The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity‐Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity

Building on upper echelon theory and strategic process theory, this article analyzes the relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions embrace the capability of top management teams to manage contradictory strategic directions, namely adaptability and alignment, innovative ambidexterity captures the ability of firms to simultaneously develop discontinuous and incremental innovations. In addition to the direct relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity, it is argued that innovation orientation and cost orientation denote two cultural implementation mechanisms that mediate this effect. Using two top‐executive data sets collected in the United States (n = 83) and India (n = 78), the empirical analysis shows that innovation orientation and cost orientation partially mediate the direct influence of ambidexterity‐oriented decisions on innovative ambidexterity, thus further explaining how formulated decisions made by the top management team nurture ambidextrous innovation behavior. Hence, this article extends prior literature that emphasizes a positive influence of top managers on innovation through incorporating an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Second, this study contributes to ambidexterity literature through integrating strategic process theory. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions primarily relate to strategy formulation, innovation orientation and cost orientation are associated with strategy implementation. The results show that both strategic subprocesses are vital in enabling ambidextrous innovation behavior. Third, an operationalization for the ability of top management to balance adaptability‐ and alignment‐oriented decisions is provided based on prior literature.     

Innovating the innovation process: an organisational experiment in global pharma pursuing radical innovation

The challenge of managing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process is particularly acute for large, multi‐brand, research and development (R&D)‐intensive firms. Poor performance at generating radical innovations has resulted in many large organisations seeking to innovate how they organise for innovation. This paper presents an inductive, longitudinal study of an organisational experiment that sought to get ‘game‐changing, radical ideas’ into the new product development funnel of a top three pharma. The immediate outcomes of a team‐based internal innovation tournament included 33 new product ideas, 14 of which were radical. The medium term outcome of the experiment was a reorganisation of how the firm now pursues radical innovation activities. We link these outcomes to team leadership, contrasting innovation processes, including decisions about how to incorporate the ‘voice of the consumer’. The inductive, longitudinal study suggests causal interconnections between innovation team leadership, innovation team processes, and innovation outcomes.     

Managerial Political Behavior in Innovation Portfolio Management: A Sensegiving and Sensebreaking Process

By applying formalized innovation portfolio management systems, firms seek to ensure an alignment of their goals and strategy with their employees' different abilities, actions, and outcomes. However, research indicates that nonrational, political behavior also determines formalized innovation portfolio management decision‐making processes. Research on political behavior in respect of innovation portfolio management usually conceptualizes political behavior as a set of self‐serving activities, such as negotiation, bargaining, coalition building, and acquiring power, aimed at protecting, maintaining, or promoting an actor's self‐interest and power. Consequently, extant research tends to focus on political behavior's dysfunctional impacts on decision‐making processes and their subsequent outcomes. This paper challenges this negativity bias by exploring a novel, neutral specification of political behavior and its relation to innovation portfolio management decision‐making processes. By conducting an automotive industry case study focusing on the innovation portfolio management decision‐making processes, the paper analyzed the data from 43 interviewees. The conceptual model shows that managers' political capabilities determine their ability to behave politically. According to the results, political behavior comprises the activities that prepare the stage and orchestrate others in order to form a political coalition. Furthermore, results show that political behavior functions as a sensegiving and a sensebreaking process, with managers seeking to shape an innovation project's understanding according to their interests and to influence portfolio decisions. The resulting novel specification of political behavior extends the construct's scope and validity by investigating their functional and dysfunctional aspects, and by indicating that a political sensemaking process complements formalized innovation portfolio management decision‐making processes.     

The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model

The fuzzy front end of the new product development (NPD) process, the time and activity prior to an organization's first screen of a new product idea, is the root of success for firms involved with discontinuous new product innovation. Yet understanding the fuzzy front‐end process has been a challenge for academics and organizations alike. While approaches to handling the fuzzy front end have been suggested in the literature, these tend to be relevant largely for incremental new product situations where organizations are aware of and are involved in the NPD process from the project's beginning. For incremental new products, structured problems or opportunities typically are laid out at the organizational level and are directed to individuals for information gathering. In the case of discontinuous innovations, however, we propose that the process works in the opposite direction—that is, that the timing and likelihood of organizational‐level involvement is more likely to be at the discretion of individuals. Such individuals perform a boundary‐spanning function by identifying and by understanding emerging patterns in the environment, with little or no direction from the organization. Often, these same individuals also act as gatekeepers by deciding on the value to the organization of externally derived information, as well as whether such information will be shared. Consequently for discontinuous innovations, information search and related problems/opportunities are unstructured and are at the individual level during the fuzzy front end. As such, the direction of initial decisions about new environmental information tends to be inward, toward the corporate decision‐making level, rather than the other way around. In order to cope with the special and complex nature of decisions made at the fuzzy front end of NPD for discontinuous innovations, this process is detailed as a series of decisions occurring over three proposed interfaces: boundary, gatekeeping, and project. The difference between each interface lies in the nature of the decisions made: At the boundary and gatekeeping interfaces, the primary impetus is individual‐level decision‐making; at the project interface, decisions occur at the organizational level. By articulating these processes in the form of a model, we achieve two objectives: (1) We outline a more detailed and comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of the front‐end decision making process for discontinuous innovations; and (2) we detail specific propositions for future research on each stage of the process.     

Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: a corporate social responsibility perspective

This paper examines the concept of open innovation within the context of corporate social responsibility. It demonstrates how the practice of open innovation unfolds in inter-organizational collaborations that involve the voluntary or charitable sector, outlining the findings of an explorative collective case study of eight voluntary dyadic partnerships between corporate and nonprofit organizations in the United Kingdom, which have resulted in innovation outcomes. Two generic approaches to open innovation were witnessed: firstly, a more exploratory approach to dyadic engagement activities that resulted in an emergent innovation process, and secondly, a focused and pre-determined search activity to exploit the resources of the nonprofit partner that demonstrated a more planned innovation process. Two distinct boundary-spanning roles were identified: in dyads exhibiting few organizational linkages, the role was associated with formal responsibilities from senior management to 'manage' innovation opportunities and outcomes. In dyads exhibiting high linkages, there was no such formality; the role was a 'conduit' to facilitate search and exploration to locate opportunities for innovation through idea exchange. Overall, this research demonstrates the value of an open innovation approach driven by the need to address societal and social issues (rather than those purely economic). Such practice broadens a firm's 'search' activities and delivers innovations in exchange for enhanced social legitimacy – acting innovation capital for future enterprising activities and market advantage.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review,Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions

Product innovation is a key to organizational renewal and success. Relative to other forms of innovation, radical product innovations offer unprecedented customer benefits, substantial cost reductions, or the ability to create new businesses, any of which should lead to superior organizational performance. In other words, a radical product innovation capability is a dynamic capability, one that enables the organization to maintain alignment with rapidly evolving customer needs in high‐velocity environments. Extensive research has been conducted on the antecedents to an incremental/general product innovation capability, and meta‐analyses have been conducted to integrate the results from the various studies. However, whether and how a radical product innovation capability differs from an incremental product innovation capability is also critical. The purpose of this work is to develop a testable model of the antecedents to radical product innovation success. Based on an extensive literature review, a comprehensive set of organizational components that comprise a firm's radical product innovation capability is identified. These organizational components include senior leadership, organizational culture, organizational architecture, the radical product innovation development process, and the product launch strategy. Of course, each of these components has subcomponents that provide even more texture. This review highlights how the components of a radical innovation capability function differently from those for an incremental capability. In addition, this review strongly suggests that the direct effects models that dominate this literature underestimate the complexity of the interplay of components that comprise a radical product innovation capability. Thus, a model to demonstrate this interplay of these organizational components is provided. Illustrative research propositions are offered to provide guidance to researchers. Suggestions for executives and managers who are involved in the product development process and for scholars who seek to advance the state of knowledge in this area are offered in the conclusion.     

Investigating the Drivers of Innovation and New Product Success: A Comparison of Strategic Orientations*

The notion of producing innovations and achieving new product success has received a great deal of attention. Though many have investigated these effects in marketing and various fields within management, there has been little cross‐fertilization between fields of study to explain the basis for this superior performance. Though research has examined the resource‐based view (RBV) and market orientation individually, none has evaluated and compared their effect on firm innovation and new product success in one study. Furthermore, although empirical work has been conducted between market orientation and organizational learning, comparatively less research has been conducted to evaluate the relationship between organizational learning and the RBV to examine their combined effects on a firm's ability to innovate and succeed. Subsequently, the purpose of the present article is to investigate whether a focus on the customer (i.e., market orientation) or the firm (i.e., RBV) will drive the ability to (1) innovate within the firm and (2) succeed in terms of new product success, financial performance, market share, and customer value. The present article examines the relationship between organizational learning and the RBV and market orientation. It presents an empirically testable framework that investigates the relationship that RBV and market orientation have with performance outcomes. Data were collected from 249 senior executives. LISREL was applied to evaluate the relationships. Confirmatory factor analysis and related techniques were applied to assess the robustness of the measures used. Findings show that organizational learning is strongly associated with market orientation, which in turn impacts various performance outcomes including customer value. The RBV had a significant relationship with new product success. These results suggest that managers seeking innovation and new product success should focus less on the provision of customer value. Instead they should look toward developing their resources within the firm, including investing in human resources, to ultimately provide value to the firm. Findings indicate that this unique offering—innovations—will have an indirect effect on customer value and financial performance. In contrast, those in pursuit of positive financial performance and customer value should focus on the development of market orientation. Even though this will not necessarily lead to the development of innovative processes and new product success according to the present study, this approach may lead to a greater market share in the long term. This article reviews theoretical and managerial implications in more depth, providing an impetus for further research.     

Diversity of Board Interlocks and the Impact on Technological Exploration: A Longitudinal Study

Scholars have given increased attention to organizational networks as an important component of technological innovation. Although a significant body of research has examined the implications of organizational networks on knowledge diffusion, researchers know little about the impacts that diverse network interlocks have on corporate innovation outputs. To address this gap in the literature, this article draws upon insights from organizational learning and social network theory and argues that interlocked networks affect corporate innovation. Further, interlocks differ in terms of both the heterogeneity of tied‐to firms—ties created through shared board directors—and the directors who create these ties. Accordingly, this study proposes that more diverse interlocks will have a greater impact on corporate technological exploration. To test this proposal, data from multiple sources were analyzed, including historical records of board appointments and data on technological innovations from U.S. public companies. Empirical results from generalized estimating equations suggest that the industrial diversity of interlocked firms increases the likelihood of technological exploration. Moreover, interlocks with R&D‐intensive firms are more important for technological exploration than those created by firms that do not invest heavily in R&D. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that the ratio of interlocks created by directors with output‐oriented experience enhances technological exploration. Overall, this research reveals that diversity of leader‐created board interlocks can be an important mechanism for fostering corporate entrepreneurial activities such as technological exploration.     

What about Passive Innovation Resistance? Investigating Adoption‐Related Behavior from a Resistance Perspective

Adoption literature has been dominated by a novelty‐seeking paradigm, whereas resistance to innovation has received considerably less attention as a means to explain and predict adoption‐related behavior. The lack of a good metric to assess consumers' predisposition to resist innovations has prevented the establishment of a common ground for empirical research and thus hampered progress to date. This paper develops and empirically validates a scale to measure individual differences in consumers' predisposition to resist innovations (hereafter, passive innovation resistance, or PIR). The proposed instrument entails a personality‐specific and situation‐specific measure that assesses individual differences in consumers' predisposition to resist innovations, emerging from their inclination to resist changes and exhibit status quo satisfaction. The scale represents a measure of the generic tendency to resist innovations and thus captures the notion of a general disposition to act in a consistent way in various situations. The results of multiple studies show that the PIR scale has good psychometric properties, and its relationships with other constructs conform to theoretical expectations. Furthermore, the PIR scale explains and predicts adoption‐related behaviors beyond the variance accounted for by traditionally investigated constructs such as innate innovativeness, big‐five personality dimensions, or demographic variables. These results clearly reveal the importance of PIR for determining adoption‐related behavior but contest a conceptualization of constructs that tap only novelty seeking at a high level as the direct antecedent of adoption. Research that attempts to explain and predict adoption‐related behavior can benefit from taking a resistance perspective as well.     

The Long and Winding Road: Building Legitimacy for Complex Social Innovation in Networks

Social innovations, which increasingly take place in interorganizational networks, occur in environments characterized by resource scarcity. To secure access to resources, social innovators need to establish legitimacy for their initiatives. Yet, empirical work investigating the process of establishing legitimacy for social innovation—also known as legitimation—is absent. This research aims to uncover how legitimacy is established when social innovations are developed, over time, through interorganizational networks. To investigate this process, the research adopts a longitudinal case study of a network of five market‐leading organizations in the home care sector. A process‐based analysis of evidence from 33 meeting observations, 45 in‐depth interviews, and 249 documents reveals three novel findings. (1) The attainment of overall legitimacy depends on the establishment, over time, of three types of legitimacy targeted at different audiences. These are framed as building blocks oriented toward achieving interorganizational, multilevel, and external legitimacy. (2) The process of establishing legitimacy, across the building blocks, is underpinned by two dominant combinations of patterns—denoted as courting and demonstrating commitment. (3) Variation in two underlying mechanisms—conflicting tensions and role promotion—drives the enactment of these patterns across the different building blocks. The study's novelty lies in the extrication of critical types of legitimacy and dominant patterns and mechanisms which underpin the process of establishing legitimacy. It contributes to social innovation and innovation legitimation literature by providing a deep‐grained understanding of the process to establish legitimacy within social innovations carried out through interorganizational networks.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

Marketing's Influence Tactics in New Product Development: A Study of High Technology Firms in China

It has been widely recognized that marketing's interaction with other functional departments (e.g., R&D) has significant impact on new product success. However, little research addresses how marketing actually behaves in the process of new product development (NPD). Drawing upon marketing, product innovation, and organizational buying literatures, this study contributes to the literature by delineating the types of influence tactics adopted by marketing and investigating how the use of these tactics affects marketing's influence on NPD decisions. Data on 128 new product projects from 114 high technology firms in China were collected from R&D perspective via on‐site interviews. The findings indicate that, from the R&D's perspective, both marketing and R&D seem to have equivalent influence on new product decisions. In terms of usage frequency, the most frequently used influence tactics by marketing are persistent pressure, information exchange, and recommendation (i.e., use of rational logic). Coalition formation (e.g., seeking the support of peers) and upward appeal (i.e., seeking support from superiors) tactics are moderately used. The less frequently used tactics are legalistic plea (i.e., use of rules and regulations) and request. Regarding the effectiveness of influence tactics, the results indicate that persistent pressure, information exchange, and coalition formation lead to higher marketing influence in NPD decisions. However, the use of an upward appeal tactic leads to lower marketing influence. Recommendation, legalistic plea and request tactics are unrelated to marketing's influence. Our results also show that the efficacy of marketing's influence tactics is contingent upon the degree of functional interdependence in the NPD stages and the degree of interdepartmental conflict. Information exchange and coalition formation tactics are more effective at the initiation stage of the NPD process whereas legalistic plea and persistent pressure are more effective at the implementation stage. We further find that legalistic plea is more effective but coalition tactic is less effective when the degree of interdepartmental conflict is higher. Findings of this study provide managers responsible for ensuring market‐oriented NPD with a better understanding of how the influence of marketing in the NPD process may be enhanced. Given our focus on Chinese firms, they also suggest that managers need to be sensitive to the cultural context of marketing influence.     

How Can New Players Establish Themselves in Highly Institutionalized Labour Markets? A Belgian Case Study in the Area of Project‐Based Work

How can new players seeking to serve nonstandard worker categories (such as project‐based workers) establish themselves into labour markets that are highly institutionalized? This paper explores the case of SMart, a Belgian community‐based labour market intermediary that successfully developed solutions to better represent the interests of project‐based workers and secure their discontinuous careers. Using an organizational legitimacy approach, we find that labour market entry and growth involve different types of boundary‐crossing when addressing the needs of workers that do not fit into established categories. However, to justify boundary‐crossing, the new player must complement its pragmatic work on delivering new services and tools with conceptual (cognitive) and structural (moral) legitimation work.     

Do Formal Management Practices Impact the Emergence of Bootlegging Behavior?

Innovation in an organization often relies on initiatives by employees who take action to develop their ideas and obtain buy‐in by organizational decision‐makers. To achieve this, employees sometimes apply unorthodox approaches, ignoring formal structures to further elaborate their ideas' potential and promote their implementation. They work without formal legitimacy and gather their own resources until sufficient clarity allows for informed decisions. Finally, they bypass formal communication channels to convince top management of the merits of their ideas. Despite the significance of such bootlegging behavior, research has barely addressed the antecedents of this deviance. Drawing on strain theory and social cognitive theory, we study whether the emergence of bootlegging behavior is influenced by formal management practices, in particular, strategic autonomy, front‐end formality, rewards, and sanctions. Additionally, we investigate the role of employees' self‐efficacy related to innovation tasks at the entrepreneurial stage to explain the emergence of bootlegging. We tested the proposed relationships with empirical field survey data using structural equation modeling. In summary, this paper concludes that intrapreneurial self‐efficacy, strategic autonomy, and rewards for innovation accomplishments foster bootlegging. Front‐end formality has a positive effect on bootlegging by increasing intrapreneurial self‐efficacy, but it reduces the likelihood that employees will ignore formal structures when promoting their ideas and gathering their own resources to support their bootlegging efforts.     

When Does Customer Orientation Hinder (Help) Radical Product Innovation? The Role of Organizational Rewards

Prior marketing literature offers a compelling theoretical rationale in support of two contradictory propositions, namely, that customer orientation is negatively related to (i.e., hinders) radical product innovation and that customer orientation is positively related to (i.e., helps) radical product innovation. In this research, the contextual conditions that determine the validity of these contradictory propositions are identified. Drawing from the literature on organizational rewards, two types of organizational rewards—outcome based and strategy based—are identified as being the key contextual conditions. It is hypothesized that when outcome‐based rewards are in effect, customer orientation is negatively related to radical positive innovation and, that when strategy‐based rewards are in effect, customer orientation is positively related to radical product innovation. Results from a survey of 156 manufacturing firms, and from a survey of 97 of their customers, provide support for these hypotheses. While prior research has attempted to explain the contradictory nature of the relationship between customer orientation and radical product innovation using typology‐based and mediator‐based approaches, the contextual condition‐based approach has not been well developed. This gap is addressed by the present research. From a practitioner perspective, the research is important because it identifies a concrete mechanism that new product development managers can deploy, in tandem with customer orientation, if they intend to generate radical product innovations. Given the potential gains that flow from radical product innovation, the research findings are expected to be of considerable interest to managers of new product development projects.     

Crowdsourcing without profit: the role of the seeker in open social innovation

Crowdsourcing has increasingly been studied as an open innovation (OI) mechanism by which organizations (seekers) engage with an external crowd of potential solvers. Previous crowdsourcing research has focused on solvers and their individual motivations, providing few insights as to why and how seekers use crowdsourcing, and how these choices affect the value that might be realized from these efforts. Prior research has also emphasized profit‐seeking firms, despite the use of OI practices by public sector organizations to achieve societal benefits. This paper examines the organizational and project‐level choices of government agencies that crowdsource from citizens to drive open social innovation, and thus develop new ways to address societal problems, a process sometimes termed ‘citizensourcing.’ Using rich data from 18 local government seekers that use the same intermediary, we develop a model of seeker crowdsourcing implementation that links a previously unstudied variance in seeker intent and engagement strategies to differences in project team motivation and capabilities, in turn leading to varying online engagement behaviors and ultimately project outcomes. Our study compares and contrasts governmental and corporate crowdsourcing to reveal that the non‐pecuniary orientation of both seekers and solvers means that the motives of government crowdsourcing are fundamentally different from corporate crowdsourcing, but the process in our sample more closely resembles that of a firm‐sponsored community rather than government sponsored contests. More generally, we show how seeker organizational factors and choices shape project‐level implementation and success of crowdsourcing efforts, as well as provide insights for OI activities of other smaller, geographically bound organizations.     

Joining hands for the greater good: Examining social innovation launch strategies in B2B settings

The practice of forming brand alliances is common among companies in business-to-business (B2B) settings that seek to launch social innovations. Research evidence on the efficacy of such practice is, however, scarce. Based on the perspective of organizational buyers, we examine how social innovations should be launched by companies in B2B settings, whether through alliances with nonprofits or for-profits, or via independent ventures, across two experimental studies. Underpinned by the stereotype content model, we find that alliance launch strategies with nonprofits or for-profits result in greater purchase intentions, along with perceptions of warmth and competence, when compared to independent ventures. Further, we demonstrate that communicating societal benefits accruing from a social innovation favors an alliance launch strategy over an independent venture. Alliance strategies show comparable advantage to independent ventures when both societal and company-focused benefits are communicated. Our research advances knowledge on organizational buyers' evaluations of alliances and social innovations, the psychological mechanism underlying organizational buyers' evaluations of social innovations launch strategies, and in communication management. Our findings provide insights for companies seeking to launch social innovations, and guidelines on partner selection.     

Behavioral Reasons for New Product Failure: Does Overconfidence Induce Overforecasts?

Efforts to organize and integrate research findings on new product performance determinants have lagged since the last significant overview paper appeared over a decade ago. Importantly, this literature has not considered entire categories of factors that are known to affect managerial decisions and behavior, namely those that pertain to decision‐makers' cognitive limitations and incentive structures. This research empirically investigates one specific cognitive distortion heretofore neglected in studies of new product commercialization—overconfidence, commonly defined in the literature as excessive belief in one's own abilities to generate superior performance. To lay the groundwork for subsequent exploration, the paper first introduces a behavioral model that both organizes well‐understood new product performance determinants and illuminates others heretofore not studied, namely incentive alignment and cognitive limitations and biases. The model summarizes extant research and allows development of research hypotheses related to overconfidence. The hypotheses and empirical investigation motivated by the model address two questions about the impact of overconfidence on new product commercialization activities. First, the study explores whether overconfidence is associated with overforecasting new product demand. Second, it evaluates two complementary mechanisms that may account for overconfidence‐induced overforecasts. The empirical findings are based on data generated in the course of management simulation workshops conducted among graduate students at three leading business schools in India. Three hundred thirty participants played individually four rounds of a computer‐based simulation game that involved decisions pertaining to new product development (including product formulation) and commercialization strategies. The decisions were captured and analyzed using statistical techniques. The results reveal that decision‐makers' overconfidence is associated with a higher likelihood of overforecasting new product sales. The observed effect is fully mediated by flawed tactical decisions that dampen demand, namely elevated product pricing. Sensitivity analyses show that these results are robust to a number of alternative explanations. However, the study finds no evidence implicating overconfident individuals as poor “innovators”—overconfident and nonoverconfident decision‐makers experienced comparable market demand for their new products. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and provides specific recommendations for practice.     

Developing organizational agility in product innovation: the roles of IT capability,KM capability,and innovative climate

This study investigates how to leverage information technology (IT) capability to build organizational agility in the context of product innovation. A moderated mediating model is proposed from the capability‐building processes perspective. The data collected from 194 senior executives of firms in China show that knowledge management capability partially mediates the relationship between IT capability and organizational agility. Innovative climate also positively moderates the indirect relationship between IT capability and organizational agility in the context of product innovation. Discussion, implications, and direction for future research are offered at the end of this paper.