Behavioral processes in innovation : the effect of target, influence methods, and communication style on influence effectiveness

Innovation is of such strategic and competitive importance that it has become essential to the survival of all organizations. Despite this increasing importance, improvements in the capability to manage the development of innovations have been offset by factors which increase the cost of innovating and reduce the rewards available to successful innovators.

Organizational studies of innovation have focused on the propensity of organizations to adopt innovations as well as to develop their own. According to the development stream of research, large organizations enact formal structures and processes to reconcile the "disorderly and unpredictable" process of innovation with the objective of running an "orderly and predictable" business (Drucker, 1985). However, formal structure and process variables cannot account entirely for the remarkable success at innovation achieved by some large organizations, nor the innovation which occurs with surprising regularity in organizations with structural and process characteristics clearly hostile to innovation.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that informal behavioral processes may be one way in which large organizations overcome institutional barriers to innovation. A conceptual model of an intraorganizational influence process is proposed. Hypotheses examining the relationships between selected characteristics of the influence attempt, influence methods, communication style and the dependent variable, influence effectiveness, are derived from the model. An empirical test of the relationships suggested by the model is undertaken using a field survey research design.

The findings of the study establish support for the proposed model of intraorganizational influence. In particular, results suggest that influence methods, communication style and the interactions derived from these two independent variables are significantly and differentially related to influence effectiveness. In addition, the nature of the relationships is shown not to be invariant with respect to the status of the influence target.

Several directions for future research are suggested by the results. Additional research into the quality of influence method and influence effectiveness measures should be completed. Second, richer communication variables must be explored to get a clearer picture of the complex organizational environment in which new product managers function. Third, research should seek to identify and measure individual and organizational new product outcome variables. These variables will permit an assessment of the importance of various interpersonal behavioral processes in determining new product success.