Where are we with? A dialectical theory on innovation
Research output: Contributions to collected editions/works › Published abstract in conference proceedings › Research › peer-review
Standard
Abstract proceedings of the 16th EAWOP Congress 2013: Imagine the future world: How do we want to work tomorrow?. ed. / Guido Hertel; Carmen Binnewies; Stefan Krumm; Heinz Holling; Martin Kleinmann. Münster: Münstersche Informations‐ und Archivsystem multimedialer Inhalte, 2013. p. 660-661.
Research output: Contributions to collected editions/works › Published abstract in conference proceedings › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Where are we with? A dialectical theory on innovation
AU - Frese, Michael
AU - Rosing, Kathrin
N1 - Conference code: 16
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Innovation, the development of new and useful ideas by individuals, teams, and organizations, lies at the heart of human adaptation.Research produced a wealth of knowledge about how innovation emerges. This literature leads to one overwhelming summary: Innovation is paradoxical. As a step toward developing an integrative theory, we applied in 2009 a dialectic perspective to innovation to overcome limitations of dichotomous reasoningand to gain a more valid account (Bledow et al., 2009). We would like to give an idea of where we are with this kind of theory. We point out that individuals, teams, and organizations need to self-regulate and manage conflictingdemands of innovation and that multiple pathways can lead to idea generation and innovation. Central to our theorizing at this moment are affective shift models and ambidextrous leadership for innovation.
AB - Innovation, the development of new and useful ideas by individuals, teams, and organizations, lies at the heart of human adaptation.Research produced a wealth of knowledge about how innovation emerges. This literature leads to one overwhelming summary: Innovation is paradoxical. As a step toward developing an integrative theory, we applied in 2009 a dialectic perspective to innovation to overcome limitations of dichotomous reasoningand to gain a more valid account (Bledow et al., 2009). We would like to give an idea of where we are with this kind of theory. We point out that individuals, teams, and organizations need to self-regulate and manage conflictingdemands of innovation and that multiple pathways can lead to idea generation and innovation. Central to our theorizing at this moment are affective shift models and ambidextrous leadership for innovation.
KW - Psychology
KW - Innovation
M3 - Published abstract in conference proceedings
SP - 660
EP - 661
BT - Abstract proceedings of the 16th EAWOP Congress 2013
A2 - Hertel, Guido
A2 - Binnewies, Carmen
A2 - Krumm, Stefan
A2 - Holling, Heinz
A2 - Kleinmann, Martin
PB - Münstersche Informations‐ und Archivsystem multimedialer Inhalte
CY - Münster
T2 - 16th congress of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology - EAWOP 2013
Y2 - 22 May 2013 through 25 May 2013
ER -