Compatibility

The more individuals perceive alignment between the meaning they attach to the intervention and meaning communicated by upper management has a strong influence on whether they will embrace the intervention [1]. For example, an intervention that leadership believes will improve performance may be perceived as a threat to autonomy in treatment decisions by physicians. Meaning in this context can be negotiated and re-framed through discussions across organizational networks [1].

Greenhalgh et al. describe compatibility, meaning, and innovation-system fit. All three of these terms have a common root definition of aligning with stakeholders’ values and norms and then vary in the degree to which they incorporate: goals, skill mix, strategies, and perceived needs [1]. We consolidate these together under our definition of Compatibility. Greenhalgh et al. cites strong indirect and moderate direct support for this somewhat elusive construct. Compatibility is between the intervention and supporting technologies and ways of working [1] is also important. The degree of compatibility has a positive association with implementation [1][2][3]. Changes seen as threatening or incompatible with current conditions will be resisted [4]. Helfrich and colleagues found that perceived fit with organizational and professional mission, core competencies, and experience was an important predictor of successful implementation [5]. A balanced distribution of the risks and benefits throughout the organization increases the likelihood of acceptance [6].