 |
Leaders in charge of spearheading innovation initiatives increasingly deal with competing and persisting demands, which are paradoxical in nature.In that they face seemingly contradictory choices which are challenging to navigate. Common examples of innovation paradoxes include: balancing between change and stability; exploring of new opportunities and exploiting current capabilities; centralising decision-making and at the same time empowering those at the edges of the organisation and; investing in new emerging technologies while at the same time avoiding disruptions to traditional systems. Leaders of asset-intensive firms such as mining recognise the need to navigate innovation paradoxes: For example, in the opening of the Sumitomo Corporate Profile Report, President and CEO Masayuki Hyodo stated: “Tradition and innovation. Stability and dynamism. Common sense and senselessness. These pairs of words seem contradictory, but we must constantly compare and examine them so we can protect what should be protected and change what should be changed.” Navigating paradoxical tensions is seldom straightforward. Selecting a binary approach of either/or alternative limits options for embracing, engaging, and accepting both sides simultaneously, and risks missing the opportunity for a positive outcome that may be achieved by attending to both aspects. Paradox theory provides a useful framework to investigate these competing priorities and help framing them not as either/or alternatives, but as both/and possibilities (Smith and Lewis, 2011). Paradox research offers approaches for navigating paradoxical tensions (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Lewis, 2000; Schad et al., 2016). However, most of that research is either conceptual or it does not sufficiently unpack the interplay between organisational, team and individual level approaches for navigating paradoxes in the complex contexts. Paradox research calls for more studies that will tap into the full potential of paradox for practice, co-create paradox research with practitioners and make those insights more readily and widely accessible (Sparr et al. 2022). Several Academy of Management presidential addresses (Hambrick, 1994; Van De Ven, 2002; Rousseau, 2006) have highlighted the growing science-practice gap and the urgent need to undertake management research that can be translated into the practice. We argue that better understanding of practices to navigate innovation paradoxes is needed to provide useful recommendations for practical applications. In addition, deeper insights into specific organisational, team/project and individual level practices and interactions between these practices would help leaders in change of innovation more effectively navigate paradoxical tensions. This research is designed to address the following research questions:
Answering these questions will help better guide leaders who are in charge of implementing innovation initiatives in identifying, diagnosing, developing and implementing strategies to manage innovation paradoxes. It will also help equip organisations in capabilities so they can independently navigate persisting tensions. Project Leads: Anna Wiewiora a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au and Kevin Desouza kevin.desouza@qut.edu.au |