Skip to main content

In Search of Best Practices for Employee-Driven Innovation: Experiences from Norwegian Work Life

  • Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we identify and discuss important elements of Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI), and show how the interrelationship between professional role performance, cultural characteristics, and supportive means and tools is central in this respect. Drawing on data from 20 Norwegian enterprises known for their productive involvement of employees in innovation work, we discuss how leaders, employees and union representatives can carry out their work and use various means and tools to encourage the development of cultural characteristics essential for successful EDI practices. Our study indicates that EDI is mainly about how managers and employees see and perform their roles, and less about formal structures. There are several organizational efforts that can be made to support the development of a culture for joint innovation effort, but improved innovation capacity through the implementation of EDI practices requires the successful inter-play between all three dimensions (roles, culture and tools).

Keywords

  • Cultural Change
  • Innovation Management
  • Cultural Characteristic
  • Professional Role
  • Harvard Business Review

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (1987). ‘Innovation, market structure, and firm size’. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 567–574.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage Publications.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing Organizational Culture. Cultural Change Work in Progress. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000). ‘Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas’. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Black, S. and Lynch, L. (2001). ‘How to compete: the impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity’. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3), 434–445.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, C.L., Mumford, M.D., Barrett, J.D. and Vessey, W.B. (2009). ‘Examining the leaders of creative efforts: what do they do, and what do they think about?’ Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 256–268.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. and Tsakanikas, A. (2004). ‘Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?’ Technovation, 24, 29–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brentani, U. (2001). ‘Innovative versus incremental new business services: different keys for achieving success’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(3), 169–187.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J.P.J. and Kemp, R. (2003). ‘Determinants of co-workers’ innovative behaviour: an investigation into knowledge intensive services’. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2), 189–212.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. and Hardy, C. (1996). ‘Sustained product innovation in large mature organizations: overcoming innovation-to-organization problems’. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P.F. (2002 [1985]). ‘The discipline of innovation’. Harvard Business Review, August, 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–145.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (2000). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. 3rd edn. Boston, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G. (2000). ‘Individual and group interviewing’. In Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (Eds) Qualitative Researching — With Text, Image and Sound. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2005). Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.M. (1991). ‘The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation’. California Management Review, 33, 114–135.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. (2003). How Breakthroughs Happen. The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G. and Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, D. (2001). Organization Theory. Tension and Change. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. Boston, Massachusetts: Unwin Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R.M. (1988). ‘When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, B. (2010). Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. with Littman, J. (2005). The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO’s Strategies for Defeating the Devil’s Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. New York: Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W. and Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, S.L. (2005). ‘Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology’. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Fillipini, R., Forza, C., Vinelli, A. and Hii, J. (2001). ‘A framework for analyzing business performance, firm innovation and related contextual factors. Perceptions of managers and policy makers in two European regions’. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, 114–124.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Østberg, L., Robinson, A.G. and Schroeder, D.M. (2010). Små ideer — stora resultat. SIS Förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D.C. (1956). ‘Some social factors related to performance in research organizations’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 310–325.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.W. (1998). ‘Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries’. California Management Review, 40(3), 228–240.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990). ‘The core competence of the corporation’. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J.B. (1985). ‘Managing innovation: controlled chaos’. Harvard Business Review, 63, 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rismark, M. and Sølvberg, A.M. (2007). ‘Effective dialogues in driver education’. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39, 600–605.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. (1994). ‘Towards the fifth-generation innovation process’. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, J.W. (2002). ‘Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research’. In Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. (Eds) The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., Kesting, P. and Ulhøi, J.P. (2008). ‘What are the driving forces of employee-driven innovation?’ Presented at the 9th International CINet Conference, Valencia, Spain, 5–9 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation. Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change. 4th edn. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999). ‘An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships’. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H.L. and Poole, M.S. (Eds) (2000[1989]). Research on the Management of Innovation. The Minnesota Studies. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verona, G. and Ravasi, D. (2003). Unbounding dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 577–606.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of lnnovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, A. and Dundon, T. (2010). ‘Direct employee participation’. In Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P.J., Marchington, M. and Lewin, D. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993). ‘Toward a theory of organizational creativity’. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Tone Merethe Aasen, Oscar Amundsen, Leif Jarle Gressgård and Kåre Hansen

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aasen, T.M., Amundsen, O., Gressgård, L.J., Hansen, K. (2012). In Search of Best Practices for Employee-Driven Innovation: Experiences from Norwegian Work Life. In: Høyrup, S., Bonnafous-Boucher, M., Hasse, C., Lotz, M., Møller, K. (eds) Employee-Driven Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137014764_3

Download citation