Gender and Perceived Usefulness of e-HRM Technologies. A Case of the Bankers’ Experience in Tanzania
Abstract:
This study investigates
the impact of gender differences on the perceived usefulness of e-HRM technologies,
using 158 observations from a survey conducted in one of the commercial banks in
Tanzania. The descriptive statistics show that the e-HRM technologies in the bank
have not been perceived as useful. With the T-Test, it has been found out that men
perceive the e-HRM technologies more useful compared to women. The
paper urges the promoters of e-HRM technologies in organizations
to better understand the ways in which the use of such technologies can be enhanced
to their employees, particularly women. The study proposes further research on e-HRM
and gender, particularly on the impact of e-HRM technologies on spending, time saving,
and errors.
References:
[1] Ruel, H. J. M., Bondarouk, T., & Looise, J. C.,
2004, E-HRM: Innovation or irritation. An explorative empirical study in five large
companies on web-based HRM, Management revue, 15(3), 364-380,
http://www.management-revue.org/papers/mrev_3_04_Ruel_Bondarouk_Looise.pdf.
[2] Gopal, R., & Shilpa, V., 2011, The implications
of implementing electronic-human resource management (e-HRM) systems in companies,
Journal of Information Systems and Communication, 2 (1), 10–29.
[3] Marler, J.H., & Parry, E., 2016, Human resource
management, strategic involvement and e-HRM technology, International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 27 (19), 2233–2253, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1091980.
[4] Bondarouk, T., Ruël, H., & van der Heijden, B.,
2009, e-HRM effectiveness in a public sector organization: A multi-stakeholder perspective,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (3), 578–590, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802707359.
[5] Davis, F.D.,
1989, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology, MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
[6] Agarwal,
R. & Prasad, J., 1998, The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in
information technology adoption, Decision Support Systems, 22 (1), 15-29.
[7] Rogers,
E.M., 2003, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.
[8] Huang, J., & Martin-Taylor, M., 2012,
Turnaround user acceptance in the context of HR self-service technology adoption:
an action research approach, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24 (3), 621–642.
[9] Barhoumi,
C., 2016, User acceptance of the e-information service as information resource A
new extension of the technology acceptance model, New Library World, 117
(9/10), 1–18.
[10] Igbaria,
M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J., 1996, A motivational model of microcomputer
usage, Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (1), 127-143.
[11] Adams, D.A.,
Nelson, R.R., & Todd, P.A., 1992, Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage
of Information Technology - A Replication, MIS Quarterly, 16 (2), 227-247.
[12] Taylor,
S., & Todd, P.A., 1995, Understanding Information Technology Usage - A Test
of Competing Models, Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144-176.
[13] Venkatesh,
V., & Davis, F.D, 2000, A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: 21 / 21 Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 46 (2),
186-204.
[14] Venkatesh,
V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D., 2003, User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425-478.
[15] Lwoga, T.,
2012, Making Web 2.0 Technologies work for higher learning institutions in Africa.
Campus, Wide Information Systems, 29 (2), 90-107.
[16] Usoro, E.
& Majewski, G., 2014, A Model of Acceptance of Web 2.0 in Learning in Higher
Education: a case study of two cultures, E–Learning and Digital Media, 11 (6), www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA.
[17] Myllymäki,
D., 2021, Beyond the ‘e-’ in e-HRM: integrating a socio-material perspective,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32:12,
2563-2591, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2021.1913624.
[18] Heikkila,
J. 2013, Perspectives on e-HRM in the Multinational Setting, Vaasan Yliopisto.
[19] Noernam,
T., Erlando, A., & Riyanto, F.D., 2021, Factors Determining Intention to
Continue Using E-HRM, Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business,
8 (2), 1079–1089.
[20] Bondarouk, T., Parry, & Furtmueller, E., 2017,
Electronic HRM: four decades of research on adoption and consequences, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28 (1),
98-131, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1245672.
[21] Quazi, A. & Talukder, M., 2011,
Demographic determinants of employees’ perception and adoption of technological
innovation, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51 (3), 38-46.
[22] Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., &
Warshaw, P., 1989, User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models, Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.
[23] Kuschel,
K. & Lepely, M., 2016, Copreneurial women in start-ups, Academia Revista Latinoamericana
de Administración, 29 (2), 181 – 197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-08-2015-0231.
[24] United Nations,
2014, ‘Empowering women entrepreneurs through information and communications technologies:
a practical guide’, UN Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD Current Studies
on Science, Technology and Innovation, Vol. 9.
[25] Goswami,
A., Dutta, S., 2016, Gender Differences in Technology Usage—A Literature
Review, Open Journal of Business and Management, 4. 51-59. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojbm;
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2016.41006.
[26]
Venkatesh,
V., & Morris, M. G., 2000, Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions?
Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage
behavior, MIS Quarterly, 24, 115–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981
[27] Debrand, C.C., & Johnson, J. J.,
2008, Gender differences in email and instant messaging: A study of
undergraduate business information systems students, Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 48 (3), 20–30.
[28] Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du. J.,
2015, Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter? Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 31 (3), 235-251.