Cultures that support product-innovation processes

Academy of Management Executive

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 42-54

  Jassawalla, Avan R ^a   Sashittal, Hemant C ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b ST JOHN FISHER COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036704438     PISSN: 10795545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AME.2002.8540307     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. Pettigrew, A.M. 1979. On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4): 570-576; and Goffee, R., & Jones, G. 1998. The character of a corporation: How your company's culture can make or break your business. New York: Harper Business.
2. Pettigrew, A.M. 1979. On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4): 570-576; and Goffee, R., & Jones, G. 1998. The character of a corporation: How your company's culture can make or break your business. New York: Harper Business.
3. Zien, K.A., & Buckler, S.A. 1997. From experience. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4): 274-287; and Frohman, A.L. 1998. Building a culture of innovation. Research Technology Management, 41(2): 9-12. Also see Kitchell, S. 1995. Corporate culture, environmental adaptation and innovation adoption: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3): 195-205; and Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. The term innovation-supportive with similar connotations was used earlier by Gaylen, N.C., Keller, C., & Lyons, D.W. 2000. Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (1): 59-76.
4. Zien, K.A., & Buckler, S.A. 1997. From experience. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4): 274-287; and Frohman, A.L. 1998. Building a culture of innovation. Research Technology Management, 41(2): 9-12. Also see Kitchell, S. 1995. Corporate culture, environmental adaptation and innovation adoption: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3): 195-205; and Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. The term innovation-supportive with similar connotations was used earlier by Gaylen, N.C., Keller, C., & Lyons, D.W. 2000. Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (1): 59-76.
5. Zien, K.A., & Buckler, S.A. 1997. From experience. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4): 274-287; and Frohman, A.L. 1998. Building a culture of innovation. Research Technology Management, 41(2): 9-12. Also see Kitchell, S. 1995. Corporate culture, environmental adaptation and innovation adoption: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3): 195-205; and Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. The term innovation-supportive with similar connotations was used earlier by Gaylen, N.C., Keller, C., & Lyons, D.W. 2000. Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (1): 59-76.
6. Zien, K.A., & Buckler, S.A. 1997. From experience. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4): 274-287; and Frohman, A.L. 1998. Building a culture of innovation. Research Technology Management, 41(2): 9-12. Also see Kitchell, S. 1995. Corporate culture, environmental adaptation and innovation adoption: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3): 195-205; and Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. The term innovation-supportive with similar connotations was used earlier by Gaylen, N.C., Keller, C., & Lyons, D.W. 2000. Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (1): 59-76.
7. Zien, K.A., & Buckler, S.A. 1997. From experience. Dreams to market: Crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4): 274-287; and Frohman, A.L. 1998. Building a culture of innovation. Research Technology Management, 41(2): 9-12. Also see Kitchell, S. 1995. Corporate culture, environmental adaptation and innovation adoption: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3): 195-205; and Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. The term innovation-supportive with similar connotations was used earlier by Gaylen, N.C., Keller, C., & Lyons, D.W. 2000. Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (1): 59-76.
8. For discussion of culture as a catchall term, see Denison, D.R. 1996. What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3): 619-634.
9. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
13. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
17. We term our sample high-technology firms because they rely overwhelmingly on new products from new technologies to remain competitive, employ a disproportionately larger number of scientists, engineers, and technically qualified people when compared to other firms, and face higher levels of product obsolescence. See Von Glinow, M.A., & Mohrman, S.A. 1990. Managing complexity in high technology organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Our exploratory study of new-product development was conducted in two stages. We aimed to explore, identify, and develop meaningful ways of thinking about the important and understudied human-interaction, team, and organizational issues of new-product development based on the voices of managers directly involved in the process. We initially conducted a literature review and a pilot study in which we depth-interviewed six managers responsible for developing new products from four high-technology firms. We asked them to discuss their product-innovation-related thinking, actions, and interactions with others, and issues that they viewed as focal and problematic. We content-analyzed their responses, revisited the literature, and derived a set of research questions that were both managerially relevant and understudied. Based on the research questions, we developed an interview protocol to guide and structure the depth-interviews we conducted in the second phase of our study. We interviewed forty managers involved in new-product development from ten mid-to large-sized high-technology firms (at least one from R&D, marketing, and manufacturing from each firm). We also interviewed individuals identified by participants as important contributors, such as project-team leaders and division heads. To encourage candid answers, we guaranteed confidentiality. All participants were asked all of the questions in our interview protocol, and mostly in the same order to enable comparison across responses. The depth-interviews were formative to the extent that we asked probing questions and sought clarifications and examples from each participant. The interviews, lasting between 90 and 120 minutes, were tape-recorded and transcribed. For content analysis, we followed the guidelines offered by Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Bogdan, C.R., & Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann; Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; and Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R.C. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
18. For additional definitions of culture, see Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G., & Mauriel, J.J. 2000. A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 850-863; and Schein, E.H. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
19. For additional definitions of culture, see Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G., & Mauriel, J.J. 2000. A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 850-863; and Schein, E.H. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
20. For the epistemology of culture, see Denison, op. cit. For quantitatively assessed dimensions of culture, see Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316. For culture as inseparable from organizations, see Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 339-358.
21. For the epistemology of culture, see Denison, op. cit. For quantitatively assessed dimensions of culture, see Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316. For culture as inseparable from organizations, see Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 339-358.
22. See Schein, E.H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2): 109-119; and Kanter, R.M. 2000. A culture of innovation. Executive Excellence, 17(8): 10-11.
23. Schein, E.H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2): 109-119; and Kanter, R.M. 2000. A culture of innovation. Executive Excellence, 17(8): 10-11.
24. For accelerated development time as an indicator of new product development efficiency, see Vesey, J.T. 1991. The new competitors: They think in terms of speed to market. The Academy of Management Executive, 5(2): 23-33; and Kessler, E.H., & Chakrabarti, A.K. 1996. Innovation speed. A conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1143-1164. For commercial success as an indicator of new-product-development effectiveness, see Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. 1996. Sustained product innovation at large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1120-1153.
25. For accelerated development time as an indicator of new product development efficiency, see Vesey, J.T. 1991. The new competitors: They think in terms of speed to market. The Academy of Management Executive, 5(2): 23-33; and Kessler, E.H., & Chakrabarti, A.K. 1996. Innovation speed. A conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1143-1164. For commercial success as an indicator of new-product-development effectiveness, see Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. 1996. Sustained product innovation at large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1120-1153.
26. For accelerated development time as an indicator of new product development efficiency, see Vesey, J.T. 1991. The new competitors: They think in terms of speed to market. The Academy of Management Executive, 5(2): 23-33; and Kessler, E.H., & Chakrabarti, A.K. 1996. Innovation speed. A conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1143-1164. For commercial success as an indicator of new-product-development effectiveness, see Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. 1996. Sustained product innovation at large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1120-1153.
27. See Frohman, op. cit.
28. See Detert, et al., op. cit., for discussion about the prevalence of culture studies devoted to artifacts.
29. For cultural artifacts without specific reference to product innovation, see Hofstede, G. 1991. Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill; Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; and Wuthnow, R., & Witten, M. 1988. New directions in the study of culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 49-67.
30. For cultural artifacts without specific reference to product innovation, see Hofstede, G. 1991. Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill; Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; and Wuthnow, R., & Witten, M. 1988. New directions in the study of culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 49-67.
31. For cultural artifacts without specific reference to product innovation, see Hofstede, G. 1991. Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill; Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; and Wuthnow, R., & Witten, M. 1988. New directions in the study of culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 49-67.
32. For cultural artifacts of product-innovation settings, see Buckler, S.A., & Zien, K.A. 1996. From experience. The spirituality of innovation: Learning from stories. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (5): 391-405. Zien & Buckler, op. cit; and Tushman & O'Reilly, op. cit.
33. Weick, K., & Roberts, K. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (3): 357-381; and Detert, et al., op. cit.
34. Weick, K., & Roberts, K. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (3): 357-381; and Detert, et al., op. cit.
35. Boje, D.M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1): 106-126; and Martin, J., Feldman, M., & Sitkin, S. 1983. The uniqueness paradox of organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 438-453; and see Buckler & Zien, op. cit.
36. Boje, D.M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1): 106-126; and Martin, J., Feldman, M., & Sitkin, S. 1983. The uniqueness paradox of organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 438-453; and see Buckler & Zien, op. cit.
37. Boje, D.M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1): 106-126; and Martin, J., Feldman, M., & Sitkin, S. 1983. The uniqueness paradox of organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 438-453; and see Buckler & Zien, op. cit.
38. Pettigrew, op. cit; and Trice, H., & Beyer, J. 1992. The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
39. Pettigrew, op. cit; and Trice, H., & Beyer, J. 1992. The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
40. Schein, E.H. 1986. Are you corporate cultured? Personnel Journal, 65: 82-97.
41. Since our learning originates from our exploratory study, it should not be construed as a how-to primer on cultural change, or as easily replicable conclusions that guarantee results in all product-innovation settings. Similarly, since our findings emerge from high-technology manufacturing firms, our learning speaks mostly to managers involved in developing high-tech product-service bundles, rather than to those involved in developing new services.
42. Floyd, S.W., & Lane, P.J. 2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1): 154-177.
43. Frohman, op. cit.
44. Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. 1994. The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science, 5 (2): 200-218. Also see Henderson, R., & Clark, K. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9-31.
45. Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. 1994. The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science, 5 (2): 200-218. Also see Henderson, R., & Clark, K. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9-31.
46. For simultaneously occurring organizational changes, see Brown, S.L., & Eisenhardt, K E. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory of time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 1-34.
47. Schein, E.H. 1996. Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall: 9-20; and Goffee & Jones, op. cit.
48. Schein, E.H. 1996. Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall: 9-20; and Goffee & Jones, op. cit.
49. Saffold, G.S. 1988. Culture traits, strength and organizational performance: Moving beyond "strong" culture. Academy of Management Review, 13 (4): 546-558. Also see De Long & Fahey, op. cit.
50. Saffold, G.S. 1988. Culture traits, strength and organizational performance: Moving beyond quot;strongquot; culture. Academy of Management Review, 13 (4): 546-558. Also see De Long & Fahey, op. cit.
51. Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 96-105. Also see Mascitelli, R. 2000. From experience. Harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve break-through innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (3): 179-193.
52. Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 96-105. Also see Mascitelli, R. 2000. From experience. Harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve break-through innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (3): 179-193.
53. Schein, E.H. 1993. How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering the green room. Sloan Management Review, 34 (2): 85-112.