Let us measure, then what? Exploring purposeful use of innovation management self-assessments

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to increase the understanding regarding how managers attempt to make purposeful use of innovation management self-assessments (IMSA) and performance information (PI). Design/methodology/approach An interpretative perspective on purposeful use is used as an analytical framework, and the paper is based on empirical material from two research projects exploring the use of IMSA and PI in three case companies. Based on the empirical data, consisting of interviews and observations of workshops and project meetings, qualitative content analysis has been conducted. Findings The findings of this paper indicate that how managers achieve a purposeful use of PI is related to their approach toward how to use the specific PI at hand, and two basic approaches are analytically separated: a rule-based approach and a reflective approach. Consequently, whether or not the right thing is being measured also becomes a question of how the PI is actually being interpreted and used. Thus, the extensive focus on what to measure and how to measure it becomes edgeless unless equal attention is given to how managers are able to use the PI to make knowledgeable decisions regarding what actions to take to achieve the desired changes. Practical implications Given the results, it comes with a managerial responsibility to make sure that all managers who are supposed to be engaged in using the PI are given roles in the self-assessments that are aligned with the level of knowledge they possess, or can access. Originality/value How managers purposefully use PI is a key to understand the potential impact of self-assessments.

Interaction training – an enabler for improvement measures within the psychosocial risk assessment process

“…Another barrier is the complex nature of psychosocial risks, which Schuller (2020) suggests can be overcome by organizing a continuous and reflective learning process that includes employees. A similar suggestion has been mentioned for other types of assessments (Blackbright, 2020; Johansson et al. , 2019).…”

“…The aim was to identify if providing managers and employees with interaction training can enable them to work together to improve the psychosocial risk assessment and performance. Research shows that social interaction is important for change (Aslam et al ., 2018a, b; Heracleous and Bartunek, 2021; Naeem, 2020) and that participative reflective group processes are important in the action phase of assessments (Blackbright, 2020; Johansson et al. , 2019) and health interventions (Boulagouas et al.…”

“…The aim was to identify if providing managers and employees with interaction training can enable them to work together to improve the psychosocial risk assessment and performance. Research shows that social interaction is important for change (Aslam et al, 2018a, b;Heracleous and Bartunek, 2021;Naeem, 2020) and that participative reflective group processes are important in the action phase of assessments (Blackbright, 2020;Johansson et al, 2019) and health interventions (Boulagouas et al, 2021;Kompier et al, 2000;Mellor et al, 2013;Nielsen et al, 2007;Schuller, 2020;Van Eerd et al, 2021). The choice of social interaction as intervention is also based on a recontextualization of psychosocial work environment as social structures.…”

“…Participation is crucial because solutions will address real needs (Mellor et al, 2013). Furthermore, it is a way to handle the complexity of designing and implementing measures through continuous and reflective learning, where decentralized players act autonomously (in contrast to understanding the assessment as static and closed) (Johansson et al, 2019;Heracleous and Bartunek, 2021;Schuller, 2020).…”