Late Getting on the Bandwagon: Management Innovation Adoption in the Federal Government

Late getting on the bandwagon: Management innovation adoption in the federal government

Denise Anderson Breckon and Thomas Mierzwa

Abstract: Recent organizational performance studies identified an increase in the adoption of management innovations as more organizations seek to use innovation for competitive advantage. Despite an abundance of literature on management innovations in the private sector, there has been little empirical research done to explain the adoption decisions of management innovations in the public sector, especially in the federal government. To better understand innovation adoption in the federal government, this study investigated the adoption of 17 management innovations.

This empirical study gathered data from 252 senior federal managers from 44 different executive departments and federal agencies. Statistical analysis confirmed that external pressure, organizational slack, organizational risk-taking, and managerial socialization had positive and statistically significant (p < .05) influence on the adoption of management innovations. Organizational size and organizational type also had positive andsignificant influence on management innovation adoption, with defense organizations adopting a greater number than non-defense federal organizations. In federal organizations, patterns of innovation adoption correlated with increased media attention on the innovations for about two years prior to their adoption. It was found that this lag in adoption was explained by federal executives’ wait-and-see approach to observe if an innovative management was successful prior to adopting it in their own organizations. It was also found that the adoption of an innovation may also be caused by bandwagon pressure to compete with private companies who have already adopted the same innovation.

Key words: management innovation, change management, innovation adoption, management fads, diffusion of innovation, bandwagon.

1

Management fad adoption

Whether you call them management practices or innovations, management fads or fashions, the question of why organizations choose to adopt them remains a critical research area. Managementinnovation has been receiving increased attention from academics and practitioners who are interested in the ability of these techniques to contribute to organizational performance, and who also seek to better understand the processes surrounding their creation, adoption, implementation, and related management activity. Management gurus, scholars, and practitioners publicizethe innovations and drive their popularity and use by organizational executives (Huczynski, 1993; Roberto & Levesque, 2005). These innovations receive increased attention, as they areassumed to have significant potential to affect the organization’s performance and competitive success.

Innovation success has been sporadic at best (Byrne, 2007). While fewer than 30% of change initiatives or management innovations succeed, managers continue to try new approaches(Beer & Nohria, 2000). Many organizations have experienced the roller coaster brought about by a new management practice that promises to enhance organizational performance but then falls short. As a result, organizations have been criticized for their willingness to so readily accept and adopt these management innovations.

Government leaders have widely supported the need for the federal government to innovate. The public sector is thought to adopt management innovations for their cost savings potential. The federal government spends trillions of dollars per year, which allows potential for large savings if continuous improvement initiatives can achieve the desired efficiencies(Fiscal 2006 Department of Defense budget is released, 2005). One defense organization’s 1999 Annual Report indicated that they had invested more than $67 million in management innovations with expected cost avoidance of more than $1 billion by the end of 1999 (Lockard, 2000). Quantifying and tracking the actual savingsfrom management innovations, however, has often been difficult for organizations (Maleyeff, 2007). If the decision to adopt a management innovation is made too soon or is found to be

2

incompatible with the organizational culture, then improvement programs could be terminated before they are fully implemented, and the return on investment would likely not reach its full potential (George, 2002).

Cameron (2004) argued that without a change in culture, mostmanagement innovations fall short of expectations. Organizations often fail to create a common viewpoint throughout the organization about how and where the improvement effort will be implemented. Cameron and Smart (1998) discovered that a culture of quality had a significant positive effect on adoption and implementation of management improvement innovations.

These popular management innovations were often referred to as management fads because they were introduced by management fashion suppliers (consultants, gurus, and scholars) and adopted by managers and government bureaucrat consumers in waves of popularity (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). The life cycle of these management fads or fashions included a quick surge start that received a lot of popular and academic press attention at first and then gradually lost its popularity. As each management innovation gained more adopters, additional information about it was disseminated and it became more popular, resulting in even more organizations adopting it. This type of adoption is known asbandwagon theory (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997). But Abrahamson (1996) found that the “collective belief” that a certain management practice would lead to improved performance was fleeting, and what was fashionable in management practice yesterday was no longer fashionable today. A popular topic among researchers is the origination of these management fashion waves and their organizational adoption and sustainment; such studies have established trends and patterns for these management innovations.

While little research has been conducted on management innovations or their adoption in the public sector, both significant benefits and significant harm have been attributed tothese management techniques (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). By identifying the factors that most influence adoption of these management innovations and techniques, additional information will be available to explain innovation adoption. Most of the research to date has been done to prescribe how organizations

3

should implement these management innovations, but the research does not adequately evaluate why and how organizations choose to adopt innovations in the first place.

Federal government organizations have attempted quality programs and other management innovation programs in the past with most of the military agencies deploying TQM and TQL in the 90s. Although there were some well documented successes, employees often reflect back on the TQM/TQL program as a management fad or experiment that did not work as promised. Byrne(1986) argued that these management fads were counterproductive, as they distracted managers from their main task of managing an organization. The imperative for continuous improvement, however,forces government organizations to try again. Recent studies on the life cycles of management innovations show an increasing number of management innovations with shorter life cycles (Carson, Lanier, Carson, & Guidry, 2000).

The decision to adopt management innovations in federal government organizations, including military services, may be related to environmental, organizational, and individual influence factors. Environmental factors may include political pressure and mandates within the hierarchy; election cycles that cause frequent changes in top leadership positions; and peer pressure influence or bandwagon adoption pressure from others whohave already adopted the innovation. The individual characteristics of an innovation have been found to influence itsperception and adoption by individuals and organizations(Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).

Hence, this research sought to contribute to the understanding of what influences organizations and their managersto adopt or reject management innovations, and focused on adoption of management innovations by military and other federal government departments and agencies.

The problem addressed in this paper was the need to improve the understanding of how various factors influence adoption of management innovations. As organizations strive to gain competitive advantage through performance and image improvements,they invest heavily in management innovations, and they often launch these innovations with great fanfare and high expectationsof making bold cultural and organizational process changes.

4

Initially, the innovation achieves positive results that are widely publicized and touted as a successful implementation. But the implementation often runs into trouble when benefits do not meet expectations, are not sustained, or are not able to be replicated across the organization, and employees dismiss it as another management fad (Abrahamson, 1991; Huczynski, 1993; Parker& Ritson, 2005). As an increasing number of initiatives are triedand abandoned, the likelihood of realizing the innovation’s full potential is continually diminished as the workforce begins to see each initiative as a passing fad or flavor of the month(Byrne, 1986). The constant switching to new improvement programsexacts a price on the organization as frequent change causes employee cynicism and results in employees being less willing to implement future improvement initiatives (Connor, 1993)

Management innovation theory

Afuah (2003), in his review of the innovation literature, notes that innovations can be process, product, service, or business concepts; incremental or radical; sustaining or discontinuous; and can refer to an innovative process of an organization or end product. Management innovations, more than any other type of innovation, have propelled organizations to newperformance thresholds (Hamel, 2007). On the other hand, even if organizations did not achieve better economic performance, firms were rated as more highly admired and more innovative when they were associated with a management innovation (Staw & Epstein, 2000).

Management innovation studies have often not differentiated between administrative and technical innovations, or they have focused on one type over the other. Damanpour and Evan (1984) suggested that it was necessary to distinguish between administrative and technical innovations because the characteristics and attributes of the innovations are not the same, and the adoption decision-making processes are potentially different. Technical innovations affect the products and processes directly related to the technical system of the organization, whereas administrative innovations affect the

5

management or social support systems of the organization (Damanpour, 1983; Damanpour & Evan, 1984).

Furthermore, organizations can adopt existing innovations ordevelop new ones. Many management innovations are considered imitative innovations because while the techniques were viewed asbeing new or innovative to a particular industry or organization,they had already been implemented elsewhere (Manley & McFallan, 2003). Management innovations have often included quality improvements, human resource practices, strategic plans, employeerelationships, financial systems management, and environmental practices (Sanders, 2007).

Abrahamson (1996a) argued that management innovations are influenced by norms of rationality and improved progress. As such, the societal norms provide the expectation that managers will use new and improved management techniques as part of their rational behavior. For managers to appear to be progressively improving, they will not be able to remain with any management innovation for too long; otherwise it will appear as though they are not progressing and improving. Clients and external stakeholders may also apply pressure on organizations to adopt the latest management innovations (Rogers, 2003).

Granovetter (1979) identified criteria for judging managerial improvement, which included quality, flexibility, profit, speed, customer satisfaction, and risk reduction. These criteria are all subjective factors that may influence managers to adopt management innovations as they seek to enhance their images (Abrahamson, 1996a). On the other hand, Micklethwait and Wooldridge (1996) and Huczynski (1993) argued that management gurus have driven managers to accept distorted ”panaceas” of management techniques, and they have portrayed managers as victims of the management fad consulting industry. Collins (2001), however, argued that the managers were not passive in their receipt of management fads, but instead were actively responding and choosing to adopt these management innovations. DuGay (1996) also argued that the manager or practitioner had the capacity to either accept or resist the new management ideas coming from gurus (Collins, 2003). Rogers (2003) argued that increasing the number of adopters raises awareness of an innovation, which then prompts more adoptions. This research

6

allows that there are significant pressures on managers and theirorganizations to adopt the new management ideas, but ultimately, the organizations have a choice to adopt these management innovations.

Davenport, Prusak, and Wilson (2003) depicted the life cycleof fad adoption and implementation in an organization as evolutionary steps: (a) progenitor (assessment and build-up), (b) pilot scheme (test it out in the environment), (c) project (full-scale application), (d) program (extend throughout organization),(e) perspective (include in all operations), and (f) pervasiveness (becomes a way of life).

Abrahamson and Fombrun (1994) defined how macro cultural beliefs are shared by managers across organizations based on their beliefs about the organizations they compete or cooperate with, the characteristics that influence organizational reputations, and what strategic issues they should attend to. Federal government organizations are likely to share the same macro cultural beliefs, as they are perceived as being similar toeach other; however, military services have been viewed as havinga distinct culture that differs from other federal organizations (Howard, 2006).

Management fad and management fashion

Machiavelli (1514, p. 152) wrote: “Men nearly always follow the tracks made by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation.” It has been suggested that management fad theory is an extension of institutional theory because managers create an appearance of rationality by using management techniques as rational methods of managing employees and organizations (Meyer &Rowan, 2005). The management field has seen the onset of many newinitiatives. They are often categorized in the literature as management fads or management fashions that represent the leadingedge of progress (Spell, 1999). Abrahamson and Eisenman (2008) suggested that the theories of fad and theories of fashion shouldbe viewed as very different processes. They go on to suggest thatmost of the literature on management innovation popularity is based on the theory of fads, which often implies that these management popularity waves are because of unpredictable and

7

irrational swings in management thought. These views have resulted in research that was focused on one management fad wave at a time.

Consequently, these studies often looked at what triggered the fads, but not at the relationship or cycle of these management fads with others that were similar. Abrahamson and Eisenman (2008) examined a succession of five popular waves of management innovation, assessing these management techniques as management fashion trends and expanding on the theory of management fashion. They demonstrated that current fashions evolve from earlier fashions, and this succession of fashions results in a directional trend that is cumulative. Fashion setters can therefore anticipate the shifting needs and preferences of organizations and provide management techniques inline with the trend.

This research uses the definition of management fashions proposed by Abrahamson (1996a): management fashions are “transitory collective beliefs that certain management techniquesare at the forefront of management progress” (p. 254) and they “emerge as fashion followers … create the subjective experience in fashion followers that they are learning about rational and progressive management techniques” (p. 274). The definition proposed by Carson et al. (1999) is used to define management fads. Fads are “managerial interventions which appear to be innovative, rational, and functional and are aimed at encouragingbetter organizational performance” (p. 321). Although these fads or fashions are intended to improve organizational performance, they may not actually deliver.

Huczynski's (1993) research focused on management fad history over the past 100 years and suggested that there are onlysix popular management families from which all management fads were associated: (a) bureaucracy, (b) scientific management, (c) classical management, (d) human relations, (e) neo-human relations, and (f) the latest family of “guru theory” (p. 444). Abrahamson (1997) substantiated that specific management techniques gained and lost popularity repeatedly, and he mapped their cycle of activity and popularity. Previous research found that management fashions have a roughly symmetrical pattern of popularity as they are represented in the press with a steeper

8

increase in popularity and a much more gradual decrease(Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). Others have found that the slope of increase and decrease will differ for various management fashions (Spell, 1999). The slope is likely dependent on the emergence of other management fashions and events. For several ofthese management fashions, the scholarly literature had lagged the business literature, presumably because they were first started and fueled by management gurus, and later, they were analyzed and critiqued by academics and practitioners (Abrahamson& Fairchild, 1999; Spell, 1999).

Bandwagon diffusion

Spell (1999) performed a study on five management fashions found in the popular press and scholarly literature. He found that the management fashions usually appeared first in the popular press and followed later in the scholarly press. Spell and others have suggested that these management fashions are initiated by management consultants and industry practitioners and made popular through their frequency in written articles before being diffused across organizations.

Any innovation has the possibility of being adopted by managers who make a rational choice to adopt or not adopt the innovation based on its perceived positive benefits to the organization or the manager. Some organizations will decide that the management innovation is not advantageous or not a good fit and will decide not to adopt the innovation. Once several organizations have adopted the innovation, non-adopting organizations begin to feel pressure to adopt, especially as the press touts positive outcomes. Also, as the number of adopters ofa management fad or management innovation increases, new information about it will become available and more will be knownof its potential benefits. This knowledge creates strong pressurefor organizations to adopt the innovations. This type of innovation diffusion is referred to as bandwagon pressure, or bandwagon effect, because of the pressure to adopt caused by the number of organizations that have already adopted the innovation and have jumped on the bandwagon (Abrahamson & Bartner, 1990; Fiol & O'Connor, 2003; Staw & Epstein, 2000).

9

Attewell (1992) has identified several types of bandwagon diffusion theories. “Increasing Returns Theory of Bandwagons” assumes that the profits of the innovations are established, and,as the number of adopters increase, the amount of profit increases, which pressures more to adopt. “Learning Theory of Bandwagons” assumes that the potential adopters lack information about the innovation, but as more organizations adopt the innovation, more information is known, which creates more adopters. “Fad Theory of Bandwagons” assumes that information regarding the innovation is not necessarily passed to new adopters, but rather the adopters decide to adopt based on who has already adopted, which creates social pressure for others to adopt. For fad theory adoption, those that do not adopt the innovation may be viewed negatively by their stakeholders; while those that do adopt hope to be viewed more favorably and gain competitive advantage. Some will adopt because they believe that others who have already adopted have more knowledge than they do about the innovation and trust the others’ instincts.

Spell (1999) argued that as the number of adopters increases, the innovations assume a value that is beyond their technical performance. Once a management innovation partially diffuses, rational choices no longer appear to govern decision-making regarding adoption. Organizations may have difficulty making rational decisions when conditions are uncertain and may decide to adopt management innovations to conform to stakeholder expectations based on the reputation and image of earlier adopters (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). On the other hand, Fiol and O’Connor (2003) found that if decision-makers scan their environment and assess their own internal capabilities, they are likely to succumb to bandwagon pressures only when the innovationis advantageous to their organizational circumstances.

The following research propositions were derived from the research .

P1: Organizations are more likely to adopt a management innovation when the management innovation has been adopted by other organizations.

10

P2: Organizations are more likely to adopt a management innovation when the innovation has been widely publicized in the business and academic press.

Management innovation flavor of the month

The workforce may decide to wait out the flavor of the month if they believe management is not committed to the improvement program (Watson, 1994). The prescribed timeframes for organizations to remain with improvement initiatives vary, but many are thought to be ended prematurely, before they achieve their full return on investment. It appears as though after some short time, the management approaches become unfavorable and out of style with most of the practitioners (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999). It has been suggested that government organizations institute new management concepts following some proven success in private industry; therefore, it is possible that the government is getting on board with a management innovation – only it is getting on board much later in the innovation’s life cycle. This late adoption could cause participants to question whether the innovation will be dropped before it has adequate time to mature and achieve the benefits.

Byrne (1986) described managers as compulsive dieters because they were always trying the latest innovation for a shortwhile before moving on to another. The bandwagon pressure research appears to substantiate this view. It suggests that, while early adopters may make rational decisions to adopt a management innovation, later adopters jump on the bandwagon because of pressure to conform as everyone else appears to be adopting the innovation. The pressure to adopt may or may not be mandated by the hierarchy or political structure.

Management innovation popularity, as defined by their appearance in the business and academic press, was found to follow a pattern. Researchers studied management fashions by evaluating the appearance of management fashions in the business press and the academic press using ABI/Inform (Abrahamson & Bartner, 1990; Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1997). They determined that press appearances took the form of an S-shaped curve showingthat attention is progressively increased toward a management technique for a while and then begins to decline. After an

11

initial stage of low-level interest, the rise in the beginning ofthe curve was often steep as the enthusiasm for the management innovation quickly spread, until the interest level peaked and remained high. But inevitably the innovation’s organizational implementation and popularity in the press began to decrease. Abrahamson (1997) found that the decrease of one management fad was related to the introduction of another fad in the same discipline. Spell (1999) confirmed Abrahamson’s findings using additional online library databases and an increased number of management fads, and found that an innovation remained popular until a new one emerged.

In a study of public sector managers in more than 260 state agencies, Berry (1994) found that adoption by sister agencies in a regional location appeared to have the greatest influence on adoption of innovative strategic planning practices than any of the other variables.

Another aspect of the organization thought to influence innovation adoption was organizational culture. The military culture has been characterized as if you’re not working, then you’re training(Robinson, 2008). Active duty personnel experience a cycle of direct work and training for new assignments throughout their career. As such, there is a cultural bent toward education and continuous learning on new ways of doing business. The military also has an autocratic decision-making style that is familiar with giving orders and making mandates for change. The increased use of mandates and political pressures has been shown to be an influence in adoption of innovations, and the military should adopt new methods and practices more often and faster than other federal organizations. The findings may be tempered by the careercivilians and political appointees of federal organizations whosedesire for enhanced political image should motivate them to adopta management innovation.

P3: Military organizations are more likely to adopt a management innovation than other federal government organizations due to a learning-oriented culture.

Management innovations often originate in the private sector, and if federal managers are to adopt these innovations, they must first become aware of the innovation. Federal

12

organizations would then likely adopt a management innovation later in the adoption cycle (Rogers, 2003). Unlike private companies that can realign resources for innovations, federal organizations rely on annual budgets that are submitted years in advance of actual needs, causing a lag in the resources required to adopt and initiate a management innovation.

P4: Federal organizations are more likely to adopt a management innovation later in the innovation’s life cycle.

P5: Federal organizations are more likely to adopt a management innovation once it has gained popularity with private organizations.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework of the factors influencing innovation adoption was developed through critical examination ofscholarly literature associated with management innovation, management fads and fashions, adoption and diffusion of innovation, culture and innovation, and innovation factors. Propositions were developed to focus on the influence of several innovation adoption factors. The literature revealed an opportunity to categorize the multiple factors described in the research propositions into three categories: (a) environmental orcontextual factors, (b) organizational and cultural factors, and (c) individual leader and stakeholder factors.

13

Figure 1. Conceptual model for management innovation adoption(Adapted from Rogers, 2003).

Environmental factors included: enhanced competition for budget, political and regulatory pressure, timing relative to an election year, and bandwagon adoption pressure influenced by the popular and academic press. Organizational factors included: sizeand complexity of the organization, available financial resourcesand slack resources, organizational decision-making preferences, signaling and external networking, management support and commitment and a more bureaucratic or risk-adverse attitude. Individual factors included: demographic measures such as tenure,educational level and location population; and the individual’s openness toward innovation. The type of innovation was also expected to strengthen or weaken the adoption decision;

14

therefore, innovation characteristics such as ease of use and understanding, relative advantage, voluntariness, image, observability, and compatibility with organizational values and needs were included as moderating variables. The proposed conceptual model showed the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variable of innovation adoption decision, with the effect of the moderating variables.

Hypotheses were developed to explore the relationships between the variables. The following hypotheses were tested to explore the strength of the relationships suggested by the literature and the findings are reported in this research.

Hypothesis 1: Defense organizations will adopt a greater number of management innovations than non-defense federal organizations.

Hypothesis 2: Defense organizations will adopt a management innovation earlierin the adoption cycle than non-defense organizations.

Research approach

The data for this research was primarily gathered from a survey of federal government executives and focuses primarily onthe federal government because of the assumed effects of a bureaucratic and formalistic structure, and because of the potential for the influence of frequent senior leadership changesto affect adoption of management innovations. Second, federal government is often viewed as a follower of private industry practices, so it was interesting to evaluate if bandwagon pressure influenced the federal agency adoption decisions. Finally, the research is timely, as recent mandates have challenged federal government managers to adopt management innovations to make the services they provide more efficient.

A web-based relational cross-section survey method was used to understand how federal executives’ perceptions are related to adoption of management innovations. The survey was created using previously tested survey questions from other research instruments, such as those by Kimberley and Evanisko (1981), Moore and Benbasat (1991), and Chandler, Keller, and Lyon (2000).

15

The dependent variable was adoption of management innovations by defense and non-defense federal organizations. Theconceptual definition of this dependent variable, innovation adoption, was the number of management innovations that were fullyor partially adopted by federal agencies. An inventory of management innovations adopted and implemented in organizations over the past 25 years was created using management and administrative innovations identified by the literature review and by their appearance in the popular and academic press. The presence of management innovations in popular and academic journals was counted from the occurrence of the innovation keywords in the abstract. Figure 2 shows the prevalence of the media attention on the innovations over the past 25 years in the ABI/Inform database.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

KM SCM

BPR

Benchm

arking

TQM

ERP

CCPay for Perf

LSS

ABC

BSC

SDT

RT Sizing

360 d

egree MM

CMM

EVM

M anagement Innovations

ABI/Inform Database H

its

Figure 2. Occurrences of management innovations in ABI/Inform database.

The list of management innovations was refined based on the innovations used in other research, followed by a series of individual interviews with senior managers from several agencies

16

and locations to develop a set of 17 management innovations that were used for the questionnaire: Knowledge Management (KM), Supply Chain Management, Business Process Reengineering (BPR), Benchmarking, Total Quality Management (TQM), Enterprise ResourcePlanning (ERP), Core Competencies (CC), Pay for Performance, LeanSix Sigma (LSS), Activity Based Costing (ABC), Balanced Score Card (BSC), Self Directed Teams (SDT), Right Sizing (RT sizing), 360 Degree Feedback, Matrix Management (MM), Capability Maturity Model (CMM), and Earned Value Management (EVM).

Next, each occurrence of innovation keywords in the abstractwere counted and charted by year to create an innovation life cycle for each of the 17 innovations. The year of adoption provided by the respondents was tracked to the bandwagon pressurecycle to determine if organizations adopted early, mid or late inthe cycle. The number and types of innovation adopted were compared to the innovation life cycles to determine if the publicity of innovations could be correlated to adoption of management innovations. Bibliographic studies such as this have been used to determine innovation life cycles in earlier research(Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1997; Huczynski, 1993; Spell, 1999).

The sample was generated through self-selection from the entire population of federal government executives who had attended the Federal Executive Institute (FEI) and were part of the FEI alumni.

In 2008, 273 executives submitted responses, resulting in 252 usable responses for about a 32% response rate. Sixty-two different executive departments and agencies comprised the sample. All of the executive departments had at least five respondents from their agencies; and a total of 44 departments and agencies were represented by the respondents. The sample consisted of approximately 34% from defense organizations and 66%from non-defense organizations.

Findings

This study investigated the influence of several factors on adoption of management innovations to better understand strategicdecision-making in organizations. This empirical research tested a conceptual model that related a set of environmental,

17

organizational, individual, and innovation characteristic factorsto adoption of organizational management innovations. To answer these questions, a set of hypotheses were proposed based on the empirical findings and theoretical posturing found in the literature review. Analysis of questionnaire data addressed the hypotheses.

The hypothesis that defense organizations would adopt a greater number of management innovations than non-defense federalorganizations was supported. Organizational type (defense) was significantly (p = .000) associated with a greater likelihood of innovation adoption. For the list of the management innovations studied, defense organizations were likely to adopt as few as onemore or as many as three more innovations than non-defense organizations. Additional analysis indicated that defense organizations and non-defense organizations significantly differed on the following: (a) defense organizations reported (p = .008) higher availability of slack resources, (b) defense organizations reported (p = .004) higher levels of education, and(c) defense organizations were (p = .005) less likely to perceivethat the adopted innovations were a fad.

When asked to provide details on a specific management innovation that their agency had adopted, the findings were not as expected. The following differences between defense and non-defense organization respondents were statistically significant (p < .05): (a) defense organizations viewed their adoption as less voluntary (p = .000), (b) defense organizations viewed theirinnovations as not being as easy to use (p = .003), (c) defense organizations viewed their innovations as having less relative advantage (p = .002), and (d) defense organizations viewed their innovation adoption as being less successful (p = .002). One explanation for the difference is that defense organizations adopt more innovations because they see adoption as being mandatory, and they are more likely to follow chain of command type orders. Defense organizations are also likely to be larger in size and may have a greater need for some of the management innovations. The research also indicated that larger organizations were more likely to adopt innovations. Defense organizations tended to agree that they had management commitment

18

to the innovation more than non-defense organizations, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Correlation statistics and additional analysis of the specific innovations were used to assess the association between the specific management innovation chosen and specific organizational and individual variables. Organizational type correlation was statistically significant with adoption of Total Quality Management (p = .016), Lean Six Sigma (p = .000), Enterprise Resource Planning (p = .000), Knowledge Management (p = .044), Pay for Performance (p = 000), and Rightsizing (p = .000) being greater for defense organizations. The adoption of 360 Degree Feedback (p = .020) was found to be significantly higher for non-defense organizations. As an additional analysis, the management innovations were coded as either technical or administrative innovations using the definitions proposed by Damanpour (2008).

Technical innovations were defined as changes to the processes and products that relate to the basic work activity of the organization. The following technical innovations were identified: Total Quality Management, Lean Six Sigma, Enterprise Resource Planning, Business Process Reengineering, Supply Chain Management, and Capability Maturity Model. All of the technical innovations had statistically significant correlation with each other. Administrative innovations were defined as changes that relate to organizational structure and management processes that are only indirectly related to the basic work activities. The following administrative innovations were identified: Activity Based Costing, Matrix Management, Knowledge Management, Pay for Performance, Benchmarking, 360 Degree Feedback, Core Competencies, Self Directed Teams, Balanced Scorecard, Rightsizing, and Earned Value Management. Pay for Performance showed very little correlation with any of the other administrative innovations. All of the remaining administrative innovations had statistically significant correlation with each other, except for 360 Degree Feedback and Rightsizing. Only organizational type was significantly related to the different type of innovation. Defense organizations adopted a significantlyhigher percentage of the technical innovations under study than did non-defense organizations; defense organizations adopted an

19

average of 65% of the technical innovations, whereas non-defense organizations adopted 37% of them. Defense organizations adopted only 9% more of the administrative innovations than the non-defense organizations.

The management innovations most frequently adopted were CoreCompetencies, Benchmarking, 360 Degree Feedback, Balanced Scorecard, Pay for Performance, Business Process Reengineering, Matrix Management, Self-Directed Cross-Functional Work Teams, Total Quality Management, and Knowledge Management. Rightsizing and Total Quality Management, adopted in the early to mid-90s, appeared to have been the earliest management innovations adopted. Lean Six Sigma and Knowledge Management, with a mean adoption year of 2005, appeared to have been the latest management innovations adopted.

Organizations that had between 50,000 and 100,000 personnel had the highest average score of innovations adopted, adopting onaverage 9.5 of the 17 innovations presented. Organizations of 10,000-50,000 personnel had the second highest average scores, adopting on average 9.1 of the 17 innovations. The smallest organizations, fewer than 1,000 personnel, adopted the smallest number of innovations, adopting an average of 7.9 out of the 17 innovations.

Analysis indicated that defense organizations adopted about two more innovations on average than the non-defense organizations. Out of the 17 innovations studied, defense organizations adopted roughly 10 of the innovations (M = 9.78, SD = 3.25) while non-defense organizations adopted roughly 8 (M = 7.90, SD = 3.27). To investigate whether defense and non-defense organizations differ in innovation adoption, a t test wascomputed. [The following assumptions were tested and met: a) groups were approximately the same size, b) observations were independent, and c) the dependent variable was approximately normally distributed.] There was a statistically significant difference between defense and non-defense organizations on innovation adoption, t(252) = 3.52, p < .001 (two-tailed), d = .57. Defense organizations (M = 9.78, SD = 3.25) reported a greater number of innovation adoptions than did the non-defense organizations (M = 7.90, SD = 3.27), and the effect size was medium, based on what is typical in behavioral science studies.

20

The confidence interval for the difference between the means was .996 to 2.76, which indicates that defense organizations are likely to adopt as few as one or as many as three more innovations than non-defense organizations for a sample of 17 innovations.

The researcher expected that defense organizations would adopt management innovations earlier than non-defense federal organizations. The management innovations selected had a large range in the year of adoption, with year of adoption varying by more than 20 years. The first year of adoption was noted, and thelatest year and the mean year of all responses was calculated forboth defense and non-defense organizations.

The second hypothesis on organizational type states that defense organizations will adopt a management innovation earlier in the adoption life cycle than non-defense organizations. For each of the four innovations for which there was a sufficient sample of defense and non-defense respondents, an analysis was conducted. A t test was computed to investigate whether defense and non-defense organizations differed in the year of adoption for each of the following four innovations: Lean Six Sigma, Business Process Reengineering, Pay for Performance and Total Quality Management. There was no statistically significant difference found between defense and non-defense organizations onyear of adoption for these four innovations. On average, defense organizations adopted Lean Six Sigma one year earlier and Business Process Reengineering six years earlier than non-defenseorganizations. Non-defense organizations adopted Pay for Performance two years earlier and Total Quality Management one year earlier than defense organizations. These results should be viewed with caution because of the small sample size of some of the specific management innovations chosen, and because of the different innovation adoption life cycles of the innovations.

Based on the literature review, the researcher expected thatthere would be a correlation between the extent of the appearanceof management innovations in the business and academic press and innovation adoption. For each of the management innovations understudy, the number of ABI/Inform occurrences was recorded for eachone-year period, from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 2008.The life cycle profiles for each innovation were graphed and

21

figure 2 shows an overlay of those with the highest number of occurrences in the literature.

W aves of M anagem ent Innovations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

14001980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Year of Publication

ABI/Inform Hits

Enterprise Resource Planning Balanced ScorecardPay for Perform ance Total Q uality M anagem entBusiness Process Reengineering Supply Chain M anagem entActivity Based Costing Knowledge M anagem entLean Six Sigm a

Figure H18. Waves of Management Innovations in ABI/Inform database 1980-2008.

Next, for each of the specific management innovations adopted, the year of adoption for each innovation was plotted onto the life cycle profile of each of the management innovationsto determine if patterns existed to better understand the timing of adoption of management innovations by defense and non-defense federal organizations in relationship to Rogers’ categories of innovativeness. The graph of Total Quality Management indicates that a number of federal government organizations adopted that innovation before its popularity in ABI/Inform. The mean year of federal organization adoption of TQM was 1993, which was the same

22

year that it peaked in its occurrence in the media. Three of the four innovation adoption profiles suggest that defense and non-defense organizations adopt an innovation approximately two yearsfollowing its rise in popularity in the ABI/Inform database articles. Business Process Reengineering received its peak media attention in 1995, which was five years earlier than the mean year of adoption of the federal organizations. Lean Six Sigma peaked in media attention in 2005, and Pay for Performance peakedin 2006. The mean year of adoption of federal organizations was the same year as the innovation’s peak year. Stated another way, there appears to be a two- year lag in adoption of management innovations and their increase in occurrence in the academic and business literature. This appears to support the theory of management fashion (Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999) in that leadersadopt the management innovations that frequently appear in the literature, possibly because they seek to be perceived as rational, progressive, or fashionable.

When respondents were asked about their adoption of specificmanagement innovations, nearly 55% tended to agree or strongly agree with the statement that “this management approach is a fad that will readily be replaced with something new,” and only 29% eitherdisagreed or strongly disagreed. Additionally, 40% of the respondents agreed that their organization had adopted the management innovation because it had been adopted in other agencies, and 35%were not sure. This suggests that organizations are influenced bythe adoption of others and many of these management innovations are viewed as fads by the federal executives that adopt them or implement them.

Limitations of the research

The research was not able to determine or isolate the causalforces, so there could be alternative explanations for adoption of the innovations. Causal attributions should not be made from this research, as this was a cross-sectional study of federal organizations and their adoption of management innovations. Each of the management innovations faced very different economic, political, and social environmental forces during the adoption decision process.

23

The data used for the analysis was primarily based on perceptive measures and was susceptible to perceptual biases. There is a risk that respondents may have reconstructed their views to fit their own perceptions of what went right or wrong with the innovation adoption. The federal government requires senior executives to encourage innovation and creativity within their organizations. To obtain a promotion to the highest level of federal civilian service, managers must demonstrate their competence at encouraging innovation and leading change in their organization. Managers may have therefore wanted to appear progressive, even in an anonymous survey, and may have answered questions on their innovativeness or the innovativeness of their organization more positively than realistically.

The list of management innovations under study was created from the literature review and expert knowledge, but may not havefocused on all of the major management innovations adopted by federal organizations. The respondents were only asked to answer detailed questions about one innovation of which they had knowledge, and only four of the innovations had a sufficient number of responses to allow statistical analysis. The researcherdid not have the ability to verify the accuracy of the information provided in the survey.

Conclusions

This research contributes an empirical test to the theory ofinnovation adoption in general and to federal organizations in particular. The findings in this study are consistent with theoretical linkages that propose that organizations adopt management innovations because of a number of environmental, organizational, and individual factors. This research also extends the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003) as a theoretical framework for the study of management innovation adoption for organizational strategy and decision-making.

The present study reviewed management fad, management fashion, innovation diffusion, and organizational culture literature, and developed a conceptual model for empirically examining adoption of management innovations. Respondents included 252 federal managers from a broad selection of defense

24

and other federal departments and agencies. A quantitative approach enabled the researcher to identify the influence of several factors on innovation adoption. Although similar studies in the literature have explored the influence of a set of factorson innovation adoption, few have attempted to test these factors for a large number of management innovations or in federal government organizations.

The study found that groups of environmental, organizational, and individual manager influences singularly and jointly influenced adoption of management innovations. Organizational factors were the most influential. Specifically, this research found that external pressures, organizational slackresources, organizational risk-taking, organizational size, and managerial socialization were all statistically significant in their influence on adoption of management innovations. This research also found that outside political pressure, influence from management consultants, and changes brought about by presidential elections all contributed to adoption. Significant differences were found in the number of innovations adopted by defense versus non-defense organizations; defense organizations adopted more of the management innovations than non-defense organizations, but did not appear to adopt them earlier. Defense organizations perceived more mandates to adopt innovations. Because most of the respondents believed that the adoption of theinnovation was mandatory, it is possible that the military culture, which stresses the need to follow orders, comes into play when organizations are directed to adopt a management innovation.

A management innovation had increased media attention for about two years before it was adopted by federal organizations. Federal organizations appeared to adopt innovations at the peak of media attention, indicating that managers are watching to see what is working for others prior to adopting innovations in theirown organizations. Managers tended to agree that new management approaches were brought in as a result of changes in political leadership, and most of the respondents perceived their adoption of the innovations as involuntary. Although the innovations were often mandated, the managers did not believe that the innovationswere adequately resourced to achieve success. Only half of the

25

managers thought that they had received sufficient training on the management innovation. The frequent change in management innovations may account for more than half of the mangers perceiving that the management innovations they adopted were temporary fads that would soon be replaced with something new.

The federal managers surveyed were primarily members of the federal executive branch. The executive branch is tasked to carryout the will of the congress and the public sector. Even with thepolitical appointees in senior positions, they are driven by the political agenda of the chief executive and charged with executing the priorities of the executive branch. The appointees must work within the existing organizational structure and work with the career government employees to affect change.

The executive branch as an executor is necessarily tactically focused toward short-term goals as defined by the federal government budget process. This strong tactical focus causes a general disincentive for strategic planning and investment in longer term improvements. Additionally, the bureaucratic policies of the federal government are intentionallyestablished in a set of checks and balances that prevent quick shifts in policy and funding. The bureaucracy and time lag associated with submitting a strategic requirement and establishing funding for it would take years. As a result, innovation is viewed as something that is created or adopted to meet a current or near-term need. The federal government appropriates funding for research and development, and science and technology innovations focused on product innovation. There is no indication that they plan, prioritize, or budget for management improvements, and hence these innovations are tactically and politically driven to respond to the current environment.

While the innovation characteristics were all viewed positively for the innovations adopted, management innovations may be adopted in the federal government for very different reasons than in the private sector. Federal government organizations are not motivated or measured by the same criteria and considerations as the private sector.

Successful adoption and implementation of these management innovations is not driven by profit or efficiency of the bottom

26

line, but by what contributes to making either the individual manager or their organization look better. It appears that federal government organizations adopt innovations as a more tactical decision. By adopting those innovations that receive wide media attention, they are hoping to demonstrate that they are being progressive. The value of the innovation adoption is determined by the current political agenda of the federal government, and this agenda is driven by expected personal or organizational gains.

For these and other reasons, the pursuit and adoption of innovation in the federal government is not comparable to the private sector. In general, innovation in the federal government is not pursued for efficiency, return on investment, competitive advantage, or profitability. Instead, it appears as though innovation is pursued as a fashion or a fad. This study found that federal government’s adoption of innovations tended to lag the innovation’s rise in popularity by approximately two years. It appears as though federal managers wait to see what has workedfor other private and public organizations and then they adopt those that are perceived as the most successful at the time.

The federal government’s delay in innovation adoption can beviewed as a reactionary response. Federal managers adopt management innovations as they react to executive pressure and public demands. They want to demonstrate to the public that they are taking actions to be more efficient, to deliver better customer service, or to improve the fair treatment of their employees. One of the consequences of this reactionary approach is that federal government organizations do not commit to the long-term implementation of a particular innovation. They frequently lose motivation soon after the initial surge of focus,priority, and resource allocation, and then the leader’s commitment to the innovation wanes. Often a new management approach comes into vogue and the organization is redirected toward the new initiative; ultimately leaving the workforce frustrated over the efforts they put toward achieving the previous innovation’s objectives, and jaded toward future management innovations.

Implications for management scholars and practitioners

27

Findings from this study are useful to management innovationresearchers. Scholars can use the framework established in this study for more in-depth examination of the factors surrounding innovation adoption. Particularly compelling is the need for future studies that explore the political environment and how it influences adoption of management innovations in federal government. It has been suggested that the federal government frequently switches its attention to the latest management innovations, often because of political influence, and fails to achieve the full benefits that could be gained from continuing aninnovation longer. Scholars and management gurus advocating the innovations have indicated that the organization must remain withthe innovation for several years to realize the full benefits andrecoup their return on investment. Most of the management innovations require a large investment in training, tools, and workforce effort for which the organization may not achieve a positive return and may even expend resources unnecessarily or wastefully. Additionally, the continual switch in management innovations often causes the employees to view management and management practices with cynicism. This study offers a broad perspective by including a large number of management innovations, federal organizations, adoption factors, and characteristics of innovations to better explain innovation adoption.

This study demonstrated an approach to mapping organizational adoptions to the management innovation life cycle.Additional data on adoption years would have allowed the researcher to establish the extent of the correlation between theoccurrences of the management innovations in the business and academic press and adoption in the organization. Future research should test what appears to be a two-year lag in adoption of the innovations by federal organizations. It would be interesting to explore what influenced or caused this lag. Without additional data, it appears as though federal managers are influenced to adopt innovations to appear more progressive and proactive in response to political influence. The political influence could bein response to chief executive turnover and political appointee assignments, to the public’s cry for greater efficiency and

28

greater customer service in federal government, to outside management consultants acting as advocates for the innovations, or any combination of these.

29

References

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586-612.

Abrahamson, E. (1996a). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254-285.

Abrahamson, E. (1996b). Management fashion, academic fashion, andenduring truths. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 616.

Abrahamson, E. (1997). The emergence and prevalence of employee management rhetorics: The effects of long waves, labor unions, and turnover, 1875 to 1992. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 491-533.

Abrahamson, E., & Bartner, L. R. (1990). When do bandwagon diffusions roll? How far do they go? And when do they roll backwards? A computer simulation. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 19, 155-159.

Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.

Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 728-755.

Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects onthe extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8(3), 289-309.

Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.

30

Baldridge, J. V., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 165-176.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change.(Statistical Data Included). Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133.

Berry, F. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 322.

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825-845.

Borins, S. (2000). What border: Public management innovation in the United States and Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(1), 46-74.

Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(8), 467-476.

Byrne, G. T. (2007). Driving operational innovation using Lean Six Sigma. IBM Global Business Services, IBM Institute for Business Value. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/publications/grant_reports/details/index.asp?GID=283

Byrne, J. A. (1986). Business fads: What's in and what's out. Business Week, 20, 40-47.

Cameron, K. (2004). A process for changing organizational culture. In M. Driver (Ed.), The Handbook of Organizational Development. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from www.competingvalues.com/pdf/changingculture.pdf

Cameron, K., & Smart, J. (2001). Maintaining effectiveness amid downsizing and decline in institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(1), 65-86.

31

Carson, P. P., Lanier, P. A., Carson, K. D., & Birkenmeier, B. J.(1999). A historical perspective on fad adoption and abandonment. Journal of Management History, 5(6), 320-333.

Carson, P. P., Lanier, P. A., Carson, K. D., & Guidry, B. N. (2000). Clearing a path through the management fashion jungle: Some preliminary trailblazing. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1143.

Chandler, G., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. (2000). Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59-76.

Chavda, K. A. (2004). Determinants of an innovation supportive organizational culture in local governments. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 2004). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis of behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.

Collins, D. (2003). The branding of management knowledge: Rethinking management "fads." Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(2), 186.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. New York: Harper Business, HarperCollins.

Connor, D. R. (1993). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard Books.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cooper, J. R. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoptionof innovation. Management Decision, 36(8), 493.

32

Damanpour, F. (1983). Technical versus administrative rates of organizational innovation: A study of "organizational lag." (Doctoral dissertations, University of Pennsylvania, 1983). ProQuest Dissertations andTheses.

Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675.

Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392-409.

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3),215-236.

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2008). Characteristics of innovation and the innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Accepted for the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, September 2008.

Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L., & Wilson, H. J. (2003). What's the big idea? Creating and capitalizing on the best management thinking. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Department of Defense. (2005, February). Department of Defense budget is released: Fiscal 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of DefensePublic Affairs. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050207-2066.html

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

Du Gay, P. (1996). Organizing identity: Entrepreneurial governance and public management. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity (pp. 151-169). London: Sage.

33

Ettorre, B. (1997). What's the next buzzword? Management Review, 86(8), 33-35.

Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 54-70.

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(2), 163-176.

George, M. L. (2002). Lean six sigma: Combining six sigma quality with lean speed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Granovetter, M. (1979). The idea of "advancement" in theories of evolution and development. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 489-515.

Hamel, G. (2007). Management innovation. Leadership Excellence, pp. 72-84.

Huczynski, A. A. (1993). Explaining the succession of management fads. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(2), 443-463.

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(4),689-713.

Lockard, J. A. (2000). Naval Aviation Systems Team: The year in review - 1999 Annual Report. Washington, DC: Naval Air Systems Command.

Machiavelli, N. (1514). The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1988.

34

Maleyeff, J. (2007). Improving service delivery in government with Lean Six Sigma: IBM Center for The Business of Government. Lally School of Management & Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Hartford Campus. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.businessofgovernment.org

Manley, K., & McFallan, S. (2003, June). Innovation adoption behaviour in the construction sector: The case of the Queensland road industry. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Loughborough University, United Kingdom.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (2005). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott & Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (6th ed., pp. 505-520). New York: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Mickelthwait, J., & Woolridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors: Making sense of the management gurus. New York: Random House.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate andemergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257-272.

Moch, M. K., & Morse, E. V. (1977). Size, centralization and organizational adoption of innovations. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 716-725.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrumentto measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.

Office of Personnel Management (2006). Guide to the Senior Executive Service Qualifications. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://www.opm.gov /ses/recruitment/qualify.asp

Parker, L. D., & Ritson, P. (2005). Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today. Management Decision, 43(10), 1335-1358.

35

Roberto, M. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2005). The art of making change initiatives stick. Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 53-63.

Robinson, B. (2008, March 3). DoD rallies around Lean Six Sigma. Federal Computer Week, 32-36.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: TheFree Press.

Sanders, T. J. (2007). Factors influencing the adoption of administrative innovations. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2007). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Schneider, M. (2007). Do attributes of innovative administrative practices influence their adoption? An exploratory study of U.S. local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 598-622.

Spell, C. S. (1999). Where do management fashions come from, and how long do they stay? Journal of Management History, 5(6), 334-348.

Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 523-556.

Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, J. K. (1982, February). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28-45.

Towill, D. R. (2006). Fadotomy - anatomy of the transformation ofa fad into a management paradigm. Journal of Management History, 12(3), 319-338.

Watson, T. J. (1994). Management 'flavours of the month': Their role in managers' lives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(4), 893-909.

36

Wilson, A. L., Ramamurthy, K., & Nystrom, P. C. (1999). A multi-attribute measure for innovation adoption: The context of imaging technology. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(3), 311.

37