2014,Chiu and Fogel

Volume 6 Number 4 2014

185

The Impact of Manager Influence Tactics onInnovation Implementation of a Knowledge

Management System*Chiu, Holly H., PhD and Fogel, Joshua, PhD

Department of Finance and Business ManagementBrooklyn College of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACTInnovations can bring desired benefits to organizations if implemented successfully.Managers are a critical factor for influencing employee attitudes and behavior foradoption of innovations. We study employee (n=237) attitudes and behaviors for 13different manager influence tactics in the innovation implementation phase of an e-learning system, which is regarded as the knowledge management system, in amanufacturing company in Taiwan. With regard to attitudes toward using the e-learningsystem, the influence tactics of apprising and collaboration were significantly associatedwith increased attitudes, while exchange and pressure were significantly associated withdecreased attitudes. With regard to two separate behavior outcomes of the number of e-learning courses taken and the number of times online, the influence tactics of coalition,collaboration, and pressure all had significant increased associations; while ingratiation,inspirational appeals, legitimating, and rational persuasion all had significant decreasedassociations. Also, the influence tactics of apprising and persistence had significantincreased associations only for the number of e-learning courses taken. Managersattempting to adopt innovative practices should consider the importance of influencetactics when adopting innovative practices in the corporate workplace.

1. INTRODUCTIONInnovations can contribute many benefits to organizations. Successful innovation implementation iscrucial toward obtaining these benefits. When implementing innovations, individual adoption decisionsare crucial to the innovation outcome [1, 2]. However, most innovation literature focuses on the factors atthe organizational level. Only a few studies focus on the individual employee level. For example, onestudy showed that individual employees positive attitude mediated the relationship between anorganizations supportive norm and the employees innovation-use behavior, and employees technicalabilities mediated the relationship between an organizations technical support and the employeesinnovation-use behavior. In addition, an organizations supportive norm also positively moderated therelationship between employees positive attitude and the employees innovation-use behavior [3].Another study found that the individual employees perceived value fit and ability fit were positivelyrelated to both their commitment to implementation as well as their implementation behaviors. Inaddition, employees perceived value fit was more strongly related to their commitment to implementationwhile employees perceived ability fit more strongly related to implementation behavior [4].

In a corporate setting, factors such as organizational structure [5, 6], available resources [7, 8],organizational culture and/or climate [3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], support systems [3, 5], andimplementation strategies [7, 14, 15, 16] are believed to influence the effectiveness of innovationimplementation. Although not often mentioned, managers have a critical role in the innovationimplementation process since they are the ones who set up organizational structure, allocate resources,create organizational culture and/or climate, and decide how to implement innovations [5, 6, 10, 14, 17,18, 19]. Nonetheless, only limited literature examines the role of middle managers on innovationimplementation. One study found that management support of computerized technologyimplementation had a significant positive impact on the implementation climate [7]. This suggests thatmanagers behaviors have an impact on employees perception of the innovation. Another study foundthat not every employee perceived managerial influence in the same way. Only those employees who

were less innovative, who felt the innovation was less needed for their task, who felt their task was lessimportant, who had lower skills, and who were low performers perceived that their managersencouraged them to use the innovation [14]. In addition, middle managers are depicted as the grassroots change agents in innovative firms [19]. These studies provide an overview of the role of middlemanagers but do not provide the specific pathways for how middle managers influence their employees.

The study of the influence tactics used by managers provides a plausible perspective from which toexamine how managers influence their employees in innovation implementation. Types of managerialbehaviors used to exert influence on employees are called influence tactics. A popular taxonomy ofeleven influence tactics includes: rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeal, collaboration,apprising, ingratiation, exchange, personal appeal, legitimating, pressure, and coalition [20, 21, 22, 23,24, 25, 26]. Chinese culture can have additional influence tactics than those studied in western countriesand the United States, and include socializing, gift giving, informal engagement, use of writtendocumentation, and persistence [27, 28, 29].

In addition to identifying the influence tactics that middle managers use, it is important to evaluatethe potential outcome of these influence tactics. Previous research studies the relationship of certaininfluence tactics to human resource practices, such as work outcomes [30], recruiters perception ofapplicants fit and further hiring recommendation [31], and users safety participation [32]. Also, thereare studies that take a more comprehensive approach and use numerous influence tactics rather than aspecific few to examine the relative effectiveness of influence tactics by asking respondents to providethe reactions of those on whom the influence tactics were used [22, 25] or for both task commitmentand organizational commitment [33]. As there are many influence tactics, a more comprehensiveapproach for understanding how innovation is implemented in the corporate setting would be useful.Also, the studies that take a more comprehensive approach use scenarios measuring attitudes [22, 25,33] rather than actual behavioral experiences in the corporate setting. We are not aware of any studythat uses a comprehensive approach of studying numerous influence tactics in a specific corporatesetting with regard to incorporating particular behavioral outcomes.

An idea, practice, and product is regarded as an innovation as long as it is new to the adopters,regardless how long it has existed [34]. This study examines the impact of influence tactics used bymiddle managers at a corporation in the context of implementation of knowledge management systems,which is the focal innovation in this study. The corporate setting that we study uses an e-learning systemas a way to manage internal knowledge. All courses were designed internally and prepared by eithersenior employees or experts within the functional department. We examine 13 influence tactics used bymiddle managers as it relates to employee attitudes of use of an e-learning system as well as twodifferent employee behaviors of number of e-learning courses taken and number of times online takinge-learning courses.

2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES2.1. Influence tacticsThe apprising tactic is used when an agent explains to the target how the target will benefit personallyby carrying out the request [22, 25]. As apprising is individual-specific for success, the agent needs toknow exactly what the target wants. If the agent does not know exactly what the target wants, the bestresponse expected from the target would be compliance. In the context of innovation implementation,a manager might claim that employees who use an innovation will have a better chance of advancementin the company. If the employee greatly values advancement in the company, a managers use ofapprising will lead to an employees commitment.

Hypothesis 1A: The apprising tactic is positively related to employee attitude regarding useof an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 1B: The apprising tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The coalition tactic is used when an agent tries to persuade the target to do what the target wants byusing endorsement from others [20, 21, 23, 26]. The agent might enlist other people to convince thetarget to support the request. However, this tactic should be used cautiously because it can make thetarget feel manipulated [26]. The coalition tactic often results in the targets resistance or compliance

186 The Impact of Manager Influence Tactics on Innovation Implementationof a Knowledge Management System

International Journal of Innovation Science

rather than the targets commitment [20]. In the context of innovation implementation, the use of acoalition tactic by a manager might involve trying to change an employees attitude or behaviorconcerning the innovation by telling the employee about others using the innovation, or asking otheremployees to persuade the employee.

Hypothesis 2A: The coalition tactic is negatively related to employee attitude regarding useof an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 2B: The coalition tactic is negatively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The collaboration tactic is used when an agent promises to provide the necessary resources andassistance to the target if the target agrees to complete the request [22, 25]. If the agent usescollaboration, the target may be more willing to complete the proposed request because the target thinksthere will be fewer obstacles ahead; thus, the target is more likely to commit to the request [22]. In thecontext of innovation implementation, a manager might be able to provide either technological oremotional support [35], such as training sessions, which are known factors for success of technologyimplementation [36, 37]. It stands to reason that the use of collaboration is likely to create commitmentamong employees.

Hypothesis 3A: The collaboration tactic is positively related to employee attitude regardinguse of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 3B: The collaboration tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The consultation tactic is used when an agent seeks a targets participation in planning or implementinga strategy, activity, or change for which the targets support is desired. The target is encouraged toexpress opinions, concerns, or suggestions regarding the request [20, 21, 23, 26]. Consultation isexpected to increase the targets commitment to the request because it creates a sense of ownership onthe part of the target. It is widely believed that people will be less likely to reject a project if they feelthemselves to be part of it [15, 16, 20]. In the context of innovation implementation, consultation isexpected to be an effective tactic for managers to convince employees to commit to use the innovation.

Hypothesis 4A: The consultation tactic is positively related to employee attitude regardinguse of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 4B: The consultation tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The exchange tactic is used when an agent offers explicit or implicit rewards as incentives for the targetto fulfill the request [20, 21, 23, 26]. This tactic is similar to the concept of contingent rewardtransactional leadership. A transactional leader will recognize both what followers need and whatfollowers must do to attain designated outcomes. The leader then explains how the followers needswill be fulfilled if the desired outcome is obtained [38]. In the context of innovation implementation,offering employees rewards for using new technology can impact successful implementation becauserewards provide an incentive for employees to use the new technology [8]. However, use of rewardscan result in employees compliance but not necessarily their commitment to the task [39]. It isreasonable to assume that the exchange tactic is likely to at minimum obtain employees complianceand at maximum to obtain commitment to use of the innovation.

Hypothesis 5A: The exchange tactic is positively related to employee attitude regarding useof an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 5B: The exchange tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

Chiu, Holly H., PhD and Fogel, Joshua, PhD 187


The ingratiation tactic is used when an agent tries to place the target into a good mood or to make thetarget think favorably of the agent before the agent makes a request. The agent may do this bypersuading the target that the target is the most qualified person to complete the request [20, 21, 23,26]. In the context of innovation implementation, a manager might praise an employee for theemployees expertise or experience, or that the employee should have no difficulty using the innovationbecause of the employees ability. Employees are expected to be pleased about the managers praise andto at least comply with or even commit to a managers request that they use the innovation.

Hypothesis 6A: The ingratiation tactic is positively related to employee attitude regarding useof an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 6B: The ingratiation tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The inspirational appeals tactic arouses the enthusiasm of the target by appealing to the targets values,ideals, and aspirations when an agent makes a request [20, 21, 23, 26]. Targets are more likely tocommit to a request when the agent uses inspirational appeals [20] and it is one of the most effectivetactics [26]. In the context of innovation implementation, employees will be more likely to commit tothe use of an innovation if their manager can inspire them and help them to believe that the use of theinnovation is aligned with their values and visions.

Hypothesis 7A: The inspirational appeals tactic is positively related to employee attituderegarding use of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 7B: The inspirational appeals tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

The legitimating tactic is used when an agent seeks to legitimize a request by referring it to an authorityor by verifying that the request is consistent with existing organizational policies or rules [20, 21, 23,26]. Resistance can occur. It is more likely that a target will comply with rather than commit to such arequest [20] and this tactic may even have a negative impact on the targets commitment to the request[26]. In the context of innovation implementation, a managers use of legitimating tactics might involveefforts to claim that the adoption and use of the innovation is consistent with the organizations policy.The employee will more often comply rather than commit.

Hypothesis 8A: The legitimating tactic is negatively related to employee attitude regardinguse of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 8B: The legitimating tactic is negatively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The persistence tactic is used when an agent repeatedly pleads with the target to complete the request[27, 28]. It is one of the least effective tactics rated by managers [27,28]. In the innovationimplementation context, a manager who uses the persistence tactic is repeatedly expected to askemployees to use the innovation. This approach is more likely to be ineffective and may result inemployees resistance.

Hypothesis 9A: The persistence tactic is negatively related to employee attitude regarding useof an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 9B: The persistence tactic is negatively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The personal appeals tactic is used when an agent tries to persuade a target by appealing to the targetsfeelings of loyalty or friendship [20, 21, 23, 26]. As the agent tries to influence the target based on theirpersonal relationship, the request is less likely to be part of the targets regular job responsibilities. In



personal appeals, reciprocity is expected: The target will know what the agent wants and the agent willowe the target a favor [23]. In the context of innovation implementation, it is less likely that a managerwill use personal appeals to persuade employees to use an innovation since using the innovation is partof the employees job that the manager has the authority to inform the employee to perform. However,if a manager does use personal appeals to attempt to influence an employee, employee commitment ismore likely.

Hypothesis 10A: The personal appeals tactic is positively related to employee attituderegarding use of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 10B: The personal appeals tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

The pressure tactic is used when an agent tries to coerce a target into completing a request. The agentmakes demands, threatens, and/or continuously checks up on the target to persuade the target to complywith the request [20, 21, 23, 26]. Pressure tactics are one of the least effective tactics for obtainingtargets commitment to a request [20]. It is also an approach frequently adopted by managers, despitethe fact that the result of their effort is generally unsuccessful [15, 16, 35]. In the context of innovationimplementation, if a manager relies on the pressure tactic to implement an innovation, employees areless likely to commit to its use and even resist the request of using the innovation.

Hypothesis 11A: The pressure tactic is negatively related to employee attitude regarding useof an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 11B: The pressure tactic is negatively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.

The rational persuasion tactic occurs when an agent uses facts and logical arguments to convince thetarget to agree to do what the agent requests [20, 21, 23, 26]. It is one of the most effective tactics [26]because it can at minimum secure a targets compliance [20]. In the context of innovationimplementation, when rational persuasion is used by a manager, the manager will explain why use ofthe innovation is necessary by providing various facts, reasons, and information. This can leademployees to accept and use the innovation.

Hypothesis 12A: The rational persuasion tactic is positively related to employee attituderegarding use of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 12B: The rational persuasion tactic is positively related to employee use of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

The socializing tactic is used when an agent begins the conversation with irrelevant topics that thetarget might be interested in before making a request [27, 28]. It is an indirect way for an agent topersuade a target. The socializing tactic is one of the least effective tactics rated by managers acrossdifferent countries and cultures [27, 28] In the context of innovation implementation, if a manager doesnot initially ask employees to use the innovation, but begins the conversation with irrelevant topicsbefore asking about using the innovation, the manager is using the socializing tactic. It is likely that theuse of socializing would not be successful for innovation implementation.

Hypothesis 13A: The socializing tactic is negatively related to employee attitude regardinguse of an e-learning system in a corporate setting.

Hypothesis 13B: The socializing tactic is negatively related to employee use of an e-learningsystem in a corporate setting.



2.2. Control variablesPrevious studies have shown a significant association of a number of demographic variables andinnovation adoption. The impact of age on innovation adoption is mixed. Some studies report norelationship between employee age and adoption behavior [34, 40, 41]. Another study reports thatyounger employees have greater intentions to explore new technology than older employees, whilethere is no difference in terms of the actual use of the technology between younger and older employees[42]. However, another study reports that younger employees have greater behavioral intention thanolder workers toward using new technology [43]. Education level can impact innovation adoption.Previous research reports that those with higher education are early adopters of innovations [34] anddemonstrate greater innovation implementation behavior [40]. However, other studies report that thereis no relationship of employee education level with attitude toward using the innovation or innovationuse [41, 42, 44]. Gender can impact innovation adoption. Previous research reports mixed findings forgender differences in terms of technology adoption. One study reports that men have a greater intentionto use an e-learning system than women [45]. Another study reports that men have both greaterintentions to use and actual use of technology than women in both the short term and long term [46].Another study reports mixed findings where men have greater intention to explore technology thanwomen while there was no difference between men and women with regard to technology use [42].Other studies report no gender difference whether for intention to use technology [44] or innovationimplementation behavior [40]. Therefore, we control for employee age, education level, and gender.

Besides demographic variables, organizational level variables of tenure and team size can impactinnovation adoption. With regard to tenure, one study reports that decreased organizational tenure ofteam members is associated with stronger team goal commitment for innovative projects [47].However, another study reports that employees with greater tenure are associated with greater intentionto explore new technology but not with use of the new technology [42]. Team size is an important factorinfluencing team process and team performance. A meta-analysis reports that larger team size ispositively related to team performance for project teams and management teams but not for productionteams [48]. Another study reports that smaller team size is related to stronger team goal commitmentfor innovative projects [47]. However, another study reports that team size has no impact on eitheremployee intention to explore new technology or their actual use of the new technology [42]. Similarly,team size has no impact on respondents workplace commitment [49]. Therefore, we control foremployees tenure and the team size.

3. METHODIn this study, the term manager will be used to represent middle managers who are below topmanagement and one level above line workers and professionals [50, 51]. The term participant will beused to represent employees who are the target of mangers influence tactics. The innovation studied isthe e-learning system.

3.1. Participants and settingOnline surveys were administered from 2010 to 2011 to all 416 employees from one business unit ofan international electronics manufacturing company in Taiwan that had implemented an e-learningsystem. Each business unit manufactures distinct products with its own profit-and-loss responsibility.As the influence tactics questions obtained from the literature were originally written in English, allsurvey questions were translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English to minimizetranslation error. Surveys were administered in Chinese. There were 248 valid completed surveys, fora response rate of 59.6 percent. In our analysis, we analyze 237 surveys as some of the key variablesfor our current analysis were omitted by respondents.

3.2. E-learning systemThe e-learning system was a knowledge management initiative at the company. Each functionaldepartment decided that knowledge is important for employees to perform well in that department andmade a list of what courses to offer. After that planning, either senior employees or experts were invitedto create these courses within the functional department. At the end of each course, employees neededto pass a quiz in order to certify that they successfully completed the course. All employees wererecommended to take courses based on their job functions and job ranks. For example, all employeesin the procurement department were supposed to obtain knowledge regarding components as well as



price negotiation skills. An additional purpose of the e-learning system was to cut training expenses,reduce repetitive design errors, and help employees learn from various projects. The e-learning systemwas initially online at the end of 2007. This study uses data from one business unit for the completeyears of 2008 through 2010. In 2008 there were 269 courses. There were 9 courses added in 2010 fora total of 278 courses available.

3.3. Measures3.3.1. Demographic and organizational variablesAge was originally measured with 5-year intervals starting from under 25 to over 66. After examiningthe age distribution, age was measured with four categories that included sufficient numbers ofparticipants for each category: under 31, 31 to 35, 36 to 40, and over 40. Education was originallymeasured with five categories, ranging from high school diploma to doctorate. After examining theeducation distribution, education was measured with three categories that included sufficient numbersof participants for each category: high school and associate degree, undergraduate degree, and graduatedegree. Gender was measured by men and women. Tenure was determined by participants employeeID, which indicated the year they started employment in the company. Team size was determined bycounting the actual number of participants in the team.

3.3.2. Influence tacticsIn general the 13 influence tactics were measured by items adopted from both the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26] and cross-cultural studies [27, 28]. Participants were asked to indicatethe extent to which their managers used each tactic during implementation on a 5-point Likert scale(1=definitely would not, 2=probably would not, 3=neutral, 4=probably would, 5=definitely would).These influence tactic scales are reliable and valid. In the original studies, Cronbach alpha ranged from0.65 to 0.94 [25]. However, IBQ only examines 11 tactics identified in western cultures. The remaining2 tactics identified in the cross-cultural studies were measured by fewer items than were originallydetermined from using scenarios. Thus, for consistency we decided to only include a number of relevantitems most focused on the tactic definition from each scale to allow for two items for each scale.

The apprising tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Explains how the e-learning system could helpyour career, and Explains how you can benefit from using the e-learning system (e.g. being moreefficient, have better performance). Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for using thetactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.82.

The coalition tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Gets others to explain to you why you need touse the e-learning system, and Asks someone you respect to help influence you to use the e-learningsystem. Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for using the tactic. Cronbach alphareliability in our sample was 0.82.

The collaboration tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Offers to provide resources you would need touse the e-learning system (e.g., training sessions), and Tells you that he will assist you in using thee-learning system. Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for using the tactic. Cronbachalpha reliability in our sample was 0.76.

The consultation tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Consults with you to get your ideas about usingthe e-learning system, and Encourages you to express any concerns and difficulties using the e-leaning system and promise he will try his best to help. Higher scores indicate greater interest inmanagers for using the tactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.84.

The exchange tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Offers to provide bonus or other rewards if youuse the e-learning system, and Tells you that the time you spend learning using the e-learning systemcan be compensated in the future. Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for using thetactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.88.

The ingratiation tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Says your ability and experience will make iteasy for you to use the e-learning system, and Praises your past performance or achievements when



asking you to use the e-learning system. Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for usingthe tactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.92.

The inspirational appeals tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Describes how using the e-learning systemwould match your personal values and work values, and Makes an inspiring speech or presentation toarouse enthusiasm to encourage you to use the e-learning system. Higher scores indicate greater interestin managers for using the tactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.79.

The legitimating tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Says that he is your boss and he has the rightto ask you to use the e-learning system, and Says that using the e-learning system is consistent withcompany rules and policies. As we obtained poor Cronbach alpha reliability for the scale, we analyzedeach item separately.

The persistence tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from cross-cultural studies [27, 28].The questions were, Keep telling you how important and urgent it is to use the e-learning system, andRepeats the request of using the e-learning system over and over again. Higher scores indicate greaterinterest in managers for using the tactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.69.

The personal appeals tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Asks you to use the e-learning system as apersonal favor, and Appeals to your friendship when asking you to use the e-learning system. Higherscores indicate greater interest in managers for using the tactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our samplewas 0.95.

The pressure tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence Behavior Questionnaire(IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Uses threats or warnings when trying to get you to use the e-learning system, and Tries to pressure you to use the e-learning system. Higher scores indicate greaterinterest in managers for using the tactic. Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.92.

The rational persuasion tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from the Influence BehaviorQuestionnaire (IBQ) [22, 25, 26]. The questions were, Uses facts and logic to make a persuasive casefor you to use the e-learning system, and Explains clearly the benefits the e-learning system willbring to the company. Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for using the tactic.Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.80.

The socializing tactic scale contained 2 items. It used questions from cross-cultural studies [27, 28].The questions were, Talks about something you are interested in before asking you to use the e-learning system (e.g. family, news), and Discusses non-work related topics before he asks you to usethe e-learning system. Higher scores indicate greater interest in managers for using the tactic.Cronbach alpha reliability in our sample was 0.85.

3.3.3. Outcome variablesParticipants attitude was measured by the 4-item attitude scale [52]. Items were slightly modified bychanging the name of the system from DMS to e-learning. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likertscale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree). Higher scores indicatemore positive attitude toward using the e-learning system. Cronbach alpha in the original study was0.96. Cronbach alpha in our sample was 0.89.

Participants use of the e-learning system was obtained from the system log from 2008 to 2010. Thetotals from this time period were used for our two different behavior outcomes. One outcome was thenumber of e-learning courses participants took. The other outcome was the number of timesparticipants went online to take e-learning courses.

3.3.4. Statistical analysisDescriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation were used for the continuous variables, andpercentage and frequency for the categorical variables. Linear regression was used for the outcome ofparticipants attitude toward using the e-learning system. Poisson regression was used for the twoseparate behavior outcomes of the number of e-learning courses taken and the number of times onlinetaking e-learning courses. For all the regression analyses, univariate analyses were conducted with theindependent variables. Only those independent variables that were statistically significant in theunivariate analyses were included in the multivariate analyses. All p-values were two tailed. StataVersion 11 was used for all analyses.



4. RESULTSTable 1 describes the sample characteristics. With regard to age, those ages 31 to 35 were the largestpercentage with more than 40 percent of the sample. With regard to education, those with anundergraduate degree were the largest percentage with more than half of the sample. With regard togender, almost one-third were women. With regard to tenure, the mean number of years employed atthis company was more than 4 years. With regard to team size, mean team size was more than 15members. With regard to the influence tactics, the tactics of apprising and rational persuasion had meanscores indicating the boss probably would use these tactics. The tactics of coalition, collaboration,consultation, inspirational appeals, the legitimating item of using technology is consistent withcompany rules and policies, and persistence had mean scores indicating that the boss was betweenneutral and probably would use these tactics. The tactics of exchange, ingratiation, the legitimatingitem of saying he or she is your boss and has the right to ask you to use the technology, personalappeals, pressure, and socializing had mean scores indicating their boss probably would not use thesetactics.



Variable M (SD) Percentage (Frequency) Demographics Age Under 31 31-35 36-40 Over 40

27.0% (64) 41.4% (98) 16.9% (40) 14.8% (35)

Education High school and associate degree Undergraduate degree Graduate degree

17.3% (41) 57% (135) 25.7% (61)

Gender (women) 31.2% (74) Organizational Tenure 4.6 (5.32) Team size 15.2 (6.32) Influence Tactics Apprising 4.1 (0.82) Coalition 3.3 (0.95) Collaboration 3.9 (0.85) Consultation 3.7 (0.92) Exchange 2.2 (1.16) Ingratiation 2.7 (1.07) Inspirational appeals 3.7 (0.90) Legitimating item (boss has the right to ask you to use the technology)

2.8 (1.20)

Legitimating item (using technology is consistent with company rules and policies)

3.9 (0.91)

Persistence 3.3 (0.96) Personal appeals 2.3 (1.08) Pressure 2.4 (1.15) Rational persuasion 4.0 (0.84) Socializing 2.2 (0.96) Outcome Variables Attitude 3.7 (0.64) Number of e-learning courses took 22.3 (24.07) Number of times online 35.0 (45.28)

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants from an International Electronics Manufacturing Company in Taiwan

Table 2 shows linear regression analyses for attitude toward using the e-learning system. With regard toboth demographic and organizational variables, none were statistically significant. With regard to theinfluence tactics, in the univariate analyses, increasing scores on apprising, coalition, collaboration,consultation, inspirational appeals, persistence, and rational persuasion had statistically significantassociations with increasing attitudes toward using the e-learning system. However, increasing scores onexchange, the legitimating item of the boss has the right to ask you to use technology, personal appeals,and pressure had statistically significant associations with decreasing attitudes toward using the e-learning system. In the multivariate analyses, only increasing scores on apprising and collaboration hadstatistically significant increasing associations while increasing scores on exchange and pressure hadstatistically significant decreasing associations with attitudes toward using the e-learning system.



Table 2. Analysis of Variables Associated with Participants Attitude Toward Using The E-Learning System Variable Univariate

B (SE) p-value Multivariate

B (SE) p-value

Demographics Age Under 31 31-35 36-40 Over 40

Reference 0.02 (0.10) -0.05 (0.13) -0.02 (0.13)

0.84 0.68 0.90

----

----

Education High school and associate degree Undergraduate degree Graduate degree

0.03 (0.13) -0.05 (0.09) Reference

0.81 0.59

---- ----

Gender -0.06 (0.09) 0.50 ---- ---- Organizational Tenure -0.003 (0.03) 0.92 ---- ---- Team size -0.002 (0.01) 0.79 ---- ----

Influence tactics Apprising 0.34 (0.05)

regard to the influence tactics, in the univariate analyses, increasing scores on coalition, collaboration,persistence and pressure had statistically significant associations with increasing number of coursestaken. Increasing scores on apprising, ingratiation, the legitimating item of using technology isconsistent with company rules and policies, and rational persuasion had statistically significantassociations with decreasing number of courses taken. In the multivariate analyses, with regard to bothdemographic and organizational variables, similar significance patterns as in the univariate analysesoccurred for the age categories, education, and team size. However, women and tenure were no longerstatistically significant. With regard to the influence tactics, all the variables statistically significant inthe univariate analyses were also statistically significant in the multivariate analyses with the samedirection, with one exception. Increasing scores on apprising was now significantly associated withincreasing number of courses taken.



Table 3. Analysis of Variables Associated with Number of E-Learning Courses Participants Took

Variable Univariate B (SE)

p-value Multivariate B (SE)

p-value


Reference -0.20 (0.03) -0.29 (0.04) -0.42 (0.05)

degree. Women were statistically significant for increasing number of times online. With regard toorganizational variables, both decreasing tenure and increasing team size were statistically significantwith increasing number of times online. The demographic and organizational variables had the samesignificance pattern as for number of e-learning courses participants took, shown in Table 3, with theexception of high school/associate degree. With regard to the influence tactics, in the univariateanalyses, increasing scores on coalition, collaboration, persistence, and pressure had statisticallysignificant associations with increasing number of times participants went online. This was the samesignificance pattern as for the number of e-learning courses participants took shown in Table 3.Increasing scores on ingratiation, the legitimating item of saying boss has the right to ask you to usethe technology, the legitimating item of using technology is consistent with company rules and policies,and rational persuasion had statistically significant associations with decreasing number of timesparticipants were online. This differed from the pattern for number of e-learning courses participantstook shown in Table 3, where now apprising and inspirational appeals were not statistically significantwhile the legitimating item of your boss has the right to ask you to use the technology was nowstatistically significant. In the multivariate analyses, with regard to both demographic andorganizational variables, similar significance patterns as in the univariate analyses occurred for the agecategories, education, and team size. However, women and tenure were no longer statisticallysignificant. This was the same significance pattern as for number of e-learning courses participants tookshown in Table 3. With regard to the influence tactics, all the variables statistically significant in theunivariate analyses were also statistically significant in the multivariate analyses with the samedirection, with one exception where persistence was no longer statistically significant.



Table 4. Analysis of Variables Associated with Number of Times Participants went Online to take E-Learning Courses

Variable Univariate B (SE)

p-value Multivariate B (SE)

p-value


Reference -0.26 (0.03) -0.42 (0.03) -0.71 (0.04)

5. DISCUSSIONWe found that increased scores for the apprising tactic and the collaboration tactic had significantassociations with increased attitude toward using the e-learning system, while increased scores for theexchange tactic and the pressure tactic had significant associations with decreased attitude toward usingthe e-learning system. None of the demographic or organizational variables were associated withattitude toward using the e-learning system. We found that increased scores for the apprising tactic, thecoalition tactic, the collaboration tactic, the persistence tactic, and the pressure tactic had significantassociations with increased number of e-learning courses took, while increased scores for theingratiation tactic, the inspirational appeals tactic, the legitimating item of using technology isconsistent with company rules and policies, and the rational persuasion tactic had significantassociations with decreased number of e-learning courses taken. The demographic variable of increasedage category was significantly associated with decreased number of e-learning courses taken and theeducational category of undergraduate was significantly associated with increased number of e-learningcourses taken. The organizational variable of increased team size had significant associations withincreased number of e-learning courses taken. We found that increased scores for the coalition tactic,the collaboration tactic, and the pressure tactic had significant associations with increased number oftimes participants went online, while increased scores for the ingratiation tactic, both legitimatingitems, and the rational persuasion tactic had significant associations with decreased number of timesparticipants were online. In terms of demographic and organizational variables, the same significancepattern for increased number of times participants went online occurred as with number of e-learningcourses taken.

We found that increased scores for the apprising tactic were significantly associated with increasedattitude toward using the e-learning system as well as number of e-learning courses taken but were notsignificantly associated with number of times online. These results are consistent with hypotheses 1Aand partially consistent with 1B. There is mixed literature with regard to use of the apprising tactic andemployees with one study reporting the tactic useful for increasing commitment [22] while anotherstudy did not find any association with commitment [25]. Also, a number of studies of perceivedmanager attitudes with Taiwanese participants report that the apprising tactic is the most effective tactic[28, 53]. Our study was with Taiwanese participants and we found similar cultural attitudes for theapprising tactic. Our behavior findings do not have a consistent pattern, as the apprising tactic was onlysignificantly associated with number of e-learning courses taken but not with number of timesparticipants went online. We suggest that the apprising tactic is influential for increasing behavior fortaking a greater number of e-learning courses. However, the approach used to take these courses varieswith some participants logging on once while other participants logging on multiple times. Log onbehavior may be influenced by personality approaches.

We found that increased scores for the coalition tactic were significantly associated with increasednumber of e-learning courses taken and the number of times online taking e-learning courses, but notsignificantly associated with attitude toward using the e-learning system. The results were contrary toour hypotheses and therefore hypotheses 2A and 2B were not supported. Most studies for coalition andattitudes report significant associations of moderate to low effectiveness [28, 54] or even resistance[20], while we are aware of only one study for coalition and behavior that reports no significantassociations [55]. Our study differs from these previous studies. We suggest that our study findings arerelated to the collectivistic cultural approach of Taiwanese culture [56]. In a collectivistic culture,people value the majority approach. We suggest that participants saw others engaging in the coursesand they too believed that they had to take courses and log on to take courses. However, although theyparticipated like others, it is possible that their personal attitudes were not in favor of managersengaging in coalition approaches and this is why we did not find any significant association forattitudes.

We found that increased scores for the collaboration tactic were significantly associated withincreased attitude toward using the e-learning system, increased number of e-learning courses taken,and number of times online taking e-learning courses. These results were consistent with ourhypotheses and therefore hypotheses 3A and 3B were supported. Previous studies report thatcollaboration is one of the most effective tactics, both in western cultures [22, 25, 54] and in Taiwaneseculture [28, 53]. Our study findings are consistent with these previous studies and emphasize theimportance of collaboration for implementation innovation for e-learning in the corporate setting.

We found that increased scores for the consultation tactic were not significantly associated with



attitude toward using the e-learning system, number of e-learning courses taken, and number of timesonline taking e-learning courses. These results were not consistent with our hypotheses and thereforehypotheses 4A and 4B were not supported. Previous studies asking managers about different tacticsreport that consultation is one of the most effective tactics in western cultures [25, 54], and hasmoderate effectiveness in Taiwanese culture [28, 53]. With regard to behavior, the consultation tacticis negatively associated with employee resistance to change [57] and positively associated withemployees safety participation [32], but is not significantly associated with managers influencingemployees toward helping coworkers [58]. We suggest that our study findings are related to both highpower distance national culture [56] and authoritarian leadership style [59, 60, 61]. In a high powerdistance culture, employees expect to be told what to do instead of being asked for their opinions.Authoritarian leadership is common in Chinese societies, in which leaders centralize decision making[61] and demand unquestionable obedience from subordinates [59, 60]. In our study, the corporateculture was consistent with both a high power distance national culture and authoritarian leadershipstyle. Even though employees were asked for feedback for development of the e-learning program andthe consultation mean score was relatively high, employees apparently did not believe that theirfeedback would be genuinely respected and regarded. Thus, they did not have strong interest in the e-learning program as they perceived it as being driven from a top-down perspective and their attitudesand behavior were not associated with e-learning.

We found that increased scores for the exchange tactic were significantly associated with decreasedattitude toward using the e-learning system, but not significantly associated with either number of e-learning courses taken or number of times online taking e-learning courses. These results were notconsistent with our hypotheses and therefore hypotheses 5A and 5B were not supported. Previousresearch for the exchange tactic and attitudes report either no significant association with an employeescommitment [25] or moderate effectiveness both in western cultures [54], and in Taiwanese culture[28]. With regard to behavior, there are two studies reporting no significant association of the exchangetactic with either employees job performance [55] or employees helping coworkers [58]. Our studyresults are not consistent with the previous attitude studies. We suggest that in an e-learningenvironment participants may not believe managers will be able to offer something in return if they takemore courses. However, our behavior results are consistent with previous studies. We suggest that theexchange tactic is also not useful in an e-learning environment.

We found that increased scores for the ingratiation tactic were significantly associated withdecreased number of e-learning courses taken and number of times online taking e-learning courses,but not significantly associated with attitude toward using the e-learning system. These results werecontrary to our hypotheses and therefore hypotheses 6A and 6B were not supported. Previous studiesfor the ingratiation tactic and attitudes show mixed results including no relationship in western cultures[57], low to moderate usefulness in western cultures [25, 54], and strong usefulness in Taiwanesecultures [28, 53]. With regard to behavior, previous research reports that the ingratiation tactic was notsignificantly associated with employees job performance [55]. Our study results in Taiwanese culturefor attitudes differ from the previous Taiwanese studies. We suggest based upon our anecdotalexperience that leadership style in the company may be related to employee attitudes. The company inour study had an authoritarian leadership style. An ingratiation approach would have been verydifferent from the typical company approach and therefore employees did not trust or feel comfortablewith such an approach. Also, with regard to behavior, our negative findings can again be interpreted inlight of the authoritarian culture and a possible lack of trust or discomfort with an ingratiation tacticapproach.

We found that increased scores for the inspirational appeals tactic were significantly associated withdecreased number of e-learning courses taken but not significantly associated with either attitudetoward using the e-learning system or number of times online taking e-learning courses. These resultswere contrary to our hypotheses and therefore hypotheses 7A and 7B were not supported. Previousstudies for the inspirational appeals tactic and attitudes is that it is one of the most effectives tactics [28,54] and is associated with employee commitment [25]. With regard to behavior, one study reports thatthe inspirational appeals tactic is not significantly associated with employees helping coworkers [58],and another study reports a positive association with employees safety participation [32]. Our resultsfor attitudes are not consistent with previous studies. Our results for number of e-learning courses takenare also not similar to the previous study. We suggest for attitudes that employees in our study variedin attitudes with regard to perceived benefit for taking the online classes due to the changed format in



training. An inspirational appeals tactic may have appealed to some employees but not to others andthis resulted in lack of significance. Our significant negative relationship for number of e-learningcourses taken could be that mixed perceived benefits for online learning translates into lack of behaviorand thus a negative relationship. It is challenging to understand the lack of statistical significance fornumber of times participants went online. Future research is necessary to understand the mechanism ofinspirational appeals to behavior.

We found that increased scores for both legitimating items were not significantly associated withattitudes toward using the e-learning system. However, both legitimating items were significantlyassociated with decreased number of times online taking e-learning courses and the legitimating itemof using technology is consistent with company rules and policies was significantly associated withdecreased number of e-learning courses taken. Thus, hypothesis 8A was not supported while hypothesis8B was partially supported. Previous studies report that the legitimating tactic is the least effectivetactic [54]. With regard to behavior, the legitimating tactic is positively associated with employeesresistance to change [57]. Our results are consistent with previous research where increasedlegitimating tactic scores are indicative of increased resistance to change and thus associated with bothdecreased number of e-learning courses taken and times online taking e-learning courses.

We found that increased scores for the persistence tactic were significantly associated with increasednumber of e-learning courses taken but not significantly associated with either attitude toward using thee-learning system or number of times online taking e-learning courses. These results were contrary toour hypotheses and therefore hypotheses 9A and 9B were not supported. We are only aware of oneprevious study for the persistence tactic. It was rated as the least effective tactic by Taiwanese managers[28]. It is not surprising that there was no significant relationship of the persistence tactic with attitudesand the behavior of online taking of e-learning courses, as this is a very weak tactic. However, it issurprising that increased scores on the persistence tactic were significantly associated with increasednumber of e-learning courses taken. It is possible that due to the brief quiz at course completion,employees could document to their manager that they completed the course and avoid the managerasking them repeatedly to take a course.

We found that increased scores for the personal appeals tactic were not significantly associated withattitude toward using the e-learning system, number of e-learning courses taken, and number of timesonline taking e-learning courses. These results were not consistent with our hypotheses and thereforehypotheses 10A and 10B were not supported. One study reports that the personal appeals tactic is notsignificantly associated with employee attitude toward commitment to carry out a request [25]. We arenot aware of any study of the personal appeals tactic with regard to behavior. It is possible that ourstudy findings are consistent with previous research and suggest that the personal appeals tactic is notsignificantly associated with innovation implementation in an e-learning environment. Alternatively, itis possible that for personal appeals to be effective, both parties have to be good friends. In thecorporate environment that we studied, the employees may not have perceived their managers as goodfriends.

We found that increased scores for the pressure tactic were significantly associated with decreasedparticipants attitude toward using the e-learning system, but were significantly associated withincreased number of e-learning courses taken and number of times online taking e-learning courses.These results were consistent with hypothesis 11A but contrary to hypotheses 11B. Previous studies ofthe pressure tactic and attitudes report that it is the least effective tactic both in western cultures [29,54] and in either Chinese cultures [29] or Taiwanese culture [28]. Our results for participant attitude areconsistent with previous studies. With regard to behavior, one study reports no significant associationfor use of the pressure tactic and managers influencing employees toward helping coworkers [58]. Ourresults for behaviors are quite surprising and not consistent with previous research. We suggest that thepressure tactic works well with the corporate authoritarian organizational culture in the Taiwanesecorporate setting that we studied. Employees did not like managers use of aggressive words and thishad a significant negative association with attitudes. However, as employees are used to anauthoritarian organizational culture where they do tasks based upon such directives from management,use of the pressure tactic was associated with their increased behaviors of number of e-learning coursestaken and number of times online taking e-learning courses.

We found that increased scores for the rational persuasion tactic were significantly associated withdecreased number of e-learning courses taken and number of times online taking e-learning courses,but not significantly associated with attitude toward using the e-learning system. These results were



contrary to our hypotheses and therefore hypotheses 12A and 12B were not supported. Previous studiesof the rational persuasion tactic and attitudes is that the rational persuasion tactic is one of the mosteffective tactics in western societies [25, 29, 54], Chinese cultures [29], and Taiwanese culture [28, 53].With regard to behavior, one study reports that the rational persuasion tactic is positively associatedwith employee safety participation [32]. Our results were not consistent with results of previous studieseither in terms of attitude or behaviors. This is quite surprising and we do not have any reason why ourresults are contradictory to the established literature.

We found that increased scores for the socializing tactic were not significantly associated withattitude toward using the e-learning system, number of e-learning courses taken, and number of timesonline taking e-learning courses. These results were not consistent with our hypotheses and thereforehypotheses 13A and 13B were not supported. One study reports that the socializing tactic is one of theleast effective tactics in Taiwanese culture [28]. We are not aware of any study that examines theassociation between the socializing tactic and behavior. We suggest that our study findings might berelated to the corporate authoritarian organizational culture. Managers usually give orders to employeesdirectly instead of indirectly. Thus, if a manager uses the socializing tactic, employees might feelawkward with this approach and not be responsive to such a tactic.

We found that none of the demographics variables and organizational variables were significantlyassociated with participant attitude. With regard to behavior, our results show that all age categorieswere significantly associated with decreased number of e-learning courses taken and decreased numberof times online taking e-learning courses. There was a pattern where increasing age category wasassociated with greater decreases in both behaviors. Those of younger age are more comfortable thanthose of older age with e-learning because younger generations have early and greater exposure to e-learning practices than older generations [62]. Our results for e-learning implementation are consistentwith this approach.

We found that participants with an undergraduate degree were significantly associated with takingmore e-learning courses and went online more times than participants with graduate degrees. There ismixed literature about whether greater education is associated with greater innovation implementationbehavior [40, 41, 42, 44]. We suggest that knowledge level is the key driver for understanding thisfinding. Those with undergraduate degrees perceived that they did not have sufficient background ascompared to those with graduate degrees on the topics taught in the e-learning courses and thereforethose with undergraduate degrees took and logged on more often than those with graduate degrees.

We did not find any association of either gender or tenure with number of e-learning courses takenand number of times online taking e-learning courses. There is mixed literature with regard to genderand use of e-learning systems where some studies report increased use for a particular gender category[42, 45, 46]. However, other studies report no gender difference [40, 44]. Our Taiwanese corporatesetting is consistent with the literature that reports no gender difference. Also, our results for tenure areconsistent with the study that reports employees with greater tenure have no association with use ofnew technology [42].

We found that increased team size was significantly associated with both increased number of e-learning courses taken and number of times online taking e-learning courses. A meta-analysis reportsthat larger team size is positively related to team performance for project teams [48]. In this Taiwanesecorporate setting, the e-learning course taking behavior was reviewed at team meetings and the largerteam size was associated with increased performance for e-learning behavior.

5.1 Limitations and future researchThere are several study limitations. First, participants were asked to recall manager influence behaviorfrom at least one year prior to the study. They might not have been able to remember exactly whathappened when the implementation took place. Second, the ultimate goal of implementation isroutinization, so that participants regard the innovation as something routine. In this study,implementation began three years prior to the study, so for some participants this may no longer havebeen considered innovative. Future research should consider asking participants to record theimplementation process in a diary to more precisely reflect manager practices and behavior. Third, thisresearch took place only in one Taiwanese corporation and may not generalize to other Taiwanesecorporations that may have different organizational cultures.



5.2 Managerial implicationsAs is commonly known, organizations can only benefit from adopting an innovation if employees usethe innovation. In implementing an e-learning system, we found that managerial influence tactics ofcoalition, collaboration, and pressure were significantly associated with increased number of e-learningcourses participants took and the number of times participants went online to take e-learning courses.In the Taiwanese setting, managers attempting to adopt innovative practices should consider not onlythe traditionally accepted influence tactic of collaboration, which involves providing assistance toemployees, but also consider use of coalition, which involves persuading employees by referring toother employees. In addition, even though employees react negatively, the influence tactic of pressureby requiring employees to complete tasks can also influence employees to adopt innovative practicesin the corporate workplace.

REFERENCES[1] Jasperson, J., Carter, P. M., & Zmud, R. W. A Comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive

behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 2005,29, 525-557.

[2] Leonard-Barton, D. Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations: Limits andopportunities for management strategies. Communication Research, 1988, 15, 603-631.

[3] Choi, J. N. Individual and contextual dynamics of innovation-use behavior in organizations.Human Performance, 2004, 17, 397-414.

[4] Choi, J. N., & Price, R. H. The effects of person-innovation fit on individual responses toinnovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2005, 78, 83-96.

[5] Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration ofinstitutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009, 94, 245-253.

[6] Kanter, R. M. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions forinnovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1988, 10, 169-211.

[7] Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. Implementing computerized technology: Anorganizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 811-824.

[8] Klein, K. J., & Ralls, R. S. The organizational dynamics of computerized technology implementation:A review of the empirical literature. In L. R. Gomez?Mejia and M. W. Lawless (Eds.), Advances inglobal high-technology management, 1995, 5, 31-79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

[9] Holahan, P. J., Aronson, Z. H., Jurkat, M. P., & Schoorman, F. D. Implementing computertechnology: A multiorganizational test of Klein and Sorras model. Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management, 2004, 21, 31-50.

[10] Ke, W., & Wei, K. K. Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. DecisionSupport Systems, 2008, 45, 208-218.

[11] Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M. W., & Boyer, K. K. Innovation-supportive culture: The impact oforganizational values on process innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 2007, 25, 871-884.

[12] Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of ManagementReview, 1996, 21, 1055-1080.

[13] Miller, S. Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors. Organization Studies, 1997,18, 577-602.

[14] Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. Managerial influence in the implementation of newtechnology. Management Science, 1988, 34, 1252-1265.

[15] Nutt, P. C. Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 1986, 29, 230-261.[16] Nutt, P. C. Leverage, resistance, and the success of implementation approaches. Journal of

Management Studies, 1998, 35, 213-240.[17] Angle, H. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. Suggestions for managing the innovation journey. In A. H. Van

de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: TheMinnesota studies, 2000, 663-697. New York: Oxford University Press.

[18] Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. The role of transformational leadership in enhancingorganizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership Quarterly,2003, 14, 525-544.



[19] Kanter, R. M. The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1983.[20] Falbe, C. M., Yukl, G. Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and

combinations of tactics. Academic of Management Journal, 1992, 35, 638-652.[21] Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral

influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75, 132-140.[22] Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new

influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26, 705-725.[23] Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. Influence tactics used for different objectives with

subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization Management, 1995, 20, 272-296.[24] Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as

determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84, 137-143.[25] Yukl, G., Seifert, C. F., Chavez, C. Validation of the extended influence Behavior Questionnaire.

The Leadership Quarterly, 2008, 19, 609-621.[26] Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the

boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992, 77, 525-535.[27] Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M. H., Peng, T. K., Srinivas, E. S., Howell, J. P.,

Prieto, L., Koopman, P., Boonstra, J. J., Pasa, S., Lacassagne, M., Higashide, H., & Cheosakul,A. The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceivedeffectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 2004, 35, 284-305.

[28] Fu, P. P., Peng, T. K., Kennedy, J. C., & Yukl, G. Examining the preferences of influence tacticsin Chinese societies: A comparison of Chinese managers in Hong Kong, Taiwan and MainlandChina. Organizational Dynamics, 2004, 33, 32-46.

[29] Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China.Leadership Quarterly, 2000, 11, 251-266.

[30] Higgins, C., Judge, T., & Ferris, G. Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003, 24, 89-106.

[31] Higgins, C., & Judge, T. The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fitand hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89, 622-632.

[32] Clarke, S. & Ward, K. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engagingemployees safety participation. Risk Analysis, 2006, 26, 1175-1185.

[33] Chong, M., Muethel, M., Richards, M., Fu, P. P., Peng, T. K., Shang, Y. F., & Galdas, M. P.Influence behaviors and employees reactions: An empirical test among six societies based on atransactional-relational contract model. Journal of World Business, 2013, 48, 373-384.

[34] Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of innovations. 5th Eition, New York: Free Press. 2003.[35] Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 1979,

57, 106-114.[36] Grohowski, R., & Vogel, D. Implementing electronic meeting systems at IBM: Lessons learned

and success factors. MIS Quarterly, 1990, December, 369-383.[37] Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task

interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 2007, 31, 219-238.[38] Bass, B. M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 1985.[39] Lee, J. Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 2008, 23, 670-687.[40] Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. Shedding light on followers innovation

implementation behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, andclimate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2010, 25, 408-429.

[41] Quazi, A., & Talukder, M. Demographic determinants of adoption of technological innovation.Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2011, Fall, 34-42.

[42] Maruping, L. M., & Magni, M. Whats the weather like? The effect of team learning climate,empowerment climate, and gender on individuals technology exploration and use. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 2012, 29, 79-114.



[43] Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. Age differences in technology adoption decision: Implications fora changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 2000, 53, 375-403.

[44] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. A longitudinal field investigation of genderdifferences in individual technology adoption decion-making processes. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 2000, 83, 33-60.

[45] Ong, C., & Lai, J. Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 2006, 22, 816-829.

[46] Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G, Why dont men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, socialinfluence, and their role in tehcnology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 2000, 24,115-139.

[47] Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. Team goal commitment in innovative projects. Internal Journalof Innovation Management, 2006, 10, 299-324.

[48] Stewart, G. L. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and teamperformance. Journal of Management, 2006, 32, 29-55

[49] Ogungbamila, B., Ogungbamila, A., & Adetula, G. A. Effects of team size and work teamperception on workplace commitment: Evidence from 23 production teams. Small GroupResearch, 2010, 41, 725-745.

[50] Huy, Q. In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 2001, 79, 72-79.[51] Huy, Q. Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of

middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2002, 47, 31-69.[52] Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An

elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 2006, 30, 805-825.[53] Fu, P. P., Yukl, G., Kennedy, J., Srinivas, E.S., Cheosakul, A., Peng, T.K., & Tata, J. Cross-cultural

comparison of influence behavior: A preliminary report. Academy of Management Proceedings &Membership Directory, 2001, D1-D6.

[54] Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations. 7th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson EducationInc. 2010.

[55] Castro, S. L., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W., A., Ferris, G. R., & Frink, D. D. The effects of positiveaffect and gender on the influence tactics-job performance relationship. Journal of Leadershipand Organizational Studies, 2003, 10, 1-18.

[56] Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.London: McGraw-Hill. 2010.

[57] Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influencetactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, 93, 453-462.

[58] Sparrowe, R., Soetjipto, B., & Kraimer, M. Do leaders influence tactics relate to membershelping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal,2006, 49, 1194-1208.

[59] Cheng, B., Chou, L., & Wu, T. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing aleadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2004, 7, 89-117.

[60] Schuh, S., Zhang, X., Tian, P. For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformationalleadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 2013,116, 629-640.

[61] Tsai, A., Wang, H., Xin, K., Zhang, L., & Fu, P. Variation of leadership styles among ChineseCEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 2004, 33, 5-20.

[62] Jaske, D., & Stamov-Ronagel, C. Success by inclusion: Age-fair e-learning practices.Organizational Dynamics, 2012,41, 302-307



Copyright of International Journal of Innovation Science is the property of Multi-SciencePublishing Co Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted toa listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users mayprint, download, or email articles for individual use.

2014,Chiu and Fogel

Documents

Transcript of 2014,Chiu and Fogel