One foot in, one foot out: How does individuals' external search breadth affect innovation outcomes?

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 280-302

  Dahlander, Linus ^a   O'Mahony, Siobhan ^b   Gann, David M ^c  

^a EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

attention; boundary spanning; individuals; innovation; scientists; search

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; MANAGEMENT; PLANNING;

ATTENTION; BOUNDARY SPANNING; INDIVIDUALS; SCIENTISTS; SEARCH;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 84957641512     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2342     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Allen TJ,. 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
2. Allen TJ, Katz R,. 1986. The dual ladder: motivational solution or managerial delusion? R&D Management 16 (2): 185-197.
3. Ancona DG, Caldwell DF,. 1992. Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (4): 634-665.
4. Austin JR,. 1997. A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in groups. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 5: 341-359.
5. Bailyn L,. 1991. The hybrid career: an exploratory study of career routes in R&D. Engineering Management International 8 (1): 1-14.
6. Baldwin CY, O'Mahony S, Quinn J,. 2003. IBM and Linux (A). Harvard Business School Case 903-083.
7. Bantel KA, Jackson SE,. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal 10: 107-124.
8. Barley SR, Kunda G,. 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science 12 (1): 76-95.
9. Bechky B,. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14 (3): 312-330.
10. Blundell R, Griffith R, Windmeijer F,. 2002. Individual effects and dynamics in count data models. Journal of Econometrics 108 (1): 113-131.
11. Burt RS,. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110 (2): 349-399.
12. Burt RS,. 2010. Neighbor Networks: Competitive Advantage Local and Personal. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
13. Carlile PR,. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15 (5): 555-568.
14. Chesbrough HW,. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
15. Chesbrough HW, Vanhaverbeke W, West J,. 2006. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
16. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA,. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 128-152.
17. Cyert RM, March JG,. 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
18. Dahlander L, Gann DM,. 2010. How open is innovation? Research Policy 39 (6): 699-709.
19. Dearborn DC, Simon HA,. 1958. Selective perception: a note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry 21 (2): 140-144.
20. Dillman DA,. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd edn). John Wiley and Sons: New York.
21. Dokko G, Rosenkopf L,. 2010. Social capital for hire? Mobility of technical professionals and firm influence in wireless standards committees. Organization Science 21 (3): 677-695.
22. Dollinger MJ,. 1984. Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 27 (2): 351-368.
23. Dutton JE, Ashford SJ, O'Neill RM, Lawrence KA,. 2001. Moves that matters: issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal 44 (4): 716-736.
24. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME,. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25-32.
25. Evans J, Barley SR, Kunda G,. 2004. Beach time, bridge time, and billable hours: the temporal structure of technical contracting. Administrative Science Quarterly 49: 1-38.
26. Fabrizio K,. 2009. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy 38 (2): 255-267.
27. Fleming L,. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47 (1): 117-132.
28. Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D,. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (2): 443-475.
29. Fleming L, Sorenson O,. 2001. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy 30 (7): 1019-1039.
30. Fleming L, Waguespack DM,. 2007. Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science 18 (2): 165-180.
31. Gambardella A, Panico C, Valentini G,. 2013. Strategic incentives to human capital. Strategic Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/smj.2200.
32. Gibbons M, Johnston R,. 1974. The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy 3: 220-242.
33. Gouldner AW,. 1957. Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly 2 (3): 281-306.
34. Gourieroux C, Monfort A, Trognon A,. 1984. Pseudo maximum-likelihood methods: applications to Poisson models. Econometrica 52 (3): 701-720.
35. Granovetter M,. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360-1380.
36. Grant R,. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7 (4): 375-387.
37. Gruber M, Harhoff D, Hoisl D,. 2013. Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: scientists versus engineers. Management Science 59 (4): 837-851.
38. Hansen MT,. 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1): 82-111.
39. Hansen MT,. 2002. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science 13 (3): 232-248.
40. Hansen MT, Haas MR,. 2001. Competing for attention in knowledge markets: electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (1): 1-28.
41. Harada M,. 2012. Generalized sensitivity analysis. Working paper. New York University, New York.
42. Hargadon A,. 2005. Bridging old worlds and building new ones: towards a microsociology of creativity. In Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Teams, Thompson L, Choi HS, (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ; 199-216.
43. Hargadon A, Sutton R,. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (4): 716-749.
44. Harman HH,. 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
45. Heckman JJ, Borjas GJ,. 1980. Does unemployment cause future unemployment: definitions, questions, and answers from a continuous time model of heterogeneity and state dependence. Econometrica 48 (187): 247-283.
46. von Hippel E,. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.
47. Howard-Grenville JA,. 2007. Developing issue selling effectiveness over time: issue selling as resourcing. Organization Science 18 (4): 560-577.
48. Huston LL, Sakkab NN,. 2006. Connect and develop. Harvard Business Review 84 (3): 58-66.
49. Ibarra H, Kilduff M, Tsai W,. 2005. Zooming in and out: connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science 16 (4): 359-371.
50. Imbens GW,. 2003. Sensitivity to the exogeneity assumption. American Economic Review 93 (2): 126-132.
51. Jeppesen L, Lakhani K,. 2010. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science 57 (5): 1016-1033.
52. Katila R, Ahuja G,. 2002. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal 45 (6): 1183-1194.
53. Katz R, Allen TJ,. 1982. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management 12 (1): 7-19.
54. Katz R, Tushman M, Allen T,. 1995. The influence of supervisory promotion and network location on subordinate careers in a dual ladder R&D setting. Management Science 41 (5): 848-863.
55. Koput K,. 1997. A chaotic model of innovative search: some answers, many questions. Organization Science 8 (5): 528-542.
56. Laursen K, Salter AJ,. 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27 (2): 131-150.
57. Lavie D, Rosenkopf L,. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal 49 (6): 797-818.
58. Leiponen A, Helfat CE,. 2010. Innovation objectives, knowledge source, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal 31 (2): 224-236.
59. Leiponen A, Helfat CE,. 2011. Location, decentralization, and knowledge sources for innovation. Organization Science 22 (3): 641-658.
60. Li Q, Maggitti PG, Smith KG, Tesluk PE, Katila R,. 2013. Top management attention to innovation: the role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal 56 (3): 893-916.
61. Long Lingo E, O'Mahony S,. 2010. Nexus work: brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly 55 (1): 47-81.
62. Maggitti PG, Smith KG, Katila R,. 2013. The complex search process of invention. Research Policy 42 (1): 90-100.
63. March JG,. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1): 71-87.
64. Marrone JA, Tesluk PE, Carson JB,. 2007. A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal 50 (6): 1423-1439.
65. Marsden PV, Campbell KE,. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces 63 (2): 482-501.
66. Martin JA, Eisenhardt KM,. 2010. Rewiring: cross-business-unit collaborations in multi-business organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53 (2): 265-301.
67. McLeod PL, Lobel SA, Cox TH,. 1996. Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research 27: 248-264.
68. Menon T, Pfeffer J,. 2003. Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science 49 (4): 497-513.
69. Murray F, O'Mahony S,. 2007. Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: implications for organization science. Organization Science 18 (6): 1006-1021.
70. Nelson RR, Winter SG,. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
71. Nerkar A, Paruchuri S,. 2005. Evolution of R&D capabilities: the role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science 51 (5): 771-785.
72. Obstfeld D,. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (1): 100-130.
73. Ocasio W,. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 18 (S1): 187-206.
74. Ocasio W,. 2011. Attention to attention. Organization Science 22 (5): 1286-1296.
75. O'Mahony S, Ferraro F,. 2007. The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal 50 (5): 1079-1106.
76. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW,. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science 15 (1): 5-21.
77. Perlow L,. 1998. Boundary control: the social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (2): 328-357.
78. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP,. 2003. Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879-903.
79. Powell WW, Koput K, Smith-Doerr L,. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): 116-145.
80. Reagans R, Zuckerman EW,. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12 (4): 502-517.
81. Reagans R, Zuckerman EW,. 2008. Why knowledge does not equal power: the network redundancy trade-off. Industrial and Corporate Change 17 (5): 903-944.
82. Rosenkopf L, Almeida P,. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science 49 (6): 751-766.
83. Rosenkopf L, Metiu A, George VP,. 2001. From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation. Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (4): 748-772.
84. Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A,. 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal 22 (4): 287-306.
85. Ruef M,. 2002. Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (3): 427-449.
86. Salter A, Ter Wal ALJ, Criscuolo P, Alexy O,. Forthcoming. Open for ideation: individual-level openness and idea generation in R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
87. Simon HA,. 1997. Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In Computers, Communication and the Public Interest, Greenberger M, (ed). John Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD; 38-52.
88. Singh J, Fleming L,. 2010. Lone inventors as sources of technological breakthroughs: myth or reality? Management Science 56 (1): 41-56.
89. Stuart T,. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal 21 (8): 791-811.
90. Trajtenberg M,. 1990. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics 21: 172-187.
91. Tushman ML,. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (4): 587-605.
92. Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ,. 1981. Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal 24 (2): 289-305.
93. Wang DJ,. 2014. Activating brokerage: skilled returnees as agents of cross-border knowledge transfer. Administrative Science Quarterly.