Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:53:24.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending and Refining the Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: There Is Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory; Nothing as Theoretical as a Good Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Ronald Bledow ,
Michael Frese ,
Neil Anderson ,
Miriam Erez  and
James Farr
Ronald Bledow*
Affiliation:
University of Giessen
Michael Frese
Affiliation:
University of Giessen
Neil Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Miriam Erez
Affiliation:
Israel Institute of Technology
James Farr
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
E-mail: ronald.bledow@psychol.uni-giessen.de, Address: University of Giessen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We have proposed that a dialectic perspective on innovation may serve well as a first step of an integrative framework for research on innovation and for effective practice. We would like to thank all commentators for their stimulating and challenging ideas and SIOP for enabling this dialog. In keeping with the process view inherent to dialectic thinking, we would like to use this reply to refine and extend the core ideas presented in the focal article by means of integrating explanatory concepts, by critically examining the add-on value of a dialectic perspective, and by pointing out future research needs and ideas for management.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 363 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Brown, L. S., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.10.1037/h0040373Google Scholar
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29, 783–792.10.1177/001872677602900806Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M. (1997). Innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail (Hardcover) . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Clegg, C. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 463–477.10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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, 65–86.10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00043-0Google Scholar
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, 344–348.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01156.xGoogle Scholar
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, 357–359.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01159.xGoogle Scholar
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70–81.10.1287/orsc.1030.0056Google Scholar
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, 500–528.10.5465/amr.2007.24351846Google Scholar
King, N., & Anderson, N. (2002). Managing innovation and change: A critical guide for organizations. London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120.10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_01Google Scholar
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, 353–356.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01158.xGoogle Scholar
Ohly, S., & Binnewies, C. (2009). The ambiguity of creativity and innovation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 360–362.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01160.xGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van De Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.10.2307/258559Google Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R. (2009). A dialectic perspective on problem identification and construction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 349–352.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01157.xGoogle Scholar
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K. (2009). A dynamic approach to managing contradictions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 338–343.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (2002). Ideas are ten a penny: It's team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 411–424.10.1111/1464-0597.01006Google Scholar