International Studies of Management & Organization

ISSN: 0020-8825 (Print) 1558-0911 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mimo20

Organizational Innovation and Learning

Rene Bouwen & Ronald Fry

To cite this article: Rene Bouwen & Ronald Fry (1991) Organizational Innovation
and Learning, International Studies of Management & Organization, 21:4, 37-51, DOI:
10.1080/00208825.1991.11656566

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1991.11656566

Published online: 01 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

Citing articles: 30 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mimo20
Int. Studies ofMgt. & Org., Vol. 21, No.4, pp. 37-51
M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1991

RENE BOUWEN AND RONALD FRy

Organizational Innovation
and Learning
Four Patterns of Dialog between the
Dominant Logic and the New Logic

Introduction: the importance of the organizational innovation

Probably never before in human history have so many business and social orga-
nizations had to cope with so many fundamental changes at such an increasing
rate of change. External pressures in the economic and political environment, as
well as internal pressures of new technologies and the changing attitudes of
members, threaten the survival of these orgnaizations. Understanding and guid-
ing the process of organizational innovation or renewal becomes a vital capacity
organizations have to learn. Innovation is not confined to the new technology of
products. Turnarounds,mergers, restructuring, total quality, continuous improve-
ment programs, globalization projects, and so on are at the forefront of many
transformations. They require the organizational capacity to learn how to trans-
late ideas or intentions into new action.
Innovation is defined here as "the development and implementation of new
ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an
institutional order" (Van de Yen, 1986). The emphasis is on the interactive
process among people about new ideas in an organizational context. We term
this the organizational innovation process. The focus is on the ways people
become organized around the new tasks, and the consequences of these ef-
forts on further organizational functioning after the implementation of the
innovation: that is, what and how the organization has learned from the inno-
vation effort. Organizational learning will be defined as the increased process
capacity to innovate in the future within that same organizational setting
(Argyris and Schon, 1978). Olir main premise here is that the quality of the

Rene Bouwen is Professor of Organizational Behavior, Catholic University Leuven,

Tiensestraat 102, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. Ronald Fry is Professor at Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
37
38 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNlIED STATES)

dialog during the innovation effort will derme the quality of the organizational
learning taking place.
We present a framework for understanding this dialog as a way to explore,
mediate, and cope with what we see as the core of an innovation situation: the
tensions between dominant and new organizational logics. Four distinctive strat-
egies dealing with these tensions will be presented from analyses of field re-
search, and the implications for organizational learning will be discussed.

Organizational innovation as a social process

There is much support for trying to understand organizational innovation as a

social-interaction process. From the innovation literature, it is clear that the
critical factors stimulating or hindering innovation in large organizations relate
to: lack of adequate internal and external communication processes, lack of
interdisciplinary teamwork, bureaucratization, a culture of "standard operating
procedures," inappropriate reward systems, and the attitudes of management
(Rothwell, 1977). The quality of the internal organizational communication pro-
cesses is repeatedly mentioned as the critical element in successful innovations
(Maidique, 1980; Tushman, 1979). The importance of organizational roles in the
operation of the communication process has been studied by Roberts (1977).
Burgelman (1984) emphasizes the managerial capacity to conceptualize the ac-
tivities involved in internal corporate venturing. Organizational fragmentation
(Kanter, 1983), as opposed to organic and integrated organizational forms, are
also, to a large extent, counterproductive for innovation. The attention given to
the importance of communication and interaction in the innovation process has
given rise to a growing perspective that organizing itself, is best understood as an
ever-dynamic social construction based on the meanings people derive from their
work-related interaction and dialog. In this social constructivist paradigm
(Gorgen, 1978), the organization is no longer considered as an entity, "a-given-
out-there," that has to be discovered by using the appropriate objective and
scientific measurements. An organization is, rather, a negotiated social reality
with a certain degree of shared meaning. Through communication and negotia-
tion, a continuing social construction process is going on among the actors
involved, in order to reach a level of confidence where some common action is
possible (Gray et al., 1985). Social discourse is therefore the key process to be
understood. The quality of the dialog is then a critical factor in constructing the
"organizing" that is taking place (Weick, 1970). This paradigm seems particu-
larlyappropriate to describe the experiences around innovation projects.

The experience of innovation: tension between dominant logic and new logic

The actors in an innovation project often experience the change as a disruption to

the ongoing practices of organizational functioning. "We have to start from
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 39

scratch"; "this is really war"; "nobody has time here for anyone"; "this is very
exciting but very demanding"-are all expressions frequently heard in this con-
text. While the content of the innovation, the new product, service or the config-
uration, is going through several developmental steps, the social pressures
among the parties involved are also being reshaped. Three aspects of the
day-to-day social fabric of the organizational life are central to the innovation
process: how continuity of purpose and worth is provided and maintained;
how novelty is introduced and transformed into compelling, generative ideas
for action; and how transition from old to new is actually done (Bouwen and
Fry, 1988). The balancing or alignment of these three core themes creates
constant tension between a dominant logic (how it is done now; tradition;
historically routed values or customs) and a new logic (items, opportunities,
trials, experiments, etc).
By framing and acting upon specific aspects of its internal and external envi-
ronment, a dominant organizational logic is developed (Prahalad and Bettis,
1986). This organizational logic includes managerial practices, specific skills
used by key actors, experiences stored within the organization and cognitive
styles used to frame problems in a specific way. The dominant logic of a re-
search-based department can be described as being "academic" in nature: scien-
tific curiosity and the discovery of challenging questions can drive the
coordination of the work of a research team. A sense of continuity is derived
from the replication of scientific models of inquiry. When such a dominant logic
is confronted with trying to reduce product introduction cycles or increase the
rate of user-friendly designs, etc., new questions are raised, questions that con-
front the "currently acceptable" practices in each of the above areas of conti-
nuity. When we introquce new ways of managing ideas or managing change,
we challenge continuity. Where we have concern for continuity, we must
reexamine the pace of transformation or balance between short-term out-
comes and future visions. An innovation situation is therefore characterized
by a multiplicity offrames or perspectives being surfaced in order to question
the dominant logic that guarantees existing practices and experiences. How
these new and old perspectives are raised, debated, compared, analyzed, un-
derstood, and developed into new or innovative practices is a key focus of
this article. Figure 1 shows a schema of behavioral events occurring around
the "innovation situation."
The tension created between an organization's dominant logic and new logic
can be experienced in very different ways (Bouwen, 1990). Similarly, different
action strategies to manage or cope with these tensions can be derived from field
research. The remainder of this article will concentrate on the description of four
primary action strategies for bringing about organizational innovations. The
characteristics, consequences, and contingencies of these different configurations
lead to what we call innovative paths, each with distinct consequences for over-
all organization learning and potential for further innovation.
40 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNITED STATES)

Dominant Logic Logic of Innovation

t
E.g., doing scientific work
driven by theoretical research
questions
E.g., bringing in a market orientation
J
and look for opportunities

Tension experienced (e.g., polarization, as dialog, etc.)

t
Action strategies used to deal with the tension:
-power model
-sales model
-expert model
-learning model

t
Consequences for learning (process output)

t
Consequences forthe innovation (content output)

Figure 1. Behavioral sequence of the construction of an innovation project

The study

The action strategies discussed below are derived from a series of case studies.
Seven innovation projects in large fInns and six in small or startup fIrms were
studied by interviewing eight to twelve people, three times each, over a period of
eight to eighteen months. Participant observations, minutes of meetings, and
related documentation served as an additional data base. Transcripts (over 600
pages) were analyzed to develop generative concepts to describe both the simi-
larities and differences among thirteen sites. Thematic analyses have identifIed
common patterns among the cases. A model for "innovation projects" has been
described elsewhere (Bouwen and De Visch, 1989) in tenns of fIve consecutive
phases through which such organizational innovations go. Here we concentrate
on the particular set of coping strategies found within the cases and examine
their success in addressing the "dominant" versus "new logic" tension in an
organizational innovation.
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 41

Action strategies in organizational innovation

Four distinct kinds of "innovative paths" or action strategies to communicate and
generate dialog about old versus new logics were found within the case studies.
While no one situation was totally characterized by anyone of these strategies,
they are presented here and in Table 1 in ideal form for purposes of clarification
and discussion.
Each of these four "pathways" for innovation can usefully be compared and
contrasted in terms of eight factors (see left-hand column of Table 1).
First off, the role of the leadership can be quite different. Here we focus on
the person, or persons, acting in a critical role to connect the project to the rest of
the organization (Burgelman, 1984). Closely linked to the leadership factor is the
overall nature of the communication process among the parties involved. The
degree of one-way or two-way interaction was a very distinctive characteristic of
the dialog. The criteria for decision making throughout the procp,ss are also quite
different and reflect the power relationship among the interested parties and
stakeholders.
Another characteristic that differs considerably over the cases is the main
tension or critical success factor in order to achieve the desired outcome for the
strategy followed. Different criteria for effectiveness and progress can also be
observed. The succession of the actions taken can take different forms. The
sequencing of action patterns gives an overall picture of this process. A striking
cause of differences is the effect of the learning or adaptation taking place in
organization. The question to be answered here is about the basis or mechanism
causing the change in the organization. One can see different learning principles
at work. Finally, the designative contingencies for each action strategy being
used will also differ. Circumstantial demands can be characterized on a contin-
uum ranging from very constraining to demanding high levels of interdepend-
ency and creativity.
Based on those eight characteristics, we describe further four "models" of
action strategies. All action strategies can lead to an innovative effect on the
short term. The differences will lie mainly in the consequences for dealing with
innovation in the future. This is what we call "organization learning."
Each of the four models-the power model, the sales model, the export
model, and the learning/confrontational model-will be described using a typical
illustration of that particular model among the cases studied. Table 1 shows an
overview of the different aspects considered for each of the four models.
The power/influence model
The company, FOOD, is a fast-food restaurant diversification of a supermarket
distribution system. The innovation is the introduction of a "classical" restaurant
formula (so-called "theme" restaurants). The idea for the innovation was picked
up by a senior manager during a trip abroad. A franchising firm was chosen that
would support the installation by expertise and training. A local manager and
42 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNII'ED STATES)

Table 1
Comparisons of characteristics of the four Innovation models

Confrontational
Power model Sales model Expert model learning model

1. Role of the Authority figure "Sales"person Expert knowl- Coach-facilita-

leader with access to with smooth ap- edge and expert tive leader with
power proach power process knowl-
resources edge
2. Characteristics Imposing! Persuasion by Steps of problem Facilitating con-
of the process declaring all means of solving or infor- frontation; two-
change influence mation process- sided cognitive
ing rationality emotional restruc-
turing
3. Basis for deci- Interest and Continuous Rational criteria Through consulta-
sion making power define exposure keep- tion and consen-
criteria ing attention sual validation
4. Main tension Capacity to con- Newness of the Discretion for Concerns of all
in the process trol "exits" and alternative participation parties involved
resources
5. Criterion for Quick technical! Rate of adoption Rational ·Common sense"
effectiveness financial and follows hip attainment shared meaning
results
6. Sequences Start an~ restart Consistent Linear step-by- Experiment-
of action regression planning of step process ing,evaluat-
patterns stop--go ing,questioning:
learning cycle
7. Effect for Compliance Imitation and Cognitive learn- Communication
learning in the and passive adoption ing through and orientation
organization followship insight on valid data
8. Designative Crisis situation; Indifference of Predictable, Interdependency
contingencies lack of time; in- target group; highly structured necessary for
tended depen- one-sided situation goal achievement
dency interest

coworkers were hired and trained to "execute" the plans and ideas developed by
the mother company and the franchising fIrm. These employees were instructed
to emphasize the core values of top management of the parent company: return
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 43

on investment, following assigned budgets, and aiming for short-tenn success.

This was experienced as a strong burden by those involved, beginning with the
local manager. When problems fIrst arose, a new manager was hired, but turn-
over among employees continued increasing, and new, inexperienced personnel
were hired, with the result that overtime costs increased.
The employees, interviewed in the new restaurant, reported the experience
of an increasing gap between the demands of the parent organization and the
demands for client orientation, teamwork, and personal responsibility in the
local unit After a year, the new restaurants were sold back to the franchising
company.
In this case we see that the leadership function is acting from an authority
position. The whole innovation effort was introduced and directed from the top.
It is understandable then that the top is using its own criteria for success-using
an orientation guided by fInancial management (the old logic). The innovation is
communicated from the top: no internal development has been undertaken. The
project manager is acting as an executor of the guidelines from the top. He is
experiencing very strongly the tension between the demands coming from the
organization and the requirements emerging from the new ventures. Craftsman-
ship, teamwork, and client orientation had to be fostered to motivate personnel as
well as the clients themselves. There was not much time or interest among top
management to give a lot of attention to those aspects. Running a supennarket
had been possible following the standard operating procedures; running this new
type of restaurant was quite different. When problems arise, the manager and
some employees are replaced, creating another start to the new venture. But the
new manager is confronted with the same problems. Maybe selling the new
restaurant was the "only possible" decision. The result, however, is that there is
very little change in the organization as a consequence of the innovation. Given
the leadership style, only passive followership can be rewarded in the mother
company; the requirements of the new venture are difficult for the large com-
pany to assimilate.
It is clear that the consequences for learning are rather limited here. This
organization may have learned simply how not to innovate. It is more likely that
those involved made sense of all this by reconfirming old practices or lessons
such as budget attainment leads to promotion or when a problem arises, blame
will be put upon individuals who will be removed.
The power-model action strategy can be appropriate perhaps if there is no
explicit expectation about learning and when the implementation is not depen-
dent upon any significant alterations of current practices. One can probably
expect this action strategy to emerge in crisis situations and when there is a
serious lack of time. From the study of other cases we see that the power model
is used quite often; it emerges from an authoritarian dominant logic. The logic of
the innovation is very often different. One can understand, therefore, how diffI-
cult it is for an authoritarian organization to innovate.
44 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNITED STATES)

The sales model

BANK is a medium-sized savings bank, introducing a new scoring system for its
clients. The EDP manager, who is taking the initiative, is also the project leader
of a group composed by representatives of the local branch offices and central
services. Collaboration of the local offices is crucial, since they have to provide
the data and they are also the major users of data in their contacts with their
clients. The information service department wants to control the composition of
the scoring system, so it cannot be manipulated by the local agents. The project
leader is considered to be the product champion of the new scoring system;
together with his technical staff he developed the specificities of the system. Yet
he is investing a lot of energy in working toward what he calls a consensus
orientation in the project group. He is very active as a discussion leader, empha-
sizing the principles, underlining the common interests, pointing out the new
system has to be "commercial" (responding to the questions of the clients) and
"safe" (taking into account all the safety regulations to prevent misuse) at the
same time. He acknowledges the contributions and efforts of all members, cre-
ates a positive mood during the meetings, and continuously balances between
allowing for participation and objections, and safeguarding what he considers the
essential characteristics of the scoring system. He remains the best-informed
team member, provides all the technical information, makes calculations about
alternatives, and is structuring the meetings continuously while emphasizing the
importance of the project group. One of the group members describes his behav-
ior in the following way: "He is competent, very fluent and intelligent. It gives
him an aura of excellence. But it is very difficult to stop him."
The project leader also understates the newness of the system by saying that
they have been doing this, in fact, already for years and that the new system is
just a formalization of this. He is careful not to progress too fast. A project group
member from an external agency speaks positively about the project group as
"oiling the machinery" of the central services toward the external agencies. A
first outcome of the project group is that its function is institutionalized as an
"organization" department next to the president and the project leader gets a
direct advisory function. A second outcome is an organization-wide acceptance
of the scoring system and a further development of other coordination tools to
"support" or "guide" the local agencies.
In this innovation path, the role of the project leader is very central. He acts as
a "smooth seller" and focuses on acceptance by the users as the key concern and.
uses continuous attention and persuasion to get action. The whole project's
group work can be considered as. an action to help the organization to digest very
slowly the introduction of central information and control devices. A lot of
attention is devoted to convincing the external agents that it is in their interest.
Getting the interest and cooperation of the other parties is the criterion used to
check out progress and to move on. All objections and reactions are taken into
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 45

consideration but the original principles are never changed. The eventual promo-
tion of the project leader makes the acceptance easier but illustrates at the same
time that the active mechanism in the action strategy is more benevolent accep-
tance than critical contribution and personal learning.
Although the outcome is quite successful from an organization point of view,
the learning effort of the organization itself is rather limited. More passive accep-
tance and followership is created than active participation and coresponsibility.
Organizational learning, defined as an increased capacity to innovate and
change, will not be very different for this organization after the project. It is
possible that much of the sense making done by participants after the fact will
focus on the project leader: on how one acts to become an idea champion and
positions oneself for high-level promotion.
The expert model
The innovation project in COMMUNICATIONS concerns the introduction of a
CAD/CAM system in the design and development department of a medium-
sized electronic equipment manufacturing firm. The products are highly innova-
tive by market standards. The organization has a high level of functional
specialization, respect for hierarchy, and still has the characteristics of a family
business and a strong concern for quality. The need for shorter design and
production cycles has forced them to reconsider the introduction of information
technology in this department-a previous effort in this direction failed five
years before. This time, a special project manager was hired to work on the
introduction.
This manager followed two principles throughout the project; it had to be an
integrated approach: all related functions had to be included in the project, and
all levels (designers as well as director) had to be included. He described his own
approach:
We always initiate a fIrst proposal. This proposal is explained to the designers:
for example, my proposal was to have a 200 dots electrostat. This is a proposal
for the drawing table. We had been showing examples and the different op-
tions and asked them: "Look, these are the alternatives and these are the
possibilities of the system. What is most appropriate now in your particular
situation?" If you just ask for alternatives, you don't get an answer. They don't
understand anything, you have to explain this to them. After the explanation
we considered all options, they had a say in it and they dropped the 200 dots
proposal very quickly after I gave the proper information.
The project leader is continuously collaborating with the director of the de-
sign laboratory and the EDP manager. One can describe the communication
process between the different parties involved as problem-oriented and linear.
Problem definition, issue clarification, proposing alternatives, evaluating, and the
like are handled step-by-step over the consecutive project-group meetings. Fre-
quent and informed contacts with the users were sustained all the time. A grow-
46 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNlfED STATES)

ing involvement with the technicalities and the evaluation criteria developed
among the main participants involved. Even an eagerness to start with the new
system could be observed among the designers. A 2S0-page report about the
whole search process was made by the project leader. The three selected alterna-
tives were extensively presented using the information from the many meetings
and personal contacts. The fmal choice was left to the general director; he had to
bargain with the representatives of the three candidate fIrms. They called this a
"political" decision and from then on the project group left the fmal choice to the
director so he could "play the bargaining game."
The action-strategy pattern, in this case, follows the steps of a rational prob-
lem-solving and decision-making process, with close involvement of all neces-
sary personnel. The project leader is hired for his expert knowledge. He gathers
all the necessary information to make a complete and accepted functional analy-
sis of the problem. He acts as an instructor, also explaining repeatedly all the
possible implications. Decisions are made after very task-oriented discussions
and take into account all the aspects of the functional analysis. A possible bottle-
neck throughout the whole process was the participation of the users. Because of
a previous rejection of a similar innovation, the project leader was very attentive
to involvement by including the users as much as possible in the process. From a
purely rational point of view, this participation could not add very much to the
technical design of the new system, but it could influence the ease of implemen-
tation if the users felt that their needs were considered. The criterion for success
in this action strategy is the fact that everyone can understand and follow what is
being decided upon and is convinced that the most rational decision is going to
be made. People therefore engage in a lot of common learning about the techni-
cal problems with which they deal. This learning is on the cognitive level. There
is no evidence that learning on the social-organizational level is going on. The
project leader is guiding the process based on his expertise. It can be considered
as an example of good project management.
The learning/conjrontational model
MATERIALS is a Belgian subsidiary of a high-tech American multinational,
producing insulation materials for telecommunications and pipe protection. Dur-
ing the last twenty years they had a growth rate of about 20 percent, but in the
1980s, due to the general economic crisis, an expired patent, and market frag-
mentation, they had to become more flexible and customer-oriented. During the
era of constant growth, a culture of informality, individuality, responsibility, and
creativity has been developed. Now, they had to deal with outside constraints
and changes in technology.
This innovation project began as two separate efforts. There was a company-
wide requirement to install automated material-handling systems and a quality-
assurance program. At the local site, management launched what they called an
organization development project to rethink the internal organization of the man-
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 47

ufacturing environment. The eventual project, developed over the period of

about four years and covering many episodes, is too complicated to be described
adequately within the limits of this article. We limit ourselves to portraying the
position of key people, how they behave, and the general outcome. After an
off-site meeting, a series of weekly meetings began to discuss both change
projects in a coordinated way. A general mission statement was phrased this
way: "The ultimate goal is to have an efficient organization (policies, people,
tools) in terms of customer service (delivery, quality), cost control (working
capital, overhead) and integration of new products and processes." Gradually,
over the sessions the idea emerged to have a task-function matrix for the manu-.
facturing organization, where every activity (what?) can be assigned to a specific
person or group (who?). At one point, the production manager describes the
crucial decision making around the filling-out of the function-task matrix. Men-
tioning names for the new positions was considered to be a group task. It cer-
tainly created a lot of tension and confrontation:
Finally Mr. X stood up and proposed himself openly as a candidate. I could not
agree with that and said so. I proposed him to run another production line. The
others hesitated to make further proposals. Then I made my proposal public
and wrote some names on the organization chart. There was a general relief in
the group at that moment. 1 left for a while then. Entering again, the first one
who replied was Y and he said: "I go for it." Still more names were filled in
during that meeting. fu fact a lot of further thinking had to be done. I talked to
a lot of people before a complete proposal could emerge."
As a result, five new product groups were formed, based on a focused-factory
concept with integrated staff and service personnel. The next important step was
the installation of the project on the shop floor and, in a later phase, into the
relationship with other technical developments as well as marketing and re-
search. The project succeeded in setting up the integrated information systems
for material flow, closely connected with the reassignment of people to new
work groups and new working principles and procedures.
Among the basic characteristics of this innovation one can mention: the com-
plexity, covering all facets of the organization, w.ith a continuously moving and
developing target; a high level of ambivalence for all those involved; a high level
of mutual confrontation; and a high level of involvement and openness to discuss
all aspects. Confrontation is observable during the numerou:; contacts and meet-
ings, where every aspect of the restructuring was openly discussed. One could
also observe that this project group was regularly taking what they called a
"timeout"-an interruption to look back to what and how they had been doing.
This led to a second level of confrontation and understanding about why things
were developing in a particular way. The leadership was mostly of a facilitating
type during the project group sessions. An internal human resource management
person was a permanent member of the project group. He considered it his task
to draw their attention to the development of the proper procedures or at least to
48 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNlI'ED STATES)

reflect on how they were progressing. In that sense, the mutual confrontation was
on both the content level and on the meta level. From the interviews at the end of
the project, one can conclude that learning about what and how they were doing
was continuously taking place. It was also clear that this level of confrontation
was very demanding of people. For some members, the continuous feedback and
demand for responsiveness were experienced as too much. A process engineer,
for example, decided to look for a quieter place, as he openly admitted.
The most important quality of this innovative path is the two-sidedness of the
communication process. The characteristics of Argyris and Schon's (1978)
model II organizational learning apply: using concrete, illustrated, and testable
statements that are open to any possible reaction from the partner in the dialog.
There is coownership of the interaction task and shared influence on the out-
comes. The basis for making decisions is consensual validation (Schein, 1969).
This does not mean an overall compromise, but an agreement supported by all
parties involved after each of them had the full opportunity to express their
concerns, got the acknowledgment of being understood, and joined in the con-
struction of the best available solution.
The criterion for success of an innovation effort in this case is, then, the extent
to which all parties involved share a "common sense" or social construction
about the new way to go. It does mean that this is a soft-minded or completely
permissive process. Questioning each other, searching for all information and
means available, experimenting with alternatives, and continuously testing of the
outcomes are essential characteristics. The most important quality of the out-
come comes on the process level: Is there real internal commitment of the parties
involved and do they make available valid information?
This fourth innovation path is called the learning/confrontation model to indi-
cate the long-term learning effects for the organization, following Argyris's the-
ory of organizational learning, and the confrontational character of the
interaction and the communication among the actors involved.
By outsiders, this fourth path is often considered to be a so-called "soft" or
"client-oriented" or "nondirective" approach. As can be concluded from the
MATERIALS case, there is certainly a lot of attention given to discussing issues
with all parties involved. A lot of importance is indeed devoted to involvement
and internal commitment. No one is expected to join the innovative action unless
she or he is making a personal choice after having enough time and space to
express ideas. But this approach is also based on working with valid data. Work-
ing on valid data means that every one shares the information she or he has
without "playing games" of hiding, pleasing, trading, or other forms of camou-
flage. This means an openness of expression, which can be quite confrontational
when it has to do with inadequate performance or errors to correct. Argyris
defines the learning organization as being able to detect and correct errors. To
achieve this, data have to be made available and people have to inform and to
question one another. The confrontation concerns the relationships among the
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 49

persons involved but also access to and openness about all data required for
adequate problem solving.

Summary and implications:

process characteristics and learning indicators

The aim of this article has been to increase our awareness of indicators to
describe the quality of the communication/dialog among parties involved in an
organizational innovation. Communication is considered to be quite crucial in
the existing innovation literature. From the case studies we investigated and the
analysis of process characteristics derived, distinctive patterns of action strate-
gies can be described (see overview in Table 1). These patterns of action strate-
gies have very different outcome characteristics in terms of the extent to which
new learning about how to carry out an innovation effort is construed in the
minds of participants.
The basic proposition arising from this study can be formulated in this way: to
obtain long-term. lasting organizational learning effects from an innovation
project. a confrontationalllearning model is required. Other models or patterns
of action can lead to some short-term outcomes but fail to create new. shared
knowledge and valid data about why and how the organization best carries out
an innovative effort.
All four models can lead to some success in the implementation of innova-
tion; we have tried to identify the contingencies under which each of the models
described are inclined to emerge. These conclusions, as well as the working
hypotheses, have to be tested on a larger scale.
The power model ,seems to fit in a crisis situation or when time is really
lacking to take the appropriate steps toward decision making. In some situations,
one might consciously make a choice for intentional dependency on the system
or top management. The power model would then be an appropriate action
strategy, as long as one can accept the eventual, unintended consequences, which
are passive followership and a lack of critical thinking. Problems will arise in
organizational change efforts where there is an expectation of effects such as
involvement and responsibility to emerge from this power-oriented approach.
For the sales model and the expert model, the same considerations can be
made. Imitation can be expected from a sales approach and this can be sufficient
as a consequence. Here, then, there is no need to follow the much more difficult
and more demanding learning approach. In a well-structured situation, where
understanding the change is the issue, the expert model can serve well. In both
instances, however, the emphasis on imitation or the cognitive side of problem
solving seriously limits the likelihood that those involved will construct any new
meaning about how they or the organization could change again if they needed
to, or so wished.
The purpose here has been to identify and describe action patterns that can
50 BOUWEN (BELGIUM) AND FRY (UNlIED STATES)

characterize the innovation process. These can infonn the actor (champion, proj-
ect leader, facilitator) in making a more intentional choice when acting in a
change situation. The question about which conditions favor or hinder the emer-
gence of a specific action strategy is not answered here. It is indeed possible that
some circumstances, such as the type of innovation, the structure of the organiza-
tion, or the economic circumstances, are influencing the occurrence of a specific
action pattern. Similarly, it is possible that expert models are more frequently
used in automation and infonnization projects or that large organizations are
favoring the sales model over the learning model, and so on. It is also possible
that a mixture of those models is occurring during the development of a project
and some phases of the project can probably be linked with some preference for
a certain model. These questions must serve as the object for another study. Here
we have limited ourselves to the identification of four action strategies or models
and have indicated the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. These
models should prove useful to innovators in the design and orchestration of
organizational learning and change.
If, through using the concepts developed in this study, the observational ca-
pacity of the key actors involved in organizational innovation can be enhanced
so as to distinguish process characteristics and to check them against their inten-
tions, then the purpose of this article will be largely fulfilled. A major step could
be taken toward the enactment of a true "learning organization"; where there is
ongoing discourse about what we are learning about ourselves and about our
collective capacity as we work together, and where confrontation of time-tested,
secure practices and values with new ideas and visions is encouraged.

References

Argyris, C., and Schon, DA. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Per-
spective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bouwen, R. (1990) "Organisational mnovation as a Social Construction: Managing Mean-
ing in Multiple Realities." Paper presented at the NIAS Conference, Wassenaar, May
31-June I, 1990.
Bouwen, R., and De Visch, J. (1989) "mnovation Projects in Organisations: Complement-
ing the Dominant Logic by Organisational Learning." Paper presented at the 4th
European Congress of Work and Organisational Psychology, Cambridge, UK, April
10-12, 1989.
Bouwen, R., and Fry, R. (1988) "An Agenda for Managing Organisational Innovation
Development in the 1990s." In M. Lambrecht (ed.), Corporate Revival. Leuven: Uni-
versity Press, pp. 153-172.
Burgelman, R. (1984) "Managing the Internal Corporate Venturing Process." Sloan Man-
agement Review (Winter), pp. 3~8.
Gorgen, K. (1978) ''Toward Generative Theory." Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 36 (11), pp. 1344-1360.
Gray,B.; Bougon, M.G.; and DonnelIon, A. (1985) "Organisations as Constructions and
Destructions of Meaning. " Journal ofManagement, II, pp. 83-98.
Kanter, R.M. (1983) The Change Masters. London: G. Allen.
 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION AND LEARNING 51

Maidique, M.A. (1980) "Entrepreneurs, Champions and Technological Innovation." Sloan

Management Review (Winter), pp. 59-76.
Prahalad, C.K., and Bettis, R.A. (1986) "The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage between
Diversity and Performance." Strategic Management JourTllll, 7, pp. 485-50l.
Roberts, E.B. (1977) "Generating Effective Corporate Innovation." Technology Review
(October-November), pp. 27-33.
Rothwell, R. (1977) ''The Characteristics of Successful Innovations and Technically Pro-
gressive Firms." Research and Development Management, 7 (3), pp. 191-206.
Schein, E.H. (1969) Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development. Read-
ing,MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Tushman, M.L (1979) "Managing Communication Networks in R and D Laboratories."
Sloan Maruzgement Review (Winter), pp. 37-49.
Vande Ven, A.H. (1986) ''Central Problems in the Management of Innovation." Manage-
ment Science, 32 (May), pp. 590-607.
Weick, K. (1970) The Social Psychology o/Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.