When Wrong Is Right: Leaving Room for Error in Innovation Measurement

Abstract

To date, measuring innovation has not been an exact science. As in many areas of organizational life, errors in measuring innovation are a recurring fact. Innovation researchers and practitioners alike have become increasingly interested in understanding the occurrence of organizational errors and how these errors affect innovation and its measurement. This empirical study aims to address this under-explored area by utilizing a qualitative in-depth case study at the innovation department of an organization with production sites and sales organizations worldwide. A total of 28 semi-structured interviews at several organizational levels were conducted, with innovation managers, project managers, senior managers, and staff. Based on the findings in this case study, three explanations are presented on how organizational errors occur when using innovation KPIs (key performance indicators). The first explanation can be connected to the increasing complexity of innovation and its intangible nature. Another explanation can be traced to the difference between innovation strategy and innovation KPIs. Lastly, room for organizational errors can be related to the multitude of individuals and organizational levels involved in innovation and its measurement. The implications for practitioners are that innovation KPIs are not precise metrics but should be seen as estimates with organizational errors. Whether or not these innovation KPIs can be used as tools to turn innovation into competitive advantages largely depends on whether wrong is right. Future research should focus on the metrics that are implemented and actually in use, as this future path would highlight the function and dysfunction that organizational errors in innovation KPIs can have.

The Influence of Psychological Safety on Students’ Creativity in Project-Based Learning: The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

“…Finally, colleges need to build and maintain a culture of fault tolerance, allowing team members to learn by making mistakes and accepting and thinking differences among team members ( Svensson de Jong, 2021 ), which will help to improve students’ psychological empowerment and creativity through psychological safety. Specifically, teachers should respect and recognize students’ efforts, guide students to exchange mistakes and discuss the reasons, and follow-up compensation measures through formative evaluation, to monitor student-as-master by creating opportunities for constructive criticism.…”

“…Specifically, on the one hand, the fault-tolerant culture can reduce the insecurity and interpersonal risks in the team, so that students with high psychological safety can quickly transfer their limited cognitive resources from negative emotions to error compensation and error cause analysis ( Keith et al, 2021 ), thus re-understanding the significance of the project, and finally enhancing their psychological empowerment. On the other hand, the fault-tolerant culture can promote individuals to learn from failures, explore and reflect on the causes of failures, and optimize the positive effects of errors more effectively in the cognition of individuals with high psychological safety, for example, promoting more adaptive practices ( Svensson de Jong, 2021 ), thus enhancing the autonomy and influence of individuals. On the contrary, in an environment where mistakes are not tolerated, low psychological safety will make it less likely for members to express their reflections and share their new ideas again by learning from failures, which will lead to lower self-confidence and psychological empowerment, and even a vicious circle of mistakes-low self-efficacy-repeated mistakes ( Hirak et al, 2012 ).…”

“…Moreover, in some schools, people regard mistakes as indicators of poor performance, negligence, or even lack of intelligence ( Svensson de Jong, 2021 ), which seriously hindered the development of individual creativity. This paper holds that fault-tolerant culture will be an inclusive and open organizational culture to guide and develop students’ creative thinking and behavior.…”