A constructively critical review of change and innovation-related concepts: towards conceptual and operational clarity

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine and clarify the nomological network of change and innovation (CI) -related constructs. A literature review in this field revealed a number of inter-related constructs that have emerged over the last decades. We examine several such constructs -innovation, creativity, proactive behaviours, job crafting, voice, taking charge, personal initiative, submitting suggestions, and extra-role behaviours. Our conceptual analysis suggests each one of these constructs represents a specific component of CI-related behaviours. However, we also found that on occasion these concepts have been dysfunctionally operationalized with evidence of three dysfunctional effects: (i) construct confusion, (ii) construct drift, and (iii) construct contamination. Challenges for future research to enhance conceptual and operational clarity are discussed. (Suddaby, 2010, p. 350). KeywordsAcross the work and organizational psychology literature there has been an increasing number of concepts associated with how employees, teams, and organizations overall attempt to enact change and modify work roles, organizational processes, and outcomes at different levels of analysis (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014). For instance, the areas of creativity and innovation, proactive behaviours, and extra-role behaviours all aim to address and explain, in one way or another, how individuals, teams, and organizations introduce and implement changes to improve the organizational functioning. Given the importance of effective change management and innovation for the organizations to gain competitive advantage and secure their long-term success, it is not surprising that the research in this particular field has flourished during the recent years. In the present paper we coin the term 'Change and innovation (CI) literatures' to explore the nomological network of different concepts in this field. Perhaps more than any other area, the CI literatures comprises a number of distinct but related constructs and a proliferation of sub-constructs describing what could appear prima facie to be ostensibly similar phenomena in organizations. This has led to the rather complex construct space in the CI literatures and applied research, with several interdependent constructs all having distinct value but appearing to possess at least some similarities and notable overlaps. In their recent meta-analysis, for instance, Tornau and Frese REVIEW OF INNOVATION-RELATED CONCEPTS 4 (2013) have attempted to clean-up a construct space related to the proactive behaviours in particular and observed some overlaps. In our paper, however, we go beyond the proactivity to include several different concepts all related with enacting change and innovation in the organizations.Specifically, in the current paper, we examine nine specific constructs in these areas that have commanded increasing attention by researchers over recent years: (1) innovation, (2) creativity, (3) proactive behaviours, (4) job crafting, (5) voice, (6) taking charge, (7) personal in...

Strategies to improve selection of creative ideas: An experimental test of epistemic and social motivation in groups

“…Pre-implementation activities like idea selection play a crucial role in the innovation process (Potočnik & Anderson, 2016). For a long time, research on new product development has pointed to idea screening as one of the most challenging tasks for senior management (e.g., Baker & Albaum, 1986).…”

Predicting innovative performance through proactive personality: Examining its criterion validity and incremental validity over the five‐factor model

“…In fact, recent meta-analytical evidence has showed that, despite being linked with previous well-established job performance dimensions of task, citizenship performance, and counterproductive behaviors (see Campbell & Wiernik, 2015;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002, for reviews), innovative performance is still empirically unique and distinct from them (Harari et al, 2016). Further research efforts focused on the nomological network of innovation-related have also contributed to clarify its behavioral scope as a performance criterion (Anderson et al, 2014;Potočnik & Anderson, 2016).…”

“…Drawing upon these developments, we conceptualize innovative performance as a multiphase behavioral process, including a set of intentional actions implied in the generation and implementation of new and useful ideas intended to improve the procedures, practices, or the products of the organization (Anderson et al, 2014). Hence, besides capturing the first phase of the innovation consisting of the development of new and beneficial ideas for the organization, which is commonly known as creativity, this criterion also encompasses the second phase of this process, which comprises the behaviors aimed at implementing these ideas into the workplace (Potočnik & Anderson, 2016;West & Farr, 1990). Notwithstanding, we further separate the second phase of the innovation process into idea promotion and idea implementation, following the approach of Kanter (1988), also adopted by Janssen (2000).…”

“…Still, the picture regarding the criteria-related validity of proactive personality for predicting innovative performance remains far more incomplete (Potočnik & Anderson, 2016;Potočnik et al, 2015).…”

“…constructs, as well as advancing the study of its multiple individual and contextual determinants (Anderson et al, 2014;Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). In this regard, several authors have called for further research on the individual antecedents of innovation, including those related with personality characteristics, since the dispositional bases of innovative behaviors are still far from established in the literature (Hammond et al, 2011;Potočnik & Anderson, 2016).…”