E-leadership and virtual communication adoption by educators: an UTAUT3 model perspective

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the study is to explore the various determinants of virtual communication technology (VCT) adoption among higher educational leaders by applying Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 3 (UTAUT3) model. Further, this study ascertains the relationship among the various determinants and measure the effects of these determinants in adoption of VCT by educational leaders. Design/methodology/approach The study was conducted by using online survey method for data collection from 380 educational leaders of India through a convenience sampling procedure. The structural equation modelling technique was adopted to assess the dimensions of VCT adoption and test the proposed model and hypotheses. Findings The findings revealed that performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), facilitating conditions (FC) and personal innovativeness (PI) have positive and significant effects on intention to use VCT (ITUVCT) and actual use of VCT (AUVCT), i.e. e-leadership communication adoption. Besides this, there is also a significant and positive effect of ITUVCT on actual usage of VCT by the educational leaders. Research limitations/implications This study makes its contribution to the literature related to technology adoption recommended in previous research for expanding the contexts through new studies and generalizing the UTAUT3 model, specifically in the teaching–learning and administrative perspectives. The results of the study will be further helpful for the researchers and practitioners to better understand the factors that influence higher educational leaders to adopt VCT. Originality/value The authors applied the UTAUT3 model and explored the factors determining the adoption intention of VCT among educational leaders. This study is the first study that adopts UTAUT3 model in Indian educational leaders’ context.

Virtual communication adoption by educational leaders: moderating role of perceived risk and benefits

“…The recent Covid 19 pandemic forced various educational institutions and academic leaders to shift educational related activity from physical mode to the virtual or hybrid mode (Ashour et al ., 2021). With the change in the educational work structure with a rise of dependency on electronic communication, the educational leaders have to manage and coordinate with the VCT (Vella, 2021; Gupta et al. , 2022).…”

“…, 2017). Although, both TAM and UTAUT models are highly applicable and cited in technology acceptance and use in higher education context (Sánchez-Prieto et al ., 2019; Teo and Zhou, 2017; Gupta et al. , 2022).…”

“…Adoption of technology for educational use can be done for technological and social support. There are evidences of a number of researches in the field of technology adoption by the leaders and adoption of various ICT tools by organizational leaders but still there is a dearth of literature with reference to technology adoption by the educational leaders (Van Wart et al ., 2017; Gupta et al. , 2022).…”

A systematic review and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education

“…Similarly, out of 11 non-randomised quantitative studies only three [86,89,120] met all the criteria assigned to this category. While one of these studies [6] failed to meet any criteria, the remaining eight studies showed limited level of representativeness in the sample [61,78], incomplete reporting of data [30] and the insufficient account of confounders in design and analysis [100].…”

“…Functional Ed Tech research may sometimes omit to acknowledge more challenging issues of technology innovation that relate to wider issues beyond local instructional design contexts, such as trust, ethics, surveillance, and the potential harms of technology, as well as issues of social context, power structures, privilege, and social justice [104][105][106]129]. Functional Ed Tech tends to focus on classroom teaching and learning with technology, learning Ann & Aziz [10]; Ashbaugh [18]; Burnette [32]; Bogler et al [30]; Garst et al [54]; Ghafur [55]; Gupta et al [61]; Guthrie et al [63]; Hornor [67]; Kotula et The two aspects of Digital and Leadership are explicitly brought together with recognition of inherent tension between them to form a more balanced new concept with some preference still evident, some acknowledgement of risks and leaders' role in managing the tension is present, this may manifest as brief references to trust and power dynamics with regards to stakeholders and technology.…”