Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology
Abstract
In the implementation of an organizational innovation, managers are usually presumed to influence the extent to which the innovation is adopted and used by their subordinates. However, the findings presented in this paper suggest that the managerial influence is not equally perceived by all subordinates. Rather, certain context-specific characteristics of individual employees mediate the managerial influence. Users of the expert system studied herein who were low in personal innovativeness toward this class of innovations, for whom the subjective importance of the task being computerized was low, whose task-related skills were low or who were low performers in their sales job—all these user groups perceived their management had encouraged them to adopt. In contrast, users who rated high on any of these measures did not perceive any management influence in their adoption decision. Moreover, although access to the innovation was in fact highly similar for all users, high performers also were inclined to perceive the system as more accessible than were low performers. These findings suggest that the diffusion of an innovation within an organization perhaps could be viewed as a two-step managerial process. Employees whose characteristics incline them to adopt an innovation will do so without management support or urging if it is simply made available. Employees low on these characteristics will await a managerial directive before adopting. Implications for future research are dis…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208701 · Cited by 1,550 · see citing works
Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority
Milgram, S. (1965) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872676501800105 · Cited by 1,141 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035 · see citing works
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066 · see citing works
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150 · see citing works
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · see citing works
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204 · Cited by 3,575 · see citing works
Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094828 · Cited by 1,729 · see citing works
Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001 · Cited by 1,288 · see citing works
Ahuja, M. K., & Bennett, J. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148691 · Cited by 818 · see citing works
Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0583 · Cited by 685 · see citing works
An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA)
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., & Clement, M. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001 · Cited by 622 · see citing works
Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036548 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
Citizens' adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view
Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., & Clement, M. (2017) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9613-y · Cited by 373 · see citing works
The adoption of information technology in the sales force
Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Moenaert, R. K. (2005) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.09.013 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Adoption of online public grievance redressal system in India: toward developing a unified view
Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Williams, M. D., & Weerakkody, V. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.019 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
A feedback model to understand information system usage
Bajaj, A., & Nidumolu, S. R. (1998) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(98)00026-3 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
AI-augmented HRM: Antecedents, assimilation and multilevel consequences
Prikshat, V., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2023) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100860 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Fagan, M., Kilmon, C., & Pandey, V. (2012) · Campus-Wide Information Systems · doi:10.1108/10650741211212368 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Implementation research: state of the art and future directions
Linton, J. D. (2002) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(01)00075-x · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Measures for Predictors of Innovation Adoption
Chor, K. H. B., Wisdom, J. P., Olin, S.-C. S., Hoagwood, K. E., & Horwitz, S. M. (2015) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-014-0551-7 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Heidenreich, S., & Talke, K. (2020) · AMS Review · doi:10.1007/s13162-020-00164-x · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I.
- Affiliations
- Harvard Graduate School of Business, Boston, Massachusetts 02163
- HEC Montréal (CA)
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1988-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1252-1265
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2041026297
- Cited by
- 812
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 34.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- managerial influence, technology adoption, organizational innovation, expert systems, employee innovativeness, task significance, employee performance, diffusion of innovations, computerization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
