Driving metaverse adoption in the hospitality industry: an upper echelon perspective

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore how past and future temporal focus of CEOs in the hospitality industry influence their intention to invest in metaverse technology and the underlying mechanism under boundary conditions of perceived competitive pressure. Design/methodology/approach This multi-informant study collected data over three waves from a sample of 235 CEOs and their subordinates in India’s hospitality industry. A PLS-SEM was applied to the study data. Further, the study also used phenomenological interviews to capture CEOs’ perspectives on the study’s conceptual model. Findings Findings suggest that the past temporal focus of CEOs decreases technology orientation, and future temporal focus increases the technology orientation of firms, consequently impacting the intention to invest in the metaverse. CEOs’ perceived competitive pressure moderates the mediating relationship, such that the negative impact of past temporal focus on technology orientation is decreased and that of future temporal focus on the CEO is increased. Research limitations/implications By exploring the role of a CEO’s past and future temporal focus on influencing technology orientation and, hence, adoption of new technology, the study extends upper-echelon theory to the field of metaverse adoption in the hospitality industry and responds to scholars’ calls to explore the industry’s technology adoption from the lens of the upper echelon. Practical implications The study has significant implications for the success of the adoption of metaverse technology in the hospitality industry. Findings imply that the board members should encourage CEOs to have future temporal focus. Originality/value The study provides novel insights into the adoption of metaverse technology by the hospitality industry, where CEO attributes such as their temporal focus influence intention to invest in metaverse.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.