Irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com



Open Innovation as a Model for Innovation Management within a Weak Leadership FrameworkMatt Hisrich*University of Maryland University College*Matt Hisrich currently serves as Director of Recruitment and Admissions for Earlham School of Religion in Richmond, Indiana, in the United States. This paper was completed as part of the Doctor of Management program at the University of Maryland University College. Mr. Hisrich also holds a BA in Political Economy from Hillsdale College and an MDiv from Earlham School of Religion. AbstractThis paper is a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of 15 sources (14 published articles and one book chapter) that report on leadership in open innovation management contexts to examine the possible interconnections with a weak leadership framework. This larger framework emerges out of the tradition of weak theology. In this tradition, divine engagement with humanity is invitational rather than forced. Weakness as a form of agency is therefore understood as a positive attribute. Weak theology can be operationalized within an organizational leadership context by drawing upon complementary leadership and management theories including chaos theory, nonrational escalation of commitment, dispersed knowledge, consensus-based decision making, followership, and authentic, processual, and servant leadership. The basic operational assumptions emerging out of these gathered theories in a weak leadership framework include community building, consensus-based decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience. The REA examines each of these in relation to open innovation and demonstrates significant connections with four – community building, nonomniscience, dispersed knowledge, and nonhierarchy – while not ruling out the possibility of significant connections to the remaining two linked premises following further investigation. Practitioners and researchers interested in exploring the operation of open innovation in a weak leadership framework are encouraged to test both of these premises (as well as those with less significant connections) as explicit components of weak leadership to build further evidence for their relative efficacy. Keywords: innovation management, leadership, open innovation, rapid evidence assessment, weak theologyOpen Innovation as a Model for Innovation Management within a Weak Leadership Framework“If you think of God in terms of hierarchical power,” writes philosopher John D. Caputo, “you will naturally be inclined to think of the human order as imaging that order of power” (2006, p. 308). For many people of faith, this can mean human leaders assume the qualities they ascribe to the divine - that leaders are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. As Abramson (2007) demonstrates, however, because of the cultural impact of monotheistic religions in the West such attribution can take on archetypal significance reaching far beyond the confines of regular churchgoers. This mythic hold on the imagination leads us to persist in hoping for all-knowing and all-powerful leaders despite intellectual awareness that this is not the case. As a result, we end up disappointed when our leaders fall short. Thankfully, leadership studies may finally be getting some help from theology. By reframing our understanding of divine attributes, they provide a path whereby we may begin to engage in a similar process with our all-too-human leaders.?In the emerging field of “weak theology,” Caputo and others are outlining just such a case – for a God who operates primarily out of invitation rather than coercion. With weak theology in mind, then, it is possible to develop a complementary framework for organizations – weak leadership.Because of the large nature of the project of developing such a framework, however, the focus of this paper is on only one aspect of organizational leadership within that larger framework: innovation management. Innovation management is a critical area to address for any leadership framework because of its importance to ongoing organizational health in an increasingly dynamic and competitive marketplace (Gummer, 2001; and Abdul Razak, Murray, & Roberts, 2014). On its surface, an open innovation approach that emphasizes uncertainty and dispersed knowledge would seem to be a natural fit with a weak leadership framework. Coined by Henry Chesbrough in his 2003 book of the same name, open innovation (OI) contrasts with a closed approach that handles all innovation development internally. Instead, OI involves “searching for interesting ideas far beyond their organizational boundaries…[and] leveraging their internal ideas outside their own business by using external channels to market” (Vanhaverbeke, Van De Vrande, & Chesbrough, 2008, p. 251). But does such a connection stand up to scrutiny within the research literature? The purpose of this paper is thus to answer the research question (RQ): How does a weak leadership approach to innovation management intersect with open innovation? Providing an answer to this question will provide leaders with a critical resource for effective innovation management within a weak leadership framework and will fill an existing gap in the research literature by pulling together isolated single studies to reveal key insights. This paper begins with a review of the literature on weak leadership and open innovation, then explains the methodology employed in gathering and analyzing a data set of research relevant to the RQ. From there, results are presented and a discussion of those results, implications for research and practice, concluding thoughts, and areas for future research follow.Literature ReviewTheoretical background: The great man and the weak leader. Pulling from multiple theoretical streams it is possible to develop a counter to the dominant image of the strong leader or “great man” (Skidmore, 2006, p. 438) (and it has been understood as men only in the past) – an image that may invite leaders to engage in counterproductive behavior based on an assumption of even relative omniscience that may undermine organizational health (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011). While some may see great men concepts as outmoded, the reality is that they retain a powerful hold on the imagination. This is certainly the case in the popular press. Writing recently in Forbes magazine, for instance, author Brent Gleeson (2016) lists among the 10 qualities of a great leader to: “Have faith in their?beliefs”; “Make the hard choice”; and “Articulate a?clear vision.” In the academic literature, however, there is greater skepticism. In one recent example on innovation in leadership, Malloch (2010) points out that “the industrial age command and control leadership style and supporting infrastructure are ineffective” (p. 1) given new realities of a rapid pace of change, multiple streams of information exchange, and environmental turbulence. The plethora of academic research on less authoritative approaches such as servant leadership and followership serves as evidence of the need for alternatives. But the very nature of this loosely connected collection of theories means that the narrative simplicity of strength maintains popular dominance. While it may be true that the great man theory is “less a theory than a statement of faith,” as Bert Alan Spector (2016) observes, “people seek a narrative structure that brings legitimacy to abstractions, offers coherence in response to apparent chaos, and asserts human agency in the face of seemingly unmanageable complexity” (pp. 251, 258). An alternative framework is therefore needed that gathers these theories together into a cohesive narrative structure. Weak leadership offers such a framework: a more collaborative, flexible, and nonomniscient leader who can facilitate successful outcomes when faced with challenges in managing innovation without reliance upon coercion or positional authority rooted in a hierarchical power structure. To accomplish this, the weak leadership framework draws upon several complementary streams within management theory:chaos theory and nonrational escalation of commitment: the concept that the future is impossible to predict with certainty and that decision makers are likely to act in keeping with previous decisions regardless of new information. This leads to a nonomniscient leadership approach (Bazerman, 2006; Verwey, Crystal, & Bloom, 2002; Thiétart & Forgues, 1995); dispersed knowledge and consensus decision-making: knowledge is not centralized and decision makers can, therefore, improve outcomes by accessing the knowledge of others and pulling them into the decision-making process to the extent possible (Gentry, 1982; Hare, 1973; Hayek, 1945);servant leadership and followership: leaders should prioritize service to employees and followers should actively partner with leaders to improve outcomes. This leads to a noncoercive and nonhierarchical leadership approach (Greenleaf, 2010; Baker, 2007); andauthentic and processual leadership: leaders establish trust and build community by demonstrating that their actions align with their statements not only in isolated incidents but over the course of time (Fraser, 2014; Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006). Together these theories provide the theoretical background for a weak leadership framework. For the purposes of this REA, they also provide the six traits of weak leadership emerging out of this background to be analyzed for their relation to open innovation: community building, consensus-based decision making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience. Theoretical background: Open innovation. Chesbrough’s 2003 book, Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, launched a new paradigm for innovation management research. One indication of this is the number of citations of the book in the research literature - over 4,775 since its publication (Scopus, 2017). OI’s basic assumption is that closed models of innovation – where a firm tightly controls its innovation management process and seeks to limit engagement with other firms through secrecy and legal restrictions – places severe limits on an organization’s ability to innovate in a rapidly developing economy. Instead, organizations should actively seek out new ideas external to the organization, share the risk of developing those ideas, and sell off those ideas that do not directly align with its mission (Chesbrough, 2003). Another indication of OI’s paradigm-shifting influence is its lasting power, of which the data set for this paper provides one example. Far from a flash in the pan, researchers continue to actively reference and explore the concept of open innovation in a variety of contexts. In 2013, for example, Clausen, Korneliussen, and Madsen used the lens of OI to examine 1,000 firms in Norway and concluded that “open exploration and closed exploitation are associated with significantly better technological and market resources” (p. 232). Published a year later, an article from Dries, Pascucci, T?r?k, and Tóth applies the concept of OI to the Hungarian wine industry and determines that approaches may vary based on the age and size of firms. These provide just two examples from a lively research field, which suggests the potential value of utilizing OI’s concepts within a new theoretical framework. Finally, OI’s ongoing evolution as a theory offers an important indication of its vitality and relevance as a new paradigm. While remaining broadly consistent with its general principles, OI has more recently been paired with the concept of real options to enrich its practical application for innovation managers (Vanhaverbeke, et al., 2008). Real options are decisions “that create the right, but not the obligation, to pursue a future decision” (Janney & Dess, 2004, p. 60). As Chesbrough and others have pointed out, real options – with their assumption that the future is not certain and that leaders must make decisions anyway – align well with an OI approach that expands the number and range of opportunities that organizations can test without fully committing to their full development and launch. OI’s development of a model for successfully managing innovation in an uncertain and dynamic landscape and its explicit recognition of dispersed knowledge present the promise of a natural fit with a weak leadership framework. The purpose of this paper is to test whether this connection is legitimate by answering the RQ: How does a weak leadership approach to innovation management intersect with open innovation? The next section provides an overview of the process for this investigation.MethodThis paper employs a rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology to quickly gain insights into the research on the subject through a configurative approach to develop a broad conceptual understanding (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012, pp. 51-52). As the name suggests, REA is appropriate when time limitations prevent more in-depth systematic reviews. Key words used in the search were “open innovation” and “leadership.” The initial search string used in UMUC Library OneSearch was “leadership and ‘open innovation’”. This returned 335 results. After reviewing the first 100 results and eliminating non-English language articles, conferences, dissertations, and periodicals, 44 results remained. A full listing of the research set is included as Appendix A. An initial review of abstracts followed, looking for relevance to the RQ – specifically exploration of leadership within open innovation contexts. This reduced the results to 21, which were then subjected to SCOPUS analysis and full-text review (Scopus, 2017). A weight of evidence assessment based on relevance, rigor, and study design (Appendix B) documents how the initial set was narrowed to the 15 sources (14 articles and one book chapter) most appropriate to address the RQ (Gough et al., 2012, p. 163). A PRISMA chart that provides an overview of the entire search process is included as Appendix C. The next section provides an overview of each of the 15 sources selected for their relevance to answering the RQ regarding the connections between open innovation and weak leadership.ResultsThrough an iterative process of reading and analysis, the 15 sources began to fall into conceptually-themed areas related to the broader topic of innovation management (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The importance of these initial themes is that they serve more to distinguish areas of focus within the data set within which weak leadership traits can be identified than to themselves address outcomes regarding the RQ. These initial themes include the importance of leadership in OI, leaders demonstrating weak leadership attributes but labeled as strong, not-for-profit innovation communities, and articles exploring customer involvement in the innovation process. Each of these themes is covered in this section. The Importance of Leadership in OIThroughout a range of contexts, the literature on open innovation presents a clear case that leadership is a key ingredient in its successful adoption and function. Six of the articles from the data set focus in on this aspect of open innovation. Of significance to this paper, the leadership they describe aligns well with a weak approach. In their 2017 article on innovation strategies for commercialization in Malaysian public universities, Abdul Razak and Murray demonstrate that strategic leadership has “a significant and positive relationship with commercialisation success” in an OI context (p. 306). They suggest that such strategic leadership involves “open communication,” “knowledge sharing,” “research networking,” (p. 306), support of an innovative culture, and conflict management. This research builds upon earlier work on OI by Razak and Murray completed with Roberts in 2014. Here they write that “there are clear links between open innovation and strategic leadership skills” which they link to “an open and collaborative management structure” (p. 265). This is important to the RQ in that their conclusions for leadership in OI connect with the weak leadership concepts of community building, dispersed knowledge, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience.Ahn, Minshall, and Mortara (2017) investigate over 300 Korean small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and uncover a connection to weak leadership’s concepts of community building, dispersed knowledge, and nonomniscience. They first make the crucial point that leaders are “key agents of change” and as such are critical to OI success (p. 735), but then go on to say that no one leader can possess all the attributes necessary to manage innovation. Leaders should thus seek out those with the needed skills that address such deficiencies and complement their own (p. 736). Their research thus highlights important components of the weak leadership framework in that because no one individual can possess all the necessary traits for leadership, an ideal approach involves seeking out complementary skills and insights from others. Put another way, the authors offer an acknowledgment of dispersed knowledge and nonomniscience. They simultaneously lift up both the importance of leadership to OI in bringing about needed change but also that this leadership ought to be of a non-exclusive or authoritative style. Also published in 2017, Chan, Chen, Hung, Tsai, and Chen’s article on OI and team leaders’ innovation traits makes similar observations – that leadership is critical to open innovation management and that its nature is equally important (p. 87). While their study finds that personality traits may have less influence than innovation knowledge and creativity, they point to numerous other studies that demonstrate the importance of leadership approach (p. 95). It is important, therefore, to consider their research in the broader research of the field. As they argue, team leaders play “a collaborative, promoting, coordinating, communicating, and listening role” (p. 88). These characteristics align with the weak leadership traits of community building, dispersed knowledge, and nonomniscience. In a 2013 article by Martin-Rubio, Nogueira-Goriba, and Llach-Pagès, the authors propose a leadership style for successful OI that they label “Management by Values” (p. 6). This style shares some of the key attributes of a weak leadership framework. “Qualitative factors and values such as trust, creativity, honesty or initiative,” they argue, “may be as important as – or even more than – the traditional economic quantitative concepts such as efficiency or return on investment” (p. 6). These factors align most closely with the weak leader attribute of community building.Muller and Hutchins profile Whirlpool’s transition to an OI approach in their 2012 article, and highlight the importance of collaboration and relationship-building to the success of their effort. The mantra of Whirlpool during the transition became “we win together” (p. 37). Of note along these lines is that Whirlpool’s approach to open innovation relies less on eliminating competitors and more on working with smaller companies in ways that allow them the opportunity to grow alongside Whirlpool (p. 41). In this way, Whirlpool demonstrates weak leadership attributes of community building, dispersed knowledge, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience.Rus, Wisse, and Rietzschel (2016) contribute a chapter on leadership to a larger volume on OI and suggest that understanding the unique leadership approach necessary for OI contexts can make the difference between successful and unsuccessful transitions from closed to open models. They emphasize the need to develop a shared identity in part through personal communication with employees, building buy-in from the bottom up (even including OI opponents in early decision-making), and collaborative information sharing. They also suggest offering both monetary and non-monetary (e.g., praise and recognition) incentives for bringing in external innovation and engaging in in-house collaboration (p. 157). In this way, the authors offer the only example in this data set of research that supports all six weak leadership attributes: community building, consensus-based decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience.Each of these six articles points to the critical role leaders play in managing innovation in an open context. While not explicitly connected to a weak leadership framework, the language they use to describe this leadership function nonetheless did not rely heavily on the great man paradigm. This was not always the case with the articles, as the next section demonstrates. “Weak” Strong LeadersIn several articles, there appeared to be a tendency to use descriptive language that aligned with a weak leadership framework but to nonetheless label leaders who employed these approaches as strong. This tension suggests that the language around leadership in OI contexts may be in flux as researchers fall back on the traditional great man narrative to understand an emerging reality that needs a new theoretical framework.Cora and Tan??u (2013) provide one such example with their examination of 211 Romanian SMEs engaging in open innovation through the lens of risk management. They emphasize the importance of collaboration, people empowerment, and open communication. These factors are relevant to employees, clients, and customers, and indeed the authors argue that these various strands of information are critical to maintaining an ongoing flow of innovative ideas (pp. 319-320). The authors default to the use of “strong leadership” (p. 321) language while at the same time outlining skills of community building, dispersed knowledge, and nonomniscience more clearly associated with a weak leadership framework. In their 2010 case study of Fiat’s transition to an OI model, Di Minin, Frattini, and Piccaluga adopt a similar position to Cora and Tan??u (2013) – essentially that by exhibiting weak leadership attributes such as community building, nonomniscience, and the recognition of dispersed knowledge, CEO Gian Carlo Michellone was actually a “tough” leader (p. 157). The picture they paint is thus more nuanced than their rhetoric lets on, such as when they state that “Mr. Michellone dedicated the first four years of his tenure to building and nurturing extensive relationships” (p. 137) with external firms, universities, and regulators. The critical point here is not that weak leadership cannot be visionary, but that it is built more on broad community engagement and relationship than sheer force of individual will. Traitler, Watzke, and Saguy (2011) profile Nestlé’s embrace of open innovation through Nestlé’s Innovation Partnerships and Sharing-is-Winning model, and like Di Minin, Frattini, and Piccaluga (2010) and Cora and Tan??u (2013) suggest that the transition is the product of strong leadership to drive it through (p. 63). And yet, they emphasize the importance of allowing failure, sharing ownership of ideas, opening innovation to consumer and academia involvement, and removing hierarchical thinking. Thus the leadership they end up describing includes weak concepts of community building, dispersed knowledge, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience.In these articles, successful OI leadership centers on the figure of a central authority – often a male. Perhaps because of cultural assumptions or ill-fitting but nonetheless still dominant theories, the authors present internally conflicting narratives of strong men engaged in soft skills of relationship and community building to bring about innovation in new contexts. The examples provided, however, do not exhaust the possibilities for organizational structure and lines of authority. For other options, we turn to the next section. Innovation Communities and Living LabsInnovation communities and living labs offer examples of both not-for-profit and for-profit collections of various organizations that work collaboratively to bring about innovation. These can include loosely-networked volunteers working on an internet project such as Wikipedia, for example, or regional networks of businesses, nonprofits, and universities. Such communities provide fascinating examples of how both open innovation and weak leadership can present new models for organizational structure as well as interactions across organizational lines. Fleming and Waguespack (2007) focus their attention on open innovation communities through an analysis of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and suggest that technical proficiency and social capital are far more important determinants of leadership in these voluntary hi-tech contexts than presumptions of hierarchy or authority. It is important to distinguish these unpaid communities of innovators who seek to distribute innovations free of charge from for-profit industries. Nonetheless, there may be lessons applicable to leadership in OI settings generally, particularly the focus on human capital – flatter, nonhierarchical structure where authority granted is earned rather than positional, transparent communication, collaboration, and community building (p. 178). Hawk, Bartle, and Romine explore the world of “living labs” in their 2012 study. These are “open innovation ecosystems, in which stakeholders (universities, businesses, organizations, researchers, government entities, community members, and customer end-users) collaborate to develop products or applications” (p. 227). They describe leadership in this context as more humble facilitation than hierarchical ordering, with a focus on fostering collaboration. The main focus of their study is the Lutakko Living Lab in Finland, whose project director cites both followership and servant leadership as influences (p. 228). Thus, the article points to OI leadership connections to a weak leadership framework through nonomniscience, nonhierarchy, noncoercion, and community building. Also published in 2012, Hentonnen, Pussinen, and Koivum?ki investigate six software companies in the United Kingdom that rely on free and open source software, or FLOSS, as part of their innovation strategies. The authors divide this community into two broad camps – those that engage in knowledge co-creation and those who focus on knowledge exploitation. The latter they describe not as true open innovators, but instead “external innovators,” who seek the benefits of external innovation without opening themselves up to outside influence or contributing to the development of innovation of others. The authors suggest that external innovators devote time and resources to avoid the legal risks of exploitation while open innovators devote sufficient time and resources to community engagement, reciprocity, and shared innovation that these risks rarely become problematic. All weak leadership traits but consensus-based decision making are therefore apparent in this OI context.Olilla and Ystr?m’s 2017 article on leadership in open innovation network collaborations stresses the importance of relational skills in a context where the authority may not be available to control processes. In this situation of uncertainty, trust is critical. The authors identify three roles for innovation managers: facilitator, tactician, and sensegiver (or interpersonal, decisional, and informational). “This suggests a change from a vertical perspective on management in the context of open innovation collaboration, emphasizing structure and order,” they write, “to a horizontal perspective, emphasizing processes and relations that include relations beyond the boundaries of the collaboration (p. 249). In other words, the authors affirm weak leadership attributes of nonhierarchy, noncoercion, nonomniscience, dispersed knowledge, and community building.These four studies demonstrate not only that functional organizational situations exist in which there may not be a centrally directed authority structure, but that these situations can lead to productive outcomes. Successful management of innovation in these contexts, however, requires approaches that emphasize many of the traits associated with weak leadership. The next section explores these concepts when applied to customer involvement. Customer Involvement in InnovationA nonhierarchical, nonomniscient approach to innovation management that understands knowledge is often dispersed far beyond organizational boundaries could very well look to the consumers of its innovations for ideas in addition to trying to develop them either internally or in collaboration with other producers. Such an inclusive innovation approach, however, can present new challenges. Two articles from this data set offer something of a point-counterpoint on the subject. Published in 2011, Giannopoulou, Ystr?m, and Olilla’s article on open innovation and management argues that companies should not only involve customers in all stages of product innovation but even delegate some measure of authority and control to them because of the nature of dispersed knowledge (p. 514). Internally and externally, leaders are encouraged to engage in relationship building and foster a culture of fun, creativity, and trust to facilitate innovation (p. 519). Weak leadership traits are thus referenced in the form of dispersed knowledge and community building.Chou, Yang, and Jhan (2015) offer the counterweight to a Giannopoulou, Ystr?m, and Olilla’s 2011 article on engaging customers in the innovation process with their caution that while those customers whose ideas or selections get carried forward into product launches may have a stronger sense of loyalty to a company, the opposite is true for those whose selections are not developed further (p. 179). This indicates that there may be limits to the value of customer involvement in OI, even while it may be true that customers provide access to dispersed knowledge leaders cannot otherwise obtain. A possible area of further research could follow from this in that both internal product innovation processes, as well as external processes involving multiple firms, may be subject to similar positive/negative effects in an OI context that could undermine some of the long-term value of OI.The broad conclusions from all four of these conceptual areas (the importance of leadership in OI, leaders demonstrating weak leadership attributes but labeled as strong, not-for-profit innovation communities, and articles exploring customer involvement in the innovation process) are thatsuccessful OI management is dependent on good leadership;the language around leadership in this context appears to be in flux;the basic principles of weak leadership apply in both profit-driven and not-for-profit OI settings; andcustomer involvement in innovation may not be without its drawbacks, some of which raise important questions for OI generally. The next section will cover the collected value of these article results to the RQ. DiscussionTogether, these 15 results demonstrate common themes and point toward practical guidance for leaders seeking to apply a weak innovation framework within an open innovation management context. To begin, it is possible to count the frequency with which components of the weak leadership framework are referenced positively within the total data set. Table 1 provides an overview of the results of this analysis. Table 1Weak leadership trait appearance ??TraitTotal # of links % of total (15) Studies citing (#'s align with WoE Table)Community building1493 1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,16,18,21Dispersed knowledge1173 1,2,4,6,7,9,11,15,16,18,21Nonomniscience1173 1,2,4,6,7,10,11,15,16,18,21Nonhierarchy 960 1,2,8,10,11,15,16,18,21Noncoercion427 10,11,16,18Consensus decision 17 18As Table 1 indicates, community building is the most referenced weak leadership attribute in the data set. It is important to recognize that this is not simply a phrase frequency count. Instead, this is a count of how many studies in their entirety affirm a particular trait as being effective within an OI context. In the case of community building, 14 out of 15 sources do so – or 93 percent of the total data set for this REA. Dispersed knowledge and nonomniscience follow in the ranking with 11 references each, or 73 percent of the total. Nonhierarchy also emerges as a well-represented trait, appearing in nine studies out of the 15, or 60 percent. After this, the appearance of the remaining traits drops off sharply – with noncoercion referenced in only four articles (27 percent) and consensus decision making referenced in a single article only (7 percent of the total). Using over 50 percent as a threshold provides the opportunity to distinguish between highly significant attributes and those which – while they may still be significant – are clearly less so based on this data set. These results suggest that the most effective practices to focus on for weak leadership in an OI management context (and likely leadership generally) are working to build community (internally and externally), operating from an assumption of nonomniscience (that leaders do not have access to all available information), as well as an assumption of dispersed knowledge (that critical information for innovation management is likely to be found throughout an organization and in the broader community of clients, external partners, and customers), and employing a nonhierarchical organization structure. Figure 1 graphically depicts the application of these three practices or traits together, weighted according to priority.0396240Figure 1. Attributes of a weak leadership framework working together in an open innovation context.00Figure 1. Attributes of a weak leadership framework working together in an open innovation context.A word of caution is in order in terms of rejecting noncoercion and consensus-based decision making altogether. None of the studies included in the set were specifically directed toward analysis of the weak leadership framework as a whole, and limited attention was devoted to either how decisions were made or enforced in these organizations. Additional research would be worthwhile to explore both components as well as how these various components work together rather than in isolation. This observation leads into the next sections on implications for research and practice.Implications for Research A positive finding from this REA is that the research into leadership in OI contexts is a live field. Without screening by date, many of the articles found in the initial search were published after 2010, and several have been published this year. As Giannopoulou et al. (2011) observe, however, “not many authors provide empirical examples about how leadership is important for OI” (p. 516). This is evidence both that the research is not settled, and the field is ripe for the development and testing of frameworks for understanding and practice. Another potentially positive finding is the apparent tension in language between the practices scholars describe and how scholars label those practices. Distinguishing between vision and strength, for instance, is an important clarification that points to the difference between personal traits and how those traits can be acted upon in an OI context. The research simply does not support strong leadership as traditionally understood within a top-down, command and control framework. Developing new language to describe what traits and practices are effective in an OI context is critical, and weak leadership may provide one framework to do so. Implications for PracticeFor innovation management practitioners, implications for practice flow from the REA’s implications for research. First, this REA points to the importance of either continuing to pursue – or beginning to transition to – supportive community cultures of innovation both within one’s organization as well as within the broader group of stakeholders with which one’s organization interacts and relies upon for innovative ideas. Second, language matters. Rus et al. (2016) talk about the importance of being “artful communicators” and “effective vision communicators” (p. 147). Continuing to describe the navigation skills necessary to survive and thrive in the networked world of OI primarily in terms of strength, dominance, obedience, competition, and control is inappropriate and affects what kind of culture and community is cultivated internally and with external partners. Nestlé’s “Sharing-is-Winning” (Traitler et al., 2011, p. 63), and Whirlpool’s “we win together” (Muller &Hutchins, 2012, p. 37) models are prime examples of this important shift in language. LimitationsOpen innovation as a model for innovation management seems to fit well within a weak leadership framework. The overlap, though, is not currently complete. It may be that traits important to weak leadership such as noncoercion and consensus-based decision making are points of genuine tension between the two. A related limitation of language became apparent in this REA, in that the nascent concept of weak leadership and its terminology is not in widespread use. Interpreting characteristics labeled as strong by other authors as part of the weak leadership framework is, therefore, a reinterpretation with which those authors might not agree. This REA was not able to fully explore these questions. This leads to a general limitation of the REA approach, which is to yield evidence-based answers to research questions in a relatively short span of time. While evidence clearly informs conclusions through an REA, the limited evidence necessarily lessens the weight of any conclusions drawn. While objectivity and transparency were goals throughout the REA, viewing evidence through the lens of a particular theoretical framework – in this case, weak leadership – by its very nature colors the investigation and interpretation effort. Conclusion“It is very tempting psychologically to transfer the authoritative power of God to worldly authority, to pass from the paradigm of the celestial sovereignty of the ‘Father’ in heaven to the terrestrial sovereignty of earthly fathers,” writes John Caputo. “It is not enough to relativize [one] while maintaining [the other]. The problem lies with the paradigm of sovereignty itself” (p. 53). Weak leadership challenges this paradigm of sovereignty directly. As a broad theoretical framework, however, it does not necessarily offer practical guidance to specific managerial questions. This REA is intended to provide such guidance for one of those questions – the critically important management of innovation. The purpose of this paper was thus to answer the research question (RQ): How does a weak leadership approach to innovation management intersect with open innovation? The primary point of intersection is in the importance of community building. In descending order of priority, operating out of an understanding of dispersed knowledge and nonomniscience follow closely in importance, and a nonhierarchical style of leadership follows these. All are referenced positively in a majority of the research cited as part of this REA. Two other attributes of weak leadership – noncoercion and consensus-based decision making, failed to meet this threshold. Leaders seeking to manage innovation efforts out of a weak leadership framework can adopt an open innovation approach with a clear sense that it aligns well. For the greatest likelihood of success based on the evidence in this REA, their attention should focus primarily on the four most heavily represented attributes: community building, nonomniscience, dispersed knowledge, and nonhierarchy. Answering this RQ is significant because innovation is necessary for the ongoing health and vitality of organizations, and this is no less true for those seeking to live into a weak leadership framework than any other. Open innovation offers a compelling methodology for weak leadership to manage ongoing innovation that fits well with its foundational premises. Perhaps especially, this includes its core assumption that the exercise of strength as traditionally understood does not translate into productive organizational or social outcomes – even if this is a cultural paradigm rooted in some of the deepest theological foundations of Western society. Future ResearchThere is a wealth of opportunities for future research flowing out of the initial research presented in this REA. First, as mentioned earlier the work of Chou et al. (2015) suggests that customer involvement with innovation may present a double-edged sword to organizations. It offers the opportunity to build greater loyalty with customers whose ideas win, but perhaps at the cost of undermining it with those whose ideas lose out. Additional research is warranted on this effect and its broader implications for internal idea generation as well as the management of potentially numerous external partners that feed and disseminate innovations to an organization in an OI environment. Second, the weighting of traits of weak leadership in the OI leadership literature is clear, but it is less clear what factors lay behind the absence of some traits. Is it because these are less effective traits or simply because they have not been explicitly researched? Third, how these traits interact and either build upon one another or not merits further investigation. Is it possible to engage in unilateral decision-making and coercive leadership practices, for example, while seeking to build community, operate nonhierarchically, and acknowledge nonomniscience and dispersed knowledge? Finally, the question of language in leadership presents a potentially fruitful area for future research. If we are in fact experiencing a paradigm shift in the qualities necessary to manage innovation given present (and likely future) realities, how has our language of leadership already begun to change to reflect that shift? In what ways might further change still be necessary?ReferencesAbdul Razak, A., & Murray, P. A. (2017). Innovation strategies for successful commercialisation in public universities. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(3), 296–314. Razak, A., Murray, P. A., & Roberts, D. (2014). Open innovation in universities: The relationship between innovation and commercialisation. Knowledge and Process Management, 21(4), 260–269. , N. (2007). The leadership archetype: A Jungian analysis of similarities between modern leadership theory and the Abraham myth in the Judaic–Christian tradition.?Journal of Business Ethics,?72(2), 115-129. Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2017). Understanding the human side of openness: The fit between open innovation modes and CEO characteristics. R&D Management, 47(5), 727–740. , S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct.?Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50-60.? Bazerman, M.H. (2006)?Judgment in managerial decision making. New York, NY: Wiley.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.?Qualitative Research in Psychology,?3(2), 77-101. Caputo, J. D. (2006).?The weakness of God: A theology of the event. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Chan, W.-C., Chen, P.-C., Hung, S.-W., Tsai, M.-C., & Chen, T.-K. (2017). Open innovation and team leaders’ innovation traits. Engineering Management Journal, 29(2), 87–98. , H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.Chou, C., Yang, K. P., & Jhan, J. (2015). Empowerment strategies for ideation through online communities. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 169–181. , T. H., Korneliussen, T., & Madsen, E. L. (2013). Modes of innovation, resources and their influence on product innovation: Empirical evidence from R&D active firms in Norway. Technovation, 33(6–7), 225–233. , E., & Tan??u, A. (2013). A risk mitigation model in SMEs open innovation projects. Management & Marketing, 8(6), 303–328. Retrieved from Minin, A., Frattini, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2010). Fiat: Open innovation in a downturn (1993–2003). California Management Review, 52(3), 132–159. , L., Pascucci, S., T?r?k, ?., & Tóth, J. (2014). Keeping your secrets public? Open versus closed innovation processes in the Hungarian wine sector. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(1), 147–162. Retrieved from Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180. , Sherry. (2014). "Authentic Leadership in Higher Education: Influencing the Development of Future Leaders" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY. Retrieved from? Gentry, M. E. (1982). Consensus as a form of decision making.?Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,?9(2), 233-244. Retrieved from , E., Ystr?m, A., & Olilla, S. (2011). Turning open innovation into practice: Open innovation research through the lens of managers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 505–524. , B. (2016, November 9). 10 unique perspectives on what makes a great leader. Forbes. Retrieved from , D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012).?An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.Greenleaf, R. K. (2010).?Servant leadership. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.),?Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era?(2nd?ed., pp. 87-95).?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gummer, B. (2001). Innovate or die: the necessity for change in contemporary organizations.?Administration in Social Work,?25(3), 65-84. Hare, A. P. (1973). Group decision by consensus: Reaching unity in the Society of Friends.?Sociological Inquiry,?43(1), 75-84. , N., Bartle, G., & Romine, M. (2012). The living labs: Innovation in real-life settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(4), 225–231. Retrieved from , F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society.?American Economic Review,?35(4), 519-530. , K., Pussinen, P., & Koivum?ki, T. (2012). Managerial perspective on open source collaboration and networked innovation. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(3), 135–147. , B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness.?Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,?84(2), 347-381. Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2004). Can real-options analysis improve decision-making? Promises and pitfalls. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 60–75. Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" word in higher education.?ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(6), 1-218. , K. (2010). Innovation leadership: New perspectives for new work.?Nursing Clinics of North America,?45(1), 1-9. , I., Nogueira-Goriba, J., & Llach-Pagès, J. (2013). Open innovation: Leadership and values. Dyna (Spain), 88(6), 679–684. D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7): e1000097. Muller, A., & Hutchins, N. (2012). Open innovation helps Whirlpool Corporation discover new market opportunities. Strategy & Leadership, 40(4), 36–42. , S., & Ystr?m, A. (2017). An investigation into the roles of open innovation collaboration managers. R&D Management, 47(2), 236–252. , D., Wisse, B., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2016). An open invitation to open innovation: Guidelines for the leadership of open innovation processes. In A. B. Markman (Ed.),?Open innovation: Academic and practical perspectives on the journey from idea to market?(pp. 141-167). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. . (2017). Complexity?Theory?and Organization Science. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from , M. S.?(2006). Great Man Theory. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 438-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered.?Leadership,?12(2), 250-260. étart, R. A., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization.?Organization Science, 6(1), 19-31.?, H., Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011). Reinventing R&D in an open innovation ecosystem. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), R62–R68. , W., Van De Vrande, V., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2008). Understanding the advantages of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(4), 251–258. , P. S., Crystal, A., & Bloom, E. (2002). Chaos and crisis: The Swiss Bank case study.?Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory & Research,?28(2), 28-42. AInitial Search Results (Articles with * included in discussion section)*ADDIN Mendeley Bibliography CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdul Razak, A., & Murray, P. A. (2017). Innovation strategies for successful commercialisation in public universities. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(3), 296–314. Razak, A., Murray, P. A., & Roberts, D. (2014). Open innovation in universities: The relationship between innovation and commercialisation. Knowledge and Process Management, 21(4), 260–269. , A.-H. G., & Lee, J. (2012). Open innovation management: Challenges and prospects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 130–138. é, M., Ystr?m, A., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 1-24. *Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2017). Understanding the human side of openness: The fit between open innovation modes and CEO characteristics. R&D Management, 47(5), 727–740. Batisti?, S., ?erne, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A document co-citation analysis 1980–2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86–103. , A., & Hegde, D. (2014). An organizational perspective on patenting and open innovation. Organization Science, 25(6), 1744–1763. , M., & Riandita, A. (2015). Stakeholders’ collaboration on innovation in food industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 395–399. , A. C., Sousa, C., & Sousa, C. P. de. (2017). Open innovation practices in strategic partnerships of cloud computing providers. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 12(2), 59–67. *Chan, W.-C., Chen, P.-C., Hung, S.-W., Tsai, M.-C., & Chen, T.-K. (2017). Open innovation and team leaders’ innovation traits. Engineering Management Journal, 29(2), 87–98. *Chou, C., Yang, K. P., & Jhan, J. (2015). Empowerment strategies for ideation through online communities. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 169–181. *Cora, E., & Tan??u, A. (2013). A risk mitigation model in SMEs open innovation projects. Management & Marketing, 8(6), 303–328. Retrieved from Graaf, R., & Van Der Duin, P. (2013). Collective innovation: A new approach for dealing with society induced challenges. A case study in the Dutch bakery sector. Physics Procedia, 75(75), 139–145. *Di Minin, A., Frattini, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2010). Fiat: Open innovation in a downturn (1993–2003). California Management Review, 52(3), 132–159. , M., & Bevis, K. (2014). Networking innovation in the European car industry: Does the open innovation model fit? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 69, 252–271. *Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180. *Giannopoulou, E., Ystr?m, A., & Olilla, S. (2011). Turning open innovation into practice: Open innovation research through the lens of managers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 505–524. ález-Sánchez, R., & García-Mui?a, F. E. (2011). Open innovation: A preliminary model from the knowledge-based theory. Intangible Capital, 7(1), 82–115. *Hawk, N., Bartle, G., & Romine, M. (2012). The living labs: Innovation in real-life settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(4), 225–231. Retrieved from *Henttonen, K., Pussinen, P., & Koivum?ki, T. (2012). Managerial perspective on open source collaboration and networked innovation. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(3), 135–147. , J. (2005). Open innovation or open house: how to protect your most valuable assets. Medical Device Technology, 16(3), 30–1. Retrieved from , A. (2016). Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-supportive climate. Management Decision, 54(9), 2277–2293. , K., Gopal, A., & Hoberg, G. (2016). Does product market competition drive CVC investment? Evidence from the U.S. IT industry. Information Systems Research, 27(2), 259–281. , D., & Guimont, D. (2015). Open innovation practices adopted by private stakeholders: perspectives for living labs. Info, 17(4), 67–80. , S.-M., & Shin, J. (2017). A path to collaborative innovation through internal boundary breaking: open innovation tools applied within the organization helped LG Chem Research Park build a culture that nurtures collaborative innovation. Research-Technology Management, 60(4). , S., & Warren, L. (2017). A mapping for managers: Open innovation for R&D intensive SMEs in the life sciences sector. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(2), 210–229. *Martin-Rubio, I., Nogueira-Goriba, J., & Llach-Pagès, J. (2013). Open innovation: Leadership and values. Dyna (Spain), 88(6), 679–684. , K., Mcadam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A., & Puthusserry, P. (2016). Knowledge transfer in university quadruple helix ecosystems: An absorptive capacity perspective. R&D Management, 46(2), 383–399. , P.A., Moattar Husseini, S.M., and Arasti, M.R. (2012). General cybernetic model for innovation network management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 577–586. *Muller, A., & Hutchins, N. (2012). Open innovation helps Whirlpool Corporation discover new market opportunities. Strategy & Leadership, 40(4), 36–42. , A., Hutchins, N., & Cardoso Pinto, M. (2012). Applying open innovation where your company needs it most. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 35–42. *Ollila, S., & Ystr?m, A. (2017). An investigation into the roles of open innovation collaboration managers. R&D Management, 47(2), 236–252. , A., Bogers, M., & Bilberg, A. (2017). Creating and capturing value in a regional innovation ecosystem: A study of how manufacturing SMEs develop collaborative solutions. International Journal of Technology Management., 75(1/2/3/4), 1–34. , J. (2011). Innovation for survival: From cooperation to collaboration. Advances in Librarianship, 34(2011), 207–224. (2011)0000034013Rufat‐Latre, J., Muller, A., & Jones, D. (2010). Delivering on the promise of open innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 38(6), 23–28. *Rus, D., Wisse, B., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2016). An open invitation to open innovation: Guidelines for the leadership of open innovation processes. In A. B. Markman (Ed.),?Open innovation: Academic and practical perspectives on the journey from idea to market?(pp. 141-167). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. Saguy, S. I. (2011). Academia-industry innovation interaction: Paradigm shifts and avenues for the future. Procedia Food Science, 1, 1875–1882. , T. O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M. I., & Dopson, S. (2013). When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 659–676. , G. (2014). The new leadership model of university management for innovation and entrepreneurship. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 57(57), 73–90. , M., & Von Kortzfleisch, H. (2015). Firms’ resource deployment and project leadership in open source software development. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 12(2), 1550010 1-18. , U., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F., & Scalera, V. G. (2016). Investigating the influence of technology inflows on technology outflows in open innovation processes: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 652–669. *Traitler, H., Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011). Reinventing R&D in an open innovation ecosystem. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), R62–R68. , D. M., & Fleming, L. (2009). Scanning the commons? Evidence on the benefits to startups participating in open standards development. Management Science, 55(2), 210–223. , E., Parise, S., De Valk, J., & Aalbers, R. (2011). Creating employee networks that deliver open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1), 37–44. Retrieved from BWeight of Evidence Analysis Table (Articles with * included in discussion section)#StudyWoE A: Relevance to the reviewWoE B: Rigor or soundness of methodology and publicationWoE C: Appropriateness of study design for reviewScore1*Abdul Razak, A., & Murray, P. A. (2017)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Listed in Scopus, but no citations (new article).High: Survey of academics in Malaysian public universities about commercialization success of innovation effortsHigh2Abdul Razak, A., Murray, P. A., & Roberts, D. (2014)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextMedium: Literature review to develop hypotheses which were not tested. Published in a peer-reviewed journal. One citation in Scopus – ranked in 30th percentile for citations.Medium: Literature review to develop hypotheses which were not tested.Medium-High3*Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2017)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in peer-reviewed journal. Listed in Scopus, but no citations (new article).High: Survey of 306 Korean manufacturing and innovation-oriented SME CEOs compared to performance dataHigh4*Chan, W.-C., Chen, P.-C., Hung, S.-W., Tsai, M.-C., & Chen, T.-K. (2017)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results published in a peer-reviewed journal. Listed in Scopus, but no citations (new article).High: Survey results from a sample of university professors, principal investigators at research institutes, and senior executivesHigh5*Chou, C., Yang, K. P., & Jhan, J. (2015)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in peer-reviewed journal. One citation in Scopus - 50th percentile.High: Lab tests with students regarding online purchasesHigh6*Cora, E., & Tan??u, A. (2013)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in peer-reviewed journal. Not listed in Scopus.High: Survey of 211 Romanian SMEs regarding risk management in OI contextHigh7*Di Minin, A., Frattini, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2010)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear approach in a peer-reviewed journal. 39 citations in Scopus, 88th percentile.High: Case study of a prominent firm’s transition to OIHigh8*Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI context, albeit in a voluntary setting Medium: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. 243 citations, 98th percentile in Scopus.High: Case study of a prominent open innovation communityHigh9*Giannopoulou, E., Ystr?m, A., & Olilla, S. (2011)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in peer-reviewed journal. 36 citations, 99th percentile in Scopus.High: Literature review of research on OI, part of which specifically focuses on leadership High10*Hawk, N., Bartle, G., & Romine, M. (2012)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Not listed in Scopus.High: Literature review and interviewHigh11*Henttonen, K., Pussinen, P., & Koivum?ki, T. (2012)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Three citations, 45th percentile in Scopus.High: Comparative study of six case companies utilizing open source software, including analysis of leadership approachesHigh12Khalili, A. (2016)Medium: Relevant to leadership in innovation context, but not specific to OIHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Three citations, 55th percentile in Scopus.High: Survey of employees in multiple companies in IranHigh-Medium13Marangos, S., & Warren, L. (2017)Low: Looks at OI strategies, but does not address leadership High: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Listed in Scopus, but no citations (new article).Low: Interviews with CEOs from SME life sciences firms in the UK, but not about leadership style or approachMedium-Low14*Martin-Rubio, I., Nogueira-Goriba, J., & Llach-Pagès, J. (2013)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI context High: Theory development in a peer-reviewed journal. Listed in Scopus, but no citations.High: Literature and theory development regarding leadership in OI contextHigh15*Muller, A., & Hutchins, N. (2012)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Two citations, 35th percentile in Scopus.High: Case study of a prominent firm’s transition to OIHigh16*Ollila, S., & Ystr?m, A. (2017)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Three citations, but not yet ranked in Scopus (new article).High: Case study of the senior leadership of two firms employing OIHigh17Rufat‐Latre, J., Muller, A., & Jones, D. (2010)Medium: Includes brief mentions of need for change in leadership approachMedium: Minimal data, but in a peer-reviewed journal. Fifteen citations, 70th percentile in Scopus.Low: Overview of OI companies with author observationsMedium-Low18*Rus, D., Wisse, B., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2016)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextHigh: Well-documented book chapter in a university press text on OI.High: Well-researched overview of necessary leadership qualities for OI High19Sart, G. (2014)Medium: Relevant to leadership in innovation context, but not specific to OIHigh: Clear methods and results in peer-reviewed journal. Two citations, 45th percentile in ScopusHigh: Survey of graduate students and faculty in TurkeyHigh-Medium20Schaarschmidt, M., & Von Kortzfleisch, H. (2015)Low: Analysis of paid vs. unpaid leadership in open-source software (OSS) developmentHigh: Clear methods and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Two citations, 60th percentile in Scopus.Low: Analysis of one firm’s balance of control vs. access to innovation in an OSS context, not focused on leadership qualities or characteristicsMedium-Low21*Traitler, H., Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011)High: Directly relevant to leadership in OI contextMedium: Highly cited case study in a peer-reviewed journal. 27 citations, 80th percentile in Scopus.High: Case study of a prominent firm’s transition to OIHighAppendix CPRISMA Flow Chart (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, The PRISMA Group, 2009)Figure C1.?The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) diagram shows the author’s search strategy. Adapted from “The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement”, by D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altmann, and The PRISMA Group, 2009,?PLoS Med, 6, p. 3, Copyright 2009 by The PRISMA Group. Adapted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download