The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Individual adoption of HR analytics: a fine grained

view of the early stages leading to adoption

Roslyn Vargas, Yuliya V. Yurova, Cynthia P. Ruppel, Leslie C. Tworoger &

Regina Greenwood

To cite this article: Roslyn Vargas, Yuliya V. Yurova, Cynthia P. Ruppel, Leslie C. Tworoger &
Regina Greenwood (2018) Individual adoption of HR analytics: a fine grained view of the early
stages leading to adoption, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29:22,
3046-3067, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1446181

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1446181

Published online: 08 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3323

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 34 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 2018
VOL. 29, NO. 22, 3046–3064
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1446181

Individual adoption of HR analytics: a fine grained view of

the early stages leading to adoption
Roslyn Vargas‡, Yuliya V. Yurova, Cynthia P. Ruppel, Leslie C. Tworoger and
Regina Greenwood
H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University, Fort
Lauderdale, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
High performing organizations are using analytics for HR Analytics; Innovation
evidence-based decision-making. However, the human theory; Theory of planned
resource (HR) function in many organizations has been slow behavior; Innovation
to adopt this innovation. This study applies innovation theory, adoption; Innovation use;
Attitudes
informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), to examine
the individual’s decision to adopt HR Analytics in an effort to
identify why the adoption rate is lagging. We examined early
stages of the individual decision process beginning from
Stage 1 (knowledge) and leading to Stage 3, (the decision)
to adopt or not to adopt the innovation. We found several
points in the process that can act as barriers or facilitators.
Organizations and champions of this innovation wishing to
facilitate HR analytics adoption can take action to remove as
many of these barriers to the individual’s decision as possible.
Further research should focus on the best way to remove
these barriers.

Introduction
The use of analytics in human resource management has not kept pace with
organizational need; hence, HR is not participating as a strategic partner (Lawler,
Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004; SuccessFactors, 2015). HR must become a strategic
partner by providing insight through data analytics that can be used to develop
competitive strategies (Angrave, Charlwood, Kirkpatrick, Lawrence, & Stuart,
2016; Davenport, Harris & Shapiro, 2010; Lawler et al., 2004; Levenson, 2005;
Levenson, 2011) or risk becoming irrelevant (Bassi, 2011).
HR Analytics should be experiencing an evolution of analytics from basic
metrics and measurement of internal HR metrics to a focus on the ‘… analy-
sis of critical human capital issues’ (Levenson, 2005, p. 31). Studies have found
that organizations that take the time and effort to manage their employees as

CONTACT  Cynthia P. Ruppel  ruppel@nova.edu

‡
Economics and Business Administration, Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, VA, USA.
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3047

the valuable assets outperform their peer organizations and gain a competitive
advantage (Galagan, 2014; Brown & Gottlieb, 2016, April). Currently, a handful
of the best performing organizations have moved to Analytics 3.0, while the rest
of companies still execute Analytics 1.0 (Levenson, 2005). Thus, it is important
that HR departments adopt HR Analytics at a much more rapid pace before they
are taken over by the finance or IT departments (Bassi, 2011). Indeed, a recent
practitioner study by Fairsail (Fletcher, 2015) of 150 private sector HR VPs and
directors reports that while HR managers understand the term ‘workforce analyt-
ics’, only 58% of HR leaders felt confident in their HR teams’ abilities to understand
and interpret analytics, while the remaining 42% responded that they were ‘not
confident’.
Marler and Boudreau (2017) conducted a review of the HR Analytics litera-
ture and found ‘very little and limited scientific evidence to aid decision-making
concerning whether to adopt HR Analytics.’ (p. 20). They identified 32 peer-­
reviewed articles, 16 of which were listed on the Journal Quality Lists and ulti-
mately only four studies that were empirical in nature. In their argument to justify
HR Analytics as an innovation, especially in its early stages, they applied Rogers
(2003) definition of an innovation as well as his Diffusion of Innovation theory. We
specifically applied Rogers’ innovation-decision process, informed by the Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 2012) to investigate the early stages of the
innovation-decision process leading towards the decision regarding adoption.
This empirical study contributes to a better understanding of why HR profes-
sionals are not adopting HR analytics at a rate needed by their organizations, even
though it is essential for competitiveness. By using Rogers’ innovation decision
process model (Rogers, 2003) we discuss the first three steps in this decision
process (see Figure 1) to better understand what contributes to the decision to
adopt HR analytics. We delve into these early stages of the process to shed light on
what persuades HR personnel to make a decision to use or not use HR analytics.
This study applies TPB (Ajzen, 2012) to go ‘inside’ the early stages leading this
critical decision point to better understand factors that either promote or act as
barriers to adoption.

Figure 1. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (p. 170), by E. M. Rogers (5th), 2003, New York:
Free Press. Copyright 2003 by The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
3048 R. VARGAS ET AL.

Literature review and hypothesis development

This study uses innovation theory, and particularly the innovation decision-mak-
ing process as a framework (Figure 1) to examine the adoption of analytics as
applied to HR. It has been reported that HR has lagged behind other functional
areas in the adoption of analytics among top performing companies (LaValle,
Lesser, Shockley, Hopkins, & Kruschwitz, 2011). Analytics is more complex since
knowledge and skills are needed in each of the multiple steps such as collecting
appropriate data, developing models, conducting analysis, and interpreting results
are also needed.
An innovation as defined by Rogers (2003, p. 12) is ‘an idea, practice, or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’. He further
expanded the application of the decision-making process to acknowledge that
the lapse of time since discovery of innovation is irrelevant as far as the individ-
ual making the decision is concerned. If it is new to the unit of adoption, in this
case individuals, then they will behave in ways consistent with it being new to
them individually (Rogers, 2003). Applying this logic Marler and Boudreau (2017)
classified HR Analytics as an innovation to most individuals and organizations.
Although the measurement of HR data has existed for some time at a descriptive
level as Analytics 1.0, they state: ‘HR Analytics represents a new innovation, even
though it has been discussed for many years’ (p. 4).

Individual level of innovation adoption

Making the decision to adopt an innovation ‘takes place when an individual (or
other decision–making unit) engages in activities that lead to the choice to adopt
or reject an innovation’ (Rogers, 2003, p. 177). Adoption is defined by Rogers
(2003) as, ‘Adoption is a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best
course of action available’ (p. 177). Rejection, on the other hand, is simply not
making the decision to adopt. While an individual may have a positive attitude
towards an innovation since it is new, there is uncertainty concerning the inno-
vation involved. Individuals may wish to engage in a process of activities that
reduce their uncertainty prior to making the decision to adopt the innovation.
These activities may include trying the innovation on a trial or limited basis.
The availability of a trial usually increases the rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003).
If an individual is unable to try the innovation, a trial by a peer, particularly an
influencer, has been known to at least partially substitute for the individual being
able to try it. Innovation champions, or as Rogers (2003) refers to them ‘change
agents’, can demonstrate the product and attempt to reduce uncertainty through
information about personal experiences, thus creating a viral recommendation.
An individual moves through the adoption stage until he or she decides he/she
is ready to move on to the implementation stage and put the innovation to full
use and institutionalize its use. Alternatively, an individual can actively make a
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3049

decision not to adopt the innovation or passively reject it by not moving forward
in the adoption process. The level of adoption is how far into the adoption process
an individual has progressed towards an adoption decision of whether to adopt
or to reject the innovation.

Rogers’ innovation decision framework stage 1: knowledge activities

informed by TPB

While the decision framework provides guidance to the decision process steps, it
does not directly address the theoretical basis for the activities within these steps
which influence the decision to adopt. Adoption of an innovation is defined as
an intent behavior to use an innovation. Thus, we have applied TPB to study the
intention to adopt behavior. TPB has been widely applied in many fields, to study
many behaviors and has previously been applied in innovation research (Lee, 2012;
Weigel, Hazen, Cegielski, & Hall, 2014).
In this study we apply TPB to inform Stage 1 (knowledge) and Stage 2 (per-
suasion) of the innovation decision-making process as to what activities within
the stages are appropriate to examine. Factors that impact behavioral intention
in TPB include perceived behavioral control/self-efficacy (Stage 1), attitudes and
subjective norms (Stage 2). Applying TPB insights into the type of knowledge
that impacts attitudes, we include two types of self-efficacy in Stage 1: technology
self-efficacy and quantitative self-efficacy. If the Stage 1 process activities are not
successfully completed, the remaining processes in the innovation framework
may not occur. Attitudes change or adapt as knowledge is acquired during the
knowledge stage of the innovation-decision process (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000).

Technology self-efficacy
The TPB has evolved in empirical research to make a distinction between per-
ceived behavioral control and self-efficacy. In his review of the research literature,
Ajzen (2001) cites several studies that have empirically tested and supported the
distinction. For example, computer self-efficacy is defined as ‘a judgment of one’s
capability to use a computer. It is not concerned with what one has done in the
past, but rather with judgments of what could be done in the future’ (Compeau
& Higgins, 1995, p. 192). As discussed above, such belief has been found to be
related to attitudes (Ajzen, 2001).
Since ‘Technology is a key part of outstanding execution in HR services’ (How
CHROS Deliver Business Impact, 2015, p. 4) and also a key to HR Analytics
according to Davenport (2006) who states, ‘Competing on analytics means com-
peting on technology’ (p. 8), we included technology self-efficacy in this study.
Although this represents a single component of the analytics complexity given
the integration of analytics and information technology, it possesses the poten-
tial to impact attitudes concerning HR Analytics in a negative way. A study by
3050 R. VARGAS ET AL.

Halper (2014) identified the understanding of technology as a top challenge to the

adoption of predictive analytics among those HR professionals who are actively
investigating analytics.
H1: Technology self-efficacy is positively related to the level of individual adoption of
HR Analytics.
H1b: Technology self-efficacy is positively related to attitude towards HR analytics.

Quantitative self-efficacy

Similarly, given the complexity of the innovation and the need for a broad knowl-
edge base and multiple skills, quantitative self-efficacy is included in the model
consistent with TPB  which states that knowledge impacts attitudes (Ajzen  &
Fishbein, 2000). According to Bandura (1977) self-efficacy is based on the belief
an individual has regarding his or her capability to be successful and be able to
attain a given level of performance. According to Ozgen (2013) and Ozgen and
Bindak (2008), who have studied mathematical literacy and Hendel (1980) who
has studied math anxiety, there is an attitudinal relationship between knowledge
and anxiety and, hence, an effect on mathematical self-efficacy. For the purpose
of this paper, the term quantitative self-efficacy and mathematical self-efficacy are
interchangeable. Thus, HR professionals’ acceptance and use of human resource
analytics would be dependent upon their perception of their individual capabilities
of success in achieving acceptable performance levels with the use of HR Analytics.
Research has shown that even using relatively simple metrics and scorecards,
only 42 percent of HR professionals possess the knowledge to use the available data
to identify meaningful insights (Brown et al., 2015). This suggests that quantitative
self-efficacy has a potential impact on the acceptance and intention to use and/
or recommend the use of HR Analytics and will also determine to what extent
there will be acceptance.
H2: Quantitative self-efficacy is positively related to the level of individual adoption of
HR Analytics
H2b: Quantitative self-efficacy is positively related to an individual’s attitude towards
HR Analytics.

Rogers’ innovation decision framework stage 2: persuasion activities

informed by TPB

In Rogers’ (2003) framework the second stage of the innovation decision-making

process which leads to individual adoption is identified as persuasion, which
includes attitude formation. Attitude formation, while related to cognition or
knowledge, is also impacted by behavior and affect (Lee, 2012; Waheed, Kaur, Ain
& Sanni, 2015). Most innovation studies have focused on adoption models such
as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which has its roots in the Theory of
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3051

Reasoned Action (TRA) (Lee, 2012). Thus, how attitudes predict the behavioral
intention to adopt HR Analytics provides insights into the reportedly slow rate
of its adoption of analytics by HR professionals.
Ajzen and Fishbein (2000, p. 3) define attitude in the context of this theory as
‘… the evaluation of an object, concept or behavior along a dimension of favor
or disfavor, good or bad, like or dislike.’ The strength of the attitudes impacts the
resistance to change although the relationship is weak and dependent on the type
of attitude and how it is measured (Ajzen, 2001).

Attitude towards analytics

As noted, the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process consists of

attitudes formed towards the innovation under consideration. An expectation of
an organization which has adopted analytics is that this knowledge will promote,
in the individual employees, a positive attitude towards analytics. However, the
readiness level of the HR professional to move towards HR Analytics is the HR
professionals’ willingness and commitment to learning and intention to adopt this
‘new’ way of measuring HR (Bazurli, Cucciniello, Mele, Nasi, & Valotti, 2014).
HR professionals and leaders who have been focused on the ‘soft skills’ within the
organization appear to lack of comfort in dealing with analytics, particularly when
related to people issues (Prokopeak, 2014). It is becoming increasingly apparent
that HR professionals need training in the area of understanding analytics, where
their data comes from, what the data actually means and how it aligns with the
organization’s strategic plan, instead of merely the internal metrics, to move to a
more positive attitude (Prokopeak, 2014).
Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) suggest that attitudes predict behavior such that pos-
itive attitudes predispose one towards positive behavior while negative attitudes
predispose one to avoid or reject the object and behave accordingly. They also
suggest that using general measures of attitudes to predict behavior in a specific
context (HR) can result in conflicting results. Thus, the specificity of the context
and the specificity of the behavior, in this HR analytics adoption, is important
to consider. This link has been studied in multiple innovationsby Karahanna,
Straub, and Chervany (1999), Rai, Lang & Welker (2002), Manning (2009), and
Lee (2012).
H3: Attitude towards HR Analytics is positively related to the level of individual inten-
tion to adopt HR Analytics.

Social influence/social norms

Another TPB antecedent to intention is subjective norms, defined as, ‘The degree
to which a decision-maker feels it necessary to behave in a manner consistent with
the social environment’ (Weigel et al., 2014, p. 622). As subjective norms from TPB
and social influence/social norm from the innovation literature are conceptually
3052 R. VARGAS ET AL.

and definitionally consistent, we use the term social norms in this study. Thus,
in Stage 2 of the innovation decision-making process, consistent with both TPB
and innovation theory, social norms are included in the theoretical model and
the statistical model of adoption.
Culture has been cited frequently in the practitioner literature as a significant
issue in the adoption and use of analytics. Those who are actively using analytics
report that an analytics culture is important and that it takes years to form such a
culture (Halper, 2014). It was found that cultural challenges can be as significant
as business and technology challenges (Halper, 2014) and that respondents, when
asked their satisfaction level with culture relative to analytics, ranked it at best
neutral (2.96 out of 5). Similarly, UPS, a role model for successful use of analytics,
reported that more money was spent on culture change than on any other aspect
of their analytics implementation (Davenport, 2013). Thus, a shared cultural norm
of the adoption of analytics, together with champions of the innovation to spread
these norms, is desirable.
H4: Social Influence is positively related to the level of individual adoption of HR
Analytics

Tool trialability

Trialability is the ‘degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on

a daily basis’ (Rogers, 2003, p. 258) or alternatively the access to the innovation
to try the innovation on a limited basis (Banerjee, Wei & Ma, 2012). It does not
include the actual trial of the innovation which is categorized as being in the
adoption stage, while trialability or availability to try an innovation is in Stage 2
(Banerjee, Wei & Ma, 2012; Lin & Bautista, 2017). If an individual adopter does
not have the ability to experiment with the innovation, they will likely not adopt
the innovation and progress to Stage 3 thus creating a barrier to adoption. It has
been found that trialability has a positive relationship with adoption (Rogers, 2003;
Lin & Bautlsta, 2017). Similarly, in a meta-analysis Hameed and Counsell (2014,
p. 1) found that trialability is a ‘strong determinant of IT innovation adoption’ and
they further suggest that it is important in the early stages leading to adoption.
While HR analytics is not an IT innovation, analytics, as discussed is a technical
and complex innovation.
Obeidat (2012) found that in the case of Human Resource Information Systems
(HRIS), a closely related precursor to HR analytics, trialability was the primary
predictor of the individual adoption decision for HRIS. Similarly, it is reported
that trialability of healthcare apps had a positive relationship (Lin &  Bautista,
2017). Hayes, Eljiz, Dadich, Fitzgerald & Sloan, (2015, p. 284) in their case study in
hospitals found that ‘trialability emerged as the most important individual factor
reported to influence the hospital’s adoption of the innovation.’ Thus we propose:
H5: Trialability is positively related to the level of individual level of adoption of HR
Analytics.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3053

H5b Trialability is positively related to an individual’s attitude towards HR Analytics.

The conceptual model is shown in Figure 2.

Methodology
Measures
The survey instrument included previously validated measures that were appropri-
ately adapted for this study. The attitude towards analytics ATT (‘I like working with
HR Analytics’) was assessed through a four-item scale of Johnston and Warkentin
(2010). The Bai, Wang, Pan, and Frey’s (2009) mathematical self-efficacy scale
was used to measure quantitative self-efficacy QSE (‘I find using mathematical
and/or statistical measurements interesting’) and the instrument of Chau (2001)
and Lee and Huang (2014) was used to measure technology self-efficacy TSE (‘I
could complete a job or task using technology if I had training materials read-
ily available’). HR Analytics tool ‘trialability’ TRIAL (‘I have had a great deal of
opportunity to try various HR Analytics applications’) was adapted from Moore
and Benbasat (1991). Assessment of social influence SOCI (‘People who influence
my behavior think that I should use HR Analytics’) was based on subjective norms
scale of Johnston and Warkentin (2010) and Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2012).
A five-item scale of the level of adoption ADOP measured the depth of the
individual adoption process as outlined by Rogers (2003). The scale items follow
the stages in the innovation-decision process advancing from pre-contemplation
and awareness (‘My organization is putting a policy in place to use HR Analytics’),
through preparation, intention to seek additional information and try out the
innovation (‘I am beginning to explore using HR Analytics’), to formation of an

Figure 2. Conceptual model.

3054 R. VARGAS ET AL.

attitude towards the innovation (‘I am interested in using HR analytics’ and ‘I

am recommending my organization invest in HR analytics’), and finally, to occa-
sional use of innovation (‘I use HR Analytics for some specific tasks’). The scale
items are ordered according to the progression of activities/attitudes that lead to a
choice to adopt or reject innovation and, therefore, capture different stages of the
individual adoption process. All survey items were measured on a 7-point Likert
scale, with the anchors from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Demographic
questions concluded the survey.
To ensure that respondents do not confuse HR Analytics with other forms of
analytical work and/ or misinterpret HR Analytics as describing and reporting
data, the definition of analytics was included at the top of every page of the survey:
‘HR Analytics is defined as demonstrating the direct impact of people data on
important business outcomes. HR Analytics are the statistical measures that can
show connections, correlations and even causality between human resource met-
rics and other business measures.’ Survey participants were also asked to describe
the HR Analytics tool adopted by their organization and the tool that they use on a
regular basis to affirm suitability of each collected response. Respondents reported
Microsoft Excel as a HR Analytics tool were removed from the final sample.

Data collection

The population for this study consisted of HR professionals currently working in

companies adopted HR Analytics. The responses were solicited online to ensure
confidentiality and anonymity (Fleming & Wilson, 2001). To minimize poten-
tial bias in the data collected, the subjects were targeted via carefully selected
LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter communities, including HR & Workforce
Analytics, HR Professionals Worldwide, SHRM, PHR Linked, HR Girlfriends,
Hispanic HR Network, HR Executive Network, HR.com, and Linked. Although
these communities are not exhaustive populations of industry representatives,
they are suitable for targeting subjects in this study. Goodman (2011) argued
that initial contact with appropriate individuals from targeted population ensures
collection a representative sample from the population of interest even in the case
of populations which are not hard-to-reach.
Data was collected in two steps. First, a pilot study was conducted among 108
HR professionals to pretest survey instrument, access construct validity and reli-
ability, and to ensure that respondents belong to the targeted population. These
responses were not included in the final sample. Several adjustments to respond-
ents screening were made as a result of the pilot study that improved targeting
of the population. Next, the targeted online HR professional communities were
identified and its members were contacted with the request for participation.
The sample consisted of 123 usable responses from HR specialists/generalists
(49.6%) and HR analysts/ HR information specialists (50.4%) representing various
industries in manufacturing, petro-chemicals, retail, hospitality, transportation,
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3055

healthcare, education, broadcasting, entertainment, professional services, food,

and distribution. All respondents are currently working at companies that have
adopted HR Analytics and 83 respondents (67.5%) are employed by large com-
panies, employing 500 people or more. Among respondents there are 92 females
(74.8%); 90 (73.2%) respondents are 36 years or older; 53 (43.1%) respondents
have a bachelor’s degree and 59 (48%) have a master’s degree. The sample HR
tenure ranged from 1 to 35 years with the average of 14.9 years.
To ensure that study sample accurately reflect the characteristics of the tar-
geted population, we compared sample and industry demographic indicators.
The demographic profile of the sample is consistent with the industry statistics:
over 70% of HR professionals are female (Ramirez, 2012; Regan & Dean, 2014);
have more than 5 years of experience (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor, 2014); and 86% of HR professionals have a bachelor’s degree or higher
(National Center for O’Net Development, 2013).

Methods of analysis

Partial least squares path modeling (PLS PM) was chosen to test the proposed
hypotheses (see Figure 2). PLS PM is widely applied in business and social science
research (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2012; Henseler, Hubona, & Ray, 2016;
Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012). Moreover, PLS PM relaxes requirements for
sample size and distributional assumptions allowing for distribution-free boot-
strap tests to be conducted when testing hypotheses (Chin & Newsted, 1999).
The normality tests (Anderson & Darling, 1954; Lilliefors, 1967) of the estimated
latent variables detected significant departures from normality and, thus, PLSPM
estimation method was employed. Bootstrapping with 1,000 replications was used
to test the significance of the path estimates (Chin, 1998). The analysis was con-
ducted using XLSTAT 2017.19.5 by Addinsoft.

Results
Measurement model
Various tests were performed to assess validity and reliability of reflective con-
structs (ATT, TSE, QSE, SOCI, and TRIAL) and assess model fit following rec-
ommendations by Chin (2010) and Henseler et al. (2016). The level of adoption,
ADOP, was measured using a progressive scale. The latent score for this variable
was calculated using weights (.1, .15, .2, .25, and .3) corresponding to the stage in
the adoption decision process.
First, the model fit was gauged via goodness-of-fit indicators (overall model
fit) provided in the PLS output and by accessing the measurement and structural
models (local model fit). The overall model fit was assessed using standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) (Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999). This fit crite-
rion measures the discrepancy between the model-implied and the empirical
3056 R. VARGAS ET AL.

correlation matrix and is the only overall model fit indicator currently available for
PLS path modeling. The model SRMR of .055 is below the recommended threshold
values of .06 and .08 (Henseler et al., 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore, overall
model fit is acceptable. We also report the values for the goodness-of-fit indicator
proposed by Tenenhaus, Amato, and Esposito Vinzi (2004), which exceeded the
suggested threshold of .25 for absolute GoF in medium-size samples (Wetzels,
Odekerken-Schröder, & van Oppen, 2009) and .70 for the relative GoF (Vinzi,
Trinchera, & Amato, 2010).
Next, reliability and validity of the measurement model was assessed. Factor
loadings of the reflective variables were examined to ensure that items load on
their respective constructs and do not cross-load with dissimilar constructs, and,
thus, to establish construct validity. Next, loadings of the individual scale items
were analyzed. As presented in Table 1, the item loadings exceeded the con-
ventional .702 threshold, (Hulland, 1999) suggesting adequate item reliability.
Each construct explained more than 50% of the average variance extracted (AVE)
demonstrating convergent validity (Gefen & Straub, 2005). Furthermore, the AVE
of each latent variable exceeded the squared correlations between constructs, as
shown in Table 2. Thus, the independent construct indicator discriminate well
and the condition for satisfactory discriminant validity has been met (Chin, 1998;
Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The reliability of the scales was assessed using Dillon
Goldstein’s composite reliability indicator. From Table 1, each constructs reliability

Table 1. Measurement model.

N = 123
Constructs and instrument variables SL CR Ave ρC
Technology Self-Efficacy (TSE):     .679 .809
I could complete a job/task using technology if I had just the ‘built-in HR .835** 9.46    
Analytics help’ function for assistance
I could complete a job/task using technology if I had training materials .813** 7.91    
readily available
Quantitative Self-Efficacy (QSE):     .745 .898
I find using mathematical and/or statistical measurements interesting .868** 26.66    
I enjoy working with mathematical and/or statistical analyses .867** 18.52    
Math and/or statistics is one of my favorite subjects .854** 25.87    
Attitude towards Using HR Analytics (ATT):     .790 .937
HR Analytics makes my job more interesting .772** 17.96    
Working with HR Analytics is satisfying .902** 37.62    
I like working with HR Analytics .951** 88.68    
I enjoy working with HR Analytics .921** 36.74    
Tool Trialability (TRIAL):     .728 .889
Before deciding whether to use any HR Analytic applications, I am able to .868** 9.49    
properly try them out
I have had a great deal of opportunity to try various HR Analytics appli- .867** 12.00    
cations
I know where I can go to satisfactorily try out various uses of HR Analytics .854** 10.78    
Social Influence (SOCI):     .879 .936
People who influence my behavior think that I should use HR Analytics .924** 19.60    
People who are important to me think that I should use HR Analytics .951** 56.15    
Notes: SL standardized loading; CR critical ratio; AVE average variance extracted, percentage of variance of item
explained by the latent variable; ρC, Dillon-Goldstein composite reliability (Werts et al., 1974).
**p-value < .05.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3057

Table 2. Variables means, correlations and discriminant validity of latent variables.

Correlations and squared correlations
  M SD Ave 1 2 3 4 5 6
                   
1. ADOP 4.78 .80   1          
2. TRIAL 3.78 1.39 .728 .18 .73 .04 .01 .01 .00
3. ATT 4.90 1.15 .790 .50 .21 .79 .01 .03 .29
4. SOCI 4.65 1.16 .879 .32 −.11 .18 .88 .00 .01
5. TSE 5.20 .86 .679 .32 .09 .17 .01 .68 .02
6. QSE 4.30 1.51 .745 .21 .01 .54 .09 .15 .75
                   
Company size (large/medium = 1) .67 .47   .02 .03 −.21 .00 .16 −.25
Gender (female = 1) .75 .44   −.19 −.27 −.20 .04 −.03 −.24
Education (master’s degree = 1) .48 .50   .03 −.02 .11 .13 −.01 .05
Professional designation (HRIS) .50 .50   .06 .06 −.07 .09 .01 −.02
                   
Notes: M mean; SD standard deviation; AVE average variance extracted; presented in the correlations section of
the table are correlations between latent constructs (below diagonal) and squared correlations (above diagonal);
correlations in italic font are insigificant at 5% level for a two-sided test; discriminant validity of a measurement
model requires correlations between the constructs to be smaller than the square root of average variance ex-
tracted (AVE). Description of control variables and their correlations with model constructs conclude the table.

scores exceed .70 threshold thereby establishing construct reliability (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981).
In addition to discriminant validity indicators, Table 2 reports correlations of
the study variables with the demographic variables and variable descriptive statis-
tics. Unsurprisingly, the average level of attitude towards analytics and technology
self-efficacy was rather high (M = 4.9 and M = 5.2 respectively on a scale from
1 to 7). The mean of quantitative self-efficacy and trialability in this sample was
substantially low (M = 4.3 and M = 3.8). The variables had predicted correlation
signs. Interestingly, ATT and QSE were highly positively correlated, while gender
was significantly negatively correlated to the individual level of adoption, QSE,
ATT, and TRIAL, suggesting that females in this sample are less likely to try out
new innovation, less likely to form a positive attitude towards analytics, and more
likely to delay and/ or resist analytics adoption.

Structural model

Table 3 and Figure 3 present the estimated structural model. The R2 value for
individual level of adoption was sizable (34.9%) suggesting acceptable explana-
tory power of the model. All estimated paths leading from proposed predictors
to individual level of adoption ADOP were significant and had predicted signs.
Thus, support for hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 is established. QSE and
TRIAL had significant positive effect on ATT (H2b and H5b supported), while the
effect of TSE on ATT was insignificant (H1b is not supported). Among control
variables gender had a significant negative impact on ADOP.
3058 R. VARGAS ET AL.

Table 3. Structural model.

  Direct Effect SE R2 Hypothesis Result Total Effect
Attitude towards Using Analytics (ATT):     .329    
TSE -> ATT .150 .09   H1b not supported  
QSE -> ATT .490** .07   H2b supported  
TRIAL -> ATT .193** .08   H5b supported  
Level of Adoption (ADOP):     .349    
TSE -> ADOP .196** .06   H1 supported .242
QSE -> ADOP .126** .05   H2 supported .275
ATT -> ADOP .304** .04   H3 supported .304
SOCI -> ADOP .196** .07   H4 supported .196
TRIAL -> ADOP .111* .05   H5 supported .170
Control Variables:          
Company Size .014 .05      
Education .021 .05      
Gender −.114** .04      
Professional designation .037 .05      
Goodness-of-fit          
Absolute a     .509    
Relative b     .926    
SRMR     .055    
Χ2/ df     2.28    
Notes: SP standardized path coefficient; SE standard error.
The bolded values indicate statistically significant paths and for readability. The italicized values are standard errors,
which are typically italicized.
** p < .05 and *p < .05 for a two-tailed test; significance of standardized path coefficients were obtained using
bootstrap with 1000 resamplings (Chin, 1998); bootstrapped standard errors of the estimates were included for
completeness.
a
Tenenhaus et al. (2004)
b
Vinzi et al. (2010, pp. 58–59).

Figure 3. Estimated model.

Discussion of results and theoretical implications

Given the breadth of data analytics skills and knowledge necessary for HR
Analytics to be used successfully, as well as its integration with technology, HR
Analytics provided an interesting context in which to study the process of adop-
tion. Rogers (2003) innovation decision-making process provided a framework
to study the adoption of HR Analytics. To inform the activities within the stages
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3059

of the framework, Theory of Planned Behavior was applied. The goal of this study
was to identify factors that will facilitate, or act as barriers to the adoption of HR
Analytics, to explain the lagging adoption of HR Analytics and propose ways to
increase adoption rate.
To illustrate the relative importance and performance of the determinants of
the individual adoption, the total effects (direct and indirect) were mapped against
the normalized averages of the predictor variables (on a scale from 0 to 100). The
importance-performance map is presented in Figure 4. Importance is measured
by total effect of the independent variable (also reported in Table 3) and, hence,
variables located further from the Y-axis have the highest impact on the depend-
ent variable. Performance is the re-scaled mean of the variable; variables located
closer to the X-axis have lower average level and thus can be considered as having
a potential for improvement. From Figure 4, the individual level of adoption is
driven predominantly by attitude towards analytics followed closely by technology
and quantitative self-efficacy. Social influence and trialability also play an impor-
tant role for organizations that have adopted HR Analytics, however, their total
effect on the individual level of adoption is lesser. Trialability had the lowest total
impact and this result may be due to the fact that quantitative and technological
self-efficacies had such a strong impact on the level of adoption that if the indi-
vidual potential adopter does not believe they have the knowledge and ability to
adopt this innovation, they also may not fully appreciate the value of trialability.
The observed difference in total effects of latent variables suggests that the
innovation adoption decision in the sampled organizations is considerably driven
by enthusiastic employees or ‘innovation champions’. Moreover, respondents
reported low levels of quantitative self-efficacy and trialability (fear of math/sta-
tistics, lack of quantitative training, low analytics awareness, lack of resources and

Figure 4. Variable importance-performance map.

3060 R. VARGAS ET AL.

organizational support promoting analytics and its tools), implying that these
determinants act as a barrier rather than a driver of the analytics adoption process.
The variables with the greatest total impact on HR Analytics adoption appear
to be related to the individual’s perception that he/she is capable of doing analyt-
ics (attitude and self-efficacies). Quantitative self-efficacy was also a significant
predictor of the positive attitude towards analytics. Hence, internal motivation
drives the individual adoption process implying that the individual’s HR Analytics
adoption decision is highly internal and begins with the individual’s affect and
thus is primarily a bottom-up, ad hoc adoption. Moreover, the observed low level
of quantitative self-efficacy in post-organizational adoption is consistent with the
idea that technology can act as a barrier to adoption (Rogers, 2003). This finding
supports the expansion of individual adoption models when complex innovations
are studied to include all self-efficacies related to the various complexities of the
innovation. It also supports the discussion in the literature as to whether emo-
tions should be a part of models designed to explain adoption of an innovation
(Waheed, Kaur, Ain, & Sanni, 2015). In this case the variables explained 35%
of the adoption decision and both self-efficacies explained 33% of the attitude
formed about the innovation. Determining what drives the emotions warrants
further study both to determine if this varies by specific innovations, as well as
to reproduce these results.
External motivation, as reflected in social norms and trialability, are other
important facilitators, or alternatively barriers, of innovation adoption. This
suggests that for companies that wish to promote analytics it is important to
adopt analytics as an organization (top-down) and, then, specifically promote
the use of analytics in HR to improve the rate of adoption. As our results show,
an ‘analytics culture’ is essential to influencing the individual innovation-decision
process (Davenport, 2006; LaValle et al., 2011; Davenport, 2013), but it can only
be achieved after the company adopts the complex innovation across the organ-
ization. Similarly, the existence of innovation champions/change agents is most
effective in an organization where the innovation has been adopted and they can
share personal experiences within the organizational context. Likewise, organi-
zational adoption facilitates trialability of the innovation due to the availability
and convenience of the tools.
Among the control variables only gender, in this case female, was significant.
Interestingly, it was negatively significant. This is important since seventy-six
percent of HR managers were female (Sutcliffe, 2015) and approximately 69% of
SHRM, the world’s largest HR professional organization, were women (SHRM rep-
resentative, personal communication, December 9, 2014). Prior research suggests
that women are limited by their own beliefs that traditionally male occupations
are unsuitable for them because they lack the aptitudes to master essential skills,
such as data analysis (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1982; Talukder & Quazi, 2011).
Since a large percentage of HR leaders and those professionally engaged are female
this may in part explain the lagging adoption rate.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3061

Implications for practice

Managers should examine ways to remove barriers such as self-efficacy, the most
obvious ways appear to be through training, innovation champions, and a social
norm to increase the individual’s self-efficacy. Also the availability of tools with
which to experiment with analytics and the slack time to do so should be provided.
These activities can also be used to encourage a positive attitude towards analytics
to facilitate adoption and increase the number of individuals adopting as well as
the rate at which they are adopting HR analytics.
These results suggest to managers that knowledge is an important resource
required for employee adoption as per Rogers (2003), in the innovation-decision
process. A lack of self-efficacy can be improved by providing analytics training
and support but also by dividing responsibilities in a way that uses the employee’s
personal strengths. If individual users are not statistically sophisticated, but have
good subject matter expertise, then roles in cross-functional analytical teams
should be designed so that the statistical analysis is completed by a statistician,
but knowledge of the data and perhaps some modeling use the HR expertise
of the individual. Providing resources such as tools and data, and organizing
cross-functional analytical teams (Bassi, 2011; Volini, Mazor, Schaefer, Tsuchida,
& Walsh, 2016) will encourage adoption by allowing employees to move through
the innovation-decision process more easily.
Another finding of interest to managers is that attitude towards analytics and
quantitative self-efficacy were significantly correlated. While these constructs are
theoretically distinct, to the survey respondents they appeared to be perceived sim-
ilarly. This suggests that analytics is being closely identified, and perhaps almost
synonymously, with math and statistics. Much education is needed regarding
the value of analytics to the individual employees as well as the organization. The
variety of analytics roles and tools, as well as available support systems, should
be clearly identified and their use promoted.
Finally, our results suggest that improving the employee’s quantitative self-ef-
ficacy, perhaps through training, will result in a more positive attitude towards
analytics which has been shown to increase the possibility of adoption. Thus, there
are many activities in the knowledge stage of the innovation-decision process
that can be undertaken to facilitate future stages occurring and producing positive
outcomes. In addition, the support of innovation champions, improving the ana-
lytics culture, the availability of trials and other activities can be made available.

Limitations
A study by Fairsail (Fletcher, 2015) suggests that there is a significant gap between
what HR professionals consider HR Analytics and their ability to make signifi-
cant contributions to organizational competitiveness through insights which can
only be gleaned through sophisticated analysis (Mind the Gap – The Have and
3062 R. VARGAS ET AL.

Have Nots of HR Analytics, 2015). Therefore, our study results might be under-
stated, as the survey respondents might be underestimating the sophistication and
complexity of HR Analytics. For example, the level of self-efficacy and positive
attitudes reported by this study might, in fact, be related to the lower level of HR
metrics (Analytics 1.0) currently practiced by the respondents despite the provided
definition of HR Analytics as a higher level of analytics (Analytics 3.0) on every
page of the survey. A respondent may have been confident in metrics but when
pressed to change his/her perception to a more sophisticated level of analytics,
his/her self-efficacy may be lower.
This study also suffers from the known limitations of survey research. While
HR analytics adoption is lagging, it is still moving forward so we cannot guaran-
tee that the situation has improved and some of the barriers may be less strong.
However, the goal was to understand the process with this specific innovation
and identify ways to increase the rate of adoption and the drive to move in this
direction appears to be continuing as we have moved to analytics 3.0.

Future research
Future research should examine the ways in which each of these stages in the
analytics adoption process can be effectively and efficiently facilitated. Multiple
stages of the innovation-decision process as outlined by Rogers (2003) should be
examined to investigate the flow of the stages and determine if, in fact, they are
linear, iterative or could be skipped, depending on the innovation.

Conclusions
This study answers the call by Marler and Boudreau (2017) for empirical studies on
HR Analytics that are informed by theory. A goal of this study was to identify bar-
riers to explain the lack of, and slow rate of, adoption of HR Analytics among HR
professionals through empirical study with potential adopters in settings where
the company had taken the first stop and adopted the innovation. We studied the
innovation decision process across the first three stages of the decision-making
process, up to and including the decision to adopt or not adopt, using Rogers
(2003) innovation decision process. There was an opportunity, in this study, to
observe the importance of each stage of the process to the adoption decision
among HR professionals. Adoption was measured as the depth of the innovation
adoption as outlined by Rogers (2003). The adoption level corresponding to each
activity in the adoption process was measured with direct and indirect effects.
This allowed a fine grained view of the adoption decision and a view ‘inside’ this
critical decision point to better understand the factors that impact the early stages
of the adoption decision.
Since this is a decision-making process, any disruption to the process at any
point may cause a truncated process and an early decision. This decision may
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3063

be the results of the individual deciding against it for reasons such as a lack of
knowledge or poor self-efficacy, and not continuing the process as well as caused
by a lack of resources, a lack of supportive social norms or a poor attitude towards
the innovation. Alternatively the process may just not begin, or languish, from
unawareness or neglect. In companies, such as the companies in this study that
have adopted analytics at the organizational level, awareness and neglect should
not be the cause of a negative innovation adoption decision. Thus, this study pro-
vides insights into what can act as a barrier to a positive adoption outcome and
allow organizations to take steps to remove any of these barriers.
We posited that HR Analytics is a complex innovation because of its nature
of integrating technology tools and data analysis and also because its complexity
has been identified by experts (Davenport, 2006). Expert advice to change the
organizational culture to an analytics culture and to change the paradigm for
decision-making to evidence-based decision-making, speak to the breadth of
organizational change necessary to properly use this innovation and to obtain its
promise (Harvard Business Review, 2014).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. (pp. 438–459). doi:10.4135/9781446249215.
n22
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned
and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33.
doi:10.1080/14792779943000116
Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. (1954). A test of goodness of fit. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 49, 765–769.
Angrave, D., Charlwood, A., Kirkpatrick, I., Lawrence, M., & Stuart, M. (2016). HR and
analytics: Why HR is set to fail the big data challenge. Human Resource Management Journal,
26(1), 1–11. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12090
Bai, H., Wang, L., Pan, W., & Frey, M. (2009). Measuring mathematics anxiety:
Psychometric analysis of a bidimensional affective scale. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 36(3), 185–193. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&
sw=w&u=nl_nlb&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA211235540&sid=googleScholar&asid=
f27620e22624397f42762e762b4de812
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 37(2)
122–147.
Banerjee, P., Wei, K., & Ma, L. (2012). Role of trialability in B2B e-business adoption: Theoretical
insights from two case studies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(9), 815–827.
3064 R. VARGAS ET AL.

Bassi, L. (2011). Raging debates in HR analytics. People and Strategy, 34(2), 14–18. Retrieved
from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=db_dfbpwb&v=2.1&it=r&id=
GALE%7CA271050201&sid=googleScholar&asid=7e6364029b93bd64446085f4bad4e72d
Bazurli, R., Cucciniello, M., Mele, V., Nasi, G., & Valotti, G. (2014, September). Determinants
and barriers of adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICT-driven social innovation in the public
sector. Paper presented at EGPA Conference, Speyer, Germany.
Brown, B., & Gottlieb, J. (2016, April). The need to lead in data and analytics. McKinsey
& Company. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/business-
technology/our-insights/the-need-to-lead-in-data-and-analytics
Brown, K., Ludlow, D., Patel, S., Srinivasan, A., Willyerd, K., & Fitter, F. (2015). 5 bad habits
HR needs to break in 2015. SAP Center for Business Insight. Retrieved from http://www.
successfactors.com/en_us/lp/5-bad-habits-hr-needs-to-break-in-2015.html
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2014). Occupational outlook handbook
(2014–15 ed.). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/human-resources-
managers.htm
Chau, P. K. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behavior. Journal of End
User Computing, 13(1), 26–33. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=
w&u=db_dfbpwb&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA67832099&sid=googleScholar&
asid=fa6899abdc29c571958f7c7fe25ae937
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A.
Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research (p. 295e358). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses. In Vinzi V. Esposito, W.
Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares. Springer handbooks
of computational statistics. Berlin: Springer.
Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using Partial Least Squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research
(pp. 307–342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure
and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. doi:10.2307/249688
Davenport, T. H. (2006). January). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 1–11.
Retrieved from http://www.milwaukeespin.com/Files/competing-on-analytics.pdf
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J., & Shapiro, J. (2010, October). Competing on talent analytics.
Harvard Business Review, pp. 52–58.
Davenport, T. H. (2013). Analytics 3.0. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.
org/2013/12/analytics-30
Fleming, M. J., & Wilson, J. B. (2001). Effective HR measurement techniques. Alexandria, VA:
Society for Human Resource Management.
Fletcher, K. (2015). Why it’s important we mind the gap between the HR analytics haves and
have nots. Retrieved from http://www.fairsail.com/why-its-important-we-mind-the-gap-
between-the-hr-analytics-haves-and-have-nots/
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. Retrieved from
http://www.cbs.dk/en/content/download/120372/1640024/fileFornell%20Larcker%201981.
pdf
Galagan, P. (2014, March 8). HR gets analytical. T&D Magazine, 68(3), 22–25. Retrieved from
https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2014/03/HR-Gets-Analytical
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph:
Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the AIS, 16(25), 91–109.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3065

Goodman, L. (2011). Comment: On respondent-driven sampling and snowball sampling

in hard-to-reach populations and snowball sampling not in hard-to-reach populations.
Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 347–353. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01242.x
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial
least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Halper, F. (2014). First Quarter). Predictive analytics for business advantages, best practices
report. TDWI Research, 1–29. Retrieved from https://tdwi.org/research/2013/12/best-
practices-report-predictive-analytics-for-business-advantage.aspx
Hameed, M. A., & Counsell, S. (2014). Establishing relationships between innovation
characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organisations: A meta-analysis approach.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 1450007-1-1450007-41. doi:10.1142/
S1363919614500078
Harvard Business Review. (2014). HR joins the analytics revolution. Harvard Business School
Publishing. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/resources/pdfs/comm/visier/18765_HBR_Visier_
Report_July2014.pdf
Hayes, T., Eljiz, K., Dadich, A., Fitzgerald, J., & Sloan, T. (2015). Trialability, observability
and risk reduction accelerating individual innovation adoption decisions. Journal of Health
Organization and Management, 29(2), 271–294. doi:10.1108/JHOM-08-2013-0171
Hendel, D. D. (1980). Experiential and affective correlates of math anxiety in adult women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(2), 219–230. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb00958.x
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., …
Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö &
Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209.
Henseler, J., Hubona, J., & Ray, P. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. doi:10.1108/
IMDS-09-2015-0382
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review
of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7
Johnston, A. C., & Warkentin, M. (2010). Fear appeals and information security behaviors:
An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 549–566. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/pdf/25750691.pdf
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.,  & Chervany, N. L. (1999).  Information technology adoption
across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS
Quarterly, 23 (2), 183–213. doi:10.2307/249751
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M. S., & Kruschwitz, N. (2011). Big data, analytics
and the path from insights to value. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(2), 21–32. Retrieved
from http://ce.uoregon.edu/aim/DataDrivenOrgs2013/BigDataAnalyticsPathfrom%20
InsighttoValue.pdf
Lawler, E. E., III, Levenson, A., & Boudreau, J. W. (2004). HR metrics and analytics: Use and Impact.
Human Resource Planning, 27(4), 27–35. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=
AONE&sw=w&u=cp_cpb&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA126653499&sid=google
Scholar&asid=caed8ce2e45502b980708e54e15c1a5f
3066 R. VARGAS ET AL.

Lee, W. (2012). An elaboration likelihood model based longitudinal analysis of attitude change
during the process of IT acceptance via education program. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 31(12), 1161–1171. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2010.547219
Lee, C.-L., & Huang, M.-K. (2014). The influence of computer literacy and computer anxiety
on computer self-efficacy: The moderating effect of gender. Cyberpsyccholoby, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 17(3), 172–180. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0029
Levenson, A. (2005). Harnessing the power of HR analytics. Strategic HR Review, 4(3), 28–31.
doi:10.1108/14754390580000607
Levenson, A. (2011). Using targeted analytics to improve talent decisions. People & Strategy, 34(2),
34–43. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=cp_cpb&v=
2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA271050204&sid=googleScholar&asid=4d7ea637da7
2f54a880147e7c0f1d162
Lilliefors, H. (1967). On the kolmogorov-smirnov test for normality with mean and variance
unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 399–402.
Lin, T., Bautista, J. (2017). Understanding the Relationships between mHealth Apps’
Characteristics, Trialability, and mHealth Literacy. Journal of Health Communication. 22(4),
346–354.
Manning, J. M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behavior in the theory of
planned behavior: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 649–705. 
doi:10.1348/014466608X393136
Marler, J. H., & Boudreau, J. W. (2017). An evidence-based review of HR Analytics. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1244699
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions
of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3),
192–222.
National Center for O’Net Development. (2013). Summary report for 11-3121.00 – Human
resource managers. Retrieved from http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/11-3121.00
Obeidat, B., (2012). The relationship between innovation diffusion and human resource
information systems (HRIS). The central European Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities, 12(3), 41-58.
Ozgen, K. (2013). Self-efficacy beliefs in mathematical literacy and connections between
mathematics and real world: The case of high school students. Journal of International
Education Research, 9(4), 305–316. doi:10.19030/jier.v9i4.8082
Ozgen, K., & Bindak, R. (2008). Development of a mathematics literacy self-efficacy scale.
Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(2), 517–528.
Prokopeak, M. (2014, January). L&D’s big data moment. Talent Management Magazine.
Retrieved from www.talentmgt.com
Rai, A., Lang, S., & Welker, R. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success Models: An
empirical test and theoretical analysis. Journal of Information Suste,ms Research, 13, 50–69.
doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96
Ramirez, J. C. (2012). The feminization of HR. Human Resource Executive Online. Retrieved
from http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=533345673
Regan & Dean. (2014). Men & women in HR – A balanced mix? Retrieved from http://www.
regananddean.com/articles/recruitment-news/men-women-in-hr-a-balanced-mix/
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: A critical look at the
use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
SuccessFactors. (2015). How CHROS deliver business impact. Retrieved from http://www.
successfactors.com/en_us/download.html?a=/content/dam/successfactors/en_us/resources/
white-papers/how-chros-deliver-business-impact.pdf
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3067

Sutcliffe, J. (2015, April 2). The great HR gender divide: Part I, Visier (Report No.1-5). Retrieved
from http://www.visier.com/hr-leadership/gender-divide-part-1/
Talukder, M., & Quazi, A. (2011). The impact of social influence on individuals’ adoption of
innovation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21(2), 111–135.
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS
structural equation modeling, proceedings of the XLII SIS scientific meeting (pp. 739–742).
Padova: CLEUP.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. doi:1783.1/51756
Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent
developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In V. E. Vinzi,
W. W. Chin, J. Hensler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 47–82).
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Volini, E., Mazor, A., Schaefer, F., Tsuchida, A., & Walsh, B. (2016). Global human capital
trends 2016: HR growing momentum toward a new mandate (pp. 77–83). Deloitte: Deloitte
University Press.
Waheed, M., Kaur, K., Ain, N., & Sanni, S. A. (2015). Emotional attachment and multidimensional
self-efficacy: Extension of innovation diffusion theory in the context of eBook reader.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(12), 1147–1159.
Weigel, F. K., Hazen, B. T., Cegielski, C. G., & Hall, D. J. (2014). Communications of the
associations for information systems, 34(article 31). Retrieved from http://aisel.saisnet.org/
cais
Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jörsekog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estiates: Testing structural
assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25–33.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling
for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS
Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org/