INTRODUCTION

The diffusion of innovations theory is a hypothesis outlining how new

technological and other advancements spread throughout societies and cultures,
from introduction to widespread adoption. The diffusion of innovations theory
seeks to explain how and why new ideas and practices are adopted, with timelines
potentially spread out over long periods.

ORIGIN

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory, developed by E.M. Rogers in 1962, is one

of the oldest social science theories. It originated in communication to explain
how, over time, an idea or product gains momentum and diffuses (or spreads)
through a specific population or social system. The end result of this diffusion is
that people, as part of a social system, adopt a new idea, behavior, or product.
Adoption means that a person does something differently than what they had
previously (i.e., purchase or use a new product, acquire and perform a new
behavior, etc.). The key to adoption is that the person must perceive the idea,
behavior, or product as new or innovative. It is through this that diffusion is
possible.

Adoption of a new idea, behavior, or product (i.e., "innovation") does not happen
simultaneously in a social system; rather it is a process whereby some people are
more apt to adopt the innovation than others. Researchers have found that people
who adopt an innovation early have different characteristics than people who adopt
an innovation later. When promoting an innovation to a target population, it is
important to understand the characteristics of the target population that will help or
hinder adoption of the innovation. There are five established adopter categories,
and while the majority of the general population tends to fall in the middle
categories, it is still necessary to understand the characteristics of the target
population. When promoting an innovation, there are different strategies used to
appeal to the different adopter categories.

Innovators - These are people who want to be the first to try the idea. They are
venturesome and interested in new ideas. These people are very willing to take
risks, and are often the first to develop new ideas.
Early Adopters - These are people who represent opinion leaders. They enjoy
leadership roles, and embrace change opportunities. They are already aware of the
need to change and so are very comfortable adopting new ideas. Strategies to
appeal to this population include how-to manuals and information sheets on
implementation. They do not need information to convince them to change.

Early Majority - These people are rarely leaders, but they do adopt new ideas
before the average person. That said, they typically need to see evidence that the
innovation works before they are willing to adopt it. Strategies to appeal to this
population include success stories and evidence of the innovation's effectiveness.

Late Majority - These people are skeptical of change, and will only adopt an
innovation after it has been tried by the majority. Strategies to appeal to this
population include information on how many other people have tried the
innovation and have adopted it successfully.

Laggards - These people are bound by tradition and very conservative. They are
very skeptical of change and are the hardest group to bring on board. Strategies to
appeal to this population include statistics, fear appeals, and pressure from people
in the other adopter groups.

The stages by which a person adopts an innovation, and whereby diffusion is

accomplished, include awareness of the need for an innovation, decision to adopt
(or reject) the innovation, initial use of the innovation to test it, and continued use
of the innovation. There are five main factors that influence adoption of an
innovation, and each of these factors is at play to a different extent in the five
adopter categories.

Relative Advantage - The degree to which an innovation is seen as better than the
idea, program, or product it replaces.

Compatibility - How consistent the innovation is with the values, experiences, and
needs of the potential adopters.

Complexity - How difficult the innovation is to understand and/or use.

Triability - The extent to which the innovation can be tested or experimented with
before a commitment to adopt is made.
Observability - The extent to which the innovation provides tangible results.

CORE ASSUMPTIONS OF DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION THEORY

As an adult educator, why do you do the things you do? We suggested that for
many of us, especially those working in Cooperative Extension, the “why” was
based at least in part in diffusion of innovation theory. Unfortunately, diffusion of
innovation theory and the assumptions it leads to are causing us to fall short.

Most of the foundation of diffusion of innovation theory was established more than
50 years ago. In 1941 Bryce Ryan began studying how the innovation of hybrid
corn, released in 1928, spread across Iowa. His 1943 study with Neal Gross
showed that the adoption of hybrid corn began with a small number of farmers and
diffused from there, implying that targeting innovative farmers to adopt innovation
would speed up the adoption among all farmers (Stephenson, 2003).

The work of Ryan and Gross led to further studies, most notably by Everett
Rogers, who developed the classic adoption curve and the categories of adopters in
1958.

These categories and the resulting focus on innovators and early adopters have led
to serious questions about Cooperative Extension’s reliance of diffusion of
innovation theory, including Garry Stephenson’s question, “By Utilizing
Innovation Diffusion Theory, have we caused harm in some way to the population
we serve?”

Stephenson points out that a focus on innovators can widen gaps in equity.
Innovators in agriculture tend to have higher incomes and larger operations than
non-adopters. By marketing innovations first to innovators in hopes of influencing
others, we may be widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. In
agriculture, non-adopters can be further hurt when bigger operations adopt
innovations that increase yields which lowers crop prices.

The focus on innovators is especially concerning in light of the work of Duncan

Watts and his colleagues suggesting that under most conditions, social change is
driven not by “influential” (opinion leaders) but by easily influenced individuals
influencing other easily influenced individuals (Watts and Dodds, 2007) (Thanks
to reader Kevin Gamble, @k1v1n, for pointing out Watts’ work).
Watts says a trend’s success depends less on the person who starts it and more on
whether the conditions favor that trend (Thompson, 2008). Creating the right
conditions is complex. What makes not just one person, but a majority of people
ready for change? It’s complex, and our reliance of diffusion of innovation theory
leads us to simplification.

Cooperative Extension tends toward a one-size-fits-all approach that better aligns

with our reliance on mass media. If we think of our audience as a homogeneous
group, all equally ready for change, we can rely on a single message delivered on a
limited number of channels to reach them.

Relying on diffusion of innovation theory also simplifies how we look at problems.

It leads us to assume problems can be solved by innovations, especially those
devised by “experts,” and especially those “experts” at our land-grant universities.
However, not all problems can be solved by innovations. Cooperative Extension is
being called upon to help address “wicked problems,” complex social issues that
cannot be “solved.”

Diffusion of innovation theory is implicit in the logic model which in turn guides
our program planning. But, as Thomas Patterson pointed out, our planning model
has “failed to result in programs capable of solving ill-defined, complex human
problems where there’s disagreement on the desired outcomes” (Patterson, 1993).

APPLICATION OF THE THEORY WITH EXAMPLES

Diffusion really includes three fairly distinct processes: Presentation of the new
culture element or elements to the society, acceptance by the society, and the
integration of the accepted element or elements into the preexisting culture.

Ralph Linton, 1936, p. 334.

Diffusion is a natural social phenomenon that happens with or without any

particular theory to explain it. In fact, whether the innovation involves a new idea,
new pattern of behavior, or a new technology, it is also a natural physical
phenomenon as well, one that describes the spread of an object in space and time.

D. Lawrence Kincaid, 2004, p. 38.

Diffusion theory does not lead to the conclusion that one must wait for the
diffusion of a new product or practice to reach the poorest people …. In fact, one
can accelerate the rate of adoption in any segment of the population through more
intensive and more appropriate communication and outreach.

Lawrence W. Green, Nell H. Gottlieb, and Guy S. Parcel, 1991, p. 114.

I once asked a worker at a crematorium, who had a curiously contented look on his
face, what he found so satisfying about his work. He replied that what fascinated
him was the way in which so much went in and so little came out.

LIMITATIONS OF DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION

There are several limitations of Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which include the
following:

Much of the evidence for this theory, including the adopter categories, did not
originate in public health and it was not developed to explicitly apply to adoption
of new behaviors or health innovations.

It does not foster a participatory approach to adoption of a public health program.

It works better with adoption of behaviors rather than cessation or prevention of

behaviors.

It doesn't take into account an individual's resources or social support to adopt the
new behavior (or innovation).

This theory has been used successfully in many fields including communication,
agriculture, public health, criminal justice, social work, and marketing. In public
health, Diffusion of Innovation Theory is used to accelerate the adoption of
important public health programs that typically aim to change the behavior of a
social system. For example, an intervention to address a public health problem is
developed, and the intervention is promoted to people in a social system with the
goal of adoption (based on Diffusion of Innovation Theory). The most successful
adoption of a public health program results from understanding the target
population and the factors influencing their rate of adoption.
The way in which innovations are communicated to different parts of society and
the subjective opinions associated with the innovations are important factors in
how quickly diffusion—or spreading—occurs. Important to understand when
developing market share, this theory is frequently referred to in the marketing of
new products.

Understanding the Diffusion of Innovations Theory

The theory was developed by E.M. Rogers, a communication theorist at the

University of New Mexico, in 1962. Integrating previous sociological theories of
behavioral change, it explains the passage of an idea through stages of adoption by
different actors. The main people in the diffusion of innovations theory are:
INTRODUCTION

The Congruence Model was developed in the early 1980s by organizational

theorists David A. Nadler and Michael L. Tushman. It's a powerful tool for
identifying the root causes of organizational performance issues and how you
might fix them.

It's based on the principle that a team or organization can only succeed when the
work, the people who do it, the organizational structure, and the culture all "fit"
together or, in other words, when they are "congruent".

Where there is incongruence, or a poor fit, between these four critical elements,
problems will arise.

For example, you may have brilliant people working for you, but if your
organization's culture is not a good fit for the way they work, their brilliance won't
shine through.

Likewise, you can have the latest technology and processes, but decision making
will be slow and problematic if the organizational culture is bureaucratic.

The Congruence Model offers a systematic way to avoid these types of conflicts.

The Congruence Model is also a useful tool for thinking through how changes you
make within a team or organization will impact other areas of the business.

ORIGIN

The Congruence Model was developed in the early 1980s by organizational

theorists David A. Nadler and Michael L. Tushman. It's a powerful tool for
identifying the root causes of organizational performance issues and how you
might fix them.
It's based on the principle that a team or organization can only succeed when the
work, the people who do it, the organizational structure, and the culture all "fit"
together – or, in other words, when they are "congruent" (see figure 1, below).

Where there is incongruence, or a poor fit, between these four critical elements,
problems will arise.

For example, you may have brilliant people working for you, but if your
organization's culture is not a good fit for the way they work, their brilliance won't
shine through.

Likewise, you can have the latest technology and processes, but decision making
will be slow and problematic if the organizational culture is bureaucratic.

The Congruence Model offers a systematic way to avoid these types of conflicts.

CORE ASSUMPTIONS

Several researchers (Cheng & McKinley, 1983; Hage, 1980; White & Hamermesh
1981) argued that if organizational theory and research are to be relevant to
practitioners, emphasis must be placed on organizational effectiveness and its
determinants. As White and Hamermesh (1981) stated: ". . . research is of limited
prescriptive value until a link with performance is forged" (p. 221). The
relationship and the limits to that relationship, of congruence to performance must
be established before the concept can be fully utilized. Little data exist regarding
the relative importance of any specific match between the two. Morse and
Caldwell (1979) calculated a total congruence score by summing twenty separate
congruence scores. This total congruence score then was correlated with their
dependent variable. At what point is the organization congruent enough to achieve
high performance? Is it necessary for the organization to be congruent on all
twenty variables, or would fifteen be sufficient? In the past, the relationship has
been assumed to be a positive linear relation; the more congruent, the more
effective. However, it could be that it is negative linear (the less congruence, the
greater the performance, especially in the long run.) Or it could be curvilinear, or
some other form of relationship.
Second, we should look for situations where organizational effectiveness is
enhanced through incongruence. The argument has been made unless the
organization’s components are congruent, effectiveness will be diminished
(Leavitt, 1965; Mealie & Lee, 1979; Nadler & Tush- man, 1980). If congruence
does not exist, then dysfunctional consequences such as reduced performance,
conflict, and dissatisfaction will develop from the incongruences. However, there
are possible situations in which incongruence would be functional for the
organization (Friedlander, 1971), such as when it fosters creative tension and/or
differing perspectives, thereby triggering a search for alternate strategies or
necessary organizational change.
Third, research is needed to investigate the short versus long-term consequence of
congruence. There may be a time lag between achieving congruence and
effectiveness (Mealiea & Lee, 1979; Nightingale & Toulouse, 1977). Or there may
be a trade-off between short-run congruence and long-run congruence (Ansoff,
Declerk, & Hayes, 1976; Chakravarthy, 1982; Galbraith & Nathanson, 1978).
Achieving congruence in the short term may be the most efficient but in the long
run it may hinder the organization's ability to adapt. Ansoffetal. (1976) considered
this to be of utmost importance if we are to configure the resources of the firm for
effective response to unanticipated surprises.

APPLICATION OF THE BELIEVE CONGRUENCE MODEL.

To apply the Congruence Model, follow these three steps:

look at each component – work, people, structure, and culture – and then analyze
how they relate to one another.

Step One: Analyze Each Element

First, take a look at each component of the model – work, people, structure, and
culture – and then analyze how they relate to one another.

Work

Analyze the critical tasks that underpin your organization's performance, from two
perspectives – what work is done, and how it is processed.

Consider what skills or knowledge individual tasks require, whether they are
mechanical or creative, and how the work flows. Identify approaches that work
best – for example, quick, thorough, empathic, analytical, precise, or enthusiastic –
and what the stresses and rewards of the work are.

People

Look at who interacts to get these tasks done – bosses, peers, and external
stakeholders, for example.

Identify the skills, knowledge, experience, and education that they possess. Then,
explore how they like to be compensated, rewarded and recognized for their work.
Also, consider how committed they are to the organization, and what career
progression expectations they have.

Organizational Structure

Map your organization's structures, systems and processes. Do this by considering

the following:

Does the organization have distinct business units or divisions (for example,
regional, functional, or product- or market-specific)?

Are there different levels or ranks, or does it have a flat structure?

How distinct or rigid are the reporting lines?

Also, consider how standardized work is within your organization, and look at the
rules, policies, procedures, measures, incentive schemes, and rewards that govern
it.

Culture
This is often the element that can have the greatest influence on performance, but
it’s also the hardest one to analyze.

You can explore your organization's culture by considering the leadership style and
the beliefs and values of the individuals who work there.

Think about the "unwritten rules" that define how work really gets done. (These
stem from people's attitudes, beliefs, values, behavior, and so on, and from the
processes and structures that you've already examined.) Look at how information
flows around the organization, and whether there are any political networks in
play.

Step Two: Analyze the Relationships Between the Elements

Now organize the four elements into the following six pairs, and analyze how they
interrelate.

Work and People: is the work being done by the most able and skilled people?
Does the work meet individuals' need?

Work and Structure: is work done in a well-coordinated manner, given the

organizational structure in place? Is that structure sufficient to meet the demands of
the work being done?

Structure and People: does the organizational structure allow people to work
together effectively? Does it meet people's needs? Are people's perceptions of the
formal structure clear or distorted?

People and Culture: are people happy with the culture or is there conflict? Does
the culture align to people's values, in general?

Culture and Work: does the culture help or hinder work performance?

Structure and Culture: do the culture and the organizational structure

complement one another, or do they compete?

As you work through these pairs, identify areas of congruence and incongruence,
and consider how your organization's performance measures against its goals.

Step Three: Build and Sustain Congruence

Now, consider what steps you could take to reconfigure each element, and resolve
the incompatibilities that you've identified.

As you identify solutions and move forward with them, don't forget to look at how
you could strengthen the things that are already well coordinated. It's as important
to reinforce and sustain what is already congruent, as it is to fix what's incongruent.

According to the Congruence Model, the best strategies for fixing incongruence
will be those that reflect the unique character of your team or organization, and the
environment that you operate in. This is why one organization can thrive on a
certain structure or type of work, while another apparently similar one struggles to
make a profit.

The Work, People, Structure, and Culture headings of the Congruence Model are
just one way of analyzing how compatible different parts of your organization are.

You could, for example, adapt the framework to assess your marketing
performance. Just replace Work, People, Structure, and Culture with The 4Ps of
Marketing– Product, Price, Promotion, and Place, and follow the same steps as
above.

Or, you could try another approach. A popular alternative model is The McKinsey
7-S Frame work, which analyzes Strategy, Structure, Systems, Style/Culture, Staff,
Skills, and Shared values.

LIMITATIONS

There are several limitations to be aware of when using the Congruence Model.

The Congruence Model is a tool for analyzing team or organizational problems,

and a useful starting point for transforming performance. It's not, however, a tool
for telling you how to fix those problems.

It doesn't recommend a "best" culture or "best" structure, nor any specific action
plans or problem-solving techniques. You'll need individual tools to help you here.
Task Allocation, for example, can help you to pair the right people with the right
work. And Organization Design is an effective approach for aligning work and
structure.
The model focuses mostly on the internal environment – it's often important to
consider what's happening outside the team or organization as well. (Tools such as
PEST Analysis and PMESII-PT can be useful here.)

Organizations are effective when the four key components of performance – tasks,
people, structure, and culture – fit together and work in harmony with each other.

When this is achieved, performance is high, it's easier to set and achieve
organizational goals, and retain and attract talent.

However, if one component is out of sync with another, it can cause friction that
has a negative impact on the entire organization, and which can limit productivity
and performance.

You can use the Congruence Model to look at the organizational components that
contribute to your overall team or business performance, and identify which are
congruent and incongruent with each other.

With each element working in finely tuned unison, your organization will be
primed to fulfill its performance potential!

COMPARISON OF THE BOTH THEORIES

CONGRUENCE MODEL: It's based on the principle that a team or organization

can only succeed when the work, the people who do it, the organizational structure,
and the culture all "fit" together.

While

DIFUSSION OF INNOVATION: refers to the process that occurs as people

adopt a new idea, product, practice, philosophy and so on. Social change is driven
not by “influential” (opinion leaders) but by easily influenced individuals
influencing other easily influenced individuals.
REFERENCES

1. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition 2003, Free Press,

New York, p221.
2. Quoted in Purcell, P. (2004) A quick mod takes gamers beyond their doom,
Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August.
3. Quoted in Purcell, P. (2004) A quick mod takes gamers beyond their doom,
Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August.
4. Hirst, E. (1989) Reaching for 100 percent participation in a utility
conservation programme The Hood River project, Energy Policy Vol 17(2)
pp155-164.
5. Kelly, J.A. et al (1997) Randomised, controlled, community-level HIV-
prevention intervention for sexual-risk behaviour amongst homosexual men
in US cities, The Lancet Vol 350, 9090; Health Module p1500
6. Moore, Geoffrey, A. (1999) Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to
Mainstream Customers (revised edition), HarperCollins, New York.