高风险创新:当团队协作增强(或破坏)专业服务公司的创新时

IF 2 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Professions and Organization Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.1093/jpo/joz017
Johnathan R. Cromwell, H. Gardner
{"title":"高风险创新:当团队协作增强(或破坏)专业服务公司的创新时","authors":"Johnathan R. Cromwell, H. Gardner","doi":"10.1093/jpo/joz017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Professionals need to develop increasingly innovative solutions to complex problems, which are often cocreated through client–professional collaborations, but this demand creates a theoretical and practical tension. On the one hand, professionals need to establish long-standing relationships with clients so they can deeply understand their client’s business and develop more effective solutions. On the other hand, such strong relationships can breed similar perspectives that undermine their ability to develop more innovative ideas. To resolve this conflict, we introduce a new contextual condition to the literature that is fundamentally associated with innovation in organizations—the stakes of an innovation project—and develop theory explaining how it creates conditions under which familiarity either enhances or undermines innovation in teams. Using a mixed-method approach to study an innovation contest held in the legal industry, we found that under lower-stakes conditions, collaboration in new teams was positively associated with innovation and produced significantly more innovative outcomes than collaboration in long-standing teams. But under higher-stakes conditions, these effects reversed. When exploring the mechanisms underlying our results, we found that familiarity was valuable for innovation under higher-stakes conditions primarily because teams with shared perspectives took greater risks on more innovative ideas during the selection stage of the innovation process.","PeriodicalId":45650,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professions and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz017","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High-stakes innovation: When collaboration in teams enhances (or undermines) innovation in professional service firms\",\"authors\":\"Johnathan R. Cromwell, H. Gardner\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jpo/joz017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Professionals need to develop increasingly innovative solutions to complex problems, which are often cocreated through client–professional collaborations, but this demand creates a theoretical and practical tension. On the one hand, professionals need to establish long-standing relationships with clients so they can deeply understand their client’s business and develop more effective solutions. On the other hand, such strong relationships can breed similar perspectives that undermine their ability to develop more innovative ideas. To resolve this conflict, we introduce a new contextual condition to the literature that is fundamentally associated with innovation in organizations—the stakes of an innovation project—and develop theory explaining how it creates conditions under which familiarity either enhances or undermines innovation in teams. Using a mixed-method approach to study an innovation contest held in the legal industry, we found that under lower-stakes conditions, collaboration in new teams was positively associated with innovation and produced significantly more innovative outcomes than collaboration in long-standing teams. But under higher-stakes conditions, these effects reversed. When exploring the mechanisms underlying our results, we found that familiarity was valuable for innovation under higher-stakes conditions primarily because teams with shared perspectives took greater risks on more innovative ideas during the selection stage of the innovation process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Professions and Organization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jpo/joz017\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Professions and Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professions and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joz017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

专业人士需要为复杂问题开发越来越创新的解决方案,这些解决方案通常是通过客户-专业合作共同创造的,但这种需求造成了理论和实践的紧张关系。一方面,专业人士需要与客户建立长期的关系,以便深入了解客户的业务并制定更有效的解决方案。另一方面,这种牢固的关系可能会滋生类似的观点,削弱他们发展更具创新性想法的能力。为了解决这一冲突,我们在文献中引入了一个新的背景条件,该条件从根本上与组织中的创新有关——创新项目的利害关系——并发展了一种理论,解释它如何创造条件,在这种条件下,熟悉感会增强或破坏团队中的创新。使用混合方法研究法律行业举办的创新竞赛,我们发现在风险较低的条件下,新团队的合作与创新呈正相关,产生的创新成果明显多于长期团队的合作。但在风险更高的条件下,这些影响发生了逆转。在探索结果背后的机制时,我们发现,在风险更高的条件下,熟悉感对创新很有价值,主要是因为在创新过程的选择阶段,具有共同观点的团队在更具创新性的想法上承担了更大的风险。
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
High-stakes innovation: When collaboration in teams enhances (or undermines) innovation in professional service firms
Professionals need to develop increasingly innovative solutions to complex problems, which are often cocreated through client–professional collaborations, but this demand creates a theoretical and practical tension. On the one hand, professionals need to establish long-standing relationships with clients so they can deeply understand their client’s business and develop more effective solutions. On the other hand, such strong relationships can breed similar perspectives that undermine their ability to develop more innovative ideas. To resolve this conflict, we introduce a new contextual condition to the literature that is fundamentally associated with innovation in organizations—the stakes of an innovation project—and develop theory explaining how it creates conditions under which familiarity either enhances or undermines innovation in teams. Using a mixed-method approach to study an innovation contest held in the legal industry, we found that under lower-stakes conditions, collaboration in new teams was positively associated with innovation and produced significantly more innovative outcomes than collaboration in long-standing teams. But under higher-stakes conditions, these effects reversed. When exploring the mechanisms underlying our results, we found that familiarity was valuable for innovation under higher-stakes conditions primarily because teams with shared perspectives took greater risks on more innovative ideas during the selection stage of the innovation process.
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
36.40%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The constellations of design: Architects’ practice modalities when working with embodied individuals and virtual collectives in later life facilities in the UK Elite lawyers in Türkiye: Educational capital, status hierarchies, and feminization The customer is always right? Corporate client influence and women’s attainment in large US law firms Discipline, caregiving, and identity work of frontline professionals: Talking about the acts of compliance and resistance in the everyday practices of social workers Intra-professional collaboration and organization of work among teachers: How entangled institutional logics shape connectivity
×
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