I help managers evaluate and develop innovativeness based on the needs of managers and based on the best scientific knowledge and my long-term experience.
Scientific knowledge
Innovation is the development and introduction of new and useful products and services to the market (Evanschitzky et al 2012; Storey et al 2016). Innovation is very important because profitable innovations increase the growth of firm value the most (Cummings & Knott 2018; Wartzman & Tang 2023). And green innovations, by improving the financial performance of companies, also reduce environmental pollution (Li et al 2024).
Innovativeness is the ability of a manager, team, company or country to achieve consistently successful results in innovation.
Reasoning (Salgado & Moscoso 2019), ambition (Wilmot et al 2019; Raava 2004; 2006), expertise (Cummings & Knott 2018; Weisberg 2006), ethics (Colquitt et al 2007; Hülsheger et al 2009) and a sense of competence (Cerasoli et al 2016; Wood et al 1987) make a leader innovative.
A leader’s desire for self-development is enhanced by supportive feedback (Kluger & DeNisi 1996; Kluger & Nir 2010), which is positive (Carrillo et al 2019), empathetic and helps him consider his options (Miller & Rose 2009).
In the evaluation of managerial candidates and succession, the most valid is a structured interview, followed by a job knowledge test, an assessment of education and work experience, a work sample and a test of mental abilities (Sackett et al 2022). Since different assessment methods complement each other and together increase the validity of the assessment, they are used in combination in personnel selection (Salgado 2017).
The value of the structured interview (Levashina et al 2014) is also proven by the fact that in it candidates cannot falsify their assumptions and skills (Ho et al 2021) and that it is one of the most pleasant assessment methods for candidates, as they can show their strengths and experience well in it ( Hausknecht et al 2004).
What makes a team innovative is mutual trust (Colquitt et al 2007; Feitosa et al 2020; Frazier et al 2017), open information exchange, shared vision and feedback that supports creativity (Hülsheger et al 2009; Tjosvold et al 2022).
What makes a company innovative is customer focus and risk-taking (Feng et al 2020), market orientation and radical innovation (Evanschitzky et al 2012) and expertise in bringing innovations to the market and supporting them by connecting new information and shaping the organization (Storey et al 2016) and management innovations (Khosravi et al 2019).
References
Carrillo, A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Molinari, G., Enrique, A., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Baños, R. M. (2019). Effects of the Best Possible Self intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 14(9), Article e0222386. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222386
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Nassrelgrgawi, A. S. (2016). Performance, incentives, and needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: A meta-analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 40(6), 781–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9578-2
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Cummings, T., & Knott, A. M. (2018). Outside CEOs and innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2095– 2119. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2792
Evanschitzky, H., M. Eisend, R. J. Calantone, and Y. Jiang. (2012). Success factors of product innovation: An updated meta-analysis. Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00964.x
Feitosa, J., Grossman, R., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2020). Measuring team trust: A critical and meta‐analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(5), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2436
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Genin, A., Ma, W., Bhagwat, V., & Bernile, G. (2023). Board experiential diversity and corporate radical innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 44(11), 2634–2657. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3499
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x
Ho, J. L., Powell, D. M., & Stanley, D. J. (2021). The relation between deceptive impression management and employment interview ratings: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 53(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000223
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
Khosravi, P., Newton, C., & Rezvani, A. (2019). Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research. European Management Journal, 37(6), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kluger, A. N., & Nir, D. (2010). The Feedforward Interview. Human Resource Management Review, 20(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.002
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052
Miller, W. R., & Rose, G. S. (2009). Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. American Psychologist, 64(6), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016830
Raava, M. (2004). Kas ambivertsus on innovatsiooni eeldus? In: A. Lepik, & M. Pandis (koost.), Interdistsiplinaarsus sotsiaal- ja kasvatusteadustes: sotsiaalja kasvatusteaduste doktorantide II teaduskonverents, 25.-26. aprillil 2003 TPÜ-s. Artiklite kogumik, lk 332-368. Tallinn: Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikooli kirjastus. https://prokons.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/03-12-22-Kas-ambivertsus-on-innovatsiooni-eeldus-TPU-kogumik.pdf
Raava, M. (2006). Juhtkonnaliikme ambivertsus kui innovatsiooni eeldus. In: A. Lepik ja M. Pandis (koost.), Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikooli sotsiaal- ja kasvatusteaduste doktorantide III teaduskonverents, 21.-22. aprillil. 2005 TLÜ-s. Artiklite kogumik, lk 333-357. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli kirjastus. https://prokons.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/03-12-22-Kas-ambivertsus-on-innovatsiooni-eeldus-TPU-kogumik.pdf
Rubera, G., & Kirca, A. H. (2012). Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0494
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
Salgado, J. (2017). Personnel selection. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.8
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Meta-analysis of the validity of general mental ability for five performance criteria: Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02227
Storey, C., Cankurtaran, P., Papastathopoulou, P., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). Service innovation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12307
Tjosvold, D., Zhang, X., Li, W.-D., Wong, A. S.-h., & Yu, K. (2022). Open-minded discussion in organizations: A meta-analytic evaluation of cooperation and competition theory. Journal of Business and Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09777-w
Wartzman, R., & Tang, K. (2023). What’s new in the Best Managed Companies rankings in 2023. Wall Street Journal, Dec 13. https://www.wsj.com/business/methodology-best-managed-companies-2023-9328b9db?mod=ig_managementtop2502023
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention and the arts. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey.
Wilmot, M. P., Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Ones, D. S. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447–1470. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000415
Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.416