参与逻辑:以可持续性为导向的创新合作伙伴如何处理组织逻辑之间的差异

IF 10.1 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Product Innovation Management Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1111/jpim.12753
Rosina Watson, Hugh N. Wilson, Emma K. Macdonald
{"title":"参与逻辑:以可持续性为导向的创新合作伙伴如何处理组织逻辑之间的差异","authors":"Rosina Watson, Hugh N. Wilson, Emma K. Macdonald","doi":"10.1111/jpim.12753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Innovation partnerships frequently experience tensions due to differences in partners' organizational logics. The literature recommends that partners adopt collaborative, empathetic mindsets but even so, tensions can threaten outcomes and partnership continuation. Difficulties can be exacerbated when firms engage stakeholder organizations in sustainability‐oriented innovation projects, where each partner is seeking their own combination of social, environmental, and economic objectives. This study explores strategic responses to these differences in logics through eight case studies of sustainability‐oriented innovation engagements between a focal business and an external organization. The key finding is that partners can respond to their differing logics by shaping a new “engagement logic” that guides members of both (or all) organizations. A logic frame with four value‐related dimensions—value salience, instrumentality, temporality, and language—allows a subtly idiosyncratic engagement logic to be created that is acceptable to both parties. This classification of ingredients of a logic frame forms a wider contribution to the institutional‐logics literature. A complementary range of logic practices is identified, covering logic emergence, logic enactment, and boundary defining. The engagement logic aids the partnership by contributing to four partnership‐level generative outcomes: partnership commitment, capability integration, scope flexibility, and system orientation. A notable finding is the presence of a logic boundary, specified in work, time, and space, enabling the engagement logic to co‐exist with organizational logics; a research direction is whether this boundary also exists in logics at organizational and field levels. The study shows partnerships to be a new context within which novel logics can emerge, contributing to an understanding of how logics evolve.","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engagement logics: How partners for sustainability‐oriented innovation manage differences between organizational logics\",\"authors\":\"Rosina Watson, Hugh N. Wilson, Emma K. Macdonald\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jpim.12753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Innovation partnerships frequently experience tensions due to differences in partners' organizational logics. The literature recommends that partners adopt collaborative, empathetic mindsets but even so, tensions can threaten outcomes and partnership continuation. Difficulties can be exacerbated when firms engage stakeholder organizations in sustainability‐oriented innovation projects, where each partner is seeking their own combination of social, environmental, and economic objectives. This study explores strategic responses to these differences in logics through eight case studies of sustainability‐oriented innovation engagements between a focal business and an external organization. The key finding is that partners can respond to their differing logics by shaping a new “engagement logic” that guides members of both (or all) organizations. A logic frame with four value‐related dimensions—value salience, instrumentality, temporality, and language—allows a subtly idiosyncratic engagement logic to be created that is acceptable to both parties. This classification of ingredients of a logic frame forms a wider contribution to the institutional‐logics literature. A complementary range of logic practices is identified, covering logic emergence, logic enactment, and boundary defining. The engagement logic aids the partnership by contributing to four partnership‐level generative outcomes: partnership commitment, capability integration, scope flexibility, and system orientation. A notable finding is the presence of a logic boundary, specified in work, time, and space, enabling the engagement logic to co‐exist with organizational logics; a research direction is whether this boundary also exists in logics at organizational and field levels. The study shows partnerships to be a new context within which novel logics can emerge, contributing to an understanding of how logics evolve.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16900,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Product Innovation Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Product Innovation Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12753\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12753","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于合作伙伴的组织逻辑不同,创新伙伴关系经常会出现紧张关系。文献建议合作伙伴采取合作、共情的心态,但即便如此,紧张关系也会威胁到成果和合作伙伴关系的继续。当企业让利益相关者组织参与以可持续发展为导向的创新项目时,困难可能会加剧,因为在这些项目中,每个合作伙伴都在寻求自己的社会、环境和经济目标组合。本研究通过对重点企业与外部组织之间以可持续发展为导向的创新合作的八个案例研究,探讨了针对这些逻辑差异的战略对策。研究的主要发现是,合作伙伴可以通过塑造一种新的 "参与逻辑 "来指导双方(或所有)组织的成员,从而应对各自不同的逻辑。逻辑框架有四个与价值相关的维度--价值突出性、工具性、时间性和语言--允许创建一种双方都能接受的微妙的特殊参与逻辑。这种对逻辑框架要素的分类是对制度逻辑文献的更广泛贡献。逻辑实践的补充范围包括逻辑的产生、逻辑的实施和边界的界定。参与逻辑通过促进四个伙伴关系层面的生成结果来帮助伙伴关系:伙伴关系承诺、能力整合、范围灵活性和系统导向。一个值得注意的发现是,在工作、时间和空间中存在一个逻辑边界,使参与逻辑能够与组织逻辑共存;一个研究方向是,这一边界是否也存在于组织和领域层面的逻辑中。这项研究表明,伙伴关系是一种新的环境,在这种环境中可以出现新的逻辑,有助于理解逻辑是如何演变的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Engagement logics: How partners for sustainability‐oriented innovation manage differences between organizational logics
Innovation partnerships frequently experience tensions due to differences in partners' organizational logics. The literature recommends that partners adopt collaborative, empathetic mindsets but even so, tensions can threaten outcomes and partnership continuation. Difficulties can be exacerbated when firms engage stakeholder organizations in sustainability‐oriented innovation projects, where each partner is seeking their own combination of social, environmental, and economic objectives. This study explores strategic responses to these differences in logics through eight case studies of sustainability‐oriented innovation engagements between a focal business and an external organization. The key finding is that partners can respond to their differing logics by shaping a new “engagement logic” that guides members of both (or all) organizations. A logic frame with four value‐related dimensions—value salience, instrumentality, temporality, and language—allows a subtly idiosyncratic engagement logic to be created that is acceptable to both parties. This classification of ingredients of a logic frame forms a wider contribution to the institutional‐logics literature. A complementary range of logic practices is identified, covering logic emergence, logic enactment, and boundary defining. The engagement logic aids the partnership by contributing to four partnership‐level generative outcomes: partnership commitment, capability integration, scope flexibility, and system orientation. A notable finding is the presence of a logic boundary, specified in work, time, and space, enabling the engagement logic to co‐exist with organizational logics; a research direction is whether this boundary also exists in logics at organizational and field levels. The study shows partnerships to be a new context within which novel logics can emerge, contributing to an understanding of how logics evolve.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management 管理科学-工程:工业
CiteScore
17.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
42
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Product Innovation Management is a leading academic journal focused on research, theory, and practice in innovation and new product development. It covers a broad scope of issues crucial to successful innovation in both external and internal organizational environments. The journal aims to inform, provoke thought, and contribute to the knowledge and practice of new product development and innovation management. It welcomes original articles from organizations of all sizes and domains, including start-ups, small to medium-sized enterprises, and large corporations, as well as from consumer, business-to-business, and policy domains. The journal accepts various quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and authors from diverse disciplines and functional perspectives are encouraged to submit their work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information From the editors: Passing the baton Service robots and innovation: An ecosystem approach Issue Information Fueling innovation management research: Future directions and five forward-looking paths
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1