- RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT -

MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION

byDiane Babak

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degreePhD MOTI

at theDa Vinci Institute

Study leader:Professor Colin Steyn

Date of submission3 June 2013

Diane Babak Page 1

DA VINCI INSTITUTE

Declaration Regarding Plagiarism

I (full names &surname):

Diane Babak

ID number: 6509220011088

Declare the following:1. I understand what plagiarism entails and am aware of the Institute’s

policy in this regard.2. I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where someone

else’s work was used (whether from a printed source, the Internet or anyother source) due acknowledgement was given and reference was madeaccording to academic requirements.

3. I did not copy and paste any information directly from an electronicsource (e.g., a web page, electronic journal article or CD ROM) into thisdocument.

4. I did not make use of another student’s previous work and submitted it asmy own.

5. I did not allow and will not allow anyone to copy my work with theintention of presenting it as his/her own work.

DB 30 May 2013

Signature Date

Diane Babak Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................5

3 CREATIVITY...................................................11

4 INNOVATION STUDIES...........................................18

5 INNOVATION ARCHETYPES........................................22

6 LEADERSHIP AND QUANTUM THINKING..............................25

7 INNOVATION FUNNELING.........................................28

8 PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION.....................................30

9 CONCLUSION...................................................36

10 REFERENCES................................................37

Diane Babak Page 2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Infographic: Innovation is a buzzword (Kwoh, 2012).....................................6.

Table 2: SHL’s behaviours that drive innovation (Burke & Glennon,

2012).................7.

Table 3: What does it take to innovate? (Hay Group,

2012).......................................9.

Table 4: A review of academic literature on creativity (Kahl,

2012)...........................12.

Table 5: Infographic - three components that enable creativity

(Amabile, 1998).......14.

Table 6: Theoretical model to measure creativity (Fields and Bisschoff,

2013).........15.

Table 7: N-Tuple helices of innovation (Carayannis, Barth &

Campbell, 2012).........18.

Table 8: Measurement models of the determinants of organisational

innovation.

(Crossan & Apaydin,

2009).................................................

.........................20.

Table 9: Towards a multi-dimensional framework of enterprise

innovation.

(Crossan and Apaydin,

2009)..............................................................

.........21.

Diane Babak Page 3

Table 10: Evolution of different generations of innovation

process models.

(du Preez, Louw, and Essmann,

201?)........................................................22.

Table 11: Roles/ persona required for successful innovation.

(Hering & Phillips,

2005)..............................................................

.................24.

Table 12: Spider chart - competencies required for innovation

leadership

(Konstantynova,

2012)..............................................................

...................26.

Table 13: Infographic - Quantum skills (Shelton,

2007)...............................................27.

Table 14: Torrance’s five dimensions of creativity (Kim et al.

2011)............................29.

Table 15: Idea funnelling process in closed vs. open innovation

models.

(Chesbrough,

2010)..............................................................

.......................30.

Table 16: Examples of social innovation. (Source: Caulier-Grice et

al. 2010)

...................................................................

..................................................32.

Table 17: Comparison between economic and social innovation.

Diane Babak Page 4

(Adams & Hess,

2011)..............................................................

...................33.

Table 18: The six stages of social innovation.

(Murray, Caulier-Grice & Mulgan,

2010)......................................................34.

MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION

1 INTRODUCTION

The rise of civilization can be attributed to human ingenuity. Without

our capacity to create and innovate, none of the technology and

infrastructure we take for granted in the 21st century would actually

exist. Detractors might debate whether this is actually a good thing

for the planet, given the many negative repercussions of human industry

such as pollution as well as the extinction of animal and plant species.

Whilst this might be an accurate observation the inescapable reality is

that our natural curiosity and problem-solving abilities have resulted

in the world that we now live in - with all its flaws and marvels alike.

There is a counter-argument to the one that views humanity as the

“scourge” of nature; it is an argument that is based on the belief that

we are incredibly gifted with our unique human intellect and that the

most intelligent and innovative amongst us will find ways to overcome

Diane Babak Page 5

the legacy of all our past mistakes and develop creative solutions to

many of the wicked problems the world faces today. It is this leap of

faith - that we possess the tools for our salvation - that drives many

individuals and organisations to explore a multiplicity of ideas in the

hope of creating valuable innovations that can improve our world for

generations to come. Sadly, there are yet others who use their genius to

exploit and abuse what few resources we still have left. As with all

human history our collective fate is often dictated by the values of

powerful institutions over which we have little control, for example:

corporate multinationals and empire-states with regional agendas.

Between them, these two opposing forces – one with a long-term vision

and the other looking for short-term gains - will play out our future.

In this assignment, the researcher will examine the concepts of

creativity and innovation and how they are currently viewed by society.

This will be followed by an analysis of efforts to harness intellectual

resources to sustain innovation and how this impacts both individuals

and organisations. Finally, the researcher will examine some of the more

recent trends and developments such as the availability of online, open

platforms and global communities of innovative thinkers and how these

are gradually beginning to reshape our traditional view of the economic

role of innovation and how to stimulate both creativity and innovation

for a sustainable future.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Diane Babak Page 6

Trying to distinguish between the concepts of creativity and innovation

can be challenging. For the purposes of this assignment, the researcher

has chosen the following definitions:

- Creativity is “the ability to produce ideas that are both novel

(original and unique) and useful (appropriate and meaningful)”.

(Ellamil et. al., 2011)

- Innovation is “change associated with the creation and adaptation

of ideas that are new-to-world, new to nation/region, new-to-

industry or new-to-firm”. (Patterson et al, 2009)

If one were to accept these definitions as valid then a common

interpretation would be that both concepts relate to the generating of

novel ideas that are of value to society. Assuming an extremely pedantic

position though, it could be argued that innovation is more measurable

and impactful. In reality, the delineation between creativity and

innovation is more likely due to contemporary business prejudice. Based

on media coverage, it would appear that the corporate world prefers to

use the term “innovation” over “creativity’ perhaps because the latter

concept is susceptible to “new age” influences derived from mysticism

and spirituality? Could it be that these intangibles are rarely regarded

as credible tools for conventional business practice? Innovation, on the

other hand, has a more sound-footed semantic relationship with its

cousin “invention” – often perceived as a valuable, tangible output of

modern industry that can preferably be made available for mass

consumption at substantial profit.

Diane Babak Page 7

Table 1: Infographic - Innovation is a Buzzword (Kwoh, 2012)

Numerous surveys of contemporary organisations continue to show that

innovation is considered a key component of any successful long-term

business strategy (Hudson, 2013). The search for innovative talent has

been popularised and organisations are motivated by the knowledge that

everyone has the potential to be creative. Accounts of rigorous research

reassure us that a person’s aptitude for creativity is not naturally

dictated at birth but that it is something we can all acquire - given

the right tools and training. Burkus (2012) points out that - as far

back as 1973 - studies were conducted to establish if creative potential

is a matter of genetics or the environment. Findings contrasting theDiane Babak Page 8

characteristics of identical twins indicate that creativity is a skill

that can be acquired - if the circumstances are conducive. However,

whilst everyone has the potential to be creative, sadly very few manage

to actualise their creativity in ways that have recognised market value.

According to a recent study by SHL (an international talent management

consultancy) of the four million candidate and employment assessments

supplied via 205 countries and territories, a miniscule 5.8% of the

global population have the ability to be truly innovative (SHL, 2012).

Table 2: SHL’s index for behaviours that drive effective innovation

(Burke & Glennon, 2012)

Focus & Insight Networking & Collaboration

Ability to reason Capacity to build effectiverelationships

Capacity to think laterally – or ‘outside the box'

Ability to navigate social networks effectively

Capacity to focus on a particular need

Strong communication skillsrequired for influencing others

Ability to adapt to new data

Ability to sell an innovation into an organisation or to raise investment capital

Ability to persist throughthose moments when an initial idea does not work, or when an experiment presents challenges

SHL summarises effective innovative behaviour as: “the intellectual

capability to see new associations and possibilities, and the analytical

skills to interpret and translate market and customer data into specific

offerings. [Effective innovators] must be able to focus, to persist in

Diane Babak Page 9

the face of initial failures, to be able to make right-hand turns in

thinking, to articulate a need, be able to persuade, influence and sell

an innovation to others, and to work collaboratively as well as work

through potential conflict. Innovation is, after all, about change”

(Burke & Glennon, 2012). In essence, to be truly innovative one has to

be extremely resilient and persevering.

To be resilient logically requires both a genetic predisposition and a

nurturing environment. However, in a recent study conducted by Judge,

Ilies, and Zhang (2012) it was found that employees who suffer from

health problems are genetically predisposed towards attitudinal states such as

dissatisfaction and stress and that “[c]hanging the work environment is

not going to alter this genetic calculus. [Furthermore] these findings

question the foundation and efficacy of interventions that treat all

individuals the same.” (Ibid.). The authors suggest that one way of

dealing with these genetic differences is to accept that employees

require a more personalised work environment that fosters “a more active

employee, who has a greater ability to select, modify, and control his

or her work environment so as to optimize maximum performance” (Ibid.)

In other words, the standard, industrial “one size fits all”

organisational design model needs to be replaced (ironically) by a more

flexible, “innovative” system if people are to actualise their unique

capacity for creativity. Based on the above observations, it could be

argued that there is a prevailing culture of machismo (SHL uses

masculine sounding terms like ‘resilience’, ‘strong’, ‘focus’, ‘reason’,

‘influence’) with regards to how innovation is currently conceptualised

and rewarded. The amount of anxiety and stress that workers experience

is on the increase and it is this researcher’s view that the more

Diane Babak Page 10

sensitive and creative individuals amongst us might be more susceptible

to health issues than – say - the average sociopath; leaving these

individuals at a disadvantage when appraised for their “resilience”. If

one were to rely on the definition of effective innovation from SHL, the

artist Vincent Van Gogh (for example) would be dismissed as a creative

lunatic and his work deemed unmarketable. Tragically, this is not a

dissimilar reception from the one he received whilst he was alive.

Creativity and innovation fail to thrive in organisations (and

individuals) partly because the environment and organisational culture

are not conducive to nurturing these capabilities. This has been proven

in numerous studies and specific inhibitors have been identified (Bina,

S. 2012). These include:

- Employee complacency and cynicism (ibid.)

- Fear of failure and change.

- Bureaucratic, top-down decision making.

- Lack of leadership advocacy.

- Empire building and office politics.

- Lack of diversity.

- A focus on financial controls and mitigation of risk (Andrews,

2006).

Researchers have also devoted a lot of energy to the study of creativity

and what makes an environment conducive to innovative behaviours. As a

result, a large body of information has been generated which explores

the various factors and initiatives that could influence organisational

and individual creativity and innovation. Examples include:

- Environmental/ workplace conditions that stimulate innovation.

Diane Babak Page 11

- Developing the individual’s capacity/ skills/ techniques to

enhance their creativity.

- Group and organisational studies of successful interventions that

have improved collective creativity and innovation.

- The role of leadership in facilitating/ championing innovative

behaviours and a culture of innovation (Parjanen. 2012).

If one were to investigate the elements that were common in environments

that nurtured innovation, the following key themes emerge:

- Effective leadership that espouses an innovative culture.

- A culture that is open to new ideas and change.

- A diverse mix of talented people.

- Rewards and recognition for innovative behaviour.

- A tolerance for risk and failure (agility).

- A culture that values collaboration and sharing.

- A systematic approach to fostering innovation. (Ibid.)

Table 3 provides an overview of the findings from research conducted by

the Hay Group (2012) of the global top 20 best performing companies. One

of the key findings of this study was that these companies outperform

their peers because “leadership recognize the value of innovation,

putting it at the heart of their corporate culture and using this

targeted, focused innovation to drive shareholder value and improve

efficiency” (Ibid).

Diane Babak Page 12

Table 3: What does it take to innovate? (Source: Hay Group, 2012)

Creating an explicit and formal function for innovation within the

organisation is often recommended as a key strategic intervention for

Diane Babak Page 13

influencing organisational change (Capozzi, Kellen, & Somers, 2012). The

justification for this is that it conveys a clear message that

leadership is prioritising this capability as intrinsic to the

organisational culture. However, the risk with this approach is that the

function may end up operating in isolation and that innovation is

perceived as something performed only by that function as opposed to it

being an integral part of the organisational consciousness. As with any

transformation process, human nature is the one variable that cannot be

predicted and it is often the main stumbling block to mainstreaming a

culture of innovation. If those involved in championing the need for

innovation lack the necessary communication and relationship skills, the

chances are that their efforts to gain buy-in will fail.

Given the various challenges facing an initiative of this nature, it is

inevitable that specific resources should be dedicated to strengthening

awareness of the need for innovation at all levels across the

organisation. Because each organisation is unique and stakeholders vary,

the types of creativity roles and responsibilities should be customised

to meet the needs and goals identified by that organisation. In

addition, there should be mechanisms that measure and evaluate the type

and value of innovative activities and their impact on both the

organisation and its stakeholders. This will allow decision-makers to

identify what enhances or inhibits creativity within the organisation -

so that adjustments can be made, bottlenecks removed and gateways

developed to stimulate further sharing and collaboration.

Diane Babak Page 14

3 CREATIVITY

With innovation ranked as one of the key strategic imperatives facing

organisations and the majority of those leaders who have been surveyed

indicating that it is one of their organisations weakest capabilities

(Sinar, Wellins & Pacione, 2011), it is clear that the current design

of most workplaces is not conducive to creative or innovative outcomes.

As mentioned previously, studies documenting the implementation of

initiatives aimed at enhancing the capacity for organisational

creativity and innovation have produced mixed results. Furthermore, from

the researcher’s perspective, it would appear that the study of

creativity and creativity theory is in a state of flux, currently

lacking one single overarching framework.

Contemporary creativity research is believed to have gained support when

the well respected American psychologist, J.P. Guildford made a

presidential address in 1950 arguing that the study of creativity was a

much neglected area of concern in modern society (Kuo, H. C., 2011). To

quote Kuo (2011): “In many ways creativity research has been developed

over the past 60 years. Scholars such as Mayer (1999) attempt to

identify the creativity research developments in the various

methodologies, Ivcevic (2009) tries to map the different theories

established, and Ryhammar and Brolin (1999) categorise the development

into four major lines.” Kozbelt, Beghetto and Runco (2010) confirm that

a plethora of creativity models have been developed over the years and

that creativity studies is multi-dimensional involving "a multitude of

definitions, conceptualizations, domains, disciplines that bear on its

study, empirical methods and levels of analysis, as well as research

Diane Babak Page 15

orientations that are both basic and applied - and applied in varied

contexts" (Ibid.) In an extensive review of available creativity

theories, they identified ten categories of scholarly discourse as

follows: “Developmental, Psychometric, Economic, Stage and Componential

Process, Cognitive, Problem-Solving and Expertise-Based, Problem

Finding, Evolutionary, Typological, and Systems” (Ibid.) which they have

analysed from the perspective of the discipline of psychology. More

recently, in a cross-disciplinary review of creativity research, Kahl

(2012) conducted a meta-analysis of dissertation abstracts coding them

by “discipline, research aspect (trait, process or product), social

level of analysis (individual, group, organization or culture) and

research approach (empirical vs. theoretical; quantitative vs.

qualitative)” (Ibid.) Based on the findings, there are a number of

disciplines in addition to psychology, that have produced creativity

theories (see Table 4 below):

Diane Babak Page 16

Table 4: Creativity literature - aspect and social level by discipline:

Cells represent percentages of scores. The sample size (n) indicates the

number of abstracts from the entire sample (N = 119). (Source: Kahl,

2012)

According to Klijn & Tomic (2010) two researchers who conducted an

extensive literature review of creativity models, “most of the theories

regarding organizational creativity are derived from social psychology”

(Ibid.) and furthermore the range of models for creativity in

organisations is still limited and fragmented across different

disciplines. Having established that more comparable and rigorous

research is still needed, the authors identify one of the earliest

organisational creativity models as being that which was developed in

Diane Babak Page 17

the 1980’s by Amabile (Ibid.) Amabile’s model asserts that there are

three key components that combine to facilitate creativity, namely:

domain knowledge, creative capacity and internalised, goal-driven

motivation. Amabile also identifies a fourth dimension as having an

influence on creativity, namely the context or environment in which the

individual operates (Ibid.)

Table 5: Infographic - Three Components That Enable Creativity (Amabile,1998).

The next model mentioned is that developed by Ramamoorth et al. which

posit that organisations are more likely to encourage creative behaviour

if the organisational culture is perceived as consistent, equitable and

that recognition is given where it is due. Klijn & Tomic (2010) identify

additional models that have been developed by various researchers,

namely: Borghini, Sternberg and Lubart, Neck and Manz, DiLiello and

Houghton, Woodman and Schoenfeldt. Each model is explored in some detail

Diane Babak Page 18

with the conclusion that “[l]ittle is known about the validity and

predictive value of [any of] these models” (Ibid).

More recently, two South African researchers, Fields and Bisschoff

(2013) published a paper in which they examined possible theoretical

models for measuring creativity. In contrast to Klijn & Tomic (2010),

Fields and Bisschoff (2013) chose to focus on creativity models and

theories within an educational context and as a result their approach

differs slightly from that of Klijn & Tomic (2010). Because of this, the

models that they used were mostly developed to nurture creativity in

learners. Their literature review includes the Enrichment Triad Model

(ETM) which was developed by Renzulli in the 1970’s. Following that,

the next model is referred to as “a conceptual map of creativity in

teaching and learning which was created from Phenomenography” which

resulted in five main categories of how creativity is experienced by the

individual. The third model, which was developed by the Institute of

Creativity and Educational Innovations, is termed the “Educational Model

for Creative development” or PECEI. This model considers the cognitive

and behavioural factors that may impact on creativity and uses a

questionnaire to identify indicators that might correlate positively

with creativity. The model also recognises the importance of convergent

and divergent thinking and how highly creative people harness these two

different thought processes. Based on their analysis of the different

influences of creative ability proposed by experts such as Berne and

Raviv; Plsek; Runco; Pérez Alonso-Geta; Bergh and Theron; Unsworth;

Zusman and Zlotin; Baer and Kaufman; Cropley; Jackson and Shaw; Kleiman;

James and Vagt-Traore; Neethling; Zusman and Zlotin (Ibid.) the South

African researchers propose the following theoretical model as a tool

Diane Babak Page 19

for measuring creativity at a tertiary level. As with Klijn & Tomic

(2010), Fields and Bisschoff (2013) also point out that this model is

untested and its potential to positively impact creative ability has yet

to be established (Ibid.) Their review of the academic literature and

related theoretical models enabled them to produce a detailed analysis

(see Table 6 below) which linked each of the identified factors

influencing creativity along with the relevant academic experts and

expected impact to be measured using each criteria. Their study helps to

further understand the extent of the research into creativity and the

fact that it is interdisciplinary and that there is a lack of

integration across disciplines.

Diane Babak Page 20

Diane Babak Page 21

Table 6: Theoretical Model to Measure Creativity (Fields and

Bisschoff, 2013)

As illustrated above, the environment plays a significant role in

nurturing creativity. Furthermore, organisations can design a wide

variety of interventions aimed at embedding a culture of creativity and

innovation. However, if we don’t understand how each individual

contributor differs in their ability to tap into their creativity, it’s

inevitable that talent management organisations such as SHL will dictate

Diane Babak Page 22

the type of “truly innovative” individual that organisations want to

recruit. As mentioned previously, that would limit the choice to an

estimated mere 5.8% of the world’s population.

4 INNOVATION STUDIES

There are a number of disturbing trends that are being observed across

the world. Unemployment is increasing, natural resources are rapidly

depleting, the environment is being polluted by the detritus of human

consumerism and the gap between the wealthy and impoverished is

widening. Because we are facing so many unique challenges, it has become

necessary to seek out new and improved alternatives to the conventional

systems and structures that have dominated society over the centuries.

The traditional, linear approach to problem-solving is proving

ineffective and the ability to innovate is becoming an increasingly

vital capability at all levels of society. As a result much has been

written about the role of innovation in improving competitiveness in the

developed and developing world. Various frameworks and models have

evolved over time in response to the demand for a single formula that

will successfully nurture innovative outputs. Sadly, no such panacea

exists. As Keupp, Palmié, & Gassmann (2012) observe “the current state of

knowledge about the strategic management of innovation is characterized

by conflicting theoretical predictions, persisting knowledge gaps and

theoretical inconsistencies.”

The need for innovation at a policy level has resulted in the

development of collaborative knowledge networks such as “Triple Helix

Diane Babak Page 23

constellations with participants from the public, private and academic

sectors - for fostering innovation” (Lindberg, Danilda & Torstensson,

2011). More recently the concept of a Quadruple, Quintuple and an n-

tuple of helices has been proposed in order to take into account the

possibility that a greater number of non-linear interactions might exist

between an even broader range of entities (Leydesdorff, 2012). Table 7

below illustrates how this is interpreted when the Quadruple and

Quintuple helices are incorporated:

Table 7: The Triple, quadruple and quintuple helices of innovation

(Carayannis, Barth & Campbell, 2012)

Diane Babak Page 24

Whilst the helix model is useful in that it can be flexibly applied in a

variety of high level systems such as regional, national or sectoral

knowledge exchanges, enterprises have embarked on a journey to identify

additional methods and techniques that they hope will stimulate a more

innovative working environment which will produce competitive solutions

thereby making their enterprises more profitable. In an extensive study

of academic literature on the organisational determinants of innovation

Crossan and Apaydin (2009) produced the following analysis which is

summarised in Table 8 below:

Diane Babak Page 25

Table 8:

Measurement models of the determinants of organisational innovation.

(Crossan & Apaydin, 2009).

Diane Babak Page 26

Table

9:

Towards a multi-dimensional framework of enterprise innovation (Crossan

and Apaydin, 2009).

Crossan & Apaydin (2009) also conducted a systematic review of the models

and frameworks developed by scholars of innovation and how they related

Diane Babak Page 27

to the various dimensions of enterprise innovation theory. This was

summarised graphically and is reproduced here (see Table 9):

The plethora of literature on innovation is vast and confusing, for the

purposes of this assignment the overview provided by Crossan and Apaydin

(2009) serves as a useful tool for identifying some of the key

contributors to the thinking on various dimensions of organisational

innovation and how these concepts can be grouped and classified

coherently according to type.

Clearly, different organisations have adopted their own choice of

methodology to enhance their innovation capabilities, such as the Spinn

and Pneumatic models (Steyn, C. 2012). This has led to a number of

innovation process models which have subsequently been grouped from a

generational perspective. Crossan and Apaydin (2009) have created a

high-level grouping for this particular area of innovation theory (see

Table 9 above). However this researcher believes that this is an area of

study that requires further discussion and expansion so that it

satisfies the interests of all contributing disciplines. This could be

an area for future research.

Innovation process models were developed as tools for taking the initial

innovation through to completion so that successful outputs are

delivered (du Preez, Louw, and Essmann, 201?). In their study of the

literature, du Preez, Louw, and Essmann (201?) identified seven

generations of innovation process models, starting with simple linear

models which outline the main steps of the innovation process, expanding

Diane Babak Page 28

into far more complex interactive models that incorporate internal and

external factors which influence the innovation process (Ibid.)

Table 10: Evolution of different generations of innovation process

models (du Preez, Louw, and Essmann, 201?)

5 INNOVATION ARCHETYPES

In line with the rapid disintegration of many long-held beliefs and the

structures that have supported them, organisations are undergoing major

changes. Whilst some traditional institutions and powerful

multinationals continue to dominate mainstream economics, there are

numerous alternate subcultures and structures beginning to take shape,

such as collaborative consumption and the access economy which rely on

Diane Babak Page 29

collective mechanisms for sharing resources and ideas. Hopefully these

trends will start to impact on conventional structures to the extent

that they cause sufficient disruption that they undermine the

profiteering and greed so pervasive in both public and private

organisations.

The nature of work is changing and it is increasingly unusual for people

to have a single income stream from one employer until retirement. As a

result, more people are learning first-hand what it is like to lose

their jobs, to be unable to find fixed employment and to being forced to

become independent contractors, accept temporary work or work more than

one job at a time. As Greenstone Miller and Miller (2012) observe in

the Harvard Business Review, “[o]rganisations have realised that these

new arrangements have also spread because the surge in outsourcing and

consulting in recent years has accustomed managers to thinking about

work, including high-end work, in modular ways.” In such instances, it

can be useful to establish how individuals who have been assembled as a

group interact with each other and how each can contribute positively

towards the creative process.

A useful means of creating personas that enhance innovation is through

the use of archetypes. An archetype is defined as: “an original model of

a person, ideal example, or a prototype after which others are copied,

patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all.

Archetypes put context to a situation” (Boyd, 2009). In her book titled

“A dialogue with the soul: using personality archetypes to access inner wisdom,” Goodwin

observes that archetypes represent the collective wisdom that humanity

has acquired throughout the ages and that we all have an intuitive

Diane Babak Page 30

understanding of these various personas which we instinctively draw upon

in order to respond to different situations as they arise (Ibid.) As

with enneagrams and the Myers Briggs Type Indicators, which are

personality typing systems, individuals can use a range of criteria to

establish their specific archetype profile and by so doing, identify

areas of strength and weakness as well as their potential to adopt new

archetypes when needed.

Another model of personality types for innovation is that developed by

Hering and Phillips (2005) who identified the following personas in

their white paper: “Innovation Roles. The People You Need for Successful Innovation”

(see Table 11 below).

Table 11: Roles/persona required for successful innovation (Hering &

Phillips, 2005)

Boyd (2009) however, argues that there are four specific innovation

archetypes, namely:Diane Babak Page 31

- The innovation do-er: these are innovation implementers and

practitioners.

- The innovation watcher: innovation mavens who don’t actually innovate.

- The innovation preacher: someone who is a champions and visionaries of

innovation.

- The innovation teacher: a person who teaches methods and processes for

innovation.

The author does acknowledge that these may not be the only archetypes

but he believes that they are the key archetypes within any organisation

making a conscious choice to instil a sustainable culture of innovation

(Ibid.)

Within this context, the researcher would argue that archetypes of all

kinds are relevant and can be included in such initiatives, on condition

that there is balance and diversity in the mix and a conscious awareness

that innovation is the final goal. Furthermore, it is important that

there is structure and rigorous planning at the initial stages of

pulling a team together as this will allow the organisation to ensure

that the intended outcome is more attainable. Previous research

indicates that diversity has a positive influence on creativity but that

the dimensions must correlate with the challenge at hand. For example,

“it would be expected that knowledge diversity would be most helpful for

groups doing intellectual tasks, whereas social diversity (ethnicity,

age, etc.) would not be that relevant [in this instance]” (Parjanen,

2012). Increasingly, the focus is on skilled, technically competent

workers (otherwise referred to as “knowledge workers”) as opposed to

unskilled labour, regardless of how creative such people might be.

Diane Babak Page 32

Peter Drucker is credited with introducing the concept of the “knowledge

worker”, which he used when referring to people working with intangible

resources (Drucker, 1959) such as lawyers, scientists and people working

in customer service industries. This type of worker differed from the

labourer of the industrial era whose physical productivity was their

primary source of income. As observed by Du Plessis (2007); knowledge

acts as a precursor to innovation and - if properly harnessed - it can

serve as a valuable source of competitive advantage. Therefore, it is

the opinion of this researcher that the roles for champions of

innovation and creativity should be closely aligned or even integrated

with those that champion knowledge and lifelong learning, so that the

continuum to innovation is embedded and maintained.

6 LEADERSHIP AND QUANTUM THINKING

With the focus on creating a culture of enterprise-wide innovation, much

has been written about the specific competencies required by leadership

in order to implement effective transformational initiatives that foster

innovation. Based on a study of academic literature from 2005-2011,

Konstantynova (2012) identified at least 16 skills that are considered

necessary for innovation, which she plotted on a spider chart according

to their perceived significance (see Table 12 below).

Diane Babak Page 33

Table 12: Spider Chart - Competencies Required for Innovation Leadership

(Konstantynova, 2012)

As previously observed, the possibility of finding someone who has

achieved excellence in all of these competencies is highly unlikely.

Hence the need to bring together “the appropriate combination of skilled

people” (Ibid.) As this researcher has personally discovered -

regardless of how skilled the people are in any organisation - without

leadership buy-in and political will - any transformational initiative

is bound to fail.

Whilst there has been a lot of focus on the ever changing role of

leadership, the role of followers has been somewhat neglected

(Greyvenstein & Cilliers, 2012). Kets de Vries (2007) observes that the

proliferation of literature on leadership may be superfluous as it

merely serves to expand the ever increasing list of academic theories,

most of which are completely detached from the practical realities facedDiane Babak Page 34

by leaders. Organisations are being deconstructed and reconfigured in

order to respond effectively to an ever-changing environment. As Clayton

et al. (2008) point out, “networked or process-based, cellular and

quantum structures are examples of the shift in thinking in

organizational design.” It is within the latter structure that

leadership emerges as a form of social exchange and collaboration.

Andert et al. (2011) explain that it is in the realm of such phenomena

that the one can observe the “action of the individual as both leader

and follower in spontaneous synergy with other individuals who express

both leader/follower behaviors at will.” (Ibid.) The concept of quantum

skills was first proposed by Shelton, Darling & Walker (2002), who

acknowledged that “Wheatley’s (1992) ground-breaking work was the first

to use quantum mechanical concepts as a metaphor for a new way of

thinking about leadership while Srivastva and Cooperrider (1999) were

among the first to apply social constructionism to leadership. In the

past few years numerous other authors (Goldstein, 1994; Jaworski, 1996;

Stacey, 1996; Zohar, 1997; Sanders, 1998; Shelton,1999) have developed

theories and models of leadership based on a postmodern/new science

ontology.” (ibid.) However – they note – little research had been done

with regards to the actual skills required for those operating in a

quantum organisation. In light of this, they proposed 7 new skills for

organisational excellence as summarised below:

(1) Quantum Seeing: The ability to see intentionally.

(2) Quantum Thinking: The ability to think paradoxically.

(3) Quantum Feeling: The ability to feel vitally alive.

(4) Quantum Knowing: The ability to know intuitively.

(5) Quantum Acting: The ability to act responsibly.

(6) Quantum Trusting: The ability to trust life’s process.

Diane Babak Page 35

(7) Quantum Being: The ability to “be” in relationship. (Ibid.)

Table 13: Infographic - Quantum skills (Shelton, 2007)

From an innovation and creativity perspective, the most important of the

quantum skills is quantum thinking. Quantum-thinking involves a shift

from linear thinking towards a holistic and paradoxical understanding of

the world. (Shelton, Darling and Walker, 2002). Quantum thinking holds

that this shift is an inevitable evolution in line with our realisation

that organisations, like the physical universe, are illogical entities

that necessitate paradoxical thinking in order to overcome many of the

conflicting interests that society currently faces. The traditional left

brained, logical response is inadequate and requires the added use of

right brained, creative thinking if we are to innovate (Ibid.)

Underlying this approach however, is the understanding that integrity,

humanity and sustainability are essential components of quantum

thinking.

Diane Babak Page 36

7 INNOVATION FUNNELING

According to Kirton (1999) we all have default preferences for solving

problems, which are independent of our creative ability. He observed

that innovators create original ideas that challenge existing

perceptions (i.e. “out the box thinking”) whereas adaptors create

original ideas within accepted paradigms. The Torrance Test of Creative

Thinking (TTCT) measures creative styles and creative potential (Kim,

2006). According to recent research findings “[t]he innovative factor is

associated with fluency and originality, whereas the adaptive factor is

associated with elaboration and abstractness of titles. In addition,

resistance to premature closure and creative strengths are related to an

additional factor that measures creative personality” (Kim, 2010). Table

14 below depicts the TTCT-Figural, which comprises the five measures

listed above, along with the personality traits indicative of creative

strengths (Kim et al, 2011).

Table 14: Torrance’s five dimensions of creativity (Kim et al. 2011)

Diane Babak Page 37

The debate as to whether individuals or groups perform better at

innovation has only recently begun to gain scholarly attention (Seah,

2012). In his assessment of the funnel model of innovation, Staw (2009)

reviewed the arguments offered by proponents of either individual or

group creativity and concluded that - whilst there are potential

benefits to be gained from the diversity of individuals collaborating

within a group - there is also a risk that the group becomes overly

prescriptive and self-censoring to the point where creativity is

stifled. Thus the debate continues unresolved.

With the emergence of the Internet and digital commerce (e-commerce) the

concept of a “business model” has gained wide acceptance as a tool for

explaining how an organisation operates and how it implements its

strategy. Innovative business models have altered the way that customers

interact with organisations and their products and services.

Essentially, business model innovation may range from incremental

modifications to revolutionary shifts in global practices. In an

international survey of over 700 leaders conducted by Giesen et al.

(2007) it was shown that enterprises which demonstrated effective

business model innovation as their core value proposition financially

outperformed their competitors. Alongside the focus on innovative

business models is the shift away from closed innovation systems - where

a business owns all aspects of the value chain (starting with ideation

then marketing, production, distribution and customer relationship

management) - to increasingly open systems (Chesbrough, 2010) that

encourage a business to explore the complexity of the ecosystem both

internally and externally in order to increase collaboration between all

stakeholders. The intention of this strategy is to attract a wider

Diane Babak Page 38

diversity of inputs to innovation thus making the enterprise more

competitive. Table 15 below depicts the idea funnelling process that

occurs in closed vs. open innovation models.

Table 15: Idea funnelling process in closed vs. open innovation models.

(Chesbrough, 2010)

8 PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION

Rather than focus on the second requirement as outlined in this

assignment, the researcher has been permitted to choose an emerging

trend, namely social innovation as an area for further investigation.

The reason for this is that the researcher no longer works in a

traditional corporate environment and has therefore shifted focus to the

development of alternative, sustainable social and economic systems

which can be positioned as social innovation. However, it should be

noted that the term “social innovation” can be applied in a corporate

setting (Pot & Koningsveld, 2009) and is usually mentioned within the

context of organisational development and transformation; for example

Diane Babak Page 39

when the corporate culture needs to change in order to implement new

processes, policies and technologies by way of socialisation across the

organisation. It also gets used with reference to the social role that

corporates seek to play within the community, such as the “establishment

of new units or subsidiaries that are fully active in the social

economy, or/and have resolutely opted for ecologically and socially

sustainable outputs and production models” (Moulaert, 2009). This

assignment however will use the sociological conceptualization as

described by Phills, Deiglmeier & Miller (2008) who argue that social

innovation aspires to transcend “sectors, levels of analysis, and

methods to discover the processes - the strategies, tactics, and

theories of change - that produce lasting [social] impact.”

In his seminal work on the diffusion of innovation Rogers (2003) defines

innovation as: “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by

individual or other units of adoption” and the social system as: “a set

of interrelated units engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a

common goal”. The field of social innovation combines both these

aspects but adds a third dimension, that of the public good. In other

words, social innovation is stimulated by social needs rather than

technologies or profit. Whilst the study of social innovation is still

in its infancy and many definitions abound, for the purposes of this

assignment social innovation is simply defined as: “a novel solution to

a social problem” (Phills, Deiglmeier & Miller, 2008). Examples of

contemporary social innovations are mentioned in Table 16 below:

Diane Babak Page 40

Table 16: Examples of social innovation. (Source: Caulier-Grice et al. 2010)

According to Godin (2012) social innovation in all its guises has formed

part of academic discourse for at least the past two hundred years. He

traces the use of the concept back to the rise of socialism in the

nineteenth century; which was succeeded by social reform movements and

then to its present day incarnation as a paradigm for devising

alternatives to ‘established’ solutions which no longer satisfy social

needs (Ibid.) Anyone wishing to study innovation in certain disciplines

such as information technology, engineering, medicine and management

science can source a wide variety of methods and models which have been

extensively studied and well documented. However, there is a dearth of

such information available on social innovation, despite the amount of

enthusiasm and interest shown by advocates of the concept. As noted by

Murray, Caulier-Grice & Mulgan (2010) most people wanting to implement a

Diane Babak Page 41

social innovation initiative “are aware of only a fraction of the

methods they could be using.” In light of this observation, the

researcher has identified some of the main distinctions between social

innovation methods and other types of innovation frameworks. A model for

the social innovation process will be discussed.

Social innovation does not always take place within an organisation.

Often it assumes the form of networked relationship and collaboration

that is both social and open, encouraging participation from a wide

range of stakeholders across the public, private and civic spheres who

are motivated by the public good rather than the profitability of a

product or service (Ibid). This requires alternative approaches to

challenges such as obtaining finance, developing client service models

as well as human resource management (see Table 17 below). These are

just some of the reasons that traditional business models of innovation

have limited value. Another way in which social innovation differs from

more well-known forms of innovation is that it generally cannot be

measured using the same metrics of success that are applied in

commercial or technological innovations which often set targets that are

not suitable for social innovation (Ibid). Furthermore, a normative

approach is not always appropriate due to the risk that a specific

socio-political-ideological agenda may create a bias in the process of

evaluation. A good example would be the current neoliberal agenda that

many believe has resulted in the financialisation of the global economy,

rampant consumerism and environmental devastation but still continues to

form the basis of most global policy programmes. In this instance, how

does one measure whether a social innovation based on such policies can

be considered to have been “good” or “bad” for society? (Quilley, 2012)

Diane Babak Page 42

Table 17: Comparison between economic and social innovation (Adams &

Hess, 2011).

According to the European Commission Directorate of Regional and Urban

Policy (2013) social innovation approaches have the following

characteristics, in that they are:

- “Open rather than closed when it comes to knowledge-sharing and

the ownership of knowledge;

- Multi-disciplinary and more integrated to problem solving than the

single department or single profession solutions of the past;

- Participative and empowering of citizens and users rather than

‘top down’ and expert-led.

- Demand-led rather than supply-driven;

- Tailored rather than mass-produced, as most solutions have to be

adapted to local circumstances and personalised to individuals”

(Ibid).

Diane Babak Page 43

In “The open book of social innovation,” Murray, Caulier-Grice & Mulgan (2010)

identify six key stages in the process of social innovation, which they

depict as a spiral model that expands in either a linear or iteratively

circling-back pattern whilst the process of innovation transforms from

initial inception. Table 18 below illustrates this concept.

Table 18: The six stages of social innovation (Murray, Caulier-Grice &

Mulgan, 2010)

Murray, Caulier-Grice & Mulgan (2010) provide an explanation for each

phase which the researcher will summarise below:

Stage 1: Prompts and Inspirations

Diane Babak Page 44

There are a number of ways in which problems become apparent, ranging

from organic events that indicate all is not well - such as community

protests - to deliberate methods such as the use of generative paradigms

to nurture creative alternatives to conventional thinking - for example

the open access model. In order to generate ideas, it is first necessary

to isolate the root of the problem. Teasing it out can a complex

process, susceptible to misinterpretation, for example – perceiving the

problem based on an effect, rather than finding the actual cause.

Systems analysis is one method by which these types of cognitive

distortions can be mitigated (Ibid).

Stage 2: Proposals and ideas

When the real problem has been isolated and the right questions are

asked the next stage is idea generation. There are a number of tools

that can be used to spark insights or expand on existing sources such as

online, open challenge based competitions, collaborative design

platforms and ethnographic studies (Ibid). The ideas that are generated

need to be funnelled so that the most viable filter through. This can be

resource intensive as it requires collaboration and co-operation which

is time-consuming and the number of ideas as well as the calibre may

present a challenge.

Stage 3: Prototyping and Pilots

During this stage viable ideas can be prototyped and assessed

practically. Scaled down versions can be piloted and tested in the

Diane Babak Page 45

field. This can be a very formal, structured process but it does not

have to be. Ultimately, the purpose of testing ideas is to agree on how

to measure if they are successful or not. One of the major obstacles to

experimenting with various ideas is the cost involved, especially if

there is no social funding available. This can negatively impact on the

process of innovation (Ibid).

Stage 4: Sustaining

Once an idea has been implemented its impact needs to be monitored and

feedback is required in order to make any adjustments and improvements.

The initiative needs to be nurtured as it must aim to be self-sustaining

to ensure continuity. Structures, systems and processes need to be

formalised to manage operations effectively. This often requires

financing and the ability to generate and attract sufficient resources

to keep functioning. Sources of funding range from public finance to

crowdfunding or donations as well as income generated by the social

enterprise itself through the sale of products and/or services (Ibid).

Stage 5: Scaling and Diffusion

Having launched an innovative initiative successfully, the next stage

focuses on strategies for expansion and diffusion of the innovation.

Various options can be considered and adopted for example: franchising,

partnering, co-operatives, social networks and agents. Growth may be

obstructed by conflicting interests; there may be commercial entities

with similar offerings and territorial; hidden agendas can impede

progress. Furthermore, in the case of social innovation particularly,

there is a generally a lack of systematic review of the various pilot

Diane Babak Page 46

projects and thus a lack of deep knowledge about what may or may not

have worked previously (Ibid.)

Stage 6: Systemic change

Social innovation aims to transform entire systems, disrupting the

existing status quo and offering alternatives that are more sustainable

and equitable. Progress can only be achieved if the system adapts and

accommodates the introduction of innovation so that social enterprises

can act legitimately. Given the degree of complexity involved in

systemic change this usually happens incrementally over long periods of

time (Ibid.)

9 CONCLUSION

Social innovation is gaining traction globally with numerous projects

and programmes underway in different regions. Despite this, there is

still a need to consolidate the lessons that have emanated from the

diverse range of activities. The importance of this process is being

recognised by practitioners and policy makers alike. Efforts are being

made internationally to define common standards, tools and appropriate

models that have been developed especially for social innovation

programmes. Public funding has been allocated toward the establishment

of platforms by which to share lessons learnt and collaborate

effectively; with examples emanating from the European Union such as

Social Innovation Europe (2013). This initiative was launched in 2011 in

order to provide social innovators with a shared, central resource for

exchanging ideas and to act as a repository so that they could create a

Diane Babak Page 47

body of knowledge on social innovation and systemic change. As a result,

social innovators in Europe “are beginning to gather into a community of

practice. Infrastructure is emerging [in order to] support the

coordinated actions of these social innovators, and to capture and

articulate their collective intelligence” (Ibid.) It is the researcher’s

opinion that Africa - and South Africa in particular - need to consider

whether there is a need to adopt a similar strategy to formalise the

practice of social innovation and build the capacity for all our people

to understand the enormous benefits that can be gained if successful

innovations lead to the type of systemic change that can help us ramp up

efforts to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals

established in 2000.

10 REFERENCES

Adams, D. & Hess, M., 2011. Social innovation and why it has policy

significance. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 21(2), p. 139.

Amabile, T.M., 1998. How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review,

September–October, pp. 77–87.

Andert, D., Platt, A., & Alexakis, G., 2011. Alternative, grassroots,

and rogue leadership: a case for alternating leaders in organizations.

Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 27(2), pp. 53-62.

Andrews, P., 2006. Five barriers to innovation: key questions and

answers. IBM Executive Technology Report, November. Available at: <http://www-

Diane Babak Page 48

935.ibm.com/services/uk/igs/pdf/g510-6342-00-5barriers-etr.pdf>.

[Accessed 15 March 2013].

Bina, S. S., 2012. 2012 Insigniam corporate culture report [pdf]. Available at:

<http://insigniam.com/staging/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Insigniam_Corp-

Culture-Report.pdf>. [Accessed 20 March 2013].

Boyd, D., 2009. Innovation archetypes. Innovation in Practice: a corporate

perspective on innovation methods, [blog]. May 10. Available at:

<http://www.innovationinpractice.com/innovation_in_practice/2009/05/

innovation-archetypes.html>. [Accessed 28 Feb 2013].

Burke, E. & Glennon, R., 2012.The SHL talent report: big data insight and analysis of the

global workforce. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.shl.com/assets/SHL-Talent-

Report-USE.pdf>. [Accessed 20 March 2013].

Burkus, D., 2012. Why leaders should encourage creative risks. The Creativity

Post, [blog]. May 22,

<http://www.creativitypost.com/business/why_leaders_should_encourage

_creative_risks>. [Accessed 20 March 2013].

Capozzi, M.M., Kellen, A. & Somers, R., 2012. Making innovation structures work:

McKinsey Global Survey results. [pdf] September. Available at:

<http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/innovation/making_innovation_structure

s_work_mckinsey_global_survey_results>. [Accessed 6 March 2012].

Diane Babak Page 49

Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. J., 2012. The

Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and

driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1-12.

Caulier-Grice, J., Kahn, L., Mulgan, G., Pulford, L., & Vasconcelos, D.,

2010. Study on social innovation: a paper prepared by the Social

Innovation eXchange (SIX) and the Young Foundation for the Bureau of

European Policy Advisors. Young Foundation/European Union [pdf]. Available at:

<http://www.aletmanski.com/files/householdsstudy-on-social-

innovation_22-february-2010_0.pdf>. [Accessed 6 March 2012].

Chesbrough, H. W., 2003. The Era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 44 (3): pp. 35–41.

Chesbrough, H. W., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and

barriers.

Long Range Planning (43), pp. 354-363.

Clayton, B., Fisher, T., Harris, R., Bateman, A., & Brown, M., 2008. A

study in difference: structures and cultures in Australian registered training organisations.

National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide [pdf].

Available at: < http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1683/1/Study_in_difference.pdf>.

[Accessed 5 March 2013].

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M., 2009. A Multi‐Dimensional framework of

organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal

of Management Studies, 47(6), pp. 1154-1191.

Diane Babak Page 50

Drucker, P.F., 1959. Landmarks of tomorrow - a report on the new 'post-

modern' world, Harper & Row, New York.

du Preez, N. D., Louw, L., & Essmann, H., 201? An Innovation process model for

improving innovation capability. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University [pdf].

Available at: < http://www.indutech.co.za/attachments/188_LouwEssmannDu

%20Preez%20-%20An%20Innovation%20Process%20Model%20for%20Improving

%20Innovation%20Capability.pdf >. [Accessed 13 March 2013].

Du Plessis, M., 2007. The role of knowledge management in innovation.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), pp. 20-29.

Ellamil, M., Dobson, C., Beeman, M., & Christoff, K., 2012. Evaluative

and generative modes of thought during the creative process. Neuroimage,

59(2), pp. 1783-1794.

European Commission Directorate of Regional and Urban Policy, 2013. EU

Guide to social innovation, [pdf]. Brussels, EU Regional Policy Directorate.

Available at:

<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/social_in

novation/social_innovation_2013.pdf>. [Accessed 8 April 2013]

Fields, Z., & Bisschoff, C. A., 2013. A Theoretical model to measure

creativity at a university. J Soc Sci, 34(1), pp. 47-59.

Flynn, S. 2008. Managing the process of innovation. EBSCO Research Starters

Business, 8(1), pp.1-13.

Diane Babak Page 51

Giesen, E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A., 2007. Three ways to

successfully innovate your business model. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), pp.

27-33.

Greenstone Miller, J., & Miller, M., 2012. The Big idea: the rise of the

supertemp. Harvard Business Review, May, pp. 51-62.

Greyvenstein, H., & Cilliers, F., 2012. Followership's experiences of

organisational leadership: a systems psychodynamic perspective. SA Journal

of Industrial Psychology, 38(2), pp. 1-10.

Godin B., 2012. Social innovation: utopias of innovation from c. 1830 to

the present. Working Paper No. 11, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation,

Montréal: INRS. 50 p.

Hay Group. (2012.) What Does it Take to Innovate [Infographic]. In:

HayGroup [online]. Available from:

<http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/in/What_does_it_take_to_innovate_

Infographic.pdf> [Accessed 02 April 2013].

Hering, D., & Phillips, J., 2005. Innovation roles the people you need for successful

innovation. [Online] NetCentrics Corporation. Available at:

<http://www.innovationtools.com/pdf/Innovation_Roles.pdf>. [Accessed 15

March 2013].

Hudson, K., 2013. How leaders can create breakthrough innovation. Dr Ken

Hudson’s blog, 13 Feb. Available at: <http://drkenhudson.com/how-leaders-

can-create-breakthrough-innovation/>. [Accessed 28 Feb 2013].

Diane Babak Page 52

Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Zhang, Z., 2012. Genetic influences on core

self-evaluations, job satisfaction, and work stress: a behavioural

genetics mediated model. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,

117(1), pp. 208-220.

Kahl, C. H., 2012. Creativity is more than a trait - it's a relation. Digitale

Dissertation, Universität Hamburg. 10 November 2011. Available at:

<http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2012/5500/pdf/Dissertation.pd

f>. [Accessed 20 March 2013].

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., Korotov, K. & Florent-Treacy, E. (Eds.), 2007.

Coach and couch:

the psychology of making better leaders, Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O., 2012. The Strategic management

of innovation: a systematic review and paths for future research.

International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), pp. 367-390.

Kim, K. H., 2006. Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional:

analyses of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research

Journal, 18, pp. 251–260.

Kim, K. H. 2010. Measurements, causes, and effects of creativity.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, pp. 131–135.

Kim, K.H., Lee H.E., Chae, K., Anderson, L. & Laurence, C., 2011.

Creativity and Confucianism among American and Korean educators. Creativity

Research Journal, 23:4, pp. 357-371

Diane Babak Page 53

Kirton, M. J., 1999. Kirton adaption–innovation inventory manual. Berkhamsted, UK:

Occupational Research Centre.

Klijn, M. & Tomic, W., 2010. A Review of creativity within organizations

from a psychological perspective. Journal of Management Development, 29:4,

pp. 322-343.

Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A., 2010. Theories of

creativity. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, pp. 20-47.

Konstantynova, A., 2012. Creating innovation – “talent” or a skilled

team? Beyond competitiveness [blog], 12 Dec. Available at:

<http://blog.orkestra.deusto.es/?p=406>. [Accessed 1 March 2013.]

Kuo, H. C., 2011. Toward a synthesis framework for the study of

creativity in education: an initial attempt. Educate~, 11:1, pp. 65-75.

Kwoh, L., 2012. You call that innovation? Companies love to say they

innovate, but the term has begun to lose meaning, Wall Street Journal,

[online]. Available at:

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023047917045774182509023099

14.html>. [Accessed 13 March 2013].

Leydesdorff, L., 2012. The Triple helix, quadruple helix and an n-tuple

of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based

economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3:1, pp. 25-35.

Diane Babak Page 54

Lindberg, M., Danilda, I. & Torstensson, B., 2011. Women resource

centres: a creative knowledge environment of quadruple helix. Journal of the

Knowledge Economy, 3:1, pp. 36-52.

Moulaert, F., 2009. Social innovation: institutionally embedded,

territorially (re) produced. Social Innovation and Territorial Development, pp. 13-

31.

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G., 2010. The Open book of

social innovation: ways to design develop and grow social innovation.

London: NESTA and the Young Foundation.

Patterson, F., Kerrin, M., Gatto-Roissard, G. & Coan, P., 2009. Everyday

innovation: how to enhance innovative working in employees and

organisations. London: NESTA Research Report.

Parjanen, S., 2012. Creating possibilities for collective creativity: brokerage functions in

practice-based innovation. Thesis for the degree of Dr of Science (Technology),

Lappeenranta University of Technology, May. Available at:

<https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76983/isbn%209789522652348.pdf?sequence=1>.

[Accessed 20 March 2013].

Phills Jr., J. A., Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D.T., 2008. Rediscovering

social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Fall: pp. 34-43.

Pot, F. D., & Koningsveld, E. A. , 2009. Quality of working life and

organizational performance: two sides of the same coin. Scandinavian Journal

of Work, Environment & Health. 35(6), pp. 421-428.

Diane Babak Page 55

Quilley, S., 2012. System innovation and a new great transformation: re-embedding

economic life in the context of de-growth. [Hypertext], 20 Dec 2012. Available at:

<http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-20/system-innovation-and-a-

new-great-transformation-re-embedding-economic-life-in-the-context-of-

de-growth>. [Accessed 8 April 2013].

Seah, Y. Z. 2012. But what is it good for: an investigation into the process of evaluating

potentially creative and innovative products. Doctoral dissertation, University of

New South Wales, Australia. Available at:

<http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:

11046/SOURCE01>. [Accessed 8 April 2013].

Shelton, C., 2007. Leadership & innovation: using quantum thinking to meet corporate

challenges [pdf]. Available at:

<http://www.federasul.com.br/arquivos/charloteShelton.pdf>. [Accessed 8

April 2013].

Shelton, C. D., Darling, J. R., & Walker, W. E. (2002). Foundations of

organizational excellence: leadership values, strategies, and skills. The

Finnish Journal of Business Economics, Winter, pp.46-63.

SHL, 2012. SHL talent report 2012 provides unprecedented insight on the global workforce

[press release] 8 October 2012. Available at:

<http://www.shl.com/us/news-item/press_releases/shl-talent-report-2012/

>. [Accessed 8 April 2013].

Diane Babak Page 56

Sinar, E.F., Wellins, R.S. & Pacione, C., 2012. Creating the conditions for

sustainable innovation: the leadership imperative. Development Dimensions

International. Available at:

<http://www.ddiworld.com/DDIWorld/media/trendresearch/Creatingtheconditi

onsfor sustainableinnovation_tr_ddi.pdf/>. [Accessed 8 April 2013].

Social Innovation Europe, 2013. Social Innovation Europe January 2011 – December

2012: Enabling a European environment that can find, support and share what works. [pdf]

Brussels: Social Innovation Europe. Available at:

<http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/social-

innovation/sie-final-report_en.pdf> [Accessed 31 May 2013].

Staw, B. 2009. Is group creativity really an oxymoron: some thoughts on

bridging the cohesion-creativity divide. Creativity in Groups: Research on

Managing Groups and Teams, 12, pp. 311-323.

Steyn, S.C. 2102. Management of innovation: handbook. Da Vinci Institute,

Modderfontein.

Diane Babak Page 57