EXECUTIVE FORUMInnovation Means Relyingon Everyone’s Cre.docx

EXECUTIVE FORUM
Innovation Means Relying
on Everyone’s Creativity
BY MARGARET J. WHEATLEY
Innovation has always been a primary challenge of
leadership. Today we live in an era of such rapid change and
evolution that leaders must work constantly to develop the
capacity for continuous change and frequent adaptation, while
ensuring that identity and values remain constant. They must
recognize people’s innate capacity to adapt and create—to
innovate.
In my own work I am constantly and happily surprised by
how impossible it is to extinguish the human spirit. People
who had been given up for dead in their organizations, once
conditions change and they feel welcomed back in, find new
energy and become great innovators. My questions are How
do we acknowledge that everyone is a potential innovator?
How can we evoke the innate human need to innovate?
The human capacity to invent and create is universal. Ours is
a living world of continuous creation and infinite variation.
Scientists keep discovering more species; there may be more
than 50 million of them on earth, each the embodiment of an
innovation that worked. Yet when we look at our own
93LTL, (. T. L. S. (2013). Innovation : Essentials from leader to
leader. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from ncent-ebooks on 2019-11-17 19:23:25.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at

ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
species, we frequently say we’re “resistant to change.” Could
this possibly be true? Are we the only species—out of 50
million—that digs in its heels and resists? Or perhaps all
those other creatures simply went to better training programs
on “Innovation for Competitive Advantage?”
Many years ago, Joel Barker popularized the notion of
paradigms or worldviews, those beliefs and assumptions
through which we see the world and explain its processes. He
stated that when something is impossible to achieve with one
view of the world, it can be surprisingly easy to accomplish
with a new one. I have found this to be delightfully true. Now
that I understand people and organizations as living systems,
filled with the innovative dynamics characteristic of all life,
many intractable problems have become solvable. Perhaps the
most powerful example in my own work is how relatively
easy it is to create successful organizational change if you

start with the assumption that people, like all life, are creative
and good at change. Once we stop treating organizations and
people as machines and stop trying to reengineer them, once
we move into the paradigm of living systems, organizational
change is not a problem. Using this new worldview, it is
possible to create organizations filled with people who are
capable of adapting as needed, who are alert to changes in
their environment, who are able to innovate strategically. It is
possible to work with the innovative potential that exists in all
of us, and to engage that potential to solve meaningful
problems.
We are gradually giving up the paradigm that has dominated
Western culture and science for over 300 years—that of the
world and humans as machines. Almost all approaches to
management, organizational change, and human behavior
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J

oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed

.
have been based on mechanistic images. When we applied
these mechanical images to us humans, we developed a
strangely negative and unfamiliar view of ourselves. We
viewed ourselves as passive, unemotional, fragmented,
incapable of self-motivation, uninterested in meaningful
questions or good work.
But the 21st-century world of complex systems and
turbulence is no place for disabling and dispiriting
mechanistic thinking. We are confronted daily by events and
outcomes that shock us and for which we have no answers.
The complexity of modern systems cannot be understood by
our old ways of separating problems, or scapegoating
individuals, or rearranging the boxes on an org chart. In a
complex system it is impossible to find simple causes that
explain our problems or to know who to blame. A messy
tangle of relationships has given rise to these unending crises.
To understand this new world of continuous change and
intimately connected systems, we need new ways of
understanding. Fortunately, life and its living systems offer us
great teachings on how to work with a world of continuous
change and boundless creativity. And foremost among life’s
teachings is the recognition that humans possess the
capabilities to deal with complexity and interconnection.
Human creativity and commitment are our greatest resources.
For several years, I have been exploring the complexities of
modern organizations through the lens of living systems. But
rather than question whether organizations are living systems,
I’ve become more confident about stating the following: the
people working in the organization are alive, and they
respond to the same needs and conditions as any other living

system. I personally don’t require any deeper level of clarity
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In

co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
than this. But I’d also like to note that one of the gifts of
understanding living systems is that it soon becomes evident
that life’s processes apply both to individuals and systems.
The dynamics of life are scale-independent—they are useful
to explain what we see no matter how small or large the living
system.
The new worldview of organizations as living systems rather
than machines offers many principles for leadership. Each of
these principles has affected my work in profound ways.
Together they allow leaders to accomplish our greatest

task—to create the conditions where human ingenuity can
flourish.
Meaning Engages Our
Creativity
Every change, every burst of creativity, begins with the
identification of a problem or opportunity that somebody
finds meaningful. When people become interested in an issue,
their creativity is instantly engaged. If we want people to be
innovative, we must discover what is important to them, and
we must engage them in meaningful issues. The simplest way
to discover what’s meaningful is to notice what people talk
about and where they spend their energy.
In my own work with this principle, I’ve found that I can’t
learn what is meaningful just by listening to managers’
self-reports or by taking the word of only a few people. I need
to be working alongside a group or individual to learn who
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.

J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv

ed
.
they are and what attracts their attention. As we work together
and deepen our relationship, I can then discern what issues
and behaviors make them sit up and take notice. As we work
together, doing real work, meaning always becomes visible.
For example, in meetings, what topics generate the most
energy, positive or negative? What issues do people keep
returning to? What stories do they tell over and over? I can’t
be outside the process, observing behaviors or collecting data
in traditional ways. I’ve also learned that I notice a great deal
more if I am curious rather than certain.
In any group, I know that I will always hear multiple and
diverging interpretations. Because I expect this, I now put
ideas, proposals, and issues on the table as experiments to see
what’s meaningful to people rather than as recommendations
for what should be meaningful to them. One of my favorite
examples of how easily we can be surprised by what others
find meaningful occurred among health care professionals
who were trying to convince parents of young children to use
seatbelts. But these parents were from a traditional,
non-Western culture. They did not see the act of securing
their child to a seat as protective of the child. They saw it as
invoking the wrath of God. Strapping in a child was an
invitation to God to cause a car accident.
I’ve learned how critical it is to stay open to the different
reactions I get, rather than instantly categorizing people as
resistors or allies. This is not easy—I have to constantly let go
of my assumptions and stereotypes. But when I listen actively
for diversity rather than agreement, it’s fascinating to notice

how many interpretations the different members of a group
can give to the same event. I am both astonished and
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In

co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
confident that no two people see the world exactly the same
way.
Depend on Diversity
Life relies on diversity to give it the possibility of adapting to
changing conditions. If a system becomes too homogenous, it
becomes vulnerable to environmental shifts. If one form is
dominant, and that form no longer works in the new
environment, the entire system is at risk. Where there is true
diversity in an organization, innovative solutions are being

created all the time, just because different people do things
differently. When the environment changes and demands a
new solution, we can count on the fact that somebody has
already invented or is already practicing that new solution.
Almost always, in a diverse organization, the solution the
organization needs is already being practiced somewhere in
that system. If, as leaders, we fail to encourage unique and
diverse ways of doing things, we destroy the entire system’s
capacity to adapt. We need people experimenting with many
different ways, just in case. And when the environment then
demands a change, we need to look deep inside our
organizations to find those solutions that have already been
prepared for us by our colleagues.
There is another reason why diversity lies at the heart of an
organization’s ability to innovate and adapt. Our
organizations and societies are now so complex, filled with so
many intertwining and diverging interests, personalities, and
issues, that nobody can confidently represent anybody else’s
point of view. Our markets and our organizations behave as
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01

3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se

rv
ed
.
“units of one.” What this means is that nobody sees the world
exactly the same as we do. No matter how hard we try to
understand differences, there is no possibility that we can
adequately represent anybody else. But there is a simple
solution to this dilemma. We can ask people for their unique
perspective. We can invite them in to share the world as they
see it. We can listen for the differences. And we can trust that
together we can create a rich mosaic from all our unique
perspectives.
Involve Everybody Who
Cares
Working with many kinds of organizations over the past
several years, I’ve learned the hard way that building
participation is not optional. As leaders, we have no choice
but to figure out how to invite in everybody who is going to
be affected by change. Those we fail to invite into the
creation process will surely and always show up as resistors
and saboteurs. But I haven’t become insistent on broad-based
participation just to avoid resistance, or to get people to
support my efforts. I’ve learned that I’m not smart enough to
design anything for the whole system. None of us these days
can know what will work inside the dense networks we call
organizations. We can’t see what’s meaningful to people, or
even understand how they get their work done. We have no
option but to ask them into the design process.
I know from experience that most people are very

intelligent—they have figured out how to make things work
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In

co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
when it seemed impossible, they have invented ways to get
around roadblocks and dumb policies, they have created their
own networks to support them and help them learn. But rarely
is this visible to the organization until and unless we invite
people in to participate in solution-creation processes. The
complexity and density of organizations require that we
engage the whole system so we can harvest the invisible
intelligence that exists throughout the organization.
Fortunately, during the past ten years there has been
pioneering work (by Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff,

Robert Jacobson, Kathy Dannemiller, and many others) on
how to engage large numbers of people in designing
innovations and changing themselves. Yet even in the
presence of strong evidence for how well these processes
work, most leaders still hesitate to venture down the
participation path. Leaders have had so many bad experiences
with participation that describing it as “not optional” seems
like a death sentence. But we have to accept two simple
truths: we can’t force anybody to change. And no two people
see the world the same way. We can only engage people in
the change process from the beginning and see what’s
possible. If the issue is meaningful to them, they will become
enthusiastic and bright advocates. If we want people’s
intelligence and support, we must welcome them as
co-creators. People support only what they create.
Diversity Is the Path to Unity
All change begins with a change in meaning. Yet we each see
the world differently. Is it possible to develop a sense of
100LTL, (. T. L. S. (2013). Innovation : Essentials from leader
to leader. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01

rv
ed
.
shared meaning without denying our diversity? Are there
ways that organizations can develop a shared sense of what’s
significant without forcing people to accept someone else’s
viewpoint?
There is a powerful paradox at work here. If we are willing to
listen eagerly for diverse interpretations, we discover that our
differing perceptions somehow originate from a unifying
center. As we become aware of this unity in diversity, it
changes our relationships for the better. We recognize that
through our diversity we share a dream, or we share a sense
of injustice. Then magical things happen to our relationships.
We open to each other as colleagues. Past hurts and negative
histories get left behind. People step forward to work
together. We don’t hang back, we don’t withdraw, we don’t
wait to be enticed. We actively seek each other out because
the problem is important. The meaningfulness of the issue
resounds more loudly than our past grievances or difficulties.
As we discover something whose importance we share, we
want to work together, no matter our differences.
I’ve been humbled to see how a group can come together as it
recognizes its mutual interests. Working together becomes
possible because people have discovered a shared meaning
for the work that is strong enough to embrace them all. Held
together in this rich center of meaning, they let go of many
interpersonal difficulties and work around traditional
hindrances. They know they need each other. They are
willing to struggle with relationships and figure out how to

make them work because they realize this is the only path to
achieving their aspirations.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In

co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
People Will Always Surprise
Us
Perhaps because of the study of human psychology, perhaps
because we’re just too busy to get to know each other, we
have become a society that labels people in greater and
greater detail. We know each other’s personality types,
leadership styles, syndromes, and neurotic behaviors. We are
quick to assign people to a typology and then dismiss them, as
if we really knew who they were. If we’re trying to get
something done in our organization, and things start going

badly, we hunt for scapegoats to explain why it’s not
working. We notice only those who impede our good
plans—all those “resistors,” those stubborn and scared
colleagues who cling to the past. We label ourselves also, but
more generously, as “early adopters” or “cultural creatives.”
I was recently given a T-shirt with a wonderful motto on the
back: “You can’t hate someone whose story you know.” But
these days, in our crazed haste, we don’t have time to get to
know each others’ stories, to be curious about who a person
is, or why she or he is behaving a particular way. Listening to
colleagues—their diverse interpretations, their stories, what
they find meaningful in their work—always transforms our
relationships. The act of listening to each other always brings
us closer. We many not like them or approve of their
behavior, but if we listen, we move past the labels. Our
“enemy” category shrinks in population. We notice another
human being who has a reason for certain actions, who is
trying to make some small contribution to our organization or
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01

rv
ed
.
community. The stereotypes that have divided us melt away
and we discover that we want to work together. We realize
that only by joining together will we be able to create the
change we both want to see in the world.
Rely on Human Goodness
I know that the only path to creating more innovative
workplaces and communities is to depend on one another. We
cannot cope, much less create, in this increasingly fast and
turbulent world without each other. If we try to do it alone,
we will fail.
There is no substitute for human creativity, human caring,
human will. We can be incredibly resourceful, imaginative,
and open-hearted. We can do the impossible, learn and
change quickly, and extend instant compassion to those who
are suffering. And we use these creative and compassionate
behaviors frequently. If you look at your daily life, how often
do you figure out an answer to a problem, or find a slightly
better way of doing something, or extend yourself to someone
in need? Very few people go through their days as robots,
doing only repetitive tasks, never noticing that anybody else
is nearby. Take a moment to look around at your colleagues
and neighbors, and you’ll see the same behaviors—people
trying to be useful, trying to make some small contribution,
trying to help someone else.
We have forgotten what we’re capable of, and we let our
worst natures rise to the surface. We got into this sorry state

partly because, for too long, we’ve been treating people as
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In

co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
machines. We’ve forced people into tiny boxes called roles
and job descriptions. We’ve told people what to do and how
they should behave. We’ve told them they weren’t creative,
couldn’t contribute, couldn’t think.
After so many years of being bossed around, of working
within confining roles, of unending reorganization,
reengineering, downsizing, mergers, and power plays, most
people are exhausted, cynical, and focused only on
self-protection. Who wouldn’t be? But it’s important to
remember that we created these negative and demoralized

people. We created them by discounting and denying our best
human capacities.
But people are still willing to come back; they still want to
work side by side with us to find solutions, develop
innovations, make a difference in the world. We just need to
invite them back. We do this by using simple processes that
bring us together to talk to one another, listen to one another’s
stories, reflect together on what we’re learning as we do our
work. We do this by developing relationships of trust where
we do what we say, where we speak truthfully, where we
refuse to act from petty self-interest. These processes and
relationships have already been developed by many
courageous companies, leaders, and facilitators. Many
pioneers have created processes and organizations that
depend on human capacity and know how to evoke our very
best.
In my experience, people everywhere want to work together,
because daily they are overwhelmed by problems that they
can’t solve alone. People want to help. People want to
contribute. Everyone wants to feel creative and hopeful again.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or
at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s

re
se
rv
ed
.
As leaders, as neighbors, as colleagues, it is time to turn to
one another, to engage in the intentional search for human
goodness. In our meetings and deliberations, we can reach out
and invite in those we have excluded. We can recognize that
no one person or leader has the answer, that we need
everybody’s creativity to find our way through this strange
new world. We can act from the certainty that most people
want to care about others, and invite them to step forward
with their compassion. We can realize that “You can’t hate
someone whose story you know.”
We are our only hope for creating a future worth working for.
We can’t go it alone, we can’t get there without each other,
and we can’t create it without relying anew on our
fundamental and precious human goodness.
Margaret J. Wheatley is president of The Berkana Institute, a
charitable global foundation. She was an organizational
consultant for many years and also a professor of
management in two graduate programs. Her work appears in
two award-winning books, “Leadership and the New
Science” and “A Simpler Way” (coauthored with Myron
Kellner-Rogers), plus several videos and articles.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
01
3.
J
oh
n
W
ile
y
&
S
on
s,
In
co
rp
or

at
ed
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Module 3 - Background
PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING
All readings are required unless noted as “Optional” or “Not
Required.”
Introduction
In practice, Marketers use various models to describe the
different marketing functions. Some of the more popular models
are the 7 step model, STP (segmentation, targeting,
positioning), or the 4 C's (Consumer Behavior, Company
Analysis, Competitor Analysis, and Context). Each has
advantages and drawbacks regarding comprehensiveness.
Readings describing each of these models are provided in the
Optional Reading list at the end of this section. For this module,
however, we will use a model that integrates and abridges these
other models.
Consumers, Markets, and Competition

Though many people think of marketing as consisting of sales
and advertising, one of the most important marketing functions
begins even before the final product or service has been
developed. In this early stage, the organization conducts
research to determine customer needs, how the market is
structured, and the number and nature of competitors addressing
that need. As you will see below, these three topics are
intertwined.
Consumers
The purpose of marketing is to discover how to provide value to
consumers while earning a profit. Marketers must understand
the entire consumer base: the customer served by the
organization, the customer currently served by competitors, and
customers who may be served in the future. One way marketers
do this is by analyzing buyer behavior (i.e., how consumers get
information and how consumers make buying decisions).
Consumer behaviors are influenced by a number of
considerations such as psychological factors, convenience,
competing choices, and cultural preferences. Read the following
book chapter on consumer behavior.
Tanner, J., and Raymond, M. (2012). Marketing Principles (v.
2.0). Ch. 3: Consumer behavior: How people make buying
decisions. Sections 3.1-3.6. Retrieved
from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/marketing-
principles-v2.0.pdf
Markets
Any business needs to know the characteristics of the markets
in which the firm operates. Understanding the customer and the
market requires extensive and sophisticated research efforts to
gather and analyze social and economic trends, human decision-
making, and potential competitors. The goal of market research
is to enable the firm to identify opportunities and threats in the
business environment as well as the organization’s capacity to
exploit its strengths and shore up its weaknesses.
Market research can be either primary (collected directly from
the source), or secondary (collected/published by someone

outside the organization). Some examples of secondary data
include:
· US Census
· www.Data,gov
· Internal data (such as customer cards at grocery stores that
collect data on buying patterns)
· Nielsen or Arbitron ratings
· Published articles and reports
· Blog posts
· Social media
The following chart illustrates the differences between primary
and secondary market research:
Source: http://www.mymarketresearchmethods.com/primary-
secondary-market-research-difference/
Competition
Competition is either direct or indirect. Direct competitors, such
as Coke and Pepsi, offer similar products or services. Indirect
competitors offer similar functions or meet similar needs, but
with different products, such as hardwood flooring vs. granite
countertops in a re-model. These are different products, but they
compete for the same re-modeling dollar. As we saw in Module
1, when there are substitute products, elasticity of demand is
increased. This creates a need for marketing to differentiate the
product from that of the competition.
Also relevant to understanding the competitive environment is
to know the market share of the industry players. This is
initially determined through market research. One important
way of competing is to formulate a strategy to increase market
share, because when competitors have similar products or
services, larger market share generally equates to larger profits.
Some common approaches to increasing market share are:
1. Lower production costs
2. Spend more on research
3. Spend more on equipment

4. Spend more on advertising
In analyzing the competition, the business must have a good
understanding of itself. What are its own capacities and
weaknesses? It may have the capacity to deliver the product –
but at what level? Local, regional, national, international? Mass
merchandising or boutique market niche? These decisions may
be governed by the firm’s capacity to finance its activities. The
best way to analyze the competitive situation and the firm’s
capacity to respond to internal and environmental challenges is
to conduct a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats). For an example of a SWOT
analysis of Costco, review this report in the Trident Online
Library:
GuruFocus.com: SWOT analysis: Costco wholesale corporation.
(2015). Chatham: Newstex. Available in the Trident Online
Library.
Market Segmentation, Targets, and Positioning
Once the firm has gained a broad understanding of its customers
and competitive environment, it is time to make some more
specific decisions about the services or products it offers. The
first step is to divide the population of potential customers into
homogeneous subgroups of consumers with similar needs and
desires. This is called segmentation. The second step is to select
from among these subgroups, which one(s) the firm will serve
best. This is called the target market. Finally, the marketers
determine the approach they will take in emphasizing the value
their product/service had for the target group. This is called
positioning.
Segmentation
Many firms differentiate among their customers and offer
different products or level of service depending on customer
type. This allows the firm to direct marketing efforts effectively
and efficiently to the “right” people to maximize sales and
profit. For example, banks may offer their “preferred
customers” (large depositors or borrowers) free checking, better
interest rates, complementary safety deposit boxes, personal

bankers, etc. These perks are geared toward attracting and
keeping their most profitable customers. Other firms do not
differentiate and offer everyone the same thing. Though
segmentation may initially be more expensive than mass-
marketing, firms that segment are more profitable than those
that do not. The most common categories of segmentation are:
· Demographic (age, gender, income)
· Geographic (SMSA, census)
· Psychographic (lifestyle, personality)
· Behavioral (usage, loyalty, occasion, price consciousness)
The following video offers an excellent overview of these topic
areas:
Tutor2u (2016) Market Segmentation, Targeting and Position.
Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srjdRDh99Y
Targeting
Once the customer base has been segmented by need and
characteristics, the firm needs to decide which group it can
pursue most successfully. Considerations include which
group(s) the firm can 1) best satisfy, 2) fit best with the firm’s
strategy, and 3) be most profitable in the future.
Many things must be considered. The fastest-growing segment
may attract more competitors and thus be more expensive to
capture and retain. Segments can also overlap. For example,
business users of internet services also make decisions about
ISP's for personal use. Another consideration is that a product
may appeal to a non-targeted segment, thus decreasing its
appeal to the targeted segment. For example, when XYZ product
becomes the product of choice of “gray hairs,” it may no longer
appeal to the 20-something demographic who were the desired
customers (think Facebook). This may require the firm to
change its strategy. Read about some of the disadvantages of
target marketing in this short article from the Houston
Chronicle:
Suttle, R. (2019). The disadvantages of target marketing. Small

Business, Chron. Retrieved from
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-target-marketing-
36131.html
Positioning
When the target market has been selected, the firm has a very
important decision to make. How will it position its product or
service in relationship to the other offerings in the market? This
is the essence of marketing strategy: Positioning determines
how the target will view the product or even the firm. Think of
the different images that come to mind when you think about
Target vs. Saks Fifth Avenue. Do you immediately think of
price and quality? Now consider Target vs. Walmart. Both offer
low prices, but Target emphasizes that the customer “gets more”
while paying less. They are positioning themselves for the more
discerning customer by appearing to offer better quality along
with value pricing.
Positioning maps are used by marketers to understand customer
perceptions of a marketplace and the relative positions of
different firms, products, and brands.
The following study guide illustrates how to construct a
positioning or perceptual map:
A Step-by-Step Guide to Constructing a Perceptual Map. (n.d)
Retrieved from
http://www.segmentationstudyguide.com/understanding-
perceptual-maps/a-step-by-step-guide-to-constructing-a-
perceptual-map/
The Marketing Mix
While positioning describes the firm’s strategic approach to
marketing a product or brand, the 4 P's are direct tactical
decisions regarding delivering customer value. The 4 P's are as
follows:
Product
What fundamental need does the purchase satisfy? “Product” is
more than the actual product; it can involve meeting needs for
status, convenience, reliability, ability to customize, etc. Thus,
packaging, warrantees, design, options, reputation, or customer

service may be just as important as the product itself. Branding
is an integral part of product management. Think of BMW or
Apple. What comes into your mind when you hear these names?
Our imagination translates these brands into descriptive and
evaluative phrases having to do with the qualities or attributes
of products carrying these brands. Similarly, Target, Pepsi,
McDonald's, your favorite restaurant, and even yourself can be
said to "have a brand," (i.e., be identified by certain qualities
that mean something to those who perceive these brands).
Price
To a marketer, price is more than how much the customer pays
at purchase – it also involves the time the consumer spends in
making the decision to buy, and the opportunity cost of
choosing one product over the other available choices. The
price a firm sets for a product is called pricing strategy.
Choosing the right price is a complex decision that needs to
take a number of factors into account, including the
characteristics of your target market and the overall strategy of
the firm to gain market share, given the competitive
environment. Options include skim pricing and penetration
pricing. To review some of the factors involved with pricing
strategies and gain insight into how a firm could decide which
might be appropriate, read:
Woodruff, J. (2019) Different types of pricing strategy. Chron
Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/different-types-
pricing-strategy-4688.html
Promotion
No matter how good a product or service is – or how much
value it provides to the target market - it will not sell if people
do not know about it. This is where advertising and selling
come in. There are many approaches and tools marketers can
use in promotion. The decision depends on the firm’s strategy,
the budget, and availability. TV reaches the most people, but it
is very expensive. Personal selling by employing a sales force
can also be expensive, but the cost can be mitigated through
telemarketing and/or digital marketing online.

Coupons, discounts, and rewards programs are effective tools
and can be applied selectively at critical times during the year.
Some companies price the product very low to entice sales – but
the replacement parts may be very expensive. For example,
consider cheap razors with expensive razor blades or free
cellphones with expensive data plans.
There are basically two kinds of promotion strategies: the push
and pull strategies. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For
an explanation of the differences between the two approaches,
take a couple of minutes to read this short article from the
online Houston Chronicle:
Robertson, T. (2019). Difference between push & pull
marketing. Small Business, Chron. Retrieved
from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-push-
pull-marketing-31806.html
Place
Few companies design a product, manufacture it, and sell it
directly to the consumer. Most rely on distributors to transport
and independently owned stores to actually sell the product.
This is termed the distribution channel. Wholesalers and
retailers are critical to the marketing function as they comprise
major parts of the distribution channel. Firms prefer that
members of the distribution channel act as partners. But when
distributors become large and powerful, an imbalance can occur,
drastically affecting the marketing strategy of the firm.
Distributors can add value in multiple ways. You can buy an
unassembled bicycle on the internet at a discount, or buy the
same bike from a specialty shop that will assemble, customize,
and service your purchase for a higher price. Some distributors
also provide logistics management to ensure the timely delivery
of the products to the consumers at the low costs. With the
popularity of Internet and e-commerce, more and more
companies deliver their products or services directly to the end
consumers, using direct distribution channels.
For more information on distribution channels, refer to the
following optional resources.

Fontelera, J. (2019). Distribution Channels and Marketing
Analysis. Retrieved
from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/distribution-channels-
marketing-analysis-60985.html
Blunt, L. (2019) Types of Marketing Channels. Retrieved
from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/types-marketing-channels-
21627.html
Quain, S. (2018). How Does Logistics Differ From
Distribution? Retrieved from
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/logistics-differ-distribution-
77542.html
For a quick review of the 4 P's of the Marketing Mix, view the
following video:
Paxton/Patterson (2017) The 4 Ps of the Marketing Mix.
Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mco8vBAwOmA
Summary
Product, price, promotion, and place strategies are highly
interdependent. Mass distribution generally is coupled with low
price, whereas boutique or limited distribution is generally
associated with higher product and advertising prices.
Perhaps the area where these interdependencies become most
clear is when considering product life cycle. It is in the firm’s
best interest to sell the greatest number of products as long as
possible. To do this, the firm must capture the greatest market
share it can for as long as it can. Product, price, place, and
promotion must change over time through product introduction,
growth, maturity, and decline. For a summary on how the
marketing mix should change according to the product life
cycle, read:
Claessens, M. (2015) Product Life Cycle Stages (PLC) –
Managing the Product Life Cycle. Retrieved
from https://marketing-insider.eu/product-life-cycle-stages/
Finally, for an overview of general marketing topics from the
perspective of a marketeer, review the following optional

chapters:
Popky, L. (2015) Chapter 3. What hasn’t changed: Timeless
Marketing Truths. Marketing Above the Noise: Achieve
Strategic Advantage with Marketing that Matters. Bibliomotion.
Available in the Skillsoft data in the Trident University Library.
Popky, L. (2015) Chapter 4. What has changed: The New
Realities. Marketing Above the Noise: Achieve Strategic
Advantage with Marketing that Matters. Bibliomotion.
Available in the Skillsoft data in the Trident University Library.
Videos
Learnloads. (2014, March 10). What are distribution channels?
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ALoo4vrKKUw
Marcy Research. (2018, November 8). Perceptual mapping.
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/L9hgJ-4hLYg. Standard
YouTube License.
Marketing 91. Product life cycle. Retrieved
from https://youtu.be/pq3e1b_7uho. Standard YouTube License.
Patel, N. (2019, May 8). Pricing strategies. How to price your
product or services for maximum profit. Retrieved
from https://youtu.be/0NGQLgrHRe4. Standard YouTube
License.
Paxton/Patterson. (2017). The 4 Ps of the marketing mix.
Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mco8vBAwOmA. Stan
dard YouTube License.
The audiopedia. (2018). What is perceptuak mapping? Retrieved
from https://youtu.be/CeNpI2ufn44. Standard YouTube License.
Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srjdRDh99Y. Standar
d YouTube License.
Required Reading
A Step-by-Step Guide to Constructing a Perceptual Map. (n.d)
Retrieved from
http://www.segmentationstudyguide.com/understanding-
perceptual-maps/a-step-by-step-guide-to-constructing-a-

perceptual-map/
Kemp, E. A., Borders, A. L., Anaza, N. A., & Johnston, W. J.
(2018). The heart in organizational buying: Marketers'
understanding of emotions and decision-making of buyers. The
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(1), 19-28.
Available in the Trident Online Library.
Paxton/Patterson. (2017). The 4 Ps of the marketing mix.
Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mco8vBAwOmA. Stan
dard YouTube License.
Phillips, T. (2017, March 10). Digital marketing strategy: Push
vs pull? The Guardian. Available in the Trident Online Library.
Pricing strategy (2010). NetMBA. Retrieved
from http://www.netmba.com/marketing/pricing/
Suttle, R. (2015). The disadvantages of target marketing. Small
Business, Chron. Retrieved
from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-target-
marketing-36131.html
The product life cycle. (2010). Quick MBA. Retrieved
from http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/
Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srjdRDh99Y. Standar
d YouTube License.
Vanegas, J. G., Restrepo, J. A., Barros, G. A., & Moreno, G. A.
(2018). Service quality in Medellin hotels using perceptual
maps. Cuadernos de Administración, 34(60). Retrieved from
http://cuadernosdeadministracion.univalle.edu.co/index.php/cua
dernos_de_administracion/article/view/5927. Available in the
Trident Online Library. CC BY-NA.
Optional Reading
Annual Reports & Proxies. (2014) Walmart. Retrieved
from http://stock.walmart.com/investors/financial-
information/annual-reports-and-proxies/default.aspx
Chaffey, D. (2013) Marketing models that have stood the test of
time. Smart Insights. Retrieved

from http://www.smartinsights.com/digital-marketing-
strategy/online-business-revenue-models/marketing-models/
Cohen, H. (2013). 7 step marketing framework. Actionable
Marketing Guide. Retrieved from http://heidicohen.com/7-step-
marketing-framework/
D’Aveni, R.A. (2007). Mapping your competitive position.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org/2007/11/mapping-your-competitive-
position
Hanlon, A. (2013) How to use Segmentation, Targeting and
Positioning (STP) to develop marketing strategies. Smart
Insights. Retrieved from http://www.smartinsights.com/digital-
marketing-strategy/customer-segmentation-
targeting/segmentation-targeting-positioning-model/
Hanlon, A. (2015) The 4 C’s marketing model. Smart Insights.
Retrieved from http://www.smartinsights.com/marketing-
planning/marketing-models/4cs-marketing-model/
Jorina, F, (n.d.). Distribution Channels and Marketing Analysis.
Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/distribution-
channels-marketing-analysis-60985.html
Lanee, B. (n.d.). Types of Marketing Channels. Retrieved
from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/types-marketing-channels-
21627.html
Neil, K. (n.d.). How Does Logistics Differ From Distribution?
Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/logistics-differ-
distribution-77542.html
Respond to the attached post. Must include citations and
references. 250 words
Module 3, Week 1 Discussion
Tavis Salas posted Nov 15, 2019 7:58 PM
It’s unreal to think that fast food chains and distributors are to
blame for the obesity crisis. There are healthier options and

lifestyle alternatives open to everyone. I firmly believe that it
is a choice, and no one is FORCED to eat a certain way or
follow a specific unhealthy diet. Even though it is the
marketing that catches the consumers’ eyes with commercials,
billboards, or other means of advertising, that doesn’t mean the
public HAS to have it. It really comes down to what ideas
companies come up to better serve their customers. (Tanner &
Raymond, 2012). It’s business 101. What attracts them? How
does an organization grab the market’s attention? Businesses
only exist if society allows them to. The one thing food
marketing may do is highlight their new products. Everyone
wants to see new, and everyone wants to try something new.
Look at the noise that was made when Popeye’s released their
chicken sandwich. The public went wild! In terms of the
“obesity” crisis, companies should (and already do) make
nutrition facts available so consumers know what their products
contain. It is not their responsibility to monitor how much and
how often the public buys them. At the end of the day, a fast
food market is only concerned about profitability. Yes, I do
think it costs more to eat healthier, but a lifestyle change other
than dieting also contributes to a good fitness journey. It’s not
always about what you see, but what you decisions you can
make to better yourself. But to blame someone else for the
decisions YOU choose to make is a little far-fetched. I enjoy a
nice Big Mac from time to time, but I also know I’ll have to put
in some work in the gym…because I know McDonald’s isn’t the
reason I may or may not put on a couple pounds.
Tanner, J., and Raymond, M. (2012). Marketing Principles (v.
2.0). Ch. 3: Consumer behavior: How people make buying
decisions. Sections 3.1-3.6. Retrieved
from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/marketing-
principles-v2.0.pdf

Journal of Management Research
Vol. 16, No. 2, April–June 2016, pp. 77–86
Nupur Sinha
Kailash B. L. Srivastava
Department of Humanities and Social Science
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur-721302
Perceived Innovation Championing Strategies
and Intrapreneurial Orientation
The Role of Social Cultural Context
Nupur Sinha and Kailash B. L. Srivastava
Abstract
The study examines the impact of intrapreneurial orientation of
employees on innovation championing
strategies in Indian cultural context. The Data were collected
from 272 executives from manufacturing
sector having established record of innovation. The results show
that intrapreneurial orientation has a
significant impact on perceived cross-functional support
championing strategies, where achievement
in business/workplace produced significant and positive
association. The results also suggest that when
factors of culture were taken together with intrapreneurial
orientation factors, it showed the significant
impact on perceived cross-functional strategies. In the second
model, the cultural factors acted as
mediator for perceived locus of support strategies; where self-
serving calculative behavior producing
significant and positive results. The study has implications for
management that they need to focus on

increasing innovative behavior by developing entrepreneurial
culture at the workplace.
Keywords: Indian social cultural context, Innovation
championing strategies, Intrepreneurship
orientation, Manufacturing sector, Mediation analysis
INTRODUCTION
Innovation has become the keyword to the success
and sustenance of organizations. With the aim of
producing new products/services/processes/
strategies, organizations adapt or respond to
increased global competition, technological
advances, dynamism in market, and customers’
needs and demands (Brown and Eisenhart, 1995;
Mitchell and Goffin, 2005). Despite the awareness
of importance of innovations and investment of
enormous efforts, majority of ideas fail to be put
on the right path from their genesis (Desouza,
2011; Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995).
A lot of phenomena are working in between, and
studies have been directed to find out how to turn
ideas into success (Pinchot and Pellman, 1999;
Shavinina, 2003). In the process, human resources
are the main drivers of innovations, from idea
generation to implementation (Pinchot and
Pellman, 1999); and innovation requires a
coordinated interplay of the key participants (idea
generators, intrapreneurs, champions) (Sim, Griffin,
Price, and Vojak, 2007). Intrapreneurs and
innovation champions, thus, play important roles in
the revival and growth of organizations.
Intrapreneurs are credited for their innovative
spirits, who are ready to ‘go the extra mile’ for the

organization if find a synchronization between
their interests and organization’s mission (Desouza,
2011; Pinchot and Pellman, 1999). But, this
innovation calls for changes in the long established
ways of functioning in the organization (power,
systems and structure) (Howell, Shea and Higgins,
2005; Schon, 1963; Shane, Venkataraman and
MacMillan, 1995). The resistance to changes occurs
to maintain the current pace of action against the
unseen results of something ‘new’ (Van de Ven,
78 Journal of Management Research
1986). This creates the need for ‘innovation
champions’ who take personal risks to overcome all
resistances and gather all support to innovative
ideas.
The literature in the recent past has started
focusing on the two concepts, but these have not
been studied in conjunction/together. Researches
show the impact of followers’ qualities and
interests on their preferences for leaders’
characteristics and behaviors (Ehrhart and Klein,
2001; Felfe and Schyns, 2006; 2010). This study
examines the links between intrapreneurial
orientation and perceived innovation championing
strategies in organizations in India applying the
emic approach. Further the study also examines the
mediating effect the social-cultural factors on the
relationship between innovation championing
strategies and intrepreneurial orientation of
employees. This study would help to understand
the interplay of two concepts locally. First, the

background for the study would be discussed in
the next section, leading to the hypotheses.
BACKGROUND
Innovation Championing Strategies
Innovation champions are individuals who help an
innovative idea to be progressed towards success
through the organizational stages (Howell, Shea,
and Higgins, 2005; Shane, Venkataraman, and
MacMillan, 1995). They emerge informally in an
organization (Schon, 1963; Chakrabarti, 1974).
Generally, the idea generators are at the bottom-of-
the hierarchical ladder in the organizations, and it
is not easy for them to promote their ideas.
Champions fill-up this gap by reaching out to them,
and are willing to take risks by enthusiastically
promoting these ideas inside the organizations
(Howell and Boies, 2004; Jenssen and Jorgensen,
2004; Maidique, 1980). The characteristics of
innovation champions highlight their capacity to
promote an idea, get the organizational support,
persuade and influence other employees and
acquire the resources to carry it forward (Howell
and Higgins, 1990; Howell, Shea, and Higgins,
2005).
To serve the purpose, researchers have identified
various strategies employed by champions to obtain
cross-functional support, determine the locus of
support, and degrees of autonomy to be given to
the people working on innovations (Shane,
Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995). The
champions are effective at both the organizational
as well as individual levels; significantly influencing
the distribution of power, resources and strategies

at the former level, and motivating and gathering
support at the later level (Howell, Shea and
Higgins, 2005; Shane, Venkataraman and
MacMillam, 1995; Van de Ven, 1986). There is
often resistance for innovations in organizations, as
these pose threat to the status quo, specialized
labor, established rules, and ways of functioning of
the organizations. Champions help the innovators
to ‘shine out’ of these circumstances.
The focus on leadership studies has mostly been on
the leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Bono and
Judge, 2004; Higgins, Judge and Ferris, 2003). On
the other hand, researchers have found that the
followers’ perceptions and attributes also influence
the evaluation of leadership (Ehrhart and Klein,
2001; Felfe and Schyns, 2006). Though these
results were derived from studies conducted on
transformational leadership, this study draws its
background based on the similarity between
transformational leadership and innovation
championing. The behavior of transformational
leaders has been suggested to be ‘creativity-
enhancing’, which helps the followers to grow and
produce innovatively (Bass, 1990; Howell and
Higgins, 1990). The studies on championing
strategies have focused on culture and followers’
perception of strategies (Shane, Venkataraman and
MacMillan, 1995). This study proposes to examine
the interaction of innovation championing
strategies with intrapreneurial orientation in Indian
cultural context.
Intrapreneurship Orientation
From the follower-centric perspective, implicit
leadership theories and social identity theory

background, it is suggested that the characteristics
Volume 16, Number 2 • April–June 2016 79
of followers play an important role in the
emergence of effective leaders in a specific
situation (Eden and Leviatan, 1975; Felfe and
Schyns, 2006; Haslam and Platow, 2001; Lord and
Emrich, 2000). In the context of innovations in
organizations, innovation champions and
intrapreneurs are discussed. At the employee-level,
intrapreneurship refers to the proactive and
innovative initiatives of employees within the
organizations, where-in the intrapreneur is more
inclined to act first and explain later (Shetty, 2004).
They are called ‘intra-corporate entrepeneurs’
(Pinchot and Pellman, 1999). The characteristics of
intrapreneurs are similar to entrepreneurs to a great
extent; the differences lie in the areas of action
(within the bounds of organization or outside) and
finance (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991; Pinchot
and Pellman, 1999; Sayeed and Gazdar, 2003). The
intrapreneurs are at low risk because their risks are
covered by organizations.
Entrepreneurs have been examined from the
personality and demographic perspectives (Beaver
and Jennings, 2005; Brockhaus, 1980). Attitudes
were proposed as an alternative to these traits and
demographic perspectives (Robinson, Stimpson,
Huefner and Hunt, 1991). Attitudes are the
predisposition to respond in a generally favorable
or unfavorable manner with respect to the attitude
object (Ciccarelli and Meyer, 2008; Robbins and

Judge, 2013). Attitudes are more domain-specific
and less stable (Ajzen, 1989; Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975; Robinson et.al, 1991). Robinson, Stimpson,
Huefner and Hunt (1991) identified four subscales
for attitudes towards entrepreneurship orientation
(EAO): achievement in business, innovation in
business, perceived personal control, and perceived
self-esteem. Shetty (2004) undertook the study to
determine the entrepreneurial/intrapreneurial
attitudinal characteristics of Indian executives in IT
and Financial sectors using EAO scale. The four
attitude subscales in context of intrapreneurship
pertains to attitudes of employees at workplace.
The ‘achievement in business/work’ refers to
concrete results associated with the growth of
organizations. ‘Innovations in business/work’
relates to perceiving and acting upon the work, job
in new and unique ways. ‘Perceived personal
control’ would concern the individual’s perception
of control and influence over his/her work.
‘Perceived self-esteem’ would pertain to the self-
confidence and perceived competency of the
individual. Among these dimensions, innovation
and achievement orientations were found to be the
most prominent (Drucker, 1985; Shetty, 2004).
In the context of leader-follower relationship,
individual preferences for and reactions to leaders
are based mostly on (a) similarity attraction, and/
or (b) need satisfaction (Ehrhart and Klein, 2001;
Felfe and Schyns, 2006; 2010). The followers give
positive ratings to their leaders when there is
congruence between the followers’ and leaders’
characteristics and the leaders provide means
toward need fulfillment. Attitude theory and

research suggests that attitudes are the primary
drivers of behavior (Ajzen, 1989; Fishben and
Ajzen, 1975), and that the followers’ preferences
for leaders are likely to predict their behavior
(Robbins and Judge, 2013; Robinson et.al, 1991). In
the organizations, the favorable intrapreneurship
attitude orientation (IAO) would lead to innovative
activities with the help of supportive leader who
would overcome the obstacles raised by the
existence of specialization, systems of authority,
and routines. An innovation champion is supposed
to do these by attracting organizational members to
the innovation effort; and deciding on the degree
of autonomy from organizational norms and
routines accorded to innovation participants
(Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995).
Thus, IAO would be assumed to positively relate
to championing strategies.
H1: Intrapreneurial orientation factors would be
positively associated with the three championing
strategies.
INDIAN SOCIAL CULTURAL
CONTEXT (INDIAN MINDSET)
The mindset is defined as the constellation of
beliefs, preferences, practices, and action
orientation that people possess and respond to
their environment in particular ways (Sinha et al.,
associates, 2010; Sinha and Pandey, 2007). Indian

mindset represents the socio-cultural aspect, which
is continuously evolving as a result of the tolerance
in Indian society (Sinha, 2008; Sinha and associates,
2010). This concept is explained on the basis of
context-sensitivity and balancing behaviors (Sinha
and Kanungo, 1997); in relation to person (patra),
time (kal), and ecological (desh) components of
environment. The ‘patra’ reflects the group-
embeddedness and hierarchy; ‘kal’ reflects the time-
perspective; and ‘desh’ component reflects the
resources.
The Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been
primarily studied in management science (Amba-
Rao at.al, 2000; Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede, Neuijen,
Ohayv, and Sanders, 1990; Sinha, 2008), even in
relation with innovations (Elenkov and Manev,
2005; Herbig and Dunphy, 1998; Shane, 1992,
1993; Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995).
Researchers found that social factors played more
important role than the economic conditions in
increasing the rates of innovations in a country
(Shane, 1992; 1993; Westwood and Low, 2003); and
that individualism, acceptance of uncertainty, and
lack of power distance is important for innovations
(Shane, 1993). On the Hofstede’s dimensions, India
is high on power distance and uncertainty
avoidance, and moderately collectivistic and
masculine (Panda and Gupta, 2004). But, with the
existence of wide cultural variance within Indian
boundary, is advisable to use an emic framework
for studies in India (Sinha, 2008; Sinha and Kumar,
2004; Sinha, Sinha, Verma, and Sinha, 2001).
The socio-cultural influence on the preferences,

behavior and growth of individuals is very strong
among Indians (Banerjee, 2008; Shivani,
Mukherjee, and Sharan, 2006). In India, the
paternalistic style of leadership is prevalent (Sinha
and Sinha, 1990), where the superiors nurture and
give ‘sneh’ (affection) to their subordinates and
expect ‘shraddha’ (deference) from them. Studies
indicate that Indians are ambitious and want to
work innovatively for the development of their
organizations (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997; Sinha
et.al, 2001; Sinha and associates, 2010). The impact
of Indian mindset on the follower-leader
relationship is yet to be explored. Based on the
discussion, it is assumed that it is related to both
the followers’ and leaders’ characteristics. This
leads to the following hypothesis.
H2: Indian social cultural context (mindset)
would significantly influence the association of
intrapreneurial attitude orientation factors with
innovation championing strategies.
METHODS
Sample
The Data were collected from 272 junior and
middle level managers of 12 different
organizations across India. The descriptive
statistical analyses were conducted to find the
Table 1: Table Showing the Characteristics of the Sample
Total No. of Type of Total No. of Age Education Childhood
Family Employment
Organizations Organization Executives Place Type

12 Public (6) 272 21-35 years Graduation Village Nuclear
Public
(55.5%) (68.4%) (18.8%) Family (57.4%) (45%)
Private (6) 36-48 years PG Town/City Joint Family Private
(31.3%) (30.9%) (71%) (42.6%) (55%)
49-60 years Partly Town
(13.2%) and
Partly Vill.
(10.3%)
demographic distribution of the sample. The
sample characteristics are given in Table 1.
Measures
The questionnaire method was used for measuring
the variables through survey. In order to
standardize every scale in the survey, five-point
Likert scale (1 representing the strongest
disagreement to 5 expressing the strongest
agreement with the respective item) was used. The
variable-wise description is as follows.
Intrapreneurial Attitude Orientation
This scale consisted of 25 items, taken from Sayeed
and Gazdar (2003) and Shetty (2004). After the
item-analysis, the number of retained items was
twenty-three. It consisted of four indices. The first
index was self-esteem, which consisted of two

items. The second index was achievement in
business/work consisting of twelve items. The
third index was perceived personal control in
business/work, which comprised of two items.
The fourth index was innovation in business which
consisted of nine items. The reliability indices of
the four sub-scales were: perceived self-esteem
(.75), achievement orientation (.86), perceived
personal control (.86), and innovation orientation
(.90).
Perceived Innovation Championing Strategies
The scale consisted of eleven items adapted from
the study of Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan
(1995), consisting of three sub-variables (degrees
of autonomy, cross-functional support and locus
of support). The scale of autonomy consisted of
four items. The Cronbach alpha score for this scale
was .68. The reliability of cross-functional support
Table 2: Table Showing the Inter-correlation among the
Variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Se 2.84 .80 1 -.01 -.02 .00 .02 .06 .01 .11 -.00 -.00 -.05
2. Ach 4.20 .47 1 .68** .78** .06 .27** .27** .17** .07 .30** -
.03
3. Pc 4.25 .68 1 .64** .07 .27** .25** .25** .12** .18** .01
4. Inn 4.00 .57 1 .02 .28** .31** .15** .09 .27** .03

5. Dup 3.77 .65 1 .19** .06 .57** .07 .07 .06
6. Cs 3.75 .49 1 .46** .39** .09 .17** .14*
7. Gab 3.80 .52 1 .18** .03 .23** .05
8. Ssc 3.78 .60 1 .18** .18** .17**
9. Aut 3.73 .66 1 .32** .40**
10. Cfs 4.28 .58 1 .03
11. Los 3.29 .73 1
Note: *Sig at .05 level **Sig at .01 level
Se = Perceived self-esteem, Ach = Achievement at workplace,
Pc = Perceived personal control,
Inn = Innovation at work, Dup = Duplicity, Cs = Context
sensitivity, Gab = Goal-achieving behavior,
Ssc = Self-serving calculative behavior, Aut = Degrees of
autonomy, Cfs = Cross-functional support,
Los = Locus of support
was .76, which consisted of three items. The
Cronbach alpha for the scale of locus of support
was .73, and it comprised of four items.
Indian Mindset/Socio-cultural Factors
The scale items were adapted from Sinha and
associates (2010). The scale consisted of four
factors: duplicity (.80), context sensitivity (.78), goal

achieving behavior (.76), and self-seeking
calculative behavior (.82).
Procedure
With permission from authorities in the concerned
organizations, the survey was conducted with the
random list of employees provided by the
organizations. A total of 400 questionnaires were
distributed, but only 296 were returned. The
response rate was 74 percent. Out of this, 24 had
to be rejected because of a high rate of missing
data, leaving a sample of 272. Thus, 92 percent of
the returned questionnaires were appropriate for
further analysis in the study. The Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0 was used
for analyzing the Data for correlation and
regression statistics.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the purpose of the study, the correlation and
regression analyses were conducted. The Pearson’s
correlation statistic was done to find out the
correlations among the variables. The results are
given in Table 2.
The results showed that perceived degree of
autonomy strategy was positively related to
personal control (r = .12, p<H .01) and self-
serving calculative behavior (r = .18, p<H .01).
The cross-functional support strategy was found to
be positively related to achievement orientation (r=
.30, p<H .01), personal control (r = .18, p<H .01),
innovation orientation (r = .27, p<H .01), context
sensitivity (r = .17, p<H .01), goal-achieving
behavior (r = .23, p<H .01), and self-serving

calculative behavior (r= .18, p<H .01). The locus
of support was positively related to context
Table 3: Table Showing the Multiple Regression Analysis
Results with Factors of IAO as
Predictor Variables and Championing Strategies as Criterion
Variables in Model 1 and
Factors of IAO and Mindset as Predictor Variables and
Championing Strategies as
Criterion Variables in Model 2
Model 1
Aut .01 1.02 .40
Cfs .10 .27** (Ach) 7.24 .00
Los .01 .99 .41
Model 2
Aut .04 2.23* (Ssc) 1.39 .20
Cfs .14 2.73** (Ach) 5.27 .00
2.32*(Gab)
1.99* (Ssc)
Los .06 2.2* (Ssc) 1.96 .05
Note: *Sig at .05 level **Sig at .01 level

sensitivity (r = .14, p<H .01) and self-serving
calculative behavior (r = .17, p<H .01).
The multiple regression analyses were conducted to
examine the impact of intrapreneurial attitude
orientations and socio-cultural factors on the
innovation championing strategies. The results have
been presented in two models (Table 3). In Model
1, intrapreneurial attitude orientation factors are
predictor variables. In Model 2, socio-cultural
factors along with Intrapreneurial attitude
orientation factors were inserted as predictor
variables.
In Model 1, where IAO factors were playing the
predictor role, the model was significant only with
cross-functional support strategy as criterion
variable (R² = .10, F = 7.24; p < .01). The
achievement orientation significantly and positively
predicted perception of cross-functional support
hypothesis H1 was partially supported.
In Model 2, socio-cultural factors were also used
as predictor variables. It was found that they were
acting independently, and produced no significant
impact on the relationship between IAO factors
and championing strategies. Though self-serving
calculative behavior was found to be significantly
and positively predicting the perceived degrees of
significant (R² = .04, F = 1.39, p > .05). Three
.01), goal-

and self-
< .05) were found to have significant impact on
cross-functional support strategy (R² = .14, F =
5.27, p < .01). Only self-serving calculative
significant and positive impact on locus of support
strategy (R² = .06, F = 1.96, p < .05). The results
did not support the hypothesis H2 as the socio-
cultural factors did not have any intervening impact
on the follower-leader relationship.
In the results, two variables featured prominently.
These were perceived cross-functional support on
the one hand and self-serving calculative behavior
on the other hand. In the organizations,
specialization often leads the members to a focused
view of only their work. This limits the horizontal
flow of knowledge, which blocks the cross-
functional exchange of knowledge (Shane et al.,
1995). In the context of Indian social and
organizational functioning, this would happen
often; hence, the people depend on champions to
gather the cross-functional support of knowledge
for innovations. This preference for cross-
functional support depends on the achievement
orientation, goal-achieving behavior, and self-
serving calculative behavior of employees. If the
person is willing to have achievements at work and
is also working towards it putting in all efforts, they
prefer the leaders who would take up their cause
and work towards it (Sinha and associates, 2010).
The self-serving calculative behavior wherein
people are calculative to serve their own interests
has predicted the three strategies. For making an
innovative idea work, Indians can become

calculative to get all sorts of help from authorities
through the champions. They would speak what
the leaders want to hear, take undue advantage of
innocent people, would work very hard if there is
any scope to be amply rewarded (Sinha and
associates, 2010). But, they would do all this to get
heard and make their ideas into possible
innovations. This mode of behavior pertains to the
quality of molding the environmental factors into
one’s favor, and rerouting to the enterprising
activities.
Indian organizations have also adapted to suit to
the competitive times (Sinha, 2008; Sinha and
Sinha, 1990). They are adopting the necessary
activities that would help the organizations to grow.
A few interviews were conducted with the higher
authorities in the targeted organizations to know
about the activities, supported by the study of
annual reports. It was found that there is emphasis
on “high performance culture” and relaxation in
terms of status quo. According to them, freedom
to discuss and share the knowledge among the
people of their professional unit is more important
than maintaining the unconditional distance from
seniors. In HR strategies, training and development
was found to be very important for improving the
skills of employees. Performance management
systems including various awards, rewards, and
recognitions were included to encourage
employees. The organizations have either formal or

informal knowledge management systems for the
continuous flow of knowledge. These strategies
would help the hassle-free mobility of champions
to gain required knowledge, support and resources
for innovations. These would also act as
encouragement to the employees.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
This study proposed to study the impact of
intrapreneurial attitude orientations and socio-
cultural factors on preferences for innovation
championing strategies. The results of the study
brought the self-serving calculative behavior of
Indians into light, together with attitude towards
achievement orientation at work and the
preferences for strategy of cross-functional
support. Indians are very achievement-oriented,
and they work very hard towards their set goals. In
the process, they can be selfish and self-serving and
jump over any hurdles. They would want their
leaders to gather the required knowledge and
support from various departments for the cause of
innovations.
The results have implications both for
academicians and practitioners. This study
extended the research on follower-leader
relationship by including the context of innovation.
Also, the study has used an emic approach to
understand the role of socio-cultural factors in
India. A global model to study the impact of
culture has given the platform for comparing the
similarities and differences in the functioning of
organizations at the level of national culture
(Hofstede, 1983). The studies can look for more

local characteristics in the cultures which can have
their impact on organizational functions. This
study has its significance in the current business
arena where innovation has become the key to
change and sustenance for organizations. The
follower-leader relationship is important in
organizational science because it helps the leaders
to acclimatize their roles and activities, and get the
best out of their subordinates (Felfe and Schyns,
2010; Sinha, 2008). Understanding of these
relationships would help the organizations to
match and assign “right people at the right jobs”.
This study is also significant in the present scenario
when the Indian government is stressing on ‘Make
in India’ strategy, it adds to the psychological
support to the technological knowledge.
LIMITATIONS
The study has its limitations. The first limitation
relates to the measuring instrument. The
limitations of using interview schedule methods in
surveys cannot be avoided completely, though
checks in the items were included in the scales. The
Data were collected only from manufacturing
sector, and service and IT sectors were not
included in the study. The sample size was small.
Further studies can be conducted keeping in view
these limitations. Studies in different sectors with
a larger sample size can be done to validate the
results. This will broaden the scope of “best
practices in Indian organizations” in the domain of
innovation management.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1989), Attitude Structure and Function, in A. R.
Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler and A. G. Greenwald (Eds), The Third

Ohio
State University Volume on Attitude and Persuasion, pp. 241–
274, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, New
Jersey,
Hove and London.
Amba-Rao, S. C., Petrick, J. A., Gupta, J. N. D. and Von der
Embse, T. J. (2000), Comparative Performance Appraisal
Practices
and Management Values Among Foreign and Domestic Firms in
India, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
11: 60–89.
Banerjee, S. (2008), Dimensions of Indian Culture, Core
Cultural Values and Marketing Implications: An Analysis,
Cross-cultural
Management: An International Journal, 15: 367–378.
Bass, B. M. (1990), From Transactional to Transformational
Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision, Organizational
Dynamics, 18:
19–31.
Beaver, G. and Jennings, P. (2005), Competitive Advantage and
Entrepreneurial Power: The Dark Side of Entrepreneurship,
Journal
of Small Business and Enter prise Development, 12: 9–23.
Bono, J. E. and Judge, T. A. (2004), Personality and
Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-
Analysis, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 89: 901–910.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980), Psychological and Environmental
Factors which Distinguish the Successful from Unsuccessful
Entrepreneur: A Longitudinal Study, Academy of Management
Proceedings, 368–372.
Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995), Product
Development: Past Research, Present Findings and Future
Directions, Academic
Management Review, 20: 343–378.
Chakrabarti, A. K. (1974), The Role of Champion in Product
Innovation, California Management Review, 17: 58–62.
Ciccarelli, S. K. and Meyer, G. E. (2008), Psychology, Pearson
Publication.
Cunningham, J. B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), Defining
Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, 29:
45–61.
Desouza, K. C. (2011), Intrapreneurship: Managing Ideas
Within Your Organization, University of Toronto Press.
Eden, D. and Leviatan, U. (1975), Implicit Personality Theory
as a Determinant of the Factor Structure Underlying
Supervisory
Behavior Scales, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 736–741.
Ehrhart, M. G. and Klein, K. J. (2001), Predicting Followers’
Preferences for Charismatic Leadership: The Influence of
Follower
Values and Personality, The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 159–179.
Elenkov, D. S. and Manev, I. M. (2005), Top Management

Leadership and Influence on Innovation: The Role of
Sociocultural
Context, Journal of Management, 31: 381–402.
Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2006), Personality and the Perception
of Transformational Leadership: Impact of Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Personal Need for Structure, and Occupational
Self-efficacy, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 708–
739.
Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2010), Followers’ Personality and the
Perception of Transformational Leadership: Further Evidence
for
the Similarity Hypothesis, British Journal of Management, 21:
393–410.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention,
and Behavior : An Introduction to Theory and Research,
Addison-Wesley, MA.
Haslam, S. A. and Platow, M. J. (2001), The Link Between
Leadership and Followership: How Affirming Social Identity
Translates
Vision into Action, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27: 1469–1479.
Herbig, P. and Dunphy, S. (1998), Culture and Innovation,
Cross Cultural Management, 5: 13–21.
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., and Ferris, G. R. (2003), Influence
Tactics and Work Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24: 89–106.
Hofstede, G. (1983), The Cultural Relativity of Organizational
Practices and Theories, Journal of International Business
Studies, 14:

75–89.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., and Sanders, G.
(1990), Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and
Quantitative
Study Across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly,
35: 286–316.
Howell, J. M. and Boies, K. (2004), Champions of
Technological Innovation: The Influence of Contextual
Knowledge, Role
Orientation, Idea Generation, and Idea Promotion on Champion
Emergence, The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 123–143.
Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990), Champions of
Technological Innovations, Administrative Science Quarterly,
35: 317–341.
Howell, M. J., Shea, C. M., and Higgins, C. A. (2005),
Champions of Product Innovations: Defining, Developing, and
Validating a
Measure of Champion Behavior, Journal of Business
Venturing, 20: 641–661.
Jenssen, J. I. and Jorgensen, G. (2004), How do Corporate
Champions Promote Innovations? , International Journal of
Innovation
Management, 8: 63–86.
Lord, R. G. and Emrich, C. G. (2000), Thinking Outside the Box
by Looking Inside the Box: Extending the Cognitive Revolution
in Leadership Research, The Leadership Quarterly, 11: 551–
579.

Maidique, M. (1980), Entrepreneurs, Champions, and
Technological Innovation, Sloan Management Review, 21: 59–
76.
Mitchell, R. and Goffin, K. (2005), Innovation Management:
Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework ,
Palgrave
Macmillan.
Panda, A. and Gupta, R. K. (2004), Mapping Cultural Diversity
within India: A Meta-Analysis of Some Recent Studies, Global
Business Review, 5: 27–49.
Pinchot, G. and Pellman, R. (1999), Intrapreneuring in Action:
A Handbook of Business Innovation, Berrett-Koehler
Publications, San
Fransisco.
Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2013), Organizational Behavior
(15th Ed), Pearson Education, Inc.
Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C. and Hunt, H.
K. (1991), An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of
Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15:
13–31.
Sayeed, O. B. and Gazdar, M. K. (2003), Intrapreneurship:
Assessing and Defining Attributes of Intrapreneurs, Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 12: 75–89.
Schon, D. A. (1963), Champions for Radical New Inventions,
Harvard Business Review, 41: 77–86.
Shane, S. (1992), Why do Some Societies Invent More than

Others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7: 29–46.
Shane, S. (1993), Cultural Influences on National Rate of
Innovation, Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 59–73.
Shane, S. Venkataraman, S. and MacMillan, I. (1995), Cultural
Differences in Innovation Championing Strategies, Journal of
Management, 21: 931–952.
Shavinina, L. V. (2003), The International Handbook on
Innovation, Elsevier.
Shetty, P. (2004), Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship in
Organizations, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13: 53–68.
Shivani, S., Mukherjee, S. K., and Sharan, R. (2006), Socio-
Cultural Influences on Indian Entrepreneurs: The Need for
Appropriate
Structural Interventions, Journal of Asian Economics, 17: 5–13.
Sim, E. W., Griffin, A., Price, R. L., and Vojak, B. A. (2007),
Exploring Differences between Inventors, Champions,
Implementers
and Innovators in Creating and Developing New Products in
Large and Mature Firms, Creativity and Innovation
Management,
16: 422–436.
Sinha, J. B. P. and Kanungo, R. N. (1997), Context Sensitivity
and Balancing in Organizational Behavior, International Journal
of
Psychology, 32: 93–105.
Sinha, J. B. P. and Kumar, R. (2004), Methodology for
Understanding Indian Culture, The Copenhagen Journal of
Asian Studies, 19:

89–104.
Sinha, J. B. P. and Pandey, A. (2007), Indians’ Mindsets and the
Conditions that Evoke Them, Psychological Studies, 52: 1–13.
Sinha, J. B. P., Singh, S., Gupta, P., Srivastava, K. B. L., Sinha,
R. B. N., Srivastava, S., Ghosh, A., Siddiqui, N., Tripathi, N.,
Gupta,
M., Srivastava, S., Mulla, Z., Vijayalakshmi, C., and Pandey, A.
(2010), An Exploration of the Indian Mindset, Psychological
Studies, 55: 3–17.
Sinha, J. B. P. and Sinha, D. (1990), Role of Social Values in
Indian Organizations, International Journal of Psychology, 25:
705–714.
Sinha, J. B. P., Sinha, T. N., Verma, J., and Sinha, R. B. N.
(2001), Collectivism Coexisting with Individualism: An Indian
Scenario,
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4: 133–145.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986), Central Problems in the Management
of Innovation, Management Science, 32: 590–607.
Westwood, R. and Low, D. R. (2003), The Multicultural Muse:
Culture, Creativity and Innovation, International Journal of
Cross-
Cultural Management, 3: 235–259.
Copyright of Journal of Management Research (09725814) is
the property of South Asia
Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Title:
Database:
Innovation. By: Harper, Gavin D. J., MSc, Salem Press
Encyclopedia, 2019
Research Starters
Innovation
Related Information
Listen American Accent
Global rankings of innovation
cities worldwide by independent
innovation agency 2thinknow, as
published in 2007. By 2thinknow
(Own work) [GFDL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.htm

or CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licens
sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia
Commons
Innovation is the process of developing and bringing to market
new products, services, ideas,
or solutions to problems. This is in contrast to invention, which
is the development of new
devices, methods, or techniques. Inventions are not necessarily
innovations. For an invention
to be an innovation, it must be introduced into the marketplace
and become generally
accepted.
Technology is intricately linked to the state of society
and quality of life. Understanding innovation is not just a
question of understanding business and technology, but
it is also how society responds to technological change
and the nature of socio-technical systems.
Overview
Developing innovative products can be expensive, and

success is far from guaranteed; as many as 75 percent
of new products introduced into the marketplace fail.
However, the cost of not being innovative can be just as
high; many companies fail as a result of being overtaken
in the marketplace by competitors with more innovative
products and services. Thus, understanding innovation
is important to ensure business success.
The earliest literature described the process of
innovation as linear. Invention led to innovation, which
then led to diffusion (the process of the innovation spreading
through the marketplace). Linear
models of innovation are open to many critiques because they
are so basic, yet some believe
this simplicity is an asset. One of the earliest models of
innovation was that of “technology
push,” whereby a manufacturer developed a product with
capabilities not then available in the
marketplace. This innovation would arise from improvements in
basic science and technology,
which in turn led to developing, manufacturing, and selling a
new design. A later but still

simple linear model of innovation was that of “market pull.”
Here, the innovator responds to an
existing need in the marketplace. By researching this need, new
products could be
developed, manufactured, and sold into the market. From this
early base, many more
sophisticated models of innovation have been developed.
The “S curve,” also known as a diffusion curve, is a concept
that explains the life cycle of an
innovation. Innovations have a life cycle that runs from their
debut on the market to their
replacement by newer innovations. Scholars of innovation are
interested in how innovations
are adopted and what sort of consumers will use the technology
at each stage of its life cycle.
Understanding these market segments is imperative to
successfully marketing innovations.
The technology adoption life cycle model, developed by Everett
Rogers, is a bell-shaped
curve, divided into five segments labeled innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late
majority, and laggards. Each segment has its own profile.

Geoffrey Moore, a well-known Silicon Valley technology
consultant, advanced a variation of
this model. He suggested that one of the biggest challenges is
transitioning an innovation
from the early adopters to the early majority; he calls this leap
“the chasm.”
While innovation can be physical—a new device or invention is
successfully introduced to the
marketplace, for example—it can also be “soft,” that is,
delivering enhanced outputs by
reconfiguring the way companies do business. Such innovations
are sometimes called
business model innovations, as opposed to the more
conventional technological innovations.
Bibliography
Betz, Frederick, Managing Technological Innovation:
Competitive Advantage from Change.
3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2011. Print.
Christenson, Clayton M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: The
Revolutionary Book That Will Change
the Way You Do Business. New York: HarperBusiness, 2011.
Print.
Godin, Benoit. “The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical
Construction of an Analytical

Framework.” Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (2006):
639–67. Print.
Keeley, Larry, Helen Walters, Ryan Pikkel, and Brian Quinn.
Ten Types of Innovation: The
Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013.
Print.
Moore, Geoffrey A. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling
Disruptive Products to
Mainstream Customers. Rev. ed. New York: HarperBusiness,
2002. Print.
Osterwalder, Alexander, and Yves Pigneur. Business Model
Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken: Wiley,
2010. Print.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York:
Free Press, 2003. Print.
Teece, David J. “Business Models, Business Strategy and
Innovation.” Long Range Planning
43.2–3 (2010): 172–94. Print.
Tidd, Joe, and John Bessant. Managing Innovation: Integrating
Technological, Market and
Organizational Change. 5th ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2013. Print.

von Hippel, Eric. “Democratizing Innovation: The Evolving
Phenomenon of User Innovation.”
Innovation 1.1 (2009): 29–40. Print.
Copyright of Salem Press Encyclopedia is the property of Salem
Press. The copyright in an
individual article may be maintained by the author in certain
cases. Content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use. Source: Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2019, 1p
Item: 89677574
Week 4 - Assignment: Investigate Methods to Increase
Innovation and Meet Strategic Objectives
Assignment
Top of Form
Due November 24 at 11:59 PM
Bottom of Form
Assignment Instructions: For this assignment, you will act as a
consultant for your employer or the company of your choice.
Your assignment is to prepare a slide presentation with three to
five change recommendations for addressing customer needs
and building an ecosystem for innovation.
To do this, you will need to answer the following questions for

your recommendations.
· Where will your innovations take the company in the future?
· How will the changes help the company to reach consumers
and the right time?
· How will these recommendations for innovation affect the
company’s competitive advantage?
Your answers should be brief and provide a well-developed
recommendation. Please keep in mind, this is a presentation,
and you will need to include notes for your slides to share the
key details that you are not able to include in the bullets on
your slides.
Length: Your slide presentation should be 8-12 slides. This will
include a title slide and a reference slide.
References: Include at least 3-5 scholarly resources.
Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration
of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide
new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your
response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA
standards.
Identifying and Increasing Innovation Opportunities
One of the keys to a successful and sustainable business is the
need to identify and increase the opportunities for innovation.
Identifying opportunities for innovation is often viewed with a
perception that it is only within the domain of technology
companies to be innovative. Although innovation and
technology are not synonyms, they are often used
interchangeably. Technology is common in your jargon and
communication. You use computers, smartphones, and other
appliances that are connected to the Internet. The type of
research and development needed in this market space is all
about innovation. However, innovation can come in seemingly
non-technology related packages as well.
Almost anything that an organization can do to be more
efficient, competitive, and better focused on customer service,
all while reducing costs, can be classified as innovative.
Be sure to review this week's resources carefully.

Find a copy
Details
Subject Innovations;
Strategic planning;
Risk assessm ent;
Integration;
Target m arkets;
M anycom panies;
Product developm ent
Location United States; US
Classification 9190: United States
5400: Research & developm ent
2310: Planning
7500: Product planning & developm ent
URL https://hbr.org/2006/04/m atch-your-innovation-strategy-
to-your-innovation-ecosystem
Title M atch Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation
Ecosystem

Author Adner, Ron
Publication title Harvard Business Review ; Boston
Volum e 84
Issue 4
Pages 98-107
Publication year 2006
Publication date Apr 2006
Publisher Harvard Business Review
Place of publication Boston
Country of publication United States, Boston
Back to previous page
document 1 of 1
Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem
Adner, Ron. Harvard Business Review; Boston Vol. 84, Iss. 4,
(Apr 2006): 98-107.
Click here to request the full text article
http://illiad.ncu.edu/illiad.dll?Action= 10&Form =
22&url_ctx_fm t= ?ctx_ver= Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=
info:ofi/enc:UTF-
8&rfr_id= info:sid/ProQ % 3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fm t=

info:ofi/fm t:kev:m tx:journal&rft.genre= article&rft.jtitle=
Harvard+ Business+ Review &rft.atitle= M atch+ Your+
Innovation+ Strategy+ t
04-01&rft.volum e= 84&rft.issue= 4&rft.spage= 98&rft.title=
Harvard+ Business+ Review &rft.issn= 00178012
Abstract
high-definition televisions should, by now, be a huge success.
Philips, Sony, and Thom son invested billions of dollars to
develop TV sets w ith astonishing picture quality. From a
technology perspective, they've succeeded: Console m
anufacturers have been ready for the m ass m arket since the
early 1990s. Yet the category has been an unm itigated failure,
not because of deficiencies, but because critical com plem ents
such as studio production equipm ent w ere not developed or
adopted in tim e. The HDTV story exem plified the
prom ise and peril of innovative ecosystem s - the collaborative
arrangem ents through w hich firm s com bine their individual
offers into a coherent, custom er-facing solution. W hen
they w ork, innovation ecosystem s allow com panies to create
value that no one firm could have created alone. But for m any
organizations the attem pt at ecosystem innovation
has been a costly failure. This is because, along w ith new
opportunities, innovation ecosystem s also present a new set of
risks that can brutally derail a firm 's best efforts.
Publication subject Business And Econom ics, Business And
Econom ics--Banking And Finance

ISSN 00178012
Source type M agazines
Language of publication English
Docum ent type Feature
Docum ent feature diagram s
ProQ uest docum ent ID 227840525
Docum ent URL http://search.proquest.com
.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview /227840525?accountid= 28180
Copyright Copyright © 2006 Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved.
Last updated 2017-12-08
Database 2 databases View list
ProQ uest Central
ProQ uest Central
Database copyright © 2019 ProQ uest LLC. All rights reserved.
Term s and Conditions

EXECUTIVE FORUMInnovation Means Relyingon Everyone’s Cre.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to EXECUTIVE FORUMInnovation Means Relyingon Everyone’s Cre.docx

Similar to EXECUTIVE FORUMInnovation Means Relyingon Everyone’s Cre.docx (18)

More from elbanglis

More from elbanglis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

EXECUTIVE FORUMInnovation Means Relyingon Everyone’s Cre.docx