525 A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries Ronald C. Jantz Ronald C. Jantz is Digital Library Architect at Rutgers University Libraries; e-mail: rjantz@rci.rutgers. edu. © 2012 Ronald C. Jantz, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC The objective of this paper is two-fold: to propose a theoretical framework and model for studying organizational innovation in research librar- ies and to set forth propositions that can provide directions for future empirical studies of innovation in research libraries. Research libraries can be considered members of a class of organizations referred to here as institutional nonprofits. As such, these organizations inherit many of the innovative properties that are associated with the broader sector of service organizations. However, institutional nonprofits have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other service organizations such as government agencies and for-profit service firms. In this pa- per, institutional theory is used to explain the forces that are acting on the research library. Research from organizational learning, structural contingency theory, and typologies of service organizations are used to establish a more encompassing innovation framework. Based on the literature review, the theoretical framework, and empirical studies, this paper presents a process model and propositions that characterize how the research library might innovate. These propositions can be tested in empirical studies to develop a fuller understanding of innovation in research libraries. fundamental question for innovation research is to ex- plain how innovations occur. Innovation can be studied at many different levels—the individual, the work group, the organization, and at industrial or cross-national levels. This research will focus on organizational in- novation in a relatively understudied sec- tor: nonprofit, service organizations (and, more specifically, research libraries).1 In general, innovativeness is a desirable trait for social organizations. In a commercial or for-profit firm, an innovation may be initiated because there is an opportunity to increase profit or gain a competitive edge. For nonprofits, innovation is motivated by the desire to advance the public good. In a research library, the public good con- sists of the activities to support scholarly communication and the advancement of knowledge for faculty, students, staff, and the broader public community. These ini- tiatives support the mission of the parent institution to produce informed citizens who can participate in the democratic crl-302 526 College & Research Libraries November 2012 process. Innovation literature has defined two factors that motivate organizations to innovate: organizations innovate to sur- vive and organizations innovate to thrive over the long term.2 From the survival perspective, a research library might in- novate because of significant reductions in funding from the parent institution. Gaining a competitive advantage might relate to the competition for students and the capability to offer new services. In a previous study, interviews of uni- versity librarians showed strong support for these different aspects of innovation; however, these same library leaders have also voiced concern about how to foster an innovative climate in their institutions.3 Rogers defines an organization as fol- lows: “An organization is a stable system of individuals who work together to achieve common goals through a hier- archy of ranks and a division of labor.”4 Innovation is defined as the introduction into the organization of a new product, a new service, a new technology, or a new administrative practice; or a significant improvement to an existing product, service, technology, or administrative practice.5 An underlying premise in the proposed framework is that the innova- tion process differs significantly across three general sectors: manufacturing, services, and nonprofits. A rich and var- ied tradition of sectoral studies clearly reveals that these sectors differ in terms of knowledge base, the actors involved, the relevant institutions, and the innovation process.6 As in the services, for-profit sec- tor, nonprofits can take on many different characteristics. The focus in this paper is on those nonprofit organizations that have a well-established institutional and profes- sional framework with traditions and reg- ulations that are more formal and binding than is found in the larger class of service organizations. These organizations will be referred to here as institutional nonprofits, a class that includes universities, colleges, research libraries, high schools, and, per- haps, even certain research hospitals and welfare organizations. Theoretical Background The Service Organization. The classical view characterizes the service organization as peripheral and unproductive. This view can be traced back to the 18th century and to the writings of Adam Smith as quoted by Gallouj and Savona: “… services gen- erally perish in the very instant of their performance, and seldom leave any trace of value behind them, …”7 This quote highlights a persistent view that services do not produce any physical output and are, therefore, considered unproductive. As a result of some of these lingering historical views, innovation in service organizations has only recently emerged as an important research area. Miles notes that services are not only important eco- nomically, but also play an important role in innovation processes as agents of trans- fer and sources of innovation for other sectors.8 The service sector includes the most concentrated, knowledge-intensive and information-intensive services in the modern industrial economy.9 There is obviously huge diversity in the service model ranging from personal services (for instance, hair dressing) to very large firms in areas such as telecom- munications and real estate. Barras’ model of the reverse product cycle (RPC) is often cited as the first theoretical approach to innovation in service organizations. In this model, the product cycle acts in the opposite direction from that of manu- facturing organizations.10 Barras argues that the RPC is enabled by information and communication technologies that are developed elsewhere and then adopted by service organizations. For example, service firms may transfer an information technology product from a manufactur- ing firm and initially use this technology to improve the efficiency of their back- office processes. Knowledge gained from these incremental innovations might then be used to improve the quality of services offered to clients. As a final stage in the re- verse product cycle, the same technology might be incorporated in a more radical and totally new service operation. A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 527 In addition to developing the model of the reverse product cycle, Barras noted other differences in service organizations including intangible products, minimal formal R&D, and the close linking of prod- uct and process innovations. Hipp and Grupp further refine Barras’ theory by not- ing that legal and professional regulation is at the core of many service organizations and delivery of a service typically involves client participation.11 Client participation and professional regulation are major aspects of the service model and the in- stitutional environment in which we find research libraries. Gallouj and Savona note that the RPC model does not account for service innovations that have no technol- ogy component, an important dimension to examine for research libraries.12 Several examples of the RPC are useful at this juncture. As Barras has indicated, the RPC can be initiated by the transfer of information technology from organiza- tions external to the library. Within the last few years, instant messaging and mobile technology have been embraced by research libraries to augment reference service and to deliver Web services on the technology platforms that students prefer. A variety of similar incremental innova- tions have been launched to take advan- tage of mobile technology. For example, a student can use her smartphone to scan QR (quick response) codes, resulting in a transfer to special library services. From these early incremental innovations, we are likely to see the cycle progressing to more radical innovations in which digital books from the library collection are de- livered on modern platforms using iPADs and similar devices. One can trace similar trends in database technology that was used initially in back-office applications. Initially, these applications improved the quality and efficiency of administrative processes and helped library staff be- come familiar with the technology. Later developments included more radical ap- plications including the use of database technology in the online catalog and, more recently, in institutional repositories. The Institutional Framework. Many of the nonprofit organizations are embedded within an institutional framework. The study of institutions has experienced a renaissance with a more recent emphasis on the nonprofit sector and organizational analysis.13 DiMaggio and Powell’s theory of institutional isomorphisms provides a promising framework for understanding research libraries as a recognized area of institutional life. Once a set of orga- nizations emerges as a field, a paradox results in which rational actors work to make their organizations similar. These researchers argue that structural change is driven less by competition, but rather more by bureaucratization that is making organizations more similar without mak- ing them more efficient. They define three isomorphic processes that are leading to this result. These three mechanisms of in- stitutional isomorphic change are coercive (resulting from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations upon which they are dependent), mimetic (re- sulting from standard responses to uncer- tainty), and normative (a force associated with professionalism).14 In the organizational context of research libraries, we might expect a coercive force to emanate from state government or a reg- ulatory agency and the associated political and budget control. When an organization faces uncertainty introduced by the envi- ronment and rapidly changing technology, a mimetic force can cause imitation where the organization adopts services or prod- ucts that appear to be successful in other similar institutions. This mimetic behav- ior can produce successful, incremental change in a short time with minimal cost and effort. A very strong normative force operating on a research library is profes- sionalism that resides in formal education and professional networks. According to DiMaggio and Powell, two aspects of professionalism result in normative isomorphic tendencies: 1) the vesting of formal education and le- gitimation in a cognitive base produced by specialists; and 2) the growth and 528 College & Research Libraries November 2012 elaboration of professional networks that span organizations.15 In a particular relevant assertion, these researchers note that “many professional career tracks are so closely guarded, both at the entry level and throughout the career progression, that individuals who make it to the top are virtually indistinguishable.” In develop- ing hypotheses regarding environmental uncertainty and bureaucratic structures, DiMaggio and Powell assert that these forces often lead organizations to resem- ble each other in structure, culture, and output. Within an institutional context, these isomorphic forces suggest that the more uncertain the relationship between means and ends, the greater the extent to which an organization will model itself after organizations it perceives to be successful. DiMaggio and Powell also hypothesize that “the greater the reli- ance on academic credentials in choos- ing managerial and staff personnel, the greater the extent to which an organiza- tion will become like other organizations in its field.”16 Organizational Innovation Concepts One of the major difficulties in the innova- tion literature is the confusion in terminol- ogy and lack of consistency in classifying innovations. To explain some of the inconsistencies of single dimension inno- vation studies, scholars have developed structural theories of innovation that have come to be known as the middle range theories of organizational innovation.17 These three theories deal respectively with types of innovations (administrative or technical),18 attributes of an innovation (incremental or radical),19 and ambidex- terity (the initiation and implementation stages of innovation).20 The definitions and classifications that are inherent in these theories are discussed below. Innovation Types. Innovations can be classified into two basic types: admin- istrative and technical.21 According to Damanpour, the distinction between technical and administrative innovations is fundamental since it reveals essential differences in the nature of innovation in organizations.22 The technical innova- tion is directed outward to the client and relates to new services and the technol- ogy used to produce these services. In contrast, the administrative innovation is directed inward and relates to administra- tive processes, budget control, and human resources (such as the reward system). Innovation Characteristics. The service innovation model discussed previously suggests that innovation in nonprofits will be predominantly of the incremental type. The premise of this study is that the increasing turbulence and uncertainty in the external environment will cause more radical innovation to occur in research libraries. Therefore, a most important characteristic for research deals with the extent of change of an innovation, which varies along a continuum from incremen- tal to radical. According to Zaltman, a rad- ical innovation is always “to some extent disruptive of the status quo” and involves changes in the organization’s subsystems, values, incentives and power.23 Radical innovations involve new knowledge that is used to make fundamental changes in a product or process technology, whereas an incremental innovation uses existing knowledge to create minor improve- ments in a product or process technology. Radical innovations represent a clear departure from existing practice whereas incremental innovations are more routine and support existing practice. Although the incremental and radical concepts represent a continuum, this study will view these concepts as endpoints or polar opposites on a continuum.24 Stages of Innovation. In characterizing the ambidextrous organization, Duncan divides the organizational innovation pro- cess into two stages: initiation and imple- mentation. The initiation stage consists of three substages: a) the knowledge-aware- ness substage, b) the attitude-formation substage, and c) the decision substage. The implementation stage consists of two substages: a) the initial implementation substage and b) the continued-sustained A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 529 implementation substage. These stages form part of the proposed innovation pro- cess model (see figure 1) and will be dis- cussed in more detail in the next section.25 Organizational Structure: Complexity, Centralization, and Formalization. Burns and Stalker provide the original insight regarding organizational structure and the environment. A stable environment leads to mechanistic structures with centralized and hierarchical controls whereas change and turbulence in the external environment leads to flattened structures and diversity of professional knowledge and skills.26 Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan have further refined the role of the external environment and the relationship to organizational innovation. Their framework posits two dimensions of the environment: stable/unstable and predictable/unpredictable. These re- searchers place universities, colleges, and research libraries in the stable/predictable quadrant, an environment that leads largely to mechanistic organizational structures and incremental innovation.27 The degree of organizational complex- ity or job specialization is a key concept in innovation literature. Zaltman et al define this important construct as consisting of two dimensions: the number of occupa- tional specialties and functional diversity or the number of units in an organization.28 To cope with the uncertainty in the envi- ronment, leaders will typically increase organizational complexity by recruiting people with different knowledge and skill sets and by creating new functional units. Centrality or hierarchical aspects of an organization refer to the locus of author- ity and the degree to which members of the organization are involved in decision making. A more centralized organization is one in which the decision processes are characterized as “top-down.” Since there continues to be much debate on the benefits of centralization versus decen- tralization, this area is an important one to study. Hamel and Prahalad would say that it’s the bureaucracy, multiple levels of approval, and lack of personal freedom that “bottle up innovation.”29 Zaltman et al defines formalization as the emphasis an organization places on following specific rules and procedures.30 Hage and Aiken describe formalization as a focus on rules and the resultant efficiency that is brought about by rule enforcement. Rules are closely associated with organizational processes, and a more formalized organization is typically more centralized. Rigid rule observation has FIGURE 1 The Innovation Process Model and Stages of Diffusion = Stages of Innovation = Major Constructs Recognized Gap Adoption (Stage 2) Environment (Trigger Events) Organizational Structure Implementation (Stage 3) New Knowledge (Turbulence, competition for resources, fiscal crises, community expectations) Decision to adoptNew ideas Extent of implementation Perceived Innovation Attributes Org. Size Leadership • Relative advantage •Compatibility •Complexity Initiation of Innovations (Stage 1) (Adapted from Rogers, Diffusion, 170) 530 College & Research Libraries November 2012 been found to inhibit communication and the flow of ideas.31 Although well-defined processes are important to deliver high- quality service, a preoccupation with rules and processes does not provide organizational members with the freedom to think independently and propose new approaches. A Framework and Model for Innovation Figure 1 presents an innovation process model that identifies the stages in the diffusion process as well as four ma- jor construct groups: leadership, new knowledge, organizational structure, and perceived innovation attributes. This model provides a more encompassing framework by highlighting the combined effects of these constructs and the external environment on the process of organiza- tional innovation. Three major stages of diffusion are de- picted in figure 1: the initiation of the in- novation, a decision to adopt, and imple- mentation of the innovation. As defined previously, there are multiple substages for each of these three major stages.32 For example, a first step in the initiation stage is organizational awareness of the possibility for an innovation. This aware- ness is frequently related to leadership and the identification of a performance gap, where the performance gap acts as a motivator to search for solutions that can address an identified need or a new opportunity. New knowledge becomes important at this stage. Innovations origi- nate in novel, new ideas and individual creativity is thought to be an important antecedent of innovation. When new knowledge and ideas intersect with an opportunity or need, initiation of an in- novation can occur. The second substage of initiation is that of attitude-formation in which leadership and members of the organization create impressions of the innovation. In the research library, the singular leader and the leadership team become important in attitude formation and the subsequent decision process. A meta-analysis covering 40 years of research has shown that one of the most consistent indicators of innovation is the leader’s positive attitude toward change.33 If an innovative idea is congruent with the strategy of the organization, compat- ible with the culture, and provides a significant advantage, then progression to the next stage—decision to adopt— becomes possible. In the decision stage, there is much information gathering and communication within the leadership team to decide to proceed to the imple- mentation stage. The third stage—implementation— typically has two substages. In the initial implementation, the innovation is put on a trial basis and evaluated to determine if it is practical for a long-term commitment. The second substage involves a formal commitment in which the organization establishes appropriate processes and policies and possibly makes structural changes to support the innovation. Full implementation occurs when a majority of the potential clients have successfully used the innovation. As shown in figure 1, perceptions of the innovation have a significant impact on the decision process. Figure 1 identi- fies “perceived innovation attributes” as a major construct. According to Rogers, an innovation has five perceived attributes that explain different rates of adoption: a) relative advantage (the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it replaces); b) compatibility (the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the organization’s values and culture); c) com- plexity (the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use); d) trialability (the degree to which an innovation lends itself to experimenting and prototyping); and e) observability (the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others).34 In a meta-analysis of empirical studies, Tor- natzky and Klein report that studies have consistently shown a positive relationship between innovation adoption and both A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 531 relative advantage and compatibility. In contrast, complexity of the innovation is typically reported as having a negative relationship to innovation adoption.35 The process model of figure 1 can be seen as generic and applying to many dif- ferent types of organizations. Obviously, there are many feedback loops occurring within the three diffusion stages, and the total process can proceed over many months or even years. As will be seen in the following sections, the theoretical framework provides a context to under- stand more specifically how the process relates to research libraries. Literature Review This section reviews the relatively sparse literature that relates specifically to inno- vation in libraries. Propositions regarding innovation are then put forth based on previous research and the unique as- pects of research libraries. Reynolds and Whitlatch note that there is no compre- hensive theory that can be used to study innovation in research libraries. Although there is much published literature on the need for innovation, there still does not appear to be any substantial theoretical approaches to studying innovation in research libraries.36 Organizational Structure in Libraries. As indicated in figure 1, the structural dimen- sions of an organization can affect virtu- ally all stages of the innovation process. Budd asserts that the most common form of organizational structure in research libraries is the hierarchical bureaucracy, which includes the primary functional areas of public services and technical services.37 This organizational form provides the structure and control that is desired by library managers. Musman characterizes the library technical services function as consisting of work activities that are geared to specific processes and well-defined tasks, an environment that emphasizes quality and efficiency rather than the generation of innovative or novel ideas. On the other hand, the public ser- vices organization can be considered more of a professional bureaucracy where processes are more decentralized and members operate with considerable autonomy.38 In a public services organiza- tion, incremental or routine innovations emanate from practice, the liaison role, and the client interface. Based on Hage and Aiken’s theory of or- ganizational complexity, Howard presents an analysis of how the impact of organi- zational structure can affect the rate of in- novation in research libraries. In reviewing the research of Hage and Aiken, Howard reports that a key variable that stimulates creativity is organizational complexity, and the critical component of organizational complexity is diversification of knowledge. Diversification of knowledge can be char- acterized by the number of occupational job titles. For the sample of institutions, Howard selected four research libraries grouped by demographic similarities into two pairs. For this small sample, Howard’s study showed mixed results in both the complexity-innovation and centralization- innovation relationships.39 Fowler studied organizational learning and innovation by focusing on a single academic library in which use of the Internet was considered the innovation outcome. In this study, fourteen variables were identified that might have an im- pact on innovation. Of these variables, professional reading and the number of published articles were significant positive factors affecting innovation, whereas orga- nizational structure was not significant.40 Innovation and the Size of Libraries. In a mixed mode analysis of 140 academic libraries within institutions that grant master’s and bachelor’s degrees, White found that the size of the organization is positively related to innovation in the area of digital reference services.41 Damanpour and Childers studied public libraries by relating size to innovation. They found that library size, as defined by budget, was positively related to innovation; how- ever, the rate of adoption among small to medium-sized libraries was rising faster than in large libraries. These researchers 532 College & Research Libraries November 2012 also found that the rate of innovation adoption was increasing from the 1975– 1979 period to the 1980–1984 period. In a subsequent study of 75 public libraries, Damanpour found that specialization, functional differentiation, professional- ism, size, and slack resources were better predictors of technical innovations than administrative innovations.42 In a more recent meta-analysis, Camisón-Zornoza and colleagues report that size is more positively related to innovation in service firms than in manufacturing firms.43 Innovation in Related Nonprofit Organiza- tions. Given the relatively few empirical studies of libraries, it is useful to examine studies of other nonprofits in which the results might be generalizable to research libraries. High schools have both profes- sional and staff employees and focus on education. In a particularly relevant study, Daft and Becker studied innovation in 13 high school districts in Illinois. Innova- tion was operationalized by asking senior teachers or administrators which innova- tions had been adopted and put to use in their district. In a multiple regression analysis, Daft and Becker found that one of the best predictors for innovation was organizational decentralization. Other indicators that were positively related to innovation included teacher professional- ism, educational expenditures per pupil, and the positive attitude of elites (super- intendent and school board members).44 In studying 88 primary and secondary schools, Koberg found that an uncertain environment and inadequate resources can precipitate broad changes in both structure and strategy, effects that can lead to innovation.45 Hage and Dewar studied 16 welfare organizations and found that both organizational complexity and elite values were positively related to innova- tion. Elite values were constructed based on positive views of change and were seen as slightly better predictors than organiza- tional complexity.46 Jaskyte notes that there are only a handful of studies that have sought to identify predictors of innova- tion in government and nonprofit orga- nizations. Her study of a large network of nonprofit organizations found that three variables were significant predictors of administrative innovations (centralization, transformational leadership, and executive director job tenure), while transforma- tional leadership was the only significant predictor of technical innovations.47 The previous studies focused on librar- ies and similar organizations, indicating some important trends. Organizational complexity as measured by professional- ism and diversity of knowledge appear to relate positively to innovation. Orga- nizational size as measured by budget also appears to be positively associated with innovation in libraries. Formal and hierarchical structures appear to restrict innovation activity. The effect of a leader’s positive attitude toward change appears to transcend organizational types in hav- ing a positive impact on innovation. Theory and Propositions In this section, propositions are put forth that relate the institutional and service framework, organizational structure, and leadership to innovation. This more en- compassing framework can lead to more consistent research results and important insights for practitioners within research libraries. The Service Model and Factors Affecting the Radical-Incremental Continuum. Ac- cording to Meyer and Rowan, institution- ally controlled environments will buffer organizations from external turbulence where dramatic instability in products and policies become unlikely. This buffer- ing mechanism increases the likelihood of change being predominantly incremen- tal.48 Similarly, from a service perspective, the reverse product cycle (RPC) empha- sizes the focus on incremental innova- tions that originate in nonprofits, largely through the transfer of information and communication technology products from outside agencies. Once information technology is transferred, it becomes a platform for implementing quality and efficiency improvements, both of which A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 533 result primarily in incremental innova- tions. In an empirical study of hospitals by Salge and Vera, these researchers characterize the significant aspect of practice-based innovations that emanate from the tacit knowledge of practitioners and daily practice. These incremental improvements are largely process in- novations that do not have a technol- ogy component.49 It is noteworthy that research libraries do, in fact, focus much of their effort on processes to provide high-quality service to their clients. In a conceptual paper, Benner and Tushman state that an increase in process manage- ment practices will promote incremental innovations while decreasing radical in- novations. The rationale is quite intuitive in that process-focused activities stabilize resource allocation, tighten communica- tion linkages, and restrict the types of changes that are permitted.50 Many of these observations are evident in the research library in which public service librarians are in daily contact with students and their respective academic departments—relationships that can lead to many incremental innovations. These service innovations are rarely of a radical nature, since a major change could create a service disruption or pos- sibly confuse the client.51 As noted in figure 1, the external environment also has an impact on innovation. In their environmental framework, Damanpour and Gopalkrishnan have characterized educational institutions as existing in a stable and predictable environment. In a stable environment, the organization focuses primarily on the efficiency and quality of its operations, which leads to incremental innovations.52 These observa- tions lead to the following proposition: P1: Technical innovation activity in research libraries will be predomi- nantly incremental as opposed to radical. Organizational Structure—Bureaucracy (Centralization and Formalization). The dis- cussion of isomorphic forces by DiMag- gio and Powell suggests that the norms and traditions of professionally based organizations lead to mimetic behavior and bureaucratization. In their study of the role of the external environment, Da- manpour and Gopalakrishnan note that educational institutions have existed for many years in a relatively stable, predict- able environment, a condition that leads to hierarchical, centralized organizational structures. Mussman uses Mintzberg’s classification to suggest that different units in the library are either machine or professional bureaucracies. Much of the innovation literature has suggested that the effect of bureaucracy on innova- tion is largely negative. In their study of program change, Hage and Aiken found that centralization and formalization are both negatively associated with organi- zational change.53 In a study of English local political institutions, Walker found that formalization—the burden of rules and regulations—was negatively related to service innovations.54 In an empirical study, Dewar and Dutton found that a hierarchical, bureaucratic organiza- tion favors radical innovation, whereas flattened structures and power sharing favor incremental innovation. As noted previously, Daft and Becker found that decentralization (in other words, reduced organizational hierarchy) in high school districts was an important predictor of technical innovations. However, admin- istrative innovations occurred more often in a centralized, top-down structure. For public service in research libraries, the delivery of a high-quality, reliable service requires the practitioner to follow prescribed rules and guidelines. Library technical services are characterized by standards, controls, and structures that are necessary to deliver an efficient and high-quality product. These rules and the norms of the profession encourage conformity and discourage new ideas that might not be compatible with existing processes. As a consequence, it is expected that the practitioners working in technical 534 College & Research Libraries November 2012 and public service units will introduce incremental innovations that emanate from daily practice, tacit knowledge, and the interface to the public. Basically, as exemplified in the reverse product cycle, rules and procedures are established to incrementally improve library processes. These observations and the results from earlier empirical studies lead to the fol- lowing propositions: P2: In research libraries, formaliza- tion will be positively associated with technical, incremental innova- tions and negatively associated with technical, radical innovations. P3: In research libraries, formaliza- tion will be positively associated with administrative innovations, both radical and incremental. In a bureaucratic organization, the theo- retical concept of centralization posits that the locus of authority and decision making resides with the leadership and managers of the organization. It seems obvious or intuitive that administrators—the leaders and managers of the organization—should take the initiative for creating administra- tive innovations. Administrative proce- dures are the purview of managers and are not likely to be of interest to members of the technical core. Although librarians have considerable autonomy in suggesting and implementing incremental innova- tions, the centralization concept suggests that the initiative for major change will originate with leadership. As a result, it is expected that centralization will posi- tively affect radical, technical innovation in research libraries. The rationale is that organizational elites—the top manage- ment—are required to not only make a decision regarding a radical innovation, but they must also be engaged to prop- erly marshal the resources necessary to implement the innovation. In contrast, the practitioners in the organization are close to the client and have significant autonomy in introducing incremental innovations. In a study of nonprofit organizations, Jaskyte’s findings support most of these observations. As noted in the literature review, she has found that centralization is significantly related to administrative innovations while transformational lead- ership was the only significant factor for technical innovations.55 From these observations and the re- ported research, the hierarchical structure of the organization is expected to impact both administrative innovations and the radical-incremental continuum, leading to the following hypotheses: P4: In research libraries, centraliza- tion will be positively associated with administrative innovation, both radical and incremental. P5: In research libraries, centraliza- tion will be positively associated with technical, radical innovations and not significantly related to technical, incremental innovations. Organizational Structure—Complexity. Intuitively, the innovation-complexity as- sociation can be seen as originating in an extensive and diversified knowledge base resulting from many job types and differ- ent functional units, a structure resulting in new ideas that can ultimately lead to an innovative product or service. In a study of innovation in hospitals, Kimberly and Evanisko found that specialization, size, and functional differentiation are all positively related to technological innova- tion.56 Daft and Becker found that orga- nizational complexity in high schools, as represented by teacher professionalism, has a substantial positive association with innovation.57 In a similar approach, Dewar and Dutton found that a principal predic- tor of radical innovations was the depth of knowledge resources as measured by the number of technical specialists.58 It is expected that the complexity dimension will be very important for nonprofits. The isomorphic forces described earlier produce homogeneous organizations in A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 535 tion, and tenure. A key concept is that a leader ’s ability to encourage creativity and innovation is dependent on certain characteristics of the leader. Mumford and Licuanan argued that leaders must possess substantial technical and profes- sional expertise and substantial creative thinking skills to foster creativity in fol- lowers.61 In one of the earliest studies relating innovation to educational level, Mohr found that education level was only weakly related to innovation.62 Daft and Becker note that teacher professionalism was positively associated with innova- tion adoption: the more highly educated teachers are more knowledgeable about innovation and propose new ideas more frequently.63 Kimberly and Evanisko studied hospital innovation and found that a highly educated hospital admin- istrator positively affected technological innovation.64 In the study of U.S. local government agencies by Damanpour and Schneider, the findings reveal a positive relationship between educational level and innovation.65 In studying drug and alcohol treatment centers, Davis found that the level of education is positively related to innovation awareness.66 Hambrick and Mason proposed that the amount but not the type of formal education of a manager or management team will be positively associated with innovation.67 Regarding educational level, the research library has consistently re- quired that a professional librarian must have the master’s degree in library science (MLS). A sampling of resumes available on the Internet suggests that most univer- sity librarians have the MLS but far fewer have a second master’s degree or a PhD. Within the academic library environ- ment, it is expected that a second master’s degree or a PhD is especially important for innovation. Library leaders with these additional educational credentials are likely to be boundary scanners and will be more receptive to new ideas that originate outside the library profession. These leaders may also take on the role of idea champions to actually advocate and which members have similar educational background. A more diverse organization in terms of knowledge base and skills will lead to more innovative activity resulting in the following proposition: P6: In research libraries, organiza- tional complexity will be positively associated with technical innova- tions—both radical and incremen- tal—and will have a stronger as- sociation with radical innovations. Leadership. Leaders of organizations articulate strategy and prevent the orga- nization from drifting in directions that have little promise. These leaders create a vision of the future that allows followers to understand what steps should be taken, helping the organization keep an eye on the vision while striking a balance between new opportunities and improving existing capabilities.59 Leaders, together with the leadership team, create vision and strat- egy, motivate followers, make changes in structure, and establish reward systems. A central concept of this study is that the leader at the top of the organization and the leadership team have a significant im- pact on organizational innovation. Hambrick and Mason developed a model of how upper-echelon charac- teristics are reflected in organizational outcomes, suggesting that managerial characteristics will partially predict or- ganizational performance levels. They argue that complex decisions, such as those regarding the strategy of the or- ganization, are difficult to make based solely on technical and economic factors. For these more complex decisions, leaders are inclined to make decisions based on behavioral factors. In the proposed upper- echelon model, Hambrick and Mason claim that observable managerial charac- teristics such as age and educational level can be considered indicators of cognitive characteristics such as knowledge about future events and alternatives.60 These researchers posit several impor- tant propositions regarding age, educa- 536 College & Research Libraries November 2012 support the adoption and implementation of new ideas. Consistent with most of the earlier studies, it is expected that the level of education, specifically beyond the MLS, will have an impact on innovation and this impact will be stronger in supporting radical innovation. The demographics of the library profession have been well documented. Wilder notes that librarians, particularly academic librarians, are older than other professionals in all but a few occupations. For the profession, about 75 percent of librarians are 45 years or older and the trend appears to be in the direction of increasing age, with significant aging occurring after 1990.68 It is expected that the effects of age and tenure will be most noticeable in the relationship to radical innovation. According to Hambrick and Mason, many years of inside service by top managers will be negatively related to strategic choices involving new ter- rain.69 Finkelstein and Hambrick studied executive team tenure in a sample of 100 industrial firms. These researchers found that tenure has a significant impact on strategy and performance with long- tenured teams following more persistent strategies that resist change.70 Koberg et al. have reported that younger leaders are more likely to embrace radical in- novations, since these individuals are less committed to the status quo and traditional rules. However, one should also expect to find a U-shaped relation- ship where the very young leader will want to adhere to established protocols to build credibility.71 Regarding incremental innovations, academic librarians, espe- cially in the public services units, have considerable autonomy in their specific disciplines and as liaisons to their respec- tive academic departments. It is expected that much of the incremental innovation emerges from practice and the liaison relationship and is relatively unaffected by the leader of the organization. These aspects of formal education and leader- ship demographics lead to the following propositions: P7: In research libraries, leaders’ formal education beyond the MLS will be positively related to radical innovation. P8: In research libraries, the age, tenure in the library, and tenure in the profession of the leadership team will be positively related to incremental innovations and nega- tively related to radical innovations. Implications for Research Libraries This study has focused on the institutional framework, organizational structure, and leadership in research libraries to put forth propositions that can be tested in empirical studies. What are the implica- tions of these propositions for research libraries? Propositions P1 and P2 sug- gest that technical innovation activity in libraries is predominantly incremen- tal, while radical innovations emanate primarily from the administrative core of the research library (P4). If technical expertise resides in the technical core, then why are there relatively few major innovations emerging from this core group of people? The answer may lie in the formalization of the library—the rules, processes, and structures that re- strict the free flow of ideas (proposition P4). For a sustained innovative activity, all organizational members should feel empowered to suggest innovations not only within their sphere of responsibil- ity, but also innovations that might be relevant in other units or have a multiunit impact. For organizational members to initiate or pursue more radical concepts, they will require the organizational and psychological support that leaders can provide. Alternatively, it is possible that the technical core does not have the right technical expertise. Radical innovations are based in new knowledge that may not be part of the knowledge base of the tra- ditional library. The restrictions on radical innovative activity are seen as most con- sequential in the area of developing new A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 537 knowledge, knowledge that originates outside the professional associations and the curricula of library schools. Less cen- tralization and increasing the diversity of knowledge and skills will help to create a more innovative climate within the library (P5, P6). A critical aspect of knowledge growth is the leaders’ ability to create and articulate a knowledge strategy that embraces both exploratory work and the support of existing services.72 Propositions P7 and P8 are perhaps most problematic for the academic library profession. Changing the tenure and edu- cational profile of the leadership team is most difficult and cannot be done quickly. However, vacancies and new appoint- ments represent significant opportunities to alter the profile of the leadership team to create a culture that can bring in new ideas and pursue quite different business models. Taken as a whole, these propositions suggest that innovations emanating from research libraries will be mostly incre- mental. The traditions and norms of the profession will continue to envelope the library in the “iron cage” of institutional nonprofits, making it difficult to launch more radical innovations.73 However, the continued turbulence in the external en- vironment has an opposite effect and can act for major change, resulting in more radical innovations. Economic and finan- cial pressures will be significant factors. Perhaps this is what Daniel Greenstein, vice provost for academic planning and programs in the University of California System, had in mind as quoted from a recent publication: “The university library of the future will be sparsely staffed, highly decentralized, and have a physical plant consisting of little more than special collections and study areas.”74 This view suggests that the research library is begin- ning a declining trend that will end in irrelevance. Trends in academic libraries showing a decline in the percentage of the parent institution’s budget provide sup- port for Greenstein’s view. For example, Allen and Dickie report that the budgets of 88 ARL libraries fell steadily in a decade (1982 to 1992) from 3.91 percent to 3.32 percent of the university’s education and general budget.75 This continued econom- ic turbulence remains a significant factor in the first decade of the 21st century. The rapid pace of technological change is another major external factor that will act for change in the research library. As an example, two recent articles predict the end of book publishing as we know it today, a trend driven by digitization, print-on-demand technology, mobile tech- nology, and the associated self-publishing initiative. The Bowker publishing company has reported that more than two-thirds of the books published in 2010 in the United States were self-published.76 Epstein pre- dicts that a universal catalog of print-ready digital books will soon be a reality, a col- laborative task that is already well under way.77 These technical innovations are turn- ing the book publishing business upside down and are having a similar impact on research libraries. Lesk predicts that the declining costs of books via self-publishing and print-on-demand devices will result in more library users willing to buy an inex- pensive book rather than borrow one from the library.78 The challenge and opportunity for the library leader is to take advantage of these technological discontinuities rather than having to react to a change that has already impacted the library. How can these observations and trends be interpreted within the context of organizational innovation and the research library? There is an interesting conundrum at play, where external factors are acting for major change whereas many of the organizational and professional factors resist change. For library leaders, this conundrum represents a huge chal- lenge and also a significant opportunity. The major new technical innovations will originate externally and be transferred into the library if there is a receptive posi- tive attitude and organizational culture. For a sustained innovative culture, library leaders can effectively influence innova- tion in their organizations by focusing 538 College & Research Libraries November 2012 on administrative innovations. These innovations might appear in the vision and strategy of the organization, the organizational structure to support both incremental and discontinuous innova- tions, and the reward systems that will encourage innovative thinking. What might these administrative in- novations look like? Clearly the more for- malized structure of the traditional library provides the rules and processes that are necessary to deliver an efficient, high- quality service to clients. A radical library administrative innovation might be one in which dual organizational structures can reside side-by-side in the library—one supporting the traditional services while another is exploring potentially new ser- vices. In a case study of 15 business units in 9 different industries, O’Reilly and Tushman found that 90 percent of the or- ganizations with structurally independent research units achieved their goals while simultaneously helping the organization maintain or improve performance.79 As noted in the literature review, it is impor- tant to buffer this exploratory work from the process-oriented work that restricts the free flow of ideas. A management innova- tion might establish an explicit budget that is dedicated to R&D. Related to the free flow of ideas, it is important to improve the reward system, not only to reward new and more novel ideas, but also to find ways to learn from failures and sup- port those organizational members who participated in the failed project. There remain two factors that were not addressed in the propositions and that will require longitudinal studies to understand more fully. The first of these is the pace of innovation. Libraries are accustomed to existing in a relatively stable environment. The external factors discussed briefly above suggest that the research library exists in a more unstable environment brought about by rapid technological innovation and pressures from the economic, financial, and political sectors of our society. One can speculate that the library will need to have an in- creased sense of urgency in responding to the external environment or, alternatively, be left to follow whatever the external environment dictates. The second factor involves the ability to sustain both incre- mental and radical innovation streams over time. In effect, both exploratory and exploitative activity must become a way of life for research libraries. Conclusion The theoretical framework in this study suggests that the institutional nonprofit organization innovates differently from other sectors. According to DiMaggio and Powell, institutional nonprofits, such as research libraries, will become homogenized—resembling each other in structure, culture, and outcomes. This homogenization results in reduced varia- tion and in many incremental innovations that are transferred and exchanged among similar libraries. In research libraries, the traditional bureaucratic tendencies imply that radical innovations will typically emanate from the administrative core. However, it can also be postulated that the more turbulent external environment will lead to the emergence of more organic structures. These organic structures hold out the promise of members of the techni- cal core initiating radical innovations that originate from knowledge bases quite dis- tinct from those of the traditional library institution. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) use the metaphor of the “iron cage,” sug- gesting that the homogenization brought about by institutional forces is irreversible and results in incremental, normatively sanctioned innovations. This hypothesis remains a significant challenge for library leaders who want to create an innova- tive organization. Leadership is clearly important in the creation and articulation of vision and strategy and the resulting impact on structure and culture. The or- ganizational dynamic and conundrum for the leader resides in the forces of the ex- ternal environment and the organizational structure. The turbulence in the external environment acts in favor of change, while A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 539 the bureaucratic, hierarchical structure of the library resists change. The leader’s challenge is to strike a balance between these opposing forces to create an orga- nization that is flexible and can engage in exploratory activity while also supporting the traditional library functions that are important to provide high-quality service to the university community. The propositions in this study char- acterize some of the major obstacles to change and innovation in research libraries. These propositions also suggest areas for further empirical studies that will provide insight into how research libraries can transform themselves to meet the needs of the 21st-century re- search university. To fully understand innovation processes in research libraries, scholars will need to address a multiplic- ity of factors including leadership, the organizational structure, and the unique institutional framework of the modern research university. Notes 1. Although the focus in this study is on research libraries, it is expected that most of the propositions will also apply to the larger community of academic libraries. 2. Richard L. Daft and Selwyn W. Becker, Innovation in Organizations (New York: Elsevier, 1978), 6–7. 3. Ronald C. Jantz, “Innovation in Academic Libraries: An Analysis of University Librarians’ Perspectives,” Library and Information Science Research, 34 (2012): 9–11. 4. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (New York: Free Press, 2003), 404. 5. Richard L. Daft, “A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation,” Academy of Manage- ment Journal 21 (1978): 197–98; Fariborz Damanpour, “Bureaucracy and Innovation Revisited: Effects of Contingency Factors, Industrial Sectors, and Innovation Characteristics,” Journal of High Technology Management Research 7 (1996): 153. 6. Franco Malerba, “Sectoral Systems: How and Why Innovation Differs across Sectors,” in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, eds. Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 381. 7. Faiz Gallouj and Maria Savona, “Innovation in Services: A Review of the Debate and a Research Agenda,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 19 (2009): 152. 8. Ian Miles, “Innovation in Services,” in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, eds. Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 433. 9. Ibid., 436. 10. Richard Barras, “Toward a Theory of Innovation in Services,” Research Policy 15 (1986): 161–62. 11. Christine Hipp and Hariolf Grupp, “Innovation in the Service Sector: The Demand for Service- specific Innovation Measurement Concepts and Typologies,” Research Policy 34 (2005): 519–21. 12. Gallouj and Savona, “Innovation in Services,” 156–57. 13. Paul J. Dimaggio and Walter W. Powell, “Introduction,” in The New Institutionalism in Or- ganizational Analysis, eds. Paul J. Dimaggio and Walter W. Powell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 2; Ingo Bode, “Flexible Response in Changing Environments: The German Third Sector Model in Transition,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32 (2003): 1–2. 14. Paul J. Dimaggio and Walter W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review 48 (1983): 150–54. 15. Ibid, 152. 16. Ibid, 155. 17. Fariborz Damanpour and Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, “Theories of Organizational Structure Innovation Adoption: The Role of Environmental Change,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 15 (1998): 5–10. 18. Daft, “A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation,” 195–96. 19. Gerald Zaltman, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbeck, Innovations & Organizations (Malabar, Fla.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing, 1984), 23–30; Walter Nord and Sharon Tucker, Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987). 20. Robert B. Duncan, “The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for In- novation,” in The Management of Organization Design: Strategies and Implementation, eds. Ralph H. Killman, Louis R. Pondy, and Dennis P. Slevin (New York: North-Holland, 1976), 168–70. 21. Daft, “A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation,” 195–96. 22. Fariborz Damanpour, “Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Test- 540 College & Research Libraries November 2012 ing Multiple Contingency Models,” Management Science 42 (1996): 698. 23. Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, Innovations & Organizations, 24. 24. The term “radical” has a somewhat pejorative connotation. Although other terms such as “nonincremental” and “discontinuous” have been used more recently, this study will retain the term “radical” as being less rhetorically awkward. 25. Duncan, “The Ambidextrous Organization,” 168–70. 26. Tom Burns and George Macpherson Stalker, The Management of Innovation (London: Tav- istock, 1961), 104–08. 27. Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, “Theories of Organizational Structure Innovation Adop- tion,” 11–16. 28. Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, Innovations & Organizations, 179. 29. Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future: Breakthrough Strategies for Seizing Control of Your Industry and Creating the Markets of Tomorrow (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994), 131–33. 30. Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, Innovations & Organizations, 138. 31. Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, Social Change in Complex Organizations (New York: Random House, 1970), 43. 32. Duncan, “The Ambidextrous Organization,” 168–70. 33. Fariborz Damanpour and Deepa Aravind, “Organizational Structure and Innovation Revisited: From Organic to Ambidextrous Structure,” in Handbook of Organizational Creativity, ed. Michael D. Mumford (Elsevier: Academic Press, 2012): 502-503. 34. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 15. 35. Louis G. Tornatzky and Katherine J. Klein, “Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-analysis of Findings,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man- agement 29 (1982): 40–41. 36. Judy Reynolds and Jo Bell Whitlatch, “Academic Library Services: The Literature of In- novation,” College & Research Libraries 46 (1985): 402. 37. John M. Budd, The Academic Library: Its Context, Its Purpose, and Its Operation (Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1998), 166. 38. Klaus Musman, “The Diffusion of Innovation in Libraries,” Libri 32 (1982): 269. 39. Helen Howard, “The Relationship between Certain Organizational Variables and the Rate of Innovation in Academic Libraries” (PhD dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1977). 40. Rena K. Fowler, “The University Library as Learning Organization for Innovation: An Exploratory Study,” College & Research Libraries 59 (1998): 225–27. 41. Marilyn Domas White, “Diffusion of an Innovation: Digital Reference Service in Carnegie Foundation Master’s (comprehensive) Academic Institution Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librari- anship 27 (2001): 176. 42. Fariborz Damanpour and Thomas Childers, “The Adoption of Innovation in Public Librar- ies,” Library & Information Science Research 7 (1985): 242; Fariborz Damanpour, “The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors,” Journal of Management 13 (1987): 682–85. 43. Cesar Camisón-Zornoza, Rafael Lapiedra-Alcamí, Mercedes Segarra-Ciprés, and Mont- serrat Boronat-Navarro, “A Meta-analysis of Innovation and Organizational Size,” Organization Studies 25 (2004): 351. 44. Daft and Becker, Innovation in Organizations, 37, 55–60. 45. Christine S. Koberg, “Resource Scarcity, Environmental Uncertainty, and Adaptive Orga- nizational Behavior,” Academy of Management Journal 30 (1987): 804–05. 46. Jerald Hage and Robert Dewar, “Elite Values versus Organizational Structure in Predicting Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly 18 (1973): 282, 284–86. 47. Kristina Jaskyte, “Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in Nonprofit Organizations,” Public Administration Review 71 (2011): 79. 48. John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, “Institutional Organizations,” in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 52. 49. Torsten Oliver Salge and Antonio Vera, “Hospital Innovativeness and Organizational Per- formance: Evidence from English Public Acute Care,” Health Care Management Review 34 (2009): 56. 50. Mary J. Benner and Michael L. Tushman, “Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Manage- ment: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited,” Academy of Management Review 28 (2003): 238. 51. Fariborz Damanpour, Richard M. Walker, and Claudia N. Avellandea, “Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations,” Journal of Management Studies 46 (2009): 657. 52. Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, “Theories of Organizational Structure Innovation Adop- A Framework for Studying Organizational Innovation in Research Libraries 541 tion,” 12. 53. Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, “Theories of Organizational Structure Innovation Adop- tion,” 12; Musman, “The Diffusion of Innovation,” 269; Jerald Hage and Michael Aiken, “Program Change and Organizational Properties: A Comparative Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology 72 (1967): 510–11; Damanpour, “Bureaucracy and Innovation Revisited,” 153; Hage and Aiken, Social Change, 32–44; 54. Richard M. Walker, “An Empirical Evaluation of Innovation Types and Organizational and Environmental Characteristics: Towards a Configuration Approach,” Journal of Public Administra- tion Research and Theory 18 (2008): 603–07. 55. Kristina Jaskyte, “Predictors of Administrative and Technological Innovations in Nonprofit Organizations,” Public Administration Review 71 (2011): 77. 56. John R. Kimberly and Michael J. Evanisko, “Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual, Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and Administrative Innovations,” Academy of Management Journal 24 (1981): 701–08. 57. Daft and Becker, Innovation in Organizations, 37, 81. 58. Robert D. Dewar and Jane E. Dutton, “The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innova- tions: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science, 32 (1986): 1429. 59. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The Change Masters (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 294–95. 60. Donald C. Hambrick and Phyllis A. Mason, “Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers,” Academy of Management Review 9 (1984): 197–201. 61. Michael D. Mumford, Ginamarie M. Scott, Blaine Gaddis, and Jill M. Strange, “Leading Creative People: Orchestrating Expertise and Relationships,” The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002): 712–13; Michael D. Mumford and Brian Licuanan, “Leading for Innovation: Conclusions, Issues, and Directions,” Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004): 164–66. 62. Lawrence B. Mohr, “Determinants of Innovation in Organizations,” American Political Science Review 63 (1969): 118. 63. Daft and Becker, Innovation in Organizations, 37, 80. 64. Kimberly and Evanisko, “Organizational Innovation,” 702. 65. Fariborz Damanpour and Marguerite Schneider, “Characteristics of Innovation and In- novation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (2009): 514. 66. Carolyn D. Davis, “Organizational Innovation: The Role of Top Management in Different Stages of Innovation Implementation” (PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, retrieved January 28, 2011), 52–53. 67. Hambrick and Mason, “Upper Echelons,” 197–201. 68. Stanley Wilder, The Age Demographics of Academic Librarians: A Profession Apart (Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth Information Press, 1999), 1. 69. Hambrick and Mason, “Upper Echelons,” 200. 70. Sydney Finkelstein & Donald C. Hambrick, “Top-Management-Team Tenure and Orga- nizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Managerial Discretion,” Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1990): 486–88. 71. Christine S. Koberg, Dawn R. Detienne, and Kurt A. Heppard, “An Empirical Test of Envi- ronmental, Organizational, and Process Factors Affecting Incremental and Radical Innovation,” Journal of High Technology Management Research 14 (2003): 38. 72. Paul E. Bierly and Paula S. Daly, “Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environ- ment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (2007): 494–96. 73. Dimaggio and Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited,” 150. 74. Daniel Greenstein, “Libraries of the Future,” in Inside Higher Ed (2009), available online at www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/24/libraries [accessed 17 July 2012]. 75. Frank R. Allen and Mark Dickie, “Toward a Formula-Based Model for Academic Library Funding: Statistical Significance and Implications of a Model Based upon Institutional Charac- teristics,” College & Research Libraries 72, no. 4 (2007): 171. 76. Michael Lesk, “Reading: From Paper to Pixels,” IEEE Security and Privacy, 9 (2011): 78. 77. Jason Epstein, “The End of the Gutenberg Era,” Library Trends 57, no. 1 (2008): 15. 78. Lesk, “Reading: From Paper to Pixels,” 78. 79. Charles O’Reilly III and Michael L. Tushman, “The Ambidextrous Organization,” Harvard Business Review, 82 (Apr. 2004): 76; Michael L. Tushman, Wendy Smith, Robert Wood, George Westerman, and Charles A. O’Reilly, “Innovation Streams and Ambidextrous Organizational Designs: On Building Dynamic Capabilities,” available online at http://web.mit.edu/sloan/osg- seminar/f02_docs/TushmanEtAl_2002.pdf [accessed 17 July 2012].