Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Die Psychologie der organisationalen Innovation pp 197–205Cite as

Allgemeine Schlussfolgerungen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 3410 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Das Buch geht auf eine Reihe von Mängeln oder Schwächen in bestehenden Konzeptualisierungen der Innovation ein. Sein aus der Kreativitätstheorie abgeleieteter proaktiver und dynamischer Ansatz analysiert das Gesamtsystem der Innovation einschließlich der daran beteiligten Menschen. Der Höhepunkt der Analyse ist das IPAI, das das paradoxe Zusammenspiel von „Person“, „Produkt“, „Prozess“ und „Problemlösungsdruck“ misst. Dieses Instrument ermöglicht es Innovationsmanagern, die innovative Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Organisation objektiv zu überprüfen und notwendige Schritte in die Wege zu leiten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review and prospective commentary. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besemer, S. P. (2006). Creating products in the age of design. Stillwater: New Forums Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., & Thomas, K. (2013). Introduction to the chapters. In K. Thomas & J. Chan (Hrsg.), Handbook of research on creativity (S. 1–10). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 60–67, 128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gabora, L., & Tseng, S. (2014). Computational evidence that self-regulation of creativity is good for society. arXiv:1408.2512 [cs.CY]. Zugegriffen: 21. Aug. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, L. (1901). Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. 2. New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawenski, M. (1991). Encouraging creativity in design. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 263–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. Harvard Business Review, 81, 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, B. (2013). Creative intelligence: Harnessing the power to create, connect, and inspire. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, D., & Buckley, F. (2007). Towards an integrative model of creativity and innovation in organisations: A psychological perspective. Irish Journal of Psychology, 28, 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2010). Organizational creativity: A systems approach. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (S. 145–173). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wikl&, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 761–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, A. (2000). Determinants of successful organisational innovation: a review of current research. Journal of Management Practice, 3(1), 95–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, J. (2014, September 2, 2014). Creativity creep. http://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/creativity-creep?utm_source=tnyandutm_campaign=generalsocialandutm_medium=twitterandmbid=social_twitter. Zugegriffen: 2. Sept. 2014

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Australien

    David H. Cropley

  2. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland

    Arthur J. Cropley

Authors
  1. David H. Cropley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arthur J. Cropley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J. (2018). Allgemeine Schlussfolgerungen. In: Die Psychologie der organisationalen Innovation. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17389-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17389-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-17388-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-17389-0

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation