The paper "Model of Exploring the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations " is an outstanding example of a business assignment. The authors are keen to understand the linking role that compatibility plays between the culture of an organization and the management of innovations therein. Organizational culture has amassed great prominence as a concept for comprehending organizations. Many studies continue to underline the vital roles of organizational culture in the outcomes and activities of an organization, including innovativeness, learning, restructuring, change implementation, creativity, innovativeness, failure and success. Organizational culture is generally understood as the shared assumptions, beliefs and values held by the members of an organization.
Organizational culture therefore generally determines the strategies, goals, practices, and objectives of the members of the organization (Pride, Hughes & Kapoor, 2014). It essentially impacts on the outcomes and behaviors within an organization. On the other hand, innovation is equally a very important aspect in organizations that drives success. Organizational culture becomes compatible with innovation when the members of the organization have beliefs and values that are similar to the beliefs and values that are espoused by a given innovation.
Consequently, compatibility denotes the intimate relationship between innovation and the culture of the organization. While innovation and organizational culture incompatible organizations are complementary to each other, incompatible organizations, on the other hand, have an organizational culture (beliefs and values) that are not the similar (Ax & Greve, 2017). It is therefore widely held that changes in innovation (practices) which are not in harmony with the established cultural beliefs and values will be met with resistance from the members of the organization. A majority of studies, therefore, assert that new practices/ innovations will be successfully (smoothly) implemented when the culture of the organization is in harmony with the beliefs and values that are embedded in the innovation. In a study involving over a thousand manufacturing organizations in New Zealand and Australia concerning the adoption of various manufacturing practices (innovations) like continuous improvement, customer focus, benchmarking, and total quality management, it was noted that the rates of adoption increased with the compatibility of the beliefs and values associated with the innovations and the adopting organization’ s culture.
However, a number of other interacting factors are known to influence the adoption of innovations (Samson & Daft, 2015).
It was seen that in the early adopters, the influence of the culture of the organization was much stronger while the issues of compatibility declined as time progressed. It has been suggested that this decreasing impact of compatibility could be due to the knowledge entrepreneurs’ theorizations, practice institutionalization, as well as imitative behavior. It has thus become increasingly important to understand the various dynamic factors (such as timing) that affect the adoption of innovations by organizations. It has for a long time been assumed that adoption was a result of a direct and static link between organizational culture and innovation.
According to Ax & Greve, (2017), previous models have not been successful in explaining why compatible organizations may reject certain innovations at certain stages of adoption, while other incompatible organizations may do so at a late stage. It is also important to understand why some innovations are adopted and equally rejected by organizations with similar cultures. Therefore, while the authors realize that compatibility has a great degree of influence, other factors which have previously remained unexplored are also important, including timing.
It is thus essential to understand how compatibility can be impeded by other previously unknown factors.
Ax, C., & Greve, J. (2017). Adoption of Management Accounting Innovations: Organizational Culture Compatibility and Perceived Outcomes. Management Accounting Research, 34, 59-74. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.007.
Hoggett, J. (2012). Accounting. Milton, Qld.: John Wiley and Sons Australia.
Mowen, M. M., Hansen, D. R., & Heitger, D. L. (2012).Cornerstones of managerial accounting. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Pride, W. M., Hughes, R. J., & Kapoor, J. R. (2014). Business. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Robbins, S. P. (2011). Management. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Australia.
Samson, D., & Daft, R. L. (2015). Management. South Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2014). Management. Milton, Qld.: John Wiley and Sons Australia.
Shtub, A. (2016). Project Management. Place of publication not identified: Pearson.
Wadhwa, M., & Harper, A. (2014). Technology, Innovation, and Enterprise Transformation. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.