IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/amsrev/v10y2020i3d10.1007_s13162-020-00164-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of mandated usage of innovations in organizations: developing an innovation decision model of symbolic and forced adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Heidenreich

    (Saarland University)

  • Katrin Talke

    (Technical University of Berlin)

Abstract

In organizations, mandated adoption contexts are the rule rather than the exception. Individuals, who are denied the choice between adopting and rejecting an innovation, are more likely to engage in opposition behavior, particularly if the innovation conflicts with their held beliefs. Interestingly, neither the construct of forced adoption nor its consequences have received much research attention. To address this gap, we conduct a systematic literature review and provide theoretical rationales for the emergence of innovation resistance and opposition behaviors in organizations. We then develop an innovation decision model of individual adoption behavior that localizes negative outcomes of the secondary adoption process along the different process stages, providing insights into their emergence and potential consequences for the organization. Furthermore, we identify important avenues for future research and show how our innovation decision model can be used to advance theory development on forced adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Heidenreich & Katrin Talke, 2020. "Consequences of mandated usage of innovations in organizations: developing an innovation decision model of symbolic and forced adoption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(3), pages 279-298, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:10:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s13162-020-00164-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s13162-020-00164-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13162-020-00164-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13162-020-00164-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clee, Mona A & Wicklund, Robert A, 1980. "Consumer Behavior and Psychological Reactance," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 6(4), pages 389-405, March.
    2. Stephen J. Mezias & Mary Ann Glynn, 1993. "The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, revolution, and evolution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 77-101, February.
    3. Gersick, Connie J. G. & Hackman, J. Richard, 1990. "Habitual routines in task-performing groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 65-97, October.
    4. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina), 1993. "CASE tools as organizational change : investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development," Working papers WP 3579-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Yajiong Xue & Huigang Liang & Liansheng Wu, 2011. "Punishment, Justice, and Compliance in Mandatory IT Settings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 400-414, June.
    6. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    7. Labay, Duncan G & Kinnear, Thomas C, 1981. "Exploring the Consumer Decision Process in the Adoption of Solar Energy Systems," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(3), pages 271-278, December.
    8. Arts, Joep W.C. & Frambach, Ruud T. & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A., 2011. "Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 134-144.
    9. Al-Sayed, Mahmoud & Dugdale, David, 2016. "Activity-based innovations in the UK manufacturing sector: Extent, adoption process patterns and contingency factors," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 38-58.
    10. Heidenreich, Sven & Kraemer, Tobias, 2015. "Passive innovation resistance: The curse of innovation? Investigating consequences for innovative consumer behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 134-151.
    11. Dorothy Leonard-Barton & Isabelle Deschamps, 1988. "Managerial Influence in the Implementation of New Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(10), pages 1252-1265, October.
    12. Johansson, Catrin & Åström, Sture & Kauffeldt, Anders & Helldin, Lars & Carlström, Eric, 2014. "Culture as a predictor of resistance to change: A study of competing values in a psychiatric nursing context," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 156-162.
    13. Dorothy Leonard-Barton, 1987. "Implementing Structured Software Methodologies: A Case of Innovation in Process Technology," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 6-17, June.
    14. Sven Heidenreich & Patrick Spieth, 2013. "Why Innovations Fail — The Case Of Passive And Active Innovation Resistance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1-42.
    15. Jahanmir, Sara F. & Cavadas, Joana, 2018. "Factors affecting late adoption of digital innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 337-343.
    16. Renae A. Jones & Nerina L. Jimmieson & Andrew Griffiths, 2005. "The Impact of Organizational Culture and Reshaping Capabilities on Change Implementation Success: The Mediating Role of Readiness for Change," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 361-386, March.
    17. Randolph B. Cooper & Robert W. Zmud, 1990. "Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 123-139, February.
    18. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    19. Frambach, Ruud T. & Schillewaert, Niels, 2002. "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 163-176, February.
    20. Laukkanen, Tommi, 2016. "Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2432-2439.
    21. Bartels, Jos & Reinders, Machiel J., 2011. "Consumer innovativeness and its correlates: A propositional inventory for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 601-609, June.
    22. Heidenreich, Sven & Kraemer, Tobias & Handrich, Matthias, 2016. "Satisfied and unwilling: Exploring cognitive and situational resistance to innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2440-2447.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brem, Alexander & Viardot, Eric & Nylund, Petra A., 2021. "Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for innovation: Which technologies will improve our lives?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huang, Dan & Jin, Xin & Coghlan, Alexandra, 2021. "Advances in consumer innovation resistance research: A review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    2. Boeuf, Benjamin, 2019. "The impact of mortality anxiety on attitude toward product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 44-60.
    3. Heidenreich, Sven & Killmer, Jan F. & Millemann, Jan A., 2022. "If at first you don't adopt - Investigating determinants of new product leapfrogging behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Russell L. Purvis & V. Sambamurthy & Robert W. Zmud, 2001. "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 117-135, April.
    5. Roberts, Ruby & Flin, Rhona & Millar, David & Corradi, Luca, 2021. "Psychological factors influencing technology adoption: A case study from the oil and gas industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Kathryn L. Heinze & Justin E. Heinze, 2020. "Individual innovation adoption and the role of organizational culture," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 561-586, June.
    7. Talwar, Shalini & Talwar, Manish & Kaur, Puneet & Dhir, Amandeep, 2020. "Consumers’ resistance to digital innovations: A systematic review and framework development," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 286-299.
    8. Elodie Attié & Lars Meyer-Waarden, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Post-Print hal-04065165, HAL.
    9. Hew, Jun-Jie & Leong, Lai-Ying & Tan, Garry Wei-Han & Ooi, Keng-Boon & Lee, Voon-Hsien, 2019. "The age of mobile social commerce: An Artificial Neural Network analysis on its resistances," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 311-324.
    10. Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Banu Demirel & Ayça Kübra Hızarcı Payne, 2018. "Social Innovation Adoption Behavior: The Case of Zumbara," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Peng, Zeyu & Sun, Yongqiang & Guo, Xitong, 2018. "Antecedents of employees’ extended use of enterprise systems: An integrative view of person, environment, and technology," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 104-120.
    13. Nel, Jacques & Boshoff, Christo, 2021. "“I just don't like digital-only banks, and you should not use them either†: Traditional-bank customers' opposition to using digital-only banks," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. Petschnig, Martin & Heidenreich, Sven & Spieth, Patrick, 2014. "Innovative alternatives take action – Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-83.
    15. Hwang, Yujong & Al-Arabiat, Mohanned & Rouibah, Kamel & Chung, -->Jin-Young, 2016. "Toward an integrative view for the leader-member exchange of system implementation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 976-986.
    16. Lindstrand, Angelika & Eriksson, Kent & Sharma, D. Deo, 2009. "The perceived usefulness of knowledge supplied by foreign client networks," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 26-37, February.
    17. Sanghyun Kim & Gary Garrison, 2009. "Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An extension of the technology acceptance model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 323-333, July.
    18. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    19. Dawei Liu & Xiaohong Guo, 2017. "Exploring gender differences in acceptance of mobile computing devices among college students," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 197-223, February.
    20. Pranpreya Sriwannawit & Ulf Sandström, 2015. "Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1615-1645, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:10:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s13162-020-00164-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.