Factors influencing engineers' perceptions of organizational support for innovation

ELSEVIER J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

Journal of ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

JET-M

Factors influencing engineers' perceptions of organizational support for innovation

S. Dolly Malik a,., Donald O. Wilson b "206 B Welles, J. W. Jones School of Business, SUNY at Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 14454, USA

h Department of Management, College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA

Abstract

This study focuses on the factors that influence the extent to which engineers dealing with routine, analyzable task related problems perceive the organizational climate as supporting innovation and the development of new answers. It is argued that when engineers are able to successfully deal with various degrees of perceived task uncertainty, the climate will be perceived as supportive of innovation. The results indicate that the relationship between task uncertainty and perceived support for innovation is moderated by the amount of formalization, the degree of decision centralization, and an individual's information processing style. Indeed, for these engineers, formalization is seen in a positive light since procedures are available that can be used to deal with task-related problems.

Keywords: Organizational climate; Innovation; Formalization; Participation; Information processing style

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

The relationship between innovation and organizational climate has received considerable attention since Pelz and Andrews published Scient is t s In Organ i za t ions in 1976. Based on their research, the authors argue for the importance of an organizational climate that supports innovation and the development of new answers to task related problems. Likewise, other authors (Feldman, 1988; Kanter, 1983; Jain and Triandis, 1990; Nystrom, 1990; Souder, 1987) have stressed the need for an organizational climate supportive of innovation. Con- sequently, additional research as to what might lead to such a climate seems warranted.

The issue of a " suppor t ive" climate is an important one, especially for engineers who often need to deal with varying levels of task uncertainty in their efforts to solve task-related problems. Research studies that have examined innovation have focused mostly on R and

* Tel.: + 1 716 245 5358. Fax: + 1 716 245 5467.

0923-4748/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSD10923-4748 ( 9 5 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 0

202 S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson / J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

D organizations where radical innovations may be the goal (Nord and Tucker, 1987). In fact, recent studies have found that organizations allocate two-thirds of their R and D expenditures on research oriented towards more radical innovations (Berger et al., 1989; Reich, 1989).

However, not all engineers work in research laboratories developing completely new products or processes. Engineers who develop new applications or modifications to routine, well understood technologies may also face varying levels of task uncertainty. Innovation, for engineers working on more routine, structured tasks, may be to make incremental performance improvements or modifications to existing products, processes, or systems. There is evidence that many organizations are placing more emphasis on this type of innovation in an effort to increase their overall productivity (Berger et al., 1989; Reich, 1989).

Prior research suggests that an organizational climate that cultivates innovation may help the organization hasten the innovation process (Feldman, 1988; Kanter, 1983; Jain and Triandis, 1990; Nystrom, 1990; Souder, 1987). This suggests that it is important to study what factors may help create a climate that is perceived as being supportive of innovation. It is expected that the extent to which engineers working on more structured tasks perceive the organizational climate as supporting innovation may be influenced by the degree to which various organizational mechanisms are available to either aid or hinder the individual in successfully dealing with task related problems.

The two classic characteristics of organizational structure are job formalization and decision centralization (Daft, 1992; Fry, 1982; Pugh, 1973; Pugh et al., 1968). For engineers working on structured tasks, job formalization may indicate the extent to which appropriate procedures are available to help them deal with task-related problems. Similarly, decision centralization may indicate to these engineers who decides which procedures or approaches to solving a task-related problem are used.

Simon (1960) suggested that organizational processes are a joint function of human characteristics and the nature of the task environment. Individuals with different information processing styles may have different abilities to identify and select among alternative approaches or procedures for solving a problem. Therefore, an organizational member's cognitive information processing style may also impact perceptions of organizational climate.

In addition, organizational members' perceptions of the extent to which the climate supports innovation may be influenced by the degree to which these members are committed to the organization and its goals (Kotter and Heskett, 1992). Thus, organizational commitment is included in the research design in order to control for this possible bias on perceptions of organizational climate.

The purpose of this study is not so much to empirically investigate the extent to which job formalization, decision centralization, and cognitive information processing style are individually related to engineers' perceptions of organizational climate. Rather, this study attempts to investigate how these three variables moderate the relationship between an engineer's perceptions of task uncertainty and the extent to which the organizational climate is perceived to support the development of innovative answers to problems (King, 1990; Nord and Tucker, 1987; Zaltman et al., 1973). To date, most studies of organizational climate have not considered the possibility that how supportive a climate is perceived to be

S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson/J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218 203

may depends not only on the amount of task uncertainty perceived, but also on the moderating influence of these variables. In addition, this study will specifically investigate how these factors may influence the perceived support for innovation for engineers who perform more routine and structured technical service oriented tasks.

2. Literature review

Perceptions of organizational climate and culture have been shown to influence organizational performance and effectiveness (Denison and Mishra, 1989; Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Gordon and Ditomaso, 1992). Indeed, Hansen and Wernerfelt (1989) found that organizational factors such as climate explained about twice as much variance in profit rates as did economic factors.

Although culture and climate are similar in many respects (Denison, 1993), climate may be considered to be a more specific manifestation of the broader organizational culture (Schein, 1985; Reichers and Schneider, 1990). Schneider and Rentsch (1988) define organizational culture as the values and norms underlying organizational routines (policies, practices, procedures, etc.). They consider organizational climate to be the message that organizational members receive from such organizational routines. Since climate is a set of measurable properties of the work environment that is perceived by organizational members and influences their motivation, attitudes, and behavior (Hellriegel and Slocum, 1974; Faicione et al., 1987; Litwin and Stringer, 1968), it is a more relevant construct than culture for the purposes of this paper.

The climate of interest here is the "support for innovation and the development of new answers to problems" (Abby and Dickson, 1983; Fischer and Farr, 1985; Stephenson et al., 1971 ). Several authors have argued that such a climate is an important determinant of actual innovative performance (Dunegan et al., 1992; Pelz and Andrews, 1976; Kanter, 1983; West, 1990).

This paper will adopt what James and Jones (1974) call the "psychological climate approach". Climate, from this perspective, can be defined as an individual's summary perceptions of their work environment (Schneider, 1975). In the psychological approach, the unit of analysis is the individual; therefore, each individual may perceive the organization's climate differently.

Climates, according to Schneider (1975), serve as frames of reference for the attainment of some congruity between individual behavior and the organizational system's practices and procedures. As such, climates represent an individual's general impressions of the organization system that are formed after repeated experience with that system (Schneider and Reichers, 1983). If this is the case, structural factors should influence an individual's perceptions of climate (Lawler et al., 1974: Payne and Mansfield, 1973; Payne and Pugh, 1976). Two structural predictors of climate that have been frequently investigated are decision centralization and job formalization (George and Bishop, 1971; Litwin and Stringer, 1968; Payne and Pheysey, 1971; Pheysey and Payne, 1970; Pheysey et al., 1971 ).

Although Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) argued that uncertainty is a major component of climate, this relationship has not been widely studied. The current study explicitly examines how task uncertainty may influence an individual's perceptions of organizational

204 S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson/J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995)201-218

climate and how these perceptions may be moderated by structural factors such as job formalization and decision centralization and by individual factors such as information processing style. These relationships are further explored below.

2.1. Task uncertainty and perceived support for innovation

Perrow (1967) described two dimensions along which task uncertainty can be analyzed. The first dimension is the number of exceptions in the work, or task variety. The second dimension reflects the degree to which these exceptions are analyzable or unanalyzable. Based on these two dimensions, Perrow proposed a simple typology composed of four quadrants: routine manufacturing, craft, engineering, and non-routine research. Individuals who deal mainly with analyzable, well understood technologies should, according to Perrow (1967), fall into what he calls the "engineering technology" quadrant. In this quadrant, the large number of work exceptions faced by members of a typical engineering group are analyzable and can be addressed using a variety of programmed responses. Much of their work may involve improvements or modifications to existing products, processes, or systems. Engineering manuals may supply the appropriate procedures or techniques to solve many of the exceptional problems that occur (Perrow, 1967).

The characteristics of Perrow's engineering quadrant are similar in many ways to Mintz- berg's (1983) concept of the "professional bureaucracy." Members of professional bureaucracies have a repertoire of standard procedures and programs that are applied to problem situations or contingencies. This is what Mintzberg calls "pigeonholing" - - attempting to categorize a problem and then solve that problem by matching it to an appropriate standard program or procedure. It is this pigeonholing process that allows professional bureaucracies to be bureaucratic without being overly centralized.

Although engineers who are members of Perrow's engineering quadrant and Mintzberg's professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1983) deal mostly with analyzable problems, they may perceive varying degrees of task uncertainty. When uncertainty is low, there are likely to be only a limited number of satisfactory solutions. Therefore, solving a task-related problem should be a fairly straightforward process involving the application of an estab- lished process or procedure. When uncertainty is high, there may be many different approaches or procedures that could be applied to a particular problem. Dealing with high task uncertainty may require that several different approaches or procedures be evaluated and may require the adaptation or modification of existing procedures and processes. In short, the extent to which these engineers perceive that appropriate procedures are available to help them effectively deal with task related problems could influence the extent to which these engineers perceive the climate of the organization as supporting innovation.

Perrow's taxonomy has been used in a number of studies related to task uncertainty (Daft and Macintosh, 1981; Hage and Aiken, 1969; Moenaert and Souder, 1990a, Moenaert and Souder, 1990b, Souder and Moenaert, 1992; Victor and Blackburn, 1987). However, most studies of task uncertainty that have used Perrow's taxonomy have focused on the routine

- - nonroutine dimension (Fry, 1982) and have not explicitly focused on the characteristics of Perrow's technology quadrant.

S.D. Malik. D.O. Wilson/J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218 205

3. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

The relationship between task uncertainty and perceived support for innovation may be moderated by the amount of: (1) job formalization, (2) decision centralization, and (3) the individual's cognitive information processing style. The overall model used for this study is shown in Fig. 1. Each of these variables will be discussed below.

3.1. Moderating influence of job formalization

Job formalization is normally defined as the rules and procedures designed to handle the contingencies faced by organizational members. Although rules and procedures may be codified in official organizational policy and procedure manuals, for engineers who fall into Perrow's engineering quadrant, many of the appropriate procedures may be found in engineering handbooks and manuals. However, unwritten procedures and standards can frequently be just as binding as written ones (Hage and Aiken, 1970). In this case, there is a conceptual overlap between job formalization and the degree to which standardized procedures are followed in performing a task even though these procedures may not necessarily be written down in official organizational manuals.

Although the definition of job formalization may vary among research studies, job formalization has been found to moderate the way individuals perceive climate (Johnston, 1976; Litwin and Stringer, 1968). In their review of the climate literature, Payne and Pugh (1976) conclude that the use of bureaucratic procedures does not necessarily lead to a climate which is low in warmth and cohesiveness. It is possible that job formalization may enable an individual to successfully deal with task uncertainty which may then lead to perceptions of the climate as being more supportive (Pheysey et al., 1971).

Since many engineering tasks seem to fall into Perrow's engineering technology category where programmed responses are used to cope with task related problems, some degree of job formalization (perhaps in the form of engineering manuals or standard procedures) should be appropriate for these organizational members. The extent to which appropriate procedures are available to help an engineer develop a solution to a problem may be an important influence on how that individual perceives the organization's climate. Thus, it is

Task Uncertainty

Commitment

~ Perceived Support v for Innovation

(Climate)

Formalization Decision Centralization (Participation)

Cognitive Information Processing Style

Fig. 1. Overall model.

206 S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson l J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

possible that for tasks falling into Perrow's engineering technology category, job formalization may moderate the relationship between task uncertainty and the extent to which the organizational climate is perceived to support innovation.

When task uncertainty is high, if there are a number of procedures available that can be used or adapted to resolve a problem, engineers are likely to perceive a climate that supports some degree of innovation. When task uncertainty is high but there are few procedures available to help or guide individuals to relevant solutions to task related problems, climate may be perceived as non-supportive of innovation.

When task uncertainty is low, finding an acceptable solution to a problem is likely to be a fairly straightforward process. Those problems that do occur can probably be solved without the extensive use of rules and standardized procedures. In short, extensive procedures are not needed to solve problems when task uncertainty is low. Indeed, having extensive procedures for solving very simple, straightforward problems may constrain or otherwise discourage an individual from being innovative and is likely to lead to perceptions of low support for innovation. Therefore, under conditions of low task uncertainty, the organization may be perceived as more supportive of innovation when job formalization is low.

These arguments are summarized in the following hypotheses: H 1 a: When job formalization is low, as task uncertainty increases, perceived support for

innovation should decrease. H 1 b: When job formalization is high, as task uncertainty increases, perceived support for

innovation should increase.

3.2. Moderating influence o f decision centralization

As the literature reviewed by Jennergren ( 1981 ) points out, decision centralization may refer either to the hierarchical level where decisions are made, or it may refer to participation in decision making by lower level employees. The two concepts are related since a high level of participation in decision making probably precludes extensive centralization. An individual may be able to resolve many task-related problems by consulting and involving other organizational members in the problem solving process. Vroom and Yetton (1973) suggest that a participatory management style is appropriate when subordinates have suf- ficient information to make a good decision and subordinates need to be committed to the decision. Therefore, decision participation is probably a more relevant concept for this study as a measure of decision centralization than hierarchical level. Studies by Hage and Aiken (1967; 1969), Hrebiniak (1974) and Mohr (1971) have used participation in decision making as a measure of decision centralization. Research by these authors found a positive relationship between high task uncertainty and participation in decision making.

The climate literature also acknowledges the influence of participation on perceptions of climate (James and Jones, 1974; Tagiuri, 1968; Redding, 1972). Glassman (1986) argued that a participatory management style will enhance the climate for innovation. Studies by George and Bishop (1971), Allen and LaFollette (1977), Litwin and Stringer (1968), Sorcher and Danzig (1969) and Davis (1968) all found a strong relationship between a subordinate's participation in decision making and perceptions of climate.

S.D. Malik. D.O. Wilson/J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218 207

Based on the literature reviewed above, decision centralization is likely to moderate the relationship between task uncertainty and the extent to which the organization climate is perceived to support innovation. When task uncertainty is high, low decision centralization (i.e., a high degree of decision participation) may lead to perceptions of high organizational support for innovation since engineers are able to participate in selecting the approach or procedures to use to solve a problem. High decision centralization (i.e., a low degree of decision participation) may lead to perceptions of low support for innovation since engineers may not be allowed to select the procedures they feel are most appropriate for a problem.

When task uncertainty is low, a less participatory approach is probably needed in selecting the appropriate procedure or solution to a problem. Indeed, when task uncertainty is low, participation in decision making may not be useful or an efficient use of time since the identification and selection of the most appropriate procedure or solution to a problem should be a relatively straightforward task that could easily be handled by the supervisor. In this case, a high level of decision participation is probably inappropriate and may only lead to perceptions of low support for innovation.

These arguments are summarized in the following hypotheses: H2a: When decision participation is low, as task uncertainty increases, perceived support

for innovation should decrease. H2b: When decision participation is high, as task uncertainty increases, perceived support

for innovation should increase.

3.3. Moderating influence of cognitive processes

Since both task uncertainty and support for innovation may have a perceptual component, another moderating influence on the relationship between perceived task uncertainty and support for innovation may be an organizational member's cognitive information processing style. With measures based on perceptions, how an individual responds to that measure may partly reflect aspects of the respondent, such as limited experience, low cognitive complexity, and so on (Downey et al., 1977).

Individuals with different information processing styles may have different abilities to identify and select among alternate approaches or procedures for solving a problem. For example, engineers who can process more information or make many distinctions may be better able to select an appropriate approach or procedure for solving a task-related problem. Consequently, a person's perceptions of the amount of organizational support for innovation may be influenced by the characteristics of the perceiver. One way to address this issue is to explicitly incorporate and control for the moderating influence of cognitive information processing style upon the relationship between task uncertainty and perceptions of support for innovation.

3.4. lnformation processing style and perceived innovation

Jay Galbraith (1973) argued that the greater the task uncertainty, the greater the amount of information that must be processed by individuals during task execution. However, people may have differing abilities for processing information. In a review of the organizational behavior literature, Ebert and Mitchell (1975) contend that people with low cognitive

208 S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson / J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

complexity tend to be categorical and stereotypic while individuals with high cognitive complexity perceive many different aspects of a problem situation. Cognitively complex individuals also process and interpret information in more complex ways, resulting in a greater number of interpretations (Ebert and Mitchell, 1975; Streufert et al., 1965).

The differences between individuals of low and high cognitive complexity is very consistent with the argument made by Gordon (1972) that there are individual differences in the way people process information. Gordon and Morse (1968) and Gordon (1972) argue that people are either high differentiators or low differentiators. Specifically, high differentiators are similar to cognitively complex individuals in that they perceive the environment as consisting of many discrete parts. On the other hand, low differentiators are similar to low cognitively complex individuals in that they perceive the environment as being highly homogeneous (Gordon and Morse, 1968).

An individual's propensity to differentiate may influence the ability of that individual to distinguish between various sources of task uncertainty and to accurately define the problem at hand. Likewise, an individual's propensity to differentiate may influence the ability of that individual to judge the appropriateness or applicability of different methods, procedures, or approaches for effectively dealing with or solving a task related problem. Consequently, the influence of task uncertainty on the extent to which the organizational climate is perceived as supporting innovation may be moderated by an individual's cognitive information processing style or propensity to differentiate.

High differentiators, with their ability to process information and make distinctions, are probably better suited to situations where task uncertainty is high. When task uncertainty is low, the appropriate procedures to be used or the best approach to a problem may be fairly obvious and, as a consequence, there may be only a limited number of different options or approaches to be considered. When a solution to a problem is readily available, high differentiators may not see much organizational support, or need, for innovation. However, when task uncertainty is high, there may be many different ways to successfully approach a problem, allowing high differentiators more freedom to choose among alternative solutions. Since high differentiators have the ability to approach a problem in many different ways, they may perceive the organization as more supportive of innovation when perceived task uncertainty is high.

Low differentiators, with their limited information processing abilities, may perceive the organization as more supportive of innovation when perceived task uncertainty is low. When task uncertainty is low, there are likely to be only a few satisfactory solutions. Therefore, the low differentiator has to consider and choose from among a very limited number of different solution approaches. On the other hand, low differentiators, under conditions of high task uncertainty, may be unable to distinguish between sources of task uncertainty and may have trouble judging the applicability of various approaches or procedures to task-related problems. Therefore, under conditions of high task uncertainty, the low differentiator may see the organization as not supporting innovation.

Based on the preceding arguments, the following hypotheses are proposed: H3a: For low differentiators, as task uncertainty increases, perceived support for inno-

vation should decrease. H3b: For high differentiators, as task uncertainty increases, perceived support for inno-

vation should increase.

S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson / J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218 209

3.5. Organizational commitment and support for innovation

Mowday et al. (1979) define organizational commitment as a person's acceptance of the organizational goals and values; a willingness to exert effort for the organization and a desire to maintain membership with the organization. According to the psychological literature, commitment is defined as "the pledging or binding of the individual to behavioral acts or beliefs, attitudes and perceptions" (Kiesler and Sakumura, 1966, p. 349).

Organizational commitment, then, may lead to perceptions and behaviors in line with the organization' s goals. This would suggest that people who are committed to their organization are more likely to support and pursue organizationally sanctioned goals. Since one of the goals of these engineers is likely to be to develop new and innovative answers to task related problems, a highly committed individual may be positively biased toward viewing the organization as having a climate that supports innovation. It becomes important, then, to control for this possible bias on perceptions of organizational support for innovation. Thus, the following hypothesis:

H4: Highly committed individuals should perceive the organizational climate as being more supportive of innovation than will less committed individuals.

4. Research design

4.1. Research site and participants

This study was conducted in a large government organization which supports various in- service military weapon systems. The majority of employees are professional engineers or engineering technicians. The basic function of these employees is the development of system improvements or other technical service-oriented functions that would fall into Perrow's engineering quadrant. Typical tasks include making performance improvements to existing weapon systems and the modification and testing of new components or systems. Partici- pants in the study completed questionnaires during normal work hours and returned them directly to the researchers. Respondents that were managers, members of staff support groups, and secretarial and administrative personnel were eliminated from the present study, leaving 257 respondents.

4.2. Measures and procedures

Since the time allocated by management for employees to complete the questionnaire was limited, short scales were used whenever possible. The measures used are described below along with the alphas for this sample. The complete scales are provided in the Appendix.

Support for Innovation (Climate). The climate of interest here is the degree to which the organization is perceived to support innovation and the development of new solutions to problems. Supportiveness was measured by a five question scale (alpha=0.87) adapted from Seigel and Kaimmerer (1978).

210 S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson/J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

Task uncertainty. Task uncertainty was measured by a two-question scale (alpha = 0.69) from the Michigan Organization Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983).

Formalization. The job formalization and standardization scale of Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) was used (alpha= 0.77).

Centralization (Participation in Decision Making). Participation in decision making was measured by a two-question scale (alpha = 0.84) from the Michigan Organization Assess- ment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983).

Information Processing Style. The measure of a person's cognitive information processing style was based on work by Gordon (Gordon, 1972; Gordon and Morse, 1968; Morse and Gordon, 1974). Propensity to differentiate, as measured by Gordon and Morse, is similar to measures of cognitive complexity (Seaman and Koenig, 1974; Bierri et al., 1966).

The procedure used in this study was similar to that developed by Gordon. Subjects were asked to "list the names of the people at work that you interact with to get the job done". Space was provided in the questionnaire for up to 14 names. The average number of names listed was 10. For each name listed, the subject was asked to indicate on a five point scale "To what extent do you and this person have similar opinions on work and job-related issues?". Similar questions were asked concerning the extent to which "you and this person have similar values and attitudes toward work and job performance" and the extent to which "you and this person have similar points of view concerning important organizational issues." The variability (i.e., standard deviation) in the responses to these questions across the names listed was used to determine the respondent's propensity to differentiate. The exact procedures used to calculate propensity to differentiate are described by Pizam (1975). High differentiators were defined as those who made distinctions among their colleagues while low differentiators rated each associate the same.

Organizational commitment. Commitment to the organization was assessed using a short- ened five question version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (alpha = 0.86) developed by Mowday et al. (1979).

4.3. Data analysis

A regression procedure was used to explore the effects of perceived task uncertainty,job formalization, decision centralization (participation), and information processing style (propensity to differentiate) upon the extent to which the climate was perceived as supportive of innovation. Task uncertainty, job formalization, decision centralization, and information processing style were included in the regression equation as independent variables. Commitment was entered as a control variable into the regression equation since highly committed individuals may be positively biased towards perceiving the organization as supportive. Interaction effects included in the regression equation were "uncertainty * formalization", "uncertainty * centralization", and "uncertainty * propensity to differentiate". All the main effects were first entered into the regression followed by the simul- taneous inclusion of all the interaction effects.

5. Results

The correlations between the items used in the analysis are shown in Table 1. The results for the regression equation are shown in Table 2. Also performed, but not shown here, was

S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson/J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

Table 1 Item intercorrelations

211

Variables Correlations

Clim Comm Part Form Diff Uncer

1. Climate 1.00 0.53 0.36 0.26 - 0.11 - 0.00 2. Commitment 1.00 0.36 0.34 - 0.15 0.05 3. Participation (Cent) 1.00 0.08 - 0.14 0.02 4. Formalization 1.00 - 0.14 0. I 0 5. Prop to Differentiate 1.00 0.13 6. Task Uncertainty 1.00

a test of whether the increment in the proportion of variance accounted for by the interaction terms, as compared to jus t the main effects, was statistically significant. The proportion of

variance accounted for was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. All interaction terms are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Commi tmen t was significant at the 0.01 level

indicat ing support for hypothesis 4. Cohen and Cohen ( 198 3, pp. 322-324) describe how interaction effects can be interpreted

in conjunc t ion with the main effects of the interacting variables by rearranging the regression equation. The rear rangement makes the condit ionali ty of the effects of a focal variable on other variables clear. Cohen and Cohen recommend that three representative l ines be graphed for each interaction, one for a " l o w " value of a moderat ing variable ( 1 standard

deviat ion below the mean) , one for an " a v e r a g e " value (at the mean) , and one for a " h i g h "

value (1 standard deviat ion above the mean) . The means for job formalization under different levels of task uncertainty are graphed in Fig. 2, the means for decision central ization

in Fig, 3, and for propensi ty to differentiate in Fig. 4. In each of these figures, the means

are calculated assuming all other variables in the regression equation are held constant at their average value. Table 2 and Fig. 2 through 4 indicate that hypotheses 1 through 3 are

Table 2 Regression analysis of predictors of perceptions of support for innovation

Independent variables Beta Mean SD

Commitment 0.4661 c Uncertainty (A) - 0.7526 Formalization ( B ) - 0.2724 ~' Prop to Diff (C) - 1.2091 t, Participation (D) - 0.3149 " A X B 0.0565 h A X C 0.2210 h A X D 0.0782 h Constant 5.4607 R square (N= 257) 0.43

4.794 1.227 5.430 1.094 3.870 1.593 0.637 0.455 4.877 1.444

ap<0.10. br_<0.05. ~p<O.Ol.


6

PERCEIUED 5 4.45 HIGH FORM

CLII~TE i 4.25 NED FORM 4.05 LOW FORM

I

CEBTAIH UHCERTAIH PERCEIUED OItCERTAIHT¥

Fig. 2. Effects ofpreceived uncertainty and formaiization upon perceived supportivenessofclimate.

6

5 4.79

PERCEIUED ~ ~ ~ 4.58 HIGH PART CLIMATE ~ 4.25 HED PART

4 3.88 3.91 LOW PART

3 i CERTA IH UHCERTA IH

PERCE IUED IJHCERTA IHTY

Fig. 3. Effects of preceived uncertainty and participation upon perceived supportiveness of climate.

PERCE I UED CL I HA TE

6"

5" 4.89

4.4 HIGH DIFF

4.25 RED DIFF

3.79 4.1 LOg DIFF

3 I CEHTA IH UIqCERTA IH

PEBCEIUED UHCERTAIHTY

Fig. 4. Effects of preceived uncertainty and propensity to differentiate upon perceived supportiveness of climate.

supported. The significant beta for commitment in Table 2 indicates that hypothesis 4 is supported.

Fig. 2 indicates that when task uncertainty is low, support for innovation is perceived as high when job formalization is perceived as low. Fig. 3 indicates that when task uncertainty


is low, support for innovation is perceived as high when decision participation is perceived as low. Fig. 4 indicates that when task uncertainty is low, perceived support for innovation is high when organizational members are low differentiators.

With high task uncertainty, the conditions change dramatically. As shown in Fig. 2, perceived support for innovation is high when job formalization is perceived as high. Fig. 3 indicates that when task uncertainty is high, perceived support for innovation is high when decision participation is perceived as high. Fig. 4 indicates that when task uncertainty is high, perceived support for innovation is high when organizational members are high differentiators. Thus, support was found for the influence of job formalization, decision centralization ( measured as participation), and information processing style upon the extent to which the subjects of this study perceive the organization as supporting innovation under varying conditions of task uncertainty.

6. Implications and directions for future research

Although a climate supportive of innovation has been associated with increased organizational performance and effectiveness, there are few prescriptions in the management literature as to what factors might facilitate the development of such a climate for engineers performing more structured, routine, technical service oriented tasks associated with Per- row's engineering technology quadrant. This study found that, for these engineers, job formalization, decision centralization, and an individual's information processing style moderate the relationship between task uncertainty and the extent to which the climate is perceived to support innovation.

A major finding of this study is that engineers performing technical service oriented tasks may see formalization in a positive light since programmed responses or procedures are available that can be applied or adapted to deal with the task-related problems associated with high task uncertainty. That is, job formalization may indicate the extent to which these engineers perceive that the appropriate procedures are available to help them deal with task- related problems. In addition, decision centralization may indicate who decides which procedures or approaches are used to solve task-related problems. When uncertainty is high, a high degree of participation (low decision centralization) may be needed so that highly skilled and trained professionals can exchange information and viewpoints on the proper selection, application and use of these procedures.

This study also found that under conditions of high task uncertainty, perceived supportiveness for innovation is maximized when organizational members are high differentiators who can effectively discriminate among these procedures and choose the most appropriate one for the task at hand. That is, low differentiators, due to their information processing styles, may be better suited for tasks characterized by low task uncertainty while high differentiators may be better suited for more uncertain tasks. Placing low differentiators in situations where they must deal with high task uncertainty or having high differentiators deal with only tasks of low task uncertainty will likely reduce the perceived support for innovation.

In short, if managers of engineers falling into Perrow's engineering quadrant want to maximize these engineer's perceived support for innovation under conditions of high task


uncertainty, then management should make sure that the appropriate procedures are available for solving task related problems, staff the organization with high differentiators, and then allow engineers to participate in decisions so that these individuals may select and apply the procedures appropriate for the task at hand.

Organic structures are often prescribed for engineers performing R and D oriented tasks falling into Perrow's "nonroutine" quadrant while mechanistic structures are often prescribed for tasks falling into the "routine manufacturing" quadrant (Daft, 1992). An important implication of this study is that, depending upon the level of perceived task uncertainty, different combinations of the characteristics of both mechanistic and organic structures may be appropriate for organizing engineers dealing with fairly routine technical service-oriented tasks. High degrees of job formalization are often associated with a mechanistic structure while low decision centralization is often associated with an organic structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Organizing these engineers along strictly organic or mechanistic lines may decrease the perceived organizational support for innovation and may lead to less effective problem solving. To maximize the perceived support for innovation when task uncertainty is high, formalization should be high and decision centralization should be low. This is consistent with Jelinek and Schoonhoven (1990) who found that many of the innovative organizations they studied had characteristics of both mechanistic and organic organizations.

One limitation of this study is that the variables used were assessed using perceptual scales in a cross-sectional design. Future research should attempt to replicate this study using more "objective" indicators of variables such as job formalization, decision centralization, and support for innovation. Another limitation is that this study treats the observa- tions from individuals in the same work group as independent when they may not be so.

This study has concentrated on engineers whose work involves analyzable, well understood technologies and, thus, fall into Perrow's engineering quadrant. It suggests that the different quadrants of Perrow's model require a different combination of mechanistic and organic components. The results of this study are probably not generalizable to Perrow's nonroutine quadrant where the tasks of many research and development oriented engineers would fall. In the nonrountine quadrant, it could be hypothesized that low formalization and high participation would lead to high support for innovation. Indeed, future research should investigate the characteristics of each of Perrow's four quadrants and their implications for management practice.

In future studies, the addition of group level variables such as cohesiveness, group longevity, or group composition would tie the results to the literature on innovation in working groups (King and Anderson, 1990). Previous job experiences that are related to a specific problem may reduce the uncertainty associated with that problem (Farr, 1990; Farr and Ford, 1990). Therefore, future research may also need to include other individual level variables such as previous job experiences.

Appendix A. Questionnaire items

A.1. Innovation (climate)

This organization is always moving toward the development of new answers. This organization can be described as flexible and continually adapting to change.


People in this organization are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems.

Creativity is encouraged here. This organization seems to place a high value on taking risks, even if there are occasional

mistakes.

A.2. Task uncertainty

On my job, I often have to handle surprising or unpredictable situations. I often have to deal with new problems on my job.

A.3. Job formalization

Standard operating procedures or practices specify how my major tasks are to be done. There are written procedures for dealing with the various situations that arise in perform-

ing my work.

A.4. Decision centralization (participation)

My supervisor encourages subordinates to participate in important decisions. My supervisor encourages people to speak up when they disagree with a decision.

A.5. Commitment

I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally required in order to help this organization be successful.

I really care about the fate of this organization. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. This organization inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. Note: Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each

statement, responding on a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly agree.

References

Abby, A. and Dickson, J.W., 1983. R and D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 363-368.

Allen, B.H. and LaFollette, W., 1977. Perceived organizational structures and alienation among management trainees. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 334-340.

Berger, S., Dertouzos, M., Lester, R., Solow, R. and Thurow, L., 1989. Toward a new industrial America. Scient~c American, 260: 39--47.

Bierri, J., Atlins, A.L., Briar, S., Leaman, R., Miller, H., and Tripodi, T., 1966. Clinical and Social Judgment: The Discrimination of Behavioral Information. Wiley, NY.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M., 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publications, London.

216 S.D. Malik, D. O. Wilson / J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. and Klesh, J., 1983. Assessing attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In: S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler, P.H. Mirvis and C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing Organizational Change. Wiley, NY, pp. 71-138.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P., 1983. Applied Multiple Regression~Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Daft, R.L., 1992. Organization Theol. and Design, 4th ed. West Publishing Co, NY. Daft, R.L. and Macintosh, N.B., 1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information

processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 207-224. Davis, J., 1968. Rules, hierarchy, and the concept of organizational climate. PersonnelAdministrator, 30: 50-55. Denison, D.R., 1993. What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? Academy

of Management Proceedings: 207-211. Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K., 1989. Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A theory and

some preliminary empirical evidence. Academy of Management Proceedings: 168-172. Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W., 1977. Individual characteristics as sources of perceived uncer-

tainty variability. Human Relations, 30: 161-174. Dunegan, K.J., Tierney, P. and Duchon, D., 1992. Perceptions of an innovative climate: Examining the role of

divisional affiliation, work group interaction, and leader/subordinate exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engi- neering Management, 39: 227-236.

Ebert, R.J. and Mitchell, T., 1975. Organizational Decision Processes: Concepts and Analysis. Crane, Russell, and Company, NY.

Falcione, R.L., Sussman, L. and Herden, R.P., 1987. Communication climate in organizations. In: F.R. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K. Roberts, and L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 195-227.

Farr, J.L., 1990. Facilitating individual role innovation. In: M.W. West and James L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and Creativi~. at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Wiley, NY.

Farr, J.L. and Ford, C.M., 1990. Individual innovation. In: M.W. West and James L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Wiley, NY.

Feldman, S.P., 1988. How organizational culture can affect innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 17: 57-68. Fischer, W.A. and Farr, C.M., 1985. Dimensions of innovative climate in Chinese R and D units. R and D

Management, 15: 183-190. Fry, L.W., 1982. Technology-structure research: Three critical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 532-

552. Galbraith, J., 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. George, J. and Bishop, L., 1971. Relationship of organizational structure and teacher personality characteristics

to organizational climate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 467-476. Glassman, E., 1986. Managing for creativity: back to basics in R and D. R and D Management, 16:175-183. Gordon, G., 1972. The identification and use of creative abilities in scientific organizations. In: C.W. Taylor (Ed.),

Climate for Creativity. Pergamon Press, NY. Gordon, G. and Morse, E.V., 1968. Creative potential and organizational literature. In: P.E. LeBreton and W.G.

Scott (Eds.), Academy of Management Proceedings, Chicago, I11. Gordon, G. and Ditomaso, N., 1992. Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of

Management Studies, 29: 783-798. Hage, J. and Aiken, M., 1967. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 12: 72-92. Hage, J. and Aiken, M., 1969. Routine technology, social structure, and organizational goals. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 14: 366-378. Hage, J. and Aiken, M., 1970. Social Change in Complex Organizations. Random House, NY. Hansen, G. and Wernerfelt, B., 1989. Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic

and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10:399-411. Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W., 1974. Organizational climate: Measures, research, and contingencies. Academy

of Management Journal, 17: 255-280. Hrebiniak, L.G., 1974. Job technology, supervision, and work-group structure. Administrative Science Quarterly,

19: 395-410. Jain, R.K. and Triandis, H.C., 1990. Management of R and D Organizations. Wiley, NY.

S.D. Malik, D.O. Wilson /,l. Eng. Technol. Manage. 12 (1995) 201-218 217

James, L.R. and Jones, A.P., 1974. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81:1016-1112.

Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven C.B., 1990. The Innovation Marathon. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Jennergren, L.P., 1981. Decentralization in organizations. In: Nystrom, P.C., and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds.), Hand-

book of Organizational Design, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Johnston, H.R., 1976. A new conceptualization of sources of organizational climate. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 21: 95-103. Kanter, RM., 1983. The Change Masters. Simon and Schuster, NY. Kiesler, C.A. and Sakumura, J.A., 1966. Test of a model for commitment. Journal of Personali~ and Social

Psychology, 3: 349-353. King, N., 1990. Innovation at work: The research literature. In: M.W. West and James L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation

and Creativi~ at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Wiley, NY. King, N. and Anderson, N., 1990. Innovation and creativity in working groups. In: M.W. West and James L. Farr

(Eds. ), Innovation and Creativi~. at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Wiley, NY. Kotter, J. and Heskett, J., 1992. Corporate Culture and Performance. Free Press, NY. Lawler, E., Hall, D., and Oldham, G., 1974. Organizational climate: relationship to organizational structure,

process, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, I 1: 139-155. Litwin, G. and Stringer, R., 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate. Harvard University Press, Boston. Mintzberg, H., 1983. Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Moenaert, R.K. and Souder, W.E., 1990a. An information transfer model for integrating marketing and R and D

personnel in new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7: 91-107. Moenaert, R.K. and Souder, W.E., 1990b. An analysis of the use of extrafunctional information by R and D and

marketing personnel: review and model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7:213-230. Molar, L.B., 1971. Organizational technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16:

A aA A.59.

Morse, E. and Gordon, G., 1974. Cognitive skills: A determinant of scientists' local-cosmopolitan orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 17: 709-723.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W., 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.

Nord, W.R. and Tucker, S., 1987. Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Nystrom, H., 1990. Technological and Market Innovation. Wiley, NY. Payne, R. and Pheysey, D., 1971. GG Stem's organizational climate index: A reconceptualization and application

to business organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6: 77-98. Payne, R.L. and Pugh, D.S., 1976. Organizational structure and climate. In: M. Dunnete (Ed.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational P~vchology. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1125-1173. Payne, R.L. and Mansfield, R., 1973. Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to organizational

structure, context, and hierarchical position. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18:515-526. Pelz, P. and Andrews, F., 1976. Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and Development.

Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Perrow, C., 1967. A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32:

194-208. Pheysey, D.C. and Payne, R.L., 1970. The Hemphill group dimensions description questionnaire: A British

industrial application. Human Relations, 23: 473-497. Pheysey, D.C., Payne, R.L., and Pugh, D.S., 1971. Influence of structure at organizational and group levels.

Administrative Science Quarterly. 16: 61-73. Pizam, A., 1975. Social differentiation - - A new psychological barrier to performance appraisal. Public Personnel

Management, 4: 244-247. Pugh, D.S., 1973. The measurement of organizational structures: does context determine form? Organizational

Dynamics, Spring: 1930-34. Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. and Turner, C., 1968. Dimensions of organization structure. Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 8:289-315. Redding, W., 1972. Communication Within the Organization: An Interpretive Review of Theory and Resarch.

Industrial Communication Council, NY.


Reich, R., 1989. The quite path to technological preeminence. Scientific American, 261: 41-47. Reichers, A. and Schneider, B., 1990. Climate and culture, an evolution of constructs. In: B. Schneider (Ed.),

Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Schein, E.H., 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Schneider, B., 1975. Organizational climates: an essay. Personnel Psychology, 28: 447--479. Schneider, B. and Reichers, A., 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36: 19-39. Schneider, B. and Rentsch, J., 1988. Managing climate and cultures: A futures perspective. In: J. Hage (Ed.),

Futures of organizations. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Seaman, J.M. and Koenig, F., 1974. A comparison of measures of cognitive complexity. Sociomet~., 37: 375-

391. Seigel, S.M. and Kaimmerer, W.F., 1978. Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 63: 553-562. Simon, H., 1960. The New Science of Management Decision. Harper and Row, NY. Sorcher, M. and Danzig, A., 1969. Charting and changing the organizational climate. Personnel, 46: 16-28. Souder, W.E., 1987. Managing New Product Innovations. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Souder, W.E. and Moenaert, R.K., 1992. Integrating marketing and R and D project personal within innovation

projects: An information uncertainty model. Journal of Management Studies, 29:485-512. Stephenson, R.W., Gantz, B.S. and Erickson, C.E., 1971. Development of organizational climate inventories for

use in R and D organizations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 18: 38-50. Streufert, S., Suedfeld, P. and Driver, M.J., 1965. Conceptual structure, information search and information

utilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2: 736-740. Tagiuri, R., 1968. The concept of organizational climate. In: R. Tagiuri and G. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational

Climate: Explorations of a Concept. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA. Van de Ven, A. and Ferry, D., 1980. Measuring and Assessing Organizations. Wiley, NY. Victor, B. and Blackburn, R.S., 1987. Determinants and consequences of task uncertainty: a laboratory and field

investigation. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 387-403. Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, R.H., 1973. Leadership and Decision Making. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. West, M.W., 1990. The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: M.W. West and James L. Farr (Eds.),

Innovation and Creativi~. at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Wiley, NY. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J., 1973. Innovations and Organizations. Wiley, NY.

Documents

Factors influencing engineers' perceptions of organizational support for innovation