Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:46:55.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Ronald Bledow ,
Michael Frese ,
Neil Anderson ,
Miriam Erez  and
James Farr
Ronald Bledow*
Affiliation:
University of Giessen
Michael Frese
Affiliation:
University of Giessen
Neil Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Miriam Erez
Affiliation:
Israel Institute of Technology
James Farr
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10F, 35394 Giessen, Germany. University of Giessen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Innovation, the development and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas by individuals, teams, and organizations, lies at the heart of human adaptation. Decades of research in different disciplines and at different organizational levels have produced a wealth of knowledge about how innovation emerges and the factors that facilitate and inhibit innovation. We propose that this knowledge needs integration. In an initial step toward this goal, we apply a dialectic perspective on innovation to overcome limitations of dichotomous reasoning and to gain a more valid account of innovation. We point out that individuals, teams, and organizations need to self-regulate and manage conflicting demands of innovation and that multiple pathways can lead to idea generation and innovation. By scrutinizing the current use of the concept of organizational ambidexterity and extending it to individuals and teams, we develop a framework to help guide and facilitate future research and practice. Readers expecting specific and universal prescriptions of how to innovate will be disappointed as current research does not allow such inferences. Rather, we think innovation research should focus on developing and testing principles of innovation management in addition to developing decision aids for organizational practice. To this end, we put forward key propositions and action principles of innovation management.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 305 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Giessen

**

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam

***

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

****

Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University

This research was supported by a scholarship (D/08/45383) of the German Academic Exchange Service granted to the first author and a research grant by the Volkswagen Foundation (II/82 408). We appreciate the thoughtful comments of our colleague Kathrin Rosing. Furthermore, we would like to thank our colleagues Andreas Bausch, Nataliya Baytalskaya, Verena Mueller, Nina Rosenbusch, Alexander Schwall, and Shaker Zahra for discussions on initial ideas from which the current manuscript emerged.

References

Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80, 40–47.Google Scholar
Adler, M. J. (1952). The great ideas: A syntopicon of great books of the western world (Vol. 1). London: Encyclopedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–176.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (2000). Stimulate creativity by fueling passion. In Locke, E. A. (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 331–341). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. (1998). The people make the paradigm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 323–328.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., & Gasteiger, R. M. (2007). Helping creativity and innovation thrive in organizations: Functional and dysfunctional perspectives. In Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C. L., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 422–440). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., & Sleap, S. (2004). An evaluation of gender differences on the Belbin team role self-perception inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 429–437.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.Google Scholar
Arbel, I., & Erez, M. (2008, July). “Team sharing and reflexivity as a lever to innovation in product development teams.” EU-US Early Career Researcher Conference on Research and Innovation Studies. Organized by the PRIME Network of Excellence, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–68.Google Scholar
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963–970.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 27, 238–256.Google Scholar
Bergin, T. J. (2006). The proliferation and consolidation of word processing software: 1985–1995. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 28, 48–63.Google Scholar
Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking personal initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for idea creativity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 432–455.Google Scholar
Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1991). Organizational innovation and learning: Four patterns of dialogue between the dominant logic and the new logic. International Studies of Management and Organization, 21, 37–51.Google Scholar
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.Google Scholar
Buijs, J. (2007). Innovation leaders should be controlled schizophrenics. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 203–210.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–357.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Montserrat Boronat-Navarro, M. (2001). A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size, Organization Studies, 25, 331–361.Google Scholar
Chandy, R. K., Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 474–487.Google Scholar
Cheng, Y.-T., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996). Learning the innovation journey: Order out of chaos? Organization Science, 7, 593–614.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M. (1997). Innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press Books.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Google Scholar
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 385–389.Google Scholar
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739–756.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.Google Scholar
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, 524–540.Google Scholar
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation–Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 669–677.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741.Google Scholar
Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of nature. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In West, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 63–80). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Farr, J. L., Sin, H.-P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2003). Knowledge management processes and work group innovation. In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 574–586). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 221–234.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1983). The human legacy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030.Google Scholar
Forster, J. Higgins, E.T., & Taylor-Bianco, A. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164.Google Scholar
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In Staw, B. M. & Sutton, R. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084–1102.Google Scholar
Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., et al. (2007). Business owners' action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1481–1498.Google Scholar
Frese, M., Mertins, J. C., Hardt, J. V., Fischer, S., Flock, T., Schauder, J., et al. (2009). Innovativeness of firms and organizational culture: The role of error management culture and pro-initiative climate . University of Giessen, Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1139–1155.Google Scholar
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In Triandis, H. C., Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Gasper, K. (2003). When necessity is the mother of invention: Mood and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 248–262.Google Scholar
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of autonomy: Empirical evidence for the necessity of a balance management in promoting organizational innovativeness. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 41–49.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495.Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–531.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning towards congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1119–1127.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.Google Scholar
Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105–130.Google Scholar
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. J., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 864–888.Google Scholar
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342.Google Scholar
Holland, J. L., & Gottfredson, G. D. (1992). Studies of the hexagonal model: An evaluation: or The perils of stalking the perfect hexagon. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 158–170.Google Scholar
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.Google Scholar
Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (in press). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied psychology.Google Scholar
Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009a, May). Selecting for innovation: What is good for job performance is not necessarily good for innovative performance . Paper presented at the EAWOP conference, Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009b, April). Leadership and Innovation: A meta-analysis of main relationships and an investigation into cultural differences . Paper presented at the EAWOP conference, Santiago de Compostella.Google Scholar
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 982–1007.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674.Google Scholar
Jansen, K. J. (2004). From persistence to pursuit: A longitudinal examination of momentum during the early stages of strategic change. Organization Science, 15, 276–294.Google Scholar
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.Google Scholar
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77–89.Google Scholar
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams–the importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581–598.Google Scholar
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210.Google Scholar
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689–713.Google Scholar
King, N. (1992). Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 89–100.Google Scholar
King, N., Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1991). Organizational innovation in the UK: A case study of perceptions and processes. Work & Stress, 5, 331–339.Google Scholar
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.Google Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of product management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 546–564.Google Scholar
Livne-Tarandach, R., Erez, M., & Erev, I. (2004, April). Turning enemies into allies: The effect of performance contingent rewards and goal type on creativity . Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.Google Scholar
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.Google Scholar
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem-solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54 (No. 248).Google Scholar
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.Google Scholar
Mahmoud-Jouini, S. B., Charue-Duboc, F., & Fourcade, F. (2007). Multilevel integration of exploration units: Beyond the ambidextrous organization. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp. NA-NA.Google Scholar
March, J. G., Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (2006). “Ideas and innovation at Google.” Stanford University, MS&E 472 Course: Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Seminar Series. Retrieved on February 4, 2009 from http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/msande472/060517-msande472-300.asx.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organization strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miller, S., & Steinberg, B. (2006). Former Xerox CEO funded fabled PARC but failed to harvest innovations. Wall Street Journal—Eastern Edition, 248, pA6.Google Scholar
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2006, August). The personal attributes that enhance individual versus team innovation . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910–931.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.Google Scholar
Naveh, E., & Erez, M. (2004). Innovation and attention to detail in the quality improvement paradigm. Management Science, 50, 1576–1586.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.Google Scholar
O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–81.Google Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279.Google Scholar
Patterson, F. (2002). Great minds don't think alike? Person-level predictors of innovations at work. In Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 115–144). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 259–278.Google Scholar
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.Google Scholar
Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2006). Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 759–777.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1947). Psychologie der Intelligenz (Psychology of intelligence). Zürich, Switzerland: Rascher.Google Scholar
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.Google Scholar
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385.Google Scholar
Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectic operations: The final period of cognitive development. Human Development, 16, 346–370.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256–269.Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.Google Scholar
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1996). The hidden champions: Lessons from 500 of the world's best unknown companies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.Google Scholar
Stahl, M. J., & Koser, M. C. (1978). Weighted productivity in R&D: Some associated individual and organizational variables. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 25, 20–24.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 102–116.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.Google Scholar
Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723–740.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men (reprint 1960 ed.). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1228–1240.Google Scholar
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.Google Scholar
Venohr, B., & Meyer, K. E. (2007). The German miracle keeps running: How Germany's hidden champions stay ahead in the global economy. Retrieved on February 4, 2009 from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=991964.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (1994). Organization of design activities: Opportunistic, with hierarchical episodes. Interaction with computers, 6, 239–274.Google Scholar
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 147–164.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (2001). The human team: basic motivations and innovations. In Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Singangil, H. K. & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 270–288). London/New York: Sage.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (2002a). Ideas are ten a penny: It's team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 411–424.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (2002b). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387.Google Scholar
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693.Google Scholar
Westerman, G., McFarlan, F. W., & Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17, 230–238.Google Scholar
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson.Google Scholar
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247.Google Scholar
Young, S. M. (1992). A framework for successful adoption and performance of Japanese manufacturing practices in the United States. Academy of Management Review, 17, 677–700.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.Google Scholar
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422.Google Scholar