Does Substandard Performance Encourage Innovation Adoption?
| Published date | 01 July 2019 |
| Author | Obed Pasha |
| DOI | 10.1177/0275074018804559 |
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
American Review of Public Administration
2019, Vol. 49(5) 572 –584
Does Substandard Performance
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Encourage Innovation Adoption?
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018804559
DOI: 10.1177/0275074018804559
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
Obed Pasha1
Abstract
What makes an organization innovative? This is an enduring question in literature with a variety of models explaining
innovation adoption in public organizations. The study presented here contributes to this research by introducing substandard
performance as a determinant of innovation adoption, using the example of the adoption of CompStat systems in U.S.
police departments. CompStat is a significant innovation in policing that was first operationalized by the New York Police
Department in the mid-1990s and is consistently gaining popularity among police departments in the United States and
abroad. This study uses a survival analysis of 362 small to midsized U.S. police departments over a 14-year period. Event
history and Cox proportional hazards modeling show that poor preadoption performance for violent crime is significantly
related to CompStat adoption, and the weaker a department’s preadoption performance, the earlier it adopts CompStat.
Property crime, on the contrary, is not found to have a significant impact on the adoption of CompStat.
Keywords
innovation adoption, substandard performance, CompStat
Innovations are new ideas, practices, or concepts that help
with poor performance will be more willing to take risks and
organizations decrease uncertainty toward achieving their
adopt innovations, compared with better performing organi-
desired outcomes (Rogers, 2003). Literature suggests that
zations that are more risk averse (Bowen, Rostami, & Steel,
organizations that adopt innovations earlier than others out-
2010; Greve, 2003). Also, organizations facing higher per-
perform their counterparts (Zahra & George, 2002). formance deficits should adopt innovations earlier than
Innovation adoption can be a voluntary or coercive process,
others.
often beginning with an organization gaining knowledge
We borrow the example of the adoption of CompStat sys-
about an innovation, forming opinions about it, deciding
tems in U.S. police departments to test these assertions,
whether to adopt or reject it, and confirming the adoption
examining whether this adoption was influenced by substan-
decision (Rogers, 2003).
dard preadoption performance represented by violent and
Several models attempt to explain the determinants of
property crime. This study uses logistic event history analy-
innovation in the public sector, studying the internal and
sis and Cox proportional hazards model on a panel data span-
environmental factors that make organizations more likely to
ning over 14 years (from 2000 to 2013) of 342 small to
innovate. Walker (1969) and Berry and Berry (2018), for
midsized police departments. This analysis shows that police
example, propose that organizations adopt innovations by
departments with substandard performance on violent crime
emulating leaders in the field or from organizations with
are more likely to adopt CompStat systems, and departments
similar traits and beliefs. Other scholars such as Godwin and
with more serious performance deficits are likely to adopt
Schroedel (2000) and Hansen (2011) consider the influence
these systems earlier than those with less serious perfor-
of internal organization-specific characteristics such as orga-
mance deficits. Because CompStat systems were established
nizational size and capacity. Some studies (e.g., Carter &
in the mid-1990s, this study examines the adoption of an
Bélanger, 2005; Damanpour & Schneider, 2009) explore the
existing innovation rather than the creation or development
role of innovation-specific factors such as ease of use and
of a new system.
compatibility with the existing structure as factors that pro-
mote innovation adoption.
1Cleveland State University, OH, USA
This study adds to the growing literature by examining
Corresponding Author:
the impact of preadoption performance on innovation, inves-
Obed Pasha, Assistant Professor, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland
tigating whether organizations with substandard perfor-
State University, 1717 Euclid Heights, Room 318, Cleveland, Oh 44115, USA.
mance are more likely to innovate. We argue that organizations
Email: opasha@umass.edu
Pasha
573
This study further contributes to the literature in the fol-
innovation adopters are considered leaders and top perform-
lowing ways. First, it introduces poor past performance as an
ers in the field, serving as role models for others (Rogers,
antecedent for innovation adoption in public organizations.
2003). Adopters are also thought to be forward-looking and
In doing so, it counters the expectation that innovation is pri-
well-networked organizations that adopt innovations by
marily a prerogative of high-performance field leaders.
building upon their previous knowledge and practices
Second, it shows that the dimensionality of performance
(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).
matters when it comes to innovation adoption, as deficits
Furthermore, superior past performance allows organiza-
only along the more salient performance dimensions impact
tional leaders to gain stakeholder trust and frame innovations
adoption. Third, it shows that organizations suffering from
as opportunities, hence adopting them more readily (Bowen
more significant performance deficits are likely to show
et al., 2010; Dutton & Jackson, 1987). Inferior performance,
risky behavior and adopt innovations earlier than others.
on the contrary, reduces the motivation and cognitive capac-
Finally, this study provides an empirical analysis of the adop-
ity of managers to think beyond immediate performance
tion of CompStat, a prominent innovation in policing.
issues, thereby decreasing the likelihood of adoption for the
sake of future benefits (Mone, McKinley, & Barker, 1998;
Literature Review
Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). Organizations with infe-
rior performance might also be resource strapped and less
A review of existing research exploring the antecedents of
able to innovate.
innovation adoption in the public sector reveals several fac-
These arguments are countered by other scholars propos-
tors that determine the propensity of an organization to inno-
ing that substandard performance stimulates innovation
vate. Jun and Weare (2011, p. 497) classify these factors into
adoption as organizations are more likely to take risks when
the following three categories: (a) the characteristics of the
confronted with performance issues by adopting new meth-
innovation itself, (b) the characteristics of the individual or
odologies and tools to improve performance (Bolton, 1993;
organization making the adoption decision, and (c) the envi-
Kiesler & Sproull, 1982). The classic literature on organiza-
ronmental and social system in which the adoption occurs.
tional economics suggests that organizations use past perfor-
Meta-analyses by De Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers (2016)
mance as a mechanism to establish goals and devise strategies
and Walker (2014) show that most previous research con-
(i.e., behavioral theory of the firm; Cyert & March, 1963).
cerns internal organizational characteristics followed by
Deteriorating or lower-than-expected performance encour-
environmental and innovation-specific factors.
ages organizations to search for strategies that could help
Studies by Berman and Kim (2010) and Jacobsen and
them deal with increasing environmental complexities and
Andersen (2014) focus on internal organizational character-
internal structural problems to enhance performance (Miles
istics by examining the role of creativity management and
& Cameron, 1982; Williamson & Ouchi, 1981). According
performance management in innovation adoption, respec-
to this perspective, innovation in poorly performing organi-
tively. Bernier, Hafsi, and Deschamps (2015) and Nelson and
zations is driven by a tendency to take more risks, while
Svara (2012) find that the type and size of an organization
well-performing organizations tend to be risk averse
can predict innovation, whereas Kim and Yoon (2015) argue
(Bowman, 1982; Singh, 1986).
that goal-oriented leadership makes organizations more
This view is also supported by the complementary mana-
innovative. Scholars have also studied other internal organi-
gerial risk propensity theory, suggesting that leaders of
zational characteristics influencing innovation such as orga-
poorly performing organizations have a higher tolerance for
nizational culture and ideology (Borins, 2001; Kumar & Che
risky innovations (Bowen et al., 2010; Kahneman & Tversky,
Rose, 2012; Ma, 2017). Research by Carassus, Favoreu, and
1979). Such organizations cognitively frame gains from
Gardey (2014); Walker, Berry, and Avellaneda (2015); and
innovations as more salient than losses with the hopes that
Jun and Weare (2011) finds external characteristics, such as
the innovation will help avoid a decline on performance
political influence and environmental complexity, to be
(Miller & Chen, 2004). Organizations with superior perfor-
strong...
To continue reading
Request your trial