Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 54 – 66 © 2011 American Psychological Association 1931-3896/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017776 Paradoxes of Leading Innovative Endeavors: Summary, Solutions, and Future Directions Samuel T. Hunter, Christian N. Thoroughgood, and Adam T. Myer Gina Scott Ligon Villanova University Penn State University Leading innovative pursuits requires a unique set of leadership behaviors— behaviors that are frequently at odds with traditional forms of management and organizational functioning. We have identified 14 of these tensions, or paradoxes, associated with leading innovative endeavors categorizing them into four clusters: internal/localized, team-level, organization-level, and situational. In addition, we consider some industry-derived solutions to these paradoxes, revealing how some highly innovative organizations have been able to successfully manage these tensions. Supplementing these solutions, we offer suggestions on how organizations might approach those remaining paradoxes, concluding with a discussion on necessary future research endeavors. Finally, we argue that the pursuit of innovation requires a unique leadership approach— 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 that leaders of innovation manage conflicts between the dual goals of commerce and the creative process, often associated with resolving concerns for profitability and efficiency while simultaneously working in ill-defined, ambiguous domains (Bledow, Frese, Erez, Anderson, & Farr, 2009; DeFillippi, Grabher, & Jones, 2007). As an illustration, consider the tension emerging between individual preferences for autonomy and an organizational need for control. Research on highly creative individuals reveals that innovators typically prefer the freedom to do things their own way; to work as they see fit. In a meta-analysis of over 125 empirical studies, for example, Feist (1998) found that those engaging in scientific or artistic creativity exhibited strong trait tendencies toward autonomy and independence—trends also noted by a number of other scholars in similar reviews (e.g., Barron & Harrington, 1981; Gough, 1979). An examination of organizational interests, in contrast, reveals an oppositional pull to the creative individual’s preference for autonomy. That is, organizations typically seek to establish control; to quantify, predict, and manage organizational resources in such a way as to maximize efficiency and, in turn, profit (Coase, 1937; Leana & Barry, 2000). This is particularly true 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 creativity and innovation, we often witness the emergence of paradox: tensions between two entities pursuing oppositional ends (Bledow et al., 2009; Lewis, 2000; Lucher & Lewis, 2008; Mumford & Hunter, 2005; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). More central to the present effort is that those charged with leading creative endeavors must manage multiple tensions among individuals, teams, and organizations. In the scenario described above, it appears leaders must choose between supporting the individual who desires freedom to engage in creative tasks 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 individual might be met? Let us briefly consider the cases of 3M and Google and how they have attempted to resolve this paradox between individual autonomy and organizational control. 3M is well-known for its innovations—it is the organization that has given us Scotch tape, scratch and sniff stickers, and reflective sheeting for highway markings (Kanter, Kao, & Wiersema, 1997). Also emergent from 3M is a somewhat odd yet infinitely useful innovation: the Post-It note. It is interesting that the Post-It note emerged from a program at 3M that provides employees engaged in creative tasks freedom to pursue ideas they find engaging. Known as the 15% rule, engineers are given a portion of their workweek to pursue endeavors autonomously. A similar approach is used at Silicon Valley innovation powerhouse, Google. Upping the ante to 20%, Google employees are encouraged to use one day a week to pursue ideas they think are interesting either on their own or with self-chosen teams. The results of the 20% rule are impressive, and include the highly popular gmail, GoogleSky, and GoogleNews applications (Vise & Malseed, 2006). What should also be realized is that with the remaining 80% of their time (or 85% in the case of 3M), employees are pursuing organizationally sponsored endeavors. In the cases of both Google and 3M, it is reasonable to say that these organizationally directed endeavors have been quite successful (Vise & Malseed, 2006). What is witnessed in the above discussion is both the existence and resolution of paradoxical tensions that emerge when innovation is pursued 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 to the present effort. We would also like to thank Roni Reiter-Palmon and the anonymous reviewers for their help in revising earlier drafts of the manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samuel T. Hunter, Department of Psychology, Penn State University, 111 Moore Building, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: samhunter@psu.edu 54 SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION requirements reveals a wide array of these tensions—tensions that have been resolved by some organizations yet continue to hamper the 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 identify those paradoxes most challenging to leaders, thereby providing an initial starting point of tension resolution. Along these lines, the second aim of the manuscript is to offer solutions witnessed in innovative organizations (e.g., 3M and Google), as well as the creativity, innovation, and leadership literature more specifically. Although it appears that solutions exist for several paradoxes such as the one described above, it is evident that many remain unresolved. Thus, the third aim of the present effort is to define a future research agenda that might identify additional paradoxes and, more critically, move toward their resolution. Paradoxes of Leading for Innovation Tensions, or paradoxes, occur frequently in various aspects of organizational life (Bledow et al., 2009; Bouchikhi, 1998; Cameron & 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 innovation has been discussed by a variety of researchers (e.g., Bledow et al., 2009; DeFillipi et al., 2007; King, Anderson, & West, 1991; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) and there is general consensus that the pursuit of innovation inherently results in tensions among entities in the organization. Much of the work on innovation paradoxes has focused on more macrolevel strategic decisions, such as how to dually pursue exploitive and explorative efforts within an organization (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). The present effort, in contrast but not contradiction, focuses on those organizational leaders charged with the immediate management of innovative projects. That is, our discussion is most applicable to leaders who must interact with, support, and manage, team members while also being held responsible by other organizational stakeholders. As we turn to a more detailed discussion of these paradoxes, it is useful to describe the general paradox “categories” used as our framework. These categories are by no means mutually exclusive, but rather represent useful break points for facilitating our discussion. The first category represents the internal or localized paradoxes faced by the leader, such as obtaining both domain-specific and general leadership skills. The second category includes leader and team member paradoxes, such as the management of autonomous creative personalities within an increasingly team-oriented environment. The third category comprises tensions between teams and organizations, such as the desire for autonomy at the team-level, contrasted with the need for control at upper levels. Finally, we discuss tensions associated with leaders and the context they face, such as the push for external collaboration contradicted by the need to protect ideas in competitive environments. These paradoxes are summarized in Table 1. We begin our discussion with the localized or internal leadership paradoxes. 55 Table 1 Paradoxes When Leading for Innovation Internal paradoxes 1. Dual Expertise - Obtain domain expertise but also gain requisite leadership skills 2. Generation Evaluation - Be evaluative of pursuits but also generative of new ideas Leadership and team-level paradoxes 3. Creative Personality Cohesion - Develop team cohesion with a team of “creative” personalities 4. Vision Autonomy - Provide a vision and direction to team members but also allow for high levels of autonomy 5. Restriction Freedom - Offer time and resources but also provide pressure and restrictions required for performance Leadership and organization-level paradoxes 6. Insularity Cohesion - Facilitate team-level cohesion but not insularity within the organization 7. Champion Evaluator - Be evaluative within the team, but sell ideas to upper management and other organizational stakeholders 8. Creativity Cost - Pursue multiple ideas while keeping project and organizational costs low 9. Creativity Cost - Provide requisite time necessary for creative pursuits while keeping organizational costs low Leadership and contextual paradoxes 10. Intrinsic Extrinsic - Instill intrinsic motivation using more readily available extrinsic tools 11. Local Long-Term - Instill passion (intrinsic motivation) for single projects but also maintain a long term strategic orientation 12. Competition Collaboration - facilitate openness with other organizations 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 embraces risk and failure, yet is able to produce successful outcomes Internal (Localized) Paradoxes Dual Expertise Paradox Leading for innovation requires domain expertise, nicely illustrated in Andrews and Farris’s (1967) investigation of technical expertise and innovative performance among 21 teams. The authors found that technical expertise was the strongest predictor of team innovative performance—a finding also observed by Barnowe (1975) and later noted by Mumford and colleagues (Mumford, Eubanks, & Murphy, 2007) in their summary of the leadership requirements for innovation. The challenge to leaders, however, is in gaining domain expertise yet also obtaining requisite leadership skills necessary for managing people and resources in an organization (Yukl, 2007). Managing resources for innovation, moreover, is particularly challenging to leaders, given the seemingly unpredictable requirements of ideas that have yet to be explored (Mumford, Bedell-Avers, & Hunter, 2008), as is the skillful management of the unique and frequently challenging creative personalities inherent to creative efforts. At the crux of this paradox is that the development of expertise, in any form, takes time. In fact, some researchers have suggested that expertise requires upward of 10 years to obtain (Ericsson & Lehman, 1996). Thus, those leading innovative efforts, paradoxically, must also develop strong leadership skills in addition to their domain relevant expertise. Hence, our first leadership paradox: 56 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON P1: Leaders Must Obtain Domain Expertise While Also Gaining Necessary Leadership Skills Paradox resolution. Although this paradox is challenging, an interesting approach to resolution is witnessed in the management of a rather unique innovative endeavor: the Manhattan project. The team charged with constructing the first atomic bomb was officially led by Robert Oppenheimer, a well-respected theoretical physicist and university professor at the University of California at Berkley. As may be surmised, Oppenheimer had incredible expertise and thus, earned the respect of the impressive group he directed. What some have suggested that Oppenheimer lacked, however, were the social skills necessary to successfully lead the project (Kao, 2007). This was handled by Leslie Groves, who as Kao (2007) describes “had considerable expertise available to him in the huge Rolodex of government and private sector people he could tap. He had a tremendous cache of social capital, and did not hesitate to use it” (p. 202). Thus, a rather unique solution to this paradox is simply not to have a single leader, but rather share the responsibility between individuals who possess the requisite skills and expertise. At times, however, the above solution is not feasible and as such organizations must attempt to resolve this tension using one leader rather than an integrated leadership effort. This approach requires sustained and effortful commitment by the leader as well as the organization. Mumford and colleagues (Mumford et al., 2007) suggested that future leaders must be recognized early enough in their careers to be given a series of small projects to lead, thereby allowing for the development of leadership skills. Managing too many projects, however, conflicts with the leader gaining requisite domain expertise. Thus, early leadership opportunities should be flexible enough to allow for individuals to gain leadership experience while also allowing for domain expertise development. Planned efforts to improve leadership skills (Day, 2000) need to lean to the more informal approaches as well; for example, at Tyson Foods, junior scientists are paired with mentors in different functional areas to obtain experiences observing and discussing strategies for managing creative teams. These informal mentoring meetings provide early opportunities for the junior scientist to learn how to coach and provide feedback to his team in a way that encourages productivity without interfering with members’ autonomy. In one empirical study along these lines, Feist (1999) also reports that high-performing physical and biological scientists were more likely to report having had mentoring relationships. These engagements may afford exposure to higher-level strategic goals of the organization, and how leaders translate them into team objectives. This flexible approach to leadership development may speed the acquisitions of shared mental models around an organization’s mission, a factor deemed critical and challenging in innovative organizations (Thompson, 2007). Future work in this arena should focus on identifying what situations may best be suited for dividing leadership responsibilities (e.g., as in the Manhattan Project), versus situations that allow informal leadership training to ameliorate the challenge of one individual charged with both innovating and managing others. Generation Evaluation Paradox In addition to obtaining multiple types of expertise, leaders must also balance several conflicting tasks—tasks that require distinct cognitive processes—when engaging in innovative endeavors (Baer, 2003). The most noteworthy challenge is the differential activities required of evaluating and generating ideas. The realization that not all creative ideas are viable and that many will fail also presents challenges to leaders when attempting to establish a climate of support for original thinking. Leaders of innovation must serve as the gatekeepers of ideas— backing those ideas that may be most successful for the team and organization (Mumford et al., 2003). At the same time, however, leaders must also be supportive of “out of the box” thinking (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; West, 1990). This support is particularly necessary for creative endeavors where reactions to originality are typically critical and negative (Blair & Mumford, 2007). In his review of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab, Berkun (2007) recalls a conversation with the team centering on how they arrived at their most innovative solutions: “We start with a half-baked idea, which most people— especially critical people—would just shoot down right away or find uninteresting” (p. 88). Specifically, a primary role in leading for innovation is serving as evaluator— choosing the ideas most viable for the team and organization (Mumford et al., 2003). As O’Connor (1998) observed, project success for technological innovations was strongly predicted by a leader’s ability to evaluate the long-term outcomes of a given idea. Similar results were observed by Kitchell (1995) who found that appraising ideas relative to long-term goals resulted in increased adoption of new technologies. The process of evaluation is “. . .a distinct form of creative thought in its own right involving the forecasting of consequences, the definition of standards, ongoing revision, and the appraisal of environmental demands and emergent properties” (Mumford, Lonergan, & Scott, 2002, p. 27). Although evaluation is a central requirement of managing a creative team, tensions emerge when leaders must simultaneously serve as “generators.” That is, leaders are not simply gatekeepers of their team’s ideas— effective leaders also help contribute to idea generation and refinement (Bilton, 2007; Mumford et al., 2003; Torr, 2007). Much of the creativity research has concerned itself with the cognitive processes underlying divergent thinking and idea generation, or the ability to produce various possible solutions to a problem (Lubart, 1994; Guilford, 1967). Divergent thinking is necessary to devise original alternatives for a problem’s solution (Runco, 2004, 1993); moreover, assessments of divergent thought have served as a useful estimate of creative potential (Basadur, Runco, & Vega, 2000; Runco, 1993). In a review of creative thinking, Baer (2003) identified three important themes central to the idea of distinct generative and evaluative processes. First, divergent and evaluative thinking skills follow different developmental trajectories. Second, the development of one set of skills may influence the other and third, the level of these skills varies widely among and within individuals. Taken from this summary is that not only does generation and evaluation require different behaviors— behaviors that may prove difficult to engage in simultaneously—the processes of generation and evaluation may also require potentially conflicting forms of cognition. Hence, our second localized tension faced by leaders: SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION P2: Leaders Must Be Evaluative of Project Direction, but Also Generative of New Ideas Paradox resolution. Although simultaneously serving as evaluator and generator is a challenging endeavor, it is made easier in environments that embrace criticism and realize the potential value of error (van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag, 2005). Leaders must actively encourage an environment that supports evaluation and views it as a means to improve ideas rather than a tool to disqualify them. As Mumford and colleagues (Mumford et al., 2003) suggest “feedback framed in terms of the needs of creative efforts is likely to prove most beneficial” (p. 26). In this sense, evaluation feeds into the generative process rather than conflicting directly with it— ultimately serving to minimize the tension between the two processes. When providing such feedback, it may prove more effective in managing these competing processes by providing direction rather than 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 worthy of pursuit (and further resources). Thus, while serving in a leadership role, individuals must be able to draw upon both of evaluative and generative processes, and provide feedback in a way that connotes 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 prescription gained support; results showed when feedback was presented 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 in developing others to generate creative ideas, rather than explicitly providing ideas to the team. Future work in this area should explore the possibility of complementary roles of generative and evaluative thinking when providing feedback as to others’ ideas, as well as focus on effective delivery strategies that encourage idea exploration 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 personalities characterizing highly creative employees that leaders face a unique challenge in managing a collection of individuals who would likely prefer working alone. Put more directly, leaders face a difficult conflict in that they must develop cohesion among team members who often possess traits of autonomy, need for achievement, hostility, and dominance (Feist, 1999, 1998). Cohesion is important for a number of reasons, such as increased task commitment and engagement in a task (West, 2002). One of the primary roles cohesion plays is in aiding in the establishment of participative safety (Anderson & West, 1998; West, 1990). That is, cohesion helps facilitate a general comfort in sharing ideas and as a result, more original ideas are available to the team members during the innovation process. Unfortunately, excessive cohesion can lead to a desire to not want to “rock the boat” or cause interpersonal conflict among team members. In fact, research has shown that it is extremely difficult to develop cognitive conflict 57 without interpersonal conflict. De Dreu and Weingart (2003), for example, reported an average correlation between task and socioemotional conflict of .54, and single studies have found correlations as high as .75 (Ensley & Pearce, 2001). Central to this leadership paradox, however, is that some form of cognitive (i.e., task) conflict or challenging of ideas is necessary for creativity to occur (Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999). Thus, we have our third leadership paradox: P3: Leaders Must Develop Team Cohesion Within a Team of “Creative” Personalities, yet Still Encourage Creative Conflict Paradox resolution. Work by Taggar (2001, 2002) offers some insight into creative personality paradox faced by leaders. Specifically, Taggar (2001) examined 94 work teams and their composition and observed that teams composed of many creative individuals performed very well if they engaged in specific creative teamwork processes. On the other hand, teams composed of highly creative individuals that did not engage in team creative processes performed much worse. Thus, there is some indication that leaders can manage the unique personalities of creative individuals in such a way as to produce high-level innovation. The key, it seems, is an emphasis on team processes such as participation, goal setting, and actively managing conflict. Managing conflict among these types of personalities is no easy task, however. In his discussions on facilitating innovation at Nissan, Jerry Hirschberg described what he called “creative abrasion” (Hirschberg, 1999, p. 29), noting that although it was difficult, the conflict that arose from differing cultures resulted in greater innovation. Once this was realized, moreover, employees embraced conflict much more easily. Another example of leaders managing this conflict successfully is seen in Xerox PARC—led for a time by Bob Taylor. In discussing the development of successful innovations, Smith and Alexander (1999) write: “[Bob Taylor’s] attitude kept it safe for others to put aside fears and ego and 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 and providing criticism. One additional way to facilitate task conflict yet minimize interpersonal conflict is through levity— keeping things light. Former dean of Yale’s medical school Lewis Thomas noted, “One way to tell when something important is going on is by laughter” (Berkun, 2007, p. 103)—a climate he actively pursued at Yale. Finally, leaders must compose their teams with individuals that have the passion but also the willingness to continually improve via critical evaluation. Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Joost, Mike Volpi, refers to this as being critically optimistic, stating, “It is the ability to critically assess and optimistically improve that makes for better professionals, better companies, and better countries” (Estrin, 2007, p. 133). More work is needed around the nature of the leader’s role in developing this climate, focusing on the relative importance of strategies such as role modeling, storytelling, and direct feedback. Vision Autonomy Paradox Along the lines of the paradox discussed above, recall that it is essential that leaders provide guidance and direction to the team. In 58 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON fact, the leadership literature is replete with empirical support highlighting the importance of establishing a vision for subordinates (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). This is also true in the context of innovation, more specifically (Pinto & Prescott, 1988). The tension occurs, however, when we consider the nature of creative individuals and the nature of the creative task. Providing too much structure can be met with significant backlash from teams and individuals who prefer freedom in their tasks—leading to our fourth paradox when managing innovative efforts: P4: Leaders Must Provide a Vision and Direction to Team Members but Also Allow for High Levels of Team Autonomy Paradox resolution. Resolving this paradox involves a shift from a leader’s vision to a team’s mission. That is, leaders must provide a broad view of the project goals without defining the end result explicitly to their personalized visions (Mumford et al., 2007). This is not to suggest that goal setting and project management is a minor part of the creative process—indeed they are critical to leading for innovation (West, 1990). Rather, a leader must be cautious in providing this direction so as to allow a view of what the solution may look like, with the realization that how the solution is derived will be an iterative process. Zhou’s (2004) study also points to the importance of that developmental feedback played in shaping individual’s creative performance; when working with creative coworkers, individuals benefited from supervisory developmental feedback. In effect, when informational feedback was provided about team goals and progress toward those goals, individuals were more likely to produce creative results. Thus, one additional (but related) way to resolve this paradox could be for leaders to shift their direction around the vision in the form of feedback rather than initial goal setting. Additional research as to how this feedback could be delivered in a way that reinforces the vision is needed (cf., Zhou, 1998). Restrictions Freedom Paradox A key conflict the leader of a creative team must resolve is the tension between managing the work and allowing members the requisite autonomy to think and perform creatively. That is, while the creative process can sometimes result in working toward problem resolution in an iterative and deliberate fashion, in an organizational setting, there is often a sense of urgency for results. Leaders need to respond to this production pressure by holding teams accountable for a reasonable level of performance and quality (Anderson & West, 1998; West, 1990). The challenge with providing pressure, however, is that creative endeavors need time to develop, particularly when projects are team-based (ReiterPalmon, Herman, & Yammarino, 2008; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Simply put, there is no specific time-line for innovation, yet leaders need to provide some degree of pressure to meet team-level goals. While leaders may try to find strategies to buffer team members from production pressure (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007), the challenge is to provide adequate time and resources but not induce complacency. This point was noted expressly by Shalley and Gilson (2003) who stated: “managers have a complex role in striking the right balance between providing employees enough time to be creative but not too much time so that they are no longer motivated to perform their jobs” (p. 39). Nohria and Gulati (1996) also explored this paradox, examining the role of “slack” in organizational innovation. In their sample of 264 departments, the authors found that having few resources hampered innovation, but an overabundance of resources also limited the originality of innovative efforts. Finally, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) suggested that resources can have a “deadening effect” on creativity (p. 321) and that caution is warranted with regard to blanket resource distribution. P5: Leaders Must Allow for the Timelines and Resources Necessary for Creative Thinking yet Avoid Complacency by Providing Requisite Restrictions and Pressure Necessary for Performance Paradox resolution. As the push and pull factors of this paradox are multifaceted, so too are the emergent resolutions. This paradox is often resolved through team composition combined with the nature of the task. That is, choosing the right team members for innovation and charging them with a task they enjoy induces much of the pressure necessary for quality outcomes (Amabile, 1998). More pragmatically, it may also be necessary for leaders to develop timelines that provide subordinates information as to necessary progress, but also flexible enough to handle the predictably unpredictable lags that occur in innovation. Cohendet and Simon’s (2007) review of video game companies, for example, revealed that strict time deadlines allowed for the development of “creative slack” that could be used in the later stages of project development—frequently when it was needed most. HP Labs actively addressed this tension using what insiders referred to as the “5-year rule.” Looking back at successful innovations, HP noticed that viable innovations went from lab to marketplace in under 5 years. Thus, by instituting a 5-year rule for projects, managers must either abandon the project at that point or adequately justify why it should be pursued further. The key here is that a formalized organizational “rule” provides adequate time to pursue ideas, but also an external attribution for when to call it quits should the idea not prove viable. This rule has provided valuable in promoting a culture at HP that realizes when it is time to move on with ideas without punishment or embarrassment (Estrin, 2007). Proctor & Gamble, on the other hand, takes a somewhat different approach by “shelving” ideas should they not prove currently viable. By placing an idea on the shelf, the organization ensures a backlog of unique ideas, but also sends the message to employees that all ideas are valuable, just maybe not viable at the present time. With regard to resources allocation and complacency, leaders should realize that when managing creative efforts, resources need not be opulent or excessive to be effective (Kao, 2007). In fact, there is some indication that job dissatisfaction can lead to creativity if surrounded by the right coworkers (Zhou & George, 2002). Along these lines, leaders must make careful decisions about why certain resources are necessary for creativity. For example, a leader may decide that a grand meeting space is necessary for innovation and pursue a costly renovation project to enhance innovation. In reality, however, what she may really want is simply space where individuals can gather and share ideas; a space that SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION often comes with minor cost (Cohendet & Simon, 2007). Complacency, moreover, occurs when there is a lack of challenge and inspiration and it is often the leader’s job to provide both (e.g., Bass, 1985) in addition to the tools necessary for the job. Future scholars should address where the tipping points, for both physical and time resources, lie with respect to various industries. For example, time needed for development in the pharmaceutical industry is likely to look much different (given the lag of Food & Drug Administration approvals and other governmental restrictions) than resources needed for innovation in the computer world, where time to market indicators are typically shorter and more predictable. Team and Organization-Level Leadership Paradoxes 59 study describing the active management of integration among organizational units. What should be noted about their study, however, is that the organization as a whole—not just the game designers—realized the importance of creative thinking to organizational success, and, as such, all parties involved sought to facilitate the innovative process. Thus, leaders must choose if, and under what circumstances, to engage in isolation and when it is necessary to connect with those within the organization. Purposeful isolation will require significant forecasting and planning skills on the part of the leader, as well as a commitment to active engagement in these activities (Beeler, Shipman, & Mumford, this issue; Mumford, Bedell-Avers, & Hunter, 2008). Empirical research focused on the examination of the skills involved with this aspect of leadership should aid in the development of such planning capacities of managers (Marta, Leritz, & Mumford, 2005). Insularity Cohesion Paradox Having discussed localized leadership paradoxes, as well as those tensions occurring between team members, teams, and leaders, we turn now to paradoxes between teams and organizations. Flowing from our above discussion on the importance of team cohesion in creative performance, leaders must also be weary of limiting team interaction with other project groups due to highlevel cohesion. That is, although cohesion is a necessary component of innovation, it is possible for teams to isolate themselves within the organization and limit influence from external groups. This can lead to a number of problems, including phenomena such as “groupthink” (Janis, 1972). In their investigation of several large videogame organizations, Cohendet and Simon (2007) referred to this as the “distance paradox” (p. 599) where creative thinking may be enhanced initially via segregation, but the entire innovative process is lengthened and hampered by a lack of integration among key organizational units. Thus, the challenge to leaders is to stimulate cohesion but not create barriers to external groups who may have valuable insight into how to improve team projects. The next innovation paradox, then, is: P6: Leaders Must Facilitate Team-Level Cohesion While Also Avoiding Group Insularity Within the Organization Paradox resolution. What is particularly challenging about this paradox is that sometimes isolation is, in fact, necessary. The classic example is witnessed in the revolutionary innovations emerging from Lockheed’s Skunk Works in the early 1940s. Other organizations, however, have also developed their share of purposeful isolation. Motorola took an elite team of designers to a nondescript office miles away from their Chicago corporate home and, in under 12 months, developed the (at the time) revolutionary RAZR phone (Kao, 2007). Team leaders purposefully kept their tasks secret and isolation was an intended strategy, not a byproduct of the design effort. Thus the solution to this paradox may be in purposeful, intentional, and timely isolation. Bear in mind that in the case of the RAZR phone, for example, it would be impossible to manufacture and market the phone without the use of the larger organization. It should also be noted that some industries have seen notable success with the pursuit of a more integrated design process. The videogame industry examined by Cohendet and Simon (2007) serves as an illustration, with managers in their Champion Evaluator Paradox As may be witnessed in our discussion, leaders must play several roles as they manage innovative efforts. More centrally, while serving as a lynchpin between project teams and upper-level decision makers, leaders must oftentimes engage in contradictory functions (Abernathy, 1978; Benner & Tushman, 2003). For example, leaders must be the evaluators within the team— deciding which ideas to pursue and in what capacity. This process of evaluation requires leaders to judiciously consider the challenges to implementing ideas. Further, as very few creative ideas make it to production stages, leaders must be critical of the majority of creative ideas—at least in an evaluative sense (Mumford et al., 2003). Conversely, however, leaders must also sell ideas to upperlevel management and other organizational stakeholders, touting the strengths of the ideas and highlighting potential financial upsides of team projects (Berkun, 2007; Mumford & Hunter, 2005). Howell and Higgins (1990) were among the first to describe the role of the idea champion or influencer. They and others have described idea champions as individuals who not only have the skills to recognize and sometimes develop creative ideas, but they also possess a certain amount of sales “moxy” to effectively pitch those ideas to others (Bouwen & Fry, 1988). In a recent study reviewing idea champions of technological innovation (e.g., increased usage of the Internet), Mullins, Kozlowski, Schmitt, and Howell (2008) found that such idea champions were most effective when they could clearly articulate the intricacies and expected benefits of the innovation in a way that appealed to stakeholders. It follows then that these individuals need to not only master the technical domain associated with the innovation, they need to do so in a way that effectively conveys the importance to others in (and sometimes outside of) the organization. Thus, we have our next leadership tension emerging in the pursuit of innovation: P7: Leaders Must Frequently Be Evaluative/Critical Within the Team, but Champions for Ideas With Organizational Decision-Makers and Stakeholders Paradox resolution. Resolution of this paradox may lie in the timing of when ideas are championed. Leaders must provide adequate time for prototyping and development, allowing for a viable product to emerge that is easier to champion to individuals external to the group. Time for project completion, moreover, may 60 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON be combined with isolation within the organization so that ideas can be adequately protected from potentially harmful external judgment. Isolation and time also allow for a leader to actively engage in creative projects (e.g., refining and testing) such that he or she becomes more confident in their success, and thus willing to rebuke potential external critiques. By the time an idea is ready to be shown to decision makers, the leader may more comfortably shift from evaluator to product champion. It is also possible that this timing variable may aid in the leader studying the best approach to fully develop his approach to “sell” the idea to organizational decision makers; most agree that this is best done through a series of small demonstration and pilot projects (Mullins et al., 2008; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002). A multilevel approach to future research of idea champions may illuminate the complex interaction between firm characteristics (e.g., willingness to accept innovation) 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 organizational needs, businesses frequently succeed by operating efficiently and keeping costs low. Low overhead and operating costs increases profit margins and, as a result, the success of the organization as a whole. Innovation, however, is hardly an efficient, predictable endeavor. In fact, one way of ensuring a consistent stream of innovations in organizations is to pursue multiple projects simultaneously with the knowledge that many endeavors will fail (Mumford et al., 2008). Although this maximizes the likelihood of radical, high-impact innovations, this strategy is neither predictable nor efficient. Along similar lines, creativity requires significant time (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Gruber & Davis, 1988). As may be surmised, extra time to pursue ideas that are likely to fail is a difficult strategy to pursue. Thus, we have our next two leadership paradoxes: P8: Leaders Must Pursue Multiple Ideas While Keeping Project Costs Low P9: Leaders Must Provide the Requisite Time Necessary for Creative Pursuits but Also Minimize Costs to the Organization Paradox resolution. In their multilevel discussion on planning for innovation, Mumford et al. (2008) suggested that the pursuit of multiple projects—termed a portfolio—is necessary for sustained innovation. Moreover, to sustain the pursuit of multiple innovations, the researchers argued that projects must be built upon common scaffolding. That is, projects should be related to several areas addressing multiple needs and allowing, most notably, for a reduction in cost. Expertise, resources, and materials that are shared help reduce the financial burden to organizations. In addition, organizations search for ways to funnel other resources into their core business. One example of where this has occurred is the fashion industry’s judicious use of licensing (Jones, 2007). Pierre Cardin, a perceptive entrepreneur and designer, may have been the first to master the art of licensing; a practice that allows designers to grow their brand—and revenue— by selling their name to other products. The Cardin brand has been associated with items ranging from car interiors, key chains, to luggage, though creative designers at Cardin focus solely on apparel. With regard to the time required for innovation, emerging technologies provide some reduction in this tension faced by leaders. Specifically, methods of rapid prototyping have reduced the time required for design, and have in turn, lengthened the time available for exploration (Chua, Leong, & Lim, 2003). Virtual prototyping and simulation, moreover, also reduce cost and allow for rapid feedback that greatly aids in the refinement and improvement of ideas (Rix, Has, & Teixeira, 1995). Finally, technologies that allow for virtual collaboration are reducing the time (and cost) necessary for innovation (Piccoli, Powell, & Ives, 2004). However, much research is needed on the effects of virtual collaboration on innovation, and particularly the e-leadership required to manage it (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). What we know regarding the way managers of innovation are to provide direction, feedback, and rewards may change when the communications are mediated by technology. For example, Balthazard, Waldman, and Atwater (2008) found that when compared to face-to-face teams, virtual teams exhibited much more defensive communication patterns and less cohesion. This finding may be particularly troublesome for teams with creative personalities. Leader and Contextual Paradoxes Intrinsic Extrinsic Paradox We turn now to our final category of paradoxes faced by leaders when pursuing innovation, those tensions associated with the context or the situation. One of the more commonly discussed paradoxes within this category is founded in motivation. As we have noted several times in our discussion, intrinsic motivation plays a key role in facilitating creativity (Amabile, 1997; Shalley & Oldham, 1997). Where the paradox emerges, however, is with the tools most readily available to leaders—namely extrinsic motivators such as bonuses, increases in pay, or preferred assignments. Research on extrinsic motivators and creativity is mixed, with some concluding that extrinsic motivation hampers creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1985; Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeeyi, 1971) and others suggesting the relationship is a bit more complex (e.g., Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; Mumford & Hunter, 2005). What is clear, however, is that while extrinsic rewards may hamper innovation, intrinsic motivation plays a strong positive role in creative performance. The challenge to leaders is that intrinsic motivation is often derived from personal, autonomous efforts rather than directed external influence from leaders. Thus, our next paradox emerges: P 10: Leaders Must Instill Intrinsic Motivation When Extrinsic Tools Are Most Readily Available Paradox resolution. One approach to reduce tension associated with this paradox is to be creative in the application of reward systems—providing recognition that serves to facilitate intrinsic motivation. These rewards can include interesting assignments or a unique role in the team. Creative individuals tend to enjoy creative tasks and as such, allowing them to fully engage in such efforts is frequently an intrinsic reward serving to enhance interest SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION 61 in a creative project. Moreover, there is some indication that extrinsic rewards can help facilitate intrinsic motivation— particularly if those rewards serve as a signal to subordinates that original thinking is valued (Cardinal, 2001; Chalupsky, 1953). Thus, managers must pay special attention to providing rewards for generative processes and not simply for those ideas that are profitable (Mumford & Hunter, 2005). Future research in this area also should focus on the effect of performance appraisals and other human resource interventions on rewarding innovation, as such applied processes, have received limited attention in the literature to date. ensure an influx of valuable information as well as fresh perspectives on potential innovation opportunities (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Nystrom, 1979). The leadership paradox emerges, however, when we consider the need to protect ideas in a competitive environment. In their review of the music industry, for example, Gander, Haberberg, and Rieple (2007) discuss the emergence of a learning race that can occur in collaborations where both entities attempt to learn as much as they can about one another before terminating the collaboration. Thus, leaders must develop open external relationships, but also be aware of the need to protect emerging ideas. Thus, we have our next paradox for innovation: Local Long-Term Paradox P12: Leaders Must Facilitate Openness With External Networks, but Also Protect the Organization’s Competitive Advantage Along similar lines is the next challenge faced by leaders— emphasizing intrinsic motivation and passion for immediate projects while also maintaining a long-term strategic focus. For leaders to succeed at innovative pursuits, they must continually scan the environment for potential opportunities (Mumford et al., 2008; 2003). Moreover, leaders must develop flexible teams that are capable of capitalizing on such opportunities should they arise. The paradox is witnessed, however, when we consider that this capitalization may come at the expense of dropping an idea team members are passionate about; passion, moreover, that was facilitated and supported by the leader (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999). Thus, we have our next paradox: P11: Leaders Must Instill Passion (Intrinsic Motivation) for Single Projects but Also Maintain a Long-Term Strategic Orientation Paradox resolution. To be flexible enough to capitalize on emerging opportunities, leaders must establish a culture that embraces change and adaptability (Denton, 1998). That is, team members must learn that shifting from one project to another is in their best interest as well as that of the organization—an endeavor that requires time and sustained effort on the part of the leader. One rather unique solution to this paradox is the use of “hired guns” for the purposes of seizing an immediate opportunity, while allowing for team members to more easily transition out of current projects. Using the phrase “just-in-time person,” Howkins (2001) identified the benefits of individuals who have the expertise to pursue a specific opportunity, as well as the social skills to operate in preexisting or emerging teams to be essentially on-call or in the organization’s queue for projects on an as needed basis. What is less understood is how the addition of such members may affect the team dynamics and cohesion upon joining; future work in applied settings (where cohesion is already established) should examine organizational usage and team member reactions to such members to better understand whether their just-in-time contributions 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 networks. These connections include other organizations as well as suppliers, customers, and clients. Collaborations such as these help Paradox resolution. One method of developing collaborative relationships that bring in external ties and ideas is through acquisition. That is, rather than developing a potentially tenuous collaborative partnership, organizations can acquire a smaller organization ensuring goal congruity and limiting the loss of a competitive advantage. Google’s acquisition of YouTube is a nice illustration of this. In fact, Google’s senior VP has made a concerted effort to allow YouTube to retain much of its culture as to preserve the influx of unique ideas stating, “The site has really explosive growth that we don’t want to disrupt in any way” (Estrin, 2007, p. 140). Other examples include eBay’s acquisition of PayPal—an organization that gives them unique insight into online purchasing (Estrin, 2007), and Harley-Davidson’s purchase of Buell—a flatter organization that gives them market-share of younger riders, as well as access to emerging design engineers (Holmstrom, 2002). An alternative approach is witnessed by Amazon, which had gathered a copious amount of data on purchasing trends over decades. Against stiff opposition, CEO Jeff Bezos made this information public guided by the vision that this information would spur increased business for Amazon. Results of his experiment proved that his instincts were correct; nearly 70,000 sites used this information and link directly to Amazon boosting revenue tremendously (Kao, 2007). Certainly some caution is warranted with such a brazen approach, but there appear to be situations when sharing information can lead to a wealth of new opportunity. To date, few studies have undertaken a comparative approach across industries (for a rare example see Thornton, Jones, & Kury, 2005), to examine the differential impact of acquisitions across industries; it may be the case that some industries benefit from this type of knowledge sharing more readily than others. Feedback Rigidity Paradox One external tie may play a particularly key role in innovation—input from clients and customers. By receiving input about the needs and preferences of customers, such as those gained from focus groups, leaders can gain valuable input about the viability of the projects currently being pursued (Kao, 2007). Moreover, leaders may take cues from customers and engage in innovative endeavors to meet the emerging needs of their clients and customers. Jeff Hawkins, the founder of the Palm Pilot, for example, took direct cues from customers on what they needed out of a personal digital assistant, fulfilling 62 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON needs previously thought unattainable. Breaking sharply from competitors such as Apple and Sharp, Palm was able to develop a stronghold in an area that would grow to a billion dollar industry (Berkun, 2007). What leaders must be weary of, however, is being overly dictated by customer input. Many radical innovations received little or no input from customers and instead are driven by a number of intrinsic factors (Gilson & Madjar, this issue). In fact, some innovations were met with early criticism and negative evaluations from customers (Christensen, 1997). Thus, our next paradox faced by leaders: P13: Leaders Must Receive and Use Feedback From Customers/Clients but Not Be Dictated by Such Feedback Paradox resolution. We have discussed a number of versions of Lockheed’s Skunk Works where a core team of creative individuals were taken to a location external to the organization in an attempt to allow for exploration of radical or disruptive innovations (e.g., Nissan, Apple, Motorola). Central to the resolution of this paradox is that these efforts were typically not directed by customer input—they emerged from the passion and vision of a few key individuals. Known as disruptive or radical innovation, these projects are often met with early skepticism by both upper management and customers alike. Thus, to be successful leaders must simultaneously pursue both incremental and radical innovations. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) referred to this as exploitation (incremental innovation) and exploration (radical innovation), and coined a phrase for those businesses that could successfully manage this tension: the ambidextrous organization. In short, organizations 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 multiple pronged approach, however, remains somewhat unclear. There is some indication, for example, that exploration at lower levels can hamper radical innovation at more macro levels (Siggelkow & Rivkin, 2006). Findings such as these suggest that successful implementation of feedback from customers should be integrated at both the project level and strategic level. Thus, it will be essential for future research to examine extent, source, and nature of client feedback, as well as the impact at the varying levels of the organization. Failure Success Paradox A final paradox faced by leaders centers around organizational culture and support of errors and failure. Specifically, it is apparent that to pursue innovation leaders must manage and operate in an environment that is tolerant of every project or idea. Work by van Dyck et al. (2005) and Sitkin (1996) on error management, for example, reveals that embracing errors can help in learning, innovation, and resilience. In fact, those organizations that embrace failure appear to be particularly effective at developing creative solutions. David Kelly’s innovation powerhouse IDEO embraces the motto of “fail often to succeed sooner” (Kelly, 2001, p. 56). The paradox that emerges for leaders is simply succeeding in an environment comfortable with— or even celebratory of—failure. As is the case with resources and complacency, becoming too comfortable with unsuccessful outcomes can provide a unique challenge to leaders who are also accountable for bottom-line figures. Thus, we have our final leadership paradox: P14: Leaders Must Develop an Organizational Culture That Embraces Risk and Failure, Yet Is Able to Produce Successful Outcomes Paradox resolution. Resolution of this paradox lies, in large part, from the leader clearly establishing that errors are to be learned from, rather than being directly sought after. That is, errors present an opportunity to learn and improve. In this way, success is remains ultimate criterion, with proper error management serving as a means to achieve that outcome. Van Dyck et al. (2005) contend that errors can never be fully eliminated—that they are a natural part of organizational life. Thus, organizations that embrace the knowledge gained from errors have a competitive advantage over those that brush them under the rug and ignore emergent lessons. Establishing a strong error management culture, however, solves only a portion of this paradox. At the heart of the challenge for leaders is not making failure “too” comfortable; that is, inducing complacency among team members. Selecting intrinsically motivated team members is a step in the right direction. Promoting intrinsic motivation, moreover, would help to eliminate comfort with 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 be critical to examine the specific behaviors leaders engage in that allow them to walk the fine line between inducing subordinate complacency and enhancing psychological safety. There is some indication, for example, that unconventional or odd leader behaviors can result in greater creativity via role-modeling (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Efforts along these lines may likely prove beneficial to understanding the specific leader behaviors required to manage this tension. Moreover, future research must explore phenomena in longitudinal fashion— considering both short and long term outcomes associated with failure. Summary and Conclusions Before turning to the conclusions emerging from the present effort, a number of limitations should be borne in mind. First, an attempt was made to produce a reasonably comprehensive list of leadership paradoxes. However, we felt that an exhaustive list would undermine the utility of our discussion and as such, the fact remains that other paradoxes may exist. Thus, the list of paradoxes represents a sample of potential paradoxes—although it should be noted that an attempt was made to select the most critical tensions faced by leaders in the pursuit of innovation. Second, many of the proposed resolutions included discussions of single organizations (e.g., Google, 3M). Because these illustrations are essentially minicase studies, caution is warranted in generalizing their results to other organizations more broadly. We do feel, however, that these case studies may serve as starting points for future research exploration as well as for those leaders who lack direction on first steps to paradox resolution. Finally and along related lines, our discussion is most useful for leaders in organizations that have the capacity to make decisions about creative endeavors. In smaller organizations, for example, it SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION is difficult to shift resources or pursue multiple ideas simultaneously. Thus, our discussion is somewhat limited to those organizations that have the latitude to make strategic decisions about creative pursuits and caution is warranted when generalizing to those organizations. Even bearing these points in mind we believe the present effort contributes to our understanding of leading for creative efforts in a number of ways. First, it is clear from our discussion that leading for innovation is a challenging endeavor. There are no simple solutions and each requires active engagement in tension resolution. For leaders to successfully manage innovation, they must engage in a number of complex social, technical, and decisionmaking activities. These activities, moreover, cannot simply be set in motion and ignored. Rather, successful management of the paradoxes identified requires thoughtful and painstaking work toward their resolution— often shifting, changing, and adjusting tactics as necessary. Second, the results of our effort reveal that there are lessons to be learned from industry. Although research has made substantial gains in understanding these paradoxes from an experimental standpoint (e.g., Smith & Tushman, 2005; Benner & Tushman, 2003; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) a number of successful solutions have been employed by industry that have not yet been explored by researchers. Empirical efforts will be necessary to determine the viability of these solutions for differing types of organizations and contexts. Third, leading for innovation requires a unique individual who is savvy of her own capabilities, team dynamics, and organizational maneuvering. While domain expertise is requisite for a variety of the tasks associated with managing creative people, it is clearly not sufficient for successfully moving a group of other innovators from idea generation to implementation. In addition to technical knowledge and skills, leaders for innovation must also possess team competencies and understanding of group dynamics. And given the nature of the operating environment in which they work (i.e., ambiguous, involving risk, and fluid), it is important that they not only understand organizational dynamics, but also how they themselves can politically maneuver through it to execute innovative goals. In short, it is imperative for these leaders to know what they are up against; leaders of creative efforts should understand their own strengths and weaknesses, as well as the complexity of how those strengths and weaknesses facilitate (and sometimes militate against) the task of leading others like them in an organizational environment. These three points highlight a broader conclusion emerging from the manuscript: leadership research may not be wholly prepared to address issues involved in furthering the study of leading for innovation. In a recent article calling for a shift in the core ontology of leadership research, Drath et al. (in press) suggest that our current ontology of leader, follower, and shared goals is inadequate to answer several critical emerging leadership questions. The authors note, for example, that relationships with other organizational stakeholders (e.g., idea champions) would not fit within the current tripod ontology and as such, would be largely dismissed as an area of investigation. In contrast, the authors propose an ontology comprising (1) direction—agreement on collective goals, (2) alignment— coordination of expertise and effort within the collective interest, and (3) commitment—the willingness to subsume personal interests for the benefit of the broader 63 organization. This ontology, in contrast to the previous framework, would appear particularly useful for investigating leadership paradoxes. The ontological approach suggested by Drath et al. (in press) is nicely supplemented with a recent call for new methodologies suggested by Hunter, Bedell-Avers, and Mumford (2007). Specifically, the authors contend that the typical leadership study makes a number of potentially false assumptions when engaging in leadership research and there needs to be a fundamental shift in how we approach leadership studies for substantive gains to be made in future studies. For example, Hunter et al. (2007) suggest that an overemphasis on subordinates limits our understanding to those behaviors witnessed by subordinates. Thus, interactions with upper-management would be missed in a study using subordinates as the primary source of information. What is illustrated by the efforts of Drath et al. (in press) and Hunter et al. (2007) is the need to consider alternative approaches and methodologies when exploring emerging research questions such as those discussed in this manuscript. Future Research The results of the present effort speak to a number of emerging questions that must be explored in future research. First, we must identify the most underresearched paradoxes with particular emphasis placed on paradoxes at varying levels of analysis. Although a good deal of research has been done on individual-level characteristics, fewer empirical studies shed light on team and organizational-level issues in leading for innovation. For example, when is the optimal time to shift from being a critical evaluator of a team’s idea to championing it to the rest of the organization? What cues do leaders use to move from this critique stage to the external promotional stage? On a related note, it would be useful to identify the subprocesses associated with these stages, similar to subprocesses found in other creative thinking models (e.g., Baughman, Costanza, Maher, Mumford, & Supinski, 1998). With regard to the specific paradoxes explored in this manuscript, two emerged as particularly critical for future research consideration. This first is the dual expertise paradox—a tension emerging from the leader’s need to have both domain expertise as well as effective leadership skills. As problems become more complex—a trend witnessed in a variety of arenas—it will be necessary for leaders to bring in a greater number of experts from varying areas and backgrounds. The management of divergent personalities and expertise requires a unique and strong social skill set. At the same time, however, a leader must also have expertise within his or her given domain—perhaps even more so as problem complexity increases. Thus, this tension is likely to grow in strength and require a great deal from leaders or, as in the case of the Manhattan project, team of leaders. The second paradox that will likely play an even larger role in the future is the feedback rigidity paradox where leaders should receive and act upon input from customers and clients but not be wholly dictated by that feedback. In an era of online surveys and availability of real-time purchasing data, it can be tempting to meet the needs of customers in a “just-in-time” fashion. Although this is necessary, in many instances, for organizations to succeed—leaders must make a concerted effort to explore ideas that may have some initial resistance (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). The current state of affairs in HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON 64 the U.S. auto industry serves as an emerging example of an inability to provide radical innovations to the ultimate detriment of customers, organizations, and industry as a whole. Next, although these paradoxes seem to be important to leading for innovation in general, future efforts should explore boundary conditions around these conflicts. Size of the organization is most surely an important variable to consider in future research, but what about structure of the organization? For example, Google is considered a flat, organic structure, while Toyota is more hierarchical and mechanistic in nature, yet both frequently top BusinessWeek’s most innovative organizations list. What, if any, behaviors are executed differently by leaders in these two types of organizations? Other important contextual variables that should be explored are industry, organizational age, stability of operating environment, and multinational locations. Finally, the role of an economic downturn should be considered relative to innovative pursuits (Nickell, Nicolitsas, & Patterson, 2001). As organizations lack the capital to readily invest in research and development, new paradoxes may emerge for leaders in the pursuit of innovation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this research highlights the need to consider multilevel issues when examining leadership for innovation. Studies that fail to account for the demands placed on these leaders from an individual, team, and organizational level will likely result in short-sided results with limited utility for theoretical models or practical implementation. As Mumford and Hunter (2005) noted in their review of innovation antecedents—a multilevel approach is necessary to move our understanding of innovation substantively forward and future research may benefit from employing a similar framework. In sum, the aims of this effort were to summarize the most pressing paradoxes faced by leaders as they pursue innovation. In addition, we have offered some insight into potential resolutions discussed in the leadership and innovation literature as well as examples emerging from industry. This discussion also highlights the need to be creative in our approaches to exploring future research questions—particularly with regard to ontological frameworks and methodologies. It is our hope that this effort sets the stage for future researchers to explore this pressing topic of innovation paradox. References Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 393–399. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what 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: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: 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 innovation in scientific teams. Personnel Psychology, 20, 497–515. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421– 449. Baer, J. (2003). Evaluative thinking, creativity, and task specificity: Separating wheat from chaff is not the same as finding needles in haystacks (pp. 129 –150). In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes. New York: 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 mediating effects of leadership and interaction style in face-to-face and virtual teams (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 research organizations: The supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 14, 264 –280. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439 – 476. Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes, and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77–100. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., Maher, M. A., Mumford, M. D., & Supinski, E. P. (1998). Process-based measures of creative problemsolving skills: Category combination. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 59 –71. Beeler, C. K., Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (in press). Managing the innovative process: The dynamic role of leaders. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, J. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management 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: Preference 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 pathways, 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 constructivist perspective on organizations. Organization. 5, 217–232. Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1988). An agenda for managing organizational innovation 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 Journal of Strategic Management, 31, 786 –789. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Oxford, Harper & Row. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12, 19 –36. Chalupsky, A. B. (1953). Incentive practices as viewed by scientists and managers 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. SPECIAL ISSUE: PARADOXES AND INNOVATION Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2007). Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 587– 605. Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking, Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391– 404. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and intervention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581– 613. De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749. DeFillipi, R., Grabher, G., & Jones, C. (2007). Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: Managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy. 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, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 145–160. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review 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 differences among art and science students. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 271–286. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290 –309. Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. 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 of dualities and paradox. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, (pp. 81–121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: 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 alliance management: 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 the Arts. Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. 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: Contemporary psychological perspectives. (pp. 243–270). New York: Cambridge University Press. Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3–14. Hirschberg, J. (1999). The creative priority: Putting innovation to work in your 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. 65 Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin Press. 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., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435– 446. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreignpolicy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin. Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 351–368. Jones, L. (2007). Designers take advantage of license to sell. McClatchyTribune Business News,1. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Dateline database. (Document ID: 1240010591). Kanter, R. M., Kao, J., & Wiersema, F. (1997). Innovation: Breakthrough thinking at 3M, DuPont, G. E. Pfizer, and Rubbermaid. New York: Harper Business. Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovative edge, why it matters and what we can do to get it back. New York: Free Press. King, N., Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1991). Organizational innovation in the UK: A case study of perceptions and processes. Work & Stress, 5, 331–339. Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: A qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 195–205. Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeeyi, G. (1971). The effects of extrinsic incentive on some qualitative aspects of task performance. Journal of Personality, 39, 606 – 617. Leanna, C., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life, Academy of Management Review, 25, 753–759. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760 –776. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. Sternberg (2nd ed.), Thinking and problem solving. Handbook of perception and cognition (pp. 289 –332). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240. Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120. Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or 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 in the mid-1990s. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 451– 467. Mumford, M. D., Bedell, K. E., & Hunter, S. T. (2008). Planning for innovation: 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 leaders think: Experimental findings and cases. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411– 432. Mumford, M. D., Eubanks, D. L., & Murphy, S. T. (2007). Creating conditions for success: Best practices in leading for innovation. In Conger, 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 66 HUNTER, THOROUGHGOOD, MYER, AND LIGON multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (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-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 402– 417. Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C., & Scott, G. (2002). Evaluative creative ideas: Processes, standards, and context. Inquiry: Critical thinking across the disciplines, 22, 21–30. Nickell, S., Nicolitsas, D., & Patterson, M. (2001). Does doing badly encourage management innovation? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 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 organizational strategies (pp. 143–162). New York: Wiley. 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, 151–131. Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual Teams: Team control structure,work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technology & People, 17, 359 –379. Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14, 5–18. Reiter-Palmon, R., Herman, A., E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2008). Creativity and cognitive processes: Multilevel linkages between individual and team 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: Virtual environments and the product design process. Chapman Hall, New York. Runco, M. A. (1993). Creative Morality: Intentional and unconventional. Creativity Research Journal Special Issue: Creativity in the Moral Domain, 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 to realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580 – 607. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of the social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53. Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Competition and creative performance: Effects of competitor presence and visibility. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 337–345. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. (2006). When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences of organizational search. Academy of Management Journal, 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 Xerox invented, then ignored, the first personal computer. San Jose: IUniverse.com. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536. Sundgren, M., Selart, M., Ingelgard, A., & Bengtson, C. (2005). Dialoguebased evaluation as a creative climate indicator: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 84 –98. Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 261–286. Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330. Thompson, M. (2007). Innovation in work practices: A practical perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1298 – 1317. Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kurry, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformations in accounting, architecture, and publishing. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 23, 125–170. Torr, G. (2008). Managing creative people: Lessons from leadership in the ideas economy. West Sussex, England: Wiley. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8 –30. Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Vise, D. A., & Malseed, M. (2006). The Google story- inside the hottest business, media and technology success of our time. London, Great Britain: Pan MacMillan Books. West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr, Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309 –333). Oxford, England: Wiley. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model 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 by leaders. In J. A. Conger & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 109 –128). San Fransciso: Jossey-Bass. Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–276. Zhou, J. (2004). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: 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, 2008 Revision received April 15, 2008 Accepted May 1, 2009 䡲