Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology Derrick J. Neufeld 1 , Linying Dong 2 and Chris Higgins 1 1 Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; 2 School of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Business, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Correspondence: Derrick J. Neufeld, Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond St., London, Ontario, Canada N6K 4E1 Tel.: 519 661 3258; Fax: 519 661 3485; E-mail: dneufeld@ivey.uwo.ca Received: 12 June 2006 Revised: 10 May 2007 Accepted: 22 July 2007 Abstract Although there is widespread agreement that leadership has important effects on information technology (IT) acceptance and use, relatively little empirical research to date has explored this phenomenon in detail. This paper integrates the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) with charismatic leadership theory, and examines the role of project champions influencing user adoption. PLS analysis of survey data collected from 209 employees in seven organizations that had engaged in a large-scale IT implementation revealed that project champion charisma was positively associated with increased performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating condition perceptions of users. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research in this area are provided. European Journal of Information Systems (2007) 16, 494–510. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000682 Keywords: unified theory of acceptance and use of technology; charismatic leadership theory; project champions; enterprise systems; implementation success; field survey; partial least squares Introduction IS implementation failure is a shockingly common outcome of organiza- tional information technology (IT) adoption efforts. Empirical studies have revealed that fewer than one-half of large-scale IT project initiatives ever come close to achieving the anticipated results (e.g., Whittaker, 1999; Standish Group International Inc., 2001). Many examples have been reported. Sobeys, the second largest supermarket chain in Canada, abandoned its U.S. $54 million project after a 2-year implementation effort failed (Mearian & Songini, 2002). Hershey’s experienced a flawed implementation of its $112 million enterprise system in 1999, which prevented the company from shipping candy orders during the critical Halloween season and led to a 35% drop in share value amidst a booming stock market (Laudon & Laudon, 2004). Telecom New Zealand gave up its customer sales and service project at a cost $58 million (Jackson, 1998). Foxmeyer Drug declared bankruptcy after investing $65 million in its enterprise system (Bulkeley, 1996). These examples are not isolated incidents. KPMG reported in 2003 that among 230 of the largest global companies they surveyed, 57% had to write off at least one IT project in the last 12 months. And of those firms experiencing a failure, only 41% were able to determine how much the failure had cost their organization (the average loss was U.S. $10.4 million) (KPMG, 2003). Meanwhile, annual IT expenditures have exceeded $1 trillion in the United States, and $2.5 trillion globally (Greenwald, 2004). European Journal of Information Systems (2007) 16, 494–510 & 2007 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/07 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis