36th EGOS Colloquium
Organizing for a Sustainable Future:
Responsibility, Renewal & Resistance
University of Hamburg
July 2–4, 2020
36th EGOS Colloquium
July 2–4, 2020
Research on creativity and innovation has long been catalyzed by the ‘romantic’ view according to which major creative
achievements are sparked by imaginative and uniquely gifted individuals who succeed in bringing novel ideas, categories, projects
or organizational forms to life. Several scholarly contributions have supported this ‘heroic’ view leading to a vibrant body
of work that has enhanced our understanding of the individual dispositions, talents and agency that underlie the emergence
of novelty. Yet, by focusing primarily on the ‘supply side’ of novelty generation, this research has left largely underexplored
another key dimension: the need for recognition, namely the process by which the new and unaccepted is rendered valid and
accepted through the attainment of material and/or symbolic resources from relevant social audiences (Cattani & Ferriani,
2008). Indeed, novelty generation and novelty recognition correspond to two distinct phases of the journey of novelty, from
the moment it emerges to the moment it takes root and propagates (Cattani et al., 2017).
As Staw noted long ago, “few people or organizations really want creativity” (Staw, 1995: 476), which means that some of the most promising ideas are destined to oblivion (Deichmann & Van den Ende, 2014). This problem may by compounded by several factors. Besides simply being overwhelmed by the number of ideas they must sort through (Piezunka & Dahlander, 2015), idea evaluators may not have the capabilities and skills to recognize the value and novelty of an idea (Berg, 2016). In addition, people may have implicit biases against creative ideas (Mueller et al., 2012).
Research has also shown a tendency among managers to favor ideas from people they know or who somehow resemble them (Reitzig & Sorenson, 2013; Aadland et al., 2018). Such in-group biases often persist even after correcting for the quality of an idea. Although a growing number of scholars have started to investigate how creativity is perceived and evaluated (e.g., Mueller et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2017) and have begun to shed light on the factors that lead to a higher accuracy of idea evaluations (Berg, 2016), our understanding of how novel ideas are actually received, perceived, and evaluated is still limited. Thus, a central question is what organizations can do to better recognize novel ideas and support their proponents in implementing those ideas.
We encourage researchers from a diverse array of academic disciplines – including organizational sociology, organizational behavior, strategy and psychology – to submit papers that address this fundamental question. We are open to different types of theoretically grounded empirical work based on qualitative and/or quantitative methods. We especially welcome work that aims to challenge received wisdom in the organizational literature, and recommend submitting papers that are already in advanced state of development. We will place special emphasis on innovative doctoral research that shows potential for contributing to the field in a non-conventional way.
We also look forward to manuscripts whose theoretical perspectives and empirical findings allow comparing practices across different empirical settings. To this end, we would like to solicit conceptual and empirical papers addressing the following or very similar questions:
How can idea inventors overcome the biases for novelty?
What processes enable innovators to reduce or neutralize the resistance of core members of the field?
What institutional conditions facilitate/impede the successful challenge of peripheral actors to the core of a field?
How can organizations create systematic ways to recognize novel ideas?
What are the factors that influence the accuracy of idea evaluations?
Why do some outsiders succeed in disrupting the established way of doing things, while others fail to do so?
How can idea evaluators overcome some of the challenges that are associated with the recognition and evaluation of novel ideas?