Academy of Management Journat

1978, Vol. 21, No. 2, 193-210

A Dual-Core Model of
Organizational Innovation^
RICHARD L. DAFT
Queen's University

This paper examines the role of administrators and

technical employees in the process leading to innovation
adoption. A marked division of labor is found. The
evidence indicates that two distinct innovation pro-
cesses—bottom-up and top-down—can exist in organi-
zations. The findings are used to propose a dual-core
model of organizational innovation.

There is growing evidence that organization leaders have an impact on

organizational innovation. Hage and Dewar (1973) recently reported that
elite values toward change arc a better predictor of new program adoption
by health and welfare agencies than the structural characteristics of the
agencies. Becker (1970) and Carlson (1964, 1965) linked innovation
adoption to the status and sociometric centrality of organization top ad-
ministrators. Other studies have found frequency of innovation associated
with the cosmopolitan orientation of top administrators (Kaluzny, Veney &
Gentry, 1972) and with administrator motivation to innovate (Mohr,
1969).
But the precise role of organization leaders in the innovation process
is not clear. One explanation for the above findings is that leaders are
active in the innovation process. Top administrators serve as a bridge
between the organization and the technological environment. Top adminis-
trators' exposure, status and rank place them in a position to introduce
change into the organization. They are exposed to new ideas, and their
ideas count. Organization leaders can also be active in other ways, as Hage
and Dewar (1973) suggest, such as searching for funds to implement new
programs.
Another explanation for the findings is that top administrators influence
organizational innovation without actually introducing innovations. A

Richard L. Daft is Assistant Professor, School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston,

Ontario.
1 This research was supported by the School of Graduate Studies, Queen's University. Don
Nightingale made several helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. A special thanks
to Lou Pondy for suggesting the dual-core idea.
193
194 Academy of Management Journal June

major function of top administrators is to set goals and priorities (Selznick,

1957). If a goal of innovation is established, innovation initiation may
originate with lower organization members. Studies that report positive
associations between innovation adoption and member exposure (Aiken &
Hage, 1971), member education and training (Sapolsky, 1967; Palumbo,
1969; Evan & Black, 1967), and decentralization (Hage & Aiken, 1967)
all support the explanation that top administrators are not themselves
active innovators. Freedom and exposure of employees at lower organiza-
tion levels enable innovative ideas to enter the organization and be pro-
posed. The leader role is to set innovation goals, encourage innovation
initiatives from lower members, and approve or disapprove innovation
proposals.
Thus the research evidence can be used to support different explanations
for the relationship between leader behavior and innovation. Leaders may
actively initiate innovations, or they may not. Much of the evidence bearing
on this issue is from studies that have correlated administrator or organiza-
tion attributes with innovation adoption. We have learned a great deal
about the correlates of innovation adoption from these studies. But we
have learned little about the activity leading to adoption. We don't know
where ideas enter the organization, who proposes them or why.
The innovation studies are characteristic of other organization research.
Obtaining data across multiple organizations for correlational analysis
makes it difficult to obtain the specific evidence needed to support or
refute alternative theoretical explanations about underlying processes
(Argyris, 1972; Child, 1972; Weick, 1974). Most researchers make con-
jectures about process on the basis of correlation studies, as well they
should. But many of our explanations remain at the level of conjecture.
One of the challenges facing organization researchers is to design studies
that provide insight into underlying organization processes. In the case of
organizational innovation, this kind of insight would have at least two
benefits. First, obviously, is the knowledge gained from finding new ex-
planations or identifying the correct explanation among several feasible
alternatives. The second benefit is a practical one. Fundamental knowledge
about the innovation process, especially its early stages—where ideas
originate and who proposes them—will suggest how organizations should
be designed (Pondy, 1972) to facilitate or inhibit the flow of ideas that
lead to innovation adoption.
The purpose of this paper is to report the results of one attempt to
gather evidence that will explain more fully the innovation process in
organizations. The behavior of administrators vis-a-vis lower employees
as innovation initiators is examined for a sample of school organizations.
The findings are related to the professionalism of organization members,
organization size, and frequency of innovation adoption.
1978 Daft 195

THE INNOVATION PROCESS

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

ministrators have a definite role initiating innovations, but it is probably

limited to administrative ideas.
The hypothesized task specialization regarding innovation initiation will
depend to a great extent upon the professionalism of the employees in the
technical core and organization size. Core employees will tend to be the
largest group in the organization and will constitute the largest interface
with the technological environment. The professionalism of this group will
be associated with member education and training, participation in pro-
fessional activities, exposure to new ideas, autonomy, and the desire for
recognition 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 performance
standards. 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 nearly
all technical innovations adopted in the organization. The administrator
role in technical innovation will be minimized.
When the professional level of core members is low, the core members
will tend to be less active as innovation initiators. If the organization is to
be innovative, administrators will have to initiate a larger share of the
technical innovations. Innovation specialization will be reduced. Adminis-
trator initiatives will probably meet with some success because employees
who are not attached to a professional idealogy are less resistant to changes
initiated by top managers (Zald & Denton, 1963).
Another strategy available to administrators is collaboration with core
members on technical proposals. If an administrator and employee work
together on an innovation proposal, resistance to management's initiative
will be reduced. Collaboration will engage core employees in the innovation
process. Collaboration is essentially an implementation strategy, and is
similar to the "mutual understanding" strategy for implementing scientific
research (Churchman & Scheinblatt, 1965). The present study is not con-
cerned with techniques of implementation, except as implementation
strategies are reflected in proposal initiation. Collaboration is a realistic
proposal strategy for administrators. But collaboration is not expected to be
needed or used when core members are highly professional.
Organization size probably will have consequences for the initiation of
innovation proposals that are similar to the consequences of employee pro-
fessionalism. Large organizations are characterized by greater division of
labor. Technical employees in large organizations will be specialized and
concerned with innovations in their task domain. Administrators also will
be specialized and employed full-time on administrative activities. There
will also tend to be greater formalization and less contact between tech-
nicians and administrators in large organizations. Thus there should be
fewer collaborations.
1978 Daft 197

The discussion thus far has been concerned with the source of innovation
proposals. Employee professionalism and organization size are also ex-
pected to influence the absolute number of innovation proposals and adop-
tions. Wilson (1966) and Zaltman, Duncan and Holbeck (1973) argue
that employee professionalism and organization complexity are associated
with a greater number of innovation proposals. However, they also argue
that these same characteristics inhibit adoption. Autonomous employee
specialists will propose ideas relevant to themselves, but will resist proposals
by others. Likewise, the division of labor in large, complex organizations
leads to increased proposals, but the coordination and compliance necessary
for adoption is more difficult to achieve. If innovation proposals generally
result in adoption, then factors such as professionalism and size should
be associated with greater proposals and adoptions. However, if Wilson
(1966) and Zaltman et al. (1973) are correct, then these variables may
have opposing effects upon adoptions. The number of final adoptions cannot
be predicted on the basis of proposals alone.
In summary, then, administrators and technical core employees are
expected to play important but different roles in the innovation process:
(1) Each group is expected to initiate innovations pertaining to their own
organization task; (2) this division of labor is expected to heighten as em-
ployee professionalism and organization size increase; (3) the absolute
number of proposals initiated by each group is also expected to increase as
professionalism and size increase; but (4) the greater number of proposals
may not lead to greater adoptions because professionalism and size may be
associated with greater resistance to adoption.

RESEARCH METHOD
Organizational innovation is usually defined as the adoption of a new idea
or behavior by an organization. But new compared to what? Becker and
Whisler define innovation as something new in relation to the organization's
technological environment. They suggest that innovation is "the first or
early use of an idea by one of a set of organizations with similar goals"
(Becker and Whisler, 1967, p. 463). Innovation has also been defined as the
adoption of an idea or behavior that is new to the organization adopting it
(Mohr, 1969; Aiken & Hage, 1971). The idea can be old with regard to
other organizations so long as the idea has not previously been used by the
adopting organizations.
The definition adopted for this research is the definition provided by
Becker and Whisler (1967). The internal organizational process may be
similar for the adoption of innovations by either of the above definitions.
But the focus of this research is on the adoption of innovations from the
developing pool of new ideas in the organization's technological environ-
ment.
The definition of technical versus administrative innovation is taken
from Evan (1966). A technical innovation is an idea for a new product,
198 Academy of Management Journal June

process or service. An administrative innovation pertains to the policies

of recruitment, allocation of resources, and the structuring of tasks, authority
and reward. Technical innovations usually will be related to technology,
and administrative innovations will be related to the social structure of the
organization.

The Sample

The sample of organizations for this study consists of 13 suburban high

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

The Data

The school districts were surveyed during 1972 to learn which innovations
had been adopted during the prior several years. Professional educators
and books on education were also consulted to learn about new develop-
ments in the field of high school education. The reported innovations were
assembled into a master innovation checklist of about 150 items. The
checklist was taken to each district, and through interviews with curriculum
coordinators and senior administrators it was determined whether each
innovation was ever proposed or seriously considered for adoption, which
innovations were actually adopted in the district, the year adopted, and
where the idea originated (e.g., teacher, principal, et cetera).
The eight-year period from 1964-72 was chosen as the criterion of in-
novation newness. Such a time period is long enough to include the diffusion
of major developments in the recent past, but districts do not receive credit
for adopting techniques which were available in the technological environ-
1978 Daft 199

ment for a long period of time. An analysis of the dates of innovation

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

The educational level of district superintendents was also measured,

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

Unexpected Finding

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

Analysis

The sameness of proposals and adoptions has consequences for the data
analysis. Only one dependent variable—number of adoptions—will be used
in the analysis. It is not possible to discriminate between the number of
proposals and the number of adoptions.
For the analysis described in the next section, any adoption of the 68
innovations by any of the 13 districts is counted as a separate observation.
The strategy of analyzing separate innovation decisions has been recom-
mended by Downs and Mohr (1976). This strategy enables a clear test of
the hypothesis that administrative and technical innovations originate with
different groups in the organization. The school districts are then divided
into subgroups according to district professionalism, size, and number of
adoptions. Comparing these subgroups reveals how these variables influence
the internal innovation process. A total of 414 adoptions occurred across
these 13 districts from the pool of 68 innovations. It was not possible to
trace 26 adoptions to the point of initiation. Thus, the analysis in the next
section is based upon 388 innovation adoptions.
1978 Daft 201

THE FINDINGS
The data in Table 1 show that teachers are by far the major source of
technical ideas (70 percent). The principal and superintendent levels are
about equally active as sources of technical ideas (8 percent and 9 percent
respectively), but both levels are much less active than teachers. For ad-
ministrative ideas, activity increases with hierarchial level. Teachers initiate
only 13 percent of administrative innovations, principals initiate 22 percent,
and superintendents initiate 45 percent. Collaborations between 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 the
school board is a little bit surprising. Board members are laymen and ap-
parently leave the responsibility for initiating innovations to the experts
within the organizations. If the board is to influence innovation adoption,
it may be by helping establish a favorable climate for innovation and by
approving proposals by others, rather than by being the source of new
ideas. The small number of ideas from students and school board members
supports the notion that innovation ideas originate with task experts within
the organization.
Students and school board members are dropped from the remaining
analysis because they account for so few innovations. Principals and
superintendents are combined into an administrator category. There is a
strong relationship between innovation type and where the innovation is
initiated when principals and superintendents are combined. Seventy per-
cent of technical innovations originate with teachers alone, and 67 percent
of administrative innovations originate with administrators.

TABLE 1
Innovation Type and Where Initiated »
Innovation Type
Technical Administrative
Where
lnittated Percent n Percent n
Students 1 ( 4) 4 ( 4)
Teachers 70 (210) 13 ( 11)
Principals 8 ( 24) 22 ( 19)
Superintendents 9 ( 26) 45 ( 40)
School Board .3 ( 1) 1 ( 1)
Collaborations 12 ( 35) 15 ( 13)
100 (300) 100 ( 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 to

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

TABLE 2
Employee Professionalism and Where Initiated, by Innovation Type -
Technical Innovations " Administrative Innovations^
Professionalism '. Professionalism
High Medium Low High Medium Liow
Where
Initiated % (xy % (X) % (X) % (X) % (x) % (^
Teachers 93 (24.0) 66 (14.8) 53 (11.0) 47 (2.0) 10 (0.8) 0 (0.0)
Administrators 7 ( 1.8) 15 ( 3.3) 29 ( 6.0) 47 (2.0) 56 (4.5) 97 (6.6)
Collaborations 0 ( 0.0) 19 ( 4.3) 17 ( 3.6) 6 (0.3) 34 (2.8) 3 (0.2)
100 (25.8) 100 (22.3) 100 (20.6) 100 (4.3) 100 (8.0) 100 (6.8)
Number of
adoptions 103 89 103 17 32 34
= 46.3 with 4df,p<i .001.
= 36.8 with 4 df, p < .001.
= the average number of adoptions per district.
1978 Daft 203

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

The influence of organization size is less striking on the innovation pro-

cess. In Table 3 the organizations are divided into three groups according
to number of students: small = 3,600 to 4,600 students; medium = 4,700
to 7,000 students; and large = 7,200 to 14,600 students. Large districts are
characterized by a slightly greater percentage of technical innovation pro-
posals by teachers, and somewhat fewer collaborations. The reason is
probably that large organizations have greater differentiation between
teachers and administrators and more highly professional teachers and
administrators. When an individual in either group wants a technical in-
novation, he/she is more likely to initiate it alone. In the small districts, the
administrators are probably closer to the teachers and are better able to
collaborate to get innovations adopted.
Size has virtually no effect on the process of administrative innovation.
The source of innovations is not significantly different across the three size
categories. Size is apparently associated with frequency of innovation, how-
ever. More innovations of each type are initiated and adopted in large
districts. For administrative innovations this is probably due to the
greater number of ideas and the greater need for innovation experienced in
large organizations. For technical innovations the greater frequency of in-
novation is probably due to the greater range of services required by a
diverse student population and somewhat greater professionalism of
teachers. The adoption of more innovations by large school districts is
congruent with other research (Baldridge & Burnham, 1975).
The final part of the analysis compares districts that adopt many in-
novations to districts that adopt few (Table 4). It seems from Table 4 that
districts which adopt many technical innovations do so because of teacher
activity. Teachers alone propose 77 percent of the technical innovations in
the highly innovative districts for an average of 22 adoptions per district.

TABLE 3
Organization Size and Where Initiated, by Innovation Type
Technical Innovations' Administrative Innovations*
Size Size
„,, Large Medium Smalt Large Medium Small
Where —
Initiated % (x)' % (x) % (x) % (x) % (x) % (^
Teachers 77 (19.7) 69 (17.0) 69 (13.2) 12 (1.0) 20 (1.2) 1 (0.4)
Administrators 17 ( 4.3) 23 ( 5.6) 10 ( 1.8) 64 (5.3) 77 (4.8) 70 (3.8)
Collaborations 6 ( 1.7) 8 ( 2.0) 21 ( 4.0) 24 (2.0) 3 (0.2) 22 (1.2)
100 (25.3) 100 (24.6) 100 (19.0) 100 (8.3) 100 (6.2) 100
Number of
adoptions 77 123 95 25 31 27
'X"-16.1 with 4df,p< .005.
''A"'=6.9with4<//,p<.10
° I = t h e average number of adoptions per district.
1978 Daft 205

TABLE 4
Number of Adoptions and Where Initiated, hy Innovation Type
Technical Innovations' A dministrative Innovations'^
Number of adoptions Number of adoptions
,,,, High Medium Low High Medium Low
Where t
Initiated % (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 < . 1 0 .
"ic^the average number of adoptions per district.

In the low innovation districts, teachers alone propose only 54 percent of

technical innovations, which is 7.3 innovations per district. The proportion
of technical innovations proposed by administrator's is similar across the
districts, suggesting that administrative initiative is not a major factor in
technical innovation. The proportion of innovations initiated via collabora-
tion increases as district innovativeness decreases (7 percent versus 32
percent). Collaboration is probably a response by administrators to low
innovation activity. In the high innovative districts there is little need for
administrators to cross over and collaborate with teachers. The pattern of
technical innovation in Table 4 is similar to the pattern in Table 2, which
suggests that one reason for district innovativeness is the level of teacher
professionalism.
The data on the right side of Table 4 indicate that the proportion of
administrative innovations proposed by administrators is moderately related
to the frequency of adoption. In districts which adopt the most administra-
tive innovations, 75 percent are proposed by administrators alone compared
to only 60 percent in low innovation districts. Across all districts in the
sample, the key to the adoption of administrative innovations clearly rests
with administrators. The data do not tell us exactly why administrators are
more active in some districts, but it is probably because they are in larger
organizations and in organizations characterized by a centralized, top-down
administrative process.

DISCUSSION: A DUAL-CORE MODEL OF

ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION
The purpose of this study was to explore the early stages in the innova-
tion process to leam something about where innovative ideas are proposed
and why. The findings have to be treated as tentative, because they are
based upon a small number of organizations and a single type of organiza-
206 Academy of Management Journal June

tion. Within these school organizations, however, the observed relationships

were quite strong. At one level of interpretation, the findings support
Evan's trickle-up, trickle-down theory and a contingency approach to
innovation. The process of innovation appears to be contingent upon both
the type of innovation and the professional level of employees. Innovations
tend to be brought into an organization and proposed by individuals who
are the experts in a particular task domain and who will use the innovation.
A further interpretation of the findings—and one which goes beyond the
data—is that they suggest a fundamental reinterpretation of certain ideas
about organizational innovation.
Consider the following possibility: School organizations, and perhaps
other organizations, have dual cores—the technical core described by
Thonipson (1967) and an administrative core. Each core has its own
participants, 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 in
fact 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, and
the 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. As
professionalism 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 innovations
into the other core.
In other types of organizations, the amount of innovation and the degree
of coupling between the two cores may be a function of technology, rate of
change, and uncertainty in the environmental domain as well as employee
professionalism. Administrative innovation and tight coupling will tend to
occur when an organization must be poised to adapt to changes in goals,
policies, strategies, structure, control systems, and personnel, all of which
are in the administrative domain. The technical core becomes relatively
more innovative, and loosely coupled, when changes in core technology are
of primary importance.
Explaining the adoption of innovation as a function of two organizational
cores is a departure from the current theorizing. There are two findings in the
data which point toward this new interpretation. First is the importance of
innovation type. Innovation action takes place in two different areas of the
organization—the technical core and the administrative core—and innova-
1978 Daft 207

tions serve the respective groups. Technical ideas percolate from within
the 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 type
and the importance of two separate innovation centers has been obscured.
The second finding concerns the relative innovation balance between
the two cores. In some organizations, such as in the high professional dis-
tricts studied here, nearly all innovations originate within the technical core,
and nearly all innovations adopted by the organization are technical in
nature. The organizational focus is upon technical innovation. The technical
core appears to act independently (loose coupling), and administrators
play a secondary role, routinely approving most proposals. In other organ-
izations, the administrative component is relatively more important. The
organization adopts greater numbers of administrative innovations. A sub-
stantial portion of technical innovations originate within the administrative
core. The technical core appears to be subordinate and tightly coupled to an
active and influential administrative core.
With these ideas in mind, that organizations have dual cores and that
organizations vary in the relative innovativeness and degree of coupling
between these cores, it becomes possible to explain and reinterpret extant
innovative ideas.
In a discussion of innovation research, Aiken and Hage (1971) 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 organization
groups. The high professional districts in this sample might be characterized
as similar to the organic model described by Aiken and Hage. They also
tend to be most innovative, but only for innovations within the technical
core. This relationship does not hold for innovations in the administrative
core. Low professional districts, which have tighter coupling and a domi-
nant administrative core, tend to adopt more administrative innovations.
Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck (1973) argue that organizations
typically need one type of organization structure (low formalization, de-
centralization, high complexity) to generate innovation proposals and the
opposite structure (high formalization, centralization, low complexity) to
facilitate 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 not
inhibit adoption. The reason the Zaltman et al. argument is not sup-
ported becomes clear when one considers that innovation activity takes
place in two separate cores. It seems likely that low formalization, de-
centralization, and high complexity (professionalism) are suited to both
initiation and adoption of innovations within the technical core. The
opposite structural conditions facilitate innovation in the administrative
208 Academy of Management Journal June

core. High formalization, centralization, low complexity (professionalism)

and tight coupling fit the initiation and adoption of innovations which
pertain to the organization itself. These innovations often are pushed onto
the technical core. For both types of innovations, proposals tend to be
approved and implemented because the people who are involved with the
innovations, the local experts, are within the respective cores and typically
have a hand in initiating the changes.
The notion of dual organizational cores also helps integrate disparate
findings in the innovation literature. Several studies have attributed 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 between
professionalism 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 within
the administrative core and is a top-down process. This innovation is most
likely to be successful when employees are low professionals and tightly
coupled to administrators. In the study by Corwin, innovations were intro-
duced by Teacher Corps interns who were assigned to schools to act as a
catalyst and influence teachers to adopt innovations. This influence is not
likely to be particularly effective in loosely coupled organizations where
teachers are already well exposed and will initiate their own innovations.
Finally, the dual-core conceptualization of organizational innovation has
implications for the management of innovation. The dual-core concept helps
answer the question raised at the beginning of this paper—what is the
role of top administrators in the innovation process? When innovation and
adaptation within the technical core is desired, the advice is relatively
straight forward: Acquire highly professional employees for the technical
core, and let them handle innovation. Professional employees are aware of
problems in their work, they are versed in the state of the art of their
technology, and they should have the freedom (loose coupling) to innovate
as they see fit. Approval of their proposals should be relatively routine.
Acquisition of highly professional employees is not always possible, of
course, because of financial constraints. In this case, administrators may
have to be more active, which may mean tighter coupling and greater in-
novation activity from within the administrative core.
For administrative innovations, the administrators are the experts. It is
their responsibility to scan the environment for suitable ideas and initiate
them in the administrative core. Administrative innovations often affect
the technical core. Hence, this type of innovation activity will be most
successful when the technical core is tightly coupled to the administrative
core and when authority is centralized with administrators.
1978 Daft 209

In conclusion, the exploration into the origin of innovation proposals

has yielded substantial insight about the process of innovation. The 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 innovation
processes are differentiated and complex. Organizational and environmental
variables may be associated with innovation activity in one core but not with
activity in the other core. Future investigators must distinguish innovation
types and the location of innovation activities to achieve valid results. The
focus of this paper has been on the source of innovation proposals and the
effects of organization size and professionalism. Perhaps future research
can integrate additional organization and environmental variables with the
dual-core processes described here.

REFERENCES
1. Aiken, M., and J. Hage. "The Organic Organization and Innovation," Sociology. Vol. 5
(1971), 63-82.
2. Argyris, C . r / ! e Applicability of Organizational Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge
un,ivcistiy rrcss, lyy^).
3. Baldridge, J. V., and R. A. Burnham. "Organizational Innovation: Individual, Organiza-
tional, and Environmental Impacts," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 20 (1975),
165-176.
4. Becker, M. H. "Sociometric Location and Innovativeness: Reformulation and Extension
of the Diflfusion Model," American Sociological Review. Vol. 35 (1970), 267-282
5. Becker, S. W., and T. L. Whisler. "The Innovative Organization: A Selective View of
Current Theory and Research," Journal of Business. Vol. 40 (1967), 462-469.
6. Carlson, R. O. "School Superintendents and the Adoption of Modern Math A Social
Structure Profile," in Mathew G. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in Education (New York-
Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1964).
7. Carlson, R. O. Adoption of Educational Innovations (Eugene: Center for the Advanced
Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965).
8. Child, J. "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance- The Role of
Strategic Choice," Sociology. Vol. 6 (1972), 1-22.
9. Churchman, C. W., and A. H. Scheinblatt. "The Researcher and the Manager: A 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), 51-53
13. Evan, W. M., and R. Black. "Innovation in Business Organizations: Some Factors
Associated with Success or Failure of Staff Proposals," Journal of Business. Vol. 40

14. Hage, J., and M. Aiken, "Program Change and Organizational Properties," American
Journal of Sociology. Vol. 72 (1967), 503-519.
15. Hage, J., and R. Dewar. "Elite Values Versus Organizational Structure in Predicting
Innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 18 (1973), 279-290
16. Kaluzny, A. D., J. E. Veney, and J. T. Gentry. "Innovation of Health Services- A
Comparative Study of Hospitals and Health Departments," (Paper presented at the
University of North Carolina Health Services Research Center Symposium on 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 Science

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