encouraging innovation
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
1/29
Encouraging Innovation
Erin OgleJune 6, 2011
Submitted to Dr. Wally PfeifferPortland State University
V1.3 Updated June 7, 2011
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
2/29
2
CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Research Methodology................................................................................................................................. 4Innovation and Sustainability........................................................................................................................... 5
Leadership and Culture .............................................................................................................................. 13Interface: Organizational Change in Action ................................................................................................ 16Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 21Appendix A. Key Points in Interface History ............................................................................................. 23 Appendix B. Survey Results ........................................................................................................................... 24 Works Consulted.............................................................................................................................................. 25
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
3/29
3
Innovation is not the product of logical thought, although the result is tied to logical structure.~Albert Einstein
Introduction
Innovation is one of those great words, so rich in meaning as to almost become meaningless.
Sustainability is one of those words, too. This paper is an attempt to explore the interstices between
the two concepts, and identify ways in which they are related to and shaped by organizational
culture. The culture of an organization is a complex function of a wide array of factors. These
factors can include: genesis, development, geographic location, industry structure, office
environment, age (of the firm and of its people), racial and gender composition, organizational
structure, and much more. Because it is such a complex and largely intangible organizational feature,
it can be difficult to define concretely. This culture in turn manifests itself in the form of company
policy, level of risk tolerance, capacity to embrace change, the compensation structure, and other
characteristics. Culture also affects the behavior and decision-making habits of individual employees,
as it establishes norms and boundaries.
Because corporate culture manifests itself in the behavior of employees and in characteristics
that could be deemed company personality, it is a critical element to examine when assessing an
organizations capacity for high levels of innovation. We know from many studies that
organizational change is not a simple, unidirectional movement. It is densely layered and must be
approached carefully and intentionally if any of the movement is to become a permanent and useful
part of daily operations. Corporate culture is also function of the personalities and behaviors of top
management, and support from top management is in turn critical to the successful implementation
of any new policy.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
4/29
4
Research Methodology
The body of literature pertaining to innovation, innovation management, and sustainability is
immense, and this is clearly not intended to be a complete investigation. Rather, it is the tip of an
iceberg that will likely become a lifes work. The bulk of the work was secondary research, focusing
on materials housed by the Portland State University library, the Multnomah County library, and
various online academic databases. Primary research was conducted in the form of an online survey
and a small number of personal interviews. The online survey was distributed via email, Twitter,
Facebook and LinkedIn, and garnered 43 responses. The results of the survey can be found in
Appendix B.
Interviews were informal, and occasionally occurred as part of question and answer sessions
with visiting speakers in elective courses at Portland State University. This project evolved into more
of a literature survey than a practical exploration, so interviews became less of a focus once this shift
occurred. The interviews served to reinforce or alter hypotheses, and will not be referenced or
quoted directly.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
5/29
5
Innovation and Sustainability
For the purposes of this inquiry, innovation is defined as the generation, development, and
acceptance of new products, processes or services (not just incremental improvement). In the
context of product innovation, several researchers have examined the role of improvisation
techniques, where improvisation means creating a product while simultaneously adapting to
changing markets and technologies. This improvisation demonstrates two key aspects of innovation:
intense, real time communication within a structure of a few, very specific rules.1 The limited
structure provides a framework, and communication allows the players to coordinate and mutually
adjust within that framework. This enables the accomplishment of tasks in a rapidly changing
environment.2
As competition in the global economy continues to increase, and the call for sustainability
presses new responsibilities onto businesses, innovation becomes increasingly integral to success.
There is some mythology about successful innovation: it has been associated with Eureka
moments experienced by great thinkers toiling in isolation. In reality, this is not the case, and it is
important to distinguish invention from innovation. Invention is still important, but innovation can
be built into an organizational culture purposefully and often with great results.
However, it is not simple. Innovation means incorporating vision, leadership, teamwork,
individual responsibility, proper resource allocation, goal-setting, and many other complex attributes
and processes into a system designed to provide useful output. The factors affecting innovation are
possibly countless, but here is one list:
Commercialization timeline Intellectual property issues
1 Bastien and Hostager, 1988; Hatch, 1997, as referenced by Brown & Eisenhardt.2 Brown & Eisenhardt.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
6/29
6
Market complexity Codes, statutes, regulations Technology transfer The desire, commitment, and resources of the inventor and their team Product similarities and synergies
Expectations of the supply chain Investor support/interest/commitment Government support/subsidy Global competition Education Openness of capital markets Import/export trade balance Net neutrality and cyberspace security Support and networking opportunities for entrepreneurs and would-be entrepreneurs3
There can be very real tension between keeping up with a production and shipment schedule
and allowing teams to test and improve possible innovations. It is important to establish and
maintain a schedule, but it can be just as important to recognize when a product is good enough
to ship. Research has shown that companies who successfully execute multiple-product innovations
combine clear responsibilities and priorities with extensive communication and freedom. They probe
into the future with a variety of low-cost experiments, and they link current products to future ones
using predictable product intervals and choreographed transition procedures.4
The notion of a predictable product interval is an important one. Some engineers, left to
their own devices, would be happy to keep experimenting. Some designers may be unhappy that
they werent able to perfect their design before the idea was sent into production. This tension is
inevitable, but can be managed through careful communication and support from leadership. This is
not unique to a culture trying to become more innovative, but is true of any organization that is
encountering change or uncertainty. Some researchers argue that an innovation might be seen as
minor or routine by some organizations but as major or radical by others.5 For example, the
3 http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps121227/LPS121227.pdf p.134 Brown & Eisenhardt.5 Downs and Mohr, p. 704.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
7/29
7
transition from disk drives to flash memory was likely radical for disk drive producers. But for the
other users in the personal computer value network, the innovation was incremental.6 For the end-
user, their device had more memory or executed tasks more quickly, but the device itself and the
way it was used were largely unchanged. This masks the radical nature of the innovation in the disk
drive industry.
Capacity for innovation can also be correlated to the complexity and structure of the
market. Markets characterized by high levels of competition will internalize innovation differently
from those in more monopolistic markets. As Porter and Kramer discuss in their influential 2011
article, Creating Shared Value, the success of any company is affected by the supporting companies
and infrastructure around it. Productivity and innovation are strongly influenced by "clusters," or
geographic concentrations of firms, related businesses, suppliers, service providers, and logistical
infrastructure in a particular field--such as IT in Silicon Valley, Biopolis in Singapore, Research
Triangle, the MIT-Harvard nexus, the cut flower industry in Kenya, diamond cutting in Surat, India,
and many more.
These clusters include businesses and other institutions such as academic programs, trade
associations, and standards organizations. In order to maximize their effectiveness, these clusters
also involve the assets of the surrounding community, such as schools and universities, clean water,
fair-competition laws, quality standards, and market transparency.7 How information flows between
these organizations is a topic beyond the scope of this project, but it is clear that innovation does
not occur in a vacuum. Many players have a role in the game, and the number and type of players
will influence how the game is played.
Interestingly, the literature shows some striking similarities in the language used to describe
the characteristics of organizations successfully moving toward sustainability and those who are
6 Carillo-Hermosilla, p. 10.7 Porter and Kramer, p. 62-77.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
8/29
8
successful innovators. Smaller, more nimble organizations are often better. Flat organizations seem
better adapted to innovation and sustainability. The need for dedicated support from leadership is
self-evident. The success of designating teams to devise solutions is also a characteristic of
innovation cultures and sustainability cultures.
In essence, a companys response to the challenges of implementing sustainable practices is
highly correlated to its capacity for innovation. This is a reflection of the commitment of leadership
and of the cultures capacity to solve problems. The emerging field of eco-efficiency combines these
principles. Proponents of eco-efficiency argue that it isnt necessary to invent new economic models
to measure the productivity of environmental initiatives. Instead, innovative environmental goods
and services will become a source of profit. This approach is also co-regulatory, as markets,
governments and NGOs all have a role to play in industrial transformation.8
There are some distinct advantages to measuring eco-efficiency that relate to both capacity
for innovation and commitment to sustainability:
Monitoring improvement over time and in comparison with others Providing a good knowledge base for setting the stretch targets that eco-efficiency requires Helping set priorities for action Deciding between alternative courses of action Providing information to external stakeholders
Leadership for eco-efficiency must find the right balance between central direction,
challenge from above, and local autonomy. If the culture tends to rely solely on top-down initiatives,
those in the lower ranks will just wait for things to be done. If there is an exclusive reliance on
bottom-up initiatives, there is a risk of fragmentation as each location or subunit will devise its own
solution.9 Preventing redundancy is important when trying to balance leadership and goal orientation
with on-the-ground empowerment and autonomy. However, the eco-efficiency movement is a
powerful voice in the current phase of industrial transformation.
8 Mol, A. p. 138-149.9 DeSimone and Popoff, p. 95.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
9/29
9
The technology adoption lifecycle popularized by Everett Rogers can serve as a useful model
for how companies (and their supply chains) encounter industrial transformation. Understanding the
level of commitment from top management for integrating new initiatives into business strategy will
help determine how to move most productively toward goals. This adoption curve can be used as a
comparison between current commitment and future trajectory. Companies do not necessarily move
through these phases step-by-step. An organization can skip steps to become more focused on
specific initiatives, or can move backwards if certain efforts lose traction.
It is worth noting that top-level support is easier to obtain for organizations within the
Acceptance and Strategic Initiative phase. Management within the Openness phase can be receptive
to the adoption of the new tools and procedures but it will require an individual change agent (or a
small team) to take on the initial process and work towards organizational acceptance.
Figure 1. The Adoption Cycle10
Strategic Initiatives (Innovators)
Acceptance (Early Adopters) Openness (Early Majority) Non-Responsiveness (Late Majority) Rejection (Laggards)
Strategic Initiatives:This organization integrates innovation into its core values and uses it as a
competitive advantage. Innovation management strategies are integrated into everyday processes and
product design.
10 Adapted from Rogers (1962).
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
10/29
10
Acceptance:This organization understands that innovation is needed and is working towards or
has already created necessary teams. The company is likely to shifting its focus from high volume,
low price to higher quality and innovation.
Openness:This organization has a culture receptive to innovative strategic initiatives but is unsure
where or how to start incorporating ideas into practice. Executives are supportive of individuals who
are willing to step-up and encourage change, but are not actively seeking out these leaders.
Non-Responsiveness:This organization is content with the way business is currently conducted
and not actively seeking innovations (product, environmental, or otherwise) or is not aware that
such innovations have the ability to improve the quality and attractiveness of a product.
Management is not necessarily closed to the idea but unaware.
Rejection:The organizations primary concern is profit maximization with little or no concern for
environmental initiatives beyond compliance. Top decision makers and executives are not interested
in incorporating innovation into the strategic plan.
The shape of the bell curve suggests that there are limited numbers of companies operating
within each attitudinal stage, but this is not necessarily the case. As initiatives such as Corporate
Social Responsibility gain widespread popularity, it may be more useful to look at a wave theory
rather than a bell curve. A wave theory suggests that there are stages to move through, and while
this model was developed while studying the move toward sustainability, the theory also applies to
the move toward a more innovative culture. Depending upon what an organization wishes to
accomplish, it may move back and forth between the waves. Linear progression is implied, but not
necessary.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
11/29
11
Figure 2. Waves of Sustainability11
In the first wave, organizations are focused on doing what has always been done. There is no
support from leadership for new initiatives, and in some cases there may be outright opposition.
This is not to suggest that these firms are ornery or illogical. They may have many good reasons to
reject innovation, such as:
Costs and cost savings Potential benefits (greater revenues) Complexity May require additional training May need specialized, highly skilled human resources May require a closer relationship between the supplier and the firm Compatibility with existing system Existence of an installed base High up-front costs Complementary innovations Sector-specific technological opportunities Expectations of cost reductions and quality improvements Criteria for assessing new technologies12
Over time, however, as either forced by compliance, encouraged to do so for efficiency
reasons, or through strategic vision, an organization may find itself moving into the second wave
and toward the third wave. Both in the context of sustainability and in the context of innovation, a
true Third Wave organization is something of a figment. It is a goal that can never truly be attained,
11 Adapted from Dunphy (2010).12 Adapted from Koloupoulos, p.46-49.
First Wave
IgnoranceOpposition TransformationCompetitiveAdvantageRisk Cost
Second Wave Third Wave
Rejection ComplianceNon-res onsiveness
Efficiency Strategicroactivit
The sustainingcor oration
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
12/29
12
as pure innovation or true sustainability are not end points. The value lies in the process, and not at
a fictional finish line.
Interestingly, research has shown that companies who are making a concerted effort toward
being a third wave organization are inclined to form alliances with like-minded companies whose
activities are complementary to their own. In some cases, the organizations in these alliances will co-
locate their production facilities to form what are known as industrial clusters or industrial
ecosystems.13 This reinforces the idea that successful innovation is often characterized by clusters,
alliances, and high levels of internal and external cooperation. By demonstrating how ideas can be
commercialized, businesses also drive other firms to innovate, allowing organizations with different
technical capacities and market insights to take the next steps. In fact, most innovation does not
stand alone but complements other innovations.14
13 Tibbs, p. 191-21614 A Strategy for American Innovation, p. 9.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
13/29
13
The question is not whether or not to innovate, but at what cost.
~ Tom Koulopoulos
Leadership and Culture
Encouraging innovation requires clear expectations, committed leadership, and the
appropriate organizational structure and hierarchy. Leaders who expect their organization to achieve
high levels of sustained innovation have to overcome organizational inertia and enable teams to
focus on clearly articulated objectives. These objectives will be different for each organization
depending upon their values and goals, but can generally be divided into four categories:
1. Separate the core competencies of the organization from its core business modelEssentially, this asks the question What are we good at? rather than How do we generate
profits? In an increasingly information based economy, it is necessary to separate the profit-drivers
from the activities that enable improvement and innovation. In the information-based economy,
corporations are looking to long-term survival through the development of knowledge systems,
stores of social capital and a culture of innovation.15
This step also relates to the vision of the organization. In this arena, Collins and Porras
found that visionary companies had an ideology made up of core values and purpose. Employees
identified with and committed to these values. Profit is important but it is not the defining feature of
visionary organizations.16
15 Dunphy, p. 58.16 Collins and Porras.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
14/29
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
15/29
15
carefully paced periods of smaller, organic change.19 Contemporary corporations need to be
ambidextrous, that is, with the flexibility to move between and manage both incremental and
revolutionary approaches to change in order to stay in alignment with market conditions.20
4. Create an organizational structure that fosters innovation throughout the organizationOrganizations must be prepared to implement innovative organizational structures. Such
structures can consist of creative combinations of dotted-line and solid-line reporting relationships
that mix formal authority with informal oversight. Councils and oversight committees can also be
useful, as the idea is to work collectively toward goals with a team approach.21 Team-based work
can also facilitate cross-functional communication, enhance worker involvement, and develop or
better utilize talent to serve strategic aspirations.22 As seen before, flexibility can combine with
communication, teamwork and informality to enable the creation of new and novel ideas.
There are many examples of companies that have successfully implemented innovation in
combination with sustainability initiatives. Successful companies have found that askingpeople to
look at their work through an environmental lens can lead to innovation around waste reduction,
resource productivity, significant cost savings, and increased employee satisfaction.23Interface is a
well-studied example of a company that has excelled at the intersection of innovation and
sustainability.
19 Abrahamson, p. 75.20 Dunphy, p. 22721 Garvin and Levesque, p. 9.22 Galia and Legros, p. 5.23 Esty and Winston, p. 108.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
16/29
16
Interface: Organizational Change in Action
Interface, Inc. was founded in 1973 by Ray C. Anderson to manufacture carpet tiles. After
twenty profitable years in business, Interface was confronted with a question about environmental
sustainability. A potential customer asked about the companys environmental policies, and
Anderson was initially somewhat annoyed. By his way of thinking, the company was compliant with
all environmental regulations and nothing more should be required. However, Interface employees
asked Anderson to give a presentation on the issue. In a moment almost too serendipitous to be
believed, Paul Hawkens (1993) bookEcology of Commercelanded on Andersons desk as he was trying
to figure out what to say during this presentation. This became the spear in the chest moment that
anyone who has studied this case is familiar with.
Hawkens book challenged Andersons previously unexamined opinions about the role and
responsibility of business in protecting the environment. Anderson quickly underwent a complete
reversal in his way of thinking, and a new vision of ecological sustainability emerged. In his
presentation to his company, he charged the entire organization with devising ways to become more
sustainable. This had important and immediate implications for changing the core values at
Interface, and how this was accomplished is an excellent example of leadership enabling culture
change at a fundamental level.
At Interface, sustainability became an organizational value that defines and directs all
decisions and behaviors. Interface operates based on the principle that one cannot create a
sustainable organization without addressing the issues of identity and cultural values. As an
employee puts it:
Each time we have a decision to make around here, we have to consider three questions: Is
it good for the environment, is it good for people and will it make us money. We are
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
17/29
17
constantly juggling these three questions. As new processes emerged, and successes
generated more success, understanding grew into belief.24
The re-orientation toward purposeful innovation at Interface was accomplished through a series of
changes in philosophy and policy. Each employee was presented with targeted challenges that were
linked to incentives. While education was (and continues to be) a part of the movement toward
sustainability, this education focuses on the impact of incremental change. Sustainability training
emphasizes the effect of small behavior changes, and emphasizes that everyone can make a
difference. The training also encourages creativity in the problem-solving process. As important as
Andersons leadership and vision were in setting a direction and establishing expectations and
structures, they were no substitute for commitment and action by everyone in the organization.25
Anderson did several important and effective things as the leader of this movement. First, he
sought help from external parties who had more knowledge than he did (The Natural Step, his
Dream Team of consultants). Second, he worked with his management team to devise goals and
work-plans that enabled employees to rise to the challenge (stretch goals with flexible hurdle rates).
Third, he established incentives and competitions that made problem-solving and innovation into
rewarding activities. Fourth, he set the tone for the entire organization by being deeply,
fundamentally committed to the cause. Fifth, as a result of his deep commitment, he did not hesitate
to allocate resources to the cause. In addition, placing the sustainability programs under the
direction of the companys research arm was pivotal, signaling the issues links to product
development, innovation, and the future competitiveness of the firm.26
In terms of organizational practices, Interface implemented a program called QUEST:
quality utilizing employee suggestions and teamwork. This is a formalized suggestion box program
24 Pasmore, p. 110.25 DeSimone and Popoff, p. 100.26 DuBose, p. 200.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
18/29
18
that has been instrumental in problem identification and problem solving. Suggestions can be
submitted through QUEST boxes or through conversations with a team leader. QUEST problems
are generally large, and teams meet once a week for several weeks. This eventually evolved into
REQUEST, which has a slightly different format - people meet for a concentrated period of time,
for a few consecutive days or solid week, to work on problem. REQUEST generally deals with
smaller issues than the QUEST format. But the main idea behind both is to engage employees
problem-solving and innovation skills. Interface was able to get high levels of employee engagement
through these types of programs.27
It could be said that Interface went through a virtual metamorphosis. Researcher Mona
Amodeo catalogued the following phases in Interfaces path toward sustainability:
Phase 1: Awakening
Andersons spear in the chest moment was the beginning. However, change did not
happen quickly or without resistance. Initially, some of the companys employees and managers were
skeptical, and the prevailing attitude was: We like that we are doing, we are successful: dont monkey with it.
However, Anderson refused to budge and a more inclusive management approach was adopted with
the aim to involve people and create a better place for them to work.
Phase 2: Cocooning
Intense internal reflection and research commenced as the company tried to understand how
move forward. A Dream Team of external sustainability experts was formed to help, and Anderson
was central in translating the ideas from the Dream Team into application. This is where the seven
27 http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/InterfaceCaseStudy4.pdf, p.3
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
19/29
19
faces of Mount Sustainability were mapped, and where the culture began to embrace incremental
change. The prevailing attitude in this stage was of inquiry and experimentation.
Phase 3: Metamorphosis
Experimentation led to a succession of small successes. The marketplace responded
positively to the innovations and initiatives. Collaborative work toward sustainability had
demonstrated benefits. The mindset of asking whether a decision is good for people, profits, and
environment, all at the same time, became rooted in the organizations operations. This made
continuously seeking new solutions for sustainability possible.
Phase 4: Emergence and Engagement
The company now relies on ideas and practices relating to sustainability to emerge from its
employees. It is understood that every employee can contribute in his or her own way.28
While Interface reports being only about 60 percent of the way toward achieving its Mission
Zero 2020 goals, the company has come a long way in its 15-year journey to sustainability:
Net greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 71 percent Water intensity reduced by 74 percent Landfill waste reduced by 67 percent Total energy intensity reduced by 44 percent 175 million pounds of old carpet diverted from landfills Invented new carpet recycling technology Sold 83 square kilometers of third-party certified, climate-neutral carpet.
28 http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/Changing-Business-Cultures-from-Within-Anderson-Amodeo-Hartzfeld.pdf
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
20/29
20
As a result, Interface has generated substantial business value in its brand and reputation, saved over
$405 million, increased its capacity for attraction and alignment of talent, and established itself as an
industry leader in product innovation.
The cultural change at Interface can be characterized as a balancing act between practicality
and emotional commitment. Strategic decisions were implemented in a highly team-oriented
environment, with full support and resource allocation from above. As the incremental changes
were implemented, belief systems were also changed. There was a distinct progression from
skepticism to understanding, belief, commitment, and advocacy. This progression was supported by
the strategic decisions (vision, road map, alignment, integration, and influence), resulting in deep and
abiding culture change.
The Interface case is a example of a highly successful shift toward sustainability through
innovation as a result of the commitment and leadership of top management, combined brilliantly
with high employee involvement and well-designed incentives. Resources were allocated to the
cause, programs were implemented, and education was provided. Additionally, the sustainability
programs were tied heavily to research, emphasizing the link between sustainability and product
development, innovation, and Interfaces competitive advantage.29 The path that Interface took
demonstrates the level of commitment and teamwork necessary to implement change successfully.
29 DuBose, p. 200.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
21/29
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
22/29
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
23/29
23
Appendix A. Key Points in Interface History
1973 Interface, Inc. is founded by Ray Anderson in LaGrange, Georgia.
1991 62% drop in net income.
1994 Anderson reads Paul Hawkens Ecology of Commerceand sets sustainability as a strategic goal
for the company.
1994 Anderson recruits a turnaround specialist to improve internal relations and establish a new
corporate culture.
1994 Company creates a structured bonus plan based on specific waste reduction targets (QUEST:
quality utilizing employee suggestions and teamwork).
1995 Paul Hawken joins the team of experts guiding the change at Interface.
1996 Interface becomes the first company in the United States to commit to The Natural Step
principles.
1996 A new incentive plan is launched, including sustainability initiatives (QUEST/EcoSense
2000)
1996 Company sales increase by $200 million with a 0% annual increase in raw material use.
1997 Company branches out into the service sector by creating an experiential learning company,one world learning, inc., and creates a network called Re:Source Americas.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
24/29
24
Appendix B. Survey Results
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
25/29
25
Works Consulted
Abrahamson, E. (2000) Change without pain, Harvard Business Review, July-August.
Anderson, R. (2009). Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: profits, people, purpose: doing business by respectingthe earth. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Axelrod, A.(2008). Edison on Innovation: 102 lessons in Creativity for Business and Beyond. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, D., Greenburg, C., and Hemingway, D. (2006). What Happy Companies Know: How the NewScience of Happiness Can Change Your Company for the Better. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
Berkun, S. (2007). The Myths of Innovation. Beijing; Sebastopol, CA: OReilly.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking ComplexityTheory and Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations.AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.
Carlson, C. (2006). Innovation: the Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. New York: CrownBusiness.
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2009). Eco-innovation: When Sustainability and Competitiveness Shake Hands.
Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Collins, J. and J. Porras. (1997). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, New York:HarperCollins.
DeSimone, L. , and Popoff, F. (1997). Eco-efficiency: the business link to sustainable development.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Downs, G.W. and L.B. Morh. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation,AdministrativeScience Quarterly, vol. 21, p. 700-714.
Dunphy, D., A.Griffiths and S. Benn. (2010). Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A guidefor leaders and change agents of the future.
Ehrenfield, J. (2000). Industrial ecology: paradigm shift or normal science,American BehaviouralScientist, 44(2), p. 229-241.
Esty, D., and Winston, A. (2006). Green to Gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate,create value, and build competitive advantage. Yale University Press.
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
26/29
26
Gallo, C. (2011). The Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs. McGraw-Hill.
Garvin, D. and Levesque, L. (2006). Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Entrepreneurship.Harvard Business Review, October.
Huston, L, and Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gambles New Modelfor Innovation. Harvard Business Review, March.
Hirsh, B. and P. Sheldrake. (2000) Inclusive Leadership, Melbourne: Information Australia.
Kao, J. (2007) Innovation Nation: How America is Losing its Innovation Edge, Why it Matters and What WeCan Do to Get it Back. New York: Free Press.
James, P. and Stephanie Stewart. (Dec. 1994). The European Environmental Executive: TechnicalSpecialist or Corporate Change Agent?Journal of Corporate Environmental Strategy.
Mol,A. (1997). Ecological modernization: industrial transformations and environmental reform, inM. Redclift and G. Woodgate (eds) The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, p. 138-149.
Palmer, R. and G. Akin. (2006).Managing Organizational Change, New York: McGraw-Hill Akin.
Pasmore, William A. Research in Organizational Change and Development. Vol. 17. 2009Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Rosenberg, B. (2009) Interface Carpet and Fabric Company's sustainability efforts: What thecompany does, the crucial role of employees, and the limits of this approach.Journal of Public
Health Policyvol. 30, p. 427438.
Stace, D. and D. Dunphy. (2001) Beyond the Boundaries, Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Tibbs, H. (2000).The technology strategy of the sustainable corporation, in D. Dunphy, J.Benveniste, A. Griffiths and P. Sutton (eds)Sustainability: The Corporate Challenge of the Twenty-first Century, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Tucker, R. (2008). Driving Growth Through Innovation: How Leading Firms are Transforming their Futures.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Online Works Consulted
Executive Office of the President. National Economic Council. Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy. A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth andQuality Jobs.http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps121227/LPS121227.pdfAccessed March 18, 2011
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
27/29
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
28/29
28
http://blog.sustainabilitylearningcentre.com/Accessed April 26, 2011
http://www.themarkofaleader.com/ezine/ezine-v27.htmlAccessed April 26, 2011
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/Changing-Business-Cultures-from-Within-Anderson-Amodeo-Hartzfeld.pdfAccessed April 26, 2011
http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/InterfaceCaseStudy4.pdfAccessed April 27, 2011
http://blog.sustainabilitylearningcentre.com/Accessed April 26, 2011
http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/InterfaceCaseStudy4.pdf
Accessed April 27, 2011
http://www.miproconsulting.com/blog/2011/01/hr-sustainability/Accessed April 27, 2011
http://www.jonentine.com/the-body-shop.htmlAccessed April 27, 2011
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/what-and-who-makes-the-cut/734264/Accessed April 27, 2011
http://blogs.hbr.org/hill-lineback/2011/04/the-right-to-management-compet.htmlAccessed April 30, 2011
Handbook of organizational change and innovation [electronic resource] / edited by Marshall ScottPoole, Andrew H. Van de Ven.Oxford, UK, New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2004.Accessed through Multnomah County Library, May 1, 2011
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobtrends/trend/q-Strategic+Sustainability+ConsultingAccessed May 1, 2011
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/05/sustainability-consulting/Accessed May 2, 2011
http://www.naturalstepusa.org/storage/Interface.pdfAccessed May 4, 2011
http://eco-advantage.com/Accessed May 13, 2011
-
8/6/2019 Encouraging Innovation
29/29
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/09/30/greenwash-of-the-week-the-body-shop-business-ethics/Accessed May 13, 2011
DuBose, Jennifer R. Sustainability and Performance at Interface, Inc. Interfaces, Vol. 30, No. 3,
Sustainable Business (May - Jun., 2000), pp. 190-201.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25062607Accessed May 17, 2011