User response to mandatory IT use: a coping theory perspective

Please note this paper has been re-typeset by Taylor & Francis from the manuscript originally provided to the previous publisher.

Figures & data

Table 1. A taxonomy of user responses.

User response	Emotional response	Behavioral response	Similar categories from prior research
Engaged	Passionate and/or enthusiastic about IT use	Uses IT beyond required use (e.g., remote login from home)	Emergent use (Saga & Zmud, 1994)
	Wanting to discover new features about IT	Experiments with IT	Innovative use (Li et al., 2013)
	A sense of ownership of the IT	Modifies work procedures to optimize the use of IT and/or modifies IT to optimize work	Trying to innovate using IT (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005)
Compliant	Generally positive about IT, but views	IT use is purposeful but mechanistic	Standardized use (Saga & Zmud, 1994)
	IT use as less rewarding	Little or no innovation	Routine use (Li et al., 2013)
	IT seen as a necessity and nothing more	No customization of IT
Reluctant	Fear of or reservations about IT	Uses IT only to ‘meet quotas’ or comply with mandates	Passive resistance (Lapointe & Beaudry, 2014)
	IT seen as a distraction from work	Occasional disengagement from IT use and training	Resigned use (Lapointe & Beaudry, 2014)
	Low expectations of IT	Tendency to fall back to old ways of work
Deviant	IT believed to be an affront/challenge to work and autonomy	IT nonuse or use of ‘proxies’	Active/aggressive resistance (Lapointe & Beaudry, 2014)
	Desire to disown IT	Use of workarounds
		Voices opposition to IT
		Dissuades IT use among peers
		Employs delaying tactics
		Undermines or sabotages IT implementation

Figure 1. Coping responses to mandated IT use.

Adapted from Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984.

Table 2. User responses over time.

Response	2003 ^a	2007 ^a	2011 ^a	Transitions ^b
Engaged	4	12	7	5 (from compliant response)
Compliant	1	9	2	2 (from reluctant response)
Reluctant	4	5	2	1 (from deviant response)
Deviant	0	1	0	0
Total	9	27	11

^a Five participants were interviewed twice at two time points.

^b Some transitions were self-recalled, others observed over time.

Saga, V. L. , & Zmud, R. W. (1994). The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. In L. Levine (Ed.), Diffusion, transfer, and implementation of information technology (pp. 67–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

 Google Scholar

Li, X. , Hsieh, J. P. A. , & Rai, A. (2013). Motivational differences across post-acceptance information system usage behaviors: An investigation in the business intelligence systems context. Information Systems Research , 24 (3), 659–682.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahuja, M. K. , & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly , 29 (3), 427–459.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lapointe, L. , & Beaudry, A. (2014). Identifying IT user mindsets: Acceptance, resistance and ambivalence. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (pp. 4619–4628). Waikoloa, Hawaii: IEEE.

 Google Scholar

Beaudry, A. , & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly , 29 (3), 493–524.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lazarus, R. S. , & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress . New York, NY : Appraisal and Coping. Springer Pub. Co..

 Google Scholar