Academy of Management Journat 1978, Vol. 21, No.

2, 193-210

A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation^

RICHARD L. DAFT Queen's University

This paper examines the role of administrators and technical employees in the process leading to innovation adoption. A marked division of labor is found. The evidence indicates that two distinct innovation processesbottom-up and top-downcan exist in organizations. The findings are used to propose a dual-core model of organizational innovation. There is growing evidence that organization leaders have an impact on organizational innovation. Hage and Dewar (1973) recently reported that elite values toward change arc a better predictor of new program adoption by health and welfare agencies than the structural characteristics of the agencies. Becker (1970) and Carlson (1964, 1965) linked innovation adoption to the status and sociometric centrality of organization top administrators. Other studies have found frequency of innovation associated with the cosmopolitan orientation of top administrators (Kaluzny, Veney & Gentry, 1972) and with administrator motivation to innovate (Mohr, 1969). But the precise role of organization leaders in the innovation process is not clear. One explanation for the above findings is that leaders are active in the innovation process. Top administrators serve as a bridge between the organization and the technological environment. Top administrators' exposure, status and rank place them in a position to introduce change into the organization. They are exposed to new ideas, and their ideas count. Organization leaders can also be active in other ways, as Hage and Dewar (1973) suggest, such as searching for funds to implement new programs. Another explanation for the findings is that top administrators influence organizational innovation without actually introducing innovations. A
Richard L. Daft is Assistant Professor, School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. 1 This research was supported by the School of Graduate Studies, Queen's University. Don Nightingale made several helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. A special thanks to Lou Pondy for suggesting the dual-core idea. 193

194

Academy of Management Journal

June

major function of top administrators is to set goals and priorities (Selznick, 1957). If a goal of innovation is established, innovation initiation may originate with lower organization members. Studies that report positive associations between innovation adoption and member exposure (Aiken & Hage, 1971), member education and training (Sapolsky, 1967; Palumbo, 1969; Evan & Black, 1967), and decentralization (Hage & Aiken, 1967) all support the explanation that top administrators are not themselves active innovators. Freedom and exposure of employees at lower organization levels enable innovative ideas to enter the organization and be proposed. The leader role is to set innovation goals, encourage innovation initiatives from lower members, and approve or disapprove innovation proposals. Thus the research evidence can be used to support different explanations for the relationship between leader behavior and innovation. Leaders may actively initiate innovations, or they may not. Much of the evidence bearing on this issue is from studies that have correlated administrator or organization attributes with innovation adoption. We have learned a great deal about the correlates of innovation adoption from these studies. But we have learned little about the activity leading to adoption. We don't know where ideas enter the organization, who proposes them or why. The innovation studies are characteristic of other organization research. Obtaining data across multiple organizations for correlational analysis makes it difficult to obtain the specific evidence needed to support or refute alternative theoretical explanations about underlying processes (Argyris, 1972; Child, 1972; Weick, 1974). Most researchers make conjectures about process on the basis of correlation studies, as well they should. But many of our explanations remain at the level of conjecture. One of the challenges facing organization researchers is to design studies that provide insight into underlying organization processes. In the case of organizational innovation, this kind of insight would have at least two benefits. First, obviously, is the knowledge gained from finding new explanations or identifying the correct explanation among several feasible alternatives. The second benefit is a practical one. Fundamental knowledge about the innovation process, especially its early stageswhere ideas originate and who proposes themwill suggest how organizations should be designed (Pondy, 1972) to facilitate or inhibit the flow of ideas that lead to innovation adoption. The purpose of this paper is to report the results of one attempt to gather evidence that will explain more fully the innovation process in organizations. The behavior of administrators vis-a-vis lower employees as innovation initiators is examined for a sample of school organizations. The findings are related to the professionalism of organization members, organization size, and frequency of innovation adoption.

1978

Daft

195

THE INNOVATION PROCESS

The process of innovation is frequently described as consisting of four essential steps, starting with the conception of an idea, which is proposed, then a decision is made to adopt, and finally the innovation is implemented. The focus of this paper is on the innovation proposal and the decision to adopt, with special attention given to proposals. There has been little research on this part of the innovation process. Who proposes innovation ideas for adoption? Most new ideas probably originate with organization members who span the boundary between organizations and technological environments. William Evan (1966) has theorized that administrators and lower employees both initiate innovations, depending upon the type of innovation to be proposed. Even argues that organizations can maximize adoptions by having innovative ideas originate at both ends of the organizational hierarchy: Administrative ideas would originate near the top of the hierarchy and trickle down; technical innovations would originate near the bottom of the hierarchy and trickle up. Innovative ideas follow different paths from conception to approval and implementation. The notion of two distinct innovation proposal patterns is intriguing. Innovative ideas may be moving through the hierarchy in different directions, and the direction taken may affect chances for adoption. The point at which new ideas originate is probably a function of task differentiation. Organization members who work within a functional area will tend to be the local experts in that area. They will be the most knowledgeable people in the organization regarding problems, new ideas, and the suitability of ideas for use in their task domain. A new idea thus will be brought into the organization by organization experts who are interested in and aware of that particular kind of development. Experts in the technical aspect of an organization will tend to be those people working on or near the core technology (Thompson, 1967). These people will be aware of technical problems, they can tell whether a new idea will fit into their current technology, and they have the expertise to implement the innovation. Technical ideas proposed by administrators and others outside the technical domain will tend to be out of synchronization with perceived needs and are less likely to be acceptable. Hence, new ideas that relate to the production process will tend to originate below the administrative level. Top managers are the experts with regard to administrative arrangements. They are concerned with administrative problems and will be tuned to new developments that apply to these problems. Lower level managers and workers are less likely to see the big picture administratively, so their proposals are not likely to be appropriate. Board members may also propose administrative innovations. These innovations will tend to be proposed and approved near the top of the hierarchy and implemented downward. Ad-

196

Academy of Management Journal

June

ministrators have a definite role initiating innovations, but it is probably limited to administrative ideas. The hypothesized task specialization regarding innovation initiation will depend to a great extent upon the professionalism of the employees in the technical core and organization size. Core employees will tend to be the largest group in the organization and will constitute the largest interface with the technological environment. The professionalism of this group will be associated with member education and training, participation in professional activities, exposure to new ideas, autonomy, and the desire for recognition from peers rather than from the formal hierarchy. Many innovations are adopted because current techniques are perceived as unsatisfactorywhen a performance gap exists (March & Simon, 1958). Professionals tend to see problems because of high aspirations and performance standards. As the professional level of the technical group increases, involvement with the initiation of technical innovations will increase. Technical core employees can be expected to learn about and propose nearly all technical innovations adopted in the organization. The administrator role in technical innovation will be minimized. When the professional level of core members is low, the core members will tend to be less active as innovation initiators. If the organization is to be innovative, administrators will have to initiate a larger share of the technical innovations. Innovation specialization will be reduced. Administrator initiatives will probably meet with some success because employees who are not attached to a professional idealogy are less resistant to changes initiated by top managers (Zald & Denton, 1963). Another strategy available to administrators is collaboration with core members on technical proposals. If an administrator and employee work together on an innovation proposal, resistance to management's initiative will be reduced. Collaboration will engage core employees in the innovation process. Collaboration is essentially an implementation strategy, and is similar to the "mutual understanding" strategy for implementing scientific research (Churchman & Scheinblatt, 1965). The present study is not concerned with techniques of implementation, except as implementation strategies are reflected in proposal initiation. Collaboration is a realistic proposal strategy for administrators. But collaboration is not expected to be needed or used when core members are highly professional. Organization size probably will have consequences for the initiation of innovation proposals that are similar to the consequences of employee professionalism. Large organizations are characterized by greater division of labor. Technical employees in large organizations will be specialized and concerned with innovations in their task domain. Administrators also will be specialized and employed full-time on administrative activities. There will also tend to be greater formalization and less contact between technicians and administrators in large organizations. Thus there should be fewer collaborations.

1978

Daft

197

The discussion thus far has been concerned with the source of innovation proposals. Employee professionalism and organization size are also expected to influence the absolute number of innovation proposals and adoptions. Wilson (1966) and Zaltman, Duncan and Holbeck (1973) argue that employee professionalism and organization complexity are associated with a greater number of innovation proposals. However, they also argue that these same characteristics inhibit adoption. Autonomous employee specialists will propose ideas relevant to themselves, but will resist proposals by others. Likewise, the division of labor in large, complex organizations leads to increased proposals, but the coordination and compliance necessary for adoption is more difficult to achieve. If innovation proposals generally result in adoption, then factors such as professionalism and size should be associated with greater proposals and adoptions. However, if Wilson (1966) and Zaltman et al. (1973) are correct, then these variables may have opposing effects upon adoptions. The number of final adoptions cannot be predicted on the basis of proposals alone. In summary, then, administrators and technical core employees are expected to play important but different roles in the innovation process: (1) Each group is expected to initiate innovations pertaining to their own organization task; (2) this division of labor is expected to heighten as employee professionalism and organization size increase; (3) the absolute number of proposals initiated by each group is also expected to increase as professionalism and size increase; but (4) the greater number of proposals may not lead to greater adoptions because professionalism and size may be associated with greater resistance to adoption. RESEARCH METHOD Organizational innovation is usually defined as the adoption of a new idea or behavior by an organization. But new compared to what? Becker and Whisler define innovation as something new in relation to the organization's technological environment. They suggest that innovation is "the first or early use of an idea by one of a set of organizations with similar goals" (Becker and Whisler, 1967, p. 463). Innovation has also been defined as the adoption of an idea or behavior that is new to the organization adopting it (Mohr, 1969; Aiken & Hage, 1971). The idea can be old with regard to other organizations so long as the idea has not previously been used by the adopting organizations. The definition adopted for this research is the definition provided by Becker and Whisler (1967). The internal organizational process may be similar for the adoption of innovations by either of the above definitions. But the focus of this research is on the adoption of innovations from the developing pool of new ideas in the organization's technological environment. The definition of technical versus administrative innovation is taken from Evan (1966). A technical innovation is an idea for a new product,

198

Academy of Management Journal

June

process or service. An administrative innovation pertains to the policies of recruitment, allocation of resources, and the structuring of tasks, authority and reward. Technical innovations usually will be related to technology, and administrative innovations will be related to the social structure of the organization.
The Sample

The sample of organizations for this study consists of 13 suburban high school districts in Cook County, Illinois. Each school district is engaged in a similar function, with similar goals and ownership, and they use the same technology. The districts range in size from approximately 3,600 to 14,600 students. Each district has a seven-member school board elected by district residents. The school board is the top policy and decision body in the district. The superintendent is the top operating manager in the district, reporting directly to the school board. A principal is assigned to each school, and he/she is the line officer. The usual line of authority goes from the school board to the superintendent to the principal and then to the teacher. It should be emphasized that the organizational unit under study is the school district, not the individual high school. The district is the legal organizational entity in Illinois. The school board, superintendent, assistant superintendents and other district-level staff administer the entire district. Most of the data stored in state educational agencies are for the district rather than individual high schools. Typical schools have 2,000-2,500 students. Hence, large districts tend to have more schools than small districts. If the presence of multiple schools influences the innovation process, this effect will be partially captured by the measure of district size.
The Data

The school districts were surveyed during 1972 to learn which innovations had been adopted during the prior several years. Professional educators and books on education were also consulted to learn about new developments in the field of high school education. The reported innovations were assembled into a master innovation checklist of about 150 items. The checklist was taken to each district, and through interviews with curriculum coordinators and senior administrators it was determined whether each innovation was ever proposed or seriously considered for adoption, which innovations were actually adopted in the district, the year adopted, and where the idea originated (e.g., teacher, principal, et cetera). The eight-year period from 1964-72 was chosen as the criterion of innovation newness. Such a time period is long enough to include the diffusion of major developments in the recent past, but districts do not receive credit for adopting techniques which were available in the technological environ-

1978

Daft

199

ment for a long period of time. An analysis of the dates of innovation adoption revealed that many reported innovations were not new to the technological environment. Two innovations had been adopted as early as 1952 by one or two districts. Sixty-eight of the items on the master checklist met the time period criterion. They represent educational and administrative developments that became available to this set of organizations during the 1964-72 period. An independent measure of the adoption of innovations was available to validate the memories of the informants and the data collection procedure. A survey of new programs in Cook County high schools was conducted in 1965 by the Cook County Superintendent of Schools. A few of the programs included in the Cook County survey also appeared on the master checklist for this study. For the common programs, the number of adoptions reported for each district in the Cook County survey and on the checklists for this study were compared. The number of adoptions reported by each source are correlated .63 across the districts, which suggests that both surveys are measuring the same phenomenon. The .63 correlation is only for adoptions during 1965 and earlier. It is reasonable to expect that the informants would be just as accurate and probably more so for adoptions after 1965, which are the majority of innovations for this study. Fifty of the 68 innovations are classified as technical because they represent changes in educational content or method. Most of the technical innovations are new courses, new curricula, and new teaching techniques. Examples of curricular innovations include Harvard Project Physics, Oceanography and the substitution of numerous optional short courses for the traditional required English courses. New teaching techniques include individually paced coursework and dial-access retrieval systems. The 18 administrative innovations represent changes in the structure or process of the organization itself. Examples of administrative innovations are such things as the scheduling of students, the structure of high school organizations, the location of classes, and program budgeting. These innovations do not directly affect classroom method or content. Five hierarchial levels were coded as initiating innovative ideas: student, teacher, principal, superintendent, school board. The teachers are the line workers and most directly involved in the production process. Principals are administrators at a middle management level. The superintendent is the top administrator. Teacher professionalism is measured as the percentage of district certified staff who have completed a masters degree. The educational level in the district is a surrogate for the cluster of traits associated with employee professionalism, such as autonomy, expertise, education and training, and professional affiliations. The data on educational levels were provided by the Illinois Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The school districts in the sample ranged from 37 percent of teachers with masters degrees to 77 percent.

200

Academy of Management Journal

June

The educational level of district superintendents was also measured, but did not provide any useful variance across districts that could be used in the analysis. Ten of the 13 superintendents had doctorates. The other three had work beyond the masters degree. Two of the nondoctorates were in the two districts with the lowest average teacher education. The other nondoctorate was in the district with the fifth lowest level of teacher education. Teacher education and administrator education tend to be strongly associated in these school districts.
Unexpected Finding

One idea to be explored in this study was the notion that organizational variables simultaneously generate innovation proposals and inhibit decisions to adopt. For the hundreds of innovation adoptions reported by the districts for the 1964-72 period, only about half a dozen instances occurred where the innovation was proposed but not adopted. What could this mean? It could mean that the organizational memory for unadopted proposals is short. However, the informants seemed certain that a given innovation had never been proposed for adoption. Perhaps informal processes are at work whereby innovations that have a high probability of adoption are the ones that tend to be proposed. This finding may also mean simply that most serious proposals are adopted in these organizations. It might be unusual to reject serious proposals. This would mean that getting the innovation proposed is the most important step in the innovation process. This possibility will be examined in more detail after the other data are analyzed.
Analysis

The sameness of proposals and adoptions has consequences for the data analysis. Only one dependent variablenumber of adoptionswill be used in the analysis. It is not possible to discriminate between the number of proposals and the number of adoptions. For the analysis described in the next section, any adoption of the 68 innovations by any of the 13 districts is counted as a separate observation. The strategy of analyzing separate innovation decisions has been recommended by Downs and Mohr (1976). This strategy enables a clear test of the hypothesis that administrative and technical innovations originate with different groups in the organization. The school districts are then divided into subgroups according to district professionalism, size, and number of adoptions. Comparing these subgroups reveals how these variables influence the internal innovation process. A total of 414 adoptions occurred across these 13 districts from the pool of 68 innovations. It was not possible to trace 26 adoptions to the point of initiation. Thus, the analysis in the next section is based upon 388 innovation adoptions.

1978

Daft

201

THE FINDINGS

The data in Table 1 show that teachers are by far the major source of technical ideas (70 percent). The principal and superintendent levels are about equally active as sources of technical ideas (8 percent and 9 percent respectively), but both levels are much less active than teachers. For administrative ideas, activity increases with hierarchial level. Teachers initiate only 13 percent of administrative innovations, principals initiate 22 percent, and superintendents initiate 45 percent. Collaborations between administrators and teachers account for a similar proportion (12 and 15 percent) of each innovation type. Very few innovative ideas originate with students or school boards. There is little reason to expect students to be the source of innovations. Students are recipients of educational services, and they have little expertise and little exposure to new ideas. The small number of ideas from the school board is a little bit surprising. Board members are laymen and apparently leave the responsibility for initiating innovations to the experts within the organizations. If the board is to influence innovation adoption, it may be by helping establish a favorable climate for innovation and by approving proposals by others, rather than by being the source of new ideas. The small number of ideas from students and school board members supports the notion that innovation ideas originate with task experts within the organization. Students and school board members are dropped from the remaining analysis because they account for so few innovations. Principals and superintendents are combined into an administrator category. There is a strong relationship between innovation type and where the innovation is initiated when principals and superintendents are combined. Seventy percent of technical innovations originate with teachers alone, and 67 percent of administrative innovations originate with administrators.
TABLE 1 Innovation Type and Where Initiated
Innovation Type Where lnittated Students Teachers Principals Superintendents School Board Collaborations Technical Percent 1 70 8 9 .3 12 100 = 108.7 with 5 df, p < .001. n ( 4) (210) ( 24) ( 26) ( 1) ( 35) (300) Administrative Percent 4 13 22 45 1 15 100 ( ( ( ( ( ( n 4) 11) 19) 40) 1) 13)

( 88)

202

Academy of Management Journal

June

In Table 2 the school districts are divided into categories according to educational level of the teachers. Districts which have 64 percent or more teachers with masters degrees arc in the high professional category; districts with from 47 to 63 percent of teachers with masters degrees are in the medium professional category; and districts with less than 47 percent of teachers with masters degrees are in the low professional category. The Table 2 data indicate that teacher professionalism has considerable bearing on where ideas originate in the school district. In districts with highly professional teachers, the teachers propose 93 percent of the technical innovations. This drops off to 66 percent and 53 percent in the medium and low professional districts. The proportion of technical innovations initiated by administrators behaves just the opposite: Administrators propose only 7 percent of the technical innovations in the high professional districts, and this increases to 29 percent in the low professional districts. Collaboration between administrators and teachers is also more important in the medium and low professional districts. There may be some question about who initiates collaborations. From discussions with the superintendents in the sample about the innovation process, it seems that nearly all collaborations are initiated by administrators. The superintendents said that teachers have little reason to seek a collaboration with an administrator because teachers have to work with technical innovations, and when teachers really want a technical innovation they can usually have it. This is consistent with the earlier finding that most proposals are adopted. But when administrators want the teachers to adopt a technical innovation it is a different matter. If the teachers don't want an innovation, they frequently can resist administrator influence. One way to combat this is for the administrator to collaborate with one or more teachers in proposing the innovation for adoption.
TABLE 2 Employee Professionalism and Where Initiated, by Innovation Type Technical Innovations " Professionalism High Where Initiated Teachers Administrators Collaborations Number of adoptions Medium
% (X) %

Administrative Innovations^ '. Professionalism High

% (X)

Low
(X)

Medium % (x) 10 (0.8) 56 (4.5) 34 (2.8) 100 (8.0) 32

Liow % (^

(xy

93 (24.0) 7 ( 1.8) 0 ( 0.0) 100 (25.8) 103

66 (14.8) 15 ( 3.3) 19 ( 4.3) 100 (22.3) 89

53 (11.0) 29 ( 6.0) 17 ( 3.6) 100 (20.6) 103

47 (2.0) 47 (2.0) 6 (0.3) 100 (4.3) 17

0 (0.0) 97 (6.6) 3 (0.2) 100 (6.8) 34

= 46.3 with 4df,p<i .001. = 36.8 with 4 df, p < .001. = the average number of adoptions per district.

1978

Daft

203

The Table 2 data suggest that some sort of a power balance model also may influence collaborations. The percentage of collaborations is highest in the medium professional districts for both technical and administrative innovations. Collaboration is especially infrequent for technical innovations in the high professional districts where teachers may have exclusive influence in the educational domain. The average number of adoptions per school district (x) is included in Table 2 and subsequent tables. In the high professional districts, teachers account for more than twice as many technical innovation adoptions per district (24 versus 11) as in the low professional districts. The increased activity of administrators in the low professional districts (6.0 versus 1.8) is partly successful in overcoming the lack of teacher activity, but the high professional districts still adopt somewhat more innovations than the others (25.8 versus 20.6). A similar pattern of activity is observed on the right side of Table 2 for administrative innovations. Teachers propose nearly half (47 percent) of the administrative innovations in the high professional districts and none in the low professional districts. Administrators initiate a larger percentage of administrative innovations only as teacher education decreases. Highly educated teachers appear to generate an idea "push" from the bottom of the organization. The professional push even intrudes into what might be considered administrator territoryideas for administrative innovations. When teachers are less professional and less active, administrators take on a larger share of the idea load. The districts where administrators propose the largest percentage of administrative ideas also adopt a larger number of administrative innovations. Teacher involvement in administrative innovations does not lead to a large number of adoptions. Organizations appear to only adopt a larger number of innovations of either type when individuals in the relevant task domain actively initiate them. The involvement of teachers in administrative innovations or administrators in technical innovations is associated with fewer total adoptions of each innovation type. The data in Table 2 suggest that organizations are characterized by different innovation processes depending upon employee professionalism. In the high professional districts, the process tends to be bottom-up. Teachers apparently see problems, want to solve them, know about innovations, and hence propose most innovations that are adopted in the district. The administrators can be involved in activities other than innovation initiation. The consequence of this bottom-up process is a large number of technical innovation adoptions. The low professional organizations are characterized by more of a top-down innovation process. The administrators take a greater role in the initiation phase of innovation. Administrators initiate more technical innovations, which partly offsets the smaller number of technical innovations initiated by teachers. The top-down districts also adopt somewhat more administrative innovations.

204

Academy of Management Journal

June

The influence of organization size is less striking on the innovation process. In Table 3 the organizations are divided into three groups according to number of students: small = 3,600 to 4,600 students; medium = 4,700 to 7,000 students; and large = 7,200 to 14,600 students. Large districts are characterized by a slightly greater percentage of technical innovation proposals by teachers, and somewhat fewer collaborations. The reason is probably that large organizations have greater differentiation between teachers and administrators and more highly professional teachers and administrators. When an individual in either group wants a technical innovation, he/she is more likely to initiate it alone. In the small districts, the administrators are probably closer to the teachers and are better able to collaborate to get innovations adopted. Size has virtually no effect on the process of administrative innovation. The source of innovations is not significantly different across the three size categories. Size is apparently associated with frequency of innovation, however. More innovations of each type are initiated and adopted in large districts. For administrative innovations this is probably due to the greater number of ideas and the greater need for innovation experienced in large organizations. For technical innovations the greater frequency of innovation is probably due to the greater range of services required by a diverse student population and somewhat greater professionalism of teachers. The adoption of more innovations by large school districts is congruent with other research (Baldridge & Burnham, 1975). The final part of the analysis compares districts that adopt many innovations to districts that adopt few (Table 4). It seems from Table 4 that districts which adopt many technical innovations do so because of teacher activity. Teachers alone propose 77 percent of the technical innovations in the highly innovative districts for an average of 22 adoptions per district.
TABLE 3 Organization Size and Where Initiated, by Innovation Type
Technical Innovations' Size ,, Where Initiated Large % (x)' Medium % (x) % 69 (17.0) 23 ( 5.6) 8 ( 2.0) Smalt (x) 69 (13.2) 10 ( 1.8) 21 ( 4.0) % Administrative Innovations* Size Large (x) 12 (1.0) 64 (5.3) 24 (2.0) 100 (8.3) 25 Medium % 20 77 3 100 31 (x) (1.2) (4.8) (0.2) (6.2) Small (^ 1 (0.4) 70 (3.8) 22 (1.2) 100 27 %

Teachers 77 (19.7) Administrators 17 ( 4.3) Collaborations 6 ( 1.7)

100 (25.3) 100 (24.6) 100 (19.0) Number of adoptions 77 123 95 'X"-16.1 with 4df,p< .005. ''A"'=6.9with4<//,p<.10 I = t h e average number of adoptions per district.

1978

Daft

205

TABLE 4 Number of Adoptions and Where Initiated, hy Innovation Type

Technical Innovations' Number of adoptions ,,,, Where Initiated High % (x)' Medium % (x) 71 (15.4) 19 ( 4.2) 10 ( 2.2) 100 (21.8) 109 Low % (x) 54 ( 7.3) 14 ( 2.0) 32 ( 4.3) 100 (13.6) 41 High t % (x) 16 (1.4) 75 (6.4) 9 (0.8) 100 (8.6) 43 A dministrative Innovations'^ Number of adoptions Medium % (x) 6 (0.4) 68 (4.8) 26 (1.8) 100 (7.0) 35 Low % (x) 40 (0.7) 60 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 100 (1.7) 5

Teachers 77 (22.2) Administrators 16 ( 4.6) Collaborators 7 ( 2.2) Number of adoptions 100 (29.0) 145

Z== 19.1 with 4df,p< .001. ''Z==8.8with4rf/, p < . 1 0 . "ic^the average number of adoptions per district.

In the low innovation districts, teachers alone propose only 54 percent of technical innovations, which is 7.3 innovations per district. The proportion of technical innovations proposed by administrator's is similar across the districts, suggesting that administrative initiative is not a major factor in technical innovation. The proportion of innovations initiated via collaboration increases as district innovativeness decreases (7 percent versus 32 percent). Collaboration is probably a response by administrators to low innovation activity. In the high innovative districts there is little need for administrators to cross over and collaborate with teachers. The pattern of technical innovation in Table 4 is similar to the pattern in Table 2, which suggests that one reason for district innovativeness is the level of teacher professionalism. The data on the right side of Table 4 indicate that the proportion of administrative innovations proposed by administrators is moderately related to the frequency of adoption. In districts which adopt the most administrative innovations, 75 percent are proposed by administrators alone compared to only 60 percent in low innovation districts. Across all districts in the sample, the key to the adoption of administrative innovations clearly rests with administrators. The data do not tell us exactly why administrators are more active in some districts, but it is probably because they are in larger organizations and in organizations characterized by a centralized, top-down administrative process. DISCUSSION: A DUAL-CORE MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION The purpose of this study was to explore the early stages in the innovation process to leam something about where innovative ideas are proposed and why. The findings have to be treated as tentative, because they are based upon a small number of organizations and a single type of organiza-

206

Academy of Management Journal

June

tion. Within these school organizations, however, the observed relationships were quite strong. At one level of interpretation, the findings support Evan's trickle-up, trickle-down theory and a contingency approach to innovation. The process of innovation appears to be contingent upon both the type of innovation and the professional level of employees. Innovations tend to be brought into an organization and proposed by individuals who are the experts in a particular task domain and who will use the innovation. A further interpretation of the findingsand one which goes beyond the datais that they suggest a fundamental reinterpretation of certain ideas about organizational innovation. Consider the following possibility: School organizations, and perhaps other organizations, have dual coresthe technical core described by Thonipson (1967) and an administrative core. Each core has its own participants, its own goals, problems, activities, technology and environmental domain. Each core is essential to total organization functioning. The technical and administrative cores may have their own buffers, and in fact serve to buffer one anothereach taking responsibility for certain sectors of the external environment. Innovation can take place in either core. The administrative core is above the technical core in the hierarchy, and the domain of the administrative core includes the organization itself. Under certain circumstances the two cores are loosely coupled, i.e., attachments between them are weak and each retains identity and separateness (Weick, 1976). In school organizations, employee professionalism is important to coupling and innovation. When teachers are highly professional, the technical core will be only loosely coupled to the administrative core. When teacher professionalism is low, the administrative core will be somewhat more dominant, and the technical core will be tightly coupled to it. As professionalism increases within the "host" core relative to the other, responsibility for innovation within the core increases. Moreover, as professionalism increases, "host" core participants are more likely to initiate innovations into the other core. In other types of organizations, the amount of innovation and the degree of coupling between the two cores may be a function of technology, rate of change, and uncertainty in the environmental domain as well as employee professionalism. Administrative innovation and tight coupling will tend to occur when an organization must be poised to adapt to changes in goals, policies, strategies, structure, control systems, and personnel, all of which are in the administrative domain. The technical core becomes relatively more innovative, and loosely coupled, when changes in core technology are of primary importance. Explaining the adoption of innovation as a function of two organizational cores is a departure from the current theorizing. There are two findings in the data which point toward this new interpretation. First is the importance of innovation type. Innovation action takes place in two different areas of the organizationthe technical core and the administrative coreand innova-

1978

Daft

207

tions serve the respective groups. Technical ideas percolate from within the technical core and administrative ideas originate within the administrative core. Past empirical research has displayed only casual regard for innovation type. Technical and administrative innovations have been combined in unknown ways, so that the explanatory power of innovation type and the importance of two separate innovation centers has been obscured. The second finding concerns the relative innovation balance between the two cores. In some organizations, such as in the high professional districts studied here, nearly all innovations originate within the technical core, and nearly all innovations adopted by the organization are technical in nature. The organizational focus is upon technical innovation. The technical core appears to act independently (loose coupling), and administrators play a secondary role, routinely approving most proposals. In other organizations, the administrative component is relatively more important. The organization adopts greater numbers of administrative innovations. A substantial portion of technical innovations originate within the administrative core. The technical core appears to be subordinate and tightly coupled to an active and influential administrative core. With these ideas in mind, that organizations have dual cores and that organizations vary in the relative innovativeness and degree of coupling between these cores, it becomes possible to explain and reinterpret extant innovative ideas. In a discussion of innovation research, Aiken and Hage (1971) concluded that organic organizations have characteristics that facilitate innovations. Among these characteristics are involvement in professional associations and a high intensity of communication within organization groups. The high professional districts in this sample might be characterized as similar to the organic model described by Aiken and Hage. They also tend to be most innovative, but only for innovations within the technical core. This relationship does not hold for innovations in the administrative core. Low professional districts, which have tighter coupling and a dominant administrative core, tend to adopt more administrative innovations. Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck (1973) argue that organizations typically need one type of organization structure (low formalization, decentralization, high complexity) to generate innovation proposals and the opposite structure (high formalization, centralization, low complexity) to facilitate adoption and implementation. Yet the unexpected finding reported earlier in this paper indicates that proposals tend to be adopted; whatever circumstances engendered proposals in these districts did not inhibit adoption. The reason the Zaltman et al. argument is not supported becomes clear when one considers that innovation activity takes place in two separate cores. It seems likely that low formalization, decentralization, and high complexity (professionalism) are suited to both initiation and adoption of innovations within the technical core. The opposite structural conditions facilitate innovation in the administrative

208

Academy of Management Journal

June

core. High formalization, centralization, low complexity (professionalism) and tight coupling fit the initiation and adoption of innovations which pertain to the organization itself. These innovations often are pushed onto the technical core. For both types of innovations, proposals tend to be approved and implemented because the people who are involved with the innovations, the local experts, are within the respective cores and typically have a hand in initiating the changes. The notion of dual organizational cores also helps integrate disparate findings in the innovation literature. Several studies have attributed successful innovation to the professionalism of organization members (Sapolsky, 1967; Evan & Black, 1967; Hage & Aiken, 1967). Zald and Denton (1963) and Corwin (1972), however, did not find a positive relationship between professionalism and innovation. The studies which reported positive associations between professionalism and innovation typically dealt with new programs and other innovations which were pertinent to the technical core. Technical innovations are more likely to be pushed for adoption by professional employees. Zald and Denton, however, were studying the introduction of new organizational goals in the YMCA, which takes place within the administrative core and is a top-down process. This innovation is most likely to be successful when employees are low professionals and tightly coupled to administrators. In the study by Corwin, innovations were introduced by Teacher Corps interns who were assigned to schools to act as a catalyst and influence teachers to adopt innovations. This influence is not likely to be particularly effective in loosely coupled organizations where teachers are already well exposed and will initiate their own innovations. Finally, the dual-core conceptualization of organizational innovation has implications for the management of innovation. The dual-core concept helps answer the question raised at the beginning of this paperwhat is the role of top administrators in the innovation process? When innovation and adaptation within the technical core is desired, the advice is relatively straight forward: Acquire highly professional employees for the technical core, and let them handle innovation. Professional employees are aware of problems in their work, they are versed in the state of the art of their technology, and they should have the freedom (loose coupling) to innovate as they see fit. Approval of their proposals should be relatively routine. Acquisition of highly professional employees is not always possible, of course, because of financial constraints. In this case, administrators may have to be more active, which may mean tighter coupling and greater innovation activity from within the administrative core. For administrative innovations, the administrators are the experts. It is their responsibility to scan the environment for suitable ideas and initiate them in the administrative core. Administrative innovations often affect the technical core. Hence, this type of innovation activity will be most successful when the technical core is tightly coupled to the administrative core and when authority is centralized with administrators.

1978

Daft

209

In conclusion, the exploration into the origin of innovation proposals has yielded substantial insight about the process of innovation. The conceptualization of organizations as having two major centersdual cores |n which innovation and change occur, seems to explain the research findings. An important consideration for future research is that innovation processes are differentiated and complex. Organizational and environmental variables may be associated with innovation activity in one core but not with activity in the other core. Future investigators must distinguish innovation types and the location of innovation activities to achieve valid results. The focus of this paper has been on the source of innovation proposals and the effects of organization size and professionalism. Perhaps future research can integrate additional organization and environmental variables with the dual-core processes described here. REFERENCES
1. Aiken, M., and J. Hage. "The Organic Organization and Innovation," Sociology. Vol. 5 (1971), 63-82. 2. Argyris, C . r / ! e Applicability of Organizational Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge un,ivcistiy rrcss, lyy^). 3. Baldridge, J. V., and R. A. Burnham. "Organizational Innovation: Individual, Organizational, and Environmental Impacts," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 20 (1975), 165-176. 4. Becker, M. H. "Sociometric Location and Innovativeness: Reformulation and Extension of the Diflfusion Model," American Sociological Review. Vol. 35 (1970), 267-282 5. Becker, S. W., and T. L. Whisler. "The Innovative Organization: A Selective View of Current Theory and Research," Journal of Business. Vol. 40 (1967), 462-469. 6. Carlson, R. O. "School Superintendents and the Adoption of Modern Math A Social Structure Profile," in Mathew G. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in Education (New YorkBureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1964). 7. Carlson, R. O. Adoption of Educational Innovations (Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965). 8. Child, J. "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance- The Role of Strategic Choice," Sociology. Vol. 6 (1972), 1-22. 9. Churchman, C. W., and A. H. Scheinblatt. "The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation," Management Science. Vol. 11 (1965), B69-B87. 10. Corwin, R. G. "Strategies for Organizational Innovation: An Empirical Comparison " American Sociological Review. Vol. 37 (1972), 441-454. 11. Downs, G. W. Jr., and L. B. Mohr. "Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation" Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 21 (1976), 700-713. 12. Evan, W. M. "Organizational Lag," Human Organization. Vol. 25 (1966), 51-53 13. Evan, W. M., and R. Black. "Innovation in Business Organizations: Some Factors Associated with Success or Failure of Staff Proposals," Journal of Business. Vol. 40 14. Hage, J., and M. Aiken, "Program Change and Organizational Properties," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 72 (1967), 503-519. 15. Hage, J., and R. Dewar. "Elite Values Versus Organizational Structure in Predicting Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 18 (1973), 279-290 16. Kaluzny, A. D., J. E. Veney, and J. T. Gentry. "Innovation of Health Services- A Comparative Study of Hospitals and Health Departments," (Paper presented at the University of North Carolina Health Services Research Center Symposium on Innovation in Health Care Organizations, Chapel Hill, N.C., May 18-19, 1972). 17. March, J., and H. Simon. Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1958).

210

Academy of Management Journal

June

18. Mohr, L. B. "Determinants of Innovation in Organizations," American Political Science Review. Vol. 63 (1969), 111-126. 19. Palumbo, D. J. "Power and Role Specificity in Organization Theory," Public Administration Review. Vol. 29 (1969), 237-248. 20. Pondy, L. R. "Letter to the Editor," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 17 (1972), 408-409. 21. Sapolsky, H. M. "Organization Structure and Innovation," Journal of Business. Vol. 40 (1967), 497-519. 22. Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration (New York: Harper and Row, 1957). 23. Thompson, J. O. Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). 24. Weick, K. E. "Amendments to Organizational Theorizing," Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 17 (1974), 487-502. 25. Weick, K. E. "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 21 (1976), 1-19. 26. Zald, M. N., and P. Denton. "From Evangelism to General Service: The Transformation of the YMCA," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 7 (1963), 214-234. 27. Zaltman, G., R. Duncan and J. Holbeck. Innovations and Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1973).

1978 ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PROCEEDINGS

One hundred major papersthe best of those submitted to the divisions and interest groups of the thirty-eighth annual meeting of the Academy of Managementwill highlight the most current research and practice in the management of organizations. Abstracts of all other papers presented at the meetings will also be included in this volume. This year's PROCEEDINGS will be a valuable reference for management practitioners, teachers and researchers. The PROCEEDINGS is not included in the subscription to the Academy of Management JOURNAL or REVIEW. It must be ordered separately. Individuals not planning to attend the Meetings in San Francisco and university and corporate librarians should plan to order this 500-page book as a necessary addition to their collection. Institutions and consulting firms concerned with management problems will also find this year's PROCEEDINGS a great value. To order your copy send your name and mailing address with a check for $11.00 ($9.50 plus $1.50 for postage and handling) to: Academy of Management PROCEEDINGS, Dept. B P. O. Drawer KZ Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS 38762
PLEASE PLACE YOUR ORDER PROMPTLY TO RESERVE YOUR COPY.