Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User
Adaptation
Author(s): Anne Beaudry and Alain Pinsonneault
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 493-524
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148693
Accessed: 28/06/2014 14:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Beaudry & Pinsonneault/User Responses to IT
arterly
Understanding User Responses to

Information Technology: A Coping
Model of User Adaptation1
Anne IT
By: Beaudry expected consequences of an event) and
John Molson School of Business secondary appraisal (i.e., a user's assessment of
Concordia his/her control over
the
situation). On thatbasis,
University
1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West
we four
identify adaptation strategies (benefits maximizing,
benefits disturbance and
Montreal, QC H3G1M8 satisficing, handling, self-
Canada which are
preservation) hypo thesized to result in
abeaudry@jmsb.concordia.ca
threedifferentindividual-level
outcomes: emotional the
restoring stability,minimizing
Alain Pinsonneault threats of the and
of perceived technology, improving user
Faculty Management
McGill effectiveness and efficiency. A study of theadaptation
University behaviors of six account
1001 Sherbrooke Street West managers in two large North American banks
Montreal, QC H3A1G5 for our model.
provides preliminary support By
Canada explaining adaptation patterns based on users'
initial and subsequent responses toan IT
alain.pinsonneault@mcgill.ca appraisal
offers
event, our model predictive power while
an
retaining agency view of user adaptation. Also,
Abstract by focusing on user cognitive and behavioral

related to the
adaptation responses technology, thework
This the
paper defines user adaptation as cogni system, and the self, ourmodel accounts fora wide
tive and behavioral effortsperformed by users to range of user behaviors such as tech
cope with significant information technology events
nology appropriation, avoidance, and resistance.
thatoccur in theirwork environment. Drawing on
we posit thatusers choose different user IT
coping theory,
based Keywords: Coping theory, adaptation,
adaptation strategies on a combination of
individual
appropriation, performance
primary appraisal (i.e., a user's assessment of the
Introduction _ _-_ _ __-_-_-_-_-_

1Ritu Agarwal the accepting
was senior editor for this
paper. Susan Brown was the associate editor. Bradley
The introductionof a new information
Wheeler, Pamela Carter, and Julie Rennecker served as technology
reviewers.
a multitude of and
generates expected unexpected
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 493

Quarterly 3, pp. 493-524/September

and
consequences in the users' environment (Griffith fragmented has evolved over the years ina
There
1999; Weick 1990). These consequences are fairlynonintegratedway. is a need to pro
and understood ina of by
interpreted variety ways gress toward a framework that integrates both
users, triggering equally plentiful, varied, and approaches and allows studying the antecedents,
complex user responses (Griffith1999; Pinson behaviors, and outcomes of user adaptation
neault and Rivard 1998). Researchers, managers, This takes the of user
together. paper study adap
and informationsystems professionals face the tationa step furtherin thatdirection by
proposing
task of and an user
critical but daunting explaining why, integrativemodel, the coping model of adaptation
to The fundamental of
trying predict how, users will react to new (CMUAJ. premise
technologies. To date, two main streams of CMUA is that the introductionof a new technology
this one can
research have addressed complex phenom or the modification of an exiting bring
enon. The first stream, which has applied a about thatare
has
changes perceived as novel (Louis
variance approach, mainly focused on the and Sutton 1991) and can constitute a disruption
antecedents of adoption and
new usage of in and
organizations (Lyytinen Rose 2003).
technologies and has yielded numerous models of Adaptation behaviors are, in fact, acts thatusers
user et al. the
acceptance (Venkatesh 2003). Four
perform in order to cope with perceived
models have identifiedfactors that can influence event.
consequences of the technological By
user adaptation (e.g., performance expectancy, user we can
com and defining adaptation as coping, study
social influence, task-technology fit,and patibility) how
are relevant to this a wide range of user responses including
particularly
the model/ users restore emotional stability, modify their
paper, namely
unified of
technology acceptance
and use of
or even
tasks, reinventand adapt the technology,
theory acceptance technology
resist itWe. can also understand the antecedents
(TAM/UTAUT) (Davis 1989; Davis et al. 1989; user
and effects of these user behaviors. Considering
Venkatesh et al. 2003J, innovationdiffusion theory as also allows us to
of adaptation coping study user
(IDT) (Rogers 1983), decomposed theory
and behaviors thatoccur before, during, and after
planned behavior (DTPB) (Taylor Todd
and fit and the of a new
1995b), task-technology (TTF) (Dishaw implementation technology.
Strong 1999; Dishaw et al. 2002; Goodhue 1995;
The paper isorganized intofivesections. The first
Goodhue and Thompson 1995; Zigurs and
Buckland 1998; Zigurs et al. 1999). section presents the coping theoryand describes
the coping process. The second section sum
The second stream of research has mainly relied
marizes the extant literature on user adaptation,
a
upon process approach and has focused on conceptualizes user adaptation as coping, and
user the model of user
adaptation (Orlikowski 1996; Tyre and Orli
such presents coping adaptation
kowski 1994, 1996) and itseffects on outcomes
as and Poole (CMUA) and our research propositions. The third
group performance (DeSanctis 1994; section describes the research method and the
Majchrzak et al. 2000). This stream showed the richand
fourthsection presents the results of our study. The
complex nature of user adaptation and described
last section discusses the contributions and
how users change their skills, knowl our and an
implicationsof paper suggests agenda
work for future research.
edge, beliefs, attitudes, aspirations, and
commitment (Majchrzak and Cotton 1988; Tyre and
Orlikowski 1994), modify theirwork proce dures and
communication patterns (Leonard
Barton 1988; Poole and DeSanctis 1988, 1990),
the in _ __-______
and adapt/use technology unanticipated Coping Theory
1999; Kraut et al.
ways (Griffith 1989). Coping:An Overview
While these two streams of research have
provided significant insights intodifferentaspects related Coping deals with the adaptational acts that an
in to
to user adaptation, the extant research is individual performs response disruptive events
that occur in his/her environment. In the
494 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

likely consequences (specific internal/external

contextual model, identifiedas theone most widely is the
used and in demands) of this event and what personal
accepted psychology (Lazarus 2000),2 of the In
significance disruption (Folkman 1992).
coping is defined as "the cognitive and behavioral events have been cate
management, disruptive gorized
effortsexerted tomanage specific external and/or intotwomain which are
or types: challenges,
internaldemands thatare appraised as taxing events as conse
of the perceived having positive
exceeding the resources (Lazarus person" or as as
and Folkman 1984, p. 141). Cognitive effortssuch quences, threats, defined events perceived
as and aim at having negative consequences (Carpenter 1992;
acceptance, distancing, escaping altering McCrae 1989). Events are multifaceted and
the of the event while are as both
subjective meaning behavioral they usually perceived comprising
efforts,which include activities such as seeking additional challenges and threats (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).
informationand evidence and confronting individuals,aim at Inaddition to the of
assessing importance an event,
altering the situation itself (Folkman and Lazarus 1985; available to
individuals also evaluate the coping options
Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Internaldemands are them
(secondary appraisal).
personal desires or requirements that They determine the levelof control theyexert over the
theenvironmentmust
to situation and what they feel theycan do about
meet, forexample, an individual's desire get it
work the given the coping resources available to them
challenging versus challenges that a
carries et al. and Folkman
specific job effectively (French 1974). (Lazarus 1984).
External demands emanate fromthe contextual or
Second, individuals perform differentactions to
social environment and must be met by indi viduals.
deal with the situation at hand (coping efforts).
They are related to the roles one has to of
in a for example, a secre
They rely on a combination cognitive and
play given environment,
tarial a of 50 words behavioral efforts, both of which have been
position requiring typingspeed per
categorized as either problem- or emotion-
minutes versus the effective typingabilityof a focused (Folkman 1992; Lazarus and Folkman 1984;
candidate. the
Finally, ways inwhich people cope Stone et al.
1992). Problem-focused coping aims at
depend upon the resources (financial, material, managing the disruptive issue itself. It isoriented
and that toward with the of the
physical, psychological, cognitive, social) are dealing specific aspects
available to them (Lazarus and Folkman
situation by changing the environment (e.g.,
1984). or environmental
altering alleviating pressures,
or
procedures)
or changing
barriers, resources,
one's self (e.g., developing new standards of
The Coping Process behavior, shifting levels of aspiration, findingnew
channels of and new skills or
with two gratification, learning
Individualscope disruptions by using key
that procedures) (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).
subprocesses continuously influence each Emotion-focused coping changes one's perception
other
(Lazarus 1966; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). of the situation, but does not alter the situation
the
First, individuals evaluate potential conse itself. Itaims at regulating personal emotions and
an or a sense
quences of event (appraisal). They assess the tensions, restoring maintaining of
the event its and emotional distress
nature of particular and personal stability, reducing (Lazarus
and relevance is
importance (primaryappraisal). In and Folkman 1984). Emotion-focused coping
other words, when a disruption occurs, one first oriented only toward one's self and includes
asks: "What is at stake forme in this situation?" the
minimizing consequences of threats (e.g.,
The to
maintaining hope and optimism, refusing
paramount issue is to determine what are the the side of an
acknowledge negative event), posi
tive comparison (e.g., comparing one's situation
Space limitation does not allow us to discuss the other

with other situations that are worse off), situation
to study and passive
perspectives used coping behaviors. Readers redefinition acceptance, avoidance
can consult Folkman (1992) and Lazarus and Folkman
the denial
(1984) for an extensive discussion of the topic. (e.g., escaping situation), (e.g., denying
MIS Vol.29 No. 2005 495

Quarterly 3/September

the facts and their implicationsand acting as ifthe of an integrative model that allows a
event never
and
happened), selective attention, richer understanding of this complex organizational
venting anger, seeking psychological or phenomenon.
emotional support (Folkman et al. 1986; Lazarus and
Folkman 1984; McCrae 1989; Stone et al.
1992).
The
The specific combination of problem- and emotion
Coping Model of User
-_-_-_-_-_ -_
focused coping efforts depends upon one's Adaptation (CMUA)
of a situation
appraisals given (Lazarus and Folk User has been understood
the adaptation diversely
man 1984). Individuals tend to choose coping and defined in Information As shown in
that the Systems.
strategy promises greater chance of
success and the restoration of a sense of well Table 1, differentlabels are used by Clark (1987),
Ives and Olson (1984), Leonard-Barton (1988),
being (Begley 1998). Consequently, emotion and Rice and
Poole and DeSanctis (1988), Rogers
focused coping occurs mainlywhen individualsfeel
(1980) to describe the modifications made to a
that they have limitedcontrol over the situation
technology by users. Furthermore, similar con
(Folkman 1992; Folkman etal. 1986; Folkman and cepts
are defined across studies.
See,
differently
1984). Over-
Moskowitz 2000; Lazarus and Folkman for
example, the competing definitionsof "adapta
on insuch a and
relying problem-focused coping tion" inLeonard-Barton (1988), Sokol (1994),
situation leads to frustrationand distress, while and
Tyre Orlikowski (1996). However, Table 1
having littleeffect on the issue at hand (Begley indicates that the studies all fundamentally focus
1998; Cohen et al. 1986; Folkman 1992). Alter on a
occurs key phenomenon: theway users respond to
natively, problem-focused coping primarily
or
individuals feel that theyare changes disruptions induced by IT (Clark 1987;
when incontrol of the
Leonard-Barton 1988; Tyre and Orlikowski 1994).
situation (Folkman 1992; Folkman et al. 1986; user
Folkman and Moskowitz 2000; Lazarus and Inessence, adaptation is very similar to the
of we
concept coping. Therefore, define user
Folkman 1984). In this case, relyingheavily on as the and behavioral
emotion-focused coping rather than handling the adaptation cognitive efforts
situation is likely to result in frustration (Begley exerted by users to manage specific conse
IT event4
quences3 associated with a significant
1998; Folkman 1992). Coping theory indicates
thatoccurs in theirwork environment. This defi
that in extreme cases, when the expected con
and the nition reconciles and integrates thevarious dimen
sequences of an event are threatening
As
situation is perceived as being insurmountableor sions studied inprior research (see Table 1).
too of user
demanding, individualsmight withdraw from such, the process adaptation can thus be
understood in of
the situation and consciously escape from it,for
light coping theory.
a or
example, by asking fora transfer,quitting job,
retiring(Begley 1998).
The entire coping process can occur inwhat
call the before
psychologists anticipation period, the
event
event actually occurs, the impact period, as the
or the after the event
happens, post-impact period,
has taken Because Consequences and demands are used interchangeably
place (Folkman 1992). itexplains in the literature on coping. To avoid confusion, we only
individuals' adaptation behaviors con ducted in response term consequences.
use the
to changes that occur in their environment, coping theory
a new lens which to how and Modifications made to an existing IT can sometimes be
offers through study perceived as significant enough to stimulate similar user
users responses as with the implementation of a new IT
why adapt
(Griffith 1999; Louis and Sutton 1991). We use "IT
to IT in It also the
organizations. provides conceptual event" to refer to both the implementation of a new IT as
foundation to enable the significant modifications
development well as made to an existing IT.

Beaudry & Pinsonneault/User
to IT
Responses
Table 1. User Adaptation

Authors Concept Working Definition Focus
Rice and Rogers Reinvention The extent towhich an innovationischanged Technology
its and
(1980) during adoption implementation.
Ives and Olson Adaptation Alignmentor alterationof the technology insuch Technology
(1984) a way that itmeets users' needs.
Clark A situationwhere the user starts by recognizing Technology

(1987) Appropriation the
potential value
of a
particular IT and manages
to narrow the
absorption gap between the
requirements of the IT and its own limited capa
to
cities, then begins creatively modify, refine,
and use it insuch a way that itwillmeet his/her
the
needs. Appropriation implies continuous,
cumulative, and incremental modification of an
innovationinall itsaspects (p. 156).
Leonard-Barton Reinvention The alteration of the initial innovation as users Technology
(1988) change itto suit theirneeds or use itinways

unforeseen
by developers (p. 253).
Leonard-Barton Adaptation The reinventionof the technologyand the simul- Technology,
taneous at levels within Work
(1988) adaptation occurring multiple
the system
and organization (p. 253).
Majchrzak Adjustment User
Has fourdifferentaspects: changes injob satis-
Cotton factions,work commitment,psychological and
(1988) stress and of life
problems, perceived quality (p.
48).
Poole and Appropriation Concerns alterations broughtby users to the Technology
DeSanctis (1988) while it
technology using (p. 9).
Poole and Appropriation
The way a group uses, adapts, and reproduces the structuresof a Technology,
DeSanctis (1990) technology. Work system

DeSanctis and Appropriation Isvisible acts thatreveal a deep Technology,
through
Poole (1994) structurationprocess of IT use. Work system
Sokol (1994) Adaptation The modificationsbrought to the technology,the Technology,

Work
social others system
environment, protocols, expecta-
and the development of contingency
and tions, plans.
Technology,
Tyre Adaptation Refers to the adjustments and changes following the new IT
The. adaptations may concern the physical Work
implementation system,
Orlikowski (1994) aspects
of the technology User
as well as the procedures, beliefs, knowledge, or
relationships of the users (p. 99).
Orlikowski (1996) Appropriation The continuous, progressive, and mutual adjust- Technology,
User
ments, accommodations, and improvisations
the
and between technology and the users (p. 69).
Technology,
Tyre Adaptation Modifications to the
brought technology,working Work
system,
Orlikowski (1996) and User
procedures, users' beliefs (p. 791).
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 497


Assessing an IT Event: Appraisal teristics 1999; Louis and Sutton

(Griffith 1991).
For
in the section on coping example, personal innovativeness, which
As discussed theory, the the
represents degree towhich users are willing to
assessment of an IT event starts with primary
out new IT (Agarwal and Prasad 1998, Lewis et
try
appraisal. At this stage, the user determines the
al.2003) might influence the point at which users begin
expected consequences of the IT event and how their
adaptation process. Similarly, Rotter
theyare likelytoaffect him/herboth personally and
For (1966) suggests that an individualwith a strong
professionally. example, a user might think
belief about his ability to control his destiny
that a new system will make her job less tedious locus of
(internal control) is likelyto be more alert
and more interestingand that she will need to to
her environmental stimuli, suggesting that users
learn new skills and to adapt working proce
with high internal locus of control might start
dures. Another user might be afraid of losing his
and sooner
job thinkthathe does not have the necessary adapting (Louis and Sutton 1991).
skills to obtain a new and interesting job. what
as While coping theory is mute regarding
Consequences can be categorized either in
threats or elements of a disruption are used primary
opportunities (Chattopadhyay et al. the IS literature some
appraisal, provides insights
2001; Dutton and Jackson 1987; Jackson and
on this issue. Numerous authors have suggested
Dutton 1988; Milburn et al. 1983). However, due
are that users' beliefs are mainly developed based
to the fact thatmost IT events multifaceted,
are both upon theirunderstanding of certain key aspects of
they likelyto be assessed as containing
of and a technology (Davis 1989; Griffith1999; Moore
types expected consequences (Beaudry
and and Benbasat 1991; Rogers 1983; Venkatesh et
Pinsonneault 2001; Cartwright Cooper 1996; al. 2003). For example, Griffith
(1999) argued that
Louis and Sutton 1991) and it is their relative new or that is
a adapted feature of a technology
importance that influenceswhat adaptation efforts as be
seen concrete, meaning that itcan directly
and Folkman and specifically observed and described (as
will occur (Lazarus 1984).
opposed to abstract), or core, toa dimen
referring
As shown inFigure 1, user adaptation inCMUA is sion that is critical to the or the goal
a ITevent that the functionality,
triggeredby significant disrupts of a
technology (as opposed to tangential) ismore
work environment of users. More specifically, user to be
likely experienced as novel and discrepant
adaptation starts when a user gains an awareness to individual
of the IT and generate more sensemaking.
potential consequences of a significant or
The perceived expected fitbetween a tech
event and evaluates them to be of personal and/or and
nology a task (Dishaw and Strong 1999;
relevance and an
professional importance (i.e., the
or a Zigurs and Buckland 1998) and perceived
opportunity threat) (Folkman 1992; Griffith compatibilityof the technologywith users' values,
1999; McCrae 1984). Because individual users
to have needs, and past experiences (Karahanna et al.
are likely asymmetrical informationabout also
1999; Moore and Benbasat 1991) might
the IT event and because they synthesize
information and influence user appraisal. For instance, the per
differently (Fiske Taylor 1991; ceived of an IT to support the user's task
inability
Griffith1999; Lewis et al. 2003; Louis and Sutton
to the (task-technologymisfit)might lead one to assess
1991), users are likely begin adaptation an ITevent as whereas a strong task
users threatening,
process at differentpoints. Some might fit be considered an
technology might opportunity
begin adapting when they first hear of the to In addition,
others improve one's performance. perfor
forthcoming IT event, while might begin
when mance expectancy has been found to
adapting the ITevent occurs, and stillothers
influence users' behavior (Venkatesh et al. 2003)
might adapt later, only after they have started
and might affectwhether one considers an ITevent to be an
with the technology. The of or not a associated
interacting triggering
to opportunity (i.e., technology
the adaptation process is also likely be with is
high performance expectancy likelyto be
influenced by a number of individual charac assessed

AppraisalAdaptationStrategiesOutcomes
"
I S L -N
_I_ Benefits
PrimaryAppraisal SecondaryAppfateal Maximizing
,- i-
~s *- s^jMl J? Problem-Focusedacts *^^
'"/'?>'" 'fSmm$ ^faffa*'**
(Task'TechnologySelf). -^^
j- ' * I_I "***_* individual and
a ??**"^--[TÂ^1****^> - efficiency
. ,~
Opportunity ?y.>." ; "* i-1 effectiveness-1
Benefits
/\ / I ? / iin! ,j \
-*-' ' Satisficing
^^rI(^---*,*^ jf
_'""'"
\v ' - "1"1"^ ,'
LimitedProblemand -****^
\^s. / \/>* ^* U;-?"7 -gfiSLi"1",;*'*.? i Emotion-Focusedacts/ - /
\/ ,>,"~,'WM*
-. *; /
, - ?*-'.:.<,-. Minimizationofthe
c^^"ÂAwareness of an/ , , > "P^ y/ . / - negative
.v.-;
consequences
\ ITevent ,<-< :< _ of the ITEvent
N^ ^ * I DisturbanceHandling I
/> A 7 rV .-'<:^^ ' - ' Emotionand //? '-'
\
*
- - .-!?*^ *8_* A,**^ /
A/\ /\ / \\ " , > . ' ' 'j_i__?"' Problem-focusedacts *^^^ y' ~
1/\ / >? \ /.-..., ^^L_*?^*^ (Task,Technology,Self) ^^^--V^ I '. \ I
\J 'J^tf***?* '_?-_I x^*^^*^_ Restoringpersonal
-
ThreatV '^^^P^' '..i-1 / / j^ emotionalstability
-..-..-"' '."?-
i-* '/<;. - Self Preservation / """--F'
'; .,^^?**^*"***J Emotion-focusedacts ^ '-'
^ Exit
To simplifythe illustration,wepresentpureformsofappraisal,I.e.where,an ITevent ismonolithicallyappraisedas constitutingeithera threator an opportunity.
1. Model of User
Figure Coping Adaptation (CMUA)
Some factors relatingto the individualsthemselves 2003; Taylor and Todd 1995b; Venkatesh et al.
commitment and sup
are also likelyto affect users' primary appraisal. 2003). Top management's
For instance, ithas been shown that an indivi fora has been found to
port technology positively
anxiety with regard to a specific situation
dual's influenceusers' beliefs about the usefulness and
tends to further ease of use of a
generate anxiety through technology (Lewis et al. 2003).
anticipatoryself-arousal (Bandura 1977; Rosen et The and norms
organizational group subjective associated
al. 1987). Inan ITappraisal context, this cycle of
with technology acceptance and use as well as the culture
anxiety can negatively influencebeliefs about the of an organization are also likely
and fear
technology (Venkatesh 2000) engender (Weil user
and individuals to shape appraisal (Ajzen 1985; Davis et al.
Wugalter 1990). Similarly, with higher 1989; Taylor and Todd 1995b; Thompson et al.
personal innovativeness have been found to exhibit more 1991; Venkatesh et al. 2003).
positive beliefs about a target technology (Agarwal et al.
2000; Lewis et al.
In secondary appraisal, users assess how much
Users' with a
2003). priorexperience
control they have over the ITevent and what their
technology has also been found to shape how
new adaptation options are given the resources avail
theyperceive a technology (Agarwal and Prasad
1999; able to them (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). In the
Agarwal et al. 2000; Taylor and Todd 1995a; context of IT,secondary appraisal will be done with
respect
to three main components: work, self,
and
Venkatesh 2000).
technology (see Table 1). As outlined inShaw and Barrett-
occurs ina Power (1997), control over thework refers to the degree to
Primary appraisal specific which users feel they have sufficientautonomy over
context and
it is, therefore, likely to be influenced theirjobs and are able to modify their tasks in response to an
by some social and institutionalfactors such as what IT event.
and thinkof the
peers superiors technology
et al.
(Lewis
MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

499
Control over the self refers towhether users feel

appraisal of the IT event (i.e., the combination of
theycan adapt themselves to the new environment
primaryand secondary appraisals; Folkman 1992;
and Folkman control over
(Lazarus 1984). Finally, Folkman and Lazarus 1985; Lazarus and Folkman
technology refersto howmuch influenceusers feel they 1984; McCrae 1984; Oakland and Ostell 1996;
have over the features and functionalitiesof
Patterson et al. 1990; Stone et al. 1992).
the IT its or
(Beaudry 2002) during development usage
(Clark 1987; Orlikowski 1996; Poole and
DeSanctis
Four
Principal Adaptation Strategies
and
The Focus of Adaptation Efforts Primary secondary appraisals, being con
can
tinuous rather than dichotomous constructs,
be
Adaptation followsappraisal and, similarto coping, expected to result in various forms of user
for the
adaptationstrategies. However, purpose of
can be emotion- and/or problem-focused. Emot we present here the four "pure" formsof
simplicity,
ion-focused adaptation is oriented toward one's
of the adaptation which we derived by combining the two
self and aims at changing one's perception
extreme cases of both types of appraisal (oppor
consequences of the IT event or at reducing or
tunityand threat; high low control). The four
emotional distress. Emotion-focused adaptation benefits
includes andavoidance
adaptation stategies (benefitsmaximizing,
self-deception (e.g., disturbance and
satisficing, handling, self-preser
denying that the ITaffects one, acting as ifthe IT are in 2 and described
vation) presented Figure
event had notoccurred; Zuboff 1988), minimization of next.
the consequences of the IT event, selective
attention of the
(e.g., removing thoughts event),
positive comparison (e.g., comparing oneself to
other users who are more badly affected by the

Benefits
Maximizing Strategy
event; Lazarus and Folkman 1984), and passive
the ITevent as a fact Inan instancewhere the expected consequences of an
acceptance (e.g., accepting
of lifeby changing beliefs and attitudes; Tyre and ITevent are appraised as an opportunityand
Orlikowski 1994, 1996). Problem-focused adap users feel that they have control over the situation (IT,
tationaims at managing the issues associated with work, self), adaptation effortswill be mainly problem-
al.
the ITevent directlyby (1) adapting one's self such focused (Folkman 1992; Folkman et 1986; Folkman
as habits to fitthe and Moskowitz 2000; Lazarus and
adjusting personal requirements
the and Folkman 1984) and oriented to take fulladvantage of the
of technology (Orlikowski 1996; Tyre
Orlikowski 1994), learning new skills (Tyre and opportunities offered by the IT event and maximize
Orlikowski 1994), and adjusting work commitment personal benefits. As the IS literature indicates (Majchrzak
and Cotton the and Cotton 1988; Poole and DeSanctis 1988 1990), users
(Majchrzak 1988); (2) adapting
work bymodifying procedures and routines (Sokol can achieve this
objective by adapting the worksystem (e.g.,
focus users'
modify operational procedures, time
1994; Tyre and Orlikowski and/or on the most and productive activities),
important
the itsfunc the technology (e.g., modify, add, delete screens;

(3) adapting technology by changing the its
personalize IT; change functionalities), and/or
tionalities and features (Clark 1987; Leonard
themselves (e.g., develop new standards of behavior by
Barton 1988; Rice and Rogers 1980).
extensively using the IT,shift levels of aspiration and
As most significant IT events are complex, users will channels of gratification such as
becoming
the renowned "expert"
rely on both types of adaptation efforts (for example,
see Cotton Since most
training). adaptation
inTable 1, Majchrzak and 1988, Tyre and
Orlikowski 1994,1996). However, oriented toward reaping the benefits associated with
the relative emphasis on emotion- and problem are in
the ITevent, they likelyto result perfor
the user's
focused adaptation will depend upon
500 MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005


Opportunity BenefitsBenefits
Satisficing Maximizing
Primary_
Appraisal
Self- Disturbance
Threat
Preservation Handling
Low
High
Control Control
Secondary
Appraisal
2. User
Figure Adaptation Strategies
mance improvements such as reducing errors, minimal. Emotion-focused effortswill be limited because
revenues users do not feel the need to reduce
doing the work faster, and increasing
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995; Pentland 1989; tensions emanating from the IT event (Lazarus and
Vessey and Galletta 1991). Majchrzak et al. Folkman 1984) and problem-focused efforts
well
(2000) illustratethis adaptation strategy by will be limitedbecause users feel they cannot do
a much to further the ITand reap itsbenefits
documenting how the members of team, in a exploit
situation similar to the one described above, (Folkman 1992; Folkman etal. 1986; Folkman and
extensively adapted theirwork system and their Moskowitz 2000; Lazarus and Folkman 1984).
new and Therefore, users will satisfy themselves with the
technology (problem-focused adaptation)
their benefits the IT offers, which, in absence of individual
subsequently significantly improved perfor
first proposition
adaptation, are likely to be limited (Pinsonneault
mance. Thus, our is as follows: and Rivard
1998). Zuboff (1988, pp.
Proposition 1: When the perceived 90-91) documented a situation inboth the Cedar
consequences of an IT event are ap Bluff and Pine Wood paper mills that resembles
as an and users feel this
praised opportunity strategy. Operators felt that the new auto
that they have control over the situation, mated control system offered interestingoppor
will engage ina benefits tunities to improve their but feltthat had
they maximizing work, they
strategy, which will increase their very little to change theirwork and the
autonomy
individualefficiencyand effectiveness.
technology. Minimal adaptation was carried out
and the new system generated few benefits other
than allowing the operators to relax and enjoy life.
Benefits Thus our second proposition.
Satisficing Strategy
Ina situationwhere the 2: When the con
perceived consequences Proposition perceived
ITevent are as an but
of an appraised opportunity sequences of an ITevent are appraised
users feel that they have limitedcontrol over the
as an opportunityand users feel that they
situation, adaptation efforts are likely to be have limitedcontrol over the situation,
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 501


will ina
they engage benefits satisficing
work habits (problem-focused adaptation) and, in
strategy, which will have limitedeffects on their the
doing so, were able to minimize negative
individual efficiency and effec
tiveness. consequences of the ITevent.
It isalso possible that users are able to turnan IT

Disturbance event around and improve their individual effi
Handling Strategy and effectiveness on
ciency by relying adaptation
and
efforts such as benefit-finding benefit
When one appraises an IT event as a threatand to find a
appraisal (i.e., trying positive aspect of
feels thatshe has some control over the situation,
she is to on any situation, even those first assessed as
likely rely problem-focused adaptation
to negative) and growth-oriented functioning (i.e.,
manage the situation and on emotion-focused to find in all
trying ways to grow and improve
adaptation to minimize the expected negative
situations) (Folkman and Moskowitz 2000;
consequences and restore emotional stability
Holahan etal. 1996; Lazarus 1999; Somerfield and
(Folkman 1992; Folkman etal. 1986; Folkman and
to
Moskowitz 2000). Adaptation effortsare likely McCrae 2000; Tennen and Affleck 1999).
be oriented toward one's self (e.g., seeking 3: When the con
the the Proposition perceived
training), technology (e.g., reducing nega
tive sequences of an IT event are appraised
aspects of the new system, changing the
as a threatand users feel that they have
features of the IT), and the task (e.g., adjusting
work control over the situation, theywill en
procedures so that they better fitwith the ina disturbance
et al. gage handling strategy,
technology) (Majchrzak 2000; Tyre and Orli which will restore theiremotional stability
kowski 1996). Because the IT event is threat the
emotion-focused to and minimize perceived negative
ening, adaptation isalso likely
include consequences of the event. Itcan also
be used and might positive comparison,
increase their individual efficiency and
threat minimization, and positive reappraisal effectiveness.
(Folkman 1992; Folkman and Lazarus 1985;
McCrae 1984; Stone et al. 1992).
Self-Preservation Strategy
The adaptation, if successful, will lead to the
and to
restoration of personal emotional stability the of
theminimization of the perceived
Ina situationwhere expected consequences an
negative conse
quences associated with the ITevent. Kraut et al. IT event are perceived as a threat and users feel that
(1989) presented a case that demonstrates this they have only limitedcontrol over the situation, their
adaptation effortswill be mainly
strategy. They described how service represen
tatives emotion-focused and aimed at restoring emotional
responded to a new record system that
and the tensions from
eliminated their ability to perform several tasks stability reducing emanating
which was the ITevent (Folkman 1992; Folkman et al. 1986;
simultaneously, once the hallmark of Folkman and Moskowitz 2000; Lazarus and
their
competence. In an effort to minimize the Folkman 1984). Users will
try to change their
negative consequences of
the new IT, the the
perception of the IT event by minimizing per
discovered to
representatives quickly ways per ceived negative consequences
form tasks
simultaneously and to work on two hope that the expected negative consequences
in will not
records parallel by logging into the database materialize), positive comparison (e.g.,
twice. They also feared that the new system would
eliminate some existing social ties the
by limiting
comparing themselves to other users who are
to information there worse off), self-deception and avoidance, selective
possibilities exchange and, their
fore, created a clandestine note-passing system
attention, and distancing (e.g., reducing
involvement in their (Lazarus and Folkman
within the record system. Service representatives work)
1984; Zuboff 1988). This strategy, ifsuccessful,

the and
responded by modifying technology their will restore emotional stabilitybutwill have littleor

ences the adaptation efforts that are likelyto be

no impact on users' performance at work.
Patrickson's (1986) study of newspaper composi tors' performed,which inturn lead to the reappraisal
of the situation (Folkman 1992; Stone et al. 1992).
reactions to the implementationof an elec
tronic This is illustrated inFigure 1 by the feedback loop
production system illustrates this strategy. that from
that the new goes adaptation strategies back to
Because they expected technology
appraisal.
would deskill and/or eliminate their jobs and
reduce their prestige and influence, newspaper
avoided the Further, the outcomes of the adaptation process
compositors system, using itas little emotional
(i.e., restoring stability, improving
as possible, and distanced themselves from their individual the
performance, minimizing negative
an IT are to
work. Our fourthproposition is as follows: consequences of event) likely change
can
4: When the con the user's perception of the IT event, which
Proposition perceived of
lead to a reappraisal the situation and can
sequences of an IT event are appraised a new adaptation efforts This is
trigger sequence.
as a threatand users feel that they have
illustrated inCMUA by the feedback arrow that
limited control the situation, they will to
in a self-preservation goes fromoutcomes back appraisal. This loop
engage strategy, is because it account
particularly important helps
which will restore theiremotional stability. forboth the and recursive
negative positive spirals
Itcan also minimize the perceived nega of
of the event.
appraisal-adaptation-outcomes. For instance,
it is user the
possible that a appraised expected
As illustrated inCMUA (Figure 1), incases where consequences of an IT event as threatening, but
that her adaptation effortsminimized the negative
users perceive the circumstances as too de
consequences and that, in of this, she reap
and of light
manding overwhelming in the light the new more and
feel praises technology positively
resources available and where they option different
engages in a new and adaptation
less, users withdraw fromthe situation
might totally an
sequence. Alternatively, ITevent appraised as
(Begley 1998; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Here, an
opportunity might end-up having negative
emotional adjustments and modifications of the in
consequences for a user, which may, turn,
situation are simply insufficientto allow users to
to change her priorappraisal and trigger
a new series
adapt to the IT event; users are thus likely
of adaptation efforts. CMUA allows forboth rein
emotionally disengage themselves from itand exit forcement and as well as
loops (positive negative)
the situation for reversal loops (i.e., negative assessment
altogether (Begley 1998).
becoming positive and positive assessment
Thus our fifth
User becoming negative). proposition.
Adaptation Process 5: The effortsand
Proposition adaptation
as a Whole
outcomes lead to the reappraisal of the
a new
IT event, which can trigger
As illustratedinFigure 1, the adaptation process is
highly iterativeand continually evolves as a func
sequence of adaptation efforts.
tion of the ongoing changes that occur in the
user/environment
relationship. Appraisal and
adaptation constantly influenceeach other. Shifts may
be due to the effortsthat __ _ _ _ _
adaptation changed Research Method Research
the
technology, the work, or the individual; to Sites
changes in the environment that might have
of the
occurred independently person; or to
changes in the meaning and subjective under Inorder to a our
one has provide preliminarytest of model,
standing of the situation (Folkman and
case studies were conducted in two North
In American banks. There were three main reasons
Lazarus 1985). other words, appraisal influ
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 503


forthischoice. First,both banks had implemented where the database would be updated, whereas
two
a new account management system years loan formswouldbe
request dispatched
before, just past the 18-month window during
branch forapproval before being sent to
which user adaptation behaviors have been manager
the head office.
observed to occur (Tyre and Orlikowski 1994,
1996). Second, the two systems were customiz
as new was
able and theirusage was stronglyencouraged in Link, the system is called, developed
inorder to in-house and is a Windows-based con
both banks. This was important study platform
how the of a transactional and an
appraisal of perceived consequences of sisting application expert
the new technology might have influenced how system called "Personal InvestmentProfile" (PIP). The
users transactional application allows account
users adapted. Third, at both banks had
to write and close
wide-ranging latitudeand autonomy in theirwork managers documents, open
and in theway they used the system, which was accounts, assign credit lines, registerdeposits and
for efforts related to loans, buy mutual funds, linkwith the credit
important studying adaptation
the bureau, and register mortgages. PIP, which is
work routines and to technology. Users'
control in the
pre-implementation phases of the complementary to the transactional system, uses
systems was, however, very limited inboth banks the client's financial situation, demographics, risk
were thatwere aversion and personal financial
as they company-wide systems information, goals.
risk draws
It determines one's propensity, an
developed with minimal user involvement. an
investment profile, and suggests ideal-type
personalized portfolio. At the time of the imple
Bank A mentation, all account managers attended a four
hour training session, which used PowerPoint
Bank A has over $15 billion inassets, employs 3,200 slides and handouts. No hands-on activitywas
people, and serves over one million clients through204 part of the formal training. Users were invited to
on
branches. Account managers at Bank A are try the new system and to rely the online
for
entrepreneurs who have theirown clients and are tutorial, help function, and help desk any
responsible forgenerating new business and with to itsuse.

questions regard
managing their portfolioof accounts. Their
and remuneration are based on the
It was hoped that Link would help account
performance
and of their Prior to managers better understand their clients' needs
growth profitability portfolio.
the of the new account and allow them to offer more personalized pro
implementation manage investment
ducts, services, and strategies. Link
ment system, account managers met their clients to the of their
at the branch and used a terminal to access the was also expected improve quality
work, theirefficiency and effectiveness, and the
bank's centralized database in order to print a
of their as well as to increase
profitability portfolio,
copy of the client's record. That record, inaddition these
clients' satisfaction. Ultimately, reaching
to providing the client's name, address, phone was
goals expected to allow the bank to abolish
number, and employment information,listed the
client's account numbers with theirbalances and the position of administrative assistant and to
increase its revenues.
all transactions from the previous twoweeks. It
investment
also listedall loans and products along
with theirbalances, terms, and interest rates. In
each branch, an administrative assistant was BankB
to account with
present help managers paperwork. Any
discussion about an investmentor a request fora Bank B's assets are worth $69 billion. It operates
loanwould result ina two-page paper formto be 655 branches and employs 200 account managers
who share the
completed and signed both by the account manager responsibility for managing the
and the client. Investment formswould then be sent by accounts of corporate clients. At Bank B, the
internalmail to the head office account is As in
manager position prestigious.
Bank A, although very detailed working procedures
504 MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005


exist, account managers benefit from significant latitude in

Data Collection
terms of the way they fulfilltheir jobs. the fourmain constructs of our
Account and Our study examined the relationships among
managers' performance appraisal pay model:
are, as inBank A, based on the value of their
portfolioand on growth insales. There are 125 praisal, secondary appraisal, adaptation
and outcomes. An additional objective was to develop a
administrative assistants who help account man
sense of how the systems were
agers with theiradministrative and clerical tasks. after two of to an
reappraised years usage give
indicationof the feedback loops thatcould lead to new
Before the new system was implemented, account
had for with series of adaptation efforts. Finally, the
managers prepared meetings
organizational context (e.g., structure, culture,
clients
using a printout of the client's record that account managers'job, autonomy, and remunera
the administrative assistant obtained fromthe centra and how the was
tion) IT context (e.g., system
lized database. Account managers met with their clients and and
developed implemented,training,support,
either at the bank, at the clients' premises, at a restaurant for
functionalitiesof the system) were also studied as
lunch, or even on the golf course. Ifa decision was made to they have the potential to influence user
grant a loan, the account manager would write the details adaptation. Data sources included interviews,
on a piece of paper,
sometimes a
paper napkin,
and
give
of each
annual reports bank, trainingand user
system
it to his/her assistant who would enter the data inthe manuals, and account managers'job descriptions.
and printthe required forms for the client to sign. The Using multiple sources of data allowed the
of the data an
triangulation and provided appro
clients could either sign the
ac priate levelof internal validity (Kirk and Miller 1986;
documents at the bank or, alternatively, the Table
Miles and Huberman 1994). 2 summarizes
count manager would go to the client's office. This the data collection process foreach construct.
when theWindows
process drastically changed based
and As shown inTable 2, nine semi-structured inter
platform called Reach was implemented
account were with views were conducted inBank A and eight inBank
managers provided laptops.
B. Interviews lasted on average two hours and
Reach was developed in-house and comprises
to account in were tape-recorded and transcribed. In each
many applications support managers we we
bank, followed the same procedure. First,
theirwork. The main is the clients
application gathered informationon the organizational and IT
database management system. Itprovides the contexts through interviews with two senior
IS and director in
account with the client's credit managers (vice president project
manager profile,
history, incidents,and portfolioof products. Other Bank A; CIO and directorof operations inBank B).
Additional informationspecific to the branch in
applications include an agenda,e-mail, MSOffice, which the account managers of Bank A worked
a Web browser, a financial analysis module, and a was obtained the branch manager.
by interviewing
simulation tool; the lattertwowere also developed were
to allow The annual reports consulted to obtain
in-house. Reach was installedon laptops
informationon the banks and on the performance
account to itwhen
managers carry meeting their of the account managers (e.g., historical data on
clients outside of the bank's Itwas
premises. and growth). The project
portfolio profitability
hoped that Reach would increase the account
managers of the two banks were interviewed to
managers' efficiencyand effectiveness by stream how the had been and
explain systems developed
liningtheir job, providing themwith faster access and to their about
to better and increasing their to implemented get impressions
information, ability
how account managers were using them. In order
meet the clients' needs, all while minimizing the
need for administrative assistants. Since the to familiarizeourselves with the systems, the first
account author attended a three-hour trainingsession at each
introductionof Reach, managers' official
working procedures have changed significantly. we
bank and studied the user manuals. Finally,
Account and obtained a of
managers now directlyaccess update
the good preliminaryunderstanding
client filesonline and use system interactively
duringmeetings with theirclients.
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 505


c: g ffo CO
Êoz>Ê-d
* 8 ? occd<jee_cu2fcôo ? ? =- | 5
?c?a5_:cQ.ocDoo 88
IIIIIIIII IIIIII|||?
22i2,COr:ECD"to"CCOC555N3-oS^^cCI
cfegco
?BankA?.
OutcomesXXXXX
XXXXXReappraisalX_
ContextXXXXXITPrimaryAppraisalXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXDescriptionManagers'JobAccount
SecondaryXXXXXXXAppraisal
? Table Collection2.|
Data ContextXXXOrganizational AdaptationXEffortsXXXXX
?2.
2? 5ro

when you were firstmade aware that a new IT would

an account manager's job through interviewswith
and the soon be introduced?" and "Whatwas your
the senior managers project managers of
detailed
each bank and by consulting job descri reactionwhen you saw the computer on your desk
the of forthe very firsttime?" Inaddition, inan attempt to
ptions. Although itwas not primarypurpose
we explore the notion of reappraisal, all interviews
these interviews, also benefitted from their
to a of ended with an open discussion of how the account
perspective gain preliminaryunderstanding
account their at the timeof the
managers' reactions to the new systems managers perceived system
interview.
and of how
they adapted.
The second step consisted of studying the

adaptation process of three account managers in Data Analysis
Bank A and three account managers inBank B.
is the
Following Miles and Huberman (1994), we tried to The unitof analysis of themodel adaptation
variation who in streams of
maximize by selecting respondents strategy (i.e., patterns adaptation
acts of these
were known to hold differentviews and opinions users). Inorder todiscover patterns,
the we had todocument the different efforts
about systems and to have differentusage adaptation
patterns. Inaddition, inan effortto triangulate the

account
and acts used by managers and group
them into
informationobtained directly from the account adaptation strategies. To do this, the
managers, we interviewedan IT trainerand one data analysis was conducted in twomain steps:
desk
help support specialist inBank A, and one coding and construction of the chains of evidence.
administrative assistant and an IT trainer inBank in two
Coding was done phases. First, the data
B. These individualswere chosen because they obtained in interviewsabout the adaptation pro
with
had close professional relationships the cess of account managers was coded intobroad
account
managers and theyhad worked with them categories (primary appraisal, secondary ap
the
during the two years covered by study. They praisal, adaptation efforts,and outcomes) by the
were thus asked to describe how, to theirknowl
twoauthors As Miles
independently. suggested by
edge, each account manager had initiallyap and Huberman, the researchers compared their
the
praised consequences of the new system, how classifications after having coded two interviews.
had No significant differences were
they adapted, how the IT had affected their identifiedat that
and the thus
performance, and how the account managers had point coding proceeded for the
remaining interviews. Second, a finer-grained
reappraised the system at the timeof the study. coding
was relating
to primary
performed. Quotes
aimed
The interviewswith the six account managers appraisal were further categorized
into
perceived
at how each
understanding originally opportunityor threat. Those related to secondary
the of the were into or
appraised consequences technology appraisal categorized perceived high
what control felt had lowcontrolwith
(primaryappraisal); they they over the regard to the technology, thework,
technology, theirwork, and themselves and the individual.Adaptation effortswere further

how categorized
into
problem- or emotion-focused and
(secondary appraisal); theyadapted (adapta
tionstrategy); and what effects theyperceived the new outcomes were categorized into improving indivi
system had on them personally and on their performance dual effectiveness and efficiency, minimizing
at work The account or
(outcomes). managers were asked to
threat, emotional stability. The entire
restoring
provide a detailed nar coding process yielded a total of 247 coded

rative of
description the implementationprocess, all the quotes. Inter-coder agreement between the two
related major events, and their individual researchers was above 90 percent.5 An agree
reactions. In order to minimize recall biases, we

followed and and
Collopy's (1996) Hufnagel Conca's
5The code given to each quote by both researchers was
(1994) recommendations and anchored
with event for compared.
to 226
Both researchers had assigned the same
questions significant flags, example, code quotes, leaving 21 coding discrepancies to
questions such as "Do you recall the moment be resolved.
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 507


was to account
ment was reached between the two researchers provided managers only
after the 21 a
year after the initial implementation.] One
discussing discrepant quotes.
even leftslamming the door. He came
The second step in the data analysis was the
construction of the chains of evidence that back two days later only to pack up: he
grouped quotes fromeach account manager about retired. (Director of Operations, Bank A)
and and
primary secondary appraisals adaptation
We all account
efforts intopatterns of actions, thereby identifying thought managers would
a
adaptation strategies. The data gathered in the welcome the system, it is such good
interviewswith the two IT trainers, the adminis system, but we were mistaken. Several
the
trative assistant, and help desk support us we
were were mad at for implementing it;
employee used to provide additional
insight almost had a revolution... it's
.Nowadays,
into the adaptation process of the account when the system is down thatwe hear them.
managers. A table was constructed for each Some expect it to be up and
account
manager organizing all the data related to 24/7! Bank
his/her into running (Project Manager, B)
adaptation process patterns allowing
us to the fourmain strategies under study.
identify
account At first, several account managers
Finally, managers with similar adaptation but
welcomed the laptop some were
strategies were grouped into tables which
separate
unhappy. Obviously, thenew system did
include relevant quotes to illustrate the given
not please everyone; many account
strategy. This process yielded the four tables managers felt they were demoted to
presented in the next section. secretarial positions while many adminis
felt were
trativeassistants they doing the
account without
managers'job being paid
for it...I wonder how many account
Results -_-i-HHM_-___-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-!
use
managers really it as it should.
Information Bank
The reactions and responses of account managers (Chief Officer, B)
with to the new systems varied extensively within each four adaptation
regard The data provided evidence for our
bank.
strategies and their linkwith appraisal and out
comes. We present and discuss chains of evi
Link was perceived by most account
as an
dence relating to the four strategies below:
managers improvement to benefits maximizing (Peter, Bank A; Mark, Bank B);
their tool kit. account
Generally speaking,
it very benefits satisficing (Dave, Bank B); disturbance
managers received well. Obvi
handling (John, Bank A; Bill, Bank B); and self
ously, there were a few very bad
It's
reac Bank
tions to its introduction. easy to preservation (Michele, A).
we were a
understand; introducing major
change in their work process... .a certain Benefits
number of account managers still utilize Maximizing
the
paper-based version thathas been in new Table
Peter welcomed the system (quote Q1,
use at the Bank since 1995. (IS Vice
and saw itas an to
President, Bank A) 3)6 opportunity improve
I've seen everything: from an account
manager who tried to open his laptop

using a screwdriver, to one who was mad
because theywere not provided with an
6Quotes in each of Tables 3 to 6 have been numbered sequentially
Internet access. [The Internet access
inorder to facilitate referencing.

o ^.
Q1"IfelthappyandQ3"Iwas Q47spenthourstryingnum erous newthingsonthesystemIQ8"Thisreally helped.

benchmarkcanQ7myservicesagainstcompetitorsandI ?Q15 7feltgj data fro mIlikejo bimp ortlin ksworki ngth efin ancialint ocr eate d11 (showi ngby 81Awasin stanc em odule ." ofOperations)jobisdonemost."boringtasks,liketyping(AdministrativeAssistantsinc
letters."
firstfewitusingtooltheirtim esdiscoveredproficientsuchafterItransferwhichweekswithaccountsusesnew.."
recommendtoeveryone,andexplorenewpersonalavenues <?clients,TherearesomeinformationfindyourcancomparetoQ20"Itdoesn't onlysaveg'." Q18Markstartedlaptop,"W henSincethehasmanagementday$betterprovidedwithreallypictureandIdomuchoverallwasone,n>
OutcomesEffortsPrimaryAdaptationSecondary fillhavelotthingsthanwhattheysaidduringofpilesautonom ynot$dom anyA fterha vingspenttim em insy stem m ore5. ?Q16 "Atfirst, didh aving howa ndsyst emu pno tthe reint ern et,h aveid eaof myclie nt'ssitua tiont oisbut Itacc esswe^- todate . ? Q17 "A s wa sl ea rnin gdid n't ha ve go od ris k e valitIh o w but the w elc om ed co uldd o,I wh ata nd wo r ke dw he ns y s te m " ? -
functionalities hishelpingbeenhimself,everythingbyhowanswerusephone!theletmebetterdecisions"0makeonlywouldcares.
^ inform ationabout when wewa ntthene tac co untm ybefo reho ur sta kem et ou sefulY ou canu sed m anage r sv er y- ^.. ". integratingbecamehedeciism yquickly3alsouseit'sm uchproceduresIuationtoolNowworkingvariouseasier-..
? differentlyandbetterandworkknow."howtodo andeven thingsthesystemhasn'tincreasedsinceIhaveit."

Q19" Th eQ14 "Atfirs t,IQ1 2"O urit, tryin gplay edwithf eltth eisto relieve dwhe nsoQ 97ev eryt hingo utr eallyp rod ucewo rkth atIr epo rtsup
?mQ10wasgood"Thatstandards,formsthatindustryevenfindinformationcanyourtime,itshortenstheresponse?
everything
.
forbe com eeq uipp edtot heh elpfu nctio nwithwo uldus edd eskm anyclien tsiseasi erco nvinc eand called ...I S"Q13 "Wefo reca stsoldt het oan alyzeExcela ndc reat esalescli ents'g rap hsinch essh eetlo ade dwithusi ngp retty age era are my
lear ne dho w t o It t ha tt i me qu i c kl yr eli e ve d co n vi n ced ab ou t the s y s t e m w a sp er for m an ce f oun di m pro v ea nd cr ea ti v eI t m y u se s . ^theygaveittousIwouldflexiblecommandlasthaveIinReachm enuIdiscoveredthatcoulduseusingm akesavelot.. 50-newsweneedcompetitorsfillonIfoundSo,wayuseReachaccessthetime myclients".S..
Q5"Pet erthisi tthos eto givewo uldsyste mus edti mesof Ifast era ndd ayam callm anyfew er makew hoo ne^
duringdothingsIt heim prov etof ollowingopport unityw antedprofitandimplem ent ationMyw ay mys alary Heweeks errors:..
?bro ug ht m e forg e tI ti m pro v ei nt era c t w i th th et o cl ien t s an d wor k u se do fq ua li t y m y .
fewerQ6" Thetotheallowedmec ompletel ymuchands ystemc hangewasIwayerrors 301Q 227d oubl edb ackwor kdo,it giveso mef ewAfte rtheAslo nga s(Dir ectorl otcolle agu essta rte dweeks ,myb onus es.. "
on ?TJdon'tthinkIofstrongit proponentjobc hangedtheImytoevaluaterisk andhav eev eryt hingaboutsionway..".
get favoritethatIthoseIstoc ksgiveabout clientservicefunds,u sedm ywa s."

clientsmy."
ime and that I mostly anderror." Also,witheachcustomerI." am much more efficient. I
trial Elbeen muchto(HelpDeskEmployee)faster,dodevelopedfor." information
by ^* penandpaperallthetimefreetousethe showclientsmy."figures),Ihaveprettygood 9
to
thetrainingIformsOdoIthisreportanalyzingsessionutesanymorepapermyway.". coJQH"M ar knotonl ybutInter nets ystem,the"It'sobvious Q21BeforeR each,.."
Appraisal
3ChainsTableBenefitsEvidence:Maximizingof.
cTen
CO-H

his time and was

efficiency (e.g., reducing effort), implementation
effectiveness the of Table 3). For him, Reach's
(e.g., improving quality services), Mark also
and overall As good news (Q10, Q11). felt he had
performance (Q2). Q3 indicates, Peter
felt he had control over the extensive control over his job as well as over the
in with to his to new system. As an account manager, he had
situation, particular regard ability
inhis felt that his
learn and use the system (control over self and great autonomy job and super
and to visor was interested in his results, but not in the
technology) change the way he worked
over thework In he did his
(control system). the interview, he way job (Q12). Similarly,while the Bank
stressed that since he had always been successful in that was
promoted Reach, Mark felt its usage voluntary. He
job, he thought this new tool could help him
could decide how and when he would use it(Q13).
inbecoming even better.
Peter's adaptation effortswere almost exclusively Mark's effortswere

adaptation problem-focused
and oriented toward and directed at himself and at the environment
problem-focused enhancing
Reach and
the benefits of Link. He wanted tomake sure that (adapting modifying his work system)
he would master Link so thathe could take
rapidly so that he could maximize the benefits of Reach.
During the first Mark learned how to use
weeks,
advantage of the in order to
system rapidly quickly reap the
itas soon as possible and use itto could
benefits he thoughtReach bring (Q14). He
increase his His efforts tried on
performance. adaptation every single application, clicking every
were quite extensive and addressed
icon
single (Q14). Mark also adapted the new
work and the technology
to hiswork routinesand
preferences by
system, technology. Through trainingand
discovery by trialand error,he quickly learned how to new MS Excel and
creating applications using
exploit the new system (Q4). He often called the help data
importing into his financial analysis appli
desk during the first few weeks inan effortto learn as cation (Q15). He also connected Reach to the
as Peter's
many functionalities possible (Q5). Internetto gather
importantinformationabout his clients
effortsalso
adaptation focused on thework system and
against competitors (Q16).
and to benchmark his services
hisworking habits and procedures. He changed his Mark modified hiswork
Finally, system quite
interactionswith his clients and used the new system to He indicated that
substantially (Q17). Reach allowed
explore
and analyze
him to focus on themost important activities of his job and
different financial alternatives new
stocks and funds with his clients, something he to delegate the rest to his assistant (Q18).
Peter's
had never done before (Q6). adaptation the
effortswere also oriented toward the technology. Mark feltthat system provided very significant
Linkwas as in his
Although not originallydesigned such, improvements performance. He indicated
him his
Peter foundways to use itto gather informationon that Reach helped improve efficiency
competitors' products and services and to bench (saving time, faster response to client Q19, Q20)
mark his own service level against that of his and effectiveness (better riskassessment, better
competitors (Q7). As Q8 indicates, according to decisions Q21), which increased his overall
his and to his
Peter, the system allowed him to improve performance contributed increasing
thathe
efficiency (work faster,make fewererrors) and his bonuses (Q22). Mark concluded by saying
effectiveness (convince clients to transfer their was very satisfied with thissystem: "/would never
accounts with him), which improved his overall
and want togo back to the old way of doing things."
performance his salary. Peter concluded by
how The adaptation processes used by both Peter and
stating good the system was and how happy
he was. Mark illustrate the benefits maximizing strategy
and
described in our model (Figure 2) support
Mark, fromBank B, positively appraised Reach Proposition 1. Peter and Mark appraised the new
an to
and saw it as opportunity to eliminate the
an IT as opportunity improve theirwork and
tedious and low-value tasks of his job, an oppor productivityand feltthat they had control over the
his
tunity that could improve performance (Q9,

^ ._! CO
followQ11didn'tfromlearningthisQ8"ApartofQ2domuchaboutIit,"Most"Afterall,notchangetohowusewerevery."
Q10"ThesystemQ7howtohaditHey,thatseelearnedI"Sopreventsgreatnoteasy,managementwaslotuse
OutcomesEffortsSecondaryPrimaryAdaptation
fromthisthattheQ6startcontrolmuch"Managementinsistedproducehavethingafterandreallyonlywhile,overaccountmanagers
don'thaveQ5helped"ItwasQ3"WetooktimebutwesucceededQ1rightobviousothereachQ9"Alldocumentslotthat.."
decidespotentiallooseforustimelessandofchangemajorerrors,sowe."."."
helpthingswouldcouldOnedoherebetterlearnhowtoTopweitmuchlookwasuse.".."
m happyQ4"Like.itornot, lot ofthingsmywork."

system."
thattool^standardq?developedwasGo
be^cflexibleItwas.
!? banktheacross."5
gthatQthe
thesystem-was? ^Qnot9>wouldsystem
implementedio3?
&beto^ implementedcoÎthought.
9oing
Appraisal
ChainSatisficingTableBenefits4Evidence:of.
o--? 3"oi
COCD
& *ii
^0<& B? ?^

situation at all three levels: the technology, their

both inways that are similar towhat was described in the
working system, and themselves. They per
formed extensive disturbance handling strategy of our model.
problem-focused adaptation
in
efforts,which resulted significant improvements in and
At first,John was discouraged afraid that
theirefficiencyand effectiveness.
Bank A might use the new system to cut his job
He was
(Q1, Q2, Table 5). preoccupied by the fact
that Link might cause him tomake errors and to lose data
Benefits Satisficing (Q3). However, John felt that he had some control over the
with to his to
situation (Q4), especially regard ability
Like Mark, Dave positively appraised Reach and learn the
when Bank B it system (Q5) and his ability to control theway he
was very happy implemented (Q1,
Q2, Table 4). He was convinced that the new performed his
was job (Q6).
system good and that ithad a great potential
to improve his job. Contrary to Mark, however,
John performed both emotion- and problem
Dave felthe had very littlecontrol over the situa
tion in He focused efforts. John's emotion
general (Q3). feltthathe had no control adaptation
new a to
over the system and that, being standard By comparing learning
focused effortswere threefold.
use Link to to the
tool implemented across the bank, Reach was not learning play piano (a
very flexible. So he felthe could not reallymodify he minimized the threats
nonthreatening situation),
nor it associated with the new technology (Q7). He also
adapt (Q4). convinced himself that since Link had been
Dave's adaptation effortswere minimal. We found a
designed by experts like him, itmust be good system
no evidence that he performed any emotion thatwas not as as he
probably threatening
had believed This resembles positive
focused adaptation efforts and his problem focused initially (Q8).

effortswere strictlylimitedto learninghow to use the comparison and positive reappraisal emotion
minimum number of functionalities he as were
focused adaptation they previously
needed to perform his job (Q5, Q6, and Q7). In to
as discussed. Also, similarly passive acceptance
fact, he stated in the interview,he adopted a
laissezfaire approach and, contrary toMark, Dave did as described inpsychology, he convinced himself
that the and to use
notmodify his work routines or the technology using system learning itwere
of his and his
His was part job responsibilities (Q9). John's
(Q8). adaptation limitedto learning how
to use Reach. problem-focused efforts were oriented toward
himself and consisted of
mainly obtaining training to
Dave considers the benefits associated with learn to use the new system (Q10, Q11).
Reach to be relatively limited, consisting of
in the of the docu It is interesting to note that, contrary to his
marginal improvements quality
inhis in them
ments and efficiency producing (Q9, preliminaryexpectations, John felt, inthe end, that
Q10). He concluded that the system did not Link did not affect him negatively. As indicated in
change much after all (Q11). This is consistent and in his
our model Proposition 3, through
with our model and supports Proposition 2. Dave's was
of the and his adaptation efforts,John able tominimize the
positive appraisal technology
perceived negative consequences of Link and
perceived lack of control over the situation led him
even to increase his efficiency,although not to the
to perform minimal adaptation efforts, which resulted
in limitedbenefits. same extent thatPeter did. John thought that the
system helped to improve the satisfaction of his
clients (Q12) and made him look more profes
sional, while also enabling him to make fewer
Disturbance Handling errors (Q13). At the end of the interview,John
indicated that Link was a good system after all,
that two
Table 5 presents quotes from interviewswith John suggesting years after the
and Bill both ofwhom
Link
implemen tation, he reappraised positively.
(Bank A) (Bank B), adapted

3CD$:o COCDCo
EffortsSecondaryAdaptationPrimaryOutcomes|
I would be able to are no other you use it, the better you are at like to see the c
more ândthatwewouldsoftware,looseitmademerealizetheonlywaytolearnuse?
The ? especiallywhenyoudealQ11"Johnwasto usethesystematfirstbutafew ??

practice, I would learn the I Q8 7 ways. thischallengefaceitlikelearningusingperiodQ2fact,notplaytheter' sre sultstopianoeasy "IthelpsitY ouwas.In......... knowtold"
all, it is not
reluctant computer
the that makes j the
Eg you
directlywithclientsandyourweeks implementation,theafterUserServicesofferedoneto
wasenough good andwill thisand sayingispart of ourhavetojob,"A nd,\Q 5don'tlearntoplay7frightenedthatJohntheconvincedandwasbypianoinvestsuggestY ouneedmeitreadingabout.Q 9-to use computersitis to ourlearn responsibility.There tospeaking,learn newmy clt
you <: salarydirectlydependsonyourone trainingsessions. Johnenrolledandattended
| <o acceptthatyouhaveto myself:\andeffectiveinmyself:job."Iprogrammeddosotobyaggregatingtheexpertiseofaccountbythesystem."
Q107decidedbeabletoadditionalandthatthoughtIprofessionaltakesomeafraidneed~>thinkingtrainingusewe^
." special
g something system and I would isthe me. Plus, how do you think that the
IQ 7d id I fir s t, Q 4t he th a tQ 12 afr ai d co nf ide n t" G en era ll y" A t th i s s y s te m Th en , I ke pt to u se w a s " W e w ere w an t no t.
3. wouldleaditustomakeerrors afterit." helpedItmight mealottolearnhowtousethe ?>
? frustratedIunderstandthatjwithenough.time.tryYouhaveplayitandtogethands.onexperiencementproductswith."
performance.At --diffic ultbec om emo reit'sf orto por tfolioI tbec ause decisio n?effi cients ugg estedw asm akeco mp uter ma nycany ear s,first ,
Ihelpwas. sessions."(Branch Manager)
these
decision, of
one
change." (Branch Manager) I Q6 "We control managers, like me, so it must be good."
job
our
ChainsTableEvidence:5ofDisturbanceHandling.Appraisal_
^ data....This good,reallyLink wastouseit".
not
c> |_Ireally formyjob."_|_| o>

afraid
^ cToi
I* o- *?

I
Q31havedoesn'titproblem"No,."
lottothehowhimwhenIlettersformyclientsaskalwayssystemuselearn.." boggedlittlebitthinkjobIandalso,professionalchangedmyme.I
Q26fewbr oug ht7findnewhomeitbeginni ngti mes thehel ptr ytoatQ27"Now,iscompl etel yti metheitallItintegrateddoc umentspr oduc euse.
Q30"ItdecidedIlearnthatthenewtrytoQ24while,"AftershouldproducesverytoI'mgratefulMark,isnerdhelpedsystemprofessionalandlooking me.
jobIthingsofthatthesystemchangedbetterhaveaboutcouplemymuch.
Q25isforhelpMark'sofficetoaskinhowmebemorealways"Billon
(Administrativedoesn'tthisthatandAssistant)Itproductive."spendmoretimeusing. thewiththansystemmyclientslook."."
^ T
Êfforts<dPrimaryOutcomesSecondary_Adaptation ^hadenoug hKaren:Itol dthepastwithSo,di dnotneed(Directorjobdoours ecr etar y'swor k,ofwe."."
^(pointingjobfordomakethecomputerIwouldher)tookassisandreallyhimternnotthatbad?years,manymymewas...It..-"
andhowtolearnuseitclientsbutthe."
tant'sjobbeforetimelotoftheandcontrol(AdministrativeQ29"Aftermyit"tousestarted.while,gcd.."
Q22"Atthebeginning,beforeimposedidn'tBilltriedtoQ19withg)thinkhadcomputer"TheyanythingdoÎHewasselfacting..".
PQ15"IthoughtthissystemitonusbutI'vebeenhereasifnohadimplementedHeusedtosaythatrealizedthe--.
^ Q18Q20"Billis hadenoughIlooktimeQ14t oafraidthemany %"If Q28"Aftercoupleofwas inlotres istedwhoone ?Q23"A tfirst,IwasreallybankA fterkickhasusedwouldn'ttheyjobthatwantedall,.outcam eB ill?toM ark,angry.
Q 21 "I fir s td id n't ha dt e chn ol og y the Ii t at c oll eag ue s 50 w or ke d wa nt to ne v erdo w n and c al m ed m yu s e3 >. " -. .
." SP,technolo gyto elimin atejo bsbec ause Ididn otth atitsyst ema ndIv oiced myo pinion abo utthis. Ifeltt hatwe accep titHewas OK..
(DirectorOperations)months,frontSbeginning"ignorantlearnknowthatcouldIofquietedmy.c:I.
losing my way theyI Assistant) and with the help of ?

knew
it. ?it'sbusinessQ17withoutafraidOperations)reallyit,"Billwastopofon.
do
Handling (Continued) 5
_?Appraisal_
Disturbance
ce:
2s first." Operations)of usual."

(Director
c CO
_; CO CQ
OCO,-,

mistakes would go unnoticed (Q26). Bill indicated in

Bill the
(Bank B) initiallynegatively appraised
the interviewthat only when he had reached a
and felt
system personally and certain level of expertise did he start to use it
professionally threatened because he was afraid that
Reach overtly at the office. He also slightly
modified his
work and the technology so that theywould better
would reduce his credibility and deskill his job (Q14, fit
together (Q27). Bill indicated that, in the end,
Q15, Table 5). He was also afraid that the system Reach did not his it
although improve efficiency,
could be used to eliminate his job (Q16, Q17). Bill him to write docu
felt,however, that he had some control allowed professional looking
his and
over ments, improve credibility, increase the
the situation, especially regarding how he did his job
and the extent to which he would use
satisfaction of his clients (Q30, Q31).
Reach
Bill's was
adaptation strategy successful as he was
and
Bill's adaptation process is as the able to restore emotional stability integrate
quite interesting
Reach intohiswork. He was able to turnthe situa
interview allowed us to clearly delineate two from
tion around originally perceiving the new
phases (identifiedby vertical arrows inTable 5). as a threat to itto
The first fromthe implementation technology finallyusing improve
phase transpired his
of Reach until about six months later and the performance. Infact,our data indicates that,at
two the time of the interview,he had positively reap
second phase afterward. These phases pro
the I like that
our praised technology: "Today, system.
vide support for Proposition 5, which suggests
thatadaptation effortsand outcomes Itmakes me look very smart and up to date with
may lead one but don't me
to the situation and a new series technology, get wrong, itwill never
reappraise trigger
of replace the account manager."
adaptation efforts. In the initialphase, Bill's
adaptation effortswere mostly oriented toward The cases of John and Bill illustrate the distur
restoringemotional stability. At first,Bill resisted bance of our model and
the of the new As handling strategy provide
implementation system (Q20).
use support forPropositions 3 and 5. Both account
Q21 and Q22 indicate,he did not it,ignored its
the new as
and managers initiallyperceived systems
presence, acted as ifReach had not been
and He constituting a threat and both felt that they had
implemented (self-deception avoidance). their and
also his to control over theway they performed job
expressed anger colleagues (Q23), over how theywould integrate the new IT in it.
which is similar to the "ventinganger" coping act Through a series of emotion- and problem-focused
emotional
documented inpsychology (Lazarus and Folkman adaptation efforts, they were able to restore
and even their
stability improve perfor
1984). These efforts seemed successful in
thus toa of the
restoringhis emotional stability. For instance, Bill mance, leading positive reappraisal
indicated that after two or three months, he had new sequence
systems and, in Bill's case, to a of
"calmed down" and started to see the system
adaptation efforts.
and not as negatively (Q28). This was
differently
corroborated by the Director of Operations, who indicated

thatafter a while, "Billcame to accept it. He was OK with it."
Self-Preservation
(Q29).
Bill's interview indicates thatanother series
Michele, like John, initiallynegatively appraised
clearly
of effortsoccurred six Link. She feltthat the new system would increase
adaptation approximately months reduce her and
her workload, productivity, de
after the implementationofReach. At that
crease her commission-based salary (Q1, Q2,
time, most adaptation efforts were problem the as a
Table 6). She perceived system threat,
focused and oriented toward himself and, to a
lesser that it her (Q3). Contrary to
thinking might replace
degree, toward the technology and thework
With John, however, Michele felt that she had little
system. the help of Mark, Bill decided to its
control over the technology and usage (Q4, Q5)
learn how to use the system (Q24, Q25) and he
even brought ithome to practice inwhat was a
and had insufficienttime to learn the new system
one
less threatening environment, where his
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 515

theyshould,theirdo,andwhencolleaguesrelyon
Q14triedItoconvincecolleagues"Althoughwhorefusedmy
Q15Q8"Anyway,Q4"WedecidedIhadhowthedidstopcomplaining7"Thesystemnotafter<owhile,doesallowIIsee.
(referringQ13donotMichele)itto"others,lot,norasusetothemitsformanyit,postponedofmonthsusesome
2Outc omesEffor tsAdaptati onSec ondar yg".Primar y _and some still do not Account Manager)
(John,
Q6job7?"haveIusingm yaddonlystep sjudgm entcom puter;theytru stdisagreeIbuthelpsm uchs ystem andm e,notsee so.. it."
justIt'slikeshedoesn'titdon'tgetjoblooseaccountto managerswantmy.."
|
?in ve st m en tthin k s e ve ralth ed on 'te v enh a vedi d/th ata bo v ene ed notI de ci sion s ,po rtf olioin cr ea s e client s woul dof m y clo se
Q10"M oreov er,here,it!"t hat'sknew7Q2Q167k nowsom esaythecTwouldI'mconvincedhatetoclientsmy use

Q 97It he co n clu sio nto sa tis fa ctio n, co uldn othin g client s 'th at sin ce de cid e so rga ni zeb ett er wo r k s y ste m ca m e "? gr o wm y ' ca wa s
helpthe(BranchdeskandManager)on."
itIdoabout behelpth em an agepo rtfolio,m ya ndwh ate ve rsim plyw oulde ve ryt hing,a c cepta c cou nt sm o re. " ittheirt hinkth oug htIti meto abo utelse 01e veryt hing bank Itsimply that'sw hatb aseI nanyw ay,a noth era ndg oacco unts ofso mer educ ed.. .
J^jobdoeslikethat;Ithecom puterinm yhadtoenoughA ctually,IifThesystem m ehelpm akenotusewere. Q11hadItim e, the Q7an ywa ypr oduc tive "Fo rtunatel y, Q17" I'm m u ch "Ifhelpde s kpeopleandfa ste ru singnicea re ver y. Itimethatwouldbasisafraidtheforsamewasofquestionsbasic.Some most......
ifdoI'dimprovingbehelptheclient,itcouldnotme<trustpeople,paperworkcomputersweremore."."
?systemcouldim provechoice,reallyThereAftertherearemoreimportantall, thingslife!"metobettermanagemywork,tog>....
Q12thoseism ightof"Michelestillcalluswhoreplaceactuallyoneweeklym e.
#DeskEmployee)learn."(Help
_Q37wasreallyhesitantatgmaybeIwouldknowledgeabletrytoSometimes,theyasktousepaperandpencil.". don'tIfrustratingthemtimeIencounterandcallingit'smuchfasterproblem,everywas."
.foranswermyselflookingthethanthat-afraidsystemwas?..."
Îtfirstthinkafraidgetbutcontextualtraining,wasthemanualhelptoreferkeepormenusome..
"omoreproductive"ThesystemQ5recommendsisefficiently8."..""
Appraisalc^
?SelfChain6Evidence:Table.?of.- Preservation
< DCD ._
^K-1.-
DO__ ;pco

benefits from it,which led them to reappraise the

or to tryto adapt herwork routines tomake them
fit system more positively. Interestingly,
John and
together (Q6, Q7).
Michele work for the same Bank and thus ap
the same
praised technology. However, Michele's
efforts did not her
adaptation help improve
Michele's reactions resemble those described in productivity. Rather, they seemed to have rein forced
the of our model and
self-preservation strategy in
our 4. relied her initialappraisal and led to a negative
Proposition Michele essentially on reappraisal.
emotion-focused adaptation efforts. At some
she to about the
point, decided stop complaining
new system and convinced herself that therewere
care
more importantthings to
the
about, thus mini Discussion and Contributions
mizing perceived threat of Link (Q8). She
simply accepted the new system as a fact of life The case studies for
provide preliminarysupport
(Q9). She was also convinced that her clients CMUA and our five with the
not her use a thus propositions. Convergent
would accept seeing computer, a
sensemaking literature (Griffith1999; Weick 1990), given
redefining the situation by using someone else's was differ
she avoided technology appraised ently by
perspective (Q10). Finally, the sys differentaccount who
managers adopted different
tem and tried to escape the situation not only by adaptation strategies.
not to learn it but also by
trying (Q11, Q12, Q13),
Our research shows that the four strategies are
not it
using (Q14). differentpatterns in streams of actions that are
Overall, itseems thatalthough Michele still thinks initiatedby differentappraisals and lead to dif
not her to be more
thatLink does help productive, ferent outcomes. What one uses de
strategy
she was able tominimize the perceived threats of pends on one's assessment of an IT and on a
the She
system. indicated thatalthough Link had broader contingent of organizational factors. From
some positive effects on her job (e.g., reducing an individualpoint of view, all of the strategies can
work
paper Q16), she felt itdid not improve her
be effective in helping to address personally
performance and did not allow her to be a better relevant issues raised by an ITevent. For some,
account manager (Q15, Q16, Q17). In fact, emotional and the
of the restoring stability reducing
Michele's reappraisal system is still quite
stress associated with the ITevent isa significant
negative as she felt that Link had reduced her outcome thatallows them to continue towork and
and her and asso
autonomy pride gratification ciated function properly in an environment they had
with making decisions about loans: as
initiallyperceived threatening. For others, pushing their
limitsfurther learningto use a new
We have lost all autonomy and control by
will
ITwill constitute a major achievement. Still others
over our job. The system decides for us. an
grasp opportunity to increase theirproduc
There are limited
very opportunities to tivity
and overall
performance.
From an
organi
make a decision. It is automated 100
zational point of view, the benefits satisficing and
percent. We don't even have to think at first
The does it for self-preservation strategies might appear
anymore. system you. not to
Before, Iwas proud ofmaking decisions about suboptimal because individuals are trying
Itwas maximize the potential benefits of an ITevent. In
loans. gratifying.Now, the system some
decides The situations, however, inducing individuals to
everything. only thingleftis
trytomaximize ITbenefitsmight require substan
todecide the interestrate that we will charge tial
organizational changes and investments (e.g.,
for the loan.
increasing job autonomy, decentralizing decision
making authority, extensive user training, or em
Michele's situation contrasts with thatof John and that
powering users) might outweigh the benefits an
Bill. While the three of them started with a nega
organization can achieve indoing so. On the
tive appraisal of the systems, John and Bill were
able to turn the situation around and derive
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 517


other hand, although employees' ability to restore

This study makes four contributions to research.
emotional stability is not an end in itself,itshould not be
before a rich of a
overlooked. For some, itmight be a required step First, CMUA provides understanding
can broad variety of user behaviors. Prior models,
they perform problem focused adaptation
in
(e.g., TAM, IDT, TTF) help predicting adoption
effortswhich will eventually increase operational CMUA
and use of a given technology. helps
efficiencyand effectiveness. and how and users will
explain predict why
adapt the technology, the work, and themselves.
the inthe users'
forPractice Grounding predictions appraisals of the
Implications
technology allows for variations to occur among
and Research individuals facing a given ITevent, and for variations within
individualsover time,affordinga dynamism that
The fundamental contributionof this research to practice as
is to the of an indivi isunavailable infactormodels such personality
highlight importance characteristics or in
dual user's perception of an ITevent in single-cycle
managing
adaptation efforts. Hence, this research demon models. It also offers predictive power while
strates the need for to understand how an
managers
retaining agency view of IT-related behaviors,
users appraise an IT event and to appreciate the forand a of
allowing explaining myriad response
of users with such as
importance providing adequate patterns technological adjustment and
to it.
resources so that they can adapt By doing reinvention, changes in individual habits, and
can
so, managers promote adaptation strategies
thatare to users' and resistance to IT-induced changes.
likely improve performance minimize
negative emotions associated with an IT event. This study Second, by integratingantecedents, adaptation
indicates thatwhile users' re sponses vary fromone individualto and outcomes, by focusing on both positive
efforts,
and
another, they can be grouped into four broad adaptation negative emotions associated with an IT
event, and by taking intoaccount what objectives
stra tegies, which can be used bymanagers to choose
users seek to achieve when adapting, CMUA
appropriate management approaches.
offers a complementary perspective to the
can to variance and process approaches to the study of
Further,CMUA help managers proactively
in user adaptation.
manage IT-induced changes, anticipation
periods, even before an IT event occurs. It also
Third, this research might help shed some on
provides managers with tools that can help them the between
light
better understand the components of user adapta

relationship IT and individualperfor
mance at work. Despite significant research ef
tion, better predict users' reactions, and hence
themmore For forts,theempirical evidence todate is inconclusive
manage efficiently. example, using seems and
CMUA, managers could future and even contradictory (Pinsonneault
identify proponents
and opponents of a new more judiciously select Rivard 1998). While several hypotheses can be
IT,
who need to of
local champions, and assist employees proposed explain this state empirical evi
on dence, the possibility thatan variable
help adapting to the situation. Depending
the between
intervening
can acts upon relationship IT use and

users' appraisal of the situation, this include,
for com individual seems It
example, providing additional training, performance plausible. may
additional well be that users' appraisal and adaptation
municating informationabout the new
will
system sothat users have a better understanding influencehow they use the technology and how it
affect their This
of its consequences, increasing the support performance. study suggests thatwhen
or
provided by colleagues, mentoring, temporarily individuals appraise an IT event as a threat, theireffortswill
or In
reducing performance productivitytargets. be mostly oriented toward either diminishing emotional
an a distress associated
adaptation context, key role ofmanagers is to with the or the
technology reducing perceived negative
create an environment inwhich appraisal isopenly associated with itWhile.
consequences these
discussed with individuals and adaptation efforts
are welcomed. strategies can be successful and allow the individual to
restore emotional stability, they are

since the ITevents had occurred inthe two banks.

not to lead to us with a
likely quickly any significant improvements
inthe of the individual. Such interviewsmight have provided
performance On the other hand, different from who
perspective respondents may
adaptation effortsassociated with positive appraisals too
at and have appraised the situation as demanding
can lead to actions aimed improvingoperational
functional and who may have decided towithdraw from the
efficiency
situation. Finally, because our two research sites
are the
and effectiveness, which likely to positively offered very similar characteristics, generali
affect user performance. zability of our model to other contexts needs to be
further
Fourth, this research provides a contribution to investigated.
and This research suggests five main avenues for
psychology by adapting extending coping more
theory (Lazarus 1966). To our knowledge, this is
future study. First, research is needed to
has been further and refineCMUA. While our
the firsttime thatcoping theory applied explore, test,
to workers
understanding how individuals react to the study wgs conducted with knowledge
artifact as to flexible
introductionof a tangible opposed to adapting technologies, itseems that
a or CMUA has a broader scope and can explain the
abstract events such as mergers, losing job,
getting divorced. This can lead to a different adaptation behavior of various types of users
with other More
Users can on both the dealing technologies. research is
appraisal process. rely
abstract and concrete features of the IT event to needed to test themodel with differentusers and
assess its In studies
potential consequences. This may also technologies. particular, large-scale
a wider of efforts. For involvingnumerous users would help assess the
trigger range adaptation
users more
instance, can act directlyon the object that model's generalizability. Also, work needs to
is as of the be done to furtherunderstand the effects of some
perceived being the source disruption
to eliminate it social factors (e.g., group norms, top management
and try physically (e.g., sabotage,
theft).A second contributionofCMUA to psychol influence, organizational culture, and colleagues'
how can be to attitude) on user adaptation. To do so, one could study
ogy is that itshows coping applied the behaviors of
events. adaptation comparable users who
positive It is known thatcoping theorycan
events face a similar IT-induced disruption in
be used to assess positively appraised group
differentorganizational or contexts.
(Folkman and Moskowitz 2000), but to our
knowledge ithas never been used inthatcontext.
is in and Second, the sequencing and of
interplay problem
Finally,coping theory relativelyvague defining
the and and emotion-focused adaptation effortsshould be
describing coping strategies linking For
them to antecedents. Our research identified four studied. example, because some individuals
can
and the situations in need to feel worse before they feel better
precise strategies contingent and Folkman itis
(Lazarus 1984), possible that,for
which they are likelyto occur. Italso provides that tempo
some users, emotion-focused efforts
evidence of their
preliminary validity. rarily increase emotional distress (e.g., self-blame)
are necessary to induce problem-focused adapta
Study Limitations and tion and mobilize individuals to adapt

studies thus
to an IT
to
event. Longitudinal are required
Future Research
the user in
This study has limitationsthatshould be acknowl examine adaptation process depth.
our Third, this research user
edged. First, the retrospective nature of proposes four\principal
empirical study might have leftroom fora recall adaptation strategies related to IT events in
bias fromour respondents. Despite careful atten organizations. More research is needed to docu
some ment and build a comprehensive of IT
tion to this issue, it is possible that respon inventory
related
adaptation effortsand develop a typology
dents have reportedweaker or distorted stories of For
about their adaptation strategies. instance, itwould be
appraisal and adaptation process.
itwas not to interview interestingto apply CMUA to understand extreme
Additionally, possible
individualswho either retiredor were transferred
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 519


user unfold at different points in time and across periods.

responses such as sabotage. Using CMUA,
itcould be that
argued sabotage occurs when an
IT event is assessed as extremely threatening,
when users feel they lack control over the situa Despite the fact thatuser adaptation behaviors are
when the resources available are insufficient to several
tion, widely accepted as key understanding
issues the
to handle the situation, and when they cannot important related to development,
withdraw from the situation. In such a situation, implementation, usage, and effects of IT in
in the organizations, littleis known on the topic. While
users might be forced to stay threatening
situation and theymight see no other alternatives the frameworkproposed in this paper constitutes
to to a step toward a better understanding of user adaptation,
except try manage the situation at hand and
the it raises as as it
restore emotional stability by rendering IT many questions
inoffensive. provides answers. It is hoped that this study will
stimulate research in this domain.
Fourth, one's self-efficacy (one's belief inhis/her
to has
ability adapt
to a specific situation) been
found to moderate the appraisal-coping rela Acknowledgements
tionship (Jerusalem and Mittag 1995; Jex and
Bliese 1999; Jex and Gudanowski 1992; Schau The authors are grateful for the com
insightful
broeck et al. 2000). Research is needed to and

ments suggestions received from the senior
examine the notion of self-efficacy inthe context of editor, associate editor, and three reviewers.The
user as a belief about one's
adaptation (e.g., paper has benefitted fromcomments of the parti
capability to adapt the IT,the self, and the job) and cipants of the research seminar of the Marshall
determine what effect it has on appraisal and
of
Business School of University Southern
adaptation. Moderating effects of other known California. We thank the Social Sciences and
of IT acceptance
antecedents and use (e.g., user Humanities Research Council ofCanada (SSHRC)
ease for
innovativeness, computer anxiety, perceived of providing support for this research and the
Center forResearch on Information
use, and perceived usefulness) should also be Technology
and
investigated. Organization at the University of California,
Irvine.
the of and
Finally, timing appraisal adaptation effortsshould be
studied. The coping process has been found to occur at
differentpoints in time for
References
various individuals (Folkman 1992).
can occur inthe and
process anticipation period (which we R.,
Agarwal, Prasad, J. "Are Individual
would call pre-implementation) or in what Differences Germane to theAcceptance ofNew
call the
psychologists impact and post-impact
InformationTechnologies?," Decision
and
periods (implementation post-implementation Sciences (30:2), 1999, pp. 361-391.
"A Conceptual
periods). When adaptation occurs in the antici Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J. and
pation period, users can modify theirwork and Operational Definition of Personal Innovative
on the ness intheDomain of Information
themselves based expected consequences and Technology",
features of the future ITevent. Modifications Information Research
to are also when itis Systems (9:2), 1998, pp.
the technology possible being 204-215.
users ina can
designed (e.g., participating project Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., and Stair, R. "The
influence the functionalities and features of the Evolving Relationship between General and
new IT or adjust their requirements; Orlikowski 1996). An
Specific Computer Self-Efficacy: Empirical
the Information
During post-implementation period, Investigation," Systems Research
users can modify theirwork, themselves, and the (11:4), 2000, pp. 418-430.
technology while using it. Future studies could Ajzen, I. "From IntentionstoActions: A Theory of
on how Planned Behavior," inAction Control: From

shed some light adaptation strategies
520 MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005


Cognition toBehavior, J.Kuhl and J.Beckmann Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Man
(Eds.), Springer Verlag, New York, 1985, pp. agement Science (35:8), 1989, pp. 982-1003.
11-39. DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M. S. "Capturing the
in Advanced Use:
a Complexity Technology Adaptive
Bandura, A. "Self-Efficacy: Toward Unifying Theory Structuration
of Behavioral Theory," Organization Science (5:2),
Change," Psychological Review 1994, pp. 121-147.
(84:2), 1977, pp. 191-215. Dishaw, M. T., and Strong, D. M. "Extending the
Beaudry,
A.
Coping, technologies
de /'information Model with Task
Technology Acceptance
Technology Fit Constructs," Informationand
et performance individuelle:
empirique, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Management (36:1), 1999, pp. 9-21.
M. T., and Brandy,
Dishaw, Strong, D. M., D. B.
Ecole des HEC, Montreal, 2002. the
"Extending Task-Technology FitModel with
Beaudry, A., and Pinsonneault, A. "IT-lnduced
Self-EfficacyConstructs," in of the
Proceedings
Adaptation and Individual Performance: A &h Americas Conference on Information
Coping Acts Model," inProceedings of the 22nd
Systems, R. Ramsower and J.Windsor (Eds.),
InternationalConference on InformationSys Dallas, TX, 2002, pp. 1021-1027.
V. Storey, J. E.,
tems, S. Sarkar, and J. I. DeGross
Dutton, and Jackson, S. E. "Categorizing
(Eds.), New Orleans, LA, 2001, pp. 475-479.
Issues: Links to Organizational
T. M. as Predictors of Strategic
Begley, "Coping Strategies Actions," Academy of Management Review (12:1),
Employee Distress and Turnover after an 1987, pp. 76-90.
Consolidation: A
Organizational Longitudinal
Journal of and Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. Social Cognition
Analysis," Occupational Organi
zational Psychology (71), 1998, pp. 305-329. (2nded.), McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1991.
for in
Folkman, S. "Making the Case Coping,"
Carpenter, B. "Issues and Advances and
Personal Personal Coping: Theory,Research, Appli
Re
Research," Coping: Theory,
cation, B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Praeger,
search, and Application, B. Carpenter (Ed.),
Westport, CT, 1992, pp. 31-46.
Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. S. "If it it
1-14.
Praeger, Westport, CT, 1992, pp.
Changes
in must Be a Process: Study of Emotion and
Cartwright, S., and Cooper, C. L. "Coping
Three of a
Handbook of Coping During Stages College
Occupational Settings," Coping: Examination," Journal ofPersonality and Social
Theory,Research, Applications, M. Zeidnerand N. S. Psychology (48:1), 1985, pp. 150-170.
Endler (Eds.), JohnWiley & Sons, New York, 1996, and
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J.,
pp. 202-220.
DeLongis, A. "Appraisal, Coping, Health Status
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W.,
and Huber, G. P.
and Psychological Symptoms," Journal of
Actions in toThreats and Social
"Organizational Response
Personality Psychology (50:3), 1986,
and of
Opportunities," Academy Management pp. 571-579.
Journal (44:5), 2001, pp. 937-955. Folkman, S., and Moskowitz, J. T. "Positive Affect
Clark, P. A. Anglo-American Innovation, and the Other Side of Coping," American
DeGruyter, NewYork, 1987. 647-654.
Psychologist (55: 6), 2000, pp.
G. W., Jr.,
J. R.
P., Rodgers, Cobb,
S.
Cohen, S., Evans, Stokols, D., and Krantz, French, W., and
D. S. Behavioral, Health, and Environmental
as
"Adjustment Person-Environment Fit," in
Stress, Plenum, NewYork, 1986.
and
Coping Adaptation, G. V. Coelho, D. A.
F. in
Collopy, "Biases Retrospective Self-Reports
of Time Use: An of Hamburg, and J.E. Adams (Eds.), Basic Books,
Empirical Study Computer NewYork, 1974, pp. 316-333.
Users," Management Science (42:5), 1996, pp. Goodhue, D. L. "Understanding User Evaluations
758-767. of Information Science,
Systems," Management
Davis, F. D. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived 1995(41:12), pp. 1827-1844.

of Use, and
Ease and User Acceptance of Informa Goodhue, D. L., Thompson, R. L. "Task
tion MIS Technology Fit and Individual Performance,"
Technology," Quarterly (13:3), 1989,
pp. 319-340. MIS Quarterly (19:2), 1995, pp. 213-236.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R.
"User of
Acceptance Computer Technology: A
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 521


Griffith,T. L. "Technology Features as Triggers

Lazarus, R. S. "Toward Better Research on
for of
Sensemaking," Academy Management
Stress and Coping," American Psychologist
Review (24:3), 1999, pp. 472-488.
C. J., Moos, R. H., and Schaefer, J. A. (55:6), 2000, pp. 665-673.
Holanan, and Folkman,
"Coping, Stress Resistance, and Growth: Con Lazarus, R. S., S. Stress, Ap
inHand and
ceptualizing Adaptive Functioning," book of praisal, Coping, Springer Publishing
Company, NewYork, 1984.
Coping, M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler C. R.,
(Eds.), JohnWiley & Son, NewYork, 1996, pp. Leana, Feldman, D. C,and Tan, G. Y.
24-43. "Predictors of Coping Behavior after a Layoff,"
Hufnagel,
E. M.,
and Conca,
C. "User Response Journal of Organizational Behavior (19), 1998,
Data: The Potential for Errors and Biases," pp. 85-97.
Information Research Leonard-Barton, D. "Implementation as Mutual
Systems (5:1), 1994, pp.
48-73.
of and
Adaptation Technology
Ives, B., and
MIS Success:
Olson, M. H. "User
A Review of Research," Man

Involvement and
Organization," Research Policy (17),
1988, pp. 251-267.
agement Science (30:5), 1984, pp. 586-603. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R.,
and Sambamurthy,
V.
Jackson, S. E., and Dutton, J. E. "Discerning "Sources of Influence on Beliefs About Infor
Threats and Opportunities," Administrative mation Use: An of
Technology Empirical Study
Science Quarterly (33), 1988, pp. 370-387. MIS
Jerusalem, M., and Mittag, W. "Self-Efficacy in
Knowledge Workers," Quarterly (27:4), 2003,
Stressful Life Transitions," in Self-Efficacy in pp. 657-678.
Changing Societies, A. Bandura (Ed.), Cam Louis,
M. R., and Sutton,
R. I. "Switching Cogni
bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, tive Gears: From Habits of Mind to Active
1995, pp. 177-201. Thinking,"Human Relations (44), 1991, pp. 55
as
Jex, S. M., and Bliese, P. D. "EfficacyBeliefs 76.
a Moderator of the Effects of Work-Related Lyytinen, K., and Rose, G. M. "The Disruptive
Nature of Information Innovations:
Stressors: A Multilevel Study," Journal of Ap Technology
plied Psychology (84), 1999, pp. 349-361.
The Case of InternetComputing in Systems
Jex,
S. M., and Gudanowski, D. M. "Efficacy Be
MIS
Development Organizations," Quarterly
liefsand Work Stress: An Exploratory Study," (27:4), 2003, pp. 557-596.
Journal of Organizational Behavior (13), 1992, and Cotton, J. "A
Majchrzak, A., Longitudinal
pp. 507-519.
of to
D. W., and Chervany,
N. L. Study Adjustment Technological Change:
Karahanna, E., Straub,
"Information Across Time: From Mass to Batch
Technology Adoption Computer-Automated
of Production," Journal of Occupational Psy chology,
A Cross-Sectional Comparison Pre-Adoption
61, 1988, pp. 43-66.
and Post-Adoption Beliefs," MIS Quarterly R. E., Malhotra,
Majchrzak, A., Rice, A., King, N.,
(23:2), 1999, pp. 183-213. The Case
andBa, S. "Technology Adaptation:
Kirk, J., and Miller,M. L. Reliability and Validity in of a
Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational
Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Virtual Team," MIS Quarterly (24:4), 2000, pp.
Beverly Hills, CA, 1986. 569-600.
Kraut, R., Dumais, S., and Koch, S. "Computeri
McCrae, R. R. "Age Differences and Changes in
of
zation, Productivity,and Quality Work-Life," the Use of Coping Mechanisms," Journal of
Communications of theACM (32:2), 1989, pp. Gerontology (44), 1989, pp. 161-169.
220-238.
McCrae, R. R. "SituationDeterminants of Coping
Lazarus, R. S. Psychological Stress and the Responses: Loss, Threat, and Challenge,"
Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1966. Journal of and Social
Lazarus, R. S. Stress and Emotion: A New Personality
Psychology (46), 1984, pp. 919-928.
Synthesis, Springer, NewYork, 1999. T. W., Schuler, R. S., and Watman,
Milburn,
K. H.
"Organizational Crisis, Definition and Con
ceptualization,"Human Relations (36:12), 1983,
pp. 1141-1160.
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (3rded.),

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. Qualitative
Free Press, NewYork, 1983.
Data Analysis (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, L. D., D. C, and
Rosen, Sears, Weil, M. M. "Com
Newbury Park, CA, 1994. I. of Behavioral
Moore, G. C, and Benbasat, "Development puterphobia," Research Methods,
the of Instruments,and Computers (19:2), 1987, pp.
an Instrumentto Measure Perceptions
Adopting an Information Innova 167-179.
Technology
tion," Information Systems Research (2:3), Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectations for Inter
1991, pp. 192-222. nal Versus External Control of Reinforcement,"

A Psychological Monographs: General and
Oakland, S., and Ostell, A. "Measuring Coping:
Review and Critique," Human Relations (49:2), Applied (80:1), 1966, pp. 1-28.
1996, pp. 133-155. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. K., and Xie, J. L.
Orlikowski, W. J. "Improvising Organizational "Collective Versus in
Efficacy Self-Efficacy Coping Responses
TransformationOver Time: A Situated Change toStressors and Control: A
Information Research Cross-Cultural
Perspective," Systems Study,"
(7:1), 1996, pp. 63-92. Psychology (85:4), 2000,
toNew J. B., and Barrett-Power, E. "A
Patrickson, M. "Adaptation by Employees Shaw, Conceptual
Journal of Framework for Work
Technology," Occupational Psychol Assessing Organization,
ogy (59), 1986, pp. 1-11.
L. W., I. Clopton, Group, and IndividualEffectiveness During and
Patterson, T. L., Smith, Grant, After Human Relations
and Downsizing," (50:2),
P., Josepho, S., Yager, J. "Internal vs 1997, pp. 109-127.
External Determinants of Coping Responses to Sokol, M. B. "Adaptation to DifficultDesigns: Facilitating
Stressful Life Events in the Elderly," British Use of New Journal of
Technology," Business
Journal ofMedical Psychology (63), 1990, pp.
149-160. and Psychology (8:3), Spring 1994, pp. 277-296.
Pentland, B. T. "Use and Productivity inPersonal Somerfield, M. R., and McCrae, R. R. "Stress and
An Empirical Test," in
Computing: Proceedings Coping Research," American Psychologist
of the 1CfhInternationalConference on Informa (55:6), 2000, pp. 620-625.
tion Systems, J. I. DeGross, J. C. Henderson, A. A., Kennedy-Moore, M.
Stone, E., Newman, G.,
and B. R. Konsynski (Eds.), Boston, December Greenberg, M., and Neale, J. M. "Conceptual
and
1989, pp. 211-222. Methodological Issues inCurrent Coping
Pinsonneault, A., and Rivard, S. "The Impact of Assessments," inPersonal Coping: Theory,
Information on Managerial Work: Research, and Application, B. N. Carpenter
Technologies
From the Productivity Paradox to the Icarus (Ed.), Praeger, Westport, CT, 1992, pp. 15-29.
Paradox?," MIS Quarterly (22.3), 1998, pp. 287 IT Usage:
Taylor, S., and Todd, P. A. "Assessing
312.
The Role of Prior Experience," MIS Quarterly
Poole, M. S., and DeSanctis, G., "Understanding (19:4), 1995a, pp. 561-570.
of
the Use Group Decision Support Systems: Taylor, S., and Todd, P. A. "Understanding Infor
of mation
The Theory Adaptive Structuration," in Technology
and Communication Usage: A Test of Com
Organizations Technology, Information Research
petingModels," Systems
J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (Eds.), Sage Publica
(6:2), 1995b, pp. 144-176.
tions,Newbury Park, CA, 1990, pp. 173-193.
of Group Tennen, H., and Affleck,G. "FindingBenefits in
Poole, M. S., and DeSanctis, G. "Use in The ofWhat
Decision as an Adversity," Coping: Psychology
Oxford
Support Systems Appropriation
Works, C.R. Snyder (Ed.), University
Process," inProceedings of the 22nd Hawaii
Press, NewYork, 1999, pp. 279-304.
InternationalConference on System Sciences R. L., Higgins, C. A., and J. M.
Thompson, Howell,
(Volume 4), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los
"Personal Towards a Conceptual
Alamitos, CA, 1988, pp. 149-157. Computing:
and Model of Utilization," Ml$ Quarterly (15:1),
Rice, R., Rogers, E. M. "Reinvention in the
1991, pp. 125-143.
Innovation Process," Knowledge: Creation, Dif
fusion,Utilization (1:4), 1980, pp. 499-514.
MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 523


J. "The
Tyre, M. J., and Orlikowski,W. Episodic BASE for Advances in InformationSystems
of
Process Learning by Using," International
Journal of (30:3,4), Summer-Fall 1999, pp. 34-50.
Technology Management (11:7/8),
1996, pp. 790-798. Zuboff, S. In theAge of the Smart Machine: The
Tyre,
M. Future ofWork and Power, Basic Books, New York,
J., and Orlikowski, W. J. "Windows of
1988.
Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technolo
gical Adaptation in
Organizations," Organization
Science (5:1), 1994, pp. 98-118.

Venkatesh, V. "Determinants of Perceived Ease
of Use: Intrinsic
IntegratingControl,
into the
Motivation,
About theAuthors
and Emotion Technology Acceptance
Model," Information Systems Beaudry is an assistant
Research (11:4), Anne
2000, pp. 342-365. professor at the John Molson School of Business,
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and
Concordia
Davis, F. D. "User Acceptance of Information
Technology: Toward a Unified View," MIS University. She obtained her Ph.D. fromHEC
Montreal. Her research has been presented at the
Quarterly (27:3), 2003, pp. 425-478.
Fit: An Academy of Management, Americas' Conference
Vessey, I., and Galletta, D. "Cognitive
Information on Information Systems, the Administrative
Empirical Study of Acquisition,"
Information Research Sciences Association of Canada, and the Inter
Systems (2:1), 1991, pp. national Conference on Information Her
63-84. Systems.
as research interests focus on IT-induced behaviors
Weick, K. E. "Technology Equivoque: Sense making
inNew in and on individualand of
Technologies," Technology organizational impacts
and P. S. Goodman and L. S.
Organizations,
IT and use.
San implementation
Sproull (Eds.), Jossey-Bass, Francisco,
1-44.
1990, pp.
E. Alain Pinsonneault is the Imasco Chair of IS and
Weil, M. M., and Wugalter, S. "The Etiology of
in Human James McGill Professor inthe Faculty ofManage
Computerphobia," Computer
Behavior (6), 1990, pp. 361-379. ment at McGill University. He obtained his Ph.D. at
I.,
and K. "A Theory of Task/ the University of California, Irvine. His current
Zigurs, Buckland, B.
Fit and
Technology Group Support research interests include the business value of IT,
and
Systems Effectiveness," MIS Quarterly (22:2), organizational
health informatics,
individual impacts of IT,ERP,
1998, pp.
electronic commerce, and man
313-334. of IT He
B. J. R., agement departments. has published
Zigurs, I., Buckland, K., Connolly, and in
"A Test of papers Management Science, MIS Quarterly,
Wilson, E. V. Task-Technology Fit
for The DATA InformationSystems Research, The Journal of
Information
Theory Group Support Systems," Management Systems, Organization
Science, Decision Support Systems, and theEuro
of Research.
pean Journal Operational


Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

Understanding User Responses to

Abstract by focusing on user cognitive and behavioral

Introduction _ _-_ _ __-_-_-_-_-_

MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 493

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

494 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

likely consequences (specific internal/external

Space limitation does not allow us to discuss the other

MIS Vol.29 No. 2005 495

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

496 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

Table 1. User Adaptation

Clark A situationwhere the user starts by recognizing Technology

(1988) change itto suit theirneeds or use itinways

DeSanctis (1990) technology. Work system

Poole (1994) structurationprocess of IT use. Work system

Sokol (1994) Adaptation The modificationsbrought to the technology,the Technology,

MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 497

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

Assessing an IT Event: Appraisal teristics 1999; Louis and Sutton

498 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

To simplifythe illustration,wepresentpureformsofappraisal,I.e.where,an ITevent ismonolithicallyappraisedas constitutingeithera threator an opportunity.

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

Control over the self refers towhether users feel

other users who are more badly affected by the

the itsfunc the technology (e.g., modify, add, delete screens;

500 MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 501

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

It isalso possible that users are able to turnan IT

1984; Zuboff 1988). This strategy, ifsuccessful,

502 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

ences the adaptation efforts that are likelyto be

MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 503

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

responsible forgenerating new business and with to itsuse.

504 MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

exist, account managers benefit from significant latitude in

duringmeetings with theirclients.

MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 505

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

when you were firstmade aware that a new IT would

The second step consisted of studying the

patterns. Inaddition, inan effortto triangulate the

technology, theirwork, and themselves and the individual.Adaptation effortswere further

provide a detailed nar coding process yielded a total of 247 coded

reactions. In order to minimize recall biases, we

MIS Vol. 29 No. 2005 507

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM

I've seen everything: from an account

manager who tried to open his laptop

508 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 3/September2005

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.128 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:59:22 PM