technostress and organization loyalty of is&t workers a ...stress of is&t workers may affect...

Technostress and Organization Loyalty of IS&T Workers – A Path Model

Brenda Mak, Hy Sockel, Judie A. Bucholz, Miriam W. Webb


Brenda Mak, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA

Hy Sockel, DIKW Management group, Cleveland, Ohio

Judie A. Bucholz, Strayer University, Greensboro, NC

Miriam W. Webb, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH doi: 10.4156/ijipm.vol1.issue2.1

Abstract This paper examines the relationship between organizational loyalty and technostress for IS&T

workers. A survey was conducted in the United States Midwest. The path model developed from the

results indicated that perceived job stress lowered job satisfaction, while better technology

management strategy increased job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Keywords: Technostress, Loyalty, Organizational commitment

1. Introduction

In 1939, Schumpeter (1939) theorized that radical technological innovations would spawn waves of

social change, spanning generations, even eras. Since then, digitalization has been altering how

business relates to customers, suppliers, and competitors. Business innovation has been increasingly

dependent on information system innovation (Cash and Konsynski, 1985). An information economy

has been evolving, and with it the unparalleled importance of one occupational class – the Information

and System Technology (IS&T) worker. As a key element in the infrastructure of information systems,

the IS&T worker has become an important resource of the organization. For an organization to be

successful, it needs to develop a strong team of IS&T workers to achieve competitive advantages in

information systems (Porter, 1998).

Associated with their critical role in the organization, IS&T workers are facing increasing

technostress in this fast changing environment. Few professionals are faced with as much direct

obsolescence of key skills as are computer programmers (Kaluzniacky, 1998). Changes in the

technological and organizational environment, as well as escalating job demands, all add to the stress.

Stress of IS&T workers may affect the productivity and efficiency of the organization. Organizational

cycles of innovation are driven by the rate at which IS&T workers can adapt to the speed of

technological change. IS&T job stress may ultimately have more negative effects on the organization

than on the employee. Glass (1997) indicated that 42% of system and programming design faults

could be directly attributable to programmer stress. A study of Japanese programmers operating under

stress by Furuyama, Arai, and Iio (1997) found that software development had a much higher rate of

fault generation when programmers were under stress. Better scheduling and the reduction of stress

would have reduced mistakes by 37%. Combining the results of the Fujigaki (1993) and Furuyama et

al. (1997), Glass (1997) indicated that stress might be responsible for more than 70% of the

developmental faults.

Brod (1984) defined technostress as "a modern disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope

with the new computer technologies in a healthy manner. It manifests itself in two distinct and related

ways: in the struggle to accept computer technology, and in the more specialized form of over

identification with computer technology." According to a publication issued by the National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health (Center for Disease and Control, 2008), 40% of workers reported

their job was extremely stressful while three fourths of employees believed that workers have more on-

the-job stress than a generation ago. Hudiburg (1997) contended that a portion of the population was

suffering from technostress or technology induced occupational stress. He warned that when people

interacted with computers, there was the potential for negative outcomes: computer stress, computer

anxiety, negative computer attitudes, computer phobia, and computer aversion. If stress is ignored, it

may lead to headaches, feelings of emptiness, cynicism, a sense of isolation, lack of intimacy, lowered

sex drive, and increased absenteeism.

4

International Journal of Information Processing and Management

Volume1, Number2, October 2010

IS&T workers are at a great risk of experiencing technostress as the result of organizational

demands and occupational stressors. One source of stress for IS&T workers comes from the need to

deal with legacy systems. Most organizations face a dilemma of whether to install a costly new system,

or stay with their existing legacy systems, which are often expensive to maintain and incompatible with

the new way of doing business. Many IS employees are asked to modify existing legacy systems,

rendering more fragility and complexity to the old systems.

Another source of stress comes from the conflicting demands from the user community. IS&T

workers focus primarily on the infrastructure of a product, and are concerned with its compatibility to

existing platforms, structures, and processes, operational feasibility, technical support, and training.

User communities make information technology decisions based on application outcomes, with little, if

any, regard for system requirements.

A third source of stress is related to the job insecurity of IS&T workers. Many organizations look to

off-shore outsourcing to solve some of their technology issues and contain operating expenses. Based

on a survey conducted among 300 business and information technology executives representing

outsourcing buyers, outsourcing vendors, and legal firms, Deloitte Consulting (2008) found that a large

percentage of the companies that outsourced were able to reach their financial objectives and averaged

a strategically important return on investment of over 25%. Offshore contractors offer a relatively

inexpensive labor pool, one that is talented, and equipped with foreign language and proficient

programming skills. According to a study sponsored by Information Technology Association of

America (2007), increasingly US enterprises were adopting a “cities of excellence” model, sourcing

services from the best location for their respective IS&T functions and processes.

The stress faced by IS&T workers may be different from other employees in the organization.

Research revealed vast differences existed between the abilities, cognitive perspectives, and personality

styles of IS&T professionals and the general public (Nash and Redwine, 1988). IS&T workers are

distinct with their own identity, attitudes, interests, colleagueship, collective action, power, status, and

work consciousness (Orlikowski and Barley, 2001). MIS personnel differ from employees in other

fields on a number of personality and motivational factors such as need for achievement, need for

growth and social needs. Burn, Tye, Ma, and Poon (1994) reported that IS professionals had very

different needs and expectations from their working environments and that IS&T personnel were not as

generally motivated by mere compensation. A survey conducted among IS&T employees showed that

mere salary adjustment was judged to be ineffective to lock-in talent (Middlebrook, 1997). More than

half (56%) of all respondents indicated that compensation was not among the top three reasons

prompting IS&T employees to leave their jobs. These data take on added significance when we

consider the unique role IS&T knowledge workers play in organizational cycles of innovation.

Because of their unique motivational factors, vigorous research is required to understand the

relationships of technological management strategies to the job stresses, job satisfaction and

organizational loyalty of the IS&T worker. The purpose of this study is to further investigate the

relationship between job stress and organization loyalty for the IS&T worker. A survey was conducted

among IS&T workers to understand these relationships. Path analysis was used to model the direct and

indirect relationships among technology management strategies, job stresses, job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and organizational loyalty. From a theoretical perspective, this research

adds to our understanding of the path model relationships between stress and loyalty, and the roles of

intermediary variables such as job satisfaction, commitment, and technology management strategies in

affecting the relationships. From a practical perspective, this study helps to examine how better

technology management strategies can be adopted to cope with employee stress, and to improve job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and loyalty.

In Section 2, we review the literature and present the model for the relationships among stress,

techno management strategies, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational loyalty.

Section 3 discusses the survey conducted among IS&T workers. Section 4 presents the results and

analysis while section 5 discusses the results and section 6 concludes with directions for further

research.

2. A Path Model for Technostress and Organizational Loyalty

2.1. Occupational Job Stress of IS&T Workers

5



Stress in the workplace adversely affects productivity, absenteeism, turnover, and employee hearth

and well-being (Spielberger and Reheiser, 1996). Occupational stress is defined in terms of job

characteristics that pose a threat to the individual because of a poor match between the abilities of the

employee and the demands of the job. Stress occurs when there is role conflict, or when subordinates

worry over circumstances they cannot control, and is exacerbated when employees have no input into

possible outcomes. Sauter and Hurrell (1999) noted that the lack of control inhibited learning and

undermined the motivation that was needed to overcome the stress associated with the demanding work.

Other job conditions, such as environmental factors at work, including air quality, lighting, and noise

also might increase the employee‟s anxiety and frustration. According to Evans and Johnson (2000),

even low-level noise could increase stress and decrease motivation.

Ivancevich and Matteson (1987) discussed a series of job related stressors that related directly to

IS&T workers: qualitative overload (when the work requires more knowledge, skills, and abilities than

the individual possesses), career progress, development opportunities, and rewards. An individual's

response to stress is determined by the importance that the person associates with the outcome, the

uncertainty of the outcomes, and the extent of the effect of the outcomes. For the IS&T worker, small

mistakes have the potential to be devastating. Data can be destroyed very quickly and on a very grand

scale, while failures in quality factors may have huge consequences.

Rapid technology and application software innovations demand that information workers stay

current. New versions of software are released constantly, and as knowledge demands proliferate,

IS&T workers face challenges on their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA). Further, as an

organization downsizes, re-structures, merges, or consolidates with other organizations, IS&T workers

are faced with changes in their roles and responsibilities. Employees are often required to add difficult

and ambiguous tasks to their workloads, producing “role conflict” and job stresses (Kahn, Wolfe,

Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal, 1964). Joshi and Rai (2000) reported that poor quality of information, as

well as role conflict and role ambiguity, enhanced work-related stressors, “thereby setting the stage for

several dysfunctional consequences.”

In addition to role conflict, the stress of IS&T workers is further exacerbated by the need for further

education. Because of the demands of these on-the-job stressors, a large number of IS&T workers are

in a constant state of learning. Continuous education is a requisite of any IS&T occupation. This

overriding demand for on-going knowledge acquisition and training is compounded by the lack of time.

There is limited time while on the job, and performance demands often require IS&T employees to

take work home. The pressure to continuously learn is worsened by the rate of change in the

technology, and by the fast pace at which new hardware and applications become obsolete.

2.2. Technology Management

Professional and personal development is an important component for the management of the

organization for reducing the stress of IS&T employees. Empowerment strategies work best in IS&T

career development. Empowerment is the practice of giving employees responsibility and authority to

make decisions over their work (Atchison, 1991). The domain of knowledge provided by IS&T

employees is linked to career development. Education of an individual has been found to affect

technology adoption (Chuang, Rutherford and Lin, 2007), while a social culture of creativity and

exposure contributes to an individual‟s creativity (Wu, Wen, Wu and Lin, 2008). Promoting an

organization culture of information technology helps IS&T professionals build healthy organizational

relationships (Nord, Nord, Cormack and Cater-Steel, 2007). Workers‟ stresses can be reduced when

managers link workers‟ activities to career aspirations, craft individual development plans, and provide

coaching and training for employees to reach their potential (Ivancevich and Ganster, 1987). IS&T

workers want mentoring and career development (Dissanayake, Takahashi and Herath, 2006) to keep

their skills current with technology. Lally (1997) suggested that management should pursue a strategy

of providing comprehensive training and ongoing support, utilizing the talents of employees who are

comfortable with new technology.

Mak and Sockel (2001) found that technology management strategy was a motivational factor that

affected the retention and turnover of IS&T employees. Dobbs (2000) contended that IS&T

professionals should define their own curricula, as they know it best. He found that employees left

their jobs because of the uncomfortable working environment created by their managers. She

6



contended that managers who are effective not only perform the basic management functions, but also

are good communicators, helping employees develop and learn. Managers may concentrate on end

results and goal setting rather than processes (Bunk, 1999). Goals provide guidance and flexibility for

the knowledge worker to grow personally and professionally. Empowerment, goal setting, and

collaboration appear to be effective tools for IS&T managers. Hence we hypothesize:

H1: Perceived technology management is related to perceived job stress of IS&T workers.

The better is the technology management perceived by IS&T workers, the lower is their

perceived job stress.

2.3. Job Satisfaction

Hackman and Oldham (1980) stated, “If the last several decades of research on behavior in

organizations has taught us anything, it is that people at work seek simultaneously many kinds of

satisfaction, not just those with economic roots." Job satisfaction is important for the successful

implementation and use of computer technology (Igbaria and Guimaraes, 1993). Locke (1976)

defined job satisfaction as an emotional reaction which “results from the perception that one‟s job

fulfills or allows the fulfillment of one‟s important job values, providing and to the degree that those

values are congruent with one‟s needs." A less formal definition describes job satisfaction as a positive

emotional state reflecting affective attitude towards the job situation. It represents a positive desire to

continue to work for one‟s organization. Job satisfaction is analogous to liking one‟s job and feeling

good about it. As such, it is affected by individual‟s perceptions, values, and needs, and an individual's

disposition influences his/her job satisfaction (Poulin, 1995).

Based on the Dual Factor Theory of Motivation (DFT), job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction are

not opposites. According to DFT, job satisfaction is related to the content of a job (labeled as

motivator factors), while dissatisfaction is related to the context of the job (labeled as hygienic factors).

The “right” hygiene factors do not cause satisfaction, but “wrong” ones result in dissatisfaction

(Shipley and Kiely, 1988). Support for DFT has been mixed, even in “Herzberg‟s own study, nearly

one-third of the results contradicted DFT” (Shipley and Kiely, 1988). Even if DFT was not applied,

lack of job satisfaction would not be considered job dissatisfaction, but rather a middle neutral state.

Siggins (1992) indicated that because jobs are multifaceted, individuals can simultaneously find

satisfaction and dissatisfaction with different aspects of their jobs. Job dissatisfaction can be attributed

to the organizational failure to commit to talent development, lack of guidance, trust, and involvement,

and apparent absence of objectivity or fairness (Jenkins, 1988). Igbaria and Guimaraes (1993) found

that the stress due to ambiguity was the most dysfunctional variable for lowering job satisfaction of

information centre employees. Poulin (1995) found that changes in professional development

opportunities were positively associated with increased job satisfaction. Better technology

management strategies providing better opportunities for IS&T workers would lead to better job

satisfaction. We hypothesize:

H2: The higher is the job stress perceived by IS&T workers, the lower is their job satisfaction.

H3: The better is the technology management perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is their

prceived job satisfaction.

2.4. Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has been repeatedly identified as an important variable in the study of

employee work behavior. Organizational commitment is defined as the "relative strength of

individual's identification with the involvement in a particular organization" (Mowday, Porter, Steers,

1982). Organizational commitment, understood as the degree of employee identification with the

organization, can be measured as the employee‟s sunk costs or investment in the organization (age,

seniority, tenure). Organizational commitment is also measured as a human resource expense (cost of

recruitment, training, retention, and employee development). These activities are meant to foster

greater employee identification with the organization. The definition of commitment to an organization

may also be viewed as a shared set of goals, and employee willingness to place corporate over self

interests.

Meyer and Allen (1991) indicated commitment is of three natures: affective, continuance, or

7



normative. Employees with affective or continuance commitment remained with an organization

because of an emotional attachment to the organization, while those with normative commitment

remained because they had to. While all three forms of commitment related negatively to withdrawal

cognition and turnover, affective commitment had the strongest correlations with organization-relevant

(attendance, performance, and organizational citizenship behavior) and employee-relevant (stress and

work–family conflict) outcomes. Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990) indicated that the

perception of being cared for by the organization encouraged individuals to assimilate organizational

values. The perception of organizational support enhances employee involvement by creating trust.

We hypothesize:

H4: The lower is the job stress perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is their perceived

organizational commitment.

H5: The better is the technology management perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is their

perceived organizational commitment.

Farkas and Tetrick (1989) established a relationship between organizational commitment and job

satisfaction. Greater commitment was found to be associated with enhanced job satisfaction.

Employees who were highly satisfied with their jobs also demonstrated greater loyalty and

commitment to the organization. Igbaria and Guimaraes (1993) studied the consequences of job

satisfaction among information centre employees and confirmed the importance of job satisfaction in

predicting organizational commitment and intention to leave. Commitment, however, is

distinguishable from job satisfaction (Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1982). Commitment emphasizes an

attachment to the employer, and is a response to the whole organization (Igbaria, Meredith and Smith,

1994). Satisfaction, on the other hand, is a response to specific aspects of the employee‟s job or career.

It is postulated that if the organization promotes self-worth, organizational commitment will increase.

This can be accomplished by management ensuring that employees have opportunities to succeed, that

workloads match capabilities, and that individual growth needs are satisfied. Hence we hypothesize

H6: The higher is the job satisfaction perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is their

perceived organizational commitment.

2.5. Loyalty

Loyalty is often construed as organizational commitment. According to Harvey, Novicevic and

Speier (1999), the longitudinal corollary to commitment is the development of loyalty to the

organization. Loyalty focuses on one‟s on-going willingness to identify with the organization's goals

and recognition that their future career opportunities are in the organization. Loyalty is also different

from job involvement. Loyalty is characterized as the degree of attachment an individual feels toward

the organization, while job involvement is often characterized as the degree of importance that the

individual‟s job contributes to self-image. Loyalty issues have also been linked to turnover intentions

and voluntary termination (Cramer, 1996).

Loyalty and commitment have important consequences. Alkhafaji and Tompkins (1991) found that

performance, absenteeism, innovation, turnover, and satisfaction were related to employee commitment

and loyalty. The research of Igbaria, Meredith and Smith (1994) on commitment and loyalty

corroborated its effect on turnover reduction. Sonnenberg (1991) found employees‟ attitudes towards

work induced management to create personnel policies that motivated and fostered commitment and

loyalty. Employees want to work for companies of which they can be proud. That sense of pride spills

over as a desire to belong to the organization. Hence we hypothesize:

H7: The lower is the job stress perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is their perceived

organizational loyalty.

H8: The higher is the job satisfaction perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is their

perceived organizational loyalty.

H9: The higher is the organizational commitment perceived by IS&T workers, the higher is

their perceived organizational loyalty.

3. Methodology

8



A survey was conducted among IS&T workers to test the aforementioned relationships

(summarized in Figure 1). The survey instrument was developed based on literature reviews on

technology management, perception of management, job satisfaction, commitment and loyalty (Igbaria,

Meredith, and Smith, 1994). The questionnaire was patterned after existing instruments, specifically

the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire of Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982), the User

Information Satisfaction Measure of Ives and Olson (1984), and Larson's questionnaire on job stress

(1996). The instrument used a seven-point Likert-like scale. The questionnaire was revised based on

feedback from pretests with IS&T practitioners. In all, a total of 1400 surveys were distributed, 285

surveys were returned, and 271 usable surveys were obtained.

3.1. The Sample

The sample consisted of individuals from 18 different industry sectors, with 70% in the following

sectors: manufacturing firms (25%), Big 5 (now 4) accounting- consulting firms (16%), general

software consulting/developers (13%), education (11%), and health care (5%). More than half (58%)

of the IS&T knowledge workers (158) reported working for companies with more than 1,000

employees. One quarter of the group (26%) reported working for organizations that employ between

100 and 1,000. Forty respondents (15%) indicated working for companies with less than a hundred

employees.

More than 82% of the respondents were between 25 and 45 years old. There were 170 males (63%)

and 68 females (25%). Thirty-three respondents (12%) did not indicate gender. Most (65%) of the

respondents had been college trained. More than 73% of the respondents identified their functional

responsibility as system analyst, programmer, or project leader. More than half of these (51%) had

more than 5 years IS&T experience, while nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents had been with the

same company for two (2) or more years. Over 61% had two to ten years of employment with their

current organization. The respondents were distributed across a variety of development platforms.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of normal work activity was concentrated on new development, 31% on

enhancements and retro fits, 37% on maintenance and legacy activities, and 8% on education.

3.2. Instrument Validity and Reliability

Table 1 lists the items in the questionnaire. All five item construct groups had good validity and

reliability, as indicated by the high factor loadings and Cronbach‟s alpha (Bollen, 1989). The factor

loading was high (ranging from 0. 53 to 0.93), and all the items represent one factor accounting for at

least 53% of variance, showing that the items represented one construct. The Cronbach‟s alpha for the

items ranged from 0.77 to 0.93, indicating high reliability.

4. Results and Analysis

Path analysis with LISREL 8 was used for the analysis. Path analysis captures the direct and

indirect relationships among the variables in the structural equation model (Jöreskog and Sörbom,

1989; Bollen and Long, 1993; Bollen, 1989). The hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H5, H6, H8, and H9 were

accepted while H7 and H4 were rejected at the significance level of 0.05. Figure 2 shows the model

estimates with the hypothesized relationships.

Figure 3 shows the final model with the insignificant relationships removed. The chi-square statistic

was 4.82 with 3 degrees of freedom. It was 2.51 with 1 degree of freedom when the insignificant

relationships were included as in Figure 2. Applying the likelihood ratio test for the comparison of

models (Bollen, 1989), the chi-square difference was 2.31 (=4.82-2.51) with 2 degrees of freedom (=3-

1), which was not statistically significant at the 0.05 level (critical value for 2 degrees of freedom is

5.991). Thus the model in Figure 3 is a better model.

The adequacy of structural models is assessed using various measures (Bollen, 1989). The null

hypothesis is set up as a priori not to be rejected and the chi-square statistic tests whether the observed

data fit the hypothesis of the proposed model. A smaller chi-square value indicates a better fit. For

small sample sizes that might have slightly departed from normality, the chi-square per degree of

freedom should be used instead. A ratio of approximately five shows a reasonable fit, while a ratio

9



between one and two is an excellent fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The ratio of the model in Figure 3

was 1.607 (chi-square = 4.82 with three degrees of freedom), indicating a very good fit.

Other measures of fit include the goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), the non-

normed fit index (NNFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI), with one indicating a perfect fit and any

value above 0.9 suggesting a good fit. The model in Figure 3 had values of GFI, NFI, NNFI, and CFI

greater than 0.9, showing an excellent fit. Further, the model was assessed using the root mean error of

approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The RMSEA is a

measure of the discrepancy per degree of freedom for the model, and a value of 0.05 or below indicates

a very good model fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The SRMR is an absolute fix index sensitive to

misspecification and a value of 0.05 or below indicates a good fit. The model has a RMSR of 0.048

and a SRMR of 0.017, thus indicating a good model fit.

Figure 3 summarizes the maximum likelihood parameter estimates. Here 32 (t = 18.75) was 0.84

and was significant at the 0.05 level, suggesting that "Organizational Commitment" significantly

affects "Organizational Loyalty" in a positive way, and the higher is the employee‟s organizational

commitment, the higher is the employee‟s organizational loyalty. Similarly, 31 (t = 3.87) was 0.17 and

21 (t = 8.77) was 0.46, and both were significant at the 0.05 level. This suggests that "Job

Satisfaction" significantly affects "Organizational Commitment" and "Organizational Loyalty", and

that the higher is the job satisfaction perceived by the employee, the higher is the employee‟s

commitment and loyalty to the organization. However, "Job Satisfaction" was negatively affected by

"Perceived Job stress", as 11 (t = 4.09) was 0.19 and significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the

higher is the job stress perceived by the IS&T employee, the lower is the perceived job satisfaction. In

addition, 21 (t = 3.56) was 0.37 and was significant at 0.05 level, suggesting that "Techno

Management" is negatively correlated to "Perceived Job stress", and better technology management

strategies lowers perceived job stress. Further, 12 (t = 11.48) was 0.52 and 22 (t = 6.62) was 0.32, and

both were significant at the 0.05 level. This suggests that "Techno Management" significantly affects

"Job Satisfaction" and "Organizational Commitment". Thus good technology management practice

enhances organizational loyalty of IS&T workers through combating their job stress and improving

their job satisfaction and commitment.

5. Discussion

This study explored the relationship between "Perceived Job Stress" and IS&T "Employee Loyalty".

Overall the results indicated that perceived job stress lowered job satisfaction while job satisfaction

increased organizational commitment and loyalty, and perceived job stress indirectly lowered

commitment and loyalty.

Different from our original hypotheses, job stress did not have a direct negative effect on

organizational loyalty and commitment. This effect was found to be indirect, mediated by job

satisfaction. The organization may mitigate the effect of job stress on loyalty and commitment through

improving employee job satisfaction. An encouraging finding of this study is that "Perceived Job

Stress" was negatively correlated to "Techno Management". Better technology management strategies

will lower job stress, enhance job satisfaction, organization commitment and loyalty among IS&T

employees.

It is important that organizations enhance the commitment and loyalty of the most qualified IS&T

professionals. Agarwal and Ferratt (2001) found that some organizations sought long-term

relationships with IS&T professionals while others only sought only short-term relationships. Our

results suggested that IS&T workers value a human resource strategy that reflects an understanding of

their unique position in the organization. The psychological contract between employers and IS&T

workers can only benefit from improving corporate attention to the working conditions and retention

factors of the IS&T worker. Central among these issues is offering the IS&T worker the relief from

stresses associated with increasing job complexity, threatened obsolescence, and imperative demand

for new skills. As information technology is interwoven into every business model and functional work

design, the expense of replacing IS&T workers goes beyond recruitment, training, staffing, and

mentoring. It includes the loss of organizational experience and know-how. Veteran IS&T employees

have networks of preferred vendors and industry-specific colleagues. They have trusted relationships

10



with internal customers. Organization-specific knowledge, trust, and commitment were valuable for

productive contributions. As the rate of change in information system and technology increases, the

solution lies not in mere outsourcing but in better developing human resources within the organization.

As management continues the development of human resources as capital assets (Weiss, 2000), IS&T

workers will increase in value relative to the organization‟s investment in them.

6. Conclusion

This research contributes to a better understanding of IS&T human resource management. The

issues of organizational commitment and job satisfaction are applied as mediators to the relationship

between stress and loyalty. The study extends the research of job stress by positioning occupational

stress, not as a determinant variable, but as an antecedent variable. Future research may address other

aspects of job stress, such as the effect of job stress on innovations. Technostress can be addressed as a

precipitant agent, a precursive inhibitor of innovation potential for IS&T workers, that affects their

contribution to the organization.

In addition, since loyal employees with a higher propensity to stay with the organization may not

necessarily perform better in their jobs, future study may address if loyalty and continuance affect job

performance, and if so, how, and to what degree. Further, future research may also include a larger

sample, with respondents from various states and various countries. Other factors such as demographic

information, industry types and organization culture may also be examined.

7. References

[1] Agarwal R. and Ferratt, T.W., “Crafting an HR Strategy to Meet the Need for IT Workers”,

Communications of the ACM, vol. 44 , no. 7, July, pp. 59-64, 2001.

[2] Alkhafaji, A.F. and Tompkins, D., “Determinants and Impact of Organizational Commitment.

Management Decision”, vol. 29, pp. 46-49, 1991.

[3] Atchison, T.J., “The Employment Relationship: Untied or Re-tied?”, Academy of Management

Executive, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 52-62, 1991.

[4] Bollen, K. A., Structural Equation with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1st edition,

1989.

[5] Bollen, K. A. and Long, J. S., Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, 1993.

[6] Brod, C., Technostress: The Human Cost of the Computer Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley, 1984.

[7] Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R., “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, In: Testing Structural

Equation Models, (Eds.) Bollen, Kenneth A. and Long, Scott J. (Newbery Park), Sage, 136-162,

1993.

[8] Bunk, S., “How to Manage Knowledge and „Gold Collar Workers‟”, The Scientist, February 1,

vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 16-17, 1999.

[9] Burn, J. M, Tye, E. M. W., Ma, L.C.K., and Poon, R. S. K., “Job expectations of IS professionals

in Hong Kong.” Proceedings, SIGCPR: ACM on Computer Personnel Research Annual

Conference, Alexandria, Virginia, Mar 24-26, 231-241, 1994.

[10] Cash, J. I. and Konsynski, B. R., “IS Redraws Competitive Boundaries”, Harvard Business

Review, Mar/Apr, vol. 63, no.2, pp. 134-142, 1985.

[11] Center for Disease and Control, 2008. Job Stress…At Work. National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health Publication No. 99-101, 2008.

[12] Chuang, T., Rutherford M. W. and Lin, B., “Owner/Manager Characteristics, Organizational

Characteristics and IT Adoption in Small and Medium Enterprises”, International Journal of

Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 4, no.6, pp.619-634, 2007.

[13] Cramer, D., “Job Satisfaction and Organizational Continuance Commitment: A Two-wave Panel

Study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 17, no.4, pp.389-400, 1996.

[14] Deloitte Consulting Outsourcing Advisory Services, “Why Settle for Less?” Deloitte Consulting

2008 Outsourcing Report. Feb 21, 2008.

11

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/stresswk.html

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_consulting_oaspovwhysettle_141207%281%29.pdf



[15] Dissanayake, K., Takahashi, M. and Herath, S. K., “The Role of Mentoring in Career

Construction”, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 3, no. 5, pp.

453 – 465, 2006.

[16] Dobbs, K., “Plagued by Turnover? Train Your Managers”, Training, vol. 37, no.8, pp. 62-66,

2000.

[17] Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., and Davis-LaMastro, V., “Perceived Organizational Support and

Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 75, no.

1, pp. 51-59, 1990.

[18] Evans, G.W., and Johnson, D., “Stress and Open Office Noise”, Journal of Applied Psychology,

vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 779-83, 2000.

[19] Farkas, A. J. and Tetrick, L.E., “A Three-wave Longitudinal Analysis of the Causal Ordering of

Satisfaction and Commitment on Turnover Decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 74,

no.6, pp. 855-68, 1989.

[20] Fujigaki Y., “Stress Analysis: A New Perspective on Peopleware”, American Programmer, July,

vol.6, no.7, pp. 33-38, 1993.

[21] Furuyama, T., Arai, Y., and Iio, K., “Analysis of Fault Generation Caused by Stress during

Software Development”, Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 13-25, 1997.

[22] Glass, R. L., “The ups and downs of Programmer Stress”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 40 ,

no. 4, pp. 17-19, 1997.

[23] Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R., Work Redesign (Organization Development). Reading, MA:

Prentice-Hall, 1980.

[24] Harvey, M. G. Novicevic, M. M., and Speier, C., “Inpatriate Managers: How to Increase the

Probability of Success”, Human, Resource Management Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 51-81, 1999.

[25] Hudiburg, R. A., “Computer Hassles Scale: a measure of computer stress”, in Zalaquett, C. and

Wood, R.J. (Eds.) Evaluating Technostress: A Book of Resources. Landam, MD: Scarecrow Press,

pp. 41-50, 1997

[26] Igbaria, M. and Guimaraes, T., “Antecedents and Consequences of Job Satisfaction among

Information Center Employees. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.

145-174, 1993.

[27] Igbaria, M., Meredith, G., and Smith, D.C., “Predictors of Intention of IS Professionals to Stay

with the Organization in South Africa”, Information & Management, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 245-256,

1994.

[28] Information Technology Association of America – ITAA., Lower Cost Domestic Sourcing: A

Niche Opportunity for the US. Prepared by Conscient Partners, LLC, Palo Alto, CA, July, 2007.

[29] Ivancevich, J. M. and Matteson, M. T., Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource and

Management Strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1987.

[30] Ivancevich, J. M. and Ganster, D., Job Stress: From Theory to Suggestions. Binghamton, NY: The

Haworth Press, 1st edition., 1987.

[31] Ives, B. and Olson, M. H., “User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research”.,

Management Science, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 586-603, 1984.

[32] Jenkins, S., “Turnover: Correcting the Causes”, Personnel, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 43-48, 1988.

[33] Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D., LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications, 2nd edition.

SPSS Inc., 1989.

[34] Joshi, K. and Rai, A., “Impact of the Quality of Information Products on Information Systems

Users‟ Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation”, Information Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 4,

pp. 323-345, 2000.

[35] Kahn, D., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., and Rosenthal, R., Organizational Stress: Studies in

Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley, 1964.

[36] Kaluzniacky, E., “An assessment of stress factors among information systems professionals in

Manitoba”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,

(SIGCPR-98), pp. 254-257, 1998.

[37] Lally, R., “Managing Technostress: Getting Results… for the Hands-on Manager”, American

Management Association, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 5, 1997.

12



[38] Larson, L. L. Internal auditor job stress and turnover intentions. (Doctoral dissertation, Cleveland

State University, 1996). [CD-Rom]. ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Ondisc Item: AAT

9828073, 1996.

[39] Locke, E. A., “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., pp.

1297–1349, 1976.

[40] Mak, B., and Sockel, H. “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of IS Employee Motivation and

Retention”, Information & Management, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 265-276, 2001.

[41] Meyer, J. P. and Allen, NJ. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997.

[42] Middlebrook, J. F., “Avoiding Brain Drain: How to Lock in Talent”, HR Focus, March, vol. 76,

no. 3, pp. 9-10, 1999.

[43] Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., and Steers, R. M., Employee-organization Linkages: The Psychology

of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1982.

[44] Nash, S.H. and Redwine, S.T., Jr., “People and Organizations in Software Production: A Review

of the Literature”, ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel, January, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 10-21, 1988.

[45] Nord, J. H., G. Daryl Nord, G. D., Cormack, S. and Cater-Steel, A., “An Investigation of the Effect

of Information Technology (IT) Culture on the Relationship between IT and Business

Professionals”, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 4, no. 3,

pp. 265 – 292, 2007.

[46] Orlikowski, W. J. and Barley, S. R., “Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on

Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?” MIS Quarterly,

vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 145-165, 2001.

[47] Porter, M., Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York:

Free Press, 1st edition, 1998.

[48] Poulin, J. E., “Job Satisfaction of Social Work Supervisors and Administrators”, Administration in

Social Work, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 35-49, 1995.

[49] Sauter, S.L. and Hurrell, J.J., Jr., “Occupational Health Psychology: Origins, Content, and

Direction”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 117-122, 1999.

[50] Schumpeter, J. A., Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the

Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw Hill, 1939.

[51] Shipley, D. and Kiely, J., “Motivation and Dissatisfaction of Iindustrial Salespeople – How

Relevant is Herzberg‟s Theory?” European Journal of Marketing, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 17-30, 1988.

[52] Siggins, J.A., “Job Satisfaction and Performance in Changing Environment”, Library Trends, vol.

4, no. 2, pp. 299-315, 1992.

[53] Sonnenberg, F.K., “A Strategic Approach to Employee Motivation”, Journal of Business Strategy,

vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 41-44, 1991.

[54] Spielberger C., and Reheiser, E. C., “Meansuring occupational stress: The job stress survey”, in

Occupational Stress: A Handbook edited by Crandall, R., and Perrewe, P., Washington, DC : CRC

Press, Taylor & Francis, 2nd edition, pp. 51-72, 1995.

[55] Weiss, D., High Performance HR: Leveraging Human Resources for Competitive Advantage.

Toronto, Ontario: John Wiley & Sons Canada, 2000.

[56] Wu, M.C., Wen, C.T., Wu, S.H., Lin, B., “The Social Context of Creativity at Third Places: An

Exploratory Study”, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 5, no.

1, pp. 30-48, 2008.

13



Table 1. Items within the Questionnaire

Variable Item Question Cronbach’s

Alpha

Factor

Loading

Perceived

Job stress

Stress01 I feel stressed that I am NOT staying current in

new technologies. 0.72

Stress02 I feel exhausted trying to stay current with the IS

industry. 0.68

Stress03 I am stressed that my company‟s IS technologies

are out of date. 0.76

Stress04 I feel intimidated by how fast things change within

IS technologies. 0.81

Stress05

A reason that I would like to learn more newer

technologies is that I am embarrassed to admit

there are areas that I do NOT know much about.

0.65

0.77

1 factor

53% of

variance

Techno

Management

TechMgt01

For the most part, I think management does a good

job of matching up its technology needs with the

people who have the appropriate talent.

0.75

TechMgt02

For the most part, I think management does a good

job of training IS personnel that want to learn more

about newer technologies.

0.90

TechMgt03 I am happy with the direction management takes in

keeping people current with technology. 0.93

TechMgt04 I think management provides adequate educational

opportunities. 0.86

TechMgt05 All in all, the company is doing a good job of

meeting my growth needs. 0.87

0.91

1 factor

75% of

variance

Job

Satisfaction

JobSat01 I am satisfied with the amount of job security I

have 0.67

JobSat02 I am satisfied with the amount of personal growth

and development I get in doing my job. 0.80

JobSat03 I am satisfied with the respect and treatment I

receive from my boss. 0.82

JobSat04 I am satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment I

get from my job. 0.81

JobSat05 I am satisfied with the support and guidance I

receive from my supervisor. 0.77

JobSat06 I am satisfied with the amount of independent

thought and action I can exercise in my job. 0.76

JobSat07 I am satisfied with how secure things look for me

in the future in this organization. 0.74

JobSat08 I am satisfied with the amount of challenge in my

job.

0.70

JobSat09 I am satisfied with the quality of the supervision I

receive in my work. 0.79

JobSat10 I am generally satisfied with my job. 0.86

0.92 1 factor

60% of

variance

Organizational

Commitment

Commit01

I am willing to put in a great of effort beyond what

is normally expected in order to help this

organization be successful.

0.70

Commit02 I talk up this organization to my friends as a great

place to work. 0.88

14



Commit03 I would accept almost any type of assignment in

order to keep working for this organization. 0.53

Commit04 I find that my values and the organization‟s values

are similar. 0.81

Commit05 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this

organization. 0.89

Commit06 My company inspires me to do my best in the way

of job performance. 0.86

Commit07

I am extremely glad that I chose this organization

to work for over others I was considering at the

time I joined.

0.85

Commit08 I really care about the fate of this organization. 0.80

Commit09 For me this is the best of all possible organizations

in which to work. 0.81

0.93

1 factor

64% of

variance

Organizational

Loyalty

Loyalty01 I have a strong desire to remain a member of my

organization. 0.89

Loyalty02 The organization inspires the best in me in the way

of job performance. 0.87

Loyalty03 I am glad that I work for this organization. 0.91

Loyalty04 I would encourage a friend to work for my

company. 0.88

Loyalty05 I feel loyal to my company. 0.89

Loyalty06 It would be difficult for me to emotionally distance

myself from this organization. 0.62

0.92

1 factor

72% of

variance

Figure 1. Path Model for IS&T Worker Job Stress and Loyalty

15



Figure 2. Model Parameters of Constructs with Hypothesized Relationships

(Note: the dotted lines indicate insignificant relationships)

16



Figure 3. Finalized Path Model (with insignificant relationships removed)

17

technostress and organization loyalty of is&t workers a ...stress of is&t workers may affect...

Documents