Differences in Perceived Performance of Mobile Devices Between Managers and Employees in Grocery Stores

• Main Authors: Soronen, Oona, Widengren, Hjalmar
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: Umeå universitet, Företagsekonomi 2019
• Subjects: management; perceived performance of technology; technology acceptance; Business Administration; Företagsekonomi
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-161031

In this study, the underlying constructs affecting the perceived performance of mobile devices at work in grocery stores is examined. Furthermore, those constructs are combined in order to create a theoretical framework that aims to explain new relationships and draw conclusions on how organizational position plays a role in how certain constructs affect the perceived performance of mobile devices in the workplace. At first, three constructs were examined as independent variables, Job relevance, being defined as person’s perception of the level of applicability of a certain system to the individual’s job (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p.191), in this case, the system was mobile devices. The second construct included in the framework was self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a construct that encompasses people’s judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to accomplish designated types of performance (Bandura, cited in Jeong, Lee, Nagesvaran, 2016, p.41). Once again, this was linked with the use of mobile devices. The third construct was Performance expectancy, defined as the degree to which an individual believes using a technology system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. 2003).   At first, the dependent variable was a by the authors contextualized construct from the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1985) called Perceived performance of technology which is defined as the individual’s expectations of the performance of the technology when used at the workplace. This construct was later combined with the third independent variable Performance expectancy, as they after analysis and comparation were deemed to measure the same thing.   The new combined variable became the dependent variable of the study and was named combined perceived performance which aimed to explain the degree of belief of a worker that the technology used would perform in his or her work.   The relationships that were found included a negative one between self-efficacy and combined perceived performance. A paradoxical result since the theory suggests the opposite (Jeong et al. 2016). A more expected positive relationship was found between job relevance and combined perceived performance. Later on, organizational position was also included as a moderator that categorized the respondents into two groups, employees and managers. The setting this study examined was that of a grocery store, since the roles of employee and manager are distinctive and easy to categorize. According to the results from multiple regression analysis, being a manager had a positive effect on combined perceived performance, both for self-efficacy and job relevance. This relationship was however not significant, and could therefore not be used to make any conclusions whether or not organizational position acted as a moderating factor neither between self-efficacy and combined perceived performance nor between job relevance and combined perceived performance.   While the sample size was not large enough to make conclusions about the whole population of grocery store workers, two statistically significant relationships were found, one between self-efficacy and combined perceived performance and one with job relevance and combined perceived performance. Additionally, a new framework was created based on previous theoretical models which can contribute to future studies that aim to examine the role of organizational position and perceived performance of mobile devices.