The adoption of an organization-wide system, such as an enterprise system (ES), has often been mandated by organizational management, which may not necessarily motivate users to proactively explore the system's features and subsequently apply pertinent features that best support their job tasks. Anchoring on self-determination theory, this research investigates the antecedents and consequences of users' intrinsic motivation to explore ES features. We propose two organizational levers (i.e., autonomous job design and socialization tactics) that the management could exercise to trigger intrinsic motivation, thereby leading to improved ES feature exploration. Intrinsic motivation is manifested by hedonic motivation and normative motivation, whereas ES feature exploration is conceptualized as a dual-dimensional outcome reflected by cognitive behavior (exploratory usage) and positive affect (exploration satisfaction). Through a two-stage survey of 127 organizational users in China, we find general support for our research model. We further observe significant moderating effects of prevention focus on the association between organizational levers and intrinsic motivations. Beyond demonstrating how organizational users respond to different organizational levers, this research examines a broader, enduring challenge, which is to determine how organizational users can be induced to be intrinsically inspired to innovatively harness implemented information systems.
Group polarization is the tendency of people to become more extreme in their thinking following group discussion. It may be beneficial to some, but detrimental to other, organizational decisions. This study examines how computer-mediated communication (CMC) may be associated with group polarization. Two laboratory experiments were carried out. The first experiment, conducted in an identified setting, demonstrated that removal of verbal cues might not have reduced social presence sufficiently to impact group polarization, but removal of visual cues might have reduced social presence sufficiently to raise group polarization. Besides confirming the results of the first experiment, the second experiment showed that the provision of anonymity might also have reduced social presence sufficiently to raise group polarization. Analyses of process data from both experiments indicated that the reduction in social presence might have increased group polarization by causing people to generate more novel arguments and engage in more one-upmanship behavior. Collectively, process and outcome data from both experiments reveal how group polarization might be affected by level of social presence. Specifically, group discussion carried out in an unsupported setting or an identified face-to-face CMC setting tends to result in weaker group polarization. Conversely, group discussion conducted in an anonymous face-to-face CMC setting or a dispersed CMC setting (with or without anonymity) tends to lead to stronger group polarization. Implications of these results for further research and practice are provided.