Research, and Applications. Sage.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Charness, N., & Boot, W.R. (2009). Aging and Information Technology Use: Potential and Barriers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 253-258.

Cutler, S.J. (2005). Ageism and Technology. Generations, 29(3), 67-72.

Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers. W.A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333-352. Dewe, P.J., & Guest, D.E. (1990). Methods of Coping with Stress at Work: A Conceptual Analysis

and Empirical Study of Measurement Issus. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(2), 135-150.

Dicocco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B.F. (2006). The Qualitative Research Interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.