Drawing upon theory and research on innovation, conservation of resources, and paradoxical leadership, we examine relationships between three stages of the innovative process (i.e., idea generation, idea dissemination, and idea implementation) and the role of paradoxical leadership as a facilitator of the transitions between these stages. In addition, we examine the motivational mechanisms (promotion and prevention focus) that can explain the relevance of paradoxical leadership in the innovative process. Results of a four-wave study show that paradoxical leadership, through employee promotion focus, strengthens the relationship between idea generation and idea dissemination, whereas paradoxical leadership, through employee prevention focus, strengthens the relationship between idea dissemination and idea implementation. Two experimental studies confirmed the importance of employee regulatory focus in the innovative process. Together, these findings highlight the importance of paradoxical leadership and employee regulatory focus in innovative processes. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Malevolent innovative behavior in organizations-such as novel ways of circumventing rules or innovative exploitation of others-is, unfortunately, not uncommon. We define malevolent innovation as the generation, championing, and implementation of creative ideas, in the awareness that they are, or could be, harmful to individuals, organizations, and/or broader society. This type of behavior may have various destructive consequences, ranging from financial loss and employee turnover to decreased well-being of affected individuals. To stimulate research on the phenomenon of malevolent innovation in the workplace, this article reports on the development and validation of a new instrument: the 15-item Malevolent Innovative Behavior Scale (MIBS). In four studies, we refined and tested the content validity of an item pool (Studies 1 and 2), assessed the factor structure of the instrument (Studies 3 and 4a), built a nomological network for the MIBS, and tested its construct validity (Study 4b). The results demonstrated that the MIBS has strong internal consistency and that the proposed three-factor structure of malevolent idea generation, championing, and implementation is supported by factor analysis. Measurement invariance testing confirmed that the MIBS total score is invariant across genders. Additionally, the scale exhibited good convergent validity. Overall, the scale provides a solid foundation for future studies on malevolent innovation.

Evaluating and selecting creative ideas are vital steps in the transition from creativity to innovation. However, research has only recently turned its focus on performance in idea evaluation (i.e., assessment of available options against certain standards such as originality and usefulness) and idea selection (i.e., a dichotomous decision whether to select ideas for further development or implementation). To foster and guide research on idea evaluation and idea selection, shared research paradigms are needed. Thus far, the increased attention for the evaluation and selection of creative ideas has resulted in many scattered tasks, while common ground on how to measure idea evaluation and idea selection performance is lacking. The current systematic literature review, conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, (a) provides a comprehensive overview and critical assessment of the available idea evaluation and idea selection performance measures and (b) offers a theoretical framework and practical guidelines on how to measure idea evaluation and idea selection performance. In doing so, our systematic review stimulates and guides research efforts into the crucial intermediate step between creativity and innovation: The identification and selection of creative ideas.

The evaluation of creative ideas is a crucial step in the innovation process. However, doing so accurately is a challenge; anecdotal and research evidence suggests that creative potential often gets lost during evaluation and selection. In this chapter, we review the literature on idea evaluation and discuss various models that have been proposed. Based on our review, we conclude that effective evaluation of creative ideas depends on two factors: (1) openness: evaluators need to be willing and able to consider and appreciate novel ideas, despite the uncertainty these ideas bring; and (2) expertise: evaluators need sufficient domain knowledge to assess whether an idea is (or can be) a valuable contribution. Finally, we discuss implications for research and practice and identify potential avenues for future research.

New ideas are central to a wide array of organizational phenomena and research that involve creativity and innovation. Yet, there is little consensus on what the concept of ‘ ideas ’ means, with a broad range of creative outputs being conceptualized as ideas. This fragmentation makes it challenging to compare studies and build a cumulative base of knowledge. To integrate different streams of organizational research, we reviewed papers across the creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship, design, knowledge creation, and network literatures. We propose a “ wave-particle duality ” framework of ideas to synthesize two distinct but complementary approaches to understanding and studying ideas. Our framework offers guidance on how to approach the study of ideas, reconciles apparent conflicts in the literature, and suggests opportunities for advancing our understanding of ideas in creative work.

BACKGROUND:Technological innovation in healthcare is often assumed to contribute to the quality of care. However, the question how technology implementation impacts healthcare workers has received little empirical attention. This study investigates the consequences of Electronic Health Record (EHR) implementation for healthcare workers' autonomous work motivation. These effects are further hypothesized to be mediated by changes in perceived work characteristics (job autonomy and interdependence). Additionally, a moderating effect of profession on the relationship between EHR implementation and work characteristics is explored.METHODS:A quantitative uncontrolled before-and-after study was performed among employees from a large university medical centre in the Netherlands. Data were analysed following the component approach for testing a first stage moderated mediation model, using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE).RESULTS:A total of 456 healthcare workers (75 physicians, 154 nurses, 145 allied healthcare professionals, and 82 administrative workers) finished both the baseline and the follow-up survey. After EHR implementation, perceived job autonomy decreased, whereas interdependence increased. In line with our hypothesis, job autonomy was positively associated with autonomous motivation. In contrast to our expectations, interdependence also showed a positive association with autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation was stable over the course of EHR implementation. This study did not provide support for a moderating effect of profession: no differences were observed between the various professions regarding the changes in their experienced job autonomy and interdependence after EHR implementation.CONCLUSIONS:Our study showed that healthcare professionals' perceptions of their work characteristics, but not their autonomous motivation, were changed after EHR implementation, and that these experiences were relatively similar for physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare professionals. The stability of healthcare workers' autonomous motivation may be explained by the opposite effects of decreased job autonomy and increased interdependence, and by the EHR being in line with healthcare workers' values. The changes in job autonomy and interdependence may have consequences beyond motivation, for example by affecting clinical decision-making, proactive behaviour, and the quality of teamwork. These potential consequences of EHR implementation warrant further research.

The generation of ideas and the subsequent promotion and implementation of these ideas are important for organizational performance. Unfortunately, however, ideas do not always turn into innovations. Based on the ambidexterity theory of leadership for innovation, we argue that both employee idea generation and the relationship between idea generation on the one hand and idea promotion and idea realization on the other, could benefit from leaders who display both opening (fostering exploration) and closing behaviours (fostering exploitation). Results based on dyadic data (N = 201 dyads) partly supported our hypotheses, showing that opening leader behaviours were positively related to idea generation and subsequently to idea promotion and idea realization, and that closing leader behaviours strengthened the relationship between idea generation and idea realization (but not the relationship between idea generation and idea promotion). We discuss how our research contributes to knowledge about ambidextrous leadership and the relationship between idea generation and innovation.

Some theories of creativity emphasize that creative ideas result from random processes and benefit from states of reduced cognitive control (e.g., mind-wandering, distraction, and defocused attention), whereas other theories emphasize systematic search processes and the deployment of cognitive effort. The dual pathway to creativity model (DPCM) integrates these views and posits that two qualitatively different processes, flexibility and persistence, may both lead to creative ideas. The DPCM also states that different traits and (psychological) states can influence creativity through these different pathways, and that their effectiveness may depend on situational opportunities and constraints. This conceptualization has important implications for how to stimulate creativity at work, and suggests a number of new and testable hypotheses.

Among the many factors that can affect teams' creative and innovative performance, leadership may be the most powerful. In this chapter, we review the literature on leadership and team innovation, distinguishing between task-focused and person-focused leadership styles and behaviors. We discuss three roles of leadership in the innovation process: as a predictor of team innovation, as a moderator of the effects of other variables on team innovation, and as a transition catalyst in moving from creativity to implementation. Having reviewed the literature in this manner, we discuss methodological and theoretical trends and gaps in the literature, and identify some important avenues for future research.

Many creative endeavors take place in groups or teams. Because groups can build on more diverse resources than individuals, they have considerable creative potential. However, this potential often remains unfulfilled: Productivity loss and suboptimal decision-making threaten all aspects of the creative process. This article summarizes findings on group creativity including the pitfalls that threaten groups, and some basic principles of effective group design for creativity.

Toen we afgelopen najaar een call for papers publiceerden voor een themanummer over de toekomst van werk, konden we niet weten wat er in 2020 allemaal zou veranderen. Reflecties op en speculaties over de toekomst zijn zo oud als de mensheid, en ook beschouwingen over de toekomst van werk zijn niet nieuw. Zulke beschouwingen gaan traditioneel veelal over de effecten van technologie: de uitvinding van allerhande machines, geautomatiseerde productieprocessen, informatie- en communicatietechnologie, digitale media en internet hebben allemaal hun, vaak onverwachte, stempel gedrukt op de manier waarop we werken en ons werk beleven. Ook nu, in een tijdperk waarin het werkende leven voor veel mensen door de coronacrisis is veranderd in een permanente exercitie in digitale vaardigheden (of een permanente confrontatie met het gebrek daaraan), ligt technologie in het hart van speculaties over de toekomst van werk.

In this paper, we address the relation between Leader‐Member Exchange (LMX; the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinate), employee creativity (the generation of novel and useful ideas), and employee innovation (the promotion and implementation of these ideas). In the current set of studies, we test the competing hypotheses that LMX will either have a direct effect on employee innovation, or an indirect effect through employee creativity. In a field study of leader–subordinate dyads (N = 118), we found that LMX had no direct effect on employee innovation, and that employee creativity fully mediated the relationship between LMX and innovation. In a follow‐up two‐wave field study of employees (N = 398), we found that the LMX dimension professional respect predicted innovation through creativity, while the other dimensions did not. The results of this work indicate that research on LMX and innovation requires a multidimensional perspective, and that it may be valuable to differentiate between creativity and innovation.

Visionary leaders paint an image of the future with the intention to persuade others to contribute to the realization of that specific future. In the current study, we test the hypothesis that visionary leadership stimulates team creativity and innovation because visionary leadership promotes goal alignment amongst team members which, in turn, facilitates team creativity and innovation. In an experimental study (N = 50 groups), we found that goal alignment indeed mediated the relationship between visionary leadership and team creativity, but not between visionary leadership and team innovation. In a field study (N = 308 respondents) we found visionary leadership to be related to both team creativity and innovation through goal alignment. Moreover, the field study also showed that communication quality strengthened the relationship between goal alignment and team innovation. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of visionary leadership in teams where creativity and innovation are desirable team performance outcomes.

Method sections in psychology articles differ in the amount of information they provide, or the level of specificity at which they do so. This can make incremental research (e.g., replication efforts) difficult, because potentially relevant methodological decisions or practices may not be reported. As yet, these unwritten practices have not been systematically studied; the current work represents a first attempt in this direction. For this paper, we interviewed 22 experimental psychologists in the Netherlands to find out about these unwritten aspects of experimenting, as well as their opinions and beliefs regarding these practices. Thematic analysis of the transcripts suggests that (a) experimental psychologists indeed employ a variety of methods that they consider relevant yet do not routinely report in method sections, and (b) these unwritten practices seem to fall into two broad categories: ‘professionalism’ and ‘the production of good data’. We discuss implications for psychological research generally, and the replication debate more specifically.

Pre‐implementation activities like idea selection play a crucial role in the innovation process. However, groups of people seem to perform rather poorly when it comes to selecting creative ideas for implementation. The Motivated Information Processing in Groups model (MIP‐G) provides an explanation as to why some groups outperform others when it comes to making group decisions. On the basis of the MIP‐G framework, we hypothesized that groups that are both epistemically and prosocially motivated would outperform other groups in selecting creative ideas. Contrary to our hypothesis, a 2 × 2 experiment in a field sample (N = 240 or 80 three‐person groups) showed that under conditions of high epistemic motivation, proself motivated groups selected significantly more creative and original ideas than prosocial groups. Proself motivated groups did not differ significantly from the prosocial motivated groups in selecting feasible ideas under conditions of high epistemic motivation. Our results suggest that the MIP‐G framework may need refinement to increase our future understanding of group idea selection. To this end, we propose three specific avenues for future research.