IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v2y2009i03p305-337_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity

Author

Listed:
  • Bledow, Ronald
  • Frese, Michael
  • Anderson, Neil
  • Erez, Miriam
  • Farr, James

Abstract

Innovation, the development and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas by individuals, teams, and organizations, lies at the heart of human adaptation. Decades of research in different disciplines and at different organizational levels have produced a wealth of knowledge about how innovation emerges and the factors that facilitate and inhibit innovation. We propose that this knowledge needs integration. In an initial step toward this goal, we apply a dialectic perspective on innovation to overcome limitations of dichotomous reasoning and to gain a more valid account of innovation. We point out that individuals, teams, and organizations need to self-regulate and manage conflicting demands of innovation and that multiple pathways can lead to idea generation and innovation. By scrutinizing the current use of the concept of organizational ambidexterity and extending it to individuals and teams, we develop a framework to help guide and facilitate future research and practice. Readers expecting specific and universal prescriptions of how to innovate will be disappointed as current research does not allow such inferences. Rather, we think innovation research should focus on developing and testing principles of innovation management in addition to developing decision aids for organizational practice. To this end, we put forward key propositions and action principles of innovation management.

Suggested Citation

  • Bledow, Ronald & Frese, Michael & Anderson, Neil & Erez, Miriam & Farr, James, 2009. "A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 305-337, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:2:y:2009:i:03:p:305-337_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942600001565/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:2:y:2009:i:03:p:305-337_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.