The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance
Jane M. Howella,*, Christine M. Sheab
b

Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada The Whittemore School of Business & Economics, The University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA accepted 25 August 2000

Abstract Although increasing evidence points to the importance of champions for keeping product innovation ideas alive and thriving, little is known about how champions identify potential product innovation ideas, how they present these ideas to gain much needed support from key stakeholders, and their impact on innovation project performance over time. Jane M. Howell and Christine M. Shea address this knowledge gap by using measures of individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing and champion behavior to predict the performance of 47 product innovation projects. Champion behavior was dened as expressing condence in the innovation, involving and motivating others to support the innovation, and persisting under adversity. Interviews with 47 champions were conducted to collect information about the innovation projects and the champions tendency to frame the innovation as an opportunity or threat. Survey data were obtained from three sources: 47 champions provided information on their personal characteristics (locus of control and breadth of interest) and activities (environmental scanning), 47 division managers subjectively assessed project performance at two points in time, and 237 innovation team members rated the frequency of champion behavior. The results revealed that an internal locus of control orientation was positively related to framing the innovation as an opportunity, and breadth of interest was positively related to environmental scanning. Environmental scanning of documents and framing the innovation as a threat was negatively related to champion behavior, while environmental scanning through people was positively related to champion behavior. Champion behavior positively predicted project performance over a one-year interval. Overall, the ndings suggest that in scanning the environment for new ideas, the most effective source of information is the champions personal network of people inside and outside the organization. Also, the simple labeling of an idea as a threat appears to diminish a champions perceived inuence and erode credibility in promoting an innovation. From the perspective of division managers, champions make a positive contribution to project performance over time, reinforcing the crucial role that champions play in new product development process. 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Champions are heralded as the heroes of product innovation in organizations. Many eld and case studies have demonstrated that champions, individuals who informally emerge and make a decisive contribution to the innovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progress through the [critical] organizational stages ([1], p.14), are critical for product innovation success. By initiating frequent and varied inuence attempts, obtaining critical management support and resources, and displaying persistence
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-519-661-3263; fax: 1-519-6613495. E-mail address: jhowell@ivey.uwo.ca (J.M. Howell).

in achieving project goals, champions are able to overcome the inertia and resistance that radical change provokes to bring product innovation attempts to successful fruition [9,18,40,41]. In a recent study, 75% of the CEOs of large manufacturing organizations reported that faster and more effective new product development would most improve their rms competitiveness, compared to improving their manufacturing processes or making new plant and equipment purchases [19]. In fact, few product development projects fully deliver on their early promise [71]. While it is commonly believed that 60% of new product development initiatives achieve success in the marketplace, research by Stevens and Burley [66] demonstrated that, when looking at the full range of a new product development projects progress from raw idea

0737-6782/01/$ see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 3 7 - 6 7 8 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 7 - 9

16

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

to market success, the success rate is much lower. At the front end, their research showed that a full 90% of raw ideas actually never advanced beyond the idea generators desktop. Particularly relevant to the product champions role in fostering product innovation were the remaining 10% of ideas that succeeded in advancing beyond the drawing board to the small project stage. Of these, only 3% obtained the backing to develop into signicant projects, less than 2% became major development efforts, less than 1% were ever launched commercially, and only 0.3% achieved commercial success. Thus, approximately 3000 raw innovative ideas were required to yield one commercially successful new product. Stevens and Burleys [66] research implies that new product development efforts depend, in part, on champions to initially recognize potential winners among the myriad of raw new product ideas generated by innovators, and then to persistently work at gathering the support and resources needed to advance those ideas through the various project stages to successful commercial launch. Although the importance of champions for leading the new product development process is a recurring theme in the product innovation literature [9,13,15,17,20,24,35], rigorous empirical evaluation of these individuals is lacking [40]. Prior studies of champions have suffered from several conceptual and methodological problems including unreliable identication of champions and reliance on anecdotal evidence [40]. Even when champions have been reliably identied and studied using valid measures, there are limitations in the operationalization of the champion construct. Typically the champion construct has been operationalized as the presence or absence of a champion, which fails to acknowledge that there may be degrees of championship. Furthermore, the behaviors of champions have not been well specied to date. Recent research has conceptualized and measured championship as a continuous variable, rather than binary. Using the act frequency method, Howell, Shea, and Higgins [41] developed and validated a 16-item measure of champion behavior which consisted of three factors: communicating condence in the innovation, building support for and involvement in the innovation, and persisting in the face of adversity. They found that the interaction of personal (need for achievement, innovativeness, risk taking, and locus of control) and contextual (organizational support for innovation) variables were positively related to the frequency of champion behavior. In turn, champion behavior was related to project performance. The new measure of champion behavior developed by Howell et al. [41] enables researchers to study other key determinants and effects of champion behavior. For instance, little is known about how champions identify potential product innovation ideas. The entrepreneur and innovation literatures suggest that scanning the environment for information is critical in order to identify promising opportunities to be exploited [10,26,45,47]. Further, prior research indicates that one important personality characteris-

tic of individuals who engage in environmental scanning is breadth of interest. The extant literature implies that seeking and obtaining information from diverse sources may be pivotal for champions to successfully generate and mobilize support around new ideas [9,45]. Thus the rst purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships between breadth of interest, environmental scanning and champion behavior. Beyond identifying potential product innovation ideas, little is known about how champions present these ideas to gain much needed support from key stakeholders in the organization. Van de Ven [70] pointed out that one of the key issues in managing innovation is how to trigger the action thresholds of individuals to appreciate and pay attention to new ideas, needs and opportunities. Recent theoretical and empirical work on the issue selling process highlights how middle managers attract top managements attention to and support for novel ideas through the meaning creation process [7,21,22]. This literature suggests that how champions frame ideas may contribute to their inuence and ultimate success in promoting innovations in organizations. Moreover, an individual difference variable, locus of control, has been theoretically related to framing issues as threats and opportunities [23]. To date, the linkages between individual differences, idea framing, and champion behavior have not been explored empirically. Thus the second purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships between locus of control, innovation framing, and champion behavior. Previous eld research examining the relationship between the presence of champions and innovation project performance has been primarily correlational in nature. Longitudinal studies of the inuence of champions on innovation project performance are rare. Thus the nal purpose of the present study was to study the impact of champion behaviors on innovation project performance over a one-year period. The above relationships between the determinants and outcomes of champion behavior are depicted in Fig. 1. Specically, certain personal characteristics (i.e., locus of control and breadth of interest) are hypothesized to be related to activities (i.e., environmental scanning) and skills (i.e., framing). These activities and skills, in turn, are hypothesized to be related to champion behavior and, ultimately, project performance over time. The studys hypotheses are developed below. 2. Hypotheses development 2.1. Breadth of interest, environmental scanning and champion behavior Researchers on product innovation contend that in order to identify potentially successful new product ideas and energize the innovation process, champions need to procure information from diverse sources both inside and outside

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

17

Fig. 1. Hypothesized relationships between the determinants and outcomes of champion behavior.

the organization [4,46,47]. Burgelman and Sayles [10] noted that corporate ventures required champions who link promising technical problems with internal and external scientic knowledge and technical developments in the lab with market demand in identifying innovations that have the most potential of commercial success. Their work complements Aldrichs [2] observation that managers who engaged in environmental scanning collected a richer array of information and were more condent that they could create a t between their market environment and organization when data from external sources were added to their familiarity with internal factors. Indeed Floyd and Wooldridge [26] found that certain middle managers within innovating rms searched for new opportunities and proposed and justied new ideas to higher level managers more than others. The match between new product ideas and the marketplace arose most often from interactions with customers, suppliers and technologists, and individuals who were more strategically involved in promoting new ideas engaged in more frequent external communications. The accumulated empirical evidence suggests that individuals who scan for critical information internally and externally are more likely to recognize opportunities, and therefore are more likely to engage in champion behavior. Collectively the extant research leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Environmental scanning will be positively related to champion behavior.

and seek knowledge from different sources may be more likely to engage in environmental scanning.
Hypothesis 2: Breadth of interest will be positively related to environmental scanning.

2.2. Locus of control, innovation framing and champion behavior Champions, in supplying information and ideas to top management about external and internal events, are not objective sources of data. They are often able to control, or at least inuence, top management perceptions by framing information in certain ways [26]. The extant literature on strategic issue interpretation suggests that labeling an issue as a threat or opportunity has a powerful inuence on how top managers come to see the situation [23,43]. Opportunities are associated with projected positive outcomes and expectations of gain, whereas threats are associated with negative outcomes and expectations of loss [23]. Labeling an issue as a threat or an opportunity generates substantially different reactions from individuals. Threats are personally aversive and individuals withdraw from them, while opportunities are attractive and generate feelings of external control [43]. These differences in individual reactions inuence the process by which the two types of issues are resolved. When confronted with a threat issue, managers constrict control by reducing participation and increasing centralized decision-making. Conversely, in responding to opportunities, managers seek involvement in the process of resolving the issues and participation occurs at lower levels of the organization [23]. According to Thomas, Clark, and Gioia [67], labeling issues as opportunities enhances the potential for managers to take strategic change action such as altering product-service offerings,

The strategy literature claims that environmental scanning and extraorganizational professional activities of members can spawn innovative ventures [37,55]. Moreover, theory and research suggests that individuals who promote innovation initiatives tend to be characterized by broad general knowledge and experience in a wide range of domains [3,49]. Thus individuals who have diverse interests

18

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

since their condence in achieving desired outcomes is high. Recent empirical evidence indicates entrepreneurs interpret equivocal scenarios more as representing opportunities, strengths and improvements than nonentrepreneurs [62]. They appear to frame a given situation more positively than negatively, thereby focusing on the high probability of favorable outcomes. In contrast, nonentrepreneurs may not share this positive view, leading them to react more cautiously. Entrepreneurs and champions differ: entrepreneurs start their own business, whereas champions work inside large organizations [63]. However, both entrepreneurs and champions share a passionate devotion to innovation [63]. Extrapolating from research on entrepreneurs, individuals who are inclined to frame an innovation as an opportunity to be exploited may engage in more frequent champion behavior. Framing the innovation as an opportunity which broadens the involvement and contribution of key stakeholders in the innovation may enable individuals to gain widespread enthusiasm and support for the innovation. Moreover, since individual status and credibility are enhanced when presenting the idea as an opportunity [23], framing the innovation as an opportunity is likely to be positively related to champion behavior. In contrast, labeling an innovation as a response to a threat, which restricts involvement in the innovation and excludes participation of lower levels of management, is expected to be negatively related to champion behavior. We thus hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a: Framing the innovation as an opportunity will be positively related to champion behavior. Hypothesis 3b: Framing the innovation as a threat will be negatively related to champion behavior.

tive, proactive, risk embracing strategy. In contrast, externals viewed their environment as having many rigid boundaries that could not be violated leading to a conservative business strategy. Given its relationship with perceptions of control, locus of control may affect individuals framing of an innovation as an opportunity or threat. Control is one of the hallmark characteristics that distinguish between threat and opportunity [23,43]. Therefore we reason that individuals with an internal orientation will be more likely to frame an innovation as an opportunity (high controllability), whereas those with an external orientation will be more likely to frame an innovation as a threat (low controllability).
Hypothesis 4a: An internal orientation will be positively related to framing the innovation as an opportunity. Hypothesis 4b: An external orientation will be positively related to framing the innovation as a threat.

2.3. Champion behavior and project performance In their theoretical model of the factors inuencing innovation speed, Kessler and Chakrabarti [50] argued that product champions can accelerate the product innovation process by gathering and applying external information to development activities, actively promoting the innovation to key stakeholders, maneuvering the innovation through bureaucratic barriers, securing resources to support the innovation, and communicating effectively with all parties. Howell and her colleagues [41] demonstrated that champion behavior was positively associated with innovation project performance. Similarly, Markham and Grifn [53] reported that the presence of champions was positively related to higher levels of new product development performance that, in turn, positively affected rm-level performance. However, results from a study by Markham [52] did not support the notion that champions positively contributed to project performance, as perceived by innovation team members. Markhams contrary ndings may be attributed to the fact that he examined the impact of team members level of compliance and willingness to comply with champions inuence attempts on project performance, rather than the direct effect of champions presence or behaviors on project performance. A notable limitation in the extant literature investigating the relationship between the presence of champions and project success is the cross-sectional design of the studies. An unanswered question is whether the positive impact of champion behavior on project performance can be sustained over time. Drawing on prior cross-sectional research that generally supports a positive relationship between champion behavior and project performance, we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 5a: Champion behavior will be positively related to project performance. Hypothesis 5b: Champion behavior will positively predict project performance over a one-year period.

Strategic issue characterization may be inuenced by individual differences. One personality characteristic that may predispose individuals to recognize a particular issue as either a threat or opportunity is locus of control [23]. Individuals with an internal orientation believe they have the ability to inuence the direction of events, whereas individuals with an external orientation believe events are beyond their control. Prior research indicates that internally oriented individuals in organizations exhibit greater condence in their ability to inuence the environment, are more capable in dealing with stressful situations, place greater reliance on open and supportive means of inuence, pursue riskier and more innovative company strategies, introduce more new product innovations and change product lines more frequently and more dramatically, possess more entrepreneurial qualities, and generate higher group and company performance than do externally oriented managers [5,31,51,56, 57]. Furthermore, in their study of chief executives strategy making behavior, Miller and his colleagues [56] concluded that internals perceived constraints in the environment as loose and malleable and turned competitors challenges into opportunities for innovation, thereby leading to an innova-

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

19

3. Method 3.1. Description of innovations For the purpose of the present study, a product innovation was dened as a new technology or a combination of technologies introduced commercially to meet either an external users or a markets need [50,54,69]. Product innovations were selected for study using four criteria. The rst criterion was that the innovation was new to the company on the dimension(s) of product, market, and/or technology. The second criterion was that the product had a development cycle of one and one-half to three years, to ensure broad consistency in complexity. The third criterion was that the innovation required signicant investments of company resources. To ensure more accurate recall of the innovation process by participants, the fourth criterion was that the product innovation was still in progress or very recently completed. 3.2. Sample Forty-seven new product innovations in the manufacturing industry were studied. The investigators contacted senior executives, either presidents or vice presidents, of large (in terms of sales) North American companies in this industry asking them to participate in the study. Preliminary interviews, either in person or by telephone, were conducted with the executives from these companies. During these interviews, the investigators explained to the executives the background and general purpose of the study and obtained from them an in-depth description of the innovation. Executives were assured of the condentiality of their data and that only aggregate data would be reported. Based on these interviews, thirteen organizations were identied as having been involved in new product development projects that met our criteria. These organizations nominated from 1 to 12 projects each (M 4), for a total of 47 product innovations. The projects varied in their perceived success, ranging from 2.8 to 5 on a 5-point scale. 3.3. Identication of champions While champions are widely touted as contributing signicantly to innovation success, prior research has been plagued by lack of reliable identication of champions and lack of specication of the various roles played by individuals in the innovation process. Thus many studies reportedly investigating champions may not be studying champions at all if they have been inappropriately identied [40]. In the present study, product champions were identied through in-depth interviews with company executives. Initially, via an open-ended question, company executives were asked to identify all current product innovations, including both successful and unsuccessful ones, and the key people involved in them. The executives were subse-

quently given a set of role denitions (project champion, technical innovator, business innovator, and chief executive) derived from the innovation literature [1]. Each executive then identied the person or persons who clearly t each of these roles. The executives were allowed to name anyone associated with the innovation and were told to leave it blank if no one t the role. Subsequent interviews with the nominated champion and innovation team members conrmed that the individual identied by the executive as the project champion did indeed act as the champion for the innovation. Several steps were taken to minimize attributional bias in identifying champions. First, executives were informed that the purpose of the study was to examine factors inuencing the introduction of product innovations. Thus the explicit purpose of the study was disguised. Second, the role descriptions identied from the literature were not identied as representing different champion roles. Thus executives were given a description of activities associated with various roles, but the actual roles were not labeled as project champion, technical innovator, and so on. 3.4. Procedure In order to minimize the problems associated with same source and common method bias [8], data were gathered from three sources: champions, innovation team members, and top division managers. Initially, interviews with champions were conducted using a structured protocol. The interview focused on (a) a description of the innovation, its contribution and impact; (b) the champions personal involvement in the innovation; (c) the initial receptiveness and commitment of key stakeholders to the innovation; (d) the strategies used by the champion to convince key stakeholders to support the innovation; (e) the champions information network; and (f) the champions history of involvement in innovations. Next, questionnaires were administered to champions (N 47) to assess their personality characteristics including breadth of interest and locus of control, and environmental scanning. Members of the innovation team (N 237) were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring their perceptions of the frequency of champion behaviors. At the time of the study and again one year later, top division managers (N 47) rated project performance. Questionnaires were returned directly via external mail to the investigators. Follow-up letters and phone calls were made to champions, team members and executives to ensure a high response rate. All of the questionnaires distributed to champions and top division managers were returned, a 100% response rate. The response rate for team members was 91% (N 216). On average, each champion had ve team members who rated his or her behavior. The average age of the champions in the sample was 44 years; 94% were male; and 45% possessed at least a Masters degree. Approximately 51% of the sample were from

20

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

engineering or research and development; the next largest category was general management (28%). On average, champions had worked for their organizations 11 years and had been in their current job for three years. The champions held a wide variety of positions and were involved in a broad range of projects. For example, one champion was an engineering and quality manager in the aerospace industry whose project involved the development and production ramp-up of an extremely low-leakage seal for a compressor application. Another champion was the product marketing manager for a rm in the electronics industry. He championed the development of a remote data storage facility for a producer of electronic data storage devices. Finally, a third champion worked as an engineer on the development for a remote inspection system used to detect ice on aircraft wings. Top division managers had an average age of 48 years, had been with the company nearly 13 years, and in their current job 4 years. The majority reported their functional area as general management (49%). Over 64% had advanced university degrees (e.g., Masters degrees or higher). Team members were, on average, 41 years old, had been with the company 10 years, and in their current job 4 years. Most team members were in engineering or R & D (53%). Over 71% of the sample had at least a university undergraduate degree.

3.4.2. Measures 3.4.2.1. Breadth of interest Breadth of interest was measured with 19 items from the Jackson Personality Research Form [42] using a true-false response format. Individuals scoring high on this scale are expected to show intellectual curiosity about a diversity of topics. In contrast, low scorers are expected to be concerned with a relatively narrow range of topics. Extensive empirical evaluation of the breadth of interest scale revealed satisfactory internal consistency reliability, minimal acquiescence and social desirability response biases, and adequate convergent and discriminant validity [42]. 3.4.2.2. Locus of control Locus of control was measured with 14 items from Rotters [65] scale. This shortened scale was developed based on the work of Mirels [58] and Gurin, Gurin, and Morrison [36], who reported multiple dimensions comprising the original 24-item locus of control scale. The items without high loadings on the political control subscales were selected. In our judgment, these subscales (some of which ask questions about the individuals general beliefs about his or her ability to inuence political decisions) appeared to be less relevant to assessing the core construct of interest in our study. The 14-item version of Rotters scale has been used in prior investigations of behavior in organizations [33]. This forced choice scale assesses whether people believe that events are contingent on their own behavior (internal orientation) or on external forces (external orientation). One point is given for each external response to a question. In the present study, this scale was reverse coded so that a higher score indicated a higher internal locus of control. 3.4.2.3. Environmental scanning Culnans [16] and OReillys [61] measures of internal and external information sources were adapted in the present study. Eleven information sources were listed including internal documents; magazines, journals, or other periodicals; newsletters; books; training or educational programs; conferences, seminars or trade shows; people in their work group; people outside of their workgroup; customers or suppliers; competitors; and people in other organizations. Participants responded, on 7-point scales, how frequently they used information from each source, ranging from never [1] to at least once a day [7]. 3.4.2.4. Innovation framing Innovation framing was dened as deliberately emphasizing some attributes of the innovation over others in order to attract stakeholders attention and interest. An innovation can be framed as either a response to a threat (e.g., We will lose market share if we dont support this new product initiative) or as taking advantage of an opportunity (e.g., We will gain market share if we support this new product initiative) [21]. We operationalized a threat as a negative situation, in which loss is likely and over which one has little control. Opportunity

3.4.1. Content analysis Transcripts of the champion interviews were content analyzed for the presence of themes related to innovation framing using the same procedure as Howell and Higgins [40]. Descriptions of framing the innovation as a threat or an opportunity were developed using theoretical and empirical work on the perceptions of issue characteristics as a guide [23,43]. Transcripts separate from those used in the study were selected to clarify the operationalization of the innovation framing construct. Two individuals independently coded these practice passages, discussed their ratings, and then claried the descriptions and decision rules for indicating the presence of the construct. Ten iterations of rating and discussion were completed before we felt there was unambiguous operationalization of innovation framing. The nal coding of these practice passages became the key on which the coders were trained and eventually tested. Two graduate students were recruited to code the interview transcripts. Using the precoded practice material and a description of the innovation framing construct, the students were trained so they understood and were able to code the interviews accurately, and met the criterion of 80% agreement with the key. In total, the training required 20 hr. Coders were unaware of the hypotheses of the study. In total, over 900 pages of transcripts were analyzed.

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

21

was operationally dened as a positive situation, in which gain is likely and over which one has a fair amount of control [23,43]. The innovation could be described as involving ve types of stakes, nancial, competition, reputation, providing a strategic rationale, and customer expectations [6,21], and each could be described as a threat or an opportunity. Passages describing the framing of the innovation were coded based on Dutton and her colleagues description of opportunities and threats [21,23,43]. Each passage of the interview was coded separately for framing the innovation as a threat or an opportunity, and the total count of threats and of opportunities was calculated. 3.4.2.5. Champion behavior To assess champion behavior, a 16-item measure developed by Howell et al. [41] using the act frequency methodology [12] was used. The measure consists of three factors: demonstrates conviction in the innovation, builds involvement and support, and persists under adversity. The nal 16-item scale is shown in Appendix A. Scale reliability and validity data are reported below in the data analysis section. In the present study, team members rated the frequency of champion behavior using a 5-point scale, ranging from not at all (0) to frequently if not always (4). 3.4.2.6. Project performance Subjective ratings of project performance were used in the present study. While more objective ratings such as percentage over budget or actual sales have been suggested [14], these numbers are actually interpreted subjectively and are affected by a multitude of factors beyond the control of the champion (e.g., economic recession) [4]. Moreover, measures such as protability and market share often are unavailable because they are frequently aggregated at the product line or brand level [34]. Top division managers in each organization were asked to assess the projects success on performance dimensions suggested by several researchers [14,38,48,64]. Top division managers had general management responsibility for the innovation and typically were members of the committee responsible for reviewing the innovations progress. Using a measure of project performance developed by Keller [48], they rated the innovations technical quality, schedule, budget and cost performance, value to the organization, and overall innovation project performance on 5-point Likert scales (1 very low; 5 very high). The scale was administered at the time of the study and again, one year later. For all innovations, the champion remained the same over the one year time period. 3.5. Data analysis The innovation project was the unit of analysis in the current study. To justify the aggregation of the champion behavior measure completed by project team members to the project level, a rwg analysis [44] was performed. The results of this analysis indicated that project team members

exhibited sufcient levels of within-group agreement for the champion behavior measure (i.e., rwg indices 0.8). Furthermore, results of a series of one-way analyses of variance and Bartletts test for homogeneity of variance within groups indicated the between group variance exceeded within group variance. These tests provided support for combining team members perceptions to produce averaged, aggregated scores for champion behavior. Hence this variable was aggregated to group means for each of the 47 product innovations. Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS), a structural equation modeling technique, was used to assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model and to test the structural model. PLS, which was introduced to the research community by Wold [72] in 1985, is one of the new analysis techniques that Fornell [27] refers to as second-generation. PLS is a regression-based technique that is ideal for testing structural models with latent variables, especially during the early stages of theory building, conditions which represent the present study. PLS does not make assumptions about data distributions to estimate model parameters, observation independence, or variable metrics, and is suitable for use with small samples [25]. The path coefcients in a PLS structural model are standardized regression coefcients. The loadings of items on the constructs are factor loadings. Therefore, ndings can be interpreted within the context of regression, path analysis and principal component analysis. To assess the structural model, PLS produces standardized regression coefcients using ordinary least squares to minimize the residual variance. To conduct signicance tests, jackknifed path coefcients and jackknifed standard errors are calculated and tested for signicance using t tests. A p value of 0.05 was used to test signicance. In PLS, the latent constructs measured with more than one observed variable (indicator) represent either underlying factors of, or indices produced by, the observed variables. If the indicators are seen as the quantied aspects of a latent construct, the indicators are reective. That is, the reective measures of a latent construct arise from the latent construct and are suggested when the construct is homogeneous and its variance is common to its indicators [28]. In contrast, if the latent construct is a categorization and measurement device for a complex phenomenon, the indicators are formative. In the present study, we modeled indicators of champion behavior and environmental scanning reectively because we expected each of these constructs to be homogeneous. We modeled indicators of framing as an opportunity, framing as a threat, locus of control, project performance, and breadth of interest formatively because each of these were measured using indices or measurement devices which combined to form the latent constructs. The main disadvantage of PLS is that its parameter estimates are suboptimal with respect to bias and consistency when the sample size is small, or when the number of indicators per latent variable is small. To cope with this

22

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527 Table 1 Factor Loadings, Internal Consistency Reliabilities, and Average Variance Extracted from Measures of Reective Constructs Construct 1. Champion Behavior Item 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

weakness, PLS researchers determine an adequate sample size as the larger of (a) ten times the scale with the largest number of indicators, and (b) ten times the largest number of structural paths leading into any endogenous construct. In the present study, the largest number of indicators for any given scale was three and the largest number of paths leading into any endogenous construct was four. Therefore, a total number of 40 cases was required. Our sample of 47 champions exceeded these minimum requirements.

Champion Behavior (.93,.81) .89 .09 .09 .91 .13 .26 .91 .09 .11 Environmental Scanning: People (.85,.66) .13 .83 .34 .02 .89 .40 .11 .70 .47 Environmental Scanning: Documents (.86,.54) .01 .50 .75 .19 .42 .82 .18 .38 .89

2. Environmental Scanning: People

4. Results 4.1. Test of the measurement model The measurement model was tested by examining individual item reliability, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs in the model. Individual item reliability of the scales used to measure the constructs in the PLS model was assessed by examining factor loadings of the measures on the constructs and by assessing the constructs composite scale reliabilities [29]. A common rule of thumb in PLS analysis is to accept items with more explanatory power than error variance [30]. That is, the squared factor loadings should be greater than 0.5 and the factor loadings, greater than 0.7. Internal consistency was assessed using composite scale reliability, a measure which is similar to Cronbachs alpha, except that the latter presumes that each indicator of a construct contributes equally (i.e., the loadings are set equal to one). Fornell and Larcker [29] argued that their measure is superior to Cronbachs alpha because actual item loadings obtained within the nomological network are used to calculate internal consistency reliability. The interpretation of the values obtained is similar and the 0.7 guideline offered by Nunnally [60] can be adopted. Initial examination of the measurement model revealed high loadings for some items and low loadings for other items on the environmental scanning scale. We concluded that environmental scanning was a multidimensional construct. The item loadings indicated two clear constructs with three items each. The rst construct, labeled environmental scanning of documents, included the use of internal documents, newsletters and books as sources of information about new ideas. The second construct, labeled environmental scanning of people, included people in the work group, people outside of the work group, and people in other organizations as sources of information. Table 1 shows the factor and cross-factor loadings of the measures of the reective constructs and the composite scale reliabilities. All but one of the scale items had loadings on their constructs in excess of the 0.7 criterion and all of the composite scale reliabilities were well in excess of the 0.7 criterion. The average variance extracted by the constructs from measures, an indicator of the amount of variance accounted for by the construct [29], is also reported in

3. Environmental 1 Scanning: Documents 2 3

Note: Item loadings are indicated in boldface. Values in parentheses represent composite scale reliabilities and average variance extracted, respectively, for each construct.

Table 1. The average variance extracted was greater than the 0.5 criterion suggested by Fornell and Larcker for all the constructs in the PLS model. Based on their high reliability and average variance extracted, all scales were retained intact. Discriminant validity was assessed by examining item loadings and cross-item loadings reported in Table 1, as well as by comparing the correlation matrix of the constructs in the PLS model with the square root of the average variance extracted by the measures for each construct (see Table 2). For adequate discriminant validity, the elements on the diagonal should be greater than entries on corresponding rows and columns. A comparison of the variance shared by each construct and its measures to the variance shared between constructs revealed adequate discriminant validity among the constructs. Examination of the item loadings and cross-loadings in Table 1 also showed that items loaded more highly on their associated construct than on other constructs, providing further evidence of the discriminant validity among constructs. 4.2. Tests of hypotheses Hypothesis 1, which stated that environmental scanning would be positively related to champion behavior, was supported for environmental scanning of people (path coefcient 0.35; t 2.34, p .01) (see Table 3). In contrast, there was a signicant negative relationship between environmental scanning of documents and champion behavior (path coefcient 0.37; t 2.70; p .01). Hypothesis 2, which posited a positive relationship between breadth of interest and environmental scanning, was partially supported by the results of the PLS analysis. Examination of Table 3 indicates that the path coefcient between breadth of interest and environmental scanning was signicant for scanning documents (path coefcient 0.31;

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Constructs Contrast 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Champion behavior Proj. performance (T1) Proj. performance (T2) Env. scanning people Env. scanning doc. Breadth of interest Locus of control Framing as opportunity Framing as threat No. of items 3 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 M 3.33 4.18 4.07 14.48 12.96 11.54 10.63 8.62 1.53 SD 0.38 0.68 0.68 2.94 3.86 3.44 2.28 6.65 2.46 1 .90 .36 .21 .12 .18 .08 .16 .04 .42 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

23

.05 .04 .01 .10 .04 .02 .27

.21 .02 .07 .10 .04 .06

.81 .50 .18 .18 .08 .11

.74 .31 .16 .20 .03

.12 .05 .01

.56 .04

.03

Note. Boldfaced elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For adequate discriminant validity, the elements in each row and column should be smaller than the boldfaced elements in that row or column.

t 7.24; p .0001), but not for environmental scanning via people (p .05). Hypothesis 3a, which postulated a signicant, positive relationship between framing the innovation as an opportunity and champion behavior was not supported (p .05). However, the results of the PLS analysis indicated support for hypothesis 3b which postulated a signicant, negative relationship between framing the innovation as a threat and champion behavior (path coefcient 0.48; t 3.35; p .01). Hypothesis 4a stated that there would be a positive relationship between an internal locus of control orientation and the champions propensity to frame the innovation as an opportunity. This hypothesis was supported: there was a strong and signicant positive relationship between internal locus of control and framing as an opportunity (path coefcient 0.56; t 4.53; p .001). Hypothesis 4b posited a positive relationship between an external locus of control orientation and the champions propensity to frame the innovation as a threat. This hypothesis was not supported (p .05).
Table 3 Partial Least Squares Analysis of the Model Hypothesis H1: Environmental scanning 3 champion behavior () documents people H2: Breadth of interest 3 environmental scanning () documents people H3a: Framing as opportunity 3 champion behavior () H3b: Framing as threat 3 champion behavior () H4a: Internal locus of control 3 framing as opportunity () H4b: External locus of control 3 framing as threat () H5: Champion behavior 3 project performance Time 1 () Time 2 ()

Finally, hypothesis 5a, which postulated that champion behavior would be positively related to project performance, and hypothesis 5b, which stated that champion behavior would predict project performance over a one year period, were supported by the results of the PLS analysis. The paths between champion behavior and project performance at time 1 and project performance at time 2 were both positive and signicant (path coefcient 0.36; t 1.88; p .05 and path coefcient 0.22; t 1.68; p .05 for project performance at times 1 and 2, respectively.) 5. Discussion Our ndings provide support for several of the proposed linkages among champion behavior, personality characteristics, environmental scanning, issue framing and longitudinal project performance. Several noteworthy results were that environmental scanning activities through people were positively related to champion behavior, while environmental scanning activities through documents were negatively

Standardized Path 0.37 0.35 0.31 0.18 0.02 0.48 0.56 0.04 0.36 0.22

t (39) 2.70** 2.34* 7.24**** 1.18 0.42 3.35*** 4.53**** 0.78 1.88* 1.68*

* p .05; ** p .01; *** p .001; **** p .0001. Note. The total variance explained in project performance was 29.3% at time 1 and 12.2% at time 2, in champion behavior was 30.6%, in environmental scanning of people was 3.4%, environmental scanning of documents was 9.5%, framing as an opportunity was 30.9%, and framing as a threat, 0%.

24

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

related to champion behavior; an internal locus of control orientation was positively related to framing the innovation as an opportunity; framing the innovation as a threat was negatively related to champion behavior; and champion behavior positively predicted project performance over time. The results of the present study demonstrated that champions who reported using written materials to obtain information about new ideas were viewed as engaging less frequently in champion behavior. Conversely, champions who relied on personal networks to obtain information about new opportunities were perceived as engaging in champion behavior more frequently. Together these ndings suggest that in scanning the environment for new ideas, the most effective source of information is the champions personal network of people inside and outside the organization. These results are consistent with the social network literature which suggests that the existence or strength of relationships is pivotal for gaining access to information and identifying opportunities for new ventures [11,32], and with empirical work on the external communication activities of new product development teams [4]. An internal locus of control orientation was positively related to champions tendency to frame an innovation as an opportunity. This nding conrms Dutton and Jacksons [23] contention that locus of control predisposes individuals to categorize a particular issue as a threat or opportunity. The studys results also indicated that contrary to prediction, an external locus of control orientation was not related to framing an innovation as a threat. One explanation for this nding is since externally oriented champions believe events are beyond their control, devoting energy to present an idea as a threat may be viewed as fruitless. Contrary to expectation, champions were equally likely to frame the innovation as an opportunity irrespective of the frequency of their champion behavior. However, as predicted, champions who framed the innovation as a threat were more likely to be viewed as engaging less frequently in champion behavior. This nding is consistent with Dutton and Ashfords [21] contention that issue sellers will avoid having their name associated with negative issues. Impression management and the need for issue sellers to maintain their credibility with top management results in a tension which is felt in the choices that sellers must make in terms of whether or not to initiate selling, how to package an issue, and what process to use in selling [21]. Utilizing threats as framing mechanisms to draw attention to innovation projects appears to diminish others perceptions of the ability of the champion to promote the innovation with condence and conviction, persist in the face of opposition to sell the idea, and to build involvement and support for the innovation among key stakeholders. This nding reinforces Dutton and Jacksons [23] assertion that an issues label, meaning and interpretation has important implications not only for instigating organizational action, but also for shaping the attributions of a champions behavior in initiating

and promoting innovation in the organization. Thus the simple labeling of an idea as a threat may diminish a champions perceived inuence and erode credibility in promoting an innovation. Consistent with Markham and Grifns [53] ndings, and contrary to Markhams [52] results, champion behavior was positively related to project performance in the present study. Our ndings also indicated that, in addition to its initial effect on project performance, champion behavior had an incremental effect on project performance one year later. Together, these ndings advance extant theory and research by pointing to the important role champions play in contributing to project performance over time. Indeed, the present studys results suggest that champions may be inuential at multiple stages of an innovation project, rather than just at its inception. 5.1. Limitations, implications and future research There are several limitations associated with the present study. First, the sample size was small, comprised of 47 champions. However, the statistically signicant differences on many of the measures, and the sampling of champions from multiple organizations, suggest the ndings are robust. In addition, since all participants were deemed to be champions by senior executives of their organization and no attempt was made to ensure variance in frequency of champion behavior in selecting this sample, the present study represents a conservative test of the hypotheses. Even greater differences might have been discovered if champions were compared to a random sample of managers. Second, the studys sample was primarily male, therefore it is unknown whether the relationships reported here generalize to female champions. Third, our model excludes some potentially important factors such as how the competitive and cultural environments affect the extent to which individuals engage in champion behavior. Finally, our data collection at time two did not include any measures other than project performance. Thus, we cannot be certain that any changes in performance over time cannot be attributed to changes in other project characteristics. The limitations of the present study offer future research opportunities. Increasing the size and gender and cultural diversity of the sample would be a worthwhile undertaking in future research. Also differentiation between people and documents as sources of information in environmental scanning activities is an important distinction that needs to be made in future research. Investigation of other individual differences that may inuence the idea framing and selling process is needed. For instance, self-monitoring, modifying ones self-presentation to t the situation, may be related to adeptness in framing issues, thereby enabling champions to garner socio-political support for the innovation from key individuals in the organization. High self-monitors may astutely analyze the reactions of stakeholders and tailor their arguments and

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527

25

communication style to be maximally persuasive. Thus individuals who appear to be able to read the context for clues about how their selling efforts will be received and adjust their selling strategies accordingly may engage in more frequent champion behavior. An important activity required of champions is successful acquisition of information regarding potential projects through their social networks. It seems plausible that champions would look to their social network to establish contacts in their search for both information and resources. In particular, champions may use both strong and weak ties [32] and structural holes in their networks [11] to locate possible projects. According to Burt [11], managers who have contact networks rich in structural holes present opportunities for entrepreneurial behavior. Examining champions relational ties, as well as their nature and quality, in order to understand how such ties affect their discovery of new ideas and information would be a worthwhile direction for future research. Furthermore, research is needed to understand how champions manage and process this information in a persuasive manner. Future studies also need to investigate the attributes of the external organizational environment that are likely to inuence the emergence of champion behavior. External organizational environments that are perceived as highly volatile may be viewed as risky and threatening, where a few poor decisions could create severe organizational problems and potentially risk the survival of the organization. Volatile environments represent weak psychological situations in which greater latitude of discretion and the ability to express personal and behavioral inclinations are available to organizational members [39,59,68]. Therefore, volatile external environments may enable champions to advocate radical product innovations, to take bold, unconventional actions and to propound their ideas and values. A question that remains unanswered is what are the factors that might encourage or inhibit individuals from championing an innovation? From a personal perspective, an individuals degree of prestige, credibility in the organization, history of involvement in innovations, preference for risk taking, self-condence, and social capital may inuence whether champions will emerge and be effective. From an organizational perspective, the extent of senior managements support for innovation may affect champion emergence. By actively and enthusiastically promoting innovations, champions can shape the direction and rate of strategic adaptation at the organizational level, inuence variation that is critical to organizational learning and evolution, and contribute positively to the organizations competitive position [22,26]. While the potential organizational performance gains associated with championing activities are widely acknowledged, and are demonstrated in the present study with respect to project performance over time, the emergence and effectiveness of champions depends, in part, on their ability to draw on their internal and external con-

nections and relationships to inuence the initiation and extent of innovations promoted in the organization. The current study has just scratched the surface in understanding how champions identify and frame new ideas that ultimately contribute to product innovation project performance over time. Champions efforts to call attention to emerging opportunities are the impetus for organizational renewal and adaptation. Digging deeper into how champions identify, communicate and promote emerging opportunities is vital for creating an adaptive advantage for the organization. Appendix A. Champion behavior scale A.1. Demonstrates conviction in the innovation Expresses condence in what the innovation can do Points out reasons why the innovation will succeed Enthusiastically promotes the innovations advantages Expresses strong conviction about the innovation Keeps pushing enthusiastically for the innovation Shows optimism about the success of the innovation A.2. Builds involvement and support Gets the key decision makers involved Secures the top level support required Gets problems into the hands of those who can solve them Gets the right people involved in the innovation Makes improvements based on feedback received A.3. Persists under adversity Persists in the face of adversity Does not give up when others say it cannot be done Sticks with it Knocks down barriers to the innovation Shows tenacity in overcoming obstacles Acknowledgment We want to extend our appreciation to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for supporting this research investigation. References
[1] Achilladelis B, Jervis P, Robertson A. A study of success and failure in industrial innovation. Sussex, England: University of Sussex Press, 1971. [2] Aldrich, HE. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979. [3] Amabile TM. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988. p. 123 67.

26

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527 [31] Gist ME. Self-efcacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review 1987;12:472 85. [32] Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 1973;78:1360 80. [33] Greenberger DB, Strasser S, Cummings LL, Dunham RB. The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1989;43:29 51. [34] Grifn A. Metrics for measuring product development cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1993;10:11225. [35] Grifn A. PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1997;14:429 58. [36] Gurin P, Gurin G, Morrison BM. Personal and ideological aspects of internal and external control. Social Psychology 1978;41:27596. [37] Hambrick DC. Environment, strategy and power within top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 1981;26:25375. [38] Hauptman O. The inuence of task type on the relation between communication and performance: the case of software development. R&D Management 1986;6:218 44. [39] House RJ, Rousseau DM, Thomas-Hunt M. The meso paradigm: a framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1995. p. 71114. [40] Howell JM, Higgins CA. Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990;35:317 41. [41] Howell JM, Shea CM, Higgins CA. Champions of product innovations: dening, developing and validating a measure of champion strength. Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego, (August 1998). [42] Jackson DN. Personality research form: form E. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems Inc, 1994. [43] Jackson SE, Dutton JE. Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly 1988;33:370 87. [44] James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 1984;69: 8598. [45] Kaish S, Gilad B. Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs versus executives: sources, interests, and general alertness. Journal of Business Venturing 1991;6:45 61. [46] Kanter RM. The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. [47] Kanter RM. When a thousand owers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988. p. 169 211. [48] Keller RT. Predictors of performance of project groups in R & D organizations. Academy of Management Journal 1986;29:71526. [49] Keller RT, Holland WE. Boundary spanning roles in a research and development organization: an empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal 1975;18:388 93. [50] Kessler EH, Chakrabarti AK. Innovation speed: a conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review 1996;21:114391. [51] Kipnis D. The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. [52] Markham SK. A longitudinal examination of how champions inuence others to support their projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1998;15:490 504. [53] Markham SK, Grifn A. The breakfast of champions: associations between champions and product development environments, practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1998;15:490 504. [54] Meyers S, Marquis DG. Successful industrial innovations. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1969.

[4] Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 1992;37:634 65. [5] Anderson CJ. Locus of control, coping behaviors and performance in a stress setting: a longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol 1977;62:446 51. [6] Ansoff I. Strategic issue management. Strategic Management Journal 1980;1:131 48. [7] Ashford SJ, Rothbard NP, Piderit SK, Dutton JE. Out on a limb: the role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, in press. [8] Avolio BJ, Yammarino FJ, Bass BM. Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: an unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management 1991;17:571 87. [9] Burgelman RA. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversied major rm. Administrative Science Quarterly 1983;28:23444. [10] Burgelman R, Sayles L. Inside corporate innovation. New York: Free Press, 1986. [11] Burt RS. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. [12] Buss DM, Craik KH. The act frequency approach to personality. Psychol Rev 1983;90:10526. [13] Clark KB, Chew WB, Fujimoto T. Product development in the world auto industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1987;3:729 81. [14] Clark KB, Fujimoto T. Product development performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991. [15] Clark KB, Wheelwright SC. Organizing and leading heavyweight development teams. California Management Review 1992;34:9 28. [16] Culnan MJ. Environmental scanning: the effects of task complexity and source accessibility on information gathering behavior. Decision Sciences 1983;14:194 206. [17] Day DL. Raising radicals: different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures. Organization Science 1994;5:148 72. [18] Dean JW. Deciding to innovate: decision processes in the adoption of advanced technology. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1987. [19] Dickson PR, Schneier W, Lawrence P, Hytry R. Managing design in small high-growth companies. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1995;12:406 14. [20] Dougherty D, Hardy C. Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal 1996;39:1120 53. [21] Dutton JE, Ashford SJ. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review 1993;18:397 428. [22] Dutton JE, Ashford SJ, ONeill RM, Hayes E, Wierba EE. Reading the wind: how middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal 1997;18:40725. [23] Dutton JE, Jackson SB. Categorizing strategic issues: links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review 1987;12:76 90. [24] Eisenhardt KM, Tabrizi BN. Accelerating adaptive processes: product development in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 1995;40:84 110. [25] Faulk RF, Miller NB. A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: The University of Akron Press, 1992. [26] Floyd SW, Wooldridge BJ. The strategic middle manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. [27] Fornell C, editor. A second generation of multivariate analysis, Vol. I, Methods. New York: Praeger, 1982. [28] Fornell C, Bookstein FL. Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research 1982;19:440 52. [29] Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18:39 50. [30] Fornell C, Tellis G, Zinkhan GM. Validity assessment: a structural equations approach using partial least squares. In: Walker B, editor. An assessment of marketing thought and practice: 1982 Educators Conference Proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1982. p. 4059.

J.M. Howell, C.M. Shea / The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2001) 1527 [55] Miller D, Friesen PH. Structural change and performance: quantum versus piecemeal-incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal 1982;25:876 92. [56] Miller D, Kets de Vries MFR, Toulouse JM. Top executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy-making and environment. Academy of Management Journal 1982;25:23753. [57] Miller D, Toulouse JM. Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small rms. Management Science 1986;32: 1389 409. [58] Mirels HL. Dimensions of internal versus external locus of control. J Consult Clin Psychol 1970;34:226 8. [59] Mischel W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychol Rev 1973;80:200 13. [60] Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. [61] OReilly CA. Variations in decision makers use of information sources: the impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal 1982;25:756 71. [62] Palich LE, Ragby DR. Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing 1995;10:42538. [63] Pinchot G. Intrepreneuring: why you dont have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. [64] Rosenthal SR, Tatikonda MV. Time management in new product development: case study ndings. Engineering Management Review 1993:1320. [65] Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 1966;80:128. [66] Stevens GA, Burley J. 3000 raw ideas 1 commercial success! Research Technology Management 1997;40:16 28. [67] Thomas JB, Clark SM, Gioia DA. Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 1993;36:239 70. [68] Tosi H, editor. The environment/organization/person (EOP) contingency model: a meso approach to the study of organization. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1992. [69] Utterback JM, Abernathy WJ. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. OMEGA 1975;3:639 56. [70] Van de Ven AH. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science 1986;32:590 607.

27

[71] Wheelwright SC, Clark KB. Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review 1992;March-April. [72] Wold H. Systems analysis by partial least squares. In: Nijkamp P, Leitner H, Wrigley N, editors. Measuring the unmeasurable. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985. p. 21152.

Biographical Sketches Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance
Dr. Jane M. Howell is the Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario. She earned her Ph.D. in Business Administration from The University of British Columbia. Jane teaches in Iveys MBA, Executive MBA, and Ph.D. programs, as well as various executive development programs. In 1998 Jane received the Universitys Pleva Award for Teaching Excellence. She actively consults to multinational companies on leadership development, managing innovation and change, and building high performance teams. Janes research interests include transformational leadership and champions of innovation. Articles related to her research have been published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and other journals. Dr. Christine M. Shea is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at the Whittemore School of Business and Economics at the University of New Hampshire. She received her Ph.D. in Business Administration from the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario. She has taught courses in operations management, managing technological innovation, and leadership in undergraduate, graduate and executive programs. Christines industry experience spans several functional areas. She spent ten years in various management capacities in the aerospace industry, including contracts, materials, project, and operations management. She is a researcher and consultant in the areas of leadership, technological innovation and continuous improvement. Her publications include articles in The Journal of Business, The Journal of Management, The Journal of Quality Management, and Leadership Quarterly.