This meta-analysis examines the relationship between organizational innovation and centripetal versus centrifugal forces at different stages of the innovation process and for different types of innovations. The analysis finds that: 1) Centripetal forces have a positive effect on both radical and incremental innovations during implementation and initiation phases. 2) Centrifugal forces have a positive effect on radical innovations during both initiation and implementation, but only have a positive effect on incremental innovations during the initiation phase. 3) The results indicate organizations need to balance centripetal and centrifugal forces differently depending on the type and stage of innovation in order to maximize innovation. Radical innovations benefit from more centrifugal forces, while incremental innovations benefit more from cent

1. Balancing Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in a Lifecycle Model of Innovation: A
Meta-Analysis
M.W. Werwath, PhD
1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
innovation.” Innovation is acknowledged to be an engine
Abstract— Organizations struggle to become consistently for growth in both the technological as well as
innovative throughout their lifecycle. This struggle becomes organizational domains, yet ironically during this
especially important to organizations when the capacity to
economic downturn, investment in innovation has been
innovate becomes depleted due to adverse economic and
business conditions. This study analyzes the antecedents to
deferred in favor of cost reduction techniques. As a result,
organizational innovation using a quantitative meta-analysis many organizations have deferred innovation thrusts at
of the extant literature within the context of an established their own peril, starving the engine of growth that fueled
theoretical frame for the field. This study expands the the boom of the 1990s.
theoretical frame of Willow Sheremata [114], which
distinguishes between centrifugal and centripetal forces, by For purposes of this study, I chose to simplify the analysis
analyzing and categorizing ninety-four studies (outcomes) and look only at two different stages of innovation
and analyzing their impact on innovation. (initiation and implementation) and two different types of
innovation (radical and incremental). This contrasts with
This paper directly addresses the balance of centrifugal (new
idea generating) and centripetal (integrating) forces the theoretical frame used by Fariborz Damanpour [35] in
optimally needed as a function of the organization’s lifecycle. his meta-analysis as he looked at moderating variables
It is posited that organizations need more centrifugal forces such as type of organization (service, manufacturing, not
during the infant (initiation) stages of the lifecycle in order for profit, and for profit), type of innovation (Technical,
to generate the ideas and energy needed to establish strategic administrative, radical and incremental), and stage of
direction. Once established, more centripetal forces are adoption (initiation and implementation).
needed to integrate the organization’s energy and channel it
toward implementation of the new strategy. It is further This study, while also generalizing to include both
posited that centrifugal forces are particularly needed
during the initiation stages of a radical innovation while
incremental and radical types of innovations, also treats
centripetal forces are needed during all stages of the innovation type as a moderator variable to determine if
incremental innovation. the balance of forces needed to enable innovation is
significantly different for incremental versus radical
A meta-analysis comparing subsets of the data innovations. This study will focus on and measure the
concluded that centripetal forces have a positive effects of different organizational forces (centripetal
moderating effect on both radical and incremental versus centrifugal) at two different stages of the
types of innovations studied, and during the innovation process (initiation and implementation) for
implementation and initiation phases of innovation. It both radical and incremental innovation types, using
was also shown that centrifugal forces have a positive innovation or innovativeness as the dependent variable.
moderating effect only on radical innovations during As will be described, the relationships are posited to be
both initiation and implementation stages while different among these variables, particularly in the case of
positively moderating incremental innovations during incremental innovations.
only the initiation stage of innovation. Keywords—Meta-
analysis, centripetal, centrifugal, innovation Similar to Damanpour [35], I also used type of innovation
and stage of adoption as moderating variables. As a major
I. INTRODUCTION departure from Damanpour’s research, my independent
variable looks at centripetal or centrifugal forces as the
Innovation is a critical topic for industry today in independent variable in the study of innovation. In
response to cost cutting measures that have substantially addition to this major departure, this study differs from
reduced Research & Development budgets. Most Damanpour’s [35] study in at least 2 additional ways:
organizations are now managing with far less innovative 1. As a meta-analysis, there are 11 years of additional
technology and processes than they have historically. In a studies to incorporate into this analysis. Although
recent article by Lou Hirsh [61], he comments that “tough nearly all of the Damanpour [35] studies are
economic times have forced major tech firms to slash applicable to this meta-analysis, they all had to be re-
enterprise research and development spending, primarily analyzed and coded for purposes of interpreting this
because their larger customers are more focused on model.
reducing costs than on exploring the latest cutting-edge
0-7803-8519-5/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE

2. 2. This study codes all of the prior studies based on the sources. The various keywords used include innovation,
Sheremata [114] theoretical frame, including codes organizational innovation and quantitative innovation.
for innovation type, innovation phase and The search on the term innovation alone resulted in over
organizational type in order to analytically validate 42,000 possible matches while the term organizational
the hypotheses shown, using the definitions of innovation resulted in 5600 possible matches. These
centrifugal and centripetal forces as defined by matches in turn yielded additional references that were
Sheremata [114]. screened against the criteria for this meta-analysis. All
5600 matches were screened against the following
Hypotheses criteria:
Hypothesis 1 1. Quantitative studies from a refereed journal or from
Organizations using centrifugal forces during the a published paper
initiation phase of a radical innovation will have a 2. Analysis showing rate of adoption of innovation or
positive moderating effect on innovation. innovativeness as the dependent variable
Hypothesis 2 3. Analysis showing measurable independent variables
Organizations using centripetal forces during the
and not just some model of innovation lacking
implementation phase of an incremental innovation will
discrete independent variables
have a positive moderating effect on innovation.
Hypothesis 3
Organizations using centripetal forces during the initiation The search process yielded a total of 94 outcomes with as
phase of a radical innovation will have a negative many germane bi-variate correlations with a combined n
moderating effect on innovation. of 11,723. This is a relatively large sample to study ratio
Hypothesis 4 (124 to 1). Statistics from these correlations could only be
Organizations using centripetal forces during the combined if they reflect similar study characteristics [40].
implementation phase of a radical innovation will have a The studies on which this studied relied have similar
positive moderating effect on innovation. study characteristics as the categories of
Hypothesis 5 incremental/radical and implementation/initiation have
Organizations using centrifugal forces during the become well established in the extant empirical literature
implementation phase of a radical innovation will have a and the studies were easily combined based on their
positive moderating effect on innovation. similar study characteristics, i.e., they all used innovation
Hypothesis 6 as the dependent variable.
Organizations using centrifugal forces during the
implementation phase of an incremental innovation will III. RESULTS
have a negative moderating effect on innovation.
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis Testing
Organizations using centrifugal forces during the
The hypotheses all involved analyzing multiple
initiation phase of an incremental innovation will have a
moderating variables simultaneously. It is important to
negative moderating effect on innovation.
note that the directionality of the moderating effect was
Hypothesis 8
hypothesized as negative for hypotheses 3, 6, and 7. This
Organizations using centripetal forces during the initiation
means that the presupposition in these hypotheses was for
phase of an incremental innovation will have a positive
a negative moderating effect on the dependent variable. In
moderating effect on innovation.
the case of hypotheses 3, 6, and 7, a negative moderating
effect was not clearly witnessed as the 95% confidence
II. METHODOLOGY
interval for the Rc was not negative. Therefore, with
This meta-analysis codes and analyzes 94 quantitative respect to hypotheses 3, 6, and 7, the direction of the
study outcomes from 22 different sources including hypotheses was not supported by the data as the Rc
published doctoral papers. The goal of this research was confidence interval was in the positive and not negative
to test the relationship between the dependent and direction, and in the case of hypothesis 6, the confidence
independent variables using the moderators described in interval did include zero; therefore, no moderating
the theory of this paper, using the applicable quantitative relationship can be inferred between the dependent and
studies in the field, and to extend the theory based on independent variables.
contextual variables such as innovation types and phase of
innovation. In reviewing the subsets of data, grouped by hypothesis,
this analysis indicates that improvements in best case Rs
Studies were selected using from two principal sources: were achieved in hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, while
published journal articles from peer reviewed professional degradations in best case R were clearly noted in
journals and master’s level and doctoral papers. The hypotheses 1, 6, and 7. In order for best case Rs to be
search for published studies was conducted in the EBSCO significant, the 95% confidence intervals for the affected
host databases, utilizing both academic and business hypothesis must not include zero. In this analysis, the best

3. case Rs are all significant, with the exception of 7(IN-INC- 4 .08 .13 Not supported
hypothesis 6, where the 95% confidence interval includes FG)
zero. Note that best case Rs ranged from .1292 to .649.
8(IN-INC- 7 .58 .65 Supported
It should also be noted that percentage variation due to PT)
sampling error for the hypotheses tested increased for all Legend:
hypotheses tested with the exception of hypotheses 4 and IN-Initiation phase of innovation
5, while still staying well below the 60% criteria for the IM-Implementation phase of innovation
presence of moderators for all hypotheses. It seems INC-Incremental type of innovation
apparent that although this framework does increase the RAD-Radical type of innovation
explained variance, in general we were well below the PT-Centripetal force dominated
60% criteria used for assessing the presence of additional FG-Centrifugal force dominated
moderators. Therefore, the presence of additional
moderators is still likely. Possible additional moderators TABLE 2
might include distinguishing by industry types, sector and Statistical results by subgroup
structure as Mintzberg [94] and Damanpour [35]
suggested. One other avenue for future moderator
Ro-
investigations might include evaluating the threats to the
unco
organization and environmental opportunities as
r- Rc-
suggested by Butler [22]. This might be of particular
recte correct-
interest during dramatic business cycle shifts.
d ed for
Effec Fixed
All hypotheses tested showed improvement in the percent
K N t Size Effects
variability indicator for inclusion of moderators with the
exception of the hypotheses 4 and 5. The fixed effects All studies 94 11723 0.27 0.28
range at a 95% confidence interval supports the
relationships for all hypotheses except hypothesis 3, 6, Centripetal-All 48 4497 0.41 0.43
and 7 at the 95% confidence interval for these hypotheses Centrifugal-All 39 4758 0.17 0.17
are directionally incorrect as the data reflects the opposite
relationship from that hypothesized for hypotheses 3 and Centripetal radical 23 2394 0.37 0.39
7. As the interval for hypothesis 6 includes zero, it cannot
therefore be concluded that hypothesis 6 shows any Centripetal
relationship between the independent and dependent incremental 23 2080 0.45 0.48
variables. Centripetal
implement-ation 33 3298 0.38 0.40
TABLE I
Summary of results by hypothesis Centripetal
initiation 12 935 0.52 0.58
Hypothesis K Rc Upper Accept/reject Centrifugal radical 24 3105 0.33 0.34
# corrected 95%
for Fixed confidenc Centrifugal
effect e interval incremental 16 1830 -0.02 -0.02
1(IN-RAD- 7 .14 .20 Supported Centrifugal
FG) initiation 7 1674 0.09 0.09
2(IM-INC- 1 .42 .48 Supported Centrifugal
PT) 6 implement-ation 34 5199 0.20 0.21
3(IN-RAD- 8 .46 .56 Not supported FG-RAD-IN-
PT) Hypothesis 1 7 1324 0.14 0.14
4(IM- 1 .41 .45 Supported PT-INC-IM-
RAD-PT) 9 Hypothesis 2 16 1282 0.40 0.42
5(IM- 2 .28 .31 Supported PT-RAD-IN-
RAD-FG) 1 Hypothesis 3 8 397 0.43 0.46
6(IM-INC- 1 0 .04 Not supported PT-RAD-IM-
FG) 2 Hypothesis 4 19 2078 0.39 0.41

4. Ro- enable the innovation process to succeed. These team-like
unco environments are centripetal in nature and are often
r- Rc- protected or isolated from the rest of the organization to
recte correct- enable the innovation process to proceed unimpeded.
d ed for Implications for Radical Innovations
Effec Fixed The results of this study can be used by managers to
K N t Size Effects properly staff innovation projects based on the scale of
the innovation. As the stage of the innovation will not
FG-RAD-IM- differentiate the type of team needed, what becomes clear
Hypothesis 5 21 3907 0.28 0.28 is that a blend of centrifugal and centripetal forces must
be carefully architected for the entire lifecycle of the
FG-INC-IM- innovation project. In practical terms, a project manager
Hypothesis 6 12 2006 0.00 0.00 with a project team may be needed from the very
FG-INC-IN- beginning of an innovation while at the same time,
Hypothesis 7 4 1597 0.08 0.08 innovative thinking as often comes from system or
process architects or people with high degrees of
PT-INC-IN- professionalization who are also needed for the life of the
Hypothesis 8 7 798 0.53 0.58 innovation in order to bring the proper amount of
variation (centrifugal forces) to ensure that sufficient
degrees of radical innovation are achieved
TABLE 3
Summary of relationships established This study does not indicate the proper staffing levels
required to achieve this blend. Qualitative interviews
suggest that larger staffs with a centripetal nature are
Type of Initiation phase Implementation
needed when compared to the centrifugal forces as
innovatio phase
variation can happen with only a few key innovative
n
contributors while the organizational energy needed to
Radical Centrifugal is positive. Centripetal is achieve reduced variation and “a consensus on the plan”
positive. is much larger.
Centripetal is positive.
Centrifugal is Implications for Incremental Innovations
positive. What this study can conclude about incremental
Increment Centripetal is positive. Centripetal is innovations is that centripetal forces are needed
al Centrifugal is positive positive. throughout the lifecycle of the innovation project. It is
(weak). Centrifugal is also clear in the case of incremental innovations that
undetermined. centrifugal forces are needed only selectively and perhaps
only sparingly to ensure that centripetal forces fully
leveraged. While Sheremata [114] did not deal with the
IV. DISCUSSION case of incremental innovations, Damanpour [35] did, and
the results of this study contradict Damanpour’s
While the need for more innovation has become ever conclusions that “type of innovation is not a highly
more apparent in today’s economy, the ability to innovate effective moderator for determinants-innovation
by most major corporations has become severely relations” [35].
diminished by the need to reduce structural costs and to
enable sustained profitability in a time of significantly Incremental innovations seem to benefit least from the use
shrinking economic growth. No doubt, innovation will be of centrifugal forces and, based on this research, should
the key to the next productivity “bubble” ahead, just as be avoided at least at the implementation stage of
the last productivity growth spurt was motivated by innovation.
significant innovations in the areas of information
technology, supply chain optimization and manufacturing.
What has been shown in this analysis, is that
organizations need to achieve the right balance of forces V. CONCLUSION
throughout the life of a project and must create processes
that enable these forces to stay in balance as clearly this Damanpour’s [35] vision of a contingency theory of
study has shown that no force or type of force will innovation has been significantly progressed by this work.
dominate the innovation process. Radical types of By using the centrifugal/centripetal delineation, this study
innovations typically require a cross-functional, business makes clear that centripetal forces are always applicable
focused, customer-oriented, team-like environment to to positively affect the initiation and implementation of

5. innovations of all kinds, while centrifugal forces must be [9] *Baldridge, B. (1975). Organizational Innovation: Individual,
organizational and environmental impacts. Administrative
used more sparingly as they are not universally Science Quarterly.
applicable. A contingency theory, in its best form, should [10] Bantel, K.A. (1987). A study of the impact of the social
be prescriptive enough and clear enough to describe the composition of top management teams on organizational
situations where certain behaviors should apply and innovation, Paper abstracts international.
[11] Black, G., Evan, W.M. (1967). Innovation in Business
should not apply, while acknowledging that there is no Organizations: Some Factors Associated with Success or
best answer that is applicable for all situations [80]. Failure of Staff Proposals. Journal of Business 40: 519–530
However, as he noted in 1991, the adhocracy [94] may [12] *Blau, J.R. and McKinley, W. (1979). Idea, complexity and
not acknowledge the implementation/initiation innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 200–219
[13] Borenstein, M. (1997). Comprehensive Meta Analysis.
dichotomy. These individuals may play multiple roles in Englewood, NJ: Bio-Stat.
these simple organizational structures. The same thinking, [14] Bowman, Jr., Richard (2000). Examining Six Different
to Damanpour, [35], applied to the distinction between Leadership Styles in Relation to Constrained Change at
technical and administrative innovations as the technical Winona State University. Leading at the edge of chaos.
[15] Boyd, B. K. (1991). Strategic Planning and Financial
and administrative cores are mixed up and the process of Performance: A Meta-analytical review. Journal of
both types of innovation are both bottoms up, i.e., Management studies, 28, 353-374.
initiated from lower levels in the organization, and top [16] *Bridges, W.P., and Ettlie, J.E. (1982). Environmental
down initiated from the senior levels of the organization. uncertainty and Organizational Technology Policy. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering management, EM-29(1).
Those initiating innovations often find themselves [17] *Briotta, R.J. (1994). The adoption of computer aided
implementing those same innovations, and while software engineering: A field survey investigating the
initiating one innovation, they may be simultaneously relationship between organizational and innovation
implementing another. What Damanpour [35] called for is characteristics and the adoption of new technology, Paper
abstracts international.
still needed: “Multi-dimension innovation studies are [18] *Brown, R.F. (1985). The relationship between climate and
needed to generate data for a better understanding of the role requirements for innovation and job satisfaction, Papers
combined effects of different contingencies on abstracts international.
organizational innovativeness”(p. 583). [19] *Bruce, R.A., Scott, S.G. (1994). Determinants of innovative
behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the
workplace, Academy of Management Journal
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [20] *Bugler, D.T. (1999). Information technology adoption in the
US County Governments: the interaction of environmental
I would like to recognize the tremendous quantity and changes and managerial strategies on technology adoption,
quality of work done in this field over the last 40 years. In Paper Abstracts International.
[21] Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of
particular, the works of Fariborz Damanpour and Willow innovation. London: Tavistock Publications
Sheremata, without whom this paper would have no
foundation [22] Butler, J.E. (1988), Theories of technological innovation as
useful tools for corporate strategy. Strategic Management
Journal, 9:15-29
[23] Chakrabarti, A. (1974). The Role of Champion in Product
REFERENCES Innovation. California Management Review, 17(2):58-62
(Those references denoted with an asterisk are included in the [24] *Cohn, S.F. and Turyn, R.M. (1980), Structure of the firm
and adoption of process innovations, IEEE Transactions on
quantitative meta-analysis.) Engineering Management
[25] Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for
[1] *Abbey, A., Dickson, J.W. (1983). R&D work climate and literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
innovation in semi-conductors. Academy of Management [26] *Corwin, R.G. (1975). "Innovation in organizations-The case
Journal., Vol 26, Issue 2, P362-369 of schools”, Sociology of Education.
[2] Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J.M. (1975). A Dynamic Model [27] Costonis, A.F. (1977). "The Unit system: a study in the
of Process and Product Innovation, Omega, 3, 639-656. structure and dynamics of organizational innovation,
[3] Ahuja, F. (2000). "Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, adaptation and change", Paper abstracts international.
and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study". Administrative [28] Daft, R.L. (1974). The process of organizational innovation:
Science Quarterly,45: 425–455 An empirical study of 13 high school districts, Paper
[4] Aiken, M., Bacharach, S., French, J. (1980). Organizational abstracts international.
Structure, Work Process and Proposal Making in [29] Daft, R.L. (1978). A Dual Core Model of Organizational
Administrative Bureaucracies. Academy of Management Innovation. Academy of Management Journal 21(2), 193-210
Journal. 23:631–652 [30] Daft, R.L. (1982). Bureaucratic versus non-bureaucratic
[5] *Aiken, M., Hage, J. (1971), “The Organic organization and structure and the process of innovation and change. Research
innovation”, Sociology, 5:63-82 in the Sociology of Organizations, 1:129-166
[6] *Anderson, D.G. (1984). Mobility and innovation in an R [31] Daft, R.L., & Becker, S.W. 1978. The innovative
and D organization, Paper abstracts international. organization. New York, Elsevier
[7] Anderson, P., Lawless, M. (1996). Generational [32] Dalton, D. C., S Trevis; Roengpitya, Rungpen. (2003). Meta
Technological Change: Effects of Innovation and Local analyses of financial performance and equity: Fusion or
Rivalry on Performance. Academy of Management Journal. confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46(1).
39(5): 1185–1217. [33] Damanpour, F. (1983). Technical Versus Administrative
[8] Audretsch, D.B., Acs, ZJ, (1987). "Innovation, Market Rates of Organizational innovation: A Study of
Structure and Firm Size". Review of Economics and Organizational Lag, Paper abstracts international.
Statistics, 69: 567–574. [34] *Damanpour, F (1987). "Adoption of Technological,
Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of

6. Organizational Factors". Journal of Management. 13(4): Implications for the Next Millennium. . Journal of
675-688. Management, 26(3), 463-486.
[35] Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta [57] Grossman, J.B. (1970). The Supreme Court and social
Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. change: A preliminary inquiry. American Behavioral
Academy of Management Journal. 34(3): 555-590 Scientist, 13: 535-551
[36] Damanpour, F., & Evan, W.M. (1984). Organizational [58] Guzzo, R. A., Jackson, S.E., Katzell, R.A. (Ed.). (1987).
innovation and performance: the problem of organizational Meta-analysis analysis (Vol. 9:407-442): JAI Press.
lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29:392-409 [59] *Hage, J and Dewar, R. (1973), Elite values versus
[37] Davis, J.Y. (1980). "Individuals, information and structure in organizational properties: A comparative analysis. American
the establishment of OCLC: A study of innovation decision Journal of Sociology, 72:503-519
making", Paper abstracts international. [60] Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1967). Program change and
Organizational properties, a comparative analysis. American
[38] Dewar, R.D. and Hage, J.E. (1973). “Elite Values versus Journal of Sociology, 72(5), 503-519.
organizational structure in predicting innovation”. [61] Hirsh, L. (2002). Technology Innovation: The Key to
Administrative science quarterly, 18, 279-290. recovery. NewsFactor Network Retrieved August 1, 2002
[39] *Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. “The adoption of radical and [62] Hitt, M.A., Johnson, R. A., Moesel, D.D. (1996). The Market
incremental innovation”. Management Science, for Corporate Control and Firm innovation. Academy of
32:1422-1433 Management Journal. 39:1084-1119
[40] DiMatteo, R.M., Rosenthal. R. R. (2001). Meta-Analysis: [63] Holland, W.E., Keller, R. T. (1975). Boundary Spanning
Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Activity and Research and Development Management: A
Reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82 Comparative Study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
[41] Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Management
Product Innovations in Large Firms. Organization science, [64] *Holland, W. E, Keller, R.T. (1978). Individual
3:179-203. characteristics of innovativeness and communication in
[42] Dougherty, D. (1996). Sustained Product Innovation in Large research and development organizations. Journal of Applied
Mature Organizations: Overcoming Innovation to Psychology, 63: 759-762.
Organization Problems. Academy of Management Journal, [65] Hunt, M. (1997). How Science Takes Stock: The Story of
9:1120-1153. Meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
[43] Downs, G. W. and. Mohr, L.B. (1976). Conceptual issues in [66] Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F.L., & Jackson, G.B. (1982). Meta-
the study of innovation. Administrative science quarterly, analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21:700-714 [67] Hwang, Sang-JAE. (1992). "Adoption of telecommunications
[44] *Durrington, Repman and Valente. (2000). Using social innovations in telephone organization: the influence of
network analysis to examine the time to adoption of individual, organizational and environmental factors on
computer related services. Journal of Research on Computing innovation adoption", Paper abstracts international.
in Education. [68] *Ibarra, H. (1989). Centrality and innovativeness: effects of
[45] *Ellsworth, S.L. (1987). Predictors of organizational social network position on innovation management, Paper
innovation in community mental health centers. abstracts international.
[46] *Ettlie, J.E. (1983). Organizational policy and innovation [69] *Irwin, J.G., Hoffman, J.J., Geiger, S.C. (1998). The Effects
among suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of of Technological Adoption on Organizational Performance:
Management journal. Organizational Size and Environmental Munificence as
[47] *Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P. and O’Keefe, R.D. (1984). Moderators. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Organizational strategy and structural differences for radical 6(1): 50-64.
versus incremental innovation. Management Science. [70] Keresty, G.. (1998). "A Dynamic model of innovation
[48] Evan, W.M., Damanpour, F (1984). Organizational adoption in organizations: Individual, organizational and
Innovation and Performance: The Problem of Organizational contextual characteristics of the initiation and
Lag. Administrative Science Quarterly. 29:392-409 implementation stages of the innovation adoption process",
[49] *Evanisko, M. and Kimberly, J.R. (1981). Organizational Paper abstracts international.
Innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and [71] *Khandwalla, P.N.. (1985). Pioneering innovative
contextual factors on Hospital adoption of technological and management: An Indian Excellence. Organization studies.
administrative innovations. Academy of Management [72] *Khandwalla, P.N.. (1987). Generators of Pioneering
Journal, 24. Number 4, 689-713. Innovative management: Some Indian evidence.
[50] *Fennell, M.L. (1984). "Synergy, influence and information Organization studies.
in the adoption of administrative innovations". Academy of [73] *Kickul, J. (2001). Breaking through boundaries for
Management Journal.27, 113-129 organizational innovation: new managerial roles and
[51] Fiedler, K.D. (1988). The effects of organizational controls practices in e-commerce firms. Journal of Management.
on innovation: A study of the relationships between [74] *Kim, L., Kim, Y. (1985). Innovation in a newly
management style and organizational policy on the industrializing country: A multi-discriminant analysis.
assimilation of new technologies, Masters Abstracts Management Science.
international. [75] Kim, Y., Kim. L., Lee, J.. (1989). Innovation strategy of
[52] *Gee, Sherman. (1978). Factors affecting the innovation time Local Pharmaceutical Firms in Korea: A Multivariate
period. Research management. analysis. Technology analysis and strategic management,
[53] Gemunden, H.G., Heydebreck. P., Herden, P. (1992). 1(1).
Technological interweavement: a means of achieving [76] Kimberly, J. R. (1981) Managerial innovation. In P.C.
innovation success. R&D Management 10:359-376 Nystrom & W.H. Starbucks (Eds.), Handbook of
[54] *Goes, J.B., Meyer, A.D. (1988). Organizational assimilation Organizational Design. New York: Oxford University Press.
of innovations: A multi-level contextual analysis. Academy [77] *Kirton, M. (1980). Adaptors and Innovators in
of Management Journal. 31, 897-923 Organizations. Human Relations, 33(4), 213-224.
[55] Gooding, R. Z., Wagner, J.A. (1985). A Meta-analytic review [78] Knight, K.E. (1967). A Descriptive model of the intra-firm
of the relationship between size and performance. innovation process. Journal of Business, 40, 478-496.
Administrative science quarterly, 462-481. [79] Landry, J.P. (1999). Implementation activities for software
[56] Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta- development innovations: An innovation-context
Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee contingency perspective, Paper abstracts international.
Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research

7. [80] Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and [106] Roberts, D. R., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Positive-finding
environment: managing differentiation and integration. bias, and measuring methodological rigor in evaluations of
Boston: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University organization development. Journal of Applied Psychology,
[81] Lee, K. C., Allen, Natalie. (2000). A Meta analytic review of 77, 918-925.
occupational commitment: Relations with person and work [107] Robertson, A.B., Rothwell, R (1973). The role of
related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), communications in technological innovation. Research
799-811. policy. 2: 204-225
[82] Lewis, M.S. (1973). Organizational innovation in a third
world nation: Hospitals in Peru, Paper abstracts international. [108] *Robertson, T.S. and Wind, Y. (1983). Organizational
[83] Littlejohn, S.W. (1992). Theories of Human Communication, Cosmopolitanism and Innovativeness. Academy of
Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Co. Management Journal. Vol. 26 Issue 2, p332
[84] London, R. (1996). Checking Perceptions and Reality in [109] Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free
Small Town Innovation Research. American Behavioral Press
Scientist. 39(5): 616-628 [110] *Rosner, M.M.. (1968). Economic determinants of
[85] Maguire, C., Kazlauskas, E.J., Weir, A.D. (1994). organizational innovation. Administrative sciences quarterly,
Information services for innovative organizations. New York. 12, 614-625.
Academic Press [111] Ruppel, C.P. (1995). Correlates of the adoption and
[86] *Manopichetwattana, V. and Khan, A.M. (1989). Innovative implementation of programmer/analyst telework: An
and non-innovative small firms: Types and characteristics. organizational perspective, Papers abstracts international.
Management Science. [112] Sethi, R. (2001). "Cross-functional Product Development
[87] *Marcus, A. (1988). Implementing externally induced Teams, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer Products".
innovations: A comparison of rule bound and autonomous Journal of Marketing Research 38:73-85
approaches. Academy of management journal. [113] Sharma, S. (1996). Diffusion of computer aided software
[88] *Marcus and Weber, (1988), Adoption of nuclear safety engineering in organizations: complementing classical
standards, research on management of innovation-Minnesota diffusion theory with organizational learning perspective,
studies Paper abstracts international.
[89] Marino, K. E. (1982). Structural correlations of affirmative [114] Sheremata, W.A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in
action compliance. Journal of Management, 8, 75-93. radical new product development under time pressure.
[90] McKinnley, W., Glau, R.J. . (1979). "Ideas, Complexity, and Academy of Management Review, Apr 2000, 389-408.
Innovation". Administrative Sciences Quarterly. 24:200-219 [115] Shin, J. (1997). The effects of executive leadership on
[91] *Meadows, Ian S.G.. (1980). Organic structure and organizational innovation in non-profit, human service
innovation in small groups. Human relations, V33, No.6 organizations. Paper abstracts international.
[116] Smith, Kenwyn K., Berg, David. (1997). Paradoxes of Group
[92] Miles, R. E. and Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational strategy, Life : Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in
structure and process. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Group Dynamics. New York: Jossey-Bass.
[93] *Mintrom, Michael and Vergari, Sandra. (1998). Policy [117] *Sorensen, Jesper. (2000). Aging, Obsolescence and Org
networks and innovation diffusion: the case of state Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly.
education reform. Journal of Politics. [118] *Stahl, M.J.. (1977). Innovation and productivity in R/D:
[94] Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. associated individual organizational variables. R&D
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Management.
[95] Mohr, L.B. and Downs, G.W..(1976). Conceptual issues in [119] Steele, K.D. (1997). Implementing an administrative
the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, organizational innovation: The impact of implementation
21:700-714. tactics on employee performance and satisfaction, Paper
[96] Myers, S. and. Marquis, D.G. (1969). Successful Industrial abstracts international.
Innovations (Vol. NSF 69-17). Washington, DC: National [120] Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965) Social structure and organizations.
Science Foundation. In J.G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, 153-193.
[97] Nord, W. R. and. Tucker, S. (1987). Implementing routine [121] *Tabak, F. (1996). Adoption of Organizational Innovations:
and radical innovations. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Individual and Organizational Determinants. Academy of
[98] *Noria, Gulati. (1996). Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation. Management Proceedings, p. 388
Academy of Management Journal., Vol 39 Issue 5, p. [122] Tornatzky, L. G. and Klein., K.J. (1982). Innovation
1245-1265 characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation.
[99] Normann, R. (1969). Organizational innovativeness: Product IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 31, 439-465.
variation and re-orientation. Administrative science quarterly. [123] *Tower, H. (1994). Information sources and their
16:203-215 relationship to org innovation in small business. Journal of
[100] O’Keefe, R., Bridges. W, Ettie, J.E. (1984). Organizational small business management.
Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical versus [124] Turyn, S.F., Cohn, R.M.. (1988). Structure of firm and
Incremental Innovation. Management Science Journal. Vol adoption of process innovations. IEEE Transactions.
30, No 6: 682-695 [125] Tushingham, G.W. (1974). A Study of Some factors
[101] Paolillo, J. & Brown, W. (1978). How organizational factors affecting implementation of organizational innovation in
affect R&D innovation. Research management, 21: 12-15 Ontario Public secondary schools, Paper abstracts
[102] Parham, D.L.. (1990). Organizational innovation: A study of international.
adoption of a health education/tobacco prevention curriculum [126] Tushman, M.L. (1977). Special Boundary Roles in the
in North Carolina school districts, Paper abstracts Innovation Process. Administrative Science Quarterly.
international. 22:587-605
[103] *Pizam, A. (1980). Some correlates of innovation within [127] Utterback, J.M. (1971). The Process of Technological
industrial suggestion systems. Personnel psychology. Innovation Within the Firm. Academy of Management
[104] Reza, E., Ettlie, J.E.. (1992). Organizational Integration and Journal. 14:75-88
Process Innovation. Academy of Management Journal.. Vol [128] Utterback, J.M. (1974). Innovation in Industry and the
34, No 4: 795-827 Diffusion of Technology. Science. Vol 183: 620-626
[105] Rhoades, Rechner. and. Sundaramurthy. (2000). Board [129] *Utterback, J.M., Ebadi, Y.M. (1984). The Effects of
composition and financial performance: A meta-analysis of Communication on Technological Innovation. Management
the influence of outside directors. Journal of Managerial Science. 30:572-568
Issues, 12, 76-91.

8. [130] Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H, Poole, M.S. (2000). Research
on the Management of Innovation. The Minnesota Studies:
Oxford University Press.
[131] Van de Ven, A.H. (1986). Central problems in the
management of innovation. Management science, 32,
590-607.
[132] Verner, R. W. (1999). The effect of strategy interventions as
moderators of the goal performance relationship for complex
tasks: A meta-analysis. Benedictine University, Lisle, IL.
[133] Wade, J. B. (1996). A Community Level Analysis of Sources
and Rates of Technological Variation in the Microprocessor
Market. Academy of Management Journal. 39(5) : 1218-1244
[134] Walker, R., Olson, E, Ruekart, R. (1995). Organizing for
Effective New Product Development: the Moderating Role of
Product Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing. 59:48-62
[135] Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing.
New York: McGraw Hill.
[136] West, M. & Farr, J. (1990). Innovation at work:
Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4:15-30
[137] Wolfe, R.A. (1989). Administrative innovation: Influence of
power and context, Paper abstracts international.
[138] Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. (1981) Innovations
and Organizations. New York: Wiley.
[139] *Zmud, R. W. (1982). Diffusion of Modern Software
Practices: Influence of Centralization and Formalization.
Management Science. 28(12): 1421-1431
[140] *Zmud, R. W. (1984). An Examination of Push-Pull theory
applied to process innovation in knowledge work.
Management science, 30(6), 727-738.