Antecedents to Decision‐Making Quality and Agility in Innovation Portfolio Management

Innovation portfolio management (IPM) is a dynamic decision‐making process, in which projects are evaluated and selected, and resources are allocated. Previous research has developed an understanding of IPM success and its influencing factors. However, little research investigated the quality of the decision‐making process and the ability to quickly adapt the portfolio. This study focuses on the antecedents of decision‐making quality and agility (i.e., responsiveness to changes in the environment). Based on a decision‐making framework, five structural and cultural IPM components are derived as important antecedents of decision‐making quality, which in turn influences agility. The structural components (1) clarity of strategic goals, (2) formality of the IPM processes, and (3) controlling intensity serve a coordinating function. The cultural components (4) innovation climate and (5) risk climate serve a motivating function in IPM. An analysis of a sample of 179 firms and their innovation portfolios through structural equation modeling using a double‐informant design documents that these five components all positively influence portfolio decision‐making quality, which in turn positively influences agility. Results further show that environmental turbulence moderates some of these relationships. While the positive effect of process formality is weakened under increasing turbulence, the effects of controlling intensity and climate for innovation are strengthened by environmental turbulence. The findings have theoretical implications for the understanding of IPM as a dynamic capability and practical implications for the management of portfolios in turbulent environments.     

Exploring Portfolio Decision‐Making Processes*

Portfolio management is the set of activities that allows a firm to select, develop, and commercialize a pipeline of new products aligned with the firm's strategy that will enable it to continue to grow profitably over the long term. To appropriately manage the firm's new product portfolio, decisions must be made about which projects to fund, to what levels, at what point in time. Previous research has investigated portfolio management decisions as individually discrete decisions. Significant streams of research have investigated both project selection and project termination decisions. This research project shows, however, that portfolio decision making may be better understood if it is considered as an integrated system of processes that considers these decisions simultaneously, along with other decisions such as those to continue a project with reduced funding. Using in‐depth data from four diverse case studies, we use a grounded theory approach to develop a general model of how firms make new product portfolio decisions. According to the findings from these cases, effective portfolio decision‐making processes produce a portfolio mindset, focus effort on the right projects, and allow agile decision making across the portfolio's set of projects. Effective portfolio decision making is the result of the interaction between three types of decision‐making processes that managers use in making decisions: evidence‐, power‐, and opinion‐based. Being able to use each of these types of processes to make decisions depends upon having the data inputs that they require. Three domain‐based decision input‐generating processes (i.e., cross‐functional collaboration, practices of critical thinking, and practices of market immersion) are associated with making evidence‐based portfolio decisions. In addition, organizational politics produces the inputs that are associated with power‐based portfolio decision making, while managerial intuition is associated with opinion‐based portfolio decision making. Firm cultural factors, including trust, collective ambition, and leadership style, are associated with how these evidence‐, power‐ and opinion‐based processes are combined into an overall portfolio decision making process, and whether the firm's processes are more rational and objectively made, or more politically and intuitively made. The article presents propositions for how the decision‐making processes interact in their associations with decision‐making effectiveness.     

Reducing Ongoing Product Design Decision‐Making Bias*

The objective of this exploratory study is to add to our understanding of ongoing product design decision‐making to reduce eventual decision‐making bias. Six research questions are formulated with the aim to establish if and how functional membership and informal patterns of communication within an organization influence whether and why employees are willing to engage in product design modifications. We selected as a field site for our study an industrial company that had an internal research and product development operations and where the employees were located on the same site. A three‐step approach within the manufacturing case company was designed: (1) In‐depth interviews were carried out with managers and employees; (2) a survey questionnaire was sent out to all employees involved with a specific product that is subject to potential design modifications; and (3) a post hoc group feedback session was organized to further discuss our findings with the management. First, analysis of the nine in‐depth interviews establishes a taxonomy of product design decisions involving four types of criteria; product‐related, service‐related, market‐related, and feasibility‐related criteria explain why employees would engage or not in product design modifications. Second, it is demonstrated that functional membership has a significant influence on the concern for these decision‐making criteria as well as on the decision to proceed or not with product design modifications. In other words, functional membership influences whether and why employees are more or less willing to make product design modifications. In this manufacturing company, a global industrial player, the differences in concern appear especially for service‐ and market‐related criteria and pertain particularly to the research and development (R&D) and service function. Overall, even though the perceived performance of the specific product under study did not differ significantly among the different departments, it is observed that R&D employees were significantly less in favor of proceeding with product design modifications than other employees were. Third, using UCINET VI software, we provide some explanations for this finding. It is shown that informal patterns of communication (i.e., employee degree centrality) operate a situational opportunity to make modifications to an existing product and a cognitive opportunity influencing the decision to modify product design following an inverted U‐shaped function. Ultimately, we derive practical guidelines for an ideal product–team composition to reduce product design decision‐making bias.     

Examining Proactive Strategic Decision‐Making Flexibility in New Product Development

While strategic flexibility is widely accepted as a prerequisite for a firm's success, its application in strategic decision making to a firm's new product development (NPD) activities is limited to only a few studies. Furthermore, many organizations still have difficulties creating proactive strategic flexibility in their decision‐making processes. Past research studies have largely ignored the relationship between strategic decision‐making flexibility and firms' resources and/or capabilities and success in the context of NPD. This study advances strategic flexibility by adopting the proactive approach of NPD decision‐making flexibility and by examining its role in translating organizational resources and capabilities into NPD success. This study draws upon the resources, capabilities (i.e., flexibility), and performance framework to show how proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility plays a crucial role in developing new products that can create new opportunities and comply with market needs. Therefore, this research aims to (1) develop an operational definition of strategic decision‐making flexibility and (2) propose a framework to understand the drivers and the subsequent new product performance outcomes of strategic decision‐making flexibility. This study adopts the proactive perspective of strategic decision‐making flexibility and defines it as a capability that enables firms to develop NPD strategies to respond to future changes in the environment. The analysis, based on data collected from 103 European firms, shows that that the effects of long‐term orientation, strategic planning, internal commitment, and innovative climate on proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility are significant. The findings indicate specifically the roles of both champions and gatekeepers, who infuse a firm's knowledge with a clear understanding of its resources, constraints, and market needs, thereby enhancing decision makers' motivation to behave proactively to precipitate transformation. The results also reveal a positive association between proactive strategic decision‐making flexibility and NPD performance outcomes. As such, strategic flexibility provides firms with an ability to adapt to changing environments and to create new market opportunities, product, and technological arenas, and to deliver successful new products. When firms open new market, technological, and product arenas, they can easily foresee their new demands and changes and successfully deliver new products, meeting customer needs/demands, and offering benefits such as quality, cost, and timeliness. This study therefore provides a valuable reference point for future research in strategic decision‐making flexibility in NPD.     

Using Intuition in Fuzzy Front‐End Decision‐Making: A Conceptual Framework

The goal of decision‐making during the execution of the fuzzy front end (FFE) is to develop a creative new product concept. Although intuitive decision‐making has been found to increase new product creativity, the theoretical knowledge base as to why and under which conditions intuition use during the process of generating a creative outcome is beneficial, is rather limited. Therefore, this study develops a conceptual framework theorizing why and under which conditions using intuition in FFE execution decision‐making may or may not be (as) beneficial for new product concept creativity. To develop this framework, the authors combine a creativity perspective of the FFE and a dual‐processing perspective of intuition. Interviews with eight FFE practitioners are used to support and illustrate the framework development. The theorizing leads the authors to postulate that intuition use may be beneficial to making generation and evaluation decisions during FFE execution because of the capabilities of the unconscious mind from which intuition results. However, the framework acknowledges that, due to the shortcomings of the unconscious mind, intuition may not be as beneficial to FFE decision‐making in some situations. The authors believe that this framework offers researchers a fertile area for further research and practitioners better insight into when intuition might be effective in FFE execution decision‐making.     

Decision‐Making about Workplace Disputes: A Policy‐Capturing Study of Employment Arbitrators,Labor Arbitrators,and Jurors

Firms are increasingly turning to the controversial practice of employment arbitration to resolve workplace disputes. Yet little is know about how decisions are made by employment arbitrators or how their decisions compare to those made in traditional dispute‐resolution forums. This study uses a policy‐capturing design and hierarchical linear modeling to compare how decisions about termination cases are made by employment arbitrators, labor arbitrators, and jurors. The results indicate significant differences in the overall willingness to uphold termination, with labor arbitrators being the most likely to rule in favor of the employee, followed by jurors, employment arbitrators judging statutory and for‐cause claims, and employment arbitrators judging statutory‐only claims. Significant differences were also observed between categories of decision makers in the weight given to procedural compliance, evidence of discrimination, employee work history, and stress‐inducing personal circumstances.     

How Ideation Portfolio Management Influences Front‐End Success

The front end of innovation is recognized as an important driver for successful new products and business prosperity. On the one hand, companies must generate a sufficient number and variety of high‐quality ideas to obtain a well‐balanced portfolio of potentially successful innovation projects. On the other hand, companies must strictly select and prioritize promising ideas and concepts because resource constraints do not allow for the pursuit of every idea. Therefore, companies must practice ideation portfolio management to simultaneously support the variety and selection of ideas and concepts before they enter the innovation project portfolio. To date, there is no research on how ideation portfolio management affects the performance of the front end and of the eventual project portfolio. The current study addresses this research gap in an empirical cross‐industry investigation of 175 medium‐sized and large firms in Germany using a double‐informant design. Ideation portfolio management is conceptualized with three elements: ideation strategy, process formalization, and creative encouragement. We find that all three elements independently and significantly contribute to front‐end success. The results also show that front‐end success mediates the relationship between the elements of ideation portfolio management and project portfolio success. More importantly, we find significant interaction effects between creative encouragement and process formalization and between creative encouragement and ideation strategy. The findings suggest that these elements of ideation portfolio management are complementary and should be balanced to maximize the performance of the front end and the eventual innovation project portfolio.     

Persuasion in Corporate Idea Contests: The Moderating Role of Content Scarcity on Decision‐Making

Organizations increasingly use corporate online ideation platforms to foster individual innovativeness. Recent research, however, has shown the downside of such contests—the selection of ideas is not entirely rational. Analyzing the impact of content scarcity, which occurs when ideators provide very little issue‐relevant information when submitting ideas, contributes to this new literature stream. The main argument is that evaluators increasingly rely on heuristics based on issue‐irrelevant information when content scarcity obstructs reflective decision‐making. The default‐interventionist model of decision‐making in combination with the Yale attitude change approach allows us to examine the mechanisms evaluators apply when content scarcity occurs. The hypotheses are tested on an extensive data set of 3025 ideas. The results show that content scarcity affects the evaluators' decision‐making process by preventing them from intervening their first intuitive decision. The scarcer the content of the submitted idea, the stronger the persuasiveness of issue‐irrelevant aspects that affect idea selection: aspects of the ideator, message, and community.     

Domain‐Relevant Commitment and Individual Technical Innovation Performance

Individual innovators play a critical organizational role in that they generate and often champion technology and product ideas. Amidst an ongoing stream of organizational and team innovation research, few empirical studies focus on differences in individual innovation performance despite the importance of the individual innovator to a firm's innovation efforts. Based on goal commitment theory, we introduce a new domain‐relevant commitment construct and develop a conceptualization of conditional indirect effects. Our model suggests that relevant individual abilities enhance commitment to technical innovation and innovation performance while also insulating against the impact of situational variables, making employees' commitment to innovation performance less dependent upon context. Hypotheses are tested using two sources of data and a sample of 339 R&D professionals from a Fortune 100 industrial firm. Results suggest that commitment to innovation is a key motivational factor in explaining individual technical innovation performance. Situational characteristics impact motivation differently for individuals with lower vs. higher ability levels, even in this context in which truly low‐ability individuals, in the absolute sense, have been screened out by the employment selection process. The relationship between commitment and innovation performance is strengthened by higher levels of individual ability.     

Goal Multiplicity and Innovation: How Social and Economic Goals Affect Open Innovation and Innovation Performance

Integrating insights from the strategic goal literature and the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this article proposes that the pursuit of social and economic strategic goals by commercial firms affects their innovation performance through different knowledge sourcing activities. The strategic goals, knowledge sourcing practices, and innovation performance of 1257 Belgian firms are investigated. Results show that both social and economic strategic goals are associated with the use of external information sources, but only the pursuit of social goals inspires firms to engage in external collaboration. No evidence is found of an inherent conflict between social and economic strategic goals. Instead, the two types of goals are independent of each other, that is, an emphasis on social goals does not preclude an emphasis on economic goals and vice versa. Moreover, firms’ external knowledge sourcing and innovation performance benefit most when strongly held social goals align with strongly held economic goals. These findings offer new insight into the nature and the effects of goal multiplicity among commercial firms. They open up a new perspective on the potential positive effects of the joint pursuit of social and economic strategic goals instead of seeing them as inherently conflicting, as past research has typically done. We illustrate how social strategic goals can deliver unique benefits to a firm, independently of and in addition to economic strategic goals. Our findings also contribute to the open innovation literature by revealing strategic goals as a driver of firms’ knowledge sourcing practices. Our findings suggest that solely emphasizing economic goals may be one reason why firms struggle to implement open innovation practices and do not reap their full benefits. The practical implications of our research are discussed.     

Patent Hold‐Up and Antitrust: How A Well‐Intentioned Rule Could Retard Innovation

Licensing technology essential to a standard can present a hold‐up problem. After designing new products incorporating a standard, a manufacturer could be confronted by an innovator asserting patent rights to essential technology. This hold‐up problem can be solved with a damages remedy provided by antitrust or some other body of law, but a damages remedy can reduce the innovator's licensing revenue and thereby retard innovation. The availability of an ex post damages remedy also alters the licensing terms in ex ante bargaining with the result that fewer socially beneficial R&D projects are undertaken.     

How to Overcome Pro‐Change Bias: Incorporating Passive and Active Innovation Resistance in Innovation Decision Models

Adoption literature is largely subject to a pro‐change bias; researchers mainly assume that consumers are open to change and thus interested in evaluating new products. However, consumers often reject innovations without considering their potential, such that the adoption process ends before it really has begun. The present study instead argues that innovation resistance, prior to product evaluation, is a regular consumer response that must be recognized and managed to facilitate new product adoption. The authors suggest differentiating passive from active innovation resistance. While passive innovation resistance results from a consumer's generic predisposition to resist innovations prior to new product evaluation, active innovation resistance is an attitudinal outcome that follows an unfavorable new product evaluation. This study also extends extant innovation decision models by describing how passive and active innovation resistance emerge and how they affect decision‐making in later stages of the process.     

Making Virtue of Necessity: The Role of Team Climate for Innovation in Resource‐Constrained Innovation Projects

The effect of financial resource constraints on innovation team performance is ambiguous. On the one hand, the majority of scholars have argued that financial resource constraints have an inhibiting effect on innovation, whereas budgetary slack supports creativity and innovation. Consistent with this notion, in most conceptual models on the management of innovation projects, the availability of slack, or at least adequate (rather than constrained) resources represents an important success factor supporting innovation. On the other hand, popular parlance has it that sometimes “necessity is the mother of innovation,” and literature in cognitive psychology suggests that resource constraints stimulate creativity and innovative behavior. Recent innovation literature indeed provides evidence that remarkable innovation outcomes can be achieved with constrained financial resources. Despite the rapidly growing research on success factors of innovation projects, and the high managerial relevance of budget questions, the influence of financial resource constraints has only very recently started to attract interest. The objective of the present study is to contribute to that research by investigating under what conditions financial resource constraints lead to innovation outcomes. Specifically, team climate for innovation is examined as a potentially important contingency variable of the relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation project performance. By explicitly focusing on team climate for innovation, factors of the work environment in innovation projects are addressed as influential boundary conditions for successfully innovating under financial resource constraints. The hypotheses are tested on a sample of 94 innovation project teams from a variety of industries. To ensure content validity and to avoid a possible common source bias, data from different respondents, i.e., team leaders, team members, and team external managers of the innovation projects, are used. Results of regression analyses show that there is no significant relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation project outcomes in terms of product quality and project efficiency. However, results show a significant interaction term of financial resource constraints and team climate for innovation in that team climate for innovation positively moderates the relationship between financial resource constraints and product quality as well as project efficiency. Thus, the findings of the present study contradict the widespread notion in innovation literature that financial resource constraints have a wholesale inhibiting effect on innovation, thereby providing a differentiated perspective on the relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation. On a practical level, the results of this study highlight a specific condition under which product developers can come up with more innovative solutions despite, or even because of, financial resource constraints.     

The Impact of Front‐End Innovation Activities on Product Performance

This paper describes and tests a model of the impact of front‐end innovation activities on product performance. Data were collected from 272 companies to test the hypothesis that front‐end performance impacts new product performance in the marketplace while controlling for new product development (NPD) processes and strategy. The data support the hypothesis that front‐end performance favorably and independently impacts overall product success, time to market, market penetration, and financial performance. Front‐end performance is predicted by a set of activities, including: the actual amount of front‐end work done in various areas, specifically marketing, R&D, and concept development; the existence of a front‐end process; the existence of a champion; and agreement on the order of developmental steps in the front end. Front‐end activities are related to front‐end performance, and front‐end performance is related to NPD performance. This relationship highlights the distinction between front‐end activities and standard product development practices and the importance of building competency in the front end. This is the first study that quantifies both the nature and amount of work done in the front end and relates that work to commercial performance. This research empirically demonstrates the distinction between the front‐end and formal stages and gates types of systems. This suggests that the concept of the front end needs it own set of theoretical constructs to adequately describe and predict this categorically different set of activities. While this study demonstrates the difference between front‐end and stage‐gate systems, it does not establish the limits of those activities. From a managerial point of view recognizing that formal development and front‐end activities are different mandates that these activities must be managed differently. In particular, the skills, structures, processes, governance, leadership, performance metrics, and resources must be assessed separately and differently. These findings suggest that firms should actively manage the flow of ideas from the front end into the more formal development programs.     

Making Sense of an Interconnected World: How Innovation Champions Drive Social Innovation in the Not-for-Profit Context

Social innovation is critical for supporting the economic and social fabric of communities globally. Yet little is known about the processes through which social innovation occurs and how context shapes them. To date, scholarship has focused primarily on social entrepreneurs and social enterprise creation, while the role of established not-for-profits (NFPs) as agents of social innovation has received surprisingly little attention given their importance to communities. It is expected that innovation will be increasingly important for NFPs as shifts in their funding models create greater complexity in maintaining sustainability and continuity in social service delivery. This research generates a deeper understanding of the processes of social innovation within NFPs by examining how multiple levels of context influence the behaviors of a key set of agents: innovation champions. Adopting an interactionist lens, the study explores how shifts in funding policy at the macro level, and the role of leaders (CEOs and Boards) and organizational institutional logics at the meso level, influence champion behavior at the micro level. To do this, we draw on sensemaking as an important cognitive and action-enabling mechanism. A qualitative, multicase study design with 46 interviews across six case organizations allows an in-depth exploration of this under-investigated area. The findings indicate that bricolage activity can facilitate championing that supports social innovation within NFPs and that organizational context guides the direction and content of champion behavior. The findings further uncover a broader range of behaviors and outcomes than have been previously attributed to champions, while highlighting the critical role that bricolage-enabled championing can play in driving social innovation that is both directly impactful and offers significant longer-term social impact. The important roles that sensebreaking, sensegiving, and sensemaking play in connecting champions’ interpretations of their contexts to their behaviors are also outlined.     

Organizing for Inbound Open Innovation: How External Consultants and a Dedicated R&D Unit Influence Product Innovation Performance

Firms increasingly acquire technological knowledge from external sources to improve their innovation performance. This strategic approach is known as inbound open innovation. The existing empirical evidence regarding the impact of inbound open innovation on performance, however, is ambiguous. The equivocal results are due to moderating factors that influence a firm's ability to acquire technological knowledge from external sources and to transform it into innovation outputs. This paper focuses on a relevant yet overlooked category of moderating factors: organization of research and development (R&D). It explores two organizational mechanisms: one informal and external‐oriented (involvement of external consultants in R&D activities) and one formalized and internal‐oriented (existence of a dedicated R&D unit), in the acquisition of technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, a particular contractual form for inbound open innovation. Drawing on a capabilities perspective and using a longitudinal dataset of 841 Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 1999–2007, this paper provides a fine‐grained analysis of the moderating effects of the two organizational mechanisms. The involvement of external consultants in R&D activities strengthens the impact of inbound open innovation on innovation performance by increasing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing. Moreover, it reduces the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. Instead, the existence of a dedicated R&D unit makes the firm less sensitive to changes in the level of inbound open innovation, by reducing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, and increases the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. The results regarding the role of informal and formalized R&D organizational mechanisms contribute to research on open innovation and absorptive capacity, and also inform managers as to what organizational mechanism is recommended to acquire external technological knowledge, depending on the objectives that the firm pursues.     

Workforce Composition and Innovation: How Diversity in Employees’ Ethnic and Educational Backgrounds Facilitates Firm‐Level Innovativeness

This article studies how workforce composition is related to a firm's success in introducing radical innovations. Previous studies have argued that teams composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds are able to perform more information processing and make deeper use of the information, which is important to accomplish complex tasks. We suggest that this argument can be extended to the level of the aggregate workforce of high‐technology firms. In particular, we argue that ethnic and higher education diversity within the workforce is associated with superior performance in radical innovation. Using a sample of 3,888 Swedish firms, this article demonstrates that having greater workforce diversity in terms of both ethnic background and educational disciplinary background is positively correlated to the share of a firm's turnover generated by radical innovation. Having more external collaborations does, however, seem to reduce the importance of educational background diversity. The impact of ethnic diversity is not affected by external collaboration. These findings hold after using alternative measures of dependent and independent variables, alternative sample sizes, and alternative estimation techniques. The research findings presented in this article would seem to have immediate and important practical implications. They would suggest that companies may pursue recruitment policies inspired by greater ethnic and disciplinary diversity as a way to boost the innovativeness of the organization. From a managerial perspective, it may be concluded that workforce disciplinary diversity could be potentially replaced by more external links, while ethnic diversity could not.     

Decision‐making in the pharmaceutical industry: analysis of entrepreneurial risk and attitude using uncertain information

The main purpose of this study was to investigate judgments made by employees from the pharmaceutical industry and allied health‐care sectors in a set of four different drug discovery and development cases derived from real scenarios. Each case study related to go/no‐go decisions taken from various steps in drug discovery through preclinical and clinical development (investigational new drug) on to market introduction (new drug application) and treatment of the target population. Using a web‐based questionnaire, 52 respondents made five sets of judgment within each drug case whether to continue or halt further project development. For each case, additional details of the developmental scenario were disclosed to the respondent after completion of each judgment response. We also assessed to what extent the individual judgments given by the respondents were influenced by work experience and functional role, education, or their perceived entrepreneurial character. Our study demonstrates that health‐care employees differ substantially in their individual intuitive judgments of benefit and risk in go/no‐go decisions during the drug discovery and development process. This lack of coherence and wide variability with respect to the drug development cases selected may reflect judgment in the real world. Such judgments are usually taken from incomplete information, and individual decision‐making rules vary substantially between experts in the field. Further knowledge about this inherent human functional judgment variability may be helpful to form a better understanding of individual decision‐making in relation to inherent uncertainties. Additional research may also clarify how personal experience within drug discovery and development influences judgment and help to optimize decision outcomes in the drug development sector. Importantly, a deeper insight of the fundamentals and rules that shape individual and group decision‐making of everyday drug discovery and development may help to optimize the decision processes in the pharmaceutical industry.     

The Impact of a Creativity‐supporting Work Environment on a Firm's Product Innovation Performance

Many scholars and practitioners have suggested that a creativity‐supporting work environment contributes to a firm's product innovation performance. Although there is evidence that such an environment enhances innovative behavior at individual level, very few studies address the effect of a creativity‐supporting work environment on product innovation performance at firm level, and the results are inconsistent. This paper examines the relationship between a firm's creativity‐supporting work environment and a firm's product innovation performance in a sample of 103 firms. For measuring a firm's creativity‐supporting work environment, a comprehensive and creativity‐focused framework is used. The framework consists of 9 social‐organizational and 12 physical work environment characteristics that are likely to enhance employee creativity. These characteristics contribute to the firm's overall work environment that supports creativity. The firm's product innovation performance is defined by two distinct concepts: new product productivity (NP productivity), which is the extent to which the firm introduces new products to the market, and new product success (NP success), which is the percentage of the firm's sales from new products. In most firms, different knowledgeable informants provided the data for the variables. The results show that firms with creativity‐supporting work environments introduce more new products to the market (NP productivity), and have more NP success in terms of new product sales (NP success). NP productivity partly mediates the relationship between creativity‐supporting work environment and NP success. The mediation model shows that the two paths from a creativity‐supporting work environment to NP success are about equally important: the direct path between creativity‐supporting work environment and NP success has a coefficient of .22, and the coefficient of the indirect path via NP productivity is .23. The creativity‐supporting work environment framework can be used in managerial practice to enhance employee creativity for product innovation. It allows applying a flexible and broad approach by influencing both social‐organizational and physical characteristics of the work environment.