Journal of Management Studies, ig, 2 , 1982

INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND

INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS [ I )
JOHN E. ETTLIE
Deartment of Management, Graduate School of Burinss,
DcPad Univ~~sity

ROBERTD. O’KEEFE
Graduate School of BUnness, Dc Pad University

ABSTRACT

In this paper we explore the relationships between some of the various con-
cepts and scales that have been used to characterize innovative attitudes and
behaviours. A sample (N = 123) of undergraduate and graduate business
students with full-time jobs or the equivalent provided questionnaire data to
test two initial hypotheses. It was found that four attitude-value scales which
have been used to measure change values, innovation orientation, readiness
for change, and innovativenesss, are intercorrelated significantly when no
distinction is made between the respondents’ intentions to be innovative and
respondents’ actual innovative behaviour. Innovative and change attitudes,
as measured by these same four scales, do consistently predict multiple inno-
vative intentions and behaviours but not, as expected, single behaviours or
single intentions. The single best predictor in a multiple regression of the
combined multiple innovative intention-behaviour measure was found to be
a creative scale (R2= 0.43, p < 0 . 0 1 ) .The innovative behaviour scale was
tentatively called attitude toward being innovative. A factor analysis of this
scale revealed dimensions related to innovative behaviour in organizations :
the innovator, the preserver of the status quo, and the unchallenged, dissatis-
fied person.
Two other hypotheses were also tested. The first was that the perceived
organization risk-taking climate would moderate the relationship between
these attitude measures. This hypothesis was not supported by the overall
results. However, moderate support was found for the hypothesis that the
more formal authority a person has in an organization, the greater the con-
sistency between change attitudes and innovative behaviours as measured by
self-report methods.

Address for reprints: Professor J. E. Ettlie/Professor R. D. OKeefe, Graduate School of Business,

De Paul University, 25, East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, U.S.A.
‘64 JOHN E. ETTLIE AND ROBERT D. O’KEEFE

INTRODUCTION
THERE
is widespread evidence in the innovation literature that the attitudes
or values of organizational members are significantly related to innovative
behaviour (e.g. adoption of innovation or ease of implementation). Hage and
Dewar (1973) reported that the values of leaders and the ‘Clite inner circle’
of an organization are directly related to differential rates of programme
innovation and change. Based on a number of studies of adoption of process
innovation, Nabseth and Ray (1974) concluded that the attitudes of man-
agement are an important determinant of innovation adoption. Personality
differences, as measured by the Dogmatism Scale, were found by Rokeach
(1967) to be significantly correlated with the adoption rate of alternative
dairy farming procedures. Attitude toward the innovation has been shown
by Ettlie (1979) to be a significant predictor of skill-training programme
success for new production equipment. Keller and Holland (1978) found
that the innovation orientation scale (Kirton, I 976) was significantly corre-
lated with both scientific and technical boundary-spanning activity, as well
as, technique or application boundary-spanning activity. While the empiri-
cal findings are promising, there are several problems within this line of
research that need attention and resolution. First, the diversity of concepts
and constructs that have been used in the literature does not promote the
comparison or integration of results. Secondly, there is evidence of poor de-
finition and indiscriminant applications of concepts. Attitude, belief, and
value have been treated almost synonymously and the relationship of each of
these concepts to behaviour has not been clearly delineated. Finally, the
variety of methods used to measure these constructs in the innovation litera-
ture have rarely, if ever, been compared or simultaneously tested to evaluate
construct validity.
For example, in the Nabseth and Ray (1974, p. 166)study of the adoption
of the basic oxygen steel process, a questionnaire and Guttman scaling tech-
nique measure of managerial attitude were abandoned because ‘the quality
of answers . . . was inadequate for such analysis’. A financial proxy measure
of ‘aggressiveness’ was substituted. The implication is that attitudes are im-
portant but cannot be measured directly. Other studies have used surrogate
measures such as age and education (Kelly and Kranzberg, 1975), or per-
sonal history of company president (Duchesneau and Dutton, 1977) to
represent attitude or value constructs. In some cases these measures do pre-
dict adoption, but most likely because they are correlated with some latent
dimension. Vroom and Pahl (197I ) , for example, found a nonlinear but
significant relationship between age and risk-taking propensity among man-
agers. Other studies have employed value or personality traits as predictors
of adoption of innovation or organizational change (Hage and Dewar, 1973;
Kelly and Kranzberg, 1975).The use of surrogate measures to link attitudes
toward innovation (in general) to the adoption of specific innovations com-
pletely overlooks the importance of attitudes toward the specific innovation,
toward the existing situation, and toward the context of adoption.
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I 65

In this study, we compare four scales that measure values and attitudes
toward change and innovation. The first is the Hage and Dewar (1973)
scale, which measures values favourable or unfavourable to change. The
Kirton (1976) scale is said to measure innovation orientation assumed to be
a stable dimension of personality and assumes that people fall somewhere on
a continuum ranging from a marked tendency to innovate to being charac-
teristically adaptive. The Hardin (1967) use of the Trumbo ( 1 9 6 1 )
readiness-to-change scale, however, directly links change attitudes to the job
situation. The final scale (constructed by the authors) used in this compari-
son was a one-item (0-100 point scale) self-evaluation of how the person
compared with everyone else on ‘being innovative’. Although they have all
been used to measure attitudes and values relevant to change behaviour, our
intent was to determine whether the four scales measured the same construct
or whether any or all measured different constructs.
An alternative approach aimed toward resolving the question of attitudes
predictive of behaviour is to use an attitude measure, but at the same time
measure other factors believed to influence behaviour in the innovation
decision-making situation. In addition, the contextual factors that appear to
have importance in the decision-setting should also be identified and meas-
ured. The focus of this report is upon theory and empirical findings that
attempt to resolve the problem of the lack of consistency between attitudes
and overt behaviours. Rokeach and Kliejunas ( 1972) hypothesized that
people normally encounter the attitude object in a contextual situation and
that behaviour toward the object is a function of both attitude toward the
object and attitude toward the situation. They found that the ratio of the
weighting of importance of the attitude object to the importance of the atti-
tude situation was about I : 2 or that the attitude toward the situation (the
behaviour of going to class) was about twice as important as the attitude
toward the object (instructor) in predicting attendance of college students.
Their model is very similar to Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model, which
attempts to make predictions of intentions from a weighted average of atti-
tudes toward the act and norms. No11 and Shupe (1975)found that there are
individual differences in the relative importance of normative group influ-
ences on attitude toward the situation. One hypothesis emerging from apply-
ing these results is that the more influence (formal or informal authority) an
organizational member has on innovation decisions, the greater the weight
will be attached to the attitude toward the object (c.g. innovation). It follows
that members with more influence are more likely to have consistent atti-
tudes and behaviours. This influence may be a function of both position in
the hierarchy or role in the innovation process, for example, technical gate-
keeper (Allen, I 977) or marketing gatekeeper (Chakrabarti and O’Keefe,
1 9 7 7 ) . This would explain, in part, why other researchers (e.g. Hage and
Dewar, 1973; Duchesneau and Dutton, 1977) have found that the attitudes
or values of the chief executive officer predict adoption.
We approach this issue in two ways. First, we will include a measure of
I 66 JOHN E. ETTLIE A N D ROBERT D. O’KEEFE

risk-taking climate to see if it truly does moderate the correlation between

these various scales of innovative attitudes ; and, secondly, we test directly
the hypothesis that people with greater formal influence in the organization
exhibit more consistency in these attitudes. That is, they are less influenced
by organizational climate.
In their recent review of the attitude-behaviour consistency research,
Shuman and Johnson ( 1 9 7 6 ) reported one of the most promising approaches
appears to be that advanced by Fishbein and Ajzen ( 1 9 7 5 ) . They show that
overt behaviours are most likely to be predicted by the magnitude of the
intention-behaviour relationship and that when attempting to predict overt
behaviours from attitudes, the best results are obtained when multiple-act
criteria behaviours are measured on reliable, valid scales. Two of the many
factors which will influence the strength of the intention-behaviour relation-
ship are individual ability and opportunity. In the innovation decision context,
this might correspond to creativity and relative opportunity (e.g. risk-taking
climate) to convert these abilities into innovative behaviours in work groups.
One objective of this paper is to report the results of a partial replication
of the Fishbein and Ajzen ( 1 9 7 4 ) study and to explore further some relation-
ships among innovation attitudes, values, intentions, and behaviours. Fish-
bein and Ajzen ( 1 9 7 4 ) evaluated five different types of self-report scales the
measure religiosity and tested two key hypotheses. First, they hypothesized
there would be little difference in the pattern of attitude scale intercorrela-
tions between one subject group which responded to a scale of religious
behaviours (e.g. donating money to a religious institution) by checking off
the acts they had performed (self-reported behaviour) and another group
that had instructions to check behaviours they would perform (behavioural
intentions). Secondly, they hypothesized that these five attitude scales would
more likely predict a multiple-act criterion, regardless of whether it was a set
of intentions or behaviours, than a single-act criterion measure of behaviours
or intentions. Both of these hypotheses were strongly supported. It appears
that when attitude-behaviour consistency is sought, one must examine the
full range of behaviours or intentions that correspond to the attitude. Pre-
viously only voting behaviour, where the voting intention or behaviour is a
single-act criterion, had been shown to generally support attitude-behaviour
consistency. An alternative explanation, of course, is that more behaviours
increase the reliability of the measure.
The present study attempted a partial replication of the Fishbein and
Ajzen ( 1 9 7 5 ) results. It should be remembered, however, that there is great
disagreement about what constitutes a true measure of attitude toward inno-
vation, innovation orientation, or change values. Although one expects that
the various scales used would best predict multiple-act us. single-act inno-
vation intentions and behaviours, a review of existing literature indicates
that the intercorrelations between the various change scales would not be
expected to be as consistently significant nor achieve the magnitude that
Fishbein and Ajzen ( 1 9 7 4 ) found between their five scales of religiosity.
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS 167
METHOD

In order to test the hypothesis that attitudes correlate significantly with

multiple-act criteria but have no consistent relationship with single-act cri-
teria, a Likert scale of 73 behaviours describing innovation and other job-
related behaviours in organizations was constructed. These items were devel-
oped from two major sources. First, the behaviours that have consistently
been found to describe innovative activities of technological gatekeepers or
key communicators in organizations was compiled. For example, ‘I am seek-
ing a place on a venture team’; ‘I provide written evaluations of proposed
ideas’; ‘I make an effort to communicate with people outside my current
assignment’; and ‘I develop contacts with experts in my area located outside
my firm’ (cJAllen, 1977; Chakrabarti and O’Keefe, 1977). Secondly, be-
haviours which are manifestations of creativity in organizational settings
were listed. For example, ‘I demonstrate originality’; ‘I won’t think about
the future on my job because there is little I can do about it’; ‘Among my
colleagues and coworkers, I will be the first or nearly the first to try out a
new idea or method’; and ‘I will be counted on to find a new use for existing
methods or existing equipment’ (6.J Davis, 1975; Getzels, 1975; Hitt, 1975;
Karlins, 1972; Koprowski, 1972; Midgley and Dowling, 1978; Rimm and
Davis, 1976; Torrance, 1978; Walkup, 1971; Whiting, 1973). This com-
plete list of 73 behaviours, and other instruments discussed below, were
given in questionnaire form to two groups of male and female graduate and
undergraduate students of business administration who had full-time jobs.
More details are given on the sample in the results section below. A total of
123 (56 per cent) usable questionnaires were returned. Sixty-four re-
spondents checked off behaviours they intended to perform (behavioural in-
tentions) and fifty-nine respondents checked behaviours they had performed
(self-reported behaviours) by responding to 5-point strongly agree-to-
strongly disagree formats. The only difference between the two forms of the
instrument was the instruction for this part of the questionnaire: ‘Please in-
dicate the degree to which your actual behuviour (things you have done) on
the job matches the behaviour described . . .’ us. ‘Please indicate the degree
to which your intentions (although you may not have acted yet) on the job
match the behaviour described . . .’. The reliability of the intention version of
the 73-item scale was found to be 0.81 (Cronbach alpha) and the reliability
of the behaviour version was 0.84 (Cronbach alpha). A combined intention-
behaviour version of this scale was later developed following Nunnally and
had 34 items with a reliability of 0.89 (Cronbach alpha), which is included
in appendix A [2].
Respondents also completed several other instruments and provided back-
ground and biographical information. First, there were four instruments
used to measure attitude toward innovation, change, and technology. The Kirton
(1976) 32-item scale, called ‘Image of Yourself, measures innovation orien-
tation, which the author reports to have a reliability of 0.88 (KR-20). We
I 68 JOHN E. ETTLIE AND ROBERT D. O’KEEFE

found the scale to have a reliability of 0.85 (Cronbach alpha) for this
sample. The ‘readiness for change’ scale (Hardin, 1967; Trumbo, 1961)is a
9-item scale, which we found to have a reliability of 0.74 (Cronbach alpha).
An earlier 9-item version was reported by Trumbo (1961) to have an odd-
even reliability of 0.79. The ‘Index of values favourable to change’, reported
by Hage and Dewar (1973), is a 5-item scale which was found to have a
reliability of 0.54 (Cronbach alpha). Instead of averaging, summed respon-
ses were used for these five items. Finally, a self-report measure (cJWalkup,
1971)constructed by the authors was used to measure ‘being innovative’ by
asking respondents to compare themselves with everyone else on a loo-point
scale.
A number of other instruments and measures were included in the
questionnaire to explore questions beyond the two initial hypotheses. The
two scales (‘What kind of person are you?’ and ‘Something about myself) to
measure creativity included in the Khatena-Torrance ( 1976) Creative Percep-
tion Inventory were used. The authors report that test-retest reliabilities for
these scales vary from 0.71 to 0.98 for various samples. A scale to measure
organization risk-taking climate was included in the questionnaire. This scale
was constructed by the first author by combining a 5-item Likert scale used
in an earlier study (Ettlie and Vellenga, 1979) with six items drawn from an
article by Mars (1971). This I I-item scale had a reliability of 0.85 (Cron-
bach alpha). Respondents were asked to provide a critical incident (about two
sentences) of innovative, creative, or original behaviour they observed in a
colleague. The length of the incident (word count) was used as an unobtrus-
ive measure of innovativeness ( c J ,Treffinger et al., 1971).
Background information gathered from respondents included the follow-
ing: number of subordinates; salary (above, same or below people of equal
experience); amount of money that respondent could commit for the or-
ganization; years worked (aU three latter measures are for status and auth-
ority) ; years with present organization (tenure) ; number of people in the
immediate work group; organization size (number of employees) ; age; edu-
cation ; and, finally, a listing of accomplishments composed of publications,
patents, performance awards, and other distinctions, all of which were
simply summed as a behavioural performance measure ( c J Bartlett and
Davis, 1974; Stein, 1974; Whiting, 1973).
Instructions were read aloud to each group of respondents and the study
was called ‘Innovation and organization’. The only requirement for partici-
pation was a full or part-time job (extended period of time) in organizations.
Potential respondents were told that the focus was on ‘attitudes, values, and
conditions relevant to innovation in organizational settings’, and that as a
participant they would be entitled to a summary report when it became
available. A total of ten different classes in marketing, management, and
economics, and of varying class sizes participated. None of these classes was
specifically concerned with technology of innovation, or change in or-
ganizations.
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I 69

The sample for this study consisted of 123 male and female graduate and
undergraduate students in the College of Commerce and Graduate School of
Business at DePaul University, Chicago. All had full-time jobs or the equiv-
alent (long-standing part-time jobs or nearly full-time in hours worked p u
week). A vast array of industries was represented in this sample. A total of 32
different industry categories was mentioned by respondents. The service
sector was well represented. Eighteen respondents were in banking, nine
each in insurance or accounting, or health care. Eight respondents report
manufacturing as their industry, while government (7 mentions), retailing (6
mentions), and communications (5 mentions) are also represented. Other
industries include data processing, transportation, social services, consulting,
publishing, automotive, education, oil, graphic arts, packaging, real estate,
and entertainment.
The sample was somewhat more limited on personal characteristics (see
table I11 presented later). The average tenure in their present organization
was three years (SD = 3.2 years), with the average number of years worked
being six years (SD=6.3 years). The average number of people in their
immediate work group was 1 3 (SD = I 7). Average age of the sample was 27
(SD = 5), and average number of years of college was 4 (SD = I ) .
On the other hand, in this sample there were 60 respondents with one or
more subordinates, and the average number of subordinates was 3.81 (SD =
9.25). The average respondent was able to commit for the organization
about $ I 7,000 (SD approx = $IOO,OOO) without prior approval. The average
organization size was about 8,000 employees (SD approx. = 30,000).

RESULTS

There are two major hypotheses being tested with these data. First, there
will be less correspondence between attitude and values scales reported in
the innovation literature than would normally be expected in an intercorrel-
ation matrix of scales perported to measure the same attitude, for example,
religiosity (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1974).Secondly, regardless of the confusion
or purposeful differences in these scales which have been used to measure
innovation attitudes and values, they are likely to predict or to be correlated
significantly with a multiple-act criterion measure of innovation behaviours
or intentions; but they are not likely to be consistently related to single-act
criterion of intentions or behaviours. Also, there is strong likelihood that the
choice of behaviours or intentions as the multiple-act criterion will make
little difference in the pattern of their relationships.
There are two secondary, but interesting, hypotheses also tested here, and
discussed later. First, people with more formal authority in organizations
exhibit greater consistency between various attitude-behaviour measures.
Secondly, organization climate moderates the correlations between these
scales. That is, risk-taking climate tends to support or be correlated with
greater consistency.
'70 JOHN E. ETTLIE AND ROBERT D. O'KEEFE

Table I presents intercorrelation of the four innovation value and attitude

scales separately for the two subject groups (behaviours, N = 59, and inten-
tions, N = 64) and for the group combined (N = I 23). Table I1 presents the
correlations of these four scales with the single-act criterion (mean corre-
lation with 73 individual behaviours) and with the multiple-act criterion
(sum over 73 behaviours).

Table I. Intercorrelations of the four verbal attitude scales

I 2 3 4
Scale Behaviours ( N = 59) Mean S.D.
Self-report ( I ) I .a 70.3' 20.09
Change (I) 0.37. I .o 18.12 3.15
Image (3) -0.14 0.10 I .o 101.14 20.57
Readiness (4) -0.21 0.06 0.63' 1.0 33.29 6.09
Intentions ( N = 64)

Self-report ( I ) I .o 64.13 20.90

Change (I) 0.05 I .o 18.58 3.03
'mage (3) 0.22** 0.17 I .o 96.89 '3.75
Readiness (4) 0.07 0.09 0.42* 1.0 32.47 5.83
Behatiours and Intentions (N = 123)
Self-report ( I ) I .o 69.24 20. I 5
Change ( 2 ) o.r5** 1.0 18.42 3.01
Image (3) 0.21** 0.2g* 1.0 98.08 14.21
Readiness (4) 0.08 o.~g** 0.38* 1.0 32.66 5.30
(One-tail probabilities for Peanon r)

* p < 0 . 0 1 , ** p < 0.05.

Table 11. Correlations of the four verbal attitude scales with

single-(and multiple-act criteria
Single-act criterion' Mdliph-act critm'onb
Behatiours Intentions Behamours Intentionr
Scale n=59 n=64 n=59 n=64
Self-report 0.133 0.076 0.428. 0 . 2 76**
Change 0.108 0.106 0.37z* 0.383*
Image 0.059 0 . 1 18 0.236** 0.466*
Readiness 0.01 7 0.107 0.063 0.384*
a Mean correlation with 73 behaviours or intentions
b Sum over 73 behaviours or intentions (Likert scale)
p i0.01, ** p < 0.05.

The combined sample ( N = 123) shows high convergent validity, based on

significant intercorrelations in table I. When the two groups are separated,
however, inconsistencies result which are predictable from the lack of con-
ceptual overlap in these innovation scales. I n the case of behaviours (N = 59)
and the combined groups, there is a significant correlation between the
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I7I

change value scale used by Hage and Dewar (1973) and the self-report
measure (CPIOO), but this relationship does not hold for the intention group
(N = 64). One consistent intercorrelation across the three groups is the sig-
nificant ( p < 0.01)result for Hardin’s (1967) readiness-to-change scale and
image scale (Kirton, 1976). The readiness-to-change scale is also not signifi-
cantly related to the self-report measure of being innovative or creative in all
three groups (r = - 0 . 2 1 , 0.07, and 0.08, n.s.). The image and self-report
scales are significantly correlated for the intention and combined groups (r =
0.22, 0 . 2 1 , p<o.o5) but not for the behaviour group ( r = - o . 1 4 ) , which
may be accounted for by the high standard deviation (20.57) for the image
scores of the latter group. The implication for innovation research is that one
usually has to be very careful and very specific about which attitude or value
construct is being considered and the context for the behaviour. That is,
some constructs appear to have consistency across behaviours and intentions
(e.g. readiness-to-change), but at the same time do not correlate well with
other measures of innovative attitudes and values. For other scales, consist-
ency may be lacking.
In the test of the hypothesis concerning single-act and multiple-act cri-
terion, the results in table I1 almost completely replicate Fishbein and Ajzen,
(1974).That is, the correlations between the four innovation attitudes and
value scales with the single-act criterion (mean correlation) are not signifi-
cant for both the behaviour and the intention groups, ranging from 0.017 to
0.I 18. With one exception, correlations between these four scales and the
multiple-act criterion scale (sum of 73 behaviours) are all significant: the
readiness scale does not correlate significantly with the multiple-act criterion
for the behaviour group. This seems rather good evidence that the multiple-
act criterion scale is a desirable approach to maximizing attitude-intention-
behaviour consistency and justifies further exploratory testing of these data.
One can also conclude, based on this replication, that the innovative behav-
iour scale can be used to measure individual innovativeness or attitude
toward being innovative in the organizational context.
The first step in this exploratory part of the study was to combine the
behaviour and intention groups of the sample (total N = 123) and refine the
scale (Nunnally 1967) to a 34-item version (Cronbach alpha of 0.89). This
scale was then used in a larger correlation matrix, table IV, and as the
dependent variable in a multiple step-wise regression (Nie ct al., 1g75), re-
ported in table v. The candidate predictors are all of those variables, includ-
ing the scales discussed above and background measures. Means and stan-
dard deviations are reported in table 111.
The best single predictor of the scale of innovative behaviours (table V) is
the ‘Something about myself scale measure of cscutivity (Khatena and Tor-
rance, 1976). This scale accounts for 43 per cent (R2, R2adjusted for degrees
of freedom) of the variance in individual innovativeness (F = 92.4, p < 0 . 0 1 ) .
The second variable to enter in this regression is readiness-to-change, which
 JOHN E. ETTLIE AND ROBERT D. O’KEEFE

Table 111. Means and standard deviations (N = 123)

Standard
Variabfc Mean deviation
I. Creativity (‘What kind of person are you?’) 27.19 6.4
2. Creativity (‘Something about myself‘) 27.15 7.38
3. Self-reported innovativeness (1,000 pt scale item) 69.24 20. I 5
4. Word count of critical incident 18.79 14-51
5. Number of subordinates 3.81 9.25
6. Dollar commitment for organization 8 17,338.60 $105,685.10
7. Tenure 3.12 3.21
8. Years worked 6.2 6.33
9. Number in work group ‘3.48 17.12
10. Organization size (number of employees) 8131.0 302 19.0
1 1 . Age 26.62 5.26
1 2 . Education (years of collegc) 4.37 1.26
I 3. Actual accomplishments (awards, patents. efc.) 0.69 I .64
14. Change (Hage and Dewar, 1973) 18.42 3.01
15. Climate (risk-taking] 3 1.44 8.58
16. Image (innovation orientation, Kirton, 1976) 98.08 14.21
1 7 . Readiness to change (Hardin, 1967) 32.66 5.3
18. Innovation behaviour or attitude towards being
innovative (34 items) 121.1 I 5.02

increases R2 to 0.47. One surprising result is that organization climate does

not enter or appear to moderate the individual innovativeness measures.
Examination of table IV reveals that climate correlates significantly with
only two of the 1 8 variables and measures in this matrix, the number of
subordinates (r = 0.24, p < 0 . 0 1 ) and education (r = - 0.18, p < 0.05). One
explanation for this unexpected result may be partially determined from the
actual items that ultimately are included in the innovation behaviour scale.
The 34-item and 20-item version of this scale are included in appendix A. I t
appears that a number of items that characterize the relationship between
the respondent and that person’s immediate superior have relatively large
item-total correlations and are, therefore, included in the scale. Conceptually,
these items could also have been included in a climate scale and this might
explain why the climate variable itself had fewer significant associations in the
correlation matrix (table IV) . As Barnowe ( I 975) had demonstrated, leader-
ship measures can account for as much as 1 8per cent of the variance in scien-
tific-applied contribution of 8 I subunits of a research organization. Barnowe
also reports that leadership was even more important when scientists were
classified as relatively ‘disadvantaged’-less able to consult with other scientists
in the field and had relatively less research experience. The helping role of the
R and D supervisor was very influential on performance in these circum-
stances. It is not surprising that items reminiscent of organization climate
would cluster on a scale to measure innovative behaviour or attitude toward
being innovative. To the extent that those items that describe the superior-
subordinate relationship as open have high (0.45, 0.47, 0.41,0.54) item-total
 d

io
coo
.-o -o .o
' o o$sg! h

I:

.-x m

z
Y

m
I74 JOHN E. ETTLIE AND ROBERT D. O'KEEFE

Table V. Summary of multiple regression

Dependent variable is innovative behaviour (or attitude toward being innovative, 34-item
scale). Valid steps ( fb)included
R2 Beta
Step Variable rntning R2 p2 Change F df r (9th Stefi)

I Creativity ('Something 0.433 0.428 0.433 92.42* 1, 1 2 1 0.658 0.592

about myself')
2 Readiness-to-change 0.482 0.473 0.048 55.76' 0 . 1 99 0.200
3 Creativity ('What kind 0.498 0.486 0.016 39.4'* 0.399* 0.2 I 3
of person are you?')
4 Change 0.510 0.494 0.01 I 30.73* 0.369* 0.134
5 Image o.5rg 0.498 0.wg 25.27* 0.314* -0.159
6 Dollar commitment 0.526 0.502 0.007 2 1.49. 0. I34 0.087
for organization
7 Organization size 0.533 0.505 0.007 18.79. 0.247* 0.090
8 Years worked 0.538 0.506 0.004 16.61. -0.01g 0.127
9 Age 0.543 0.507 0.005 '4.95* 0.03 I - 0.092

* p < 0 . 0 1 , ** p < 0.05

correlations in the innovation behaviour scale, the Barnowe results are sup-
ported here [3].
In order to more fully test the hypothesis that perceived risk-taking cli-
mates moderate attitude-behaviour consistency, the sample was split into
two groups, those respondents that reported a below-median (not supporting
risk) score (median = 32.75) on organization risk-taking climate and a
second group that reported an above-median score (supporting risk) on risk-
taking climate. Correlations between the innovation behaviour scale and the
four scales used to measure innovation-change attitudes and values are re-
ported in table VI.

Table V1. Correlation between four innovation-change attitude-value scales and innovative
behaviours in high and low organization risk-taking climate groups

Innovative behaviour scale

Attitude Respondents in low (below median) Respondents in high (above median)
Scale risk-taking climate group ( N = 59) risk-taking c h u t e group (N = 64)
i . Self-reported
innovativeness 0.31** 0.32.
2. Change values 0.47. 0.22
3. Image (innovativeness) 0.40. 0.22

4. Readiness-to-change 0.14
- 0.28**
-
Average correlation r = 0.33 0.26

* p < 0 . 0 1 (for N = 59, r = 0.345.; forN = 64, r = 0.320.).

** p < 0.05 (for N = 59, r = 0.267**; for N = 64, r = 0.246**).
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I 75

The results are somewhat mixed, but in general the hypothesis is not sup-
ported. For two scales, self-reported innovativeness and readiness to change,
there is greater attitude-behaviour consistency in high risk-taking climates.
For the change value scales and image scales, there is greater consistency in
the low risk-taking climate. Organization climates that support more risk-
taking do not necessarily promote consistency between innovation-change
attitudeslvalues and innovative behaviours.
Although the innovation behaviour scale is correlated significantly with
the criterion of actual accomplishments (e.g. publications, patents, honours)
measured in this study (r = 0.27, p < O . O I ) , this result is probably moderated
by age (see table IV).
There are other very significant, nontrivial [4] correlations between these
scales reported in table IV. For example, creativity (‘What kind of person
are you?’) and image (innovation orientation) interact significantly (r =
0.59, p < 0 . 0 1 ) Also,
. self-reported innovativeness (0-IOOscale) correlates sig-
nificantly ( r = 0.46, p < 0.01) with creativity (‘Something about myself).
One tempting hypothesis is that there is an interaction between the attitude
toward being innovative and some measure of innovative capacity like these
creativity scales. I t is not clear, however, that one has to be creative to be an
early adopter or supportive of innovative solutions to problems in an or-
ganization when a wide range of occupational categories as opposed to only
scientists and engineers is being considered.
Some potential insight into this issue can be gained by examining closely
the results of a factor analysis of the total 73 candidate items originally used
for the innovative behaviour scale. The 34-item version of this scale that
resulted from an item-analysis was used as the dependent variable in the
regression analysis discussed above and is reproduced in appendix A.
The results of the classical factor analysis of the 73 candidate items ap-
pearing on the questionnaire for the total sample of individuals (N = 123)
appears in table VII below. Only the first ten items that had factor loadings
in excess of 0.40 are reported for factor 1 (eigen value = 8.53), and eight of
these items are identical to the items that appear in the top ten (based on
item-total correlations) of the scale in appendix A. These factor analysis re-
sults just confirm what we have already reported. However, the second
factor (eigen value = 4.5) to emerge presents some rather surprising results.
The six items included under factor 2 appear to describe an ‘anti-innovator’
or someone maintaining the status quo in a n organization. Some of the items
are ‘stick to the rules and protocol’, ‘encourage more formal meetings’, and
‘I turn down risky assignments’.
The third factor has just two items, with correspondingly lower reliability
(eigen value = 3.76), but appears to describe people with greatly depressed
job satisfaction and involvement : ‘I will not be able to find enough variety of
experience on my job’, and ‘I am going to leave my job soon because I am
unchallenged’.
 Table VII. Factor analysis of 73 candidate items to measure attitude toward being innovative (N = 123)
Ilnn Factor loadings’
Factor I Factor z Facfor3
I. ‘I try new ideas and new approaches to problems’. 0.535 0 . 1 9 - 0.069
2. ‘I take things or situations apart to find out how they work‘. 0.519 0.119 0.064 4
0
3. ‘I will be counted on to find a new use for existing methods or existing equipment’ 0.564 0.058 -0.147 X
4. ‘Among my colleagues and co-workers, I will be the first or nearly the first z
to try out a new idea or method’. 0.593 -0.027 0. I93
P
5. ‘I demonstrate originality’. 0.538 0.158 -0.047
6. ‘1 will work on a problem which has caused others great difficulty’. 0.512 0.148 0.015
7. ‘I develop contacts with experts in my area located outside my firm’. o.59a -0.077 -0.156
8. ‘1 budget funds for the pursuit of a risky idea’. 0.501 -0.320 -0.016
9. ‘I make comments at staff meetings’. 0.524 0.213 -0.024
10. ‘If my co-workers were asked, they would say I am a wit’. 0.501 -0.101 0.03 I
I I . ‘Stick to the rules and protocol’. 0.178 0.414 0.383
1 2 . ‘Encourage more formal meetings’. 0.119 0.408 0.077
13. ‘I leave it to others to support a colleague’s suggestions’. 0.381 -0.412~ -0.093
14. ‘I turn down risky assignments’. 0.3‘5 0.503 -0.068
15. ‘I discipline people who depart from the accepted organizational routine’. -0.004 0.443 0.086 P
16. ‘I will be known for the quantity of output when starting a new project 9
rather than the quality of output’. -0.241 -0.444~ 0.021 Fm
I 7. ‘I will not be able to find enough variety of experience on my job’. -0.110 -0.219 0.637 21
18. ‘I am going to leave my job soon because I am unchallenged‘. 0.032 -0.283 0.695 P

a Principal factor loadings from classical factor analysis. Only the first 10 items reported for factor I , although 23 items
total had factor loadings in excess of 0.40. Eight of these ten items are the same as the first 1 0 items in the scale generated
by item-analysis (appendix A).
All items with factor loadings greater than 0.40 are reported for factors 2 and 3.
Note: negative factor loadings. In order to get total, sum score, recode in opposite direction (e.g. SA [or Strongly Agree]
= I [not 51, etc.).
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I77
Table VIII. Correlation between four innovative attitude scales and innovative behaviours
(attitude toward being innovative) for two groups of respondents (N = 123)

Innovative behamour scale

fispondcnts with Resp&s with one
no subordinates or more subordinates
Attit& scale (N = 63) (N = 60)
I. Self-reported innovativeness 0.319. o.298**
2. Change values 0.327* 0.440'
3. Image (innovativeness) 0.293** 0.340*
4. Readiness-t-change
Average correlation
- -0.152
r = 0.273
-
0.271,.
0.347
p < 0.01 (for N = 63, r = 0 . 3 0 1 7 ~for
; N = 60,r = 0.3248~).
** p < 0.05 (for N = 63, r = o.231g**;for N = 60,r = 0 . 2 5 0 * * ) .

What these results suggest is that there might be three types of theme
behaviours (not personalities) related to innovativeness that interact in or-
ganizations. The first is the innovator in an organization. Behaviours like
having new ideas, risk-taking, asking questions, communicating with col-
leagues in-house and outside the firm appear to be typical. The second
theme, interacting in the same settings no doubt, is that of maintaining the
stutur gueobserving rules, avoiding risks, encouraging formality, and not
encouraging new suggestions. The third set of behaviours appears to be with-
drawal because of being unable to get variety and challenge on the job. The
process by which these sets of behaviours, and the people who exhibit them,
interact and unfold to influence a more or less innovative organization des-
erves continued examination and study.
The final hypothesis tested here is that people with more formal authority
in organizations will be less influenced by organization climate and exhibit
greater consistency among these innovative attitude measures. This hypoth-
esis was supported by the results, which are summarized in table VIII, al-
though none of the differences between these correlations is statistically sig-
nificant. The average correlation between the innovation-change attitude
scales and the innovation behaviour scale is ?=a273 for the subgroup re-
porting no subordinates (N = 63) and f = 0.347 for the subgroup report-
ing one or more subordinates (N = 60). Organization risk-taking climate is
also significantly correlated (table IV) with number of subordinates
(r = 0.24,p < O . O I ) , which also supports this hypothesis and suggests that
internal environment may be enacted. This may explain why climate was
not found to be a moderator as discussed earlier. That is, managers create
and heavily influence the risk-taking climate of most organizations.
178 JOHN E. ETTLIE AND ROBERT D. O’KEEFE

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that innovative attitude and value scales
appear to measure the same construct only when there is no distinction
made between intentions to behave innovatively and actual innovative be-
haviour. However, the Fishbein-Aizen ( I 9 7 5 ) hypothesis that attitudes cor-
relate significantly with multiple-act criterion but not with single-act cri-
terion is replicated by findings of this study for four attitude-value scales and
a measure of innovative behaviours which can then be interpreted as an
indicator of attitude toward being innovative. This version of the innovative
behaviour scale is made up of 14 items drawn from descriptions of techno-
logical gatekeepers and 16 items drawn from descriptions of people who are
creative in organizations, and four items which describe superior-
subordinate interaction. The best single predictor (R2= 0.43, p < 0 . 0 1 ) of
innovative behaviours is not one of these attitude-value scales but a creati-
vity measure (‘Something about myself, Khatena and Torrance, 1 9 7 6 ) . Or-
ganization risk-taking climate does not appear to moderate this result.
One of the implications of these results is that if one is going to pursue the
approach of constructing a model in which organization climate moderates
the relationship between attitude, creativity, value, intention, and inno-
vative behaviour, then the climate construction should probably be broad
enough to include a characterization of superior-subordinate relationship.
This characterization should be especially sensitive to how open, honest, and
mutually trusting this relationship is with respect to those aspects of the job
which are important to the subordinate.
When an attitude object can be specified as an innovation, perhaps the
best way to measure this attitude would be to have respondents evaluate a
wide range of attributes that would be used to describe any innovation and
score the attitude as the sum of these evaluations (Zaltman et al., 1 9 7 3 ) . The
next step in this research effort appears to be in the simultaneous evaluation
of the attitude toward a specific innovation or set of innovations and the
attitude toward being innovative. At least one acceptable scale to measure
the latter attitude was the product of the present study. It was not possible,
given the limitations of the present effort, to explore or test this proposition.
The relationship between these two attitudes seems central to the issue of
how innovative attitudes are converted into innovative behaviours in or-
ganizations for a wide range of occupational groups. The second hypothesis
which emerges here and was tentatively supported, is that individuals with
greater influence over innovation decisions, for example, people with more
formal or informal authority in the organization, are more likely to exhibit
attitude-behaviour consistency. This hypothesis deserves testing in a broader
sample study.
Finally, the emergence here of these primary types of attitudes toward
being innovative in organizations warrants further investigation. The way
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I 79

t h e innovator, t h e preserver of t h e status quo, a n d the unchallenged or-

ganizational participant interact and resolve problems may be of particular
interest i n organizational design and t o management in attempting t o obtain
the o p t i m u m blend of people i n various organizational settings. The issue of
peer interaction as a stimulus and guide to creativity deserves further re-
search (Hage, 1980,pp. igg-205).

NOTES

[I) Work in this area has been supported in part by the Graduate School of Business,
DePaul University, and the National Science Foundation, Division of Industrial
Science and Technological Innovation, Grant No. PFU-7914354. The views
contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official
position of the National Science Foundation. The comments by three anonymous
reviewers and cooperation of our students is gratefully acknowledged.
[2] There were no indications, based on informal questions to non respondents, that
the group that failed to return the questionnaires was systematically different
from the participating group. The authors concluded that not responding was
unrelated to the purpose or method of the study.
[3] Another possible explanation for the lack of moderating influence of organization
climate on the relationship between innovation attitudes and innovative behav-
iours is that multiple respondents from each organization are needed to accu-
rately assess the impact of organization risk-taking climate.
[4] Some less interesting significant correlations: age and tenure; years worked and
tenure; the ability to commit dollars for the organization, and number of subor-
dinates (the two measures of formal authority).

Appendix A. Scale to measure innovative behaviour or attitude toward being innovative*

Item-total Item-total
correlation correlation
Item &-item scale)' (mitem scale)b

I. Openly discuss promotion with my boss.' 0.45 0.48

2. Make an important decision in a relatively
short time period. 0.41
3. I find problems to solve. 0.42
4. I try new ideas and new approaches to
problems. 0.51 0.55
5. I take things or situations apart to find
out how they work. 0.49 0.54
6. I seek uncertainty and unusual circumstances
related to my tasks. 0.49 0.48
7. I will say something and someone will reply
or comment that I have a great sense of humour. 0.40
8. I negotiate my salary openly with my
supervisor.' 0.47 0.49
9. I will stick to my guns even when my boss
and coworkers disagree with me.' 0.41
10. I will be counted on to find a new use for
existing methods or existing equipment. 0.57 0.60

(Continued)
 Appendix A. (Confinud)
Item-total Item-total
correlation correlation
lm ( 3 4 - i h scale) (20-item scale) ’

I I. Among my colleagues and coworkers, I will

be the first or nearly the first to try out
a new idea or method. 0.60 0.6 I
1 2 . I will have the opportunity to ‘translate’
communications from other departments for
my work group. 0.52 0.54
13. I demonstrate originality. 0.52 0.54
14. I will work on a problem which has
caused others great difficulty. 0.50 0.53
15. I provide critical input toward a new idea. 0.49 0.49
16. I am seeking a place on a venture team. 0.43 -
17. I provide written evaluations of proposed
ideas. 0.53 0.58
18. I make an effort to communicate with
people outside my current assignment. 0.44 -
19. I develop contacts with experts in my
area located outside my firm. 0.61 0.66
20. I use interpersonal contacts to manoeuvre
myself into choice work assignments. 0.53 0.51
2 1 . I make time to pursue my own pet ideas or
projects. 0.48 0.5 I
2 2 . 1 look for unstructured work assignments. 0.44 -
23. I budget funds for the pursuit of a risky
idea. 0.56 0.54
24. I line up others to support a colleague’s
suggestions. 0.43
25. 1 hire creative people. 0.43
26. 1 am capable of supervising creative
people. 0.35
27. I tolerate people who depart from
organizational routine. 0.31 -
2 8 . I will take risks. 0.49 0.49
ng. Make an important decision by making the
most of a very limited amount of information 0.33
30. I want more status and prestige. 0.33
3 I . I work to reduce staff over-specialization
by getting people to think broadly. 0.40 -
32. I make comments at staff meetings.’ 0.54 0.57
33. I work with project teams designed to solve
one complex problem. 0.47 0.53
34. If my coworkers are asked, they will say 1
am a wit. 0.52 0.46

a Cronbach alpha = 0.889; average interitem correlation = 0.19

b Cronbach alpha = 0.865; average interitem correlation = 0.24
c Items which potentially measure the quality of relationship between superior and
subordinate that might be considered part of organization climate.
* All items on both versions of the scale are scored 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for
undecided, 2 for disagree, I for strongly disagree. Instructions for completion: ‘Below are listed
some behaviours and actions. Please indicate the degree to which your intentions (although you
may not have acted yet) or actual behauiour (things you have done) on the j o b match the
behaviour described by circling one of the five responses ( S A , for strongly agree that it matches,
a for agree that it matches, ?for undecided, d for disagree that it matches, and SD for strongly
disagree that it matches’. Either the intention or behaviour instructions, in brackets, were used
when the two groups were divided.
 INNOVATIVE ATTITUDES, VALUES, AND INTENTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS I8I

REFERENCES

ALLEN,T. J. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.

Press.
BARNOWE, J. T. (1975).‘Leadership and performance outcomes in research or-
ganizations : the supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance’. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 142 , 264-80.
BARTLETT, M. M. and DAVIS,G. A. (1974).‘Do the Wallach and Koga‘n tests predict
real creative behavior?’ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 730.
CHAKRABARTI, A. K. and O’KEEFE,R. D. (1977). ‘A study of communications in R
and D laboratories’. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 336-46.
DAVIS,G. A. (1975).‘In frumious pursuit of the creative person’. J o u d of Creative
Behavior, g, 75-87.
DUCHESNEAU, T. D. and DUTTON, J. E. (1977).‘Innovation in the footwear industry’.
Paper presented at the O.R.S.A./T.I.M.S. meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, November
7-9.
ETTLIE,J. E. (1979). ‘An evaluation of training for technological change’. Training
and Development Journal, 35,July, 22-6.
ETTLIE,J. E. and VELLENGA, D. B. (1979). ‘The adoption time period for some
transportation innovations’. Management Science, 25, 429-43.
FISHBEIN, M. and AJZEN,I. (1974). ‘Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single
and multiple behavioral criteria’. Psychological Review, 81, I , 59-74.
FISHBEIN, M. and AJZEN,I. (1975). Be!id, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading,
Mass. : Addison-Wesley.
GETZELS, J. W. (1975). ‘Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions’. J O U ~
of Creative Behavior, 9, I 2- I 8.
HAGE,J. (1980).Theories of Organization. New York: Wiley.
HAGE,J. and DEWAR,R. (1973).‘Elite values versus organizational structure in pre-
dicting innovation’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 279-90.
HARDIN,E. (1967). ‘Job satisfaction and the desire for change’. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 51,2 , 20-7.
HITT, M. A. (1975).‘The creative organization: tomorrow’s survivor’. Journal of Cre-
ative Behavior, 9, 283-90.
KARLINS,M.A. (1972).‘A note on a new test of creativity’. Journal of Creative Beha-
vior, 6, 95-10‘.
KELLER,R. T. and HOLLAND, W. E. (1978). Final Report on: Technical Information
Flows and Innovation Processes. Houston : Department of Management, College of
Business Administration, University of Houston.
KELLY,P. and KRANZBERG, M. (1975). Technological Innovation: A Central Review of
Current Knowledge. Washington, D.C. : National Science Foundation.
KHATENA, J. and TORRANCE, E. P. (1976). Manual f o r Khatena-Torrance Creative Percep-
tion Inventory. Chicago: Stoelting Company.
KIRTON,M. (1976).‘Adapters and innovators: a description and measure’. J o u m l of
Applied Psychology, 61,622-9.
KOPROWSKI, E. J. (1972). ‘Creativity, man, and organizations’. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 6, 49-54.
MARS,D. (1971).‘The role of the middle manager in nuturing creativity’. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 5, 270-8.
MIDGLEY,D. and DOWLING,G. R. (1978). ‘Innovativeness: the concept and its
measurement’. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 229-42.
NABSETH, L. and RAY,G. F. (1974).The Dtjiusion of New Industrial Processes. London:
Cambridge University Press.
I 82 JOHN E. ETTUE AND ROBERT D. O’KEEFE

NIE, N. H., HULL,C. H., JENKINS, J. G., STEINBRENNER, K. and BEUT,D. H. (1975).
Statistical Package for the Social Scimes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
NOLL,V. L. and SHUPE,A. D. (1975). ‘Contextual dimensions in attitudes as a
function of group-originating identities’. Sociological Focus, 8, I , 65-77.
NUNNALLY, J. C. (1967).Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
RIMM,S. and DAVIS, G. A. (1976). ‘Gift-an instrument for the identification of
creativity’. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178-82.
ROKEACH, M. (1967). ‘Attitude change and behavioral change’. Public Opinion
Q w W , 3 4 529-50.
ROKEACH, M. and KLIEJUNAS, P. (1972).‘Behavior as a function of attitude-toward-
situation’. Journal ofPersonali9 and Social Psychology, aa, 2, 194-201.
SCHUMAN, H. and JOHNSON, M. P. (1976). ‘Attitudes and behavior’. Annual Review of
Sociology, a, 161-207.
STEIN,M. I. (1974).Stirnuluting Creativity. New York: Academic Press.
TORRANCE, E. P. (1978). ‘Giftedness in solving future problems’. journal of Creative
Behavior, rz, 75.
TREFFINGER, D. J., RENZULLI, J. S. and FELDHUSEN, J. F. (1971).‘Problems in the
assessment of creative thinking’. J O U of~ Creative Behavior, 5 104-1 12.
TRUMBO, D. A. (1961).‘Industrial and group correlates of attitudes towards work
related change’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 5, 338-44.
VROOM,V. H. and PAHL,B. (1971).‘Relationship between age and risk-taking
among managers’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 339-405.
WALKUP, L. E. (1971).‘Detecting creativity: some practical approaches’. Jourml of
Creative Behavior, 5, 88-93.
WHITING,B. G. (1973).‘How to predict creativity from biographical data’. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 7, 20 1-7.
ZALTMAN, G., DUNCAN, R. and HOLBEK, J. (1973).Innovations and Organization. New
York: Wiley.