The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Employee‐driven innovation: extending the license to foster innovation
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to outline the “grand structure” of the phenomenon in order to identify both the underlying processes and core drivers of employee‐driven innovation (EDI). Design/methodology/approach: This is a conceptual paper. It particularly applies the insights of contemporary research on routine and organizational decision making to the specific case of EDI. Findings: The main result of the paper is that, from a theoretical point of view, it makes perfect sense to involve ordinary employees in innovation decisions. However, it is also outlined that naïve or ungoverned participation is counterproductive, and that it is quite difficult to realize the hidden potential in a supportive way. Research limitations/implications: The main implication is that basic mechanisms for employee participation also apply to innovation decisions, although often in a different way. However, the paper only identifies the grand structure of the phenomenon. The different identified drivers have to be further elaborated and empirically tested. Practical implications: EDI is a helpful tool to gain competitive advantage by utilizing the knowledge and creative potential of employees. Originality/value: This is the first paper that gives a systematic overview of the grand structure of EDI and derives the most important moderating factors from that.
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
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Understanding dynamic capabilities
Winter, S. G. (2003) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.318 · Cited by 5,315
Implicating trust in the innovation process†
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317902321119574 · Cited by 289 · cited 1×
“What critical dimensions does management support involve and how do these dimensions affect EDI? Employees also risk losing face if management ignores their ideas (Clegg et al., 2002), and some employees doubt whether they will receive any benefit or reward for innovative behaviour.”
Background
Cited by
Caputo, F., Cillo, V., Candelo, E., & Liu, Y. (2019) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-07-2018-0833 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Kesting, P., & Parm Ulhøi, J.
- Venue
- Management Decision
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-02-09
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-84
- ISSN
- 0025-1747 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2051969599
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 34.65
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Employee‐driven innovation: extending the license to foster innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/00251741011014463
- The paper
- Kesting, P., & Parm Ulhøi, J. (2010). Employee‐driven innovation: extending the license to foster innovation. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014463
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.