Innovation Paradox Research Articles

THE INNOVATION PARADOX IN THE SERBIAN ECONOMY: THE GRANGER CAUSALITY APPROACH

Innovations, as the applications of new ideas, solutions and technological practices that improve goods, services and business processes, are the most important driver of economic progress. They lead to greater productivity and efficiency, and therefore to better economic results. The purpose of this article is to examine the state, interrelation and the impact of innovative activities on the economic growth of Serbia. The paper first uses standard multiple regression and concludes that in the period from 2004 to 2020, the number of registered patents did not contribute, while the gross expenditures for research and development (GERD) contributed positively and significantly to the growth of the Serbian GDP. Therefore, it can be said that Serbia is facing a kind of innovation paradox, since the growth of allocations coexists with a dramatic decrease in the number of registered patents. Its second part is based on the construction of the corresponding Vector autoregressive VAR(1) model that traces the causal relationship between GERD and the economic growth of Serbia in the period from 1997 to 2020. It follows that while GERD does not cause GDP in the Granger sense, the GDP causes GERD allocations for innovative activities in Serbia. The scientific research work in Serbia is not efficient and effective enough because it draws funds from the GDP, but does not meet expectations and does not produce tangible results, especially in the expected number of registered patents. Therefore, it is necessary to build an appropriate incentive environment that would stimulate more adequately and value new innovative ventures.

Making things happen: How employees' paradox mindset influences innovative performance.

Individual innovation involves many contradicted behavioral options such as creative vs. habitual actions and explorative vs. exploitative activities. However, the agentic nature of innovative behaviors has been widely ignored, and we know less about what factors lead individuals to approach and balance the contradictions caused by competing demands and intentionally engage in innovative behaviors. Integrating social cognitive theory and innovation paradox, we propose a chain-mediating model to explain how employees with a paradox mindset realize the creative benefits through their innovative endeavors, considering role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) and individual ambidexterity as two mediators. Using data collected from 480 employees paired with 100 supervisors at 3-time points, the results show that RBSE and individual ambidexterity play a mediating role, respectively, even though they sequentially play a chain-mediating role between employees' paradox mindset and innovative performance. Individuals who hold a paradox mindset are more likely to perceive high capability beliefs in successfully undertaking expanded roles, promoting behavioral tendencies to switch between exploration and exploitation, and in turn encouraging employees to undertake more innovative behaviors. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications for promoting employees' innovative performance from an agentic perspective. Employees with a paradox mindset can make creative things happen by managing the tensions between exploration and exploitation proactively. Thus, organizations may try to enhance employees' proactive motivation states and behavioral capability to encourage individual innovation.

Navigating the open innovation paradox: an integrative framework for adopting open innovation in pharmaceutical R&D in developing countries

In this paper, we combine evidence from eight Indian pharmaceutical firms with extant literature and global best practices to conceptualize an integrative framework addressing the open innovation paradox (OIP), i.e., the tension between intellectual protection and openness. Firms in developing countries face additional challenges in the adoption of open innovation, such as the prevalence of open science norms, weak technology transfer systems, and mistrust between universities and industry; therefore, they employ open innovation selectively for pharmaceutical research. Prior research has examined the strategies to resolve OIP in the context of developed countries; the integrative framework proposed in this paper describes strategies for resolving the OIP in the context of developing countries. This framework illuminates the coping processes of the case firms and provides guidelines to uplift and accelerate the adoption of open innovation strategies in developing countries’ pharmaceutical sectors, and thus provides value to both theory and praxis.

Advancing Interdisciplinary Teamwork: Processes Supporting High-Quality and Innovative Performance

To advance our understanding of interdisciplinary teamwork in complex organizations, we present four papers that leverage diverse methods to identify processes that bridge the gaps across disciplines and support quality and innovation. The papers include a broad range of specific healthcare settings, countries (e.g., United States, Israel), and using different research methodologies and analyses (e.g., systematic literature review, qualitative, quantitative, multi-sourced surveys, multilevel models). We identify multiple teamwork processes (e.g. problem solving, mechanized patient follow-up, professional cooperation, and cooperation with patients) that are common across interventions and settings. Specifically, we begin with the current state of empirical evidence by presenting a systematic review that identifies roles and teamwork processes that improve quality outcomes in the peri-operative period. We follow with a paper exploring the paradox of lean management and innovation and if hospitals differ from R&D in their association with quality and innovation. We continue with a paper covering the different impacts of social compared to functional team processes to improve quality of care. We end with a qualitative investigation of individual compared to collective improvisation. Together these studies help advance the science of interdisciplinary teamwork towards supporting high-quality care and innovative performance. Team Processes to Improve Quality in Perioperative Cancer Care: A Systematic Review Presenter: Karleen F. Giannitrapani; Stanford U. / VA Palo Alto The Paradox of Lean Management and Innovation: Are Hospitals Different than R&D? Presenter: Tal Katz-Navon; Arison School of Business, Reichman U. (IDC), Israel The association between social and functional integration and care quality Presenter: Micah Aaron; Harvard Medical School Improvisation as Defense Under Crisis: Applying A Mixed-Level Approach in Response to Covid-19 Presenter: Zhanna Novikov; Stanford U.

Towards a Triple Helix based efficiency index of innovation systems

This article presents a novel application of a two-phase Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for evaluating the efficiency of innovation systems based on the Triple Helix neo-evolutionary model. The authors identify a niche to measure Triple Helix-based efficiency of innovation systems scrutinizing different methodologies for measuring Triple Helix performance and indicating different perspectives on policy implications. The paper presents a new Triple Helix-based index that engages a comprehensive dataset and helps provide useful feedback to policymakers. It is based on a set of 19 indicators collected from the official reports of 34 OECD countries and applied in a two-phase DEA model: the indicators are aggregated into pillars according to the Assurance Region Global and DEA super-efficiency model; pillar scores are aggregated according to the Benefit-of-the-Doubt based DEA model. The results provide a rank of 34 countries outlining strengths and weaknesses of each observed innovation system. The research implies a variable set of weights to be a major advantage of DEA allowing less developed countries to excel in evaluating innovation systems efficiency. The results of Triple Helix efficiency index measurement presented in this paper help better account for the European Innovation Paradox.

The innovation paradox of TMT political capital in transition economy firms

Does TMT political capital enhance or hinder firm innovation? While both the innovation benefits and costs of TMT political capital are acknowledged in the literature, we lack a systematic understanding of the theoretical context in which each perspective regarding the innovation outcomes of TMT political capital applies, specifically when the institutional environments are subject to fundamental and ongoing changes. Drawing on insights from upper echelons theory (UET), we propose a non-linear relationship between TMT political capital and firm innovation performance. Based on an analysis of 620 publicly listed firms in China, we find that TMT political capital has a U-shaped relationship with innovation performance. This curvilinear U-shaped relationship is negatively moderated by the marketization of commercial activities and resource allocation. Our study evokes new theoretical mechanisms for the innovation paradox of TMT political capital and sheds light on its boundary conditions in the context of transition economies.

The paradox of open innovation in Slovenian firms

Innovation and open innovation are expected to strengthen firm performance. The learning process and inbound activities are particularly important for catch-up countries and firms. The empirical evidence, though, is incomplete and provides inconclusive results. This paper studies the role of open innovation activities in a sample of Slovenian firms. Using a combination of survey data and official registry financial statements data, we investigate the differences in the role of open innovation across firms with different productivity. The results show that open innovation is more important in less productive firms. This is consistent with the theoretical ideas that stress the role of learning, capacity building and knowledge transfer. However, these firms also invest less in open innovation activities, which is a paradox in itself, introducing an important challenge for managers as well as questions for future research.

The challenging role of researchers coping with tensions, dilemmas and paradoxes in transdisciplinary settings

AbstractTransdisciplinary learning is a response to address the comprehensive sustainability competencies for implementing the 17 sustainability goals of the Agenda 2030. Transdisciplinary contexts include socially distributed knowledge beyond scientific boundaries. This impacts the whole design process and specific tasks and roles of the researchers. Addressing the questions, “Which typical tensions, dilemmas and paradoxes need to be faced by researches in transdisciplinary settings?”, and “How does the role of the researchers change and goes beyond traditional research settings when operating in transdisciplinary settings surrounded by tensions, dilemmas and paradoxes?”, answers will be provided following existing analytical frameworks of transdisciplinary research design. Based on own experiences with and including observations of transdisciplinary settings at academia, transdisciplinary research and lecture settings will be analysed and compared by transdisciplinary criteria. Results show, in transdisciplinary settings, researchers or lecturers are more engaged with addressing poly‐contextuality, the consciousness of the innovation paradoxes and the side‐effects of ongoing interdependences. They take up multiple roles and have to deal with role ambiguity. Transdisciplinary lecture settings are even more demanding as they also have to meet the mentor role or maintain the students' learning progress.

Complexity-informed interpretation of social innovation

IMPACT Complexity concepts help to open the black box of social innovation for public sector managers and policy-makers and to understand why social innovation can simultaneously be both a solution and problem. Complexity thinking guides formulating essential questions and helps to imagine the desired future and, in so doing, it also provides heuristic tools to address the paradox of social innovation.

Reconciling higher productivity with innovation paradox: mode of learning and innovation in India's manufacturing sector

ABSTRACT This study analyzed the factors behind the innovation paradox in developing countries using the innovation system perspective. Considering the central role of interactive learning in innovation, we analyzed the relative role of Science Technology Inovation (STI) and Doing Using Interacting (DUI) mode of learning in determining TFP and the inter-industry variation therein. The study used the firm-level panel data from India’s manufacturing sector. The results highlight the significance of interactive learning, both STI and DUI, on firm productivity. While STI mode of learning has a greater role in high-technology industries, in the case of low-technology industries DUI is more important. Despite the positive role of STI mode, DUI mode turns out to be the most widely preferred strategy. These findings suggest that innovation policy in developing countries needs to be cognizant of the crucial role of DUI in innovation and make the case for a balanced approach towards promoting STI and DUI mode of learning.

A blueprint for nursing innovation centers

BackgroundThe interest in and demand for healthcare innovation has heightened amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizations are challenged to balance the goals of daily operations with innovation to stay relevant and compete in the marketplace. Innovation is critical for not only the success and sustainability of organizations, but the well-being of the faculty, staff, and clients they serve. PurposeIn this article, we present an overview of several Nursing Innovation Centers in the United States as well as examples of colleges without formal innovation centers but who are addressing innovation in their programs. MethodsWe examined the subjective experience of nursing innovation in seven colleges of nursing using semi-structured intervieweds and thematic analysis. FIndingsWe discuss four themes for creating an innovation center or innovation focus and six themes important for sustainability and impact. In addition, we provide a working model for these themes and provide lessons learned along with trends and recommendations for the future. DiscussionThis information provides guidance and a framework for academic and practice organizations aspiring to create opportunities for innovation to flourish in their institutions. We also encourage leadership to critically evaluate and address biases in faculty hiring, research evaluation, publication practices, educational opportunities and mentoring to overcome the diversity innovation paradox.

Familiness and innovation outcomes in family firms: The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation

ABSTRACT Despite having characteristics conducive to innovation, family firms are often thought to be less innovative than their nonfamily counterparts. A potential contributor to this innovation paradox is familiness, or the bundle of resources that derive from involvement of the family in the business. We explore this relationship by investigating the mediating role played by the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation (EO). Using a global sample of family firms, we find support for the mediated model, with the underlying dimensions of familiness differing in their influence on EO, which in turn affects a number of innovation outcomes. The findings are used to clarify the innovation paradox.

The paradox of innovation

Applying Humean empiricism to policy reform implies a “paradox of innovation.” All radical changes to human conventions, whether we eventually judge them beneficial or harmful, will be ex ante irrational: they initially lacked good evidence in their favor. Having set forth the paradox, this article treats some consequences. First, it argues that sound policy advice will be “supra-rational,” i.e. able to suggest one plausible convention without ruling out others, and relative to the state of both physical and political technology. Second, it analyzes “projectors” (disruptive policy entrepreneurs) as “zealots of means,” who seek not to achieve specified outcomes but to establish their preferred conventions. The article calls for making use of such zealots’ advice, as capable of yielding qualitative improvements in human welfare, while limiting their independent power and discretion. It glosses interest groups as zealots of means whose demands are less likely to be salutary. Third, after sharply criticizing the ethics of performing ( ex ante ) dangerous social experiments on the powerless, the paper nevertheless argues how we might usefully employ data from past instances of others' having performed them. Making a virtue of uncertainty, it advocates that each society's members learn from other democratic societies' apparently reckless innovations, since what seems reckless to one society's public may seem plausible and exciting to another's. The paper closes by stressing our rationality's necessary incompleteness.

‘Taking the Voter’s Pulse’ the Media, Artificial Intelligence and Paradox of Innovation in Nigeria

The horizontal dividing line between human and science might have been the epi-centre of enquiry in the 1950s when the focus of Artificial Intelligence (AI) raised the question : when is a system designed by human “Intelligent” ? Since then, flurries of literature in communication studies capturing the most mundane aspects of AI as a tool for diverse possibilities have, as it were, re-enforced the earlier view championed by the western media about the need to leverage on communication (ICTs) to fasten the pace of development across societies, especially developing countries. While it is not intended here to ride the wave of technological advances, the hitherto implicit assumption that all the countries of the world are ready for this take-off as contended by the proponents of the development paradigm, did not take cognizance of the intricate issues of innovation and governance. Nigeria is one of such countries in daring need to redress the failures of her electoral process still scrapped in the swaddling clothes of her political merchants who are not near ready to let go the arcane ideology of “the winner takes all”. This study focuses on how to improve the nation’s electoral process through AI. It is also the contention that given the automated systemic nature of AI, these anomalies will be significantly reduced. Causal inference will be tested through analytical approach, while the discourse will be framed by diffusion of innovation theory. Based on the findings, recommendations will be made to address the aforesaid issues.

How to reconcile team innovation paradox? An explorative study from the perspectives of members’ cognitive style “composition” and “configuration”

<p id="C3">In recent years, “How to improve team innovative performance?” is a popular topic in both management practice and academia fields. Because innovation is an ambidextrous activity including both “exploration” and “exploitation”, understanding how to balance the paradoxical relationship between them is crucial to improve team innovative performance. Based on a micro-perspective of team members’ cognitive styles, “compositional approach” and “configurational approach” were adopted to explore how to reconcile this kind of paradox. Specifically, (1) the complementary effects between members’ cognitive composition and team leader behaviors will contribute to the reconciliation of team innovation paradox; (2) an appropriate “members’ cognitive styles-work role requirements” configuration incorporated with a high level of team coordination climate will be useful to reconcile team innovation paradox. Further, based on the ideology of yin-yang philosophy, the mechanism embedded in the process of reconciling team innovation paradox was also studied. To justify the relevant theoretical propositions, three sub-projects will be conducted to examine the proposed research model with both quantitative and qualitative methods. The findings will not only enrich two streams of literature regarding exploration of the antecedents of team innovation and the approaches to management paradox from a micro perspective, but also provide suggestions on the innovation management practices of companies.

From Intention to Action: Operationalizing AGA Diversity Policy to Combat Racism and Health Disparities in Gastroenterology

From Intention to Action: Operationalizing AGA Diversity Policy to Combat Racism and Health Disparities in Gastroenterology

Innovation and democracy: the twin paradoxes

ABSTRACT The ‘innovation paradox’ refers to the coexistence in the West over the last five decades of a steady decrease in the growth of productivity with the increase in the quantity of available information. These trends, which started with the invention of the internet, call for revisiting mainstream endogenous growth theory in an age dominated by information and communication technology. The weakness of the arguments used to justify the paradox, the unorthodox comparison with China and the history of the industrial revolutions point to the technological obsolescence of liberal democracy as the real explanation for the paradox. A debate on how to adapt Western institutions to a radically new context is launched.

Managing technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities

PurposeIn this study, the authors aim to address the following two research questions: (1) How do technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves in technological changes? (2) How do incumbent firms manage technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level organizational ambidexterity? To do so, the authors examine technology innovation in cloud computing, which has taken shape and brought about changes to the information technology industry. Specifically, the authors examine how a traditional software company, China Standard Software Co., Ltd. (CS2C), successfully navigated the technological transition to cloud computing from its existing operating systems business by managing innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities.Design/methodology/approachThis study examines a single exploratory case and conducts an in-depth analysis of how technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves in technological changes and how incumbent firms manage technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level organizational ambidexterity. The data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously through three phases. In Phase 1, one of the authors who had worked at CS2C for many years enabled the authors to obtain access to the company. The data analysis during this phase provided the authors with the history and current situation of CS2C, enabling them to understand the external circumstances, such as particular historical period, and internal conditions, such as cultural and technological changes, that would be relevant throughout the course of their study. It also helped the authors identify organizational ambidexterity capability as the guiding theoretical concept for their research. In Phase 2, the authors engaged in site visits and conducted detailed interviews with employees working at CS2C. In Phase 3, most of the data analysis was conducted. When the interview data were not sufficient to support the theoretical analysis, additional data were collected via phone calls and emails, to assure data-theory-model alignment.FindingsThe authors’ findings show that technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves as contradictory relationships and mutual support relationships between exploitative and exploratory innovation. In addition, the authors identify three integration mechanisms as key to multi-level organizational ambidexterity capabilities in managing technology innovation paradoxes in technological changes.Originality/valueThree important theoretical implications can be drawn from our case analysis. First, this research contributes to the knowledge of innovation paradoxes during technological changes. Second, this research provides a model of multi-level organizational ambidexterity capability in technological changes. Third, this research proposes three integration mechanisms driven by three types of ambidexterity capability at different organizational levels.

Innovation and the ambidextrous mindset in commercial real estate: a paradox management approach

PurposeThis paper addresses decision-making for commercial real estate (CRE) firms and professionals within the context of rapid technological innovations capable of business model disruption. It considers the paradoxical notion of the need for CRE firms to become ambidextrous by simultaneously exploiting their existing business model and exploring possible opportunities and threats. The paper develops a practical approach, the paradox map, for dealing with this paradoxical problem.Design/methodology/approachThis qualitative research draws on work from organizational management, leadership, social sciences and technology. This research frames the definition and development of an ambidextrous mindset and its components. Paradox management is explored as a possible source of useful tools.FindingsThe ambidextrous mindset is a paradox in that exploit and explore are ongoing interrelated opposing forces. Further, the mindset is the product of a number of sub-paradoxes that act as levers for its development and adjustment. The paradox map is developed to facilitate dealing with numerous paradoxes.Practical implicationsThe paradox map is a useful tool for commercial real-estate firms to understand and develop an ambidextrous mindset.Originality/valueCommercial real estate is experiencing a wave of substantive technological disruption in the proptech marketplace and beyond. This paper attempts to clarify the paradox of innovation and its underlying sub-paradoxes to help professionals navigate the interrelated landscape of exploiting past products and exploring innovations.

The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity's role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.