Innovation adoption decisions: the effect of problem solving styles and social support.

Nelson, Millicent ; Brice, Jeff, Jr. ; Gunby, Norris White 等

INTRODUCTION

Organizations are constantly presented with problems and challenges that require innovative solutions. Human resource management innovations (HRMI) occur in the areas of recruiting and selection; appraisal; training and development; rewards and benefits; organizational design; and communication (Wolfe, 1995). Although problems and challenges exist in these areas that require innovative solutions, many employees will choose not to accept the challenge to seek new ideas. Many managers at both top and lower levels are satisfied with the status quo. Typically, managers become involved in the innovation process only when they are familiar with the area of the problem and feel they have the expertise to get involved (Daft, 1978).

Previous research has demonstrated that the innovator problem solving style is positively related to informational support from within and outside the organization (Nelson & Brice, 2008). They also found some support for the moderating effect of emotional social support on the relationship between informational social support and personal involvement in the innovation. In this study, we extend those findings and hypothesize that managers who seek new ideas and become involved in innovation as a solution to a problem have an innovative problem solving style. In essence, some employees are willing to take risks and become involved in resolving problems (innovators) while others are quite risk-averse (the status quo). Further, we postulate that in order to facilitate adoption of innovations, managers must have both emotional and informational support from both within and outside of the organization.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Organizational innovation research has been generally confined to three areas: 1) the spread or diffusion of an innovation; 2) the determinants of innovativeness; and 3) the process of innovation (Wolfe, 1994). Research on diffusion has typically tried to understand what factors affect the rate of diffusion of innovations, while previous research on the determinants of innovativeness focused on the difference between early and late adopters (Abrahamson, 1991). Process research focused on changes in an organization's technology and has expanded its perspective to identify and investigate the stages of innovation, as well as to describe the conditions, which facilitate innovative processes (Ettlie & Reza, 1992). None of these areas of research provides any explanation for individual behavioral effects during the innovation process.

In spite of the various approaches to examining innovation, no general theory of innovation exists in the current literature (Drazin & Schoonhoven, 1996). Downs and Mohr (1976) suggested that there is no theory of innovation because of conceptual and methodical issues. They argued that many conceptual problems occur when considering whether primary or secondary attributes of innovations should be utilized in theory building. Primary attributes are those that are inherent in an innovation, while secondary attributes are those that could vary from organization to organization, such as routine versus radical, or major versus minor innovations. Secondary attributes should be used in the innovative-decision design to determine the circumstances influencing a decision to innovate (Downs & Mohr, 1976).

Rogers (1962; 1995) used secondary attributes and developed an innovative-decision design that describes the innovation process. An individual goes from knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude about the innovation, to a decision to accept or reject the innovation, to implementation of the innovation, and finally to confirmation of the decision. Knowledge occurs when the individual becomes aware of the innovation and has some general information about its use. Based on his/her limited knowledge of the innovation, the individual forms a favorable or unfavorable opinion in the persuasion stage. During the decision stage, the individual gathers additional information about the innovation that leads to a decision to adopt or reject the innovation. If adoption is the choice, then the next step is the implementation of the innovation. Generally, implementation is conducted on a limited basis as a trial and the results of this trial, as well as other feedback, provides the basis for the last stage, confirmation. During the confirmation stage, the individual may use positive feedback as validation to implement the innovation on a larger scale, or negative feedback to discontinue implementation.

Innovations have generally been viewed as a way of changing the organization for the better or improving its effectiveness (Damanpour, 1991). Typically, most people believe that innovations are adopted when they are good and rejected when they are bad. This perspective is called efficient-choice and assumes that decision-makers only choose to adopt and implement effective innovations. In reality, some innovations that are adopted and implemented are later withdrawn due to their ineffectiveness or lack or organizational support. Abrahamson (1991) also argued that the efficient choice perspective is flawed and that it restricts or at least limits research on ineffective choices of innovations. Although the objective is the adoption and implementation of effective innovations, a good innovation may be rejected or a bad one may be adopted. During the innovation process, others will influence the innovator and may affect his/her decision to adopt or reject an innovation. Although a manager may have an innovative problem solving style, he/she still needs reassurance that the new idea has merit

Some researchers have classified human resource management innovations (HRMI) as administrative innovations because they occur within the social system of the organization (Tannenbaum & Dupuree-Bruno, 1994; Wolfe, 1995). These researchers do not consider technological innovations a part of HRMIs. While it is true that most administrative innovations are intangible and unable to be measured using traditional means such as cost-benefit analyses; many technological innovations are directly related to human resource management (HRM) functions. For example, computer based training (CBT), computer based ads, Internet recruiting and the company Intranet are just a few of the ways HRM effectively utilizes technology.

Stone, Templer, and Nelson (2002) argue that omitting technological innovations from HRM limits the view of HR as being only related to the people aspect of the organization. Likewise, Van de Ven (1986) and Nohria and Gulati (1996) concurred that separating technical and administrative innovations results in a fragmented categorization of the innovation process. In reality, the components of the organization (i.e., people, technology, structure, and task) make up a system with parts interrelated such that a change in one component has an effect on every other component. Daft (1978) found that innovation can occur both bottom-up and top-down in an organization. He proposed a dual-core mode of organizational innovation with technical innovations from the bottom-up and administrative innovations from the top-down based on expertise of information.

Personal Involvement and the Innovator Problem Solving Style

Problem solving is defined as an activity that is undertaken under conditions of uncertainty with the goal of removing or circumventing an obstacle (Tallman, Leik, Gray, & Stafford, 1993). Problems are barriers to attaining a desired goal where there is some doubt about the means to overcome the obstacle, as well as the outcome of using any particular means (Tallman & Gray, 1990). Problem solving, therefore, is a process used for nonroutine events and is successful if it overcomes the goal-impeding barrier. Implicit in the definition of problem solving is a process that requires making change and making a choice between alternative courses of action.

The theory of problem solving behavior (Tallman et al., 1993) addresses the process of problem solving by explaining how a person becomes aware of a problem, and addressing when and why people choose certain actions to solve a problem. Initially, an individual becomes aware of an issue that is preventing him/her from attaining a desired objective. The individual can, upon awareness of this problem, decide to adjust his/her situation to deal with it or find some other means of coping. Coping might be considered when the magnitude of the problem is greater than the resources available to solve it. The individual may, however, choose to take action to become personally involved to resolve the problem.

In many cases the resolution to a problem will require an innovation or an idea not previously utilized in the organization. Kirton (1976) developed a classification to describe individuals based on the amount of structure needed to solve a problem. He argued that everyone can be located on a continuum ranging from an ability to do things better to the ability to do things differently, called adaptive and innovative, respectively. Adaptors are characterized by precision, reliability, efficiency, and methodicalness. Innovators, on the other hand, are seen as undisciplined, thinking tangentially, and approaching tasks from unexpected angles. Kirton (1980) suggested that although both innovators and adaptors are needed for organizational effectiveness, innovators bring needed change to the organization while adaptors provide the stability needed.

Hypothesis 1: Personal involvement in the adoption of the innovation is positively related to the innovator problem solving style.

Innovator Problem Solving Style and Social Support

A behavioral process that should help us understand the innovation process is social support. Social support provides resources to a receiver that helps him/her increase his/her sense of well-being (Shumaker & Brownell, 1984; McIntosh, 1991). House included informational and emotional support in his description of supportive behaviors (House, 1981). Informational support consists of data, facts, knowledge or other information given to a receiver while emotional support includes listening to problems and taking a personal interest in the receiver. Researchers generally agree that the receipt of social support is related to positive outcomes (Hupcey, 1998; Richman, Rosenfeld, & Brown, 1998). A limited number of studies have investigated the effect of social support in the workplace. A longitudinal study to examine the relationship between job characteristics and psychological well-being found that job demands and social support influenced job satisfaction (Jonge, Dormann, Janssen, Dollard, Landeweerd & Nijhuis, 2001). Ducharme and Martin (2000) also concluded that emotional and instrumental social support contributed to the job satisfaction of full-time workers.

The innovator will seek social support as he/she attempts to resolve the problem. According to the theory of problem solving behavior (Tallman et al., 1993), after the innovator becomes aware of an innovation that may resolve the problem, he/she begins an information search to determine what alternatives are available to solve the problem. In this information search stage, the individual will utilize various sources to gather information about the problem and possible solutions. The outcome of the information search could lead to a decision to cope with the problem or to take action to resolve the problem.

In the persuasion stage and in the decision stage of the innovation process, the innovator seeks evaluative information in order to reduce uncertainty about the innovation's expected consequences. Here the individual wants to know the innovation's advantages and disadvantages in his/her own situation. Interpersonal networks with peers are particularly likely to convey such evaluative information about an innovation prior to taking action to adopt and implement the innovation. The innovator will seek information from colleagues inside and outside the organization to affirm the benefits of the innovation. Colleagues inside the organization can provide information on the current problem to assess the likelihood of this innovation resolving the problem and colleagues outside the organization can provide information on organizations that have successfully implemented the innovation.

The innovator will also seek information to reinforce his/her innovation and may not adopt the innovation if he/she perceives too much risk. Factors used to evaluate the degree of risk associated with HRMIs are pervasiveness, magnitude, and radicalness (Wolfe, 1995). These factors contribute to the uncertainty of the knowledge concerning the link between the innovation's inputs, processes and outcomes. Pervasiveness is the extent to which the innovation is perceived as a threat or the proportion of employee behaviors that are affected by the innovation. Magnitude is the degree of displacement of existing structure, personnel, and financial resources from the innovation. Radicalness is the extent to which an innovation is novel or represents change. It influences both uncertainty and resistance. Innovations that are high in pervasiveness, magnitude, and radicalness will create greater friction in the organization. Such changes will require greater support in order to be accepted and adopted by the organization. Thus,

Hypothesis 2a: Innovators will utilize informational social support from within the organization to form an opinion about the innovation.

Hypothesis 2b: Innovators will utilize informational social support from outside the organization to form an opinion about the innovation.

During the persuasion stage and in the decision stage of the innovation process, the innovator will also need emotional social support to provide the confidence needed to proceed with the innovation. Emotional support is the most likely type of support to receive from others because it primarily involves a willingness to listen and show concern. The innovator will need someone willing to listen to his/her ideas about the innovation and provide a supportive exchange. The innovator will turn to colleagues that he/she can trust to provide a critical analysis of the proposal, while also taking in consideration the innovator's feelings by showing concern for him/her. Trust involves faith in the intentions and behavior of others (Berman & Jones, 1999). This person may be someone the innovator has supported in the past with positive outcomes and is now seeking reciprocity. The innovator will have persons inside the organization that are familiar with his/her performance and will encourage him/her in this new endeavor. The innovator will also have emotional ties with friends and colleagues outside the organization who are willing to listen to his/her ideas. The innovator will seek colleagues with relationships in which they value each others' opinions and have confidence in their good intentions. Thus,

Hypothesis 3a: Innovators will utilize emotional social support from within the organization to form an opinion about the innovation.

Hypothesis 3b: Innovators will utilize emotional social support from outside the organization to form an opinion about the innovation.

Social Support and Adoption of the Innovation

Previous research has shown that HR innovators receive informational social support from colleagues both inside and outside the organization (Nelson & Brice, 2008). In this study we ask the question: Does this support lead to the adoption and implementation of the innovation? Informational social support provides facts and other information for innovators when determining whether to adopt the innovation. It is reasonable to expect innovators to solicit information within the organization to determine if this innovation will resolve the problem. Colleagues within the organization may be willing to provide informational social support to facilitate the goals and mission of the organization, especially in an organizational culture that emphasizes teamwork. There may also be a financial incentive for all employees if the innovation provides a cost reduction or increase in profit for the organization.

Frambach and Schilewaert (2002) conducted a study of the determinants of innovation adoption and found that, at the individual level, personal innovativeness was an important factor. Personal innovativeness was defined as a positive attitude toward innovation and an acceptance of the innovation influenced by the organization. Organizations communicate with their employees and provide information necessary to appraise the innovation. Innovators may have relationships with outside colleagues in organizations that promote creativity and innovation and they, in turn, pass information along to innovators. Therefore,

Hypothesis 4a: Informational social support from within the organization is positively related to the adoption of the innovation.

Hypothesis 4b: Informational social supportfrom outside the organization is positively related to the adoption of the innovation.

Emotional social support is inherent in most social relationships and is just as important in work relationships. Due to the risk associated with something new, the innovator will want to talk through the innovation process before deciding to adopt the innovation. However, innovators may have difficulty getting social support from colleagues inside the organization. This situation may result from budget allocations, competition for limited resources, or even internal conflicts over status and recognition. Colleagues from inside the organization may also be adaptors who resist change and see the innovator as a rebel who seeks to change things. This resistance to change is common when there is a fear of the unknown (as is the case with an innovation) or a fear of failure, especially common with new technology. In this case, innovators are more likely to seek emotional support from colleagues outside the organization who will be more objective because they are not going to be affected by the innovation. These external colleagues may have some personal knowledge of the innovation from prior implementation in their organization. Innovators from other organizations are also more likely to understand the need for support when new ideas are being considered for adoption. In addition, an innovator may be aware of his/her reputation and more prone to provide support to others in order to enhance his/her own personal social network. Thus,

Hypothesis 5a: Emotional social support from within the organization is negatively related to the adoption of the innovation.

Hypothesis 5b: Emotional social support from outside the organization is positively related to the adoption of the innovation.

The Moderating Effect of External Emotional Support on Informational Support

Individuals who are innovators are likely to bring new ideas to an organization and are highly tolerant of risk (Kirton, 1976). That being said, they are more likely, than not, to utilize external sources of support more than organizational conformists who may be satisfied with the status quo. Nelson and Brice (2008) found that employees seek informational and emotional support from within and outside of an organization. However, it is more likely that innovators, who face resistance to their ideas and suggestions from traditional employees, need the emotional support of external colleagues more so than others.

Past research has demonstrated that individuals lacking organizational support utilize their own networks to spread information about possible innovations (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996). Other work has shown that innovators who receive information about innovations through his/her network were positively linked to whether or not an innovation was adopted (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997). Albrecht and Hall (1991) found that innovators sought emotional support from others perceived as being trustworthy or supportive (like friends, colleagues, and family). Ford (1985) found that emotional support from interpersonal relationships is more important than other types of social support for positive work outcomes. This evidence suggests that regardless of the type of informational support (internal or external) gathered by the innovator, the decision to adopt the innovation, or not, may hinge on the presence, or not, of external emotional support surrounding the decision. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the relationship(s) of internal and external informational support to the adoption of an innovation may be significantly heightened when moderated by the existence of external emotional support. Thus,

Hypothesis 6a: The existence of external emotional support will moderate the relationship between internal informational support and adoption of the innovation.

Hypothesis 6b: The existence of external emotional support will moderate the relationship between external informational support and adoption of the innovation.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

METHODOLOGY

Sample

This study utilized a sample of professional members of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Chapter presidents were contacted by telephone and/or email and requested to distribute the questionnaire via email, newsletter, or during their chapter meetings, to their members. Those who received the questionnaire could respond online, or by mail, fax, or email to the author. A follow up letter and another copy of the questionnaire were sent to chapter presidents approximately two weeks later. A total of 100 usable surveys were received for this study.

Measures

Personal Involvement in the Innovation was measured by asking respondents two questions about their level of involvement in the adoption of an innovation. The first question was "To what extent did you personally investigate the use of a new product..." and the second question was "To what extent did you personally take action to insure the adoption of the new product ..." Both questions used a Likert scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all and 5 is to a great extent. The Cronbach alpha was .77.

Problem Solving Style was measured using the modified Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory or KAI (Kirton, 1976). This measure evaluates the characteristic approach a person has towards problem solving and decision-making and their propensity to innovate. The modified KAI has 13-items with each item scored on a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy). Respondents were asked to describe how easy or difficult it is to do and maintain a set of behaviors such as "have original ideas, enjoy detailed work, and never act without proper authority." The Cronbach alpha was .80.

Emotional Social Support and Informational Social Support were measured by an index adapted from previous research (i.e., House, 1981; Dormann & Zapf, 1999). The items were reworded to be more specific to this sample. Sample items included "I can talk to my colleagues if I have a problem at work" and "I value the advice I receive from my colleagues." The same information was requested from colleagues within and outside the organization. Social support was measured on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree. The Cronbach alphas ranged from .84 to .88.

Adoption of Innovation was measured by asking respondents if the innovation was adopted and implemented in the organization.

Data Analysis and Results

All hypotheses were tested using regression analysis (SEE Table 1). Hypothesis 1 (Analysis 1), which posited that personal involvement in the adoption of the innovation is positively related to the innovator problem solving style was supported. In this analysis, the dependent variable, problem solving style, was regressed on the independent variable, personal involvement in the innovation. The relationship between personal involvement in the innovation and problem solving style (innovators) was positive and significant (F = 4.04, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2a (Analysis 2) posited that innovators would utilize informational social support from within the organization to form an opinion about the innovation. This hypothesis was supported (F = 4.464, p < .05).

Hypothesis 2b (Analysis 3) posited that innovators would utilize informational social support from outside the organization to form an opinion about the innovation. This hypothesis was supported (F = 6.760, p < .01).

Hypothesis 3a (Analysis 4) posited that innovators will utilize emotional social support from within the organization to form an opinion about the innovation. This hypothesis was supported (F = 12.054, p < .01).

Hypothesis 3b (Analysis 5) posited that innovators will utilize emotional social support from outside the organization to form an opinion about the innovation. This hypothesis was supported (F = 15.101, p < .01).

Hypothesis 4a (Analysis 6) posited that informational social support from within the organization is positively related to the adoption of the innovation. This hypothesis was not supported. It appears that while innovators utilize internal informational support to evaluate feasibility of a proposed innovation, this internal information does not significantly weigh on the deliberation to pursue adoption.

Hypothesis 4b (Analysis 7) which posited that informational social support from outside the organization is positively related to the adoption of the innovation was also not supported. This result suggests that while innovators do make use of external informational to assess innovation viability, this external information does not significantly affect whether, or not, the innovation will be adopted.

Hypothesis 5a (Analysis 8) posited that emotional social support from within the organization is negatively related to the adoption of the innovation but this hypothesis was not supported. Apparently, resistance to organizational change faced by innovators was not significant enough to influence the adoption of an innovation.

Hypothesis 5b (Analysis 9) posited that emotional social support from outside the organization is positively related to the adoption of the innovation. This hypothesis was supported (F = 5.981, p < .05). As hypothesized, this finding confirms that innovators may need strong sources of emotional support external to the organization in order to confidently proceed with innovation adoption decisions.

The last phase of the analysis employed a two-step series of regressions equations to gauge the proposed moderating effect of external emotional support on the relationship between internal (Hypothesis 6a) and external informational support (Hypothesis 6b) on the adoption of innovation (SEE Table 2).

N = 100 AOI- Adoption of Innovation

* p < .10 IIS--Internal Informational Support

** p < .05 EES--External Emotional Support

*** p < .01 EIS--External Informational Support

( ) Negative relationships

Step one of Analysis 10 incorporated internal informational support as the independent variable and adoption of innovation as the dependent variable. The result of this initial regression equation (F = 0.266, ns) was not significant, replicating Analysis 6 of this study, which substantiates that there is no direct effect of internal informational support on adoption of innovation. In step two, the interaction of internal informational support and external emotional support was added. While the results showed some support for the proposed moderating effect of external emotional support on the relationship between internal informational support and adoption of innovation (F = 2.452, p < .1), Hypothesis 6a was not supported.

The first step of final analysis (Analysis 11) tested the relationship of external informational support on adoption of innovation. The result of this initial regression equation, which replicates Analysis 7 of this study, was not significant (F = 2.462, ns). In step two, the interaction of external informational support and external emotional support was added. The results demonstrate that there is significant support for the proposed moderating effect of external emotional support on the relationship between external informational support and adoption of the innovation (F = 3.395, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 6b was supported. The implication of this finding is that while innovators do utilize external information to validate and support innovation adoption deliberations, the decision to adopt may only occur if the innovator feels that he/she has the positive emotional support of his/her external social network (SEE Figure 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This research adds to the body of knowledge about the adoption of human resource management innovations. Most of the existing research either focuses on the relationship of HRMIs to organizational performance or the organizational factors affecting HRMI, such as hierarchical level or seniority. Previously, HRMI research has not examined interpersonal relations in the innovation adoption process. This study is significant since it indicates the importance of one's approach to handling problems and the support received as critical factors in the adoption and implementation of innovations.

While this study focused on HR professionals, the results also have implications for organizational innovations in general. Like HRMI, there has also been little or no research on interpersonal relations in other organizational innovations. Research on organizational innovations has primarily focused on the diffusion of an innovation, the determinants of innovativeness, and/or the stages in the innovation process. Previous research has not attempted to explain the individual behavioral effects that occur during the innovation process. The results of this study imply that informational and emotional social support may affect whether a proposed innovation becomes more than an idea on paper.

Finally, the results of this study indicate the importance of a social network for innovators as they facilitate the innovation process. In addition to their co-workers, innovators need colleagues outside one's organization for informational and emotional social support as they make decisions about adopting an innovation. Managers have to respond quickly to change and make decisions when there is limited information. Colleagues outside the innovator's organization can provide the information and emotional support needed to adopt and implement innovations for dynamic, competitive environments. Since change is inevitable, employees should have social networks where they can get information and support to resolve new problems in the organization. Organizations can support managers by encouraging their attendance and participation in conferences and meetings to network and develop their intellectual capabilities. Conner (1992) discussed interaction among members of an organization as a necessary requirement for the synergistic relationship needed to produce something new. This study indicates that interaction may be more important with others outside the organization for information relating to proposed innovations and the emotional support needed to adopt and implement these innovations.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16: 586-512.

Abrahamson, E. & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8: 289-309.

Albrecht, T. L. and Hall, B. J. (1991). Facilitating talk about new ideas: The role of personal relationships in organizational innovation. Communication Monographs, 58: 273-287.

Berman, S. L. & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 99-116.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York, NY: Random House.

Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 193-210.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555-590.

Dormann, C. & Zapf, D. (1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 874-884.

Dougherty, D. & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1120-1153.

Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 700-714.

Drazin, R. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1065-1083.

Ducharme, L. J. & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 27: 223-243.

Ettlie, J. E. & Reza, E. M. (1992). Organizational integration and process innovation. Academy of Management Journal. 35: 795-827.

Ford, D.L. (1985). Facets of work support and employee work outcomes: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Management, 11: 5-20.

Frambach, R. T. & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multilevel framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55: 163-176.

House, J.S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hupcey, J.E. (1998). Social support: Assessing conceptual coherence. Qualitative Health Research, 8: 304-318.

Jonge, J. de, Dormann, C., Janssen, P. P. M., Dollard, M. F., Landeweerd, J. A., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (2001). Testing reciprocal relationships between job characteristics and psychological well-being: A cross-lagged structural equation model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 29-46.

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 622-629.

Kirton, M. (1990). Adaptors and innovators in organizations. Human Relations, 33: 213-224.

McIntosh, N. J. (1991). Identification and investigation of properties of social support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12:201-217.

Nelson, M. & Brice Jr., J. (2008). Emotional and informational social support: Exploring contrasting influences on human resource management innovation. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict. 12: 71-82.

Nohria, N. & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1245-1264. Richman, J.M., Rosenfeld, L.B., & Bowen, G.L. 1998). Social support for adolescents at risk of school failure. Social Work, 43: 309-323.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press: New York.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition). The Free Press: New York.

Shumaker, S., & Brownell, A. (1984). Towards a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40: 11-36.

Stone, T. H., Templer, A. J., & Nelson, M. F. (2002). HR effectiveness and innovation: The knowledge link. ANZAM/IFSAM Conference Proceedings.

Tallman, I., Leik, R K., Gray, L N., & Stafford, M.C. (1993). A theory of problem-solving behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56: 157-177.

Tallman, L., & Gray, L. N. (1990). Choices, decisions, and problem-solving. Annual Review of Sociology, 16: 405-433.

Tannenbaum, S. I. & Dupuree-Bruno, L. M. (1994). The relationship between organizational and environmental factors and the use of innovative human resource practices. Group & Organization Management. 19: 171-202.

Van De Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32: 590-607.

Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31: 405-431.

Wolfe, R. A., (1995). Human resource management innovations: Determinants of their adoption and implementation. Human Resource Management, 34: 3

Millicent Nelson, Middle Tennessee State University

Jeff Brice, Jr., Texas Southern University

Norris White Gunby, Jr., Elon University

Table 1: Regression Analyses (Main Effects)

Regression    Dependent   Independent   F-statistic
              Variable     Variable

Analysis 1      IPSS          PII        4.037 **
Analysis 2       IIS         IPSS        4.464 **
Analysis 3       EIS         IPSS        6.760 ***
Analysis 4       IES         IPSS       12.054 ***
Analysis 5       EES         IPSS       15.101 ***
Analysis 6       AOI          IIS        0.266
Analysis 7       AOI          EIS        2.462
Analysis 8       AOI          IES        1.191
Analysis 9       AOI          EES        5.981 **

N = 100

* p < .10

** p < .05

*** p < .01

( ) Negative relationships IES--Internal Emotional Support

IPSS--Innovator Problem Solving Style

PII--Personal Involvement in the Innovation

IIS--Internal Informational Support

EIS--External Informational Support

EES--External Emotional Support

AOI--Adoption of Innovation

Table 2: Regression Analyses (Interaction Effects)

Regression    Dependent   Independent   F-statistic
              Variable     Variable
Analysis 10
Step 1           AOI          IIS          0.266
Step 2           AOI      (IIS x EES)     2.452 *

Analysis 11
Step 1           AOI          EIS          2.462
Step 2           AOI      (EIS x EES)    3.395 **