IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orstsc/v7y2022i4p300-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivating Innovation: Tunnels vs. Funnels

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Klingebiel

    (Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, Frankfurt 60322, Germany)

Abstract

The tentative pursuit of parallel projects in an innovation funnel helps firms improve selection under uncertainty. Yet a risk of premature project termination may make employees more hesitant to innovate. Rewards to innovation, if at risk, become less attractive. My laboratory experiment indeed shows that employees who believe they have low task efficacy and, thus, face a high risk of termination often forego innovation. But funnels also attract: employees with high efficacy beliefs choose innovation more often although they, too, face an additional, albeit smaller, termination risk. Their innovation choices reveal a preference for allocation regimes that are more likely to spot and reward the ultimately most deserving innovators. Such meritocracy increases alongside project-selection accuracy. The uncertainty of innovation, thus, proves a rare context in which employees view a lack of organizational commitment positively. The meritorious self-sorting I document has implications for motivating risk-taking and organizing innovation within firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Klingebiel, 2022. "Motivating Innovation: Tunnels vs. Funnels," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 300-316, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orstsc:v:7:y:2022:i:4:p:300-316
    DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2022.0156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0156
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/stsc.2022.0156?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:inm:orstsc:v:7:y:2022:i:4:p:300-316. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.