Spencer, Buhalis and Moital (2012) Hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management, 2012 more

Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective Andrew J. Spencer b, *, Dimitrios Buhalis a, Miguel Moital a a b School of Tourism, Dorset House, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University, UK Department of Management Studies, University of the West Indies, Mona a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 26 May 2011 Accepted 10 November 2011 Keywords: Technology adoption Decision-making Leadership Diffusion a b s t r a c t This article assesses the diffusion of innovation theory and the technology acceptance model, and explores the factors influencing the decision to engage in technology adoption in small owner-managed travel firms. This is done through the use of the overarching theory of organisational decision-making to identify concepts and constructs which relate to the decision to adopt. The work aims to identify the genesis of adoption decisions in particular where owners are themselves the managers and provide leadership for the organization. After the distillation of factors it was found that due to simple hierarchical structures and decision-making processes which were further exacerbated by immediate selfinterest, leadership was the most significant driver. This article goes further to identify leadership typologies at each level of technology adoption in firms. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The concept of using ICTs in the travel industry is not a novel one and stems from the first reservation systems in the 1950s to the tourist information systems like TIS and Gulliver of the 1980s (Werthner, 1995; Werthner, 1996; Werthner & Klein, 1999) to major global distribution systems like SABRE and Amadeus in the 1990s to the enormous number of current travel activities on the Web. Now more than ever however, it brings a multiplicity of players together with relatively easy access to each other and each other’s information base. The implication of this is clearly that a more level playing field has been created with more options available to the creators of products and services and the final consumer. Internet booking brings new independence for suppliers and travellers (Poon, 1993). New value chains and value systems are emerging and the players within the industry have to redesign their strategy under the power of Information and Communication Technology. More than a decade ago it was felt that the international landscape showed internet readiness in some countries. Canadians and North Americans in general were keen users. According to * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 0 7983 468942; fax: þ44 0 1202 515707. E-mail addresses: andrew.spencer80@gmail.com, aspencer@bournemouth.ac.uk (A.J. Spencer), dbuhalis@bournemouth.ac.uk (D. Buhalis), mmoital@bournemouth. ac.uk (M. Moital). 0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 Law and Leung (2000) Europe lagged behind North America by 14e18 months for internet penetration. Of particular importance is that the developing world and in particular the Caribbean typically lags behind both. There are obvious implications for countries which are slower on the uptake of ICTs and for businesses operating in those contexts. Intermediaries in Jamaica, which are predominantly travel agencies that focus on the outbound traveller, may therefore not experience some of these global issues at the same rate as more developed economies and as a result become complacent. While this lag may have been reduced, more recently Minghetti and Buhalis (2010) still identified that there are multiple technological divides which exist between tourists and destinations within developed countries and between developed and developing countries. This they argue will lead to varying levels of digital exclusion. Previous research on the digital divide has not explored the tourism context in the way that this has been done by the work of Minghetti and Buhalis (2010). In particular it points to important marketing and communication challenges between tourism generating countries and tourism destinations. It is increasingly evident that high-tech tourists, regions or enterprises meet in an electronic marketplace and interact directly on electronic platforms, which greatly reduces the need for spatial as well as temporal synchrony for information and distribution. They further articulate that: Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 2 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 “The study of the digital divide is critical for less technologically developed regions that need to expand their ICT usage to be able to promote their offerings, interact with consumers, and reduce their dependency on intermediaries.” (p. 278). An important argument from this article is that medium- and low-digital-access tourists and destinations still depend on analogue transactions and physical intermediaries to develop their planning processes for stimulating vacations in these destinations. This is very applicable to the Jamaican context which is a relatively low-digital access destination catering to high-digital access markets such as the United States and the United Kingdom. There is still a fairly high dependence on physical intermediaries in these tourist generating countries as the tourist board and tourism and hospitality enterprises maintain sophisticated relationships with agencies in the American Society of Travel Agents and the Association of British Travel Agents. Three issues emerge as a result of this arguable overdependence. The first is that high-tech tourists in these high-access countries who prefer to interact in the electronic marketplace may not be captured in the island’s marketing efforts. The second is that the destination image may be affected when high-tech tourists are unable to sufficiently interact with the destination in cyber space. According to Govers, Go, and Kuldeep (2007) “covertly induced and autonomous agents, in particular, have a dramatic influence” (p. 19) over destination image in the minds of consumers. These agents include television, magazines and the internet. While a significant amount of Jamaica’s marketing budget is spent on television advertising (Williams & Spencer, 2010), internet promotion and interaction receive far less attention. The major implication is that initial television exposure may lead potential tourists who are hightech in search of information and booking options on the web, which may create a poor destination image when these needs are not met. The third and most significant issue is that small local travel agencies in Jamaica do not play a role in driving inbound travel and tourism to the island. These agencies, which have seen a decrease of more than 50% in the number of companies in operation over the last ten years, typically cater to the outbound market. This is so because they do not get a commission for inbound travel sales. The ability of agents to leverage their importance may however come from an improved capacity to meet the huge need for an online presence for the country. These agencies now receive little attention from statutory bodies and a greater contribution to the island’s tourism may present a strong case for governmental collaboration and support. The challenge however is that many of the firms do not engage in more than simple internet activities of emailing, while less than 5% of these firms have active company websites. The question of what stimulates these companies to adopt various levels of internet technology becomes a pivotal one to any discussion of their changing role. This work begins by creating a preliminary output framework known as the distilled framework for firm technology adoption (see Fig. 1) by assessing theory on the digital divide, culture, firm strategy and the resource-based view as antecedents. The work ultimately focuses on the role of personal factors such as ownership and leadership as the key drivers of other antecedents to technology adoption through another output framework, which is Fig. 1. Firm technology adoption: Distilled framework. Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 3 grounded in the literature on organisational decision-making (see Fig. 2). In essence it argues that ownership and leadership influence firm strategy and resource use, which both affect technology adoption decisions. The digital divide and culture which are examined in the first framework are treated as macro factors that shape personal factors, which in the second framework are referred to as experiences of the individual. With similar digital access and cultural influence across each of the firms these elements did not explain differences in firm technology behaviour. The contribution to theory of this paper is therefore in the area of ownership and leadership influence on technology adoption. It assesses how these personal factors are influenced by culture and the digital divide and then explores how ownership and leadership drive firm strategy and resource use, which ultimately influence technology adoption decisions (see Fig. 1). Gaps in the literature point to a paucity of research on relationships between ownership and variables such as culture, leadership and strategy formulation in the travel industry.  Decision-maker as carrier- an individual who carries with them their experiences and the impact of the world around them. The seminal literature (Cyert & March, 1963; Simon, 1957) has treated the decision maker as more of a receptacle and as such treated the individual as an actor. Far less emphasis was then placed on the vision and abilities of the decision-maker. However more contemporary literature (Falk, 2008; Ghobadian & O’Regan, 2006; Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2001) has identified the importance of the insights of decision makers and these individuals are therefore treated as creators. The least emphasized in the organisational decision-making literature have been those categorized as carriers. This may be explained through the fact that both creators and actors would have previous experiences based on the local and global context. Decision-makers in organisations are often referred to as leaders (Victorino, Verma, Plaschka, & Dev, 2006). Therefore an important development in the organisational decision-making literature came from an assessment of leadership styles and decision-making. Tatum, Eberlin, Kottraba, and Bradberry (2003) identified that the long-standing distinction between transformational and transactional leadership had an impact on decision-making styles. Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) define a transformational leader as a visionary who is charismatic and influences strategic transformation through motivation. The transactional leader is defined as an efficient manager who focuses on the task at hand and uses a reward-driven approach. It would appear that these styles affect whether a leader adopts a restricted or comprehensive decisionmaking style (Tatum et al., 2003). These leadership styles are driven by personality and personal motivation which both influence the behaviour of the leader. This work therefore seeks to assess the leadership role in the decision to adopt technology by analyzing these typologies. 2.1. Innovation diffusion and leadership Rogers’s work supports the leadership literature by highlighting that opinion leadership may be influential. He identifies that opinion leaders may assist with the innovation diffusion process. He then denotes that innovation-decisions are either optional, collective or authority driven. This generalization is useful as contemporary observation of service firms reveals that optional innovation-decisions very rarely result in comprehensive adoption for the social system. Collective innovation-decisions usually gain more traction but are largely leadership driven even though there is consensus by the team. This consensus usually stems from a charismatic leader (Hitt et al., 2001) or an opinion leader (Rogers, 2003). Notably both types of leaders are categorized as transformational leaders. The reality is that while authority innovationdecisions may yield compliance, those with power may also be opposed to the diffusion of a particular innovation. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975), which states that an individual’s behaviour is a result of his/her attitude towards a specific activity and the accompanying social influences sums up the debate very appropriately as an understanding of innovation adoption must have its genesis in an understanding of individual decision-making and ultimately individual adoption, given that individuals provide leadership and make key decisions that drive these entities. 2.2. Firm leadership Hitt et al. (2001) describe the leader as a catalyst for strategic change. Many have documented the impact of leadership on the success of organisations (see for example Falk, 2008; Ghobadian & 2. Literature review: theoretical framework The adoption of technologies in organisations speaks to the broader issue of how the decision process unfolds in organisations. Organisational decision-making theory therefore provides an overarching framework for the analysis which will be carried out in this paper. Organisational behaviour researchers who have focused on behavioural decision research on a micro level have advanced arguments that are rooted in the bounded rationality concept of Simon (1957). Macro organisational behaviour researchers have developed the area of organisational decision making, which builds on the work of Cyert and March (1963). The discourse has therefore largely been based on individual decision-making and its relationship to organisational decision-making. A resonant and recurring ideological discussion surrounds whether understanding the individual decision process is the key to disaggregating the organisational decision process. In attempting to broaden the scope of the discourse, Langley, Mintzberg, Pitcher, Posada, and Siant-Macary (1995) highlighted that the future of organisational decision-making research must address more complex issues such as the fact that the decisionmaker is not only driven by cerebral rationality but also by experiences. Additionally single decisions should be viewed as a network of many issues, which points to the evidence of dynamic linkages rather than simple linear ones. With this in mind this work attempts to identify the multiplicity of concepts which have been identified as pertinent to the study of technology adoption by looking at how these concepts are interwoven through the broad framework of organisational decision-making. Huber and McDaniel (1986) highlighted that organisational environments of the future are likely to be characterized by greater complexity and therefore called for organisations to recognize that the centrality of the organisation rests in what decisions are made and how these decisions are made. It is important therefore to get to the root of what drives decisions for individuals and ultimately organizations. Langley et al. (1995) emphasizes the key role of individuals in organizations, who are decision-makers. This work informs the theoretical analysis of this paper especially because it analyses general typologies which have been ascribed such as:  Decision-maker as creator- an intuitive individual who drives organisational decisions through creative insight.  Decision-maker as actor- an individual who passively acts in accordance with what happens to the organisation such as problems or opportunities. Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 4 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 O’Regan, 2006; Hitt et al., 2001) and there is consensus that leaders and leadership styles influence elements of firms such as culture and strategy decisions, that affect firm performance. Leaders also play an important role in determining which innovations to introduce (Victorino et al., 2006). This is significant as innovations enable a firm to stay ahead of competitors (David, 2007; Porter, 1985). Leaders are also resource handlers and their willingness to provide resources will have an impact on quality and performance (Lewis & McCann, 2004). This fits well into the overall discussions of the Resource-based view of the firm and provides an added dimension which suggests that a firm with a broad resource base is not inherently competitive because it is still subject to decisions and directions of leadership. As identified earlier leaders may be transformational or transactional, which are seen as products of personality, personal motivation and past experiences. 2.2.1. Transformational versus transactional leadership In his seminal work more than three decades ago, Burns (1978) introduced the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership. Since then a number of researchers (Bass, 1999; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Karnes & Chauvin, 1985; Singh & Krishnan, 2007) have attempted to expand on these concepts in particular in the area of their measurement. With leadership being emphasized in this research as the key driver of technology adoption in small owner-managed travel firms, a critical evaluation of the two dominant classifications of leadership is vitally important to this discourse. It must be noted that research which focuses on these leadership classifications in the travel and technology context has been woefully lacking. Broadly speaking, transformational leaders uplift the morale, motivation, and morals of their followers while transactional leaders cater to their followers’ immediate self-interests. According to Bass (1999) a considerable amount of empirical research has been completed since the seminal work of Burns (1978), supporting the utility of the distinction between the two forms of leadership. He further articulated that changes in the marketplace and workforce over these decades have resulted in the need for leaders to become more transformational and less transactional if they were to remain effective. Leaders were encouraged to empower their followers by developing them into high involvement individuals and teams focused on quality, service, cost-effectiveness, and quantity of output. While this research does not directly address whether leaders should be more transformational or transactional in general, it identifies that new initiatives such as the adoption of innovations like technology are contingent on elements of what have been identified as leadership needs in the mainstream. For example the creation of “high-involvement individuals” and cost-effectiveness are required for the successful introduction, implementation and continued usage of technological tools. 2.2.2. Concepts and issues in leadership theory There have been a number of issues surrounding the transformational/transactional leadership literature. Pawar (2003) argues that while transformational leadership has been identified as an important mechanism for organizational change, there have been concerns about how it has been conceptualized. One major issue relates to the relationship between the two types of leadership. There are essentially three schools of thought on this relationship. The early conceptualization by Burns (1978) viewed both forms of leadership as being at opposite ends of the continuum. The weaknesses of this view were identified by Bass (1985) where he acknowledged that while transformational and transactional leadership processes were distinct, there may be varying relationships between them. The third view which was posited by Hollander (1993) and states that transformational leadership is merely an extension of transactional leadership will receive significant consideration in this work. The primary reason for this is that there are some fundamental activities in firms which simply require leaders to get followers to conform to procedures, while there are others which require significant transformational skills. The two forms of leadership for the purpose of this work are therefore treated as a hierarchical conceptualization. A second issue refers to attempts to separate the concept of transformational leadership from charismatic leadership. In his early conceptualization Burns (1978) viewed charismatic leadership as a type of transformational leadership. Subsequently the research (Bass, 1985; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990) has identified that charisma is a central element of transformational leadership. It must be elucidated here that the transformational leader is described as moving the follower beyond immediate selfinterests through idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration (Bass, 1999). The element which relates to charisma is the idealized influence, and was coined by Bass in light of the perception that charisma was used to frivolously describe popular individuals. This was a very useful separation as “idealized influence” connoted a more meaningful conceptualization that this occurs “when the leader envisions a desirable future, articulates how it can be reached, sets an example to be followed, sets high standards of performance, and shows determination and confidence. Followers want to identify with such leadership.” (Bass, 1999; p. 11). For the purpose of this study which essentially focuses on technology adoption, it is felt however that the element from the four constructs identified above which is most critical is intellectual stimulation. This is displayed when the leader helps followers to become more innovative and creative. Idealized influence, inspiration and individualized consideration (one to one attention to followers), all address the relationship and kinship that followers (employees) attach to leaders. While it is felt that these all result in followers aligning themselves to the goals of the leader, the only one which addresses a cognitive and behavioural change in the follower is intellectual stimulation. In order for employees to accept and understand innovative changes in the organization as well as participate in these changes, the leader must be able to stimulate creative thoughts and behaviours. 2.2.3. Transformational leadership and organizational context While it can be generally espoused that this intellectual stimulation is needed to transform ideologies about work and innovative processes in organizations, much more discussion is needed in the literature on the symbiotic relationship between the leader and the context of the firm. Firstly, varying organization types may require varying degrees of transformational leadership (Pawar, 2003). In much the same way the technology needs of firms are heterogeneous. Therefore there is a need for research that considers whether leadership that creates change in any process is being imposed in contexts where this may not be warranted. A second issue as articulated by theorists (Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Pettigrew, 1987) is that organizational context may dictate the extent to which transformational leadership behaviours are supported or opposed. They highlight that values and norms which are reinforced by organizational structure, tend to encourage or discourage transformational behaviours in leaders. This paper however focuses on owner-managers of small firms who formulate and implement policies unilaterally in most cases and therefore are responsible for the organization structure which would enhance or restrict their leadership style. The latter being less likely would suggest that in these organizational contexts the leadership has Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 5 greater influence over the organizational context than vice versa. Ownership issues also play a role in leadership, particularly in owner-managed firms as may be seen in the entrepreneurship literature. 2.3. Firm ownership Organisational Theory researchers have extensively explored the relationship between ownership, decision-making and firm performance. Interest in this area can be seen in decades of research (Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Berle & Means, 1932; Cho, 1998; Cole & Mehran, 1998; Demsetz & Lehn, 1985; Welch, 2003). Much of this research has focused on ownership structures and their impact on performance while the impact of ownership on the behaviour of firms has received less attention (Ghobadian & O’Regan, 2006). It is interesting that so few authors have given attention to ownership when many firms are a reflection of their owners. There are some gaps in the Organisational Theory literature relating to the impact of firm ownership on firm behaviour; however a few authors have addressed this issue which has sparked the debate in later years. For example Porter (1990) posited that ownership of the firm influences the goals of the firm. Daily and Dollinger (1992) also state that ownership influences firm size and strategy and these observations have been useful in stimulating the debate. While these observations have been made Ghobadian and O’Regan (2006) highlight that there is a paucity of empirical research that addresses relationships between ownership and culture, leadership, strategy formulation and barriers to strategy implementation. The issue of barriers to strategy implementation is critical and greater research is needed to identify the role that owners play in deciding which strategy goes through and which strategy is abandoned; a derivative of entrepreneurial behaviour. 2.3.1. Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial behaviours are influenced by various factors. Education, age, gender, number of family members and dependents, formal experience in business, and management skills; have traditionally been regarded as influences on management behaviour (DeMartino, Barbato, & Jacques, 2006; Singh, Reynolds, & Muhammad, 2001; Wasilczuk, 2000). However, a considerable body of research has focused on the role of psychological factors such as motivation, personality, and goal or intention to grow; as explanatory variables in the development of management behaviour (Frese, van Gelderen, & Ombach, 2000; Hamlin & Sawyer, 2007). The entrepreneurship literature on ownership and leadership has brought some focus to family-owned businesses. There has been an ongoing debate about how family-owned businesses operate, and also the issues and challenges for small business owners operating in some industries. Kowalewski, Talavera, and Stetsyuk (2010) posits that firms with family CEOs outperform those with non-family CEOs due to a greater level of social capital and personal investment in the business. Although this is consistent with the work of Anderson and Reeb (2003), there is a contrasting view which states that family ownership negatively affects performance due to issues of too much personal involvement or incompetence of those appointed to lead (Tsao, 2009). This argument shifts the discussion to one about owner-managers in firms. Owner-managers are those majority shareholders who engage in the daily operations of their businesses (Shailer, 1994). There are some characteristics which are typically associated with this kind of manager. An owner who manages the firm usually does so for small firms (Gallo & Christensen, 2011) and depends on the firm’s survival for family survival. This interconnectedness usually results in less bureaucratic decision-making and risk aversion which directly influences managerial style. Managerial style represents the manager’s preference in decision-making. Unlike strategy, which focuses on a formalized method of how to reach goals, it concerns a broad and informal pattern of decisions in a discretional situation (Covin & Slevin, 1988). The manager’s preference in various situations have been represented by the direction of management related decisions concerned with risk taking, change and innovation, and the aggressiveness of the approach used (Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984). In relation to this preference, Carland et al. (1984) classified small business managers into two distinct types; entrepreneurs and general small business managers. With regard to building strategies and behaviour preferences, entrepreneurs demonstrate a higher level of self-efficiency, readiness for change, interest in innovation, competitive aggression, and desire for achievement than general managers (Carland et al., 1984; Covin & Slevin, 1988). Alternatively, general small business managers prefer to be decidedly risk-averse, non-innovative, and passive or reactive (Covin & Slevin, 1988). Simply put, entrepreneurs pursue an innovative combination of resources for profit and growth, while general small business managers operate their business as an extension of their individual personality or to further personal goals (Carland et al., 1984). Meanwhile, tactical (operational) behaviour is regarded as the profile of management activities that would implement the preferences of a manager while operating a business. Therefore, these tactical behaviours would be affected by the preference of a decision maker at the strategic level (Covin & Slevin, 1988). In the case of small businesses, these profiles are revealed for different aspects of management decisions. Collecting information and learning new business management skills, applying new technology or developing new products, quality control of products and service, interaction with customers, the treatment of people in business networks, cooperating with other organizations, employing family labour, long-term and papered financial planning and risk taking; have all been regarded as major elements of practical business management activities (Dahles & Bras, 1999; Morrison, Rimmington, & Williams, 1999; Page & Getz, 1997; Thomas & Dunkerley, 1999). These management activities and strategy decisions ultimately influence firm performance through input and process related factors such as technology adoption. 2.4. Classical approaches to technology adoption The diffusion and adoption paradigm saw growth in the 1940s with research from Ryan and Gross (1943) however almost two decades later the research in this area was limited due to the insularity of the research to the specific field. The applicability of the output to other fields was therefore very constrained. In 1962 Rogers created a transferable generic theory which allowed for this paradigm to be accepted across disciplines. This led to the diffusion and adoption of innovations being applied extensively. Rogers (2003) makes a clear distinction between innovation and technology and refers to innovation as any perceived new idea, practice or object. The critical variable here is “newness” of anything which is being introduced. In many cases technology is a fairly new introduction into organisations and Latzer (2009) has taken a look at the possibilities of technological innovations being disruptive or sustainable as opposed to the earlier approaches of simply identifying these innovations as positive (see for example Bagozzi, Davis, & Warshaw, 1992; Lederer, Maupin, Sena, & Zhuang, 1998). Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 6 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 Rogers argues that while stages of the process may be rearranged he still maintains that the process is linear. Woiceshyn (2000) for example argues that within organisations adoption is a learning process which involves observing, interpreting, integrating and acting. While this may seem to also be linear, the difference lies in the fact these factors may occur concurrently as opposed to moving completely though one stage before it progresses to another. This work also identifies facilitators of the adoption process as: capability, resources, shared values, effort, motivation as well as factors external to the organisation. Straub (2009) supports that the process of adoption is not as clearly defined and linear as previously articulated. He highlights that it is a complex developmental process that is influenced by individual perceptions. This points to the importance of personal factors, which is the thrust of this paper, and which has only been implicitly addressed in the innovation diffusion literature. The role of other variables which have been singularly used to address adoption would therefore be to shape, or be shaped by personal factors, which in essence renders them to be mediating variables. They however facilitate adoption to the extent that they are complementary in the process. Davis (1989) in his technology acceptance model argues that the degree to which a person feels that the technology will require little or no effort determines perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness on the other hand is the degree to which a person believes that a particular technology can enhance performance such as time and output efficiency (Lederer et al., 1998). Therefore if there seems to be added value to a process, individuals are more likely to accept technology. Personal Influences as well as Situational Influences are therefore vital to the discourse. These however fall within broader discussions of adoption. 2.4.1. Adoption perspectives Brown (1981) makes a distinction between various perspectives on innovation diffusion. He first addresses The Economic History Perspective which states that innovations are more likely to be adopted if they are more adaptable to the market in terms of value for money. He then highlights The Adoption Perspective which was pioneered by Rogers and states that while it is the traditional approach to diffusion studies, it is the most dominant and developed research perspective on the subject matter. This perspective focuses heavily on innovation adoption as the outcome of a learning process. He then analyses The Market and Infrastructure Perspective which seeks to move away from the individual approach of the adoption perspective which presupposes equality for individuals and states that opportunities are “purposely unequal.” It focuses on whether surrounding conditions facilitate innovation diffusion. The Development Perspective however extends The Market and Infrastructure Perspective to identify the impact of innovation diffusion on a society’s welfare. It challenges the presupposition that innovation diffusion automatically has positive effects. Brown uses the example of third world nations where technological innovation has not led to significant economic development but rather served to increase disparities and reinforce elitism. Each of the perspectives addressed by Brown (1981) provides useful insights into adoption practices, however the most applicable ones for contemporary analysis appear to be The Adoption Perspective and The Market and Infrastructure Perspective which receive further validation from the technology acceptance model as they focus on individual as well as broader environmental considerations. The economic history perspective is not being vindicated in a significant way as innovations adapt to markets that are not necessarily geographic. This runs counter to The Market and Infrastructure Perspective as various geographic locations have nuances in infrastructure. While the development perspective is forward-thinking, it does not however answer why people do or do not adopt. 2.4.2. The post-Internet phase In contrast to the pre-internet phase the debate here suggests that technology is now more pervasive and widespread than earlier technologies such as those which enhanced the productivity of farming processes; for example those originally studied by Rogers (1962). The industrialized world over the last 30 years has been making a transformation from an industrial economy to an information economy, and this may be seen in the development of the literature. According to Parker (1983), information, rather than land or capital, will drive the creation of wealth and prosperity over the next several decades. Information and Communication technology is irreversibly changing the business world and internal organisational operations. Drucker (1990) further argues that there is a transformation in which it is knowledge and not capital, natural resources or labour, which has the greatest impact as a means of production. Therefore technology which facilitates knowledge transfer allows for competitive advantage for businesses. There is a difficulty however in providing a succinct definition of ICT. Buhalis (2002) points out that ICTs include hardware, software, groupware, netware, as well as the intellectual capacity to develop, programme and maintain the equipment. Due to the complexity and breadth of these electronic tools that facilitate the strategic management of organisations, it is important to note that this paper highlights what is arguably the most pervasive of these tools; the internet. Travel and tourism have been altered due to this pervasiveness and the impact on travel firms has been varied. Hjalager (2010) has highlighted that research on innovation in tourism has focused on product, process, managerial, marketing and institutional determinants. Although such a wide range of areas have been addressed she articulates that there is a dearth of evidence over two decades of research, to clearly identify the impact of innovative activities in tourism. This signals a call for greater research in the area and this research seeks to fill this gap by qualitatively exploring small, owner-managed travel intermediaries in a developing country context. 2.5. Travel intermediaries A discussion of leadership is particularly important in providing strategic change for information intensive industries, which are significantly impacted by the internet, such as the travel industry. The Internet means lower distribution costs, larger market share and higher revenues (Laws, 2001). Supplier companies which are always seeking to cut costs are therefore exploring the option of convenient market access via the web. Hatton (2004) further argues that given the millions paid globally for commission, pressures from consumers for lower prices and increasing demands for ROI from investors, many seek to remove these payments. Reduced transaction cost and commission therefore present a strong case for the complete elimination of intermediaries (Buhalis & Licata, 2002). This argument identifies the interplay between the firm and the markets, where firms make strategic decisions that enhance profit and consumer behaviour leans towards greater value for money. Greater technology adoption, particularly of the Internet, may be the only way in which agencies can compete across platforms. There is support for the work of Carlson and Zmud (1999) on channel expansion theory in this research. The general conceptualization of this theory suggests that perceived social influence and experience in using a channel will affect channel perception and use. Social influences in this study include observations of the uses of digital channels within the society, family influence and organizational influence. The most voluminous concept in channel Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 7 expansion theory which applies to this research is the influence of enablers and motivators (owner-managers) on channel use. This is evident especially in small travel firms in the Jamaican context. 2.5.1. The travel context As a major destination Jamaica receives far more tourists than it generates. Data on the travel activities of Jamaicans to other countries for vacation or business is virtually non-existent; however it is expected that locals typically travel to visit friends and relatives given the limited economic means of the average household. While the actual statistics do not exist for outbound vacation travellers, the number of Jamaicans living in other countries suggests that there is a fairly significant pull factor for locals to visit. The Jamaican Diaspora is unusually large, with some estimates indicating that as many individuals of Jamaican descent may currently be living outside the country as within it. The Diaspora is concentrated in three countries: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. About 637,000 Jamaican foreign born lived in the United States in 2008, with approximately 123,500 in Canada in 2006 and 150,000 in the United Kingdom in 2008. This data is according to the official statistical bureaus in each country. Travel from Jamaica is usually handled by physical intermediaries. These outbound travel agencies have faced significant challenges over the last decade. This is evidenced by an alarming decrease in the number of agencies with the number moving from 105 to 43 between 1999 and 2009. In 2000 American Airlines, British Airways and the regional carrier Air Jamaica cut commission from 9% to 6% for travel agencies in the region. According to the Jamaica Gleaner (11 January 2000) when Jamaican travel agencies attempted to boycott the sale of American Airlines tickets in response to the 3% cut in commissions in 2000, their efforts proved futile as the airline, which accounts for approximately 70% of air traffic to the region, simply decided that direct bookings was an option. The agencies’ position was further weakened when Air Jamaica and British Airways followed suit with similar cuts just two months later. Further commission cuts were experienced in 2009 from 6% to 3%. This and other changes in airline reservation models has undoubtedly lead to displacement of some Jamaican travel agencies, even resulting in some unregistered agencies transacting business illegally. According to Minister of Tourism, Edmund Bartlett, these agencies have no insurance or protection for the client and several have got into trouble with customers who pay for travel which did not materialse (Jamaica Gleaner, 27 July 2011). In an attempt to punish these rogue agencies, the Jamaican parliament has recently approved the legislation proposed by Minister Bartlett to increase the fine from J$20 for each day they operate illegally, to a maximum fine of J $1million. It is clear that the current business model where these firms only cater to the outbound market to provide a limited set of services seems to be failing. This research posits that in addition to a re-examination of the market, the business practices and processes within these firms such as their technology usage rate, types of technology adopted and the purposes for which they have been adopted, must be assessed with a view to informing a more adaptable business model. 3. Methodology If assessed on a continuum between Positivism and Interpretivism, this research finds more of its philosophical underpinnings in Critical Social Science. More specifically within this paradigm, there is a subscription to the concept of Bounded Autonomy, which is an approach to human agency and causality that makes the assumption that there is some degree of subjectivity in human actions but only within limits that are clearly identifiable. Therefore it recognizes that there is a certain degree of objectivity in those boundaries or limits but that within those parameters there may be room for subjectivity in exploring causality and the actions of the human agent. This approach blends determinism (a feature of positivism) and voluntarism (a feature of interpretivism) to show how structure and agency interact. In essence it claims that people will make choices but only based on what they deem to be possible, which is a function of what they think can happen within identifiable limits. These limits to subjectivity may be cultural or material. Cultural factors are those constraints placed on an individual’s autonomy such as values, beliefs and norms; while material factors are those which surround resource constraints. With this in mind the research attempts to explore the reality of Jamaican travel agencies, which may or may not be significantly different from other realities. The lessons learnt here may bear some relevance to an understanding of similar societies. 3.1. Data collection Two phases of data collection were carried out. In phase 1 primary data was collected using semi-structured in-depth interviews with the top executive of 31 travel agencies in Jamaica. The total population of agencies is 43, however only those with ownermanagers were interviewed as their level of autonomy in firms is greater. The entire target sample of 31 was interviewed. The questions in the interview brief were guided by the Technology Decision-Making Input Framework in Fig. 2 and primarily focused on elements of the digital divide, culture, resources, strategy and leadership; however participants were allowed to speak freely about other related matters. The instrument employed closedended questions for firm description followed by probing openended questions. In Phase 2, a very concise open-ended instrument was used to gain deeper leadership insights based on emerging themes from phase 1. Interviews were taped and transcribed. However the first stage of the analysis focused on descriptive statistical analysis of the sample through the use of frequencies. Each closed-ended question had a follow-up open-ended question in addition to numerous open-ended questions in the latter half of the instrument. These along with the phase 2 instrument were aimed at gaining qualitative insight into the feelings of the stakeholders, therefore providing the dominant inductive, qualitative approach of this paper. The process of analysis was guided by the cross-case analysis approach, which is particularly useful where variations in the experiences and behaviours of individuals or organizations are the primary focus (Patton, 2002). This process involved writing a case study using all the data for each firm and then conducting a cross-case and comparative analysis across responses to questions in the semi-structured interviews through the use of an outcomes matrix. This allowed for the grouping of answers according to themes. Common themes were then identified among firms which had similar types of adoption levels. These themes were then tested through a second phase of interviews which focused on transformational leadership constructs. A relationship was identified between transformational traits and firm adoption levels. Additionally leaders who possessed more transformational characteristics had certain descriptive quantitative elements in common such as education level and type, previous work experience, family composition, technology experience, risk aversion and intellectual stimulation. These similarities enabled the formation of leadership typologies at each level of technology adoption within the firms. Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 8 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 EXTERNAL FACTORS Context Factors Ownership Firm Structure -Size, Control, Division INTERNAL FACTORS Resource Allocation Entrepreneurship - Risk-taking, creativity - Strategy Design and Deployment Firm Behaviour - Goals Transformational –Charisma, stimulation, motivation, strategic change - Input, processes, output Innovation Decisions - Decisions to introduce and adopt innovations Firm Performance - Performance relative to competitors - Culture - Digital Divide Leadership - Mission - Barriers Transactional - Daily monitoring - reward driven approach Feedback Fig. 2. Technology Decision-making input framework. 4. Findings Descriptive statistics about the firms revealed basic characteristics such as the age of the firms, size (number of employees as a proxy), and services offered (Table 1). The firms in the sample typify older firms as 21 (67.7%) of those firms were in existence for more than 15 years and only 5 (16.1%) of the firms started operations less than 10 years ago. There may be implications for technology use as the majority represents traditional firms which existed before the internet explosion. While these older firms are still in operation approximately 60% of the firms which started in this industry in a similar era had closed operations as explained earlier. It is not surprising therefore that only a few firms entered the industry in the last 10 years which saw a massive decline in the overall number of travel firms in the country. The age of these firms may point to a possible cause for their resistance to new innovations. Relationships have been identified between innovative activity and the age of the firm (Lynskey, 2004). One side of the debate identifies that age and experience may lead to more competitive behaviours while the opposing argument points to newer agile firms being more open to cutting edge approaches. The latter would seem to be more applicable in this Table 1 Length of operation. Number of years 6e10 11e15 16e20 21e25 Total Frequency 5 5 15 6 31 Percentage 16.1 16.1 48.4 19.4 100.0 Cumulative percent 16.1 32.2 80.6 100.0 100.0 research as owner-managers in older firms highlighted that their traditional methods continue to work therefore there is the perception that the need for change is not evident (Table 2). Using the number of employees in the firm as a proxy for firm size, it was discovered that 87.1% of the firms had fewer than 15 employees and 71% had less than 10 employees. Hence these firms are categorized as small firms. While there is a significant role for small firms as advocates for new technology (Brown, Hendry, & Harborne, 2007) it has also been substantially documented that small businesses often fail due to insufficient resources (Deeds, Mang, & Fransden, 2004). In the case of this sample significant resource limitations have been identified by these firms and will be more qualitatively explored. The services offered by these firms included bookings for flights, cruises and accommodations. The latter two were marginal however (ranging from 6 to 11% of sales volume) and the only product which received significant attention by these small travel firms was flight sales, an already shrinking revenue source as indicated through commission cuts from 9% to 3%. While air travel produces the greatest level of activity in the global travel market, disintermediation has been highest in the airline industry (Hatton, 2004). Diversity therefore becomes important as cruises still offer these agencies as much as 15% in commission and some Table 2 Number of employees (size). Number of employees 1e5 6e10 16e20 21 and over Total Frequency 11 11 5 4 31 Percentage 35.5 35.5 16.1 12.9 100.0 Cumulative percent 35.5 71.0 87.1 100.0 100.0 Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 Table 3 Formal education levels. Education level Secondary Certificates/Diploma Bachelors Masters Total Frequency 9 11 9 2 31 Percentage 29.0 35.5 29.0 6.5 100.0 Cumulative percent 29.0 64.5 93.5 100.0 9 accommodation facilities offer up to 20%. The limited service offerings as well as platforms being used by these firms are attributed to leadership within these firms, which is facilitated through a great deal of autonomy to a unilateral decision-maker in these small, owner-managed firms. Background characteristics of these owner-managers are also useful in contextualizing the firms being studied. In Table 3, more than 60% of these owner-managers did not have a university degree. Typically the highest levels of qualification were certificates or diplomas after secondary school which would have been issued by professional travel bodies rather than established universities. The type of education was usually travel and tourism-specific and respondents were not familiar with some generic business models. Additionally the previous work experience of all except 2 of these owner-managers was limited to the travel industry, which also provided limited scope for business analysis. Education levels and work experience had an impact on technology use and experience, risk aversion and intellectual stimulation of the owner-managers. These issues in addition to family composition are qualitatively assessed to understand the interplay between the characteristics of the leaders. 4.1. Qualitative data The model (Fig. 3) presents a coherent hierarchical adoption approach which identifies types of leaders found at each level of adoption. Most importantly this model emerged out of a process of looking holistically at various factors that have been presented in previous research as drivers of technology adoption. This was facilitated through the lens of Critical Social Science, which called for a more comprehensive assessment of a multiplicity of possibilities within the context of the study. Factors such as culture, the digital divide, resources and firm strategy were also examined. The primary data analysis of this study from two phases of collection and analysis revealed that culture and the digital divide played a more indirect role in the general shaping of individual’s views but could not explain why similar cultural backgrounds and IT access resulted in different behaviours among the firms. The resource and firm strategy factors emerged as peripheral drivers as they were directly under the control of the decision maker in these firms and appeared more as an effect than a cause. In other words resource and strategy decisions were the result of managerial direction rather than seriously influencing the decision to adopt. The process of distillation in this research project revealed that the critical direct driver of technology adoption in these firms was its leadership. This was primarily so because of the small autonomous nature of the firms in the study. This brings to the fore another important strength of the project. While there has been considerable research about technology adoption in large and small firms, owner-managed small firms have largely been ignored in the technology adoption discourse. The following characteristics emerged as significant in the findings of this paper. 4.1.1. Education An important factor from the interviews was education level and type. Those owner-managers who were inclined to adopt, based on immediate plans as well as a general intention to explore other commercial uses of the internet, tended to have university qualification at least at the bachelor degree level. Their openness to a greater use of internet technology in sales and marketing comes from exposure to the use of technology in a university environment as well as formal discussions surrounding the technology revolution and its potential benefits. While some of these respondents were not using cutting-edge technology at the moment, they were not resistant to the notion that it has a place in the firm. This presents a particularly fertile condition for the birth of new processes in these firms over which they have control, such as website use for e-commerce and social media for sales and marketing. The type of education also played a role in the openness to technology adoption. Interestingly it was found that those ownermanagers who had generic business degrees were much keener on utilizing multiple marketing and distribution platforms than those with specific travel and tourism qualification. This may speak to a greater emphasis on competitive strategies and the development of sound business models in business studies. This then raises the question of whether tourism degrees suffer from a tunnelvision which does not embrace a more fundamental understanding of key business concepts. This presents an area for future research. 4.1.2. Previous work experience The professional background of the respondents seemed to differ greatly between likely adopters and unlikely adopters. The two most technologically progressive thinkers in the sample had worked outside of the travel industry extensively. The market leader in the sample had extensive experience in real estate and had built and operated a successful company in that industry for many years. The other respondent who had not yet implemented many of the plans but had intentions to do so was a bank manager for many years who used retirement funds to start a travel agency. On the contrary, the slow or low adopters had spent their entire careers in the travel business. Some started out as entrepreneurs while others worked for other travel companies and airlines before starting their own operations. This fact may be due to a reason similar to the education variable, where a greater exposure to business practices which were thriving in other industries created transferable approaches to competitiveness. The real estate and banking industries experienced an evolution and restructuring, which may have taught these owner-managers some valid lessons. It must be noted that this work does not posit that all owner-managers should immediately employ Internet sales and marketing approaches. However it advocates that there must at least be a certain level of openness to ideas which may enhance the relevance of their firms especially at a time where this is being questioned. The approach of many struggling agencies in this study seems to be “wait and see”. 4.1.3. Technology experience It was found that the personal experience of these ownermanagers within firms with using the internet provided strong insights into their propensity to introduce it as a sales and marketing tool in their firms. The rate of use for owner-managers in the sample was quite low. The rate of use does not say much on its own though and an exploration of the reasons for which it is used adds more robustness to the discussion. The reasons for personal internet use for leaders were very telling as these translated into business practices and firm adoption Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 10 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 behaviour. The only firm which had engaged in online sales was one of the two firms which had internet savvy leaders who were engaging in online purchase of their own. The other was in the planning phase for platform diversification. Each of these respondents stated: “Online markets are very promising because of the convenience of buying things at any time of the day. Even I have used my credit card to buy items online and I find it to be fairly easy to do. It is only a matter of time before the local outbound market catches up to the rest of the international markets so we have to be ready.” “I can see the benefit of using the internet for sales because I buy stuff and sometimes I even get them cheaper. If clients start to look online for options then businesses should meet them in that environment. I am now looking at how to implement that kind of activity in the near future.” In relation to social media, most respondents had a facebook, for personal use but it must be noted however that their personal facebook use did not translate into firm use as social media was still viewed as just a “social” tool rather than one for marketing or online sales. On the other hand, the firms whose leaders engage in minimal internet use for emailing up to two times per week experienced low levels of internet involvement and primarily used the web for email activities. The personal internet experience of the latter group of ownermanagers was filled with overwhelming information, which made it particularly challenging for them to navigate through cyber space in an effective way that could enhance decision-making. One owner manager pointed out that: “It takes too much time to look for information because there is too much information on the internet. I find it hard to make up my mind about buying anything online because I have too many choices and I don’t trust some of these sites.” This resulted in an overall resistance to a phenomenon which they did not completely understand. The final outcome was that low personal technology experience led to similarly low usage in these firms which were essentially an extension of the owner-managers. 4.1.4. Risk aversion The perception of risk emerged from the data as being an important factor for the respondents. An overwhelming majority considered themselves to be low risk-takers with only 2 respondents ranking themselves as high risk-takers. These “high risk-takers” represent those who were the previously mentioned avid internet users. This presents a serious challenge for the adoption of the internet for sales and marketing in these firms as owner-managers who describe themselves as low risk-takers also view investments in online platforms as being high risk. As a respondent indicated: “I think it is high risk because I am not sure about what kind of return I will get when I spend money to develop websites and then have to maintain them. Really not sure it’s worth it at all.” An additional element which has been inferred through discussions with respondents is that they are unwilling to take risks with the business that directly affects the survival of their families. This is a feature of the fact that these leaders are owner-managers of small, autonomous firms. They were more deeply involved from an ownership perspective and pointed out that they were likely to be less risk-averse if they were managers in a business which they did not own. It may be argued that they are not inherently low risktakers but rather act out of protection for a firm which directly affects their families. 4.1.5. Family composition The issue of the make-up of the family emerged from simply asking about the respondent’s backgrounds. Inferences revealed that the leaders which were more interested in greater technology use were those with teenage children in their households. They highlighted that the experience of watching their children use the web inspired confidence about how to use it. The biggest restricting factor seemed to be uncertainty about the outcomes of certain activities on the internet and therefore many respondents had chosen to only engage in basic emailing and web searches. “The children are so good with this stuff and they seem to find it so easy. Sometimes I wonder why it’s so difficult for me because they don’t seem to have any problems. Most times I just ask them to do things on the internet for me. My staff members are young too so maybe they would also find it easy to use.” “I keep it simple because I am not familiar with a lot of these new technologies. Who knows it may be for young people. My son does all kinds of things on the net but he doesn’t live with me anymore” This prompted further exploration to identify if there were differences with those who seemed less interested in increased adoption. The findings revealed that with the exception of one, all of the other low-adopters had older children who were now adults and did not live with them or had small children, who apparently did not influence them in this way. It would therefore appear that such a situational factor has a greater impact on the cognitive disposition of these leaders towards technology adoption rather than the broader issue of national culture. All of the afore-mentioned variables in some way relate to situational considerations that generate differences in each individual. One major difference which has been identified is the level of intellectual stimulation which is provided by leaders of lowadoption firms and high-adoption firms; as defined by those who intend to adopt more cutting-edge tools in their businesses. 4.1.6. Intellectually stimulating traits While all of the respondents ranked low on three of the transformational leadership constructs provided by Bass et al., 2003 in the MLQ, there was noticeable difference in the intellectual stimulation construct for owner-managers who had a greater inclination towards technology adoption. Idealized influence, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration are all related to creating an atmosphere of admiration, respect and kinship to the leader. Although there was no difference between respondents in these areas, the intellectual stimulation construct showed that the more innovative-minded owner-managers were different and ranked higher in this area. This is displayed when the leader helps followers to become more innovative and creative. An exploration of the other three constructs was important to be able to clearly identify if these leaders would fit into any of these two leadership categories based on all four constructs. While the previous three demonstrate the likelihood of followers aligning themselves to the goals of the leader, the only one which addresses a cognitive and behavioural change in the follower is intellectual stimulation. The respondents who had intentions of improving online platforms for sales and marketing created an atmosphere in which employees were free to make innovative suggestions. This environment is conducive to the generation of a multiplicity of ideas which may help in the formulation of effective strategies. The converse was also true where those who were less inclined to explore online options were more intellectually stagnating than stimulating. Some respondents stated: Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 11 “My employees can share an idea with me at any time. I will listen and they know that if I think it is a good idea I will find a way to incorporate it. The most important thing is that they know I am not just pretending to listen. These young people sometimes come up with things that I could not think of.” “Most of my employees are young people with limited education and they prefer to just follow simple procedure so I try to come up with ways of doing things. The bottom line is that this is a company which I started on my own and so I have to take responsibility for ideas and decisions.” Ideally owner-managers should endeavour to improve in all of these transformational leadership categories; however it is evident from this research that the intellectual stimulation element is sufficient along with the other variables identified by this investigation, to stimulate higher levels of technology adoption in ownermanaged, small travel firms. This finding points to another more over-arching issue in leadership and technology adoption research. There is now the need for more specialized leadership typologies in relation to technology adoption behaviours, as the current broad classifications of transactional and transformational leadership do not necessarily apply directly in the innovation diffusion and adoption discourse. The variables mentioned here form the basis for the construction of new leadership typologies to be discussed. 5. Discussion This study provides a model which emphasizes that where leaders of small firms are the owners themselves, this presents some unique challenges for innovative behaviour. First of all, the small size of the firms usually produces a simple management structure and hierarchy which allows for less bureaucracy and faster decision-making. This may on the surface appear to be a positive element however it also means that hasty decisionmaking at the whim of a leader’s preferences, or lethargic decision-making based on a leader’s dislikes are likely to become characteristic of the firm’s behaviour. The second issue is that as the owners of small firms these top executives have an immediate stake in the outcome of business activities. They are more likely to personalize decision-making rather than yield to the more strategic logic that will lead to greater long-term benefits. The bottom line of these two issues is that these leaders may be initiators or barriers to technology adoption based on their attitude to technology. The model shows the leadership typologies which facilitate each level of adoption. Having identified that the leadership element is most critical to technology adoption in owner-managed small firms, this research moved to a more detailed approach in identifying what firms were at various levels of adoption and what type of leader was responsible for the firm’s position along the adoption hierarchy. While there has been previous research on stages of adoption, much of this research has been focused on the sequential adoption of specific technological innovations (see for example Aguila-Obra & Padilla-Melendez, 2006; Cooper & Zmud, 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Daniel, Wilson, & Myers, 2002). This research however takes a hierarchical approach which illustrates different technology adoption processes and therefore provides a macro approach to this conceptualization. The major theoretical development is that the work goes on to develop leadership typologies at each level of adoption, which has never been done before. It must be stated that there were a few odd cases in the interviews which did not match the criteria of a particular typology based on the variables which were used to create the types of leaders. These were however in the minority and sufficiently resonant themes could be identified across interview manuscripts to make these bold conclusions. This takes the research a step further than previous research which identified the importance of leadership in innovation diffusion and adoption (see for example Peterson, Walumbwa, & Myrowitz, 2009; Thong & Yap, 1995). Much of this body of work focused on the initial adoption of innovation in general or on a single innovation. The development of leadership typologies is particularly useful as the generic transactional and transformational typologies were limited in their application to a hierarchical adoption model. For example the constructs identified in transformational leadership research did not directly apply to innovative behaviour with the exception of intellectual stimulation, which has been used in the development of this model. Additionally there were important variables which were not captured in these generic typologies but applied to the innovative behaviour of leaders such as technology experience and innovative family behaviour. In the case of owner-managed small firms where the leadership element is most critical, it is of paramount importance that an applicable set of classifications which consider more technologically related variables be advanced in order to understand why some firms are at higher levels than others. This was particularly interesting in the travel context, where firms were faced with significant changes globally which could affect their level of importance. Even with impending danger to the survival of businesses, some firms were still at relatively low levels of adoption along the hierarchy and it was interesting to understand why this was so in such an information intensive industry. Although the study focused on travel firms, its contribution may be generalized to the extent that firms in other information intensive industries which are small and managed by their owners may learn lessons about leadership drivers and barriers to technology adoption. 5.1. The leadership typologies For the purpose of this study it was found that the element from the four constructs identified in the Multifactor leadership Questionnaire for transformational leadership (Bass et al., 2003) which is most critical, is intellectual stimulation. This is displayed when the leader helps followers to become more innovative and creative. Idealized influence, inspiration and individualized consideration, all address the relationship and kinship that followers (employees) attach to leaders. While there have been eight iterations of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and the development of a culturally sensitive scale by Singh and Krishnan (2007), there has been very little attention to the need for a new measurement tool that goes beyond reductionist likert scale-type approaches to the study of transformational leadership. Most interestingly for this study is the fact that the two major concepts of technology adoption and leadership, which are being investigated, suffer from the same methodological limitations. This work, as inspired by constructs in these previously designed instruments provides for a deeper qualitative understanding of leadership, technology adoption and how the two interact within the context of small owner-managed travel firms. The categorizations as demonstrated in Fig. 3 were determined based on the following variables. 5.1.1. Resistors Research on the transactional leader has broadly pointed to a short term orientation in completing tasks at hand by using rewards to motivate employees to complete tasks. This research however highlighted that within this category there are different types of transactional leaders and some clear variables which separate them. At the lowest level is the resistor who is least likely Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 12 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 Fig. 3. Leadership typologies for Staged technology adoption (Owner-managed small firms). to effect change in the firm and is more interested in maintaining traditional approaches. These persons rank themselves as low-risk takers and say that they are willing to do only what is necessary to meet predetermined objectives. They have low technology experience which is evidenced by their lack of use of computer related technology with the exception of infrequent personal emailing and all of their work experience has been in the travel industry. They tended to have low education levels with the highest formal qualification being at the secondary level. These leaders typically ranked low on intellectual stimulation for employees and did not encourage creative thinking and innovation. This may probably be linked to the composition of their families where there was the absence of an avid teenage internet user whose example may have influenced perceptions. 5.1.2. Enforcers These leaders are transactional and also rank themselves as low risk-takers who will only do what is necessary to follow internal procedures regardless of external changes. They are only different from resistors to the extent that they are willing to do things differently if there is a complete industry change which warrants new procedures. Only after the development of new procedures will they alter any activity within the firm. They typically had low technology experience like resistors however their level of education tended to be a little higher as they had done some post-secondary studies such as certificates and diplomas. These were usually forms of certification from professional travel bodies. The moderate education level gave them exposure to technology benefits although they had limited experience using it. They however had no experience working outside of the travel industry and developed a limited view of business strategy. These leaders also ranked low on intellectual stimulation for employees and did not encourage creative thinking and innovation. Their family composition tended to be void of an avid teenage internet user whose example may have influenced perceptions. 5.1.3. Stabilizers This type of leader is still a transactional leader but more closely resembles the decision maker as actor in the organizational decision-making literature. This is an individual who passively acts in accordance with what happens to the organization such as problems or opportunities. These leaders consider themselves to be medium risk-takers who will make decisions which may lead to short-term changes to address immediate opportunities and challenges. This may lead to doing something in the firm that is not procedural, however once the incident has passed it becomes business as usual once again. They typically had low technology experience and fairly high education levels. This was usually a bachelor degree in travel/tourism which limited their scope. Their work experience was similar to resistors and enforcers in that they had only worked in the travel industry. Their family composition had teenagers using the internet which made them more familiar with its use but they were still no more intellectually stimulating than the previous categories as they usually tried to stabilize situations without employee consultation. Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 13 5.1.4. Reactors This category is representative of a leader who is much more open to ideas of change and is a medium risk-taker. Although not as resistant to doing things differently this leader is usually behind in the uptake of some new innovations. There is always the intention to improve business practices but these are sometimes late in coming to fruition. Education levels are usually high in this category with a minimum of a bachelor degree with a broader focus than just travel and tourism. Technology experience is moderate (daily business emailing, and web browsing) and previous work experience involves working in another industry other than travel and tourism. They typically belong to families with avid teenage web users and provide an intellectually stimulating environment for employees. 5.1.5. Converters This leader is considered to be a very active change agent who has a long-term vision for the firm. This is influenced by the fact that the individual is considered to be a high risk-taker with high technology experience and a high education level. The high technology experience and high risk-taking, which separate this leader from the reactor, are evidenced by the fact that this individual has engaged in personal online buying and is therefore familiar with online transactions. All other variables are similar to the reactor such as work experience, family composition and intellectual stimulation. The key difference is that in addition to being able to observe the benefits of use by their children, these leaders had their own experience with using cutting-edge technology. Although these leaders were not using social media in the businesses, they were using it personally, which provides for an understanding of the vast reach of these tools and stimulated their intention to introduce such platforms. 6. Conclusions and implications The convergence of leadership and technology adoption in itself is not new however the identification of distinctive characteristics of leaders who stimulate each new level of adoption along an adoption hierarchy in firms is one step closer to understanding the determinants of technology adoption. This was previously lacking particularly for small, owner-managed travel firms. The final product which has emerged is new in concept and in context. Conceptually this is the first study to design a model that creates and illustrates new leadership typologies at each level of technology adoption along an adoption hierarchy. This type of study is new to mainstream research and even more so to the tourism context. The emphasis on travel agencies has now opened up avenues for similar research on small tourism supply firms such as small owner-managed hotels. This kind of research is also completely new in the Caribbean and will no doubt influence a wave of e-tourism research in the region. In the final analysis this study has developed an applicable set of classifications which consider more technologically related variables to be advanced from a leadership perspective in order to understand why some firms are at higher levels than others. It must be noted that this model is transferable only to the extent that firms are small, owner-managed and operate in a common context as it relates to the digital divide and culture. This means that comparative research across cultures or societies may require different conceptualizations. The management implication and recommendation is that small travel firms, which are not engaging in multiple platform distribution, should assess whether this decision is one that is driven by solid market research or the intuition and preferences of leaders, which have been shaped by their own personal experiences. This will require independent assessment which goes outside of the unilateral decision-making approach. The firms without a formalized board of directors should seek to institute boards in an effort to ensure that decision-making is sound and driven by singular personalities. This may or may not lead to increased technology adoption, but it will provide more logical and rational decision processes which are needs-based. There are many areas for future research in this field. It is hoped that this research will inspire research that is more holistic in assessing the determinants of technology adoption. One key area which may be explored further is an investigation into the role of transformational leadership in technology adoption for large firms. Additionally this may be assessed in a developed country context to identify whether there are key differences. A comparative study across cultures may be insightful in uncovering the influence of culture and digital divide issues. Particularly within the tourism context there is room for greater research on leadership issues of firms in destination countries and firms from which their business tourists originate in more developed countries. There were also limitations in this study which may be addressed in further research. For example a deeper investigation into the quality of the education of the leaders based on the universities attended may be useful. Additionally while this study identified that those leaders with a greater variety of industry experience were more open to advanced business practices, further research could examine which industries were particularly influential in creating the openmindedness which was needed for innovative behaviour. References Aguila-Obra, A., & Padilla-Melendez, A. (2006). Organizational factors affecting Internet technology adoption. Internet Research, 16(1), 94e110. Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding family-ownership and firm performance from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301e1327. Bagozzi, R., Davis, F., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45(7), 659e686. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 8(1), 9e32. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207e218. Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Brown, J., Hendry, C., & Harborne, P. (2007). Developing radical technology for sustainable energy markets: the role of new small firms. International Small Business Journal, 25, 603e625. Brown, L. (1981). Innovation diffusion, a new perspective. London: Methuen and Co. Buhalis, D. (2002). eTourism: Information technologies for strategic tourism management. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Buhalis, D., & Licata, M. C. (2002). The future eTourism intermediaries. Journal of Tourism Management, 23, 207e220. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: a conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9, 354e359. Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153e170. Cho, M. (1998). Ownership structure, investment and the corporate value: an empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 47(1), 103e121. Cole, R. A., & Mehran, H. (1998). The effect of changes in ownership structure on performance: evidence from the thrift industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 50(3), 291e317. Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123e139. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217e234. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dahles, H., & Bras, K. (1999). Entrepreneurs in romance: tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 267e293. Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally-managed firms. Family Business Review, 5(2), 117e136. Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011 14 A.J. Spencer et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2011) 1e14 Lederer, A., Maupin, L. D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (1998). The role of ease of use, usefulness and attitude in the prediction of World Wide Web usage. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, 32, 195e204. Lewis, B., & McCann, P. (2004). Service failure and recovery: evidence from the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,16(1), 6e17. Lynskey, M. (2004). Determinants of innovative activity in Japanese technologybased start-up firms. International Small Business Journal, 22(2), 159e196. Minghetti, V., & Buhalis, D. (2010). Digital divide in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 267e281. Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., & Williams, C. (1999). Entrepreneurship in the hospitality, tourism and leisure industries. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Page, S., & Getz, D. (Eds.). (1997). The business of rural tourism: International perspectives. London: Thomson Business Press. Parker, M. (1983). Information economics. London: Prentice-Hall. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage Publications. Pawar, B. S. (2003). Central conceptual issues in transformational leadership research. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(7), 397e406. Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: a conceptual examination. Academy Management Review, 22, 80e109. Peterson, S. F., Walumbwa, B. K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348e368. Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Context and action in the transformation of firms. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 649e670. Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. Wallingford: CAB International. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Ryan, B., & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15e24. Shailer, G. (1994). Capitalists and entrepreneurs in owner-managed firms. International Small Business Journal, 12, 33e41. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Singh, N., & Krishnan, V. (2007). Transformational leadership in India: developing and validating a new scale. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7, 219. Singh, S. P., Reynolds, R. G., & Muhammad, D. (2001). A gender-based analysis of micro and small enterprises in Java, Indonesia. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(2), 174e182. Straub, E. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 625e649. Tatum, B., Eberlin, R., Kottraba, C., & Bradberry, T. (2003). Leadership, decisionmaking and organizational justice. Management Decision, 41(10), 1006e1016. Thomas, R., & Dunkerley, D. (1999). Careering downwards? Middle management in the downsized organization. British Journal of Management, 10(2), 157e169. Thong, J. Y. L., & Yap, C. S. (1995). CEO characteristics, organisational characteristics and information technology adoption in small business. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 23(4), 429e442. Tsao, C. (2009). Founding-family ownership and firm performance the role of highperformance work systems. Family Business Review, 22(4), 319e332. Victorino, L., Verma, V., Plaschka, G., & Dev, C. (2006). Service innovation and customer choices in the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 555e576. Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent reward behavior. Group and Organisation Studies, 15, 382e394. Wasilczuk, J. (2000). Advantageous competence of owner/managers to grow the firm in Poland: empirical evidence. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2), 88e94. Welch, E. (2003). The relationship between ownership structure and performance in listed Australian companies. Australian Journal of Management, 28(3), 287e306. Werthner, H. (1995). Design principles of tourism information systems. Wien: Oldenburg. Werthner, H. (1996). Design principles of tourism information systems. Innsbruck: Springer Verlag. Werthner, H., & Klein, S. (1999). Information technology and tourism: A challenging relation. Vienna: Springer Verlag. Williams, D., & Spencer, A. (2010). Advertising and tourist arrivals: evidence from Jamaica. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(4), 359e366. Woiceshyn, J. (2000). Technology adoption: organizational learning in oil firms. Organization Studies, 21(6), 1095e1118. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555e590. Daniel, E., Wilson, H., & Myers, A. (2002). Adoption of e-commerce by SMEs in the UK: towards a stage model. International Small Business Journal, 20, 253e270. David, F. (2007). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319e339. Deeds, D., Mang, P., & Fransden, M. (2004). The influence of firms’ and industries’ legitimacy on the flow of capital into high-technology ventures. Strategic Organisation, 2(1), 9e34. DeMartino, R., Barbato, R., & Jacques, P. H. (2006). Exploring the career/achievement and personal life orientation differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs: the impact of sex and dependents. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 350e369. Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985). The structure of corporate ownership. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155e1177. Drucker, P. (1990). Post capitalist society. New York: Harper Business. Falk, M. (2008). Effects of foreign ownership on innovation activities: empirical evidence for twelve European countries. National Institute Economic Review, 204, 85e97. Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley. Frese, M., van Gelderen, M. W., & Ombach, M. (2000). How to plan as a small scale business owner: psychological process characteristics of action strategies and success. Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 1e18. Gallo, P. J., & Christensen, L. J. (2011). Firm size matters: an empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Business Society, 50, 315e349. Ghobadian, A., & O’ Regan, N. (2006). The impact of ownership on small firm behaviour and performance. International Small Business Journal, 24, 555e584. Govers, R. F., Go, F. M., & Kuldeep, K. (2007). Promoting tourism destination image. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 15e23. Hamlin, R., & Sawyer, J. (2007). Developing effective leadership behaviours: the value of evidence-based management. Business Leadership Review, 4(4), 1e16. Hatton, M. (2004). Redefining the relationships- the future of travel agencies and the global agency contract in a changing distribution system. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10, 101. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2001). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South Western Publishing. Hjalager, A. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1e12. Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power and influence: a perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 29e48). San Diego: Academic Press. Huber, G., & McDaniel, R. (1986). The decision-making paradigm of organizational design. Management Science, 32(5), 572e589. Jamaica Gleaner. (2000). Travel agents to boycott AA. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/ gleaner/20000111/f1.html 11 January 2000 viewed 14 November 2010. Jamaica Gleaner. (2011). Tourism minister targets illegal travel agents. http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20110724/business/business7.html 24 July 2011 viewed 27 July 2011. Karnes, F., & Chauvin, J. (1985). Leadership skills inventory forms. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press. Kowalewski, O., Talavera, O., & Stetsyuk, I. (2010). Influence of family involvement in management and ownership on firm performance: evidence from Poland. Family Business Review, 23(1), 45e59. Kuhnert, K., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: a constructive/developmental analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648e657. Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Siant-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision making: the view from the black stool. Organisation Science, 6(3), 260e279. Latzer, M. (2009). Information and communication technology innovations: radical and disruptive? New Media Society, 11(4), 599e619. Law, R., & Leung, R. (2000). A study of airlines’ online reservation services on the Internet. Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), 201e211. Laws, E. (2001). Distribution channel analysis for leisure travel. In D. Buhalis, & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism distribution channels: Practices, issues and transformations (pp. 53e72). London: Continuum. Please cite this article in press as: Spencer, A. J., et al., A hierarchical model of technology adoption for small owner-managed travel firms: An organizational decision-making and leadership perspective, Tourism Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.011