The importance of information technology (IT) in our work lives grows daily. More and more tasks, once completed by hand, are being turned over to machines. However, these machines do not run themselves. Instead, each must be guided, monitored, and maintained by people. More often than not, however, the current work force is not prepared to handle such tasks (Goldstein, 1989). Therefore, IT training is becoming an increasingly important aspect in virtually all organizations (Gist et al., 1989). Even with its increased importance, little empirical research has been performed in this area. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to explore several potential relationships that should be of interest to researchers and practitioners in this field. Specifically, this research asks and begins to answer the question: Do attitudes, personality, and ability affect the effectiveness of IT training programs designed to introduce workers to a new technology? Technology Advances and Training It has been suggested that advances in automation and information technology will result in increased productivity and product quality (London and Bassman, 1989). One potential outcome from this increase is a stronger market share in the global economy and a competitive advantage for the United States (Cascio and Zammuto, 1987). Before these positive economic outcomes can be realized, current employees must be able to perform the new jobs dictated by the automated processes. Successful performance by the current work force on newly automated jobs may not be easily achieved, especially for unionized workers trained and socialized to simply follow rules, not think. Howell and Cooke (1989) noted that the demands of operating sophisticated computer technology require that the employee be an even more sophisticated information processor and decision maker than the computer. The more complex the automated system, the more complex the information processing and decision making will be for the employee (Dickerson and Gentry, 1983; Hirschman, 1980). Even when the system requirements are not complex, workers may perceive them to be, and perceived complexity of the new system has long been recognized as a factor inhibiting the successful implementation of new technology (Hill et al., 1987: LaBay and Kinnear, 1981). Further, cognitive laziness, which infects a worker who has performed a job so long that it has become an automatic process, also may cause a new computerized system to be seen as more complex than it actually may be (Fleishman and Mumford, 1989). An additional constraining factor of the implementation of technological advances is the employee's perception of loss of control. Those who are not computer literate and those afraid of machines view computers as too complex to ever be controlled (Hill et al., 1987). This fear, coupled with the natural tendency of individuals to resist change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979), increases the chance for strain on the employees involved and decreases the likelihood of a smooth adoption process. Thus, given the pressures associated with a large scale technological change, individuals are likely to feel great anxiety. This anxiety might be expressed through lower reported job satisfaction and organizational commitment, higher intent to leave, and lower job performance (Gibson, 1993; Karasek, 1991; Summers et al., 1995). Thoroughly training individuals on the new job processes is one step that can be taken to combat the inhibiting factors that arise during the implementation of a technological advancement (Goldstein, 1989). Since a major technological intervention will cause each employee to become a new entrant to a job, an introduction to that job and the new environment can be accomplished through training (Feldman, 1989; Kaeter, 1993). Specifically, providing employees with the knowledge required to perform the automated job, as well as the confidence that they can perform the job, should go a long way in decreasing apprehension and resistance to the technological change (Bandura, 1991; Latham and Locke, 1991; Martocchio and Dulebohn, 1994). …
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.