innovation intelligence and the inq diagnostic

8/12/2019 Innovation Intelligence and the InQ Diagnostic

1/17

White Paper 2014/01

ISSN 1176-2640

Unleash your Organizations Innovation Potential:Maximize Your Organizations Innovation Intelligence

www.synexe.com


2/17

DESIGNING A NEW GENERATION OF BUSINESS www.synexe.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Overview The Innovation Challenge .............................................................. 3

2. Introducing Innovation Intelligence .................................................................. 3

3. The Innovation Intelligence Model .................................................................... 5

4. The Innovation Intelligence Model in Practice................................................ 8

5. Interpreting the Results ........................................................................................ 9

6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 11

7. Contact Us .......................................................................................................... 14


3/17


1. Overview The Innovation Challenge

A recent survey by PwC showed that 93 percent of executives believed that organic growth

through innovation would drive the greater proportion of their revenue growth.1Despite this,

most organizations continue to struggle with innovation. In support of this, a 2010 McKinsey &

Company study found that while 84 percent of global executives believed that innovation is

extremely important to their organizations growth strategies, a staggering 94 percent of those

same executives were unsatisfied with their organizations innovation performance.

Why is that some organizations are able to continue to successfully innovate in order to

maintain their dominance and effectiveness over time, while others are not? We would argue

that the key underlying difference between organizations that successfully innovate time and

time again and those that do not is their Innovation Intelligence.

Innovation is not just for Google or Apple. For businesses to succeed, innovation must be a

core competency. Top innovators treat innovation just like any other business process.2They

approach it in a disciplined way as something that can be successfully scaled across the entireorganization. Effective innovation is about creating an organization-wide innovation eco-

system. Innovation Intelligence provides a framework and set of tools to do this successfully.

Constituted by an interrelated and interdependent ecosystem of motivation, capability and

direction, an organizations Innovation Intelligence is a dynamic framework that helps enable

an organization to continually innovate over time. Based on the latest work in the behavioral

and social sciences, the Innovation Intelligence model and accompanying tools allow

organizations to:

!

understand where their strengths and weaknesses lie in enabling or inhibiting innovationat a range of organizational levels from the individual work unit all the way through to

the level of the entire organization; and

! provide a concrete set of measurable activities that an organization can undertake to

increase their Innovation Intelligence.

In this white paper we outline the science behind the model and provide examples of how the

tool can be put to work by an organization to increase their Innovation Intelligence.

2. Introducing Innovation Intelligence

Innovation Intelligence, like Emotional Intelligence3, is a type of social intelligence. Social

intelligences are complex sets of interconnected webs of meaning and associated structures

of knowledge which humans use to navigate our social environment. Social intelligences are

not fixed but shift and change as a result of a complex adaptive equilibrium between


4/17


individuals, organizations and their environment. What this means though is that both

individuals and organizations can learn how to increase their social intelligences over time. 4

Just as people, and by extension organizations, can become more emotionally intelligent

through focused work, so too organizations can increase their Innovation Intelligence over

time through a specific course of behavioral shifts and changes.5

Acting as a set of frameworks which allow us to better understand and manage people,

Innovation Intelligence can be defined as the:

ecosystem of interrelated and interdependent motivation, capability and direction

within an organization operating at a range of levels which act in combination with

an organizations human, social and organizational capital to increase or decrease the

organizations ability to innovate over time.

In any organization, innovation is fundamentally dependent on unlocking and tapping into the

potential of three different forms of capital: Human Capital; Social Capital; and Organizational

Capital. In regard to the Innovation Intelligence model, where we define these types of capital

as an asset class, they are defined as:

People (Human Capital) the skills, competencies, and characteristics of the individuals

in your organization to successfully undertake their work;

Networks (Social Capital) the social and relational connections and ties within, across,

and external to your organization which bind people together to ensure that they can

work together more effectively; the connectivity between people and ideas; and

Organization (Organizational Capital) the strategic and operational resources, systems

and processes within your organization that enable people to work more effectively.

For each of these types of assets People, Networks, and Organization the ability to tap into

them as a resource for innovation is constrained or enabled by three key drivers: motivation;

capability; and direction.

Motivation the reasons people in your organization have for acting or behaving in a

particular way; the will to innovate;

Capability the ability and capacity of the organization to innovate; and

Direction the sense of focused action that helps an organization move forward as a

whole towards achieving specific innovation objectives.

Combined, these six factors provide a comprehensive matrix of influences that can enable or

inhibit innovation within an organization.6The power of the Innovation Intelligence model and


5/17


accompanying system is that it provides insight into an organizations innovation strengths and

weaknesses at a range of levels from the individual work unit all the way through to the level

of the entire organization as well as provide a concrete set of measurable activities that an

organization can undertake to increase their Innovation Intelligence.

3. The Innovation Intelligence Model

This section of the white paper provides a more in-depth outline of the constituent aspects of

the underlying model as well as provides an outline of how the Innovation Intelligence system

can be used in an organizational setting to improve an organizations ability to innovate.

Table 1. presents the Innovation Intelligence model as a 3x3 matrix, bringing together the six

factors, which combined, constitute an organizations Innovation Intelligence: People;

Networks; Organization; Motivation; Capability; and Direction, and demonstrates their inter-

relationships.

DRIVERSASSETS

PEOPLE NETWORKS ORGANIZATION

MOTIVATION

Passion Creative Tension Incentive

MOTIVATION of PEOPLE to

Innovate

MOTIVATION of NETWORKS to

Innovate

MOTIVATION of the

ORGANIZATION to Innovate

The deeply motivating and

aligning fire that comes from

the thrill of being involved in

doing something meaningful,

the freedom to explore, the

connection to personal

values, the achievement of

mastery, and the resulting

creative spark that can lead

to breakthrough ideas

The inspiration to networks that

comes from growing mastery of

the fundamentals, obsession with

value, continuous improvement,

cross-pollination, effective

collaboration and partnerships --

generating the relentless churn of

renewal and the spark of

innovation

Incentive is created by the sum

of enterprise mechanisms that

propel the organization to

continue to improve, renew

and change. Incentives can be

monetary, but they are more

effective when they are social,

behavioral, inspirational and

connected to meaning.

CAPABILITY

Talent Synergy Execution

ABILITY of PEOPLE to InnovateCAPABILITY of NETWORKS to

Innovate

CAPABILITY of the

ORGANIZATION to Innovate

The invaluable and diverse

resource of human capital,

which contributes to the

development of

organizational mastery,

entrepreneurship, creativity,

and resilience; and the

shepherding and nurturing of

that resource

The interplay of a diversity of

elements in a business network to

improve insight, increase agility,

and produce new and/or better

value for the business and its

customers; the coordination of

networks to target their energy

toward delivering value

The structures, processes and

mechanisms of the organization

that enable the enterprise to

deliver effectiveness,

continuous improvement,

renewal and innovation


6/17


DIRECTION

Leadership Alignment Vision

DIRECTION of PEOPLE for

Innovation

DIRECTION of NETWORKS for

Innovation

Innovation DIRECTION of the

ORGANIZATION

The service of guiding,

mentoring and challenging

the organization to achieve;

leadership can and should

happen at many levels and in

many forms in the enterprise

Alignment is created by the

powerful, yet sometimes

intangible, forces that focus and

guide innovation across

networks: burning platform or

igniting purpose for change,shared destiny, integration of

goals and objectives,

commitment to core values.

The irresistable pull of a

compelling design / future state

for the product, service,

business, or society,

communicated across the

value chain in a way thatprovides continual focus,

alignment, accountability and

inspiration everywhere

Table 1 the Innovation Intelligence matrix

At the most basic level, the Innovation Intelligence system can be used to provide a simple

baseline assessment of an organizations Innovation Intelligence through the use of the InQ

diagnostic tool. Using this tool you are able quickly quantify how an organization performs in

regards to each of the nine categories presented above: Passion, Creative Tension, Incentive,

Talent, Synergy, Execution, Leadership, Alignment, and Vision. These questions, when

combined with focused interviews and team discussions, provide a solid baseline of data upon

which an organizations Innovation Intelligence can be measured. These results then provide

the initial framework for a course of action to be designed to improve an organizations ability

to innovate with a focus on building upon the organizations strengths while addressing the

organizations areas of weakness.

The use of the Innovation Intelligence system while open and dynamic generally follows our

D3design and implementation process. The steps in the D3process are:

Discover

We kick off Discovery with our InQ diagnostic an assessment tool that provides a quantified

analysis of the nine key aspects of the organizations Innovation Intelligence. These initial results

are then augmented with the InQ Deep Dive. The Deep Dive begins with deeper research,

which may include focused interviews, team discussions, and ethnographic research.


7/17


(Reframe)

Once the initial InQ results have been collected and analyzed, we conduct a series of

facilitated conversations with groups across levels and areas of the organization. These group

conversations allow for the initial results to be refined, shared and understood across the

organization. They also provide a platform for the different parts of the organization to begin to

grapple with, and accept, the challenges emerging from the assessment process.

Design

In order for the organization to move forward from this new understanding, they require a

vision for the future. With our Innovation Agenda, the organization begins to converge upon,

and crystalize intent on, how they will move forward. Once the vision and innovation

objectives are established, the next stage of the Design process involves developing and

testing ideas to address the gaps and opportunities. Through our Hack Labs, a variety of

inclusive group techniques are utilized including solution sprints, reality checks and conceptual

prototyping to rapidly move through options on how to move forward and concretely increase

the organizations Innovation Intelligence. The options may involve building new organizational

functions, leadership and cultural programs, training and organizational design, etc. we help

the organization select interventions to meet the organizations needs at the time in order to

create the Innovation Intelligence they require.

(Refine)

Once we have conceptually defined initial solutions to increasing Innovation Intelligence, we

work to refine the ideas. In this stage of the process, the detailed design of specific solutions is

undertaken, utilizing techniques that can include charettes, proof of concept of modelling

and stress testing. At this point in the process, not only do we build out solutions, but also weaddress the implementation approach.

Do

Once the prototyping and refinement process have been completed, the various interventions

begin to be deployed through an iterative implementation process based on Lean and Agile

best practice. An iterative process is always used to ensure the continued fit-for-purpose

nature of the changes and their ongoing suitability in the real-time organizational setting.

During this process, we work closely with the various teams through our Innovation Fitness

programs, like train-the-trainer processes, to ensure that the teams possess the capabilitiesrequired to successfully deploy the interventions.

(Review)


8/17


In the final stage, the hand-over process is completed by the team working with the

organizations leadership, including the establishment of ongoing monitoring, evaluation and

learning systems to ensure successful change over time.

4. The Innovation Intelligence Model in Practice

Combined then, the Innovation Intelligence system and associated tools and services provide

a powerful framework and path forward for organizations wanting to improve their ability to

innovate over time. In this next section we provide a brief worked example of an

organizational assessment and subsequent pathway forward to help show how the Innovation

Intelligence system is used in practice.

Table 2 sets out the data as found after an initial Discover process has been undertaken.

DRIVERS

ASSETS

PEOPLE NETWORKS ORGANIZATION

Passion Creative Tension Incentive

MOTIVATIONMOTIVATION of

PEOPLE to Innovate

MOTIVATION of

NETWORKS to Innovate

MOTIVATION of the

ORGANIZATION to

Innovate

(30 possible) (30 possible) (30 possible)

18 20 13

Talent Synergy Execution

CAPABILITYABILITY of PEOPLE to

Innovate

CAPABILITY of

NETWORKS to Innovate

CAPABILITY of the

ORGANIZATION to

Innovate


24 15 20

Leadership Alignment Vision

DIRECTIONDIRECTION of

PEOPLE for

Innovation

DIRECTION of

NETWORKS for

Innovation

Innovation DIRECTION of

the ORGANIZATION


19 23 12

InQ

OverallScore(270 possible)

163


9/17


Table 2 Initial InQ diagnostic results (raw data)

These data can be presented in a range of formats to illustrate the results and to help in the

design of the steps required to increase the organizations Innovation Intelligence. In this case,

the data has been presented as a spider diagram in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Initial InQ Discover results

5. Interpreting the Results

So, what do the example results shown in Table 2 and Figure 1 mean for the organization?

Whats happening in this organization in terms of their InQ? The explanation below

summarizes the insights that emerge for the organization after utilizing the InQ system.

EXAMPLE InQ DEEP DIVE RESULTS (DISCOVER PHASE)

People Employees feel positive about being a part of this business, but may not be

incredibly passionate about the work theyre doing. They feel that a number of

promising and talented individuals have been recruited lately and they are

encouraged by a number of new initiatives in the plan. Leadership is strong, but they

dont feel that leadership allows them to spend the time it takes to really explore new

ideas before pushing projects through the pipeline.

Networks The business is organized along regional P&L units, and there is little

opportunity to work with people outside of ones own core team, except for the people

driving large-scale change initiatives across the business. Execution is a major focus, and

so not only do people have the relationships they need to deliver projects (within their


10/17


own area) but also the sense of urgency around execution helps to overcome the

tendency to resist influence from outside individual lines of business.

Organization Discipline is the name of the game here, and thats one of the reasons

the business has been so successful for so long. On the other hand, the relentless drive

for execution means that sometimes the business ends up following leaders in the

industry being a me too type company and people really question whether or not

anything theyre doing is actually innovative, or adding up to real competitive

advantage in the long run. Incentives are based on execution and not on creativity,

risk-taking or innovation. Individuals are unclear as to the vision for innovation, how it

relates to the overall strategy or what they can do in their roles to contribute.

With this data collected and analyzed, the team then works with the organization through the

Design and Do phases. They implement a plan to move forward that builds on the strengths

and weaknesses highlighted in the use of the Innovation Intelligence system. In this particular

worked example, the business strength in execution everything that makes them successful

now is simultaneously their greatest Innovation Intelligence weakness. In order to deliver

innovation, they will work carefully to make adjustments whilst retaining this core competency:

Starting first with systemic changes, the business needs an approach to projects that

allows for experimentation. This may change how projects are structured, funded and

resourced particularly in the early phases. Changing the approach to execution will

threaten the long-standing culture of pride around execution, and change

management will be needed to help people transition.

In order for the new experimentation to be strategic and fruitful, as well as to drive

innovation in a financially responsible manner, the business will need to address the silos

that exist. Establishing shared innovation goals across silos as well as restructuring someareas will help to begin the process of operating as a whole team. As people begin to

compare perspectives and clash in their cultures and ideas new ideas will emerge.

As the pressure to focus solely on execution lifts, people will need to be supported with

additional capability to understand how to navigate the uncertainty and ambiguity

that comes with the new processes of exploration, iteration and innovation. Training in

methodologies such as Agile, Lean and Design Thinking processes will help address this

capability gap. It can be expected that some projects may stall in the early phases

during the initial period of change as teams become accustomed to a new way of

working, but the business can expect momentum to build if they stick with the plan longenough to see it out and dont give up too early.

This brief worked example of the Innovation Intelligence system in practice thus shows how the

data collected through the various tools that are part of the system can then be used to come

up with insights about the organizations ability to innovate and develop concrete


11/17


interventions that the organization can then utilize to increase their Innovation Intelligence over

time and so increase the ability to deliver value over the long term to their various stakeholders.

6. Conclusion

The Innovation Intelligence system provides a robust basis for organizations to be able to

understand where their strengths and weaknesses lie in enabling or inhibiting innovation at a

range of organizational levels from the individual work unit all the way through to the entire

organization. Using the Innovation Intelligence model, organizations use the InQ diagnostic to

assess innovation capability across a range of competencies from their ability to bring new

ideas to life though to the flexibility of their organizational structures to come up with an

aggregate total score and targeted breakdown of these scores across the sub-categories.

These scores allow organizations to both peer-rank themselves with other organizations, as well

as provide a targeted breakdown of where the organizations specific strengths and

weaknesses lie in terms of their Innovation Intelligence. By working through the Innovation

Agenda process, the organization is able to create a concrete set of measurable activities

that they can undertake to increase their Innovation Intelligence. This will yield a focused

roadmap of actionable interventions to increase an organizations Innovation Intelligence.

Through Hack Labs and the Innovation Fitness program, which involve coaching, facilitated

projects and monitoring, the Innovation Intelligence team supports the delivery of improved

innovation results. Combined, the Innovation Intelligence system and accompanying tools

work to increase an organizations ability to innovate over time.


12/17


Appendix One: Theoretical Foundations of the Innovation Intelligence Model

In constructing the model that underpins the Innovation Intelligence system, we have drawn

from the latest work across the behavioral and social sciences. Given that innovation

necessarily involves change, this model is firmly embedded within the broader change

management, transition and organizational transformation literature. In this respect, the model

is novel because change management and innovation are generally seen as being two

different aspects of organizational design.7However, given the continually transitional nature

of change and hence innovation we have feel that it is necessary to bring these two

bodies of literature together to ensure that the model is able to not only help identify successful

factors for innovation but also to provide the associated tools and frameworks to put these

ideas into practice. In this we have also been particularly influenced by the ways in which

practice-based change at a multi-level mode can be actualized from within the

organization in terms of promoting robust and sustainable change.8

One of the key initial structuring frameworks we drew on for our work was the Influencer model

popularized in Patterson et.al.s book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything. Broad in its

outline, their framework provided an ideal starting point for our work. Simply stated, the

Influencer model is based on the idea that in order to bring about change one needs to

change behaviors in many forms. While this insight itself is not particularly novel, Patterson et.al.

argue that the reason most change processes continue to fail is that people tend to look at

only one source of influence or they dont focus on the key behaviors requiring change. In

looking to overcome these issues, Patterson et.al. present a model which is based on

identifying the vital behaviors required for a particular type of change or action, analyzing

what they identify as the six key sources of influence9and ensuring that these processes are

linked to the achievement of measurable results. The power of this particular model lies in its

ability to provide a systematic outline of factors that can help enable successful change

processes at a range of scales, from the personal through to the systemic.

Building on Patterson et.al.s work, the three forms of capital we use human, social and

organizational allow us to understand at a disaggregated, relational and aggregated level,

respectively, what resources are available within the organizational context to enable or inhibit

innovative activity.

At the level of individual capital we have drawn heavily on the bodies of work dealing with

adaptive learning and the new human capital theories.10This is particularly important given the

increasing importance of knowledge workers to organizational success in any sector.11We

also drawn heavily on the emergent body of work looking at the role that affect plays onindividual human capital in the development of the model given the role that perception

plays in organizational change.12

In terms of the utility of social capital as an enabler of innovation we have based our system on

the understanding that increased connectivity between organizational members in both a


13/17


formal and informal way helps provide channels for the antecedents for innovation to occur:

such as robust flows of information from customer-facing services through to product design

functions.13We also build on recent preliminary research that has shown how collaboration is a

function of interdependency that is, people collaborate more frequently and more

effectively when they depend upon one another for success.14The success of collaboration

across boundaries, in turn, influences the outcome of innovation efforts. Recent work on

organizational leadership from older work on servant leadership through to more recent work

on adaptive and distributive leadership has also heavily informed our work.15In this though,

we are aware of the role that cognitive overload can play in overwhelming key connectors

within an organizational system. We account for this in our use of the creative tensions factor

(discussed later) with respect to social capital.

In constructing our model in terms of organizational capital, we have drawn heavily on recent

work exploring how Lean and Agile processes have been pivotal in helping refine the thinking

around the enabling factors to allow organizations to successfully pivot during periods of

organizational or broader environmental stress.16So too, this body of work as well as

emergent practice in the field of Design Thinking has been influential in helping us better

understand how organizational discipline, iterative experimentation and customer-based

design are a critical element of the innovation engine of any organization.17The discipline of

Design Thinking as well as emergent thinking in the organizational psychology field have also

been especially useful in providing a stable platform of research to understand the impact

that empathy and compassion plays in organizational success.18These are factors of particular

importance to the sections of the model addressing organizational and social capital in

particular given the way in which they enable or constrain individual action.

In terms of the cross-causal factors linked with these three forms of capital, we have modified

and extended on Patterson et.al.s model in a number of ways. We found that Patterson

et.al.s model, while conceptually robust, seemed to be predicated on the belief thatindividuals and organizations operate in a sort of steady-state model punctuated by periodic

shifts and changes. While this may have been true in earlier periods we would claim that

increasingly the global environment tends to be characterized by change itself being the

norm. The term VUCA is often used for our current operating environment: Volatile, Uncertain,

Complex and Adaptive. Within this, it is important also that we treat organizations not as

machines but as living ecosystems. Given this, we needed to adapt the model to both

account for the increasingly dynamic nature of organizations as well as provide a way to

understand how these same organizations, and the people who work within them, deal with

this change. Our answer, in part, to this issue was to replace the concept of ability in

Patterson et.al.s original formulation with the concept of capability. We adopted the conceptof capability as building on the latest work in the human capital field it represents the

intersection of capacity and ability.19This helps add both a more dynamic character to the

concept, in line with the realization that we now operate in a global system of ongoing

change, while also expanding it to more properly accommodate the modern concept of

human capital with its positive impact on learning within organizations.


14/17


We also added an extra variable to the model one we have termed direction to account

for the necessarily directional nature of innovation. Innovation occurs for a goal to improve

something. And, in order to do that there is a need for some kind of directionality over time

and in relationship to the operating environment across the three types of capital.

While innovation can work to capture the development of new or novel ideas and/or

procedures, effective innovation requires championing and implementation of the ideas

and/or procedures.20This is where the concept of directionality comes into the Innovation

Intelligence model.

Direction and the concept of organizational directionality while related to leadership

cannot be reduced to a simple one-to-one correspondence between the two concepts.

Directionality is dependent though on a multi-dimensional view of leadership including,

amongst other things, a focus on the collective to gain followers trust and commitment.21

While this includes modern concepts, such as servant leadership and loose-tight management,

it extends beyond that to create an open-ended field of mutual self-reinforcing support

between the different constitutive parts of an organization as leadership (while directive) is

increasingly holographic in its nature that is it is contained within all parts of an organization.

Similarly, and of key import in the distribution of this sense of directionality across the

organizational field is the role that middle managers play in the translation of the organizations

vision to its employees and the feedback from employees into subsequent re-configurations

of the organizations vision.22This then feeds back into the broader re-shaping and re-

conceptualizing underway around the world about what work itself constitutes and how we

organize to successfully complete work of which innovation is but part.23

Combined then, this brief summary helps explain how the various factors of the InnovationIntelligence system and underlying model come together as a coherent whole.

7. Contact Us

To learn more about the Innovation Intelligence or trial the InQ diagnostic feel free to

contact either of the two lead authors:

Manuhuia Barcham [email protected]

Michelle Miller [email protected]


15/17


1PwC, (2013) Breakthrough Innovation and Growth(New York: PwC): 5.

2PwC, (2013) Breakthrough Innovation and Growth(New York: PwC): 5.

3Emotional Intelligence is the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others'

feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.

P. Salovey and J. Mayer, (1990) Emotional intelligence Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(3):189.

4At an individual level see, Ilios Kotsou, Jacques Gregoire and Mora Mikolajczak (2011) Emotional Plasticity:

Conditions and Effects of Improving Emotional Competence in AdulthoodJournal of Applied Psychology96 (4):

827839.

5For more on this refer to Appendix One: Theoretical Background. In terms of mapping these ideas up to the

organizational and sub-organizational levels we have been influenced by recent conceptual work by Christian List,

Philip Pettit, and Raimo Tuomela which has shown, on our interpretation, how we can understand group dynamics

as something beyond just the simple aggregation of the preferences of individual members of specific organizations

while nonetheless maintaining the agency of individual actors within the organizational system while also using

data gathered at the individual level to understand organization level dynamics. See Christian List and Philip Pettit,

(2011) Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents (Oxford: Oxford University Press) and

Raimo Tuomela, (2013) Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Peter Senges concept of the Learning Organization is an earlier example of this type of thinking with his allied

concepts of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team within the broader

Organizational Science literature.

6While enablers for innovation are relatively clear openness to new ideas, willingness to experiment, desire to

collaborate; as some examples the barriers to innovation can sometimes be less clear in their structure. These

barriers to innovation come in a number of forms and can often comprise a mix of personal, cultural and structural

issues. Classic examples include: staff being protective of the way its always been done, which may not be

appropriate for the current environment; a weak or non-existent system for gathering and acting on customer

insight; or unwillingness to experiment with existing Intellectual Property (IP) despite external competitive pressure.

7Given that we identify innovation as a process, it will come as no surprise that we tend to draw more in our work on

the change management approach exemplified by William Bridges with its strong focus on the importance of

transitions and transitional states as change occurs within an organizational setting. See for example William Bridges,

(2009)Managing Transitions(Jackson: De Capo Lifelong Books).

8Michael Smets, Tim Morris, and Royston Greenwood, (2012) From Practice To Field: A Multilevel Model Of Practice-

Driven Institutional ChangeAcademy of Management Journal55 (4): 877904.

9These six key sources are the combinations of motivation and ability when combined with the three scales of

change in their model, these being personal, social and structural.

10See, for example Anthony J. Nyberg, Thomas P. Moliterno, Donald Hale, Jr and David P. Lepak, (2014) Resource-

Based Perspectives on Unit-Level Human Capital: A Review and Integration Journal of Management40: 316-346,

Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. (2013, September 9) Personality and Adaptive Performance at

Work: A Meta-Analytic InvestigationJournal of Applied PsychologyAdvance online publication. See also T. Crook,

Samuel Todd, James Combs, David Woehr, and David Ketchen (2011) Does human capital matter? A meta-


16/17


analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performanceJournal of Applied Psychology96(3):

443456. Interesting work has also emerged recently more concretely linking these practices to improved

organizational functioning. See for example Kaifeng Jiang, David P. Lepak, Jia Hu, and Judith C. Baer, (2012) How

Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-Analytic Investigation Of

Mediating MechanismsAcademy of Management Journal55 (6): 12641294. So too interesting work is emerging,

and has influenced our thinking, on the role that emotions play on Organizational Learning (OL), see John Sillince

and Helen Shipton, (2013) More Than a Cognitive Experience: Unfamiliarity, Invalidation, and Emotion in

Organizational LearningJournal of Management Inquiry22: 342-355.

11For a discussion on how to enable the innovation potential for technical staff see Robert T. Keller, (2012)

Predicting the Performance and Innovativeness of Scientists and EngineersJournal of Applied Psychology97 (1):

225233. Issues of adequate institutional support continue to underpin the creation of an environment which helps

maximize the utilization of human capital. See for example recent work such as Mar Bornay-Barrachina, Dolores De

la Rosa-Navarro, Alvaro Lopez-Cabrales, and Ramon Valle-Cabrera, (2012) Employment Relationships and Firm

Innovation: The Double Role of Human Capital British Journal of Management(23): 223240.

12Interesting work is being conducted in this field and later iterations of our model may more strongly draw on this

emergent literature. For a recent example of this growing body of work see March L. To, Cynthia D. Fisher, Neal M.

Ashkanasy, and Patricia A. Rowe, (2012) Within-Person Relationships Between Mood and CreativityJournal of

Applied Psychology97 (3): 599612. In a related vein see too Paul W. B. Atkins and Sharon K. Parker, (2012)

Understanding Individual Compassion In Organizations: The Role Of Appraisals And Psychological Flexibility

Academy of Management Review37 (4): 524546.

13Recent work on adaptive relationality in organizational settings and the related concepts of compassion have

heavily impacted on our work here. See for example Jody Hoffer Gittell and Anne Douglass, (2012) Relational

Bureaucracy: Structuring Reciprocal Relationships Into RolesAcademy of Management Review37 (4): 709733.

14Richard Rawling, Michelle Miller, and Lauren Douge, (2013) Shaping the organisations internal environment to

enable innovation endeavor This paper was presented at The 6th ISPIM Innovation Symposium Innovation in the

Asian Century, in Melbourne, Australia on 10 December 2013.

15On more recent work in this field see, for example, Gareth Edwards, (2011) Concepts of Community: A

Framework for Contextualizing Distributed Leadership International Journal of Management Reviews13: 301312.

16More popular work includes work includes the discussion by Eric Ries on the Lean Start Up concept. See Eric Ries,

(2011) The Lean Startup(New York: Crown Publishing Group). For more technical discussions please refer see Meera

Alagaraja, (2013) A Conceptual Model of Organizations as Learning-Performance Systems: Integrative Review of

Lean Implementation Literature Human Resource Development Reviewpublished online 30 September 2013, and

W. Timans, J. Antony, K. Ahaus, & R. van Solingen, (2012) Implementation of Lean Six Sigma in small- and medium-

sized manufacturing enterprises in the NetherlandsJournal of the Operational Research Society 63: 339-353. In

addition, structurally focused work on issues of alignment with organizational culture have been instructional for us.

See Katerina Bezrukova, Karen A. Jehn, Sherry M. B. Thatcher, and Chester S. Spell, (2012) The Effects of Alignments:

Examining Group Faultlines, Organizational Cultures, and Performance Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97, No.

1, 7792.

17In addition to this, recent work on the structural integration and enabling of knowledge flow in organizational

contexts has been particularly useful. See Heidi K. Gardner, Francesca Gino, and Bradley R. Staats, (2012)


17/17


Dynamically Integrating Knowledge In Teams: Transforming Resources Into PerformanceAcademy of

Management Journal55 (4): 9981022. Similarly, work on network theory and on actor positionality have contributed

to the development of our model. See for example Markus Baer, (2012) Putting Creativity To Work: The

Implementation Of Creative Ideas In OrganizationsAcademy of Management Journal55 (5): 11021119.

18See, for example, Dev Patnaik, (2009) Wired to Care: How Companies Prosper When They Create Widespread

Empathy(New Jersey: FT Press). See also Anne S. Tsui, (2013), On Compassion In Scholarship: Why Should We

Care?Academy of Management Review38 (2): 167180 and Thomas B. Lawrence and Sally Maitlis, (2012) Care

And Possibility: Enacting An Ethic Of Care Through Narrative Practice Academy of Management Review37 (4):

641663. For an exploration of how these issues of affect can be enabled at an organizational level, see Dong Liu,

Xiao-Ping Chen, and Xin Yao (2011) From Autonomy to Creativity: A Multilevel Investigation of the Mediating Role

of Harmonious PassionJournal of Applied Psychology96 (2): 294309 and Laura T. Madden, Dennis Duchon,

Timothy M. Madden, and Donde Ashmos, (2012) Emergent Organizational Capacity For CompassionAcademy of

Management Review37 (4): 689708. This extends through to discussions about the role that positive perception of

organizational structure and process plays in the creation of more effective organizational structures and processes.

See, for example, Erk P. Piening, Alina M. Baluch, and Torsten Oliver Salge, (2013) The Relationship Between

Employees Perceptions of Human Resource Systems and Organizational Performance: Examining Mediating

Mechanisms and Temporal DynamicsJournal of Applied Psychology98 (6): 926947.

19In this we draw on the substantial body of knowledge that has demonstrated that organizations that possess and

cultivate their human capital generally outperform other organizations lacking human capital. See for example: T.

Crook, Samuel Todd, James Combs, David Woehr, and David Ketchen, (2011) Does human capital matter? A

meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology96

(3): 443456.

20See Gilad Chen, Jiing-Lih Farh, Elizabeth M. Campbell-Bush, Zhiming Wu, & Xin Wu, (2013) Teams as Innovative

Systems: Multilevel Motivational Antecedents of Innovation in R&D Teams Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (6):

10181027.

"#See for example Steffen R. Giessner, Daan van Knippenberg, Ed Sleebos and Wendy van Ginkel, (2013) Team-

Oriented Leadership: The Interactive Effects of Leader Group Prototypicality, Accountability, and Team

Identification Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (4): 658667. See also Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2013,

November 4). A Meta-Analysis of Shared Leadership and Team Effectiveness Journal of Applied Psychology

Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0034531

22See Regine Teulier & Linda Rouleau, (2013) Middle Managers Sensemaking and Interorganizational Change

Initiation: Translation Spaces and Editing PracticesJournal of Change Management13 (3): 308337.

23For an disucssion of these changes see Gerardo A. Okhuysen, David Lepak, Karen Lee Ashcraft, Giuseppe (Joe)

Labianca, Vicki Smith, & H. Kevin Steensma, (2013) Introduction to special topic forum: theories of work and

working todayAcademy of Management Review38 (4): 491502.

innovation intelligence and the inq diagnostic

Documents