Presentation at: Resilience and Innovation - special session at the 2017 PDMA Research Forum [Product Development and Management Association], Chicago, 11-12 November 2017

1. RESILIENT BEHAVIOUR IN INNOVATION TEAMS FOR
BETTER PROJECT RESULTS
Peter R.A. Oeij
peter.oeij@tno.nl
The Netherlands

2. Content
1.Failure of innovation: what is the problem?
2.Research into team dynamics
3.Key concepts ‘Innovation Resilience Behaviour’,
‘Mindful infrastructure’ and ‘Defensive behaviour’
4.Results of the research
5.Practical implications for the Resilient Innovation Team

3. 1. FAILURE OF INNOVATIONS:
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

4. Complexity
Failing
innovation
process
-ambiguous and unpredictable goals
-’butterfly effect’
-prevent failure, shame
-control orientation
-play safe
-resistance, frustration, irritation
-don’t learn; repeating ‘mistakes’
Defensive
behaviour
Risk
avoidance
Failing innovation project

5. Complexity
Failing
innovation
process
-ambiguous and unpredictable goals
-’butterfly effect’
-prevent failure, shame
-control orientation
-play safe
-resistance, frustration, irritation
-don’t learn; repeating ‘mistakes’
-(1) weak signals, (2) resist simplification,
(3) sense of experience, (4) resilience, (5)
defer to expertise
Defensive
behaviour
Innovation
resilience
behaviour

6. 2. RESEARCH INTO TEAM DYNAMICS
https://www.ou.nl/documents/40554/108501/Oeij_ResilientInnovationTeam_PhD_diss_2017.pdf
Free download of Oeij, 2017a:

7. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Data gathering and data
Pilot study in 1 case
Case study approach: 18 innovation projects carried out by 18 teams of 11 organisations (101
individuals)
Triangulation of in-depth oral interviews, video taping, online survey (182 additional respondents of the
same 11 organisations)
Analysis
Statistical analyses to assess relations of the theoretical framework (regression analyses)
Pattern analyses to assess configurations of team dynamics (qualitative comparative analysis)
Content analyses to explore defensive behaviour in teams (discursive pragmatism)

8. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Oeij, 2017a

9. 3.KEY CONCEPTS
‘INNOVATION RESILIENCE BEHAVIOUR’,
‘MINDFUL INFRASTRUCTURE’,
‘DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR'

10. ‘Innovation Resilience
Behaviour’
•A set of team competencies (team capability) to make a
team bounce back to the right track of the project once a
team has taken/is taking an ineffective course with regard to
its innovation goal
•Team behaviours:
•a] being extremely alert to track small failures (weak signals);
•b] resist oversimplification,
•c] remain sensitive to team operations and interactions,
•d] maintain able to bounce back and recover (resilience);
•e] defer to expertise

11. ‘Mindful Infrastructure’
A semi‐structure as an organizational facilitation
to enable team innovation resilience behaviour.
Enabling team performance in complex
situations, namely:
1. team psychological safety
2. team learning behaviour
3. complexity leadership
4. team voice

12. ‘Organisational defensive
behaviour’
•Any action, policy or practice that prevents
organizational participants from experiencing
embarrassment or threat, but, at the same time,
prevents them from discovering the causes of the
embarrassment or threat:
Theory‐in‐use:
1. strive after control
2. win not lose
3. suppress negative feelings
4. behave rationally

13. Summarising:
5 IRB Principes:
-1. alertness to
failure
-2. reluctance to
simplify
-3. sensitivity to
operations
-4.commitment to
resilience
-5.deference to
expertise
Team
psychological
safety
Team learning
behaviour
Team voice
Complexity
leadership
-better chance to
desired project
results
-less defensive
behaviour
-decrease of
innovation failure
Oeij, 2017a

14. 4.RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH

15. MAIN FINDINGS
Teams do communicate in defensive ways without noticing perhaps negatively affecting the risk taking
take could lead to more innovative outcomes (pilot study, discourse analysis)
Mindful infrastructure does positively associate with innovation resilience behaviour; and innovation
resilience behaviour does positively associate with projects results / progress (regression analyses)
Teams show to have different configurations of mindful infrastructure; there is no ‘one best way’ (QCA
analysis)
Some team leaders are applying methodological rigour which comes close to ‘espoused model of
productive reasoning’ thus enhancing reflexivity and decreasing defensiveness and risk avoidance (in-
depth interviews with team leaders)
Teams characterised as ‘high IRB minded’ seem less defensive and better in addressing critical
incidents (qualitative case study analyses)
The knowledge developed in crisis and safety management organisations (High Reliability
Organisations) seems applicable to innovation management organisations; however these HROs excel
in preventing critical incidents to emerge, whilst IMOs do not (unless they apply specific project
management tools, as is the case in teams based in R&D organisations)

16. 5.PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE RESILIENT
INNOVATION TEAM

17. TOWARDS THE RESILIENT INNOVATION TEAM
Assumptions: structure and culture follows strategy
1. Leadership style is a strategic choice: the present management
philosophy and portrayal of mankind determines the intention to steer
and change centralised (top down) or decentralised (bottom up)
2. Choice of 1 reflects the structure of the organisation in terms of
division of labour, i.e. decision latitude in jobs and the design of work
processes
3. Choice 1 and 2 affect the culture, i.e. what organisation members do
and think: in casu control vs. commitment; thus employee engagement /
involvement but also organisational defensiveness & reflexivity
4. Choice: 1, 2, 3 affect whether team work and team behaviour is risk
avoiding or self-controlled risk taking
strategy
structure
culture
team behaviour
[Karanika-Murray & Oeij, 2017]

18. TOWARDS THE RESILIENT INNOVATION TEAM (2)
Actionable and sensemaking measures
1. Sense of urgency: resilient behaviour is required to curb innovation
failure (strategic management choice): yes or no?
2. If 1 yes: Teams need mindful infrastructure as their work environment
which require structural conditions (decision latitude / team voice,
organisational slack, alignment of organisational levels)
3. and: Teams need trust and leadership support to dare to experiment
and explore (non-ambiguous assignments, be held accountable as
professionals) and create sense of belonging
4. Tools & Training: develop innovation resilience behaviour (5 IRB
principles), develop simple but not simplistic tools, and provide project
management tools to enable and stimulate teams to ‘learn to fail
intelligently’ and to effectively manage and anticipate critical incidents
[Oeij, 2017b]
strategy
structure
culture
team behaviour
team tools

19. Thank you for
your kind
attention! peter.oeij@tno.nl

20. REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Facilitating organizational learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming. How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Karanika-Murray, M. & Oeij, P.R.A. (2017). The role of work and organizational psychology for workplace innovation practice: From short-sightedness to eagle view. European Work and Organizational Psychology in
Practice, 1, 19-30.
Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P. & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 87-102.
LePine, J. A. & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326-336.
Oeij, P.R.A. (2017a). The resilient innovation team: a study of teams coping with critical incidents during innovation projects. PhD Dissertation Open University of The Netherlands.
http://publications.tno.nl/publication/34622536/QA3j9S/oeij-2017-resilient.pdf
Oeij, P.R.A. (2017b). From automated defensive behaviour to innovation resilience behaviour: A tool for resilient teamwork as an example of workplace innovation. In: P.R.A. Oeij, D. Rus & F.D. Pot (Eds). Workplace
Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice, Volume in 'Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being’ series (pp. 375-396). Berlin etc.; Springer.
Oeij, P. R. A., Dhondt, S. & Gaspersz, J. B. R. (2016). Mindful infrastructure as an enabler of innovation resilience behaviour in innovation teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 22(7/8),
334-353.
Oeij, P. R. A., Dhondt, S., Gaspersz, J. B. R. & De Vroome, E. M. M. (2016). Can teams benefit from using a mindful infrastructure when defensive behaviour threatens complex innovation projects? International
Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 8(3), 241-258.
Oeij, P.R.A., Dhondt, S., Gaspersz, J.B.R. & Van Vuuren, T. (2016). Defensive behaviours in innovation teams – how project teams discuss defensiveness and its relationship with innovation resilience behaviour
and project success. Language, Discourse & Society, 4(2), 15-36.
Oeij, P.R.A., Dhondt, S & Gaspersz, J.B.R. & Van Vuuren, T. (2017). Innovation resilience behavior and critical incidents: validating the Innovation Resilience Behavior scale with qualitative data. Project
Management Journal, 48(5), 49–63.
Oeij, P.R.A., Gaspersz, J.B.R., Van Vuuren, T. & Dhondt, S. (2017). Leadership of innovation projects: an illustration of the reflective practitioner and the relation to organisational learning model. Journal of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 1-20.
Oeij, P. R. A., Van Vuuren, T., Dhondt, S. & Gaspersz, J. (2016). Mindful infrastructure as antecedent of innovation resilience behaviour of project teams. IWOT 20 - International Workshop on Team Working. Open
University, Utrecht, 9 September 2016.
Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R. & Shenhar, A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASAs Mars Climate Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project
Management, 27(7), 665-679.
Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected. Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.; 1st ed. 2001). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.