How Can Work and Organisational Psychologists Fortify the Practice of Workplace Innovation?

Part of the Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being book series (AHSW)


This chapter is premised on the observation that the potential of work and organisational (W&O) psychologists to successfully implement workplace innovation (WPI) practices and, in turn, improve the quality of work and organisational performance is greatly underused. One reason for this is that WPI practice often adopts a more specialised approach and single discipline focus rather than an integrated perspective. An integrated approach would imply understanding WPI from the strategy, structure, and culture perspectives. We outline ways in which WPI practice can appreciate and use the potential of W&O psychology as well as how W&O psychologists can broaden their focus and strengthen their contribution to WPI practice.


Workplace innovation Work and organisational psychology Practice Researcher-practitioner divide 



The work by Maria Karanika-Murray is based on a project supported by the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (2007–2013) which is implemented by the European Commission. For more information see: “The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission”.

The authors and publisher gratefully acknowledge the following permission to use the material in this book: Maria Karanika-Murray & Peter Oeij, The role of work and organisational psychology for workplace innovation practice: From short-sightedness to eagle view. In: European Work and Organisational Psychology in Practice. Special issue on Workplace Innovation, 2017, Volume 1, 19–30.


  1. Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Abbott, J. L., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 515–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2015). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress (1st ed. 2008). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. (2005). Relationships between practice and research in personnel selection: Does the left hand know what the right is doing. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Smit-Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 1–24). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aram, J. D., & Salipante, P. F. (2003). Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arber, A. (2006). Reflexivity: A challenge for the researcher as practitioner? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(2), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, M. E., Grauer, E., Thornbury, E. E., & Highhouse, S. (2003). Value differences between scientists and practitioners: A survey of SIOP members. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40(4), 17–23.Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2008). Power, politics, and organizational change: Winning the turf game. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cascio, W. F. (2007). Evidence-based management and the marketplace for ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1009–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cox, T., Griffiths, A., & Rial-González, E. (2000). Research on work-related stress. Bilbao: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
  16. Cox, T., Karanika, M., Griffiths, A., & Houdmont, J. (2007). Evaluating organizational-level work stress interventions: Beyond traditional methods. Work & Stress, 21(4), 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Sitter, L. U., Den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50(5), 497–534.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, D. M. (1997). Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner researcher. Educational Action Research, 5(1), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Herriot, P. (2001). The employment relationship: A psychological perspective. Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschkorn, M., & Geelan, D. (2008). Bridging the research-practice gap: Research translation and/or research transformation. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  22. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2012). The politics of evidence-based decision making. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of evidence based management (pp. 404–419). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howaldt, J., Oeij, P. R. A., Dhondt, S., & Fruytier, B. (2016). Workplace innovation and social innovation: an introduction. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 12(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karanika-Murray, M., & Weyman, A. K. (2013). Optimising workplace interventions for health and well-being: A commentary on the limitations of the public health perspective within the workplace health arena. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 6(2), 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1992). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kompier, M. A. J., & Kristensen, T. S. (2001). Organizational work stress interventions in a theoretical, methodological and practical context. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the workplace: Past, present and future (pp. 164–190). Philadelphia, PA, US: Whurr Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should… expand the values of organizational psychology to match the quality of its ethics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4), 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacDuffie, J. P. (1997). The road to “root cause”: Shop-floor problem-solving at three auto assembly plants. Management Science, 43(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKelvey, B. (2006). Van De Ven and Johnson’s “engaged scholarship”: Nice try, but…. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 822–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntyre, R. M. (1990). Our science-practice: The ghost of industrial-organizational psychology yet to come. In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 25–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, K. R., & Saal, F. E. (1990). What should we expect from scientist-practitioners? In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 49–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Nye, J. S. (2008). Bridging the gap between theory and policy. Political Psychology, 29(4), 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oeij, P. R. A., Kraan, K., & Dhondt, S. (2013). Work teams and psychosocial risks and work stress. OSH Wiki. Retrieved December 31, 2015.
  36. Oeij, P. R. A., Wiezer, N. M., Elo, A.-L., Nielsen, K., Vega, S., Wetzstein, A., et al. (2006). Combating psychosocial risks in work organizations: Some European practices. In S. McIntyre & J. Houdmont (Eds.), Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 233–263). Maia, Portugal: ISMAI Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Oeij, P. R. A., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, R., Dhondt, S., Corral, A., Totterdill, P., & Preenen, P. (2015). Workplace Innovation in European companies. Study commissioned by Eurofound. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  38. Petronio, S., Ellemers, N., Giles, H., & Gallois, C. (1998). (Mis) communicating across boundaries: Interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communication Research, 25(6), 571–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pot, F. D. (2011). Workplace innovation for better jobs and performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(4), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramstad, E. (2014). Can high-involvement innovation practices improve productivity and quality of working-life simultaneously? Management and employee views on comparisons. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(4), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roehling, M. V., Boswell, W. R., Caligiuri, P., Feldman, D., Graham, M. E., Guthrie, J. P., et al. (2005). The future of HR management: Research needs and directions. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 207–216.Google Scholar
  42. Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stone, F. (2004). Deconstructing silos and supporting collaboration. Employment Relations Today, 31(1), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sutcliffe, K. M., Lewton, E., & Rosenthal, M. M. (2004). Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Academic Medicine, 79(2), 186–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Suzaki, K. (1987). The new manufacturing challenge: Techniques for continuous improvement. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Totterdill, P., & Exton, R. (2014). Defining workplace innovation: The fifth element. Strategic Direction, 30(9), 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and research knowledge. NY: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  49. Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wampler, J. S. (2010). Methods and strategies for briding the design practitioner-researcher gap. Unpublished Masters’ thesis. Columbia: University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  51. Womack, J. P., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production. New York: Rawson/Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  52. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your organization. New York, NY: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  53. Zanko, M., & Dawson, P. (2012). Occupational health and safety management in organizations: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific ResearchLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations