Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

Effect of cognitive style and professional development on the initiation of radical and non-radical management accounting innovations
David Emsleya , Barbara Nevickyb , Graeme Harrisonb
b

School of Business, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, Australia Department of Accounting and Finance, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2105, Australia

Abstract This study examines the effects of adaptive/innovative cognitive style, and professional development on the initiation of radical and non-radical innovations by individual management accountants. Data are gathered through questionnaire and follow-up interviews with practising management accountants. The results show that management accountants with a more innovative (adaptive) cognitive style tend to initiate more (fewer) radical relative to non-radical innovations, and that this effect is amplied by professional development. The study has implications for research in management accounting innovation and for practice, including the importance of maintaining a balance of radical and non-radical innovations in organizations, and of professional development. Key words: Innovations; Cognitive style; Kirtons Adaption-Innovation Inventory; Professional development JEL classication: M40 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00165.x

1. Introduction Research into innovation has become increasingly important in recent years. Damanpour (1988) and Porter and Stern (2001) note that change affecting organizations is widespread and, to maintain competitiveness, organizations need to innovate to adapt to and preempt change. Innovation at an organizational level can trigger innovation at the management accounting level to ensure that accounting information remains relevant to employees changing needs (Chenhall and Langeld-Smith,
The authors greatly appreciate the helpful comments provided by two anonymous referees. Received 14 February 2005; accepted 1 June 2005 by Robert Faff (Editor).
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

244

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

1998). For example, the introduction of an organizational innovation such as total quality management to enhance employee empowerment requires innovation in management accounting systems to ensure that quality-related information is provided to those empowered employees. Research into organizational innovation has examined several determinants of innovativeness, including external environmental factors, such as competition and technology, and internal organizational factors, such as size, complexity, formalization and centralization, incentives and top management support (e.g. Damanpour (1992) and Rogers (1995) for innovation generally, and Libby and Waterhouse (1996), Chenhall and Langeld-Smith (1998), Shields (1995), Williams and Seaman (2001) and Baines and Langeld-Smith (2003) for innovation in management accounting). While signicant attention has been directed to these environmental and organizational determinants of innovativeness, this paper focuses on the importance of individuals to management accounting innovations. Such attention is important as the innovation literature consistently points to the signicance of the role of the individual. Daft (1978) argues that a certain individual (an idea champion) must exist who wants the innovation badly enough to carry it forward. This person must identify the innovation, translate it into a proposal and gain the support of organizational members if the innovation is to succeed. The importance of the idea champion is supported by Sch n (1963) who argues that a new idea either nds a champion or o dies, and Amabile (1988) who contends that individual creativity is the most crucial element of organizational innovation. Rogers (1995), Howell and Higgins (1990) and Scott and Bruce (1994) also reinforce the importance of the individual, noting that innovativeness cannot be understood without attention to the personal, as well as the environmental and organizational factors. These ndings in the literature are explored in management accounting settings by Brown et al. (2004), where the individual champion is seen as the most important of several factors in explaining the initiation and adoption of activity-based costing (ABC). However, having noted the importance of individual champions in management accounting innovations, we need to be able to elaborate on some of the factors that affect their innovative behaviour. Two factors are examined in the present study: the cognitive style of the individual management accountant and the extent of their professional development. The importance of cognitive style is drawn from the innovation and creativity literature (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Rogers, 1995; Janssen et al., 1998; Bobic et al., 1999; Simonton, 2000). Amabile (1988) identies three components of the individual that are important for organizational innovation: their creativity-relevant skills, domain-relevant skills and intrinsic task motivation, the rst of which relates to cognitive style. Howell and Higgins (1990) argue that individuals differ in their inherent innovativeness, predisposing some to promote innovations in organizations more than others. Scott and Bruce (1994) contend that, as the foundation of innovation is ideas, research into what enables individual innovative behaviour is critical and that such research should include

C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

245

cognitive style as an antecedent of innovative behaviour. And Simonton (2000) notes that psychologists have long been interested in differences in cognitive style that enable some people to display more creativity than others. Despite these arguments, little attention has been focussed on the cognitive style of the accountant in management accounting innovation research. The importance of professional development in affecting an individuals innovativeness is also drawn from the innovation and creativity literature. Daft (1978) suggests that new ideas are brought to an organization by experts who are interested in, and aware of, the new idea, and that greater exposure to professional development produces such interest and awareness. Amabile (1988) also captures professional development in her model of individual creativity through the domain-relevant skills component. These skills are an individuals raw materials for creative productivity, and comprise factual knowledge, technical skills and special talents in the domain, all of which are affected by professional development (Amabile, 1988). Simonton (2000) also provides evidence that creativity requires training and practice. He argues that creative individuals do not produce new ideas in a vacuum, but that those ideas arise from a broad set of developed skills and a rich body of domain-relevant knowledge. As management accountants are typically members of professional bodies, which mandate minimum levels of professional development activities for continued membership, studying the effect of professional development on innovative behaviour is well motivated from the innovation and creativity literature, but has received relatively little attention in existing research in management accounting. However, although examining cognitive style and professional development will enhance understanding the factors affecting management accounting innovations, it must be recognized that innovations are not all the same but differ in systematic ways. Innovations have long been regarded as differing in their radicalness in the management literature (Zaltman et al., 1973), and radicalness is also now being recognized as differentiating innovations in the management accounting literature (Burns and Scapens, 2000; Soin et al., 2002; Emsley, 2005). Radicalness refers to the degree of change in management accounting practices. Radical innovations are appropriate where new and different practices are needed to, say, complement a change in strategy, whereas non-radical innovations are more appropriate where the aim is to improve existing practices. Moreover, both radical and non-radical innovations might be required at the same time but to different parts of the management accounting system. The radicalism of innovations is relevant to this paper because it is expected that the factors that determine the introduction of radical innovations are different to those that affect the introduction of non-radical innovations. For example, Soin et al. (2002) suggest that a radical innovation might require more of an outward looking perspective compared to a non-radical innovation where an inward focus is more appropriate. The present paper explores why these outward and inward perspectives might be a function of both the cognitive style of management accountants and their professional development. These relationships are now examined in more detail.
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

246

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

2. Theory development and hypotheses formulation This section presents theory leading to the hypothesis of the relationship between cognitive style and professional development as they affect the innovative behaviour of management accountants, specically with respect to their initiation of radical and non-radical innovations. The management accounting literature relevant to the importance of radical and non-radical innovations is discussed later in this section. First, however, the cognitive style literature is discussed as it leads to the relationship with innovation generally and management accounting innovation in particular.

2.1. Cognitive style Cognitive style reects how individuals organize and process information with respect to creativity, problem-solving and decision-making processes (Kirton, 1994; Sadler-Smith and Badger, 1998). Kirton (1976) proposes that individuals have different styles of creativity, problem solving and decision-making. He contends that individuals can be located on a continuum ranging from those who have an ability to do things better, whom he denes as adaptors, to those who have an ability to do things differently, whom he calls innovators. Adaptors solve problems within existing paradigms, according to those paradigms agreed denitions and likely solutions. They examine problems in detail and proceed (to solutions) within the established mores (theories, policies, practices) of their organisations (Kirton, 1984). By contrast, innovators challenge existing paradigms. In solving a problem, innovators detach the problem from its cocoon of accepted thought (and) generate ideas likely to deviate from the norm (Kirton, 1994). Kirtons concept of the adaptor/innovator is built upon three constructs: originality, rule/group conformity and efciency. Originality is the preference for idea production, with innovators generating more original ideas than adaptors. Innovators are also less tolerant of rules and feel less restricted by existing organizational practices than adaptors. Innovators are also less likely to seek short-term efciency in solutions to problems, preferring to trade-off efciency for long-term effectiveness whereas adaptors prefer solutions that are short-term efcient. Kirton (1994) argues that these constructs combine to produce behaviour consistent with the adaptive/innovative cognitive styles, with the innovator style comprising higher levels of originality and lower levels of rule/group conformity and efciency than the adaptor style. Kirtons denition of an innovator is consistent with Amabile (1988) and Howell and Higgins (1990) with respect to the originality and rule/group conformity constructs. Amabile (1988) argues that creativity-relevant skills, which are necessary for individual innovativeness, include originality and rule/group conformity. An individual high on creativity approaches problems in a manner that leads to rule-breaking and novel ideas (originality), rather than by applying established rules and procedures. Absence of conformity in thinking is reected in exploring new cognitive pathways,
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

247

breaking mindsets and rejecting agreed decision and action scripts (Amabile, 1988). Similarly, Howell and Higgins (1990) argue that innovative individuals are less conforming, value creativity and originality, have more condence in their abilities and seek opportunities to test their ideas. These characteristics are consistent with Kirtons innovator who often challenges rules with little respect for past custom, tends to think tangentially, approaches tasks from unsuspected angles (Kirton, 1976), and will pursue novel ideas in spite of possible failure. By contrast, the efciency construct does not appear in the descriptions of either Amabile (1988) or Howell and Higgins (1990). 2.2. Propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations The evidence of Kirton (1976), Amabile (1988) and Howell and Higgins (1990) supports an expected relationship between an individuals cognitive style and innovative behaviour. However, the evidence does not suggest that innovators exhibit a greater tendency to initiate innovations per se; rather that individuals have different styles of creativity, problem solving and decision-making that affect their approach to innovation. As noted earlier, Kirtons adaptive/innovative cognitive style distinguishes individuals who do things better (adaptors) from those who do things differently (innovators). This suggests that the relation between adaptive/innovative cognitive style and innovativeness lies not in the amount or degree of innovativeness, with both adaptors and innovators having the ability to initiate innovations, but in the type of innovativeness towards which their cognitive style predisposes them. The management accounting literature increasingly recognizes different types of innovation as important because it raises the possibility that explanatory factors, such as cognitive style, may affect different types of innovations in different ways. One category of innovation that is seen as important in the management literature, and to which the adaptive/innovative cognitive style is relevant, is that of radical and non-radical innovations (Zaltman et al., 1973; Damanpour, 1988, 1991). As noted earlier, the radicalism of innovations has also attracted recent interest in the management accounting literature (Burns and Scapens, 2000; Soin et al., 2002; Emsley, 2005). Radicalism reects how different the innovation is to existing practices (Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997). Radical innovations produce fundamental changes in an organizations activities (such as introducing variance analysis or the balanced scorecard for the rst time), and represent signicant departures from existing practices. In contrast, non-radical (or incremental) innovations tend to reinforce the organizations current capabilities (such as making changes to an established system of variance analysis or balanced scorecard) and do not challenge existing practices (Damanpour, 1991). The theory presented here for an association between adaptive/innovative cognitive style and organizational innovativeness suggests that an innovator will be more inclined to initiate radical innovations that deviate from existing organizational practices and norms whereas an adaptor will be more inclined to initiate non-radical
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

248

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

innovations, which modify or rene existing practices. This gives rise to a proposition that has not been tested in the management accounting literature; namely, that management accountants who are more innovative than adaptive in cognitive style will initiate a greater number of radical relative to non-radical changes in management accounting practices. 2.3. Interaction between cognitive style and professional development As discussed earlier, professional development is argued to have a positive effect on the innovativeness of management accountants. It does so through their participation in professional development activities, which expose them to new ideas and increase their awareness of, and receptivity to, such ideas. Professional development activities also provide the necessary domain-relevant skills, knowledge and expertise to understand the technical aspects of a new idea and to see its advantages to their organization (Daft, 1978; Amabile, 1988; Simonton, 2000). Cognitive style and professional development are independent constructs, and it is unlikely that the former is affected by the latter as an individuals cognitive style is relatively stable across time and situation (Kirton, 1984; Clapp, 1993; Bobic et al., 1999; Sadler-Smith, 1999). However, cognitive style is likely to affect how an individual reacts to the material to which they are exposed in professional development. This argument comes from theoretical work on learning (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Moran, 1991; Clapp, 1993; Matthews, 1996; Sadler-Smith, 1999; Loo, 2002), which maintains that people have consistent ways of responding to learning stimuli that, in turn, are a product of their cognitive style. Cognitive style affects the manner in which people organize and process information, and this affects their learning style (Moran, 1991; Rayner, 2000; Loo, 2002). Rayner (2000) contends that individuals are continuously involved in building a repertoire of learning skills and strategies that is regulated by their cognitive style. Similarly, Kirton (1976, 1994) draws on Kolbs Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984) to note that the relationship between cognitive style and learning style is applicable to the management training context. With respect to the learning styles of adaptors and innovators, Kirton (1994) contends that adaptors learn in a detailed, sequential and linear mode, and nd it important that a theory has logical soundness. In contrast, innovators learn discontinuously, actively seek out new and challenging ideas, seek to change situations and are willing to take risks in doing so. These characteristics of preferred learning styles suggest that innovators and adaptors are likely to react differently to the stimuli and opportunities provided by professional development. Innovators are more likely to seek out professional development activities and forums that emphasize radical ideas and innovations. Plus, when presented with an activity or forum that provides exposure to both radical and non-radical innovations, an innovator is expected to be attracted and receptive to the radical. Attraction is consistent with their learning style attuned to new and challenging ideas, and receptivity is consistent with the discontinuity attribute of their learning style,
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

249

and their lesser concern with the risks associated with radical change. Hence, increasing exposure to professional development (bringing increasing exposure to a greater number of innovations, both radical and non-radical) is likely to result in innovators focusing on the radical more than the non-radical and, by extension, initiating a greater number of radical relative to non-radical innovations in their organizations. By contrast, adaptors are less likely to exhibit this behaviour because their learning styles are attuned more to ideas that are incremental, sequential and linear developments of their organizations existing practices, and that have an established t with those practices. As a result, adaptors are less likely to be attracted or receptive to new ideas that are radical. Because of their particular learning style, adaptors are more likely to see radical ideas as not tting with their organizations existing practices, and are more likely to look for reasons why the radical idea wont work, especially given that radical ideas are likely to be relatively untested for logical soundness and application. The theory presented in this section of the paper gives rise to the following hypothesis. Management accountants who are more innovative (adaptive) in cognitive style will initiate more radical relative to non-radical (non-radical relative to radical) management accounting innovations, and this propensity will increase with greater exposure to professional development. 3. Method Data were gathered through email or fax/mail survey questionnaire and a followup telephone or face-to-face interview with a sample of management accountants in organizations randomly selected from relevant business directories. Only rms with more than 400 employees were included to ensure the presence of the management accounting function. The aim was to sample management accountants with professional accounting qualications who were in positions to be able to initiate innovations. The sample was drawn from companies whose management accountants were primarily members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. Initial telephone contact was made with selected respondents to promote participation and ensure their professional status. To gain a high response rate, Dillmans (2000) techniques were followed, including using a short questionnaire that could be answered without the need for respondents to seek additional information, the promise of feedback and condentiality and multiple email, fax and telephone follow ups. The questionnaire was used to measure the independent variables of adaptive/innovative cognitive style and professional development, and the questionnaire plus the follow-up interviews were used to measure the dependent variable of management accountants propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations. At the follow-up interviews, especially the face-to-face ones, it was possible to appreciate the wide variety of situations in which management accountants work and it was noticeable that, in addition to satisfying the statutory accounting needs, many
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

250

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

management accountants stated that satisfying business unit managers information needs was a high priority (respondents often referred to unit managers as clients or customers). Consequently, even relatively recently qualied management accountants were often given signicant autonomy to pursue improvements so long as business unit managers needs were being met. 3.1. Adaptive/innovative cognitive style Adaptive/innovative cognitive style was measured using Kirtons (1976, 1984) Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI). Shown in Appendix I, the KAI is a 32-item, 5-point fully anchored Likert-type scale that comprises three constructs: originality, rule/group conformity and efciency. The originality dimension comprises 13 items, including items such as I feel happy to create rather than improve and I risk doing things differently. The rule/group conformity dimension comprises 12 items, including I (never) seek to bend or break the rules and I work without deviation in a prescribed way; and the efciency dimension comprises seven items including I work methodically and systematically and I impose strict order on matters within (my) own control. Anchors for all questions are Strongly agree = 1 and Strongly disagree = 5. Responses to the originality items were reverse scored so that a high (low) score on all three constructs indicate a more innovative (adaptive) cognitive style.1 Kirton (1976, 1984, 1994) and others (e.g. Clapp, 1993; Bobic et al., 1999) score the KAI by summing the responses to the 32 items to form a single continuum from highly adaptive to highly innovative cognitive style. Other studies have analyzed the three constructs separately (e.g. Kubes, 1998; Shiomi and Loo, 1999; Gelade, 2002) since the three constructs are theoretically independent. In this study, we rst analyze the data in its composite form and then for each of the three constructs, which is important to gain greater insight to the KAI. Recall from the theory section that the originality and rule/group conformity constructs were consistent with Amabile (1988) and Howell and Higgins (1990), but there was less support in those studies for the efciency construct. A principal component factor analysis was carried out on the 32 items, with analysis restricted to three factors based on the theoretical three-construct composition of the KAI. The three factors all had eigenvalues greater than 1 and, together, explained 40.5 per cent of the variance. With a varimax rotation, most of the items loaded strongly (dened by Kirton, 1976, as loadings 0.30) on the three factors in the expected manner. For factor 1 (originality), 11 of the 13 items comprising the originality
1 In this form, the KAI and its three constructs have been subjected to extensive psychometric testing. Its stability over time and age has been demonstrated by Kirton (1984), Clapp (1993) and Bobic et al. (1999), its test-retest and internal reliability have been demonstrated by Riley (1993), Kirton (1994) and Janssen et al. (1998) and its validity across different cultural and language settings by Tullett and Kirton (1995). Kirton (1976) has also demonstrated the KAIs independence from other personality constructs such as dogmatism, extraversion and inexibility.
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

251

component of the KAI loaded strongly; for factor 2 (rule/group conformity), 6 of the 12 items loaded strongly; whereas for factor 3 (efciency), 6 of the 7 items loaded similarly. Although the factor analysis did not precisely parallel Kirtons structure of the KAI, it was largely consistent and differences are likely to lie in the smaller sample size in the current study compared to Kirtons (1976) original sample size of 286 individuals. Items that did not load strongly (0.30) were excluded from the analysis.2 3.2. Professional development Professional development was measured as the number of years the management accountant had been a qualied member of a professional accounting association. These associations require a specic number of hours of structured professional development activity each year. The activities include conferences and professional development courses conducted by the associations or by accredited providers such as universities, and provide forums for participants to be exposed to new management accounting ideas and practices, and to acquire new or updated knowledge and skills. Hence, the longer the period of professional association membership, the more the accountant is required to take active part in structured professional development, meaning that the number of years of professional membership can serve as a proxy measure for professional development. 3.3. Propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations The dependent variable was management accountants propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations and was measured using the questionnaire and followup interviews. The questionnaire contained a list of 29 management accounting innovations and asked respondents to indicate which of the innovations they had personally initiated over the previous 2 years. The list (Appendix II) was drawn from recent surveys of management accounting practices (Barbera et al., 1999; Chenhall, 1999) and is consistent in approach with Williams and Seaman (2001), although the list of innovations was greater than in that study. Respondents were also given the opportunity to include any other innovations they had initiated (and approximately 10 per cent of respondents took up this opportunity). The questionnaire identied only the innovations a respondent had initiated, and was not used to classify the innovations as radical or non-radical. This classication was subsequently made by the researcher through the follow-up interviews, which were conducted with each respondent following receipt of the completed uestionnaire. The interview had two objectives: to conrm that the respondent had initiated the
2 The observed range, mean and Cronbach alpha of the 32-item scale in this study was consistent with other applications of the instrument in small sample contexts (e.g. Riley, 1993; Janssen et al., 1998).
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

252

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

change and to enable the researcher to classify it as radical or non-radical. Classifying a change required taking account of the context in which it occurred because a change cannot be classied as radical or non-radical in absolute terms but only in its relationship to, or effect on, the adopting organization (Rogers, 1995). Classication was necessarily the subjective interpretation of the researcher. However, to provide consistency, a three-stage interview protocol developed by Emsley (2005) was used. First, the respondent was asked to talk freely about each change they had initiated. In most instances, this allowed a relatively clear indication of whether the change was new, or different from previous management accounting practices (classied as a radical innovation), or whether it was a renement or improvement of an existing practice (classied as a non-radical innovation). The following comment from a respondent illustrates a change that the researcher classied as radical. We have just introduced a new CRM (Customer Relationship Management) plus integrated nancial system as a result of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and as a result we have been able to calculate customer protability for the rst time. This was classied as radical because the respondent talked about calculating customer protability for the rst time and was able to give a reason for it (as a result of introducing ERP). Where a clear determination was not possible, the second stage of the protocol was invoked. Here, the respondent was provided with the example of ABC, a commonly known but still relatively recent practice. The researcher stated that ABC could be a new practice that signicantly altered the organizations costing systems; or ABC could have been in place as a costing system for some time but recent changes may have been made, say, to the activity drivers. This example allowed respondents to discuss the innovation they had initiated in a similar context and allowed the researcher to classify the change as radical (a new practice) or non-radical (renement of an existing practice). The rst and second stages of the protocol used open questions from which the researcher classied the innovations, rather than closed questions that would have placed the classication onus on the respondent with consequent concerns of selfrepresentational bias. To guard against researcher bias, respondents answers to the KAI personality instrument were set aside before the interviews so that the researcher was unaware of the respondents KAI proles during the interviews. To test the validity and reliability of the classications, a second coder was used on a subset of the respondents and no signicant inconsistencies emerged. The third and nal stage of the protocol asked respondents directly to what degree (a lot or a little) they considered the change to be radically different from what had been done before. This third stage was only needed once. Further comfort that respondent bias did not affect the classication was that almost all respondents classied a range of both radical and non-radical innovations, irrespective of their KAI score. Finally, to guard against common method bias and demand characteristics, there was a time lag between the questionnaire returns and the interviews. Although that lag was typically only a week, the many activities that would have intervened
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

253

for the respondents in their busy work environments over that time would have minimized their recollection of their responses to the questionnaire. Moreover, during the interviews, respondents were only broadly aware of what the research was about and did not know that it was concerned with radical and non-radical innovations. The propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations was measured as the proportion of total innovations initiated by the individual that were classied as radical, resulting in a score ranging from 1 to 0, where 1 represents situations in which only radical innovations are initiated, a score of 0.50 represents an even split of innovations and a score of 0 represents only non-radical innovations. This is consistent with the measure of adaptive/innovative cognitive style, which focuses on an individuals style rather than level of innovation, and allows testing of the hypothesis relating cognitive style to the initiation of radical and non-radical changes. 4. Results Fifty-one questionnaires were distributed, with 44 returned for a response rate of 86 per cent. Three were removed for incomplete data or for failure to take part in the interview. Consequently, 41 individual management accountants completed questionnaires and were subsequently interviewed. Although this might be a small sample size by mail survey standards, personal interview studies are extremely timeconsuming and this sample size is not only consistent with studies using a similar method (e.g. Gordon and Narayanan, 1984) but also sufcient to support statistical analysis. Greater effort was directed to ensuring a high response rate among the randomly selected respondents, as this was considered more important than a higher number of responses but a lower response rate. 4.1. Descriptive statistics The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. The propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations, measured by the number of radical to total innovations initiated, has a mean of 0.498 and a range of 1 (more innovative) to 0 (more adaptive), suggesting that the sample is not overly represented by a particular type of change and provided a spread of both innovators and adaptors. Professional development, measured as years of professional association membership, ranges from 2 to 26 with a mean of 8. The descriptive statistics for the KAI are reported in its composite form as well as for each of the three constructs (originality, rule/group conformity and efciency). A reasonable range for all constructs is observed as well as consistency between the mean and median. 4.2. Correlation matrix The correlation matrix is presented in Table 2 and can be used to test the rst part of the hypothesis; namely, the effect that KAI has on the propensity to initiate
C The Authors Journal compilation C

2006 AFAANZ

254

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

Table 1 Descriptive statistics Variable Mean Median SD Observed range Minimum Propensity to initiate radical/non-radical innovations Professional development KAI Originality Rule/group conformity Efciency 0.498 0.5 0.228 0 Maximum 1 Theoretical range Minimum 0 Maximum 1

8.000 75.880 40.415 18.195 17.268

7 74 40 18 17

5.495 9.110 5.000 2.442 4.439

2 54 28 13 8

26 100 54 24 29

0 23 11 6 6

NA 115 55 30 30

KAI, Kirtons Adaption-Innovation Inventory; NA, not applicable.

Table 2 Correlation matrix for dependent and independent variables Variable Professional development 0.353 KAI 0.386 0.242 Originality 0.357 0.040 0.794 Rule/group conformity 0.447 0.360 0.754 0.479 Efciency

Propensity to initiate radical/non-radical innovations Professional development KAI Originality Rule/group conformity

0.145 0.254 0.742 0.240 0.459

Signicant at the 5 per cent level. Signicant at the 1 per cent level. KAI, Kirtons Adaption-Innovation

Inventory.

radical and non-radical innovations. A signicant and positive correlation between propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations and KAI provides support for this part of the hypothesis (r = 0.386, p < 0.05). In addition, there are signicant correlations between the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations and the originality construct (r = 0.357, p < 0.05) and the rule/group conformity construct (r = 0.447, p < 0.01) of KAI, but not the efciency construct (r = 0.145, p > 0.05). These correlations provide empirical justication for breaking the KAI into the three constructs because they show that not all three constructs have the same association with propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations. For years of professional development, only the rule/group conformity construct was signicantly correlated, and not at a level at which multicollinearity might be considered a problem (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). These correlations support the independence of professional development and cognitive style. In terms of regression
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

255

analysis that is used in the next section to test the moderating effect of professional development on the relationship between KAI and innovative behaviour, the relevant residual plots and plots of residuals against tted values provided evidence that the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and linearity were met. 4.3. Regression analysis Regression analysis was used to test the second part of the hypothesis that examines the interaction effect of professional development on the relation between KAI and innovative behaviour. The KAI was initially tested in its composite form combining the three constructs of originality, rule/group conformity and efciency. Subsequently, each of the three constructs was analyzed separately, meaning that four regressions were run in total. The hypothesis stated that management accountants who are more innovative (adaptive) in cognitive style will initiate relatively more radical to nonradical (non-radical to radical) management accounting innovations, and that this propensity will increase with greater exposure to professional development. The hypothesis was tested with the regression model given as equation (1) using a onetailed, 5 per cent level of signicance. Y = b0 + b1 K + b2 P + b3 K P + e where Y = innovative behaviour measured by the proportion of innovations that were radical; K = the KAI in composite form as well as the three constructs of originality, rule/group conformity and efciency; P = professional development measured by number of years of professional association membership; K P = interaction of the KAI (in composite form as well as the three constructs of originality, rule/group conformity and efciency) and professional development, computed as the product of the two terms. To determine if there is a moderating effect of professional development on the relation between KAI and innovative behaviour, the analysis undertaken is similar to that established in previous contingency studies (e.g. Dunk, 1992) bearing in mind potential concerns with the method (Hartmann and Moers, 1999). To test whether the moderating effect of professional development is signicant, the sign and signicance of the interaction term, b 3 needs to be examined. A positive and signicant b 3 coefcient indicates that a relatively higher (lower) KAI score is associated with an increasing number of radical to non-radical innovations (non-radical to radical innovations) and that this increases for greater levels of professional development. The rst regression used the composite score for all three constructs as a single variable to estimate equation (1) with results presented in Table 3. The coefcient of the interaction term, b 3 , is positive and signicant (t = 2.38, p = 0.012), indicating
C The Authors Journal compilation

(1)

2006 AFAANZ

256

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

Table 3 Regression of the interaction between the KAI and professional development on the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations Variable Constant KAI composite Professional development Interaction Coefcient b0 b1 b2 b3 Value 0.715 0.004 0.150 0.002 SE 0.464 0.006 0.068 0.000 t 1.54 0.67 2.20 2.38 p 0.066 0.254 0.017 0.012

R2 = 32.4%, adjusted R2 = 26.9%, n = 41, F 3,37 = 5.92, p = 0.002. KAI, Kirtons Adaption-Innovation Inventory.

that the number of radical (to non-radical) management accounting changes initiated by an individual is conditional upon the interaction between adaptive/innovative cognitive style (KAI) and professional development. The adjusted R2 indicates that the interaction model explains 26.9 per cent of the variation in the dependent variable, propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations. The second, third and fourth regressions used the originality, rule/group conformity and efciency constructs of the KAI, respectively, to estimate equation (1), with results presented in Table 4. Panels A and B report regression results for the originality and rule/group conformity constructs, respectively. The coefcients of the interaction terms, b 3 , are positive and signicant in both regressions (t = 2.32, p = 0.013 for the originality regression and t = 1.86, p = 0.036 for the rule/group conformity regression). These results indicate that the number of radical (relative to non-radical) management accounting changes initiated by an individual is conditional on the interaction between: (i) the originality dimension of KAI and professional development; and (ii) the rule/group conformity dimension of KAI and professional development. The adjusted R2 s indicate that the originality and rule/group conformity interaction models explain 28.5% and 25.1%, respectively, of the variance in the dependent variable. Panel C of Table 4 reports regression results for the efciency construct. The coefcient of the interaction term, b 3 , is positive but not signicant (t = 0.50, p = 0.312), indicating that the number of radical (relative to non-radical) management accounting changes initiated by an individual is not conditional upon the interaction between the efciency dimension of cognitive style (KAI) and professional development. The adusted R2 indicates that the interaction model explains only 6.4 per cent of the variation in the dependent variable, the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations. 5. Summary and conclusions The results of the study provide broad support for our expectations. First, it was found that adaptive/innovative cognitive style, as measured by KAI, affects the
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

257

Table 4 Regression of the interaction between each of the three constructs of KAI and professional development on the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations Variable Coefcient Value SE t p

Panel A: Regression for the KAI originality constructa Constant b0 0.054 Originality b1 0.009 Professional development b2 0.077 Interaction b3 0.005 Panel B: Regression for the KAI rule/group conformity constructb Constant b0 0.662 Rule/group conformity b1 0.012 Professional development b2 0.125 Interaction b3 0.007 Panel C: Regression for the KAI efciency constructc Constant b0 0.444 Efciency b1 0.004 Professional development b2 0.003 Interaction b3 0.000
a R2

0.282 0.007 0.039 0.002 0.521 0.028 0.072 0.040 0.263 0.016 0.395 0.002

0.19 1.41 1.94 2.32 1.27 0.43 1.73 1.86 1.96 0.24 0.09 0.50

0.426 0.084 0.030 0.013 0.106 0.337 0.047 0.036 0.049 0.408 0.465 0.312

= 33.9%, adjusted R2 = 28.5%, n = 41, F 3,37 = 6.32, p = 0.001. b R2 = 30.7%, adjusted R2 = 25.1%, n = 41, F 3,37 = 5.46, p = 0.003. c R2 = 13.4%, adjusted R2 = 6.4%, n = 41, F 3,37 = 1.91, p = 0.145.

propensity of management accountants to initiate radical and non-radical innovations. When examining each of the three constructs of the KAI separately, the results were strongest for originality and rule/group conformity, which were both positively and signicantly correlated with the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations. In contrast, the efciency construct was positively, but not signicantly, correlated. Consequently, management accountants who are innovators (on the originality and rule/group conformity constructs) have a cognitive style that predisposes them to initiate more radical to non-radical management accounting changes. In contrast, management accountants who are adaptors (on the originality and rule/group conformity constructs) have a cognitive style that predisposes them to initiate fewer radical to non-radical changes. Second, it was found that adaptive/innovative cognitive style and professional development interact. However, again, when examining the three constructs separately, the results were signicant for originality and rule/group conformity but not for efciency. That is, management accountants who are innovators (on the originality and rule/group conformity constructs) initiate more radical to non-radical changes with increasing exposure to professional development. For management accountants who are adaptors (on the originality and rule/group conformity constructs), increasing exposure to professional development is associated with initiation of fewer radical to non-radical management accounting changes. As the different constructs of the KAI seem to have different effects on innovation, further discussion of these separate effects is warranted.
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

258

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

Radical innovations occur when novel ideas are introduced into the organization. This requires the presence of an individual who has the propensity to initiate such ideas, a propensity that is clearly related to the originality construct of the KAI. As radical ideas, by denition, come from outside the organization, exposure to original ideas through professional development activities is likely to magnify this cognitive style effect because these activities provide a database of ideas existing outside the organization from which the individual might choose. An individual who is high on the originality construct of the KAI cognitive style is predisposed to seek out, and be attuned to, those ideas that are novel and original, as well as be inclined to initiate them in their own organization. With regard to rule/group conformity, radical innovations involve challenging existing practices and require abandonment of conformity to paradigms underlying those practices. Consequently, individuals whose cognitive style tends away from rule/group conformity are more predisposed to radical innovations that challenge and change those paradigms. By contrast, individuals whose cognitive style tends towards rule/group conformity are more predisposed to innovations that t within paradigms that are consistent with existing organizational practices. Again, exposure to professional development amplies these predispositions, as individuals who do not feel the necessity to conform will participate in activities that tend away from and challenge rule/group norms. In contrast, those who conform to rule/group norms are likely to seek out and be attuned to professional development activities (or ideas presented within those activities) that are consistent with those norms. However, while rule/group conformity and originality are intuitively appealing as constructs of an individuals innovativeness, the argument for efciency is less compelling. Kirton (1994) argues that adaptors prefer solutions to problems that are short-term efcient, whereas innovators prefer solutions that are long-term effective. It is not intuitively obvious that this distinction translates to preferences for radical and non-radical innovations. Individuals who are otherwise predisposed to initiate radical changes might well be concerned with efciency, as a stimulus for change, as much as individuals predisposed to initiate non-radical changes. Additionally, there appears to be no reason why innovators are less efcient than adaptors, or that being efcient is an inhibitor on propensity to initiate radical changes. Similarly, individuals predisposed to non-radical innovations could well be concerned with long-term effectiveness as a criterion for non-radical change. It was noted earlier that while originality and rule/group conformity are components of Amabiles (1988) and Howell and Higgins (1990) models of individual creativity, efciency is not. This study lends support to the lesser relevance of efciency in the context of individual innovativeness, at least relative to the other two constructs. 5.1. Contributions and implications of the study The present study contributes to the published literature on management accounting innovation and has several practical implications. With respect to the literature, the
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

259

present study provides insight into the critical, yet relatively underresearched, role of the individual management accountant in the process of management accounting change. Specically, the present study shows the importance of two factors that affect management accountants innovative behaviour: adaptive/innovative cognitive style and professional development. Moreover, the present study suggests that only two of the three constructs of the KAI measure of cognitive style seem to be important; namely, originality and rule/group conformity. With respect to practical implications, the ndings indicate that management accountants who possess an innovative cognitive style are more likely to initiate radical changes to the practices of their organizations. They are more likely to initiate the ground-breaking innovations that challenge and change existing practices. It might, therefore, be argued that organizations should aim to recruit management accountants with an innovative cognitive style (and use a psychometric instrument such as the KAI to do so). However, a more balanced interpretation of the results is that organizations should seek a mix of adaptors and innovators. Individuals with different cognitive styles bring different strengths and perspectives to innovation. Therefore, maintaining a balance of innovators and adaptors in the management accounting function is important in providing a commensurate balance between radical and non-radical changes to accounting practices. Nonetheless, the organization needs to know which is which; that is, which are innovators and which are adaptors for recruitment and task assignment. If a radical innovation is required, recruiting and/or assigning an accountant whose cognitive style predisposes them to non-radical innovations might be counterproductive, because they might seek to introduce a non-radical innovation where a radical one is needed, display a lack of interest in the radical innovation, or worse, take steps to actively resist a radical innovation. Knowledge of innovators and adaptors might also be useful for development purposes whereby professional development activities are scheduled bearing in mind the needs of the organization and the predisposition of management accountants to radical and non-radical innovations. 5.2. Limitations of the present study First, the present study relies on cross-sectional survey data; hence, whereas the theory in the paper asserts causality, the analysis only allows associational statements. Second, the study focused only on the initiation stage of innovation. This stage is important in its own right, and particularly so given that the adaptive/innovative cognitive style is likely to be most relevant at this stage. However, initiation is only one of a number of stages of adoption, implementation and routinization of innovation (Krumwiede, 1998), and the study must be seen in that light. A third limitation is that professional development was not measured directly but proxied by number of years of membership of a professional accounting association. Other factors such as age might be correlated with this proxy measure, and if age is also related to seniority, it might be organizational inuence through seniority, rather than professional development that enables older management accountants to initiate
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

260

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

more of their preferred type of innovation. However, a counterargument is that, with increasing age, individuals become xed in their ways, which, in turn, might stultify the initiation of innovations. In contrast, the effect of increasing professional development on initiating innovations is less ambiguous and is only likely to positively affect initiation. Simonton (2000) points out that certain factors operate to maintain creative output through ones life, the most likely of which is the accumulation of domain skills and expertise, and that this effect is likely to be more crucial for creative work in some domains than others. Amabile (1996) also argues that a professional domain, such as management accounting, requires a greater level of professional development than others (such as the creative arts) to achieve a similar level of creativity. These arguments suggest that age is unlikely to confound our results because the correlate of age most likely to inuence accountants innovativeness is, in fact, professional development, which is, itself, a focal variable of the present study. 5.3. Suggestions for further research The eld of innovation and creativity research is vast and complex, and interwoven with a variety of factors that might affect individual innovativeness. We have captured only two of those factors, providing much scope for future research. Amabile (1988), for example, includes intrinsic task motivation as an additional component in her model of individual creativity. She contends that no amount of domain skill can compensate for a lack of intrinsic motivation. Indeed, it might be argued that, to some extent, a high degree of motivation might compensate for a deciency of skills or a particular cognitive style. Future research could incorporate intrinsic task motivation into the interaction model tested in the present study to examine its effect on individuals innovative behaviour. Second, as noted earlier, the present study was restricted to initiation of innovations. Future research could examine the effect of adaptive/innovative cognitive style and professional development on subsequent stages of innovation adoption, including persuasion, implementation and routinization. Research could examine whether individuals with different adaptor/innovator cognitive styles exhibit different strengths and weaknesses at stages subsequent to initiation. Third, the measure of professional development could be improved by using a more direct measure. Although professional bodies mandate a minimum number of hours of professional development, this obligation can be fullled in different ways including committee work as well as conference attendance, and these activities are likely to have different effects on innovative behaviour. In addition, management accountants might attend non-management accounting activities and might do more than the minimum number of hours mandated. Taking these factors into account would result in an improved measure of professional development. Finally, different research methods provide opportunities for future research in this area. Although the current survey study is able to assert causality only through theory,
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

261

it is feasible that an experiment could be constructed to test causality empirically. This would necessitate prior measurement of subjects adaptor/innovator cognitive style and professional development, but could then involve a problem-based experimental task designed to allow opportunities for radical or non-radical solutions to the problem to test subjects innovative behaviour. Such an experiment would, itself, require creativity, but would provide stronger support for causality.

Appendix I Kirtons Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI)

Originality I stimulate new ideas I proliferate new ideas I can cope with several new ideas at the same time I always think of something when stuck I feel happy to create rather than improve I provide fresh perspectives on old problems I risk doing things differently I like to vary set routines at a moments notice I prefer to work on one problem at a time I feel able to disagree within a group I need the stimulation of frequent change I prefer change to occur gradually I have original ideas Rule/group conformity I t readily into the system I conform to the system I readily agree with the team at work I seek to bend or break the rules I act without proper authority I like the protection of precise instructions I believe I am predictable I prefer colleagues who never rock the boat I like bosses and work patterns to be consistent I work without deviation in a prescribed way I hold back on ideas until they are obviously needed I believe I am prudent when dealing with authority Efciency I complete tasks thoroughly I master the details of tasks painstakingly I work methodically and systematically I enjoy detailed work I regard myself as a steady plodder I believe myself to be consistent I impose strict order on matters within own control

C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

262

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

Appendix II Management accounting innovations

Month-end reporting Year-end and annual reporting Budget setting processes Outsourcing (contracting out) accounting activities Benchmarking activities (within your organization) Benchmarking activities (outside your organization) Business process reengineering exercises Changes to the way capital expenditure is evaluated Product protability analysis Activity-based costing (ABC) Activity-based management (ABM) Product life cycle costing Developing balanced scorecards Use of key performance indicators (KPIs) Introducing integrated database systems (e.g. SAP) Continuous improvement programs Kaizen costing Changes to variance analysis Changes to responsibility accounting Strategic management accounting initiatives Use of economic value added (EVA) Use of market value added (MVA) Customer protability analysis Backush costing Value chain analysis Competitor costing Customer lifetime valuation Developing closer working relationships with the users of management accounting information Increasing the emphasis on team-based work within the accounting department

References
Amabile, T. M., 1988, A model of creativity and innovation in organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior 10, 123167. Baines, A., and K. Langeld-Smith, 2003, Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, 675698. Barbera, M., J. Baxter, and W. Birkett, 1999, Innovative Management Accounting: Insights from Practice (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney). Bobic, M., E. Davis, and R. Cunningham, 1999, The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, Review of Public Personnel Administration 19, 1831. Brown, D. A., P. Booth, and F. Giacobbe, 2004, Technological and organizational inuences on the adoption of activity-based costing in Australia, Accounting and Finance 44, 329 356. Burns, J., and R. W. Scapens, 2000, Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework, Management Accounting Research 11, 325.
C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

263

Chenhall, R., 1999, Contemporary developments in Australian management accounting, Australian CPA 69, 35 (Insert). Chenhall, R., and K. Langeld-Smith, 1998, Adoption and benets of management accounting practices: an Australian study, Management Accounting Research 9, 119. Clapp, R. G., 1993, Stability of cognitive style in adults and some implications: a longitudinal study of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, Psychological Reports 73, 1235 1245. Daft, R. L., 1978, A dual-core model of organizational innovation, Academy of Management Journal 21, 193210. Damanpour, F., 1988, Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process, Communication Research 15, 545567. Damanpour, F., 1991, Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal 34, 555590. Damanpour, F., 1992, Organizational size and innovation, Organization Studies 13, 375402. Dillman, D. A., 2000, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (Wiley, New York). Dunk, A. S., 1992, Reliance on budgetary control, manufacturing process automation and production sub-unit performance: a research note, Accounting, Organizations and Society 17, 195203. Emsley, D., 2005, Restructuring the management accounting function: a note on the effect of role involvement in innovativeness, Management Accounting Research 16, 157177. Gelade, G. A., 2002, Creative style, personality and artistic endeavor, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 128, 213234. Gopalakrishnan, S., and F. Damanpour, 1997, A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management, Omega 25, 1528. Gordon, L. A., and V. K. Narayanan, 1984, Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organizational structure: an empirical investigation, Accounting, Organizations and Society 9, 3347. Hartmann, F. G. H., and F. Moers, 1999, Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: an evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis, Accounting, Organizations and Society 24, 291315. Howell, J. M., and C. A. Higgins, 1990, Champions of technological innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 317341. Janssen, O., de Vries, T., and A. J. Cozijnsen, 1998, Voicing by adapting and innovating employees: an empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voice behaviour, Human Relations 51, 945967. Kirton, M. J., 1976, Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure, Journal of Applied Psychology 61, 622629. Kirton, M. J., 1984, Adaptors and innovators: why new initiatives get blocked, Long Range Planning 17, 137143. Kirton, M. J., 1994, Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving (Routledge, London). Kolb, D. A., 1984, Experiential Learning (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Krumwiede, K. R., 1998, The implementation stages of activity based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors, Journal of Management Accounting Research 10, 239277. Kubes, M., 1998, Adaptors and innovators in Slovakia: cognitive style and social culture, European Journal of Personality 12, 187198. Libby, T., and J. H. Waterhouse, 1996, Predicting change in management accounting systems, Journal of Management Accounting Research 8, 137151. Loo, R., 2002, A meta-analytic examination of Kolbs learning style preferences among business majors, Journal of Education for Business 77, 252256.

C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ

264

D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243264

Matthews, D. B., 1996, An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students, Clearing House 69, 249254. Moran, A., 1991, What can learning styles research learn from cognitive psychology?, Educational Psychology 11, 239245. Porter, M. E., and S. Stern, 2001, Innovation: location matters, MIT Sloan Management Review 42, 2837. Rayner, S. G., 2000, Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: proling learning performance, in: R. J. Riding and S. G. Rayner, eds., International Perspectives on Individual Differences (Ablex Publishing Corporation, Stamford), 115177. Riley, M., 1993, Organization and creativity: a replication of the KAI test, Journal of Managerial Psychology 8, 6, iiv. Rogers, E. M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations (The Free Press, New York). Sadler-Smith, E., 1999, Intuition-analysis cognitive style and learning preferences of business and management students: a UK exploratory study, Journal of Managerial Psychology 14, 2638. Sadler-Smith, E., and B. Badger, 1998, Cognitive style, learning and innovation, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10, 247265. Sch n, D. A., 1963, Champions for radical new inventions, Harvard Business Review 41, o 7786. Scott, S. G., and R. A. Bruce, 1994, Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace, Academy of Management Journal 37, 580608. Shields, M. D., 1995, An empirical analysis of rms implementation experiences with ABC, Journal of Management Accounting Research Fall, 148166. Shiomi, K., and R. Loo, 1999, Cross-cultural response styles on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, Social Behavior and Personality 27, 413420. Simonton, D. K., 2000, Creativity: cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects, American Psychologist January, 151158. Soin, K., W. Seal, and J. Cullen, 2002, ABC and organizational change: an institutional perspective, Management Accounting Research 13, 249271. Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell, 2001, Using Multivariate Statistics (Allyn and Bacon, Boston). Tullett, A. D., and M. J. Kirton, 1995, Further evidence for the independence of AdaptiveInnovative (A-I) cognitive style from national culture, Personality and Individual Differences 19, 393396. Williams, J. J., and A. E. Seaman, 2001, Predicting change in management accounting systems: national culture and industry effects, Accounting, Organizations and Society 26, 443460. Zaltman, G., R. Duncan, and J. Holbek, 1973, Innovations and Organizations (Wiley, New York).

C The Authors Journal compilation

2006 AFAANZ