RELATIONAL MODELS AND THE IDEA JOURNEY: TOWARDS A
BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF INNOVATION
J. KUYPERS
University of Amsterdam
Author: Jan Kuypers 11197250 jan.kuypers@student.uva.nl Supervisor: Prof. dr. J. Strikwerda j.strikwerda@uva.nl University of AmsterdamFaculty of Business and Economics Amsterdam Business School Executive Programme in Management Studies
Academic year ’17-‘18
Master Thesis Date: 30-06-2018
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Jan Kuypers who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 5
1. a. Research gap and question 8
2. Theoretical framework 10
2. a. Creativity and innovation 10
2. b. Stakeholder relations and relational models 16
2. c. Towards a behavioral theory of innovation 19
3. Method 27 3. a. Procedure 27 3. b. Measures 29 4. Results 32 4. a. Univariate analyses 32 4. b. Bivariate analysis 35 4. c. Regression analysis 36 4. d. Hypotheses 38 5. Discussion 41 5. a. Contributions to theory 41 5. b. Managerial implication 44
5. c. Limitations and suggestion for further research 45
5.d. Conclusion 46 References 47 Appendix A 53 Appendix B 62 Appendix C 66 Appendix D 69
4
RELATIONAL MODELS AND THE IDEA JOURNEY: TOWARDS A
BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF INNOVATION
SUMMARY
Purpose – This study explores the effects of relational models on the championing phase of
innovation.1 Ultimately, its goal is to contribute to a behavioral theory of innovation.
Research motivation – The researcher’s motivation primarily stems from learnings from the
resource-based view of strategic planning. It is believed that the ability to produce meaningful innovations is the single most effective feat a firm can have to gain a sustainable competitive advantage over its competitors. Creativity and innovation are tacit and uncodifiable; any additional insight in its inner-workings is beneficial to the field of business administration.
Design/methodology – An experimental 1 x 3 between-subject factorial design in which the predictor
variable is manipulated in an otherwise similar situation. This design is operationalized in the form of a survey questionnaire and three vignettes, which form the predictor variable.
Findings – Findings suggest that the salient relational models in the immediate social/professional
environment of a respondent explain the largest part of variance in all adopted measures of idea championing, relative to a person’s age, gender, tenure, organizational rank and social disposition. When more social relational models are operated, idea championing is stimulated. If more individualistic relational models are operated, idea championing is hampered. Moreover, a person’s social disposition moderates this relation.
Practical implications – Which relational model individuals deploy is affected by actions in the
environment. Employers can incorporate the findings of this paper by emphasizing reciprocity and a sense of community while innovating, in accordance with the relational models elaborated on in this paper. The results imply that this poses a significant positive effect on idea championing.
Originality/value – To date, relational models were not studied specifically in light of idea
championing. The prime contribution to theory of this paper is a more comprehensive concept of the social dimension of group-level innovation.
Keywords – Creativity, innovation, idea championing, relational models and social dispositions. Paper type – Research paper.
1 Relational models refer to schemata people use to construct and construe relations, to plan their own action, to understand, remember, and anticipate others’ action, and to coordinate the joint production of collective action (Fiske, 1992, 2004).
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Nearly thirty years after Edith Penrose’s 1959 classic, “The theory of the growth of the firm”, Birger Wernerfelt gave in 1984 rise to what we know today as the Resource-Based View (RBV) of strategic planning. In his seminal article (Wernerfelt, 1984), the author suggested that firms are heterogeneous by the resources they own, and that such heterogeneity is sustainable as firms can raise barriers to prevent these resources from diffusing throughout the industry. While such resources remain within the firm, optimal competitive strategies are based on leveraging excess capacity of these resources to accumulate economic rents.2 The central principle in the resource-based research literature is that a
firm can gain sustainable competitive advantage (i.e. sustainably accumulate economic rents) by holding resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (e.g. Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984). In line with ideas of in-firm resources as primary strategic feat, the Knowledge-Based view of the firm (KBV) rose to prominence. The KBV holds that knowledge is the single most significant resource a firm can hold (Grant, 1996b). With respect to the field of business administration, we at least identify two types of knowledge (Zack, 1999): (a) codified knowledge, that which is based on laws, rules, tools and concepts, and is less costly to transfer from one to another, and (b) uncodified or tacit knowledge, that which is intangible, ambiguous and heterogeneous. This type of knowledge identifies as ‘know-how’ rather than as ‘know-what’. Proponents of the KBV hold (tacit) knowledge to be a specialized resource; it is held (unconsciously) in specialized form by members of the firm. As a result, it is difficult and costly to transfer among each other. Notwithstanding, it is specifically tacit knowledge that fits to Barney’s (1991) bill of resource requirements for sustained competitive advantage (Grant, 1996b). Accordingly, if the single most significant resource (knowledge) resides in specialized form among individual organizational members, then the essence of organizational capability is the integration of individuals' specialized knowledge. In other words, it is a firm’s ability to integrate and organize diffused heaps of knowledge that is the main determinant of sustained competitive advantage (e.g. Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996b; Kogut & Zander, 1992). Altogether, firms solely exist because they provide a social community of voluntaristic action structured by organizing principles that are not reducible to individuals. The firm knows more than the collective (tacit) knowledge of its incumbents (Kogut & Zander, 1992).
2 Ricardo’s (1817) explanation of economic rent holds that rent is the result of excess production obtained by using a resource in its most productive use, relative to output obtained by the marginal resource used for the same purpose, other inputs held constant.
6 Regardless of whether the KBV of strategic planning is a formal theory of the firm (Grant, 2002), both professional and academic interest proliferated around tacit knowledge as most strategically-important resource. Abundant theory (cf. Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993; Grant, 1996b; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) substantiated the idea that our environment is increasingly dynamic, knowledge-intensive, and fueled by technological change and social innovation. In practice, we see corporations like Intel, IBM, ASML and Philips take leading roles in their respective industries where they uphold these positions for decades. To maintain their situations, each of these firms rely on a set of core competences that are the result of well-developed capabilities, which can be deployed across multiple product markets (Abbey & Dickson, 1983; Burgelman, 1991; de Vries, 2005). As Abbey and Dickson (1983) already noted years ago, “technological innovation is a key concept in intercorporate competition and survival”. Research and development (R&D) subsystems take primary roles in leading firms, where they are tasked with developing new technological innovations that offer the firm a sustainable competitive advantage over its competitors. What is it that happens within the R&D departments of these highly successful firms? Whatever befalls, R&D departments that bring forth meaningful innovation seem to be the most trusted panacea for all that hinders organizational prosperity.
Present-day firms are increasingly urged to effectively manage intangible resources in, what are traditionally, tangible resource-oriented institutions (Strikwerda, 2014). Central to this development, we find a growing body of literature aimed at bettering our understanding of creativity and innovative behavior of individuals within firms. We came to learn that creativity and innovation are multifaceted processes that can be studied from many different perspectives, where each side can have its own disciplinary origins. This greater attention, however, also led to significant inconsistencies and discrepant knowledge between different streams of creativity and innovation research (e.g. Damanpour 1991; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). In response, Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) conducted meaningful research in which they integrated and reconciled prior creativity and innovation literature. Considering the creativity and innovation process, the authors conceptualize the
idea journey – an iterative social process that encompasses the following phases: (a) idea generation,
(b) idea elaboration, (c) idea championing, and (d) idea implementation. To consider the idea journey a success, appropriate observers deem its outcome novel, appropriate, and an extension of today’s conventions (Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). When creators journey through the phases, they have phase-specific goals and experience phase-phase-specific needs. For example, successful completion of the
7 championing phase of innovation – the phase during which a creator actively promotes the idea to build support for implementation – means to obtain approval from gatekeepers in the form of resources or political cover, used to implement the innovation.3 While convincing gatekeepers to implement an idea, a creator’s primary social needs are legitimacy and influence (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Social needs are phase-specific – meaning, they are distinct, can even be paradoxical, and therefore pose difficulties on a creator wishing to satisfy them across the different phases of the journey. In response, a creator could activate different parts of his/her network as each part can contribute in a different way. The inner-circle of a social network could provide trust and aid to social constructivism, while more distant parts of a network can furnish nonredundant knowledge in order to generate ideas (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017).4 A creator is expected to excel at creative innovation when he/she can activate different parts of the social network to meet different social needs, at the right moment in the idea journey. This ability of network activation is what Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) labelled activation fluidity. There are, however, limitations to activation fluidity as well. For example, a creator can experience social sanctions when first relying on the supportive inner-circle of his/her network for idea elaboration, only to play the role of knowledge broker in a wider network when championing an idea shortly thereafter. In dense social structures (i.e. the inner-circle), contacts require loyalty and reciprocity (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010). To overcome such social strain on activation fluidity, contributors in the social network could attempt to commit selflessly.
Beyond a growing interest in intangible resources that strengthen firms’ competitiveness from the inside out, our model of man evolves. Over a period of 200 years, we came to classify man as methodological individualist, where he/she mainly pursues self-interest in the form of pleasure (Etzioni, 1988; Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Smith, 1776).5 From the perspective of neo-classical economic theory, every person is a rational agent, who is self-regarding and could only be motivated by monetary incentives. We are individuals who compete. This understanding proved to be problematic when formulating optimal organizational structures in the face of team production or joint value creation, especially regarding knowledge-intensive tasks (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972). Today, however, we increasingly realize that we might have been overly pessimistic; stakeholder
3 Gatekeepers are the actors in a firm that have the power to decide whether an idea is implemented.
4 Social constructivism is a theory of knowledge which states that knowledge is constructed through interaction with others (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). The theory aims to explain how subjective meaning (a creative idea) becomes a social fact.
8 theorists have emphasized to go beyond simplifying assumptions of all behavior being exclusively self-regarding (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & De Colle, 2010; Freeman & Phillips, 2002). In agreement, evolutionary theorists argue that the world contains multiple types of individuals, some more willing than others to initiate reciprocity to achieve the benefits of collective action (e.g. Ostrom, 2000). Extending these insights, Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) developed a theory of individual stakeholders’ contributions to joint value creation. The authors regard social welfare to be the result of value created through individual actors who are interacting with others in innovation, production, and exchange processes. In due course, joint value creation takes a central position in their work – that is, highly interdependent value creation processes involving multiple parties, which are to overcome a public good dilemma in providing mutually supportive contributions to value creation. In pursuit of alternative solutions for such dilemmas, the authors draw from relational models theory (cf. Fiske, 1991, 1992, 2004) and develop a framework involving four relational models under which stakeholders organize relations among participants in joint value creation. Varying from altruistic and supportive approaches to more egoistic perspectives on collaboration, we distinguish four relational models, respectively: Communal Sharing, Equality Matching, Authority Ranking and Market Pricing (Fiske, 1992). Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) aimed to provide insight in means to overcome public good dilemmas, which are typically extant in interdependent tasks, often found in knowledge-intensive organizational contexts. The main idea is that we signal people to contribute more selflessly to the collective effort. As when we act as a collective, social welfare reaches furthest.
1. a. Research gap and question
A more social approach to the process of innovation might gain momentum, yet research literature primarily accentuated either idea generation or implementation. Although these phases are critical, different scholars underline the importance of the intermediate phases in the idea journey. Hitherto, it is mostly idea generation that received attention from creativity scholars and implementation that is under investigation by innovation scholars, leaving key intermediate phases in neglect (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). When considering a more social view of man, it is expected there is much to gain from leveraging insights from relational models theory to better our understanding of the intermediate phases of innovation. To date, innovation and relational models theorists have rarely exchanged findings and insights which indicates there is plenty of theoretical room for exploration. This paper endorses the central role of knowledge and innovation within firms (cf. Grant, 1996b; Kogut & Zander, 1996), while examining contemporary creativity and innovation literature (cf.
9 Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Mainemelis, 2010; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Moving forward, it take learnings from relational models theory (cf. Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Fiske, 1991, 1992) and adopts a more social view of man (cf. Ostrom, 2000). The goal of this study is to add to the existing literature on the social process of creativity and innovation, by implying a behavioral theory of innovation. Its primary achievement shall be to show a relation between relational models and the idea journey. More specifically, the main goal is to demonstrate the hypothesis that more social relational models positively affect the championing phase of innovation. This paper’s central thesis is that both Communal Sharing and Equality Matching result in a more ‘champion-friendly’ environment, than Authority Ranking and Market Pricing would. In addition, it is proposed that the salience of both Communal Sharing and Equality Matching are curvilinear (inverted U-shape) related to idea championing. That is, creators are more able to champion an idea when relations among stakeholders are more Communal Sharing and Equality Matching-minded, yet both models can be ‘overreached’ in the sense that too much communal conformity can halt creativity in general (Fleming et al., 2007) and a too strong focus on reciprocity can undermine one’s room for manoeuvre (Fiske, 1992). Accordingly, the main research question is this:
To what extent does group-level framing of relations in terms of Communal Sharing, Equality Matching, Authority Ranking or Market Pricing, affect the idea journey, specifically with respect to the championing phase of innovation?
The organization of the remainder of this paper is as follows: chapter 2 develops our discussion by providing a theoretical framework which grounds our central premise in the literature. It concludes by formulating a conceptual model. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology applied to test this model. Chapter 4 provides an overview of results and delineates relations between key concepts. Chapter 5 connects key points of these chapters and concludes this paper.
10
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2. a. Creativity and innovation
The realm of creativity and innovation is vast and broad and has been a fertile area of research, resulting in various definitions, studies and perspectives (e.g. Damanpour, 1991). Different as some notions might be, however, we increasingly do find consensus around different elements of creativity and innovation. Considering creativity, initially believed to be a function of innate personality traits (Barron & Harrington, 1981), we can now find considerable evidence that social-psychological factors have a significant impact on the creativity of individuals (e.g. Amabile, 1983, 1996; Mainemelis, 2010; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). As it turns out, creativity is best conceptualized not as a personality trait or general ability, but as a behavior resulting from constellations of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments (Amabile, 1983). Then, to ascertain that the stars were perfectly aligned (i.e. discover if creativity ‘happened’), we rely on the user to deem the creative product useful or otherwise appropriate at some point in time. Four ideas about the creative product can be found in classic research: (a) it is novel and useful (Amabile, 1996); (b) novelty is a new combination (Simonton, 1999); (c) the definition of useful is necessarily social (Gardner, 1993; Simonton, 1999); and (d) novelty should be separated from usefulness (Osborn, 1957). At a rudimentary level, innovation is not that different from creativity. Innovation mainly differs from creativity only in focus – that is: It is mostly idea generation that receives attention from creativity scholars and idea implementation that is under investigation by innovation scholars (e.g. Damanpour, 1991; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Innovation is a process of interrelated activities that is in large part influenced by and able to influence social interactions and contextual factors (e.g. Obstfeld, 2005; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Tsai, 2001). The creative, or innovative, product is new to the innovating firm, generally intended to contribute to the performance or effectiveness of the adopters (e.g. Damanpour, 1991; Damanpour & Evan, 1984). Particularly, creative innovation is to balance novelty and viability in a product (in the broadest sense of the word), which is to produce an economic advantage for the implementing firm (Amabile, 1996), and, if done well, can set a new standard across industries (Bower & Christensen, 1995).
Considering the social aspect of innovation, we can, for example, study leadership, group cohesiveness, longevity and composition, and group structure as antecedents of creativity and innovation. More than 50 years ago already, Burns and Stalker (1961) stressed that knowledge
11 generation and innovation flourishes when leadership is democratic and collaborative, structure is organic rather than mechanistic, and groups are composed of individuals drawn from diverse fields or functional backgrounds. In parallel, there are other elements that have a more ambiguous relation with creativity also: Different theorists suggest that group cohesiveness and longevity are curvilinear related to creativity (Fleming et al., 2007; Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). To consider creativity, innovation and the social environment integrally, we study the idea journey (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). A social journey of iterative processes in which creator leads off by generating ideas, travels through intermediate phases of elaboration and championing, to end with the implementation of an idea.
2. a. i. The idea journey
The idea journey is one of the mainstays of this paper’s thesis. Creativity and innovation are understood to comprise four distinct phases, from idea conception to completion. In every phase, creators experience primary social needs, which, if satisfied, support them to proceed to the next phase. Being creative and innovative, means, among other things, to be able to satisfy diverging social needs as the journey progresses (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). The authors conceptualized the following four phases: (a) Idea generation: A phase aimed at generating many different ideas, which is complete once a single best idea is selected. Cognitive flexibility and access to external nonredundant knowledge are primary social needs during the generation phase (Amabile, 1983; Granovetter, 1973). (b) Idea elaboration: The creator systematically evaluates a novel idea’s potential and further clarifies the idea. Elaboration is a success once a creator decides to present his/her idea, without altering it so to meet the current prevailing standards (i.e. the idea maintains its novelty). Primary needs are support and constructive behavior of other actors as a creator might experience uncertainty and risk from sharing an undeveloped and potentially deviant idea (Mainemelis, 2010). (c) Idea championing: At this point, a novel idea is actively promoted to the relevant gatekeepers with the purpose of receiving money, time, talent, and/or political cover. Upon completion, an idea is either developed, and ultimately implemented, or abandoned. Successful champions enjoy both legitimacy and influence (e.g. Howell & Higgins, 1990; Mainemelis, 2010). (d) Idea implementation: The final phase can be divided in two sub-phases, namely, production and impact. Where the former entails the actual production of the idea, the latter revolves around the innovation’s impact on the field. Where some authors emphasize production (e.g. Obstfeld, 2005), other theorists highlight adoption by the field (e.g. Bower & Christensen, 1995). In general, besides an effective resource allocation process (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Burgelman, 1983), the primary (social) need during implementation is
12 shared vision, which ensures commitment, enhanced helping behavior and sense of ownership (Fleming et al., 2007; Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010). Overall, there is evidence supporting the notion that shared vision is the most important social determinant of a group’s ability to produce innovative outcomes (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009).
As stated, a skilled innovator can satisfy different social needs across the idea journey. Then, what are these socially derived ingredients that drive a creator? Needs translate to network characteristics in the form of tie strength and network structure (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017).6 A strong tie is one with a high level of emotional closeness, from which someone (a creator) can experience psychological safety (Granovetter, 1973). An example of network structure is the number of structural holes that a creator can access; if two of a creator’s contacts do not share a tie, the creator is said to span a structural hole.7 As the idea journey advances, a creator’s involvement with contacts increases (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). The authors argue that this would imply that tie strength is particularly important during the early phases, whereas structure is more critical for facilitating the socially embedded needs of later phases – championing and implementation. As we continue, this study specifically pertains to the championing phase of innovation. This phase is rich with challenge (Mainemelis, 2010), even paradoxical (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), and would therefore greatly benefit from additional insight.
2. a. ii. Idea championing
Championing is the act of active idea promotion. A champion avidly underlines the positive impact an innovation can or will have on the field to build support, receive money, time, talent, and/or political cover for implementation (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Mainemelis, 2010; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Champions are emergent individuals who take ownership of an idea and set out to convince other stakeholders of its potential. How do champions emerge? Why do they diverge from the status quo and risk their reputation by advocating unproven ideas? Fundamentally, they draw from Merton’s (1968) strain theory, which posits that there can be social structures that hold some goals ‘worth striving for’ (i.e. higher-order goals). Eventually, higher-order goals make the infringement of
6 Interpersonal ties are information carrying connections between people. The strength of a tie is a combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie (Granovetter, 1973). Network structure refers to the system of relations among a creator’s direct ties (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017).
7 In social network research, a structural hole is a gap between two individuals (they are not directly related themselves) who each hold (access to) complementary information (Burt, 1992).
13 social norms an expectable response (Mainemelis, 2010). In case of the R&D department, a higher-order goal can be to bring forth meaningful innovation. This goal can then prompt a creator to keep pursuing an idea, even after he/she perceived the associated risks or is told to abandon pursuit. This is challenging not only from social perspective, the firm imposes structural strain on championing as well – that is, “the condition where the resources the firm provides do not suffice to support the pursuit of all proposed new ideas in the work context” (Mainemelis, 2010). Structural strain can, among other things, be a firm’s (in)ability to capture value from early stage technology (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002), or the extent to which it provides employees with access to new knowledge and information (Tsai, 2001). Structural strain offers an interesting paradox. On one side, scholars have proposed that a lack of resources negatively affects innovation (Teece, 1986); on the other side, scholars have argued that resource constraints can promote venture generation and innovation: “Necessity is the mother of invention” (Baker & Nelson, 2005).
Like elucidated, championing is challenging and not free of risk: “When first proposed, ideas are often rejected as they are perceived as weird, inappropriate, unworkable, or too risky, but these same ideas may later result in an outcome that the social context accepts as useful and breakthrough” (Mainemelis, 2010). It can therefore very well be that a great idea never completes the entire journey. A creator might be skilled at generation and elaboration but is unable to effectively get support from others while championing an idea. How to succeed? Legitimacy and influence are primary social needs that help a champion to persuade decision-makers (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Influence is one element that is essential to clear the way to acceptance and approval of resources for implementation (Howell & Higgins, 1990). A source for influence and legitimacy are structural holes, specifically the spanning thereof. Spanning a structural hole implies to connect two individuals, even groups, whom directly share a weak tie at best (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973). When spanning structural holes, creators enjoy several advantages: They are able to control the content that flows between loosely connected contacts to support their own ideas (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), and also have so-called translation advantages – that is, creators understand what resonates with contacts familiar to them and are regarded to have vision when brokering information between parties that only share weak(er) ties themselves (Burt, 2004). Spanning a structural hole, however, is not necessarily sufficient for successful championing. Next to influence, creators require others to have a positive impression of them as well. Legitimacy hints decision-makers about a person’s ability to implement an idea once approved (Podolny, 1994). Where this can be inherently difficult in case of
14 a novel idea (as observers are unable to benchmark innovative work), decision-makers might bank on other cues than personal characteristics of the creator for information, which can include the structural position of creator’s contacts (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003). Drawing from a rich body of literature, Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) posited that creators can borrow influence and legitimacy to reduce any perceived uncertainty by (temporarily) associating with well-regarded contacts. In other words, creators can borrow the perceived attributes of their contacts, which is expected to be more effective in gaining legitimacy and influence than spanning structural holes between ‘regular’ contacts. To conclude, successful champions carry ideas from elaboration to implementation. They do so by convincing relevant gatekeepers to provide resources to produce an idea, as this idea will make an impact in the field. This is a social endeavor during which champions require legitimacy and influence, drawn from spanning structural holes between well-regarded contacts in the wider network.
2. a. iii. Activation fluidity
As stated upon introduction of this study, navigating through the idea journey requires a creator to satisfy different, even paradoxical, social needs. Creators benefit from weak ties and nonredundant knowledge while generating ideas and rely on strong ties and emotional closeness for elaboration of an idea. Creators leverage structural holes in the wider network when championing an idea, while seeking closure and shared vision during implementation (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Excellent innovators require a certain social fluidity: They are to switch between parts of their social network to fulfill their paradoxical needs while innovating. Even though individuals experience tie inertia (Dahlander & McFarland, 2013), meaning to rely on relations that proved to work, and only have capacity for a limited number of ties (Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012), there are suggestions in the literature that people generate mental maps on which they make representations of whom to go to when in need of specific (emotional) resources (Krackhardt, 1987).8 Extending this idea, creators could activate different parts of their network to satisfy diverging social needs; an ability that Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) coined activation fluidity.
Successful innovators do not so much rely on the grand structure of their entire social network, as they do on the subset of their network that they cognitively activate during each phase of the idea journey. When a creator can conveniently and effectively switch between parts of the social network,
8 Mental maps are cognitive representations of networks (Krackhardt, 1987). Who do you know, who of the people you know is connected to whom, and what positions do they occupy?
15 he/she is said to be activation fluid. To be so, creators employ social frames; the intrapersonal antecedents of activation fluidity. Social frames shape our cognitive representations of what is going on in our network. Individuals can both explicitly activate certain parts of their network and implicitly rely on different parts of the network based on the situation at hand (Smith, Menon, & Thompson, 2012). Literature suggests three frames which we employ when considering activation fluidity (e.g. Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Firstly, there is an explicit frame of assessing a situation strategically versus politically. Creators can frame a situation strategically or for political cover; they can activate a part of their network where they find expertise, or one where they find influence. Secondly, there is threat, which drives implicit activation. Although dependent on the status an individual enjoys, high perception of threat invokes close ties, whereas low threat leads to the activation of the more expansive network (Smith et al., 2012). Dense networks can provide social support and harness trust (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008), which can appeal to someone that is threatened. Lastly, there is locus of control, which is an implicit frame under which creators assess whether the ultimately control the outcome of a situation. When one is ‘in control’, the social network is more seen as a provider of resources rather than as people who are directly involved in the activity (Ng & Feldman, 2011). Thus, creators can, by means of both implicit and explicit mental processes, activate different parts of the network to satisfy the social needs they experience while innovating. There are, however, limitations to activation fluidity as well. The interpersonal aspect of activation fluidity can form social strain on one’s ability to frame relations.9 For example, weak ties,
notwithstanding they require low maintenance (Granovetter, 1973), can become nonexistent if left too long outside of the activated network (Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012). Likewise, a creator can experience social sanctions when first mobilizing a dense network to elaborate on an idea after which he/she turns champion in a wider network for funds. High activation fluidity can make a creator come across as utilitarian or opportunistic, as one strategically forgets and remembers certain parts of the social network (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). As a result, a creator can squander access to parts of a social network and thereby access to (in)tangible resources.
Beyond creators’ mental ability to activate parts of their social network, we can observe interaction between stakeholders in a wider context. Meaning, we can theorize about a firm’s ability to affect the group dominant logic on social relations. Operationalizing the research question, we could ask the
9 We distinguish between two types of antecedents of activation fluidity: Social frames, which comprise intrapersonal, or internal, phenomena, and interpersonal (external) elements, like social relations.
16 following: Can firms stimulate characteristics of a social network to counterbalance the social strain
imposed by high activation fluidity, and ultimately help a creator to complete the idea journey successfully?10 Theory already suggested that it is likely that individuals who have champion potential can be identified through the use of psychological tests. Subsequently, if individuals who are likely to emerge as champions can be identified, then managers could provide them with an appropriate environment conducive to innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990). Like Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) noted, potentially fruitful avenues for future research are a creator’s representations of the social network.
2. b. Stakeholder relations and relational models
On the opposite side of needs and inputs, we can place contribution. For a creator to be a champion, the social environment contributes to his/her success by granting influence and legitimacy in a wider network. Ideally, they do so without socially sanctioning the creator afterwards when he/she turns to another part of the social network to produce an idea. This requires that as creators journey, parts of the social environment contribute altruistically to their success. An example is the dense inner-circle of the professional network; after being activated for idea elaboration, we hope for it not be displeased when creators aim to borrow structural holes by affiliating with more distant well-regarded contacts. If we consider both creator as well as inner-circle contacts to serve the same higher-order goal (to produce meaningful innovation) then we can draw a sharp parallel with joint-value creation – supportive contributions to value creation from stakeholders whose tasks and outcomes are interdependent (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). A critical characteristic of joint value creation is that stakeholders’ individual contribution to the collective outcome cannot be separated from the contributions of others (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972). About stakeholders’ social contributions to the creator’s journey, how much trust or legitimacy does each individual grant? Which member of the inner-circle is most forgiving and allows for how much activation fluidity? Stakeholder interaction is socially complex and, although classifiable (Fiske, 1992), heterogeneous. It is hard to monitor and enforce – for a task to be monitored well, it would require at least to be readily specified in advance – and with that, like knowledge-intensive tasks, stakeholder interaction does not cope well with behavior based monetary incentives (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016).11 How can we invoke it?
10 To ‘stimulate characteristics’ means to steer towards framing relations in terms of Communal Sharing or any other relational model. 11 Alchian and Demsetz’s (1972) metering problem.
17
2. b. i. Relational models
Regardless of the innovation process and socially strained activation fluidity, strategy scholars traditionally regard stakeholders not to contribute to joint value creation, even though this would be optimal from a collective point of view (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972). The contemporary view, however, is that individuals’ inherent qualities of mind and character differ; some more willing to contribute to the collective good than others (e.g. Ostrom, 2000). Building on this view, Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) provided a theory of individual stakeholder’s contributions to public good dilemma’s, specifically with respect to joint value creation. Extending relational models theory (cf. Fiske, 1991, 1992, 2004), the authors expect human behavior to be more social than initially believed and consider interaction in general to be based on four relational models. As such, interaction comprises of more than transactional relations governed by the price mechanism only. Theory suggests that people employ relational models: Schemata people use to construct and construe relations, to plan their own action, to understand, remember, and anticipate others’ action, and to coordinate the joint production of collective action (Fiske, 1992, 2004). Relational models operate when people transfer things (bilateral exchange, contribution, and distribution), and they define the primary standards of social justice. Appropriate behavior varies across the four models and behavior is operationalized by the cultural context. To illustrate the latter, by implementing a reciprocal model actors must have a shared understanding of what the appropriate interval is between receiving and giving in return (Fiske, 1991, 2004).
Today, we distinguish between four relational models (cf. Fiske, 1991, 1992, 2004): (a) Communal sharing (hereafter “CS”): The individual and the collective are one. Group members are equal and undifferentiated and share motivations and goals. People are relatively kind and altruistic to people of their community. Fairness correlates to ‘need’ – meaning, “People simply take what they need and contribute what they can, without anyone attending to how much each person contributes or receives” (Fiske, 1992). (b) Equality matching (hereafter “EM”): Actors who organize relations in terms of EM are in pursuit of balance and reciprocity. EM equals egalitarian distributive justice and surfaces in phenomena such as turn taking, tit-for-tat, compensation by equal replacement, and equal say. Distribution of resources is fair based on equality: Each person is entitled to the same amount as each other person in the relation. (c) Authority ranking (hereafter “AR”): Interaction is based on hierarchy. AR relations are social in the sense that one is above or below each other person. The identity of the actor as well as appropriate behavior are equivalent to the rank in the hierarchy. Whereas superiors
18 are motivated by the power and status they enjoy, subordinates find comfort in a sense of security. Distribution of resources and fairness are linked to status, where people see higher rank as better. (d) Market pricing (hereafter “MP”): Relations are characterized by cost-benefit calculations. Interaction is motivated by self-interest and self-gain in a system where actors see themselves as independent. MP relies on the ‘invisible hand of the market’ (Smith, 1776) to function and fairness is axiomatic in the sense that each contributor is rewarded in proportion to their contribution. The guiding principles of actors who frame relations under MP are ratios and rate, ultimately to establish equity. All four models can be placed on a social spectrum, where CS is considered more ‘social’ than EM, and EM is considered more ‘social’ than AR and MP (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). How do we form a preference for a certain relational model? All four models are understood to be a function of personal social dispositions and external cues (intrapersonal and interpersonal antecedents).
2. b. ii. Social dispositions and external cues
A person’s preference for a relational model is a function of their social disposition (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). Social dispositions refer to trait-like preferences for distribution of outcomes to self and others in interdependent situations (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001). They are understood to be stable, even innate (Wallace, Cesarini, Lichtenstein, & Johannes, 2007), traits that are not affected by the dynamics of the environment (Eisenberg, Guthrie, Murphy, Shepard, Cumberland, & Carlo, 1999). They are amply studied in relation to public good dilemma’s (Au & Kwong, 2004) and in general, we can distinguish four models: (a) “Self-regarding”: Actors seek to maximize absolute pay-offs regardless of others’ payoff (Van Lange, 1999). Self-regarding individuals see themselves as independent from others and reward is a result of individual effort. They can be linked to the MP relational model (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). (b) “Competitors”: A competitive disposition urges a person to maximize the difference in payoffs between oneself and others (Van Lange, 1999). Competitors are likely to prefer the AR model as they do include others in their self-representation (it is social) yet are driven by maximizing difference in their and others’ payoff. (c) “Reciprocators”: A more social disposition by which actors aim to maximize payoffs for all parties involved, as long as the others are perceived fair and cooperative (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001). Individuals that employ a reciprocal disposition tend to frame relations according to the EM model. They see equality as the highest norm (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016) and value giving and receiving, as well as cooperation to the extent that others reciprocate (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001). (d) “Altruists”: Individuals geared towards altruism seek to maximize payoffs for others, regardless of their own
19 payoffs (Fehr & Schmidt, 2006). They hold welfare of the community in higher regard than their own. In practice, altruism is quite rare in case of unconditional kindness in a single transaction with an anonymous other. Therefore, researchers often group altruists together with reciprocators (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016), who, with 46 percent, form the majority people (Au & Kwong, 2004). Altruists correspond best to the CS relational model (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). In general, one will be predisposed towards adopting multiple relational models; someone will not formulate interaction under one model exclusively (Fiske, 1992).
In addition to personal preferences, relational models are influenced by external factors, like the behavior of others (e.g. Cohen & Morse, 2014). “All individuals are capable of framing relations in terms of the four models if situational cues are strong enough” (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). Moreover, everybody can experience every relational model over time if hinted sufficiently by the environment (Flynn, 2005). In the work environment, managers can shape how individual stakeholders relate to the firm and to each other. Managers can do so because “the firm can be understood to be a central actor in stakeholders’ mental representations of the network of relations among the participants in joint value creation” (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). Employees can see the firm as humanlike and hold beliefs about its characteristics, motivations and emotions, rather than linking such beliefs to any specific agent of the firm (e.g. Fiske, 1991), while in fact, what they are experiencing are managerial actions and decisions. Can managers hint a tolerance for activation
fluidity? Whereas the team production literature suggests looking for allocations of property rights
that align the interests of self-regarding individuals, Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) proposed that “managers can help stakeholders frame relations with the firm and other stakeholders based on relational models that trigger motivations other than self-interest”.
2. c. Towards a behavioral theory of innovation
In both the stakeholder theory literature (cf. Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016) and the innovation literature (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), we can read about cognitive perspectives that moderate how we interact with others – namely, social dispositions and mental frames (intrapersonal). By social dispositions, we refer to the trait-like differences among people in their preferences for patterns of outcomes for self and other. Admitting we lack naming convention for such preferences, we do find wide consensus on the existence and workings of such dispositions (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). Related to this, we read about cognitive representations (frames) of social networks that individuals
20 make use of when assessing interactive situations (Smith et al., 2012). It is exactly these frames, Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017) reason, that creators employ to navigate across the idea journey. With respect to social dispositions, stakeholder theory additionally proposes a rather elaborate interpersonal framework of relational models. Whereas social dispositions are stable and not externally influenced (Eisenberg et al., 1999), relational models can change over time (Fiske, 1992) and are affected by the immediate environment (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). In case of the idea journey, the distinction between intrapersonal and interpersonal antecedents of stakeholder interaction is subtler. Rather than a juxtaposition of dispositions and models as found in stakeholder theory, frames and network characteristics are more interwoven, in the sense that they operate on a more similar level. Two out of three frames (threat and locus of control) are even considered to be implicit (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). In other words, they are in the very nature of our perception of social networks. For example, threat we assume from network structure, and the level of threat we experience is directly related to the number of strong ties in our active network (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Although network characteristics are malleable to a certain degree, frames are likely less workable than relational models, especially when it is difficult to conveniently rely on different parts of the social network. In this paper, it is investigated whether the social environment of a creator can be made more explicit – meaning, whether it can be separated more deliberately from intrapersonal perceptions of network characteristics (frames and social dispositions). Instead of considering tie strength and structure as relevant network characteristics, it is reasoned that we can rely on relational models for conceiving of our social surroundings. For example, Howell and Higgins (1990) reason that “it is interesting to speculate about the interaction between contextual variables and champions’ individual predispositions to engage in innovation.” Formulating an all-encompassing relational models theory of innovation however, is outside the confines of a master’s thesis. At this point, this paper only hopes to spark an interest, discussion, and expansion of the relational models framework to the creativity and innovation domain. Hence, the goal is to demonstrate a positive effect of more prosocial relational models (CS and EM) on the championing phase of innovation. In other words, CS and EM result in ‘easier championing’ than MP and AR would.12
12 Terms like ‘Easier idea championing’ are operationalized by measures proposed by Howell, Shea and Higgins (2005), Zhou and George (2001), and Scott and Bruce (1994). For a complete overview, we refer to chapter 3 and appendix B.
21 Chapter 2 is concluded with two hypotheses (H1 and H2) and two propositions (P1 to P2), combined into one conceptual model. The two hypotheses relate to observations that we empirically tested and explained, whereas propositions refer to observations that are only advanced as suggestions based on theory and logic. By considering just two hypotheses for the remainder of this work, only a partial answer is sketched to a question concerning a very complex human reality. Yet, this will create an outset from where a more comprehensive theory can be developed.
2. c. i. Direct effects of relational models on championing
Ideally, champions activate a wider network in which they enjoy legitimacy and influence, while bearing low threat and without experiencing social sanctions as a result from appealing to different parts of the social/professional network. Relying on more distant well-regarded contacts (weaker ties), when a creator first relied on the inner-circle of the network for idea elaboration (strong ties), can make a creator come across as utilitarian and opportunistic. As a result, creators can experience social sanctions, even be excluded from the group, as the inner-circle expects loyalty (Xiao & Tsui, 2007). This is especially inconvenient as they rely heavily on structure (the system of weak and strong ties around a creator) for gaining support for their idea across the firm. Social strain like this can take many forms. In general, it is associated with negative intrapersonal consequences (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). If the inner-circle is unwilling to ‘share’ members with adjacent social networks, they pose a high level of strain and limit creators’ activation fluidity. To overcome such difficulties, rather than questioning whether we should appeal to strong or weak ties, we can question the very characteristics of these ties. Are ties characterized by equality and reciprocity, status differences, or opportunities for personal gain? If we would signal an EM model of interaction, we emphasize the value of equal contribution, rather than the differentiating qualities of each contribution (Fiske, 1992). This could entail that a creator can experience more margin to roam social sanction-free across the network, if at a certain point in time the favor is returned in any form that is within the possibilities set by the social context. In the same way “a dinner party matches a dinner party, within a range of possibilities that the culture defines” (Fiske, 1992). The latter is an important nuance, as creators can be unable to return the exact favor of granting resources for perfect reciprocity; they are not necessarily gatekeepers that can allocate resources when others ask them to. In addition, when we operate a CS-minded environment, creators can receive whatever they need and will likely not have to return a favor at all. In the community, “people simply take what they need and contribute what they can” (Fiske, 1992). It is well established that stakeholders whom have the collective in high
22 regard are more likely to cooperate and engage in behaviors that benefit the collective (e.g. Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Flynn, 2005). Assuming holding the collective in high regard requires shared vision, it can even be linked to the most important social determinant of a group’s ability to produce innovative outcomes (Hülsheger et al., 2009). However favorable from a champion’s perspective, this situation does not come without risk. Firms pose structural strain; they simply do not have enough resources to pursue and implement every idea (Mainemelis, 2010), nor would expectation-free facilitation of idea implementation be a very sustainable strategy. To abridge such unwanted outcomes, firms and individual actors could blend CS-oriented interaction with an EM model of cooperation. Although each model is unique (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016), this does not necessarily mean that any gain from relating in a CS mode is immediately lost when EM interaction is introduced: “It is quite rare to find a personal relation, a pair of complementary roles, a group, or an institution that draws on only one model. People commonly use a combination of models to generate sequences of action, to judge different features of social action, and to coordinate with others” (Fiske, 1992). The operating principle underlying EM is that when people receive a favor, they feel obligated to reciprocate by returning a favor. Like mentioned earlier, reciprocal exchange does not mean all contributions also are exactly the same. Thus, when a creator receives the legitimacy that is sought after in the form of resources to implement an idea, an EM frame would guide a creator to reciprocate, which in this context can take the form of a genuine attempt to successfully implement an idea that a creator genuinely believes in. Fruitful implementation of an idea, however, is not guaranteed. Even so, it is argued that prosperous championing based on CS and EM-minded relations is sustainable, at least from a social/cooperative perspective: “That what people get out of even exchanges is not some kind of long-term gain or material security, but the EM relation itself” (Fiske, 1992).
Theorists (e.g. Fiske, 1992) argue that reciprocity-based ties (EM) will lead to higher stakeholder contributions than AR would, because it is a better coordination devise when knowledge is dispersed across participants. This occurs not only because the collective knows more than the individual, in AR relations subordinates can hoard information in fear of the superior’s assessment (Michailova & Husted, 2003). Idea championing involves creators and gatekeepers and are therefore naturally superior-subordinate oriented. Provided that a creator strongly identifies as subordinate, he/she is at risk of withholding information that could make arguments for implementation more compelling and can be seen as less influential as he/she is simply to follow orders and obey. Moreover, a proself-oriented approach, like MP, is even expected to negatively impact the idea journey. MP is
23 characterized by rational cost-benefit analysis by which stakeholders aim to obtain the highest payoff in return for the lowest contribution (e.g. Fiske, 1992). If no rational assessment can be made of reward in relation to contribution, a self-regarding individual is less likely to contribute to his/her best effort (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972). About stakeholders’ social contributions to the creator’s journey, it is near impossible to determine how much trust or legitimacy one grants a creator, or how much of the overall gain from an innovation can be contributed to the champion alone. Along these lines, the argument is as follows: Creators and contacts that operate under more prosocial relational models (CS and EM) rather than more discriminatory models (AR and MP) are more inclined to value the qualitative aspects of interpersonal processes. As a result, creators are more motivated to drive an idea that is expected to contribute to the success of the implementing firm, and contacts in the social network are more inclined to altruistically contribute to the success of the creator.
The effects described here are expected to pertain to the championing phase in specific, yet this does not mean that more prosocial relational models cannot have a similar effect on the other phases of the idea journey. This positive effect, however, is subtler than is explained up to this point. CS suggests conformity, even a fusion of oneself with the collective. At the same time, different scholars found conformity to be the antithesis of creativity (Fleming et al., 2007; Uzzi & Spiro, 2005; Woodman et al., 1993). CS can thus be ‘overreached’: A too strong focus would deter consideration of alternatives and discussion of doubts and problems. It is expected that people who ‘over-conform’, do not set apart from the group by a difference of opinion and will not champion non-conforming ideas. This is what Janis (1982) called groupthink, and groupthink has a harmful effect on the creative process. To alleviate any these harmful effects, firms could, again, revert to reciprocity. EM-minded stakeholders continue to interpret everybody to have exactly the same rights and duties (like CS), yet see themselves as separate from the group because they define themselves at the interpersonal level (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). EM, however, can be ‘overreached’ also. Ironically, egalitarian standards (EM) can result in inegalitarian (AR) relations. Fiske (1992) asserts that when EM norms are operating, one person can give the other resources that the beneficiaries are unable to return even by qualitative standards, like money or political cover to implement an idea. In that case, the recipient is beholden to the donor. If the relation continues to be unbalanced, any recipients may accumulate debts that they may eventually have to pay back in respect, loyalty, or submission. As a result, EM norms can result in AR relations when the initial distribution of resources is unequal. As a result, it is proposed that the level at which a relational model is present will determine its effect:
24
P1: Framing relations in terms of CS and EM, rather than AR and MP, is curvilinear (inverted U-shape) related to the idea journey – that is, whereas CS and EM are initially expected to have a positive effect on the championing phase of innovation, a too strong emphasis on these relational models will result in a negative effect.
Nonetheless, due to the limitations of this study, this curvilinear effect is not what is empirically tested. To demonstrate a curvilinear effect, one exposes the outcome variable to different levels of a continue predictor variable. Under the current setup, only one level of predictor variable is present, and it is coded to be categorical. Hence, the primary goal of this work is to demonstrate that CS and EM result in ‘easier idea championing’ or ‘more willing champions’, rather than AR and MP would. This would demonstrate that different relational models have different outcomes in terms of the idea journey and, ultimately, signals that group creativity and innovation can be guided by firms. In due course, the central hypothesis is this:
H1: Framing relations in terms of CS and EM results in easier idea championing and more willing champions than AR and MP would.
2. c. ii. Moderating effects of social dispositions and the firm
Relational models directly affect creators’ ability to navigate across the idea journey. Next, it is reasoned that this relation is moderated by (i) a creator’s dominant social disposition, and (ii) the level of structural strain the firm imposes.
As said, creators’ social dispositions shape their dominant logic for forming relations while innovating. Where the predictor variable is the salient relational model in the immediate environment of a creator, it is expected that social dispositions do play a rather determinative role also. Social dispositions fuel self-representations, motivations, and different opportunities to fulfill (social) needs (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016). When a creator’s dominant social disposition is “competitor”, he/she seeks to maximize the difference between his/her payoff and that of others. If one holds views that are self-regarding, there are no considerations of the payoff of others at all (Van Lange, 1999). When considering the idea journey, social strain can cause a creator to feel rejected (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), to experience emotional discomfort, reduced motivation, and decrements in cognitive performance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). It is then creators with a more self-regarding view that can cope best with such conditions. Self-regarding actors already expect other participants
25 to pursue their self-interest and to only consider the collective to the extent that it personally pays off (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2010). ‘Self-regarders’ see themselves as independent and are likely not to perceive others as qualified to inform them about how to coordinate actions (Haslam, 2001). Similarly, actors that employ competitive dispositions are less prone to social strain too. Competitors, however social, do not hold egalitarian standards when considering relations and perceive less of negative consequences of actions that result in higher outcome for self with respect to outcomes for others. In due course, it is reasoned that creators who operate more self-oriented social dispositions consider less of the social environment than as when they would operate more ‘other-oriented’ social dispositions.
H2: A creator socially disposed towards (1) ‘self-regarding’ rather than ‘competitor’, and (2) towards ‘competitor’ rather than ‘reciprocator’ or ‘altruist’, negatively moderates the ability of social strain to affect his/her ‘ease of idea journeying’.
Finally, creativity flourishes when the firm encourages it and provides employees with the resources they need to play with their ideas in generative ways (e.g. Woodman et al., 1993). In reality, however, firms often impose structural strain on creativity and innovation – among other things that is: (a) The firm simply does not have sufficient resources to facilitate all ideas in the workplace. To be more precise, Nohria and Gulati (1996) suggests that slack (resources a firm has freely available) and innovations are inverse U-shaped related; both too much and too little slack may be detrimental to innovation. (b) decision-makers (gatekeepers) can give incorrect orders (Staw & Boettiger, 1990). In their study, Staw and Boettiger (1990) found that people even adhere to obviously flawed orders. Misalignment among decision-makers and the firm can therefore place a structural strain on innovation and creativity. In case of a novel idea, however, managerial orders are not inherently correct of incorrect. (c) A firm’s business model can be not able to capture value from an innovation, or at least, a priori appreciate its value. “A successful business model creates a heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the realization of economic value” (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). Although common language among corporate business models, it is not necessarily present. When firms place structural strain on the innovative process, they are unable to accurately appreciate innovation. Besides the three antecedents of structural strain listed here, we can find ample examples of ways in which a firm affects creativity and innovation. Some can be attributed to the firm specifically, whereas other are more ambiguous in origin. For example, the firm’s climate on
26 psychological safety and its effect on the number of proposed ideas in the work environment (Baer & Frese, 2003); circumstances that emerge from both the firm and the social/professional network of the creator. The ability of a firm to govern and process information is no frivolous luxury, and the extent to which this ability affects the innovation process is not to be undervalued. Nonetheless, in this paper it is understood to be a study in its own nature and too exhaustive to be done justice here. Hence, the proposition regarding structural strain is rather narrow and will not be within focus for the remainder of this work.
P2: Structural strain negatively moderates the relation between the salient relational model and a creator’s ability to complete the idea journey.
Model 1 combines all that is considered in chapter 2 into one conceptual model.13
Model 1:
The level of structural strain a firm poses. A creator s dominant social
dispositions.
(PV) (OV)
The salient relational model in a creator s immediate social/
professional environment. (MV) A creator s ease of championing or champion willingness (MV) Gender Tenure Position in organization hierarchy (CV) H1 + P1 H2 P2 Age
27
3. METHOD
3. a. Procedure
A survey-vignette study is conducted to measure the effect of the salient relational model in the immediate social/professional environment of a creator on the championing phase of innovation. As we aim to generalize relational model theory beyond joint value creation and show congruence of structure across different domains of the social/professional life, the logic that is applied is largely inductive. Along the lines of induction, data is collected to identify themes and patterns and, ultimately, build a theory. In this specific work, however, rather than formulating a full-fledged theory, the goal is to verify or demonstrate the potential for a theory. To do so, deductive inference is applied to test hypotheses that consider specific relations between phenomena. A deductive approach is commonly associated with quantitative research, and when used to collect structured quantitative data, a survey strategy is suitable (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). Furthermore, vignettes are employed to elicit respondents’ judgments about social/professional scenarios. Vignettes are short descriptions of situations that are shown to respondents as part of a survey. By such design, information about behavior, attitudes and judgments is more reliably obtained for dissimilar situations, than could be done in other ways (Ludwick and Zeller, 2001). Vignettes are particularly suitable for experiments to discover patterns in social and behavioral phenomena, as these are more difficult to examine through observation or classical experiments (Heise, 2010). One feature of vignettes that is leveraged in this study, is the possibility to describe specific scenarios in highly concrete and detailed manners, whilst allowing for systematic variation in the characteristics of the described scenario. A potential disadvantage of this method, however, is that reading a vignette is different from experiencing stimuli in everyday life (Ludwick and Zeller, 2001); it is limited in terms of ecological validity. In other words, it is an oversimplification of the complexity of real world situations, which might cause respondents to respond differently than as they would in real life. Nonetheless, based on arguments set forth, a survey-vignette study serves best to test the main hypotheses.
This study employs an experimental 1 x 3 between-subject factorial design in which the predictor variable is manipulated in an otherwise similar situation. Based on either of three vignettes, respondents are asked about their championing behavior in the hypothetical situation, which represents the outcome variable. The survey questionnaire collects information about respondents’
