www.eklavya.in - Cubjrnet7

upload mass deface mass delete console info server
name : Editorial-Advanced_Paper.doc
��ࡱ�>��	������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������	��x�bjbj�W�W	4��=�=��&��������
�
�@W%W&����k&k&k&k&�(�k&����+�+�+�+�+�,�,�,q�s�s�s�s�s�s�$4��֢z�����,��,�,�/��1����+�+�L�
�
�
��2�G�+�+q�
��,q�
�
�=����+���� n5���k&�z$U�]�b�0��]�,P���dP���P�� \����,�,
��,�,�,�,�,����
��,�,�,���,�,�,�,��������������������������������������������������������������������P��,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�
	�:	These analytical levels are osmotically connected and permit a certain level of permeability. The individual-level analysis shall cover empirical studies based on individual personality; leadership; motivation; and other related facets. Analysis on the team/group level shall cover empirical investigations based on team/group dynamics and the associated impeding/promoting processes. Papers dealing with the organizational climate or organizational culture, broadly, shall constitute the chief locus in the third set of analysis. Further, there may be an asymmetry in the number of research papers covered vis-�-vis each of the three levels of analysis; therefore, the disproportionate summarization shall feature under the three analytical levels. Following the level analysis, the figure 1 shall summarise the key learnings/unlearnings/re-learnings for the HRD and the Exhibit 2 shall propose few hypotheses gleaned from the understanding of the paper.
Individual-level analysis:
Our research �ndings provide evidence that transformational leadership contributes to management innovation. Transformational leaders who inspire team success and develop trusting and respecting relationships based on common goals enable organiza-tions to pursue changes in management practices, processes, or structures. They consider organizational members individually and generate greater predisposition to experiment with changing organizational tasks, functions, and procedures. Moreover, they may even promote organizational members to rethink existing structures and task specialization, and reconsider new ways for the organization to �get things done�. Their leadership may also be conducive to making sense of an otherwise ambiguous type of innovation where goals and outcomes may not be as clear as in the case of, for instance, the development of a new product through technical innovation. With this prominent role of transforma-tional leaders, our study contributes to prior studies relating transformational leadership to performance (Koene et al., 2002; Waldman et al., 2001), creativity (Mumford et al., 2002), and technical innovation (Jung et al., 2003).We go beyond these previous �ndings by providing evidence that transformational leadership is conducive to pursuing man- agement innovation. Although prior studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2003) have suggested that transactional lead-ership may reduce the ability of organizational members to suggest new ways for management and facilitate efforts for changing management practices (Amabile, 1998; Lee, 2008), our study shows that transactional leaders do contribute to lowering potential barriers associated with management innovation. This suggests, in line with Vera and Crossan (2004), that transactional leadership may be helpful in the implementation phase of management innovation � inducing organizational members to attempt to meet targets not only by means of tried and trusted management methods, but also by setting targets and rewarding organizational members contingent upon the attainment of goals associated with management innovation. In this sense, management innovation may be generated and directed from the upper-echelon in organizations while the implementa-tion of certain management innovations may be monitored and rewarded accordingly to pre-established goals. Alternatively, the relationship between transactional leadership and management innovation may also be mediated by trust, which may help employees cope with the potential uncertainty and complexity of new processes, practices, or structures. As Avolio et al. (1999) suggested, contingent reward may be the basis through which expectations by both leaders and followers evolve, and trust is generated as parties honour their  contracts  over time. The more  contracts  are ful�lled over time, the more organizational members are rewarded and the more transactional leaders may display trust in their followers  ambition to generate and implement management innovations. In this sense, trust mediates the relationship between transactional leadership and management innovation as trust may be translated into increased �freedom� to diverge from current management and engage in management innovation. Future research is necessary to understand the emergence and implementation of management innovations within organizations and uncover the relationship of leadership behaviour, trust, and management innovation. Our study reveals that transactional leadership is more important in smaller organi-zations when they want to pursue management innovation. In smaller organizations �contracts� may be more easily established and monitored, which may presuppose less room for divergence from the managerial status quo (Bass, 1985). However, this may also lead to repeated face-to-face interaction between transactional leaders and organiza-tional members, which can lead to increased trust between the parties and extra effort in their work (Ehrlich et al., 1990; Shamir, 1995). These arguments could help to explain why under transactional leadership organizational members �nd the �exibility to introduce changes conducive to management innovation. Our �ndings can also be interpreted in light of different phases in the life of organizations. While organizations are small, they may be under greater pressure to achieve short term goals, which would
emphasize transactions required by management (which offers a reward) from followers (who offer their work). As organizations become larger, leaders may become more transformational in order to instil in members of the organization that sense of urgency to deliver.

Given the consistent interactions between transformational leadership and perceived climate for initiative, we argue that systematic efforts to enhance individual perceptions of a climate for initiative is particularly important to companies that want to promote followers� innovation implementation behavior. Being aware of moderators helps managers to identify the organizational contexts in which transformational leadership is most likely to enhance innovation implementation behavior, and those in which such enhancement is unlikely to occur. Moderators who enhance innovation implementation behavior, such as a perceived climate for initiative, should be promoted by integrating them into organizations� reward systems. Our results also suggest that companies should invest in transformational leadership training and in the selection of supervisors with this leadership style before initiating the implementation of innovations. Research indicates that at least some of these transformational leadership behaviors are trainable (e. g. Barling et al., 1996). By training idealized in�uence and inspirational motivation, leaders improve their ability to articulate a vision and to become more effective role models (Aiken andWest, 1991).
More speci�cally, by training leaders  capability to provide role models in terms of using innovations and demonstrating the value of these innovations, leaders are most likely to maximize followers� commitment to change, which in turn leads to innovation implementation behavior. In addition, by showing commitment to change as a mediator, our �ndings indicate that managers need to consider the mechanisms by which transformational leadership is related to followers  innovation implementation behavior. This may lead to a better ability to guide transformational leader behaviors to proper psychological processes, resulting in higher levels of innovation implementation behavior. In sum, enhancing supervisors  transformational leadership and an organizations  climate for initiative represent dif�cult but important steps toward helping managers to lead their employees effectively through change initiatives and reducing the likelihood of innovation implementation failure.

Effective leadership behaviors have a positive impact on individual and organizational outcomes, while leadership training and development assist in modifying leadership behaviors for greater effectiveness (Abrell, Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011; Taylor, Taylor, & Russ-Eft, 2009). The concern for practitioners in an international con-text is the relevance of western-dominated leadership theory to leader-ship behaviors in non-western contexts. Current �ndings highlight the importance of a more critical examination of western management the-ory in non-western contexts. Certainly, evidence exists of the usefulness of importing western concepts for management education in different contexts (Michailova & Hollinshead, 2009). However, the current results suggest that the practice requires critical evaluation, especially in the important area of management development and leadership training. Many organizational leadership training and development pro-
grams focus on training for western leadership concepts (Wenson, 2010), while research support for the bene�ts of such programs also
comes mainly from western contexts (Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010). The current �ndings urge practitioners to be cautious in their
approach to training in non-western contexts. The current �ndings sup-port the assertion of Antonakis et al. (2003) that leadership training should be at the level of individual factors, rather than at the simpler transactional/transformational construct level. Leadership training at the individual factor level gives prospective leaders a greater understanding of a variety of dimensions of leadership, which they can then utilize and apply in the combinations that are most appropriate for their context. The results from this study show that those combinations may not align with the traditional transactional, transformational and laissez-faire dimensions of leadership. However, the current research does show that contextually appropriate combinations of individual leadership di-mensions such as idealized in�uence, individual consideration, intellectu-al stimulation, contingent reward and active management-by-exception can still result in an effective leadership style that positively in�uences organizational outcomes.

Our study also provided some significant practical implications: First, as both perception of ethical leadership and group ethical leadership were demonstrated to facilitate the employees� innovative work behavior, it is recom- mended that managers should develop ethical leadership style by emphasizing morality in workplace, respecting their followers� nature and dignity, empowering and enriching the job significance to encourage their followers to come up with new ideas and put them into practice. When practicing ethical leadership in the group, they should not only pay attention to their influence on the individuals whose per- ception of their leadership may affect their job performance but also shape whole group�s collective congruence of their ethical leadership style that predict the followers� perfor- mance beyond the individual perception. Second, we also found that ethical leadership was positively related to intrinsic motivation at both levels and it facilitated innova- tive work behavior through the mediation of intrinsic motivation. As individual perception of ethical leadership and group ethical leadership, it suggested that to enhance the employees� innovative work behavior, on one hand, ethical leadership should dedicate more to leveling their followers� intrinsic motivation by shifting their attention from the external rewards to the interest, challenge, and the signifi- cance of the job. On the other hand, they can set tune for the whole group to establish group intrinsic motivation where group members are encouraged to focus on the interest of the task and teamwork instead of external rewards. Our study highlights the importance of building psychological connections with employees in order to enact employee creativity and team innovation. Given the salience of relational identi�cation, developing leaders' coaching and mentoring skills may be bene�cial for fostering employee creativity and team innovation. We also note that the creative bene�ts of leader's behaviors stem from team climates encouraging these practices.Moreover, a teamclimatewhich prioritizes innovation provides the conditions that are conducive to employee cre-ativity, and hence becomes the most potentmeans to enhance creative outcomes. Additionally, it is also important for servant leaders to build collective norms and interest to enact employee creativity. Speci�cally, the need for servant leaders to generate followers' trust, identi�cation,and perceptions that the leaders represent the team's beliefs, norms and attitudes becomes more critical when creativity and innovation are a priority organizational goal.

First, individuals� identification with their work team seems to be an important, but over- looked, aspect of innovation. Project managers, and especially team managers, need to be sensitive to how individuals construe their sense of self relative to their work team. Perhaps by instituting practices that foster team member identification, for example, by increasing the frequency of team communications and contact, since, by symbolizing team membership through visible artifacts displayed in the office, and by reminding indi- viduals of the value of their teamwork, team perfor- mance, and team achievements, managers may increase individuals� identification with their team. At a more macro level, organizational reward systems that benefit the team as a whole and human resource policies that encourage team cohesion through recruitment, selec- tion, and tenure processes are also ways of increasing team member identification and, in turn, increasing in- dividuals� intentions to innovation. Further, the results suggest that managers need to carefully attend to individuals� perceptions of their team�s interdependence with other teams. Although perceptual interdependence can be an enabler of inno- vation, it can also be a disabler, through its interaction with team identification. Recognizing this potential for negative effects, managers might attempt to reframe perceived interdependencies not as constraints but as challenges. For example, managers might emphasize the benefits that can come from cooperating across subsys- tems to increase knowledge flows and creative ideas, thus encouraging team members to identify not only at the team level but at the overall project level as well. Such actions might deflect negative identity threats that can derail positive innovation intentions.
We found support for the fact that perceived authentic leadership has greater impact on individual creativity and on strengthening the positive relationship between creativity and on team innovation than self-ascribed authentic leadership. This is why it is important that the leaders emphasize building on authentic relations with the employees so they will perceive the leaders to be more authentic. Through sincere, open and transparent relations and leading by example, the leader�s true self can become apparent to the followers. In this way, they would assess the leader as more authentic, which has the potential to result in improved employees� creativity and innovation. This should, in accordance with numerous studies, positively affect team performance and the performance of the organization as a whole (e.g. Johannessen and Olsen, 2009; Liao and Rice, 2010). However, the managers should also be aware of valid points made by Ford and Harding (2011), who point out the fact that the implementation of authentic leadership could lead to destructive dynamics within organizations. The mediating role of perceived support for innovation supports the notion that team leaders should stimulate a supporting, safe climate to enhance employee creativity. In con- trast, authentic leaders that would create a risk-averse and not supportive unsafe climate, such as, for example, those that would engage in close monitoring (Zhou, 2003), are likely to hinder and inhibit creativity. All in all, our study found support for the positive influence of authentic leadership in fostering employee creativity and team innovation, which supports the idea that authentic leadership development should be encouraged in the organizations striving for creativity and innovation. However, the leaders should also exhibit social sup- port and foster a safe climate of support for innovation within their teams.
Introducing the concept of IRP can provide managers with guidelines on how to improve employee ability to overcome setbacks such as innovation project termination, or how IRP can be restored after a setback that has negatively affected employee IRP. This is important, as IRP is necessary for the future goal-setting, commitment (Bandura, 1997), and creativity (Amabile et al., 2004; Grzeda and Prince, 1997) of these employees after a termination and, thus, for future innovation project performance. We now deliberately go beyond this study�s setting to allude to ways in which organizations and managers may influence project members� IRP components after project termination. Realistic optimism can be elevated after a failure when the termination reasons are made clear and an outlook for the future is provided (Schneider, 2001). In addition, hon- est and constructive feedback can enable realistic attributions, which could both take place in an official project debriefing, which seems a very valuable instrument in this context (Von Krogh, 1998). To reinforce hope among the team members of a terminated project, leaders and other supporters (e.g. colleagues) should help assess the situation and develop future goals (Juntunen and Wettersten, 2006). Furthermore, it is important to ensure that appropriate and not overly difficult goals are set, as these might stimulate employees to embark on actions that are too demanding and difficult. This would increase the likelihood of failure and thus the danger of causing an even greater negative impact on affected individuals (Polivy and Herman, 2000). The self-esteem of affected individuals can be maintained or restored by executing a termination in a way that appears fair to project team members, as procedural justice has been demonstrated to foster individual self-esteem (Schroth and Shah, 2000). To do so, managers should communicate information about the termination process in a concrete way and should convey accurate future performance expectations (Schroth and Shah, 2000). Both aspects may also help project members to better evaluate their contributions to the project and to protect their self-efficacy and self-esteem from the consequences of incorrectly attributing project failure to their own shortcomings (McNatt and Judge, 2008). Furthermore, managers should reassure employees that they are capable of suc- cess, despite suboptimal circumstances (Pierce et al., 1993), and should avoid manage- rial actions that may tell employees that they are incompetent and distrusted, such as excessive work rules and oppressive leadership (Pierce et al., 1993). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy can also be influenced by performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1977). To foster self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, it appears necessary to let project members feel that their capabilities and individual performance did indeed influence project performance and its consequences, for example, through feedback, acknowledge- ment of good employee performance in terminated projects (Latham, 2001), and/or organizational rewards (Bandura, 1977; Maddux et al., 1986).
Several practical implications are evident from the findings of this study. The findings of this study have demonstrated the importance of transformational leadership for innovative work behaviour. Hospitals that want to capitalize on the innovative capabilities of employees must ensure that team leaders and individuals in key leadership positions not only possess transformational leadership behaviours, but explicitly demonstrate them as well. Recruitment and development practices should therefore incorporate a means to control for the presence and actual use of such behaviours, which could subsequently yield an environment in which innovative work behaviour can thrive, thereby aiding the advancement of medical care. The results of this study reiterate that hospitals should capi- talize on the transformational leadership capa- bilities of both male and female managers. The findings do suggest, however, that female managers are unable to exploit and benefit from the empirically demonstrated greater likelihood of adopting a transformational leadership style within a hospital setting, with respect to perceived innovative work behav- iour in followers (van Engen, van der Leeden &Willemsen, 2001; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003). The absence of a signifi- cant three-way interaction effect between transformational leadership, gender of the manager and gender of the employee suggests that the composition of a functional team in a hospital is not a determinant of team innova- tive work behaviour.
Managing an increasingly older workforce presents multiple challenges to managers and executives (Greller & Simpson, 1999; Ng & Feldman, 2009a). The predominant concern over the years has been about how aging affects older workers� core task performance (e.g., Sturman, 2003). In contrast, the results here suggest that managers could more effectively use older workers to spread innovation throughout a firm. Although idea generation is arguably the most important stage in the innovation process (Mumford &Gustafson, 1988), disseminating ideas and turning ideas into value-adding practices are also highly critical to organizations (Janssen, 2000). This study illustrates that older workers self-report better performance on all three stages of the innovation process; and therefore, organizations need to curb undermining behavior on the part of supervisors with negative age stereotypes. Human resource practices that reward workers for their positive contributions to the latter two stages of the innovation process are needed as well. At the same time, the current study highlights why age in and of itself should not be used by managers as an indicator of a worker�s potential to contribute to workplace innovation. We found that whether older workers contributed more or less to innovation depended on both individual differences and context factors. Thus, although older workers generally self-report greater IRB than their younger colleagues, there is still great variability in the age�IRB relationship. To get the most out of older employees in terms of innovation, managers need to match the profile of each worker to the type of IRB desired and the situation in which the employee will work. It is also important to emphasize that finding some proactive older workers responded to supervisor undermining by actually increasing IRB should not be taken as a suggestion that supervisors should deliberately use social undermining to get better performance from older workers. Rather, our point is that older workers are not necessarily passive and reactive in managing their workplace experiences, as commonly stereotyped by supervisors and colleagues (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). Indeed, if supervisor undermining continues and becomes harsher over a long period, it is likely that older workers�independent of their personality�will eventually choose avoidance behaviors. Such withdrawal of effort, in turn, hurts rather than helps the organization. Finally, to more effectively encourage IRB, we urge managers to pay greater attention to the different motivations that underlie it. Certainly, in the case of older workers who do not feel socially undermined by supervisors, the motivation to perform IRB likely derives from a desire to reciprocate for good treatment or from a desire to be altruistic. However, although IRB might be initiated out of such pro-social motives, IRB might also be motivated by self-interest. For example, in the case of proactive older workers faced with supervisor undermining, the motivation to increase IRB may be grounded in a desire to repair negative relationships with superiors. Conversely, in the case of older workers who are low on proactive personality and are undermined by their supervisors, the motivation to refrain from IRB may stem from a desire not to �rock the boat� in hostile waters. Thus, to understand the factors that predict IRB, managers need to attend to the different constellations of motivation that underlie its occurrence (or non-occurrence).

Team/group-level analysis:
Managers are often encouraged to compose teams with diverse task-relevant experts in order to put knowledge diversity at the service of innovation. The findings from this study suggest that particular attention should be given to the cognitive style composition of innovation teams because the pooled cog-nitive styles of members appear to influence team innovation above and beyond the functional variety represented by team members, albeit indirectly. 
Increasing a team�s pooled connective thinking may be achieved by using brain-based measures of cognitive styles (Woolley et al., 2007) to identify connective thinkers and add them to a team. Other strategies for encouraging connective thinking include training team members in divergent thinking (Basadur, Graen, & Scandura, 1986), analogizing, and abstracting (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999), and promoting role-play techniques such as structured debates. To discourage sequential thinking, managers may resort to limiting the number of sequential thinkers on a team, while keeping in mind 
that aspects of sequential thinking may be useful in producing innovation (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011). Additional strategies for minimizing the nega-tive effect of sequential thinking on innovation may include de-emphasizing preciseness and exactness in intermediary team results and reports. This study also highlights the importance of promoting psychological safety and stimu-lating cooperative learning to enhance the benefits of connective thinking and mitigate the detrimental effects of sequential thinking on innovation.

Our �ndings point to how this style of leadership in�uences team climate and identi�cation, and in turn innovation. Signi�cantly, these preliminary �ndings in the context of scienti�c R&D teams add further support to calls for managers to adopt more transformational styles of leadership during periods of organisational change. Such styles do produce better outcomes, both for the organisation around more innovative products and processes, but also for team members who get to enjoy more creative and rewarding team environments despite the demands of operating in highly competitive and often turbulent work environments. As noted by Callan et al.(2004), leaders today need to be skilled not only at disturbing the organisational system, but also in operating effectively in systems that are disturbed and in states of major change. The current study shows that leaders who encourage employees to identify with their team, and who build a positive team climate, not only support sustained creativity and innovation, but possibly encourage employees to capitalize on the opportunities presented by major change.

The results of this research clearly point to the central role of shared vision in the innovation process. Importantly, then, a key issue to enhancing innovation efforts is how to clarify shared vision in innovation teams. As such, Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) identified the most important tactic for enhancing shared vision in teams as the implementation of teamwork training programs (p. 423). Subsequently they stated that �We just happen to think that team mental models might be a more effective way to insure seamless and effective coordination, particularly in today�s organization� (p. 431) than mere reliance on a team leader to provide direction, guidance and vision for the team. Since leadership research has shown that it is possible to enhance the ability of leaders to create a vision (Thoms & Greenberger, 1995), from a practical point of view, the results here are extremely encouraging regarding the potential for enhancing the innovation process in teams. If it is possible to teach individuals how to enhance their vision creation abilities, it is not much of a stretch to imagine the possibility of teaching teams how to enhance their collective ability to create a shared vision of the particular innovation they are undertaking. 
In addition to developing theoretical understand- ing, support for the study�s hypotheses can have important practical implications for structuring organizational teams expected to innovate, especially if direct experimental evidence can be developed to support them. Findings suggest that strengthening cooperative goals is an underlying condition that helps team members have the confidence and persistence to innovate. Previous research provides guidance for fostering cooperative goals (Tjosvold and Tjosvold, 1995). Team members together develop a common direction and values, group tasks, personal relationships, integrated roles and shared reward distributions that bolster cooperative goal interdependence (Hanlon, Meyer and Taylor, 1994; Li et al., 1999). Team members with cooperative goals are, results indicate, likely to feel confident and able to persist to innovate. In addition to the attractiveness of the cooperative goal of innova- tion (Locke and Latham, 2002), results suggest the value of team beliefs that they are resourceful enough to persist and overcome obstacles. To supplement the traditional strategy of offering rewards to increase the pressure on groups to perform, this study suggests that managers can help groups develop the confidence and persis- tence so that they overcome obstacles, complete various tasks, and innovate. Project team members can identify each other�s valued resources and how their abilities complement each other so that together they can succeed (Tjosvold and Yu, 2004). They give each other positive feedback about their contributions and accomplishments. They plan how they are going to apply their resources together to further their cooperative goal of innovation so that they have the confidence to overcome obstacles and innovate.
As teamwork has been encouraged in most enterprises in order to improve innovative abilities, our study offers managers preconditions as well as a feasible approach for applying transactional leadership to foster innovation. Based on our results, if the job has a low level of emotional labor, such as production-line teams and R&D teams, transactional leadership should be applied to promote team innovativeness. As R&D teams of creative talents are the main body of organizational innovation, transactional leadership could help turn R&D teams into the shock troops of innovation and thus should be employed by team leaders in such cases. Conversely, if the job requires a high degree of emotional labor, team leaders should depress their transactional leadership and encourage team innovativeness through other methods, such as transformational leadership. Organizations should try to boost climate for excellence right from the beginning by anchoring such shared norms in their organizational vision and mission and by promoting their importance in everyday business. Organizations are able to facilitate team creativity and innovation by stimulating both support for innovation and climate for excellence. As transformational leadership was shown to predict support for innovation, organizations can influence supportive behavior for innovation by promoting a transformational leadership style among team leaders through selection and leadership development programs. Previous research has shown that transformational leadership can be trained in focused training programs (Avolio, 1999; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). The present findings also clearly indicate that such efforts should be complemented by attempts to build a climate for excellence. Through such combined efforts, organizations may profit from team�s ability to produce high-quality innovations.
Our study should be of considerable practical con- cern for managers. It not so much underscores the importance of networking, or helping subordinates to network, but offers findings that should make managers more informed in this process. Network- ing is too often seen as either banal advice or a distasteful exercise, rife with uncomfortable polit- ical and moral overtones. Our study at least points to the substantial creativity and innovation bene- fits available through a network that specifically hones in on knowledge heterogeneity.
The current research showed that task conflict in teams can be positively related to innova- tion. This observation holds for teams performing relatively simple tasks (distribution and delivery of parcels) and for teams performing a variety of more complex tasks including prod- uct design and complex decision making. Most important, however, the current study showed that only moderate levels of task conflict contribute to innovation inwork teams through their effects on collaborative problem solving. As we all know, too much conflict hurts. But too lit- tle conflict hurts as well, especially when teams need to innovate.
First and foremost, senior executives wishing to influence innovations should not rely on their hierarchical position alone. Possessing relevant strategic leadership skills appears to be critical to one's capacity to influence innovation strategy and its outcomes. Since most organizations are 'overmanaged and underled' (Kotter, 2001), perhaps this partially explains why organi zational innovation is so difficult, yet so strategically important (Hamel, 2000). In addition, TMT tenure heterogeneity proved to moderate the relationship of strategic leadership behaviors with executive influence on both product-market innovation and administrative innova tion. Consequently, we can infer diversity within a TMT to be an important factor influencing the effectiveness of strategic leadership behaviors. A closer look at Table 3 (parts a and b) suggests that strategic leaders working with relatively heterogeneous TMTs will be more effective influencing the innovation process if they emphasize vision development and intellectual stimulation to promote product-market innovations, and if they focus their efforts on vision development, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward leadership to bring about administrative innovations.
Our study found that creativity plays an important intermediary role in explaining the relation- ships between internal and external team characteristics and PCA (Product Competitive Advantage). Thus, firms should actively manage team dynamics to benefit creativity and to drive a positive strategic innovation outcome.
Given the need for innovation as a solution to the complex challenges faced by organiza- tions, the present study provides interesting implications for managers. First, team composi- tion is an important tool for promoting team innovation. If team members are exposed to individuals with high creative abilities, as well as to diverse individuals, who pose different organizational roles, with new kinds of information, and diverse viewpoints, they will evince a stronger link to team creativity. Accordingly, we advise managers to invest efforts in designing team composition and not only to rely on individual characteristics such as cre- ative personality but also to integrate functional diversity into the conditions for selection of individuals for teams (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002). But more important, our results pose a particular management challenge: Teams seem able to generate a high number of creative ideas, but if they do not operate in the proper environment, which affords them a supportive and participative context as well as a nonthreatening psychological atmosphere with excellence of task performance, team creativity will not be translated to innovation implementation. We conclude that if managers can be given guidance in designing and shap- ing teams� work contexts, we may expect more innovations among teams (Shalley et al., 2009). For example, because climate for innovation consists of shared norms, it may help to look at the social psychology literature. Sherif�s (1936) seminal work showed that norms quickly develop in the first stages of team development on the basis of reciprocal and mainly unconscious influence processes among team members. Once established, shared norms are relatively resistant to revision (MacNeil & Sherif, 1976). Consequently, organizations should try to boost climate for innovation right from the start by anchoring such norms in their teams� visions and missions and by promoting their importance in everyday business (Silke et al., 2008).
Functionally heterogeneous teams have become a tool for improving organizational effec-tiveness (Olson et al., 1995). However, they have not always resulted in the outcomes they were designed to produce: team in-role performance and team innovation. The results of the present study and the suggested modelmayhelp managers identify some critical factors (lead- ership style and the process of team reflection) needed to assist functionally heterogeneous teams to translate the benefits of heterogeneity into significant achievements. The results pro- vide important evidence that leadership style matters. Meeting urgent demands for team inno- vation and in-role performance requires a more flexible and elaborate repertoire of activities (Lewis et al., 2002; Quinn, 1988). It is suggested that managers combine participative and directive behaviors to enhance team outcomes. This both/and approach responds to the recent call (e.g., Lewis et al., 2002; Sagie et al., 2002) to reconsider the sweeping recommendation by authors (e.g., Muczyk &Reimann, 1989;West, 2002) to prefer the participative to the direc- tive leadership style. The findings also call on managers to invest in developing constructive work processes rather that focusing only on the bottom line. The key point is that by appropriate superior�s behaviors, teams can develop proper processes for improving their outcomes. The results imply that in functionally heterogeneous teams, heterogeneity will translate into a con- structive process of team reflection via participative leadership, but the findings of the present study suggest that homogeneous teams also have the potential to develop a process of team reflection under an appropriate leadership style, that is, directive leadership. It is proposed that in highly heterogeneous teams, the differences in opinions and perspectives already exist, so what is needed is a facilitative superior who may create the proper atmosphere for team members to participate and share their heterogeneity, factors crucial for the process of team reflection. However, in homogeneous teams, this heterogeneity typically does not exist, so the superior must take a more active role in stimulating team members to promote reflection by providing them with a framework for decision making and establishing clear rules for behavior.
Leaders of globally distributed teams charged with delivering innovative products and services have to grapple with the chal-lenges of distance, diversity, and technology that threaten to frag-ment the team. Our study identifies two specific levers that such leaders can use to bring members together and spur team innova-tion�a relationship-based leadership approach in the form of LMX in combination with frequent leader�member communica-tion. Organizations can maximize the innovation capability of distributed teams by providing LMX training for team leaders following the prescriptions of the �leadership-making model� (Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995), which emphasizes the importance of leaders making LMX partnership offers to all team members. Moreover, because leaders� spatial distance from followers can translate into psychological distance, for distributed team members out of sight could mean out of the leader�s mind (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Therefore, LMX training should also emphasize the importance of regular and predictable leader�member communication to maximize LMX�s impact on member influence on team decisions. Finally, to accelerate the development of LMX with distant team members, teams should be composed of members whose past performance provides a clear signal of their expertise. This engen-ders �swift trust� between leaders and members (Meyerson, We-ick, & Kramer, 1996; see also Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), which creates positive performance expectations and promotes ongoing cycles of leader delegation followed by member task performance, a process critical for LMX development over time (Bauer, Er- dogan, Liden, & Wayne, 2006; Bauer & Green, 1996; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009). In conclusion, this study contributes to a sparse body of research in the area of globally distributed teams conducted in organiza-tional settings. Drawing on LMX theory, it highlights the often-neglected role of leaders in distributed work settings. Findings underscore the importance of both communication quality and quantity of leader�member exchanges for enabling member influ-ence on team decisions in distributed settings. Further, at the team level, member influence on team decisions is positively linked to team innovation.

Our study also illuminates tangible approaches that leaders can adopt to enhance team members� individual and collective moti-vation to innovate. Namely, leaders should engage in transforma-tional behaviors to foster a climate that facilitates innovation at the team-level as well as motivates individual members to contribute innovatively to their teams. Findings also showed that members higher on proactive personality are more motivated to innovate, in part because they have greater role-breadth self-efficacy and are more intrinsically motivated. As such, identifying members with higher proactive personality can also enhance innovativeness in teams. Lastly, findings highlight the benefit of attending to indi-vidual contributions and team factors when managing team-level innovation. Evidence suggests team innovation is dually impacted by team processes and aggregated performance of individual mem-bers. Consequently, team leaders should focus on motivating
members both personally (i.e., individually) and collectively (i.e., as a team). To do so, our findings suggest that they should engage in transformational leadership behaviors and ensure their teams are staffed with proactive members.

The managerial implications are that successful team leaders who employ a more charismatic style can inspire and motivate team members to perform at their best (Shamir et al., 1993). This style of leadership in particular sets a clear direction and purpose for followers, and these leaders work on establishing an environment of mutual trust and respect in which members value their team membership (Paul et al., 2001; Avolio and Bass, 2004). Most signi�cantly, this type of leader seems to raise the chances of facilitating cooperative team behaviours that promote innovation even during a very challenging period of major restructuring. Leaders in a R&D environment therefore need to be aware of the importance of effective group processes, and need to be active in promoting effective communication  and discussion. Charismatic leaders through their position and style seem to have more in�uence in determining that their team processes will be translated into more innovative outcomes.

Organization-level analysis:
For practitioners, the current study points out that a simple relationship between HR systems or organizational culture and innovation outcomes should not be assumed. An innovation-oriented HR systemhas to rely on an appropriate organizational culture in order to have impacts on innovation. HR system alone may not be able to elicit innovation performance. Thus, the need to build up shared schemas and mindsets around innovation in organizations is critical for newproduct development.More emphasis could also be given to the �t of this type of culture with HR system in order to develop an effective organization.

This research shows that business units with more pro�cient dispersed collaboration and higher encour-agement of communities have a higher impact on front end of innovation outcome than those that do not support communities of practice. For best results, managers must ascertain that their business units sup-port existing and emerging communities of practice, which means giving employees the freedom to partic-ipate in such communities and making the funds available to maintain such communities. They must simultaneously ensure that employees are pro�cient in dispersed collaboration, i.e., adept when in locations signi�cantly distant from each other, skillful with IT tools to overcome the communication issues imposed by this distance, and competent in developing projects despite cultural differences. This research also found
strong support for the idea that an open climate fa-voring risk taking, trust, and open interaction posi-tively in�uences front end of innovation activities.

With recent failures of R&D teams to meet their objectives in regard to product characteristics, quality, and timetable, organizations have started to integrate quality and reliability engineers, who are assumed to be high on conformity and attention to detail, into R&D teams. However, their contribu-tion to innovation is being questioned by R&D man-agers because they increase formality and rule ad-
herence (Naveh, 2007). Our study suggests that, although attentive-to-detail members negatively impact radical innovation, the contribution of con-formist members can be valuable. To enhance rad-ical innovation, our study suggests that managers should assign employees to a team not just on the basis of their expertise or their expected individual contribution to the team; rather, managers should take into consideration the team configuration as explored in this study. Specifically, managers should set up teams that have a significant number of creative members, to form an innovative team culture; a large number of conformists, to contrib-ute to team harmony, reduce conflict, and increase team potency; and no more than a few attentive-to-detail members, given their low tolerance of risk and mistakes.

For managers, our study suggests important guidelines for analysing and assessing the use of strategic advice when the organization aims at increasing exploratory innovation. Firstly, it provides an analytical framework for the possibilities of sourcing distant knowl-edge by the TMT. Increasing external advice leads to higher exploratory innovation for homogeneous TMTs, while increasing internal advice seeking leads to higher explor-atory innovation for heterogeneous TMTs. An increase in external advice for heteroge-neous TMTs, and an increase in internal advice for homogeneous TMTs would have no signi�cant effects on exploratory innovation. Secondly, our study provides a caution to organizational transformation efforts that attempt costly reshuf�ing of the TMT advice linkages. The results show that the intensity of advice-seeking behaviour targeted at acquiring distant knowledge is important for exploratory innovation regardless of whether it is sourced externally or internally. Thirdly, we encourage selection and promotion policies that favour heterogeneity in TMTs, since they in�uence exploratory innovation more than the use of external advisers.

Given the consistent positive effects of trust in top management, it may be argued that systematic efforts to enhance this factor is particularly important to companies that want to promote innovation implementation behavior. In order to enhance trust in top management, it should be integrated into the organizations� reward system, leadership guidelines, and company policies. Supervisors could be evaluated by their followers, for instance, on how trustworthy they seem. The results suggest that companies should invest in leadership training and in the selection of charismatic supervisors before initiating the implementation of innovations. Research indicates that charismatic leadership behaviors are trainable (Barling et al., 1996). By training idealized in�uence, for example, leaders improve their ability to articulate a vision and to become more effective role models (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999). More speci�cally, by training leaders capability to provide role models in terms of using new innovations and demon-strating the value of these innovations, leaders are most likely to maximize
employees  affective commitment to change which, in turn, leads to innovation implementation behavior. In addition, by showing affective commitment to change as a mediator, the �nd-ings indicate that managers need to consider the psychological mechanisms by
which charismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to inno-vation implementation behavior. This may lead to a better ability to guide the impact of these in�uences to proper psychological processes, resulting in higher levels of innovation implementation behavior.

Although caution is always needed when interpreting the practical implications that can be derived from cross-sectional research, our findings suggest that transformational leadership facilitates innovation and task performance, whereas active-corrective transactional leadership undermines innovation. Considering field experiments demonstrating that effective management development programs may lead to enhanced subordinate perceptions of their supervisors' transformational leadership (Barling etal., 1996), organizations may train their supervisors to exhibit these behaviours, particularly when dealing with subordinates low in self-esteem or self-presentation propensity. It appears that transformational leadership may compensate for lack of subordinate self-esteem when innovation is the desired outcome and for a lack of subordinate self-presentation for task performance as the criterion. From a different perspective, the findings suggesting that high OBSE may neutralize and even substitute for the beneficial effect of transformational leadership on innovation highlights the importance
of measures to enhance OBSE as identified in previous studies (e.g. via job complexity and non-mechanistic organizational designs; Pierce et al, 1989). One may also argue that individuals' innovation (e.g. idea championing) may contribute to group and organizational innovation. Hence, multi-level research (Klein et al, 2001) aggregating individuals' contributions and assessing their combined effect on higher-level innovation outcomes is a desirable future research avenue.

These results also have practical implica-tions. First, the type of knowledge employ-ees in R&D departments possess is a key factor for product innovation. Managers interested in developing innovations must identify and procure employees with unique and firm-specific knowledge that is hard to copy and determine its competitive advan-tage. Second, managers must manage these employees by means of collaborative HRM practices such as selection processes based on interpersonal abilities, training activities focused on team building, and appraisals based on team performance and/or employ-ees� ability to work in groups. These prac-tices drive the skills and attitudes that allow the employee interactions and knowledge sharing that are necessary for product in-novation. Third, with respect to the positive relationship of external R&D expenses with performance and the negative one with in-novative activity, we propose that compa-nies should balance their R&D expenditures to take advantage of their effects on perfor-mance but should not forget their damage to innovative behavior. Finally, it is very important to recall that we found a positive relationship between innovative capability and performance. While this finding is use-ful for academics analyzing the role of orga-nizational capabilities on performance, it is even more important in its practical impli-cations. That is, supporting the view that investing in innovation is profitable can motivate managers to devote resources to this activity.

The empirical contribution of this work sug-gests significant business implications. First, the implementation of innovative initiatives offers 
benefits in terms of commercial activity, because of the applied resources and the ability to respond to changes and environmental opportunities. Incremental innovation may require more com-mercial (product, marketing) and management skills than changes in production and organiza-tional processes to achieve better business perfor-mance. Small enterprises thus can exploit their potential, because in general their commercial skills give them an advantage. They can under-stand the environment and react appropriately, using positive market development and anticipat-ing threats. Second, improving market orientations triggers innovation activities and probably is a prerequisite of a better innovative orientation. The dissemi-nation of best practices, executive training and a business focus that encompasses the organizational capacity should be part of firm�s agendas, linked to the development of their productive nets. Third, environmental factors promote  marketing and product innovations. Companies should enhance these actions to counter threats and exploit opportunities in their environments. Ultimately, companies should actively seek marketing-based innovative ideas because their adoption and implementation ensures financial and operational benefits for large enterprises and SMEs. Furthermore, these innovation activities are not hampered by organizational and environ-mental factors. In particular, SMEs should con-sider this important strategy when operating in dynamic and competitive environments, usually dominated by large enterprises.

Our findings also have some practical implications for managers and decision makers in SBUs in Taiwan. First, Tseng and Goo (2005) argued knowledge-intensive industries will account for at least sixty percent of Taiwan�s GDP within ten years through promoting technological innovation and development. To successfully promote technological innovation, our research shows that continuous cultivation and selection of transformational leaders at the business-unit level are required. Second, we found that both leadership and culture facilitate SBU innovation performance in Taiwan. SBU members will be receptive to transformational leader-ship behaviors under an innovative culture; conversely, transformational leaders will be constrained by SBU culture characterized by rules, policies, and procedures (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Since decisions and acts of leaders create an organiza-tional environment, culture, and structure that may substitute for leadership (Dionne et al., 2005), we further suggest that investing in innovative culture building allows leaders to have more time for other strategic issues without jeopardizing the SBU�s technological innovation. Third, in Taiwan, most high-tech companies or businesses mainly offer shares or
cash-based rewards to enhance innovation outcomes (Ho, Lai, & Tai, 2010) because innovation is high-risk investment with deferred compensation. For example, Taiwan Semicondutor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) attracts a large number of outstand-ing individuals to join them by offering stock bonuses. However, these business leaders ignore the fact that the greater use of financial incentives has the potential to weaken the leader�s efforts to boost technological innovation outcomes; therefore, transformational leaders who are pursuing these outcomes should also place an emphasis on non-financial interventions, such as recognition and performance feedback.

The results of the present study add to the scepticism of the contribution of OCB, and may offer an explanation as to why some organization climates are not conducive to innovation. OCB has become an academic buz-zword and a construct held out as a desirable, invaluable outcome with no consideration to its effect on innovation. The organizational sig-ni�cance and value of innovation is increasing, and behaviours supporting development of new products, services, and processes are invaluable. However, our results indicate that as presently conceptualized, OCB is not posi-tively linked to an innovative organizational climate. Additionally, individuals exhibiting the traditionally desirable traits of obedience and organizational loyalty may not be innova-tive individuals in their organization. Re-examining and rede�ning OCB to focus more on innovation may produce a theoreti-cally and pragmatically improved construct. In the meantime, managers should proceed cau-tiously with attempts to increase OCB if inno-vation is a goal. Managers who successfully increase the level of citizenship behaviour in their organizations may �nd that decreased innovation is an unexpected and unwelcome outcome. Perhaps the old, trusted and loyal employees are not ideal for innova-tive jobs or departments: young, restless and ambitious employees may provide better results. Managers may additionally need to rethink their evaluation and reward systems. Reinforcing loyalty and obedience may produce suboptimal results in organizations desiring innovation.

Our findings have important practical implications regarding innovation in workplaces and leader practices. In a global competitive context, innovations in the workplace represent the springboard for competitive advantage (Bowen et al., 2010). This study examined specifically team leader behaviors and intervening mechanisms in order to help to understand why some teams succeed and others fail in developing and implementing innovations. In this study, we focussed on team coaching as a leadership style that encompasses such behaviors as setting clear expectations, providing recognition, identifying team weaknesses, giving suggestions, and stimulating problem solving. These behaviors are tightly linked, which implies that team leaders may more effectively coach their team members by engaging in all of these behaviors. In other words, used in combination, team coaching behaviors can help team members to improve their capabilities to achieve higher results. Our findings show that team leaders who actively coach their team members in their day-to-day interactions may trigger motivational and behavioral levers to increase team innovation. In addition, given the changing demands faced by organizations, employee development is critical for enabling an adaptable workforce (Brown and Sitzmann, 2010). In this context, coaching represents a core managerial activity that team leaders need to assume in addition to their other managerial responsibilities. Indeed, managerial coaching represents a workplace learning strategy considering that leaders have to interact frequently with their subordinates (Ellinger et al., 2011a, b). Moreover, as stated by Liu and Batt (2010), �coaching has advantages over formal training because it is considerably less expensive and more closely fits the current need for ongoing learning and continuous improvement in the context of firm-specific workplace processes and technologies� (p. 266). Being responsible for evaluating employee performance, team leaders may integrate a coaching approach to help their team members to enhance their results through customized developmental interventions to improve ways of doing within work teams, which may stimulate innovation within their work teams. By showing a positive relationship between team coaching and team innovation, our findings suggest that organizations may gain advantage by establishing systems that promote and reward coaching behavior. Given that team coaching behaviors can be learned (Grant and Cavanagh, 2007; McLean et al., 2005), team coaching may be enhanced by helping team leaders to acquire coaching skills through training. Furthermore, in order to create an environment conducive to coaching, the performance appraisal system needs to value team leaders who contribute to the development of their team members� capabilities by actively engaging in coaching. Ultimately, to increase innovation in organizational settings, team leaders need to be aware that their behaviors may foster (or hinder) their team members� willingness to innovate.

This study allows us to make important managerial recommendations for improving firm performance as well as organizational innovations. Managers can harness the positive impacts of the relationship we concluded exists between organizational culture and innovations. Managers work hard to increase innovations of all types and at various levels in their organizations. We can now say that the generation of innovations can be impacted by fostering the right organizational culture. Results from the survey used in our study indicate it is possible to instill an innovative organizational culture with active encouragement and support from managers. An innovative organizational culture is open to the risks and opportunities of innovations and new ideas. An organization which recognizes and nurtures the uniqueness of its employees and empowers the managers to follow their vision will have an innovative culture. The existence of such climates and culture will motivate and support innovation in business. An informal review of popular writings and discussions on culture among managers indicated some generally utilized mechanisms and actions which are believed to encourage an innovative culture. One idea is that leaders and managers should motivate the employees to create new ideas and reward them when necessary; they can also establish an environment where new ideas are openly and freely shared. Another idea deals with communication which should be open and horizontal rather than vertical, and, cross-departmental integration in addition to within departments. All members of the organization can participate in the innovation activities and there should be easy ways to utilize innovation sources outside the organization through customers, competitors, and research institutions rather than relying on only internal sources. Our findings provide useful insights for organizations, particularly in the banking industry, seeking to be competitive and responsive to environmental changes by successfully introducing innovations. The banking sector faces several environmental and regulation changes particularly in recent years. The banking industry operates in a very competitive environment and as a result, innovations are very useful for flexible and just-in-time responses to competitive challenges. Traditionally, the banking industry has been more focussed toward quantitative and technology mechanisms and organizational culture has not been very highly prioritized. Results of this study indicate that they will benefit from a focus on fostering an innovative, open, and risk supporting organizational culture. Our study utilized data from Turkey and this provided us with unique inroads into understanding important aspects of Turkish organizational environments. Turkey has
a very dynamically changing and improving corporate climate and there is much realization that they have to compete in the global arena for rapid growth. Perhaps due to this, professional management and encouragement of innovations has been a top agenda item for the government as well as the civic community in general. The challenge here is that Turkey as a nation scored low on individualism, high on Hofstede�s dimension of power distance, and high on his dimension of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1991). Turkey has historically had a collective or group-oriented business culture and decisions are often made based on what is best for the group. As a population, those with high uncertainty avoidance score do not deal well with uncertain situations and avoid those kinds of situation where changes, uncertainties, and new ideas are adopted. Cultures with high power distance tend to not be open and sharing of ideas and empowerment of employees is not the norm. Taken together, these insights into the Turkish culture paint the Turkish business person as typically uncomfortable with innovations, having a social distance from superiors in hierarchical structures, and tending to think collectively. As a result, the Turkish manager would find it challenging to foster innovations and mechanisms to help would enhance business performance. Thus, mechanisms to foster and nurture an innovative organizational culture as suggested from our study would go a long way in helping Turkish organizations stay competitive and enhance performance.

All of the above �ndings have useful implications for the managers in Chinese high-tech �rms. First, our study suggests that professional employee training can develop employees  knowledge. Therefore, the top managers of the high-tech �rms should further improve employee training so as to promote the �rms  technological innovation. Thus, professional employee training will result in the advancement of a �rm s competitive advantage and performance. Second, the research results suggest that material incentives are negatively related to technological innovation and that there is a positive relationship between non-material incentives and technological innovation. The above two results also
imply that material incentives are perhaps needed for employees, but they can not become the main means of promoting technological innovation in Chinese high-tech �rms. The top managers of Chinese high-tech �rms should focus more on providing non-material incentives to continuously improve the effect of technological innovation. From the research results related to the relationship between the incentive and the control, process appraisal and control should be emphasized more than outcome appraisal and control in order to improve the technological innovation. In particular, through the improvement of process appraisal and control, �rms may excel in new product development or new production methods. This can improve �rm s competitive advantage.

Our study s findings suggest that increasing financial input is only one aspect of facilitat-ing innovation in Chinese firms; social con-
text should also be considered. This finding has significant implications for firms that pursue innovation, particularly small and 
medium-sized Chinese firms constrained by financial resources. Rather than worrying about how to increase financial inputs, these 
firms might do well to shift their focus to building a culture that helps maximize re-sources currently available. Creating the right 
culture for innovation will also give the firm a competitive advantage that is difficult for competitors to imitate given its intangible 
nature (Barney & Wright, 1998). Firms that wish to develop and intro-duce new products and services need to ad-vocate novel thinking and teamwork, de-emphasize the value of stability, and avoid placing excessive emphasis on outcomes. An emphasis on collaboration and tolerance 
for uncertainty and the unfamiliar are nec-essary for corporate entrepreneurship and innovation to flourish. Managers play a cru-cial role in communicating the importance of these values in their firms. For example, they can encourage employees to experi-ment with innovative ideas by altering the organizational structure to be more flexible and less resistant to change and facilitate knowledge exchange and combination (cf. 
Hornsby et al., 2002). Recognizing employee efforts and encouraging people to think �outside the box� to get results�without the fear of being penalized if an idea ulti-mately fails�can also be helpful in foster-ing a culture of innovation and discourag-ing a norm of stability. We caution that in an uncertainty-avoiding society such as China (Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004), it may be more difficult to engage individuals in championing the role of innovation. It will be important, therefore, for top man-agement to empower middle- and lower-level managers to become innovation cham- pions. In addition, to the extent that firms can facilitate culture building or organiza-tional change through staffing and career development systems, it will likely be easier for them to build and sustain a culture for innovation. Finally, while cultures of innovation are known to value risk taking (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002), our findings suggest that a culture that has too much of an outcome 
orientation may result in a limited number of innovations. An outcome orientation may therefore be a more effective cultural norm when complemented with the assur-ance that the firm also values and rewards contributions made in earlier stages of the innovation process. This combined focus on both innovation outcomes and innova-tive behavior could perhaps ease some of the personal risks (real or perceived) that 
employees associate with organizational in-novation. It is also important that managers clearly communicate to employees how their performance will be evaluated and whether or how innovation failure would be factored into this evaluation. To this end, practitioners should consider developing an incentive system that refrains from penal-izing employees solely for failures, as doing so will help foster a culture of corporate en-trepreneurship and innovation. By reward- ing innovative ideas and behaviors, firms may also reduce the likelihood of their cul-
ture�s being perceived as highly outcome oriented.

This study also has a number of practical implications for HR professionals and orga-nizations in the Indian and global contexts. 
First, while firms may be more proactive and  innovative in their business strategy, their HR strategy is often lagging behind in sup-
porting the strategic development of the former. As shown in this study, innovation-oriented Indian firms are adopting certain 
high-commitment/performance HRM prac-tices consciously to support their business strategy. But not all of them have managed 
to do so in a strategic way. Some firms may be adopting Western HRM practices to be seen as progressive, modern, and innovative 
but do so without examining the utility of these practices to their firm. Firms therefore need to develop their HR competence, de-
sign HR policies and practices that are suit-able to their firm, and raise the strategic role of the HR function to develop and harness 
their employees� creativity. Second, this study reveals a mismatch between the HR practices firms adopted and those employees desire if the level of em-ployee engagement and creativity is to be maximized. The most fundamental differ-ence is manifested, perhaps, in the short-
term performance-oriented HR strategy firms pursue and employees� desire for more hu-manistic HRM practices, although the two 
orientations may share certain common as-pects. On the one hand, HRM practices that firms adopt are largely organizational goal-
driven and control-oriented. HRM practices are used to �better control the employees� and to �align the individuals� goals with that of the company,� as reported by informants. It is worth noting that Japanese-style quality management techniques appear to be highly 
popular among Indian firms; a large propor-tion of managers reported having adopted some form of quality initiatives. In pursuing 
greater efficiency, employee involvement has been implemented primarily in the form of suggestion schemes that mainly benefit the 
company and not necessarily the well-being of the workforce. There is little real empower-ment of employees and their participation in 
decision making. Autonomy is allowed, but �quality is the main determinant� and �as long as it aligns with business goals,� as re-
ported by informants. On the other hand, employees and managers interviewed de-mand more empowerment, autonomy, de- mocracy, fairness, and return (both financial and psychological) from the company in ex-change for their efforts. This is indicative of 
the changing cultural values in Indian soci-ety, that has traditionally emphasized social hierarchy and obedience. This suggests that 
firms need to adjust their management ap-proach to reflect the changing culture. How to align employee outcomes with organiza-
tional outcomes is therefore a key issue. A third implication is that while the causes of ineffectiveness in implementing HR 
initiatives are often generic and have been identified by studies located in the Western context, some of the causes may be unique to 
the Indian context and specific to the public sector. State-owned companies, particularly those in a monopoly position, appear to be 
more bound by organizational inertia and, taken together with their monopoly position, lead to the lower levels of HR effectiveness and customer-oriented innovations. These institutional characteristics appear to be com-mon in emerging economies (e.g., Boisot & 
Child, 1996; Peng et al., 2004; Shenkar & Von Glinow, 1994; Tan, 2002). Fourth, firms seem to be more likely to initiate product innovations and production process innovations but appear to be less pro-active in developing business process innova-tions and customer service innovations. This is at least the case in the companies in our study, the majority of which are involved in manufacturing/engineering activities as part 
of their business. Yet, business process and customer services innovations are not only less constrained by the firm�s technological 
path and therefore arguably easier to imple-ment than product and production process innovations in the manufacturing environ-
ment, but also crucial in today�s competitive environment, as cogently argued by Prahalad and Krishnan (2008).

Given the consistent interactions between the process innovations and the climate factors, we would argue that systematic efforts to enhance climates for initiative and safety is especially important to companies that want to introduce a process innovation. The idea that to remain competitive, process innovation is essential a common idea in management needs to be seriously modi�ed. Effective process innovation can only be achieved if strong climates for initiative and psychological safety exist in the company. Climates for initiative and psychological safety are also important to increase company performance irrespective of the degree of change in process innovations and they may themselves also lead to a higher degree of innovativeness by a �rm. Therefore, we think that the centerpiece of any change pro-cess in companies should be to increase climate factors such as psychological safety and initiative before larger changes and innovations are tackled. Another implication of this study refers to change management. Change processes have often been described as suffering under resistance to change (Coch & French, 1948; French & Bell, 1995). The change processes that appear when process innova-tion is introduced require not only no resistance to change, but an active, initiating approach to deal with problems of implementation. Therefore, our results suggest that climates for initiative and psy-chological safety should be incorporated into conceptualizations of change management processes.

Since top management's transformational leadership has a generally positive influence on innovation orientation, it should be prepared to apply a transformational leadership style when a company aspires to establish an innovation orientation. The moderating results of culture provide insight into the transformational-leader behaviors that must be adapted to the cultural setting in order to strengthen the positive effect on innovation orientation. The results suggest that transformational leaders in individualist cultures who wish to increase their firms' innovation orientation should focus on articulating a vision, having high performance expectations, and providing individualized support, while eschewing intellectual stimulation. Leaders in high power-distance cultures should pursue intellectual stimulation and individualized support but avoid high performance expectations. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, high performance expectations appear to be productive, while intellectual stimulation does not. Transformational leaders can use the appropriate transformational-leader behavior for their national cultural setting to cultivate innovation, thereby enhancing the firm's competitive advantage and helping to sustain long-term success. Our findings are also in line with some anecdotes from prominent companies. A major finding of this study is that articulating a vision is
particularly important for fostering innovativeness in individualist countries. Somemajor innovative firms in the United States, as
probably the most individualist country in the world, excel (according to business press) in having a strong vision. For example,
Apple's vision to �simplify the world� and Google's vision to �make all information accessible worldwide� speak for a strong vision
as a facet of transformational leadership. In expert interviews with respondents in our sample, we acquired additional insight into how to implement specific leader behaviors. A representative in a company in Germany, a comparatively individualist country with low power distance and a medium level of uncertainty avoidance, told us that providing individualized support in the form of regular coaching with superiors and regular training is an important way to become more innovative in this context.

For practitioners, the current study points out that a simple relationship between HR systems or organizational culture and innovation outcomes should not be assumed. An innovation-oriented HR system has to rely on an appropriate organizational culture in order to have impacts on innovation. HR system alone may not be able to elicit innovation performance. Thus, the need to build up shared schemas and mindsets around innovation in organizations is critical for new product development. More emphasis could also be given to the �t of this type of culture with HR system in order to develop an effective organization.

There is a sub-stantial consensus today that a key competitive advantage of orga-nizations lies in their ability to learn and to be responsive to challenges from both internal and external business environments (�kerlavaj et al., 2007). Clearly, more attention has to be paid to developing an organizational learning culture in order to improve organizational innovativeness. This can be achieved by cultivating an environment in which the employees can and should continu-ally learn and share their knowledge. One practical implication of this thinking is that investing effort, time and money into initia-tives aimed at developing a learning-oriented culture can bring about augmented innovativeness within modern organizations. Korea is no exception to this �nding. Since the severe economic cri-sis in 1997,most of Korean organizations havemore focused on the organizational innovation in terms of structural innovation, pro-cess innovation, and so on (Lim & Kah, 2004). This research would provide theoretically acceptable, which is also practically applica-ble, �ow-map for building strategic organizational innovation-re-
lated initiatives for Korean (and other) organizations. The focus of learning-oriented culture in organizational innova-tion must meet the dynamic requirements of the workplace, some of which cannot be anticipated. Thus the organizational learning culture must be �exible in that it entertains further changes in workplace demands, that learning support is updated in a timely manner, and that it helps employees in organization adapt them-selves in substantial change of external environment. New princi-ples introduced in the organizational learning culture should be conditioned with advisement that they might be superseded in the future by the unanticipated changes in workplace demands. Employees in �exible organizational leaning culture should be ad-vised that changes in economic, political, and corporate structures could signi�cantly alter the way of innovation in the workplace and might be required to change the fundamental process by which work is done and prepare for a new career.

For  managers,  the  �ndings  suggest  that  investing  in  OI  (Organizational innovativeness) should  be  worthwhile.  Han  et  al  (1998,  p. 41)  that  OI  ��facilitates  the  conversion  of  market-oriented  business  philosophy  into  superior  corporate performance��  is  supported  here  for  public  sector  organizations.  First,  a  heightened  OI  enhances  the success  of  new  innovations  and  overall  performance.  Additionally,  an  improved  OI  enhances employees�  commitment  and  satisfaction.  In  short,  investing  in  OI  is  a  win/win  investment. Given  OI�s  positive  outcomes,  managers  should  strive  to  improve  it.  According  to  the  data  reported here,  the  road  to  managing  OI  should  start  with  MO (Market orientation)  and  LO (Learning orientation).  These  organizational  characteristics  had the  strongest  impacts  on  OI�s  consequences  in  all  three  countries.  Then,  internal  politics,  which  also affected  the  outcomes  in  all  studies,  but  less  so  than  MO/LO,  should  be  managed  and  reduced.  Finally, centralization  was  related  signi�cantly  with  OI  only  in  Slovakia.  Thus,  managers  in  Slovakia  should pay  particular  attention  to  reducing  centralization  in  their  public-sector  organizations. Above,  we  discussed  the  scales  we  used  to  measure  OI�s  dimensions.  These  provide  managers  with a  simple  way  of  measuring  OI  and  temporal  changes  therein.  Importantly,  we  advise  managers  to benchmark  OI  measures  over  time  (changes  from  past  periods).  Additionally,  OI  can  be  measured  at multiple  public  sector  organizations.  This  would  provide  managers  and  policy-makers  with  the necessary  information  to  benchmark  OI  across  units/departments.

In conclusion, the results of the research show that, in order to improve pro�ts and obtain competitive advantages, company CEOs need to direct their strategic planning toward improving organizational learning, creating a work environment based on support leadership and teamwork cohesion and obtaining high levels of innovation, both technical and innovation, in comparison to the other �rms in the environment.

Similarly, our results offer insights for managers. For example, this study highlights the paradoxical need for control and �exibility value pro�les. Such �ndings encourage managers to avoid viewing such values as con�icting, seeking instead to empower employees and to establish supporting policies and systems. In essence, managers should nurture an organization that offers explicit controls for evaluating and most decision-making, but also offers the �exibility for operators to depart from routine work procedures. Likewise, effective manages may provide independence, while interacting frequently. Such managers may encourage AMT operators to be creative and autonomous problem solvers, while interacting with operators frequently to set limits and help codify the learning that occurs via experimentation.

The results of the current study hold a number of immediate implications for practitioners; and an organizational culture that encourages new and novel approaches to addressing the requirements of clients'needs creates an opportunity for service �rms to differentiate their organizational processes, products and services from their competitors. First, this research points to the importance of underlying organizational values that motivate and foster innovative behaviors among employees. Organizational culture shaped by management through organizational values, norms, and artifacts encourages and supports innovative behav-iors. In particular, leadership behaviors such as showing respect for employees (e.g., considering their input into decisions that affect them) and showing an appreciation of employees (e.g., recognizing the contribution of employees towards organizational goals) are crucial. Organizational leaders have the ability to promote and lead innovation within organizations (Hunt, Stelluto, & Hooijberg, 2004; Mumford et al., 2002); thus, leaders also have an opportunity to create a culture where employees can generate, pursue, and implement new ideas and processes. Second, embedding values and norms in organizational artifacts would assist higher levels of innovation. Artifacts can be a powerful mechanism for communicating and endorsing values that support inno-vation. In this way, senior managers can set assessable standards and guidelines for behavior that employees can follow. Additionally, the physical arrangement of an organization can support innovation by providing employees with opportunities to exchange new ideas, share information between functional areas, and co-ordinate and integrate work across groups and organizational divisions. Artifacts, the physical manifestation of norms, are important because of their direct link to innovation and subsequent performance outcomes. Managers should seek to understand this process.

With regard to practice, this study suggests that individual level factors, involving having the confidence (self-efficacy) and the opportunity to take a wider, more skilled and more autonomous role at work (such as machine maintenance), are important to the suggestion stage of innovation. This implies that those wishing to promote suggestions should focus on such factors, which may be further developed by training in skills such as critical thinking, as well as education and communication about the wider organization and other activities beyond the technical core of employee jobs. Reward structures that recognize employees when they make suggestions and get them implemented are also likely to help. In addition, changing roles so that employees have more responsibility for production issues should facilitate their ownership of production and therefore the likelihood that they will suggest improvements (Parker et al., 1997b). The findings also imply that in order to get ideas implemented there needs to be a supportive group and organizational environment, i.e. management support, participation in decision making and team support for innovation. Other areas to focus on are improving support from the team leader, creating more broadly defined roles for teams, and allowing teams to have control over the methods used. Indeed, these individual, group and organizational characteristics may be enhanced through introducing effective and well-managed practices such as total quality management schemes and continuous improvement schemes. The introduction of such schemes can provide a springboard towards broader, company wide initiatives of empowerment and team-working (Cordery, 1996) in which employee innovation is crucial. Given the possibility of a feedback loop, the implementation of previous ideas is also likely to be important in motivating employees to become involved in such activities in the future.
On a practical level, the results of this study highlight a specific condition under which product developers can come up with more innovative solutions despite, or even because of, financial resource constraints. It is acknowl- edged that the observed effects will have their own limits. Otherwise, fewer and fewer resources would lead to ever higher performance in innovation projects. But results of this study encourage managers to reconsider the taken- for-granted effectiveness of their investments in R&D: neither abundance nor scarcity of resources per se are reliable managerial levers to control innovation performance. In particular, results show that TCI is likely to help unleash the positive effects of financial resource con- straints. Managers should consequently focus on improv- ing TCI, e.g., by promoting a transformational leadership style among team leaders (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, and Boerner, 2008; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Norrgen and Schaller, 1999) or by removing obstacles of TCI like team member relationship problems (Pirola- Merlo, H�rtel, Mann, and Hirst, 2002), rather than trying to make more resources available. And doing so should preferably occur right from the start of a project, since climates and shared norms in groups have proven to be quite hard to modify once established (MacNeil and Sherif, 1976). While previous research suggests that TCI is generally a driver for project performance (e.g., Bain et al., 2001; Edmondson, 1999; West and Anderson, 1996), the present results point to the heightened relevance of TCI in innovation projects with budgets smaller than usual. As such, this research is particularly relevant in situations where shrinking budgets make innovating under resource constraints the rule rather than the exception. R&D man- agers and product developers may therefore find the present study especially topical and helpful.
The current study�s findings highlight several important issues that deserve more attention from those who set human resource manage- ment strategy in the firm. On the one hand, our findings suggest that promoting em- ployee embeddedness yields positive results in terms of enhanced employee motivation to innovate on the organization�s behalf. As a retention and a short-run motivational strat- egy, therefore, firmly embedding employees within an organization (e.g., providing more longevity-based benefits) may be very effec- tive (Lee et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). We also found, however, that whether job embeddedness would be associated with strengthened efforts to innovate depended on two important factors, namely, the type of innovative behavior and the employee�s ca- reer stage. For example, for employees who perceive themselves as career starters, embed- dedness might be viewed as hampering fu- ture job mobility and could result in declin- ing motivation to contribute to organizational innovation Thus, it is possible that organizations that rely heavily on embeddedness strategies to retain the best employees might also find that they have de-motivated those same em- ployees from engaging in innovation-related behaviors. Firms that adopt an embedded- ness human resource strategy must therefore consider whether the intended beneficiary of the embeddedness strategies is the organiza- tion or the employee; whether the targeted outcome is retention, current productivity, or organizational innovation; whether generat- ing, disseminating, or implementing creative ideas is more important; and whether there is a great deal of variance in employee profiles in terms of career stages.
Today�s work environment requires more ingenuity and fresh ideas from employees. From new product ideas to better ways to respond to customer needs, to improvements in processes in the workplace, employers demand more of their employees� creativity and innovation (Leana & Barry, 2000; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). Organizations can no longer survive by doing more of the same. While we often hear about the impressive benefits and perks that companies like Google or SAS offer their employees to motivate creative and innovative behav- iors, this research suggests that there may be cheaper and more sustainable ways to enable employee innovative behaviors. Generative relationships that enable human thriving at work (i.e., learning and vitality) are less expensive alternatives than high priced gourmet meals, workplace concierges, or in-house masseuses. Other research suggests that younger employees may expect if not demand more opportunities to thrive in their work. Recent commentaries on �millennial� employees (those born before 1980) suggest they are looking for work to be a place where they are appreciated and enabled to thrive but not at the expense of their home life or interests. Younger employees may be less interested in career advancement and more concerned with opportunities to grow and develop � while having fun at the same time. Thus, these findings on thriving in relation to innovative behavior provide some insights for companies on how to respond to the needs of younger employees.
Our results provide several important practical implications. In a knowledge-intensive era, the survival and competitiveness of firms require constant innovation. Our findings emphasize the important role of learning goals in enhancing people�s skills and knowledge, as well as their innovative performance. Firms aspiring to be innovative must find ways to promote the learning orientation of their employees. Managers of such firms also need to be proactive in selecting and promoting personnel with strong learning goal orientation. Our results also extend past findings by highlighting the important roles of knowledge sharing for transmitting the effects of learning goal orientation. Managers who want to cultivate innovation within the organization should pay attention to effective ways to promote knowledge sharing. Our results suggest that learning goals are related to knowledge sharing behaviors, but other strategies can also be implemented. Our findings also suggest tentatively that a strong focus on performance goals is not necessarily beneficial to innovative performance. In fact, it may have the opposite effect of lowering innovative performance by reducing perceived job autonomy.
The first contribution relates to creativity stimulation for promoting different types of innovation. The article finds that one generic work environment construct is not sufficient to capture the advancement of different types of innovation. Fundamentally, the different characteristics of product innovation and process innovation are interpreted to be the cause of this finding. Generally, process inno- vations seek to achieve lower operating costs and higher product quality (Utterback&Aber- nathy, 1975), and discourage variation to control operating costs (Benner & Tushman, 2003). In contrast, the market-driven product innovations (Ettlie & Reza, 1992) seek novel solutions to enhance customer appeal. Thus, organizing the work environment to stimulate creativity encourages idea generation, but may also increase costs and require changes, which could have unintended effects on employees or on other processes in the firm (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). Hence, creativity may support other processes than continuous vari- ation seeking, especially in non-R&D contexts and in small firms. For instance, the firm may invest in developing creative problem-solving skills of employees to reduce the time and cost of handling process problems rather than establishing a work environment stimulating variation. The second contribution relates to the appli-cability of the single factors of the creativity simulating work environment across all firms. According to the empirical evidence, the asso- ciation between increasing freedom and product innovation is negative. This finding provides further insights when it is considered that large firms� access to resources is wider than that of SMEs. Large firms withR&Dcapa- bilities and extensive facilities are more likely to have more scientists, technicians, designers, and other highly educated employees in their workforce, who are more capable of managing and motivating themselves to handle freedom forcefully. On the other hand, the workforce of an SME is limited and may be characterized by being less specialized. Employees of smaller firms perceive innovativeness as a job require- ment (Yuan & Woodman, 2010), when moti- vated systematically, but they need regular supervision to handle product innovation along with other daily tasks efficiently. Increas- ing freedom and providing little task instruc- tion may distract employees� attention from daily tasks, create confusion (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004) and cause them to forget time and rules (Bissola & Imperatori, 2011). In con- trast to allowing freedom, formalization of work tasks enhances the likelihood of doing innovation by allowing best practices to diffuse among employees (Jansen, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2006). In this sense, the paper finds that the influence of individual factors of the creativity stimulating work envi- ronment is not uniform across all firms, but is contingent upon certain characteristics such as task and workforce characteristics. The paper concludes that one generic work environment construct cannot address specific characteristics of different firms, and cannot estimate correctly the advancement of different innovation types. Accordingly, the paper suggests that creativity research con- sider the nature of different innovation types combined with the characteristics of firms to further creativity stimulating work environ- ment models to establish more comprehen- sive links between organizational creativity and innovation.
We believe that HRM practices � effectively designed and synchronized � enhance learn- ing and empower people at all levels to insti- gate change and innovation. Managing people to promote innovation is necessary if we are to release the full creative potential of our work organizations.
This study shows that transformational leadership is an important determinant of organizational innovation. This suggests that managers should engage in transfor- mational leadership behaviors in order to promote or- ganizational innovation. Specifically, they should (1) build individualized relationships with employees and consider their needs, aspirations, and skills, (2) articu- late an exciting vision of the future and inspire and motivate employees to work toward this vision, and (3) stimulate them intellectually by broadening their inter- ests and encouraging them to think about old problems in new ways. This study is the first to investigate transformational leadership and its effect on organizational in- novation in a developing country and can extend our understanding of organizational innovation in coun- tries that share similar structures, conditions, and in- stitutions with Turkey. In most developing countries innovation is not a priority and is generally neglected by organizations. However, to be able to compete in the global arena successfully, organizations in such countries need to be innovative. Since this study showed transformational leadership to be an impor- tant determinant of organizational innovation, we recommend that transformational leadership, which is heavily suggested to be a subject of management training and development in developed countries, should also be incorporated into such programs in developing countries. This study highlights the importance of external support in the organizational innovation process. The results implied that internal support for innovation by itself may not be sufficient to promote organizational innovation, in particular incremental innovations. Rather, it is the support received from outside the organization that serves as leverage to the effect of transformational leadership on organizational in- novation. Therefore, to boost the level of company innovation, managers, especially of micro- and small- sized entrepreneurial companies, should play external roles such as boundary spanning and entrepreneuring/ championing and should build relationships with ex- ternal institutions that provide technical and financial support.
Furthermore, policies that relate to such support should be developed and implemented in developing countries, which still lack both a shared vision and a commitment by stakeholders to establish a national innovation system. In developing countries, govern- ment financing of R&D should be directed also to micro- and small-sized firms, not solely to large firms. In 2003, Turkish firms with fewer than 50 employees received only about 6% of government-financed busi- ness R&D while their counterparts in Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia received more than 50% (OECD, 2005). According to the American National Science Organization, small businesses are estimated to be 98% more successful than large ones in launch- ing new products and services (Wheelen and Hunger, 2000). Similarly, the U.S. Small Business Administra- tion found that small firms produce more economi- cally and technically important innovations than larger ones (Zimmerer and Scarborough, 2005). Thus, the high innovation potential of micro- and small-sized firms can be realized only with higher lev- els of support and commitment by all stakeholders. In recent years, Turkey has started to attract an increasing amount of foreign direct investment be- cause of its fast growing economy; it is a large un- developed market opportunity to Western businesses. For managers of companies that plan to or currently operate in developing countries, this study provides insights into understanding organizational innovation in Turkey and in countries with similar developing economies. The findings of this study might be of in- terest to them as these findings might be different from results in the Western context. These managers should bear in mind that transformational leadership is important to increase the performance of employees in companies producing incremental innovation. In addition, technical and financial support received from outside the organization can be a more impor- tant contextual influence in boosting up innovation in especially micro- and small-sized companies of such than an innovation-supporting internal climate. While such external support can complement and strengthen the technical and financial resources of their company, it can also encourage employees in developing countries to be more energized and to exhibit their best perfor- mance. At the same time, this contextual influence pro- vides support for the vision of transformational managers, thus enhancing the positive effects of such leaders on innovation within their companies.
Our results have three major practical implications. First, it is clear that the concern for relationships is negatively associated with innovative behavior, probably through fear of failure when innovative climate is low. These findings suggest that to promote creativity, Chinese managers should avoid relationally oriented behaviors, especially when a strong innovative climate is absent. Future research may explore what countervailing management practices can be put in place to reduce the tendency for employees who are high on relational orientation to worry about failures. Second, a work climate that reduces fear of failure should be promoted, so that the
negative effects of relational orientation on innovative behavior can be counteracted. The extant literature suggests that fear of failure can be reduced by failure-tolerant leadership (Farson & Keyes, 2002), psychological safety (Lee, Edmondson, Thomke, & Worline, 2004), and frequent feedback (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003). These management practices can be introduced to reduce fear of failure. Third, our research suggests that an innovative climate is effective in buffering against the negative influence of relational orientation and fear of failure. It is important for management to build a strong innovative climate to promote innovative behavior and mitigate the negative influence of relational orientation. The extant literature suggests that managers can cultivate an innovative climate by transforma- tional leadership, a competitive, performance-oriented culture (Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008), and high-quality leader�member exchange (Dunegan, Tierney, & Duchon, 1992).
This study presents a number of practical implications. If, as we suggest, organisations are more likely to survive and prosper where they promote innovation and engage in sustained efforts over time to introduce and apply new ideas, it is necessary to consider how best to draw upon the skills and knowledge of the whole workforce. People management practices have an important role to play in fostering organisational innovation because they signal to employees that innovative activity will be recognised and rewarded (Laursen and Foss, 2003). Managers should therefore consider how to prevent individuals becoming locked into limited perceptual frameworks and should endeavour to develop mechanisms designed to promote new and different thinking. At the same time, organisations should implement mechanisms designed to develop existing knowledge, skills and attitudes. Induction, training, appraisal and contingent reward, designed and implemented effectively, help to ensure that employees are clear about their tasks and have the basic skills necessary to perform effectively. Furthermore, teams have an important and perhaps not fully acknowledged role in enabling organisations to appropriate the knowledge of employees at all levels of the hierarchy.
Our study confirms that a firm�s ability to accumulate creative ideas as intangible assets, successfully convert those ideas into innovations, and to launch those innovations into the marketplace constitutes a dynamic capa- bility, which results in a competitive edge over other products in the market (Ettlie and Pavlou, 2006; Leonard- Barton, 1992).  
Important practical implications are derived from this study. For instance, disconnected strategies for selecting and retaining �innovative� people (e.g., high in openness to experience) or communicating and practicing organizational support for innovation do not guarantee greater innovative performance. Engaging innovative behavior is associated with the meeting of both high organizational and individual interests to develop different or novel solutions and approaches. Thus, organizational practices oriented to achieving higher levels of innovation have to be based on effective strategies for identifying individuals with innovative potential and creating work environments that are per- ceived as encouraging innovation. Moreover, managing, and promoting work environments that effectively facilitate the predominance of positive affect (Losada & Heaphy, 2004) emerge as a central practice to foster innovative work behavior. This indicates the value of developing styles of supervision/leadership that encourage collective participation and inspiration (e.g., trans- formational leadership;Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002) while providing proper support, feedback, and rec- ognition to innovative endeavors (Baer&Oldham, 2006;Madjar et al., 2002). Similarly, job design/enrichment should enhance the conditions for developing work environments linked with high-activated positive mood and with innova- tive potential through higher degrees of autonomy, responsibility, and social connection (Axtell et al., 2000). The results of this study also indicate that innovation in the workplace is positively related to job-related well-being, because it is substantively associated with experiencing positive feelings while working (Warr, 2007).
Despite their limitations, the present findings have some implications at an applied level. The results show the stressfulness of innovative behavior to strongly depend on workplace fairness. Employees� perceptions of both distributive and procedural fairness are at least partly within the control of orga- nizations. Organizations have control over the way in which individual employees are rewarded for their investments, and might even compensate employees for innovative efforts that go far beyond the regular level of job requirements. However, investment�reward balance is a dynamic process. If an increase in investments cannot be compensated by a proportional increase in rewards, procedural fairness becomes the key variable preventing innovative employees from experiencing high levels of stress. Apparently, employees who invest demanding innovative efforts in the exchange relationship with the organization need fair procedures in order to regulate their stress levels. The findings of the present study suggest that designing and applying fair procedures make innovative behavior less stressful for employees when they feel under-rewarded in the exchange relationship with the organization. 
These data suggest the utility of reinforcing and enhancing innovation-related support systems in the work climate. Opportunities for personal advancement which recognize professional commitments to certain work groups- like engineers, and others with long-term tenure who are major sources of high levels of expertness required for innovation in high technology environments may serve individual and corporate goals and objectives, and narrow the gap between idiographic and nomothetic dimensions of the organization. Psychological reinforcement efforts considerate of the priorities and socializations of targeted personnel, moreover, appear to hold promise in terms of stimulating creative behaviors among certain corporate sub-groups, since organizational pro- fessionals (a major source of innovation) tend to be committed, simul-taneously, to their professions and their organization. There is related evidence of an interaction between attitudes among professionals com-monly employed in high technology firms and commitment to organiza-tions (Bartol, 1979). Commitment by professionals to innovative activities requires con-current commitment of the organization; that is, the organization, through its working environment, would be expected to reaffirm princi-ples of professionalism (Thornton, 1970). Innovation, while not the exclusive domain of the professionally oriented segments of all firms, may be expected to eminate from these segments when tasks are parti- cularly complex and solutions are dependent on the application of a high level of expertise. Study respondents produce products which are highly technical. Goodness of fit is essential between corporate production and existing technologies in their customers' operations. The firm in this study is depen- dent on, and responsible to its external environment which is conceptuali-zed here as agregate of customers. Firms with a high degree of external account ablility tend to be more innovative (Rodgers & Rodgers, 1976). These data suggest that the administrative segment of the firm may be more sensitive to the expectations of the external environment and, since the firm is experiencing moderate to good performance, perceive the psychological climate of the organization as supportive of innova- tion. Significant internal differences in terms of the perceived psycho-logical climate of the firm appear most graphically between administra- tive segments with more general concerns for innovation and organiza-tional homeostasis, and others who constitute the major systems of production and may be more directly involved in creative functioning (Burgeman, 1988). While administrative superordinates may play important roles in advancing structural properties of the organization closely associated with innovativeness (Burgeman, 1988; Hage & Aiken, 1969; 1970) and the implementation of innovation, such properties viewed as innovations in themselves may underestimate the importance of individual variables in the innovation equation. Discrepancies in terms of organizational support for innovation, especially as they relate to the engineering group in this high technology firm, suggest a contradiction where there is a general assumption that segments of the firm recognize the importance of innovation and its relationship to organizational performance (Weick, 1984). The perceptions of organizational support for innovation among supervisors may reflect their views of the desirable psychological inviron-ment for creative functioning of "others" in the firm. Such an inter-pretation is supported by related research which suggested that managers may prefer adaptive rather than innovative approaches to change, and may have difficulty in coping with the pace of change and the magnitude of risk that exists in rapidly changing corporate environments in highly competitive industries (Holland, 1987). When a firm's capacity to com-pete is directly related to innovation, and creative concerns are on par with production-oriented purposiveness, management understands that the "natural position of high innovators is out on a limb" and that it is the responsibility of the firm to improve understanding of their role in the organization and make good use of them (Kirton, 1976). Organizational support for innovation is affected by formal and informal (actual) work structures and reflected in behaviors of the technology (production systems). Technically based organizations com-monly subscribe to tenets of technical efficiency. As a result, they "tend to be driven by coordinative efficiency criteria and tend to be tightly integrated around work activity" (Meyer & Scott, 1983, 239; Thompson, 1967). Where the technically based organization's success is also depen-dent on the creative functioning of its members and on the origination and adoption of new ideas, the psychological climate for innovation be- comes an important factor which may provide a competitive advantage for the firm. Most innovations are generated at lower levels in the organization's hierarchy where technology and need can be linked (Burgelman, 1983). Middle management encourages and coaches lower level, subordinate employees to develop more effective ways of accomplishing their tasks. Once identified, middle management becomes the champion of the new techniques, products, and/or to top management who set the strategic direction of the organization. Top management has the responsibility of balancing organizational change with stability. Too much change can be detrimental to the organization, and no change can damage its competitiveness in the market. From this perspective, top management acceptance of an innovation is simply retroactive ration-alization of autonomous strategic initiatives that have already been selected by the market and the organization (Burgelman, 1983). However, not all innovations are accepted by top management. Through moni-toring and authorizing middle management, top management can create an environment which inhibits and stops innovation. Innovators, working at the perimeters of organizations, may not subscribe to traditional corporate values which support organizational stability (Thompson, 1969). Leadership in innovation-dependent organi-zations which seeks to maintain a psychological climate that supports innovative initiatives should routinely review the balance between pur-posiveness needed for efficient production systems, and organizational tolerance for vagueness and ambiguity needed to support innovation which percolates up through the organization.
Innovative behaviors should be increased by the organizations. Individual factors (intrinsic motivation and prior work experience) and organizational factors (HRM practices and managerial coaching) should be factored in while assessing and incrementing innovative behaviors in employees. During the recruitment and selection phase of prospective employees, it is important to screen individual characteristics. Suitable HR practices should be designed to facilitate employees� innovative behaviors through HRM managers-professionals coalition. Organizational survival depends on the adaptability and flexibility of TMTs and especially TMTs that introduce radical innovations may improve organiza- tional performance. The current results show that, provided a transformational CEO and substantial participative safety, it is the minority that helps the organization move forward through the implementa- tion of radical innovations. CEOs who wish to stimulate innovation in their TMT or the wider organization thus have a task to protect and encourage minority dissent and foster a safe climate.   Organizations should provide training programs to help managers become more effective coaches. And, to ensure that the employees perceive the managers as effective coaches, organizations should ensure that there is a constant evaluation of the coaching behaviors on a timely basis.  Organic settings work well for effective innovation practice. Innovators in the mechanistic/hierarchical settings in this study spoke more often about the clashes between their self-organised activity and the formal systems in their organisations, and this was often spoken about with a sense of frustration, tension and occasionally anger. The study suggests that it is not enough for organizations to hire creative people and expect the innovation performance of the firm to be superior. Similarly, it is not enough for firms to emphasise management practices to enhance creativity and ignore individual mechanisms. Although it is true that doing either will improve innovation performance, doing both should lead to higher innovation levels. Our results suggest the need to recruit individuals who make regular efforts to improve the creative abilities of employees through training and on the job. The results also call for managers to formalize creativity approaches and techniques in organizations to improve innovation output. These results are consistent with the resource-based view of the firm that intangible capabilities such as creativity are the prime drivers of superior firm performance. An obvious implication for marketing metrics is that firms should look at creativity expenditures as an investment, rather than treat it as expenditure. In other words, it is quite likely that the payoffs of such investments in creativity may not be visible in contemporaneous accounting measures of performance. In fact the positive effects of such investments that are captured by intermediate performance measures such as innovation are reflected better in long run performance, measured through market-based measures such as Tobin's q.
Based on our findings, we suggest that firms can be innovative by employing ei- ther high-commitment or high-collabora- tion HRM systems, or a balanced combina- tion of the two, taking into consideration the resource scarcity in organizations. This is analogous to the strategy commonly used in boxing. To produce the most powerful hit, a boxer would not use both fists simul- taneously. Instead, he/she would advance one fist with the balance of the other at the back.

Innovation research and Managerial implications: The need to �learn� and �unlearn� for organizations
Issue: Whereas the managerial/practical implications gleaned from the empirical understanding of the atypical causalities serve to provide the �do�s� and the �don�t�s� for the organizations, it is needed that the extant literature of such �advisory� implications be scanned through. Context: Vis-�-vis the significance of innovation studies in the research context, the paper seeks to underscore the need to �learn� and �unlearn� for the organizations. Implications: To the best of the author�s understanding, this is the first such bottom-up approach where the literature on managerial implications is being scanned, and, analyzed. In a bid to fortify the HRD of the organizations, such directly-derived understanding of the innovation research in organizations shall serve as the pointers for the managers as well as future research as well.    
Veering around two key words- �creativity� and �innovation�- in the extant literature and aiming to contextualize them in diverse environs has been the thrust of the research till now. Whereas empirical research is amplified in the creativity domain, that in the innovation domain is still being assembled. Innovation is considered to be the successor of creativity (Baer, 2012; West, 2002) and may be re-defined as the acted-upon creativity. In other words, it is the action or the implementation component of creativity. The paper shall serve to scan the literature vis-�-vis the innovation research with its locus on the managerial/practical implications section of these papers. It is worthwhile to note that such a bottom-up approach of appreciating the prescriptive lessons for the HRD is the first such attempt in the research context. The section on managerial/practical implications figures towards the close of the empirical investigation in research. Albeit a very significant component of a research paper, this section probably captures the minimal words and paragraphs. This is unexpected since these implications are important lessons which the organizations may have to �learn� and �unlearn� for efficiency and effectiveness. Instead of sermonizing on some of the abstract injunctions, this section sheds direct light on the �should�s� which an organization may like to delve further upon. The empirical studies scanned in the paper rest their edifice on an individual, team/group, and, organizational level. Exhibit 1 gives the brief of the papers scanned for the purpose of the present study. The following section shall deal with a review of the significant innovation models. Thereafter, the significant managerial/practical implications gleaned from the papers shall be summarized and analyzed. Finally, a critical analysis of the paper along with future research directions shall serve as its logical denouement.
Creativity( Innovation 
Unanimity exists among researchers regarding the defining components of creativity and innovation. Creativity implies novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1983; Shalley, 1991) and innovation is equated with the execution of creativity in the form of products or services (Baer, 2012: 1102; West, 2002). Further, divergent thinking is regarded as the precursor to creativity, and, convergent thinking prefaces innovation (Im et al., 2013). Thirdly, whereas creativity is investigated at the individual level; innovation is a team or an organization level process/outcome (Amabile, 1996; Nijstad & De Dreu, 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Stasser and Birchmeier, 2003; West, 2002). From such distinguishing marks, it seems that creativity and innovation are diverse. However, the 4 P�s approach to define creativity (the Person(s) who creates, the cognitive Processes involved in the creation of ideas, the Press or environmental influences, and lastly the Product that results from creative activity) seeks to subsume the innovation component in creativity (Rhodes, as cited in Batey, 2012). Thus, the search of that specific stage/point where creativity gets translated or transformed to innovation gets blurred. However, there is an imminent need to re-bridge the two. As implied earlier, innovation is nothing but the acted-upon, implemented, formalized and �visible� outcome of the �invisible� creativity construct.   
Linkage between creativity and innovation in terms of causal variables has been a subject of increasing interest among scholars conceptually (Cokpekin & Knudsen, 2012; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988) and empirically (See, Baer, 2012; Im et al., 2013; Sohn & Jung, 2010; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2011). There are five main models on creativity(innovation which are particularly relevant to the present study � Amabile�s (1988) componential model; Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin�s (1993) interactionist model, Sternberg et al.�s (1996, 1997) investment model, Csikszentmihalyi�s (1988) "systems" model, and, Ford�s sensemaking model (1996). This is nowhere indicative of the non-existence of models apart from these. For instance, stand-alone models based on a particular construct (e.g., leadership(innovation; teamwork( innovation model) have been proposed elsewhere. However, a comprehensive take of the creativity( innovation link within the organizational context have best been summated in these models. 
The componential model (with its three components as domain-relevant skills, creativity-related processes, and, intrinsic task motivation) serves to establish a linkage between creativity and innovation in the sense that employee motivation, provision of resources, risk-orientation, proactive approach to development, expressing pride and enthusiasm in employee�s efforts, encouragement to employee innovative behavior and management of work environment by the firm induce innovation (See, Amabile et al., 1996; Amabile, 1997). Specifically, the model underscores three broad organizational factors which foster organizational innovation; viz., organizational motivation to innovate; resources (e.g., sufficient time for producing novel work in the domain, and the availability of training), and, management practices (e.g., allowance of freedom or autonomy in the conduct of work, provision of challenging, interesting work, specification of clear overall strategic goals, and formation of work teams by drawing together individuals with diverse skills and perspectives) (See Amabile et al., 1996).
The interactionist model of Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin (1993) looks at creativity as a phenomenon which is affected by environmental/situational and personal/behavioral factors. The model particularly studies intra-organizational influences which catalyze or inhibit organizational creativity. Specifically, the model delineates organizational creativity as an interactive system establishing linkages between creative persons, processes, situations and products.  At the input stage, the interactive constituents are individual characteristics (cognitive abilities/styles, personality, intrinsic motivation, knowledge); group characteristics (norms, cohesiveness, size, diversity, roles, task, problem-solving approaches); and, organizational characteristics (culture, resources, rewards, strategy, structure, technology). The input undergoes transformation (creative behavioral process) contingent upon situational variables (enhancers and constraints) to give creative product. Finally, creative output (novel ideas, products, services, procedures, or processes) defines the organizational creativity. �The gestalt of creative output (new products, services, ideas, procedures, and processes) for the entire system stems from the complex mosaic of individual, group, and organizational characteristics and behaviors occurring within the salient situational influences (both creativity constraining and enhancing) existing at each level of social organization� (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993: 296).
According to the investment model, a company should invest in six components to be creative-knowledge (e.g., company should adopt a long-term perspective and give adequate time for employee to develop himself and acquire expertise in the domain), intellectual abilities (involving the right kind of people in the idea-generation to idea-implementation stages possessing synthetic, analytical and practical skills), thinking styles (company should promote inventing and implementing styles in employees), motivation (making project fun to work at), personality (organization should encourage employee diversity by having �outcasts� on board), and environment (creating opportunities by managing uncertainty). 
Csikszentmihalyi (1988) took a different "systems" approach and highlighted the interaction of the individual, domain, and field. An individual draws on information in a domain and transforms or extends it through cognitive processes, personality traits, and motivation. The field consists of people (judges), who in turn control or influence a domain (e.g., scientific organization). They evaluate and select the new ideas. The domain is a culturally defined symbol system which preserves and transmits creative products to other individuals and future generations. In other words, creativity is a resultant of the interactive equation between a person�s thoughts and his socio-cultural context. Also, creativity must be defined with respect to a system that includes individual, social and cultural factors that influence the creative process and help to bring about a creative outcome. 
Ford�s (1996) sensemaking model emphasizes how sensemaking (e.g., problem finding, interpretation), motivation (e.g., goal orientation, capability beliefs), and knowledge and ability (e.g., domain related knowledge, creative thinking) interact to produce creative actions. Sensemaking processes operate across levels of analysis and the tension between competing habitual and creative responses plays a central role in determining innovation. Ford�s model does not, however, aim to delineate the factors that affect innovation across different levels of analysis, nor explain how variants of innovation at different levels of analysis (individual, group, organizational, societal) may influence each other.
Recently, Anderson et al. (2004) have presented a distress-related innovation model. Adopting a multilevel perspective, the model links different variants of distress (e.g., negative mood, budget deficiencies) to different forms of innovation (e.g., work role innovation, product innovation), and in turn, a wide range of possible outcomes of innovation (including negative outcomes such as work role ambiguity, and turnover).
In their measurement model of the determinants of organizational innovation, Crossan and Apaydin (2010) have integrated three meta-constructs of analysis, viz., leadership (CEO; TMT; Board), managerial levers (mission, goals and strategy; resource allocation; structure and systems; organizational learning and knowledge management; organizational culture), and, business processes (initiation and decision-making; portfolio management; development and implementation; project management; commercialization). 
Also, Sears and Baba (2011) have framed a four-tier innovation model, where innovation evolves across levels and over time. Their theory draws on �the premise that innovation is a multilevel phenomenon that emerges through individual creative efforts that are transformed into innovative outputs at the individual, group, organizational, and societal levels� (Sears & Baba, 2011: 367). The four levels are individual, group, organizational and societal where the innovative output at each of these levels fosters creativity (i.e., the production of novel and useful ideas; Amabile, 1988), invention (i.e., the product, technology, or process stemming from the creative process; Damanpour, 2002), adoption (i.e., the discrete outcome resulting from commercializing or implementing an invention/rendering an invention successful), and organizational/technological change (i.e., broader scale diffusion of innovations that stimulate organizational, technological, and industry change) respectively. The innovative impetus originates from one s motivation to innovate (i.e., factors reflecting a high value placed on innovation in the organization�e.g., climate factors), resources in the task domain (i.e., knowledge, expertise, and material resources to support innovation�e.g., broad work experience, absorptive capacity), and innovation management skills (i.e., individual characteristics and management capabilities that foster innovation�e.g., creative thinking, conflict management)�the expressions of which vary across levels. The variables that constitute these components jointly and multiplicatively determine innovative output. In sum, it is argued that each successive level of analysis and sequential manifestation of innovation reflects a progression from factors that drive the generation of innovation to those facilitating the adoption of innovation. 
Overall, the models serve as sound theoretical bases in creativity and innovation. However, they leave significant trails which need empirical investigation. Interaction between the individual, group, organizational variables vis-�-vis innovation in the overall milieu of the environmental impact factors would be a more wholesome approach. While it is appreciated that a specific model would not be able to encompass all the antecedents, processes and consequences, the cumulative analysis of the aforementioned models helps the researcher in underlining the necessary causality between creativity and innovation. In all of the aforementioned models, innovation was the outcome. For our purpose, we will analyse the papers where innovation figures as an antecedent, mediator/moderator or the consequent factor. The selection of the papers does not follow any specific parameter, as long as long they trace �innovation� at individual, group/team and organizational levels. 
Innovation- What is it?
Etymologically, the term originates from Latin �innovare�, (which means come up with a new thing). Joseph Schumpeter was one of the first economists to define innovation. He defines five possible types of innovation. These five types are: the introduction of a new product or a qualitative change in an existing product; process innovation new to an industry; the opening of a new market; development of new sources of supply for raw materials or other inputs; and; changes in industrial organization. Innovation is 'the intentional introduction and application within an organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the organisation or wider society' (West and Farr, 1990). Elsewhere, innovation has been defined as a �new product or service, production process technology, structure, administrative system, plan or program pertaining to organizational members� (Damanpour, 1991: 556). 
There are diverse categories of innovation-types: administrative-technical, technological-business, simple-complex, product-process, explorative-exploitative (Benner & Tushman, 2003; March, 1991), high-low cost, and, radical-incremental innovations (Damanpour, 1991; Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Ettlie and Reza 1992; Gopalakrishnan, Bierly, and Kessler 1999; Soutaris 1999). Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour (1997) propose the following dimensions of innovation: level of analysis (industry, organization, or subunit); stage of innovation process (ideation, project definition, problem solving, development, and commercialization); and type of innovation (product/process, incremental/radical, and administrative/technical). Crossan and Apaydin (2010) have broadened the organizational innovation determinants including individual and group (internal resources; individual determinants; group determinants), organization (stage of adoption; impediments; size; contextual variables; organizational determinants), and, environment (industry; environmental determinants; geo-systems; networks). Further, they have classified innovation types as a dimension of process [Level (Individual/Group/Team); Driver (Resources/Market/Opportunity); Direction (Top-down/Bottom-up); Source (Invention/Adoption); Locus (Firm/Network); Nature (Tacit/Explicit)] and outcome [Form (Product/Service/Process/Business Model); Magnitude (Incremental/Radical); Referent (Firm/Market/Industry); Type (Administrative/Technical); Nature (Tacit/Explicit)].
Daft (1978) develops a ��dual core� model: (1) administrative innovations occur in the administrative process and affect the social system of an organization, that is, its rules, roles, procedures and structures that are related to the communication and exchange between organizational members and (2) technical innovations, which pertain to products, services and the organization�s production process or service operations (Damanpour, 1991).
Another useful typology uses the basic modes of innovation for classifying as the science, technology, innovation (STI) or the doing, using, interaction (DUI) innovations ( Jensen et al., 2007). The STI mode is mainly based on analytical knowledge while DUI innovation mode is dominated by engineering-based knowledge ( Johnsen and Isaksen, 2009; Lorenz and Lundvall, 2006; Coenen and Asheim, 2006; Jensen et al., 2007; Lundvall and Johnson, 1994).
Product innovation may be defined as a �new technology or combination of technologies introduced commercially to meet a user or market need� (Utterback & Abernathy, 1975: 642), although not all product innovations are technology-based. Process innovation is defined as the �new elements introduced into the firm�s production or service operations to produce a product or render a service� (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 2001: 48). Product innovations are those that generate a novel product, whether it is a physical product, emergent technology, new service, or new intellectual property, which is usually visible to the consumer. Process innovations are those that are not as visible to those outside the organization and include changes in the procedures by which products are made, business is conducted, information is distributed, or other organizational operations are handled (Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan 2001; Ettlie and Reza 1992). Conceptually, the process of innovativeness can be categorized into three groups: technology related (company adopting new technology), behavior related (first-mover advantage taken by the company through idea-adoption), and product related (adopting or developing new products). Additionally, product innovations have outward goals such as competing with other organizations or satisfying a consumer need, whereas process innovations are more likely to originate to satisfy internal goals such as improving efficiency (Utterback and Abernathy 1975). Elsewhere, technological innovations have been equated with product innovations and administrative innovations have been classified as process innovations (Friedrich et al., 2001: 7). 
Kash and Rycroft (2003) draw the distinction between simple and complex innovations as to whether the innovation can be entirely understood by one individual expert or if it incorporates expert knowledge from multiple areas. Gopalakrishnan and Bierly (1997), based on prior work by Pelz (1985) and King (1992), used a knowledge-based approach to classify innovations. They defined the innovations based on three characteristics: the degree to which components of the innovation can be broken down, sophistication of knowledge or technology required, and degree of originality, which implies an uncertainty of outcomes.
Radical innovations are associated with a fundamental change in the activities of an organization (Damanpour, 1991, 1996). On the other hand, incremental innovations are those which are more of evolutionary in nature and are merely appendages or improvisations to the existing structures. Incremental innovation is related with exploitative learning (March, 1991) which is the acquisition of new behavioral capacities framed within existing insights. On the other hand, radical innovation is related with explorative learning (March, 1991) which occurs when organizations acquire behavioral capacities that differ fundamentally from existing insights.
Exploitative innovation is associated with efficiency, focus, convergent thinking, and reducing variance; while exploratory innovation is associated with experimentation, flexibility, divergent thinking, and increasing variance (Flynn and Chatman 2001, Rivkin and Siggelkow 2003, Van de Ven et al. 1999). Further, exploratory innovations are more effective in dynamic environments and exploitative innovations are more effective in more competitive environments (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006). 
Exhibit 1:
Author/sCausalityFindings Managerial implicationsWang (2012)Taiwan: Investigates the influence of HRM (incentive pay system and training) and managerial coaching on the relationships between the R&D employee�s characteristics (intrinsic motivation and prior work experience) and the innovative behaviorsIntrinsic motivation and prior work experience correlate significantly with innovative behaviors; both HRM (incentive pay system and training) and managerial coaching positively moderates the relationships between employee characteristics and innovative behaviorsHRM practices can promote innovative behaviors among R&D employees. The �ndings suggest that both individual factors (intrinsic motivation and prior work experience) and organizational factors (HRM practices and managerial coaching) facilitate innovative behaviors. Therefore, HRM managers need to assess and identify important individual characteristics during their recruiting and selection processes. A series of recruitment efforts could help screen potential employees. Additionally, HRM managers should work with HRM professionals to design practices that facilitate R&D employees� innovative behaviors. In addition to offering satisfying HRM practices, organizations should provide training programs to help mangers become more effective coaches. Finally, organizations should evaluate coaching behaviors to ensure R&D employees perceive managers as effective in this role.Liu, Liu, & Zeng (2011)China: To examine the relation between transactional leadership and team innovativeness by focusing on the moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy.Transactional leadership was negatively associated with team innovativeness when emotional labor was high whereas the association was positive when emotional labor was low. Team efficacy mediated the interactive effects of transactional leadership and emotional labor on team innovativeness.As teamwork has been encouraged in most enterprises in order to improve innovative abilities, our study offers managers preconditions as well as a feasible approach for applying transactional leadership to foster innovation. Based on our results, if the job has a low level of emotional labor, such as production-line teams and R&D teams, transactional leadership should be applied to promote team innovativeness. As R&D teams of creative talents are the main body of organizational innovation, transactional leadership could help turn R&D teams into the shock troops of innovation and thus should be employed by team leaders in such cases. Conversely, if the job requires a high degree of emotional labor, team leaders should depress their transactional leadership and encourage team innovativeness through other methods, such as transformational leadership.Cooper (2005)UK: To explore how the new product innovators experience innovating in those organizations (the complex social settings and structures of their organization, how this affects creativity, and how innovative climates are enabled or inhibited by it).Organic, self-organising working structures are shown to enable creative commercial innovation more easily than hierarchical settings; �Excitement� and �creative buzz� are shown to be common intrinsic motivators and �tangible benefit� for organization or customers is shown to reinforce this.Organic settings work well for effective innovation practice. Innovators in the mechanistic/hierarchical settings in this study spoke more often about the clashes between their self-organised activity
and the formal systems in their organisations, and this was often spoken about with a sense of frustration, tension and occasionally anger.Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg, & Boerner (2008)Europe: To study the relationship between transformational leadership and team innovationTransformational leadership works through support for innovation, which in turn interacts with climate for excellence such that support for innovation enhances team innovation only when climate for excellence is high.Organizations should try to boost climate for excellence right from the beginning by anchoring such shared norms in their organizational vision and mission and by promoting their importance in everyday business. Organizations are able to facilitate team creativity and innovation by stimulating both support for innovation and climate for excellence. As transformational leadership was shown to predict support for innovation, organizations can influence supportive behavior for innovation by promoting a transformational leadership style among team leaders through selection and leadership development programs. Previous research has shown that transformational leadership can be trained in focused training programs (Avolio, 1999; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). The present findings also clearly indicate that such efforts should be complemented by attempts to build a climate for excellence. Through such combined efforts, organizations may profit from team�s ability to produce high-quality innovations.Glynn, Kazanjian & Drazin (2010)US: Individuals� propensity to innovate is hypothesized as the product of individuals� relationship with their work team (team member identification) and their team�s relationship to other teams within the organizational system (interteam interdependence)Individuals� strong team identification and their perceptions of high interteam interdependence each have positive main effects on individuals� intentions to innovate.First, individuals� identification with their work team seems to be an important, but over- looked, aspect of innovation. Project managers, and especially team managers, need to be sensitive to how individuals construe their sense of self relative to their work team. Perhaps by instituting practices that foster team member identification, for example, by increasing the frequency of team communications and contact, since, by symbolizing team membership through visible artifacts displayed in the office, and by reminding indi- viduals of the value of their teamwork, team perfor- mance, and team achievements, managers may increase individuals� identification with their team. At a more macro level, organizational reward systems that benefit the team as a whole and human resource policies that encourage team cohesion through recruitment, selec- tion, and tenure processes are also ways of increasing team member identification and, in turn, increasing in- dividuals� intentions to innovation. Further, the results suggest that managers need
to carefully attend to individuals� perceptions of their team�s interdependence with other teams. Although perceptual interdependence can be an enabler of inno- vation, it can also be a disabler, through its interaction with team identification. Recognizing this potential for negative effects, managers might attempt to reframe perceived interdependencies not as constraints but as challenges. For example, managers might emphasize the benefits that can come from cooperating across subsys- tems to increase knowledge flows and creative ideas, thus encouraging team members to identify not only at the team level but at the overall project level as well. Such actions might deflect negative identity threats that can derail positive innovation intentions.NIjstad, Berger-Selman, & De Dreu (2012)Netherlands: To consider the role of CEO transformational leadership in the dissent�innovation relation and study this in Top Management Teams (TMTs).Minorities stimulate innovativeness and that through transformational leadership CEOs can create a climate in which minority input is transformed into radical innovations.Organizational survival depends on the adaptability and flexibility of TMTs and especially TMTs that introduce radical innovations may improve organiza- tional performance. The current results show that, provided a transformational CEO and substantial participative safety, it is the minority that helps the organization move forward through the implementa- tion of radical innovations. CEOs who wish to stimulate innovation in their TMT or the wider organization thus have a task to protect and encourage minority dissent and foster a safe climate.Bharadwaj & Menon (2000)US: Examines the organizational innovation hypothesis that innovation is a function of individual efforts and organizational systems to facilitate creativity.Presence of both individual and organizational creativity mechanisms led to the highest level of innovation performance; High levels of organizational creativity mechanisms (even in the presence of low levels of individual creativity) led to significantly superior innovation performance than low levels of organizational and individual creativity mechanisms.The study suggests that it is not enough for organizations to hire creative people and expect the innovation performance of the firm to be superior. Similarly, it is not enough fpr firms to emphasise management practices to enhance creativity and ignore individual mechanisms. Although it is true that doing either will improve innovation performance, doing both should lead to higher innovation levels. Our results suggest the need to recruit individuals who make regular efforts to improve the creative abilities of employees through training and on the job. The results also call for managers to formalize creativity approaches and techniques in organizations to improve innovation output. These results are consistent with the resource-based view of the firm that intangible capabilities such as creativity are the prime drivers of superior firm performance. An obvious implication for marketing metrics is that firms should look at creativity expenditures as an investment, rather than treat it as expenditure. In other words, it is quite likely that the payoffs of such investments in creativity may not be visible in contemporaneous accounting measures of performance. In fact the positive effects of such investments that are captured by intermediate performance measures such as innovation are reflected better in long run performance, measured through market-based measures such as Tobin's q.Rodan & Galunic (2004)Europe: This study deals with individual managerial performance, both overall and in generating innovation, using several micro-social processes that might account for differences in managerial performance, taken from economic sociology and studies of managers� exploitation of their social networks and derived from work in psychology on the genesis of ideas.While network structure matters, access to heterogeneous knowledge is of equal importance for overall managerial performance and of greater importance for innovation performance.We could easily extend this to managerial per- formance more generally, recognizing that whether to generate useful novelty or execute tasks and strategies, managerial performance is socially em- bedded and dependent on the knowledge of others. We couple to this thought the awareness by man- agers and scholars alike that as innovation becomes increasingly central to gaining and maintaining competitive advantage, firms must develop and encourage outstanding managerial performance in this regard in order to prosper. Yet, we still know far too little about that which Simon describes as the �social phenomenon� behind this outcome. Our study contributes to strategic management thinking by making theoretical, methodological, and practical inroads to this problem. Our study extends and refines current theory in highlight- ing two distinct mechanisms associated with man- agers� performance: one associated with network structure and the other with the diversity of knowl- edge to which managers have access. By parsing apart the influence of network structure and net- work content, we offer a more nuanced view of the benefits of a manager�s social network structure to her performance.

Finally, our study should be of considerable practical con- cern for managers. It not so much underscores the importance of networking, or helping subordinates to network, but offers findings that should make managers more informed in this process. Network- ing is too often seen as either banal advice or a distasteful exercise, rife with uncomfortable polit- ical and moral overtones. Our study at least points to the substantial creativity and innovation bene- fits available through a network that specifically hones in on knowledge heterogeneity.Zhou, Hong, & Liu (2013)China: To compare the main effects and examine the interaction effects of two particular HRM systems (commitment-oriented and collaboration-oriented) on influencing firm innovation and performance.Both the commitment-oriented system, which emphasized internal cohesiveness, and the collaboration-oriented system, which was intended to build external connections, contributed to firm innovation and, subsequently, bottom-line performance.Based on our findings, we suggest that firms can be innovative by employing ei- ther high-commitment or high-collabora- tion HRM systems, or a balanced combina- tion of the two, taking into consideration the resource scarcity in organizations. This is analogous to the strategy commonly used in boxing. To produce the most powerful hit, a boxer would not use both fists simul- taneously. Instead, he/she would advance one fist with the balance of the other at the back.
Cerne, Jaklic, & Skerlavaj (2013)Slovenia: To propose and empirically test a multilevel model of cross-level interactions between authentic leadership and innovation at the team level, and perception of support for innovation and creativity at the individual level.Whereas perceived team leaders� authentic leadership directly influences team members� individual creativity and team innovation, the impact of self-ascribed team leaders� authentic leadership was not significant; and, the relationship between team leaders� authenticity and creativity is mediated by perception of support for innovation.We found support for the fact that perceived authentic leadership has greater impact on individual creativity and on strengthening the positive relationship between creativity and on team innovation than self-ascribed authentic leadership. This is why it is important that the leaders emphasize building on authentic relations with the employees so they will perceive the leaders to be more authentic. Through sincere, open and transparent relations and leading by example, the leader�s true self can become apparent to the followers. In this way, they would assess the leader as more authentic, which has the potential to result in improved employees� creativity and innovation. This should, in accordance with numerous studies, positively affect team performance and the performance of the organization as a whole (e.g. Johannessen and Olsen, 2009; Liao and Rice, 2010). However, the managers should also be aware of valid points made by Ford and Harding (2011), who point out the fact that the implementation of authentic leadership could lead to destructive dynamics within organizations. The mediating role of perceived support for innovation supports the notion that team
leaders should stimulate a supporting, safe climate to enhance employee creativity. In con- trast, authentic leaders that would create a risk-averse and not supportive unsafe climate, such as, for example, those that would engage in close monitoring (Zhou, 2003), are likely to hinder and inhibit creativity. All in all, our study found support for the positive influence of authentic leadership in fostering employee creativity and team innovation, which supports the idea that authentic leadership development should be encouraged in the organizations striving for creativity and innovation. However, the leaders should also exhibit social sup- port and foster a safe climate of support for innovation within their teams.De Dreu (2006)Netherlands: To gauge whether conflict helps or hinders team innovation.Work teams were more innovative when the level of task conflict was moderate instead of low or high; it simultaneously reduces short-term goal attainment in teams.The current research showed that task conflict in teams can be positively related to innova- tion. This observation holds for teams performing relatively simple tasks (distribution and delivery of parcels) and for teams performing a variety of more complex tasks including prod- uct design and complex decision making. Most important, however, the current study showed that only moderate levels of task conflict contribute to innovation inwork teams through their effects on collaborative problem solving. As we all know, too much conflict hurts. But too lit- tle conflict hurts as well, especially when teams need to innovate.Pearce & Ensley (2004)US: To examine how the development, implementation, and perception of innovation affect a team�s level of shared vision and consequently how shared vision ultimately affects subsequent levels of team innovation.Innovation effectiveness and shared vision are reciprocally and longitudinally related and that shared vision and team dynamics are also reciprocally and longitudinally related.The results of this research clearly point to the central role of shared vision in the innovation process. Importantly, then, a key issue to enhancing innovation efforts is how to clarify shared vision in innovation teams. As such, Klimoski and Mohammed (1994) identified the most important tactic for enhancing shared vision in teams as the implementation of teamwork training programs (p. 423). Sub- sequently they stated that �We just happen to think that team mental models might be a more effective way to insure seamless and effective coordination, particularly in today�s organization� (p. 431) than mere reliance on a team leader to provide direction, guidance and vision for the team. Since leadership research has shown that it is possible to enhance the ability of leaders to create a vision (Thoms & Greenberger, 1995), from a practical point of view, the results here are extremely encouraging regard- ing the potential for enhancing the innovation process in teams. If it is possible to teach individuals how to enhance their vision creation abilities, it is not much of a stretch to imagine the possibility of teaching teams how to enhance their collective ability to create a shared vision of the particular inno- vation they are undertaking.Wong, Tjosvold, & Liu (2009)China: To identify the conditions when teams have the confidence and persistence to innovate successfully.Cooperative goals and group potency and initiative are important conditions that help teams innovate for organizations and thereby specify conditions that can help groups realize their potential to achieve innovation for organizations.In addition to developing theoretical understand- ing, support for the study�s hypotheses can have important practical implications for structuring organizational teams expected to innovate, espe- cially if direct experimental evidence can be developed to support them. Findings suggest that strengthening cooperative goals is an underlying condition that helps team members have the confidence and persistence to innovate. Previous research provides guidance for fostering coopera- tive goals (Tjosvold and Tjosvold, 1995). Team members together develop a common direction and values, group tasks, personal relationships, integrated roles and shared reward distributions that bolster cooperative goal interdependence (Hanlon,Meyer and Taylor, 1994; Li et al., 1999). Team members with cooperative goals are,
results indicate, likely to feel confident and able to persist to innovate. In addition to the attractiveness of the cooperative goal of innova- tion (Locke and Latham, 2002), results suggest the value of team beliefs that they are resourceful enough to persist and overcome obstacles. To supplement the traditional strategy of offering rewards to increase the pressure on groups to perform, this study suggests that managers can help groups develop the confidence and persis- tence so that they overcome obstacles, complete various tasks, and innovate. Project team members can identify each other�s valued resources and how their abilities comple- ment each other so that together they can succeed (Tjosvold and Yu, 2004). They give each other positive feedback about their contributions and accomplishments. They plan how they are going to apply their resources together to further their cooperative goal of innovation so that they have the confidence to overcome obstacles and innovate.Elenkov, Judge, & Wright (2005)Multiple contexts: To investigate the relationship of strategic leadership behaviors with executive innovation influence and the moderating effects of top management team (TMT)'s tenure heterogeneity and social culture on that relationship.Strategic leadership behaviors were found to have a strong positive relationship with executive influence on both product-market and administrative innovations; TMT tenure heterogeneity moderated the relationship of strategic leadership behaviors with executive innovative influence for both types of innovation, while social culture moderated that relationship only in the case of administrative innovation.First and foremost, senior executives wishing to influence innovations
Should not rely on their hierarchical position alone. Possessing relevant strategic leadership skills appears to be critical to one's capacity to influence innovation strategy and its outcomes. Since most organizations are 'overmanaged and underled' (Kotter,
2001), perhaps this partially explains why organi zational innovation is so difficult, yet so strategically important (Hamel, 2000). In addition, TMT tenure heterogeneity proved to moderate the relationship of strategic leadership behaviors with executive influence on both product-market innovation and administrative innova tion. Consequently, we can infer diversity within a TMT to be an important
factor influencing the effectiveness of strategic leadership behaviors. A closer look at Table 3 (parts a and b) suggests that strategic
leaders working with relatively heterogeneous TMTs will be more effective influencing the innovation process if they emphasize vision development and intellectual stimulation to promote product-market innovations, and if they focus their efforts on vision development,
intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward leadership to bring about administrative innovations.Henkin & Davis (1991)US: Perceived support for innovation in a high technology firm was assessed.Leadership endeavors to balance sometimes contradictory interests in efficient systems of production and increased effectiveness were made possible by creative functioning among members.These data suggest the utility of reinforcing and enhancing innovation-related support systems in the work climate. Opportunities for personal advancement which recognize professional commitments to certain work groups- like engineers,
and others with long-term tenure who are major sources of high levels of expertness required for innovation in high technology environments may serve individual and corporate goals and objectives, and narrow the gap between idiographic and nomothetic dimensions of the organization. Psychological reinforcement efforts
considerate of the priorities and socializations of targeted personnel, moreover, appear to hold promise in terms of stimulating creative be-
haviors among certain corporate sub-groups, since organizational pro- fessionals (a major source of innovation) tend to be committed, simul-taneously, to their professions and their organization. There is related evidence of an interaction between attitudes among professionals com-monly employed in high technology firms and commitment to organiza-tions (Bartol, 1979). Commitment
by professionals to innovative activities requires con-current commitment of the organization; that is, the organization, through its working environment, would be expected to reaffirm
princi-ples of professionalism (Thornton, 1970). Innovation, while not the exclusive domain of the professionally oriented segments
of all firms, may be expected to eminate from these segments when tasks are parti- cularly complex and solutions are dependent on the application of a high level of expertise.
Study respondents produce products which are highly technical.
Goodness of fit is essential between corporate production and  xisting technologies in their customers' operations. The firm
in this study is depen- dent on, and responsible to its external environment which is conceptuali-zed here as agregate of customers.
Firms with a high degree of external account ablility tend to be more innovative (Rodgers & Rodgers, 1976). These data suggest that the administrative segment of the firm may be more sensitive to the expectations of the external environment and,
since the firm is experiencing moderate to good performance,
perceive the psychological climate of the organization as supportive of innova- tion. Significant internal differences in terms of the perceived psycho-logical climate of the firm appear most graphically between administra- tive segments with more general concerns for innovation and organiza-tional homeostasis, and others who constitute the major systems of production and may be more directly involved in creative functioning (Burgeman, 1988). While administrative superordinates may play important roles in
advancing structural properties of the organization closely associated with innovativeness (Burgeman, 1988; Hage & Aiken, 1969; 1970) and
the implementation of innovation, such properties viewed as innovations in themselves may underestimate the importance of individual variables in the innovation equation. Discrepancies in terms of organizational support for innovation, especially as they relate to the engineering group in this high technology firm, suggest a contradiction where there is a general assumption that segments of the firm recognize the importance of innovation and its relationship
to organizational performance (Weick, 1984).
The perceptions of organizational support for innovation among
supervisors may reflect their views of the desirable psychological inviron-ment for creative functioning of "others" in the firm. Such an inter-pretation is supported by related research which suggested that managers may prefer adaptive rather than innovative approaches to change, and may have difficulty in coping with the pace of change and the magnitude of risk that exists in rapidly changing corporate environments in highly competitive industries
(Holland, 1987). When a firm's capacity to com-pete is directly
related to innovation, and creative concerns are on par with production-oriented purposiveness, management understands
that the "natural position of high innovators is out on a limb" and that it is the responsibility of the firm to improve understanding
of their role in the organization and make good use of them (Kirton, 1976). Organizational support for innovation is affected
by formal and informal (actual) work structures and reflected in behaviors of the technology (production systems). Technically based organizations com-monly subscribe to tenets of technical efficiency. As a result, they "tend to be driven by coordinative efficiency
criteria and tend to be tightly integrated around work activity" (Meyer & Scott, 1983, 239; Thompson, 1967). Where the technically
based organization's success is also depen-dent on the creative functioning of its members and on the origination
and adoption of new ideas, the psychological climate for innovation be- comes an important factor which may provide a competitive advantage for the firm.
Most innovations are generated at lower levels in the organization's
hierarchy where technology and need can be linked (Burgelman, 1983). Middle management encourages and coaches lower level, subordinate employees to develop more effective ways of accomplishing their tasks.
Once identified, middle management becomes the champion of the new techniques, products, and/or to top management who set the
strategic direction of the organization. Top management has the responsibility of balancing organizational change with stability. Too
much change can be detrimental to the organization, and no change can damage its competitiveness in the market. From this perspective, top management acceptance of an innovation is simply retroactive ration-alization of autonomous strategic initiatives that have already been selected by the market and the organization (Burgelman, 1983). However, not all innovations are accepted by top management. Through moni-toring and authorizing middle management,
top management can create an environment which inhibits and stops innovation. Innovators, working at the perimeters of organizations,
may not subscribe to traditional corporate values which support organizational stability (Thompson, 1969). Leadership in innovation-dependent organi-zations which seeks to maintain a psychological climate that supports innovative initiatives should routinely
review the balance between pur-posiveness needed for efficient production systems, and organizational tolerance for vagueness and ambiguity needed to support innovation which percolates up through the organization. Janssen (2004)Netherlands: To examine how perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness moderate the relationship between innovative behavior and stress.Innovative behavior was positively related to the stress reactions of job-related anxiety and burnout only when levels of both distributive fairness and procedural fairness were low.Despite their limitations, the present findings have some implications at an applied level. The results show the stressfulness of innovative behavior to strongly depend on workplace fairness. Employees� perceptions of both distributive and procedural fairness are at least partly within the control of orga- nizations. Organizations have control over the way in which individual employees are rewarded for their investments, and might even compensate employees for innovative efforts that go far beyond the regular level of job requirements. However, investment�reward balance is a dynamic process. If an increase in investments cannot be compensated by a proportional increase in rewards, procedural fairness becomes the key variable preventing innovative employees from experiencing high levels of stress. Apparently, employees who invest demanding innovative efforts in the exchange relationship with the organization need fair procedures in order to regulate their stress levels. The findings of the present study suggest that designing and applying fair procedures make innovative behavior less stressful for employees when they feel under-rewarded in the exchange relationship with the organization.Madrid et al (2013)US (Chile): Tested a multilevel and interactional model of individual innovation in which weekly moods represent a core construct between context, personality, and innovative work behavior. Innovative behavior is strongly associated with positive feelings; not all positive affect is linked to innovative work behavior, because whereas weekly high-activated mood was strongly implicated in it, weekly low-activated positive mood was not; openness intensifies the association between high-activated positive mood and innovative work behavior.Important practical implications are derived from this study. For instance, disconnected strategies for selecting and retaining �innovative� people (e.g., high in openness to experience) or communicating and practicing organizational support for innovation do not guarantee greater innovative performance. Engaging innovative behavior is associated with the meeting of both high organizational and individual interests to develop different or novel solutions and approaches. Thus, organizational practices oriented to achieving higher levels of innovation have to be based on effective strategies for identifying individuals with innovative potential and creating work environments that are per- ceived as encouraging innovation. Moreover, managing, and promoting work environments that effectively facilitate the predominance of positive affect (Losada & Heaphy, 2004) emerge as a central practice to foster innovative work behavior. This indicates the value of developing styles of supervision/leadership that encourage collective participation and inspiration (e.g., trans- formational leadership;Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002) while providing proper support, feedback, and rec- ognition to innovative endeavors (Baer&Oldham, 2006;Madjar et al., 2002). Similarly, job design/enrichment should enhance the conditions for developing work environments linked with high-activated positive mood and with innova- tive potential through higher degrees of autonomy, responsibility, and social connection (Axtell et al., 2000). The results of this study also indicate that innovation in the workplace is positively related to job-related well-being, because it is substantively associated with experiencing positive feelings while working (Warr, 2007).Im, Montoya, & Workman Jr. (2013)US: Examines how internal and external team dynamics influence NP and MP creativity, and how NP and MP creativity affect product competitive advantage as a strategic innovation outcome.Two separate dimensions of creativity-novelty and meaningfulness-are differentially affected by team dynamics.Our study confirms that a firm�s ability to accumulate
creative ideas as intangible assets, successfully convert those ideas into innovations, and to launch those innova- tions into the marketplace constitutes a dynamic capa- bility, which results in a competitive edge over other products in the market (Ettlie and Pavlou, 2006; Leonard- Barton, 1992). Our study found that creativity plays an important intermediary role in explaining the relation- ships between internal and external team characteristics and PCA. Thus, firms should actively manage team dynamics to benefit creativity and to drive a positive strategic innovation outcome.Shipton et al (2006)UK: To examine the relationship between HRM practices and product and technological innovation.Training, induction, team working, appraisal and exploratory learning focus are all predictors of innovation.This study presents a number of practical implications. If, as we suggest, organisations are more likely to survive and prosper where they promote innovation and engage in sustained efforts over time to introduce and apply new ideas, it is necessary to consider how best to draw upon the skills and knowledge of the whole workforce. People management practices have an important role to play in fostering organisational innovation because they signal to employees that innovative activity will be recognised and rewarded (Laursen and Foss, 2003). Managers should therefore consider how to prevent individuals becoming locked into limited perceptual frameworks and should endeavour to develop mechanisms designed to promote new and different thinking. At the same time, organisations should implement mechanisms designed to develop existing knowledge, skills and attitudes. Induction, training, appraisal and contingent reward, designed and implemented effectively, help to ensure that employees are clear about their tasks and have the basic skills necessary to perform effectively. Furthermore, teams have an important and perhaps not fully acknowledged role in enabling organisations to appropriate the knowledge of employees at all levels of the hierarchy.Leung et al (2011)China: To evaluate the relationship of the relational (face and renqing (compassion for others)) orientation of Chinese employees with their innovative behavior.Relational orientation is positively related to fear of failure, but negatively related to innovative behavior; The positive relationship between relational orientation and fear of failure, and the negative relationship between fear of failure and innovative behavior, are weaker when innovative climate is high.Our results have three major practical implications. First, it is clear that the concern for relationships is negatively associated with innovative behavior, probably through fear of failure when innovative climate is low. These findings suggest that to promote creativity, Chinese managers should avoid relationally oriented behaviors, especially when a strong innovative climate is absent. Future research may explore what countervailing management practices can be put in place to reduce the tendency for employees who are high on relational orientation to worry about failures. Second, a work climate that reduces fear of failure should be promoted, so that the
negative effects of relational orientation on innovative behavior can be counteracted. The extant literature suggests that fear of failure can be reduced by failure-tolerant leadership (Farson & Keyes, 2002), psychological safety (Lee, Edmondson, Thomke, & Worline, 2004), and frequent feedback (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003). These management practices can be introduced to reduce fear of failure. Third, our research suggests that an innovative climate is effective in buffering against the negative influence of relational orientation and fear of failure. It is important for management to build a strong innovative climate to promote innovative behavior and mitigate the negative influence of relational orientation. The extant literature suggests that managers can cultivate an innovative climate by transforma- tional leadership, a competitive, performance-oriented culture (Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008), and high-quality leader�member exchange (Dunegan, Tierney, & Duchon, 1992).Gumusluoglu & Ilsev (2009)Turkey: To investigate the impact of transformational leadership on organizational innovation and to determine whether internal and external support for innovation as contextual conditions influences this effect.Transformational leadership is an important determinant of organizational innovation and encourages managers to engage in transformational leadership behaviors to promote organizational innovation; technical and financial support received from outside the organization can be a more important contextual influence in boosting up innovation than an innovation-supporting internal climate.This study shows that transformational leadership is an important determinant of organizational innovation. This suggests that managers should engage in transfor- mational leadership behaviors in order to promote or- ganizational innovation. Specifically, they should (1) build individualized relationships with employees and consider their needs, aspirations, and skills, (2) articu- late an exciting vision of the future and inspire and
motivate employees to work toward this vision, and (3) stimulate them intellectually by broadening their inter- ests and encouraging them to think about old problems in new ways. This study is the first to investigate transforma-
tional leadership and its effect on organizational in- novation in a developing country and can extend our understanding of organizational innovation in coun- tries that share similar structures, conditions, and in- stitutions with Turkey. In most developing countries innovation is not a priority and is generally neglected by organizations. However, to be able to compete in the global arena successfully, organizations in such countries need to be innovative. Since this study showed transformational leadership to be an impor- tant determinant of organizational innovation, we recommend that transformational leadership, which is heavily suggested to be a subject of management training and development in developed countries, should also be incorporated into such programs in developing countries. This study highlights the importance of external
support in the organizational innovation process. The results implied that internal support for innovation by itself may not be sufficient to promote organizational innovation, in particular incremental innovations. Rather, it is the support received from outside the organization that serves as leverage to the effect of transformational leadership on organizational in- novation. Therefore, to boost the level of company innovation, managers, especially of micro- and small- sized entrepreneurial companies, should play external roles such as boundary spanning and entrepreneuring/ championing and should build relationships with ex- ternal institutions that provide technical and financial support.
Furthermore, policies that relate to such support
should be developed and implemented in developing countries, which still lack both a shared vision and a commitment by stakeholders to establish a national innovation system. In developing countries, govern- ment financing of R&D should be directed also to micro- and small-sized firms, not solely to large firms. In 2003, Turkish firms with fewer than 50 employees received only about 6% of government-financed busi- ness R&D while their counterparts in Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia received more than 50% (OECD, 2005). According to the American National Science Organization, small businesses are estimated to be 98% more successful than large ones in launch- ing new products and services (Wheelen and Hunger, 2000). Similarly, the U.S. Small Business Administra- tion found that small firms produce more economi- cally and technically important innovations than larger ones (Zimmerer and Scarborough, 2005). Thus, the high innovation potential of micro- and small-sized firms can be realized only with higher lev- els of support and commitment by all stakeholders. In recent years, Turkey has started to attract an increasing amount of foreign direct investment be- cause of its fast growing economy; it is a large un- developed market opportunity to Western businesses. For managers of companies that plan to or currently operate in developing countries, this study provides insights into understanding organizational innovation in Turkey and in countries with similar developing economies. The findings of this study might be of in- terest to them as these findings might be different from results in the Western context. These managers should bear in mind that transformational leadership is important to increase the performance of employees in companies producing incremental innovation. In addition, technical and financial support received from outside the organization can be a more impor- tant contextual influence in boosting up innovation in especially micro- and small-sized companies of such than an innovation-supporting internal climate. While such external support can complement and strengthen the technical and financial resources of their company, it can also encourage employees in developing countries to be more energized and to exhibit their best perfor- mance. At the same time, this contextual influence pro- vides support for the vision of transformational managers, thus enhancing the positive effects of such leaders on innovation within their companies.Somech & Drach-Zahavy (2011)Israel: To argue that team composition (aggregated individual creative personality and functional heterogeneity) affects team creativity, which in turn promotes innovation implementation depending on the team�s climate for innovation.Aggregated individual creative personality, as well as functional heterogeneity, promotes team creativity, which in turn interacts with climate for innovation such that team creativity enhances innovation implementation only when climate for innovation is high.Given the need for innovation as a solution to the complex challenges faced by organiza- tions, the present study provides interesting implications for managers. First, team composi- tion is an important tool for promoting team innovation. If team members are exposed to individuals with high creative abilities, as well as to diverse individuals, who pose different organizational roles, with new kinds of information, and diverse viewpoints, they will evince a stronger link to team creativity. Accordingly, we advise managers to invest efforts in designing team composition and not only to rely on individual characteristics such as cre- ative personality but also to integrate functional diversity into the conditions for selection of individuals for teams (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002). But more important, our results pose a particular management challenge: Teams seem able to generate a high number of creative ideas, but if they do not operate in the proper environment, which affords them a supportive and participative context as well as a nonthreatening psychological atmosphere with excellence of task performance, team creativity will not be translated to innovation implementation. We conclude that if managers can be given guidance in designing and shap- ing teams� work contexts, we may expect more innovations among teams (Shalley et al., 2009). For example, because climate for innovation consists of shared norms, it may help to look at the social psychology literature. Sherif�s (1936) seminal work showed that norms quickly develop in the first stages of team development on the basis of reciprocal and mainly unconscious influence processes among team members. Once established, shared norms are relatively resistant to revision (MacNeil & Sherif, 1976). Consequently, organizations should try to boost climate for innovation right from the start by anchoring such norms in their teams� visions and missions and by promoting their importance in everyday business (Silke et al., 2008).Shipton et al (2005)UK: To argue that HRM systems have the potential to promote organizational innovation.Effective HRM systems � incorporating sophisticated approaches to recruitment and selection, induction, appraisal and training � predict organizational innovation in products and production technology; Further, organizational innovation is enhanced where there is a supportive learning climate, and inhibited (for innovation in production processes) where there is a link between appraisal and remuneration.vWe believe that HRM practices � effectively designed and synchronized � enhance learn- ing and empower people at all levels to insti- gate change and innovation. Managing people to promote innovation is necessary if we are to release the full creative potential of our work organizations.Moenkemeyer, Hoegl, & Weiss (2012)Germany: To analyze the second-order construct of innovator resilience potential (IRP), which consists of six components � self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, optimism, hope, self-esteem, and risk propensity � that are important for project members� potential of innovative functioning in innovation projects subsequent to a failure.All the six components of IRP were influenced by the project failure.Introducing the concept of IRP can provide managers with guidelines on how to improve employee ability to overcome setbacks such as innovation project termination, or how IRP can be restored after a setback that has negatively affected employee IRP. This is important, as IRP is necessary for the future goal-setting, commitment (Bandura, 1997), and creativity (Amabile et al., 2004; Grzeda and Prince, 1997) of these employees after a termination and, thus, for future innovation project performance. We now deliberately go beyond this study�s setting to allude to ways in which organizations and managers may influence project members� IRP components after project termination. Realistic optimism can be elevated after a failure when the termination reasons are made clear and an outlook for the future is provided (Schneider, 2001). In addition, hon- est and constructive feedback can enable realistic attributions, which could both take place in an official project debriefing, which seems a very valuable instrument in this context (Von Krogh, 1998). To reinforce hope among the team members of a terminated project, leaders and other supporters (e.g. colleagues) should help assess the situation and develop future goals (Juntunen and Wettersten, 2006). Furthermore, it is important to ensure that appropriate and not overly difficult goals are set, as these might stimulate employees to embark on actions that are too demanding and difficult. This would increase the likelihood of failure and thus the danger of causing an even greater negative impact on affected individuals (Polivy and Herman, 2000). The self-esteem of affected individuals can be maintained or restored by executing a termination in a way that appears fair to project team members, as procedural justice has been demonstrated to foster individual self-esteem (Schroth and Shah, 2000). To do so, managers should communicate information about the termination process in a concrete way and should convey accurate future performance expectations (Schroth and Shah, 2000). Both aspects may also help project members to better evaluate their contributions to the project and to protect their self-efficacy and self-esteem from the consequences of incorrectly attributing project failure to their own shortcomings (McNatt and Judge, 2008). Furthermore, managers should reassure employees that they are capable of suc- cess, despite suboptimal circumstances (Pierce et al., 1993), and should avoid manage- rial actions that may tell employees that they are incompetent and distrusted, such as excessive work rules and oppressive leadership (Pierce et al., 1993). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy can also be influenced by performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1977). To foster self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, it appears necessary to let project members feel that their capabilities and individual performance did indeed influence project performance and its consequences, for example, through feedback, acknowledge- ment of good employee performance in terminated projects (Latham, 2001), and/or organizational rewards (Bandura, 1977; Maddux et al., 1986).Cokpekin & Knudsen (2012)Denmark: The paper adopts the leading creativity and innovation models to identify the work environment characteristics stimulating creativity, and subsequently analyses whether this environment leads to product and process innovation in small and medium sized firms.This environment does not yield the same results for product and process innovation, and particular factors of the work environment do not behave according to the expectations to enhance the likelihood of doing innovation.The first contribution relates to creativity
stimulation for promoting different types of innovation. The article finds that one generic work environment construct is not sufficient to capture the advancement of different types of innovation. Fundamentally, the different characteristics of product innovation and process innovation are interpreted to be the cause of this finding. Generally, process inno- vations seek to achieve lower operating costs and higher product quality (Utterback&Aber- nathy, 1975), and discourage variation to control operating costs (Benner & Tushman, 2003). In contrast, the market-driven product innovations (Ettlie & Reza, 1992) seek novel solutions to enhance customer appeal. Thus, organizing the work environment to stimulate creativity encourages idea generation, but may also increase costs and require changes, which could have unintended effects on employees or on other processes in the firm (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). Hence, creativity may support other processes than continuous vari- ation seeking, especially in non-R&D contexts and in small firms. For instance, the firm may invest in developing creative problem-solving skills of employees to reduce the time and cost of handling process problems rather than establishing a work environment stimulating variation. The second contribution relates to the appli-
cability of the single factors of the creativity simulating work environment across all firms. According to the empirical evidence, the asso- ciation between increasing freedom and product innovation is negative. This finding provides further insights when it is considered that large firms� access to resources is wider than that of SMEs. Large firms withR&Dcapa- bilities and extensive facilities are more likely to have more scientists, technicians, designers, and other highly educated employees in their workforce, who are more capable of managing and motivating themselves to handle freedom forcefully. On the other hand, the workforce of an SME is limited and may be characterized by being less specialized. Employees of smaller firms perceive innovativeness as a job require- ment (Yuan & Woodman, 2010), when moti- vated systematically, but they need regular supervision to handle product innovation along with other daily tasks efficiently. Increas- ing freedom and providing little task instruc- tion may distract employees� attention from daily tasks, create confusion (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004) and cause them to forget time and rules (Bissola & Imperatori, 2011). In con- trast to allowing freedom, formalization of work tasks enhances the likelihood of doing innovation by allowing best practices to diffuse among employees (Jansen, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2006). In this sense, the paper finds that the influence of individual factors of the creativity stimulating work envi- ronment is not uniform across all firms, but is contingent upon certain characteristics such as task and workforce characteristics. The paper concludes that one generic work environment construct cannot address spe-
cific cific characteristics of different firms, and cannot estimate correctly the advancement of different innovation types. Accordingly, the paper suggests that creativity research con- sider the nature of different innovation types combined with the characteristics of firms to further creativity stimulating work environ- ment models to establish more comprehen- sive links between organizational creativity and innovation.Somech (2006)Israel: To study effects of leadership style (participative/directive) and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogenous teams.In high functionally heterogeneous teams, participative leadership style was positively associated with team reflection, which in turn fostered team innovation; however, this leadership style decreased team in-role performance; The impact of directive leadership was in promoting team reflection under the condition of low functional heterogeneity, whereas no such impact was found under the condition of high functional heterogeneity.Functionally heterogeneous teams have become a tool for improving organizational effec-
tiveness (Olson et al., 1995). However, they have not always resulted in the outcomes they were designed to produce: team in-role performance and team innovation. The results of the present study and the suggested modelmayhelp managers identify some critical factors (lead- ership style and the process of team reflection) needed to assist functionally heterogeneous teams to translate the benefits of heterogeneity into significant achievements. The results pro- vide important evidence that leadership style matters. Meeting urgent demands for team inno- vation and in-role performance requires a more flexible and elaborate repertoire of activities (Lewis et al., 2002; Quinn, 1988). It is suggested that managers combine participative and directive behaviors to enhance team outcomes. This both/and approach responds to the recent call (e.g., Lewis et al., 2002; Sagie et al., 2002) to reconsider the sweeping recommendation by authors (e.g., Muczyk &Reimann, 1989;West, 2002) to prefer the participative to the direc- tive leadership style. The findings also call on managers to invest in developing constructive work processes rather that focusing only on the bottom line. The key point is that by appropriate superior�s behaviors, teams can develop proper processes for improving their outcomes. The results imply that in functionally heterogeneous teams, heterogeneity will translate into a con- structive process of team reflection via participative leadership, but the findings of the present study suggest that homogeneous teams also have the potential to develop a process of team reflection under an appropriate leadership style, that is, directive leadership. It is proposed that in highly heterogeneous teams, the differences in opinions and perspectives already exist, so what is needed is a facilitative superior who may create the proper atmosphere for team members to participate and share their heterogeneity, factors crucial for the process of team reflection. However, in homogeneous teams, this heterogeneity typically does not exist, so the superior must take a more active role in stimulating team members to promote reflection by providing them with a framework for decision making and establishing clear rules for behavior.Reuvers et al (2008)Australia: This study explores the relationship between transformational leadership and employee innovative work behaviour, additionally examining the moderating effect of gender of the manager and gender of the employee.The findings revealed a positive and significant relationship between trans- formational leadership and innovative work behavior; Furthermore, gender of the manager moderated the latter relationship, indicating that employees report more innovative behaviour when the transformational leadership is displayed by male in comparison with female managers.Several practical implications are evident from the findings of this study. The findings of this study have demonstrated the importance of transformational leadership for innovative work behaviour. Hospitals that want to capitalize on the innovative capabilities of employees must ensure that team leaders and individuals in key leadership positions not only possess transformational leadership behaviours, but explicitly demonstrate them as well. Recruitment and development practices should therefore incorporate a means to control for the presence and actual use of such behaviours, which could subsequently yield an environment in which innovative work behaviour can thrive, thereby aiding the advancement of medical care. The results of this study reiterate that hospitals should capi- talize on the transformational leadership capa- bilities of both male and female managers. The findings do suggest, however, that female managers are unable to exploit and benefit from the empirically demonstrated greater likelihood of adopting a transformational leadership style within a hospital setting, with respect to perceived innovative work behav- iour in followers (van Engen, van der Leeden &Willemsen, 2001; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003). The absence of a signifi- cant three-way interaction effect between transformational leadership, gender of the manager and gender of the employee suggests that the composition of a functional team in a hospital is not a determinant of team innova- tive work behaviour. Lu, Lin, & Leung (2012)China: This study examined the effects of learning goal orientation on individual innovative performance and the mediating mechanisms (knowledge sharing and perceived job autonomy) involved.Learning goal orientation was positively associated with innovative performance, with knowledge sharing as a significant mediator. Unexpectedly, job autonomy was not able to mediate the relationship between learning goal orientation and innovative performance. Exploratory analysis showed that the direct effect of performance goal orientation on innovative performance was insignificant, but it had a weak indirect effect on innovative performance through perceived job autonomy.Our results provide several important practical implications. In a knowledge-intensive era, the survival and competitiveness of firms require constant innovation. Our findings emphasize the important role of learning goals in enhancing people�s skills and knowledge, as well as their innovative performance. Firms aspiring to be innovative must find ways to promote the learning orientation of their employees. Managers of such firms also need to be proactive in selecting and promoting personnel with strong learning goal orientation. Our results also extend past findings by highlighting the important roles
of knowledge sharing for transmitting the effects of learning goal orientation. Managers who want to cultivate innovation within the organization should pay attention to effective ways to promote knowledge sharing. Our results suggest that learning goals are related to knowledge sharing behaviors, but other strategies can also be implemented. Our findings also suggest tenta- tively that a strong focus on performance goals is not necessarily beneficial to innovative performance. In fact, it may have the opposite effect of lowering innovative performance by reducing perceived job autonomy.Carmeli & Spreitzer (2009)Israel: This study examines how trust, connectivity and thriving drive employees� innovative behaviors in the workplace.Trust and connectivity were hypothesized to create a nurturing environment that enables people to thrive and be innovative in their work. The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) indicate a sequential mediation model in which connectivity mediates the relationship between trust and thriving, and thriving mediates the relationship between connectivity and innovative behaviors.Today�s work environment requires more ingenuity and fresh ideas from employees. From new product ideas to better ways to respond to customer needs, to improvements in processes in the workplace, employers demand more of their employees� creativity and innovation (Leana & Barry, 2000; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). Organizations can no longer survive by doing more of the same. While we often hear about the impressive benefits and perks that companies like Google or SAS offer their employees to motivate creative and innovative behav- iors, this research suggests that there may be cheaper and more sustainable ways to enable employee innovative behaviors. Generative relationships that enable human thriving at work (i.e., learning and vitality) are less expensive alternatives than high priced gourmet meals, workplace concierges, or in-house masseuses. Other research suggests that younger employees may expect if not demand more opportunities to thrive in their work. Recent commentaries on �millennial� employees (those born before 1980) suggest they are looking for work to be a place where they are appreciated and enabled to thrive but not at the expense of their home life or interests. Younger employees may be less interested in career advancement and more concerned with opportunities to grow and develop � while having fun at the same time. Thus, these findings on thriving in relation to innovative behavior provide some insights for companies on how to respond to the needs of younger employees.Ng & Feldman (2010)US: To study if job embeddedness may actually strengthen employees� motivation to generate, spread, and implement innovative ideas in organizations.Job embeddedness was positively and significantly related to innovation-related behaviors, even after controlling for demographic variables, the job attitudes, and the job perceptions that are frequently associated with job embeddedness; Further, the relationship between job embeddedness and implementing innovative ideas was stronger for individuals in the mid- and late stages of their careers than for those in the early stage of their careers.The current study�s findings highlight several important issues that deserve more attention from those who set human resource manage- ment strategy in the firm. On the one hand, our findings suggest that promoting em- ployee embeddedness yields positive results in terms of enhanced employee motivation to innovate on the organization�s behalf. As a retention and a short-run motivational strat- egy, therefore, firmly embedding employees within an organization (e.g., providing more longevity-based benefits) may be very effec- tive (Lee et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). We also found, however, that whether job embeddedness would be associated with strengthened efforts to innovate depended on two important factors, namely, the type of innovative behavior and the employee�s ca- reer stage. For example, for employees who perceive themselves as career starters, embed- dedness might be viewed as hampering fu- ture job mobility and could result in declin- ing motivation to contribute to organizational innovation Thus, it is possible that organizations that rely heavily on embeddedness strategies to retain the best employees might also find that they have de-motivated those same em- ployees from engaging in innovation-related behaviors. Firms that adopt an embedded- ness human resource strategy must therefore consider whether the intended beneficiary of the embeddedness strategies is the organiza- tion or the employee; whether the targeted outcome is retention, current productivity, or organizational innovation; whether generat- ing, disseminating, or implementing creative ideas is more important; and whether there is a great deal of variance in employee profiles in terms of career stages.Weiss, Hoegl, & Gibbert (2011)Germany: Team climate for innovation is examined as a potentially important contingency variable of the relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation project performance.There is no significant relationship between financial resource constraints and innovation project outcomes in terms of product quality and project efficiency. However, results show a significant interaction term of financial resource constraints and team climate for innovation in that team climate for innovation positively moderates the relationship between financial resource constraints and product quality as well as project efficiency.On a practical level, the results of this study highlight a specific condition under which product developers can come up with more innovative solutions despite, or even because of, financial resource constraints. It is acknowl- edged that the observed effects will have their own limits. Otherwise, fewer and fewer resources would lead to ever higher performance in innovation projects. But results of this study encourage managers to reconsider the taken- for-granted effectiveness of their investments in R&D: neither abundance nor scarcity of resources per se are reliable managerial levers to control innovation performance. In particular, results show that TCI is likely to help unleash the positive effects of financial resource con- straints. Managers should consequently focus on improv- ing TCI, e.g., by promoting a transformational leadership style among team leaders (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, and Boerner, 2008; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Norrgen and Schaller, 1999) or by removing obstacles of TCI like team member relationship problems (Pirola- Merlo, H�rtel, Mann, and Hirst, 2002), rather than trying to make more resources available. And doing so should preferably occur right from the start of a project, since climates and shared norms in groups have proven to be quite hard to modify once established (MacNeil and Sherif, 1976).

While previous research suggests that TCI is generally
a driver for project performance (e.g., Bain et al., 2001; Edmondson, 1999; West and Anderson, 1996), the present results point to the heightened relevance of TCI in innovation projects with budgets smaller than usual. As such, this research is particularly relevant in situations where shrinking budgets make innovating under resource constraints the rule rather than the exception. R&D man- agers and product developers may therefore find the present study especially topical and helpful.Ng & Feldman (2013)Context unspecified: This paper hypothesizes that the relationship of age with IRB (innovation-related behavior) is jointly moderated by undermining behavior on the part of the supervisor and the extent to which the employee possesses a proactive personality.Highly proactive older workers responded to high supervisor undermining with more IRB, whereas older workers low on proactive personality responded to high supervisor undermining with less IRB. On the other hand, when supervisor undermining was low, proactive personality did not moderate the relationship of age with IRB.Managing an increasingly older workforce presents multiple challenges to managers and executives (Greller & Simpson, 1999; Ng & Feldman, 2009a). The predominant concern over the years has been about how aging affects older workers� core task performance (e.g., Sturman, 2003). In contrast, the results here suggest that managers could more effectively use older workers to spread innovation throughout a firm. Although idea generation is arguably the most important stage in the innovation process (Mumford &Gustafson, 1988), disseminating ideas and turning ideas into value-adding practices are also highly critical to organizations (Janssen, 2000). This study illustrates that older workers self-report better performance on all three stages of the innovation process; and therefore, organizations need to curb undermining behavior on the part of supervisors with negative age stereotypes. Human resource practices that reward workers for their positive contributions to the latter two stages of the innovation process are needed as well.
At the same time, the current study highlights why age in and of itself should not be used by managers as an indicator of a worker�s potential to contribute to workplace innovation. We found that whether older workers contributed more or less to innovation depended on both individual differences and context factors. Thus, although older workers generally self-report greater IRB than their younger colleagues, there is still great variability in the age�IRB relationship. To get the most out of older employees in terms of innovation, managers need to match the profile of each worker to the type of IRB desired and the situation in which the employee will work. It is also important to emphasize that finding some proactive older workers responded to supervisor undermining
by actually increasing IRB should not be taken as a suggestion that supervisors should deliberately use social undermining to get better performance from older workers. Rather, our point is that older workers are not necessarily passive and reactive in managing their workplace experiences, as commonly stereotyped by supervisors and colleagues (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). Indeed, if supervisor undermining continues and becomes harsher over a long period, it is likely that older workers�independent of their personality�will eventually choose avoidance behaviors. Such withdrawal of effort, in turn, hurts rather than helps the organization.
Finally, to more effectively encourage IRB, we urge managers to pay greater attention to the different motivations
that underlie it. Certainly, in the case of older workers who do not feel socially undermined by supervisors, the motivation to perform IRB likely derives from a desire to reciprocate for good treatment or from a desire to be altruistic. However, although IRB might be initiated out of such pro-social motives, IRB might also be motivated by self-interest. For example, in the case of proactive older workers faced with supervisor undermining, the motivation to increase IRB may be grounded in a desire to repair negative relationships with superiors. Conversely, in the case of older workers who are low on proactive personality and are undermined by their supervisors, the motivation to refrain from IRB may stem from a desire not to �rock the boat� in hostile waters. Thus, to understand the factors that predict IRB, managers need to attend to the different constellations of motivation that underlie its occurrence (or non-occurrence).Axtell et al (2000)UK: This study examines the impact of individual perceptions of individual, group and organizational factors on both elements of innovation (idea generation and idea implementation).It was found that the suggestion of ideas was more highly related to individual (personal and job) characteristics than the group and organizational characteristics; whereas the implementation of ideas was more strongly predicted by group and organizational characteristics.With regard to
practice, this study suggests that individual level factors, involving having the confidence (self-efficacy) and the opportunity to take a wider, more skilled and more autonomous role at work (such as machine maintenance), are important to the suggestion stage of innovation. This implies that those wishing to promote suggestions should focus on such factors, which may be further developed by training in skills such as critical thinking, as well as education and communication about the wider organization and other activities beyond the technical core of employee jobs. Reward structures that recognize employees when they make suggestions and get them implemented are also likely to help. In addition, changing roles so that employees have more responsibility for production issues should facilitate their ownership of production and therefore the likelihood that they will suggest improvements (Parker et al., 1997b).
The findings also imply that in order to get ideas implemented there needs to be
a supportive group and organizational environment, i.e. management support, participation in decision making and team support for innovation. Other areas to focus on are improving support from the team leader, creating more broadly defined roles for teams, and allowing teams to have control over the methods used. Indeed, these individual, group and organizational characteristics may be enhanced through introducing effective and well-managed practices such as total quality management schemes and continuous improvement schemes. The introduction of such schemes can provide a springboard towards broader, company wide initiatives of empowerment and team-working (Cordery, 1996) in which employee innovation is crucial. Given the possibility of a feedback loop, the implementation of previous ideas is also likely to be important in motivating employees to become involved in such activities in the future.Yidong & Xinxin (2012)China: To explore how ethical leadership influenced employees� innovative work behavior through the mediation of intrinsic motivation at both group and individual level.The results showed that individual innovative work behavior was positively related to both individual perception of ethical leadership and group ethical leadership, while individual intrinsic motivation mediated the two relationships. Moreover, group intrinsic motivation mediated the relationship between group ethical leadership and innovative work behavior.Our study also provided some significant practical
implications: First, as both perception of ethical leadership and group ethical leadership were demonstrated to facilitate the employees� innovative work behavior, it is recom- mended that managers should develop ethical leadership style by emphasizing morality in workplace, respecting their followers� nature and dignity, empowering and enriching the job significance to encourage their followers to come up with new ideas and put them into practice. When practicing ethical leadership in the group, they should not only pay attention to their influence on the individuals whose per- ception of their leadership may affect their job performance but also shape whole group�s collective congruence of their ethical leadership style that predict the followers� perfor- mance beyond the individual perception. Second, we also found that ethical leadership was positively related to intrinsic motivation at both levels and it facilitated innova- tive work behavior through the mediation of intrinsic motivation. As individual perception of ethical leadership and group ethical leadership, it suggested that to enhance the employees� innovative work behavior, on one hand, ethical leadership should dedicate more to leveling their followers� intrinsic motivation by shifting their attention from the external rewards to the interest, challenge, and the signifi- cance of the job. On the other hand, they can set tune for the whole group to establish group intrinsic motivation where group members are encouraged to focus on the interest of the task and teamwork instead of external rewards.Ryan & Tipu (2013)Pakistan: This paper examines the leadership dimensions of the full range leadership model in Pakistan and the relation of leadership to innovation propensity.Results show that active leadership has a strong and significant positive effect on innovation propensity, while passive-avoidant leadership has a significant but weakly positive effect on innovation propensity.Effective leadership behaviors have a positive impact on individual
and organizational outcomes, while leadership training and develop-
ment assist in modifying leadership behaviors for greater effectiveness (Abrell, Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011; Taylor, Taylor, & Russ-Eft, 2009). The concern for practitioners in an international con-text is the relevance ofwestern-dominated leadership theory to leader-ship behaviors in non-western contexts. Current �ndings highlight the importance of amore critical examination ofwesternmanagement the-ory in non-western contexts. Certainly, evidence exists of the usefulness of importing western concepts for management education in different contexts (Michailova & Hollinshead, 2009). However, the current results suggest that the practice requires critical evaluation, especially in the important area of management development and leadership training.
Many organizational leadership training and development pro-
grams focus on training for western leadership concepts (Wenson,
2010), while research support for the bene�ts of such programs also
comes mainly from western contexts (Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang,
2010). The current �ndings urge practitioners to be cautious in their
approach to training in non-western contexts. The current �ndings sup-port the assertion of Antonakis et al. (2003) that leadership training should be at the level of individual factors, rather than at the simpler transactional/transformational construct level. Leadership training at the individual factor level gives prospective leaders a greater understanding of a variety of dimensions of leadership, which they can then utilize and apply in the combinations that are most appropriate for their context.
The results from this study show that those combinations may not align with the traditional transactional, transformational and laissez-faire dimensions of leadership. However, the current research does show that contextually appropriate combinations of individual leadership di-mensions such as idealized in�uence, individual consideration, intellectu-al stimulation, contingent reward and active management-by-exception can still result in an effective leadership style that positively in�uences organizational outcomes.Yoshida et al (2013)Indonesia & China: This study examines how servant leadership affects both employee creativity and team innovation.Servant leadership promotes individual relational identi�cation and collective prototypicality with the leader which, in turn, fosters employee creativity and team innovation; Also, 
the mediated effect of leader identi�cation is strongest when team climate for innovation is high.Our study highlights the importance of building psychological
connections with employees in order to enact employee creativity
and team innovation. Given the salience of relational identi�cation,
developing leaders' coaching and mentoring skills may be bene�cial
for fostering employee creativity and team innovation.We also note
that the creative bene�ts of leader's behaviors stemfromteamclimates encouraging these practices.Moreover, a teamclimatewhich prioritizes innovation provides the conditions that are conducive to employee cre-ativity, and hence becomes the most potentmeans to enhance creative outcomes. Additionally, it is also important for servant leaders to build collective norms and interest to enact employee creativity. Speci�cally, the need for servant leaders to generate followers' trust, identi�cation,and perceptions that the leaders represent the team's beliefs, norms and attitudes becomes more critical when creativity and innovation are a priority organizational goal.Hogan & Coote (2013)Australia: The study tests Schein's multi-layered model of organizational culture with its subtle but important distinctions between the varied �layers� of organizational culture (i.e., values and norms, artifacts and behaviors).Results show how layers of organizational culture, particularly norms, artifacts, and innovative behaviors, partially mediate the effects of values that support innovation on measures of �rm performance.The results of the current study hold a number of immediate impli-
cations for practitioners; and an organizational culture that encourages new and novel approaches to addressing the requirements of clients'needs creates an opportunity for service �rms to differentiate their organizational processes, products and services from their competitors. First, this research points to the importance of underlying organizational values that motivate and foster innovative behaviors among employees.
Organizational culture shaped by management through organizational values, norms, and artifacts encourages and supports innovative behav-iors. In particular, leadership behaviors such as showing respect for employees (e.g., considering their input into decisions that affect them) and showing an appreciation of employees (e.g., recognizing the contribution of employees towards organizational goals) are crucial. Or-anizational leaders have the ability to promote and lead innovation within organizations (Hunt, Stelluto, & Hooijberg, 2004; Mumford et al., 2002); thus, leaders also have an opportunity to create a culture where employees can generate, pursue, and implement new ideas and processes.
Second, embedding values and norms in organizational artifacts
would assist higher levels of innovation. Artifacts can be a powerful
mechanismfor communicating and endorsing values that support inno-vation. In this way, senior managers can set assessable standards and guidelines for behavior that employees can follow. Additionally, the physical arrangement of an organization can support innovation by providing employees with opportunities to exchange new ideas, share information between functional areas, and co-ordinate and integrate work across groups and organizational divisions. Artifacts, the physical manifestation of norms, are important because of their direct link to innovation and subsequent performance outcomes. Managers should seek to understand this process.Montes, Moreno, & Morales (2005)Spain: This paper examines the effects of organizational learning and teamwork cohesion have on organizations  capacity to use innovation (technical and administrative) to meet the changing needs of their environment.The �ndings support the hypotheses that (1) support leadership encourages teamwork cohesion, organizational learning, and technical and administrative innovation; (2) teamwork cohesion promotes organizational learning and this, in turn, encourages technical and administrative innovation; and (3) organizational performance is improved through teamwork cohesion, organizational learning and technical and administrative innovation.In conclusion, the results of the research show that, in
order to improve pro�ts and obtain competitive advantages,
company CEOs need to direct their strategic planning
toward improving organizational learning, creating a work
environment based on support leadership and teamwork
cohesion and obtaining high levels of innovation, both technical and innovation, in comparison to the other �rms in the environment.Khazanchi, Lewis, & Boyer (2007)US: To explore how organizational values (value pro�les, value congruence and value-practice interactions) impact a particular process innovation, the implementation of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT).This research supports and elaborates a paradoxical view of innovation-supportive culture; �exibility values may mediate the role of control values. Flexibility values foster a culture of experimentation and empowerment, whereas, control values may set boundaries that facilitate managerial trust and evaluation. Further, while �exibility values enable operators to engage in creative problem solving or debug routine machine-related problems (e.g., Zammuto and O Connor, 1992), operators may see control as inhibiting innovation.Similarly, our results offer insights for managers. For
example, this study highlights the paradoxical need for
control and �exibility value pro�les. Such �ndings
encourage managers to avoid viewing such values as
con�icting, seeking instead to empower employees and
to establish supporting policies and systems. In essence,
managers should nurture an organization that offers
explicit controls for evaluating and most decision-
making, but also offers the �exibility for operators to
depart from routine work procedures. Likewise,
effective manages may provide independence, while
interacting frequently. Such managers may encourage
AMT operators to be creative and autonomous problem solvers, while interacting with operators frequently to
set limits and help codify the learning that occurs via
experimentation.Shoham et al (2012)Israel, Lithuania, and Slovakia: This paper seeks to identify antecedents to, characteristics of, and outcomes of organizational innovativeness.Market and learning orientation enhanced organizational innovativeness, whereas internal politics and centralization reduced it. Organizational innovativeness enhanced two individual-level outcomes (satisfaction and commitment), as well as innovation performance, which, in turn, improved overall organizational performance.For  managers,  the  �ndings  suggest  that  investing  in  OI  should  be  worthwhile.  Han  et  al  (1998,  p. 41)  that  OI  ��facilitates  the  conversion  of  market-oriented  business  philosophy  into  superior  corporate performance��  is  supported  here  for  public  sector  organizations.  First,  a  heightened  OI  enhances  the
success  of  new  innovations  and  overall  performance.  Additionally,  an  improved  OI  enhances
employees�  commitment  and  satisfaction.  In  short,  investing  in  OI  is  a  win/win  investment.
Given  OI�s  positive  outcomes,  managers  should  strive  to  improve  it.  According  to  the  data  reported
here,  the  road  to  managing  OI  should  start  with  MO  and  LO.  These  organizational  characteristics  had
the  strongest  impacts  on  OI�s  consequences  in  all  three  countries.  Then,  internal  politics,  which  also
affected  the  outcomes  in  all  studies,  but  less  so  than  MO/LO,  should  be  managed  and  reduced.  Finally,
centralization  was  related  signi�cantly  with  OI  only  in  Slovakia.  Thus,  managers  in  Slovakia  should
pay  particular  attention  to  reducing  centralization  in  their  public-sector  organizations.
Above,  we  discussed  the  scales  we  used  to  measure  OI�s  dimensions.  These  provide  managers  with
a  simple  way  of  measuring  OI  and  temporal  changes  therein.  Importantly,  we  advise  managers  to
benchmark  OI  measures  over  time  (changes  from  past  periods).  Additionally,  OI  can  be  measured  at
multiple  public  sector  organizations.  This  would  provide  managers  and  policy-makers  with  the
necessary  information  to  benchmark  OI  across  units/departments.Skerlavaj, Song, & Lee (2010)Korea: To test a model of innovativeness improvement based on the impact of organizational learning culture.The results show that OLC has a very strong positive direct effect on innovations as well as moderate positive indirect impact via innovative culture.There is a sub-
stantial consensus today that a key competitive advantage of orga-
nizations lies in their ability to learn and to be responsive to
challenges from both internal and external business environments
(�kerlavaj et al., 2007). Clearly, more attention has to be paid to
developing an organizational learning culture in order to improve
organizational innovativeness. This can be achieved by cultivating
an environment in which the employees can and should continu-
ally learn and share their knowledge. One practical implication of
this thinking is that investing effort, time and money into initia-
tives aimed at developing a learning-oriented culture can bring
about augmented innovativeness within modern organizations.
Korea is no exception to this �nding. Since the severe economic cri-
sis in 1997,most of Korean organizations havemore focused on the
organizational innovation in terms of structural innovation, pro-
cess innovation, and so on (Lim & Kah, 2004). This research would
provide theoretically acceptable, which is also practically applica-
ble, �ow-map for building strategic organizational innovation-re-
lated initiatives for Korean (and other) organizations.
The focus of learning-oriented culture in organizational innova-
tion must meet the dynamic requirements of the workplace, some
of which cannot be anticipated. Thus the organizational learning
culture must be �exible in that it entertains further changes in
workplace demands, that learning support is updated in a timely
manner, and that it helps employees in organization adapt them-
selves in substantial change of external environment. New princi-
ples introduced in the organizational learning culture should be
conditioned with advisement that they might be superseded in
the future by the unanticipated changes in workplace demands. Employees in �exible organizational leaning culture should be ad-
vised that changes in economic, political, and corporate structures
could signi�cantly alter the way of innovation in the workplace
and might be required to change the fundamental process by
which work is done and prepare for a new career.Lau & Ngo (2004)Hong Kong: Testing whether an HR system which emphasizes extensive training, performance-based reward, and team development is necessary to create an organizational culture that is conducive to product innovation.Organizational culture acted as a mediator between a �rm s HR system and product innovation.For practitioners, the current study points out that a simple relationship between HR systems or organizational culture and innovation outcomes should not be assumed. An
innovation-oriented HR systemhas to rely on an appropriate organizational culture in order to have impacts on innovation. HR system alone may not be able to elicit innovation
performance. Thus, the need to build up shared schemas and mindsets around innovation in organizations is critical for newproduct development.More emphasis could also be given to
the �t of this type of culture with HR system in order to develop an effective organization.Engelen et al (2013)Austria, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, US, Argentina, China: This study seeks to determine how specific transformational-leader behaviors influence the firm's innovation orientation and how national culture moderates this relationship.Findings reveal that six transformational-leader behaviors (articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, accepting group goals, having high performance expectations, providing individualized support, and providing intellectual stimulation) positively influence innovation orientation but with differing levels of intensity. Only two of these relationships, �providing an appropriate model� and �accepting group goals,� are culturally independent, while the other behaviors' effects tend to be culturally dependent.Since top management's transformational leadership has a generally positive influence on innovation orientation, it should be
prepared to apply a transformational leadership style when a company aspires to establish an innovation orientation.
The moderating results of culture provide insight into the transformational-leader behaviors that must be adapted to the
cultural setting in order to strengthen the positive effect on innovation orientation. The results suggest that transformational
leaders in individualist cultures who wish to increase their firms' innovation orientation should focus on articulating a vision,
having high performance expectations, and providing individualized support, while eschewing intellectual stimulation. Leaders in
high power-distance cultures should pursue intellectual stimulation and individualized support but avoid high performance
expectations. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, high performance expectations appear to be productive, while
intellectual stimulation does not.
Transformational leaders can use the appropriate transformational-leader behavior for their national cultural setting to
cultivate innovation, thereby enhancing the firm's competitive advantage and helping to sustain long-term success. Our findings
are also in line with some anecdotes from prominent companies. A major finding of this study is that articulating a vision is
particularly important for fostering innovativeness in individualist countries. Somemajor innovative firms in the United States, as
probably the most individualist country in the world, excel (according to business press) in having a strong vision. For example,
Apple's vision to �simplify the world� and Google's vision to �make all information accessible worldwide� speak for a strong vision
as a facet of transformational leadership.
In expert interviews with respondents in our sample, we acquired additional insight into how to implement specific leader
behaviors. A representative in a company in Germany, a comparatively individualist country with low power distance and a
medium level of uncertainty avoidance, told us that providing individualized support in the form of regular coaching with
superiors and regular training is an important way to become more innovative in this context.Baer & Frese (2003)Germany: Process innovations, de�ned as deliberate and new organizational attempts to change production and service processes, need to be accompanied by climates (climate for initiative and psychological safety) that complement the adoption and implementation of such innovations.Climates for initiative and psychological safety were positively related to two measures of �rm performance longitudinal change in return on assets (holding prior return on assets constant) and �rm goal achievement and moderated the relation between process innovations and �rm performance.Given the consistent interactions between the process innovations and the climate factors, we would
argue that systematic efforts to enhance climates for initiative and safety is especially important to
companies that want to introduce a process innovation. The idea that to remain competitive, process
innovation is essential a common idea in management needs to be seriously modi�ed. Effective
process innovation can only be achieved if strong climates for initiative and psychological safety exist
in the company.
Climates for initiative and psychological safety are also important to increase company performance
irrespective of the degree of change in process innovations and they may themselves also lead to a
higher degree of innovativeness by a �rm. Therefore, we think that the centerpiece of any change pro-
cess in companies should be to increase climate factors such as psychological safety and initiative
before larger changes and innovations are tackled. Another implication of this study refers to change
management. Change processes have often been described as suffering under resistance to change
(Coch & French, 1948; French & Bell, 1995). The change processes that appear when process innova-
tion is introduced require not only no resistance to change, but an active, initiating approach to deal
with problems of implementation. Therefore, our results suggest that climates for initiative and psy-
chological safety should be incorporated into conceptualizations of change management processes.Gajendran & Joshi (2012)US: Drawing on leader�member exchange (LMX) theory, it is proposed that for distributed teams, LMX and communication frequency jointly shape member influence on team decisions wherein the latter affects team innovation.LMX can enhance member influence on team decisions when it is sustained through frequent leader-member communication. This joint effect is strengthened as team dispersion increases. At the team level, member influence on team decisions has a positive effect on team innovation.Leaders of globally distributed teams charged with delivering
innovative products and services have to grapple with the chal-
lenges of distance, diversity, and technology that threaten to frag-
ment the team. Our study identifies two specific levers that such
leaders can use to bring members together and spur team innova-
tion�a relationship-based leadership approach in the form of
LMX in combination with frequent leader�member communica-
tion. Organizations can maximize the innovation capability of
distributed teams by providing LMX training for team leaders
following the prescriptions of the �leadership-making model�
(Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995), which emphasizes the importance of
leaders making LMX partnership offers to all team members.
Moreover, because leaders� spatial distance from followers can
translate into psychological distance, for distributed team members out of sight could mean out of the leader�s mind (Antonakis &
Atwater, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Therefore, LMX
training should also emphasize the importance of regular and
predictable leader�member communication to maximize LMX�s
impact on member influence on team decisions.
Finally, to accelerate the development of LMX with distant team
members, teams should be composed of members whose past
performance provides a clear signal of their expertise. This engen-
ders �swift trust� between leaders and members (Meyerson, We-
ick, & Kramer, 1996; see also Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), which
creates positive performance expectations and promotes ongoing
cycles of leader delegation followed by member task performance,
a process critical for LMX development over time (Bauer, Er-
dogan, Liden, & Wayne, 2006; Bauer & Green, 1996; Nahrgang,
Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009). In conclusion, this study contributes to a sparse body of research
in the area of globally distributed teams conducted in organiza-
tional settings. Drawing on LMX theory, it highlights the often-
neglected role of leaders in distributed work settings. Findings
underscore the importance of both communication quality and
quantity of leader�member exchanges for enabling member influ-
ence on team decisions in distributed settings. Further, at the team
level, member influence on team decisions is positively linked to
team innovation.Chen et al (2013)China: Integrating theories of proactive motivation, team innovation climate, and motivation in teams, the paper has tested a multilevel model of motivators of innovative performance in teams.Team-level support for innovation climate captured motivational mechanisms that mediated between transformational leadership and team innovative performance, whereas members� motivational states (role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation) mediated between proactive personality and individual innovative performance. Furthermore, individual motivational states and team support for innovation climate uniquely promoted individual innovative performance, and, in turn, individual innovative performance linked team support for innovation climate to team innovative performance.Our study also illuminates tangible approaches that leaders can
adopt to enhance team members� individual and collective moti-
vation to innovate. Namely, leaders should engage in transforma-
tional behaviors to foster a climate that facilitates innovation at the
team-level as well as motivates individual members to contribute
innovatively to their teams. Findings also showed that members
higher on proactive personality are more motivated to innovate, in
part because they have greater role-breadth self-efficacy and are
more intrinsically motivated. As such, identifying members with
higher proactive personality can also enhance innovativeness in
teams. Lastly, findings highlight the benefit of attending to indi-
vidual contributions and team factors when managing team-level
innovation. Evidence suggests team innovation is dually impacted
by team processes and aggregated performance of individual mem-\ bers. Consequently, team leaders should focus on motivating
members both personally (i.e., individually) and collectively (i.e.,
as a team). To do so, our findings suggest that they should engage
in transformational leadership behaviors and ensure their teams are
staffed with proactive members.Cooke & Saini (2010)India: This paper investigates how human resources are managed in �rms of different ownership forms in India and the extent to which strategic human resource management (hereafter strategic HRM) techniques have been adopted to support an innovation-oriented business strategy.It reveals the extent to which the Western approach to and con�guration of high-commitment/performance models of HR practices may differ from those found in Indian �rms. In particular, learning and development, employee involvement and quality initiatives, performance management schemes, and employee welfare and engagement schemes were the most commonly reported HR practices.This study also has a number of practical 
implications for HR professionals and orga-
nizations in the Indian and global contexts. 
First, while firms may be more proactive and 
innovative in their business strategy, their 
HR strategy is often lagging behind in sup-
porting the strategic development of the 
former. As shown in this study, innovation-
oriented Indian firms are adopting certain 
high-commitment/performance HRM prac-
tices consciously to support their business 
strategy. But not all of them have managed 
to do so in a strategic way. Some firms may 
be adopting Western HRM practices to be 
seen as progressive, modern, and innovative 
but do so without examining the utility of 
these practices to their firm. Firms therefore 
need to develop their HR competence, de-
sign HR policies and practices that are suit-
able to their firm, and raise the strategic role of the HR function to develop and harness 
their employees� creativity. 
Second, this study reveals a mismatch 
between the HR practices firms adopted and 
those employees desire if the level of em-
ployee engagement and creativity is to be 
maximized. The most fundamental differ-
ence is manifested, perhaps, in the short-
term performance-oriented HR strategy firms 
pursue and employees� desire for more hu-
manistic HRM practices, although the two 
orientations may share certain common as-
pects. On the one hand, HRM practices that 
firms adopt are largely organizational goal-
driven and control-oriented. HRM practices 
are used to �better control the employees� 
and to �align the individuals� goals with that of the company,� as reported by informants. 
It is worth noting that Japanese-style quality 
management techniques appear to be highly 
popular among Indian firms; a large propor-
tion of managers reported having adopted 
some form of quality initiatives. In pursuing 
greater efficiency, employee involvement has 
been implemented primarily in the form of 
suggestion schemes that mainly benefit the 
company and not necessarily the well-being 
of the workforce. There is little real empower-
ment of employees and their participation in 
decision making. Autonomy is allowed, but 
�quality is the main determinant� and �as 
long as it aligns with business goals,� as re-
ported by informants. On the other hand, 
employees and managers interviewed de-
mand more empowerment, autonomy, de- mocracy, fairness, and return (both financial 
and psychological) from the company in ex-
change for their efforts. This is indicative of 
the changing cultural values in Indian soci-
ety, that has traditionally emphasized social 
hierarchy and obedience. This suggests that 
firms need to adjust their management ap-
proach to reflect the changing culture. How 
to align employee outcomes with organiza-
tional outcomes is therefore a key issue. 
A third implication is that while the 
causes of ineffectiveness in implementing HR 
initiatives are often generic and have been 
identified by studies located in the Western 
context, some of the causes may be unique to 
the Indian context and specific to the public 
sector. State-owned companies, particularly 
those in a monopoly position, appear to be 
more bound by organizational inertia and, 
taken together with their monopoly position, 
lead to the lower levels of HR effectiveness and customer-oriented innovations. These 
institutional characteristics appear to be com-
mon in emerging economies (e.g., Boisot & 
Child, 1996; Peng et al., 2004; Shenkar & Von 
Glinow, 1994; Tan, 2002).
Fourth, firms seem to be more likely to 
initiate product innovations and production 
process innovations but appear to be less pro-
active in developing business process innova-
tions and customer service innovations. This 
is at least the case in the companies in our 
study, the majority of which are involved in manufacturing/engineering activities as part 
of their business. Yet, business process and 
customer services innovations are not only 
less constrained by the firm�s technological 
path and therefore arguably easier to imple-
ment than product and production process 
innovations in the manufacturing environ-
ment, but also crucial in today�s competitive 
environment, as cogently argued by Prahalad 
and Krishnan (2008).Wang et al (2010)China: To examine how different dimensions of organizational culture present conditions in which capital investments, including R&D spending and employee education level, may be more (or less) effective in fostering innovation.Chinese manufacturers with cultures emphasizing innovation and teamwork more effectively use �nancial resources in the innovation process. Findings also demonstrate that the impact of education on innovation is greater with low stability and high teamwork and innovation orientations. Results also indicate that a culture emphasizing outcomes and stability leads to lower levels of innovation irrespective of �nancial and human resources invested. Finally, the study found a negative curvilinear interaction between R&D spending and outcome orientation on innovation.Our study�s findings suggest that increasing 
financial input is only one aspect of facilitat-
ing innovation in Chinese firms; social con-
text should also be considered. This finding 
has significant implications for firms that 
pursue innovation, particularly small and 
medium-sized Chinese firms constrained by 
financial resources. Rather than worrying about how to increase financial inputs, these 
firms might do well to shift their focus to 
building a culture that helps maximize re-
sources currently available. Creating the right 
culture for innovation will also give the firm 
a competitive advantage that is difficult for 
competitors to imitate given its intangible 
nature (Barney & Wright, 1998).
Firms that wish to develop and intro-
duce new products and services need to ad-
vocate novel thinking and teamwork, de-
emphasize the value of stability, and avoid 
placing excessive emphasis on outcomes. 
An emphasis on collaboration and tolerance 
for uncertainty and the unfamiliar are nec-
essary for corporate entrepreneurship and 
innovation to flourish. Managers play a cru-
cial role in communicating the importance 
of these values in their firms. For example, they can encourage employees to experi-
ment with innovative ideas by altering the 
organizational structure to be more flexible 
and less resistant to change and facilitate 
knowledge exchange and combination (cf. 
Hornsby et al., 2002). Recognizing employee 
efforts and encouraging people to think 
�outside the box� to get results�without 
the fear of being penalized if an idea ulti-
mately fails�can also be helpful in foster-
ing a culture of innovation and discourag-
ing a norm of stability. We caution that in 
an uncertainty-avoiding society such as 
China (Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004), it 
may be more difficult to engage individuals 
in championing the role of innovation. It 
will be important, therefore, for top man-
agement to empower middle- and lower-
level managers to become innovation cham- pions. In addition, to the extent that firms 
can facilitate culture building or organiza-
tional change through staffing and career 
development systems, it will likely be easier 
for them to build and sustain a culture for 
innovation.
Finally, while cultures of innovation are 
known to value risk taking (Jassawalla & 
Sashittal, 2002), our findings suggest that a 
culture that has too much of an outcome 
orientation may result in a limited number 
of innovations. An outcome orientation 
may therefore be a more effective cultural norm when complemented with the assur-
ance that the firm also values and rewards 
contributions made in earlier stages of the 
innovation process. This combined focus 
on both innovation outcomes and innova-
tive behavior could perhaps ease some of 
the personal risks (real or perceived) that 
employees associate with organizational in-
novation. It is also important that managers 
clearly communicate to employees how 
their performance will be evaluated and 
whether or how innovation failure would 
be factored into this evaluation. To this end, 
practitioners should consider developing an 
incentive system that refrains from penal-
izing employees solely for failures, as doing 
so will help foster a culture of corporate en-
trepreneurship and innovation. By reward- ing innovative ideas and behaviors, firms 
may also reduce the likelihood of their cul-
ture�s being perceived as highly outcome 
oriented.Li, Zhao, & Liu (2006)China: The study aims to investigate the effects of main dimensions of HRM on technological innovation as well as organizational performance.Employee training, immaterial motivation and process control have positive effects on technological innovation, while material motivation and outcome control have a negative in�uence on technological innovation. Also, technological innovation is positively related with performance.All of the above �ndings have useful implications for the managers in Chinese
high-tech �rms. First, our study suggests that professional employee training can
develop employees  knowledge. Therefore, the top managers of the high-tech �rms
should further improve employee training so as to promote the �rms  technological
innovation. Thus, professional employee training will result in the advancement of a
�rm s competitive advantage and performance.
Second, the research results suggest that material incentives are negatively related
to technological innovation and that there is a positive relationship between
non-material incentives and technological innovation. The above two results also
imply that material incentives are perhaps needed for employees, but they can not
become the main means of promoting technological innovation in Chinese high-tech
�rms. The top managers of Chinese high-tech �rms should focus more on providing
non-material incentives to continuously improve the effect of technological innovation.
From the research results related to the relationship between the incentive and the
control, process appraisal and control should be emphasized more than outcome
appraisal and control in order to improve the technological innovation. In particular,
through the improvement of process appraisal and control, �rms may excel in new
product development or new production methods. This can improve �rm s competitive
advantage.Paulsen et al (2009)Australia: This study seeks to investigate the effects of the charismatic dimension of transformational leadership on team processes and innovative outcomes in research and development (R&D) teams.Charismatic leaders promote team innovation by supporting a sense of team identity and commitment, and encourage team members to cooperate through the expression of ideas and participation in decisions.The managerial implications are that successful team
leaders who employ a more charismatic style can inspire and motivate team members
to perform at their best (Shamir et al., 1993). This style of leadership in particular sets a
clear direction and purpose for followers, and these leaders work on establishing an
environment of mutual trust and respect in which members value their team
membership (Paul et al., 2001; Avolio and Bass, 2004). Most signi�cantly, this type of
leader seems to raise the chances of facilitating cooperative team behaviours that
promote innovation even during a very challenging period of major restructuring.
Leaders in a R&D environment therefore need to be aware of the importance of
effective group processes, and need to be active in promoting effective communication
and discussion. Charismatic leaders through their position and style seem to have more
in�uence in determining that their team processes will be translated into more
innovative outcomes.Paulsen et al (2013)Australia: This study seeks to study how transformational leaders in�uence R&D team outcomes around being more innovative. In particular, the study aims to focus on the role of group identi�cation in mediating innovative outcomes.Results revealed that group identi�cation and perceived support for creativity exerted equal independent effects in fully mediating the relationship between transformational leadership and team innovation.Our �ndings point to how this style of leadership in�uences team climate and
identi�cation, and in turn innovation. Signi�cantly, these preliminary �ndings in the
context of scienti�c R&D teams add further support to calls for managers to adopt
more transformational styles of leadership during periods of organisational change.
Such styles do produce better outcomes, both for the organisation around more
innovative products and processes, but also for team members who get to enjoy more
creative and rewarding team environments despite the demands of operating in highly
competitive and often turbulent work environments. As noted by Callan et al.(2004),
leaders today need to be skilled not only at disturbing the organisational system, but
also in operating effectively in systems that are disturbed and in states of major
change. The current study shows that leaders who encourage employees to identify
with their team, and who build a positive team climate, not only support sustained
creativity and innovation, but possibly encourage employees to capitalize on the
opportunities presented by major change.Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag (2010)Germany: This study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of how transformational leadership relates to followers� innovation implementation behavior, the psychological mechanisms of this relationship, and the role of individual perceptions of climate for initiative.Transformational leadership was strongly related to followers� innovation implementation behavior and that the nature of this relationship was moderated by followers� levels of perceived climate for initiative. Additionally, commitment to change fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and followers� innovation implementation behavior.Given the consistent interactions between transformational leadership and perceived
climate for initiative, we argue that systematic efforts to enhance individual
perceptions of a climate for initiative is particularly important to companies that want
to promote followers� innovation implementation behavior. Being aware of moderators
helps managers to identify the organizational contexts in which transformational
leadership is most likely to enhance innovation implementation behavior, and those in
which such enhancement is unlikely to occur. Moderators who enhance innovation
implementation behavior, such as a perceived climate for initiative, should be
promoted by integrating them into organizations� reward systems. Our results also
suggest that companies should invest in transformational leadership training and in
the selection of supervisors with this leadership style before initiating the
implementation of innovations. Research indicates that at least some of these
transformational leadership behaviors are trainable (e. g. Barling et al., 1996). By
training idealized in�uence and inspirational motivation, leaders improve their ability
to articulate a vision and to become more effective role models (Aiken andWest, 1991).
More speci�cally, by training leaders  capability to provide role models in terms of using innovations and demonstrating the value of these innovations, leaders are most
likely to maximize followers� commitment to change, which in turn leads to innovation
implementation behavior.
In addition, by showing commitment to change as a mediator, our �ndings indicate
that managers need to consider the mechanisms by which transformational leadership
is related to followers  innovation implementation behavior. This may lead to a better
ability to guide transformational leader behaviors to proper psychological processes,
resulting in higher levels of innovation implementation behavior. In sum, enhancing
supervisors  transformational leadership and an organizations  climate for initiative
represent dif�cult but important steps toward helping managers to lead their
employees effectively through change initiatives and reducing the likelihood of
innovation implementation failure.Uzkurt et al (2013)Turkey: This study seeks to examine the mediating role of innovation on the relationship between organizational culture and firm performance.The findings reveal that in the banking sector, although organizational culture and innovation have a direct and positive effect on the firm performance dimensions, organizational culture was found to have an insignificant regression coefficient on the dimensions of firm performance in the presence of organizational innovations.This study allows us to make important managerial recommendations for improving
firm performance as well as organizational innovations. Managers can harness the
positive impacts of the relationship we concluded exists between organizational
culture and innovations. Managers work hard to increase innovations of all types and
at various levels in their organizations. We can now say that the generation of
innovations can be impacted by fostering the right organizational culture. Results from
the survey used in our study indicate it is possible to instill an innovative
organizational culture with active encouragement and support from managers.
An innovative organizational culture is open to the risks and opportunities of
innovations and new ideas. An organization which recognizes and nurtures the
uniqueness of its employees and empowers the managers to follow their vision will
have an innovative culture. The existence of such climates and culture will motivate
and support innovation in business.
An informal review of popular writings and discussions on culture among
managers indicated some generally utilized mechanisms and actions which are
believed to encourage an innovative culture. One idea is that leaders and managers
should motivate the employees to create new ideas and reward them when necessary;
they can also establish an environment where new ideas are openly and freely shared.
Another idea deals with communication which should be open and horizontal rather
than vertical, and, cross-departmental integration in addition to within departments. All members of the organization can participate in the innovation activities and there
should be easy ways to utilize innovation sources outside the organization through
customers, competitors, and research institutions rather than relying on only internal
sources.
Our findings provide useful insights for organizations, particularly in the banking
industry, seeking to be competitive and responsive to environmental changes by
successfully introducing innovations. The banking sector faces several environmental
and regulation changes particularly in recent years. The banking industry operates in
a very competitive environment and as a result, innovations are very useful for flexible
and just-in-time responses to competitive challenges. Traditionally, the banking
industry has been more focussed toward quantitative and technology mechanisms and
organizational culture has not been very highly prioritized. Results of this study
indicate that they will benefit from a focus on fostering an innovative, open, and risk
supporting organizational culture.
Our study utilized data from Turkey and this provided us with unique inroads into
understanding important aspects of Turkish organizational environments. Turkey has
a very dynamically changing and improving corporate climate and there is much
realization that they have to compete in the global arena for rapid growth. Perhaps due
to this, professional management and encouragement of innovations has been a top
agenda item for the government as well as the civic community in general. The
challenge here is that Turkey as a nation scored low on individualism, high on Hofstede�s dimension of power distance, and high on his dimension of uncertainty
avoidance (Hofstede, 1991). Turkey has historically had a collective or group-oriented
business culture and decisions are often made based on what is best for the group.
As a population, those with high uncertainty avoidance score do not deal well with uncertain situations and avoid those kinds of situation where changes, uncertainties,
and new ideas are adopted. Cultures with high power distance tend to not be open and
sharing of ideas and empowerment of employees is not the norm. Taken together, these
insights into the Turkish culture paint the Turkish business person as typically
uncomfortable with innovations, having a social distance from superiors in
hierarchical structures, and tending to think collectively. As a result, the Turkish
manager would find it challenging to foster innovations and mechanisms to help
would enhance business performance. Thus, mechanisms to foster and nurture
an innovative organizational culture as suggested from our study would go a long way
in helping Turkish organizations stay competitive and enhance performance.Rousseau, Aube, & Tremblay (2013)Canada: This study aims to examine the role of team coaching in regard to team innovation by considering motivational and behavioral intervening mechanisms.Results of structural equation modeling analyses indicate that the relationship between team coaching and team innovation is mediated by team goal commitment and support for innovation. Specifically, team coaching has a direct effect on support for innovation and an indirect effect on this behavioral team process through team goal commitment. In turn, support for innovation may improve the implementation of successful team innovation.Our findings have important practical implications regarding innovation in
workplaces and leader practices. In a global competitive context, innovations in the
workplace represent the springboard for competitive advantage (Bowen et al., 2010).
This study examined specifically team leader behaviors and intervening mechanisms
in order to help to understand why some teams succeed and others fail in developing
and implementing innovations. In this study, we focussed on team coaching as a
leadership style that encompasses such behaviors as setting clear expectations,
providing recognition, identifying team weaknesses, giving suggestions, and stimulating
problem solving. These behaviors are tightly linked, which implies that team leadersmay
more effectively coach their team members by engaging in all of these behaviors. In other
words, used in combination, team coaching behaviors can help teammembers to improve
their capabilities to achieve higher results. Our findings show that team leaders who
actively coach their team members in their day-to-day interactions may trigger
motivational and behavioral levers to increase team innovation. In addition, given the changing demands faced by organizations, employee
development is critical for enabling an adaptable workforce (Brown and Sitzmann, 2010).
In this context, coaching represents a core managerial activity that team leaders need
to assume in addition to their other managerial responsibilities. Indeed, managerial coaching represents a workplace learning strategy considering that leaders have to
interact frequently with their subordinates (Ellinger et al., 2011a, b). Moreover, as
stated by Liu and Batt (2010), �coaching has advantages over formal training because
it is considerably less expensive and more closely fits the current need for ongoing
learning and continuous improvement in the context of firm-specific workplace processes
and technologies� (p. 266). Being responsible for evaluating employee performance, team
leaders may integrate a coaching approach to help their team members to enhance their
results through customized developmental interventions to improve ways of doing within
work teams, which may stimulate innovation within their work teams.
By showing a positive relationship between team coaching and team innovation,
our findings suggest that organizations may gain advantage by establishing systems
that promote and reward coaching behavior. Given that team coaching behaviors can
be learned (Grant and Cavanagh, 2007; McLean et al., 2005), team coaching may be
enhanced by helping team leaders to acquire coaching skills through training.
Furthermore, in order to create an environment conducive to coaching, the performance
appraisal system needs to value team leaders who contribute to the development of their
team members� capabilities by actively engaging in coaching. Ultimately, to increase
innovation in organizational settings, team leaders need to be aware that their behaviors
may foster (or hinder) their team members� willingness to innovate.Vaccaro et al (2012)Netherlands: This study seeks to focus on management innovation at the organization level and investigate the role of leadership behaviour as a key antecedent.Transformational leadership contributes to management innovation; transactional leaders do contribute to lowering potential barriers associated with management innovation; While both types of leadership behaviour are relevant for management innovation, smaller, less complex, organizations bene�t more from transactional leadership while larger organizations need to draw on transformational leaders to compensate for their complexity and allow management innovation to �ourish.Our research �ndings provide evidence that transformational leadership contributes
to management innovation. Transformational leaders who inspire team success and
develop trusting and respecting relationships based on common goals enable organiza-
tions to pursue changes in management practices, processes, or structures. They consider
organizational members individually and generate greater predisposition to experiment
with changing organizational tasks, functions, and procedures.Moreover, they may even
promote organizational members to rethink existing structures and task specialization,
and reconsider new ways for the organization to �get things done�. Their leadership may
also be conducive to making sense of an otherwise ambiguous type of innovation where
goals and outcomes may not be as clear as in the case of, for instance, the development
of a new product through technical innovation. With this prominent role of transforma-
tional leaders, our study contributes to prior studies relating transformational leadership
to performance (Koene et al., 2002; Waldman et al., 2001), creativity (Mumford et al.,
2002), and technical innovation (Jung et al., 2003).We go beyond these previous �ndings
by providing evidence that transformational leadership is conducive to pursuing man- agement innovation.
Although prior studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2003) have suggested that transactional lead-
ership may reduce the ability of organizational members to suggest new ways for
management and facilitate efforts for changing management practices (Amabile, 1998;
Lee, 2008), our study shows that transactional leaders do contribute to lowering potential
barriers associated with management innovation. This suggests, in line with Vera and Crossan (2004), that transactional leadership may be helpful in the implementation
phase of management innovation � inducing organizational members to attempt to meet
targets not only by means of tried and trusted management methods, but also by setting
targets and rewarding organizational members contingent upon the attainment of goals
associated with management innovation. In this sense, management innovation may be
generated and directed from the upper-echelon in organizations while the implementa-
tion of certain management innovations may be monitored and rewarded accordingly to
pre-established goals. Alternatively, the relationship between transactional leadership
and management innovation may also be mediated by trust, which may help employees
cope with the potential uncertainty and complexity of new processes, practices, or
structures. As Avolio et al. (1999) suggested, contingent reward may be the basis through
which expectations by both leaders and followers evolve, and trust is generated as parties
honour their  contracts  over time. The more  contracts  are ful�lled over time, the more
organizational members are rewarded and the more transactional leaders may display
trust in their followers  ambition to generate and implement management innovations.
In this sense, trust mediates the relationship between transactional leadership and management innovation as trust may be translated into increased �freedom� to diverge
from current management and engage in management innovation. Future research is
necessary to understand the emergence and implementation of management innovations
within organizations and uncover the relationship of leadership behaviour, trust, and
management innovation. Our study reveals that transactional leadership is more important in smaller organi-
zations when they want to pursue management innovation. In smaller organizations
�contracts� may be more easily established and monitored, which may presuppose less
room for divergence from the managerial status quo (Bass, 1985). However, this may also
lead to repeated face-to-face interaction between transactional leaders and organiza-
tional members, which can lead to increased trust between the parties and extra effort
in their work (Ehrlich et al., 1990; Shamir, 1995). These arguments could help to explain
why under transactional leadership organizational members �nd the �exibility to
introduce changes conducive to management innovation. Our �ndings can also be
interpreted in light of different phases in the life of organizations.While or^�	
�
�����D
F
OP������ST��XY
a��XZ��fg��jk��hi����bc��j��X���������������������������������������������������������������������h�j�h�j�CJaJh�d^h�j�CJaJhfL�5�CJaJhfL�hfL�CJaJh�CJaJh��CJaJhiICJaJhfL�CJaJG��b"l#m#^)�0�0K5�6�7�=�=8L9LES�Z�f�l�z�z�z����������������������	d��gdx�gd�*LgdfL�	d��gdiI	d��gd|�	d��gd�@M	d��gd�j�gd2)XZUV����MN����_`����" $ � � ^!`!�!�!""�"�"##_#`#k#m#�#�#$$h$i$�$�$
%%c%d%�%�%&&S&T&�&�&�&�&C'D'�'(�(�(**X*Y*�*�*�*�*0,2,�,�,�-�-�����������������������������������������������������������������h�@MCJaJh�F�h�@MCJaJh��CJaJh�d^h�j�CJaJh�j�CJaJS�-0.2.�.�.�/�/00_0`0�0�0�0�0Q1R1�1�1�1�1�2�2�2�2(3*383:3�3�394:4y4z4�4�455
55�5677�8�8D9F9�9�97:8:�:�:�:�:;;V;W;�;�;==�=�=�=�=>>yBzBMDND���������������������������������������������������������������������hiICJaJh��hiICJaJh|�CJaJh*	,h|�CJaJh�@MCJaJh�F�h�@MCJaJJND�D�D�D�D"F$F�F�FGG0G2G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G%H&H�H�H�H�H�J�J�K�KLL7L8L9LDSES�W�W�Z�Z�f�f�l�l�p�ptt�v����������������������ǿǿ���������hx�CJaJh��hx�CJaJh�]{CJaJh�]{h�]{CJaJh
=�CJaJh
=�h
=�CJaJh�*LCJaJh�*Lh�*LCJaJhfL�CJaJhfL�hfL�CJaJhiICJaJh|�CJaJh��h|�CJaJ4�v�v�v�v�z�z�z�zZ{[{�{�{:|;|}}D~E~��������0�2�ԃփ>�?�����߄�3�4�����ޅ߅1�2�����Նֆ&�'�O�Q�5�7�9�������������������ø������������������������������h�h�CJaJh�	CJaJh�	h�	CJaJh�D{CJaJh�D{CJaJh�F�h�D{CJaJh��CJaJh�mJh��CJaJhfL�h2)5�CJaJhfL�hx�CJaJh��hx�CJaJhx�CJaJ4�z�|�~��P�Q�7�:�������4��-���������3�4�Q������������������������	d��gdMD+	d��gde�gdA{Ggd2)	d��gd��9�:���������������c�e�f�g�������������������3�4�
��,�-�j�k�/�0�����"�#��������ǿ������������������{sh`h`h`h`he�CJaJh�E�he�CJaJh�]{CJaJh�]{h�]{CJaJh
=�CJaJh
=�h
=�CJaJh)[|CJaJh)[|h)[|CJaJhA{GCJaJhA{GhA{GCJaJh�*LCJaJh�*Lh�*LCJaJh.CJaJh.h.CJaJhfL�CJaJhfL�hfL�CJaJh�CJaJ%#�_�`�����ٸڸ��S�T�����չֹ��M�N�������������-�.�������,�-�m�n���������C�D���@�A�þľ����W�X���^�_�������"�#�b�c�����$�%�e�f�%�&�h�i���������������������������������������������������������h�F�hMD+CJaJhMD+CJaJh�(CJaJhe�CJaJh�E�he�CJaJS�T�U�������Q�R�^�`�������@�B�����������2�3�4�Q���������U�V�����������r�t�v�����������r�t�F�H�
��n�p�����H�J�����������4�6�����������������������������ƾ��������������������������hEceh��CJaJh��CJaJh|0�CJaJhEceh|0�CJaJhfL�hfL�5�CJaJhe�CJaJhMD+CJaJh�F�hMD+CJaJCQ�t�v���6�8�/�Z�[�����v�z�����������l�m���������������������������	d��gd`�	d��gdy^�	d��gd�k	d��gd��	d��gd|0�6�8���������/�0�c�d�����^�_�����#�$�U�V���������������Q�R���������K�L�Y�[�����	�
�����l�n�������v�x���������n�p�������>�?���������1�2�{�|�����(�*�����r�t�����������������������������������������������������������������hEceh|0�CJaJh|0�CJaJhEceh�kCJaJh�kCJaJV�B�D�����R�T�����`�b���W�X���������Q�R��������R�S���������L�M�����P�Q���������G�H���������a�b�����3�4�j�m�B�C�����O�P�jk��	\]����DE�����������������������������������������������������������������������������h`�CJaJhVSh`�CJaJhy^�CJaJhEcehy^�CJaJh|0�CJaJhEceh|0�CJaJN�9:��67����EF��67����12~������fh		r	t	4
6
�
�
�
�
8:TV��JL��T
V
�
�
VX^`��fhxz��`b��/0UV������������������������������������������������������������������������������h?9�CJaJh�qh?9�CJaJh`�CJaJhVSh`�CJaJV�������v)�/�/�4�:�:�;]<�<g=�=?�@�D1F`H����������������������	d��gd!�	d��gd(L�	d��gd�@M	d��gd�U�	d��gd?9�	d��gd`����78����12����()}~����01����^_��
bc��`a��
ef��VW����IJ����>?����EF����+,{|��������������������������������������������������h�@MCJaJh�d^h�@MCJaJh�U�CJaJh�d^h�U�CJaJV�  ! x y � � !!a!b!�!�!""U"V"y"z"�"�"
##`#a#�#�#$$X$Y$�$�$%%X%Y%�%�%�%�%&
&[&\&�&�&''_'`'�'�'((U(V(�(�(�(�(")#)�)�)**l*m*�*�*	+
+Z+[+�+�+,,W,X,�,�,--W-X-�-�-�-�-H.I.�.�.������������������������������������������������h�@MCJaJh�d^h�@MCJaJ^�.�.�.7/8/�/0�0�0>1@1�1�1�2�2,3.3�3�344f4g4	5
5Z56�6�6N7P7�7�7�8�8@9B9�9�9�:�:�:�:�<�<>>�?�?�B�B�C�CEEH	H�H�HDIEI�K�K�N�N�Q�QiUjU4V5VjWkWYY������������������������������������������������������������������������h!�h!�CJaJh�E�h!�CJaJh(L�CJaJh�1�h(L�CJaJh�@MCJaJh�d^h�@MCJaJJ`H�H�HI�IJ�JK�K(L<M�M<NGO�OMP�PXQUR�R[S�S`T�T�U�WX�X
Y����������������������������	d��gd!�
YY�`�`tf�fzg�g�i�i�l�l�sb{d{����������=�>�ǝ5�������������������������gdx�	d��gd��	d��gd�y�	d��gd�	d��gde�YqYrY�Y�YxZzZ2[4[\\$\&\�\�\�]�]�^�^_	_g_h_0`1`�`�`uava�a�acbdb�b�bfcgc�c�cadbd�d�d�d�dueve�e�e(h)h�h�hii�i�i�i�iJjKj�j�j�j�j�j�jNkOk�k�k�k�k�k�kll�l�l�m�m4n5nxnyn�n�n����������������������������������������������������������h�CJaJh{Fvh�CJaJhe�CJaJh�E�he�CJaJV�n�n�n}o~oppxpzp�q�q�r�rttuu�u�uvv�v�vx
x�x�x�xyz
z�z�z�z{`{d{�{|B|C|�|�|(})}�}�}�}�}e~f~�~�~�~�~yz��������0�1�������s�t�������\�^��������������������������������������������������������������h��CJaJhH�h��CJaJh�y�CJaJh{Fvh�y�CJaJh�CJaJh{Fvh�CJaJN^�ƄȄ:�<������
�|�~������� �"���������\�^�ƈȈ:�<�����x�z�֊؊:�<�����
��z�|������/�0�n�o���������=�>�����ĔŔ�	�L�M�����ەܕ��<���������������������������������������ʿ������������h��h��CJaJh�A�h�A�CJaJh�y�CJaJh�y�CJaJhH�h�y�CJaJh��CJaJh��CJaJhH�h��CJaJE<�=�>�Ɲǝ��4�5���ֱױ����/�0�P�Q�?�@�/�0�����o�p�[�\���������P�R�=��������ʿ������������������~�~�~sk`hA{GhA{GCJaJh�;CJaJh�;h�;CJaJh)[|CJaJh)[|h)[|CJaJh
=�CJaJh
=�h
=�CJaJh�]{CJaJh�]{h�]{CJaJhL]�CJaJhL]�hL]�CJaJhx�CJaJhx�hx�CJaJhiICJaJhiIhiICJaJh��CJaJh�A�CJaJ#5��ױ��0�Q�������p�\�����R�
8t�S#k#�(�,(1	7�������������������������gd��gd�g�$a$gd�{gd2)gdA{Ggd
=�=�>�|�}�����?�@���s�t�������/�0�������������p�q�?�@�l�m�����q�r�����()��-.78��,-����WX����*+-	.	

%Jh��78
������������������������������������������������������������������ʿݿh.h.CJaJh.CJaJhfL�hfL�CJaJhfL�CJaJh9?�CJaJhA{GhA{GCJaJhA{GCJaJK
@DLMRSXYastz3��9FJ��mnB!�!"S#]#����ɽɽս�ձ�����t�titi^i^Rh�pCh��5�CJaJh�pCh��CJaJh�pCh��CJaJh�pChM5CJaJh�pCh�g�5�>*CJaJh�pCh�g�CJaJh�pCh�1CJaJh�pCh�15�>*CJaJh�pCh�"b5�CJaJh�pCh�d�5�CJaJh�pCh�*5�CJaJh�pCh�j�5�CJaJh�pCh�{5�CJaJh2)h2)CJaJh.CJaJ]#^#k#
&�'�'�(�(�(�(�(C*D*N*h+�+�+�+,,,,,(,.,4,N,},~,�,�,�,�B�B�DEOdO)P�����λλ�٭�ٚƒƄƒv�ƒƚ��ƚ�nf٢�hG:>CJaJh��CJaJ	j��h6�h6�CJaJ	j��h�7�h�7�CJaJh6�CJaJh�pCCJaJh�pCh�pCCJaJ	j��h�pCh�pCCJaJh�pCh�4`CJaJh�7�CJaJh�pCh�7�CJaJh�pCh��CJaJh�pCh��5�CJaJ	j��h�pCh��5�CJaJ%	7�9H=A�B�D�L�P�P�T�ZS\^�dg�i�k�k�k�k�k�k���������������������$d��$Ifa$gd�t�gd�M4gd�{gdG:>gd��)P�P�P�P�P
QGQ�QRR#R%RJRLRgRiR�R�R�R�R S-S�S�S+TIT�TGUjU�UVVpV�VqW�X�Z�Z�Z�Z_[`[�[�[R\S\������������������ԺԺԯԯԤԙԎԎԆ�{�{�{�{�hnDh�M4CJaJh|�CJaJh�Xh�M4CJaJh8&�h�M4CJaJh[X>h�M4CJaJh�Y�h�M4CJaJh�@�h�M4CJaJh�!h�M4CJaJh�M4h�M4CJaJh�2�hG:>5�CJaJh;�CJaJh�2�CJaJhY5�CJaJ-S\y\z\�\�\%]&]t]u]�]�]^^&^.^8^9^:^;^G^e^�^�^�^_�_�_�_`0`Vata�a�ab%bGbYb�b�b�b�b�c�d�d�d
gg�g-h�h�hiiOiPi�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i������������������������������������������������h��h�M4CJaJh�okh�M4CJaJh��h�M4CJaJh`�h�M4CJaJhTJh�M4CJaJh�V�h�M4CJaJh� �h�M4CJaJh�M4CJaJh��h�M4CJaJ?�i�i�i�i�ijjjj,j-jBjCjOjPjYjZjgjhj{j|j�j�j�j�j�j�j�j�j%k6kvkwk�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�mKrLrMrdrer�����������������������ǻ��ǻ�ǬǻǡǬ��hxm�h7 �CJaJh7 �CJaJhX�hGCJaJhxm�hGhGCJaJhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJh;�CJaJhG:>CJaJh^�h�M4CJaJh�M4CJaJh��h�M4CJaJ5�k�k�k�l�mLr]OOOOd��$Ifgd�t��kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGLrMrers@t�w]OOOOd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGerlrsss?t@t�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�w�w�w�w�w�y�y�y�yzz^z_z�z�z�z�z{{{H{P{Q{}|���������������������z�z�z�z�s��f�jhxm�hG0JUhxm�hGhGhGCJaJh?y"hGCJaJhGCJaJhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJhxm�h7 �hX�h7 �CJaJh7 �h7 �CJaJhxm�h7 �CJaJh7 �CJaJhxm�h7 �5�CJaJh@h7 �CJaJh7 �5�CJaJ(�w�w�w�x�y�z{]OOOAAd��$IfgdGd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG{{H{�{}|q�]OOOAd��$Ifgddi�d��$Ifgd�t��kdC$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG}|~|�|�|P}R}!~?~`~~~��p�q�r���������<�������G�H�I�r�}�~���������ی܌݌��������x�y�z�����������ȘɘV�W�X���������������ϼ��Ϥ������ϼ��Ϥ����ϼ�ϑ��ϼϯϑ�����h+bCJaJh+bh+bCJaJh�NbCJaJh�Nbh�NbCJaJjhxm�hG0JUhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGhxm�hGCJaJhdi�hdi�CJaJhdi�CJaJhGhGCJaJhGCJaJ6q�r�����<�S�H�]OOOAAd��$Ifgd�Nbd��$Ifgd�t��kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGH�I�r�
���܌]OOOOd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG܌݌������y�]OOOOd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGy�z�������W�X���]OOOOOOd��$Ifgd�t��kdG$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�������������R�x�y�(�)�*�L�V�W�����������������P�Q�������h�i�j���������������i�?�@���p�q�r�������������㿷������㬨���������㬠�������������㕍��������h�K�CJaJh�K�h�K�CJaJhiCJaJhihihiCJaJhjpCJaJhjphjpCJaJjhxm�hG0JUhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJhxm�hGhxm�h+bCJaJ7������a�R�(�)�]OOOAAd��$Ifgdjpd��$Ifgd�t��kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG)�*�L�6���#���]OOOAAd��$Ifgdid��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�����Q���i�]OOOAd��$Ifgdid��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGi�j���V���]OOOAd��$Ifgd�K�d��$Ifgd�t��kdK$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG���}�i���q�]OOOAAd��$Ifgd�K�d��$Ifgd�t��kd	$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGq�r������d�g���]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�	$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�����������0�1�7�8�J�K�j�k������������������%�&�]�^�������$�%�5�6�M�N�f�g�����������������
����H�I�h�i�q�r�����������#�$�/�0�:�;�V�W�h�i����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������h�CJaJh�h�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJhxm�hGhxm�hG5�CJaJQ�����������Y�����OAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�
$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd���������������������2�3�A�B�b�c�r�s�����������������(�)�S�T�n�o���������6�7�����x�y�������������[�\���������6�7�8�������������������ⷯ�����������������������������������������������������hGCJaJht&,CJaJht&,ht&,CJaJjhxm�hG0JUhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGhxm�hGCJaJh�CJaJh�h�CJaJB��?���K����8�w���y�o�����5��1�p�6�v���t������������������������������������d��$Ifgdt&,�@�A�������*�+�i�j�����"�#���������X�Y������G�H�f�g�|�}�������������M�N�S�T�k�l�����)�*�@�A�����������������*�+�������������Z�[��������N�O���&�'�a�b�����K�L�|�}�����������������������������������������������������h+1CJaJht&,CJaJht&,ht&,CJaJY���������i�����������������O�kdO$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd+1	��������&�'�V�W�z�{�����j�k�����������,�-�7�8�U�V�w�x�����������������G�H�|�}�����D�E�W�X���������������$������������������������U�V������������������������������������ķ�������з�����jhxm�hG0JUhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJhxm�hGhxm�h+1CJaJh+1CJaJh+1h+1CJaJH����m�$�������������A���kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd+1d��$Ifgd�t�����������9���A����kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd+1d��$Ifgd�t����9�����������������������������|�������!"t$%189:#���   "" #!#"###F#O#P#�$�$�$#+$+11151������������������������۶��������۶�����ۮ���������ۣ�����h�V�CJaJh�V�h�V�CJaJhf�CJaJhf�hf�CJaJh��CJaJhxm�hGh��h��CJaJhxm�hGCJaJjhxm�hG0JUhxm�hG5�CJaJ=9�p�������2�������OAAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�
$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd��������C�|���]OOOAAd��$Ifgd��d��$Ifgd�t��kdS$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG���t+e	]OOOAAAd��$Ifgdf�d��$Ifgd�t��kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGe	#U1#���OAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgdf�#�� h ""#�O�����kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd�t�"###F#�$�$1]OOOOd��$Ifgd�t��kdW$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG1151B2!3N3s8]OOOAAd��$Ifgd�V�d��$Ifgd�t��kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG51>1?1A2B2!3�4�4�9�9�>�>*?+?�@�@�@�@�@�@yAzA.CPHQHPLQLRLgLrLsL�N�R�R�T�T�T�T�T�TvUwUXW\
\\)\1\2\�\�\'^l^m^!b"bddd.d2d3d�������������ۮ�����۵��ۮ���ۣ��ۮ�����ۣۮ�����ۣ����ۮ���hY5�CJaJhY5�hY5�CJaJhxm�hGh��h��CJaJh��CJaJh�V�CJaJh�V�h�V�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJjhxm�hG0JUhxm�hG5�CJaJ=s8%?�@�@�@zA.C�C��OAAA�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd���CQLRLgLFM�N�T�OAAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd���T�T�TwUXW�Y
\]OOOAAd��$IfgdY5�d��$Ifgd�t��kd[$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG
\\)\�\'^d]OOOAd��$IfgdY5�d��$Ifgd�t��kd$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGdd.d�d�f5m]OOOAd��$Ifgd�2�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG3d�d�d�f�j�jkk5l6l4m5m6mTmUm\m]m_mnn�oFrGr}r~ruuu?w@wAwUwjwkwYxZx�y�}�}:�;�Z�[�\�p�t�u�'�(�;�^�_�ÐĐŐܐ�������U����������������������������������������������hxm�h��CJaJhGCJaJh��CJaJh��h��CJaJjhxm�hG0JUhxm�hGh�2�CJaJh�2�h�2�CJaJhxm�hG5�CJaJhxm�hGCJaJ=5m6mUmn�ouuUu]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd��d��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGUu@wAwUwZx�y�}���OAAAA�d��$Ifgd�t��kd_$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd����;���[�\�p�(�;����OAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd $$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd��;�J��7�ĐŐܐ������OAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd�����#�V�W�j��ߚ���A����kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd��d��$Ifgd�t�U�V�W�j�t�u���
��������ޚߚ����������N�O�����ҞӞ��\�]�>�?�����ҢӢ��f�g����v�x���������>�@�p�r�t���ħƧ����������ݽ�潲�����������������������������������������Ӕh�]hGCJaJh*	,CJaJh*	,h*	,CJaJhj$:hGCJaJh!�hGCJaJhiP�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhGCJaJhxm�hGhxm�hGCJaJ:ߚ#�g�g����R�ؠd���r�����������d��$Ifgd*	,
r�t���������8���]OOOOAAd��$Ifgd��d��$Ifgd�t��kdc$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG����������������������حڭ1�2�����������������=�>�?�T�^�_�`�:�;�L�����t�v���������,�.�·ķj�k�����@�A������
�U�V�����ٺ���������������������������������������������������͡͡͡�hH�CJaJhk(�hGCJaJjhG0JUhxm�hGh��CJaJh��h��CJaJh!�hGCJaJh�]hGCJaJhGCJaJhG5�CJaJ?��D�ʬP�>�?�T�;�����OAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd$$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd��;�v���(��$�j���������d��$IfgdH�d��$Ifgd��d��$Ifgd�t�ٺں��6�7�x�y�������I�J�����Ͻн���&�4�6�ڿܿ޿������������ �"��������������������d�h���������
��"�$����������������������������˞�������h[,8hGCJaJh~
hGCJaJh�G�hG5�CJaJhH�hH�CJaJh�1�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGhGCJaJh��h��CJaJhH�CJaJ:��&�ܿ���v���]OOOAAAd��$IfgdH�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG��T���������������OAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$IfgdH�$�r�t�����������������������������A�B�H�I���������������x�z�����������k�l�������������V�W�����H�����������������������ퟗ�����������h�$ihGCJaJh�&�hGCJaJh{FvCJaJh{Fvh{FvCJaJh�/�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGhH�CJaJhH�hH�CJaJh>6�hGCJaJhGCJaJh[,8hGCJaJ2��H��������b���2����d���R��������������������d��$IfgdH�������B����C���]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd{Fvd��$Ifgd�t��kdg$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG������y�����A�������������������d��$Ifgd{Fv������W�����A���]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd{Fvd��$Ifgd�t��kd($$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�����I�����
�Q�������������"����������K������v���~�����������������������������d��$Ifgd{FvH�I�*�+�,�=�H�I��������b�d�`�a�
����������z�|�l�m�n���������&�'�e�g�{�|�����;�<�n�o�y�z�u�v�w����������������ӵ�����������ӪӟӟӟӪӪӪӪӪӔ��ӈ��h�hG5�CJaJh�E�h�E�CJaJh�vDhGCJaJh/J�hGCJaJhwehGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhGCJaJhxm�hGh�$ihGCJaJh{Fvh{FvCJaJh{FvCJaJ4~���+�,�=�������OAAA�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd{Fv���h�������m�z����OAAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd{Fvz���m��g��j��\����x���z�������%����v���������������������d��$Ifgd�E�v�w��� f.��]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�E�d��$Ifgd�t��kdk $$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�����h�j����� "VX��df 9=>st�


n
v
�
�
+,�� 289:��CD��op��1��������������Ƚ������٩٩ٽ����������h�hGCJaJh�hG5�CJaJh�E�CJaJh�hG5�CJaJh�T�hGCJaJjhG0JUhxm�hGh�E�h�E�CJaJhG5�CJaJhGCJaJh�hGCJaJ9�~(8����	/
�
�
X��������������d��$Ifgd�E�
 9
,j��]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�E�d��$Ifgd�t��kd,!$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�1q��&c��W�Q���1u��2s��I������������������������������d��$Ifgd�E�H�� 2�����OAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�!$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd�E�2�?��G��
L��O�
R�����������������������d��$Ifgd�E�d��$Ifgd�t�12>?�������!�!"""X"z"|"�"�",#.#�#�#$$g$h$�'�'�*�*�-�-o1p1y3z3!5"5#555<5=52646��������������������������������������צ�����h�%OhGCJaJhZBhGCJaJh�hG5�CJaJh��hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGh�E�h�E�CJaJh�E�h�E�CJaJh�T�hGCJaJh�hGCJaJhGCJaJ0���!h$�$�$�$]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�E�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�"$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�$%I%u%�%�%�%&J&v&�&�&�&%'U'~'�'(&(M(y(�(�(�(")O)y)�)�)����������������������������d��$Ifgd�E��)�)&*R*~*�*
+5+a+�+�+�+,?,k,�,�,�,-N-x-�-�-.O.|.�.�./����������������������������d��$Ifgd�E�///Y/�/�/�/040b0�0�0�01C1�1�1�1$2>2g2�2�2�23M3�3�3404����������������������������d��$Ifgd�E�04]4�4�4�4
5"5#5������O�kdo#$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd�E�#55546R:�:�:�:;9;d;�;�;<@<q<�<�<�<=C=n=�=�=�=>D>o>��������������������������d��$Ifgd�E�d��$Ifgd�t�46B6D6�6�6d7f7�7�7�8�849h9�9�96:7:Q:R:�;�;�>�>$B%B>D?DHGIG�G�G�G�G�G�G{H|H}H�H�HIJbJnJ�J�J�J�JXUZU\U�U�U�U����������������������������������h�1�h�1�CJaJhtP�hGCJaJh�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGh�E�h�E�CJaJh�E�h�E�CJaJh��hGCJaJhGCJaJhrjhGCJaJ5o>�>�>?H?v?�?�?�?"@L@y@�@�@�@&ARAA�A�A�ASB�B�B�BCC>ChC����������������������������d��$Ifgd�E�hC�C�C�CDfD�D�D�DE:EgE�E�E�EF9FiF�F�F�FGtG�G�G�G�������������������������d��$Ifgd�E��G�G�G|H�J�K0L�L]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�1�d��$Ifgd�t��kd0$$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�LtMNxN"O�O`PQ�Q#R{R�RStS�TDUZU����������������d��$Ifgd�1�ZU\U�U�VUW�W�W:X]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�F�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�$$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�UVVLVMVpVqV�V�V�V�V�V�V4W5WTWUWb^d^f^�^�^�^�^�^�^�^____�_�_�_` `"`^```aanapa�a�a�a�a�a�aWgXgYg�g�g�g�g�h�h�h�h*i+i�������������Ƚ������������ٲ�������h_#hGCJaJh�o�hG5�CJaJh�N_hGCJaJhx8�hGCJaJjhG0JUhxm�hGh�F�h�F�CJaJhG5�CJaJhGCJaJh`IhGCJaJ=:X�X�X`Z[�[B\�\�]:^d^����������d��$Ifgd�F�
d^f^�^``�a�bBc�c]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�F�d��$Ifgd�t��kd�%$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�cGd�d�d<e�e�e:f�f�f/gXg�����������d��$Ifgd�F�XgYg�g�h�iPj�j�j]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�F�d��$Ifgd�t��kds&$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG+i�i�i�i�i�i�i+p,p�v�v�v�v�v�vNwOw�w�w�w�wxx^x_x�x�x�~�~��f�g�����������������R�S������
�u�v�׋؋	�
����������������������ퟗ����������팿����팪��h��hGCJaJh�d^CJaJh�d^h�d^CJaJh�l�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGh�F�CJaJh�F�h�F�CJaJh`IhGCJaJhGCJaJh_#hGCJaJ7�jLk�k�kBl�l�l7m�m�mPno�o�p�p�p�r(s�s�t*u�u8v�v�v������������������������d��$Ifgd�F��v�v�vOw�x�x;y�y]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�d^d��$Ifgd�t��kd4'$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�y�y0z�z�z"{q{�{|e|�|�|}p}�}~h~h���k����o����e�����������������������������d��$Ifgd�d^e����2���Ӄ+�|�ʄj�������g����X����G������������������������d��$Ifgd�d^������S�
�U�����]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�d^d��$Ifgd�t��kd�'$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG��P����C����M�����F�ϐ'�~�&�|�ђ&�~�֓,���ǔ�h����Y�������������������������������d��$Ifgd�d^��ґӑ���������n�o���������ؘ٘��,�-�[�]��������T�V�ě������U�V�������l�m�n�z�}�~���������ӵӵӪӪӟӟӔӔӔӔ���������ӂ��h�T�hG5�CJaJUh�d^h	�hGCJaJh!/hGCJaJhi!HhGCJaJh�=�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhGCJaJhxm�hGh��hGCJaJh�d^CJaJh�d^h�d^CJaJ/���\��������������OAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�($$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd�d^��ě5���ڜ3���ߝ6����;������:��]����\��X����W�����������������������������d��$Ifgd�d^d��$Ifgd�t����X�����W�����Z������N����a���
�c���(�Ȯd��c����a�m�����������������������������d��$Ifgd�d^ganizations are
small, they may be under greater pressure to achieve short term goals, which would
emphasize transactions required by management (which offers a reward) from followers
(who offer their work). As organizations become larger, leaders may become more
transformational in order to instil in members of the organization that sense of urgency
to deliver.Post (2012)US: This study proposes and tests a process model linking deep-level team composition and innovation. Two cognitive styles, sequential thinking and connective thinking, are the deep-level team attributes hypothesized to affect team innovation. Psychological safety and cooperative learning are hypothesized to link cognitive styles and innovation at the team level.Sequential thinking contributes to decreases in team innovation by inhibiting psychological safety, while connective thinking helps improve team innovation through increased cooperative learning. Managers are often encouraged to compose teams with diverse task-relevant 
experts in order to put knowledge diversity at the service of innovation. The 
findings from this study suggest that particular attention should be given to 
the cognitive style composition of innovation teams because the pooled cog-
nitive styles of members appear to influence team innovation above and 
beyond the functional variety represented by team members, albeit indirectly. 
Increasing a team�s pooled connective thinking may be achieved by using 
brain-based measures of cognitive styles (Woolley et al., 2007) to identify 
connective thinkers and add them to a team. Other strategies for encouraging 
connective thinking include training team members in divergent thinking 
(Basadur, Graen, & Scandura, 1986), analogizing, and abstracting (Root-
Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999), and promoting role-play techniques such as structured debates. To discourage sequential thinking, managers may resort 
to limiting the number of sequential thinkers on a team, while keeping in mind 
that aspects of sequential thinking may be useful in producing innovation 
(Miron-Spektor et al., 2011). Additional strategies for minimizing the nega-
tive effect of sequential thinking on innovation may include de-emphasizing 
preciseness and exactness in intermediary team results and reports. This study 
also highlights the importance of promoting psychological safety and stimu-
lating cooperative learning to enhance the benefits of connective thinking and 
mitigate the detrimental effects of sequential thinking on innovation.Turnipseed & Turnipseed (2013)US: This study seeks to examine the relationship between an organizational climate conducive to innovation and OCB using the Climate for Innovation Questionnaire (CIQ) and Van Dyne et al.�s OCB scale, which assesses the dimensions of organizational Obedience, Loyalty and Participation.The results indicate that OCB is not linked to an Innovative Organizational Context. The Participation dimension of citizenship behaviour was positively linked to Innovative Ideas. Loyalty OCB was negatively linked to Risk, and Obedience OCB was negatively linked to Ideas.The results of the present study add to the
scepticism of the contribution of OCB, and
may offer an explanation as to why some
organization climates are not conducive to
innovation. OCB has become an academic buz-
zword and a construct held out as a desirable,
invaluable outcome with no consideration to
its effect on innovation. The organizational sig-
ni�cance and value of innovation is increasing,
and behaviours supporting development of
new products, services, and processes are
invaluable. However, our results indicate that
as presently conceptualized, OCB is not posi-
tively linked to an innovative organizational
climate. Additionally, individuals exhibiting
the traditionally desirable traits of obedience
and organizational loyalty may not be innova-
tive individuals in their organization. Re-examining and rede�ning OCB to focus
more on innovation may produce a theoreti-
cally and pragmatically improved construct. In
the meantime, managers should proceed cau-
tiously with attempts to increase OCB if inno-
vation is a goal. Managers who successfully
increase the level of citizenship behaviour in
their organizations may �nd that decreased
innovation is an unexpected and unwelcome
outcome. Perhaps the old, trusted
and loyal employees are not ideal for innova-
tive jobs or departments: young, restless and
ambitious employees may provide better
results. Managers may additionally need to
rethink their evaluation and reward systems.
Reinforcing loyalty and obedience may
produce suboptimal results in organizations
desiring innovation.Chen et al (2012)Taiwan: The present research investigates the relationships between SBU-level transformational leadership and technological innovation, as well as the moderating effects of innovative culture and incentive compensation.The results indicate that transformational leadership behaviors promote technological innovation at the SBU level. A stronger innovative culture is a substitute for transformational leadership behavior for facilitating technological innovation. In addition, financial-incentive adoption neutralizes the relationship between transformational leadership and technological innovation.Our findings also have some practical implications for managers and decision makers
in SBUs in Taiwan. First, Tseng and Goo (2005) argued knowledge-intensive
industries will account for at least sixty percent of Taiwan�s GDP within ten years
through promoting technological innovation and development. To successfully promote
technological innovation, our research shows that continuous cultivation and selection
of transformational leaders at the business-unit level are required.
Second, we found that both leadership and culture facilitate SBU innovation
performance in Taiwan. SBU members will be receptive to transformational leader-
ship behaviors under an innovative culture; conversely, transformational leaders will
be constrained by SBU culture characterized by rules, policies, and procedures
(Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Since decisions and acts of leaders create an organiza-
tional environment, culture, and structure that may substitute for leadership (Dionne
et al., 2005), we further suggest that investing in innovative culture building allows
leaders to have more time for other strategic issues without jeopardizing the SBU�s
technological innovation. Third, in Taiwan, most high-tech companies or businesses mainly offer shares or
cash-based rewards to enhance innovation outcomes (Ho, Lai, & Tai, 2010) because
innovation is high-risk investment with deferred compensation. For example, Taiwan
Semicondutor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) attracts a large number of outstand-
ing individuals to join them by offering stock bonuses. However, these business
leaders ignore the fact that the greater use of financial incentives has the potential to
weaken the leader�s efforts to boost technological innovation outcomes; therefore,
transformational leaders who are pursuing these outcomes should also place an
emphasis on non-financial interventions, such as recognition and performance
feedback.Garcia-Zamora, Gonzalez-Benito, & Munoz-Gallego (2013)Spain: The study analyses the relationship between different types of innovation and performance and establishes two blocks of hypotheses regarding the possible moderating effects of business factors (e.g., firm size with regard  to structure, market orientation with respect to the organizational culture), and the business environment, relative to the sector and competition.Marketing, management, and product innovation actions provide the best performance for companies. Such results are moderated by organizational and environmental factors. The role of market orientation and environmental dynamism are specially significant on relationship.The empirical contribution of this work sug-
gests significant business implications. First, the 
implementation of innovative initiatives offers 
benefits in terms of commercial activity, because 
of the applied resources and the ability to respond 
to changes and environmental opportunities. 
Incremental innovation may require more com-
mercial (product, marketing) and management 
skills than changes in production and organiza-
tional processes to achieve better business perfor-
mance. Small enterprises thus can exploit their 
potential, because in general their commercial 
skills give them an advantage. They can under-
stand the environment and react appropriately, 
using positive market development and anticipat-
ing threats. Second, improving market orientations triggers 
innovation activities and probably is a prerequisite 
of a better innovative orientation. The dissemi-
nation of best practices, executive training and a 
business focus that encompasses the organizational 
capacity should be part of firm�s agendas, linked to 
the development of their productive nets.
Third, environmental factors promote 
  marketing and product innovations. Companies 
should enhance these actions to counter threats 
and exploit opportunities in their environments. Ultimately, companies should actively seek 
marketing-based innovative ideas because their 
adoption and implementation ensures financial 
and operational benefits for large enterprises and 
SMEs. Furthermore, these innovation activities 
are not hampered by organizational and environ-
mental factors. In particular, SMEs should con-
sider this important strategy when operating in 
dynamic and competitive environments, usually 
dominated by large enterprises.Lopez-Cabrales, Perez-Luno, & Cabrera (2009) Spain: To test how human resources management (HRM) practices and employees  knowledge in�uence the development of innovative capabilities and, by extension, a �rm s performance.HRM practices are not directly associated with innovation unless they take into account employees  knowledge with a positive in�uence of knowledge-based HRM practices on valuable knowledge, and a positive contribution of innovations to the company s pro�t.These results also have practical implica-
tions. First, the type of knowledge employ-
ees in R&D departments possess is a key 
factor for product innovation. Managers 
interested in developing innovations must 
identify and procure employees with unique 
and firm-specific knowledge that is hard to 
copy and determine its competitive advan-
tage. Second, managers must manage these 
employees by means of collaborative HRM 
practices such as selection processes based 
on interpersonal abilities, training activities 
focused on team building, and appraisals 
based on team performance and/or employ-
ees� ability to work in groups. These prac-
tices drive the skills and attitudes that allow 
the employee interactions and knowledge 
sharing that are necessary for product in-
novation. Third, with respect to the positive relationship of external R&D expenses with 
performance and the negative one with in-
novative activity, we propose that compa-
nies should balance their R&D expenditures 
to take advantage of their effects on perfor-
mance but should not forget their damage 
to innovative behavior. Finally, it is very 
important to recall that we found a positive 
relationship between innovative capability 
and performance. While this finding is use-
ful for academics analyzing the role of orga-
nizational capabilities on performance, it is 
even more important in its practical impli-
cations. That is, supporting the view that 
investing in innovation is profitable can motivate managers to devote resources to 
this activity.Rank et al (2009)Germany: This study examined self-related subordinate variables as moderators of relationships between supervisors' leadership behaviours (transformational as well as active- corrective transactional leadership) and subordinates' innovative behaviour and task performance.Transformational leadership related more strongly and positively to innovation for subordinates low in organization-based self-esteem. When subordinates were low in self-presentation propensity, active-corrective transactional leadership was negatively, and transformational leadership was positively associated with task performance.Although caution is always needed when interpreting the practical implications that can
be derived from cross-sectional research, our findings suggest that transformational
leadership facilitates innovation and task performance, whereas active-corrective
transactional leadership undermines innovation. Considering field experiments
demonstrating that effective management development programs may lead to enhanced
subordinate perceptions of their supervisors' transformational leadership (Barling etal.,
1996), organizations may train their supervisors to exhibit these behaviours, particularly
when dealing with subordinates low in self-esteem or self-presentation propensity.
It appears that transformational leadership may compensate for lack of subordinate
self-esteem when innovation is the desired outcome and for a lack of subordinate
self-presentation for task performance as the criterion. From a different perspective,
the findings suggesting that high OBSE may neutralize and even substitute for the
beneficial effect of transformational leadership on innovation highlights the importance
of measures to enhance OBSE as identified in previous studies (e.g. via job complexity
and non-mechanistic organizational designs; Pierce et al, 1989). One may also argue
that individuals' innovation (e.g. idea championing) may contribute to group and
organizational innovation. Hence, multi-level research (Klein et al, 2001) aggregating
individuals' contributions and assessing their combined effect on higher-level
innovation outcomes is a desirable future research avenue.Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag (2009)Germany: This study investigated the relationship between two aspects of leadership (charismatic leadership and trust in top management) and followers� innovation implementation behavior.Charismatic leadership and trust in top management were both positively related to innovation implementation behavior, controlling for followers� individual differences, management level, and department af�liation. Also, both relationships were mediated by followers  affective commitment to change.Given the consistent positive effects of trust in top management, it may be argued
that systematic efforts to enhance this factor is particularly important to companies
that want to promote innovation implementation behavior. In order to enhance
trust in top management, it should be integrated into the organizations� reward system, leadership guidelines, and company policies. Supervisors could be
evaluated by their followers, for instance, on how trustworthy they seem.
The results suggest that companies should invest in leadership training and in
the selection of charismatic supervisors before initiating the implementation of
innovations. Research indicates that charismatic leadership behaviors are trainable
(Barling et al., 1996). By training idealized in�uence, for example, leaders
improve their ability to articulate a vision and to become more effective role
models (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999). More speci�cally, by training leaders 
capability to provide role models in terms of using new innovations and demon-
strating the value of these innovations, leaders are most likely to maximize
employees  affective commitment to change which, in turn, leads to innovation
implementation behavior.
In addition, by showing affective commitment to change as a mediator, the �nd-
ings indicate that managers need to consider the psychological mechanisms by
which charismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to inno-
vation implementation behavior. This may lead to a better ability to guide the
impact of these in�uences to proper psychological processes, resulting in higher
levels of innovation implementation behavior.Saa-Perez & Diaz-Diaz (2010)Canary Islands: Based on the notion that �rms in ultra-peripheral regions must recognise the value of their human capital in order to overcome the limitations typical of their social and geographical context, this research aimed to analyse the relationship between the human resource (HR) policy and innovation in an ultra-peripheral region of the European Union.High commitment human resource management (HRM) has a positive in�uence on organisational innovation in processes. The results also show that the formalisation of the HR policy in a plan, and job stability also increases innovation in processes. For practitioners, the current study points out that a simple relationship between HR
systems or organizational culture and innovation outcomes should not be assumed. An
innovation-oriented HR systemhas to rely on an appropriate organizational culture in order
to have impacts on innovation. HR system alone may not be able to elicit innovation
performance. Thus, the need to build up shared schemas and mindsets around innovation in
organizations is critical for newproduct development.More emphasis could also be given to
the �t of this type of culture with HR system in order to develop an effective organization.Alexiev et al (2010)Netherlands: To study how top management teams utilize advice to modify current strategies and pursue exploratory innovation.Both external and internal advice seeking are important determinants of a �rm s exploratory innovation. Also, top management team heterogeneity facilitates �rms to act upon internal advice by combining different perspectives and developing new products and services. Further, heterogeneous top management teams appeared to be less effective to leverage external advice and pursue exploratory innovation.For managers, our study suggests important guidelines for analysing and assessing the
use of strategic advice when the organization aims at increasing exploratory innovation.
Firstly, it provides an analytical framework for the possibilities of sourcing distant knowl-
edge by the TMT. Increasing external advice leads to higher exploratory innovation for
homogeneous TMTs, while increasing internal advice seeking leads to higher explor-
atory innovation for heterogeneous TMTs. An increase in external advice for heteroge-
neous TMTs, and an increase in internal advice for homogeneous TMTs would have no
signi�cant effects on exploratory innovation. Secondly, our study provides a caution to
organizational transformation efforts that attempt costly reshuf�ing of the TMT advice
linkages. The results show that the intensity of advice-seeking behaviour targeted at
acquiring distant knowledge is important for exploratory innovation regardless of
whether it is sourced externally or internally. Thirdly, we encourage selection and
promotion policies that favour heterogeneity in TMTs, since they in�uence exploratory
innovation more than the use of external advisers.Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh (2011)Israel: To examine whether cognitive styles associated with idea implementation (i.e., conformity and attention to detail) have an influence on team radical innovation that goes above and beyond the contribution of creative members.Results show that including creative and conformist members on a team enhanced team radical innovation, whereas including attentive-to-detail members hindered it. Creative members enhanced task conflict and hindered team adherence to standards. In contrast, conformists reduced task conflict, and conformists and attentive-to-detail members enhanced team adherence to standards. Team potency mediated the effect of the cognitive styles on innovation.With recent failures of R&D teams to meet their
objectives in regard to product characteristics,
quality, and timetable, organizations have started
to integrate quality and reliability engineers, who
are assumed to be high on conformity and attention
to detail, into R&D teams. However, their contribu-
tion to innovation is being questioned by R&D man-
agers because they increase formality and rule ad-
herence (Naveh, 2007). Our study suggests that,
although attentive-to-detail members negatively
impact radical innovation, the contribution of con-
formist members can be valuable. To enhance rad-
ical innovation, our study suggests that managers should assign employees to a team not just on the
basis of their expertise or their expected individual
contribution to the team; rather, managers should
take into consideration the team configuration as
explored in this study. Specifically, managers
should set up teams that have a significant number
of creative members, to form an innovative team
culture; a large number of conformists, to contrib-
ute to team harmony, reduce conflict, and increase
team potency; and no more than a few attentive-to-
detail members, given their low tolerance of risk
and mistakes.Bertels, Kleinschmidt, & Koen (2011)US: This study looks at how mechanisms that enable tacit knowledge transfer such as communities of practice and organizational climate in�uence the relationship between pro�ciency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance.Pro�ciency of dispersed collaboration is not related at all to front end of innovation performance in business units with low support for communities of practice; but a positive relationship exists in business units with high support for communities of practice.This research shows that business units with more
pro�cient dispersed collaboration and higher encour-
agement of communities have a higher impact on
front end of innovation outcome than those that do
not support communities of practice. For best results,
managers must ascertain that their business units sup-
port existing and emerging communities of practice,
which means giving employees the freedom to partic-
ipate in such communities and making the funds
available to maintain such communities. They must
simultaneously ensure that employees are pro�cient in
dispersed collaboration, i.e., adept when in locations
signi�cantly distant from each other, skillful with IT
tools to overcome the communication issues imposed
by this distance, and competent in developing projects
despite cultural differences. This research also found
strong support for the idea that an open climate fa-
voring risk taking, trust, and open interaction posi-
tively in�uences front end of innovation activities.

Leadership and innovation; Teamwork and innovation;

R & D teams;

Teams from one research institute and four international R&D companies engaged in the auto- motive, semiconductor, packaging, and scientific instruments industries.
Teamwork and innovation;

A large, diversified manufacturing firm engaged in a multibillion dollar project that involved the development of a technologically intense, highly innovative, new product directed at the world market. The specific product under development integrated a number of advanced technologies including elements of telecommunications, artificial intelligence, electronics, and new materials.
Leadership and innovation;

Of these organizations, 19% was active in retailing or wholesale, 14% in financial services, 19% in professional services, 14% in not-for-profit, 28% in production, and 6% in logistics and transport.
Personality and innovation; Organizational practices and innovation;

750 business units of S & P 500 organizations; 

Banking, Telecom, Manufacturing, Media, Consumer packaged goods, Healthcare 
Personality and innovation; Organizational practices and innovation; Leadership and innovation;

European telecommunications company
Organizational practices and innovation;

Manufacturing; Service
Teamwork and innovation; Leadership and innovation;

23 team leaders and 289 team members in a Slovenian manufacturing and processing firm engaged in producing innovative products and customer solutions
Teamwork and innovation;

International Post Service
Teamwork and innovation; Organizational culture and innovation;

Automotive firm that engineered and manufactured engines and transmissions
Teamwork and innovation;

Sample comprised of teams involved in projects related to product development, business development, and technology and process improvements.


manufacturing, telecommunications, consultancy, construction, wholesale and retailing, trading, information technology, and the rest in other industries.
Leadership and innovation; Teamwork and innovation;

US; UK, Germany, Austria, Russia, Ukraine: companies engaged in the manufacturing of a. computers; b. industrial electronics; c. consumer electronics; d. communication equipment; e. apparel; f. food products; g. chemicals
Leadership and innovation;

Electronics industry
Fairness and innovation; Personality and innovation;

Public health organizations
Personality and innovation; 

Professionals employed in 73 different companies;

Occupations of participants were distributed as follows: business/management professional (33.7 percent), civil engineer (27.2 percent), social worker, sociologist, or psychologist (33.7 percent), and others (designer, architect, and teacher; 5.4 percent).
Teamwork and innovation;

High-tech manufacturing industries
Organizational practices and innovation;

Manufacturing companies;

Organisations were drawn from three main industrial groups: electronics and communications, food and drink, and mechanical engineering
Personality and innovation;

Private enterprise in Xiaman, China, which specialized in the manufacturing of electrical goods
Leadership and innovation; Organizational practices and innovation;

Employees and their leaders in 43 Turkish entrepreneurial software development companies
Teamwork and innovation; 

Primary health care teams
Organizational practices and innovation; Organizations were drawn from three main industrial groups: electronics and communications, food and drink and mechanical engineering.

35 manufacturing organizations;
Global hospitality company
manufactur- ing (17.7 per cent of the sample), services includinm�n�z������H���]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�mJd��$Ifgd�t��kdw)$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�b�c���������������9�:����������M�N�q�r�����������������
��!�"�0�1�5�\�]�������;�<�B�C��������������������������������������������������h�qCJaJh�qh�qCJaJh�T�hG5�CJaJh��hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGh�mJCJaJh�mJh�mJCJaJhKo�hGCJaJhGCJaJhf*�hGCJaJ6���+�z���^���������$�q����Z����������������������d��$Ifgd�mJ�����1�C�o�����]OOOAAAd��$Ifgd�qd��$Ifgd�t��kd8*$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�����H�t���`����d����x���4����D�o�������H�����<����������������������������������d��$Ifgd�q�K�q���������������OAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd�*$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$Ifgd�q������������\�]�}�~�������������2�3���������� �����������������G�H���������/�0�V�W�:�;�Q�R�@�B�D��������������������������������������û�δ���٩٩٩�ûûé�����ٓh�I)hGCJaJhC�hGCJaJh]�hGCJaJhxm�hGhVSCJaJhVShVSCJaJh�M�hGCJaJhGCJaJhF�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJ:�� �t����f����N�����D�����B����Q�����C�����>������������������������������d��$IfgdVSd��$Ifgd�t�������H�W�������]OOOAAAd��$IfgdVSd��$Ifgd�t��kd�+$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG���R������	�=�n�������.�k������:�p�������!�~������A�q�����������������������������d��$IfgdVSq������B�D��������OAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd{,$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$IfgdVS�����������=�>�������
�� �(�)�*����1�2�3�g�h�������i�j��������������������4�5�P�Q�k�l�������������������������������������������������������������hI6hGCJaJhEcehEceCJaJh-!�hGCJaJjhG0JUhGhG5�CJaJhxm�hGhVSCJaJhVShVSCJaJh�WhGCJaJh�I)hGCJaJhGCJaJ8��^����Z����1�[��������6�_��������j��������B�o���������������������������d��$IfgdVSd��$Ifgd�t�o�������#�R�~�����
����������d��$IfgdVS	
�� �2�����.���]OOOAAAd��$IfgdEced��$Ifgd�t��kd<-$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG���� �z��(�{��#�u��%�y��!�p�������������������d��$IfgdEce�������4��C���]OOOAAAd��$IfgdEced��$Ifgd�t��kd�-$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG����!������2�4���Ppr���	�	(*,fhbc�����,.2������TV��*8���������������������������ʟ�����������hJ
�hGCJaJhE[hGCJaJhH�hGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGhEceCJaJhEcehEceCJaJhGCJaJhI6hGCJaJ;��*�t��(�j�<�r�B�x�������������������d��$IfgdEceP*��6
�
]OOOAAAd��$IfgdEced��$Ifgd�t��kd�.$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG�
�
|0������OAAd��$Ifgd�t��kd/$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGd��$IfgdEcet�+��V��X�P�b���������������d��$IfgdEced��$Ifgd�t�`bd�������UV����!!F#G#H#m#o#p#r#�#�#�#�#�#$h$j$�$�$�$�%�%�&�&�&'r-t-v-z-�������ҽ�������������ҟ���⟔�������~h�pCh�{CJaJh��hGCJaJh�hGCJaJhBL�hGCJaJhEceCJaJh�K�hGCJaJhKKhGCJaJjhG0JUhG5�CJaJhxm�hGhGCJaJhEcehEceCJaJh�.�hGCJaJ1bd�����]OOOAAAd��$IfgdEced��$Ifgd�t��kd@0$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytGK~�� H x � � A!w!�!�!
"="m"�"�"#9#G#���������������������d��$IfgdEceG#H#m#�$'d'�'(]OOOAAAd��$IfgdEced��$Ifgd�t��kd1$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG(I(�(�(�()N)�)*�*�*X+�+4,�,
-t-����������������d��$IfgdEcet-v-x-z-�-�-..�.�.]XVQQQQQQgd�M4gd�{�kd�1$$If�l��\���~	�t"<�T�
t��0��������"����������������������4�4�
la�ytG	z-|-�.�.�.�./�/�/�/�/A0B0C0_0&1'1(1�1�1r2s2�2�2�2F3d33�3�3�3�34B4C4D4x4�4�4�4�4�4�5�5�6�6�6�6!7"7A7p7s7s8t8u8�8�8�8 9!9}9~99�9�9�9�9�9�9B:�������������������������������������������������h�~�h�kh�
�h�kh�Ixh�kh��h�khU|bh�kh�h�kh�fwh�kh#h�kh�kjh�k0JUF�.�.B0^0_0'1m1n1�1�1�1M2N2r2�2�2�2�2�2�3�3�3�3�3�3C4]4^4�4�4�����������������������������gd�M4�4�4�5�5�5�6�6�6�677!7?7@7r7s7t8�8�8�8�8�8�8�8~9�9�9�9A:B:�����������������������������gd�M4B:V:t:�:�:�:�:�:;�;�;�;�;�;�;<�������׀؀��B�C�r�s�t�$�B����p�q�r�̃΃���C�D�E���
�*�,�.������@�D�҇ԇև�������������������������������������hk(�h�kh@wdh�kh�>)h�kh-�h�kh�:5h�k5�CJhU�h�kh\.'h�kh�'Rh�kUh�4�h�khllh�k5�hllh�kjh�k0JUh�kh�z�h�k<B:�:�:�:�:�;�;�;�;��׀��B�s��q�ăŃ�D��W����,�����ԇ�����������������������������gd�M4g trade, transport, information and communication (63.3 per cent of the sample), and additional including building and con- struction, financing and insurance (19 per cent of the sample).
Primary health care teams
Hospitals
Working adults who were enrolled in a part-time MBA
program in a university in Shanghai, China
different organizations in different industries
customer service representatives and sales personnel (10%); bankers, consultants, and financial analysts (7%); accountants (4%); engineers (5%); doctors and nurses (7%); educators (6%); lawyers (4%); IT specialists (6%); directors (11%); civil service workers (5%); administrative assistants (11%); drivers (3%); and manufacturing and construction laborers (8%), among others.
94 innovation project teams from a variety of industries (including automotive, chemicals, electronics, logistics, and machinery).
They recruited respondents through an online survey company called Zoomerang.com;

May be US/Hong Kong : Need to search for this.
148 machine operators within a beverages manufacturer in the north of England.
two multi-national companies in Mainland China, one is a Sino-French automobile manu- facturing joint venture (Company A) and the other is a private enterprise in telecommunication services industry
several industry types with the largest proportion of respondents working
in the financial services and IT sectors (Financial services 23.2%, IT
19.3%, Other 16.1%, Education 6.6%, Pharmaceutical 6%, Chemical 5.7%,
Electronics 4.9%, Retail 2.6%, Hospitality 2.4%).
�rms which operated in various industries (e.g., �nance, heavy manufacturing and telecommunications)
LAW FIRMS; 

principals of law �rms; The participants included partners, senior lawyers, and junior lawyers.
Spanish firms
AMT manufacturers
Public organizations
CEOs; Managers

Agriculture, hunting, forestry; Fishing; Mining and quarrying; Manufacturing; Electricity, gas, water supply; Construction; Wholesale and retail trade; Hotels and restaurants; Transport, storage, communication; Financial intermediation; Real estate, renting, business activities; Other community, social and personal service activities
HR Directors of companies;

Diverse industries
951 firms in the automotive, construction, biotechnology,
chemicals/pharmaceuticals, IT, electrical/appliances, energy services, financial services, engineering, and other industries.
manufacturing �rms from the food, clothing, metal goods, mechanical/computer engineering, and electrical engineering sectors. Our sample also included companies from the transpor-
tation, utilities, wholesale trade, �nancial services, and miscellaneous services sectors.
software services division of a
large multinational Fortune 500 information technology company with headquarters in the United States;

Over a third of the respondents were based in locations outside the United States, including
Europe, Japan, Korea, and Australia
95 research and development (R&D) teams; Eg.: Aeronautical and Communication
qualitative survey of 54 managers from Indian-
owned/Indian-invested companies;

sampled companies were spread 
across a range of business areas including 
banking, telecommunications, information 
technology (IT), consulting, commercial, 
aerospace, pharmaceutical production/
research and development, railway engineer-
ing, automotive production, energy, oil, min-
erals, and shipping.
private manufacturing firms 
located in the industrial economic zones in 
China�s Zhejiang province.

manager, accountant, senior staff, quality 
controller, engineer, and R&D worker.

Both high-tech and low-tech industries were included
high-tech �rms surveyed in
eight provinces in China

Industries covered Materials; Medicine; Chemical, Electronic, Engineering, Others
R & D organization in the public domain
R & D;

This organisation engages
in scienti�c research to deliver innovative solutions for industry and government.
Multinational automotive corporation
Banks  branches

Fortis Bank,
Is Bank, Vak1fbank, Finans Bank, Ziraat Bank, Akbank, ING Bank, HSBC, Denizbank,
and Garanti Bank
public safety organization whose mission is the enforcement of the law and the promotion of public well-being
The �rms were operating in
a wide range of industries: manufacturing 51.6 per cent, construction 20.5 per cent,
services 8.6 per cent, and others 19.3 per cent.
Member companies of the Industrial Research Institute (IRI), a major professional association of industrial research and development (R&D) executives
Financial services firm
102 senior managers and 258 employees in 102 Taiwanese strategic business units (SBUs).

Seventeen percent of the SBUs
in our sample were in the business of producing consumer products, 30 percent
provided consumer services, 36 percent produced industrial products, and 17 percent
provided industrial services
ԇ��"�2�3����������؊B���:���b���Ԏ�%�&�E�q���ŏ��E������������������������������gd�M4�
�"�#���������؊ڊ����������ԎՎZ�[�I����`�b�L�N���������x�z�����u�v�����řƙ�����¥å��ΧЧƩȩ������v�w�x����������������������������������h�pCh�{CJaJh��Uh�h�kh�kjh�k0JU:E�Z�x����������I�6�h�j��`�p�r���L�������֔x���x���Z���u������������������������������gd�M4u������T���řA�t�u�������K�a�b���¥�����Χ(�`�b�¨x������������������������������gd�M4440 Spanish companies and encompasses four sectors of activity: 
Industry, construction, agriculture, and services.

(190 large, 250 
small- to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs)
industry (15 companies), services (6 companies), and sales (3 companies). The
industrial companies were in the chemical, pharmaceutical, engineering, and
construction domains;

research and development, marketing and human resources departments of several
German companies
Employees working in R&D teams;

multinational automotive corporation located in Germany, which had introduced a new computer software within the nine months prior to this study
157 FIRMS;

Construction; Industry; Wholesale trade; Retail trade; Hotel and catering; Transport; Other services
small and medium-sized �rms (SMEs) across a
wide variety of industries;

�rms from multiple industries, categorized into
four broad groups: manufacturing (34 per cent), construction (17.7 per cent), services (14
per cent), and others (34.2 per cent).
R & D Company;

large companx�Ʃ���>�o�������v�w�x�������������gd�M4y operating
in the Israeli defense industry that develops and
manufactures advanced technologies in the fields
of microelectronics, communications, acoustics,
and electromagnetism
Companies in the (tele)communications (10.3%), chemicals (8.6%),
food (8.6%), pharmaceuticals (6.9%), medical devices (6.0%), consumer goods (5.2%), manufacturing (2.6%), and petroleum (2.6%).


21�h:p�"b��/ ��=!��"��#��$��%��������$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytG�$$If�!vh5�<5��5�T5��#v<#v�#vT#v�:V�l
t��0��������"�5�<5��5�T5��ytGj���������666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>666666666666666666666666666�6666666666�666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666�62���� 0@P`p������2(�� 0@P`p������ 0@P`p������ 0@P`p������ 0@P`p������ 0@P`p������ 0@P`p��8X�V~ OJPJQJ_HmH	nH	sH	tH	J`�J�"bNormald��CJ_HaJmH	sH	tH	DA`�D
Default Paragraph FontRi@�R0Table Normal�4�
l4�a�(k �(
0No Listj���j�M4�
Table Grid7:V�0������HH	�M40
Footnote Textd��CJaJ<��<�M40Footnote Text Char@&�!@	�M40Footnote ReferenceH*6U�16	�M40	Hyperlink>*B*ph�B'@�AB	�M40Comment ReferenceCJaJB@RB�M40Comment Textd�CJaJ:��a:�M40Comment Text Char@jQR@	�M40Comment Subject5�\�F�b�F�M40Comment Subject Char5\R��R	�M40Balloon Textd��CJOJQJ^JaJN���N�M40Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJ������M4�Light Shading1G:V�0����j�;@������������������������������������������
����j�;������������������������������������������
����j�D�������������������������������������������j�D��������������������������������������������4�4(f�d���f�d���5B*ph��5\��5\��5\��5\PK!����[Content_Types].xml���j�0E����ж�r�(��΢Iw},��-j��4	��w�P�-t#bΙ{U�����T�U^h�d}㨫��)��*1P�'��	�^��W��0)��T�9<�l�#��$yi}��;�~@��(��H����u�*Dנz��/0�ǰ��$��X��3aZ����,�D0j~�3߶�b��~i>���3�\`�?�/�[���G��\�!�-�Rk.�s�Ի�..���a濭?��PK!�֧�6_rels/.rels���j�0���}Q��%v/��C/�}�(h"���O�
����=������ ����C?�h�v=��Ʌ��%[xp��{۵_�Pѣ<�1�H�0���O�R�Bd���JE�4b$��q_����6L�R�7`������0̞O��,�En7�Li�b��/�S���e��е�����PK!ky���theme/theme/themeManager.xml�M
� @�}�w��7c�(Eb�ˮ��C�AǠҟ����7��՛K
Y,�
�e�.���|,���H�,l����xɴ��I�sQ}#Ր���� ֵ+�!�,�^�$j=�GW��)�E�+&
8���PK!����Ptheme/theme/theme1.xml�YOo�6��w toc'vu�ر�-M�n�i���P�@�I}��úa��m�a[�إ�4�:lЯ�GR��X^�6؊�>$�������!)O�^�r�C$�y@�����/�yH*��񄴽)�޵��߻��UDb�`}"�qۋ�Jח���X^�)I`n�E���p)���li�V[]�1M<������O�P��6r�=���z�gb�Ig��u��S�eb��O������R�D۫����qu	�g��Z����o~ٺlAp�lx�pT0���+[}`j���zA��V�2�F���i�@�q�v�֬5\|��ʜ̭N��le�X�ds���jcs���7���f����
��W��+�Ն�7����`���g�Ș��J���j|��h(�K��D-����
dX��iJ�؇(��x$(��:��;�˹!�I_�T��S1�����?E��?�����?ZBΪm���U/������?�~����xY���'���y5�g&΋/����ɋ�>���G�M�Ge���D�����3Vq%'#q�����$�8��K�����)f�w9:ĵ��
x}r�x����w���r�:\TZaG�*�y8I�j�bR��c|XŻ�ǿ�I
u3KG�nD1�NIB�s���
��R��u���K>V�.EL+M2�#'�f��i~�V��vl�{u8��z��H�
�*���:�(W�☕
~��J�T�e\O*�tHG��HY��}KN�P�*ݾ˦���TѼ�9/#��A7�qZ��$*c?���qU��n��w�N��%��O��i�4=3ڗP��
����1�P�m\\9���������Mؓ�2a�D�]�;Yt�\��[x����]�}Wr��|�]��g-���
eW�
�)6-r��CS�j��
i�d	�DЇA�ΜIqbJ#x�꺃6k���#��A�Sh��&ʌt(Q�%��p%m��&]�caSl=�X�����\P�1�Mh�9�M��V�dDA��aV�B��[݈fJ�íP|8�քA�V^��f
�H��n���-��"�d>�z��n��Ǌ�	�ة�>�b���&����2��v����Kyϼ��D:����,AGm��\nz��i�Ù��.uχYC�6�OMf��3o�r��$��5�����NH�T[XF64�T,ќ���M0�E)`#�5�XY�`�פ;��%�1�U�٥m;���R>QD����D�cp�U�'��&LE�/p���m���%]�����8fi��r�S4�d7y\�`�J�n���ί�I�R��3U�~7+���׸#��m�q�BiD���������i*�L6�9�m�Y&���i���HE��=(K&�N!V�.K�e�LD�ĕ�{D	����vEꦚde��NƟ��e�(�MN9ߜR�6����&3(��a���/D��U�z�<�{ˊ�Y��ȳ����V���)�9�Z[��4^n��5���!J��?��Q�3�eBo�C����M����m<�.�vp�����IY�f���Z�Y_p�[�=al-�Y�}Nc͙���ŋ4vfa��vl����'S��A�8�|�*u�{��-�ߟ0%M0�7%����<���ҍ���PK!
ѐ��'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels��M
�0���wooӺ�&݈Э���5
6?$Q��
�,.�a��i����c2�1h�:�q��m��@RN��;d�`��o7�g�K(M&$R(.1�r'J��ЊT���8��V�"��AȻ�H�u}��|�$�b{��P����8�g/]�QAsم(����#��L�[������PK-!����[Content_Types].xmlPK-!�֧�6+_rels/.relsPK-!ky���theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!����P�theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-!
ѐ��'�	theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]�
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/>
AdministratorAPARAAJITA Stuti S A 1Aparaajita ArastuAparaajita Arastu_Stuti SAI^1�6�?C�J�SdW!a�d$k�s{�	� ����/�G�!�]�L�����
?@j#x-�=�F�O�Yr_�hAm�s |����]�����u�������}������G)�1�9DYU
^�fhk.r�yr�A�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rA�rAsAsAsAsAsA
sAsA
sAsAsAsAs	AMA A S A��A�aAnAQ�A�AT�A��A'�A��A��AqA�2A�A�A*(	Stuti SAI(6A�jA�DA^ACwAxgAC�A��A��AM�A��A)�A1�A�A�Am'������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������j/�������	d	�
�
�?�
�
�%��0�7�OY�-<Oe�������=��Z�k  R!"#�#:$6%&�&�&r������X�-ND�v9�#��6������.Y�n^�<�=�
]#)PS\�ier}|���������513dU���ٺ$�H��146�U+i���������z-B:�x�XZ[\]_`acdeghilmnoqrsuvwz}�������������������$)/4:=N�zQ��`H
Y5�	7�kLr�w{q�H�܌y���)���i��q����������9����e	#"#1s8�C�T
\d5mUu��;���ߚr���;��������������~��z�v���2��$�)/04#5o>hC�G�LZU:Xd^�cXg�j�v�ye�����������m��������������q��o�
��������
bG#(t-�.�4B:ԇE�u�x�x�Y^bfjkptxy{|~�������������������������������������������������������������������������� !"#%&'(*+,-.012356789;<>MOPU�8�@�����������0�(	�
��B
�S����	?���>
�r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r�����r����s����s����s����s����s����
s����s����
s����s����s����s����s�����������a����n����Q����������T�����������'�����������������q�����2��������������*(����(6�����j�����D����^����Cw����xg����C�����������������M�����������)�����1���������������m'����\1�6�?C�J�SZWa�dk�s{����ߨ��(�?��T�C��u�
7<c#c-~=�FxO�Yh_�h=mgs|��=�U�����n�������r������:)�1�9�CPU^zf]k)r�y�	

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=^1�6�?C�J�SdW!a�d$k�s{�	� ����/�G�!�]�L�����
?@j#x-�=�F�O�Yr_�hAm�s |����]�����u�������}������G)�1�9DYU
^�fhk.r�y�'(1:;FJS����{�������P	V	�	�	�
�
���
����2;������@G��#*PX����EL
����������� � � � �!�!�!�!�"�"�"�"1#6#c#j#�#�#�#�#�&�&�&�&�&�&�&�&z'�'{(�(*"*�*�*�*�*x+~+�+�+---$-�.�./
/a/h/�/�/�/�/0)0F0Q0�0�041E1�3�344.44464;4;5@5B5F5�5�5�6�6�6�6�7�7�7�71<<<�=�=�A�A�A�A�A�A�C�C�C�C5E=EBELE�F�F�G�GMHTHVI\I�I�I�I�IJJ
KKL L�L�LdMmM4N>N�N�N:OCO�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�OQ#Q%Q)Q<QAQGQJQKQQQSQ\QdQiQkQuQ�Q�Q�Q�Q�R�R�R�R�R�RSS�S�S[[y`@bjcqcscxc|c�c�d�d*e3eff�f�f�f�f�fg g,g@gGgZgcg�g�g*h6h)i/izi�i�k�k)n.np"p�q�q�q�q�s�s�s�s�t�t�t�t�u�u}!})}0};}C}s~w~9<��������������v�y����������
����H�N�O�W�\�b�c�g�9�A�C�H���������f�i�k�p������ڍލ��&�-���Ďɏ̏ҏ����� ����*�0�?�C�E�K�{���˔єӔڔ������������[�f������)�����T�Y�\�d���������!�+�W�_�d�g���������]�_�a�f�h�m�������������1�@�/�9�G�R���������W�_�'�-�D�P��������A�J�P�Z�[�k������%�I�W������T�`�]�f������������^�e�g�l�����%�ܵ�ĶͶ����8�D�������x���չ޹����Һں������������Ǿپ�%��#������!�r�y�z�~����������������&�0�����/�7�R�\�����������������������=�L�r�~�[�h��������j�o��������������������"�N�X�������������#�1����������
�&�)���������������M�Q���������9�C���������������JO��:>��?D��nt<F��
		e
p
�
�
�
�
#(+2��
]l<
F
I
R
=G��jr����ilnt�LV��#����y���������_gio����")/��S!]!�!�!�!"�#�#
%%M%Q%w&{&�&�&�'�'�-�-333�3�3�3D4M4A5H5�5�5i6o6�6�6773767�7�7�7�7�7�7J8U8�8�8�9�9�:�:�:�:;%;�;�;@(@CCMDQD�D�D�D�DE	E=EGE/F9F[HhH�H�HJJ�K�K�K�KMM�U�U�U�U�W�W�Y�Y�Y�Y�Y�YFZPZVZaZgZnZvZ�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z�Z[[[[\
\\\�^�^___#_$_0_�_�_�_�_M`R`T`X`�`�`VaZa�a�a�a�a�abb
b~b�b�b�b�b�bCcGc�c�c�c�c�c�cFdMdOdRd�ef&f.fgggg)q-q/q6qyq�q�q�q�q�qrr>sEs�s�s�s�s�t�tquuuwu~uIvTvVv^v�w�wxx!x&x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x�x#y*yjyqyty~y�y�yAzIz�z�z�z�zN|S|�|�|�|�|}}�}�}�}�}�~
8D������1�9�����ҁ܁��
��7�U�V�k�ʅ����ʆІ��ڈވ��ۉމ���8�B�D�H�m�t�v�{�����:�=�?�B�H�N���������'�-�/�4�P�V���������ϔՔĖΖЖ֖��"�)�[�b�o�u�ɗ֗�!�o�y������&������D�H�J�P��������������!�$�*�
��o�r�t�|�����P�V�X�\�����ץۥݥ�<�F�]�g�����1�6�k�y�{���N�Y�����#�%�,�O�T������������>�D�F�J�ʲԲֲڲ�!�����ʳسQ�Y�a�e�m�r���	�J�S����������Ӻغ��M�V���Ŀ-�6�������W�e�����������������,�5�_�l�������������������������������������!�(��������������������������������������������������� ���������&�8�]�h����������&�:�H�����d�o�����g�r����$����h�q���"*�
�
��^e�������


'
5
:
C
����OX����������
����������������������}��!�!�!�!�!�!�"�"1%8%g(k(�.�.�0�0�0�0,16181C1G1N1Z5`5h5o5z5�5�6�6�6�6�7�7�7�7V:Z:\:c:�:�:�:�:�;�;�;�;<<�<===E>K>M>Q>W?^?t?x?SA[A]AcAB(B*B.B�B�B�B�B�E�E�E�E�J�J�J�J�L�L|M~M�O�O�P�P�Q�QhRkR�R�R�R�R0S4S�U�U�U�U�U�U�U�U�U�UVV�V�V�V�V8W=W?WEWIWRW�\�\�^�^	a
aXb^b`bdbcc�c�c3d6d�fg�g�g:i?i�i�i�j�j�j�jkk�l�l6m:m<mBmQnXnZn^nfnnnsn{nFoRo)p/p1p5puq{q}q�q"r(r*r.r]rer�s�sRw]wbwjwmwsw�w�w�w�w�x�x�x�x{	{�}~�~�~!+ap��/�=�?�E�����������Ă˂��X�c�p�x�������
����������օ�h�p�������%�)�1�6���͉��s�w�Ջ���Ō����������������H�S������)�`�d�f�o�ՠ۠l�r�u�{�^�p���âŢ͢���������������������#�'�)�/�x�~�����ʨѨ���C�Q���������M�V�����B�O����޳��!�%�,�]�c�R�\�^�d��������������
��� ��#�%�-�[�g�����������%�V�^��������+�0�2�6����������3�7�����	����&�]�g�i�m�������������_�b�d�g�m�s���������L�R�T�Y�"�(�+�7�������������������������+�7�:�@�!�%�'�*�m�t���	��������	����f�i�����1�<�>�C�2�9�R�Y�h�n�9�<�>�A���������������������7�:�<�@��������������
�)�1����������� �%�l�s���������2�6�8�=�z������	�
�����������������������8�?�A�D�g�n�p�t������	���'�,�����U�Y�[�b�.�1�3�8�9�>���x�|�����������t�����������j�v����������������G�M�O�V�������������`g��MVpy@J��FO�������*	/	1	5	H	M	S	V	W	]	_	h	p	u	w	�	�	�	�	�	�
�
�
�
�
�
;@BH#&/>ChpPUW[Q]������ikmst�"�����	��  ) - O U W Z � � :!<!>!E!�!�!�!�!""""�"�"�"�"K#P#T#[#�&�&�(�(�(�(�(�(P)Z)`)k)q)x)�)�)�)�)�)�)****"*'*+++"+
00�0�08'8�E�E�E�E�F�F�F�F�I�I{K�K)L/L1L6L�L�L�L�LvN}NN�NlOpOuQyQ�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�QRR\ReR�R�R�R�R�RSSS�S�S�S�S�T�TU U[U`U�U�U�UVV%V�X�X�X�XYYYY�Y�Y�Z�Z�Z�Z'[4[!\.\i\r\�\�\�\�\�\�\
]]#]3]�]�]�]�]P^[^�^�^[_`_
a
aWa\a^aea�a�abb�c�c�d�d	eeeeJfVf�f�f�i�i�k�kmmm%mnmumknunXobo�o�o�p�p�p�p�p�p�pq�q�qSsYsSuZuNyZy�{|.}6}k}o}q}z}�}�}�~�~y���!�k�s�ŀɀ��C�J�L�O�Q�T����������������������S�Z�����҄ބ���������������ΈЈ(�/���H�M�t�z�˖Ζ1�4�����������ĚȚ��G�M�O�S����'������	��H�L�N�R�ȠΠРԠ<�E�G�K�����,�5�G�P�ͤҤԤؤ����0�9�<�C��
�����A�I�K�S�W�\�ߦ���ߧ������#�R�\�^�d�i�m�o�u�*�-�0�4�a�f�������˱(�,�P�T�V�_���������7�9�;�A���������d�i��������2�6�6�:�[�b�
�����������������a�d���������������������������������H�L�������J�R�=�F�H�K�����������3�7���������
����<�?�\�e�g�j���������l�s���������
��������������������������*�2�X�]���������3�6�8�>�����?�F�������\�`�������������d�h�����"�(�?�K������������*�7�v���,�3�Z�c�u���������������Z�h��������������������8�?�e�m�������Z�a��'������	�CM���	
��@
H
}����%,���������������^hjp��mt��5;����x���� � �!�!�!�!$!$�$�$�$�$�%�%�%�%�&�&�&�&('/'t'�'�(�(m,s,2.9.;.@.D.L.�/�/�/�/�/�/�0�0�0�0|1�1�1�1;3D3�34�4�4�4�40585d5n5
6666�6�6�6�677;7C7E7J7�7�7�7�7�7�7�7�78%8A8D8�8�8�8�8u?z?�?�?�?�?�A�A#B&B�C�C�F�F�G�G/H7H9H?HeHkHmHrHSI\I^IaI�IJ�L�LXM`MhMlM�M�M N%N�N�N-O2OVO]O_OdO�O�O�P�P�P�P�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q�Q@RHR�R�R�R�R�R�R@SFSHSMS%T(TMTQTST]T�T�T�T�T�U�UBVKV�Y�Y�Y�Y�Y�Y�]�]�]�]�_�_�b�b�b�b^cecc�c�c�c�d�d�d�d�e�e�e�e�e�e]f`f�f�f�f�fcgjg&h.h2h@hyh�h�i�i�j�j�j�j�j�jHkOk&l+lxl|l�m�mvn{no%o'o,oso{o}o�o�o�oapkp�p�p�q�q�q�qrrrrr r�uvvvjvqvsvxv�vw*w-w/w3w�x�x�x�x�y�y�y�y�y�yGzOzizsz�z�z�{�{|$|&|-|V}\}^}c}�}�},~8~579?imouv���������������f�o����������2�8�����e�i��	���/�7�������/�4�>�B����
������������Ɲ͝ӝ�����u�y�����+�/���ťp�s����"�"
##W#Z#�#�#A1E1�3�3�C�C�Q�Q�d�d5i7i����������'���,�2�^�e�j�s�l�q�������������-�5�����$�.�����kp��kw��u|��	�	9:�
�
?HntN]��,G��*-��6;JN��JPU\��[b��flcf��io��nq���B� � -!1!�!�!#�#�-�-..//�7�7~=�=�=�=>>�?@�ABHH�O�O�XY�\�\CvHv��������ʴԴ���4�6������0�0a<c<�P�P1^8^LoRo�o�oyy�z�z}}�~�~��������˂����C�F���~���������
�����ޏ�*�3�����w�z������~���$�,�9�A�s�z�c�i���\�g���������3�8�����\�a��	�	���'(c+d+�6�6�9�9ECFCuQyQ�U�U	[[�[�[�\�\�^�^f	fJfVfLiPi�l�l�p�p.q0qrrirtrAsPs�v�v�vw&w/wawlw0yCyL{\{�{�{y~�~�~�~��ŀɀ����F�H�H�N���G�L�h�{��"�ʈ͈ʌ������������&�2�ːB�E���̑D�L�J�L������]�f���˘����^�d�(�.����������'�N�R�G�K�<�C���������*�3���m�q��#�������+�0�����������8�?�V�_�6�<���
����������f�o�d�i���ø��"�&���`�h�������B�K��������(�.�ڿ޿����?�A�����u�y�&�/���������Z�a���^�`�:�C�g�j���������������V�`�*�2���������b�j�|�������p�z�������������z����������
���������G�Q�����u����!�f�q�d�j�Y�f�"�$��"�����������
�����������k�t�����������
��Z�e�������:�>�����G�O�������������������<�J���\�i�����������<C-9��qs����	�	�
�
!��p|�
�
�
PX������5=15��
��uw4<����� � �!�!7"<"5#9#.$8$�$�$?%C%D&F&�&�&C(F(�(�(�+�+�,�,�-�-H0S041<1w4�4�45�5�5>6E6�6�6E7J7�7�7~8�8#9*9N9U9�9�9�<�<B=I=�=�=~>�>�@�@�A�A#B&B�C�C`FiF�F�F�G�GmHrH�H�H^IaI�I�I�J�J�J�JQKTK�L�L1M:M_OdO�O�O�P�P�Q�Q@RHRrStS�S�S�T�T.U2U�X�XPY[YZ	Z�Z
[U\X\�\]�]�]�`�`�`�`|a�afbqbVc\c�d�d�e�e.f4f4i;i�i�i7jBj�j�j�m�m}n�n'o,o�o�o~p�p&q-q�q�q�u�ujvqv�vw-x5x�y�y�|�|�}�}�~�~ou�؆�������-�6���đ����A�C�t�~�ؖ�W�d���g�o�����������ʙ����/�5�[�b���������՚ݚ��/�4�E�L�b�i�����כ�4�=�O�T��	�����������:�<�����ܠ������������E�Q�\�d�ޢ�����[�_���������8�D�i�k�����ťԥ��s�333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333�y`�f����
�
�W�X��������s�"7V>8�����������������^��`���o(.�
�����^��`����h�H.�
�p�L�^�p`�L��h�H.�
�@���^�@`����h�H.�
����^�`����h�H.�
���L�^��`�L��h�H.�
�����^��`����h�H.�
�����^��`����h�H.�
�P�L�^�P`�L��h�H."7V>��������									o�n�1.9K�M�(�	M5iI��q�?y"�p#2)�*�<*MD+*	,t&,+1�M4�9�;G:>�pCGA{G�mJ�*L�@MVS�AV5#[�d^�4`�"b+b�NbEce1bhi�kjp{Fv�/x�{�D{�]{)[|���g�X�di�;����#�|��t�HF��U��F����A��(L���;���Y5��K�6��7�?9�|����2��E��j�������S�
=��0��y�L]�6�x�|0��V�9?�W�y^�fL�hC��j���`��1��d���7 �Q1���!��7�e�f�!���H����@�o�o�o�o�@��{���99	����====== =!�"�$�&�'�.�/�0�1�e�g/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/�/����#$%34678:<@ACDEGI��%&RSUVXYZ]^_�`�b�h�i�k�l�m�n�o�q�r�t�u0y0z�������M�M�b�b�ʈʉ_�_�_�_�_�_�����������������������*�*�*�*�*�*�*�*�*�*�*������!�"�&�'05060708090M0N0PR_R`RbRcRdReRfRgRhRjRkRmRoRqRr?z?{?|�}�~�������4�4�4�4���������r��@��@��(@��8@� �D@�(�T@�,�.�`@�2�h@�6�t@�<�|@�F��@�J��@���@������@����������@������@����@����$@�0�h@�6�8�x@�Z�\��@�l��@�p�r�t�x��@���@��������� @�>��@�H��@�n��@���<@���D@�������\@���d@���p@����@��������������@����@����@��������@����@����@����@�����@��@� �"�H@�6�8�t@�J�L�N�P��@�T��@�Z�\�^��@�n��@�r�t��@���8	@���D	@���T	@���x@������@����@������@����@������
�@���(@���8@�$�&�P@�*�,�\@�
@���
@�����
@�������0
@�H
@�����X
@��Unknown������������G��*�Ax�	�Times New Roman5��Symbol3.��*�Cx�	�Arial;��Wingdings7.���@�Calibri5.��.�[`�)�TahomaA���$B�Cambria Math"1���h���Z',���<L�*���<L*q�������20[}[}3�Q���HP	�$P�����������������������{2!xx���
AdministratorAparaajita Arastu_Stuti SAI����Oh��+'��0p�������	
,8
DPX`h�AdministratorNormalAparaajita Arastu_Stuti SAI44Microsoft Office Word@b<Y�@�pz���@~f���<�������՜.��+,��0�hp|�������
���*L[}Title	

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������	

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������	

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������	

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW����YZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopq����stuvwxyz{|}~���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Root Entry��������	�F���5�����Data
������������X�21Table����r`�WordDocument����4�SummaryInformation(�������������DocumentSummaryInformation8���������CompObj������������y������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����	�F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9�q
Cubjrnet7 Shell
