Legitimacy‐Seeking Mechanisms in Product Innovation: A Qualitative Study*

Product innovation research adopts a rational choice perspective to examine resource allocation decisions for product innovation. This research emphasizes strategic alignment between the innovation and the organization as the key factor shaping these decisions. In contrast, organizational research suggests that to access resources, product innovations have to be perceived as legitimate by corporate sponsors. Legitimacy is rooted in alignment with the prevalent corporate norms, beliefs, and cultural model. Adopting an institutional perspective and relying on an in‐depth case study of three product innovations, this study explores legitimacy‐seeking behavior in product innovation. The findings indicate that the rational perspective emphasized in most product innovation research is complemented by efforts to seek both moral and cognitive legitimacy to resource product innovation. The study clarifies the critical role that the organizational context plays in triggering legitimacy‐seeking behavior. The analysis unpacks legitimacy‐seeking behavior, revealing patterns of legitimating mechanisms (lobbying, relationship building, and gathering feedback) that are deployed as part of legitimacy strategies (conforming, selecting, and manipulating) to achieve a range of legitimacy outcomes (pragmatic, moral, and cognitive). The analysis reveals the existence of a hierarchy of legitimacy outcomes as actors prioritize one type of legitimacy versus another. The study also finds interdependencies between mechanisms and strategies to reinforce particular outcomes as legitimacy‐seeking behavior evolves over time.     

Soaking It Up: Absorptive Capacity in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams

Prior research has acknowledged the importance of an organization's absorptive capacity—the ability to acquire new knowledge and information, assimilate, transform, and exploit it—for innovation purposes. Because innovations are usually developed by project teams, this suggests that absorptive capacity, as a construct, may also be usefully applied at the team level. Consequently, this study developed a measure for team‐level absorptive capacity, investigated the potential influencing factors, and examined its relationship to team effectiveness in terms of product innovativeness in an interorganizational context. Specifically, building on the theory of homophily and information and decision‐making theories, three factors (social‐category similarity, work‐style similarity, and knowledge complementarity between the recipient and the partner organization teams) were identified as likely antecedents of team absorptive capacity. The hypotheses were tested on data from 98 interorganizational new product development teams and included responses from team members, team leaders, and team‐external managers. With regard to the antecedents of team absorptive capacity in interorganizational settings, the results showed a significant positive association with partners' work‐style similarity and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with partners' knowledge complementarity. Social‐category similarity was not significantly associated with team absorptive capacity. We also examined whether team absorptive capacity was related to interorganizational team effectiveness and found a significant positive relationship between team absorptive capacity and product innovativeness. The study demonstrates that absorptive is indeed related to team effectiveness outcomes in an interorganizational context, which underlines the importance of team‐level absorptive capacity for product innovation management and suggests paying more attention to the lower levels of absorptive capacity.     

Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation

This paper reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside‐in” and “coupled” modes of open innovation. From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four‐phase model in which a linear process—(1) obtaining, (2) integrating, and (3) commercializing external innovations—is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals, complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation‐related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front‐loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations. Research on obtaining innovations includes searching, enabling, filtering, and acquiring—each category with its own specific set of mechanisms and conditions. Integrating innovations has been mostly studied from an absorptive capacity perspective, with less attention given to the impact of competencies and culture (including “not invented here”). Commercializing innovations puts the most emphasis on how external innovations create value rather than how firms capture value from those innovations. Finally, the interaction phase considers both feedback for the linear process and reciprocal innovation processes such as cocreation, network collaboration, and community innovation. This review and synthesis suggests several gaps in prior research. One is a tendency to ignore the importance of business models, despite their central role in distinguishing open innovation from earlier research on interorganizational collaboration in innovation. Another gap is a tendency in open innovation to use “innovation” in a way inconsistent with earlier definitions in innovation management. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research that include examining the end‐to‐end innovation commercialization process, and studying the moderators and limits of leveraging external sources of innovation.     

The thin red line between success and failure: Path dependence in the diffusion of innovative production technologies

The wide variation in the success of innovations obscures similarities in the process of firms being influenced by other firms when choosing production technology. We argue that diffusion processes are similar across successful and failed innovations. Production asset innovation success results not only from innovation quality differences—early chance events and subsequent path dependence are also intrinsic to diffusion processes. Thus, diffusion processes do not reliably spread the best innovations, producing competitive advantage for firms with an early lead producing innovations and firms adopting high‐quality innovations. We test these predictions quantitatively by analyzing the diffusion of the DC‐10 and L‐1011 airplanes, and find support for our theory linking the social information provided by firm adoptions to the success of innovative production technologies. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firm Patenting,Innovations, and Government Institutional Support as a Double‐Edged Sword

In 2012, China was ranked fourth in patent filing by region of origin. However, firm innovation quality is not comparable to such quantity. Evidence of this is that no Chinese organization was named as a Thomson Reuters 2011 or 2012 Top 100 Global Innovators. This paradox of firm patenting and innovations in China challenges the traditional understanding of the role of government in industrial innovation. This paper provides a theoretical lens through which to examine traditional protective and strategic patenting motives. Based on institutional theory and the ultimate goals of patenting motives, the paper posits that protective patenting motives are directly law‐based while strategic patenting motives are largely law‐derived. The paper also aims to empirically examine three questions: (1) What is the relative importance of various patenting motives to firm patenting behaviors? (2) What effects do patenting behaviors have on firm product and process innovations? (3) How, if at all, does governmental institutional support affect firm patenting and innovations? This paper uses dominant analysis, structural equation modeling, and regression analysis to analyze the survey data collected from a sample of 270 firms in China. The empirical results provide new evidence about firm patenting, innovations, and government institutional support. First, the order of relative importance of patenting motives to patenting behaviors was found to be (in the descending order of importance) reputation, exchange, blocking, and protection. Second, patenting behaviors were more relevant to product innovations than to process innovations. Third, more importantly, while government institutional support can enhance the effects of protective patenting motives on patenting behaviors, it can mitigate the effects of strategic patenting motives on patenting behaviors. Moreover, government institutional support reduces the positive effect of patenting behaviors on product innovations. These findings suggest that firm patenting and innovations are distinct activities, and that government institutional support acts as a double‐edged sword in firm patenting and innovations: On the one hand government institutional support—an extralegal formal institution—may work alongside the patent system—a law‐based formal institution—to advance science and technology, but on the other hand government institutional support may distract firms from commercializing patented knowledge into new products. This paper primarily contributes to institutional theory, new product development literature, and innovation management practice by revealing the dynamics between two different types of formal institutions—patent system and government institutional support—by establishing an institution‐based view of patenting motives, by empirically distinguishing firm patenting and innovations, and more interestingly by uncovering a double‐edged role of government institutional support in firm patenting and innovations.     

Paths Toward Radical Service Innovation in Manufacturing Companies—A Service‐Dominant Logic Perspective

Research on servitization of manufacturing companies concentrates on typologies of product–service bundles, on transition pathways to increased servitization, and on resource and capabilities configurations necessary to accomplish this transition. Missing from existing research is an analysis of the degree of novelty of service innovations introduced by manufacturing companies. Therefore, this article shifts the focus from the transition process itself to the question of how manufacturing companies can introduce radical service innovations to the market. This article links servitization literature with service innovation literature and investigates how manufacturing companies can introduce radically new services in terms of three forms of innovations: service concept innovations, customer experience innovations, and service process innovations. Service‐dominant logic (SDL) is applied as the theoretical lens because it covers four significant factors influencing the success of companies’ innovation activities: actor value networks, resource liquefaction, resource density, and resource integration. Based on a multiple case study of 24 Danish business‐to‐business manufacturing small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises and through a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, different configurations of the principles of SDL are analyzed. They describe the paths to radical service innovation. Digitalization appears as a central causal condition in the bulk of the configurations. Big and rich data generated internally within the focal company in combination with for instance customer data can enhance the innovativeness of the service offerings. However, digitalization is not a sufficient condition for launching radical service innovation—it should be combined with an efficient mobilization of resources internally within the focal company and/or collaboration with other organizations within the value system. In addition, the analysis hints to a need to detach from immediate customers as the prime driver of service innovation.     

Implementation of Social Innovations in Subsistence Marketplaces: A Facilitated Institutional Change Process Model

Implementation of social innovations in subsistence marketplaces often fails as a result of not bringing about institutional change. In this article, we study the process through which social enterprises facilitate local communities in effecting the process of institutional change as they introduce social innovations. Analyzing rich ethnographic data from 19 social enterprises, we develop the process of “facilitated institutional work” for implementing social innovation. We present a process model for implementing social innovation with four distinct stages involving social enterprises—(1) legitimating themselves within local communities, (2) disrupting aspects of the local institutional environment, (3) helping re‐envision institutional norms or practices, and (4) resourcing the institutional change process. The four stages relate to important concerns that local communities have in working with social enterprises implementing social innovations. These community‐level concerns revolve around the following questions: (1) Why should we allow an external social enterprise to be involved in our affairs? (2) Why do we need to change? (3) What should we change and what should we sustain? and (4) What role should we play in implementing change (such as in mobilizing resources)? This article demonstrates that bringing about institutional change is often necessary for implementing social innovations in subsistence marketplaces. The findings depict a participatory approach in which social enterprises work with local communities to bring about the institutional conditions necessary for implementing social innovation.     

The impact of leadership influence tactics and employee openness toward others on innovation performance

Despite the vital importance of leadership, employees, and their social interactions in the open‐innovation process, there is scarce evidence on the influence and connectedness of different sub‐firm levels related to open innovation. The aim of this study is to explore the influence of leadership influence tactics and employee openness toward others on innovation performance at the individual and team levels. We applied a multilevel analysis on a sample of 85 employees and their 15 direct supervisors/team leaders. We find that leaders’ building open‐innovation coalitions exhibits a positive cross‐level relationship with employee openness toward others and individual‐level innovative behavior, and also moderates the link between the latter two constructs. Additionally, the leaders’ building open‐innovation coalitions variable is positively related to the team‐level scope of innovations and the team‐level innovation implementation phase.     

Looking for a Needle in a Haystack: How to Search for Bottom‐Up Social Innovations that Solve Complex Humanitarian Problems

The worldwide increase in societal challenges is putting pressure on humanitarian organizations to develop sophisticated approaches to leverage social innovations in the humanitarian sector. Since humanitarian problems are complex problems, with the relevant knowledge being hidden, organizational search theory advocates the application of bottom‐up and theory‐guided search processes to identify the social innovations that solve these. Unfortunately, there has been no theoretical attention to understanding which approaches apply in this context. Further, established theory‐guided bottom‐up search processes, such as the lead user method, are unsuitable to the humanitarian sector, and we lack practice examples of adequate search processes. To start addressing this gap in theory and practice, procedural action research was done with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to develop a theory‐guided bottom‐up innovation search process for the real‐life humanitarian problem of recurring floods in Indonesia. It revealed that an innovation search process for this context must differ significantly concerning its objectives and the steps to be taken from the lead user method, which was used as a starting point. Further, a comparison of the technical quality and the social impacts of the identified social innovations with social innovations identified through a non‐theory‐guided bottom‐up search process (i.e., an innovation contest) suggests the superiority of this theory‐guided search process. With this conclusion and the insights derived throughout the development of the search process, this study makes important contributions to theory development in the social and open innovation literatures and delivers important recommendations for social innovation practice in the humanitarian sector.     

The effects of knowledge interaction for business innovation

The objective of this paper is to examine the effects of knowledge interaction on different types of business innovation. We first identified three indicators that reflect on the quality of the interaction between customers and technological knowledge, and then classified business innovations as product innovation, problem-solving innovation, or general innovation capability. Hypotheses about the impact of different qualities of knowledge interaction on business innovations were tested by collecting data from 178 high-technology firms in Taiwan. The results revealed that product innovation requires both wide-ranging and deep interaction between customers and technological knowledge, that problem-solving innovation requires either wide-ranging or deeper interaction between customers and technological knowledge, and that wide-ranging knowledge interaction is the most important driver for building general innovation capability. The research results enhance our understanding of knowledge interaction, with a special focus on the content and quality of the knowledge interactions within an enterprise. It also helps business managers in allocating resources and facilitating interorganizational communications for different situations related to innovation.     

Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical,More Innovative,and Incremental Product Innovations

Although universally recognized as an important consideration in building product development (PD) competency, the effect of a firm's ability to vary its PD practices to develop winning products has been given scant attention in large‐scale, multiorganizational, quantitative studies. This research explores differences in formal new PD practices among three project types—incremental, more innovative, and radical. Using a sample of 380 business units, this research investigates how development practices differ across these three classes of innovation with respect to the formal PD process, project organization, PD strategy, organizational culture, and senior management commitment. Our results diverge from several commonly held beliefs about formal PD processes and the management of radical versus incremental innovations. Our results indicate that radical projects are managed less flexibly than incremental projects. Instead of being an offshoot of less strategic planning, radical projects are just as strategically aligned as incremental projects. Instead of being informally introduced entrepreneurial adventures, radical projects are often the result of more formal ideation methods. While these results may be counterintuitive to suppositional models of how to radical innovation happens, it is the central theme of this research to show how radical innovation actually happens. Our findings also provide a foundation for reexamining the role of control in the management of innovation. As the level of innovativeness increased, so too did the amount of controls imposed—e.g., less flexibility in the development process, more professional, full‐time project leadership, centralized executive oversight for new products, and formal financial assessments of expected NP performance.     

From collaborative community to competitive market: the quest to build a crowdsourcing platform for social innovation

Crowdsourcing presents new opportunities to generate social innovation. However, many crowdsourcing social innovation initiatives struggle with turning their promising projects into sustaining platforms. We studied how to design crowdsourcing platforms for social innovation by building and examining a platform called travel2change. We illustrate a framework of crowdsourcing platform building blocks based on the evolution of our case study from a collaborative community to a competitive market. Thriving platforms have a clear purpose, they facilitate value‐creating interactions for well‐understood actors and build a valid business model. The insights reveal design principles to guide organizations that seek to leverage crowdsourcing for social impact.     

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.     

Micro-processes of public good social innovation in the Australian social impact investment market

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are strategic alliances aiming to generate financial profit through social innovation in the delivery of public social services. SIBs are also a product on the social impact investment market. There is little evidence for SIBs' effectiveness, and their ongoing international popularity partly rests on a theoretical premise that market mechanisms can effectively generate and diffuse social innovation. However, the literature contains no empirical consideration of whether and how this premise applies to public good social innovations. Our empirical study fills this gap by finding that public good social innovations are stimulated by market mechanisms, and markets are in turn shaped by these innovations. Despite this, public good social innovations eventually break away from markets in a micro-process we term ‘schisming’. Through describing how and why schisming occurs, we make a unique contribution to existing knowledge of the micro-processes of concerned market shaping, and the extent to which economic markets and a concerned society are embedded within each other. Implications for practitioners seeking to bridge social innovation and economic markets include the need to be cognisant of how contextual, socially constructed concerns affect the potential and process of diffusing social innovations.     

Repeating a familiar pattern in a new way: The effect of exploitation and exploration on knowledge leverage behaviors in technology acquisitions

Research Summary: We identify two types of knowledge leverage behaviors undertaken by acquiring firms: integrated and independent knowledge leverage. We address how the prior exploitation or exploration orientation of acquirers influence these two modes of knowledge leverage behaviors. The degree of exploitation of acquirers promotes integrating their existing knowledge with acquired knowledge in innovative actions. In contrast, the degree of exploration of acquirers increases the likelihood that new innovations will use acquired knowledge without integrating it with their prior knowledge. In addition, the firm's prior acquisition rate moderates the relationship between the acquiring firms’ previous exploitation or exploration orientation and their knowledge leverage mode. The findings of this article suggest that pre‐acquisition innovation capabilities are distinct from but influence the post‐acquisition innovation actions. Managerial Summary: Firms often undertake acquisitions to gain access to new knowledge, but they can differ dramatically in how they leverage acquired knowledge. We show that the firm's prior innovation patterns drive this choice. Firms that have previously focused on incremental innovations in their internal innovation efforts tend to integrate acquired knowledge with their own prior knowledge. In contrast, firms that have previously pursued bold innovations tend to leverage acquired knowledge alone in new innovations. Thus, we show that firms use acquisitions as a means to extend their internal innovation patterns—firms that have focused on incremental innovations extend that with acquisitions by linking new innovations to their prior knowledge while firms that have pursued bold initiatives use acquired knowledge to move in new technology directions.     

An activities-based approach to network management: An explorative study

Over the last few decades, the industrial marketing literature and the business network literature have promoted a holistic approach to marketing and provided a framework for understanding interorganizational networks. However, our understanding of how interorganizational networks govern themselves when developing innovations is still limited. Most network management literature does not focus on the activities employed by network actors and/or does not recognize that there may be different modes of network management. This study explores how, why and in which combination network management activities are employed in a network and in doing so proposes a new conceptualization of network management. Using primary and secondary data pertaining to eleven innovation projects, this study reveals how network management consists of combinations of (rather than individual) management activities undertaken to manage a network. This study identifies three distinct modes of network management: basically coordinated, control-oriented and reward-oriented. Moreover, this study proposes that network actors try to match the management mode to their prevailing mental model as well as the type of network (e.g. in terms of project innovativeness).     

How Do Transformational Leaders Promote Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation? Examining the Black Box through MASEM

Understanding how firms can promote exploratory and exploitative innovations is of high interest for both scholars and practitioners. Although a substantial body of research has emphasized that top management's transformational leadership is crucial to innovation, the mechanisms through which strategic leaders influence these distinct types of innovations remain unclear. Building on upper echelon and social learning theory, this study develops and empirically examines a model that investigates the mediating roles of three distinct strategic orientations (market, learning, and entrepreneurial orientation) on the relationship between transformational leadership and exploratory and exploitative innovation. Using meta‐analytic methods combined with structural equation modeling, this study integrates findings from separate research streams, covering over 15 years of research, and using a sample of 215 effect sizes from 75 studies. The results from the partial mediation model reveal that transformational leaders play a key role in creating these specific strategic orientations which, in turn, support different innovation outcomes. Specifically, the findings indicate that transformational leaders promote exploitative innovations predominantly by building a market orientation, whereas they foster exploratory innovations by stimulating an entrepreneurial and a learning orientation. Hence, this study extends upper echelon research by uncovering the different mechanisms through which transformational leaders promote exploratory and exploitative innovations as it theoretically identifies and empirically validates the unique mediating roles of three specific strategic orientations. The results thus provide valuable insights for the challenging management of exploratory and exploitative innovations, as they provide a “guiding map” which reveals how transformational leaders from the top may use specific orientations to foster these distinct types of innovations.     

Toward a social fitness perspective on contract design: Contract legitimacy and influence strategy

The effectiveness of contracts in terms of cooperative efficiency and relational outcomes in interorganizational relationships has become critical in today's volatile markets. However, extant research on the effect of contracts on trust has found inconsistent results, possibility because of its overwhelming focus on an economic fitness perspective at the expense of a social fitness perspective. Drawing insights from institutional theory, we focus on legitimacy building in interfirm contract design, investigate how contract legitimacies (i.e., regulative, normative, and cognitive) influence the effectiveness of interfirm contract design, and further explore the moderating effects of influence strategies that are applied in the process of contract implementation. Using longitudinal field survey data and archival data, this study finds that the three types of contract legitimacy play different roles in influencing compliance and trust and that noncoercive influence strategies can improve the effectiveness of regulative and normative legitimacy better than coercive influence strategies on trust. The findings offer new theoretical and managerial insights into the role of institutional environments in the effectiveness of contract design in manufacturer–distributor relationships.     

Toward A Theory on the Reproduction of Social Innovations in Subsistence Marketplaces

Social innovations and their diffusion are critical in bridging the multiplicity of deprivations experienced by those in subsistence contexts. Yet they often do not diffuse as expected. To better understand this prevalent problem, this article develops a theory of diffusion that explains the reproduction (duplication) of social innovations in subsistence contexts. The theory utilizes a bottom‐up perspective that considers what attributes of innovations and capacities of actors matter to reproduction, particularly for subsistence user‐producers. Adopting an inductive, case‐based approach, the authors draw on examples of social innovations in sub‐Saharan Africa. Based on the authors' research and extant literature, this article builds a typology that captures different modes of reproduction. The typology delineates three archetypes of reproduced social innovations: mimetic, facilitated, and complex, and notes how frugal innovations can emerge from these archetypes. These archetypes are based on the interactions of: (1) a product's resource and knowledge complexities, and (2) the knowledge capabilities or resources of various actors, including subsistence user‐producers and bridging agents. The typology thus illuminates the conditions under which subsistence user‐producers might independently reproduce a social innovation (mimetic innovations), when they need assistance from bridging agents (facilitated innovations), and when the mix of resources and knowledge are beyond their capacity (complex innovations). Moreover, by exploring reproduction experiences of subsistence users, this article recognizes the implications of low literary, close social networks, and physical limitations. By examining who controls the knowledge and resources imperative to reproduction, the authors go beyond a focus on the social benefits of innovations to consider how intellectual property and profits matter to different actors. This article pulls together these various insights and identifies key implications that social innovators and intermediaries should consider when working to reproduce social innovations in subsistence contexts and with subsistence user‐producers.