- Email: [email protected]
Gatekeeper communication networks and technological innovation: A study of U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations
GATEKEEPER COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION: A STUDY OF U.S. AND MEXICAN R&D ORGANIZATIONS
ROBERT T. KELLER* University of Houston
A study of 7 1 professional employees in a U.S. R&D organization and 5 1 professional employees in a Mexican R&D organization found similarities in both organizations in the development of communication and gatekeeper networks, a relationship between physical proximity and the development of communication networks, and gatekeeper characteristics of higher performance, reading activity, and job satisfaction. Nationality had little or no moderating effects on the development of communication networks, or the relationship between physical proximity and the development of communication networks. Implications for theory and management practice are discussed.
The generation
of technological
innovations
from a research
and development
(R&D)
organization has come to be seen as an interpersonal, communication, and informationcentered process. Central to the understanding of how technological innovations are generated is an understanding of the communication networks, patterns, and roles that in an R&D organization due to the interactions among scientists and engineers. Research in this area has suggested that the emergence of certain communication networks and communicator roles can have a direct and substantive effect on the effectiveness of technological innovation in the context of the R&D organization (Allen 1977; Keller & Holland 1983; National Science Foundation 1983; Roberts 1987; Tushman & Nadler 1981). Cross-national differences in the management of R&D organizations have become prominent concerns in recent years as technology-oriented firms have established complementary R&D facilities in home and foreign countries, or have entered into joint R&D ventures across national boundaries (Behrman & Fischer 1980; Kedia & Bhagat 1988;
emerge
*Direct all correspondence Universitv
of Houston.
to: Robert T. Keller, Department of Management, Houston. TX 77204-6283.
College of Business Administration,
The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 2, Number 1, pages 1-13 Copyright 0 1991 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 10474310
2
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. li 1991
Robinson 1988). This article investigates the emergence of communication networks and roles in R&D organizations, and whether their emergence and patterns are affected by cross-national factors.
COMMUNICATION
NETWORKS
Allen (1977) studied several R&D organizations and found that key individuals were identified by their peers as important sources of scientific and technological information. He called these individuals “gatekeepers” since they exposed themselves to interpersonal and written sources of information outside of the R&D organization, and then diffused that information to others inside the organization. Gatekeepers became a critical link between external information and internal professional employees through a “two-step flow” process, first to the gatekeepers and then to others. Gatekeepers were connected to others in the R&D organization through communication networks that became apparent through sociograms of communication flows depicted by Allen. Upon further examination Allen (1977) found that Flament’s (1963) concept of interconnectedness or “connectivity” added considerable insight to the nature of networks among gatekeepers and others. Allen used sociometric choices concerning information flows among R&D professionals to group them into strongly connected components or “strong components.” A strong component is one in which all members are mutually reachable such that a potential exists for any two members to transmit information. Allen found that strong components were not the same as formal organizational groupings. In addition, most of the gatekeepers were members of the same strong component. Thus, Allen concluded that gatekeepers were able to keep close communication among themselves and thereby increase the effectiveness of bringing external scientific and technological information into the R&D organization. Subsequent research has supported the emergence of communication and gatekeeper networks. Tushman (1977) found that gatekeepers can specialize in the type of boundary across which they bring in information; that is, a boundary within the R&D organization such as between project groups, or a boundary between the organization and its external environment. Keller and Holland (1983) found gatekeepers to have higher self-esteem, an innovative orientation, to read more, to be more central to a communication network, and to generate more innovative outputs such as patents and publications when compared to other professional employees. In addition, both Allen (1977) and Keller and Holland found that physical propinquity (nearness of desk location) can enhance the development of communication networks and the emergence of gatekeepers within an R&D organization. Roberts (1987) has suggested that the emergence of certain patterns of communication networks and critical roles such as the gatekeeper must occur for the successful generation of technological innovations by an R&D organization. These communication patterns and roles allow for the effective importation of scientific and technological information into the R&D organization, the efficient diffusion of such information inside the organization, and the transformation of scientific and technological information into technological innovations that are then exported out of the R&D organization to the firm or environment.
Gatekeeper Communication Networks and Technological Innovation
CROSS-NATIONAL
FACTORS
A trend in recent years has developed for technology-oriented firms to emphasize an international strategy to their businesses. This strategy often means that a firm will establish complementary R&D facilities in the home and foreign countries, or enter into joint R&D ventures with firms in another country. The major advantages of having R&D sites in more than one country include the enhanced ability to transfer technology between the countries, knowledge of foreign markets and technological capabilities, and the show of commitment to a foreign government (Behrman & Fischer 1980; Kedia & Bhagat 1988; Robinson 1988). Robinson (1988) has pointed out that an increasing share of R&D budgets spent in foreign laboratories by multinational corporations has been going to developing countries in Latin America and Asia. There are clear advantages to this strategy that range from host-government support, to ease of technology transfer, and the development of contacts with the local academic community. Problems, however, can often be greater if an R&D unit is located in a developing country compared to a location in an industrialized country. Of primary concern are the cultural differences that can act as barriers to the transfer of technology and the diffusion of innovations from the R&D organization in one country to another. These cultural differences can affect communication and acceptance of technology by the developing country (Kedia & Bhagat 1988). Relatively little research exists, however, that has investigated how R&D organizations and professional employees might differ between an industrialized country and a developing country. Differences
Between the United States and Mexico
Two countries of considerable importance to each other are the United States and Mexico, due primarily to their geographic proximity. These two countries have strong economic and social ties, and an increasing amount of technology transfer from the investment of U.S. firms in the Mexican economy. Yet, there is a relative paucity of comparative research on employees from the two countries cited in literature reviews (Barrett & Bass 1976; Bhagat & McQuaid 1982). Although the U.S. and Mexico share a long, common border, prior research generally has found that the two countries tend to cluster separately on studies of work-related values and attitudes (Bhagat & McQuaid 1982; Hofstede 1980; 1984; Ronen & Shenkar 1985). The U.S. usually clusters with Western, industrialized countries, while Mexico generally clusters with developing countries in Latin America. Therefore, the U.S. and Mexico can be studied in contrast notwithstanding their close geographic proximity. Hofstede (1980, 1984) collected data on cultural values from employees of a major multinational corporation and its subsidiaries located in 50 countries. Hofstede found meaningful differences in cultural values across the countries he studied, and when countries clustered differently on these cultural dimensions he saw the national differences as important for understanding work-related variables. Occupational differences in work values can be superimposed on the national differences according to Hofstede, so compar-
4
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/ 1991
sons across nations from people in similar occupations is a way to focus on national differences in culture. Hofstede’s (1984) analysis showed the U.S. and Mexico to be in opposite clusters when plotted on a two-dimensional figure using the cultural dimensions of power distance and individualism. Power distance is the extent to which less powerful people in a society accept as normal an inequality in power. Individualism assumes people in a society primarily look after their own individual interests as opposed to the collectivist interests of a larger group or clan. The U.S. was found to value small power distance and high individualism, while Mexico valued large power distance and low individualism (Hofstede 1984). Hence, in the U.S. success by individuals would be valued, and consultation and participation by higher status people with those of lower status would be expected. In Mexico, however, success would be seen in more collectivist terms in the form of a group or clan, and subordinates would expect superiors to act autocratically without much consultation or participation. These national differences in culture applied to an R&D organization would suggest that gatekeepers might not emerge in a collectivist culture such as Mexico since the gatekeeper typically operates as an entrepreneurial individual who can be approached easily by lower status co-workers for scientific and technological information. Physical distance, moreover, may be perceived as social or power distance in a country such as Mexico where physical groupings may be perceived as social groupings with different status levels associated with each social grouping. Hence, it is reasonable to expect the cultural dimensions that differ substantially between the U.S. and Mexico to moderate the development of gatekeeper communication networks, as well as the relationship between physical proximity and the development of communication networks in an R&D organization.
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
AND HYPOTHESES
The literatures on the emergence of communication networks and gatekeepers in R&D organizations and the influence of cross-national factors were used to develop the theoretical framework presented in Figure 1. Scientific and technological information is depicted as the major input to the R&D organization, which then diffuses and transforms this information through the emergence of gatekeeper and communication networks. An important influence on the development of these networks is the physical proximity of the professional employees. The R&D transformation process results in the outputs of technological innovations and new scientific and technological information to other parts of the firm as well as to organizations outside the firm. Nationality is seen as an important moderator of how scientific and technological information is imported and diffused within the R&D organization since cultural values that differ across nations can affect the encoding of information and the interpersonal relations that result in communication networks. Also, nationality is posited as a moderator of the way in which physical proximity affects the development of communication networks. Cultures differ in how distances between people and groupings are viewed and whether distance is associated with status differences between groups.
Gatekeeper Communication
Networks
5
and Technological Innovation
Physical Proximity
1
Nationality outputs
* Scientific and Technological Information
V
)
Emergence of Gatekeeper and Communication Networks
l
D l
Technological Innovations New Scientific and Technological Information
FIGURE 1. A theoretical framework of nationality and the emergence communication networks in research and development organizations.
The following
hypotheses
were generated
from the theoretical
of
framework:
Hypothesis
1.
Strong components will develop in each R&D organization, and a majority of the gatekeepers in each organization will be in one strong component.
Hypothesis
2.
Physical proximity will be associated with the development of strong components in each organization.
Hypothesis
3.
Gatekeepers in each organization will have higher performance (including patents and publications), job satisfaction, self-esteem, and innovation orientation, and will read more journals and periodicals than other professional employees.
Hypothesis 4.
Nationality will moderate the development of strong components; nationality will moderate the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong components.
METHODS
Two R&D organizations were selected for this study because they were similar in several respects, yet one was located in the U.S. and the other in Mexico. Both were applied R&D organizations for major industrial corporations, one U.S. owned and the other wholly Mexican owned, and both were located in major cities. A sample of 71 professional employees (92 percent response rate) was obtained from the U.S. organization. These participants had an average age of 38 years and an average time in their
6
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/1991
present position of four years. All the participants held a bachelor’s degree, and many had taken some graduate training. All 5 1 professional employees of the Mexican organization participated. These participants had an average age of 30 years and an average time in present position of two years. Almost all the participants held a bachelor’s degree from a Mexican university, and most had graduate training. All of these participants were male Mexican nationals, but were fluent enough in English to complete the questionnaire without translation. It should be noted that these participants routinely read English language scientific and technical journals that had not been translated into Spanish. Also, this organization had maintained contacts with business school professors from three American universities from time to time over a five-year period prior to the collection of the data. These professors had presented seminars on R&D management to the professional employees. Measures and Procedure Communication of scientific and technological information was measured by peer nomination (sociometric choice). This type of information generally has been found to be the most important raw material for R&D work and the generation of technological innovations (Allen 1977; Roberts 1987). Each participant was asked to nominate up to four co-workers to whom he or she went for scientific and technological information. The number of nominations received by each individual was the communication score for that participant. Peer nomination has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of important organizational variables (Kane & Lawler 1978; Love 198 1). Job performance was measured by management ratings on a five-point scale ranging from “very low” to “very high’ for each of the following five criteria: quality of performance, quantity of performance, ability to get along with other employees, dependability, and total performance. A factor analysis of these five items revealed that only one clear factor existed with an eigenvalue greater than 1 .O before rotation; hence, the five items were summed to form an overall measure of performance. The coefficient alpha reliability of this overall performance measure in the present sample was 0.91. Total number of patents and total number of publications for each participant were also obtained. Each participant reported the total number of work-related journals and periodicals regularly read. Job satisfaction was measured by the 72-item Job Descriptive Index (JDI), which was developed and validated by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). The coefficient alpha reliability in the present study for the total JDI was 0.90. Self-esteem was measured by the lo-item Rosenberg (1965) scale, with a reliability of 0.83. An innovative orientation was measured by the Kirton (1976) 32-item adaptation-innovation inventory, with a reliability of 0.86. A high score indicated an innovative orientation or an ability to “do things differently,” while a low score indicated an adaptive orientation or an ability to “do things better.” Physical proximity was measured by each participant’s estimate of the distance in walking yards from the participant’s primary work station to those of each of three co-workers who were the most valuable sources of scientific and technological information. A factor analysis of these three distance items revealed only one clear factor with an
Gatekeeper Communication
Networks
and Technological Innovation
I
eigenvalue greater than 1.0 before rotation; hence, these three items were summed for each participant. The same procedure was followed in each organization. Questionnaires were completed at each organization during normal working hours in groups of about 2.5 each. Only the researcher was present and confidentiality of all information was guaranteed.
RESULTS Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix for all variables for each R&D organization. A preliminary analysis of the frequency distribution for peer nominations of scientific and technological communication in each organization revealed that the distributions were substantially skewed such that a minority of the professional employees accounted for a majority of the communication nominations. An inspection of the frequency distributions showed that a reasonable break in the distributions occurred for the top third of individuals who had four or more nominations each. The top third accounted for about 70% of the total nominations in each organization, so those in this category were designated as gatekeepers. This decision rule is similar to those used in prior research (Allen 1977; Keller & Holland 1983). The first hypothesis was that strong components will develop in each R&D organization, and that a majority of the gatekeepers in each organization will be in one strong component. Based on Flament (1963) and Allen (1977), a strong component is a network in which all members are mutually reachable, even if indirectly; hence, a potential exists for information to be transmitted between any two members of a strong component. Figures 2 and 3 depict the sociograms grouped by strong components (denoted by brackets) for the U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations, respectively. The U.S. organization had five strong components, and 54% of the gatekeepers (designated by a superscript “G”) were in one strong component. The Mexican organization had only two strong components since it was a smaller organization, and 71% of the gatekeepers were in one strong component. Hence, the first hypothesis was supported, which suggests support for Allen’s (1977) notion that gatekeepers maintain close communication among themselves in order to effectively link their organization to outside scientific and technological information. The second hypothesis predicted that physical proximity will be associated with the development of strong components in each organization. To test this hypothesis a r-test was conducted for the mean number of walking yards for the sum of the three most important sources of scientific and technological information for those outside a strong component versus those inside a strong component. The results for the U.S. (t = 6.06, pG .Ol) and the Mexican (t =5.63, p d .Ol) organizations both showed a much closer physical proximity for those inside a strong component. Thus, the second hypothesis was supported, which suggests that physical proximity facilitates the social interactions that result in strong component formation. The third hypothesis stated that gatekeepers in each organization will be higher on performance (including patents and publications), job satisfaction, self-esteem, innovative
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
Descriptive
Variables 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Communication nominations Physical proximity Performance Patents Publications Journals read Job satisfaction Self-esteem Innovative orientation
Note:
Statistics
MANAGEMENT
TABLE 1 and Correlation
U.S. tOrganization_ M S.D.
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. I/ 199 1
Matrix for All Variables c
Mexican Organization + M S.D.
1
3.69
5.29
4.03
5.64
88.62 17.87 2.13 1.27 4.62 158.76 42.50
30.15 5.54 1.92 2.35 2.39 24.84 5.72
81.17 18.93 1.56 1.62 4.67 158.63 42.18
23.42 5.28 5.89 2.66 3.10 23.19 5.04
.33* .38** .40** .30* .42** .28* .25
96.65
10.75
99.98
10.20
.25
Correlations for U.S. organization (N = 71) are above the diagonal; correlations
*p c .05. **p s
.Ol.
FIGURE 2. Sociogram by strong components of U.S. R&D organization. Note: Superscript “G” denotes a gatekeeper. Information flow is mainly in the direction opposite to that of arrows. Brackets denote a strong component. orientation, and reading of journals and periodicals compared to other professional employees. Results of a MANOVA revealed significant overall Fs for differences between gatekeepers and others in the U.S. organization (F6@ = 10.06, p s .Ol) and in the Mexican organization (F6 44 = 7.50, ps .Ol). Table 2 presents univariate analysis of variance tests on each of the independent variables for the two organizations. These results
9
Gatekeeper Communication Networks and Technological Innovation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.Y.x*
.40**
.78**
.30*
.46*”
.29”
.I1
.28*
.29* .31* .30* .23 .26 .13
.2s* .27* .01 .28* .I3 .27*
.30* .27” .16 .35* .1.5 .37**
.20 .2s* .86** .41** .06 .04
.18 .32** .48** .ss** ‘16 .21
29” .21 .40** .34** .22 .28*
.I0 .22 .04 .04 .29* .22 -
.I4 .31** .lO .29* .27* .20 .04
.07
.09
.03
.38**
.19
.03
.12
-
-
for Mexican org~nizat~oR (N = 51) are below the diagonal.
show that gatekeepers in both organizations were higher on performance, patents, publications, journals read, and job satisfaction as predicted. In the U.S. organization gatekeepers were also higher on innovative orientation. No significant differences were found for self-esteem. These results suggest that gatekeepers are indeed key personnel with technical and interpersonal competencies . The fourth hypothesis predicted that nationality will moderate the development of strong components, and will moderate the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong com~nents. Figures 2 and 3 show the sociograms by strong components for the U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations respectively. While the U.S. organization had five strong components and the Mexican org~ization only two, only two in the U.S. organization and one in the Mexican organization were large. Also, the U.S. organization was almost 40% larger, and in both organizations the majority of gatekeepers was in one strong component. Hence, only weak support, if any, can be given to nationality having moderated the development of strong components. r-Tests for the difference in physical proximity between those outside versus those inside a strong com~nent were signi~~ant in both the U.S. and Mexican org~izations. In addition, an hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for the combined samples to determine the unique variance accounted for in being outside versus inside a strong component as a dichotomous dependent variable. The independent variables were physical proximity and U.S. versus Mexican nation~ity (dichotomous), plus an interaction term (physical proximity times nationality). The interaction term did not account for additional signi~~ant variance in being outside versus inside a strong component; hence, nationality did not moderate the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong components.
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
10
IOG,
MANAGEMENT
llG,
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/1991
32’
FIGURE 3. Sociogram by strong components of Mexican R&D organization. Note: Superscript “G” denotes a gatekeeper. Information flow is mainly in the direction opposite to that of arrows. Brackets denote a strong component.
Univariate
TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance for Characteristics Other Professional Employees t-
t-
U.S. Organization w
of Gatekeepers
and
Mexican Organization W
Gatekeepers M
Others M
F
M
Others M
F
Performance Job satisfaction Self-esteem
20.16 166.60 42.25
16.71 154.76 42.63
7.21** 4.11* 1.18
22.10 168.79 42.60
17.35 153.56 41.98
7.86** 4.79* 2.20
Innovative orientation Journals read Patents Publications
100.28 6.83 5.70 2.92
94.80 3.50 0.31 0.43
4.63* 9.76** 19.09** 5.04*
99.36 5.80 2.68 2.68
100.29 4.11 1.00 1.10
1.97 7.45** 9.08** 4.71*
Variables
Note:
df = 1,69 for U.S. organization;
*p 5.05. **p< .Ol.
Gatekeepers
df = 1,49 for Mexican organization
Gatekeeper Communication
Networks
and Technological Innovation
11
DISCUSSION The results of this study generally support the hypotheses and parts of the theoretical framework that pertain to the development of communication and gatekeeper networks and their roles in the technological innovation process. That is, the emergence of strong components with the majority of gatekeepers in one strong component, the relationship of physical proximity to the development of strong components, and the characteristics of gatekeepers with higher performance, patents, publications, reading activity, and job satisfaction than other professional employees were found to occur in a similar way in both the U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations. Little or no support, however, was found for nationality having moderated the development of strong components or the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong components. These results are consistent with prior cross-national research that has generally found more similarities than differences among R&D professional employees from different countries (Chaney 1966; Gerpott, Domsch, & Keller 1988; Toren & Griffel 1983). These prior studies, however, focused on R&D organizations located in Western, industrialized nations that have often clustered together on work-related values and attitudes. The present study compared organizations from the U.S. and Mexico-two nations that have been found to cluster quite separately (Bhagat & McQuaid 1982; Hofstede 1980, 1984; Ronen & Shenkar 1985). Thus, the present findings both support and extend the prior research on cross-national factors in R&D organizations. The present results and the prior research suggest that R&D organizations may form subcultures within the larger national cultures that have more similarities than differences. That is, the subcultural norms of both organizations, developed through similarities in education, goals, and tasks, could be stated as “transform scientific and technological information into commercially successful technological innovations.” The methods and standards of science and technology, moreover, are generally valid across national boundaries. These similarities in subcultural norms may well be the reason for the lack of national differences in the present study. Further, the results of the present research may tend to be comforting to multinational corporations that have located or are planning to locate complementary R&D facilities in more than one country, including some developing countries in Latin America and Asia (Robinson 1988). The present results tend to suggest that R&D professional employees in different countries may share similar norms and backgrounds, and that the processes of technological innovation may also be similar. Hence, coordination and collaboration across countries in the R&D realm may be quite possible. Additional research is needed to develop and deepen the theoretical framework with regard to the cultural dimensions that underlie nationality. Efforts by Hofstede (1980) and Kedia and Bhagat (1988) have identified some relevant culture-based differences, but empirical application to R&D organizations from different countries needs to be done. Such additional research can help to understand how subcultural norms of R&D organizations can be similar across nations when the national cultures may be different. As the trend toward the globalization of high-technology industries continues, the siting of R&D facilities in developing countries will become a critical issue for the strategic
12
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/1991
management of technology. As can be seen in the examples of computers, automobiles, and consumer electronics, “world products” often need a multinational R&D strategy to be successful. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Gary J. Castrogiovanni, Jiing-Lih Farh, and Ben L. Kedia for their helpful comments and suggestions. Portions of this paper were presented at the FortyNinth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August, 1989, Washington, DC. REFERENCES Allen, T.J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barrett, G.V., & Bass, B.M. 1976. Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology: 1639-1686. Chicago: Rand McNally. Behrman, J.N., & Fischer, W.A. 1980. Transnational corporations: Market orientations and R&D abroad. Columbia Journal of World Business, 15(3): Y-60. Bhagat, R.S., & McQuaid, S.J. 1982. Role of subjective culture in organizations: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 653-685. Chaney, F.B. 1966. A cross-cultural study of industrial research performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50: 206-210. Flament, C. 1963. Applications of graph theory to group structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Gerpott, T.J., Domsch, M., & Keller, R.T. 1988. Career orientations in different countries and companies: An empirical investigation of West German, British, and U.S. industrial R&D professionals. Journal of Management Studies, 25: 439-462. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1984. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9: 389-398. Kane, J.S., & Lawler, E.E. 1978. Methods ofpeerassessment. PsychologicalBulletin, 85: 555-586. Kedia, B.L., & Bhagat, R.S. 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management. Academy of Management Review, 13: 559-571. Keller, R.T., & Holland, W.E. 1983. Communicators and innovators in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 742-749. Kirton, M. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 61: 622-629. Love, K.G. 1981. Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 451-457. National Science Foundation. 1983. The process of technological innovation: Reviewing the literature. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Roberts, E.B. 1987. Managing technological innovation-A search for generalizations. In E.B. Roberts (Ed.), Generating technological innovations, pp. 3-21. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gatekeeper Communication Networks and Technological Innovation
13
Robinson, R.D. 1988. The international transfer of technology: Theory, issues, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, 0. 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10: 435454. Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Toren, N., & Griffel, A. 1983. A cross-cultural examination of scientists’ perceived importance of work characteristics. SociaE Science Research, 12: 10-25. Tushman, M.L. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 587-605. Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D.A. 1981. Communication and technical roles in R&D laboratories: An information processing approach. In B.V. Dean & J.D. Goldhar (Eds.), Management of research and innovation, pp. 151-168. New York: Elsevier North Holland.
ROBERT T. KELLER* University of Houston
A study of 7 1 professional employees in a U.S. R&D organization and 5 1 professional employees in a Mexican R&D organization found similarities in both organizations in the development of communication and gatekeeper networks, a relationship between physical proximity and the development of communication networks, and gatekeeper characteristics of higher performance, reading activity, and job satisfaction. Nationality had little or no moderating effects on the development of communication networks, or the relationship between physical proximity and the development of communication networks. Implications for theory and management practice are discussed.
The generation
of technological
innovations
from a research
and development
(R&D)
organization has come to be seen as an interpersonal, communication, and informationcentered process. Central to the understanding of how technological innovations are generated is an understanding of the communication networks, patterns, and roles that in an R&D organization due to the interactions among scientists and engineers. Research in this area has suggested that the emergence of certain communication networks and communicator roles can have a direct and substantive effect on the effectiveness of technological innovation in the context of the R&D organization (Allen 1977; Keller & Holland 1983; National Science Foundation 1983; Roberts 1987; Tushman & Nadler 1981). Cross-national differences in the management of R&D organizations have become prominent concerns in recent years as technology-oriented firms have established complementary R&D facilities in home and foreign countries, or have entered into joint R&D ventures across national boundaries (Behrman & Fischer 1980; Kedia & Bhagat 1988;
emerge
*Direct all correspondence Universitv
of Houston.
to: Robert T. Keller, Department of Management, Houston. TX 77204-6283.
College of Business Administration,
The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 2, Number 1, pages 1-13 Copyright 0 1991 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 10474310
2
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. li 1991
Robinson 1988). This article investigates the emergence of communication networks and roles in R&D organizations, and whether their emergence and patterns are affected by cross-national factors.
COMMUNICATION
NETWORKS
Allen (1977) studied several R&D organizations and found that key individuals were identified by their peers as important sources of scientific and technological information. He called these individuals “gatekeepers” since they exposed themselves to interpersonal and written sources of information outside of the R&D organization, and then diffused that information to others inside the organization. Gatekeepers became a critical link between external information and internal professional employees through a “two-step flow” process, first to the gatekeepers and then to others. Gatekeepers were connected to others in the R&D organization through communication networks that became apparent through sociograms of communication flows depicted by Allen. Upon further examination Allen (1977) found that Flament’s (1963) concept of interconnectedness or “connectivity” added considerable insight to the nature of networks among gatekeepers and others. Allen used sociometric choices concerning information flows among R&D professionals to group them into strongly connected components or “strong components.” A strong component is one in which all members are mutually reachable such that a potential exists for any two members to transmit information. Allen found that strong components were not the same as formal organizational groupings. In addition, most of the gatekeepers were members of the same strong component. Thus, Allen concluded that gatekeepers were able to keep close communication among themselves and thereby increase the effectiveness of bringing external scientific and technological information into the R&D organization. Subsequent research has supported the emergence of communication and gatekeeper networks. Tushman (1977) found that gatekeepers can specialize in the type of boundary across which they bring in information; that is, a boundary within the R&D organization such as between project groups, or a boundary between the organization and its external environment. Keller and Holland (1983) found gatekeepers to have higher self-esteem, an innovative orientation, to read more, to be more central to a communication network, and to generate more innovative outputs such as patents and publications when compared to other professional employees. In addition, both Allen (1977) and Keller and Holland found that physical propinquity (nearness of desk location) can enhance the development of communication networks and the emergence of gatekeepers within an R&D organization. Roberts (1987) has suggested that the emergence of certain patterns of communication networks and critical roles such as the gatekeeper must occur for the successful generation of technological innovations by an R&D organization. These communication patterns and roles allow for the effective importation of scientific and technological information into the R&D organization, the efficient diffusion of such information inside the organization, and the transformation of scientific and technological information into technological innovations that are then exported out of the R&D organization to the firm or environment.
Gatekeeper Communication Networks and Technological Innovation
CROSS-NATIONAL
FACTORS
A trend in recent years has developed for technology-oriented firms to emphasize an international strategy to their businesses. This strategy often means that a firm will establish complementary R&D facilities in the home and foreign countries, or enter into joint R&D ventures with firms in another country. The major advantages of having R&D sites in more than one country include the enhanced ability to transfer technology between the countries, knowledge of foreign markets and technological capabilities, and the show of commitment to a foreign government (Behrman & Fischer 1980; Kedia & Bhagat 1988; Robinson 1988). Robinson (1988) has pointed out that an increasing share of R&D budgets spent in foreign laboratories by multinational corporations has been going to developing countries in Latin America and Asia. There are clear advantages to this strategy that range from host-government support, to ease of technology transfer, and the development of contacts with the local academic community. Problems, however, can often be greater if an R&D unit is located in a developing country compared to a location in an industrialized country. Of primary concern are the cultural differences that can act as barriers to the transfer of technology and the diffusion of innovations from the R&D organization in one country to another. These cultural differences can affect communication and acceptance of technology by the developing country (Kedia & Bhagat 1988). Relatively little research exists, however, that has investigated how R&D organizations and professional employees might differ between an industrialized country and a developing country. Differences
Between the United States and Mexico
Two countries of considerable importance to each other are the United States and Mexico, due primarily to their geographic proximity. These two countries have strong economic and social ties, and an increasing amount of technology transfer from the investment of U.S. firms in the Mexican economy. Yet, there is a relative paucity of comparative research on employees from the two countries cited in literature reviews (Barrett & Bass 1976; Bhagat & McQuaid 1982). Although the U.S. and Mexico share a long, common border, prior research generally has found that the two countries tend to cluster separately on studies of work-related values and attitudes (Bhagat & McQuaid 1982; Hofstede 1980; 1984; Ronen & Shenkar 1985). The U.S. usually clusters with Western, industrialized countries, while Mexico generally clusters with developing countries in Latin America. Therefore, the U.S. and Mexico can be studied in contrast notwithstanding their close geographic proximity. Hofstede (1980, 1984) collected data on cultural values from employees of a major multinational corporation and its subsidiaries located in 50 countries. Hofstede found meaningful differences in cultural values across the countries he studied, and when countries clustered differently on these cultural dimensions he saw the national differences as important for understanding work-related variables. Occupational differences in work values can be superimposed on the national differences according to Hofstede, so compar-
4
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/ 1991
sons across nations from people in similar occupations is a way to focus on national differences in culture. Hofstede’s (1984) analysis showed the U.S. and Mexico to be in opposite clusters when plotted on a two-dimensional figure using the cultural dimensions of power distance and individualism. Power distance is the extent to which less powerful people in a society accept as normal an inequality in power. Individualism assumes people in a society primarily look after their own individual interests as opposed to the collectivist interests of a larger group or clan. The U.S. was found to value small power distance and high individualism, while Mexico valued large power distance and low individualism (Hofstede 1984). Hence, in the U.S. success by individuals would be valued, and consultation and participation by higher status people with those of lower status would be expected. In Mexico, however, success would be seen in more collectivist terms in the form of a group or clan, and subordinates would expect superiors to act autocratically without much consultation or participation. These national differences in culture applied to an R&D organization would suggest that gatekeepers might not emerge in a collectivist culture such as Mexico since the gatekeeper typically operates as an entrepreneurial individual who can be approached easily by lower status co-workers for scientific and technological information. Physical distance, moreover, may be perceived as social or power distance in a country such as Mexico where physical groupings may be perceived as social groupings with different status levels associated with each social grouping. Hence, it is reasonable to expect the cultural dimensions that differ substantially between the U.S. and Mexico to moderate the development of gatekeeper communication networks, as well as the relationship between physical proximity and the development of communication networks in an R&D organization.
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
AND HYPOTHESES
The literatures on the emergence of communication networks and gatekeepers in R&D organizations and the influence of cross-national factors were used to develop the theoretical framework presented in Figure 1. Scientific and technological information is depicted as the major input to the R&D organization, which then diffuses and transforms this information through the emergence of gatekeeper and communication networks. An important influence on the development of these networks is the physical proximity of the professional employees. The R&D transformation process results in the outputs of technological innovations and new scientific and technological information to other parts of the firm as well as to organizations outside the firm. Nationality is seen as an important moderator of how scientific and technological information is imported and diffused within the R&D organization since cultural values that differ across nations can affect the encoding of information and the interpersonal relations that result in communication networks. Also, nationality is posited as a moderator of the way in which physical proximity affects the development of communication networks. Cultures differ in how distances between people and groupings are viewed and whether distance is associated with status differences between groups.
Gatekeeper Communication
Networks
5
and Technological Innovation
Physical Proximity
1
Nationality outputs
* Scientific and Technological Information
V
)
Emergence of Gatekeeper and Communication Networks
l
D l
Technological Innovations New Scientific and Technological Information
FIGURE 1. A theoretical framework of nationality and the emergence communication networks in research and development organizations.
The following
hypotheses
were generated
from the theoretical
of
framework:
Hypothesis
1.
Strong components will develop in each R&D organization, and a majority of the gatekeepers in each organization will be in one strong component.
Hypothesis
2.
Physical proximity will be associated with the development of strong components in each organization.
Hypothesis
3.
Gatekeepers in each organization will have higher performance (including patents and publications), job satisfaction, self-esteem, and innovation orientation, and will read more journals and periodicals than other professional employees.
Hypothesis 4.
Nationality will moderate the development of strong components; nationality will moderate the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong components.
METHODS
Two R&D organizations were selected for this study because they were similar in several respects, yet one was located in the U.S. and the other in Mexico. Both were applied R&D organizations for major industrial corporations, one U.S. owned and the other wholly Mexican owned, and both were located in major cities. A sample of 71 professional employees (92 percent response rate) was obtained from the U.S. organization. These participants had an average age of 38 years and an average time in their
6
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/1991
present position of four years. All the participants held a bachelor’s degree, and many had taken some graduate training. All 5 1 professional employees of the Mexican organization participated. These participants had an average age of 30 years and an average time in present position of two years. Almost all the participants held a bachelor’s degree from a Mexican university, and most had graduate training. All of these participants were male Mexican nationals, but were fluent enough in English to complete the questionnaire without translation. It should be noted that these participants routinely read English language scientific and technical journals that had not been translated into Spanish. Also, this organization had maintained contacts with business school professors from three American universities from time to time over a five-year period prior to the collection of the data. These professors had presented seminars on R&D management to the professional employees. Measures and Procedure Communication of scientific and technological information was measured by peer nomination (sociometric choice). This type of information generally has been found to be the most important raw material for R&D work and the generation of technological innovations (Allen 1977; Roberts 1987). Each participant was asked to nominate up to four co-workers to whom he or she went for scientific and technological information. The number of nominations received by each individual was the communication score for that participant. Peer nomination has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of important organizational variables (Kane & Lawler 1978; Love 198 1). Job performance was measured by management ratings on a five-point scale ranging from “very low” to “very high’ for each of the following five criteria: quality of performance, quantity of performance, ability to get along with other employees, dependability, and total performance. A factor analysis of these five items revealed that only one clear factor existed with an eigenvalue greater than 1 .O before rotation; hence, the five items were summed to form an overall measure of performance. The coefficient alpha reliability of this overall performance measure in the present sample was 0.91. Total number of patents and total number of publications for each participant were also obtained. Each participant reported the total number of work-related journals and periodicals regularly read. Job satisfaction was measured by the 72-item Job Descriptive Index (JDI), which was developed and validated by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). The coefficient alpha reliability in the present study for the total JDI was 0.90. Self-esteem was measured by the lo-item Rosenberg (1965) scale, with a reliability of 0.83. An innovative orientation was measured by the Kirton (1976) 32-item adaptation-innovation inventory, with a reliability of 0.86. A high score indicated an innovative orientation or an ability to “do things differently,” while a low score indicated an adaptive orientation or an ability to “do things better.” Physical proximity was measured by each participant’s estimate of the distance in walking yards from the participant’s primary work station to those of each of three co-workers who were the most valuable sources of scientific and technological information. A factor analysis of these three distance items revealed only one clear factor with an
Gatekeeper Communication
Networks
and Technological Innovation
I
eigenvalue greater than 1.0 before rotation; hence, these three items were summed for each participant. The same procedure was followed in each organization. Questionnaires were completed at each organization during normal working hours in groups of about 2.5 each. Only the researcher was present and confidentiality of all information was guaranteed.
RESULTS Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix for all variables for each R&D organization. A preliminary analysis of the frequency distribution for peer nominations of scientific and technological communication in each organization revealed that the distributions were substantially skewed such that a minority of the professional employees accounted for a majority of the communication nominations. An inspection of the frequency distributions showed that a reasonable break in the distributions occurred for the top third of individuals who had four or more nominations each. The top third accounted for about 70% of the total nominations in each organization, so those in this category were designated as gatekeepers. This decision rule is similar to those used in prior research (Allen 1977; Keller & Holland 1983). The first hypothesis was that strong components will develop in each R&D organization, and that a majority of the gatekeepers in each organization will be in one strong component. Based on Flament (1963) and Allen (1977), a strong component is a network in which all members are mutually reachable, even if indirectly; hence, a potential exists for information to be transmitted between any two members of a strong component. Figures 2 and 3 depict the sociograms grouped by strong components (denoted by brackets) for the U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations, respectively. The U.S. organization had five strong components, and 54% of the gatekeepers (designated by a superscript “G”) were in one strong component. The Mexican organization had only two strong components since it was a smaller organization, and 71% of the gatekeepers were in one strong component. Hence, the first hypothesis was supported, which suggests support for Allen’s (1977) notion that gatekeepers maintain close communication among themselves in order to effectively link their organization to outside scientific and technological information. The second hypothesis predicted that physical proximity will be associated with the development of strong components in each organization. To test this hypothesis a r-test was conducted for the mean number of walking yards for the sum of the three most important sources of scientific and technological information for those outside a strong component versus those inside a strong component. The results for the U.S. (t = 6.06, pG .Ol) and the Mexican (t =5.63, p d .Ol) organizations both showed a much closer physical proximity for those inside a strong component. Thus, the second hypothesis was supported, which suggests that physical proximity facilitates the social interactions that result in strong component formation. The third hypothesis stated that gatekeepers in each organization will be higher on performance (including patents and publications), job satisfaction, self-esteem, innovative
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
Descriptive
Variables 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Communication nominations Physical proximity Performance Patents Publications Journals read Job satisfaction Self-esteem Innovative orientation
Note:
Statistics
MANAGEMENT
TABLE 1 and Correlation
U.S. tOrganization_ M S.D.
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. I/ 199 1
Matrix for All Variables c
Mexican Organization + M S.D.
1
3.69
5.29
4.03
5.64
88.62 17.87 2.13 1.27 4.62 158.76 42.50
30.15 5.54 1.92 2.35 2.39 24.84 5.72
81.17 18.93 1.56 1.62 4.67 158.63 42.18
23.42 5.28 5.89 2.66 3.10 23.19 5.04
.33* .38** .40** .30* .42** .28* .25
96.65
10.75
99.98
10.20
.25
Correlations for U.S. organization (N = 71) are above the diagonal; correlations
*p c .05. **p s
.Ol.
FIGURE 2. Sociogram by strong components of U.S. R&D organization. Note: Superscript “G” denotes a gatekeeper. Information flow is mainly in the direction opposite to that of arrows. Brackets denote a strong component. orientation, and reading of journals and periodicals compared to other professional employees. Results of a MANOVA revealed significant overall Fs for differences between gatekeepers and others in the U.S. organization (F6@ = 10.06, p s .Ol) and in the Mexican organization (F6 44 = 7.50, ps .Ol). Table 2 presents univariate analysis of variance tests on each of the independent variables for the two organizations. These results
9
Gatekeeper Communication Networks and Technological Innovation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.Y.x*
.40**
.78**
.30*
.46*”
.29”
.I1
.28*
.29* .31* .30* .23 .26 .13
.2s* .27* .01 .28* .I3 .27*
.30* .27” .16 .35* .1.5 .37**
.20 .2s* .86** .41** .06 .04
.18 .32** .48** .ss** ‘16 .21
29” .21 .40** .34** .22 .28*
.I0 .22 .04 .04 .29* .22 -
.I4 .31** .lO .29* .27* .20 .04
.07
.09
.03
.38**
.19
.03
.12
-
-
for Mexican org~nizat~oR (N = 51) are below the diagonal.
show that gatekeepers in both organizations were higher on performance, patents, publications, journals read, and job satisfaction as predicted. In the U.S. organization gatekeepers were also higher on innovative orientation. No significant differences were found for self-esteem. These results suggest that gatekeepers are indeed key personnel with technical and interpersonal competencies . The fourth hypothesis predicted that nationality will moderate the development of strong components, and will moderate the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong com~nents. Figures 2 and 3 show the sociograms by strong components for the U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations respectively. While the U.S. organization had five strong components and the Mexican org~ization only two, only two in the U.S. organization and one in the Mexican organization were large. Also, the U.S. organization was almost 40% larger, and in both organizations the majority of gatekeepers was in one strong component. Hence, only weak support, if any, can be given to nationality having moderated the development of strong components. r-Tests for the difference in physical proximity between those outside versus those inside a strong com~nent were signi~~ant in both the U.S. and Mexican org~izations. In addition, an hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for the combined samples to determine the unique variance accounted for in being outside versus inside a strong component as a dichotomous dependent variable. The independent variables were physical proximity and U.S. versus Mexican nation~ity (dichotomous), plus an interaction term (physical proximity times nationality). The interaction term did not account for additional signi~~ant variance in being outside versus inside a strong component; hence, nationality did not moderate the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong components.
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
10
IOG,
MANAGEMENT
llG,
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/1991
32’
FIGURE 3. Sociogram by strong components of Mexican R&D organization. Note: Superscript “G” denotes a gatekeeper. Information flow is mainly in the direction opposite to that of arrows. Brackets denote a strong component.
Univariate
TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance for Characteristics Other Professional Employees t-
t-
U.S. Organization w
of Gatekeepers
and
Mexican Organization W
Gatekeepers M
Others M
F
M
Others M
F
Performance Job satisfaction Self-esteem
20.16 166.60 42.25
16.71 154.76 42.63
7.21** 4.11* 1.18
22.10 168.79 42.60
17.35 153.56 41.98
7.86** 4.79* 2.20
Innovative orientation Journals read Patents Publications
100.28 6.83 5.70 2.92
94.80 3.50 0.31 0.43
4.63* 9.76** 19.09** 5.04*
99.36 5.80 2.68 2.68
100.29 4.11 1.00 1.10
1.97 7.45** 9.08** 4.71*
Variables
Note:
df = 1,69 for U.S. organization;
*p 5.05. **p< .Ol.
Gatekeepers
df = 1,49 for Mexican organization
Gatekeeper Communication
Networks
and Technological Innovation
11
DISCUSSION The results of this study generally support the hypotheses and parts of the theoretical framework that pertain to the development of communication and gatekeeper networks and their roles in the technological innovation process. That is, the emergence of strong components with the majority of gatekeepers in one strong component, the relationship of physical proximity to the development of strong components, and the characteristics of gatekeepers with higher performance, patents, publications, reading activity, and job satisfaction than other professional employees were found to occur in a similar way in both the U.S. and Mexican R&D organizations. Little or no support, however, was found for nationality having moderated the development of strong components or the relationship between physical proximity and the development of strong components. These results are consistent with prior cross-national research that has generally found more similarities than differences among R&D professional employees from different countries (Chaney 1966; Gerpott, Domsch, & Keller 1988; Toren & Griffel 1983). These prior studies, however, focused on R&D organizations located in Western, industrialized nations that have often clustered together on work-related values and attitudes. The present study compared organizations from the U.S. and Mexico-two nations that have been found to cluster quite separately (Bhagat & McQuaid 1982; Hofstede 1980, 1984; Ronen & Shenkar 1985). Thus, the present findings both support and extend the prior research on cross-national factors in R&D organizations. The present results and the prior research suggest that R&D organizations may form subcultures within the larger national cultures that have more similarities than differences. That is, the subcultural norms of both organizations, developed through similarities in education, goals, and tasks, could be stated as “transform scientific and technological information into commercially successful technological innovations.” The methods and standards of science and technology, moreover, are generally valid across national boundaries. These similarities in subcultural norms may well be the reason for the lack of national differences in the present study. Further, the results of the present research may tend to be comforting to multinational corporations that have located or are planning to locate complementary R&D facilities in more than one country, including some developing countries in Latin America and Asia (Robinson 1988). The present results tend to suggest that R&D professional employees in different countries may share similar norms and backgrounds, and that the processes of technological innovation may also be similar. Hence, coordination and collaboration across countries in the R&D realm may be quite possible. Additional research is needed to develop and deepen the theoretical framework with regard to the cultural dimensions that underlie nationality. Efforts by Hofstede (1980) and Kedia and Bhagat (1988) have identified some relevant culture-based differences, but empirical application to R&D organizations from different countries needs to be done. Such additional research can help to understand how subcultural norms of R&D organizations can be similar across nations when the national cultures may be different. As the trend toward the globalization of high-technology industries continues, the siting of R&D facilities in developing countries will become a critical issue for the strategic
12
HIGH TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH
Vol. ~/NO. l/1991
management of technology. As can be seen in the examples of computers, automobiles, and consumer electronics, “world products” often need a multinational R&D strategy to be successful. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Gary J. Castrogiovanni, Jiing-Lih Farh, and Ben L. Kedia for their helpful comments and suggestions. Portions of this paper were presented at the FortyNinth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, August, 1989, Washington, DC. REFERENCES Allen, T.J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barrett, G.V., & Bass, B.M. 1976. Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology: 1639-1686. Chicago: Rand McNally. Behrman, J.N., & Fischer, W.A. 1980. Transnational corporations: Market orientations and R&D abroad. Columbia Journal of World Business, 15(3): Y-60. Bhagat, R.S., & McQuaid, S.J. 1982. Role of subjective culture in organizations: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 653-685. Chaney, F.B. 1966. A cross-cultural study of industrial research performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50: 206-210. Flament, C. 1963. Applications of graph theory to group structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Gerpott, T.J., Domsch, M., & Keller, R.T. 1988. Career orientations in different countries and companies: An empirical investigation of West German, British, and U.S. industrial R&D professionals. Journal of Management Studies, 25: 439-462. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1984. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9: 389-398. Kane, J.S., & Lawler, E.E. 1978. Methods ofpeerassessment. PsychologicalBulletin, 85: 555-586. Kedia, B.L., & Bhagat, R.S. 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management. Academy of Management Review, 13: 559-571. Keller, R.T., & Holland, W.E. 1983. Communicators and innovators in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 742-749. Kirton, M. 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 61: 622-629. Love, K.G. 1981. Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 451-457. National Science Foundation. 1983. The process of technological innovation: Reviewing the literature. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Roberts, E.B. 1987. Managing technological innovation-A search for generalizations. In E.B. Roberts (Ed.), Generating technological innovations, pp. 3-21. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gatekeeper Communication Networks and Technological Innovation
13
Robinson, R.D. 1988. The international transfer of technology: Theory, issues, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, 0. 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10: 435454. Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Toren, N., & Griffel, A. 1983. A cross-cultural examination of scientists’ perceived importance of work characteristics. SociaE Science Research, 12: 10-25. Tushman, M.L. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 587-605. Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D.A. 1981. Communication and technical roles in R&D laboratories: An information processing approach. In B.V. Dean & J.D. Goldhar (Eds.), Management of research and innovation, pp. 151-168. New York: Elsevier North Holland.