JOACHIM STEMPFLE

Overcoming Organizational Fixation:

Creating and Sustaining an Innovation Culture

ABSTRACT
Fixation on established paradigms and practices can severely limit the
capability of organizations to change, thereby jeopardizing the ability of organi-
zations to keep up with changes in their environment and new technological
developments. Overcoming organizational fixation is therefore a requirement for
any organization that strives to achieve sustained success. Based on a discussion
of individual, social and organizational causes of organizational fixation, a frame-
work for overcoming organizational fixation and establishing an innovation
culture is presented. Elaborating on the important role of leaders in creating an
innovation culture, competencies and behaviors of innovation leaders are
discussed, and a comprehensive leadership development strategy is outlined.

INTRODUCTION
Few companies are able to sustain success for more than a decade — in a
study conducted by Shell, the average life expectancy of companies in the North-
ern hemisphere was below 20 years (Geus, 1998). A key reason for the inability
of organizations to sustain success over a longer time period is the inability to
change at the same pace as the environment. Organizations develop paradigms,
processes and routines in order to manage uncertainty and gain efficiency. Over
time, they often become fixated on their way of doing things, and it becomes
more and more difficult to change existing paradigms, processes and routines.
Organizational fixation can therefore be defined as the tendency of organizations
to stick to established paradigms and practices even when these paradigms and
practices are no longer competitive or effective. Fixation is therefore not only
an individual tendency (Purcell & Gero, 1996), but also a common phenomenon
in organizations. Major technological breakthroughs are particularly dangerous
for established, highly successful companies, as these companies are often
unable to recognize and capitalize on the technological breakthrough. The
shift from mainframe computers to personal computers severely threatened IBM’s

116 Volume 45 Number 2 Second Quarter 2011

45-2-2011.p65 44 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

existence. The migration from the age of fossil fuels to the age of renewable
energy may well put today’s automakers at risk of losing out to competitors who
are better equipped to deal with future energy challenges. The pace of change is
increasing continuously, as globalization leads to the opening of markets and the
internet allows for sharing of ideas, products and strategies across boundaries
in real time. In a highly changing environment, sustainable success will only be
achieved by companies that are able to change quickly, thereby shaping and
adapting to their environment continuously. Minimizing organizational fixation
and creating a culture of innovation therefore is a critical success factor for
achieving prolonged organizational success.

DISCOVERY VS. DELIVERY ORGANIZATIONS

When discussing organizational fixation and the innovative potential of
organizations, it is important to differentiate between two fundamentally different
parts of the organization, namely the discovery and the delivery organization.
The discovery organization’s primary responsibility is to develop new products
or services as well as improve the existing ones. The discovery organization is
primarily located in functions such as research and development, but extends to
other functions as well, since product development and optimization requires an
active contribution throughout all stages of the product lifecycle. The delivery
organization is responsible for bringing products and services to the market. It
primarily entails functions such as manufacturing, sales, quality control, etc.
However, it is important not to equate the discovery and delivery organization
with a specific function within the organization. The various functions within an
organization all contribute to both discovery and delivery to some extent, although
research and development functions typically make a greater contribution to
discovery whereas the primary contribution of manufacturing and sales functions
lies in delivery. The following graph depicts the tasks of the discovery and the
delivery organization mapped against a phase model of innovation:

FIGURE 1. Discovery vs. delivery organizations.

117

45-2-2011.p65 45 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Overcoming Organizational Fixation

It is important to note that the discovery and the delivery organization funda-
mentally differ in their primary mission and goals within the organization. The
mission of the discovery organization is to generate variety of ideas and
solutions, etc. The mission of the delivery organization is to eliminate variety in
order to ensure repeatable, scalable delivery of products or services. Variety is
welcome in the discovery organization, but it is an unwelcome source of error in
the delivery organization, as the delivery organization wants to ensure that every
product it releases is of exactly the same nature and quality — hence the need to
standardize operations using processes, guidelines, SOPs, etc. It is important to
note in this context that most traditional management methods such as strategic
planning, budgeting, process engineering, performance management, etc. are
designed with the delivery organization in mind — they aim at protecting resources
and improving efficiency by eliminating waste, slack and error, not at fostering
innovation. However, few organizations and managers are aware of the implica-
tions of the fundamentally different mission of the discovery and the delivery
organization. In fact, managers in many organizations unquestioningly transfer
management practices that have their roots in delivery organizations to discov-
ery organizations. While traditional management practices such as those high-
lighted above will certainly improve efficiency in delivery organizations, their
unreflective application to discovery organizations can have a highly detrimental
impact on the organization’s innovative potential.
The ideas outlined in the following paragraphs aim at overcoming organiza-
tional fixation and shaping an innovation culture. These ideas are primarily
targeted at discovery organizations, although some of the ideas and practices
may also be adapted to delivery organizations. Companies that are trying to
foster innovation, however, need to be fully aware of the different requirements
in discovery and delivery organizations. They need to create a distinct culture,
establish a different set of rules, and appoint appropriate leadership in both parts
of the organization, thereby ensuring that both are led in a fundamentally differ-
ent way. Since both the discovery and the delivery organization span across dif-
ferent functions of the organization, this requires organizations to create and
sustain a certain degree of tension, as discovery-focused units need to be man-
aged in a different way than delivery-focused units even within the same function.
SOURCES OF ORGANIZATIONAL FIXATION
Organizational fixation is the result of a number of factors located at the
individual level, the social level, and the organizational level.
Research shows that contrary to normative theories of problem solving and
decision making, problem solvers rarely strive for optimal solutions — instead,
they balance solution quality with the time and cognitive effort required to find
the solution (Payne, Bettman & Luce, 1996). Problem solvers are often inclined
to satisfice rather than maximize the outcome in order to save time and cognitive
effort (March, 1994) — they are highly willing to use simplified problem solving
strategies in order to achieve a result quickly and with less effort.

118

45-2-2011.p65 46 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Research across different fields has shown that the prominent human approach
to decision making can be characterized as adaptive pattern matching (Hoch,
2001): When confronted with a problem, the problem solver first checks whether
she has encountered a similar problem in the past. If a match is found, the solu-
tion that has worked best in the past is adapted to the problem at hand by slightly
modifying the solution based on perceived differences in the nature of the prob-
lem. Paradigms, mental models, frames or scripts (Schoemaker & Russo, 2001)
are utilized by problem solvers to quickly categorize a problem. They focus atten-
tion of the problem solver on some key features of a problem while ignoring other
features. They also provide hypotheses regarding the causal and temporal struc-
ture of the problem and possible goals and solutions. Paradigms, mental models,
frames and scripts that have proven successful in the past are reinforced, increas-
ing the likelihood of their continuous use in the future. While providing a quick
and effective way to structure complex problems, paradigms, mental models,
frames and scripts also limit analysis and solution search to the realm of the
tried and true.
Given our limitations in attention, memory capacity, and cognitive processing,
the heuristics described above are necessary to be able to act in a highly
complex, uncertain environment. As humans, we face the necessity to simplify
problem framing, analysis, solution search and decision making. In environments
where multiple fundamentally different technologies exist to solve a given prob-
lem, however, a satisficing approach employing adaptive pattern matching and
using established frames can easily lead to a “competency” trap in which the
problem solver consistently improves her current solution using a frame that pro-
duces stable, but increasingly suboptimum outcomes (March 1994, 96). Since
every optimization produces an improvement, however, the problem solver sticks
to her approach without switching to a fundamentally different approach that
may lead to a much larger improvement. Success in using an existing frame thus
prevents the problem solver from exploring other frames that may produce better
outcomes. This tendency is amplified by the desire to justify own efforts: Problem
solvers typically try to protect their investment by showing an escalation of com-
mitment (Staw, 1981). The more they have already invested, the more willing
they are to continue investing in order to not have to accept a loss of their previ-
ous investment. As a result of this tendency, problem solvers often continue to
invest in spite of an increasingly unfavorable cost / benefit ratio.
Fixation tendencies are amplified in the context of organizations based on
social psychological processes. Formal and informal norms and rules regulate
behavior in organizations. Individuals are expected to comply with social expec-
tations in order to facilitate group cohesion and demonstrate that they are “good
citizens”. Individuals who deviate from established norms and rules may be sanc-
tioned based on the perceived threat they represent to organizational stability.
Hierarchy and the corresponding differences in status give more opportunities to
high status individuals to communicate their perspective than low status indi-
viduals. The ideas of high status individuals will also receive more attention than
the ideas of low status individuals. Since high status individuals have typically

119

45-2-2011.p65 47 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Overcoming Organizational Fixation

risen through the ranks based on their success in utilizing existing, dominant
paradigms in the organization, they are rarely the ones who bring in fundamentally
new ideas and paradigms. Not only are high status individuals likely emotionally
invested in the existing paradigms, they often also have most to lose if the para-
digm shifts. High status individuals are therefore typically unlikely to encourage
deviation from the dominant paradigm.
On an organizational level, traditional management methods and principles
propagated by business schools across the globe serve to further increase orga-
nizational fixation. In essence, process and performance management methods
aim at reducing uncertainty and eliminating risk. Managers want to ensure that
they focus the attention and effort of their employees on activities that are deemed
to create value, eliminating inefficiencies and slack by spelling out work processes
in detail. By eliminating slack and limiting employees’ ability to work in a self
directed manner, organizations are in danger of driving away highly innovative
employees while severely limiting the opportunities of existing employees to pur-
sue ideas outside of the scope of their current performance targets and processes.
As a consequence, employees in many organizations are primarily concerned
with reaching their individual objectives or staying within the budget rather than
developing new ideas.
Organizational fixation can be expected to be particularly high when organiza-
tions are successful. Research shows that when aspiration levels are met easily,
cognitive effort is reduced (March, 1996). Problem solvers under conditions of
success are therefore likely to explore fewer solutions. At the same time, success
tends to stabilize the existing organizational structure and hierarchy, making it
more difficult for individuals who challenge existing paradigms to be recognized.
Organizational fixation is further amplified by the fact that technological shifts
often occur gradually and require a significant investment, making it difficult for
organizations to find the optimal point in time for shifting to the new technology.
Even while a superior new technology may be emerging, the older technologies
still work. By optimizing efficiency, proponents of an inferior technology may
be able to compete for a time, prolonging their investment in and tendency to
stick with the existing technology. Only when goal achievement is fundamentally
impaired does the true need arise to switch technologies. However, particularly in
industries that are characterized by long development cycles, it may then already
be too late to keep up with competitors who have a head start in using the
new technology.
Although it is impossible to conclusively measure the degree of fixation of
an organization, there are a number of indicators that point to a high likelihood
of fixation:
• The organization is structured in a hierarchical and centralistic way. Changes
need to be initiated or adopted by the headquarters in order to take root in
the organization.
• The organization is characterized by a high degree of formalization, there is
a large number of written guidelines and SOPs.

120

45-2-2011.p65 48 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

• There is strong pressure to increase efficiency throughout all parts of the

organization.
• Employees are expected to focus their time and effort exclusively on tasks
that are directly related to their objectives. They are discouraged from
pursuing ideas outside of the immediate scope of their objectives.
• The organization rewards employees solely based on achievement of
pre-defined objectives. Employees are only recognized for new ideas if these
produce a measurable outcome.
• The organization maintains few channels to the outside environment and
generally discourages employees from engaging in communication with
people outside of the organization if it is not directly related to their work.
• Feedback and constructive criticism are discouraged.
• Little emphasis is put on experimentation and learning. Failure and
mistakes resulting from experimentation and risk taking are not rewarded,
but ignored or punished.
The previous discussion has painted a rather bleak picture of the capability of
organizations to overcome organizational fixation. It may seem that fixation is
inevitable, given the combined effects of individual, social and organizational
fixation mechanisms outlined above. Thus, companies are likely to gradually
lose their ability to innovate and change. In general, this picture seems to be
supported by the fact that empirically the average lifespan of companies seems
to be severely limited. However, we argue that organizational fixation can be
reduced if organizations take a proactive role in creating an innovative culture.
Leaders in organizations have a unique responsibility to create a culture that
minimizes organizational fixation while empowering the organization to transform
and change continuously.
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INNOVATION CULTURE
Fostering a sustainable innovation culture requires a holistic approach, taking
multiple levels of analysis and intervention into account (Laux & Schmitt, 2009):

FIGURE 2. Characteristics of an innovation culture.

121

45-2-2011.p65 49 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 In the following, we will look at key success factors for every level of analysis and
derive corresponding leadership responsibilities.
INTERFACING WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
The environment of an organization is comprised of its customers, suppliers,
competitors, cooperation partners, government agents, etc. The environment
provides resources and imposes demands and constraints on the organization.
The interaction of an organization with its environment can be characterized as a
process of mutual shaping and adaptation, as organizations try to influence and
shape their environment while experiencing a need to adapt to it. Successful
organizations are typically faster and more successful in their attempts to shape
and adapt to the environment than less successful organizations.
Leaders are responsible for opening up interfaces that allow the organization
to exchange information and resources with their environment. In organizations
that aim at innovation, opening up interfaces to the environment is a core
leadership responsibility. Because novel concepts often emerge through cross-
fertilization and clash of ideas, it is important to ensure that the organization
receives a continuous flow of information from the outside. This will ensure that
employees are confronted with alternative paradigms, mental models and frames
continuously, prompting them to rethink the usefulness of their own mental mod-
els and enabling them to analyze a given problem through multiple alternative
frames. It is not by accident that breakthrough discoveries are often not made by
people socialized within a given domain, but by outsiders who bring a different
perspective to the field and often apply ideas and principles they have learned
elsewhere. Concepts such as open innovation (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West,
2008) build on the notion that customers may provide valuable insights that
allow an organization to develop new ideas and advance existing products and
services. Networks to other organizations in the public and private sector provide
opportunities for exchanging ideas and ensuring that ideas generated within the
organization are evaluated by outside parties. In short, companies must strive to
create an organization with open boundaries to the environment that allows for
cross-fertilization. Doing so requires a high degree of openness of the organiza-
tion. An objection that is often raised against opening up interfaces to the envi-
ronment is that organizations need to protect their core innovations. However,
companies tend to overestimate the risk of losing intellectual property while
underestimating the benefits of exchanging ideas with external partners. Core
leadership responsibilities with regard to interfacing with the environment include
opening up interfaces with outside parties, encouraging employees to network
beyond the organization, and allowing employees to spend time in discussions
with outside parties without the demand for an immediate benefit.
COMMUNICATING VISION, VALUES AND RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
When looking at an organization from a macro perspective, the focus is on the
organization’s vision, values and rules of engagement. These provide the guide-
lines from which strategies, goals and processes should be derived. Leaders should

45-2-2011.p65 50 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 be appointed based on their willingness and ability to embody and implement
the organization’s vision, values and rules of engagement.
To reflect on and define vision, values and rules of engagement, organizations
need to answer three fundamental questions:
1. Vision: Who are we and where are we going?
2. Values: What do we value?
3. Rules of engagement: How do we work together?
Leaders are responsible for answering the fundamental questions raised above
in a way that will strengthen factors that enable innovation while removing
roadblocks to innovation.
Based on research (Frey, Traut-Mattausch, Greitemeyer & Streicher, 2006) and
personal experience, some key characteristics of an innovation culture can be
summarized in the following model. However, these characteristics are by no
means comprehensive, and the distinctive features of organizational culture may
vary between organizations.

FIGURE 3. Communicating vision, values and rules of engagement.

Defining and communicating a clear mission and vision gives guidance to

employees and helps them to align their own strategies and actions with the
overall strategy of the company. If there is clarity around the overall mission and
vision, there is no need to micromanage by giving employees narrow short
term objectives and tasks. In fact, traditional performance management systems
aiming at directing employee behavior within clearly defined paths should be

45-2-2011.p65 51 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Overcoming Organizational Fixation

replaced by employee dialogs that engage employees to share their own ideas
and actively plan their own work, thereby empowering employees to think about
how they can contribute to the company’s mission rather than having a manager
tell them what to do.
Guiding principles are important in communicating what is important for the
organization. First, there needs to be a clear commitment to innovation. Employ-
ees who show initiative and are willing to take responsibility need to be encour-
aged and empowered. Contrary to traditional bonus systems, employees should
not primarily be rewarded for achieving results, but rather for the effort they put
into and the learning they derive from pursuing new ideas — regardless of whether
the idea turns out to be successful. This is particularly important in discovery
organizations. If employees are rewarded for success only, they are indirectly en-
couraged to go for the “low hanging fruits” and pursue incremental innovation
that is almost certain to produce results. However, the goal must be to encourage
employees to pursue breakthrough ideas that consequently have a much higher
probability of failure. The organization needs to recognize this and reward em-
ployees for putting effort into and learning from innovative ideas regardless of the
outcome, realizing that even if an idea does not produce the desired outcome,
there is still valuable learning gained in the process that may set the organization
up for success in the next project. Failure needs to be recognized as an essential
part of innovation, and employees who take a calculated risk and fail should not
be punished, but rather rewarded. Systems, processes, rules and regulations
should be kept to a minimum in order to not jeopardize the freedom of employees
to pursue ideas in the way they deem most appropriate. This requires managers
to trust their employees, knowing that if they are aware of the overall mission and
strategy, they will be motivated to do their best to contribute.
Rules of engagement describe how the organization expects employees to work
together. It is vital to create an environment where people feel safe to communi-
cate their ideas and opinions openly, even if they disagree with established para-
digms or high status individuals. Diversity of backgrounds and opinions needs to
be valued, knowing that diverse organizations are more likely to produce innova-
tive ideas (Basset-Jones, 2005). Open communication across functional, local
and hierarchical boundaries should be actively encouraged. Direct debate and
critical thinking need to be welcomed and stimulated, as innovative ideas are
often born and refined during clash of opinions. Information should be made
readily available across functional and hierarchical boundaries, micropolitics need
to be discouraged.
Shaping and communicating organizational vision, values and rules of engage-
ment is by no means a simple task and requires a prolonged effort that needs
to be driven from the top. Core leadership responsibilities include drafting and
communicating vision, values and rules of engagement, translating these into
appropriate strategies, goals and processes and appointing leaders who will
transform the organization accordingly. As a crucial component in the process,
leaders need to role model what they preach in their daily behavior.

124

45-2-2011.p65 52 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

BUILDING AND FACILITATING INNOVATIVE TEAMS

Teamwork is essential in designing innovative products, processes and
services. However, not all teams are capable of innovation — in fact, small group
research paints a rather bleak picture of the ability of teams to innovate. Group
processes such as majority influence, conformity, group think, etc. (Janis, 1972;
Stempfle, 2010) often stifle innovation. When looking at success factors for
innovation on a team level, research emphasizes the importance of cognitive
conflict and direct debate, which is characterized by a high degree of challenge
and disagreement within the team (Stempfle, 2010). Critical thinking is impor-
tant, which implies surfacing and challenging assumptions and testing and
continuously refining mental models (Cohen, Freeman & Thompson, 1998). In
fact, innovative solutions often do not emerge while discussing alternative solu-
tions, but when a problem is reframed using a different mental model, thereby
allowing problem solvers to look at the problem in a fundamentally different way.
At the same time, small group research shows that direct debate and critical
thinking come at a price: While improving creative output and decision quality,
relationships between group members are often impaired as a result of increas-
ing levels of challenge and disagreement (Jehn, 1995). Thus, cognitive conflict
can turn into interpersonal conflict between team members. Fostering an innova-
tion culture on a team level therefore requires highly skilled team leaders who are
able to create a culture of direct debate and foster healthy clash of opinions. This
entails encouraging minority opinion (Nemeth, 1994) and ensuring that people
are listened to and build on each others’ ideas. At the same time, team leaders
need to ensure that confrontation on the issues does not spill over into the inter-
personal realm. Therefore, team leaders need to be highly skilled at facilitating
interaction and resolving interpersonal conflict.
Cognitive diversity is a key success factor for building innovative teams (Jehn,
Northcraft & Neale, 1999), as cognitive diversity fosters many of the innovation-
stimulating team behaviors outlined above. Diversity between team members
fosters creative thinking through two distinct mechanisms. First, diverse team
members are likely to produce a wider range of ideas. Second, diverse team
members will employ different mental models in describing and analyzing a prob-
lem or solution. The use of competing mental models will increase the likelihood
of cognitive conflict, which helps the group to surface assumptions, challenge
and elaborate ideas.
LEADING INNOVATIVE EMPLOYEES
One of the primary responsibilities of leaders in an innovative organization is
to attract and hire the right employees. Research on creativity highlights differ-
ences in personality and motivation that correspond to differences in innovative
potential. Positive correlations with motivations and personality traits such
as ambition, openness for new ideas, self efficacy, persistence, impulsivity,
dominance and divergent thinking have been found. Negative correlations have
been established with traits such as conscientiousness and conventionality (Frey,

125

45-2-2011.p65 53 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Overcoming Organizational Fixation

Traut-Mattausch, Greitemeyer & Streicher, 2006; Laux & Schmitt, 2008; Patterson,
2002). Leading individuals who are characterized by some of the aforementioned
traits can pose a challenge for managers. Many managers prefer to hire less “dif-
ficult” employees who seem easier to lead, but who also show little potential to
innovate. Leaders need to resist the temptation to make their own life easier through
recruiting individuals who are agreeable rather than creative. They need to be
prepared to work with employees who may be more difficult to lead, but also
show significant creative potential. Once hired, employees should not be pressed
into roles that do not allow them to express their creative potential. Rather than
pushing employees into pre-defined roles, leaders need to allow highly creative
individuals to choose and craft their own role in a way that enables them to
leverage their full creative potential.
Leading a diverse group of highly innovative employees requires leaders to
break with some traditional leadership practices such as setting short term per-
formance goals or controlling outcomes. Management tools such as performance
management are often detrimental in discovery organizations, thus they need to
be adjusted or abandoned.
Instead, leaders need to show behaviors that have been characterized as trans-
formational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2005). These include leading by example,
communicating vision and inspiration, providing intellectual stimulation, chal-
lenging employees to deliver new and creative ideas, giving feedback and recog-
nizing individual contributions. In doing so, leaders need to be prepared to respond
to a wide variety of different employee needs. Some employees may need very
little attention while others may need constant encouragement, support or chal-
lenging. Coaching skills are therefore essential for innovation leaders. The im-
pact of hierarchy needs to be minimized, as a core responsibility of innovation
leaders is recognizing and promoting innovative ideas regardless of hierarchy or
status. Leaders should set high standards and challenge their employees to stretch
and think beyond their first or second idea, not accepting mediocrity. At the same
time, leaders need to show trust and patience with their employees even if suc-
cess does not come in the short term. They need to reward learning and effort
instead of results, knowing that failure is common whenever truly novel ideas are
explored. To summarize, leadership in innovation entails hiring a diverse group
of highly creative employees, allowing employees to select and craft roles that
allow them to express their full creative potential, challenging and stimulating
employees while having trust and patience in people’s ability to innovate.
BASIC DRIVERS OF INNOVATION LEADERS
Diversity is a key characteristic of innovative organizations. The principle of
diversity also applies to leaders: Overcoming organizational fixation and building
an innovative organization requires a good mix of distinct leadership personali-
ties. Leaders who successfully create an innovative organization display a unique
profile of personal strengths and weaknesses. They show authenticity in their
leadership and leverage their strengths for the benefit of the organization while
being aware of and working on their personal development areas.

126

45-2-2011.p65 54 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Although every leader is unique in his or her profile and style, four basic driv-
ers of innovation leaders can be distinguished. The unique leadership style of an
innovation leader can be described as a combination of these four basic drivers.
Typically, leaders are high on one or two drivers and lower on the other drivers.
Drive to create is the desire to create and shape. Leaders with a strong drive to
create demand excellence from themselves and others, question the status quo
and are highly productive in developing novel solutions. Their core strength is
clarity of vision and an ability to deliver innovative ideas. Their key challenge is to
bring others along — leaders with a strong drive to create tend to focus more on
tasks and less on people. They may be perceived as uninterested, uncooperative
or even egocentric by their employees and peers. Their key challenge is to build
trust and empower others.
Drive to facilitate is the desire to integrate and build winning teams. Leaders
high on drive to facilitate enjoy bringing people together, providing room for dis-
cussion, coaching employees and facilitating consensus decisions. Their core
strength is their ability to create an environment where people experience trust
and feel safe to share ideas. Leaders high on drive to facilitate are often also skilled
in fostering the development of individuals and teams. Their key challenge is to
abstain from harmonizing and ensure that they do not compromise on the
quality of ideas and solutions for the sake of harmony and group consensus.
Drive to influence is the desire to impact the organization and the environment.
Leaders high on drive to influence are typically well networked and highly
successful at convincing others. Their core strength is the ability to build net-
works and coalitions within and outside the organization. Their key challenge
is to ensure that they abstain from political game-playing and leverage their
influencing skills for the advancement of innovative ideas and solutions.
Drive to implement is the desire to get things done. Leaders high on drive to
implement enjoy establishing action plans, processes, and timelines. Their core
strength is the ability to manage. Their key challenge is to ensure that they apply
their management skills only where they are appropriate, namely in later stages
of the innovative process. While often recognized by upper management for their
reliability in achieving results, implementation-focused leaders who apply their
leadership skills in an unreflective manner can have a detrimental impact to the
innovative potential of an organization.
As a general rule, organizations will need a diverse mix of leaders who employ
different leadership styles in order to be successful.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AS KEY
TO CREATING AN INNOVATION CULTURE
As outlined in the previous paragraphs, leaders play a pivotal role in overcoming
organizational fixation and implementing an innovation culture. They influence
all levels of analysis and intervention described above. Leadership development
is therefore critically important as a means to foster organizational transformation.
On a fundamental level, leadership development aims at creating awareness
and promoting productive change in leaders. Awareness implies that leaders gain

127

45-2-2011.p65 55 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Overcoming Organizational Fixation

a realistic picture of their own values, beliefs, competencies, behaviors, and the
impact of their behavior on others. Awareness further requires leaders to monitor
the status of critical success factors and blockers to innovation in their own area
of responsibility. Productive change requires leaders to constantly learn and modify
themselves and their environment.
In order to achieve awareness and instigate productive change, leadership de-
velopment activities should be based on four fundamental principles: experience,
education, observation, and feedback. Experience entails confronting leaders
with powerful learning experiences that help them gain (self) awareness, build up
new competencies, behaviors and beliefs while reflecting on and unlearning dys-
functional behaviors and beliefs. Education entails building up fundamental knowl-
edge and skills. Observation implies providing opportunities for leaders to observe
themselves and others. Ongoing feedback is critical to foster awareness and
monitor developmental progress.
Based on the principles outlined above, a powerful leadership development
strategy is comprised of multiple components:
• Skill building sessions aim at building basic knowledge and skills
• Projects and on the job developmental assignments provide critical
developmental experiences
• Feedback instruments such as a Development Center, a 360 degree
feedback and organizational surveys provide leaders with structured feed-
back on their personal strengths and development areas and the status of
their organization
• Workshops and focus groups allow for the facilitated discussion of
relevant themes and the initiation of change efforts
• Individual coaching helps leaders to gain clarity around their own career
goals, plan their own development in a systematic way and monitor own
development progress. Coaching also provides the opportunity for leaders
to reflect on their own values, beliefs and behavioral patterns.
IMPLICATIONS
Organizational fixation is a highly relevant topic, as it relates directly to the
ability of organizations to survive and thrive over the long term. Empirical
research is required to investigate how individual and social psychological fixation
tendencies are related to organizational practices. Measurement instruments need
to be developed to reliably measure organizational fixation. Furthermore, the
impact of organizational fixation on the long term success of organizations should
be subject to empirical research. From an applied perspective, the effectiveness
of interventions geared at reducing organizational fixation needs to be evaluated.
Overcoming organizational fixation and creating an innovation culture in
organizations requires a strong, visible commitment to long-term organizational
development. This process is much more a journey than an event. It needs to be
driven from the top and encompass the entire organization. Organizations need
to be aware that creating an innovation culture requires an integrated approach
and interventions on multiple levels. Leadership development is key to facilitate
transformation and change.

128

45-2-2011.p65 56 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black
 Journal of Creative Behavior

REFERENCES
BASS, B. M., & RIGGIO, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
BASSETT-JONES, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity
and innovation management, 14, 169–175.
CHESBROUGH, H., VANHAVERBEKE, W., & WEST, J. (Eds.). (2008). Open innovation: researching a
new paradigm. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
COHEN, M. S., FREEMAN, J. T., & THOMPSON, B. (1998). Critical thinking skills in tactical decision
making: a model and a training strategy. Arlington, VA: Cognitive Technologies Inc.
GEUS, A. DE (1998). The living company. In Harvard business review on strategies for growth (pp. 99 –
116). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
FREY, D., TRAUT-MATTAUSCH, E., GREITEMEYER, T., & STREICHER, B. (2006). Psychologie der
Innovationen in Organisationen [Psychology of innovations in organizations]. München, Germany:
Roman Herzog Institut.
HOCH, S. J. (2001). Combining models with intuition to improve decisions. In S. J. Hoch, H. C, Kunreuther
& R. E. Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on making decisions (pp. 81-101). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
JACKSON, S. E., MAY, K. E., & WHITNEY, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-
making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in
organisations (pp. 204-261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
JANIS, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
JEHN, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
JEHN, K. A., NORTHCRAFT, G. B., & NEALE, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
741-763.
LAUX, L, & SCHMITT, C. (2008). Innovation und Persönlichkeit [Innovation and personality]. In L. Laux
(Ed.), Persönlichkeitspsychologie (2nd ed., pp. 312-322). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
LAUX, L., & SCHMITT, C. (2009). Psychologische Innovationsförderung: Coaching-Coping-Creativity auf
fünf Ebenen [Leveraging psychology to foster innovation: coaching-coping-creativity on five levels].
Bamberg, Germany: Unpublished manuscript.
MARCH, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. New York: The Free Press.
NEMETH, C. J. (1994). The value of minority dissent. In A. Mucchi-Faina, A. Maass & S. Moscovici (Eds.),
Minority influence (pp. 3-15). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
PATTERSON, F. (2002). Great minds don’t think alike? Person-level predictors of innovations at work. In:
C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 115-144). Chichester, UK.
PAYNE, J. W., BETTMAN, J. R., & LUCE, M. F. (1998). When time is money: decision behavior under
opportunity cost time pressure. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 66,
p. 131-152.
PURCELL, A. T., & GERO, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design studies, 17, 363-383.
SCHOEMAKER, P. J. H., & RUSSO, J. E. (2001). Managing frames to make better decisions. In
S. J. Hoch, H. C, Kunreuther & R. E. Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on making decisions, (pp. 131-155).
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
STAW, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment. Academy of management Review, 6, 577-587.
STEMPFLE, J. (2010). Die Psychologie des Problemlösens. Was Kommunikation in Entscheidungsgruppen
erfolgreich macht [The psychology of problem solving. What makes communication in decision
making groups successful]. Marburg, Germany: tectum.

Joachim Stempfle, atrain GmbH, Unterer Kaulberg 3, 96049 Bamberg, Germany; stempfle@atrain.de

129

45-2-2011.p65 57 6/17/2011, 3:39 PM

Black