Cited by 48Innovation and Knowledge ManagementTeam Dynamics and PerformanceManagement and Organizational Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring the Tension between Clarity and Ambiguity in Goal Setting for Innovation

Stetler, Katarina Lund, Magnusson, Mats·2015·Creativity and Innovation Management

Abstract

In this article we analyse the role of goal setting for innovation in an R&D context. The literature on goal setting for innovation is inconclusive; some scholars claim that goals should be ambiguous in order to inspire novel ideas, but others claim that clear project goals are important in order to undertake innovation projects in an efficient manner. We aim to explain this inconsistency by taking a more fine‐grained view of innovation where we study goal setting in relation to exploratory aspects such as idea generation separately from exploitatory aspects such as idea implementation. The results from an empirical survey study in the R&D department of an automotive company reveal that a general ambition to be innovative is positively related to all phases of innovation, but the effects of clear project goals are more complex. We found that idea novelty increases under conditions of either high or low levels of goal clarity, whereas mid‐range levels of goal clarity are related to fewer novel ideas. These findings inform existing knowledge about goal setting and innovation, and in particular challenge the body of literature showing that only high levels of ambiguity in goal setting are a fruitful means for innovation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/caim.12102

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00557.x · DOI
  2. Amabile T., 1998, How to Kill Creativity, Harvard Business Review, 76, 77
  3. 10.2307/256995 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Argyris C., 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Research
  5. 10.2307/30040711 · DOI
  6. Birkinshaw J., 2004, Building Ambidexterity into an Organization, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 47
  7. 10.1002/kpm.255 · DOI
  8. 10.1504/IJTM.2003.003391 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0024-6301(90)90151-S · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00509.x · DOI
  11. 10.1142/S0219877008001382 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/1046496495261006 · DOI
  13. 10.1287/orsc.1110.0675 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.06.003 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/258441 · DOI
  16. Drucker P.F., 2002, The Discipline of Innovation, Harvard Business Review, 80, 95
  17. 10.1080/13594329608414845 · DOI
  18. 10.2307/20159573 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/S0263-2373(98)00029-2 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00625.x · DOI
  21. 10.1177/014920639502100603 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/1046496402239575 · DOI
  23. 10.1080/13662710601130830 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00558.x · DOI
  25. 10.2307/2095231 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K · DOI
  27. 10.2307/255381 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1002/smj.4250141009 · DOI
  29. 10.5465/amp.2006.20591002 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80005-9 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1177/014920639402000104 · DOI
  33. 10.1504/IJTM.2008.018073 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00044-3 · DOI
  35. Nonaka I., 1991, The Knowledge‐Creating Company, Harvard Business Review, 69, 96
  36. 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003 · DOI
  38. O'Reilly C.A., 2004, The Ambidextrous Organization, Harvard Business Review, 82, 74
  39. 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.515 · DOI
  40. Sherman S., 1995, Stretch Goals: The Dark Side of Asking for Miracles, Fortune, 132, 231
  41. 10.5465/AMR.2011.61031811 · DOI
  42. 10.1080/1359432X.2011.626244 · DOI
  43. 10.1002/smj.4250171106 · DOI
  44. Takao K.andToshihiko H.(2003)Vehicle Development through ‘Kansei’ Engineering. SAE Technical Paper. · DOI
  45. 10.2307/41165852 · DOI
  46. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.680 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.019 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22004-1 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Stetler, K. L., & Magnusson, M.
Venue
Creativity and Innovation Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-29
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
231-246
ISSN
  • 0963-1690 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8691
OpenAlex
W1600009345
Cited by
48
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Creativity and Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
goal setting, goal clarity, goal ambiguity, innovation, research and development, idea generation, idea implementation, idea novelty, exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, automotive industry

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