Advancing an Innovation Orientation in Organizations: Insights from North American Business Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word innovation is widely referred to in business circles as the next level of competitive advantage. However, for many organizations today, it lacks tangibility as managers struggle with developing an innovation orientation that provides sustainable value creation. Using a mixed methods research approach, the aim and contribution of this paper is to report the qualitative findings of Fortune 1000 (F1000) organizations concerning their efforts to implement innovation agendas. Over 1100 business leaders were surveyed, which proves to be one of the largest surveys of innovation to date amongst the F1000. This article sets out to answer three basic questions as it concerns the implementation of an innovation agenda in organizations. These questions include: What does innovation mean to organizations? What has been the biggest challenges to introducing and sustaining an innovation orientation? And what has worked well in supporting an innovation orientation? What we have discovered is that leaders’ thoughts on innovation are anchored on the need for changing the status quo and trying something new. They are also particularly aware of the correlation between innovation and performance. The change theme is further echoed as the predominant barrier to change. That is, breaking the inertia of the status quo is seen as one of the top barriers to innovation. Further, our findings identified six common challenges to introducing, executing and sustaining innovation. These barriers revolve around resistance to change, organizational process, leadership, funding and resources, the external environment, and customer adoption. Finally, there are a cluster of activities that have worked well to support successful implementation of an innovation orientation in organizations. Important activities such as leadership for innovation, knowledge management, organizational structures and processes, and aligned performance management were identified by leaders as noteworthy to successful innovation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".