870
Views
11
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Essay

A multilevel investigation on antecedents for employees’ exploration of enterprise systems

&
Pages 439-456 | Received 03 Aug 2017, Accepted 03 Feb 2019, Published online: 27 Mar 2019

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–581.
  • 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.
  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw L.L.C. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
  • Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Iverson, R. D. (2003). High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 276–283.
  • Burton-Jones, A. (2009). Minimizing method bias through programmatic research. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 445–471.
  • Burton-Jones, A., & Granger, C. (2013). From use to effective use: A representation theory perspective. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 632–658.
  • Burton-Jones, A., & Straub, D. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228–246.
  • Byrd, T. A., & Turner, D. E. (2000). Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: Exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(1), 167–208.
  • Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.
  • Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116.
  • Chin, W. W. (1998a). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
  • Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Chung, S. H., Tang, H.-L., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Modularity, Integration and IT personnel skills factors in linking ERP to SCM systems. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(1), 1–13.
  • Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
  • Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technology diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123–139.
  • Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121–131.
  • DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.
  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.
  • Duncan, N. B. (1995). Capturing flexibility of information technology infrastructure: A study of resource characteristics and their measure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(2), 37–57.
  • El Amrani, R., Rowe, F., & Geffroy-Maronnat, B. (2006). The effects of enterprise resource planning implementation strategy on cross-functionality. Information Systems Journal, 16, 79–104.
  • Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2009). Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: The moderating role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 557–565.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  • Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
  • Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hsieh, J. J. P. A., Rai, A., & Xu, S. X. (2011). Extracting business value from IT: A sensemaking perspective of post-adoptive use. Management Science, 57(11), 2018–2039.
  • Hsieh, J. J. P. A., & Wang, W. (2007). Explaining employees’ extended use of complex information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(3), 216–227.
  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–89.
  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). RWG: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.
  • Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. Mis Quarterly, 29(3), 525–557.
  • Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users’ perspective on change: The case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229–242.
  • Karahanna, E., & Agarwal, R. (2003). When the spirit is willing: symbolic adoption and technology exploration. Working Paper. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
  • Karahanna, E., & Agarwal, R. (2006). When the spirit is willing: symbolic adoption and technology exploration. Working Paper. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
  • Ke, W., Tan, C.-H., Sia, C.-L., & Wei, K.-K. (2013). Inducing intrinsic motivation to explore the enterprise system: The supremacy of organizational levers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(3), 257–290.
  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.
  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1987). Implementing structured software methodologies: A case of innovation in process technology. Interfaces, 17(3), 6–17.
  • Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 657–678.
  • Li, X., & Hsieh, J. J. Impact of transformational leadership on system exploration in the mandatory organizational context, In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Information Systems, Montreal, Canada, 2007, pp. 1–20.
  • Li, X., Hsieh, J. 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.
  • Liang, H., Peng, Z., Xue, Y., Guo, X., & Wang, N. (2015). Employees’ exploration of complex systems: An integrative view. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), 322–357.
  • Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.
  • Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242–256.
  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
  • Magni, M., Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R. (2012). Everybody needs somebody: The influence of team network structure on information technology use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(3), 9–42.
  • Magni, M., Maruping, L. M., Caporarello, L., & Basaglia, S. Innovating with technology in team context: A trait activation theory perspective, Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, P.R. China, 2011.
  • Magni, M., Susan Taylor, M., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). To play or not to play: A cross-temporal investigation using hedonic and instrumental perspectives to explain user intentions to explore a technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(9), 572–588.
  • Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in is research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
  • Marciniak, R., Amrani, E. L., Rowe, R., Adam, F, (2014). Does ERP integration foster cross-functional awareness? Challenging conventional wisdom for SMEs and large French firms. Business Process Management Journal 20(6), 865–886.
  • Markus, M. L., & Cornelis, T. (1999). The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to success. In R. W. E. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT research: Glimpsing the future through the past. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc.
  • Markus, M. L., Tanis, C., & Van Fenema, P. C. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: Multisite ERP implementations. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 42–46.
  • Maruping, L. M., & Magni, M. (2012). What’s the weather like? The effect of team learning climate, empowerment climate, and gender on individuals’ technology exploration and use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 79–114.
  • Maruping, L. M., & Magni, M. (2015). Motivating employees to explore collaboration technology in team contexts. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 1–16.
  • McAfee, A. (2006). Mastering the three worlds of information technology. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 141–149.
  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:: Prentice-Hall.
  • Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work Design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 423–452). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399–406.
  • Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1329.
  • Nah, F. F.-H., Faja, S., & Cata, T. (2001). Characteristics of ERP software maintenance: A multiple case study. Joural of Software Maintenance and Evolution, 13, 399–414.
  • Narayanan, S., Balasubramanian, S., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2009). A matter of balance: Specialization, task variety, and individual learning in a software maintenance environment. Management Science, 55(11), 1861–1876.
  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
  • Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the seperation of technology, work, and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
  • Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J. A., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423–444.
  • Peng, Z., Fang, Y., & Lim, K. Social capital and user acceptance of enterprise system: Mediating role of local management commitment, International Conference on Information Systems 2011, Shanghai, China, 2011.
  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
  • Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
  • Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems. In J. Fulk & C. E. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173–193). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1986). Group Decision- making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102.
  • Previn, L. A. (1987). Person-environment congruence in the light of person-situation controversy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 222–230.
  • Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 12(2), 117–135.
  • Raub, S., & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the Right Thing Without Being Told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 651–667.
  • Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Rivard, S., Poirier, G., Raymond, L., & Bergeron, F. (1997). Development of a measure to assess the quality of user-developed applications. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 28(3), 44–58.
  • Saga, V. L., & Zmud, R. W. (1994). The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. In L. Levin (Ed.), Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology. (pp. 67–86). North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Inc.
  • Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward A general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management, 25(2), 312–334.
  • Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150–163.
  • Schyns, B. (2004). The Influence Of Occupational Self-Efficacy On The Relationship Of Leadership Behavior And Preparedness For Occupational Change. Journal of Career Development, 30(4), 247–261.
  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
  • Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2007). The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task interdependence on successfule information systems implementation. MIS Ouarterly, 31(2), 219–238.
  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.
  • Turner, D., & Chung, S. H. (2005). Technological factors relevant to continuity on erp for e-business platform: Integration, modularity, and flexibility. Journal of Internet Commerce, 4(4), 119–132.
  • Uwizeyemungu, S., & Raymond, L. (2005). Essential characteristics of an ERP System: Conceptualization and operationalization. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 29(2), 69–81.
  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
  • Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Technology and Organization (pp. 1–44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Zuboff, S. (1988). The age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.