The innovation literature suggests a number of proactive roles (e.g., idea genera
tor, idea champion, and orchestrator) that organizational members can play in the
development and implementation of innovations. This study examines self-report
data gathered at two points in time from organizational members (N = 90) within
the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS), a geographi
cally-dispersed federal government health information and education network that is piloting innovative intervention strategies to disseminate cancer information to
the public. Unexpectedly, results indicate that those who have the power to cham
pion innovation are also capable of challenging it, suggesting the existence of a
new innovation role held by organizational members who object to innovation
adoption or innovation: the devil's advocate. The discussion explores implications
for research and practice that challenge traditional notions about roles that people
play in the innovation process.
Adelman, M.B., Parks, M.R., & Albrecht, T.L. (1987). Beyond close relationships: Support in weak ties. In T. L. Albrecht & M. B. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 126-147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Albrecht, T., & Bach, B. (1997). Communication in complex organizations: A relational approach. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
3.
Albrecht, T.L., & Ropp, V.A. (1984). Communicating about innovation in networks of three U.S. organizations. Journal of Communication, 34, 78-91.
4.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
5.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
6.
Ashmos, D.P., McDaniel, R.R., & Duchon, D. (1990). Differences in perception of strategic decision-making processes: The case of physicians and administrators. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 201-218.
7.
Brimm, I.M. (1988). Risky business: Why sponsoring innovations may be hazardous to career health. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 28-41.
8.
Burt, R.S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action: Network models of social structure, perception, and action. New York: Academic Press.
9.
Burt, R.S. (1991). Structure reference manual Version 4.2New York: Columbia University Center for the Social Sciences.
10.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
Burt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.
12.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.
13.
Dearing, J. (1993). Rethinking technology transfer. International Journal of Technology Management, 8, 478-485.
14.
Dearing, J.W., & Meyer, G. (1994). An exploratory tool for predicting adoption decisions . Science Communication, 16, 43-57.
15.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
16.
Devellis, R. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surueys: The total design method . New York: John Wiley.
18.
Dillman, D.A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys . Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225-249.
19.
Farace, R.V., & Johnson, J.D. (1974). Comparative analysis of human communication networks in selected formal organizations. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA, May, 1974.
20.
Fidler, L.A., & Johnson, J.D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 9, 704-711.
21.
Fink, E., & Monge, P. (1985). An exploration of confirmatory factor analysis . In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication science (Vol. 6, pp. 167-197). Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
22.
Foegen, J.H. (1988). A devil's advocate approach to technology. Business Horizons, 36, 43-46.
23.
Frey, L., Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
24.
Galbraith, J.R. (1984). Designing the innovating organization. In D. Kolb, I. Rubin, and J. McIntyre, (Eds.), Organizational psychology: Readings on human behavior in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
25.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
26.
Granovetter, M. (1982). A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure in network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Howell, J.M., & Higgins, C.A. (1990). Champions of technological innovations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.
28.
Hunter, J.E. (1980). Factor analysis. In P. R. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Multivariate techniques in human communication research (pp. 229-258). New York: Academic Press.
29.
Hunter, J., & Gerbing, D. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior , 4, 267-320.
30.
Hunter, J.E., & Lim, T.S. (1987). LIMSTAT. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
31.
Jablin, F.M. (1987). Formal organization structure. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam , K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 711-746). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnson, J.D. (1993). Organizational communication structure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34.
Johnson, J.D., & Chang, H.-J. (2000). Internal and external communication, boundary spanning, and innovation adoption: An over-time comparison of three explanations of internal and external innovation communication in a new organizational form. The Journal of Business Communication37, 238-263.
35.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
36.
Kanter, R. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15, 509-523.
37.
Kanter, R.M., Kao, J., & Wiersema, F. (1997). Innovation: Breakthrough thinking at 3M, DuPont, GE, Pfizer, and RubbermaidNew York: HarperCollins.
38.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations . Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87-108.
39.
King, N. (1990). Innovation at work: The research literature. In M. A. West and J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
40.
Kossek, E.E. (1989). The acceptance of human resource innovation by multiple constituencies. Personnel Psychology, 42, 263-281.
41.
LaFrance, B.H., Johnson, J.D., Ethington, C. & Meyer, M. (1997, May). Studying the Cancer Information Service overtime . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
42.
Lewis, L.K., & Seibold, D.R. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation adoption: Predicting users' behavioral coping responses to innovation in organizations . Communication Monographs, 63, 131-157.
43.
Marcus, A.C. (1998). The Cancer Information Service Research Consortium . Preventive Medicine, 27, S1-S2.
44.
Marcus, A.C., Morra, M.E., Bettinghaus, E., Crane, L.A., Cutter, G., Davis, S., Rimer, B.K., Thomsen, C., & Warnecke, R.B. (1998). The Cancer Information Service Research Consortium: An emerging laboratory for cancer control research . Preventive Medicine, 27, S3-S15.
45.
Marcus, A.C., Woodworth, M.A., Strickland, C.J. (1993). The Cancer Information Service as a laboratory for research: The first 15 years. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 14, 119-130.
46.
Meyer, M. (1996). The effects of weak ties on perceived organizational innovativeness and innovation characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
47.
Meyer, M., Johnson, J.D., & Ethington, C. (1997). Contrasting attributes of preventive health innovations . Journal of Communication, 47, 112-131.
48.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
49.
Monge, P., Cozzens, M., & Contractor, N. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organizational Science, 3, 250-274.
50.
Morra, M., Van Nevel, J.P., Nealon, E., Mazan, K., & Thomsen, C. (1993). History of the Cancer Information Service. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 14, 7-34.
51.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245-1264.
52.
Pavitt, C., & Curtis, E. (1994). Small group discussion: A theoretical approach (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
53.
Rakowski, W., Dube, C.E., Marcus, B.H., Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., & Abrams, D.B. (1992). Assessing elements of women's decisions about mammography. Health Psychology, 11, 111-118.
54.
Roberts, N., & Bradley, R. (1991). Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: A study of public policy initiation at the state level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 209-227.
55.
Rogers, E. (1995). The diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
56.
Stacks, D.W., & Hocking, J.E. (1999). Communication Research (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
57.
Stjernberg, T., & Philips, A. (1993). Organizational innovations in a long-term perspective: Legitimacy and souls-of-fire as critical factors of change and viability. Human Relations, 46, 1193-1219.
58.
Tichy, N.M. (1974). Agents of planned social change: Congruence of values, cognitions, and actions. Administrative Science Quarterly , 19, 164-182.
59.
Van deVen, A. ( 1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590-607.
60.
Weenig, M.W.H. (1999). Communication networks in the diffusion of an innovation in an organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 29, 1072-1092.
61.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62.
Weimann, G. (1983). The strength of weak conversational ties in the flow of information and influence. Social Networks, 5, 245-267.
63.
Weiss, C.H. (1983). Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.) Stakeholder-based evaluation (pp. 83-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
