Confronting neo-institutionalism and behavioural theory of the firm for explaining innovation adoption: A comparative congruence analysis of Startup in Residence

(1)

Confronting neo-institutionalism and behavioural theory of the firm

for explaining innovation adoption: A comparative congruence

analysis of Startup in Residence

A Thesis Submitted to

The Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs University of Leiden

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MSc Public Administration Public Management and Leadership

By Kseniia Maliuta [1537431]

Supervised by dr. Joris van der Voet

Word count: 21432

(2)

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In order to address societal problems in an effective and efficient manner, it has been increasingly expected of public organizations, their managers, and their employees to embrace creative and innovative solutions. However, the practice of public sector innovation is certainly not new or unique. There have been multiple waves of interest, reflected in both scholarly and practice-based publications, in this topic (de Vries, 2018). Innovation has frequently been portrayed as having tremendous potential to substantially improve organizational performance, as well as offer an all-encompassing solution to the complex social, economic, and political challenges public organizations confront (European Commission, 2013; Hartley, Sørensen, & Torfing, 2013; Walker, 2014). As such, innovation entails the search for and the adoption of potential disruptions to routine practices that increase organizational effectiveness and subsequently improve the connection between governments and their citizens (Hartley, Sørensen, & Torfing, 2013). Such a positive image of innovation has two implications. First, it imposes pressure for governmental agencies to fully utilize new technologies, processes, and services in daily operations in order to deal with persistent wicked problems they are facing. This leads to the second implication: consideration of innovation as a ‘normative’ good shifts the research attention from the study of the process itself to macro-level patterns and organizational-level structures affecting innovativeness (Torfing, 2019; Chandler & Hwang, 2008).

Paradoxically, despite the considerable attention given to the topic, previous research on innovation is still full of gaps and inconsistencies. Specifically, this is reflected in a generally sparse and unsystematic understanding of why public organizations innovate. The questions of how innovation practices are initiated, how they are diffused, what are the factors considered before their adoption on the individual level remain unaddressed by

(5)

theoretical research (de Vries, 2018). An additional shortcoming is that theories that could have been useful for closing these gaps are inconsistently applied and provide competing theoretical explanations mostly focused on private sector organizations (de Vries, 2018). For instance, innovation in the private sector is thought of as being driven by the search for competitive advantage and economic benefits. In the public sector, however, a much broader set of incentives, such as desire to achieve public value, gain legitimacy, and avoid risks, is acknowledged as relevant (Osborne & Brown, 2011; Moore, 1995). These opposing explanations often reappear in innovation research. They reflect the larger discussion on the agency versus structure problem -- the question of “whether the building of social science theory should start with the behaviour of individual agents or with constituting function of social structures” (Blatter & Haverland, 2012, p. 9).

On the one hand, neo-institutional theory, commonly mentioned in the research on public organizations, has been particularly instructive in explaining how organizations respond to external social order and structures in ways that promote homogeneity across organizational fields (Greenwood et al., 2008). Neo-institutional theory classics have highlighted isomorphism, ‘logic of appropriateness’ and legitimacy, as well as the overall higher-order foundations of the social world, as guiding stimuli of organizational behaviours (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, 1991; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Consequently, in relation to the diffusion and adoption of innovative practices, in their research, neo-institutional scholars tend to test these causal mechanisms on the meso- and macro-level structures and neglect individual-level issues (Chandler & Hwang, 2015).

Empirical research conducted in line with the neo-institutional theses, partially supported the established theoretical claims. Research by Tolbert and Zucker (1983) elaborated on the rationalized myths and spread of organizational practices and confirmed that diffusion and adoption are strongly motivated by the appearance of legitimacy and

(6)

appropriateness (Tolbert & Zucker, 1983). However, this research, as well as multiple other scholars, focused on the explicit confirmation or invalidation of social innovation adoption due to institutional effects and not on the actual examination of the adopters’ underlying motivation (Greenwood et al., 2008). This model was by no means universal to all studies, but is largely treated as one of the basic tools to get insights on organizational behaviours (Greenwood et al., 2008, p. 9). Eventually, researchers have recognized that studying organizational practice adoption and diffusion as a binary choice, rather than focusing on underlying motivation, exponentially heightened the risk of erroneous conclusions (Greenwood et al., 2008, p. 9; Hartley, Sørensen & Torfing, 2013).

Simultaneously, within the research of innovation adoption in private organizations, much attention has been directed toward agency, performance, technical and functional imperatives, and providing new explanatory mechanisms, such as solution searching and rational decision-making (e.g. Davis & Greve, 1997; Chandler & Hwang, 2008). Behavioural theory of the firm took up where the neo-institutional theory failed to explain interest-driven behaviour and functional change, which occurred despite largely restrictive institutionalized norms, and it addressed questions of agency (Greenwood et. al, 2008). While institutionalists presented legitimacy as an effective motivation driver for actions, the behavioural theory envisioned organizational behaviours as a complex process entangled in rational and agentic micro-processes (Posen et al., 2018). Ultimately, these two perspectives provide productive, though limited, theoretical lenses through which innovation adoption in the public sector can be understood (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).

More recent scholarship has recognized the limitations of the established theories and devoted greater attention to the microfoundational guide to organizational behaviour, leading to more attempts to pave the way for heterogeneity in diffusion and adoption research (Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Greenwood et al., 2008). This specific research effort has

(7)

reinvigorated interest in explanatory power of micro-level processes underpinning innovation adoption (Powell & Colyvas, 2008). As a result, more detailed explanations of organizational behaviour begin to appear. However, due to the researchers’ preference for macro-level and quantifiable data and dissention between agency and structure theoretical perspectives, no clear framework to capture the motivation and meanings underlying adoption on the individual level was widely established (Greenwood et al., 2008, p. 16).

1.2 Problem Definition and Research Questions

Overall, the existing literature presents an in-depth review of perspectives and concepts, which attempt to comprehensively explore and explain innovation adoption. Roughly two major camps in the theoretical discourse can be identified. One set of theorists emphasize structure and social embeddedness. Others argue for agency and instrumentality of organizational behaviours. However, even though both structure-based neo-institutional theory and agency-promoting behavioural theories attempt to address fundamental critiques of the foundational theory, there have not yet been systematic attempts to integrate these competing perspectives, analyze them on the micro-level, and test them empirically against observable evidence. This is unfortunate because, the application and comparison of these theories could potentially complement the micro-level research endeavours uncovering mechanisms by which innovation is motivated, searched, and assessed to be adopted or not. In the end, understanding how individuals adopt innovation can also help to predict potential outcomes of the process and understand the process better in the face of growing pressure for pubic organizations to work with new types of governance, technology, and systems (Haunschild & Miner, 1997).

Given the critical significance of this topic in current scientific and practice debates, this research paper aims to elaborate on both agency and structure-based theories, to indicate

(8)

their relevance for drawing the micro-level analysis-related conceptual expectations. Additionally, this research intends to further examine the deduced expectations for relative explanatory strength against the empirical case of the adoption of innovative governance practice, Startup in Residence, in the municipality of Amsterdam. In essence, this study attempts to test theoretical underpinnings for predicting how the innovation is adopted in public sector organizations and then determine more comprehensive explanations of innovation adoption process using congruence approach in a single case study design. Eventually the use of this theoretical approach is two-fold. First, it will allow to analyze the degree of congruence between deduced implications from both theories based on the observed evidence within the Startup in Residence adoption case. Second, it will provide comparative frame to answer the research question whether the institutional theory provide the better framework than the behaviour theory of the firm for understanding of innovation adoption in public organizations.

RQ: Which theory of organizational behaviour is most consistent with the innovation adoption processes in public organizations on the individual level: the neo-institutionalist theory or behavioural theory of the firm?

1.3 Academic relevance

As outlined above, the important contribution of this paper to the public management research is a better theoretical understanding of innovation adoption in public sector organizations. The scientific relevance of this endeavor has two main dimensions.

First, the research on innovation adoption attempts to provide a stronger theoretical foundation for conjecture of the patterns and processes of innovation adoption in public sector organizations. On the one hand, neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991) is further explored in considering the relative influence of legitimacy in preconditioning

(9)

organizations to adopt certain fashionable practices within a field. Meanwhile, the explanatory power of behavioural theory of the firm (Cyert & March, 1963), which places emphasis on individual search, calculation, and adoption of strategically fitting practices within organizations, is also scrutinized in the search for better fitting explanations of innovation adoption. However, to contribute to a more holistic theoretical groundwork in the field of public sector innovation, this study goes further and uses congruence analysis to compare both theories against the observable evidence. Therefore, the selected case study is used to elucidate and compare the explanatory merits of competing theories and helps to understand whether there can be any complementary relationship between them.

Secondly, as public sector innovation scholars often neglect individual-level issues, this study, when drawing on meso-level or macro-level paradigms (such as behavioural theory and neo-institutionalism), will seek to uncover micro-level foundations underlying the innovation process. Hence, this study deduces micro-level propositions and provides new insights that are important for understanding collective phenomena, such as the adoption of innovative practices on an individual level. Essentially, the research follows the theoretical works and empirical evidence which help to better account for the mechanisms by which individuals are motivated to innovate, search for innovation practices and make decisions whether to adopt them.

1.4 Thesis Structure

This research project unfolds in a series of chapters to facilitate reading and navigation. In Chapter 2, a review of the relevant literature will be undertaken. In this chapter, I will outline the two most influential theories in the organizational innovation field of research: neo-institutionalism and behavioural theory of the firm. Following the major underlying configurations of concepts that are useful for micro-level analysis, I will develop a theoretical

(10)

framework based on the inferred expectations. Subsequently, Chapter 3 will outline the methodology of the research and include sections explaining research design, case selection, and data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 will then present the data results from the qualitative research conducted and their analytical discussion. The thesis will conclude with Chapter 5, which includes a summary and discussion of the research findings, implications for both academics and practitioners, as well as the study limitations and suggestions for future research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

In innovation research, willingness and ability to adopt new practices and integrate them into the organization are critically important as they can explain a lot about the change and adaptive capacity of public organizations (Damanpour, 1991). However, despite the perceptual and cognitive nature of this process, whereby public managers search for solutions and decide which ones are best fit, few scholars have consistently applied existing theories and conducted research on innovation at an individual level (Walker et al., 2015). In an attempt to fill in the theoretical gaps in the research addressing innovation diffusion and adoption, this study will be based on influential postulates by DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) neo-institutionalism and behaviour theory of the firm (Cyert & March, 1963) and its more recent adaptations (Posen et al., 2018). While these theories do not fully determine our knowledge of the actuality, their theoretical propositions have been useful in explaining organizational behaviours and providing consistent empirical predictions. Therefore, in order to conduct comprehensive theoretical research on innovation adoption, this chapter will focus on the creation of a usable theoretical framework of relevant propositions in two phases.

First, to lay the foundation for the theoretical discussion, crucial concepts concerning innovation adoption will be outlined. Following Rogers’s (2003) classic view of innovation

(11)

diffusion and adoption as a multi-step process, the selected theories will be introduced and discussed along three identified steps: motivation, solution search, and decision-making. Selection of these steps is further explained in the following sections. Second, the specified constitutive concepts from both theories will be used to formulate causal propositions. This will allow for the inference of a set of postulating assumptions about what constitutes the reality and set them in the theoretical framework, which is useful for the empirical part of the research.

2.1 Public Sector Innovation

As professional and academic literature confirms, disruptive innovations are advancing in the public sector. Definitions of innovation abound, each emphasizing different aspects of the concept (de Vries et al., 2015). First definitions by Schumpeter stressed the novelty aspect, new outputs, or “doing things differently” (Schumpeter, 1941, in de Vries et al., 2015, p. 18). Related definitions focus on innovation as an idea and a practice perceived as new by the unit of adoption. Scholars also emphasize the difference between change and innovation. As Osborne and Brown (2005) argue, innovation is a discontinuous radical type of change. Overall, the concept of innovation in organizations unveils itself as new processes, services, or policies that fundamentally transform current ways of doing things (van der Wal, 2018, p. 140).

In the context of public sector organizations, many scholars specify definitions by highlighting the specific objective of innovations to improve the quality of public services as well as to enhance the problem-solving capacity of governmental organizations in dealing with societal challenges (de Vries, Bekkers & Tummers, 2015). Hence, in public sector innovation, higher emphasis is put on creating public value and legitimizing political authority (de Vries et al., 2015, p. 147). However, while some specific definitions highlight

(12)

innovations’ ability to link governments and citizens and retain legitimacy, others feature its ability to enhance organizational economic performance given the financial constraints of recent years (Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2018, p. 1-8). These differences underline the missing overall theoretical groundwork for innovation adoption on the micro-level, the search for which is the main inspiration for this research.

Delving further into classifications, public sector innovations can be differentiated by types, such as process innovation, product or service innovation, governance innovation, conceptual innovation, and rhetorical innovation (de Vries et al., 2015). This paper focuses on public sector innovation, specifically, adoption of governance innovation. In this context, governance innovation is further considered as the creation of new practices and processes to tackle particular societal issues (van der Wal, 2018, p.141).

2.2 Theories of innovation adoption and diffusion

As mentioned above, when discussing innovation in the public sector, an important distinction is also made between the idea generation and diffusion and adoption (Damanpour, 1991). Though, innovation generation is an interesting process, it requires a substantially higher amount of human and financial resources and risk-taking than adoption of already existing innovative practices (Damanpour, 1991). Therefore, the growing need of organizations to innovate spurs interest to learn and theorize, not only how innovative practices are generated, but, even more so, how these are then spread to and implemented in other settings (de Vries et al., 2015). This study focuses on the latter, diffusion and adoption also referred to as the ‘innovation adoption processes’.

According to Rogers (2003), adopting an innovation is a multifaceted process consisting of five steps, passing from inspiration to assessment of the adopted practice. Inspired by his frame, for this research focusing on the initial innovation adoption, I select

(13)

and conceptualize three main steps: individuals’ “motivation” to innovate, “knowledge” - search for and learning about innovation practices, and “persuasion and decision” - formation of an attitude, which results in a decision to adopt or reject the practice under consideration (p.20). Fundamentally, “motivation” refers to processes that induce individuals to search for innovation, while “knowledge” is the process when the decision-making unit is learning about different innovation options further mentioned as the ‘solutions search’ (Rogers, 2003, p.20). The final process of innovation adoption is referred to in this paper as ‘decision-making’ and it encapsulates formation of an attitude toward innovation and a choice to adopt it or reject (Rogers, 2003, p.20).

Rogers’s diffusion and adoption scheme is one of the most widely applied in the social sciences (de Vries, 2018). Distinguishing between different steps allows for the creation of a framework to better capture details of the process through which individuals experience the innovation adoption process (Rogers, 2003). However, scholars predominantly use it in quantitative studies, often neglecting what the micro-level dynamics, individual perceptions, and explanations of each step are (DiMaggio, 1988; Powell, 1991 in Chandler & Hwang, 2015). Consequently, the rest of the theoretical chapter will attempt to fit both, neo-institutionalism and behavioural theory of the firm, to uncover theoretical and empirical information about innovation adoption as a behavioural process, rather than a mere choice. For this reason, in the next sections, the theoretical expectations will be arranged in accordance with each step, motivation, solution search and learning about innovation practices, and decision-making.

2.3. Neo-Institutional Theory

In publications on public sector innovation adoption, one of the most widely used theories is neo-institutionalism, particularly sociological institutionalism, which is based on the classic

(14)

works of DiMaggio and Powell (1983; 1991) and Meyer and Rowan (1977) (de Vries et al., 2015). Sociological institutionalism provides the comprehensive groundwork on how social choices are shaped, mediated, and channeled by institutional arrangements (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). This stream of institutional thought, usually referred to as neo-institutionalism, came into being in the 1970s. At the time, the prevailing perspectives within the organizational theory considered actors as agentic, responding to situational circumstances, and concerned with strict notions of performance accomplishment and overly rational descriptions of technical contingency (Greenwood et al., 2008). However, some scholars could not agree on the view of individuals as solely benefit maximizers, but saw them as influenced by the institutional forces and routines (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Eventually, neo-institutional theses have quickly gained recognition in the organizational studies and dominated public sector innovation research (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Greenwood et al., 2008).

As opposed to rational perceptions, the sociological perspective presents actors and their context as co-determining and simultaneously evolving (Aspinwall & Schneider, 2000). Some of the precursors for this perspective lie in Durkheimian ideas about the overriding influence of social structure, which in an organizational context is represented by rules, norms, and ideologies of the wider society (Aspinwall & Schneider, 2000). Such socially shared meaning and structures are seen as providing a general context which alters individuals’ sense of what their best interests are and how they are supposed to behave (Aspinwall & Schneider, 2000). In other words, actors are conditioned to conform to a given socially-accepted structure (Aspinwall & Schneider, 2000). Shared adherence to legitimacy is especially crucial to understanding neo-institutional theory in organizational contexts (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). The precedence of the pursuit of legitimacy and appropriateness over the search for the most functionally-efficient response to local needs guides individuals

(15)

into patterned and field-homogeneous organizational behaviours (Greenwood et al., 2008). Moreover, institutional arrangements do not just constrain options, they establish the very criteria by which agents form their identities and discover preferences (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991, p. 11).

In their work, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) have already argued that neo-institutional theory fits well with the public sector. Even though in the research on public sector innovation the neo-institutional theory is inconsistently applied, it features in the majority of the thematic published academic works (de Vries, 2018). There are a few explanations for this preference. Public organizations with broad, unclear, and difficult to evaluate goals are particularly susceptible to the influence of institutional and social contexts, which puts them under higher pressure to seek to appear rational (Greenwood et al., 2008). Among other predictors that make public organizations more responsive to institutional pressures, are their great dependence on the national and international regulations, lower concern with efficiency due to fixed budgets, and greater reliance on academic credentials in choosing managerial personnel (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Therefore, according to the neo-institutionalism, within public organizations managers would aspire to legitimacy in the eyes of critical constituencies by incorporating and adopting practices that have become fashionable and institutionalized within the field (Greenwood et al., 2008). Securing social approval and appropriateness in a social system under institutional pressures may be contrary to the directives of efficiency and to the technical organizational core (Greenwood et al., 2008). Nevertheless, according to neo-institutionalism, such behaviours appear to be an effective survival-enhancing mechanism for organizations (Greenwood et al., 2008).

(16)

2.3.1. Motivation to innovate

The neo-institutional theses of the 1970s provide a good account for the adoption of innovative practices. Specifically, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) elaborate on the mechanisms of isomorphic change that best capture motivation to adopt innovation practices and explain subsequent organizational field formation and homogenization of institutions within it. The scholars posit normative, coercive, and mimetic types of isomorphism as the processes containing and forcing organizations in the same fields to resemble each other (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). While the above-mentioned three mechanisms are not always empirically distinct, they have different theoretical origins and conditions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Normative isomorphism explains impetus towards innovation in the public sector as being driven by the ideas and norms of professionals working within similar public organizations and professional and academic socialization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). While there are different types of professionals within a field, and even within an organization, they all usually exhibit similarity in their cognitive base acquired during studies and encourage that similarity further when they socialize in professional networks across which organizational models diffuse (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 71). Ultimately, professional education and socialization promulgates similar normative rules about organizational behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Therefore, the normative mechanism explains the motivation to adopt innovative practice as a response to these established rules and widely shared beliefs about appropriate organizational activities (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Aspiring managers in the public sector socialize with and look up to their colleagues or managers in similar organizations and adjust and align their behaviour to what seems to be appropriate or taken up by others in the network. For example, individuals that undergo academic and professional socialization to common expectations of how economic

(17)

development of a city should look, may perceive innovation practice used in a different city as normatively sanctioned and legitimated and get inspired to model it.

Mimetic isomorphism is, on the other hand, motivated by environmental changeability (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). In response to uncertainty, organizations tend to engage in mimetic behaviours, by copying viable solutions with little or no costs from model organizations. Imitating others’ behaviours also has a ‘ritual aspect’ (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). This way managers become motivated to innovate because it is thought of as a behaviour of legitimate and apparently successful organizations. DiMaggio and Powell (1991) elaborate that the ubiquity of certain adopted behaviours should rather be credited to mimetic processes than to any concrete evidence of their efficiency or need (p.66).

Finally, coercive isomorphism is a result of both formal and informal pressures by other organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 150). Managers are motivated to avoid sanctions for nonconformity to wider field directives and prescriptions, and therefore, act accordingly (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These regulations can be, for example, political decisions, which often cover broad fields of organizations, making them less flexible and heterogeneous (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Meyer and Rowan (1977) contended that rationalized and prominent organizations such as national governments, international organizations, or prominent city governments may exert their influence on managers in other public organizations as a result of what, some practices are legitimized and are seen as necessary. Ultimately, motivation to adopt innovation may be generated because the above-listed organizations issue a mandate to do that.

Overall, many diffusion and adoption studies in the neo-institutional analysis are based on higher-order structural explanations (de Vries, 2018). These explanations emphasize the influence of the organizational field pressures and embrace isomorphism to explain that individuals are motivated to innovate because of professional norms, modelling of best

(18)

practices, or explicit and implicit regulations by higher-order institutions. However, aside from motivation, two other aspects of innovation adoption are necessary to build a framework to help instantiate the associated microprocesses according to the neo-institutional theory.

2.3.2. Solution Search - learning about innovation practices

To address more specific question of how individuals search for and learn about innovation solutions more recent elaborations of neo-institutionalism are useful. Powell and Colyvas (2008) extend the existing neo-institutionalist theses with micro-level explanations and provide relevant theoretical elaborations. The scholars contend that, on the one hand, institutions are enacted by individual agents, while, on the other hand, institutional forces are still seen as framing individuals’ solutions search (Powell & Colyvas, 2008). As such, macro-institutional influence of the field, through processes of classification and categorization, creates scripts for meaning making. Eventually, individuals converge with these schemas and pre-selected practices through their actions and tools (Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p. 2-3).

Responding to posits of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) regarding modeling and replication through coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, micro-level analysis emphasizes that solutions search involves energy, effort, and reflection of individual managers (Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p. 5). Therefore, in addition to isomorphism, two other mechanisms, sensemaking and status expectations, are added to the theoretical framework. These mechanisms explain emergence of interpretive, though taken-for-granted, schemas that members of organizations draw on when they search for innovative solutions (Powell & Colyvas, 2008).

Sensemaking explains the “cognitive complexities” that guide individuals’ behaviour in response to uncertainty and limit their solution search scope to the local practices - institutionalized and normalized practices within the field (Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p. 10). Weick’s (1995) research program on sensemaking addresses conceptions of identity and

(19)

logics of action as relational, materialized through projections of self and others, and scripts of what everyone is “supposed to do” (in Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p. 10). Intuitively, searching among practices that are already institutionalized would impede the process of innovation. However, Powell and Colyvas (2008) explain that the referred practices can still be innovative and entail radical change but they have to be labeled and perceived as fit for the field. Consequently, from a sensemaking view, when managers in public sector organizations are motivated to innovate, in the first place, they reflect on their professional identities and search for appropriate practices locally, in their professional field.

In turn, status expectations explain how those local, normalized practices appear on the radar of managers. The research on expectations provides a more detailed outlook on how macro categories guide individuals’ search for innovation practices through the process in which values and beliefs from the wider society and shared cultural and professional beliefs about status are pulled down into specific circumstances (Powell & Colyvas, 2008). Then, socially recognized, higher-order organizations implement and promote certain successful and legitimized practices and make them desired by external managers even if these practices are unproductive in other circumstances (Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p.12- 13). The concept of fashion used by Sahlin and Wedlin (2008) describing the temporal and social logics of the process of practice adoption fits well in this context. Fashionable trends within the organizational field determine a range of best practices that are appropriate and desirable and guide individuals’ attention to those (p. 223). In the end, sensemaking and status expectations limit the search scope for innovation practices to the established organizational field and dominant organizational forms. Hence, the search locus of individuals in public organizations is predicted to be restricted to the field-legitimate and appropriate practices (Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p.9).

(20)

Ultimately, the above-described micro-foundations in practical reasoning delineate the solution search. Sensemaking informs us that public managers to reflect on the organizational scripts and act appropriately (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 7-11). Furthermore, status expectations provide the following insights: social meanings such as public sector appropriateness get attached to certain innovative practices within the field, which make up the search scope of public managers.

2.3.3. Decision-making

Progressively, during the decision-making process, individuals seek relevant information in order to evaluate the found practice and to make a choice to adopt or reject innovation (Rogers, 2003, p. 20). Here, it is essential for managers to learn about the innovation's advantages and disadvantages and form an attitude. According to neo-institutionalism, this process can be explained with the help of appropriateness and persuasiveness of cultural accounts rather than by the functional and efficiency-enhancing purposes of the innovation under consideration (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

More specifically, the neo-institutional theory attributes the decision-making to the logic of appropriateness, when actions are driven by legitimacy and expectations, when what's seen as appropriate is defined by the field, its formal rules and informal social norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These beliefs of practices’ appropriateness are institutionalized in the organizational field: “Legitimate practices are not called into question or examined for their efficacy or suitability” (Palmer, Biggart, & Dick, 2008, p. 741). They are widely accepted as a means of achieving desired institutional goals and so become prescriptions for how public managers should operate and how they should innovate (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Neo-institutionalists deliberate that emergence of dominant and legitimate organizational models and practices is the case of the formalization of an organizational field (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). As such, the organizational field, a network of established organizations,

(21)

further reinforces homogenization through connectedness and mutual awareness among participants.

Introduction of institutional logics guided by appropriateness enriches the neo-institutional theory and provides the grounds for understanding of decision-making on the micro-level. In line with posits of isomorphism, institutional logics have conceptualized organizational adoption decisions in terms of a “two-stage model”: first adopters seek economic benefit and later adopters act in search of legitimacy (Greenwood et. al, 2008). Accordingly, once the practice is established, later adopters often act with little or no consideration of functional and efficiency benefits of adoption but strive to be appropriate to their role. Overall, Greenwood et al. (2008) argue that because institutional logics are fundamentally cultural phenomena, the embedded rationality that guides individuals’ decisions regarding innovation is not a logic of consequences, but rather a logic of appropriateness (Haveman & Gualtieri, 2017, p. 22). Consequently, managers, embedded in the context of public sector, evaluate innovation practices based on their appropriateness to the field and to the nature of the organization they represent.

2.3.4. Conclusion

To understand how and why individuals within organizations adopt innovation practices according to neo-institutionalism, close attention should be paid to social structure and norms within the organizational field. As DiMaggio and Powell (1991) emphasize, it is important to investigate how normative, coercive, and mimetic mechanisms enable isomorphism and motivate individuals to seek innovation. Accordingly, these individuals search for solutions within the field and refer to the introduced fashionable models or institutionalized practices that contextual cues prescribe them (Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008, p. 222). When certain practices are institutionalized and regarded as good within the field, it renders their features objective and positive for the innovators, who accept them based on the logic of appropriateness

(22)

(Powell & Colyvas, 2008, p.25). Overall, such theoretical propositions imply that empirical research should pay a lot of attention to how individuals engage in innovation adoption and especially what they mean by doing it.

2.4 Behavioural Theory on the Firm

Unlike the above-discussed neo-institutional explanations, which focus on institutional forces and homogeneity, there are theories that regard human action as more central in social explanations and emphasize learning and heterogeneity. Derived from neoclassical economics, such theories view individuals as utility maximizers who are able to rank their priorities in accordance with fixed preference scales (Aspinwall & Schneider 2000, p. 10). As such, individuals’ preferences and motivations are primarily assumed to be adaptively rational, where their learning and behaviour are influenced by past experiences (Cyert & March, 1963). The behavioural theory of the firm falls under this agency-based paradigm and presents conceptualizations and tools useful to explain the decision processes regarding innovation implementation by managers.

According to the work of behavioural theorists, individuals’ decisions are a result of independent calculations, as they consider their options with respect to potential output and pay greater attention to technical and functional aspects of their work (Cyert & March, 1963). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the initial formulation of the theory first appeared in the 1963 book, A behavioural Theory of the Firm, by Cyert and March. Similarly to neo-institutionalists, behaviourists deny an unrealistically rational view of individuals with perfect knowledge (Argote & Greve, 2007). Instead, based on empirical research of decision-making in business organizations, Cyert and March (1963) propose that individuals aim at satisficing medium requirements and usually settle for "good enough" achievements in given conditions, rather than striving for ideal profit maximization. This idea of satisficing is derived from a

(23)

concept of Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality, which circumscribes individuals’ behaviour. In other words, individuals’ decision processes are subject to change depending on what they know and their means of calculation (Argote & Greve, 2007).

The workings of A behavioural Theory of the Firm have given rise to the research in evolutionary economics and organizational learning theory (Argote & Greve, 2007, p. 471). The blend of these theoretical traditions examines how routines and learning from previous personal and others’ experiences affects individual organizational behaviours. Evolutionary economics analyzes organizational change processes based on the vision of managers as routine-following agents who implement change through problemistic search (Argote & Greve, 2007, p. 341). This theory offers a good way of modelling individuals’ behaviours and capability changes in organizations. Much attention is devoted to the issue of how organizations come to develop heterogeneous sets of capabilities and sustain or modify them over time through individual decision-making. Congruent with the theoretical predictions, an organization's history and such heterogeneous capabilities are more determinative of individuals' behaviour than institutional forces (Argote & Greve, 2007, p. 341). Further, they lead to gradual learning and attempts to strategize performance.

Organizational learning theory is another direct descendant of A Behavioural Theory

of the Firm (Argote & Greve, 2007, p. 338). The learning theory has added a number of new

concepts and propositions about individuals’ learning mechanisms, which also help to explain the process of innovation adoption. In this way, the theory explains that organizational learning usually occurs as the organizational management acquires professional experience (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011, p. 1124). Managers also engage in inter-organizational learning - learning from other organizations (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011). Generally, Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) elaborate that individuals’ learning is conditioned by their experience with organizations, members, operation procedures, and decision rules.

(24)

Consequently, these conditions ensure heterogeneity of organizations even if they belong to one field. Therefore, adoption to pursue innovation is based on managers’ calculations and experience with the firm rather than external pressures.

Ultimately, the behavioural theory of the firm offers a number of useful assumptions and mechanisms for the current research on organizations and innovation adoption. The theory yields insights into individual decision-making and allows for the development of process-oriented multi-stakeholder explanatory models (Argote & Greve, 2007). Particularly, behavioural theory of the firm makes a number of theoretical advances by proposing concepts of problemistic search and learning and filtering information.

2.4.1. Motivation to innovate

Defined as one of the organizational routines, performance evaluation against aspiration levels is the key process that helps to understand why organizational managers are motivated to innovate (Argote & Greve, 2007). As the propositions about routines in Cyert and March (1963) specify, an important component of organizational behaviour is procedure following, which includes rules for performing tasks and handling information. One of such routines implies that organizational aspiration levels are habitually evaluated against the past and potential future experience of the organization by considering how other organizations operate (Cyert & March, 1963). Hence, the behavioural theory of the firm predicts that managers’ motivation to innovate occurs in response to organizational performance below the aspired-to level (Cyert & March, 1963).

Posen et al. (2018) highlight that the original theory explained the response to a performance shortfall relative to aspirations as a rather mechanistic, nearly automatic act (Lant & Montgomery, 1987). Additionally, organizations were described as pursuing a narrowly delineated and unambiguous objective to “mend performance shortfalls” with intensification of work (Greve, 2003, p. 687). Moreover, problemistic search was typically

(25)

viewed as occurring in the vicinity of current knowledge, practices, and expertise (Levinthal & March, 1993). However, recently, these views have been redefined by more cognitively grounded propositions.

The recent theoretical adaptations indicate a wide variety of organizational behaviours including strategic change and reorientation, organizational adaptation, and organizational learning through knowledge generation and transfer (Posen et al., 2018, p. 4). This current stream of research shows that individuals frequently reassess their expectations of organizational conduct and develop strategies to deliver strong performance, such as investments in new technology and innovative practices.

Additionally, it is important to elaborate on performance dimensions of aspirations, which motivate individuals to readjust their organizational practices. Performance metrics of aspirations are based on individuals and their past intra- and inter-organizational experience and forward-looking, future-oriented calculations (Posen et al., 2018, p. 16). While Cyert and March (1963) broadly conceived aspirations as goals or targets, the literature has operationalized them mostly as financial and accounting measures of profitability, or, for example, level of innovation (Greve, 2003a, 2003b; Gaba & Bhattacharya, 2012 in Posen et al., 2018, p. 17). In practice, this would mean that managers’ aspirations are not only based on past performance but also on their calculations of how their organization should perform in order to meet future challenges.

Lastly, following Cyert and March (1963), there are two experience-based sources of motivation to innovate, namely historical and social referents. One natural way for organizations to set historical aspirations is grounded in the rational expectations model: taking into account the organization’s own past performance (Posen et al., 2018, p. 18). Social aspirations use other organizations in the field as measurement standards (Posen et al., 2018, p. 17). If the performance of the organization under consideration is perceived to be

(26)

lower than the performance level of other firms in the reference group, managers are expected to recognize this performance gap as a problem, and consequently, initiate problemistic search (Posen et al., 2018, p.20). Therefore, in the field research, public managers are expected to have routine performance assessments to control for social and historical aspirations and become motivated to innovate if these do not uphold these performance standards.

2.4.2. Solution Search - learning about innovation practices

Once the motivation to innovate is there, elaborations on the solution search, render useful propositions about how individuals gain knowledge about their action options. Posen et al. (2018) go further to expand theoretical boundaries and revise the original conceptualization in two important steps: they prescribe a more central role to cognition and emphasize the process of problemistic search (Posen et al., 2018). They elaborate on two distinct search stages of problemistic search, problem definition and solution search (Posen et al., 2018). Problem definition, which precedes the solution search, is the process of diagnosing the cause of the current or potential attainment discrepancy (Posen et al., 2018). This first evaluation step helps managers to have a mental representation of the problem that guides subsequent solution search (Posen et al., 2018, p. 5). This additionally emphasizes the active and conscious processes of analysis and calculation, rather than impotence in the face of contextual forces and central institutions’ prescriptions for best practices.

In this vein, the behavioural theory highlights the dynamics of solution search and organizational learning. Greve (2003) describes problemistic search as a multi-period and alternating process during which search and behavioural change may develop in several iterations with feedback loops, rather than as a single linear event. A simple version of this learning and adaptation process is reflected in Cyert and March’s (1963) claim that individuals initially search locally and distantly for practices with good performance

(27)

indicators, yet if no solutions are found in the vicinity of the referent organizations or personal past experiences, individuals easily search further for practices in even more distant organizational fields or mix-and-match solutions. As Augier and March (2008) state, the individuals’ routines change through processes of problem search and learning and have no stable field boundaries (p. 3).

Fundamentally, organizational change, such as innovation adoption, involves a considerable amount of risk-taking and learning by doing. This has an important bearing on the understanding of how alternative solutions come to individuals’ knowledge as they engage in the search for solutions. Posen et al. (2018) explain that the behavioural consequences of a dynamic problemistic search occur when individuals learn about a problem and explore ways of fixing it by probing contexts external to their own (p. 42).

2.4.3. Decision-making

For explaining the last stage, the decision-making process, it is helpful to refer to the behavioural propositions about individual learning. These propositions further Cyert and March’s (1963) original modelling of the consequences of behavioural assumptions about organizational development. For instance, Haunschild and Miner (1997) explain how organizational managers go beyond their own organizations’ experience and engage in learning from the other organizations. This form of learning and eventual attitude formation is often referred to as knowledge transfer (Haunschild & Miner, 1997). “Outcome imitation” versions of adoption can be seen as a form of organizational knowledge transfer whereby public managers learn about potential solutions and make preferences based on their outcome (Haunschild & Miner, 1997, p. 473). During this evaluation process, individuals assess efficiency and multiple other aspects of the appealing practices and choose to adopt those that have already produced valuable economic or social returns for the source organization (Haunschild & Miner, 1997, p. 473). Additionally, individuals assess the practices’ potential

(28)

to produce good results in the context of their own organization (Haunschild & Miner, 1997). Such a selective adoption is rooted in a rational logic of consequences. Thus, adoption innovative practices is explained through managers’ knowledge of their technical attributes and potential benefits for efficiency, rather than social processes assumed under neo-institutional theory (Haunschild & Miner, 1997, p. 476).

The more recent theoretical constructs of the behavioural theory of the firm elaborate on the decision-making process and differentiate between two types of evaluation of options: online and offline. Online search refers to activities in which a decision-maker, at least partially, implements an alternative as a process of evaluating its merits, assesses performance feedback at every step, and alters the practice according to the received feedback (Posen et al., 2018, p. 28). Alternatively, managers may engage in offline search - an evaluation of activities during which a decision-maker explores alternative solutions without adopting them (Posen et al., 2018, p. 28). Instead, offline evaluation takes form as business planning or thought and modelling experiments (Posen et al., 2018). Regardless of the specific type of search, behavioural theory of the firm states that for individuals to evaluate innovation practice fit, they engage substantial cognitive capabilities to analyze internal and external information and evaluate the merits and consequences of possible innovative practices.

2.4.4 Conclusion

Overall, the current strides in the behavioural theory of the firm have refashioned the microfoundations of managerial cognition (Porac & Tschang, 2013, p. 250). Extremely bounded rationality has lost much of its plausibility as a first principle for organizational theory (Porac & Tschang, 2013, p. 250-251). Instead, the revised theses of the behavioural theory emphasize rational, agentic, and creative individual managers within organizations and recognize that decisions to adopt innovative practices often result from deliberate information

(29)

processing. First of all, individual decision-makers focus on goal variables defined by preceding and forward-looking aspirations. If performance is already or expected to be falling below the established aspiration levels, managers’ routine is to define a problem and search for solutions, which go beyond intensification of work, and involve innovation. Information about potential solutions can be acquired from own past experiences and from referent well-performing organizations within or outside the public sector. Finally, the decision to adopt one practice or another is based on calculated benefits for organizations’ effectiveness and efficiency in terms of defined aspirations.

2.5 Theoretical Model

The above theoretical review has led to the development of the following sequential causal framework (Table 1), which provides crucial expectations explaining the innovation adoption process in public sector organizations from the perspectives of neo-institutional theory and behavioural theory of the firm. The derived core concepts are arranged according to the three crucial for innovation adoption stages: motivation, solution search - learning about innovation practices, and decision-making.

For each focus stage, a set of contrasting constitutive expectations is deduced. Neo-institutionalist expectations grant importance to institutional isomorphism, field search, and logic of appropriateness. Meanwhile, the behavioural theory of the firm perspective expects managers to emphasize aspiration levels, engage in problemistic output search, and follow the logic of consequences. Ultimately, Table 1 summarizes the differing expectations and enables further congruence analysis.

(30)

Innovation adoption process

Theory Neo-institutional Theory Behavioural Theory of the Firm

Motivation to

innovate Institutional isomorphism captures the _{processes where social field structures} motivate individuals to innovate: A.1. Normative isomorphism: academic and professional socialization such as attendance of industry-specific conferences, professional exchanges and networks generates similar norms about

organizational functioning such as need to innovate among public managers. A.2. Mimetic isomorphism: When

individuals experience uncertainty, they are motivated to innovate because it is

something that successful and legitimate organizations do.

A.3. Coercive isomorphism: Individuals are motivated to innovate because there is an external pressure, such as new national or local legislation, implicit expectations by higher authority to adopt certain practices and be innovative drives motivation of public managers to innovate.

B.1. Aspiration to keep the organizational performative metrics high: Individuals have routine to evaluate performance (economic, level of innovation) of their organization against historical and social referents. Failing behind these aspiration levels motivates them to innovative.

Solution Search -

learning about

innovation practices

Field Search:

A.4. Sensemaking: Individuals reflect on their professional identity and the field norms.

A.5. Status expectations and fashion

standards: Individuals search scope is

defined by innovative practices that are regarded as socially suitable and legitimate in the public sector field.

Outcome Search/Problemistic search:

B.2. Individuals define a problem diminishing expected organizational performance.

B.3. Individuals are searching for innovative solutions based on their outcomes and ability to fix the identified problem.

B.4. The range of solutions is not delimited by the field, but rather by suitability and potential benefits. Experimenting with new solutions is expected.

Decision-making Logic of appropriateness:

A.6. Individuals base their decision to adopt an innovative practice based on its

appropriateness within the public sector field (e.g. expected organizational functions, norms).

A.7. Appropriateness is determined by professional norms, experience, and social expectations within the field.

Logic of consequences:

B.5. Individuals do an online search by partially implementing the practice and then judging whether it fits within the

organization.

B.6. Individuals may evaluate innovative practice through an offline search by theorizing potential workings of the practice and calculating its potential impact on functioning of the organization.

B.7. Individuals adopt those practices that result in positive return and fit organization. Table 1. Theoretical Model and Prediction Matrix

(31)

Chapter 3: Methodology

In this chapter, the essential components of the empirical part of the research are presented and discussed. First, the selected research design is deliberated. Further, the chapter includes an explanation of how the case selection and data collection are executed. Finally, the operationalization of the concepts is presented in a coding scheme.

3.1 Research design

A well-designed research ensures that the collected data allows for effectively addressing the research problem. Since this study aims to establish which of the divergent theoretical assumptions are more congruent with the empirical data, a congruence analysis approach has been applied. By adopting the congruence approach, this research recognizes that theories have an important function in the process of knowledge generation because they provide an anchor point for the research and structure the scientific discourse (Blatter and Haverland, 2012, p.25). Comparing two theories of organizational behaviour--neo-institutionalism and behavioural theory of the firm--in this way does not reduce them to single interdependent variables but treats them as comprehensive worldviews. Furthermore, the congruence approach allows for focusing on observations that discriminate between rival propositions by providing evidence of suitability of one theory versus the other (Blatter and Haverland, 2012).

For congruence analysis, a single case study research design is optimal. A qualitative in-depth analysis provides possibilities to study the selected case at a much higher resolution and in greater depth so that the detailed causal mechanisms and processes become apparent for the analysis (Toshkov, 2016, p. 291). Qualitative study also allows for taking in multiple observations in order to obtain a picture that is meaningful in the light of the theoretical framework (Blatter and Haverland, 2012). The obtained observations are then checked

(32)

against the theoretical propositions deduced from rival theories in order to reduce confirmation bias and establish the relative explanatory power of the two theories for the case under investigation (Blatter and Haverland, 2012, p. 174).

3.2 Case selection and description

Usually, the case study design requires cases to be selected in relation to the chosen theories and systematic (dis)similarities among the cases on independent variables (Blatter and Haverland, 2012, p. 175). However, with a congruence analysis approach, to draw a convincing conclusion based on a case, “one must go beyond the focus on variables and the corresponding variable-scoring observations that are usually aligned to the notions of ‘most likely’” (Blatter and Haverland, 2012, p. 175). Blatter and Haverland (2012) argue that the best way to approach case selection, in this instance, is to select a ‘crucial case’. A ‘crucial case’ is a case that is ‘most-likely’ with respect to one selected theory and, at the same time, ‘least-likely’ with respect to a rival theory (p. 177).

Ultimately, the research question and approach necessitate the case to take place in a public sector organization, be innovative, and crucial. Considering these guidelines, the case of innovation adoption, the Startup in Residence program, was chosen accordingly.

First, the adoption of this governance innovation takes place on a municipal level, providing a representative instance of a typical public organization in the Netherlands. In short, this program consists of applying a new model of procurement channels for addressing the city’s social, economic, and technical issues and involving innovative entrepreneurs in the municipality tenders. The city of Amsterdam implemented and first tested this practice in 2015, intending to merge the public and private sectors and position the municipality as a facilitator of a flourishing ecosystem (SCALE.CITIES, 2018). The key people implementing the project were representatives of the StartupAmsterdam program - the city’s local

(33)

public-private action program, Chief Technology Officer of Amsterdam, and managers directly from the city’s Department of Economic Affairs and Development (SCALE.CITIES, 2018).

Second, Startup in Residence, which is focused on the creation of new forms and processes for how governments can tackle societal issues, which also fits the requirements of a crucial case for this study. Such innovation in contemporary governance is focused on replacing local or national economic models and allocation of limited budgetary resources through outdated, low-risk procurement channels. Thus, it involves a substantial alteration of ordinary public sector practices (van der Wal, 2017, p. 141).

The innovativeness of the practice is versatile. First of all, the program enables collaboration between the local government and startups through devising a tool for purchasing innovative products from startups, fast-growing, risky, and unconventional solution-seekers (SCALE.CITIES, 2017). The new lean Request for Tender “Startup in Residence Tender” includes a simpler procedure for contracting, specific selection criteria for contractors, and special clauses, about a six-month mandatory in-house incubation program (City of Amsterdam, 2018).

Secondly, the incubation program is another innovative feature for the municipality workers, who, instead of a client-contractor, have to employ co-creational work, engaging with startups directly. This way, the program allows traditionally bureaucratic and protocol-oriented public servants to learn from more flexible and rapidly adapting enterprises, as well as exchange their experience and knowledge about public sector specifics (City of Amsterdam, 2017).

Finally, preliminary research on Startup in Residence reveals that the adoption of this governance innovation predicts it to be a crucial case: a most-likely case in favour the neo-institutionalism and least likely with regard to the behavioural theory of the firm. According to available publications and reports, it is stated that the motivation to implement the program

(34)

was drawn from the example of San Francisco, as predicted by the neo-institutional theory (SCALE.CITIES, 2018). Additionally, some evidence for the presence of isomorphic mechanisms can be traced. The city of Amsterdam seemed to follow global trend for applying more developed tools and practices to boost the local economic growth by supporting startups and tech companies in their innovation endeavours (Beekman & Nieuwenhuis, 2017). The senior managers responsible for the implementation were predominantly career civil servants with fixed department budgets and limited or no experience working with innovation and startups (City of Amsterdam, 2017). These preliminary findings allow to make an assumption that Startup in Residence adoption should be more congruent with the expectations of the neo-institutional rather than the behavioural theory of the firm. However, in order to make conclusions and substantially ground the case in theory, in-depth interviews are a better source for understanding the case and individuals’ motivations and considerations in decision-making processes related to innovation adoption.

3.3 Data collection

In order to obtain meaningful observations, a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews is conducted. Due to its qualities, this approach captures nuanced insights of the innovation adoption process under investigation. This data collection method provides a chance to obtain personal insights of each actor involved in the process and evaluate their thought process, their underlying subjective ideas, and their experiences. The self-generated qualitative data offers extensive comprehension of the respondents’ interpretations, motivations, evaluations and experiences of the Startup in Residence adoption process, which is the focus of this empirical research (Neuman, 2013).

Interviews are guided by the questions (Appendix 1) formulated based on the theoretical framework (Table 1). This matrix is also used later to code and analyze the data.

(35)

The interview questions are divided into three subsections devoted to each stage of the innovation adoption process in order to make interview effective and obtain detailed data required to answer the research question. The methods, such as endorsing storytelling, ‘probing’, interchanging open questions and more specific follow-up questions and letting the respondents answer these questions, are then used to collect detailed and factual information (Neuman, 2013). Besides using the aforementioned techniques, in an attempt to reduce interviewer bias and guarantee quality, all interviews are conducted in a neutral and uniform way, recorded and transcribed using time coding, and conducted with attention paid to intonation and facial expressions. Additionally, to support interviews, documentation and legislative documents are added to the analysis whenever possible (Neuman, 2013).

As for the technical aspects of data collection, to guarantee the quality of the interviews, these were recorded with a mobile phone. By recording the interviews, elements such as intonation, nuance, and meaning can be considered (Hermanowicz, 2002). The recorded interviews are also fully transcribed manually and with the help of the app.amberscript software. Additionally, anonymity and safety of the interviews was ensured with the consent form (see the template in Appendix 2).

3.4 Respondents

For this research, 8 interviews were conducted with the managerial level municipality workers. The respondents have been actively engaged in decision-making for the municipality of Amsterdam and specifically concerning the innovation adoption of the Startup in Residence program. Some of the participants have been working for the municipality for a long time, others have been hired from other government departments or the private sector specifically to assist with the adoption of the new startup program and innovative practice. Consequently, the diverse selection of interviewees presents a relevant

Confronting neo-institutionalism and behavioural theory of the firm for explaining innovation adoption: A comparative congruence analysis of Startup in Residence