Champions of technological innovation: The influence of

The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 123–143

Champions of technological innovation: The influence of

contextual knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and

idea promotion on champion emergence

Jane M. Howella,*, Kathleen Boiesb

aRichard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, Canada N6A 3K7bJohn Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard W. Montreal, QC, Canada H3G 1M8

Abstract

This study examined the role that champions play in the generation and promotion of ideas in the innovation

process, and considered the influence of flexible role orientation and contextual knowledge in this process. Content

analysis of interview transcripts from 19 matched pairs of champions and nonchampions revealed that flexible role

orientation was positively related to idea generation, and contextual knowledge was positively related to packaging

ideas for promotion. Idea generation was positively related to promoting ideas through informal and formal

channels. Finally, in comparison with nonchampions, champions demonstrated more enthusiastic support for new

ideas, tied the innovation to a greater variety of positive organizational outcomes, and used informal selling

processes more often during idea promotion.

D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Champion; Idea generation and promotion; Innovation process

1. Introduction

‘‘A new idea either finds a champion or dies’’ (Schon, 1963, p. 84).

‘‘Without dedicated champions, ideas for product innovations may remain dormant for future

development and implementation’’ (Frost & Egri, 1991, p. 270).

Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2002) recently described the innovation process as comprised

of two stages. First, ideas are generated. This activity is commonly referred to as creativity, where novel

and useful ideas are produced (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Mumford & Gustafson,

1048-9843/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.008

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-519-661-3263; fax: +1-519-661-3959.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Howell).

J.M. Howell, K. Boies / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 123–143124

1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Second, ideas are evaluated, and those deemed worth pursuing are

promoted and implemented. This is commonly referred to as innovation (Amabile et al., 1996; Mumford

& Gustafson, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Field and case studies of innovation highlight that champions, individuals who informally emerge to

actively and enthusiastically promote innovations through the crucial organizational stages, are pivotal to

the successful implementation of an innovation (Achilladelis, Jervis, & Robertson, 1971; Burgelman,

1983; Day, 1994; Ettlie, Bridges, & O’Keefe, 1984; Howell & Shea, 2001; Markham, Green, & Basu,

1991; Markham & Griffin, 1998; Rothwell, 1977). In order to overcome the social and political

pressures imposed by an organization and convert them to its advantage, champions demonstrate

personal commitment to the idea, promote the idea with conviction, persistence, and energy through

informal networks, and willingly risk their position and reputation to ensure its success (Maidique, 1980;

Schon, 1963). Burgelman (1983, p. 238) reported that champions articulated a convincing master

strategy for the idea and initially mobilized resources covertly by ‘‘act[ing] as scavengers, reaching for

hidden or forgotten resources to demonstrate feasibility’’ and then, more overtly, by establishing and

maintaining contact with top management, to keep them informed and enthusiastic about the project.

Similarly, Venkataraman, MacMillan, and McGrath (1992) observed that a new venture idea required a

champion to exert social and political effort to galvanize support for the concept, and Galbraith (1982)

noted that champions engage in coalition building to secure organizational support for the innovation. In

their study of champions’ personality characteristics, influence tactics, and leadership behaviors, Howell

and Higgins (1990b) reported that champions could be distinguished from nonchampions by commu-

nicating a clear vision of what the innovation could be or do, displaying enthusiasm about the

innovation, demonstrating commitment to it, and involving others in supporting it.

Current conceptualizations and empirical work suggest that once ideas have been generated and

integrated with organizational goals and strategies, champions play a decisive role in implementing new

ideas by communicating strategic meaning around the innovation, persistently promoting the innovation,

securing resources, and involving and motivating others to support the innovation. However, to be

effective in their promotional activities, we contend that champions also need to understand the

innovation and how it fits within the broader organizational context. Thus, in addition to idea promotion

and implementation, champions may also be involved in the first stage of the innovation process, idea

generation.

In order to contribute to idea generation and promotion, champions must have a broad knowledge and

vision of their role (Mumford et al., 2002). Indeed, to motivate others to innovate and to tailor their

arguments to promote the innovations effectively, champions may need to adopt multiple perspectives

and to work collaboratively with people, a concept referred to as perspective taking (Parker & Axtell,

2001). Perspective taking involves seeing and understanding ‘‘organizational and environmental events

from multiple rather than single perspectives’’ (Parker & Axtell, 2001, p. 1086). Integrated understand-

ing and flexible role orientation have been proposed as antecedents to perspective taking (Parker &

Axtell, 2001). Integrated understanding refers to the breadth and complexity of knowledge about the

work environment, and flexible role orientation concerns how broadly individuals construe their role in

terms of ownership and accountability. Parker and Axtell (2001) reported that integrated understanding

and flexible role orientation predicted perspective taking, and that perspective taking was positively

related to employees’ contextual behavior, that is, cooperative and helping behaviors towards others.

Since champions emerge informally to promote innovations (Schon, 1963; Tushman & Nadler, 1986),

they may be viewed as going ‘‘above and beyond the call’’ and acting beyond their normally prescribed

J.M. Howell, K. Boies / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 123–143 125

roles to contribute to innovation products and processes. Thus, flexible role orientation and integrated

understanding may be related to the contextual behavior of champions.

The construct of integrated understanding is closely related to the concept of contextual knowledge. In

their theoretical and empirical work on issue selling, a form of championing aimed at attracting others’

attention to, and enhancing their understanding of, salient issues, Dutton and Ashford (1993) and Dutton,

Ashford, O’Neill, and Lawrence (2001) identified contextual knowledge as an important element in

successful issue-selling episodes. It is plausible that in-depth knowledge of the organization’s strategy,

key stakeholders in the innovation process, and appropriate organizational norms and behaviors may

assist champions in promoting innovative ideas. In the current study, we adopted Dutton et al.’s (2001)

term and refer to this aspect of perspective taking, integrated understanding, as contextual knowledge.

The present study contributes to the innovation literature in two important ways. First, the current

investigation extends our conceptualization of champions as contributing only to idea promotion and

implementation by considering their role in the idea-generation process. Understanding the role

champions play at different stages of the innovation process can serve to refine existing conceptual work

on champions and, in turn, improve our understanding of an important form of social influence. Second,

drawing on the literature on perspective taking and issue selling, we examine two possible antecedents of

idea generation and idea promotion, flexible role orientation and contextual knowledge. Assessing these

antecedents may help to explain how champions contribute to idea generation and promotion.

Drawing on the extant literature, we begin by examining the linkages between idea generation, idea

promotion, and champion emergence. We also investigate the relationship between these two stages of

the innovation process. Next, relationships between flexible role orientation and idea generation, and

between contextual knowledge and idea promotion, are proposed. The hypotheses are then tested in a

qualitative study involving a matched sample of champions and nonchampions.

1.1. Idea generation and champion emergence

According to Mumford et al. (2002), leaders of creative ventures engage in four activities related to

the generation of novel and useful ideas: they stimulate their followers intellectually, provide enthusiastic

support for creative ideas, get involved and encourage others to get involved in the innovation process,

and give their followers sufficient autonomy to create. Leaders of creative ventures who engage in

intellectual stimulation encourage others to consider diverse sources of information, to share informa-

tion, and to generate multiple ideas and solutions. To do so, they use inquiry and advocacy techniques

(Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Mumford et al., 2002; Senge, 1990).

Leaders provide enthusiastic support for creative ideas by sheltering new ideas from premature

evaluation, advocating new ideas, and recognizing and rewarding the production of new ideas. They

further support idea generation by securing access to the resources necessary for creative ideas to be

developed and by recognizing each person’s contribution to the innovation. Finally, leaders can also

contribute to the creative effort by getting involved and encouraging others to get involved in developing

new ideas (Mumford et al., 2002).

Case studies of champions of technological innovation offer some support for the assumptions of

Mumford et al. (2002). For example, in his longitudinal case study of the internal corporate venturing

process in a diversified major firm, Burgelman (1983) reported that champions were deeply involved in

the definition of new business ideas with others, created market interest in the idea, scavenged for

resources to demonstrate the feasibility of the idea, and hid their efforts until they could show definitive


positive results. Howell and Higgins (1990a) asserted that champions encouraged others to generate new

ideas by linking them to diverse sources of information and expertise and by adopting a participative

approach in identifying and developing new ideas. Thus, prior research suggests the following

hypotheses:

H1a. Champions will exhibit greater intellectual stimulation than nonchampions.

H1b. Champions will exhibit greater enthusiastic support for new ideas than nonchampions.

H1c. Champions will exhibit greater involvement in developing new ideas with people than

nonchampions.

Mumford et al. (2002) further suggested that leaders of creative ventures can facilitate the idea-

generation process by providing autonomy and freedom to individuals to let creative ideas flow.

Champions are not formally appointed to their roles and, therefore, are not necessarily in a position to

provide this autonomy. Thus, autonomy was excluded as part of the idea-generation process in the

present study.

1.2. Idea promotion and champion emergence

The second step in the innovation process is the promotion of the creative ideas generated in the first

step (Mumford et al., 2002). In the idea promotion stage, leaders of creative ventures gather support from

key stakeholders for the innovation and its implementation. They engage in promotional activities to

secure resources and persuade others that the innovation is worth pursuing.

The work of Dutton and Ashford (1993) on issue selling offers some insights into the activities

involved in promoting innovations. They asserted that issue selling could be divided into two broad

categories. The first, called ‘‘packaging,’’ is related to the content of the issue selling effort. Packaging

refers to the linguistic frame of an issue, or in other words, to its content. One way in which champions

can package the innovation for promotion is to tie it to valued organizational outcomes such as

profitability, market share, organizational image or reputation, vision or strategy, or to other ideas or

innovations. Champions can attach meaning to innovations through linguistic labels. This labeling starts

a process of categorization for top management, and may ultimately attract their attention (Dutton &

Jackson, 1987; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994). Thus, the more appealing the labels, the more attention and

support champions will be able to gather for the innovation. The theoretical propositions of Dutton and

Ashford, which were subsequently supported empirically (Dutton et al., 2001), suggested that the more

innovations are bundled with other important organizational outcomes, the more successful the

promotion attempt will be. This literature led to the following hypothesis:

H2a. Champions will tie the innovation to a greater variety of positive organizational outcomes than

nonchampions.

Another element involved in idea promotion is the selling process and, in particular, the channels used

by the promoters. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals promoting ideas make conscious choices

about the formality of the selling channels they use (Dutton et al., 2001). Selling channels can be formal


(e.g., report writing, weekly staff meetings, quarterly reviews, formal presentations to groups) or

informal (e.g., grapevines, hallway conversations, one-on-one appeals to boss or peers, private meetings

with relevant individuals) (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).

The use of intensive influence by champions to promote ideas has been documented in field studies

of innovation. For example, the study by Dean (1987) of the decision processes involved in the

adoption of advanced manufacturing technology showed that champions relied on a variety of

influence tactics including rational justification, repeated informal expression of enthusiasm and

confidence about the innovation, and sharing of information with possible coalition members. In their

analysis of the process of championship, Howell and Higgins (1990a) asserted that champions build

support for the innovation through formal presentations at management meetings and informal

encounters in hallways, at coffee breaks, over lunch, or dropping by offices. Therefore, it is likely

that champions rely on both formal and informal selling channels to promote the innovation to key

stakeholders. Our hypotheses are:

H2b. Champions will use formal selling channels more often than nonchampions.

H2c. Champions will use informal selling channels more often than nonchampions.

1.3. Idea generation and idea promotion

When individuals take part in idea-generation activities, they have early exposure to the project and its

components. Engaging in scouting and development activities may help individuals understand important

organizational problems and the origins of the solutions proposed. Thus, getting involved in idea

generation may enhance the individuals’ effectiveness at promoting the innovation, subsequently, by (a)

allowing them to frame the problem in terms of broader organizational strategies and goals (Dutton &

Jackson, 1987; Mumford et al., 2002) and (b) by lending more credibility to themselves and, therefore, to

their promotional efforts (Mumford et al., 2002). This rationale led to the following hypotheses:

H3a. Idea generation will be positively related to tying the innovation to a variety of positive

organizational outcomes.

H3b. Idea generation will be positively related to the use of both formal and informal selling channels.

1.4. Flexible role orientation and idea generation

Parker, Wall, and Jackson (1997) defined flexible role orientation as composed of two aspects:

production ownership and production knowledge. Production ownership refers to the feeling of

ownership that one has about problems and goals present in the work environment, and production

knowledge is defined as the awareness of the importance of keeping one’s knowledge and skills up-to-

date. These concepts were adapted to the particular context of the current study: production ownership

was conceived as concern over issues affecting the organization, and production knowledge was viewed

as the importance of keeping one’s own and other people’s knowledge and skills current.

Idea generation requires specific qualities on the part of the individuals involved: flexibility, cognitive

complexity, and openness (Kanter, 1988; Mumford et al., 2002; Zhou, 1998). Furthermore, individuals


involved in creative ventures must have expertise to be able to identify and/or generate ideas that are

both novel and useful (Mumford et al., 2002). In other words, idea generation requires a flexible role

orientation, including both expertise (keeping knowledge and skills up-to-date) and concern over issues

affecting the organization. Moreover, individuals with a broader role orientation are more likely to

include creativity and innovation as part of their role, and are thus more likely to engage in activities

leading to idea generation.

Since championing innovations is not a formal part of an individual’s role, champions need to

construe their role broadly so as to include activities related to innovation. Kanter (1988) argued that

to generate ideas and activate innovation, champions immersed themselves in business units outside of

their own unit and sought problems to work on from their network of relationships in other units.

Howell and Shea (2001) found that champions of product innovations were well versed in emerging

technologies, products, processes, and markets through, for instance, attendance at conferences and

discussions with customers, and distilled the implications for their organizations. Therefore we

posited:

H4. Flexible role orientation will be positively related to idea generation.

1.5. Contextual knowledge and idea promotion

In a recent investigation of processes involved in successful and unsuccessful issue-selling episodes,

Dutton et al. (2001) identified contextual knowledge as an important element in successful episodes.

More specifically, Dutton et al. identified three forms of contextual knowledge related to successful

issue-selling episodes: strategic, relational, and normative knowledge. Strategic knowledge concerns the

understanding of the goals, objectives, plans, and strategies of the organization, including the market and

the competition. Relational knowledge refers to the extent to which individuals are aware of the presence

and role of key actors in the innovation process. Finally, normative knowledge is defined as the extent to

which individuals understand the formal and informal structure of the organization such as accepted

behaviors and norms.

Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, and Wierba (1997) found that middle managers paid close attention

to the context to promote issues effectively. According to Mumford et al. (2002), idea promotion requires

a broad understanding of the context. Indeed, to frame the innovation in terms of the broader

organizational strategies and objectives, an in-depth understanding of the strategic context of the

organization is critical (Dutton et al., 2001). Burgelman (1983) noted that astute organizational

champions actively influenced the dispositions of top managers toward a new corporate venture and

made them see its strategic importance. Furthermore, to tie the innovation to the interests of key actors

and to choose their targets effectively, individuals require a deep understanding of the relational context

present in the organization. Frost and Egri (1991) asserted that champions have well-developed networks

of influence in organizations that help them gauge how best to frame and promote the innovation. With

an in-depth understanding of both the strategic and relational contexts, individuals can effectively

package their ideas and customize their promotional attempts (Dutton et al., 2001).

Whereas the effective packaging of ideas relies on solid strategic and relational knowledge, the choice

of selling processes is related to normative knowledge (Dutton et al., 2001). Normative knowledge,

which represents an understanding of how the organization actually works, is likely to influence the

selection of selling processes. It is therefore expected that strategic and relational knowledge will be


related to the content aspect of idea promotion (i.e., packaging), whereas normative knowledge will be

related to using both formal and informal selling processes. Thus:

H5a. Strategic and relational knowledge will be positively related to tying the innovation to a variety of

positive organizational outcomes.

H5b. Normative knowledge will be positively related to formal and informal selling processes.

In summary, it is expected that champions will engage in activities related to idea generation and idea

promotion more often than nonchampions. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that participation in the idea-

generation process will enhance the effectiveness of idea promotion. Finally, it is expected that a flexible

role orientation will be positively related to engaging in activities related to idea generation, and

contextual knowledge will be positively related to idea promotion.

2. Method

2.1. Description of innovations

In the present study, an innovation was defined as the adoption of a new product or process related to the

application of information technology (Pennings, 1987). To have comparable types of innovations, three

selection criteria were established. First, the innovation had to be primarily designed for use by managers

and/or professionals. The champions’ role was thought to be more important at higher managerial levels

because innovation adoption is typically voluntary at that level. Second, the implementation of the

innovation had to have taken place within the last 18 months to ensure more accurate recall. Finally, the

innovation had to represent a significant financial investment for the company. This ensured that the

innovation had visibility within the organization and a potential impact on the work of managers.

2.2. Sample

A survey of 350 chief executive officers (CEOs) of the largest (in terms of sales) Canadian

corporations listed in the Financial Post 500 was used to identify organizations that had recently

implemented a technological innovation. Based on the responses from 88 organizations, it was

determined that 56 innovations met the selection criteria described above. Interviews were conducted

with executives from these companies, in which they provided in-depth descriptions of the innovations.

Following these interviews, 28 innovations were identified as meeting the preestablished criteria. All

organizations agreed to participate in the study.

2.3. Procedure

Key individuals in the adoption of the innovation were identified through a two-stage process. First, a

company executive was asked to identify all individuals who played a key role in the adoption of the

innovation. These individuals were then interviewed and, often, identified other key players who were

also interviewed, thus creating a snowball sample (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). All interviews were


conducted using a structured protocol and were tape recorded with the interviewees’ consent. In total,

153 individuals were interviewed for an average of 1.5 hours. On average, five people were interviewed

for each innovation.

2.4. Identification of champions and nonchampions

Several steps were taken to ensure that champions were identified reliably. First, through open-ended

questions, interviewees were asked to identify individuals who had played a key role in the adoption of

the innovation. They were then given a list of five roles and asked to name the individual who had filled

this role in the innovation process. These roles were derived from the champion and innovation literature

and included: project champion, technical innovator, business innovator, chief executive, and user

champion (e.g., Achilladelis et al., 1971; Curley & Gremillion, 1983). Interviewees were asked to

identify one individual who clearly fit each of these roles, and were instructed to leave it blank if no one

clearly fit. Three steps were taken to minimize attributional bias. First, the different roles were unlabeled

and identified only by a definition. Second, the purpose of the study was disguised. Finally, key

individuals were not informed who had been nominated for the different roles.

The final identification of the project champion was based on complete agreement among key

individuals (100% agreement). Therefore, all key individuals had to have identified the same individual

as the project champion. Furthermore, responses to the open-ended questions were examined to confirm

the identification of project champions. Using these rigorous criteria, 19 individuals were identified as

project champions, that is, individuals who actively and enthusiastically promote innovations through

the crucial organizational stages.

A comparison group of nonchampions was then created based on a number of criteria. First,

individuals from both groups had to have been involved in the same innovation and be from the same

organization. This ensured that the cost, type, importance, success, and complexity of the innovations

were equivalent. Second, nonchampions had to have played an active informal role in the innovation

process. However, individuals in the nonchampion group were not identified by their peers as fitting one

of the five roles described above. This ensured that champions and nonchampions were equivalent in

terms of technical knowledge (because neither were identified as the technical innovator) and position

power (because neither were identified as business innovator, chief executive, or user champion). Third,

individuals from both groups had to be at the same organizational level to ensure that individuals had no

reporting relationship between them. Finally, both champions and nonchampions had to have

volunteered for this project (i.e., be self-appointed).

The final sample consisted of 19 pairs of champions and nonchampions from 15 organizations. There

were 37 males and 1 female. The 38 participants had a mean age of 44.6 years (SD= 8.98), were mostly

at the executive (44.7%) or middle management levels (26.3%), and worked in a variety of functional

areas including information systems, general management, marketing, and engineering. The two groups

were matched on demographic variables including functional area, position level, and educational level.

2.5. Content analysis

2.5.1. Coding themes

The definition of themes related to flexible role orientation relied on research by Parker and Axtell

(2001). According to them, flexible role orientation is composed of two broad themes, which we adapted


to the context of the present study. Evidence of the presence of the first theme, labeled ‘‘concern over

issues,’’ was provided when interviewees mentioned developing and making recommendations

concerning issues affecting the organization, or when they discussed the importance of keeping well

informed about issues where their opinion might be useful to the organization. A second theme related to

flexible role orientation referred to the importance of keeping one’s own and other people’s knowledge

and skills up-to-date. This second theme was labeled ‘‘keeping skills up-to-date.’’

Contextual knowledge was defined based on the research of Dutton et al. (2001) and Parker and

Axtell (2001). It was composed of three types of knowledge: strategic, relational, and normative.

Strategic knowledge referred to the knowledge of the broader organizational strategies (Dutton et al.,

2001). Relational knowledge was defined as the knowledge of individuals who are relevant to the

innovation in the idea generation and/or idea promotion stages (Dutton et al., 2001). Normative

knowledge was defined as the knowledge about how the organization actually operates, such as

knowledge of the interrelationships between different business units and the accepted norms and

behaviors (Dutton et al., 2001; Parker & Axtell, 2001).

The definitions of the activities related to idea generation were derived from Mumford et al. (2002).

These authors suggested that idea generation is composed of three activities relevant to the context of the

current study: intellectual stimulation, involvement, and support. Intellectual stimulation referred to

encouraging others to consider multiple factual sources of information and encouraging others to share

information. Involvement referred to getting involved with people in developing new ideas. Finally,

support was defined as the provision of enthusiastic support for new ideas. Illustrative quotations for the

coding themes related to flexible role orientation, contextual knowledge, and idea generation are

provided in Table 1.

The description of themes related to idea promotion was based on the work of Dutton et al. (2001) on

issue selling. Two aspects of idea promotion were defined: packaging and selling processes. Packaging

was defined as linking the innovation to valued organizational goals, namely, profitability, market share,

organizational image or reputation, vision or strategy, and other ideas or innovations. Finally, selling

processes were categorized as either formal (e.g., report writing, weekly staff meetings, quarterly

reviews, formal presentations to groups) or informal (e.g., grapevines, hallway conversations, one-on-

one appeals to boss or peers, private meetings with relevant individuals).

2.5.2. Procedure

The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed and content analyzed for the presence of the

aforementioned themes, following the guidelines recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). Once

the themes were defined, two individuals used transcripts separate from those to be used in the coding to

refine their operationalization. They coded practice passages, discussed their ratings, and refined the

definitions when necessary. Several iterations of ratings were required before the themes were clearly

defined. The final coding of these passages was used as the key on which coders were trained and then

tested.

Graduate and senior undergraduate students were recruited to code the interview transcripts. In total,

three pairs of students were randomly assigned to different themes. The students were trained so that

they understood and were able to code the transcripts reliably. Following training, students were given

practice passages and asked to code them for the presence of the themes to which they had been

assigned. Two students coded each theme. Students met the preestablished criterion of 75% agreement

with each other. In total, the training required about 10 hours. The students were then asked to proceed

Table 1

Illustrative quotes for some of the coding themes used in content analysis

Category/subcategory Illustrative quote

Flexible role orientation

Concern over issues ‘‘I talked to the Vice President of Marketing that I was reporting to at the time, I said, ‘I’ve had a

meeting with my managers and we’re concerned about profit and we are going to take a look at

developing a profit improvement program’.’’

Keeping skills up-to-date ‘‘I had to develop the expertise level of the group and the teaching skills to execute the plans.’’

Contextual knowledge

Strategic knowledge ‘‘In essence we wanted to bring about change in this industry, to address some areas of weakness

and opportunity and one was in the whole question of information technology.’’

Relational knowledge ‘‘The functional VP of finance is very supportive of it and feels that it’s something that should be

done across the country.’’

Normative knowledge ‘‘All of those groups have direct and indirect influence over resource allocation. The executive

committee prepares budgets and the policy committee approves them and the resource allocation

stems out of the budgetary process.’’

Idea generation

Intellectual stimulation ‘‘Consideration—consider people, consider proposals, consider the other point of view, you

know? Give consideration to other people than yourself. And consider all possible things.’’

Involvement ‘‘I just went out and met with the user groups and did my prospectus on different applications

and what I wanted to build and made some prototypes, ran it by them and came back to the

drawing board and it was back and forth.’’

Support ‘‘I never doubted for a minute that it [the idea] would work, that it was doable, because if you

don’t think it’s doable, then you don’t do it.’’


with the coding. They coded all interview transcripts separately and met periodically to resolve any

inconsistencies in their coding. The students were blind to the hypotheses of the study, as well as to the

identification of champions and nonchampions. In total, over 700 pages of interview transcripts were

coded. The difference between the mean length of interview transcripts of champions and nonchampions

was not significant.

2.6. Data analysis

Coding categories were retained if they were mentioned by at least 10% of the overall sample,

following the procedure used by Dutton et al. (2001). Only one coding theme did not meet this criterion

and was removed (i.e., tying the innovation to market share). Furthermore, to test H2a, a new variable

was created. The four categories of tying the innovation to profitability, organizational image or

reputation, vision or strategy, and to other ideas or innovations were coded dichotomously for their

presence or absence (the category was coded as 1 if it was mentioned at least once). These dummy

variables were then summated to indicate the number of different organizational outcomes used by

champions and nonchampions in promoting the innovation.

H1a, b, c and 2a, b, c were tested using paired sample t tests to determine whether idea generation and

idea promotion activities were associated with champion emergence. H3a–5b were tested using Partial

Least Squares (PLS;Wold, 1985). PLS is a regression-based technique that is recommended for research

models where the focus is on theory development and testing, and is suitable for use with smaller


samples (Faulk & Miller, 1992). PLS is generally more suitable for early model testing as compared with

LISREL, which requires multivariate normality, interval-scaled data, and large sample sizes.

The path coefficients in a PLS structural model are standardized regression coefficients. The loadings

of items on the constructs are factor loadings. Therefore, findings can be interpreted within the context of

regression, path analysis, and principal component analysis. To assess the structural model, PLS

produces standardized regression coefficients using ordinary least squares to minimize the residual

variance. Jackknifed path coefficients and standard errors are calculated and tested for significance using

t tests.

The main disadvantage of PLS is that its parameter estimates are suboptimal with respect to bias and

consistency when the sample size is small, or when the number of indicators per latent variable is small.

To cope with this weakness, PLS researchers determine an adequate sample size as the larger of (a) 10

times the scale with the largest number of indicators, and (b) 10 times the largest number of structural

paths leading into any endogenous construct. In this study, the largest number of indicators per construct

and the largest number of paths leading to any endogenous construct were two. Therefore, according to

these guidelines, a sample size of 20 would be adequate, which was exceeded in the present study.

3. Results

3.1. Paired sample t tests

To test H1a, b, c and 2a, b, c, standard scores for both groups were computed. Based on the

recommended cut-off score of F 3.29 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), two outliers were deleted, bringing

the total of complete pairs to 17. Paired sample one-tailed t tests were then used.

H1a, b, and c stated that champions would provide more intellectual stimulation, more enthusiastic

support for new ideas, and would get involved with other people in developing new ideas more often

than nonchampions. These hypotheses were partially supported. Champions did not encourage others to

consider multiple sources of information [t(16) = 1.05, ns] more often than nonchampions. They did,

however, provide greater enthusiastic support for new ideas than nonchampions [t(16) = 2.82, p < .01].

Finally, they did not get involved in developing new ideas more often than nonchampions

[t(16) =� 0.34, ns; see Table 2].

H2a stated that champions would tie the innovation to a greater variety of positive organizational

outcomes more often than nonchampions. This hypothesis was supported [t(16) = 2.40, p < .05].

Contrary to H2b, there was no significant difference between champions and nonchampions on the

frequency of use of formal selling processes [t(16)=.59, ns]. In support of H2c, champions used informal

selling processes more often than nonchampions [t(16) = 2.75, p< .01; see Table 2].

3.2. PLS analysis: test of the measurement model

To test the measurement model, we examined individual item reliability, internal consistency, and

convergent and discriminant validity. Barclay, Higgins, and Thompson (1995) suggested that to assess

individual item reliability, factor loadings of each indicator on its respective construct should be

examined and should exceed .6. Table 3 shows the factor and cross-factor loadings for each of the

constructs with more than one indicator. Because of its very low factor loading, involvement (an

Table 2

Paired sample t tests for idea generation and idea promotion activities of champions and nonchampions

Variables Champions Nonchampions t (df = 16)

Mean SD Mean SD

Idea Generation

Intellectual stimulation 0.82 1.01 0.53 0.62 1.05

Enthusiastic support 2.47 1.59 1.00 1.00 2.82**

Involvement 0.94 1.03 1.06 1.34 � 0.34

Idea Promotion

Packaging 1.79 0.63 1.42 0.69 2.40*

Formal selling processes 6.41 3.95 5.59 4.76 0.59

Informal selling processes 2.41 1.91 1.06 1.25 2.75**

* p < .05.

** p < .01.


indicator of idea generation) was removed. After the removal of this indicator, all of the remaining

indicators loaded at the .6-level, or higher, on their respective construct, with one exception. One

indicator, concern over issues affecting the organization, loaded .55 on the flexible role orientation

construct. Since this indicator was close to the .6-cutoff criterion, we decided to retain it to represent the

flexible role orientation construct more adequately. All indicators loaded more highly on their respective

construct than on any other. Overall, the individual item reliabilities were deemed acceptable.

The reliability of each construct was evaluated using the internal consistency measure of Fornell and

Larcker (1981). This measure is similar to Cronbach’s alpha and its interpretation is identical. However,

Fornell and Larcker’s measure offers the advantage of taking into account individual item weightings,

whereas Cronbach’s alpha assumes that all indicators on a construct are weighed equally. The constructs

in the present study had internal consistencies ranging from .71 to .83 (see Table 3), which exceeded the

guideline of .7 suggested by Nunnally (1978).

The average variance extracted (AVE), which represents the mean of the squared loadings for a given

construct, was used to assess convergent validity. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that AVE should

Table 3

Factor and cross-factor loadings, internal consistency reliabilities, and average variance extracted from measures

Contextual

knowledge

(.82, .69)

Flexible role

orientation

(.75, .61)

Idea

generation

(.83, .71)

Idea promotion–

selling

(.71, .56)

Relational knowledge .72 .44 .07 .14

Strategic knowledge .93 .54 .29 .29

Concern over issues .39 .55 .16 � .10

Keeping skills up-to-date .54 .96 .46 .36

Providing enthusiastic support .15 .34 .86 .40

Intellectual stimulation .27 .43 .83 .32

Formal selling processes .38 .34 .34 .73

Informal selling processes .04 .08 .31 .76

Values in parenthesis represent internal consistency reliability and average variance extracted, respectively, for each factor.

Table 4

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of constructs

No. of M SD Correlations of constructs

indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Contextual knowledge 2 17.45 6.45 .83

2. Normative knowledge 1 0.89 1.35 .16 –

3. Flexible role orientation 2 2.21 1.53 .59 .29 .78

4. Idea generation 2 1.21 .98 .25 .03 .45 .84

5. Idea promotion–selling 2 4.08 2.77 .28 .15 .28 .43 .75

6. Idea promotion–packaging 1 1.61 .68 .55 .19 .31 .21 .41 –

Descriptive statistics are based on unit-weighted scales and 38 participants.

Diagonal elements in boldface represent the square root of the average of variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are

correlations between measures. For adequate discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than corresponding

off-diagonal elements. Based on a procedure suggested by Chin (2000), correlations greater than .32 were significant at p < .05

and correlations greater than .41 were significant at p< .01.


exceed .5 so that the variance between a construct and its indicators is more than error variance. The

AVE for the constructs all exceeded the .5 guideline, ranging from .56 to .71 (see Table 3).

Finally, evidence of convergent and discriminant validity is also provided by the correlation between

the constructs. It is recommended that the square root of the AVE (representing the average correlation

among the measures of each construct) should exceed the correlation between this construct and any

other construct. Table 4 shows that the square root of the AVE for each construct was higher than

correlations between any given constructs, providing further evidence of construct validity. Although

some of the correlations among constructs were significant, evidence of internal item reliability and

internal consistency converge to support the measurement model.

3.3. PLS analysis: test of the hypotheses

Table 5 presents the results of the analysis of the structural model. H3a, which stated that idea

generation would be positively related to idea promotion–packaging (tying the innovation to a variety of

positive organizational outcomes), was not supported (k=.08, t = 0.66, ns). However, in support of H3b,

idea generation was positively related to idea promotion–selling processes (k=.44, t =� 2.20, p < .05).

H4, which stated that flexible role orientation would be positively related to idea generation, was

Table 5

Partial least squares analysis of the hypothesized relationships

Hypotheses Path coefficient t (df = 37)

H3a: Idea generation! idea promotion–packaging .08 0.66

H3b: Idea generation! idea promotion–selling .44 � 2.20*

H4: Flexible role orientation! idea generation .45 2.83**

H5a: Contextual knowledge! idea promotion–packaging .53 � 4.62**

H5b: Normative knowledge! idea promotion–selling .17 1.17

The t values are estimated based on a jackknife procedure, for which 38 samples were generated.

* p < .05.

** p< .01.


supported (k=.45, t = 2.83, p< .01). H5a, which proposed that contextual knowledge would be positivelyrelated to idea promotion–packaging, was supported (k=.53, t =� 4.62, p < .01). Finally, contrary to

H5b, the path between normative knowledge and idea promotion–selling processes was not significant

(k=.17, t=.1.17, ns).

4. Discussion

The results supported many of the proposed relationships. We found that providing enthusiastic

support for new ideas, tying the innovation to a variety of positive organizational outcomes, and using

informal selling processes to promote the innovation were related to champion emergence. Furthermore,

antecedents of idea generation and promotion were explored. The results demonstrated that individuals

who construed their role more broadly were more likely to engage in activities related to idea generation,

and that an in-depth understanding of the organizational context was related to effective idea promotion.

Finally, the study’s findings indicated that engaging in idea generation was related to using both formal

and informal selling processes.

Several results are noteworthy. First, champion emergence was related to some idea-generation

activities and not to others. Whereas champions provided enthusiastic support for new ideas more often

than nonchampions, they did not get involved with people in developing ideas, nor did they provide

intellectual stimulation more often than their counterparts. These results are inconsistent with the

suggestion of Mumford et al. (2002) that leaders of creative ventures would engage in these three

activities during the idea-generation process. One explanation is that in contrast to the focus of Mumford

et al. on formal leaders, the current study examined informal leaders. Some aspects of the theoretical

framework of Mumford et al., such as involvement in idea generation and intellectual stimulation, may

apply more readily to formal leaders. As informal leaders, the champions’ role might be one of support

more than direct involvement in idea generation, which is consistent with the description of their role in

the extant literature. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that champions appear to have some form of

involvement in idea generation, consistent with the results reported by Burgelman (1983) and Howell

and Higgins (1990a). This contributes to our understanding of the supportive role that champions play in

the idea-generation process.

Champions are usually described as being particularly active in the promotional stage of innovation.

The results of the current study confirmed this assertion. Champions tied the innovation to a greater

variety of positive organizational outcomes than did nonchampions. Specifically, while innovations can

be interpreted and framed in a variety of ways (Dutton & Duncan, 1987b), champions chose to frame the

innovation in strategic terms by tying it to multiple organizational outcomes including profitability,

strategy or vision, organizational image or reputation, and other ideas or innovations. These results are

consistent with the proposition of Dutton and Ashford (1993) that issue bundling would be related to

success of promotional attempts, and confirms Howell and Higgins’s(1990a) descriptive analysis of the

champion process.

Howell and Higgins suggested that champions gained support for the innovation through multiple

means such as justifying the innovation in financial terms, asserting that competitors were expected

to adopt a similar innovation, arguing that the innovation will enhance customers’ perceptions of the

company, or linking the innovation to key organizational values. Thus, champions appear to engage

in sensemaking in an effort to integrate ambiguous and diverse information into a coherent whole


(Daft & Weick, 1984; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992). Innovations framed in strategic terms may

enhance the visibility of the innovation and trigger a sense of urgency, which may then increase the

likelihood of attracting top management’s attention (Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Dutton & Duncan,

1987a). Influencing top management’s interpretation of the innovation may ultimately lead to action

(Daft & Weick, 1984).

Another noteworthy aspect of champion emergence relates to the use of formal and informal selling

processes. The results indicated that the use of informal selling processes was related to champion

emergence, whereas the use of formal selling processes was not. However, overall, formal selling

processes were used by both groups more frequently than informal selling processes. Thus, although

champions might be adept at effectively working through formal organizational channels, the results

suggest that their unique contribution to promotional efforts stem from their use of informal selling

processes. This is consistent with the assertion of Howell and Higgins (1990a) that champions used both

formal presentations and informal encounters to build support for the innovation.

The results revealed that idea generation was related to only one aspect of idea promotion:

individuals involved in the idea-generation process engaged in selling attempts, but their involvement

did not relate to effectively packaging the innovation. Two mechanisms were proposed to explain the

relationship between idea generation and idea promotion. First, we posited that taking part in the idea-

generation process may allow individuals to have a better understanding of the innovation and,

therefore, to frame it in terms of broader organizational strategies (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Mumford

et al., 2002). According to the present study’s results, this mechanism does not appear to take place;

engaging in idea generation did not relate to tying the innovation to a greater variety of positive

organizational outcomes. However, the second mechanism received empirical support: participating in

the idea-generation process appeared to lend more credibility to the seller and to subsequent

promotional attempts (Mumford et al., 2002). Different variables were proposed as antecedents of

idea generation and the two aspects of idea promotion. Previous literature has discussed the importance

of flexibility and openness to the creation process (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; Mumford et al., 2002).

Results of the current study are consistent with these findings. However, whereas these characteristics

are generally viewed as personal predispositions, in the current study, flexible role orientation

described one’s own role construction. Thus, this finding adds to our understanding of antecedents

of creativity.

Finally, different aspects of contextual knowledge were proposed as antecedents of idea

promotion. Consistent with the results of Dutton et al. (2001), we found that individuals who had

deeper relational and strategic knowledge used a greater variety of labels to promote the innovation.

Thus, individuals who understood the broader organizational strategies and had in-depth knowledge

of the targets of promotional attempts were able to appeal to their audience by tying the innovation

to a greater variety of valued organizational outcomes. However, contrary to Dutton and Ashford’s

(1993) contention, normative knowledge was not related to the use of formal and informal selling

processes. The mechanism by which normative knowledge was proposed to act was through

knowledge of norms and behaviors appropriate to the organization. Thus, it was proposed that

individuals with a better understanding of organizational norms would be more adept in their selling

attempts. It is possible that the operational definition of normative knowledge did not adequately

reflect the construct. On a more substantive level, it is also plausible that knowledge of how the

organization actually works and the appropriate norms and behaviors does not easily translate into

action.

4.1. Limitations, future research directions, and practical implications

This study has several limitations. First, interviews were based on the participants’ recall of events.

Although measures were taken to ensure accurate recall (e.g., the innovations were implemented within

the last 18 months and structured interview protocols were used), it is still possible that reports contained

some inaccuracies. However, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) argued that in salient situations, an individual’s

recall is likely to reflect the actual events. Since the technological innovations studied in this research

represented major changes in the organization, these situations appeared highly salient to employees.

Furthermore, Golden (1992) suggested that past facts or behaviors are likely to be recalled more accurately

than accounts of past beliefs and intentions. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the events and

behaviors reported by champions and nonchampions were representative of the actual situation.

A second limitation was the small sample size. However, despite this limitation, several statistically

significant relationships were found and, therefore, the size of the sample did not seem to affect the

results substantially. Since these relationships were found with a small sample, it is likely that the results

could be reproduced on a larger scale.

It is important to note, however, that generating a larger sample of champions could be a challenging

undertaking. Only a few organizational members ever choose to become champions; it is a relatively rare

phenomenon (Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Shane, 1994). Moreover, to eliminate self-report bias, it is

important to identify champions through a rigorous nomination process such as the one adopted in the

current study. The combination of the rare occurrence of champions and the need to identify them

reliably imply that conducting research on champions requires a considerable investment of time and

resources.

A third limitation was that the sample was mostly composed of males. While there may be some

gender-related differences in leadership roles (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995), there is no reason to

believe that a sample of female champions would yield substantially different results. This contention,

however, needs to be tested empirically.

Turning to a future research agenda, a growing area of research interest that extends the present study

involves the role of leader support in producing higher levels of creativity in followers (e.g., Madjar et

al., 2002; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Specifically, research suggests that the

extent to which leaders express their support for new ideas can increase followers’ self-efficacy for

creativity, resulting in higher creative performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Future studies could

investigate how champions’ enthusiastic support for new ideas could enhance idea generators’ self-

efficacy for developing creative ideas which, in turn, may spawn further new ideas that ultimately lead to

viable innovations.

Champions’ involvement in the different stages of the innovation process presents an interesting

paradox. On one hand, in their role as supporters, champions need to encourage freedom, flexibility, and

divergent thinking in the idea-generation phase. On the other hand, in the idea-promotion phase,

champions need to influence top management’s interpretation of the innovation and encourage a

common understanding of the situation. Thus, in the idea promotion phase, champions may shape other

people’s mental models and bring top management’s perceptions closer to their own (Floyd &

Wooldridge, 1992; Roberts & Fusfeld, 1982) by framing the creative idea in terms of existing strategic

goals (Venkataraman et al., 1992). This suggests that champions themselves may have mental models

that are well articulated. Moreover, as suggested by prior theory linking leadership to mental models,

champions, as informal leaders, may be in a unique position to influence other people’s mental models



(e.g., Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kraiger & Wenzel, 1997). This

represents opportunities for future research. First, it would be interesting to explore champions’ own

mental models about the innovation process, as well as strategies involved in championing an

innovation, using techniques such as cognitive mapping. Like entrepreneurs, it is possible that

champions ‘‘think’’ differently (Baron, 1998). Second, examining champions’ influence on followers’

and top management’s mental models would be a worthwhile direction for future research. It is likely

that championing initiatives would contribute to the similarity of mental models about an innovation and

its strategic importance.

The current study’s results also suggested that individuals with greater relational knowledge might be

more effective at promoting innovations within the organization. Relational knowledge could be seen as

a form of social capital that champions own and utilize more effectively than nonchampions. The ability

of champions to build a network and to use it offers an intriguing area for future research.

Recent theoretical work on network position and creativity suggests that network centrality may be

positively related to creativity, but that this relationship may take the form of a spiral (Perry-Smith &

Shalley, 2003). Individuals may start at the periphery of a network where they have a number of

boundary-spanning ties (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). This peripheral position offers them exposure to

a variety of perspectives outside of the network, which may stimulate idea generation.

As individuals display higher levels of creativity, they become a source of advice and support and

build their credibility. This, in turn, causes them to form stronger ties with other individuals in the

network, and therefore occupy a more central position. This mutual relationship continues to progress

until individuals reach a position that is too central, which may then become detrimental to creativity

because it limits their ability to adopt multiple perspectives and requires them to conform to

organizational norms (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). It would be interesting to study the position of

champions in their social network, and the relationship between this position and (a) idea generation and

(b) idea promotion. As champions gain credibility and move closer to the center of their network, it is

possible that this spiraling effect could enhance idea promotion to the detriment of idea generation.

In terms of practical implications, the findings of the present study indicated that individuals with a

more flexible role orientation and greater contextual knowledge might be more effective at different

stages of the innovation process. Flexible role orientation can be influenced through different

interventions such as modifications to the organizational structure and the reward structure (Parker et

al., 1997). For example, employees could be rewarded for taking a broader perspective and including

activities, such as idea generation, as part of their role.

However, encouraging employees to show initiative going well beyond the customary job require-

ments and to be proactive may come at a price. Campbell (2000, p. 57) offered some guidelines to avoid

the unintended consequences that result when employees exercise initiative and independent judgment,

even with the best of intentions. To foster a sense of initiative in employees, but avoid the potentially

damaging effects of misalignment, organizational goals and initiative boundaries need to be clearly

communicated to employees. Furthermore, information needs to be shared with employees to clarify

their frame of reference. Finally, George and Zhou (2002) suggest that organizations that want to foster

creativity and innovation should set creative goals and focus on global rewards, such as pay raises and

promotions, rather than narrow rewards that focus specifically on the creative task at hand. These

guidelines may help organizations avoid some of the potential problems associated with champions’

promoting innovations that run counter to organizational goals, and with performance measurement and

reward systems, which could undermine champions’ intrinsic motivation.


Another way for organizations to foster their employees’ breadth of perspective is by keeping them

abreast and involving them in discussions about organizational strategies and goals. This would promote

a better understanding of the organizational context and, therefore, greater effectiveness at championing

valuable ideas and innovations throughout the organization (Dutton et al., 2001). As champions tend to

exhibit great breadth of interest and a propensity to scan their environment (Howell & Shea, 2001), they

would likely welcome the opportunity to get involved in discussions surrounding strategic issues.

The results suggested that champions exerted their greatest influence on building support for the

innovation at an informal level by engaging in informal-selling attempts more often than nonchampions.

It would therefore seem important to encourage individuals with innovation potential to seize

opportunities to build their informal network within the organization by developing relationships with

others who could provide access to valuable information, resources, and opportunities. For example,

individuals could develop their informal network by attending social gatherings with people from work,

seeking a mentor with influential contacts within the organization, pursuing and accepting new visible

work assignments, and going to lunches with coworkers (e.g., Forret & Dougherty, 2001). Learning to

navigate the informal organization and building networking skills are potentially valuable means for

individuals to discover and ultimately promote novel ideas.

The current study has interesting implications for the linkage between formal and emergent

leadership. Roberts and Fusfeld (1982) outlined five different roles needed in any creative endeavor.

One of these roles correspond to that of champions as defined in the current study. Other roles, such as

idea generating and project leading, may be filled more effectively by individuals who are formally

appointed. Although Roberts and Fusfeld contend that championing and idea-generating roles can be

filled by the same individual, it may be that only certain aspects of idea generation, such as the provision

of enthusiastic support, are more easily combined with championing, as suggested by the current study’s

findings.

While involvement in idea generation may be better suited for formal leaders, idea promotion may

benefit from remaining informal. Individuals who informally emerge as champions may be perceived as

more genuine in their promotional efforts because they chose to put themselves on the line to sell the

idea (Yukl, 2002). According to this line of reasoning, assigning champions to promote an idea may not

be the best approach. Although it could encourage individuals to engage in selling attempts more

frequently by giving them some form of legitimate authority, it could potentially undermine their

credibility in the selling process by bringing their motives into question. Thus, although it would appear

beneficial for organizations to encourage and foster the emergence of champions, the consequences of

formally appointing them to this role remain an empirical question.

The current study highlights that beyond idea promotion, champions are also active supporters in the

initial idea-generation stage of the innovation process. By going above and beyond their prescribed role

and accumulating critical strategic and relational knowledge along the way, champions bring new ideas

to life. Because organizational competitive advantage, survival, and renewal depend, in part, on

innovation, expanding our knowledge of how champions identify and promote new ideas is vital.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research of Canada

(Grant 410-98-0373).


References

Achilladelis, B., Jervis, P., & Robertson, A. (1971). A study of success and failure of industrial innovation. Sussex, England:

University of Sussex Press.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity.

Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Barclay, D., Higgins, C. A., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal

computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–309.

Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other

people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 275–294.

Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 28, 222–244.

Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3),

52–66.

Chin, W. W. (2000). Frequently asked questions—Partial least squares and PLS-Graph. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from http://

disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm.

Curley, K. F., & Gremillion, L. L. (1983). The role of the champion in DSS implementation. Information and Management, 6,

203–209.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management

Review, 9(2), 284–295.

Day, D. L. (1994). Raising radicals: Different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures. Organization

Science, 15, 148–172.

Dean, J. W. (1987). Building the future: The justification process for new technology. In J. M. Pennings, & A. Buitendam

(Eds.), New technology as organizational innovation (pp. 35–58). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3),

397–428.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers

assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 407–425.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organi-

zational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716–736.

Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987a). The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic issue diagnosis.

Strategic Management Journal, 8, 279–295.

Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987b). The influence of the strategic planning process on strategic change. Strategic

Management Journal, 8, 103–116.

Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management

Review, 12(1), 76–90.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus

incremental innovation. Management Science, 30, 682–695.

Faulk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. J. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type:

A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153–167.

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. J. (1994). The strategic middle manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees.

Group and Organization Management, 26, 283–311.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. (1991). The political process of innovation. In B. M. Staw, & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, vol. 13 (pp. 229–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Galbraith, J. R. (1982). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics, 10, 5–25.

http:\\disc-nt.cba.uh.edu\chin\plsfaq.htm


George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An

interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context

and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687–697.

Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past—Or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 848–860.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990a). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding, and supporting champions of

technological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 40–55.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990b). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,

317–341.

Howell, J. M., & Shea, C. M. (2001). Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing and champion

behavior: Key predictors of project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(1), 15–27.

Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovations in organiza-

tions. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 10 (pp. 169–211). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.

Kraiger, K., & Wenzel, L. H. (1997). Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of shared mental models as

indicators of team effectiveness. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and

measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 63–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork

creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757–767.

Maidique, M. A. (1980). Entrepreneurs, champions, and technological innovation. Sloan Management Review, 21(2), 59–76.

Markham, S. K., Green, S. G., & Basu, R. (1991). Champions and antagonists: Relationships with R&D project characteristics

and management. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, 217–242.

Markham, S. K., & Griffin, A. (1998). The breakfast of champions: Associations between champions and product development

environments, practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 436–454.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological

Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and

relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological

Review, 814, 231–259.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking.


Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). ‘‘That’s not my job’’: Developing flexible employee work orientations.


Pennings, J. M. (1987). On the nature of new technology as organizational innovation. In J. M. Pennings, & A. Buitendam

(Eds.), New technology as organizational innovation (pp. 3–12). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.

Roberts, E. B., & Fusfeld, A. R. (1982). Critical functions: Needed roles in the innovation process. In R. Katz (Ed.), Career

issues in human resources management (pp. 182–207). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, L. (1981). Communication networks. New York: Free Press.

Rothwell, R. (1977). The characteristics of successful innovators and technically progressive firms with some comments on

innovation research. R & D Management, 7, 191–206.

Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review, 41, 77–86.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the

workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

Senge, P. M. (1990, Fall). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 7–23.

Shane, S. A. (1994). Are champions different from non-champions? Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 397–421.


Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance.


Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of

traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.

Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74–92.

Venkataraman, S., MacMillan, I., & McGrath, R. (1992). Progress in research on corporate venturing. In D. Sexton (Ed.), State

of the art in entrepreneurship (pp. 487–519). New York: Kent Publishing.

Wold, H. (1985). Systems analysis by partial least squares. In P. Nijkamp, H. Leitner, & N. Wrigley (Eds.), Measuring the

unmeasurable (pp. 211–252). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261–276.

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页文献云下载图书馆入口外文数据库大全疑难文献辅助工具

http://www.xuebalib.com/cloud/

http://www.xuebalib.com/

http://www.xuebalib.com/cloud/


http://www.xuebalib.com/vip.html

http://www.xuebalib.com/db.php

http://www.xuebalib.com/zixun/2014-08-15/44.html


Documents

Champions of technological innovation: The influence of