The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: a Special Issue introduction
Abstract
This introduction essay proposes a challenging program for researchers eager to explore factors and process mechanisms contributing to the benefits and costs individuals and groups incur from pursuing innovative approaches. With respect to individual innovation, such moderating factors might be found in the characteristics of the innovative idea, the innovator, co‐workers, supervisors, the broader organizational context, and in national culture. Examples of factors that are likely to shape the beneficial and detrimental outcomes of group innovation include knowledge, skills and ability of group members, group tenure, diversity among group members, group processes (clarifying group objectives, participation, constructive management of competing perspectives), and external demands on groups. This Special Issue contains a state‐of‐the‐science paper, three articles dealing with the benefits and costs of individual innovation, and three articles addressing the bright and dark sides of group innovation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · cited 1×
“…theories and practices to proposals for radical innovations directed to unbinding problems from their customary definitions and introducing new ways of doing things in the sense of a paradigm shift (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Buchanan & Boddy, 1992; Janssen, De Vries, & Cozijnsen, 1998; Kanter, 1988).”
BackgroundA multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210 · Cited by 1,398
Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care
West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B. (2003) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00044-4 · Cited by 379
Self-citation
Cited by
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103
Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.49388995 · Cited by 1,557
Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.032 · Cited by 1,464
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709 · Cited by 845
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013 · Cited by 442
Kar, A. K., & Kushwaha, A. K. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10219-4 · Cited by 182
Hon, A. H. Y. (2013) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.06.003 · Cited by 86
Mensmann, M., & Frese, M. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2333 · Cited by 75
Ding, N., Chen, M., & Hu, L. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105650 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E., & West, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-145
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2116687005
- Cited by
- 656
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
