Organizational change and innovation in a research intensive organization

Neil Paulsen Diana Maldonado Oluremi Ayoko Victor J Callan

University of Queensland Business School

St Lucia Qld 4072 Australia

DRAFT PAPER

Paper prepared for presentation at the Research Colloquium of the European Group of Organization Studies, Bergen, Norway, July 2006

Address correspondence to: Dr Neil Paulsen UQ Business School University of Queensland St Lucia Qld 4067

Australia

Tel: +617 33811047

E: n.paulsen@business.uq.edu.au

Abstract Research and scientific organizations are not immune from the challenges facing

many professional organizations to remain competitive and to respond to external demands.

In this paper we report on an initial study into the dynamics of strategic change in a division

of a scientific research organization in Australia. As is the case in many professional

organizations, this division is moving away from the ‘solitary genius’ archetype to a structure

that increasingly relies on team work focused on multiple projects to achieve scientific

innovation. Our findings demonstrate that organizational change has a significant impact on

the way professional work is organized across different levels in the organization. We draw

implications for the role of leadership, organizational climate and professional identity in

realizing change on this scale.

Introduction

Many countries are turning to their research and scientific organizations to ensure or

to enhance national reputations for innovation and continued international competitiveness.

Consequently, research intensive organizations are re-thinking their structures, cultures and

strategies to better respond to the need for the production of innovative solutions through

better managed pure and applied research. The work context of the scientist in modern

research organizations is similar to that of other professionals. They face pressures for

increased efficiency and effectiveness, despite the complexity of the scientific problems that

they are investigating. A major change is the re-organization of scientists into teams around

commercial and national research priorities using cross-functional and multi-disciplinary

teams.

Through an in-depth case study, our current research explores how members of

diverse scientific teams in a division of a national research organization are responding to the

restructuring of their work environment. The organization is implementing changes that are

designed to alter organizational cultures and structures to promote higher levels of innovation

and productivity by shifting focus from a research program based around locations to one that

is based on core capabilities and outcomes. The change creates more opportunities for

members to collaborate and share ideas from various disciplines on large national projects.

Our analysis highlights the increasingly complex dynamics and pressures that characterize

the contemporary arenas within which professions are constructed.

Our paper reports on the first of a series of studies that investigate over time how

individual scientists and their teams respond to this major change process. The initial

qualitative study examines how changes to leadership and management practices, the use of

semi-autonomous teams made up of diverse team members, and modifications to funding

mechanisms and performance indicators, are perceived as fostering or hindering creativity

and innovation at the individual, team, and organizational levels. The primary aim of this

article is to explore the influence of institutional change on the process and practices of

knowledge workers in this organization of scientific professionals. Previous studies have

identified the influence of organizational context (Blackler, 1995; Hansen, Nohria, & T,

1999) and the client relationship (Savary, 1999; Sturdy, 1997) upon innovation. However,

few studies have addressed the effect of strategic change and the interpretation of change by

understanding knowledge workers’ perceptions of change and its effects on their work and

innovation.The richness of information, collected across different organizational levels and at

different locations, illuminates the challenges faced by workers and managers to innovate

under a new working structure.

Research organizations are knowledge organizations staffed primarily by

professionals, in this case scientists. Professional service firms are an important setting for

this research since the competitiveness of these organizations depends on the ability to use

their professional expertise to create knowledge that satisfies the demands of its clients

(Lowenthal, 1997). Previous studies have highlighted that professional service firms are

bound by the demands and constraints of their structures, norms and controls to innovate

(Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Raelin, 1991). We examine the literature on innovation

and change, change in professional organizations, and the research organization.

Organizational change and innovation

The impact of globalization and technology changes require organizations to

transform themselves (Prastacos, Soderquist, Spanos, & Wassenhove, 2002). Factors such as

rising global competition, the changing industrial structure of the Australian economy to a

high value service economy, and the convergence of many technological fields have

broadened the scope that businesses use to achieve innovative outcomes . Change is no

longer an option - it becomes a necessity for success (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996; Illinitch,

D'Aveni, & Lewin, 1996). Change is a constantly present characteristic of organizational

existence at the operational and at the strategic level . There is no doubt that it is increasingly

important for organizations to identify the changes needed for an organization to be

competitive in the future. Therefore, change and organizational strategy are interlinked .

Successful organizational change consists in maintaining a balance between strategy, skills,

shared values, structure, systems and managerial style.

Environmental uncertainty suggests that an approach which recognizes that change is

continuous, and that change management becomes part of organizational processes, is an

essential component of organizational life (Luecke, 2003). Change can come about in a

planned form in which organizations focus on efforts to remove old behaviors and implement

new forms of behavior. Alternatively, change could follow an emergent approach that

involves an open-ended process of adaptation to changing conditions, that requires

organizations to become learning systems, and where strategy and change emerge as the

organization interacts with its environment.

Although a broad body of knowledge has developed regarding organizational change,

Pettigrew (2001) emphasized the need to complement existing theory and research with

studies that have a dynamic and holistic appreciation of both processes and outcomes of

change. This study achieves this by focusing on the context of change as well as linking

change processes to organizational outcomes, in this case levels of innovation and creativity.

Pettigrew (2001) states that the study of organizational change, creativity and innovation are

interlinked as all place great emphasis on the context of change:

“Understanding organizational creativity as an exemplar of organizational change and innovation was seen as a promised venue of exploration. Most importantly, however, organizational creativity cannot be meaningfully examined without developing research and theory focused on the situation within which creative processes and outcomes occur” (p. 698).

Organizations are compelled to be innovative, and this often requires organizations to

adapt. The most important driver of innovation includes corporate and business strategy

which is directed toward creating value for stakeholders such as employees, community and

the environment . Furthermore, economic power has been handed to the consumer with an

emphasis of ‘more quality, more for the money, more choice, more service’. Sustainability

and social responsibility are also key drivers for organizations today. Other related factors

driving innovation are changing customer needs and expectations, new technologies and

ideas, as well as opportunities exploited by staff, suppliers and partners. Innovation then, is

included in most management practices including strategy and organizational processes that

are directed towards achieving effectiveness and efficiency. Of particular importance is the

way in which an organization’s climate and culture encourage innovation, as well as

supportive leadership, teamwork and creativity.

According to Amabile and Conti (1999) changes can affect the work environment and

therefore affect levels of creativity within the organization. A large proportion of research on

organizational creativity and innovation has highlighted the importance of organizational

context (Amabile, 1983, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffith, 1993). Abbey and Dickson

found that climate was the most important component for R&D innovativeness. A climate

supportive of innovation and creativity has certain characteristics (Amabile & Conti, 1999;

McLead, 2005). It involves organizational encouragement (including emphasis on integrative

structures, multiple linkages and horizontal communication), supervisory encouragement

(where leaders clearly communicate goals, support the task, encourage risk taking and new

ideas, set expectations, and so on), work group encouragement, freedom/autonomy, and

resources. The relationship between the individual and their leaders moderates the

individual’s innovative behaviour and their perception of organizational support for

innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Dougherty and Hardy (1996) emphasized that sustained

innovation requires a reconfiguration of the organizational system in terms of resources,

processes and meanings. In their study, innovation in organization was successful when it

was powered by the operational and middle levels of the organization. Creativity and

innovation are essential outcomes and if employees agree on this, they will behave and act in

ways that lead to more creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). In addition, organization

structures are critical in supporting this creativity. Structures that promote an open, ongoing

contact with multiple sources support innovation (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Dougherty &

Hardy, 1996).

The ability to successfully implement change draws on the organization’s dynamic

capabilities, as well as the ability to make sense of and learn from experience (Prastacos et

al., 2002). All this depends on the level of management commitment, the type of intervention

used, people’s readiness to accept changes, and organizational culture (Quinn & Cameron,

1988). For change and innovation to occur, individuals within the organization have to be

engaged. The most important assets of the organization include concepts, competences and

connections which help to determine its capabilities. These assets are embedded in human

capabilities and are the most valued assets of the organization. Consequently, the

maintenance of skilful human resources is essential to the process of innovation (Teece,

Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Successful enterprises encourage people to increase their knowledge

by building relationships inside and outside the organization to increase the potential

opportunities for innovation. Therefore change includes viewing the enterprise as an extended

family of interactions and capabilities. Fulgslang and Sundbo (2005) suggest that innovation

is a social system where social intelligence is fundamental. This system needs to engage and

motivate the actors both within and outside the system to turn innovation into action. There is

however a need to examine whether and how different levels within the organization are

being empowered towards change and how these changes enable organizations to become

innovative.

Professional practices

In the large body of research around organizational change, it is acknowledged that

organizations face complex changes in their environment in terms of policy, regulation and

technological changes, forcing organizations to find ways to adapt to the challenge to remain

competitive (D'Aveni, 1994). A branch of this body of work is aimed at understanding

change in professional organizations (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993; Greenwood & Lachman,

1996). Professional organizations have faced change and uncertainty in different ways

through their internal restructuring, the development of new services and globalization of

their services . Powell et al (1999) summarizes the main drivers of change in professional

organizations as the regulation of professional markets and increased competition, financial

constraints and cost pressures, changes in government policy, globalization and demands of

international clients, increasingly sophisticated clients and technology clients.

Previous researchers have focused their attention on archetypes to understand change

in professional organizations. Greenwood and Hinings (1993) suggest that understanding the

organizational archetype is the first step to understanding change. Archetype is defined by

Hinings and Greenwood (1988) as ‘a synthesis of systems and structures that reflect the

values, and as such, provides a force for coherence in an organization’. A shift in archetypes

is perceived as a change in the values and beliefs of the organization. Many studies have used

archetypes to understand change in organizations, however researchers also agree that

professional archetypes are constantly evolving in order to accommodate new pressures.

Powell et al (1999) suggest that the best explanation of change in archetypes is resource

theory, in which organizations aim to acquire or develop resource flows (Pfeffer & Salanick,

1978; Scott, 1987). Given that organizations are faced with resource limitations or

uncertainties, organizations will seek to develop different ways of acquiring and using

resources. This situation forces professional organizations to do business in new ways and

challenge the existing archetypes.

Researchers have recognized certain characteristics of the new form towards which

the professional organization is moving. Some key features of the new professional

organization include a movement towards more business-like organization and an adoption of

new managerialism structures and functions (such as performance appraisal systems, chief

executive positions); reliance on formal networks, application of individualized rewards

(Flood, 1999); tendency towards corporation (Ahoroni, 1999); globalized business, and

multidisciplinarity . The new structure takes into account the density and changing nature of

the connections among organizations, in which flexible and specific linkages are important

(Baum & Oliver, 1994; Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002; DiMaggio, 1986).

Greenwood’s archetype theory is valuable for understanding the complex features of

organizations, integrating both internal and external dynamics of organizational change.

Greenwood et al (2002) present a model of change in professional organizations which

represents the stages of change. The pre-institutional stage starts after events in the

environment trigger other players to enter the game, which in turn forces the organization to

innovate and change. However, these authors argue that the change process does not stop

there. For a change to become institutionalized, three other stages are also proposed -

theorization, diffusion and reinstitutionalization. Tolbert and Zucker (1996) suggest that

theorization requires a clear description of the organizational failing for which the change or

innovation is a solution and an appropriate justification of the innovation. Furthermore,

institutionalization will only occur if the ideas presented are perceived as more appropriate to

the existing practices. “Models must make the transition from theoretical formulation to

social movements to institutional imperative” (Strang & Meyer, 1993). Full

institutionalization of the ideas will take place when ideas are accepted as legitimate (Tolbert

& Zucker, 1996). This process is addressed differently according to the recipients of the

information. Therefore, the process includes actors across the organizational community and

the ideas are framed in such a way that they are perceived as aligned with the values, beliefs

and practices of the professionals affected by the change. Overall, a number of studies have

emphasized the need to legitimate change to enhance the adoption of change (Hargadon &

Douglas, 2001). This research contributes to our understanding of how organizations respond

to change by understanding the perceptions of the professionals involved in the process.

Research organizations

Knowledge intensive firms include a broad range of firms, including professional

firms (Alvesson, 2001). Professional service organizations are fundamentally based on

knowledge assets which constitute their core capabilities. Professionals are continually forced

to renew their knowledge assets to deliver valuable and competitive services to meet client

demand (Kaplan, 2000). Knowledge based firms pose complex dilemmas for management of

professionals, in particular maintaining the balance between autonomy and control

(Friedman, 1977; Lowenthal, 1997). Resolving these dilemmas has led to focus on control

based on normative process rather than hierarchy and structure (Alvesson, 1993).

Science research organizations are professional organizations that operate at the edge

of innovation, operating in search of organizational designs capable of supporting the need

for continuous and sustainable innovation. In fact studies have shown that corporate technical

inventions and other related innovation depend on scientific progress . Because of their

intensive creation and application of knowledge, research organizations are also classified as

“knowledge intensive firms” defined as “companies where most work can be said to be of an

intellectual nature and where well educated, qualified employees form the major part of the

workforce” . These organizations are characterized by their ability to be creative and

innovative in solving complex problems (Hedberg, 1990; Sveiby & Lloyd, 1987).

After the prominent period of 1960s and 1970s, the late 1980s and early 1990s was a

period in which research organizations became smaller, more decentralized and more closely

linked to corporate planning and investor confidence. This is a result of a cutback on

corporate science spending (Rosenberg, 1990), together with a reorientation of intellectual

property policies and business strategies. Researchers were made more accountable for their

actions (Geffen & Judd, 2004). However, the evolution in the industrial research environment

has not stopped. As stated by Tijssen (2004), “the research environment now seems to be

more than ever driven by new business creation and the commercialization of research

outcomes into marketable products, processes and services”. This process of “marketization”

emphasizes the protection of research findings and the exploitation of intellectual capital.

As research groups face an increasingly complex environment they are required to be

flexible to their external environment. As a result of these pressures, research is oriented

towards the generation of more networked embedded processes, with increased use of

transdisciplinary teams, a degree of heterogeneity of the actors involved, a high emphasis on

social awareness, and on the knowledge demand and knowledge supply interplay. However,

this emergent mode of research exists alongside individually based research, and disciplinary

based research (Gibbons et al., 1994).

One challenge for a research organization is to understand how to choose the best

directions for research. Geffen and Judd (2004) state that these organizations have an

increasing need to understand the trends of technology, understand market trends and

customer needs, including changes in their environment (policy, regulatory pressures), screen

their internal and external environment for ideas, and evaluate their potential. This process of

understanding the environment has to be complemented by an organizational culture that

encourages the process of creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1988), given that creative

efforts depend on the support that the organization provides to successfully implement ideas

(Mumford, 2000) Creativity will tend to be highly successful if the projects are consistent

with organization strategic objectives, current markets and projected markets. Overall

organizations are facing pressures of productivity and performance. Research organizations

now feel the same needs as other businesses in ensuring their investments in research and

maximizing their returns (Geffen & Judd, 2004; Jaffe, 1999). This pressures them to redefine

the way they function.

Simpson and Powell (1999) evidenced a tension between old and conservative values

and the market pressures of the environment in an effort to be innovative. These

organizations are continuously redesigning their structures adopting new and emerging

archetypes (Hinings, Greenwood, & Cooper, 1999). In their case study of research

organizations in New Zealand, Simpson and Powell (1999) identified four archetypes, which

represent the evolution of organizational thinking over time and which exist in research

organizations. The archetype of the ‘solitary genius’ is built on the autonomy of individuals

who strive for a reputation based on their ideas. In this archetype, the role of management is

to provide for the needs of the individual. However, the increased complexity of science and

technology has demanded alternative approaches promoting collaboration. The second

archetype is based on the formation of discipline based researchers, in which scientists

account for their time and results to a senior researcher who holds decision making authority.

This archetype is based on reputation based achievements such as patents and publications.

Another archetype is “Market Pull”. This archetype recognizes the market to be the arbiter of

innovation requirements. It places considerable emphasis on the use of cross functional teams

to maximize efficiency to respond to diverse markets, and therefore there is a need to

evaluate the market and to measure the production of outputs. Previous designs have

considered the combination between the benefits of technology push to that of market pull.

By separating the initiation and implementation phases of innovation, they create barriers of

communication and linkages in the organization. In an attempt to manage this, matrix designs

have been used combining the discipline based and product based management systems.

However, in practice neither the discipline nor production lines of management dominate.

These structures are dismissed and organizations are opting for a highly networked structure.

The last archetype is labeled “Multiple Project” and is a much closer description of research

organizations today and what Sveiby (1997) called knowledge based companies. In this form,

the structure is constantly changing. The unit of operation is a fluid project team, comprising

a group of specialists with unique skills brought together to solve a specific problem. When

the project is finished, team membership changes. This form of organizing demands effective

relationships and good communication skills.

Accordingly, Robertson and Swan (2003) in their study of the institutional influences

upon knowledge creation in professional organizations describe the work practices in the new

research environment as multidisciplinary with high levels of autonomy, where behavioural

norms promote higher levels of collaboration, intensive levels of networking and highly

cooperative environments. Furthermore, in these organizations, the ‘elite professional

identity’ is central to the organization as the organization draws on the reputation of its

professionals as a valuable resource (Robertson, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003). However, given

that projects are managed by professionals, management functions become part of their work

and the boundaries between professions and management are blurred. This in turn creates

tension between the science-administration roles. McAuley et al (2000) observe that scientists

do not give management tasks primacy over science, creating tensions with managers. Mann

(2005) argues that the most important effect of change in research organizations is the

recognition that the job was unrealistically demanding for scientists promoted to middle

management with no prior management training. Consequently, research organizations have

begun to appoint specialists in marketing, business development, and commercial law to

provide an interface with customers.

Debates exist about how to organize knowledge workers to produce the knowledge

efforts necessary to be at the edge of the globalized scheme of knowledge production. There

is little research about what constitutes an effective research organization. In their analysis of

organizing research groups in the knowledge environment, Harvey at al (2002) identify

factors such as strong leadership, retaining and obtaining talented individuals, use of

networks and connections, strategies for diversification, and a strong theory-practice as

indicators of high achievement. In Mann’s (2005) study of research organizations, project

leaders believed that team processes such as good teamwork, good communication, leading

by example, and turnover helped innovation. However organizational factors such as

structure and inadequate resources limit innovation (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2000). In this

paper, we contribute to a developing understanding of the impact of the uncertainty created

by institutional change on performance and innovation of knowledge workers, which directly

affects the performance of the organization.

Research context

The context for this research is a national scientific research organization whose

vision is to promote innovative science. In order to fulfil its mission, the institution at a

national level has realigned its research around the Nation’s research priorities. Consequently

it is redirecting investments and resources to maximize impact, building partnerships

nationally and internationally to deliver competitive research, concentrating on science that

serves clients and community, commercializing innovations, and strengthening the capability

of research teams to work in multidisciplinary teams across professional, scientific and

geographical boundaries. The focus of this study is a division within this national

organization. The division was formed about 5 years ago through the integration of three

smaller divisions operating across five different sites. In 2004, the division introduced a

different structure based around research themes and streams and has since been redefined to

better fit with organizational directions.

Changes are taking place at the organizational, divisional, and research project levels.

One of these initiatives consists in reviewing the science investment process. It aims to assist

the institution in making consistent and transparent investment decisions, moving resources

where necessary to higher priority areas. The division has focused on strengthening alliances;

increasing and enhancing the quality of its research through an annual review of projects and

capabilities; and moving from a disjointed research portfolio to one that focuses on

capabilities of staff in order to enhance the use of the human capital available to the

organization. Aligned with the changes occurring at the organizational level, the division is

undergoing changes in its funding structure. Funding is now managed at the research theme

level instead of the divisional level. Research themes have been developed over the past two

years to deploy the division’s capabilities in a broader range of research targets. As a result,

the current structure is divided into themes, subdivided by research streams. Although the

leadership of themes is still not yet formally defined, research stream leaders have been

charged with responsibilities for project approval, coordination of resources and the planning

and coordination of each stream. Projects within these streams are developed by flexible

teams, which move across streams depending on the focus of research projects.

Method

Data for the present study were collected from observations of team meetings, focus

groups and one in-depth interview with a senior manager involved in the change process.

These techniques enable researchers to investigate subjective experiences of participants to

discover what participants know, think and feel about the phenomena of interest . We

observed team meetings of 12 scientific teams and conducted 10 focus groups with scientific

staff at different organizational levels across two sites of the organization (see Table 1). The

in-depth interview was conducted with a member of the senior executive team. We were

interested in exploring how changes in structures and strategies were connected to innovation

in the ongoing work of scientific research teams. More specifically, we were keen to examine

how changes to leadership and management practices, the use of semi-autonomous

professionally diverse teams, and modifications to funding mechanisms and performance

indicators, were perceived as fostering or hindering creativity and innovation at the

individual, team, and organizational levels. The focus groups and interview focused upon

participants’ understanding of innovation, including its connection to organizational

resources, structures, processes and strategy.

The interview and focus groups followed a common protocol to ensure the

confidentiality and voluntary participation of all participants. Essentially, participants

responded to major questions on creativity, innovation, diversity, and conflict, as well as

team and organizational leadership in the context of the restructuring. Specifically, the

participants in the research were invited to discuss how the organization was promoting

innovation and creativity. This led to questions that explored participant perceptions of the

organizational climate and how the changes were affecting innovation and creativity, and the

degree to which organizational leaders were supporting creativity and innovation in the

workplace. With the permission of participants, all meetings were tape recorded and

transcribed. The transcripts were subjected to content and interpretative analyses.

Table 1: Focus group participants

Staff level Number of groups by level

Senior scientist 2

Research stream leaders 2

Early-mid career scientists 2

Senior technicians 2

Postdoctoral researchers 2

Note: Two sites were involved (one group per each organizational level was represented in each site)

Data analysis

The transcripts of the interviews and focus groups were analyzed using Leximancer

(www.leximancer.com). Leximancer is a data mining software tool that assists content

analysis by coding text for analysis. This program is different from other applications in that

the text is not manually coded. In a grounded fashion, the program uses an automated,

machine-learning technique to learn the main concepts in a corpus and how they relate to

each other. The algorithm uses word frequency and co-occurrence counts as its basic data.

Apart from measuring the frequency of occurrence of the main extracted concepts,

Leximancer measures how often they occur close together within the text. This enables the

researcher to define the centrality of a concept in terms of the number of times a concept co-

occurs with other defined concepts. A concept is central if it is frequent and appears in

contexts surrounded by the other concepts that Leximancer has extracted. Leximancer

visually displays the extracted information by means of a conceptual map.

The conceptual map enables the investigator to see, in a global representation, what

are the important concepts in the corpus and the relationships between them. Concepts that

occur in very similar semantic contexts tend to form clusters on the map. The map is used by

the investigator to present an overall representation of the corpus and to guide interpretation.

The investigator can ‘drill down’ through a concept, into its thesaurus of words, and then

directly into the chunks of text where those concepts and words are found. This allows the

investigator to easily interrogate the text and interpret it in light of his or her own reading of

the corpus and to apply various linguistic analytical techniques such as discourse analysis.

So, apart from being a powerful content analysis tool, Leximancer can be used to provide a

general overview of the content of texts as well as the means of exploring material in a

directed fashion.

An important feature of the analysis is its reliability. Leximancer addresses reliability

in terms of stability and reproducibility. Stability in Leximancer is equivalent to intercoder

reliability. That is, the automated and deterministic machine-learning phase will be highly

consistent no matter how many times a corpus is processed and reprocessed (coded and

recoded) by the application, therefore yielding a high level of coding stability.

Reproducibility in the context of Leximancer is seen in its consistency in classifying text

given the same coding scheme. Consistent classifying manifests in a consistently constructed

concept map. In other words, if the map is calculated and recalculated a number of times the

researcher can inspect each new map for its consistency with previous maps. If maps are

dissimilar the researcher can alter any of the computational criteria being applied to the

corpus in an endeavour to make the map consistently reproducible. Although the process of

map creation is stochastic, there typically exist consistent trends in the spatial positioning of

the concepts relative to each other. Leximancer produced highly stable maps for this study.

Once the concepts and centrality of the concepts are derived, the content analysis can

proceed and be complemented by the interpretative inquiry of the researcher. In this case, the

researchers were actively involved in the process of data collection and analysis, and were

very familiar with the context. The extracted categories were used to make valid inferences

about the material contained within the text, including the perceptions of different levels of

staff.

Results

In this section, we illustrate the key themes emerging from the content analysis of the

focus groups and interview transcripts. First, we mapped the emerging concepts across all

groups of participants and this produced the conceptual map in Figure 1. Within Leximancer

it is possible to examine the links between a concept and other concepts in the map. Figure 1

reveals the links in the corpus between creativity and other concepts. Heavier lines represent

stronger relationships in the text (e.g., between innovation and people, work, project and

group). Table 1 reports the most frequent and important concepts and their frequency counts.

Similar links can be drawn for all of the main concepts in the corpus. What becomes clear

from this analysis is that the concept ‘people’ is a central concept that is strongly related to

most of the other concepts in the corpus. Furthermore, the program allows the researcher to

click on the links contained in Table 1 to drill down to the example coded text in the

transcript where the program has identified the association.

Figure 1: Leximancer conceptual map – Transcript analysis

Table 1: Most frequent concepts

Concept Absolute Count Relative Count

people 699 100% work 441 63% project 333 47.6% group 307 43.9% time 271 38.7% stream 238 34% leader 197 28.1% ideas 190 27.1% creativity 180 25.7% innovation 159 22.7% team 147 21% years 147 21% research 137 19.5% level 135 19.3% science 131 18.7% division 119 17% money 117 16.7% *Absolute count refers to the frequency of occurrence in the text. *Relative Count refers to % over the total text

Following this exercise, we proceeded to map the concepts for each of the subgroups

because we were interested in knowing whether different levels of the organization perceived

the effects of the change process differently. However, in this case we removed the concept

‘people’ from the analysis. It was clear from the earlier analysis that there was a strong

relationship between the concept people and all the other concepts. By removing this concept

from the analysis we were able to see the key issues raised by each of the subgroups in

independently of their relationship to ‘people’.

The major concepts mentioned in each group are shown in Table 2. The concepts in

each column of Table 2 are listed in order of the absolute count in the transcripts of the

relevant focus groups (similar to Table 1 for the whole corpus). Based on the concepts

perceived as important across the organization, we proceeded to classify these concepts in

four interrelated categories: concepts related to structure (a), resources (b), work and

innovation (c) and finally leadership (d). The next subsections provide a more in-depth

analysis of the context in which each of these concepts is mentioned in the transcripts.

Table 2: Concepts across levels

Executive Stream Leaders

Senior Researchers

Early Researchers

Post Docs Research Technicians

Research (c) Work(c) Work(c) Work(c) Work(c) Work(c)

Organization (a) Stream (a) Innovation(c) Time (b) Group (a) Stream (a)

Division (a) Project (a) Project (a) Group (a) Project (a) Group (a) Years (b) Group (a) Creativity(c) Money* (b) Time (b) Project (a)

Industry* (b) Time (b) Stream (a) Idea(c) Idea(c) Years (b)

Science(c) Ideas (c) Time (b) Project(a) Problem(c) Time (b) Postdocs (b) Innovation(c) Funding* (b) Level Years (b) Level

Stream (a) Science(c) C (organization) (a) Stream (a) Innovation(c) Creative/innovation (c)

Innovation(c) Problem Leader (d) Division (a) Area(c) Diversity

Flagships (a) Years (b) Diversity Process Leader (d) Leader (d) Staff Leader (d) Students (b) Team (a) Diversity Money* (b)

*Highly related concepts; (a) concepts related to structure; (b) resources; (c) work performance and innovation; (d) leadership

Structure

Certain concepts identified in the corpus, such as projects, group, team, stream, division,

‘flagships’ and organization provide evidence of the complex and changing structure of work

in this organization. Changes are continuously occurring at the organizational, divisional, and

team level.

Organization

Staff at all levels perceived that the organization was changing in order to adapt to a new

competitive environment, and that this is an ongoing process. The new way of working in the

organization poses significant challenges, In particular, it leads to a dilemma between an

approach that supports ‘blue sky’ research and a more applied approach to research. This is

an ongoing debate for staff in this type of organization. As stated by a senior research

scientist:

It’s pretty hard when C (organization) are trying to redefine themselves, which it has to… it is a very old organization and the infrastructure is based back possibly in the 30's and we are now sort of trying, or the power is trying, to find its place in the 21st century, so if you want to be creative in the old format, you will struggle. The challenge is to be creative in the emerging format to provide innovative products and that is the challenge. Have we got the infrastructure, the room, to do that? It is a challenge… (senior scientist)

At the top divisional levels (for example stream leaders and executives), changes

imposed by the organization are perceived to provide opportunities for collaboration and for

new projects to evolve. However, the question remains whether there is enough time and

space to develop ideas. Staff acknowledge that the changes imposed at the organizational

level are challenging and important and could dramatically affect their work. However, they

perceive the changes as imposed by their leaders. As early career researchers state:

There are six change management processes happening across the whole of C and they are big change things. They are critical. They are about the structure and the funding base and the decision making processes of science and prioritization. You can’t' not take them seriously and for better or worse, [the CEO], as he admitted the other day, is a change junkie; and this is a change process that C is imposing so he's grabbing it with both hands and running with it and funnelling that down to us and we and one or two other divisions are kind of stand outs in terms of divisions that have really taken that process on board and trying to go with it and deliver it … (early researchers).

Furthermore, one of the main concerns about keeping an edge in the kind of

innovation the organization wants is the fact that the processes are quite slow. Bureaucracy,

in terms of paper work and approval processes, gets in the way:

It's frustrating and … this is the dinosaur of how C can grind its cogs exceedingly slow. Some of these things can take a long while to push through and in the meantime people have got to do the work. They've got to somehow squeeze the work in to underpin it and to make sure there is some degree of cutting edge on it. They can’t move quick enough… (early researchers)

Cross divisional groups

Cross divisional (CD) groups act as a new horizontal level of management aimed at

generating collaboration across divisions and these groups create truly multidisciplinary

teams. They have had an impact on the direction of divisional research priorities and the

division is reassessing their strategic plan to align themselves with this initiative. These

groups have had a great impact on the resources provided to the division. Ten per cent of the

resources provided to the division were cut, and the division nominates innovative projects

conducted under the auspices of the CD groups in order to access these financial resources.

Moreover, the CD groups are aligned to future directions of national research focused on

areas of potential national impact. Therefore the research undertaken under these

arrangements is seen as an opportunity to collaborate across diverse groups and to undertake

innovative and relevant research projects:

CD groups are very much a similar strategy to the division stream structure but at a C (organizational) level. Australia, the Australian government releases what are called the National research priorities for Australia. And they're guidelines for science within Australia to deliver on the country's major goals and needs…Where CD groups have differed from other activities, is that CD groups actually…have money to allocate to projects, and there is nothing like money to drive collaboration. The organization pulled back 10% of its appropriation allocation to all divisions, to create a pool of money for the CD groups. That will probably create some angst with staff … and we have to be conscious of managing for ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality - of those people in CD groups versus those people that aren't in CD groups (Executive).

However, management of teams in this matrix style structure has proven to be

challenging for teams - especially for the project leaders who have to respond to both the

demands of the division, their research stream and CD groups:

I'm really looking for guidance… I'm sensing that there is certainly conflict with respect to my management situation being part of the CD groups, and having the CD group leader as well as the divisional stream leader, and the complexities of that kind of interaction and matrix management that my divisional stream leader wants to see when it comes to charting a path forward, because within the CD group we have got a very strong kind of interdivisional team (senior scientist).

Division

The structure of the research organization is divided into autonomous divisions. Therefore,

most of the participant’s perceptions of organizational climate refer to what they perceive as

the divisional strategy and structure. The division is relatively new (five years old) and the

process of integrating three divisions into one was challenging. This was perceived by focus

group participants across the different levels - especially by the technical staff in one

particular site and also by the executive:

There were some conflicts between the sites when we came to bring the division together. There is that type of challenge as well. Different cultures in each site, scientifically, human resource, type of people, cultures, rural vs the city, East and West (Executive)

Since its formation, the division has undergone continuous changes that have deeply

altered the way people work. This change was done slowly to give people time to adapt:

We had seven programs. What we were thinking was [that] staff were undergoing a number of changes and uncertainty in their lives through the closure of divisions, a new head of division, a new structure, but if we tried to change the science structure as well as the overall divisional structure, there might be a lot of fatigue to change. So we didn't change those immediately in the set up and it also meant that we were able to continue to deliver in our science and keep the science output of the division going as well. We are very happy with that and that worked quite well, and that was [CEO]'s plan and it did come to fruition (Executive).

One particular characteristic of the strategies being implemented is that they are not

set in stone and have been continuously evolving. Leaders are experimenting and adapting

these initiatives as they go. This was expressed by staff at different levels. As expressed by

the executive is that this process was not planned and it is still in progress:

A lot of the processes are evolving as the division evolves (and) as the structure evolves. We didn't have clear concise guidelines for everything when we rolled out streams. What we tend to do as divisional executives is try to get it 80% right and implement them and admit that we have to make some changes and some addition and substractions as things go along” (Executive).

As with any change process, this has created uncertainty among people.

But with any change, you'll always end up with a few that are a little bitter and twisted over the whole process. And unfortunately, they seem to have the ability to infect another people with their pessimism and it is very hard to know how to break that cycle… it's a similar process when you close the division and you educate people, they have to respect, they grieve, they mourn and then they move on and unfortunately not all of our staff has moved on. It is a real challenge and you move forwards… (Executive).

Stream

The division has imposed a new identity and level of management under the new structure

(streams). The main objective of the streams is perceived as an attempt to increase

communication across sites and to encourage a multidisciplinary and highly collaborative

approach to science:

The move to streams was to … bring people together with a common discipline, a common outcome. So our streams are all about research outcomes, and they are across sites. So we linked research groups that had common goals, common objectives together, so that we formed streams with common goals and objectives (executive).

Across all levels there is a perception that this new identity is an emerging structure

that is still in the process of evolving to its final form. The acceptance of this concept and

structure differs across levels. Even stream leaders have different perceptions about it. Some

stream leaders see it as an opportunity to be involved in the direction of the organization,

whereas others challenge its effectiveness, especially in the light of the research priorities

emerging out of the CD groups. The way some streams were created and imposed was also

challenging:

That stream was created in about July last year, by people pushing projects into it. It was not a self forming team. It wasn't that we said here is our vision and we'll take this project, and we’ll take this project, and we'll put them all together, it was just – ‘ok, your stream will now consist of a,b,c’. Each of the teams at the different locations have different backgrounds…(Stream Leader)

In cases where the projects have commonalities in their direction and location, the new

stream identity was much easier to assimilate:

The stream I work within works really well. But it's not a stream that fits the model of what they were created to do. So we are not cross site. We are all here and that seemed to be one of the main drivers that formulated the streams initially to get cross-group interaction. So we don't have that, but we have a really focused coherent group of people with closely complimentary skills (senior scientist).

In cases where the new stream identity involved putting together teams across

locations, the structure is not working as well. This challenges the reason for its creation in

the first place:

I personally question whether some streams are fully working on the remoteness issues, the issues with the stream leader been remote from the members of the team, it is really important for people trying to do that. That concerns me because people are feeling, a disconnect with their immediate management as well as the divisional management. And I don't think there is enough focus and hence because of that that I don't know if it would last (stream leaders).

This is perceived as a structure that places a great number of scientists in a highly

managerial role taken time from these scientists to be innovative. Many perceive the structure

as artificial and highly bureaucratic structure:

Over the division it went from a small number of program leaders to a large number of stream leaders. And now we've got a larger number of managers and they've all ended up in that same thing. They are all managers solely. That's all they've got time to do … and that's pulled out a layer of ability to do the science (senior scientist)

Furthermore, these streams have faced continuous changes creating uncertainty and

doubt making it difficult for people to feel part of a stream. This influences the staff

commitment to the structure:

It's very hard to get any identity within a stream if you know that twelve months down the track the stream will be disappearing. Whereas generally a project is going to go for a few years but streams could come and go and you could get shoved into a different stream and a different group of people to work with. You don't really get a chance to create an identity for yourself (research technicians)

Ultimately, staff at the project level (including senior scientist, postdocs, early researchers

and others) identify highly with their project and are working across multiple streams.

Teams

Although there is evidence of the lonely scientist (which mainly exists through PhD projects),

members across most levels closely identify with their teams. The team is the structure that

gives people purpose and helps manage changes upstream. These teams are self managed

with a highly familiar structure. Two team structures seem to coexist. Some teams are

managed in a hierarchical way with the scientist surrounded by support staff and young

scientists. This structure revolves around the research scientist:

We suffer from pretty rigid hierarchy really. You tend to have the project leaders … The expectation seems to be that they come up with the project ideas. They go and get the funding. They drive the direction of the project and then you've got a few people who work within the project who basically do what they are asked to do (senior scientist).

In this sense there seems to be a clear division of duties, where scientists are perceived as the

innovators and technicians the ones who do the work:

The PhD scientists, they're the people that are getting paid the big money to actually do all that stuff. A lot of us are more the laboratory workers so the people who put that creativity and innovation into practice (research technicians).

However, some projects have a highly interdisciplinary structure providing benefits in

terms of knowledge exchange and ideas:

That's the best part of working in a multidisciplinary team … you don't have to have all the knowledge. You can use the strengths of each component within the team, and that's a good thing. Where you are seen as being more the expert in one area and others are seen to be more expert in other areas, collectively there is a lot of expertise (senior scientist)

In addition, all teams are formed across multiple projects. This allows them to manage the

risk imposed in terms of reliance on funding and change of organizational directions:

I find in practice actually works best is if you have a work team or a research team maybe delivering into several projects in close contact with them and you shuffle between the demands of those projects on a day to day or week to week basis (Stream Leaders)

Teams tend to be quite small depending on the funding they receive. Collaboration

across these teams happens very often, especially within sites as long as this does not involve

a formal exchange of funding. Across sites the collaboration is more limited however people

in certain cases have experienced benefits of having a multi-site project:

In a way it is enjoyable because we don't see each other all that often. We are not breathing down each others necks but the interactions are always very creative and everybody goes away from the meetings that we have feeling quite sort of refreshed and renewed and a whole of new ideas come out of it...Sometimes spontaneity comes from those distant interactions (Stream leader).

Resources Time Across all levels, time was mainly referred to as a highly important resource necessary for

creativity and innovation. Time is scarce and exponentially decreasing in a highly business

oriented research environment.

The biggest challenge is providing resources so people can actually just have room to think, room to do just do "skunk" what we call "skunk work", things that they think may have an outcome at any point and an opportunity for some long term in-depth research in an area. Quite often I say research is very product focused, outcome, three years and that is your average research project (Executive).

This approach pressures people to be engaged in many short term projects with tight

milestones and very strict timelines, limiting the time spent on blue sky science. This was

expressed by all groups:

The industry says we'll give you a tiny bit of our money but we've got to have a whole bunch of things tied into that, we've got to know what you're doing every day and they do not understand that may be to develop something really innovative, it is a five year project (early researchers).

Time is a limited resource and is perceived as linked to the need to create an

environment that takes risks, which has been difficult in this organization:

It is always a battle, is a difficult thing to manage, because there has to be, specially with creativity, the more imaginative side of things. You have to be willing to take some pretty bad losses as well when things don't turn out and I often state that we have to have a culture of sort of risk taking and acceptance of failure… It seems to me that only a relative small fraction of your effort and time can go into truly sort of innovative work (senior scientist).

All levels agree that organizational changes have had an impact given that the time of

scientist is increasingly spent on management activities, decreasing the time spend in science

and innovation. This creates a dilemma across the organization, where management activities

seem to be perceived almost as important as science itself in an organization whose aim is to

create science:

I think that we have conflicting messages from the Division Executive. For example they expect us to be science leaders…yet on the other hand they are putting all these tasks upon us, like doing budget, doing this and doing that, review, strategic review, business plan, all that type of work that takes time, so it is conflicting to me. If you are asking me to do science give me time to do it (stream leader).

We're basically the people who do the work, the more time we're in meetings is the less work that's being done or produced or resulted in that's unfortunately the reality of it. And there is less of us doing to work, because the place has shrunk (research technicians)

Time was also mentioned in the context of the time spent in the organization. People who

have been in the organization a long period of time are perceived by early researchers as less

open to innovations.

There are some people who have been at the organization a long time, bit jaded, have seen it all come and go and have a bit of a perhaps cynical, perhaps more enlightened, ‘who knows’ attitude to their response to new ideas. And … they naturally tend to be higher up in the organization and it's sometimes difficult to deal with that…you're coming up with a new idea and when you kind of get a wet blanket approach, it's de- motivating to some extent (early researchers) .

Time was also perceived as a resource needed to create a sense of direction and trust in order

to build up the new stream identity:

My biggest challenge is trying to do all that, keep my team, my project team moving forward but building a stream and because stream for me is still in those formative stages of relationships, and strategic planning time, it is very time expensive. So my greatest biggest challenge is time (stream leader).

Funding

Funding is perceived as the most important resource impacting innovation and research in the

current environment. Funding drives organizational strategies and resources as well as team

work. The recent changes imposed on the organization have an important impact on the

distribution of funding to the division. Lack of funding is normally a cause of the collapse of

projects and teams. This is perceived at some levels as an incongruence of strategies and

structures in the organization. In the current organizational environment, government

resources are increasingly difficult to obtain. In part due to the fact that the current

administrative structure takes a large part of the appropriation resources available for

research:

..by the time there is any money left over and it gets down to the actual scientific people who actually are responsible for CSIRO and the image and the profile of CSIRO there is just this tiny little bit left for us poor suckers. The only way we can operate is to actually go out and in most cases get anywhere from 80% to 100% of our funding from external sources (early researcher).

Most projects are co-funded by groups outside the division. This includes industry

groups or by organization’s own CD groups. Some work conducted through the CD groups

and other initiatives, is still funded with appropriation resources, specifically in national

priority areas. Some of this work is developed through students:

A lot of innovation filled by emerging sciences area, postdocs would be specifically appointed to, looking the higher risk, more knowledge based type research areas or PhD and overseas students are also looking at how can it work and then they will say, can we apply? .some of the work. basic research that has been supported for students and emerging sciences where you don't necessarily need to get core industry funding that brought lots of things (senior scientists.

However, the division has increasingly encouraged teams to obtain resources from

industry. This work is perceived as highly demanding and tight in terms of research aims,

time and budget.

The industry was prepared to just put money there and walk away from it. Whereas I think now, the industry says we'll give you a tiny bit of our money but we've got to have a whole bunch of things tied into that. We've got to know what you're doing every day and they do not understand that, maybe to develop something really innovative, it is a five year project They want something in one or two years. (Early researchers)

The current research environment leads to an increasing need for scientists to enhance

collaborative efforts and to understand the needs of clients to shape the direction of their

research:

My perception of how things work - people drive projects for money and they understand where they need to target their projects or target their research by talking to the customer,… to get an idea of what they want, what their needs are and then tailoring the research around those applications (early researcher).

Scientists are forced to think not just on the applicability of their research but on the revenues

and benefits for the investors. This is in term of patents and other productive outcomes:

… Everything is about money. I mean [organization] wasn't about patents years ago; we used to give things away. Now everything is about Patents. If you haven't got Patents that's it (technicians).

Securing funding for projects is now part of a scientist’s role, especially at the project

and stream leader level in this research organization. Scientists assume the role of managing a

team as a micro business. However, this joint funding process between the division and

industry has created bureaucratic processes and team leaders are forced to duplicate reporting

processes:

If we have funding from, say from one of the rural industry groups, a large part of our project work is for them. We have to write reports to them. It seems to me, if I write my report to them and they are happy with the progress of the research, there is not a good reason for the division to be reviewing it constantly as well. So why have several levels … of review (Senior scientist).

These funding activities are supported by the way in which innovation is rewarded. As stream

leaders expressed, one of the indicators of innovation has been the amount of money brought

in:

We've always had measures of innovation and creativity built in but it is conservative, it is pretty standard science achievement: do you publish? There's got to be an element of creativity and innovation, track how much money do you get, if you've got great ideas and you have had them for 20 years but nobody has given you a penny for them, what's the best judge of that creativity (Stream Leader).

Although senior level staff consider that industry limits innovation, early career

researchers question the fact that industry research restricts innovation:

I think most people complain that innovation has been a bit stifled by the reporting and the milestones and dead lines, and bringing in more external funding. You just focus on what needs to be done and do it. It would be interesting to go back and look at when C (organization) was a 100% appropriation, when it was just funded by the government and you could do what you liked (early researcher).

Leadership

Leadership was another important concept to emerge from the transcripts in relation to the

effects of change on innovation. In the transcript corpus, the leadership concept was related to

different dimensions of leadership, leadership at the project level, at the stream level, and at

the executive level. Of these, the most mentioned were project and stream leadership.

Project leadership

Leadership of the project has the most impact in the work of early career researchers,

postdocs and research technicians. Project leaders seem to be the centre of innovation

according to research technicians:

Innovation if it comes is mainly from the project leaders. I don't see any innovation, serious innovation from that level up. I think probably above their level most of it's a waste of space in terms of innovation (senior technicians).

This leadership was perceived as important in driving the direction of research and in creating

an environment that fosters innovation:

One of the most important aspects for us is just championing the area, fighting for it, getting resources and being passionate about it and trying to instil that passion into the people you are trying to lead. And there is just the more mundane aspects of it. Just making sure the resources are in place, people are being looked after, it's a healthy safe work environment, they are rewarded for what they do and they are appreciated (Senior researchers).

Many of the groups describe the ideal type of leader as a supportive leader who has an

awareness of people’s needs, encourages team work, is inspirational and accessible. A leader

who is open to discussions and at the same time is leading research was considered a good

leader:

What we really need is much more of a magnanimous generous, humble sort of a leader who is prepared to recognize the deeds of his or her staff and reward them and let the people who make the achievements reap their rewards for their work instead of them stepping in ( early researchers).

More importantly for supporting innovation is the leader’s openness and support for their

ideas:

Good leaders would be naturally fostering it and so we normally go … giving us that little bit extra time and backing us when we've got a seemingly good idea... It's the ‘can do’ attitude (early researchers).

Different project leaders are perceived as having different styles, which requires team

members who work across projects to adapt:

I tend to work across with most, a lot of the people here across a number of different projects and all with different stream leaders or project leaders. It's really just um, different people require different ways of working with them (research technicians)

Some of the project leaders are not perceived as being leaders but merely performing

management tasks. Some of these scientist/leaders are doing a good job, however some of

them are perceived as not fulfilling their required role. Good leadership is missing in some

cases:

Good leadership is crucial for creativity and innovation but I think leadership is the pinnacle of what we're missing here (early researcher).

This is in part attributed to the fact that project leaders are all scientists, who normally have

little training or skills in management roles:

Scientists aren't trained to be managers. They’re trained to be Scientists and then when 50% or the majority of the job is managing people and they're probably not as good as they could be at it because it's not in their training. Whatever reason …you lose a lot of time and work, you lose a lot of morale and you lose a lot of everything and when you've got that you don't do good science (postdocs).

However, looking at the training opportunities within the organization, most leaders

have received some kind of leadership training. This puzzles some people:

Virtually every senior scientist in C(organization) has gone through all the conflict resolution training courses, they've gone through how to have group meeting courses and how to be proactive, and the 7 habits of highly effective people, they've been trained to death to a certain extent on many of those issues. So you would think that most of the senior scientists should be fairly good at running their relatively small groups these days just with the amount of training that they have to go through (research technicians).

Project leadership is highly sought after by early career researchers, given that this

role is perceived as a necessary step to be promoted. Accordingly the structure in the

organization gives the opportunity for any researcher to be a leader, according to the

executive:

Within reason almost anybody can become a project leader though their own initiation. For a project leader, is just someone that is responsible for a set of activities that they have established themselves, so that is the sort of junior level manager, so if you established a small group around yourself, it is almost a flag that you are moving up and that is where you want to go and that is probably the stage where you get noticed at the divisional level (executive).

However, there is a need to reward not just manager roles but people who do good science,

which is the key resource of the organization:

It seems, management within C(organization) or leadership is seen as a different skill not a better skill than science. We are still a science organization and therefore some

of our most senior people should be scientists, who have no management role at all (executive).

Stream leadership

Another aspect of the leadership concept in relation to organizational change and innovation

was “stream leader”. The usefulness of this leadership level was the focus of some debate.

The challenges faced in doing this role were also the focus of discussion. Some of these

concerns were mentioned previously in relation to stream structure and are complemented

here with an overview of stream leadership issues. Stream leaders are representatives of a

new middle management created as a result of the change strategy taking place in the

division. Most of people in these positions were project leaders who were willing to take

responsibility for the leadership and implementation of organizational changes. Stream

leaders are a mixed group in terms of career stage, skills and experiences.

That is about a year into the process now, it is still really in the bedding down process... Some were appointed as a succession type planning, giving people the opportunity to manage small groups and preparing for a larger management, and others were quite experience managers, who were already responsible for large groups, who haven't had that much change in their set up (executive).

For a lot of these stream leaders, the role provided an opportunity for them to feel connected

to the direction of the organization, although at the expense of doing science:

One of the reasons why I wanted to become stream leader was because I wanted to have more control over the direction and destiny of the work that I was involved in. I felt frustrated in the previous structure and yet having done that I haven't done any science virtually at all in six months (stream leader).

Stream leaders are also involved in the newly created Divisional Management Forum

where they provide input into divisional strategies and direction. This forum creates new

opportunities for interaction across sites:

Now being in the divisional management forum, I have insight into the division review of C(organization) and also improve through the interaction between the division and corporate, both top up and bottom up. In my stream, I have interactions with the other stream people, other stream leaders both within my theme and across themes… so that gives me another perspective (Stream leaders) .

In this new role, stream leaders are expected to act as a filter between the division and the

members of the stream. However, the perception of staff at the lower levels is that stream

leaders are put in a position were they have to respond to the needs of the executive level

above the needs of the people at lower levels:

Because the stream leaders they have to keep Division Executive happy, or they have to manipulate or work with DE or whatever to get whatever their outcomes are, but that means they've got to answer to them, so they're now looking upwards… they are not looking down, going ‘shit, my project leaders are all pissed off and how am I going to organize this’. Their focus is now up and not down and I don't know how we move away from that, and they are controlling the resources for the stream and the stream is where the people are who are trying to do the innovation... (early researchers).

The fact that this position is a new role in the organization accentuates the challenges

in terms of handling highly managerial tasks such as finances, and human resource functions.

The complexity of managing each stream is different depending on the financial position of

the stream, the experience of the leader and the composition of the stream. Some streams are

working across sites and this imposes even greater challenges for these stream leaders, where

as others are on site and their structure very similar to the previous program structure which

makes them easier to manage. Stream leaders are perceived by others as occupying a highly

managerial position in charge of managing budgets and resources within the stream. This is a

challenging task:

The stream leaders are really being pushed to manage budgets, so they are struggling with that right now because… there's hard decisions that have to be made and they are grappling with those decisions. When it comes to managing what happens in the streams, I think that every stream leader is going to have something different… (senior researchers).

Some have managed their increasing workload by delegating some of their work to their

stream members:

I expect them to fill in the necessary paper work associated with their project proposals, and all those sort of mundane things. I know that other stream leaders are horrified and they take on that responsibility themselves but I don't. I insist that every scientist, if they pretend to lead the project or be a principal investigator, then they have to do that sort of stuff, otherwise they won't know how to do it when I'm gone (stream leaders).

In terms of innovation, one of the biggest changes faced by these stream leaders is the

responsibility of selecting the project initiatives that are to be supported within the stream:

That kind of is the dilemma for me is how good am I able to pick those things that really have legs and are worth pursuing versus those things that are already sort of mucking about. Of course my first response is go and have a look at the literature,

measure it against what else is out there and wait to see if there is something that is different … (Stream leader)

Innovation and work

The main aim of the focus group discussions with different groups was to understand how

organizational changes and climate had affected staff’s creativity, innovation and work.

Therefore most of the concepts that had been previously described in this analysis in terms of

structure, resources and leadership were related to the concepts of innovation, creativity,

ideas, problems and more especially the concept ‘work’. Consequently, much of the context

in which concepts related to innovation and work has been already described. In this section,

we mention some interesting complementary views of how the organization is conducting

innovative work.

This organization is highly influenced by government policies. Innovation is driven

mainly by the national research priorities or by industry funding. This creates a strong

dilemma about the direction of work in the organization. There is an interest in having both

pure science research with associated higher risks, as well as applied research:

Some of the things that my group does is for the public good. There may be not be commercial value out of it and that is something that the Division needs to sit down and discuss on how much of the activity will be public good and how much of it will be commercially determined (stream leaders).

The current organizational environment is perceived as a highly collaborative and

networked environment creating opportunities for innovation:

Innovation has increased for the simple fact that people are interacting with different skill bases and different people, even with the similar skill base, with different people that they haven't before, so their innovation has increased, opportunities have significantly increased, even though we haven't necessary captured all those opportunities, but I think people are starting to see opportunities (stream leaders).

Most of the collaboration is centred on a particular site. The challenge is to create incentives

to promote collaboration and communication across sites. More importantly, the organization

has the advantage of a pool of knowledge in different fields. Further collaboration would give

the organization a competitive advantage and the opportunity to capitalize on its existing

diverse human capital. Most of the staff perceived the value of diversity for innovation

particularly when it comes to diversity in terms of skills:

Diversity of skills is the most important thing to encourage innovation. So people from various skills backgrounds I think that's much more likely for a fresh or new idea to come out, If we all come from the same field [we are] less likely to come up with fresh new ideas (senior technicians).

However, some aspects of the environment are impediments to innovation. The current

system and administrative bureaucracy, although sometimes perceived as necessary, presents

a continuous struggle to keep on the edge of a highly innovative and changing world:

Emerging science is a neat idea but like for example I'm involved in something that's developing an emerging science thing at the moment but it's taken two years to walk it through the process, how emerging is that now (early researchers).

Furthermore, the reward system needs to be adapted so that innovation rather than

management activities are rewarded:

I have a suggestion in how this division could improve creativity and innovation. They might have to look at promoting people in different way. That the promotion criteria under the rewarding system have to be more open minded than just promoting managers or project leaders (stream leaders).

Different staff levels think differently about the contribution of the work structure to

innovation and work. As described earlier, stream leaders and above are perceived as

managers and bureaucrats. Project leaders on the other hand are scientists who are perceived

as the main drivers of innovation. They are normally the ones responsible for structuring

projects but greater administrative burdens have been placed on them and this affects the time

they have to be innovative. Early career researchers claim that they are now the drivers of

innovation as many of the top researchers are inundated with administrative duties, which are

less rewarded or recognised:

For people at our level, the level of people here are the ones who develop and push the science. Above us are mainly managerial positions and in the main there is not a lot of new science coming from above us. Most of it is driven from this level because we're at the hands on level. We're doing it. We see what needs to be done and we're right in there up to our necks in it day in day out. And yet we're not the ones who get to travel and travel and talking with other people is absolutely critical in being able to innovate (early researchers).

Senior technicians are an interesting and important group. Most of them have been in

the organization for a long time and have accumulated great knowledge and technical skills

within the organization. However, they perceived their role to be ‘hands on’; they translate

the ideas that come from scientists into work. They perceived their role to be less influential

in the idea generation stages and more important in the development of the project.

On the other hand, the training scientists or postdoctoral researchers claim that they

are driving the science, as well as having a role in guiding students and others to do the

‘hands on’ work. This group is especially important for the organization as they are

considered the innovation powerhouse. They are young scientists with new ideas and are seen

as a way for the organization to bring fresh ideas into work. Although the position is

considered a great training experience, postdoctoral researchers perceived that the conditions

and terms of employment have an effect on their commitment to the organization:

Postdocs are the ones usually who are doing a lot of the research and are the ones doing, as you know the ones setting up the procedures and getting things initiated and most often than not running the laboratory and doing a range of different tasks and I think if you've only got those skills for three years and then you bring someone else and you spend six months teaching them what to do then C (organization) is the one loosing out. I don't think the Postdocs are because you get your experience and I think it's good to go to different spots but C (organization) is pushing out their expertise by having people for such a short term.

Furthermore, the division faces challenges in relation to attracting the most capable

knowledge workers. As a knowledge organization, human capital is the fuel to keep

innovation alive and build its knowledge assets:

The question for C (organization) is, are we sufficiently attractive to people outside to want to spend at least some time and the answer is that C(organization) as a group is a mosaic, there are some divisions that are highly attractive and they have difficulty keeping people out because everyone wants to work there and stay there, and there are other divisions that you could swing a cat in a room and not get anyone who is innovative (stream leaders). Overall, in order to adapt to the new changes in the environment and remain

competitive, the organization has designed new structures, strategies and redefined its

direction. However, change is perceived as uncertain, with low levels of acceptance. Most

groups question the benefits of the changes made to their work and whether the change has

enhanced innovation. This gives the impression that change has not been properly planned or

communicated so that staff embrace it:

Change these days means imposition. It doesn't mean a change in work practices from assembling something this way to assembling it that way. The change always means imposing something on you. You are not asked. There is no measure that the change actually produces a better outcome. Where I'm leading to is …I can't identify a single change, not one, that makes working easier, and makes the science better (stream leaders).

Discussion

Research organizations face increasing pressure to adapt to the environment and to

changes in national directions and priorities (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996; Illinitch et al., 1996)

and these pressures are not uncommon to professional organizations more generally (Powell

et al., 1999). As Simpson and Powell (1999) note, research organizations are increasingly

moving towards highly networked knowledge organizations. As a result, many of the change

strategies used by these organizations are aimed at creating collaborations to make use of the

knowledge capabilities of the organization. The organization in this study has responded to

these challenges by refocusing its visions, strategies and structures.

Our analysis reveals the impact of these changes on people’s roles and on their work.

A new level of leadership within the organization has been imposed by the new structure.

This is common in a new research environment that imposes new management roles on

middle managers (Mann, 2005). The creation of this new role and level of management

(stream leaders) has had an important effect on the work of teams and therefore of scientists,

technicians and student researchers. We know the importance of leadership in influencing the

way people perceive their organizational and team environment (Mann, 2005). In this case,

stream leaders are at the centre of the change process and have been challenged with the tasks

of leading aspects of the process. This requires them to deal with people’s issues and

concerns, take on a large management role, and at the same time, deliver results to the

executive level of the division.

The centrality of the concept people provides evidence of the importance of people in

professional organizations. People are the most valuable asset in these kinds of knowledge

organizations (Alvesson, 2000; Robertson & Swan, 2003). Other concepts related to people’s

work are funding and time. These concepts have been previously evidenced as necessary in

an environment that fosters creativity and innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994). They give

evidence of the effect this change has had in terms of deliverables, funding, team processes,

and people’s identity. As in other professional organizations, established scientists at the

project and stream leader level have been increasingly pressured to take on managerial tasks.

At the same time they have been rewarded for taking on these managerial responsibilities

almost at the expense of producing science outcomes. Overall, this increased managerial

work reduces the time available for scientists to continue growing as science professionals

and therefore diminishes opportunities for the organization to utilize their knowledge assets.

This provides evidence of the tensions between management responsibilities and the

production of scientific outcomes (Mann, 2005; McAuley et al., 2000; Robertson & Swan,

2003).

However, the issues of time and funding affect not just managerial levels, but also

other levels in the organization. Limited funding, resources and time puts pressure on

people’s work. Higher degrees of work need to be accomplished in limited time and with

limited resources. This in turn has an effect on the time that is put aside for innovation. The

new structures in place force teams to be flexible and adaptable to the challenges imposed by

their environment (Simpson & Powell, 1999). In this case, staff are likely to be working

simultaneously on multiple projects. This means that higher demands are placed on their

work output and time commitments and this provides little time to be creative and innovative.

Furthermore, teams are structured in various ways. There is much evidence of the

‘solitary genius’ structure identified by Simpson and Powell (1999). Some teams revolve

around a senior researcher and are discipline-based. There is also evidence of structures that

encourage collaboration. Overall, there is an acknowledgement of the value of collaboration

and diversity, especially in terms of skills that stimulate the creation of ideas and innovation

necessary in a competitive environment (Milliken, Bartel, & Kurzberg, 2003; Robertson &

Swan, 2003). To innovate, people in these teams require a climate that fosters

interdependence, communication, safety and trust, which in turn have an influence on the

processes of communication, decision-making and conflict management within the team

(Robertson & Swan, 2003) .

At the centre of the change process, a lack of understanding and a degree of

uncertainty exists amongst staff as to the future shape of the organization and the perceived

value of the change process. Thus may be due in part to the lack of clear communication

channels between staff and executives regarding the changes. Changes are not properly

justified and institutionalized, which imposes a tension between the old organization and the

new structure (Greenwood et al., 2002). This is turn presents a significant challenge for the

organization to reap the advantages from their initiatives.

At the same time, younger scientists are also faced with changes to their employment

contracts, as the organization changes to short contract positions instead of long term tenure

in a position. This has produced a shift in the mindset of these younger scientists affecting

their level of connectedness and commitment to the organization. This also presents a

challenge for the organization to attract new knowledge capital to the organization. This is

especially important in an organization that build its reputation on the value of its human

resources (Robertson & Swan, 2003).

Conclusions

Results from these analyses reveal how knowledge-intensive workers at different

organizational levels and their teams respond differently to structural and cultural change.

Concepts identified in the corpus, such as ‘people’, ‘work’, ‘projects’, ‘group’, ‘team’ and

‘division’ provide evidence of the complex and changing structure of work in this

organization. The centrality of the concept ‘people’ highlights the importance of the skills

and expertise of the people who are employed in professional organizations and who hold the

critical resource for value creation and innovation. Data analyses also reveal the creation of a

new identity for workers who operate under a new management structure and by inference,

new forms of leadership. Other related concepts such as ‘funding’ and ‘time’ provide

evidence of the effects of the restructuring on deliverables, team processes, and people’s

identity. Furthermore, results show that the new structures force teams to be flexible and

adaptable to the challenges imposed by their environment; however, such flexibility leads to

higher demands on their work and provides little time to be creative and innovative.

Our analysis reveals that the teams value diversity, especially in terms of skills that

stimulate the creation of ideas and innovation necessary in a competitive environment.

However, team members express the need for a climate that fosters interdependence,

communication, safety and trust, which in turn have an influence on the processes of

communication, decision-making and conflict management within the team. These concepts

influence employee perceptions of important issues including levels of innovation and

performance, the nature of their research funding, the type of research that needs to be done,

who the scientists must collaborate with, and the time they are able to commit to individual

and team research priorities.

One insight to emerge from this study to date is the importance of intergroup

phenomena in organizational change. In this case, we have observed a situation where

scientists are encouraged (as part of their postgraduate/PhD training) to pursue individual

research agendas in the pursuit of unique scientific discovery. Increasingly, science and

research organizations (such as this one) are moving toward the situation where teams of

researchers work together to achieve scientific outcomes within a focused (and funded)

research agenda. This move toward multidisciplinary teams involves an identity shift from

the scientist as a solitary genius to an identity of the scientist as a team worker, one who

probably works and contributes to multiple projects. Not only this, but the strategic shift

requires scientists to shift their focus and identity with the organization from the project level

to a broader research agenda (in this case, through research streams and CD groups in the

wider organization). One reason why some scientists (and other professionals) may ‘resist’

such changes is the perception that this shift challenges a valued identity, which is

represented by independence and autonomy in the pursuit of scientific or other professional

ideals. This dynamic presents a particular challenge in bringing about a strategic shift in

professional organizations, one that challenges notions what it means to be a professional.

We believe that intergroup and identity factors in organizational change deserve further

research attention.

Our findings demonstrate that these complex scientific organizations need to carefully

review the role of leadership in delivering scientific outcomes. Effective organizational

strategies and structures, and supportive team environments are critical for ensuring effective

outcomes from scientific professionals. Such a context is necessary to encourage professional

knowledge workers to work through issues of team and organizational conflict in order for

them to adapt successfully to new and commercially more demanding environments. In

particular, the performance of team leaders and the team processes that they apply emerge as

key factors behind how well scientific teams are responding to these new commercial

pressures.

References

Ahoroni, Y. (1999). Internationalization of professional services: Implications for accounting firms. In D. Brock, M. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds.), Restructuring the professional organization (pp. 154-182). London: Routledge.

Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management, 30(6), 997-1015.

Alvesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive companies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1101-1123.

Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity. Human Relations, 54(7), 863-886.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research on organizational behavior. Greenwich: CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630-640.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321-341.

Baum, J. A., & Oliver, C. (1994). Organizational ecology. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 77-114). London: Sage.

Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28(4), 397-422.

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.

By, R. T. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, S. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45-57.

D'Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition. New York: Free Press.

DiMaggio, P. (1986). Structural analysis of organizational fields: A blockmodel approach. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120-1153.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286-307.

Flood, J. (1999). Professionals organizing professionals: Comparing the logic of united states and the united kingdom law practice. In D. Brock, M. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds.), Restructuring the professional organization. London: Routledge.

Friedman, A. (1977). Industry and labour. London: Macmillan.

Fuglsang, L., & Sundbo, J. (2005). The organizational innovation system: Three modes. Journal of Change Management, 5(3), 329-344.

Geffen, C., & Judd, K. (2004). Innovation through initiatives: A framework for building new capabilities in public sector research organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 281-306.

Gibbons, M., Limoge, S. C., Notwotney, H., Schwartzam, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage Publications.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1052-1081.

Greenwood, R., & Lachman, R. (1996). Change as an underlying theme in professional service organizations. Organization Studies, 17(4), 563-572.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). Competing in the new economy. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 237-242.

Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & T, T. (1999). What is your strategy for managing change? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116.

Hargadon, A., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light". Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476-501.

Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance towards mode2. Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 747-774.

Hedberg, B. (1990). Exit, voice and loyalty in knowledge-intensive firms. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Strategic Management Society, Stockholm.

Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R., & Cooper, D. (1999). The dynamics of change in large accounting firms. In D. Brock, M. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds.), Restructuring the professional organization (pp. 131-153). London: Routledge.

Hinings, C. R., & R. Greenwood. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Illinitch, A. Y., D'Aveni, R. A., & Lewin, A. Y. (1996). New organizational forms and strategies for managing in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(3), 211-221.

Jaffe, A. (1999). Measurement issues. In L. Branscomb & J. Keller (Eds.), Investing in innovation: Creating a research and innovation policy that works. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kaplan, S. (2000). Innovating professional services: From concept to delivery. Consulting to Management, 11(1), 30-34.

Lowenthal, B. (1997). Strategic management in professional service firms. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Mann, L. (2005). Leadership, management, and innovation in R&D project teams. London: Praeger.

McAuley, J., Duberley, J., & Cohen, L. (2000). The meaning professionals give to management ... And strategy. Human Relations, 53(1), 87-116.

McLead, L. (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(2), 226-246.

Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32-62).

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313-351.

Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713.

Pfeffer, J., & Salanick, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper& Row.

Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2000). How leaders influence the impact of effective events on team climate and performance in R&D. Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561-581.

Powell, M., Brock, D. M., & Hinings, R. (1999). The changing professional organization. In D. Brock, M. Powell & C. R. Hinings (Eds.), Restructuring the professional organization (pp. 1-19). London: Routledge.

Prastacos, G., Soderquist, K., Spanos, Y., & Wassenhove, L. V. (2002). An integrated framework for managing change in the new competitive landscape. European Management Journal, 20(1), 55-71.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Raelin, J. (1991). The clash of cultures: Managers managing professionals. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Rieley, J. B., & Clarkson, I. (2001). The impact of change on performance. Journal of Change Management, 2(2), 160-172.

Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Knowledge creation in professional service firms: Institutional effects. Organization Studies, 24(6), 831-857.

Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2003). Control - what control?: Culture of ambiguity within a knowledge intensive firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 831-858.

Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research with their own money? Research Policy, 19, 165-174.

Savary, M. (1999). Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry. California Management Review, 41, 95-108.

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(3), 580-607.

Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33-53.

Simpson, B., & Powell, M. (1999). Designing research organizations for science innovation. Long Range Planning, 32(4), 441-451.

Starbuck, L., & Morgan, G. (1992). Learning in knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 713-740.

Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487-511.

Sturdy, A. (1997). The consultancy process: An insecure business. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 389-413.

Sveiby, K. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Sveiby, K. E., & Lloyd, T. (1987). Managing know-how: Add value by valuing creativity. London: Bloomsbury.

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Tijssen, R. (2004). Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles. Research Policy, 33, 709-733.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). Institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), The handbook of organizational studies (pp. 175-190). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 293-321.