Advances in Developing Human Resources http://adh.sagepub.com/ Leading for Innovation : Direct and Indirect Influences Samuel T. Hunter and Lily Cushenbery Advances in Developing Human Resources 2011 13: 248 originally published online 17 October 2011 DOI: 10.1177/1523422311424263 The online version of this article can be found at: http://adh.sagepub.com/content/13/3/248 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Academy of Human Resource Development Additional services and information for Advances in Developing Human Resources can be found at: Email Alerts: http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://adh.sagepub.com/content/13/3/248.refs.html Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 >> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2011 Proof - Oct 17, 2011 What is This? Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 424263 ADHR13310.1177/1523422311424263Hunt er and CushenberyAdvances in Developing Human Resources Leading for Innovation: Direct and Indirect Influences Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) 248–265 © 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1523422311424263 http://adhr.sagepub.com Samuel T. Hunter1 and Lily Cushenbery1 Abstract Despite growing interest in developing and producing creative products, much remains unknown about how to best facilitate the innovative process. Through a review and integration of creativity, innovation, and leadership literatures, we propose that leaders are one of the primary driving forces in increasing innovative output. To help clarify how leaders achieve this influence, we offer a model of leading for innovation where creativity and innovation are depicted as series of interrelated processes that span multiple levels of analysis (individual, team, and organization). The proposed framework illustrates the direct and indirect ways direct leaders enhance innovation with the resulting discussion helping to highlight the range of behaviors and activities that leaders might engage in to help encourage creative productivity. The implications of our model for HRD scholars, professionals, and other stakeholders—such as executive level leaders, retailers, investors, and consumers—are also discussed. Keywords creativity, innovation, leadership Creativity and innovation are responsible for many of the advances and amenities we enjoy in modern society (Christensen & Raynor, 2009; Estrin, 2009; Kao, 2007). Despite current and increasing interest in these phenomena, however, much remains to be understood about how to best facilitate innovative performance in organizations. In this manuscript, we draw on leading for innovation research and suggest that leaders play a primary role in helping to facilitate original thinking as well as guiding instantiation of those novel ideas that are worthy of exploration. Specifically, we review previous literature and propose a model whereby leaders are depicted as having both direct and indirect influences on the innovation process. Moreover, we integrate 1 The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA Corresponding Author: Samuel T. Hunter, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Industrial & Organizational Area, Pennsylvania State University, 111 Moore Building, State College, PA 16802, USA Email: samhunter@psu.edu Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 249 process perspectives of creativity with recent advances in multilevel innovation research to provide a foundation for understanding how leaders shape innovative performance (Torraco, 2005). We begin our discussion with an overview of process perspectives of creativity. Process Perspectives of Creativity and Innovation There is general consensus among creativity and innovation scholars that creativity is best defined as the generation of ideas that are both (a) novel and (b) useful or serve a purpose (Amabile Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Innovation, in contrast, represents the instantiation of creative ideas (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). That is, for an idea to be labeled as innovative, it must be made, built, or implemented. Even with consensus among researchers on definitions, however, a few notable creativity and innovation scholars have recently lamented the lack of preciseness with regard to the term “creativity” itself. Runco (2008), for example, suggested that we should be more exact in our description of the behaviors, activities, and actions surrounding creativity. More specifically, he proposed that we stop using the word creativity as a noun and, instead, use it as a descriptor (i.e., an adjective). Thus, when discussing creativity as a phenomenon we should focus on explanatory terms such as creative performance, creative products, creative teams, creative inputs, and creative processes instead of the overly encompassing word, creativity. Consistent with these suggestions, we propose that for a functional understanding of how to facilitate innovative outcomes, it is critical, indeed necessary, to view creativity as a set of interrelated processes rather than a unitary phenomenon. Although popularized relatively recently, process perspectives on creativity have a long-standing history in the innovation literature. Beginning with the early work of Dewey (1910) and Wallas (1926), scholars have continued to refine and develop the core proposition that creative performance is the result of a series of dynamic and iterative stages. Early perspectives included stages such as preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification (Wallas, 1926). The emphasis in these early models were on “light bulb” or “illumination” moments whereby a creative idea emerges quickly and rapidly, often after a period of inactivity or rest. The creative event is frequently caricatured by the classic light-bulb going off over a thinker’s head. More recently, models have moved away from the notion of illumination and suggested that although the creative process can be perceived as instantaneous to some, the reality is that a host of activities prior to that moment permitted that perception. A recent example of this type of creative process model may be seen in a series of studies conducted by Mumford and colleagues (Baughman & Mumford, 1995; Mumford, Baughman, Threlfall, Supinski, & Costanza, 1996; Mumford, Baughman, Maher, Costanza, & Supinski, 1997; Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991; Mumford, Supinski, Baughman, Costanza, & Threlfall, 1997). Models such as these develop a richer picture of the range of activities required for innovative output Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 250 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) including processes such as information gathering, concept selection, and creative solution monitoring. On the whole, these newer approaches underscore a key point: discussions of creativity are best served via a pragmatic process view. That is, for us to understand how creative performance emerges, we must understand and maximize success across the range of activities that lead up to creative achievement. Moreover, although such activities may be complex, dynamic, and iterative, they are better understood than early models hypothesized. The Importance of a Multilevel Perspective on Innovation Equally critical to understanding creative and innovative performance is a multilevel perspective on the phenomenon (Mumford, Hunter, & Bedell-Avers, 2008). To the lament of a number of creativity scholars, much of the work on creativity has tended to focus on individual antecedents such as personality, divergent-thinking ability, intelligence, and associational ability (McLean, 2005; Sternberg, 1999). Although this work has proven useful for understanding key predictors of creative thought, such work is limited in utility with regard to gaining practical insight into organizational innovation (Madjar, 2005). Clearly, creative ideas may be born from individuals, but to understand how to facilitate innovation—the successful instantiation of creative thinking—we must also consider these individuals within a team. Furthermore, we should consider how that team functions within broader structures such as divisions, departments, and organizations. Thus, a multilevel perspective on creativity and innovation acknowledges and incorporates information across the array of individual, team, and organizational levels of analysis (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). This perspective paints a much more accurate, and therefore useful, picture of innovative performance. Integrating process models and multilevel perspectives. In the sections above, a case was made for why it is important to consider both creative process models and multilevel perspectives on innovation. We turn now to the task of integrating these frameworks. A multilevel-process model of innovation is presented in Figure 1. As may be seen in the three boxes at the bottom of the figure, the starting point of the innovation process is the individual. That is, individuals are responsible for initial idea generation with idea genesis depicted as largely cognitive in nature. Individuals, however, do not operate alone when working in organizations and typically function within a broader development group or project team (Madjar, 2005). For example, when an individual has an idea, it must be proposed and vetted within a team. Moving through the creative process, that team or group may then adjust, alter, and refine that idea or set of ideas. In successfully innovative teams, core concepts are improved and the project is moved forward. Depicted in the second box, it is during this stage of innovation development that prototypes may be built, formalized sketches developed, or simulations programmed. Ideas, in essence, become more refined and begin to move beyond simply forming and discussing an idea. When a team has a viable prototype or sketch in hand, Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 251 Figure 1. Model of direct and indirect leadership influences on the processes of innovation the project may move toward the third box in the model, implementation at the organizational level. It is at this point that the team-based project may shift to other teams for greater refinement, begin testing and evaluation for targeted markets, or even move toward initial large-scale production. We see a shift from creativity (i.e., generation) to innovation (implementation). Before turning to other components of the model, two key features warrant explicit discussion. First, no one stage of the innovative process is independent of the next. That is, successful innovation is the result of a series of processes and cannot come to fruition without a host of activities preceding it. A second point to bear in mind is that stages are not depicted in lock-step fashion. Rather, each level of analysis feeds into the stages that precede and follow it, a process of backward influence and forward influence. Scholars such as Finke, Ward, and Smith (1992), and Estes and Ward (2002) have made a strong case that successful innovation is the result of a host of back-and-forth activities, where ideas are proposed, refined, and tested only to feed information back to the system to start the process again. A thought provoking teambrainstorming session, for example, will likely affect thinking and idea generation of individuals in that team. Similarly, although organizational innovation requires team Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 252 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) and individual creative performance (forward influence), activities at the organizational level may also affect the creative output of teams (backward influence). Consider Apple’s success with the wildly popular iPhone that featured, at the time of launch, a novel touch screen and impressive processing capabilities. Such success gave way to the newest gadget from Apple, the iPad, which used the same operating system and much of the technological capabilities of the iPhone. Thus, success at the organizational level (iPhone) initiated thought and creative performance among teams of engineers on the next project (iPad). It cannot be overemphasized that creativity is most accurately depicted as an iterative and dynamic series of processes. As much as we may prefer it, creativity and innovation are not simple linear phenomena. They are the result of a complex set of activities, actions, and behaviors, and successful innovation necessitates attention paid to this complexity. The Role of Leadership in Facilitating Creativity and Innovation With a process model of creative performance in place, we shift our attention to asking how to best facilitate success across these activities. Drawing on the work of a number of scholars, we suggest that leaders play a substantial role in shaping and guiding successful innovation. O’Connor (1998), for example, examined radical technical innovations and found that leaders with higher levels of strategic-thinking capability produced significantly more creative projects than those leaders who lacked such capabilities. Similarly, Andrews and Farris (1972) examined 94 scientists working in 21 project teams and found that team leaders with greater capacity to make decisions helped facilitate greater team performance. Finally, studies of leaders in research and development teams reveal that by intellectually stimulating employees, leaders help facilitate novel idea generation (Arvey, Dewhurst, & Boling, 1976; Mossholder & Dewhurst, 1980). These examples demonstrate that leaders can positively affect innovation in a number of ways. As several scholars have suggested, leaders shape employee behavior in both direct and indirect processes (Mumford & Hunter, 2005; Shamir, Zakay, Brainin, & Popper, 2000). Before discussing the specific mechanisms of how leaders shape creative performance, a few key issues should be borne in mind regarding the nature of innovative achievement. First, creative thinking requires a break from norms and changes in the way things are typically done. By definition, original ideas differ from those ideas that came before them. Extrapolating from this point, creativity and innovation are not natural trajectories in organizations (Hunter, Cassidy, & Ligon, in press). In fact, most of us are largely resistant to change, particularly if things are going reasonably well in an organization (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Because of the cost and difficulty of implementing change, some organizations choose to remain entrenched in their structures, systems, procedures, and processes. Moreover, many organizations succeed by maximizing their use of resources, allocating funds and support for projects they perceive to be the safest bets. Contrasting this tried-and-true strategy, creativity and innovation Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 253 often require numerous failed attempts before success is found. Put simply, creative ideas are high risk and often run counter to traditional forms of organizational functioning (Hunter, Cassidy, & Ligon, in press; Hunter, Thoroughgood, Myer, & Ligon, in press). What is necessary to change a natural trajectory is a force that can counteract these normative trends. Growing evidence suggests that this force is often leadership. Leaders can guide behaviors and actions toward a less typical and usual end. Innovation rarely occurs spontaneously and will most often require a new route taken. Without explicit guidance, an organization will tend toward the less original, well-worn path. A leader can provide the guidance necessary to blaze a new trail as well as ensure that progress is made on that trail. In the sections below, we describe how leaders may accomplish this via indirect methods such as the establishment of an environment that permits novel thinking (i.e., indirectly) or through more direct methods such as resource allocation or explicit creative idea generation themselves. We begin our discussion with the indirect influences leaders may have on innovation and then move toward a review of direct influences. Indirect Influences of Leadership on Innovation Role modeling. Psychologist Albert Bandura (1977) pioneered a model of observational education referred to as social learning theory. In essence, the theory proposes that we learn how to perform activities by watching others engage in them. More central to this discussion, learning from others gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether a behavior is advantageous. If, for example, someone takes a risk and is not criticized or ostracized for doing so—perhaps even rewarded—we may internalize that observation and increase our likelihood of engaging in a similar activity. The extent to which we learn by watching others is influenced by several factors, with one of the more critical being how closely we attend to the person we might choose to model. That is, we are more likely to learn from observation if we admire, respect, or look up to the individual engaging in the behavior. In an organization, leaders often stand as these role models or make decisions about what is appropriate behavior. In a test of social-learning theory applied to creativity, Jaussi and Dionne (2003) had confederate leaders engaged in unconventional behavior prior to asking subordinates to engage in creative tasks. The researchers found that leaders who acted unconventionally were seen as stronger role models and, via this mechanism, increased creative performance in subordinates. Unconventional behavior was defined as any behavior that was novel or surprising to employees. One example of such unconventional behavior is the eccentric leadership style of Google founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page. During their rein as CEOs, they were often found hopping around the Googleplex on jump-shoes or wearing capes while addressing groups of employees (Schmidt, 2010; Vise & Malseed, 2005). However, leaders can also be unconventional in more subtle ways, and what is unconventional in one organization may be viewed as typical in another (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Because leaders are in positions Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 254 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) of influence, others will attend to their behavior and use what they do as a guide for appropriate actions. Specific to the facilitation of creative behavior, leaders who take risks and act unconventionally send the message that these activities are acceptable, thereby increasing the likelihood of subordinates engaging in such behaviors. Rewards and recognition. In addition to role modeling, leaders can also regulate acceptable employee behaviors via the ideas they recognize, value, and reward. Pioneered by psychologists such as Thorndike and Skinner, the “law of effect” proposes that we are more likely to engage in behaviors that bring us rewards and less likely to engage in behaviors that result in discomfort or punishment (Skinner, 1953, p. 45; Thorndike, 1911, p. 244). This concept has proven central to many pay-for-performance incentive systems used in organizations but can often be misused in creative endeavors. If, for example, a leader would like an employee to produce more widgets per hour or more sales calls over the course of a week, the leader might provide some form of monetary incentive for reaching minimum goals. The challenge unique to creativity, however, is that not all creative projects are successful. In fact, the general rule of thumb is that 19 out of 20 innovative projects will ultimately fail (Hunter, Cushenbery, & Freidrich, in press). Thus, creative performance is challenging to reward simply on base-rate issues; it is difficult to provide an incentive if the behavior rarely occurs. Moreover, successful innovation is often dictated by factors outside the team or organization’s control. A sluggish economy, for example, may limit the expendable consumer income available for a desired, albeit pricy, new invention. Because of factors such as these, leaders who focus on rewarding success will limit the full range of employee behaviors necessary for innovation. Thus, leaders must reward and recognize valid attempts at creative action even if they do not achieve financial success. Many organizations will even recognize failures as a means to send the message that risk taking is valued and essential to long-term-innovation goals. Hewlett Packard, for example, has been known to give a sizable monetary reward for the biggest failure in their research and development teams. Thus, leaders must move beyond simple pay-for-performance reward systems to motivate creative work. Hiring and team composition. A third indirect way that leaders may shape innovation is through workforce composition. As is the case with many strategies for enhancing innovation, however, hiring creative employees may be more easily conceived than accomplished. Outlined by Hunter, Cushenbery, and Freidrich (in press) there are a number of difficulties inherent to hiring a creative workforce. For example, developing new products requires expertise that the organization may not currently possess and, more notably, does not currently realize they need. As such, one means to developing a creative workforce is to hire employees with unique skill sets without explicitly planning what projects they may work on. The strategy is to allow the organization to capitalize on emerging trends rather than trailing competitors when opportunities surface. Google, for example, hired a team of voice recognition engineers without having an explicit plan for what project they would work on. The leader knew that the skill set would prove valuable but was not exactly sure in what capacity. Notably, the engineering team made a quick and substantive impact on the emerging Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 255 voice recognition software used in the burgeoning smart phone market (Hunter, Cushenbery, & Freidrich, in press). Another challenge unique to innovation is that successful innovation requires proficiency in skill sets across the range of innovation processes. Thus, an organization cannot be comprised wholly of idea generators—innovation dictates that someone in the organization possesses the capacity to test, market, and sell an idea. In addition to how leaders choose individuals, which individuals leaders choose to place on a team can also affect creative outcomes. At a very basic level, team size may prove important to team-level creative achievement. Too many members on a project team can limit idea exchanges among individuals; very few members and a team might lack the diversity in expertise and knowledge necessary for synergistic creative efforts. Optimal team size tends to be in the 4-to-7 range, although this may be increased as team members get to know one another and are comfortable sharing ideas. Composition can also shape creative output. Taggar (2001), for example, found that teams comprised entirely of creative personalities failed to outproduce those teams that had only one or two creative individuals. Along similar lines, Nissan’s head of design found that integrating staff from sales and marketing with members of research and development improved overall creativity and innovation (Hirschberg, 1999). The theme emerging appears to suggest that teams should be of manageable size and include individuals with a range of skills across innovative processes. Differing backgrounds and agendas for team members, however, may lead to difficulties in social exchanges resulting in some degree of conflict. Hence, our next method of influence for leaders is establishing an appropriate climate for creative outcomes. Establishing a climate for creativity. In a meta-analysis of more than 40 samples examining creativity, Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford (2007) found that a climate for creativity had a sizable effect on creative and innovative achievement. As such, one way a leader can indirectly affect the ideas generated in their organization is to establish an environment that employees see as supporting of innovative endeavors (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004). Precisely, how to do this, however, may vary somewhat from organization to organization. Hunter et al. (2007) observed 15 different dimensions of creative climate. One critical component of developing a creative environment is providing levels of autonomy and freedom to accomplish tasks in ways employees see fit. As an illustration, members of 3M were allowed to work on their own projects 15% of the time (Kanter, Kao, & Wiersema, 1997). Google and other innovative organizations have followed suit, permitting up to one day a week to work on projects of the employee’s choosing. The result has been quite successful, helping to spawn products such as Google’s popular email program, “Gmail.” Still other methods include establishing an environment that continually challenges and stimulates employees. The unique workplace of Zappos, an innovative online shoe retailer, epitomizes a business driven by a stimulating work environment (Chafkin, 2009; Thorton, 2010). Employees are encouraged to radically decorate their cubical; days are broken up by impromptu in-office parades; and laughter is more common than hushed business tones. This atmosphere has been established and continues to Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 256 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) be promoted by CEO Tony Hseih, who prefers to work in a cubicle alongside his employees. Although a number of mechanisms may be used to do so, the broader message here is that creative and innovative performance requires a work environment that supports these unique endeavors. Growing evidence suggests that leaders can significantly shape this work context and should make it their priority to be successfully innovative (Amabile et al., 2004). Direct Influences of Leadership on Innovation Via the indirect methods described above, leaders help to set the stage for creative thought. These indirect methods create the friction, pressure, and atmospheric materials that permit creative lighting to strike. Leaders, however, are not always bystanders in this process; they can also create a bit of lighting on their own. That is, leaders are able to directly shape what innovations emerge and even choose which products make their way to market. As we move our discussion into these more direct influences, we aim to understand how leaders explicitly and directly shape the creative process. Creative input and idea suggestion. Innovative leaders are often depicted as managers of creative minds rather than originators of creative ideas. Although there is some degree of truth in this, particularly for larger organizations that require creative output across a continual range of products, there is some evidence that creative ability is useful in leaders themselves (Mumford, Hunter, Eubanks, Bedell, & Murphy, 2007). There are times when leaders are the idea generators and not simply the shepherds of novel thinking. Steve Jobs, for example, has shaped the creative output of Apple for many years through his own creative input. In fact, many innovative leaders have early histories as entrepreneurs (Kao, 1989). Their curiosity and intrinsic motivation with novel endeavors often provided them with the training to help guide creativity in others. This background in successful creative thinking, however, can be problematic if a leader is not careful (Hunter, Tate, Dzieweczynski, & Bedell-Avers, 2011). One of the challenges for leaders is not to be overly dominant in the creative process such that subordinates are afraid to challenge the leader’s ideas. Innovation requires some level of conflict and healthy debate to improve and distill ideas, and it is critical for leaders who choose to provide their own ideas to ensure that others are comfortable in shaping and refining their input (Mumford, Connelly, & Gaddis, 2003; O’Connor, 1998). Vision and strategy. Goal-setting theory is one of the well-researched theories in applied psychology (Locke & Bryan, 1967; Locke & Latham, 2002). The core tenet of the theory is that providing a clear, concrete, and difficult-yet-attainable goal for a work task maximizes performance. With respect to creative performance, there is some indication that goals established vis-à-vis a leader’s overall vision help guide creative efforts (Anderson & West, 1996; Bunce & West, 1995; West, 2002). There is also evidence, moreover, that leaders who are able to adeptly assess opportunities and forecast solutions are better able to produce innovative outcomes (Koberg, Uhlenbruck, & Sarason, 1996; Rodan, 2002). Put another way, leaders who posses the skills Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 257 to develop compelling and logical strategies are better at generating innovative performance (Hunter, Cassidy, & Ligon, in press). The theme emerging from this body of work is that a leader can shape the ideas generated, for better or worse, via the strategy and vision they develop for the unit they lead. One of the challenges of defining a vision for innovation is providing enough detail to make the goal accessible, while also allowing employees the freedom to arrive at that goal in the most novel and useful way possible (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). Leaders who are too explicit in their strategies can actually hamper creativity by limiting exploration (Mumford et al., 2007). Consider an illustration from innovation powerhouse 3M. One of the more famous serendipitous products was produced at the organization when a scientist, Silver Spencer, was attempting to develop high strength adhesive. The glue was part of the research and development unit’s strategy. Notably, when the adhesive was not strong enough and failed as a high-strength glue, the organization was not bound to their initial vision and capitalized on the fact that the low-tack adhesive did not leave a sticky residue. This invention, now known as the Post-It note, is one of the more famous and profitable products to emerge from 3M. The point here is that leaders must provide some level of direction to employees—a mission to guide general efforts. That mission must not be so explicit, however, that it limits the freedom to explore novel routes to success. That leader, moreover, must also be open to emerging opportunities evolving from the efforts of subordinates even if they divert from the initial strategy (Hunter, Thoroughgood, Myer, & Ligon, 2011). Resource allocation. As is the case with most organizational endeavors, resource availability plays a significant role in the success or failure of innovative projects. The recent economic downturn provides an interesting backdrop in which to discuss the criticality of resources for innovation. Although the majority of companies cut back on research and development spending, known innovators actually spent more during the recession than before (Bogoslaw, 2010; Jaruzelski & Dehoff, 2009). The result has been an overall increase in revenue for these companies, with many looking poised to make significant gains as the recession dissipates. A more empirical example may be seen in a study examining adoption of technologies, where Klein, Conn, and Sorra (2001) found that resources played a pivotal role in determining if innovative adoptions were made. Similarly, in a series of interviews about new development efforts, Dougherty and Hardy (1996) also discovered that sustained availability of resources was deemed critical for project success. These findings are not particularly surprising when we consider the high rate of failure characterizing innovative efforts. Resources allow organizations to pursue a range of ideas and absorb the inherent failure rate. Higher levels of capital, space, and manpower also permit an organization to fully pursue an idea, allowing for adequate development, testing, and marketing endeavors (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). Although it is easy to suggest that organizations allocate resources to research and development, resources remain at a premium in nearly every organization. After all, if the organization’s goal is to turn a profit, it hardly makes business sense to waste funds needlessly. Thus, a leader’s job is often to determine which projects receive resource Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 258 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) support and, perhaps more critically, which do not. As an illustration, consider Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ acquisition of Pixar in the early 1986 from George Lucas and his Industrial, Light, and Magic team (Capodogli & Jackson, 2010). Jobs originally bought the organization as a software and hardware company not fully realizing that the group had a deeper passion for an emerging form of digital animation. After seeing early drafts of the film Toy Story, however, Jobs scrambled to acquire resources for the animation group. Jobs recognized the potential in the innovative team and was willing to allow them to develop, grow, and evolve over a substantial period of time. Given the ultimate success of Pixar, it’s safe to say Jobs’ judgment in resource allocation has proven, at least in this account, sound. The conclusion emerging from the resource literature is that, creativity and innovation are resource intensive activities. Without a template to follow, new projects often take longer than expected, and their true value may not be readily apparent. A leader’s job is to allocate enough resources for reasonable levels of exploration with the understanding that high-risk endeavors are often a bit of a gamble—albeit a gamble with a high pay-off if done correctly. Decision making. The final and perhaps most direct method a leader can have on innovation is choosing which projects will be pursued and which will not. Such decision making is often tied to resource allocation but also represents a more direct link to choices regarding innovative outcomes. Consider, for example, the editing process in producing films. Prior to beginning the editing process, a director and editing team have a glut of footage available to create the final product. It is during the editing phase that great performances find their way on-screen or are left unseen on the cutting room floor. As a second example, consider a novel trick-play in American football such as the “flea-flicker” or “statue of liberty.” Although novel schemes such as these are often developed by offensive coordinators and practiced multiple times by the team, it is the coach’s (i.e., leader’s) job to decide if they are ultimately used in a game setting. Finally, consider the CEO of a toy company who must decide on the line of toys for the high profile holiday season, or the head of design at a car company who must choose which lineup will be introduced at the Detroit auto show. The core theme here is that creative efforts may be pushing their way through the organization’s pipeline, but leaders often make the final call as to which ideas are presented for public consumption. Decision making in these later stages of the innovation process is often the final, and at times largest, hurdle that an innovative project may face. Given the range, speed, and nature of problems faced by leaders on any given day, error free decision making is difficult for any leader (Hunter, Tate, Dzieweczynski, & Bedell-Avers, 2011). Decision making with regard to creativity and innovation represents an even greater challenge. The novel nature of the phenomena makes success difficult to predict because leaders cannot rely on previous case studies as benchmarks. Lacking a template to help gauge probabilities of success means that leaders must rely on their own creative thinking skills to imagine how a product might perform (Mumford et al., 2003, 2007). Consider again, for example, the recent introduction of Apple’s newest gadget, the iPad. Many critics thought the novel product would fail, largely because it fell between lower end net books and higher end laptops. Early Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 259 predictions on product sales hovered near the 2 million-unit mark with best estimates edging toward 7 million. Jobs anticipated much greater success, and through his creative thinking skills, was able to conceive of the potential new tablet market. After 17 million units sold and counting, Jobs once again demonstrated the capacity to envision outcomes many others missed. In addition to creative thinking skills, decision making can be enhanced vis-à-vis a keen understanding of an organization’s capabilities and capacities. It is conceivable that a car manufacturer might have generated the idea for an iPad-like product, but would have lacked the organizational capacity to develop, manufacture, and distribute it. Apple, in contrast, had the network in place to effectively design, create, and market the product. One final way a leader can improve decision making in innovation is via expertise, particularly domain expertise. Andrews and Farris (1972), for example, examined leader capacities in design teams and found that the leaders’ technical skill was the best predictor of team performance. Along related lines, Barnowe (1975) conducted a study of leadership in more than 80 research and development teams. Creative performance in these teams was more highly correlated with the technical skills of team leaders than with other leader behaviors such as support, task emphasis, and supervision closeness. The emerging message from this literature is that simply having creative ideas percolating in an organization does not ensure successful innovation. There are a series of choices made by leaders later in the process that affect final innovative outcomes. These choices are difficult to make and often require a commitment to an established vision when critics, and even subordinates, may lack confidence. Decision making in leaders is enhanced if they possess creative thinking skills as well as domain expertise in the area they are making choices about. Conclusion There are three broad conclusions that emerge from the present effort. The first is that leaders play a multitude of roles when facilitating innovation in organizations. We chose to discuss eight of these roles and see these eight as particularly important to creative achievement. The fact remains, however, that leaders influence innovation in ways not discussed here, further underscoring the broader point: There exists no single “one” thing a leader can do to increase innovation in an organization. Instead, there is a system of activities, actions, and behaviors needed that often operate in concert with one another. The pursuit of innovative endeavors is not for the faint of heart. A second broader point that emerges from our discussion is that understanding how to facilitate innovation depends on an understanding of the processes that preceded the manufacture of that product. These processes are not linear and often contribute backward and forward to other ongoing innovation activities. They are, moreover, multilevel in nature with various overlapping circles of individuals, teams, divisions, departments, and organizations shaping each other iteratively and dynamically. Despite this complexity, a leader’s job is readily apparent: Maintain success across this range of activities if the hope is to produce innovative outcomes. Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 260 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) The final point is perhaps more conceptual than the first two, but remains important nonetheless. Namely, our discussion highlights that a leader’s influence on creativity and innovation varies across the range of activities needed for innovation. Although somewhat simplified for the sake of brevity, a leader’s primary role in early stage processes is to provide the materials and environment that permit original thinking and novel idea exchange among teammates. As ideas move through the pipeline, often iteratively, a leader’s role becomes more direct and critical, requiring decision making about which ideas receive support and which do not. These two broad influences, labeled direct and indirect in our model, represent potentially conflicting roles for the leader. Early on, the leader’s job is to encourage novel—even odd or weird—thinking. In contrast, later in the process a leader must determine market viability and cut ideas not ready for stakeholders or public consumption; the leader becomes an evaluator of idea potential. This dual-role tension, termed the generator/evaluator paradox, represents a notable challenge in leading for innovation (Hunter, Thoroughgood, Myer, & Ligon, 2011). Thus, it is important for leaders to evaluate which stage of innovation they are leading and consider their role in that stage. Implications for HRD. The results of the present effort reveal four key implications for Human Resource Development. The first is that successfully leading for innovation is contingent on building a workforce with at least moderate levels of creative potential (Hunter, Cushenbery, & Freidrich, in press). Although a skilled leader can create the appropriate environment to elicit novel thinking, the workforce must be capable of generating original ideas in that environment. Even in the more rare case where leaders themselves are the generators of creative ideas, it will prove necessary to have subordinates who are able to refine, further develop, and ultimately implement those ideas. Moreover, organizations will have a difficult time being innovative over the long-term if they are reliant only on their leaders to generate creative ideas. Successful, sustained innovation requires a creative workforce as well as the leadership to support creative efforts (Bilton, 2007). Second, leaders should understand that the creative process is not linear and learn how to motivate their employees to innovate. Because of the ambiguous nature of their tasks, leaders of creative efforts should be patient with projects that stall, start over, or ultimately fail. Innovation requires a great deal of persistence, and leaders who become frustrated can hinder their employees’ progress. Instead, leaders should encourage effort over performance and reward their employees’ tenacity. These reward systems may be less straightforward than other pay-for-performance systems, so leaders should learn what works in their own companies. Leaders should also keep in mind that creative individuals may value nonfinancial rewards such as greater autonomy over their work or being assigned to tasks where they can continue to innovate (Amabile, 1985). Third, leaders must balance the needs of their creative workforce with the expectations of stakeholders such as executive-level leaders, retailers, investors, and consumers. In early stages of the creative process, leaders must protect creative workers from stakeholders’ time pressure and expectations for lower costs. At the same time, however, leaders must remain cognizant of the criticality of stakeholder input in the final Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 261 product. Accordingly, as suggested by Vos and Achterkamp (2006), stakeholder involvement may be most prominent toward the later innovation stages such as implementation planning and monitoring. In these stages, leaders can influence stakeholder adoption of innovation through decision making and expertise. Along similar lines, leaders’ expertise is essential in their role as representatives of innovation to stakeholders. Leaders can serve as both interpreters and salesmen of new technology to outsiders. Research suggests that innovation adoption by a focal stakeholder within an organization can cause a diffusion of adoption to others outside the organization (Troshani & Doolin, 2007). Thus, understanding how to appeal to stakeholders while preserving their creative employees’ environment for exploration, is key to success. The final implication for HRD is that, much like innovation itself, developing creative leaders is a complex endeavor. Our discussion here revolved around at least eight ways that leaders might affect innovation with the acknowledgement that still others exist. Training leaders to be proficient across the range of these activities will require substantial variety in development efforts (Mumford et al., 2007). Moreover, developing individuals with the potential to successfully lead for innovation will require substantial time and commitment to their skill development. Although we often think of innovative pioneers as emerging from a garage, the notion that many popular companies start this way is a myth. Consider, for example, founders of YouTube Steve Chan and Chad Hurley. Certainly the concept of user created web videos was an impactful and original idea, but the founders did not spontaneously become innovative leaders in their garages. Rather, they honed their skills at PayPal before starting YouTube (Heath & Heath, 2007). Even Steve Jobs can track his development to time spent at both Hewlett Packard and Atari (Audia & Rider, 2005). Moreover, leaders can reinvent themselves with new challenges throughout their careers. Walt Disney shifted from full-length movies such as Snow White to television shows to the creation of Disney theme parks. The central point emerging here is that leading for innovation is challenging and possessing the capacity to do so requires a variety of skills that take years to develop. With the appropriate leadership, however, successful innovation becomes a realistic and achievable goal. Without it, the challenge may prove insurmountable. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393-399. Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 262 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184. Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5-32. Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 53-66. Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 185-200. Arvey, R. D., Dewhurst, H. D., & Boling, J. C. (1976). Relationships between goal clarity, participation in goal setting, and personality characteristics on job satisfaction in a scientific organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 103-105. Audia, P. G., & Rider, C. I. (2005). A garage and an idea: What more does an entrepreneur need? California Management Review, 48, 6-28. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Barnowe, J. T. (1975). Leadership and performance outcomes in research organizations: The supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 264-280. Baughman, W. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1995). Process analytic models of creative capacities: Operations involves in the combination and reorganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 37-62. Bilton, C. (2007). Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bogoslaw, D. (2010). Tough times spur shifts in corporate R&D spending. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2010/ pi2010089_431207.htm Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1995). Self perceptions and perceptions of group climate as predictors of individual innovation at work. Applied Psychology, 44, 199-215. Capodogli, B., & Jackson, L. (2010). The Pixar way. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Chafkin, M. (2009). The Zappos way of managing. Inc. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/ magazine/20090501/the-zappos-way-of-managing.html Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2009). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, NY: Heath. Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1120-1153. Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 149-156. Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 263 Estrin, J. (2009). Closing the innovation gap: Reigniting the spark of creativity in a global economy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Heath, D., & Heath, C. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Random House. Hirschberg, J. (1999). The creative priority: Putting innovation to work in your business. New York, NY: Harper-Business. Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69-90. Hunter, S. T., Cassidy, S. E., & Ligon, G. S. (in press). Planning for innovation: A processoriented perspective. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook for organizational creativity. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L., & Freidrich, T. (in press). The unique challenges of hiring creative talent. Human Resource Management Review. Hunter, S. T., Tate, B. W., Dzieweczynski, J. L., & Bedell-Avers, K. E. (2011). Leaders make mistakes: A multilevel consideration of why. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 239-258. Hunter, S. T., Thoroughgood, C. N., Myer, A. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). Paradoxes of leading innovative endeavors: Summary, solutions, and future directions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 54-66. Jaruzelski, B., & Dehoff, K. (2009). Profits down, spending steady: The global innovation 1000. Strategy and Business, 57(4), 1-14. Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 351-368. Kanter, R. M., Kao, J., & Wiersema, F. (1997). Innovation: Breakthrough thinking at 3M, DuPont, GE, Pfizer, and Rubbermaid. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Kao, J. (1989). Entrepreneurship, creativity, and organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kao, J. J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovation edge, why it matters, and what we can do to get it back. New York, NY: Free Press. Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 811-824. Koberg, C. S., Uhlenbruck, N., & Sarason, Y. (1996). Facilitators of organizational innovation: The role of life-cycle stage. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(2), 133-149. Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 120-130. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. Madjar, N. (2005). The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’ creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 182-206. McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 226-246. Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 264 Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(3) Mossholder, K. W., & Dewhurst, H. D. (1980). The appropriateness of management-byobjectives for development and research personnel. Journal of Management, 6, 145-156. Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Maher, M. A., Costanza, D. P., & Supinski, E. P. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 59-71. Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 63-76. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leaders think: Experimental findings and cases. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411-432. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43. Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. IV, pp. 11-74). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., & Bedell-Avers, K. E. (2008). Research in multi-level issues: A focus on innovation (Vol. VII). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., Eubanks, D., Bedell, K., & Murphy, S. (2007). Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 402-417. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91-122. Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V. (1997). Process-based measure of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall prediction. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73-85. O’Connor, G. C. (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: A cross case comparison of eight radical innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 151-166. Rodan, S. (2002). Innovation and heterogeneous knowledge in managerial contact networks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 152-163. Runco, M. A. (2008). Creativity research should be a social science. In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E. Bedell-Avers (Eds.), Multi-level issues in creativity and innovation (Vol. VII, pp. 75-94). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Schmidt, E. (2010, May). How I did it: Google’s CEO on enduring lessons of a quirky IPO. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2010/05/how-i-did-it-googles-ceoon-the-enduring-lessons-of-a-quirky-ipo/ar/1 Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 612-640. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 261-286. Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012 Hunter and Cushenbery 265 Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York, NY: Macmillan. Thorton, P. B. (2010). Leadership: Off the wall. Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367. Troshani, I., & Doolin, B. (2007). Innovation diffusion: A stakeholder and social network view. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 176-200. Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30. Vise, D. A., & Malseed, M. (2005). The Google story: Inside the hottest business, media, and technology success of our time. New York, NY: Bantam Dell. Vos, J. F. J., & Achterkamp, M. C. (2006). Stakeholder identification in innovation projects: Going beyond classification. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 161-178. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation within groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-386. Bios Samuel T. Hunter is an Assistant Professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the Pennsylvania State University. His primary areas of research include leadership and innovation management. Within these areas, Dr. Hunter has published over 35 journal articles, books, and book chapters in outlets such as the Leadership Quarterly, the Journal of Applied Psychology, and the Creativity Research Journal. A recent co-authored article published in 2008 received the Center for Creative Leadership’s award for outstanding publication in the Leadership Quarterly. Dr. Hunter has also received funding for his work from agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research. Lily Cushenbery is a fourth year graduate student in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology program at The Pennsylvania State University. Her primary research topics include leader error recovery, malevolent creativity, and innovation management. Ms. Cushenbery has published several articles and book chapters on the topic of innovation in outlets such as the Leadership Quarterly and the Handbook of Destructive Leadership. Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on January 12, 2012