This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 09 October 2014, At: 01:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Innovation at work: Individual, group,

organizational, and socio-historical
perspectives
a b
Michael A. West & Wieby M.M. Altink
a
Institute of Work Psychology University of Sheffield , Sheffield, UK
b
Adviesbureau Psychotechniek Utrecht BV , Utrecht, Holland
Published online: 14 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Michael A. West & Wieby M.M. Altink (1996) Innovation at work: Individual,
group, organizational, and socio-historical perspectives, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5:1, 3-11, DOI: 10.1080/13594329608414834

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414834

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF W O R K A N D ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 5 ( I ) . 3-11

Innovation at Work: Individual, Group,

Organizational, and Socio-historical Perspectives
Michael A. West
Institute of Work Psychology, University of Shefield, Shefield, U K
Wieby M.M. Altink
Adviesbureau Psychotechniek Utrecht BV, Utrecht, Holland
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

INTRODUCTI0N
Innovation and creativity are associated not only with economic prosperity
but with specific advances in knowledge which improve the health and
welfare of many in the population-ethically guided advances in medicine,
education, science, and psychology are examples. Moreover, many of the
most pressing human problems are institutionalized and it is only by
bringing about innovative change that many of these problems can be
overcome. For example, social systems and structures which institutional-
ize inequalities in resource and opportunity distribution within commun-
ities can promote alienation and inter-group hostility. Effective responses
to these problems require changes not only in individual behaviour, but
innovative change in the organizations and institutions which perpetuate
them. As Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck (1973, p. 8) have argued: “The
importance of new ideas cannot be overstated. Ideas and their manifesta-
tions as practices or products are at the core of social change.”
Recently, research on innovation has spread from the administrative
science, communications, and anthropology to psychology and sociology.
This spread has been slow, partly because the study of innovation has been
considered the domain of economics rather than human behaviour, yet,
as this Special Issue will suggest, it is within the discipline of psychology
that the study of innovation perhaps most appropriately fits (see for
example Alsop’s comments in “Innovation and Psychology” in this issue).

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Professor M.A. West, Institute of Work
Psychology, Univeristy of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

01996 Psychology Press, an imprint of Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis Ltd
 4 WEST AND ALTINK

DEFINING INNOVATION
The term innovation is used in many different ways which appear to vary
systematically with the level of analysis employed. The more macro the
approach (e.g. societal and cultural) the more varied and amorphous does
the usage of the term become. However, some useful distinctions have
been drawn such as that between technical, and administrative innovations
(Darnanpour, 1987). Technical innovations are defined as those:

that occur in the technical systems of an organization and are directly related
to the primary work activity of the organization. A technical innovation can
be the implementation of an idea for a new product or a new service, or the
introduction of new elements in an organization’s production or service
operations . . . administrative innovations are defined as those that occur in
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

the social system of an organization . . . the implementation of a new way

to recruit personnel, allocate resources and structure tasks, authority and
rewards. It comprises innovations in organizational structure and in the
management of people. (Damanpour, 1987, p. 677)

Other definitions of innovation range from highly specific foci on tech-

nical innovations to very broad generalizations, too imprecise to enable
operationalization. For example, Myers and Marquis (1969) define innova-
tion as “ a complex activity which proceeds from the conceptualisation of
a new idea to a solution of the problem and then to the actual utilisation
of economic or social value. (Alternatively) innovation is not just the con-
ception of a new idea, nor the invention of a new device, nor the develop-
ment of a new idea, nor the development of a new market. The process
is all of those things acting together in an integrated fashion.” Zaltrnan et
al. (1973, p. 10) define innovation as “any idea, practice, or material
artefact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption”. Kanter
(1983, p. 20) defines innovation as “the process of bringing any new
problem-solving idea into use. Ideas for reorganizing, cutting costs, putting
in new budgeting systems, improving communication, or assembling pro-
ducts in teams are also innovations. Innovation is the generation, accept-
ance and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services.”
Drucker (1985, p. 31) argues that successful entrepreneurs must use “sys-
tematic innovation which consists in the purposeful and organized search
for changes, and the systematic analysis of the opportunities such changes
might differ for economic and social innovation”.
Research into innovation, as this Special Issue reveals, is aided con-
siderably by the use of clear operational definitions. The contributions to
the issue offer examples of these. Analysis of definitions also reveals wide
disparity between them, but some common themes do emerge, such as
novelty (either absolute or novelty simply to the unit of adoption of the
innovation); an application component (i.e. not just ideas but the applica-
 INNOVATION AT WORK 5

tion of ideas); intentionality of benefit (which distinguishes innovations

from serendipitous change or deliberate sabotage), and some reference to
the process of innovation. Moreover, change for the sake of change is not
generally included as innovation, since it can often be devoid of benefit
other than the change agent who may be wishing merely to demonstrate
power and control.
West and Farr (1990, p. 9) define innovation as “the intentional intro-
duction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas,
processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption,
designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or
wider society”. Several aspects of this definition may be highlighted. First,
innovation is restricted to intentional attempts to derive anticipated
benefits from change. Second, a broad perspective on anticipated benefits
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

is adopted, rather than using a sole criterion of economic benefit. Thus,

possible benefits might be personal growth, increased satisfaction,
improved cohesiveness, better interpersonal communication, as well as
those productivity and economic measures more usually invoked. The
definition also allows for the introduction of a new idea designed not to
benefit the role, group, or organization but to benefit the wider society.
The introduction of community members onto the management boards of
nuclear processing plants is an example of an innovation which might not
benefit the organization though benefiting the wider society. Further, the
definition is not restricted to technological change, but subsumes new ideas
or processes in administration or human resource management. Indeed,
innovation occurs frequently in management methods and organizational
practices as well as in technological domains, and it has been claimed that
administrative innovation has a facilitating effect on technological innova-
tion (Damanpour & Evan, 1984). The definition also requires an applica-
tion component, thus encompassing what many would regard as the crucial
social element of the process of innovation (see Tudor Rickards’ arguments
in this issue). Finally, the definition does not require absolute novelty of
an idea, simply (following Zaltman et al., 1973) that the idea be new to
the relevant unit of adoption. So if an individual brings new ideas to an
organization from his or her previous job, this would be considered an
innovation within the terms of the definition. In the first article in this
Special Issue, Tudor Rickards carefully analyses the implicit and perhaps
misleading assumptions in all such definitions. He urges researchers and
practitioners to consider innovation as a unitary process of meaning
creation within social contexts.
In this issue we consider four levels at which innovation occurs: the
individual, group, organizational, and socio-cultural levels. Below we
describe some of the main research findings at each level and point the
reader to the sections of this Special Issue where some of these issues are
addressed.
 6 WEST AND ALTINK

INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION
Psychological knowledge about individual innovation is influenced by two
central axioms about human behaviour. The first is that human beings are
motivated to explore and manipulate their environment in ways which are
essentially creative (Nicholson & West, 1988; West & Farr, 1990; West,
Fletcher, & Toplis, 1994). Research on human development from infancy
on has shown that exploratory behaviour, curiosity, effectance, or mastery
motivation strongly influence relationships with the environment. Given
the appropriate circumstances, the appropriate level of stimulation and
sufficient security, human beings explore and manipulate their environ-
ments in creative and adaptive ways (Hrncir & MacTurk, 1990). It is this
fundamental aspect of our relationship with our world which has enabled
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

our extraordinary adaptability and creativity in diverse and changing

environments.
The second is that we are driven by a need to be free from threat, and
to have a sense of psychological safety. Individual innovation is inhibited
when people feel insecure and unsafe at work (West, 1987; West & Farr,
1990). Much research evidence within psychology indicates that psycho-
logical safety is an important factor influencing individual innovation. Just
as children who have close bonds with their parents are more likely to
explore in strange environments (Ainsworth & Bell, 1974); just as clients
who have a sense of psychological safety with their therapists are likely to
explore threatening aspects of their own experience (Rogers, 1961), so too
are employees likely to risk proposing and trying out new ways of doing
things when they feel relatively safe from threat as a consequence. Where
people feel that their jobs are threatened if they make mistakes there is
more likelihood that they will play safe and avoid the risk taking and
experimentation which is fundamental to innovation (Ford & Gioia, 1995).
Where individuals are threatened they are likely to react defensively and
unimaginatively. They tend to stick to tried and tested routines rather than
attempt new ways of dealing with their environment. High levels of stress
and threat impair people’s memory and attention during cognitive activities
(Cohen, Evans, Stokols, & Krantz, 1986) and can lead to non-co-operative
or aggressive behaviour (Cohen & Spacapan, 1978). What other work
factors influence the extent to which individuals innovate in their work?
Individuals are more likely to innovate when they are performing tasks
which are intrinsically interesting and which represent a whole, meaningful
piece of work rather than a limited atomistic piece of assembly line func-
tioning (Amabile, 1983; West, 1987). People are more likely to innovate
where they have sufficient autonomy and control over their work to be
able to try out new and improved ways of doing things (Nicholson & West,
1988; West, 1987). Not only are individuals who are placed in such situ-
ations likely to be creative and innovative, but their mental health at work
is likely to be positive as a result (Bunce & West, 1995, submitted).
 INNOVATION AT WORK 7

Given these findings, it is discouraging that in our research and practice

in organizations, we find that shop-floor employees are still rarely given
sufficient autonomy or control to influence significantly the way their jobs
are done. Few companies develop strategies to encourage individual
innovation. Attempts to devolve responsibility down to the shop floor are
made hesitatingly and without real commitment. Few jobs have the auto-
nomy to permit radical innovation, and most schemes to promote innova-
tion within manufacturing organizations are almost entirely absent.
In the second paper in this issue, Kaufmann, Isaksen, and Lauer
examine individual innovation amongst men and women in upper level
management. Their results suggest that top women managers are signific-
antly more innovative than their male counterparts. However, psychology
research of this type remains limited although a good deal of consultancy
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

effort is expended on enhancing individual creativity. Susanne Polewsky

and Hermann Will’s article describes a good example of this practical work
in organizations. They acknowledge that much of the work on creativity
enhancement is untested, however, a point emphasized by Tracey Pillinger,
a researcher commenting on the article.

GROUP INNOVATION
By bringing together people with diverse skills into teams, managers hope
to increase effectiveness and adaptability in complex organizations and to
promote creativity and innovation. Again, there is limited research on
innovation and creativity in teams (though see Agrell & Gustafson, 1996
for a useful review). The article in this issue by Anderson and West
describes work using the Team Climate Inventory, an instrument based
on a programme of research by Neil Anderson and Michael West. Their
research suggests that a number of factors are necessary for team level
innovation:

0 Teams need to be trained and developed. It is not sufficient to put a

group of contrasting personalities together and expect them to function
effectively as a team. They need to develop an understanding of each
other’s abilities and approaches and to develop insight into the different
ways of working which can be appropriate at different stages of innovation
(West, 1994).
Team innovation is enhanced when a team has clear objectives, but,
equally important, team members participate in the setting of those object-
ives (West & Anderson, submitted).
0 To the extent that there are high levels of participation in teams, innova-
tion is more likely to occur. Participation refers to the level of interaction
amongst team members, open information sharing and shared influence
over decisions. Clearly the more information which is shared, the more
 8 WEST AND ALTINK

possibility there is of different elements of intelligence within a team being

combined to produce new and creative outputs (West, 1990).
Task orientation or the preparedness of teams to engage in constructive
controversy and conflict aimed at promoting excellence in task perform-
ance is directly related to the innovativeness of teams.
0 The practical support for innovation attempts within teams is the most
important determinant of team innovation. Overall, our research suggests
that the climate of the team, i.e. clear objectives, participation, task
orientation, and support for innovation, is the most important determinant
of innovation within team settings (West & Anderson, submitted). More-
over, the larger the team, the less likely are effective and successful innova-
tion attempts. Surprisingly, research has consistently revealed a small and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

usually negative relationship between resources available to teams and

their overall innovativeness.

Our separate research and consultancy observations on group effectiveness

indicate that attempts t o perform work in teams in organizations are still
in their infancy. The rhetoric is far removed from the reality since the
concepts of team objective setting and team rewards are not well imple-
mented in practice, at least in the organizations we visit.

ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION
Despite an enormous amount of writing about organizational innovation
there is little hard empirical evidence to support the wealth of assertions
offered by researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. Organizational
psychologists have found that organizations with flat structures and high
levels of communication between departments and functions are likely to
be more innovative than traditional hierarchical organizations, charac-
terized predominantly by vertical communication (Anderson & King, 1993;
Burns & Stalker, 1961; Pillinger & West, 1995). Consequently, flatter and
organic forms of organization are prescribed in recognition of their value
in facilitating innovation. It is an organization type that is characterized
by greater autonomy for individuals, teams, and departments since such
organizations reduce the degree of centralized control and give employees
responsibility, autonomy, and the ability to achieve work targets in the
ways they determine are most appropriate. Accountability is not lost-
rather it is augmented by giving to employees the autonomy and control
to enable them to utilize their natural creativity and innovativeness in order
to promote greater effectiveness in organizational functioning. However,
at some stages of the innovation process, centralized control may be
required in order to implement change effectively (Zaltman et al., 1973).
Turning to another, important source of information about innovation,
there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that tolerance of
 INNOVATION AT WORK 9

minority and deviant views within organizations is important if innovation

is to be facilitated and encouraged (Moscovici & Doise, 1995; Nemeth &
Staw, 1989). The divergence of views represented by minority groups has
a significant impact upon thinking and innovativeness within organizations.
Such groups encourage others to think independently and to think creat-
ively around the particular issue the minority is addressing. Such groups
sit uncomfortably in organizations, however, since by disagreeing with the
majority or accepted position they create conflict and disharmony. How-
ever, it is through conflict that innovation usually occurs (Moscovici,
Mugny, & Avermaet, 1985) and as Schneider and Schmitt (1986), Argyris
(1985), and others have suggested there is a real need for organizations to
counteract their tendency to attract and retain only those who conform to
the organizational norms if they are to foster innovation.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

In this issue, Steyaert, Bouwen, and Van Looy (a research and con-
sultant team) argue that structural approaches to understanding innovation
ignore such minority influence effects. They go further and suggest that
organizational innovation is a socially constructed event where new mean-
ings are constructed through conversations and interactions. They provide
two case studies to illustrate their approach, which has important practical
implications. The consultant who comments on the article, Jose Martin,
argues however that such an approach may neglect important power per-
spectives. It is leaders who most influence innovation processes and we
should not ignore this in our study of organizations.
Carolyn Meston and Nigel King explore this theme further by examining
the neglected topic of “resistance” to innovation in the context of a training
initiative in a nursing home for the elderly. They see individual values as
important influences on the innovation process which, they argue, re-
searchers and practitioners should take into account. The consultant who
comments on the article (Jeroen Pool) chides researchers for not always
providing sufficient evidence for assertions, while welcoming the focus on
individual values.
Goran Ekvall describes a very practical instrument for measuring the
organizational climate for creativity and innovation-Creative Climate
Questionnaire-and illustrates how it can be applied in organizations.

SOCIO-CU LTURAL IN NOVATION

At the socio-cultural level, two important articles discuss the consequences
of the recent transformations in Poland (Balawajder & Popidek) and his-
torical, economic, and cultural differences affecting technological innova-
tion in Western Europe (Tylecote). These contributions alert us, as psycho-
logists, to the importance of taking account of cultural differences and
social and political trends which affect innovation processes and outcomes
in work organization.
 10 WEST AND ALTINK

CONCLUSIONS
In Europe, European Union funding and national funding (see the
information from Alsop) is being directed towards the study of innovation
in huge amounts. This is because innovation is now recognized as the key
to economic survival in the highly competitive global market-place. Psycho-
logists, as the articles in this issue indicate, have much to offer in furthering
theoretical and practical understanding about how new and improved pro-
ducts and work processes can be facilitated.

REFERENCES
Agrcll. A,, & Gustafson, R. (1996). Innovation in groups in work. I n M.A. West (Ed.),
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

The handbook of work group psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

Ainsworth. M.D., & Bell. S.M. (1974). Mother-infant interaction and the development of
competence. In K. Connolly & J . Bruncr (Eds.), The growth ofcompetence. New York:
Academic Press.
Alsop, A. (1996). Innovation and psychology: Themes and research funding. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 , 1 .
Amabile. T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Anderson, N.R., & King, M. (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C.L. Cooper & I.T.
Robinson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8,
1-34. Chichester: Wiley.
Argyris, C . (1985). Strategy, change and defensive routines. New York: Pitman.
Bunce, D., & West, M.A. (1995). Self perceptions and perceptions of group climate as
predictors of individual innovation at work. Applied Psychology: A n International Review,
44, 199-215.
Bunce, D., & West, M.A. (submitted). Stress management and innovation interventions at
work. Human Relations.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The managemenf of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cohen, S . , Evans, G.W., Stokols, D., & Krantz, D.S. (1986). Behavior, health and environ-
mental stress. New York: Plenum.
Cohen, S . , & Spacapan, S. (1978). The after effects of stress: An attentional interpretation.
Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 43-57.
Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative and ancillary innova-
tions: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13, 675-688.
Damanpour, F.. & Evan, W.M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The
problem of “organizational lag”. Administrative Quarterly, 29, 392409.
Drucker. P.F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principies. London:
Heinemann.
Ford, C.M., & Gioia, D . A . (Eds.). (1995). Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower
visions and real world voices. London: Sage.
Hrncir, E.J., & MacTurk, R.H. (Eds.). (1990). Models of mastery motivation and develop-
ment. Early Education and Development, 5 , 317-393.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Moscovici, S . , & Doisc, W. (1995). Conflict and consensus: A general theory of collective
decisions. London: Sage.
Moscovici, S . . Mugny, G., & Avermaet, E.U. (1985). Perspectives on minority influence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, S . , & Marquis, D.G. (1969). Successful industrial innovations ( N S F 69-17). National
Science Foundation.
 INNOVATION AT WORK 11

Nemeth, C., & Staw, B.M. (1989). The trade offs of social control and innovation within
groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsycho-
logy (Vol. 22, pp. 175-210). New York: Academic Press.
Nicholson, N . , & West, M.A. (1988). Managerialjob change: Men and women in transition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pillinger, T., & West, M.A. (1995). Innovation in manufacturing. Sheffield: University of
Sheffield, Institute of Work Psychology.
Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Schneider, B., & Schmitt, N. (1986). Staffing organizations (2nd edn.). London: Scott
Foreman.
Steyaert, C., Bouwen, R., & Van Looy, B. (1996). Conversational construction of new
meaning configurations in organizational innovation: A generative approach. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 , 1.
West, M.A. (1987). Role innovation in the world of work. British Journal ofsocial Psycho-
logy, 26, 305-3 15.
West, M.A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M.A. West & J.L.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:22 09 October 2014

Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies.
Chichester: Wiley.
West, M.A. (1994). Effective teamwork. London: British Psychological Society.
West, M.A., & Anderson, N. (submitted). Predicting innovation in top management teams.
West, M.A., & Farr, J.L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychologicaland organ-
izational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.
West, M.A., Fletcher, C., & Toplis, J. (1994). Fostering innovation: A psychological
perspective. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Zaltman, G . , Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. London:
John Wiley & Sons.