Symposium: Organizations and Technology

Organization Structure^ Individual

Attitudes and Innovation

ION L PIERCE
University of Minnesota-Duluth
ANDRE L DELBECQ
University of Wisconsin - Madison

Innovation (the initiation, adoption and implementation of new ideas

or activity in an organizational setting) is reviewed in terms of organi-
zation context, structure, and member attitudes. A series of proposi-
tions and three predictive models are derived and presented as direc-
tions for future research and theory construction.

During the past two decades a number of chological approaches have focused on value
theoretical models of organizational innovation orientations of elites (27), personality characteris-
have appeared in the literature. Organization so- tics of organization members, and the concomi-
ciology has examined the contextual and struc- tant group and organizational settings which
tural attributes of the innovation producing and stimulate creative behavior (13, 50). Economic
innovation resisting organization (25, 46, 48). Psy- models of organizational innovation have fo-
cused on size, market competition, resources,
Jon L. Pierce (M.S. — University of Wisconsin-Madison) is As- and organizational slack (15, 35). Organizations
sistant Professor of Organization Theory and Behavior at the have also been cast as political systems within
University of Minnesota - Duluth, and a doctoral candidate which innovation is the consequence of conflict
in the Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin- and bargaining activities (52).
Madison.
These diverse conceptualizations of organi-
Andre L. Delbecq (D.B.A. — Indiana University) is Professor zational innovation suggest that innovation with-
of Management in the Graduate School of Business, Univer- in an organization is a complex, multiphased ac-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison. tivity, moving from initiation to adoption and
Received 2/27/76; Accepted 3/30/76; Revised 5/18/76. implementation. Each phase occurs at a different
27
28 Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation

period of time. Certain organizational configura- something new into the organizational context.
tions and attitudinal orientations of strategic de- Knight, employing the term adoption, looks
cision makers result in variations in innovative- upon innovation as a step beyond the concep-
ness. Successful completion of each phase seems tion of a new idea. Innovation represents the ap-
to call for different attitudes, decision strategies, plication of a change which is "new to an organi-
contextual and structural conditions. zation and to the relevant environment" (32, p.
This article presents a predictive concept of 478). The significance of identifying the "rele-
organizational innovation by identifying several vant environment" in Knight's conceptualization
testable propositions. of innovation is to note that changes qualify as
organizational innovations even though they
Innovation have been used in other task environments and/
or organizations. Shepard (46) sees innovation
Change, innovation, invention, creative be- when an organization enacts in a sustained man-
havior, and adaptation have on some occasions ner something that it did not know how to do
gone undefined, and on others have been de- before, or when it ceases to do something that it
fined and interchangeably used. A brief review has done in a sustained way.
of the literature illustrates the range of defini- As seen from this sample, innovation has
tions and divergence in conceptualizations of been diversely conceptualized with definitions
innovation. including: (a) the first use ever of an idea, with
Barnett (5) defines innovation as the inven- subsequent usage being referred to as imitation
tion of something new. Carroll (11) sees innova- (35); (b) the first use of an idea, product or serv-
tion as a social process of organizational adop- ice in organizations with similar goals (8); and (c)
tion in contrast to a scientific discovery. In this the first use by the focal organization (21, 32, 37).
view organizational innovation represents a ma- In summary, it seems useful and consistent
jor change in the structure and/or procedures to follow the tradition of Thompson (48) and de-
(behavior) of an operating system. Mansfield (35) fine innovation as the generation, acceptance
refines the notion of incorporation of an idea and implementation of new processes, products,
within an organization and distinguishes be- or services for the first time within an organiza-
tween innovation and imitation. Innovation rep- tion setting. This definition recognizes that the
resents an organization's "first use ever" of a new process of incorporating something new within
product, service, process, or idea. Subsequent any given organization can represent a strategic
usage by other social systems is imitation. effort for that organization, regardless of wheth-
Becker and Whisler (8) also focus on inno- er other industries or organizations have already
vation as an organizational or social process. To proceeded through that process. The definition
them innovation is a process that follows inven- also recognizes that innovation is a multiphased
tion, being separate from invention in time. In- process, not a single event occurring at a single
vention is the creative act, while innovation is the point of time.
first or early employment of an idea by one or- Some students of organizational innovation
ganization or a set of organizations with similar have focused upon innovation as the culmina-
goals. Mohr agrees with Becker and Whisler's tion of a series of events wherein something new
distinction between invention and innovation: is incorporated into the organization. That is,
". . . innovation is the successful introduction in- most operational efforts have cast innovation as
to an applied situation of means or ends that are the occurrence of a single event; for example,
new to that situation" (37, p. 112). Evan and Black when something is adopted (4), implemented
(21) and Knight (32) have also suggested that in- (21), or routinized (46).
novation represents the implementation of Others have conceptualized innovation to
Academy of Management Review-January 1977 29

include earlier phases of the change activity. Car- Thompson's (48) conceptualization of the
roll (11) defines innovation as a social process. innovation process seems most representative of
Becker and Whisler (8) identify the sequence of the models presented in the literature. The in-
innovation events as ranging from inputs (forces novation process in this article focuses upon
predisposing the system to innovate) to outputs three rather universally noted or implied phases:
(the number and kinds of changes put into op- (a) initiation of an idea or proposal that when
eration). Wilson (52) states that innovation in or- adopted and implemented will lead to the en-
ganizations occurs in three stages: conception, actment of some change within the organiza-
proposing, and adoption and implementation of tion; (b) adoption of the idea or proposal, a
the change. phase that represents a decision being made by
Thompson (48) provides concurrence with the appropriate organization decision maker(s)
Wilson's model, including in his definition the p r o v i d i n g mandate and resources for the
suggestion that innovation is a process including change; and (c) implementation, the installation
three stages: generation, acceptance, and imple- of the adopted idea into a sustained recogniz-
mentation. Knight (32) notes a two stage process: able behavior pattern within the organization.
the creation and development of an idea, and its
introduction and adoption. Implicitly, Knight's Organizational Conditions
definition identifies the three stages as identified Facilitating Innovation
by both Wilson and Thompson. Shepard (46) also
The following discussion identifies structur-
identifies three sequential phases to the process:
al, contextual, and individual variables that are
idea generation, adoption, and implementation.
frequently posited as being associated with or-
A plethora of innovation process models ap-
ganization innovation. Each variable's relation-
pears in the literature. Zaitman, Duncan and
ship to innovation is reviewed and a proposition-
FHolbek (53) identified twelve models — seven
al statement relating the variable to each stage of
individual based and five organization based in-
the innovation process is offered. A predictive
novation paradigms. Many of their process mod-
concept of organization innovation is suggested.
els can be characterized as tension or need mod-
els. Felt pressure or need for change represents Structural Variables
the precondition for the enactment and realiza- Differentiation — There is agreement that
tion of the innovation process. Most models start differentiation (i.e., heterogeneity in occupa-
with a cognitive component (i.e., awareness of a tional types) within the organization is conducive
need or opportunity for a change), and are fol- to the initiation phase of innovation. Focus on
lowed by an ideation and decision phase. The the value of constructive conflict (33, 48),
terminal activity varies across the different mod- absence of a single professional ideology (37),
els, frequently concluding with adoption, imple- and crossfertilization of ideas (3) are representa-
mentation, institutionalization, or routinization. tive of phenomena implicit in organizational dif-
joynt's (28) review of program planning litera- ferentiation that seem to stimulate the initiation
ture identifies additional approaches to the in- of innovation proposals. This is consistent with
novation process, including: initiation and real- the stimulation of creativity associated with het-
ization (39); search, alternative generation, eval- erogeneous groups as discussed by Shaw (45) and
uation, selection and initiation, acceptance and Filley (22).
routinization (14); knowledge, persuasion, deci- The same focus on conflict, lack of single-
sion, confirmation (44); and problem explora- ness of purpose, and diversity of values has been
tion, knowledge exploration, program design, perceived as inhibiting the decision to adopt,
program implementation and program transfer and leading to resistance to implement innova-
(20). tions (53). Some researchers see diversity also
30 Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation

contributing to the adoption and implementa- professional training and outside professional
tion stages (3, 4, 11, 37, 48). For example, Aiken activities, has been found to positively associate
and Hage (3) claim that the adoption phase of with program innovation (24, 25, 29, 37, 38). Ad-
innovation may be inversely related to diversity; ministrator's cosmopolitan orientation (38) and
however, the absolute number of innovations the cosmopolitan orientation of the organiza-
implemented may be positively related. That is, tion staff was a predictor of innovations in the
sufficiently more proposals are generated due to Kaluzny, Veney and Gentry (29) investigation. In
differentiation so that, in spite of the more fre- contrast, Baldridge and Burnham (4) argue that
quent stalemate at the adoption phase, the abso- the cosmopolitanism of administrators was not
lute number of implementations will still be associated with adoption of innovations in their
greater due to the absolute increase in the num- educational system study; structural rather than
ber of proposals initiated. Baldridge and Burn- individual variables were significant predictors.
ham (4) also see differentiation in positive asso- In summary, it is proposed that:
ciation with adoption of innovations. They claim
that differentiation creates a critical mass or coa- P 2: Professionalism will be positively related
lition within technical or professional subsystems with organizational innovation (initiation,
with sufficient power to pressure the organiza- adoption and implementation).
tion into a higher level of adoptions (and imple- Decentralization — There appears to be a
mentations) than would be the case in the less consensus that decentralization (i.e., a high de-
heterogeneous organization. In summary, it is gree of participativeness in organizational deci-
proposed that: sion making) contributes to the initiation phase
(23, 25, 46, 48). Most of the literature views the
P 1: Differentiation will be positively related
decentralization-innovation relationship from a
with organizational innovation (initiation,
global perspective. For example, there are fre-
adoption and implementation). But there
quent inferences that organic organizations are
will be a stronger association for initiation
than for adoption and implementation. innovative(10,23),that non-routine organizations
have high levels of innovation as product goals
Professionalism — Few writers attempt to (41), and that the decentralization implicit in or-
relate the specific phases of innovation (specifi- ganic structures is a primary predictor of innova-
cally, adoption and implementation) to the de- tion (37).
gree of professionalism within the organization. Implicit in these writings is the notion that
Most often, blanket statements are made refer- greater work unit and individual autonomy (2,
ring to the innovativeness of the organization 48, 52) and less restricted communication flows
when role incumbents are characterized as pro- (46) contribute to initiation activity. In addition
fessionals versus nonprofessionals, or cosmopol- to the greater number of sources of information
itans versus locals. and the freer information flows in the decentral-
But there is strong agreement that profes- ized network, participativeness seems to gener-
sionalism brings to the organization: richness of ate a greater ego-involvement (51) and commit-
experience (48, 49), self-confidence (49), idea- ment to facilitate the implementation stage.
tional inputs from external sources (3, 52), in- According to some theorists, if participation
creased boundary spanning activity (34), stand- is perceived as valuable by the participants, it
ards of professionalism, and psychological com- contributes to acceptance of the change effort
mitment to moving beyond the status quo. These and facilitates implementation (6, 48). Hage and
conditions are all seen as conducive to the Aiken (25) found a positive relationship between
innovative process. decentralization (participation) and the rate of
Cosmopolitanism, measured by degree of program change, and a negative relation be-
Academy of Management Review-January 1977 31

tween innovation and hierarchy of authority (i.e., (37), and Corwin (12) suggest that proposals are
close hierarchic supervision). more likely to be adopted and implemented in
Wilson provides a perspective on the rela- systems where there are high degrees of formal-
tion between decentralization and adoption: ization. Zaitman, et al. (53) claim that the more
. . . the adoption phase is a political activity organic structure required for the initiation
and necessitates bargaining. When many
phase must give way to some formalization of
high-power groups are engaged in the proc-
ess, there is a strong tendency that there will decision processes at the adoption and imple-
be difficulty in reaching an accord, in which mentation phase.
case adoption and implementation are not Hage and Aiken (25) found that low job cod-
facilitated (52, p. 392). ification was highly associated with a high de-
This suggests that centralized authority facilitates gree of program change, and the presence of
adoption and implementation. In summary, it is rule manuals was negatively related to innova-
proposed that: tion. These findings suggest either that more or-
ganic structures facilitate all three phases in the
P 3: Decentralization will be positively related
innovation process, or that the net result of low
with initiation and implementation, there
formalization in the initiation stage carries over
will be a stronger positive relation for ini-
in terms of all phases of innovation. In summary,
tiation than implementation and both will
it is proposed that:
be more positive than adoption. Adop-
tion may, in fact, be negatively related to P 4: Formalization will be negatively related to
innovation. initiations, but will have a modest positive
relationship to adoption and implemen-
Formalization — Formalization, a form of
tation.
control employed by bureaucratic organizations,
refers to the degree to which a codified body of Stratification — The degree of status con-
rules, procedures or behavior prescriptions is de- gruence and ease of intraorganizational mobil-
veloped to handle decisions and work process- ity is indicative of the degree of organizational
ing. In formalized social systems, behavior pro- stratification. Among students of organizational
gramming and strict enforcement of behavioral innovation, there is a consensus that preoccupa-
codes increase predictability of performance. tion with status and inhibitions caused by status
Shepard (46) indicates that low formalization differences between organizational actors inhib-
permits openness in the system, and that this it innovation processes (46). Thompson (49), cit-
openness is a necessary precondition for idea in- ing Maslow's Motivation and Personality and
itiation. This position stems from the argument May's The Meaning of Anxiety, states that strati-
that formalization identifies for the role incum- fication also leads to personal insecurity and that
bent expected behavior, and unless innovation status-striving behavior is incompatible with cre-
is expressed as an expected behavior (e.g., a ative thinking. In summary, it is proposed that:
mandate to innovate and try experimental be-
haviors) there is a strong probability that prede- P 5: Stratification will be negatively related
termined modes of behavior will become rigid- with initiations.
ified. Knight (32) claims that routine activities are
not likely to induce creative problem solving for Contextual Attributes
those who are directed by formalized role pre- Environmental uncertainty — Task environ-
scriptions. ment refers to those conditions external to the
By contrast, singleness of purpose is general- system that have immediate impact on internal
ly required for effective adoption and imple- functioning. An organization's task environment
mentation of ideas. Evan and Black (21), Mohr is composed of suppliers, consumers, compet-
32 Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovatior)

itors, regulatory bodies (47), and scientific or ures of size (number of staff, size of budget)
technical reference groups (33) to which major strongly influence innovations of health care
organizational subdivisions relate. programs. Kaluzny, et al. (29) show size to be
Aiken and Alford (1), in their look at com- strongly associated with overall level of innova-
munity structures as social systems, assert that tions in hospitals and health departments. In
the degree to which the organizational environ- summary, it is proposed that:
ment is "turbulent" may influence organization- P 7: Large organization size will be positively
al innovation since the organization will be more related with organizational innovation.
alert to external cues. Mohr (37) and Palumbo
(40) note that environmental uncertainty pro- Age — Aiken and Alford (1) propose that the
vides a stimulus toward innovation. Finally, Bald- older the organization, the more bureaucratic
ridge and Burnham (4) have found that environ- the system and the less receptive the system is to
mental heterogeneity is predictive of adoption. policy innovations. In like manner, Aiken and
In summary, it is proposed that: Alford (1), Dalton (16), and Griffiths (23) suggest
that the primary stimulus for organizational
P 6: Environmental uncertainty will be posi- change comes*from sources external to the or-
tively related with organizational innova- ganization. As a consequence, the lower the in-
tion (initiation, adoption and implemen- fusion of new members into an organization, the
tation). lower the probability that external ideational
Size — Aiken and Alford (1) state that larger sources will permeate the organization. Opera-
organizations are more innovative. This agrees tionally defining organizational age in terms of
with the findings of Hage and Aiken (25), who the length of tenure of strategic organizational
show that the larger the organization, the higher members, age is seen as inhibitive of innovative
its rate of program change. Aiken and Hage (3) behavior. In summary, it is proposed that:
call attention to the fact that size implies both
P 8: Age will be negatively related with organ-
the availability of resources and differentiation.
izational innovation.
In combination, these implications lead to the
most often observed finding about organization- Interorganizational Interdependences —
al innovation — the positive correlation with The work of the Aston Group (42, 43) has re-
large size. Baldridge and Burnham (4) claim that vealed the importance of interdependence, the
size promotes adoption of innovations. Size per- extent to which the organization has a program
mits specialization and creates "the critical of sharing relationships with organizations in its
mass" which facilitates the power base for coali- external environment.
tions which achieve adoption. The positions of Aiken and Hage (2, 3) provide evidence that
Aiken and Hage (3) and Baldridge and Burnham the establishment of joint programs stimulates
(4) suggest that it is not size per se (operational- organizational innovation. Controlling for differ-
ized as the number of employees in the social entiation and professionalism, Aiken and Hage
system) that causes innovation, but that size in- (2) found strong relations between innovation
creases the likelihood of the presence of other and interorganizational interdependence. Extra-
more credible predictors of innovation (i.e., sys- organizational affiliations increase the likelihood
tem slack, personnel specialization and differen- of idea exchanges and other resource sharing
tiation, and coalition formation). activities, which facilitate the propensity to inno-
Becker and Stafford (7) show that size (as- vation activity. In summary, it is proposed that:
sets and number of employees) is positively as- P 9: Interorganizational interdependence will
sociated with adoption of innovations. In like be positively related with organizational
manner, Mytinger (38) finds that various meas- innovation.
Academy of Management Review-January 1977 33

Individual Attitudes and Change Values P12: Intrinsic motivation will be positively re-
lated to innovation.
Attitudes — In addition to structural attrib-
utes of organizations, the attitudinal, motiva- Values — Top management's value of inno-
tional and value states of an organization's mem- vation and creative behavior is seen as playing a
bership play a critical role in predicting innova- critical role in an organization's effective utiliza-
tion. For example, March and Simon's (36) mod- tion of innovative capacity (13). This notion sug-
el of innovation is derived from a motivational gests that a moderating variable in the organiza-
concept. Search behavior is initiated as a result of tion-innovation relationship is the value set of
member job dissatisfaction. Cyert and March strategic organization decision makers. A few
(15) also hypothesize that innovative behavior studies of innovation have focused on the rela-
differs, depending upon whether the members tionship between values of organizational mem-
of an organization perceive themselves success- bers (e.g., leader, inner circle, staff) and innova-
ful or unsuccessful. tion. Kaluzny et al. (29), Hage and Dewar (27),
In contrast to March and Simon's theoreti- and Mohr (37) claim that attitudes favorable to
cal predictions, Hage and Aiken (25) found job change play an important role in predicting or-
satisfaction to be positively associated with the ganizational innovation. Hage and Dewar dem-
rate of program change. Hage and Aiken (26) onstrate that elite values explain more of the
note that people who are satisfied with their jobs variance in innovation than does any single struc-
are likely to be more committed to the organi- tural dimension. Kaluzny, et al. stress that the
zation and to their jobs. As a consequence they psychological flexibility of the administrator and
are likely to search for ways to improve condi- staff plays a critical role in the assumption of low
tions as well as be more receptive to new ideas. and high risk services. Specifically, innovation in
Hage and Aiken's argument about organization- health service organizations is related to values
al commitment is in accord with Thompson's oriented to change and cosmopolitanism of or-
(48) view that an internal commitment and a ganizational members, as well as participation in
sense of intrinsic rewards lead to the initiation of decision making and satisfaction with organiza-
innovative ideas. The implication is that a strong tional performance.
psychological identification with one's work may Trumbo (50) and Kirton and Mulligan (31)
be a viable predictor of innovation. claim that there is a positive monotonic relation
The constrast in views regarding the role of between amount of education and attitude to-
satisfaction may be contingent upon different ward change. Kaplan (30) claims that administra-
groups of organizational members. Strategic de- tors who manifest psychological flexibility have a
cision makers and those charged with major or- higher proportion of program innovations.
ganizational responsibilities may be more sus- There is additional evidence, relating profession-
ceptible to search behavior in the face of dissat- alization and cosmopolitanism to innovation. In
isfaction than the rank and file. The rank and file summary, it is proposed that:
may choose to innovate only when there is satis-
P13: Values of strategic decision-makers favor-
faction, job involvement and/or strong intrinsic
able toward change will be positively re-
work related motivation. In summary, it is pro-
lated with organizational innovation.
posed that:

P10: ]ob satisfaction and job involvement will A Summary Conceptualization

be positively related with innovation.
Independently a number of structural fea-
P11: Performance dissatisfaction will be posi- tures of organizations relate to organizational in-
tively related to innovation. novation. In a multivariate framework, varying
34 Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation

combinations of these structural features will in- els of organizational innovation. But existing lit-
fluence the phases of initiation, adoption and erature does not provide any credible founda-
implementation. tion for the establishment of a single model for
The bulk of the organization-innovation lit- these predictors. Thus, as a preliminary step in
erature discusses in a deterministic sense the as- the empirical development of a predictive mod-
sociation between organizational attributes and el for organizational innovation, the following is-
innovation. Zaitman, Duncan and Holbek, for sues should be attended to: (a) conjunctive ver-
example, indicate that an organization must shift sus disjunctive, and (b) additive versus multipli-
its structure as it moves through the various cative models.
stages of the innovation process, a conclusion The literature seems to support a conjunc-
that could be arrived at from this review: tive versus disjunctive model. Even though few
at the initiation phase a more-organic or less- of the conceptual models and empirical investi-
bureaucratic structure seems more appropri- gations considered: (a) the interaction among
ate. Then, at the adoption phase, some for-
the various dimensions or (b) partial analytic
malization of decision processes is required.
As the organization moves to the implemen- models, the inferences suggest that several dif-
tation phase, a more bureaucratic structure ferent dimensions contribute to the innovation
becomes appropriate to assure locomotion process in the following manner: the greater the
(53, p. 155). . . . ., (he greater the innovation. A disjunctive
Such a deterministic conceptualization fails model would imply that only one of a number
to give adequate attention to the role that organ- of stimuli (e.g., the contextual, structural or af-
izational actors play in innovation. A more ap- fective state variables) would have to be present
propriate model would cast the organization's to produce the innovative behavior.
human resource component as a moderating
Additionally, since there appears to be no
variable or as an independent variable in the or-
theoretical or empirical justification for the ini-
ganization-innovation relationship dependent
tial employment of a more complex predictive
upon organizational type. For example, in work
model, it is suggested, for exploratory purposes,
flow bureaucracies, membership variables (at-
that an additive linear model be employed.
titudes and values) may moderate structural var-
Based on this review the following exploratory
iables. By contrast, in professional bureaucracies,
models are offered, one for each phase of the
structural variables may moderate membership
variables. It is not at all clear under which condi- innovation process. Included in each model are
tions structure versus membership values and variables for which there is a strong positive or
attitudes are primary predictors. negative predicted relationship. (The direction
of this relationship is given in the parenthesis.)
Organizational innovation can thus be seen
from three perspectives. The deterministic struc-
tural model has captured the most attention; i.e., Initiation = a -I- b-j differentiation ( + ) -I- b2 pro-
structure and context cause innovation. Alterna- fessionalism ( + ) + b3 decentraliza-
tively, member values and attributes can be cast lization ( + ) -I- 64 formalization (-) -I-
as the primary rival causal force in determining bs stratification (-) + bg environmen-
organizational innovation; i.e., elite values fav- tal uncertainty { + ) + by size ( + ) + bg
orable to change best predict organizational in- age (-) -I- bg interorganizational inter-
novation. Finally, the relationship between or- dependence ( + ) -I- b^o job satisfac-
ganization and innovation may be interactively tion (-f-) -I- b-ii job involvement (-I-)
influenced by both structure and membership. -I- b-i2 performance dissatisfaction
The review and derived propositions pro- (-H) -I- bi3 intrinsic motivation (-I-) -|-
vide the groundwork for three predictive mod- bT4 change attitudes (-)-).
Academy of Management Review-January 1977 35

Adoption = a -f- b7 differentiation ( + ) -I- b2 pro- relative importance of membership var-

fessionalism (-I-) -I- b j centralization iables versus structural variables;
( + ) + b4 formalization (-I-) -I- bs en-
vironmental uncertainty ( + ) -I- bg 3. Retranslating research and theoretical
size (-I-) -I- b7age (-) -I- bg interorgan- evidence into pragmatic managerial
izational interdependence (-I-) -I- bg processes and tactics appropriate for
job satisfaction (-I-) -I- bTO job in- each stage of innovation (17);
volvement (-I-) + b77 performance 4. Testing the propositions developed in
dissatisfaction (-I-) -|- bi2 intrinsic this review in generically different or-
motivation (-I-) -I- b73 change atti- ganizations;
tude ( + ).
5. Analyzing appropriate exploratory, com-
Implementation = a -I- b7 differentiation ( + ) + binatory models.
b2 professionalism (-I-) -I- b^ decen-
tralization ( + ) + b4 formalization
(-1-)+ be environmental uncertainty Summary
(+ ) + b^ s\ze ( + ) +by age (-) +b8
interorganizational interdepend- The Structure Argument
ence (+) -I-b9 job satisfaction (-I-)-(- Based on the thrust of these propositions,
b70 job involvement (-)-) -I- b-j-j per- organizations which are more organic in struc-
formance dissatisfaction ( + ) + b ture apparently will have a momentum to initi-
intrinsic motivation (+ ) + ate innovation. Organic structures facilitate idea
change attitude (-(-). initiation and proposal development. But these
very structural characteristics that are conducive
It is further proposed that the models incor- to initiation appear to inhibit the decision to
porating contextual and structural variables will adopt and the necessary mechanisms for imple-
more strongly predict innovation when the af- mentation.
fective state and change value are modeled as Adoption requires some formalization and
moderating variables. centralization of decision making to decrease
conflict, and implementation probably requires
Recommendations for Future Research the focus of effort within functional authority to
A number of research directions are sug- carry through innovation. Size moderates the in-
gested by this review of the literature. From a consistencies between phases, providing differ-
conceptual perspective there is a need for a the- entiation for initiation, sufficient "critical
oretical model of innovation linking the details masses" for adoption, and unit autonomy for
of organization context, structure, human re- implementation together with increasing pro-
source component and the stages in the innova- fessionalism in support roles.
tion cycle. Substantive contributions to the un- The obvious is not the implied conclusion
derstanding of innovation could be derived — that neither organic nor mechanistic designs
from research: are conducive to innovation. An organic organ-
ization is more innovative. In all likelihood, Hage
1. Linking cohtext, structure, and mem-
and Aiken's (3) discussion and rationale for the
bership variables to stages in the inno-
impact of organic structures on the overall rate
vation process through longitudinal
of innovation best explains why the organic or-
analysis;
ganization is more innovative than the mechan-
2. Determining in a contingent sense the istic.
36 Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovatior)

The organic organization is more predis- By the same token, mechanisms that will
posed to innovation, while the mechanistic or- facilitate timely adoption and implementation
ganization is predisposed to resist change efforts. need to be institutionalized in organic organiza-
But one should not assume that organic organi- tions. This may mean structured decision bodies
zations are innovative havens. While the overall to focus resources and project or program
rate of innovation is greater, it is also likely that groups with adequate authority and thrust to
the number of adoption "strike outs" and inad- implement.
equately implemented programs is greater. The discussion of innovation is incomplete
The solution of the above paradox probably without recognizing that organization structure
lies in venture systems, matrix systems, struc- does not determine innovation, but merely
tured decision bodies for adoptions and project sends signals to organizational actors. The hu-
groups for implementation. In order for the me- man component of organizations is character-
chanistic organization to become innovative, it ized by members having attitudes and values.
must institute an organic overlay. This is not a call These attributes will sometimes dominate and
for changing a mechanistic organization to an sometimes mediate structural variables. The
organic organization, since this would merely be conditons under which membership attributes
a tradeoff. Venture groups could become a me- moderate and/or intervene in the organization-
chanism for the purpose of generating ideas, ex- innovation relationship is poorly understood,
ploring solutions, developing proposals and pilot and may account for much of the variance in or-
testing ideas, necessary conditions for institution ganizational innovation reported under what
change (16). would seem to be parallel structural conditions.

REFERENCES
1 Aiken, M., and R. Alford. "Connmunity Structure and 11. Carroll, |. "A Note on Departmental Autonomy and In-
Innovation: The Case of Urban Renewal," American So- novation in Medical Schools," The journal of Business,
ciological Review, Vol. 35 (1970), 650-665. Vol. 40 (1967), 531-534.
2. Aiken, M., and ). Hage. "Organizational Interdepend- 12. Corwin, R. "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," Ad-
ence and Intra-organizational Structure," American So- ministrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14 (1%9), 507-522.
ciological Review,yo\. 33 (1968), 912-929. 13 Cummings, L. "Organizational Climates for Creativity,"
3. Aiken, M., and |. Hage. "The Organic Organization and Academy of Management journal. Vol. 8 (1%5), 220-227.
Innovation," Sociology, Vol. 5 (1971), 63-82. 14. Cummings, L., and M. O'Connell. "Organization Inno-
4. Baldridge, )., and R. Burnham. "Organizational Innova- vation: A Conceptual Framework." Working Paper,
tion; Individual, Organizational, and Environmental Im- Graduate School of Business, University of Wisconsin-
pacts," Ac/m/nis(raf<ve Science Quarterly, Vol. 20 (1975), Madison, 1972.
165-176.
15 Cyert, R., and |. March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm
5. Barnett, H. Innovation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953).
(Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, 1%3).
6. Bass, B. "When Planning for Others," journal of Applied
Science, Vol. 6 (1970) 16. Dalton, Gene W. "Influence and Organizational
7. Becker, S. W., and F. Stafford. "Some Determinants of Change," in A. Negandhi and J. Schwitter (Eds.), Organi-
Organizational Success," The journal of Business, Vol. 40 zational Behavior Models, Comparative Administration
(1967), 511-518. Research Institute Series No. 2 (Kent, Ohio: Kent State
8. Becker, S. W., and T. L. Whisler. "The Innovative Organi- University, Bureau of Economics and Business Research,
zation: A Selective View of Current Theory and Re- 1970).
search," The journal of Business, Vol. 40 (1967), 462-469. 17. Delbecq, A. "Contextual Variables Affecting Decision-
9. Brief, A., A. Delbecq, and A. Filley. " A n Empirical Anal- Making in Program Planning," Decision Sciences, Vol. 5
ysis of Adoption Behavior," Academy of Management (1974), 726-742.
Proceedings (1974), 55-56. 18. Delbecq, A., and A. Filley. Program and Project Manage-
10. Burns, T., and C. Stalker. The Management of Innova- ment in a Matrix Organization (Madison: University of
tion (London: Tavistock Publications, 1961). Wisconsin-Madison, Bureau of Business Research 1972).
 Academy of Management Review-January 1977 37

19. Delbecq, A. L., F. A. Schull, A. C. Filley, and A. |. Grimes. 35. Mansfield, E. "Size of Firm, Market Structure, and Inno-
"Matrix Organization, A Conceptual Guide to Organiza- vation," journal of Political Economy, Vol. 71 (1963), 556-
tional Variation," Wisconsin Business Paper, No. 2 (Mad- 576.
ison: University of Wisconsin, Bureau of Business Re- 36. March, )., and H. Simon. Organizations (New York: Wi-
search, 1969). ley, 1958).
20. Delbecq, A. L., and A. H. Van de Ven. "A Group Process 37. Mohr, L. B "Determinants of Innovation in Organiza-
Model for Problem Identification and Program Plan- tions," The American Political Science Review (1969),
ning," journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 111-126.
4 (1971), 466-492. 38. M y t i n g e r , R. D. Innovation in Local Health Services ( ^ r -
21. Evan, W. A., and G. Black. "Innovatior, in Business Or- lington, Virginia: Public Health Service, Division of Med-
ganizations: Some Factors Associated with Success or ical Care Administration, U. S. Department of Health, Ed-
Failure of Staff Proposals," The journal of Business, Vol. ucation and Welfare, 1968).
40 (1967), 519-530. 39. Norman, R. "Organizational Innovations, Product Varia-
22. Filley, A. Interpersonal Conflict Resolutions (Glenview, tion and Reorientation," Administrative Science Quar-
III.: Scott Foresman, 1975). (er/y, Vol.16(1971).
23. Griffiths, D. E. "Administrative Theory and Change in 40 Palumbo, D. |. "Power and Role Specificity in Organiza-
Organizations," in M. D. Miles (Ed.), /nnovanorii in Edu- tion Theory," Public Affairs Review, Vol. 29 (1969), 237-
cation (New York: Teachers College Press, 1964), pp. 425- 248.
436. 41. Perrow, C. "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis
24. Hage, ). "A Longitudinal Test of an Axiomatic Organiza- of Organizations," American Sociological Review, Vol.
tional Theory. "Paper presented at the 8th World Con- 32 (1967), 194-208.
gress of Sociology, Montreal, Canada, 1974. 42. Pugh, D. S., D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, and C Turner.
25. Hage, J., and M. Aiken. "Program Change and Organiza- "Dimensions of Organization Structure," Administrative
tional Properties, A Comparative Analysis," American Science Quarterly, Vol. 13 (1968), 65-105
journal of Sociology, Vol. 72 (1967), 503-519. 43. Pugh, D. S., D. ). Hickson, C. R. Hinings, and C. Turner.
26. Hage, J., and M. Aiken. Soc;a/ Change in Complex Or- "The Context of Organization Structure," Administrative
ganizations (New York: Random House, 1970). Science Quarterly, Vol. 14 (1969), 91-114
44. Rogers, E. M. Communication of Innovation (New York:
27. Hage, J., and R. Dewar. "Elite Values Versus Organiza-
Free Press of Glencoe, 1972).
tional Structure in Predicting Innovation," Administra-
45. Shaw, M. Croup Dynamics (New York: McGraw-Hill,
tive Science Quarterly, Vol. 18 (1973), 279-290.
1971).
28. Joynt, P. "The Program Planning M o d e l : Process Analy-
46. Shepard, H. A. "Innovation-Resisting and Innovation-
sis." Unpublished manuscript. Graduate School of Busi-
Producing Organizations," The journal of Business, Vol.
ness, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1973.
40 (1967), 470-477.
29. Kaluzny, A., |. Veney, and J. Gentry. "Innovation of
47. Thompson, J. D Organizations in Action (New York:
Health Services: A Comparative Study of Hospitals and
McGraw-Hill, 1967).
Health Departments," Health and Society (Winter 1974).
48 Thompson, V. A. "Bureaucracy and Innovation," Ad-
30. Kaplan, H. B. "Implementation of Program Change in
ministrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (1965), 1-20
Community Agencies," Milbank Memorial Fund Quar-
49. Thompson, V. A. "The Innovative Organization,"
terly,Vo\. 45 {^967),32^-l'i^.
abridged from V. A. Thompson, Increasing the Innova-
31. Kirton, M. )., and G. Mulligan. "Correlates of Managers' tive Capacity of Organizations (University of Illinois-Ur-
Attitudes Toward Change," journal of Applied Psychol- bana, Monograph, 1969).
ogy, Vol. 58 ^97 3), ^0^-^07. 50. Trumbo, D. A. "Individual and Group Correlates of At-
32. Knight, K. E. "A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm In- titudes to Work Related Change," journal of Applied
novation Process," The journal of Business, Vol. 40 (1967), Psychology, Vol. 45 (1961), 338-344.
478-496. 51. Vroom, V. Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley,
33. Lawrence, P., and J. Lorsch. "Differentiation and Inte- 1964).
gration in Complex Organizations," Administrative Sci- 52. Wilson, J Q "Innovation in Organization: Notes Toward
ence Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1967), 1-47. a Theory," in |. D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to Or-
34. Leifer, R. An Analysis of the Characteristics and Func- ganization Design (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966),
tioning of Interorganizational Boundary Spanning Per- 194-216.
sonnel (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Mad- 53. Zaitman, G., R Duncan, and |. Holbek. Innovation and
ison, 1974). Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1973).