Purpose-This paper aims to discuss the need to dynamize the existing conceptualization of business model, and proposes a new typology to distinguish different types of business model change. Design/methodology/approach-The paper integrates basic insights of innovation, business process and routine research into the concept of business model. The main focus of the paper is on strategic and terminological issues. Findings-The paper offers a new, process-based conceptualization of business model, which recognizes and integrates the role of individual agency. Based on this, it distinguishes and specifies four different types of business model change: business model creation, extension, revision, and termination. Each type of business model change is associated with specific challenges. Practical implications-The proposed typology can serve as a basis for developing a management tool to evaluate the impact of specific changes to a firm's business model. Such a tool would be particularly useful in identifying path dependencies and resistance at the process level, and would therefore allow a firm's management to take focused action on this in advance. Originality/value-The paper makes two main contributions: first, it offers a new, process-based conceptualization of business models; second, it is the first paper to establish a direct link between business model change and the degree of innovation (such as "incremental" vs "radical"), and which distinguishes and specifies different types of business model change.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to outline the “grand structure” of the phenomenon in order to identify both the underlying processes and core drivers of employee‐driven innovation (EDI).Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper. It particularly applies the insights of contemporary research on routine and organizational decision making to the specific case of EDI.FindingsThe main result of the paper is that, from a theoretical point of view, it makes perfect sense to involve ordinary employees in innovation decisions. However, it is also outlined that naïve or ungoverned participation is counterproductive, and that it is quite difficult to realize the hidden potential in a supportive way.Research limitations/implicationsThe main implication is that basic mechanisms for employee participation also apply to innovation decisions, although often in a different way. However, the paper only identifies the grand structure of the phenomenon. The different identified drivers have to be further elaborated and empirically tested.Practical implicationsEDI is a helpful tool to gain competitive advantage by utilizing the knowledge and creative potential of employees.Originality/valueThis is the first paper that gives a systematic overview of the grand structure of EDI and derives the most important moderating factors from that.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper reviews the insights that research offers on the impact of different leadership styles on innovation. To do so, we develop a framework, structuring research insights into four dimensions: people, means, effects, and goals/outcomes for innovations. Based on this framework, we review publications on: directive and participative leadership, interactive leadership, charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, transactional & instrumental leadership, strategic & CEO leadership, and shared & distributed leadership. We find strong indications that different innovation stages and types raise different demands on leadership. Against this background, transformational leadership is not the only style to lead innovations, but different leadership styles fit differently well with different innovation types and stages. However, the specification of this fit is still very incomplete and the answer to the question of how to lead innovations remains sketchy. In result of the review of this paper we map existing insights and research needs.