The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace is at a nascent stage, presenting both substantial opportunities and challenges for productivity growth. We argue that AI's potential will only be truly realized through strategic investments in human skills and comprehensive organizational redesign. Drawing on interdisciplinary insights, we highlight the critical role of AI-human collaboration, continuous workforce skill development, and adaptive organizational practices. We conclude with recommendations to create a human-centered environment conducive to AI-driven productivity gains through its assistance, augmentation, and automation capabilities.

The path toward founding a venture is changing. In fact, future-oriented competencies are key in entrepreneurial aspirations. In an increasingly digital society, the intention to become an entrepreneur is strongly influenced by individual digital competencies. In our study, we explore whether and how digital competencies unfold into entrepreneurial intention. Using a diverse, time-lagged dataset of participants of a massive open online course (MOOC), we test for an effect of digital competencies on entrepreneurial intention, dually mediated by individual entrepreneurial orientation and self-efficacy. Our results empirically confirm the often assumed positive influence of digital competencies on entrepreneurial intention, and surprisingly, reveal that this relationship only manifests in mediation. We discuss our findings paying specific attention to research on the entrepreneurial mindset, education, and the role of digital technologies in entrepreneurship. For entrepreneurship practice, our insights imply that educators and aspiring entrepreneurs are well-advised to develop entrepreneurial and digital proclivity in concert.

Implementing innovation laboratories to leverage intrapreneurship are an increasingly popular organizational practice. A typical feature in these creative environments are semi-autonomous teams in which multiple members collectively exert leadership influence, thereby challenging traditional command-and-control conceptions of leadership. An extensive body of research on the team-centric concept of shared leadership has recognized the potential for pluralized leadership structures in enhancing team effectiveness; however, little empirical work has been conducted in organizational contexts in which creativity is key. This study set out to explore antecedents of shared leadership and its influence on team creativity in an innovation lab. Building on extant shared leadership and innovation research, we propose antecedents customary to creative teamwork, that is, experimental culture, task reflexivity, and voice. Multisource data were collected from 104 team members and 49 evaluations of 29 coaches nested in 21 teams working in a prototypical innovation lab. We identify factors specific to creative teamwork that facilitate the emergence of shared leadership by providing room for experimentation, encouraging team members to speak up in the creative process, and cultivating a reflective application of entrepreneurial thinking. We provide specific exemplary activities for innovation lab teams to increase levels of shared leadership.

In this study, we map the landscape of research on the relationship of leadership and innovation using bibliometric and text-mining analyses based on a selection of 404 published records. Although the influence of leadership behaviors on creativity and innovation outcomes in organizations has received a great deal of research attention, the published body of knowledge is considered to be fragmented, drawing from various colleges of knowledge across multiple disciplines. Whereas recent integrative endeavors substantially progressed the field, no attention so far has been directed to characteristics of the knowledge base itself. Therefore, we aim to identify which journals, articles, research strategies, authors, and topics characterize research on the relationship of leadership and innovation through analyses of (co-)citations and topical foci (1999–2019). By providing a systematic science mapping assessment of the intellectual and conceptual structure of this interdisciplinary research field, we hope to inform future consolidating efforts.

When this journal was founded in 1992 by Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, there was no academic outlet available that addressed issues at the intersection of creativity and innovation. From zero to 1,163 records, from the new kid on the block to one of the leading journals in creativity and innovation management has been quite a journey, and we would like to reflect on the past 28 years and the intellectual and conceptual structure of Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM). Specifically, we highlight milestones and influential articles, identify how key journal characteristics evolved, outline the (co-)authorship structure, and finally, map the thematic landscape of CIM by means of a text-mining analysis. This study represents the first systematic and comprehensive assessment of the journal's published body of knowledge and helps to understand the journal's influence on the creativity and innovation management community. We conclude by discussing future topics and paths of the journal as well as limitations of our approach.

There is growing consensus about the factors critical for development and productivity of multidisciplinary teams, but few studies have evaluated their longitudinal changes. We present a longitudinal study of 10 multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs), based on team process and outcome measures, evaluated before and after 3 years of CTSA collaboration. Using a mixed methods approach, an expert panel of five judges (familiar with the progress of the teams) independently rated team performance based on four process and four outcome measures, and achieved a rating consensus. Although all teams made progress in translational domains, other process and outcome measures were highly variable. The trajectory profiles identified four categories of team performance. Objective bibliometric analysis of CTSA-supported MTTs with positive growth in process scores showed that these teams tended to have enhanced scientific outcomes and published in new scientific domains, indicating the conduct of innovative science. Case exemplars revealed that MTTs that experienced growth in both process and outcome evaluative criteria also experienced greater innovation, defined as publications in different areas of science. Of the eight evaluative criteria, leadership-related behaviors were the most resistant to the interventions introduced. Well-managed MTTs demonstrate objective productivity and facilitate innovation.

A case report illustrates how multidisciplinary translational teams can be assessed using outcome, process, and developmental types of evaluation using a mixed-methods approach. Types of evaluation appropriate for teams are considered in relation to relevant research questions and assessment methods. Logic models are applied to scientific projects and team development to inform choices between methods within a mixed-methods design. Use of an expert panel is reviewed, culminating in consensus ratings of 11 multidisciplinary teams and a final evaluation within a team-type taxonomy. Based on team maturation and scientific progress, teams were designated as (a) early in development, (b) traditional, (c) process focused, or (d) exemplary. Lessons learned from data reduction, use of mixed methods, and use of expert panels are explored.