From Automated Defensive Behaviour to Innovation Resilience Behaviour: A Tool for Resilient Teamwork as an Example of Workplace Innovation

  • Peter R. A. Oeij
Part of the Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being book series (AHSW)


This contribution introduces the Innovation Resilience Behaviour tool (IRB-tool), developed for teams working on innovation projects. As such, the tool is an example of a workplace innovation intervention. The purpose of the IRB-tool is to help teams stay on track during innovation projects. The IRB-tool focuses on team processes, such as resilience, psychological safety, learning, voice, and leadership. Applying the IRB-tool helps teams become more aware of organisational defensiveness that hampers risk-taking that is crucial to innovation. The tool can also be used by other types of teams to improve the effectiveness of their team processes.


Project management Innovation Team Innovation resilience behaviour Defensive behaviour 


  1. Ardon, A. J. (2009). Moving moments. Leadership and interventions in dynamically complex change processes. Ph.D. Dissertation. Amsterdam: Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Facilitating organizational learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II. Theory, method, and practice (2nd ed., 1st ed. 1978). Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming. How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  10. Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mulder, N. T. (2012). Value-based project management. A design approach to develop a project management approach for chaordic projects from the perspective of complexity thinking. Ph.D. Dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  12. Oeij, P. R. A., Dhondt, S., & Gaspersz, J. B. R. (2016a). Mindful infrastructure as an enabler of innovation resilience behavior in innovation teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 22(7/8), 334–353.Google Scholar
  13. Oeij, P. R. A., Dhondt, S., Gaspersz, J. B. R., & de Vroome, E. M. M. (2016c). Can teams benefit from using a mindful infrastructure when defensive behaviour threatens complex innovation projects? International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 8(3), 241–258.Google Scholar
  14. Oeij, P. R. A., Dhondt, S., Gaspersz, J. B. R., & Van Vuuren, T. (2016b). Innovation resilience behaviour and critical incidents: The relevance for the management of R&D and innovation projects. Paper presented at EURAM 2016 ‘Manageable Cooperation?’, Paris, France, Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC). June 1–4, 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Oeij, P. R. A., Preenen, P. T. Y., & van der Meulen, F. A. (2014). From Unnatural Behaviour to Innovation Resilience Behaviour: Prototype of a Change Tool. [ETP Behaviour and Innovation]. Leiden: TNO Healthy Living. (December 2014).Google Scholar
  16. Pacanowsky, M. (1995). Team tools for wicked problems. Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sales, M., Vogt, J. W., Singer, S. J., & Cooper, J. B. (2013). From automatic defensive routines to automatic learning routines. Reflections: The SoL Journal on Knowledge, Learning, and Change, 13(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, D. M. (2008). Divide or conquer: How great teams turn conflict into strength. New York: Portfolio, Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  19. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected. Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.; 1st ed. 2001). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific ResearchLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations