managing innovation champions: the impact of project characteristics on the direct manager role

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project

Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role�

Donna Kelley and Hyunsuk Lee

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend

direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides

insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involve-

ment. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic

relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or

supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four

divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects

were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial

sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project’s markets, technologies,

and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice

and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize inno-

vative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative

projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically

related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control.

Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing

new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager

roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of

the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to

recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest

that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain

projects call for different levels and types of involvement.

Introduction

The most critical contributor to successful in-

novation, according to the literature, is the

judgment and ability of those championing

innovation projects (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996;

Leifer et al., 2000). The success of these individuals

depends on their ability to overcome organizational

bureaucracy and their resourcefulness in obtaining the

commitment needed to accomplish their objectives

(Burgelman and Sayles, 1986; Day, 1994; Markham,

1998, 2000; Quinn, 1985; Schon, 1963, 1967; Twiss,

1986). They may recruit higher-level sponsors to help

secure the resources and cooperation their projects

require (Day; Galbraith, 1982; Garud and Van de

Ven, 1992; Martin, 1984; Tushman and Nadler, 1986).

This suggests that they mostly operate under highly

empowered conditions (Knight, 1987; Pinchot, 1985)

but also that managerial participation may be just as

essential, given the high level of uncertainty that char-

acterizes innovation (Harrison and Freeman, 2004;

Strebel, 1992).

This leads one to question the nature and extent of

the manager role. This involvement could be more

hands-off, as some suggest (Miner, 1994), with higher-

level managers primarily working to shape the orga-

nizational environment at a broader level (Burgelman

and Sayles, 1986; Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra,

2002; Jassawalla and Sashittal, 2002; Russell, 1999;

Tushman and Nadler, 1986). On the other hand, they

may play a direct role: for example, they may take on

the more directive monitoring and control functions of

a supervisor or play a more participative sponsor role

(Lewis et al., 2002). The challenge for managers lies in

�Donna Kelley wishes to acknowledge the financial support pro-vided by the Babson College Faculty Research Fund. Hyunsuk Leewishes to acknowledge the financial support provided by SeoulNational University of Science and Technology- New Faculty ResearchGrant 2007.

Address correspondence to: Hyunsuk Lee, Department of BusinessAdministration, Seoul National University of Technology, Seoul,Korea. Tel: þ 82-2-970-6421. Fax: þ 82-2-973-1249. E-mail: [email protected].

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2010;27:1007–1019r 2010 Product Development & Management Association

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

striking the right balance between allowing too much

freedom and being overinvolved (Kanter, 1989).

This research addresses the call in the literature for

greater knowledge about the nature of the direct role

in managing innovation champions. This, according

to Lewis et al. (2002), is important in advancing

academic understanding about the different manage-

ment style requirements under various contexts. More

specifically, this study focuses on the influence of pro-

ject characteristics on the manager role: how the level

of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and

resource requirements impact the level of empower-

ment of champions and the sponsor or supervisor role

played by managers. As such, it addresses the follow-

ing research questions:

RQ1: How much autonomy should innovation champi-

ons have?

RQ2: How much and what type of managerial over-

sight and support do they need?

These questions were addressed through a survey of

89 innovation project champions from three Korean

companies: two divisions in one company and one

division in each of the other two.

The results reveal three findings First, innovation

champions feel more empowered when a project is

highly innovative but also strategically related. Sec-

ond, whereas monitoring is not associated with pro-

ject characteristics, managers are more likely to exert

control when projects are less strategically related and

when resource requirements are high. And third, the

sponsor role increases with higher innovativeness and

strategic relatedness. This suggests that managers bal-

ance empowerment with a sponsor role when projects

are highly innovative yet strategically related. On the

other hand, they exert more control when the project

requires greater resources and diverges from the com-

pany’s strategy and operations. The key overall

implication for managers is this: for organizations to

effectively develop and commercialize innovation,

managers need to recognize when different projects

call for different levels and types of involvement.

The paper proceeds as follows. It starts with liter-

ature background on the nature and characteristics of

innovation. Next, literature on innovation champions

and manager roles are used to develop hypotheses

predicting the extent of champion empowerment and

the level of the supervisor and sponsor roles, as a

function of project characteristics. The paper then de-

tails the survey methodology and analysis process.

A discussion of the findings is then followed with con-

clusions outlining implications for academics and

practitioners.

The Nature of Innovation in Established

Organizations

Innovation encompasses the development and appli-

cation of significant new technologies or ideas (Tush-

man and Nadler, 1986). It can also include novel

combinations of previously unrelated technologies

(Martin, 1984). Innovation enables new functional ca-

pabilities (Betz, 1993), new product categories

(Meyers and Tucker, 1989; Tushman and Anderson,

1986), or fundamental product or process improve-

ments (Tushman and Anderson; Utterback, 1994).

This results in new business opportunities that create

significant value for the innovating organization

(Betz). However, before these outcomes can be real-

ized, the organization must contend with a high level of

uncertainty and risk. This can arise out of the general

level of innovativeness such projects represent, the ex-

tent they diverge strategically from current businesses,

and the amount of resources they require.

Mushin and Dohyeong (1994) found, in their study

of 75 Korean project leaders, that the need for cham-

pions increases when the level of innovativeness is

high. But Markham and Griffin (1998), drawing on

data from a 1995 study of the Product Development

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Donna Kelley is associate professor of entrepreneurship at

Babson College and holds the David H. Park ’91 Term Chair in

Entrepreneurship. Dr. Kelley teaches courses in entrepreneurship,

corporate entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship in Asia. She has

published research on the innovation and alliance activities of tech-

nology startups and on innovation management practices in ma-

ture, global organizations based in the United States and Korea.

She received her Ph.D. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Her

entrepreneurship experience involves founding a health fitness busi-

ness, joining the management team of a computer hardware startup,

and cofounding a Chinese immersion public charter school.

Dr. Hyunsuk Lee is assistant professor of Business Administration

at Seoul National University of Technology in Seoul, Korea. She

earned her Ph.D. in strategic management from Kyungpook

National University in Korea. Currently, she is doing research on

corporate entrepreneurship in large, established organizations, with a

special interest in how organizations create systems for managing their

innovation projects. Prior to working at Seoul National University of

Science and Technology, she worked for four years in management

consulting for eCommunity, Inc. In addition, she worked at Babson

College for two and a half years as a visiting scholar.

1008 J PROD INNOV MANAG2010;27:1007–1019

D. KELLEY AND H. LEE

& Management Association, found that champions

span a range of innovations: from incremental to

radical. This suggests that champions are broadly

involved with multiple levels of innovativeness. Yet

it also leads to speculation about how the nature of

their involvement may vary under different conditions

and, additionally, about how the intensity and quality

of the management role varies amid particular levels

of uncertainty and organizational risk.

Innovation is an uncertain process, the nature of

which is specific to a particular context—providing

few predictable and repeatable elements (Nelson and

Winter, 1982). Uncertainty increases with the level

of newness, or innovativeness, a project embodies.

Although innovativeness can be defined along many

dimensions, the most common relate to technology

and market factors, with the highest level of innova-

tiveness involving the development of new technology

for a market unfamiliar with the product class (Dann-

eels, 2002; Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Meyers and

Tucker, 1989; Roberts and Berry, 1985). Innovation

can involve discontinuities in the normal course of

technology development (Martin, 1984). In addition,

when market applications are new or emergent,

development proceeds amid uncertainty and insufficient

information about appropriate markets and customer

requirements (Betz, 1993; Ryans and Shanklin, 1987).

While project innovativeness can have varying

impacts on an organization, there are also effects due

to strategic characteristics and resource commitments.

These can be conceptualized as composing organiza-

tional risk. Burgelman and Sayles (1986) cited two key

dimensions for assessing the strategic elements of an

entrepreneurial proposal: (1) the strategic importance

to the corporation; and (2) its relatedness to current

operations. Some caution against moving in new stra-

tegic directions unless the core business is threatened

or the organization has excess resources (Sykes and

Block, 1989). Consequently, an innovation strategy

should take into account the company’s technological

strengths (Block and MacMillan, 1993) and strategic

vision (Gillett and Stekler, 1995). Yet others warn

that, though it makes sense to build on existing com-

petence, this may also restrict the recognition of new

opportunities (Day and Schoemaker, 2000; Sull, 1999).

Even with a close strategic connection, however,

innovations will nonetheless extend the competence

base of the organization (Danneels, 2002). Innovation

involves a search for new information outside the

existing knowledge base, generally in areas unrelated

to current operations (March, 1991; Nelson andWinter,

1982). It requires experimentation with new alterna-

tives, presenting a high level of variation and diversity

(Benner and Tushman, 2003;March). It imposes

change of varying degrees on the organization (Hage,

1980; Normann, 1971; Tushman and Nadler, 1986),

particularly to the extent existing knowledge is undev-

eloped or insufficient for the requirements of the inno-

vation (Green, Gavin, and Aiman-Smith, 1995).

Additionally, innovation projects present financial

risks for their organizations, due to the inherently high

costs associated with their commercialization (Green

et al., 1995; Zahra, Nash, and Bickford, 1995). These

costs accelerate as these projects move beyond their

preliminary stages (Martin, 1984; Normann, 1971;

Quinn, 1985; Schon, 1963). While incremental improve-

ments provide relatively quick returns, the revenues

from innovations are longer-term and by no means

guaranteed. In the short-term, this combination of high

costs and lack of near-term revenues hurts the bottom

line (Lynn, Morone, and Paulson, 1996). It also

presents opportunity costs, to the extent that it diverts

resources from projects offering more immediate profits

(March and Simon, 1963).

Innovation Champions

Given both the potential value and the challenges that

characterize innovation, the importance of champions

cannot be underestimated (Burgelman and Sayles,

1986; Day, 1994; Howell, 2005; Schon, 1963). In

fact, it is often thought that, without these individu-

als, organizations may otherwise have little impetus

for extending their efforts beyond current businesses

and incremental product improvements (Chandy and

Tellis, 1998; Schon, 1963, 1967). Those championing

innovations have the capability to envision both the

creative possibilities underlying their ideas and the

steps needed to transform them into viable opportu-

nities (Burgelman and Sayles; Day). They leverage

any power or influence they have (Day; Howell and

Higgins, 1990; Kanter, 1989; Martin, 1984). They

draw on their persuasive abilities or preexisting rela-

tionships to gain the cooperation of others (Howell;

Howell, Shea, and Higgins, 2005; Markham, 1998).

Champions are willing to take risks and confront the

organization’s resistance and political pressures to real-

ize their objectives (Burgelman and Sayles; Howell;

Howell and Higgins; Martin; Quinn, 1985; Schon, 1967).

Innovation champions face a difficult task, how-

ever, regardless of their talents. They need to scan the

MANAGING INNOVATION CHAMPIONS J PROD INNOV MANAG2010;27:1007–1019

1009

organization broadly for information, lobby for

resources, and ensure the team is motivated and

supported (Howell and Shea, 2006). They need to

gain broad awareness and support, make decisions

with insufficient information, and build relationships

across different functions, organizational units, and

managerial levels (Howell and Shea; Shane, 1994).

In so doing, they may circumvent the organization’s

established rules and hierarchy (Shane). In many

cases, though, champions are not at an organization’s

senior levels, and their position may not be well de-

fined within the organization’s chain of command.

They often struggle with limited access to resources

and a lack of support from top management and the

broader organization (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996;

Knight, 1987). They may operate without sufficient

training and development for their role (Smith, 2007).

Because this research centers on Korean organiza-

tions, it must acknowledge any additional cultural

aspects that may impact the management of champi-

ons. As Hofstede (1985) emphasized, although orga-

nizations have their own values and cultures, they are

also impacted by their national cultures. Shane (1994)

found that champions were broadly important to

innovation effectiveness across the 43 organizations

he studied in 68 countries. Another study of French

and German champions found that the effectiveness

of champions differs across national cultures (Roure,

2001). This shows that champions are critical across

countries but that national culture can present its own

set of challenges. Hofstede characterized Korea as

having high power distance and uncertainty avoid-

ance, which he equated with hierarchy and promoting

certainty and conformity. In addition, Korea is char-

acterized as low on masculine attributes (assertive and

competitive) and more collectivist (working toward

the good of the group).

Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan (1995), in

their study of 1,228 individuals in 30 countries, found

that in uncertainty-avoiding, power-distant, and col-

lectivist cultures champions were expected to work

through established norms and procedures, to gain

the support of those in authority, and to seek cross-

functional cooperation. In a later study, Hofstede

(1999) identified Korea as among the increasingly

wealthier countries that are becoming more individu-

alistic, although not to the extent that is noticeable in

the West. As Dana (2007) indicated, Korea’s hierar-

chical organizational structures emphasize subordina-

tion and top-down decision making, where employees

defer to those senior to them rather than innovating.

National culture characteristics can therefore add to

the challenges champions encounter in seeking sup-

port and cooperation for their innovations.

Given the difficulties champions encounter, mana-

gerial support and involvement may be critical in

helping them overcome the many internal obstacles

they encounter along their uncertain, ambiguous

paths (Maidique, 1988; Maidique and Zirger, 1985;

Zirger and Maidique, 1990). In fact, innovation has a

better chance of thriving in firms with managers

possessing the skills to oversee activities involving ex-

ploration and high uncertainty (McGrath, 2001).

At the organization’s highest levels, however, senior

executives are not positioned to provide frequent, op-

erational-level oversight (Dougherty and Hardy,

1996). It is the middle manager who takes responsi-

bility for overseeing the connections between those

at the organization’s strategic level and those in the

operational role (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997). Yet

the exact nature of this direct manager role in inno-

vation activities, particularly how it varies under

different contexts, remains to be clarified.

The following section explores the level of innova-

tion champion empowerment as a function of project

characteristics. The discussion then turns to the

manager role. More specifically, it examines whether

a supervisor or sponsor role is associated with the

innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource

requirements of an innovation project.

Innovation Champion Empowerment

Innovation thrives under loose cultures and processes

(Benner and Tushman, 2003). It consists of unstruc-

tured experimentation, leading some authors to sug-

gest limited manager involvement, amounting to little

more than articulating broad values and providing

encouragement (Miner, 1994). This describes a rela-

tively hands-off manager role, where the focus is on

broadly shaping the organization to provide an envi-

ronment conducive to the work of empowered inno-

vators. The manager’s role thus centers on ensuring

the organization’s culture and objectives endorse

the experimentation and collaboration necessary to

accommodate innovation (Burgelman and Sayles,

1986; Hornsby et al., 2002; Jassawalla and Sashittal,

2002; Russell, 1999; Tushman and Nadler, 1986).

With this limited manager role, the comparison of

innovation champions to independent entrepreneurs

comes as no surprise (Knight, 1987; Pinchot, 1985).



Managers simply select key team members and set

goals, leaving the team to define and implement the

details (Amabile, 1998; Bart, 1993; Kanter, 1989;

Quinn, 1985; Simon and Houghton, 1999). Champi-

ons assemble their own teams and take responsibility

for allocating funds (Knight). Immersed in the specific

details of their innovations, they are better positioned

to respond quickly to learning and unpredictable

occurrences, optimizing decision making (McGrath,

2001). In addition, with an outlet to be creative, they

are free to leverage their initiative and resourcefulness

(Brazeal, 1993). This deepens their motivation and com-

mitment to their projects (Harrison and Freeman, 2004;

McGrath, 2001; Russell, 1999). It also promotes greater

trust toward management (Lewis et al., 2002).

The literature reveals that greater autonomy is

desirable when there is a high level of uncertainty

(McGrath, 2001). It advocates less managerial mon-

itoring and control over decision making, cautioning

that managers can impose too much attention and

scrutiny on innovators, which often happens to

projects of higher strategic importance (Bart, 1993;

Kanter, 1989). However, costly ventures representing

new strategic directions and high risk for the organi-

zation, in particular, will increase the involvement of

higher-level managers (Day, 1994). The first set of

hypotheses proposes that high empowerment will

be associated with high levels of innovativeness, but

organizational risk will reduce empowerment.

H1a: The greater the level of innovativeness of a pro-

ject, the more likely innovation champions will work

under highly empowered conditions.

H1b: The greater the organizational risk, the less likely

innovation champions will work under highly empow-

ered conditions.

The Supervisor Role

While the previous discussion predicts a high level of

empowerment, complete autonomy may not be opti-

mal. For example, it may reduce efficiency and

increase the risk of suboptimal decisions, particularly

if champions lack certain skills or a big-picture view-

point (Harrison and Freeman, 2004). Manager

involvement can help maintain aspirations at an

optimal level, providing a target that ignites and chan-

nels champion motivation (March and Simon, 1963).

Consequently, although champions may be granted

considerable autonomy, they may require at least

some level of support and oversight (Strebel, 1992).

The challenge is finding the right balance between

too much autonomy, which provides little direction,

and overinvolvement that imposes constraints and

bureaucracy on innovators (Kanter, 1989). At the

same time, the literature suggests that it is not just

the amount of involvement that is important but also

the nature of that involvement. Managers can take on

either directive or participative functions (Lewis et al.,

2002), indicating a distinction between supervisor and

sponsor roles. Managerial supervision, according to

McGrath (2001), can encompass the management of

operational activities and the specification of goals. In

their supervisor roles, managers can engage in mon-

itoring, which relates to tracking and evaluating pro-

ject progress, or control, which involves project

decision making (Lewis et al.).

As supervisors, managers can conduct periodic for-

mal reviews and evaluate progress relative to mile-

stones, maintaining close involvement in project details

(Lewis et al., 2002; Twiss, 1986). They can use feedback

mechanisms to continually evaluate a project’s path

and deal with problems arising during the process

(Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Souder, 1987). This

enables trial-and-error learning: uncovering errors

sooner, rather than later, and allowing for quicker ad-

justments. Additionally, it provides order and momen-

tum to the process (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi). It also

helps managers to know when to intervene in the pro-

ject (Lewis et al.).

Lewis et al. (2002) found, in their study of 80 product

development projects in a chemical firm, that greater

monitoring is necessary when the organization is

less familiar with an application. The previous section

revealed greater manager involvement when projects

move in new strategic directions and require greater

resources (Day, 1994). This discussion suggests the

following hypotheses:

H2a: The greater the level of innovativeness of a pro-

ject, the more likely managers will monitor and exert

control over decision makng.

H2b: The greater the organizational risk of a project,

the more likely managers will monitor and exert control

over decision making.

The Sponsor Role

Managers can play a range of roles that are more part-

icipative but less directive. They can act as facilitators,


1011

for instance, assisting innovation champions and teams

in understanding new developments or encouraging

them to explore alternate viewpoints. In addition,

they can gauge the development of skills and shared

vision in the team (Lewis et al., 2002). Managers may

simply promote communication, trust building, and

collective actions within the corporate environment to

ensure the effectiveness of highly empowered champi-

ons (Davis, Shoorman, and Donaldson, 1997). They

can also encourage autonomous activity, and articulate

and promote the organization’s strategy (Floyd and

Wooldridge, 1997).

However, managers can also assume a broader and

more involved role. For example, they can provide

political support, help refine opportunities to fit the

organization’s objectives, provide guidance to the

teams, and help with resource acquisition (Kuratko

et al., 2005). In the innovation literature, this role takes

the form of a sponsor, typically played by higher-level

managers (Maidique, 1988; Zirger and Maidique,

1990). Sponsors can draw on their experience and

relationships to provide advice and connections for

champions (Garud and Van de Ven, 1992; Rhoades,

Roberts, and Fusfeld, 1978). By leveraging their orga-

nizational position, they can locate specific resources

embedded in the firm’s structure (Lin, 1982).

Sponsors are effective because they have a broader

perspective and can tap a variety of information

sources (Cross and Cummings, 2004). They also

have greater political influence and control over

resources. Using this authority, they can clear obsta-

cles (Knight, 1987) and ensure there is legitimacy and

support for innovation projects (Day, 1994; Gal-

braith, 1982; Rhoades et al., 1978; Roberts and Fu-

sfeld, 1981; Tushman and Nadler, 1986). Based on

this discussion, the final set of hypotheses predicts

that the direct sponsor role will be necessary when

innovativeness and organizational risk is high:

H3a: The greater the level of innovativeness of a project,

the more likely managers will play a sponsor role.

H3b: The greater the organizational risk of a project, the

more likely managers will play a sponsor role.

Method

Sample and Survey Development

To test the study’s hypotheses, data were collected via

e-mail survey of 89 project champions in four divi-

sions of three large, multinational Korean companies:

two divisions in one company and one division in each

of the other two. The four divisions span a range of

industries: consumer electronics, liquid crystal display

(LCD) components, semiconductor components, and

cable products. Divisions were chosen from different

industries to capture potential variations in innova-

tion and management practices.

Senior leaders in each of these divisions made com-

mitments to assist the researchers in locating individ-

uals currently or recently leading innovation projects.

All of these were vice presidents in their divisions.

They received detail on the study’s objectives and

methods from the researchers and agreed to take a

direct and active role in recruiting all the project

champions they could identify in their division.

They enlisted managers from their division, or from

human resources, to coordinate the administration of

the survey. All respondents identified completed the

survey.

The development of the questionnaire was in-

formed by both academics and practice. Survey items

contained questions about respondents’ project char-

acteristics, project champion and manager character-

istics, and management practices of both the project

champion and their managers. The academic litera-

ture served as the foundation for developing an initial

set of survey questions.

Next, interviews with two managers of U.S.-based

multinational companies helped refine the survey.

These managers were directing innovation programs

in their companies and had been closely involved as

key informants in prior qualitative, longitudinal

research on innovation management (Kelley, forth-

coming). They both had doctoral degrees in technical

fields. One was a director of new business develop-

ment at Air Products and Chemicals, and the other

was a senior research and development (R&D) direc-

tor at Johnson and Johnson Corporation. In-depth

interviews with each manager provided practical

insights about the survey’s underlying framework.

A first draft of the survey was informed by addi-

tional feedback from these two managers. The survey

was also sent to two senior leaders from divisions of

two Korean companies involved in the study. The

senior leaders provided feedback on the clarity and

appropriateness of the survey items, including the

translation from English to Korean. This process

resulted in several refinements of the survey, drawing

additional input from academic colleagues experi-

enced in survey research methodology.



A pilot test of the survey involved 13 project cham-

pions in one of the divisions and additional input

from those working in direct manager roles with pro-

ject champions in this division. Final revisions were

made after analyzing the pilot results and reviewing

the input from the managers. The researchers

then administered the survey, working with the four

senior leaders, and the managers and coordinators.

The respondents were asked to complete the survey

based on their latest innovation project, regardless

of the outcome of that project. In the company with

two divisions participating, 30 project champions

from one division and 20 project champions from

another completed the survey. In the other two com-

panies, 13 project champions from a division of one

company and 26 project champions from another

were surveyed.

Measures: Independent Variables (ProjectCharacteristics)

The following measures of innovativeness and orga-

nizational risk were used.

Innovativeness. Items included the level of newness

relative to closest substitutes, market unfamiliarity,

and market and technical uncertainty (Danneels,

2002; Gobeli and Brown, 1987; Meyers and Tucker,

1989; Roberts and Berry, 1985).

Organizational Risk. This variable measures both

strategic relatedness and resource requirements. The

former assessed the relatedness of the project to both

current businesses and operations (Block and Mac-

Millan, 1993; Burgelman and Sayles, 1986; Gillett and

Stekler, 1995). The latter included statements about

overall resource requirements and the level of human

resources (Green et al., 1995; Zahra et al., 1995).

Using a five-point Likert scale, respondents rated

the extent they agreed with statements about the

innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource

requirements for their most recent innovation project.

The scale ranged from 15 strongly disagree to

55 strongly agree. Organizational risk was measured

using two multi-item indices, as shown in Table 1. The

indices were extracted by subjecting four items to

orthogonal factor analysis with Varimax rotation.

The results produced two significant factors: strategic

relatedness (two items) and resource requirement

(two items), respectively. Combined, the two factors

explained 79.52% of the variance.

Measures: Dependent Variables

Project Champion Empowerment. Questions relat-

ing to empowerment included project champions’

goal autonomy and decision-making responsibility

(Hornsby et al., 2002; McGrath, 2001). A five-point

Likert scale was used. Respondents rated statements

from 15 strongly disagree to 55 strongly agree.

Supervisor Role (Monitoring and Control). The su-

pervisor–monitoring role was defined as the frequency

of formal evaluation and monitoring (Eisenhardt and

Tabrizi, 1995; Lewis et al., 2002). Respondents rated

statements on a five-point scale from 15 low fre-

quently to 55 high frequency. The supervisor–con-

trol role was measured by the extent the manager

made major project decisions and scrutinized the pro-

ject champion’s decisions and mistakes (Kanter, 1989;

Lewis et al.). Respondents rated statements from

15 strongly disagree to 55 strongly agree.

Responses to the survey items were used to construct

measures of monitoring and control. To develop mea-

sures of the supervisor role, five survey items were sub-

jected to orthogonal factor analysis with Varimax

rotation. This analysis produced two significant factors:

monitoring (two items) and control (three items). Table

2 shows the factor analysis results for the survey items

on the supervisor role. As reported in Table 2, each

factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, and together

the two factors explained 67.4% of the variance. Aver-

age scores of the items in each of the two factors were

used in the analysis.

Sponsor Role. The sponsor role comprised four

questions relating to the frequency of informal meet-

ings and discussions with the project champion’s man-

ager and the amount of encouragement and advice the

manager provided (Garud and Van de Ven, 1992;

Table 1: Factor Analysis of Organization Risk

Items ResourcesStrategic

Relatedness

The extent of strategic relationship tocompany’s current businesses

.282 .863

The extent of fitness with company’scurrent operations capabilities

� .588 .623

The overall resources allocation to theproject for innovation project

.897 .238

The level of human resources forinnovation project

.873 .007

Eigenvalue 1.992 1.189% of variance 49.794 29.728


1013

Rhoades et al., 1978). Respondents rated statements

on a five-point scale from 15 low frequency to

55high frequency.

Measures: Statistical Control Variables

Three variables were included as statistical controls

in the analysis because of their potential impact on

innovation project management practices. Controls

for the project champion’s division were added, using

dummy variables for the four divisions. The second

control relates to project champion competence: tech-

nical background and industry experience related to the

project, and experience managing innovation at the

level the project represents (Burgelman and Sayles,

1986; Day, 1994; Tushman and Nadler, 1986). A third

control was developed for the expertise of the manager,

given the suggested link between innovation and the

skills of managers overseeing activities involving high

levels of uncertainty and exploration (McGrath, 2001).

Common Method Bias

Surveys from a single set of respondents can introduce

common method bias and threaten construct validity.

Common methods may create systematic effects on

the observed correlation between measures, produc-

ing a rival explanation for the relationship between

the constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). One remedy is

to obtain measures from different sources (e.g., John-

son et al., 1993; Podsakoff et al.; Zahra and Covin,

1995). To address this issue, the researchers sent a

questionnaire containing survey items for the inde-

pendent variables (project characteristics) to manag-

ers identified by the respondents as their direct reports

(n5 89). This yielded 22 completed responses (24.7%)

from across the four divisions. A bivariate correlation

between matched pairs of responses from project

champions and managers was then assessed. The

overall correlation was significant (po.01), indicating

a strong association between the responses from the

managers and project champions on identical items.

The bivariate correlations for each measure of pro-

ject characteristics were as follows: innovativeness

(r5 .92), strategic relatedness (r5 .70), and resources

(r5 .91). While statistically significant (po.01), these

correlation coefficients indicated less than perfect

agreement between the project managers and project

champions, particularly for strategic relatedness.

Even though they were involved in the same projects,

managers might have slightly different impressions

about the characteristics of the projects compared

with project champions, who no doubt were more

deeply involved in operational-level details and closer

to the technology and market context. Still, the level

of significance is on par with other studies using a

similar technique to control for common-method bias

(Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida, 2000; Johnson,

Hoskisson, and Hitt, 1993; Zahra and Covin, 1995).

Analysis and Results

Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and corre-

lations among the study’s variables. Correlations among

the independent variables were low to moderate,

Table 2: Factor Analysis of Supervisor Role

Items

SupervisorRole

(Control)

SupervisorRole

(Monitoring)

Frequency of formal evaluation .044 .791Frequency of monitoring theprogress of the project

� .009 .803

The extent of project manager’sdecision making for major projectdecisions

.859 .093

The extent of scrutinization of yourdecision making by the projectmanager

.804 � .053

The extent of criticism about yourmistakes by the project manager

.836 .023

Eigenvalue 2.086 1.282% of variance 41.728 25.641

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Innovativeness 3.51 0.862. Strategic Relatedness 3.95 0.67 .0583. Resource Requirement 3.10 0.94 .491 � .0894. Empowerment 4.01 0.61 .253 .341 .0045. Supervisor Role (Monitor) 3.51 0.58 � .150 � .123 � .049 � .2046. Supervisor Role (Control) 2.89 0.78 � .032 � .420 .321 � .460 .0417. Sponsor Role 3.31 0.90 .211 .230 .100 .074 .340 .027



suggesting that multicollinearity was not a serious

problem (Hair et al., 1996; Zahra, Ireland, and Hitt,

2000). This analysis is consistent with the assumption

that the independent variables capture different pro-

ject characteristics. As the literature review reveals,

this set of measures covered a range of aspects char-

acterizing innovation.

The three sets of hypotheses were tested using four

multiple regression models for each of the four

dependent variables: empowerment, two supervisor

roles (monitoring and control), and the sponsor role.

The analysis examined the association between these

dependent variables and three project characteristics:

innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource re-

quirements. The analysis includes three controls for

division, project champion competence, and manager

competence. The following regression relationships

were estimated:

Empowerment/Monitor/Control/Sponsor5 f (Divi-

sion, PL Competence, PM Competence, Innovative-

ness, Strategic Relatedness, Resource Requirements).

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. The

overall explanatory power of the models was generally

low, although statistically significant, with adjusted

R2 values of .207, .205, .391, and .125, respectively.

The low explanatory power could be attributed to the

range of variables that are likely to impact managerial

practices in this highly uncertain context. Still, the

value of these estimates is evidenced by the relation-

ship revealed between the project characteristics and

management practices.

As shown in Table 4, two of the three project char-

acteristics were significant predictors of project cham-

pion empowerment: innovativeness and strategic

relatedness. This provides support for H1a and par-

tial support for H1b. The positive and significant

result for the relationship between innovativeness and

empowerment (po.05) indicate that project champi-

ons are more highly empowered when project inno-

vativeness is high. The significant positive relationship

between strategic relatedness and empowerment is

significant (po.01) suggests that project champions

are likely to work under highly empowered condi-

tions, as long as their projects are strategically related.

For the second hypothesis, there was no support

relative to monitoring, showing that project charac-

teristics do not significantly predict the level of project

monitoring by managers. Relative to control, innova-

tiveness (H2a) was only weakly associated with con-

trol, and in the opposite direction than predicted

(po.1). Less innovative projects were slightly more

likely to be accompanied by a higher level of manager

control. However, organizational risk showed a

strong association with manager control (po.001 for

both measures). This reveals that managers are likely

to exert control over costly innovation projects that

diverge from the organization’s strategy and opera-

tions, supporting H2b.

Similar to the results for H1, H3 showed a signifi-

cant relationship for the sponsor role relative to pro-

ject innovativeness and strategic relatedness but not

for resource requirements. This supports H3a and

partially supports H3b. According to these results,

highly innovative projects that are strategically related

are more likely to be accompanied by a sponsor role.

Discussion

While the literature indicates that empowerment

needs to be accompanied by managerial support and

oversight (Strebel, 1992), this research suggests that

manager involvement is not just a matter of how

much (Kanter, 1989) but also what type of involve-

ment. In addition, the findings show that the level of

empowerment and the nature of manager roles

are influenced by project characteristics. This reveals

the importance of a multidimensional examination of

Table 4: Results of Regression Analyses: InnovationProject Management Practices as a Function of ProjectCharacteristics

H1 H2(Supervisor Role) H3

Empowerment Monitor ControlSponsorRole

ControlDivision 1 � .200 � .348� .306� � .193Division 2 � .042 .021 .032 .039Division 3 � .031 � .435�� .024 � .093PL Competence � .033 � .231� .233 � .194+

PM Competence � .212+ � 0.65 .048 .320��

Project characteristicsInnovativeness .244� � .122 � .191+ .292�

StrategicRelatedness

.386�� .106 � .545�� .345��

ResourceRequirement

� .091 .018 .400�� .034

Adjusted R2 .207 .205 .391 .125F 3.813�� 3.769�� 7.898�� 2.543�

+ po.10,� po.05,�� po.01,�� : po.001.


1015

innovation project attributes. As Figure 1 suggests,

while managers may provide empowerment and a

participatory sponsor role for highly innovative but

strategically related projects, they may assume more

directive control when projects diverge strategically

and require large resource commitments.

The literature explains that empowerment

enhances creativity, initiative, and resourcefulness

(Brazeal, 1993) and increases motivation and

commitment to innovation projects (Harrison and

Freeman, 2004; McGrath, 2001; Russell, 1999). The

results of this survey suggest this quality is associated

with high innovativeness. There are many unknowns

associated with the development of innovations with a

high level of market and technological newness. Be-

cause champions are close to the market, technology,

and other details of their projects, they may in the best

position to make decisions and respond to new de-

velopments within their project’s context (McGrath).

At the same time, empowerment was associated with

high strategic relatedness in this study. Perhaps this

strategic connection compels champions to feel they

can chart the project’s direction and make decisions

with greater autonomy.

As some authors suggest, a high level of empower-

ment might suggest a broader-level, less direct man-

ager role (Knight, 1987; Miner, 1994; Pinchot, 1985).

Innovation champion autonomy may not be sufficient

under highly innovative conditions, however. This

study shows that empowerment can exist alongside

manager participation, particularly when this entails

the support and facilitation of a sponsor. The level of

uncertainty and ambiguity associated with high inno-

vativeness may therefore require managerial guid-

ance, even when champions are empowered to make

decisions and pave the paths for their projects.

In addition, although the Korean companies in this

research are global corporations and are therefore

influenced by multiple cultures, national culture could

potentially impact the phenomenon studied. Given

that Korean culture is collective but uncertainty

avoiding (Hofstede, 1985), it is likely that champions

would encounter difficulties gaining broad coopera-

tion for a highly uncertain activity, particularly when

attempting to work through established norms, as

Shane et al. (1995) suggested is necessary. Managerial

participation may be needed to secure the level

of support champions need for their projects, and

respect for authority would reinforce this.

The literature describes managerial advising and

support roles (Kuratko et al., 2005; Maidique, 1988;

Zirger and Maidique, 1990). Concurrently, this re-

search makes an empirical distinction between super-

visory roles and that of a sponsor. It conceptualizes

the sponsor as more of an advocate compared with

the evaluative and directive supervisor role. In addi-

tion, as the analysis shows, this tends to be informal.

While control entails closer involvement in decision

making on the part of managers (Lewis et al., 2002),

the sponsor role provides an opportunity for manag-

ers to work with empowered innovation champions to

assess progress and problem solve collaboratively.

The combination of empowerment and a sponsor

role that is appropriate for highly innovative projects,

however, may also require high strategic relatedness,

as the findings indicate. Managers may feel comfort-

able allowing project champions a high level of free-

dom and providing advice as long as there is some

strategic and operational familiarity.

The sponsor role is clearly important in this study.

Nonetheless, supervisory participation cannot be

ruled out, at least in terms of managerial control.

Whereas innovative, strategically related projects

were associated with empowerment and sponsorship,

this was not the case for strategically unrelated project

and those requiring greater resources. Projects with

these latter characteristics were accompanied by

greater control in this research. Managers may need

to become more closely involved in decision making

for costly ventures representing new strategic direc-

tions for the organization (Day, 1994). In addition,

Managerial Focus:

• Control

Managerial Focus:

• Empowerment

• Sponsorship

StrategicRelatedness

High

Low

High ResourceRequirements

HighInnovativeness

Figure 1: Relationship Between Innovation Characteristics andDirect Manager Role



since managers are the intermediaries between the

senior-level strategic vision and operational-level

execution (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997), they may

need to more directly forge this connection and

participate in the operations logistics necessary for

commercializing unfamiliar innovations.

While the literature advocates frequent monitoring

(Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Lewis et al., 2002;

Souder, 1987), this study found that managers’ mon-

itoring behavior is not influenced by project charac-

teristics. Perhaps monitoring is a regular, routinized

activity. In this respect, managers periodically track

progress, regardless of the level or source of uncer-

tainty in an innovation project. Additionally, the

monitoring role may be played by others not in the

direct manager role. The sponsor role, in fact, may

allow for more frequent observations of project prog-

ress. Greater involvement in an informal capacity

may replace, at least somewhat, the need for increased

formal monitoring.

Conclusions

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve

the management of innovative activity lies in deter-

mining when to lend managerial support, and how

much support, to those leading such projects

(Kuratko et al., 2005). This research provides insights

into the connection between project characteristics and

the type and frequency of direct manager involvement.

This study reveals two key implications for academics.

First, the results indicate that higher uncertainty

generally, regardless of the source, does not simply im-

ply greater managerial involvement. Managers play

different roles, and the source of uncertainty may re-

quire different roles. Second, the findings point to a

need for distinguishing between sponsor and supervi-

sory functions. Although the sponsor role is more in-

formal and is often positioned as ad hoc, it would be

useful to elevate the importance and understanding of

this role in literature and theory, particularly with

respect to its ability to accompany high empowerment.

Implications for managers include emphasizing

the importance of a direct manager role, and help-

ing organizations determine the appropriate level of

empowerment, and frequency and nature of over-

sight. The findings indicate that it is not enough to

assume innovation champions can work under high

autonomy, with top leaders ensuring the organiza-

tional environment is conducive to innovation. By

understanding the different manager roles, and the

conditions under which each is appropriate, organi-

zations may improve their managerial effectiveness. It

may, for example, be useful to examine whether

different managers are needed for the supervisor ver-

sus sponsor roles versus whether managers need to

learn how to shift roles under various conditions.

It is important to recognize the limitations of this

research, which produce cautions about generalizability

yet provide opportunities for future research. The sur-

vey offers a project champion’s perspective, revealing an

opportunity to build on this by studying the direct man-

ager perspective. Follow-on studies could examine how

a manager determines which role to play and how often.

Future research could also be extended to a broader set

of organizations from other countries to expand these

results beyond the context of large, multinational

Korean organizations. Finally, it would be useful to

connect the frequency and nature of manager roles

to project outcomes. This research makes an early step

toward providing empirical evidence about the nature of

manager involvement under different project contexts.

It is hoped that this contributes toward greater organi-

zational effectiveness in managing innovation.

References

Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard BusinessReview 76(5):77–87.

Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J., and Almeida, J.G. (2000). Effects of Age atEntry, Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on InternationalGrowth. Academy of Management Journal 43(5):909–924.

Bart, C.K. (1993). General Managers Control New and Existing Prod-ucts Differently. Journal of Business Venturing 8(4):341–361.

Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L (2003). Exploitation, Exploration,and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited.Academy of Management Review 28(2):238–256.

Betz, F. (1993). Strategic Technology Management. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.

Block, Z. and MacMillan, I.C. (1993). Corporate Venturing. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Brazeal, D. (1993). Organizing for Internally Developed CorporateVentures. Journal of Business Venturing 8:75–90.

Burgelman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation.New York: Free Press.

Chandy, R. and Tellis, G. (1998). Organizing for Radical ProductInnovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize.Journal of Marketing Research 35(4):474–487.

Cross, R. and Cummings, J. (2004). Tie and Network Correlates ofIndividual Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Work. Academy ofManagement Journal 47:928–937.

Dana, L.P. (2007). Asian Models of Entrepreneurship: From the IndianUnion and the Kingdom of Nepal to the Japanese Archipelago. NewZealand: University of Canterbury.

Danneels, E. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovation and FirmCompetences. Strategic Management Journal 23:1095–1121.


1017

Day, G.S. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2000). Avoiding the Pitfalls ofEmerging Technologies. California Management Review 42(2):8–33.

Day, D.L. (1994). Raising Radicals. Organization Science 5(2):148–172.

Davis, J.H., Shoorman, D.F., and Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward aStewardship Theory of Management. Academy of ManagementReview 22(1):20–47.

Dougherty, D. and Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained Product Innovationin Large, Mature Organizations: Overcoming Innovation-to-Organization Problems. Academy of Management Journal 39(5):1120–1153.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Tabrizi, B.N. (1995). Accelerating AdaptiveProcesses: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry.Administrative Science Quarterly 40:84–110.

Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle Management’s Stra-tegic Influence and Organizational Performance. Journal of Man-agement Studies 34(3):465–485.

Galbraith, J.R. (1982). Designing the Innovating Organization. Orga-nizational Dynamics 10(3):4–25.

Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002). A Critical Look at TechnologicalInnovation Typology and Innovativeness Terminology: A Litera-ture Review. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19(2):110–132.

Garud, R. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1992). An Empirical Evaluation ofthe Internal Corporate Venturing Process. Strategic ManagementJournal 13:93–109 (Special Issue).

Gillett, D. and Stekler, H.O. (1995). Introducing Technologically Ad-vanced Products: Strategies in the Commercial Aircraft Industry.Technological Forecasting and Social Change 48(2):129–142.

Gobeli, D.H. and Brown, D.J. (1987). Analyzing Product Innovation.Research Management 30(4):25–31.

Green, S., Gavin, M., and Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a Mul-tidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation. IEEETransactions on Engineering Management 42(3):203–214.

Hage, J. (1980). Theories of Organizations. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Hair Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1996).Multivariate Data Analysis, (3d ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Harrison, J.S. and Freeman, R.E. (2004). Special Topic: Democracy inand Around Organizations: Is Organizational Democracy WorthThe Effort? Academy of Management Executive 18(9):49–53.

Hofstede, G. (1985). The Interaction between National and Organiza-tional Value Systems. Journal of Management Studies 22(4):347–357.

Hofstede, G. (1999). The Universal and Specific in 21st Century GlobalManagement. Organizational Dynamics 28:34–43.

Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., and Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle Man-agers’ Perception of the Internal Environment for Corporate En-trepreneurship: Assessing a Measurement Scale. Journal of BusinessVenturing 17:253–273.

Howell, J.M. (2005). The Right Stuff: Identifying and DevelopingEffective Champions of Innovation. Academy of ManagementExecutive 19(2):108–119.

Howell, J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990). Champions of TechnologicalInnovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(2):317–341.

Howell, J.M., Shea, C.M., and Higgins, C.A. (2005). Champions ofProduct Innovations: Defining, Developing, and Validating a Mea-sure of Champion Behavior. Journal of Business Venturing20(5):641–661.

Howell, J.M. and Shea, C.M. (2006). Effects of Champion Behavior,Team Potency, and External Communication Activities on Predict-ing Team Performance. Group & Organization Management31(2):180–211.

Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (2002). Cultures That SupportProduct-Innovation Processes. Academy of Management Executive16(3):42–54.

Johnson, R.A., Hoskisson, R.E., and Hitt, M.A. (1993). Board of Di-rector Involvement in Restructuring: The Effects of Board versus

Managerial Controls and Characteristics. Strategic ManagementJournal 14:33–50.

Kanter, R.M. (1989). Swimming in Newstreams: Mastering InnovationDilemmas. California Management Review 31(4):45–69.

Kelley, D. (2009). Adaptation and Organizational Risk in Innovation-Based Corporate Entrepreneurship Programs. Journal of ProductInnovation Management 26(5):487–501.

Knight, R.M. (1987). Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship: ACanadian Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management4(4):284–297.

Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G., and Hornsby, J.S. (2005).A Model of Middle-Level Managers’ Entrepreneurial Behavior.Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 29(6):699–716.

Leifer, R., McDermott, C., O’Connor, G., Peters, L., Rice, M., andVeryzer, R. (2000). Radical Innovation: How Mature CompaniesCan Outsmart Upstarts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lewis, M.W., Welsh, M.A., Dehler, G., and Green, S. (2002). ProductDevelopment Tensions: Exploring Contrasting Styles of ProjectManagement. Academy of Management Journal 45(3):546–564.

Lin, N. (1982). Social Resources and Instrumental Action. In: SocialStructure and Network Analysis, ed. P.V. Marsden, and N. Lin.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 131–146.

Lynn, G., Morone, J., and Paulson, A. (1996). Marketing andDiscontinuous Innovation. California Management Review 38(3):8–37.

Maidique, M. (1988). Venturing and Organization Learning. In: Read-ings in the Management of Innovation, ed. M.L. Tushman, andW.L.Moore. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Maidique, M.A. and Zirger, B.J. (1985). The New Product LearningCycle. Research Policy 14(6):299–313.

March, J. and Simon, H. (1963).Organizations. New York: John Wiley& Sons.

March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in OrganizationalLearning. Organization Science 2:71–87.

Markham, S.K. (1998). A Longitudinal Examination of How Cham-pions Influence Others to Support Their Projects. Journal of Prod-uct Innovation Management 15(6):490–504.

Markham, S.K. (2000). Corporate Championing and Antagonism asForms of Political Behavior: An R&D Perspective. OrganizationScience 11(4):429–447.

Markham, S.K. and Griffin, A. (1998). The Breakfast of Champions:Associations between Champions and Product Development Envi-ronments, Practices and Performance. Journal of Product Innova-tion Management 15(5):436–454.

Martin, M.J.C. (1984). Managing Technological Innovation and Entre-preneurship. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company, Inc.

McGrath, R.G. (2001). Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity,and Managerial Oversight. Academy of Management Journal44(1):118–131.

Meyers, P.W. and Tucker, F.G. (1989). Defining Roles for Logisticsduring Routine and Radical Technological Innovation. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 17(1):73–82.

Miner, A.S. (1994). Seeking Adaptive Advantage: Evolutionary The-ory and Managerial Action. In: Evolutionary Dynamics of Organi-zations, ed. J. Baum, and J. Singh. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Mushin, L. and Dohyeong, N. (1994). Determinants of Technical Suc-cess in Product Development When Innovative Radicalness Is Con-sidered. Journal of Product Innovation Management 11(1):62–68.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Eco-nomic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Normann, R. (1971). Organizational Innovativeness: Product Varia-tion and Reorientation. Administrative Science Quarterly16(2):203–215.

Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Row.



Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., and Podsakoff, N.P.(2003). CommonMethod Biases in Behavioral Research: A CriticalReview of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal ofApplied Psychology 88(5):879–903.

Quinn, J.B. (1985). Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos. HarvardBusiness Review 63(3):73–84.

Rhoades, R., Roberts, E., and Fusfeld, A. (1978). A Correlation ofR&D Laboratory Performance with Critical Functions Analysis.R&D Management 9(1):13–17.

Roberts, E. and Berry, C. (1985). Entering New Businesses: SelectingStrategies for Success. Sloan Management Review 26(3):3–17.

Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1981). Staffing the Innovative Tech-nology-Based Organization. SloanManagement Review 22(3):19–33.

Roure, L. (2001). Product Champion characteristics in France andGermany. Human Relations 54(5):663–682.

Russell, R.D. (1999). Developing a Process Model of IntrapreneurialSystems: A Cognitive Mapping Approach. Entrepreneurship: The-ory and Practice 23(3):65–84.

Ryans, J.K. and Shanklin, W.L. (1987). Marketing to NonexistentMarkets. High Tech Marketing Review 1(1):8–15.

Schon, D.A. (1963). Champions for Radical New Inventions. HarvardBusiness Review 41(2):77–86.

Schon, D.A. (1967). Technology and Change. New York: Delacorte.

Shane, S.A. (1994). Are Champions Different from Non-champions?Journal of Business Venturing 9(5):397–421.

Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., and MacMillan, I. (1995). CulturalDifferences in Innovation Championing Strategies. Journal of Man-agement 21(5):931–952.

Simon, M. and Houghton, S.M. (1999). Succeeding at InternalCorporate Venturing: Roles Needed to Balance Autonomyand Control. Journal of Applied Management Studies 8(2):145–159.

Smith, D.J. (2007). The Politics of Innovation: Why Innovations Needa Godfather. Technovation 27(3):95–104.

Souder, W.E. (1987). Managing New Product Innovations. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

Strebel, P. (1992). Breakpoints: How Managers Exploit Radical Busi-ness Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Sull, D.N. (1999). Why Good Companies Go Bad. Harvard BusinessReview 77(4):42–52.

Sykes, H.B. and Block, Z. (1989). Corporate Venturing: Obstacles,Sources, and Solutions. Journal of Business Venturing 4:159–167.

Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinu-ities and Organization Environments. Administrative Science Quar-terly 31(3):439–465.

Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for Innovation.California Management Review 28(3):74–92.

Twiss, B.C. (1986). Managing Technological Innovation. London: Pit-man Publishing.

Utterback, J.M. (1994).Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Zahra, S., Nash, S., and Bickford, D. (1995). Transforming Techno-logical Pioneering into Competitive Advantage. Academy of Man-agement Executive 9(1):17–31.

Zahra, S., Ireland, R.D., and Hitt, M.A. (2000). International Expan-sion by New Venture Firms: International Diversity, Mode ofMarket Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance. Acad-emy of Management Journal 43(5):925–950.

Zahra, S. and Covin, J.G. (1995). Contextual Influences on the Cor-porate Entrepreneurship–Performance Relationship: A Longitudi-nal Analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 10:43–58.

Zirger, B.J. and Maidique, M.A. (1990). A Model of New ProductDevelopment: An Empirical Test. Management Science 36(7):867–883.


1019

managing innovation champions: the impact of project characteristics on the direct manager role

Documents