Individual Innovation and Idea Implementation: Taking Stock and Future Directions

Abstract

Only successfully implemented innovation brings the most benefits to the company. Though
dependent on organizational-level factors, the implementation of innovative ideas is powered and
executed by individuals.

But what are the individual-level factors that indicate a high innovation potential necessary for
successful innovation implementation? With our systematic literature review, we are aiming to
identify the individual (internal) and contextual (external) factors that have a positive influence on the
innovation implementation success.

Besides developing a more holistic understanding of the implementation stage of the innovation
process, we expect to synthesize the existing generation (individual-level viewpoint) and
implementation (organizational-level viewpoint) divide. On the practical side, our findings will inform
the development of human resource management (HRM) practices catering specifically to the idea
implementation stage, the need expressed by the HRM research community. And individual factors
are recognized as the strategic levers in HR practices that have a direct connection to the company’s
performance.

Keywords: idea implementation, innovation management, individual innovation, employee

Introduction

Innovation is one of the key determinants of the company’s competitiveness, performance, and long-
term survival (West et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 2008). The role of individuals in the innovation process is
instrumental as innovation is initiated and driven by the motivation, knowledge, and skill of the
individuals (Anderson et al., 2004; Bettencourt et al., 2017). Although the innovation process is
predominantly occurring in the organizational settings and thus is influenced by the organizational-
level factors, the individuals are present on all levels of the organization and in all stages of the
innovation process, which make their impact on the innovation outcome tangible and significant
(Sears and Baba, 2011). If a company can understand better what individual factors positively impact
and promote innovation through all stages, a company might be able to utilize its human capital more
effectively and therefore shape and manage its innovation processes more expertly.

On the individual level, the innovation process is represented by two key stages: idea generation and
idea implementation (Amabile, 1988a; Mumford et al., 2002) also referred to as exploration and
exploitation (e.g. Bledow et al., 2009). This two-stage model delineates the most prominent behaviors
that individuals are exhibiting when they are engaged in innovative activities: active thinking (idea
generation) and active doing (idea implementation). However, the amount of knowledge on different
stages of the innovation process is surprisingly uneven, particularly on the individual level (Magadley
and Birdi, 2012).

Idea generation, closely associated with the concept of creativity, is the first stage of the innovation
process whereby the idea is born (Perry-Smith, 2014). Amabile (1988b) proposed a widely accepted
definition of creativity that reads “creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual
or small group of individuals working together” (p. 126). The concept of creativity has received ample
attention from organizational innovation and creativity researchers (Amabile, 1988a; Sternberg and

1
Lubart, 1996; Jong, 2007). Building mostly on a microfoundational perspective (Amabile, 1983;
Oldham and Cummings, 1996), previous creativity research has provided valuable insights regarding
the factors constituting the creative potential of the individual (Amabile, 1983; Kanter, 1988), and how
the process of generating creative ideas can be shaped and enhanced (George, 2007; Shalley and
Gilson, 2004). It resulted in a plethora of creativity models (e.g. Amabile, 1988b; Kaufman and
Beghetto, 2009; Nijstad et al., 2010), managerial practices (Amabile et al., 1996; Cummings and
Oldham, 1997), and training techniques (Clapham, 1997; Scott et al., 2004) aimed at boosting
employee creativity. Among individual-level factors influencing creativity in individuals, researchers
name domain-related expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation (Amabile, 1998), cognitive
flexibility and cognitive persistence (Nijstad et al., 2010), and such personality traits as extraversion
and openness to experience (Sung and Choi, 2009), among others. A number of researchers positively
connect creativity with a company’s performance (Gilson, 2008; Simonton, 2000) and competitive
advantage (Brockbank, 1999), and claim it to be an important prerequisite for organizational
innovation (Amabile, 1996; West, 2002).

However, a creative idea without proper implementation remains just an idea and represents a
relatively low value for the company (Real and Poole, 2005). And while individual-level factors
promoting idea generation are well-researched (Amabile, 1983; Kanter, 1988), there is no evidence
that the same factors will promote idea implementation (Magadley and Birdi, 2012). On the contrary,
a seminal article by Axtell et al. (2000) established that factors promoting innovation on the idea
generation stage are clearly different from factors promoting successful idea implementation.

The idea implementation stage is a natural continuation of the idea generation stage where novel
creative ideas are “put into practice, resulting in actual, tangible changes to products, services,
processes, or other aspects of organizational functioning” (Birdi et al., 2016, p.20). Far from trivial or
routine, the process of implementation is much more complex and challenging than commonly
assumed. This is the stage where most innovation failures take place (Alexander and Hearld, 2011;
Cozijnsen et al., 2000). Innovation implementation has been reported to be a weak point affecting
innovation performance even in innovation-intensive technological companies in Europe (Deloitte,
2019). When blundered, implementation costs the company not only time and effort but potentially
substantial financial investments (Skerlavaj et al., 2019). Although the idea implementation stage is
influenced by the organizational-level factors to a greater extent than the idea generation stage since
the implementation of innovation is more reliant on external resources and organizational support
(Axtell, 2000; Birdi, 2007), the role of the individuals in this stage is non the less prominent and has
become increasingly recognized (Baer, 2012; Choi and Price, 2005). Empirical evidence suggests a
significant influence of the individuals on the innovation implementation stage, e.g. attributing a
staggering implementation of innovation in Europe to such factor (among others) as the lack of
technical skills among the workforce (Deloitte, 2019). Considering the practical value of innovation
implementation, it is surprising that there is only a limited amount of research examining this stage.

A promising new field, idea implementation research opened questions on how the innovation
process is shaped and how individuals can contribute to its success (e.g. Van der Panne et al., 2003).
Notable research by Baer (2012) and Birdi et al. (2016) on the individual-level factors influencing idea
implementation became important landmarks prompting the idea implementation research journey.
To date, idea implementation research has explored various dimensions of individual innovation with
regard to the implementation stage, e.g., knowledge and experience (Birdi et al., 2016; Markham,
2002), cognitive skills and abilities (Cerinsek and Dolinsek, 2009; Sternberg and Lubart, 1996),
motivation (Zennouche et al., 2014; Zhou and Shalley, 2003) and personality traits (Howell et al., 2005;
Janssen et al., 2004; Walter et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2015). Another dimension

2
frequently occurring in the literature refers to social skills (Anderson and Bateman, 2000; Baer, 2012;
Markham, 2002; Perry-Smith and Mannucci, 2017; Skerlavaj et al., 2014)—as implementation is
inherently a socio-political process of getting the right people involved and obtaining necessary
decisions, resources, and knowledge (Baer, 2012; Chung and Choi, 2018; Rank et al., 2009; Somech
and Drach-Zahavy, 2013).

To our knowledge, no systematic literature reviews (SLR) have been undertaken in individual-level
idea implementation to date, which indicates a gap in the innovation implementation literature.
Previous research has been fragmentary, with only a few attempts made toward consolidating the
individual factors impacting idea implementation (e.g. Birdi et al., 2016; Howell and Boies, 2004;
Patterson et al., 2009; Zennouche et al., 2014). However, neither attempt can be considered
comprehensive in terms of scope. Some authors were focusing only on one particular activity related
to idea implementation (e.g. championing) (Howell and Boies, 2004; Markham, 2002) and some—on
separate factors (Baer et al., 2015). One exception is Patterson et al. (2009) although the authors did
not categorize the factors and their study does not include all the individual-level factors found so far
in different implementation literature sources.

To aid the advancement of the idea implementation research on the individual level, we seek to
identify studies that investigate individual-level factors pertaining to the implementation stage of the
innovation process in order to assess and synthesize dispersed knowledge on the factors and their
relation to the innovation implementation success. Another point we aim to address is the lack of an
accepted definition of the idea implementation stage. So far in the innovation implementation studies,
this stage has either been defined loosely based on the author’s perspective on implementation, or
the definition was omitted altogether. In managerial research, the lack of accepted definition and
precise language can significantly hinder the development of the field by impeding the comparability
of findings and making it difficult to link them to other concepts (vom Brocke et al., 2009). The rigorous
literature review on the idea implementation on an individual level will help to outline this complex
and so far obscure research area and grasp key aspects of it enabling a better understanding of how
individuals influence the idea implementation process. Following recent advancements in research
methodology (Parris and Peachey, 2013), we consider systematic literature review (SLR) as an effective
method to map and obtain a holistic view of a new research topic.

The following two research questions guided our SLR:

RQ1. What internal and external individual-level factors are influencing the idea implementation stage
of the innovation process?

RQ2. What is the relationship between the individual-level factors and the idea implementation
performance?

To answer these research questions, a cross-disciplinary and content analysis-based SLR is performed
to indicate individual-level factors, their relationship to the idea implementation performance, and
collate the existing definitions of the idea implementation stage. Beginning with outlining the
background and research gap, we proceed with the detailed description of research methodology,
analysis and the methods that were used to ensure the quality of the reviewed studies. As this is
research in progress, the detailed description of the SLR process will end there. However, just to be
clear about our further course of action, after coding and content analysis, which is underway at the
moment of presenting this piece, we are going to present our findings in a detailed and structured
way, and provide an in-depth discussion, further outlining current limitations and possible directions
for future research.

3
Besides developing a more holistic understanding of the implementation stage of the innovation
process, with this review, we expect to contribute to the individual-level idea implementation
literature by outlining relevant discussion points and limitations, and by proposing avenues for future
research. For example, a cursory inspection of the literature revealed mixed evidence on the
importance of the contextual knowledge factor for the implementation stage (Birdi et al., 2016; Howell
and Boies, 2004).

We also expect our review to contribute to broader research efforts on innovation as a process. As
Anderson, Potocnik, and Zhou (2014) noted, “the subfields of idea generation and idea
implementation remain doggedly disconnected” (p. 1317) and further research leading to their
integration is required. Our contribution would allow synthesizing existing generation and
implementation divide since previously the two stages have been mostly observed from different
viewpoints: individual (generation stage) and organizational (implementation stage).

On the practical side, we expect our findings to inform the development of HR and managerial
practices catering specifically to the idea implementation stage, addressing the needs expressed by
the HRM research community (Choi and Moon, 2013; De Leede and Looise, 2005; Shipton et al., 2006).

Methodology

A literature review is an effective method for building and developing theory (Seuring and Gold, 2012).
SLR is particularly effective when exploring new research topics as it allows for greater objectivity and
for more systematic analysis and reporting of findings (Weed, 2005). A SLR is characterized by a
systematic methodological approach, explicit and detailed explanation and documentation of the
steps used and decisions made, which ensures reproductability, and comprehensiveness in terms of
scope (Templier et al., 2018). We have designed our review to follow the systematic approach
including six steps: (1) Define research question, (2) Define required characteristics of primary studies,
(3) Retrieve sample of potentially relevant literature, (4) Select pertinent literature, (5) Descriptive
analysis, and (6) Content analysis and literature synthesis. As Step 1 has been accomplished in
Introduction, in the Methodology part we proceed with the rest steps.

Since the idea implementation research field is relatively new and there are no peer-reviewed journals
specifically dedicated to this topic, we opted for a combined search approach encompassing primarily
database-driven and seminal-work-driven approaches with an element of a manual search. The
combined approach helps to capitalize on the strong points of other approaches and at the same time
diminish their deficiencies (Hiebl, 2021). In this SLR, the combined approach allowed for structured
identification and comprehensive coverage as it includes items from lesser-known journals and grey
literature, which is beneficial when reviewing a new research topic. Also, it helped capture seminal
articles that guided the development of the topic in order to build a more accurate overview of the
emerging research stream.

Define required characteristics of primary study

Before starting the search, we conducted a cursory literature review to define the most common
keywords used to identify relevant articles. We used this preliminary step in order to design a search
string that will enable the most comprehensive selection of relevant items. Based on that we designed
the search string using the following search terms: “implement*”, “innovate*”, “idea*”, “individu*”,
“employee*” as we were primarily interested in the implementation of innovation or innovative ideas
by the individuals, and as it majorly occurs in the organizational settings, by the employees. We
determinedly avoided including synonyms of the implementation such as “execution” or “application”
to eliminate the confusion of using imprecise language and including the items, which fit with our

4
research question is dubious. The resulting search string is as follows: (implement* innovat* idea*)
AND (individu* OR employee*). Formulation of the search string was the result of discussion between
all three co-authors and proved to be efficient as it captured all seminal articles identified in the
previous research of the first author.

As idea implementation can be studied in different disciplines, the structure of search was intended
to be broad and inclusive, with no limitations in terms of disciplines or time frame, to allow for
comprehensive coverage. However, the following non-content related criteria were applied: language
is English as it is a working language of co-authors, and the type of publication is journal article or
review to ensure a higher quality of the material.

Retrieve sample of potentially relevant literature

The items for SLR were identified by searching in three databases the most used in high-level
systematic literature reviews on managerial topics (Hiebl, 2021): Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCO
(Business Source Complete). Another consideration in database selection was that though the idea
implementation topic is inherently cross-disciplinary this SLR aims to review it from a managerial
perspective. As a result, 1598 items have been retrieved from three databases and after the duplicates
were removed the number of items decreased to 1016. To exclude articles potentially published in
predatory journals, all searched items have been checked against Academic Journal Ranking 2021 (AJR
2021) as this ranking system includes only top-quality academic journals. To maintain a
comprehensiveness of coverage, we decided not to restrict our sample only to top-ranked AJR 2021
journals, therefore all ranks from 0 to 4* were considered. After the exclusion of all journals not listed
in AJR 2021, the number of items was reduced to 340. This interim sample was subjected to a content-
based screening process.

Select pertinent literature

Abstract screening allows to narrow down the sample and exclude irrelevant items before proceeding
to a more detailed and time-consuming full-text analysis (Hiebl, 2021). In this step, the potentially
relevant items were analyzed based on the content-related criteria specifically formulated to fit the
research questions for this SLR (Booth et al., 2016). Therefore, the following content-based criteria
were considered for inclusion of the relevant articles: (1) the article deals with the factors influencing
individuals and not teams or organization, which eliminates the confusion caused by mixing different
levels of analysis in the same review, (2) the factors should pertain to the person (internal factors) or
to the team/organization that is influencing the person (external factors) and this influence should be
explicitly stated in the article, (3) the factors should be explicitly attributed by the author to the
implementation stage to maintain precise language and conceptual consistency (4) the article is
considered for inclusion even if mentioned idea implementation is hypothetical.

According to the formulated criteria, two co-authors performed the abstract screening and evaluation
using A/B/C logic. A/B/C logic is a method used to assess the content fit in a structured and transparent
way (Pittaway et al., 2004). Each item in the sample was classified as A (relevant), B (potentially
relevant) and C (irrelevant) according to preformulated criteria and then evaluated by two researchers
involved in the screening process to increase the selection objectivity. The abstract screening was
conducted in two rounds. After the first round, the content-related criteria have been refined to clarify
disputable points. All items achieving agreement in A category made it into the final sample. In all
situations of disagreement, the first author stepped in to make a final decision on the item. After an
intercoder agreement of 0.707 has been achieved, the abstract screening process resulted in 134
items, which constituted the final sample. This sample formed the basis for a content analysis so in

5
the frame of this “research in progress” paper it is considered to be a final sample. The full literature
search process is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Literature search process

Descriptive analysis

First, authors collaboratively defined tentative coding categories. Second, a total of 13 items (10 % of
a final sample) was randomly drawn from the final sample and coded separately by three authors. This
preliminary step allowed to refine coding categories before full-fledged analysis is commenced. After
the coding categories have been finetuned, the authors proceeded to the coding procedure, which is
currently ongoing.

The descriptive analysis is aiming to capture basic information on the research items to make a
descriptive categorization of the studied topic. In the frame of this SLR, the following basic categories
for the descriptive analysis have been defined: author(s), year of publication, journal, applied
methodology, unit of analysis, industry, type of innovation (product, process, service), and stages of
innovation process. Descriptive analysis is conducted in Excel.

Content analysis

Content analysis is referred to “as a systematic, replicable technique for compressing many words of
text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding” (Stemler, 2000, p.1). In this SLR,
an iterative and multistep coding procedure was adopted.

The following categories necessary for addressing RQs formulated for this SLR have been formulated:
definition of idea implementation stage (with citation if not original), internal individual-level factors,

6
external individual-level factors, innovation performance. Content analysis is conducted in NVivo
software.

After the coding process is finalized, authors will synthesize obtained information, report the results,
conduct discussion and draw conclusions, including current limitations and avenues for future
research.

References

Alexander, J.A. and Hearld, L.R., 2011. The science of quality improvement implementation:
developing capacity to make a difference. Medical care, pp.S6-S20.
Amabile, T.M., 1988a. From individual creativity to organizational innovation.

Amabile, T.M., 1988b. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in

organizational behavior, 10(1), pp.123-167.

Amabile, T.M., 1996. Creativity in context. Westview. Press, Boulder, CO.

Amabile, T.M., 1998. How to kill creativity (Vol. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Anderson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S., 2000. Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural
environmental issues in US business organizations. Academy of Management journal, 43(4), pp.548-
570.

Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K. and Nijstad, B.A., 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A
constructively critical review of the state‐of‐the‐science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2),
pp.147-173.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K. and Zhou, J., 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-
the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management, 40(5),
pp.1297-1333.
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(3), pp.265-285.
Baer, M., 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), pp.1102-1119.
Baer, M., Evans, K., Oldham, G.R. and Boasso, A., 2015. The social network side of individual
innovation: A meta-analysis and path-analytic integration. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(3),
pp.191-223.
Bettencourt, L.A., Bond III, E.U., Cole, M.S. and Houston, M.B., 2017. Domain‐Relevant Commitment
and Individual Technical Innovation Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(2),
pp.159-180.
Birdi, K., 2007. A lighthouse in the desert? Evaluating the effects of creativity training on employee
innovation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(4), pp.249-270.
Birdi, K., Leach, D. and Magadley, W., 2016. The relationship of individual capabilities and
environmental support with different facets of designers' innovative behavior. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 33(1), pp.19-35.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M. and Farr, J., 2009. A dialectic perspective on
innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and

7
Organizational Psychology, 2(3), pp.305-337.

Booth, A., Sutton, A. and Papaioannou, D., 2016. Systematic approaches to a successful literature
review.

Brockbank, W., 1999. If HR were really strategically proactive: Present and future directions in HR's
contribution to competitive advantage. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with
the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of
Human Resources Management, 38(4), pp.337-352.

Cerinsek, G. and Dolinsek, S., 2009. Identifying employees' innovation competency in organisations.
International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 6(2), pp.164-177.
Choi, J.N. and Moon, W.J., 2013. Multiple forms of innovation implementation. Organizational
Dynamics, 42(4), pp.290-297.
Choi, J.N. and Price, R.H., 2005. The effects of person–innovation fit on individual responses
to innovation. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 78(1), pp.83-96.
Chung, G.H. and Choi, J.N., 2016. Innovation implementation as a dynamic equilibrium: Emergent
processes and divergent outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 43(6), pp.999-1036.

Clapham, M.M., 1997. Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training
programs. Creativity research journal, 10(1), pp.33-44.
Cozijnsen, A.J., Vrakking, W.J. and van IJzerloo, M., 2000. Success and failure of 50
innovation projects in Dutch companies. European Journal of Innovation Management.
Cummings, A. and Oldham, G.R., 1997. Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high
potential employee. California management review, 40(1), pp.22-38.
De Leede, J. and Looise, J.K., 2005. Innovation and HRM: towards an integrated framework. Creativity
and innovation management, 14(2), pp.108-117.
Deloitte, 2019. Innovation in Europe. [pdf] Deloitte. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/es/Documents/acerca-de-deloitte/Deloitte-
ES-Innovation-in-Europe.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2021]
George, J.M., 2007. Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management annals, 1(1), pp.439-477.
Gilson, L.L., 2008. Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity at
the individual, group, and organizational levels. Handbook of organizational creativity, pp.303-322.
Hiebl, M.R., 2021. Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research.
Organizational research methods, p.1094428120986851.
Howell, J.M., Shea, C.M. and Higgins, C.A., 2005. Champions of product innovations: defining,
developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of business venturing, 20(5),
pp.641-661.
Howell, J.M. and Boies, K., 2004. Champions of technological innovation: The influence of contextual
knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on champion emergence. The
leadership quarterly, 15(1), pp.123-143.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and West, M., 2004. The bright and dark sides of individual and group
innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of organizational behavior, 25(2), pp.129-145.
Jong, J.P.J., 2007. Individual innovation: the connection between leadership and employees’
innovative work behavior. ZoetermeerEIM.

8
Kaufman, J.C. and Beghetto, R.A., 2009. Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review
of general psychology, 13(1), pp.1-12.
Kanter, R.M., 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations. Knowledge Management and Organisational Design, 10(1), pp.93-131.

Magadley, W. and Birdi, K., 2012. Two sides of the innovation coin? An empirical investigation of the
relative correlates of idea generation and idea implementation. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 16(01), p.1250002.
Markham, S.K., 2002. Moving technologies from lab to market. Research-Technology Management,
45(6), pp.31-42.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M., 2002. Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The leadership quarterly, 13(6), pp.705-750.

Nijstad, B.A., De Dreu, C.K., Rietzschel, E.F. and Baas, M., 2010. The dual pathway to creativity model:
Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European review of social
psychology, 21(1), pp.34-77.
Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A., 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), pp.607-634.

Parris, D.L. and Peachey, J.W., 2013. A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in
organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics, 113(3), pp.377-393.

Patterson, F., Kerrin, M. and Gatto-Roissard, G., 2009. Characteristics and behaviours of innovative
people in organisations. Literature review prepared for the NESTA Policy & Research Unit, pp.1-63.
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Mannucci, P.V., 2017. From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers
of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), pp.53-79.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. and Neely, A., 2004. Networking and innovation: a
systematic review of the evidence. International journal of management reviews, 5(3‐4), pp.137-168.

Rank, J., Nelson, N.E., Allen, T.D. and Xu, X., 2009. Leadership predictors of innovation and task
performance: Subordinates' self‐esteem and self‐presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupational
and organizational psychology, 82(3), pp.465-489.
Real, K. and Poole, M.S., 2005. Innovation implementation: Conceptualization and
measurement in organizational research. In Research in organizational change and
development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Scott, G., Leritz, L.E. and Mumford, M.D., 2004. The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative
review. Creativity research journal, 16(4), pp.361-388.
Sears, G.J. and Baba, V.V., 2011. Toward a multistage, multilevel theory of innovation. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 28(4), pp.357-
372.

Seeck, H. and Diehl, M.R., 2017. A literature review on HRM and innovation–taking stock and future
directions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(6), pp.913-944.
Seuring, S. and Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content‐analysis based literature reviews in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
Simonton, D.K., 2000. Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American
psychologist, 55(1), p.151.

9
Shipton, H., West, M.A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K. and Patterson, M., 2006. HRM as a predictor of
innovation. Human resource management journal, 16(1), pp.3-27.
Škerlavaj, M., Černe, M. and Dysvik, A., 2014. I get by with a little help from my supervisor: Creative-
idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor support. The Leadership Quarterly,
25(5), pp.987-1000.
Škerlavaj, M., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., Nerstad, C.G. and Su, C., 2017. Riding two horses at once: The
combined roles of mastery and performance climates in implementing creative ideas. European
Management Review, 16(2), pp.285-302.
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A., 2013. Translating team creativity to innovation
implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of
management, 39(3), pp.684-708.
Stemler, S., 2000. An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation,
7(1), p.17.

Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I., 1996. Investing in creativity. American psychologist, 51(7),
p.677.

Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N., 2009. Do big five personality factors affect individual creativity? The
moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal,
37(7), pp.941-956.

Templier, M., G. Paré, and F. Rowe. 2018. Transparency in literature re- views. An assessment of
reporting practices across review types and genres in top is journals. European Journal of Information
Systems 27 (5): 503–50.

Van der Panne, G., Van Beers, C. and Kleinknecht, A., 2003. Success and failure of innovation: a
literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(03), pp.309-338.

vom Brocke, J., B. Alexander, B. Niehaves, K. Niehaves, R. Plattfaut Reimer, and A. Cleven. 2009.
Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search pro- cess.
Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009), Verona, Italy, 8–10
June 2009.

Walter, A., Parboteeah, K.P., Riesenhuber, F. and Hoegl, M., 2011. Championship behaviors and
innovations success: An empirical investigation of university spin‐offs. Journal of product innovation
management, 28(4), pp.586-598.
Weed, M., 2005, January. " Meta Interpretation": A Method for the Interpretive Synthesis of
Qualitative Research. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 6,
No. 1).

West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3), pp.355-387.

West, M.A., Borrill, C.S., Dawson, J.F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D.A. and Haward, B., 2003. Leadership
clarity and team innovation in health care. The leadership quarterly, 14(4-5), pp.393-410.

Wu, C.H., Parker, S.K. and De Jong, J.P., 2014. Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual
innovation behavior. Journal of Management, 40(6), pp.1511-1534.
Zennouche, M., Zhang, J. and Wang, B.W., 2014. Factors influencing innovation at individual, group
and organisational levels: a content analysis. International Journal of Information Systems and Change
Management, 7(1), pp.23-42.

10
Zhou, J., Shalley, C.E. and Press, P., 2008. Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, NJ.

Zhang, S.J., Chen, Y.Q. and Sun, H., 2015. Emotional intelligence, conflict management
styles, and innovation performance. International Journal of Conflict Management.

Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E., 2003. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for
future research. Research in personnel and human resources management.

11