Skip to main content

Moving Organizations towards Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) in Work Practices and on a Global Scale: Possibilities and Challenges

  • Chapter
Employee-Driven Innovation
  • 489 Accesses

Abstract

Today, multinational corporations (MNCs) increasingly innovate by tying into global networks of customers, suppliers, public R&D institutions and other external partners (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Hedlund, 1986; Sabel et al., 2009), experimenting with new ways of combining and leveraging distinctive knowledge and practices from around the world. Innovating in global networks, MNCs can no longer depend on cues from a centralized R&D lab or top management. Nor can they rely on former ‘transfer’ or ‘projection’ strategies to introduce innovations and advantages abroad through one-directional transfer of resources, information and knowledge from home to overseas environments (Chesbrough, 2003; Doz et al., 2003). To improve their innovative performance, instead, they are required to combine knowledge and learn from multiple sources (embedded in diverse organizational and institutional contexts) as well as to decentralize responsibilities and innovative search practices to various levels and sites that can respond quickly to new situations. This becomes so much more important as the firm constantly has to define for itself a new role in relation to other firms, with constant changes in the composition of global value chains, role changes that make it necessary to reform the organization, focus on new processes and bring new products to the market (Herrigel, 2010). Consequently, not only R&D units but organizational members at all levels (i.e. employees, managers, suppliers, customers and other partners) of MNCs and their surrounding institutions need to engage in mutual knowledge-sharing and an ongoing distributed search for innovations in and across various ‘collaborative communities’ (Dorf and Sabel, 1998; Hecksher and Adler, 2006; Sabel, 2007; Stark and Girard, 2002; Wenger, 1998).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. London: Century Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1990). ‘Managing innovations in the transnational corporation’. In Bartlett, C.A., Doz, Y. and Hedlund, G. (Eds) Managing the Global Firm. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belangér, J., Berggren, C., Björkman, T. and Köhler, C. (Eds) (1999). Being Local worldwide. ABB and The Challenge Of Global Management. Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Ghoshal, S., Markides, C., Stopford, J. and Yip, G. (2003). The Future of the Multinational Company. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchko, A.A. (1992). ‘Employee ownership, attitudes, and turnover: an empirical assessment’. Human Relations, 45(7), 711–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. (1995). ‘The globalization of technology: what remains of the product cycle model?’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. (2005). ‘MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates’. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1109–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. and Zhang, Y. (2009). ‘The innovative multinational firm: the dispersion of creativity, and its implications for the firm and for world development’. In Collinson, S. and Morgan, G. (Eds) Images of the Multinational Firm. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. (1991). ‘On the nature, function and composition of technological systems’. Evolutionary Economics, 1(1991), 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds) (2006). Open Innovation. Researching a New Paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J.L. (2003). ‘Changes in Danish innovation policy — responses to the challenge of a dynamic business environment’. In Biegelbauer, P.S. and Borrás, S. (Eds) Innovation Policies in Europe and the US — The New Agenda. Hampshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R.G. (1990). ‘Stage—Gate systems: a new tool for managing new products’. Business Horizons (May–June), 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938, 1997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorf, M.C. and Sabel, C.F. (1998). ‘A constitution of democratic experimentalism’. Columbia Law Review, 98, 267–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., Santos J. and Williamson, P. (2003). ‘The metanational: the next step in the evolution of the multinational enterprise’. In Birkinshaw, J., Ghoshal, S., Markides, C., Stopford, J. and Yip, G. (Eds), The Future of the Multinational Company. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (2005). ‘Systems of innovation — perspectives and challenges’. In Fageberg, J., Mowery, D.C. and Nelson, R.R. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egelhoff, W.G. (1991). ‘Information processing theory and the multinational enterprise’. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellström, P. (2006). ‘Praktikbaserade innovationsprocesser I communal verksamhet — ett Lärandeperspektiv (Practice based processes of innovation in a communality perspective)’. In Jonsson, L. (Ed.) Kommunledning och samhällsutveckling (Management of municipalities and development of society). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. (2003). ‘Innovation: examining workplace learning in new enterprises’. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(3), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N.J. (2006). ‘Knowledge and organization in the theory of the multinational corporation: some foundational issues’, Journal of Management and Governance, 10, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N.J. and Pedersen, T. (2004). ‘Organizational knowledge processses in the multinational corporation: an introduction’, Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 340–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, T.S. and Zhou, C. (2005). ‘R&D co-practice and “reverse” knowledge integration in multinational firms’. Journal of lnternational Business Studies, 36, 676–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., Korine, H. and Szulanski, G. (1994). ‘Interunit communication in multinational corporations’. Management Science, 40, 96–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, G.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandori, A. and Kogut, B. (2002). ‘Dialogue on organization and knowledge’. Organization Science, 13, 224–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000). ‘Knowledge flows within multinational corporations’. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A.B. and Bechky, B.A. (2006). ‘When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work’. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckscher, C. and Adler, P.S. (Eds) (2006). The Firm as a Collaborative Community. Reconstructing Trust in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G. (1994). ‘A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation’. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G. (1986). ‘The hypermodern MNC — a heterarchy’. Human Resource Management, 25, 9–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helper, S., MacDuffie, J P. and Sabel, C.F. (2000). ‘Pragmatic collaborations: advancing knowledge while controlling opportunism’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 443–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrigel, G. (2007). ‘Roles and rules: ambiguity, experimentation and new forms of stakeholder-ism in Germany’. Mimeographed manuscript, University of Chicago, January 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrigel, G. (2010). Manufacturing Possibilities. Creative Action and Industrial Recomposition in the United States, Germany and Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. and Lundvall, B.Å. (2007). ‘Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation’. Research Policy, 36 (2007), 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L.B. (2005) ‘User toolkits for innovation: consumers support each other’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(4), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993). ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology’. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.H. (2010). ‘Transformative dynamics of innovation and industry: new roles for employees’. Transfer, 16(2), 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.H. and Lilja, K. (Eds) (2011). Nordic Capitalisms and Globalization. New Forms of Economic Organizations and Welfare Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.H. and Lotz, M. (2011). ‘Taking teams seriously in the co-creation of firms and economic agency’, accepted for Organization Studies, 32(11), 1465–1485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.H. and Zeitlin, J. (2005). Local Players in Global Games. On the Strategic Constitution of a Multinational Corporation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.H., Lotz, M. and Rocha, R. (2011). Denmark: tailoring flexicurity for changing roles in global games. In Kristensen and Lilja (Eds) Nordic Capitalisms and Globalization. New Forms of Economic Organizations and Welfare Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1997). InterView. En introduction til det kvalitative forskningsinterview. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006). ‘Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LO Rapport (2007). Employee-Driven Innovation — a Trade Union Priority for Growth and Job Creation in a Globalised Economy. Published by LO, The Danish Confederation of Trade Unions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, M.D. and Ranft, A.L. (2000). ‘Organizational learning about new international markets: exploring the internal transfer of local market knowledge’. Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, E. and Valeyre, A. (2003). ‘Organizational change in Europe: national models or the diffusion of a new “one best way”?’ Paper prepared for the 15th Annual Meeting on Socio-Economics LEST, Aix-en-Provence, 26–28 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, M. (2009). The Business of Co-creation — And The Co-creation of Business. PhD Series 15. Copenhagen Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.Å. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B., Vang, J., Joseph, K.J. and Chaiminade, C. (2009). ‘Innovation system research and developing countries’. In Lundvall, B.-Å., Van, J., Joseph, K.J. and Chaiminade, C. (Eds) Handbook Of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. New York: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobel, R. and Birkinshaw, J. (1998). ‘Innovation in multinational corporations: control and communication patterns in international R&D operations’. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persuad, A. (2005). ‘Enhancing synergistic innovative capability in multinational corporations: An empirical investigation’. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 412–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, M. (2005). ‘Innovation and employment’. In Fageberg, J., Mowery, D.C. and Nelson, R.R. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 568–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. (1877). ‘The fixation of belief’. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. (1992). ‘The first rule of logic’. In Ketner, K.L. (Ed.) Reasoning and the Logic of Things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J.L. and Rodgers, L. (2004). ‘The psychology of ownership and worker-owner productivity’. Group and Organization Management, 29(5), 588–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L. and Almeida, P. (2003). ‘Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility’, Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C.F. (2007). ‘A real-time revolution in routines’. In Adler, P.S. and Heckscher, C. (Eds) The Firm as a Collaborative Community. Reconstructing Trust in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C.F., Gilson, R.J. and Scott, R. (2009). ‘Contracting for innovation: vertical disintegration and interfirm collaboration’. Columbia Law Review, 109(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Scrip Magazine, January 1999: Scrip’s review of 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (2005). ‘Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns’. Management Science, 51, 756–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J.P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Wadsworth Group. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. (1998). ‘Case studies’. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 86–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (2009). The Sense of Dissonance. Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. and Girard, M. (2002). ‘Distributing intelligence and organizing diversity in new media projects’. Environment and Planning A, 34(11), 1927–1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994). ‘Grounded theory methodology — an overview’. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. pp. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temallord (2006). Understanding User-Driven Innovation. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trott, P. (1998). Innovation Management and New Product Development. Financial Times, Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, P. (1966). ‘International investment and international trade in the product cycle’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81, 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2001). ‘How and why are international firms different? the consequences of cross-border managerial coordination for firm characteristics and behaviour’. In Morgan, G., Kristensen, P.H. and Whitley, R. (Eds) The Multinational Firm. Organizing Across Institutional and National Divides. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2006). ‘Innovation systems and institutional regimes: the construction of different types of national, sectoral and transnational innovation systems’. In Lorenz, E. and Lundvall, B.A. (Eds) How Europe’s Economies Learn: Coordinating Competing Models (pp. 343–380). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Maja Lotz and Peer Hull Kristensen

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lotz, M., Kristensen, P.H. (2012). Moving Organizations towards Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) in Work Practices and on a Global Scale: Possibilities and Challenges. In: Høyrup, S., Bonnafous-Boucher, M., Hasse, C., Lotz, M., Møller, K. (eds) Employee-Driven Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137014764_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics