do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation

Journal of Organizational Behavior

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0017271360.html,aniz.Behav.25,175–199(2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience(https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0017271360.html,).DOI:10.1002/job.237 Do personal characteristics and cultural

values that promote innovation,quality,

and ef?ciency compete or complement

each other?

ELLA MIRON,MIRIAM EREZ*AND EITAN NA VEH

Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management,Technion—Israel Institute of Technology,Haifa,

Israel

Summary This study examines whether the same personal and contextual characteristics that enhance innovation could also contribute to quality and ef?ciency.Three hundred and forty-nine engi-

neers and technicians in21units of a large R&D company participated in the https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0017271360.html,ing

CFA and HLM models,we demonstrated that people have the ability to both be creative

and pay attention to detail,and that an innovative culture does not necessarily compete with

a culture of quality and ef?ciency.Yet,to reach innovative performance creative people need

to take the initiative in promoting their ideas,with the possible corresponding price of low

performance quality.Copyright#2004John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

Introduction

To be competitive in the global market,organizations must continuously develop innovative and high-quality products and services,plus deliver them on time and at a lower cost than their competitors. Therefore,today’s employees are required to be creative,yet also conform to rules and standards, and work ef?ciently to meet time and budget constraints.Creativity is often perceived to be incongruent with conformity and attention to detail(Kirton,1976,1980,1994;Kirton&De Ciantis,1986;Levitt, 2002;Rogers,1959;Hayes&Allinson,1988,1994;Myers&Briggs,1976;Mumford&Gustafson, 1988;Schuler&Jackson,1987).Yet,these latter two characteristics would appear to be the human characteristics that ensure that employees maintain high quality standards.Hence,creativity per se may be dysfunctional to performance outcomes that require conformity and attention to detail. Furthermore,creativity is not synonymous with innovation.Rather‘Innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas by an organization’(Amabile,2000,p.332).This de?nition distin-guishes between the generation of new ideas and their implementation(West,2002).While creativity is the dominant factor,one also has to demonstrate a high level of initiative to bring ideas to the imple-mentation stage(Amabile,2000;Kanter,1988;Mumford&Gustafson,1988;Van de Ven,1986).One *Correspondence to:Miriam Erez,Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management,Technion—Israel Institute of Technology,Haifa,32000Israel.E-mail:merez@ie.technion.ac.il

176 E.MIRON ET AL.

objective of the present study was to identify the personal characteristics that in?uence innovation, quality,and ef?ciency,and to test the differential effects of these characteristics on the three perfor-mance outcomes.

Our second objective involved the organizational level,where,in parallel to the demands made on the individual level,the presence of three cultural values—innovation,attention to detail,and outcome orientation—come into play.Their existence or absence re?ects the importance given by the organi-zation to the performance outcomes of innovation,quality,and ef?ciency,respectively(O’Reilly, Chatman,&Caldwell,1991).Taking a system approach,Schuler and Jackson(1987)proposed that the human resource management strategies in organizations should support these three competitive performance outcomes.

Trade-off relationships may occur between the cultural value of innovation,which allows‘rule infringements,’and the cultural value that promotes quality,which advocates‘strict rules.’Similarly, innovation and ef?ciency may compete with each other(Quinn&Rohrbaugh,1983):‘When creativity is under the gun,it usually ends up getting killed’(Amabile,Hadley,&Kramer,2002).Therefore,the drawback of innovation may be that it competes with the importance given to the cultural values that promote quality and ef?ciency.Hence,the second objective of the present study was to test whether the cultural dimensions that promote innovation,quality,and ef?ciency compete or complement each other.

The effect of individual characteristics on performance depends on the work context.In some cases, the work context may inhibit the impact of individual characteristics,whereas in others it facilitates their effect on behavior(Schneider,1975;Michel,1977).The Fit Model(Schneider,1975,2001)pro-poses that individuals actualize their potential when the organizational culture is congruent with their own work values,interests,and capabilities.For example,a culture that promotes innovation is one that allows the most creative employees to manifest their creativity in their performance.According to the Fit Model,innovative performance is the product of both cultural and personal characteristics that nurture innovation(Scott&Bruce,1994).Similarly,performance quality is the product of individual characteristics congruent with a quality-oriented culture,and ef?ciency is the product of an outcome-oriented culture combined with individual characteristics that affect ef?ciency.However,lack of con-gruence between creative people and their work context may inhibit their innovative performance. Furthermore,in contexts that emphasize quality and ef?ciency,creativity may be detrimental to the attainment of these performance outcomes because quality requires rule adherence,rather than rule breaking,and ef?ciency requires keeping to time and budget constraints rather than spending time and resources on trying out new ideas(Holly&Gryskiewicz,1993;Oldham&Cummings,1996; Levitt,2002;Kirton,1976).

The third objective of this study was to test for the effect of the person by situation?t on perfor-mance outcomes.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Personal characteristics and performance outcomes

Creativity is the personal characteristic that is most clearly associated with innovation.Creativity is de?ned as the production of novel ideas that are useful and appropriate to a given situation(Amabile, 1983).A large body of literature has focused on identifying the personal characteristics,cognitive styles,and other attributes associated with creative achievement(see Scott&Bruce,1994;Amabile,

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES177 1983,1996,2000;Woodman,Sawyer,&Grif?n,1993;Kirton,1976;Oldham&Cummings,1996; Tierney,Farmer,&Graen,1999).

Cognitive styles are recognized as core characteristics of employee creativity(Kirton,1976;Scott& Bruce,1994;Tierney et al.,1999;Amabile,1988;Woodman et al.,1993).‘Cognitive style is a person’s preferred way of gathering,processing,and evaluating information.It in?uences how people scan their environment for information,how they organize and interpret this information,and how they integrate their interpretations into the mental model and subjective theories that guide their actions’(Hayes& Allinson,1998,p.850).

Using the cognitive style approach,Kirton(1976)developed the Kirton Adaptor–Innovator Inven-tory(KAI theory),which proposes that individuals can be located on a continuum ranging from Adap-tation style to Innovation style.Adaptors are characterized as precautious,reliable,ef?cient, methodological,disciplined,and conforming.They reduce problems by introducing improvements that increase ef?ciency and maintain maximal continuity and stability.In addition,these individuals are able to maintain a high level of accuracy in detailed work over a prolonged period of time.On the other hand,innovators do things‘differently,’and they prefer breakthroughs to improvement.Innova-tors are very original but seem to be undisciplined,impractical,unsteady,and incapable of adhering to detailed work.The differences between innovators and adaptors have often been assessed by three per-sonal characteristics:originality and idea creation;conformity to rules and group norms;and ef?-ciency,which is about paying attention to detail,and thoroughness(Kirton,1976;Janssen,DeVries, &Conzijnsen,1998).The ef?ciency construct as measured by the KAI scale(Kirton,1976)consists of ?ve items that re?ect attention to detail(i.e.,‘is thorough,masters all details painstakingly,enjoys detailed work’).Therefore we labeled this factor as‘attention-to-detail.’

The research literature is inconclusive with respect to the relationships between these three charac-teristics.Exploratory factor analyses conducted by numerous researchers revealed a three-factor struc-ture(Bobic,Davis,&Cunningham,1999;Foxall&Hackett,1992;Kirton&De Ciantis,1986;Taylor, 1989).Yet,Kirton(1976)aggregated these three factors into one continuum with two poles.Other researchers used Kirton’s one continuous scale(KAI)in their studies(Buttner&Gryskiewicz, 1993;Chan,1996;Janssen,DeVeris,&Cozijsen,1998;Tierney et al.,1999).However,some research-ers argued that the summation of the three scores into one global score has had the effect of masking potentially important differences in terms of the underlying characteristics and,therefore,they have treated them as three independent factors(Jabri,1991;Taylor,1989).The distinction between the three characteristics is also relevant for testing their differential effects on various performance outcomes. Aggregating them into one score would mask their differential effects.

In line with the research literature we hypothesize:

Hypothesis1:Creativity,conformity,and attention-to-detail are distinct yet interrelated dimensions of cognitive style(a three-factor model will have a better?t to the data than a one-factor model consisting of all three variables).

In order to con?rm Hypothesis1we propose to compare a one-factor model to a three-factor model using con?rmatory factor analysis.

Personal characteristics and innovative performance

Creativity is a necessary precursor for innovation(Amabile,1983,2000).It pertains to the generation of new and valued ideas that often re?ect a broad shift in perspective and reorientation of existing practices.Implementation of these ideas requires major changes in organizational structures or pro-cesses(Damanpour,1991;Kirton,1976;Chan,1996;Foxall&Hackett,1992;Scott&Bruce,

178 E.MIRON ET AL.

1994;West,2002).The combination of creativity and its implementation leads to innovation.The implementation of a new idea often implies taking the initiative to execute the idea(Amabile,2000; Kanter,1988;Mumford&Gustafson,1988;Van de Ven,1986).Creative people have many ideas but sometimes have little business-like follow-through,and no initiative to make the right kind of effort to help their ideas get heard and tried(Levitt,2002).‘Personal initiative is a behavior syndrome result-ing in an individual’s taking an active and self-starting approach to work and going beyond what is for-mally required in a given job’(Frese,Kring,Soose,&Zemple,1996,p.38).Implementing new ideas may often encounter obstacles and resistance from others.However,initiative means that one deals with these obstacles actively and persistently(Frese,Fay,Hilburger,Leng,&Tag,1997).Therefore,creativ-ity by itself may be a necessary,but not suf?cient,condition for innovation.

We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis2:The effect of creativity on innovative performance is moderated by initiative:Highly creative people will reach high levels of innovative performance when they score high rather than low on initiative.

Personal characteristics and performance quality

Creativity and initiative enhance innovation,but it is not clear whether they affect performance quality. While innovation is about breaking the rules and pushing the envelope,quality requires adherence to rules or standards.Products and services that are the outcome of high-level quality performance are reliable,stable,exhibit minimal variation,have no defects,and completely meet their respective stan-dards and speci?cations(Cole,1999;Brunsson,Jacobsson,&Associates,2000).Meeting speci?ca-tions requires thoroughness and addressing all the little details(Cole,1999;Kirton,1976).Reliable and standardized production with minimal variation can be achieved only when employees conform and adhere to the existing rules.However,a quality-focused environment is not favorable to all employees,as people differ in their preference for paying attention-to-detail,and complying with rules (Chan,1996;Kirton,1994).We hypothesize:

Hypothesis3:Employees who score high on attention-to-detail and conformity will reach higher quality performance levels than those who score low on these characteristics.

Personal characteristics and ef?ciency

Ef?ciency is the third performance dimension that is crucial for the success of organizations.Ef?-ciency is often assessed by performance criteria of keeping work on schedule and within budget (Pritchard,Jones,Roth,Stuebing,&Ekeberg,1988).It is best predicted by conscientiousness—one of‘the big?ve’factors(Barrick&Mount,1991).Conscientious employees are typically competent, dutiful,self-disciplined,and achievement striving(Costa&McCrae,1992).The dominant character-istic of work-related conscientiousness is the will to achieve(Judge,Martocchio,&Thoresen,1997). While conscientiousness seems to also be relevant to performance quality,it has mostly been asso-ciated with productivity,measured by quantity and speed(Barrick&Mount,1991).Highly conscien-tious employees who reach high productivity levels must be attuned to deadlines and budget constraints.Therefore,we hypothesize:

Hypothesis4:The work performance of highly conscientious employees will be more ef?cient than that of employees with low conscientiousness.

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES179 Organizational culture

Organizational culture is a set of beliefs and values shared by members of the same organization, which in?uence their behaviors(Schein,1996,1999;O’Reilly et al.,1991).This culture re?ects a common way of thinking,which drives a common way of developing,manufacturing,and marketing a product.The culture is about sustainability.‘A company can design a great product,build it?aw-lessly,market it inventively,and deliver it to the market quickly.But to do that year after year is a function of culture’(Goffee&Gareth,1998,p.19).Designing a great product and marketing it inven-tively is the mark of an innovative culture;producing it?awlessly will be accomplished by a quality-oriented culture that emphasizes adherence to rules and attention-to-detail;fast delivery of the product to the market becomes possible when the cultural values endorse a strong outcome https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0017271360.html,a-nizational culture contributes to the competitive advantage of companies because it cannot be easily copied(Barney,1988).

The organizational culture’s strength depends on the level of homogeneity in members’perceptions and beliefs,or on the degree of variability in employees’perceptions of the organizational values and endorsed practices.A recent study demonstrated that consensus about the service climate moderated the relationships between employees’rating of service climate and customers’perceptions of the qual-ity of service.Strong relationships were found in more homogeneous cultures(Schneider,Salvaggio, &Subirats,2002).

The dimensions for assessing values and behavioral norms vary across studies.Nevertheless,the cultural values of innovation,quality performance,risk-taking,and perfectionism repeatedly appear as measures of organizational culture(Rousseau,1990;O’Reilly et al.,1991).

The cultural value of innovation

Extensive research has recently been conducted on the culture of innovation.Dimensions such as high autonomy,risk-taking,tolerance of mistakes,and low bureaucracy were found to be the most prevalent characteristics of a culture of innovation(Brown&Eisenhardt,1998;O’Reilly et al.,1991;Scott& Bruce,1994;van de Ven,Polley,Garud,&Venkataraman,1999).Innovation can be both incremental and transformational(Weick,2000);it can relate to administrative or technological issues and to both core and peripheral acts(Damanpour,1991).An innovative culture re?ects a learning orientation (Amabile,1996;Glynn,1996)that facilitates inventiveness(Cohen&Levinthal,1990)combined with the pursuit of new and prospective knowledge(Levinthal&March,1993).Innovative performance outcomes are more likely to occur when innovative behavior is rewarded,and when the organizational culture supports innovation(West,2002).

Quality-oriented culture

Emphasis on the quality of products and services has increased with the establishment of the ISO9000 quality standard(1987).The major requirements of ISO9000are that organizations develop and implement a set of routines and procedures for product design,manufacturing,delivery,service, and support.Standardization assures that all customers get the same product or service as promised (Cole,1999;Brunsson,Jacobsson&Associates,2000).A culture that supports quality implementation is one that emphasizes standardization,reliability,conformity to rules and procedures,and attention-to-detail(Detert,Schroeder,&Mauriel,2000;Garvin,1988;Prahalad&Krishnan,1999).

Ef?ciency focused culture

Organizational ef?ciency is often measured by meeting budget and time constraints.A culture that emphasizes ef?ciency and productivity is outcome-oriented(O’Reilly et al.,1991),stressing goals,feedback,and incentives(Pritchard et al.,1988).This organizational culture emphasizes the

180 E.MIRON ET AL.

importance of getting things done,on-time delivery of products and services,and maintaining a pace faster than that of competitors,while simultaneously controlling operation costs(Amabile,Hadley,& Kramer,2002;Lewis,Welsh,Dehler,&Green,2002).

The interrelationship among the cultural dimensions that support

innovation,quality,and ef?ciency

The literature is inconsistent regarding the relationships between the three cultural dimensions that pro-mote innovation,quality,and ef?ciency.One approach identi?es a trade-off between a culture empha-sizing innovation,and one emphasizing attention-to-detail.For example,Quinn and Rohrbaugh(1983) and Douglas and Judge(2001)de?ned the relationship as one of polarity between two extremes:auton-omy,which leads to innovation,and control,which emphasizes attention-to-detail and procedures.Inno-vation has also been found to compete with ef?ciency(Amabile et al.,2002;Quinn&Rohrbaugh,1983). However,in certain conditions time pressures can spur innovation(Amabile et al.,2002).

A second approach viewed these cultural values as three independent dimensions.In a factor ana-lysis of eight dimensions of organizational culture,innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orien-tation appeared as three independent factors(O’Reilly et al.,1991).

A third approach emphasizes the need to balance the preservation of existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge.According to this approach,the survival of organizations in a competitive environment depends on their exploitation of existing knowledge—that is,the existing rules,routines, and standards,and on exploration,which is the creation of innovative knowledge(Cohen&Levinthal, 1990;Levinthal&March,1993).According to the balanced approach the central dilemma of current businesses is how to achieve adaptive innovation and consistent execution.This dilemma can be resolved by balancing the strictness vital for meeting budgets and schedules with a?exibility that ensures proper conditions for innovation(Argote,1999;Brown&Eisenhardt,1997,1998).

The trade-off approach evolved in a context of quality performance and error prevention(Douglas& Judge,2001),whereas the latter two approaches were developed in a context where innovative perfor-mance serves as a vehicle for sustainable organizational competitiveness.We contend that all three cultural characteristics are needed in order to gain a competitive advantage(Brown&Eisenhardt, 1997;Schuler&Jackson,1987).We hypothesize:

Hypothesis5:The cultural characteristics of innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orienta-tion are distinct yet interrelated dimensions of organizational culture(a three-factor model will have

a better?t to the data than a one-factor model consisting of all three variables).

The person–culture?t

The proposition that‘the people make the place’(Schneider,1987)implies that people with particular personal attributes are attracted to organizations that match their characteristics.The Person–Environ-ment Fit Theory derives from two basic assumptions(Van Vianen,2000):(a)that human behavior is a function of the person and the environment;and(b)that the person and the environment need to be compatible(Kristof,1996).Numerous studies have demonstrated that high congruence between per-sons and situations results in high satisfaction,commitment,and psychological well-being(Chatman, 1991;Taris&Feij,2001;Holton,Lee,&Tidd,2002),as well as in low turnover and low stress (Chatman,1991;O’Reilly et al.,1991;Tranberg,Slane,&Ekeberg,1993;Van Vianen,2000).People with certain personality pro?les were attracted to certain organizational types more than to others (Lievens,Decaesteker,Coetsier,&Geirnaert,2001;Schneider,Smith,Taylor,&Fleenor,1998).It was also found that an innovative culture moderated the relationship between creativity and

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES181 performance(Amabile,2000;Schneider,1975).A study that investigated the?t between cognitive styles of engineers in R&D and work context demands for adaptive and innovative style demonstrated that lack of?t between cognitive styles and contextual demands was signi?cantly related to turnover (Chan,1996).

The?t model suggests that creative people may not reach high levels of innovation when the cultural context does not champion it.The research suggests that creative people would rather have someone else work out the details and implement their ideas(Levitt,2002).Thus,idea creation without action orientation may not result in high performance.

In the present study,we are particularly interested in the personal characteristics that in?uence per-formance innovation,quality,and ef?ciency,and the way they interact with the respective cultural values of innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orientation,to impact on performance out-comes.Therefore,we hypothesize:

Hypothesis6:Organizational cultural values will moderate the effects of personal characteristics on performance:We expect the highest performance levels when the personal characteristics comple-ment the organizational cultural values and related performance outcomes.

Hypothesis6.1:Creativity and initiative,and their interaction,will lead to the highest level of inno-vative performance in a culture of high innovation.

Hypothesis6.2:Conformity and attention-to-detail will lead to the highest level of performance quality in a culture that emphasizes attention-to-detail.

Hypothesis6.3:Conscientiousness will lead to the highest level of ef?cient performance in a culture that emphasizes outcome orientation.

Organizational Context

The Company

This study was conducted in a large R&D organization(n?5000)that develops but also manufac-tures advanced technologies in the?elds of microelectronics,communications,acoustics,and,elec-tromagnetics.Its R&D focuses on state-of the art solutions to meet the most challenging demands by combining interdisciplinary knowledge and technologies into sophisticated and complex sys-tems.It has a highly advanced R&D center.The organization has been a major pioneer in its?eld, advancing new ideas and technologies for more than30years with remarkable success.Its annual sales are about$700million,in more than30countries.Through earlier talks with several managers in this organization,who collaborated with us on previous research,the subject of innovation was identi?ed as an important research topic,and shaped the research proposal on innovation,quality, and ef?ciency,which we submitted to the organization.Managers on all organizational levels were highly cooperative,shared their knowledge and insight about the issue,and contributed a lot to the shaping of the measures,and the data collection.The CEO of this organization is highly interested in how to promote innovation in the organization,and he gave his support to the study.At the end of the study we prepared a research report to the company,including recommendations on how to advance innovation,while at the same time maintaining the company’s high standards of quality

182 E.MIRON ET AL.

and ef?ciency.We also prepared PowerPoint presentations and had several meetings in which we presented the outcomes of our research to middle and high-level mangers.

Time

The data was collected during the third quarter of2002.Although this was a period of recession in the high-tech sector,this company was not affected by it.

Method

Sample

Participants were349engineers and technicians in21units of the R&D and Engineering Division of a large R&D company(n?5000)that develops sophisticated electronic equipment.Unit size ranged between seven and29employees.The21units differed in the core engineering expertise needed for the technology executed within them,such as computer engineering,physics,and mechanical engi-neering.Seventy-nine per cent of the participants were men,the average age was39years,and the average length of employment with the organization(hereafter called tenure)was11years. Measures

Demographic variables

We assessed age,gender,tenure,and education as control variables.

Personal characteristics

A12-item questionnaire(see Appendix1),based on Kirton(1976),assessed creativity,attention-to-detail,and conformity to group and rules,using a7-point Likert-type scale ranging from1‘strongly disagree’to7‘strongly agree.’In addition,a questionnaire consisting of eight items assessed initiative (Frese et al.,1997),and two sub-dimensions of conscientiousness(NEO PI-R scale;Costa&McCrae, 1992),using a7-point Likert scale ranging from1‘strongly disagree’to7‘strongly agree.’The fol-lowing items assessed initiative:‘I am determined to ful?ll my ideas;’‘I initiate ways to actualize new ideas;’‘I am known as a fanatical devotee;’‘I am able to take an idea and turn it in to a project.’The Cronbach’s alpha coef?cient was0.81.

Out of six sub-dimensions of the conscientiousness construct we chose the two sub-dimensions of self-discipline and achievement striving,which are the most relevant for predicting ef?cient perfor-mance:‘I try to excel in everything I do;’‘I determine my pace of work in order to accomplish the tasks on time;’‘I work hard to ful?ll my objectives;’‘I am self-disciplined.’The Cronbach’s alpha coef?cient was0.74.

Organizational culture

A questionnaire consisting of13items(based on O’Reilly et al.,1991)assessed the cultural values of innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orientation,based on existing scales in the literature, using a7-point Likert-type scale ranging from1‘strongly disagree’to7‘strongly agree’.

The following are examples of items that assessed the three cultural values:Innovation—‘In my unit we look for new and fresh ways to deal with problems;’‘I am not afraid to take technical risks;’

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES183

‘New ideas are not suppressed,even in stages in which their value is unclear.’Attention-to-detail—‘Generate error-free work speci?cations;’‘Work is properly inspected before completion.’Outcome orientation—‘Schedules are met;’‘Budget constraints are met.’

Individual performance

A performance appraisal questionnaire consisting of15items assessed individual performance in terms of innovation,quality,and ef?ciency,using a7-point Likert-type scale ranging from1‘strongly disagree’to7‘strongly agree.’The questionnaire consisted of three subscales corresponding to inno-vation,quality,and ef?cient performance.The following are examples of items used:Innovation—‘Innovative in research and development;’‘Finds unusual solutions;’‘Implements new ideas.’Qual-ity—‘Thorough in work;’‘Adheres to rules;’‘Does not cut corners.’Ef?ciency—‘Attends to matters of ef?ciency and saving;’‘Keeps planned schedule.’

Procedure

First,we conducted20unstructured interviews,with20employees and managers,to learn about their perceptions of innovation,quality,and ef?ciency in their units.The interviews served for validating that the questionnaire we developed was meaningful in their context.The questionnaire assessed both personal and organizational characteristics.Upon completion of the questionnaire development we administered it to a small group of eight employees to verify the clarity of the items.

Employees from each unit?lled out the questionnaire at their weekly unit meeting,rendering a response rate of almost100per cent among those who participated in the meeting and approximately 85per cent of the total number of employees.Next,we asked the unit managers to?ll out performance appraisal questionnaires for each one of the participants.Seventeen of the21unit managers responded. The other four managers felt uncomfortable disclosing the evaluations,citing respect of employee privacy as their reason.

Data analysis

To test Hypotheses1and5we used con?rmatory factor analyses.For Hypothesis1,con?rmatory fac-tor analysis using structural equation modeling served to test our proposed structure of distinct yet interrelated dimensions of creativity,conformity,and attention-to-detail,as opposed to one continuum. Con?rmatory factor analysis tests the?t of the model to the data.First,we tested the three-factor model,allowing the three attributes to covary.Then,we compared this model to a nested alternative of one factor by setting a covariation between the three variables equal to one,representing one con-tinuum(Bentler,1995;Lewis,Welsh,Dehler,&Green,2002).To test Hypotheses2,3,4,6.1,6.2,and 6.3,we implemented Hierarchical Linear Models(HLM)that take into consideration the nested struc-ture of individuals within organizational units(Bryk&Raudenbush,1992;Hofman,1997;Kidwell, Mossholder,&Bennett,1997).These models(presented in Table2)explain the effects of the indivi-dual characteristics on performance while taking into account the random effect of the unit to which the individual belongs.A signi?cant unit effect means that differences between units affect individual performance.Variables such as potential differences between supervisors in performance evaluation, unit technology,and unit size are controlled by the random unit factor.

Our multi-level models consisted of data from both the individual and unit levels.Personal charac-teristics and measures of performance appraisal were assessed at the individual level;cultural values were assessed at the individual level with respect to unit culture,and were aggregated to the unit level

184 E.MIRON ET AL.

by calculating for each unit the mean scores of the three cultural values(innovation,attention-to-detail, and outcome orientation).We tested for the homogeneity of responses at the unit level by calculating the Rwg coef?cients of homogeneity in each unit,for each one of the three cultural values.The coef?-cients of homogeneity ranged from0.77to0.97using the null-uniform distribution.This justi?ed our aggregation to the unit level.We assigned to each individual his/her unit scores on the cultural values. The analyses were conducted at the individual level,and tested for the effects of individual character-istics and cultural values on individual https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0017271360.html,ing HLM allowed us to take into consideration the unit-level effects.

Results

The factor structure of personal characteristics

Con?rmatory factor analysis served for constructing the factor structure of creativity,attention-to-detail,and conformity,and yielded an acceptable?t level( 2?250.41,d.f.?59,goodness-of-?t index (GFI)?0.89,comparative?t index(CFI)?0.87,root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)?0.09).Bollen(1989,p.274)suggested that?t indices as low as0.85are considered to be‘reasonable’for models opening new directions in a substantive?eld.Item loadings were signi?cant (p<0.01).(See items and factor loadings in Appendix1.)To compare between Kirton’s one-factor model and our three distinct factors model(Hypothesis1),we compared our model to a nested alter-native of one factor.We developed a nested model by setting a covariation between the three variables that equaled one,representing one continuum(Lewis et al.,2002).This one-factor model yielded a poor?t( 2?780.09,d.f.?54,GFI?0.70,CFI?0.50,RMSEA?0.19).A chi-squared difference test showed that the?t of the nested model was signi?cantly worse than that of our three-factor model (á 2?529.68,d.f.?2,p<0.001).Thus,our?ndings provide evidence that the cognitive styles of creativity,attention-to-detail,and conformity are three distinct factors,as opposed to one continuum. Factor covariation was signi?cant between attention-to-detail and creativity(0.32),and between atten-tion-to-detail and conformity(0.42);however,the covariation between creativity and conformity was not signi?cant(0.03).Thus these?ndings support Hypothesis1that the three personal characteristics are distinct yet interrelated dimensions.

The factor structure of the cultural values

Con?rmatory factor analysis,which served for constructing the factor structure of the three cultural dimensions of innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orientation,yielded an acceptable?t level ( 2?241.55,d.f.?70,GFI?0.90,CFI?0.90,RMSEA?0.08).To test Hypothesis5we compared the three-factor model to both a one-factor and two-factor models.In the two-factor model innovation served as one factor and attention-to-detail and outcome orientation were aggregated to one factor as they had the highest correlation(Lewis et al.,2002).We?rst developed a nested one-factor model by setting a covariation between the three variables that equaled one,representing one continuum(Lewis et al.,2002).This one-factor model yielded a poor?t( 2?708.12,d.f.?65,GFI?0.71,CFI?0.62, RMSEA?0.17).In addition the two-factor model yielded a lower?t than that of the three-factor model.Chi-squared difference tests showed that the?t of the one-factor and the two-factor models was signi?cantly lower than that of the three-factor model(á 2?466.57,d.f.?2,p<0.001,á 2?466.57,d.f.?2,p<0.001respectively).Item loadings were signi?cant(p<0.05).

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES185 Factor covariation was signi?cant between attention-to-detail and innovation(0.39),between atten-tion-to-detail and outcome orientation(0.60),and between outcome orientation and innovation(0.37). Thus,in line with Hypothesis5,our?ndings provided evidence that the cultural characteristics of inno-vation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orientation are three distinct,yet related factors.

Descriptive statistics

The means,standard deviations,and intercorrelations among the research variables are summarized in Table1.The range of responses was high,covering the full range of the Likert scale(1to7).

The intercorrelations in Table1demonstrated that the correlation between creativity and initiative was quite high(0.62).Yet,it did not reach the level of0.8–0.9where a multicollinearity problem elim-inates testing for interactions(Kennedy,1984,p.131).

The effects of personal characteristics,and their interactions with the

cultural dimensions on performance outcomes

Innovative performance

Hypothesis2tested the main effects of personal characteristics and creativity by initiative interaction on innovative performance.In addition,Hypothesis6.1tested for the interaction effect of personal characteristics and innovative culture on innovative performance.These effects were tested by Model1(see Table2),which consisted of the following variables:demographics,unit level,personal characteristics,cultural values,and the interactions that were hypothesized.The demographics and unit levels served as control variables.Unit level had a marginally signi?cant effect(p<0.10),and gender exerted signi?cant in?uence(p<0.05),with men being more innovative than women.In line with Hypotheses2and6.1,we found that there were signi?cant interaction effects between creativity and initiative,and between creativity and innovative culture.Employees who scored high on both crea-tivity and initiative obtained the highest scores of innovative performance.In contrast,creative employees with low initiative obtained lower scores of innovative performance,similar to non-creative employees(see Figure1).The interaction between creativity and innovative culture demonstrated (Figure2(a))that creative employees who worked in an innovative culture reached higher levels of innovative performance than creative employees in a low innovative culture.We note that there was a positive correlation between creativity and innovative performance(see Table1).Nevertheless,in Model1,in the presence of the two interaction effects of creativity with initiative and with innovative culture,the effect sign of creativity as such was negative.This effect should not be interpreted by itself because it corrects for the high impact of the interaction effect.Hence,creativity should be interpreted as part of the interactions(Hosmer&Lemeshow,2000).

In addition,there was a signi?cant interaction effect between initiative and innovative culture show-ing(Figure2(b))that initiative mattered when culture did not support innovation.In that case only those with high initiative reached high levels of innovative performance.In a highly innovative culture, employees with high and low levels of initiative reached the same level of innovative performance. Given the two signi?cant interactions of creativity by innovative culture,and initiative by innovative culture,the three-way interaction of creativity by initiative by innovative culture did not have an addi-tional signi?cant effect.

There were no other signi?cant effects on innovation.

T a b l e 1.M e a n ,s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ,a n d c o r r e l a t i o n a m o n g t h e v a r i a b l e s

M e a n

S D 1234567891011121314

1.G e n d e r 1.200.40

2.A g e 38.7711.18à0.07

3.E d u c a t i o n 3.121.000.070.01

4.T e n u r e 10.8110.48à0.090.80***à0.15**

P e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 5.C o n f o r m i t y 5.030.89à0.01à0.06à0.28**à0.036.A t t e n t i o n -t o -d e t a i l 5.590.780.000.18**à0.18**0.16**0.38**7.C r e a t i v i t y 5.380.97à0.27**0.04à0.02à0.020.070.28**8.C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 5.80.800.03à0.09à0.19**à0.070.43**0.48**0.31**9.I n i t i a t i v e 4.811à0.18*à0.02

à0.05à0.020.080.31**0.62**

0.43**

C u l t u r e 10.I n n o v a t i o n 4.720.91à0.01à0.10

0.04

à0.15**0.050.03à0.010.020.03

11.A t t e n t i o n -t o -d e t a i l 5.220.81à0.030.04à0.050.070.090.090.040.100.020.25**12.O u t c o m e o r i e n t a t i o n 4.980.92à0.04

à0.08

à0.05

à0.05

0.08

0.040.13*0.10

0.14*

0.36**0.47**

P e r f o r m a n c e 13.I n n o v a t i o n 4.521.28à0.26**0.100.070.12à0.21**à0.120.22**à0.060.23**0.060.020.16*14.Q u a l i t y 5.420.96à0.050.070.000.110.040.15*à0.040.100.060.040.020.040.39**15.E f ?c i e n c y 5.070.98

à0.05à0.08

à0.130.03

0.000.04

à0.020.20**

0.13

0.060.040.070.52**0.59**

*C o r r e l a t i o n i s s i g n i ?c a n t a t t h e 0.05l e v e l (2-t a i l e d ).**C o r r e l a t i o n i s s i g n i ?c a n t a t t h e 0.01l e v e l (2-t a i l e d ).

F o r g e n d e r :1?m a l e ,2?f e m a l e .F o r e d u c a t i o n :1?h i g h s c h o o l ;2?t e c h n i c i a n ;3?B .A .;4?M .A .;5?P h D .

186 E.MIRON ET AL.

Performance quality

Hypotheses 3and 6.2tested the main effects of the personal characteristics of conformity and atten-tion-to-detail on performance quality ,and their interaction effects with the cultural dimension of atten-tion-to-detail.The results,as presented in Model 2,Table 2,partially supported our hypothesis,demonstrating a signi?cant and positive effect of conformity on quality performance,and a positive effect of the cultural value of attention-to-detail on quality performance.Furthermore,there was a

Table 2.Result of hierarchical model testing the effect of personal characteristics and culture on performance of innovation,quality and ef?ciency

Innovation Quality Ef?ciency Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

N

204

204

204

Estimate (SE)Estimate (SE)Estimate (SE)Unit 0.28(0.16)y 0.32(0.16)*0.05(0.14)Intercept 12.00(6.00)à12.21(9.17)à0.51(17.01)Age 0.00(0.01)0.00(0.01)à0.04(0.02)y Gender à0.44(0.21)*à0.08(0.16)*0.15(0.34)Education 0.15(0.09)0.09(0.07)à0.08(0.14)Tenure 0.00(0.01)à0.00(0.01)0.03(0.02)Conformity

à0.17(0.11) 3.16(1.52)*0.15(0.17)Attention-to-detail à0.18(0.12)à0.23(1.43)à0.47(0.20)*Creativity

à3.78(1.20)**à0.18(0.09)**à0.11(0.18)Conscientiousness à0.13(0.13)0.04(0.09)0.80(2.87)Initiative

1.38(1.18)0.14(0.09)0.38(0.20)y Culture—innovation

à0.89(1.11)0.04(0.40)0.57(0.37)Culture—attention-to-detail 0.18(0.61) 2.92(1.74)y 6.80(3.47)y Culture—outcome orientation 0.45(0.49)0.20(0.48)

à6.60(3.03)*

Creativity ?initiative

0.23(0.07)***Culture—innovation ?creativity 0.59(0.24)*Culture—innovation ?initiative

à0.51(0.24)*

Culture—attention-to-detail ?personal attention-to-detail 0.06(0.27)Culture—attention-to-detail ?conformity

à0.59(0.28)*

Culture—outcome orientation ?conscientiousness 1.22(0.52)*Culture—attention-to-detail ?conscientiousness

à1.26(0.59)*

y

p <0.1;*p <0.05;**p <0.01;***p <

0.001.

Figure 1.Interaction between creativity and initiative

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES 187

signi?cant interaction effect between conformity and the cultural value of attention-to-detail (Figure 3).In a high attention-to-detail culture there were no clear differences between high and low conformists.Yet,in a low attention-to-detail culture high conformists obtained signi?cantly higher quality scores than low conformists.It seems that some structure,as conveyed by the cultural value of high attention-to-detail,is needed to enable low conformists to obtain high quality

performance.

Figure 2.(a)Interaction between creativity and culture of innovation (b)Interaction between initiative and culture

of

innovation

Figure 3.Interaction between conformity and culture of attention-to-detail

188 E.MIRON ET AL.

In contrast to our hypothesis,the cognitive style of attention-to-detail by itself did not affect perfor-mance quality.Creativity had a signi?cantly negative effect on quality performance.There was a sig-ni?cant unit effect on performance quality,but no other signi?cant main or interaction effects.Performance ef?ciency

Hypothesis 4tested the main effect of conscientiousness on performance ef?ciency,and Hypothesis 6.3tested for the interaction between conscientiousness and an outcome-oriented culture.As expected,there was a signi?cant interaction effect of conscientiousness with outcome-oriented culture on ef?-ciency (Figure 4(a)).The most ef?cient employees were those who scored high on conscientiousness and worked in a culture emphasizing outcome orientation.Yet,in Model 3,in the presence of the two interaction effects of conscientiousness with outcome orientation,and with attention-to-detail,the effect sign of an outcome-oriented culture as such was negative.This impact need not be interpreted by itself,but rather,it should be interpreted as part of the interaction effect (Hosmer &Lemeshow,2000).

In addition,there was a second signi?cant interaction that was not expected,between conscientious-ness and the cultural value of attention-to-detail (Figure 4(b)).In a culture of low

attention-to-detail,

Figure 4.(a)Interaction between conscientiousness and culture of outcome orientation (b)Interaction between

conscientiousness and culture of attention-to-detail PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES 189

190 E.MIRON ET AL.

there were signi?cant differences in the ef?ciency levels of high versus low conscientious employees, with the latter achieving lower ef?ciency levels.In a culture of high attention-to-detail,conscientious-ness did not differentiate between low and high ef?ciency.Again,in a weak situation(low attention-to-detail),unlike a strong situation,personal characteristics manifested themselves in performance.There were no other signi?cant interactions.

Unlike Hypothesis4conscientiousness by itself did not signi?cantly impact on ef?ciency in the pre-sence of its two signi?cant interactions with the cultural dimensions of outcome,orientation and atten-tion-to-detail.Although we did not expect any additional effects,we found that initiative had a positive effect,and personal attention-to-detail had a negative effect on ef?ciency.Of the demographic vari-ables,age had a signi?cant negative effect on ef?ciency,with young employees being more ef?cient than older ones.

The organizational unit

The organizational unit exhibited signi?cant effects in the models that explained innovation(Model1) and quality(Model2)performance(p<0.10,and0.05respectively).This means that performance scores were affected not only by personal and cultural characteristics,but also by speci?c character-istics of the employee’s unit,including potential differences between performance evaluations by unit managers.However,the effects of personal characteristics and their interactions with culture were sig-ni?cant over and above the unit effects.There was no unit effect on ef?ciency,suggesting that the meaning of meeting schedule and budget constraints is uni?ed across units.

Discussion

This is one of the few empirical studies(if not the only one)that tests whether personal and cultural factors that are constructive in the promotion of innovation are destructive as regards achieving high quality and ef?ciency.

The present design of the study allowed us to identify the complementary versus competing nature of personal and cultural characteristics(Hypotheses1and5)and,in addition,to test their complemen-tary versus competing effects on three performance outcomes:innovation,quality,and ef?ciency (Hypotheses2,3,4,and6).The study pointed at the positive effect of creativity on innovation when combined with initiative and a culture of innovation,and at the negative effect of creativity on perfor-mance quality.It also pointed at the negative effect on ef?ciency of personal attention-to-detail.The methodology we used controlled for the unit effect by testing the personal and cultural effects on indi-vidual performance as nested within their organizational units.

Furthermore,the research literature summarizes two separate lines of research on innovation.One line of research focuses on the individual level,looking at the personal characteristics that enhance and inhibit creativity(Amabile,2000;Scott&Bruce,1994;Mumford&Gustafson,1988;Oldham& Cummings,1996).The second research track looked at the organizational level,studying the organi-zational factors that enhance and hinder innovation(Brown&Eisenhardt,1997,1998;Damanpour, 1991).The present study examines both personal and organizational factors that enhance or hinder innovation,while at the same time examining the factors that contribute to quality and ef?ciency. The interplay between innovation and other organizational outcomes,and between the individual and organizational factors that in?uence them,enabled us to explore the dark and bright sides of innovation.

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES191 Personal characteristics and cultural values:competing versus

complementary relationships

In recent years,the importance of innovation has been highlighted,overshadowing the other two per-formance outcomes of quality and ef?ciency.Nevertheless organizations need to continue to maintain high levels of quality and ef?ciency,alongside an environment of innovation,in order to compete in the global market(Prahalad&Krishnan,1999).Very little research has simultaneously and empiri-cally examined the three outcomes,their interrelationships,and their explanatory factors.On the con-ceptual level,there has been no clear conclusion concerning the interrelationships between the cultural values of innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orientation,and their effects on innovation, quality,and ef?ciency performance.Some researchers have argued for competing relationships between cultural values that lead to innovation,quality,and ef?ciency(Quinn&Rohrbaugh,1983; Douglas&Judge,2001),while others proposed that they complement each other or need to be balanced(Schuler&Jackson,1987;Brown&Eiesenhardt,1997,1998).

In the following section we discuss how this study helps clarify the interrelationships between crea-tivity,conformity,and attention-to-detail on the individual level and their impact on the various per-formance outcomes,and between innovation,attention-to-detail,and outcome orientation on the organizational culture level and performance outcomes.

The individual level

This study sheds light on the complementary versus competing relationships between the three cog-nitive styles.Con?rmatory factor analysis demonstrated that creativity(Kirton’s terminology:‘idea generation’),attention-to-detail(Kirton’s ef?ciency),and conformity were three separate factors,with positive correlations between them.The three-factor model had a signi?cantly better?t to the data than the one factor model.This means that people have the ability to be highly creative and also to pay attention to detail.In this study,30per cent of the participants scored high(above the median)on both creativity and attention-to-detail.Our?ndings support previous research demonstrating three distinct factors(Taylor,1989).However,this is the only study that demonstrated,in con?rmatory factor ana-lysis,that the model?ts the data.Keeping the three factors separate from each other enabled us to test their unique effect on the performance outcomes of innovation,quality,and ef?ciency.

The lack of trade-off relationships between creativity and the two other characteristics has some positive implications.Creative persons,it would appear,are not necessarily people who are unable to pay attention to detail.People may have both characteristics in their pool of personal resources (Kanfer,1990;Kahneman,1973).

The cultural level

At the cultural level we examined the interrelationship between innovation,attention-to-detail,and out-come orientation.At this level,too,we identi?ed three separate factors.The con?rmatory factor analysis demonstrated a good?t of the three-factor model to the data.Our?ndings supported the complementary approach:that the three cultural values do not compete with each other;that they can coexist(O’Reilly et al.,1991;Schuler&Jackson,1987):and that organizations may use different combinations of these three cultural values to support their business strategies(Schuler&Jackson,1987). Performance outcomes of innovation,quality and ef?ciency,and their explanatory factors

The three performance outcomes positively correlated with each other,indicating that employees who score high on one dimension tend to score high on the two other dimensions.Yet,personal and cultural characteristics had differential effects on the three performance outcomes.

192 E.MIRON ET AL.

Innovative performance

As expected,innovative performance was signi?cantly affected by three interactions:creativity and initiative,creativity and innovative culture,and initiative and innovative culture.The impact of the interaction between creativity and initiative supported the conceptualization of innovation as consist-ing of both creativity and its implementation.Ours is,perhaps,the?rst study that empirically supports the distinction between creativity and innovation,demonstrating that creativity by itself is not enough for innovative performance.People need to take the initiative to implement their ideas in order to trans-form them into a valuable product(Levitt,2002).Our?ndings revealed the limitation of creativity, which by itself may not result in innovation.

Furthermore,there was a signi?cant interaction effect of creativity and innovative culture.Innova-tive culture encourages employees to search for new ways of dealing with problems,taking risks,and exploring their ideas even when their outcome value is not clear(Amabile,2000;Scott&Bruce,1994). The interaction effect between creativity and innovative culture demonstrated that creative ideas trans-form into innovation in a culture that supports innovation.In a culture that does not support innovation there were no differences between creative and non-creative people in their innovative performance. The dependence of creativity on the cultural context points at another limitation that hinders creative people from becoming innovative.Our?ndings support the model of person–organization?t (Schneider,1987;Van Vianen,2000;Kristof,1996).The interaction between initiative and culture further supported the?t model.The?nding demonstrated that when the culture was not innovative only high-initiative people reached high levels of innovation,while in an innovative culture there were no signi?cant differences between high and low levels of initiative.The implication of this?nding is that in a culture that supports innovation new ideas are considered without efforts having to be invested to promote them.

Quality performance

As expected,conformity had a positive effect on performance quality,and there was a signi?cant inter-action effect of conformity with a culture of attention-to-detail.Conformity is about adherence to rules and to group norms.Conformity is essential if rules are to be maintained and performance standards that lead to high quality are to be followed.The interaction of conformity with a culture of attention-to-detail showed that differences in performance quality between high and low conformists were clearly observed in a culture of low attention-to-detail.Yet,in a structured environment of high attention-to-detail,where non-conformists had clear guidelines,there was no difference between high and low con-formists in their performance quality.This?nding supports Michel’s(1977)theory of weak and strong situations.A culture of low attention-to-detail represents a weak situation where there is no clear struc-ture that tells employees how much attention to allocate to task details.Hence,non-conformists,who tend to deviate from existing rules,performed worse than conformists when the cultural value of attention-to-detail was low.

We found that creativity had a signi?cant negative effect on performance quality.This?nding points at the dark side of creativity,suggesting that creative people are less likely to perform well when the task requires accuracy,and adherence to rules.We suggest that a distinction should be made between the ability to be creative and pay attention to detail and the implementation.Capabilities, according to Kanfer’s theory of motivation(1990),are part of an individual’s pool of limited resources. Individuals allocate these resources to their task on the basis of distal and proximal motivational forces.The distal forces are in?uenced by the expected utilities that a person might have from perform-ing the task.The proximal forces are the goals that are shaped by the expected utilities,and direct the resources to the task itself,to off-task,and to self-regulation activities(Kanfer,1990).We propose that while people may have the capability to be creative,and also be attentive to details and rules,they may

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CULTURAL V ALUES193

have different utilities when allocating their attention to the creative aspect of the task,versus allocat-ing attention to the task details,rules,and standards.It seems that creative people are more highly motivated to allocate their creativity resources to the innovative aspect of their task,and less motivated to allocate their attention resources to the quality aspect of their task.Therefore,at the implementation stage,creativity positively affects innovation,given high initiative and a culture that supports innova-tion,but it negatively affects performance quality.This negative effect of creativity on quality re?ects the dark side of creativity.

Performance ef?ciency

In agreement with our hypothesis,the interaction between conscientiousness and outcome orientation yielded a positive effect on performance ef?ciency.In line with the person–organization?t model (Schneider,1987;Van Vianen,2000;Kristof,1996),a culture that promotes outcome orientation is a fertile environment for conscientious employees.The most ef?cient employees were those who scored high on conscientiousness and worked in an outcome-oriented culture.

Though we did not expect any other interaction,we found that conscientiousness interacted with the cultural value of attention-to-detail and that this interaction had a negative effect on ef?ciency.Again, the interaction of a personal characteristic with the culture of attention-to-detail supports Michel’s (1977)theory of weak and strong situations.In the strong situation of high attention-to-detail there is a clear structure that directs employees exactly how to act,and therefore conscientiousness is less signi?cant for performance.Yet,in the weak situation of low attention-to-detail,low-conscientious employees,who lacked a structured environment,performed less ef?ciently than highly conscientious employees,and less ef?ciently than in the high-attention-to-detail culture.Thus,the culture of atten-tion helped the less conscientious employees achieve high ef?ciency.

Attention-to-detail as a personal characteristic had a negative main effect on ef?ciency.Paying attention to detail is time consuming,while ef?cient performance is about fast processing of products and services.The?nding showed that people who tend to invest time and energy in their task details pay the price for not meeting deadlines.It is similar to the case of speed–accuracy trade-off,demon-strating that paying attention to accuracy competes with performance speed(Campbell,1988;Erez, 1990).Previous research has demonstrated that motivational factors affect the resource allocation strategy to various task components(Erez,Gopher,&Arzi,1990).It seems that people who are moti-vated to pay attention to detail allocate more resources to this aspect of their task,paying the price of low speed and ef?ciency.This?nding further supports our distinction between capabilities and their implementation,demonstrating that one may have the ability to pay attention to detail and to conscien-tiously perform a task,yet simultaneously be motivated to focus more on only one aspect of the task than on other task components.

Initiative had a positive main effect on ef?ciency performance,as it also had a positive effect on innovation.Employees who demonstrated high initiative were motivated to‘move things forward’and to ensure their actualization,and hence reached high ef?ciency levels as well as high levels of innovation.

The person–environment?t and the strong/weak situation(Michel,1977)models apparently advance individual performance in a quite different way.That is,individuals need some characteristics congruent to cultural values in order to actualize their potential(as in the case of creativity by innova-tion,and conscientiousness by outcome orientation).Yet,for other characteristics individuals need strong cultural values in order to prevent them from performance loss(as in the case of low conformists and a high-attention-to-detail culture,and low-conscientious employees and a high-attention-to-detail culture).Future research should sort out for which personal characteristics a person–environment?t or strong cultural values are demanded.

194 E.MIRON ET AL.

Conclusions

The study enabled us to see the bright and dark sides of creativity and innovation.On the bright side, this study demonstrated that creativity leads to innovation.Creativity,it was found,does not necessa-rily preclude attention-to-detail and conformity.People can maintain the balance of being creative and paying attention to detail.The study also showed that an innovative culture does not necessarily com-pete with a culture of quality and ef?ciency,and companies may maintain a balance between all three dimensions.In fact,a culture of attention-to-detail was conducive to performance quality when inter-acting with conformity as a personal characteristic,and it was also complementary to ef?ciency when interacting with conscientiousness.Innovative performance does not impede quality and ef?ciency, and in fact these three performance outcomes were positively correlated.Being creative does not necessarily contradict being ef?cient,as there is no relationship between creativity and ef?ciency. On the dark side we found that creativity is not enough for achieving innovative performance.Initia-tive is a necessary condition for creativity to affect innovation.Moreover,creative people are not always highly innovative.Their innovative performance depends on the organizational culture in which they operate.Creative people implement their ideas and produce innovative products when working in an environment that supports innovation.Yet,when the organizational culture does not support innovation,creative people do not reach high levels of innovation.Furthermore,creative peo-ple may pay the price of poor quality.Although they may have the capabilities to be both creative and pay attention-to-detail,they are motivated to allocate their resources to the creative aspect of their task rather than to the task component that requires attention-to-detail and adherence to rules and standards. In addition,although creativity does not rule out ef?ciency,it does not contribute to ef?ciency.Thus, other personal characteristics become important for the attainment of performance quality and ef?-ciency.Conformity is important for reaching high performance quality,and conscientiousness is necessary for maintaining high levels of work ef?ciency.Of all the personal characteristics,initiative was the one that contributed both to innovation and ef?ciency,in both cases by helping to move things forward.

Unit effect

Our HLM methodology allowed for testing the unit effect.There were signi?cant unit effects on two performance models—innovation and quality—but not on ef?ciency.Following a personal conversa-tion with the CEO,we found that there were unmeasured differences between the units with respect to core technology,and task requirements in terms of innovation and quality.These differences might have in?uenced the importance given by the unit managers to innovative and quality performances. However,the personal characteristics and their interactions with culture were signi?cant over and above the unit effects.There was no unit effect on ef?ciency,suggesting that the pressure to meet time and budget constraints were similar in all units.

Limitations and Future Research

Although we collected data in21different units,they were all in one organization.This may be a limitation,yet,on the other hand,conducting the study in one organization helped avoid potentially

todo与doing的区别

--- to do与doing的区另U 一般情况下，to do 是一般将来式,是打算去做什么（未做）;doing是现在进行式,是现在正在做什么，或（此事已做过或已发生、正做） like to do 和like doing 的用法有什么区别 简单的记忆方法。当表示喜欢，用like doing ，如：He likes cooking in his house. She likes singing. 表示爱好。 当表示想要，欲做某事（但还没进行）用like to do ，例如：He likes to cook in his house.- 他想在自己家做饭吃。 She likes to stay with us.- 她想和我们带一块儿。（但还没进行） 2 forget doin g/to do forget to do 忘记要去做某事。（未做） forget doing 忘记做过某事。（已做） The light in the office is stil on. He forgot to turn it off. 办公室的灯还在亮着，它忘记关了。（没有做关灯的动作） He forgot turning the light off. 他忘记他已经关了灯了。（已做过关灯的动作） Don't forget to come tomorrow. 别忘了明天来。（to come动作未做） 3 remember doin g/to do remember to do 记得去做某事（未做） remember doing 记得做过某事（已做） Remember to go to the post office after school. 记着放学后去趟邮局。 Don't you remember see ing the man before? 你不记得以前见过那个人吗？ 感官动词 see, watch, observe, notice, look at, hear, listen to, smell, taste, feel +doing表示动作的连续性，进行性 I saw him working in the garden yesterday. （强调”我见他正干活”这个动作） 昨天我见他正在花园里干活。

todoanddoing用法

加to do 的动词 attempt企图enable能 够 neglect忽视afford负担得 起 demand要求long渴 望 arrange安排destine注 定 mean意欲，打算begin开 始 expect期望omit忽略，漏 appear似乎，显得determine决定manage设 法cease停止 hate憎恨，厌恶pretend假装 ask问dread害 怕 need需要agree同 意

desire愿望love 爱 swear宣誓volunteer志愿 wish希望bear承 受 endeavor努力offer提 供 beg请求fail不 能 plan计划 bother扰乱；烦恼forget忘 记 prefer喜欢，宁愿care关心，喜欢happen碰 巧prepare准 备decide决 定learn学 习 regret抱歉，遗憾choose选择hesitate犹 豫profess表明

claim要求hope希 望 promise承诺，允许start开始undertake承 接want想要 consent同意，赞同intend想要refuse拒 绝decide决定 learn学习vow起contrive设法，图谋incline有…倾向propose提议seek 找，寻觅 try试图 2)下面的动词要求不定式做宾补：动词+宾语+动词不定式 ask要求，邀请get请，得 到 prompt促使allow允 许 forbid禁止prefer喜欢，宁愿announce宣 布force强

迫 press迫使bride 收 买 inspire鼓舞request请求 assist协助hate憎 恶 pronounce断定，表示advise 劝告exhort告诫，勉 励pray请求 authorize授权，委托help帮 助recommend劝告，推荐bear容 忍implore恳 求remind提醒 beg请求induce引 诱 report报告compel强 迫 invite吸引，邀请，summon传 唤command命 令intend想要，企

常见的todo与doing

常见的“to do”与“doing”现象 有些动词后既可接to do，也可接doing，它们后接to do与doing在意思上有时有较大的差别。因为它们也是中考的常考点之一，因而我们应该搞清楚它们的区别。 1. stop to do/stop doing sth。 解析：stop to do sth.意为“停下来（正在做的事）去做（另外的）某事”，to do sth.在句中作目的状语。而stop doing sth.意为“停止做（正在做的）某事”。如Mary stopped to speak to me.玛丽停下（手头的工作）来跟我讲话。 When the teacher came in. the students stopped talking.老师进来时，学生们停止讲话。 2. remember to do/remember doing sth 解析：remember to do sth.意为“记住要去做某事”（还没有做）。而remember doing sth.意为“记得（已经）做过某事”如： Please remember to send the letter for me.请记住为我发这封信。 I don’t remember eating such food somewhere.我不记得在哪里吃过这种食物 3. forget to do/forget doing sth 解析：forget to do sth.意为“忘记做某事”（动作还没有发生）。而forget doing sth.意为“忘记做过某事”（动作已发生）。如： Don’t forget to bring your photo here.别忘了把你的相片带来。 I have forgotten giving the book to him.我忘记我已把书给了他。 4. go on to do/go on doing sth 解析：go on to do sth.意为“做完一件事，接着做另外一件事”，两件事之间有可能有某种联系。而go on doing sth.意为“继续做下去”。如： After reading the text, the students went on to do the exercises.学生们读完课文后，接着做练习。 It’s raining hard, but the farmers go on working on the farm.虽然天正下着大雨，但农民们继续在农场干活。 5. try to do/try doing sth 解析：try to do sth.意为“尽力去做某事”，而try doing sth.意为“（用某一种办法）试着去做某事”。如： Try to come a little early next time, please.下次请尽量早点来。 You can try working out the problem in another way.你可以试试用其它的方法解答这道题目。 6. can’t help to do/can’t help doing sth 解析：can’t help to do为动词不定式结构；can’t help doing sth.意为“身不由己地去做某事”或“情不自禁地去做某事。”如： We can’t help to finish it.我们不能帮忙完成此事。 I couldn’t help laughing when I saw her strange face.当我看到她奇怪的脸时，我情不自禁地笑了。 7. hear sb. do/hear sb. doing sth 解析：hear sb. do sth.意为“听见某人做某事”，指听到了这个动作的全过程；hear sb. doing sth.意为“听到某人做某事”，指听到时候，这个动作正在发生。如： I often hear him sing in the classroom.我经常听见他在教室里唱歌。 Do you hear someone knocking at the door?你听见有人在敲门吗？ 应该说明的是：和hear的用法一样的还有see、watch、notice等。

todo和doing的差别

To do 和 doing的用法 1. finish, enjoy, feel like, consider, imagine, keep, postpone, delay, mind, practise, suggest, risk, quit+doing 2. 1）forget to do 忘记要去做某事（此事未做） forget doing忘记做过某事（此事已做过或已发生） 2）stop to do 停止、中断（某件事），目的是去做另一件事 stop doing 停止正在或经常做的事 3）remember to do 记住去做某事（未做） remember doing记得做过某事(已做) 4) regret to do对要做的事遗憾 regret doing对做过的事遗憾、后悔 5）try to do努力、企图做某事 try doing试验、试一试某种办法 6) mean to do打算，有意要… mean doing意味着 7）go on to do 继而（去做另外一件事情） go on doing 继续（原先没有做完的事情） 8）propose to do 打算（要做某事） proposing doing建议（做某事） 9) like /love/hate/ prefer +to do 表示具体行为；+doing sth 表示抽象、倾向概念 （注)如果这些动词前有should一词，其后宾语只跟不定式，不能跟动名词。例如： I should like to see him tomorrow． 10) need, want, deserve +动名词表被动意义；+不定式被动态表示“要(修、清理等)”意思。 Don’t you remember seeing the man before你不记得以前见过那个人吗 You must remember to leave tomorrow．你可要记着是明天动身。 I don’t regret telling her what I thought．我不后悔给她讲过我的想法。(已讲过) I regret to have to do this， but I have no choice．我很遗憾必须这样去做，我实在没办法。(未做但要做) You must try to be more careful．你可要多加小心。 Let’s try doing the work some other way．让我们试一试用另外一种办法来做这工作。 I didn’t mean to hurt your feeling．我没想要伤害你的感情。 This illness will mean (your) going to hospital．得了这种病(你)就要进医院。 3.省to 的动词不定式 1）情态动词 ( 除ought 外，ought to)： 2）使役动词 let, have, make： 3）感官动词 see, watch, look at, notice , observe, hear, listen to, smell, feel, find 等后作宾补，省略to。 注意：在被动语态中则to 不能省掉。 I saw him dance.

doing,todo,do的用法

一．To do形式 afford to do sth. 负担得起做某事 agree to do sth. 同意做某事 arrange to do sth.安排做某事 ask to do sth. 要求做某事 beg to do sth. 请求做某事 care to do sth. 想要做某事 choose to do sth. 决定做某事 decide to do sth. 决定做某事 demand to do sth. 要求做某事 expect to do sth. 期待做某事 fear to do sth. 害怕做某事 help to do sth. 帮助做某事 hope to do sth. 希望做某事 learn to do sth. 学习做某事 manage to do sth. 设法做某事 offer to do sth. 主动提出做某事 plan to do sth. 计划做某事 prepare to do sth. 准备做某事 pretend to do sth. 假装做某事 promise to do sth. 答应做某事 refuse to do sth. 拒绝做某事 want to do sth. 想要做某事 wish to do sth. 希望做某事 happen to do sth. 碰巧做某事 struggle to do sth. 努力做某事 advise sb. to do sth. 建议某人做某事allow sb. to do sth. 允许某人做某事 ask sb. to do sth.请（叫）某人做某事bear sb. to do sth.忍受某人做某事 beg sb. to do sth. 请求某人做某事cause sb. to do sth. 导致某人做某事command sb. to do sth. 命令某人做某事drive sb. to do sth .驱使某人做某事elect sb. to do sth. 选举某人做某事encourage sb. to do sth. 鼓励某人做某事expect sb. to do sth. 期望某人做某事forbid sb. to do sth. 禁止某人做某事force sb. to do sth. 强迫某人做某事 get sb. to do sth. 使（要）某人做某事hate sb. to do sth. 讨厌某人做某事 help sb. to do sth. 帮助某人做某事

初中日·总复习英语动词+doing和+todo用法

识记:初中英语非谓语动词总结（中考常考） 记住：动词后面加动名词表示已经做了；加动词不定式表示将要去做。 记住：动词后面加动名词表示经常做；加动词不定式表示一次做。 * *跟动词原形的词有：“一感二听三让四看”，即：feel, // hear, listen to, // let, make, have,// look at, see, wact notice.// 一．后面可跟动词的ing形式的情况。 1.动词：*以下记住每一个词组的第一个动词。 finish doing sth.完成做某事；enjoy doing sth. 喜欢做某事； practice doing sth. 练习做某事；imagine doing,想象做某事； avoid doing sth.避免做某事；consider doing sth.考虑做某事； suggest doing sth.建议做某事；mind doing sth.介意做某事； * keep doing sth.持续做某事, miss doing错过做, advise doing建议做；* keep sb doing让某人一直做 2.固定短语： feel like doing sth.喜欢做某事；be busy doing sth.忙于做某事； be worth doing 值得做某事；spend time (in) doing sth.花费时间（金钱）做某事； have difficult/trouble in doing sth做某事有困难；have fun doing.做某事高兴 3. 介词后(on, in, of, about, at, with, without, for, from, up, by等)： 如：be good at doing sth.；thank you for doing sth.；give up doing sth.；stop sb. from doing sth.；do well in do sth.； be afraid of doing sth.；be interested in doing sth.；be proud of；instead of；be fond of；what/how about doing sth?某事怎么样？ 4. to作介词时，后跟动名词的情况： look forward to doing sth期望做某事；prefer doing sth. to doing sth与…相比较更喜欢…； pay attention to doing注意做某事；be/get used to doing sth.习惯于做某事； make a contribution to doing为…做贡献 No+动名词，表示禁令No smoking禁止吸烟No parking禁止停车 5. go+动名词，意思是去进行某种活动或运动： go shopping,去购物；go skating,去滑冰；go hiking去远足（旅行） 6. do some/the+动名词，指进行某种活动： do some cleaning,搞卫生；do some washing 洗衣服； 二．后面可跟动词的不定式形式的情况。 1.动词：不需要记住哪些动词后跟动词不定式。 2.句型：(1)动词： allow sb. to do sth. 允许某人去做某事（区分allow doing sth） ask sb. (not) to do sth. 叫某人做事某事（叫某人不要去做某事） tell sb. (not) to do sth. 叫某人去（不要）做某事follow sb. to do sth. 跟随某人去做某事 get sb. to do sth. 让某人去做某事warn sb. (not) to do sth. 警告某人做某事（或不要做某事） encourage sb to do鼓励某人做、expect sb to do期待某人做 invite sb to do邀请某人做、teach sb to do教会某人做 advise sb to do建议某人做（区分advise / suggest doing sth） (2) Be+形容词adj.（即：情感类的形容词）+ to do

动词todo与doing的用法区别

一、接不定式（而不接动名词） 1.作宾语的24个常用动词afford to do sth. 负担得起做某事 agree to do sth. 同意做某事arrange to do sth.安排做某事ask to do sth. 要求做某事 beg to do sth. 请求做某事care to do sth. 想要做某事choose to do sth. 选择做某事decide to do sth. 决定做某事、 demand to do sth. 要求做某事determine to do sth. 决心做某事 expect to do sth. 期待做某事fear to do sth. 害怕做某事help to do sth. 帮助做某事hope to do sth. 希望做某事learn to do sth. 学习做某事manage to do sth. 设法做某事offer to do sth. 主动提出做某事 plan to do sth. 计划做某事 《 prepare to do sth. 准备做某事pretend to do sth. 假装做某事promise to do sth. 承诺做某事refuse to do sth. 拒绝做某事want to do sth. 想要做某事wish to do sth. 希望做某事注：有些不及物动词后习惯上也接不定式，不接动名词：aim to do sth. 打算做某事 fail to do sth. 未能做某事long to do sth. 渴望做某事 、 happen to do sth. 碰巧做某事hesitate to do sth. 犹豫做某事struggle to do sth. 努力做某事2.作宾补的36个常用动词advise sb. to do sth. 建议某人做某事 allow sb. to do sth. 允许某人做某事

动词不定式todo和doing

动词不定式to do 和doing 首先是加to do 的动词 attempt企图enable能够neglect忽视 afford负担得起demand要求long渴望 arrange安排destine注定mean意欲，打算 begin开始expect期望omit忽略，漏 appear似乎，显得determine决定manage设法 cease停止hate憎恨，厌恶pretend假装 ask问dread害怕need需要 agree同意desire愿望love爱 swear宣誓volunteer志愿wish希望 bear承受endeavor努力offer提供 beg请求fail不能plan计划 bother扰乱；烦恼forget忘记prefer喜欢，宁愿 care关心，喜欢happen碰巧prepare准备 decide决定learn学习regret抱歉，遗憾 choose选择hesitate犹豫profess表明 claim要求hope希望promise承诺，允许 start开始undertake承接want想要 consent同意，赞同intend想要refuse拒绝 decide决定learn学习vow起 contrive设法，图谋incline有…倾向propose提议 seek找，寻觅try试图 下面的动词要求不定式做宾补：动词+宾语+动词不定式 ask要求，邀请get请，得到prompt促使 allow允许forbid禁止prefer喜欢，宁愿 announce宣布force强迫press迫使 bride 收买inspire鼓舞request请求 assist协助hate憎恶pronounce断定，表示 advise劝告exhort告诫，勉励pray请求 authorize授权，委托help帮助recommend劝告，推荐bear容忍implore恳求remind提醒 beg请求induce引诱report报告 compel强迫invite吸引，邀请，summon传唤 command命令intend想要，企图show 显示 drive驱赶mean意欲，打算train训练 cause引起instruct指示require要求 deserve应受leave使，让tell告诉 direct指导like喜欢tempt劝诱 entitle有资格order命令warn告诫

初中英语动词+todo和+doing的用法

去游泳、钓鱼、逛街、滑冰、划船初中三年全部英语动词+doing 和+to do 句型全汇总！ 在初中英语学习中，想要取得高分语法和单词这两座 大山一定要过，今天分享的是初中英语最常考全部英语 动词 +doing 和 +to do 的总结，同学们可以抽时间 好好记熟这 些，千万别再弄混了。 一、带动词ing 形式 1.keep doing 坚持做某事 2.keep sb. doing 使某人一直做某事 3.practise doing sth.练习做某事 4.enjoy doing 喜欢做某事 5.finish doing 完成做某事 6.be afraid of doing 害怕做某事 be busy doing 忙于做某事 7. look forward to doing 盼望做某事 8. how about doing 、 ./what about doing 做某 事怎么样 9.spend some time (in)doing 花时间做某事 10.spend some money (in) buying 花钱做某事 11.feel like doing 想做某事 12.stop/keep/prevent ? from doing 阻止某人做某事 13.thank sb for doing 感谢某人做某事 14.thanks for doing 感谢做某事 15.do some cooking/cleaning/reading/shopping/wa shing 做点饭、打扫一下卫生、读点书、逛逛街、洗洗衣服 16. go swimming/fishing/shopping/skating/boating

英语todo和doing的固定短语

英语to do和doing的固定短语afford to do sth. 负担得起做某事agree to do sth. 同意做某事arrange to do sth. 安排做某事 ask to do sth. 要求做某事 beg to do sth. 请求做某事 care to do sth. 想要做某事choose to do sth. 决定做某事decide to do sth. 决定做某事demand to do sth. 要求做某事determine to do sth. 决心做某事expect to do sth. 期待做某事 fear to do sth. 害怕做某事 help to do sth. 帮助做某事 hope to do sth. 希望做某事 learn to do sth. 学习做某事 manage to do sth. 设法做某事 offer to do sth. 主动提出做某事 plan to do sth. 计划做某事 prepare to do sth. 准备做某事pretend to do sth. 假装做某事promise to do sth. 答应做某事 refuse to do sth. 拒绝做某事

want to do sth. 想要做某事 wish to do sth. 希望做某事 注：有些不及物动词后习惯上也接不定式，不接动名词：aim to do sth. 打算做某事 fail to do sth. 未能做某事 long to do sth. 渴望做某事 happen to do sth. 碰巧做某事 hesitate to do sth. 犹豫做某事 struggle to do sth. 努力做某事 二、接不定式作宾补的36个常用动词 advise sb. to do sth. 建议某人做某事 allow sb. to do sth. 允许某人做某事 ask sb. to do sth.请（叫）某人做某事 bear sb. to do sth.忍受某人做某事 beg sb. to do sth. 请求某人做某事 cause sb. to do sth. 导致某人做某事 command sb. to do sth. 命令某人做某事 drive sb. to do sth .驱使某人做某事 elect sb. to do sth. 选举某人做某事 encourage sb. to do sth. 鼓励某人做某事 expect sb. to do sth. 期望某人做某事 forbid sb. to do sth. 禁止某人做某事 force sb. to do sth. 强迫某人做某事

总结todo或doing用法

总结动词后加to do/doing的短语搭配 一.含有ing句型 1. keep doing 2. keep /carry on doing 3. keep sb. Doing 4. enjoy doing 5. finish doing 6. be afraid of doing 7. be worth doing 8. be busy doing 9. how about doing//what about doing 10. spend some time (in)doing 11. spend some money (in) buying 12. feel like doing 13. stop/keep/prevent …from doing 14. thank you for doing 15. thanks for doing 16. do some cooking/cleaning/reading/shopping/washing 17. go swimming/fishing/shopping/skating/boating 18. mind doing 19. prefer doing …to doing…

20. can’t help doing 21. have fun/difficulty/trouble/problem doing sth. 22. waste time/money doing 23. instead of doing 24. miss doing 二、含有不带to的动词不定式句型： 1. had better (not) do sth. 2. would you please (not) do sth. 3. why not do sth. 4. why don’t you do sth. 5. Shall we do sth.? 6. let do sth. 7. make/have sb. do sth. 三、含有带to 的动词不定式句型： 1. It’s time to do sth. 2. It takes sb. some time to do sth. 3. tell/ask/want/encourage/invite/ sb. to do sth. 4. Would you like to do sth.? 5. It’s good/bad to do sth. 6. It’s good/bad for sb.to do sth. 7. be+adj.+enough to do sth. 8. sb. is ready to do sth.

do_todo_doing英语公式

do sth/to do sth/doing sth 一.含有ing句型: 1. carry on\keep doing 坚持做某事 2. practise doing sth. 练习做某事 3. keep sb. Doing 使某人一直做某事 4. enjoy doing 喜欢做某事 5. finish doing 完成做某事 6. be afraid of doing 害怕做某事 7. （sth）be worth doing 值得做 8. be busy doing 忙于做某事 9. how about doing//what about doing 做某事怎么样 10. spend some time (in)doing 花时间做某事 11. spend some money (in) buying 花钱做某事 12. feel like doing 想做某事 13. stop/keep/prevent … from doing 阻止某人做某事 14. thank sb for doing 感谢某人做某事 15. thanks for doing 感谢做某事 16. do some cooking/cleaning/reading/shopping/washing 做点饭、打扫一下卫生、读点书、逛逛街、洗洗衣服 17. go swimming/fishing/shopping/skating/boating 去游泳、钓鱼、逛街、滑冰、划船 18. mind doing 介意做某事 19. prefer doing … to doing…比起做某事更喜欢做某事 20. can’t help doing 情不自禁做某事 21. have fun/difficulty/trouble/problem doing sth. 做某事有趣、有困难、有困难、有困难 22. waste time/money doing 浪费时间、钱做某事 23. instead of doing 代替做某事 24. miss doing 错过做某事 二、含有不带to的动词不定式句型： 1. had better (not) do sth. 最好（不）做某事 2. would you please (not) do sth. 你可以做某事吗？ 3. why not do sth. 为什么不做某事？ 4. why don’t you do sth. 为什么你不做某事？ 5. Shall we do sth.? 我们要做某事吗？ 6. let sb do sth. 让某人做某事 7. make/have sb. do sth. 使某人做某事 三、含有带to的动词不定式句型： 1. It’s time to do sth. 现在是做某事的时候了 2. It takes sb. some time to do sth. 做某事花了某人时间 3. tell/ask/want/encourage/invite/ sb. to do sth. 告诉、叫、想、鼓励、邀请某人做某事 4. Would you like to do sth.? 你想做某事吗/ 5. It’s good/bad to do sth. 做某事好、不好 6. It’s good/bad for sb.to do sth. 某人做某事好、不好

英语学习：todo与to+doing用法大不同!

英语学习：to do与to+doing用法大不同！ 1. 时间不同 forget/ remember doing：表示动作发生在“忘记”、“记得”之前 forget/ remember to do：表示动作发生在“忘记”、“记得”之后 I forgot to do my homework. 我忘记要做家庭作业了。 I forget having finished my homework. 我忘了我已经做完作业了。 2. 功能不同 go on/ leave off/ stop doing: -ing分词作宾语 go on/ leave off/ stop to do: 不定式作目的状语 My father left off working and had some coffee. 我爸爸停下工作，喝了些咖啡。

My father left off to have some coffee. 我爸爸停下来，喝了些咖啡。 3. 含义不同 在try, mean, can’t help等动词后接的是ing分词还是to do, 与动词本身含义相关。 try to do sth 努力做某事 try doing sth 试着做某事 mean to do 打算做某事 mean doing sth 意味着做某事 can’t help to do sth 不能帮忙做某事 can’t help doing sth 情不自禁做某事 4. 搭配不同 在动词agree, decide后，可直接带不定式，但若带-ing分词，则必须添加介词。

agree to do sth 同意做某事 agree on doing sth 同意做某事 decide to do sth 决定要做某事 decide on doing sth 决定要做某事 因此，我们可以看出，虽然以上动词既能跟-ing分词，也能带不定式，但意义却不相同。在运用过程中，我们要根据语境、功能、动词含义等来加以来判断，不能以一概全。

动词todo与doing的用法区别

动词todo与doing的用法区别

一、接不定式（而不接动名词） 1.作宾语的24个常用动词afford to do sth. 负担得起做某事 agree to do sth. 同意做某事arrange to do sth.安排做某事ask to do sth. 要求做某事beg to do sth. 请求做某事care to do sth. 想要做某事choose to do sth. 选择做某事decide to do sth. 决定做某事demand to do sth. 要求做某事 determine to do sth. 决心做某事 expect to do sth. 期待做某事fear to do sth. 害怕做某事help to do sth. 帮助做某事hope to do sth. 希望做某事learn to do sth. 学习做某事manage to do sth. 设法做某事offer to do sth. 主动提出做某事 plan to do sth. 计划做某事prepare to do sth. 准备做某事pretend to do sth. 假装做某事promise to do sth. 承诺做某事refuse to do sth. 拒绝做某事want to do sth. 想要做某事wish to do sth. 希望做某事注：有些不及物动词后习惯上也接不定式，不接动名词：aim to do sth. 打算做某事 fail to do sth. 未能做某事long to do sth. 渴望做某事happen to do sth. 碰巧做某事hesitate to do sth. 犹豫做某事struggle to do sth. 努力做某事2.作宾补的36个常用动词advise sb. to do sth. 建议某人做某事 allow sb. to do sth. 允许某人做某事

todo与doing归纳

接动词不定式 ( to do sth ) to do sth to do sth sb to do sth to do sth sb (not ) to do sth sb (not ) to do sth ’s time (for sb) to do sth 8. It’s +adj +(for)of +sb + to do sth 9. find it +adj + to do sth 10. It takes sb +some time + to do sth to do sth (not ) to do sth one’s best to do sth 14. help sb (to ) do sth to do sth 16. a good place to do sth

17. decide (not ) to do sth sb to do sth to be +时间 able to do sth to do sth 22.疑问词+ to do sth sth to do sth sth to do sth 25. warn sb to do sth to do sth good time to do sth best time to do sth best way to do sth the first / last one to do sth like to do sth excited /surprised to do sth useful to do sth

sb to do sth ’s better to do sth ’s best to do sth care (not) to do sth enough time to do sth … to do sth … enough to do sth sb to do sth to do sth to do sth happy/glad/pleased to do sth it +adj + to do sth careful to do sth afraid to do sth ’s our duty to do sth to do sth

to do doing的用法

to do 和doing的用法是中考的考点之一，看似没什么差别，但是在某些时候意思也还是有很大的差别，下面整理下关于to do 和doing 的区别： 1.stoptodo/stopdoingsth 解析：stoptodosth.意为“停下来(正在做的事)去做(另外的)某事”，todosth.在句中作目的状语。而stopdoingsth.意为“停止做(正在做的)某事”。如 Marystoppedtospeaktome.玛丽停下(手头的工作)来跟我讲话。 Whentheteachercamein.thestudentsstoppedtalking.老师进来时，学生们停止讲话。2.remembertodo/rememberdoingsth 解析：remembertodosth.意为“记住要去做某事”(还没有做)。而rememberdoingsth.意为“记得(已经)做过某事”如： Pleaseremembertosendthelet鄄terforme.请记住为我发这封信。 Idon'tremembereatingsuchfoodsomewhere.我不记得在哪里吃过这种食物 3.forgettodo/forgetdoingsth 解析：forgettodosth.意为“忘记做某事”(动作还没有发生)。而forgetdoingsth.意为“忘记做过某事”(动作已发生)。如： Don'tforgettobringyourphotohere.别忘了把你的相片带来。 Ihaveforgottengivingthebooktohim.我忘记我已把书给了他。4.goontodo/goondoingsth 解析：goontodosth.意为“做完一件事，接着做另外一件事”，两件事之间有可能有某种联系。而goondoingsth.意为“继续做下去”。如： Afterreadingthetext,thestudentswentontodotheexercises.学生们读完课文后，接着做练习。 It'sraininghard,butthefarmersgoonworkingonthefarm.虽然天正下着大雨，但农民们继续在农场干活。5.trytodo/trydoingsth 解析：trytodosth.意为“尽力去做某事”，而trydoingsth.意为“(用某一种办法)试着去做某事”。如： Trytocomealittleearlynexttime,please.下次请尽量早点来。 Youcantryworkingouttheprobleminanotherway.你可以试试用其它的方法解答这道题目。6.can'thelptodo/can'thelpdoingsth 解析：can'thelptodo为动词不定式结构;can'thelpdoingsth.意为“身不由己地去做某事”或“情不自禁地去做某事。”如： Wecan'thelptofinishit.我们不能帮忙完成此事。 Icouldn'thelplaughingwhenIsawherstrangeface.当我看到她奇怪的脸时，我情不自禁地笑了。7.hearsb.do/hearsb.doingsth 解析：hearsb.dosth.意为“听见某人做某事”，指听到了这个动作的全过