Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in Nonprofit Organizations

• Published date: 01 January 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02308.x
• Date: 01 January 2011
• Author: Kristina Jaskyte

Focus on Seminal

Nonprof‌i t

Management

Issues

Kristina Jaskyte is an associate professor

in the School of Social Work and the

Institute for Nonprof‌i t Organizations at the

University of Georgia. Her research focuses

on innovation and creativity in nonprof‌i t

organizations.

E-mail: kjaskyte@uga.edu

Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations 77

Kristina Jaskyte

University of Georgia

 is study examines the e ects of human and

structural/process factors on two types of innovation—

administrative and technological—in a sample of

nonpro t organizations.  e results indicate that

factors that are favorable to administrative innovations

di er from those that are conducive to technological

innovation.  ree variables are signi cant predictors

of administrative innovation: centralization,

transformational leadership, and

the executive director’s job tenure.

Transformational leadership

contributes signi cantly to the

model of technological innovation.

Based on the results of this study,

the author provides implications

for nonpro t management and

future research.

The adoption of

innovations in organizations is complex and

varies according to the type of innovation,

whether it is administrative, technological, or process.

Scholars have found that di erent types of innova-

tions are not a ected by or related equally to the same

variables (Damanpour 1988; Jaskyte and Kisieliene

2006; Subramanian and Nilakanta 1996).  e factors

associated with innovation occur at individual, orga-

nizational, and environmental levels and in uence

the adoption of various types of innovations di er-

ently. Before initiating an innovation process within

an organization, it is essential to understand the types

of innovation and the factors related to each type

( Damanpour 1988).

 e majority of studies on innovation have focused

primarily on business organizations and assessed

the correlates of overall organizational innovative-

ness. Not much is known about whether di erent

variables have di erent in uences depending on the

type of innovation (Kimberly and Evanisko 1981).

To better understand innovation adoption behavior

and to be able to develop theories of innovation, it is

necessary to di erentiate between the di erent types

of innovations (Subramanian and Nilakanta 1996)

and to conduct studies in di erent organizations—

business, government, and nonpro t.

While the literature on innovation is extensive in the

business sector, much work remains to be done in the

nonpro t and government sectors. Walker noted that

“little information exists about the extent of innova-

tion in public service organiza-

tions, beyond occasional sectoral

or country studies” (2003, 102).

Jaskyte and Dressler (2005) sim-

ilarly suggested that nonpro t

practitioners and scholars are

faced with a gap in knowledge

about innovations. According to

Light, “the nonpro t and gov-

ernment innovation literature

has traditionally been much

more concerned with the single act of innovation than

with the organizational settings in which those acts

take place” (1998, 8). Only a handful of studies have

sought to identify the predictors of innovation and

tested innovation models in government and non-

pro t organizations ( Jaskyte and Dressler 2005; Schin

and McClomb 1998; Walker 2006).

Because the majority of studies have been based

largely on data from business organizations, innova-

tion models developed there may not easily be carried

over into the world of nonpro ts. Nonpro t organiza-

tions face unique challenges that can make innovation

endeavors more di cult. Among those challenges

are the unique attributes of nonpro t organizations,

such as dealing with ethical issues in serving clients,

working on or with people, di culties in establishing

criteria for success, fear of media exposure of failure,

and dependence on external funding (Jaskyte 2009).

Additionally, responsibility to supporters (founda-

tions, individual donors, government) and account-

ability for failure in uence nonpro t organizations’

decision-making processes when faced with opportu-

nities (Hull and Lio 2006).

Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in

Nonpro t Organizations

While the literature on

innovation is extensive in the

business sector, much work

remains to be done in the

nonpro t and governmental

sectors.