Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Bledow, R., Kuehnel, J., Schmitt, A., & Schaupp, K. (2009). Explaining the dynamics of work engagement: An integration of antecedents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.
Brown, L. S., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29, 783–792.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). Innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail (Hardcover). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clegg, C. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 463–477.
Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Scrull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes (pp. 323–417). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connelly, M. S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 65–86.
Fehr, R. (2009). Why innovation demands aren't as conflicted as they seem: Stochasticism and the creative process. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 344–348.
Guidroz, A. M., & Denison, D. R. (2009). What practice needs from science regarding innovation management. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 357–359.
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70–81.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. The Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–528.
King, N., & Anderson, N. (2002). Managing innovation and change: A critical guide for organizations. London: Thomson Learning.
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tension: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 546–564.
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120.
Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., & Byrne, C. L. (2009). What is the fundamental? The role of cognition in creativity and innovation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 353–356.
Ohly, S., & Binnewies, C. (2009). The ambiguity of creativity and innovation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 360–362.
Poole, M. S., & Van De Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.
Reiter-Palmon, R. (2009). A dialectic perspective on problem identification and construction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 349–352.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.
Smith, W. K. (2009). A dynamic approach to managing contradictions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 338–343.
West, M. A. (2002). Ideas are ten a penny: It's team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 411–424.