University of Maryland University College: UMUC Digital Repository
Not a member yet
6660 research outputs found
Sort by
Sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial leadership for nonprofit social enterprises: A systematic review
No full textIdentify leadership characteristics which correlate most
significantly with organizational sustainability factors
among practicing nonprofit social enterprises globally
and in the United States of America.Purpose
Identify leadership characteristics which correlate most
significantly with organizational sustainability factors
among practicing nonprofit social enterprises globally
and in the United States of America.
Conclusions …
… Sustainability-Oriented
Leadership using CIMO Logic
Contexts
• High failure rates cause disruption of mission and
loss of stakeholder value.
• Inappropriate leadership style impedes
sustainability objectives
• Characteristics correlated with sustainability are
largely unknown by nonprofit social enterprise
practitioners.
Interventions
• Innovation - Leaders with high innovation
management approaches were considered more
focused on sustainability.
• Risk propensity - Leaders that were less risk-averse
demonstrated a higher capacity to recognize and
exploit growth opportunities.
• Resilience - Resilient leaders tended to cultivate
learning organizations which encouraged both risk-taking
and innovative organizational cultures.
• Evidence-based research and practices were used to
validate interventions.
• Intervention research included national and
international populations and samples
Mechanisms
• Entrepreneurial leadership style yields a high
correlation with sustainability.
• Transformational leadership style yields a moderate
correlation with sustainability.
• Transactional leadership style yields a low
correlation with sustainability.
Outcomes
• Organizational sustainability
• Guidance for governing Boards of Directors
• Executive recruitment strategies
• Executive leadership development
• Management practice
• Succession management strategies
• Professional leadership development
• Sustainability-oriented leadership
Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurial Leadership For Nonprofit Social Enterprises:
A Systematic Review
Eddie G. Montgomery
Exemplar Nonprofit Social
Enterprises
• Ashoka-Innovators for the Public
• Feeding America
• Girl Scouts of the USA
• Goodwill Industries International
Method
Systematic review
Research Questions
Which leadership styles (transformational, transactional,
entrepreneurial) and characteristics (innovation, risk,
resilience) correlate most significantly with organizational
sustainability amongst nonprofit social enterprises? Does
life cycle position influence leadership style?
Proposed CIMO logic for entrepreneurial intervention, adapted from Denyer, Tranfield, and van
Aken (2008).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Medicine, 6(7). Proposed Conceptual & theoretical frameworks.
Leadership orientation graphic depicting Social Missions versus Entrepreneurial Market orientations. . Organizational life cycle of nonprofit social enterprises. Adapted from Sharken Simon, Judith. 2001.
"Understanding an Organization's Life Stages. (The Nonprofit Community)." Association Management,
2001. 22. Business Insights: Essentials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).
Conceptual & Theoretical Frameworks
• A graphical representation of how entrepreneurial leadership style influences nonprofit social enterprise sustainability.
• The relationship is moderated by a leader’s innovation, risk, and resilience characteristics.
Empirical Grounding
• Examined leadership styles and characteristics exhibited
during each phase of the organizational life cycle.
• Studies included U.S. and global social enterprises.
• Leadership style effectiveness mapped by organizational life
cycle phase based on leadership orientation (Mission versus
Market).
• Measurement based on a 0.5 incremental scale.
• Leadership style rating ranged from Low to Moderate to High.
Moderating Factors of Leadership
• Graphic of the findings and factors influencing social
enterprise leadership and sustainability
• Illustrates the differences between a Mission versus Market
leadership orientation.
• Emphasizes the overlap of leadership styles during phases of
the organizational life cycle.
• Appropriate leadership style is a critical success factor,
Contexts Intervention Mechanisms Outcomes
Nonprofit
Organizations
(NPOs)
Nonprofit Social
Enterprises
For-profit Social
Enterprises
Non-government
Organizations
(NGOs)
Entrepreneurial
Characteristics
Innovation
Risk
Resilience
Leadership Style
Entrepreneurial
Transformational
Transactional
Life Cycle Phase
Introduction
Growth, Maturity,
Decline, Rebirth
Organizational
Sustainability
Economic
Environmental
Social
Problem Statement
Over 16.8 percent (96,768) nonprofit social
enterprises do not survive beyond a 3-year period
(National Center for Charitable Statistics-NCCS,
2010). Unfortunately, this constitutes a high
“failure” or “exit” rate among organizations in the
nonprofit sector. This study seeks to identify and
determine if there are significant correlations
between leadership styles, characteristics, and
organizational sustainability among nonprofit
social enterprises.
Findings & Themes
Normal Life
Cycle Curve
Search for existing systematic
reviews and research studies on
topic
Define Research question,
concepts, nouns, and synonyms
Define Keywords
(Titles, abstracts, subject
categories)
Databases
searched=6
(n=48,900)
Peer-reviewed
studies
(n=7,093)
Hand-searched
journals and
textbooks
(n=5)
Chain sampling
(Snowballing,
grey literature)
(n=157)
Vetted
Industry
websites
(.org, .gov)
(n=2)
Vetted trade
journals (i.e.,
Academy of
Management)
(n=3)
Screening Identification
Included Eligibility Scoping
Records after (1,024)
duplicates removed (n=5,469)
Records screened on
Keywords (n=3,170)
Records excluded based on exclusion
criteria (n=2,935)
Iterative selection strategy: Full-text
studies coded for theme
identification (n=235)
Full-text studies included based on
6th Iterative review & Quality
Weight of Evidence (WoE) rating
(n=43)
Full-text studies excluded. (Redundant
findings, missing context, variables, or
mechanism)
1st Iteration coded for themes (n=198)
2nd Iteration coded for IV’s (n=173)
3rd Iteration coded for Mechanism
(n=100)
4th Iteration coded for Outcome (n=77)
5th Iteration coded for Life cycle (n=52)
6th Iteration coded for WoE (n=43)
Entrepreneurial
Leadership Characteristics:
Innovation, Risk, Resilience
Nonprofit
Social Enterprise
Sustainability
Entrepreneurial leadership style as a
mechanism of Social Trait Theory
(Shaskin & Burke, 1990)
(Mechanism)
Risk
(IV 2)
Resilience
(IV 3)
Innovation
(IV 1)
Nonprofit Social Enterprise
Sustainability as measured by the
National Center for Charitable
Statistics. (NCCS, 2010) (DV)
Entrepreneurial
Leadership Style
Theoretical Framework with
Independent Variables, Mechanism, and Dependent Variable
Life Cycle Phase
Introductory-Growth-Maturity-Decline-Rebirth
(Moderator
The Role of Employee Trust in Leadership in Moderating Employee Stress during Organizational Change: A Systematic Review
No full textEmployee stress during organizational change has negative impacts on performance, organizational commitment, and openness to change. Trust between employees and their management reduces the amount of stress and uncertainty employees experience during organizational change.The Role of Employee Trust in Leadership in Moderating Employee Stress during Organizational Change: A Systematic Review
Joseph Drasin, Summer 2014
Dissertation Committee: James P. Gelatt, Ph.D. & G. David Andersen, Ed.D., Kathleen Edwards, Ph.D.
•
Change appears to be a significant source of employee stress (Sikora, Beaty & Forward, 2004)
•
Organizations need a better understanding of why employees become stressed during change, and what strategies can be undertaken to moderate and minimize its development
•
Resiliency research hints that trust may be a component to change resilience (Hind, Frost and Rowley, 1996)
•
Practitioners have limited actionable findings to support evidence based management in the areas of change and trust
Research Question: What is the role of employee trust in management in reducing the negative outcomes of stress which employees experience during organizational change?
Problem Statement: Organizations are undergoing change with increasing frequency which creates an environment that leads to employee stress, hampering their performance and commitment.
Research Question / Background
Methodology
Evidence-Based Systematic Review using a Thematic Synthesis
1.
Systematic and transparent search
2.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
3.
Rigor and Relevance Quality Assessment
4.
Coding of identified literature
Theme 1) Organizational Change has a positive correlation with employee stress
Organizational change increases employee stress from uncertainty
Increased change frequency leads to more stress
Theme 2) Employee stress has a negative impact on their performance and commitment
Distress appears to cause a fight or flight reaction
This is sometimes observed as resisting change or disengaging
Theme 3) Employee trust in management has a positive correlation with performance, commitment and reduces employee stress
Supports trust as a moderator of employee stress during change
Trust creates certainty in the environment
Theme 4) Organizational change and employee trust in leadership have a bilateral relationship and a common underlying mechanism
Organizational change is a situation where employee trust in leadership can be created and destroyed
Uncertainty acts as an underlying mechanism of trust and change which has not been previously focused on
Implications for Research & Practice
•
Open communications and transparency can limit employee stress during organizational change
•
Organizations need to develop strategies for hiring trusted leaders and fostering trusting environments
•
Social Exchange Theory provided an effective modeling tool
•
There is justification for the utilization of a systematic thematic synthesis as a method for uncovering actionable findings
Key Literature
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265-279.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.
Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory. (8th ed., pp. 416-427). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Figure 1. (PRISMA, 2013, para. 10)
Research Propositions
P1: Organizational change causes employee stress due to uncertainty.
P2: Employee stress during organizational change has negative impacts on performance, organizational commitment, and openness to change.
P3: Trust between employees and their management reduces the amount of stress and uncertainty employees experience during organizational change.
P4: Employee trust and stress are underpinned by a common mechanism.
Theoretical Lens
Trustworthiness
Employee
Leader
Trusting actions
Safety & Certainty
Social Exchange
Findings
•
Benevolence
•
Integrity
•
Ability
Working Conceptual Model
Direct Relationship ( ) Indirect Relationship ( ) Theories Social Exchange Theory Psychological Entropy Proposition 1 2 3 4 Themes 1 x x 2 x x 3 x x 4 x
Future Research
•
Looking to expand systematic searching to include a broader research base.
•
Further development of practical implications and guidance based on findings.
Propensity to Trust
•
Personal Characteristics
•
Environmen
The role of transformational leadership on team performance
No full textThe purpose of this study is to explore transformational leadership and its effects on team performance.
Although there have been a number of studies focusing on transformational leadership, more attention can be raised and should be raised specifically outlining the impact on team performance.Purpose of Research
The purpose of this study is to
explore transformational
leadership and its effects on team
performance.
Although there have been a
number of studies focusing on
transformational leadership,
more attention can be raised and
should be raised specifically
outlining the impact on team
performance.
Research Questions
RQ1: What are the primary
manifestations that frame
transformational leadership?
RQ2: What are the primary
measures of team performance?
RQ3: How does
transformational leadership
impact team performance?
Conceptual Model Thematic Syntheses
Implications for Management
Transformational leaders are able to show how
individual strengths can be collectively applied to
achieve higher levels of team performance.
Leadership behaviors activate self-concepts
which in turn affect further motivational
mechanisms that have positive influences on the
behaviors and psychological states of followers.
Key Contributors
Harden & Thomas (2005); Rousseau (2012):
Systematic Reviews and EBR
Bass & Avolio (1993, 1999, 2003):
Transformational Leadership
Walumbwa (2004, 2005, 2008); Zhang (2011,
2014): Transformational Leadership and Team
Performance
Preliminary Findings
Transformational leadership has emerged as one of the most popular approaches to understanding leader effectiveness.
Transformational leadership was positively correlated with: managerial performance, team innovativeness and team
performance.
Key determinant of team performance has been identified as effective leadership.
Emotional intelligence was positively related to group cohesiveness through transformational leadership behaviors.
“Idealized Influence” and “Individualized Consideration” were the two most important transformational leadership components
promoting team performance.
Future Research
There can be further exploration on the moderators in the conceptual framework.
There can be further exploration on the impact of racial culture.
There can be further exploration on the relationship to innovation.
The Role of Transformational Leadership on Team Performance
Thomas W. Tanner
Dissertation Committee: Eric Dent, Ph.D., G. David Andersen, Ed.D., and Deborah Wharff, DM
Fall 2014
Primary
Themes
Leadership
Followers
Teams
Performanc
Learning to innovate from the globe: Developing distributed leadership in professional learning communities (PLC) through transformative learning strategies for U.S. K-12 educational leaders
No full textIdentify adult transformative learning strategies K-12 school leaders around the globe employ to develop distributed leadership in PLC that are applicable to U.S. K-12 schools.Purpose
Identify adult transformative learning strategies K-12 school leaders around the globe employ to develop distributed leadership in PLC that are applicable to U.S. K-12 schools.
Conclusions: Manage Change in Interrelationships Contexts
•Stick-and-carrot reforms discourage educators from taking risks for fear of failure and retribution
•Increase in federal reforms signal loss of local control
•School leaders are policy advocates and boundary spanners
•Loosely-coupled systems’ tight-and-loose strategies are managed in pairs, including the coupling and decoupling between systems levels Interventions
•Transformative learning
•Develop distributed leadership in PLC
•Create a communication channel and social network in schools to diffuse innovation
•Facilitate educators balancing polarities of emerging world views to transform practices
•Isolation and connectedness are complementary
•Evidence-based practices are used to audition interventions, including global, national, and local evidence (glocalize) Mechanisms
•Facilitate how intervention programs are …
•Individualized (intrapersonal learning and self-reflection) and
•Operationalized (interpersonal learning and co-reflection)
•Link individual learning to collective organizational learning
•Reinvent innovation
•Convert knowledge from explicit-to-tacit and back again - facilitates innovation diffusion Outcomes
•Employee competencies
•Leadership development
•Professional development
•Management structures
•Systems thinking
•Evolving strategic models
Learning to innovate from the globe: Developing distributed leadership in professional learning communities (PLC) through transformative learning strategies for U.S. K-12 educational leaders
Wanda Scanlon Wagner, Summer 2014
Dissertation Committee: G. David Andersen (primary), Ed.D., Eric B. Dent, Ph.D., Kathleen F. Edwards, Ph.D., & James P. Gelatt, Ph.D. (secondary)
Theories & Lenses
Methods
Evidence-based systematic review with CIMO design science propositions and realist synthesis
Research Question
Responding to policy mandates, what are the transformative learning strategies K-12 school leaders around the globe employ to develop distributed leadership in PLC that are applicable to U.S. schools?
Figure 1. Proposed CIMO logic for the transformative learning intervention, adapted from Denyer, Tranfield, and van Aken (2008).
Figure 2. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis flowchart strategy adapted from PRISMA (2013).
Figure 4. Conceptual framework adapted from double-loop learning (Argyris, 2002; Senge et al., 2009), transformation theory (Dirkx & Mezirow, 2006), and emerging world view (Dent, 1999).
Figure 3. Leading and learning CIMO radar dimensions, adapted from CIMO propositions (Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2008) and The Innovation Radar (Sawhney, Wolcott, & Arroniz, 2006). Leading and learning CIMO Radar comparing the two Participatory Action Research transformative learning intervention case studies by Buono (2012) and Burgess (2006).
Conceptual Framework
•The interdependent, complementary, and competing forces and interrelationships in schools leading and learning
•Constant movement between transactional and distributed leadership in PLC (action side) and transformative learning (reflection side)
Empirical Grounding
•Examined two similar case studies from the systematic review of literature
•Same systems level (elementary schools)
•Same transformative learning intervention
•Same country (U.S.)
•Different findings: Innovation did not diffuse beyond the PLC in one study
•Gaps in the leadership dimensions
•Lack of involvement of formal leadership
•Leadership inexperience of PLC members
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CONTEXTS
Reform innovation trigger
Transactional leadership
Distributed leadership
INTERVENTIONS
Transformative learning
Double-loop learning
Systems-based PLC
MECHANISMS
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Metacognition
OUTCOMES
Educator competencies
Management structures
Systems thinking
Leading & Learning CIMO Radar Dimensions
1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Somewhat disagree, 4=Neither agree or disagree, 5=Somewhat agree, 6=Agree, 7=Strongly agree
Buono, 2012
Burgess, 2006
Manage Change in Interrelationships
•Visual of the findings through 12 dimensions of leading and learning found to develop distributed leadership in PLC and 14 interventions
•Illustrates the multiple interdependent, complementary, and competing forces
•Interrelationships are important
•Manage change in interrelationships is the real story
•Transformative learning embedded in PLC evidence-based practices used to reinvent and glocalize innovations for local context
Leadership Contexts
Learning Interventions
Learning Mechanisms
Proposed Outcomes
Government mandates trigger a sense of urgency (disorienting dilemma) (P1A)
Top-down transactional and distributed leadership in PLC are interdependent practices (P1B) in the loosely-coupled systems of K-12 schools
Stakeholders in isolated silos create dis-connectedness and distrust
Transformative learning and professional learning communities are interdependent and complementary (P2)
Intrapersonal learning
Interpersonal learning
Metacognition
(P3)
Educator competency outcomes: Trust, Empathy, Connectedness, Self-directedness, Emerging world view (P4A)
Management structures for long range organizational outcomes: Knowledge creation, Evidence-based decision making, Change capacity, Leadership development, Innovation diffusion (P4B)
Screening
Included
Eligibility
Identification
Records after 227 duplicates removed (n=328)
Studies included for coding themes and realist thematic synthesis (n=26)
Records screened on title, abstract, subject categories (n=115)
Records excluded (wrong context, not transformative learning, not education sector)
(n=-213)
Search for existing systematic reviews on topic
Iterative process: Findings assessed for eligibility using WoE and TAPUPAS appraisal criteria (n=58)
Full-text articles excluded (redundant findings, missing context, missing mechanism)
(n=-57)
Scoping
Research question concepts nouns and synonyms
Keywords
(titles, abstracts, subject categories)
26 out of 49 Databases Searched with Results
(n=444)
EPPI & IES-WWC SR Sites (n=0)
Hand Searched Journals & Textbooks (n=26)
Chain Sampling (n=85)
Websites for EDU & GOV (n=0)
AoM & AERA peer reviewed conference studies (n=0)
Problem Statement
K-12 schools struggle to change from an industrial model to a model that will prepare students for the 21st Century. New reforms require changes in beliefs and deep learning. Transactional leadership is not successful in this goal. The principal cannot do it all. USDE has focused on distributed leadership through PLC to bring educators together in leading and learning to innovate. Pressing issues include global competitiveness, federal reform innovations, and educator isolation.
Loosely-Coupled Systems Theory (Weick, 1976)
Transactional Leadership Theory (Fullan, 2005)
Distributed Leadership Theory (Gronn, 2002; Spillane, 2006)
Communities of Practice through Situated Learning Theory (Wenger, 2006)
Transformative Learning (Dirkx & Mezirow, 2006; Taylor, 1998)
Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989)
Double-loop Learning Theory (Argyris, 2002; Senge et al., 2009)
Leading Theories
&
Learning Theoretical Lenses
Findings & Themes – CIMO Rada
How women lead: The 8 essential strategies successful women know
No full textBook Discussion: Authors Sharon Hadary and Laura Henderson discuss how they came to write this book, how their understanding of women's leadership strengths evolved based on research and experience, what strategies are key to women's success, and what continues to hold women back. They find that emerging research has the power to transform the conversation about advancing women in leadership from a matter of social justice to a matter of economic imperative that drives organizational performance. The question no longer is who leads better -- women or men -- but how to effectively combine women's and men's strengths to create the most effective leadership teams. This has implications for organizational leadership -- in practice and in education.How Women Lead
How Women LeadFounded in Research & Real-Life ExperienceSteeped in Inspiration & Practicality
Authors’ 20 Years of Research & Involvement in Women’s Global Leadership
Emerging Research
Personal Experiences
Interviews with Highly Successful Women
Women in Leadership:
Increased Profitability
Higher Performance
Better Problem Solving and Higher Productivity
Stronger Employee Commitment
These Findings Transform the Conversation!
In Business: Improved “Bottom Line”
For Women: Confidence to Lead from Their Strengths
For Men: Recognizing the Value and Utility of Women’s Leadership Strengths
Agenda
The 8 Success Strategies
Creating an Integrated Organizational Model
Implications for Education
8 Success Strategies
Lead Like a Woman
Own Your Destiny
Be the Architect of Your Career
Advocate Unabashedly for Yourself
Translate the Stories Numbers Tell to Drive Strategic Results
Create Exceptional Teams
Nurture Your Greatest Asset: You
Turn Possibilities into Reality
Foundation of Women’s Leadership
Women’s Leadership Strengths
Consultative, Inclusive, Collaborative
Create Teams
Results-Oriented
Decisive
Women Taking Charge of Their Destiny
Making It Work
Integrate Your Professional and Personal Lives
Invest in Yourself
Be a Change Agent – for Women and Men
Stay Open to Serendipity
Creating an Integrated Organizational Model
It’s the Numbers AND How You Use the Resources
Recognizing and Encouraging Different Styles as Effective Leadership
Creating Diverse Teams from the Top Down
Mentors are valuable; Sponsors are Critical
Implications for Education
Recognize Unconscious Biases in Textbooks and Curriculum
Using Up-to-Date Resources
Emphasizing in Curricula the Utility of Diverse Leadership Styles to Organizational Outcomes
Lead Boldly!Make A Difference!www.HowSuccessfulWomenLead.co
Trust in management
No full textTrust has been a topic of research in many disciplines for many years. Streams of research on trust can be found in the fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology, management, marketing, human–computer interaction, industrial psychology and electronic commerce. Researchers from every discipline do acknowledge the value of trust. Trust enables people to live in risky and uncertain situations. It provides the means to decrease complexity in a complex world by reducing the number of options one has to consider in a given situation. Trust makes coordination and cooperation between people possible. In an organization, trust is key to successful management and its influences on organizational performance.
The aim of the presentation is to describe the concept of organizational trust and managers' trust and their influence on organizational performance.TRUST IN MANAGEMENT
DR. JOANNA PALISZKIEWICZ
PROFESSOR
WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
AGENDA
•INTRODUCTION
•CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST
•THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST
•TRUST IN ORGANIZATIONS – OPINIONS OF POLISH MANAGERS
•CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION
The aim of this lecture is to present literature review and empirical research connected with importance of trust in business environments. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST
•Trust as an individual feature
•Trust as a part of relationship
•Trust as a part of social and economic exchange CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: TRUST AS AN INDIVIDUAL FEATURE
•A personality trait that reflects the general expectations of the trustworthiness of others [Wrightsman 1966; Rotter 1967]
•Trust is instinctive, and, as a feeling, is so close to love [Gibb 1978]
•People vary in terms of when and how much they are willing to trust [Das & Teng, 2004] CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: TRUST AS A PART OF RELATIONSHIP
•Individuals would have no occasion or need to trust apart from their relationships with others [Lewis and Weigert 1985]
•Trust is an essential ingredient in the initiation and maintenance of stable social relations, just as exchange obligations promote trust [Blau, 1964]
•Trust has been defined as positive expectations about another party's motives in situations entailing risk [Das and Teng 1998] CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: TRUST AS A PART OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EXCHANGE
•According to Blau (1964) social exchange is the voluntary action of individuals who are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others.
•Economic exchanges are moored on a formal contract that specifies the exact amount to be exchanged. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: TRUST IN MANAGEMENT
Trust is the belief that another party:
•will not act in a way that is harmful to the trusting individual,
•will act in such a way that it is beneficial to the trusting individual,
•will act reliably,
•will behave or respond in a predictable and mutually acceptable manner. Trust is a bridge between past experiences and anticipated future. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRUST
Faith
Predictability
Dependability
Elementary trust
Advanced trust
A religious belief: trust is a deity.
My dog will not bite me.
The tree will not fall on my house.
My car will start.
The train will show up on time.
I am safe walking down my street.
My company will pay me.
The doctor is qualified.
My partner will remain faithful to me.
My friends will support me when I need them.
My parents will be there for me no matter what happens. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE FEATURES OF TRUST
It is interpersonal
between concrete individuals and connected with communication
Situational rather than global
trust is placed in one particular person
Voluntary
trust must spring from choice and cannot be compulsory
Committed
since each party depends on the other (without being able to control her) CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE FEATURES OF TRUST
Conscious
each party is aware of the other party’s trust
Relevant
in the sense that the consequences of breach of trust by one of the parties cannot be considered insignificant by the other
Dynamic or temporal
because it evolves over time: trust is established, grows, or can diminishes and dies
Action oriented
implicit in the goal of the relationship CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: CASE
I once worked in an organization where people trusted one another. Where people told the truth, shared information, did not feel afraid of getting it wrong or being a failure. When people made mistakes, there were able to admit to their mistakes openly and ask for help. Managers were more interested in what lessons had been learned from mistakes than apportioning blame. Gossip and nastiness were uncommon. People could disagree or challenge each other, knowing that it was done with positive intent. People were open. The atmosphere was supportive. Problems were solved easily. Because of these strong elements of trust, people worked better together and built stronger and successful relationships with customers, colleagues, and suppliers. It sounds like a great place to work doesn’t it? CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
1.Authentic communication
2.Competence
3.Supporting process
4.Boundaries
5.Contact
6.Positive intent
7.Forgiveness CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
1. Authentic communication
•Providing information
•Giving positive and negative feedback to staff in an appropriate manner
•Speaking openly about problems
•Being honest to others, telling the truth
•Initiating and accepting changes in decisions when they are needed
•Listening advice of other people
•Giving and receiving help and support
•Showing interest and caring for others
•Showing respect to others CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
2. Competence
•The organization needs people who are skilled and competent at what they do. This gives people faith in and respect for each other’s abilities. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
3. Supporting processes
•If the processes in an organization are based on the assumption that people cannot be trusted (for example, monitoring emails), trust will be undermined. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
4. Boundaries
•Controlling people destroys trust, but clearly within organizations there has to be agreement about what people will achieve and how they will do it. A framework of agreed goals allows people freedom within that boundary. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
5. Contact
•Personal contact is important because people need to get to know and understand each other to build and maintain trust. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
6. Positive intent
•Human beings intuitively sense the inauthentic. We know when someone’s intention is questionable. For trust to exist it is important that we believe that the intent is positive, even if a person does something that undermines trust in some way. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRUST
7. Forgiveness
•If people are to trust each other then the organization has to forgive genuine mistakes, otherwise over time the effect will be that people will not risk doing anything new or different – and the organization will suffer as a result. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: QUESTIONS
•What happens when trust does not exist?
•Imagine a relationship where you do not trust the other person. How do you feel?
•What about being in a personal relationship where you trust someone who does not trust you?
•What happens when we do not trust others in our place of work? CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: REBUILDING TRUST
•Loss of trust are related to:
•damaged reputation,
•negative attitudes at work,
•negative thinking,
•making bad decisions,
•declining income.
•Trust must be rebuilt in a natural way. It cannot be a result of the transaction. You cannot force anyone to trust. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF TRUST
1.Self-trust
2.Relational trust
3.Structural trust
4.Transactional trust CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF TRUST
1.Self-trust
•This is the trust that people need to be confident of their capabilities and judgements in given situations.
•Self-trust is central to the ability to create trust because if people do not trust themselves it is unlikely that others will trust them.
•Mistrust is often a projection of missing self-trust. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF TRUST
2. Relational trust
•This is the trust a person puts in another person or group of people.
•This is a generalized type of trust and is usually established over time.
•It is not about trusting people to do something in particular; it is believing that they have integrity and honesty CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF TRUST
3. Structural trust
•This is the trust that we put in entire institutions, companies and brands. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF TRUST
4. Transactional trust
•This is trust that is specific, often one-off and pertains to a particular context at a particular time. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
According to a study by David Halpern, people of different nations vary significantly in the degree to which they trust others. Here is a question the author asked: “Generally speaking, can others be trusted?”
•Scandinavians were the most trusting, with nearly 70% of people saying that they can trust others.
•Respondents in USA, Britain, and France were the least trusting, with less than 30% saying that they trusted others. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
The reasons:
•Degree of ethnic diversity / homogeneity
•Levels of crime
•Levels of geographic and social mobility
•Unemployment and job security rates
•Poverty levels
•Significant trust-destroying events such as health scares and political scandals
•Influence of TV and media
•Influence of popular culture CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
Fons Trompenaars’ work on cultural diversity sheds light on this subject. He explains such differences by examining how cultures relate to each other:
1.Universalism versus particularism
2.Individualism versus communitarianism
3.Neutral versus emotional
4.Specific versus diffuse CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
1.Universalism versus particularism
•For universalists, rules and procedures are applied consistently, whereas the relationship and flexibility are more important for particularists.
•For the particularist culture the building the relationship and developing trust is more important than any codification of agreement. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
2. Individualism versus communitarianism
•In individualist cultures, people are more self-oriented than community-oriented.
•The individualistic culture emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility.
•The communitarian culture puts more weight on working for the interests of the group. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
3.Neutral versus emotional
•The convention in neutral cultures is to see work relationships as detached. This is the case in North American and Western European cultures.
•In other cultures emotions are seen as having a place in business and are displayed all over the place. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF TRUST: IS TRUST CULTURE SPECIFIC?
4. Specific versus diffuse
•This is about how much we get involved in the specific versus multiple areas of each other’s lives.
•In specific cultures people put barriers around the different areas of their lives.
•In diffuse cultures relationship is necessary before people can do business. THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST
TRUST
Is necessary in contexts of high uncertainty and high complexity. Can help with risk-taking
Assists in learning, creativity and innovation, encourages information sharing
Fosters and maintains cooperation. It is lubricant for social relations which improves efficiency
Enriches relationships; increases openness and mutual acceptance
Reduces the need for detailed contractual and monitoring devices
Enhances ability to change and enhances conflict resolution THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST: WHY IS SO NEGLECT?
It takes investment
•It can take a great deal of time and many actions to create trust. It can also take only one small action to lose trust.
It is fragile
•Trust is easier to destroy than to create
It is not simple
•Trust is a complex human issue that can be difficult to understand. In the absence of a simple and easy answer, we stick to the issue that we can understand TRUST IN ORGANIZATIONS IN OPINION OF POLISH MANAGERS
•286 the best companies from Mazovia Province in Poland
The project entitled “Orientation on trust and organizational performance” (No. N N115 549238) was supported by Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland. CHARACTERISTIC OF ENTERPRISES
Revenues
Number
of enterprises
In %
5 - 50 mln PLN
178
62,24 %
50 - 200 mln PLN
71
24,82 %
More than 200 mln PLN
37
12,94 %
Sum
286
100,00 % ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST QUESTIONNAIRE
1
There is atmosphere for honest cooperation among employees
2
Clear expectation connected with results and aims from all employees
3
Employees are willing to share knowledge
4
Employees openly admit and take responsibility for the mistakes they have made
5
Employees avoid participating in gossip and unfair criticism of others
6
Employees are willing to take part in trainings
7
Periodic meetings take place between employees and the management
8
In general the work responsibilities are established and clear
9
The criteria of promotion are clear in every position
10
Evaluation of employees is fair
11
The relationship between employees is good
12
All employees are treated fairly
13
The interests of workers are taken care of
14
Team work is encouraged and preferred
15
Employees are encouraged to take part in decision-making ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST LEVEL
Podsumowanie: Zmienna OP15202530354045505560657075800204060801001201401601520253035404550556065707580 Mediana, rozstep kwartylowy, zakres nieodstajacychSrednia, 95% przedzial ufnosciSrednia, predykcjiShapiro-Wilk aŚrednia:55,93Odch.std:7,534Wariancja:56,76Bł.std.śred.0,348Skośność:-0,618N ważnych:469Minimum:25,00Dolny kwartyl52,00Mediana:57,00Górny kwartyl61,00Maksimum:75,0095% p. ufnosci Dolny7,081Górny8,05095% p. ufnosci sredniejDolny55,25Górny56,6295% ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST LEVEL - AVERAGE
Level of management
Average level of OM
High level of management
57,38
Medium level of management
55,18
Low level of management
53,25 MANAGERS’ TRUST QUESTIONNAIRE
1
In dealing with people never be too careful
2
You should not trust other people until you do not know them well
3
Most people will lie if it will then be able to get something
4
Employees in your company when the opportunity arises to gain something will be dishonest
5
In these days in your company you can only count on yourself and only trust yourself
6
Relations between employees are connected with rivalry
7
Employees in your company wish other the best
8
Most people in your company keep promises
9
In your company a new ideas are implement and work conditions are improved
10
In your company people can open discuss what is wrong
11
In your company your employees feel accountable for their tasks and do not have to be monitored
12
In your company staff for most of the time trying to be helpful to others and do not care only about self-interest
13
In your company motivation of people is high
14
In your company managers are mostly advisors and intellectual partners to employees
15
In your company the innovativeness, taking risk and originality are preferred MANAGERS’ TRUST LEVEL
Podsumowanie: Zmienna OM2025303540455055606570758002040608010012014020253035404550556065707580 Mediana, rozstep kwartylowy, zakres nieodstajacychSrednia, predykcjiShapiro-aŚrednia:52,10Odch.7,006Wariancja:49,08Bł.std.0,323Skośność:-0,229N ważnych:469Minimum:26,00Dolny kwartyl48,00Mediana:52,00Górny kwartyl57,00Maksimum:71,0095% Dolny6,584Górny7,48595% sredniejDolny51,46Górny52,7495% MANAGERS’ TRUST LEVEL - AVERAGE
Level of management
Average level of OM
High level of management
53,50
Medium level of management
50,97
Low level of management
50,91 ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
1
In comparison with the competitors, this company is more profitable
2
In comparison with the competitors, this company has a larger market share
3
In comparison with the competitors, this company is growing faster
4
In comparison with the competitors, this company is more innovative
5
In comparison with the competitors, this company is more successful
6
In comparison with the competitors, this company has lower costs K – MEANS CLUSTERING METHOD CONCLUSIONS
•Research confirms the existence of a link between the orientation of the company to create trust and orientation of the managers on the creation of trust and the organizational performance.
•Trust is an important resource of the company and there is no substitute for it.
•Better results are achieved in organization when the orientation of the trust is higher in the two studied categories.
•The study also revealed the possibility of complete deprivation of resources by increasing trust being seen as a factor influencing organizational performance. CONCLUSIONS
Trust in the workplace has been shown to have a strong and robust influence on a variety of organizational phenomena, including:
•job satisfaction.
•stress,
•organizational commitment,
•productivity,
•knowledge sharing. CONCLUSIONS
An extensive review of the literature reveals that employees’ distrust in the organization is the result of:
•the insecure future of the organization,
•inadequate working conditions,
•wrong human resources, policies, & procedures,
•poor treatment or job insecurity.
CONCLUSIONS: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
•Developing a climate of trust among employees
•Cultivating cultures that promote trust among co-workers, trust between managers and employees, and organizational trust
•Through visions and campaigns, promoting the need to be benevolent to fellow co-workers and to exhibit high levels of integrity
TRUST CONCLUSIONS: FUTURE RESEARCH
Business needs to know:
•How to evaluate trust in organization?
•What can damage trust and how it can be repaired?
•What could organizations achieve if trust increased among employees?
Organizations need a model of trust that helps managers in developing strategy and tactics; and in choosing a business path. LITERATURE LITERATURE
•Castelfranchi C., Falcone R., (2010). Trust theory. A socio-cognitive and computational model, John Wiley & Sons.
•Healey J., (2007). Radical trust. How today great leaders convert people to partners, John Wiley & Sons.
•O’Hara K., (2004). Trust from Socrates to Spin, Icon Books Ltd.
•Paliszkiewicz J., (2013). Zaufanie w zarządzaniu [Trust in management], Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warsaw.
•Paliszkiewicz J., Koohang A., Gołuchowski J., Horn Nord J., (2014). Management trust, organizational trust, and organizational performance: advancing and measuring a theoretical model, “Management and Production Engineering Review”, 5, (1), 32–41
•Paliszkiewicz J., Koohang A., (2013). Organizational trust as a foundation for knowledge sharing and its influence on organizational performance, “Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management”, 1(2), 116 – 127.
•Reina D. S. Reina M. L., (2006). Trust and betrayal in the workplace. Building effective relationships in your organization, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco.
•Schockley - Zalabak P. S., Morreale S. P., Hackman M. Z., (2010). Building the high-trust organization. Strategies for supporting five key dimensions of trust, John Wiley & Sons.
•Searle R. H., Skinner D., (2011). Trust and Human Resource Management, Edward Elgar.
•Solomon R.C., Flores F., (2001). Building trust in business, Politics, Relationships and Life, Oxford University Press.
•Ward A, Smith J., (2003). Trust and Mistrust. Radical Risk Strategies in Business Relationships, Wiley
Fueling organizational innovation: Adopting mindfulness as a management innovation to foster employee creativity
No full textMindfulness as a management innovation decreases stress and enhances employee cognition, which in turn fosters the creativity some firms need to support organizational innovation.Purpose and Scope of Research
The purpose and scope was to investigate four key objectives:
1.Review mindfulness within the context of the organizational environment.
2.Evaluate the diffusion of mindfulness as a management innovation.
3.Examine mindfulness and its relationship to stress, cognition, and employee creativity.
4.Assess the effects mindfulness has in supporting organizational innovation.
Fueling Organizational Innovation: Adopting Mindfulness as a Management Innovation to Foster Employee Creativity
Kasey Sand
Dissertation Committee: Deborah M. Wharff, DM and Eric B. Dent, Ph.D
Fall 2014
Research Question (RQ), Propositions (P), and Warrants (W)
RQ: What effects does mindfulness as a management innovation have in supporting organizational innovation?
P1. Mindfulness is negatively related to workplace stress.
P2. Mindfulness is positively related to employee cognition.
P3. Decreased stress is positively related to employee creativity.
P4.Employee cognition is positively related to creativity.
W1.Mindfulness provides a metacognitive interruption of one’s
habitual ways of thinking.
W2.Mindfulness as a management innovation decreases stress and enhances employee cognition, which in turn fosters the creativity some firms need to support organizational innovation.
Significance to Management
•Elements of the organizational environment, such as globalization and advancing technologies, pressure organizations to innovate and remain competitive. This pressure increases workplace stressors due to higher demands being placed on employees and can inhibit their ability to be creative at work.
•When employees perceive higher stress at work, organizations experience an increase in costs related to employee absenteeism, presenteeism, and overall reduced productivity. These in turn can hinder organizational innovation.
•Mindfulness as a management innovation reduces employee stress and enhances cognitive and creative abilities.
•Organizations with more mindful supervisors and employees could be a key management strategy in supporting organizational innovation.
Conceptual Model
Results
Theoretical Framework
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
•Total employee and manager study participants (N=1774)
•The oldest study was published in 2008, newest in 2014
•Industry types included: energy, food service, hospital, and university settings
•Study interventions included: mindfulness meditation, anonymous surveys, and interviews
Thematic Synthesis
Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome
Realist Synthesis Methodology
Findings
•Stress negatively affects employee cognitive and creative abilities; however, organizational pressures can actually foster innovation when introduced later in the innovative process.
•Mindfulness is a metacognitive interruption of one’s manner of thought to be less reflexive (automatic, subjective, rigid) and more reflective (controlled, objective, and flexible).
•Mindful employees are more satisfied with their jobs and cognitively capable and motivated to be creative at work; however, two studies reported no effect on job satisfaction. This may indicate one becomes more aware of job dissatisfaction and has a perception shift to one that is more neutral and accepting.
•Two studies were at organizations that already had a mindfulness meditation program in place. This indicates that mindfulness as a management innovation is still in the early phases of diffusion.
Future Research
•While the current research indicates mindfulness can help to fuel organizational innovation, more research is needed to better understand and support the external validity of this finding.
•Mindfulness has been empirically shown to reduce stress, and has potential to foster employee creativity; however, more research is needed to understand if it is the optimal intervention for different types of organizations, jobs, and employees.
•Research should continue to examine how mindfulness manifests in the workplace and the influence it may have on other outcomes (e.g., decision making, social interactions, task performance, etc.).
•Studies could evaluate the impact on employee behaviors and perceptions when their managers and leaders practice mindfulness.
1
2
5
3
5
7
4
9
6
11
12
•Innovation Diffusion: as studies continue to examine mindfulness in the workplace, this can provide managers with more information to help reduce its newness, uncertainty, and perceived complexity which helps with the decision to adopt or reject it as an intervention.
•Stress / Cognition: cognitive resources are limited and the inability to cope with workplace stressors can consume these resources and inhibit access needed by other cognitive activities such as creativity.
•Mindfulness / Creativity: creativity relies upon existing and new cognitive pathways, and mindfulness is one way of enhancing these functions by also providing an individual the motivation to do so.
•Organizational Innovation: companies can sharpen their competitive advantage when backed by a workforce that is less stressed and more creative, satisfied, and engaged while on the job.
1
Organizational knowledge creation through an open innovation lens: An exploration of the costs and benefits
No full textHow does the organizational culture of the business influence the application of open innovation as an organizational knowledge creation strategy?
To what extent do different sources of knowledge influence the application of open innovation as a firm’s approach to organizational knowledge creation?Introduction
Research Questions:
1. How does the organizational culture of the business influence the
application of open innovation as an organizational knowledge creation
strategy?
2. To what extent do different sources of knowledge influence the application
of open innovation as a firm’s approach to organizational knowledge
creation?
P1. There is a reciprocal relationship between the application of open
innovation and the firm’s culture.
P2. Characteristics of the ecosystem influence open innovation
application.
P3. Business strategy influences how open innovation is applied.
P4. Characteristics of the firm influence open innovation application.
P5. Learning orientation influences how open innovation is applied.
Methods
Evidence Based Research Synthesis
Realist Synthesis & Thematic Coding
Search Terms:
“Open Innovation" AND "empirical research" AND
“Knowledge Creation”
“Open Innovation” AND “empirical research” AND
“Social*” AND “learning*”
“Open Innovation” AND “empirical research” AND “new
product Development”
Acknowledgments
Panel Members
Dr. M. Austin, Georgetwon University
Dr. D. Mastrangelo, Mastrangelo Innovation Strategies
Dr. S. Kolhekar, CITI-US
Models & Results Conclusions
JAMES A. MUGUIRA [email protected]
Dissertation Committee: Deborah M. Wharff, D.M., Eric B. Dent, Ph.D., G. Andersen, Ed.D.
Literature cited
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents
and New Product Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 32(3), 318–335.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews.
London, UK: Sage Publication.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 22, 345–423.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360–1380.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Joumal
of Sociology, 94, 94–120.
Further information
© Copyright James A. Muguira, 2014
Email: [email protected]
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-muguira/
2/624/a70/
Organizational Knowledge Creation Through an Open Innovation Lens: An
exploration of the Costs and Benefits
Development
The
Market
Science &
Technology
Research Ideas
New
Products &
Services
Customer &
Supplier
Ideas
Alliance &
Partner Ideas
Licensing
Open Innovation
Idea Generation
Reduce Risk
Generalize
Leverage
External Knowledge
Use of External
Resources
Organizational
Knowledge
Creation?
Innovation
Innovation
Knowledge Production
Social Relationships
Learning Orientation
Idea Generation
Reduce Risk
Generalize
Leverage
External Knowledge
Use of External
Resources
Open Innovation
Innovation Diffusion
Social Learning
Social Exchange
Participant
A
Participant
N
Participant
B …
Business Cultural influences on
• Absorptive Capacity
• Innovation approach
• Innovation exploitation
• Learning Orientation
• Open Innovation Application
Open Innovation Application influences
• Utilization of Knowledge Sources
• R&D Spending & Alliance Activity
• Business culture
Organizational
Knowledge
Creation
Social Learning
Social Exchange
Innovation Diffusion
Reciprocal Theoretical Lenses
Relationships
Degree of
Knowledge
Creation
Chesbrough’s Open Innovation Model
Assertions from the Literature
Systematic Literature Review Model Theoretical Lenses
Analytic Model
1
2
3 4
5
6
Organizational Culture (P1)
Strategy, Structure (P3)
Learning Orientation (P4)
Ecosystem (P2)
- Innovation Intensity
- Source Type
Synthesis
Results
1. When collaborating, some formal structure is required to infuse knowledge
across org. There are diminishing returns
2. Explore broadly (milk your external knowledge partners),
exploit narrowly (integrate the knowledge and use internal resources
to design)
3. Look for committed life long learners and promote open mindedness
4. Plan for coordination between org elements
Synthesis
Organizational Culture (P1)
Strategy, Structure (P3)
Learning Orientation (P4)
Ecosystem (P2)
- Innovation Intensity
- Source Type
Proposition Model
- Resource Organiza on
- Learning Orienta on
- Knowledge Sources
- R&D Spending Ac vity
Informal
Governance
Externally
Oriented
Internally
Oriented
Formal
Governance
Organiza onal
Knowledge
Crea on
Knowledge
Search Strategy
Organiza onal Cultural
Spectrum
Out-Bound Knowledge
In-Bound Knowledge
Explora on
Exploita on
Open
Innova on
Closed
Innova on
Open
Explora on
Closed
Exploita on
Open
Exploita on
Closed
Explora on
Legend:
Technological resource development
Market resource development
Useful Taxonomy:
Hentton et al. Knowledge Search Model
Clausen et al. Exploration vs. Exploitation Model
Research Results