UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The two faces of championship: an examination of the behavioral and individual-differences characteristics.. Woolley, Ross M. 1995

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_1995-983698.pdf [ 10.67MB ]
JSON: 1.0088861.json
JSON-LD: 1.0088861+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0088861.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0088861+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0088861+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0088861+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0088861 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

THETWO FACES OFCHAMPIONSHIP:AN EXAMINATION OFTHEBEHAVIORALAND INDWIDUAL-DllFbRENCESCHARACTERISTICS OFTHECHAMPIONbyROSS M. WOOLLEYB.A. University ofBritishColumbia, 1985M.A. University ofBritish Columbia, 1990A THESIS SUBMiTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREE OF DOCTOR OFPHILOSOPHYinTHEFACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartmentofPsychologyWe acceptthis thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OFBRITISH COLUMBIAMarch 1995© Ross MurrayWoolley, 1995In presenting this thesis in partialfulfilment of the requirements for anadvanceddegree at the University of British Columbia,I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference andstudy. I further agree that permissionfor extensivecopying of this thesis forscholarly purposes may be grantedby the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives,It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gainshall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_________________________________Department of________________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate______________DE.6 (2)88)11ABSTRACTThe purpose ofthe presentresearch was to examine thebehavioral and individual-differencescharacteristicsofakey figure in the innovationprocess—the champion. Thechampion, also known as corporate entrepreneur (Kanter, 1982), and intrapreneur(Pinchot, 1985) is an individual who emerges informallyin an organization to introduceand promote innovation. These individuals have been described as forceful, driven,energetic, and visionary and havebeenfound to be criticalplayers in the success oforganizational innovation.The majorityofresearchon the champion has not, however, beenconductedwitha focus on this key figure. Rather, the emphasis ofmuchofthe previous researchhastypically been ontheprocessofinnovation, with the champion acknowledged anddiscussed, butnotfeatured or described in detail. Given the importance ofthe championin promoting innovation, it wouldbe desirable to conductresearch inwhich this figurewas the focus ofattention. The three studies carriedout as part ofthis researchprojectwere designedwith this purpose in mind. Methods ofindividual-differences assessmentwere applied to the study ofthe champion.Thepresentresearchbegan with a study ofthe champion’s behavior. Techniquesfromthe actfrequency approach (Buss & Craik, 1980) were usedto develop acomprehensivebehavioralprofile ofthe champion in orderto establish a structural modelofchampionship. Acts describing championship were generatedbypanels ofmiddle- andsenior-level managers andthese items were factoranalyzed separately in two samples,involving over 600 managers from seven Western Canadian organizations. Ultimately,10 first- and two second-orderfactors were identified and namedby subjectmatterexperts. Evidence was found for a heroic and a darkside to championship at the secondorderfactorlevel.111In Study 2, the focus turnedto predictormeasurement. Supervisory ratings ofchampionship on the criterion dimensions identifiedin Study 1 were obtained for 174middle- and senior-level managers. These same managers hadbeenparticipantsin athree-dayAssessmentCenterin which they were administered: (a) cognitive ability tests,(b) personality inventories, (c) management simulations, and (d) a structuredinterview.Correlations computedbetween the AssessmentCenter measures, on the one hand, andthe criterion dimensions on the other, led to the conclusion that the dark side ofchampionship couldbe predicted,butthat, unfortunately, the heroic side could not. Onthe basis ofthe Assessment Center scale correlations withthe dark side, the championwas found to be: dominant, assertive, exhibitionistic, aggressive, independent,competitive, driven, impulsive, impatient, and likely to breakrules and take risks.The results ofStudy 3 led to the developmentofalow-fidelity simulation, basedon the behavioral consistency model (Wernimont & Campbell, 1968). This simulation,calledtheManagementPracticesSimulation (MPS), was administeredto the AssessmentCenterparticipants involvedin Study 2 and scores on the MPS were correlated withscores onthe criterion dimensions fromStudy 1. Two higher-orderMPS scales werefound to correlate significantly with the two second-order criterion factorscales identifiedin Study 1. Moreover, the criterion-relatedvalidity ofthese scales surpassedthatachievedwith any componentofthe Assessment Center.The results ofStudies 1, 2, and 3 indicatethatchampionship is amultidimensional constructthat, atahigher-orderlevel, can be describedwithreference to twoorthogonal dimensions, labeled thedarkand heroic side. Individuals canbe orderedalong acontinuumon these dimensions and this scalingreflects meaningful differences inbehavior. Psychologicaltests canbe used to predict ratings ofchampionship, at leastthose associatedwiththe dark side. Finally, application ofthebehavioralconsistencymodel to the developmentofa low-fidelity simulation, led to the creation ofanewinstrument—the ManagementPracticesSimulation—whose scales correlatedsignificantly and at aslightly higher-level withthe criterionthan any ofthe AssessmentCenterbattery scales.ivVTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT.iiLIST OF TABLES xixLIST OF FIGURES xxiiiACKNOWLEDGMENT xxivINTRODUCTION 1Overview 1Objectives ofThe Present Research 5LITERATUREREWEW 7I. AnHistorical Sketch ofthe Study ofInnovation and Entrepreneurship 7Entrepreneurship 8Corporate Entrepreneurship 8Innovation 9Summary 10II. Evidence Forthe Role ofthe Champion in Innovation Success 10Overview 10Descriptive Studies 11Empirical Studies 12ifi. Toward aDefinition and Understanding ofthe Champion Role 15Overview 15The Champion Role Defined 17Elements ofthe Definition 17Champions, Innovators, Entrepreneurs, CorporateEntrepreneurs,and Intrapreneurs 22ATwo-Dimensional Conceptualizationofthe Champion Role 23Summary 25IV. Champions ofInnovation: TheirIndividual-DifferencesCharacteristics 26viOverview.26Personality!Motivational Traits28Interpersonal Effectiveness28ComponentsofInterpersonal Effectiveness30Interpersonal Influence30Interpersonal Awareness31Summary31DeterminedAchievement Orientation32Openness!Willingness to Change33FromPersonality to Ability34Cognitive Ability34Innovative IdeaGenerator35Analytical Evaluative Ability35Effective Communication Skills36Summary36RATIONALEAND HYPOTHESES38Section I: Evaluation ofResearchonthe Role ofthe Champion andDevelopmentofHypotheses Relatedto CriterionMeasurement38Limitations ofPastResearch38Hypotheses39Hypothesis 139Hypothesis 240Section II: Implications ofResearch on the Individual-DifferencesCharacteristics ofthe Champion and Development ofHypothesesRelated to PredictorMeasurement40Limitations ofPastResearch40Hypotheses42viiPersonality/Motivational Characteristics 42Interpersonal effectiveness 42Determinedachievementorientation 42Openness/willingness to change 43Cognitive Abilities 43Innovativeness 43Analytical evaluative ability 43Effective communication skills 44Summary 44STUDY 1: THE STRUCTURE OF CHAMPIONSHIPAND THEDEVELOPMENT OF CHAMPION CRITERION SCALES 46Overview andRationale forMethods 46Hypotheses 49Hypothesis 1 49Hypothesis 2 49Hypothesis 3 50Hypothesis 4 50Phase I: The Generation ofChampion Acts 50Method 50Participants 50Developmental Steps 51Stepi 51Step2 53Step3 53Results 53Phase II: The Scaling ofthe Acts for Social Desirability 54Overview 54vi”Method.54Participants 54Design ofthe Questionnaire 55Calculation ofItem Social Desirability 55Results 55Phase ifi: Sample 1 FactorAnalysisWith Self-ReportData 55Overview 55Method 56Participants and DataCollection 56DataAnalysis 57Structural analysis 58Scale development 58Results 59The Component Solution 59The DevelopmentofPreliminary Championship Scales 61Social desirability and thebalancing ofchampion and non-champion items 62Scalereliability 64Phase IV: Sample 2 FactorAnalysis With Supervisory ReportDataand theApplicationofMeredith’s (1964) Method One Procedure in the DerivationofaCommonFactor Pattern 65Overview 65Method 65Participants 65The RatingForm 66Distribution ofThe RatingForm 68DataAnalysis 68ixFirst-order factorstructure69First-orderfactorcongruence 70Scale development 70Second-order factor structure 72Results 72First-OrderFactor Congruence 72The First-OrderChampionship FactorScales 75Scale social desirability 75Scale internal consistency reliability 77Second-OrderFactors ofChampionship 77Second-orderfactorcongruence 81Summary 81Phase V: ConceptualizationoftheFactorStructure ofChampionship 83Overview 83Method 84Participants 84DataAnalysis 86Factorlabels 86Prototypicality ofthe factors 86Criterion measurement ofchampionship 86Overall managementperformance (OMP) 87Results 87Labels for the First-OrderFactorScales ofChampionship 87Persistent Dominance (PD) 88ImpatientExpediency (IE) 92Rebellious Drive (RD) 93SelfPromotion (SP) 94xConfrontive Candor (CC). 95Influence and Political Savvy (IPS)95Driven Commitment (DC) 96Immediate Responsiveness (IR) 97Collaboration and Support (CS) 97Visibility and Growth Seeking (VGS) 98Labels forThe Two Second-OrderFactorScales ofChampionship99Forceful Drive andExpediency (FDE) 100Influence and Visible Drive (IVD) 100Prototypicality ofthe First- and Second-OrderFactor Scales 102Correlates ofthe Dimensions ofChampionship 105The 3-itemand 5-item self-reportmeasures ofchampionship 105The championship factorscales and overall managementperformance (OMP) 107Discussion 108Overview 108ATwo-FactorConceptualization ofChampionship 112Agency andcommunion 112A Closerlook atForceful Drive and Expediency 116The dark side ofleadership 116NarcissismandForcefulDrive andExpediency 119Psychopathy andForcefulDrive andExpediency 121Summary 123A closerlook at Influence and Visible Drive 123xiThe relationshipbetween transformational leadershipandIVD 125Summary 127The Prototypicality ofThe First- and Second-OrderFactor Scales 127Correlates ofChampionship 129The 5-item supervisory-reportcriterion measureofchampionship and the factorscales 129OMP andthe factorscales 130Summary 132STUDY 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCESCHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHAMPION 133Overview 133Hypotheses 135Method 135Participants and Setting 135The AssessmentCenterMeasures 135Cognitive Ability (Intellectual Measures) 135Personality Inventories andMeasuresofTemperament 141ManagementSimulations: In-BasketExercises 142The Telephone SupervisorIn-BasketExercise(TS) 142The ConsolidatedFundIn-BasketTest 142Management Simulations: Role-plays 142The Employee Performance Role-play 143IndustrialRelations Role-play 143The Marketing Role-play 143The New ManagerRole-play 144xiiSummary Role-play Dimension Scores.144Structured Interview144Biographical InformationForm145Criterion Measurement145DataAnalysis145Correlational Analyses Involving the ACMeasures andtheChampionship Criteria145ContrastedGroups Analyses Involving the AC BatteryScalesand the Championship Criteria146Analysis ofthe biographical information forms148Inter-rater agreement149Category frequency counts150A Case Study Analysis ofChampionship151Results 152The Criterion Rating Scales 152Correlational Analyses: Predictor-Criterion Correlations154Cognitive Ability154Measures ofPersonality and Temperament 156CaliforniaPsychological Inventory (CPI) 156The 16 PersonalityFactor Questionnaire (16PF) 159The PersonalityResearchForm(PRF) 161Rahim Organizational ConflictInventory (ROCI-il) 163Jenkins Activity Survey 165Management Simulations: In-BasketExercises 166The ConsolidatedFundIn-Basket Test 166The Telephone SupervisorIn-BasketExercise (TSIB) 166Management Simulations: The Role Plays166xliiThe Structured Interview.169Summary 171Correlational Analyses: CriterionCorrelations ofOptimalLinearCombinations ofAC Battery Scales 172RegressionAnalyses InvolvingThe CPI Scales 173Regression Analyses InvolvingThe 16PF Scales 173Regression Analyses InvolvingThe PRF Scales 173Regression Analyses InvolvingThe JAS Scales 177Regression Analyses InvolvingThe Roleplay Scales 177Regression Analyses InvolvingThe Interview Scales 177Regression Analyses Involving The CPI, 16PF, PRF, andJAS Scales 181Stepwise results forFDE 181Stepwiseresults for IVD 183Summary 183A Contrasted Groups Analysis 183A DiscriminantAnalysis ForFDE 184Conceptualizationofthe discriminant function 184Classificationbased on the discriminantfunction 188A Championship Profile Based on the BiodataForm 19QInter-rater agreement 190Category proportion comparisons 190Question 6. What is your own approachto supervision, i.e.,your management style? 192Question 12. How do your leisure and social activitiesrelateto yourcareer? 195xivQuestion 13. What are your mostoutstanding personalqualities9 196Question 14b. Whatare your shortcomings; your areas fordevelopment? 196Summary 197TheTwo Cases 197The case ofMr. A: highFDE 197The case ofMr. W: low FDE 201Summary 203Discussion 204Overview 204Correlational Findings 205Cognitive ability 209Personality 210Managementsimulations 211Structuredinterview 213RegressionAnalyses 214Contrasted Groups Analysis 216The Case Studies 218Overall Summary 218STUDY 3: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A LOW-FIDELITYSIMULATION 220An Overview ofThe Behavioral Consistency Model 220Work Samples and Simulations 221Low-Fidelity Simulations 225An Overview oftheDevelopment ofthe ManagementPracticesSimulation (MPS) 226xvMethod.229Participants and Setting 229Development ofthe ManagementPractices Simulation 230Scripting ofthe scenarios 230Generating the initial pool ofresponseoptions 231Fitting the response options to the scenarios 231Drafting ofinstructions 232Pilot testing the simulation 232Rating ofthe MPS response options for social desirability.... 233Distribution ofthe MPS to the assessmentcenterparticipants 233The CriterionMeasure 234DataAnalysis 234Scale Development 234Examination ofPrimary and Secondary Scale ConstructValidity.. 235Results 236PsychometricProperties ofthe Primary and Secondary MPS Scales 236Social Desirability 238Internal Consistency Reliability 239MPS Scale-Criterion Correlations 239Incremental Validity ofthe MPS Scales 241ConstructValidity ofthe MPS 244Substantive Considerations 245Structural Considerations 246Inter-item structure 246StructuralFidelity 247External Considerations 250xviA multitrait-multimethod examination ofchampionship 250Cross-correlationsbetween the MPS scales and scales fromthe ACbattery 255The MPS primary scales .. 261The MPS measure ofForceful Drive andExpediency 263The MPS measure ofInfluence andVisibleDrive 265Summary and Discussion 269Overview 269The Meaning ofHigh Scores on the ManagementPracticesSimulation 270The Predictive Usefulness oftheManagementPracticesSimulation 272Low-Fidelity Simulations as Measures ofMulti-DimensionalConstructs 275Applicationofthe ManagementPractices Simulation 276SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 279Study 1 279Replication ofthe Factor Structure ofChampionship 281Validationofthe CriterionDimensions 282Championship and Psychopathy 283Study 2 284Individual-DifferencesCharacteristics andThe Two Faces ofChampionship 286Study 3 287The Criterion-RelatedValidity oftheManagementPracticesSimulation 288Construct ValidityoftheManagementPractices Simulation 289xviiInnovations in Low-Fidelity SimulationDesign 290An Overall Summary and Synthesis ofthe Three Studies 291Implications forApplication andTheory 293REFERENCES 297APPENDICES 314Appendix A Booklets Used In FirstTwo Panels To GenerateThe BehavioralIncidents or Acts 314AppendixB Booklets Used In The ThirdPanel To GenerateThe BehavioralIncidents or Acts 320Appendix C ListofEditedNon-RedundantBehavioral Incidents,OrganizedIntoFourGroups: (a) Champion Undesirable,(b) Champion, (c) Non-Champion, and(d) Non-ChampionDesirable 326Appendix D Booklets UsedTo Obtain Social DesirabilityRatings 339AppendixE Booklets Used To Obtain Self-ReportDataFortheFirstFactorAnalysis 355Appendix F Company andParticipantFeedback Reports 370Appendix G Scale Composition atthe Conclusion ofPhaseifi 390Appendix H BCTe1 CompanyFeedbackReport 401AppendixI BookletUsedto Obtain Supervisory-ReportDataFortheSecondFactorAnalysis 413Appendix J The Twelve Dimensions and TheirItems Used to MeasureOverallManagementPerformance (OMP) 423Appendix K Scale Composition at the Conclusion ofPhase IV 426Appendix L The Rating BookletUsed to Obtain the FactorLabels andPrototypicality Ratings fromthe SubjectMatterExperts 432xviiiAppendix M The 5-item and 4-itemCriterionMeasures ofChampionship 448AppendixN The Scoring Formforthe BiographicalInformationForm 449Appendix0 SampleFeedbackReport forthe ManagementPracticesSimulation 454Appendix P FormB ofthe ManagementPractices Simulation Used toObtain the ItemSocial DesirabilityMeans 462AppendixQThe ManagementPractices Simulation 474AppendixR Item Contentofthe Primary and Secondary ScalesoftheManagementPractices Simulation 487Appendix S Cross-Correlations Betweenthe AssessmentCenterBatteryScales and The Primary and Secondary Scales FromtheManagementPractices Simulation 493xixLIST OF TABLESTable 1 Champion, Corporate Entrepreneur, and IntrapreneurDefinitions 18Table 2 Dimensions ofChampionship 24Table 3 Logically-DerivedTrait Dimensions ofthe Champion 27Table 4 Psychometric Properties ofthe Preliminary Championship Scales at theConclusion ofPhase III 63Table 5 Congruence Coefficients AmongThe ThreePattern Matrices ForTheEleven First-OrderFactor Scales 74Table 6 Psychometric Properties ofthe FinalFirst-Order FactorScales 76Table 7 Primary Common-FactorPattern Matrices forthe Aggregatedand Separate Samples and theRelatedPrimary-Factor CorrelationMatrices forthe Second-OrderFactors (Decimal Points Omitted) 80Table 8 Congruence Coefficients Among the Three PatternMatricesFor the Two Second-OrderFactorScales 82Table 9 The Subject MatterExperts 85Table 10 A Listing and Description oftheFirst-OrderFactor Scales 89Table 11 Meredith’s CommonFactorPattern and a Synthesis oftheLabels GeneratedBy the Raters 101Table 12 Mean Prototypicality Ratings FortheFactor Scales, ListedinDescending Order 103Table 13 Bivariate Correlations Between the 3-itemand 5-itemChampionship Criteria (3CC and 5CC), the Overall ManagementPerformance (OMP) and the Championship Factor Scales 106Table 14 A Summary ofHypotheses on theIndividual-DifferencesCharacteristics ofthe Champion 136Table 15 Measures Used in the AssessmentCenter (AC) Battery 138xxTable 16 Descriptive Statistics forthe Championship Criterion Scales 153Table 17 Correlations Between the Scales Fromthe Cognitive AbilityTests and the 13 Championship Criteria(Decimal Points areOmitted) and ScaleDescriptive Statistics 155Table 18 Correlations Betweenthe CPI Scales and the 13 ChampionshipCriteria (Decimal Points are Omitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics.... 157Table 19 Correlations Between the 16PF Scales and the 13 ChampionshipCriteria (Decimal Points are Omitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics.... 160Table 20 CorrelationsBetweenthe PRF Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria(Decimal Points are Omitted) and ScaleDescriptive Statistics 162Table 21 CorrelationsBetweenthe RahimOrganizational ConflictInventory (ROCI-Il) and the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS)Scales and the 13 Championship Criteria(Decimal Points areOmitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics 164Table 22 CorrelationsBetween Scales FromTheTwo In-BasketExercisesand the 13 Championship Criteria (Decimal Points areOmitted) and Scale Descriptive Statistics 167Table 23 CorrelationsBetweenthe Role-play Scales and the 13ChampionshipCriteria(Decimal Points are Omitted) andScale Descriptive Statistics 168Table 24 CorrelationsBetween the Interview Scales and the 13Championship Criteria(Decimal Points are Omitted) andScale Descriptive Statistics 170Table 25 MultipleRegressionAnalyses Involving the CPI: OptimalVariable Sets 174Table 26 MultipleRegressionAnalyses Involving the 16PF: OptimalVariable Sets 175xxiTable 27 MultipleRegression Analyses Involving the PRF: OptimalVariable Sets 176Table 28 Multiple RegressionAnalyses Involving the JAS: OptimalVariable Sets 178Table 29 Multiple Regression Analyses Involving the Role-play: OptimalVariable Sets 179Table 30 MultipleRegression Analyses Involvingthe Interview: OptimalVariable Sets 180Table 31 MultipleRegressionAnalyses Involving the CPI, 16PF, PRF,and JAS Scales: Optimal Variable Sets 182Table 32 Results ofthe DiscriminantAnalysis ForFDE 185Table 33 Classification Results Fromthe DiscriminantAnalysis ofFDE 189Table 34 Results ofThe Inter-RaterAgreementAnalysis Based onFlanders’ it 191Table 35 Results Fromthe Analysis ofthe BiodataForm 193Table 36 Psychometric Properties ofthePrimary and Secondary MPS Scale 237Table 37 Multiple RegressionAnalyses Involving the CPI, 16PF, PRF,andMPS Secondary Scales: Incremental Validity 242Table 38 Two-FactorExploratory and ObliqueProcrustes SolutionsforThe MPS 249Table 39 A MultiTrait-Multimethod Matrix For The MPS PrimaryScales andThe First-orderFactorCriterion Scales 252Table 40 A MultiTrait-MultimethodMatrix Analysis ofThe MPSSecondary Scales and The Second-orderFactorCriterion Scales 254Table 41 A Comparison ofCorrelatesFor the MPS Primary Scales andthe First-Order CriterionFactorScales 256xxiiTable 42 A Comparison ofCorrelates Forthe MPS Secondary Scalesand the Second-OrderCriterionFactorScales 259xxiiiLIST OFFIGURESFigure 1 ManagementSimulations in the LargerContext ofWork Samples 222xxivACKNOWLEDGMENTSAnumberofpeople were ofassistance in the execution ofthis research project.Many ofthesepeople are mentionedthroughout the document. A specialthanks goes outto the several hundredmanagers fromthe following companies who gave oftheirvaluable time: B.C. Hydro, B.C. Telephone, B.C. Transit, the Insurance Corporation ofB.C., ManitobaTelephone System, the MinistryofTransportation andHighways, and theUniversity ofB.C.I wishto single out themanagers ofBC Tel fortheirrepeated support at variousstages during datacollection. In particular, I amindebtedto Don Champion, Ken Crump,PaulineElliott, and Joan Grantfor agreeing to support this project. I amparticularlygrateful forthe unending and unfailingchampionship ofMs. PaulineElliott, BCTe1Human Resource Development Coordinator, whose support and skillclearedroadblocksand smoothedpassagefordatacollection.The assistanceofthe following members ofthe Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology laboratory atthe University ofBritish Columbiawas gratefully appreciated:KimBarchard, AllisonMcLeod, Derek Sam, andLindaScratchley. Many thanks to Kimwhocontributed, enthusiastically, many hours ofhertime and expertiseto addresschallenges encounteredin Study 1.Finally, my thanks go outto mythesis committeemembers—Drs. PeterFrost,RalphHakstian, and JerryWiggins—for their guidance anderudition. Inparticular, Iwishto single out Ralph, my academic advisor, and thankhim forhis repeated andlongstanding supportofmy researchinterests.INTRODUCTIONThe purposeofthe presentresearch, outlinedin three studies,is to furtherourunderstandingofacentralfigure in theinnovationprocess—thechampion. Althoughchampionshave beenfound to becriticalplayersin the successoforganizationalinnovation (e.g.,Rothwell,Freeman, Horlsey,Jervis, Robertson,& Townsend,1974),theircharacteristicshave notbeencarefully studied.Past researchon the championhasbeen primarilyanecdotaland descriptive(e.g., Delbecq& Mills, 1985;Schon, 1963),based on researchers’general impressionsofthe champion’spersonalitytraits and,to alesserextent,abilities. Aswell, the reportshavebeengenerally“glowing”with littlemention ofundesirabletraits relatedto championship.With one recentexception(Howell & Higgins,1990a), thecharacteristicsofthe championhave notbeenstudiedusing well-established,reliable and validmethodsofindividual-differencesassessment.The presentresearchbuilds on andtests the validityofthe descriptiveconclusionsforwardedby organizationalresearchersover thepastseveral years.A structuralmodelofchampionshipis developedin whichchampionbehavioris featured.Next, theindividual-differencescharacteristicsofthe championare examinedusing well-establishedassessmentinstruments.Finally, thepresentresearchgoes a stepfurther bydeveloping asimulationdesignedto measurebehaviorsspecificallyrelated totherole ofthe champion.Notwithstandingits contributionto theory-buildingon championship,thisresearchisofrelevanceto organizationswishingtodevelopmethods ofidentifying,selecting,placing, anddevelopingchampions,initiativesthatcouldresultin substantialutility fororganizationsseeking toimprove theircompetitivenessthrough thepromotionofinnovation(Schuler,1986).OverviewThe topicsofcorporateentrepreneurshipand innovationhaveenjoyedever-increasingattention in themanagementliterature.Rogers (1983)notedthatover3,000articles oninnovation hadbeen publishedat that time.The recentsurge in interest,noted2by Frost and Egri (1991), likely mçans thatthis numberhas increased substantially.Popularbusiness writers like Kanter (1989) and Pinchot (1985) havejoined the fray aswell, predicting that innovation and entrepreneurship are the new competitive strategiesofthe 1990’s andbeyond.Why has the topic ofinnovation—at the core ofcorporate entrepreneurship (e.g.,Burgelman, 1984)—enjoyed such popularity in the organizational behaviorliterature?Briefly, it is because innovationhas been linked to awhole host ofpositive organizationaloutcomes, likeproductivity, growth, and survival (e.g., Morgan, 1988; Nayak &Ketteringham, 1986; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Pettigrew, 1985; Zaitman, Duncan, andHolbek, 1973). Although some have noted apro-innovationbias’ in innovationresearch(e.g., Frost & Egri, 1991; Rogers, 1983), the majority ofstudies have pointed to thedesirability ofinnovation in fostering organizational productivity.Given its importance, organizational researchers have attemptedto developmodels oforganizational innovation. Towardthis objective, many have investigatedtherole oforganizationalvariables (e.g., formalizationand specialization) in theimplementation and adoption ofinnovation. The disappointing consensus opinion hasbeenthat findings are unstable across studies (Damanpour, 1987; Downs & Mohr, 1976).The field has coped withthis instability by proposing sub theories ofinnovations Thusthe following distinctions have been made: (a) administrative vs. technical innovation(Ettlie, Bridges, & O’Keefe, 1984), (b) radical vs. incrementalinnovation (Nord &Tucker, 1987), and (c) stage ofadoption (Zmud, 1982).In arecentmeta-analysis, Damanpour (1991) challengedthe validity ofthese subtheories. His findings revealedthe consistentimportance of, among otherthings, highinternal and external communication (exchange ofideas), team andinterdepartmentalexchange, decentralization ofdecision making, and the presence ofa managerial staff1Rogers (1983) defined a pro-innovation bias as follows: “...the implication ofmostdiffusion researchthat an innovationshould be diffused and adopted by all members ofa social system...(p.92).3supportive ofchange. In theirreview, Frost and Egri (1991) made similarobservations,stressing the importance ofenhancedcommunication within organic structures in thecontextofan organizationalculturethat supports innovation andrisktaking.The role ofkey individuals in theinnovation process has also been studied (e.g.,Smith, McKeon, Hoy, Boysen, Shechter, & Roberts, 1984), although less frequently. Inone ofthe mostexhaustive and extensive comparative studies ofinnovation success andfailure (Project SAPPHO2),Achilladelis, Jervis, and Robertson (1971) and Rothwell et al.(1974) reported thatkey individuals (i.e., sponsors, champions) were central toinnovation success. Freeman (1982) notedthatkey individuals and accuratecommunicationwere more important for success than organizational structure orprocessvariables. More than any otherkey individual, the champion has emerged as acentralfigure in the innovationprocess (Schon, 1963; Galbraith, 1982). His/herpresence hasbeen linked to innovation success in anumberofstudies (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Ettlie etal., 1984).The champion, also referred to as corporate entrepreneur (Kanter, 1982; Kierulff,1979) and intrapreneur(Pinchot, 1985) is the individual who emerges informally in anorganizationto introduce and promote an innovation (Schon, 1963). Schon, the first toidentify the role ofthe champion in innovation success, notedthat such individuals areneeded to overcomethe indifference andresistance that technological change provokes.He remarkedthat “...the new ideaeither finds achampion or dies”(p.84).Although therole ofthe championin the innovation process has been identifiedand acknowledged, her/his characteristics—basic traits and skills—have been described,primarily, on the basis ofresearcher’s general impressions, with one recentexception(Howell & Higgins, 1990a). What we currently know aboutthe individual-differencescharacteristics ofthe champion is based, primarily, on descriptive reports oftheir2SAPPHO stands for Scientific Activity Predictor fromPatterns with Heuristic Origins.Knight (1985) used all three terms interchangeably.4personality fromeitherpersonal or second-hand observation. Although suchqualitativeand descriptive accounts provide greatdepth andrichness ofinformation, it is difficult toknow, from such research, whether championspossess certain traits more than othermanagers. The methods and tools ofpsychological assessmenthave rarelybeen used inthe study ofthis role. It seems likely thattheiruse would aid greatly in the identificationofchampions andthe descriptionoftheirbehavior and characteristics.When we considerthe importanceofinnovation fortoday’s organizations and theestablishedimportanceofthe champion forinnovation success, research aimed atdeveloping abetterunderstanding of: (a) the role ofthe champion, and (b) the individual-differences characteristics ofindividuals demonstrating championship, would haveobvious relevance and importance. The developmentofassessmentprocedures toidentify and predict individuals likely to emerge as champions wouldhave particularimportance and applicationin the areas ofpersonnel selection, placement, and,potentially, training.Thepotential forsuch an application has beennoted in thepast (Gaibraith, 1982;Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Schuler, 1986), but work in pursuitofthese objectives has notbeen reported, at leastin the research literature. Gaibraith noted, prematurely it seems,thatthe attributes ofsuccessful champions wereknown. He statedthat “...the ability ofthe innovating organization to generatenewbusiness ideas can be increasedbysystematically developing and selecting those people who are better at innovating thanothers.”(p.21). Howell and Higgins (1990b) remarkedthat “...individuals who havechampionpotential can be identifiedthroughvalidated personality and leadershipmeasures orby observingbehaviorin interviews or assessmentcenters. Managementcoulduse the results ofsuch assessmentto select individuals withtherequisite qualitiesforundertaking innovation.”(p.54).5Objectives ofThe PresentResearchThe individual was the unitofanalysis in thepresentresearch. Althoughorganizational-level variables may be significantlyrelated to aspects ofinnovation, thefocus herewas apsychological one. The role ofthe champion was featured. The purposeofthis study was to develop assessmentprocedures to: (a) reliably identify individualswhobehave as champions in the work setting, and (b) identify individual-differencescharacteristicspredictive ofchampionbehavior. These two purposes correspondtocriterion and predictormeasurement, respectively.As a first step in developing aprediction system, a careful criterion analysis wasperformed. In pastresearchon the champion, researchers have glossed overthe issue ofchampion identification. Little information has been supplied on how these individualsbehave; that is, how they actwhen they are carrying outtheirrole as a champion. Pastoperational definitions have assumed adichotomy: individuals have been classified aseitherchampions ornon-champions; no recognition ofa middle ground—the notion ofacontinuum—has been considered. In thepresentresearch, dimensions ofchampionshipwere identified and scaled as continuous variables.Before adequateprediction ofchampionship can be accomplished, more carefulattentionmustbe focused on the behavioral description ofchampionship. It is time to“junkthe criterion” (Dunnette, 1963) in researchon thecharacteristics ofthe championand insteadexplore the possibility that this role is likely multi-dimensional.In summary, the main purposes ofthepresentresearchwere to:1. Develop acomprehensive behavioral profile ofthe champion to be usedto:(a) establish a structural model ofchampionship, and(b) serve as criteriain the identification and validationofpredictormeasures.62. Develop acomprehensive psychological profile ofthe champion in orderto:(a) testthe validity ofprevious descriptive profiles ofthe champion, and(b) assemble areliable and validbattery ofpsychological tests foruse inpersonnel selection and classification.3. Develop and explore the reliability and validity of abehaviorally-basedchampionship simulation.In the nextsection, areview ofresearch on the champion is provided. Thepurposes ofthis review are to: (a) give an historical overview ofinnovationresearch and,in the process, define key terms, (b) provide evidence to demonstratethe importanceofthe championrole inthe innovation process, (c) define and describe the championrole,and (d) develop apsychologicalprofileofthe champion.7LITERATUREREVIEWTwo central issues are addressed in the review. One, the role ofthe champion isexaminedin orderto answerthe question “what does the champion doT’ A definitionofthe championrole is developed fromprevious researchers’ descriptions. As well, amodelofchampionshipis proposed. Secondly, studies in which the traits and characteristicsofthe championhavebeenreported are reviewed. The outcome ofthis review is theorganizationofthe champion’s traits into logically-deriveddimensions. This analysis,based primarily on anecdotalreports ofchampiontraits, will serve as a tentative guidetowardthe generationofhypotheses relating to the individual-differencescharacteristicsofthe champion.Before moving to the central themes ofthis literaturereview, two issues must firstbe addressed. First, abriefhistoricaloverview is providedin which key terms aredefined. The study ofinnovationoccurring in corporations (andthe individuals whoplaykey roles in innovation) canbe tracedto the earlier (largely econometric) literature on thesmall-business innovator—the entrepreneur. The relatively recentliterature oncorporateentrepreneurship and the intrapreneur is built on afoundation whose constructs anddefinitions were first articulated some 250 years ago. Next, arationale forthe study ofthe champion is given; evidencerelatingto the centrality ofthechampion role ininnovation and his/herimportance toward the success ofthe process is presented.I. AnHistorical Sketchofthe Study ofInnovation andEntrepreneurshipIn the study ofinnovation, the following terms have often been usedinterchangeably: entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and innovation. They do,however, have uniquemeanings which follow fromtheirdefinitions as originallyproposed.8EntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurship was first conceivedofand definedby theoreticaleconomists.The firstformal theory ofentrepreneurshipwas forwarded by Richard Cantillon (Long,1983) who saw entrepreneurship as self-employmentofany and every kind. He definedentrepreneurship as aneconomic functionwhich involvedrisksince goods werepurchased at certainprices but sold at future uncertain prices. He described theentrepreneur as arational decision makerwho assumedrisk and provided managementforthe firm (Kilby, 1971).In contrastto Cantillon, Schumpeter (1934)—often referred to as the fatherofmodementrepreneurial thought—argued thatrisktaking was not necessarily acharacteristic ofthe entrepreneur. He observedthat, althoughrisktaking may be inherentin ownership, not all entrepreneurs are owners. Instead, Schumpeter focused oninnovation and initiative as central components ofentrepreneurship. Distinctfromspeculators and inventors, entrepreneurs were seen by Schumpeter as creators ofnewbusinesscombinations.CorporateEntrepreneurshipSchumpeter (1934) recognizedthat innovation was notnecessarilylimitedto thesmallbusiness context. Conversely, all persons who own a smallbusiness are notnecessarilyentrepreneurial (Martin, 1982). Morerecently, large corporations havebeendescribed as engaging in entrepreneurialbehavior; the notionofCorporateEntrepreneurship (CE) was born in the late 1970’s anddevelopedin the 1980’s and 90’s(e.g., Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989; Schollhammer, 1982).Corporate entrepreneurship refers to the entrepreneurial activities ofthefirmthatreceive organizational sanction. It is conceivedofas a multi-dimensional constructinvolving: (a) innovation, (b) risk taking, and (c) proactiveness on thepartofthefirm(Miller, 1983). Thesethree dimensions are clearly notunique to the CE literature.9Instead, they are dimensions (most notably the first two) thatoverlap with thoseintroduced in the contextofsmall business entrepreneurship.It has been argued that, at the core ofcorporateentrepreneurship is innovation.Burgelman (1984), who developed amodel to explain the CE process, argued that thedefinitionofCE parallels the Schumpterian (1934) definitionofindividualentrepreneurship, the central componentofwhich is innovation. Drucker (1985)described the process ofinnovation as central inboth the corporate and small-businesscontexts. As well, Zahra(1986) summarizedthe various definitionsofCE as revolvingaround: “entrepreneurial activities whichreceive organizational sanction andresourcecommitmentforthe purpose ofinnovative corporate endeavors”(p.71).InnovationNumerous definitions ofinnovationhavebeen proposed. A samplingoffourfollow: (a) organizationalinnovation is the successful implementation ofcreative ideaswithin an organization; it canreferto ideas fornewproducts, processes, services withinthe organization’s line ofbusiness, or new policies orprocedures within the organizationitself(Amabile, 1988), (b) “...any idea, practice, or material artifactperceivedto be newby the relevantunitofadoption” (Zaltmanet al. 1973), (c) the “...creationofany product,service or process which is new to a business unit” (Tushman and Nadler, 1986,p.75),and (d) “...a significantchange within the organization orits line ofservices orproductsthat (a) requires a substantial adjustmentin functions and/or structures, and (b) issuccessfully introduced, decided upon, and incorporated into the organization” (Delbecq& Mills, 1985,p.25). Synthesizingthese definitions, thereaderwill note acommontheme: a novel idea is proposed and application/implementationis attempted.Innovations may or may notbe successful, in other words, developedthrough tocommercialization.10SummaryThe distinctionbetweenentrepreneurship in thetwo contexts—small-businessfounder/owner and corporate-wide entrepreneurship—is clear. As well, the centrality ofinnovation to entrepreneurship, in either context, is well recognized. Definitionsbecomeless clear, however, when the focus shifts to the individuals involved in theprocesses ofentrepreneurship and innovation—the key players. Some clarity can, however, beachieved by examining closely the terms used to describe the functions and roles ofthechampion/corporate entrepreneur/intrapreneur. This is done in Section III ofthe literaturereview. First, research on the importance ofthe role ofthe champion in innovationisreviewed.II. EvidenceFor the Role ofthe Champion in Innovation SuccessOverviewInnovation is a process involving many people at the various initiation andimplementation stages. It is aprocess drivenby economic, social, and political forces(Frost & Egri, 1991). It is not always rational, itunfolds overtime, and typically fails(i.e., is notimplementedthrough to commercialization). With a multitude ofvariablespotentially influencingthe success ofa given organizational innovation, it is notsurprising thatone variable—the champion—cannot, alone, consistently accountforthesuccess or failure ofa given innovation. It is, therefore, surprising to see the number ofresearchers who have found the champion tobe an integral part ofinnovation success.Recently, both Frost andEgri (1991) and Howell and Higgins (1990a) pointedtothe importance ofthe champion as a critical factorrelated to innovation success. Thefollowing review documents efforts to identify andrelate the role ofthe champion toinnovation success. This review begins withthe seminal work ofSchon (1963) onmilitary innovation and concludes with the workofSmithet al. (1984). The reader will11note that, in some cases, authors pointout the importance ofthe champion in innovationsuccess but fail to present datato supporttheir claims (e.g., Schon). In other cases, morequantitative evidence is presented (e.g., Rothwell et a!., 1974). Taken together, there isevidence for theimportance ofthe champion in moving invention to application.Descriptive StudiesEvidence forthe role ofthe champion in innovation success has beenreportedinformallyby a numberofresearchers. Schon (1963), who is generally creditedwithintroducing the termproductchampion, reportedthe findings of25 case studies ofinnovation in the military. He argued forthe primary importance ofthe productchampion in opposing organizational inertiaandresistance to change. He stated: “whereradical innovation is concerned, the emergenceofa championis required” (p.84).Langrish, Gibbons, Evans, and Jevons (1972), cited in Parker (1978), in a study of84Britishcompanies thathad wonthe Queen’s Award forTechnological Innovationbetween 1966 and 1967, reportedthatthe mostimportantfactorrelated to the successfulmanagement ofinnovation, across all industry types studied, was the champion.Fernelius andWaldo (1980) studied 78 case histories ofsuccessfulcommercialindustrial innovations. By analyzing the case histories to isolate the variousorganizational, technical, and economic factors associatedwiththe innovationprocess,the authors were able to identify eighteen key factors. Thesewere rank-ordered; the firstandthirdmost importantfactors were: (a) therecognition ofa technical opportunity by anindividual, and (b) therecognition ofamarketopportunity by an individual. Bothofthese functions are typically carried outby the project champion. Fernelius and Waldoconcluded by pointing outthat “...almost withoutexception, there was aproject championforthe cases involved in this study...although the same personmight not have been thechampionin all phases ofthe innovationprocess, there was a champion at all times” (p.39).12Daft and Bradshaw (1980), in a study ofhorizontal differentiation—the formationofnew organizationaldepartments in five universities (aformofadministrativeinnovation)—identified idea champions as instrumental in the formation ofnewdepartments. An ideachampion was identifiedin all but 2 ofthe 30 innovations. Theauthors concludedthat “...withoutideachampions, few new departments wouldbeformed” (p.4.50). The authors notedthat the ideachampions’ role seemed similarto thatofthe entrepreneur: the ideachampion provides energy to move the systemto gainacceptancefor achange.Others have also noted the importance ofthe champion toward the success oforganizationalinnovation (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Curley & Gremillion, 1983; Galbraith,1982; Quinn, 1979; Smithet al., 1984). Popularbusiness writers have stressed that, fororganizations to remain competitive, allemployees mustbecome champions: “...we needmany more people to sign up forprojects withmuch lowerodds for successjust to stayeven. In short, we need impassioned championsby the thousands” (Peters, 1987,p.248).Although Peters may be overstatingthe case, his message is one thatplaces theresponsibility forchampionship on the shoulders ofallemployees.EmpiricalStudiesThemostcompelling evidence for the importanceofthe champion would comefromresearch in which successful andunsuccessful innovations were compared. Suchstudies avoid the potential methodological shortcomings ofsingle-sample studies inwhichonly successful innovations are considered. Ideally, such studies would also reportdataindicating differences betweenthe two groups (successful and unsuccessful) oncritical variables (i.e., thepresenceofchampions); alternately, correlationsbetween thenumberofchampions and innovation success would also give evidence fortheimportance ofthe champion. With regardto the latter method, it would seemunlikelythat therelationshipbetween the numberorpresence ofchampions, on the one hand, and13a global, complex, organizational outcome like innovation, on the other, couldbecapturedin the formofalinearrelationship. Nevertheless, there is some evidenceforsuch arelationship.The mostthorough and widely-citedstudy into the variablesrelated to innovationsuccess was carried out underthe name ofProjectSAPPHO. Achilladelis et al. (1971)and Rothwell et al. (1974), in studies ofproductand process innovations in the chemicaland instrumentindustries, madepaired-comparisons ofsuccessful andunsuccessfulcommercialinnovations. In PhaseI ofthe study, Achilladelis et al. compared 29 pairs ofsuccessful and unsuccessful innovations. In PhaseII, Rothwell et al. reportedfindings onanew sample of43 pairs. Success inboth studies was defined as aninnovation whichobtained aworthwhilemarket share andprofit. The authorsreported dataon 122independent variables in an attemptto discover key elements related to innovationsuccess. Althoughin both studies the authors stressedthattheir results indicatedthatnosingle factorcould, by itself, explainthe success/failure ofan innovation, one ofthe mostimportantvariables to emerge in the innovation process was the role playedby keymanagers and technologists, especiallythe business innovatorand the productchampion.In the firstofthe two Project SAPPHO studies, Achilladelis et al. (1971) reportedthat the business innovator—the individual actuallyresponsiblewithin the managementstructurefor the overall progress ofthe project—was an important factorin the success ofthe innovation. Six characteristics ofthe business innovatorwere found to distinguishsignificantly successful fromunsuccessful innovations. The authors included only onevariablerelated to the product champion: “Can a single individual be regarded as theproductchampion?” The presence ofaproductchampion was found to be related tosuccess/failure ofinnovation only forthe instruments industry. The presence ofa productchampion was particularly critical when s/he also playedthe role ofthe businessinnovator.It was in Phase IIofthe SAPPHO project, that Rothwellet al. (1974) found14strongerevidence thatproductchampions—the individuals who make decisivecontributions to the innovation by actively and enthusiasticallypromoting its progressthrough critical stages—played a significant role in differentiatingbetween successfuland unsuccessful innovations. The presence ofaproductchampion wasjudged to weighin favorofsuccess in 16 ofthe 43 innovations; in 22 ofthe innovations, theirpresencewas found to be unrelated to success, while in 5 ofthe 43 innovations they werejudged tobe inversely related to success.Rothwell et al. (1974) also reported a significantrole forthe business innovator:the individual responsible within themanagementstructure forthe overallprogress oftheproject. The presence ofaproductchampion who also playedthe roleofbusinessinnovatorwasjudged to weigh in favorofsuccess in 15 ofthe 43 innovations; in 26 ofthe innovations, they werejudgednotto be related to success, while in only 1 ofthe 43innovations were theyjudgedto be inverselyrelated to success. Interestingly, the authorsfound that “...neitherthe presence ofa single, nor several, technicalinnovators (inventors)significantly distinguishedbetween success and failure”(p.279).In summary, the ProjectSAPPHO findings lendpartial support to the keyindividual—in this case, champion—explanation. The champion’s presencecannotbeused to explain allcases ofinnovation success or failure, however. Not surprisingly,Rothwell et al. (1974) found other variables to be importantfor success. Among them,the degree ofcommunication—both internal and external—was significantly related toinnovation success. This finding was echoedmuch laterby Damanpour’s (1991) metaanalysis (described earlier) in which hereported theconsistentimportance of, amongotherthings, high internal and external communication. An open exchange ofideas willinvolve team and interdepartmental exchangeand decentralizationofdecision making.Ofcourse, such an organizational environmentwouldbe aexcellentforum forthe effortsofthe champion.Ettlie et al. (1984) studiedproductinnovationin 192 firms in meat, canning, and15fish industries. All firms were implementing anew technologicalinnovation: aConsumer Retort Pouch technology (a new way ofpackaging instantfoods). Productchampions were identifiedby one interview question: “Is there aperson in yourfirmwhois currently advocating consumerretortable pouchtechnology?” The authors measuredanumberofother variables throughboth questionnaire andinterview methods. Theyreported acorrelationof.45 (p < .01) betweenthe dichotomouschampionvariable(presence/absence) and the stage ofadoptionofthe given innovation (this lattervariablerangedfrom “implemented” to “rejected”). Ettlieet al. concludedthatthe stage ofadoption (a necessary developmentcondition forinnovation success) ofaradicalinnovation is significantlypromotedby thepresence ofan innovationchampion.Takentogether, the above research demonstrates a degree ofconsistency inpointing to: (a) the omnipresence ofthe champion role, and (b) the importance ofthis rolein the movementoforganizational innovation towardimplementation and success.Althoughthe champion is clearly notthe only and, typically, not the mostimportantvariable in predictingthe success oforganizational innovation, his/herrole has beenconsistently identified and described as critical by those who carry outresearch oninnovation in organizations.In the next section, a comprehensive definition andprofile ofthechampion role isdeveloped. Past research is reviewedand synthesized and the terms entrepreneur,corporate entrepreneur, innovator, intrapreneur, and champion are discussed.III. Toward aDefinition and Understanding ofthe Champion RoleOverviewIn this section a definitionofthe championrole is developedbased on areview of25 studies in whichthe role ofthe champion has been identified and examined. A profileor model ofthe champion role is proposed, drawing on the definition as a foundation.16Before proceedingto this discussion, it shouldbe acknowledged thatmuchoftheresearch to be reviewedin this section does not feature the study ofthe champion as theprimary focus. Much ofthe research on the champion has beenconductedby researchersmore interested in organizational-levelcorrelates orpredictors ofinnovation success orstage ofimplementation. The importance andexistence ofthechampion is recognizedand discussed in suchresearch, but notin detail. Pastresearchers often have notbeencareful to communicate clearly how the champion was identified. When suchinformation has been supplied, the identificationmethods employed appearto have beenless than thorough.Forexample, Smithet al. (1984) used only one interview questionto identify thechampions in their study: “How wereyou involved in this case?”(p.24). Similarly,Ettlie et al. (1984), in an interview, used the question: “Is there aperson in your firmwhois currently advocating consumerretortable pouchtechnology?” (cited in Howell &Higgins, 1990a,p.319). Others simply neglectedto reporthow the champions in theirstudies were identified (e.g., Burgelman, 1983; Chakrabarti, 1974; Galbraith, 1982;Knight, 1985; Schon, 1963). Suchomissions could, potentially, call into questionthevalidity ofthe traitdescriptions given to such “champions”, an issue discussed in moredetail in Section IV ofthe literaturereview.Having recognizedthe apparentmethodological limitationsofthe literature to bereviewed, it is, nevertheless, clearthat the various definitionsused forthe championrolehave, overtime, converged significantly. Thus, althoughpast researchershave nottypicallybeeneither: (a) diligent in detailing the manner in which champions wereidentified, or (b) methodical in establishingcriteriaforrole identification, acommonfigure in the innovationprocess does appearto have been consistently identified. Andthatfigure is the champion.17The Champion RoleDefinedIn Table 1 is alisting ofdefinitions that have been used to describe the champion.These definitions are given in chronological order. The primary label used is given aswell (e.g., champion, internal entrepreneur). Various labels havebeen applied to describethe individual who performs this key rolein the innovationprocess: champion, corporateentrepreneur, entrepreneur, intrapreneur, innovator. Interestingly, the definitionsconverge to describe acommon set ofkey functions. The term champion has beenchosen for use in thepresent study because: (a) this label, more thantheothers, has beenlinkedto the innovationprocess, and (b) in the contextofcorporate innovation this termcanbetraced furtherbackin the historical developmentofthetopic4.Synthesizingthe results in Table 1, it is clearthatthe championtakescreative/inventiveideas andpromotes their implementation. The championrolebringstogetherthe inventive efforts ofthe ideageneratorwiththe business needs oftheorganization. Thus, s/he serves a coordinating function, by uniting the autonomousefforts ofthe inventor with the strategic management objectivesofthe organization. Inthe present study, the following definition forthe championrole was used. Thisdefinitionhas been gleanedfromthe definitions and descriptions listedin Table 1.The champion is an individualwho takesanew ideaforeitheran administrative ortechnical innovation (an ideas/hemayormay nothave generated)andintroduces,pushes, promotes, andsells the idea to others in the organization.Elementsofthe DefinitionThe reader should be aware ofthe followingpoints that combine to make up thedefinition. Typically, the champion will emerge informally to take up the responsibilityAlthough the entrepreneur was the focus ofstudy well before the champion role was identified(Cantillon, c. 1730), the role ofthe entrepreneur has typically been equated with thatofthe smallbusiness owner (see, Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984).18Table 1Champion, CorporateEntrepreneur, qndIntrapreneurDefinitionsSchon (1963)Product Champion: informallyemerges--is not appointed; identifies with anewidea as his/herown; see its promotion as acausethat goes beyondtheirjob;pushes and promotes againstthe prevailingoppositionto change in theorganizationinterests mustcut across various departments.Knight (1967)InnovatorIEntrepreneur: introduces and carries outthe introductionofanewidea; possesses desire and means to implementidea; sells ideato organization.Roberts (1968)InternalEntrepreneur/ProductChampion usedinterchangeably: theindividual who champions thetranslation ofscience andtechnology intouse.Achilladelis, Jervis, and Robertson (1971)ProjectChampions: distill creative ideas frominformation sources and thenenthusiasticallypromote themwithin theorganization.Langrish, Gibbons, Evans, and Jevons (1972) citedin Parker (1978)Champion: the individual who initiatedthe project, who promoted itenthusiastically, who took apersonal interestin the project, and who ensuredthatfunds were available.Chakrabarti (1974).Product Champion: sells ideato management and gets management sufficientlyinterested in the project.Rothwell, Freeman, Horlsey, Jervis, Robertson, andTownsend (1974)Product Champion: any individual who made adecisivecontribution to theinnovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progress through criticalstages.Frohman (1974;1978)ProductChampion/Entrepreneur: recognizes and pushes anew technicalidea,approach, orprocedure for formalmanagement approval. Takes risks. Works toget support and resources forhis/her idea. Is an advocate forthe idea. Tends tobe aggressive andpersistent.Cox (1976)CorporateEntrepreneur: perform a coordinating function; theybring scienceand technology into the marketplace; they getthings done, are risktakers.19Table 1 cont.Kierulff(1979)CorporateEntrepreneur: examinespotential new market opportunities, obtainsresources to meet attractive opportunities, and initiates production and sales;starts a new business venturewithin the company.Quinn (1979)Champion: bring forward, marketnew ideas to managementteam; competeagainst others for approval ofidea.Fernelius & Waldo (1980)ProjectChampion: someone who thoroughly believes in the project, works hardat it, inspires others to do the same, and defends theproject even to the point ofrisking his own standing.Roberts & Fusfield (1981)Entrepreneur/Champion: the individual who recognizes, proposes, pushes, anddemonstrates anew technical idea, approach orprocedureforformal managementapproval; gets resources needed; takes risks.Galbraith (1982)Idea Champion: the inventorofthe idea, the entrepreneur, orrisktaker.Dedicatedperson whose success or failure depends on developingtheidea/Sponsor: promotes idea through to implementation; gives authority andresources to an ideato carry toward implementation; usually middle managers;functions ofsponsorsimilar to those ofchampions identifiedby others.Kanter (1982; 1988)Corporateentrepreneur/Innovativemanager: envision an accomplishmentbeyondthe scope oftheirjob; acquire power needed; seek and find additionalstrength needed fornew initiates--buildcoalitions; possess political savvy.Burgelman (1983)Product Champions: turn a new ideainto a concrete new project in whichtechnical and marketing developmentbegin to take shape; mobilizes resources todo what