Academy of Management Journat1978, Vol. 21, No. 2, 193-210

A Dual-Core Model ofOrganizational Innovation^

RICHARD L. DAFTQueen's University

This paper examines the role of administrators andtechnical employees in the process leading to innovationadoption. A marked division of labor is found. Theevidence indicates that two distinct innovation pro-cesses—bottom-up and top-down—can exist in organi-zations. The findings are used to propose a dual-coremodel of organizational innovation.

There is growing evidence that organization leaders have an impact onorganizational innovation. Hage and Dewar (1973) recently reported thatelite values toward change arc a better predictor of new program adoptionby health and welfare agencies than the structural characteristics of theagencies. Becker (1970) and Carlson (1964, 1965) linked innovationadoption to the status and sociometric centrality of organization top ad-ministrators. Other studies have found frequency of innovation associatedwith 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 processis not clear. One explanation for the above findings is that leaders areactive in the innovation process. Top administrators serve as a bridgebetween the organization and the technological environment. Top adminis-trators' exposure, status and rank place them in a position to introducechange into the organization. They are exposed to new ideas, and theirideas count. Organization leaders can also be active in other ways, as Hageand Dewar (1973) suggest, such as searching for funds to implement newprograms.

Another explanation for the findings is that top administrators influenceorganizational 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. DonNightingale made several helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. A special thanksto 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 mayoriginate with lower organization members. Studies that report positiveassociations 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 themselvesactive innovators. Freedom and exposure of employees at lower organiza-tion levels enable innovative ideas to enter the organization and be pro-posed. The leader role is to set innovation goals, encourage innovationinitiatives from lower members, and approve or disapprove innovationproposals.

Thus the research evidence can be used to support different explanationsfor the relationship between leader behavior and innovation. Leaders mayactively initiate innovations, or they may not. Much of the evidence bearingon this issue is from studies that have correlated administrator or organiza-tion attributes with innovation adoption. We have learned a great dealabout the correlates of innovation adoption from these studies. But wehave learned little about the activity leading to adoption. We don't knowwhere 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 analysismakes it difficult to obtain the specific evidence needed to support orrefute alternative theoretical explanations about underlying processes(Argyris, 1972; Child, 1972; Weick, 1974). Most researchers make con-jectures about process on the basis of correlation studies, as well theyshould. But many of our explanations remain at the level of conjecture.

One of the challenges facing organization researchers is to design studiesthat provide insight into underlying organization processes. In the case oforganizational innovation, this kind of insight would have at least twobenefits. First, obviously, is the knowledge gained from finding new ex-planations or identifying the correct explanation among several feasiblealternatives. The second benefit is a practical one. Fundamental knowledgeabout the innovation process, especially its early stages—where ideasoriginate and who proposes them—will suggest how organizations shouldbe designed (Pondy, 1972) to facilitate or inhibit the flow of ideas thatlead to innovation adoption.

The purpose of this paper is to report the results of one attempt togather evidence that will explain more fully the innovation process inorganizations. The behavior of administrators vis-a-vis lower employeesas 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 fouressential 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 toadopt, with special attention given to proposals. There has been littleresearch on this part of the innovation process.

Who proposes innovation ideas for adoption? Most new ideas probablyoriginate with organization members who span the boundary betweenorganizations and technological environments. William Evan (1966) hastheorized that administrators and lower employees both initiate innovations,depending upon the type of innovation to be proposed. Even argues thatorganizations can maximize adoptions by having innovative ideas originateat both ends of the organizational hierarchy: Administrative ideas wouldoriginate near the top of the hierarchy and trickle down; technical innova-tions would originate near the bottom of the hierarchy and trickle up. In-novative ideas follow different paths from conception to approval andimplementation.

The notion of two distinct innovation proposal patterns is intriguing.Innovative ideas may be moving through the hierarchy in different direc-tions, and the direction taken may affect chances for adoption. The point atwhich new ideas originate is probably a function of task differentiation.Organization members who work within a functional area will tend to bethe local experts in that area. They will be the most knowledgeable peoplein the organization regarding problems, new ideas, and the suitability ofideas for use in their task domain.

A new idea thus will be brought into the organization by organizationexperts who are interested in and aware of that particular kind of develop-ment. Experts in the technical aspect of an organization will tend to bethose people working on or near the core technology (Thompson, 1967).These people will be aware of technical problems, they can tell whether anew idea will fit into their current technology, and they have the expertiseto implement the innovation. Technical ideas proposed by administratorsand others outside the technical domain will tend to be out of synchroniza-tion with perceived needs and are less likely to be acceptable. Hence, newideas that relate to the production process will tend to originate below theadministrative level.

Top managers are the experts with regard to administrative arrangements.They are concerned with administrative problems and will be tuned tonew developments that apply to these problems. Lower level managers andworkers are less likely to see the big picture administratively, so theirproposals are not likely to be appropriate. Board members may also proposeadministrative innovations. These innovations will tend to be proposed andapproved 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 probablylimited to administrative ideas.

The hypothesized task specialization regarding innovation initiation willdepend to a great extent upon the professionalism of the employees in thetechnical core and organization size. Core employees will tend to be thelargest group in the organization and will constitute the largest interfacewith the technological environment. The professionalism of this group willbe associated with member education and training, participation in pro-fessional activities, exposure to new ideas, autonomy, and the desire forrecognition from peers rather than from the formal hierarchy. Many innova-tions are adopted because current techniques are perceived as unsatisfac-tory—when a performance gap exists (March & Simon, 1958). Profes-sionals tend to see problems because of high aspirations and performancestandards. As the professional level of the technical group increases, in-volvement with the initiation of technical innovations will increase. Tech-nical core employees can be expected to learn about and propose nearlyall technical innovations adopted in the organization. The administratorrole in technical innovation will be minimized.

When the professional level of core members is low, the core memberswill tend to be less active as innovation initiators. If the organization is tobe innovative, administrators will have to initiate a larger share of thetechnical innovations. Innovation specialization will be reduced. Adminis-trator initiatives will probably meet with some success because employeeswho are not attached to a professional idealogy are less resistant to changesinitiated by top managers (Zald & Denton, 1963).

Another strategy available to administrators is collaboration with coremembers on technical proposals. If an administrator and employee worktogether on an innovation proposal, resistance to management's initiativewill be reduced. Collaboration will engage core employees in the innovationprocess. Collaboration is essentially an implementation strategy, and issimilar to the "mutual understanding" strategy for implementing scientificresearch (Churchman & Scheinblatt, 1965). The present study is not con-cerned with techniques of implementation, except as implementationstrategies are reflected in proposal initiation. Collaboration is a realisticproposal strategy for administrators. But collaboration is not expected to beneeded or used when core members are highly professional.

Organization size probably will have consequences for the initiation ofinnovation proposals that are similar to the consequences of employee pro-fessionalism. Large organizations are characterized by greater division oflabor. Technical employees in large organizations will be specialized andconcerned with innovations in their task domain. Administrators also willbe specialized and employed full-time on administrative activities. Therewill also tend to be greater formalization and less contact between tech-nicians and administrators in large organizations. Thus there should befewer collaborations.

1978 Daft 197

The discussion thus far has been concerned with the source of innovationproposals. Employee professionalism and organization size are also ex-pected to influence the absolute number of innovation proposals and adop-tions. Wilson (1966) and Zaltman, Duncan and Holbeck (1973) arguethat employee professionalism and organization complexity are associatedwith a greater number of innovation proposals. However, they also arguethat these same characteristics inhibit adoption. Autonomous employeespecialists will propose ideas relevant to themselves, but will resist proposalsby others. Likewise, the division of labor in large, complex organizationsleads to increased proposals, but the coordination and compliance necessaryfor adoption is more difficult to achieve. If innovation proposals generallyresult in adoption, then factors such as professionalism and size shouldbe associated with greater proposals and adoptions. However, if Wilson(1966) and Zaltman et al. (1973) are correct, then these variables mayhave opposing effects upon adoptions. The number of final adoptions cannotbe predicted on the basis of proposals alone.

In summary, then, administrators and technical core employees areexpected to play important but different roles in the innovation process:(1) Each group is expected to initiate innovations pertaining to their ownorganization task; (2) this division of labor is expected to heighten as em-ployee professionalism and organization size increase; (3) the absolutenumber of proposals initiated by each group is also expected to increase asprofessionalism and size increase; but (4) the greater number of proposalsmay not lead to greater adoptions because professionalism and size may beassociated with greater resistance to adoption.

RESEARCH METHOD

Organizational innovation is usually defined as the adoption of a new ideaor behavior by an organization. But new compared to what? Becker andWhisler define innovation as something new in relation to the organization'stechnological environment. They suggest that innovation is "the first orearly 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 theadoption 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 toother organizations so long as the idea has not previously been used by theadopting organizations.

The definition adopted for this research is the definition provided byBecker and Whisler (1967). The internal organizational process may besimilar for the adoption of innovations by either of the above definitions.But the focus of this research is on the adoption of innovations from thedeveloping pool of new ideas in the organization's technological environ-ment.

The definition of technical versus administrative innovation is takenfrom 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 policiesof recruitment, allocation of resources, and the structuring of tasks, authorityand reward. Technical innovations usually will be related to technology,and administrative innovations will be related to the social structure of theorganization.

The Sample

The sample of organizations for this study consists of 13 suburban highschool districts in Cook County, Illinois. Each school district is engaged ina similar function, with similar goals and ownership, and they use the sametechnology. The districts range in size from approximately 3,600 to 14,600students.

Each district has a seven-member school board elected by districtresidents. The school board is the top policy and decision body in thedistrict. The superintendent is the top operating manager in the district,reporting directly to the school board. A principal is assigned to eachschool, and he/she is the line officer. The usual line of authority goes fromthe school board to the superintendent to the principal and then to theteacher.

It should be emphasized that the organizational unit under study is theschool district, not the individual high school. The district is the legal or-ganizational entity in Illinois. The school board, superintendent, assistantsuperintendents and other district-level staff administer the entire district.Most of the data stored in state educational agencies are for the districtrather than individual high schools. Typical schools have 2,000-2,500students. Hence, large districts tend to have more schools than small districts.If the presence of multiple schools influences the innovation process, thiseffect will be partially captured by the measure of district size.

The Data

The school districts were surveyed during 1972 to learn which innovationshad been adopted during the prior several years. Professional educatorsand books on education were also consulted to learn about new develop-ments in the field of high school education. The reported innovations wereassembled into a master innovation checklist of about 150 items. Thechecklist was taken to each district, and through interviews with curriculumcoordinators and senior administrators it was determined whether eachinnovation was ever proposed or seriously considered for adoption, whichinnovations were actually adopted in the district, the year adopted, andwhere the idea originated (e.g., teacher, principal, et cetera).

The eight-year period from 1964-72 was chosen as the criterion of in-novation newness. Such a time period is long enough to include the diffusionof major developments in the recent past, but districts do not receive creditfor 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 innovationadoption revealed that many reported innovations were not new to thetechnological environment. Two innovations had been adopted as early as1952 by one or two districts. Sixty-eight of the items on the master check-list met the time period criterion. They represent educational and ad-ministrative developments that became available to this set of organizationsduring the 1964-72 period.

An independent measure of the adoption of innovations was availableto validate the memories of the informants and the data collection procedure.A survey of new programs in Cook County high schools was conducted in1965 by the Cook County Superintendent of Schools. A few of the programsincluded in the Cook County survey also appeared on the master check-list for this study. For the common programs, the number of adoptionsreported for each district in the Cook County survey and on the checklistsfor this study were compared. The number of adoptions reported by eachsource are correlated .63 across the districts, which suggests that bothsurveys are measuring the same phenomenon. The .63 correlation is onlyfor adoptions during 1965 and earlier. It is reasonable to expect that theinformants would be just as accurate and probably more so for adoptionsafter 1965, which are the majority of innovations for this study.

Fifty of the 68 innovations are classified as technical because they repre-sent changes in educational content or method. Most of the technicalinnovations 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 coursesfor the traditional required English courses. New teaching techniques in-clude individually paced coursework and dial-access retrieval systems.

The 18 administrative innovations represent changes in the structure orprocess of the organization itself. Examples of administrative innovationsare such things as the scheduling of students, the structure of high schoolorganizations, the location of classes, and program budgeting. These in-novations 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 lineworkers and most directly involved in the production process. Principals areadministrators at a middle management level. The superintendent is thetop administrator.

Teacher professionalism is measured as the percentage of district certifiedstaff who have completed a masters degree. The educational level in thedistrict is a surrogate for the cluster of traits associated with employeeprofessionalism, such as autonomy, expertise, education and training, andprofessional affiliations. The data on educational levels were provided bythe Illinois Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The schooldistricts in the sample ranged from 37 percent of teachers with mastersdegrees 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 usedin the analysis. Ten of the 13 superintendents had doctorates. The otherthree had work beyond the masters degree. Two of the nondoctorates werein the two districts with the lowest average teacher education. The othernondoctorate was in the district with the fifth lowest level of teachereducation. Teacher education and administrator education tend to bestrongly associated in these school districts.

Unexpected Finding

One idea to be explored in this study was the notion that organizationalvariables simultaneously generate innovation proposals and inhibit decisionsto adopt. For the hundreds of innovation adoptions reported by the districtsfor the 1964-72 period, only about half a dozen instances occurred wherethe innovation was proposed but not adopted. What could this mean? Itcould mean that the organizational memory for unadopted proposals isshort. However, the informants seemed certain that a given innovation hadnever been proposed for adoption. Perhaps informal processes are at workwhereby innovations that have a high probability of adoption are the onesthat tend to be proposed. This finding may also mean simply that mostserious proposals are adopted in these organizations. It might be unusual toreject serious proposals. This would mean that getting the innovation pro-posed is the most important step in the innovation process. This possibilitywill be examined in more detail after the other data are analyzed.

Analysis

The sameness of proposals and adoptions has consequences for the dataanalysis. Only one dependent variable—number of adoptions—will be usedin the analysis. It is not possible to discriminate between the number ofproposals and the number of adoptions.

For the analysis described in the next section, any adoption of the 68innovations by any of the 13 districts is counted as a separate observation.The strategy of analyzing separate innovation decisions has been recom-mended by Downs and Mohr (1976). This strategy enables a clear test ofthe hypothesis that administrative and technical innovations originate withdifferent groups in the organization. The school districts are then dividedinto subgroups according to district professionalism, size, and number ofadoptions. Comparing these subgroups reveals how these variables influencethe internal innovation process. A total of 414 adoptions occurred acrossthese 13 districts from the pool of 68 innovations. It was not possible totrace 26 adoptions to the point of initiation. Thus, the analysis in the nextsection 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 oftechnical ideas (70 percent). The principal and superintendent levels areabout equally active as sources of technical ideas (8 percent and 9 percentrespectively), but both levels are much less active than teachers. For ad-ministrative ideas, activity increases with hierarchial level. Teachers initiateonly 13 percent of administrative innovations, principals initiate 22 percent,and superintendents initiate 45 percent. Collaborations between adminis-trators 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 ex-pertise and little exposure to new ideas. The small number of ideas from theschool board is a little bit surprising. Board members are laymen and ap-parently leave the responsibility for initiating innovations to the expertswithin the organizations. If the board is to influence innovation adoption,it may be by helping establish a favorable climate for innovation and byapproving proposals by others, rather than by being the source of newideas. The small number of ideas from students and school board memberssupports the notion that innovation ideas originate with task experts withinthe organization.

Students and school board members are dropped from the remaininganalysis because they account for so few innovations. Principals andsuperintendents are combined into an administrator category. There is astrong relationship between innovation type and where the innovation isinitiated when principals and superintendents are combined. Seventy per-cent of technical innovations originate with teachers alone, and 67 percentof administrative innovations originate with administrators.

Wherelnittated

StudentsTeachersPrincipalsSuperintendentsSchool BoardCollaborations

TABLE 1

Innovation Type and Where Initiated »

Innovation

Technical

Percent

170

89

.312

100

n

( 4)(210)( 24)( 26)( 1)( 35)

(300)

Type

Administrative

Percent

4132245

115

100

n

( 4)( 11)( 19)( 40)( 1)( 13)

( 88)

= 108.7 with 5 df, p < .001.

202 Academy of Management Journal June

In Table 2 the school districts are divided into categories according toeducational level of the teachers. Districts which have 64 percent or moreteachers with masters degrees arc in the high professional category; districtswith from 47 to 63 percent of teachers with masters degrees are in themedium professional category; and districts with less than 47 percent ofteachers with masters degrees are in the low professional category.

The Table 2 data indicate that teacher professionalism has considerablebearing on where ideas originate in the school district. In districts withhighly professional teachers, the teachers propose 93 percent of the tech-nical innovations. This drops off to 66 percent and 53 percent in the me-dium and low professional districts. The proportion of technical innovationsinitiated by administrators behaves just the opposite: Administrators pro-pose only 7 percent of the technical innovations in the high professionaldistricts, and this increases to 29 percent in the low professional districts.Collaboration between administrators and teachers is also more importantin the medium and low professional districts.

There may be some question about who initiates collaborations. Fromdiscussions with the superintendents in the sample about the innovationprocess, it seems that nearly all collaborations are initiated by admin-istrators. The superintendents said that teachers have little reason to seeka collaboration with an administrator because teachers have to work withtechnical innovations, and when teachers really want a technical innovationthey can usually have it. This is consistent with the earlier finding that mostproposals are adopted. But when administrators want the teachers to adopta technical innovation it is a different matter. If the teachers don't want aninnovation, they frequently can resist administrator influence. One way tocombat this is for the administrator to collaborate with one or more teachersin proposing the innovation for adoption.

TABLE 2

Employee Professionalism and Where Initiated, by Innovation Type -

WhereInitiated

TeachersAdministratorsCollaborations

Number ofadoptions

Technical Innovations "

High

% (xy

93 (24.0)7 ( 1.8)0 ( 0.0)

100 (25.8)

103

Professionalism '.

Medium

% (X)

66 (14.8)15 ( 3.3)19 ( 4.3)

100 (22.3)

89

Low

% (X)

53 (11.0)29 ( 6.0)17 ( 3.6)

100 (20.6)

103

Administrative Innovations^

High

% (X)

47 (2.0)47 (2.0)

6 (0.3)

100 (4.3)

17

Professionalism

Medium

% (x)

10 (0.8)56 (4.5)34 (2.8)

100 (8.0)

32

Liow

% (^

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 alsomay influence collaborations. The percentage of collaborations is highestin the medium professional districts for both technical and administrativeinnovations. Collaboration is especially infrequent for technical innovationsin the high professional districts where teachers may have exclusive in-fluence in the educational domain.

The average number of adoptions per school district (x) is included inTable 2 and subsequent tables. In the high professional districts, teachersaccount for more than twice as many technical innovation adoptions perdistrict (24 versus 11) as in the low professional districts. The increasedactivity of administrators in the low professional districts (6.0 versus 1.8) ispartly successful in overcoming the lack of teacher activity, but the highprofessional districts still adopt somewhat more innovations than theothers (25.8 versus 20.6).

A similar pattern of activity is observed on the right side of Table 2for administrative innovations. Teachers propose nearly half (47 percent)of the administrative innovations in the high professional districts andnone in the low professional districts. Administrators initiate a larger per-centage of administrative innovations only as teacher education decreases.Highly educated teachers appear to generate an idea "push" from thebottom of the organization. The professional push even intrudes into whatmight be considered administrator territory—ideas for administrative in-novations. When teachers are less professional and less active, administratorstake on a larger share of the idea load.

The districts where administrators propose the largest percentage ofadministrative ideas also adopt a larger number of administrative innova-tions. Teacher involvement in administrative innovations does not lead to alarge number of adoptions. Organizations appear to only adopt a largernumber of innovations of either type when individuals in the relevant taskdomain actively initiate them. The involvement of teachers in administrativeinnovations or administrators in technical innovations is associated withfewer total adoptions of each innovation type.

The data in Table 2 suggest that organizations are characterized by dif-ferent innovation processes depending upon employee professionalism. Inthe high professional districts, the process tends to be bottom-up. Teachersapparently see problems, want to solve them, know about innovations, andhence propose most innovations that are adopted in the district. The ad-ministrators can be involved in activities other than innovation initiation.The consequence of this bottom-up process is a large number of technicalinnovation adoptions. The low professional organizations are characterizedby more of a top-down innovation process. The administrators take agreater role in the initiation phase of innovation. Administrators initiatemore technical innovations, which partly offsets the smaller number oftechnical innovations initiated by teachers. The top-down districts alsoadopt somewhat more administrative innovations.

204 Academy of Management Journal June

The influence of organization size is less striking on the innovation pro-cess. In Table 3 the organizations are divided into three groups accordingto number of students: small = 3,600 to 4,600 students; medium = 4,700to 7,000 students; and large = 7,200 to 14,600 students. Large districts arecharacterized by a slightly greater percentage of technical innovation pro-posals by teachers, and somewhat fewer collaborations. The reason isprobably that large organizations have greater differentiation betweenteachers and administrators and more highly professional teachers andadministrators. When an individual in either group wants a technical in-novation, he/she is more likely to initiate it alone. In the small districts, theadministrators are probably closer to the teachers and are better able tocollaborate 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 sizecategories. Size is apparently associated with frequency of innovation, how-ever. More innovations of each type are initiated and adopted in largedistricts. For administrative innovations this is probably due to thegreater number of ideas and the greater need for innovation experienced inlarge organizations. For technical innovations the greater frequency of in-novation is probably due to the greater range of services required by adiverse student population and somewhat greater professionalism ofteachers. The adoption of more innovations by large school districts iscongruent with other research (Baldridge & Burnham, 1975).

The final part of the analysis compares districts that adopt many in-novations to districts that adopt few (Table 4). It seems from Table 4 thatdistricts which adopt many technical innovations do so because of teacheractivity. Teachers alone propose 77 percent of the technical innovations inthe highly innovative districts for an average of 22 adoptions per district.

TABLE 3

Organization Size and Where Initiated, by Innovation Type

Technical Innovations' Administrative Innovations*

Size

„ , , Large Medium SmaltWhere —Initiated % (x)' % (x) % (x)

Large

%

126424

(x)

(1.0)(5.3)(2.0)

Size

Medium

% (x)

20 (1.2)77 (4.8)3 (0.2)

Small

%

17022

(^

(0.4)(3.8)(1.2)

Teachers 77 (19.7) 69 (17.0) 69 (13.2)Administrators 17 ( 4.3) 23 ( 5.6) 10 ( 1.8)Collaborations 6 ( 1.7) 8 ( 2.0) 21 ( 4.0)

100 (25.3) 100 (24.6) 100 (19.0) 100 (8.3) 100 (6.2) 100

Number ofadoptions 77 123 95 25 31 27

'X"-16.1 with 4df,p< .005.' 'A"'=6.9with4<//,p<.10°I=the average number of adoptions per district.

1978 Daft 205

TABLE 4

Number of Adoptions and Where Initiated, hy Innovation Type

Technical Innovations' A dministrative Innovations'^

Number of adoptions Number of adoptions

,,,, High Medium Low High Medium LowWhere tInitiated % (x)' % (x) % (x) % (x) % (x) % (x)

Teachers 77 (22.2) 71 (15.4) 54 ( 7.3) 16 (1.4) 6 (0.4) 40 (0.7)Administrators 16 ( 4.6) 19 ( 4.2) 14 ( 2.0) 75 (6.4) 68 (4.8) 60 (1.0)Collaborators 7 ( 2.2) 10 ( 2.2) 32 ( 4.3) 9 (0.8) 26 (1.8) 0 (0.0)

100 (29.0) 100 (21.8) 100 (13.6) 100 (8.6) 100 (7.0) 100 (1.7)Number of

adoptions 145 109 41 43 35 5

•Z== 19.1 with 4df,p< .001.''Z==8.8with4rf/, p< .10 ."ic^the average number of adoptions per district.

In the low innovation districts, teachers alone propose only 54 percent oftechnical innovations, which is 7.3 innovations per district. The proportionof technical innovations proposed by administrator's is similar across thedistricts, suggesting that administrative initiative is not a major factor intechnical innovation. The proportion of innovations initiated via collabora-tion increases as district innovativeness decreases (7 percent versus 32percent). Collaboration is probably a response by administrators to lowinnovation activity. In the high innovative districts there is little need foradministrators to cross over and collaborate with teachers. The pattern oftechnical innovation in Table 4 is similar to the pattern in Table 2, whichsuggests that one reason for district innovativeness is the level of teacherprofessionalism.

The data on the right side of Table 4 indicate that the proportion ofadministrative innovations proposed by administrators is moderately relatedto the frequency of adoption. In districts which adopt the most administra-tive innovations, 75 percent are proposed by administrators alone comparedto only 60 percent in low innovation districts. Across all districts in thesample, the key to the adoption of administrative innovations clearly restswith administrators. The data do not tell us exactly why administrators aremore active in some districts, but it is probably because they are in largerorganizations and in organizations characterized by a centralized, top-downadministrative process.

DISCUSSION: A DUAL-CORE MODEL OFORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION

The purpose of this study was to explore the early stages in the innova-tion process to leam something about where innovative ideas are proposedand why. The findings have to be treated as tentative, because they arebased 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 relationshipswere quite strong. At one level of interpretation, the findings supportEvan's trickle-up, trickle-down theory and a contingency approach toinnovation. The process of innovation appears to be contingent upon boththe type of innovation and the professional level of employees. Innovationstend to be brought into an organization and proposed by individuals whoare the experts in a particular task domain and who will use the innovation.A further interpretation of the findings—and one which goes beyond thedata—is that they suggest a fundamental reinterpretation of certain ideasabout organizational innovation.

Consider the following possibility: School organizations, and perhapsother organizations, have dual cores—the technical core described byThonipson (1967) and an administrative core. Each core has its ownparticipants, its own goals, problems, activities, technology and environ-mental domain. Each core is essential to total organization functioning.The technical and administrative cores may have their own buffers, and infact serve to buffer one another—each taking responsibility for certain sec-tors of the external environment. Innovation can take place in either core.

The administrative core is above the technical core in the hierarchy, andthe domain of the administrative core includes the organization itself.Under certain circumstances the two cores are loosely coupled, i.e., attach-ments between them are weak and each retains identity and separateness(Weick, 1976). In school organizations, employee professionalism is im-portant 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 some-what more dominant, and the technical core will be tightly coupled to it. Asprofessionalism increases within the "host" core relative to the other, respon-sibility for innovation within the core increases. Moreover, as professional-ism increases, "host" core participants are more likely to initiate innovationsinto the other core.

In other types of organizations, the amount of innovation and the degreeof coupling between the two cores may be a function of technology, rate ofchange, and uncertainty in the environmental domain as well as employeeprofessionalism. Administrative innovation and tight coupling will tend tooccur when an organization must be poised to adapt to changes in goals,policies, strategies, structure, control systems, and personnel, all of whichare in the administrative domain. The technical core becomes relativelymore innovative, and loosely coupled, when changes in core technology areof primary importance.

Explaining the adoption of innovation as a function of two organizationalcores is a departure from the current theorizing. There are two findings in thedata which point toward this new interpretation. First is the importance ofinnovation type. Innovation action takes place in two different areas of theorganization—the technical core and the administrative core—and innova-

1978 Daft 207

tions serve the respective groups. Technical ideas percolate from withinthe technical core and administrative ideas originate within the administra-tive core. Past empirical research has displayed only casual regard for in-novation type. Technical and administrative innovations have been com-bined in unknown ways, so that the explanatory power of innovation typeand the importance of two separate innovation centers has been obscured.

The second finding concerns the relative innovation balance betweenthe two cores. In some organizations, such as in the high professional dis-tricts studied here, nearly all innovations originate within the technical core,and nearly all innovations adopted by the organization are technical innature. The organizational focus is upon technical innovation. The technicalcore appears to act independently (loose coupling), and administratorsplay a secondary role, routinely approving most proposals. In other organ-izations, the administrative component is relatively more important. Theorganization adopts greater numbers of administrative innovations. A sub-stantial portion of technical innovations originate within the administrativecore. The technical core appears to be subordinate and tightly coupled to anactive and influential administrative core.

With these ideas in mind, that organizations have dual cores and thatorganizations vary in the relative innovativeness and degree of couplingbetween these cores, it becomes possible to explain and reinterpret extantinnovative ideas.

In a discussion of innovation research, Aiken and Hage (1971) con-cluded that organic organizations have characteristics that facilitate in-novations. Among these characteristics are involvement in professional as-sociations and a high intensity of communication within organizationgroups. The high professional districts in this sample might be characterizedas similar to the organic model described by Aiken and Hage. They alsotend to be most innovative, but only for innovations within the technicalcore. This relationship does not hold for innovations in the administrativecore. Low professional districts, which have tighter coupling and a domi-nant administrative core, tend to adopt more administrative innovations.

Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck (1973) argue that organizationstypically need one type of organization structure (low formalization, de-centralization, high complexity) to generate innovation proposals and theopposite structure (high formalization, centralization, low complexity) tofacilitate adoption and implementation. Yet the unexpected finding re-ported earlier in this paper indicates that proposals tend to be adopted;whatever circumstances engendered proposals in these districts did notinhibit adoption. The reason the Zaltman et al. argument is not sup-ported becomes clear when one considers that innovation activity takesplace in two separate cores. It seems likely that low formalization, de-centralization, and high complexity (professionalism) are suited to bothinitiation and adoption of innovations within the technical core. Theopposite 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 whichpertain to the organization itself. These innovations often are pushed ontothe technical core. For both types of innovations, proposals tend to beapproved and implemented because the people who are involved with theinnovations, the local experts, are within the respective cores and typicallyhave a hand in initiating the changes.

The notion of dual organizational cores also helps integrate disparatefindings in the innovation literature. Several studies have attributed success-ful 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 betweenprofessionalism and innovation. The studies which reported positive associa-tions between professionalism and innovation typically dealt with new pro-grams and other innovations which were pertinent to the technical core.Technical innovations are more likely to be pushed for adoption by pro-fessional employees. Zald and Denton, however, were studying the intro-duction of new organizational goals in the YMCA, which takes place withinthe administrative core and is a top-down process. This innovation is mostlikely to be successful when employees are low professionals and tightlycoupled to administrators. In the study by Corwin, innovations were intro-duced by Teacher Corps interns who were assigned to schools to act as acatalyst and influence teachers to adopt innovations. This influence is notlikely to be particularly effective in loosely coupled organizations whereteachers are already well exposed and will initiate their own innovations.

Finally, the dual-core conceptualization of organizational innovation hasimplications for the management of innovation. The dual-core concept helpsanswer the question raised at the beginning of this paper—what is therole of top administrators in the innovation process? When innovation andadaptation within the technical core is desired, the advice is relativelystraight forward: Acquire highly professional employees for the technicalcore, and let them handle innovation. Professional employees are aware ofproblems in their work, they are versed in the state of the art of theirtechnology, and they should have the freedom (loose coupling) to innovateas they see fit. Approval of their proposals should be relatively routine.Acquisition of highly professional employees is not always possible, ofcourse, because of financial constraints. In this case, administrators mayhave to be more active, which may mean tighter coupling and greater in-novation activity from within the administrative core.

For administrative innovations, the administrators are the experts. It istheir responsibility to scan the environment for suitable ideas and initiatethem in the administrative core. Administrative innovations often affectthe technical core. Hence, this type of innovation activity will be mostsuccessful when the technical core is tightly coupled to the administrativecore and when authority is centralized with administrators.

1978 Daft 209

In conclusion, the exploration into the origin of innovation proposalshas yielded substantial insight about the process of innovation. The con-ceptualization of organizations as having two major centers—dual cores|n which innovation and change occur, seems to explain the research find-ings. An important consideration for future research is that innovationprocesses are differentiated and complex. Organizational and environmentalvariables may be associated with innovation activity in one core but not withactivity in the other core. Future investigators must distinguish innovationtypes and the location of innovation activities to achieve valid results. Thefocus of this paper has been on the source of innovation proposals and theeffects of organization size and professionalism. Perhaps future researchcan integrate additional organization and environmental variables with thedual-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: Cambridgeun,ivcistiy rrcss, lyy^).

3. Baldridge, J. V., and R. A. Burnham. "Organizational Innovation: Individual, Organiza-tional, and Environmental Impacts," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 20 (1975),165-176.

4. Becker, M. H. "Sociometric Location and Innovativeness: Reformulation and Extensionof 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 ofCurrent Theory and Research," Journal of Business. Vol. 40 (1967), 462-469.

6. Carlson, R. O. "School Superintendents and the Adoption of Modern Math A SocialStructure Profile," in Mathew G. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in Education (New York-Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1964).

7. Carlson, R. O. Adoption of Educational Innovations (Eugene: Center for the AdvancedStudy of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965).

8. Child, J. "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance- The Role ofStrategic Choice," Sociology. Vol. 6 (1972), 1-22.

9. Churchman, C. W., and A. H. Scheinblatt. "The Researcher and the Manager: A Dia-lectic 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), 51-5313. 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," AmericanJournal of Sociology. Vol. 72 (1967), 503-519.

15. Hage, J., and R. Dewar. "Elite Values Versus Organizational Structure in PredictingInnovation," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 18 (1973), 279-290

16. Kaluzny, A. D., J. E. Veney, and J. T. Gentry. "Innovation of Health Services- AComparative Study of Hospitals and Health Departments," (Paper presented at theUniversity of North Carolina Health Services Research Center Symposium on Innova-tion 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 ScienceReview. Vol. 63 (1969), 111-126.

19. Palumbo, D. J. "Power and Role Specificity in Organization Theory," Public Administra-tion 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 PROCEEDINGSOne hundred major papers—the best of those submitted to the divisions andinterest groups of the thirty-eighth annual meeting of the Academy of Manage-ment—will highlight the most current research and practice in the managementof organizations. Abstracts of all other papers presented at the meetings willalso be included in this volume. This year's PROCEEDINGS will be a valuablereference for management practitioners, teachers and researchers.

The PROCEEDINGS is not included in the subscription to the Academy of Man-agement JOURNAL or REVIEW. It must be ordered separately. Individuals notplanning to attend the Meetings in San Francisco and university and corporate li-brarians should plan to order this 500-page book as a necessary addition totheir collection. Institutions and consulting firms concerned with managementproblems 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. BP. O. Drawer KZMississippi State UniversityMississippi State, MS 38762

PLEASE PLACE YOUR ORDER PROMPTLY TO RESERVE YOUR COPY.