15_Effect of Cognitive Style Etc

Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243–264

Effect of cognitive style and professional development onthe initiation of radical and non-radical management

accounting innovations

David Emsleya, Barbara Nevickyb, Graeme Harrisonb

aSchool of Business, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, AustraliabDepartment of Accounting and Finance, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2105, Australia

Abstract

This study examines the effects of adaptive/innovative cognitive style, and pro-fessional development on the initiation of radical and non-radical innovations byindividual management accountants. Data are gathered through questionnaire andfollow-up interviews with practising management accountants. The results show thatmanagement accountants with a more innovative (adaptive) cognitive style tend toinitiate more (fewer) radical relative to non-radical innovations, and that this effectis amplified by professional development. The study has implications for researchin management accounting innovation and for practice, including the importance ofmaintaining a balance of radical and non-radical innovations in organizations, and ofprofessional development.

Key words: Innovations; Cognitive style; Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory;Professional development

JEL classification: M40

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00165.x

1. Introduction

Research into innovation has become increasingly important in recent years.Damanpour (1988) and Porter and Stern (2001) note that change affecting organiza-tions is widespread and, to maintain competitiveness, organizations need to innovateto adapt to and preempt change. Innovation at an organizational level can triggerinnovation at the management accounting level to ensure that accounting informa-tion remains relevant to employees’ changing needs (Chenhall and Langfield-Smith,

The authors greatly appreciate the helpful comments provided by two anonymous referees.

Received 14 February 2005; accepted 1 June 2005 by Robert Faff (Editor).

C© The AuthorsJournal compilation C© 2006 AFAANZ

244 D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243–264

1998). For example, the introduction of an organizational innovation such as totalquality management to enhance employee empowerment requires innovation in man-agement accounting systems to ensure that quality-related information is provided tothose empowered employees.

Research into organizational innovation has examined several determinants ofinnovativeness, including external environmental factors, such as competition andtechnology, and internal organizational factors, such as size, complexity, formal-ization and centralization, incentives and top management support (e.g. Damanpour(1992) and Rogers (1995) for innovation generally, and Libby and Waterhouse (1996),Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998), Shields (1995), Williams and Seaman (2001)and Baines and Langfield-Smith (2003) for innovation in management accounting).

While significant attention has been directed to these environmental and orga-nizational determinants of innovativeness, this paper focuses on the importance ofindividuals to management accounting innovations. Such attention is important asthe innovation literature consistently points to the significance of the role of the indi-vidual. Daft (1978) argues that a certain individual (an ‘idea champion’) must existwho wants the innovation badly enough to carry it forward. This person must identifythe innovation, translate it into a proposal and gain the support of organizationalmembers if the innovation is to succeed. The importance of the idea champion issupported by Schon (1963) who argues that ‘a new idea either finds a champion ordies’, and Amabile (1988) who contends that individual creativity is the most crucialelement of organizational innovation. Rogers (1995), Howell and Higgins (1990) andScott and Bruce (1994) also reinforce the importance of the individual, noting thatinnovativeness cannot be understood without attention to the personal, as well as theenvironmental and organizational factors.

These findings in the literature are explored in management accounting settingsby Brown et al. (2004), where the individual champion is seen as the most importantof several factors in explaining the initiation and adoption of activity-based costing(ABC). However, having noted the importance of individual champions in manage-ment accounting innovations, we need to be able to elaborate on some of the factorsthat affect their innovative behaviour. Two factors are examined in the present study:the cognitive style of the individual management accountant and the extent of theirprofessional development.

The importance of cognitive style is drawn from the innovation and creativityliterature (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Scott and Bruce, 1994;Rogers, 1995; Janssen et al., 1998; Bobic et al., 1999; Simonton, 2000). Amabile(1988) identifies three components of the individual that are important for organiza-tional innovation: their creativity-relevant skills, domain-relevant skills and intrinsictask motivation, the first of which relates to cognitive style. Howell and Higgins(1990) argue that individuals differ in their inherent innovativeness, predisposingsome to promote innovations in organizations more than others. Scott and Bruce(1994) contend that, as the foundation of innovation is ideas, research into what en-ables individual innovative behaviour is critical and that such research should include


D. Emsley et al. / Accounting and Finance 46 (2006) 243–264 245

cognitive style as an antecedent of innovative behaviour. And Simonton (2000) notesthat psychologists have long been interested in differences in cognitive style thatenable some people to display more creativity than others. Despite these arguments,little attention has been focussed on the cognitive style of the accountant in manage-ment accounting innovation research.

The importance of professional development in affecting an individual’s inno-vativeness is also drawn from the innovation and creativity literature. Daft (1978)suggests that new ideas are brought to an organization by experts who are interestedin, and aware of, the new idea, and that greater exposure to professional developmentproduces such interest and awareness. Amabile (1988) also captures professionaldevelopment in her model of individual creativity through the domain-relevant skillscomponent. These skills are an individual’s raw materials for creative productivity,and comprise factual knowledge, technical skills and special talents in the domain,all of which are affected by professional development (Amabile, 1988). Simonton(2000) also provides evidence that creativity requires training and practice. He ar-gues that creative individuals do not produce new ideas in a vacuum, but that thoseideas arise from a broad set of developed skills and a rich body of domain-relevantknowledge.

As management accountants are typically members of professional bodies, whichmandate minimum levels of professional development activities for continued mem-bership, studying the effect of professional development on innovative behaviour iswell motivated from the innovation and creativity literature, but has received relativelylittle attention in existing research in management accounting.

However, although examining cognitive style and professional development willenhance understanding the factors affecting management accounting innovations, itmust be recognized that innovations are not all the same but differ in systematic ways.Innovations have long been regarded as differing in their radicalness in the manage-ment literature (Zaltman et al., 1973), and radicalness is also now being recognizedas differentiating innovations in the management accounting literature (Burns andScapens, 2000; Soin et al., 2002; Emsley, 2005). Radicalness refers to the degreeof change in management accounting practices. Radical innovations are appropri-ate where new and different practices are needed to, say, complement a change instrategy, whereas non-radical innovations are more appropriate where the aim is toimprove existing practices. Moreover, both radical and non-radical innovations mightbe required at the same time but to different parts of the management accounting sys-tem. The radicalism of innovations is relevant to this paper because it is expectedthat the factors that determine the introduction of radical innovations are differentto those that affect the introduction of non-radical innovations. For example, Soinet al. (2002) suggest that a radical innovation might require more of an outwardlooking perspective compared to a non-radical innovation where an inward focus ismore appropriate. The present paper explores why these outward and inward per-spectives might be a function of both the cognitive style of management accountantsand their professional development. These relationships are now examined in moredetail.



2. Theory development and hypotheses formulation

This section presents theory leading to the hypothesis of the relationship betweencognitive style and professional development as they affect the innovative behaviourof management accountants, specifically with respect to their initiation of radicaland non-radical innovations. The management accounting literature relevant to theimportance of radical and non-radical innovations is discussed later in this section.First, however, the cognitive style literature is discussed as it leads to the relationshipwith innovation generally and management accounting innovation in particular.

2.1. Cognitive style

Cognitive style reflects how individuals organize and process information withrespect to creativity, problem-solving and decision-making processes (Kirton, 1994;Sadler-Smith and Badger, 1998). Kirton (1976) proposes that individuals have dif-ferent styles of creativity, problem solving and decision-making. He contends thatindividuals can be located on a continuum ranging from those who have an abilityto do things ‘better’, whom he defines as ‘adaptors’, to those who have an abil-ity to do things ‘differently,’ whom he calls ‘innovators.’ Adaptors solve problemswithin existing paradigms, according to those paradigms’ agreed definitions andlikely solutions. They examine problems ‘in detail and proceed (to solutions) withinthe established mores (theories, policies, practices) of their organisations’ (Kirton,1984). By contrast, innovators challenge existing paradigms. In solving a problem,innovators ‘detach the problem from its cocoon of accepted thought (and) generateideas likely to deviate from the norm’ (Kirton, 1994).

Kirton’s concept of the adaptor/innovator is built upon three constructs: originality,rule/group conformity and efficiency. Originality is the preference for idea production,with innovators generating more original ideas than adaptors. Innovators are also lesstolerant of rules and feel less restricted by existing organizational practices thanadaptors. Innovators are also less likely to seek short-term efficiency in solutionsto problems, preferring to trade-off efficiency for long-term effectiveness whereasadaptors prefer solutions that are short-term efficient. Kirton (1994) argues that theseconstructs combine to produce behaviour consistent with the adaptive/innovativecognitive styles, with the innovator style comprising higher levels of originality andlower levels of rule/group conformity and efficiency than the adaptor style.

Kirton’s definition of an innovator is consistent with Amabile (1988) and Howelland Higgins (1990) with respect to the originality and rule/group conformity con-structs. Amabile (1988) argues that creativity-relevant skills, which are necessary forindividual innovativeness, include originality and rule/group conformity. An individ-ual high on creativity approaches problems in a manner that leads to rule-breaking andnovel ideas (originality), rather than by applying established rules and procedures.Absence of conformity in thinking is reflected in exploring new cognitive pathways,



breaking mindsets and rejecting agreed decision and action scripts (Amabile, 1988).Similarly, Howell and Higgins (1990) argue that innovative individuals are less con-forming, value creativity and originality, have more confidence in their abilitiesand seek opportunities to test their ideas. These characteristics are consistent withKirton’s innovator who often ‘challenges rules with little respect for past custom,tends to think tangentially, approaches tasks from unsuspected angles’ (Kirton, 1976),and will pursue novel ideas in spite of possible failure. By contrast, the efficiencyconstruct does not appear in the descriptions of either Amabile (1988) or Howell andHiggins (1990).

2.2. Propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations

The evidence of Kirton (1976), Amabile (1988) and Howell and Higgins (1990)supports an expected relationship between an individual’s cognitive style and in-novative behaviour. However, the evidence does not suggest that innovators exhibita greater tendency to initiate innovations per se; rather that individuals have dif-ferent styles of creativity, problem solving and decision-making that affect theirapproach to innovation. As noted earlier, Kirton’s adaptive/innovative cognitive styledistinguishes individuals who do things ‘better’ (adaptors) from those who do things‘differently’ (innovators). This suggests that the relation between adaptive/innovativecognitive style and innovativeness lies not in the amount or degree of innovativeness,with both adaptors and innovators having the ability to initiate innovations, but in thetype of innovativeness towards which their cognitive style predisposes them.

The management accounting literature increasingly recognizes different types ofinnovation as important because it raises the possibility that explanatory factors, suchas cognitive style, may affect different types of innovations in different ways. Onecategory of innovation that is seen as important in the management literature, andto which the adaptive/innovative cognitive style is relevant, is that of radical andnon-radical innovations (Zaltman et al., 1973; Damanpour, 1988, 1991). As notedearlier, the radicalism of innovations has also attracted recent interest in the manage-ment accounting literature (Burns and Scapens, 2000; Soin et al., 2002; Emsley,2005). Radicalism reflects how different the innovation is to existing practices(Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997). Radical innovations produce fundamen-tal changes in an organization’s activities (such as introducing variance analysisor the balanced scorecard for the first time), and represent significant departuresfrom existing practices. In contrast, non-radical (or incremental) innovations tendto reinforce the organization’s current capabilities (such as making changes to anestablished system of variance analysis or balanced scorecard) and do not challengeexisting practices (Damanpour, 1991).

The theory presented here for an association between adaptive/innovative cogni-tive style and organizational innovativeness suggests that an innovator will be moreinclined to initiate radical innovations that deviate from existing organizational prac-tices and norms whereas an adaptor will be more inclined to initiate non-radical



innovations, which modify or refine existing practices. This gives rise to a proposi-tion that has not been tested in the management accounting literature; namely, thatmanagement accountants who are more innovative than adaptive in cognitive stylewill initiate a greater number of radical relative to non-radical changes in managementaccounting practices.

2.3. Interaction between cognitive style and professional development

As discussed earlier, professional development is argued to have a positive effecton the innovativeness of management accountants. It does so through their partici-pation in professional development activities, which expose them to new ideas andincrease their awareness of, and receptivity to, such ideas. Professional developmentactivities also provide the necessary domain-relevant skills, knowledge and expertiseto understand the technical aspects of a new idea and to see its advantages to theirorganization (Daft, 1978; Amabile, 1988; Simonton, 2000).

Cognitive style and professional development are independent constructs, and it isunlikely that the former is affected by the latter as an individual’s cognitive style isrelatively stable across time and situation (Kirton, 1984; Clapp, 1993; Bobic et al.,1999; Sadler-Smith, 1999). However, cognitive style is likely to affect how an individ-ual reacts to the material to which they are exposed in professional development. Thisargument comes from theoretical work on learning (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Moran, 1991;Clapp, 1993; Matthews, 1996; Sadler-Smith, 1999; Loo, 2002), which maintains thatpeople have consistent ways of responding to learning stimuli that, in turn, are aproduct of their cognitive style. Cognitive style affects the manner in which peopleorganize and process information, and this affects their learning style (Moran, 1991;Rayner, 2000; Loo, 2002). Rayner (2000) contends that individuals are continuouslyinvolved in building a repertoire of learning skills and strategies that is regulated bytheir cognitive style. Similarly, Kirton (1976, 1994) draws on Kolb’s ExperientialLearning Cycle (Kolb, 1984) to note that the relationship between cognitive style andlearning style is applicable to the management training context.

With respect to the learning styles of adaptors and innovators, Kirton (1994) con-tends that adaptors learn in a detailed, sequential and linear mode, and find it importantthat a theory has logical soundness. In contrast, innovators learn discontinuously, ac-tively seek out new and challenging ideas, seek to change situations and are willingto take risks in doing so.

These characteristics of preferred learning styles suggest that innovators and adap-tors are likely to react differently to the stimuli and opportunities provided by profes-sional development. Innovators are more likely to seek out professional developmentactivities and forums that emphasize radical ideas and innovations. Plus, when pre-sented with an activity or forum that provides exposure to both radical and non-radicalinnovations, an innovator is expected to be attracted and receptive to the radical. At-traction is consistent with their learning style attuned to new and challenging ideas,and receptivity is consistent with the discontinuity attribute of their learning style,



and their lesser concern with the risks associated with radical change. Hence, increas-ing exposure to professional development (bringing increasing exposure to a greaternumber of innovations, both radical and non-radical) is likely to result in innovatorsfocusing on the radical more than the non-radical and, by extension, initiating agreater number of radical relative to non-radical innovations in their organizations.

By contrast, adaptors are less likely to exhibit this behaviour because their learningstyles are attuned more to ideas that are incremental, sequential and linear develop-ments of their organization’s existing practices, and that have an established fit withthose practices. As a result, adaptors are less likely to be attracted or receptive to newideas that are radical. Because of their particular learning style, adaptors are morelikely to see radical ideas as not fitting with their organizations’ existing practices,and are more likely to look for reasons why the radical idea ‘won’t work’, especiallygiven that radical ideas are likely to be relatively untested for logical soundnessand application. The theory presented in this section of the paper gives rise to thefollowing hypothesis.

Management accountants who are more innovative (adaptive) in cognitive stylewill initiate more radical relative to non-radical (non-radical relative to radical)management accounting innovations, and this propensity will increase withgreater exposure to professional development.

3. Method

Data were gathered through email or fax/mail survey questionnaire and a follow-up telephone or face-to-face interview with a sample of management accountants inorganizations randomly selected from relevant business directories. Only firms withmore than 400 employees were included to ensure the presence of the management ac-counting function. The aim was to sample management accountants with professionalaccounting qualifications who were in positions to be able to initiate innovations. Thesample was drawn from companies whose management accountants were primarilymembers of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. Initial telephone con-tact was made with selected respondents to promote participation and ensure theirprofessional status. To gain a high response rate, Dillman’s (2000) techniques werefollowed, including using a short questionnaire that could be answered without theneed for respondents to seek additional information, the promise of feedback andconfidentiality and multiple email, fax and telephone follow ups. The questionnairewas used to measure the independent variables of adaptive/innovative cognitive styleand professional development, and the questionnaire plus the follow-up interviewswere used to measure the dependent variable of management accountants’ propensityto initiate radical and non-radical innovations.

At the follow-up interviews, especially the face-to-face ones, it was possible toappreciate the wide variety of situations in which management accountants work andit was noticeable that, in addition to satisfying the statutory accounting needs, many



management accountants stated that satisfying business unit managers’ informationneeds was a high priority (respondents often referred to unit managers as ‘clients’or ‘customers’). Consequently, even relatively recently qualified management ac-countants were often given significant autonomy to pursue improvements so long asbusiness unit managers’ needs were being met.

3.1. Adaptive/innovative cognitive style

Adaptive/innovative cognitive style was measured using Kirton’s (1976, 1984)Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI). Shown in Appendix I, the KAI is a 32-item,5-point fully anchored Likert-type scale that comprises three constructs: originality,rule/group conformity and efficiency. The originality dimension comprises 13 items,including items such as ‘I feel happy to create rather than improve’ and ‘I risk doingthings differently’. The rule/group conformity dimension comprises 12 items, includ-ing ‘I (never) seek to bend or break the rules’ and ‘I work without deviation in a pre-scribed way’; and the efficiency dimension comprises seven items including ‘I workmethodically and systematically’ and ‘I impose strict order on matters within (my)own control’. Anchors for all questions are ‘Strongly agree = 1’ and ‘Strongly dis-agree = 5’. Responses to the originality items were reverse scored so that a high (low)score on all three constructs indicate a more innovative (adaptive) cognitive style.1

Kirton (1976, 1984, 1994) and others (e.g. Clapp, 1993; Bobic et al., 1999) scorethe KAI by summing the responses to the 32 items to form a single continuum fromhighly adaptive to highly innovative cognitive style. Other studies have analyzed thethree constructs separately (e.g. Kubes, 1998; Shiomi and Loo, 1999; Gelade, 2002)since the three constructs are theoretically independent. In this study, we first analyzethe data in its composite form and then for each of the three constructs, which isimportant to gain greater insight to the KAI. Recall from the theory section thatthe originality and rule/group conformity constructs were consistent with Amabile(1988) and Howell and Higgins (1990), but there was less support in those studiesfor the efficiency construct.

A principal component factor analysis was carried out on the 32 items, with analy-sis restricted to three factors based on the theoretical three-construct composition ofthe KAI. The three factors all had eigenvalues greater than 1 and, together, explained40.5 per cent of the variance. With a varimax rotation, most of the items loadedstrongly (defined by Kirton, 1976, as loadings ≥0.30) on the three factors in the ex-pected manner. For factor 1 (originality), 11 of the 13 items comprising the originality

1 In this form, the KAI and its three constructs have been subjected to extensive psychometrictesting. Its stability over time and age has been demonstrated by Kirton (1984), Clapp (1993)and Bobic et al. (1999), its test-retest and internal reliability have been demonstrated by Riley(1993), Kirton (1994) and Janssen et al. (1998) and its validity across different cultural andlanguage settings by Tullett and Kirton (1995). Kirton (1976) has also demonstrated theKAI’s independence from other personality constructs such as dogmatism, extraversion andinflexibility.



component of the KAI loaded strongly; for factor 2 (rule/group conformity), 6 of the12 items loaded strongly; whereas for factor 3 (efficiency), 6 of the 7 items loadedsimilarly. Although the factor analysis did not precisely parallel Kirton’s structureof the KAI, it was largely consistent and differences are likely to lie in the smallersample size in the current study compared to Kirton’s (1976) original sample sizeof 286 individuals. Items that did not load strongly (≥0.30) were excluded from theanalysis.2

3.2. Professional development

Professional development was measured as the number of years the managementaccountant had been a qualified member of a professional accounting association.These associations require a specific number of hours of structured professionaldevelopment activity each year. The activities include conferences and professionaldevelopment courses conducted by the associations or by accredited providers suchas universities, and provide forums for participants to be exposed to new managementaccounting ideas and practices, and to acquire new or updated knowledge and skills.Hence, the longer the period of professional association membership, the more theaccountant is required to take active part in structured professional development,meaning that the number of years of professional membership can serve as a proxymeasure for professional development.

3.3. Propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations

The dependent variable was management accountants’ propensity to initiate radicaland non-radical innovations and was measured using the questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The questionnaire contained a list of 29 management accountinginnovations and asked respondents to indicate which of the innovations they hadpersonally initiated over the previous 2 years. The list (Appendix II) was drawn fromrecent surveys of management accounting practices (Barbera et al., 1999; Chenhall,1999) and is consistent in approach with Williams and Seaman (2001), although thelist of innovations was greater than in that study. Respondents were also given theopportunity to include any other innovations they had initiated (and approximately10 per cent of respondents took up this opportunity).

The questionnaire identified only the innovations a respondent had initiated, andwas not used to classify the innovations as radical or non-radical. This classificationwas subsequently made by the researcher through the follow-up interviews, whichwere conducted with each respondent following receipt of the completed uestionnaire.The interview had two objectives: to confirm that the respondent had initiated the

2 The observed range, mean and Cronbach alpha of the 32-item scale in this study was consistentwith other applications of the instrument in small sample contexts (e.g. Riley, 1993; Janssenet al., 1998).



change and to enable the researcher to classify it as radical or non-radical. Classifyinga change required taking account of the context in which it occurred because achange cannot be classified as radical or non-radical in absolute terms but only in itsrelationship to, or effect on, the adopting organization (Rogers, 1995).

Classification was necessarily the subjective interpretation of the researcher. How-ever, to provide consistency, a three-stage interview protocol developed by Emsley(2005) was used. First, the respondent was asked to talk freely about each change theyhad initiated. In most instances, this allowed a relatively clear indication of whetherthe change was new, or different from previous management accounting practices(classified as a radical innovation), or whether it was a refinement or improvement ofan existing practice (classified as a non-radical innovation). The following commentfrom a respondent illustrates a change that the researcher classified as radical.

We have just introduced a new CRM (Customer Relationship Management) plusintegrated financial system as a result of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning)and as a result we have been able to calculate customer profitability for the firsttime.

This was classified as radical because the respondent talked about calculatingcustomer profitability for ‘the first time’ and was able to give a reason for it (asa result of introducing ERP). Where a clear determination was not possible, thesecond stage of the protocol was invoked. Here, the respondent was provided withthe example of ABC, a commonly known but still relatively recent practice. Theresearcher stated that ABC could be a new practice that significantly altered theorganization’s costing systems; or ABC could have been in place as a costing systemfor some time but recent changes may have been made, say, to the activity drivers.This example allowed respondents to discuss the innovation they had initiated in asimilar context and allowed the researcher to classify the change as radical (a newpractice) or non-radical (refinement of an existing practice).

The first and second stages of the protocol used open questions from which theresearcher classified the innovations, rather than closed questions that would haveplaced the classification onus on the respondent with consequent concerns of self-representational bias. To guard against researcher bias, respondents’ answers to theKAI personality instrument were set aside before the interviews so that the researcherwas unaware of the respondents’ KAI profiles during the interviews. To test thevalidity and reliability of the classifications, a second coder was used on a subset ofthe respondents and no significant inconsistencies emerged.

The third and final stage of the protocol asked respondents directly to what degree(‘a lot’ or ‘a little’) they considered the change to be radically different from whathad been done before. This third stage was only needed once. Further comfort thatrespondent bias did not affect the classification was that almost all respondentsclassified a range of both radical and non-radical innovations, irrespective of theirKAI score. Finally, to guard against common method bias and demand characteristics,there was a time lag between the questionnaire returns and the interviews. Althoughthat lag was typically only a week, the many activities that would have intervened



for the respondents in their busy work environments over that time would haveminimized their recollection of their responses to the questionnaire. Moreover, duringthe interviews, respondents were only broadly aware of what the research was aboutand did not know that it was concerned with radical and non-radical innovations.

The propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations was measured asthe proportion of total innovations initiated by the individual that were classified asradical, resulting in a score ranging from 1 to 0, where 1 represents situations inwhich only radical innovations are initiated, a score of 0.50 represents an even splitof innovations and a score of 0 represents only non-radical innovations. This is con-sistent with the measure of adaptive/innovative cognitive style, which focuses on anindividual’s style rather than level of innovation, and allows testing of the hypothesisrelating cognitive style to the initiation of radical and non-radical changes.

4. Results

Fifty-one questionnaires were distributed, with 44 returned for a response rateof 86 per cent. Three were removed for incomplete data or for failure to take partin the interview. Consequently, 41 individual management accountants completedquestionnaires and were subsequently interviewed. Although this might be a smallsample size by mail survey standards, personal interview studies are extremely time-consuming and this sample size is not only consistent with studies using a similarmethod (e.g. Gordon and Narayanan, 1984) but also sufficient to support statisticalanalysis. Greater effort was directed to ensuring a high response rate among therandomly selected respondents, as this was considered more important than a highernumber of responses but a lower response rate.

4.1. Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. The propensity to initiate radicaland non-radical innovations, measured by the number of radical to total innovationsinitiated, has a mean of 0.498 and a range of 1 (more innovative) to 0 (more adaptive),suggesting that the sample is not overly represented by a particular type of changeand provided a spread of both innovators and adaptors. Professional development,measured as years of professional association membership, ranges from 2 to 26 witha mean of 8. The descriptive statistics for the KAI are reported in its composite formas well as for each of the three constructs (originality, rule/group conformity andefficiency). A reasonable range for all constructs is observed as well as consistencybetween the mean and median.

4.2. Correlation matrix

The correlation matrix is presented in Table 2 and can be used to test the firstpart of the hypothesis; namely, the effect that KAI has on the propensity to initiate



Table 1Descriptive statistics

Variable Mean Median SD Observed range Theoretical range

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Propensity to initiateradical/non-radicalinnovations

0.498 0.5 0.228 0 1 0 1

Professionaldevelopment

8.000 7 5.495 2 26 0 NA

KAI 75.880 74 9.110 54 100 23 115Originality 40.415 40 5.000 28 54 11 55Rule/group

conformity18.195 18 2.442 13 24 6 30

Efficiency 17.268 17 4.439 8 29 6 30

KAI, Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory; NA, not applicable.

Table 2Correlation matrix for dependent and independent variables

Variable Professional KAI Originality Rule/group Efficiencydevelopment conformity

Propensity to initiateradical/non-radical innovations

0.353∗ 0.386∗ 0.357∗ 0.447∗∗ 0.145

Professional development 0.242 0.040 0.360∗ 0.254KAI 0.794∗∗ 0.754∗∗ 0.742∗∗Originality 0.479∗∗ 0.240Rule/group conformity 0.459∗∗

∗Significant at the 5 per cent level. ∗∗Significant at the 1 per cent level. KAI, Kirton’s Adaption-InnovationInventory.

radical and non-radical innovations. A significant and positive correlation betweenpropensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations and KAI provides supportfor this part of the hypothesis (r = 0.386, p < 0.05). In addition, there are significantcorrelations between the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovationsand the originality construct (r = 0.357, p < 0.05) and the rule/group conformityconstruct (r = 0.447, p < 0.01) of KAI, but not the efficiency construct (r = 0.145,p > 0.05). These correlations provide empirical justification for breaking the KAIinto the three constructs because they show that not all three constructs have thesame association with propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations.For years of professional development, only the rule/group conformity constructwas significantly correlated, and not at a level at which multicollinearity might beconsidered a problem (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). These correlations support theindependence of professional development and cognitive style. In terms of regression



analysis that is used in the next section to test the moderating effect of professionaldevelopment on the relationship between KAI and innovative behaviour, the relevantresidual plots and plots of residuals against fitted values provided evidence that theassumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and linearity were met.

4.3. Regression analysis

Regression analysis was used to test the second part of the hypothesis that examinesthe interaction effect of professional development on the relation between KAI andinnovative behaviour. The KAI was initially tested in its composite form combiningthe three constructs of originality, rule/group conformity and efficiency. Subsequently,each of the three constructs was analyzed separately, meaning that four regressionswere run in total. The hypothesis stated that management accountants who are moreinnovative (adaptive) in cognitive style will initiate relatively more radical to non-radical (non-radical to radical) management accounting innovations, and that thispropensity will increase with greater exposure to professional development. Thehypothesis was tested with the regression model given as equation (1) using a one-tailed, 5 per cent level of significance.

Y = b0 + b1K + b2P + b3K∗P + e (1)

where

Y = innovative behaviour measured by the proportion of innovations that wereradical;

K = the KAI in composite form as well as the three constructs of originality,rule/group conformity and efficiency;

P = professional development measured by number of years of professional asso-ciation membership;

K∗P = interaction of the KAI (in composite form as well as the three constructs oforiginality, rule/group conformity and efficiency) and professional develop-ment, computed as the product of the two terms.

To determine if there is a moderating effect of professional development on therelation between KAI and innovative behaviour, the analysis undertaken is similar tothat established in previous contingency studies (e.g. Dunk, 1992) bearing in mindpotential concerns with the method (Hartmann and Moers, 1999). To test whether themoderating effect of professional development is significant, the sign and significanceof the interaction term, b3 needs to be examined. A positive and significant b3

coefficient indicates that a relatively higher (lower) KAI score is associated withan increasing number of radical to non-radical innovations (non-radical to radicalinnovations) and that this increases for greater levels of professional development.

The first regression used the composite score for all three constructs as a singlevariable to estimate equation (1) with results presented in Table 3. The coefficient ofthe interaction term, b3, is positive and significant (t = 2.38, p = 0.012), indicating



Table 3Regression of the interaction between the KAI and professional development on the propensity to initiateradical and non-radical innovations

Variable Coefficient Value SE t p

Constant b0 0.715 0.464 1.54 0.066KAI composite b1 −0.004 0.006 −0.67 0.254Professional development b2 −0.150 0.068 −2.20 0.017Interaction b3 0.002 0.000 2.38 0.012

R2 = 32.4%, adjusted R2 = 26.9%, n = 41, F3,37 = 5.92, p = 0.002. KAI, Kirton’s Adaption-InnovationInventory.

that the number of radical (to non-radical) management accounting changes initiatedby an individual is conditional upon the interaction between adaptive/innovativecognitive style (KAI) and professional development. The adjusted R2 indicates thatthe interaction model explains 26.9 per cent of the variation in the dependent variable,propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations.

The second, third and fourth regressions used the originality, rule/group conformityand efficiency constructs of the KAI, respectively, to estimate equation (1), with re-sults presented in Table 4. Panels A and B report regression results for the originalityand rule/group conformity constructs, respectively. The coefficients of the interactionterms, b3, are positive and significant in both regressions (t = 2.32, p = 0.013 for theoriginality regression and t = 1.86, p = 0.036 for the rule/group conformity regres-sion). These results indicate that the number of radical (relative to non-radical) man-agement accounting changes initiated by an individual is conditional on the interac-tion between: (i) the originality dimension of KAI and professional development; and(ii) the rule/group conformity dimension of KAI and professional development. Theadjusted R2s indicate that the originality and rule/group conformity interaction modelsexplain 28.5% and 25.1%, respectively, of the variance in the dependent variable.

Panel C of Table 4 reports regression results for the efficiency construct. The coef-ficient of the interaction term, b3, is positive but not significant (t = 0.50, p = 0.312),indicating that the number of radical (relative to non-radical) management accountingchanges initiated by an individual is not conditional upon the interaction betweenthe efficiency dimension of cognitive style (KAI) and professional development. Theadusted R2 indicates that the interaction model explains only 6.4 per cent of thevariation in the dependent variable, the propensity to initiate radical and non-radicalinnovations.

5. Summary and conclusions

The results of the study provide broad support for our expectations. First, it wasfound that adaptive/innovative cognitive style, as measured by KAI, affects the



Table 4Regression of the interaction between each of the three constructs of KAI and professional developmenton the propensity to initiate radical and non-radical innovations

Variable Coefficient Value SE t p

Panel A: Regression for the KAI originality constructa

Constant b0 0.054 0.282 0.19 0.426Originality b1 0.009 0.007 1.41 0.084Professional development b2 −0.077 0.039 −1.94 0.030Interaction b3 0.005 0.002 2.32 0.013

Panel B: Regression for the KAI rule/group conformity constructb

Constant b0 0.662 0.521 1.27 0.106Rule/group conformity b1 −0.012 0.028 −0.43 0.337Professional development b2 −0.125 0.072 −1.73 0.047Interaction b3 0.007 0.040 1.86 0.036

Panel C: Regression for the KAI efficiency constructc

Constant b0 0.444 0.263 1.96 0.049Efficiency b1 −0.004 0.016 −0.24 0.408Professional development b2 0.003 0.395 −0.09 0.465Interaction b3 0.000 0.002 0.50 0.312

aR2 = 33.9%, adjusted R2 = 28.5%, n = 41, F3,37 = 6.32, p = 0.001. bR2 = 30.7%, adjusted R2 = 25.1%,n = 41, F3,37 = 5.46, p = 0.003. cR2 = 13.4%, adjusted R2 = 6.4%, n = 41, F3,37 = 1.91, p = 0.145.

propensity of management accountants to initiate radical and non-radical innova-tions. When examining each of the three constructs of the KAI separately, the resultswere strongest for originality and rule/group conformity, which were both positivelyand significantly correlated with the propensity to initiate radical and non-radicalinnovations. In contrast, the efficiency construct was positively, but not significantly,correlated. Consequently, management accountants who are innovators (on the orig-inality and rule/group conformity constructs) have a cognitive style that predisposesthem to initiate more radical to non-radical management accounting changes. In con-trast, management accountants who are adaptors (on the originality and rule/groupconformity constructs) have a cognitive style that predisposes them to initiate fewerradical to non-radical changes.

Second, it was found that adaptive/innovative cognitive style and professional de-velopment interact. However, again, when examining the three constructs separately,the results were significant for originality and rule/group conformity but not for effi-ciency. That is, management accountants who are innovators (on the originality andrule/group conformity constructs) initiate more radical to non-radical changes withincreasing exposure to professional development. For management accountants whoare adaptors (on the originality and rule/group conformity constructs), increasingexposure to professional development is associated with initiation of fewer radicalto non-radical management accounting changes. As the different constructs of theKAI seem to have different effects on innovation, further discussion of these separateeffects is warranted.



Radical innovations occur when novel ideas are introduced into the organization.This requires the presence of an individual who has the propensity to initiate suchideas, a propensity that is clearly related to the originality construct of the KAI. Asradical ideas, by definition, come from outside the organization, exposure to originalideas through professional development activities is likely to magnify this cognitivestyle effect because these activities provide a database of ideas existing outside theorganization from which the individual might choose. An individual who is high onthe originality construct of the KAI cognitive style is predisposed to seek out, and beattuned to, those ideas that are novel and original, as well as be inclined to initiatethem in their own organization.

With regard to rule/group conformity, radical innovations involve challengingexisting practices and require abandonment of conformity to paradigms underlyingthose practices. Consequently, individuals whose cognitive style tends away fromrule/group conformity are more predisposed to radical innovations that challengeand change those paradigms. By contrast, individuals whose cognitive style tendstowards rule/group conformity are more predisposed to innovations that fit withinparadigms that are consistent with existing organizational practices. Again, exposureto professional development amplifies these predispositions, as individuals who donot feel the necessity to conform will participate in activities that tend away fromand challenge rule/group norms. In contrast, those who conform to rule/group normsare likely to seek out and be attuned to professional development activities (or ideaspresented within those activities) that are consistent with those norms.

However, while rule/group conformity and originality are intuitively appealingas constructs of an individual’s innovativeness, the argument for efficiency is lesscompelling. Kirton (1994) argues that adaptors prefer solutions to problems that areshort-term efficient, whereas innovators prefer solutions that are long-term effective.It is not intuitively obvious that this distinction translates to preferences for radicaland non-radical innovations. Individuals who are otherwise predisposed to initiateradical changes might well be concerned with efficiency, as a stimulus for change,as much as individuals predisposed to initiate non-radical changes. Additionally,there appears to be no reason why innovators are less efficient than adaptors, or thatbeing efficient is an inhibitor on propensity to initiate radical changes. Similarly,individuals predisposed to non-radical innovations could well be concerned withlong-term effectiveness as a criterion for non-radical change. It was noted earlier thatwhile originality and rule/group conformity are components of Amabile’s (1988) andHowell and Higgins’ (1990) models of individual creativity, efficiency is not. Thisstudy lends support to the lesser relevance of efficiency in the context of individualinnovativeness, at least relative to the other two constructs.

5.1. Contributions and implications of the study

The present study contributes to the published literature on management accountinginnovation and has several practical implications. With respect to the literature, the



present study provides insight into the critical, yet relatively underresearched, roleof the individual management accountant in the process of management accountingchange. Specifically, the present study shows the importance of two factors that affectmanagement accountants’ innovative behaviour: adaptive/innovative cognitive styleand professional development. Moreover, the present study suggests that only twoof the three constructs of the KAI measure of cognitive style seem to be important;namely, originality and rule/group conformity.

With respect to practical implications, the findings indicate that management ac-countants who possess an innovative cognitive style are more likely to initiate radicalchanges to the practices of their organizations. They are more likely to initiate the‘ground-breaking’ innovations that challenge and change existing practices. It might,therefore, be argued that organizations should aim to recruit management accountantswith an innovative cognitive style (and use a psychometric instrument such as the KAIto do so). However, a more balanced interpretation of the results is that organizationsshould seek a mix of adaptors and innovators. Individuals with different cognitivestyles bring different strengths and perspectives to innovation. Therefore, maintain-ing a balance of innovators and adaptors in the management accounting functionis important in providing a commensurate balance between radical and non-radicalchanges to accounting practices. Nonetheless, the organization needs to know whichis which; that is, which are innovators and which are adaptors for recruitment andtask assignment. If a radical innovation is required, recruiting and/or assigning anaccountant whose cognitive style predisposes them to non-radical innovations mightbe counterproductive, because they might seek to introduce a non-radical innovationwhere a radical one is needed, display a lack of interest in the radical innovation, orworse, take steps to actively resist a radical innovation. Knowledge of innovators andadaptors might also be useful for development purposes whereby professional devel-opment activities are scheduled bearing in mind the needs of the organization and thepredisposition of management accountants to radical and non-radical innovations.

5.2. Limitations of the present study

First, the present study relies on cross-sectional survey data; hence, whereas thetheory in the paper asserts causality, the analysis only allows associational statements.Second, the study focused only on the initiation stage of innovation. This stage isimportant in its own right, and particularly so given that the adaptive/innovativecognitive style is likely to be most relevant at this stage. However, initiation is onlyone of a number of stages of adoption, implementation and routinization of innovation(Krumwiede, 1998), and the study must be seen in that light.

A third limitation is that professional development was not measured directly butproxied by number of years of membership of a professional accounting association.Other factors such as age might be correlated with this proxy measure, and if age isalso related to seniority, it might be organizational influence through seniority, ratherthan professional development that enables older management accountants to initiate



more of their preferred type of innovation. However, a counterargument is that, withincreasing age, individuals become fixed in their ways, which, in turn, might stultifythe initiation of innovations.

In contrast, the effect of increasing professional development on initiating inno-vations is less ambiguous and is only likely to positively affect initiation. Simonton(2000) points out that certain factors operate to maintain creative output through one’slife, the most likely of which is the accumulation of domain skills and expertise, andthat this effect is likely to be more crucial for creative work in some domains thanothers. Amabile (1996) also argues that a professional domain, such as managementaccounting, requires a greater level of professional development than others (suchas the creative arts) to achieve a similar level of creativity. These arguments suggestthat age is unlikely to confound our results because the correlate of age most likelyto influence accountants’ innovativeness is, in fact, professional development, whichis, itself, a focal variable of the present study.

5.3. Suggestions for further research

The field of innovation and creativity research is vast and complex, and interwovenwith a variety of factors that might affect individual innovativeness. We have capturedonly two of those factors, providing much scope for future research. Amabile (1988),for example, includes intrinsic task motivation as an additional component in hermodel of individual creativity. She contends that no amount of domain skill cancompensate for a lack of intrinsic motivation. Indeed, it might be argued that, tosome extent, a high degree of motivation might compensate for a deficiency ofskills or a particular cognitive style. Future research could incorporate intrinsic taskmotivation into the interaction model tested in the present study to examine its effecton individuals’ innovative behaviour.

Second, as noted earlier, the present study was restricted to initiation of inno-vations. Future research could examine the effect of adaptive/innovative cognitivestyle and professional development on subsequent stages of innovation adoption,including persuasion, implementation and routinization. Research could examinewhether individuals with different adaptor/innovator cognitive styles exhibit differ-ent strengths and weaknesses at stages subsequent to initiation. Third, the measureof professional development could be improved by using a more direct measure.Although professional bodies mandate a minimum number of hours of professionaldevelopment, this obligation can be fulfilled in different ways including committeework as well as conference attendance, and these activities are likely to have differenteffects on innovative behaviour. In addition, management accountants might attendnon-management accounting activities and might do more than the minimum numberof hours mandated. Taking these factors into account would result in an improvedmeasure of professional development.

Finally, different research methods provide opportunities for future research in thisarea. Although the current survey study is able to assert causality only through theory,



it is feasible that an experiment could be constructed to test causality empirically. Thiswould necessitate prior measurement of subjects’ adaptor/innovator cognitive styleand professional development, but could then involve a problem-based experimentaltask designed to allow opportunities for radical or non-radical solutions to the problemto test subjects’ innovative behaviour. Such an experiment would, itself, requirecreativity, but would provide stronger support for causality.

Appendix I

Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI)

OriginalityI stimulate new ideasI proliferate new ideasI can cope with several new ideas at the same timeI always think of something when stuckI feel happy to create rather than improveI provide fresh perspectives on old problemsI risk doing things differentlyI like to vary set routines at a moment’s noticeI prefer to work on one problem at a timeI feel able to disagree within a groupI need the stimulation of frequent changeI prefer change to occur graduallyI have original ideasRule/group conformityI fit readily into ‘the system’I conform to the systemI readily agree with the team at workI seek to bend or break the rulesI act without proper authorityI like the protection of precise instructionsI believe I am predictableI prefer colleagues who never ‘rock the boat’I like bosses and work patterns to be consistentI work without deviation in a prescribed wayI hold back on ideas until they are obviously neededI believe I am prudent when dealing with authorityEfficiencyI complete tasks thoroughlyI master the details of tasks painstakinglyI work methodically and systematicallyI enjoy detailed workI regard myself as a steady plodderI believe myself to be consistentI impose strict order on matters within own control



Appendix II

Management accounting innovations

Month-end reportingYear-end and annual reportingBudget setting processesOutsourcing (contracting out) accounting activitiesBenchmarking activities (within your organization)Benchmarking activities (outside your organization)Business process reengineering exercisesChanges to the way capital expenditure is evaluatedProduct profitability analysisActivity-based costing (ABC)Activity-based management (ABM)Product life cycle costingDeveloping balanced scorecardsUse of key performance indicators (KPIs)Introducing integrated database systems (e.g. SAP)Continuous improvement programsKaizen costingChanges to variance analysisChanges to responsibility accountingStrategic management accounting initiativesUse of economic value added (EVA)Use of market value added (MVA)Customer profitability analysisBackflush costingValue chain analysisCompetitor costingCustomer lifetime valuationDeveloping closer working relationships with the users of management accounting informationIncreasing the emphasis on team-based work within the accounting department

References

Amabile, T. M., 1988, A model of creativity and innovation in organizations, Research inOrganizational Behavior 10, 123–167.

Baines, A., and K. Langfield-Smith, 2003, Antecedents to management accounting change: astructural equation approach, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, 675–698.

Barbera, M., J. Baxter, and W. Birkett, 1999, Innovative Management Accounting: Insightsfrom Practice (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney).

Bobic, M., E. Davis, and R. Cunningham, 1999, The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory,Review of Public Personnel Administration 19, 18–31.

Brown, D. A., P. Booth, and F. Giacobbe, 2004, Technological and organizational influenceson the adoption of activity-based costing in Australia, Accounting and Finance 44, 329–356.

Burns, J., and R. W. Scapens, 2000, Conceptualizing management accounting change: aninstitutional framework, Management Accounting Research 11, 3–25.



Chenhall, R., 1999, Contemporary developments in Australian management accounting,Australian CPA 69, 3–5 (Insert).

Chenhall, R., and K. Langfield-Smith, 1998, Adoption and benefits of management accountingpractices: an Australian study, Management Accounting Research 9, 1–19.

Clapp, R. G., 1993, Stability of cognitive style in adults and some implications: a longitudi-nal study of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, Psychological Reports 73, 1235–1245.

Daft, R. L., 1978, A dual-core model of organizational innovation, Academy of ManagementJournal 21, 193–210.

Damanpour, F., 1988, Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process, CommunicationResearch 15, 545–567.

Damanpour, F., 1991, Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators, Academy of Management Journal 34, 555–590.

Damanpour, F., 1992, Organizational size and innovation, Organization Studies 13, 375–402.Dillman, D. A., 2000, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (Wiley, New

York).Dunk, A. S., 1992, Reliance on budgetary control, manufacturing process automation and

production sub-unit performance: a research note, Accounting, Organizations and Society17, 195–203.

Emsley, D., 2005, Restructuring the management accounting function: a note on the effect ofrole involvement in innovativeness, Management Accounting Research 16, 157–177.

Gelade, G. A., 2002, Creative style, personality and artistic endeavor, Genetic, Social, andGeneral Psychology Monographs 128, 213–234.

Gopalakrishnan, S., and F. Damanpour, 1997, A review of innovation research in economics,sociology and technology management, Omega 25, 15–28.

Gordon, L. A., and V. K. Narayanan, 1984, Management accounting systems, perceived envi-ronmental uncertainty and organizational structure: an empirical investigation, Accounting,Organizations and Society 9, 33–47.

Hartmann, F. G. H., and F. Moers, 1999, Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research:an evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis, Accounting, Organizations andSociety 24, 291–315.

Howell, J. M., and C. A. Higgins, 1990, Champions of technological innovation, AdministrativeScience Quarterly 35, 317–341.

Janssen, O., de Vries, T., and A. J. Cozijnsen, 1998, Voicing by adapting and innovatingemployees: an empirical study on how personality and environment interact to affect voicebehaviour, Human Relations 51, 945–967.

Kirton, M. J., 1976, Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure, Journal of AppliedPsychology 61, 622–629.

Kirton, M. J., 1984, Adaptors and innovators: why new initiatives get blocked, Long RangePlanning 17, 137–143.

Kirton, M. J., 1994, Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving(Routledge, London).

Kolb, D. A., 1984, Experiential Learning (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Krumwiede, K. R., 1998, The implementation stages of activity based costing and the impact

of contextual and organizational factors, Journal of Management Accounting Research 10,239–277.

Kubes, M., 1998, Adaptors and innovators in Slovakia: cognitive style and social culture,European Journal of Personality 12, 187–198.

Libby, T., and J. H. Waterhouse, 1996, Predicting change in management accounting systems,Journal of Management Accounting Research 8, 137–151.

Loo, R., 2002, A meta-analytic examination of Kolb’s learning style preferences among busi-ness majors, Journal of Education for Business 77, 252–256.



Matthews, D. B., 1996, An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievementfor high school students, Clearing House 69, 249–254.

Moran, A., 1991, What can learning styles research learn from cognitive psychology?, Educa-tional Psychology 11, 239–245.

Porter, M. E., and S. Stern, 2001, Innovation: location matters, MIT Sloan Management Review42, 28–37.

Rayner, S. G., 2000, Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: profiling learn-ing performance, in: R. J. Riding and S. G. Rayner, eds., International Perspectives onIndividual Differences (Ablex Publishing Corporation, Stamford), 115–177.

Riley, M., 1993, Organization and creativity: a replication of the KAI test, Journal of Man-agerial Psychology 8, 6, i–iv.

Rogers, E. M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations (The Free Press, New York).Sadler-Smith, E., 1999, Intuition-analysis cognitive style and learning preferences of business

and management students: a UK exploratory study, Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,26–38.

Sadler-Smith, E., and B. Badger, 1998, Cognitive style, learning and innovation, TechnologyAnalysis and Strategic Management 10, 247–265.

Schon, D. A., 1963, Champions for radical new inventions, Harvard Business Review 41,77–86.

Scott, S. G., and R. A. Bruce, 1994, Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model ofindividual innovation in the workplace, Academy of Management Journal 37, 580–608.

Shields, M. D., 1995, An empirical analysis of firms’ implementation experiences with ABC,Journal of Management Accounting Research Fall, 148–166.

Shiomi, K., and R. Loo, 1999, Cross-cultural response styles on the Kirton Adaption-InnovationInventory, Social Behavior and Personality 27, 413–420.

Simonton, D. K., 2000, Creativity: cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects,American Psychologist January, 151–158.

Soin, K., W. Seal, and J. Cullen, 2002, ABC and organizational change: an institutionalperspective, Management Accounting Research 13, 249–271.

Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell, 2001, Using Multivariate Statistics (Allyn and Bacon,Boston).

Tullett, A. D., and M. J. Kirton, 1995, Further evidence for the independence of Adaptive-Innovative (A-I) cognitive style from national culture, Personality and Individual Differences19, 393–396.

Williams, J. J., and A. E. Seaman, 2001, Predicting change in management accounting systems:national culture and industry effects, Accounting, Organizations and Society 26, 443–460.

Zaltman, G., R. Duncan, and J. Holbek, 1973, Innovations and Organizations (Wiley, NewYork).


15_Effect of Cognitive Style Etc

Documents

Transcript of 15_Effect of Cognitive Style Etc