The final chapter will present the conclusions, discussion and practical implications for companies and HR practitioners. Some of the limitations of this study will be explained so that the reader understands where can the results of this study be applied and some suggestions for future research will be provided so that more can be known on the effects of culture in the acceptance of technology.
Conclusions
This research intended to understand the role of culture in the acceptance of a new technology. The effect of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in the relationships between the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) constructs; Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and Subjective Norms were examined.
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted and from this point on, two models were developed, BI1, which examines the intention to use a system and BI2, which touches upon the intention to use a system frequently. The effect of culture on the relationship between the intention to use a system and perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and subjective norm is greater than the effect of culture on the relationship between the frequency of use of a system and perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and subjective norms.
Through this research we know that the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and subjective norms all have an effect on the behavioral intention to use the social networks for staffing the organization in both models, BI1 and BI2.
Even though TAM has been proven to be a robust model, as newer technologies are emerging it is still important to find out which are the factors that affect acceptance
82
of them. In the case of the social networks, the proposed factors on the TAM are still having a major impact on the acceptance of this technology. This research confirms that even with a new technology these relationships remain valid.
As for the effect of culture on the acceptance of social networks to conduct staffing activities, some of the cultural dimensions showed to have an impact on the acceptance of a system and some do not. Uncertainty avoidance is the cultural dimension that moderates acceptance of the use of a newer technology more, since it showed to moderate the relationship of both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use with behavioral intention to use.
Those individuals with lower espoused uncertainty avoidance tend to accept a system that they perceive useful more easily than those with higher espoused uncertainty avoidance. This is because the individuals with lower espoused uncertainty avoidance tend to embrace the new (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). System usefulness represents a form of encouragement for those with low espoused uncertainty avoidance.
On the other hand, individuals with higher espoused uncertainty avoidance tend to accept a system that they perceived easy to use with less trouble because this reduces their levels of uncertainty. One important finding in this dimension was that the relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intention to use was rejected, in the study conducted by Srite and Karahanna (2006), this relationship was hypothesized and found to be moderated by uncertainty avoidance, however in our study it was not.
It may be because of the sample differences. In Srite and Karahanna’s study, their sample was students; people in younger ages tend to pay closer attention to what others do and think and this might reduce their levels of uncertainty. However, our study
83
focused on HR practitioners, the importance placed on others may be reduced as one reaches maturity, thus, others are not a source of uncertainty reduction.
Regarding power distance dimension, it is proven to be a factor affecting the relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intention to use a system only in model BI1. This because BI1 discusses directly the intention to use a system, BI2 on the other hand is more concern on the frequency of the use of a system. Others influence on us may be stronger when deciding on whether to do something more than on the frequency on which we perform that behavior.
In the case of the Masculinity/Femininity dimension, the results are mostly rejected; one of the reasons that could explain this is the fact that the items used to measure this dimension might not have been completely appropriate. Further development of this dimension might be needed.
Discussions
The reason why the relationship between perceived usefulness and behavioral intention to use may not be moderated by the masculinity/femininity dimension may lay on the fact that one of the main constructs of the TAM is perceived usefulness.
Perceived usefulness is a concept based on masculine values. Masculine cultures value achievement, goal-orientation, power, etc. The feminine aspects of a culture are lacking from the acceptance model (Srite and Karahanna, 2006).
Another interesting finding, was that the relationship between subjective norms and behavioral intention to use a system was not moderated by the dimension of uncertainty avoidance. It was hypothesized that the higher the uncertainty avoidance, the stronger the relationship would be between subjective norms and behavioral intention. However, it was found to be the opposite, this result contradicts the previous
84
knowledge. According to Hofstede (2001) one way to reduce uncertainty is to belong to social groups and maintain heritage. Our results prove contrary to this concept.
Something that may also be important to mention in this section is that as the workforce becomes more diversified, it might be difficult to find cultures that espoused only one side of the cultural dimensions. For example, a culture that is purely collectivistic or individualistic. As we interact more with the outside world, we become less and less aware of our differences and are able to adapt more traits of other cultures.
Conducting cross-cultural studies is more and more important so that we can understand each other better and through our differences find different perspectives that could be helpful in the development processes of organizations.
Organizational culture may also be a factor that affects the acceptance of a new technology, this because if the workforce is heterogeneous, they don’t espouse a specific cultural value but a mix of many.
Research Implications
This study has very important implications for researchers since it used TAM to understand the acceptance of a new technology, online social networks. This study aimed to replicate the study by Srite and Karahanna (2006) in an industrial sample. We can then see that TAM is a robust model no matter the technology nor the sample.
The TAM attempts to understand the factors that affect the acceptance of a technology by an individual. It poses the relationships between PU and PEOU with Behavioral Intention to use. In our study we were able to prove that PU and PEOU are strong predictors of the Behavioral Intention to use a system.
85
The relationship of Subjective Norms and Behavioral Intention to use was also posed in our study, and even though not all the studies utilizing TAM as the framework are utilizing this factor, it did prove to have an effect on the acceptance of the Online Social Networks.
Finally, culture is an important factor in the acceptance of technology. Even though only Hofstede’s dimensions of culture were evaluated and the results are not identical from the results presented by Srite and Karahanna (2006) both studies, in an academic and industrial sample, show that culture does affect the acceptance of a system.
Practical Implications
This study can be an important contribution to companies that operate on a globalized world as the one in which we live today. Especially to those companies who constantly deal with a diversified workforce.
When there is an intention to introduce a new system to the workplace the cultural background of the employees needs to be considered. Not all employees see technology the same way, for some it represents a challenge, a different way of conducting activities, for others it represents a useful tool, a learning process. All these mindsets should be considered when this intention exists, so that the company doesn’t find resistance during the implementation stage.
The more user friendly the technology is, the more stress-free will be the process of acceptance of the technology to the employees. Ease of use represents a way of diminishing employees’ fears to use a new technology, especially for those with high uncertainty avoidance levels.
86
Companies should make great efforts to find systems that are easy to understand and that actually help the employees to perform their activities better and more effectively. These two factors will affect the willingness of employees to accept the newer technologies, no matter what type of technology is being implemented.
On the use of social networks for performing staffing activities within the organization, above 60% of the sample reported that the companies they serve encourage the use of social networks, own a social network profile or are demanded to use social networks to perform staffing activities.
This poses implications for both HR practitioners and job seekers. HR practitioners that are not utilizing the social networks for staffing organizations could consider starting to use this technology since it could provide them future benefits. Job seekers should be aware of what they post in their social profiles if they want to be desirable candidates for companies who are looking to fill their available positions.
Limitations
Srite and Karahanna (2006) in their study present us with some of the limitations of utilizing the approach of studying the espoused national values in the individual level. Even though by doing so the study avoids the ecological fallacy, there are some drawbacks from this method. The main issue on this approach is that it is assumed that the participants’ culture is something they know instead of something they feel (Explicit vs. Tacit Knowledge). This poses difficulties while trying to learn about culture because people’s awareness of their culture might be low, thus providing less significant information.
Other limitation of this study might be that the instrument was applied to different samples. It was assumed that the meaning of the constructs in the questionnaire was the
87
same for the different samples. This could be not true, the different samples could perceive the concepts of the instrument as different. This is a common concern when conducting cross-cultural research; this doesn’t make the research invalid, but it is important to mention that is one of the concerns that should be on the researcher’s mind.
Another limitation of this study is that the data was collected from HR practitioners, thus causing self-report problems. Even though self-report is the only method available for collecting this information the results of the study could be affected by common method variance or the respondents’ lack of commitment to respond truthfully to the questionnaire.
Accessibility to the sample was another issue, it was difficult to contact HR practitioners in other countries, especially because of the lack of connections in these countries. Larger sample would allow conducting higher level analysis of the data, such as country comparisons.
The data was collected through online questionnaires, so there was no way for the researcher to control the access to the survey, nor who could fill the survey. This could cause that non HR practitioners might have filled the survey. Becoming another limitation for this study.
Finally, the use of single-item measurements for one construct could be seen as a limitation, even though there is a debate among different research fields, and some researchers support the use of this practice for concrete constructs, it can still be considered a limitation.
For other researchers that are interested in conducting cross-cultural studies, the data collection can be very challenging when they are not in the place where they wish
88
to collect the data from. Collaborating with other researchers stationed in the place of interest might be a more feasible way to gather larger samples.
Cultural differences may affect the way the respondents view the constructs, thus, direct translation of the instruments might not be the most appropriate way to gather the data. A previous step that was taken in this study before delivering the questionnaire to respondents was an expert review in every language. This might be an important step that other researchers might also need to take in order to make sure that the instrument to be used is delivering the intended meaning.
Future Research Suggestions
More research needs to be done on the Long Term Orientation dimension of culture, so that in the future it can be evaluated if it has an impact on the acceptance of a new technology. The items on the masculinity/femininity dimension should be analyzed further, to ensure that they are appropriate and can actually yield more reliable results. For these two dimensions the researcher believes that there is a need to improve the psychometric properties.
Other cultural constructs could be used instead of following Hofstede’s dimensions. This could provide other perspectives on the effect of culture on the acceptance of a new technology. Organizational culture could also be affecting the use acceptance of technology in the workplace, so it could be the focus of future research.
Country comparisons among the samples would also be another direction for future research. Larger sample would be needed so that the comparison among different countries would be meaningful.
89
Other methodologies could also be used to conduct these studies. Such as qualitative research, where the respondents could provide more in depth information on the factors that they believe affect their acceptance but more importantly the reasons why the factors are important. This information cannot be extracted from quantitative studies.
90
91
REFERENCES
Aladwani, A. M. (2003). Guest Editorial for special issue on IT management in the Middle East. Information Technology & People, 16(1), 7-8.
Alavi, M. & Henderson, J. C. (1981). An evolutionary strategy for implementation a decision support system. Management Science, 27, 1309-1323.
Alexa.com, (2009). Alexa Top 500 Sites. Retrieved August 27, 2012 from analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29, 530-545.
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of marketing research, 175-184.
Bowen, W. (1986). The Puny Payoff from Office Computers. Fortune May 26, 20-24.
Boyd, D. M. (2007), Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life, in MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning-Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume, David Buckingham, Ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cassidy, J. (2006). Me media. The New Yorker, 82(13), 50-59.
Careerbuilder.com, (2012). Thirty-seven percent of companies use social networks to research potential job candidates, according to new CareerBuilder Survey.
Retrieved November 27th, 2012 from
http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr691&sd
=4%2F18%2F2012&ed=4%2F18%2F2099
Churchill, G. A. J. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Crocker, L. S., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory.
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Daniel, L. (2005). From contact to contact: Social Networking on the Internet.
Employment Management Today, 10(1).
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. (Doctoral dissertation) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.
92
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). user acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science 35(8), 982-1003.
Davis. F. D. & Venkatesh, V. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Davison, R., & Martinsons, M. G. (2003). Guest editorial to cultural issues and IT management: Past and present. IEEE Transactions on engineering Management, 50(1), 3-7.
DeLone, W. & McLean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60−95.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012).
Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434-449
Doherty, R. (2010) Getting Social with Recruitment. Strategic HR Review, 9(6), 11-15.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede Revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management 3, 127-150.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evaristo, J., & Karahanna, E. (1998). The impact of privatization on organizational information needs: Lessons from the Brazilian telecommunications holding company. Information Technology & People, 11(3) 207-216.
Facebook.com, (2013). About. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info
Fishebein, M., & Ajzen, I., (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts:.Addison-Wesley, Ford, D. P., Connelly, C. E., & Meister, D. B. (2003). Information systems research
and Hofstede’s culture’s consequences. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(1), 8-26.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.
93
Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and Organization, 15(4), 295-338.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.
Ginzberg, M. J. (1981). Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: Promising results and unanswered questions. Management Science, 27, 459-478.
Grubbs, M & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28-45.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283-297.
Hachman, M. (2012, April 23). Facebook Now Totals 901 Million Users, Profits Slip.
Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403410,00.asp August 4, 2012.
Hair, J. F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate data Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information systems use. Management Science 40(4), 440-465.
Hasan, H. & Ditsa, G., (1994). The impact of culture on the adoption of IT: An interpretive study. Journal of Global Information Management, 7(1), 5-16.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS press.
Henderson, A. & Bowley, R. (2010). Authentic dialogue? The role of “friendship” in a social media recruitment campaign. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 237-257.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4-21.
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Mangement Information Systems, 16(2), 91-112.
94
Ives, B. & Jarvenpaa, S. (1993). Global business drivers: Aligning information technology to global business strategy. IBM Systems Journal, 32(2), 143-161.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D., & Chervany, N. (1999). Information technology across time:
A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-214.
King, W., & He, J., (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model.
Information and Management, 43, 740–755.
Kinnear, P., & Gray, C., (2000). SPSS for windows made simple, release 10. London, UK: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Kluemper, D., & Rosen, P., (2009). Future employment selection methods: Evaluating social networking websites. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6), 567-580.
LinkedIn.com, (2012). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/about-us Lory, B., (2010). Using Facebook to assess candidates during the recruiting process:
Ethical implications. National Association of Colleges and Employers Journal, 71(1) 37-40.
Matejkovic, J. E., & Matejkovic, M. E., (2006). Whom to hire: Rampant misrepresentations of credentials mandate the prudent employer make informed hiring decisions. Creighton Law Review, 39, 827.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D., (1998). Is more ever too much?
The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate
The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate