Computer Self-Efficacy'. Development of a Measure and Initial Test organizations. The existence of a reliable and valid measure of self-efficacy makes assessment possible and should have implications for organizational support, training, and implementation.

No abstract

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. This study investigated the personality characteristics, leadership behaviors, and influence tactics of champions of technological innovations. Analyses of questionnaires and interview transcripts of twenty-five matched pairs of champions and nonchampions revealed that champions reported using transformational, leader behaviors to a significantly greater extent than did nonchampions. Champions exhibited higher risk taking and innovativeness, initiated more influence attempts, and used a greater variety of influence tactics than nonchampions. Regression analysis of a model of champion emergence, relating personality characteristics, transformational leader behaviors, and influence tactics, showed that champions were significantly higher than nonchampions on all paths in the model.'The increased turbulence, complexity, and competitiveness of organizational environments have made the identification, evaluation, and adoption of technological innovations a critical determinant of organizational productivity, competition, and survival (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, 1973; Bigoness and Perreault, 1981; Morgan, 1988). As a result, a major research effort has focused on variables that facilitate or hinder the adoption of technological innovations (e.g., Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Kelly and Kranzberg, 1978; Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981; Pennings and Buitendam, 1987). One variable that has been strongly linked to the success of technological innovations is the presence of a champion. This is an individual who informally emerges in an organization (Schon, 1963; Tushman and Nadler, 1986) and makes "a decisive contribution to the innovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progress through the critical [organizational] stages" (Achilladelis, Jervis, and Robertson, 1971: 14). Twenty-six years ago, in a seminal article on radical military innovations, Schon (1963) identified the role of a champion. He contended that in order to overcome the indifference and resistance that major technological change provokes, a champion is required to identify the idea as his or her own, to promote the idea actively and vigorously through informal networks, and to risk his or her position and prestige to ensure the innovation's success. According to Schon (1963: 84), "the new idea either finds a champion or dies." A multitude of field and case studies have found strong support for Schon's contention that innovation success is closely linked with the presence of a champion (e.g., Roberts, 1968; Achilladelis, Jervis, and Robertson, 1971; Rothwell et al., 1974; Burgelman, 1983; Ettlie, Bridges, and O'Keefe, 1984). Yet, despite the important contribution attributed to champions in the innovation process...

While computer training is widely recognized as an essential contributor to the productive use of computers in organizations, very little research has focused on identifying the processes through which training operates, and the relative effectiveness of different methods for such training. This research examined the training process, and compared a behavior modeling training program, based on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura [Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psych. Rev. 84(2) 191–215; Bandura, A. 1978. Reflections on self-efficacy. Adv. Behavioral Res. Therapy 1 237–269; Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Amer. Psychologist 372 122–147; Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.]), to a more traditional, lecture-based program. According to Social Cognitive Theory, watching others performing a behavior, in this case interacting with a computer system, influences the observers' perceptions of their own ability to perform the behavior, or self-efficacy, and the expected outcomes that they perceive, as well as providing strategies for effective performance. The findings provide only partial support for the research model. Self-efficacy exerted a strong influence on performance in both models. In addition, behavior modeling was found to be more effective than the traditional method for training in Lotus 1-2-3, resulting in higher self-efficacy and higher performance. For WordPerfect, however, modeling did not significantly influence performance. This finding was unexpected, and several possible explanations are explored in the discussion. Of particular surprise were the negative relationships found between outcome expectations and performance. Outcome expectations were expected to positively influence performance, but the results indicated a strong negative effect. Measurement limitations are presented as the most plausible explanation for this result, but further research is necessary to provide conclusive explanations.

This study investigated differences in general values, work values and organizational commitment among 549 private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector knowledge workers. No differences in general values were observed across sectors, although five significant work value differences were revealed: parapublic employees value work that contributes to society more than public servants, who value it more than private sector employees; parapublic employees value opportunities for advancement less than both public and private sector employees; public servants value intellectually stimulating and challenging work more than parapublic employees; and private sector employees value prestigious work more than public servants. Private sector employees displayed greater organizational commitment than the employees in the other two sectors. Overall, the findings suggest only limited value differences among employees of the various sectors. The finding of some work value differences between employees in the public and parapublic sectors suggests that these two groups merit separate consideration in comparative studies such as this one.

No abstract

No abstract