Andrew Spencer

Technology Adoption
in the Caribbean
Tourism Industry
Analyzing Service
Delivery in the
Digital Age
Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism
Industry
 Andrew Spencer

Technology Adoption
in the Caribbean
Tourism Industry
Analyzing Service Delivery in the Digital Age
Andrew Spencer
Tourism Product Development Company
Kingston, Jamaica

ISBN 978-3-030-61583-3 ISBN 978-3-030-61584-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
Challenges in the Industry 5
The Research Context 8
Methodology 12
The Research Process 15
Limitations and Impediments 22
The Structure of the Book 22
References 23

2 Leadership and Technology: Understanding Adoption

Practices 27
Diffusion and Adoption 38
The Digital Divide 52
Ownership and Leadership 59
The Resource-Based View 67
Emergent Frameworks 70
References 73

3 Internal Firm Factors: An Examination of Travel

Companies Resource Base 87
Case Examples 92
Firm Strategy 95
Leadership and Strategy Formulation 98
References 108
v
vi CONTENTS

4 External Factors: The Digital Divide, Closing the Gap 111

Culture and Leadership 116
The Digital Divide 118
References 124

5 Transactional and Transformational Leaders: Their

Influence on Technology 127
Intellectual Stimulation 134
Leadership and Strategy 137
Transactional vs. Transformational: Leadership
Characteristics for Technology Adoption 139
Leadership Background 140
Risk Taking and the Owner-Manager 145
Leadership Characteristics for Technology Adoption
(Owner-Managed, Small Firms) 148
Education 149
Previous Work Experience 150
Technology Experience 151
Risk Aversion 151
Family Composition 152
Intellectually Stimulating Traits 153
References 155

6 The Applicability of an Innovative Theoretical Model

and Its Implications 157
Theory and Concepts 157
Adoption Stages 160
The Adopters 161
Contribution to Theories of Staged Technology Adoption 163
Resistors 164
Caretakers 165
Stabilizers 166
Reactors 168
Transformers 169
Strengths of the Model 171
Limitations of the Model 174
References 174
 CONTENTS vii

7 Conclusion 177
References 188

Appendix 191

References 195

Index 233
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Full stack of steps in the innovation interdependence

perspective (Source Author’s Creation) 16
Fig. 2.1 Firm technology adoption framework: first-order iteration
(Source Author’s creation) 72
Fig. 2.2 Technology decision-making input framework (Source
Author’s creation) 73
Fig. 5.1 Formal education level (Source Author’s creation) 141
Fig. 5.2 Highest qualification and perceptions of internet
importance in sales and marketing (Source Author’s
creation) 142
Fig. 5.3 Cross-tabulation: highest qualification and perceptions
of online market importance (Source Author’s creation) 142
Fig. 5.4 Frequency of internet users (leaders) (Source Author’s
creation) 144
Fig. 5.5 Owner-manager’s risk taking (Source Author’s creation) 146
Fig. 6.1 Revised technology decision-making input framework
(Source Author’s creation) 158
Fig. 6.2 Resistors (Source Author’s creation) 165
Fig. 6.3 Caretakers (Source Author’s creation) 166
Fig. 6.4 Stabilizers (Source Author’s creation) 167
Fig. 6.5 Reactors 168
Fig. 6.6 Transformers (Source Author’s creation) 169
Fig. 6.7 Leadership typologies for staged technology adoption
(owner-managed small firms) (Source Author’s creation) 170

ix
 List of Tables

Table 5.1 Cross-tabulation: personal technology use

and owner-manager’s risk taking 147
Table 5.2 Cross-tabulation: highest qualification and internet sales
investment risk 147

xi
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the

tourism industry in the Caribbean contributes to 13.9% of the region’s
gross domestic product (GDP).1 Consequently, the state of the tourism
industry is exceptionally important to the Caribbean. However, the sector
is remarkably vulnerable to both internal and external shocks; including
natural disasters, global pandemics, economic crisis among other factors.
In light of the sector vulnerability there is a need to mitigate the impact
of these vulnerabilities, especially in light of the most recent global
pandemic—Covid-19. Which has significantly, reduced the movement of
people across the world, which has tremendous economic impact on the
Caribbean key foreign exchange sources. The use and widespread inte-
gration of Information communication Technologies has the ability to
mitigate the challenges experienced by the industry and improve the
provision of service.
As technology develops and firms increase their adoption of Infor-
mation and Communication Technologies (ICT), there comes a shift
in focus from what one may call “the Big Picture” to more bespoke
solutions that are appropriate for diverse, individualized scenarios. This
is not to say that more orthodox or mainstream management practices

1 The World Tourism and Travel Council. (2019). Economic Impact Reports. Retrieved
from https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact.

© The Author(s) 2021 1

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_1
2 A. SPENCER

have been discarded. While these still prove effective, especially in smaller
owner-managed travel firms, it does illustrate an expansion of perspectives.
The use of computers and other technologies in the travel industry is
not a new idea. Computers have been in use by travel agencies since the
1950s with the creation of the first reservation systems—TIS and Gulliver
during the 1980s,2 and major global distribution systems (GDSs) like
SABRE and Amadeus in the 1990s. Over the years these systems have
evolved into more advanced tourist information systems.
We see this trend continuing today, resulting in a myriad of travel reser-
vation and monitoring systems across the internet; each of them able to
access, and benefit from, the others’ information databases and architec-
tures. This has resulted in the most leveled playing field the industry
has witnessed to date, with numerous options in products and services
available to both producers and consumers.3
Emerging characteristics of this trend include the development of new
value chains and systems. This new infrastructure allows industry players
to take increased advantage of the opportunities presented by applying
the latest technologies.4 However, in order for a travel agency to take
advantage of these benefits, certain preconditions must be met.
Moital et al. (2009) make it clear that the adoption of this new
paradigm requires familiarity with, or at least a basic understanding of,
the tools inherent in this new paradigm. Specifically, computers and the
internet.
A travel firm’s staff requires a certain minimal level of fluency in
computer literacy. They may not need to be able to code programs, but
they do need to understand how to interact with computer hardware and
software. This is a fundamental prerequisite to being able to access and
navigate the internet.
The staff also require, at the very least, a basic level of understanding
of the internet itself. This is necessary for them to be able to effectively
engage in activities such as internet sales, also referred to as e-commerce,
and internet marketing. These may also be referred to as SEM (Search
Engine Marketing) and SEO (Search Engine Optimization). Internet

2 Werthner (1995, 1996), Werthner and Klein (1999).

3 Poon (2001).
4 Buhalis (2002).
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

Marketing is a wider term, encompassing both SEM and SEO, but in

common parlance, they tend to be used interchangeably.
This stepwise progression allows us to appreciate the dependencies
between each step. This also establishes the notion that engagement at
each step assumes previous engagement (and experience) in preceding
steps. We may refer to this as the “innovation interdependence perspec-
tive.” From this perspective, we can project a full stack of progressive steps
as follows:
Since 2000 it’s been argued that different regions in the world are
at different levels when it comes to being able to integrate and utilize
the internet; this is referred to as “internet readiness.” While America
and Canada were strong early adopters, Europe, in the nineties and early
2000s, had been a year and a half behind North America when it came to
levels of internet adoption.5 However, while Europe has essentially caught
up to North America, countries in the developing world, including the
Caribbean, are lagging behind, and there are unfortunate consequences
for countries and businesses that are slow to integrate ICTs.
Most travel agencies in the Caribbean are focused on the outbound
traveler. As such, they may not experience issues like disintermediation—
the consolidation and reduction of intermediaries—at the same pace as
more developed countries. This has resulted in a lack of strategic planning
and proactive measures on the part of local travel agencies.
The reason for this was partially the perception that most Caribbean
people did not place much trust in the concept of making purchases on
the internet, reflected in a study by Lin.6 This led to certain consid-
erations. Firstly, most travel firms in the Caribbean are focused on the
outward-bound market. Secondly, there is a gap with regard to access to
technology (what may be termed as the “digital divide”) between tourists
and Caribbean travel destinations. These considerations raise the question
of whether the inbound travel market is a gap that the local travel firms
can fill if they can bridge the digital divide.
There is, however, another disincentive for local firms in catering to the
inbound market. Inbound travel does not provide a commission compa-
rable to what they may make in outbound travel. This is, unfortunately,
a shortsighted view as it fails to take into consideration opportunities

5 Law and Leung (2000).

6 Lin et al. (2009).
4 A. SPENCER

presented through value-adding and dynamic packaging, i.e., creating

travel solutions on a more individualized basis.
More recently, the digital divide has been shrinking, but according to
Minghetti and Buhalis,7 there are still significant gaps between Caribbean
destinations, developed nations and the tourists thereof. This will lead
to varying levels of “digital exclusion,” where certain companies lose
business opportunities because of some technological inadequacy.
Minghetti and Buhalis have conducted research on the digital divide
in the context of the tourism industry. Their work highlights chal-
lenges in areas such as marketing and communications between tourism-
generating countries and tourist destinations. Tourists and enterprises
from these developed, tourism-generating regions interact on electronic
platforms. These platforms reduce the need for brick-and-mortar loca-
tions where enterprises and clients have to interact face-to-face. According
to Minghetti and Buhalis,

The study of the digital divide is critical for less technologically devel-
oped regions that need to expand their ICT usage to be able to promote
their offerings, interact with consumers, and reduce their dependence on
intermediaries.8

One important consideration from the study is the fact that tourists who
are not tech-savvy, and destinations that are behind current trends in ICT,
still rely on the older way of doing things and, naturally, utilize travel
agencies with physical locations. This scenario applies to the Caribbean.
There appears to still be a fairly high dependence on physical interme-
diaries, i.e., travel agencies with physical locations that clients can visit for
face-to-face engagement. Specifically, The Jamaica Tourist Board, along
with other enterprises in the tourism and hospitality industry, ensure that
relationships are maintained with intermediaries such as The American
Society of Travel Agents and The Association of British Travel Agents.
Due to this state of affairs, three issues become clear.
Tech-savvy tourists from developed countries who prefer to conduct
their travel arrangements online may not be captured by more traditional
marketing efforts in the Caribbean.

7 Minghetti and Buhalis (2010).

8 Minghetti and Buhalis (2010, p. 278).
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

The Caribbean’s image as a tourist destination may be negatively

affected if they are unable to interact with the islands’ tourism and travel
options via the internet. According to Govers, “covertly induced and
autonomous agents, in particular, have a dramatic influence” over the
image of a travel destination in the minds of consumers.9 These agents
include television, magazines, and the internet itself. And in the case of
Jamaica, where the Jamaica Tourist Board is focusing most of its efforts on
television advertisements,10 online promotion and engagement are paid
little attention; this is the reality for many other Caribbean islands as well.
As a result, the television advert may intrigue potential tourists, but be
disappointed when attempting to gain more information or seek booking
options online. Such circumstances wear away at a destination’s image.
Travel agencies within the Caribbean have significantly lessened over
the past decade. Regardless, they do play an active role in driving inbound
travel and tourism to the islands. They are typically focused on the
outbound market due to the fact that they do not receive commission
on inbound travel sales. The key to the issues previously highlighted the
online presence of Caribbean islands and their travel firms. Currently,
travel agencies receive little attention from local statutory bodies. The
potential opportunities provide an excellent argument for greater govern-
mental collaboration and support. The challenge is to motivate existing
travel firms to adopt ICT beyond simply an exchange of emails, and to
establish a stronger and more vibrant online presence. Right now, only
about 5% of local travel companies have active websites. So, the question
is, how do we motivate these companies to more readily adopt ICT and
make it a pivotal component of their company strategy?

Challenges in the Industry

This work was motivated by the fact that the Caribbean travel industry is
facing significant challenges. While the disintermediation that advanced
economies already experienced is only recently taking place in the
Caribbean travel industry, we have already seen a significant reduction
in the number of firms. For instance, according to the Jamaican Associ-
ation of Travel Agents (JATA), between 1999 and 2009 the number of

9 Govers et al. (2007, p. 19).

10 Williams and Spencer (2010).
6 A. SPENCER

travel agencies declined from 105 to 43; while in Trinidad and Tobago
the number of agencies moved from 11 to 5.
Upon further assessment, many firms in Jamaica, The Bahamas, and
Trinidad and Tobago were not implementing changes to similar opera-
tional procedures as those that were taking place in the global market-
place. The operational component that saw the least change was the use
of technology.
After the adoption of Global Distribution Systems (primarily Sabre and
Amadeus) in the 1990s, adoption of new technologies stalled. This was
considerably more the case with technologies that directly impacted sales
and marketing, despite the growing popularity of the internet. This obser-
vation leads one to wonder why domestic travel agencies were so slow to
adapt despite the obvious need for evolution in their business models.
It would be beneficial to understand why firms with similar character-
istics, and in similar contexts, have varying levels of ICT adoption. This
research will look at a number of possible factors, with the aim of deter-
mining the prime factor(s), as well as investigating pertinent issues and
challenges in the global environment.
Studies that focus on technology adoption are usually placed in one
of two phases, pre-internet or post-internet. The most renowned pre-
internet phase studies are based on earlier works by Rogers (1962) and
Davis (1989). These two schools of thought have fundamental differences
in understanding what drives the adoption of technology.
Roger’s perspective, termed the “diffusion of innovations,” focuses on
innovation, communication, and the role of society. Davis, on the other
hand, sees adoption from the perspective of the user and their assessment
of this new technology. Is it easy to use? Does it do what I need it to? This
school of thought is referred to as the “technology acceptance model.”
When it comes to post-internet phase studies, the general consensus is
that the internet is the most widespread, most pervasive technology ever
devised. Even more so than those technological developments that led
to improvements in farming production, such as those studied by Rogers
(1962).
It has been observed over the last 30 years that industrial economies
have evolved into information economies. According to Parker (1988), it
is information, not land nor capital, that will drive the creation of wealth
and prosperity for the foreseeable future. Technology has permanently
changed the way that the world does business. Drucker (1990) takes it
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

a step further by arguing that, due to this shift, knowledge now has the
greatest impact as a means of production.
Naturally, those businesses that are quick to adopt technologies that
facilitate the transfer of knowledge (ICTs) gain a competitive advantage.11
Unfortunately, providing a simple definition of ICT is not an easy thing
to do.
Buhalis (2002) shows that ICTs include hardware, software, group-
ware (software that allows multiple remote individuals to collaborate on
a common project simultaneously), and NetWare (hardware and soft-
ware that facilitates communication between computers, including other
devices, on a digital network). But other major components of ICT are
the capacities and capabilities of the users of ICTs to develop, program,
and maintain these technologies. The best technologies in the world are
only as powerful as the capabilities of those who are using them. Given
how broad the topic of ICT is, it’s important to point out that the main
focus of this book is the single most pervasive technology of them all, the
Internet.
While the internet was originally conceived and had its tentative start in
1969, it was not until 1991, more than twenty years later, that it became
publicly accessible and grew into the internet we know today.
The internet became one of the most ubiquitous technologies ever,
spreading across regions faster than any technology before it. Its impact
and potential are so profound that organizations and businesses world-
wide had to reassess their policies, procedures, and general ways of doing
things.12
Other post-internet phase theorists argue that, apart from affecting
various aspects of business, the internet has led to the modification and
restructuring of entire economic sectors.13 The internet demonstrated
this amazing ability to penetrate and transform these multiple economic
sectors and industries, both as an external force and as an internal driver.

11 Porter (2001).
12 Klein (1996), Grieger (2003), Amit and Zott (2001).
13 Kalakoa and Whinston (1996), Gatty (1998), Ghosh (1998), Timmers (1998), Wirtz
(2001).
8 A. SPENCER

The Research Context

In the Caribbean, travel and tourism is one of the leading sources of
economic activity, as such the industry is one of the leading industry
providers of jobs in Jamaica, and the Bahamas whether directly or
indirectly. While in Trinidad it contributes significantly in regards to
employment, with room for tremendous improvement. That being the
case, it is vital that we gain an understanding of the local economic
environment in which travel and tourism firms operate.
The Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago can be classified as high-
income countries while Jamaica is a middle-income country. Both Jamaica
and The Bahamas are oil-importing countries. The typology of these
Caribbean countries under examination is slightly nuanced with The
Bahamas being a predominantly customer service export or tourism
industry; Jamaica on the other hand can be classified as a mixed
goods export/customer service (or tourism) industry while Trinidad and
Tobago mainly exports Goods particularly, oil but the tourism industry is
one that thrives in the country.14 The Caribbean has made tremendous
progress in the post-independence period, with numerous countries like
the aforementioned earning middle income and high-income status based
on growth per capita income. Nonetheless, the region is riddled with
several developmental challenges which negatively impact growth and
productivity. In light of these challenges, the region has been tasked to
rethink and restructure their approach to development. Therefore, struc-
tural changes in terms of identifying and investing in priority economic
industries especially when faced with crisis have been the balancing act
carried out by Caribbean states. For instance, Jamaica’s focus on the
tourism industry occurred due to the downturn of the bauxite and
aluminum industry in the 1970s despite it being the heart of the Jamaican
economy decades prior.
The social context of the Caribbean influences the perception of new
technologies. A major vehicle for this influence is the formal education
system. Before independence, most schooling was provided by churches;
today, the majority of schools are provided by the government.15

14 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 2012. Devel-
opment paths in the Caribbean. Retrieved from https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/
38253-development-paths-caribbean.
15 Whyte (1983).
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

Driven by a mandate of universal literacy, tuition became free and school

attendance in the Bahamas, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago was made
compulsory for all children at various educational levels.
As for higher education, courses are offered by numerous tertiary insti-
tutions, namely The University of the West Indies which has campuses
located in The Bahamas, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Interestingly, even some American universities have recently begun
offering courses locally in Jamaica.
Courses on tourism have been available at the University of the West
Indies since the 1970s. Initially, students would enter their first year at
one of UWI’s three campuses (Mona, St. Augustine and Cave Hill) and
complete their final two years of study in The Bahamas. Since 2006,
however, the Mona campus initiated a full three-year course, allowing
Jamaican students who wish to study tourism to do so in their own
country.
Each of the aforementioned tertiary institutions has contributed, to
some degree, to tourism and hospitality training of the country’s work-
force. In Jamaica, this effort saw significant growth when the College
of Arts, Science and Technology became the University of Technology
(UT). Unlike the courses offered on other campuses, those offered by UT
have a more scientific focus, with the additional aim of imparting tech-
nical skills to its students. It appears, however, that the “trickle-down” of
these skills to the rest of Jamaican society has been slow, and this is having
a direct negative impact on business in the island; the same can be said
for other Caribbean states.
Travel agencies tend to use technology that has been adopted by the
public at large. This makes the technological context of the country
important when it comes to understanding why travel agencies operate
the way they do. Internet penetration within The Bahamas, Jamaica, and
Trinidad and Tobago are 89,16 95, and 160%17 respectively.18
As mobile and cell phones increased in popularity, the demand for land-
lines dropped precipitously. The number of landlines supplied dropped

16 https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/mobile-phone-penetration-as-of-popula
tion/bahamas/#:~:text=Mobile%20phone%20penetration%20as%20a,than%20in%20the%
20previous%20year.
17 https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/three-company-liberalisation-has-bro
ught-host-benefits-consumers-along-stronger-0.
18 https://www.internetworldstats.com/carib.htm.
10 A. SPENCER

from over half a million to approximately three hundred thousand as

of 2006 in Jamaica. The introduction of internet connectivity to the
Caribbean, connecting States like the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Trinidad and
Tobago to the rest of the world opened up a whole new set of possibilities:
e-commerce.
As developing nations, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Trinidad and
Tobago has a lot to gain by participating in the global economy. America
is our largest trading partner, and we are competing with the world. It is
vital that we implement the infrastructure that will allow us to engage with
those consumers on the same level as other nations around the world.
Given the limited size and scope of these States, including its human
capital, we have to develop quickly. Otherwise, we risk eventually facing
record deficits. While tourism, agriculture, mining or energy currently
provide a substantial portion of the revenue for these States, all of those
local industries, by US standards, suffer from deficient technology.
The Bahamas, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago have never been a
major tourist-generating country, and most of the travel associated with
the islands is inbound. Specifically, tourism began in Jamaica in the 1890s
when the United Fruit Company had been experiencing a spate of excess
capacity in their ships. Seeing an opportunity, they began offering cruises
to Jamaica. Tourist hotels on the island soon followed, but it was not until
after the Second World War that tourism in Jamaica began to flourish. The
number of hotels tripled between 1945 and 1970, as investments at that
time were benefiting from accelerated depreciation allowances.
Being geographical neighbors, most of the Bahamas, Jamaica, and
Trinidad and Tobago’s inbound travelers are from the United States.
Likewise, most of their outbound travel is to the United States. This is
reflected in the sizable diaspora in that country. As a tourist destination,
though, these States receive far more tourists than it generates.
While it is commonly understood that Bahamians, Jamaicans, Trinida-
dians and Tobagonians travel to visit friends and family overseas, data on
them traveling to other countries for vacation is practically nonexistent.
This is probably due to the limited economic means of the average house-
hold. Despite the lack of data for outbound vacationers, the number of
Caribbean citizens living in other countries would indicate that there is a
demand for outbound travel for those who wish to visit family and friends
overseas.
For instance, the Jamaica diaspora is huge! According to some esti-
mates, there are as many people of Jamaican descent living outside of the
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

island as within it. The largest concentrations of the diaspora are located
in three countries:

• The United States

• Canada
• The United Kingdom.

As of 2008, there are roughly 637,000 second-generation Jamaican immi-

grants (those born in foreign countries) in the United States; 123,500
in Canada; and 150,000 in the United Kingdom, according to each
country’s statistical bureau.
Outbound travel in Jamaica and other Caribbean States is usually
handled by travel agencies with physical locations; agencies that have been
facing significant challenges over the past two decades. In 2000, American
Airlines, British Airways, and the regional-carrier Air Jamaica cut commis-
sions for regional travel agencies from 9 to 6%. According to the Jamaica
Gleaner, American Airlines implemented the cuts first, then travel agencies
responded by boycotting the sale of American Airlines tickets.
This action proved futile, however, as American Airlines (which
accounted for 70% of the air traffic to the region) opted to offer
direct bookings. The agencies’ position was further weakened when, two
months later, British Airways and Air Jamaica followed suit. In 2009,
further cuts followed, taking commissions from 6 to 3%. This, and other
changes in airline reservation practices, has led to the closure of numerous
travel agencies and a proliferation in unregistered agencies. In Jamaica the
Minister of Tourism stated, local unregistered agencies have no insurance
nor protection for their clients. Some have even faced the consequences
for selling travel packages that did not materialize.19
To provide a deterrent against the practice, the government passed
legislation to increase the fine for operating an unregistered travel agency
to a maximum of JMD$1,000,000.
The strategy being used up to this point, offering a limited set of
services to outbound travelers, is failing. This research posits that, in
addition to a reexamination of the market, current business practices and
processes must also be reexamined in order to generate a more adaptable
business model, especially with regard to technology.

19 Jamaica Gleaner (2011).

12 A. SPENCER

Methodology
The aim of this research is to determine what drives (or hinders) the adop-
tion of internet technologies for sales and marketing purposes in small,
owner-managed travel firms in the Caribbean. To that end, we have the
following objectives:

1. To examine those factors and drivers that determine the different

levels of technology adoption in travel agencies.
2. To explore the relationship between leadership and technology
adoption in owner-managed small firms.
3. To look at the influence of internal factors such as strategy and
resources on technology adoption in owner-managed small firms.
4. To investigate issues such as the digital divide and culture to see how
they affect technology adoption in owner-managed small firms.
5. To determine those characteristics of leaders and firms that lead to
the various levels of technology adoption develop a useful model of
technology adoption for owner-managed small travel firms.

The debate so far has existed mainly between positivism and interpre-
tivism, and each school of thought has greatly influenced how research
has been conducted. However, to achieve the aims of this work, Critical
Social Science provides greater grounding.
Embedded within Critical Social Science is the idea that, by providing
critique, objective truths may be uncovered. Truths that can help people
and encourage them to take action.20 Critical Social Science aims to
supply individuals and societies with the tools to enact positive change.
More importantly, it allows for the uncovering of underlying structures
and systems. This “uncovering” provides greater context for under-
standing societies and economies, allowing people to both see and alter
deeper structures. Fundamentally, the aim of this research is to dispel
myths and provide actionable information that will empower people to
change society for the better.
To do this, we must explore the Caribbean context in order to deter-
mine the conditions that local travel agencies are facing. To adopt a
“one-size-fits-all” approach, one would have to assume that the drivers of

20 Neuman (2006).
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

technology acceptance and the diffusion of innovation are universal. This

research supports the idea that firms should never become complacent
and should explore all possibilities while keeping all observable threats
and opportunities under consideration.
This research also aims to explore the opinions and feelings of stake-
holders in order to gain further insight. It proposes to explore the issues
through the qualitative inquiry of a small sample in order to extract more
universal conclusions. This research is rooted in Critical Science Theory,
but more specifically, it subscribes to the concept of Bounded Autonomy,
which argues that while there is some degree of subjectivity in human
actions, those actions are bound within identifiable limits. In other words,
while there are limits to what can be done, people are free to make what-
ever combination and/or permutations of choices they wish within those
limits.
This approach blends determinism (Positivism) and voluntarism (Inter-
pretivism) to show how social/economic structures and human agency
interact. Previous research on technology adoption mostly utilized deter-
minism/positivism.21 The blended approach in this work assumes that
people will only make choices based on what they think is possible within
identifiable limits. These limits may be cultural or material. Cultural
constraints refer to values, beliefs, and norms, while material constraints
may be a matter of limited resources. With this in mind, the research
attempts to explore the reality of Jamaican travel agencies and how they
relate to other realities.
The decision to focus this study on travel firms was as a result of:

1. the significant decline in the number of firms and

2. the lack of research into the Caribbean travel industry.

The lessons learned here may help to understand other similar indus-
tries and Caribbean territories. The primary commonalities being small,
owner-managed firms in relationship-oriented, developing economies.
This research is being conducted on a qualitative basis, with an induc-
tive approach; it is more concerned with the meanings, definitions and
concepts at play than the statistics and measures. It also means that we will

21 Davis (1989), Bagozzi (2007), Fuchs et al. (2010).

14 A. SPENCER

be using a small sample size to derive truth that is more generally appli-
cable. Furthermore, given that the core data of our research is more of a
textual nature than a numerical one, we will be using the Template Anal-
ysis techniques. Template Analysis derives common themes and narratives
from the text data collected. This can be text produced or used in the
context of the evaluation regardless of the evaluation activity, i.e., data
that was not generated by the evaluation.22
Neuman (2006) argues that qualitative researchers should develop
rudimentary working ideas and continually refine them throughout the
data collection and analysis process, instead of taking abstract ideas and
turning them into full theoretical definitions when studies are still in their
early stages. As data is collected and analyzed new concepts are developed,
formulates for major constructs are defined and the relationships among
them are considered, further developing the general theory. The initia-
tion and operation of this process comes before the conceptualization of
the relevant theories, but conceptualization occurs organically during the
execution of the research.
The execution of the research also involves describing how working
ideas are developed during the observation and collection of data. This
makes it more of an “after the fact” description than a pre-planned tech-
nique. This also illustrates how data and preconceived notions about what
that data means can become constructs.
Reliability and validity are typical notions within positivism. While reli-
ability is concerned with the extent to which results are consistent over
time, validity is concerned with the extent to which a study actually
measures what was intended.23 While these two issues may never be fully
resolved in this type of (qualitative) research, it is incumbent upon us to
demonstrate that the research is still credible and trustworthy. In fact,
according to Patton (2002), validity determines reliability in qualitative
research.
The research design, while predominantly qualitative, also incorporated
quantitative data that was analyzed in tandem with the qualitative data.
This made the analysis more robust and provided a foundation for deeper
qualitative inquiry. The interviews were semi-structured, and the ques-
tions were guided by both the objectives and a rudimentary conceptual

22 Crabtree and Miller (1999).

23 Golafshani (2003).
 1 INTRODUCTION 15

framework. While this did provide a deductive element to the study, the
dominant inductive approach was validated through a detailed template
analysis which identified common themes across cases. The results were
universal and transferable conclusions that were applicable across contexts
that shared the aforementioned commonalities:

• small, owner-managed travel firms

• located in similar developing countries.

It has been argued that adopting a qualitative approach reduces the level
of reliability and validity of a study. When studying concepts such as tech-
nology adoption, leadership, culture, the digital divide, resources, and
strategy, the predominant methods of study have been quantitative and
reductionist.
An important observation regarding the two major concepts being
researched (technology adoption and leadership) is that they both suffer
from similar methodological constraints, i.e., major studies on technology
adoption24 and leadership25 relied heavily on survey-based, quantitative
approaches. These studies have been important in identifying key vari-
ables and enabling further exploration, but it may be argued that that
methodology has been exhausted as a resource for new information.
Consequently, a different approach may prove to be more fruitful in
generating useful insights.

The Research Process

The research required a pilot study and two phases of data collection.
The pilot study confirmed the suitability of questionnaires and other tools
that were to be used in the first phase of data collection. It included
references to all the relevant constructs, including culture, the digital
divide, resources, etc. Ten respondents were interviewed to determine
the suitability of the questions.
The first phase of data collection was aimed at meeting the following
objectives:

24 Bagozzi (2007), Fuchs et al. (2010).

25 Choa (1998), Cole and Mehran (1998), Villalonga and Amit (2006), Welch (2003),
Ghobadian and O’Regan (2006).
16 A. SPENCER

• To explore the relationship between leadership and technology

adoption in owner-managed small firms.
• To look at the influence of internal factors such as strategy and
resources on technology adoption in owner-managed small firms.
• To investigate issues such as the digital divide and culture to see how
they affect technology adoption in owner-managed small firms.

The objectives listed above are three of the five objectives of this study,
and they are all output related. This means that these objectives are
expected to be met through the findings of the research itself as opposed
to input/process related objectives, which aim to influence the activity of
the data collection itself. In this study, four of the objectives are output
related, and one is input related:

• To examine those factors and drivers that determine the different

levels of technology adoption in travel agencies.

This input/process related objective emerged from the existing literature

and guided the design of the instrument used in the first phase of data
collection.
The instrument was constructed by using concepts that were tested
in various studies related to technology adoption. In order to effectively
probe and determine the appropriate questions to ask, concept maps were
employed. These concept maps, in addition to variables and constructs
used in previous research, were used as guides in the process of inquiry.
These emerged from the rudimentary conceptual framework we used
(Fig. 1.1). While conceptual frameworks typically do not emerge this early

Fig. 1.1 Full stack of steps in the innovation interdependence perspective

(Source Author’s Creation)
 1 INTRODUCTION 17

in qualitative research, a rudimentary framework does help the researcher

in streamlining ideas.26
As implied earlier, the interview instrument was a semi-structured one.
This approach was chosen because the concepts under scrutiny, while not
being new, are being applied in a different way. Despite the fact that
a qualitative methodology was dominant in the research, the first set
of questions on technology adoption used a closed-ended, quantitative
approach (“yes” or “no” answers) in order to gauge their current level of
engagement with technology.
The subsequent sections of the instrument were designed predomi-
nantly with open-ended questions, allowing for deeper explorations into
attitudinal concerns and processes within the firm. These subsequent
sections focused on organizational decision-making, leadership and a
multitude of macro factors.
According to organizational decision-making theorists such as Huber
and McDaniel (1986), organizational environments of the future are
likely to be characterized by greater complexity. They argue that the deci-
sions that are made within an organization, and how those decisions are
made, are central to it and should be recognized as such. That being the
case, it is important to get to the root of what drives those decisions, for
both the organization and the individuals within it.
Given the complexity mentioned above, to have the instrument be
guided by a single component model of attitude would be insufficient.
The decision was therefore made to use the multicomponent model.
The multicomponent model is an affective-cognitive model of attitude,
which postulates that behavior may be most accurately predicted through
a comprehensive understanding of the person, the situation and the inter-
action between person and situation. While this model has primarily been
used in psychology and human behavior research, it is being applied
to the organizational decision-making framework in this study. Notably,
this is the first time that this paradigm is being applied to the study of
technology adoption in business.
Rogers’ (1994) innovations adoption model provides us with tools
to assess leaders’ perceptions of innovations. Given that the leaders of
these firms are also the owners, the decision was made to focus on three
characteristics that directly affected an owner’s return on investment:

26 Vaughan (2008).
18 A. SPENCER

• relative advantage
• perceived risk
• image.

Issues of Compatibility and Complexity were later assessed based on

employee reactions to technologies.

• Relative Advantage was investigated using five statements that

initially addressed the importance of technology in business
processes and then moved on to more detailed questions around
making work more efficient.27
• Perceived Risk, with regard to technology, was addressed in three
open-ended questions. These questions inquired into the perceived
risk of investment from the perspective of time and money.28
• Image was measured using two questions: how competitors view the
firm and how the firm’s own customers view it.29
• Complexity was determined through questions regarding how easy
the technology was to use,30 how easy it was to learn to use, and
whether it actually made work easier or harder.
• Compatibility was assessed by how appropriate a technology was
for the tasks being carried out in the organization.31 Of note
is a particular question, developed by the researcher, that asked
how technologies were assessed before being introduced to the
organization.

The sample for this study was comprised of the top executives of 31
travel agencies in Jamaica. While total agencies amount to 43, only those
with owner-managers were included in this research. This was decided
because they would clearly have greater levels of autonomy within their
firms. Additionally, only those firms that were certified by the Interna-
tional Air Transport Association would be included and interviewed. The
other firms were either a franchise or not certified by the IATA.

27 Eason (1988).
28 Wernerfelt (1984), Mowery et al. (1998).
29 Grönroos (1993).
30 Davis (1989).
31 Peteraf (1993).
 1 INTRODUCTION 19

All 31 executives were interviewed as the only constraint was time. The
questions were guided by the conceptual framework, but interviewees
were allowed to speak freely. We started off the interview with closed-
ended questions and proceeded to ask several open-ended questions while
ensuring that all interviews were recorded and transcribed. The decision
was made to comb through the data in order to identify any themes. This
involved writing a case study based on all the data from the participating
firms and then conducting a cross-case and comparative analysis.
This led to an exhaustive review of the responses to interview ques-
tions, which eventually revealed several common themes. The themes
were shared among firms at similar adoption levels. Analysis of phase one
data yielded several categories of technology adoption:

• Computer Adopters used computers but only for back-office

accounting and front of house sales systems. Firms that use GDSs as
their ONLY online sales tools are also included here. Why? Because
the GDSs’ suppliers provided them for free.
• Internet Adopters are those firms that use the internet for commu-
nication purposes (email, instant messaging, Skype, etc.).
• Website Adopters refers to firms that have company websites that are
a part of their marketing and information strategy.
• E-Commerce Adopters use their websites for booking and payment
facilitation.
• Social Media Adopters are actively participating in social media as a
central part of their marketing, information and sales strategy.

Influenced by the work of Damanpour (1991), each firm was categorized

in one of two states within each level:

• Initiation
• Implementation.

While analysis of the data from phase one provided us with the “what”
(descriptions of the firms), it did not sufficiently tell us the “why.” Why
were each of the firms at their respective levels? Issues such as the digital
divide, culture, strategy, and resources did not adequately answer the
question as we anticipated they would, but leadership did appear to have
some significance.
20 A. SPENCER

Now, even though there appeared to be some degree of causation

when it came to leadership, it still could not explain each level of adoption
that was observed; hence, it was not sufficient to build out a model. It
was at this point that it was decided that a second phase of data collection
would be necessary. This second phase would be guided by constructs in
the most dominant leadership research at the time and aim to identify
variables in leadership that influenced the level of technology adoption in
firms.
The feelings of Owners were explored through in-depth, semi-
structured interviews, which allowed for the application of Template
Analysis.32 This analysis allowed us to find common themes in the various
narratives, enabling the inclusion of broader underlying structures in
the analysis. This analysis was reinforced by utilizing a cross-case anal-
ysis matrix (cross-case analysis is a research method that can mobilize
knowledge from individual case studies) and, since the interviews were
recorded, respondents’ own words could be used as an aid to more
accurate categorization.
The objective of Phase 2 was to develop a model of staged tech-
nology adoption for owner-managed small travel firms that identifies
the characteristics of leaders and firms at varying levels of technology
adoption.
To meet this new objective, the second instrument was designed
in a more focused manner but relied solely on open-ended questions.
Given that leadership type was the major influencing factor of tech-
nology adoption for the travel firms, the second instrument’s questions
were grounded in the transformational leadership literature. The purpose
being to strengthen and validate the leadership constructs and variables
identified in phase 1.
This instrument uses, as a guide, the four constructs identified by Bass
and Avolio (2003) in the Multifactor Leadership questionnaire. These
constructs are:

• Idealized influence
• Inspirational motivation
• Intellectual stimulation
• Individualised consideration.

32 Crabtree and Miller (1999).

 1 INTRODUCTION 21

The initial set of questions in the instrument attempted to clarify issues

related to people’s experience with technology, risk, and education. Each
of these issues had emerged as a major theme during the analysis of phase
one data, requiring deeper investigation.
All 31 owner-managed firms were invited for a second round of inter-
views, but only 20 of them agreed to participate. The major reason given
by those firms that did not agree to the second round was time. Despite
this setback, the number of firms that were willing to participate was
sufficient for the study and a significant volume of data was gathered.
In this second phase of interviews, a relationship was identified
between transformational traits and firm adoption levels. Those leaders
who possessed more transformational characteristics shared commonali-
ties such as:

• education level and type

• previous work experience
• family composition
• technology experience
• risk aversion
• and intellectual stimulation.

With this information, leadership typologies were developed for each level
of technology adoption within the firms. While education levels of respon-
dents were determined from revisiting phase one data, the remaining
variables were gleaned from data collected in phase two.
Initially, out of all the variables, intellectual stimulation was the only
one that seemed to influence technology adoption behavior for leaders
but, once the other variables were combined in the analysis, greater
synchronicities were uncovered. The template analysis technique was once
again employed, along with a cross-case analysis matrix33 and the results
led to the generation of useful descriptive summaries. These summaries
provided the tools to explain particular variables and led to an evaluation
of how gaps in the literature may be filled.
Combining the data from both phases of the study conveniently
allowed for the development of case studies. The approach taken was
to examine individual cases and compare them, looking for similarities.

33 Patton (2002).
22 A. SPENCER

This enabled the comparison of cases, and leadership characteristics, for

firms at opposite ends of the technology adoption hierarchy.

Limitations and Impediments

This book provides for greater depth by viewing its research subject
through the lens of Critical Social Science. It does this in two ways:

1. By giving credit to previously unearthed variables in the predomi-

nantly positivist studies of the last few decades.
2. By using the constructs and variables generated by those studies to
probe deeper within the context of this research.

This allows for a deeper look into technology adoption and leadership
while adding greater breadth to areas such as the resource-based view
and strategic management.
Nonetheless, a major (and consistent) challenge was the time-
constraint of owner-managers. Due, of course, to their integral involve-
ment in the daily operations of the business. As a result, most interviews
had to take place in the evenings when business activity was reduced. This
had the knock-on effect of interviewees being tired during the hour-long
interview. Apart from fatigue, interviewees were also concerned about
being recorded. Fortunately, assurances that their anonymity would be
maintained, by way of signed agreements, were sufficient to allay their
anxieties. Said anonymity was practiced throughout the extent of the
study and still remains in effect.

The Structure of the Book

Chapter 1 provides a review of the theories surrounding the decision-
making process with regard to technology adoption. It addresses issues
such as strategic management, organizational decision-making and tech-
nology adoption processes. More specific to technology adoption, the
chapter delves into issues of the digital divide, culture, leadership and
resources. The chapter concludes with two conceptual frameworks that
illustrate how the aforementioned constructs interact.
Chapter 2 characterizes the firms that were interviewed and highlights
both their current technology activities and their intention to use other
 1 INTRODUCTION 23

technologies. This chapter also presents data about the role of strategy
and resources when it comes to making decisions about adopting “new”
technologies. Issues of risk are also addressed here.
Chapter 3 takes a closer look at macro factors like culture and the
digital divide. How do intangibles such as norms, values, traditions and
access to technology drive adoption? This chapter focuses on how external
factors influence innovation and the making of leaders in firms.
Chapter 4 emphasizes leadership as the key determinant in technology
adoption. While other factors do play a role, the data reveals that lead-
ership is the most central. A discussion of the findings that reinforce this
point is elaborated on in this chapter.
Chapter 5 provides a breakdown of how the emergent model from this
research was developed. It begins with a reassessment of the framework
presented in Chapter one and expounds on a revised iteration. Demon-
strations are provided of how each component of the final model was
identified and how they interact to provide a coherent model.
The Conclusion shows how this work meets the research objectives
and contributes to the body of knowledge. It highlights the novelty of
the research and its intended impact on theory and practice.

References
Amit, R., & Zott, C. 2001. “Value Creation in E-business.” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 22(6–7): 493–520.
Bagozzi, R.P. 2007. “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a
Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 8(4): 3.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 2003. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Redwood City: Mind Garden. www.mindgarden.com.
Buhalis, Dimitrios. 2002. eTourism: Information Technologies for Strategic
Tourism Management. Essex: Pearson Education.
Choa, Myeong-Hyeon. 1998. “Ownership Structure, Investment and the Corpo-
rate Value: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics 47(1):
103–121.
Cole, Rebel A., and Hamid Mehran. 1998. “The Effect of Changes in Ownership
Structure on Performance: Evidence from the Thrift Industry.” Journal of
Financial Economics 50(3): 291–317.
Crabtree, Benjamin, and William Miller. 1999. “A Template Approach to Text
Analysis: Developing and Using Codebooks.” In Doing Qualitative Research,
24 A. SPENCER

edited by Benjamin Crabtree, and William Miller, 163–177. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.
Damanpour, Fariborz. 1991. “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-analysis of
Effects of Determinants and Moderators.” Academy of Management Journal
34(3): 555–590.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
tion Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–339.
Drucker, Peter. 1990. Post Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Business.
Eason, Ken. 1988. Information Technology and Organizational Change. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Fuchs, Matthias, Wolfram Hopken, Andreas Foger, and Martin Kunz. 2010. “E-
Business Readiness, Intensity, and Impact: An Austrian Destination Manage-
ment Organization Study.” Journal of Travel Research 49(2): 165–178.
Gatty, Bob. 1998. “E-Commerce Gives Lodging Industry Edge.” Hotel and
Motel Management 213.
Ghobadian, Abby, and Nicholas O’Regan. 2006. “The Impact of Ownership on
Small Firm Behaviour and Performance.” International Small Business Journal
24(6): 555–584.
Ghosh, Shikhar. 1998. “Making Business Sense of the Internet.” Harvard
Business Review 124–135.
Golafshani, Nahid. 2003. “Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative
Research.” The Qualitative Report 8(4): 597–607.
Govers, Robert F., Frank M. Go, and Kumar Kuldeep. 2007. “Promoting
Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Research 46(1): 15–23.
Grieger, M. 2003. “Electronic Marketplaces: A Literature Review and a Call
for Supply Chain Management Research.” European Journal of Operational
Research 144(2): 280–294.
Grönroos, C. 1993. “An applied Service Marketing Theory.” European Journal
of Marketing 16(7): 30–34.
Huber, George, and Reuben McDaniel. 1986. “The Decision-making Paradigm
of Organizational Design.” Management Science 32(5): 572–589.
Jamaica Gleaner. 2011. “Tourism Minister Targets Illegal Travel Agents.”
Accessed July 27, 2011. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110724/bus
iness/business7.html.
Kalakoa, Ravi, and Andrew B. Whinston. 1996. Frontiers of eCommerce. Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
Klein, Stefan. 1996. Interorganisationssysteme und Unternehmensnetzwerke. St.
Gallen: Universität St. Gallen.
Law, Rob, and Rita Leung. 2000. “A Study of Airlines’ Online Reservation
Services on the Internet.” Journal of Travel Research 39: 202.
 1 INTRODUCTION 25

Lin, Pei-Jung, Eleri Jones, and Sheena Westwood. 2009. “Perceived Risk and
Risk-relievers in Online Travel Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management 18(8): 782–810.
Minghetti, Valeria, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2010. “Digital Divide in Tourism.”
Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.
Moital, Miguel, Roger Vaughan, and Jonathan Edwards. 2009. “Using Involve-
ment for Segmenting the Adoption of E-commerce in Travel.” Service
Industries Journal 29(5): 723–739.
Mowery, David C., Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian Silverman. 1998. “Technological
Overlap and Interfirm Cooperation: Implications for the Resource-Based View
of the Firm.” Research Policy 27: 507–523.
Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quanti-
tative Approaches. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peteraf, Margaret A. 1993. “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A
Resource-based View.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–191.
Poon, Auliana. 2001. “The Future of Travel Agents.” Travel & Tourism Analyst
3: 57–80.
Porter, Michael. 2001. “Bewährte Strategien Werden mit dem Internet Noch
Wirksamer.” Harvard Business Manager 5: 64–81.
Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1994. A History of Communication Study—A Biographical Approach.
New York: The Free Press.
Timmers, Paul. 1998. “Business Models for Electronic Markets.” Electronic
Markets 8: 3–8.
Vaughan, Roger. 2008. “Conceptual Framework.” Power Point Presentation,
Bournemouth University. Accessed May 14, 2010. http://www.powershow.
com/view/a57f7-NDM1Y/Conceptual_Framework_Professor_Roger_Vau
ghan_May_29th_2008_flash_ppt_presentation.
Villalonga, B., and R. Amit. 2006. How Do Family Ownership, Control and
Management Affect Firm Value? Journal of Financial Economics 80(2): 385–
417.
Welch, Emma. 2003. “The Relationship between Ownership Structure and
Performance in Listed Australian Companies.” Australian Journal of Manage-
ment 28(3): 287–306.
Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. “A Resource-based View of the Firm.” Strategic
Management Journal 5: 171–180.
Werthner, Hannes. 1995. Design Principles of Tourism Information Systems.
Wien, Oldenburg.
———. 1996. Design Principles of Tourism Information Systems. Innsbruck:
Springer Verlag.
26 A. SPENCER

Werthner, Hannes, and Stefan Klein. 1999. Information Technology and Tourism:
A Challenging Relationship. Vienna: Springer Verlag.
Williams, Densil, and Andrew Spencer. 2010 “Advertising and Tourist Arrivals:
Evidence from Jamaica.” Tourism and Hospitality Research 10(4): 359–366.
Wirtz, Bernd W. 2001. Electronic Business. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Whyte, Millicent. 1983. A Short History of Education in Jamaica. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
 CHAPTER 2

Leadership and Technology: Understanding

Adoption Practices

Strategic management theory addresses topics such as competitiveness

and the factors that drive it, and the long-term vision of organizations.
One of the objectives of this study is to investigate the role of internal
firm factors. The literature on strategic management provides scope for
this as it relates to strategy and resources in the adoption of technology.
The competitive approach, pioneered by Porter,1 states that a company
develops its business strategies to obtain a competitive advantage over its
competitors.
In his seminal work, Porter points to several distinct competitive forces;
however, much of the research has indicated that firm strategy must
be influenced by not just competitors, but markets. While these are
useful arguments, they neglect inputs such as ownership, leadership, and
resources. This is a gap that this work seeks to fill. Also, at issue is the fact
that studies that look at the impact of strategy on technology adoption
(and other processes) have been merely superficial. Competitive strategy,
therefore, must become fundamental parts of the adoption discourse.
In assessing the five forces model,2 in conjunction with arguments
posited by David (2007), there appears to be consistency surrounding
the issue of competitiveness. That is, special attention must be given to

1 Porter (1985, 2001).

2 Porter (1985).

© The Author(s) 2021 27

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_2
28 A. SPENCER

both the external environment and the internal capabilities of organiza-

tions when it comes to survival within the same environment. As Porter
stated, a company develops its business strategies by responding to five
primary forces:

• The threat of new entrants

• Rivalry among existing firms within an industry
• The threat of substitute products/services
• Power of suppliers
• Power of buyers.

For companies operating in a globalized world, Porter’s model of the five

competitive forces addresses some key concerns. Companies must deal
with these forces effectively in order to achieve a competitive advantage in
the business environment. This model focuses on the value chains within
an entire industry, not merely the mechanisms within a specific company.
It describes a network of interlinked players that perform value-creating
activities. These other players must be considered in the strategy develop-
ment for a company. As such, adding Porter’s model to an e-commerce
strategy can provide a useful framework for making decisions.
The work of Enright and Newton, however, did address a gap in
Porter’s studies. They asserted that the importance of competitiveness
attributes might vary across locations, depending on product mix and
target market segments. This is especially the case in complex, multi-
faceted industries like tourism.
A dominant argument from Porter’s five forces model is that compa-
nies remain competitive by continually adapting to internal and external
changes, and this is regardless of industry.3 In fact, competitive strate-
gies tend to influence other business strategies within firms, such as the
distribution of products and services.
It seems clear, therefore, that where the external environment changes,
companies must have the ability to keep pace to stay ahead of the
competition. If they hope to compete, it cannot be business as usual.
Christopher4 defines distribution as “the process of strategically
managing the movement and storage of materials, parts and finished

3 David (2007).
4 Christopher (1992, p. 4).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 29

inventory from suppliers through the firm and onto its customers.” He
argues further that distribution strategies involve a more comprehensive
consideration of logistics, including inventory levels, materials manage-
ment and information systems (as it relates to transport). While there was
an awareness of the need for competitive distribution strategies, there
was also the need for new management skills. These new management
skills were required to facilitate the implementation of said competitive
distribution strategies.5 These new management skills include:

• systems management
• customer service management
• operations coordination.

The literature on distribution strategies, however, shifted focus from

internal management of the organization to emphasize on channels
strategy. Gattorna (1994) states that the most significant strategical chal-
lenge facing organizations is the development of a channels strategy.
While much of the earlier literature focused on the distribution of tangible
product, Gattorna highlights that any progressive organization, including
those that trade in intangibles, should attempt to collect the right strategy
to get the final product or service to the consumer.6
Despite this, his definition of distribution channels still reflects a preoc-
cupation with tangible goods. He defines the distribution channel as a
commercial arrangement to transport a product from the point of produc-
tion to the point of consumption. It has been identified here that, even
with a focus on tangible distribution, sometimes a change of company
would be needed or merely appropriate.
In order to establish a distribution channel, three determinants are
required.7

1. The requirements of the final customer, as measured by an aggregation

of customers with similar requirements. The channels strategy will
depend on the potential customers in the segment and what route

5 DeHayes and Taylor (1972), Persson (1978), Christopher (1986).

6 Chandler (2003), DeHayes and Taylor (1972), Persson (1978), Christopher (1986).
7 Rushton and Oxley (1993), Gattorna (1994), Hatton (1994), Chorn (1994).
30 A. SPENCER

will reach them most efficiently. In the context of e-commerce adop-

tion, this may be determined by whether or not the market segment
is predisposed to online transactions.
2. The capabilities of the organization. The resource-based perspective
says that a firm’s strategic decisions are, in large part, influenced by
its resources, which may also allude to management capabilities.
3. The availability and willingness of intermediaries to participate in the
channel. The discussion of intermediaries has focused on their role
as a conduit for the supplier; however, very little is said about the
determinants of their distribution strategies.

Discussions of channel strategy, however, moved to a broader debate of

managing the entire supply chain. Within the discourse on international
distribution,8 it is posited that companies involved in said industry must
be carefully managed to ensure that goods and services reach their target
market efficiently.9 This shows an emphasis on the needs of the consumer
and for the supplier to use their resources efficiently. It puts the respon-
sibility of controlling these factors, including the intermediaries, on the
supplier and ignores the fact that the intermediary itself must also manage
their bidirectional relationships within the supply chain.
Schary and Larsen (1998) state that the concept of the supply chain
embraces several elements. Firstly, it identifies the complete process of
providing goods and services to the end-user/consumer and brings the
activities of supplier and customer into a single system. This is coordinated
through an information system that is accessible to all members. They
highlight that while the main objective of the supply chain is to service
customers, this must be balanced against costs and assets.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; hence, members of the
supply chain do not do this on their own. The achievement of efficient
performance of the supply chain is dependent on the performance of
the chain as a whole. And this requires the management of a network
of interconnected businesses10 to achieve the least total logistics cost.
The travel supply chain, like supply chains in many other industries,
involves the supplier, wholesaler, retailer, and consumer. The suppliers

8 Rushton and Oxley (1993).

9 Chorn (1994).
10 Harland (1996).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 31

are those that provide services—airlines, hotels, attractions, and car rental
companies. Wholesalers refer to companies such as tour operators and
companies, like Thomas Cook and Thomson Travel, that create travel
packages. Finally, at the end of the chain, retailers are travel agencies that
sell these tour bookings and travel packages to the consumers. Being the
contact point to the consumer, it is vital to investigate what factors drive
or deter the travel agents’ engagement in e-commerce.
Hamel and Prahalad (1994) observed that, in the effort to secure a
more significant global market share, an effectively managed distribution
chain is the most crucial element in a global strategy. Effective manage-
ment will involve managing costs and satisfying existing market share
while claiming new market share. Travel firms must apply these principles
while meeting the competing needs of suppliers and consumers.
It costs to establish a presence within markets, so suppliers must
conduct cost–benefit analyses to ensure that the benefits of gaining access
to said markets are worth the costs. Many firms, such as Google, do this
through strategies that enable them to give away their product for free.
Terpstra (1991) adds that, from a marketing perspective, there are three
distribution tasks:

• gaining entry into a foreign market

• serving multiple markets simultaneously
• establishing a presence as an insider to each market.

Supply chains can be manipulated and modified depending on the needs

of the supplier and customer. Managers who are alert to the realities
of the marketplace are constantly seeking a competitive advantage. One
cannot assume that good products will sell themselves, nor that today’s
success will carry forward into tomorrow.11 It is on this basis that orga-
nizations are constantly seeking new sources of revenue while minimizing
distribution costs.
While contemporary theorists focus on the distribution strategies of
suppliers, it may be argued that keen attention should also be paid to the
intermediaries within the chain. These firms must also make critical deci-
sions regarding how to reach their markets and transact business. Given

11 Christopher (1998).
32 A. SPENCER

the reduced transaction costs and commissions, travel intermediaries

should be eliminated entirely.12
When Caribbean travel agencies attempted to boycott the sale of Amer-
ican Airlines tickets in 2000, their efforts proved futile. To further the
point, Hatton (2004) points out that the reduction of commissions paid
and the competition provided by the internet present an uncertain oper-
ating environment. Further still, in 2003, British Airways reduced agent’s
commission in the United Kingdom to 1%. What is clear from this trend
is that organizations must do whatever is necessary to ensure profitability.
Either by increasing revenues, reducing costs or both. With inflation,
competition, and rising oil prices, revenue increases may only be marginal
as lower prices may not be passed on to the customer. Given these issues,
the main focus is, therefore on reducing costs, especially those related to
distribution.
Pearce (2009) argues that suppliers and their location destinations
must seek to develop more effective distribution strategies. He contends
that, in trying to understanding distribution design, the existing tourism-
marketing literature has taken a tier-by-tier approach rather than a more
useful network approach. This, he argues, has led to channel width
considerations being poorly addressed.
However, while the network approach is useful, it fails to address
the deeper operational concerns of specific players. And for those cases
of research (on tourism) that do pay attention to specific players, it
tends to be on either suppliers or consumers. Alternatively, the literature
gives attention to the relationship between suppliers and wholesalers13
or between intermediaries.14 This work contends that greater emphasis
should be placed on why travel retailers choose the business strategies
that they use.
There has been much study done on travel agencies,15 but this work is
focused on what agencies need to do to avert disintermediation—namely
the issue of internet adoption. Despite compelling arguments, many firms

12 Buhalis and Licata (2002).

13 Crotts et al. (1998), Karamustafa (2000).
14 Lumsdon and Swift (1999).
15 Palmer and McCole (1999), Barnett and Standing (2001), Dale (2003), Law et al.
(2004).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 33

have yet to adopt the internet as a part of their marketing and sales
strategy. It is the objective of this work to determine why that is.
Intermediaries do not operate at either end of the supply chain. There-
fore, an investigation into their relationship with suppliers is critical to
understanding the strategies which they employ. The concept of strategic
purchasing is not a new one,16 and neither is the concept of relationships
in business. Theorists have suggested that business buyers should create a
strategy that consists of four elements:

• self-analysis
• vendor analysis
• vendor performance
• program review.

The purchaser must conduct detailed research before entering into an

agreement. It is vital that buyers adopt a systematic approach to trans-
acting with vendors, because the stock you by, your inputs, will invariably
affect your outputs.
A major element in the field of strategic procurement management is
the ability to manage relationships with other firms in the supply chain.17
According to Cox (1998), an effective business strategy recognizes that a
firm’s boundaries must change in response to its consumers’ preferences.
This theoretical position was built on the works of other theorists18 who
focused primarily on reactive and simplistic approaches to purchasing and
supply management. Most of this previous analysis assumed that a firm’s
operating structure would remain fixed, and so focused on the interplay
between asset specificity and transaction costs.
Despite this, the issue of asset specificity was treated poorly in the
literature. This is because, due to the nature of their operations, most
intermediaries aren’t capable of sourcing internally and so must source
externally, regardless of whether services have low or high asset specificity.
Cox, therefore, extends the discussion to address shifting boundaries and,
what he calls, “strategic supplier alliances.” These are alliances, often also

16 Eames and Norkus (1988).

17 Cox (1998).
18 Ricketts (1994), Williamson (1979, 1990), Reve (1990).
34 A. SPENCER

referred to as “joint ventures,” where very close, single-sourced relation-

ships may emerge between the main contracting firm and a supplier of a
complementary product or service.
The systems used by the primary supplier may influence those used by
the complementary supplier. In the case of an intermediary that relies on
a sole supplier for stock, this influence is likely to be more pronounced.
For example, if the primary supplier only sells stock online, then the
secondary or complementary suppliers may be somewhat “coerced” into
implementing systems that facilitate the purchase of stock online. This
is especially the case where relationships like those discussed by Cox are
manifested. It is on these grounds that he argues for a relational compe-
tence analysis. Relational competence analysis involves a determination of
what the efficient boundaries of the firm are so that these new bound-
aries can be set to reduce transaction costs and improve quality and value,
whether collaboratively or competitively.
Virolainen (1998) however, describes these approaches as “narrow,”
since the literature focuses on particular products but less so on the actual
procurement function. Instead, he proposes an integrated procurement
strategy that involves the following:

• value-chain positioning
• objectives setting
• organization structuring
• strategic make-or-outsource decisions
• choice of different strategies
• company-level strategy
• functional strategies.

However, while Virolainen has attempted to produce a more general

framework, what is needed is even greater specificity as the nature
of procurement varies by industry and relationship. Additionally, while
studies have focused on the acquisition of services, little has been done to
assess the nuances of procuring a product.
According to Ryals and Humphries (2007), there has been a quiet
revolution in supply-chain management. Whereas before, the focus used
to be on sourcing least-cost transactions, there has recently been a shift
in emphasis toward the formation of long-term relationships with a small
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 35

number of key suppliers. This is in contrast to the former prevailing view

that transaction cost is the key driver.19
This further reinforces the point made earlier that, through strong rela-
tionships, systems used by primary suppliers may influence the systems
used by complementary suppliers and intermediaries.
To date, procurement strategies focus primarily on offline modes of
distribution. However, given that, in most cases, supply-chain related
activities account for the spending of 70% of a firm’s revenue,20 then it is
recommended that other options, including e-procurement, be explored.
A discussion of e-commerce is vital as it looks at online transactions in
both directions along the supply chain:

• e-procurement, for business-to-business transactions

• e-distribution, for business-to-customer transactions.

These considerations have significant implications for firms’ business

strategies.
ICT can change the structure of an industry and alter the rules of
competition.21 It can also be used to create a sustainable competitive
advantage for companies, by providing them with new competitive instru-
ments, and allow them to develop new business within their existing
activities. Previous research has been preoccupied with how ICT modi-
fies strategy and industries but has failed to demonstrate how different
types of strategy affects levels of technology adoption. Recently, however,
Beckinsale et al. (2011) have emphasized the role of strategy in ICT adop-
tion, and it is contended that this reconceptualization is of critical impor-
tance. The emphasis is, therefore, on each decision-maker’s performance.
Meanwhile, those researchers that have based their work on broader,
organization-based decision-making, have built their work on the foun-
dations set in earlier work by Cyert and March (1963).
In an attempt to broaden the scope of the discourse, Langley et al.
(1995) recommend that future research into organizational decision-
making must address more complex issues. Issues such as the fact that
decisions are not made purely by cerebral rationality, but also by the

19 Ricketts (1994), Williamson (1979, 1990), Reve (1990).

20 Presutti (2003).
21 Porter and Millar (1985), Porter (2001).
36 A. SPENCER

experiences of the decision-maker. Additionally, single decisions should

be viewed as the result of the interaction of multiple issues. This suggests
dynamic linkages rather than simple linear ones.
Kwon et al. (2009) advocate for an integration of both approaches
in order to assess micro decision-making within the context of macro or
organizational decision-making. With this in mind, this book attempts
to identify those concepts that have been identified as having an impact
on technology adoption, and to observe how those concepts interact in
organizational decision-making more keenly.
Hubert and McDaniel emphasize that organizational environments of
the future will become more complex. As such, they suggest that firms
recognize the centrality of their decision-making mechanisms, and get to
the root of what drives decisions for both individuals and organizations.
To this end, Langley et al. (1995) emphasize those individuals who are
the key decision-makers within firms.
This work seeks to inform the theoretical analysis by further analysing
those general typologies that have already been recognized within existing
decision-making frameworks. Typologies such as:

• Decision-maker as creator—an intuitive individual who drives orga-

nizational decisions through creative insight.
• Decision-maker as actor—an individual who passively acts in accor-
dance with the current context that an organization finds itself. Such
as problems or opportunities.
• Decision-maker as carrier—an individual who carries their experi-
ences with them and is guided by the impact of their environment.

Previously, far less emphasis was placed on the vision and abilities of the
decision-maker, with the seminal literature22 considering them as more of
a “receptacle” and thus treating the individual as an actor. More contem-
porary research,23 however, declares the importance of insight in the role
of decision-makers and, thus, treats the individual as a creator. Of the
three recognized typologies, however, the least emphasized is that of the
carrier. This may be explained by the fact that both creators and actors

22 Simon (1957), Cyert and March (1963).

23 Hitt et al. (2001), Ghobadian and O’Regan (2006), Falk (2008).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 37

naturally have experiences based on local and global context. This is still
accounted for in the literature on culture and the digital divide.
Before continuing, it must be stated that decision-makers are often
referred to as leaders,24 so the two terms may be used interchangeably
throughout this text.
A significant development in the literature on organizational decision-
making came from an assessment of leadership styles. This is the distinc-
tion between transformational and transactional leadership.25 These two
forms of leadership have been shown to have distinct different impacts on
decision-making styles.
A transformational leader is one who is known to be a visionary—a
decision-maker who is charismatic and influences strategic transforma-
tion through motivation.26 A transactional leader, on the other hand, is
defined as an efficient manager who focuses on the task at hand and uses
a reward-driven approach.27 These types of leadership affect whether a
leader adopts a restricted or comprehensive decision-making style.28 This
work will assess the leadership role in the process of decision-making by
analyzing these typologies within various situational context.
There has also been some focus on what is referred to as pooled link-
ages and contextual linkages. Pooled linkages are those decision-making
issues that are linked through competition. This could be competition
for financial resources, managerial time and energy or any other limited
resource. Contextual linkages refer to situations in which the individual
and/or organization makes decisions within a culture, ideology, structure,
and/or strategy context.
Analyzing through a Critical Social Science lens allows the various
phenomena under scrutiny to be observed subjectively while acknowl-
edging objective limitations. This is a feature of the aforementioned
bounded autonomy concept. The discussion of the conceptual framework
at play begins with a critical review of the literature on technology adop-
tion models. More specifically, the behavior being focused on within

24 Victorino et al. (2006).

25 Tatum et al. (2003).
26 Kuhnert and Lewis (1987).
27 Ibid.
28 Tatum et al. (2003).
38 A. SPENCER

that model is the process of internet adoption, particularly for sales and
marketing purposes.
In light of limited resources, the decision to adopt technology-based
innovations must be a calculated one. Hence, understanding the consid-
erations that are involved in calculating whether or not to adopt new
technology is crucial. In some cases, decision-making may be a complex
process, involving multiple parties to approve adopting new technology,
while in others it may be a relatively simple unilateral decision by a single
leader.

Diffusion and Adoption

Diffusion and adoption are two distinct but relevant concepts in this
discussion. Whereas adoption is making use of an innovation within oper-
ational practices and processes, diffusion refers to how information about
an innovation is transmitted in a group.29 This work contends that both
of these concepts are interrelated and symbiotic. Knowledge transmis-
sion (diffusion) may affect the decision to use (adoption) and, inversely,
adoption will both necessitate and facilitate diffusion.
The diffusion and adoption paradigm saw significant growth during
the 1940s,30 but two decades later output from those studies seemed
to suffer from limited applicability due to the insularity of the specific
field. This was because of the output, from that phase of research, was
constrained and did not apply to other fields. In 1962, Rogers developed
a more general theory that was able to apply the paradigm from earlier
research to be useful across disciplines. This led to the wider application
of the theory of diffusion and adoption of innovations to broader fields.
Moital et al. (2009) even state that Rogers’ contribution to the theory is
so significant that his model “still prevails as the main theoretical source
in the study of diffusion and adoption of innovation.”
The work of Everett Rogers31 has been foundational in the discus-
sion on innovation diffusion. In Diffusion of Innovations, he explores
why obviously beneficial ideas take so long to become adopted into as
mainstream practice. Rogers (2003) defines diffusion as the process in

29 Rogers (1994).
30 Ryan and Gross (1943).
31 Rogers (1962, 1976, 1983, 1994, 2003).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 39

which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time

among the members of a social system. The key variable in this context is
that new ideas are being communicated.
Rogers goes on to list the key elements of technology diffusion as:

• Innovation
• Communication channels
• Time
• Social system.

Rogers (2003) refers to innovation, distinct from technology, as any new

idea, practice or object. The critical variable, as aforementioned, being
its “newness.” While this definition may include technology, it does not
necessarily refer to it nor include it as innovation is much broader in
scope.
While earlier approaches simply identify innovations as positive,32
Latzer (2009) looks at the possibility of those innovations being disrup-
tive or unsustainable. Keller (2008) meanwhile, states that no single factor
can determine the success or failure of an innovation, but that an inno-
vation’s effectiveness is dependent upon interacting factors. Factors that
may be social, political, and/or economic in nature.
The term “communication channel,” in the context of diffusion,
encapsulates how a new idea passes from individual to individual33 or
through a group of people.34 When considering these two concepts,
diffusion of innovation and adoption of innovation, it must be borne
in mind that diffusion is a critical prerequisite for adoption. One cannot
adopt a new technology without first learning about it and being educated
on its usefulness. It must also be borne in mind that while diffusion is
critical to adoption it does not guarantee it.
Hoffman and Roman (1984) identified two key dimensions of infor-
mation flow within organizations:

• the origin of the information

• The emphasis on innovation.

32 Bagozzi (2007), Lederer et al. (1998).

33 Rogers (1994).
34 Loudon and Della Bitta (1993).
40 A. SPENCER

It should be pointed out that although leadership is not explicitly

mentioned, it is inherent in their argument. Particularly so in the second
dimension, although this dimension may also be influenced through orga-
nizational culture or strategy. Additionally, those innovations that are
introduced via leadership are granted greater legitimacy. This work aims to
emphasize the leadership role in the diffusion of innovation more clearly.
For instance, while the flow of information is easier than ever before
thanks to the internet, what drove the dissemination of information on
the internet itself?
It is at this point that Roger’s representation of social systems becomes
of particular interest. Roger states that a social system is a set of inter-
related units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a
common goal. Within this definition, “units” refer to organizations or
informal groups.
Roger’s conceptualization is particularly useful as the scope of the
“social system” is scalable. It applies to actors within a small village as well
as to distinct groups within a country. While his work has been applied
generally, Rogers suggests that context is important, and it is within the
context of diffusion of technology, Rogers contends, that social structure
and the norms of the society are important.
Yun and Avvari (2011) have contributed to the discourse by high-
lighting gaps in the research. These gaps are “filled” by emphasizing the
role of “innovation actors.” An example of an innovation actor in action
would be leaders in the public and private sector who champion new
ideas based on recent innovations. This further endorses the idea that the
leadership element is core to innovation diffusion.
Roger’s work (2003) indicates that opinion leadership may be very
influential, and so leaders may act as change agents in the diffusion
process. He continues by declaring some very useful distinctions in types
of innovation decisions:

• Optional
• Collective
• Authority-driven.

Optional innovation decisions rarely result in comprehensive adoption by

the group. Collective innovation decisions, while having gained more trac-
tion because of general consensus by the group, are largely leadership
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 41

driven. In such instances, the leader is usually a charismatic individual35

or a thought leader.36 Authority-driven innovation decisions typically
yield compliance, but other powerful individuals and groups may also
be opposed to the diffusion of particular technologies. This highlights
the importance of leadership/ownership in the discussion of innovation
diffusion.
While collective and authority innovation decisions are more common,
they are still leader-initiated. This highlights the need for greater focus
on leaders as decision-makers. Brown (1981) goes on to present several
perspectives on innovation adoption.
The Economic History Perspective claims that an innovations’ chances
of adoption are proportionate to its usability to the market in terms of
value for money. The Adoption Perspective, pioneered by Rogers (1962)
and the most dominant and mature perspective on the subject, holds that
innovation adoption is the result of the communication process.
The Market and Infrastructure Perspective, on the other hand, seeks
to move away from the individual approach, claiming that opportuni-
ties are “purposely unequal.” Instead, it focuses on the conditions within
the given context to determine how those conditions facilitate innovation
diffusion.
The Development Perspective is an extension of the market and infras-
tructure perspective insofar as it attempts to identify the impact of
innovation diffusion on the welfare of society. Unlike the former three
perspectives, however, it challenges the assumption that innovation diffu-
sion is always a net positive. Toward this end, Brown presents examples
of developing nations that have experienced widening inequality and a
strengthening of the elite class as a result of adopting new technologies.
While each of these perspectives is useful, the ones most applicable to
contemporary analysis are the Adoption Perspective and the Market and
Infrastructure Perspective. The two of these viewpoints emphasize both
the individual as well as the broader environment. This works in tandem
with the technology acceptance model.
It has recently become apparent that innovations are adapting to
markets in ways that, seemingly, ignore geography. This flies in the face
of theoretical frameworks presented by perspectives like the Economic

35 Hitt et al. (2001), Bass et al. (2003).

36 Rogers (2003).
42 A. SPENCER

History Perspective,37 as geography used to be a prime factor in the

spread and evolution of innovations, and the Market and Infrastructure
Perspective, as different geographical locations have differing infrastruc-
ture.
The Development Perspective, on the other hand, promotes equal
opportunities, but it does not explain why people do or do not adopt new
technologies and/or ideas. The Adoption Process, outlined by Rogers
(1994), answers this question.
In the Adoption Process, Rogers suggests a linear progression:

1. Knowledge
2. Persuasion
3. Decision
4. Implementation
5. Confirmation.

While this proposed progression has been useful in previous research,

more recent research, including work done by Straub (2009), has found
that the adoption process is not quite so linear nor so clearly defined.
While Rogers has since granted that the process steps may be rearranged,
he maintains that the process itself is still a linear one.
In contrast, Woiceshyn (2000) argues that, specifically, within organi-
zations, adoption is a learning process. This learning process involves:

1. Observing
2. Interpreting
3. Integrating
4. Acting.

Despite this linear description, and unlike the steps in Rogers’ Adop-
tion Process, these steps may happen concurrently. Woiceshyn’s work also
recognizes several facilitators of the adoption process:

• Capability
• Resources
• Shared Values

37 Kotler and Armstrong (2008).

 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 43

• Effort
• Motivation
• External factors.

Straub (2009), meanwhile, considers adoption be a complex social and

developmental process that may be influenced by several other factors,
including individual perceptions, related emotions, and general context.
From Straub’s point of view, the relevance of the unique subjective expe-
rience is paramount. This is a view that has only been directly addressed
in the innovation diffusion literature.
The work of this book aims to show that those factors that have been
classically understood to influence technology adoption affect, and in
turn are affected by, personal factors of the many individuals involved.
In particular, those personal factors that apply to leaders. This revelation
turns these elements from being direct factors to mediating variables. Yes,
they facilitate adoption, but they are complementary to the process.
According to Zhou (2008), innovation diffusion research may be
classified among three levels:

• Individual
• Organisation
• National.

While these categories may vary in scope, they do share many of the same
drivers of innovation diffusion:

• Personal
• Situational
• Social
• Socioeconomic
• Market
• Infrastructural.

Zhou also argues that a fourth level should now be considered: Intra-
organizational.
44 A. SPENCER

The Intra-organizational level emphasizes that if an organization

adopts innovation, it will not be adopted uniformly throughout that orga-
nization. People and groups within the organization will respond differ-
ently to the adoption, depending on factors relevant to their situations.
Zhou goes further, classifying the different levels of adoption-responses:

• Voluntary adopters
• Forced adopters
• Resistant non-adopters
• Dormant non-adopters.

This fourth level takes into account the willingness of individual members
of the organization. How willing are they to personally adopt the new
technology that has been formally adopted by their organization? The
Inter-organizational level looks at individual responses to variables such as
leadership, resource use and strategy while taking into account concepts
such as the diffusion of innovation38 and frameworks like the Technology
Acceptance Model,39 both of which are related to the Broader Theory of
Reasoned Action.40
The Theory of Reasoned Action states that an individual’s behavior
is the result of the interaction between their attitude toward a specific
activity and the wider society’s view toward said activity. The theory
argues that the core of innovation adoption lies in the adoption of new
ideas by the individual within the context of the surrounding society.
This is not to say that there have not been studies that look at personal
choice within the context of the wider society; the diffusion of innova-
tions theory does just that. What they do, however, fail to do is to look at
that individual process from a leadership perspective. Ironically though, it
is implicitly dealt with in the field.
Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovation was not the only one to
consider adoption from an individual perspective. Davis’ Technology
Acceptance Model contributed advanced ideas related to those factors
that act as adoption drivers for individuals. According to Davis’ Tech-
nology Acceptance Model (TAM), the perception of a new technology’s

38 Rogers (2003).
39 Davis (1989).
40 Fishbein and Ajzen (1975).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 45

perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, by the individual, are

major considerations and have a significant influence on that individu-
al’s acceptance of said technology. Lederer et al. (1998) also support this
notion.
For context, perceived ease of use refers to how easy the technology
will be to learn and to use. In contrast, perceived usefulness is the degree
to which it is believed that the technology may enhance time and output
efficiency of related work and tasks.41
The TAM is at the other end of the spectrum relative to most other
research in this field and, likewise, suffers from similar weaknesses. It
focuses on the cognitive processes of the individual, essentially making
it a micro decision-making model. The fact that the TAM does not take
broader organizational nor societal factors in mind makes it limited in its
approach.
People’s attitude toward technology also influences their perceptions
of usefulness and ease of use of technology,42 which ultimately affects
their usage of said. This makes the concept of technology attitude critical
to the discussion on technology adoption.
As said before, research like the TAM suffers from the same issue as
previous research studies in that they only look at half the picture, either
the micro or the macro. By focusing on personal attitudes and behaviors,
they’ve neglected the impact of broader issues.
Arguably, personal and subjective factors like perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use, and attitudes to technology do not operate in a
vacuum but are, in turn, affected by other objective elements such as one’s
age, education level and other demographic factors. Legris et al. (2003)
expound on this point, arguing that, apart from these personal variables,
other social influence factors must be considered for, as the saying goes,
“no man is an island unto himself.” As such, this study aims to bridge this
gap and to take a broad view, encompassing both ends of the spectrum,
the micro and macro, in analyzing technology adoption.
Before any technology can be used, one must be taught how to use
it. That makes the role of learning paramount in the discussion of adop-
tion. Bagozzi (2007) initiated a debate on the role of learning to use a
computer, looking at the global adoption of that technology. Previous to

41 Lederer et al. (1998).

42 Wöber and Gretzel (2000).
46 A. SPENCER

this research, the focus on computer adoption discussion was limited to

the usage of the technology. The research posits that, despite how well-
built and well designed the computer system itself may be, inadequate
learning of said systems can substantially affect adoption.
This also brings the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of individuals into
stark relief. The research had primarily focused on attitudes: attitudes to
success, failure, and toward the process of pursuing goals. In other words,
the research separated the “intention to try” from “actually trying,” since
it was the act of learning that separated intention to use from actual usage.
For instance, an individual may display an “intention to try” to use a
computer by actually purchasing one, but if there is no follow-up action
in learning to use the computer (“actually trying”), then usage would
naturally suffer. A person cannot use a computer the things they know
how to do. If they have not learned anything about using a computer,
then it becomes merely an expensive paper-weight.
The natural implication of these findings is that organizations, in
adopting new technologies, must make learning the new technology a
part of their adoption process. This means implementing strategies that
motivate the organization’s members to learn the new technology. This is
a challenge, given the varying levels of personal attitudes toward learning
and adoption.
This illustrates the importance of compatibility. Rogers defines compat-
ibility as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of potential
adopters.”
In contrast to TAM, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology Model identify that, in addition to personal factors like atti-
tude to technology, the conditions that facilitate usage within the partic-
ular context and the influence of society also play a part in motivating
usage.43 Other theorists have also elaborated on situational influences and
their impact on communication technology usage.44 It has been proven
that the social environment exerts influence on the perceived applicability
of a technology.
If one observes others in their society using or refusing a partic-
ular technology, then that will affect that individual’s perception of the

43 Dulle and Minishi-Majanja (2011).

44 van den Hooff et al. (2005).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 47

applicability of that technology to their own needs. This discussion,

recognizing social influences, extends the earlier work of Rogers’ Diffu-
sion of Innovation Theory (1983). Together, the work of Rogers (1962)
and Davis (1989), identify contrasting influences and discuss their effect
on perception across the spectrum, from the micro level (individual) to
the macro level (organization).
The Diffusion of Innovations Theory looks at a broad set of influences
while the TAM is tightly focused on the personal cognitive influences
within individuals. This makes the Diffusion of Innovations Theory more
appropriate for the goals of this study. Fuchs et al. (2009) contribute
to the debate on technology adoption by pointing out that the avail-
ability of a suitable ICT infrastructure and the context of the surrounding
environment are also key drivers.
It has been argued, however, that these considerations are insuffi-
cient insofar as they fail to explain why half of the newly implemented
innovations within the United States have been considered as failures.45
Lippert and Davis (2006) have suggested that “trust” is an element that
should be considered and, hence, has introduced this into their concep-
tual model. They posit that “technology trust” and “interpersonal trust”
have a positive effect on “planned change activities,” enhancing the level
of adoption. Despite these recent developments in the overall discussion,
the main thrust of the debate still lies with firmly entrenched concepts
laid out by formerly established theorists.46
The situational and personal influences mentioned earlier speak to
many factors, including:

• Media exposure
• Compatibility
• Perceptions
• Social factors
• Socioeconomic factors.

45 Lippert and Davis (2006).

46 Rogers (1983), Davis (1989), Lederer et al. (1998), Wöber and Gretzel (2000),
Legris et al. (2003), Vishwanath and Goldhaber (2003).
48 A. SPENCER

There has also been discussion regarding negative personal and situa-
tional influences that may adversely affect technology adoption and ways
of mitigating against this. One such mediating factor is training.47
While the TAM has proven to be extremely useful in analyzing situa-
tional influences, it does have its drawbacks. Namely, it ignores some of
the critical arguments in the established literature. In particular, disputes
related to variables such as resources, strategy, ownership, and leadership.
In order to conduct a more detailed investigation into why specific firms
engage in technology adoption, while others do not (or not to a similar
degree), a closer look must be taken at how these variables mentioned
above interact.
According to Moital’s (et al.) Innovation Interdependence concept,
understanding what determines a firm’s level of technology adoption
is key to promoting higher levels of technology adoption, including e-
commerce adoption, in other firms. One school of thought posits the
case that technology adoption, more specifically, e-commerce adoption, is
determined not by the firm, but by the firm’s customers.48
They argue that some firms claim to engage in e-commerce and they
do have a company website. Still, it is a static website that only provides
information and is not built on (or with) a functional e-commerce
platform that will provide customers with an interface to engage in trans-
actions. Instances such as these may be categorized as Staged Adoption, a
phenomenon that has been pointed out by Daniel et al. (2002).
Daniel et al. have gone further by categorizing those firms that are in
the process of adoption:

• Developers are those firms that are in the early stages of making
information about their products available online.
• Communicators use email and other messaging apps like Skype to
communicate with customers.
• Web Presence designates those firms that have online booking and
ordering facilities.
• Transactors maintain fully functional e-commerce platforms online
where they actively sell their products and services and engage in
information gathering.

47 Bagozzi (2007), Marler et al. (2006).

48 Zappala and Gray (2006).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 49

Those firms that were initially established as physical, brick-and-mortar

operations tend to not advance to the Transactor stage of adoption.49
While resource constraints are usually cited as blockers to this advance-
ment, Gray (2006) posits that ICT is an excellent option for overcoming
resource limitations, allowing businesses to grow beyond their perceived
limits. Unfortunately, some small and medium-sized businesses, especially
in developing regions such as the Caribbean, find it difficult to source
the initial capital required to take this step, arguing that such expenditure
would not provide a sufficient return on investment. This perspective may
be more a matter of attitude and the general climate toward innovation
than fact.50
Zappala and Sarchielli (2006) contrast the fact that, interestingly, while
online selling has stagnated, online purchasing has risen. This illustrates
the fact that e-commerce adoption has been on the decline.51 Mochrie
et al. (2006) argue that firms simply do not have the capacity, physical
and/or human, to develop and implement effective adoption strategies.
As it is, some firms may reject adopting innovation on that basis alone. In
fact, according to Rogers,52 a rejection of innovation, or discontinuance
thereof, may occur at any stage of the adoption process.
Rogers also cites certain pre-existing conditions that may affect the
adoption process, such as:

• Previous practice
• Felt needs/problems
• Innovativeness
• Social norms.

Each of these conditions plays a part in e-commerce adoption and

particularly in the Caribbean.
Historically, this region proceeds relatively slowly with regard to inno-
vation, due to the resource factors mentioned above, but also due to
loyalty to traditional ways of doing things. Despite this, Tanpong et al.

49 Lippert and Davis (2006).

50 Zappala and Sarchielli (2006).
51 Houghton and Winklehofer (2004).
52 Rogers (1962, 1976, 1983).
50 A. SPENCER

(2009) highlight that, for digitally related sectors, e-commerce becomes

a strategic imperative, while for non-digital sectors, it is a strategic choice.
Research conducted during the 1990s and the early 2000s created
several categories of key drivers to adoption decisions:

• Customer pressures53
• Competitive pressures54
• Supplier pressures55
• Industry challenges56
• Company challenges.57

Collectively, all of these forces have been influenced by the worldwide

presence of the internet.
Many theorists agree that the internet has fundamentally changed the
way that established companies compete and do business.58 It has done
this in three ways:

• Information asymmetry reduction59

• Disintermediation
• Reintermediation.

For a customer to learn about the features and prices of a product, they
no longer have to visit a physical store. They can simply look it up online.
They don’t have to waste the time and energy it would take to search
for the information physically. Likewise, what this means for companies

53 Poon and Joesph (2001), Bigne et al. (2008), Daniel et al. (2002), Dyerson and
Harindranath (2007).
54 Bigne et al. (2008), Patricia (2008), Teo et al. (2009), Werthner and Klein (1999).
55 Beekhuyzen et al. (2005), Buhalis and Deimezi (2004), Vrana and Zafiropoulos
(2006).
56 Grandon and Pearson (2004), Kuan and Chau (2001), Saffu and Walker (2008), Teo
et al. (2009).
57 Bennett and Lai (2005), Bigne et al. (2008), Heung (2003), Law et al. (2004),
Stansfield and Grant (2003), Warden and Tunzelana (2004).
58 Rayport (1995), Choi and Stahl (1997), Grieger (2003), Williamson and Scott
(1999), Afuah and Tucci (2003), Gentner et al. (2017), Wirtz (2001), Rappa (2002).
59 Choi and Stahl (1997), Porter (2001), Wirtz (2001).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 51

nowadays is that they no longer need such large sums of capital to enter
and compete within the market. This allows for both a lot more compa-
nies to participate and for those companies to compete on equal footing
as the internet minimizes market imperfection.
The internet also facilitates lower distribution costs, more significant
market share, and higher revenues.60
According to Hatton (2004), given the pressures from both consumers
to lower prices and investors to maximize returns, intermediaries are being
squeezed out. Between the reduction in transaction costs and the elim-
ination of commissions, disintermediation appears to be a welcome and
viable option.61
This illustrates the interaction between companies and the marketplace
that they operate within. As consumers seek greater value for money,
companies will make strategic decisions to increase profits.
Nowadays, it is common for customers to purchase goods and services
from companies that have e-commerce websites online.62
An important debate within the industry and academia is whether
or not any industries benefit particularly from the internet. Regarding
disintermediation, Poon (2001) refers to the situation now being expe-
rienced by both suppliers and consumers as “new independence.” The
internet provides a single, sustainable electronic infrastructure that allows
consumers and suppliers to exchange information and conduct business
transactions.63 While there are theorists who posit that the utilization of
the benefits presented by the internet may lead to a kind of reintermedi-
ation, part of the aim of this book is to figure out why travel firms, in
particular, refuse to adopt these beneficial innovations.
The term “reintermediation” refers to a school of thought that claims
that projections of the complete removal of intermediaries may be prema-
ture.64 According to this particular school of thought, a new kind of
intermediary may develop. It is posited that this new intermediary, an
“infomediary,” will be responsible for brokering relationships between

60 Laws (2001).
61 Buhalis and Licata (2002).
62 Ghosh (1998), Zappala and Gray (2006).
63 Law et al. (2004).
64 Palmer and McCole (1999).
52 A. SPENCER

producers and consumers online. The infomediary does this by learning

about the consumer and the supplier and merging their interests online.
Agents will still be fulfilling their functions as counselors, but they
now require an online presence to fulfill that function through. As a
counsellor, they must become familiar with large amounts of information
to assist the consumer in whittling down their choices and finding the
optimal choices according to the consumer’s preference.65 This requires
the ability to access information, assess quality, and provide expert advice.
Users can access information, but they are usually overwhelmed by it.
Infomediaries simplify the buying process for consumers by providing a
platform to exchange information and make recommendations using that
information, connecting the right buyers with the right sellers.
The debate between the proponents of disintermediation and the
advocates for reintermediation is still ongoing, but this has led to a
broadening of the discussion on technology adoption. From this growth
have emerged concepts like technology access and questions such as how
socioeconomic and cultural factors affect people’s attitudes toward tech-
nology. One of the most interesting aspects of this widened debate,
especially within post-internet discourse, is that of the global digital
divide. Modern discourse now looks at newly relevant issues of infor-
mation gaps, information inequality and information poverty across, and
within, societies.

The Digital Divide

The Digital Divide refers to the situation whereby access to technology
provides varying degrees of benefits and disadvantages across individuals.
Current research aims to determine how the digital divide impacts tech-
nology adoption in small owner-managed entities. There have been, so
far, four distinct approaches in analyzing the digital divide66 :

• The Technocratic Approach

• The Social Structure Approach
• The Information Structure and Exclusion Approach
• The Modernization and Capitalism Approach.

65 Lang (2000).
66 Sassi (2005).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 53

The Technocratic Approach assumes that the internet is an essential tool

for modern life and commerce and that it will be a crucial instrument in
overcoming social inequality. As such, they believe that it is incumbent
upon the government to ensure access to the internet for all citizens. The
Social Structure Approach emphasizes that, just as there is inequality in
societies, there is also uneven access to the internet across societies, and
each issue feeds into the other.67
The Information Structure and Exclusion Approach looks at how
social segregation and marginalization due to poverty act as a barrier,
preventing some groups from adopting new technologies and innovations
as readily as other, more affluent groups. The Modernisation and Capi-
talism Approach argues that capitalism drives modernization and, hence,
technology adoption. Castells (2000) posits that what has emerged is a
new form of capitalism he refers to as “informational capitalism.”
What these different approaches share in common is the acknowledg-
ment and investigation of the inequality in ICT diffusion. Fundamentally,
the only thing that separates them is their deliberation on causes and
solutions.
This book mostly applies the Information Structure and Exclusion
Approach and the Modernisation and Capitalism Approach. The leading
proponents of each approach, Lash (1994) and Castells (2000) respec-
tively, are concerned about how the global economy influences the digital
divide in various countries, which in turn begs the question of how
does the digital divide affect technology adoption in Caribbean countries
specifically.
Even though the most fruitful period of the debate on the digital
divide was between 1986 and 2005, there was little discussion on how
it affected the tourism industry. Later, in 2010, Minghetti and Buhalis
claimed that “tourists and destinations within developed countries and
between developed and developing countries suffer from a multiplicity of
technological divides (motivational, physical, informational, etc.), which
lead to different levels of digital exclusion.”68
It is clear that the digital divide also exists within the tourism and travel
industries. In fact, given that these industries require interaction between

67 Winston (1986), Sparks (2000), May (2002).

68 Minghetti and Buhalis (2010, p. 278).
54 A. SPENCER

individuals and firms from different countries, it has been argued that the
digital divide has more pronounced effects within these industries.
While academics and industry leaders have debated the digital divide
since the 1970s, the evolution of the discussion came during the turn
of the century with the introduction of the concept of “informational
capitalism.” Castells (2000) presents the argument that inequality and
polarization within society are outcomes of informational capitalism, and
that these issues should be resolved through public policy. Norris (2000)
postulates that the digital divide is likely to widen even further given the
challenges presented by global poverty. This is consistent with the existing
literature. Spink and Cole (2001) surveyed the literature and noted that
in 1975 over 700 papers had raised the issues of information inequality
and information poverty.
This issue persists to this day, exacerbated by unequal access to
information technologies.
The digital divide has been conceptualized in 3 ways:

• The Access Divide

• The Learning Divide
• The Content Divide.

The Access Divide was the initial conceptualization, but the last two are
currently more accepted. James (2004) posits that access to technology
is less of an issue now, relative to decades past, hence a narrowing of
the access divide. Rogers (2003), on the other hand, states that it is the
learning and content divides that are posing a particular challenge for
some nowadays.
This perspective highlights the issue of matching content to audience
needs. Innovators and designers of technology innovations are naturally
going to create content and provide solutions that appeal to their audi-
ences first. After some initial success, new material may be developed for
external audiences. Still, there is already a lag in adoption as the learning
curve for these external audiences is higher, given that the original content
did not fit with their situations nor environments.
The focus on the content divide and the learning divide has revivified
the discussions of contemporary theorists by looking at the surrounding
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 55

political, socioeconomic, and cultural elements.69 Now what is needed

is a deeper analysis of these elements to see how they may be useful in
bridging these divides.
So far, the discussions have revolved mainly around issues of access
and public policy. Access to technology is critical, but it is not the sole
issue. Even with access, some individuals may not adopt new technology
because they simply are not comfortable with it. That being the case, what
government bodies can do is to facilitate training in these technologies in
order to change individual attitudes to technology. Given that they cannot
influence the content, this may be the only viable option.
Recent additions to the discussion have been the emergence of new
media 70 and mobile technology.71 These new technologies have spread
rapidly among developing nations and helped reduced the disparity
between nations.
While inequality exists between nations, the focus of that inequality
has shifted in recent years. While earlier research focused on the ethical
perspective, later research was more concerned about the political and
economic dimensions of inequality.72 A significant development in the
literature has been the shift from a discussion of fairness to one of
practicality. Contemporary theorists note that information inequality has
become a principal political issue in modern society.73
Not all theorists share the same perspective on the digital divide
and how best to address it, so there are outliers.74 Gunkel (2003), for
instance, notes that critiques of the digital divide neither identify difficul-
ties nor provide solutions but simply seek to determine what caused it.
While those theorists may have a point, they also fail to realize that by
analyzing the current situation’s underlying preconditions, it is possible
to better understand what is going on and determine how to resolve it.
The lion’s share of research into the digital divide has been focused on
the divide within societies, but now, perhaps influenced by the presence

69 Wilson et al. (2003), Gyamfi (2005), Willis and Tranter (2006), Stump et al. (2008).
70 Mansell (2002).
71 Stump et al. (2008).
72 Yu (2006).
73 Feather (1998), Castells (2000), Norris (2000), Golding and Murdock (2001).
74 Gunkel (2003), James (2004).
56 A. SPENCER

of the internet, the focus has shifted to technological inequality between

countries.
The general argument that has been put forward is that those devel-
oped countries that control ICT development automatically have a
distinct advantage.75 James (2004) however, counter the trend by arguing
that even though individual access may be limited in smaller developing
countries, there is still innovation in the application of the technology
itself. He states that this may be due partly to the influx of foreign direct
investment by multinational corporations and partly by culture. Culture
will also be explored as a factor of the digital divide and as an influence
on technology adoption, especially how it relates to issues of leadership
and resources.
Culture has been an object of study since the 1800s. It has been
defined, generally, as a shared system of meaning,76 where ideas that
relate to values, norms, and traditions are exchanged, agreed upon and
influence the group. Culture may be conceptualized at various levels—
national, regional, local, organizational, consumer market-related, etc. In
this book, we’ll be focused on national and organizational culture and
how these cultures influence the individual.
According to Fischer (2009), the shared meaning system of a cultural
group influences its members through values, opinions, beliefs, and
behavioral tendencies. As such, individuals are expected to act in accor-
dance with their cultural system, and deviations from those norms
carry negative consequences.77 This naturally leads to discussions of
cross-cultural differences.
Craig (2003) notes the significant point that while different behav-
ioral tendencies are being studied, the same criteria being tested are the
same criteria being used to select the studies’ participants. For example,
a study looking at a particular demographic assumes that there is general
uniformity within that demographic.
Heinich (2010) counters this point by stating that the researcher
does not impose cultural differences, but that systems of meaning are

75 Mosaic Group (1998), Castells (2000), Norris (2000), Rogers (2003), Kirkman et al.
(2002), Drori and Jang (2003).
76 Fischer (2009).
77 Toomela (2003).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 57

what drives the research and allow the identification of differences across
cultures and cultural groups.
Hofstede (1980) has been looking at the differences in work-related
values between different countries, specifically along cultural dimensions.
His model focuses on differences along four specific dimensions:

• Power distance: those who are powerless accept that, within their
group, the distribution of power is unequal.
• Masculinity v femininity: while masculine systems tend to value
money and success, feminine systems tend to be focused on
nurturing and quality of life.
• Individualism v collectivism: as opposed to teamwork, individualism
emphasizes each person’s responsibility in taking care of himself and
his family only.
• Uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which individuals are comfort-
able with risk.

Each of these is assessed when observing the interplay between owner-

managers and their staff (power distance), result orientation (masculine),
or staff empowerment (feminine), and risk aversion (uncertainty). The
overall relationship orientation of society (individualism/collectivism) is
also observed.
This model has been so effective that it has been applied to fields
beyond that of its origination. Studies in management have benefited in
particular, as Hofstede’s discourse on cultural differences has been applied
in analyzing organizational behavior across different national/cultural
contexts. Similar models have also emerged since then.78 While some
have argued that there has been an over-reliance on the model,79 it
continues to be applied in academic work and researchers still utilize it as
a template for understanding cultural differences. That is, until the turn
of the century.
In 2002, McSweeny argued that Hofstede’s model is fundamen-
tally flawed. McSweeney questions whether culture can systematically
cause differences in behavior between people from different countries.
McSweeney’s critique is challenged by Williamson (2002), who stated

78 Schwartz (1992), Trompenaars (1993).

79 Bhimani (2006), Harrison and McKinnon (1999), Redding (1994).
58 A. SPENCER

that Hofstede’s research, grounded in the functionalist paradigm, was

methodologically sound and it was McSweeney’s paradigm that required
clarity.
It has become an accepted truth that any work that assumes uniformity
among the individuals within a society is flawed as there are observable
differences among people within societies and these differences manifest
in different behaviors.
This is, of course, not to claim that it is impossible to understand
aspects of human activity or that it might be explained by the culture
within which they live.
McSweeney’s critique of Hofstede’s four dimensions that they are too
simplistic to explain national differences is ironic, given that it acknowl-
edges that these differences are still useful in providing a basis for analysis.
Contemporary authors continue to explore the impact of national culture
on organizations and personal identity. They also acknowledge the rela-
tionships between organizational behavior and aspects of national culture.
Specifically, with regard to understanding:

• multinational corporation and sales patterns80

• creativity and innovation81
• business practices82
• tourism83
• leadership84
• corporate strategy85
• business communication.86

The work of Westwood and Low (2003) is of particular interest to

this study as it identifies a relationship between national culture and
innovation, especially within the domain of creativity.

80 Murphy (1999).
81 Westwood and Low (2003).
82 Tchaïcha and Davis (2005).
83 Reisinger and Turner (2002).
84 Elenkov and Manev (2005).
85 Ulijn et al. (2000).
86 Ibid.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 59

It is surprising that, to date, the literature on culture and innovation

focuses heavily on cultures within organizations87 while neglecting the
national culture that envelops it. As such, the relationship between organi-
zational innovation adoption and national culture has either been ignored
or, arguably, indirectly addressed through discourse on the global digital
divide.88
One of the fundamental tenets of this book is leadership as a comple-
mentary driver of technology adoption. Naturally, this will also require an
assessment of the influence of national culture on the concept of leader-
ship. Elenkov and Manev (2005) posit that leadership factors and cultural
context significantly impact top-management innovation influence. This
claim is made on the basis that firms operate in a top-down paradigm
and so rely on leadership from top executives who make the innovation
adoption decisions. This coincides with the normative view within the
literature that while leaders influence strategic decisions within firms,89 it
is the norms, values, and practices within a country’s culture that influence
innovation and its rate of diffusion90 within the nation.

Ownership and Leadership

Organisational Theorists explore the relationship between the ownership
of firms, decision-making within firms and the performance of those firms.
Siebens (2002) defined ownership as having control of and obtaining the
majority of the gains (shareholdings) from a firm’s activities.
Decades of research into this area reflect the value placed in under-
standing this relationship,91 but most of this research has been focused
on ownership structures and their impact on performance. Less attention
has been paid to the actual impact of leadership itself upon the behavior

87 Sarros et al. (2008), Jaskyte and Kisieliene (2006), McLean (2005), Subramaniam
and Ashkanasy (2001).
88 Wilson et al. (2003), Gyamfi (2005), Willis and Tranter (2006), Stump et al. (2008).
89 Hitt et al. (2001), Victorino et al. (2006), Ghobadian and O’Regan (2006), Falk
(2008).
90 Gibson and McDaniel (2010).
91 Siebens (2002), Demsetz and Lehn (1985), Choa (1998), Cole and Mehran (1998),
Villalonga and Amit (2006), Welch (2003).
60 A. SPENCER

of their firms.92 This is ironic, given that it may be said that such behavior
is a reflection of their owners.
Within the Organisational Theory literature, there are many divergent
views regarding the impact of firm ownership upon firm performance.
Past studies may be categorized by what they focus on, such as:

• Entrepreneurship
• Firm behavior
• Strategy
• Family owned businesses.

Porter (1990), for example, posits that the ownership of said firm influ-
ences a firm’s goals. Daily and Dollinger more precisely state that a firm’s
ownership influences its size, strategy, and process. These observations
have been quite useful in the debate as, in most cases, it is the owners that
make the decisions regarding key strategic issues, and it is these decisions
that ultimately determine whether a company succeeds or fails.
Several factors influence entrepreneurial behaviors themselves:

• Education
• Age
• Gender
• Number of family members.

Management behaviors have traditionally been regarded as being influ-

enced primarily by management skills,93 but a considerable body of
research in management behavior has focused on the role of psychological
factors.94 Factors such as:

• Motivation
• Personality
• Goals (or Intention to grow).

92 Ghobadian and O’Regan (2006).

93 Wasilczuk (2000), Singh et al. (2001), DeMartino et al. (2006).
94 Hamlin and Sawyer (2007), Frese et al. (2000).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 61

As stated earlier, there has been considerable research into the owner-
ship and leadership, specifically, of family owned businesses. With special
attention being paid to how these businesses operate and the issues and
challenges they face within particular industries.
Kowalewski et al. (2010) posit that firms with family CEOs outperform
those with nonfamily CEOs. This, they state, is due to the CEO’s rela-
tively higher level of social capital and their greater personal investment
in the business.
This framing is consistent with the work of Villalonga and Amit
(2006). On the contrary, however, Tsao (2009) posits that family owner-
ship may negatively affect performance due to, ironically, too much
personal involvement or incompetence of family leaders. This shifts the
focus of the discussion to the owner-managers of these firms.
Apart from being the majority shareholders of their respective busi-
nesses, owner-managers also engage in their business’ daily operations.95
Owner-managed firms tend to be relatively small companies,96 while also
being the owner-manager’s sole mode of income. Such a combination of
circumstances usually results in less bureaucracy when it comes to making
decisions, but also engenders greater risk aversion, both of which influ-
ence the owner’s managerial style. Managerial style generally refers to a
manager’s preferences in decision-making.
Whereas strategy focuses on a formalized method of reaching goals,
style is concerned with a general, informal pattern of decisions in discre-
tional situations.97 It’s related to decisions that embody:

• Risk-taking
• Change and innovation
• The aggressiveness of the approach used.

Carland et al. (2007) classified small business managers into two distinct
types:

• Entrepreneurs
• Small business managers.

95 Shailer (1994).
96 Gallo and Christensen (2011).
97 Covin and Slevin (1988).
62 A. SPENCER

When it comes to building strategies and preferences in behavior,

entrepreneurs exhibit certain characteristics relative to managers,98 such
as:

• Higher levels of self-sufficiency

• Readiness for change
• Interest in innovation
• Competitive aggression
• Desire for achievement.

Meanwhile, general small business managers tend to exhibit characteristics

such as99 :

• Risk aversion
• Lack of innovation
• Passive behavior
• Reactive behavior.

Entrepreneurs will creatively utilize their resources to pursue profit and

growth. At the same time, general small business managers will operate
their businesses either as an extension of their personality, or pursue
personal goals.100 Management activities that implement the preferences
of a manager in the operation of their business are termed as tactical
or operational behaviour. These tactical behaviors are affected by the
preferences of a decision-maker at the strategic level.101
A few examples of elements of practical business management activities
would be102 :

• Collecting information and learning new management skills

• Applying new technology or developing new products
• Quality control of products and service

98 Carland et al. (2007), Covin and Slevin (1988).

99 Covin and Slevin (1988).
100 Carland et al. (2007).
101 Slevin and Covin (1995).
102 Page and Getz (1997), Dahles and Bras (1999), Morrison et al. (1999).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 63

• Interaction with customers

• The treatment of people in business networks
• Cooperating with other organizations
• Employing family labor
• Long-term and papered financial planning
• Risk-taking.

Some authors, in an attempt to address firm ownership and performance,

have found that firm ownership is a positive determinant of firm perfor-
mance. This pronouncement addresses certain gaps in the previously
existing literature. It naturally follows that if ownership is closely linked
to performance, then an owner’s influence on or prevention of strategy
falls within these parameters.
George et al. (2005) extend the discussion, stating that the owners
also influence firm internationalization. They argue that the ownership of
small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) influences the proclivity to take
risks. This is driven by the desire to increase both the scale of the company
and the scope of internationalization efforts. This is particularly important
as competitiveness warrants business exploration into new territories and
markets.103
Recent research into firm ownership has attempted to expand the
discourse from solely focusing on public corporations to also including
private corporations and partnerships.104 One particularly interesting
finding of this expanded research is that private corporations and partner-
ships usually outperformed public corporations. This, they state, is due to
the increased monitoring and span of control of the owners in these orga-
nizations. This contradicts the work of Durand and Vargas (2003), which
suggests that this higher performance is due to greater organizational
complexity.
What is consistent in organizational theory is that owners influence
the key variables that affect firm performance. This influence is enhanced
when they take on the role of owner-manager.105 Kouzes and Posner
(1987) define leadership as a reciprocal relationship that clearly separates

103 Porter (1985), David (2007).

104 Greenwood et al. (2007).
105 Durand and Vargas (2003), Greenwood and Empson (2003).
64 A. SPENCER

those who influence from those who are influenced. While this defi-
nition provides a basic understanding of leadership, Hitt et al. (2001)
describe the leader, in specific, as a catalyst for strategic change. Given this
definition, it becomes critical to assess the dominant leadership categories.
In his seminal work, Burns (1978) introduced the concepts of trans-
formational and transactional leadership. Several researchers have since
attempted to expand on these concepts and, in particular, how they are
measured.
In this research, leadership is emphasized as the key driver of tech-
nology adoption in small, owner-managed travel firms. As such, an
evaluation of the two dominant classifications of leadership is vitally
important. Unfortunately, research that focuses on leadership in the travel
and technology industries is lacking.
Transformational leaders uplift the morale, motivation, and morals of
their followers, while transactional leaders tend to cater to their followers’
immediate self-interests. Transformational leadership also creates change
and provides a framework for exploring attributes of change leadership.
According to Burns (1978), there is also a considerable distinction
between the two forms of leadership. He articulates his position by
stating that changes in the marketplace and workforce over the years have
resulted in the need for leaders to become more transformational and
less transactional to remain effective. Transformational leaders empower
their followers by developing them into high-involvement individuals and
teams focused on the following attributes:

• Quality
• Service
• Cost-effectiveness
• Quantity of output.

While this research does not directly address the question of trans-
formational leadership vs transactional leadership, it does identity new
initiatives in the matter of leadership, such as the adoption of inno-
vations. For example, the creation of high-involvement individuals and
cost-effectiveness are required for successful technology adoption.
It must be stated that there have been many issues surrounding trans-
formational/leadership literature. Pawar (2003), for example, argues that
there are concerns regarding how transformational leadership has been
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 65

conceptualized. One such issue relates to the relationship between the

two types of leadership. There are essentially three schools of thought on
this relationship.
Burns (1978) viewed both forms of leadership as being at opposite
ends of the leadership continuum. Bass (1985) identified certain weak-
nesses in a second conceptualization of the paradigm. He acknowledged
that while both forms of leadership were distinct, there may be varying
relationships between them. The third school of thought regarding
this relationship106 states that transformational leadership is merely an
extension of transactional leadership.
The primary reason for this is that some fundamental activities require
leaders to entice followers to conform to procedures, while others require
significant transformational skills. For this work, these two forms of
leadership will be treated as a hierarchical conceptualization, with trans-
actional leadership providing the foundation and necessary preconditions
for transformational leadership.
A second issue refers to attempts to separate the concept of transfor-
mational leadership from charismatic leadership. Burns (1978) originally
viewed charismatic leadership as a type of transformational leadership.
Subsequent research has since identified that charisma is a central element
of transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership has been described as moving the follower
beyond immediate self-interests through “idealized influence, inspiration,
intellectual stimulation or individualised consideration.” The element that
relates to charisma, coined by Bass, is the idealized influence that was
used to frivolously described popular individuals. This was very useful, as
“idealised influence” occurs “when the leader envisions a desirable future,
articulates how it can be reached, sets an example to be followed, sets
high standards of performance, and shows determination and confidence.
Followers want to identify with such leadership.”107
While all of the four constructs above will be examined, intellectual
stimulation is the most applicable construct in technology adoption. This
is due to the fact that studies in innovation and adoption focus on
creativity and new ideas. This construct is displayed when the leader
helps his followers to become more innovative and creative. This is

106 Hollander (1993).

107 Ibid., p. 11.
66 A. SPENCER

operationalized and measured by a leader’s openness to their followers’

ideas.
The remaining constructs all address the relationship and kinship that
the followers have with their leaders. While these all result in the followers
aligning themselves to the goals of the leader, only intellectual stimu-
lation addresses cognitive and behavioral changes in the followers. This
occurs via the leader’s constant encouragement to generate new ideas.
Hence, a leader who practices intellectual stimulation creates an atmo-
sphere for the generation of new ideas at every level of the firm. The
resulting atmosphere stimulates creative thoughts and behaviors among
employees within the firm, leading to the acceptance and understanding
of innovative changes within that organization.
Intellectual stimulation is a requirement in changing people’s perspec-
tives on things such as work and the process of innovation. This research
attempts to fill the gap in the existing literature on the issue of the
interplay between leaders and the general context of the organization.
It must be acknowledged that different types of organizations require
varying degrees of transformational leadership.108 This highlights the
need for research that clarifies whether or not certain changes that
are imposed by leaders are warranted in their respective organizational
contexts. A second issue is whether or not the given organizational
context supports or opposes transformational leadership behavior.109 The
focus of this book, owner-managers who determine and implement poli-
cies unilaterally, is not so dependent upon the second point. This is
because owner-managers within these firms can create a bespoke organiza-
tional structure that caters to their own style of management, suggesting
that these leaders have greater influence over the organizational context
than vice versa.
Leaders play a crucial role in determining which innovations to intro-
duce.110 This is significant as innovations give a firm an edge over its
competitors,111 or assist in providing more efficient operations. Leaders
are also responsible for resource handling, and their willingness to provide

108 Pawar (2003).

109 Pettigrew (1987), Pawar and Eastman (1997).
110 Victorino et al. (2006).
111 Porter (1985), David (2007).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 67

resources directly impacts quality and performance.112 This fits well into
the overall discussion of the resource-based view. It also provides an added
dimension, suggesting that a firm with a broad resource base is not inher-
ently competitive because it is still subject to decisions and directions of
leadership. Competitiveness may be determined by a firm’s resources and
the effective use of those resources by the firm’s leadership.

The Resource-Based View

The Resource-based analysis method has existed since the early 1950s113
but became more popular three decades later when Wernerfelt (1984)
explored the usefulness of assessing organizations from the resource
side rather than the product side, which was the formerly dominant
approach.114
The resource perspective focuses on the assets, tangible, and intangible,
that a firm owns. Caves (1980) defines a firm’s resources as those assets
that are semi-permanently tied to the firm. These may include115 :

• Machinery
• Capital
• Brand names
• In-house knowledge of technology
• Employment of skilled personnel
• Trade contracts
• Efficient procedures.

This definition marked the beginning of a detailed assessment of a firm’s

internal capabilities and, by extension, its ability to compete. There has
been much discussion about the competitive edge that is provided by
the difference in resources between firms. Barney (2014) articulates that
these differences may be long-lasting, providing a sustained advantage

112 Lewis and McCann (2004).

113 Penrose (1959).
114 Porter (1980).
115 Wernerfelt (1984).
68 A. SPENCER

for some firms. In fact, other perspectives on resource-based assess-

ment, whether neoclassical economics,116 evolutionary economics,117
or structure-conduct-performance (SCP) based theories of competitive
advantage,118 also share this opinion.
Neoclassical theorists purport that greater resources and capabilities,
referred by them as factors of production, enable companies to provide
greater supply. They also purport that this supply is elastic, suggesting
that a rise in demand will result in an increase in the price and supply of
the resource. Due to the evolution of resources, some resources may be
considered inelastic due to the length of time it would take to develop
them.119 An example of this would be human resources. This inelasticity
may, however, be a source of sustained competitive advantage as other
firms may take some time to develop their own resources.120
Aligning this resource-based view with Nelson and Winter’s (1982)
work on evolutionary economics would suggest that different firms
conduct business in different ways. Ineffective and inefficient operations,
as measured by differences in input and output, decrease a firm’s compet-
itiveness. The implication is that those firms with the necessary financial,
human and technical resources to drive their operations are likely to have
an advantage.
The most popular set of discussions surrounding resource-based
perspectives, however, are more closely positioned to the SCP-based
models of competitive advantage.121 These models more directly advance
the notion that a firm’s attributes and resources determine its perfor-
mance and sustained advantage.
According to resource-based theorists, the more resources a firm
holds relative to its competitors, barring any irrational actions, the more
competitive it may be.122 The idea of acting rationally points to the fact

116 Ricardo (1817).

117 Nelson and Winter (1982).
118 Porter (1980).
119 Barney (2001).
120 Peteraf (1993).
121 Barney (2001).
122 Penrose (1959), Colli (2011), Teece (1982), Wernerfelt (1984), Peteraf (1993),
Mowery et al. (1998).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 69

that the actions of the current resource holders may affect the costs and
revenues of the future holder of those resources.
The resource position barrier is similar to Porter’s (1995) entry
barriers, but there is one key difference. Market incumbents implement
entry barriers to block new market entrants, while resource position
barriers are more focused on providing barrier situations to those that are
already in the market. The resource position barrier, therefore, provides
a basis upon which firms that are already competing with each other may
outdo one another123 by using their resource position to cement their
lead. What is evident in these discussions is that it is common for a firm’s
resources to dictate what can and cannot be done.
Peteraf (1993) more closely aligns resources with firm performance
as the resource-based model concerns itself with the internal accumu-
lation of assets and asset specificity. This presupposes that firms have
different internal capabilities and resources, a fundamental assumption
when assessing a firm’s competencies and resources for the purpose of
planning strategies.
As no two companies have the same resources, different companies
require different strategies. Firms with broader resource bases are there-
fore more likely to pursue diversification,124 enabling them to decide, for
example, upon which platforms to capitalize. Diversification may refer to:

• Diversification of products
• Diversification of markets
• Diversification of processes.

While firm-specific capabilities have gained remarkable attention, manage-

ment scholars have extended the resource-based view to look at more than
just how firms compete but also how they collaborate.125
There has also been an exploration of how a firm’s resources influ-
ence business partner choice. Mowery et al. (1998) also looked at how
the technological capabilities of a firm evolved relative to its assets and
firm-specific capabilities and posited how the technological overlap plays

123 Kraajenbrink et al. (2010).

124 Montgomery and Hariharan (1991), Teece (1982), Wernerfelt (1984), Williamson
(1985), Mahoney and Pandian (1992).
125 Teece (1982), Mowery et al. (1998).
70 A. SPENCER

a role in partner selection. More broadly applicable, however, is the fact

that firms with significant resource bases are particularly attractive for
collaboration. The extant literature does, unfortunately, fail to expound
on which categories of resources are seen as most attractive, much less the
consideration of variation in what is considered attractive across different
industries.
Essentially, resource-based discussions currently focus on a firm’s
competencies, capabilities, and strategy. They argue that a firm’s compe-
tencies are a result of the assets that a firm has at any single point in
time, hence, the ability to prolong or sustain any relative advantage will
depend on the type of resources and type of industry. While the resource-
based view is not suitable for providing managerial prescriptions,126 it
does point out why some firms have a distinct advantage over others, a
feature that can be of great use to managers.127
Brouthers et al. (2008), in extending the discussion to an interna-
tional context, suggest that differences in the institutional environments
between nations may affect its applicability. They argue that when the
differences in institutional environments are applied to the resource-based
view, this allows it to be more robust and stronger in its applica-
tion. As such, context specificity should play a role when assessing firm
performance and strategy considerations.

Emergent Frameworks
While specific gaps in existing research have been highlighted, the general
gap in terms of approach points to the fact that approach has only been
explored in terms of simplistic relationships between a limited set of
variables, i.e., the singular relationships between personal factors, firm
strategy, and resources. As a result, very little is known about the complex
relationship between ownership/leadership and technology adoption, as
the discussion so far has neglected the complex interconnectedness of a
multiplicity of variables.
The key argument of this research is that firm technology adoption
is affected by multiple factors working concurrently. These factors are

126 Barney (2001).

127 Kraajenbrink et al. (2010).
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 71

highlighted through a distilled framework that draws attention to some

antecedents, such as:

• Ownership/Leadership
• Firm strategy
• Resources
• Culture
• The Digital Divide.

This framework, taken within the context of the Theory of Organ-

isational Decision-Making, identifies the key driver as being Owner-
ship/Leadership. This work, therefore, explores:

a. how these personal factors are influenced by macro issues such as

culture and the global digital divide
b. how they, in turn, influence firm strategy and resources
c. And how these factors, ultimately, affect technology adoption deci-
sions within firms.

Iterations of the conceptual frameworks that have emerged from an anal-

ysis of the gaps in the literature are illustrated below in Figs. 2.1 and
2.2.
Figure 2.1 identifies fragmented relationships that exist within the
literature. The researcher has, however, brought these together to demon-
strate that whereas one factor may directly influence another, it may
indirectly affect other factors within the technology adoption discourse.
Due to the fragmentation present in previous works, there have
been some gaps in addressing technology adoption in firms. Figure 2.2
illustrates a more coherent framework that places technology adop-
tion decisions within the broader theory of decision-making, while also
highlighting relationships that may be explored in future research.
This research further emphasizes the leadership role as owner-managers
of small travel firms have a great deal of autonomy in decision-making.
This second-order iteration is created as an input framework to be tested,
based on the literature and the gaps in the first-order iteration.
The conceptual framework in Fig. 2.2 weaves together the various
concepts discussed in the literature review. It establishes that the path to
technology adoption within firms involves multiple factors. Those factors
72 A. SPENCER

Fig. 2.1 Firm technology adoption framework: first-order iteration (Source

Author’s creation)

that are external to the firm, e.g., culture and the digital divide, provide
the context that the firm must operate within. This influences how the
ownership of firms evolve and, even more so, how leadership attitudes
are formed through socialization and education.
The types of entrepreneurs and leaders that emerge will directly influ-
ence how firms are structured and the strategic choices that are made and
supported by resource allocation. These factors drive the behavior of the
firm, including those behaviors relevant to innovation. This is a product
of organizational culture, which is, in turn, developed through strategy
and policy decisions.
The research on firm behavior identifies a clear relationship between
how a firm behaves and its performance, as measured by its profitability
and competitiveness. The literature points to systematic approaches to the
assessment of firm performance and is geared toward informing strategy
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 73

Fig. 2.2 Technology decision-making input framework (Source Author’s

creation)

formulation. This will either support previous technology decisions or

result in changes to previous decisions, as demonstrated in the feedback
loop illustrated in the input framework (Fig. 2.2).

References
Afuah, A., and C.L. Tucci. 2003. Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text
and Cases (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bagozzi, R.P. 2007. “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a
Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 8(4): 3.
Barnett, Martin, and Craig Standing. 2001. “Repositioning Travel Agencies on
the Internet.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 7: 143.
Barney, J.B. 2001. “Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten
Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.” Journal of Management 27:
643.
———. 2014. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. London: Pearson
Higher Education.
74 A. SPENCER

Bass, Bernard. M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson. 2003. “Pre-
dicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional
Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 207–218.
Beckinsale, Martin, Monder Ram, and Nicholas Theodorakopoulos. 2011.
“ICT Adoption and Ebusiness Development: Understanding ICT Adoption
amongst Ethnic Minority Businesses.” International Small Business Journal
29: 193–219.
Beekhuyzen, Jenine, Liisa Hellens, and Mark Siedle. 2005. “Cultural Barriers in
the Adoption of Emerging Technologies.” Accessed March 2, 2010. http://
www.ucd.smartinternet.com.au/Documents/Cultural_Barriers.pdf.
Bennett, Marion, and Chi-Wen Lai. 2005. “The Impact of the Internet on Travel
Agencies in Taiwan.” Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 6(1): 1–17.
Bhimani, A., 2006. “Comparative Management Accounting Research: Past
Forays and Emerging Frontiers.” Handbooks of Management Accounting
Research 1: 343–363.
Bigne, Enrique J., Joaquín Aldas, and Luisa Anderu. 2008. “B2B Services: IT
Adoption in Travel Agency Supply Chains.” Journal of Services Marketing
22(6): 454–464.
Brouthers, Keith D., Lance E. Brouthers, and Steve Werner. 2008. “Resource-
Based Advantages in the International Context.” Journal of Management
34(2): 189.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Maria Cristina Licata. 2002. “The Future eTourism
Intermediaries.” Journal of Tourism Management 23(3): 207–220.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Ourania Deimezi. 2004. “E-Tourism Developments in
Greece: Information Communication Technologies Adoption for Strategic
Management of the Greek Tourism Industry.” Tourism and Hospitality
Research 5(2): 1467–3584.
Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton, and J.A.C. Carland. 2007. “Differenti-
ating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization.” In
Entrepreneurship, 73–81. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Castells, Manuel. 2000. End of Millennium. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caves, Richard E. 1980. “Industrial Organization, Corporate Strategy and
Structure.” Journal of Economic Literature 18(1): 64–92.
Chandler, Alfred. 2003. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the
American Industrial Enterprise. Fairless Hills: Beard Books.
Choa, Myeong-Hyeon. 1998. “Ownership Structure, Investment and the Corpo
rate Value: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics 47(1):
103–121.
Choi, Soon-Yong, and Dale Stahl. 1997. The Economics of Electronic Commerce.
Indiana: Macmillan Technical Publishing.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 75

Chorn, Norman. 1994. “The New Logistics Organization.” In The Gower hand-
book of Logistics and Distribution Management. 4th ed., edited by John
Gattorna, 501–508. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing.
Christopher, Martin. 1986. The Strategy of Distribution Management. Oxford:
Heinemann Professional Publishing.
———. 1992. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing
Cost and Improving Service. London: Prentice Hall.
———. 1998. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing
Cost and Improving Service. London: Prentice Hall.
Cole, Rebel A., and Hamid Mehran. 1998. “The Effect of Changes in Ownership
Structure on Performance: Evidence from the Thrift Industry.” Journal of
Financial Economics 50(3): 291–317.
Colli, A. 2011. “Business History in Family Business Studies: From Neglect to
Cooperation? Journal of Family Business Management 1: 12.
Covin, Jeffery G., and Dennis Slevin. 1988. “The Influence of Organization
Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top Management Style.”
Journal of Management Studies 25(3): 217–234.
Cox, Andrew. 1998. “Relational Competence and Strategic Procurement
Management: Towards an Entrepreneurial and Contractual Theory of the
Firm.” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 2: 57–70.
Craig, Anita P. 2003. “Culture and the Individual.” Theory and Psychology 13(5):
629–650.
Crotts, John, Abdul Aziz, and Andrew Raschid. 1998. “Antecedents of Supplier’s
Commitment to Wholesale Buyers in the International Travel Trade.” Tourism
Management 19(2): 127–134.
Cyert, Richard M., and James March. 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dahles, Heidi, and Karin Bras. 1999. “Entrepreneurs in Romance: Tourism in
Indonesia.” Annals of Tourism Research 26: 267–293.
Dale, Crispin. 2003. “The Competitive Networks of Tourism E-mediaries: New
strategies, New Advantages.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 9: 109.
DeMartino, Richard, Robert Barbato, and Paul Jacques. 2006. “Exploring
the Career/Achievement and Personal Life Orientation Differences between
Entrepreneurs and Non Entrepreneurs: The Impact of Sex and Dependents.”
Journal of Small Business Management 44(3): 350–369.
Daniel, Elizabeth, Hugh Wilson, and Andrew Myers. 2002. “Adoption of E-
Commerce by SMEs in the UK: Towards a Stage Model.” International Small
Business Journal 20(3): 253–270.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
tion Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–339.
David, Fred D. 2007. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
76 A. SPENCER

DeHayes, Daniel W., and Robert L. Taylor. 1972. “Making Logistics Work in a
Firm.” Business Horizons 24(1): 1–26.
Demsetz, Harold, and Kenneth Lehn. 1985. “The Structure of Corporate
Ownership.” Journal of Political Economy 93(6): 1155–1177.
Drori, Gili, and Yong Suk Jang. 2003. “The Global Digital Divide: A Sociological
Assessment of Trends and Causes.” Social Science Computer Review 21: 144–
161.
Dulle, Frankwell W., and M.K. Minishi-Majanja. 2011. “The Suitability of the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model in
Open Access Adoption Studies.” Information Development 27(1): 32–45.
Durand, Rodolphe, and Vicente Vargas. 2003. “Ownership, Organization, and
Private Firms’ Efficient Use of Resources.” Strategic Management Journal
24(7): 667–75.
Dyerson, Romano, and G. Harindranath. 2007. “ICT Adoption and Use by
SMEs in the UK: A Survey of South East.” Paper Presented at the Port-
land International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology
(PICMET), Portland, Oregon, USA.
Eames, Donald, and Gregory Norkus. 1988. “Developing Your Procurement
Strategy.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 29: 30–33.
Elenkov, Detelin, and Ivan Manev. 2005. “Top Management Leadership and
Influence on Innovation: The Role of Socio-cultural Context.” Journal of
Management 31(3): 381–402.
Falk, Martin. 2008. “Effects of Foreign Ownership on Innovation Activities:
Empirical Evidence for Twelve European Countries.” National Institute
Economic Review 204: 85–97.
Feather, John. 1998. The Information Society: A Study of Continuity and Change.
2nd ed. London: Library Association Publishing.
Fischer, Ronald. 2009. “Where Is Culture in Cross Cultural Research? An
Outline of a Multilevel Research Process for Measuring Culture as a Shared
Meaning System.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9:
25–49.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Azjen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Frese, Michael, Marco van Gelderen, and Michael Ombach. 2000. “How to
Plan as a Small Scale Business Owner: Psychological Process Characteristics
of Action Strategies and Success” Journal of Small Business Management 38:
1–18.
Fuchs, Matthias, Wolfram Hopken, Andreas Foger, and Martin Kunz. 2009. “E-
Business Readiness, Intensity and Impact: An Austrian Destination Manage-
ment Organization Study.” Journal of Travel Research 49(2): 165–178.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 77

Gallo, Peter J., and Lisa Jones Christensen. 2011. “Firm Size Matters: An Empir-
ical Investigation of Organizational Size and Ownership on Sustainability-
Related Behaviors.” Business Society 50: 315–349.
Gentner, D., B. Stelzer, and L. Brecht. 2017, June. “Analyzing Customers’
Readiness for Digital B2B Business Models.” In ISPIM Innovation Sympo-
sium, 1. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management
(ISPIM).
Gattorna, John. 1994. The Gower Handbook of Logistics and Distribution
Management. 4th ed. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing.
George, Gerard, Johan Wiklund, and Shaker Zahra. 2005. “Ownership and the
Internationalization of Small Firms.” Journal of Management 31(2): 210–
233.
Ghobadian, Abby, and Nicholas O’Regan. 2006. “The Impact of Ownership on
Small Firm Behaviour and Performance.” International Small Business Journal
24(6): 555–584.
Ghosh, Shikhar. 1998. “Making Business Sense of the Internet.” Harvard
Business Review 124–135.
Gibson, Cristina, and Dana McDaniel. 2010. “Moving Beyond Conventional
Wisdom Advancements in Cross-Cultural Theories of Leadership, Conflict,
and Teams.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 450–462.
Golding, Peter, and Graham Murdock. 2001. “Digital Divide: Communications
Policy and Its Contradictions.” New Economy 8(2): 110–115.
Grandon, Elizabeth, and J. Michael Pearson. 2004. “Electronic Commerce
Adoption: An Empirical Study of Small and Medium US Businesses.”
Information and Management 42: 197–216.
Gray, Colin. 2006. “Stage Models of ICT Adoption in Small Firms.” In Impact
of E-commerce on Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala
and Colin Gray, 3–20. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Greenwood, Royston, and Laura Empson. 2003. “The Professional Partnership:
Relic or Exemplary Form of Governance?” Organization Studies 24(6): 909–
933.
Greenwood, Royston, David Deephouse, and Stan Li. 2007. “Ownership and
Performance of Professional Service Firms.” Organization Studies 28(2): 219–
238.
Grieger, M. 2003. “Electronic Marketplaces: A Literature Review and a Call
for Supply Chain Management Research.” European Journal of Operational
Research 144(2): 280–294.
Gunkel, David. 2003. “Second Thoughts: Toward a Critique of the Digital
Divide.” New Media and Society 5(4): 499–522.
Gyamfi, Alexander. 2005. “Closing the Digital Divide in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Meeting the Challenges of the Information Age.” Information Development
21(1): 22–30.
78 A. SPENCER

Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad. 1994. Competing for the Future. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Hamlin, Robert, and Jenny Sawyer. 2007. “Developing Effective Leadership
Behaviours: The Value of Evidence-based Management.” Business Leadership
Review 4(4): 1–16.
Harland, Christine M. 1996. “Supply Chain Management, Purchasing and
Supply Management, Logistics, Vertical Integration, Materials Management
and Supply Chain Dynamics.” In Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Opera-
tions Management, edited by Nigel Slack. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Harrison, Graeme, and Jill McKinnon. 1999. “Cross-Cultural Research in
Management Control Systems Design: A Review of the Current State.”
Accounting, Organizations and Society 24: 483–506.
Hatton, Gerry. 1994. “Designing a Warehouse or Distribution Centre.” In The
Gower Handbook of Logistics and Distribution Management, edited by John
Gattorna, 175–193. 4th ed. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing.
Hatton, Mike. 2004. “Redefining the Relationships: The Future of Travel Agen-
cies and the Global Agency Contract in a Changing Distribution System.”
Journal of Vacation Marketing 10: 101.
Heinich, Nathalie. 2010. “What Does ‘Sociology of Culture’ Mean? Notes on a
Few Trans-Cultural Misunderstandings.” Cultural Sociology 4: 257–265.
Heung, Vincent C. S. 2003. “Barriers to Implementing E-Commerce in the
Travel Industry: A Practical Perspective.” International Journal of Hospitality
Management 22(1): 111–118.
Hitt, Michael A., R. Duane Ireland, and Robert E. Hoskisson. 2001. Strategic
Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. 4th ed. Mason, OH: South
Western Publishing.
Hoffman, Eric, and Paul Roman. 1984. “Information Diffusion in the Imple-
mentation of Innovation Process.” Communication Research 11(1): 117–140.
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hollander, Edwin P. 1993. “Legitimacy, Power and Influence: A Perspective
on Relational Features of Leadership.” In Leadership Theory and Research:
Perspectives and Directions, edited by Martin M. Chemers, and Roya Ayman,
29–48. San Diego: Academic Press.
Van den Hooff, Bart, Jasper Groot, and Sander de Jonge. 2005. “Situational
Influences on the Use of Communication Technologies: A Meta-Analysis and
Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business Communication (1973) 4(2): 4–27.
Houghton, Kathryn, and Heidi Winklehofer. 2004. “The Effect of Website and
E-commerce Adoption on the Relationship between SMEs and Their Export
Intermediaries.” International Small Business Journal 22: 369.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 79

James, Jeffrey. 2004. “The Global Digital Divide in the Internet: Developed
Countries Constructs and Third World Realities.” Journal of Information
Science 31(2): 114–123.
Jaskyte, Kristina, and Kisieliene Audrone. 2006. “Organizational Innovation:
Comparison of Nonprofit Human-Service Organizations in Lithuania and the
United States.” International Social Work 49(2): 165–176.
Karamustafa, Kurtulus. 2000. “Marketing-Channel Relationships: Turkey’s
Resort Purveyors’ Interactions with International Tour Operators.” Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41(4): 21–32.
Keller, Kenneth. 2008. “From Here to There in Information Technology: The
Complexities of Innovation.” American Behavioral Scientist 51(1): 97–106.
Kirkman, Geoffrey, Peter Cornelius, Jeffrey Sachs, and Klaus Schwab. 2002.
Global Information Technology Report 2001–2002. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kotler, Philip, and Gary Armstrong. 2008. Principles of Marketing, 12th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Posner. 1987. The Leadership Challenge: How to
Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Kowalewski, Oskar, Oleksandr Talavera, and Ivan Stetsyuk. 2010. “Influence of
Family Involvement in Management and Ownership on Firm Performance:
Evidence from Poland.” Family Business Review 23(1): 45–59.
Kraajenbrink, Jeroen, J. C. Spender, and Aard Groen. 2010. “The Resource-
Based View: A Review and Assessment of Its Critiques.” Journal of Manage-
ment 36: 349.
Kuan, Kevin K. Y., and Patrick Chau. 2001. “A Perception-Based Model for EDI
Adoption in Small Businesses Using Technology-Organization-Environment
Framework.” Information and Management 38: 507–521.
Kuhnert, Karl, and Philip Lewis. 1987. “Transactional and Transforma-
tional Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis.” The Academy of
Management Review 12(4): 648–657.
Kwon, Winston, Ian Clarke, and Ruth Wodak. 2009. “Organizational Decision-
Making, Discourse, and Power: Integrating across Contexts and Scales.”
Discourse and Communication 3: 273–302.
Lang, Tania. 2000. “The Effect of the Internet on Travel Consumer Purchasing
Behaviour and Implications for Travel Agencies.” Journal of Vacation
Marketing 6: 368.
Langley, Ann, Henry Mintzberg, Patricia Pitcher, Elizabeth Posada, and Jan
Saint-Macary. 1995. “Opening Up Decision Making: The View from the
Black Stool.” Organisation Science 6(3): 260–279.
80 A. SPENCER

Lash, Scott. 1994. “Reflexivity and Its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Commu-
nity.” In Reflexive Modernization, edited by Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens,
and Scott Lash, 110–173. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Latzer, Michael. 2009. “Information and Communication Technology Innova-
tions: Radical and Disruptive?” New Media Society 11(4): 599–619.
Law, Rob, Kenith Leung, and James Wong. 2004. “The Impact of the Internet
on Travel Agencies.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 16(2): 100–107.
Laws, Eric. 2001. “Distribution Channel Analysis for Leisure Travel.” In
Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations, edited
by Dimitrios Buhalis, and Eric Laws, 53–72. London: Continuum.
Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. 1998, June. “The Role
of Ease of Use, Usefulness and Attitude in the Prediction of World Wide Web
Usage.” In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer
Personnel Research, 195–204.
Legris, Paul, John Ingham, and Pierre Collerette. 2003. “Why Do People Use
Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance
Model.” Information and Management 40: 191–204.
Lewis, Barbara, and Pamela McCann. 2004. “Service Failure and Recovery:
Evidence from the Hotel Industry.” International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 16(1): 6–17.
Lippert, Susan K., and Miles Davis. 2006. “A Conceptual Model Integrating
Trust into Planned Change Activities to Enhance Technology Adoption
Behaviour.” Journal of Information Science 32(5): 434–448.
Loudon, David L., and Albert J. Della Bitta. 1993. Consumer Behaviour: Concepts
and Applications. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lumsdon, Les M., and Jonathan S. Swift. 1999. “The Role of Tour Operators
in South America: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uraguay.” International
Journal of Tourism Research 4(1): 429–439.
Mahoney, Joseph T., and J. Rajendran Pandian. 1992. “The Resource-Based
View Within the Conversation of Strategic Management.” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 13: 363–380.
Mansell, Robin. 2002. “From Digital Divides to Digital Entitlements in Knowl-
edge Societies.” Current Sociology 50(3): 407–426.
Marler, Janet H., Xiaoya Liang, and James Hamilton Dulebhon. 2006. “Training
and Effective Employee Information Technology Use.” Journal of Manage-
ment 32(5): 721–743.
May, Christopher. 2002. Information Society: A Sceptical View. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
McLean, Laird D. 2005. “Organizational Culture’s Influence on Creativity and
Innovation: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource
Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 7(2): 226–246.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 81

Minghetti, Valeria, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2010. “Digital Divide in Tourism.”

Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.
Mochrie, Robert, Laura Galloway, and David Deakins. 2006. “The Value of
Internet Forums to Small Rural Businesses.” In Impact of e-Commerce on
Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala and Colin Gray,
81–100. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Moital, Miguel, Roger Vaughan, and Jonathan Edwards. 2009. “Using Involve-
ment for Segmenting the Adoption of E-commerce in Travel.” Service
Industries Journal 29(5): 723–739.
Montgomery, Cynthia A., and Sam Harihan. 1991. “Diversified Expansion by
Large Established Firms.” Journal of Economic Behaviour 52(1): 71–89.
Morrison, Alison, Michael Rimmington, and Clare Williams. 1999. Entrepreneur-
ship in the Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Industries. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Mosaic Group. 1998. “The Global Diffusion of the Internet Project: An Initial
Inductive Study.” Accessed January 16, 2010. www.agsd.com/gdi97/gdi97.
html.
Mowery, David C., Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian Silverman. 1998. “Technological
Overlap and Interfirm Cooperation: Implications for the Resource-Based View
of the Firm.” Research Policy 27: 507–523.
Murphy, William H. 1999. “Hofstede’s National Culture as a Guide for Sales
Practices across Countries: The Case of a MNC’s Sales Practices in Australia
and New Zealand.” Australian Journal of Management 24(1): 37–58.
Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Behaviour and Capabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
195–307.
Norris, Pipps. 2000. “Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty
and the Internet in Democratic Societies.” Accessed November 9, 2010.
Page, Stephen, and Don Getz. 1997. The Business of Rural Tourism: Interna-
tional perspectives. London: Thomson Business Press.
Palmer, Adrian, and Patrick McCole. 1999. “The Virtual Re-intermediation
of Travel Services: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Investigation.”
Journal of Vacation Marketing 6(1): 33–47.
Patricia, Dodu. 2008. “The Internet, Threat or Tool for Travel Agen-
cies?” Accessed April 9, 2010. http://steconomice.uoradea.ro/anale/vol
ume/2008/v2-economy-andbusiness-administration/017.pdf.
Pawar, Badrinarayan S. 2003. “Central Conceptual Issues in Transformational
Leadership Research.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal
24(7): 397–406.
Pawar, Badrinarayan S., and Kenneth Eastman. 1997. “The Nature and Implica-
tions of Contextual Influences on Transformational Leadership: A Conceptual
Examination.” Academy Management Review 22: 80–109.
82 A. SPENCER

Pearce, Douglas G. 2009. “Beyond Tiers: A Network Approach to Tourism

Distribution.” Tourism Analysis 13: 517–530.
Penrose, Edith T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.
Persson, Goran. 1978. “Organisation Design Strategies for Business Logistics.”
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management
8(6): 287–297.
Peteraf, Margaret A. 1993. “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A
Resource-Based View.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–191.
Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1987. “Context and Action in the Transformation of
Firms.” Journal of Management Studies 24: 649–670.
Poon, Auliana. 2001. “The Future of Travel Agents.” Travel & Tourism Analyst
3: 57–80.
Poon, Simpson, and Mathew Joseph. 2001. “A Preliminary Study of Product
Nature and Electronic Commerce.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning
19(7): 493–499.
Porter, Michael. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.
———. 1995. Wettbewerbsstrategien (Competitive Strategy). New York: Campus.
———. 2001. “Bewährte Strategien Werden mit dem Internet Noch Wirk-
samer.” Harvard Business Manager 5: 64–81.
Porter, Michael, and Victor Millar. 1985. “How Information Gives You Compet-
itive Advantage.” Harvard Business Review 63(4): 149–160.
Presutti, William. 2003. “Supply Chain Management and E-procurement:
Creating Value-Added in the Supply Chain.” Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment 32: 219–226.
Rappa, Michael. 2002. “Business Models on the Web.” Accessed February 7,
2010. http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html.
Rayport, Jeffrey F. 1995. “Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain.” Harvard Business
Review 73(6): 75–85.
Redding, S.Gordon. 1994. “Comparative Management Theory: Jungle, Zoo or
Fossil Bed?” Organization Studies 15: 323–359.
Reisinger, Yvette, and Lindsay W. Turner. 2002. “Cultural Differences between
Asian Tourist Markets and Australian Hosts: Part 2.” Journal of Travel
Research 40: 385–395.
Ricardo, David. 1817. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: J.
Murray.
Ricketts, Martin. 1994. The Economies of Business Enterprise. Hempstead:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Reve, Torger. 1990. “The Firm as a Nexus of Internal and External Contracts.”
In The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties, edited by Masahiko Aioki, 136–188.
London: Sage.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 83

Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1976. “New Product Adoption and Diffusion.” Journal of Consumer
Research 2: 290.
———. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1994. A History of Communication Study—A Biographical Approach.
New York: The Free Press.
———. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.
Rushton, Alan, and John Oxley. 1993. Handbook of Logistics and Distribution
Management. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Ryals, Lynette, and Andre Humphries. 2007. “Managing Key Business-to-
Business Relationships: What Marketing Can Learn from Supply Chain
Management.” Journal of Service Research 9: 312.
Ryan, Bryce, and Neal Gross. 1943. “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in
Two Iowa Communities.” Rural Sociology 8: 15–24.
Saffu, Kojo, and John Walker. 2008. “Strategic Value and Electronic Commerce
Adoption among Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in a Transactional
Economy.” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 23(6): 395–404.
Sarros, James C., Brain K. Cooper, and Joseph Santora. 2008. “Building a
Climate for Innovation through Transformational Leadership and Orga-
nizational Culture.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 15:
145–158.
Sassi, Sinikka. 2005. “Cultural Differentiation or Social Segregation? Four
Approaches to the Digital Divide.” New Media and Society 7(5): 684–700.
Schary, Philip, and Tage Larsen. 1998. Managing the Global Supply Chain.
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Schwartz, Shalom. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values:
Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.
Shailer, Gregory. 1994. “Capitalists and Entrepreneurs in Owner-Managed
Firms.” International Small Business Journal 12: 33–41.
Siebens, H. 2002. “Concepts and Working Instruments for Corporate Gover-
nance.” Journal of Business Ethics 39(1–2): 109–116.
Simon Herbert Alexander. 1957. Models of Man. New York: Wiley.
Singh, Surendra P., Ruthie G. Reynolds, and Safdar Muhammad. 2001. “A
Gender-Based Analysis of Micro and Small Enterprises in Java, Indonesia.”
Journal of Small Business Management 39(2): 174–182.
Slevin, D.P., & J.G. Covin. (1995). “Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A
Research Model.” Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth
2: 175–224.
Sparks, Colin. 2000. “The Distribution of Online Resources and the Democratic
Potential of the Internet.” In Cultural, Economic and Policy Foundations for
84 A. SPENCER

Media Openness and Diversity in East and West, edited by Jan van Cuilenburg,
and Richard van der Wurff, 229–254. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Spink, A., and C. Cole. 2001. “Information and Poverty: Information-Seeking
Channels Used by African American Low-Income Households.” Library &
Information Science Research 23(1): 45–65.
Stansfield, Mark, and Kevin Grant. 2003. “An Investigation into Issues Influ-
encing the Use of the Internet and Electronic Commerce among Small-
Medium Sized Enterprises.” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 4(1):
15–33.
Straub, Evan. 2009. “Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future
Directions for Informal Learning.” Review of Educational Research 79: 625–
649.
Stump, Rodney L., Wen Gong, and Zhan Li. 2008. “Exploring the Digital
Divide in Mobile-Phone Adoption Levels across Countries: Do Population
Socioeconomic Traits Operate in the Same Manner as Their Individual-level
Demographic Counterparts?” Journal of Macromarketing 28: 397–412.
Subramaniam, Nava, and Neal Ashkanasy. 2001. “The Effect of Organisational
Culture Perceptions on the Relationship between Budgetary Participation
and Managerial Job-Related Outcomes.” Australian Journal of Management
26(1): 35–54.
Tatum, B. Charles, Richard Eberlin, Carin Kottraba, and Travis Bradberry. 2003.
“Leadership, Decision-Making and Organizational Justice.” Management
Decision 41(10): 1006–1016.
Tchaïcha, Jane D., and Mark M. Davis. 2005. “The Impact of Culture on Tech-
nology and Business: An Interdisciplinary, Experiential Course Paradigm.”
Journal of Management Education 29(5): 738–757.
Teece, David J. 1982. “Toward an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm.”
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3: 39–63.
Teo, Thompson, Sijie Lin, and Kee-hung Lai. 2009. “Adopters and Non-
adopters of E-procurement in Singapore: An Empirical Study.” Omega 37(5):
972–987.
Toomela, Aaro. 2003. “How Should Culture Be Studied?” Culture & Psychology
9(1): 35–45.
Tsao, Chiung-Wen. 2009. “Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance:
The Role of High-Performance Work Systems.” Family Business Review 22(4):
319–332.
Trompenaars, Fons. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business. London: Economist Books.
Ulijn, Jan, Dan O’Hair, Mathieu Weggeman, Gerald Ledlow, and Thomas
Hall. 2000. “Innovation, Corporate Strategy, and Cultural Context: What Is
the Mission for International Business Communication?” Journal of Business
Communication 37(3): 293–317.
 2 LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY … 85

Victorino, Liana, Rohit Verma, Gerhard Plaschka, and Chekitan Dev. 2006.
“Service Innovation and Customer Choices in the Hospitality Industry.”
Managing Service Quality 15(6): 555–576.
Villalonga, B., and R. Amit. 2006. How Do Family Ownership, Control and
Management Affect Firm Value? Journal of Financial Economics 80(2): 385–
417.
Virolainen, Veli. 1998. “A Survey of Procurement Management Development
in Industrial Companies.” International Journal of Productions Economics 56:
677–688.
Vishwanath, Arun, and Gerald Goldhaber. 2003. “An Examination of the Factors
Contributing to Adoption Decisions among Late-Diffused Technology Prod-
ucts.” New Media and Society 5(4): 547–572.
Vrana, Vasiliki, and Costas Zafiropoulos. 2006. “Tourism Agents’ Attitudes
on Internet Adoption: An Analysis from Greece.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 18(7): 601–608.
Warden, Stuart, and S. Tunzelana. 2004. “E-Commerce: A Critical Review of
SMME Organizational Barriers in Tourism.” Paper presented at the Proceed-
ings of 6th WWW Applications Conference 2004, Rand Afrikaans University,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
Wasilczuk, Julita. 2000. “Advantageous Competence of Owner/Managers to
Grow the Firm in Poland: Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Small Business
Management 38(2): 88–94.
Welch, Emma. 2003. “The Relationship between Ownership Structure and
Performance in Listed Australian Companies.” Australian Journal of Manage-
ment 28(3): 287–306.
Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. “A Resource-Based View of the Firm.” Strategic
Management Journal 5: 171–180.
Werthner, Hannes, and Stefan Klein. 1999. Information Technology and Tourism:
A Challenging Relationship. Vienna: Springer Verlag.
Westwood, Robert, and David Low. 2003. “The Multicultural Muse Culture,
Creativity and Innovation.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-
ment 3(2): 235–259.
Williamson, Dermot. 2002. “Forward from a Critique of Hofstede’s Model of
National Culture.” Human Relations 55(11): 1373–1395.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. “Transaction Cost-Economies: The Governance of
Contractual Relations.” Journal of Law and Economics 22: 232–261.
———. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
———. 1990. “The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties: An Introduction.” In The Firm
as a Nexus of Treaties, edited by Masahiko Aioki, 136–188. London: Sage.
Williamson, Oliver E., and Scott E. Masten. 1999. The Economics of Transaction
Costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
86 A. SPENCER

Willis, Suzanne, and Bruce Tranter. 2006. “Beyond the ‘Digital Divide’: Internet
Diffusion and Inequality in Australia.” Journal of Sociology 42(1): 43–59.
Wilson, Kenneth R., Jennifer S. Wallin, and Christa Reiser. 2003. “Social
Stratification and the Digital Divide.” Social Science Computer Review 21:
133–143.
Winston, Brian. 1986. Misunderstanding Media. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Wirtz, Bernd W. 2001. Electronic Business. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Wöber, Karl, and Ulrike Gretzel. 2000. “Tourism Managers’ Adoption of
Marketing Decision Support Systems.” Journal of Travel Research 39: 172–
181.
Woiceshyn, Jaana. 2000. “Technology Adoption: Organizational Learning in Oil
Firms.” Organization Studies 21(6): 1095–1118.
Yu, Liangzhi. 2006. “Understanding Information Inequality: Making Sense of
the Literature of the Information and Digital Divides.” Journal of Librarian-
ship and Information Science 38(4): 229–252.
Zappala, Salvatore, and Colin Gray. 2006. Impact of e-Commerce on Consumers
and Small Firms. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Zappala, Salvatore, and Guido Sarchielli. 2006. “Climate for Innovation, Attitude
to Internet and ICT Adoption in Small Firms.” In Impact of e-Commerce on
Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala, and Colin Gray,
35–50. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Zhou, Yuqiong. 2008. “Voluntary Adopters Versus Forced Adopters: Integrating
the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model
to Study Intra-organization Adoption.” New Media Society 10: 475.
 CHAPTER 3

Internal Firm Factors: An Examination

of Travel Companies Resource Base

The tourism industry is a major contributor to Caribbean economies

such as Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Bahamas. The industry
employs 32.8, 8.5, and 52.5% of the population, respectively.1 Consid-
ering the significant relationship between the tourism industry and
employment within these countries, the industry’s level of development
should be examined to understand its ability to adapt in a data driven and
technological environment.
It is posited that information communication technology (ICT) is a
significant contributing factor in enhancing the tourism product marketed
by these island States.2 Used appropriately, ICT can provide high-quality
tourism products for tourists and administrators of tourism. These bene-
fits can be seen in products which enables tourists to access tourism
services and products from anywhere, at any time. Conversely, administra-
tor’s ability to reach target customers across the world by mobile phones
and web technologies has increased.3 Successful integration of ICT in
areas such as customer reservation to office automation can potentially
lead to customer retention and customer loyalty, which inevitably lead to
growth and development of economies.

1 The World Travel and Tourism Council (2019). Retrieved from https://wttc.org/Res
earch/Economic-Impact.
2 O’Connor (2008).
3 Bethapudi (2013).

© The Author(s) 2021 87

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_3
88 A. SPENCER

This study is timely in light of ICT proliferation in the global land-

scape; therefore, consideration must be given to the tourism industry in
these countries and consequently their travel firms given that they operate
within the confines of the technology that is available in the societies. In
so far as growth and development of economies, travel firms play an inte-
gral role; their ability to adopt and successfully integrate ICT in their
process can inherently lead to increased quality of tourism products and
services as well as increased customer availability, retention, and loyalty.
Deeper analysis was obtained using Jamaica as a case example; 31 of
the 43 travel agencies within Jamaica. The firms interviewed subscribed
to the following selection criteria—they consisted of owner-managers
(those owners who engage in the daily operational activities of the firm).
The selection of owner-manager firms was due to their autonomous
decision-making nature. These firms however, varied in size and opera-
tional periods. More than half (67.7%) of the firm sampled operated for
more than 15 years while the remaining 16.1% operated for less than
10 years.
In comparison travel companies in the Bahamas on average have been
opened for 20 years. Like firms in Jamaica, research findings revealed that
the firm had a long-standing history of operation within the country.
To determine the size of the firms, the number of employees were
used in Jamaica 87.1% of the firms had fewer than 15 employees and 71%
had less than 10 employees. Within the Bahamas firms had on average
6 employees. Based on the aforementioned features the firms may be
categorized as mature, small firms.
The years of operation for these firms might signify why most of them
are opposed to new innovations. Lynskey (2004) contended that a rela-
tionship exists between the number of years a firm has been in operation
and the innovative activity that firm pursues. On one hand, some scholars
argued that age and experience may lead to more competitive behaviors,
while the opposing argument is that newer agile firms may be more open
to cutting-edge approaches. The latter would seem to be more applicable
in this research as owner-managers in older firms highlighted that their
traditional methods continue to work therefore the prevailing percep-
tion is that the need for change is not evident. The following statement
by a respondent conveys as much: “We have been in this business for
almost 20 years and we have survived harder times than these. For the
last 10 years we have used SABRE and it has worked well for us. I think
that these challenges will soon pass just like they did when we faced
commission cuts in 2001.”
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 89

Another key finding was that, the client bases of these firms remained
fairly constant, with little new business being generated. Additionally,
respondents recognized that the client base was decreasing rather than
increasing, as their clientele (primarily baby boomers), seemed to be
booking less through them while Generation X and Y were utilizing alter-
native means of booking online. Notably, the markets served by all these
firms were the outbound leisure and business markets but none of the
firms served the inbound leisure or business markets; due to its lack of
commission. The excessive emphasis on the outbound leisure market can
be attributed to that these business owners served most of their clients
for over 10 years and that they felt that there was a high level of loyalty.
This expression by an owner-manager reflects the sentiments of all those
interviewed. He expressed, “Most of my customers have been with me for
a long time and now they seem to be booking less, which maybe because
of the global economic crisis or just the fact that they are older than they
were and are naturally traveling less. At the same time, we tend not to
get a lot of young people booking with us because they probably do it
themselves.”
The interviews with owner-managers revealed a unanimous reliance
among all the participants on GDS, specifically SABRE and AMADEUS.
In this regard, the majority (96.8%) of firms perceived their technology
use as very high. While most firms recognized the importance of tech-
nology for sales and marketing, they failed to see its importance outside of
GDSs. In light of this stance, 77.4% of Jamaican firms thought company
websites were unimportant and an even larger proportion (87%) viewed
the online market to be very unimportant. Unsurprisingly, none of the
firms had a social media account (Facebook, MySpace, or twitter), and
the internet was primarily used for emailing.
Only one owner-managed company in Trinidad and Tobago has a
website and felt that online market was important while the remaining
companies perceive the online market to be unimportant.
Companies that created websites in the past noted at the time it seemed
like a great idea, one that would positively impact the company’s visibility.
Subsequent to the website creation, firms recognized that they lack the
personnel to maintain and update it. Conversely, an owner-manager stated
“creating a website is one thing but maintaining it is completely different
matter.” In its initial stage the websites provided potential customers
with information, much of which is now outdated. Of the firms with
websites a portion were interested in visibility and providing general
90 A. SPENCER

information about the company and its location while others sought to
provide marketing information such as package deals. Nonetheless, in
most instances’ customers made bookings on the telephone or at the
office. This infers that firms utilized technology (websites) to influence
traditional offline booking practice. The adoption of technology in this
minimalistic approach highlights the conservative, traditional, and short-
sightedness of firms. This is brought home by one owner-manager who
stated “when designing the website, we did not consider doing complete
bookings online because that is complicated and risky. We just wanted to
become more visible so that potential customers would see us and call us
to make bookings.”
A noteworthy finding however, was the fact that all of these firms
agreed that the variables identified by Eason (1998) were applicable.
More than 90% of respondents agreed that the internet promotes faster
work, makes work simpler, takes less effort, and improves the quality
of output. Yet, firms were in disagreement as to whether the internet
was cost-efficient and improves their image among competitors. While
the operational benefits were readily identifiable by firms, they were less
convinced of its value from a strategy and resource perspective. To bolster
this stance, all the respondents acknowledged an internet investment as
medium (45.2%) or high risk (54.8%). This connotes their uncertainty
about the return on investment regarding the internet. This therefore,
gives rise to the three types of perceived risk: psychological risk (Eastlick
and Lotz 1999), time risk (Tan 1999), and financial risk. All three were
applicable as owner-managers were apparently worried about the risk of
losing time and money but also about the psychological risk of becoming
dependent on the internet. The perceived diminishing nature of the
internet by owner-managers is echoed by a respondent in the following
statement. “I have seen too many companies in other industries become
so technological that they lose some of their customer service quality and
I do not want my company to become so dependent that we forget who
we are.”
Most firms’ strategic decisions were customer driven, in collaboration
with variables such as speed, convenience, accuracy, and security4 which
were of importance to the majority (80.6%) of their customers. Signif-
icantly, personal interaction was the only variable which all the firms

4 Wöber and Gretzel (2000).

 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 91

agreed was important to their customers. This service as articulated by

the respondents could not be provided by the internet. As such their lack
of adoption of the internet beyond GDS can be perceived as a strategic
decision in an effort to meet the demands of their clientele. As aforemen-
tioned firms associate the value of technology to its utility with the GDS,
therefore it is no surprise that all the firm’s front office operations use
GDS to serve their markets. This is very significant in highlighting their
attitude to investing in technology. One respondent stated that: “The
airlines give us these systems for free as well as training in how to use them
so we do not have to invest too much or face the risk of losing money
when things do not work out.” Further investigation indicated that all
of the agencies use computers for back-office accounting and administra-
tive functions through software called “pear tree.” This automated system
facilitates the efficient handling of payables and receivables.
Traditional firms’ reluctance toward adopting new technology is due
to the perceived and actual cost of familiarizing employees with these
technologies. The barrier then seems to be one of learning to use the
internet.5 Issues of ease of use6 can be addressed with greater internet
training. However, owner-managers overwhelmingly ascribe little impor-
tance in executing this kind of training. This lack of implementation can
be attributed to their preference to use systems where free training is
provided. One research participant noted “there would be additional cost
in training employees and I am not sure that we would increase revenue
as a result. At least with the GDS training is provided at no additional cost
to us so even if there are no significant returns then we are not seriously
affected.”
The aforementioned statement substantiates the notion that the degree
to which new technologies are adopted by these firms, is to foster greater
operational focus rather than a strategic decision. The respondents myopic
outlook did not detect any benefit to increased training in the use of
internet technologies and chose to facilitate technology training only if
this is free. These firm’s strategy and resources were addressed with image
among competitors and monetary savings, these factors align with the
literature reviewed which influence adoption of innovations. Image was
the only factor in this section on relative advantage for which there was no

5 Rogers (2003), James (2004), Stump et al. (2008).

6 Davis (1989).
92 A. SPENCER

ambiguity. There was a high level of disagreement among sample, 80.6%

disagreed or totally disagreed that such a benefit existed. This was due in
part to their perception of local operators as their competitors and these
companies were equally as indecisive about the utilization of the internet
especially for front office operations. One respondent expressed, “I do
not think that our local competitors are using these technologies either
and so whether I use it or not they will not think I have a better image.
In any case they do not know what I am using or not using and I don’t
pay a lot of attention to what they use.”
The lack of technology use among competitors for sales and marketing
highlights owner-managers minimalistic approach utilizing technology.
Noticeably, non-utilization of technology tools by competitors for sales
and marketing provides a strong argument as to why its use probably
yields a competitive advantage. The most distinct of these benefits is
that of monetary savings. Owing to the fact that these are small firms
with limited resources, the management structure for each firm is fairly
simple—the owner is the manager and provides supervision for a few
employees. The returns on investment therefore, was directly related the
owner-manager’s livelihood. One owner-manager stated, “my company
is my life investment and so anything that I spend on for the agency
must guarantee that I either make more money or save some money. I
am really not sure that I would save or make any money from increased
internet use.” Concerns surrounding the efficient use of resources and
competitive advantage are interrelated to strategy and resource allocation
debate which will emerge after the case study analysis which summarizes
the characteristics of the highest and one of the lowest adopters.

Case Examples
Case A
Within this company internet usage is defined by regular emailing, online
browsing, and minimal online sale but with the intention to grow this
platform. Led by an avid internet user, the owner-manager utilizes the
internet for personal online shopping and social media use; this leader also
has three children who are avid users. He notes this as being influential
in his decision to establish an online platform in the company.
He states:
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 93

I buy things online all the time like gadgets and books and I have always
felt that it is an excellent way to reach customers. I have delayed using it
in the business for a while because I figured that my client base was not
ready. I think the time is right at this point as the client base is becoming
more savvy. In any case I can try to reach people outside the current client
pool.

I currently use Facebook to connect with friends and I am not using it

in the business as yet because I need to find out more about whether
customers view it as a serious business tool or just as something to do for
fun. I am open to the idea though and will look into it.

The owner-manager’s experience with technology impacts his willingness

to adopt several forms of innovative technological tools in the business.
It also fosters a high degree of openness to exploring options. This open-
ness is positively influenced by an university education in business studies,
which allowed for an understanding of various business models.

Back in my days at the University of the West Indies I learned how to

analyze market needs on a broader scale through needs assessments. This
kind of business knowledge can be applied to any industry and is not
limited to just travel.

I also had the privilege to work in banking and finance as well as real
estate, and both of these industries faced hard times so I understand that
in difficult times, which as you know the travel agencies are facing, we
need to find new strategies to survive.

Notably, experience garnered in other industries also influence the

manager’s approach and perspective, he noted it made him less risk averse
and “even though I live in a society that is not very open to technolog-
ical investments, something new must be tried in times of crisis.” The
most profound statement made by this leader was that “you can’t expect
to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.” The
characteristics of this owner-manager reflects that of a market leader who
positions himself to be proactive rather than reactive while seeking out
new opportunities thwart impending challenges.
94 A. SPENCER

Case B
This case represents low adopting firms and embodies features of firms in
this category. Internet use is restricted to emailing and the primary tool
for sales is the GDS which was acquired at no cost. Therefore, investment
in incurring cost to invest in technology and the internet is very low.
Owner-managers within this category has been in the industry for the last
25 years and perceive the technology revolution to have a diminishing
effect on service quality in the industry. One manager reminisced on his
experience in the travel industry prior to the availability of cutting-edge
technology, stating “When I first started in this industry, I used to work
for Air Jamaica and then I went to Martin’s Travel. Afterwards I opened
my own agency because I was impressed with the level of service of these
companies. Back then we didn’t have all this online craze and we believed
in personalized service.”
This manager felt that there was a great deal of incompatibility with
technology and maintaining the personality of the business, meaning the
human element. It is critical to note however, that her narrow focus may
be influenced by her level of education as her entrance into the travel
industry occurred immediately after high school with no accompanying
formal education or training. Her experience therefore limits her willing-
ness to invest in technology without evidence of the benefits of its use.
Compounded by the fact that her child is an adult who does not reside
at home, this owner-manager is risk averse to the internet and highlights
this by expressing “I would be wasting my time to try to sell online to
my clients because most of them do not like using the internet to do
serious business; furthermore they like having that personal contact and
they wouldn’t trade that for anything.”
The personal traits of these owner-managers at both ends of the spec-
trum play a critical role in informing strategy and decisions pertaining to
resource allocation. These are important internal elements of the firm in
technology adoption studies as previously highlighted in Fig. 2.2. Each
of which will be discussed in light of the findings from the qualitative
component of the research.
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 95

Firm Strategy
Porter (1985) body of work which analyses business strategy in a compet-
itive environment7 is frequently referenced among strategic management
theorists. A recurring argument in this body of work is that strategy devel-
opment must take into consideration competitors and consumers. This
approach promises a well informed and formulated, dynamic and robust
competitive strategy. While at the core of any strategy is competitive-
ness, for the objectives of this research strategy will be conceptualized
in three ways to reflect the supply chain. These are overall competitive
strategy, procurement strategy, and distribution strategy. The role that
each of these has in relation to technology adoption will be examined.
Porter (1985, 2001) posits that a company formulates a strategy
to gain competitive advantage, it achieves this by responding to the
following forces:
The findings largely support the work of Porter in terms of strategy.
According to Porter (1985, 2001) a company develops its business strate-
gies to obtain a competitive advantage, it achieves this by responding to
five primary forces:

• Power of buyers
• Threat of substitute products/services
• Power of suppliers
• The threat of new entrants
• Rivalry among existing firms within an industry.

When assessed in relation to the aforementioned forces, firms in the

study faced no or little threat of new entrants to the market given the
steady decline in the number of firms operating in the environment.
New entrants to the market space like Expedia were not deemed as a
threat nor perceived as a competitor by the firms. Instead, rivalry among
existing firms within the local market was a very important factor. The
primary strategy competitive advantage used by rivaling firms was that
of undercutting of service fees, this led to significant levels of mistrust.
This mistrust was expressed by an owner-manager who stated, “as a
group we decided that service fees should be J$2100 and there are some

7 See for example David (2007), Kim et al. (2004), Stonehouse and Snowdon (2007),
Poon (1993), Wynne et al. (2001).
96 A. SPENCER

companies who have secretly been charging as little as J$1500. At this

point we cannot even trust the association to regulate the industry.” The
association the owner-manager was referring to is the Jamaica Associa-
tion of Travel Agencies (JATA) of which all the firms were members.
An owner-manager shed some light on the dynamics of the current
market environment when he stated, “the president of our travel asso-
ciation (JATA) is the manager of the largest travel agency which has been
buying all of our small firms. To have someone like this as the presi-
dent means that the association is no longer looking out for the best
interest of smaller, under-privileged firms like mine.” In light of the reduc-
tion in commission by the suppliers a collective decision was reached
to provide service at a selected minimum charge. However, some firms
decided to provide services below the agreed floor price. This inevitably
led to mistrust and absence of longer-term strategies to gain competitive
advantage.
Suppliers and buyers’ power are quite evident in the study. Major
suppliers—airlines and their actions drastically impacted the number of
agencies in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Bahamas with the number
declining from 105 to 43; 11 to 5 and within a decade, respectively.
The reduction of commission from 9 to 6% by American Airlines, British
Airways, and Air Jamaica in 2000 led to Jamaican travel agencies foiled
attempt to boycott the sale of American Airline tickets sale in response
to the 3% reduction in commission. American Airline which accounts
for roughly 70% of air traffic into the region, remained steadfast in their
outlook that direct bookings were practical course of action. Air Jamaica
and British Airways implemented similar cuts two months later which
further thwarted travel agencies position. The power of buyers is best seen
on the decision to continue operation with minimal technological innova-
tion premised on the perception that buyers are not necessarily interested
in high technology platforms.
A prevailing theme among respondents surrounded whether or not
some forms of technology adoption were compatible with their sales and
distribution strategy. They expressed that this was driven by consumer
needs and preferences. Interestingly, the belief held by managers is that
a high-tech strategy paired with a hi-touch one were incompatible, this
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 97

view is incongruent with the postulations by theorists8 that a multi-

platform approach to distribution will yield sound business models. The
owner-managers concerns were found to be more in line with perceived
psychological risk of being too reliant on the internet and the fading
essence of their customer interface,9 “if we rely too much on the tech-
nology our business loses its personality,” one manager stated. Therefore,
it becomes apparent that assurance of online and offline distribution chan-
nels compatibility must precede increased internet adoption among these
owner-managers.
A variable which was not found in the literature but surfaced from
the interviews with owner-managers was accountability. Owner-managers
expressed that their clientele prefer to have someone culpable when their
plans or reservations went awry, “they like to have someone to quarrel
with if their booking is messed up and they can’t do that with the net,
emphasized an owner-manager. The presence of someone who is culpable
for errors then said person would be responsible to implement corrective
measures. Contrastingly, with online transactions managers believed that
their “low-tech market” suffered from transaction loneliness.
In the process of determining the channels to use to distribute services,
these firms were operating with an information deficit. Firstly, none
of the owner-managers surveyed knew their competitor’s distribution
methods, as a result their claim that customers were technologically inept
were unfounded. Secondly, they ignored the transitioning needs of their
current clientele as well as the novel needs of the emerging markets by
being singularly focused on the current platform used by their customers.
The companies under investigation for the study are intermediaries and
while examining their strategies for distribution are important, analysis
of their approaches to buying from suppliers is critical. The concept of
strategic purchasing addresses relationships formed in business to busi-
ness transactions. Eames and Norkus (1988) urge buyers to formulate
a strategy comprised of these elements: self-analysis, vendor analysis,
vendor-performance analysis, and program review. Yet it argued that the
supply chain has undergone a quiet revolution unknown to business
marketers, where focus has shifted to fostering longer-term relation-
ships with few key suppliers rather than the traditional approach which

8 See for example Buhalis and Licata (2002), Hatton (2004).

9 Eastlick and Lotz (1999).
98 A. SPENCER

placed emphasis on cost-effective transactions.10 This view is in contrast

to several authors11 previously mentioned and highlights a shift in the
commonly held perception that the key driver is transaction cost.
There was no clear procurement strategy for the companies sampled;
this lack of strategy can be attributed to a small supplier’s pool in rela-
tion to the kind of air travel in demand (namely from Jamaica to the
United States) and limited suppliers’ diversification in areas such as tours,
cruises, and hotels. Owner-managers firm diversification into services like
cruises and accommodations would facilitate their renewed level of impor-
tance through a greater influence within the inbound travel. Considering
that cruises and hotels offers five times more commission than airlines in
the Caribbean. It may be emphatically stated that while a clear procure-
ment strategy has an effect on these firms who utilize GDS systems
made available by suppliers; the development of innovative procurement
strategy is not facilitated by the current situation. The firm strategy debate
regarding technology adoption foe owner-managed companies must be
examined in areas of competitive and distribution strategies. However,
these have surfaces as effects of broader factors like leadership in small
owner-managed firms.

Leadership and Strategy Formulation

The characteristics which define the firms under study are that they were
small, owner-managed companies in an information intensive market.
These factors are extremely influential in the level of autonomy owners
possess over their daily operations. Their action tends to meet the best
interest of the firm, family, and personal interests.
The small size of owner-managed firms connotes a simple organi-
zational structure regarding reporting relationships. As a consequence,
owner-managers possess greater autonomous capacity; most of the firms
examined also had no accountability to a board of directors. Typically,
decision-making is unilateral and reflects the preferences of these owner-
managers. This is essential in an information intensive industry where
firms utilize minimal cutting-edge technology. One owner-manager
stated that decisions regarding which cutting-edge technology to adopt

10 Ryals and Humphries (2007).

11 Ricketts (1994), Williamson (1979, 1990), Reve (1990).
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 99

were made as follows “If I see the benefit of some new innovation then
I will check to see if I have the money to introduce it. If I am convinced
that it is something that I absolutely need then I slowly introduce by
telling employees about it and then doing orientation about it.” Another
expressed, “Well I make the decisions since I am the one who will be
answerable to my family if the business fails. I sometimes ask for the
advice of friends who may have some experience with a tool or with a
similar business but at the end of the day it comes down to my decision.”
Strategy formulation in these firms fall solely in the purview of
owner-managers and reflects their experiences. As aforementioned in
Chapter 7 the level of ICT adoption is directly related to the manager’s
personal technology involvement. Therefore firms with technologically
savvy leaders had a greater tendency to incorporate technologies within
their distribution strategies. The distinguishing feature of the most
technologically advanced firm was a developed online selling platform,
however its use was being revitalized while researching the utility of social
media as a marketing tool. The manager of this company stated, “the
power of the internet cannot be ignored. Markets are changing. As a
consumer I use the internet to purchase books, music and travel prod-
ucts and so I know that in the same way that this works for companies
that I buy from, it can work for my business too.”
Conversely, owner-managers whose highest form of technology was
the GDS system were inexperienced with ICT and maintained traditional
approaches. One leader expressed his reluctance to introducing new tech-
nological tools stating “I have to make decisions that will enhance my firm
and I am not comfortable introducing things that I am not familiar with.
If I use the technology and I am comfortable with how it works then I
might use it for the business. I don’t use most of these new technologies
myself so I am not sure if they are right for the company.” Another owner-
manager stated, “Most times I don’t use these technologies because I am
not good at using them. I have survived all of my life without using some
of these things. The company has also been around for more than 20 years
and it has lasted this long without these new gadgets.”
Aside from the factor describes above, other variables came to the fore
such as education, family status, and intellectual stimulation which influ-
ence leadership typologies as discussed in Chapter 7. At this juncture,
establishing that leadership was the foremost element and that strategy
was not the fundamental driver in the technological decisions of small
owner-managed companies is imperative.
100 A. SPENCER

Strategic choices occurred as an effect rather than a cause for

technology adoption. Owner-managers who made strategic decisions
regarding the adoption of new innovations were typically leaders who
introduce agile strategies. Contrastingly, inflexible leaders were natu-
rally reluctant to strategy formulation—whether substantive or structural
changes. Generally, owner-managers were found to be strategically weak
due to no long-term planning for the companies. This may explain the
disinterest in transformational technological tools like the internet which
would demand a vast deviation from the norm.
Along with strategy, resources have been deemed as an internal influ-
ence on decision-making processes in companies.12 Owner-managers
identified the most essential resources to be financial and human. All the
managers expressed resource constraints as such the challenge became one
of budget allocation, human resource deployment, and priority spending.
The small owner-managed companies in the sample had declining
revenues due to the drastic reduction in commission from suppliers and
therefore had to make critical deliberations regarding the allocation of
limited resources. In light of limited resources, this study found that given
the simple decision process and the impact of owner-managers personal
interests, priority areas mirrored owner-managers preferences and inter-
ests. To substantiate this claim respondents stated the following, “The
priority is paying bills, paying staff and keeping the business running from
day to day. I have seen nothing to suggest that my limited finances must
be spent on something just because it is new. I don’t think I need it.”

I am not one of those who think that the use of the internet to reach
clients is a waste of time but my profit margin is getting smaller and I
have to prioritize how I use resources. My family depends on the survival
of this business and I have to make sure that what I spend on will bring
quick returns.

Companies may retain a relative position of competitiveness if they

wield control of their resources in comparison to other firms without
resources, if they act rationally.13 Among the firms examined there was
no significant disparity in their resource position given their declining

12 Kraajenbrink et al. (2010).

13 Penrose (1959), Colli (2011), Teece (1982), Wernerfelt (1984), Peteraf (1993),
Mowery et al. (1998).
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 101

revenues because of the reduction in commission. The difference which

arose was therefore not one of resource position instead it was of percep-
tion, among those firms that are technologically inclined, as distinguished
in the earlier responses of low and high adopters. While there seemed
to be no resource advantage for the firms in the present, in the future
however, those companies that were investing in a greater online usage
may acquire a resource position.
The resource position stalemate presents the basis upon which
competing firms may outperform each other. Evident from these discus-
sions is the significance of resources in a firm’s decision-making process,
it dictates what can or cannot be accomplished. While this may be true
in absolute terms, resources are never infinite even for larger firms with a
strong asset base. The decisions about how to use limited resources, is the
defining measure. With the exception of two firms in the sample resource
allocation to technology was not a priority area. The other firms who
primarily used GDS system and were low adopters of technology had no
desire to advance higher on the technological ladder. Notably, even those
managers who recognized the importance of technological development
insisted that there were other areas that demanded greater resources,
namely staff renumeration and back-office functions. The prioritization
of these areas was as a result of three key issues.
Firstly, the myopic vision of these leaders informed their thinking that
on anything regarding the daily, immediate needs out weight strategic
expenditure that would be realized in the future. This outlook may be a
product of the leadership provided currently but more so in the last 5–
10 years. One may infer that the shortsightedness exhibited by these firms
have resigned them to their current survival mode, where markets and
global industry have outpaced them. Thus, they are inept to see beyond
the immediate crisis and are often left to allocate resources to play “catch
up.”
Secondly, leaders were unconvinced that there is a significant return
on investments on technological investments. This may have shaped their
mindset regarding technological investments as high risk, which also
corroborates a finding which was presented previously in this chapter.
Thirdly, which relates to competitiveness owner-managers were content
with not investing in technological tools because their competitors locally
were not investing either. For the managers in the sample this meant
no major investment had to be made. Theorists posit that the available
102 A. SPENCER

resources are closely linked to performance.14 This is based on the notion

that firms variety of internal capabilities and resources, directly informs its
strategies through a meticulously organizational assessment.15 Therefore,
on the basis of heterogeneity its evident that strategic planning and deci-
sions should be unique among firms and be dependent on the firm’s asset
base.
Although, the resource base of the firms examined was not iden-
tical, there was not sufficient heterogeneity to determine a relationship to
differences in firm performance. The impact of the resource base of the
firms was only distinguishable in terms of their decisions regarding areas
to prioritize in terms of budget. The relationship between the company’s
leadership and the performance of these small, owner-managed firms was
more pronounced. For instance, in terms of distribution transformation
platforms local industry leaders were defined by specific characteristics.
Diversification whether of products, markets, or processes by compa-
nies is often pursued by those with broad resource bases.16 Market and
product diversification would stand to benefit greatly from increased
use of the internet for sales and marketing in these companies. While
increased resources would afford companies the luxury to decide on
which platforms they may or may not capitalize on, the allocation of
resources toward introducing advanced technology may serve as a catalyst
in the diversification of other areas without further substantial invest-
ment. Given that a firm’s resources is not the singular determining
factor, they are conduits to many choices regarding strategy options
as their internal capabilities allows for multiple avenues/opportunities
for conducting business. Of the firms examined only one firm which is
a market leader both technologically and financially demonstrated this
concept. Their leadership position within the local industry was found
to be attributed to diverging perceptions about the role of technology in
the daily operations of the business. This business operational behavior
embodies a broadening of their current understanding of resources, not
limited to human and financial resources but also includes technological
resources.

14 Peteraf (1993).
15 Freeman, R.E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge
University Press.
16 Montgomery and Hariharan (1991).
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 103

The inclusion of technological resources as a component of the asset

base gives rise to an extended debate to include issues external to the
firm. From the resource-based lenses, theorists17 posit the utility of inter-
firm collaboration. On the other hand Mowery et al. (1998) noted that
technological overlap influence partner selection. The general applicability
however infers that companies with significant resource base are more
attractive for collaboration. A gap in the literature is the absence of which
category of resources are most attractive and not much attention is paid
to the differences among industries.
Within the travel industry small, owner-managed firms do not view
collaboration with local competitors as a strategic tool. They cite the
sharing of limited resources for this stance. There was also a protectionist
belief among managers, in that believed they were slightly financially well
of than their competitors and therefore safeguard this standing, from a
strategic perspective. Respondents expressed that “any collaboration with
other travel agencies would hurt my business because we are all struggling
and some of these firms are even worse off than mine which would mean
that they would suck the remaining life out of my business.” “Experi-
ences in the past have proven that many of the other local travel agencies
cannot be trusted. Any alliance would mean the sharing of certain kinds
of information and from a strategy point of view I don’t like it. Since we
all have challenges with money then we will each have to figure out how
to survive.”
At its core resource base discussions highlights a firm’s heteroge-
neous capabilities, diversification strategy, and distinctive competencies.18
Furthermore, distinctive competence is a function of the firm’s resources
at any given point. The longevity of this distinctiveness is dependent on
the type of industry and resources. While the RBV intention is not to
provide managerial prescriptions, it clearly highlights why some firms have
a strategic advantage over others and its implications; therefore, it can be
of significant value to managers.19 A point critical to note however, is that
most of the firms in the sample, did not have a distinct asset advantage.
It was observed that strategies varied to some degree with high adopters
and low adopters, and the consequent relationship between strategy and

17 Teece (1982), Mowery et al. (1998).

18 Mahoney and Pandian (1992).
19 Kraajenbrink et al. (2010).
104 A. SPENCER

resources was identified as a crucial factor influencing strategy. High

adopters included two firms exploring online selling options, one with
a limited asset base and the other with a significant asset base which have
proactive strategies that identified the need for them to create and invest
in platforms that foreshadow changes in the market. Leaders of these
firms were willing to allot resources to support these strategies. Typically,
leaders of moderate and low adopter firms felt “local markets were not
yet ready for this type of online activity” and were reactive to the changes
in the market.
Based on the interviews conducted, it was gathered that lack of
resources was the fundamental challenge facing most firms. One respon-
dent opined: “You have to understand that we are a small company and
we don’t have a lot of money to go around.” This proved to be a recur-
ring theme from the sample, and the data gathered revealed that there
was not a significant difference in the resource base of these firms. The
firms were described as being reliant on external resources as opposed
to internal capabilities for their functioning, which based on the data,
revealed that most were operating at margins below variable costs. There
was a difficulty in attaining specific data about financial resources of these
firms to corroborate their pronouncements.
The study brought to the fore the diversity in how businesses chose
to maximize the use of their limited resources. This was due in large
to leadership decisions which are paramount given the small size and
simple organizational structure, as evidence previously. A leader’s actions
are essential in resource allocation decision-making.20 This is amplified
in situations were firms have limited resources and must prioritize expen-
diture to ensure efficient use. Resource constraints primarily stated by
owner-managers were human and financial resources. In many cases the
managers bemoaned the lack of money to invest in high-tech strategy. Yet
there were instances where managers felt they had no human resources
capable of consistently maintaining technological innovations such as
websites where money was available. This was bolstered by few companies
which had websites but they were inactive. In light of resource limitations,
technology adoption and training are not priority areas for investment
based on leadership resistance. The owner-managers indicated that they
were more inclined to use their limited resources in areas that would

20 Kraajenbrink et al. (2010).

 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 105

impact the daily operations than strategic objectives of which they were
uncertain of the returns. Technological investments were therefore seen
as risky investment and were not a priority area because it did not address
the immediate needs of the market being served. On this basis leadership
is a transactional process, that seeks to control daily activities and enforce
procedures.
The scenario for the companies analyzed is quite unique in that partic-
ipants are owner-managers who are invested in the immediate benefits
of the business. This work purports that owner-managers are inherently
transactional leaders, this is grounded on their desire to attain immediate
returns on investments because it’s the source of their family finances,
despite the challenges of the industry. This postulation extends the argu-
ments put forward in entrepreneurship literature, in that small business
owners are deemed to be passive or reactive, risk averse, and non-
inventive.21 These traits are demonstrated by most of the owner-managers
examined and is evident in their refusal to engaged in the inbound travel
market due to an absence of commission even though it may yield long-
term rewards. Carland et al. (2007) note that leaders of small businesses
often operate the business as an extension of their individual personality
and immediate needs.
To further explore these issues—short-term fatalistic goals, personal
needs, and preferences owner-managers were asked to assess their tech-
nological needs and pair them with financial and human resources. Most
placed emphasis on acquiring websites since they were low adopters of
technology and have not reached this level on the hierarchical adop-
tion ladder. Additionally, carefully crafted websites would facilitate online
activity, which is ultimately being examined in this body of work. While
this may be true the generally employees in these firms had low levels of
formal education. Therefore, their experience with learning to use new
technologies was described by managers as a tedious process, as many
found it difficult. The typical employee only acquired a high school or 3
GCE O’level subjects or the Caribbean Secondary Examination certifi-
cate. In comparison to other front-line workers such as those in the
banking industry which required the minimum of 5 subjects with pref-
erence given to persons with a Bachelor’s degree these qualifications of
the employees in these small owner-managed firms were low. It therefore

21 Covin and Slevin (1988).

106 A. SPENCER

becomes problematic because these firms hire the cheapest labor and then
fail to add value, given that they lack the resources to facilitate general
staff training it is unsurprising that technology training was non-existent.
Given the resistance of owner-managers to adopt some types of tech-
nology, they are even more discouraged by the possibility of providing
training for employees who may be difficult to train. Added to this,
the employees within these firms are less likely to be creative and crit-
ical thinkers and may enjoy the routine and monotony of work. The
idea is that even if administrators were intellectually stimulating, workers
who are more satisfied with pursuing orders would give very little reply.
Directly linked to financial resources of small owner-managed firms are
all aspects of human resources such as recruitment, training and selec-
tion, managers stated. As a result, all the respondents noted an increase
financial resource base would see a greater allocation toward training of
their human resources; however, a few noted that an increased finan-
cial resource base would not guarantee greater investment in technology
adoption within the short to medium term. Analysis of the firm’s financial
asset will now be done.
The declaration by owner-managers that the lack of financial resources
negatively impact technological adoption suggests that they have a desire
to adopt but is hindered by the scarcity of resources. Yet, this is
incongruent with the subsequent revelation where most owner-managers
expressed there was no other technology which they wanted to invest.
This general unwillingness to adopt is more evident than the inability
to adopt. Having said this the financial challenges of the firms must not
be overlooked even though it is not direct driver of technological adop-
tion, its influence is indirect. The lack of adequate financial resource base
is accompanied by companies being in crisis management mode which
doesn’t facilitate long-term strategic planning. This reality is emblematic
of two firms whose livelihood is dependent on the business survival and
profitability. This presupposes the over-arching catalyst as leadership and
the factors that affect each person, rendering him/her unique in the local
industry from their counterparts.
A firm’s behavior is impacted by its internal factor—resources22 and
strategy.23 The behavior under investigation in this study is technology

22 Barney (2001), Kraajenbrink et al. (2010).

23 David (2007), Stonehouse and Snowdon (2007).
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 107

adoption of small owner-managed firms specifically for online sales and

marketing activities. Through primary and secondary data, multiple vari-
ables such as strategy, resources, digital divide, culture, and leadership
which affect decision-making were examined. Distillation of the findings
from this analysis indicated that strategy and resources were no the key
catalyst of technology adoption. Yet, they should not be dismissed as they
act as peripheral factors in that managers employ them to affect tech-
nology adoption process but is not the origin for these processes. These
peripheral contributors arise a by-product of leadership style rather than
drivers in their own right. These variables may have a profound impact
in a different context but within an information intensive environment,
specifically small owner-managed firms they are mere pawns in technology
decisions.
Firm resources and strategy have been described in the literature as
relevant to the debate on firm behavior, as shown in Fig. 2.1. These
factors, together with leadership, culture, and the digital divide, were
also part of the organizational decision-making theory in Fig. 2.2. This
method was employed to identify the contributors of technology adoption
in small owner-managed travel companies along a hierarchy. Exploring
these internal factors (strategy and resources) further through primary
data collection with several owner-managed travel companies in Jamaica
showed that there was no clear strategy influencing the conduct of tech-
nology adoption. It could be concluded that many companies were
ultimately engaging in a hi-touch approach (intense personal interaction)
and worried that they might experience the potential psychological threat
of reliance on technology as presented by Eastlick and Lotz (1999). In
addition, the owner-managers perceived a hi-tech and hi-touch strategy
was incompatible.
Owner-managers have demonstrated from a management standpoint
that they face limitations on human and financial capital. They argued that
this hindered their ability to adopt higher levels of innovation was archaic,
as they expressed no genuine desire to adopt new innovations, resource
constraints, or not. Consequently, decisions about how to distribute even
limited resources are now becoming owner-managers sole remit. The
tendency to prioritize spending in areas other than adoption of tech-
nology was a reflection of the preferences and comfort zone of the
individual leader.
Ultimately, firm strategy and resources have not adequately explained
differences in company adoption behavior. However, such considerations
108 A. SPENCER

are helpful in recognizing how resources were used to make innovation

choices in the overall sense, but they were less relevant in describing
why some companies were at different levels of the technology adop-
tion hierarchy, provided that policies and resource constraints were not
heterogeneous enough to answer the question of why some firms were
more technologically advanced than others. These internal factors arose
as a consequence of the disparities in management of these independent,
owner-managed travel companies rather than as major contributors to the
decision to adopt cutting-edge technology. In view of the inability of the
internal micro factors to clarify the adoption activity of these companies,
more analysis and examination of whether or not macro factors, such as
society and the virtual divide, are best able to explain business adoption
behavior, is necessary.

References
Barney, J.B. 2001. “Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten
Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.” Journal of Management 27:
643.
Bethapudi, A. 2013. “The Role of ICT in Tourism Industry.” Journal of Applied
Economics and Business 1(4): 67–79.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Maria Cristina Licata. 2002. “The Future eTourism
Intermediaries.” Journal of Tourism Management 23(3): 207–220.
Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton, and J.A.C. Carland. 2007. “Differen-
tiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization.”
In Entrepreneurship, 73–81. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Colli, A. 2011. “Business History in Family Business Studies: From Neglect to
Cooperation? Journal of Family Business Management 1: 12.
Covin, Jeffery G., and Dennis Slevin. 1988. “The Influence of Organization
Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top Management Style.”
Journal of Management Studies 25(3): 217–234.
David, Fred. 2007. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
tion Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–339.
Eames, Donald, and Gregory Norkus. 1988. “Developing Your Procurement
Strategy.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 29: 30–33.
Eastlick, Mary Ann, and Sherry Lotz. 1999. “Profiling Potential Adopters and
Non-Adopters of an Interactive Electronic Shopping Medium.” International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 27(6): 209–223.
 3 INTERNAL FIRM FACTORS: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAVEL … 109

Freeman, R.E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatton, Mike. 2004. “Redefining the Relationships: The Future of Travel Agen-
cies and the Global Agency Contract in a Changing Distribution System.”
Journal of Vacation Marketing 10: 101.
James, Jeffrey. 2004. “The Global Digital Divide in the Internet: Developed
Countries Constructs and Third World Realities.” Journal of Information
Science 31(2): 114–123.
Kim, Eonsoo, Nam Dae-Il, and J.L. Stimpert. 2004. “The Applicability of
Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and
Suggestions.” Journal of Management 30(5): 569–589.
Kraajenbrink, Jeroen, J.C. Spender, and Aard Groen. 2010. “The Resource-Based
View: A Review and Assessment of Its Critiques.” Journal of Management 36:
349.
Lynskey, Michael. 2004. “Determinants of Innovative Activity in Japanese
Technology-Based Start-up Firms.” International Small Business Journal
22(2): 159–196.
Mahoney, Joseph T., and J. Rajendran Pandian. 1992. “The Resource-Based
View Within the Conversation of Strategic Management.” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 13: 363–380.
Montgomery, Cynthia A., and Sam Harihan. 1991. “Diversified Expansion by
Large Established Firms.” Journal of Economic Behaviour 52(1): 71–89.
Mowery, David C., Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian Silverman. 1998. “Technological
Overlap and Interfirm Cooperation: Implications for the Resource-Based View
of the Firm.” Research Policy 27: 507–523.
O’Connor, Peter. 2008, January. “User-Generated Content and Travel: A Case
Study on Tripadvisor.com.” In ENTER, vol. 2008, 47–58.
Penrose, Edith T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.
Peteraf, Margaret A. 1993. “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A
Resource-Based View.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–191.
Poon, Auliana. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Walling-
ford: CAB International.
Porter, Michael. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
———. 2001. “Bewährte Strategien Werden mit dem Internet Noch Wirk-
samer.” Harvard Business Manager 5: 64–81.
Reve, Torger. 1990. “The Firm as a Nexus of Internal and External Contracts.”
In The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties, edited by Masahiko Aioki, 136–188.
London: Sage.
Ricketts, Martin. 1994. The Economies of Business Enterprise. Hempstead:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Rogers, Everett. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free
Press.
110 A. SPENCER

Ryals, Lynette, and Andre Humphries. 2007. “Managing Key Business-to-

Business Relationships: What Marketing Can Learn from Supply Chain
Management.” Journal of Service Research 9: 312.
Stonehouse, George, and Brian Snowdon. 2007. “Competitive Advantage
Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness.” Journal of
Management Inquiry 16(3): 256–273.
Stump, Rodney L., Wen Gong, and Zhan Li. 2008. “Exploring the Digital
Divide in Mobile-phone Adoption Levels across Countries: Do Population
Socioeconomic Traits Operate in the Same Manner as Their Individual-Level
Demographic Counterparts?” Journal of Macromarketing 28: 397–412.
Tan, S.J. 1999. “Strategies for Reducing Consumers’ Risk Aversion in Internet
Shopping.” Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Teece, David J. 1982. “Toward an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm.”
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3: 39–63.
Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. “A Resource-Based View of the Firm.” Strategic
Management Journal 5: 171–180.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. “Transaction Cost-Economies: The Governance of
Contractual Relations.” Journal of Law and Economics 22: 232–261.
———. 1990. “The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties: An Introduction.” In The Firm
as a Nexus of Treaties, edited by Masahiko Aioki, 136–188. London: Sage.
Wöber, Karl, and Ulrike Gretzel. 2000. “Tourism Managers’ Adoption of
Marketing Decision Support Systems.” Journal of Travel Research 39: 172–
181.
World Travel and Tourism Council. 2019. Travel & Tourism-Economic Impact
2019-World.
Wynne, Clive, Pierre Berthon, Leyland Pitt, Michael Ewing, and Julie Napoli.
2001. “The Impact of the Internet on the Distribution Value Chain: The
Case of the South African Tourism Industry.” International Marketing Review
18(4): 420–431.
 CHAPTER 4

External Factors: The Digital Divide, Closing

the Gap

An important area of focus in the literature on Organizational Theory

is culture, which embraces both national and organizational culture. In
this study, emphasis will be placed on national culture. This is as a result
of the analysis of small, owner-managed firms, in the preceding findings
chapter which established that there is a link between internal factors of
the organization and their malleability by the leaders of these firms whose
business decisions and practices often reflect their preferences and expe-
rience. Considering this, internal factors such as structure, organizational
culture, resources, and strategy are recognized as secondary factors in
influencing firm behavior in small owner-managed firms. This research
conceptualizes national culture in terms of values, norms, traditions, and
social interactions within the society. National culture therefore comprised
of external factors that may cause a particular effect.
Hofstede (1980) is widely consulted as an authority on international
cultural differences in the workplace. Nonetheless, McSweeney (2002)
critiqued Hofstede’s position by arguing that national culture rests on
plurality and therefore, any work that assumes uniformity within national
cultures is flawed. This plurality he believed, constituted the observ-
able differences in culture. McSweeney questioned whether culture can
systematically cause differences in behavior among people from various
countries. The findings of this research indicate that within the same
national culture there were differences in the technological adoption
behavior among firms. This underpinned the exploration of specific

© The Author(s) 2021 111

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_4
112 A. SPENCER

cultural paradigms that influenced behavior especially adoption behavior

in firms.
From the customer’s perspective, societal values are influential. Owner-
managers often expressed that “the most important and valuable thing to
customers is the personal touch.” This meant that for most respondents’
owner-managers should align their efforts by providing incomparable
one-on-one experiences rather than searching for the most efficient distri-
bution method. Furthermore, given their perception about online sale
providing minimal value to the customers this has influenced their belief
that the introduction of some innovations was useless. One respondent
noted, “we could use all of these fancy technologies but if our customers
don’t see it as something that is necessary then we would all be wasting
our time trying to do something just because it’s fashionable.”
It is clear that customer’s values influenced the firms values consider-
ably, the aforementioned statement is a reflection of the majority of the
firm’s beliefs. Yet there was difference in views between high and low
adopters. The two firms at the top of the hierarchical ladder stated:

While a large percentage of the Jamaican population does not place a high
value on e-commerce activities today we recognize that those values are
changing fast and we can even see this in the wide acceptance and use of
smart phones such as blackberry.
We have to be prepared for market changes which are on the horizon.
Even if we only continue to serve this local market, there is a revolution
taking place with our young people which we must anticipate.

Highlighting the differences is useful considering that owner-managers

have been exposed to a similar national culture. The differences in
perception indicate that there are other key factors external to the value
construct which influence the different adoption behavior among the
firms. These differences are useful for academic consideration in so far as
uniformed differences exist in national cultures. Exploration the impact
of national culture on the organization revealed a significant correlation
between organizational behavior and elements of national culture like
norms and traditions.1
Societal norms and traditions represent the way in which people
do and perceive things and are critical in overall cultural influence.

1 Gelade et al. (2006).

 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 113

While this was evident in the local clientele, it was more pronounced
among the firms and is conveyed by sentiments such as, “we have been
doing it this way for over 20 years and it has worked for us. If we change
our approach we do not know if it will work just as well. Also most of us
in this company are not comfortable with changing how we make book-
ings.” As the respondents were noticeably traditionalist in their approach
to business management, perhaps they were suffering from what Lang
(2000) considered as “techno fear.” The two are not discrete in the sense
that it is a subscription to traditions, customs, and norms that require
a rejection of anything that contravenes the established “normal” way
of doing things. Critically, it was found that high adopters held different
perceptions regarding traditions. The most technological savvy firm leader
articulated:

“Nothing remains the same forever. There was a time when we did manual
bookings and we did not have any GDS. We learned to use the GDS and
today many of us cannot do without it. In the same way we always have to
be ready to adjust based on new developments.” The divergence in views
emphasizes that while national traditions and norms impact the collec-
tive views of the people, there are other elements that must provide an
explanation as to the varying views and adoption behavior among firms.
Significantly, it is important to point out that all the owner-managers
have resided in Jamaica all their lives, external cultural influences can be
considered limited except for short stay travel and media exposure.

The emergence of an indirect cultural influence was brought to the fore

as owner-managers expressed that a type of relationship-oriented society
existed, whereby customers were shaped by culture thus making it virtu-
ally impossible for them to ignore customers’ preferences in their business
practices. This relationship orientation is indicative of the perception that
high regard is placed on personal interaction by customers in the local
outbound market which could not be replicated online. Thus, issues of
marketing and distribution strategy are brought to the fore; but at the
same time, leadership constraints are revealed, primarily those that impact
decision-making capacities. Respondents stated that:

I would love to see the internet listen to their complaints and empathize
and ask how their family is doing. These are the things which my
customers love because Jamaicans are very friendly people and I have a
good relationship will all of my customers.
114 A. SPENCER

A lot of my business comes through a major company that I used to work

for because I still have a good relationship with them and their families.
They always book with me no matter what and we are good friends even
before we are service provider and customer.

Someone in Jamaica always knows someone else. Once you form a relation-
ship with a client they always tell someone else how warm and friendly you
are. Before you know it you have a new client because they recommended
you and that person wants the same personalized treatment.

The relationship-oriented society negatively impacts technological adop-

tion in firms, most respondents were assured that providing service in a
relationship-oriented society characterized by personal interaction which
is valued above efficiency and speed, would safeguard their future busi-
ness. Contrastingly, high adopters were less inclined to take this stance. It
was highlighted by the market leader that:

A number of things are changing. First of all our loyal customers are not
as loyal anymore, so the relationships seem to mean less to them now.
Secondly these loyal clients are getting old and are traveling less so we have
to focus on the new generation and they are all about the best price and
convenience. And don’t forget that they are internet savvy. As I mentioned
to you before they do everything on their mobile smart phones.

Comparable to the previous constructs of traditions, values, and norms,

the relationship-oriented culture facilitates the low technology adop-
tion among firms however, it provides no explanatory power as to why
minority of firms diverge from the norms and endeavor to be more
involved in innovative behavior and more proactive. To understand the
differences in innovative behavior, a closer look is required, particularly
at the association between culture and innovation. From the primary
data collection and analysis, it was revealed that national cultural circum-
stances usually shaped individuals’ views about technological innovations
in response to what is observed in the society as leaders admitted. There-
fore, a relatively low level of demonstrated technological activity in the
country would result in the respondents’ inability to readily identify the
benefits and uses of the technology. In this vein, one respondent stated
that:
 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 115

All of these things that you mention are things that I hardly see anyone
use. I don’t think that Jamaica is a country that uses a lot of technology.
I know that the latest craze is Facebook but young people only use it to
talk to friends. I can’t say that I have seen any evidence to suggest that we
are high technology users.

The challenge is that this response does not offer any explanation for
the differences in adoption behavior, although the national culture was
common in the firms that were sampled. A deeper examination and anal-
ysis indicated that the dominant subcultures to which these individuals
belonged was dominant in molding their views about technology use.
Emerging as the most dominant subculture influencing perceptions was
the family.
Subcultures possess their own traditions, values, and norms. The family
is one such subculture and is a primary source of socialization.2 This
suggests that some individuals might be more inclined to engage in some
behaviors that are of their subculture rather than of the broader national
culture. Since leadership has been established in the previous chapters of
this research as a critical determinant of what new technologies were to
be adopted in small, owner-managed firms, it is imperative to identify
the factors that influence the growth of these leaders. From a cultural
perspective, the respondents’ family backgrounds played a role in so far
as there was innovative behavior occurring in the families. Leaders from
families with children who were technologically savvy, were seemingly
more inclined to engage in those behaviors personally, this translated into
their business activities. One owner-manager expressed that “I am very
open to using the technology personally because I have seen my son buy
all these things online using my credit card. As a teenager he has taught
me how to buy things online too. I realize that if I can buy online then
why not sell online. This is why I am now exploring the option.” This
emanated from having a great level of comfort utilizing tools which they
observed a trusted family member using.

2 Haralambos and Holborn (2008).

116 A. SPENCER

Culture and Leadership

This research is a complement to the work done by Elenkov and Manev
(2005) as it has found that cultural context shapes leadership and regu-
lates its relationship with organizational innovation. However, there are
some differences in terms of the importance given to cultural influence
and the point of emphasis. This research has found that cultural influence,
in contrast to the postulations of the above authors is more indirect. While
a cultural influence was detected in the sample, there were some signif-
icant dissimilarities in behavior that national culture could not explain
since all owner-managers had this commonality. Perhaps, a comparative
study with Asian (Jung et al. 2002) or European (Elenkov and Manev
2005) nations may expose several differences due to national culture
however within the same culture there is less resonance.
Additionally, while the family was discovered as the most influential
subculture to impact innovative behavior, it was still insufficient to totally
explain adoption behavior in the firms. Similarities in family composition
were shared across some firms at higher levels of adoption and some firms
at lower levels of adoption. While the evidence indicated that there was
consensus among leaders about their families being influential in their
degree of comfort introducing technologies in their firms, still there were
variances in the levels of adoption. An overall influence was evident in
the differences between low adopters and high adopters but this was less
distinct between moderate adopters and high adopters who shared simi-
larities in how their families were composed. Thus, it was shown that
alternative explanations were required to clarify the differences in firm
behavior. This could be done through an exploration of other factors in
combination with family. Possibly, these factors could provide an explana-
tion of leadership differences and ultimately the differences surrounding
technology adoption.
Singh and Krishnan (2007) contemporary work outlined that cultural
sensitivity is required when addressing transactional and transformational
leadership in the leadership literature. Considering this it is vital to vali-
date a relationship between leadership style and culture and to also
determine while leadership is perceived as a critical driver in technology
adoption in this research, broader considerations from a Critical Social
Science perspective and its role in a subculture such as family must be
addressed.
 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 117

Interestingly, respondents highlighted that their competitors were

molded by the national culture, this reduced the necessity for adopting
new technologies since the competition was not doing so. Each respon-
dent echoed this sentiment about the other respondents. While it appears
that there was no perceived cultural influence on their own leadership
style or the inclination to adopt technology innovations, the converse was
stated to be an overwhelming consensus. However, this gave rise to a
challenge, in that it provided no explanatory power for two things.
Firstly, it does not explain whether culture has an effect on leader-
ship characteristics as conceptualized in the literature on transformational
leadership or whether it simply influences the perceptions of technology.
Understanding this distinction is necessary since the effect of strong trans-
formational leadership characteristics should enable a leader to surrender
his biases where there is adequate evidence of the need for transformation.
Secondly, it provides no explanation as to why there are divergent views
within the same culture about technology emerged. The cultural influ-
ence is therefore treated as an indirect one, as stated earlier, which affects
leadership peripherally and does so in combination with other factors.
The comprehension of culture is interrelated to the wider sociolog-
ical discourse which outlines customs, norms, and values as essential
constructs in the discussion of a social system. Notably, classical theo-
rists of technological adoption like Davis (1989) and Rogers (1962)
acknowledged and outlined the significant influence of the social system
on adoption. The uniqueness of each social system based on their
characteristics differentiate it from other systems.
These cultural variances affect work-related innovation, behavior, and
values. Ultimately, the leader was perceived as a product of cultural
circumstance. These observations warranted a deeper investigation of
culture as a determining factor; however, the primary study found that
the influence was indirect. Within the sample cultural influence was recog-
nized but some key differences in behavior could not be explained by
national culture since it was shared among owner-managers. The influ-
ence of the family was perhaps more insightful since, as a subculture,
it could explain large disparities among the leaders yet it still did not
offer an explanation for subtle differences between leadership categories.
Owing to this, the researcher was compelled to examine other factors
that could offer an explanation. The digital divide may facilitate a much
deeper discussion when framed in a global context and within societies.
118 A. SPENCER

Any apparent dissimilarities within the society may facilitate the explana-
tion of divergent technology adoption of firms.

The Digital Divide

Upon the introduction of local telecommunications market, new subma-
rine cables were laid that connected Jamaica, The Bahamas, and Trinidad
and Tobabgo to the United States. The implementation of these new
cables increased the collective number of submarine cable connecting
these countries to the world to four. While broadband digital penetration
was much slower than in developed countries such as the United States
and the United Kingdom, connectivity levels were still high as a result
of smartphones use. In support of Stump et al. (2008) work on mobile
technologies which outlines there has been rapid diffusion throughout
developing countries which has reduced the disparity between developed
and developing nations. Nonetheless, a global digital divide is evident as
increased technology infrastructure has not translated into the increased
access within the average home. One of the respondents highlighted this
by stating that:

It would be a waste of time to try to reach our customers online because

many of them do not even have the internet at home. Even though
the younger ones are using smart phones most of them are not buying
anything online with their phones at all.

The respondents were somewhat satisfied with the technology infrastruc-

ture on the island and mentioned that it was provided at a reasonable
cost. However, in their view, many Jamaicans were simply not inter-
ested. “The technology is available but I just don’t think we are that
kind of society. We thrive on personal contact.” This evidence corrobo-
rates with the annual e-Readiness survey that is conducted routinely, and
compiled and published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) which
is the business information arm of the Economist Group; publisher of
The Economist magazine. In Jamaica’s third appearance in the 2007 EIU
report Jamaica’s overall score improved marginally from 5.03 to 5.05 but
Jamaica’s ranking fell three places from 43 to 46. Trinidad appeared in the
report several years later and ranked below Jamaica while the Bahamas was
not a participant.
 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 119

Broadband affordability and penetration have now garnered much

attention in the survey. According to past data, Jamaica ranking in the area
of telephone and narrowband penetration was exemplary. However, their
performance in the area of Connectivity and Technology Infrastructure
declined with the removal of the above category. Additionally, Jamaica’s
score decreased in the Consumer and Business Adoption category due
to the revamping of the criteria in this group which would assess the
number and level of online commerce and government services rather
than the availability of finance and IT personnel. Of particular interest
online commerce for travel services is virtually non-existent, this there-
fore needs to be addressed. This however is not an issue of access and
as such the access divide purported by the theorists above fails to explain
the adoption levels in firms. The digital divide which was conceptual-
ized in Chapter 1 outlines there are also instances of unequal access to
technology within societies. The evolution theory on the digital divide
highlights issues of access stemming from inequalities that are economi-
cally driven,3 politically driven,4 and socially driven.5 However, while the
perception of economically driven inequality was revealed by the data,
this did not differentiate high technology adopters from low technology
adopters. Nonetheless, access to technological resources, while less when
compared to developed countries, was equal within the business land-
scape for Jamaican companies. James (2004) postulations indicate that
increasing access reconciles the gap between users. He argues that there
exists innovative utilization of technologies in some developing coun-
tries despite individual access being limited in some countries. This leaves
Rogers (2003) position unchallenged which posits that significant focus
has been given to the access divide, marginalizing the content divide,
and learning divide which will present a disadvantage for some. The key
insight provided by this argument is the issue of aligning content to the
audience needs.
A rational as to the differences in firm behavior is provided by the
content and learning divides but there were other contributory factors.
For example, slight differences were found in terms of the learning divide,
which reflected the skills and competencies of the employees. It was

3 Yu (2006).
4 Feather (1998).
5 Lash (1994).
120 A. SPENCER

concluded that this is a human resource issue and thus, would be more
suited for resource-based discussions. The content divide appeared to be
a secondary factor as western culture preferences shaped the majority of
content meanwhile due to its close proximity to the United Sated the
Caribbean benefitted. It is most important that ideas of the digital divide
be relevant to the industries. Proponents of the global digital divide6
generally posit that economically developed nations control the devel-
opment of ICT and access which automatically gives them a distinct
advantage. However, this body of work provides minimal specifications
as to the solutions7 to circumvent the automatic advantage created by
economically developed countries, while majority of the earlier research
paid a lot of attention to the information inequality within societies,
recently there have been more focus on the global digital divide which
addresses the dissimilarities across nations. This shift has accommodated
a more rigorous debate within the travel and tourism discourse where
supply and demand issues are explored.
Maurer and Lutz (2011) support the postulations of Minghetti and
Buhalis (2010) by theorizing that there is a substantial communication
gap within travel and tourism industry between the supply and demand
sides. They argue that there are four categories of communication gaps:
the access gap, usage gap, skills gap, and attitude gap. They convincingly
argue that these gaps occur on a hierarchy which means that one level has
to be completed before the next.
While this argument provides no explanation of the differences in firm
behavior in this study it was necessary to examine these issues on the
basis that there are industry implications. The researcher contends that
irrespective of the dramatic decrease in retail travel firms in the last two
years, they still have the potential to fill a very big gap in the industry. The
Jamaica Tourism Board, The National Tourism Office has been unsuc-
cessful in closing the digital communication gap with developed countries,
therefore the opportunity exists for outbound agents to increase their
engagement in the inbound market by increasing the online communica-
tion between countries. An understanding of the current gaps is necessary
if the re-engineering of their functions is to occur. The gaps between the

6 Mosaic Group (1998), Castells (2000), Norris (2000), Rogers (2003), Kirkman et al.
(2002), Drori and Jang (2003).
7 James (2004).
 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 121

domestic firms and the developed markets which demand tourism services
were revealed by the interviews to be similar to the four areas highlighted
earlier: access gap, usage gap, skills gap, and attitude gap. However, while
a uniformed hierarchical sequence was earlier purported by Maurer and
Lutz (2011) this work did not find this uniformity of sequence.
The data exposed that access was a prerequisite for usage however
for the upper tiers of the hierarchy this did not hold true. In many
cases the existence of an attitude gap and skills gap occurred simulta-
neously while in other instances the skills gaps seemed to be higher on
the hierarchy when compared to the attitude gap. This research find-
ings debased the notion that attitude always sits at the apex of the
multiple digital divide pyramid. Within the context of this research, digital
divide was conceptualized in terms of political, social, or economic factors
and whether they were determinants of information inequality. Compar-
atively, economic factors were the most dominant in terms of access
to technological resources globally. Since Jamaica experienced phenom-
enal levels of mobile smartphone penetration, this gap has been reduced
substantially. Nonetheless, a communication gap persists between the
destination and developed high-access nations, from which the country
obtains international tourists.
More importantly, small owner-managed firms had equal access to
technological resources within the society. From the assessment it was
clear that digital divide offered no explanation as to the differences in
firms behavior in the society. Its only utility to this study is its ability to
inform overall industry challenges for the small owner-managed firms. In
the face of these common challenges, all the firms sampled still behave
differently in terms of technology adoption and as such these differences
necessitate alternative explanations. Context issues like culture and digital
divide provides an explanation of the industry’s slow IT uptake. Yet there
was no evidence of access inequality or significantly different cultural
practices among firms thus these variables could not explain adoption
differences between firms.
Contextual issues such as culture and the digital divide facilitate an
elucidation of the industry’s behavior overall, but they are insufficient
when considered to explain the difference among firms. Therefore, it
is still not evident why these firms implemented different operational
and strategic choices given that they exist to operate in analogous envi-
ronment. The assessment of culture as factor exposed the relationship-
oriented society in which firm operated where familiarity and friendships
122 A. SPENCER

influenced business relationships. In many instances, oral advertisement

from existing clientele who became “friends of the business” was one
method by which firms attracted clients. This impacted perceptions of
whether increased technology adoption was necessary in two ways. Firstly,
some respondents were of the view that their client base was stable and
secure and it required little effort to encourage their loyalty. Secondly,
they stated were very familiar with their clients and reasoned that their
relationship orientation conveyed that they were culturally inclined to
requiring intense personal interaction, which could not be provided by
the internet.
In addition to a relationship orientation, the impact of the national
culture was the promotion of traditionalism with strict obedience to
norms within the society. This impacted both firm and customer behavior
and influenced strategic decisions which required a deviation from estab-
lished norms. At the national level all participants of the study experienced
these cultural factors which indicate that they are not suitable to explain
the individual differences regarding firm adoption behavior. A more influ-
ential element of culture arose from the subcultural influence of the
family.
Through its influence on leaders in small owner-managed firms family
composition played an integral role in the firms’ technology adoption.
While employee’s family background may have shaped their perceptions,
it was deemed more pertinent to examine its influence on leadership
within small owner-managed firms given the leaders unilateral authority
to make decision about technology adoption and innovation. Family
composition was found to be significant especially in distinguishing high
adopters (those in the initiation phase of online selling and the use of
social media as a marketing tool) from low adopters.
While the family background of employees may also have shaped their
views it was deemed to be more important to assess its influence on lead-
ership in the context of small owner-managed firms where leaders make
unilateral decisions about innovation. When it comes to separating high
adopters (those in the initiation phase of online selling and the use of
social media as a marketing tool) from low adopters, family composition
was found to be significant.
The evidence revealed that those owner-managers who shared the
same household with their families were more open to innovative ideas
and were more inclined to introduce innovation in the firms. In partic-
ular, teenagers who engaged in online shopping made a big difference
 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 123

as respondents saw the benefits of operating in cyberspace. Even though

the influence of the family as a subculture elucidated larger disparities,
this subculture offered no explanation for subtle nuances between lead-
ership categories. For instance, there were high adopters and moderate
adopters who had the same family composition. This demonstrates that
used in isolation this variable is not explanatory and requires the combina-
tion with other variables to elucidate variations in the firms’ technology
adoption behavior. The digital divide was also a less significant context
factor used to explain firm adoption behavior. The firms sampled for
the study had equal access to technological resources and encountered
similar challenges regarding content and learning divides. The informa-
tion inequality driven by social, political, and economic factors within
the society resonated more with the wider population that with these
middle-class business owners.
The usefulness of the digital divide debate becomes more apparent
when it is applied to the travel and tourism industry as a destina-
tion imperative as opposed to a firm imperative. There is more of a
global divide than one which is internal to the country in the business
context. After bridging the technological divide8 and communication
gap9 that exits small owner-managed travel firm may rebrand them-
selves as being relevant. The firm’s reinvention may be achieved by using
covertly induced and autonomous agents such as the internet.10 The
explanatory potential of the digital divide and the national culture in
understanding technological adoption differences in the firms sampled
are weakened due to the level playing which exists for both factors within
the country. However, leadership emerged as the most significant factor
in clarifying technological adoption behavior at different level for small
owner-managed firms with equal access and opportunity to technological
innovation.
It has been demonstrated that leadership is the essential determinant
of technological adoption behavior in small owner-managed travel firms.
Factors such as firm strategy and resource allocation were manipulated to
meet the needs of the owner mangers and were more of an effect than
a causal factor in the technology adoption discourse for these types of

8 Minghetti and Buhalis (2010).

9 Maurer and Lutz (2011).
10 Govers et al. (2007).
124 A. SPENCER

firms. Macro factors like culture and the digital divide were more useful
in explaining why the travel industry as a whole IT uptake was slower
than industries in other countries. Given the even influence of both these
factors on the firms within the society, the extent of their use is instructive
in providing enlightened strategy regarding the industry restructuring.
Primarily, this study aims to identify what factors influence small owner-
managed travel firms adoption decisions and the key factor that influences
is leadership.
These firms are seen as extensions of their individual leaders which
are the owners of these firms and make all decisions whether minor or
major. Typically, these decisions reflect their individual preferences and
experiences.
The following chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of the
leadership element and what variables influence greater technological
adoption behavior in these firms. Ultimately, these leadership characteris-
tics are combined to form leadership typologies that influence adoption
along a hierarchy.

References
Castells, Manuel. 2000. End of Millennium. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
tion Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–339.
Drori, Gili, and Yong Suk Jang. 2003. “The Global Digital Divide: A Sociological
Assessment of Trends and Causes.” Social Science Computer Review 21: 144–
161.
Elenkov, Detelin, and Ivan Manev. 2005. “Top Management Leadership and
Influence on Innovation: The Role of Socio-cultural Context.” Journal of
Management 31(3): 381–402.
Feather, John. 1998. The Information Society: A Study of Continuity and Change.
2nd ed. London: Library Association Publishing.
Gelade, Garry, Paul Dobson, and Patrick Gilbert. 2006. “National Differences in
Organizational Commitment: Effect of Economy, Product of Personality, or
Consequence of Culture?” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37(5): 542–
556.
Govers, Robert F., Frank M. Go, and Kumar Kuldeep. 2007. “Promoting
Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Research 46(1): 15–23.
Haralambos, M., and M. Holborn. 2008. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. UK:
HarperCollins.
 4 EXTERNAL FACTORS: THE DIGITAL DIVIDE … 125

Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in

Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
James, Jeffrey. 2004. “The Global Digital Divide in the Internet: Developed
Countries Constructs and Third World Realities.” Journal of Information
Science 31(2): 114–123.
Jung, Timothy H., and Richard Butler. 2000. “The Measurement of the
Marketing Effectiveness of the Internet in the Tourism and Hospitality
Industry.” In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2000:
Proceedings of the International Conference in Barcelona, Spain, edited by
Daniel Fesenmaier, Stefan Klein, and Dimitrios Buhalis, 460–472. Wien:
Springer.
Jung, Timothy H., Panos Louviers, and Harmen Oppewal. 2002. “Channel
Management Strategy in the E-commerce Environment: A Portfolio Manage-
ment Approach.” In Information and Communications Technologies in
Tourism, edited by Karl Wober, Andrew Frew, and Martin Hitz, 17–26. New
York: Springer Verlag.
Kirkman, Geoffrey, Peter Cornelius, Jeffrey Sachs, and Klaus Schwab. 2002.
Global Information Technology Report 2001–2002. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lang, Tania. 2000. “The Effect of the Internet on Travel Consumer Purchasing
Behaviour and Implications for Travel Agencies.” Journal of Vacation
Marketing 6: 368.
Lash, Scott. 1994. “Reflexivity and its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Commu-
nity.” In Reflexive Modernization, edited by Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens,
and Scott Lash, 110–173. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Maurer, Christian, and Veronika Lutz. 2011. “The Impact of Digital Divide
on Global Tourism: Strategic Implications of Overcoming Communication
Gaps caused by Digital Inequalities.” In Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2011 Enter Proceedings, edited by Rob Law, Matthias
Fuchs, and Francesco Ricci, 265–277. New York: Springer Wein.
McSweeney, Brendan. 2002. “Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences
and the Consequences: A Triumph of Faith—A Failure of Analysis.” Human
Relations 55: 89–118.
Minghetti, Valeria, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2010. “Digital Divide in Tourism.”
Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.
Mosaic Group. 1998. “The Global Diffusion of the Internet Project: An Initial
Inductive Study.” Accessed January 16, 2010. www.agsd.com/gdi97/gdi97.
html.
Norris, Pipps. 2000. “Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty
and the Internet in Democratic Societies.” Accessed November 9, 2010.
Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
126 A. SPENCER

Rogers, Everett. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free
Press.
Singh, Niti, and R. Venkat Krishnan. 2007. “Transformational Leadership in
India: Developing and Validating a New Scale.” International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management 7: 219.
Stump, Rodney L., Wen Gong, and Zhan Li. 2008. “Exploring the Digital
Divide in Mobile-phone Adoption Levels across Countries: Do Population
Socioeconomic Traits Operate in the Same Manner as Their Individual-level
Demographic Counterparts?” Journal of Macromarketing 28: 397–412.
Yu, Liangzhi. 2006. “Understanding Information Inequality: Making Sense of
the Literature of the Information and Digital Divides.” Journal of Librarian-
ship and Information Science 38(4): 229–252.
 CHAPTER 5

Transactional and Transformational Leaders:

Their Influence on Technology

Transformational leaders elevate motivation, morale, and integrity of their

followers while transactional leaders provide the immediate self-interests
of their followers. Northouse (2018) asserts that considerable empirical
research supports the utility of distinguishing between the two leadership
types. He further articulated that the need for transformational leaders has
increased dramatically as a result of changes in the market and labor force
and less emphasis is placed on transactional leadership if firms intended
to remain effective. Leaders were encouraged to empower their followers
by developing them into high involvement individuals and teams focused
on quality, service, cost-effectiveness, and quantity of output.
This work recognizes that initiatives such as the adoption of inno-
vations like technology are contingent on elements that have been
identified as leadership needs in the mainstream. For example, the
successful introduction, implementation, and prolonged use of tech-
nological tools require the creation of “high-involvement individuals”
and cost-effectiveness. It must be explained here that the transforma-
tional leader is seen as one that can move/uplift beyond immediate
self-interests through idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual stimu-
lation, or individualized consideration. Given that the focus of this work
is technology adoption, intellectual stimulation is determined as the most
critical construct from the four outlined above. This is most discernible
when the leader helps followers with becoming more innovative and
creative. Idealized influence, inspiration, and individualized consideration

© The Author(s) 2021 127

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_5
128 A. SPENCER

(one to one attention to followers), both address the kinship and rapport
that followers (employees) assign to leaders. They are also responsible for
followers choosing to align themselves to the goals of the leader, except
for intellectual stimulation which addresses a cognitive and behavioral
change in the follower. It is reasoned that for the employees to accept,
understand, and participate in innovative changes in the organization,
leaders must be able to inspire creative behaviors and thoughts.
Although a dominant construct which is applicable to this research
emerged, all the categories were explored in the second phase to facili-
tate bold statements as to whether the leaders investigated fit exactly into
any of the two leadership typologies. This concept deals with issues of
trust, respect, and admiration for the leader. This research finds that there
is an indirect relationship among technology adoption level within firms
this is indicative of whether employees are likely to themselves to the
leader’s vision. This may be associated with new innovations; yet it is a
more general issue of kinship and whether employees are loyal to their
leader which will inevitably affect how quickly they (employees) buy into
the vision for a new tool or process. Idealized influence like charisma is
assigned to leaders who followers have great admiration for and the pres-
ence of this characteristic elicit follower’s inclination to accept and join
the leaders desired change processed. The leaders under investigation did
not perceive their employee’s admiration as being critical to the success of
their firms. The general view was that employees were being paid to do
their jobs and therefore it was irrelevant whether they held them in high
regard or not, if the work was done. Some respondents stated:

I am not here to be their friend. This is a business and I am more interested

in employees doing what they are paid to do. I just want a profitable
business and not one in which I am a role model.
I can understand that everyone has their own issues but I cannot be
expected to be a counselor and mentor when I have to focus on making
sure that we are still in business from day to day.

Short-term orientation of the respondents emerged as a recurrent feature

of the discussion. Except for two of the respondents, the others were
not particularly interested in the long-term acceptance of the vision but
affix their focus on the daily transactions and activities which employees
performed. This is characteristic of transactional leaders who focus on the
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 129

immediate tasks and attaining short-term goals. Conversely, while respon-

dents felt that employee’s admiration was not important their respect was
paramount. This facilitates and ensures adherence to immediate processes
and the following of directives regarding what to do in the firms. An
illustrative statement from a respondent was “while you don’t have to
like or admire me you must show me respect.” Therefore, the display of
disrespect results in the employee immediate termination. Engendering
followers to align themselves to the leader’s vision for the firm through
coercive as well as admiration for the leader and leadership style may
be a more sustainable approach. This approach is particularly essential
where major change will occur in the firm. For example, if the firm was
to introduce a totally new platform for marketing and sales which makes
traditional approaches obsolete it would be easier where the followers
believe in the goals and vision of the leader.
The issue of trust was conceptualized by the leaders as belief by their
employees that they are truthful and reliable. Importantly, they wanted
their employees to believe that they “say what they mean.” This encom-
passes providing truthful accounts of an event or incident and delivering
on promises. Interestingly, the utilization of rewards and incentives for the
performance of specific tasks has been affiliated with transactional lead-
ership (Pawar 2003). Conversely, transformational leadership appeals to
employee’s intrinsic motivation which allows them to exceed minimum
expectations and see the vision comprehensively. Owner-managers do not
ascribe equal attention to the three constructs required to create ideal-
ized influence in their firm. While respect and trust are revered as critical
elements of their leadership style, very little regard is given to admiration
as illustrated in the quotations above. This arises from a limited view and
understanding of the definition of admiration. Many of the leaders saw
it as whether their employees “like me as a person.” However, admira-
tion goes beyond this, it encompasses the ability of a leader to set high
expectations and standards and lead by example in accomplishing these
standards. It’s beyond liking a person but instead being impressed by their
actions and abilities. The data analysis reveals that most of the leader’s
rank unimpressively with the idealized influence which facilitates an envi-
ronment where new initiatives obtain greater acceptance and participation
of the followers, who align themselves to a charismatic leader.
The construct of inspiration or inspirational motivation relates to the
leader’s ability to convey their expectations to employees in such a manner
130 A. SPENCER

that it galvanizes their understanding and actions to attain the stipu-

lated expectations. The application of this construct in this research was
done through an exploration of the general methods to communicating
and achieving expectations, specifically how these relate to technological
adoption and diffusion in these firms.
The owner-managers conduct orientation sessions or one-on-one
meetings to outline and clarify their expectations of employees. However,
they expressed that there are times when tasks have been performed
and there was insufficient time to ensure that the employees obtained a
complete understanding. An assessment subsequent to the completion of
the tasks. Often this results in time wasting, trial and error and employee
frustration about the processes. A respondent articulated “sometimes
because of the nature of our type of business we do not have a lot of
time to spend doing non-transaction type activities.” This indicates that
very little time is allocated to the preparation of new initiatives and in
attempting to understand the responses of employees to the introduction
of new technologies.
The scenario represents one in which the leaders themselves are not
excited about new technologies and therefore owner-managers do not
expectations of their use is not effectively communicated. “Most times I
cannot genuinely promote these new things because I am not impressed
by them.” As it relates to communicating expectations, in addition
to orientation and training sessions, leaders who introduced websites
to their firms were asked to describe the processes undertaken. The
primary approach taken was one that involved external website devel-
opers conducting an orientation session after which employee would be
encouraged by owners to become familiar on their personal time. In
some instances, incentives were offered to employees who utilized the
websites to increase sales. However, in a commission-driven environ-
ment, the lure of incentives is perhaps unattractive to agents considering
that these websites were not equipped to facilitate online sales. The sad
reality is that owner-managers insufficiently stimulate employees to utilize
the technologies because they did not attach enough significance to the
adoption process. Consequently, agents decided to focus only on what
affected their earnings. Rogers (2003) posits that types of innovation
decisions are collective, authority-driven or optional. The utility of this
generalization for an example is very useful as the assessment of these
firms reveals that comprehensive adoption for the social system is rarely
achieved by optional innovation decisions. Collective innovation decisions
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 131

are predominantly leadership driven although there is agreement by the

team. A charismatic leader (Hitt et al. 2001) or an opinion leader (Rogers
2003) usually facilitates this group consensus.
As a corollary response, the agents chose to focus only on what affected
their salaries. Rogers (2003) denotes that types of innovation decisions are
optional, collective, or authority-driven. This generalization for example is
quite useful as the observation of these service firms reveals that optional
innovation decisions very rarely result in comprehensive adoption for the
social system. Collective innovation decisions usually gain more traction
but are largely leadership driven even though there is consensus by the
team. This consensus usually stems from a charismatic leader (Hitt et al.
2001) or an opinion leader (Rogers 2003).
The reality is that while authority innovation decisions may yield
compliance, those with power may also be opposed to the diffusion of
a particular innovation. This again reinforces the importance of lead-
ership in the innovation diffusion discourse. It is then fair to say that
collective and authority innovation-decisions are more common in many
organizations. Moreover, these processes are leader-initiated, which calls
for an emphasis on the orientation of leaders and decision-makers. The
disinterest which was displayed by leaders led to a general lack of enthu-
siasm for the employees and this explains why the majority of firms
which had started websites reported that these were now inactive sites.
Even so, some respondents stated that they get employees to understand
their strategic vision by placing a vision statement in a visible position
of the office. However, they did not follow-up to see if employees in
fact understood what these statements were saying or if they shared in
this vision. Generally speaking, vision statements are most times broad
and vague statements. They do not address specific initiatives such as
the use of a new technological tool to better serve markets. In order
for complete diffusion and adoption of technologies to take place there-
fore, there needs to be greater focus on communicating expectations,
training employees on how to use technology effectively, and monitoring
and evaluating their use.
The firms in the study are small firms with the majority having less than
ten (10) employees. This makes conditions favorable for individualized
consideration or one-on-one attention to be given to each employee.
According to Bass et al. (2003), this type of attention shows that the
manager cares about the needs of the employee. For Mandell and Pher-
wani (2003), this is referred to as emotional intelligence. The authors
132 A. SPENCER

explain that employees are likely to be more loyal to a manager if they

get a sense that the manager sincerely cares about them and wants them
to succeed. While this does not automatically translate into adoption
behavior, it sets a foundation upon which leaders may seek to engage
employees in processes which may be new or innovative. This statement
assumes that other conditions such as training, coaching, and leading by
example are also in place. Owner-managers maintained that they were
too integrally involved in operations that they could not give individual
attention. Individualized consideration takes a considerable amount of
time and energy and involves knowing each employee, their abilities, their
personal and professional goals, and what motivates them to perform at
an optimal level. The respondents, while recognizing possible long-term
benefits, acknowledged that they were only able to focus their efforts on
activities that would bring relatively immediate benefits to the firm. “As
I said before I have to concentrate my efforts on running the day to day
business.” Some managers also felt that it was a considerable waste of
time to intimately know each employee when the attrition rate was so
high and employees would likely resign or be fired soon.
It is evident that the direction of the causal relationship may be blurred
in the minds of the respondents. It follows logically that the lack of
connection with employees is a causal factor in the high attrition rates.
Thus, paying closer attention to the relationship between employer and
employee may create longer lasting relationships. Instead of viewing the
attrition as the effect, the respondents highlight it as the cause for their
reluctance to engage with their employees since relationships are typi-
cally short-lived. In an environment where leaders and followers are
disconnected, the respondents pointed out that their approach to getting
employees to perform well at their tasks was through authoritative coer-
cion or incentives. This is indicated by one of the owner-managers who
stated “I think their salary should be their motivation and if they do not
meet expectations then we cannot work together.” Notably, motivation
drivers are being applied without an understanding of what drives each
employee. Without truly knowing the employee, the wrong motivating
factor is likely to be ineffective. Thus, employees may complete tasks to
the bare minimum.
It is particularly striking that these approaches to encourage perfor-
mance are taken as normal everyday activities for two reasons. One is that
the use of incentives to encourage employees to carry out their normal
duties is characteristic of a transactional leader, who simply focuses on a
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 133

task at a specific point in time and does not act as a visionary. Hence,
if employees are being paid to carry out particular activities and then
each task has to have an incentive appended, then the firm will lose
considerable revenues. Similarly, employees are likely to perform below
required standards or not at all if no incentives are offered. Addition-
ally, considering that owner-managers have difficulties encouraging good
performance for regular, traditional duties, it is safe to say that an even
greater challenge will emerge where new innovative ideas are introduced
to the firm. This was demonstrated by the failed attempts at developing
and using websites in firms. Perhaps the bigger issue however, is that in
the future firms may not readily transition from one level to the next on
the adoption hierarchy. Each stage of adoption is likely to yield greater
resistance as it usually means that there will be a greater deviation from the
norm. For example, a typical firm in this sample that only uses the internet
for emailing, marketing, and promoting information to clients is likely
to experience resistance at the use of websites for online marketing and
sales, and even greater resistance to interactive social media marketing.
This reality acknowledges that more creative ways of encouraging buy-in
are needed. From a leadership perspective, there must be individualized
consideration to bridge the distance between the leader and the followers.
Through individualized consideration, catalytic changes may be achieved,
and performance levels may increase to maximize the overall potential of
the firm, the leader, and the employees.
The existing conditions of manager–employee relationship are symp-
tomatic of transactional leadership at play. This work takes a hierarchical
approach with both transactional and transformational leadership rather
than accepting the view that these leadership styles are at extreme ends
of a continuum. This means that transactional leadership traits provide
important preconditions for building transformational leadership skills.
This distinction is important because the dominant transactional traits
which now exist in these firms, such as meeting daily targets and control-
ling the work environment do not run counter to the transformational
paradigm but rather provide a basis upon which this type of leadership
may take the firm from one level of technology adoption to the next.
Having made this distinction, it is critical to point out that these trans-
actional leadership traits are simply not sufficient to encourage greater
participation in innovative activities as they are primarily focused on main-
taining the status quo within organizations. In using this research to
offer some prescriptive advice, employees must become more involved.
134 A. SPENCER

By doing this, the managers can signal that they want change to occur.
In some cases owner-managers were not embarking on a path to change.
Instead, they were trying to survive using antiquated approaches in the
hope that the industry and markets will revert to what they used to be. In
these cases there was no attempt at intellectual stimulation for new and
innovative ideas from within the organizations.

Intellectual Stimulation
Based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the construct of
intellectual stimulation most applies to this research. This is most salient
when the leader facilitates innovation and creativity among his/her
employees. It was important to explore the remaining three constructs
to clearly identify if these leaders would fit into any of the two leader-
ship categories based on all four constructs. While three of the constructs
demonstrate the likelihood of followers aligning themselves with the
goals of the leader, only intellectual stimulation addresses a cognitive
and behavioral change in the follower. This reinforces the fact that for
employees to accept, understand, and participate in innovative changes
in the organization, the leader must be able to stimulate creativity. As it
stands, firms are grounded in traditional practices which are antithetical to
productivity. It is gathered that performance will improve with new ideas.
For example, one area which needs to become more dynamic is the use of
a singular static platform for reaching customers. A top-down approach is
needed to move the firm toward ideas surrounding online platforms and
internet technologies that can improve their reach and appeal.
If the owner-managers themselves lack innovative ideas, their duty
to their employees is to create an atmosphere where creative thought
processes are fostered and allowed to flourish. Additionally a lack of ideas
from the managers does not mean they cannot influence creativity and
innovative behaviors through their leadership style and initiatives that
facilitate cutting-edge ideas. When responding to the questions about
how employees are encouraged to generate new ideas or come up with
new approaches to job tasks, the managers overwhelmingly stated that
innovation and creativity were not encouraged. It was articulated that
ideas only came from the top of the organization. Based on the culture of
the firms, deviation from standard operating procedures was not encour-
aged nor wholly tolerated. Moreover, organizational culture did not
readily welcome suggestions of how a task or process could be improved.
Respondents stated:
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 135

While getting ideas from employees may be a good thing, it is more impor-
tant to me that they are not distracted from doing what they need to do
which would be sales. In any case if they suggest something based on their
like or dislike for technological innovations that would not be a priority
issue.

Maybe if someone has brilliant new ideas for introducing more innovative
things then they are probably over-qualified for this job and would be a
better fit somewhere else. I just want them to get on with the business of
meeting customers’ needs.

Innovative solutions to problems in the firms were either non-existent or

very minimal due to the dependence on owner-managers, who were, for
the most part, traditionalist thinkers. Therefore, it was very unlikely that
they would create contemporary, cutting-edge solutions. A more open
system of idea-sharing would allow for a greater alternatives from which
to choose and would also empower employees to feel like they are making
a valuable contribution to the development of the firm. If employees
feel more included, for instance, if an innovative strategy was generated
by a peer, it is likely to make them more willing to become innovative.
With the exception of two respondents, it is fair to say that according to
the major leadership constructs which were employed, owner-managers
ranked low in all the areas and can be generally categorized as transac-
tional leaders who simply seek to monitor and control. The interviews
about leadership and technology adoption also revealed that two generic
categories are not sufficient to classify leaders in the innovation and
adoption of technology discourse.
While the constructs from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
were useful in identifying general transformational or transactional lead-
ership traits, it was found that other measurement instruments were
similarly useful.
Singh and Krishnan (2007) attempted to develop and validate a new
scale on transformational leadership. From their work, it was confirmed
that adaptability is critical. The authors used the category of “Conviction
in Self” to emphasize that pre-planning and preparation in anticipation
for the worst is necessary and stems from the ability to adapt and create
strategies that are flexible. Respondents stated that they did not neces-
sarily have a system for determining the effects of their current decisions
136 A. SPENCER

in the medium to long term. A recurring and important theme was intu-
ition. For the owner-managers, “gut-feeling” was a main driver of how
they made decisions considering how the industry operates. A represen-
tative response from one respondent highlighted that “I have been in the
business for a long time and most times I just know if something feels
right. If it feels right and I can afford it then maybe.” Although it was
not surprising that firms were reactive in nature, this response signals a
reluctance to think strategically and plan contingencies. Firms typically
dealt with a crisis when it happened. This reactive approach saw a massive
decline in the number of businesses as well as in the profit margins of the
remaining ones when their major source of income was cut by airlines.
As revealed, contingency planning is lacking in these firms and their
reaction is sometimes slow when significant change takes place. One of
the changes to which they have reacted fairly slowly is the technology
revolution and more specifically the internet explosion. Accordingly, when
respondents were asked how they identify when old approaches no longer
work and new ones are needed, they admitted that oftentimes it was
too late when the problem was identified. Once again the lack of a
clear system for evaluating the needs of the firm makes it particularly
challenging for the formulation of agile strategies, which allow for funda-
mental change to take place. Technology is universally recognized as a
means of survival for firms because it provides solutions to problems. It
may be argued that owner-managers cast doubt on some types of tech-
nology for their firms, and therefore make the choice not to expand into
those platforms. Such a determination would need to be made based on
solid data from needs assessment exercises, rather than what currently
exists where it depends on an owner-manager’s personal preferences. The
evidence resoundingly points to a need for something new to happen in
light of previously mentioned conditions under which these firms operate.
These agencies, which have seen a decrease of more than 50% in the
number of companies in operation over the last ten years, typically cater
to the outbound market. In retrospect, it can be argued that their ability
to leverage their importance may derive from an improved capacity to
meet the need for an online presence in the country. Furthermore, a
greater contribution to the island’s tourism sector may present a strong
case for governmental collaboration and support. At present, these agen-
cies receive little attention from statutory bodies. Particularly, in a volatile
marketplace, there is a greater need for the owners of these firms to
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 137

become visionaries rather than operate as mere transactional “caretakers”

of what appears to be static procedures.

Leadership and Strategy

There has been an abundance of research which connects strategy to
organizational success. For example in his seminal work Porter (1985,
2001) points to five competitive forces, which have been extensively used
by researchers (David 2007; Kim et al. 2004; Stonehouse and Snowdon
2007; Poon 1993; Wynne et al. 2001) over the last three decades. Much
of the research has indicated that the strategies that firms employ are influ-
enced by the competition as well as the markets they exist in. However,
there needs to be more emphasis on how leaders respond to intelli-
gence about these two factors. While these are useful arguments, they are
both output-driven discussions with very little emphasis on inputs such
as ownership, leadership, and resources. Therefore, it is critical that this
work fills the gap in discussing input considerations. There were respon-
dents who recognized that leadership response to distinct market trends
varied, which makes an investigation of leadership responses to this kind
of information very important. Why was there acceptance among some
owner-managers that local markets were not ready for online platforms?
Why were these firms resistant to the idea of diversifying distribution?
In comparison to the others with the same information, why were some
these firms more proactive in anticipation of market changes?
Of particular interest was the fact that most managers felt that there is a
high level of incompatibility with having a high-tech strategy coupled with
a hi-touch one (intense personal interaction) despite compelling argu-
ments by theorists that a multi-platform approach to distribution will
yield sound business models. It seems, the owner-managers in the sample
were more concerned with a perceived psychological risk of becoming too
dependent on the internet (Eastlick and Lotz 1999). They feared losing
customer interaction. As a respondent stated: “Too much technology can
take away from the personal touch that we normally provide. I would hate
for my company to become so reliant on these machines that we forget
the importance of people in all of this.”
It is clear therefore, that if these owner-managers are to engage in
greater internet technology adoption, they will need some form of assur-
ance that online and offline channels of distribution can “peacefully
co-exist.” Since these owner-managers highlight that they make decisions
138 A. SPENCER

unilaterally, perhaps there would need to be a change in the leadership of

the respective organizations. Perhaps, change could also come from a shift
in leadership style which may be fueled by education or greater exposure.
This is discussed later in this chapter.
A recurring theme in the interviews was that firms were limited by
insufficient resources. The actions of the leader is therefore important
in terms of decision-making about resources are allocated (Kraajenbrink
et al. 2010). The research findings are complementary to the work done
by Kraajenbrink et al. (2010). This is even more salient where firms have
significantly limited resources and tough decisions must be made about
priority spending in order to efficiently use these resources. The resource
limitations which were highlighted by owner-managers focused primarily
on human and financial resources. In most cases it was felt that there
was diminutive financial resources to invest in a hi-tech strategy. In other
cases however, managers felt that where money was available they did
not have capable human resources to consistently maintain technological
innovations such as websites. This was also evidenced where firms in the
minority which had websites stated that these were inactive. One respon-
dent points out that: “Even if I wanted to introduce these high-tech
approaches the level of capabilities of my employees would not be able
to support these activities. The entire thing would be too much of a big
investment.” The respondents highlighted that with the limited financial
and human resources they were more inclined to use resources in areas
that would assist in the day-to-day operations rather than on strategic
initiatives which they were not sure would yield significant returns. Tech-
nological innovations were seen as tantamount to high-risk investments
which were more geared toward the long-term and many respondents
argued that it was not considered a priority area since it did not address
the immediate needs of the markets being served. For that reason, it is
reasoned that owner-managers take a transactional approach to leadership,
which is geared toward enforcing procedures and control daily activities.
The situation for the firms under investigation is also a unique one
in that the respondents are owner-managers who have a stake in the
immediate and long-term benefits of the operations. This work posits
that owner-managers in a stand-alone environment are inherently trans-
actional leaders based on the challenges of the industry coupled with
their desire to realize immediate returns on investment. Their desires are
primarily motivated by the need to maintain their families. This argu-
ment extends the argument that Covin and Slevin (1988) make that small
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 139

business managers prefer to be decidedly risk averse, non-innovative, and

passive or reactive. Carland et al. (2007) state that they operate their busi-
ness as an extension of their individual personality and immediate needs.
Their demonstrated reluctance to adopt internet technologies therefore,
is evidenced by their refusal to engage in inbound travel owing to a lack
of commission now, although this may yield long-term benefits.
The exceptions to this norm were companies that had numerous
branches and were established brands or companies which were affiliated
with other business in other industries. Overall, prioritization for resource
allocation is influenced by owner-manager’s personal needs, preferences,
and short-term fatalistic goals, which do not consider a strategic vision
for these firms. Hence, it is important to create a profile of leaders which
identifies characteristics that can enable movement to higher levels of
technology adoption for sales and marketing in particular. This can offer
much normative utility in the travel industry given that it is an infor-
mation intensive industry. As far as it relates to owner-manager, small
firm, developing country situations where decision-making is so heavily
dependent on the likes and dislikes of the individual and ultimately the
leadership style employed, this profile can provide a basis of understanding
and can therefore lead to solutions. The following section elaborates on
the characteristics identified.

Transactional vs. Transformational: Leadership

Characteristics for Technology Adoption
Leadership emerged as the most significant factor playing a dominant role
in technology adoption for sales and marketing in owner-managed small
travel firms. While it may be posited that leadership is influential in various
types of organizations,1 the main characteristics which make this demon-
strably more resonant in this study are size and owner-management.
Smaller firms may be characterized by a more simplified hierarchy and less
bureaucracy in decision-making compared to larger firms2 which invari-
ably places more control in the hand of a single leadership figure. The
leader’s decision-making power is also magnified when owners themselves
are managers of the firms daily operations. Carland et al. (2007) work

1 Hitt et al. (2001).

2 Brown et al. (2007).
140 A. SPENCER

noted that leaders of small owner-managed travel firms operate their busi-
ness as an extension of their personality and immediate needs. Therefore,
decisions which affect the firm behavior reflect the leader’s preferences
and personal circumstances.
This body of work does not attribute marketing and sales technology
adoption such as the internet exclusively to leadership, as it recognizes
the influence of other elements such as culture, resources, and strategy
in the preceding chapters. However, the previously mentioned factors
of size and owner-manager influence, make the leadership factor the
most significant and powerful driver of technology adoption in the firms
studied.
The evaluation of the findings revealed several key variables such as
education, previous work experience, technology experience, risk aver-
sion, family composition, and intellectual stimulation. These contributed
to the conceptualization of leadership groups termed as resistors, care-
takers, stabilizers, reactors, and transformers which is directly applicable
to the technology adoption discourse. These typologies are created from
various combinations and degrees of the above-mentioned variables. The
following chapter will discuss each variable and typology in detail, but
they will be alluded to here. Prior to this a comprehensive outline of
all the relationships explored will be presented in order to demonstrate
the emergence of these variables as critical ones in explaining each new
leadership typology.

Leadership Background
The background of owner-managers interviewed revealed remarkable
differences especially regarding their education. The research found
education level among the thirty-one (31) owner-managers to be low.
As seen in Fig. 5.1, more than half, 55% of owner-managers surveyed
did not possess a university degree. Generally, certificates or diplomas
after secondary education were the highest level of qualification; these
were often issued by a professional travel bodies instead of established
universities. The explanatory potential of education on its own was weak.
Therefore, this was further investigated using a cross-tabulation of the
relationship between owner-managers’ qualifications and their perceptions
of internet use in sales and marketing. While the relationship explored
was not statistically significant, it is useful as it identifies relationships for
further qualitative exploration and analysis.
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 141

40%
35%
35%
29%
30%

25%
19%
20%
16%
15%

10%

5%

0%
1

Secondary Certificates/Diploma Bachelors Masters

Fig. 5.1 Formal education level (Source Author’s creation)

Higher levels of education had a positive association with perceptions

of the importance in marketing and sales. Figure 5.2 demonstrates that
where the highest level of education completed was secondary school, that
group of respondents stated that the internet was unimportant or very
unimportant. The perception of importance is directly proportionate to
education level—as perception increases, educational level also increases.
Ultimately, the only two groups that recognized the importance of the
internet in marketing and sales were comprised of respondents with a
university degree. A similar trend was also detected in Fig. 5.3 which
shows the cross-tabulations of education level and perceptions of the
importance of the online market to the business.
While none of the group of respondents viewed the online market as
being very important, the group of masters educated owner-managers
was the only one where all of the respondents felt that this market was
important.
Unsurprisingly, those leaders with university qualifications were more
receptive to use of different types of technology given their increased
exposure to technology use and formal discussions of its advantages in
a classroom environment.
142 A. SPENCER

Masters 40%
60%

Bachelors 11.1%
66.7%
22.2%

Certificates/Diploma 45.5%
54.5%

16.7%
Secondary 83.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Very Unimportant Unimportant Important Very Important

Fig. 5.2 Highest qualification and perceptions of internet importance in sales

and marketing (Source Author’s creation)

120%
100% 100%
100%
80%
80%

60% 55.60%

40%
20%
20%

0%
Very Important Important Unimportant Very Unimportant

Secondary CerƟficates/Diploma Bachelors Masters

Fig. 5.3 Cross-tabulation: highest qualification and perceptions of online

market importance (Source Author’s creation)
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 143

One respondent expressed:

In a university setting you are forced to use various forms of technology.

For instance we had to use the internet to communicate and we even had
to write papers on how technology has revolutionized the business world.
There are some obvious benefits but there are also some costs.

Further analysis indicated that respondents with a bachelors and masters

degree as their highest qualification predominantly had qualification in
business and management while other had training in travel and tourism.
The most significant finding was the fact that respondents who held a
business degree rather than a tourism specific one were more inclined to
utilize online platforms for marketing and sales. This may be as a result of
greater emphasis on competitive strategies and the development of solid
business models in business studies. This finding was gathered from open-
ended responses about educational backgrounds which is then compared
with technology perceptions. This has provided an exploratory basis for
future research on education type and leadership.
In-depth qualitative enquiry indicated respondents who had no univer-
sity degrees expressed an interest in receiving more formalized training in
travel and tourism. Some of the reasons shared included to understand
how the industry works as a whole; to understand new and emerging
markets; and strategy development. The need for strengthening in these
areas is an indication of the weaknesses in the management informa-
tion intelligence of these firms. Having completed training and earned
certificates, these owner-managers felt that this information intelligence
gap could be addressed by further training in travel and tourism. The
knowledge gap which exists is can be partially attributed to education and
training. This may represent a myopic view of how businesses operate
and function in a globally competitive environment. The knowledge
gap is somewhat related to education and training. Another important
variable which emerged in the interviews was experienced. This was
explored in terms of proficiency in using different types of informa-
tion and communication technology. It was felt owner-managers personal
experience with using the internet may provide insights into their inclina-
tion to introducing technology as a marketing and sales tool in their firms
(Fig. 5.4).
The rate of use for owner-managers in the sample was quite low.
Internet use among 55% of participants was twice per week while 13%
144 A. SPENCER

Everyday (Emailing, web browsing & online

6%
purchasing)

Every day (Emailing & web browsing) 6%

Every other day (Emailing & browsing) 32%

Twice per week (Emailing) 39%

Once per week (Emailing) 16%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Fig. 5.4 Frequency of internet users (leaders) (Source Author’s creation)

of the participants used it daily. On its own the rate of use provides little
explanatory potential and so the rational related to the use of the internet
will add more robustness to the explanations which will emerge from
these findings. The participants who used the internet twice per week did
so to check their email and organize their inbox while respondents who
used the internet every other day checked their emails and surf the net
for information. None of these participants ever executed an online finan-
cial transaction. Of the four (4) participants who used the internet daily,
two (2) of them checked their emails and surf the net while the other
two (2) checked their email, surf the net, and used their personal Face-
book accounts on blackberries. Of note the more innovative of these two
participants executed an online purchase in the past. One owner-managed
expressed that he was influenced by his son performing successful online
purchases. He noted: “At first I was very wary of doing certain things
on the net until I saw my 16 year old son make it look so easy. He was
buying music and gadgets online and even though it took me a while I
eventually tried it one day and the rest is history.”
The owner-managers personal internet usage translated into business
practices and firm technology adoption behavior. The only firm which
had engaged in online sales was one of two firms which had internet savvy
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 145

leaders. The other had intentions to develop a better online platform for
sales as their current inactive website was an inadequate one. However,
these leaders personal Facebook use did not convert into their firm use as
they did perceive social media as a business tool. The leaders who engaged
in minimal internet use for example, emailing up to two times per week,
they experienced low levels of internet involvement and predominantly
utilized the web for email activities. Classifications of involvement levels
are discussed in detail later in this chapter. The information outlined here
was collected in the first phase of the data collection but was supple-
mented by deeper qualitative inquiries in the second phase uncovered
further details about the experience of leaders in using the internet.
In recanting their experiences, owner-managers emphasized that they
were overwhelmed with information and was uncertain how to navigate
through cyberspace. Those with children asserted that their experience
of witnessing their children using the web inspired confidence about
how to use it. The biggest restricting factors appear to be uncertainty
regarding the outcomes of certain activities on the internet as such many
respondents had selectively decided to engage in basic emailing and web
searches. Most of the leaders of the firms credited this to their family
background and exposure which was primarily steeped in traditionalism.
Activities such as online purchasing of personal items were viewed as high
risk by these owner-managers.

Risk Taking and the Owner-Manager

Risk perception also emerged as an important factor among the respon-
dents. While many respondents view internet buying and selling activities
as risky, its unsurprising they perceive investing in platforms for e-
commerce transactions for their firms as a relatively high-risk endeavor.
To further substantiate this point all the respondents perceive an internet
investment as either medium (45.2%) or high risk (54.8%). This is indica-
tive of the owner-managers ambivalence or at the very least uncertainty
regarding whether return on such an investment were worth it. This
alludes to three types of perceived risk: time risk,3 psychological risk,4 and
financial risk. All three could be applied in this case as owner-managers

3 Tan (1999).
4 Eastlick and Lotz (1999).
146 A. SPENCER

were seemingly worried about losing time and money but also psycho-
logical risk of increasing their dependence on the internet and loosing
the “soft side” of their service delivery. An assessment of how respon-
dents view themselves as a risk taker in a competitive environment is
crucial. This finding was determined by asking respondents how they
ranked themselves as overall risk takers.
The significant majority of respondents considered themselves to be
low-risk takers with only two (2) respondents ranking themselves as high-
risk takers in Fig. 5.5. These “high risk-takers” represent those who were
mentioned previously as avid internet users (see Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 shows that owner-managers who perceived themselves as
high-risk takers or very high-risk takers used the internet extensively for
their personal activities including online purchasing. Conversely, those
who considered themselves to be very low-risk takers were comparatively
low users of the internet. While this study cannot prove causation, this
finding indicates that owner-managers with low internet use are the ones
less inclined to take the risk of investing in new technologies. This is a
serious impediment for internet adoption for marketing and sales in these
firms as owner-managers who define themselves as low-risk takers also
perceive investment in online platforms as being high risk. So in addi-
tion to being risk averse they generally view technological investment as

Fig. 5.5
3% 7%
Owner-manager’s risk
taking (Source Author’s
creation) 20%

70%

Very Low Low Nuetral High

 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 147

Table 5.1 Cross-tabulation: personal technology use and owner-manager’s risk

taking

Average rate Very low-risk Low risk (%) Neutral (%) High-risk Very high
of usage taker (%) taker (%) risk taker
(%)

Once per 40 60 0 0 0
week
(Emailing)
Twice per 0 83.3 16.7 0 0
week
(Emailing)
Every other 0 70 30 0 0
day
(Emailing
and web
browsing)
Every day 0 50 50 0 0
(Emailing
and web
browsing)
Every day 0 0 0 50 50
(Emailing,
web
browsing,
and online
purchasing)

Source Author’s creation

Table 5.2
Cross-tabulation: Highest High risk Medium risk Low risk (%)
highest qualification and qualification (%) (%)
internet sales investment Secondary 100 0 0
risk Diploma 100 0 0
Bachelor 0 100 0
Masters 0 100 0

Source Author’s creation

high risk. A relationship was observed between education levels and risk
perceptions.
The findings in Table 5.2 reiterate the point that greater exposure
levels through the formal education processes impact perceptions about
the potential returns on investment (ROI) from engagement in online
148 A. SPENCER

selling activities. In addition to technological experience and education,

the nature of owner-managed firms typically facilitates greater levels of
risk aversion. An additional element, inferred through discussion with the
participants is that they are reluctant to take risk with the business because
it directly affects their families’ survival. This can be attributed to the
recurring emphasis these leaders of small, autonomous owner-managed
firms place on safeguarding “my business.” Some respondents expressed
they would be risk takers if they were managers in a business they did not
own. Given this declaration it can be argued that these owner-managers
are not inherently low-risk takers because of their culture and society but
rather act out of protection for a firm in which they have invested heavily.
Instead their fear of acting or investing in an idea stems from lack of
understanding.
Ironically, many of these protectionist behaviors result in a fixation on
short-term benefits. For example one respondent highlighted that “I have
to make sure at all times that the business which my family depends on
is safe so I cannot make hasty decisions.” After discovering these tenden-
cies in phase 1 in the data collection process, it was essential to define
leadership classifications and characteristics from the literature which may
be applicable to the context of technology adoption. Transactional and
transformational leadership were the two foremost types of leadership
that emerged. The second phase of the primary data collection focused
on outlining how these leadership concepts are applicable to technology
adoption practices in small owner-managed firms.

Leadership Characteristics for Technology

Adoption (Owner-Managed, Small Firms)
Several variables have been identified in this study as well as in previous
research5 that applies to the major leadership categories. Past research has
not really considered leadership characteristics in technology adoption.
For example, Peterson et al. (2009) identified some transformational lead-
ership traits that would apply to CEOs who lead high technology start-up
firms. However, the authors overlooked broad leadership typologies along
a hierarchy of technology adoption. Analyzing any leader this deeply at

5 Burns (1978), Karnes and Chauvin (1985), Bass et al. (2003), Singh and Krishnan
(2007).
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 149

each adoption level, will be instructive about what characteristic is needed

to matriculate.
In the first instance, leadership emerged as the dominant driver for
these owner-managed small firms for a number of reasons. By applying the
lens of Critical Social Science, a more comprehensive approach could be
taken in the research. The critical Social Science perspective allowed for an
exploration of a number of micro and macro factors that may affect adop-
tion levels within societies and firms. These included culture, the digital
divide, strategy, and resources. National culture emerged as a peripheral
contributor since it did not explain differences in the behavior and perfor-
mance of the owner-managers. The digital divide was also found to be a
secondary factor given that the Jamaican society has a high level of mobile
penetration and in particular smartphone use with equal access within the
society for businesses. While there is still a gap in innovation however, the
access gap has been greatly reduced. The previously existing access gap
related more to the use of computers. The divide however plays a role at
the level of the destination management organization in the context of
tourism where there is still a need for a more high-tech approach to meet
the information and booking needs of potential high-tech tourists.
Those broader macro factors which did not emerge as significant would
have been the most influential in explaining constraints on the leader.
The other micro factors of strategy and resources are however determined
in large part by decisions made in the firms. In the case of these firms,
owner-management and the size of the firm result in simple decision-
making processes which are driven by these leaders in the organizations.
As it was explained earlier in this chapter, the firms’ strategies and the
allocation of resources are determined by the priorities of the leadership
figures. In light of the pivotal role of leadership, some key characteristics
were identified at each stage of technology adoption within these small,
owner-managed travel firms.

Education
Education level and type were two significant factors outlined in the study.
Those owner-managers who were inclined to adopt based on imme-
diate plans as well as a general intention to explore other commercial
uses of the internet, tended to have at least a bachelor’s degree. Their
openness to a greater use of internet technology in sales and marketing
derives from previous exposure to technology in a university setting as
150 A. SPENCER

well as formal discussions surrounding the technology revolution and

its potential benefits. While some of these respondents were not using
cutting-edge technology at the moment, they were not resistant to using
new technologies in the firm. This presents a particularly fertile condi-
tion for the birth of new processes in these firms over which they
have control, such as website use for e-commerce and social media for
sales and marketing. The type of education also played a role in the
openness to technology adoption. Interestingly it was found that those
owner-managers who had generic business degrees were much keener on
utilizing multiple marketing and distribution platforms than those with
specific travel and tourism qualification. From this recognition, it can
be interpreted that competitive strategies and the development of sound
business models are emphasized in business studies. This then raises ques-
tions about the adequacy and appropriateness of tourism degrees. This
presents an area for future research.

Previous Work Experience

The respondents’ professional backgrounds seemed to differ greatly
between likely adopters and unlikely adopters. The two most techno-
logically progressive thinkers in the sample had worked outside of the
travel industry extensively. The market leader in the sample had exten-
sive experience in real estate and had built and operated a successful
company in that industry for many years. The other respondent who
had not yet implemented many of the plans but had intentions to do
so, was a bank manager for many years who used retirement funds to
start a travel agency. Conversely, the slow or low adopters had spent
their entire careers in the travel business. Some started their careers as
entrepreneurs while others worked for other travel companies and airlines
before starting their own firms. With this understanding it is assumed that
a greater exposure to business practices in other thriving industries create
transferable approaches to competitiveness. Particularly, the real estate and
banking industries had experienced an evolution and restructuring, which
may have taught these owner-managers some valid lessons. An important
claim in this work is not to say that all owner-managers should imme-
diately employ internet sales and marketing approaches. However, this
work advocates that there must at least be a certain level of openness to
new ideas which may facilitate their endurance in a time where this is
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 151

being questioned. Overall, the approach of many struggling agencies in

this study seems to be “wait and see.”

Technology Experience
Owner-managers who had personal experience with using the internet
provided compelling arguments explaining their inclinations toward intro-
ducing it as a sales and marketing tool in their firms. The rate of use for
owner-managers in the sample was quite low as demonstrated in Fig. 5.4.
However, on its own, the rate of use does not explain much. Thus, it
is assumed that further exploration of the reasons for which it is used
adds more robustness to the discussion. The reasons for personal internet
use for leaders were very telling as these translated into business prac-
tices and firm adoption behavior. The only firm which had engaged in
online sales was one of the two firms which had internet savvy leaders
who were actively engaged in online purchasing. The other was in the
planning phase for platform diversification. It must be noted that those
who had personal Facebook accounts were no more inclined to use social
media for the benefit of their firms as it was still being viewed as just
a “social” tool. On the other hand, the firms whose leaders engage in
minimal internet use for emailing up to two times per week experienced
low levels of internet involvement and primarily used the web for email
activities.
The personal experience of the group of owner-managers was filled
with overwhelming information, which made it particularly challenging
for them to navigate through cyberspace in an effective way that could
enhance decision-making. This resulted in an overall resistance to a
phenomenon which they did not completely understand. The final
outcome was that low personal technology experience led to similarly
low usage in these firms which were essentially an extension of the
owner-managers.

Risk Aversion
The perception of risk was another important factor for the respondents.
An overwhelming majority considered themselves to be low-risk takers
with only 2 respondents ranking themselves as high-risk takers. These
“high risk-takers” represent those who were previously mentioned as avid
internet users. This presents a serious challenge for the adoption of the
152 A. SPENCER

internet for sales and marketing in these firms as owner-managers who

describe themselves as low-risk takers also view investments in online
platforms as being high risk.
An additional element which has been inferred through discussions
with respondents is that they are unwilling to take risks with the busi-
ness that directly affects the survival of their families. This is a feature
of the fact that these leaders are owner-managers of small, autonomous
firms. They were more deeply involved from an ownership perspective
and pointed out that they were likely to be less risk averse if they were
managers in a business which they did not own. It may be argued that
they are not inherently low-risk takers due to their culture and society
but rather act out of protection for a firm in which directly affected their
families.

Family Composition
Family composition emerged from simply asking about the respondent’s
backgrounds. Inferences revealed that the leaders which were more inter-
ested in greater technology use were those with teenage children in their
households. They highlighted that the experience of watching their chil-
dren uses the web inspired confidence about how to use it. However,
they were still uncertain about the outcomes of certain activities on the
internet. This uncertainty restricted their use. Therefore, many respon-
dents had chosen to only engage in basic emailing and web searches. This
prompted further exploration to identify if there were differences with
those who seemed less interested in increased adoption. The findings
revealed that with the exception of one, all of the other low adopters
had older children who were now adults and did not live with them or
had small children, who apparently did not influence them in this way. It
would therefore appear that such a situational factor was more impactful
that national culture since it directed leaders toward technology adop-
tion. All of the aforementioned variables in some way relate to situational
considerations that generate differences in each individual. One major
difference which has been identified is the level of intellectual stimulation
which is provided by leaders of low-adoption firms and high-adoption
firms; as defined by those who intend to adopt more cutting-edge tools
in their businesses.
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 153

Intellectually Stimulating Traits

While all of the respondents ranked low on three of the transformational
leadership constructs provided by Bass et al. (2003) in the MLQ, there
was a noticeable difference in the intellectual stimulation construct for
owner-mangers who had a greater inclination toward technology adop-
tion. Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized
consideration are all related to creating an atmosphere of admiration,
respect, and kinship to the leader. Although there was no difference
between respondents in these areas, the intellectual stimulation construct
showed that the more innovative-minded owner-managers were different
and ranked higher in this area.
This is displayed when the leader helps followers to become more
innovative and creative. An exploration of the other three constructs
was important to identify if these leaders would fit well with either of
these two leadership categories based on all four constructs. While the
previous three demonstrate the likelihood of followers aligning themselves
to the goals of the leader, the only one which addresses a cognitive and
behavioral change in the follower is intellectual stimulation. The respon-
dents that had intentions of improving online platforms for sales and
marketing created an atmosphere in which employees were free to make
suggestions that could be used for innovation. An environment such as
this is conducive to the generation of a multiplicity of ideas which may
help in the formulation of effective strategies that can boost the firm’s
performance.
Ideally, owner-managers should endeavor to improve in all of these
transformational leadership categories. While improvement is expected,
this research explains that along with the other variables identified by this
investigation, the intellectual stimulation element is sufficient to stimu-
late higher levels of technology adoption in owner-managed, small travel
firms. This finding points to another more prominent issue in leadership
and technology adoption research. Now more than ever, more special-
ized leadership typologies are needed as it relates to technology adoption
behaviors. This is primarily because the current classifications of transac-
tional and transformational leadership are too broad and therefore do not
apply directly in the innovation diffusion and adoption discourse. The
following leadership classifications have been developed by the author
to help in identifying the leadership characteristics and needs at various
stages of technology adoption for small travel firms. These have been
154 A. SPENCER

influenced by the transformational leadership constructs and the organi-

zational decision-making literature which describe the decision-maker as
creator, actor, or carrier.
The following discussion proposes a synthesis of the findings of this
research which allows for the profiling of leaders of owner-managed small
firms at each stage of technology adoption. This is based on previously
discussed characteristics in this chapter. This research is original in the
sense that it derives from the gaps in past studies on technology adoption.
However, it is not without its limitations. On its own, the present study
does very little to account for small firms in which there is a great level
of autonomy such as in the case of owner-managers. The third issue is
that although there has been some research which has recognized the
influence of leadership traits on small businesses,6 this research failed to
identify leadership characteristics as a driver of each stage of adoption.
The work of Thong and Yap (1995) highlighted three important char-
acteristics of innovativeness, IT attitude, and IT knowledge. This work
addressed overall IT adoption, as opposed to a hierarchical approach. On
the other hand, Peterson et al. (2009) applied transformational leadership
traits to high technology environments and focused on generic traits in
start-up firms. This research advances the debate on staged technology
adoption and the leadership typologies that influence each stage. Each
component of the model being constructed will be explained in detail, a
coherent, composite model will be illustrated in Fig. 6.7. As highlighted
earlier in this chapter, some key leadership typologies emerged regarding
staged technology adoption in small owner-managed firms.
Leadership has been identified as the key determinant of technology
adoption for small, owner-managed firms. From a leadership perspective,
some key variables have been identified as being influential in tech-
nology adoption which is important since previous generic typologies
failed to take some of these key variables into account. Additionally,
these newly developed typologies combined both leadership and organi-
zational decision-making discourses to identify disaggregated constructs
that will be used to inform the model that emerges in Chapter 6. In
the chapter that follows, the model will identify the various stages along
a technology adoption hierarchy where these new leadership typologies
may be applied. Each typology, namely resistors, caretakers, stabilizers,

6 See for example Thong and Yap (1995), Peterson et al. (2009).
 5 TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS … 155

reactors, and transformers, will correspond with the varied stages of

technology adoption in firms and a detailed discussion of how the model
was developed will ensue. The overall conceptual development of the
research will be explained prior to this section to give foundation and
depth to the research.

References
Bass, Bernard. M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson. 2003. “Pre-
dicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional
Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 207–218.
Brown, James, Chris Hendry, and Paul Harborne. 2007. “Developing Radical
Technology for Sustainable Energy Markets: The Role of New Small Firms.”
International Small Business Journal 25: 603–625.
Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton, and J.A.C. Carland. 2007. “Differen-
tiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization.”
In Entrepreneurship, 73–81. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Covin, Jeffery G., and Dennis Slevin. 1988. “The Influence of Organization
Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top Management Style.”
Journal of Management Studies 25(3): 217–234.
David, Fred. 2007. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eastlick, Mary Ann, and Sherry Lotz. 1999. “Profiling Potential Adopters and
Non-Adopters of an Interactive Electronic Shopping Medium.” International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 27(6): 209–223.
Hitt, Michael A., R. Duane Ireland, and Robert E. Hoskisson. 2001. Strategic
Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. 4th ed. Mason, OH: South
Western Publishing.
Karnes, Frances, and Jane Chauvin. 1985. Leadership Skills Inventory Forms.
Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.
Kim, Eonsoo, Nam Dae-Il, and J.L. Stimpert. 2004. “The Applicability of
Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and
Suggestions.” Journal of Management 30(5): 569–589.
Kraajenbrink, Jeroen, J.C. Spender, and Aard Groen. 2010. “The Resource-Based
View: A Review and Assessment of Its Critiques.” Journal of Management 36:
349.
Mandell, Barbara, and Shilpa Pherwani. 2003. “Relationship between Emotional
Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style: A Gender Comparison.”
Journal of Business and Psychology 17(3): 387–404.
Northouse, P.G. 2018. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
156 A. SPENCER

Pawar, Badrinarayan S. 2003. “Central Conceptual Issues in Transformational

Leadership Research.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal
24(7): 397–406.
Peterson, Suzanne J., Kristin Byron Walumbwa, and Jason Myrowitz. 2009.
“CEO Positive Psychological Traits, Transformational Leadership, and Firm
Performance in High-Technology Start-up and Established Firms.” Journal of
Management 35: 348–368.
Poon, Auliana. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Walling-
ford: CAB International.
Porter, Michael. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
———. 2001. “Bewährte Strategien Werden mit dem Internet Noch Wirk-
samer.” Harvard Business Manager 5: 64–81.
Rogers, Everett. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free
Press.
Singh, Niti, and R. Venkat Krishnan. 2007. “Transformational Leadership in
India: Developing and Validating a New Scale.” International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management 7: 219.
Stonehouse, George, and Brian Snowdon. 2007. “Competitive Advantage
Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness.” Journal of
Management Inquiry 16(3): 256–273.
Tan, S.J. 1999. Strategies for Reducing Consumers’ Risk Aversion in Internet
Shopping. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Thong, James Y.L., and C.S. Yap. 1995. “CEO Characteristics, Organisational
Characteristics and Information Technology Adoption in Small Business.”
Omega—International Journal of Management Science 23(4): 429–442.
Wynne, Clive, Pierre Berthon, Leyland Pitt, Michael Ewing, and Julie Napoli.
2001. “The Impact of the Internet on the Distribution Value Chain: The
Case of the South African Tourism Industry.” International Marketing Review
18(4): 420–431.
 CHAPTER 6

The Applicability of an Innovative Theoretical

Model and Its Implications

The conceptual framework presented in Fig. 2.2 has been amended to

reflect a difference in the feedback loop for firms. Initially when overall
firm adoption decision-making was considered, feedback information was
viewed as a function of a system, which was designed to identify firm
performance and make decisions in a systematic and consultative way
based on strategy. It has been recently identified that in small, owner-
managed firms the feedback goes directly to a unilateral decision-maker,
whose attitudes and personal beliefs determine technology adoption, as
opposed to an objective evaluative system. This emerged from the finding
that all decisions about technology use especially for performance, are
driven by the specialized preferences of an autonomous owner-manager.
This depicts the context more broadly and is further discussed in this
chapter, where the development of the model in Fig. 6.7 is addressed.

Theory and Concepts

The nuances of technology adoption have contributed extensively to
theoretical developments. For the purpose of this research, the aspect of
the theoretical foundation that is used here includes the pre-internet and
post-internet phase research. The pre-internet phase saw major contri-
butions from Rogers (1962, 1976, 1983, 1994, 2003) who extended
the work done by Ryan and Gross (1943). Rogers’ conceptualization

© The Author(s) 2021 157

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_6
158 A. SPENCER

Fig. 6.1 Revised technology decision-making input framework (Source Author’s

creation)

involved four key elements of diffusion as (1) innovation (2) communi-

cation channels (3) time, and (4) social system. This provided a platform
for the growth of research in the area as it developed factors which were
more applicable across fields (Fig. 6.1).
Much of the research indicated that technology adoption was primarily
positive.1 It was only fairly recently that Latzer (2009) identified that
some types of new technology may be unsustainable or even disruptive. In
the pre-internet phase Davis (1989) became source of authority and was
the successor to Rogers. In his technology acceptance model he argues
that situational as well as personal influences such as perceived ease of use
and perceived usefulness are critical in determining the level of technology
acceptance. This claim added the elements of observation and perception
to the discussion. However, it was the post-internet era, which sparked
most of the technology adoption debate across industries.
Much of this discourse has emphasized a shift from an industrial
economy to an information economy, and this may be seen in the
development of the literature. Since the internet explosion in 1991,
research has been assessing the pervasiveness of the World Wide Web in

1 See for example Bagozzi (2007).

 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 159

a variety of industries. There is consensus by many theorists2 that the

rules of competition for established business have been transformed by
the internet.
Out of this, many started focusing on reducing information asym-
metry, disintermediation, and reintermediation. The last two in particular
received significant attention in travel and tourism.3 This research found
that internet transformation was fairly slow in the travel firms that were
studied. Later in this chapter, the drivers and barriers to technology
adoption are discussed in detail.
In the extant literature, it has been confirmed that various factors drive
the adoption of technology. These include national culture,4 the global
digital divide,5 resources,6 strategy,7 and leadership.8 In both the primary
and secondary data collection phases, all of these elements were accounted
for and addressed. These factors were conceptualized in two coherent
conceptual frameworks (see Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). Figure 2.1 identifies frag-
mented relationships which exist in the literature which have typically
focused on singular relationships. Based on the findings of this research,
it is now possible to provide for greater coherence in conceptualizing
technology adoption drivers for small, owner-managed travel firms. As a
result of this fragmentation in previous studies, it has been fairly difficult
to address the gaps in technology adoption in firms. Figure 2.2 illus-
trates a coherent framework, which places technology adoption decisions
within the broader theory of decision-making and highlights relation-
ships which may be explored for future research. This research further
emphasizes the role of leadership which is important since this study
focuses on owner-managers of small travel firms, who have a great deal
of autonomy in decision-making. It must be noted that while Fig. 2.2
influenced the primary data collection process, some of the relationships
identified were subsumed in other factors. For instance, ownership was

2 Rayport (1995), Choi and Stahl (1997), Grieger (2003), Williamson and Scott (1999),
Afuah and Tucci (2003), Gentner (2017), Wirtz (2001), Rappa (2002).
3 See for example Laws (2001), Buhalis and Licata (2002).
4 Westwood and Low (2003).
5 Stump et al. (2008), Minghetti and Buhalis (2010).
6 Brown et al. (2007).
7 Stonehouse and Snowdon (2007).
8 Elenkov and Manev (2005), Lynskey (2004), Peterson et al. (2009).
160 A. SPENCER

subsumed by leadership. Fundamentally, the research process highlighted

that an understanding of adoption drivers in firms lie in the demystifica-
tion of the decision-making process. The question then emerged: which
of these factors influences decision-making most significantly in firms?
The research has led to the creation of leader profiles and ulti-
mately new leadership typologies which have been developed based
on the generic transactional and transformational typologies. The new
typologies, apply more especially to owner-managers of small firms in
information intensive industries. Each typology will be further explained
in this chapter. Each typology relates to specific levels of adoption along
an adoption hierarchy, also referred to as adoption stages. Stages in this
research will be more vertical in nature as they address movement to
higher levels of technology adoption.

Adoption Stages
The leadership typologies being advanced relate directly to particular
stages of the technology adoption process. There is a considerable body
of work about adoption, its stages and particularly for online platforms
(see Appendix A). This research will identify stages through which a
firm progresses for a particular innovation as well as through different
levels of innovation adoption. This approach is different from previous
research as it multileveled and it assesses the driver at each level. For
example Rogers (1983) highlighted that a firm goes through stages such
as: agenda setting, matching, redefining, clarifying, and routinizing for
each new innovation. Cooper and Zmud (1990) advocated a six-stage
process to include initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routiniza-
tion, and infusion. Damanpour (1991) succinctly collapsed these stages
into two key areas known as initiation and implementation.
Even the more contemporary research focuses on the stages of a
specific innovation adoption. Daniel et al. (2002) focused on e-commerce
adoption specifically and created firm clusters in a sequential manner.
Cluster one to four involved developers, communicators, web presence,
and transactors. This represents an attempt at constructing a vertical
process of technology adoption. Moreover, they represent different
degrees of e-commerce readiness and adoption through the key variable
of technology involvement. Even more recently Aquila-Obra and Padilla-
Melendez (2006) have articulated a four cluster approach to internet
technology adoption which also emphasizes a sequential process for a
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 161

single innovation. For a more comprehensive list of adoption models

please see Appendix A: Summary of online adoption models.
For the purposes of this research there was a need to conceptu-
alize some technology adoption stages which represented a more holistic
demonstration of technology adoption within firms. Unlike previous
approaches, this conceptualization does not only consider single innova-
tions and accompanying sequential processes. Rather, it uses a hierarchical
approach to highlight different levels of adoption with each level repre-
senting a more cutting-edge type of adoption. This was based on the
findings of the research for the firms in the sample. While this is not
the main focus of this study, it was necessary to develop a hierarchy that
corresponds to the new leadership typologies which are ultimately being
advanced. Each stage of adoption refers to back-office use and ultimately
sales and marketing use at that level. Subsequently a discussion of the
leadership profiles will be discussed in relation to these adoption levels.
The relationships will be demonstrated more closely in Fig. 6.7.

The Adopters
This research is more concerned with vertical movement along an
adoption hierarchy rather than horizontal movement along a sequential
process. Therefore, simple phases of initiation and implementation are
adopted at each level of adoption. Initiation refers to the point at which
firms consider the need for an innovation; they search for information and
explore resource allocation needs. Implementation on the other hand,
addresses first use of the innovation and the point at which processes
evolve to match the new adoption. The broad category of computer
adopters was used to describe firms at the bottom of the hierarchy that
was engaged in simple uses of computer terminals and hardware for back-
office accounting functions or front office functions such as sales. Firms
which do not use online sales tools other than GDSs are also placed in
this category since their adoption was simply based on the free provi-
sion of the system by the supplier. It must be noted that computers are
also an important pre-condition in firms for other innovation adoptions
such as the internet. This was discussed in innovation interdependence in
Chapter 2. The researcher acknowledges that all companies had passed
through the initiation and implementation phase at this level.
The next group on the adoption hierarchy is termed internet adopters.
This group represents firms in which the internet is used for emailing
162 A. SPENCER

and web browsing. A fairly large number of the firms in the sample did
not transition beyond this level and only engaged with the internet for
client communication and information searches. Most firms already went
through implementation of this phase. Conversely, it was observed that
some of the firms were still at the point of initiation. Website adopters
refer to the firms which have created and used company websites for
general and marketing information sharing. Websites in this case typi-
cally provide static information. While a few firms in the sample had
implemented these, they were eventually abandoned and are now inactive.
It followed that much of the information became outdated and owner-
managers had very little interests in revitalizing these efforts. Outside of
those who already implemented the use of these websites, a few other
firms were at the point of initiation while the majority of firms were resis-
tant. The next level of the hierarchy is called e-commerce adopters and
refers to firms which use websites for actual bookings and payment. For
this research, this level is considered to be key as it is the level at which
there is strident refusal to adopt. The key investigation surrounds why
firms are resistant to the notion of online selling. One firm is at the point
of implementation while one other firm is at the point of initiation for
this level of adoption. An overwhelming majority of firms do not aspire
to this level and have no intentions of even exploring the option. This
is because there is limited technology experience, limited knowledge of
benefits and the perception that the need does not exist. Some responses
included:

I would be wasting my time to try to sell online to my clients because most

of them do not like using the internet to do serious business; furthermore
they like having that personal contact and they wouldn’t trade that for
anything.

I know that there are people who buy online. I have never done so
myself and I am kind of wary of doing business with machines. I think
my customers also look at it that way and they prefer to talk to someone.

The views of the respondents represent limited approaches to strategy,

which do not allow for changes outside of normal activities. The emphasis
is on short-termed approaches to keep business alive. This is a direct
reflection of the manager who is also the owner of the small business
in which there is autonomy to make unilateral decisions. When this is so,
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 163

what happens is usually protectionist tendencies emerge. These tendencies

incline the owner-manager to be more risk averse in the business since it
is the business that fulfills the immediate needs of his/her families as well
as other interests.
The final level on the hierarchy has been identified as social media
adoption in firms. Social media adopters would refer to firms in which
social media is used for promotion and interaction which results in sales
activities. While none of the firms in the sample fall squarely into this cate-
gory, it appears likely that the firm which is now at the implementation
phase of e-commerce adoption will move to the initiation phase of social
media adoption. This is based on an expressed intention to explore such
an option. It is important to note that social media is also being used on
a personal level by this owner-manager. He states:

I currently use Facebook to connect with friends and I am not using it

in the business as yet because I need to find out more about whether
customers view it as a serious business tool or just as something to do for
fun. I am open to the idea though and will look into it.

Most firms are resistant to moving to any adoption level which is higher
than basic internet adoption in the form of emailing and browsing. There
are a few firms which have adopted websites for general information and
an even fewer number which are exploring online selling. The ultimate
aspirational level of social media adoption is still in its infancy and only
one firm is even exploring the option. The differences between firms at
each level will be highlighted and correlated with leadership profiles.

Contribution to Theories
of Staged Technology Adoption
While these categories will assist in the discussion of the hierarchical
movement of technology adoption in firms, they are not the essence of
what is seminal about this work. The originality of this study emanates
from some key gaps in the approaches taken to past studies about tech-
nology adoption. The first is that the body of research on stages of
adoption takes a sequential continuum approach to understand singular
innovations. Secondly, the adoption classifications from previous research
tend to make generalizations about firms. While this is useful, it does very
little to account for small firms in which there is a great level of autonomy
164 A. SPENCER

such as in the case of owner-managers. Thirdly, although there has been

some research which has recognized the influence of leadership traits on
small businesses,9 the body of research failed to identify leadership charac-
teristics as a driver of each stage of adoption. The work of Thong and Yap
(1995) highlighted three important characteristics of innovativeness, IT
attitude and IT knowledge that explained overall IT adoption; and not a
staged approach at a time when less pervasive business platforms existed.
Peterson et al. (2009) in applying transformational leadership traits to
high-technology environments focused on generic traits in start-up firms.
Through an emphasis on owner-managed small firms, this research works
well to advance the debate on hierarchical technology adoption and
the leadership typologies that influence each stage. Each component of
the model being constructed will be explained in detail. At the end of
this discussion a coherent, composite model will be developed. Further-
more, some key leadership typologies also emerged that related directly
to technology adoption in small owner-managed firms.

Resistors
Research on the transactional leader has highlighted a short-term orien-
tation in completing tasks at hand by using rewards and incentives to
motivate employees to complete tasks. This research however highlighted
that among the category of respondents, there are different types of
transactional leaders. Clear variables which separate them were also intro-
duced. The resistor occupies the lowest level since he/she is least likely to
effect change in the firm and is more interested in maintaining traditional
approaches. These persons rank themselves as low-risk takers as measured
by openness to new ideas from employees, and say that they are willing to
do only what is necessary to meet predetermined objectives. Furthermore,
their experience with technology is low since they have minimal practice
with using computer-related technology outside of infrequent personal
emailing; and all of their work experience has been in the travel industry.
They tended to have low education levels with the highest formal qual-
ification being at the secondary level. These leaders typically ranked low
on the intellectual stimulation scale since they did not encourage creative

9 See for example Thong and Yap (1995), Peterson et al. (2009).
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 165

Fig. 6.2 Resistors (Source Author’s creation)

thinking and innovation among their employees. It is possible that intel-

lectual stimulation in this vein is linked to the make-up of their families.
In this sense, where there was no avid teenage internet user whose prac-
tice could have influenced perceptions, it was found that leaders were less
likely to introduce new technologies in their firms. This trait has been
deemed to be the most applicable transformational leadership trait to
technology adoption research as it is the only one which appeals to cogni-
tive change and an openness to creativity and new ideas. The researcher
coined the term “intellectually stagnating” to signify the converse of intel-
lectually stimulating. Overall, these respondents view internet technology
adoption for sales and marketing as an example of a high-risk investment.
For these respondents, it meant that there was less proclivity toward adop-
tion. These leaders were mainly found in firms which were categorized as
computer adopters with their highest level of interface being the use of
Global Distribution Systems (Fig. 6.2).

Caretakers
Caretakers seek to enforce the status quo and control activities to ensure
adherence to guidelines. These leaders are transactional and also rank
themselves as low-risk takers who will only do what is necessary to follow
internal procedures regardless of changes in the external environment.
The researcher maintains that this makes them just as intellectually stag-
nating as the previous group. In fact, they are only different from resistors
to the extent that they are willing to do things differently, if there is a
complete industry change which warrants new procedures. Once new
166 A. SPENCER

Fig. 6.3 Caretakers (Source Author’s creation)

procedures are developed, they will choose to alter any activity within
the firm. Caretakers typically had low technology experience like resistors.
However, they attained a higher level of education than the resistors since
they had completed post-secondary studies and earned certificates and
diplomas. Certificates were usually awarded by professional travel bodies.
The moderate education level gave them exposure to technology benefits
although they had limited experience using it. They however had no expe-
rience working outside of the travel industry and therefore had a limited
view of business strategy. These leaders also ranked low on intellectual
stimulation for employees as they did not encourage creative thinking and
innovation. Their family composition also tended to be void of an avid
teenage internet user whose practices could have influenced perceptions.
Despite changes in the global marketplace, these leaders are not
strategic nor are they visionaries. This is because they are insistent on
upholding preset standards and procedures. These leaders were found in
internet adopter firms since they had greater exposure to higher education
than the resistors. Although they have adopted the internet, this process
was slow. Moreover, internet use serves the basic functions of emailing
and web browsing (Fig. 6.3).

Stabilizers
This type of leader is still a transactional leader but more closely resem-
bles the decision maker as actor in the organizational decision-making
literature. This leader is a passive actor who adheres to the firms’ opera-
tions and tailors his behavior to suit the state of the business at a given
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 167

time. These leaders consider themselves to be medium risk-takers who

will make decisions which may lead to short-term changes to address
immediate opportunities and challenges. This may lead to doing some-
thing in the firm that is not procedural, however once the incident has
passed it becomes business as usual once again. Stabilizers typically had
low technology experience and fairly high education levels. Most of them
had a bachelor’s degree in travel/tourism which seemed to limit their
scope. Interestingly, their work experience was similar to resistors and
caretakers in that they did not have any work experience outside of the
travel industry. Their family composition had teenagers using the internet
which made them more familiar with its use, but they were still no more
intellectually stimulating than the previous categories as they usually tried
to stabilize situations without employee consultation. For instance, in
response to the competition that introduced websites to their firms these
leaders who were heads of website adopter companies introduced websites
also but lacked the proper website design and did not undertake orienta-
tion and training. As a result, those websites quickly became inactive and
returns on investments were not realized. These leaders had no intention
of revitalizing their website efforts and did not intend to move any higher
along the adoption hierarchy unless a crisis emerged (Fig. 6.4).

Fig. 6.4 Stabilizers (Source Author’s creation)

168 A. SPENCER

Reactors
This category is representative of a leader who welcomes change and is
a medium risk-taker. Although he is not usually resistant to doing things
differently, this leader lags behind in the uptake of some new innova-
tions. There is always the intention to improve business practices but
these are sometimes late in coming to fruition. This shows the limita-
tions that occur between the initiation and implementation phases, which
is usually achieved after much deliberation. Education levels are usually
high in this category with a minimum of a bachelor degree with a broader
focus than just travel and tourism. Technology experience is moderate
(daily business emailing, and web browsing) and previous work experi-
ence involves working in other industries apart from travel and tourism.
They typically belong to families with avid teenage web users and provide
an intellectually stimulating environment for employees but tend to spend
a considerable time in the initiation phase of adoption (Fig. 6.5).
This type of leader may move the firm to become e-commerce
adopters. However, more data is required particularly since this will
involve adopting a technology activity for the firm of which there has been
no personal engagement. They differ from the transformers in that they
are reactive rather than proactive. However when provided with sufficient
stimulus they are open to change. Their reactive nature may be changed
through increased exposure to technology that might cause them to be
less risk averse. It is still maintained here that a greater level of transfor-
mational leadership is needed to move the firm to relatively new business
platforms such as social media. This will require a proactive visionary
approach. Currently, owing to traditionalist perspectives, social media use
is virtually nonexistent in the context within which they operate.

Fig. 6.5 Reactors

 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 169

Transformers
Transformers are considered to be an active change agent with a long-
term vision for the firm. They are seen as visionaries and are mostly
proactive leaders who are willing to change processes and approaches
not only in response to external changes but more importantly, in antic-
ipation of those changes. Transformers are considered to be high-risk
takers with high technology experience and a high education level. The
high technology experience and high-risk taking are two things that
separate this kind of leader from the reactor. Moreover, this individual
has engaged in personal online buying and is therefore familiar with
online transactions. All other variables are similar to the reactor such as
work experience, family composition and intellectual stimulation. The key
difference however, is that these leaders have their own experience with
using cutting-edge technology s well as they are able to observe the bene-
fits of technology use by their children. Although these leaders do not use
social media in the businesses, they use it personally, thus indicating the
reach of these tools (Fig. 6.6).
It must be noted that while transformative leaders are needed to move
owner-managed small firms from mere computer adopters to social media
adopters—for sales and marketing—the only leader in the sample who is
most likely to move to this category has just begun to explore the option
and has expressed an intention to adopt. Nevertheless, this firm is still
a leader in internet technology adoption for sales and marketing in the
industry. This is indicated by the strategic vision and leadership of its
top executive and owner. The composite model will now be illustrated
and discussed below with an elaboration of the gaps being filled by this
research.

Fig. 6.6 Transformers (Source Author’s creation)

170 A. SPENCER

The illustration in Fig. 6.7 is a representation of this work’s overall

contribution to theory. It is a unique mix of the previously explained
leadership typologies and technology adoption hierarchy which emerged
from this study. This composite diagram seeks to provide a basis of expla-
nation for different types of leaders who occupy distinct roles based on
the stage they are at with technology adoption. Furthermore, it intends
to highlight variables that separate each level. The model will assist in
identifying potential adoption behavior in small, owner-managed firms in
information intensive industries and understanding what factors and/or
situations may influence change. While the study was carried out using
travel firms, the implications are far more extensive. Having discussed the

Leadership Typologies Firm Adopon Hierarchy

Transformers

Social Media
TRANSFORMATIONAL

Adopters

(0%)
Reactors
(6.5%)
Moderate
Technology E-commerce
Experience
Diverse Industry Adopters
Experience
Intellectually
Smulang
Stabilizers (22.6%)
Low Technology Experience
High Educaon Level Website
Single Industry Experience
Medium Risk Taker Adopters
High Family Innovaon
Intellectually Stagnang

Caretakers (35.4%)
TRANSACTIONAL

Low Technology Experience

Moderate Educaon Level Internet
Single Industry Experience
Low Risk Taker Adopters
Low Family Innovaon
Intellectually Stagnang
Resistors (35.5%)
Low Technology Experience
Low Educaon Level
Computer
Single Industry Experience Adopters
Low Risk Taker
Low Family Innovaon
Intellectually Stagnang

Fig. 6.7 Leadership typologies for staged technology adoption (owner-

managed small firms) (Source Author’s creation)
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 171

construction of the model throughout this chapter, it is equally impera-

tive to discuss its strengths and limitations. The subsequent section will
address the strengths of this study in relation to theoretical implications
and the gaps in the body of literature which it will fill. Inherent limitations
of the model will also be presented and contrasted with how some level
of delimitation is achieved. The following section will also describe the
practical implications of the model. Ultimately the chapter will conclude
with a reiteration and emphasis on the work’s originality and theoretical
contribution.

Strengths of the Model

The model presents a coherent hierarchical adoption approach which
identifies the different types of leaders found at each level of adoption.
Most importantly, this model is a product of multiple factors that were
presented in previous research as potential drivers of technology adop-
tion. By applying a Critical Social Science perspective, which called for
a more comprehensive assessment of a multiplicity of possibilities, this
model could have been developed. As demonstrated in Fig. 6.1, factors
such as culture, the digital divide, resources and firm strategy were also
examined and secondary and primary data were collected on these factors
in relation to technology adoption. The primary data analysis from two
phases of collection and analysis revealed that the roles of culture and
the digital divide were minimal. In that, there was an indirect correlation
between the two factors the individual’s perceptions. None of the two was
able to explain why similar cultural backgrounds and IT access resulted in
different behaviors among the firms.
The resource and firm strategy factors emerged as peripheral drivers
as they were directly under the control of the decision-maker in these
firms and appeared more as an effect than a cause. The research journey
revealed that the critical direct driver of technology adoption in these
firms was its leadership. This was primarily so because of the small
autonomous nature of the firms in the study. This uncovers another
important strength of the project as it is able to fill the gap where
owner-managed small firms have been ignored in the technology adoption
discourse of past studies. The model that was developed in this research
emphasizes that where leaders of small firms are the owners themselves,
innovative behavior is significantly challenged. First of all, the small size of
the firms usually produces a simple management structure and hierarchy
172 A. SPENCER

which allows for less bureaucracy and faster decision-making. On the

surface, this appears to be positive. However, it also means that decisions
are made based on attributes of character. For instance, making decisions
hastily to satisfy specialized preferences are likely to become characteristic
of the firm’s behavior. Seeing that as the owners of small firms, these top
executives have an immediate stake in the outcome of business activities,
they are more likely to personalize decision-making rather than rely on
logic and strategy. From this recognition, it is concluded that the leaders
themselves may be initiators or barriers to technology adoption based on
their attitude to technology.
Having identified that the leadership element is most critical to tech-
nology adoption in owner-managed small firms, the position that this
research takes acknowledges that a more detailed approach is to be taken
to identify what types of firms were at the various levels of adoption
and what type of leader was responsible for the firm’s position along the
adoption hierarchy. While there has been previous research on stages of
adoption, much of this research has been focused on the sequential adop-
tion of specific technological innovations.10 This research however takes a
hierarchical approach. The model it uses therefore is an illustrative of the
different technology adoption processes and therefore provides a macro
approach to this conceptualization.
The major theoretical development is that the work goes on to develop
leadership typologies at each level of adoption, which has never been done
before. It must be stated that there were a few odd cases in the interviews
which did not match the criteria of a particular typology based on the vari-
ables which were used to create the types of leaders. These were however
in the minority. Other resonant themes could be identified across inter-
view manuscripts to make these bold conclusions. This takes the research
a step further than previous research which identified the importance of
leadership in innovation diffusion and adoption.11 Much of this body of
work focused on the initial adoption of innovation in general or on a
single innovation. The development of leadership typologies is particularly
useful based on the limitations of the transactional and transformational
typologies. For example, except for intellectual stimulation, which has

10 See for example Cooper and Zmud (1990), Damanpour (1991), Daniel et al. (2002),
Aquila-Obra and Padilla-Melendez (2006).
11 See for example Thong and Yap (1995), Peterson et al. (2009).
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 173

been used in the development of this model, none of the other constructs
identified in transformational leadership research could be directly applied
to innovative behavior. Additionally, these typologies, which for the most
part were generic, seemed to overlook important variables although they
too were applicable to the innovative behavior of leaders. These variables
are technology experience and innovative family behavior.
In the case of owner-managed small firms where the leadership element
is most critical, it is of paramount importance that an applicable set of
classifications which consider more technologically related variables be
advanced in order to understand why some firms are at higher levels than
others. This was particularly interesting in the travel context, where firms
are most at risk of facing exogenous global shocks which could affect their
stability and even undermine their relevance. Even with impending danger
to the survival of businesses, some firms were still at relatively low levels
of adoption along the hierarchy and it was interesting to understand why
this was so in such an information intensive industry. Although the study
focused on travel firms, the findings may be generalizable. This means,
the results could be extended to other firms that also exist in informa-
tion intensive industries which are small and managed by their owners.
It is also possible that lessons can be learnt about leadership drivers and
barriers to technology adoption. The model provides useful information
for small owner-managed firms in the travel industry as well as those with
similar characteristics in other information intensive industries. The lead-
ership typologies presented are instructive to firms that aspire to become
more competitive. They highlight key variables which explain individual
attitudes and behaviors regarding technology adoption in firms and can
empower industry practitioners to claim for the highest level of transfor-
mational leadership. Furthermore, they can signal a need to become as
proactive as the transformers. This will be particularly useful when these
firms are anticipating competitive challenges and opportunities. Owner-
managers of small travel firms are now able to explore their leadership
style and traits through the lens of this study and assess whether their
approaches to operations and strategy are directly linked to education,
technology experience, work experience, family composition, risk aver-
sion, or level of intellectual stimulation (openness to new ideas from
employees) which they provide in their firms. The ability to change one
or more of these variables may result in a change in decision-making
processes related to technological innovations and more specifically online
selling.
174 A. SPENCER

Limitations of the Model

The model used in this study makes a significant contribution to the
understanding of leadership influence in levels of technology adoption.
However, it is not without its limitations. First, the study was conducted
with a sample of small owner-managed firms in the travel industry for
one country. Additionally in designing the leadership typologies, there
were two outliers in the data set for two of the typologies. This limita-
tion acknowledges that transferability extends only to similar companies,
similar industries and countries that exist in a similar context, for example
other developing countries. In this sense, transferability would not be too
difficult since a large number of firms in developing countries are small,
owner-managed and operating in information intensive industries. The
second more theoretically important issue is overridden by the resonance
of the key themes that emerged from each leadership grouping. While
there were differences in the variables for one respondent in each of two
groups, a pattern in the overall responses was still clearly identified and
the robustness of the findings was not compromised.

References
Afuah, A., and C.L. Tucci. 2003. Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text
and Cases (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Aquila-Obra, Ana, and Antonio Padilla-Melendez. 2006. “Organizational Factors
Affecting Internet Technology Adoption.” Internet Research 16(1): 94–110.
Bagozzi, R.P. 2007. “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a
Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 8(4): 3.
Brown, James, Chris Hendry, and Paul Harborne. 2007. “Developing Radical
Technology for Sustainable Energy Markets: The Role of New Small Firms.”
International Small Business Journal 25: 603–625.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Maria Cristina Licata. 2002. “The Future eTourism
Intermediaries.” Journal of Tourism Management 23(3): 207–220.
Choi, Soon-Yong, and Dale Stahl. 1997. The Economics of Electronic Commerce.
Indiana: Macmillan Technical Publishing.
Cooper, Randolph B., and Robert Zmud. 1990. “Information Technology
Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach.” Manage-
ment Science 36(2): 123–139.
Damanpour, Fariborz. 1991. “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of
Effects of Determinants and Moderators.” Academy of Management Journal
34(3): 555–590.
 6 THE APPLICABILITY OF AN INNOVATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL … 175

Daniel, Elizabeth, Hugh Wilson, and Andrew Myers. 2002. “Adoption of E-

Commerce by SMEs in the UK: Towards a Stage Model.” International Small
Business Journal 20(3): 253–270.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
tion Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–339.
Elenkov, Detelin, and Ivan Manev. 2005. “Top Management Leadership and
Influence on Innovation: The Role of Socio-cultural Context.” Journal of
Management 31(3): 381–402.
Gentner, D., B. Stelzer, and L. Brecht. 2017, June. “Analyzing Customers’
Readiness for Digital B2B Business Models.” In ISPIM Innovation Sympo-
sium, 1. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management
(ISPIM).
Grieger, M. 2003. “Electronic Marketplaces: A Literature Review and a Call
for Supply Chain Management Research.” European Journal of Operational
Research 144(2): 280–294.
Latzer, Michael. 2009. “Information and Communication Technology Innova-
tions: Radical and Disruptive?” New Media Society 11(4): 599–619.
Laws, Eric. 2001. “Distribution Channel Analysis for Leisure Travel.” In
Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations, edited
by Dimitrios Buhalis, and Eric Laws, 53–72. London: Continuum.
Lynskey, Michael. 2004. “Determinants of Innovative Activity in Japanese
Technology-Based Start-up Firms.” International Small Business Journal
22(2): 159–196.
Minghetti, Valeria, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2010. “Digital Divide in Tourism.”
Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.
Peterson, Suzanne J., Kristin Byron Walumbwa, and Jason Myrowitz. 2009.
“CEO Positive Psychological Traits, Transformational Leadership, and Firm
Performance in High-Technology Start-up and Established Firms.” Journal of
Management 35: 348–368.
Rappa, Michael. 2002. “Business Models on the Web.” Accessed February 7,
2010. http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html.
Rayport, Jeffrey F. 1995. “Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain.” Harvard Business
Review 73(6): 75–85.
Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1976. “New Product Adoption and Diffusion.” Journal of Consumer
Research 2: 290.
———. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1994. A History of Communication Study—A Biographical Approach.
New York: The Free Press.
———. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.
Ryan, Bryce, and Neal Gross. 1943. “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in
Two Iowa Communities.” Rural Sociology 8: 15–24.
176 A. SPENCER

Stonehouse, George, and Brian Snowdon. 2007. “Competitive Advantage

Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness.” Journal of
Management Inquiry 16(3): 256–273.
Stump, Rodney L., Wen Gong, and Zhan Li. 2008. “Exploring the Digital
Divide in Mobile-phone Adoption Levels across Countries: Do Population
Socioeconomic Traits Operate in the Same Manner as Their Individual-level
Demographic Counterparts?” Journal of Macromarketing 28: 397–412.
Thong, James Y.L., and C. S. Yap. 1995. “CEO Characteristics, Organisational
Characteristics and Information Technology Adoption in Small Business.”
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 23(4): 429–442.
Westwood, Robert, and David Low. 2003. “The Multicultural Muse Culture,
Creativity and Innovation.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-
ment 3(2): 235–259.
Williamson, Oliver E., and Scott E. Masten. 1999. The Economics of Transaction
Costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wirtz, Bernd W. 2001. Electronic Business. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
 CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

The findings of this study are original in their contribution to the

literature in a myriad of ways. Primarily, they postulate that research on
the adoption of technology in firms requires a holistic approach before
key factors are determined. This is unlike the reductionist approach to
technology adoption as is expressed in previous studies where positivism
is applied. Yet, for a much clearer perspective about the critical emergent
factors, the Critical Theory facilitates transparency and inclusiveness,
thereby providing for subliminal matters to be addressed before deeper
insights can be extracted for clarity. Another significant contribution
of the research is the conceptualization of staged adoption through a
combination of leadership traits and typologies that dictate the movement
of firms along the hierarchy of adoption for single inventions.
While there are other hierarchical representations of technology adop-
tion, consolidating multiple variables into clear typologies is arguably
a novel idea, since it details the process of transition from one stage
to the next- of technology adoption. Thus, it is fundamentally valuable
to previous studies on transformational leadership theory. The results
demonstrated that generic classifications of leadership are valuable in iden-
tifying leaders as change agents. However, these results did not sufficiently
explain how leadership influenced vertical technology adoption in small,
owner-managed firms. The model in Fig. 6.7 responds to this gap by
further disaggregating generic leadership classifications into smaller cate-
gories within the transactional and transformational leadership typologies.

© The Author(s) 2021 177

A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0_7
178 A. SPENCER

As it is suggested in the discourse, these distinct typologies have generally

been more effective primarily in terms of the application to technology
adoption.
The study’s findings have helped with redefining leadership as it relates
to technology adoption by identifying distinct leadership characteristics at
each level of adoption.
This research focused primarily on online selling practices which was
revealed as the highest level of technology adoption, yet only two agen-
cies were at this level. One of the firms was at the initiation phase of
adoption while the other was at the implementation phase. Aspirations
for social media adoption were also included since none of the firms in
the sample confirmed usage of this tool in sales or marketing. These arbi-
trary practices reinforced the need for a theory to guide the discourse
about the existing relationship at each level of adoption.
Fundamentally, behaviors related to technology adoption in these orga-
nizations were interrelated to the decision-making processes about what
technologies should be adopted; and the management and implementa-
tion of said technology. In this vein, the theory of organizational decision-
making was explored to gain a deeper understanding of how long-term
decisions which could potentially influence the strategic future of orga-
nizations were initially conceptualized in previous research. According to
past research, the theory of organizational decision-making unraveled the
intricacies of the decision-making process in such a manner whereby the
individual became the subject and the focus.
Scholars have categorized decision-makers into three groups; these are
actor, creator, and carrier. The actor is reactive and responds to situ-
ations while the creator is proactive and innovative-minded. Typically,
the carrier is merely a decision-maker who uses previous experiences to
gauge the decision-making process; although the same can be said about
both the actor and the creator. Based on these groupings, Fig. 2.2 was
developed as a framework to demonstrate how decision-making occurred
and the implications it had for technology adoption in the firms that
were sampled. This framework served a dual purpose in representing an
output framework based on the secondary data analysis, and as an input
framework for the primary data collection.
The framework indicates that ownership, leadership, and previous
experiences affect the overall structure of the firm, including its size, the
mode of control and division. These factors also influence creativity and
risk-taking which are inherent to entrepreneurship and leadership issues
 7 CONCLUSION 179

such as stimulation, drive, charisma, and strategic change. Inevitably,

strategy formulation, implementation and resource allocation are also
affected by these factors. According to Victorino et al. (2006), organiza-
tional behavior affects innovation adoption. It is argued in the literature
that as input, processes, and output are influenced adoption processes are
affected inadvertently.
The view expressed earlier that an understanding of individual decision-
making could explain organization decision-making was particularly
resounding in this research where the total sample was comprised of
small owner-managed firms. Within these firm’s decision-making was
not constrained by complicated bureaucratic red tapes. However, they
were driven by personal choices that characterize the preferences of the
owners as shown in their organizational focus. Contrastingly, the organi-
zational decision-making process differs in firms without owner-managers.
Notably, key features like risk aversion, technology experience, and family
composition are less significant in firms which is not reliant on the direc-
tion of a single decision-maker. Thus, in this research, it was deduced that
specific attention must be paid to ownership and leadership issues.
The ownership and leadership construct merged due to owner-
managers being the primary subject of the research. Majority of their
leadership decisions were impacted by their personal investment in the
business. In fact, for most owner-managers, their businesses were an
extension of themselves. Leadership emerged as the dominant factor in
the investigation based on its demonstrated effects on adoption behavior.
Therefore, indicating that technology adoption is determined by their
overall understanding of ICTs.
The data collected revealed owner-managers perceptions were not in
favor of greater utilization of technology in sales and marketing efforts.
They viewed technological investments as high-risk which provided
low returns. Interestingly, they highlighted the associated benefits of
speed, convenience and efficiency with using the internet. Yet, these
benefits were overwhelmed by the perception that users may become
overly dependent on the internet. Thus, this was recorded as a possible
psychological risk of increased technology use. For the most part, owner-
managers value the human element in service delivery and feared that
the opportunity to interact personally with clients would be lost. A few
of the respondents had diverging perceptions which fostered a greater
openness and desire to increase adoption. These respondents were of the
view that utilization of multiple platforms was the best practice. In this
180 A. SPENCER

way, a multiplicity of platforms would not only create an avenue for the
more technologically savvy customers but also maintain personal contact
with those clients who required it. The nuances in these views revealed
differences in family background, education, risk aversion, technology
experience, and work experience.
Given the critical role of owner-managers’ decision-making in their
firms, the need emerged to understand the basis of their perceptions
and ultimately their approach to their styles of leadership. In the second
phase of the primary investigation, the researcher explored transactional
and transformational leadership through qualitative enquiry. Critical to
the most authoritative work in transformational leadership (Bass et al.
2003), four essential constructs were purported. Intellectual stimulation
emerged as the most influential in the discourse of technology adop-
tion. This construct was measured using the responses that were shared
about a leader’s openness to receiving new ideas from employees. All, but
two of the respondents expressed that they did not encourage an open
environment where employees could share their ideas. They were more
concerned about employees performing their daily functions.
Idealized influence, inspiration and personalize consideration creates
an environment in which employees respect, admire, and have kinship
toward the leader. Although each respondent echoed the same sentiments
in these areas, the intellectual stimulation construct showed that the more
innovative-minded owner-managers ranked higher in this area. Innovation
and creativity within firms coalesce around a leader who the staff recog-
nizes as intellectually stimulating. This assumption acknowledges that
those leaders who welcome their followers’ ideas and/or change initia-
tives are more likely to be successful change agents. By exploring the other
three constructs, the researcher was able to determine whether each leader
could potentially fit into the two main leadership categories based on all
four constructs that were used. Deriving from the three constructs that
were investigated, it is evident that followers willingly align themselves
to the goals of the leader; although, it is intellectual stimulation which
demonstrates both a cognitive and behavioral change in the follower.
It is interpreted from these findings that the categories of transactional
and transformational leadership were both insufficient to determine lead-
ers’ capacity to influence separate levels of technology adoption. This
work recognizes the value in approaching leadership in a transforma-
tional way, as an attempt to improve and increase technology adoption.
At the same time, further disaggregation is required if the emergent
 7 CONCLUSION 181

leadership typologies are to be clarified. The typologies coalesce around

an intellectual stimulation component (openness to employees’ ideas) of
transformational leadership; and other factors including the level and type
of formal education, technology experience, previous work experience,
family composition, and risk aversion.
Following assumptions from previous studies about a firm’s behavior,
this work explored the internal factors of strategy and resources since a
firm’s resource capabilities (Barney 2001; Kraajenbrink et al. 2010) and
its strategy decisions (David 2007; Stonehouse and Snowdon 2007) ulti-
mately affect that firm’s behavior. Both secondary and primary data was
used to explore these factors and the analysis revealed through a process
of distillation that firms with these traits, resources, and strategy were
not central factors. However, they are peripheral contributors and are
not dismissed. This is because each of these characteristics is used by
leaders who seek to influence the process of technology adoption in their
respective firms irrespective of whether or not adoption is something they
pursue. In a variety of ways, they arise as a consequence of leadership
capability and behaviors instead of inherent drivers. They may emerge
to be more influential in a different environment but for small owner-
managed firms in information intensive industries they are more pawns in
technology decisions rather than key determinants.
The investigation of these internal factors through primary data collec-
tion revealed that there was no evident strategy which informed tech-
nology adoption behavior in local owner-managed travel companies. It
can be deduced that these companies engaged in a high-touch strategy
(intense personal interaction) but were apprehensive about perceived
psychological risk of reliance on technology as purported by Eastlick and
Lotz (1999). They held the view that majority of their clientele place a
high value on personal interaction, which is influenced by their culture.
Furthermore, owner-managers believed that high-tech and high-touch
strategy was unsuitable.
From a resource perspective, there are concerns about the constraints
that owner-managers experience in terms of human labor and finances.
Many owner-managers implied however that even if they had the
resources, they may not be inclined to adopt more technologies. The
consequence is that the sole decision of resource allocation lies with
owner-managers. The decision to spend in areas other than technology
182 A. SPENCER

adoption usually indicated the leader’s interests and preferences. Notwith-

standing that majority of the respondents attached importance to tech-
nology adoption in their firms, the decision to adopt more technology
coalesces around understanding and capacity to use and maintain the
technology. The analysis indicated that firm strategy and resources are not
enough to explain organizations’ adoption behaviors and the differences
between them. These factors were especially insignificant in explaining
why firms were at different level on the technology adoption hierarchy as
the heterogeneity of strategies and resource constraints were not enough
to identify why several firms were more technological advance than their
counterparts. These internal factors manifested as a consequence of differ-
ence in leadership of small owner-managed travel companies rather than
as significant contributors when deciding to adopt new technologies.
Furthermore, the context in which industries are embedded may
also explain overall industry behavior. For example, while culture and
the digital divide may explain behavior, they do not always account
for the differences in behavior among firms in the same society. Social
interactions, traditions, norms, and values were the constructs assessed.
Considering that the firms investigated operate in similar external envi-
ronments it was concerning that they made different operational and
strategic decisions. It was discovered through examination of culture as
a factor that firms were thriving in a relationship-oriented society where
familiarity and friendships impacted business relations. Added to this, it
was found that the national culture had its influence whereby it promoted
traditionalism with unwavering adherence to societal norms. Most impor-
tantly, cultural factors at the national level could not be used to rationalize
the diverging levels of technology adoption among firms since it was
experienced by all participants of the sample. Notably, the subcultural
influence of the family proves to be a more determining feature of culture.
Family composition influence technology adoption through its impact
on the leaders of these companies. While employees’ views are also shaped
by family, leaders too are heavily influenced by familial background. This
relationship was recognized as more important, particularly for small
owner-managed firms who make unilateral decisions about innovation.
Family composition was also important since it allowed for distinction
between high adopters and low adopters of technology.
Owner-managers who shared the household with family and who were
engaged in innovative behavior were comparatively more open to new
 7 CONCLUSION 183

ideas that could be employed for the benefit of their firms. The influ-
ence of the family as a subculture explains the large differences but it
does not the subtlety between leadership categories. For example while
family composition was common among firms, there were both moderate
and high adopters of technology. Thus, family structure/the influence
of the family must be understood with other factors to explain variances
in behavior. The firms in the sample had equal access to technological
resources and were equally limited by their understanding of the digital
space. Hence, the digital divide appeared to be an insignificant context
factor in explaining firm adoption behavior.
Conversely, within the business context of the country a global divide
was more evident than a domestic one. In light of this fact, it is not
difficult to imagine that these travel firms may reconcile the technological
divide (Minghetti and Buhalis 2010) and communication gap (Maurer
and Lutz 2011) that occur between destination countries and dominant
tourist-generating countries, specifically the United States and the United
Kingdom. This may be accomplished by utilizing independent and covert
agents such as the internet (Govers et al. 2007).
Contextually, an even amount of exposure to similar factors would
indicate that their explanatory power has been reduced and would there-
fore become more difficult to understand the differences in technology
adoption among firms. In this regard, the evenness of influence—of these
factors—on firms in the society are instructive only to the extent that
they can inform restructuring of the industry. This objective was primarily
to determine whether these factors influenced decisions of small owner-
managed travel firms. However, these were found to be peripheral factors,
meanwhile culture provided only a sub-element of the key determinant
leadership.
Essentially, firms are extensions of their individual leaders who own,
manage and operate them. Oftentimes, these decisions reflect their
individual preferences and experiences. The model as demonstrated in
Fig. 6.7 contributes to two main theoretical areas. The first engages the
adoption of technology. A key observation is that the literature surveyed
on stages of adoption takes a similar approach of sequencing to under-
standing singular innovations. While this has proved useful thus far, it
does not account for multiple levels of adoption (see for example Daniel
et al. 2002; Aquila-Obra and Padilla-Melendez 2006). For the purposes
of this research, it was necessary to define stages for technology adoption;
which embodied a more holistic approach to technology adoption within
184 A. SPENCER

firms. This approach differs from those of the past since it does not only
consider single innovations and the accompanying sequential processes
instead the levels of adoption are identified using a hierarchical approach
as each level represents a more progressive type of adoption. This was
based on the findings of the research. Notwithstanding that this is not
the main focus of this study, choosing to develop a hierarchy that corre-
sponds with new leadership typologies adds utility to the discourse here.
Each stage of adoption refers to computer adopters, internet adopters,
website adopters, e-commerce adopters, and social media adopters which
are used mainly for back office, sales, and marketing purposes.
According to the innovation interdependence literature (Moital et al.
2009), each subsequent stage in the hierarchy is treated as a precursor
for the other stages that follow. Computer adopters include those firms
that employ computer technology for simple tasks such as back-office
functions and GDS use. Conversely, Internet adopters include firms that
depend on computer technology for emailing and web browsing function-
alities. On the other hand, Website adopters engage online platforms for
marketing information, inter alia, while e-commerce adopters use digital
platforms to transact payments. Lastly, Social media adopters rely on social
media for sales and marketing functions. Each of the aforementioned
stages of adoption occurs between two main phases—the initiation phase
and the implementation phase.
The identification of new leadership typologies is the most profound
contribution to the previously outlined hierarchical levels of technology
adoption in small owner-managed firms. This correlation between each
distinct leadership typology and the separate levels of adoption is illus-
trated in Fig. 6.7. While there has been some research which has
recognized the influence of leadership traits on small business adoption
(see for example Thong and Yap 1995; Peterson et al. 2009), leadership
characteristics have not been identified in this research as a determinant
of adoption at different stages. However, the existing body of research
acknowledges that leadership is indispensable to the overall adoption of
information technologies in small start-up firms.
The emergent typologies are referred to as resistors, caretakers, stabi-
lizers, reactors and transformers. These typologies indicate a first attempt
at disaggregating leadership categories into one model that reflects lead-
ership influence at each stage of a hierarchical technology adoption
structure.
 7 CONCLUSION 185

Although there were six key variables that influenced leadership, each
of them offered varying degrees of influence over each stage of adop-
tion. Education was found to be the most prominent variable in the
transition from computer adoption to internet adoption. Based on the
post-secondary studies that were undertaken, education level was found
to be typically higher with leaders. For website adopters, education,
risk-taking, and family background were identified as the most salient
variables. When compared to computer and internet adopters, website
adopters acquired university degrees, had active technology use at home
and were medium risk takers.
In some firms, the transition from website adoption (general infor-
mation) to e-commerce adoption varies based on technology experience,
industry experience and type of education which were generally found
to be the dominant variables. Generally, the leader possessed moderate
technology experience which involved daily emailing and browsing. The
leader also had diverse industry experience and had acquired university
education not limited to travel and tourism studies. For those at the e-
commerce level who desired to transition to social media adoption, it was
found that their technological experience and risk-taking once improved
could propel them to the next level. Mostly, ecommerce adopter firms
were managed by leaders with moderate technology experience and who
were generally low to medium risk-takers. It has been considered that
high technology experience can cause leaders to underestimate the risks
involved and overestimate their capacity to manage those risks after expe-
riencing the benefits of using online commerce platforms. This could be
inferred from the most open-minded respondent who intends to explore
social media options while still functioning at the ecommerce level and
has high technology experience.
Most importantly this model was developed out of evaluation and
comparison of factors that have been represented in previous research
as basic drivers of technology adoption. By applying a Critical Social
Science approach, the researcher was able to conduct a more compre-
hensive assessment of the possibilities within the context of this study.
The distillation process exposed that leadership was at the core of tech-
nology adoption in these firms. This was precisely so because of the small
autonomous nature of these firms. This introduces another strength of
the project, particularly since the literature maintains that owner-managed
small firms have largely been ignored in the discourse around technology
adoption. It is not uncommon for the literature to represent considerable
186 A. SPENCER

research using large and small firms. Hence, this present study contributes
to the literature in a very important way.
In terms of theory, this study seeks to inform future research on hier-
archical technology adoption and distinct leadership typologies. Arguably,
this research can inform and influence theories related to technology
adoption as well as leadership. The more practical implications relate to
the travel and tourism industry particularly to those firms that have a defi-
cient technological infrastructure and are struggling. Given the strength
of this work, it is argued that there are fundamental areas that will inform
the future of the technology adoption discourse, as they are advanced
below:

• From a methodological standpoint, this study challenges the reduc-

tionist approaches to technology adoption, as it is outlined in prior
studies. Moreover, it reinforces the value of Critical Social Science
Philosophy in research. Thus, allowing for attendant or subliminal
issues to be addressed prior to distillation. Ultimately, it clarifies the
position/perspective on critical emergent factors in the research.
• In owner-managed firms, where leadership and ownership overlap,
there are unique and unavoidable challenges to innovation. This
work acknowledges and accounts for this issue.
• Leadership role is significantly influenced by the size of the firm as
well as how simple the management and decision-making structures
are.
• Delegating responsibility is rarely achieved by owner-managers since
they are personally attached to their firms. This is most evident
when key decisions such as the adoption of new technology
should be made. Fundamentally, this means that owner-managers
will choose between stimulating adoption behavior among staff or
restricting adoption behavior based on their unique preferences.
Having accounted for these nuances, this work provides a more
detailed analysis than previous studies on specific leadership typolo-
gies that drive different levels of adoption in firms with similar
external characteristics.
• As an original contribution to theoretical foundation, this current
study develops leadership typologies at each level of technology
adoption. This was never accomplished in previous studies. This
development is particularly useful since as the generic transactional
and transformational typologies were too deterministic. In that, they
 7 CONCLUSION 187

were limited in their application to a hierarchical adoption model. It

therefore portrays that ICT adoption and competitiveness is more
likely to improve in small owner-managed travel firms, through the
adjustment and engagement with one or more of the leadership
variables that were identified.

Additionally, this study extends the theory of transformational leader-

ship. While it is acknowledged that generic classifications of leadership
have demonstrable value in identifying leaders who are themselves change
agents, the findings indicated that the usual classifications lacked explana-
tory power for how leadership influenced ordered technology adoption
along an adoption hierarchy in small, owner-managed firms. Therefore,
using the set of classifications advanced in this study, there are deeper
considerations for more technologically related variables to better under-
stand the difference in each firms’ positionality on the hierarchy. However,
this model is only applicable to those firms that are small, owner-managed
and operate in a similar context that accounts for the digital divide and
culture. Consequently, comparative research across cultures or societies
may require different conceptualizations.
The findings of this research is also fundamentally important for prac-
titioners in contexts where the travel agencies that exist have faced
commission cuts amidst other serious challenges over the period of 1999–
2009. Notwithstanding the changes in the global space and to operational
procedures in these firms at the time, the most static area of opera-
tions related to the use of technology. This was most evident when there
was still very little adoption of new technologies particularly for sales
and marketing, even after the adoption of Global Distribution Systems
(primarily Sabre and Amadeus) in the 1990s.
Given the noticeable value of leadership, it is argued here that these
firms and others that encounter similar challenges should assess the styles
of leadership they employ. Since owner-managed firms vary based on
technology experience, education, type of industry experience, family
composition, risk aversion and intellectual stimulation, it is seemingly
more practical for these small firms to improve on variables which can
be controlled. For instance, it is suggested that small owner-managed
firms can improve the experience with technologies, education levels or
the provision of an intellectually stimulating work environment. While
this study accounts for the nuances among these firms, it advocates that
leaders should be more open to exploring ideas of technological reform
188 A. SPENCER

for the development of their businesses nonetheless. Ultimately such

openness can prepare these firms to become more competitive in the
global domain.
There are many areas for future research in this field. It is hoped that
this research will encourage more comprehensive research on technology
adoption to identify the determinants. It is also anticipated that future
research will be more holistic in assessing the determinants of technology
adoption. One fundamental area of research that requires deeper explo-
ration is the role of transformational leadership in technology adoption
for large firms. Moreover, since context is important, this assessment
should occur in a developed country context to identify whether there
are key differences, comparatively with developing countries. In this vein,
a comparative study across cultures may be insightful in uncovering the
influence of culture and digital divide issues. This would be integral to
the tourism sector. There is also room for meaningful research to be
undertaken on the challenges to leadership in firms that are located in
destination countries and firms that are in more developed countries.
Finally, to supplement existing qualitative research, future studies should
be quantitative in nature to identify other variables and connect to the
typologies highlighted in this study in more diverse environments.

References
Aquila-Obra, Ana, and Antonio Padilla-Melendez. 2006. “Organizational Factors
Affecting Internet Technology Adoption.” Internet Research 16(1): 94–110.
Barney, J.B. 2001. “Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten
Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.” Journal of Management 27:
643.
Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson. 2003. “Pre-
dicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional
Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 207–218.
Daniel, Elizabeth, Hugh Wilson, and Andrew Myers. 2002. “Adoption of E-
Commerce by SMEs in the UK: Towards a Stage Model.” International Small
Business Journal 20(3): 253–270.
David, Fred. 2007. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eastlick, Mary Ann, and Sherry Lotz. 1999. “Profiling Potential Adopters and
Non-Adopters of an Interactive Electronic Shopping Medium.” International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 27(6): 209–223.
 7 CONCLUSION 189

Govers, Robert F., Frank M. Go, and Kumar Kuldeep. 2007. “Promoting
Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Research 46(1): 15–23.
Kraajenbrink, Jeroen, J. C. Spender, and Aard Groen. 2010. “The Resource-
based View: A Review and Assessment of its Critiques.” Journal of Manage-
ment 36: 349.
Maurer, Christian, and Veronika Lutz. 2011. “The Impact of Digital Divide
on Global Tourism: Strategic Implications of Overcoming Communication
Gaps Caused by Digital Inequalities.” In Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2011 Enter Proceedings, edited by Rob Law, Matthias
Fuchs, and Francesco Ricci, 265–277. New York: Springer Wein.
Minghetti, Valeria, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2010. “Digital Divide in Tourism.”
Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.
Moital, Miguel, Roger Vaughan, and Jonathan Edwards. 2009. “Using Involve-
ment for Segmenting the Adoption of E-commerce in Travel.” Service
Industries Journal 29(5): 723–739.
Peterson, Suzanne J., Kristin Byron Walumbwa, and Jason Myrowitz. 2009.
“CEO Positive Psychological Traits, Transformational Leadership, and Firm
Performance in High-Technology Start-Up and Established Firms.” Journal
of Management 35: 348–368.
Stonehouse, George, and Brian Snowdon. 2007. “Competitive Advantage
Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness.” Journal of
Management Inquiry 16(3): 256–273.
Thong, James Y.L., and C. S. Yap. 1995. “CEO Characteristics, Organisational
Characteristics and Information Technology Adoption in Small Business.”
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 23 (4): 429–442.
Victorino, Liana, Rohit Verma, Gerhard Plaschka, and Chekitan Dev. 2006.
“Service Innovation and Customer Choices in the Hospitality Industry.”
Managing Service Quality 15(6): 555–576.
 Appendix

Summary of Online Adoption Models

Moersch (1995) Six stages:

1. Information seeking
2. Exploration
3. Ecommerce adoption
4. Integration and Content Processing
5. Collaboration
6. Refinement
Burgess and Cooper (1998) Three stages:
1. Electronic promotion of products
2. Customer interaction
3. Online orders, sales, and payment
Allcock et al. (1999) Four stages:
1. Threshold (computer introduction)
2. Beginner (limited networks)
3. Intermediate (static websites)
4. Advanced (email, intranet, extranet)
Earl (2000) Six stages:
1. Homepages (external communication)
2. Internal Communication
3. Online buying and Selling
4. E-business conversion
5. E-enterprise
6. Continuous reinventing
(continued)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive 191
licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0
192 APPENDIX

(continued)

Heeks (2000) Four stages:

1. Simple email use
2. Simple website use
3. Online transactions
4. Service Delivery
Mackay et al. (2000) Six stages:
1. No online presence
2. Static online presence
3. Interactive online presence
4. Complete internet transactions
5. Integration of front and back office
6. Extended enterprise
Willcocks (2000) Four stages:
1. Web page development
2. Transaction system development
3. Process integration
4. E-business
Wiertz (2001) Four stages:
1. Access
2. E-procurement
3. Online promotions
4. E-sales
Daniel et al. (2002) Four stages:
1. Developers (minimal e-commerce)
2. Communicators
3. Web presence
4. Transactors
Levy and Powell (2002) Four stages:
1. Email and Informative websites
2. Internal and external communication
3. Business Networking
4. Electronic data interchange systems
Rayport and Jaworski (2002) Three stages:
1. Broadcast (static websites)
2. Internet interaction with customers
3. Online transactions
Rao et al. (2003) Four stages:
1. Web presence
2. Two-way communication
3. Online transactions
4. Enterprise integration
Chan and Swatman (2004) Four stages:
1. Ecommerce adoption
2. Centralized e-commerce
3. New technologies
4. Customer satisfaction
(continued)
 APPENDIX 193

(continued)

Beck et al. (2005) Four stages:

1. Online advertising
2. Online sales and after-sales services
3. Online procurement
4. Electronic data interchange systems
Gatautis and Neverauskas (2005) Three stages:
1. Electronic data interchange systems
2. Centralized e-commerce
3. Global e-commerce
Lefebvrea et al. (2005) Six stages:
1. Ecommerce non-adopters
2. Non-adopters with interest
3. Electronic content creation
4. Electronic transactions
5. Complex electronic transactions
6. Electronic collaboration
Gandhi (2006) Four stages:
1. Online promotions
2. Online customer interaction
3. Online ordering and payment
4. Feedback and after-sales services
Al-Qirim (2007) Two stages:
1. Starters (e-mail and passive websites)
2. Advanced level (website sales)
Chen and McQueen (2008) Four stages:
1. Information search and email communication
2. Static online marketing websites
3. Online ordering with manual payment
4. Online transactions and invoicing
 References

Aaker, D.A. 2009. Managing Brand Equity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Abou-Shouk, M., P. Megicks, and W.M. Lim. 2013. “Perceived Benefits and
E-commerce Adoption by SME Travel Agents in Developing Countries:
Evidence from Egypt.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 37(4):
490–515.
Afuah, A., and C.L. Tucci. 2003. Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text
and Cases (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
AIM. 2002. Austrian Internet Monitor 2002. Vienna: AIM.
———. 2003. Austrian Internet Monitor 2003. Vienna: AIM.
Akkermans-Allen, Hans. 2001. “Intelligent E-Business: From Technology to
Value.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 16: 8–11.
Alford, Philip. 2004. “Critical Theory: An Alternative Solution to IT Plan-
ning Implementation Problems in Tourism.” In ENTER 11: Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism Conference 2004: Proceedings of the
International Conference in Cairo, Egypt, edited by Andrew J. Frew, 271–282.
Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. 2001. “Value Creation in E-business.” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 22(6–7): 493–520.
Anckar, B. 2003. “Consumer Intentions in Terms of Electronic Travel Distribu-
tion: Implications for Future Market Structures.” E-Service 2(2): 68–86.
Anckar, B. and P. Walden. 2001. “Self-Booking of High-and Low-Complexity
Travel Products: Exploratory Findings.” Information Technology & Tourism
4(3–4): 151–165.
Andrews, P.H., and J.E. Baird. 2005. Communication for Business and the
Professions. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive 195
licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0
196 REFERENCES

Aquila-Obra, Ana, and Antonio Padilla-Melendez. 2006. “Organizational Factors

Affecting Internet Technology Adoption.” Internet Research 16(1): 94–110.
Avolio, B.J., W.L. Gardner, F.O. Walumbwa, F. Luthans, and D.R. May. 2004.
“Unlocking the Mask: A Look at the Process by Which Authentic Leaders
Impact Follower Attitudes and Behaviors.” The Leadership Quarterly 15(6):
801–823.
Bagozzi, R.P. 2007. “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a
Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 8(4): 3.
Baker, Elizabeth, Mary Barrett, and Lesley Roberts. 2002. Working Communi-
cation. Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.
Baloglu, Seyhmus. 2000. “A Path Analytic Model of Visitation Intention
Involving Information Sources, Socio-Psychological Motivations and Desti-
nation Image.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8(3): 81–90.
Banff, Canada, Simon Hudson, and Norma Lang. 2002. “A Destination Case
Study of Marketing Tourism Online.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 8: 155.
Barnett, Martin, and Craig Standing. 2001. “Repositioning Travel Agencies on
the Internet.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 7: 143.
Barney, J.B. 2001. “Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten
Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.” Journal of Management 27:
643.
———. 2014. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. London: Pearson
Higher Education.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 2003. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Redwood City: Mind Garden. www.mindgarden.com.
Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson. 2003. “Pre-
dicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional
Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 207–218.
Bass, B.M., and R.E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational Leadership. London:
Psychology Press.
Bear Stearns. 2000. Point, Click, Trip: An Introduction to the On-line Travel
Industry. Bear Stearns & Co.
Beck, Andrew, Peter Bennett, and Peter Wall. 2004. Communication Studies: The
Essential Resource. London: Routledge.
Beck, Roman, Rolf Wigand, and Wolfgang Konig. 2005. “The Diffusion and
Efficient Use of Electronic Commerce among Small and Medium-Sized Enter-
prises: An International Three Industry Survey.” Electronic Markets 15(1):
38–52.
Beckinsale, Martin, Monder Ram, and Nicholas Theodorakopoulos. 2011.
“ICT Adoption and Ebusiness Development: Understanding ICT Adoption
amongst Ethnic Minority Businesses.” International Small Business Journal
29: 193–219.
 REFERENCES 197

Beekhuyzen, Jenine, Liisa Hellens, and Mark Siedle. 2005. “Cultural Barriers in
the Adoption of Emerging Technologies.” Accessed March 2, 2010. http://
www.ucd.smartinternet.com.au/Documents/Cultural_Barriers.pdf.
Bei, Lien-Ti, Etta Y.I. Chen, and Richard Widdows. 2004. “Consumers’ Online
Information Search Behavior and the Phenomenon of Search vs. Experience
Products.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 25(4): 449–467.
Beirne, Elizabeth, and Philip Curry. 2012. “The Impact of the Internet on the
Information Search Process and Tourism Decision-Making.” In Information
and Communication Technologies in Tourism 1999: Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference in Innsbruck, edited by Dimitrios Buhalis, and Walter
Schertler, 88–97. Wien: Springer.
Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch. 2001. Advertising and Promotion: An
Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. New York: McGraw Hill.
Beliveau, Annie, and John B. Garwood. 2001. “The Impact of New Technologies
on Information Research and Purchasing Behaviour of Quebec Air Travellers.”
In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2001: Proceed-
ings of the International Conference in Montreal, Canada, edited by Pauline
Sheldon, Karl Wober, and Daniel Fesenmaier, 310–316. Wien: Springer.
Bennett, Marion, and Chi-Wen Lai. 2005. “The Impact of the Internet on Travel
Agencies in Taiwan.” Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 6(1): 1–17.
Bethapudi, A. 2013. “The Role of ICT in Tourism Industry.” Journal of Applied
Economics and Business 1(4): 67–79.
Bhimani, A., 2006. “Comparative Management Accounting Research: Past
Forays and Emerging Frontiers.” Handbooks of Management Accounting
Research 1: 343–363.
Bieger, Thomas, and Christian Laesser. 2001. “Segmenting Travel on the
Sourcing of Information.” In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and
Leisure, edited by Josef A. Mazanec, 153–168. Wallingford: CABI.
Bigne, Enrique J., Joaquín Aldas, and Luisa Anderu. 2008. “B2B Services: IT
Adoption in Travel Agency Supply Chains.” Journal of Services Marketing
22(6): 454–464.
Brewer, J., and A. Hunter. 2006. Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthe-
sizing Styles. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Brouthers, Keith D., Lance E. Brouthers, and Steve Werner. 2008. “Resource-
Based Advantages in the International Context.” Journal of Management
34(2): 189.
Brown, James, Chris Hendry, and Paul Harborne. 2007. “Developing Radical
Technology for Sustainable Energy Markets: The Role of New Small Firms.”
International Small Business Journal 25: 603–625.
Buhalis, Dimitrios. 1996. Information and Telecommunication Technologies as a
Strategic Tool for Tourism Enhancement at Destination Regions. Innsbruck:
Springer Verlag.
198 REFERENCES

———. 1997. Catalysts in Introducing Information Technology in Small and

Medium Sized Hospitality Organizations. Edinburgh: Springer Verlag.
———. 1998. Strategic Use of Information Technologies in the Tourism Industry.
Elsevier Science.
———. 2000. “Tourism and Information Technologies: Past, Present and
Future.” Tourism Recreation Research 25(1): 41–58.
———. 2001. “Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Processes.”
In Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations,
edited by Dimitrios Buhalis and Eric Laws, 7–32. New York: Continuum.
———. 2002. eTourism: Information Technologies for Strategic Tourism Manage-
ment. Essex: Pearson Education.
———. 2004. “E-Airlines: Strategic and Tactical Use of ICT’s in the Airline
Industry.” Information and Management 41(7): 805–825.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Eric Laws. 2001. Tourism Distribution Channels: Prac-
tices, Issues and Transformations. London: Continuum.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Maria Cristina Licata. 2002. “The Future eTourism
Intermediaries.” Journal of Tourism Management 23(3): 207–220.
Buhalis, Dimitrios, and Ourania Deimezi. 2004. “E-Tourism Developments in
Greece: Information Communication Technologies Adoption for Strategic
Management of the Greek Tourism Industry.” Tourism and Hospitality
Research 5(2): 1467–3584.
Burgess, L., J.P. Sargent, J. Cooper, and N. Cerpa. 2005. A Comparative Anal-
ysis of the Use of the Web for Destination Marketing by Regional Tourism
Organisations in Chile and the Asia Pacific. Collaborative Electronic Commerce
Technology and Research. Chile: Universidad de Talca. Retrived at https://ro.
uow.edu.au/infopapers/1599/.
Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Cai, Liping. A., Ruomei Feng, and Deborah Breiter. 2004. “Tourist Purchase
Decision Involvement and Information Preferences.” Journal of Vacation
Marketing 10(2): 138–148.
Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton, and J.A.C. Carland. 2007. “Differen-
tiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization.”
In Entrepreneurship, 73–81. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Carlsson, S.A. 2005. “Developing Information Systems Design Knowledge:
A Critical Realist Perspective.” The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methodology 3(2): 93–102.
Castells, Manuel. 2000. End of Millennium. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caves, Richard E. 1980. “Industrial Organization, Corporate Strategy and
Structure.” Journal of Economic Literature 18(1): 64–92.
Central Information Technology Office. 2007. “National e-Readiness Status.”
Accessed May 12, 2011. http://www.cito.gov.jm/content/national-e-readin
ess-status.
 REFERENCES 199

Chan, Caroline, and Paula Swatman. 2004. “B2B E-Commerce Stages of

Growth: The Strategic Imperatives.” In 37th International Conference on
System Sciences, 1–10. Hawaii.
Chandler, Alfred. 2003. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the
American Industrial Enterprise. Fairless Hills: Beard Books.
Chen, I.J. and A. Paulraj. 2004. “Understanding Supply Chain Management:
Critical Research and a Theoretical Framework.” International Journal of
Production Research 42(1): 131–163.
Chen, Jihong, and Robert McQueen. 2008. “Factors Affecting E-commerce
Stages of Growth in Small Chinese firms in New Zealand: An Analysis
of Adoption Motivators and Inhibitors.” Journal of Global Information
Management 16(1): 26–60.
Chen, Joseph S. A. 2000. “Comparison of Information Usage between Business
and Leisure Travelers.” Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 7(2):
65–75.
Chen, Joseph. S., and Dogan Gursoy. 2000. “Cross-Cultural Comparison of
the Information Sources Used by First-time and Repeat Travelers and its
Marketing Implications.” International Journal of Hospitality Management
19: 191–203.
Cheyne, Jo, Mary Downes, and Stephen Legg. 2006. “Travel Agent vs. Internet:
What Influences Travel Consumer Choices?” Journal of Vacation Marketing
12(1): 41–57.
Choa, Myeong-Hyeon. 1998. “Ownership Structure, Investment and the Corpo-
rate Value: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics 47(1):
103–121.
Choi, Soon-Yong, and Dale Stahl. 1997. The Economics of Electronic Commerce.
Indiana: Macmillan Technical Publishing.
Chon, Kye-Sung. 1999. “Tourist Information-Seeking Behaviour and Its Impli-
cations.” Hospitality Research Journal 14: 485–490.
Chorn, Norman. 1994. “The New Logistics Organization.” In The Gower hand-
book of Logistics and Distribution Management. 4th ed., edited by John
Gattorna, 501–508. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing.
Christensen, Edward W., and James Bailey. 1997. “A Source Accessibility Effect
on Media Selection.” Management Communication Quarterly 10(3): 373–
387.
Christopher, Martin. 1986. The Strategy of Distribution Management. Oxford:
Heinemann Professional Publishing.
———. 1992. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing
Cost and Improving Service. London: Prentice Hall.
———. 1998. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing
Cost and Improving Service. London: Prentice Hall.
Churchill, Gilbert A. 1995. Marketing Research. Chicago: Dryden Press.
200 REFERENCES

Clark, Peter, and Richard Blundel. 2007. “Critical Realism and the Evolution
of Business Knowledge: A Methodological Reappraisal.” Management and
Organizational History 2(1): 45–62.
Cockburn, Claire, and Thomas Wilson. 1996. “Business Use of the World Wide
Web.” International Journal of Information Management 16(2): 83–102.
Cole, Rebel A., and Hamid Mehran. 1998. “The Effect of Changes in Ownership
Structure on Performance: Evidence from the Thrift Industry.” Journal of
Financial Economics 50(3): 291–317.
Colli, A. 2011. “Business History in Family Business Studies: From Neglect to
Cooperation? Journal of Family Business Management 1: 12.
comScore. 2002. “Online Travel Launches First Quarter 2002 E-commerce Sales
to Record $17 Billion Level.” comScore Press release. Accessed February 13,
2010. www.comscore.com.
Conlisk, John. 1996. “Why Bounded Rationality?” Journal of Economic Litera-
ture 34(2): 669–700.
Connolly, Daniel J., Michael D. Olsen, and Richard Moore. 1998. “The Internet
as a Distribution Channel.” Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 39(4): 42–54.
Cook, Suzanne. 2001. Travel Planners: How They Use the Web Today. Montreal:
Springer Verlag.
Cooper, Randolph B., and Robert Zmud. 1990. “Information Technology
Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach.” Manage-
ment Science 36(2): 123–139.
Corey, Robert J. 1996. “A Drama-Based Model of Traveler Destination Choice.”
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5(4): 1–22.
Covin, Jeffery G., and Dennis Slevin. 1988. “The Influence of Organization
Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top Management Style.”
Journal of Management Studies 25(3): 217–234.
Cox, Andrew. 1998. “Relational Competence and Strategic Procurement
Management: Towards an Entrepreneurial and Contractual Theory of the
Firm.” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 2: 57–70.
Cox, Andrew, and Mike Townsend. 1998. Strategic Procurement in Construction.
London: Thomas Telford.
Crabtree, Benjamin, and William Miller. 1999. “A Template Approach to Text
Analysis: Developing and Using Codebooks.” In Doing Qualitative Research,
edited by Benjamin Crabtree, and William Miller, 163–177. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Craig, Anita P. 2003. “Culture and the Individual.” Theory and Psychology 13(5):
629–650.
Cresswell, John W. 2006. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. California: Sage.
 REFERENCES 201

Creswell, John W., Vicki L. P. Clark, Michelle L. Gutmann, and William E.

Hanson. 2003. “Advanced Mixed Methods Designs.” In Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by Abbas Tashakkori, and
Charles Teddlie, 209–240. London: Sage.
Crotts, John C. 1999. “Consumer Decision Making and Pre-purchase Infor-
mation Search.” In Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, edited by
Abraham Pizam, and Yoel Mansfeld, 149–168. New York: Haworth Press.
Crotts, John, Abdul Aziz, and Andrew Raschid. 1998. “Antecedents of Supplier’s
Commitment to Wholesale Buyers in the International Travel Trade.” Tourism
Management 19(2): 127–134.
Cyert, Richard M., and James March. 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Daft, Richard L., and Robert Lengel. 1984. “Information Richness: A New
Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design.” Research in
Organizational Behavior 6: 191–233.
Dahles, Heidi, and Karin Bras. 1999. “Entrepreneurs in Romance: Tourism in
Indonesia.” Annals of Tourism Research 26: 267–293.
Daily, Catherine M., and Marc Dollinger. 1992. “An Empirical Examination of
Ownership Structure in Family and Professionally-managed Firms.” Family
Business Review 5(2): 117–136.
Dale, Crispin. 2003. “The Competitive Networks of Tourism E-mediaries: New
strategies, New Advantages.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 9: 109.
Damanpour, Fariborz. 1991. “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-analysis of
Effects of Determinants and Moderators.” Academy of Management Journal
34(3): 555–590.
D’Ambra, John, and Concepcion Wilson. 2004. “Use of the World Wide Web for
International Travel: Integrating the Construct of Uncertainty in Information
Seeking and the Task- technology Fit (TTF) Model.” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 55(8): 731–742.
Dance, Frank E. X. 1967. “A Helical Model of Communication.” In Human
Communication Theory, edited by Frank Dance. New York: Holt, Reinhart
and Winston.
Daniel, Elizabeth, Hugh Wilson, and Andrew Myers. 2002. “Adoption of E-
Commerce by SMEs in the UK: Towards a Stage Model.” International Small
Business Journal 20(3): 253–270.
Dann, Graham M. 1996. “Tourists’ Images of a Destination—An Alternative
Analysis.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5(1/2): 41–55.
Danzinger, Claudia, and H. Nowak. 2002. Internetnutzung und Ecommerce
Aktivitäten der österreichischen KMU . Vienna: Ec3.
David, Fred. 2007. Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
202 REFERENCES

Davies, Omar. 1986. “An Analysis of the Management of the Jamaican Economy:
1972–1985.” Social and Economic Studies 35(1): 73–110.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa-
tion Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–339.
Decrop, Alain. 1999. “Triangulation in Qualitative Tourism Research.” Tourism
Management 20: 157–161.
Deeds, David, Paul Mang, and Michael Fransden. 2004. “The Influence of Firms’
and Industries’ Legitimacy on the Flow of Capital into High-technology
Ventures.” Strategic Organization 2(1): 9–34.
DeFleur, Melvin L. 1966. Theories of Mass Communication. New York: David
McKay.
DeHayes, Daniel W., and Robert L. Taylor. 1972. “Making Logistics Work in a
Firm.” Business Horizons 24(1): 1–26.
Dellaert, Benedict G. C. 1999. “The Tourist as a Value Creator on the Internet.”
In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 1999: Proceed-
ings of the International Conference in Innsbruck, Austria, 1999, edited by
Dimitrios Buhalis, and Walter Schertler, 66–76. Wien: Springer.
DeMartino, Richard, Robert Barbato, and Paul Jacques. 2006. “Exploring
the Career/Achievement and Personal Life Orientation Differences between
Entrepreneurs and Non Entrepreneurs: The Impact of Sex and Dependents.”
Journal of Small Business Management 44(3): 350–369.
Demsetz, Harold, and Kenneth Lehn. 1985. “The Structure of Corporate
Ownership.” Journal of Political Economy 93(6): 1155–1177.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna Lincoln. 1994. “Entering the Field of Qual-
itative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman
Denzin, and Yvonna Lincoln, 1–17. Thousand Oaks.
Desinano, Paolo, and Carlo Vigo. 1994. Developing Information Technology
Options in the Hotel Industry: The Value Chain Approach. Tourism—The State
of Art. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dettmer, Harald. 1998. Tourismuswirtschaft. Köln: Wirtschaftsverlag Bachem.
Dietrich, Brenda L., Jane L. Snowdon, and JoAnn Washam. 1997. “The Promise
of Information Technology in the Travel Industry.” In Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism: Proceedings of the International
Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997 , edited by A. Min Tjoa, 129–139.
Wien: Springer.
D’Iribarne, Philippe. 2009. “National Cultures and Organisations in Search of a
Theory: An Interpretative Approach.” International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 9: 309–321.
Dodd, Tim H. 1998. “Influences on Search Behaviour of Industrial Tourists.”
Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 5(2/3): 77–94.
Dombey, Alyson. 1998. “Separating the Emotion from the Fact: The Effects of
the New Intermediaries on Electronic Travel Distribution.” In Information
 REFERENCES 203

and Communication Technologies in Tourism 1998: Proceedings of the Interna-

tional Conference in Istanbul, Turkey, 1998, edited by Dimitrios Buhalis, A.
Min Tjoa, and Jafar Jafari, 129–138. Wien: Springer.
Downes, Larry, and Chunka Mui. 1998. Unleashing the Killer App. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Drori, Gili, and Yong Suk Jang. 2003. “The Global Digital Divide: A Sociological
Assessment of Trends and Causes.” Social Science Computer Review 21: 144–
161.
Drucker, Peter. 1990. Post Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Business.
Duke, Charles R., and Margaret Persia. 1993. “Effects of Distribution Channel
Level on Tour Purchasing Attributes and Information Sources.” In Commu-
nication and Channel Systems in Tourism Marketing, edited by Daniel
Fesenmaier, and Muzaffer Uysal, 37–55. Gloucestershire: The Hawthorn
Press.
Dulle, Frankwell W., and M.K. Minishi-Majanja. 2011. “The Suitability of the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model in
Open Access Adoption Studies.” Information Development 27(1): 32–45.
Durand, Rodolphe, and Vicente Vargas. 2003. “Ownership, Organization, and
Private Firms’ Efficient Use of Resources.” Strategic Management Journal
24(7): 667–75.
Dyerson, Romano, and G. Harindranath. 2007. “ICT Adoption and Use by
SMEs in the UK: A Survey of South East.” Paper Presented at the Port-
land International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology
(PICMET), Portland, Oregon, USA.
Eames, Donald, and Gregory Norkus. 1988. “Developing Your Procurement
Strategy.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 29: 30–33.
Earl, Michael. 2000. “Evolving the E-business.” Business Strategy Review 11(2):
33–38.
Eason, Ken. 1988. Information Technology and Organizational Change. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Eastlick, Mary Ann, and Sherry Lotz. 1999. “Profiling Potential Adopters and
Non-Adopters of an Interactive Electronic Shopping Medium.” International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 27(6): 209–223.
Eastman, Richard. 1996. “The Future of Travel Agents.” Travel Weekly 29.
Eby, David W., Lisa J. Molnar, and Liping A. Cai. 1999. “Content Preferences
for In-vehicle Tourist Information Systems: An Emerging Travel Information
Source.” Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 6(3): 41–58.
EC. 1999. ISTAG Report—Orientations for Work Programme 2000 and Beyond.
Brussels: European Commission.
———. 2003. The European Ebusiness Report 2002/2003. Brussels: European
Commission.
204 REFERENCES

Eisenhardt, K.M., and J.A. Martin, 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are
They? Strategic Management Journal 21(10–11): 1105–1121.
Elenkov, Detelin, and Ivan Manev. 2005. “Top Management Leadership and
Influence on Innovation: The Role of Socio-Cultural Context.” Journal of
Management 31(3): 381–402.
Ellard, Al, and Norma Nickerson. 1999. “Navigating Cyberspace: Information
Seeking Strategies and Travel Behavior of Montana Vacation Visitors.” TTRA
Annual Conference.
Elliott, Dawn R. 2000. “Underdevelopment in Jamaica: An Institutionalist
Perspective.” Journal of Economic Issues 34: 393–401.
Engel, James F., Martin Warshaw, and Thomas Kinnear. 1991. Promotional
Strategy. 7th ed. Boston: Irwin.
Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard. 1995. Consumer
Behaviour. 8th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Enright, Michael J., and James Newton. 2005. “Determinants of Tourism Desti-
nation Competitiveness in Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and Universality.”
Journal of Travel Research 43: 339–350.
Etzel, Michael J., and Russell G. Wahlers. 1985. “The Use of Requested
Promotional Materials by Pleasure Travelers.” Journal of Travel Research 23:
2–6.
Evans, Philip B., and Thomas S. Wurster. 1997. “Strategy and the New
Economics of Information.” Harvard Business Review 75(5): 70–82.
Falk, Martin. 2008. “Effects of Foreign Ownership on Innovation Activities:
Empirical Evidence for Twelve European Countries.” National Institute
Economic Review 204: 85–97.
Fall, Lisa T. 2000. Segmenting Pleasure Travelers on the Basis of Information
Sources Usefulness and Personal Value Importance. East Lansing: Michigan
State University.
Feather, John. 1998. The Information Society: A Study of Continuity and Change.
2nd ed. London: Library Association Publishing.
Fesenmaier, Daniel R., and Jiann-Min Jeng. 2000. “Assessing the Structure in
the Pleasure Trip Planning Process.” Tourism Analysis 5(1): 13–29.
Fesenmaier, Daniel R., and Christine Vogt. 1992. “Evaluating the Utility of
Touristic Information Sources for Planning Midwest Vacation Travel.” Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing 1(2): 1–18.
Fesenmaier, Daniel R., and Stefan Klein. 2000. Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism. Barcelona: Springer Verlag.
Fischer, Ronald. 2009. “Where Is Culture in Cross Cultural Research? An
Outline of a Multilevel Research Process for Measuring Culture as a Shared
Meaning System.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9:
25–49.
 REFERENCES 205

Fishbein, Martin. 1967. Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New

York: Wiley.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Azjen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addision-
Wesley.
———. 1980. “Predicting and Understanding Consumer Behavior: Attitude-
behavior Correspondence.” In Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior, edited by Martin Fishbein, and Icek Ajzen, 148–156. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Flognfeldt, Thor, and Ragnar Nordgreen. 1999. Information Used for Decision
of Making Temporary Stops along Tourist Routes in Norway. Halifax, Canada:
Annual TTRA Conference.
Fodness, Dale, and Brian Murray. 1997. “Tourist Information Search.” Annals
of Tourism Research 24(3): 503–523.
———. 1998. “A Typology of Tourist Information Search Strategies.” Journal
of Travel Research 37(2): 108–119.
———. 1999. “A Model of Tourist Information Search Behaviour.” Journal of
Travel Research 37(3): 220–230.
Fontayne, Cynthia. 1996. The Connected Marketer: Using the Internet, World
Wide Web and On-line Services for Marketing Travel. Madrid: Tourism and
New Information Technologies.
Forman, Andrew M., and Ven Sriram. 1991. “The Depersonalization of
Retailing—Its Impact on the "Lonely" Customer.” Journal of Retailing 67:
226–243.
Forrester. 1998. “European New Media Strategies.” Forrester Research 16.
———. 1999. “On-line Retail Strategies.” Forrester Research 15.
Freeman, R.E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frese, Michael, Marco van Gelderen, and Michael Ombach. 2000. “How to
Plan as a Small Scale Business Owner: Psychological Process Characteristics
of Action Strategies and Success.” Journal of Small Business Management 38:
1–18.
Freudenthaler, Johannes, and Wilfried Grossmann. 2002. Data Warehouse Models
for Web-data. EC3. Vienna: University of Vienna.
Frew, Andrew J. 2000. “Information and Communications Technology Research
in the Travel and Tourism Domain: Perspective and Direction.” Journal of
Travel Research 39(2): 136–145.
Frey, Susanne, and Schegg Roland. 2000. Bench Marketing Internet Use for
Marketing of Swiss Hotels. Innsbruck: Springer Verlag.
Fuchs, Matthias, Wolfram Hopken, Andreas Foger, and Martin Kunz. 2009. “E-
Business Readiness, Intensity and Impact: An Austrian Destination Manage-
ment Organization Study.” Journal of Travel Research 49(2): 165–178.
206 REFERENCES

Fuchs, Matthias, Wolfram Hopken, Andreas Foger, and Martin Kunz. 2010. “E-
Business Readiness, Intensity, and Impact: An Austrian Destination Manage-
ment Organization Study.” Journal of Travel Research 49(2): 165–178.
Fulk, Janet, Joseph Schmitz, and Charles W. Steinfeld. 1990. “A Social Influence
Model of Technology Use.” In Organizations and Communications Tech-
nology, edited by Janet Fulk, and Charles Steinfeld, 117–140. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Gage, Nathaniel. 1989. “The Paradigm War and Their Aftermath: A ‘Historical’
Sketch Research on Teaching.” Education Researcher 18: 4–10.
Gallo, Peter J., and Lisa Jones Christensen. 2011. “Firm Size Matters: An Empir-
ical Investigation of Organizational Size and Ownership on Sustainability-
Related Behaviors.” Business Society 50: 315–349.
Gandhi, Sunil. 2006. “E-Commerce and Information Technology Act, 2000.”
Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce 11: 82–91.
Gartner Group. 2000. “Gartner Group’s Online Travel Forecast.” Accessed
October 4, 2010. http://gartner12.gartnerWeb.com/public/static/abo
utgg/pressrel/pr010600.ht.
Gatautis, Rimantas, and Bronius Neverauskas. 2005. “E-commerce Adoption in
Transition Economies: SMEs Perspectives in Lithuania.” In 7th International
Conference on Electronic Commerce, 109–113. Xi’an, China: ACM New York,
NY, USA.
Gattorna, John. 1994. The Gower Handbook of Logistics and Distribution
Management. 4th ed. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing.
Gatty, Bob. 1998. “E-Commerce Gives Lodging Industry Edge.” Hotel and
Motel Management 213.
Gelade, Garry, Paul Dobson, and Patrick Gilbert. 2006. “National Differences in
Organizational Commitment: Effect of Economy, Product of Personality, or
Consequence of Culture?” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37(5): 542–
556.
Gentner, D., B. Stelzer, and L. Brecht. 2017, June. “Analyzing Customers’
Readiness for Digital B2B Business Models.” In ISPIM Innovation Sympo-
sium, 1. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management
(ISPIM).
George, Gerard, Johan Wiklund, and Shaker Zahra. 2005. “Ownership and the
Internationalization of Small Firms.” Journal of Management 31(2): 210–
233.
Ghobadian, Abby, and Nicholas O’Regan. 2006. “The Impact of Ownership on
Small Firm Behaviour and Performance.” International Small Business Journal
24(6): 555–584.
Ghosh, Shikhar. 1998. “Making Business Sense of the Internet.” Harvard
Business Review 124–135.
 REFERENCES 207

Gibson, Cristina, and Dana McDaniel. 2010. “Moving Beyond Conventional

Wisdom Advancements in Cross-Cultural Theories of Leadership, Conflict,
and Teams.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 450–462.
Gitleson, Richard J., and John Crompton. 1983. “The Planning Horizons and
Sources of Information Used by Leisure Travelers.” Journal of Travel Research
32: 2–6.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategy for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Gluck, Frederick W. 1982. “Strategic Management for Competitive Advantage.”
Journal of Business Strategy 2(3): 9–21.
Goeldner, Charles R., and J.R. Brent Ritchie. 2003. Tourism: Principles, Practices,
Philosophies. 9th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Golafshani, Nahid. 2003. “Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative
Research.” The Qualitative Report 8(4): 597–607.
Golding, Peter, and Graham Murdock. 2001. “Digital Divide: Communications
Policy and its Contradictions.” New Economy 8(2): 110–115.
Goldsmith, Ronald E., and Stephen Litvin. 1999. “Heavy Users of Travel Agents:
A Segmentation Analysis of Vacation Travelers.” Journal of Travel Research
38: 127.
Goossens, Cees F. 1994. “External Information Search: Effects of Tour
Brochures with Experiential Information.” In Economy Psychology of Travel
and Tourism, edited by John Crotts, and W. Fred Van Raaij, 89–107. New
York: The Haworth Press.
———. 2000. “Tourism Information and Pleasure Motivation.” Annals of
Tourism Research 27(2): 301–321.
Gordijn, Jaap, and Hans Akkermans. 2001. “Designing and Evaluating E-
business Models.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(4): 11–17.
Govers, Robert F. 2004. “Projected Destination Image on the World Wide Web:
Content Analysis of Online Textual Representations of Dubai.” Conference
Proceedings for Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism.
Govers, Robert F., Frank M. Go, and Kumar Kuldeep. 2007. “Promoting
Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Research 46(1): 15–23.
Graeupl, Alice, and Scott McCabe. 2003. “Use of the Internet by ’Silver Surfers’
for Travel and Tourism Information Use and Decision-Making: A Conceptual
Review and Discussion of Findings.” In Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism, edited by Andrew Frew, Martin Hitz, and Peter
O’Connor, 144–155. New York: Springer.
Grandon, Elizabeth, and J. Michael Pearson. 2004. “Electronic Commerce
Adoption: An Empirical Study of Small and Medium US Businesses.”
Information and Management 42: 197–216.
Grant, Robert M. 1995. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
208 REFERENCES

Gray, Colin. 2006. “Stage Models of ICT Adoption in Small Firms.” In Impact
of E-commerce on Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala,
and Colin Gray, 3–20. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Greene, Jennifer C., and Valerie J. Caracelli. 2003. “Making Paradigmatic Sense
of Mixed Methods Practice.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research, edited by Charles Teddlie, and Abbas Tashakkori, 91–
110. London: Sage.
Greenwood, Royston, David Deephouse, and Stan Li. 2007. “Ownership and
Performance of Professional Service Firms.” Organization Studies 28(2): 219–
238.
Greenwood, Royston, and Laura Empson. 2003. “The Professional Partnership:
Relic or Exemplary Form of Governance?” Organization Studies 24(6): 909–
933.
Grennes, Thomas. 1997. Introduction to Scientific Theory and Method. Oslo:
Tano Aschehoug.
Grieger, M. 2003. “Electronic Marketplaces: A Literature Review and a Call
for Supply Chain Management Research.” European Journal of Operational
Research 144(2): 280–294.
Grimm, Laurence G., and Paul R. Yarnold. 1995. Reading and Understanding
Multivariate Statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Grönroos, Christian. 1993a. “Toward a Third Phase in Service Quality
Research.” In Advances in Services Marketing and Management, edited by
Teresa A. Swartz, David A. Bowen, and Stephen W. Brown, 2: 49–64.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Grönroos, C. 1993b. “An applied Service Marketing Theory.” European Journal
of Marketing 16(7): 30–34.
Grossmann, Wilfried, and Marcus Hudec. 2003. “Web Usage Mining in Ecom-
merce.” International Journal of eBusiness (Special Issue EC3).
Guba, Egon G. 1987. “Naturalistic Evaluation.” New Directions for Program
Evaluation 34: 23–43.
Guillén, Mauro, and Sandra Suárez. 2005. “Explaining the Global Digital Divide:
Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use.”
Social Forces 84(2): 681–708.
Gunkel, David. 2003. “Second Thoughts: Toward a Critique of the Digital
Divide.” New Media and Society 5(4): 499–522.
Gursoy, Dogan. 2003. “Prior Product Knowledge and Its Influence on the
Traveler’s Information Search Behaviour.” Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing 10(3/4): 113–130.
Gursoy, Dogan, and Joseph Chen. 2000. “Competitive Analysis of Cross Cultural
Information Search Behavior.” Tourism Management 21: 583-590.
Gursoy, Dogan, and Ken W. McCleary. 2004. “An Integrative Model of Tourists’
Information Search Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research 31(2): 353–373.
 REFERENCES 209

Gyamfi, Alexander. 2005. “Closing the Digital Divide in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Meeting the Challenges of the Information Age.” Information Development
21(1): 22–30.
Haertsch, Patrick. 2000. Wettbewerbstrategien für Electronic Commerce: Eine
Kritische Überprüfung Klassischer Strategiekonzepte. Lohmar; Köln, Josef Eul
Verlag.
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William Black.
1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad. 1994. Competing for the Future. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Hamlin, Robert, and Jenny Sawyer. 2007. “Developing Effective Leadership
Behaviours: The Value of Evidence-based Management.” Business Leadership
Review 4(4): 1–16.
Hanssler, Karl Heinz. 2001. Management in der Hotellerie und Gastronomie.
München: Oldenburg Verla.
Haralambos, Michael, and Martin Holborn. 1980. Sociology Themes and Perspec-
tives. Collins Educational.
Haralambos, M., and M. Holborn. 2008. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. UK:
HarperCollins.
Harland, Christine M. 1996. “Supply Chain Management, Purchasing and
Supply Management, Logistics, Vertical Integration, Materials Management
and Supply Chain Dynamics.” In Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Opera-
tions Management, edited by Nigel Slack. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Harrison, Graeme, and Jill McKinnon. 1999. “Cross-Cultural Research in
Management Control Systems Design: A Review of the Current State.”
Accounting, Organizations and Society 24: 483–506.
Hatton, Gerry. 1994. “Designing a Warehouse or Distribution Centre.” In The
Gower Handbook of Logistics and Distribution Management, edited by John
Gattorna, 175–193. 4th ed. Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing.
Hatton, Mike. 2004. “Redefining the Relationships: The Future of Travel Agen-
cies and the Global Agency Contract in a Changing Distribution System.”
Journal of Vacation Marketing 10: 101.
Hedna. 2002. “Despite Challenges in 2001: HEDNA Reports that GDS Book-
ings for Hotels Remain Strong.” London: Hedna Press Release. Accessed
January 2, 2010. www.hedna.org.
Heeks, R. 2000. “Analysing E-commerce for Development.” Accessed
April 7, 2009. http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publicati
ons/wp/di/short/di_sp04.pdf.
Heinich, Nathalie. 2010. “What Does ’Sociology of Culture’ Mean? Notes on a
Few Trans-Cultural Misunderstandings.” Cultural Sociology 4: 257–265.
210 REFERENCES

Heung, Vincent C. S. 2003. “Barriers to Implementing E-Commerce in the

Travel Industry: A Practical Perspective.” International Journal of Hospitality
Management 22(1): 111-118.
Hitt, Michael A., R. Duane Ireland, and Robert E. Hoskisson. 2001. Strategic
Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. 4th ed. Mason, OH: South
Western Publishing.
HoCo. 2000. Worldwide Hotel Industry Study, 1996–2000. London: Horwath
Consulting.
Hoffman, Donna, and Thomas P. Novak. 1996. “Marketing in Hypermedia
Computer-mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations.” Journal of
Marketing 60: 50–68.
Hoffman, Eric, and Paul Roman. 1984. “Information Diffusion in the Imple-
mentation of Innovation Process.” Communication Research 11(1): 117–140.
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
———. 1999. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, Geert, and Michael H. Bond. 1984. “Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions:
An Independent Validation Using Rokeach’s Value Survey.” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 15: 417–433.
Hollander, Edwin P. 1993. “Legitimacy, Power and Influence: A Perspective
on Relational Features of Leadership.” In Leadership Theory and Research:
Perspectives and Directions, edited by Martin M. Chemers, and Roya Ayman,
29–48. San Diego: Academic Press.
Holloway, J. Christopher. 1994. The Business of Tourism. London: Pitman
Publishing.
Van den Hooff, Bart, Jasper Groot, and Sander de Jonge. 2005. “Situational
Influences on the Use of Communication Technologies: A Meta-Analysis and
Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business Communication (1973) 4(2): 4–27.
Houghton, Kathryn, and Heidi Winklehofer. 2004. “The Effect of Website and
E-commerce Adoption on the Relationship between SMEs and Their Export
Intermediaries.” International Small Business Journal 22: 369.
Howard, John A., and Jagdish N. Seth. 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behaviour.
New York: John Wiley.
Howe, Kenneth. 1988. “Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility
Thesis.” Educational Researcher 17(8): 10–16.
Hsieh, Sheauhsing, and Joseph T. O’Leary. 1993. “Communication Channels
to Segment Pleasure Travelers.” In Communication and Channel Systems in
Tourism Marketing, edited by Muzaffa Uysal, and Daniel Fesenmaier, 57–75.
Gloucestershire: The Hawthorn Press.
Huang, L., and H.T. Tsai. 2003. “The Study of Senior Traveler Behavior in
Taiwan.” Tourism Management 24(5): 561–574.
 REFERENCES 211

Huber, George, and Reuben McDaniel. 1986. “The Decision-Making Paradigm

of Organizational Design.” Management Science 32(5): 572–589.
Hyde, Kenneth F. 2000. “A Hedonic Perspective on Independent Vacation Plan-
ning, Decision-Making and Behaviour.” In Consumer Psychology of Tourism,
Hospitality and Leisure, edited by Arch G. Woodside, 177–191. New York:
CABI.
Inkpen, Gary. 1998. Information Technology for Travel and Tourism. Edinburgh:
Addison Wesley.
Jamaica Gleaner. 2000. “Travel Agents to Boycott AA.” Accessed November 14,
2010. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20000111/f1.html.
———. 2011. “Tourism Minister Targets Illegal Travel Agents.” Accessed July
27, 2011. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110724/business/busine
ss7.html.
James, Jeffrey. 2004. “The Global Digital Divide in the Internet: Developed
Countries Constructs and Third World Realities.” Journal of Information
Science 31(2): 114–123.
Jang, SooCheong. 2004. “The Past, Present, and Future Research of Online
Information Search.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 17(2/3): 41–
47.
Jaskyte, Kristina, and Kisieliene Audrone. 2006. “Organizational Innovation:
Comparison of Nonprofit Human-Service Organizations in Lithuania and the
United States.” International Social Work 49(2): 165–176.
Jeng, Jiann-Min, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 1999. “Understanding Tourist Infor-
mation Search Patterns: Insight for Developing Decision Appliances.” TTRA
Annual Conference.
Jenkins, Roger L. 1978. “Family Vacation Decision-Making.” Journal of Travel
Research 16(4): 2–7.
Jennings, Gayle. 2001. Tourism Research. Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Jung, Timothy H., and Richard Butler. 2000. “The Measurement of the
Marketing Effectiveness of the Internet in the Tourism and Hospitality
Industry.” In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2000:
Proceedings of the International Conference in Barcelona, Spain, edited by
Daniel Fesenmaier, Stefan Klein, and Dimitrios Buhalis, 460–472. Wien:
Springer.
Jung, Timothy H., Panos Louviers, and Harmen Oppewal. 2002. “Channel
Management Strategy in the E-Commerce Environment: A Portfolio Manage-
ment Approach.” In Information and Communications Technologies in
Tourism, edited by Karl Wober, Andrew Frew, and Martin Hitz, 17–26. New
York: Springer Verlag.
Kadison, Maria. 1998. “On-line Retail Strategies.” Forrester Research 15.
Kalakoa, Ravi, and Andrew B. Whinston. 1996. Frontiers of eCommerce. Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
212 REFERENCES

Karamustafa, Kurtulus. 2000. “Marketing-Channel Relationships: Turkey’s

Resort Purveyors’ Interactions with International Tour Operators.” Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41(4): 21–32.
Karcher, Karsten. 1997. Reinventing the Package Holiday Business. Wiesbaden:
Deutscher Universitaetsverlag.
Karnes, Frances, and Jane Chauvin. 1985. Leadership Skills Inventory Forms.
Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.
Keller, Kenneth. 2008. “From Here to There in Information Technology: The
Complexities of Innovation.” American Behavioral Scientist 51(1): 97–106.
Kelman, Herbert C. 1961. “Process of Opinion Change.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 25: 57–78.
Kemp, Stephen. 2005. “Critical Realism and the Limits of Philosophy.” European
Journal of Social Theory 8: 171–191.
Kerr, Barbara A. 1988. Review of the Leadership Skills Inventory. Iowa City: The
University of Iowa.
Kerstetter, Deborah, and Mi-Hea Cho. 2004. “Prior Knowledge, Credibility and
Information Search.” Annals of Tourism Research 31(4): 961–985.
Kim, Eonsoo, Nam Dae-Il, and J.L. Stimpert. 2004. “The Applicability of
Porter’s Generic Strategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and
Suggestions.” Journal of Management 30(5): 569–589.
King, William R. 1998. “IT Enhanced Productivity and Profitability.” Informa-
tion System Management 15: 64-68.
Kingsley, Ilana, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 1995. “Travel Information Kiosks: An
Emerging Communications Channel for the Tourism Industry.” Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 4(1): 57–70.
Kirkman, Geoffrey, Peter Cornelius, Jeffrey Sachs, and Klaus Schwab. 2002.
Global Information Technology Report 2001–2002. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Klaus, Peter G. 1985. “Quality Epiphenomenon: The Conceptual Understanding
of Quality in Face-to-face Service Encounters.” In The Service Encounter:
Managing Employee / Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, edited by
John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, 17–33.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Klein, Barbara D. 2001. “User Perceptions of Data Quality: Internet and Tradi-
tional Text Sources.” The Journal of Computer Information Systems 41(4):
9–15.
Klein, Stefan. 1996. Interorganisationssysteme und Unternehmensnetzwerke. St.
Gallen: Universität St. Gallen.
———. 2002. Web Impact of the Distribution Structure for Flight Tickets.
Innsbruck: Springer Verlag.
Klein, Stefan, and Beat Schmid. 1996. Information and Communication Tech-
nologies in Tourism. Innsbruck, Springer Verlag.
 REFERENCES 213

Klein, Stefan, and S. Güler. 1999. Hotel Reservation Systems on the Internet:
Custom Design vs. Standard Software. Innsbruck: Springer Verlag.
Kotler, Philip, and Gary Armstrong. 2008. Principles of Marketing. 12th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Koufaris, M., 2002. “Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow
Theory to Online Consumer Behavior.” Information Systems Research 13(2):
205–223.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Posner. 1987. The Leadership Challenge: How to
Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Kowalewski, Oskar, Oleksandr Talavera, and Ivan Stetsyuk. 2010. “Influence of
Family Involvement in Management and Ownership on Firm Performance:
Evidence from Poland.” Family Business Review 23(1): 45–59.
Kraajenbrink, Jeroen, J. C. Spender, and Aard Groen. 2010. “The Resource-
Based View: A Review and Assessment of Its Critiques.” Journal of Manage-
ment 36: 349.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1989. Shannon, Claude. In International Encyclopedia
of Communication, edited by Erik Barnouw, 59–61. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kuan, Kevin K. Y., and Patrick Chau. 2001. “A Perception-based Model for EDI
Adoption in Small Businesses Using Technology-Organization-Environment
Framework.” Information and Management 38: 507–521.
Kuhnert, Karl, and Philip Lewis. 1987. “Transactional and Transforma-
tional Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis.” The Academy of
Management Review 12(4): 648–657.
Kulkarni, D. 2019. “Virtual Shopping Cart Abandonment: A Study of Motives
and Demographics.” Available at SSRN 3405973.
Kwon, Winston, Ian Clarke, and Ruth Wodak. 2009. “Organizational Decision-
Making, Discourse, and Power: Integrating across Contexts and Scales.”
Discourse and Communication 3: 273–302.
Lang, Tania. 2000. “The Effect of the Internet on Travel Consumer Purchasing
Behaviour and Implications for Travel Agencies.” Journal of Vacation
Marketing 6: 368.
Langley, Ann, Henry Mintzberg, Patricia Pitcher, Elizabeth Posada, and Jan
Saint-Macary. 1995. “Opening Up Decision Making: The View from the
Black Stool.” Organisation Science 6(3): 260–279.
Larsen, Tor, and Eugene McGuire. 1998. Information Systems Innovation and
Diffusion: Issues and Directions. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Lash, Scott. 1994. “Reflexivity and Its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Commu-
nity.” In Reflexive Modernization, edited by Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens,
and Scott Lash, 110–173. Cambridge: Polity Press.
214 REFERENCES

Lasswell, Harold D. 1948. “The Structure and Function of Communication in

Society.” In The Communication of Ideas: A Series of Addresses, edited by
Lyman Bryson, 215–228. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Latzer, Michael. 2009. “Information and Communication Technology Innova-
tions: Radical and Disruptive?” New Media Society 11(4): 599–619.
Law, Rob, Kenith Leung, and James Wong. 2004. “The Impact of the Internet
on Travel Agencies.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 16(2): 100–107.
Law, Rob, and Rita Leung. 2000. “A Study of Airlines’ Online Reservation
Services on the Internet.” Journal of Travel Research 39: 202.
Laws, Eric. 2001. “Distribution Channel Analysis for Leisure Travel.” In
Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations, edited
by Dimitrios Buhalis, and Eric Laws, 53–72. London: Continuum.
Laws, Eric, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2001. “Agendas for Future Research.” In
Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations, edited
by Eric Laws, and Dimitrios Buhalis, 371–376. London: Continuum.
Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. 1998, June. “The Role
of Ease of Use, Usefulness and Attitude in the Prediction of World Wide Web
Usage.” In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer
Personnel Research, 195–204.
Lee, Steven W. 1988. Review of the Leadership Skills Inventory. Terre Haute, IN:
Indiana State University.
Lefebvrea, Louis, Elisabeth Lefebvrea, Elie Elia, and Harold Boeck. 2005.
“Exploring B-to-B e-Commerce Adoption Trajectories in Manufacturing
SMEs.” Technovation 25: 1443–1456.
Legris, Paul, John Ingham, and Pierre Collerette. 2003. “Why Do People Use
Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance
Model.” Information and Management 40: 191–204.
Levy, Margi, and Philip Powell. 2002. “SME Internet Adoption: Towards a
Transporter Model.” In 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference eReality:
Constructing the eEconomy, 507–521. Bled, Slovenia.
Lewis, Gordon K. 2004. The Growth of the Modern West Indies. Kingston: Ian
Randle publishers.
Lewis, Barbara, and Pamela McCann. 2004. “Service Failure and Recovery:
Evidence from the Hotel Industry.” International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 16(1): 6–17.
Li, X.R., C.K. Cheng, H. Kim, and J.F. Petrick. 2008. “A Systematic Comparison
of First-Time and Repeat Visitors Via a Two-Phase Online Survey.” Tourism
Management 29(2): 278–293.
Liikanen, Erkki. 2002. European Tourism Forum 2002. Brussels: European
Commission.
 REFERENCES 215

Lin, Pei-Jung, Eleri Jones, and Sheena Westwood. 2009. “Perceived Risk and
Risk-relievers in Online Travel Purchase Intentions.” Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management 18(8): 782–810.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lippert, Susan K., and Miles Davis. 2006. “A Conceptual Model Integrating
Trust into Planned Change Activities to Enhance Technology Adoption
Behaviour.” Journal of Information Science 32(5): 434–448.
Littlejohn, Stephen W. 1989. Theories of Human Communication. 3rd ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lo, Ada, Catherine Cheung, and Rob Law. 2002. “Information Search Behavior
of Hong Kong’s Inbound Travelers: A Comparison of Business and Leisure
Travelers.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 13(3): 61–81.
———. 2004. “Information Search Behavior of Mainland Chinese Air Travelers
to Hong Kong.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 16(1): 43–51.
Looney, Robert E. 1987. The Jamaican Economy in the 1980s: Economic Decline
and Structural Adjustment. Boulder: Westview Press.
Loudon, David L., and Albert J. Della Bitta. 1993. Consumer Behaviour: Concepts
and Applications. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lumsdon, Les M., and Jonathan S. Swift. 1999. “The Role of Tour Operators
in South America: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uraguay.” International
Journal of Tourism Research 4(1): 429–439.
Luo, Man, Ruomei Feng, and Liping A. Cai. 2004. “Information Search
Behaviour and Tourist Characteristics: The Internet Vis-a-Vis other Informa-
tion Sources.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 17(2/3): 15–25.
Lynskey, Michael. 2004. “Determinants of Innovative Activity in Japanese
Technology-Based Start-up Firms.” International Small Business Journal
22(2): 159–196.
Mahoney, Joseph T., and J. Rajendran Pandian. 1992. “The Resource-Based
View Within the Conversation of Strategic Management.” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 13: 363–380.
Mai, J.E. 2016. Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information
Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Mandell, Barbara, and Shilpa Pherwani. 2003. “Relationship between Emotional
Intelligence and Transformational Leadership Style: A Gender Comparison.”
Journal of Business and Psychology 17(3): 387–404.
Manfredo, Michael J. 1989. “An Investigation of the Basis for External Informa-
tion Search in Recreation and Tourism.” Leisure Sciences 11: 29–45.
Mansell, Robin. 2002. “From Digital Divides to Digital Entitlements in Knowl-
edge Societies.” Current Sociology 50(3): 407–426.
Mansfeld, Yoel. 1992. “From Motivation to Travel.” Annals of Tourism Research
19: 399–419.
216 REFERENCES

Marcussen, Carl H. 2002. “Trends in European Internet Distribution: Of Travel

and Tourism Services.” Accessed April 12, 2010. http://www.crt.dk/uk/
staff/chm/trends.htm.
Markwell, Kevin W. 1997. “Dimensions of Photography in a Nature-Based
Tour.” Annals of Tourism Research 24: 131–155.
Marler, Janet H., Xiaoya Liang., and James Hamilton Dulebhon. 2006. “Training
and Effective Employee Information Technology Use.” Journal of Manage-
ment 32(5): 721–743.
Lord Marshall. 2000. “On Line or On the Heap?” Journal of Vacation Marketing
6(4): 292–298.
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1995. Designing Qualitative
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maser, Birgit, and Klaus Weiermair. 1998. “Travel Decision-Making: From the
Vantage Point of Perceived Risk and Information Preferences.” Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 7(4): 107–121.
Masschelein, Lucas, and Alain Van Buyten. 2002. Structure, Performance and
Competitiveness of European Tourism and Its Enterprises. London: Price
Waterhouse Coopers.
Mathieson, Alister, and Geoffrey Wall. 1982. Tourism: Economic, Physical and
Social Impacts. London: Longman.
Maurer, Christian, and Veronika Lutz. 2011. “The Impact of Digital Divide
on Global Tourism: Strategic Implications of Overcoming Communication
Gaps caused by Digital Inequalities.” In Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2011 Enter Proceedings, edited by Rob Law, Matthias
Fuchs, and Francesco Ricci, 265–277. New York: Springer Wein.
Maxwell, Joseph A., and Diane M. Loomis. 2003. “Mixed Methods Design: An
Alternative Approach.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behav-
ioral Research, edited by Charles Teddlie, and Abbas Tashakkori, 241–272.
London: Sage.
May, Christopher. 2002. Information Society: A Sceptical View. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
May, Paul. 2001. Mobile Commerce: Opportunities, Applications, and Technologies
of Mobile Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maykut, Pamela. 1994. Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophical and
Practical Guide. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
McIntosh, Alison. 1998. “Mixing Methods: Putting the Tourist at the Forefront
of Tourism Research.” Tourism Analysis 3: 121–127.
Mckay, Judith, Peter Marshall, and Adi Prananto. 2000. “Stages of Maturity for
e-Business: The SOG-emodel.” Accessed December 3, 2009. http://www.
pacis-net.org/file/2000/29-43.pdf.
 REFERENCES 217

McLean, Laird D. 2005. “Organizational Culture’s Influence on Creativity and

Innovation: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Human Resource
Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 7(2): 226–246.
McQuail, Denis, and Swen Windahl. 1981. Communication Models—For the
Study of Mass Communications. London: Longman.
McSweeney, Brendan. 2002. “Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences
and the Consequences: A Triumph of Faith—A Failure of Analysis.” Human
Relations 55: 89–118.
Meditz, Sandra W., and Dennis Hanratty. 1987. “Caribbean Islands: A Country
Study.” Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. Accessed March 14,
2011. http://countrystudies.us/caribbean-islands/24.htm.
Menard, Scott. 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mercer, Jonathan. 2005. “Rationality and Psychology in International Politics.”
International Organization 59(1): 77–106.
Mill, Robert C., and Alastair Morrison. 1992. The Tourism System: An Introduc-
tory Text. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Minghetti, Valeria, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2010. “Digital Divide in Tourism.”
Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.
Mitchell, Susan. 1998. American Generations: Who They Are, How They Live,
What They Think. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: New Strategist.
Mochrie, Robert, Laura Galloway, and David Deakins. 2006. “The Value of
Internet Forums to Small Rural Businesses.” In Impact of e-Commerce on
Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala, and Colin Gray,
81–100. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Moersch, Christopher. 1995. “Levels of Technology Implementation (loti): A
Framework for Measuring Classroom Technology Use.” Accessed February
5, 2010. http://loticonnection.com/pfd/LoTiFrameworkNov95.pdf.
Moital, Miguel, Roger Vaughan, and Jonathan Edwards. 2009. “Using Involve-
ment for Segmenting the Adoption of E-commerce in Travel.” Service
Industries Journal 29(5): 723–739.
Money, R. Bruce, and John C. Crotts. 2003. “The Effect of Uncertainty Avoid-
ance on Information Search, Planning, and Purchases of International Travel
Vacations.” Tourism Management 24: 191–202.
Montgomery, Cynthia A., and Sam Harihan. 1991. “Diversified Expansion by
Large Established Firms.” Journal of Economic Behaviour 52(1): 71–89.
Moorthy, Sridhar, Brian T. Ratchford, and Debabrata Talukdar. 1997. “Con-
sumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis.” Journal
of Consumer Research 23: 263–277.
Morgan, Nigel, Annette Pritchard, and Sara Abbott. 2001. “Consumer, Travel
and Technology: A Bright Future for the Web or Television Shopping?”
Journal of Vacation Marketing 7(2): 110–124.
218 REFERENCES

Morrison, Alastair. 2002. “Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Journals.” Accessed

April 7, 2010. http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~alltson/journals.htm.
Morrison, Alastair M. 2002. Hospitality and Travel Marketing. 3rd ed. Albany:
Delmar Cengage Learning.
Morrison, Alastair M., Juline E. Mills, Suttichai Chuvessiriporn, and Joseph
A. Ismail. 2002. “Where Are We Now? An Initial Analysis of Web-Based
Marketing Issues Affecting Travel and Tourism.” In Information and Commu-
nications Technologies in Tourism 2002, edited by Karl Wober, Andrew Frew,
and Martin Hitz, 375–386. New York: Springer Verlag.
Morrison, Alison. 1994. “Marketing Strategic Alliances: The Small Hotel Firm.”
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 6(3): 25–30.
Morrison, Alison, Michael Rimmington, and Clare Williams. 1999. Entrepreneur-
ship in the Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Industries. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Morrison, Margaret. 2002. Using Qualitative Research in Advertising: Strategies,
Techniques, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, Janice M. 2003. “Principles of Mixed Methods and Multimethod
Research Design.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral
Research, edited by Charles Teddlie, and Abbas Tashakkori, 189-208. London:
Sage.
Morton, Michael Scott. 1991. The Corporation of the 1990s—Information Tech-
nology and Organizational Transformation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Mosaic Group. 1998. “The Global Diffusion of the Internet Project: An Initial
Inductive Study.” Accessed January 16, 2010. www.agsd.com/gdi97/gdi97.
html.
Moutinho, Luiz. 1987. “Consumer Behaviour in Tourism.” European Journal of
Marketing 21: 5–44.
Mowery, David C., Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian Silverman. 1998. “Technological
Overlap and Interfirm Cooperation: Implications for the Resource-Based View
of the Firm.” Research Policy 27: 507–523.
Mpofu, K.C., D. Milne, and L. Watkins-Mathys. 2013. “ICT Adoption and
Development of E-business among SMEs in South Africa.” Accessed May
9, 2020. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55965664.
Munro, Barbara H. 2001. Statistical Methods for Health Care Research. 4th ed.
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Murphy, William H. 1999. “Hofstede’s National Culture as a Guide for Sales
Practices across Countries: The Case of a MNC’s Sales Practices in Australia
and New Zealand.” Australian Journal of Management 24(1): 37–58.
Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Behaviour and Capabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
195–307.
 REFERENCES 219

Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quanti-

tative Approaches. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Nolan, Sidney D. 1976. “Tourists’ Use and Evaluation of Travel Information
Sources: Summary and Conclusions.” Journal of Travel Research14(2): 6–8.
Norris, Pipps. 2000. “Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty
and the Internet in Democratic Societies.” Accessed November 9, 2010.
Northouse, P.G. 2018. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Norum, Pamela S. 2008. “Student Internet Purchases.” Family and Consumer
Sciences Research Journal 36: 373–388.
NUA. 2003. Internet Demographics.
Nysveen, Herbjørn, and Maria Lexhagen. 2002. “Reduction of Perceived Risk
through On-line Value-Added Services Offered on Tourism Business Web-
sites.” In Information and Communications Technologies in Tourism 2002,
edited by Karl Wober, Andrew Frew, and Martin Hitz, 488–496. New York:
Springer Verlag.
O’Connor, Peter. 2000. Evaluating Electronic Channels of Distribution in the
Hotel Sector. Barcelona: Springer Verlag.
———. 2001. “The Changing Face of Hotel Electronic Distribution.” Travel
and Tourism Analyst 5: 61–78.
———. 2002. An Analysis of the Online Pricing Strategies of the International
Hotel Chains. Innsbruck: Springer Verlag.
———. 2008, January. “User-Generated Content and Travel: A Case Study on
Tripadvisor.com.” In ENTER, vol. 2008, 47–58.
O’Connor, Peter, Dimitrios Buhalis, and Andrew Frew. 2001. “The Transforma-
tion of Tourism Distribution Channels through Information Technology.” In
Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations, edited
by Dimitrios Buhalis, and Eric Laws, 332–350. New York: Continuum.
OECD. 2001. “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development:
Measuring Electronic Commerce.” OECD 1997. Accessed December 4,
2010. http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/ec/prod/e_97-185-htm.
Öörni, Anssi. 2004. “Consumer Objectives and the Amount of Search in Elec-
tronic Travel and Tourism Markets.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
17(2/3): 3–14.
Opodo. 2003. www.opodo.com.
Opperman, Martin. 1999. “Databased Marketing by Travel Agencies.” Journal
of Travel Research 37(3): 231–237.
Orbitz. 2003. www.orbitz.com.
O’Reilly, Charles A. 1982. “Variations in Decision Makers’ Use of Information
Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information.” Academy
of Management Journal 25(4): 756–771.
Oz, Effy. 2009. Managing Information Systems. 6th ed. South Melbourne,
Australia: Cengage Learning.
220 REFERENCES

Page, Stephen. 2005. Transport and Tourism: Global Perspectives. 2nd ed.
Harlow, England: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Page, Stephen, and Don Getz. 1997. The Business of Rural Tourism: Interna-
tional perspectives. London: Thomson Business Press.
Palmer, A. 1995. “Relationship Marketing: A New Philosophy for Marketing or
a New Function?” In Proceedings of the Seventh Bi-Annual World Marketing
Congress, Vol. 15, 130–134. Melbourne: Monash University.
Palmer, Adrian, and Patrick McCole. 1999. “The Virtual Re-intermediation
of Travel Services: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Investigation.”
Journal of Vacation Marketing 6(1): 33–47.
Pan, Bing, and Daniel Fesenmaier. 2001. “Exploring Caller Dialogue: Analyzing
Directed Information Search for Tourism Products.” In Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2001: Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference in Montreal, Canada, 2001, edited by Pauline Sheldon, Karl
Wober, and Daniel Fesenmaier, 244–250. Wien, Austria: Springer.
———. 2003. “Travel Information Search on the Internet: An Exploratory
Study.” Doctoral dissertation. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Parker, Marilyn. 1983. Information Economics. London: Prentice-Hall.
Passmann, Christoph, Wolfgang Pipperger, and Walter Schertler. 1997. “How
to Assess WWW- Applications for Tourism Information Systems from the
End-User Perspective- Methodological Design and Empirical Evidence.” In
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism: Proceedings of the
International Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, edited by A. Min Tjoa,
208–219. Wien: Springer.
Patricia, Dodu. 2008. “The Internet, Threat or Tool for Travel Agen-
cies?” Accessed April 9, 2010. http://steconomice.uoradea.ro/anale/vol
ume/2008/v2-economy-andbusiness-administration/017.pdf.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pawar, Badrinarayan S. 2003. “Central Conceptual Issues in Transformational
Leadership Research.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal
24(7): 397–406.
Pawar, Badrinarayan S., and Kenneth Eastman. 1997. “The Nature and Implica-
tions of Contextual Influences on Transformational Leadership: A Conceptual
Examination.” Academy Management Review 22: 80–109.
Pearce, D.G., 2008. “A Needs-Functions Model of Tourism Distribu-
tion.” Annals of Tourism Research 35(1): 148–168.
———. 2009. “Beyond Tiers: A Network Approach to Tourism Distribution.”
Tourism Analysis 13: 517–530.
Pennington-Gray, Lori, and Christine Vogt. 2003. “Examining Welcome Center
Visitors’ Travel and Information Behaviors: Does Location of Centres or
Residency Matter?” Journal of Travel Research 41: 272–280.
 REFERENCES 221

Penrose, Edith T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.
Perdue, Richard R. 1985. “Segmenting State Information Inquirers by Timing
of Destination Decision and Previous Experience.” Journal of Travel Research
23: 6–11.
———. 1993. “External Information Search in Marine Recreational Fishing.”
Leisure Sciences 15: 169–187.
Perry, Chad A. 1998. “Structured Approach to Presenting Theses.” Accessed
February 25, 2009. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/cperry.
html.
Persson, Goran. 1978. “Organisation Design Strategies for Business Logistics.”
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management
8(6): 287–297.
Peteraf, Margaret A. 1993. “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A
Resource-Based View.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–191.
Peterson, Karen Ida. 1994. “Qualitative Research Methods for the Travel and
Tourism Industry.” In Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research: A Handbook
for Managers, edited by J.R. Brent Ritchie, and Charles R. Goeldner, 487–
489. 2nd ed. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Peterson, Suzanne J., Kristin Byron Walumbwa, and Jason Myrowitz. 2009.
“CEO Positive Psychological Traits, Transformational Leadership, and Firm
Performance in High-technology Start-up and Established Firms.” Journal of
Management 35: 348–368.
Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1987. “Context and Action in the Transformation of
Firms.” Journal of Management Studies 24: 649–670.
PhoCusWright. 2003. Consumer Trends: Evolution of the Online Traveler.
Sherman: PhoCusWright 2.
Poon, Auliana. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Walling-
ford: CAB International.
———. 2001. “The Future of Travel Agents.” Travel & Tourism Analyst 3:
57–80.
Poon, Simpson, and Mathew Joseph. 2001. “A Preliminary Study of Product
Nature and Electronic Commerce.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning
19(7): 493–499.
Porter, M.E., 2008. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries
and Competitors.New York: Simon and Schuster.
Porter, Michael. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.
———. 1995. Wettbewerbsstrategien (Competitive Strategy). New York: Campus.
———. 2001. “Bewährte Strategien Werden mit dem Internet Noch Wirk-
samer.” Harvard Business Manager 5: 64–81.
222 REFERENCES

Porter, Michael, and Victor Millar. 1985. “How Information Gives You Compet-
itive Advantage.” Harvard Business Review 63(4): 149–160.
Presutti, William. 2003. “Supply Chain Management and E-procurement:
Creating Value-added in the Supply Chain.” Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment 32: 219–226.
Radford, Gary P. 2005. On the Philosophy of Communication. Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Raitz, Karl, and Meftah Dakhil. 1989. “A Note about Information Sources for
Preferred Recreational Environments.” Journal of Travel Research 27: 45–49.
Rao, Subba, Glenn Metts, and Carlo Monge. 2003. “Electronic Commerce
Development in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: A Stage Model and
its Implications.” Business Process Management Journal 9(1): 11–32.
Rappa, Michael. 2002. “Business Models on the Web.” Accessed February 7,
2010. http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html.
Rayport, Jeffrey F. 1995. “Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain.” Harvard Business
Review 73(6): 75–85.
Rayport, Jeffrey, and Bernard Jaworski. 2002. Introduction to E-Commerce. 2nd
ed. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Redding, S.Gordon. 1994. “Comparative Management Theory: Jungle, Zoo or
Fossil Bed?” Organization Studies 15: 323–359.
Reisinger, Yvette, and Lindsay W. Turner. 2002. “Cultural Differences between
Asian Tourist Markets and Australian Hosts: Part 2.” Journal of Travel
Research 40: 385–395.
Reve, Torger. 1990. “The Firm as a Nexus of Internal and External Contracts.”
In The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties, edited by Masahiko Aioki, 136–188.
London: Sage.
Reynolds, Thomas J., and Jonathan Gutman. 1988. “Laddering Theory, Method,
Analysis, and Interpretation.” Journal of Advertising Research 28: 11–31.
Ricardo, David. 1817. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: J.
Murray.
Ricketts, Martin. 1994. The Economies of Business Enterprise. Hempstead:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Rideng, Arne, and Berit Grue. 2002. Foreign Visitor Survey 2002. Oslo: TØI.
Riley, Roger. 1996. “Revealing Socially Constructed Knowledge through Quasi-
structured Interviews and Grounded Theory Analysis.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 5(1/2): 21–40.
Riley, Roger W., and Lisa Love. 1999. “The State of Qualitative Tourism
Research.” Annals of Tourism Research 27(1): 164–187.
Rodan, Simon, and Charles Galunic. 2004. “More Than Network Struc-
ture: How Knowledge Heterogeneity Influences Managerial Performance and
Innovativeness.” Management Journal 25(6): 541–562.
 REFERENCES 223

Roehl, Wesley S., and Daniel Fesenmaier. 1992. “Risk Perceptions and Pleasure
Travel: An Exploratory Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research 30(4): 17–26.
Rogers, E.M. 2010. Diffusion of Innovations. Ney York: Simon and Schuster.
Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1976. “New Product Adoption and Diffusion.” Journal of Consumer
Research 2: 290.
———. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1986. Communication Technology: The New Media in Society. New York:
NY Free Press.
———. 1994. A History of Communication Study—A Biographical Approach.
New York: The Free Press.
———. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, Everett, and Thomas Valente. 1993. “A History of Information Theory
in Communication Research.” In Between Communication and Information—
Information and Behavior, edited by Jorge Reina Schement, and Brent D.
Ruben, 35–56. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Rossman, Gretchen B., and Bruce Wilson. 1985. “Numbers and Words:
Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-scale
Evaluation Study.” Evaluation Review 9(5): 627.
Rushton, Alan, and John Oxley. 1993. Handbook of Logistics and Distribution
Management. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Ryals, Lynette, and Andre Humphries. 2007. “Managing Key Business-to-
Business Relationships: What Marketing Can Learn from Supply Chain
Management.” Journal of Service Research 9: 312.
Ryan, Bryce, and Neal Gross. 1943. “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in
Two Iowa Communities.” Rural Sociology 8: 15-24.
Saffu, Kojo, and John Walker. 2008. “Strategic Value and Electronic Commerce
Adoption among Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in a Transactional
Economy.” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 23(6): 395–404.
Sarros, James C., Brain K. Cooper, and Joseph Santora. 2008. “Building a
Climate for Innovation through Transformational Leadership and Orga-
nizational Culture.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 15:
145–158.
Sassi, Sinikka. 2005. “Cultural Differentiation or Social Segregation? Four
Approaches to the Digital Divide.” New Media and Society 7(5): 684–700.
Schary, Philip, and Tage Larsen. 1998. Managing the Global Supply Chain.
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Schiefer, Alex. 2002. eCommerce 2001/2002. Vienna: Statistik Austria.
Schiffman Leon G., and Leslie Kanuk. 2000. Consumer Behavior. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
224 REFERENCES

Schmidt, Jeffrey B., and Richard A. Spreng. 1996. “Proposed Model of External
Consumer Information Search.” Academy of Marketing Science Journal 24(3):
246–270.
Schmitz, Joseph, and Janet Fulk. 1991. “Organizational Colleagues, Media Rich-
ness, and Electronic Mail: A Test of the Social Influence Model of Technology
Use.” Communication Research 18(4): 487–523.
Schramm, Wilbur. 1954. “How Communication Works.” In The Process and
Effect of Mass Communication, edited by Wilbur Lang Schramm, 3–26.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Schul, Patrick, and John L. Crompton. 1983. “Search Behaviour of Interna-
tional Vacationers: Travel-specific Lifestyle and Sociodemographic Variables.”
Journal of Travel Research 21: 25–31.
Schwartz, Shalom. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values:
Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.
Schweda, Anika. 2004. “Independent International Traveller Evaluations of
Traditional and Interactive Holiday Information Sources along Temporal and
Utility Dimensions.” In Information and Communication Technologies in
Tourism, edited by Andrew J. Frew, 151–160. Vienna: Springer Verlag.
Seidman, Irving. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research—A Guide for
Researchers in Educational and Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Shailer, Gregory. 1994. “Capitalists and Entrepreneurs in Owner-Managed
Firms.” International Small Business Journal 12: 33–41.
Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Sheldon, Pauline. 1997. Tourism Information Technology. New York: Cab
International.
Sherlock, Philip, and Hazel Bennett. 1998. The Story of the Jamaican People.
Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.
Shin, Namchul. 2001. “Strategies for Competitive Advantage in Electronic
Commerce.” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 2(4): 164–171.
Siebens, H. 2002. “Concepts and Working Instruments for Corporate Gover-
nance.” Journal of Business Ethics 39(1–2): 109–116.
Simon Herbert Alexander. 1957. Models of Man. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Simpson, Christopher. 1994. Science of Coercion: Communication Research and
Psychological Warfare, 1945–1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sims-Shouten, Wendy, Sarah Riley, and Carla Willig. 2007. “Critical Realism
in Discourse Analysis: A Presentation of a Systematic Method of Analysis
Using Women’s Talk of Motherhood, Childcare and Female Employment as
an Example.” Theory and Psychology 17: 101–124.
 REFERENCES 225

Singh, Niti, and R. Venkat Krishnan. 2007. “Transformational Leadership in

India: Developing and Validating a New Scale.” International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management 7: 219.
Singh, Surendra P., Ruthie G. Reynolds, and Safdar Muhammad. 2001. “A
Gender-based Analysis of Micro and Small Enterprises in Java, Indonesia.”
Journal of Small Business Management 39(2): 174–182.
Slevin, D.P., & J.G. Covin. 1995. “Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A
Research Model.” Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth
2: 175–224.
Smith, Karen. 2007. “Distribution Channels for Events: Supply and Demand-side
Perspectives.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 13: 321–338.
Smith, L., and P. Mounter. 2008. Effective Internal Communication. London:
Kogan Page Publishers.
Snepenger, David J. 1987. “Segmenting the Vacation Market by Novelty Seeking
Role.” Journal of Travel Research 26: 8–14.
Snepenger, David J., and Mary Snepenger. 1993. “Market Structure Analysis
of Media Selection Practices by Travel Services.” In Communication and
Channel Systems in Tourism Marketing, edited by Sheauhsing Hsieh, and
Daniel R. Fesenmaier, 21–36. New Jersey: The Hawthorn Press.
Snepenger, David J., Kelli Meged, Mary Snelling, and Kelly Worrall. 1990.
“Information Search Strategies by Destination-naive Tourists.” Journal of
Travel Research 29: 13–16.
Sparks, Colin. 2000. “The Distribution of Online Resources and the Democratic
Potential of the Internet.” In Cultural, Economic and Policy Foundations for
Media Openness and Diversity in East and West, edited by Jan van Cuilenburg,
and Richard van der Wurff, 229–254. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Spink, A., and C. Cole. 2001. “Information and Poverty: Information-Seeking
Channels Used by African American Low-Income Households.” Library &
Information Science Research 23(1): 45–65.
Standing, Craig, and Thandarayan Vasudavan. 1999. “Internet Marketing Strate-
gies Used by Travel Agencies in Australia.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 6:
21–32.
Stansfield, Mark, and Kevin Grant. 2003. “An Investigation into Issues Influ-
encing the Use of the Internet and Electronic Commerce among Small-
Medium Sized Enterprises.” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 4(1):
15–33.
Statistical Institute of Jamaica. Accessed November 14, 2010. http://statinja.
gov.jm/population.aspx.
Stone, Carl. 1973. Class, Race, and Political Behaviour in Urban Jamaica.
Institute of Social and Economic Research. Mona: University of the West
Indies.
226 REFERENCES

———. 1985. Class, State, and Democracy in Jamaica. Kingston: Blackett

Publishers.
Stonehouse, George, and Brian Snowdon. 2007. “Competitive Advantage
Revisited: Michael Porter on Strategy and Competitiveness.” Journal of
Management Inquiry 16(3): 256–273.
Straub, Evan. 2009. “Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future
Directions for Informal Learning.” Review of Educational Research 79: 625–
649.
Strilka, Bernhard. 2002. Das Internet als Marketinginstrument im Tourismus -
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der österreichischen Klein- und Mittelbetrieb-
sstruktur. Vienna: University of Business and Economics Administration.
Stump, Rodney L., Wen Gong, and Zhan Li. 2008. “Exploring the Digital
Divide in Mobile-phone Adoption Levels across Countries: Do Population
Socioeconomic Traits Operate in the Same Manner as Their Individual-level
Demographic Counterparts?” Journal of Macromarketing 28: 397–412.
Subramaniam, Nava, and Neal Ashkanasy. 2001. “The Effect of Organisational
Culture Perceptions on the Relationship between Budgetary Participation
and Managerial Job-Related Outcomes.” Australian Journal of Management
26(1): 35–54.
Swanson, E. Burton. 1987. “Information Channel Disposition and Use.”
Decision Sciences 18: 131–145.
Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics.
4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tan, S.J. 1999. “Strategies for Reducing Consumers’ Risk Aversion in Internet
Shopping.” Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Tan, Wen Dee, and David R. Arnott. 1999. “Managerial Information Acquisition
and the World Wide Web: A Theoretical Background.” ISDSS ’99.
Tang, Lijun, and Peidong Yang. 2011. “Symbolic Power and the Internet: The
Power of a ’Horse’.” Media Culture Society 33: 675–691.
Tangpong, Chanchai, and Nongkran Lertpittaypoom. 2009. “The Emergence of
Business-to-Customer E-commerce: New Niche Formation, Creative Destruc-
tion and Contingency Perspectives.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies 16(2): 131–140.
Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie. 2003. “The Past and Future of Mixed
Methods Research: From Data Triangulation to Mixed Model Designs.” In
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by
Charles Teddlie, and Abbas Tashakkori, 671–702. London: Sage.
Tatum, B. Charles, Richard Eberlin, Carin Kottraba, and Travis Bradberry. 2003.
“Leadership, Decision-Making and Organizational Justice.” Management
Decision 41(10): 1006–1016.
Taylor, David. 1999. Global Cases in Logistics and Supply Chain Management.
London: International Thomson Business Press.
 REFERENCES 227

Tchaïcha, Jane D., and Mark M. Davis. 2005. “The Impact of Culture on Tech-
nology and Business: An Interdisciplinary, Experiential Course Paradigm.”
Journal of Management Education 29(5): 738–757.
Tebbutt, Jane. 2006. “E-Business and Small Firms in London.” In Impact of
E-Commerce on Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala and
Colin Gray, 63–80. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Teece, David J. 1982. “Toward an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm.”
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3: 39–63.
———. 2010. “Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation.” Long Range
Planning 43(2–3): 172–194.
Teo, Thompson, Sijie Lin, and Kee-hung Lai. 2009. “Adopters and Non-
adopters of E-procurement in Singapore: An Empirical Study.” Omega 37(5):
972–987.
Teo, T.S. and Y. Pian. 2003. “A Contingency Perspective on Internet Adoption
and Competitive Advantage.” European Journal of Information Systems 12(2):
78–92.
Terpstra, Vern, and Kenneth David. 1991. The Cultural Environment of Inter-
national Business. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing.
Tetzeli, Rick. 1994. “The Internet and Your Business.” Fortune 129(5): 86–96.
Theobald, Axel, and Marcus Dreyer. 2001. Online-Marktforschung. Wiesbaden:
Gabler Verlag.
Thomas, Robyn, Cynthia Hardy, and Leisa Sargent. 2011. “Managing Change:
Negotiating Meaning and Power-Resistance Relations.” Organization Science
22(1): 22–41.
Thomas, Robyn, and David Dunkerley. 1999. “Careering Downwards?: Middle
Management in the Downsized Organization.” British Journal of Management
10(2): 157–169.
Thompson, John L. 1990. Strategic Management. London: Chapman & Hall.
Thong, James Y.L., and C. S. Yap. 1995. “CEO Characteristics, Organisational
Characteristics and Information Technology Adoption in Small Business.”
Omega-international Journal of Management Science 23(4): 429–442.
Tierney, Patrick T. 1993. “The Influence of State Travel Information Centers on
Tourist Length of Stay and Expenditure.” Journal of Travel Research 31(3):
28–32.
Timmers, Paul. 1998. “Business Models for Electronic Markets.” Electronic
Markets 8: 3–8.
Tiscover. 2003. “Tiscover Company Profile.” www.aboutiscover.com.
Tjostheim, Ingvar. 1997. “The New Network in the Norwegian Tourism
Industry- Marketing and Organisational Theories as Perspectives for a Study.”
In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism: Proceedings of
the International Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997 , edited by A. Min
Tjoa, 110–118. Wien: Springer.
228 REFERENCES

———. 2002. “The Internet in Competition with the Traditional Information

Sources—A Study of Vacation Planning for Package vs. Non-package Travel.”
In Information and Communications Technologies in Tourism 2002, edited by
Karl Wober, Andrew J. Frew, and Martin Hitz, 166–176. New York: Springer
Verlag.
Tomasetto, Carlo, and Felice Carugati. 2006. “Social Influence and Diffusion
of Innovations in Education.” In Impact of E-Commerce on Consumers and
Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala, and Colin Gray, 21–34. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Toomela, Aaro. 2003. “How Should Culture Be Studied?” Culture & Psychology
9(1): 35–45.
Trenholm, Sarah. 1991. Human Communication Theory. 2nd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Trevino, Linda K., Richard L. Daft, and Robert Lengel. 1990. “Understanding
Managers’ Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” In Orga-
nizations and Communication Technology, edited by Janet Fulk, and Charles
W. Steinfield, 71–94. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trochim, William M. K. 2006. “Research Methods Knowledge Base.” Accessed
November 17, 2009. www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positivism.php.
Trompenaars, Fons. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business. London: Economist Books.
Tsai, Henry, and Zheng Gu. 2007. “Institutional Ownership and Firm Perfor-
mance: Empirical Evidence from U.S. Based Publicly Traded Restaurant
Firms.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 31(1): 19–38.
Tsao, Chiung-Wen. 2009. “Founding-family Ownership and Firm Performance:
The Role of High-performance Work Systems.” Family Business Review 22(4):
319–332.
Tylor, Edward. 1897. Primitive Culture. New York: J.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Ulijn, Jan, Dan O’Hair, Mathieu Weggeman, Gerald Ledlow, and Thomas
Hall. 2000. “Innovation, Corporate Strategy, and Cultural Context: What Is
the Mission for International Business Communication?” Journal of Business
Communication 37(3): 293–317.
Um, Seoho, and John L. Crompton. 1990. “Attitude Determinants in Tourism
Destination Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research 17: 432–448.
Uncles, M.D., Dowling, G.R. and Hammond, K., 2003. “Customer Loyalty and
Customer Loyalty Programs.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 20: 294–316.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2007. “Quarterly Retail E-commerce Sales: 1st
Quarter 2007 U.S. Census Bureau News.” Accessed March 17, 2009. www.
commerce.gov.
Uysal, Muzaffer, Cary D. McDonald, and Laurel Reid. 1990. “Sources of Infor-
mation Used by International Visitors to U.S. Parks and Natural Areas.”
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 8(1): 51–59.
 REFERENCES 229

Van Raaij, W. Fred. 1986. “Consumer Research on Tourism: Mental and

Behavioural Constructs.” Annals of Tourism Research 13: 1–9.
Van Raaij, W. Fred, and Dick A. Francken. 1984. “Vacation Decisions, Activities,
and Satisfactions.” Annals of Tourism Research 11(1): 101–112.
Vaughan, Roger. 2008. “Conceptual Framework.” Power Point Presentation,
Bournemouth University. Accessed May 14, 2010. http://www.powershow.
com/view/a57f7-NDM1Y/Conceptual_Framework_Professor_Roger_Vau
ghan_May_29th_2008_flash_ppt_presentation.
Veal, Anthony James. 1997. Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. 2nd ed.
London: Pitman Publishing.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.” Manage-
ment Science 46(2): 186–204.
Victorino, Liana, Rohit Verma, Gerhard Plaschka, and Chekitan Dev. 2006.
“Service Innovation and Customer Choices in the Hospitality Industry.”
Managing Service Quality 15(6): 555–576.
Villalonga, B., and R. Amit. 2006. How Do Family Ownership, Control and
Management Affect Firm Value? Journal of Financial Economics 80(2): 385–
417.
Virolainen, Veli. 1998. “A Survey of Procurement Management Development
in Industrial Companies.” International Journal of Productions Economics 56:
677–688.
Vishwanath, Arun, and Gerald Goldhaber. 2003. “An Examination of the Factors
Contributing to Adoption Decisions among Late-Diffused Technology Prod-
ucts.” New Media and Society 5(4): 547–572.
Vogt, Christine A., and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 1998. “ Expanding the Functional
Information Search Model.” Annals of Tourism Research 25(3): 551–578.
Vogt, Christine A., Susan I. Stewart, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 1998. “Com-
munication Strategies to Reach First-time Visitors.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 7(2): 69–89.
Vrana, Vasiliki, and Costas Zafiropoulos. 2006. “Tourism Agents’ Attitudes
on Internet Adoption: An Analysis from Greece.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 18(7): 601–608.
Wacquant, Loic J.D. 1996. “The Rise of Advanced Marginality. Notes on Its
Nature and Implications.” Acta Sociologica 39(2): 121–139.
Waldman, David A., Bernard M. Bass, and Francis Yammarino. 1990. “Adding to
Contingent Reward Behavior.” Group and Organisation Studies 15: 382–394.
Walle, Alf H. 1997. “Quantitative Versus Qualitative Tourism Research.” Annals
of Tourism Research 24(3): 524–536.
Walters, Bruce A., Mark Kroll, and Peter Wright. 2008. “CEO Ownership and
Effective Boards: Impacts on Firm Outcomes.” Strategic Organization 6(3):
259–283.
230 REFERENCES

Warden, Stuart, and S. Tunzelana. 2004. “E-Commerce: A Critical Review of

SMME Organizational Barriers in Tourism.” Paper presented at the Proceed-
ings of 6th WWW Applications Conference 2004, Rand Afrikaans University,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
Wasilczuk, Julita. 2000. “Advantageous Competence of Owner/ Managers to
Grow the Firm in Poland: Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Small Business
Management 38(2): 88–94.
Weis, Hans C., and Peter Steinmetz. 2000. Martkforschung. Ludwigshafen: Kiehl
Verlag.
Weiss, Michael J. 2003. “To Be About to Be.” American Demographics 25(7):
29–36.
Welch, Emma. 2003. “The Relationship between Ownership Structure and
Performance in Listed Australian Companies.” Australian Journal of Manage-
ment 28(3): 287–306.
Weller, Susan C., and Kimball Rommey. 1988. Systematic Data Collection.
Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Wellner, Alison S. 2000. “Generational Divide.” American Demographics 22(10):
52–58.
Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. “A Resource-Based View of the Firm.” Strategic
Management Journal 5: 171–180.
Werthner, Hannes. 1995a. Design Principles of Tourism Information Systems.
Wien, Oldenburg.
———. ed. 1995b. Elektronisches Marketing im Tourismus. Wien: Oldenburg.
———. 1996. Design Principles of Tourism Information Systems. Innsbruck:
Springer Verlag.
Werthner, Hannes, and Stefan Klein. 1999a. Information Technology and
Tourism: A Challenging Relationship. Vienna: Springer Verlag.
———. 1999b. “ICT and the Changing Landscape of Global Tourism Distribu-
tion.” Electronic Markets 9(4): 256–262.
Westwood, Robert, and David Low. 2003. “The Multicultural Muse Culture,
Creativity and Innovation.” International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-
ment 3(2): 235–259.
Whyte, Millicent. 1983. A Short History of Education in Jamaica. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
Wicks, Bruce E., and Michael Schuett. 1993. “Using Travel Brochures to Target
Frequent Travellers and "Big-spenders".” In Communication and Channel
Systems in Tourism Marketing, edited by Sheauhsing Hsieh, and Daniel R.
Fesenmaier, 77–89. The Hawthorn Press.
Wiertz, Caroline. 2001. “The Internet Adoption Decision in Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs).” Accessed February 12, 2010. http://www.bonissen.de/
ib/papers/Small%20Biz.pdf.
 REFERENCES 231

Willcocks, Leslie. 2000. Moving to E-business: The Ultimate Guide to Effective

E-Business. London: Random House Business Book.
Williams, Densil, and Andrew Spencer. 2010 “Advertising and Tourist Arrivals:
Evidence from Jamaica.” Tourism and Hospitality Research 10(4): 359–366.
Williamson, Dermot. 2002. “Forward from a Critique of Hofstede’s Model of
National Culture.” Human Relations 55(11): 1373–1395.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. “Transaction Cost-Economies: The Governance of
Contractual Relations.” Journal of Law and Economics 22: 232–261.
———. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
———. 1990. “The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties: An Introduction.” In The Firm
as a Nexus of Treaties, edited by Masahiko Aioki, 136–188. London: Sage.
Williamson, Oliver E., and Scott E. Masten. 1999. The Economics of Transaction
Costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Willis, Suzanne, and Bruce Tranter. 2006. “Beyond the ‘Digital Divide’: Internet
Diffusion and Inequality in Australia.” Journal of Sociology 42(1): 43–59.
Wilson, Kenneth R., Jennifer S. Wallin, and Christa Reiser. 2003. “Social
Stratification and the Digital Divide.” Social Science Computer Review 21:
133–143.
Winston, Brian. 1986. Misunderstanding Media. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Wirtz, Bernd W. 2001. Electronic Business. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Wöber, Karl. 2003. “Information Supply in Tourism Management by Marketing
Decision Support Systems.” Tourism Management 24: 241–255.
Wöber, Karl, and Andrew Frew. 2002. Information and Communication Tech-
nologies in Tourism 2002. Innsbruck: Springer Verlag.
Wöber, Karl, and Ulrike Gretzel. 2000. “Tourism Managers’ Adoption of
Marketing Decision Support Systems.” Journal of Travel Research 39: 172–
181.
Woiceshyn, Jaana. 2000. “Technology Adoption: Organizational Learning in Oil
Firms.” Organization Studies 21(6): 1095–1118.
Wolfe, Kara, Cathy H. C. Hsu, and Soo Kang. 2004. “Buyer Characteristics
among Users of Various Travel Intermediaries.” Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 17(2/3): 51–62.
Woodside, Arch G., and Ilkka Ronkainen. 1980. “Vacation Travel Planning
Segments: Self Planning Vs. Users of Motor Club and Travel Agents.” Annals
of Tourism Research 7: 385–393.
Woodward, Tracy. 2000. “Using Brand Awareness and Brand Image in Tourism
Channels of Distribution.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 6: 119–130.
World Travel and Tourism Council. 2019. Travel & Tourism-Economic Impact
2019-World.
WTO. 2000. World Tourism Organisation’s Tourism 2020. Madrid: World
Tourism Organisation.
232 REFERENCES

WTTC. 2002. The Tourism Satellite Account Method of the World Travel and
Tourism Council. London: WTTC.
Wynne, Clive, Pierre Berthon, Leyland Pitt, Michael Ewing, and Julie Napoli.
2001. “The Impact of the Internet on the Distribution Value Chain: The
Case of the South African Tourism Industry.” International Marketing Review
18(4): 420–431.
Xue, Susan. 2005. “Internet Policy and Diffusion in China, Malaysia and
Singapore.” Journal of Information Science 31(3): 238–250.
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ylänne-Mcewen, Virpi. 2004. “Shifting Alignment and Negotiating Sociality in
Travel Agency Discourse.” Discourse Studies 6: 517–536.
Youn, Seounmi H. 2000. “The Dimensional Structure of Consumer Buying
Impulsivity: Measurement and Validation.” PhD Diss., University of
Minnesota.
Yu, Liangzhi. 2006. “Understanding Information Inequality: Making Sense of
the Literature of the Information and Digital Divides.” Journal of Librarian-
ship and Information Science 38(4): 229–252.
Yu, A. K. L., and Rob Law. 2000. The Application of eCommerce to Enhance the
Competitive Advantage of Hotels in Hong Kong. Barcelona: Springer Verlag.
Yun, Jin-Hyo, Sangmoon Park, and Mohan Avvari. 2011. “Development
and Social Diffusion of Technological Innovation: Cases Based on Mobile
Telecommunications in National Emergency Management.” Science Technology
Society 16: 215–234.
Zaichkowsky, Judith L. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal
of Consumer Research 12(3): 341–352.
Zappala, Salvatore, and Colin Gray. 2006. Impact of e-Commerce on Consumers
and Small Firms. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Zappala, Salvatore, and Guido Sarchielli. 2006. “Climate for Innovation, Attitude
to Internet and ICT Adoption in Small Firms.” In Impact of e-Commerce on
Consumers and Small Firms, edited by Salvatore Zappala, and Colin Gray,
35–50. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Zhou, Yuqiong. 2008. “Voluntary Adopters Versus Forced Adopters: Integrating
the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model
to Study Intra-organization Adoption.” New Media Society 10: 475.
Zhu, F., and X. Zhang. 2010. “Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales:
The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics.” Journal of
Marketing, 74(2): 133–148.
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Boston,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Zmud, Robert W. 1987. “An Empirical Investigation of the Dimensionality of
the Concept of Information.” Decision Sciences 9: 187–195.
 Index

A 169, 172, 173, 179, 182–184,

adoption, 1–3, 6, 12, 19–21, 27, 188
32, 35, 38, 39, 41–50, 54, 59,
64, 65, 90, 91, 97, 99, 100,
105–108, 111–117, 119, 121– C
124, 127, 130–133, 135, 146, Caribbean, 1, 3–5, 8–13, 32, 49, 53,
149, 151–154, 157, 159–165, 87, 98, 105, 120
167, 168, 170–174, 177–179, competition, 28, 32, 35, 37, 117,
182–187, 191, 192 137, 159, 167
advantage, 2, 7, 27, 28, 31, 35, 56, competitors, 18, 27, 66, 68, 90–92,
67, 68, 70, 91, 92, 95, 101, 103, 95, 97, 101, 103, 117
120, 141 culture, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22, 37, 40,
56–59, 71, 72, 107, 111–117,
120–124, 134, 140, 148, 149,
152, 159, 171, 181–183, 187,
B 188
Bahamas, 6, 8–10, 87, 88, 96, 118 customer, 8, 18, 29–32, 48, 50, 51,
business, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 22, 63, 87–91, 93, 97, 112–114,
27, 28, 30–33, 35, 49–51, 118, 122, 134, 135, 137, 162,
60–63, 68, 69, 88, 89, 93–95, 163, 180, 192, 193
97, 99, 100, 102–106, 108,
111, 113–115, 118, 119, 122,
123, 128, 130, 132, 135–137, D
139–141, 143–145, 148–152, development, 2, 6, 8, 21, 28, 29, 37,
154, 159, 162–164, 166, 168, 47, 55, 56, 87, 88, 95, 98, 101,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive 233
licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
A. Spencer, Technology Adoption in the Caribbean Tourism Industry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61584-0
234 INDEX

113, 120, 135, 143, 150, 155, I

157, 158, 172, 173, 186, 188, industry, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 28,
192 30, 34, 35, 51, 53, 54, 61, 64,
digital divide, 3, 4, 12, 15, 16, 19, 70, 87, 88, 93–95, 98, 101–103,
22, 23, 37, 52–56, 59, 71, 72, 105, 106, 120, 121, 123, 124,
107, 117–121, 123, 124, 149, 134, 136, 138, 139, 143, 150,
159, 171, 182, 183, 187, 188 158, 160, 165, 167, 169, 173,
distribution, 28–32, 35, 51, 57, 174, 181–183, 185–187
95–99, 102, 112, 113, 137, 150 influence, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, 21, 23,
divide, 53–55, 108, 119, 120, 123, 28, 34, 35, 37, 43, 45–48,
149, 183 53, 55, 56, 59–61, 63–66, 69,
71, 72, 90, 91, 93, 98–100,
103, 106, 112, 113, 115–117,
E 122–124, 128, 129, 134, 140,
154, 158, 160, 164, 170, 174,
economies, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 53,
178, 180–186, 188
87, 158
employees, 18, 66, 88, 91, 92, 99, Information and Communication
105, 106, 119, 122, 128–135, Technologies (ICT), 1, 3–7, 35,
138, 153, 164–168, 173, 180, 47, 49, 53, 56, 87, 88, 99, 120,
182 179, 187
experience, 3, 21, 36, 37, 43, 46, 88, innovation, 3, 6, 13, 17, 23, 38–41,
93, 94, 99, 105, 107, 111, 112, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54,
124, 133, 140, 143, 145, 148, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64–66, 72,
150–152, 162, 164, 166–169, 88, 91, 96, 99, 100, 107, 108,
173, 178–183, 185, 187 112, 114, 116, 117, 122, 123,
127, 128, 130, 131, 134, 135,
138, 149, 153, 158, 160, 161,
165, 166, 168, 172, 173, 179,
F 182–184, 186
firms, 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15–21, internet, 2, 3, 5–7, 10, 12, 19, 32,
27–29, 31–36, 48, 49, 54, 38, 40, 50–53, 56, 89–92, 94,
59–61, 63, 64, 66–72, 88–92, 97, 99, 100, 102, 113, 114, 118,
94–104, 106–108, 111–114, 122, 123, 133, 134, 136, 137,
116, 119–124, 129–131, 133– 140, 141, 143–146, 149, 151,
140, 143–146, 148–154, 157, 152, 158–163, 165–167, 169,
159–166, 168–174, 177–188 179, 183–185, 192

G
Global Distribution System (GDSs), J
2, 6, 19, 89, 91, 94, 98, 99, 101, Jamaica, 4–6, 8–11, 18, 87, 88, 94,
113, 161, 165, 184, 187 96, 98, 107, 113–115, 118–121
 INDEX 235

L 122, 129, 130, 132–141,

leader(s), 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 37, 40, 143, 145–154, 157, 159, 160,
41, 54, 59, 64–66, 72, 92, 93, 162–164, 179–182, 186
99–102, 104, 105, 111, 113,
114, 116, 117, 122, 124, 127–
129, 131–135, 137–139, 141, R
145, 148–154, 160, 164–172, resources, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22,
177, 180, 182, 185, 187 27, 30, 37, 38, 44, 48, 49,
leadership, 12, 15–17, 19–22, 27, 56, 62, 66–72, 90–92, 94,
37, 40, 44, 48, 56, 59, 61, 100–104, 106, 107, 119–121,
63–67, 70–72, 98, 99, 101, 123, 137–140, 149, 159, 161,
102, 104–107, 113, 115–117, 171, 181, 182
122–124, 127–129, 131, 133– risk, 10, 18, 21, 23, 57, 61, 63, 90,
135, 137–140, 143, 148, 149, 93, 94, 97, 101, 105, 137–140,
153, 154, 159–161, 163–165, 145–148, 151, 152, 164, 165,
168–174, 177–188 167–169, 173, 178–181, 185,
187

M
managed, 30, 31, 89, 98, 173, 185 S
manager(s), 37, 61, 62, 70, 92–94, small, 12–14, 16, 34, 40, 49, 61–63,
96, 97, 99, 101, 103–107, 71, 88, 92, 96, 98, 104, 105,
131–134, 137–139, 150, 152, 107, 131, 138, 139, 149,
162 152–154, 159, 160, 162–164,
169, 171–173, 184, 185, 187
small owner-managed, 52, 98–100,
N 105–107, 111, 121–124, 140,
national, 56–59, 111–117, 122, 123, 148, 154, 164, 173, 174, 179,
152, 159, 182 181–184, 187
strategy, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 23,
27–31, 33–35, 37, 40, 46, 48,
O 58, 60–63, 69–72, 90–100,
online, 4, 5, 19, 30, 34, 35, 48–50, 102–104, 106, 107, 111, 113,
52, 89, 90, 92–94, 97, 99, 123, 124, 135–138, 140, 143,
101, 104, 105, 107, 112, 113, 149, 159, 162, 166, 171–173,
115, 118–120, 122, 130, 133, 179, 181, 182
134, 136, 137, 141, 144–147,
151–153, 160–163, 169, 173,
178, 184, 185 T
owner, 17, 61, 63, 162, 169 technology adoption, 6, 12, 13, 15,
owner-managers, 18, 22, 57, 61, 16, 19–22, 27, 35–37, 43, 45,
63, 66, 71, 88–95, 97–101, 47, 48, 52, 53, 56, 59, 64,
104–107, 112, 113, 115–117, 65, 70–72, 94–96, 98, 100,
236 INDEX

104, 106–108, 114, 116, 118, tourism, 1, 4, 5, 8–10, 28, 32, 53, 58,
121–123, 127, 128, 133, 135, 87, 88, 120, 123, 143, 149, 150,
137, 139, 140, 144, 148–150, 159, 167, 168, 185, 186, 188
152–155, 157–161, 163–165, tourism strategy, 32, 143, 150
169–173, 177–188 travel, 2–5, 8–13, 15, 16, 18, 20,
technology(ies), 1–3, 6, 7, 9–11, 30–32, 51, 53, 64, 71, 88, 93,
13, 17, 18, 21, 38–41, 44–47, 94, 96, 98, 99, 103, 105, 107,
52, 54–56, 62, 67, 73, 88–94, 108, 113, 119, 120, 123, 124,
96–99, 101, 102, 105–107, 112, 139, 140, 143, 150, 153, 159,
114, 115, 117–119, 131, 136, 164, 166–168, 173, 181–183,
140, 141, 143, 149, 151, 158, 185–187
162, 164, 166–169, 172, 173, Trinidad and Tobago, 6, 8–10, 87,
178, 180, 182–185, 187 89, 96, 118