Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/317781594
CITATIONS READS
14 1,683
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jungsu Kim on 14 October 2017.
To cite this article: Jung Su Kim & Goo Hyeok Chung (2017): Implementing innovations within
organizations: a systematic review and research agenda, Innovation
1. Introduction
Innovation is generally defined as a new technology, service, or process that is aimed at
improving individual and organizational performance (Klein, Conn, & Sorra, 2001); thus,
contemporary organizations that struggle to survive in a rapidly changing business envi-
ronment set innovation as their top priority. As innovation is considered idea utilization,
the innovation process consists of two distinct stages: adoption, which refers to the organ-
ization’s decision to use an innovation, and implementation, which refers to the employees’
consistent use of the innovation after its adoption (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Although the
adoption of an effective innovation – one expected to generate the desired organizational
review (Okoli, 2015), we consider that the existing literature has largely adopted a somewhat
unbalanced view of implementation. That is, despite the fact that implementation success
depends on eliciting the strong commitment of organizational members at every level, from
top management to employees (Haour, 2004), a large body of research has focused on the
distal factors (e.g., management support) rather than the proximal factors (e.g., individual
motivation) influencing employee attitudes and implementation behaviors toward inno-
vation. The existing studies, which largely highlight the distal factors, have restricted our
theoretical lens to management-driven implementation and hampered our understanding
of the employee-executed implementation process. Thus, to better understand a higher level
of institutionalization (i.e. employees’ highly committed use or routinization; Klein et al.,
2001; Nord & Tucker, 1987) within an organization for a given innovation, scholars need
to better balance their view between the distal and proximal factors around the implemen-
tation process.
To this end, we raise a question: what are the areas of scarcity in research on innovation
implementation, and what are the drawbacks of the approaches taken in this literature over
the last two decades? Specifically, we present three innovation questions: (a) what factors
affecting the innovation implementation process and outcomes have received relatively less
attention, and how do researchers include them into a more balanced theoretical framework
to better understand innovation implementation; (b) what is a biased assumption in the
existing studies, and how can scholars challenge this assumption; and (c) what phenomenon
in the innovation implementation process has been overlooked by prior studies, and how
can researchers investigate it?
In the present study, we begin by reviewing existing studies on the innovation implemen-
tation process and outcomes. Then, by systematically categorizing the factors influencing
implementation, we suggest three future agendas that can help researchers deepen their
understanding of the implementation process and outcomes for innovation success.
(Klein et al., 2001). As a result, top management’s or managers’ effects on the innovation
do not disappear and sometimes increase during the implementation stage.
Aside from the influence of top management and managers (later labeled organizational
factors), other types of factors may affect the implementation process and outcomes. In the
adoption stage, the primary agent for decision-making is usually top management, whereas
in the implementation stage, the principal agents for actual use are typically other organi-
zational members or employees. Accordingly, employee-related factors and employee per-
ceptions of innovation properties are crucial to the implementation process and outcomes.
Specifically, the individual’s perception of innovation characteristics, social dynamics, and
individual characteristics can determine his/her attitude and behavior toward a targeted
innovation. In the following sections, we conduct a systematic review of the existing studies
in the innovation implementation literature to classify the factors influencing the implemen-
tation process into four categories: innovation characteristics, social factors, organizational
factors, and individual factors.
2.2. Methodology
To achieve our research objectives, we performed a systematic review (Okoli, 2015) as a
standardized methodology. Drawn from the evidence-based approach utilized primarily
in medical science and recently in the information systems literature (Cook, Mulrow, &
Haynes, 1997; Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Okoli, 2015;
Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003), a systematic review is suitable for the present study
because of its two strengths: (a) it enables researchers to generalize factors influencing the
implementation process and outcomes, regardless of innovation type, by minimizing bias in
the process of searching, identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing literature; and
(b) it helps scholars to recognize their lack of attention to certain areas and to the disagree-
ments between them. In the current study, we adopted a simplified four-step procedure for
the systematic review (Okoli, 2015; Perkmann et al., 2013; Tranfield et al., 2003) as follows:
research planning, study selection, data extraction, and synthesizing and reporting findings.
In the first step, we established research planning by identifying the research purpose.
Considering that relatively less attention has been paid to implementation, despite its impor-
tance, we focused on innovation implementation within organizations as the target phenom-
enon. Then, we set the research objectives of this work as categorizing those antecedents
that affect the implementation process and outcomes and suggesting future agendas to fill
the research–practice gaps.
As the second step, we attempted to choose relevant studies on innovation implemen-
tation. We selected five academic databases (Academic Search Complete, Business Source
Complete, Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, PsycARTICLES, and SocINDEX) that
are widely recognized as the top databases in management, innovation, information sys-
tems, and behavioral science. For the titles, abstracts, and keywords, we used the following
statement with Boolean operators (i.e. ‘AND’ and ‘OR’): innovation AND implementation OR
innovative behavior OR use; these terms are the most widely examined in prior innovation
implementation studies conducted by management researchers, behavioral scientists, and
information systems scholars (e.g., Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Klein & Sorra, 1996; Slaughter,
1993). In particular, innovative behavior may be related to innovation in terms of idea uti-
lization (e.g., attitudinal acceptance of or active involvement in implementation; Bennis,
6 J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
1965; Rogers & Adhikarya, 1979) as well as creativity in terms of idea generation; thus, we
carefully examined and excluded studies that referred to innovative behavior but addressed
creativity. In addition, we included ‘use’ because some scholars employ this term inter-
changeably with ‘implementation’ (cf. Bala & Venkatesh, 2015; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis,
& Davis, 2003), but we also confirmed that studies referring to ‘use’ address innovation
implementation as a target phenomenon.
Referring to the SSCI journal list in Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2015),
we ultimately considered 89 articles published in SSCI-listed journals only (e.g., MIS
Quarterly, Journal of Management Information Systems, Academy of Management Journal,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice) over 21 years
(1995–2015) as a sample. We limited the range of journals because publications in SSCI-
listed journals may be more influential in the innovation implementation literature than
those in non-SSCI journals. In Table 1, we list journal titles, types of innovations investi-
gated, methodologies adopted, and number of papers published.
As shown in Table 1, 10 journals had more than three articles on innovation implemen-
tation. These mostly belonged to the information systems and business/management fields
(e.g., MIS Quarterly, Decision Sciences, Journal of Management Information Systems, and
Journal of Organizational Behavior) and accounted for 54 papers (60.7% of the sample). In
contrast, 23 journals published only one article. The type of innovation most commonly
investigated was technological and process innovation (71.9%). The majority of studies
focused on this innovation type because it is the most salient tool developed by current
technological breakthroughs (e.g., IT). Approximately two-thirds of the studies (66.3%)
were conducted using quantitative methodology.
In the third and final step, we performed data extraction from the studies in the sample
and synthesized our findings to illustrate what factors influence the implementation process
and outcomes. These are summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, taking a qualitative approach.
In particular, drawing on grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), we employed open
coding to categorize factors (constructs) and axial coding to relate each construct to its
respective subcategory or category. For example, as shown in Table 2, when we searched the
two constructs visibility and task usefulness, we considered them to be similar constructs
with the core construct of perceived usefulness: while they are all related to an individual’s
perception that the innovation could help him/her increase his/her task performance, per-
ceived usefulness is more frequently used than the other two constructs in the literature.
Next, we classified these constructs into a subcategory labeled performance-oriented evalua-
tion with other relevant core constructs (e.g., relative advantages, result-demonstrability, and
outcome expectation-performance) because all of these constructs indicate an individual’s
expectation of benefits from using the innovation. In this way, once all core constructs and
subcategories were organized, we further categorized similar subcategories (e.g., perfor-
mance-, effort-, and congruency-oriented evaluation) into a relevant higher level category
named innovation characteristics.
Furthermore, while extracting data and synthesizing findings, we perused the sections of
every paper addressing theory, limitations, and future research directions so that we could
identify what factors are most commonly examined, what simplified assumption most prior
studies rely on, and what phenomenon is most-often targeted (or unrevealed). We elucidate
these in the final section – Future agendas for innovation implementation. In the following
section, we first classify and articulate the factors influencing the implementation process
and outcomes into four categories.
3. Findings: the four categories of factors most commonly examined in the
innovation implementation literature
3.1. Innovation characteristics
The first classification of factors affecting innovation implementation is associated with
an individual’s perception of innovation characteristics or properties (see Table 2 for fac-
tors classified into innovation characteristics). Although scholars have found that employ-
ees perceive different and varying attributes of innovation, the economic perspective or
rational decision-making of Status Quo Bias Theory (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Samuelson
& Zeckhauser, 1988) offers a systemic approach to account for an individual’s implementa-
tion behavior. According to this perspective, the comparison of expected or calculated costs
against the benefits from using an innovation critically determines the degree to which indi-
viduals participate in or resist implementation (Keen, 1981; Markus, 1983). In other words,
employee behavior toward an innovation is predicted by the perceived benefit from using
the innovation and the perceived cost of switching to the innovation (Kim & Kankanhalli,
2009). For example, if an individual believes that he/she can gain considerable benefits (e.g.,
performance or productivity increases) from using an innovation, he/she will participate in
its implementation (i.e. performance-oriented evaluation or expectation). Similarly, if an
individual realizes that using a new innovation is relatively easier than using the existing
method or if an individual recognizes that the effort needed for a new innovation is less
costly (e.g., it is effortless or effort-free) than the effort for the existing method, he/she will
8
1977) offers self-efficacy as a critical role in an individual’s use behavior by postulating that
‘the outcomes one expects derive largely from judgments as to how well one can execute
the requisite behavior’ (Bandura, 1978, p. 241). Subsequently, Compeau and Higgins (1995)
revealed that technological self-efficacy has a substantial effect on the emotional process in
that it predicts positive effects for innovation acceptance or use (Choi, Sung, Lee, & Cho,
2011; Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) and reduces anxiety that impedes an
individual’s innovation use (Bandura, 1977; Stumpf, Brief, & Hartman, 1987).
(Continued)
13
14
Table 4. (Continued).
Core constructs
Subcategories (Similar constructs) Definitions Main articles
Organizational (Financial) Resource avail- ‘Resources for capturing the benefits asso- Korunka et al. (1997); Christmann (2000); Klein et al. (2001); Venkatesh et al. (2003); Jones, Jim-
readiness ability ciated with a strategy, a technology, or an mieson, and Griffiths (2005); Klein and Knight (2005); Naveh et al. (2006); Liang et al. (2007);
innovation’ (Choi & Chang, 2009; Christ- Choi and Chang (2009); Urquhart et al. (2012, 2014)
mann, 2000)
(Collective) Learning ‘A set of interrelated practices and beliefs Vrakking (1995); Sohal (1996); Edmondson et al. (2001); Aiman-Smith and Green (2002); Klein
orientation that supports and enables employee and and Knight (2005); Choi and Chang (2009); Nembhard et al. (2009)
organizational skill development, learning,
and growth’ (Klein & Knight, 2005)
J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
Supportive norms ‘Individual perception of encouragement from Taylor and Todd (1995); Legris et al. (2003); Sharma and Yetton (2003); Beaudry and Pinson-
managers and colleague’ (Choi, 2004) neault (2010); Urquhart et al. (2014)
Implementation climate ‘Individuals’ shared perception of the impor- Wolfe (1995); Klein and Sorra (1996); Korunka et al. (1997); Klein et al. (2001); Pullig et al. (2002);
tance of innovation implementation’ (Klein Baer and Frese (2003); Jones et al. (2005); Klein and Knight (2005); Ruta (2005); Arvidsson,
& Sorra, 1996) Johansson, Ek, and Akselsson (2006); Durlak and DuPre (2008); Michaelis et al. (2010); Choi
et al. (2011); Birken et al. (2012); Choi and Moon (2013); Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2013);
Jacobs, Weiner, and Bunger (2014)
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 15
by transferring an organizational vision and goal to employees (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991;
Yukl, 1999). Furthermore, managerial patience (Klein & Knight, 2005) is a critical factor in
this subgroup. If managers push employees to implement an innovation over a long period
of time, the employees may gradually make less of an effort to use it (Repenning & Sterman,
2002). Frequent manager interventions, which can entail employees’ physical fatigue and
emotional burnout, may deteriorate the quality of innovation implemented by employees.
The second subcategory of organizational factors includes manager-introduced facilita-
tors. Drawing on the Status Quo Bias Theory, Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) suggested that
organizational support for change can increase an individual’s acceptance even under a situ-
ation in which switching costs trigger that individual’s resistance. In this light, many scholars
have uncovered the effects of organizational support or manager-introduced facilitators on
implementation. For example, researchers have identified management support as a primary
antecedent that directly fosters implementation-facilitating policies and practices (Leonard-
Barton & Kraus, 1985; McKersie & Walton, 1991) and that later enables employees to forge
an implementation climate – the employees’ shared climate for implementation (Klein et al.,
2001). Additionally, some researchers (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001; Macduffie, 1995) have
proposed facilitating conditions that improve the institutionalization of innovation by
showing that innovative HR practices, such as participation in decision-making, can boost
employee motivation or increase the likelihood of achieving the organizational (innovation)
goal. Furthermore, Klein et al. (2001) proposed implementation policies and practices as
manager-introduced facilitators to encourage employees to use innovation; these include
communication, rewards, coercion (Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Rousseau, 1988), financial
incentives (Lawler & Mohrman, 1991), the provision of technical assistance (Rivard, 1987),
training programs (Fleischer, Liker, & Arnsdorf, 1988; Klein & Ralls, 1997), and time for
experimentation (Zuboff, 1988).
The last subcategory of organizational factors is labeled organizational readiness. This
subgroup includes several organizational factors. Financial resource availability (Choi
& Chang, 2009) is essential to innovation success because implementation policies and
practices necessarily have an organizational cost (Klein et al., 2001). (Collective) learn-
ing orientation, as a factor within organizational readiness, influences implementation:
in an organization, or in groups with a collective orientation toward learning, employees
rarely hesitate to try innovation because they are rarely blamed for failure (Klein & Knight,
2005), because psychological safety has been shaped (Edmondson, 1999), and because team
learning processes, such as trials and reflection, work properly (Edmondson, Bohmer, &
Pisano, 2001). Furthermore, supportive norms are critical to implementation. Choi (2004)
suggested that supportive norms, as a form of individual perception of encouragement
from managers and colleagues, facilitate an individual’s attitude toward innovation. Finally,
implementation climate, which refers to employees’ shared perception of the importance
of innovation implementation, renders employees’ implementation behavior more likely
(Klein & Sorra, 1996; Klein et al., 2001).
as gender and age. For example, Venkatesh et al. (2003) showed the moderating effects of
an individual’s gender and age on the relationships between perceived innovation proper-
ties and implementation behavior as follows: men and younger workers with performance
expectations are inclined to have stronger behavioral intention than women and older work-
ers; in contrast, women and older workers with effort expectations are likely to have stronger
behavioral intention than men and younger workers (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Interestingly,
similar to Venkatesh et al.’s study (2003), a majority of innovation implementation studies
have considered these types of individual factors to be control variables and not primary
antecedents of individual use behavior.
Conversely, there are individual factors associated with propensity. For instance, Choi and
Moon (2013) suggested that an individual with high learning and performance goal orienta-
tion is inclined to have a higher level of self-efficacy and to attempt to improve his/her task
competence. Accordingly, individuals with these types of motivational dispositions are likely
to experiment with new methods, enhance their mastery, or increase their productivity by
adopting new practices (Choi & Moon, 2013). Additionally, others (e.g., Agarwal & Prasad,
1998; Flynn & Goldsmith, 1993; Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988) have proposed that an
individual with personal innovativeness, which is defined as a generalized personal tendency
to accept innovation independent of others’ influence, would exhibit a positive attitude and
behavior toward using innovation. In other words, inherently innovative persons are highly
receptive to change and will use innovation voluntarily (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002).
First, we argue that scholars need to examine the role of social and individual factors
as antecedents of the implementation process to obtain a more balanced view. A simple
comparison of the number of (extracted) core constructs in each category shows that most
existing studies have paid relatively more attention to innovation characteristics and organ-
izational factors than to social and individual factors (i.e. 7 core constructs for innovation
characteristics, 10 for organizational factors, but only 4 for social and individual factors;
see Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5). Although social factors need to be further investigated by future
studies, we address the necessity of studying individual factors in the present study because
an understanding of between-individual (social) dynamics is grounded upon an under-
standing of within-individual mechanisms.
Second, researchers need to investigate the change mechanism of innovation during
implementation. The majority of previous studies have presumed that innovation is an
organizational change but have ignored the possibility that it may also change during imple-
mentation (Choi & Moon, 2013). Some innovations, especially a new technological break-
through, can be designed and adopted with a certain (allowable) degree of unreliability and
imperfection. As employees implement (use) it, however, its defects (e.g., bugs, errors, and
missteps) can emerge (Klein & Knight, 2005) and result in employee requests for modifi-
cation. In this light, the innovation can change during its implementation.
Finally, future research should highlight an unrecognized phenomenon – implementa-
tions of continuously adopted innovations. Most prior studies have examined the imple-
mentation process and outcomes for a single innovation event. In practice, however, many
contemporary organizations adopt a series of innovations, even simultaneously. Thus, schol-
ars should fill the research–practice gap by investigating the implementations of continu-
ously adopted innovations. By doing so, practice-based research can provide evidence-based
practical implications for managers (Jaynes, 2014). In short, we propose three future research
agendas below: (a) one that is directly derived from the aforementioned review of the factors
influencing innovation implementation processes and outcomes; (b) one that challenges the
biased assumption that existing studies have stood on; and (c) one that highlights a novel
innovation implementation phenomenon overlooked by prior research.
(positive or negative) feelings about an innovation, experiment with it, and attempt to
improve tasks through it (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). Some employees may like an innovation,
whereas others may dislike it. In this case, the former may form a driving group for the inno-
vation, while the latter may compose a restraining group against the innovation (cf. driving
vs. restraining force; Lewin, 1961). Two competing or multiple subgroups with differing,
often opposing, inclinations toward innovation implementation may exist (Ansari, Fiss, &
Zajac, 2010), and they will encourage employees to fully, minimally, or never participate
in implementing the innovation.
Some scholars in other branches of the literature have acknowledged that innovation can
result in implementation outcomes that are different from the original intended design of
the innovation. For example, identifying deviation from the original design as a potential
threat to successful implementation, policy and education researchers have underscored the
importance of high-fidelity implementation, which refers to the degree to which employees
implement an innovation as intended by designers or adopters (Dusenbury, Brannigan,
Falco, & Hansen, 2003). Thus, we also call for future studies in the innovation implemen-
tation literature to focus on a more realistic situation where innovation adoption evokes a
power struggle among subgroups and to empirically explore the intermediate processes and
mechanisms that lead to different implementation outcomes (e.g., perfect implementation,
minimal implementation, and implementation failure; Chung & Choi, in press) beyond the
bifurcated outcomes of acceptance or rejection.
5. Conclusion
The present study aimed to provide a systematic review of the existing innovation imple-
mentation literature for developing future research agendas. To this end, we systematically
classified the factors investigated by scholars in the literature into four categories: (1) inno-
vation characteristics (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, relative advantage,
complexity, and technology self-efficacy; Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Davis, 1989; Moore &
Benbasat, 1991; Thompson et al., 1991); (2) social factors (e.g., subjective norms, critical mass,
network externalities, and peer usage; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fulk, 1990; Rogers, 2003);
(3) organizational factors (e.g., management support, managers’ tenure in management,
empowering leadership, implementation policies and practices, participation in decision-
making, financial resource availability, (collective) learning orientation, and implementa-
tion climate; Arnold et al., 2000; Choi & Chang, 2009; De Dreu & West, 2001; Klein et al.,
2001; Macduffie, 1995; Mumford, 2000); and (4) individual factors (e.g., demographics,
learning and performance goal orientation, and personal innovativeness; Agarwal & Prasad,
1998; Choi & Moon, 2013; Leonard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The current research also aimed to suggest future research agendas. Through our com-
prehensive review of the existing innovation literature, we developed three future research
agendas: (a) scholars should emphasize the role of individual characteristics as primary
antecedents for implementation processes and outcomes for a more balanced understand-
ing of the individual-level implementation process; (b) future research should empirically
investigate the process through which an innovation itself changes during implementation
and the multiple forms of implementation outcomes; and (c) researchers should investigate
continuous innovation adoptions and implementations within an organization over an
extended period.
Although a growing body of research on innovation implementation exists, there is a
relative lack of attention to the individual factors, to the innovation itself changing during
implementation and resulting in multiple forms of implementation outcomes, and to the
experiences of companies undergoing a series of innovation implementations. To present a
better understanding of innovation implementation to practitioners, future studies should
draw on different theoretical frameworks, utilize various methodological approaches (e.g.,
longitudinal study or qualitative method) and target overlooked phenomena.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful comments of Markus Perkmann, Associate Editor,
and anonymous reviewers. The corresponding author would also like to thank Jin Nam Choi, profes-
sor at Seoul National University, and Seungdoe Lee, CEO of Hankuk Metal Co., Ltd. for their help,
advice and support.
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 21
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2016.
ORCID
Goo Hyeok Chung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1458-652X
References
Adams, R. (2003). Perceptions of innovations: Exploring and developing innovation classification
(Doctoral thesis). Cranfield University, Bedford, UK.
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and
beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness
in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28, 557–582.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness
in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9, 204–215.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30, 361–391.
Aiman-Smith, L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related
effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Academy of Management Journal,
45, 421–430.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ansari, S. M., Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy
of Management Review, 35, 67–92.
Arnold, D. E. (1996). The role of HRD in the successful implementation of information systems.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 271–278.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire:
The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.
Arvidsson, M., Johansson, C. R., Ek, Å., & Akselsson, R. (2006). Organizational climate in air traffic
control: Innovative preparedness for implementation of new technology and organizational
development in a rule governed organization. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 119–129.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–1119.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–68.
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2015). Adaptation to information technology: A holistic nomological
network from implementation to job outcomes. Management Science, 62, 156–179.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1,
237–269.
Barlow, J., Bayer, S., & Curry, R. (2006). Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder
environments: Experiences of ‘telecare’. Technovation, 26, 396–406.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
22 J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect
effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34, 689–710.
Bennis, W. G. (1965). Theory and method in applying behavioral science to planned organizational
change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 337–360.
Birken, S. A., Lee, S. Y., & Weiner, B. J. (2012). Uncovering middle managers’ role in healthcare
innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7, 28–39.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management
Review, 33, 825–845.
Bondarouk, T., Kees Looise, J., & Lempsink, B. (2009). Framing the implementation of HRM
innovation: HR professionals vs line managers in a construction company. Personnel Review, 38,
472–491.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N. L., & Irmer, B. E. (2011). Haunted by the Past: Effects
of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group & Organization
Management, 36, 191–222.
Butler, R. J., Price, D. H. R., Coates, P. D., & Pike, R. H. (1998). Organizing for innovation: Loose or
tight control? Long Range Planning, 31, 775–782.
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships
among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A
cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 868–882.
Carayannis, E. G., & Turner, E. (2006). Innovation diffusion and technology acceptance: The case of
PKI technology. Technovation, 26, 847–855.
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational leadership,
relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 942–958.
Chau, P. Y., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual
professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 191–229.
Chen, I. H., Yun-Ping Lee, A., Parboteeah, K. P., Lai, C. S., & Chung, A. (2014). The effects of
physicians’ personal characteristics on innovation readiness in Taiwan’s hospitals. Innovation, 16,
158–169.
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual dynamics of innovation-use behavior in organizations.
Human Performance, 17, 397–414.
Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of
institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 245–253.
Choi, J. N., & Moon, W. J. (2013). Multiple forms of innovation implementation. Organizational
Dynamics, 42, 290–297.
Choi, J. N., & Price, R. H. (2005). The effects of person–innovation fit on individual responses to
innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 83–96.
Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., Lee, K., & Cho, D. S. (2011). Balancing cognition and emotion: Innovation
implementation as a function of cognitive appraisal and emotional reactions toward innovation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 107–124.
Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage:
The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 663–680.
Chung, G. H., & Choi, J. N. (inpress). Innovation implementation as a dynamic equilibrium: Emergent
processes and divergent outcomes. Group & Organization Management. http://journals.sagepub.
com/doi/abs/10.1177/1059601116645913
Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven
by cross-border M&As? A case in China. Journal of World Business, 49, 78–86.
Clemons, E. K., Thatcher, M. E., & Row, M. C. (1995). Identifying sources of reengineering failures:
A study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 12, 9–36.
Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social
networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740–751.
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 23
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and
initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence
for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 376–380.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Foggat, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee
participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13, 8–22.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects
of environment, organization and top managers1. British Journal of Management, 17, 215–236.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of
participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Chandler, M. M. (2011). Motivating employees. In Z., Sheldon (Ed.). APA
handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 65–135). Washington, DC, US:
American Psychological Association. viii, 960.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Drach-Zahavy, A., Somech, A., Granot, M., & Spitzer, A. (2004). Can we win them all? Benefits and
costs of structured and flexible innovation–implementations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 217–234.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence
of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity
of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education
Research, 18, 237–256.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and
new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.
Efstathiades, A., Tassou, S., & Antoniou, A. (2002). Strategic planning, transfer and implementation
of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT). Development of an integrated process plan.
Technovation, 22, 201–212.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two-dimensional
model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.
Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S., & Courtright, J. (1995). Inertial forces and the implementation of a socio-
technical systems approach: A communication study. Organization Science, 6, 168–185.
Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 704–711.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505–538.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory
and research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fleischer, M., Liker, J., & Arnsdorf, D. (1988). Effective use of computer-aided design and computer-
aided engineering in manufacturing. Ann Arbor, MI: Industrial Technology Institute.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1993). A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1105–1116.
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level
framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research,
55, 163–176.
24 J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
Fulk, Janet (1990). Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield
(Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 194–218). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.
Gill, T. G. (1996). Expert systems usage: Task change and intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 20,
301–329.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS
Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
Green, S., Gavin, M., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Radical technological innovation: Measure
development and validation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42, 203–214.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations
in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82,
581–629.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, F., Bate, P., Macfarlane, F., & Kyriakidou, O. (2005). Diffusion of innovations
in health service organisations. Malden, MA: BMJ Books Blackwell.
Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 472–488.
Haour, G. (2004). Resolving the innovation paradox. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hausman, A., & Stock, J. R. (2003). Adoption and implementation of technological innovations
within long-term relationships. Journal of Business Research, 56, 681–686.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-
component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.
Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 366–388.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011). User acceptance of agile information
systems: A model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 235–272.
Hsieh, J. P. A., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued
use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly,
32, 97–126.
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance
model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 16, 91–112.
Jacobs, S. R., Weiner, B. J., & Bunger, A. C. (2014). Context matters: Measuring implementation
climate among individuals and groups. Implementation Science, 9, 1–30.
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment
fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 193–212.
Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group
innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.
Jaynes, S. (2014). Using principles of practice-based research to teach evidence-based practice in
social work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11, 222–235.
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational culture and
reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for
change. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 361–386.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 1–53.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across
time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly,
23, 183–213.
Keen, P. G. (1981). Information systems and organizational change. Communications of the ACM,
24, 24–33.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation
debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–24.
Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user resistance to information systems
implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33, 567–582.
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 25
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual,
organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative
innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689–713.
Kirsh, S. R., Lawrence, R. H., & Aron, D. C. (2008). Tailoring an intervention to the context and system
redesign related to the intervention: A case study of implementing shared medical appointments
for diabetes. Implementation Science, 3, 1–15.
Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation overcoming the challenge. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 243–246.
Klein, K. J., & Ralls, R. S. (1997). The unintended organizational consequences of technology training:
Implications for training theory, research, and practice. In J. K. Ford, S. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger,
E. Salas, & M. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in organizations (pp. 323–354).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 1055–1080.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An
organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 811–824.
Korunka, C., Weiss, A., & Zauchner, S. (1997). An interview study of ‘continuous’ implementations
of information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16, 3–16.
Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and
of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102.
Krause, D. E., Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2007). Implementing process innovations the benefits of
combining delegative-participative with consultative-advisory leadership. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 14, 16–25.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-Environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 3, pp. 3–50). Washington, DC: APA.
Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B., & Kumar, U. (2003). An investigation of critical management issues in
ERP implementation: Empirical evidence from Canadian organizations. Technovation, 23, 793–807.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate innovation is so
difficult. Business Horizons, 57, 647–655.
Kwon, O., Choi, K., & Kim, M. (2007). User acceptance of context-aware services: Self-efficacy,
user innovativeness and perceived sensitivity on contextual pressure. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 26, 483–498.
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1991). Quality circles: After the honeymoon. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),
Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior. (pp. 523–533). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191–204.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new
technology. Management Science, 34, 1252–1265.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Kraus, W. A. (1985). Implementing new technology. Harvard Business Review,
63, 102–110.
Lewin, K. (1961). Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change. In W. G.
Bennis, K. Benne, & T. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (pp. 238–244). New York, NY: Wiley.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31, 59–87.
Linton, J. D. (2002). Implementation research: State of the art and future directions. Technovation,
22, 65–79.
Ljungquist, U. (2014). Unbalanced dynamic capabilities as obstacles of organisational efficiency:
Implementation issues in innovative technology adoption. Innovation, 16, 82–95.
Lou, H., Luo, W., & Strong, D. (2000). Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance.
European Journal of Information Systems, 9, 91–103.
Macduffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational
logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ILR Review, 48, 197–221.
26 J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D. F., & Kirsch, L. J. (2008). How endogenous motivations influence
user intentions: Beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivations. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 25, 267–300.
Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26,
430–444.
Mathieu, J., Ahearne, M., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A longitudinal cross-level model of leader and
salesperson influences on sales force technology use and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 528–537.
McKersie, R. B., & Walton, R. E. (1991). Organizational change. In M. Scott Morton (Ed.), The
corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational transformation (pp. 244–277).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Shedding light on followers’ innovation
implementation behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, and
climate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 408–429.
Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, A. M. (2003). The role of networks in fundamental
organizational change a grounded analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 301–323.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192–222.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications
for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53, 375–403.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human
Resource Management Review, 10, 313–351.
Naveh, E., Meilich, O., & Marcus, A. (2006). The effects of administrative innovation implementation
on performance: An organizational learning approach. Strategic Organization, 4, 275–302.
Nembhard, I. M., Alexander, J. A., Hoff, T. J., & Ramanujam, R. (2009). Why does the quality of health
care continue to lag? insights from management research. Academy of Management Perspectives,
23, 24–42.
Nord, W. R., & Tucker, A. (1987). Implementing routine and radical innovations. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The influence of leadership on innovation processes
and activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 64–72.
Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 879–910.
Oliver, P. E., Marwell, G., & Teixeira, R. (1985). Interdependence, group heterogeneity and the
production of collective goods: A theory of the critical mass, I’. American Journal of Sociology,
91, 522–556.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication:
The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6, 423–444.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption:
An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30, 115–143.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., … Sobrero, M. (2013).
Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry
relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
Petersilia, J. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime &
Delinquency, 36, 126–145.
Pullig, C., Maxham, J. G., & Hair, J. F. (2002). Salesforce automation systems: An exploratory
examination of organizational factors associated with effective implementation and salesforce
productivity. Journal of Business Research, 55, 401–415.
Quinn, R. E., Kahn, J. A., & Mandl, M. J. (1994). Perspectives on organizational change: Exploring
movement at the interface. In G. Jerald (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science.
Series in applied psychology (pp. 109–133). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation
implementation. Organization Science, 13, 109–127.
INNOVATION: ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 27
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in
the dynamics of process improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 265–295.
Rivard, S. (1987). Successful implementation of end-user computing. Interfaces, 17, 25–33.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (p. 12). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Adhikarya, R. (1979). Diffusion of innovations: An up-to-date review and
commentary. Communication Yearbook, 3, 67–81.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations; a cross-cultural approach.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Managing the change to an automated office: Lessons from five case studies.
Office Technology and People, 4, 31–52.
Ruta, C. D. (2005). The application of change management theory to HR portal implementation in
subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 44, 35–53.
Saeed, K. A., Abdinnour, S., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (2010). Examining the
impact of pre-implementation expectations on post-implementation use of enterprise systems: A
longitudinal study. Decision Sciences, 41, 659–688.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
Satzinger, J. W., & Olfman, L. (1995). Computer support for group work: Perceptions of the usefulness
of support scenarios and end-user tools. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 115–148.
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, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics
on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.
Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence
on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 27, 533–556.
Slaughter, S. (1993). Innovation and learning during implementation: A comparison of user and
manufacturer innovations. Research Policy, 22, 81–95.
Sohal, A. S. (1996). Assessing AMT implementations: an empirical field study. Technovation, 16,
377–444.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation
the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-
related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91–108.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 558–577.
Sung, S. Y., Cho, D. S., & Choi, J. N. (2011). Who initiates and who implements? A multi-stage, multi-
agent model of organizational innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 344–363.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19,
561–570.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational
consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual
model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15, 125–143.
Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 169–183.
Trafimow, D. (2000). A theory of attitudes, subjective norms, and private versus collective self-
concepts. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context (pp. 47–65).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,
14, 207–222.
28 J. S. KIM AND G. H. CHUNG
Trivisonno, M., & Barling, J. (2016). Organizational leadership and employee commitment. In
J. Meyer (Ed.), Handbook of employee commitment (pp. 305–318). Cheltenham and Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Urquhart, R., Porter, G. A., Grunfeld, E., & Sargeant, J. (2012). Exploring the interpersonal-,
organization-, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of an innovation-
synoptic reporting-in cancer care. Implementation Science, 7, 12–21.
Urquhart, R., Porter, G. A., Sargeant, J., Jackson, L., & Grunfeld, E. (2014). Multi-level factors influence
the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: A multiple case study of
synoptic reporting. Implementation Science, 9, 1–33.
Van De Ven, A. H., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Innovations and organizations: Critical perspectives.
Communication Research, 15, 632–651.
Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation.
MIS Quarterly, 23, 239–260.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision
making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 33, 297–316.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Vila, L. E., Pérez, P. J., & Coll-Serrano, V. (2014). Innovation at the workplace: Do professional
competencies matter? Journal of Business Research, 67, 752–757.
Vrakking, W. J. (1995). The implementation game. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
8, 31–46.
Wang, G., & Miao, C. F. (2015). Effects of sales force market orientation on creativity, innovation
implementation, and sales performance. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2374–2382.
Watkins, K. E., Ellinger, A. D., & Valentine, T. (1999). Understanding support for innovation in a
large-scale change effort: The manager-as-instructor approach. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 10, 63–77.
Weenig, M. W. (1999). Communication networks in the diffusion of an innovation in an organization1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1072–1092.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, 67–75.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation
and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley.
Wolfe, R. A. (1995). Human resource management innovations: Determinants of their adoption and
implementation. Human Resource Management, 34, 313–327.
Wolfe, R., Wright, P. M., & Smart, D. L. (2006). Radical HRM innovation and competitive advantage:
The Moneyball story. Human Resource Management, 45, 111–145.
Yetton, P., Sharma, R., & Southon, G. (1999). Successful IS innovation: The contingent contributions
of innovation characteristics and implementation process. Journal of Information Technology, 14,
53–68.
Yi, M. Y., Fiedler, K. D., & Park, J. S. (2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in
the acceptance of IT-based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision
Sciences, 37, 393–426.
Yoon, Y., Guimaraes, T., & O’Neal, Q. (1995). Exploring the factors associated with expert systems
success. MIS Quarterly, 19, 83–106.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 33–48.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY: Basic
Books.