Motivating Innovation: Tunnels vs. Funnels

References

• Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A, Luo H (2018) Slack time and innovation. Organ. Sci. 29(6):1056–1073.Link, Google Scholar
• Ambrose ML, Schminke M (2001) Are flexible organizations the death knell for the future? Cropanzano RS, ed. Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), 229–244.Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011) Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND J. Econom. 42(3):527–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A (2010) Self‐efficacy. Weiner IB, Craighead WE, eds. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), 1–3.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Fehr E, Maréchal MA, Schunk D (2009) Egalitarianism and competitiveness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(2):93–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumann O, Stieglitz N (2014) Rewarding value‐creating ideas in organizations: The power of low‐powered incentives. Strategic Management J. 35(3):358–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell BS, Wiechmann D, Ryan AM (2006) Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system. J. Appl. Psych. 91(2):455–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billinger S, Stieglitz N, Schumacher TR (2013) Search on rugged landscapes: An experimental study. Organ. Sci. 25(1):93–108.Link, Google Scholar
• Blake C (2008) The Art of Decisions: How to Manage in an Uncertain World (Pearson Education, Harlow, UK).Google Scholar
• Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Management Rev. 20(2):343–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruhin A, Santos-Pinto L, Staubli D (2018) How do beliefs about skill affect risky decisions? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 150:350–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buser T, Cappelen AW, Tungodden B (2021) Fairness and willingness to compete. Working paper, NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen.Google Scholar
• Cadsby CB, Song F, Tapon F (2007) Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Acad. Management J. 50(2):387–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cain DM, Moore DA, Haran U (2015) Making sense of overconfidence in market entry. Strategic Management J. 36(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Konow J, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2013) Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(4):1398–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chao RO, Kavadias S (2008) A theoretical framework for managing the new product development portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Sci. 54(5):907–921.Link, Google Scholar
• Chao RO, Lichtendahl KC, Grushka‐Cockayne Y (2014) Incentives in a stage‐gate process. Production Oper. Management 23(8):1286–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Grieco D (2018) Creativity and incentives. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 17(2):454–496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatterjee S, Wernerfelt B (1991) The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management J. 12(1):33–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Zapata CP, Rich BL (2012) Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? J. Appl. Psych. 97(1):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Tihanyi L, Crook TR, Gangloff KA (2014) Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. J. Management 40(1):16–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ (2001) Portfolio Management for New Products (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Coyne WE, Van de Ven AH (2022) Perspective from practice: Increasing the odds of maneuvering the innovation journey. Strategic Management Rev. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2021) The sequence effect in panel decisions: Evidence from the evaluation of research and development projects. Organ. Sci. 32(4):987–1008.Link, Google Scholar
• Dahlin KB, Behrens DM (2005) When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Res. Policy 34(5):717–737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dantzig GB (1957) Discrete-variable extremum problems. Oper. Res. 5(2):266–288.Link, Google Scholar
• Dechenaux E, Kovenock D, Sheremeta RM (2015) A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. Experiment. Econom. 18(4):609–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desai SD, Sondak H, Diekmann KA (2011) When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: The role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 116(1):32–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding M, Eliashberg J (2002) Structuring the new product development pipeline. Management Sci. 48(3):343–363.Link, Google Scholar
• Dixit A, Pindyck R (1994) Investment Under Uncertainty (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A (2011) Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):556–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ederer F, Manso G (2013) Is pay for performance detrimental to innovation? Management Sci. 59(7):1496–1513.Link, Google Scholar
• Erat S, Gneezy U (2016) Incentives for creativity. Experiment. Econom. 19(2):269–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Exadaktylos F, Espín AM, Brañas-Garza P (2013) Experimental subjects are not different. Sci. Rep. 3(1):1213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Heckman JJ (2009) Laboratory experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Sci. 326(5952):535–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franke N, Keinz P, Klausberger K (2013) “Does this sound like a fair deal?”: Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to participate in firm innovation. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1495–1516.Link, Google Scholar
• Fuchs C, Sting F, Schlickel M, Alexy O (2019) The ideator’s bias: How identity-induced self-efficacy drives overestimation in employee-driven process innovation. Acad. Management J. 62(5):1498–1522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ganz S (2018) Hyperopic Experimentation: Organizations Learning About Managers Learning About Strategies (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta).Google Scholar
• Ghemawat P, Costa JERI (1993) The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management J. 14(1):59–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giarratana MS, Mariani M, Weller I (2018) Rewards for patents and inventor behaviors in industrial research and development. Acad. Management J. 61(1):264–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gill D, Prowse V (2012) A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):469–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilliland SW (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 18(4):694–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilliland SW, Hale JMS (2005) How can justice be used to improve employee selection practices. Greenberg J, Colquitt JA, eds. Handbook of Organizational Justice (Lawrence Erlbaum, New York), 411–438.Google Scholar
• Gist ME (1987) Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Acad. Management Rev. 12(3):472–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graff Zivin J, Lyons E (2020) The effects of prize structures on innovative performance NBER Working Paper No. 26737, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Guler I (2007) Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(2):248–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guler I (2018) Pulling the plug: The capability to terminate unsuccessful projects and firm performance. Strategy Sci. 3(3):481–497.Link, Google Scholar
• Hanel PHP, Vione KC (2016) Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLoS One 11(12):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE (2009) Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 70(3):498–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser J, Tellis G, Griffin A (2006) Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Sci. 25(6):687–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Hellmann T, Thiele V (2011) Incentives and innovation: A multitasking approach. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 3(1):78–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennessey BA, Amabile TM (2010) Creativity. Annual Rev. Psych. 61(1):569–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huchzermeier A, Loch C (2001) Project management under risk: Using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Sci. 47(1):85–101.Link, Google Scholar
• Jones RA, Ostroy JM (1984) Flexibility and uncertainty. Rev. Econom. Stud. 51(1):13–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagan E, Leider S, Lovejoy WS (2018) Ideation-execution transition in product development: An experimental analysis. Management Sci. 64(5):2238–2262.Link, Google Scholar
• Kagan E, Leider S, Lovejoy WS (2020) Equity contracts and incentive design in start-up teams. Management Sci. 66(10):4879–4898.Google Scholar
• Kavadias S, Hutchison-Krupat J (2020) A framework for managing innovation. Informs Tutorials in Operations Research, 202–228.Google Scholar
• Kavadias S, Loch C (2004) Project Selection Under Uncertainty: Dynamically Allocating Resources to Maximize Value (Kluwer, Norwell, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein B, Meckling W (1958) Application of operations research to development decisions. Oper. Res. 6(3):352–363.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R (2018) Risk-type preference shifts in response to feedback. Strategic Organ. 16(2):141–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Adner R (2015) Real options logic revisited: The performance effects of alternative resource allocation regimes. Acad. Management J. 58(1):221–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Esser P (2020) Stage-gate escalation. Strategy Sci. 5(4):311–329.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Joseph JE (2016) Entry timing and innovation strategy in feature phones. Strategic Management J. 37(6):1002–1020.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Rammer C (2021) Optionality and selectiveness in innovation. Acad. Management Discoveries 7(3):328–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R, Joseph JE, Machoba V (2022) Sequencing innovation rollout: Learning opportunity vs. entry speed. Strategic Management J. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Levinthal DA (2007) Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organ. Sci. 18(1):39–54.Link, Google Scholar
• Kornish LJ, Hutchison-Krupat J (2017) Research on idea generation and selection: Implications for management of technology. Production Oper. Management 26(4):633–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Körpeoğlu E, Cho S-H (2017) Incentives in contests with heterogeneous solvers. Management Sci. 64(6):2709–2715.Link, Google Scholar
• Krueger N Jr, Dickson PR (1994) How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self‐efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sci. 25(3):385–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(6):1121–1134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larkin I, Leider S (2012) Incentive schemes, sorting, and behavioral biases of employees: Experimental evidence. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 4(2):184–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Burson KA, Soll JB (2007) Social comparison and confidence: When thinking you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not). Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):76–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S, Meyer-Doyle P (2017) How performance incentives shape individual exploration and exploitation: Evidence from microdata. Organ. Sci. 28(1):19–38.Link, Google Scholar
• Leventhal GS, Karuza J, Fry WR (1980) Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. Mikula G, ed. Justice and Social Interaction (Hans Huber, Bern, Switzerland), 167–218.Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (2017) Resource allocation and firm boundaries. J. Management 43(8):2580–2587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li H, Bingham JB, Umphress EE (2007) Fairness from the top: Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organ. Sci. 18(2):200–216.Link, Google Scholar
• Lind EA, Van den Bos K (2002) When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Res. Organ. Behav. 24(1):181–224.Google Scholar
• Loch CH, Kavadias S (2007) Managing new product development: An evolutionary framework. Loch C, Kavadias S, eds. Handbook of New Product Development Management (Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, UK), 1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loch CH, De Meyer A, Pich MT (2006) Managing the Unknown: A New Approach to Managing High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Amer. Psych. 57(9):705–717.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu S, Bartol KM, Venkataramani V, Zheng X, Liu X (2019) Pitching novel ideas to the boss: The interactive effects of employees’ idea enactment and influence tactics on creativity assessment and implementation. Acad. Management J. 62(2):579–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maddux JE (2016) Self-efficacy. Trusz S, Babel P, eds. Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Expectancies (Routledge, Abingdon, UK), 41–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee GB (2005) Rethinking invention: Cognition and the economics of technological creativity. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 57(1):29–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manso G (2011) Motivating innovation. J. Finance 66(5):1823–1860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marschak T, Nelson R (1962) Flexibility, uncertainty, and economic theory. Metroeconomica 14(1):42–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCardle KF (1985) Information acquisition and the adoption of new technology. Management Sci. 31(11):1372–1389.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelson R (1961) Uncertainty, learning, and the economics of parallel research and development efforts. Rev. Econom. Statist. 43(4):351–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pajares F (1997) Current directions in self-efficacy research. Adv. Motivation Achievement 10(1):1–49.Google Scholar
• Pape T, Kavadias S, Sommer SC (2020) The behavioural knapsack problem: Evidence of a fundamental bias in project selection. Working paper, University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
• Posen HE, Leiblein MJ, Chen JS (2018) Toward a behavioral theory of real options: Noisy signals, bias, and learning. Strategic Management J. 39(4):1112–1138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts K, Weitzman M (1981) Funding criteria for research, development, and exploration projects. Econometrica 49(5):1261–1288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosokha Y, Younge K (2020) Motivating innovation: The effect of loss aversion on the willingness to persist. Rev. Econom. Statist. 102(3):569–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rupp DE, Shapiro DL, Folger R, Skarlicki DP, Shao R (2017) A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for reassessment? Acad. Management Ann. 11(2):919–959.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schlapp J, Oraiopoulos N, Mak V (2015) Resource allocation decisions under imperfect evaluation and organizational dynamics. Management Sci. 61(9):2139–2159.Link, Google Scholar
• Sengul M, Almeida Costa A, Gimeno J (2018) The allocation of capital within firms: A review and integration toward a research revival. Acad. Management Ann. 13(1):43–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S, Ulrich K (2004) Technological innovation, product development, and entrepreneurship in management science. Management Sci. 50(2):133–144.Link, Google Scholar
• Sharapov D, Dahlander L (2022) Selection regimes and selection errors. Working paper, European School of Management and Technology, Berlin.Google Scholar
• Sharpe P, Keelin T (1998) How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(2):45–53.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1973) The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence 4(3):181–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sommer SC, Bendoly E, Kavadias S (2020) How do you search for the best alternative? Experimental evidence on search strategies to solve complex problems. Management Sci. 66(3):1395–1420.Link, Google Scholar
• Stouras KI, Hutchison-Krupat J, Chao RO (2022) The role of participation in innovation contests. Management Sci. Forthcoming.Link, Google Scholar
• Tandon V, Toh PK (2021) Who deviates? Technological opportunities, career concern, and inventor’s distant search. Strategic Management J. 43(4):724–757.Crossref, Google Scholar
• The Economist (2018) Shifting shifts: The tight labour market is making unskilled work more predictable. The Economist (Dec 6), https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/12/08/the-tight-labour-market-is-making-unskilled-work-more-predictable.Google Scholar
• Tian X, Wang TY (2014) Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(1):211–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G (2016) Process fairness, outcome fairness, and dynamic consistency: Experimental evidence for risk and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 53(2):75–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trigeorgis L, Reuer JJ (2017) Real options theory in strategic management. Strategic Management J. 38(1):42–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G, eds. Toward a Theory of the Rent Seeking Society (A&M University Press, College Station, TX), 97–112.Google Scholar
• Valentine M (2018) When equity seems unfair: The role of justice enforceability in temporary team coordination. Acad. Management J. 61(6):2081–2105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vinokurova N, Kapoor R (2020) Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas. Strategic Management J. 41(13):2372–2399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang H, Lim SS (2008) Real options and real value: The role of employee incentives to make specific knowledge investments. Strategic Management J. 29(7):701–721.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zell E, Krizan Z (2014) Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 9(2):111–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenger TR, Lazzarini SG (2004) Compensating for innovation: Do small firms offer high‐powered incentives that lure talent and motivate effort? Managerial Decision Econom. 25(6–7):329–345.Crossref, Google Scholar