- Email: [email protected]
“Forced” adoption of innovations in organizations: Consequences and implications
J PROD INNOV lYYl;X:l17-126
MANAG
117
0000
“Forced” Adoption of Innovations in Organizations: Consequences and Implications S. Ram and Hyung-Shik
Jung
Once organizations adopt an innovation, they may force various individuals to use it. While researchers have frequently studied perspectives of suppliers and their customers, they have sometimes neglected the important roles of those who must use the innovation when it is provided to them. S. Ram and Hyung-Shik Jung report results of their investigation of organizational members’ responses when they are forced to adopt an innovation. The results suggest that even innovative individuals resist the innovation in the context of forced adoption. Product trial and repetitive usage significantly reduce innovation resistance and create favorable post-adoption evaluation (attitude and satisfaction judgments). Individuals who perceive themselves to have technical competence offer less resistance to the innovation. Further, organizational members deal with forced adoption through the use of coping mechanisms such as complaining and seeking peer help.
Address correspondence of Management, UCLA, 90024.
to S. Ram, Anderson Graduate School 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA
0 1991 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
Introduction In a recent article, Gatignon and Robertson [5] indicate that “scholars have paid little attention to organizational adoption and diffusion, given the reasonably robust literature on consumer adoption and diffusion.” Organizational adoption of innovations is more complex than individual adoption behavior for several reasons, such as the higher number of stages involved in the adoption decision, and the effects of organizational structure [21]. In this paper, we propose to examine the process of “forced” adoption within an organization-in other words, when the decision-making unit of an organization has already decided to adopt the innovation, but acceptance from the individual “end-users” within the organization is uncertain. Sheth and Ram [18] discuss several examples that illustrate the growing importance of “forced” adoption within organizations. For example, when automobile manufacturers such as General Motors decided to automate their production using innovations based on the robotics technology, they encountered resistance from the assembly line workers. Organizations that have attempted to create centralized word processing centers have met with considerable resistance from managers who prefer the flexibility and convenience of having individual secretaries. The home building and electronics industries have been developing the Smart House project, in which computer-based controls will be used for improving energy efficiency, remote operation of appliances, programmed cycling etc. To the ex0737-67821911$3.50
118
J PROD INNOV IWl:X:ll7-126
MANAG
BIOGRAPHICAL
SKETCHES
S.
Assistant
is Visiting
School of Management, from the University M.B.A. Bachelor‘s nology.
Degree
Madras.
and corporate
of Illinois
Ram’s research
ingjournals
and has co-authored Innovation
tomer Barriers. Hyung-Shik ofconsumer
information
Journal
qf Academy
diffusion
student
of innovations N. Sheth) titled und Cus-
1987.
in the Department interests
consumer
in several conference
of Murkrting
and a
of Tech-
in several market-
How to Break Cwporote
Jung’s research
processing,
uct usage. He has published
Institute
a book (with Jagdish
John Wiley and Sons Inc., of Arizona.
Calcutta
are in the areas of customer
He has published
to Market:
Jung is a doctoral
at the University
from the Indian
to new products,
development.
He also has an
of Management,
interests
Graduate
his Ph.D. (Marketing)
at Urbana-Champaign.
Institute
resistance
John E. Anderson
Ram obtained
in Engineering
and expert systems Bringing
Professor,
UCLA.
from the Indian
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
of Marketing are in the area
satisfaction, proceedings
and prodand the
Science.
tent that these systems become a part of building codes, forced compliance/adoption is what we need to understand. The objective of this research is to investigate how the individual within an organization responds to an innovation, when there is no choice but ~0 adopt it. Specifically, we seek answers to the following questions: 1. Do individuals in organizations, confronted with “forced” adoption resist the innovation? How does the resistance, if any, vary across individuals? How do those individuals with higher resistance cope with it? 2. How does evaluation of the innovation (following exposure and adoption) vary among different individuals? In conducting this research, recognized the important role sumer’s perceived skill level the adoption decision and the tion of the innovation. Forced Adoption
we have explicitly played by the conor competence on subsequent evalua-
in Organizations
When the decision-making unit of an organization especially one that inadopts an innovation, volves technological changes, it often underestimates the problems of generating acceptance among individuals within the organization [6,7]. The individuals who are expected to adopt the innovation may offer resistance for several rea-
sons [21]. First, the innovation may be perceived as discontinuous, i.e., creating a high degree of change [14], and individuals who have a low tolerance for change may resist the innovation [ 12,161. The low tolerance for change is a function of several factors such as perceived risk, complexity of innovation and perceived self-competence (technical proficiency). The innovation may also require the individual to learn new taskrelated skills, and to learn to cope with changes in organizational structure [7]. These changes may result in resistance to the innovation. Second, members of an organization may also resist an innovation if they have not been consulted prior to adoption, or if they believe they have been manipulated [21]. In this instance, they may develop a lack of understanding and trust, which may cause a negative assessment of the innovation, resulting in inappropriate or imperfect adoption, or even rejection of the innovation. Finally, even though the organization forces the adoption of innovation, individuals within the organization may resist because of parochial selfinterest [3]. Another important aspect of the forced adoption process is how the individual organizational member evaluates an innovation after trial and/or adoption. Resistance to the innovation can increase in the post-adoption stage if the innovation does not perform as expected, creates a conflict that is too disruptive, and/or has other dysfunctional consequences [21]. In fact, even if individuals have low or no resistance initially, they can develop resistance in the post-trial stage due to higher perceived risk and low confidence in the innovation. This post-adoption evaluation, comprising individual attitude towards the innovation and level of satisfaction with the innovation, has been inadequately addressed in past research
[151. Research Objectives
and Hypotheses
In this study, we investigate the effect of three individual level factors-innovativeness, extent of product trial, and technical competence-on post-adoption resistance and evaluation. The investigation is conducted in the context of an innovation that requires the consumer to have a minimum level of operational skill.
FORCED ADOPTION
J PROD INNOV 1991:X:117-IX
OF INNOVATION
Innovativeness
In the case of new products, innovative consumers with a higher degree of product interest, active information search, and venturesomeness tend to adopt the innovation earlier and to use it more skillfully [9]. However, when adoption is forced, even the more innovative consumers with a higher innate tendency to adopt may offer resistance to the innovation. The fact that they were not consulted in the adoption decision, or the feeling that they are being manipulated to adopt, may create the resistance. This leads us to Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis I. In the forced adoption scenario, even innovative individuuls resist the innovution. Higher innovativeness does not necessarily result in lower resistance to the innovation.
Product
Trial and Repeat
Usage
The extent of product trial by an individual can considerably reduce innovation resistance. Product trial provides consumers with important information about the innovation, and in many cases can reduce perceived risk and resistance by raising the level of confidence associated with outcomes [8,19]. With repetitive product usage, and the consequent increase in product experience, consumers may perceive an increase in their skill levels, feel a greater degree of comfort using the innovation, and observe consistent outcomes. This can lead to lower innovation resistance. Hence, Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2. In the context of forced adoption, trial and repetitive usage ofthe product lead to lower resistance.
Technical
Competence
The more competent and self-sufficient a consumer feels with an innovation, the higher the probability that the consumer will perceive it as less complex, the more certain the consumer will be of the outcome. This positive assessment of the innovation is likely to create lower resistance. Technical competence is also instrumental in enabling a consumer to draw out the benefits from technologically advanced products. The higher the technical competence, the greater a
MANAG
119
consumer’s ability to use and enjoy the benefits of an innovation, resulting in a more favorable attitude to the innovation, and a higher level of satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3. The higher the technical competence of an individuul adopter, 1) the lower the resistance to the innovation, 2) the more positive the attitude towards the innovution, und 3) the higher the satisfuction with the innovation.
Help-Seeking
Behavior
in “Forced”
Adoption
When forced to adopt a technologically-oriented innovation, a consumer who has low technical competence and feels less competent in the use of innovation may seek help from other individuals in her/his social network for operating the innovation [ 151. Such an individual may thus develop a more negative attitude towards the innovation and derive less satisfaction from its adoption. Hypothesis 4. The extent seeks help from others in cope with jbrced udoption positively related with the sistance; und (2) negatively of technical competence, tude.
Complaint
to which u consumer the sociul network to of an innovation is (I) level of innovation rereluted bl’ith the levels sutisfuction, and utti-
Behavior
When consumers are dissatisfied with a product, they resort to complaining behavior [2,20]. In the case of innovative products, the degree of psychological and/or behavioral change or discontinuity created is likely to elicit consumer complaints. This leads us to Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5. Complaint behavior is positively reluted with the level of resistance and is negutively related with the level of satisfuction and attitude judgment.
Method The innovation used in this study was the Registration System Via Phone (RSVP), which the University of Arizona decided to adopt about 4 years ago. This study measures the consequences of this adoption forced upon the students.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1991:8:117-126
120
Table 1. Measurement
of Constructs Operationalization
Construct
Nine 7-point Scale items on: (a) product interest, (b) information seeking, (c) opinion leadership, (d) venturesomeness, and (e) self-designated innovativeness Seven 7-point scale items on: (a) risk perception, (b) confidence, (c) discomfort, and (d) reluctance to change Four 7-point scale items on: good-bad, like-dislike, positive-negative and favorable-unfavorable Three 7-point scale items: (a) comprehension of RSVP, (b) ability to control the functions of RSVP, and, (c) perceived degree of difficulty in following the RSVP procedure
Innovativeness
Resistance Attitude Technical
Note:
Reverse
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
coded
scale items were adjusted
prior to statistical
The RSVP is quite different from the conventional manual registration system that it replaced. Using the RSVP system, the students can complete their registration procedures from home, and do not have to go to a pre-specified registration center on campus. Each student has had to learn how to use the phone system according to instructions in the users manual supplied by the university. In addition, the RSVP system provides most of the information related to registration, such as availability of alternative courses. It also has a checking procedure that allows students to ensure that they have registered correctly. The RSVP system has certain potential benefits over the conventional registration system, such as savings in time and effort, convenience, and flexible registration time. However, it is an impersonal medium, and students have no faceto-face contact with the administration officials and advisors during the registration procedure. The sample used for the study consisted of 200 students (102 males and 98 females), with a proportionate representation of Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors, and Graduates. The mean age of the sample was 20.7. All respondents had been “forced” to adopt the innovation, and had different degrees of product trial: 42 respondents had never tried RSVP, 50 respondents had tried RSVP once, 55 respondents had used RSVP twice, 53 respondents had used RSVP three times or more. Data collection was done by administering a questionnaire to the sample.
Reliability (Cronbach’s (Y) 0.87
0.88 0.94 0.92
analysis.
Measures
The measures used for the various constructs are shown in Table 1. Innovativeness was measured using nine Likert Scale items, developed in the literature, to capture product class interest, information seeking, opinion leadership, venturesomeness, and self-designated innovativeness [41. A seven-point Likert scale was developed to measure innovation resistance. These items incorporate perceived risk of incorrect registration, psychological discomfort with the RSVP system and procedure, confidence with the registration outcome, and reluctance to change to the new system [11,17]. Satisfaction was measured with the DelightedTerrible scale [I]. Attitude was measured with four commonly used semantic differential scale items. In addition, beliefs about attributes and attribute importance were also measured. The attributes used were time-saving, convenience of use, effort-saving, reliability, flexibility, and complexity. Three items were developed (using a pre-test) to measure technical competence. The items consisted of the perceived level of understanding of the use of the system, the ability to control the functions of the system, and the degree of difficulty in following the procedure. The measures for the various constructs showed acceptable levels of reliability (Table l), the coefficient alpha being well above 0.70
[lOI.
FORCED ADOPTION
J PROD INNOV IY9l;X:ll7-126
OF INNOVATION
Results and Discussion Znnovativeness
and Post-adoption
Table 2. Relationship and Resistance
Resistance
None of the dimensions of innovativenessproduct class interest, information-seeking, opinion leadership, self-designated innovativeness, or venturesomeness-was found to be related with post-adoption resistance (Table 2). Hypothesis 1 thus found support. This result suggests that, in the context of forced adoption, consumers with the same levels of innovativeness may exhibit different levels of resistance to the innovation. Thus, while innovativeness may indicate a consumer’s tendency to adopt an innovation, it does not necessarily imply lower resistance in the context of adoption. When forced to comply with adopting an innovation, even innovative individuals resist it. Effects of Trial and Repetitive
Usage
The extent of trial and repetitive usage was found to be negatively related with the level of resistance, supporting Hypothesis 2 (Table 3; Figure 1). As the experience of the respondents in-
between
Innovativeness
Dimensions of innovativeness
Item-to-total correlation*
Correlation with resistance t
Product interest Information seeking Opinion Leadership Venturesomeness Self-designated innovativeness Aggregate Index
0.83 0.76 0.80 0.63 0.82
0.06 0.15 0.01 -0.14 0.02
-
0.02
* All item-to-total correlations significant (p < All correlations with Resistance not significant
t
Resistance/ Satlsfactlon/ Attitude
LOW
0.01)
(p > 0.05)
creased, they perceived lower risk and higher confidence, and exhibited lower resistance. The greatest drop in resistance occurred after the first trial. The magnitude of this drop decreased with successive experiences, and three usage experiences seemed to build adequate consumer confidence for this innovation. Another interesting finding was a significant difference in post-adoption attitude and satisfac-
HIGH
Figure 1. Effect of product trial and repeat usage on post-adoption resistance and evaluation.
121
MANAG
‘“L-0
2
I
No
-
of Usage
3 or more
Experiences
with
Resistance
to InnovatIon
--_.
Favorablllty
of attitude
-
Satlsfactlon
with
Innovation
to InnovatIon
Innovation
.I PROD INNOV MANAG
122
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
l’Bl:8:117-126
Table 3. Effect of Product Trial, Repeat Usage and User Competence Resistance and Evaluation Number of trial/usage
experiences
on Post-Adoption
with innovation Technical
Resistance Satisfaction Attitude Note:
*p<
Higher
oii
None (42)
One (50)
Two (55)
Three or more (53)
30.2 4.0 19.0
21.0 5.2 23.1
17.0 5.5 23.7
13.9 5.9 25.0
table value denotes
hieher
Construct
values.
Three
tion judgments of those who had never tried the product and those who had tried the product at least once. Thus, the first trial of the innovation seems to be critical in generating positive attitudes towards the innovation, as well as user satisfaction. Also, post-adoption satisfaction of the individuals seems to stabilize after the first experience.
competence
of user
F
Low (62)
Med. (77)
High (61)
F
28.2* 13.1* 7.1*
26.3 4.6 19.7
21.1 5.2 23.6
12.0 5.9 25.3
21.5* 8.7* 10.3*
Competence
groups
were formed
by median
split.
Competence and Post-adoption Resistance and Evaluation Individuals with higher technical competence offered lower resistance to the innovation and had higher post-adoption satisfaction and attitude judgments (Table 3; Figure 2). Hence, Hypothesis 3 found support.
High 30.
L”.
Resistance/ Satlsfactlon/
Figure 2. Effect of technical competence user on post-adoption resistance and evaluation.
Attitude in.
Medium
LOW Technical
High
Competence
-
Resistance
to lnnovatlon
____
FavorabIlity
of attitude
-
Satlsfactlon
with
to lnnovatlon
lnnovatlon
of
FORCED
ADOPTION
J PROD INNOV 1991:8:117-126
OF INNOVATION
Table 4. Mechanisms Complaint Behavior
Used By Individuals Frequency
Resistance Satisfaction Attitude Tech. competence
to Cope with Forced Adoption: of seeking peer help
Never (82)
Once (85)
More than once (33)
14.9 5.8 24.6 18.0
20.1 5.2 23.0 15.0
32.0 3.8 18.5 14.1
12.7* 6.2* 4.2t
4.41
123
Seeking Peer Help and Frequency
F
MANAG
of complaint
Never (110)
At least once (90)
15.2 5.7 24.1 17.5
25.8 4.6 21.4 14.3
behavior
F 22.3* 14.2* 3.9t
.5.1*
* p < 0.01 t p < 0.05
Further, there were significant differences between high competence individuals and low competence individuals on several product attributes: perceived complexity (F = 28.42, p < O.OOl), savings in time (F = 7.77, p < O.OOl), convenience (F = 3.8, p < 0.05). The findings suggest that a consumer with the requisite technical skills for operating an innovation is likely to perceive lower risk; hence, such a consumer is likely to offer less resistance to the innovation, to have a more positive attitude to the innovation, and to derive more satisfaction from it. Help-Seeking
Behavior
Even though most respondents perceived the innovation to be less complex and relatively easy use, more than 40% of the respondents admitted that they sought the help of their peers in learning to use the innovation. The extent to which they sought help was positively related with the level of resistance (the higher the resistance, the higher the extent of peer help sought), and negatively related with the level of technical competence, satisfaction, and attitude (Table 4; Figure 3). Hypothesis 4 was thus supported. This finding supports the importance of social networks in the early stages of adoption of an innovation, especially in an intraorganizational setting. Complaint Behavior Even though most respondents reported that they were satisfied with the innovation, they stated that they directly complained to the university administration when problems such as computer
breakdown or busy telephone lines cropped up. Complaining behavior was more common among those individuals who had higher innovation resistance, lower technical competence, less favorable attitude to the innovation, and lower satisfaction (Table 4; Figure 4). Hypothesis 5 was thus supported. Limitations The findings of this study are in the context of an innovation where “forced” adoption has been successful. The levels of post-adoption resistance are low, and post-adoption evaluations are very positive. The results could have been different in the case of innovations where initial trial is not a positive experience, resulting in higher resistance and lower satisfaction. The research findings are based on data collected in a cross-sectional study. A longitudinal study, which measures the change in resistance and post-adoption evaluation as repetitive usage of the innovation increases, will be required to establish causality. Research Implications In this study, the measures of resistance and innovativeness showed little correlation. This seems to support the view that resistance and innovativeness are distinct constructs [ 11,121; while innovativeness may increase the probability of adoption, low resistance may be equally essential. More research thus needs to be done on the resistance offered by consumers to innovations, and the factors that drive resistance
124
HIGH 30
20. ResIstanceI Satlsfactlon/ AttItudeI Competence
10.
Figure 3. Evaluation of who seeks peer help more often when forced to adopt an innovation.
-L
LOW More
Once
Never Frequency
of seeklng
peer
-
Resistance
to lnnovatlon
____
FavorabIlIty
of attitude
Satlsfactlon
with
Technical
Competence
---_
than
once
help
to InnOVatiOn
lnnovatlon of User
HIGH 30.
20. ResIstanceI Satisfaction/ Attitude/ Competence
Figure 4. Evaluation of who resorts to complaint behavior more often when forced to adopt an innovation.
10 . LOW At least
Never Frequency
of complalnt
-
Resistance
to InnovatIon
___-
Favorabillty
of attitude
-
Satlsfactlon
with
----
TechnIcal
Competence
once behavior
to Innovation
Innovation of User
FORCED ADOPTION
[11,17,21]. Most of the studies on innovations have been done in situations where the consumer has a choice between adoption, postponement, and rejection. Little work has been done on how consumers cope with “forced” adoption-a situation in which any individual resistance and/or negative predispositions can impede adoption significantly. The issue of “forced” adoption is especially important in the context of organizational innovation, and this study makes a start towards addressing it. More research needs to be conducted in this area, based on data from “forced” adoption of other innovations in other organizations. Our study was conducted in a context where (1) the organizational members had no alternative to adopting the innovation (the university had abolished the manual registration procedure); and (2) the cost of non-compliance was very high (unless the students adopted RSVP, they would be unable to register for classes). Research is thus needed on the consequences of “forced” adoption in other contexts, where individuals can exercise non-adoption as a choice, and where the costs of non-adoption are less prohibitive. In this study, we have examined only two types of support mechanisms that individuals within organizations use to cope with “forced” adoption: peer help and complaint behavior. The usage and effectiveness of other coping strategies (e.g., formal training programs, organized protests/resistance) needs to be researched. Our research also showed that a large proportion of the respondents chose informal assistance from peers (students) in preference to the formal mechanism of complaint behavior (to the university). This preference in communication methods may arise from the specific structure of the organization in which the “forced” adoption occurred i.e., university administration that forced the adoption, and the university students who were forced to adopt. Future research is needed to investigate the relationship between the types of organizational structures (e.g., matrix structure, pyramidal structure) in which the “forced” adoption occurs, and the utilization of different communication mechanisms. Managerial
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1991:8:117-126
OF INNOVATION
Implications
Our research suggests that when an organization decides to adopt an innovation and “force” the
125
adoption on individual members, it must resort to the following strategies to ensure successful implementation. Facilitate
Trial
This study shows that even the first trial creates a significant reduction in innovation resistance, and subsequent usage of the product decreases the resistance further. This is consistent with Roger’s [ 141 views on the use of product trial in the acceptance of an innovation by individual consumers. It is important, though, that the trials are designed to be successful usage experiences of the innovation. Develop Employee
Competence
Perceived technical competence was also found to have a positive impact on resistance reduction and increase in satisfaction. This suggests that by providing user-friendly manuals and facilitating learning of technical skills, organizations can help individuals realize higher competence and thereby improve the probability of adoption. Encourage Peer Interaction During Implementation In the early stages of adoption, a large number of respondents sought the help of their peers to learn how to use the innovation, or to use the product on their behalf. The role of social network and communication is important not only in the purchase context [13], but also in the context of “forced” adoption and post-adoption usage. Hence, encouraging interaction among peer groups is likely to facilitate easier adoption. Orienting small groups of individuals to the innovation, and allowing them to share their operational knowledge and positive usage experiences, will develop a favorable attitude towards the innovation and its adoption. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions given by an anonymous JPIM reviewer and Thomas P. Hustad on an earlier version of the manuscript.
References 1. Andrews, Being.
F. M. and Withey, S. B. Social lndicarors Plenum Press, 1976.
New York, NY:
of Well-
126
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1991:8:117-126
2. Bearden, W. 0. and Teel, J. E. Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint Reports. Journal of Markering Research 20:21-28 (February 1984). 3. Bedeian, A. G. Organizations: Theory and Analysis. York, NY: CBS College Publishing, 1983.
New
4. Darden, W. R. and Reynolds, F. D. Backward Profiling of Male Innovators. Journal of Markefing Research 11:79-85 (February 1974). 5. Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T. S. Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Test of Competitive Effects. Journal of Marketing 53:35-49 (January 1989). 6. Gold, B. On the Adoption of Technological lnnovations in lndustry: Superficial Models and Complex Decision Processes. The International Journal ofManagement Science 8(5):505-516 (1980). 7. Leavitt, H. J. Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches. In: Handbook of Organizations, 1965 G. James (ed.). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 1144-l 170. 8. Marks, L. J. and Kamins, M. A. The Use of Product Sampling Effects of Sequence of Exposure and Degree and Advertising: of Advertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers’ Belief Strength, Belief Confidence, and Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 25:266-281 (August 1988). The Con9. Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R. Innovativeness: cept and Its Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 4(4):229-242 (March 1978). 10. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978. 11. Ram, S. Successful Innovation Using Strategies to Reduce Con-
An Empirical Test. Journal of Product In6(1):20-34 (March 1989). 12. Ram, S. A Model of Innovation Resistance. In: Advances in Consumer Research, 1987 P. Anderson and M. Wallendorf (eds.). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 14:208-212. sumer Resistance:
novation Management
13. Robertson, T. S. Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston (1971). 14. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovarions. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1983. 15. Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. The Communication of Innouations. New York, NY: The Free Press (1971). A Theory of Organiza16. Sheldon, A. Organizational Paradigms: tional Change. Organizational Dynamics 61-80 (Winter 1980). The Less 17. Sheth, J. N. Psychology of Innovation Resistance: Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research. In: Research in Marketing, 1981 J. N. Sheth (ed.). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, pp. 273-282. 18. Sheth, J. N. and Ram, S. Bringing Innovation to Market: How to Break Corporate and Customer Barriers. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987. 19. Smith, R. W. and Swinyard, W. R. Information Response Model: An Integrated Approach. Journal of Marketing 46(1):81-93 (Winter 1982). 20. Westbrook, R. A. Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Post-purchase Processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24:258-270 (August 1987). Basic 21. Zaltman, G. and Wallendorf, M. Consumer Behavior: Findings and Management Implications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
MANAG
117
0000
“Forced” Adoption of Innovations in Organizations: Consequences and Implications S. Ram and Hyung-Shik
Jung
Once organizations adopt an innovation, they may force various individuals to use it. While researchers have frequently studied perspectives of suppliers and their customers, they have sometimes neglected the important roles of those who must use the innovation when it is provided to them. S. Ram and Hyung-Shik Jung report results of their investigation of organizational members’ responses when they are forced to adopt an innovation. The results suggest that even innovative individuals resist the innovation in the context of forced adoption. Product trial and repetitive usage significantly reduce innovation resistance and create favorable post-adoption evaluation (attitude and satisfaction judgments). Individuals who perceive themselves to have technical competence offer less resistance to the innovation. Further, organizational members deal with forced adoption through the use of coping mechanisms such as complaining and seeking peer help.
Address correspondence of Management, UCLA, 90024.
to S. Ram, Anderson Graduate School 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA
0 1991 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
Introduction In a recent article, Gatignon and Robertson [5] indicate that “scholars have paid little attention to organizational adoption and diffusion, given the reasonably robust literature on consumer adoption and diffusion.” Organizational adoption of innovations is more complex than individual adoption behavior for several reasons, such as the higher number of stages involved in the adoption decision, and the effects of organizational structure [21]. In this paper, we propose to examine the process of “forced” adoption within an organization-in other words, when the decision-making unit of an organization has already decided to adopt the innovation, but acceptance from the individual “end-users” within the organization is uncertain. Sheth and Ram [18] discuss several examples that illustrate the growing importance of “forced” adoption within organizations. For example, when automobile manufacturers such as General Motors decided to automate their production using innovations based on the robotics technology, they encountered resistance from the assembly line workers. Organizations that have attempted to create centralized word processing centers have met with considerable resistance from managers who prefer the flexibility and convenience of having individual secretaries. The home building and electronics industries have been developing the Smart House project, in which computer-based controls will be used for improving energy efficiency, remote operation of appliances, programmed cycling etc. To the ex0737-67821911$3.50
118
J PROD INNOV IWl:X:ll7-126
MANAG
BIOGRAPHICAL
SKETCHES
S.
Assistant
is Visiting
School of Management, from the University M.B.A. Bachelor‘s nology.
Degree
Madras.
and corporate
of Illinois
Ram’s research
ingjournals
and has co-authored Innovation
tomer Barriers. Hyung-Shik ofconsumer
information
Journal
qf Academy
diffusion
student
of innovations N. Sheth) titled und Cus-
1987.
in the Department interests
consumer
in several conference
of Murkrting
and a
of Tech-
in several market-
How to Break Cwporote
Jung’s research
processing,
uct usage. He has published
Institute
a book (with Jagdish
John Wiley and Sons Inc., of Arizona.
Calcutta
are in the areas of customer
He has published
to Market:
Jung is a doctoral
at the University
from the Indian
to new products,
development.
He also has an
of Management,
interests
Graduate
his Ph.D. (Marketing)
at Urbana-Champaign.
Institute
resistance
John E. Anderson
Ram obtained
in Engineering
and expert systems Bringing
Professor,
UCLA.
from the Indian
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
of Marketing are in the area
satisfaction, proceedings
and prodand the
Science.
tent that these systems become a part of building codes, forced compliance/adoption is what we need to understand. The objective of this research is to investigate how the individual within an organization responds to an innovation, when there is no choice but ~0 adopt it. Specifically, we seek answers to the following questions: 1. Do individuals in organizations, confronted with “forced” adoption resist the innovation? How does the resistance, if any, vary across individuals? How do those individuals with higher resistance cope with it? 2. How does evaluation of the innovation (following exposure and adoption) vary among different individuals? In conducting this research, recognized the important role sumer’s perceived skill level the adoption decision and the tion of the innovation. Forced Adoption
we have explicitly played by the conor competence on subsequent evalua-
in Organizations
When the decision-making unit of an organization especially one that inadopts an innovation, volves technological changes, it often underestimates the problems of generating acceptance among individuals within the organization [6,7]. The individuals who are expected to adopt the innovation may offer resistance for several rea-
sons [21]. First, the innovation may be perceived as discontinuous, i.e., creating a high degree of change [14], and individuals who have a low tolerance for change may resist the innovation [ 12,161. The low tolerance for change is a function of several factors such as perceived risk, complexity of innovation and perceived self-competence (technical proficiency). The innovation may also require the individual to learn new taskrelated skills, and to learn to cope with changes in organizational structure [7]. These changes may result in resistance to the innovation. Second, members of an organization may also resist an innovation if they have not been consulted prior to adoption, or if they believe they have been manipulated [21]. In this instance, they may develop a lack of understanding and trust, which may cause a negative assessment of the innovation, resulting in inappropriate or imperfect adoption, or even rejection of the innovation. Finally, even though the organization forces the adoption of innovation, individuals within the organization may resist because of parochial selfinterest [3]. Another important aspect of the forced adoption process is how the individual organizational member evaluates an innovation after trial and/or adoption. Resistance to the innovation can increase in the post-adoption stage if the innovation does not perform as expected, creates a conflict that is too disruptive, and/or has other dysfunctional consequences [21]. In fact, even if individuals have low or no resistance initially, they can develop resistance in the post-trial stage due to higher perceived risk and low confidence in the innovation. This post-adoption evaluation, comprising individual attitude towards the innovation and level of satisfaction with the innovation, has been inadequately addressed in past research
[151. Research Objectives
and Hypotheses
In this study, we investigate the effect of three individual level factors-innovativeness, extent of product trial, and technical competence-on post-adoption resistance and evaluation. The investigation is conducted in the context of an innovation that requires the consumer to have a minimum level of operational skill.
FORCED ADOPTION
J PROD INNOV 1991:X:117-IX
OF INNOVATION
Innovativeness
In the case of new products, innovative consumers with a higher degree of product interest, active information search, and venturesomeness tend to adopt the innovation earlier and to use it more skillfully [9]. However, when adoption is forced, even the more innovative consumers with a higher innate tendency to adopt may offer resistance to the innovation. The fact that they were not consulted in the adoption decision, or the feeling that they are being manipulated to adopt, may create the resistance. This leads us to Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis I. In the forced adoption scenario, even innovative individuuls resist the innovution. Higher innovativeness does not necessarily result in lower resistance to the innovation.
Product
Trial and Repeat
Usage
The extent of product trial by an individual can considerably reduce innovation resistance. Product trial provides consumers with important information about the innovation, and in many cases can reduce perceived risk and resistance by raising the level of confidence associated with outcomes [8,19]. With repetitive product usage, and the consequent increase in product experience, consumers may perceive an increase in their skill levels, feel a greater degree of comfort using the innovation, and observe consistent outcomes. This can lead to lower innovation resistance. Hence, Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2. In the context of forced adoption, trial and repetitive usage ofthe product lead to lower resistance.
Technical
Competence
The more competent and self-sufficient a consumer feels with an innovation, the higher the probability that the consumer will perceive it as less complex, the more certain the consumer will be of the outcome. This positive assessment of the innovation is likely to create lower resistance. Technical competence is also instrumental in enabling a consumer to draw out the benefits from technologically advanced products. The higher the technical competence, the greater a
MANAG
119
consumer’s ability to use and enjoy the benefits of an innovation, resulting in a more favorable attitude to the innovation, and a higher level of satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3. The higher the technical competence of an individuul adopter, 1) the lower the resistance to the innovation, 2) the more positive the attitude towards the innovution, und 3) the higher the satisfuction with the innovation.
Help-Seeking
Behavior
in “Forced”
Adoption
When forced to adopt a technologically-oriented innovation, a consumer who has low technical competence and feels less competent in the use of innovation may seek help from other individuals in her/his social network for operating the innovation [ 151. Such an individual may thus develop a more negative attitude towards the innovation and derive less satisfaction from its adoption. Hypothesis 4. The extent seeks help from others in cope with jbrced udoption positively related with the sistance; und (2) negatively of technical competence, tude.
Complaint
to which u consumer the sociul network to of an innovation is (I) level of innovation rereluted bl’ith the levels sutisfuction, and utti-
Behavior
When consumers are dissatisfied with a product, they resort to complaining behavior [2,20]. In the case of innovative products, the degree of psychological and/or behavioral change or discontinuity created is likely to elicit consumer complaints. This leads us to Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5. Complaint behavior is positively reluted with the level of resistance and is negutively related with the level of satisfuction and attitude judgment.
Method The innovation used in this study was the Registration System Via Phone (RSVP), which the University of Arizona decided to adopt about 4 years ago. This study measures the consequences of this adoption forced upon the students.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1991:8:117-126
120
Table 1. Measurement
of Constructs Operationalization
Construct
Nine 7-point Scale items on: (a) product interest, (b) information seeking, (c) opinion leadership, (d) venturesomeness, and (e) self-designated innovativeness Seven 7-point scale items on: (a) risk perception, (b) confidence, (c) discomfort, and (d) reluctance to change Four 7-point scale items on: good-bad, like-dislike, positive-negative and favorable-unfavorable Three 7-point scale items: (a) comprehension of RSVP, (b) ability to control the functions of RSVP, and, (c) perceived degree of difficulty in following the RSVP procedure
Innovativeness
Resistance Attitude Technical
Note:
Reverse
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
coded
scale items were adjusted
prior to statistical
The RSVP is quite different from the conventional manual registration system that it replaced. Using the RSVP system, the students can complete their registration procedures from home, and do not have to go to a pre-specified registration center on campus. Each student has had to learn how to use the phone system according to instructions in the users manual supplied by the university. In addition, the RSVP system provides most of the information related to registration, such as availability of alternative courses. It also has a checking procedure that allows students to ensure that they have registered correctly. The RSVP system has certain potential benefits over the conventional registration system, such as savings in time and effort, convenience, and flexible registration time. However, it is an impersonal medium, and students have no faceto-face contact with the administration officials and advisors during the registration procedure. The sample used for the study consisted of 200 students (102 males and 98 females), with a proportionate representation of Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors, and Graduates. The mean age of the sample was 20.7. All respondents had been “forced” to adopt the innovation, and had different degrees of product trial: 42 respondents had never tried RSVP, 50 respondents had tried RSVP once, 55 respondents had used RSVP twice, 53 respondents had used RSVP three times or more. Data collection was done by administering a questionnaire to the sample.
Reliability (Cronbach’s (Y) 0.87
0.88 0.94 0.92
analysis.
Measures
The measures used for the various constructs are shown in Table 1. Innovativeness was measured using nine Likert Scale items, developed in the literature, to capture product class interest, information seeking, opinion leadership, venturesomeness, and self-designated innovativeness [41. A seven-point Likert scale was developed to measure innovation resistance. These items incorporate perceived risk of incorrect registration, psychological discomfort with the RSVP system and procedure, confidence with the registration outcome, and reluctance to change to the new system [11,17]. Satisfaction was measured with the DelightedTerrible scale [I]. Attitude was measured with four commonly used semantic differential scale items. In addition, beliefs about attributes and attribute importance were also measured. The attributes used were time-saving, convenience of use, effort-saving, reliability, flexibility, and complexity. Three items were developed (using a pre-test) to measure technical competence. The items consisted of the perceived level of understanding of the use of the system, the ability to control the functions of the system, and the degree of difficulty in following the procedure. The measures for the various constructs showed acceptable levels of reliability (Table l), the coefficient alpha being well above 0.70
[lOI.
FORCED ADOPTION
J PROD INNOV IY9l;X:ll7-126
OF INNOVATION
Results and Discussion Znnovativeness
and Post-adoption
Table 2. Relationship and Resistance
Resistance
None of the dimensions of innovativenessproduct class interest, information-seeking, opinion leadership, self-designated innovativeness, or venturesomeness-was found to be related with post-adoption resistance (Table 2). Hypothesis 1 thus found support. This result suggests that, in the context of forced adoption, consumers with the same levels of innovativeness may exhibit different levels of resistance to the innovation. Thus, while innovativeness may indicate a consumer’s tendency to adopt an innovation, it does not necessarily imply lower resistance in the context of adoption. When forced to comply with adopting an innovation, even innovative individuals resist it. Effects of Trial and Repetitive
Usage
The extent of trial and repetitive usage was found to be negatively related with the level of resistance, supporting Hypothesis 2 (Table 3; Figure 1). As the experience of the respondents in-
between
Innovativeness
Dimensions of innovativeness
Item-to-total correlation*
Correlation with resistance t
Product interest Information seeking Opinion Leadership Venturesomeness Self-designated innovativeness Aggregate Index
0.83 0.76 0.80 0.63 0.82
0.06 0.15 0.01 -0.14 0.02
-
0.02
* All item-to-total correlations significant (p < All correlations with Resistance not significant
t
Resistance/ Satlsfactlon/ Attitude
LOW
0.01)
(p > 0.05)
creased, they perceived lower risk and higher confidence, and exhibited lower resistance. The greatest drop in resistance occurred after the first trial. The magnitude of this drop decreased with successive experiences, and three usage experiences seemed to build adequate consumer confidence for this innovation. Another interesting finding was a significant difference in post-adoption attitude and satisfac-
HIGH
Figure 1. Effect of product trial and repeat usage on post-adoption resistance and evaluation.
121
MANAG
‘“L-0
2
I
No
-
of Usage
3 or more
Experiences
with
Resistance
to InnovatIon
--_.
Favorablllty
of attitude
-
Satlsfactlon
with
Innovation
to InnovatIon
Innovation
.I PROD INNOV MANAG
122
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
l’Bl:8:117-126
Table 3. Effect of Product Trial, Repeat Usage and User Competence Resistance and Evaluation Number of trial/usage
experiences
on Post-Adoption
with innovation Technical
Resistance Satisfaction Attitude Note:
*p<
Higher
oii
None (42)
One (50)
Two (55)
Three or more (53)
30.2 4.0 19.0
21.0 5.2 23.1
17.0 5.5 23.7
13.9 5.9 25.0
table value denotes
hieher
Construct
values.
Three
tion judgments of those who had never tried the product and those who had tried the product at least once. Thus, the first trial of the innovation seems to be critical in generating positive attitudes towards the innovation, as well as user satisfaction. Also, post-adoption satisfaction of the individuals seems to stabilize after the first experience.
competence
of user
F
Low (62)
Med. (77)
High (61)
F
28.2* 13.1* 7.1*
26.3 4.6 19.7
21.1 5.2 23.6
12.0 5.9 25.3
21.5* 8.7* 10.3*
Competence
groups
were formed
by median
split.
Competence and Post-adoption Resistance and Evaluation Individuals with higher technical competence offered lower resistance to the innovation and had higher post-adoption satisfaction and attitude judgments (Table 3; Figure 2). Hence, Hypothesis 3 found support.
High 30.
L”.
Resistance/ Satlsfactlon/
Figure 2. Effect of technical competence user on post-adoption resistance and evaluation.
Attitude in.
Medium
LOW Technical
High
Competence
-
Resistance
to lnnovatlon
____
FavorabIlity
of attitude
-
Satlsfactlon
with
to lnnovatlon
lnnovatlon
of
FORCED
ADOPTION
J PROD INNOV 1991:8:117-126
OF INNOVATION
Table 4. Mechanisms Complaint Behavior
Used By Individuals Frequency
Resistance Satisfaction Attitude Tech. competence
to Cope with Forced Adoption: of seeking peer help
Never (82)
Once (85)
More than once (33)
14.9 5.8 24.6 18.0
20.1 5.2 23.0 15.0
32.0 3.8 18.5 14.1
12.7* 6.2* 4.2t
4.41
123
Seeking Peer Help and Frequency
F
MANAG
of complaint
Never (110)
At least once (90)
15.2 5.7 24.1 17.5
25.8 4.6 21.4 14.3
behavior
F 22.3* 14.2* 3.9t
.5.1*
* p < 0.01 t p < 0.05
Further, there were significant differences between high competence individuals and low competence individuals on several product attributes: perceived complexity (F = 28.42, p < O.OOl), savings in time (F = 7.77, p < O.OOl), convenience (F = 3.8, p < 0.05). The findings suggest that a consumer with the requisite technical skills for operating an innovation is likely to perceive lower risk; hence, such a consumer is likely to offer less resistance to the innovation, to have a more positive attitude to the innovation, and to derive more satisfaction from it. Help-Seeking
Behavior
Even though most respondents perceived the innovation to be less complex and relatively easy use, more than 40% of the respondents admitted that they sought the help of their peers in learning to use the innovation. The extent to which they sought help was positively related with the level of resistance (the higher the resistance, the higher the extent of peer help sought), and negatively related with the level of technical competence, satisfaction, and attitude (Table 4; Figure 3). Hypothesis 4 was thus supported. This finding supports the importance of social networks in the early stages of adoption of an innovation, especially in an intraorganizational setting. Complaint Behavior Even though most respondents reported that they were satisfied with the innovation, they stated that they directly complained to the university administration when problems such as computer
breakdown or busy telephone lines cropped up. Complaining behavior was more common among those individuals who had higher innovation resistance, lower technical competence, less favorable attitude to the innovation, and lower satisfaction (Table 4; Figure 4). Hypothesis 5 was thus supported. Limitations The findings of this study are in the context of an innovation where “forced” adoption has been successful. The levels of post-adoption resistance are low, and post-adoption evaluations are very positive. The results could have been different in the case of innovations where initial trial is not a positive experience, resulting in higher resistance and lower satisfaction. The research findings are based on data collected in a cross-sectional study. A longitudinal study, which measures the change in resistance and post-adoption evaluation as repetitive usage of the innovation increases, will be required to establish causality. Research Implications In this study, the measures of resistance and innovativeness showed little correlation. This seems to support the view that resistance and innovativeness are distinct constructs [ 11,121; while innovativeness may increase the probability of adoption, low resistance may be equally essential. More research thus needs to be done on the resistance offered by consumers to innovations, and the factors that drive resistance
124
HIGH 30
20. ResIstanceI Satlsfactlon/ AttItudeI Competence
10.
Figure 3. Evaluation of who seeks peer help more often when forced to adopt an innovation.
-L
LOW More
Once
Never Frequency
of seeklng
peer
-
Resistance
to lnnovatlon
____
FavorabIlIty
of attitude
Satlsfactlon
with
Technical
Competence
---_
than
once
help
to InnOVatiOn
lnnovatlon of User
HIGH 30.
20. ResIstanceI Satisfaction/ Attitude/ Competence
Figure 4. Evaluation of who resorts to complaint behavior more often when forced to adopt an innovation.
10 . LOW At least
Never Frequency
of complalnt
-
Resistance
to InnovatIon
___-
Favorabillty
of attitude
-
Satlsfactlon
with
----
TechnIcal
Competence
once behavior
to Innovation
Innovation of User
FORCED ADOPTION
[11,17,21]. Most of the studies on innovations have been done in situations where the consumer has a choice between adoption, postponement, and rejection. Little work has been done on how consumers cope with “forced” adoption-a situation in which any individual resistance and/or negative predispositions can impede adoption significantly. The issue of “forced” adoption is especially important in the context of organizational innovation, and this study makes a start towards addressing it. More research needs to be conducted in this area, based on data from “forced” adoption of other innovations in other organizations. Our study was conducted in a context where (1) the organizational members had no alternative to adopting the innovation (the university had abolished the manual registration procedure); and (2) the cost of non-compliance was very high (unless the students adopted RSVP, they would be unable to register for classes). Research is thus needed on the consequences of “forced” adoption in other contexts, where individuals can exercise non-adoption as a choice, and where the costs of non-adoption are less prohibitive. In this study, we have examined only two types of support mechanisms that individuals within organizations use to cope with “forced” adoption: peer help and complaint behavior. The usage and effectiveness of other coping strategies (e.g., formal training programs, organized protests/resistance) needs to be researched. Our research also showed that a large proportion of the respondents chose informal assistance from peers (students) in preference to the formal mechanism of complaint behavior (to the university). This preference in communication methods may arise from the specific structure of the organization in which the “forced” adoption occurred i.e., university administration that forced the adoption, and the university students who were forced to adopt. Future research is needed to investigate the relationship between the types of organizational structures (e.g., matrix structure, pyramidal structure) in which the “forced” adoption occurs, and the utilization of different communication mechanisms. Managerial
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1991:8:117-126
OF INNOVATION
Implications
Our research suggests that when an organization decides to adopt an innovation and “force” the
125
adoption on individual members, it must resort to the following strategies to ensure successful implementation. Facilitate
Trial
This study shows that even the first trial creates a significant reduction in innovation resistance, and subsequent usage of the product decreases the resistance further. This is consistent with Roger’s [ 141 views on the use of product trial in the acceptance of an innovation by individual consumers. It is important, though, that the trials are designed to be successful usage experiences of the innovation. Develop Employee
Competence
Perceived technical competence was also found to have a positive impact on resistance reduction and increase in satisfaction. This suggests that by providing user-friendly manuals and facilitating learning of technical skills, organizations can help individuals realize higher competence and thereby improve the probability of adoption. Encourage Peer Interaction During Implementation In the early stages of adoption, a large number of respondents sought the help of their peers to learn how to use the innovation, or to use the product on their behalf. The role of social network and communication is important not only in the purchase context [13], but also in the context of “forced” adoption and post-adoption usage. Hence, encouraging interaction among peer groups is likely to facilitate easier adoption. Orienting small groups of individuals to the innovation, and allowing them to share their operational knowledge and positive usage experiences, will develop a favorable attitude towards the innovation and its adoption. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions given by an anonymous JPIM reviewer and Thomas P. Hustad on an earlier version of the manuscript.
References 1. Andrews, Being.
F. M. and Withey, S. B. Social lndicarors Plenum Press, 1976.
New York, NY:
of Well-
126
S. RAM AND H. JUNG
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1991:8:117-126
2. Bearden, W. 0. and Teel, J. E. Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint Reports. Journal of Markering Research 20:21-28 (February 1984). 3. Bedeian, A. G. Organizations: Theory and Analysis. York, NY: CBS College Publishing, 1983.
New
4. Darden, W. R. and Reynolds, F. D. Backward Profiling of Male Innovators. Journal of Markefing Research 11:79-85 (February 1974). 5. Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T. S. Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Test of Competitive Effects. Journal of Marketing 53:35-49 (January 1989). 6. Gold, B. On the Adoption of Technological lnnovations in lndustry: Superficial Models and Complex Decision Processes. The International Journal ofManagement Science 8(5):505-516 (1980). 7. Leavitt, H. J. Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches. In: Handbook of Organizations, 1965 G. James (ed.). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 1144-l 170. 8. Marks, L. J. and Kamins, M. A. The Use of Product Sampling Effects of Sequence of Exposure and Degree and Advertising: of Advertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers’ Belief Strength, Belief Confidence, and Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 25:266-281 (August 1988). The Con9. Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R. Innovativeness: cept and Its Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 4(4):229-242 (March 1978). 10. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978. 11. Ram, S. Successful Innovation Using Strategies to Reduce Con-
An Empirical Test. Journal of Product In6(1):20-34 (March 1989). 12. Ram, S. A Model of Innovation Resistance. In: Advances in Consumer Research, 1987 P. Anderson and M. Wallendorf (eds.). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 14:208-212. sumer Resistance:
novation Management
13. Robertson, T. S. Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston (1971). 14. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovarions. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1983. 15. Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. The Communication of Innouations. New York, NY: The Free Press (1971). A Theory of Organiza16. Sheldon, A. Organizational Paradigms: tional Change. Organizational Dynamics 61-80 (Winter 1980). The Less 17. Sheth, J. N. Psychology of Innovation Resistance: Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research. In: Research in Marketing, 1981 J. N. Sheth (ed.). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, pp. 273-282. 18. Sheth, J. N. and Ram, S. Bringing Innovation to Market: How to Break Corporate and Customer Barriers. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987. 19. Smith, R. W. and Swinyard, W. R. Information Response Model: An Integrated Approach. Journal of Marketing 46(1):81-93 (Winter 1982). 20. Westbrook, R. A. Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Post-purchase Processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24:258-270 (August 1987). Basic 21. Zaltman, G. and Wallendorf, M. Consumer Behavior: Findings and Management Implications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1983.