Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 18: 214–238, 2015 Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1097-198X print / 2333-6846 online DOI: 10.1080/1097198X.2015.1080052 A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Smartphone Adoption by Canadian and Turkish Organizations Ibrahim Arpaci1 , Yasemin Yardimci Cetin2 , and Ozgur Turetken3 1 ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey 2 Department of Information Systems, Informatics Institute, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey 3 Ted Rogers School of Information Technology Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ Keywords: Comparative Study, Culture, Organizational Adoption, Smartphone ✝ ✝ The objective of this study is to identify the impact of cultural differences on adoption of smartphones in Canada and Turkey and investigate the differences in patterns between the adoption behaviors of the two countries. Sequential explanatory design mixed-method research strategy, which incorporates quantitative and qualitative approaches, was used in this research. A multi-group structural equation model analysis was conducted to assess the model based on the data collected from senior and middle managers at 213 and 141 private sector organizations in Turkey and Canada, respectively. Constant comparative method was used to analyze follow-up data that resulted from transcription of the interviews. Results show that national culture has a significant effect on adoption behavior and there are major differences in adoption characteristics between the two countries. For example, organizational characteristics, especially top management support, have a stronger effect on adoption of smartphones by organizations in Canada, while environmental characteristics, including competitive pressure, partner expectations, and customer expectations have a stronger effect on the adoption in Turkey. Implications of these results are discussed. ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ INTRODUCTION ✁ Culture shapes the environment in which organizations operate influencing organizational behavior and managerial decision making. Triandis (1994, p. 22) defines culture as “a set of objective and subjective perceptions.” According to Hall (1983), culture is a “subconscious mechanism” while Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010, p. 3) define culture as “the collective programming of mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” Understanding the influence of culture in organizational behavior and managerial decision making requires outlining the relevant differences between cultures. Several taxonomies and models of culture have emerged to suggest a comparable frame of reference. Hall (1976) © Ibrahim Arpaci, Yasemin Yardimci Cetin, and Ozgur Turetken Address correspondence to Ibrahim Arpaci, Gaziosmanpasa University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Tokat, Turkey. E-mail: ibrahim.arpaci@gop.edu.tr A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ 215 introduced a cultural taxonomy establishing low- and high-context cultures. In high-context (compared to low-context) cultures, communication is less explicit and more dependent on nonverbal cues. Hofstede (1980) developed a cultural model comprising four cultural dimensions, including power distance, individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinityfemininity. More recently, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) presented a cultural model with seven dimensions including universalism versus particularism, individualism versus communitarianism, affective versus neutral cultures, specific versus diffuse cultures, achievement versus ascription, time perception, and relation to nature. To date, Hofstede’s cultural taxonomy (1980) is the most cited framework, and his cultural dimensions have been the most popular conceptualization of national culture. Myers and Tan (2002) argued that these dimensions are too simplistic to capture complexities and multi-level influences of culture on information systems (IS). Accordingly, the original model was expanded with two additional dimensions: short-term versus long-term orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988) and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede et al., 2010). Past research implies that culture has a significant effect on the adoption and use of information and communication technologies. Thus, key technology adoption factors may show differences from country to country. These differences should be taken into account by service providers and device manufacturers during the development and marketing of these technologies. The objective of this research is a thorough understanding of the impact of cultural differences on organizations’ technology adoption behavior. More specifically, the authors aim to investigate the impact of cultural differences on organizational adoption of smartphones in Canada and Turkey. The organization of this article is as follows. In the following section, the literature on crosscultural studies of technology adoption and usage will be reviewed. Then, the authors leverage existing theory to develop a series of research hypotheses. The present research methodology is then described and the results of the data analyses are presented. The article is concluded with a summary of findings and a discussion of the implications and limitations of this research. ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ LITERATURE REVIEW ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ The impact of culture in adoption and use of technology has been a frequent theme of recent research (Bagchi, Hart, & Peterson, 2004; Davison & Jordan, 1998; Iivari & Huisman, 2007; Leidner & Kayworth, 2006; Mandal, 2004; Park, Ahn, & Lee, 2004; Stafford, Turan, & Raisinghani, 2004; Venkatesh & Zhang, 2010; Yuan, Zhang, Chen, Vogel, & Chu, 2009; Zhang, Ma, Wu, Ordonez de Pablos, & Wang, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). For example, Shin (2012) investigated the relations between usability and aesthetic values to understand what value users as individuals place on aesthetic design as compared to usability focusing on the cultural differences in the United States and Korea. The findings showed that usability, aesthetics, quality, and enjoyment are significant determinants of smartphone use intentions and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions differentially moderate the paths in these countries. In another study, Shin and Choo (2012) explored cross-cultural value structures with smartphones in the United States and Korea, and determined country-specific differences in product value perceptions, as well as intention and adoption patterns. Their results illustrated that although usability and aesthetic values are important for both countries, individuals show different value preferences as well as intention and adoption patterns. For example, high uncertainty avoidance in Korea reduces the user 216 ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ I. ARPACI ET AL. intention toward actual use, whereas low uncertainty avoidance in the United States enhances the intention, thus increasing actual usage. In similar research, Hwang (2012) investigated enterprise systems adoption in Japan and the United States based on the diffusion of innovation theory, the self-determinant theory, and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. The results indicated clear cultural implications. Among those, personal innovativeness and intrinsic motivation were the most important factors in Japan and the United States, respectively. In another study, Baker, Al-Gahtani, and Hubona (2010) investigated the cultural impacts on acceptance and adoption of information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia. Their results showed that in Saudi Arabia, as a collectivistic culture, the factors influencing technology acceptance behaviors are different than those of individualistic societies. In particular, the managerial father figure has an important influence on individual performance in Saudi Arabia. In another study, Mao, Srite, Bennett Thatcher, and Yaprak (2005) investigated adoption of mobile phone services in the United States and Turkey. They observed differences between the two countries, and their results indicated that efficacy and personal innovativeness are significant determining factors for both countries. More recently, Zhang, de Pablos, and Xu (2014) investigated effect of national culture on knowledge sharing within a multi-national virtual class. Their results suggested that collectivism has a direct effect on knowledge sharing, while power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and Confucian dynamism have interactive effects with knowledge sharing motivations. Culture not only influences the adoption of technology products, but also the use of IT based services. To understand those influences, Carter and Weerakkody (2008) compared e-government adoption in the United Kingdom and the United States. They identified the cultural differences in e-government adoption between these two countries, and found that relative advantage and trust are pertinent in both countries, while Internet accessibility and skill were not significant determinants of e-government adoption in the United Kingdom, but they were in the United States. In another study, Kim (2008) examined the impact of culture on trust determinants in e-commerce transactions. A theoretical model of self-perception-based versus transference-based trust determinants in an e-commerce context was developed and tested using cross-cultural data collected from the United States and Korea. The results showed that national culture affects the trust determinants through which trust is built. Ribière, Haddad, and Wiele (2010) examined the influence of culture traits on the usage of Web 2.0 technologies based on data collected from 376 young adults in the United States, Thailand, and Bahrain. They identified five variables being influential on the use of Web 2.0 technologies: uncertainty avoidance, expressive usage, maintaining relationships, online privacy, and perceived usefulness. In another study, Van Slyke, Lou, Belanger, and Sridhar (2010) examined the influence of culture on consumers’ intentions to purchase goods or services online. Their results indicated that culture seems to have a direct effect on e-commerce use intention. Similarly, Genis-Gruber and Tas (2011) explored cultural factors that affect participation in online procurement auctions and identified cultural barriers for adoption of e-procurement. There have also been efforts to assess the impact of culture as it interacts with demographic variables. For example, Lippert and Volkmar (2007) examined effects of national culture and gender on technology use evaluating similarities and differences across technology users in Canada and the United States. Their results suggested that gender plays a larger role in the United States than it does in Canada with respect to utilizing new technologies. There is a greater similarity between Canadian men and women than between U.S. men and women, where U.S. women were found to be significantly more aware of the normative pressures than U.S. men. In another study, Stafford et al. (2004) investigated cross-cultural influences on online shopping behavior in the A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ 217 United States, Finland, and Turkey. They identified the role of gender and age in online shopping activities between these countries. Their results showed that there are no differences between men and women for involvement with online shopping across the nations. Moreover, 25–34 year olds have the highest involvement mean, but all other group means are statically similar to each other. Overall, the studies reviewed here provide overwhelming evidence that culture has a significant impact on adoption behavior of individuals. The authors believe that culture also has a potential to impact organizational behavior as it shapes the environment in which organizations operate. However, in parallel with the scarcity of adoption research that uses organizations as the unit of analysis, there is a gap in research investigating the effect of culture in organizational adoption. In this study, the authors aim to fill that gap by examining the effects of national culture on adoption behavior of organizations. Accordingly, the differences between Canada and Turkey are first identified in terms of their adoption behavior and then the cultural differences that may affect those adoption decisions. This way, the effects of cultural differences on the adoption factors and the adoption decision are determined. ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ To study the effect of cultural differences on organizational technology adoption, it is necessary to consider culture in the technological, organizational, and environmental contexts. Therefore, the present research is based on hypotheses on a synthesis of several theories including Hofstede’s cultural theory, diffusion of innovation theory, and institutional theory. The cultural theory developed by Hofstede (1980, 2001) has five distinctly different dimensions: “power distance, individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinityfemininity, and long-term–short-term orientation.” These dimensions have become the de facto standard in cross-cultural studies and validated by many other researchers (Barczak, Hultink, & Sultan, 2008; Genis-Gruber & Tas, 2011; Hwang, 2012; Kock, Del Aguila-Obra, & PadillaMeléndez, 2009; Krasnova, Veltri, & Günther, 2012; Shin, 2012; Zhao, 2011). Among these five dimensions, Turkey and Canada have significantly different scores along individualismcollectivism and uncertainty avoidance. The effect of these two dimensions on the adoption factors and adoption behavior is investigated throughout this study. As stated by Hofstede (1984), “Individualism on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups” (p. 83). Canada and Turkey have different cultural backgrounds that have been historically shaped by different beliefs and values. For example, Turkish culture has been influenced by its religion and nationalism, whereas individualism has largely shaped Canadian culture (Hofstede, 1984). Therefore, Canadian culture is characterized as “individualistic” while Turkish culture is “collectivistic” with a strong emphasis on the group (Hofstede, 2001). Likewise, uncertainty avoidance refers to “people’s tolerance of ambiguity.” Turkish culture is an “uncertainty avoidance” culture, while Canadian culture is an “uncertainty accepting” culture (Hofstede, 2001). Diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1983, 2003) suggests five main attributes of innovation that affect the decision to adopt or reject an innovation. The five attributes of innovations, including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability may affect organizations’ adoption decisions. Compatibility, complexity, trialability, and security are used in this study to address characteristics of smartphones. Likewise, organizational characteristics, 218 ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ I. ARPACI ET AL. including innovativeness, top management support, and expertise, which are relevant to the adoption of smartphones and have a potential to be affected by culture are included. Institutional theory emphasizes the role of cultural and social pressures imposed on organizations that influence organizational practices and structures (Scott, 1992). This theory suggests that managerial decisions are strongly influenced by three external isomorphic pressures: mimetic, coercive, and normative (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Pressure coming from competitors is an example of mimetic pressures, which occur if an organization is aspiring to mimic a successful innovation of other organizations (Teo, Wei, & Benbasat, 2003). “Coercive pressures are a set of formal or informal forces exerted on organizations by other organizations” such as governmental organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Normative pressures refer to organizational change as a response to exchange information, rules, and norms with partner organizations and customers (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). The external pressures, including pressures from competitors, trading partners, and customers, may affect organizations’ adoption decision. These factors are included in the present research model (see Figure 1) to address environmental characteristics. ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ Technological Characteristics ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ Security ✍ Trialability ✔ Complexity Compatibility ✞ ✌ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ H1 ✍ ✌ H2 H3 H4 ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Customer Expectations H10 Partner Expectations H9 Competitive Pressure H8 Adoption of Mobile Communication Technologies H5 Innovativeness H6 Top Management Support H7 Expertise Moderating Effects Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism FIGURE 1 Proposed effects of the cultural dimensions. Organizational Characteristics ✟ Environmental Characteristics ✡ A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION 219 Uncertainty Avoidance As a Moderator Uncertainty avoidance is defined as “the degree to which members of a society feel comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity” (Hofstede, 1980). Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance prefer less ambiguity as their perceived risk is higher than cultures with low uncertainty avoidance (Keil et al., 2000). This suggests that technological characteristics including compatibility, complexity, trialability, and security and organizational characteristics, such as innovativeness and top management support, may have differential effects on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in countries with differing levels of uncertainty avoidance. ✢ Compatibility ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ Compatibility measures the level to which a new technology can assimilate into an organization’s existing technology and infrastructure. The high compatibility of smartphones means a minimal modification in existing IT infrastructure. This in turn increases the perceived benefits by reducing the costs of implementation and maintenance thereby making the overall adoption process easier. Organizations in high uncertainty avoidance countries try to avoid the ambiguity caused by the installation of these technologies especially if it requires substantial changes in existing IT infrastructure. Therefore, it was theorized that compatibility may have a stronger effect on adoption in uncertainty avoidance cultures than in uncertainty accepting cultures. Therefore: ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ H1: Compatibility of smartphones has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than those in Canada. ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ Complexity ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Complexity is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use” (Rogers, 1995, p. 250). Complex technology requires a longer learning curve and hence, prolongs the realization of perceived benefits. Therefore, it was expected that organizations in high uncertainty avoidance countries are more likely to adopt technologies with a low level of complexity. It was, therefore, theorized that complexity may have a stronger effect on adoption in high uncertainty avoidance cultures than in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated: H2: Complexity of smartphones has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than those in Canada. Trialability Trialability is defined as “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis” (Rogers, 1995, p. 251). Organizations in high uncertainty avoidance countries are more likely to prefer trying smartphones before they adopt them, as they would like to be confident that these technologies meet their expectations. Therefore, it was theorized that trialability 220 I. ARPACI ET AL. may have a stronger effect on the adoption in high uncertainty avoidance cultures than in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Therefore: H3: Trialability has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than those in Canada. Security ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ Security refers to the degree to which organizations believe that a smartphone is a secure communication tool for transmitting sensitive data such as financial transactions and consumer records. One important aspect that can affect adoption of mobile communication technologies is the security of wireless data transfer and mobile devices. The perception of a low level of security may increase the technological risks of adopting such technologies. Organizations with low tolerance for technological risks may defer their adoption of these technologies. Krasnova et al. (2012) found that uncertainty avoidance moderate the impact of privacy concerns and trusting beliefs. Their results showed that low level of uncertainty avoidance leads users to ignore their privacy concerns. Similarly, Keil et al. (2000) found that perceived risk is lower in the countries with a low uncertainly avoidance culture. This suggests that the negative impact of privacy and security concerns are stronger in uncertainty avoiding cultures than in uncertainty accepting cultures. Deriving from this theoretical and empirical support, the following hypothesis is formulated: ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ H4: Security has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than those in Canada. ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ Innovativeness ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Innovativeness is defined as “the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a system” (Rogers, 2003, p. 22). Higher levels of innovativeness may positively influence the possibility of an adoption. Hofstede’s theory suggests that uncertainty accepting cultures are more prone to be accepting of new ideas and more open to try new products (Hofstede, 2001). Similarly, Singh (2006) suggests that the societies that have a low score of uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity are more innovative. Therefore, it was expected for organizations located in uncertainty accepting cultures to be more innovative, and therefore more prone to accept new ideas and try different or new products. It was theorized that innovativeness may have a stronger effect on the adoption by organizations in uncertainty accepting cultures. Therefore: H5: Innovativeness has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Canada than those in Turkey. Top Management Support Top management support refers to the level of accommodation that top management provides for the adoption of smartphones. It is important to note that top management support is one of A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION 221 the most widely and consistently used predictors for innovation adoption at the organizational level (Ifinedo, 2011; Low, Chen, & Wu, 2011; Premkumar & Roberts, 1999; Teo, Ranganathan, & Dhaliwal, 2006; Thong & Yap, 1995). A higher level of top management support ensures allocation of adequate financial and human resources for the adoption of smartphones. In addition, it lowers the power distance that, according to Yeniyurt and Townsend (2003), prevents the acceptance of new products in uncertainty avoiding cultures. Therefore, it was predicted that top management support will have a stronger effect on adoption by organizations in uncertainty accepting cultures. Deriving from the above theoretical arguments: ✢ H6: Top management support has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Canada than those in Turkey. ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ Expertise ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ Expertise refers to the knowledge and skills employees gain over time through their interactions with mobile communication technologies. If managers of the organizations are convinced that their employees are already adept at using the capabilities of smartphones, they would be less concerned about the adverse learning curve effects. Thus, presence of employees with prior experience with such technologies may positively affect adoption of smartphones by organizations in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was formulated: ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ H7: Expertise has a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than those in Canada. ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ Collectivism As a Moderator ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ People in individualistic cultures are encouraged to make decisions on their own, whereas people in collectivistic cultures are encouraged to decide as a community rather than individuals. This suggests that external influences including competitive pressure, partner expectations, and customer expectations, may have differential effects on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in countries with differing levels of collectivism. ✁ Competitive Pressure Competitive pressure refers to the degree of pressure felt by an organization from competitors within the industry. Previously, Yoon and George (2013) identified competitive pressure as a significant predictor of virtual world (3D) adoption. Low et al. (2011) suggest that this construct has a significant effect on cloud computing adoption. Wang, Wang, and Yang (2010) identified competitive pressure as a significant predictor of radio-frequency identification (RFID) adoption. This construct has also a significant effect on e-business adoption (Bordonaba-Juste, LuciaPalacios, & Polo-Redondo, 2012; Lin & Lin, 2008; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xu, 2003). Premkumar and Roberts (1999) identified competitive pressure as a significant predictor of IT adoption. In the case where the use of smartphones is very widespread among competitors, organizations have 222 I. ARPACI ET AL. no choice but to adopt these technologies in order to maintain competitiveness. It was theorized that the effect of competitive pressure on the organizations in collectivistic cultures will be higher and, therefore, they will be more likely to adopt smartphones. The following hypothesis was proposed: H8: The positive impact of competitive pressure on adoption of smartphones is stronger in Turkey than in Canada. ✢ Partner Expectations ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ Organizations may adopt a new technology to maintain existing partnerships or establish prospective partnerships. When trading partners have adopted smartphones, the organization should adopt them to show its fitness as business partners. Dominant suppliers can mandate their customers adopt these technologies as a precondition of doing business with them (Wang et al., 2010). Prior studies demonstrate that partner expectations significantly influence the organizational adoption of innovations (Iacovou, Benbasat, & Dexter, 1995; Low et al., 2011; Teo et al., 2003). A high level of responsiveness expected by trading partners may affect adoption of smartphones since such devices can improve organizational responsiveness. Furthermore, the use of a technology that is approved by the partner organizations can result in a higher social status. The authors expect partner expectations to have an even greater impact on organizations’ adoption behavior in collectivistic cultures. Therefore: ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ H9: The positive impact of partner expectations on adoption of smartphones is stronger in Turkey than that in Canada. ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ Customer Expectations ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Organizations may adopt an innovation to meet their customer needs and expectations. Adoption of smartphones may improve customer services or customers may demand the use of these technologies to conduct business with a particular organization. Wu and Lee (2005) found that this factor is one of the most significant predictors of e-communication adoption. A high level of responsiveness expected by customers may influence the adoption of smartphones since these devices may help an organization to be more responsive to customer inquiries. The adoption of smartphones by certain business units such as the sales department may create better customer value. This, in turn, may increase market share and improve organizational image. The authors expect customer expectations to have an even greater impact on organizations’ adoption behavior in collectivistic cultures. Therefore: H10: Customer expectations have a stronger positive influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than in Canada. A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION 223 METHODOLOGY The study employs a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, described by Creswell and Clark (2007). This method focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in the same study. It uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a better understanding of research problems. In this study, collection and analysis of quantitative data were followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. During the study, collection, and analysis of quantitative data had priority and qualitative results were used to help explain the quantitative results. ✢ ✣ Quantitative Study ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ Data Collection ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Canada and Turkey are representatives of different national cultures, while being two typical examples of countries where mobile telecommunications industry has recently experienced rapid growth. In Turkey, the number of mobile subscribers and penetration rate was 71.89 million and 92.5%, respectively, while 72.7% of the subscribers have a smartphone (Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), 2015). Meanwhile, the number of third generation (3G) subscribers surpassed 58.33 million (ICTA, 2015). In Canada, the number of mobile subscribers reached 28.48 million, while 73% with smartphones (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), 2015). Furthermore, Canada has adopted the new 4G technology, long-term evolution (LTE), and started to offer services at higher broadband speeds. An online survey questionnaire was designed using questionnaire items that had been successfully used in prior studies: compatibility, complexity, trialability (Rogers, 1995), security (Salisbury, Pearson, Pearson, & Miller, 2001), innovativeness (Wang & Qualls, 2007), top management support, competitive pressure (Premkumar & Roberts, 1999), expertise (Lin & Lin, 2008), partner expectations (Doolin & Al Haj Ali, 2008), and customer expectations (Wu & Lee, 2005). The respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with several statements using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Middleand senior-level managers with authority to make adoption decisions participated in the study to represent their organizations. A total of 1,520 questionnaires were distributed to the organizations in Turkey and Canada, and 378 were returned. However, 24 questionnaires were discarded from data set; seven invalid or incomplete questionnaires, 17 questionnaires filled by the subjects who are not middle- or seniorlevel manager. This left the study with 354 usable questionnaires for data analysis; a usable response rate of 23.3%. Usable questionnaires were returned from 213 and 141 private sector organizations in Turkey and Canada, respectively. The demographics on the managers and their organizations participated in this study were presented in Table 1. Data Analysis A multi-group structural equation model analysis in SPSS AMOS (v. 20) was employed to identify relationships among the constructs to test the hypotheses. The present data met the 224 I. ARPACI ET AL. TABLE 1 Sample Demographics Turkey (N = 213) ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ Title of respondents Owner CEO CFO CIO Middle-level manager Sector Service Manufacturing Trading/commerce R&D All Industry Information technology Machinery Electrical and electronics Construction Defense and security Healthcare Education Consulting Other∗ Structure Small- and mid-size firm Entrepreneurial Large-sized firm Size 1–5 6–10 11–20 21–100 101 and more Canada (N = 141) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 87 87 68 24 22 12 40.8 40.8 31.9 11.3 10.3 5.6 18 18 47 5 7 64 12.8 12.8 33.3 3.5 5.0 45.4 86 77 37 7 6 40.4 36.2 17.4 3.3 2.8 82 15 8 28 8 58.2 10.6 5.7 19.9 5.7 52 44 18 16 13 12 12 2 44 24.4 20.7 8.5 7.5 6.1 5.6 5.6 1.0 21.0 28 2 8 3 4 7 7 20 62 19.9 1.4 5.7 2.1 2.8 5.0 5.0 14.2 45.0 157 41 15 73.7 19.2 7.0 78 17 46∗∗ 55.3 12.1 32.6 73 44 38 44 14 34.3 20.7 17.8 20.7 6.6 24 13 20 28 56 17.0 9.2 14.2 19.9 39.7 Adopter∗∗∗ Non-Adopter Adopter Non-Adopter ✄ ✂ Behavioral Intention ✁ No Neutral Yes Total 3 8 64 75 13 36 89 138 2 13 99 114 6 10 11 27 Note. ∗ Includes mining, finance, energy, agriculture, food, etc. ∗∗ Includes multinational organizations. ∗∗∗ Continue to use in the future. assumptions of parametric statistics (i.e., normal distribution and equal variance). The analysis results as well as the measurement properties of the questionnaire items and the correlation matrix were provided next. A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION 225 Reliability, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ Reliability analysis results indicated a high level of internal consistency. The min Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.93 for both Turkey and Canada. All composite reliability (CR) values exceeded the threshold value of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally (1978). The average variance extracted (AVE) values for each construct demonstrated that the convergent validity for all constructs of the measurement model is adequate as convergent validity is judged to be adequate when AVE equals or exceeds 0.50 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). As seen in Table 2, the square root of the shared variance between the constructs and their measures are greater than the correlations between constructs. This suggests that discriminant validity was satisfactory at the construct level in the case of all constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), thereby ensuring that a multicollinearity problem does not exist. ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ Hypotheses Testing ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ A multi-group analysis was conducted in SPSS AMOS (v.20; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) to understand the impact of cultural differences on adoption. First, the path coefficients were tested for both countries. A Chi-square test was then conducted to determine whether the responses ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ TABLE 2 Correlation Matrix and Validity Assessment Results ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ Turkey AVE CR∗ CM CX TR SE EX IN TMS CP PE CE Compatibility Complexity Trialability Security Expertise Innovativeness Top management support Competitive pressure Partner expectations Customer expectations 0.60 0.69 0.54 0.73 0.77 0.66 0.59 0.72 0.65 0.72 0.81 0.87 0.77 0.89 0.91 0.85 0.81 0.89 0.85 0.87 0.77∗∗ 0.31 0.09 0.21 0.36 0.23 0.35 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.83 0.13 0.32 0.39 0.25 0.36 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.73 0.14 0.17 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.17 0.85 0.22 0.10 0.21 0.31 0.34 0.29 0.88 0.41 0.48 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.81 0.36 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.77 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.85 0.68 0.82 0.81 0.73 0.85 Canada AVE CR CM CX TR SE EX IN TMS CP PE CE Compatibility Complexity Trialability Security Expertise Innovativeness Top management support Competitive pressure Partner expectations Customer expectations 0.57 0.54 0.58 0.80 0.76 0.64 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.62 0.78 0.78 0.74 0.93 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.75 0.47 0.53 0.23 0.15 0.18 0.33 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.73 0.01 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.76 0.54 0.51 0.42 0.53 0.40 0.46 0.36 0.89 0.19 0.24 0.49 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.87 0.25 0.33 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.80 0.40 0.19 0.23 0.22 0.85 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.83 0.44 0.54 0.81 0.53 0.79 ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Note. ∗ CR: composite reliability. Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of the AVE. 226 I. ARPACI ET AL. TABLE 3 Hypothesis Testing Results Turkey Construct ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ Compatibility Complexity Trialability Security Innovativeness Top management support Expertise Competitive pressure Partner expectations Customer expectations Canada Path coefficient t-Value Path coefficient t-Value 0.273∗∗∗ 0.258∗∗∗ 0.472∗∗∗ 0.714∗∗∗ 0.432∗∗∗ 0.401∗∗∗ 0.711∗∗∗ 0.647∗∗∗ 0.363∗∗∗ 0.721∗∗∗ 4.46 5.80 4.62 7.57 6.56 5.18 7.90 6.87 5.24 7.50 0.282∗∗∗ 0.192∗∗∗ 0.217∗∗ 0.814∗∗∗ 0.441∗∗∗ 0.531∗∗∗ 0.352∗∗∗ 0.637∗∗∗ 0.324∗∗∗ 0.675∗∗∗ 4.03 4.06 2.97 6.88 5.16 5.21 6.41 5.62 4.67 5.68 Chi-square 4.70ns 20.96∗∗∗ 46.52∗∗∗ 8.87ns 22.78∗∗∗ 15.45∗∗ 51.72∗∗∗ 79.11∗∗∗ 22.53∗∗∗ 40.13∗∗∗ Results H1: Rejected H2: Supported H3: Supported H4: Rejected H5: Supported H6: Supported H7: Supported H8: Supported H9: Supported H10: Supported ✜ Note. ∗∗ p < 0.01. ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. ns: not significant. ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ across the variables differ based on the country of the respondents. Results of the Chi-square test along with the results of the multi-group analysis were presented in Table 3. Path coefficients and Chi-square values were reported along with their significance levels. The results of multi-group analysis for Turkey indicated that compatibility, complexity, trialability, security, innovativeness, top management support, expertise, competitive pressure, partner expectations, and customer expectations have a statistically significant effect on adoption at the 0.001 level. Likewise, the results for Canada indicated that all factors, except trialability (p < 0.01), have a statistically significant effect on adoption at the 0.001 level. The proportion of total variance explained by these factors is 64.5% for Turkey, and 65.8% for Canada. This suggests that the tested factors have a high explanatory power for predicting adoption. The Chi-square test results indicated a significant difference between the overall means of responses in complexity, trialability, innovativeness, expertise, competitive pressure, partner expectations, and customer expectations (p < 0.001). On the other hand, there is a significant difference between the countries in top management support at the 0.01 level, while there is no significant overall difference in compatibility and security at the 0.05 level. Therefore, H1 and H4 were rejected. The results suggest that complexity, trialability, and expertise have greater explanatory power in Turkey than in Canada, thus, H2, H3, and H7 were supported. Additionally, in parallel to the expectations, competitive pressure, partner expectations, and customer expectations have a greater explanatory power in Turkey than in Canada, and therefore, H8, H9, and H10 were also supported. Meanwhile, innovativeness and top management support have greater explanatory power in Canada than in Turkey, therefore, H5 and H6 were supported. Further analysis was conducted to test whether there is a significant difference between the countries in the adoption decision. Pearson’s Chi-square test results indicated that there is a higher adoption rate in the organizations located in Canada than the organizations located in Turkey (x2 = 71.01, p < 0.001). A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION 227 Qualitative Study Data Collection ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ A follow-up study was conducted to reassess organizations’ adoption behavior and explain the quantitative results. Follow-up data was obtained from 34 organizations in Canada (16) and Turkey (18). Interview candidates were randomly selected among the participants who provided their contact information during the survey. The participants were then contacted by a telephone call or e-mail to schedule a date, time and place for the interview. The interviews were semi-structured and each interview lasted about 15 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed into text files. Interviewees were asked to read a description of the research, and were allowed to ask questions to clarify the nature of the study. The participants were asked a series of open-ended questions in a semi-structured format from the interview guide. The interview questions were generated from the following interview guidelines: 1. 2. 3. 4. Has your organization adopted smartphones? Which of the business functions and managerial levels use smartphones? What are key factors affecting organizations’ adoption of smartphones? Why do you think that the factors that you have identified in the previous question are important? ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ Data Analysis ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ A constant comparative method is used to develop concepts from the data that resulted from transcription of the interviews. The coding of data involved three levels of analyses: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). During the open coding process, different categories were identified within the data examining the transcription document in a systematic manner. During the axial coding process, connections were identified between the categories to relate subcategories to a category (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During the selective coding process, the authors identified the core categories to integrate the categories into a central paradigm. Following this procedure, key factors that affect the organizations’ adoption of smartphones were determined. In data analysis, matrices were used to present information systematically to the reader, enabling the identification of coding procedures and reducing the categories of information (Zhang, Chen, Vogel, Yuan, & Guo, 2010). Stages of the coding process were: reading text recorded from logs, dividing the text into segments of information, coding segments, refining codes, and collapsing the codes into themes (Zhang, Vogel, & Zhou, 2012). Results The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4. Analysis of the qualitative data suggested that there are three core categories that unify all the adoption factors. Table 5 lists the factors that emerged from the data analysis along with the frequencies. This follow-up study confirmed the previous findings and helped to better understand organizations’ adoption behavior identifying other factors that have a significant effect on organizations’ ✢ ✖ ✚ ✣ ✓ ✞ ✁ ✜ ✘ ✔ ✟ ✚ ✛ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✖ ✌ ✕ ✆ ✍ ✓ ✍ ✞ ✔ ✔ ✌ ✌ ✞ ✄ ✒ ✍ ✆ ✆ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✎ ✍ ☞ ✁ ✆ ✠ ✑ ✌ ✡ ☛ ✟ ✝ ☎ ✝ ✞ ✆ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ 228 TABLE 4 Codes and Categories Canada Codes Turkey Categories Codes Categories Quick, accurate, and effective communication Relative advantage (speed, accurateness, Relative advantage effectiveness), information intensity, partner and fast information exchange; (accessibility, productivity, and customer expectations, competitive communicate efficiently with our partner morale and satisfaction), pressure organizations; need to receive their information intensity, feedback immediately; satisfaction of the compatibility customers with after-sales service quality; meet urgent customers’ needs; and outperform our competitors Accessibility of e-mails, accessibility to the Relative advantage Managers in sales and marketing need to be Relative advantage (accessibility), customer internet, quick response to individuals and (accessibility, speed, always on, access corporate e-mails, and expectations, cost teams to solve time-sensitive problems, staff mobility), cost response customers’ inquiries, cost of data working away from the office, cost plans and devices negatively impact use of smartphones Cost, lack of operational change management, Cost, innovativeness, Quick and easy access to information, cost and Information intensity, cost, complexity, using VPN technologies to access share compatibility advantages, such as ease of use and quick relative advantage (speed) point is a pain on a smartphone access to corporate e-mails Relative advantage (timeliness, mobility), Budget, time-sensitive nature of the business, Financial resources, relative Respond customers’ inquiries in a timely competitive pressure, customer expectations manner, competitiveness, cannot carry advantage some departments (such as client services) (timeliness/responsiveness), laptops everywhere, need to use have to be very responsive to new smartphones to receive customers’ orders information intensity information Work force mobility, timely Relative advantage (mobility, Speed up business processes and enhance Relative advantage (speediness, agility), decisions/response to situations timeliness) decision making, competitors can get ahead competitive pressure of company if they communicate faster through smartphones Ability to access information anytime and There is a late adoption of such technologies Industry, relative advantage (ubiquity, Relative advantage anywhere, ability to communicate in our industry compared to other industries, flexibility) (accessibility, seamlessly in a deadline-driven industry the advantages, such as ubiquity and seamlessness), industry flexibility Top-level managers do not support the projects Top management support, compatibility, Making sure the corporate e-mail accounts are Security, compatibility that they are not sure about results, secure and they run through the corporate experience, innovativeness, customer incompatibility of the organizational users’ security system expectations awareness, status quo perception, and demographic (age, gender, education level, etc.) with this technology, being late to adopt the change, mobile services to customers Providing access to important information anywhere, anytime; productivity and team communication increases; ability to integrate to social networks to enable marketing of key products and services; employee morale and satisfaction ✢ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✣ Ease of use, speed, and cost would be important factors Customers and partner organizations use smartphones, we have to use this technology to outperform competitors ✞ ✁ ✜ ✘ ✔ ✟ ✚ ✛ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✖ ✌ ✕ ✆ ✍ ✓ ✍ ✞ ✔ ✔ ✌ ✌ ✞ ✄ ✒ ✍ ✆ ✆ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✎ ✍ ☞ ✁ ✆ ✠ ✑ ✌ ✡ ☛ ✟ ✝ ☎ ✝ ✞ ✆ ✁ ✄ ✁ ✂ Integration with existing e-mail and security of Compatibility, security corporate information Relative advantage Key managers need to be accessible at all (accessibility) times, managers to be accessible out of their office as they may be in the Open Pit Quarry or off site Security (ensuring safe access to e-mails and Security, experience corporate data) and training (ensuring people know how to use smartphones) Relative advantage (speed), complexity, cost Customer expectations, partner expectations, competitive pressure Experience, complexity As a transportation company we are employing drivers with no prior experience with smartphones; therefore, the complexity of these technologies is the most important factor in our adoption decision Work from anywhere, clients expect us to be Relative advantage (ubiquity, Our employees use smartphones to respond Relative advantage (ubiquity, mobility) available whether we are in the office or on mobility, availability), e-mails anytime and anywhere, we cannot the golf course customer expectations carry a laptop everywhere we go; however, smartphones provide several advantages, including mobility Always-on service anywhere anytime, Relative advantage, customer expectations Employee efficiency, customer service Relative advantage customer intimacy, customer satisfaction (efficiency), customer expectations Lack of education and experience, firms are Experience, observability Consumer adoption of smartphones is pushing Customer expectations, security affected by other firms, when they see these organizations to adopt, BYOD to work and devices being used the security issues that it creates Organization sector, managerial acceptance, Sector, top management Management support and experience are Top management support, experience demographics of employees support, experience important factors for the adoption Advantages over other devices, Information intensity, size, Instant information is important for a larger Relative advantage top management support organizational use of smartphones is organization, many executives do not important for our company to maintain a understand that corporate identity Simple to understand, low cost, fixed price Complexity, cost Always-on service anywhere anytime, Relative advantage (availability, ubiquity), plans customer intimacy, higher customer customer expectations satisfaction and more sales 229 230 I. ARPACI ET AL. TABLE 5 Core Categories and Corresponding Factors ✢ ✣ Technological Characteristics Organizational Characteristics Environmental Characteristics Relative advantage (19) Compatibility (5) Complexity (4) Observability∗ (1) Security (4) Cost (6) Experience (6) Financial Resources∗∗ (1) Innovativeness (2) Information intensity (5) Industry (2) Top management support (4) Sector∗∗ (1) Size∗∗ (1) Partner expectations∗ (1) Customer expectations (10) Competitive pressure∗ (4) ✖ ✚ ✓ Note. ∗ Not mentioned by the interviewees from Canada. ∗∗ Not mentioned by the interviewees from Turkey. ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ adoption decision. The findings suggest that technological characteristics of security, relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and cost; organizational characteristics of experience, financial resources, innovativeness, information intensity, industry, size, sector, and top management support; and environmental characteristics of partner expectations, customer expectations, and competitive pressure are major determining factors in adoption behavior. It is important to note that observability, partner expectations, and competitive pressure were not mentioned by the interviewees from Canada. On the other hand, financial resources, sector, and size were not mentioned by the interviewees from Turkey. This suggests that, consistent with previous findings, the effect of environmental characteristics is stronger in Turkey than those in Canada. It is interesting to note that there are seven (out of 18) and 1 (out of 16) non-adopter organizations in Turkey and Canada, respectively. Non-adopter organizations reported that lack of experience and education, costs, security, complexity, and compatibility issues, the nature of the industry they operate in, and individual adoption level hinder organizational adoption of these technologies. For example, the representative of one organization pointed to lack of education and experience: ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ I think the main reasons that smartphones have not been widely used by organizations are lack of education and experience. People still prefer to use computers instead of mobile devices. Desktop computers have recently converted to laptops. Laptops have been slowly converting to tablets. In my opinion, smartphones can only be adopted after tablets are fully adopted. Firms are also affected by other firms, when they see these devices being used. (Firm owner, Construction industry, Turkey) A representative of one organization argued that since the organization operates in the transportation industry, they employ drivers with no prior experience with smartphones. Therefore, the complexity of these devices is an important issue for them: As a transportation company we are employing drivers with no prior experience with smartphones. Therefore, the complexity of these technologies is the most important factor in our adoption decision. (Firm owner, Transportation industry, Turkey) Similarly, another interviewee claimed that there is a late adoption of such technologies in the agriculture industry they operate in: A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION 231 We deal with rural communities since we are in agriculture industry. There is a late adoption of such technologies in our industry compared to other industries. However, considering the advantages such as ubiquity and flexibility, if we adopt smartphones it would be better. (CIO, Agriculture industry, Turkey) Another one stated that their employees use smartphones individually, and therefore, they do not need to adopt these technologies as an organization: Our employees use smartphones individually but we don’t adopt them at the organizational level. Ease of use, speed, and cost would be important factors in our adoption decision. (CFO, Construction industry, Turkey) ✢ The representatives from the two countries complained about costs and issues of compatibility: ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ Cost is a factor, plus operational change management has not been fully worked out yet. We also require some VPN [virtual private networks] technologies to access SharePoint which is a pain on a smartphone. (Vice President, Energy industry, Canada) ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ Smartphones should be compatible with software used in the firm. Each organization has different software applications and operating systems. Therefore, computers are used in place of these devices. (CIO, Machinery industry, Turkey) ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ Another representative from an organization pointed to the level of services provided by service providers and device manufacturers: ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ The vision of the firms has a lag behind the technology. Top level managers do not support the projects that they are not sure about results. Incompatibility of the organizational users’ awareness, status quo perception, and demographic (age, gender, education level, etc.) with this technology. Even if there is such a compatibility, being late to adopt the change. Non-productive time, which is being spent analyzing market trend through wrong and faulty policies, by service providers and device manufacturers. A better marketing strategy would be to offer a varying range of services that provide flexibility, instead of manipulating trends. Manipulating trends is the most frequently used marketing strategy in developing markets. Therefore, firms in the telecommunications industry in Turkey could not understand the market properly. They choose to push their services to customers weakening each other in a tough competitive environment, cutting price to attract customers, and offering service packs that end users can’t understand. (CIO, Automotive industry, Turkey) ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ The representatives from Canada pointed to security issues: ✂ ✁ Making sure the corporate e-mail accounts are secure and they are run through the corporate security system. (CEO, Mining industry, Canada) Integration with existing e-mail and security of corporate information. (Director of Corporate Services, Healthcare industry, Canada) Security ensuring safe access to e-mails and corporate data and training ensuring people know how to use the smartphone. (Vice President, Finance industry, Canada) Finally, two representatives from both countries pointed to Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) concept: Bring your own device policies are not properly implemented, and thus, there is a gray area between individual and organizational use of smartphones. Since terms and conditions of use for BYOD are not well defined there is no clear difference between individual and organizational usage. Hence, 232 I. ARPACI ET AL. there are issues of data security. Introduction of cloud technology brings new obstacles and requires great care in managing sensitive documents. (CIO, IT industry, Turkey) Consumer adoption of smartphones like iPhone and Android is pushing organizations to adopt them more rapidly. In professional organizations in Canada it is not really open for debate. A bigger issue is BYOD to work and the security issues that it creates. (CFO, IT industry, Canada) DISCUSSION Key Findings ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ This study investigated the differences in patterns between the adoption behaviors of private sector organizations in Turkey and Canada. Following Hofstede’s work in 2001, the Turkish culture is characterized as a collectivist and high uncertainty avoidance culture, whereas the Canadian culture is an individualistic and low uncertainty avoidance culture. Organizations in high uncertainty avoidance countries are often less tolerant of ambiguity than do those in low uncertainty avoidance countries. Therefore, it was hypothesized that compatibility, complexity, trialability, security, and expertise have a stronger effect on adoption in Turkey. The results indicated that complexity, trialability, and expertise indeed have greater explanatory power in Turkey, and therefore, provided support for these hypotheses. On the other hand, the results indicated that there was no significant overall difference between the countries in compatibility and security. The findings suggested that there is a higher adoption rate in the organizations located in Canada than the organizations located in Turkey. Contrary to the present expectations, security has a high explanatory power in Canada. One explanation of such a contradiction is that sense of security is higher in Canada. The findings also imply that the expectation of compatibility in Canadian organizations is as high as the organizations in Turkey. Hofstede’s cultural theory suggests that uncertainty-accepting cultures are expected to be more innovative. Therefore, they are more open to accept new ideas and more willing to try new or different products. Thus, it was hypothesized that innovativeness and top management support have a stronger influence on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Canada. The findings indicated that the innovativeness and top management support have a statistically significant effect on the adoption in both countries. However, it has a greater explanatory power in Canada than those in Turkey, and therefore, the findings provided support for these hypotheses. As mentioned before, cultures with high uncertainty avoidance prefer less ambiguity as their perceived risk is higher than cultures with low uncertainty avoidance (Keil et al., 2000). This suggests that if organizations in countries with high uncertainty avoidance can try services provided by smartphones, such as mobile Internet and e-mail, they would face less ambiguity and their adoption would be easier. By giving an opportunity to try these devices, organizations would recognize the advantages provided by smartphones to meet customer expectations through the ability of their employees to remotely access their web-based product data, exchange e-mails with clients, or participate in video conferencing with their colleagues. It was also hypothesized that environmental characteristics, including customer expectations, partner expectations, and competitive pressure have a stronger effect on adoption in Turkey. The results indicated that the environmental characteristics have a greater explanatory power A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ 233 in Turkey than those in Canada, and therefore, provided support for these hypotheses. These findings suggest that external pressures coming from the environment in which organizations operate mainly drive the Turkish organizations’ adoption decisions. Turkey may be considered an example of traditional collectivist society (McConatha, Hayta, Rieser-Danner, McConatha, & Polat, 2004). Organizations in a collectivistic society consider the interests of their customers and partner organizations more than organizations in an individualistic society. On the other hand, a high level of responsiveness expected by customers and partners may affect adoption of smartphones since these devices may help organizations to be more responsive to customers’ and partners’ inquiries. They may expect an instantaneous response from certain business units such as the sales department. This suggests that collectivism would have a stronger positive impact on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey than in Canada. A follow-up study was conducted to reassess organizations’ adoption behavior and explain the quantitative results. The constant comparative method was used to analyze follow-up data obtained from 18 and 16 organizations in Turkey and Canada, respectively. The results of the qualitative data analysis confirmed previous findings. Non-adopter organizations reported that the nature of the industry they operate in, security, complexity and compatibility issues, lack of experience and education, and individual adoption level of their employees hinder adoption of these technologies. However, it is important to note that of the factors included in the model observability, competitive pressure, and partner expectations were not mentioned by the interviewees from Canada, while financial resources was not mentioned by the interviewees from Turkey. The qualitative findings suggested that relative advantage is one of the major determining factors in adoption behavior. The advantages of smartphones over earlier generation mobile phone or “non-mobile” alternatives come from their accessibility, flexibility, ubiquity, and “always-on” connectivity. These unique features of smartphones provide easier and quicker information sharing in supply chains, offer more flexible work enabling ubiquitous access to corporate databases and e-mails, facilitate communication among trading partners, customers, and employees, and improve decision making capabilities of managers providing them “always on” connectivity. The unique advantages provided by smartphones such as ability to exchange e-mails anywhere and anytime enable organizations to meet urgent partner expectations and customer demands, and thereby can improve customer services and increase profitability. Other advantages of smartphones include anytime/anywhere access to media-rich content (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007), enabling inexpensive, flexible, and mobile communication particularly in rural and underserved areas (Luxton, Mishkind, Crumpton, Ayers, & Mysliwiec, 2012), mobility and their multi-touch user interfaces (Hofmann, Dittrich, Düntsch, & Kraus, 2014), ability to download and use software applications, ubiquitous access to corporate data through mobile cloud storage services. These services allow employees to store data, share the stored data, and access the data synchronized among devices. Thereby, organizations may effectively manage corporate files and documents using smartphones. Implications Since environmental characteristics including customer expectations, partner expectations, and competitive pressure have a stronger effect on adoption by the organizations in Turkey, service 234 ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ I. ARPACI ET AL. providers and device manufacturers may promote mobile services and smartphones to a critical mass of organizations and make the customers aware of the potential of these technologies along with those organizations who have already adopted them. Meanwhile, organizations in an industry with a low adoption rate may claim they could set an example to the rest of the industry and use the findings of this research to their benefits while in negotiations with service providers as the role of early adopters seems to be critical for an industry-wide adoption of this technology. The fact that expertise and security have also a strongly significant effect on adoption by organizations in Turkey, suggests that organizations’ adoption decisions are mainly derived from having employees with prior knowledge and experience with smartphones. This implies that individual level adoption is positively related to organizational level adoption. Therefore, service providers may more strongly justify promotion of these technologies among individuals at large. Furthermore, higher levels of security positively affect the adoption decision. Therefore, service providers and mobile phone manufacturers should fortify both network level and device security in order to protect the intellectual property of the company and the privacy of the employees as smartphones access and process an increasing amount of private information. By providing smartphones with secure access to corporate databases and e-mails, mobile phone manufacturers may increase their competitiveness and market share. The results indicated that security has a strong effect on adoption by organizations in Canada. To meet expectations of security, Blackberry, a Canadian telecommunications company, offers security-oriented smartphones mainly for corporate users. In addition, the results indicated that top managers have a stronger positive influence on adoption in Canada. This suggests that attitudes of managers toward smartphones are important as they can decide whether to accept or reject a new technology in organizations. Therefore, service providers and device manufacturers should convince managers that organizational use of smartphones would have positive performance impacts and enhance their decision-making capabilities. Moreover, innovativeness has a greater explanatory power in Canada than those in Turkey. This implies that organizations with higher level of innovativeness have more positive perceptions, and therefore, have higher intentions toward use of smartphones. Taken together, these results suggest that national culture has a significant effect on the adoption of smartphones by organizations. In this sense, an effective strategy for device manufacturers and service providers would be to take into account cultural differences while developing and marketing mobile services and devices. For example, technological characteristics have a stronger effect on the adoption of smartphones by organizations in Turkey, which is an uncertainty avoiding culture. One implication of this is that device manufacturers and service providers may offer interoperable, less complex, trialable, and privacy-aware products and services for these organizations. Limitations and Directions for Future Research Several limitations of our study should be addressed by future research. First, the study focused on smartphones; therefore, the results should be applied to other technologies with caution. Second, the proposed model is tested in Turkey and Canada, and therefore, generalizability of the findings can be limited. Additional studies in different countries could address that concern. Third, A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ 235 sample size can be increased to investigate adoption patterns across organizations with similar characteristics regarding industry, sector, and size. Focusing only on the managers and neglecting the employees’ adoption mind-set is also a limitation as individuals’ readiness is a vital point in organizational adoption. It would be interesting to investigate how individuals think about the real process of integrating mobile technologies into the organization, as organizational adoption needs to be addressed with regard to various aspects such as organizational readiness, employee competencies, and long-term financing. To handle such drastic changes in organizations, not only the managers are expected to be supportive of new technologies, but also the employees need to be equipped with the acquired skills and literacy regarding the new technology. Hofstede’s cultural framework, incorporates important aspects of culture, and thus has been used extensively across disciplines. This framework is a developing social theory which was recently expanded with an additional dimension. The authors found it appropriate to use this framework as a theoretical lens; however, culture is a very complex phenomenon therefore it would be a worthwhile future research endeavor to study national differences through other established frameworks. For example, Triandis (1994), Trompenaars (1993), and Fiske (1992) provide a different view of cultural differences, which may provide additional insights in this context. Finally, it was assumed that culture is difficult to change, relatively stable, and homogenous across organizational boundaries. Moreover, the authors assumed that the subculture of an organization reflects national culture. However, the current results suggested that use of mobile devices led to changes in the customer service, accessibility, and flexibility values of the organizations. This suggests that use of such technologies results in a reorientation of the values and this may results in cultural transformation at the organizations over time. ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ REFERENCES ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ Bagchi, K., Hart, P., & Peterson, M. F. (2004). National culture and information technology product adoption. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(4), 29–46. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2004.10856383 Baker, E. W., Al-Gahtani, S. S., & Hubona, G. S. (2010). Cultural impacts on acceptance and adoption of information technology in a developing country. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 18(3), 35–58. doi:10.4018/JGIM Barczak, G., Hultink, E. J., & Sultan, F. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of information technology usage in NPD: A comparison of Dutch and U.S. companies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 620–631. doi:10.1111/jpim.2008.25.issue-6 Bordonaba-Juste, V., Lucia-Palacios, L., & Polo-Redondo, Y. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of e-business adoption for European retailers. Internet Research, 22(5), 532–550. doi:10.1108/10662241211271536 Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 473–482. doi:10.1007/s10796-008-9103-6 Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 51–58. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). (2015). Communications monitoring report. Ottawa: Canadian Government. Retrieved from http://cwta.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ SubscribersStats_en_2015_Q1-.pdf Davison, R., & Jordan, E. (1998). Group support systems: Barriers to adoption in a cross-cultural setting. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 1(2), 37–50. doi:10.1080/1097198X.1998.10856229 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101 236 ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ I. ARPACI ET AL. Doolin, B., & Al Haj Ali, E. (2008). Adoption of mobile technology in the supply chain: An exploratory cross-case analysis. International Journal of E-Business Research, 4(4), 1–15. doi:10.4018/IJEBR Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312 Genis-Gruber, A., & Tas, B. K. O. (2011). Does national culture affect e-procurement implementations? Analysis of differences through a unified model. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO), 9(3), 20–38. doi:10.4018/JECO Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Press. Hall, E. (1983). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Hofmann, D., Dittrich, P. G., Düntsch, E., & Kraus, D. (2014). Micro modules for mobile shape, color, and spectral imaging with smartpads in industry, biology, and medicine. In R. Creutzburg & D. Akopian (Eds.), Proc. SPIE 9030, Mobile Devices and Multimedia: Enabling Technologies, Algorithms, and Applications (pp. 903006–903006). San Francisco, CA: International Society for Optics and Photonics. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection from cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamism, 16(4), 4–18. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Prof Med/Tech. Hwang, Y. (2012). End user adoption of enterprise systems in eastern and western cultures. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 24(4), 1–17. doi:10.4018/JOEUC Iacovou, C., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 465–485. doi:10.2307/249629 Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA). (2015). Information and communication technology authority. Retrieved from http://www.btk.gov.tr/kutuphane_ve_veribankasi/pazar_verileri/ucaylik14_4.pdf Ifinedo, P. (2011). Internet/E-Business technologies acceptance in Canada’s SMEs: An exploratory investigation. Internet Research, 21(3), 255–281. doi:10.1108/10662241111139309 Iivari, J., & Huisman, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of systems development methodologies. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 35–58. Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 299–325. doi:10.2307/3250940 Kim, D. J. (2008). Self-perception-based versus transference-based trust determinants in computer-mediated transactions: A cross-cultural comparison study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 13–45. doi:10.2753/ MIS0742-1222240401 Kock, N., Del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Padilla-Meléndez, A. (2009). The information overload paradox: A structural equation modeling analysis of data from New Zealand, Spain, and the USA. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 17(3), 1–19. doi:10.4018/JGIM Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., & Günther, O. (2012). Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: The role of culture. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(3), 127–135. doi:10.1007/s12599-012-0216-6 Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399. Lin, H.-F., & Lin, S.-M. (2008). Determinants of e-business diffusion: A test of the technology diffusion perspective. Technovation, 28(3), 135–145. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.003 Lippert, S. K., & Volkmar, J. A. (2007). Cultural effects on technology performance and utilization: A comparison of U.S. and Canadian users. Journal of Global Information Management, 15(2), 56–90. doi:10.4018/JGIM A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE ADOPTION ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ 237 Low, C., Chen, Y., & Wu, M. (2011). Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(7), 1006–1023. doi:10.1108/02635571111161262 Luxton, D. D., Mishkind, M. C., Crumpton, R. M., Ayers, T. D., & Mysliwiec, V. (2012). Usability and feasibility of smartphone video capabilities for telehealth care in the US military. Telemedicine and e-Health, 18(6), 409–412. Mandal, P. (2004). Inter-country analysis of e-business. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(2), 1–5. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2004.10856369 Mao, E., Srite, M., Bennett Thatcher, J., & Yaprak, O. (2005). A research model for mobile phone service behaviors: Empirical validation in the US and Turkey. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(4), 7–28. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2005.10856406 McConatha, J. T., Hayta, V., Rieser-Danner, L., McConatha, D., & Polat, T. S. (2004). Turkish and US attitudes toward aging. Educational Gerontology, 30(3), 169–183. doi:10.1080/03601270490272106 Myers, M. D., & Tan, F. B. (2002). Beyond models of national culture in information systems research. Journal of Global Information Management, 10(1), 24–32. doi:10.4018/JGIM Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Park, J., Ahn, J., & Lee, D. (2004). Risk focused e–commerce adoption model. A cross country study. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(2), 6–30. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2004.10856370 Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999). Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 27(4), 467–484. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00071-1 Ribière, V. M., Haddad, M., & Wiele, P. (2010). The impact of national culture traits on the usage of web 2.0 technologies. VINE, 40(3/4), 334–361. doi:10.1108/03055721011071458 Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Salisbury, W. D., Pearson, R. A., Pearson, A. W., & Miller, D. W. (2001). Perceived security and World Wide Web purchase intention. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101(4), 165–177. doi:10.1108/02635570110390071 Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shin, D., & Choo, H. (2012). Exploring cross-cultural value structures with smartphones. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 20(2), 67–93. doi:10.4018/JGIM Shin, D.-H. (2012). Cross-analysis of usability and aesthetic in smart devices: What influences users’ preferences? Cross Cultural Management, 19(4), 563–587. doi:10.1108/13527601211270020 Singh, S. (2006). Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers’ propensity to adopt innovations. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 173–191. doi:10.1108/02651330610660074 Stafford, T. F., Turan, A., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2004). International and cross-cultural influences on online shopping behavior. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(2), 70–87. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2004. 10856373 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19–49. Teo, T. S. H., Ranganathan, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2006). Key dimensions of inhibitors for the deployment of webbased business-to-business electronic commerce. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(3), 395–411. doi:10.1109/TEM.2006.878106 Thong, J. Y. L., & Yap, C. S. (1995). CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics and information technology adoption in small businesses. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 23(4), 429–442. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(95)00017-I Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behaviour. New York, NY/England: McGraw-Hill. Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey. 238 ✢ ✣ ✖ ✚ ✓ ✞ ✟ ✁ ✔ ✛ ✜ ✚ ✖ ✙ ✗ ✗ ✘ ✖ ✆ ✔ ✕ ✌ ✍ ✞ ✌ ✔ ✍ ✓ ✞ ✌ ✒ ✄ ✑ ✆ ✍ ✆ ✏ ✄ ✆ ✎ ✍ ✌ ✁ ☞ ✆ ☛ ✡ ✟ ✠ ✝ ✝ ✞ ✆ ☎ I. ARPACI ET AL. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: The Economist Books. Van Slyke, C., Lou, H., Belanger, F., & Sridhar, V. (2010). The influence of culture on consumer-oriented electronic commerce adoption. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 11(1), 30–40. Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: U.S. vs. China. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13(1), 5–27. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2010.10856507 Wang, Y. C., & Qualls, W. (2007). Towards a theoretical model of technology adoption in hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 560–573. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.008 Wang, Y.-M., Wang, Y.-S., & Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(5), 803–815. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.006 Wu, F., & Lee, Y. K. (2005). Determinants of e-communication adoption: The internal push versus external pull factors. Marketing Theory, 5(1), 7–31. doi:10.1177/1470593105049599 Yeniyurt, S., & Townsend, J. D. (2003). Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a country? An empirical investigation. International Marketing Review, 20(4), 377–396. doi:10.1108/02651330310485153 Yoon, T. E., & George, J. F. (2013). Why aren’t organizations adopting virtual worlds? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 772–790. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.003 Yuan, M., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Vogel, D. R., & Chu, X. (2009). Antecedents of coordination effectiveness of software developer dyads from interacting teams: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(3), 494–507. doi:10.1109/TEM.2008.927819 Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Vogel, D., Yuan, M., & Guo, C. (2010). Knowledge-sharing reward dynamics in knowledge management systems: Game theory-based empirical validation. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 20(2), 103–122. doi:10.1002/hfm.v20:2 Zhang, X., de Pablos, P. O., & Xu, Q. (2014). Culture effects on the knowledge sharing in multi-national virtual classes: A mixed method. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 491–498. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.021 Zhang, X., Ma, H., Wu, Y., Ordonez de Pablos, P., & Wang, W. (2014). Applying cloud computing technologies to upgrade the resource configuration of laboratory course: The case of quality engineering education platform. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(3), 596–602. Zhang, X., Ordóñez de Pablos, P., Wang, X., Wang, W., Sun, Y., & She, J. (2014). Understanding the users’ continuous adoption of 3D social virtual world in China: A comparative case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 578–585. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.034 Zhang, X., Vogel, D. R., & Zhou, Z. (2012). Effects of information technologies, department characteristics, and individual roles on improving knowledge sharing visibility: A qualitative case study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(11), 1117–1131. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2012.687770 Zhao, F. (2011). Impact of national culture on e-government development: A global study. Internet Research, 21(3), 362–380. doi:10.1108/10662241111139354 Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2003). Electronic business adoption by European firms: A cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(4), 251–268. doi:10.1057/palgrave. ejis.3000475 ✁ ✄ ✂ ✁ AUTHOR NOTES Ibrahim Arpaci is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology at Gaziosmanpasa University. His current research interests are in educational technology and information technology adoption. Yasemin Yardimci Cetin is a Professor and the Chair of the Department of Information Systems at Middle East Technical University (METU). She is also the director of the Center for Modeling and Simulation. Her current research interests are in signal processing, virtual reality, and computer vision. Ozgur Turetken is a Professor at the Ted Rogers School of Information Technology Management at Ryerson University. His current research interests are in applied text analytics and human computer interaction in the Web 2.0 environment.