The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Adoption of artificial intelligence Adoption of AI

for talent
(AI) for talent acquisition in acquisition

IT/ITeS organizations
Rajasshrie Pillai 2599
Department of Management, Pune Institute of Business Management,
Pune, India, and Received 4 March 2020
Revised 3 July 2020
Brijesh Sivathanu Accepted 5 July 2020

Department of Management, Sri Balaji University, Pune, India

Abstract
Purpose – Human resource managers are adopting AI technology for conducting various tasks of human
resource management, starting from manpower planning till employee exit. AI technology is prominently used
for talent acquisition in organizations. This research investigates the adoption of AI technology for talent
acquisition.
Design/methodology/approach – This study employs Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) and
Task-Technology-Fit (TTF) framework and proposes a model to explore the adoption of AI technology for
talent acquisition. The survey was conducted among the 562 human resource managers and talent acquisition
managers with a structured questionnaire. The analysis of data was completed using PLS-SEM.
Findings – This research reveals that cost-effectiveness, relative advantage, top management support, HR
readiness, competitive pressure and support from AI vendors positively affect AI technology adoption for
talent acquisition. Security and privacy issues negatively influence the adoption of AI technology. It is found
that task and technology characteristics influence the task technology fit of AI technology for talent
acquisition. Adoption and task technology fit of AI technology influence the actual usage of AI technology for
talent acquisition. It is revealed that stickiness to traditional talent acquisition methods negatively moderates
the association between adoption and actual usage of AI technology for talent acquisition. The proposed model
was empirically validated and revealed the predictors of adoption and actual usage of AI technology for talent
acquisition.
Practical implications – This paper provides the predictors of the adoption of AI technology for talent
acquisition, which is emerging extensively in the human resource domain. It provides vital insights to the
human resource managers to benchmark AI technology required for talent acquisition. Marketers can develop
their marketing plan considering the factors of adoption. It would help designers to understand the factors of
adoption and design the AI technology algorithms and applications for talent acquisition. It contributes to
advance the literature of technology adoption by interweaving it with the human resource domain literature on
talent acquisition.
Originality/value – This research uniquely validates the model for the adoption of AI technology for talent
acquisition using the TOE and TTF framework. It reveals the factors influencing the adoption and actual usage
of AI technology for talent acquisition.
Keywords Artificial intelligence, TOE, TTF, Talent acquisition, Adoption, IT/ITeS, PLS-SEM
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a disruptive innovation, poised to unleash the next wave of the
digital transformation of organizations with the rapid advancements over the last decade
(Bughin et al., 2017; Erro-Garces, 2019; Queiroz et al., 2019; Salam, 2019; Xia and Gong, 2014).
AI technology is bringing in new functionalities to human resource management and
changing the way human resources are managed in an organization (Bersin, 2018; Dhamija
Benchmarking: An International
and Bag, 2020). The global investment in cognitive and AI solutions is increasing by 50.1 % Journal
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and by 2021 likely to touch USD 57.6 billion (Aayog Vol. 27 No. 9, 2020
pp. 2599-2629
NITI, 2018). In India, adoption of AI is limited and slow and it was found that only 22 % of © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
organizations in India are utilizing AI for any business process (Aayog NITI, 2018). DOI 10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0186
BIJ AI is defined as “making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a
27,9 human were so behaving” (McCarthy et al., 1955, p. 1). Although AI was defined in 1955, it has
gained prominence recently due to the technological revolution across the globe. AI is
discussed as non-human intelligence designed to accomplish particular activities and tasks
(Dwivedi et al., 2019). For managing human resources, AI has gained key importance and has
emerged at three levels for managing human resources – Assisted Intelligence, Augmented
Intelligence and Autonomous Intelligence (Charlier and Kloppenburg, 2017). Assisted
2600 Intelligence: AI technology that standardizes the time consumed for repetitive tasks at work.
Chatbots and AI-based software are assisting in various tasks at work. For example,
Chatbots are conducting primary interviews for recruiting candidates at work. Augmented
Intelligence: AI technology which enables man and machine to work together and make work
decisions. For example, Bots using conversational AI help in creating personalized,
immersive and real-time experiences for the candidates across different channels by
scheduling interviews, answering candidate questions and driving referrals. Autonomous
intelligence: Autonomous intelligence is bringing a total transformation in the workplace.
AI technology acts on its own and provides the results. It gathers and analyzes the
information at a subconscious level. For example, AI provides the candidate selection results
depending upon a particular criterion (Charlier and Kloppenburg, 2017).
AI technology (AIT) such as machine learning, virtual reality, bots, robotics, chatbots,
robotic process automation, deep learning, cognitive conversation, Internet of things, natural
language processing (NLP) and augmented reality is changing the way HR managers
function (Bersin, 2018). AI is changing the HR department functioning at the above three
levels. It contributes to reducing the repetitive administrative tasks of HR managers by
helping HR managers to take decisions and predict employee behavior at work (Nair, 2017;
Bersin, 2018). AIT is mainly used in recruitment, training, employee engagement and
employee retention which helps to reduce cost, save time and complete HR tasks more
accurately (McDonald et al., 2017; Kumar, 2019; Tavana and Hajipour, 2019). As per
Alexander Mann Solutions’ research, 96% of HR professionals surveyed believe that AI
technology can improve talent acquisition (Nair, 2017). Talent Acquisition (TA) means
“strategic approach to identifying, attracting, and onboarding top talent to efficiently and
effectively meet the dynamic business needs” (Bugg, 2015, p. 4).
Many multinational companies are using AIT for managing TA functions; however, some
organizations are still in the course of adoption. Adoption of AIT for TA by the HR managers
is an important topic of research, as it will provide more insights to the HR managers
regarding the usage of AI for TA. Many studies are discussing the adoption of information
systems (IS) for recruitment (Van Esch et al., 2019; Tong, 2009; Moghaddam et al., 2015;
Muduli and Trivedi, 2020) at the organization level and AI for recruitment (Van Esch et al.,
2019) from the employee’s and candidate’s perspective. Surprisingly, meager academic
research and scholarly work exist with the organization’s and HR manager’s perspective for
the adoption of AIT for TA. The extant studies of the adoption of contemporary technologies
and HR Technology in organizations are ERP (Awa and Ojiabo, 2016), big data solutions
(Ahmad Salleh and Janczewski, 2018), digital innovation adoption (El-Haddadeh, 2020), green
IT adoption (Thomas et al., 2016), business analytics and intelligence (Cruz-Jesus et al., 2018),
human resource information system (HRIS) (Phahlane, 2017; Cruz-Jesus et al., 2018; Alam
et al., 2011; Virdyananto, et al., 2017), E-HRM (McDonald et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2018),
social recruiting (Kashi et al., 2016), SaaS (Yang et al., 2015), e-HRM (Strohmeier, 2007) and
business intelligence system (Puklavec et al., 2018).
However, there is a dearth of research on the adoption of AIT in organizations for the TA
function in HR. The adoption of AIT for TA will help HR managers to improve the efficiency
of talent acquisition function and performance of the HR department (Upadhyay and
Khandelwal, 2018). The AIT for TA has benefits such as improved candidate experience,
candidate attraction, reduction in repetitive tasks of screening resumes and improved Adoption of AI
recruiter performance (McDonald et al., 2017; Van Esch et al., 2019). Although there are for talent
substantial benefits of AIT for TA, still the adoption of AI technology for talent acquisition is
low by HR managers in organizations (Albert, 2019). HR managers need to adopt AI
acquisition
technology for talent acquisition to be competitive in this technology-driven economy
(Sen, 2018; McGoven et al., 2018). Therefore, it is imperative to study the adoption of AIT for
TA (Van Esch et al., 2019; Sen, 2018; McGoven et al., 2018). Hence, Research Question is
formed as: 2601
RQ. What are the predictors of the adoption and actual usage of AI technologies for TA
by the HR managers?
This novel research empirically scrutinizes the adoption of AI for TA in organizations. This
study will be beneficial to AI marketers, designers, developers and HR managers to
understand the adoption of AI and its actual usage for TA. It will assist organizations to
develop AI-based technologies for TA. It will aid HR managers to understand and benchmark
the appropriate AIT for TA function during its adoption. The result of this research will help
to frame strategies towards the adoption of AIT for TA to improve the TA department
performance. AIT adoption is at an initial stage in India and it is indispensable to apprehend
the adoption (ADP) and actual usage (ACU) of AI-based technology for TA. The conceptual
model integrates the TOE and TTF model to explore the adoption and actual usage of AITs
for TA and empirically validates the theoretical framework to resolve the research question.
This research is further organized with the section on a literature review which includes
theories and literature to develop the theoretical model followed by the hypotheses
development section. Further, it includes the research methodology section which discusses
the sampling, data collection and research instrument design. It further continues with the
data analysis and results section. The next portion of this study deals with the discussion,
theoretical and managerial implications. Conclusion section and limitations and future scope
for research are stated at the end of this paper.

Literature review
Adoption of AI technology is an important topic of the study carried out across the globe in
various contexts. There exist studies discussing the adoption of AI-based technologies – AI
and Robots in tourism (Ivanov and Webster, 2017; Tussyadiah and Park, 2018; Tussyadiah
and Miller, 2019), AI-based robotic devices (Lin et al., 2020), Robo-advisors (Belanche et al.,
2019), the intelligent personal assistant (Han and Yang, 2017), self-driving vehicles (Shaltoni,
2016). augmented reality and interactive technology (Huang and Liao, 2015), smart home
healthcare systems (Alaiad and Zhou, 2016), smart home services (Yang et al., 2017) and
implications of AI in recruitment (Upadhyay and Khandelwal, 2018).

Talent acquisition and AI technology

Talent acquisition is a crucial function of the HR managers (Huang et al., 2002), and
organizations are struggling to get the right talent. In this highly competitive and global
market, TA is the key predictor of organizational effectiveness (Phillips-Wren et al., 2016;
Allen et al., 2007). TA function involves a huge investment in the process of attracting,
selecting and training the newly hired talent. So, HR managers need to be very particular in
selecting the right candidates as human resources in the organization have a great
importance towards the smooth functioning of the organization (Singh, 2018; Das and
Kodwani, 2018). Competition for acquiring talent has increased due to the emergence of the
Internet and technologies are facilitating the easy access to potential job candidates to the HR
managers.
BIJ Many top global companies have started adopting technology for TA (Phillips-Wren
27,9 et al., 2016). Studies are discussing the technology for TA – social media for recruitment
(Phillips-Wren et al., 2016; Kapoor et al., 2018), AI for recruitment from candidate perspective
(Van Esch et al., 2019), e-recruitment (Radhika and John, 2016; Melanthiou et al., 2015),
automation of job offers (Martinez-Gil et al., 2016), blockchain technology for recruitment
(Hassan Onik et al., 2018), the impact of technology on recruitment (Gupta and Baksi, 2016)
and Internet use for recruitment (Kinder, 2000).
2602 Organizations are struggling to find highly skilled individuals who will meet the technical
and functional needs of the job and fit with the values of the organization. Organizations are
competing with each other to find the right talent (Dries, 2013; Michaels et al., 2001) as every
organization perceives that talented workforce contributes to organizational performance
(Collings and Mellahi, 2013). AIT is transforming the TA functions in organizations. AIT for
TA is contributing to improved employer brand, diversity, candidate selection rate and better
candidate experience during the selection process. It also leverages the process of identifying
talent in an organization and promoting them (Albert, 2019). AIT is helping HR managers to
improve TA functions; however, it has drawbacks too. The recruiting tool used by Amazon
was biased towards women candidates due to the algorithmic programming preferring men
for software development jobs (Dastin, 2018). This research will help the HR managers to
overcome the above drawbacks as it explores the antecedents such as technical
characteristics and tasks, which are suitable for TA. This study also mentions AIT used
for various TA functions as shown in Table 1.

Theoretical basis
The technology adoption research is conducted utilizing several models of technology
acceptance addressing the adoption of IS at an individual perspective (Shih et al., 2010; Oliveira
and Martins, 2011). These models – TRA – theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980), TPB – theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), TAM – technology acceptance model
(Davis and Davis, 1989), IDT – innovation diffusion theory (Rogers, 2003) and UTAUT –
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh, et al., 2009) are mostly
techno-centric; hence, explain individual-specific adoption (Oliveira and Martins, 2011). The
TOE – technology-organization-environment (Depietro et al., 1990) and DTOE – decision
maker-technology-organization-environment (Thong, 1991) model discusses the technology
adoption from an organizational perspective and has better explanatory power (Yoon and
George, 2013; Oliveira and Martins, 2011; Hossain et al., 2017). At enterprise-level technology
adoption, the TOE framework is dominant (Gangwar et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2019).
Though the TOE model has better explanatory power; extant studies have extended the
TOE contexts for improving its academic utility (Awa and Ojiabo, 2016; Henderson et al.,
2012; Tsou and Hsu, 2015). It is also proposed that the TOE model should be assimilated with
other adoption models which suggest the task and individual context (Awa et al., 2017a; Awa
et al., 2015; Alatawi et al., 2012). It will help to find out the particular predictors for the three
perspectives of the TOE and to obtain the fundamental relationships amongst the factors.
TOE framework lacks the explanation of the fit between the task requirement and technology
functionality (Awa et al., 2017a, b; Balaid et al., 2014). The task-technology-fit (TTF) (Goodhue
and Thompson, 1995) model explains the usage of technology due to its characteristics and
capacity to perform the task. Often the inability of the technology for complex task
requirements serves as an obstacle for its adoption (Dishaw and Strong, 1999). It is confirmed
that the adoption of technology depends upon the capability of the technology to complete the
user’s needs and tasks (Dishaw and Strong, 1999; Gu and Black, 2020; Laumer and Eckhardt,
2012). This study largely purposes to apprehend the adoption of AIT for TA with the
organizational perspective as well as AI technology characteristics for its capacity to perform
TA functions
Adoption of AI
AI tools and service for talent
Employer branding AI technology implication providers acquisition
(1) Social media presence (1) Candidate relationship management (1) Beamery
(2) Alumni network (2) Talent marketing (2) Google cloud job
(3) University tie-ups (3) Candidate engagement discovery
(4) Candidate relationship and (4) Recruitment events and mass recruitment (3) Amberjack 2603
experience (5) Collect feedback from employees to develop (4) Culture amp
(5) Online brand management a good culture
Attracting
(1) Internal job posting (1) Advertising jobs to the right candidate (1) Google cloud job
(2) Job advertisement on the (2) Provide a listing of jobs to the candidate as discovery
various online platforms per location and skills set (2) Entelo
(3) Attracting candidates (3) Switch app
(4) Post jobs to the candidates
Recruiting and sourcing
(1) Strategic sourcing (1) Scan resume (1) Skillate
(2) Intelligence sourcing (2) Update candidate resumes from social (2) Entelo
(3) Contract recruiting media (3) Textio
(4) Gig recruiting (3) Matching the candidate with the Job (4) Wade and wendy
position
(4) Remove gender discrimination and bias
from job description
(5) Bots guide candidates towards jobs
Assessment and selection
(1) Screening (1) Analyze video-based interviews (1) Hire value
(2) Testing and assessment (2) Online assessments: personality test, (2) Interviewed
(3) Interviewing programming assessment and language (3) Koru
(4) Background checking assessment (4) Fama tech
(5) Selecting candidates (3) Automated online talent screening with (5) Belong.co
(6) Gamification of assessment predictive analysis to improve selection (6) Siri, Alexa and
decision Sofia
(4) Social media background check (7) Snap HR
(5) Automated interviewing (8) Pymetrics
(6) Games for assessing skills
On-boarding
(1) Induction (1) Provide information to the new candidate as (1) Talla
(2) Onboarding per requirement regarding company policy, (2) Moon HR bot
(3) The orientation of job role culture, processes and benefits
(2) Chatbots assist the new employee Table 1.
Source(s): Adapted from Bersin (2018); Nair (2017) and Bogle and Sankaranarayanan (2012) AIT and TA functions

complex tasks. Therefore, this research integrates the TOE with the TTF model. This
framework provides an insightful and comprehensive focus to predict the adoption of AI
technology at the organization level for performing TA functions.

Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework

Depietro et al. (1990) has established the multi-perspective TOE framework, which is an
organizational level model. The TOE model argues the adoption factors of technology affecting
the organization externally and internally with three group perspectives – technological,
organizational and environmental.
BIJ In the TOE model, technology perspective considers the external and internal technological
27,9 resources required for the adoption of technology in an organization (Al-Qirim, 2007;
Khemthong and Roberts, 2006). The technology factors discussed are reliability, security,
capability, quality, relative advantage cost, compatibility of IT solution and technology
benefits (Al-Qirim, 2006; Baig et al., 2019; Park and Kim, 2019; Kashi et al., 2016). Organizational
perspective emphasizes various items like firm scope, size, formalization and centralization of
the organization, the complexity of organizational structure and human resource quality, top
2604 management support, organization readiness (Sabherwal et al., 2006; Baig et al., 2019; Park and
Kim, 2019; Daradkeh, 2019). Internal resources are discussed regarding their availability and
utilization (Wymer and Regan, 2005). Organizations need to monitor, assess and respond to
external changes and adjust the internal resources (Awa and Kalu, 2010) accordingly.
Organization’s competitors, government policies and regulations, industry and vendor
support are considered in the Environmental perspective (Daradkeh, 2019; Puklavec et al.,
2018). These three perspectives discuss the limitations and opportunities for the adoption of
innovative technology in an organization (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990).
Existing studies lack in providing a theoretical model towards the adoption of AIT for TA
which is technological innovation. AIT for TA needs to be studied with the above three
perspectives of the TOE. There are adoption studies of recent technology-based IS-
e-commerce (Rahayu and Day, 2015), big data (Park and Kim, 2019), Industrial IoT
(Sivathanu, 2019a), visual analytics (Daradkeh, 2019), enterprise applications (Ramdani et al.,
2013), business analytics and intelligence (Cruz-Jesus et al., 2018; Rahman and Mordi, 2017),
HRIS system (Phahlane and Kekwaletswe, 2017; Troshani et al., 2010), online social recruiting
(Kashi et al., 2016), augmented reality (Masood and Egger, 2019), business intelligence system
(Puklavec et al., 2018) considering the TOE model. Acknowledging the above, the TOE model
is considered to examine the adoption of AIT for TA.

Task-technology fit (TTF) model

TTF provides a conceptual base that is utilized as a user evaluation model targeted at the
organizations’ assessment of IS and this theory signifies “the degree to which technology
assists an individual in performing his or her portfolio of tasks” (Goodhue and Thompson,
1995, p. 216). TTF discusses that the use of better-fit technology results in individual
performance (Howard and Rose, 2018; Laumer and Eckhardt, 2012). The studies discuss the
adoption of technology using TTF are RFID (Laumer and Eckhardt, 2012), big data in the
mobile cloud (Wang and Lin, 2019) in healthcare, cloud-based ERP (Cheng, 2020), mobile
banking (Tam and Oliveira, 2016), gamification for training (Vanduhe et al., 2020), virtual
learning system (Lin, 2012) and learning management system (Qureshi et al., 2018; McGill and
Klobas, 2009). The research utilizes TTF to understand the actual usage of AIT for TA. This
technology is used in the TA function by the HR managers and executives to conduct various
tasks of talent acquisition.

Stickiness
Maciag (2000) and Demers and Lev (2001) define stickiness as the competence of any website
to attract and recall the attention of the user. Later stickiness was defined as “the degree
to which a user re-uses a given mobile application and prolongs the duration of each usage”
(Hsu and Lin, 2016, p. 4). It also mentions the intangible ability of an IS which makes
individuals perform the same task of using IS frequently (Hsu and Lin, 2016; Maciag, 2000).
Stickiness to the cash payment system is considered in the context of mobile banking (Hsu
and Lin, 2016) and digital payment system adoption (Sivathanu, 2019b). AIT for TA is still
lagging in terms of appropriate candidate assessment tools and validity of testing tools in
comparison with the traditional-style recruitment and selection methods and techniques
(Goodman, 2017; Derous and De Fruyt, 2016). Hence, HR managers tend to rely on traditional Adoption of AI
methods of selection. This study considers “stickiness” as the degree to which HR managers for talent
re-use the traditional methods, instruments and techniques of TA such as usage of job
portals, ERP, usage of traditional assessment techniques like a psychometric test, group
acquisition
discussion, aptitude test and interview methods.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis development 2605

Development of framework with TOE and TTF and context-specific constructs
Factors for the adoption of AIT for TA are considered after having an extensive discussion
with subject matter experts from IT and ITeS organizations and literature review of previous
studies. TOE framework is utilized to investigate the AIT adoption as TOE provides insightful
and comprehensive information for explaining and predicting technology adoption at the
organization level (Awa et al., 2015, 2017b).
This study considers variables from literature which are critical for organization-wide
technology and HR-related technology (Alam et al., 2011, 2016; Ahmadi et al., 2015; Zafar,
2013; Puklavec et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2006; Oliveira et al., 2014; Cruz-Jesus et al., 2019; Jia et al.,
2016; Hossain et al., 2017; Awa and Ojiabo, 2016). The technological factors including relative
advantage (Alam et al., 2016) and cost-effectiveness of AIT (Puklavec et al., 2018); security
and privacy concerns (Alam et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2006) of AIT for TA are there for HR
managers as candidate’s and employee’s data is confidential which is handled by AIT for TA.
Organizational factors considered are top management support and HR department
readiness in line with existing literature on HR technology (Alam et al., 2016; Zafar, 2013;
Puklavec et al., 2018). Environmental factors of this research are support from AI technology
vendors and competitive pressure (Alam et al., 2016). Since neither AI-based government
regulation nor policy currently exists in India, this study does not consider “government
regulations and policies.”
TTF model with two variables – task characteristics and technology characteristics – is
used to find out the task-technology fit (Virdyananto et al., 2017). Hence, the research utilizes
the TTF to understand the actual usage of AIT for TA. This study finds out the association
between adoption (Chong and Chan, 2012) and actual usage (Burton-jones and Grange, 2013)
of AIT for TA. This study considers the “stickiness to traditional methods of TA” as the
moderator between the adoption and actual usage, as it was found in the literature that HR
managers are still accustomed to the traditional methods such as usage of job portals, ERP,
traditional assessment techniques like a psychometric test, group discussion, paper-pencil
aptitude test and face to face interview methods (Goodman, 2017; Derous and De Fruyt, 2016).
The proposed framework is depicted in Figure 1.

Hypothesis development
Cost-effectiveness (COS)
AIT for TA requires investment from the organization which implies that cost is incurred for
its purchase. Top management considers the benefits of a new technology before its adoption
(Premkumar and Roberts, 1999). The present studies considered cost from different
perspectives (Alam et al., 2016; Teo et al., 2009; Moghaddam et al., 2015). Cost is measured as
cost-effectiveness (Premkumar and Roberts, 1999) which implies that the benefits of new
technology adoption exceed the cost of such technology. Organizations exploit the adoption
of new technology to save cost (Tung and Rieck, 2005). Organizations also consider investing
in IT to reduce long-term costs (Chong and Chan, 2012). It was found that cost-effectiveness
negatively influences the adoption of business intelligence system (Puklavec et al., 2018).
AIT reduces repetitive tasks such as sourcing and shortlisting resumes from a website and
BIJ Technology
27,9
Cost effectiveness (COS)

Relative Advantage (REA)

H1 Stickiness to traditional TA
methods (STK)
2606 Security and Privacy Concerns
(SNP)
H2

H12
H3
Organization
Actual Usage
H4 Adoption of AI of AI
HR readiness (HRR) Technology for Technology for
TA (ADP) TA (AUC)
H5
Top Management Support H10
(TMS)

H6
Environmental H11

H7
Competitive pressure (COM)
Task Technology fit of AIT for
TA (TTF)
Support from AI Vendors
H8 H9
(STV)

Task Characteristics of AI Technology Characteristics of

Technology (TAC) AI Technology (TEC)
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
Source(s): (Depietro et al., 1990; Goodhue and Thomson 1995a)

conducting the primary interview, which saves time and cost in talent acquisition. The AIT
for TA also provides faster and accurate results by saving time and cost of TA (McDonald
et al., 2017; Van Esch et al., 2019), which makes it necessary to comprehend the effect of COS
on ADP of AIT for TA.
H1. COS of AIT for TA will positively affect the ADP of AIT for TA.

Relative advantage (REA)

REA is - “The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it
supersedes” (Rogers and Williams, 1983, p. 14). The possibility of innovative technology to be
adopted is more if it is perceived that it provides REA over the organization’s current
technology or practices (Lee et al., 2004). It is recognized that REA is an antecedent of IS
adoption (Fosso Wamba et al., 2016; Oliveira et al., 2014; Puklavec et al., 2018) and it also
confirmed regarding the adoption of HRIS (Alam et al., 2016) and business analytics and
intelligence (Cruz-Jesus et al., 2018). Organizations are struggling to get the right talent and it
is a challenging task for an organization to attract talent (Landers and Schmidt, 2016).
AI technology is helping HR managers to attract and hire talent faster than traditional
recruitment practices (Albert, 2019). AIT for TA is helping HR managers to get better results
of recruitment (Upadhyay and Khandelwal, 2018) which develops the need to enquire about
the relationship between REA and ADP of AIT for TA.
H2. Relative advantage of AIT for TA will positively affect the ADP of AIT for TA.
Security and privacy concerns (SNP) Adoption of AI
SNP means the level to which the IS and technology are presumed to be insecure for for talent
conducting tasks and data exchange (Zhu et al., 2006). Security is one of the predictors of the
adoption of HRIS in organizations (Zafar, 2013). Existing studies point out that security is a
acquisition
concern for technology adoption (Wu, 2011; Benlian and Hess, 2011) Security concerns
negatively affect the ADP of IS in organizations (Alam et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2006;
Yadegaridehkordi et al., 2020). AIT for TA has bulk data of recruitment consisting of
candidate’s personal CVs, profiles and candidate selection results too. For handling such data, 2607
AIT needs to be secure enough to protect the personal data and maintain the privacy of the
selection results (McGoven et al., 2018). Further, utilization of AIT for TA has raised potential
concerns for security, legal, moral, ethical and privacy of the potential candidates (Goodman,
2017; Derous and De Fruyt, 2016; Van Esch et al., 2019). HR managers have concerns about
the AI technology for TA for security and privacy of candidate and employee data (McGoven
et al., 2018). Thus, the following relationship needs to be assessed:
H3. SNP in AIT negatively influence the ADP of AIT for TA.

HR readiness (HRR)
As this is HR-specific technology, HRR is imperative for the adoption of HR technology.
Individuals will not adopt a technology though they like it if they lack money, resources and
skills essential to adopt the technology (Ifinedo, 2011; Bandura, 2001). HRR here is considered
as the availability of budget with the HR department, skills and resources to adopt AIT for
TA. Previous studies of IS mention that organization readiness impacts the adoption of IS
(Tsai et al., 2010; Hsu and Yeh, 2017). However, some studies confirm that organization
readiness is not an influencing factor of technology adoption (Ifinedo, 2011; Quaddus and
Hofmeyer, 2007). HR department would be extensively using AIT for TA hence the HR
department’s budget, resources and skillsets need to be in place for the adoption of AIT for
TA. HR managers are trying out new technology; however, they still are dependent upon the
traditional methods of talent acquisition to some extent (Albert, 2019). Therefore, HR
readiness is important for ADP, which needs to be tested.
H4. HRR positively influences the ADP of AIT for TA.

Top management support (TMS)

In technology adoption, top management has a crucial role, as they explicitly and actively
help in the introduction of any new technology (Chong and Chan, 2012; Sony and Naik, 2019).
It is confirmed that TMS affects the ADP of technology (Tsai et al., 2010; Hameed et al., 2012;
Cruz-Jesus et al., 2018; Puklavec et al., 2018), which is confirmed regarding HRIS adoption
study (Alam et al., 2016). AIT for TA is a unique and crucial technology used for recruitment
purposes. It will help to select the talent in the organization; hence, the top management would
examine the details of AIT for TA before adoption. Top management should be convinced to
fund AIT for TA as the top management offers the resources for the new technology (Alam
et al., 2016; Baig et al., 2019). Therefore, the relationship between TMS and ADP is tested.
H5. TMS positively influences the ADP of AIT for TA.

Competitive pressure (COM)

Organizational technology decisions are impacted due to the external environment (Qu et al.,
2011; Hungund and Mani, 2019). COM means the pressure of adoption of a technology felt by
the organization for survival in the industry due to overall competition and functioning
practices across the industry (Oliveira and Martins, 2010; Grover, 1993). The extant studies
BIJ found that competitive pressures force organizations to adopt HR technology (Alam et al.,
27,9 2016) and IS innovation technology (Jia et al., 2016; Hossain et al., 2017; Low et al., 2011; Yang
et al., 2015) gained importance in current business as it leverages business very dynamically
(Deloitte, 2017). Talent acquisition is an important and challenging task for HR managers. HR
managers need to keep a constant watch on the technology used for TA and new TA
practices adopted by the competitors (You and To, 2019). AIT for TA is benefitting HR
managers to tap talent. Various types of AI technology are being gradually adopted for TA
2608 functions across the IT/ITeS sector by multiple organizations to survive and meet the stiff
competition. Therefore, the hypothesis is formed as
H6. COM positively influences the ADP of AIT for TA.

Support from technology vendors (STV)

Any new technology implementation requires STV continuously to solve the problems faced
while using technology. The assistance provided by the technology vendors for
implementation and usage of IS innovation is referred to as “STV” (Premkumar and
Roberts, 1999). STV is one of the important predictors of new technology adoption (Puklavec
et al., 2018; Ghobakhloo et al., 2011). It was found that STV influence the adoption of HRIS in
hospitals (Ahmadi et al., 2015; Alam et al., 2016). AIT is a new technology that is popular and
complex. HR managers do not have the expertise to use it and perform talent acquisition.
Therefore, vendor support would be expected during adoption (Albert, 2019). The vendor
needs to perform different AI software development activities and customize it as per the
organization’s requirement of talent acquisition. Thus, it is assumed that vendor support is
required for the adoption of AI for TA.
H7. STV positively influences the ADP of AIT for TA.

Task characteristics (TAC) and task technology fit (TTF)

Task means the activities performed by the individuals who convert the input into output and
TAC are considered as the tasks that interest individuals to be majorly dependent upon the
information technology (Howard and Rose, 2018; Goodhue and Thompson, 1995). TA
executive’s dependence upon AIT to perform various tasks of TA is considered as TAC. AIT
for TA able to perform various tasks of TA as mentioned in Table 1. TTF is referred to as the
extent to which technical assistance is provided by the IS to the individual to perform his/her
task portfolio. The extant studies on mobile banking (Zhou et al., 2010; Tam and Oliveira,
2016), mobile work support system (Yuan et al., 2010) and HRIS (Virdyananto et al., 2017)
found the influence of TAC on TTF. HR managers need to perform the task of Talent
acquisition such as attracting, screening, shortlisting candidates and perform the selection
process. AI technology is capable to perform these tasks of talent acquisition as per the
organization standards. Hence, HR managers are becoming dependent upon AIT for TA
(Albert, 2019; Bersin, 2018). HR managers would adopt AIT for TA to perform TA tasks.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is formed.
H8. TAC of AIT positively affects the TTF of AIT for TA.

Technology characteristics (TEC) and task technology fit (TTF)

Technologies are the tools utilized to perform the tasks by individuals and regarding IS, it can
be hardware, software, mobile apps, websites and AITs. TEC implies the characteristics of
the technology which makes an individual perform particular tasks of his department
(Howard and Rose, 2018). AI technology has characteristics of performing TA tasks in
particular such as attracting, sourcing, screening, short-listing and selecting candidates
(Bersin, 2018). TTF is affected by TEC which is confirmed in extant studies (Virdyananto Adoption of AI
et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2010). As AI technology has the characteristics for performing TA for talent
activities; however, the technology needs to be appropriate as per the standards of the
organization’s TA activities which makes it imperative to test this association.
acquisition
H9. TEC of AIT positively affects the TTF of AIT for TA.

Adoption (ADP) and actual usage (ACU) of AIT for TA 2609

When organizations have made up decisions to use and allocate required resources for the
procurement of new technology; however, adoption not necessarily means that the new
technology is used (Zhu et al., 2006). It is crucial to scrutinize the association between the ADP
and actual ACU. As per the study conducted by (Chong and Chan, 2012). ADP means the
organizations’ decision-making process of choosing new technology for its requirements. In
this study, actual usage is referred to as the help provided by the technology to achieve the
targets for using technology (Burton-jones and Grange, 2013). The existing studies related to
RFID and the business intelligence system discuss the association between ADP and ACU
(Puklavec et al., 2018; Chong and Chan, 2012). AI technology shall perform the functions of
TA and improve the talent acquisition function by saving cost and time. Therefore, HR
managers would continue using it (Bersin, 2018). The adoption of AIT for TA may affect the
actual usage for performing TA tasks due to the benefits of AIT that can be leveraged by the
HR managers.
H10. ADP of AIT for TA positively influences the ACU of AIT by HR managers.

TTF and actual usage (ACU) of AIT for TA

TTF mentions that technology will be utilized when it contributes to individual performance
to the degree that the technology is appropriate for his/her task requirement. TTF also affects
the individuals’ choice of the usage of technology for performing various tasks of the job
portfolio (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995) It was found regarding mobile banking that, if IT
supports the end-users’ task (fit), then only it will be used by end-users’ (Zhou et al., 2010).
TTF is one of the important predictors of the use behavior of IT users (Dishaw and Strong,
1999; Osmonbekov, 2010). It is confirmed that TTF affects the ACU of mobile technology by
end-users (Tam and Oliveira, 2016). AIT for TA performs the repetitive administrative tasks
of talent acquisition and automates the recruitment process precisely as shown in Table 1
(Albert, 2019). If AIT performs the various functions of TA appropriately then it may lead to
regular usage of AIT for TA.
H11. TTF to AIT for TA influences the ACU.

Moderation effect of “Stickiness (STK) to traditional TA methods” between adoption and

actual usage of AIT for TA
STK is referred to as the tendency of the HR managers to stick to the traditional methods of
TA for recruitment and selection. It was previously defined for the website (Demers and
Lev, 2001) for capturing the attention and retaining the consumers. STK was discussed as the
intangible capability, which stimulates individuals to stay for a longer time and frequently
visit the website. The study of digital payment systems found that STK to the traditional
method of cash-based payment systems (Sivathanu, 2019b) moderated the relation between
ADP and ACU of digital payment systems. STK is one of the predictors of consumer behavior
(Hsu and Lin, 2016; Lin, 2007). HR managers are inclined towards the traditional recruitment
process as they are using traditional methods of recruitment based on judgment.
HR managers can use traditional methods of attracting and selecting candidates very
BIJ easily as they are accustomed to their usage. HR managers may stick to traditional methods
27,9 as they are familiar with these methods such as usage of job portals, ERP, traditional
assessment techniques like a psychometric test, group discussion, paper-pencil aptitude test
and face to face interview methods and can easily manipulate it as per their requirement
which may be the reason that the adoption of AIT for TA is low (Albert, 2019). It also may
be the reason for the HR managers to stick to traditional TA practices. Therefore, it is
hypothesized as
2610
H12. ADP of AIT and ACU of AIT for TA is moderated by STK to traditional TA
methods.

Research methodology
This section describes the survey instrument along with the process for data collection.

Research survey instrument design

The extant literature of TOE and TTF was considered for developing the measurement
scales- cost-effectiveness (Puklavec et al., 2018; Chong and Chan, 2012), relative advantage
(Oliveira et al., 2014; Puklavec et al., 2018), security and privacy (Alam et al., 2011; Zhu et al.,
2006), top management support (Alam et al., 2016), HR readiness (Hossain et al., 2017),
competitive pressure (Alam et al., 2016), support from technology vendors (Alam et al., 2016),
technology characteristics and task characteristics (Lin and Huang, 2008; Virdyananto et al.,
2017), task-technology fit (Virdyananto et al., 2017; Lin and Huang, 2008), adoption (Awa et al.,
2016), actual usage (Lin and Huang, 2008; Zhou et al., 2010) and stickiness (Sivathanu, 2019b)
which were modified/adapted as per the focus of this study – AIT for TA.
Before the data collection, six AIT and TA subject matter experts from the IT/ITeS
industry and the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM)
were involved to assess the survey questionnaire. These experts were well-informed before
the assessment of the questionnaire about the aim and scope of this research. The feedback
from these experts was considered to appropriately modify the questionnaire to confirm the
face validity of the survey instrument. This questionnaire was used for the pilot study and a
five-point Likert scale was used to measure the operationalized constructs. Internal
consistency and reliability of the data were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for the pre-test
(55 respondents) and pilot test (120 respondents). As per the NASSCOM list, there are more
than 1300 IT/ITeS firms in Mumbai and Pune. This study considered the TA and HR
managers as respondents of the IT/ITeS organizations’ who are using some kind of AI
technology for TA. These respondents were also shown the video of the usage of an array of
AITs for a variety of TA functions. The main survey was conducted after adequate results
were found in the pilot study. Table 2 shows the operationalized constructs.

Sampling and data collection

The primary data collection was done among the respondents utilizing the structured
questionnaire (Table 2). The target respondents were HR and TA managers from IT/ITeS
companies in Mumbai and Pune city from the various IT hubs and software technology
parks. The researcher ensured that these respondents were using some kind of AIT for TA.
These respondents were also shown the video of the usage of an array of AITs for a variety of
TA functions and its benefits. These respondents were surveyed visiting IT/ITeS companies
and National HRD Network (NHRD) meetings in Mumbai and Pune by using purposive
sampling. Confidentiality and anonymity of data were ensured to the respondents. These
respondents were appropriate as they were HR managers and executives working in the TA
 Item
Adoption of AI
Main construct Indicator/item loading Adapted from for talent
acquisition
Technology
Cost-effectiveness AIT for TA is cost-effective than other 0.830 (Puklavec et al., 2018;
(COS) technologies for TA Chong and Chan,
AVE 5 0.726 AIT saves the cost of other technology and 0.833 2012)
manpower required for TA 2611
CR 5 0.915 AIT for TA saves time and effort related costs 0.823
α 5 0.803 required for TA
Relative advantage AIT helps HR managers to select the right 0.871 Modified (Oliveira
(REA) candidates et al., 2014; Puklavec
AVE 5 0.742 AIT helps in a better quality of decisions for 0.878 et al., 2018)
CR 5 0.883 recruiting and selecting candidates
α 5 0.816 AIT improves the effectiveness of TA decisions 0.879
and actions
AIT speeds up the TA decisions 0.881
AIT provides better control over the TA 0.844
function
Security and privacy We feel that TA data transmitted in AIT is not 0.843 Modified (Alam et al.,
concern (SNP) secure 2011; Zhu et al., 2006)
AVE 5 0.772 We feel that TA data stored and used by AIT 0.816
CR 5 0.903 lacks in confidentiality and privacy
α 5 0.835 We believe that AIT is not safe as there is 0.806
possibility of error due to the algorithms in AIT
Organization
HR readiness (HRR) HR department has financial budget to adopt 0.877 Modified (Hossain
AVE 5 0.736 AIT for TA et al., 2017)
CR 5 0.932 HR department personnel are expert to use AIT 0.823
α 5 0.826 for TA
HR department has technical resources 0.847
for AIT
HR leaders in organizations are willing to invest 0.838
AIT for TA
Top management Top management provide support for the 0.865 (Alam et al., 2016)
Support (TMS) adoption of AIT for TA
AVE 5 0.753 Top management offer funds for adoption of 0.878
CR 5 0.882 AIT for TA
α 5 0.822 Top management knows the benefits of 0.873
adoption of AIT for TA
Environmental
Competitive pressure Our organization has pressure of adoption of 0.841 (Alam et al., 2016)
(COM) AIT for TA due to Competitors’ adoption of
AVE 5 0.748 AIT for TA
CR 5 0.873 TA practice across the industry forced us to 0.853
α 5 0.835 adopt AIT for TA
Our organization keeps a watch on competitors 0.851
for the AI technology used for TA
Support from AIT training is fairly provided by the vendors 0.840 (Alam et al., 2016)
technology vendors of AIT for TA
(STV) AIT vendors provide adequate technical 0.849
AVE 5 0.717 support during implementations of AIT
CR 5 0.943 for TA
α 5 0.836 AIT vendors provide adequate technical 0.854
support after implementations of AIT for TA Table 2.
Summary of
(continued ) measurement model
BIJ Item
27,9 Main construct Indicator/item loading Adapted from

Task characteristics We need to scan bulk resumes and match 0.839 Modified (Zhou et al.,
(TAC) candidates for vacant jobs using available AI 2010; Lin and
AVE 5 0.733 technology Huang, 2008;
CR 5 0.911 We need to remove gender bias from job 0.861 Virdyananto et al.,
2612 α 5 0.827 description and assessments 2017)
We need to do instant background checking of 0.880
candidates
We need to conduct many primary interviews 0.834
in a day
We need to provide candidates good experience 0.812
during selection process
Technology AIT for TA is helpful for quick screening bulk 0.892 Modified (Zhou et al.,
characteristics (TEC) resumes and matching candidate profiles for 2010; Lin and
AVE 5 0.724 vacant jobs Huang, 2008;
CR 5 0.885 AIT for TA does instant background checking 0.883 Virdyananto et al.,
α 5 0.817 of candidates 2017)
AIT for TA helps in conducting primary 0.858
interviews of bulk candidates using chatbots
AIT for TA assists for crowd sourcing of 0.880
candidate resumes instantly
AIT for TA helps on boarding of candidates 0.848
through mobile apps and chatbots
Task technology fit AIT for TA is appropriate for each function of TA 0.879 (Lin and Huang,
(TTF) AIT for TA is appropriate for decision making 0.848 2008; Virdyananto
AVE 5 0.763 of TA et al., 2017)
CR 5 0.883 AIT for TA is compatible for each task of TA 0.849
α 5 0.827 AIT for TA is best fit for bulk hiring, crowd 0.829
sourcing and managing TA function
Adoption (ADP) AIT for TA improves the candidate experience 0.816 (Awa et al., 2016)
AVE 5 0.791 during recruitment and selection
CR 5 0.885 AIT for TA improves the TA function in the 0.893
α 5 0.831 organization
AIT for TA reduces the time to fill up the 0.823
vacancy and reduces cost of TA
AIT for TA is used for sharing data of 0.893
candidate’s with sourcing managers
Actual usage (ACU) We regularly use AIT for TA to source, screen 0.833 Modified (Lin and
AVE 5 0.766 and assess the candidates for various jobs Huang, 2008; Zhou
CR 5 0.913 We regularly use AIT for TA for on boarding 0.856 et al., 2010)
α 5 0.837 and candidate engagement
We regularly use AIT for TA to attract candidates 0.867
We frequently use AIT for TA for decision 0.856
making regarding selection of candidates
Stickiness to We would use traditional TA methods such as 0.840 Modified
traditional TA paper-based assessments, personal interview, (Sivathanu, 2019a, b)
methods (STK) job portals, consulting firms and paper pencil
AVE 5 0.732 assessment
CR 5 0.934 We often use traditional methods of TA as we can 0.848
α 5 0.811 We always use traditional methods of TA when 0.859
we are recruiting and selecting candidates

Note(s): AVE – Average variance extracted, CR – Composite realiability, α – Cronbach’s alpha

Table 2. Source(s): Authors self-compilation from primary data analysis
function and aware of AI technology and using some kind of AIT for TA. The respondent’s Adoption of AI
details are presented in Table 3. for talent
The total companies surveyed were 580 using a purposive sampling method of which 320
were IT firms and 260 were ITeS firms, irrespective of their size. It was ensured that these
acquisition
organizations are using some kind of AIT for TA. 970 questionnaires were administered in
the survey, out of which 620 questionnaires were filled up, from which 562 were
questionnaires were thorough and suitable for analysis and the response rate was 57.9%.
2613
Non-response bias
The t-test was done to analyze the difference in the response between the early wave (315) and
late wave (247) groups (Tsou and Hsu, 2015). The result (p 5 0.34) proved the absence of non-
response bias. Finally, the total responses found to be fit were 562.

Common method bias and endogeneity

The single factor Harman test (Wang et al., 2018; Alalwan et al., 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2003)
was conducted to observe the existence of common method bias. As per the result, there is not
an issue of common method bias as the variance of 29.32% was described by a single factor,
which is less than 50%. Additionally, recursivity in the structural model may cause
endogeneity (Lai et al., 2018; Dubey et al., 2018). The variance in an exogenous variable may
be endogenous to the model (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015) as the cross-sectional data may result
in a misspecified model. Hence, a Ramsey regression equation error test was employed (Lai
et al., 2018) and ascertained that the endogeneity was not an issue in the proposed model.
Hence, the validity and reliability of the measures were confirmed.

Data analysis and results

Table 3 depicts the demographic aspects of the study. It shows that 52% were male and 48%
were female respondents. There were 38% HR managers, 40% TA managers and 22% were
TA executives. 22% of the respondents were using some kind of AIT for TA from less than
six months, 35% were using from 6 to 12 months and 43 % were using for more than one year.

Measurement model
PLS-SEM was used for the investigation of the conceptual model. PLS-SEM is popularly used
in social science studies as it is suitable for non-normal data and supports small as well as
large sample sizes (Hair et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2017). The Smart PLS 2.0 software (Ringle et al.,
2005) was applied for primary data analysis.

Demographic Characteristics No. of respondents Percentage

Gender Female 268 48

Male 294 52
Position HR managers 208 38
TA managers 226 40
TA executives 128 22
Usage of any kind of AIT for TA Less than 6 months 124 22
6–12 months 196 35 Table 3.
1 year and above 242 43 Demographic
Source(s): Authors self-compilation from primary data analysis profile (N 5 562)
BIJ The high internal consistency of all the latent variables is confirmed as the value of
27,9 Cronbach’s alpha was above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). As per Table 2, CR values confirm the high
level of reliability and internal consistency of all the constructs as the outer loading for all the
items was higher than 0.6 which is the minimum threshold value. The convergent validity for
all the constructs is verified (Hair et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2013).
The comparison of the inter-correlations of the latent variables with the AVE off-diagonal
values as revealed in Table 4 proves the discriminant validity. Discriminant validity between
2614 the constructs is established (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) as the shared variance values were
lower than the corresponding AVE.

Structural model
The reliability and validity of the measurement model were confirmed and then the path
analysis was done to examine the association between the latent variables by the structural
model. Figure 2 and Table 5 display the path coefficients and t-values with a significance
level. The proposed model significantly explains the adoption (R2 5 0.655) and actual usage
(R2 5 0.686).
The results are depicted in Table 5 and Figure 2. Technology factors COS (β 5 0.276,
p < 0.01) positively influence the ADP of AIT (Puklavec et al., 2018), which supports H1 AIT
for TA saves the cost of administrative tasks of HR/TA Managers (Tung and Rieck, 2005;
Chong and Chan, 2012). REA (β 5 0.280, p < 0.01) significantly influences the ADP of AIT for
TA and confirms H2. The existing IS studies confirm the influence of REA on ADP (Oliveira
et al., 2014; Puklavec et al., 2018); however, it contradicts the cloud computing study (Low
et al., 2011). The AIT for TA provides a relative advantage as it speeds up the TA decisions
and provides control over the TA function. SNP (β 5 0.170, p < 0.01) has a negative
significant effect on the ADP of AIT for TA (Zhu et al., 2006). Hence, H3 is supported. HR
managers feel insecure and have privacy concerns for the data transmitted in AIT.
Organizational perspective HRR (β 5 0.399, p < 0.01) has a significant positive effect on ADP
of AIT for TA. Therefore H4 is confirmed. It contradicts IS studies discussing organizational
readiness (Ifinedo, 2011; Quaddus and Hofmeyer, 2007). HR readiness is required for the
adoption of AIT for TA. TMS (β 5 0.269, p < 0.01) significantly affects the ADP of AIT for TA
which confirms H5. Any IS technology adoption requires top management support (Chong
and Chan, 2012).
Environmental factors COM (β 5 0.328, p < 0.05) influence the ADP and confirm H6. Many
IT/ITeS organizations are adopting AIT for TA due to the pressure from the competitors
across the industry, which ropes the extant studies on HR technology and IS (Guo et al., 2017;
Hossain et al., 2017; Low et al., 2011), as talent acquisition is an important function and AI
technology is improving TA function. Companies are slowly adopting AIT for TA; hence, HR
managers are feeling the pressure due to competitor’s adoption. STV (β 5 0.155, p < 0.05) has
a significant positive influence on ADP of AIT for TA, which supports H7 and aligns with the
extant IS study discussing the increase of vendor support leading to adoption (Alam et al.,
2016). AI is new technology and it would require supports from vendors continuously to
adopt AIT for TA.
TAC (β 5 0.219, p < 0.01) and TEC (β 5 0.257, p < 0.01) influence the TTF of the AIT for
TA which is in line with existing studies (Tam and Oliveira, 2016; Zhou et al., 2010). TTF
(β 5 0.398, p < 0.01) effects the ACU, which is very important for the adoption of any IS (Tam
and Oliveira, 2016) which supports H8, H9 and H11.
It was found that ADP (β 5 0.415, p < 0.01) influences the ACU (Chan and Chong, 2013;
Puklavec et al., 2018) and the relationship between ADP and ACU is moderated by STK
(β 5 0.218, p < 0.01) which conforms to the extant study (Sivathanu, 2019b) and it supports
the H10 and H12.
Construct COS REA SNP TMS HRR COM STV TAC TEC TTF ADP ACU STK

COS 0.852
REA 0.693 0.861
SNP 0.651 –0.588 0.878
TMS 0.586 0.645 0.681 0.867
HRR 0.642 0.663 0.615 0.613 0.857
COM 0.608 0.685 0.573 0.515 0.592 0.864
STV 0.593 0.638 0.498 0.481 0.535 0.671 0.846
TAC 0.436 0.447 0.522 0.373 0.416 0.617 0.625 0.856
TEC 0.363 0.564 0.459 0.415 0.382 0.583 0.584 0.519 0.850
TTF 0.335 0.458 0.485 0.366 0.425 0.456 0.553 0.446 0.357 0.872
ADP 0.352 0.337 –0.447 0.342 0.362 0.421 0.485 0.376 0.313 0.326 0.889
ACU 0.226 0.293 0.364 0.396 0.268 0.335 0.428 0.283 0.225 0.245 0.195 0.875
STK 0.253 0.225 0.215 0.194 0.232 0.278 0.184 0.178 0.154 0.174 0.167 –0.198 0.855
Source(s): Authors self-compilation from primary data analysis
Note(s): The italic values indicate the square roots of average variance extracted (AVE)
2615
for talent
acquisition
Adoption of AI

Discriminant validity
Table 4.
BIJ Technology
27,9
Cost effectiveness (COS)

H1 (β = 0.276***)
Relative Advantage (REA) Stickiness to traditional TA
methods (STK)

2616 Security and Privacy Concerns H2 (β = 0.280***)

(SNP)

H12 (β = – 0.218***)
H3 (β = 0.170***)
Organization
Actual Usage
H4 (β = 0.399***) Adoption of AI of AI
HR readiness (HRR) Technology for Technology for
TA (ADP) TA (AUC)
H5 (β = 0.269***)
Top Management Support
H10 (β = 0.398***)
(TMS)

H6 (β = 0.328***)

Environmental H11 (β = 0.415***)

H7 (β = 0.155***)
Competitive pressure (COM)
Task Technology fit of AIT for
TA (TTF)
Support from AI Vendors
(STV) H9 (β = 0.257***)
H8 (β = 0.219***)

Task Characteristics of AI Technology Characteristics of

Technology (TAC) AI Technology (TEC)

Figure 2.
Structural model
Source(s): Authors self-compilation from primary data analysis

Hypothesis Hypothesis path Path coefficient t-statistics

H1 COS → ADP 0.276 4.850***

H2 REA → ADP 0.280 2.850***
H3 SNP → ADP 0.170 3.069***
H4 HRR → ADP 0.399 4.236***
H5 TMS → ADP 0.269 3.127***
H6 COM → ADP 0.328 2.490**
H7 STV → ADP 0.155 2.083**
H8 TAC → TTF 0.219 2.845***
H9 TEC → TTF 0.257 4.298***
H10 ADP → ACU 0.398 3.443***
H11 TTF → ACU 0.415 3.890***
H12 ADP x STK → ACU 0.218 4.046***
Note(s): a. t-values for two-tailed test: ***t-value 2.58 (sig. level 5 1%), **1.96 (sig.level 5 5%), (Hair
Table 5. et al., 2011)
Path coefficient Source(s): Authors self-compilation from primary data analysis
Discussion Adoption of AI
The proposed theoretical model based on the TOE and TTF model is empirically validated to for talent
understand the adoption and actual usage of AIT for TA. There exist meager academic
research and scholarly work, which discuss the adoption and usage of AIT for TA. The
acquisition
proposed model provides better explanatory power as it considers the organizational
perspective and technology characteristics suitable to perform TA activities. Stickiness is
included as a moderator between adoption and actual usage, as it signifies the indirect effect
(moderation) of “stickiness of traditional TA practices” between adoption and actual usage of 2617
AIT for TA.
Regarding technology perspective the cost-effectiveness of AIT for TA positively
influences the adoption (Puklavec et al., 2018). Hence, in this work H1 is supported as AIT for
TA saves the cost of workforce and time required for completing repetitive tasks of HR/TA
executives such as sending bulk emails, job postings, primary interviews and sourcing. HR
managers would be adopting AIT for TA due to its cost-effectiveness.
REA influences the adoption (Alam et al., 2016; Cruz-Jesus et al., 2019) of AIT for TA which
shows that H2 is confirmed. AIT for TA helps HR managers to select the right candidates and
improve the decision making and actions of TA. It also speeds up the selection of candidates
and provides better control as compared to traditional methods of TA.
Security and privacy of any IS has always been a major concern for managers (Zhu et al.,
2006; Tong, 2009). It was found that SNP negatively influences the adoption of AIT for TA
which confirmed H3. TA managers are concerned about the personal data of the candidates
transmitted through AIT for TA and feel insecure as this data is highly confidential
(Goodman, 2017; Van Esch et al., 2019). The privacy of this candidate’s data is vital therefore;
HR managers have a concern about security and privacy of data passing through AIT for TA.
From an organizational perspective, it was found that HRR and TMS both are influencing
factors of adoption of AIT for TA which supports H4 and H5. HRR is very important as AIT is
used in the HR department for TA functions. HRR influences positively on adoption which
contradicts the existing studies (Ifinedo, 2011; Quaddus and Hofmeyer, 2007). The HR
department is ensuring its personnel and technology resources ready to use AIT for TA. HR
leaders are also willing to invest in AIT for TA considering its benefit.
Any IS system requires support from the top management when it needs to be adopted
and implemented (Alam et al., 2016) which also holds for AIT for TA. The top management
supports AIT adoption as they realize that in today’s environment, acquiring talent is
challenging for an organization and it needs to be leveraged by AIT.
Regarding external environmental factors competitive pressure positively affects the
adoption of AIT for TA (Alam et al., 2016) which confirmed H6. In most of the IT/ITeS firms,
attracting and hiring talent is a tough task and there is huge competition to acquire talent in the
IT/ITeS industry (Beechler and Woodward, 2009). Organizations are facing pressure to adopt
AIT for TA, as the AIT is enhancing the TA function across the industry (Tong and Sivanand,
2005). Therefore, organizations need to adopt AIT for TA due to competitive pressure.
Support from AIT vendors is the predictor of adoption of AIT for TA as AIT is a new
technology that needs support during adoption and usage (Alam et al., 2016; Ghobakhloo
et al., 2011), which supports H7. Vendor support is required at each stage and the vendors
should provide training, then only adoption and usage of AIT for TA will happen smoothly
and seamlessly.
TAC and TEC influence the usage of AIT for TA (Tam and Oliveira, 2016) which confirms
H8 and H9. The various tasks performed by AIT for TA function are scanning bulk resumes,
job descriptions with no gender bias, fast background checks, conducting bulk interviews
and providing a good experience to candidates. Hence, TAC positively affects TTF. AIT for
TA executes these tasks automatically and helps in various TA functions, so TEC affects the
TTF positively.
BIJ It was found that the adoption of AIT for TA affects the actual usage that confirms H10
27,9 and is in line with various existing studies (Puklavec et al., 2018; Chong and Chan, 2012).
It implies that the adoption of AIT affects the regular usage of AIT for TA. AIT for TA
conducts tasks like attracting and engaging candidates. It also helps in the selection of the
right candidates. H11 was confirmed as it was found that TTF affects the actual usage of AIT
for TA (Tam and Oliveira, 2016; Goodhue and Thompson, 1995). AIT is the appropriate
technology that fits/helps in TA to take appropriate decisions for critical TA functions such
2618 as bulk-hiring and crowdsourcing.
The relationship between the adoption of AIT for TA and actual usage is moderated by
stickiness to traditional recruitment methods (Sivathanu, 2019b). It was found that STK
(β 5 0.218) is an inhibitor for ACU of AIT for TA that affirmed H12. Though AIT for TA
conducts many repetitive tasks of TA, HR managers are still accustomed to traditional TA
methods for selecting candidates like a personal interview, sourcing from job portals and
consulting firms and paper-pencil assessment. HR/TA managers are still not dependent upon
the AIT for TA for its usage as “stickiness to traditional TA methods” has an indirect effect
on the relationship between adoption and actual usage.
AI technology helps in improving the performance of TA as it is cost-effective and
provides accurate results of TA process. HR managers need to adopt AI technology for TA.
This proposed model provides the factors of adoption of AI technology for talent acquisition
that will help the HR managers for benchmarking while selecting the appropriate AI
technology for TA functions.

Theoretical contributions
A conceptual model is established to understand the adoption of AIT for TA at the
organization level and HR department level considering the technology and task
characteristics. This study also considers the “stickiness to traditional TA methods”
which is a unique input to the existing technology adoption literature about disruptive
technology such as artificial intelligence. This model is derived from the TOE and TTF
literature on technology and tries to fulfill the gap in the existing literature on the adoption of
AIT at the workplace.
The theoretical model proposed provides an enhanced explanatory power to
comprehend the adoption of AIT for TA at the workplace as it combines the TOE and
TTF model and discusses the “stickiness to traditional TA methods” which is ignored by
previous studies on IS. The proposed model helps to explore the adoption of AIT for TA at
an organizational level. This research uses the TTF model to understand the task and
technology fit to explore the appropriateness of AIT specifically for TA functions. This
study also provides new factors like HRR and COS (Puklavec et al., 2018) to understand the
adoption of AIT for TA. The existing literature lacks in the study of the adoption of recent
disruptive and emerging technology such as artificial intelligence (Puklavec et al., 2018;
Phahlane and Kekwaletswe, 2017; Awa and Ojiabo, 2016). The research uniquely
contributes to the current theoretical models by extending the literature of technology
adoption a step forward. The proposed model provides vital insights to aids scholars,
academicians and practitioners to better comprehend and advance the research on how
HR/TA managers portray the organizational perspective when they adopt and use AIT
for TA. The proposed model empirically validates the TTF (R2 5 0.639) and significantly
explains the adoption (R2 5 0.655) and actual usage (R2 5 0.686) of AIT for TA in IT/ITeS
organizations.
Another vital contribution of the research is to the HR domain literature of recruitment
and selection and fetches the attention on technology-driven recruitment. It also surprisingly
found that HR managers are still relying on the traditional TA methods although disruptive
technology such as AIT is available to leverage TA functions (Goodman, 2017; Derous and Adoption of AI
De Fruyt, 2016). It highlights the privacy and security concerns that negatively impact the for talent
adoption of AI technology for TA. Privacy and security concerns and stickiness to traditional
methods of recruitments are the inhibitors of the adoption of TA.
acquisition

Managerial implications
The outcome of the research brings out many insights for AI technology developers, 2619
designers, marketers, HR/TA managers and practitioners. First, this study presents an
interesting model firmly rooted in the IT adoption literature, which is further tested to
understand the AI technology adoption for the TA function in an emerging economy context.
This study highlights that SNP negatively influences the adoption of AIT for TA. This shows
that SNP is a concern for TA managers, so AIT developers and designers need to ensure the
same while developing AIT based solutions for TA. Marketers also should provide training
regarding the security and privacy of data. The data security details should be built-in AIT
for TA and AIT vendors should inform HR managers before implementation.
HR/TA managers are ready to adopt the technology due to cost-effectiveness sand relative
advantage of AIT for TA, which provides insights for the HR fraternity that AIT, is driving
TA function effectively by saving cost and time of TA. It was found that TMS and HRR
influence the adoption of AIT for TA. HR readiness is evident as they understand its
importance and have budget provisions for investing in AIT. This provides a cue to AIT
marketers that there exists the enormous potential to market AIT solutions for TA to top
management and HR managers in organizations. The study shows that pressure from
competitors influences the ADP of AIT for TA in IT/ITeS sector, which makes AIT
marketers’ job easy. It was found that vendor support also influences the adoption, which
implies that AIT vendors’ should ensure technology support during and post-implementation
for successful adoption of AIT for TA. It is essential that during the implementation of the
AIT for TA vendors should provide support and in-time query resolution as AIT is a new
technology for HR managers.
AIT solutions for TA are specifically used in organizations for performing TA tasks. It was
found that TAC and TEC influence the task technology fit and TTF influences the actual
usage. Hence, designers and developers of AIT need to ensure that the system delivers both the
TAC and TEC for performing specific tasks of TA. Also, HR managers need to consider AI
technology suitability and appropriateness to perform TA tasks as per the requirement of the
organization while purchasing AIT for TA. Marketers need to ensure that AIT for TA is
appropriate and compatible for each aspect of the TA function – attracting candidates,
recruiting and sourcing, selection and assessment, on-boarding and employer branding. Even
designers, marketers and developers of AIT for TA should understand the details of TA tasks
so that they can develop AIT as per the requirement of the task to be performed in TA.
This study provides very interesting insights for marketers as the relationship between
ADP and ACU is moderated by STK. Stickiness to traditional TA methods acts as an
inhibitor for actual usage of AIT for TA, so marketers need to pay attention and formulate
suitable strategies for maximum use by HR/TA managers. HR managers still rely on
traditional methods of TA to avoid algorithmic issues such as gender bias of the AIT-based
recruiting tool. AIT programmers, developers and solution providers should ensure that such
issues do not occur to reduce the HR manager’s stickiness to traditional methods of TA.

Conclusion
The paper examines the adoption and actual usage of AIT for TA. The proposed model was
developed based on the TOE and TTF framework to investigate the adoption of AIT for TA.
BIJ This model is tested and confirmed utilizing the PLS-SEM approach. It was found that cost-
27,9 effectiveness, relative advantage, HR readiness, top management support, competitive
pressure and support from technology vendors positively influence the adoption. Security
and privacy concerns negatively influence the adoption of AIT for TA. This study confirmed
that adoption influences actual usage; however, the relation is negatively moderated by
stickiness. It implies that HR managers are still sticking to the traditional methods and do not
rely entirely on AIT for recruitment and selection of candidates. It was found that the task
2620 and technology characteristics of AIT influence the TTF of AIT for TA, which implies that AI
marketers need to ensure the TTF of AI technology for higher usage. Future studies can be
directed to scrutinize the influence of AIT on organizational performance, employer branding
and HR/TA managers’ satisfaction. Even, AIT adoption for other HR functions can be tested
with this proposed model for generalization. The proposed model provides vital insights to
aids scholars, academicians and practitioners to better comprehend and advance the research
on AI in TA.

Directions for future research and limitation

This is the first attempt to study the adoption and actual usage of AIT for TA, which is at a
nascent stage in India. This is cross-sectional research and surveyed only IT/ITeS firms.
Further, this study can be directed across various sectors. Also, further studies can take place
to scrutinize the effect of AIT on the performance of the organization, Employer branding and
HR/TA managers’ satisfaction. Future studies may mull overextending the model by
integrating the task performance, job interaction and work interaction (TJW) framework
(Sun and Teng, 2017). It has geographic as well as the limitation of a particular sector and it is
necessary to be cautious before generalization of the results. Since the model was tested only
in the Indian context, it opens up further avenues of research in other emerging countries and
contexts which can consider regions such as SAARC and BRICS. Further studies can also be
conducted from a candidates’ perspective regarding AIT for TA.

References
Aayog, N. (2018), “National strategy for artificial intelligence #AIFORALL”, available at: //niti.gov.in/
writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf.
Ahmad Salleh, K. and Janczewski, L. (2018), “An implementation of Sec-TOE framework: identifying
security determinants of big data solutions adoption an implementation of sec-TOE framework:
identifying security determinants of big data”, in PACIS 2018 Proceedings, p. 211.
Ahmadi, H., Ibrahim, O. and Nilashi, M. (2015), “Investigating a new framework for hospital
information system Adoption: a case on Malaysia”, Journal of Soft Computing and Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 26-33.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behavior, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Al-Qirim, N. (2006), “The role of the government and e-commerce adoption in small businesses in New
Zealand”, International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 293.
Al-Qirim, N. (2007), “The adoption of eCommerce communications and applications technologies in
small businesses in New Zealand”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 462-473.
Alaiad, A. and Zhou, L. (2016), “Patients’ adoption of WSN-based smart home healthcare systems:
an integrated model of facilitators and barriers”, IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Rana, N.P. (2017), “Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking Adoption of AI
by Jordanian bank customers: extending UTAUT2 with trust”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 99-110. for talent
Alam, S.S., Ali, M.Y. and Jani, M.F.M. (2011), “An empirical study of factors affecting electronic
acquisition
commerce adoption among SMEs in Malaysia”, Journal of Business Economics and
Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 375-399.
Alam, M.G.R., Masum, A.K.M., Beh, L.S. and Hong, C.S. (2016), “Critical factors influencing decision
to adopt human resource information system (HRIS) in hospitals”, PloS One, Vol. 11 2621
No. 8, pp. 1-22.
Alatawi, F., Dwivedi, Y., Williams, M. and Rana, N.P. (2012), “Conceptual model for examining
knowledge management system (KMS) adoption in public sector organizations in Saudi Arabia”,
Gov Workshop, Vol. 2, pp. 1-22.
Albert, E.T. (2019), “AI in talent acquisition: a review of AI-applications used in recruitment and
selection”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 215-221.
Allen, D.G., Mahto, R.V. and Otondo, R.F. (2007), “Web-based recruitment: effects of information,
organizational brand, and attitudes toward a web site on applicant attraction”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1696-1708.
Awa, H. and Kalu, S. (2010), “Repositioning the non-incremental changes and business strategic
windows correlates”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 184-193.
Awa, H.O. and Ojiabo, O.U. (2016), “A model of adoption determinants of ERP within T-O-E
framework”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 901-930.
Awa, H., Baridam, D. and Nwibere, B. (2015), “Demographic determinants of electronic commerce (EC)
adoption by SMEs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 326-345.
Awa, H.O., Ukoha, O. and Emecheta, B.C. (2016), “Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the
adoption of ERP solution”, Cogent Business and Management, Cogent, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Awa, H.O., Ojiabo, O.U. and Orokor, L.E. (2017a), “Integrated technology-organization-environment
(T-O-E) taxonomies for technology adoption”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 893-921.
Awa, H.O., Ukoha, O. and Igwe, S.R. (2017b), “Revisiting technology-organization-environment (T-O-E)
theory for enriched applicability”, Bottom Line, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 2-22.
Baig, M.I., Shuib, L. and Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2019), “Big data adoption: state of the art and research
challenges”, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 56 No. 6, p. 102095.
Balaid, A., Abd Rozan, M.Z. and Abdullah, S.N. (2014), “Influential factors of knowledge maps
adoption in software development organizations: a pilot case study”, in 2014 8th Malaysian
Software Engineering Conference, MySEC 2014, Langkawi, Malaysia, pp. 201-205.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory of mass communication media psychology”, Psychology,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 265-299.
Beechler, S. and Woodward, I.C. (2009), “The global ‘war for talent’”, Journal of International
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Belanche, D., Casalo, L.V. and Flavian, C. (2019), “Artificial Intelligence in FinTech: understanding
robo-advisors adoption among customers”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 119 No. 7, pp. 1411-1430, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0368.
Benlian, A. and Hess, T. (2011), “Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: findings from a
survey of IT executives”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 232-246.
Bersin, J. (2018), “Talent trends technology disruptions for 2018”, available at: https://www.
isaconnection.org/assets/documents/2018BersinHRTechDisruptionsReport.pdf.
BIJ Bogle, S. and Sankaranarayanan, S. (2012), “Job search system in android environment-application of
intelligent agents”, International Journal of Information Sciences and Techniques (IJIST), Vol. 2
27,9 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Bugg, K. (2015), “Best practices for talent acquisition in 21st-century academic libraries”, Library
Leadership and Management, Vol. 29 No. 4.
Bughin, J., Manyika, J. and Woetzel, J. (2017), Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time
of Automation, No. December, McKinsey Global Institute, pp. 1-160.
2622
Burton-jones, A. and Grange, C. (2013), “From use to effective use: a representation theory perspective
andrew”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 632-658.
Chan, F.T.S. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2013), “Determinants of mobile supply chain management system
diffusion: a structural equation analysis of manufacturing firms”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1196-1213.
Charlier, R. and Kloppenburg, S. (2017), “Artificial intelligence in HR: a No-brainer”, available at:
www.pwc.nl.
Cheng, Y.-M. (2020), “Understanding cloud ERP continuance intention and individual
performance: a TTF-driven perspective”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 1591-1614, doi: 10.1108/bij-05-2019-0208.
Chong, A.Y.L. and Chan, F.T.S. (2012), “Structural equation modeling for multi-stage analysis on
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) diffusion in the health care industry”, in Expert Systems
With Applications, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 39, pp. 8645-8654.
Collings, D. and Mellahi, K. (2013), “Commentary on: ‘Talent—innate or acquired? Theoretical
considerations and their implications for talent management’”, in Human Resource
Management Review, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 23, pp. 305-321.
Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T. and Naranjo, M. (2018), “Understanding the adoption of business analytics
and intelligence”, in World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, Springer,
Cham, pp. 1094-1103.
Cruz-Jesus, F., Pinheiro, A. and Oliveira, T. (2019), “Understanding CRM adoption stages: empirical
analysis building on the TOE framework”, in Computers in Industry, Elsevier B.V.,
Vol. 109, pp. 1-13.
Daradkeh, M.K. (2019), “Determinants of visual analytics adoption in organizations: knowledge
discovery through content analysis of online evaluation reviews”, Information Technology and
People, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 668-695.
Das, R. and Kodwani, A.D. (2018), “Strategic human resource management: a power based critique”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1213-1231.
Dastin, J. (2018), Insight - Amazon Scraps Secret AI Recruiting Tool that Showed Bias against Women,
Reuters.Com, available at: https://in.reuters.com/article/amazon-com-jobs-automation/insight-
amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-.
Davis, F.D. and Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 319-340.
Deloitte. (2017), “2018 HR technology disruptions”, available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/human-capital/us-hc-2018-hr-technology-disruptions.pdf.
Demers, E. and Lev, B. (2001), “A rude awakening: internet shakeout in 2000”, Review of Accounting
Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 331-359.
Depietro, R., Wiarda, E. and Fleischer, M. (1990), “The context for change: organization, technology
and environment. The processes of technological innovation”, The Processes of Technological
Innovation, Vol. 199, pp. 151-175.
Derous, E. and De Fruyt, F. (2016), “Developments in recruitment and selection management essay”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 24 No. 1, p. 1.
Dhamija, P. and Bag, S. (2020), “Role of artificial intelligence in operations environment: a review and Adoption of AI
bibliometric analysis”, The TQM Journal, doi: 10.1108/TQM-10-2019-0243.
for talent
Dishaw, M.T. and Strong, D.M. (1999), “Extending the technology acceptance model with task-
technology fit constructs”, Information and Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
acquisition
Dries, N. (2013), “The psychology of talent management: a review and research agenda”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 286-289.
Dubey, R., Luo, Z., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Hazen, B.T. and Douglas, M.A. (2018), “Big data and 2623
predictive analytics in humanitarian supply chains”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 485-512.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., et al. (2019),
“Artificial Intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges,
opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy”, in International Journal of
Information Management, August, Elsevier, pp. 0-1.
El-Haddadeh, R. (2020), “Digital innovation dynamics influence on organisational adoption: the case of
cloud computing services”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 985-999, doi: 10.
1007/s10796-019-09912-2.
Erro-Garces, A. (2019), “Industry 4.0: defining the research agenda”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0444.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fosso Wamba, S., Gunasekaran, A., Bhattacharya, M. and Dubey, R. (2016), “Determinants of RFID
adoption intention by SMEs: an empirical investigation”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 979-990.
Gangwar, H., Date, H. and Raoot, A.D. (2014), “Review on IT adoption: insights from recent
technologies”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 488-502.
Ghobakhloo, M., Arias-Aranda, D. and Benitez-Amado, J. (2011), “Adoption of E-commerce applications
in SMEs”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111, doi: 10.1108/02635571111170785.
Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R. (1995), “Task-technology fit and individual performance”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 213-236.
Goodman, E. (2017), “Biometrics won’t solve our data-security crisis”, Online, Harvard Business Review.
Grover, V. (1993), “An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational
systems”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 603-640.
Gu, V. and Black, K. (2020), “Integration of TTF and network externalities for RFID adoption in
healthcare industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance.
Guide, V.D.R. and Ketokivi, M. (2015), “Notes from the editors: redefining some methodological criteria
for the journal”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 37, pp. 5-8.
Guo, Y., Jia, Q. and Bar]mes, S. (2017), “Enterprise 2 . 0 post-adoption: extending the
information system continuance model based on the”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 67, pp. 95-105.
Gupta, A. and Baksi, A. (2016), “Impact of technology on recruitment process and its impact on service
quality of HR service provider”, BIMS Journal of Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 26-57.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling, Long Range Planning, 2nd ed., Sage Publication.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
BIJ Hameed, M.A., Counsell, S. and Swift, S. (2012), “Establishing relationships between innovation
characteristics and it innovation adoption in organisations: a meta-analysis approach”,
27,9 Information and Management, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 218-232.
Han, S. and Yang, H. (2017), “Industrial management and data systems article information:
understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: a parasocial relationship perspective”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vols 1–26, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0214.
Hassan Onik, M.M., Miraz, M.H. and Kim, C.S. (2018), “A recruitment and human resource
2624 management technique using blockchain technology for industry 4.0”, in IET Conference
Publications, Vol. 2018 No. CP747, pp. 11-16.
Henderson, D., Sheetz, S.D. and Trinkle, B.S. (2012), “International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems the determinants of inter-organizational and internal in-house adoption of XBRL:
a structural equation model”, in International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,
Elsevier Inc., Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 109-140.
Hossain, M.A., Standing, C. and Chan, C. (2017), “The development and validation of a two-staged
adoption model of RFID technology in livestock businesses”, Information Technology and
People, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 785-808.
Howard, M.C. and Rose, J.C. (2018), “Refining and extending task–technology fit theory: creation of
two task–technology fit scales and empirical clarification of the construct”, in Information and
Management, No. December, Elsevier, pp. 0-1.
Hsu, C.L. and Lin, J.C.C. (2016), “Effect of perceived value and social influences on mobile app
stickiness and in-app purchase intention”, in Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Elsevier Inc., Vol. 108, pp. 42-53.
Hsu, C.W. and Yeh, C.C. (2017), “Understanding the factors affecting the adoption of the internet of
things”, in Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 29, Taylor & Francis,
pp. 1089-1102.
Huang, T.-L. and Liao, S. (2015), “A model of acceptance of augmented-reality interactive technology:
the moderating role of cognitive innovativeness”, in Electronic Commerce Research, Springer
US, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 269-295.
Huang, G.Z.D., Roy, M.H., Ahmed, Z.U., Heng, J.S.T. and Lim, J.H.M. (2002), “Benchmarking the human
capital strategies of MNCs in Singapore”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 357-373.
Hungund, S. and Mani, V. (2019), “Benchmarking of factors influencing adoption of innovation in
software product SMEs: an empirical evidence from India”, Benchmarking An International
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1451-1468.
Ifinedo, P. (2011), “An empirical analysis of factors influencing internet/e-business technologies
adoption by smes in canada”, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision
Making, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 731-766.
Ivanov, S. and Webster, C. (2017), “Adoption of Robots , artificial intelligence and service
automation by travel , tourism and hospitality companies – a cost-benefit analysis”, in
International Scientific Conference “Contemporary Tourism – Traditions and Innovations,
Sofia University.
Jia, Q., Guo, Y. and Barnes, S.J. (2016), “E2.0 post-adoption: extending the IS continuance model based
on the technology-organization-environment framework”, No. September, in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB), pp. 695-707.
Kapoor, K.K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Nerur, S. (2018), “Advances in
social media research: past, present and future”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 531-558.
Kashi, K., Zheng, C. and Molineux, J. (2016), “Exploring factors driving social recruiting: the case of
Australian organizations”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 203-223.
Khemthong, S. and Roberts, L.M. (2006), “Adoption of internet and web technology for hotel marketing: Adoption of AI
a study of hotels in Thailand”, Journal of Law and Governance, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 51-70.
for talent
Kinder, T. (2000), “Use of the internet in recruitment - case studies from west Lothian, Scotland”,
Technovation, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 461-475.
acquisition
Kumar, S. (2019), “Artificial intelligence divulges effective tactics of top management institutes of
India”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 2188-2204.
Lai, Y., Sun, H. and Ren, J. (2018), “Understanding the determinants of big data analytics (BDA) 2625
adoption in logistics and supply chain management: an empirical investigation”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 676-703, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-
06-2017-0153.
Landers, R.N. and Schmidt, G.B. (2016), “Social media in employee selection and”, doi: 10.1007/
978-3-319-29989-1.
Laumer, S. and Eckhardt, A. (2012), “Task-technology fit theory: a survey and synopsis of the
literature”, Integrated Series in Information Systems, Vol. 28, pp. 63-86.
Lee, J.N., Miranda, S.M. and Kim, Y.M. (2004), “IT outsourcing strategies: universalistic, contingency, and
configurational explanations of success”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 110-131.
Lin, J.C.C. (2007), “Online stickiness: its antecedents and effect on purchasing intention”, Behaviour
and Information Technology, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 507-516.
Lin, W.S. (2012), “Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention
and task-technology fit perspectives”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Vol. 70 No. 7, pp. 498-507.
Lin, T.C. and Huang, C.C. (2008), “Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents:
an integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit”, Information and
Management, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 410-417.
Lin, H., Chi, O.H. and Gursoy, D. (2020), “Antecedents of customers’ acceptance of artificially
intelligent robotic device use in hospitality services”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 530-549, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2020.1685053.
Low, C., Chen, Y. and Wu, M. (2011), “Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 7, pp. 1006-1023.
Maciag, G.A. (2000), “Web portals usher in, drive away business”, National Underwriter/Property and
Casualty Risk and Benefits, Vol. 104 No. 50, pp. 19-20.
Martinez-Gil, J., Paoletti, A.L. and Pichler, M. (2016), “A novel approach for learning how to
automatically match job offers and candidate profiles”, Information Systems Frontiers,
pp. 1-10.
Masood, T. and Egger, J. (2019), “Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0—implementation
challenges and success factors”, in Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Elsevier
Ltd, Vol. 58, pp. 181-195.
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M.L., Rochester, N. and Shannon, C.E. (1955), A Proposal for the Dartmouth
Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence.
McDonald, K., Fisher, S. and Connelly, C.E. (2017), E-HRM Systems in Support of “Smart” Workforce
Management: An Exploratory Case Study of System Success, Emerald Publishing, doi: 10.1108/
978-1-78714-315-920161004.
McGill, T.J. and Klobas, J.E. (2009), “A task-technology fit view of learning management system
impact”, in Computers and Education, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 496-508.
McGoven, S., Padey, V., Gill, S., Aldrich, T., Myers, C., Desai, C. and Gera, M., et al. (2018), “The new
age: artificial intelligence for human resource opportunities and functions”, available at: https://
www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-the-new-age-artificial-intelligence-for-human-resource-
opportunities-and-functions/$FILE/EY-the-new-age-artificial-intelligence-for-human-resource-
opportunities-and-functions.pdf.
BIJ Melanthiou, Y., Pavlou, F. and Constantinou, E. (2015), “The use of social network sites as an
E-recruitment tool”, Journal of Transnational Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 31-49.
27,9
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for Talent, Harvard Business Press.
Moghaddam, H.A., Rezaei, S. and Amin, M. (2015), “Examining job seekers’ perception and
behavioural intention toward online recruitment: a PLS path modelling approach”, Journal for
Global Business Advancement, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 305-325.
2626 Muduli, A. and Trivedi, J.J. (2020), “Recruitment methods, recruitment outcomes and information
credibility and sufficiency”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 1615-1631, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2019-0312.
Nair, P. (2017), “The rise of the AI recruiter: is HR tech the next to challenge human intuition”,
available at: https://www.growthbusiness.co.uk/rise-ai-recruiter-hr-tech-next-challenge-human-
intuition-2550350.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliveira, T. and Martins, M.F. (2010), “Understanding e-business adoption across industries in
European countries”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 9, pp. 1337-1354.
Oliveira, T. and Martins, M.F. (2011), Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption Models at
Firm Level, No. January.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014), “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing
adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors”, Information and
Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 497-510.
Oliveira, T., Martins, R., Sarker, S., Thomas, M. and Popovic, A. (2019), “Understanding SaaS
adoption: the moderating impact of the environment context”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 49, pp. 1-12.
Osmonbekov, T. (2010), “Reseller adoption of manufacturers’ e-business tools: the impact of social
enforcement, technology-relationship fit and the mediating role of reseller benefits”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 217-223.
Park, J.H. and Kim, Y.B. (2019), “Factors activating big data adoption by Korean firms”, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1-9.
Phahlane, M.M. (2017), A Multidimensional Framework for Human Resource Information Systems
Adoption and Use in a South African University, University of the Witwatersrand.
Phahlane, M.M. and Kekwaletswe, R.M. (2017), “A conceptual research framework for human resource
information systems adoption and use in universities”, in 2017 Conference on Information
Communication Technology and Society, ICTAS 2017 - Proceedings, doi: 10.1109/ICTAS.2017.
7920654.
Phillips-Wren, G., Doran, R. and Merrill, K. (2016), “Creating a value proposition with a social media
strategy for talent acquisition”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 25, pp. 450-462.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Premkumar, G. and Roberts, M. (1999), “Adoption of new information technologies in rural small
businesses”, Omega, Vol. 27, pp. 467-484.
Puklavec, B., Oliveira, T. and Popovic, A. (2018), “Understanding the determinants of business
intelligence system adoption stages an empirical study of SMEs”, Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 236-261.
Qu, W.G., Yang, Z. and Wang, Z. (2011), “Multi-level framework of open source software adoption”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 997-1003.
Quaddus, M. and Hofmeyer, G. (2007), “An investigation into the factors influencing the adoption of
B2B Trading exchanges in small businesses in Western Australia”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 202-215.
Queiroz, M.M., Pereira, S.C.F., Telles, R. and Machado, M.C. (2019), “Industry 4.0 and digital supply Adoption of AI
chain capabilities: a framework for understanding digitalisation challenges and opportunities”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0435. for talent
Qureshi, M.A., Sharif, A. and Afshan, S. (2018), “Acceptance of learning management system in
acquisition
university students: an integrating framework of modified UTAUT2 and TTF theories”,
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 1.
Radhika, R. and John, F. (2016), “E-recruitment–an organizational change. International”, Journal of
Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 78-86. 2627
Rahayu, R. and Day, J. (2015), “Determinant factors of E-commerce adoption by SMEs in developing
country: evidence from Indonesia”, in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier B.V.,
Vol. 195, pp. 142-150.
Rahman, M. and Mordi, C. (2017), “Factors influencing E-HRM implementation in government
organisations”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 247-275.
Rahman, M., Mordi, C. and Nwagbara, U. (2018), “Factors influencing E-HRM implementation in
government organisations: case studies from Bangladesh”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 247-275.
Ramdani, B., Chevers, D. and Williams, D.A. (2013), “SMEs’ adoption of enterprise applications: a
technology-organisation-environment model”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 735-753.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), “Smart PLS 2.0”, available at: http://www.smartpls.de.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. and Williams, D. (1983), Diffusion of. Innovations. Glencoe, The Free Press.
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A. and Chowa, C. (2006), Information System Success: Individual and
Organizational Determinants.
Salam, M.A. (2019), “Analyzing manufacturing strategies and Industry 4.0 supplier performance
relationships from a resource-based perspective”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0428.
Sen, S. (2018), “AI and automation in HR: impact, adoption and future workforce”, available at: https://
www.digitalhrtech.com/ai-in-hr-impact-a.
Shaltoni, A. (2016), “From websites to social media: exploring the adoption of internet marketing in
emerging industrial markets”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7,
pp. 1009-10019.
Shih, K.H., Hung, H.F. and Lin, B. (2010), “Assessing user experiences and usage intentions
of m-banking service”, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 257-277.
Singh, N. (2018), “Strategic human resource practices for innovation performance: an empirical
investigation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3459-3478.
Sivathanu, B. (2019a), “Adoption of industrial IoT (IIoT) in auto-component manufacturing SMEs in
India”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 52-75.
Sivathanu, B. (2019b), “Adoption of digital payment systems in the era of demonetization in India: an
empirical study”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 143-171.
Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2019), “Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations:
a literature review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0284.
Strohmeier, S. (2007), Research in E-HRM: Review and Implications, Vol. 17, pp. 19-37.
Sun, J. and Teng, J.T.C. (2017), “The construct of information systems use benefits: theoretical
explication of its underlying dimensions and the development of a measurement scale”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 400-416.
BIJ Tam, C. and Oliveira, T. (2016), “Performance impact of mobile banking: using the task-technology fit
(TTF) approach”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 434-457.
27,9
Tavana, M. and Hajipour, V. (2019), “A practical review and taxonomy of fuzzy expert systems:
methods and applications”, Benchmarking, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 81-136.
Teo, T.S.H., Srivastava, S.C. and Jiang, L.I. (2009), Trust and Electronic Government Success:
An Empirical Study, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 99-131.
2628 Thomas, M., Costa, D. and Oliveira, T. (2016), “Assessing the role of IT-enabled process virtualization
on green IT adoption”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 693-710.
Thong, J. (1991), “An integrated model of information system Adoption in small business”, Journal of
Managemnet Inforamtion System, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 187-214.
Tong, D.Y.K. (2009), “A study of e-recruitment technology adoption in Malaysia”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 281-300.
Tong, D.Y.K. and Sivanand, C.N. (2005), “Service providers review: international and Malaysian”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 103-17.
Tornatzky, L. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Process of Technology Innovation, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Troshani, I., Jerram, C. and Gerrard, M. (2010), “Exploring the organizational adoption of human
resources information systems (HRIS) in the Australian public sector”, in ACIS 2010
Proceedings - 21st Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
Tsai, M.C., Lee, W. and Wu, H.C. (2010), “Determinants of RFID adoption intention: evidence from
Taiwanese retail chains”, Information and Management, Vol. 47 Nos 5–6, pp. 255-261.
Tsou, H.T. and Hsu, S.H.Y. (2015), “Performance effects of technology-organization-environment
openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: the case of the IT industry”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Tung, L.L. and Rieck, O. (2005), Adoption of Electronic Government Services Among Business
Organizations in Singapore, Vol. 14, pp. 417-440.
Tussyadiah, I. and Miller, G. (2019), “Perceived impacts of artificial intelligence and responses to positive
behaviour change intervention to positive behaviour change intervention*”, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-
05940-8.
Tussyadiah, I. and Park, S. (2018), “Consumer evaluation of hotel service Robots consumer evaluation
of hotel service Robots 1”, No. December 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72923-7.
Upadhyay, A. and Khandelwal, K. (2018), “Applying artificial intelligence: implications for
recruitment”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 255-258.
Van Esch, P., Black, J.S. and Ferolie, J. (2019), “Marketing AI recruitment: the next phase in job
application and selection”, in Computers in Human Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 90, pp. 215-222.
Vanduhe, V.Z., Nat, M. and Hasan, H.F. (2020), “Continuance intentions to use gamification for
training in higher education: integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM), social
motivation, and task technology fit (TTF)”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 21473-21484.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2009), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 425-478.
Virdyananto, A.L., Dewi, M.A.A., Hidayanto, A.N. and Hanief, S. (2017), “User acceptance of human
resource information system: an integration model of unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT), task technology fit (TTF), and symbolic adoption”, in International
Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation, ICITSI 2016 - Proceedings,
doi: 10.1109/ICITSI.2016.7858227.
Wang, S.L. and Lin, H.I. (2019), “Integrating TTF and IDT to evaluate user intention of big data
analytics in mobile cloud healthcare system”, in Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor
& Francis, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 974-985.
Wang, Y.S., Yeh, C.H. and Liao, Y.W. (2013), “What drives purchase intention in the context of online Adoption of AI
content services? the moderating role of ethical self-efficacy for online piracy”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 199-208. for talent
Wang, Y.Y., Wang, Y.S. and Lin, T.C. (2018), “Developing and validating a technology upgrade
acquisition
model”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 7-26, Elsevier.
Wu, W. (2011), “Expert systems with applications developing an explorative model for SaaS
adoption”, Expert Systems With Applications, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 15057-15064.
2629
Wymer, S.A. and Regan, E.A. (2005), “Factors influencing e-commerce adoption and use by small and
medium businesses”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 438-453.
Xia, B.S. and Gong, P. (2014), “Review of business intelligence through data analysis”, Benchmarking,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 300-311.
Yadegaridehkordi, E., Nilashi, M., Shuib, L., Hairul Nizam Bin Md Nasir, M., Asadi, S., Samad, S. and
Fatimah Awang, N. (2020), “The impact of big data on firm performance in hotel industry”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 40, p. 100921.
Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y. and Wang, Y. (2015), “Understanding SaaS adoption from the perspective
of organizational users: a tripod readiness model”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 45,
pp. 254-264.
Yang, H., Lee, H. and Zo, H. (2017), “User acceptance of smart home services: an extension of the
theory of planned behavior”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 1,
pp. 68-89.
Yoon, T.E. and George, J.F. (2013), Computers in Human Behavior Why Aren’ T Organizations
Adopting Virtual Worlds?, Vol. 29, pp. 772-790.
You, T. and To, N. (2019), “The 2019 talent acquisition landscape”, available at: https://www.recruiter.
com/downloads/the-2019-talent-acquisition-landscape/.
Yuan, Y., Archer, N., Connelly, C.E. and Zheng, W. (2010), “Identifying the ideal fit between mobile
work and mobile work support”, Information and Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 125-137.
Zafar, H. (2013), “Human resource information systems: information security concerns for
organizations”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 105-113.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y. and Wang, B. (2010), “Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user
adoption”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 760-767.
Zhu, K., Dong, S., Xu, S.X. and Kraemer, K.L. (2006), “Innovation diffusion in global contexts:
determinants of post-adoption digital transformation of European companies”, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 601-616.

Corresponding author
Rajasshrie Pillai can be contacted at: rajasshrie1@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com