Week 1: Introduction
Crossan, M.M. & Apaydin, M. (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 1154-
Crossan & Apaydin (2010) Paper’s focus: systematic review linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an
outcome - into a multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation. According to management scholars, innovation capability is most important determinant of firm
performance. But the authors find an increasing number of disconnected parts on innovation
research. The authors define innovation as: “production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-
added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and
markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of new management
systems. It is both a process and an outcome.”
Innovation diffusion was not taken into account, since this refers to a process taking place
Internally conceived vs. externally adopted innovation (production or adoption)
Highlights innovation as more than a creative process, by including application (exploitation)
Intended benefits (value-added)
Novelty (renewal; new)
Two roles of innovation (process and outcome)
The authors categorized their findings on innovation literature into three sequential components:
1. Innovation leadership
2. Innovation as a process
3. Innovation as an outcome
Further into detail, the authors target the firm level within organizational innovation, such that they
can provide a practical basis on which managers can build structures and systems that would enable
innovation within a firm. Methodology
Why systematic review? It improves the quality of review process and outcome by employing a
transparency and reproducible procedure.
Data collection. Systematic review approach is a subjective collection methodology, yet the
authors use a predefined selection algorithm which removes the subjectivity.
Data analysis. The authors apply a meta-analysis. The authors are methodologically limited
to descriptive (rather than statistical) models, since they aim to provide a conceptual (rather
than empirical) framework.
Pattern-matching and explanation building techniques were applied, as well as “eyeballing”.
Data synthesis. The value of the author’s review: identification of ten dimensions of
innovation, which are mapped onto a multidimensional framework.
The authors followed the three-stage procedure: planning, execution, and reporting.
Only peer-reviewed journals are included, since these can be considered validated knowledge and
have highest impact in the field.
The database that was chosen is the ISI Web of Knowledge SSCI: one of the most comprehensive
databases of peer-reviewed journals in the social sciences.
Time period: 1981-2008. Through their selected keywords, the authors have an initial sample of 10,956 papers.
The groups of papers that they were interested in for their study was:
Group 1: reviews and meta-analyses.
Group 2: highly cited papers. High impact papers = at least 5 citations per year.
Group 3: recent papers.
After applying exclusion criteria, the authors gathered 524 (367 papers + 40 reviews). Results
The authors classified papers along two most frequently used dimensions: the level of analysis and
the type of innovation.
In the sample, the authors did not find an overarching framework of innovation determinants. Also
was there a lack of coherent and explicit theoretical base (despite that several authors used the RBV,
KBV, organizational learning and network theory).
Many innovation scholars apply R&D intensity or number of patents as a proxy for innovation
performance. Yet these “old” constructs are not generalizable for all organizational types and
The exploration-exploitation tension is often exaggerated and a gap exists, often unrecognized,
between adoption (decision to implement use) of innovation and actual implementation. Synthesis
1. Discussing the need to find a comprehensive approach to integrate the multiple dimensions
of organizational innovation.
→ although complexity and fragmentation of innovation research may be seen as a
challenge, it offers an opportunity to gain a more detailed understanding of the
phenomenon within an overarching framework.
2. Organizing findings of innovation dimensions into those that pertain to: innovation as a
process (horizontal approach) vs. innovation as an outcome (vertical approach).
3. Consolidating the determinants of innovation into three theoretically distinct meta-
constructs: leadership vs. managerial levers vs. business processes.
4. Providing measures for these determinants collected from the reviewed literature.
The authors argue that innovation as an outcome tends to be more important than innovation as a
process. The role of innovation as an outcome is both necessary and sufficient for a successful
exploitation of an idea; whereas that of an innovation as a process is only necessary but not
sufficient. This is why innovation as an outcome is usually the key dependent variable in empirical
studies related to innovation. Upper echelon theory: connect agents’ characteristics and behaviours with organizational outcomes
Schubert & Tavassoli criticizes this perspective, as they argue that not only TMTs have an
influence on innovation performance, but also MMTs!
Dynamic capabilities research: concerned with organizational resources and capabilities.
Process theory: how organizational processes transform inputs into outputs. Innovational Leadership is a meta-construct consolidating individual and group level variables. Not
only is the guidance and support of leaders vital in promoting innovative efforts at the initial creative
stage, but equally important is their ability to create conditions for the subsequent implementation
Managerial Levers is a meta-construct consolidating firm-level variables supporting innovation. The
firm’s task is to combine exploitation of the existing resources while searching for new opportunities
(exploration). In order to compete and sustain in the dynamic nature of the environment, a firm must
develop dynamic capabilities (which allows exploitation and exploitation) as a source of competitive
Business Processes is a meta-construct consolidating process-level variables. A typical process theory
holds that similar inputs transformed by similar processes will lead to similar outcomes; that there
are certain constant necessary conditions for the outcome to be reached. Discussion
Innovation research is fragmented, poorly grounded theoretically and not fully tested in all areas.
Hence, the authors’ main contribution is the consolidation of a large body of knowledge on
innovation into a multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation, connecting three meta-
constructs of innovation determinants; and viewing innovation as a process and an outcome.
Through a systematic approach to their review, they were able to develop a higher standard of
academic rigor. Key gaps in existing innovation literature
1) Innovation and firm performance.
According to management scholars, innovation capability is the most important determinant of firm
performance. However, different groups of scholars have focused on different types of innovation
(process vs. outcome) and used different measures of performance, so generalization is difficult, if
Innovation as a process studies: treats innovation as a mediator to performance.
Innovation as an outcome studies: treats innovation as a DV.
Understanding how innovation capability delivers innovation outcomes and ultimately firm
performance is paramount to managing firm innovation.
So far, the empirical studies have used either outcomes or firm performance as a DV.
Including both of them in a model would reveal the role of outcomes as a mediator between
innovation determinants and firm performance. 2) Innovation and entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship scholars study the sources of opportunities and the processes of discovery,
evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities and the individuals who conduct these processes.
Entrepreneurship and innovation are intrinsically related as both involve the processes of discovery,
evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities (entrepreneurship) and novelties (innovation).
Opportunities lie in employing two constructs, Innovation Leadership and Managerial Levers, in the
authors’ proposed conceptualization, through findings from entrepreneurship studies.
Entrepreneurship stream: greater emphasis on the role of an individual actor, or entrepreneur.
Innovation stream: seeks balance between individual action and organizational determinants. 3) Towards a multi-level approach.
The authors propose a unifying theoretical approach on a meso level which could link managerial
action with innovation as a process and outcome of organizational level. However, more theoretical
development needs to be done to link those to higher, macro levels. Theories that could contribute
here are the network, learning and knowledge theories.
Weakness: the review did not reveal a strong unifying theory of innovation which could operate
across levels. It seems that the individual level is underrepresented in the papers that were included in the
systematic review. Only 5% of papers operate on the individual level vs. more than half on the
organizational level. Felin & Foss (2006) call for linking organizational level variables with their micro-
Strength: the authors answer this call by offering a new theoretical approach → the practice-based
view (PBV), which could combine the individual, firm, contextual and process variables prevalent in
the literature. And through this, the authors provide fruitful suggestions for future research.
PVB considers the activities that organizational actors conduct (micro level, their consequences for
organizational outcomes (macro level), and the feedback loop from contextual and organizational
variables back to the actors. The authors highlight three elements of innovation: practice (espoused behaviours that guide
activity; know-how), praxis (actual activities that constitute the fabric of innovation), and
practitioners (leaders, managers or customers who actually perform praxis).
There is limited research on the praxis, while it is this “micro level” that the managerial reality
enfolds every day. Hence, a theory of innovation needs to connect the action (praxis) with the
managerial and academic theories (practice) by understanding the role of agents (practitioners). Managerial implication
Managers must take a more holistic perspective on managing innovation, by determining both how
innovation and why innovation can and should be developed. Limitations
Here the authors mention several weaknesses or shortcomings of their review:
No detailed propositions linking the elements.
Only one database, SSCI, has been used for search; may have omitted some relevant
Filtering process of sample articles may have also omitted some relevant research, such as a
large stream of entrepreneurship literature.
Using a high-level framework for such multi-dimensional phenomena as innovation highlights
some previously neglected connections while failing to capture others.
Week 2: Organizing Knowledge for Innovation
− Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2017). Organizing for knowledge generation: internal knowledge
networks and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing. Strategic Management Journal,
− Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market
knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1090-
− Li, Q., Maggitti, P. G., Smith, K. G., Tesluk, P. E., & Katila, R. (2013). Top management attention to
innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(3), 893-916. Grigoriou & Rotharmel (2017) This article focuses on a new technological environment, where firms must obtain new knowledge in
order to sustain, through internal development and/or external sourcing. Introduction
Technological changes force an industry’s incumbent firms to engage in knowledge renewal.
Successful knowledge renewal depends on firms developing skills in both internal knowledge
development and external knowledge sourcing. The RQ: How to organize and choose among knowledge sourcing efforts to efficiently generate new
Week 1: Introduction
Week 2: Organizing Knowledge for Innovation
Week 3: Organizing Capabilities for Innovation
Week 4: Organizing Discontinuous Innovation
Week 5: Organizing for continuous innovation
WEEK 6: ORGANIZING INNOVATION IN TEAMS