Paradoxes of Leading Innovative Endeavors:Summary, Solutions, and Future Directions

Samuel T. Hunter, Christian N. Thoroughgood,and Adam T. MyerPenn State University

Gina Scott LigonVillanova University

Leading innovative pursuits requires a unique set of leadership behaviors—behaviors that are frequentlyat odds with traditional forms of management and organizational functioning. We have identified 14 ofthese tensions, or paradoxes, associated with leading innovative endeavors categorizing them into fourclusters: internal/localized, team-level, organization-level, and situational. In addition, we consider someindustry-derived solutions to these paradoxes, revealing how some highly innovative organizations havebeen able to successfully manage these tensions. Supplementing these solutions, we offer suggestions onhow organizations might approach those remaining paradoxes, concluding with a discussion on necessaryfuture research endeavors. Finally, we argue that the pursuit of innovation requires a unique leadershipapproach—one that may not be currently captured by traditional views of leadership.

Keywords: innovation, leadership, paradox, tension

The nature of working in an organizational context mandates thatleaders of innovation manage conflicts between the dual goals ofcommerce and the creative process, often associated with resolvingconcerns for profitability and efficiency while simultaneously work-ing in ill-defined, ambiguous domains (Bledow, Frese, Erez, Ander-son, & Farr, 2009; DeFillippi, Grabher, & Jones, 2007). As anillustration, consider the tension emerging between individual prefer-ences for autonomy and an organizational need for control. Researchon highly creative individuals reveals that innovators typically preferthe freedom to do things their own way; to work as they see fit. In ameta-analysis of over 125 empirical studies, for example, Feist (1998)found that those engaging in scientific or artistic creativity exhibitedstrong trait tendencies toward autonomy and independence—trendsalso noted by a number of other scholars in similar reviews (e.g.,Barron & Harrington, 1981; Gough, 1979). An examination of orga-nizational interests, in contrast, reveals an oppositional pull to thecreative individual’s preference for autonomy. That is, organizationstypically seek to establish control; to quantify, predict, and manageorganizational resources in such a way as to maximize efficiency and,in turn, profit (Coase, 1937; Leana & Barry, 2000). This is particularlytrue in an era of Total Quality Management, Six Sigma, and ISO 9000& 9001 process management approaches.

Thus, in the ever-pressing quest of improving organizational cre-ativity and innovation, we often witness the emergence of paradox:tensions between two entities pursuing oppositional ends (Bledow etal., 2009; Lewis, 2000; Lucher & Lewis, 2008; Mumford & Hunter,

2005; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). More central to the present effortis that those charged with leading creative endeavors must managemultiple tensions among individuals, teams, and organizations. In thescenario described above, it appears leaders must choose betweensupporting the individual who desires freedom to engage in creativetasks or the organization that seeks a greater degree of control,efficiency, and predictability (Abernathy, 1978; Benner & Tushman,2003; Smith & Tushman, 2005).

What if, however, both the needs of the organization and indi-vidual might be met? Let us briefly consider the cases of 3M andGoogle and how they have attempted to resolve this paradoxbetween individual autonomy and organizational control.

3M is well-known for its innovations—it is the organization thathas given us Scotch tape, scratch and sniff stickers, and reflectivesheeting for highway markings (Kanter, Kao, & Wiersema, 1997).Also emergent from 3M is a somewhat odd yet infinitely usefulinnovation: the Post-It note. It is interesting that the Post-It noteemerged from a program at 3M that provides employees engaged increative tasks freedom to pursue ideas they find engaging. Known asthe 15% rule, engineers are given a portion of their workweek topursue endeavors autonomously. A similar approach is used at SiliconValley innovation powerhouse, Google. Upping the ante to 20%,Google employees are encouraged to use one day a week to pursueideas they think are interesting either on their own or with self-chosenteams. The results of the 20% rule are impressive, and include thehighly popular gmail, GoogleSky, and GoogleNews applications(Vise & Malseed, 2006). What should also be realized is that with theremaining 80% of their time (or 85% in the case of 3M), employeesare pursuing organizationally sponsored endeavors. In the cases ofboth Google and 3M, it is reasonable to say that these organizationallydirected endeavors have been quite successful (Vise & Malseed,2006).

What is witnessed in the above discussion is both the existence andresolution of paradoxical tensions that emerge when innovation ispursued in an organization. In fact, careful consideration of innovation

Samuel T. Hunter, Christian N. Thoroughgood, and Adam T. Myer,Penn State University; Gina Scott Ligon, Villanova University.

We thank Liliya Cushenberry and Melissa Hunter for their contribution tothe present effort. We would also like to thank Roni Reiter-Palmon and theanonymous reviewers for their help in revising earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to SamuelT. Hunter, Department of Psychology, Penn State University, 111 MooreBuilding, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: samhunter@psu.edu

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts © 2011 American Psychological Association2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 54–66 1931-3896/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017776

54

requirements reveals a wide array of these tensions—tensions thathave been resolved by some organizations yet continue to hamperthe innovative pursuits of many others (Benner & Tushman, 2003;De Fillipi et al., 2007; Mumford & Hunter, 2005; Tushman &O’Reilly, 1996). Thus, the primary aim of this effort is to identifythose paradoxes most challenging to leaders, thereby providing aninitial starting point of tension resolution. Along these lines, thesecond aim of the manuscript is to offer solutions witnessed ininnovative organizations (e.g., 3M and Google), as well as thecreativity, innovation, and leadership literature more specifically.Although it appears that solutions exist for several paradoxes suchas the one described above, it is evident that many remain unre-solved. Thus, the third aim of the present effort is to define a futureresearch agenda that might identify additional paradoxes and, morecritically, move toward their resolution.

Paradoxes of Leading for Innovation

Tensions, or paradoxes, occur frequently in various aspects oforganizational life (Bledow et al., 2009; Bouchikhi, 1998; Cam-eron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Luscher & Lewis, 2008).Although some debate exists as to the exact definition of paradox,most agree that it involves entities with “oppositional tendencies”(Ford & Backoff, 1988, p. 89; Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith &Tushman, 2005). The more specific notion of paradox and inno-vation has been discussed by a variety of researchers (e.g., Bledowet al., 2009; DeFillipi et al., 2007; King, Anderson, & West, 1991;Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) andthere is general consensus that the pursuit of innovation inherentlyresults in tensions among entities in the organization. Much of thework on innovation paradoxes has focused on more macrolevelstrategic decisions, such as how to dually pursue exploitive andexplorative efforts within an organization (Tushman & O’Reilly,1996). The present effort, in contrast but not contradiction, focuseson those organizational leaders charged with the immediate man-agement of innovative projects. That is, our discussion is mostapplicable to leaders who must interact with, support, and manage,team members while also being held responsible by other organi-zational stakeholders.

As we turn to a more detailed discussion of these paradoxes, itis useful to describe the general paradox “categories” used as ourframework. These categories are by no means mutually exclusive,but rather represent useful break points for facilitating our discus-sion. The first category represents the internal or localized para-doxes faced by the leader, such as obtaining both domain-specificand general leadership skills. The second category includes leaderand team member paradoxes, such as the management of autono-mous creative personalities within an increasingly team-orientedenvironment. The third category comprises tensions betweenteams and organizations, such as the desire for autonomy at theteam-level, contrasted with the need for control at upper levels.Finally, we discuss tensions associated with leaders and the con-text they face, such as the push for external collaboration contra-dicted by the need to protect ideas in competitive environments.These paradoxes are summarized in Table 1. We begin our dis-cussion with the localized or internal leadership paradoxes.

Internal (Localized) Paradoxes

Dual Expertise Paradox

Leading for innovation requires domain expertise, nicely illus-trated in Andrews and Farris’s (1967) investigation of technicalexpertise and innovative performance among 21 teams. The au-thors found that technical expertise was the strongest predictor ofteam innovative performance—a finding also observed by Bar-nowe (1975) and later noted by Mumford and colleagues (Mum-ford, Eubanks, & Murphy, 2007) in their summary of the leader-ship requirements for innovation. The challenge to leaders,however, is in gaining domain expertise yet also obtaining requi-site leadership skills necessary for managing people and resourcesin an organization (Yukl, 2007). Managing resources for innova-tion, moreover, is particularly challenging to leaders, given theseemingly unpredictable requirements of ideas that have yet to beexplored (Mumford, Bedell-Avers, & Hunter, 2008), as is theskillful management of the unique and frequently challengingcreative personalities inherent to creative efforts. At the crux ofthis paradox is that the development of expertise, in any form,takes time. In fact, some researchers have suggested that expertiserequires upward of 10 years to obtain (Ericsson & Lehman, 1996).Thus, those leading innovative efforts, paradoxically, must alsodevelop strong leadership skills in addition to their domain rele-vant expertise. Hence, our first leadership paradox:

Table 1Paradoxes When Leading for Innovation

Internal paradoxes1. Dual Expertise - Obtain domain expertise but also gain requisite

leadership skills2. Generation Evaluation - Be evaluative of pursuits but also

generative of new ideasLeadership and team-level paradoxes

3. Creative Personality Cohesion - Develop team cohesion with ateam of “creative” personalities

4. Vision Autonomy - Provide a vision and direction to teammembers but also allow for high levels of autonomy

5. Restriction Freedom - Offer time and resources but also providepressure and restrictions required for performance

Leadership and organization-level paradoxes6. Insularity Cohesion - Facilitate team-level cohesion but not

insularity within the organization7. Champion Evaluator - Be evaluative within the team, but sell

ideas to upper management and other organizational stakeholders8. Creativity Cost - Pursue multiple ideas while keeping project and

organizational costs low9. Creativity Cost - Provide requisite time necessary for creative

pursuits while keeping organizational costs lowLeadership and contextual paradoxes

10. Intrinsic Extrinsic - Instill intrinsic motivation using more readilyavailable extrinsic tools

11. Local Long-Term - Instill passion (intrinsic motivation) for singleprojects but also maintain a long term strategic orientation

12. Competition Collaboration - facilitate openness with otherorganizations but protect the organization’s competitive advantage

13. Feedback Rigidity - Receive and use feedback from customers/clients but not be dictated by such feedback

14. Failure Success - Develop an organizational culture that embracesrisk and failure, yet is able to produce successful outcomes

55SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION

P1: Leaders Must Obtain Domain Expertise WhileAlso Gaining Necessary Leadership Skills

Paradox resolution. Although this paradox is challenging, aninteresting approach to resolution is witnessed in the managementof a rather unique innovative endeavor: the Manhattan project. Theteam charged with constructing the first atomic bomb was offi-cially led by Robert Oppenheimer, a well-respected theoreticalphysicist and university professor at the University of California atBerkley. As may be surmised, Oppenheimer had incredible exper-tise and thus, earned the respect of the impressive group hedirected. What some have suggested that Oppenheimer lacked,however, were the social skills necessary to successfully lead theproject (Kao, 2007). This was handled by Leslie Groves, who asKao (2007) describes “had considerable expertise available to himin the huge Rolodex of government and private sector people hecould tap. He had a tremendous cache of social capital, and did nothesitate to use it” (p. 202). Thus, a rather unique solution to thisparadox is simply not to have a single leader, but rather share theresponsibility between individuals who possess the requisite skillsand expertise.

At times, however, the above solution is not feasible and as suchorganizations must attempt to resolve this tension using one leaderrather than an integrated leadership effort. This approach requiressustained and effortful commitment by the leader as well as theorganization. Mumford and colleagues (Mumford et al., 2007)suggested that future leaders must be recognized early enough intheir careers to be given a series of small projects to lead, therebyallowing for the development of leadership skills. Managing toomany projects, however, conflicts with the leader gaining requisitedomain expertise. Thus, early leadership opportunities should beflexible enough to allow for individuals to gain leadership expe-rience while also allowing for domain expertise development.

Planned efforts to improve leadership skills (Day, 2000) need tolean to the more informal approaches as well; for example, atTyson Foods, junior scientists are paired with mentors in differentfunctional areas to obtain experiences observing and discussingstrategies for managing creative teams. These informal mentoringmeetings provide early opportunities for the junior scientist tolearn how to coach and provide feedback to his team in a way thatencourages productivity without interfering with members’ auton-omy. In one empirical study along these lines, Feist (1999) alsoreports that high-performing physical and biological scientistswere more likely to report having had mentoring relationships.

These engagements may afford exposure to higher-level strate-gic goals of the organization, and how leaders translate them intoteam objectives. This flexible approach to leadership developmentmay speed the acquisitions of shared mental models around anorganization’s mission, a factor deemed critical and challenging ininnovative organizations (Thompson, 2007). Future work in thisarena should focus on identifying what situations may best besuited for dividing leadership responsibilities (e.g., as in the Man-hattan Project), versus situations that allow informal leadershiptraining to ameliorate the challenge of one individual charged withboth innovating and managing others.

Generation Evaluation Paradox

In addition to obtaining multiple types of expertise, leaders mustalso balance several conflicting tasks—tasks that require distinct

cognitive processes—when engaging in innovative endeavors(Baer, 2003). The most noteworthy challenge is the differentialactivities required of evaluating and generating ideas. The realiza-tion that not all creative ideas are viable and that many will failalso presents challenges to leaders when attempting to establish aclimate of support for original thinking. Leaders of innovationmust serve as the gatekeepers of ideas—backing those ideas thatmay be most successful for the team and organization (Mumford etal., 2003). At the same time, however, leaders must also besupportive of “out of the box” thinking (Amabile, Schatzel,Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; West, 1990). This support is particularlynecessary for creative endeavors where reactions to originality aretypically critical and negative (Blair & Mumford, 2007). In hisreview of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab,Berkun (2007) recalls a conversation with the team centering onhow they arrived at their most innovative solutions: “We start witha half-baked idea, which most people—especially critical peo-ple—would just shoot down right away or find uninteresting” (p.88). Specifically, a primary role in leading for innovation isserving as evaluator—choosing the ideas most viable for the teamand organization (Mumford et al., 2003). As O’Connor (1998)observed, project success for technological innovations wasstrongly predicted by a leader’s ability to evaluate the long-termoutcomes of a given idea. Similar results were observed by Kitch-ell (1995) who found that appraising ideas relative to long-termgoals resulted in increased adoption of new technologies. Theprocess of evaluation is “. . .a distinct form of creative thought inits own right involving the forecasting of consequences, the defi-nition of standards, ongoing revision, and the appraisal of envi-ronmental demands and emergent properties” (Mumford, Loner-gan, & Scott, 2002, p. 27).

Although evaluation is a central requirement of managing acreative team, tensions emerge when leaders must simultane-ously serve as “generators.” That is, leaders are not simplygatekeepers of their team’s ideas— effective leaders also helpcontribute to idea generation and refinement (Bilton, 2007;Mumford et al., 2003; Torr, 2007). Much of the creativityresearch has concerned itself with the cognitive processes un-derlying divergent thinking and idea generation, or the ability toproduce various possible solutions to a problem (Lubart, 1994;Guilford, 1967). Divergent thinking is necessary to deviseoriginal alternatives for a problem’s solution (Runco, 2004,1993); moreover, assessments of divergent thought have servedas a useful estimate of creative potential (Basadur, Runco, &Vega, 2000; Runco, 1993).

In a review of creative thinking, Baer (2003) identified threeimportant themes central to the idea of distinct generative andevaluative processes. First, divergent and evaluative thinkingskills follow different developmental trajectories. Second, thedevelopment of one set of skills may influence the other andthird, the level of these skills varies widely among and withinindividuals. Taken from this summary is that not only doesgeneration and evaluation require different behaviors—behaviors thatmay prove difficult to engage in simultaneously—the processes ofgeneration and evaluation may also require potentially conflictingforms of cognition. Hence, our second localized tension faced byleaders:

56 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON

P2: Leaders Must Be Evaluative of Project Direction,but Also Generative of New Ideas

Paradox resolution. Although simultaneously serving asevaluator and generator is a challenging endeavor, it is made easierin environments that embrace criticism and realize the potentialvalue of error (van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag, 2005). Lead-ers must actively encourage an environment that supports evalu-ation and views it as a means to improve ideas rather than a tool todisqualify them. As Mumford and colleagues (Mumford et al.,2003) suggest “feedback framed in terms of the needs of creativeefforts is likely to prove most beneficial” (p. 26). In this sense,evaluation feeds into the generative process rather than conflictingdirectly with it—ultimately serving to minimize the tension be-tween the two processes.

When providing such feedback, it may prove more effective inmanaging these competing processes by providing direction ratherthan specific information about work projects. Cropley (2006)proposes that evaluative processes are needed at generative stages,assisting individuals in helping define what is creative and worthyof pursuit (and further resources). Thus, while serving in a lead-ership role, individuals must be able to draw upon both of evalu-ative and generative processes, and provide feedback in a way thatconnotes the spirit of openness (Sundgren, Selart, Ingelgard, &Bengston, 2005) and knowledge-based/goal-directed information(Cropley, 2006). In an empirical study by Zhou (2004), this pre-scription gained support; results showed when feedback was pre-sented in a developmental, process-based fashion by supervisors,greater creativity resulted from the individuals on the team. Thus,it would follow that leaders of creative endeavors learn skills indeveloping others to generate creative ideas, rather than explicitlyproviding ideas to the team. Future work in this area shouldexplore the possibility of complementary roles of generative andevaluative thinking when providing feedback as to others’ ideas, aswell as focus on effective delivery strategies that encourage ideaexploration and autonomy.

Leader and Team-Level Paradoxes

Creative Personality Cohesion Paradox

As we turn now to the paradoxes among leaders, team members,and teams, recall in our previous discussion of the personalitiescharacterizing highly creative employees that leaders face a uniquechallenge in managing a collection of individuals who wouldlikely prefer working alone. Put more directly, leaders face adifficult conflict in that they must develop cohesion among teammembers who often possess traits of autonomy, need for achieve-ment, hostility, and dominance (Feist, 1999, 1998). Cohesion isimportant for a number of reasons, such as increased task com-mitment and engagement in a task (West, 2002). One of theprimary roles cohesion plays is in aiding in the establishment ofparticipative safety (Anderson & West, 1998; West, 1990). That is,cohesion helps facilitate a general comfort in sharing ideas and asa result, more original ideas are available to the team membersduring the innovation process. Unfortunately, excessive cohesioncan lead to a desire to not want to “rock the boat” or causeinterpersonal conflict among team members. In fact, research hasshown that it is extremely difficult to develop cognitive conflict

without interpersonal conflict. De Dreu and Weingart (2003), forexample, reported an average correlation between task and socio-emotional conflict of .54, and single studies have found correla-tions as high as .75 (Ensley & Pearce, 2001). Central to thisleadership paradox, however, is that some form of cognitive (i.e.,task) conflict or challenging of ideas is necessary for creativity tooccur (Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999). Thus, we have our thirdleadership paradox:

P3: Leaders Must Develop Team Cohesion Within aTeam of “Creative” Personalities, yet Still EncourageCreative Conflict

Paradox resolution. Work by Taggar (2001, 2002) offerssome insight into creative personality paradox faced by leaders.Specifically, Taggar (2001) examined 94 work teams and theircomposition and observed that teams composed of many creativeindividuals performed very well if they engaged in specific cre-ative teamwork processes. On the other hand, teams composed ofhighly creative individuals that did not engage in team creativeprocesses performed much worse. Thus, there is some indicationthat leaders can manage the unique personalities of creative indi-viduals in such a way as to produce high-level innovation. Thekey, it seems, is an emphasis on team processes such as partici-pation, goal setting, and actively managing conflict.

Managing conflict among these types of personalities is no easytask, however. In his discussions on facilitating innovation atNissan, Jerry Hirschberg described what he called “creative abra-sion” (Hirschberg, 1999, p. 29), noting that although it was diffi-cult, the conflict that arose from differing cultures resulted ingreater innovation. Once this was realized, moreover, employeesembraced conflict much more easily. Another example of leadersmanaging this conflict successfully is seen in Xerox PARC—ledfor a time by Bob Taylor. In discussing the development ofsuccessful innovations, Smith and Alexander (1999) write: “[BobTaylor’s] attitude kept it safe for others to put aside fears and egoand concentrate objectively on the problem at hand” (pp. 7).Taylor made a conscious effort to facilitate open discussion and,more centrally, served as a role model for both receiving andproviding criticism. One additional way to facilitate task conflictyet minimize interpersonal conflict is through levity—keepingthings light. Former dean of Yale’s medical school Lewis Thomasnoted, “One way to tell when something important is going on isby laughter” (Berkun, 2007, p. 103)—a climate he actively pur-sued at Yale. Finally, leaders must compose their teams withindividuals that have the passion but also the willingness to con-tinually improve via critical evaluation. Chief Executive Officer(CEO) of Joost, Mike Volpi, refers to this as being criticallyoptimistic, stating, “It is the ability to critically assess and opti-mistically improve that makes for better professionals, better com-panies, and better countries” (Estrin, 2007, p. 133). More work isneeded around the nature of the leader’s role in developing thisclimate, focusing on the relative importance of strategies such asrole modeling, storytelling, and direct feedback.

Vision Autonomy Paradox

Along the lines of the paradox discussed above, recall that it isessential that leaders provide guidance and direction to the team. In

57SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION

fact, the leadership literature is replete with empirical supporthighlighting the importance of establishing a vision for subordi-nates (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). This is alsotrue in the context of innovation, more specifically (Pinto &Prescott, 1988). The tension occurs, however, when we considerthe nature of creative individuals and the nature of the creativetask. Providing too much structure can be met with significantbacklash from teams and individuals who prefer freedom in theirtasks—leading to our fourth paradox when managing innovativeefforts:

P4: Leaders Must Provide a Vision and Direction toTeam Members but Also Allow for High Levels ofTeam Autonomy

Paradox resolution. Resolving this paradox involves a shiftfrom a leader’s vision to a team’s mission. That is, leaders mustprovide a broad view of the project goals without defining the endresult explicitly to their personalized visions (Mumford et al.,2007). This is not to suggest that goal setting and project manage-ment is a minor part of the creative process—indeed they arecritical to leading for innovation (West, 1990). Rather, a leadermust be cautious in providing this direction so as to allow a viewof what the solution may look like, with the realization that howthe solution is derived will be an iterative process. Zhou’s (2004)study also points to the importance of that developmental feedbackplayed in shaping individual’s creative performance; when work-ing with creative coworkers, individuals benefited from supervi-sory developmental feedback. In effect, when informational feed-back was provided about team goals and progress toward thosegoals, individuals were more likely to produce creative results.Thus, one additional (but related) way to resolve this paradoxcould be for leaders to shift their direction around the vision in theform of feedback rather than initial goal setting. Additional re-search as to how this feedback could be delivered in a way thatreinforces the vision is needed (cf., Zhou, 1998).

Restrictions Freedom Paradox

A key conflict the leader of a creative team must resolve is thetension between managing the work and allowing members therequisite autonomy to think and perform creatively. That is, whilethe creative process can sometimes result in working towardproblem resolution in an iterative and deliberate fashion, in anorganizational setting, there is often a sense of urgency for results.Leaders need to respond to this production pressure by holdingteams accountable for a reasonable level of performance andquality (Anderson & West, 1998; West, 1990). The challenge withproviding pressure, however, is that creative endeavors need timeto develop, particularly when projects are team-based (Reiter-Palmon, Herman, & Yammarino, 2008; Shalley & Gilson, 2004).Simply put, there is no specific time-line for innovation, yetleaders need to provide some degree of pressure to meet team-levelgoals.

While leaders may try to find strategies to buffer team membersfrom production pressure (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007), thechallenge is to provide adequate time and resources but not inducecomplacency. This point was noted expressly by Shalley andGilson (2003) who stated: “managers have a complex role in

striking the right balance between providing employees enoughtime to be creative but not too much time so that they are no longermotivated to perform their jobs” (p. 39). Nohria and Gulati (1996)also explored this paradox, examining the role of “slack” in orga-nizational innovation. In their sample of 264 departments, theauthors found that having few resources hampered innovation, butan overabundance of resources also limited the originality ofinnovative efforts. Finally, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) suggested thatresources can have a “deadening effect” on creativity (p. 321) andthat caution is warranted with regard to blanket resource distribu-tion.

P5: Leaders Must Allow for the Timelines andResources Necessary for Creative Thinking yet AvoidComplacency by Providing Requisite Restrictions andPressure Necessary for Performance

Paradox resolution. As the push and pull factors of thisparadox are multifaceted, so too are the emergent resolutions. Thisparadox is often resolved through team composition combinedwith the nature of the task. That is, choosing the right teammembers for innovation and charging them with a task they enjoyinduces much of the pressure necessary for quality outcomes(Amabile, 1998). More pragmatically, it may also be necessary forleaders to develop timelines that provide subordinates informationas to necessary progress, but also flexible enough to handle thepredictably unpredictable lags that occur in innovation. Cohendetand Simon’s (2007) review of video game companies, for exam-ple, revealed that strict time deadlines allowed for the developmentof “creative slack” that could be used in the later stages of projectdevelopment—frequently when it was needed most.

HP Labs actively addressed this tension using what insidersreferred to as the “5-year rule.” Looking back at successful inno-vations, HP noticed that viable innovations went from lab tomarketplace in under 5 years. Thus, by instituting a 5-year rule forprojects, managers must either abandon the project at that point oradequately justify why it should be pursued further. The key hereis that a formalized organizational “rule” provides adequate time topursue ideas, but also an external attribution for when to call itquits should the idea not prove viable. This rule has providedvaluable in promoting a culture at HP that realizes when it is timeto move on with ideas without punishment or embarrassment(Estrin, 2007). Proctor & Gamble, on the other hand, takes asomewhat different approach by “shelving” ideas should they notprove currently viable. By placing an idea on the shelf, the orga-nization ensures a backlog of unique ideas, but also sends themessage to employees that all ideas are valuable, just maybe notviable at the present time.

With regard to resources allocation and complacency, leadersshould realize that when managing creative efforts, resources neednot be opulent or excessive to be effective (Kao, 2007). In fact,there is some indication that job dissatisfaction can lead to cre-ativity if surrounded by the right coworkers (Zhou & George,2002). Along these lines, leaders must make careful decisionsabout why certain resources are necessary for creativity. For ex-ample, a leader may decide that a grand meeting space is necessaryfor innovation and pursue a costly renovation project to enhanceinnovation. In reality, however, what she may really want is simplyspace where individuals can gather and share ideas; a space that

58 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON

often comes with minor cost (Cohendet & Simon, 2007). Compla-cency, moreover, occurs when there is a lack of challenge andinspiration and it is often the leader’s job to provide both (e.g.,Bass, 1985) in addition to the tools necessary for the job. Futurescholars should address where the tipping points, for both physicaland time resources, lie with respect to various industries. Forexample, time needed for development in the pharmaceutical in-dustry is likely to look much different (given the lag of Food &Drug Administration approvals and other governmental restric-tions) than resources needed for innovation in the computer world,where time to market indicators are typically shorter and morepredictable.

Team and Organization-Level Leadership Paradoxes

Insularity Cohesion Paradox

Having discussed localized leadership paradoxes, as well asthose tensions occurring between team members, teams, and lead-ers, we turn now to paradoxes between teams and organizations.Flowing from our above discussion on the importance of teamcohesion in creative performance, leaders must also be weary oflimiting team interaction with other project groups due to high-level cohesion. That is, although cohesion is a necessary compo-nent of innovation, it is possible for teams to isolate themselveswithin the organization and limit influence from external groups.This can lead to a number of problems, including phenomena suchas “groupthink” (Janis, 1972). In their investigation of severallarge videogame organizations, Cohendet and Simon (2007) re-ferred to this as the “distance paradox” (p. 599) where creativethinking may be enhanced initially via segregation, but the entireinnovative process is lengthened and hampered by a lack ofintegration among key organizational units. Thus, the challenge toleaders is to stimulate cohesion but not create barriers to externalgroups who may have valuable insight into how to improve teamprojects. The next innovation paradox, then, is:

P6: Leaders Must Facilitate Team-Level CohesionWhile Also Avoiding Group Insularity Within theOrganization

Paradox resolution. What is particularly challenging aboutthis paradox is that sometimes isolation is, in fact, necessary. Theclassic example is witnessed in the revolutionary innovationsemerging from Lockheed’s Skunk Works in the early 1940s. Otherorganizations, however, have also developed their share of pur-poseful isolation. Motorola took an elite team of designers to anondescript office miles away from their Chicago corporate homeand, in under 12 months, developed the (at the time) revolutionaryRAZR phone (Kao, 2007). Team leaders purposefully kept theirtasks secret and isolation was an intended strategy, not a by-product of the design effort. Thus the solution to this paradox maybe in purposeful, intentional, and timely isolation. Bear in mindthat in the case of the RAZR phone, for example, it would beimpossible to manufacture and market the phone without the use ofthe larger organization. It should also be noted that some industrieshave seen notable success with the pursuit of a more integrateddesign process. The videogame industry examined by Cohendetand Simon (2007) serves as an illustration, with managers in their

study describing the active management of integration amongorganizational units. What should be noted about their study,however, is that the organization as a whole—not just the gamedesigners—realized the importance of creative thinking to organi-zational success, and, as such, all parties involved sought tofacilitate the innovative process. Thus, leaders must choose if, andunder what circumstances, to engage in isolation and when it isnecessary to connect with those within the organization. Purpose-ful isolation will require significant forecasting and planning skillson the part of the leader, as well as a commitment to activeengagement in these activities (Beeler, Shipman, & Mumford, thisissue; Mumford, Bedell-Avers, & Hunter, 2008). Empirical re-search focused on the examination of the skills involved with thisaspect of leadership should aid in the development of such plan-ning capacities of managers (Marta, Leritz, & Mumford, 2005).

Champion Evaluator Paradox

As may be witnessed in our discussion, leaders must playseveral roles as they manage innovative efforts. More centrally,while serving as a lynchpin between project teams and upper-leveldecision makers, leaders must oftentimes engage in contradictoryfunctions (Abernathy, 1978; Benner & Tushman, 2003). For ex-ample, leaders must be the evaluators within the team—decidingwhich ideas to pursue and in what capacity. This process ofevaluation requires leaders to judiciously consider the challengesto implementing ideas. Further, as very few creative ideas make itto production stages, leaders must be critical of the majority ofcreative ideas—at least in an evaluative sense (Mumford et al.,2003). Conversely, however, leaders must also sell ideas to upper-level management and other organizational stakeholders, toutingthe strengths of the ideas and highlighting potential financialupsides of team projects (Berkun, 2007; Mumford & Hunter,2005). Howell and Higgins (1990) were among the first to describethe role of the idea champion or influencer. They and others havedescribed idea champions as individuals who not only have theskills to recognize and sometimes develop creative ideas, but theyalso possess a certain amount of sales “moxy” to effectively pitchthose ideas to others (Bouwen & Fry, 1988). In a recent studyreviewing idea champions of technological innovation (e.g., in-creased usage of the Internet), Mullins, Kozlowski, Schmitt, andHowell (2008) found that such idea champions were most effectivewhen they could clearly articulate the intricacies and expectedbenefits of the innovation in a way that appealed to stakeholders.It follows then that these individuals need to not only master thetechnical domain associated with the innovation, they need to doso in a way that effectively conveys the importance to others in(and sometimes outside of) the organization. Thus, we have ournext leadership tension emerging in the pursuit of innovation:

P7: Leaders Must Frequently Be Evaluative/CriticalWithin the Team, but Champions for Ideas WithOrganizational Decision-Makers and Stakeholders

Paradox resolution. Resolution of this paradox may lie in thetiming of when ideas are championed. Leaders must provideadequate time for prototyping and development, allowing for aviable product to emerge that is easier to champion to individualsexternal to the group. Time for project completion, moreover, may

59SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION

be combined with isolation within the organization so that ideascan be adequately protected from potentially harmful externaljudgment. Isolation and time also allow for a leader to activelyengage in creative projects (e.g., refining and testing) such that heor she becomes more confident in their success, and thus willing torebuke potential external critiques. By the time an idea is ready tobe shown to decision makers, the leader may more comfortablyshift from evaluator to product champion. It is also possible thatthis timing variable may aid in the leader studying the best ap-proach to fully develop his approach to “sell” the idea to organi-zational decision makers; most agree that this is best done througha series of small demonstration and pilot projects (Mullins et al.,2008; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002). A multilevel approach tofuture research of idea champions may illuminate the complexinteraction between firm characteristics (e.g., willingness to acceptinnovation) and individual characteristics of the champion (e.g.,level of involvement with development of the idea) (Mullins et al.,2008).

Creativity Cost Paradoxes

As mentioned previously in our discussion of organizationalneeds, businesses frequently succeed by operating efficiently andkeeping costs low. Low overhead and operating costs increasesprofit margins and, as a result, the success of the organization as awhole. Innovation, however, is hardly an efficient, predictableendeavor. In fact, one way of ensuring a consistent stream ofinnovations in organizations is to pursue multiple projects simul-taneously with the knowledge that many endeavors will fail(Mumford et al., 2008). Although this maximizes the likelihood ofradical, high-impact innovations, this strategy is neither predict-able nor efficient. Along similar lines, creativity requires signifi-cant time (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Gruber & Davis, 1988). Asmay be surmised, extra time to pursue ideas that are likely to failis a difficult strategy to pursue. Thus, we have our next twoleadership paradoxes:

P8: Leaders Must Pursue Multiple Ideas WhileKeeping Project Costs Low

P9: Leaders Must Provide the Requisite TimeNecessary for Creative Pursuits but Also MinimizeCosts to the Organization

Paradox resolution. In their multilevel discussion on plan-ning for innovation, Mumford et al. (2008) suggested that thepursuit of multiple projects—termed a portfolio—is necessary forsustained innovation. Moreover, to sustain the pursuit of multipleinnovations, the researchers argued that projects must be builtupon common scaffolding. That is, projects should be related toseveral areas addressing multiple needs and allowing, most nota-bly, for a reduction in cost. Expertise, resources, and materials thatare shared help reduce the financial burden to organizations. Inaddition, organizations search for ways to funnel other resourcesinto their core business. One example of where this has occurredis the fashion industry’s judicious use of licensing (Jones, 2007).Pierre Cardin, a perceptive entrepreneur and designer, may havebeen the first to master the art of licensing; a practice that allowsdesigners to grow their brand—and revenue—by selling their

name to other products. The Cardin brand has been associated withitems ranging from car interiors, key chains, to luggage, thoughcreative designers at Cardin focus solely on apparel.

With regard to the time required for innovation, emerging tech-nologies provide some reduction in this tension faced by leaders.Specifically, methods of rapid prototyping have reduced the timerequired for design, and have in turn, lengthened the time availablefor exploration (Chua, Leong, & Lim, 2003). Virtual prototypingand simulation, moreover, also reduce cost and allow for rapidfeedback that greatly aids in the refinement and improvement ofideas (Rix, Has, & Teixeira, 1995). Finally, technologies that allowfor virtual collaboration are reducing the time (and cost) necessaryfor innovation (Piccoli, Powell, & Ives, 2004). However, muchresearch is needed on the effects of virtual collaboration on inno-vation, and particularly the e-leadership required to manage it(Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). What we know regardingthe way managers of innovation are to provide direction, feedback,and rewards may change when the communications are mediatedby technology. For example, Balthazard, Waldman, and Atwater(2008) found that when compared to face-to-face teams, virtualteams exhibited much more defensive communication patterns andless cohesion. This finding may be particularly troublesome forteams with creative personalities.

Leader and Contextual Paradoxes

Intrinsic Extrinsic Paradox

We turn now to our final category of paradoxes faced by leaderswhen pursuing innovation, those tensions associated with the con-text or the situation. One of the more commonly discussed para-doxes within this category is founded in motivation. As we havenoted several times in our discussion, intrinsic motivation plays akey role in facilitating creativity (Amabile, 1997; Shalley & Old-ham, 1997). Where the paradox emerges, however, is with thetools most readily available to leaders—namely extrinsic motiva-tors such as bonuses, increases in pay, or preferred assignments.Research on extrinsic motivators and creativity is mixed, withsome concluding that extrinsic motivation hampers creativity (e.g.,Amabile, 1985; Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeeyi, 1971) and otherssuggesting the relationship is a bit more complex (e.g., Baer,Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Mumford & Hunter, 2005). What isclear, however, is that while extrinsic rewards may hamper inno-vation, intrinsic motivation plays a strong positive role in creativeperformance. The challenge to leaders is that intrinsic motivationis often derived from personal, autonomous efforts rather thandirected external influence from leaders. Thus, our next paradoxemerges:

P 10: Leaders Must Instill Intrinsic Motivation WhenExtrinsic Tools Are Most Readily Available

Paradox resolution. One approach to reduce tension associ-ated with this paradox is to be creative in the application of rewardsystems—providing recognition that serves to facilitate intrinsicmotivation. These rewards can include interesting assignments ora unique role in the team. Creative individuals tend to enjoycreative tasks and as such, allowing them to fully engage in suchefforts is frequently an intrinsic reward serving to enhance interest

60 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON

in a creative project. Moreover, there is some indication thatextrinsic rewards can help facilitate intrinsic motivation—particularly if those rewards serve as a signal to subordinates thatoriginal thinking is valued (Cardinal, 2001; Chalupsky, 1953).Thus, managers must pay special attention to providing rewardsfor generative processes and not simply for those ideas that areprofitable (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). Future research in this areaalso should focus on the effect of performance appraisals and otherhuman resource interventions on rewarding innovation, as suchapplied processes, have received limited attention in the literatureto date.

Local Long-Term Paradox

Along similar lines is the next challenge faced by leaders—emphasizing intrinsic motivation and passion for immediate proj-ects while also maintaining a long-term strategic focus. For leadersto succeed at innovative pursuits, they must continually scan theenvironment for potential opportunities (Mumford et al., 2008;2003). Moreover, leaders must develop flexible teams that arecapable of capitalizing on such opportunities should they arise.The paradox is witnessed, however, when we consider that thiscapitalization may come at the expense of dropping an idea teammembers are passionate about; passion, moreover, that was facil-itated and supported by the leader (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998;Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Ven-kataraman, 1999). Thus, we have our next paradox:

P11: Leaders Must Instill Passion (IntrinsicMotivation) for Single Projects but Also Maintaina Long-Term Strategic Orientation

Paradox resolution. To be flexible enough to capitalize onemerging opportunities, leaders must establish a culture that em-braces change and adaptability (Denton, 1998). That is, teammembers must learn that shifting from one project to another is intheir best interest as well as that of the organization—an endeavorthat requires time and sustained effort on the part of the leader.

One rather unique solution to this paradox is the use of “hiredguns” for the purposes of seizing an immediate opportunity, whileallowing for team members to more easily transition out of currentprojects. Using the phrase “just-in-time person,” Howkins (2001)identified the benefits of individuals who have the expertise topursue a specific opportunity, as well as the social skills to operatein preexisting or emerging teams to be essentially on-call or in theorganization’s queue for projects on an as needed basis. What isless understood is how the addition of such members may affectthe team dynamics and cohesion upon joining; future work inapplied settings (where cohesion is already established) shouldexamine organizational usage and team member reactions to suchmembers to better understand whether their just-in-time contribu-tions are viewed as valuable or disruptive by existing members.

Competition Collaboration Paradox

Just as leaders must maintain a long-term strategic orientation,they must also develop broader collaborations with external net-works. These connections include other organizations as well assuppliers, customers, and clients. Collaborations such as these help

ensure an influx of valuable information as well as fresh perspec-tives on potential innovation opportunities (Scott & Bruce, 1994;Nystrom, 1979). The leadership paradox emerges, however, whenwe consider the need to protect ideas in a competitive environ-ment. In their review of the music industry, for example, Gander,Haberberg, and Rieple (2007) discuss the emergence of a learningrace that can occur in collaborations where both entities attempt tolearn as much as they can about one another before terminating thecollaboration. Thus, leaders must develop open external relation-ships, but also be aware of the need to protect emerging ideas.Thus, we have our next paradox for innovation:

P12: Leaders Must Facilitate Openness With ExternalNetworks, but Also Protect the Organization’sCompetitive Advantage

Paradox resolution. One method of developing collaborativerelationships that bring in external ties and ideas is through acqui-sition. That is, rather than developing a potentially tenuous col-laborative partnership, organizations can acquire a smaller orga-nization ensuring goal congruity and limiting the loss of acompetitive advantage. Google’s acquisition of YouTube is a niceillustration of this. In fact, Google’s senior VP has made a con-certed effort to allow YouTube to retain much of its culture as topreserve the influx of unique ideas stating, “The site has reallyexplosive growth that we don’t want to disrupt in any way” (Estrin,2007, p. 140). Other examples include eBay’s acquisition of Pay-Pal—an organization that gives them unique insight into onlinepurchasing (Estrin, 2007), and Harley-Davidson’s purchase ofBuell—a flatter organization that gives them market-share ofyounger riders, as well as access to emerging design engineers(Holmstrom, 2002). An alternative approach is witnessed by Am-azon, which had gathered a copious amount of data on purchasingtrends over decades. Against stiff opposition, CEO Jeff Bezosmade this information public guided by the vision that this infor-mation would spur increased business for Amazon. Results of hisexperiment proved that his instincts were correct; nearly 70,000sites used this information and link directly to Amazon boostingrevenue tremendously (Kao, 2007). Certainly some caution iswarranted with such a brazen approach, but there appear to besituations when sharing information can lead to a wealth of newopportunity. To date, few studies have undertaken a comparativeapproach across industries (for a rare example see Thornton, Jones,& Kury, 2005), to examine the differential impact of acquisitionsacross industries; it may be the case that some industries benefitfrom this type of knowledge sharing more readily than others.

Feedback Rigidity Paradox

One external tie may play a particularly key role in innova-tion—input from clients and customers. By receiving inputabout the needs and preferences of customers, such as thosegained from focus groups, leaders can gain valuable input aboutthe viability of the projects currently being pursued (Kao,2007). Moreover, leaders may take cues from customers andengage in innovative endeavors to meet the emerging needs oftheir clients and customers. Jeff Hawkins, the founder of thePalm Pilot, for example, took direct cues from customers onwhat they needed out of a personal digital assistant, fulfilling

61SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION

needs previously thought unattainable. Breaking sharply fromcompetitors such as Apple and Sharp, Palm was able to developa stronghold in an area that would grow to a billion dollarindustry (Berkun, 2007). What leaders must be weary of, how-ever, is being overly dictated by customer input. Many radicalinnovations received little or no input from customers andinstead are driven by a number of intrinsic factors (Gilson &Madjar, this issue). In fact, some innovations were met withearly criticism and negative evaluations from customers (Chris-tensen, 1997). Thus, our next paradox faced by leaders:

P13: Leaders Must Receive and Use Feedback FromCustomers/Clients but Not Be Dictated by SuchFeedback

Paradox resolution. We have discussed a number of versionsof Lockheed’s Skunk Works where a core team of creative indi-viduals were taken to a location external to the organization in anattempt to allow for exploration of radical or disruptive innova-tions (e.g., Nissan, Apple, Motorola). Central to the resolution ofthis paradox is that these efforts were typically not directed bycustomer input—they emerged from the passion and vision of afew key individuals. Known as disruptive or radical innovation,these projects are often met with early skepticism by both uppermanagement and customers alike. Thus, to be successful leadersmust simultaneously pursue both incremental and radical innova-tions. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) referred to this as exploitation(incremental innovation) and exploration (radical innovation), andcoined a phrase for those businesses that could successfully man-age this tension: the ambidextrous organization. In short, organi-zations that can capitalize on their core products and processes(exploitation) can have the capital to fully pursue emerging radical(exploration) ideas. Exactly how organizations pursue this multiplepronged approach, however, remains somewhat unclear. There issome indication, for example, that exploration at lower levels canhamper radical innovation at more macro levels (Siggelkow &Rivkin, 2006). Findings such as these suggest that successfulimplementation of feedback from customers should be integratedat both the project level and strategic level. Thus, it will beessential for future research to examine extent, source, and natureof client feedback, as well as the impact at the varying levels of theorganization.

Failure Success Paradox

A final paradox faced by leaders centers around organizationalculture and support of errors and failure. Specifically, it is apparentthat to pursue innovation leaders must manage and operate in anenvironment that is tolerant of every project or idea. Work by vanDyck et al. (2005) and Sitkin (1996) on error management, forexample, reveals that embracing errors can help in learning, inno-vation, and resilience. In fact, those organizations that embracefailure appear to be particularly effective at developing creativesolutions. David Kelly’s innovation powerhouse IDEO embracesthe motto of “fail often to succeed sooner” (Kelly, 2001, p. 56).The paradox that emerges for leaders is simply succeeding in anenvironment comfortable with—or even celebratory of—failure.As is the case with resources and complacency, becoming toocomfortable with unsuccessful outcomes can provide a unique

challenge to leaders who are also accountable for bottom-linefigures. Thus, we have our final leadership paradox:

P14: Leaders Must Develop an Organizational CultureThat Embraces Risk and Failure, Yet Is Able toProduce Successful Outcomes

Paradox resolution. Resolution of this paradox lies, in largepart, from the leader clearly establishing that errors are to belearned from, rather than being directly sought after. That is, errorspresent an opportunity to learn and improve. In this way, successis remains ultimate criterion, with proper error management serv-ing as a means to achieve that outcome. Van Dyck et al. (2005)contend that errors can never be fully eliminated—that they are anatural part of organizational life. Thus, organizations that em-brace the knowledge gained from errors have a competitive ad-vantage over those that brush them under the rug and ignoreemergent lessons.

Establishing a strong error management culture, however,solves only a portion of this paradox. At the heart of the challengefor leaders is not making failure “too” comfortable; that is, induc-ing complacency among team members. Selecting intrinsicallymotivated team members is a step in the right direction. Promotingintrinsic motivation, moreover, would help to eliminate comfortwith failure. Finally, leaders must emphasize quality attempts—even if ideas do not reach production stages (Mumford & Hunter,2005). As researchers continue to explore these topics, it will becritical to examine the specific behaviors leaders engage in thatallow them to walk the fine line between inducing subordinatecomplacency and enhancing psychological safety. There is someindication, for example, that unconventional or odd leader behav-iors can result in greater creativity via role-modeling (Jaussi &Dionne, 2003). Efforts along these lines may likely prove benefi-cial to understanding the specific leader behaviors required tomanage this tension. Moreover, future research must explore phe-nomena in longitudinal fashion—considering both short and longterm outcomes associated with failure.

Summary and Conclusions

Before turning to the conclusions emerging from the presenteffort, a number of limitations should be borne in mind. First, anattempt was made to produce a reasonably comprehensive list ofleadership paradoxes. However, we felt that an exhaustive listwould undermine the utility of our discussion and as such, the factremains that other paradoxes may exist. Thus, the list of paradoxesrepresents a sample of potential paradoxes—although it should benoted that an attempt was made to select the most critical tensionsfaced by leaders in the pursuit of innovation.

Second, many of the proposed resolutions included discussionsof single organizations (e.g., Google, 3M). Because these illustra-tions are essentially minicase studies, caution is warranted ingeneralizing their results to other organizations more broadly. Wedo feel, however, that these case studies may serve as startingpoints for future research exploration as well as for those leaderswho lack direction on first steps to paradox resolution.

Finally and along related lines, our discussion is most useful forleaders in organizations that have the capacity to make decisionsabout creative endeavors. In smaller organizations, for example, it

62 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON

is difficult to shift resources or pursue multiple ideas simultane-ously. Thus, our discussion is somewhat limited to those organi-zations that have the latitude to make strategic decisions aboutcreative pursuits and caution is warranted when generalizing tothose organizations.

Even bearing these points in mind we believe the present effortcontributes to our understanding of leading for creative efforts ina number of ways. First, it is clear from our discussion that leadingfor innovation is a challenging endeavor. There are no simplesolutions and each requires active engagement in tension resolu-tion. For leaders to successfully manage innovation, they mustengage in a number of complex social, technical, and decision-making activities. These activities, moreover, cannot simply be setin motion and ignored. Rather, successful management of theparadoxes identified requires thoughtful and painstaking worktoward their resolution—often shifting, changing, and adjustingtactics as necessary.

Second, the results of our effort reveal that there are lessons tobe learned from industry. Although research has made substantialgains in understanding these paradoxes from an experimentalstandpoint (e.g., Smith & Tushman, 2005; Benner & Tushman,2003; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) a number of successful solu-tions have been employed by industry that have not yet beenexplored by researchers. Empirical efforts will be necessary todetermine the viability of these solutions for differing types oforganizations and contexts.

Third, leading for innovation requires a unique individual whois savvy of her own capabilities, team dynamics, and organiza-tional maneuvering. While domain expertise is requisite for avariety of the tasks associated with managing creative people, it isclearly not sufficient for successfully moving a group of otherinnovators from idea generation to implementation. In addition totechnical knowledge and skills, leaders for innovation must alsopossess team competencies and understanding of group dynamics.And given the nature of the operating environment in which theywork (i.e., ambiguous, involving risk, and fluid), it is importantthat they not only understand organizational dynamics, but alsohow they themselves can politically maneuver through it to exe-cute innovative goals. In short, it is imperative for these leaders toknow what they are up against; leaders of creative efforts shouldunderstand their own strengths and weaknesses, as well as thecomplexity of how those strengths and weaknesses facilitate (andsometimes militate against) the task of leading others like them inan organizational environment.

These three points highlight a broader conclusion emergingfrom the manuscript: leadership research may not be wholly pre-pared to address issues involved in furthering the study of leadingfor innovation. In a recent article calling for a shift in the coreontology of leadership research, Drath et al. (in press) suggest thatour current ontology of leader, follower, and shared goals isinadequate to answer several critical emerging leadership ques-tions. The authors note, for example, that relationships with otherorganizational stakeholders (e.g., idea champions) would not fitwithin the current tripod ontology and as such, would be largelydismissed as an area of investigation. In contrast, the authorspropose an ontology comprising (1) direction—agreement on col-lective goals, (2) alignment—coordination of expertise and effortwithin the collective interest, and (3) commitment—the willing-ness to subsume personal interests for the benefit of the broader

organization. This ontology, in contrast to the previous framework,would appear particularly useful for investigating leadership par-adoxes.

The ontological approach suggested by Drath et al. (in press) isnicely supplemented with a recent call for new methodologiessuggested by Hunter, Bedell-Avers, and Mumford (2007). Specif-ically, the authors contend that the typical leadership study makesa number of potentially false assumptions when engaging in lead-ership research and there needs to be a fundamental shift in howwe approach leadership studies for substantive gains to be made infuture studies. For example, Hunter et al. (2007) suggest that anoveremphasis on subordinates limits our understanding to thosebehaviors witnessed by subordinates. Thus, interactions withupper-management would be missed in a study using subordinatesas the primary source of information. What is illustrated by theefforts of Drath et al. (in press) and Hunter et al. (2007) is the needto consider alternative approaches and methodologies when ex-ploring emerging research questions such as those discussed in thismanuscript.

Future Research

The results of the present effort speak to a number of emergingquestions that must be explored in future research. First, we mustidentify the most underresearched paradoxes with particular em-phasis placed on paradoxes at varying levels of analysis. Althougha good deal of research has been done on individual-level charac-teristics, fewer empirical studies shed light on team andorganizational-level issues in leading for innovation. For example,when is the optimal time to shift from being a critical evaluator ofa team’s idea to championing it to the rest of the organization?What cues do leaders use to move from this critique stage to theexternal promotional stage? On a related note, it would be usefulto identify the subprocesses associated with these stages, similar tosubprocesses found in other creative thinking models (e.g., Baugh-man, Costanza, Maher, Mumford, & Supinski, 1998).

With regard to the specific paradoxes explored in this manu-script, two emerged as particularly critical for future researchconsideration. This first is the dual expertise paradox—a tensionemerging from the leader’s need to have both domain expertise aswell as effective leadership skills. As problems become morecomplex—a trend witnessed in a variety of arenas—it will benecessary for leaders to bring in a greater number of experts fromvarying areas and backgrounds. The management of divergentpersonalities and expertise requires a unique and strong social skillset. At the same time, however, a leader must also have expertisewithin his or her given domain—perhaps even more so as problemcomplexity increases. Thus, this tension is likely to grow instrength and require a great deal from leaders or, as in the case ofthe Manhattan project, team of leaders. The second paradox thatwill likely play an even larger role in the future is the feedbackrigidity paradox where leaders should receive and act upon inputfrom customers and clients but not be wholly dictated by thatfeedback. In an era of online surveys and availability of real-timepurchasing data, it can be tempting to meet the needs of customersin a “just-in-time” fashion. Although this is necessary, in manyinstances, for organizations to succeed—leaders must make aconcerted effort to explore ideas that may have some initial resis-tance (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). The current state of affairs in

63SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION

the U.S. auto industry serves as an emerging example of aninability to provide radical innovations to the ultimate detriment ofcustomers, organizations, and industry as a whole.

Next, although these paradoxes seem to be important to leadingfor innovation in general, future efforts should explore boundaryconditions around these conflicts. Size of the organization is mostsurely an important variable to consider in future research, butwhat about structure of the organization? For example, Google isconsidered a flat, organic structure, while Toyota is more hierar-chical and mechanistic in nature, yet both frequently top Business-Week’s most innovative organizations list. What, if any, behaviorsare executed differently by leaders in these two types of organi-zations? Other important contextual variables that should be ex-plored are industry, organizational age, stability of operating en-vironment, and multinational locations. Finally, the role of aneconomic downturn should be considered relative to innovativepursuits (Nickell, Nicolitsas, & Patterson, 2001). As organizationslack the capital to readily invest in research and development, newparadoxes may emerge for leaders in the pursuit of innovation.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this research highlightsthe need to consider multilevel issues when examining leadershipfor innovation. Studies that fail to account for the demands placedon these leaders from an individual, team, and organizational levelwill likely result in short-sided results with limited utility fortheoretical models or practical implementation. As Mumford andHunter (2005) noted in their review of innovation antecedents—amultilevel approach is necessary to move our understanding ofinnovation substantively forward and future research may benefitfrom employing a similar framework.

In sum, the aims of this effort were to summarize the mostpressing paradoxes faced by leaders as they pursue innovation. Inaddition, we have offered some insight into potential resolutionsdiscussed in the leadership and innovation literature as well asexamples emerging from industry. This discussion also highlightsthe need to be creative in our approaches to exploring futureresearch questions—particularly with regard to ontological frame-works and methodologies. It is our hope that this effort sets thestage for future researchers to explore this pressing topic of inno-vation paradox.

References

Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma. Baltimore: John Hop-kins University Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivationalorientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 48, 393–399.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doingwhat you love and loving what you do. California Management Review,40, 39–58.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review,76, 76–87.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004).Leader behavior and the work environment for creativity: Perceivedleader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work groupinnovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

Andrews, F. M., Farris, G. F. (1967). Supervisory practices and innovationin scientific teams. Personnel Psychology, 20, 497–515.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forcesin organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership:Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 421–449.

Baer, J. (2003). Evaluative thinking, creativity, and task specificity: Sep-arating wheat from chaff is not the same as finding needles in haystacks(pp. 129–150). In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes. NewYork: Hampton Press.

Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity:When does it really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569–586.

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E. (2008). The mediatingeffects of leadership and interaction style in face-to-face and virtualteams (pp. 127–150). In S. Weisband (Ed.), Leadership at a distance:Research in technologically supported work. New York: Erlbaum.

Barnowe, J. T. (1975). Leadership and performance outcomes in researchorganizations: The supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance.Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 14, 264–280.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, andpersonality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.

Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding howcreative thinking skills, attitudes, and behaviors work together: A causalprocess model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77–100.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.

Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., Maher, M. A., Mumford, M. D., &Supinski, E. P. (1998). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10,59–71.

Beeler, C. K., Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (in press). Managing theinnovative process: The dynamic role of leaders. Psychology of Aesthet-ics, Creativity, and the Arts.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, J. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration andprocess management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy ofManagement Review, 28, 238–256.

Berkun, S. (2007). The myths of innovation. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Blair, C. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Prefer-

ence for the unoriginal? Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 196–222.Bledow, R., Frese, M., Erez, M., Anderson, N., & Farr, J., (2009). A

dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple path-ways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(3), 305–337.

Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A con-structivist perspective on organizations. Organization. 5, 217–232.

Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1988). An agenda for managing organizationalinnovation and development in the 1990’s. In M. Lambrecht (Ed.),Corporate revival. Leuven, Belgium. Catholic University Press.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge:Strategy as structured chaos. Long Range Planning: International Jour-nal of Strategic Management, 31, 786–789.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Oxford, Harper & Row.Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1988). Organizational paradox and transfor-

mation. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation(pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceuticalindustry: The use of organizational control in managing research anddevelopment. Organization Science, 12, 19–36.

Chalupsky, A. B. (1953). Incentive practices as viewed by scientists andmanagers of pharmaceutical laboratories. Personnel Psychology, 6, 385–401.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. New York: Collins.Chua, C. K., Leong, K. F., & Lim, C. S. (2003). Rapid prototyping:

Principles and applications, 2nd ed. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.

64 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON

Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2007). Playing across the playground: Para-doxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 28, 587–605.

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking, Creativity ResearchJournal, 18, 391–404.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology ofdiscovery and intervention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Lead-ership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationshipconflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.

DeFillipi, R., Grabher, G., & Jones, C. (2007). Introduction to paradoxes ofcreativity: Managerial and organizational challenges in the culturaleconomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 511–521.

Denton, D. K. (1998). Viewpoint: Blueprint for the adaptive organization.Creativity and Innovation Management, 7, 83–91.

Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor,P. M. G., & McGuire, J. B. (in press). Direction, alignment, commit-ment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The LeadershipQuarterly.

Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition in top managementteams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 22, 145–160.

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional per-formance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. AnnualReview of Psychology, 47, 273–305.

Estrin, J. (2007). Closing the innovation gap. New York: McGraw-Hill.Feist, G. J. (1991). Synthetic and analytic thought: Similarities and differ-

ences among art and science students. Creativity Research Journal, 6,271–286.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artisticcreativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309.

Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientificcreativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ford, J., & Backoff, R. (1988). Organizational change in and out ofdualities and paradox. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox andtransformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and man-agement, (pp. 81–121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovationadoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and future research.Journal of Business Research, 55, 163–176.

Gander, J., Haberberg, A., & Rieple, A. (2007). The paradox of alliancemanagement: Resource contamination in the recorded music industry.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 607–624.

Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (in press). Radical and incremental creativity:Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and theArts.

Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective checklist. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.

Gruber, H. E., & Davis, S. N. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus:The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber,S. N. Davis, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of creativity: Contem-porary psychological perspectives. (pp. 243–270). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journalof Creative Behavior, 1, 3–14.

Hirschberg, J. (1999). The creative priority: Putting innovation to work inyour business. New York: Collins.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of change: Identifying,understanding, and supporting champions of technological innovations.Organizational Dynamics, 19, 40–55.

Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy: How people make money fromideas. London: Penguin Press.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate forcreativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typicalleadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies.The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435–446.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.

Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role ofunconventional behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 351–368.

Jones, L. (2007). Designers take advantage of license to sell. McClatchy-Tribune Business News,1. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from ABI/INFORMDateline database. (Document ID: 1240010591).

Kanter, R. M., Kao, J., & Wiersema, F. (1997). Innovation: Breakthroughthinking at 3M, DuPont, G. E. Pfizer, and Rubbermaid. New York:Harper Business.

Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovativeedge, why it matters and what we can do to get it back. New York: FreePress.

King, N., Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1991). Organizational innovationin the UK: A case study of perceptions and processes. Work & Stress, 5,331–339.

Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and in-novation adoption: A qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 23, 195–205.

Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeeyi, G. (1971). The effects ofextrinsic incentive on some qualitative aspects of task performance.Journal of Personality, 39, 606–617.

Leanna, C., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneousexperiences in organizational life, Academy of Management Review, 25,753–759.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensiveguide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760–776.

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. Sternberg (2nd ed.), Thinking andproblem solving. Handbook of perception and cognition (pp. 289–332).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and man-agerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 51, 221–240.

Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills andgroup performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, andplanning. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120.

Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics andcultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency competeor complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,175–199.

Mullins, M. E., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmitt, N., & Howell, A. W. (2008).The role of the idea champion in innovation: The case of the Internet inthe mid-1990s. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 451–467.

Mumford, M. D., Bedell, K. E., & Hunter, S. T. (2008). Planning forinnovation: A multi-level perspective. In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter,& K. E. Bedell (Eds.), Research in Multi-level Issues: Vol. VII. Oxford,England: Elsevier.

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leadersthink: Experimental findings and cases. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411–432.

Mumford, M. D., Eubanks, D. L., & Murphy, S. T. (2007). Creatingconditions for success: Best practices in leading for innovation. InConger, J. A. & Riggio, R. E. (Eds.), The practice of leadership:Developing the next generation of leaders, 129–149. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A

65SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION

multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dan-sereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Volume IV (pp. 11–74).Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., Eubanks, D. L., Bedell, K. E., & Murphy,S. T. (2007). Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-basedapproach to leadership development. Human Resource ManagementReview, 17, 402–417.

Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C., & Scott, G. (2002). Evaluative creativeideas: Processes, standards, and context. Inquiry: Critical thinkingacross the disciplines, 22, 21–30.

Nickell, S., Nicolitsas, D., & Patterson, M. (2001). Does doing badlyencourage management innovation? Oxford Bulletin of Economics andStatistics, 63, 5–28.

Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation?Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245–1264.

Nystrom, H. (1979). Creativity and innovation. New York: Wiley.Nystrom, H. (1990). Organizational innovation. In M. S. West, & J. L. Farr

(Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organiza-tional strategies (pp. 143–162). New York: Wiley.

O’Connor, G. C. (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: A crosscase comparison of eight radical innovation projects. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 15, 151–131.

Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual Teams: Team controlstructure,work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technol-ogy & People, 17, 359–379.

Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factorsover the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14,5–18.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Herman, A., E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2008). Creativityand cognitive processes: Multilevel linkages between individual andteam cognition. In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E., Bedell-Avers(Eds.), Multilevel issues in creativity and innovation: Volume VII (pp.203–267). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Rix, J., Haas, S., & Teixeira, J. (1995). Virtual prototyping: Virtualenvironments and the product design process. Chapman Hall, NewYork.

Runco, M. A. (1993). Creative Morality: Intentional and unconventional.Creativity Research Journal Special Issue: Creativity in the MoralDomain, 6, 17–28.

Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Steinberg,E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential torealization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-sociation.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 580–607.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: Areview of the social and contextual factors that can foster or hindercreativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.

Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Competition and creative perfor-mance: Effects of competitor presence and visibility. Creativity Re-search Journal, 10, 337–345.

Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. (2006). When exploration backfires: Unin-tended consequences of organizational search. Academy of ManagementJournal, 49, 779–796.

Sitkin, S. B. (1996). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses.In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp.541–578). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, D. K., & Alexander, R. A. (1999). Fumbling the future: How Xeroxinvented, then ignored, the first personal computer. San Jose: IUniver-se.com.

Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradic-tions: A top management model for managing innovation streams.Organization Science, 16, 522–536.

Sundgren, M., Selart, M., Ingelgard, A., & Bengtson, C. (2005). Dialogue-based evaluation as a creative climate indicator: Evidence from thepharmaceutical industry. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14,84–98.

Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy, and group per-formance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 261–286.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize indi-vidual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 315–330.

Thompson, M. (2007). Innovation in work practices: A practical perspec-tive. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1298–1317.

Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kurry, K. (2005). Institutional logics andinstitutional change in organizations: Transformations in accounting,architecture, and publishing. Research in the Sociology of Organiza-tions, 23, 125–170.

Torr, G. (2008). Managing creative people: Lessons from leadership in theideas economy. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Manage-ment Review, 38, 8–30.

Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). Theinnovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vise, D. A., & Malseed, M. (2006). The Google story- inside the hottestbusiness, media and technology success of our time. London, GreatBritain: Pan MacMillan Books.

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. InM. A. West, & J. L. Farr, Innovation and creativity at work: Psycho-logical and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Oxford, England:Wiley.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrativemodel of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–424.

Yukl, G. (2007). Best practices in the use of proactive influence tactics byleaders. In J. A. Conger & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The practice of leader-ship: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 109–128). SanFransciso: Jossey-Bass.

Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, andachievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–276.

Zhou, J. (2004). When the presence of creative coworkers is related tocreativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback,and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422.

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2002). When dissatisfaction leads to creativity:Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal,44, 682–696.

Received January 1, 2008Revision received April 15, 2008

Accepted May 1, 2009 �

66 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON