trust-embedded open innovation: towards a human

Transcription

1
Dimitrios G. Salampasis
TRUST-EMBEDDED OPEN INNOVATION:
TOWARDS A HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH IN
THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY
Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Industrial Engineering and
Management) to be presented with due permission for public examination
and criticism in the Auditorium 1382, Skinnarilankatu 34, at the Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, on the 16th of November
2015, at 12:00.
Acta Universitatis
Lappeenrantaensis 668
P a g e |2
2
Academic Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Marko Torkkeli
Lappeenranta University of Technology
Finland
Co-Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Anne-Laure Mention
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology
Luxembourg
University of Liege
Belgium
Reviewers
Prof. Dr. Tõnis Mets
Queensland University of Technology
Australia
Prof. Dr. Urs Daellenbach
Victoria University of Wellington
New Zealand
Opponent
Prof. Dr. Patrick Schueffel
Hochschule für Wirtschaft Freiburg
Switzerland
ISBN 978-952-265-869-2
ISBN 978-952-265-870-8 (PDF)
ISSN-L 1456-4491
ISSN 1456-4491
Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto
Yliopistopaino 2015
P a g e |3
3
ABSTRACT
Dimitrios Salampasis
Trust Embedded Open Innovation: Human-Centricity in the Financial
Industry
Lappeenranta: 2015
199 p.
Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaesis 668
Diss. Lappeenranta University of Technology
ISBN 978-952-265-869-2, ISBN 978-952-265-870-8 (PDF), ISSN-L 1456-4491,
ISSN 1456-4491
Globalization and interconnectedness in the worldwide sphere have changed the
existing and prevailing modus operandi of organizations around the globe and have
challenged existing practices along with the business as usual mindset. There are no
rules in terms of creating a competitive advantage and positioning within an
unstable, constantly changing and volatile globalized business environment. The
financial industry, the locomotive or the flagship industry of global economy,
especially, within the aftermath of the financial crisis, has reached a certain point
trying to recover and redefine its strategic orientation and positioning within the
global business arena.
Innovation has always been a trend and a buzzword and by many has been
considered as the ultimate answer to any kind of problem. The mantra Innovate or
Die has been prevailing in any organizational entity in a, sometimes, ruthless
endeavour to develop cutting-edge products and services and capture a landmark
position in the market. The emerging shift from a closed to an open innovation
paradigm has been considered as new operational mechanism within the
management and leadership of the company of the future. To that respect, open
innovation has been experiencing a tremendous growth research trajectory by
putting forward a new way of exchanging and using surplus knowledge in order to
sustain innovation within organizations and in the level of industry.
P a g e |4
4
In the abovementioned reality, there seems to be something missing: the human
element. This research, by going beyond the traditional narratives for open
innovation, aims at making an innovative theoretical and managerial contribution
developed and grounded on the on-going discussion regarding the individual and
organizational barriers to open innovation within the financial industry. By
functioning across disciplines and researching out to primary data, it debunks the
myth that open innovation is solely a knowledge inflow and outflow mechanism and
sheds light to the understanding on the why and the how organizational open
innovation works by enlightening the broader dynamics and underlying principles of
this fascinating paradigm.
Little attention has been given to the role of the human element, the foundational
pre-requisite of trust encapsulated within the precise and fundamental nature of
organizing for open innovation, the organizational capabilities, the individual
profiles of open innovation leaders, the definition of open innovation in the realms
of the financial industry, the strategic intent of the financial industry and the need
for nurturing a societal impact for human development. To that respect, this research
introduces the trust-embedded approach to open innovation as a new insightful way
of organizing for open innovation. It unveils the peculiarities of the corporate and
individual spheres that act as a catalyst towards the creation of productive open
innovation activities. The incentive of this research captures the fundamental
question revolving around the need for financial institutions to recognise the
importance for organizing for open innovation. The overarching question is why and
how to create a corporate culture of openness in the financial industry, an
organizational environment that can help open innovation excel.
This research shares novel and cutting edge outcomes and propositions both under
the prism of theory and practice. The trust-embedded open innovation paradigm
captures the norms and narratives around the way of leading open innovation within
the 21st century by cultivating a human-centricity mindset that leads to the creation
of human organizations, leaving behind the dehumanization mindset currently
prevailing within the financial industry.
Keywords: open innovation, trust, financial industry, human side, readiness,
qualitative, individual, organizational, conceptual, interviews
P a g e |5
5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This PhD research would not have been accomplished without the valuable help of
many people whom I wish to thank for their support, their contribution and their
comments.
Initially I would like to thank the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology
for investing valuable resources and giving me the chance to conduct my PhD
research and also be able to attend conferences, trainings and workshops. I am really
grateful for their support.
More specifically I am more that grateful and indebted to Prof. Dr. Anne-Laure
Mention, who guided me through all the process, who was there with great
enthusiasm anytime I wanted help, advice and who shared with me all her valuable
experience, contacts and time, along with, her constructive feedback. The most
important thing is the fact that she believed in this work and helped me understand
that I could manage it despite all the difficulties, the time constraints and the
perplexity of the topic. Last but not least I would like to thank her for having her
office door always open for me and was always there for me both in good, bad and
hard times.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my academic supervisor Prof. Dr. Marko
Torkkeli, for inviting me on this highly strenuous, challenging but at the same time
full of surprises research journey, for giving me the opportunity to become his PhD
student and who believed in the topic, my skills and competences. I am grateful to
him for showing his enthusiasm and for his ethical and moral support in hard times,
his patience and his trust on my face and my personality. Last but not least I will
never forget his moto “keep pushing” and his never-ending belief on my potential.
From the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology I would like to thank my
colleagues Mr. Dieter De Smet, Ms Clémentine Fry, Dr. Andrey Martovoy and Dr.
Anna-Leena Asikainen, who embraced this endeavour and were always keen on
helping, listening and being there for me anytime I wanted help and support.
I would also like to thank the two external reviewers Prof. Mets and Prof.
Daellenbach for their constructive feedback and extremely useful comments. They
indeed highlighted vital and critical elements helping me see beyond my own
perspective and allowing me to address and refine important parameters of this
study. Last but not least, I would like to thank Prof. Patrick Schueffel for agreeing to
be my opponent.
P a g e |6
6
This PhD research has been a long learning process, which changed completely the
way I look, I perceive and I understand the world around me. This is what I tried to
bring on the table, this cosmological view via the lenses of multidisciplinarity. To
that respect I would like to thank the pre-examiners and the opponent for embracing
this mindset and for acknowledging its value within the innovation management
discourse.
I would like to thank all the executive professionals who agreed to take part in my
work by sharing information, experience, time and valuable insights, who had the
patience to explain and who believed in the value that the suggestive outcomes this
study would bring both in terms of academic research but also in terms of
managerial perspective.
I would also like to thank all the anonymous reviewers who provided priceless
feedback to all my conference and journal submissions and publications, priceless
feedback that helped me develop my research further.
Moreover, I would like to thank LUT staff Sanna Tomperi, Jussi Oksala and Reeta
Toivanen for helping me with all the practical issues and for being available all the
time and willing to assist.
Last but not least I would like to thank my friends for their psychological support
and their interest in my work, and of course my family who despite the fact that they
are far away, they have always been close and present.
Luxembourg, Monday, October 26th, 2015
Dimitrios G. Salampasis
P a g e |7
7
To my parents
who have taught me that things in life must not be taken for granted
Trying and learning is what keeps us alive
P a g e |8
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................8
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................13
PUBLICATIONS ......................................................................................................15
PART I: OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS ..............................................................19
OUTLINE AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..................................................20
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................23
1.1.
Prologue ....................................................................................................23
1.2.
Research background and motivation .......................................................24
1.3.
The human aspect ......................................................................................29
1.4. The contemporary relevance of the financial industry as an empirical
setting ……………………………………………………………………………31
1.5.
Personal perceptions and incentives ..........................................................33
1.6.
Limitations of existing research scholarship .............................................36
1.7.
Addressing the research gap and problem delineation ..............................38
1.8.
Strategic intent, relevance and impact of the research ..............................40
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND STUDY SETTING .....................42
2.1.
Research objectives ...................................................................................42
2.2.
Scope of the research .................................................................................45
2.3.
Definition of key concepts ........................................................................46
2.3.1.
Open Innovation ................................................................................47
2.3.2.
Trust ..................................................................................................53
2.3.3.
Readiness ...........................................................................................57
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ...................................................61
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES ....................................................74
P a g e |9
9
4.1.
Introduction to research .............................................................................74
4.2.
Paradigm....................................................................................................76
4.3.
Reasoning ..................................................................................................83
4.3.1.
Inductive reasoning ...........................................................................84
4.3.2.
Deductive reasoning ..........................................................................84
4.3.3.
Abductive reasoning ..........................................................................85
4.4.
Research design .........................................................................................86
4.4.1.
Multidisciplinary-based scholarship ..................................................87
4.4.2.
Methods .............................................................................................89
4.4.3.
Research methodology ......................................................................90
4.4.3.1.
Semi-structured interviews ........................................................90
4.4.3.2.
Literature review .......................................................................92
4.4.4.
4.5.
Research procedure ...........................................................................93
4.4.4.1.
Sampling ....................................................................................93
4.4.4.2.
Analysis of the data ...................................................................95
Trustworthiness of research.......................................................................96
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF PUBLICATIONS .................................................104
5.1.
Purpose of the research............................................................................104
5.2.
Overview of publications ........................................................................105
CHAPTER 6: CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................138
6.1.
Introductory remarks ...............................................................................138
6.2.
The trust-embedded dimension of open innovation ................................140
6.3. Trust-embedded open innovation: the driver of competitive advantage, not
competitor takeover .............................................................................................142
6.4.
The human side of open innovation ........................................................143
6.5. Open innovation in the financial industry: thinking beyond innovation
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)..........................................................................146
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ..............................................150
P a g e | 10
10
7.1.
Concluding remarks ................................................................................150
7.2.
Implications .............................................................................................153
7.2.1.
Academic implications ....................................................................153
7.2.2.
Managerial implications ..................................................................155
7.2.3.
Policy implications ..........................................................................157
7.2.4.
Societal implications .......................................................................158
7.3.
Limitations and avenues for further research ..........................................159
LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................164
PART II: PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................199
P a g e | 11
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall composition of the dissertation (Developed by the author) .........20
Figure 2: Overview on limitations and challenges of existing research (Developed
by the author) ............................................................................................................37
Figure 3: Focus of the research (Developed by the author) .....................................39
Figure 4: Composition of the publications and their positioning within the research
and the research questions (Developed by the author) ..............................................44
Figure 5: A streamlined model of the study setting (Developed by the author) .......46
Figure 6: An evolutionary approach in the definition of open innovation (Developed
by the author) ............................................................................................................49
Figure 7: Decoupling the locus of innovation process-Three archetypes of open
innovation processes (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004, p.6) ...........................................50
Figure 8: Positioning of the Theory X and Theory Y (Developed by the author) ....67
Figure 9: Research corpus (Developed and visualized by the author based on Verma
and Mallick, 1999) ....................................................................................................76
Figure 10: Composition of the publications and their relationships to the research
questions (Developed by the author) .......................................................................104
Figure 11: Conceptual framework (Salampasis et al., 2014a, p.470) .....................106
Figure 12: Theoretical framework in relation to open format question (Salampasis et
al., 2014a, p.471) .....................................................................................................107
Figure 13: Calculative and non-calculative factors (Salampasis et al., 2014a, p.475)
.................................................................................................................................108
Figure 14: Antecedents of open innovation-conceptual framework (Salampasis et
al., 2015a, p.41) .......................................................................................................109
Figure 15: A conceptualized definition of trust-embedded open innovation
(Salampasis et al., 2015a, p.50) ...............................................................................111
P a g e | 12
12
Figure 16: Trust embedded organizational readiness for open innovation adoption in
the financial services sector (Salampasis, 2014, p.318) ..........................................112
Figure 17: The organizational aspect of trust-embedded open innovation
(conceptual model) (Salampasis et al., p.40) ..........................................................116
Figure 18: Conceptual model: the organizational aspect of open innovation adoption
in the banking sector (Salampasis et al., 2015b, p.14) .............................................120
Figure 19: Organizational readiness mechanisms for open innovation in the
financial industry (Salampasis et al., 2015c, p.9) ....................................................127
Figure 20: Rational and relational pathway of the research (Developed by the
author) .....................................................................................................................137
Figure 21: The human side of open innovation in the financial industry (Developed
by the author) ..........................................................................................................144
P a g e | 13
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Author’s role in each publication (Adapted from Perry et al., 2003, p.656)
...................................................................................................................................18
Table 2: Positioning of the research questions within the publications (Developed
by the author) ............................................................................................................45
Table 3: Closed vs Open Innovation (Adapted from Chesbrough, 2003b) ...............50
Table 4: Open innovation types and mechanisms (Adapted from Chesbrough and
Bogers, 2014) ............................................................................................................51
Table 5: Micro and macro levels of trust (Developed by the author based on Fulmer
and Gelfand, 2012) ....................................................................................................54
Table 6: Trust levels and referents (Developed by the author based on Fulmer and
Gelfand, 2012) ...........................................................................................................56
Table 7: Seminal organizational theories..................................................................62
Table 8: Theory X and Theory Y .............................................................................71
Table 9: Three research paradigms (Freely translated from Giordano, 2003, p.25) 79
Table 10: Ontological, epistemological and methodological stances of
interpretivism (Developed by the author)..................................................................81
Table 11: Contrasting elements between the three forms of reasoning (Developed by
the author) .................................................................................................................85
Table 12: Forms of reasoning and methods applied in the research (Developed by
the author) .................................................................................................................86
Table 13: Characteristics of qualitative and quantitative studies (Developed by the
author) .......................................................................................................................87
Table 14: Sources and analysis of data in the dissertation (Developed by the author)
...................................................................................................................................90
Table 15: Trustworthiness of qualitative nature and methods of research (Developed
by the author) ............................................................................................................98
P a g e | 14
14
Table 16: Variables related to the antecedents of open innovation (Salampasis et al.,
2015a, p.49) .............................................................................................................110
Table 17: Variables of the organizational antecedents of open innovation
(Salampasis, 2014, p.320) .......................................................................................114
Table 18: Organizational antecedents of trust-embedded open innovation
(Salampasis et al., 2014b, p.39) ...............................................................................117
Table 19: Overview of interviewees (Salampasis et al., 2015c, p.4) ......................123
Table 20: Leadership traits of an open innovation leader in the financial industry
(Salampasis et al., 2015c, p.6) .................................................................................124
Table 21: Summary of appended papers (Developed by the author)......................129
Table 22: Suggestions for future research on open innovation (Developed by the
author based on Fredberg et al., 2008) ....................................................................134
P a g e | 15
15
PUBLICATIONS
The dissertation consists of the introductory part (Part I) and the publications part
(Part II). The publications listed below, summarize the contribution of the author
and the acceptance procedure of each paper.
Publication I
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., Torkkeli, M. (2014). Open Innovation and
Collaboration in the Financial Services Sector: Exploring the role of trust.
International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol.8, No.5, pp.466484.
Information regarding the publication: The author was the main writer. The
author was responsible for the literature review, study design, conducting the
interviews, interviews transcription, data collection, analysis and interpretation. The
implications and conclusions were written by the author, in collaboration with the
2nd and the 3rd author. Moreover, the 2nd and the 3rd author provided valuable
contribution, in terms of aligning the interpretation of the data to the framework of
the financial industry. The working paper was presented at a dedicated conference
session during the 2012 Innovation for Financial Services Luxembourg Summit,
where it received the Best Paper Award, was submitted to and accepted for
publication to the international journal following a double blind review process.
Publication II
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., Torkkeli, M. (2015). Trust embeddedness within an
open innovation mindset. International Journal of Business and Globalization,
Vol.14, No.1, pp.32-57.
author was responsible for the literature review, the formulation of the concepts and
the development of the conceptual model. The research propositions and the
conclusions presented within the paper were the responsibility of the author in
collaboration with the 2nd and the 3rd author. The paper was accepted for publication
following a double blind review process.
Publication III
Salampasis, D. (2014). Organizational Readiness for Open Innovation in the
Financial Services Sector: The missing element of trust. Book Chapter in the Book
P a g e | 16
16
“Innovation in financial services: a dual ambiguity” ed. Mention, A-L., Torkkeli, M.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp.295-336.
Information regarding the publication: The author was solely responsible for the
book chapter. The paper was accepted by the editors to be published as a book
chapter following a double blind review process.
Publication VI
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., Torkkeli, M. (2014). “Trust embedded open
innovation: Literature review, synthesis and research propositions”. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2014(1), doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2014.13668abstract,
Philadelphia, USA
collaboration with the 2nd and the 3rd author. The paper was accepted and presented
at a dedicated session during the 2014 Academy of Management Meeting,
Philadelphia, USA, following a double blind review process.
Publication V
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., Torkkeli, M. (2015). Human resources management
and open innovation adoption in the banking sector: a conceptual model.
International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol.8, No. 4, pp.433-457.
collaboration with the 2nd and the 3rd author. Moreover, the 2nd and the 3rd author
provided valuable contribution in terms of aligning the development of the
conceptual model to the framework of the financial industry. The working paper was
presented at a dedicated conference session during the 2013 International
Conference Innovation for Financial Services in Singapore, was submitted to and
accepted for publication to the international journal following a double blind review
process.
P a g e | 17
17
Publication VI1
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., Torkkeli, M. (2015). “Open innovation for
“humanly-embedded” financial institutions: individuals and organizations at a
crossroads”, in Proceedings of the 2015 R&D Management Conference, Pisa, Italy2
Information regarding the publication: The author was the main writer and solely
responsible for the literature review, the study design, conducting the interviews,
interview transcription, data collection, analysis and interpretation. The implications
and conclusions were written by the author, in collaboration with the 2nd and the 3rd
author. Moreover, the 2nd and the 3rd author provided valuable contribution in terms
of linking the interpretation of the data to the framework of the financial industry.
The working paper was presented at a dedicated conference session during the 2014
International Conference Innovation for Financial Services in Montréal, Canada
after following a double blind review process. The final version of the paper,
following upon the feedback received during the presentation of the working paper,
was accepted and presented at a dedicated session during the 2015 R&D
Management Conference Pisa, Italy, following a double blind review process.
Overall contribution and position of the author
It is important to underline at this point that even though this academic writing has
been the sole responsibility of the author, the contributions of the academic and
scientific supervisors, who acted as mentors and co-authors in this research journey
must be fully acknowledged and valued.
Based on the Elsevier handbook for Ethics, an author is generally considered to be
an individual who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the study. The
author has been the first author in all six publications (3 Journal Articles, 1 Book
Chapter and 2 International Conference Proceedings) since he was “the driving force
behind the paper, who makes the decisions of the chairperson of the board [and] also
safely keeps the data from which the findings were made” (Perry et al., 2003,
Currently under review, Special Issue Implementing the Technological, Organizational and
Managerial tools supporting Open Innovation, Business Process Management Journal, Emerald
Group Publishing.
2
A partially revised and updated manuscript of this paper has been presented in the 2015
International Open and User Innovation Meeting (OUI) in Lisbon, the leading academic
conference on Open and User Innovation under the title Financial Institutions in the era of open
innovation: individuals and organizations at a crossroads.
1
P a g e | 18
18
p.656). The co-authors (2nd and 3rd author) have equally contributed to the papers by
providing priceless guidance in terms of the research design, conceptualization, data
analysis and interpretation. The co-authors have been listed in alphabetical order in
all the corresponding publications; the order has been a joint decision of the coauthors. Moreover, it is essential to call attention to the fact that the co-authors
embraced this research by bringing their enthusiasm, interest, insights and foresights
and experience to the table (Polonsky et al., 1998). All authors have been named on
the scientific publications so as so to be granted the appropriate credit for the work
and contribution and for being accountable for the respective research. The author
declares no form of misconduct, which would undermine the confidence and the
trustworthiness of this research.
The following table depicts the contribution the author has made in each publication
in the three aspects of authoring.
Table 1: Author’s role in each publication (Adapted from Perry et al., 2003, p.656)
Publications
Conception and design, or
analysis and
interpretation of data
Drafting the article or
revising it critically for
important intellectual
content
Publication
I
Publication
II
Conception, design, data
collection, analysis and
interpretation
Conception and design,
literature review
Publication
III3
literature review
Publication
IV
literature review
Publication
V
literature review
Publication
VI
Conception, design, data
collection, analysis and
interpretation
Drafting the paper and
important intellectual content
3
This publication does not have any co-authors.
Final
approval of
the version
to be
published






P a g e | 19
19
PART I: OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS
P a g e | 20
20
OUTLINE AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
This dissertation consists of two parts. Part I, the main body of this dissertation,
provides an overview of the dissertation, the research questions and objectives, a
detailed exploration of the main issues, perspectives, methodological stances,
summaries of the publications and contribution, along with implications, limitations
and avenues for further research. Part II consists of the official six publications.
This study is characterized by a dynamic multidisciplinarity perceived within the
unceasing interplay between the academic and practice/managerial sphere. A
foundational element of this research is the fact that the author wanted to approach
the role of trust in relation to open innovation and the establishment of human
financial enterprises from a reality perspective, contributing to the theoretical
foundations of the open innovation paradigm, developing a managerial tool, a
conceptual framework and presenting a number of novel research outcomes and
insights, which can be interpreted both in the planet of academia and the planet of
practice and management. This is not easy, especially, when dealing with such
elusive notions and in such a difficult, complex and highly unstable and volatile
empirical setting; i.e. the financial industry. The following figure depicts the outline
and structure of this dissertation.
Figure 1: Overall composition of the dissertation (Developed by the author)
P a g e | 21
21
In the Introduction section, the author projects the background and the motivation
being the nucleus and the driving force for this research. The author describes the
empirical setting of the financial industry, accentuating the importance, the
relevance and the topical interest. Furthermore, the author depicts the incentives that
led him into investigating this stream of research and the founded perceptions he
uses to establish and base his reasoning. In a similar manner, the author underlines
the research gap and the problem delineation by briefly describing the thematic areas
that extant literature has not paid adequate attention. Last but not least, the author
draws attention to his research mindset in the realms of explaining the strategic
intent, the relevance and the impact that this research aspires to have in the research
community, industry, practice, policy-making and society.
In the Research Objectives and Study Setting section, the author presents the
objectives of the research, addresses the research questions to be explored and
introduces the relevant concepts to be explored. Furthermore, by means of a brief
review of the literature the concepts of open innovation, trust and readiness
(organizational and individual) as integrative elements of the intertwined phases of
trust-embedded open innovation and the human dimension of open innovation in the
financial industry are hereby being introduced and analysed.
In the Theoretical Foundations section the author describes the relevant seminal
organization and management theories that have already been associated, directly or
indirectly, with open innovation (in existing literature) or have influenced the
development of the existing publications of the author, and explains in detail the
theoretical understanding and the reasoning behind the choice of the human side of
enterprise theory (McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y) in the quest towards the
conceptualization of the human side of open innovation within the financial
industry.
The Research Methodology section, is an inherent element of the DNA of this
research since it presents and justifies the how and the why this study has been
conducted. It offers a detailed analysis of what is research and what a good research
entails how a paradigm is being defined, what is the meaning and the role of
reasoning and why it is important for the development of this respective research.
Furthermore, the author opens to view the study approach, the epistemological
aspects and the research design. This section is also connected to the quality
assurance of the study. The quality standards dully justify the appropriateness of the
methods that have been employed towards the tackling of the research problem and
P a g e | 22
22
the answering of the research questions, safeguarding and securing the
trustworthiness of the research.
In the Summary of Publications section all the summaries of the author’s published
work, in relation to this respective research, are presented, depicting an overall
frame and picture of the research. Furthermore, the contribution of the author and all
the collaborators is being analysed. This section also serves the purpose of reflecting
the red thread and connecting all the dots among all publications. It caters for
making a pitch of the holistic overview of all the interrelated elements consisting the
body, mindset and rationale of the research, highlighting the contribution, the
relevance and the rational and relational pathway of all the publications in a
coherent but at the same time rigorous manner.
The Contribution section analyses both the theoretical and practical/managerial
contribution of this research towards the emerging theme of linking open innovation
to seminal theories of innovation, management and economics. It offers a
multidisciplinary perspective on the trust-embedded approach to open innovation,
conceptualizing the human dimension of this paradigm. Furthermore, it provides
cutting-edge insights in terms of putting in perspective the role of open innovation
within the financial industry, along with the integrative role of the open innovation
leader, and how this conceptualization could have an influence in the role of
financial innovation and the strategic intent of the industry itself. It is important for
the author to clarify that this research does not aim to develop a new theory on open
innovation but to contribute to the discussion on the theoretical foundations of open
innovation from the eyes of the human dimension in the emerging theme of the
“increasing integration of open innovation with established theories of innovation,
management and economics” (West et al., 2014, p.810).
The Conclusions and Discussion section summarizes in its locus the overall
contribution of this research, its unique value proposition, the learning outcomes and
recognises the sharing of important academic, managerial, societal and policy
implications at the level of open innovation and the financial industry per se. It
stages a comprehensive and holistic picture of the overall research and offers
extensive reasoning to be used, while reflecting on the major outcomes. Finally, it
also pays a tribute to the limitations of this research but not with an attitude of
failure, but by seeing them as potential ways of paving future research and
encouragement for dedicated and focused investigation and argumentation of the
outcomes of this endeavour.
P a g e | 23
23
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
“As much as we claim we want cooperation, most of our structures don’t reward it,
our corporate culture doesn’t support it and our leaders are reluctant to embrace itthough it is often in the best interest of the organization to do so” (Heil et al., 2000,
p.74).
1.1. Prologue
The aim of this introductory chapter is to set the stage and acquaint the reader with
the rationale behind the underlying elements discussed within this respective
dissertation. It is important to highlight the fact that since the PhD is publicationbased, this dissertation shall cover all these specific factors that are required in order
to perceive the understanding around the issues discussed hereby.
This study aims at contributing to the extant scholarly research on innovation and
open innovation management, along with, the research on open innovation within
the financial industry, by looking into the organizational and individual aspects of
open innovation, under the human dimension and the existence of trust. Hereby, the
author argues that the consideration of this particular aspect of open innovation shall
assist financial institutions to depict organizational and individual readiness in terms
of adopting open innovation practices and, in a similar manner, are able to attract the
right talent and mindset for open innovation.
As it will be discussed later on, the financial industry, which is faced with
unprecedented challenges, is bound to change its existing corporate operational
business model and traditional modus operandi, in order to keep pace especially
when it comes to the wave of digital disruption, technological breakthroughs and
regulatory constraints. Financial institutions usually reflect a big lack of innovation
needless to say open innovation. However, there are indeed existing examples of
financial institutions, which have adopted open innovation practices, such as, DBS
(experimentation as a service), Bank of America (Fintech Start-ups-Silicon Valley),
Thomson Reuters (Catalyst Fund), Wells Fargo (Mentoring Program for Start-ups),
BNP Paribas (Leveraging Open Innovation to build the Bank of Tomorrow)4, CIBC
“Both physical and digital, combining the best of both worlds, meaning…new forms of
interactivity facilitated by social networks, new services around mobility, digital transformation,
and simplification of processes. For BNP Paribas, being innovative means anticipating changes
that are affecting our clients and transforming these changes into opportunities.” (Bridges, 2015,
n.g.)
4
P a g e | 24
24
and MaRs (Open Innovation Space for Financial Technology Start-ups)5 and BBVA,
along with, the establishment and development of innovation centres and labs by
many banking and financial services institutions (Standard Bank, Capital One,
Commonwealth Bank, Citi, Visa, Chase Bank, etc).
Chad Ballard, BBVA Director of Mobility and New Business Technologies says that
“The Innovation Depot is taking all that collaboration and digital transformation
we’re doing out of the development center and opening it up into the community …
We want to look at things that simplify the customer experience, new concepts in
payments. We also look at things in and out of the financial industry … It’s rare for
a bank to give outsiders access to its internal software … We’re also sitting down
with the start-ups, understanding their business models and figuring out how fast the
bank can collaborate on their technology … We are building technology from within
the community rather than from the outside …” (Crosman, 2015, n.g.). This quote is
the starting point of this research endeavour, reflecting upon the shift of the financial
industry in terms of embracing new ways of value creation, developing new learning
mechanisms and sharing best practices with other industries. It is of note though that
only few financial institutions are making open innovation a permanent practice.
But, how easy is it for financial institutions to make this shift from the traditional
hierarchical, silo-driven, dehumanized and monolithic corporate environments and
state of mind to becoming open, borderless and collaborative organizations? In the
realms of this reasoning, the research aspires to shed light on the integrative role of
trust as the connective mechanism between the organizational and individual spheres
in the process of creating human financial organizations by putting in action formal
and informal dedicated processes and talent, so as to overcome internal resistance
and barriers.
1.2. Research background and motivation
The open innovation paradigm, within the last thirteen years, has attracted profound
interest and has been explored under an academic, practitioner and policy-level
prism and within diverse empirical settings. Abundant existing scholarship already
Aayaz Pira, Vice President, Digital Channels, CIBC: “Partnerships and innovation are the key to
building the bank of the future, which is why we are excited about the opportunity to further our
commitment to innovation with MaRS. The opportunity to have our team work alongside top
design talent and entrepreneurs in a collaborative environment will further our leadership in
developing the innovations that will change the way Canadians bank.” (MaRs, 2015, n.g.)
5
P a g e | 25
25
discusses implications of open innovation mainly under the organizational,
interorganizational and network level. Despite this meteoric rise in the literature,
covering many finer-grained topics of open innovation, the research in a number of
aspects coated via this paradigm is still in its infancy. To that respect, it is quite
surprising though to see that there is a dearth of research in relation to the human
side of this paradigm, which still remains an area that has received scarce and not
systematic attention (Salampasis et al., 2015c). Very little has been written in the
existing literature, mainly related to human resource management practices and the
skills, professionals active within an open innovation framework, need to possess. In
this frame of reference, this dissertation contributes to this on-going debate by
delving into the exploration of the so-called human side projected in the dynamic
interplay between the individual and the organizational sphere, within the financial
industry, by looking into the element of trust, a conditional factor for open
innovation, which has not yet received the attention it deserves (Salampasis et al.,
2014a). In summary, this respective research is looking into the ways, the
mechanisms, the factors and the talent (including mindset) needed for adopting open
innovation practices within the financial industry.
The rationale, of this dissertation, on exploring the element of trust into the quest of
conceptualizing the human dimension of open innovation, in the financial industry,
originates on the fact that “open innovation requires a different mindset and the need
for more expanded set of capabilities within companies” (van de Vrande et al., 2010,
p.223). Henry Chesbrough argues that “in every organization that I’ve worked with,
open innovation does not come easily. There are tremendous internal barriers to
doing it well. Some of those barriers are cultural in nature; some, I think reflect the
logic of the reward systems that companies have in place. And if the company wants
to embrace open innovation and some people actually start the process there are a lot
of things that they don’t realize until they get into it” (Norton 2011, p.63). In a
similar vein, Chesbrough believes that “Open innovation works best when you have
people collaborating side by side, with people that are moving from one
organization to another” (Wilson, 2012, p.45). Both these quotations hit all the right
notes for this research currently emplaced in the intersection of the organizational
and individual level of analysis and the need for understanding what open
innovation means, the pre-requisite of organizational and individual readiness, the
kind of profile (talent) required to be part of an open innovation team and the
attention to the primary, but usually, neglected driver of open innovation: the human
component. In this context, this dissertation argues that all these abovementioned
elements are intertwined under the spectrum and the existence of trust (primarily
P a g e | 26
26
positioned within the multilevel organizational system), acting as a default
mechanism for open innovation adoption (Salampasis et al., 2014b), calling for
looking back to the roots of the open innovation paradigm in terms of revisiting the
organization from the inside, while paying attention to the underlying people-based
principles and mindset in combination to the tactics and structures for open
innovation6. For this reason, this dissertation prevails upon the fact that open
innovation in the financial industry can only be realized within a corporate world of
human action and human centricity.
Salampasis et al. (2015b) discuss that people, the primary drivers of implementing
open innovation practices [(“innovation is all about people” (Rosenfeld, 2008,
p.14)], while being the human face of an organization to the outside world (the
living embodiment of corporate values and strategic insight), do not receive the
attention they deserve (individual level) and on the other hand organizations aspiring
to adopt open innovation practices are simply not ready (organizational readiness) to
begin the open innovation journey and put in place all the right mechanisms to foster
individual readiness to that respect. In both cases, organizations tend to neglect the
foundational and conditional element of trust within their process of building up
open and collaborative corporate environments. To that respect, this dissertation
suggests that the existing open innovation paradigm will not be able to work
properly anymore in future organization, unless the latter possess a substantial
reservoir of trust (primarily on the organizational level) and turn all the credit
(pecuniary and non-pecuniary, respect, recognition etc) back to the people.
Moreover, this argumentation provides an answer to the misconceptions raised by a
number of scholars that the linkage between open innovation and trust is not a new
phenomenon, heralding for its obviousness. This dissertation strongly argues that
there is a need to develop a solid, theoretically-founded rationale and
multidisciplinary conceptual, but at the same time applicable model, debating that
obvious correlations and simple philosophies are the ones, which are the most
difficult and complicated to address, investigate and understand their functionality7,
especially within such a special empirical setting, as the financial industry, itself.
Indeed, there are voices, arguing that the primary factor acting as a hindrance in the
The author considers trust as an intangible asset for an organization in terms of providing a high
differentiation potential and at the same time carrying the inherent ability of not being able to be
imitated (Hunt and Morgan, 1995).
7
The author agrees with Drucker (1985, p.29) that “like most super-stars, knowledge-based
innovation is temperamental, capricious and hard to manage”.
6
P a g e | 27
27
adoption and implementation of innovation practices is the lack of trust (MolinaMorales et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011) encouraging the author to promote and
empower his proposition regarding the trust-embeddedness approach towards open
innovation (Salampasis et al., 2014b). Westergren and Holmström (2012, p.210)
argue that trust is an “underappreciated but potentially high valuable source of value
in open innovation networks”. To the best of the author’s knowledge, even though
trust, appears as a crucial open innovation factor, among others, in a respective
number of scholarly works, there is a very limited number of scholars, in the
existing open innovation literature, considering trust “as a nucleus key for open
innovation” being more than a conditional factor for adopting and applying such
kind of practices (Shamah and Elsawaby, 2014, p.110; Shamah and Elsawaby, 2015)
or arguing that “mutual trust in a cooperative relationship is essential to its ultimate
success” (Lee et al., 2010, pp.298). The undergoing meaning of this observation is
the fact that both open innovation and trust are embedded within a broader social
and economic context and are constantly and continuously shaped by the
contribution of extracellular factors consisting of dynamic relationships and
interactions. This means that organizations and individuals need to be put in a
continuous transformational trajectory, in order to be able to face the numerous
challenges the adoption of open innovation practices entails (Salampasis et al.,
2015c; 2014a). In a similar vein, the author receives encouragement and motivation
from the fact that “in business research, however, the things routinely ignored by
academics on the grounds that they cannot be measured-most human factors and all
matters relating to judgement, ethics and morality-are exactly what make the
difference between good business decisions and bad ones” (Bennis and O’Toole,
2005, p.100).
Additionally, this dissertation reasons that the limited and elusive attention towards
the human aspect of open innovation shares its reasoning to the fact that this
paradigm has been primarily seen, conceptualised and investigated from the
knowledge inflows and outflows panorama (Salampasis et al., 2014c), neglecting the
realization and existence of complementary elements that are embedded in this
dynamic interplay, such as, human capital, routines, behaviours, practices and norms
(Alvesson and Kärreman, 2001). Against this landscape, this dissertation goes
beyond the traditional narrative around open innovation, perceiving this paradigm as
the ultimate mechanism for mixing and transferring of cultures, ideas, people, skills
and behaviours, complementary to the widening and reordering of existing and new
knowledge, both within and beyond the traditional organizational zone (Salampasis
et al., 2015c). The raison d'etre behind this argumentation falls in the rationale that
P a g e | 28
28
the open innovation paradigm should refrain, in the future, from being exclusively
discerned only as a driver for knowledge exchange and sharing on an interorganizational and network level but needs to be perceived as an ecosystem of
values, organizational cultures, organizational behaviours and human elements that
co-exist in reach of this reciprocation, having their starting point to the locus of the
individual and the organizational spectrum (Salampasis et al., 2015c)8. This
observation adopts a number of views regarding the transitioning beyond the
knowledge era and the necessity to redefine the sources of competitive advantage.
To that respect, it is important to pay attention to the human element as a mechanism
of decisive action and emotional conviction, reformulating labour, capital and
information as scarce resources (Birkinshaw, 2012).
Enkel (2010) acknowledges the integrative role of the individual attributes (the socalled talent for open innovation), which together with the organizational
characteristics facilitate the reasoning behind the question of when and why there is
a profit from open innovation. “One has to tap into human capabilities and connect
diverse minds to work across organizational and national boundaries to be faster and
better than the competition” (Allee and Taug, 2006, p.571). This dissertation also
presents the argumentation that the adoption of open innovation practices acts as a
true benchmark for the human side of the enterprise and facilitates an iterative
unfolding process of identifying, unlocking, realizing and addressing the human
problems of organizations (Salampasis et al., 2015c). This outlook is endorsed by the
recently re-conceptualized definition of open innovation, which acknowledges the
non-pecuniary elements ingrained within this paradigm. In this frame of reference,
open innovation is defined as “a distributed innovation process based on purposively
managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and
non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization’s business model”
(Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014, p.12). This definition supports the fact that, open
innovation is emplaced within the core of the organization and is incentivised also
by non-pecuniary terms. In this context, it becomes an imperative realization to
listen and defend the voices that call for attention to the human element.
“There is considerable potential for further research into the people side of open
innovation, including organisational development, human resource practices and
performance management” (Golightly et al., 2012, p.11). West and Bogers (2014,
In order to develop an open innovation culture there is an inherent pre-requisite to understand
and acknowledge the shift towards an open framework and the adoption of a different and
alternative way of thinking and operating (van der Meer, 2007).
8
P a g e | 29
29
p.822) observe an important opportunity towards the development of “a theory and
evidence about the development and application of competencies for integrating
innovation from external sources and how these are similar to or different from their
inwardly focused counterparts”. The viewpoint of this dissertation is that open
innovation, as a connection-driven innovation paradigm, is a people-driven process
and therefore it becomes highly important to learn how this human element can
drive the successful adoption and implementation of open innovation within a truly
trustworthy, collaborative, with shared purposes, open environment (Salampasis et
al., 2015b). This means that organizations need to nurture openness, collaboration,
sharing and co-operation from the inside before opening up to the outside world
looking for setting up lasting and valuable business relationships (Salampasis et al.,
2015a). For open innovation to excel and thrive, collaboration among the employees
is the key. “Extended collaboration is the critical capability for long-term success in
complex knowledge-businesses” (Heckscher, 2007, p.247). Working in isolation, in
silos, with no ability or willingness to share knowledge, insights and foresights,
open innovation cannot happen. In order for all these to be meaningful, this
dissertation argues that trust needs to be put back in place along with better ways of
working and decision-making processes (Salampasis et al., 2014c). Employees are
the most valuable element for open innovation; the true advocates, the evangelists,
the zealots of the organization. “The future will likely be won by those who don’t
wait for light-bulb moments from a single genius, but rather develop highly
collaborative win-win relationships that leverage the collective power of many”
(Vitasek, 2015, n.g.).
1.3. The human aspect
At this stage the author reckons that it is of great importance to reflect upon the
usage of the word human, especially in relation to the individual aspect. This is quite
challenging since this kind of delineation and understanding requires going beyond
the traditional management perspective and looking into the anthropological
manner, so as, to provide a number of insights in relation to the human agenda
within the innovation and open innovation management literature. Furthermore,
since these terms have been a subject of long philosophical debates, the author,
hereby, aims at providing his own interpretation and reflection (also founded within
existing literature), which also influences the underlying rationale behind the spirit
and culture of this research. However, the author believes that this brief analysis is
quite important, not only in terms of understanding the meaning and usage of these
terms, but most importantly to reflect the reasoning and argumentation behind the
P a g e | 30
30
author’s choice to focus on the human aspect and the element of trust within the
open innovation paradigm.
The notion of human shares a universal, egalitarian and catholic/collective
characterization that purely originates from the human nature and human existence
and the inalienable and indefensible right to life and survival, governing the
character of national and international law. Since it is by nature a notion of
existential character, it goes beyond historical situations and social structures. The
awareness regarding the concept of human emerges after the 2nd World War and the
raising of public opinion towards Nazi crimes and atrocities.
In the nucleus of the concept of human are placed the values of classical humanism
elevating man into the core and main subject that possesses an inalienable right to
life, to education, to evolution and creativity within structures clearly coordinated
and free. The concept of human is very broad and includes in its core civil-political,
social, economic and cultural rights. The most fundamental rights which are
governed by the values of humanism and create common moral language in the
global community is that of life, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, the
right to a fair trial, privacy, freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion.
This humanism is related to evolutionary traits and the humane qualities of
sympathy and compassion being reflected and realized through intellectual and
emotional capacities. Furthermore, it connotes benevolence, which is a core element
of trust.
On the other hand, the notion of individual is a political term that is by nature
energetic and participatory. It refers to the freedom of the individual (agency) to act
in accordance with his/her own judgment and his/her own interests, always in the
context of a healthy socio-political system and in relation to the other citizens.
Individual rights protect and guarantee the freedoms of every citizen regarding the
participation in public life, representation, equality before the Constitution and the
Law, while safeguarding privacy. It is important also to underline the fact that
human precedes the individual and that individual is a measurable concept contrary
to human, which cannot be measured. This particular aspect reflects the overall
underlying purpose of this research, which is to bring humanity back into the open
innovation paradigm by encouraging the adoption of human-centric management
principles within the financial industry.
P a g e | 31
31
1.4. The contemporary relevance of the financial industry as an empirical
setting
The point of departure in this analysis is to elucidate the importance and relevance
of the financial industry, as the empirical setting for this research, understanding the
reasons behind the choice of the industry per se. The financial industry (consisting
of banks and non-bank financial institutions) comprises all the provided economic
services, which encapsulate a wide range of financial institutions that are responsible
for managing capital. These institutions can be credit unions, banks, credit card
companies, insurance companies, accountancy companies, consumer finance
companies, stock brokerages, investment funds, real estate funds and some
government-sponsored enterprises. This vast and diverse number of institutions is
considered by the World Bank as the brain of the economy, since they provide many
functions catering for the needs of the economy per se. To that respect, the financial
industry serves the following main purposes: a) provision of credit, b) facilitation of
transactions, c) provision of liquidity, d) mobility of savings, e) allocation of capital
funds, f) monitoring of managers for responsible and as envisaged spending of
allocated funds and g) risk management services/risk transformation-diversification9
(Baily and Elliott, 2013; World Bank, 201510). This broad scope and availability of
services, generate positive externalities (or catalytic effects) over the rest of the
economic activity (Eichler et al., 2013), depicting the importance of the industry in
animating the worldwide economy and the society, at large, since its smooth, stable
and sustainable functionality shares foundational implications for individuals,
families, businesses, governments and civic institutions (World Economic Forum,
2013).
Since the 1980s, the financial industry has been following a steady growth trajectory
compared to other industries, such as, trade, production and manufacturing,
accelerating structural changes towards the development and establishment of a
service-based economy. “A well-functioning financial sector can be compared to
that of the heart in the human body: just like the heart takes care of the constant
circulation of blood, the financial system eases the flow of capital in modern
economies” (Eichler et al., 2013, p.9). Haldane and Madouros (2011) accentuate the
importance of the financial industry within the worldwide economy; the value-added
Merton and Bodie (1995 cited by Greenwood and Scharfstein, 2012, p.2) present the “functional
view” of the financial industry, which is “to dampen risk by reallocating it efficiently within the
economy”.
10
Information provided on the dedicated website. Not for referencing or citation purposes.
9
P a g e | 32
32
of financial intermediaries in the US was about $1.2 trillion in 2010 catering for an
8% equivalence of total GDP. In 2009, the value-added of finance was around 10%
of GDP in the United Kingdom. Greenwood and Scharfstein (2012) communicate
the fact that the US financial services industry grew from 4.9% of GDP in 1980 to
7.9% of GDP in 2007. Furthermore, Baily and Elliott (2013) suggest, based on data
by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics that employment in the industry has raised to
5.83 million people, even though the share of employment of the industry
experienced a minor reduction to 5.2% in 2012. Den Haan (2011) suggests that the
fraction of US GDP during the post-war period has increased from 2% to 8%. The
World Bank states that the financial industry provides information, which is reliable
and accessible, lowering the transaction costs supporting resource allocation and
economic growth. According to the World Bank, for 2012, the market capitalization
of listed companies 74.2% of GDP and the domestic credit provided by financial
industry was 166.6% of GDP in 2013. Despite the current financial global turmoil,
the importance of the financial industry to the overall global economy cannot be
challenged, remaining a large part of the economy and a major employer. In the
same token, the financial industry can be considered as a “network sector”, due to its
catalytic effects on other industries (Eichler et al., 2013, p.82).
Nowadays the landscape of the financial industry is being faced by a combination of
emerging structural challenges, trends and customer needs (mobile applications, big
data analytics, sharing economy, social media, payments, lending, savings, thirdparty solutions/platforms/utilities etc), especially with regards to the role of
technological innovation, the pressure to adopt cutting-edge technologies, intensified
regulatory changes and scrutiny due to involvement in risker businesses, insufficient
liquidity and lack of transparency (OFR, 2014), compliance requirements, the loss of
relevance and disconnect of traditional financial services from a customers’
standpoint that proves to be disastrous11 (Accenture 2020 Banking Report, 2013;
Bradley et al., 2014; Groenfeldt, 2014; Millennial Disruption Index12), the
unparalleled speed of building, obtaining access or acquiring new capabilities in
relation to digital technology and beyond (Zook, 2015) and the fact that financial
“We spent eight years getting out of the crisis and skipped a full generation of users. We need to
figure out how we service the client. Having someone at the top who believes this is key. If you
have resistance from the bank, you’re not going to be able to change much” (Belinky in Crosman,
2015).
12
11
P a g e | 33
33
institutions are no longer deemed trustworthy compared to other industries, such as,
a technology and automotive (Edelman Trust Barometer, 201413).
To that respect, the driving forces that shape the industry revolving around
technological developments, collaboration models, consolidation activity, global
interoperability across players, along with, a new generation of market participants
and tech company disruptors venturing into the financial industry, change the nature
of the industry itself. Within this fierce competition, the financial industry must be
prepared for change, within an environment that is no longer business as usual in
terms of institutional adaptation, modernization and change of mindset in order to
sustain its relevance and competitive advantage, leaving also room for becoming a
globally effective social industry, economically and socially sustainable (Davis and
White, 2015). For this to happen, this dissertation argues that financial institutions
need to adopt open innovation practices that will help them “embrace the
technology-driven changes and look for new opportunities rather than protecting and
preserving antiquated business models” (Hernaes, 2015, n.g.) in terms of remaining
relevant to their customers. “It is encouraging that many banks are receptive to the
idea of open innovation, collaboration and Fintech investment and also are prepared
to sacrifice current revenue in order to move to new business models. But banks
need to innovate faster, become more nimble and develop a more entrepreneurial
culture if they are going to compete effectively and meet customers’ needs” (Holley,
2015, n.g.). And this does not seem to be easy at all …
1.5. Personal perceptions and incentives
This research also originates from the personal perceptions of the author himself,
perceptions reflecting “disciplinary and social needs, pragmatic parameters coated
within the personal passion” of the researcher (Saldaňa, 2011). The author through
this dissertation aspires to underline various definitional, conceptual and strategic
intent gaps in the existing scholarship on open innovation by presenting an
alternative and broader picture, positioning the concept and the value of open
innovation in the financial industry and by highlightening the importance of
adopting an incorporative attitude towards this paradigm. This means that there is an
emerging need to view the research on open innovation from a broadened spectrum
of disciplines and fields, with a solid grounding in the humanities disciplines,
through the lenses of multidisciplinarity.
13
P a g e | 34
34
The author argues that in order to understand the human side of open innovation
there is a need to revisit the organizational and individual sphere. Furthermore, open
innovation, human side and trust are complex phenomena, requiring dedicated
attention, a multi-thematic approach and research mindset. Thus this research is
“infused with multidisciplinary, practical and ethical questions and analyses
reflecting the complex challenges business leaders face today” (Bennis and O’Toole,
2005, p.104). Moreover, an additional important perception is the fact that existing
research on the human side of open innovation tends to be somewhat confusing,
contradictory, limited, monolithic and does not seem to move forward (Salampasis
et al., 2015b); thus the author argues that the scope of the human side of open
innovation captures interrelated, dynamic peculiarities, giving prominence to the
need for the development of organizational and individual capacity of open
innovation within the financial industry.
From the very beginning of this research, the author realized and argued that the
open innovation paradigm should not only be captured and defined only through the
prism of knowledge inflows and outflows (Salampasis et al., 2015a). To that respect,
the author believes that this adopted approach shares numerous repercussions for the
companies and the way they organize and govern their open innovation practices
and activities; needless to refer to the impact on the value chain, the levels of
performance, the empowerment of creativity and the business and customer value
proposition. The business world is changing in fundamental ways; hence the existing
approach to the open innovation paradigm does not seem to entirely serve the
purposes of managing the future generation of financial institutions, requiring
significant adaptation and embracing a multidisciplinary mindset (Salampasis et al.,
2014a). There is something more in this dynamic exchange including mobility of
knowledge, people, values, behavioural norms, cultural elements etc. In this term of
reference, the human side is not only about skills and competences, as existing
research tends to present, but it needs to be perceived and seen within a broader
landscape (Salampasis et al., 2015c).
“Now companies are seeking growth outside their core competences in an
environment that’s being reshaped by disruptive technologies, evolving regulation
and changing customer expectations” (Nahass, 2014, p.1). In terms of open
innovation adoption and implementation, the author believes that a company cannot
be open to the outside if it is not open on the inside and in order to achieve this
openness, trust, within the organizational sphere, becomes the key facilitator and
driver in this process (Salampasis et al., 2014b). As a result, a company cannot ask to
be trusted if it is not trustworthy on the inside; if it is unable to build trust-based
P a g e | 35
35
relationships, both within the organizational boundaries and beyond (Salampasis et
al., 2015a). This perception has been endorsed by two additional parameters that
have been acting as a catalyst (no direct causality has been perceived or even
implied) for developing the character and culture of this research. Primarily lays the
failure case of the financial industry and the untrustworthiness of the business
model. Taking an example of major UK banks, Burke et al. (2011) argue that highrisk decisions and failures in their corporate governance have a negative influence
on the reputation of the UK financial industry as a whole (incl. legal and accounting
services enterprises). This means that the dark side around the status and legitimacy
of the banking sector has a direct effect on the reputation and trustworthiness of the
industry as a whole.
In relation to the way innovation in perceived in terms of investment and growth,
Christensen and van Bever (2014) articulate and introduce The Capitalist’s
Dilemma. They argue that assessment metrics, that are currently used to pinpoint the
role of capital towards investments on innovations, cater for a short-sighted
approach and do not relinquish a long-term prism. “Doing the right thing for longterm prosperity is the wrong thing for most investors, according to the tools used to
guide investments” (Christensen and van Bever, 2014, p.66). By employing a more
focused approach in the financial industry Mukunda (2014, p.72) argues that the
Wall Street has been extensively been criticized “not only for promoting short-term
thinking but for sacrificing the interests of employees and customers to benefit
shareholders and for encouraging dishonesty from executives who feel they’re being
asked to meet impossible demands”.
This dissertation receives inspiration (but again no direct causality is perceived or
even implied) from these approaches, since open innovation needs to be positioned
within an everlasting momentum and societal value, fostering a responsible and
sustainable growth mindset in the realms of the financial industry. The author is
fully in line with the fact that with the current way innovation is being perceived,
primarily, from a numerical and assessment metrics approach (a.k.a. Wall Street’s
preferred metrics), leaves unappreciated (or even behind) the human and societal
aspect and the intent to create long-lasting sustainable and globalized impact on
humanity. The human-centric approach to open innovation can open the discussion
towards changing perceptions and mindset regarding responsible investments of the
abundance of global capital or “capital superabundance” (Bain and Company, 2012,
p.3), creating a “more balanced and sustained prosperity for all their stakeholders”
(Malone and Fiske, 2013, p.13). This research elucidates that it is important to
realize that open innovation is for and about the people and a humanistic approach
P a g e | 36
36
shall encounter shifting attention from silo-driven mindsets to a broader magnitude
of social realities.
1.6. Limitations of existing research scholarship
Based upon the overall abovementioned analysis, the author argues that extant
research scholarship depicts five areas of limitations that draw attention to the
incentive and motivation for this research accentuating its relevance for academia,
practice/management and policy. These limitations cater for providing a hermetic
understanding and analysis of the topics discussed permitting the exact framing of
the problem area.
The author pays attention to the fact that existing research, even though indirectly
acknowledges trust as an important element of open innovation, fails indeed to
conceptualize this relationship and contribute to the theoretical development of the
open innovation paradigm. The inadequacy of theoretical foundations and lenses in
the way of understanding and interpreting the open innovation paradigm becomes an
emerging theme in the open innovation research agenda, a theme that has been
neglected for long (Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014; West et al., 2014). In a similar
manner, the human dimension of open innovation has received scarce attention.
There is a need for conceptualization, qualitative empirical exploration of the
multifaceted nature of the human side, paying particular attention to the intersection
and the dynamic interplay between the individual and organizational level of
analysis, which shares multiple implications towards the development of
organizational and individual readiness models that can ease the smooth adoption
and implementation of open innovation practices. Additionally, the author observes
that extant research and discussion provide limited insights on the role of open
innovation within the financial industry, despite the inherent importance of the
industry itself in the global business and economic arena. These limited insights are
related to the capturing of the essence of open innovation, in terms of understanding
the different peculiarities, functions, interpretations and meanings this paradigm can
have in the realms of this highly important industry. The following figure
summarizes the abovementioned key themes that require further exploration,
analysis and understanding, themes that this dissertation aspires to illuminate by
providing innovative, invigorating and cutting-edge insights.
P a g e | 37
37
Figure 2: Overview on limitations and challenges of existing research (Developed by the
author)
The abovementioned figure summarizes the rationale behind this respective research
by interlineating the areas in which it aims at contributing. It is important for the
author to underline that the limitations of existing research incentivize the adoption
of a multidisciplinary approach and the need to embrace a holistic view in terms of
conceptualizing and understanding the human side of trust-embedded open
innovation within the financial industry.
P a g e | 38
38
1.7. Addressing the research gap and problem delineation
Overall, this dissertation, by employing a multidisciplinary research approach in
terms of talking across discipline lines and different backgrounds, aims at
illuminating the ambiguities, peculiarities and mysteries of open innovation in the
financial industry by exploring the multifaceted human side, crystallized within the
locus of a trust-embedded approach of open innovation in the financial industry; an
industry, which is surprisingly very much neglected by innovation studies, despite
its importance for the worldwide economy. The research outcomes address cuttingedge topical issues in relation to trust, encapsulated within a dynamic interplay
between the organizational and individual sphere (exploration of the diverse,
different and antithetical facets of human nature and corporate environment), in
relation to open innovation adoption and how to amplify dedicated skills,
competences, values, motives and incentives, cultivating a collective open
innovation organizational environment that influences business practices within the
financial industry. Furthermore, this dissertation presents a number of
argumentations regarding the strategic intent of the financial industry and caters for
a mind-shift towards the understanding and appreciation of the highly neglected and
forgotten element of trust in the journey towards the destination; the creation of
open, collaborative, trustworthy, human financial enterprises. All in all, this
dissertation argues that the adoption of open innovation practices within the
financial industry is meaningful only via the existence of trust-based relationships
within the organization per se being “the only way to advance the relationship and
build precious relational capital in an increasingly transactional business
environment” (Malone and Fiske, 2013, p.65), such as, the one within financial
institutions.
P a g e | 39
39
Figure 3: Focus of the research (Developed by the author)
The abovementioned figure depicts the focus of this research. The research
encapsulates and synthesizes multiple literature streams and disciplines in order to
capture the trust embeddedness within the open innovation paradigm and the
human-centricity within financial institutions. This exploratory14 and
multidisciplinary research emplaces, at the front page, the importance of trust as an
element engrained within the open innovation paradigm and interlineates the
underscoring and importance of the human element towards the establishment of
human financial institutions. From an academic standpoint this research represents a
pathway opening to integrating a multidisciplinary approach in innovation studies.
Furthermore, it sheds new light on the way open innovation is perceived both as a
theory and as a practice for organizations by encouraging the discussion on the
underlying, individual, organizational and to a greater extent human elements in
terms of creating financial institutions that are ready to bring on board such practices
and at the same time changing the mindset and the existing modus operandi of the
financial industry itself. From a managerial viewpoint this research contributes
towards providing valuable, up-to-speed but down-to-earth information, tools and
resources to financial institutions on building, managing and establishing open,
collaborative, trustworthy and human financial enterprises.
Marshall and Rossman (1999, p.33) argue that the exploratory purpose covers the following
elements: a) Investigation of little-understood phenomena, b) Identification or discovery of
important categories of meaning and c) Generation of hypotheses for further research.
14
P a g e | 40
40
1.8. Strategic intent, relevance and impact of the research
“Don’t worry if the assumptions of our theories do not reflect reality; what matters is
that these theories can accurately predict the outcomes. The theories are valid
because of their explanatory and predictive power, irrespective of how absurd the
assumptions may look from the perspective of common sense” (Friedman, 1953
cited by Ghoshal, 2005, p.80). At this stage it is important for the author to highlight
the fact that this research has an underlying purpose and aims at seeking and
creating a greater impact both within the management scholarly research and
business offering a real lens in the current function of the management of open
innovation within the financial industry and in general, eschewing similar views
such as the abovementioned one by Friedman. To that respect, this research aspires
to create a positive impact on people, firms and society and contribute to the process
so as to “galvanize knowledge-sharing, learning and change among academics and
practitioners” (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2011, p.34).
Management is considered as “one of the greatest human innovations of the
twentieth century” (Canals, 2009, p.1); business is not considered as scientific
discipline. Instead it is considered as a profession, requiring a multidisciplinary and
broad-based approach and mindset (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005) or even to the
extreme, that management is a practicing art (Eccles and Nohria, 1992). Its main
purpose is to streamline and master the numerous human, social and organizational
complexities and compelling challenges within a globalized, cataclysmic and
unpredictable business environment. Similarly Mintzberg (2004) prevails upon the
fact that management as a practice encompasses the elements of experience, insight
and science-based analysis. In this frame of reference, the word that has acted as a
landmark for the author throughout this research endeavour is relevance. In this
context, the author defines relevance as the development of rigorous research, in
such a way, that creates new and diverse content of knowledge and methods that
address business challenges, while offering insights and perceptivity to issues that
are of primary importance to the business community. Hence, providing
discernment, ideas and multi-thematic approaches can actually improve further and
develop the practice of management. Therefore, this qualitative research bridges the
gap between theory and practice by framing a contribution based both on theory and
real data, grounded on actual business practices, so as, to offer research outcomes
that can be of use for the industry and business per se (Bartunek et al., 2006), while
contributing to “strike a new balance between scientific rigor and practical
relevance” (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005, p.98).
P a g e | 41
41
This abovementioned view endorses the intention of the author to embrace a broader
view and perspective while tackling and addressing the respective research questions
by being factual and at the same time interesting and useful for real life business.
This means that the author aims at respecting and advancing scholarship15 in the
field of innovation management by producing research outcomes and propositions
that emanate “logic, future impact and credibility along with emotional and spiritual
pursuits” in the quest for finding and unveiling the truth (Northcote, 2012, p.105) .
The adoption of a qualitative approach, in the scope of this research, caters for the
creation of an abundant scope by embracing multidisciplinarity for investigative
depth, interpretative adequacy, illuminative fertility and participatory accountability
(Shank and Villella, 2004). Especially in the realms of the financial industry, the
author believes that the research outcomes can indeed contribute to the on-going
discussion on the necessity of social relevance in the modern management research.
The author is also in favour of the views presented by Ghoshal (2005) on the solely
forceful domination of pragmatism and result production without taking into
consideration the human aspect within the organizational sphere. “Organizations
have become more impersonal and individuals are often treated as just another
resource, causing employee loyalty to evaporate” (Canals, 2009, p.8).
“Moving forward is not about reformulating novel dependent or independent
variables; it is about addressing a phenomenon that can only be unpacked by
combining theories, concepts, data and methods from multiple disciplines to explore
the scope of boundary conditions of multiple disciplinary perspectives and the
benefits of this integration” (Cheng et al., 2009, p.1072). This dissertation embraces
this mindset arguing that the adoption of trust-embedded open innovation can bring
back humanity within financial organizations, encasing the adoption of alternative
models around the appreciation of human beings and the impact this mindset has on
people, organizations and society.
Boyer (1980 cited by Ghoshal, 2005) suggests four kinds of scholarship: a) discovery
(research), integration (synthesis), practice (application) and teaching (pedagogy).
15
P a g e | 42
42
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND STUDY SETTING
2.1. Research objectives
The overall purpose of this qualitative research is to develop a concise, concrete,
dynamic and comprehensive conceptual model, which (a) examines the trustembedded aspect of open innovation, (b) conceptualizes the framework of the human
dimension of open innovation (c) empowers the integrative role of human resource
management and (d) creates the prerequisites, the mindset and the talent to observe
the emerging shift towards the building of human enterprises in the financial
industry through the adoption of open innovation practices.
To that respect this research contributes to the on-going and much needed debate on
the necessity to recognize the importance of organizing for open innovation in the
financial industry. Hence, the overarching research question, which is dispersed
across this research, is Why and How to Create a Corporate Culture and
Environment for Trust-Embedded Open Innovation in the Financial Industry. In this
context, this research endeavours to address the following research questions
encapsulated within the abovementioned purpose:
RQ1. How is trust related to open innovation within the financial industry?
RQ2. How is open innovation conceptualized under the prism of intraorganizational
trust?
RQ3. What is the interplay between organizational readiness and trust-embedded
open innovation adoption in the financial industry?
RQ4. How do trust, readiness and human resource management practices
conceptualize the human dimension of trust-embedded open innovation in the
banking sector?
RQ5. What is the profile of an open innovation leader and how to create the right
organizational environment for employees to excel within an open innovation
corporate environment in the financial industry, within and outside the
organizational boundaries?
These five abovementioned research questions depict the natural pathway of the
author’s cognitive resonance in terms of developing the framework of exploring the
overarching research question. The research question covers many multifaceted
aspects and elements, which require individual but at the same time integrative
P a g e | 43
43
exploration. The research journey begins with the introduction of trust as a
conditional pre-requisite of open innovation adoption within the financial industry.
Driving this logical flow, the following research question, offers a detailed analysis
in terms of introducing and conceptualizing the trust-embedded open innovation
mindset. This is important because this theoretical contribution acts as a default
mechanism in the process of understanding the role of open innovation within the
financial industry, in terms of exploring the neglected human dimension of this
paradigm. Revisiting the organizational level it is natural to explore the
organizational readiness (and to a greater extend the individual readiness)
dimension, in terms of framing a conceptual model that could be used as an auditing
tool to assess the organizational readiness mechanisms for open innovation in the
financial industry. This research question depicts the inherent interplay between the
organizational and individual level of analysis since it embraces the multifaceted
role of the organizational sphere and how it can affect the adoption of open
innovation practices. In the same token, the interplay between trust, readiness and
human resource management practices take the research forward by providing a
conceptual model of capturing the human dimension. This human dimension is
finally illustrated in the last research question, which aims at putting into pieces the
puzzle of individual characteristics and organizational elements required in order to
thrive and succeed within the corporate environment of financial institutions. As the
following figure projects, the attitude towards the research questions is exploratory
by nature, encircling aspects from a number of disciplines, enriching the research
scope and objective, while at the same time taking into consideration elements from
multiple knowledge sources, practices and theoretical lenses.
Based on the abovementioned analysis, the following figure depicts an overall view
of the research by positioning each of the six publications and their relationships to
the dimensional literature space and the aim of the research itself.
P a g e | 44
44
Figure 4: Composition of the publications and their positioning within the research and the
research questions (Developed by the author)
Saldaňa (2011) argues that the formulation of the research questions should provide
descriptive, explanatory and outlining answers within the story of a social process.
Research questions “may also address the social meanings humans construct and
attribute, the contexts of particular phenomena and the variances that occur within
them” (Luttrell, 2011, p.161 cited by Saldaňa, 2011, p.71). The research questions
also reflect the corresponding research paradigm and approach the author wishes to
adopt, the choice of the research methodology, the way data will be collected,
treated and analysed and also the topical issues to be explored in relation to the
reality as perceived by the author.
The following table depicts the overall positioning of the research questions in
relation to each dedicated publication. It is important to underline that, publications
I, II and IV address the trust-embeddedness aspect, showing both the difficulty in
connecting the elusive concept of trust with open innovation and the challenge to
address this part of research with a high volume of literature streams.
P a g e | 45
45
Table 2: Positioning of the research questions within the publications (Developed by the
author)
Publications/Research
Questions
RQ1
RQ2
I
X
X
II
V
VI
RQ4
RQ5
X
III
IV
RQ3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.2. Scope of the research
In this context, the following figure presents a streamlined model of the study
setting, in accordance with the abovementioned analysis and the publications. The
model depicts the starting point of the open innovation paradigm and the twofold
exploration of the organizational (antecedents of open innovation and readiness) and
the individual dimension (individual readiness and open innovation leader) with
trust acting as the connective factor between the two and how learning and
development along with training and talent acquisition and retention, realized by
human resource management practices and top management actions, facilitate the
shift towards human centricity within the financial industry. A crucial point to be
clarified here is the fact that in order to be able to conceptualize the humancentricity dimension, it is important to capture the essence of open innovation
primarily within the organizational level. Human resource management practices
and top management play a continual circular role in the mobilization of the
individual dimension leveraging it on the organizational level; in other words
leading to the institutionalization of human enterprises that entail within their
entities elements from the individual and the organizational sphere.
P a g e | 46
46
Figure 5: A streamlined model of the study setting (Developed by the author)
2.3. Definition of key concepts
The discussion around the open innovation paradigm encasing a number of finergrained topics, has resulted in the need to shed light to some additional issues still
being in their infancy, lacking adequate and systematic attention. In this frame of
reference, the element of trust falls in the endeavour of identifying and exploring the
organizational and individual barriers towards the implementation of open
innovation practices.
Open innovation is primarily embedded in the establishment of successful business
relationships; therefore this kind of relationship empowerment must be related to
trust (Kanter, 1994). Within the open innovation paradigm, which is considered as a
connection-driven innovation paradigm (Salampasis et al., 2015b), trust is seen as a
congenital condition of the human collage, requiring years to be built, moments to
be destroyed and maybe never be rebuilt (Salampasis et al., 2014b). Salampasis et al.
(2015a) perceive the true and pure meaning of open innovation being realized only
through the establishment of deep connections and long-lasting relationships,
P a g e | 47
47
arguing that trust is the linkage between the two aspects; the individual and the
organizational sphere. This realization, even though it seems to be a simple
philosophy, it encapsulates numerous challenges and implications from the
management perspective of open innovation. These challenges are primarily mainly
related to the elements of a) vulnerability that exists between the trustor and the
trustee, b) the expectation of performing a particular action and c) the lack of control
(Mayer et al., 1995), which are the core DNA of trust.
The discussion around the necessity and importance of trust as a prerequisite for
open innovation to be meaningful, successful and thrive within the organizational
sphere, primarily, and the outside world, opens up new pathways both for research
and practice. At the same time it drives the emergence of a new mindset around the
attention to the humanly-embedded elements in organizations and the need to
establish all the necessary auditing mechanisms for organizational and individual
readiness towards open innovation. Last but not least the attention to trust nurtures
the soft side within business relationships by reflecting a shift towards a more
human to human philosophy (Salampasis et al., 2014b).
The author would like to underline the fact that since all the related concepts have
been extensively analysed and described in the respective publications attached in
the dissertation, there is no intention to repeat here what has already been written
and included in the corresponding publications, but to offer a brief overview of the
vicinity of the conceptual elements encased within the three interrelated and under
study concepts. Naturally, some potential overlapping is unavoidable, but this
should not be considered as plagiarism or misconduct.
2.3.1.
Open Innovation
Innovation to some extent had always been open (West and Gallagher, 2006). Open
innovation is recognized as one of the most important paradigms in innovation
management catering for the opening and democratization of the innovation
lifecycle and the reaching out beyond the organizational boundaries to capitalize on
internal and external knowledge, ideas and pathways to market. By definition open
innovation is “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate
internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation,
respectively” (Chesbrough et al., 2006, p.1) and is “systematically relying on a
firm’s … capabilities of internally and externally carrying out the major technology
management tasks …along the innovation process” (Lichtenthaler, 2011, p.77).
P a g e | 48
48
The underlying philosophy of open innovation is grounded in the complementarity
between the inflows and outflows of knowledge while bringing economic value to
creativity and knowledge (van der Meer, 2007). Within an open knowledge era,
experiencing a profound abundance and a non-stop flow of information, where the
transferring of knowledge inflows and outflows and access to information is indeed
beyond understanding, collaboration becomes the new business as usual mindset
that can facilitate success within this constantly changing business world
characterized by high competition and volatility. Open innovation is betting on the
power of “crowd wisdom” in order to find the right solution (Simanis and Hart,
2009, p.80). It is worth mentioning here the word that Chesbrough himself is using
to describe open innovation; a porous business model joining sides to the notion of
transparency, openness and sharing (Chesbrough, 2003b, p.37), or the fact that the
boundaries of the firm become permeable (Lichtenthaler, 2011). As a concept, open
innovation, has experienced an unprecedented growth trajectory in terms of
academic research being perceived as one of the most discussed and debated
innovation management approach in modern academia and business. As a model has
been of complementary nature to previous concepts of employees’ cumulative
innovation (Chandler, 1963; Reuter, 1977; Scotchmer, 2004), the supplier and user
innovation paradigm (von Hippel, 1986, 1988, 2005a, 2005b, 2009), open source
(West and Gallagher, 2006), user co-creation (Franke and Piller, 2004), user-centred
innovation and customer integration (Baldwin et al., 2006; Baldwin and von Hippel,
2011; Oliveira and von Hippel, 2011), peer to peer innovation (Satzger and Neus,
2010), distributed innovation (Bogers and West, 2012; Sawhney and Prandelli,
2000) and the early supplier involvement process (Bidault et al., 1998) by bringing
on board the competitors as a potential external source of innovation, opening up the
innovation process. Moreover, its definition has experiences evolutionary approach
depicted in the following figure.
P a g e | 49
49
Figure 6: An evolutionary approach in the definition of open innovation (Developed by the
author)
The core of open innovation model is the infusion of external ideas and knowledge
into the new product development (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007; Laursen and
Salter, 2006), denoting an emerging shift from a closed to an open innovation
paradigm (Chesbrough et al., 2006; Dahlander and Gann, 2010). This propensity to
the open paradigm is illustrated into the fact that “closed innovation springs entirely
from internal company innovation activity, largely in the form of organized R&D”
(Helfat, 2006, p.86). On the other hand the open innovation model advances its
emergence from “sources external to the company in combination with
supplementary internal company innovation activity” (Helfat, 2006, p.86). The
following table depicts the core differences between the closed and the open
innovation paradigms.
P a g e | 50
50
Table 3: Closed vs Open Innovation (Adapted from Chesbrough, 2003 b)
In the process of understanding the functionality of these knowledge inflows and
outflows, Gassmann and Enkel (2004) identified three processes within the structure
of the open innovation paradigm: inside-out (outbound), outside-in (inbound) and
coupled (bidirectional) process.
Figure 7: Decoupling the locus of innovation process-Three archetypes of open innovation
processes (Gassmann and Enkel, 2004, p.6)
P a g e | 51
51
In the same manner, the following table provides an overall understanding of these
three types and their respective mechanisms.
Table 4: Open innovation types and mechanisms (Adapted from Chesbrough and Bogers,
2014)
Rigby and Zook (2002) consider a number of core benefits of open innovation: the
inflow of ideas that can potentially lead to innovation, the outflow of ideas in terms
of revenue generation and talent acquisition, the early exposition and entrance to the
market in terms of evaluating and assessing the viability of a possible investment
and the inflow and outflow of ideas that puts emphasis on the identification,
understanding and focusing on core innovative assets. Almirall and CasadesusMasanell (2010) present a simulation model that depicts the trade-off between
benefits of discovery and costs of divergence. In their study it is discussed that
discovery “might arise not from the exercise of full strategic freedom but from
restricting the available choices and learning from those made by others” (Almirall
and Casadesus-Masanell, 2010, p.44).
Going back to the shift from closed to open innovation a brief but important parallel
analysis of two innovation models is important. The way innovation has been
perceived so far is under the pillar of value creation and customer need fulfilment.
P a g e | 52
52
The main goal of the firms under the structural innovation paradigm or vertically
integrated innovation model (Bogers and West, 2012) is to deliver a product or a
service to the customer in a better, faster and cheaper way that another competitor
would have done. The customer is based on the centre of the process but only as a
consumer; meaning that there is no interest on building up relationships, customer
involvement in the product or service creation process. It is simply a process
working for the customer but without the customer. Simanis and Hart (2009) argue
that the implementation of the structural innovation paradigm has substantial
consequences in the societal, customer and environmental leads of life. Societies are
simply a group of consumers waiting for their needs to fulfilled, relationships
become transactions, the natural environment is used only as a source of raw
material and a general attitude of a mass consumer market, which will potentially
lead to a better quality of life, is born.
On the other hand the embedded innovation paradigm brings upfront the concept of
business intimacy. Business model intimacy is based upon the relational model of
identity and a community creation. It builds up a sense of belonging, on shared
vision practices and creates a sense of responsibility to the community. Embedded
innovation and business intimacy symbolize a new conceptualization of value
creation which is not based only on the competitive advantage but elevates the
creation of long lasting and trustworthy relationships. Through these relationships a
unique platform for sustainable growth is formulated and new horizons for
companies and the society are being opened. The embedded innovation paradigm
promulgates collaborative attitudes and mutual learning since it is enacted within a
community based environment, giving absolute emphasis on relationship, team
building and equal partnerships. It encourages the endorsement of engagement
which is a new way of thinking by instilling responsibility and commitment and
creates an ecosystem of people and institutions that respect the values of the
enterprise. Through these community-based practices diverse people are working
together towards the creation of sustainable and common value. “Innovation isn’t
enabled by new relationships, it is the relationship” (Simanis and Hart, 2009, p.83).
Following the analysis of the two models of innovation paradigm it is clear that open
innovation is perceived under the pillar of collaborative innovation. Collaborative
innovation can be perceived dyadically via the involvement of lead users (Oliveira
and von Hippel, 2011), and the customers such “as through participatory design,
empathy, trust and modularization” (Greer and Lei, 2012, p.64). It derives from the
structural differences within the organization regarding the flow of information and
ownership besides the structural mechanism of coordinating this infusion of
P a g e | 53
53
information (Satzger and Neus, 2010). It is important to understand that
collaborative innovation is set within a framework of a peer to peer or network
perspective and is managed through synergies. “Firms that manage to create a
synergy between their own processes and externally available ideas may be able to
benefit from the external creative ideas of outsiders to generate profitable new
products and services” (Dahlander and Gann, 2010, p.704).
Open innovation is considered a multidimensional concept. These dimensions are
multifaceted capturing a wide spectrum of the open innovation research agenda:
inbound and outbound (Bigliardi et al., 2012), breadth and depth (Laursen and
Salter, 2006), external sourcing, search, collaboration and protection (Ebersberger et
al., 2010). In a similar manner, West et al. (2006) identified five levels of analysis:
individuals and groups, implications for firms, interoganizational value networks,
industry-sector, national institutions-innovation systems. Ili et al. (2010) by bringing
insights from the automotive industry identified the following four dimensions:
external sources for innovation, operations and processes, external exploitation and
personal opinion on future trends in industry and their own company. Last but not
least from a research stream point of view the following perspectives are proposed:
spatial, structural, supplier, user, process, leveraging, tool, cultural, institutional
(Gassmann et al., 2010).
The author would like to highlight that in the realms of this research, open
innovation is considered holistically and does not differentiate between the three
processes. This is discussed in detail in the limitations section.
2.3.2.
Trust
Trust is an invisible but extremely powerful prerequisite of any kind of relationship.
As a concept it has been extensively explored in the literature embracing numerous
definitions, research approaches and conceptualizations.
Trust is an elusive and multidimensional notion (Brattström et al., 2012, Corazzini,
1977)) capturing many interconnected, interrelated and difficult to understand
elements that exist individually, but neither necessarily interdependently nor
constantly (Tyler and Stanley, 2007). This multidimensionality has been extensively
explored within extant literature leading to the proposition of various and different
dimension of trust (Coleman, 1990; Deutsch, 1960; Gambetta, 1988; Hart et al.,
1986; Jackson, 1985; Luhmann, 1979; Strickland, 1958; Zand, 1972). Swan and
Trawick (1987) developed a conceptual framework projecting five trust dimensions:
P a g e | 54
54
dependability/reliability,
friendliness.
honesty,
competence,
customer
orientation
and
This fact has resulted into a multilingualism of trust in terms of definition,
perception and positioning. “Several terms have been used synonymously with trust
and this has obfuscated the nature of trust. Amongst these are cooperation,
confidence and predictability” (Mayer et al., 1995, p.712). As a concept it has
undergone sociological, psychological and cognitive conceptualizations contributing
to the significance of the notion while attracting considerable research efforts
(Bachmann, 2001; Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Kramer, 1999; Lane and Bachmann,
1998; Misztal, 2013; Rousseau et al., 1998; Seligman, 2000; Sztompka, 1999; Tyler,
2003). However, trust still remains a very elusive notion being extremely difficult to
conceptualize due to the highly extended and broad literature and the lack of a
widely accepted definition. This is mainly grounded on the inherent dilemma of the
primary perception of trust either as a psychological attitude (referring to the
expectation and the willingness) or as a behavioural choice (decision to trust).
Möllering (2001, p.404) elaborates upon the nature of trust towards a theory of
expectations, interpretation and suspension arguing that “trust can be defined, first
of all, as a state of favourable expectation regarding other people’s actions and
intentions”. Kramer (1999, p.571) acknowledges the fact that “most trust theorists
agree that whatever else its essential features, trust is fundamentally a psychological
state”.
Extant research has highlighted and acknowledged the central role trust plays in
organizations delineating the aspects of the micro and macro level. This delineation
depicts the need for seeing trust as a multilevel, multidimensional construct
requiring multidisciplinary research approach.
Table 5: Micro and macro levels of trust (Developed by the author based on Fulmer and
Gelfand, 2012)
Trust
Micro level
Employee satisfaction
Effort and performance
Citizenship behavior
Collaboration and teamwork
Leadership effectiveness
Human resource management
Macro level
Organizational change and
survival
Entrepreneurship
Strategic alliances
Mergers and acquisitions
National-level economic health
P a g e | 55
55
Perceptions
Negotiation success
Trust has important embedded psychological, sociological and economic properties.
The main idea behind the importance and existence of trust is the assumption that
the social world is characterized by benevolence i.e. “having confidence or faith that
some order, upon whom we must depend, will not act in ways that occasion us
painful consequences” (Boon, 1995, p.656). In terms of conceptualization this
dissertation adopts the definition proposed by Mayer et al., (1995, p.712) that trust is
“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on
the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”, referring to
the “extent that people can trust others, they can work together to create benefits that
each individually cannot generate alone” (Dunning et al., 2012, p.687). Yamagishi
(1998) considers trust as an efficient and effective form of social intelligence, while
Orbell and Dawes (1993) argue that in economic life, trust is a foundational catalyst
and enabler of cooperation for mutual benefit. Fukuyama (1995), while examining
the principles that do good and bring prosperity to the society, recognizes the
importance of trust as a foundational prerequisite for the development of interorganizational relationships, which facilitate and ease interfirm exchange of
knowledge, while Niu (2010) puts emphasis on the existence of high degrees of trust
among parties in order to nurture and foster effective and efficient collaboration
among organizations.
This non-singularity nature of the concept of trust has led existing scholarship into
distinguishing different types of trust: generalized, system, process-based and
personality-based (Johnson and Grayson, 1999; Lindgreen, 2003). Krueger et al.
(2007, p.3) distinguish two forms of trust: conditional and unconditional.
Conditional trust is connected in the mind of evaluating the “expected and realized
reward”, while unconditional trust is tied in with “social attachment behaviour”. In
the interorganizational level, trust can be perceived either as dispositional or
relational (Gulati and Sytch, 2008). Dispositional trust mainly reflects expectations
about the trustworthiness of others in general (Gurtman, 1992). Relational trust
pertains to a specific dyadic partner (McAllister, 1995). Scholars, such as, Brownlie
and Howson (2005), argue that trust depicts solely as a relational entity and cannot
be perceived under an isolation perspective. “Trust occurs as individuals extract the
known factors while bracketing off or suspending the unknown factors to avoid
confusing decisions with uncertainty” (Powell, 2011, p.29). Reina and Reina (2006)
propose three elements in order to describe the capacity of trust: competence trust,
P a g e | 56
56
contractual trust and communication trust. De Cremer (2015) denotes that no
perceived difference exists towards the acknowledgement of the importance of trust,
underlining the inherent desire of human beings to develop and build business
relationships based on trust, irrespective of their cultural background perspective.
This means though that even if there are no differences in the aspect of why,
multiple differences and approaches, originating mainly from the ad hoc cultural
credentials, are perceived in the aspects of how, when and with whom.
An organization is by nature an inherently multilevel system and therefore the role
of trust is perceived at the individual, team and organizational level and in a referent
refers to interpersonal, team and organization.
Table 6: Trust levels and referents (Developed by the author based on Fulmer and Gelfand,
2012)
Trust Levels and Referents
Levels
Referents
Individual
Interpersonal
Team
Team
Organizational
Organization
This research primarily positions trust within the organizational level of analysis,
which involves the “aggregated degree of trust shared with sufficient consensus
among members in an organization” (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012, p.1170). However,
it is important to highlight that in terms of conceptualizing the trust-embeddedness
aspect of open innovation, trust is perceived as a social reality. This means that the
author tries to see trust not only as a psychological event within the individual
cosmological perception but as a systematic and intersubjective social reality (Lewis
and Weigert, 1985). To that respect, the author tries to bring a sociological
conceptualization and understanding. Trust allows social interactions to proceed on
a simple and confident basis making it a functional necessary pre-condition for
continuance of harmonious social relationships. In this frame of reference, the
human dimension is captured within the cognitive, the emotional and the
behavioural base of trust. In this frame of reference, we have these three distinctive
analytical dimensions of trust corresponding to the three basic modes of human
social experience. In this research context, these dimensions of the phenomenon are
interpenetrating and mutually supporting aspects of the one, unitary experience and
social imperative that is called trust. It is important also to underline the fact that this
research does not aim at operationalizing trust in terms of understanding the various
P a g e | 57
57
functionalities it entails within the different levels of analysis and the potential
effects it can possible on open innovation performance. This is discussed in detail in
the limitations section.
2.3.3.
Readiness
As it has already been discussed, the adoption and implementation of open
innovation practices within a corporate environment, requires the creation of such an
organizational setting that shows readiness towards incorporating such kind
practices. Furthermore, for the realms of this research, open innovation has been
considered as a mindset (Salampasis et al., 2015a) engulfed within the culture of the
organizational sphere. However, this kind of leverage does not come easily. It stands
in need for change in many aspects of the organizational entity, so as to prove the
readiness open innovation depends upon. Managing change consists one of the most
critical and core challenges organizations are faced with and it has been argued that
successful organizations are the ones, which are put in a continuous and consistent
change trajectory, in terms of striving to meet and face current and future challenges
(Madsen et al., 2006).
Change is defined as the process of “altering people’s actions, reactions and
interactions to move the organization’s existing state to some future desired state”
(McNabb and Sepic, 1995, p.370). This definition depicts the change stands in need
for alterations both within the individual and the organizational sphere. “Change in
inherent in human action and necessarily occurs in the context of human social
interactions” (Ford and Ford, 1995, cited by Choi and Ruona, 2011, p.47). This
means that employees (individual sphere) need to show signs of flexibility,
adjustment and willingness to accept change, a process that should occur
continuously. Change means introducing new things, processes and elements that
can have a multilevel effect within the organization and also share significant
influence within the organizational culture, behavior, along with, involving and
modifying traditional norms and institutionalized state of minds. This means that
change challenges to not occur on a stand-alone mode but reflect perplexed human
dynamics involving individuals, departments, organizations and the environment
beyond corporate boundaries (Backer, 1995). Choi and Ruona (2011) argue that in
the organizational change literature two prevailing perspectives exist: a) the strategic
management perspective (changes required in terms of implementing corporate
strategy) and b) the organizational development perspective (efforts and changes
required within the organizational work setting in order to improve individual
development and corporate performance). Moreover, change can be discussed
P a g e | 58
58
within various levels of analysis, such as, individual, group, organization etc.
Needless to say that, “organizational change interventions cannot be successful
unless individual change takes place. Individual change cannot effectively occur
unless employees are prepared and ready for it” (Madsen et al., 2006, p.94).
Readiness for change is perceived in two dimensions: the individual and the
organizational. By definition, readiness is “a mindset that exists among employees
during the implementation of organizational changes. It comprises the beliefs,
attitudes, and intentions of change target members regarding the need for and
capability of implementing organizational change. Readiness for organizational
change is important to any change effort because the state of readiness for change
may influence the strategy followed throughout the change effort” (Armenakis and
Fredenberger, 1997, p.144) or “an individual’s beliefs, attitudes and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to
successfully undertake those changes” (Armenakis et al., 1993, p.681). This means
that readiness for change is a combination of organizational (Armenakis et al., 1993)
and individual models (Prochaska et al., 2001), thus it is not a fixed element of
individuals or a system. Therefore the factors that determine individual and
organizational readiness for change involve the culture, the climate, the policies and
the performance outcomes of an organization (McNabb and Sepic, 1995).
Backer (1995) states that the individual aspect of readiness for change revolves
around the beliefs, attitudes and intentions people have in relation to a) the extent to
which changes are needed and required and 2) the perception that individual and
organizational capacity exists in order to drive and successfully implement these
changes. To that respect, change includes interpersonal and social dynamics in terms
of understanding, perceiving and implementing the needed enhancement
interventions that shall lead to the desired changes.
Weiner (2009) discusses organizational readiness for change both in psychological
and structural terms giving emphasis on the organization’s resources in relation to
finance, infrastructure, people and information. However, Weiner leads a sceptical
pathway regarding the concrete conceptualization of organizational readiness for
change by wondering whether readiness is a structural construct or a psychological
one and brings forward a theory trying to “reconcile the structural view and the
psychological view by specifying a relationship between them” (Weiner, 2009,
p.716). This leads towards a clear distinction between the institutional perspective in
16
Page number not for citation purposes.
P a g e | 59
59
relation to the organization as a construction (in terms of infrastructure and
processes) and the organization a cumulative formation in relation organizational
culture, people’s psychological readiness, organizational behaviour, values and
principles requiring “collective, coordinated behaviour change [...] in order to
effectively implement the change” (Weiner, 2009, p.617).
Armenakis and Fredenberger (1997) discuss the components forming the notion of
readiness related to the faith the employees have towards the change agent and his
competences regarding the management of change, the realization and
understanding of the necessity proposed by the change, the balanced reflection upon
the urgency regarding the change i.e. that the need for change is understood by all
parties and is not simply imposed by top level management and finally the
willingness of the employees to be actively involved in the change and contribute to
the creation of an effective and efficient organization. In relation to the
abovementioned multi-level managerial challenges and prior changes, Rafferty et al.
(2013, p.112) while identifying a gap in the literature regarding the reflection of the
multi-level processes in relation to organizational readiness, develop a multilevel
review of change readiness “outlining the antecedents and consequences of
individual, work group and organizational change readiness” [...] suggesting that “
the processes that contribute to the emergence of change readiness at the individual
and collective levels differ at the individual, group and organizational levels”.
Penland (1997) presents an interesting relationship between organizational
readiness and the implementation of Quality Management Systems by developing a
model of organizational readiness strategies focusing on three environmental
factors; strategic leadership, vision perspective and positive culture. Strategic
leadership is “the process of identifying, crystallizing and communicating changes
that will assure integration and harmony within current and future environments”
(Penland, 1997, p.70). The vision perspective includes the crystallization on the
specific focus of the organization, the identification of barriers hindering
improvement, development and change and the goals and expectations on
performance measurement and evaluation. In addition the nurturing of a positive
culture embraces “a strong value for team participation and shared leadership as
basic management practices to enhance probabilities for success” since it is
“comprised of beliefs, values, attitudes, norms and philosophies that significantly
influence its ultimate success or failure” (Penland, 1997, p.71).
17
P a g e | 60
60
Weiner (2009, p.218) argues that “organizational readiness for change is not only a
multi-level construct, but a multi-faceted one”. This leads to the understanding that
readiness requires preparation both on a psychological and behavioural level so as to
be efficiently and effectively implemented. It endorses the readiness for individual
change regarding the staff perceptions, which is realised through a variety of stages;
the precontemplative, the contemplative, the preparatory, the action and the
maintenance stage. Cunningham et al. (2002, p.378) suggest that “the movement
through these stages is governed by decisional balance, the anticipated risks of
change vs the potential benefits of change”.
In this section, the author has highlightened the definitional elements of the three
main concepts this research revolves around: open innovation, trust and readiness, in
terms of understanding the underlying rationale behind this research. Each of these
concepts has been extensively discussed within the publications and the aim of this
section is to unveil aspects behind these concepts that have been used as linkages in
the way of understanding the trust-embeddedness approach to open innovation and
the conceptualization of the human side of open innovation in the financial industry.
To that respect, the following will analyse the theoretical foundations, which this
research is being based on in order to develop the theoretical contribution.
18
P a g e | 61
61
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
The endeavour to capture and conceptualize the human dimension of open
innovation under the prism of trust is quite challenging. Therefore the author,
following the Chinese qiang da chu tou niao19 mindset, has been quite thoughtful
and cautious and has employed a systematic thinking in terms of avoiding, as much
as possible, fallacies, misconceptions and misinterpretations. In order to overcome,
or at least, address these foundational challenge, in the best possible way, so as, to
achieve not only academic excellence but also ensure building upon a stable and
solid theoretical foundation, the author needs to adopt a multidisciplinary research
philosophy, think in a creative, multidisciplinary and rigorous way and synthesize
many and various streams of literature in order to combine concepts, theories and
ideas. Moreover, the author did not wish to fall in the trap of “casual theorizing”
(Birkinshaw et al., 2011, p.579) by offering vague and intuitive descriptive insights;
rather the trust-embedded approach to open innovation aspect has been framed both
within existing debates and within existing literature and the author is explicit in
terms of presenting and arguing about the respective body of theories the research is
based on. This case highlights the complexity of the phenomena the author has to
investigate in a qualitative manner hence the need for theoretical allies became more
than imperative.
In this context, a fundamental issue within this approach is the fact that open
innovation lacks a theoretical foundation in relation to the theories of the firm since
“open innovation has only been loosely connected to the existing innovation
management literature and the underlying management theories” (van de Vrande et
al., 2010, p.230). This constitutes an important and crucial shortcoming which
depicts that “a better theoretical foundation of open innovation research is needed
[…]. In particular, open innovation studies need to be sufficiently grounded in prior
research into both open innovation and related fields. […] A cumulative
development of open innovation research that integrates earlier findings is essential
to arrive at a coherent body of knowledge about open innovation” (Lichtenthaler,
2011, p.87).
West et al. (2014) acknowledge the integration of open innovation with existing
established underpinning theories of innovation, management and economics as one
very important emerging theme in the open innovation research agenda. Open
innovation has been linked to the dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece, 2007),
19
Early bird gets shot.
P a g e | 62
62
the resource dependence theory (Alexy et al., 2013), absorptive capacity (Spithoven
et al., 2011; West and Bogers, 2014), firm diversification (Colombo et al., 2014)
and theories of governance (Felin and Zenger, 2014; Gambardella and Panico,
2014). Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt (2014) conducted a very interesting review of the
seminal theories of the firm and strategy literature, making an attempt to connect
these existing theories to the open innovation paradigm. The authors recognize the
fact that scarce and non-systematic attention has been given to the link between
firms’ business and corporate strategy, there is a partial alignment of some theories
with the open innovation paradigm and these theories require further adaptation to
capture an explicit dimension of open innovation and the fact that “open innovation
is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon which compels us to combine
different perspectives into a broader, dynamic (or stepwise) framework”
(Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014, p.273).
In the context in which this dissertation is written, the author suggests that the open
innovation paradigm lies within the interplay among the seminal theories of
management and organization, such as, the resource dependence theory, the
resource-based view, the dynamic capabilities approach, the relational view, the
organizational ecology and the new institutionalism. Needless to say that other
theories covering aspects of strategy, economics etc can be considered but for this
particular context the author limits the analysis in theories that have influenced this
respective research and theories that have already been discussed within the existing
literature. The following table depicts the main elements of each theory.
Table 7: Seminal organizational theories20
Theories

Resource dependence
theory



Main elements
Depicts the role that external resources play in the shaping
of organizational behaviour
Explains the interplay between the power of resources and
organizational dependency
Recognizes the need for a multidimensional spectrum of
resources required by the organization
Resources can be founded and attracted from the external
The table was developed by the author based on the seminal works of Amburgey and Rao,
1996; Barney, 1986a, 1986b, 1991; 2001, Barney et al., 2001; Carrol and Hannan, 1989;
DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Dyer, 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;
Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004; Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Kleiner, 2013; Lavie, 2006; Penrose,
1959; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Teece et al., 1997; Teece and Pisano, 1994; Teece, 2007, 2009;
Wernerfelt, 1984, 1995.
20
P a g e | 63
63
Resource-based view
Dynamic capabilities
Organizational
ecology
Relational view
environment of the organization
Acts the driver of organizational competitive advantage
Resources are priceless
Resources are tangible and intangible
Sustainable competitive advantage is only possible by
means of resources that cannot be easily imitated and
substituted
 Exploring the firm as a black box-addressing the fact that
different companies have different levels of capabilities.
Dynamic capabilities are of idiosyncratic nature depicted
in their uniqueness to each company and embedded in
each company’s historical legacy (Kleiner, 2013)
 “The firm's ability to integrate, build and reconfigure
internal and external competences to address rapidly
changing environments. Dynamic capabilities thus reflect
an organization's ability to achieve new and innovative
forms of competitive advantage given path dependencies
and market positions” (Teece et al., 1997, p.516)
 Focuses more on the competitive survival of the
organization and not so much on the achieving a
sustainable competitive advantage
 Managerial activities characterizing a capability as
dynamic (Teece, 2007)-positioning today’s resources in a
proper way for tomorrow
 Sensing: identification and assessment of
opportunities outside organizational boundaries
 Seizing: mobilization of resources in terms of
value-capture from these dedicated opportunities
 Transforming: renewal that is continuous
 The dynamic capabilities theory “provides an intellectual
structure for businesspeople to start thinking
systematically about why companies succeed or fail”
(Kleiner, 2013, n.g.)
 Evolutionary approaches to organizations
 Understanding of the conditions under which
organizational emerge, develop and cease to exist
 Theory fragments
 Inertia and change
 Niche width
 Resource partitioning
 Density dependence
 Age dependence
 Considering networks and dyads of firms as the unit of
analysis to explain relational rents
 Idiosyncratic interfirm linkages are a source of relational
rents
 Relational rent: “a supernormal profit jointly generated in




P a g e | 64
64



New institutionalism

an exchange relationship that cannot be generated by
either firm in isolation and can only be created through the
joint idiosyncratic contributions of the specific alliance
partners” (Dyer and Singh, 1998, p.662)
Sources
 relation-specific assets
 knowledge-sharing routines
 complementary resources/capabilities, and
 effective governance
Sees the institution from a sociological prism
Perceives a direct behaviour and interaction with society,
not explicitly linked to the economic facet
Strives to explain the why and the how of the emerging of
institutions within a certain context
The abovementioned table depicts the main seminal organizational theories, which
have either already been discussed by the extant open innovation literature or have
influenced this research, but at the same time do not fully capture (within this
particular research context) the essence and intent of the human dimension and the
insights and message the author wishes to convey. It is important here to highlight
that since the research captures trust as a systematic and intersubjective social reality
(including emotional, the cognitive and the behavioural dimensions) and does not
intend to apply novel measurements in terms of capturing the open innovation
performance element, these theories are not totally aligned to the objectives and the
context of this research. Furthermore, the author argues that these theories tend to be
a bit disconnected from the people, lacking a human touch. In addition these theories
do not fully address the motivational side. Motivations are intertwined with the way
management understands employees. This leads to behavioural norms and people
are not simply seen as resource or visible capital. Moreover, the abovementioned
seminal theories do not seem to grasp the humanistic prospect that this dissertation
aspires to introduce; the integrative interaction between the individual attitude and
corporate conditions. This interplay between the specific individual logic and the ad
hoc corporate arena is realized via a magnitude of ethic-based responsible and
transparent decision making, fair processes and practices and a corporate culture that
becomes the agent of understanding and appreciating the human element.
The primary incentive for the adoption of open innovation practices is the exchange
of knowledge, which is transformed into new innovative products and services
constituting a major competitive advantage for the firm (Barney, 1991). In order to
achieve this endeavour companies foster external collaboration via permeable
organizational boundaries facilitating this openness. This knowledge transfer is
P a g e | 65
65
based upon the exchange of necessary resources and capabilities i.e. valuable
tangible and intangible resources which remain at the firm’s disposal (Amit and
Schoemaker, 1993). This exchange is not only monetary-driven but also
behavioural, encapsulating an inherent experimentation attitude. It illustrates that
individual growth becomes a cumulative conception leading to collective
organizational growth. This counter-influx of external resources and their integration
within the organization has a substantial impact on the firm’s behaviour, the
strategic and tactical management of the organization (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).
Furthermore, it creates a true culture of quality, maintained as coherent across an
organization, which is perceived and motioned not solely by dint of pecuniary
incentives but as a conditional and inherent element of the employees’ quiver of
skills, values, behavioural norms and attitudes creating a sustainable and significant
competitive advantage. The culture is materialized in virtue of “an environment in
which employees not only follow quality guidelines but also consistently see others
taking quality-focused actions, hear others talking about quality and feel quality all
around them” and is driven by four foundational factors: “leadership emphasis,
message credibility, peer involvement and employee ownership of quality issues”
(Srinivasan and Kurey, 2014, p.24).
Companies can embrace open innovation by forming interlocks, alliances, joint
ventures, mergers and acquisitions so as to minimize resource dependencies and
empower their organizational autonomy and legitimacy (Davis and Cobb, 2010;
Drees and Heugens, 2013; Hillman et al., 2009). This interaction and ecosystem
formation has also a societal effect, which is related to the sociological view of an
organization denoted by the theory of new-institutionalism. This means that an
organization does not function in solitude but within an institutional environment.
Competitive advantage is important in terms of survival but the economic
perspective is not enough; organizations need to establish legitimacy (Kostova and
Zaheer, 1999; March, 1996). In this context, an organizational and individual
readiness towards successful embeddedness within a cultural, social and political
environment establishes norms that foster collaboration and openness both insideout and outside-in.
Following upon the abovementioned analysis, the author debates that the core
element of the inter-linkages between the exchange of resources, the formulation of
collaborative ecosystems and the establishment of a legitimate ethos fostering this
collaboration is the primary establishment of trust between organizations, which is
firstly driven within a firm that is ready to collaborate effectively and bring value. In
the financial industry, this becomes the incentive for setting in motion a set of
P a g e | 66
66
organizational and individual forces that will leverage the core value of the firm.
The agent for the formation for this internal organizational ecosystem is the effective
and socially responsible management of the human element.
However, the author reckons that this angle is not sufficient enough especially
towards the striving to capture the human dimension of open innovation. The author
believes that in order to capture the essence of the human dimension of open
innovation, it is important to look beyond the traditional narrative of open
innovation i.e. knowledge inflows and outflows. The author believes that (a) the
knowledge exchange, inflows and outflows mechanisms are inadequate to fathom
open innovation in its being and (b) the unquantifiable human dimension of open
innovation must be perceived not only from the skills perspective but a whole
ecosystem of additional non-pecuniary elements (people, minds, cultures,
leadership) that correspond to a broader perspective engrained in the organizational
dimension. “Over time, exposing one’s own vulnerability feels less risky and more
worthwhile as people repeatedly witness and participate in conversations of their
colleagues’ weaknesses and discussions of the undiscussable” (Kegan et al., 2014,
p.50). Under this prism the author’s interpretation of weaknesses is not only limited
to skills and competences but is driven further to the collective ecosystem of the
human nature that includes, values, behavioural norms, motivational aspects and all
the elements necessary to portray the human aspect within an enterprise, wishing to
become primary open internally before opening up to the external globalized
environment (Salampasis et al., 2014c). These realizations led the author to
acknowledge the fact that the abovementioned theories, in the realms of this
particular context, cannot fully institute a solid theoretical foundation for this
particular and specific humanized aspect of open innovation. To that respect, the
author contributes to the discussion on linking open innovation to seminal and
established theories of innovation, management and economics by introducing the
trust-embedded approach to open innovation, conceptualized in the realms of
McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, in the endeavour to capture the essence of the
human side of this paradigm, within the financial industry.
P a g e | 67
67
Figure 8: Positioning of the Theory X and Theory Y (Developed by the author)
The author argues that in order to capture and understand the essence of the human
side of open innovation, there is a need to understand not only the skills and
competences but the underlying human psychology, motivations and emotions that
cause people to behave the way they do. This will also facilitate the development of
an ethically responsible and humane approach to open innovation. The theory X and
Y captures this dynamic interplay between the individual and organizational spheres
explicitly endorsing the role of motivation, emotions and psychological norms,
which are not adequately considered in the seminal organizational theories. Theory
X and Theory Y has been used in human resource management, organizational
behaviour, organizational communication and organizational development paving
and facilitating the way to a multidisciplinary approach in the research and are
aligned to the primary objective of this dissertation that caters for a multi-polar
investigation of the human dimension of trust-embedded open innovation in the
financial industry.
The impetus of this research towards the appreciation and exploration of the human
side of open innovation, except for the general calling for more academic
P a g e | 68
68
exploration in the field, is empowered, inspired and found intellectual support in the
seminal work of Douglas McGregor who in 1960 wrote the book The Human Side of
Enterprise, aiming at building an “intrinsically motivating, actualizing organization
and to create causes worthy of commitment” (Strauss, 2002, p.198) while placing in
management’s way “a devastating critique of many traditional practices and a
stimulating way of thinking about the proper role of the manager” (Stagner, 1961,
p.317). The incentive to focus on the human side of open innovation in the financial
industry emerges specifically from our urge to revoke the traditional view of
organizational management and emanate the importance of the core human nature
and behavioural element within the organizational setting (Marx, 1961) of a
financial institution and the way managers’ attitudes affect the employees in such an
organizational environment since a “managerial behaviour is a direct reflection of
the manager’s assumptions about human nature” (Schein, 2011, p.157). A
constitutional prerequisite of such an organizational setting is the prior examination
from a managerial standpoint of all the assumptions related to the human nature in
order to explore and realize the way that these cognitions have an effect on the
managerial behaviour per se (Whittington and Evans, 2005). Furthermore, this
managerial behaviour is related to the interpretation and understanding of power and
how this can be perceived within either a transactional or transformational
leadership approach. In this context, Burns (2003) argues that leaders are inclined to
actual or potential power albeit power holders who are not necessarily leaders.
The author proclaims that the human side of open innovation is ingrained within the
study of the human dimensions of management evangelized by McGregor since
“…the open/organic structures are being utilized effectively in developing
economies that have traditionally embraced bureaucratic management…” (Head,
2011, p.205) and because it creates a mindset that “opens up to new ideas about the
workplace and under appropriate conditions a tremendous amount of creative human
energy can be unleashed throughout organizations” (Whittington and Evans, 2005,
p.116) making this the perfect environment for the adoption and embellishment of
open innovation practices. Especially within a financial institution mainly
characterised by a silo-driven behaviourism, stagnant hierarchies and often inhuman
working environments, getting ahead with open innovation means starting by
understanding and trusting their employees, appreciating their human dynamics and
opening up towards a sharing and democratic organization ready to accept and work
with change, internal and external intellect, especially with such an unstable,
uncertain, unpredictable, hazy and erratic worldwide surroundings. This is in line
with the way profitability is perceived on the level of strategy and the argumentation
P a g e | 69
69
that good people management is the primary element for its prediction than any
other alternative factor (Whetten and Cameron, 1998).
McGregor belongs to the same human relations school along with Maslow
(motivation theory), Argyris (theories of action, double-loop learning and
organizational learning), Herzberg (job enrichment, motivator-hygiene theory) and
Likert (management styles), who also devoted their research into building similar
concepts. In the same circle, falls also the model by Hackman and Oldham, which
accentuates the existence of two variables in the triptych core job dimensionscritical psychological states-outcomes that moderate these relationships; the
presence of a satisfaction-driven attitude towards “working conditions and the
individual employee’s growth need strength” (Whittington and Evans, 2005, p.117).
Companies must show their willingness to nurture a limitation/failure-acceptance
and tolerance which reflects a growing edge for performance both on an individual
and firm level (Kegan et al., 2014). This mindset will successfully be adopted only
via the cultivation of an open, collaborative and collective spirit and the destruction
of interior worlds within organizations.
McGregor’s model on motivation and management is considered as a fundamental
revolution of management theory, founded on the theory of psychology (Bobic and
Davis, 2003). The unique value proposition of McGregor’s research, lies within the
fact that employees should not be seen as an disposable and expendable commodity
but as the core condition and most valuable resource of an enterprise which, which
must not be neglected (Carson, 2005); on the contrary, from a management
viewpoint, the organization should understand its employees and establish all these
workplace conditions that will urge them not only to perform well but cultivate their
inner need and desire to do well and build “a collective sense of purpose” (Douglas
et al., 2014, p.66) reflecting a dynamic integration of individual and organizational
goals (Marx, 1961). McGregor shares an opposing view compared to the scientific
management theories by Taylor21, which perceive people as pieces of machinery and
instruments of continuous production.
There is debate regarding the terminology and there are voices stating that scientific
management is mislabelled. “In reality Taylor and his contemporaries were approaching
management not as a area open to scientific discovery, but rather as the application of previously
established scientific laws and principles, in other words as a subfield of industrial engineering”
(Head, 2011, p.202). Any further discussion falls out of the scope of this current analysis
(Comment by the author).
21
P a g e | 70
70
McGregor based his research on the theories of behaviour of individuals at work
while building upon the hierarchy of needs theory, developed by Abraham Maslow,
whose contributions have been characterized “as foundational in the development of
the neo-human relations school, or more specifically, organizational psychology”
(Cooke and Mills, 2008, p.29). McGregor would always evangelize that “it is not a
matter of strategy, but of managing people” (Bobic and Davis, 2003, p.259). This
investigation led him towards the formulation of two contending models about
human nature and motivation; Theory X and Theory Y. A brief description of these
theories depicts the conflicting assumptions about human behaviour behind every
management decision or action. Theory X refers to control (prevention of an
opportunistic behaviour), autocracy and directive mindset i.e. the traditional
managerial view and Theory Y refers into the integration of individual and
organizational goals and empowerment, opening up to new attitudes in
organizational psychology, driving a more democratic, consultative and
participatory mentality (Heller, 1961; Strauss, 2002).
It is important at this stage to underline that this research is not explicitly and solely
based on McGregor’s model but “given today’s political, social and economic
milieu” (Marx, 1961, p.75) and the “fundamental changes in our understanding of
personality and motivation theory” (Bobic and Davis, 2003, p.240) it serves as a
theoretical foundation and a stampede for theory contribution. This means that even
though substantial correlations between Theory Y and the conceptualization of the
human side of open innovation are straightforwardly observed, it is necessary need
to bear in mind the context of open innovation and how McGregor acts in a
complementary manner towards exploring, identifying and enriching the definition
of the human dimension of open innovation.
The following table describes in a synthesizing way the views of Theory X and Y
and advances our thinking towards the developing of a conceptual model and
conceptualized definition of the human dimension of the open innovation paradigm.
P a g e | 71
71
Table 8: Theory X and Theory Y22
Variables
People
Human abilities
and motivation
factors
Theory X
 Pecuniary
incentives
 Feeling of security
 Lack of ambition
 Risk and
responsibility
aversity
 Self-centered
behaviourism
 Work
avoidance/laziness
 Unyielding
towards changes
 No capacity to
lead
 Passive follower
 Credulous
 Limited
intellectual
capacity
 Feeling of
compulsion
 Dependency
 React to
punishment
 Lack of inspiration
 Lack of
imagination
 Failure to
recognize
 Machine oriented
mindset
 Little faith
 Top-down
Variables
People
Tackling
organizational
problems
Theory Y
 Desire for work and
achievement
 Pecuniary and nonpecuniary incentives
 Fulfilment
 Self-direction
 Self-control
 Commitment
 Learning to accept
 Responsibility seekers
 Alignment to
organizational objectives
 Physical and mental
endeavour
 Motivational energies
 Human dignity
 Self-esteem
 Self-satisfaction
 Job enlargement and
personal growth
 Self-actualization







Imagination
Efficiency
Reliability
Intelligence
Creativity
Ingenuity
Creating conditions
Table developed by the author based on the works by Baumgartel, H. (1960). The Human Side
of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, No.3, pp.464-467;
Cappelli, P. (2013). HR for Neophytes. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91, No. 10, pp. 25-27;
Heller, A. F. (1961). The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor. Industrial and Labour
Relations Review, Vol.14, No.3, pp.494-495; Jacobs, D., College, H., and Marryland, F. (2004).
Book Review Essay: Douglas McGregor: The Human Side of Enterprise in Peril. Academy of
Management Review, Vol.29, No.2, pp.293-296; Malone, Ch., and Fiske, T. S. (2013). “The
Human Brand: How we relate to people, products and companies”. Jossey-Bass and Stagner, R.
(1961). The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor. The American Journal of
Psychology, Vol.74, No.2, pp.317-319.
22
P a g e | 72
72
Rigid Control
and Authority
approach
 Autocracy
 Hierarchy
 Authoritarian
dictatorship
 Control,
defensiveness,
unresponsiveness

Integration and
self-control



Organizational
functioning
 Contingency
models
 “unitarist-oriented
human relations
doctrines” (Jacobs
et al., 2004,
p.294).
 “Lifer” model
(Cappelli et al.,
2014, p.75)23



Organizational
functioning





for goal
accomplishment
Orchestrating efforts
towards the collective
success on a firm
level
Participative
architecture
Value-based
leadership
“More open to
understand how they
are perceived and [...]
greater willingness to
respond and adapt
accordingly” (Malone
and Fiske, 2013,
p.158)
Managing and
achieving change
Incentives provision
Appreciation of
individual creative
involvement
Collective bargaining
Participation in
decision making
processes
Decentralization
Delegation
Performance
appraisals
McGregor believed that “The essential task of management is to arrange
organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can achieve their
own goals best by directing their own efforts toward organizational objectives”
(Bennis, 1972, p.141). This is in line with the author’s view of the human side of
open innovation and the fact that the adoption of open innovation can act as the arch
between human relationships and a new form of new humanism on the
organizational level. The author does not agree with Schein’s (1975) utopian
contour regarding the solely practical implications of cultivating the human
behavioural aspect entwined in Theory Y as an exclusive responsibility of top
management. Furthermore, the author believes that the human side of open
Cappelli (2013, p.26) while discussing duties once belonged to human resources departments
but are now transferred to line managers, in relation to meeting the organizational needs for talent,
observes “a cultural shift from life-long employment to a more mobile workforce”.
23
P a g e | 73
73
innovation from a human resources viewpoint, precedences towards the
customization of organizations to individual components and the fact that we move
from the organizational and individual level to the human level. In this frame of
reference the author is looking upon the creation of deliberately developmental
organizations, which leverage personal growth to an organizational sustainable
competitive advantage. This argumentation falls in the realms of the discussion
around the foundational assumption of personal growth and the need for a structural
basis that promotes a challenging and supportive environment leading to a
community imbued with trust and reliability and creating a sense of safety for the
employees (Kegan et al., 2014).
P a g e | 74
74
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
4.1. Introduction to research
The discussion around the research methodologies aims at emanating a number of
key elements regarding the ontological, epistemological, human nature and
methodological approaches that have been adopted by the author within this
respective research. This means that research must be theoretically developed upon a
medley of solid epistemological, philosophical and methodological foundations
(Northcote, 2012) reverberating the assumptions about the nature of the social world
and the way in which that particular world could be studied (Burrell and Morgan,
1979). “Only if we have such an understanding can we examine these assumptions,
challenge them if we think it appropriate, and behave in a different way” (Saunders
et al., 2003, p.86). This is a critical element within the overall research since it
promulgates what research is and how this understanding interconnects to the kind
of knowledge, the validity of knowledge and the significance of this newly created
knowledge that is being produced in this research. “Knowledge consists of those
constructions about which there is a relative consensus (or at least some movement
towards consensus) among those competent (and in the case of more arcane
material, trusted) to interpret the substance of the construction. Multiple knowledges
can coexist when equally component (or trusted) interpreters disagree” (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994, p.113). The underlying rationale behind this overwhelming necessity
is to tap into the research mindset of the author per se, by looking into the related
philosophical underpinnings of research paradigms, while at the same time
providing some solid argumentation on the applicability, the necessity and the
importance of qualitative research towards the exploration of phenomena in human
nature and social sphere, as a whole. Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) acknowledge the
effect research philosophies have on quality of the research as a whole and more
particularly on the reliability and validity of the research outcomes.
The word research is often associated to the systematic search for information or is
described as a systematic investigation (Burns, 1997). In simple terms this means
that research is dealing with phenomena, which are either unknown or require
further exploration, conceptualization and understanding (Verma and Mallick,
1999). In this frame of reference, research could be characterized as the systematic,
controlled, empirical and critical investigation of hypotheses in relation to the
perceived, as taken for granted, correlations of natural phenomena (Kerlinger, 1983).
To that respect, the author accentuates the importance of research within the social
sphere in terms of understanding, explaining and implementing theories of
P a g e | 75
75
management in practice. Hence, the author suggests, that this respective research is a
“conclusion-oriented study” since it follows the interests of the researcher. In
conclusion-oriented research, “the goal may range from development of basic theory
to applied and non-theoretical research, depending upon the interests of the
researcher” (Verma and Mallick, 1999, p.2). However, this research also aims at
bringing the gap between academia and practice; to that respect it also shares
elements of “decision-oriented research” (Cronbach and Suppes, 1969) by
exploring the recent trends in the ways organizations deal with open innovation
while offering valuable and novel insights and information for decision-makers
within the financial industry.
A very important challenge for this research is the employment of the most
applicable and suitable methodological tools and research strategy in order to tackle
the researched topic, while providing realistic, scalable, actionable and novel
research outcomes (Silverman, 1993), allowing for the nurturing of insights towards
many contemporary topical issues. Furthermore, a critical element, which is strongly
related to the panorama of social sciences, is the fact that the research methods are
bound up with the perceptions, values, attitudes and behavioural norms of the
researcher. The author believes that especially, in the field of innovation
management, no researcher can solidly claim value neutrality, total freedom from
assumptions, being unbiased and objective in terms of viewing the real world. To
that respect Kuhn (1970, 1972) argues that science is not a rational and objective
inquiry.
The orientation of this dissertation is aligned to the general and foundational
characteristics of research proposed by Verma and Mallick (1999). The following
figure depicts all the relevant elements and characteristics of research, reflecting also
the interconnected pathways from objective and research purpose to new knowledge
development.
P a g e | 76
76
Figure 9: Research corpus (Developed and visualized by the author based on Verma and
Mallick, 1999)
4.2. Paradigm
Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.105) view a paradigm as “a basic system or worldview
that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and
epistemologically fundamental ways”. In a similar manner, Bogdan and Biklen
(1998, p.22) define a paradigm as “a loose collection of logically related
assumptions, concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research”. The word
paradigm originates from the Greek word paradeigma, which means pattern. Covey
(1989) puts emphasis on the powerful effect paradigms have in the individual and
collective cognition, awareness and mindfulness in terms of bringing into being the
elemental lenses through, which people perceive the world around them. The
discussion about paradigms originates from the German intellectual tradition and the
differences between human sciences (geistwissenschaft) and natural sciences
(naturwissenschaft), which cannot be approached and studied in the same research
manner (Erickson, 1986). A number of theoretical paradigms are discussed in the
extant
literature:
positivist,
constructivist/interpretivist,
transformative,
emancipatory, critical, pragmatism and deconstructivist. Similarly, Gephart (2004)
P a g e | 77
77
describes three philosophically distinct categories: positivism, interpretivism and
critical postmodernism. Guba (1990) characterizes the paradigms through their:
ontology, epistemology and methodology, creating a comprehensive view of how
knowledge is perceived, what is the relationship between knowledge and the
researcher and the kind of methodological strategies to be employed towards its
discovery. According to Morey and Luthans (1984) extant literature has managed to
picture and describe the underlying differences between these two approaches as
follows: objective vs subjective (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), nomothetic vs
idiographic (Luthans and Davis, 1982), quantitative vs qualitative (van Maanen,
1979), outsider vs insider (Evered and Louis, 1981) and etic vs emic (Morey and
Luthans, 1984). The author argues that since a paradigm is a belief system, it can
accommodate vicinity and a panorama of views, interpretations and understanding
of the same research across disciplines and research communities. Avenier and
Gavard-Perret (2008) suggest that in the field of social, organizational and
management research, the prevailing philosophical perspectives-paradigms are two:
the positivist, the constructivist and the interpretivist, capturing the underlying
epistemology.
Positivism, which has its roots in the “rationalistic, empiricist philosophy”24 of
Aristotle and posterior philosophers and thinkers (Mertens, 2005, p.8) aims at
reflecting “a deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects or
outcomes” (Creswell, 2003, p.7). It is primarily associated with natural sciences.
This means that the positivist paradigm believes in the existence of an objective
reality, which is independent to human behavior, since this reality is not constructed
by the human mind (Perret and Séville, 2003). Positivism perceives truth through the
lenses of facts, or as knowledge, which can be empirically tested. Following upon
the causal functionality of the natural world or the “thesis of the unity of science”
(Lee, 1991, p.343), positivism caters for theory testing or experience description
“through observation and measurement in order to predict and control forces that
surround us” (O’Leary, 2004, p.5). To that respect it is observed that positivism is
primarily associated to quantitative methods employing data collection and analysis
since it aims at unveiling the truth and presenting it by empirical means (Henning et
al., 2004) in terms of explanation, prediction and control. In the same manner
(Haralambos, 1985) argues that unobservable phenomena are not of importance for
positivists.
24
Also known as, “logical positivism” or “logical empiricism” (Lee, 1991, p.343).
P a g e | 78
78
On the other hand the interpretivist/constructivist or interpretative paradigm (a.k.a.
humanistic, naturalistic, anti-positivist) intends to capture and comprehend “the
world of human experience” (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p.36), heralding the
inadequacy of natural science methods in terms of studying and understanding social
reality due to the fact that the world is comprised of perceived intersubjectively
created meanings (Lee, 1991), without the existence of a pre-determined nature or
structure. By definition interpretivism/constructivism is the “view that all
knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human
practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and
their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context”
(Crotty, 1998, p.42). The mantra of interpretivism/constructivism could be perfectly
summarized in the words of the Persian poet Mirza Ghalib as trying to “see the
whole of River Tigris in its one drop of water” (Hussain et al., 2013, p.2375). A
foundational characteristic of this paradigm is the fact that puts great importance to
the views of the participants in relation to the situation being studied, honouring, at
the same time, the impact of the research to the outside world. The
interpretative/constructivist research is primarily employing qualitative data
collection methods and analysis with the aspiration to “generate or inductively
develop a theory or pattern of meanings” (Creswell, 2003, p.9) in the course of the
research process. It is important here to clarify that interpretivism/constructivism is
not the qualitative approach to research, even though qualitative methods possess a
core and central position within interpretative research (Connole et al., 1995).
Qualitative research comprises of a cluster of different methods and it is not a
methodology or a research paradigm itself. Willis (1995, cited by Antwi and Hamza,
2015) suggests that interpretivists/constructivists are anti-foundationalists i.e. there
is not a single or correct pathway and method towards knowledge creation.
Similarly, Walsham (1993) calls attention to the element of interest both for the
researcher and the research community as a whole.
Even though a number of scholars tend to consider in a similar manner the
interpretivist and constructivist paradigm, extant research depicts a number of
differences especially in terms of their epistemological assumptions and
methodological claims. Indeed intrepretivism and constructivism are related
approaches to research, which characterize particular philosophical and
cosmological views. Schwandt (1994, p.118) argues that interpretivism and
constructivism are sensitising concepts: “Proponents of these persuasions share the
goal of understanding the complex world of lived experience from the point of view
of those who live it. This goal is variously spoken of as an abiding concern for the
P a g e | 79
79
life world, for the emic point of view, for understanding meaning, for grasping the
actor’s definition of a situation, for Verstehen. The world of lived reality and
situation-specific meanings that constitute the general object of investigation is
thought to be constructed by social actors”. It is important to underline that research
scholarship has been using terms such as anti-positivism (Bilton et al., 1981),
intepretivism, qualitative inquiry and naturalistic inquiry in terms of defining and
characterising the interpretative paradigm. The following table projects the
fundamental differences between positivism, interpretivism and constructivism,
endorsing at the same time the adoption of interpretivism in the realms of this
respective research.
Table 9: Three research paradigms (Freely translated from Giordano, 2003, p.25)
Positivism
Interpretivism
Constructivism
Reality is a
 construction of
knowing
subjects
who
experience the
world
 co-construction
of subjects and
interactions
Reality is an
objective fact,
independent of the
subjects observing
it
Reality is
perceived/interpreted
by knowing subjects
Epistemology
Independent
Empathy
Interaction
Relation between
the researcher and
the research object
The researcher
does not interfere
on the observed
reality
Objective of
knowledge
Describe, explain
and confirm
The researcher
interprets what the
actors tell or do,
themselves interpreting
the research object
Understand
The researcher coconstructs
interpretations and
perceptions with the
actors
Construct
Process of
knowledge
construction
Based on the
discovery of
regularities and
causalities
Based on the empathic
comprehension by the
representations of
actors
Based on the
conception of a
phenomenon or
perception
Ontology
Nature of the
research
This research, as positioned, follows the fundamental concepts of the interpretivist
paradigm. The reason behind this choice is the fact that positivism denotes a
“…hypothetico-deductive, particularistic, objective, outcome-oriented and natural
P a g e | 80
80
science world view”25,26, while interpretivism puts emphasis on an “inductive,
holistic, subjective, process-oriented and social anthropological world view”
(Reichardt and Cook, 1979, pp.9-10). This indispensable rationale is supported by
the inherent intention of the author to understand values, beliefs and meanings of
social phenomena, emanating and sending forth the Verstehen27 as an empathetic
understanding. Therefore, by adopting the interpretative research paradigm, the
author aims at unveiling both the inner and outer perspectives of human behavior
(Rist, 1977) by shedding light to individual’s perceptions, understanding and
interpreting their meaning, while developing novel insights and foresights in relation
to the topical theme under study (Bryman, 2012; Grix, 2010), denoting a close
interaction and vivid interplay between scientific research and real wold managerial
applications. Through the adoption of the intepretivism, the author is interested in
really getting into the world, which is actively constructed by human beings on an
individual basis (Haralambos, 1985). Moreover, the adoption of this paradigm is
endorsed by the author’s perception in relation to the constantly changing and
globalized environment of business organizations and the diminished value a
universal theory and view applicable to every kind of organizational entity would
have. This is also in line with the fact within the interpretative paradigm, meanings
are not static by nature but they are constantly being created, formulated, changed,
modified and shaped through reciprocal action.
The following table presents the underlying characteristics, categorized into the
nature of reality (ontology), nature of knowledge and the relationship between the
inquirer and the inquired-into (epistemology) and the procedure and principles
(methodology) used.
Or the rules of formal logic.
“…satisfying the four requirements of falsifiability, logical consistency, relative explanatory
power and survival” (Lee, 1991, pp.343-344).
27
Based on Schwandt (2000, p.193) verstehen can be comprehended in four ways: empathic
identification, intersubjectivity, understanding the system of meanings (taking in “institutional
and cultural norms, action-constituting roles and so on”) and philosophical hermeneutics.
25
26
P a g e | 81
81
Table 10: Ontological, epistemological and methodological stances of interpretivism
(Developed by the author)28
Paradigm
assumptions
Questioning
What is the form and
nature of reality and,
therefore, what is there
that can be known
about it? (Cohen et al.,
2007)
Is theory adequate
enough to represent
reality? (Kilduff et al.,
2011)
Ontology
Epistemology
Nature of reality and
existence-what the
world is (Henn et al.,
2009)
What is the nature of
the relationship
between the knower or
would-be knower and
what can be known?
“It is the very base of
knowledge-its nature
Consequences for research activities
 Relativist
 Multiple, changing or diverse
constructions of realities (Hipps, 1993),
interpretation and meanings
 Reality is characterized by complexity,
local and nature-specific and multilayered (Hussain et al., 2013)
 Reality can be explored and constructed
through human interactions and
meaningful actions
 Discover how people make sense of their
social worlds in the natural setting by
means of daily routines, conversations
and writings while interacting with others
around them
 Construction and interpretation of reality
on an individual basis through the
medium of ideological and cultural
perceptions and attitudes
 Many social realities exist due to varying
human experience, including people’s
knowledge, views, perceptions,
interpretations and experiences (Cohen et
al., 2007)
 The researcher is ingrained into the
employed research instruments depicting
the research under study (Cohen et al.,
2007; Crotty, 1998; Grix, 2010; Guba
and Lincoln, 1994)
 Subjectivism
 Highly contextual
 Personal and unique nature of knowledge
and truth
 Events are understood through the mental
process of interpretation that is
influenced by interaction with social
contexts
Based on Bryman, 2012; Chua, 1986; Cohen et al., 2007; Crotty, 1998; Easterby-Smith et al.,
2002; Elliott and Timulak, 2005; Giorgi, 1975; Grix, 2010; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Henn et al.,
2009; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1992; Hill et al., 1997; Hipps, 1993; Howe, 2004; Hussain et al.,
2013; Kilduff et al., 2011; Leiblich, 1998; Packer and Addison, 1989; Pintrich, 2002; Potter and
Wetherell, 1987; Schwandt, 1994, 2000; Smith et al., 1999; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Wertz,
1983.
28
P a g e | 82
82
and forms, how it can
be acquired and how it
can be communicated
to human beings”
(Cohen et al., 2007,
p.7)
Access to reality
Nature and origin of
knowledge and
epistemological beliefs
(Easterby-Smith et al.,
2002; Howe, 2004;
Pintrich, 2002;
Schwandt, 2000)
“Epistemological
assumptions decide
what to count as
acceptable truth by
specifying the criteria
and process of
assessing truth claims”
(Chua, 1986, p.604).
How can the inquirer
(would-be knower) go
about finding out
whatever he or she
believes can be
known?
Methodology29
 Procedures and
principles of
investigation
 Demonstration of
knowledge validity
 Those active in the research process
socially construct knowledge by
experiencing the real life or natural
settings
 Inquirer and the inquired-into are
interlocked in an interactive process of
talking and listening, reading and writing
 More personal, interactive mode of data
collection
 Further interpretation of the researchers’
insights and interpretations in the realms
of concepts, theories and literature
(Bryman, 2012; Cohen et al., 2007)
 Hermeneutic and dialectical (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994)
 Delving into individuals or social
phenomena by means of details,
complexity and meanings (Schwandt,
1994)
 Processes of data collected by text
messages, interviews and reflective
sessions
 Research is a product of the values of the
researcher
 Abundant methodologies (Qualitative
research methods)
 Empirical Phenomenology (Giorgi,
1975; Wertz, 1983)
 Hermeneutic-interpretative research
(Packer and Addison, 1989)
 Interpretative phenomenological
analysis (Smith et al., 1999)
Cohen et al. (2007) discuss about the importance of ontology and epistemology in relation to
the methodology and the very strong ties among these three elements since the nature of reality
and the ways of accessing reality determine the numerous ways of approaching, collecting and
treating data.
29
P a g e | 83
83
 Grounded theory (Henwood and
Pidgeon, 1992; Strauss and Corbin,
1998)
 Ethnography
 Case study
 Symbolic interactionism
 Narrative research/analysis (Leiblich,
1998)
 Historical and documentary research
 Ethno methodology
 Protocol analysis
 Discourse analysis (Potter and
Wetherell, 1987)
 Consensual qualitative research (Hill
et al., 1997)
It goes without saying that there is an on-going debate regarding the importance and
differences between positivism and interpretivism in relation to the underlying
differences, peculiarities and mysteries in the philosophy of research and knowledge
creation sphere. Any further analysis on this issue is not falling within the scope of
this research. In summary interpretivism serves the purpose of this respective
research by:






encompassing a paradigmatic character and an experience-near orientation
seeing human action as meaningful and historically contingent
facilitating the emergence of meanings from the research process
encasing the researcher’s values being inherent in all phases of the research
process
providing a first-class opportunity to understand the distinctive nature of the
people’s perceptions, beliefs, attitudes etc. and
letting the researcher share and develop willingness to learn the culture of
the people being studied, while embracing openness and a multidisciplinary
mindset
4.3. Reasoning
The importance of reasoning in the sphere of management research falls in the
realms of being the bridge between the paradigm of the research and the actual
usage of the methodological pathways employed in terms of knowledge generation
and outcomes. It is the actual process of using extant knowledge, statements, axioms
and argumentations in order to reach some concluding remarks, make predictions
and formulate logical or illogical explanations. Based on the Aristotelian syllogistic,
P a g e | 84
84
three forms of reasoning can be distinguished: inductive, deductive and abductive.
In the same token, the purpose of this analysis is to send forth the cognitive
reasoning process adopted by the author linked to the creative thought processes
behind the theoretical lenses in relation to innovation management research
(Cornelissen and Durand, 2014). Hausman (1993) suggests that the underlying logic
behind abductive and deductive reasoning falls into their contribution of the
researcher’s conceptual understanding of phenomena, whereas inductive reasoning
provides empirical support to conceptual knowledge.
4.3.1.
Inductive reasoning
The purpose of inductive reasoning is the development and production of a general
proposition or conclusions based on data or a set of particulars (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1997; Helmreich, 2007). It also considered as a bottom-up approach
because the intention of the researcher is to shift from the particular to the universal
or from concrete to abstract, in a form of generalization (Shepherd and Sutcliffe,
2011). “Inductive reasoning operates on elements that have already been conjured as
facts […] within the epistemological frame […] within which the reasoning is to
take place” (Helmreich, 2007, p.230). Inductive reasoning facilitates the
understanding and delineation of complex data through the development of patterns,
categories and themes allowing the emergence of relational inter-linkages between
the research objective and findings (Saunders et al., 2003). However Carnap (1952)
argues that even though inductive reasoning leads to generalization, this
generalization is related to empirical laws but not to theoretical laws.
4.3.2.
Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning (researching conclusion based on established facts and
evidence) is perceived as a top-down approach, which is based on factual premises
and propositions in order to reach conclusions or convey the truth, following a
logical and coherent way. This fact is interpreted in the context of pure logic and
rationality. Based on the Aristotelian logic, deduction presupposes the existence of
truth and falsity. Hoffmann (1997) denotes that the underlying logic behind
deductive reasoning is the definition of the validity of one truth leading to another
truth. An important parameter, which deserves acknowledgement, is the fact that
deductive reasoning is possible even without the existence of reality, since
propositions can also be assessed for being either true or false within a conceptual or
logical system (Peirce, 1878). An interesting observation in relation to the
interaction between deductive and abductive reasoning suggests that deductive
P a g e | 85
85
reasoning is about preservation of the truth, while abductive reasoning is about truth
production.
4.3.3.
Abductive reasoning
The word abduction was first introduced in 1597 by Julius Pacius in order to
translate the Aristotelian apagoge. However, the term was defined in 1903 by
semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce as “a method of forming a general prediction
without any positive assurance that it will succeed either in the special case or
usually, its justification being that it is the only possible hope of regulating our
future conduct rationally” (Peirce, 1998, p.299). The substratal rationale behind
abduction is the correlation and integration of facts within a wider context (Givón,
1989) being the conjecture to the best explanation i.e. the seeking of the best
potential explanatory outcome among a cluster of explanations for a given
observation (Lipton, 2004). Abductive reasoning is grounded on the logic behind
looking for patterns within a phenomenon and the suggestion of a reasonable and
plausible hypothesis from a theory (van Maanen et al., 2007). In this context Peirce
(1934/1960) argues that abduction constitutes the only logical pathway towards the
introduction and creation of new ideas. In this context the researcher under the prism
of generality aims at extracting a proper mode of perception (Hoffman, 1997) about
reality and the phenomena being studied. Abductive reasoning helps the researcher
capture a cosmological view (Weltanschaüng) of the organized study of the world,
by encouraging and nurturing creativity and intuitiveness, while allowing the
bringing together of multiple insights from different disciplines in a form of an
unproven or unverifiable assumption, which is considered as the seed of creative
thinking and development (Wright, 1999). Following upon the abovementioned
analysis on the interrelated peculiarities of inductive, deductive and abductive
reasoning, the following observations can be derived.
Table 11: Contrasting elements between the three forms of reasoning (Developed by the
author)
Reasoning
Inductive
Deductive
Abductive
Certainty
Positive
Positive
Negative
Productivity
Negative30
Negative
Positive
Context-rationality
Positive
Negative
Positive
Svennevig (1997) argues that inductive reasoning can have a positive impact on productivity
only when it is combined with abductive reasoning in the form of abductory induction.
30
P a g e | 86
86
It is important at this stage to state that this respective research follows at different
stages an abductive and inductive reasoning approach. The author believes that
embracing this bidirectional and circular or combined kind of inductive-abductive
reasoning mode, in the realms of this research, is most appropriate, since this form
of reasoning is a cerebral process, an intellectual endeavour that allows the creative
synthesis and combination of antithetical concepts and elements towards the
production of scientific accounts of management, a discipline totally embedded
within social life and encased within human behaviour. The following table depicts
disperse of the various forms of reasoning across the dissertation.
Table 12: Forms of reasoning and methods applied in the research (Developed by the author)
Publication
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description of the applied methods
Literature review, creation of a conceptual model,
semi-structured interviews
Literature review, conceptualization, theoretical
contribution
contribution
contribution
contribution31
Literature review, creation of a conceptual model,
semi-structured interviews
Form of reasoning
Inductive/Abductive
Abductive
Abductive
Abductive
Abductive/Inductive
Inductive
4.4. Research design
Based on Myers (2009) the research design reflects the strategy of the research since
it denotes the pathway from the underlying philosophical assumptions to research
methodology and research procedures (data collection) allowing the development
and conducting of the study in a manner characterised by order and effectiveness
(Chenail, 2011). Mouton (1996, p.175) suggests that the research design serves to
“plan structure and execute” the research in terms of maximizing the “validity of the
findings”. The common classification of research methods is the distinction between
qualitative and quantitative research methods, which share contrasting differences in
terms of a) the nature of knowledge, b) the collection and analysis of data and c) the
Publication V and VI have been written in parallel and within the process of conducting the
interviews. The conceptual nature of publication V has been developed also in accordance to the
outcomes from the interviews used as primary data for publication VI.
31
P a g e | 87
87
spectrum of generalization. The following table depicts an overview of the main
characteristics that are distinctive in qualitative and qualitative studies.
Table 13: Characteristics of qualitative and quantitative studies (Developed by the author) 32
Characteristics of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Qualitative Studies
Quantitative Studies
Exploratory
Confirmatory
Naturalistic
Controlled
Subjective
Objective
Inductive
Deductive
Ideographic
Nomothetic
Descriptive/Interpretative
Predictive/Explanatory
The adoption of a qualitative paradigm is in alignment with the underlying purpose
of this research and the exploration of the research questions (ref. Section 2.1), since
it allows the understanding of the human behavior and its holistic nature facilitates
any endeavour in terms of synthesizing. Furthermore, its discovery-oriented nature,
the exploratory, expansionist, descriptive and inductive character, helps the author
ground all the underlying assumptions of the phenomenological reality with the
subjective way, projected in a holistic approach to the topic by conducting an indepth analysis in order to understand the situations from the perspective of all the
actors or participants involved.
4.4.1.
Multidisciplinary-based scholarship
An integrative part of the research design is the approach adopted by the researcher,
which denotes the mentality and the mindset of the researcher in terms of
identification, creation, analysis and legitimization of the research activities.
Furthermore, it captures the essence of the message the researcher wishes to pass to
the external community regarding the applicability and the relevance of the research
outcomes for academia, practice, policy-making and the societal sphere. “The
world’s problems require a multidisciplinary skillset-that is, the combination and
involvement of several academic disciplines or professional specializations to a
topic or problem” (Terjesen and Politis, 2015, p.151). To that respect, throughout
this research endeavour, the researcher has gone down the line of embracing a
multidisciplinary approach. Multidisciplinary-based scholarship, contrary to the
dominant institutional paradigm of discipline-based scholarship33, aims at drawing
Based on Chenail, 2011; Elliott and Timulak, 2005; Reichardt and Cook, 1979.
Knowledge emerges from a single discipline-scientific reduction approach (Ben-David, 1971
cited by Terjesen and Politis, 2015)
32
33
P a g e | 88
88
knowledge from various, different and diverse disciplines (Choi and Pak, 2006). The
reasoning behind this choice falls primarily to the topic of the research per se and
the willingness of the author to give to this academic research a more practitioner
overtone, making sure that the research outcomes do not reflect an “abstract
formality” (Janssen and Goldsworthy, 1996) but are fully connected to real-life
situations and have a strong effect and influence on management practices
(microphenomena), business and society. In the same token, the appropriateness of
this choice is related to the author being given the opportunity to develop an
integrative moment by drawing appropriately from multiple disciplines, so as, to be
able to redefine and reconceptualise themes and issues outside the traditional,
monolithic and path-dependent boundaries of innovation management research i.e.
synthesizing cognitive structures. The author believes that this process can facilitate
a new understanding of the complex phenomena of open innovation, trust and
human dimension, being studied in this respective research.
In a similar manner, the author has received inspiration and support for this choice
by Jan Smuts and his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. The adoption of this
multidisciplinary mindset, which depends to a greater extent to the granularity of the
disciplines that are being considered, is determined by holism rather than
reductionism, nurturing and encouraging the collaboration and cross-fertilization
among disciplines. By this choice the author aspires to create creative and
sustainable synergies by synthesizing multiple sources of knowledge, even from
unrelated disciplines, in order to create new knowledge benefiting both society and
individual scholarship. Furthermore, the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach
provides a first-class opportunity in terms of adopting a multidisciplinary state of
mind, opening up new theoretical perspectives and research pathways, along with,
employing different methodological tools and sources of data generated in one
discipline to another (Terjesen and Politis, 2015).
The rationalization behind this approach falls into the fact that open innovation,
human side and trust are phenomena, which are quite abstract, requiring active
“search for connection across fields” (Terjesen and Politis, 2015, p.155). In the same
manner, open innovation research still remains in the course of theory development
(West et al., 2014), therefore the employment of literature-based conceptual
developments, along with, exploratory and qualitative approach and analysis, that
can encourage the development of repertoires of learning, is indeed required. In this
frame of reference, the author is fully aligned to the argumentation that, for this
particular context, qualitative methodology is considered as most suitable in terms of
building upon credibility, persuasiveness, while embracing a holistic approach
P a g e | 89
89
within the unfaltering reciprocation between theory, practice and real-life evidence
(Graebner et al., 2012). In the same manner, this approach is perfectly aligned to the
design concept and nature of this exploratory (Stebbins, 2001), primary (Maxwell,
2005) research, which aims at developing a conceptual model that depicts and
explains the relationship among different variables and at the same time aspires to
understand the cosmological view of the human side of open innovation in the
financial industry through the eyes of participants (depicting aspects of life and
working experiences within different organizational settings).
4.4.2.
Methods
The research methods, which have been chosen for this research, are qualitative by
nature. “Qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the
world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011, p.3, cited by Creswell, 2012, p.44). In a
similar manner, van Maanen (1979, p.520) defines qualitative research as an “array
of interpretative techniques that can describe, decode, translate and otherwise come
to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally
occurring phenomena in the social world”. Also “all these [qualitative] methods rely
on linguistic rather than numerical data, and employ meaning-based rather than
statistical forms of data analysis” (Polkinghorne, 1983, cited by Elliott and Timulak,
2005, p. 147).
Extant literature has shown and acknowledged the important contribution and
suitability of qualitative research in management science (Bettis et al., 2015;
Gephart, 2004; Lowe and Gardner, 2000) contributing to theory construction or
generation, development of novel knowledge and findings from real-world settings
on individual, collective, organizational, social and political phenomena, which
unveil naturally (Patton, 2001). In this context, this qualitative research seeks
“illumination, understanding and extrapolation to similar situations” (Golafshani,
2003, p.600). Furthermore, the qualitative approach of this research is in line with
the choice of interpretivism paradigm since, this research aims at engaging “in
research that probes for deeper understanding rather than examining surface
features” (Johnson, 1995, p.4). The data collected and presented in this dissertation
originate from interviews (primary data) and an extensive review of the
corresponding existing literature. Furthermore, this research utilizes the triangulation
of data, methods and theories so as to understand the complex phenomenon of open
innovation in relation to the human element and trust, increasing at the same time
P a g e | 90
90
the quality of this research. The following table provides a general overview of the
methods that have been employed in all the respective publications.
Table 14: Sources and analysis of data in the dissertation (Developed by the author)
Methods
Data
Collection
Semistructured
interviews
Literature
review
Data analysis
Content
analysis
Categorization
Publication
I
Publication
II
Publication
III
Publication
IV
X
X
Publication
V
Publication
VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
In this frame of reference, the author adopts a non-complexity mindset towards the
research method. “When complexity means complexity, the results are usually a
muddle” (Chenail, 2011, p.1715). To that respect, the choice of the research method
has been grounded on the rationale that the complexity of the research lies upon
phenomena, which are complex and elusive by nature. Therefore, the author
embraces simple, but at the same time, effective and coherent procedures so as to
conduct this exploratory and primary research.
4.4.3.
Research methodology
4.4.3.1. Semi-structured interviews
Interviews, being a common research method, have been a quite suitable and helpful
form of data collection, reflecting the ontological philosophy and the interpretative
paradigm adopted within this research. The employment of qualitative interviews,
following an inductive reasoning, allows the unravelling of the interviewees ’own
perspectives and points of view, while understanding valuable insights on what is
relevant and important for the interviewee per se, in relation to each of the topical
areas, along with flexibility and emergence of new concepts and ideas (Bryman and
Bell, 2007). As a data collection method, interviewing participants “is an effective
way of soliciting and documenting, in their own words, an individual’s or group’s
perspectives, feelings, opinions, values, attitudes and beliefs about their personal
experiences and social world, in additional to factual information about their lives”
(Saldaňa, 2011, p.32), assuming that all this ecosystem of thoughts, attitudes,
feelings, ideas and underlying thinking is reflected and stretched out in the provided
P a g e | 91
91
responses34 (Sekaran, 2003). The interviews followed a semi-structured, open-ended
pattern, taking the form of “guided conversations” (Yin, 2003, p.89), establishing
“the topic for the respondent and then leave the respondent to structure and answer
as is seen fit” (Vinten, 1995, p.27). Their semi-structured nature (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000) gives the opportunity to the researcher/interviewer to touch upon a
vast number of topical themes by exploring the perceptions and the cosmological
view of the interviewees and bring out valuable insights and constructive
suggestions by deeply capturing and delving into the interviewee’s opinions35
(Bryman and Bell, 2007). Furthermore, this approach puts a strong emphasis “on the
researcher’s ability to take the role of the other and to grasp basic underlying
assumptions of behavior by seeing the definition of the situation through the eyes of
the participants” (Deshpande, 1983, p.106).
The author believes that, as a data collection method, interviews are quite
advantageous in terms of catering for a direct contact with the interviewees (by
nurturing a two-way communication in a form of a discussion), while obtaining
detailed information, wide range of insights and richness of data with few
participants. To that respect, the author argues that this form of communication,
additionally, allows the building of trust between the interviewer and the
interviewee, allowing the latter to appreciate the overall purpose of the research and
gain a comprehensive picture of the interviewer to whom valuable and maybe
confidential data and information are being trusted and shared. The ontology of
relativism has been facilitated by the interviews since the author was able to explore
additional topics he felt that there were related to the research questions, leaving also
ample room for elaboration, providing a wider perspective in the context. This
flexibility is provided by the interview guide, which is not considered as a
standardized tool and it can be revised according to the circumstances and the
development of the interview (Minichiello et al., 1992). It is also of notice to add
that the impressions and reactions of the researcher have also been considered
(Myers, 2009).
Responses that are formulated and expressed within the interview process allowing the
interviewee to freely express the point of views and opinions on a particular theme.
35
The author believes that in the framework of this respective research, interviewees’ opinions are
not only influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions but also from the working
environment and the strategic intent of the representing enterprise per se, especially within the
realms of the financial industry. This form of subjectivity cannot be avoided since the interviewee
reflects and projects the views of the individual experience and working legacy within each
respective financial institution.
34
P a g e | 92
92
In the realms of this dissertation 30 interviews have been conducted with Chief HR
Officers, Chief Innovation Officers, C-Level Innovation Consultants and C-level
Executives of major financial institutions in Europe, Americas and Asia-Pacific.
This mosaic of views reflects the need to drive a globalized strategic orientation
approach within the financial industry. Additionally, it ensures appropriateness and a
wide range of characteristics of interviewees, accrediting pluralism and emergence
of views and experiences under the prism of diverse organizational, cultural,
societal, ideological, educational and political backgrounds. Furthermore, the
primary data collected from these interviews put emphasis on the way the
interviewees frame, structure and understand the reality, providing “elaborated
accounts about particular experiences” (Elliott and Timulak, 2005, p. 150), along
with personal understanding of feelings, thoughts and intentions. To that respect,
this kind of primary data are mainly ideas, experiences, perspectives, assumptions
and underlying thinking, elements that cannot be easily quantified or observed with
normal or existing measuring scales (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
All interviews, conducted, either in person or via teleconference (Skype calls),
lasting approximately 60-90 min. each, were fully recorded and transcribed, keeping
the wording intact. Each transcript, with a debrief note including the interviewer’s
“reactions to participant attitudes, insights and the quality of the interview” (Cooper
and Schindler, 2013, p.157), was sent back to the interviewees for additional
corrections and comments. A written validation was provided by each interviewee
along with a non-disclosure agreement, due to confidentiality reasons and to
minimize potential bias. When available, secondary data from additional
organisational knowledge channels e.g. annual reports, charts, available registers,
company websites etc. were integrated in a triangulation process, ensuring construct
validity and avoiding post-hoc rationalisation.
4.4.3.2. Literature review
Since the primary purpose of this research is to make a theoretical contribution,
existing literature has always been the starting point in the strenuous tug between
theory and practice. Literature review has helped the author develop a synthesis,
combining into a collection large volumes of information from a wider spectrum of
disciplines and research fields (McKibbon, 2006; Tranfield et al., 2003). The
adoption of a multidisciplinary approach towards synthesizing multiple sources of
knowledge from various fields of research has been of great help in terms of
conceptualization but at the same time in terms of highlightening weaknesses and
P a g e | 93
93
shortcomings of extant research (McKibbon, 2006) addressing the research gap and
the relevance of the research outcomes.
Literature review has received criticism for being highly subjective lacking
rigorousness and wide coverage (Cooper, 2010; Tranfield et al., 2003). However,
being systematically conducted it can allow the emergence of objectivity along
within a comprehensive critical analysis of the mainstream literature in relevance to
the topic being studied (Hart, 1998). It is important at this stage to underline the
integrative role of the intersection and the dynamic interoperability between
literature and interviews. Both these methods have been extremely complementary
in terms of providing new insights and relational combinations that have allowed for
the emergence of additional elements to be explored and analysed, while connecting
the research to the external environment of the empirical setting. In order to
empower the multidisciplinary character and endorse the relevance of the research
the most relevant academic and professional literature has been considered. The
literature reviews have been based on databases provided by ISI Web of Science and
Scopus so as to access high-quality journal articles, which have been complemented
with books and consulting reports so as to give prominence both to academic and
industry relevance and interpretative rigor. The selection of the sources to be
included was determined based on the analysis of titles, keywords and abstracts
along with expertize, external impact and knowledge trustworthiness of the
respective institution (in relation to executive briefings and consulting reports).
4.4.4.
Research procedure
4.4.4.1. Sampling
The meaningfulness of a sampling strategy in the framework of an exploratory
qualitative research is not about statistical measurement and vast representativeness,
but it still deemed as necessary in relation to the research trustworthiness (Cooper
and Schindler, 2013). In the realms of business research two sampling techniques
can be perceived: probability and non-probability sampling (Saunders et al., 2003).
Since the purpose of this research is not to offer statistical representativeness and a
vast generalization of findings with a measurable degree of confidence (Hair et al.,
2007) but to contribute to the discussion and theory-building by means of
information-rich data collection, in depth analysis of valid and reliable insights and
ideas, the author adopts the non-probability sampling strategy. This choice is also in
line with the interpretative viewpoint adopted in this research, putting emphasis on
the emerging theorizing opportunities rather that the statistical representativeness
P a g e | 94
94
and adequacy of the chosen sample (Bryman and Bell, 2007). To that respect, the
author argues that all the interviewees originate from different organizational
settings and countries, depicting the heterogeneity of diverse contexts and pluralism
of ideas and viewpoints, facilitating the identification of emerging patterns and
themes, while contributing to theory development. In that event, the author believes
that this is the unique value proposition and contribution of this respective research.
The sample has been chosen based on: a) the reputation and trust benchmarking
according to the 2013 and 2014 Thomson Reuters Trust Index36, b) the size of the
workforce, the age (Van de Vrande et al., 2009) and location of the representative
financial institution and c) the historical and actual attention to innovation,
communicated externally, based on the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 KPMG
Luxembourg Banks Insights37 and the 2012, 2013 and 2014 Global Innovation Index
Reports38, co-published by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO, an agency of the United Nations). The interviewees
have been chosen according to their position, knowledge and portfolio, following a
course of pre-interviewing in order to safeguard the alignment of their profiles to the
research strategy. It is also important at this stage to mention the inherent difficulty
of the financial industry to share information and accept having executives be
interviewed, primarily due to confidentiality purposes and regulatory restrictions.
The underlying purpose is to bring together people from the empirical setting (i.e.
the financial industry) who are willing to share valuable information and know-how
about the real world revolving around the industry and the organizational sphere,
making a relevant contribution to the research. The choice of the interviewees is
based upon the author’s personal common sense and judgement, recommendations
(personal contacts), experience and individual profiles39. The author was responsible
for matching the research question and the certain criteria set for the research
(Adams et al., 2007) with the individual profiles of the interviewees by setting up
Available online at http://financial.thomsonreuters.com/en.html (Not for referencing purposes)
Available online at
http://www.kpmg.com/lu/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/luxembourg-bankinginsights.aspx (Not for referencing purposes)
38
Available online at https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content/page/past-reports/ (Not for
referencing purposes)
39
The author used multiple sources of information such as LinkedIn profiles, conference
programmes in the field of innovation in and for financial services, consulting reports and
whitepapers so as to identify the relevant and most appropriate profiles that would maximize the
contribution to the research by providing relevant data and novel insights.
36
37
P a g e | 95
95
pre-interview discussions and exchange of information. This process has been
extremely helpful because the author was able to assess the alignment and the wellinformativeness of the interviewees with respect to the research and at the same time
allow time for the interviewees to become accustomed to the purpose of the
research, understand the underlying logic and aim of the interviews and also make
sure that the represented financial institution was in line with providing information
and insights for the research purpose. Last but not least the author granted complete
confidentiality to all the interviewees.
4.4.4.2. Analysis of the data
The aim of data analysis is to provide novel insights on the human condition. These
novel insights are encased in the observatory and discovery process on this data
analysis (Saldaňa, 2011). The semi-structured interviews have been conducted based
on an interview guide (pre-planned core of questions), which has been developed
reflecting the contemporary and topical themes based on the literature along with the
author’s pre-understanding and background. It is important here to mention that in
order to increase the validity and the relevance of the research and formulate
questions, which are of true relevance for academia and practice, additional sources
of knowledge have been considered such as consulting reports, participation in
forums, discussions on LinkedIn, posts on professional blogs and like-minded
organizations etc. This practice has been extremely useful and the author strongly
believes that it contributes to the unique value proposition of this respective
research. In a sense, this practice has helped the researcher get an underlying
confirmatory assessment of the argumentations and rational thinking presented in
the research, while at the same time, giving the researcher the opportunity to
eavesdrop the latest trends and themes, which are of topical interest to the industry
and the research community itself.
During the interview process, the interviewees had the opportunity to elaborate
further or provide more relevant and rich information or even refuse to respond to a
particular question. Qualitative data analysis includes a) working with data, b)
organization of data, c) categorization into manageable units, d) coding, e)
synthesizing and e) searching for patterns (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998; LeCompte,
2000). The qualitative data analysis, aims as a process, to discover patterns,
concepts, themes and meanings. The attitude of the researcher, regarding the
analysis of the interview transcripts is not only to answer the questions based on the
data but also to read between the lines and try to give data a possibility to speak and
also raise additional questions. Naturally this is an incremental and non-linear
P a g e | 96
96
process, which matures and continuously develops along with the cognitive
ownership of the overall corpus of the data (Saldaňa, 2011), including also iterative
and recursive aspects with the literature. These qualitative data have been used
inductively; however, a continuous iteration between analysis and theory in term of
formulating research propositions and research outcomes has been an integrative
part of the process. The author would also like to accentuate the incremental
evolution and maturity of the process per se also in terms of seeing the big picture of
the data, at first and then by means of categorization and organization, initiating the
process of searching for patterns, conceptual categories, critical themes and
meanings that emerge from the data, breaking down and putting back together data
and reflections in order to re-construct an overall meaningful synthesis.
4.5. Trustworthiness of research
Research scholarship, notwithstanding the adopted philosophy of science it
emanates, needs show ability to assess the trustworthiness. This kind of
trustworthiness and the ways in, which, it can be assessed and evaluated are
primarily in line and in accordance with the research program and philosophy of
science it embraces (Anderson, 1986). The quality of the research allows the
understanding of “a situation that would otherwise be enigmatic or confusing”
(Eisner, 1991, p.58). Stenbacka (2001) suggests that the quality of qualitative
research reflects the generation of understanding, rather than, the purpose of
explaining, which is primarily related to the evaluation of quantitative studies. The
discussion around the quality of the research is embedded within the question posed
by Lincoln and Guba (1985, p.290) on “How can an inquirer persuade his or her
audiences that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?”
Existing literature advocates the debate around the use of criteria of goodness for
qualitative research stating that the “holy trinity” of objectivity, reliability and
validity does not account for assessing and evaluating qualitative research (Spencer
et al., 2003, p.59). In the same vein, Garman (1996, p.15) believes that “qualitative
research is relatively lacking in canons and conventions”. Alvesson and Skoldberg
(2009) suggest that the process of evaluating this type of research must embrace a
creative and open attitude towards blurriness, complexity and subjectivity, while
Northcote (2012) brings attention to the critical co-existence of research paradigm,
intention and epistemological beliefs adopted both by the researcher and the
research participants.
P a g e | 97
97
Since this research adopts the interpretivist research paradigm, the author intends to
evaluate the quality underpinnings of this research by building upon the framework
by Spencer et al. (2003) on the fact that the goodness of qualitative research should
be contributory, defensible, rigorous and credible. Moreover, the author poses the
use of trustworthiness instead of quality, suggesting that trustworthiness in this
context is more relevant and applicable in terms of perceiving the goodness of this
qualitative research. Trustworthiness is defensible (Johnson, 1997, p.282) while it
helps the author establish confidence in the findings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). To
that respect, it is also important at this stage to underline that the author also intends
to highlight the aesthetics parameter (Garman, 1996) in terms of recognising and
acknowledging the emotional, personal, moral and spiritual characteristics
embedded within this respective research endeavour (Northcote, 2012). The
following table depicts the guiding principles and criteria that are taken into
consideration, so as, to evaluate the trustworthiness of the qualitative nature and
methods of this respective research. The author would like to highlight the fact that
the indicators that are mentioned hereby reflect all the measures, including
mitigation measures, aimed at avoiding biases and misinterpretation of this
respective research.
Internal validity
Credibility
d)
c)
b)
a)
Believable and trustworthy data
and data analysis
Construction of personal reality
(Smith and Ragan, 2005)
“The
researcher
is
the
instrument” (Patton, 2001,
p.14)
Credibility depends on the
ability and effort of the
researcher per se
Goals
d)
c)
b)
a)
Transparency of research process and method
by articulating on every publication (where
applicable) a robust description of the
methodology (process of data collection and
interpretation),
clearly
enunciating
the
underlying reason behind the choice of the
particular research method, how it is linked to
the research question and the token of
appropriateness within the research objectives
Rigorousness through the systematic and
transparent
collection,
analysis
and
interpretation of data
Prolonged engagement by maintaining a
frequent and continuous contact with the
interviewees and using this interaction not only
for data collection but also for running
diagnostic research in order to bring additional
perceptions within the research
Employment of multiple data gathering
methods:
documentation,
semi-structured
interviews, literature, participation in online for
Indicators
40
Based on Adams et al., 2007; Bryman and Bell, 2007; Cohen and Crabtree, 2008; Driessen et al., 2005; Freebody, 2003; Garman, 1996;
LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998; Northcote, 2012; Patton, 2001; Seale, 1999; Sekaran, 2003; Smith and
Ragan, 2005; Spencer et al., 2003; Tracy, 2010; Wallendorf and Belk, 1989 .
Guiding Principle
(Quantitative)
Guiding
Principle
(Qualitative)
Trustworthiness of Qualitative Nature and Methods of Research
Table 15: Trustworthiness of qualitative nature and methods of research (Developed by the author)40
P a g e | 98
98
Transferability
External validity
(generalizability) or
applicability
a)
“Lies at the heart of issues
conventionally discussed as
validity and reliability” (Seale,
b)
a)
f)
g)
e)
a and webinars
Triangulation across sources and methods, in
terms of utilization of multiple researchers in
the data collection, conceptualization, the
formulation of conceptual developments,
propositions and analysis. This has helped the
researcher develop the interpretation from the
interaction with the interviewees and
acknowledge complementarity of insights. “The
most critical technique for establishing
credibility” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p.314). It
is important to highlight that the triangulation
across sources and methods has not been limited
to the interviewees per se, but literature and
other valuable sources of information in
constructing an interpretation, have been
considered. Such kind sources have the ability
to provide a narrative and historical perspective
that interviewees might not be able to provide
(Wallendof and Belk, 1989).
Theoretical and interpretative relevance
Presentation of papers in conferences and peerreviewed journals so as to gain feedback,
interpretations and conclusions. Additionally
attendance and presentation to specific-interest
conferences on financial services and successful
interaction with practitioners and dedicated
researchers in the empirical setting (Driessen et
al., 2005)
Provision of a detailed, rich description of the
setting under study
Provision of sufficient information to the reader
P a g e | 99
99
Reliability or
Consistency
(Seale, 1999)
b)
a)
c)
b)
Replication
of
research
outcomes and propositions with
similar subjects in similar
contexts (Merriam, 1998)
Practically impossible do to
1999, p.467)
Complementarity of contexts
(researcher and reader)
Judgement of the context and
phenomena allowing the reader
and the community interested
in the research to assess
potential transferability of
research
outcomes
and
propositions to other settings
c)
a)
b)
f)
e)
d)
c)
so as to allow the reader assess, appraise and
judge
the
potential
applicability
and
significance of the research outcomes to other
settings
Framing and drafting of working hypotheses,
which were discussed in detail with industry
professionals and other researchers
The inductive and abductive character of the
research in terms of deriving information from
literature (already validated quality inputs) and
interviews (integrative interplay and projection
of reality through real-life data)
Accentuating the importance of the research, the
worthiness of the topic and the significant
contribution in terms of theory and practice
(Cohen and Crabtree, 2008; Tracy, 2010)
Comprehensive
understanding
and
acknowledgment of the future research
pathways this research is paving
Documentation of data, methods and decisions
Rich data and elaborated descriptions based on
the extensive interview guide and the semistructured interviews41
All interviews have been recorded so as to
41
The author believes that it is very important to draw attention to the fact that during the interview process cross-interview comparability
(Bryman and Bell, 2007) was ensured. Even though a pre-structured interview guide was in place, conducting interviews within different
organizational contexts, settings and environments might require redesigning and revision of questions in terms of appropriateness and
applicability. To that respect, the author ensured that there was ample room for flexibility (not following a strict logic) in terms of choosing which
questions to ask, changing the order or even asking extra questions. This was in accordance to the answers provided by the interviewees that to a
great extent reflect the attention, importance and relevance the interviewee wishes to bring as a contribution to the research.
Dependability
[“inquiry audit”
(Lincoln and
Guba, 1985,
p.317); process
(Lincoln and Guba,
1985)
P a g e | 100
100
Confirmability
and product of
the research for
consistency]
Objectivity or
Neutrality
“How can one establish the degree to
which the findings of an inquiry are
determined by the subjects (respondents)
and conditions of the inquiry and not by
the biases, motivations, interests or
perspectives of the inquirer?” (Lincoln
and Guba, 1985, p.290).
Confirmation of research outcomes and
propositions
c)
instability of human behaviour
and the multiple interpretations
of reality
Consistency of results with the
collected data (Merriam, 1998)
e)
d)
c)
b)
a)
e)
d)
minimize bias [“Interviewers should not rely on
memory because information recall from
memory is imprecise and often likely to be
incorrect” (Sekaran, 2003, p.231)]
Interview transcripts have been sent back to the
interviewees
for
cross-checking.
The
interviewees had the liberty to elaborate, refine,
modify or even change the transcript until the
content and the views included within the
transcripts depicted accurately the perspectives
of the interviewee
Data interpretation and analysis have been
discussed with the interviewees and other
researchers so as to determine its plausibility
Acknowledgement of limitations through a selfcritical account on the employed methodology
All data are organized and are retrievable to the
public
The
researcher’s
biases,
assumptions,
worldview and theoretical orientation have been
clarified upfront
The researcher has catered for the transparency
of his ideas (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982) and
did not delude himself in terms of developing
inferences that can neither be supported or
being adequately grounded in the data and
literature
Correspondence between data and the reports
has been examined by external qualitative
research auditors. These auditors have provided
comments on the rationale and plausibility of
the interpretation and the adequacy of the data
P a g e | 101
101
Integrity
Affectiveness
Excitement
of
research
discoveries
Emotional involvement
Enthusiasm
Eliminating the possibility of conflict
between the researcher and the
interviewees
b)
c)
a)
c)
b)
a)
e)
f)
d)
b)
c)
a)
and literature
Consideration of vitality and aesthetics
(Garman, 1996)
Sincerity (Tracy, 2010)
Moral effort of the researcher throughout the
research endeavour (Freebody, 2003)
Honesty, responsibility and integrity (Adams et
al., 2007; Bryman and Bell, 2007)
No form of plagiarism
The author avoided any form of obfuscation i.e.
“Obscuring the research findings by the
reporting
style-for
example,
by
not
highlightening the results that are important or
those that the researcher does not like” (Adams
et al., 2007, p.35)
Prolonged engagement and construction or
rapport and trust between the researcher and the
interviewees making sure that everything is
clarified upfront and have mutual understanding
on aspects, which cannot be discussed, aspects
that are either sensitive or deemed confidential.
Moreover, this kind of interaction has helped
the researcher better assess the potential
deceptiveness of the information provided by
the interviewees
Triangulation across sources, methods and
researchers in terms of comparing information,
insights and different ways of data analysis and
interpretation
Employment
of
skilful
and
creative
interviewing techniques along with addressing
questions and comments, which are not
P a g e | 102
102
e)
d)
threatening, uncomfortable but cover a broader
spectrum and agenda, giving also ample space
for elaboration and reflection The research has
also shown adaptability and sensitivity and has
been open within the interviewees in terms of
personal interests, goals, perceptions and
behavioural norms. To that respect, the
researcher was able to a greater extent connect
to the interviewees as a fellow human being
leaving aside the engaging role of the
researcher. In addition, the research has not only
relied to the respective interview guideline but
has
integrated
supplementary
and
contextualized observations and background
information so as to achieve the emanation of
complementary elements, which in many cases
have shed light and unveil additional aspects of
the topics under research.
The research safeguards the anonymity and the
identity of the interviewees and all the data, the
notes, the transcripts and the recordings are
available for the interviewees and their
institutions
The researcher has acknowledged and
appreciated any personal biases
P a g e | 103
103
P a g e | 104
104
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF PUBLICATIONS
5.1. Purpose of the research
To develop a concise, concrete, dynamic and comprehensive conceptual model, which (a)
examines the trust-embedded aspect of open innovation, (b) conceptualizes the framework of
the human dimension of open innovation (c) empowers the integrative role of human
resource management and (d) creates the prerequisites and the mindset to observe the
emerging shift towards the building of human enterprises in the financial industry through
the adoption of open innovation practices
Why and How to Create a Corporate Culture and Environment for
Trust-Embedded Open Innovation in the Financial Industry
RQ1
What is the role
of trust in
relation to open
innovation
within the
financial
industry?
RQ2
How is open
innovation
conceptualized
under the prism of
intraorganizational
trust?
Publication I
Open Innovation and Collaboration in
the Financial Services Sector: Exploring
the role of trust
Publication II
Trust
embeddedness
within an open
innovation mindset
Publication
IV
Trust embedded
open innovation:
Literature review,
synthesis and
research
propositions
RQ3
What is the
interplay between
organizational
readiness and
trust-embedded
open innovation
adoption in the
financial
industry?
RQ4
How do trust,
readiness and
human resource
management
practices
conceptualize the
human dimension
of open
innovation in the
banking sector?
Publication V
Human resources management and
open innovation adoption in the
banking sector: a conceptual model
RQ5
What is the
profile of an open
innovation leader
and how to create
the right
organizational
environment for
employees to
excel within an
open innovation
corporate
environment in
the financial
industry, within
and outside the
organizational
boundaries?
Publication
III
Organizational
Readiness for
Open
Innovation in
the Financial
Services
Sector: The
missing
element of trust
Publication VI
Open innovation for “humanly-embedded”
financial institutions: individuals and
organizations at a crossroads
Figure 10: Composition of the publications and their relationships to the research questions
(Developed by the author)
P a g e | 105
105
The publications are presented in this section with a brief summary, which reflects
what the main idea of each paper is, what are the key findings and which are the
main implications. Each paper is followed by an executive summary42 and some
reflective comments which aim at underlining and highlighting the contribution of
each paper from an individual and collective prism framing of this thesis.
5.2. Overview of publications
Publication I: Open Innovation and Collaboration in the Financial Services Sector:
Exploring the role of trust
Objective
This paper aims at exploring the role of trust within the financial services sector in
relation to open and collaborative financial innovation. Financial services represent
considerable share of the global economy. In the European Union (EU-27), financial
services accounted for 5.9% of the Gross Value Added in 2010. There is a vast
discussion about open innovation and the need for collaboration and knowledge
sharing; however, in the process of building up this open and collaborative
framework, trust does not yet seem to have a place in the academic debate. Relying
on a review covering multiple literature streams and primary data collected from
interviews, the relevant antecedents of trust in the financial services sector under this
open and collaborative perspective, ex-post financial crisis are identified.
Main contribution and role in the research
This paper plays a very important role in the overall unfolding of the dissertation
since it offers a very concise and critical view towards the status of the financial
services sector, while introducing the core element of trust within the open
innovation paradigm. The paper itself is being positioned both under a theoretical
conceptualization and a managerial guideline since its multi-thematic attitude
combined with primary data deriving from direct interviews within financial
services professionals, active both in the Luxembourg and international market,
feeds the reader with valuable and cutting-edge insights on the role of the financial
industry, the understanding of financial innovation, while setting the stage for the
importance of considering open innovation as part of the innovation endeavour
The executive summary of all six publications is the abstract, which has been officially
published in each respective publication. This note is being provided to avoid plagiarism
misconduct.
42
P a g e | 106
106
within the financial industry and also the emanation of the role of trust as a core
element of the open innovation paradigm per se encapsulated within the financial
industry.
The value proposition of this paper is encoded within two axes; on the one side the
paper adopts a multidisciplinary attitude since it dives into different streams of
academic literature, enriched within insights from consultancy and practitioneroriented whitepapers and publications covering a wide spectrum of research and
capturing to a great extent the overall environment of the financial industry. This
multidisciplinary perspective a) opens up the discussion on the missing element of
trust, b) addresses the emerging need for more research towards the dynamic
linkages between trust and open innovation within the financial industry and c) it
synthesizes a variety of literature aspects, which facilitates the development of a
solid argumentation.
Figure 11: Conceptual framework (Salampasis et al., 2014a, p.470)
On the other side, the interviews and the direct quotations included in the
publication cater for a concrete development towards the relevance and
contemporary alignment of the research to the financial industry, since the
qualitative approach of the data analysis and the direct exposure of the author to the
interviewees, assisted into the materialization of topical themes in pertinence to the
prevailing issues within the financial industry.
P a g e | 107
107
Figure 12: Theoretical framework in relation to open format question (Salampasis et al.,
2014a, p.471)
The abovementioned figure depicts the rational and relational pathway in the
exploration of the role of trust within the open innovation paradigm in the financial
industry following a combined inductive and abductive reasoning approach. As it
has already been highlighted, the role of this paper is not only to provide some
answers, but primarily to raise awareness of the importance of adopting an open and
collaborative mental state towards the role of open innovation in the financial
industry and the way the appreciation and attention to trust is linked to the culture of
the sector by its very nature.
The main outcome is the conceptualization of trust as a dedicated concept within the
financial industry i.e. presentation how the industry understands trust, which are the
calculative and non-calculative factors that shape, safeguard or endanger trust and
how trust is positioned in the locus of the function of the financial industry
ecosystem. In simple terms, the author argues that the unique value proposition of
the paper, besides setting the stage and linking trust and open innovation, is the
dedicated and explicitly focused mapping out of how trust is defined within the
financial services sector. It is also important to pay attention to the fact that many of
the calculative and non-calculative factors addressed here in this paper, have been of
great importance since, directly or indirectly, have assisted in the development of the
overall research and have promoted and encouraged this multidisciplinary and
qualitative approach of the dissertation.
P a g e | 108
108
Figure 13: Calculative and non-calculative factors (Salampasis et al., 2014a, p.475)
Publication II: Trust embeddedness within an open innovation mindset
Objective
This paper explores the role of trust under the prism of open innovation. There is a
vast discussion about open innovation and the need for collaboration and knowledge
sharing; however, in the process of building up an open and innovative organization,
trust does not yet seem to have a place in this process. The approaches of current
literature fail to denote the relation between the importance and impact of trust
within an open and collaborative environment under an organizational perspective.
The objective of this conceptual paper is to elevate trust as a core element of open
innovation as an organizational mindset by proposing a theoretical model leading to
a re-contextualization of the current approaches of open innovation.
This paper is foundational for this research since it provides a theoretically-based
conceptual model depicting the aspect of trust in relation to open innovation. It
introduces the research novelty of the trust-embedded open innovation mindset
arguing that openness and collaboration is a way of thinking and open innovation in
order to be meaningful within the organizational level, must be emplaced both in
P a g e | 109
109
leadership and the people by and for themselves. The paper begins with a very
detailed overview of the literature on innovation, open innovation and trust,
presenting various research approaches while including both seminal works in the
dedicated fields but at the same time the most recent publications both under an
academic and practitioner oriented panorama. It is important here to mention that
this attitude is being followed throughout all the publications being consistent with
the primary research objectives that call for relevance, applicability and alignment of
theory to practices.
The aspiration of this paper has been to define the trust-embedded approach of the
open innovation mindset and offer a re-contextualized definition that will pave the
way of the future definition of the human aspect of open innovation. It is also
important to mention at this stage that this paper, which is purely conceptual, albeit
not inherently developed and perceived within the framework of financial industry,
in itself, it shares many implications on the academic, managerial and societal
essence, which are of great relevance to the industry and are mainly addressed in the
next stages of the dissertation. The main challenge that this paper has been asked to
address is the conceptualization of open innovation in the spectrum of trustembeddedness. The lack of conceptual models created a hindrance on how trust
could be linked to open innovation.
Figure 14: Antecedents of open innovation-conceptual framework (Salampasis et al., 2015a,
p.41)
P a g e | 110
110
Furthermore, the great abundance of literature on trust (covering many aspects,
schools, philosophies, approaches and streams) and the inherent elusive and highly
abstract concept caused additional problems in the conceptualization process. Since
the overall aim of the research is to define the human side of open innovation under
the prism of trust, this meant that trust would be conceived within the dynamic
interplay between the individual and the organizational level. Hence, this paper
introduces four elements, which are considered as the organizational antecedents of
open innovation i.e. elements acting as pre-requisites for the adoption of open
innovation practices. The identification of these four organizational antecedents has
emerged from the synthesis of the various literature streams considered, the trends
of open innovation and innovation management coming on the scene and the
humanistic approach, which is imbued within the overall research. All these
antecedents are linked to the open innovation paradigm, having as a common
denominator the element of trust. This analysis has led to the juxtaposition of
additional variables, which are related to the antecedents depicting their functional
relation to trust.
Table 16: Variables related to the antecedents of open innovation (Salampasis et al., 2015a,
p.49)
The mapping-out of these variables endorses the need for a multidisciplinary
approach in the open innovation research, regardless of the empirical setting, while
at the same time it captures the human element, which paves the pathway of the
research, while establishing the conditional framework to conceptualize trust within
the open innovation paradigm. Furthermore, they have facilitated the proposed
P a g e | 111
111
definition of the trust-embedded open innovation mindset, which is acting as the
theoretical foundation of the definition of the human side of open innovation.
In this frame of reference, it also important to underline the fact that this paper
develops measurable research propositions on the role of each of the
abovementioned antecedents in relation to individual and collective interaction with
trust, the role of trust in substance and what is dynamic interplay between the trust
embeddedness approach towards open innovation adoption and performance. This
creates a highly critical relevance of the conceptual model regarding the
interpretation of the paradigm in managerial and practical terms, laying a concrete
ecosystem of placing this trust-embeddedness in the locus of the organization,
perceived as a collective existence of individuals. This means that the trustembedded open innovation paradigm is not disconnected from the overall purpose of
innovation which aims at increasing the organizational performance but also
increasing the societal and human capital, as being given prominence in this paper.
Figure 15: A conceptualized definition of trust-embedded open innovation (Salampasis et
al., 2015a, p.50)
Publication III: Organizational Readiness for Open Innovation in the Financial
Services Sector: The missing element of trust
P a g e | 112
112
Objective
This book chapter aims at exploring the role of trust as a core element towards the
organizational readiness for open innovation within the financial services sector.
Open innovation as a concept is perceived as an organizational mindset and its
adoption and actual implementation require prior substantial changes within the
organizational setting. Managing change is a highly challenging task which requires
important and prompt readiness on an organizational level as a whole.
The aim of this book chapter is to respond to the ways of creating a corporate culture
and environment for open innovation to succeed and thrive within the financial
services sector. It aspires to actively contribute to the on-going debate related to the
dark side of open innovation in the framework of the organizational level of
analysis. To that respect the conceptual nature of this book chapter investigates the
concept of organizational readiness in relation to open innovation adoption in the
financial services sector introducing the missing element of trust as a core ingredient
in the process of developing and building an open innovation-friendly organization.
In this frame of reference, this book chapter puts forth the trust-embedded approach
to open innovation, which encases 4 integrative organizational elements acting as
auditing mechanisms of open innovation in the financial services sector: knowledge
sharing attitude, ambidextrous thinking, collaborative culture and diversity
management.
Figure 16: Trust embedded organizational readiness for open innovation adoption in the
financial services sector (Salampasis, 2014, p.318)
P a g e | 113
113
The book chapter offers a detailed analysis of the existing literature on
organizational readiness stemming from various research fields and empirical
settings, along with a critical approach to existing open innovation organizational
readiness models. The figure above depicts the trust-embedded organizational
readiness for open innovation approach in the financial services sector.
This book chapter aims at contributing to the discussion evolving around the
organizational readiness and barriers to open innovation, opening doors towards the
adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to the study of organizational readiness by
emanating the corporate culture and organization as the defining foundations on how
organizations develop, evolve and define growth in terms of putting in place all the
right mechanisms towards involving people and all the interrelated interactions. The
four organizational antecedents of trust-embedded open innovation put forward a
strategic intent and visionary culture becoming the defining foundation of how
organizations grow and develop and the same time reflecting the kind of people, the
working environment and the corresponding human and organizational interactions.
This respective conceptual model distinctively departs from similar schemes and
approaches, offering a newly-framed and multidisciplinary approach to open
innovation. The author believes that in order to understand what open innovation
means and tackle its organizational barriers there is a need to adopt an attitude
towards synthesizing knowledge from various literature streams and concepts.
The trust-embedded organizational readiness on open innovation approach in the
financial industry is structured and conceptualized to be fully in line with the
respective peculiarities and contemporary challenges of the financial industry, an
industry striving for redefining its role within the global business environment,
while accentuating a strenuous endeavour to embrace responsible innovation so as to
re-establish the broken trust with the internal and external environment setting new
bounds to growth and sustainable social impact.
The organizational antecedents of this trust-embedded organizational readiness
approach to open innovation cover a vicinity of multidisciplinary aspects, reflecting
at the same time the profile of the people who would be part of such an open,
inclusive and collaborative environment and the skills required to be acquired but
also retained and develop across the organization. This potpourri encases many
interrelated and dynamically interconnected elements that along with the solid layer
of intraorganizational trust promote the legitimization of all the right conditions for
open innovation to excel.
P a g e | 114
114
Table 17: Variables of the organizational antecedents of open innovation (Salampasis, 2014,
p.320)
It is also important to underline that even though this contribution is conceptual by
nature, the author sought advice and guidance from academics and leaders of the
financial industry so as to endorse the relevance of the research outcomes and
strengthen the importance of trust in the contemporary environment of the financial
industry.
Publication VI: Trust-embedded open innovation: Literature review, synthesis and
research propositions
Objective
The concept of open innovation has been thoroughly investigated. The shift from a
closed to an open innovation paradigm is recognized as the main element that fosters
organizational performance. However, despite the abundant literature in the field,
there is still an on-going debate regarding the organizational and human aspects of
open innovation. This paper presents a conceptual model emanating the role of
intraorganizational trust in relation to open innovation. Based on an extensive and
multidisciplinary critical review of the literature, the organizational antecedents of
open innovation are identified: knowledge sharing attitude, ambidextrous thinking,
collaborative culture and diversity management. The paper highlights the role of
trust as the inherent part of open innovation. In addition, it strongly suggests that: a)
open innovation is an organizational mindset perceived via the direct relationship
P a g e | 115
115
between the four organizational antecedents and open innovation adoption and b)
intraorganizational trust moderates the individual relationships between the four
organizational antecedents and the adoption of open innovation. By revisiting the
theory of open innovation, the paper develops research propositions depicting the
interplay between the organizational antecedents, intraorganizational trust and open
innovation adoption. The paper shares academic and managerial implications and
brings an alternative perspective in the open innovation paradigm.
This paper is an extended and fully revised version of Publication II.
The reason why a fully revised version was put in place is because in the realms of
this research the author got the chance to revise several additional bodies of
literature, including management, psychology, philosophy and economics. The
author found that many distinguished scholars in the field are presenting a number
of highly insightful views and perspectives on trust but still the direct interplay
between trust and open innovation and the investigation of the organizational and
human side of open innovation remain elusive and debatable.
Furthermore, throughout the research, the author’s personal views, ideas and
research horizons matured, leading to the realization that the previously published
version was both incomplete and not fully elaborated. In this context, this paper
investigates all these perspectives, reflects and integrates all these aspects into a
single conceptual model followed by research propositions.
Since the author has been drawing perspectives from a great variety of disciplines,
which cater for valuable inputs to the development of the conceptual model, in
substance, this paper presents a formulation of theoretical foundation in relation to
the organizational and human aspect of open innovation that would trigger further
research and perceive a highly needed multidisciplinary approach to open
innovation. In addition, the author believes that the conceptual model introduced in
this paper is highly applicable and has many implications for theory and practice.
Digging a bit deeper in the paper itself, the author stresses out the more concrete
interplay and presentation of all the linkages among the organizational antecedents,
the element of trust and the adoption of open innovation. The trust-embedded open
innovation is more clearly justified and positioned in the locus of the organizational
environment encouraging openness and transparency both in the inside-out and
outside-panorama. This shows that the primary focus lies fundamentally within the
P a g e | 116
116
core of the organization creating a conglomerate of variables which need to be prior
emplaced, envisaged, envisioned and nurtured on the firm level.
Figure 17: The organizational aspect of trust-embedded open innovation (conceptual model)
(Salampasis et al., p.40)
It is important here to highlight that even though the dissertation does not proceed to
any measuring pathways (this is considered one of the limitations of the respective
paper and the dissertation in general) the way the conceptual model is being
developed and the way the research propositions have been framed, open pathways
for future research towards the measuring of all the relevant relationships in relation
to open innovation adoption and performance.
P a g e | 117
117
Table 18: Organizational antecedents of trust-embedded open innovation (Salampasis et al.,
2014b, p.39)
Table 13, depicts an analytical synthesis of various elements that aim to
contextualize each of these antecedents. “At this point it is very important to
highlight that these four concepts have been formulated based on various literature
streams in order to capture their overall essence. This means that these concepts
have not been pre-defined by the literature as such but they have been formulated by
the authors, consisting of additional sub-elements (defined by the literature per se)
synthesizing in each of the four concepts the overall panorama of the different
streams of literature” (Salampasis et al., 2015a, p.41). Moreover, it is also important
to clarify that some of these elements are measurable and others maybe not. Again
the objective of this paper and the overall research is not to measure but allow
meanings emerge from the multidisciplinary synthesis of the literature and present
the elements that constitute each of these antecedents per se.
One additional element, which deserves to be acknowledged, is the more detailed
and enriched presentation of the variables engrossed within each individual
organizational antecedent. In addition, the variables are being phrased in such a way,
so as to assist the deep down diving to human side of open innovation. The
abovementioned table does not provide an overall presentation of the related
variables but on a second level of analysis, it depicts a strong and incorporative
synthesis of theories and elements, which cater for the adoption of open innovation
P a g e | 118
118
practices and the future identification of skills, behaviours, cultural elements, norms
and attitudes on the individual level.
Publication V: Human resources management and open innovation adoption in the
banking sector: a conceptual model
Objective
Open innovation has received wide attention and has been explored in various
sectors of the economy. However, despite the abundant literature in the field, there is
an on-going debate around the organizational aspect of this paradigm. This
conceptual paper aims at contributing to this debate by developing a conceptual
model, which explores the relationship between human resources management
practices and open innovation adoption in the banking sector. Based on an extensive
literature review, the role of human resources management towards the adoption of
open innovation in the banking sector is investigated in relation to two fundamental
organizational elements: trust and readiness. The authors highlight the role of human
resources management as a fundamental element towards the adoption of open
innovation practices in the banking sector and strongly suggest that a) human
resources management affects the adoption of open innovation in the banking sector
and b) trust and readiness moderate the relationship between human resources
management and open innovation adoption. The proposed research propositions
depict a shift towards a more flexible and open human resources management
system in the banking sector and the emergence of an innovative mindset
empowering organizational performance.
This publication aims at exploring the role and linkage between human resource
management and open innovation within the banking industry. To that respect it
develops a conceptual model that depicts the underlying and interconnected relations
among human resource management, trust, organizational readiness and open
innovation adoption. The rationale behind the choice of the banking sector resolves
around its primary importance within the financial industry, the fact that it is of great
relevance within the worldwide economy and because banking is all about the
human element.
The discipline of human resource management has acknowledged a dyadic
transformation over the past years, which is related to the first shift from personnel
management to human resources management and the second shift from human
P a g e | 119
119
resources management to strategic human resources management. The first
transformation is associated with the recognition of the real value of the human
element within the organization and the fact that a systematic management can lead
to the effective mobilization of human capital. However, it is important to highlight
that this investment in human capital, bears substantial uncertainty and potential low
return on investment particularly if handled with outdated talent management
activities and beliefs on the way people are managed nowadays (Cappelli, 2013).
The second transformation is intertwined to the alignment and association of human
resources with the strategic intent and needs of the organization. This means that
human resources management becomes a deep-rooted component of the core
organizational strategy.
This transformational mindset in the human resource management is aligned to the
open innovation paradigm which “by breaking down traditional corporate
boundaries […] allows intellectual property, ideas and people to flow freely both
into and out of an organization” (Chesbrough and Garman, 2009, p.1). Needless to
say, that this transformational mindset should not be gathered as a short-lived
moment, but as a whole era and a long learning process, which must be clearly
defined and managed accordingly, via the investment in the axiological element of
an organization: the people (McComb, 2014).
This publication discusses the importance of developing the right organizational
climate for adopting open innovation practices within the banking industry. To that
respect, it synthesizes multiple literature streams, bringing on board elements from
organizational behaviour, organizational and human psychology. Furthermore, this
publication extends the work of previous publications developed by the author
aspiring to process a deeper view on the underlying mechanisms of organizational
climate. In this frame of reference, the author argues that within the organizational
sphere there are two distinctive elements, which require attention by human resource
management: fair process and workplace bullying, with the latter being a serious
phenomenon of psychological harassment that has been extensively observed within
banking institutions especially under the relentless pressure of the current financial
crisis and global monetary instability. To the author’s knowledge no other study
from the existing literature, so far, adopts this anthropological pathway so as to
connect fair process and workplace bullying to open innovation adoption. This
approach depicts the extent of the dehumanization prevailing in the institutional
locus and mindset of the banking industry and the need to establish organizational
practices and norms that encourage collaboration, openness, sharing and
P a g e | 120
120
trustworthiness and put the human element back into the strategic agenda of the
industry per se.
This publication pays tribute to the integrative role of human resource management
towards developing and safeguarding a safe environment for open innovation to
excel, thrive and have a positive impact. Especially within the realms of the
financial industry, it is necessary to pay attention on the importance of the human
element in terms of building sustainable competitive advantage. Financial
institutions need to bring new talent, skills and mindset on board and at the same
time shape new and existing employees and train them within an organizational
culture imbued with the virtues of fairness, human respect, dignity, understanding,
tolerance and engagement; elements that promote internal institutional
trustworthiness and reflect a trusted brand to the outside world. Human resource
management needs to establish practices that promote responsiveness, transparency
and trustworthiness and encourage the adoption of open innovation practices within
an industry much in need redefining and re-establishing its healthy relationship with
innovation.
Figure 18: Conceptual model: the organizational aspect of open innovation adoption in the
banking sector (Salampasis et al., 2015b, p.14)
P a g e | 121
121
Publication VI: Open innovation for “humanly-embedded” financial institutions:
individuals and organizations at a crossroads
Objective
This qualitative empirical paper, by talking across discipline lines and adopting a
multidisciplinary approach, aims at shedding light to the highly neglected and underdeveloped human side of open innovation by bringing insights from the financial
industry. It contributes to the limited existing literature, unveiling the peculiarities of
the dynamic interconnection between the individual and the organizational spheres.
This multifaceted interconnection captures a) the profile of an open innovation
leader and b) the organizational ingredients, practices and mechanisms contributing
to the creation of an open innovation corporate environment. Primary data has been
collected from 21 in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted with C-level
Executives of major financial institutions in Europe, Americas and Asia-Pacific.
This paper argues that there is an emergent need for sharpening the understanding
that for open innovation to be meaningful and successful, in the financial industry,
the human element must be put back on the agenda and strategic intent of the
industry, per se, especially in the face of unprecedented global and organizational
challenges. This paper shares novel academic and managerial implications on the
dynamic co-dependence of the individual and organizational spheres towards
embracing open innovation within “humanly-embedded” financial institutions.
This paper aims at bringing an insightful view on the dynamic interrelation between
the individual and organizational sphere in terms of identifying and overcoming the
organizational barriers towards the adoption and implementation of open innovation
in the financial industry, along with, unveiling the talent and individual readiness
and mindset required to be part of an open innovation team. Open innovation is a
connection-driven innovation paradigm that is empowered by human connections
and relations.
The open innovation paradigm has received a lot of attention and has incrementally
become one of the most topical issues in innovation management research.
Furthermore, a number of companies in different sectors have initiated the process
of adopting open innovation practices and embed them in their institutional business
processes. It is important though to realize that the process of creating institutions
that show organizational readiness towards open innovation is far from easy. One of
the most important impediments towards open innovation adoption is finding and
P a g e | 122
122
upbringing the corresponding skills, nurturing the right mindset and creating the
appropriate organizational environment so as to excel in open innovation within and
beyond organizational boundaries. To that respect the following oxymoron is
observed: a rising market need for open innovation but at the same time a substantial
lack of distinctive skills combined with a fragmented state of mind and reluctance to
work within an open and collaborative environment.
To that respect, this respective paper suggests that for open innovation to be
meaningful within the financial industry, the starting point is the development of
dedicated training methods and curricula corresponding to the distinctive needs of
the enterprises along with the ad hoc organizational culture. Education and training
for open innovation, cannot be holistically perceived, since they both cater for
multidimensional and multipolar implications on the way required and anticipated
skills are being developed, an innovation mentality is being built, a multidisciplinary approach to innovation management is cultivated and the importance of
societal and human elements towards the implementation and advancement of open
innovation practices is being recognized.
Relying on primary data deriving from 21 semi-structured interviews conducted
with C-Level executives of major financial institutions around the globe, it offers a
newly-framed approach on the way of preparing and sustaining towards open
innovation within the financial industry. To that respect, based on this purview of
insights and foresights this particular paper identifies and puts in perspective the
elements required within the financial industry to streamline the people and
organizations to excel within a corporate environment embracing open innovation
practices.
The dataset enriched with multiple visionary perceptions and wisdom unveils the
multipolar peculiarities around organizing for open innovation by paying explicit
attention to the human element and its interconnectedness to the organizational
sphere.
Banking
Consulting in Financial Services
Investment Banking
Banking/Venture Capital
Banking
Banking
HR & Risk Manager
Human Resources & Industrial Rel. General Manager
Human Capital Senior Associate
Global Head of AM Operations
General Partner
Head of Quality and Innovation
Chief Innovation Officer
Managing Director
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
Europe
Financial Services
HR Manager
K
IT & Financial Services
Global Ambassador
J
Head of Human Resources
Banking
Head of Human Resources
I
Board member (Talent Management & Recruitment)
Investment Banking
Human Resources Director
H
L
HR Management Consulting
Change Leader, Facilitator, Mentor & Executive Coach
G
M
Europe
Chief Executive Officer
F
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Americas
Europe
Europe
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Banking
Europe
HR Partner
Senior HR Officer
C
Asia-Pacific
Managing Director
Banking
Global Head Country HR
B
Europe
Region
E
Banking
A
D
Strategic Profile
Position
Country Human Resources Director
Company
Table 19: Overview of interviewees (Salampasis et al., 2015c, p.4)
P a g e | 123
123
P a g e | 124
124
This “human-embeddedness” within financial institutions is the unique value
proposition of open innovation since this can help the people embrace an open
innovation mindset and strive towards meeting objectives and strategic goals in
terms of organizational performance, while putting them in the locus of the
innovation process. This facilitates the formation of a human connection within the
individuals within the corporate environment and the emanation of trust, acting as a
solid layer and catalyst of collaboration, taping at the same time the emotional wellbeing of the employees. Trust caters for creating and establishing an environment of
sharing, transparency and willingness to forge a community spirit. This can help top
management listen, understand, appreciate and acknowledge the people. Trust is the
element that formulates the connection between the company and the people,
embedding human connections in the core of the corporate DNA.
The two-fold research prism of the paper leverages the potential and the need for
further research in relation to the organizational and individual level of analysis of
open innovation promoting the intuitiveness of implications deriving from the
acknowledgement of the importance of paying equal attention both to the
organizational and individual aspects of open innovation, hence brining on board
elements that characterize not only the people per se but the organizational entity as
a whole. The role of open innovation towards creating more inclusive, open, human
and collaborative financial institutions seems to be playing a catalytic role in the
creation and establishment of an inclusive and responsible capitalism.
Table 20: Leadership traits of an open innovation leader in the financial industry
(Salampasis et al., 2015c, p.6)
Leadership
Traits
Key Elements



Technical
Understanding
and Business
Acumen





Be a globally interconnected player
Acknowledge the strength of social media
Possess a strong knowledge of the financial industry on a
macro level-market intelligence (strategic orientation,
infrastructure, regulatory changes etc) along with a broad
overview of the whole value chain
Look for business opportunities across and along the whole
spectrum of financial services
Understand multilevel and multidimensional value
propositions
Be able to address many different topics that have an impact
on several purposes
Be commercially savvy and a good sales person
Possess analytical, argumentation and negotiation skills
P a g e | 125
125
Learning Agility









Strategic
Agility,
Development
and Execution
Managing
Complex
Decisions














Creating the
New and
Different





Thought
Innovation
Leadership



Be open to diversity, new ideas and alternative thinking
Have high learning and development aspirations
Possess innate dialogue and communication skills
Develop techniques and capability so as to build keyword
combinations to find the right people and partners
Be open to change,
Embrace failure and success
Have the ability to adapt to change, be comfortable with
ambiguity, show tolerance for uncertainty/capacity to work in
frustration
Perceive a long termism-strategic view/ability to capture the
broad horizon
Understand the vision of the company, define strategy,
objectives, steps
Be the driver of change and vision
Manage talent globally
Understand the impact of decision-making
Define strategy and culture
See ahead and anticipate future trends, needs and challenges
Point the direction on where the business needs to lead
Be able to manage information overload by “stirring through
an information jungle” (Interviewee, D, com.pers) while
ensuring minimum leakage of confidential data and not
compromise the intellectual property of the organization
Be able to proactively intervene to prevent and resolve
conflicts
Possess and develop combinative capabilities
Have the ability to shift priorities easily as priorities present
themselves
See beyond traditional data and raise new questions
Utilize personal and collective wisdom to reach solutions
Embrace an execution mentality
Create and translate value across and beyond organizational
boundaries
See solutions to problems
Foster creativity and “think outside of the box”
Cultivate thought leadership mentality-emotional capital
 Motivate and Inspire
 Counsel, coach and challenge
Drive an entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial mindset
Lead a long-term career plan mentality/loyalty to the
individual career trajectory
Create a culture of innovation
Manage the creative process and facilitate effective
brainstorming
Analyse and project the unique value proposition of ideas
P a g e | 126
126
Action Oriented













Integrity and
Trust
Experience and
Education












Project idea potential, market penetration and user relevance
Accelerate for the organization
Take personal responsibility and share risks
Relinquish control, involve, delegate, diffuse leadership
Take pride and reward the members of the team
Increase individual and collective absorptive capacity
Have strong relationship building and management capability
Be extrovert and team-player
Have the ability to build a networking culture
Take initiative and show willingness to move forward, take
risks, develop and strive curiosity
Have self-motivation, confidence, create and ignite passion
Be self-disciplined, survive within complex organizational
entities
Show respect and ethical manner in the internal and external
relationships
Generate trustworthiness and loyalty
Show integrity, empathy and accountability-social capital
Manage people in a number of ways with humility
Show loyalty to the company and honesty
Show emotional intelligence
Show Resilience
Be culturally dexterous
Be honest
Demonstrate strong theoretical and practical knowledgeexpertise
Possess innate multilingual competence
Have international educational and professional exposure
Be able to interpret complex regulations
This is connected to the overall discussion of the strategic insight and orientation of
the financial industry, which may be on the verge of one such change, a change that
will lead to a more prosperous capitalism. The centripetal role of open innovation is
really to endorse the diversity within the teams that have different, and clashing,
ideas; henceforward being more innovative. In the financial industry, the open
innovation leader denotes the cartography of a new type of leadership being
constantly confronted with numerous, perplexed and Daedalean challenges such as
cross-departmental collaboration among teams, knotty organizational structures,
hierarchies and processes, volatile, turbulent global business environment, heavy
regulation and business process specificities. To that respect, this showcases the
skills, the behavioural norms, the values and practices required to support open
innovation teams both within and across organizational boundaries.
P a g e | 127
127
The abovementioned multi-elemental collage depicts the various aspects the profile
of an open innovation leader within the financial industry entails, reflecting the
strenuous endeavour to continuously understand the way these elements are shaped
in an open innovation environment. This new type of leader brings forward ways of
managing and leading encasing a wide perspective and variety of elements to be
considered in the portfolio.
The discussion around the new type of open innovation leaders emanates the need
for adopting a type of transformational leadership (Bass, 1991) in the financial
industry. The abovementioned leadership traits bring forward elements of
inspiration, trust, openness and collaborative spirit. In the same manner,
transformational leadership is of utmost importance in volatile and turbulent times,
accentuating the necessity to safeguard and build long-lasting relationships within
and outside the organizational boundaries. To that respect within the realms of the
transformation of the financial industry and the adoption of more open and
transparent practices “transactional style makes [the leaders] incompetent to lead in
a new, transparent, transformational century” (Malone and Fiske, 2013, p.114).
Figure 19: Organizational readiness mechanisms for open innovation in the financial
industry (Salampasis et al., 2015c, p.9)
The interconnection between the individual and organizational sphere uncovers the
need to redefine the ways financial institutions attract talent and constantly shape
P a g e | 128
128
these dynamic elements so as to fit within the ad hoc organizational culture and put
together the right conditions for an open innovation corporate environment. It
becomes important for financial institutions to re-establish their learning and
development practices by bringing on board skills, capabilities and ingredients shift
their functional arena towards the adoption of practices that embrace openness and
reach-out the usually silo-driven business environment.
“Trust plays a vital role and is directly proportional to the role of education since it
encourages the need for the human side of innovation and the understanding that
learning, experimenting and trying is the investment for the future developments in
open innovation. Willingness to change comes from awareness; willingness to
contribute derives from trust so changing organizational patterns, cultural
hindrances, by fostering effective and trustworthy relationships is nurtured by
education, by experiential learning and by the feeling of globalized and collaborative
attitude” (Salampasis et al., 2015a, p.52).
This realization caters for a number of implications related to the formulation of
training curricula and programmes for open innovation, while adopting alternative
learning mechanisms pinpointing at the same time the inherent needs of the
organization per se. Training and teaching for open innovation means also encircling
the learning outcomes and how to use talent acquisition and retention, combined
with training sessions to indulge this new type of open innovation leader to act as a
driver of open innovation within the financial industry, designate the way open
innovation mindset is perceived in the industry per se and changing practices and
modus operandi to reach across and out the organizational barriers into the external
environment. It is also important to delineate that this approach is collective and
iterative and is not only directed only top-down but also bottom-up.
The following table provides an overall overview of all the publications contriving
this PhD research.
44
43
Salampasis,
D.,
Mention,
A-L.,
Torkkeli,
M.
Salampasis,
D.,
Mention,
A-L.,
Torkkeli,
M.
Open
Innovation
and
Collaboration
in the
Financial
Services
Sector:
Exploring the
role of trust
Trust
embeddedness
within an
open
innovation
mindset
Authors
Paper
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., Torkkeli,
M. (2015). Trust embeddedness within an
open innovation mindset. International
Journal of Business and Globalization,
Vol.14, No.1, pp.32-57
Published following a double blind
review process44
M. (2014). Open Innovation and
Collaboration in the Financial Services
Sector: Exploring the role of trust.
International Journal of Business
Innovation and Research, Vol.8, No.5,
pp.466-484
review process43
Status
Extensive multidisciplinary
literature review. Introduces
the theory of trust embedded
open innovation and
identifies 4 constructs as the
organizational antecedents of
open innovation: knowledge
sharing attitude,
ambidextrous thinking,
Combination of literature
review and an empirical
qualitative approach (9
interviews C-Level
executives of the financial
services industry). Presents
an overall review of the
financial services sector,
introducing the concept of
trust within the open
innovation paradigm
Subject/relevance
Publication url: http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticletoc.php?jcode=ijbir&year=2014&vol=8&issue=5
Publication url: http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijbg
II
I
No
Table 21: Summary of appended papers (Developed by the author)
Conceptual
Qualitative:
Semistructured
interviews
Method
The author was
the main writer.
The author was
responsible for
the literature
review. The
concepts and
conclusions
presented
The author was
the main writer.
The author was
responsible for
the literature
review, study
design, data
collection,
analysis and
implementation.
The
implications
and conclusions
were written by
the author.
Author’s
contribution
P a g e | 129
129
46
45
Trust
embedded
open
innovation:
Literature
review,
synthesis and
research
Salampasis,
D.,
Mention,
A-L.,
Torkkeli,
M.
Salampasis,
D.
M. (2014). “Trust embedded open
innovation: Literature review, synthesis
and research propositions”. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2014(1),
Accepted following a double blind
review of the paper and presented at
the dedicated session46
Salampasis, D. (2014). “Organizational
Readiness for Open Innovation in the
Financial Services Sector: The missing
element of trust” Book Chapter in
“Innovation in financial services: a dual
ambiguity” ed. Mention, A-L., Torkkeli,
M. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, pp.295-336
review process45
It revisits the theory
developed on publication
no.2, reformulates the
conceptual model and the
research propositions.
Enriched with new literature
Extensive literature review,
synthesising and commenting
on studies on organizational
readiness for open
innovation. Develops an
integrative model under the
prism of trust in the financial
sector offering academic,
managerial and policy level
implications
Conceptual
Conceptual
Publication url: http://www.cambridgescholars.com/innovation-in-financial-services
Publication url: http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2014/1/13668.abstract?sid=fd8f152b-6e44-4b17-8da8-e53e5fb60a45
IV
III
Organizational
Readiness for
Open
Innovation in
the Financial
Services
Sector: The
missing
element of
trust
collaborative culture,
diversity management.
Develops a conceptual model
and formulates research
propositions
The author was
the main writer.
The author was
responsible for
the literature
review. The
formulation of
the concepts
and the drawing
The author was
solely
responsible for
the paper. The
paper was
accepted by the
editors to be
published as a
book chapter
following a
double blind
review process.
within the paper
were the
responsibility of
the author in
collaboration
with the coauthors.
P a g e | 130
130
47
A conceptual paper targeted
in the operationalization of
the trust embedded open
innovation model towards the
mobilization of the human
side of open innovation via
human resource management
strategies. Offers extensive
dedicated managerial
implications within the
banking sector
Publication url: http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijbex
V
M., (2015). Human resources
management and open innovation
adoption in the banking sector: a
conceptual model. International Journal
of Business Excellence, Vol.8, No.4,
pp.433-457)
review process47
Human
resources
management
and open
innovation
adoption in
the banking
sector: a
conceptual
model
Salampasis,
D.,
Mention,
A-L.,
Torkkeli,
M.
doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2014.13668abstract,
Philadelphia, USA
propositions
Conceptual
The author was
the main writer.
The author
conducted the
literature
review,
formulated
concepts and
conclusions.
The original
working paper
was presented
at a dedicated
conference
session during
the 2013
International
Conference
Innovation for
Financial
Services in
Singapore, was
submitted and
accepted by the
of the
conclusions
were written
together with
the co-authors.
P a g e | 131
131
VI
Open
innovation for
“humanlyembedded”
financial
institutions:
individuals
and
organizations
at a crossroads
Salampasis,
D.,
Mention,
A-L.,
Torkkeli,
M
M. (2015). “Open innovation for
“humanly-embedded” financial
institutions: individuals and organizations
at a crossroads”. Proceedings of the 2015
R&D Management Conference, Pisa,
Italy
Accepted following a double blind
review of the paper and presented at
the dedicated session
This empirical qualitative
paper sheds light into the
human-side of open
innovation in the financial
industry exploring the
intersection between the
individual and organizational
sphere. By adopting a
multidisciplinary approach it
identifies a) the
characteristics of an open
innovation leader in the
financial industry and b) the
ways of building up a
corporate environment for
open innovation to excel
within and across
organizational boundaries.
Talent retention/acquisition
and training are identified as
the major mechanisms for
aligning the individual sphere
and the corporate elements
required for open innovation
within an open and
collaborative culture.
Qualitative:
Semistructured
interviews
The author was
the main writer
and solely
responsible for
the literature
review. The
author
conducted the
data collection.
The research
design and
analysis were
conducted in
collaboration
with the coauthors. The
original
working paper
was presented
at a dedicated
conference
session during
the 2014
International
Conference
Innovation for
Financial
Services in
journal
following a
double blind
review process.
P a g e | 132
132
Montréal
following a
double blind
review process.
P a g e | 133
133
P a g e | 134
134
As it can be seen from the table above the author is the initiator and the main writer
of all the publications. It goes without saying that constant input and feedback has
been received both from my two supervisors/co-authors and my colleagues via
vibrant and highly reflective discussions characterized by equal participation,
creative and open mindset and guidance both in the conception, the design and the
final interpretation of the results and the research propositions. Both my supervisors
have been extremely helpful in relation to the streamlining of the research, fully
supportive in terms of assisting me to see and never forget the overall picture and for
giving me priceless guidance regarding the analysis and interpretation of the data.
Overall
Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt (2006) suggest the following levels of analysis in order to
understand expand and enhance the understanding on the open innovation paradigm:
a) individual, b) firm/organizational, c) dyadic/alliances, d) inter-organizational
networks and e) national and regional innovation systems. Based on the suggestions
of Fredberg et al. (2008) three potential clusters, which require further theoretical
development can be observed.
Table 22: Suggestions for future research on open innovation (Developed by the author
based on Fredberg et al., 2008)
Dimensions of Open Innovation
The Human Side of Open
Innovation
The Organizational Side of Open
Innovation









The locus of the innovation process
The Extent of collaboration
The complexity of open innovation
Leadership
Teamwork
Motivation
Organizational structure
Organizational capabilities
Open innovation processes
The need for a multidisciplinary approach towards the trust-embedded element and
the human dimension of open innovation is depicted in the abovementioned table. In
this framework the research and more specifically all the dedicated publications
strive towards the addressing of all the research questions creating a synthesis,
leading to the integrative tool.

Publication I sets the scene by presenting an overall overview of the current
situation of the financial services sector, the lessons from the financial crisis
and the need to focus on the loss of trust. It argues that trust cannot be
P a g e | 135
135
perceived on a mono-directional prism and that an organizational needs to
be trustworthy both inside-out and outside in. In also initiates the discussion
towards the realization of the missing element of trust in the open
innovation paradigm.

Publication II synthesizes literature streams of innovation management,
organizational behaviour and organizational psychology in the endeavour to
create a conceptual model that connects trust and the open innovation
paradigm. In order to conceptualize the trust-embedded open innovation
mindset, four constructs, considered as the organizational antecedents of
open innovation have been identified and genuinely analysed leading to the
development of a conceptual model and the formulation of research
propositions.

Publication III is building upon the conceptual model developed in
Publication II by analysing in detail the role of organizational readiness
towards the adoption of the trust-embedded open innovation mindset in the
financial services sector, offering a detailed, comprehensive and pervasive
analysis of the literature.

Publication IV revisits the research conducted in Publication II. At this
stage it is important to highlight the fact that in the process of the research
there are times that ideas and perceptions do not mature immediately, and
combined to the continuous revising of the literature, the enrichment of the
research with additional insights, foresights and literature streams, updating
and reframing is important. At this stage the author reckoned that the
developed conceptual model was not fully aligned to his beliefs and did not
perfectly serve the purpose of the overall research. This resulted in taking a
step back, revisiting all the research and reshaping the conceptual model
adding also additional literature streams and research propositions in order
to make it both academically savvy and applicable on the level of
management.

Publication V digs deeper in the role of the human side of open innovation
and reflects upon a focused perception of the role of human resources
management in the banking sector and how it mobilizes the human side of
open innovation via the concepts of trust and readiness. This publication sets
the conceptual model that depicts the dynamic shift from the organizational
to the human sphere addressing the need for further and more systematic
P a g e | 136
136
research on this particular field of open innovation. It is important at this
stage to remind again that Publication V and VI have been developed in
parallel and the interviews conducted in Publication VI have substantially
influenced the development and conceptualization of the proposed model
and research propositions in Publication V.

Publication VI aims at uncovering the ways of creating a corporate culture
and environment so as to adopt open innovation practices in the financial
industry. It argues that talent acquisition/retention and training amplify
dedicated individual skills, competences, values and incentives towards the
cultivating of a collective open innovation organizational environment. By
analysing primary data deriving from 21 interviews with C-Level
Executives of major financial centres from around the globe, it unveils the
multipolar and multidimensional profile of an open innovation leader within
the financial industry, the necessity for the financial institutions to recognise
the importance for organizing for open innovation by starting from the
inside of the organization per se. The paper argues that the most important
element of an organization is the people and the correct attention and value
for the people and by the people must be put in place. People do play a very
central leading role being the primary source of innovation and creativity, so
the human element should have a strategic positioning in the financial
industry. Intraorganizational trust shares a catalytic role within this
endeavour in terms of creating humanly-embedded financial institutions.
To that respect, all the publications are providing an exploratory analysis on the
human and organizational side of open innovation in the financial industry bringing
together and synthesizing multiple insights addressing the gap in existing research
and underlining the particular set for challenges for organizations in terms of
adopting open innovation practices. The exploratory nature provides valuable
insights in terms of enriching and augmenting the conceptualization of the open
innovation paradigm, while offering practical research outcomes for industry leaders
and managers. Furthermore, it allows for an excelling understanding of the
phenomena being studied and observed within the social cosmological sphere.
The following figure depicts the rational and relational pathway of the research
journey showing the incremental development of the research from the point of
departure of open innovation towards the definition of the trust-embedded open
innovation approach and the human side, being the intersection between the
organizational and individual sphere. This approach leads to the realization that open
P a g e | 137
137
innovation within the financial industry is meaningful only within human
institutions endorsing the need for adopting a human-centricity mindset in the
industry at large.
Figure 20: Rational and relational pathway of the research (Developed by the author)
P a g e | 138
138
CHAPTER 6: CONTRIBUTION
6.1. Introductory remarks
This chapter aims at presenting the overall contribution of this research in the
panorama of the open innovation research scholarship. The author wishes to
highlight that this chapter will not repeat all the research outcomes that have already
been discussed in previous chapters or the existing publications (based on which this
dissertation has been developed) but will offer a synthesis and a number of final
remarks around the topics and research questions discussed hereby.
Revisiting the primary research objectives and goals set at the beginning of this
research endeavour it is important to realize that an alignment can be observed and
the fact that all the focused research questions have been addressed within the
collective presentation of the dedicated publications. It is also important to perceive
this research journey from the lenses of a priceless learning experience, which
allowed the author for an exposure to various literature streams, methodological
approaches and networking with academia, innovation practitioners and financial
industry stakeholders48 in order to capture the relevance of the research outcomes
towards the creation of a trust-embedded open innovation tool, which elevates the
role of people in the creation of human financial institutions.
The value proposition of this research is encoded in the fact that it employs a
multidisciplinary approach towards the investigation of the open innovation
paradigm. The author from the very beginning of this research aspired towards
aligning his research profile and interest to the exploration of the human side of
open innovation in the financial industry from an alternative prism, emanating
various dark elements of the open innovation paradigm, while constantly reviewing
a critical mass of the existing literature. The synthesizing attitude, the exploration
and exploitation of various streams of literature and the highlightening of critical
factors of open innovation, which have either been purposefully unexplored or have
not been given the proper importance and attention, create a compound of new
pathways towards the understanding of open innovation, its positioning into the
This group has been highly neglected during the financial crisis and Dahrendorf (2010, p.19)
denotes this is in a perfectly eloquent way that “For them what is important is not so much codetermination as the recognition of their interests by management. This furthermore presupposes
that those in charge look beyond their computer screens and have in mind not just the profits and
the bonus payments for the next quarter”.
48
P a g e | 139
139
research arena, while offering the opportunity for addressing further questions to be
investigated in the future.
An additional factor that empowers the value of this research is epitomized in the
continual strive to constantly cater for the relevance and applicability of this
research to the financial industry and the opportunity for the research outcomes to be
used in a practical manner, so as, to assist financial institutions and other
organizations, in a broadened perspective, understand the role and meaning of open
innovation, appreciate the role of trust and put their attention back to the people and
the creation of human enterprises. This materialization shall raise the awareness of
establishing human norms within financial institutions that will facilitate the smooth
recognition and adoption of open innovation practices.
Revisiting and recognizing the human side of an organization becomes a reality
nowadays than ever before. “The challenges produced by today’s rapidly changing
environment-global competitiveness, diversity, ethical issues, rapid advances in
technology and communications, a shift away from an exploitative to an
ecologically sensitive approach to the natural environment and the growing
expectation of workers for meaningful work and opportunities for personal and
professional growth-require dramatically different responses from people and
organizations” (Daft, 1998, p.22). The open innovation paradigm is inbred to this
contemporary realism and even though it cannot be considered as a panacea, it can
definitely act as a pioneer or even a Messiah towards changing the mindset of
management styles by endorsing and entrusting the human side (foci on skills,
competences, values, behavioural norms, attitudes and culture on the individual and
organizational level). This is endorsed by the views of Kegan et al. (2014, p.52),
who by taking the example of an investment firm, call towards the creation of a
culture that fosters a sense of family ownership. They argue that by “experiencing
yourself as incomplete or inadequate but still included, accepted and valued-and
recognizing the very capable people around you are also incomplete but likewise
valuable-seems to give rise to qualities of compassion and appreciation that can
benefit all relationships”. This captures the true essence of the human aspect of any
organization from a managerial standpoint and encourages a complete new way of
thinking regarding the structure, the management, the culture and the behaviour of
any organizational entity that wishes to drive an open and collaborative mindset.
P a g e | 140
140
6.2. The trust-embedded dimension of open innovation
The fundamental element of the open innovation paradigm considers the creation
and prevalence of an open mindset, which leads to an organization that is portrayed
by openness. This means that the organization needs to relinquish silo-driven
approaches and exhilarate the adoption of a permeable-boundaries approach, which
will facilitate the continual flow of knowledge, human and non-human assets.
People are of fundamental importance since without them there can be no
implementation of strategies, creation of customer relationships and management of
innovation. The non-human assets are foreseen to contribute to a short-term
preservation of an organizational competitive advantage and their expendable nature
makes them obsolete towards a long-term range of view of organizational
sustainability.
It is important for the author to highlight that this dissertation understands open
innovation as a structured, managed and governed innovation paradigm within but
also outside the organization sharing many managerial implications towards its
enactment and proliferation. Open innovation is about “finding creative ways to
exploit internal innovation, incorporating external innovation into internal
development and motivating outsiders to supply an on-going stream of external
innovation” (West and Gallagher, 2006, p.319). This definition illustrates the
propensity of seeking innovation outside stagnant organizational boundaries via the
employment of external channels to market (Vanhaverbeke et al., 2008) and the
cultivation of motivational pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives and values
contributing to an open approach towards leveraging innovation.
The incentive for organizations to embrace open innovation practices lies within the
endeavour of striving for a sustainable competitive advantage, the creation of value,
growth, progressive change and an overall economic benefit for companies. Change,
is related to a shift in the cultural mindset, which is important since it will cater both
for successful utilization of innovation deriving from the external organizational
environment and will foster collaboration with extraneous and peripheral partners
(Dodgson et al., 2006; Schiele, 2010).
On the other hand, the driving force behind open innovation lies on the necessity
due to lack or limited resources, creative ideas and competences, both internally and
externally. In order to truly adopt and implement open innovation successfully a
collaborative attitude built on a communal ethos is necessary. Communal, unlike
exchange relationships, cater for the consideration of mutual interests and needs
P a g e | 141
141
(Clark and Mills, 1979; Fiske, 1991; Fiske, 1992), while nurturing and empowering
trust in the long run (Malone and Fiske, 2013). Under this framework collaboration
shares a disruptive power enabling the viewing of open innovation practices as
“enabled democratized pathways to growth” (Wilson and Wigginton, 2013, p.76).
By entwining open innovation, as a strategic imperative, unlocks an unlimited
potential since companies become ready for exposure and capitalization of a
foundational human objective; the inherent devoir of being and staying connected.
Collaboration focuses both on processes and outcomes and shares a substantial
impact on the way decisions on investments are being taken and how organizational
behaviour is being altered. In addition, collaborative initiatives create a sense of
shared competition, individual and collective performance, which is highly critical,
especially, within a ferocious competitive environment. Bringing together, firms,
which act in a competitive manner, have different organizational structures, cultures
and values and possibly contradictory and opposite intentions regarding the
outcomes and setting up a communication channel can be a highly strenuous task.
This means that collaboration is not easy mainly due to numerous and full of
complexity individual and organizational parameters. Furthermore, collaboration
requires the existence of certain pre-requisites and conditions that will empower it
and not stall or kill it even before the initiative is put in motion. One such element is
the nurturing of a culture of trust. “Without trust, most collaboration efforts are
unlikely to survive, however noble the cause and worthy the participants”
(Nidumolu et al., 2014, p.80).
This dissertation argues that in the context of the financial industry, open innovation,
which is primarily founded on the free flow of knowledge, within and outside the
innovation funnel, has not yet become a permanent practice because the current
business model, which caters for the exchange of creative information and
knowledge between businesses, investors, solution seekers, solution providers and
innovation intermediaries is incomplete. This inadequacy is observed within the
rising barriers around open innovation and is projected in the lack of trust that
safeguards branding, ethical and equitable terms of exchange of properly used ideas
and commercialized products and services. This trust-embeddedness of the open
innovation culture shall ease the process of exchange and trading and will breed a
sense of respect in the process of commercialization of knowledge, creative ideas,
experiences and know-how without the existence of sluggish rules and regulations.
Under this frame of reference, this dissertation argues that this way of thinking is
judicious only within “high-trust” organizations. “Trust is built by people being
P a g e | 142
142
transparent and authentic with one another” (Douglas et al., 2014, p.67). In simple
terms, the author’s line of reasoning demonstrates that not only an organization
needs to be open from the inside before opening up to the external environment but
in order to open up it must be trustworthy as a brand name and an institution at the
level of the inner part of the firm per se. This insinuates the fact that “the emphasis
therefore needs to be on values rather than on value. The route to trust lies in seeing
value creation not as an activity in itself, but as an outcome of behaviours that
authentically reflect a company’s core values” (Nally, 2014, p.2). Existing research
has neglected the elusive but of indispensable seriousness element of trust, failing to
realize that open innovation is founded upon solid relationships where trust is an
inherent element of their DNA.
6.3. Trust-embedded open innovation: the driver of competitive advantage, not
competitor takeover
Open innovation as a paradigm shares an inherent element of risk (within an
economy that shares the fundamental problem of being risky) in terms of sharing
company resources and approaches with the external world. This fear stems from the
fact that the human aspect and the trustworthiness that open innovation should
require, is what really scares top management. The mindset of only receiving rather
than receiving and sharing, has been dominating the economy for a very long time,
is truly an intimidating factor for open innovation. Capitalization of knowledge,
skills and competences requires the driving of another type of mindset, which starts
by investing to people, by thinking in a responsible and societal manner and
strategically towards a long-term and sustainable growth and value creation. Open
innovation caters for the transformation of our connected world to a collective
vision, creating the situation and the conditions for economic growth to accelerate
and become sustainable, managing the attainment of macroeconomic stability. It will
shift the level of gravity from competitive to co-opetitional and collaborative
attitudes, responding to the global demand for social, economic and political change.
This trustworthy behaviour will also determine the level of loyalty by empowering
the perception of similarity that will create linkages, legitimize empathy and
increase cooperation. This dissertation argues that the hereby introduced trustembedded approach to open innovation engenders new rules in the global business
arena, facilitating momentous changes, industrial restructuring processes and
adoption of a long-term perspective throughout all the sectors of the economy.
P a g e | 143
143
6.4. The human side of open innovation
Following upon the overall analysis this dissertation proposes the following
definition. To that respect, the human side of open innovation embraces the set of
voluntary and involuntary organizational processes that link and incorporate
individual aspects of knowledge, motivations, behavioural norms, attitudes, skills,
incentives and values towards the formation of a collective panorama of culture,
behaviour, psychology, cognition and communal ethos. This means that the human
side of open innovation is relevant to a human relations embedded approach
promulgating commitment to a “democratic value scheme” (Baumgartel, 1960,
p.467), involvement of the “inner layers of the personality” on the organizational
level (Heller, 1961, p.495) and is discerned within an environment that is
characterized by a proclivity to “develop ´power-with´ instead of ´power-over´ and
´co-action´ to replace consent and coercion” (Wren, 1994, p.260, cited by Carson,
2005, p.454). The following figure puts in perspective and provides a visual aspect
of the abovementioned definition, depicting the vicinity of linkages and elements
discussed in the realms of this research.
Figure 21: The human side of open innovation in the financial industry (Developed by the author)
P a g e | 144
144
P a g e | 145
145
The novelty of this research lies within the fact that it gives credence to the fact that
the human side of open innovation envisions the development of a business model
that depicts the conversion from the univocal administrative side of innovation
management towards a societal approach in matters of human and emotional
interactions without disregarding the perceived effectiveness on a firm level. In
simple terms this means seeing productivity and performance through the eyes of a
humanistic approach integrating the organizational and individual prism by
observing a dynamic, perpetual and cyclical rotation from the personal,
interpersonal, organizational and inter-organizational level and vice versa. This
dissertation is also exhilarated by the mindset calling for putting emphasis on not
what you do but how you think, especially when it comes to performance
understanding and measurement, on the incentives for innovation and on the
realization that striving for excellence has a price (Raynor and Ahmed, 2013).
Especially within the financial industry, this dissertation attaches weight to the fact
that the integration of the human side of open innovation will act as a catalyst for
both employees and management to effectively navigate through the deep waters of
irresolvable uncertainty, rather than questing for its elimination (Head, 2011; Kay,
2012). In this context, it is of vital important to effectively realize that investing in
the progress of the employees indicates that they are “becoming not only more
capable and conventionally successful but also more flexible, creative and resilient
in the face of challenges-for both personal and organizational growth” (Kegan et al.,
2014, p.46).
Moreover, the author is convinced that paying attention to the human dimension of
open innovation in any organizational environment, including financial institutions,
will give a chance to the people to make a pitch for “building political capital and a
deep knowledge of the organization’s culture and resources” (Groysberg and
Abrahams, 2014, p.66). Furthermore, this dissertation recognizes the
multidisciplinary potential of investigating the human side of open innovation since
it influences organization behaviour, organization theory, organization development,
human resources management and innovation management. Last but not least, this
research calls for paying attention to the distinction between an adaptive and an
innovative approach in terms of building upon a trustworthy, human, open and
collaborative organization. It is a matter of managing in an efficient and effective
way and finding various ways “for managers and employees to capitalize on their
strengths and rely on each other to overcome weaknesses” (Bobic and Davis, 2003,
p.259).
P a g e | 146
146
6.5. Open innovation in the financial industry: thinking beyond innovation
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
Based on all the insights received from existing literature, the interviews and the
author’s personal perceptions, this dissertation argues that open innovation in the
financial industry is indeed meaningful. This meaningfulness revolves around a
number of very important factors.
Open innovation is indeed a business trend that can have a meaningful function
within the financial industry. Adopting open innovation practices within the
financial industry can empower and foster collaboration between financial
institutions representing a better chance for survival rather than trying to get by
based on proprietary basis and existing legacy.
Primarily the role of open innovation within the financial industry is perceived as a
tool for finding and providing solutions to complex problems (streamlining
operations, capturing new market niches and establishing a competitive advantage)
and meeting business needs and objectives, while safeguarding trust through human
branding and operational transparency. Furthermore, open innovation fosters
stepping change and simplicity for customers, while at the same time nurturing
activity, legitimacy and responsiveness. In a similar manner, open innovation
facilitates actions of addressing the human behavior in terms of integrating
processes and simplifying in terms of making it easier to do business. Simplicity is
cognitive and is related to action-taking, while ease is the amount of effort required
to take that particular action. The adoption of open innovation practices opens up
sourcing and tapping on creativity and executional capabilities from people with
new sets of skills that exist outside the financial industry. In this framework, this
adoption puts a structure, objective, coaching and expertise around the inhere talent
in the financial industry by providing guidance, focus and deliverables. Furthermore,
open innovation caters for the development of new sorts of experiences for the
financial industry, while empowering differentiation. Last but not least, open
innovation is seen a vehicle and opportunity of building trustworthiness by using
authority from the outside to verify hypotheses of new innovative product and
service development.
In the same token, open innovation can bring a change in the existing financial
services paradigm in terms of leveraging and thinking on a new scale of skills,
processes, services and business models. The open innovation leader constitutes a
new type of leader epitomizing interconnected and interrelated elements that cover a
P a g e | 147
147
wide spectrum of multidimensional characteristics. This profile captures the
integrative interplay between the cognitive space (mental/physical skills and
intellectual potentialities) and the motivational space (individual needs,
psychological conditions, behavioural assumptions and cultural expectations), along
with personal attributions and traits, including various demands on the job,
perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative behaviour, while at the same
time sharing numerous challenges ahead in terms of talent acquisition, retention and
training.
The financial industry open innovation leader is positioned at the core strategic
DNA being responsible for infusing and diffusing an innovation culture within the
organization. The open innovation leader is responsible for creating value and
competitive advantage by reaching out and systematically identifying and
commercializing new products and services developed with external partners,
safeguarding market and customer relevance. The open innovation leader is the
driver of creating an integrated open innovation capability within the financial
institution, providing enthusiasm, methodology and creative thinking, translating
challenges to opportunities, aligned to the ad hoc regulatory and compliance
framework.
In addition, the open innovation leader within the financial industry shall embrace
coopetition for frictionless financial services navigating the new global financial
architecture and building for the long term. Moreover, the open innovation leader
can infuse the right mindset in terms of lessening fear of failure. An integrative role,
the open innovation leader can play is educating the regulator on new opportunities
and trends by providing (at least for now) a light approach in the periphery of the
financial industry.
This dissertation gives prominence to a collective intelligence approach towards
open innovation accentuating the fact that this promising and highly important
paradigm should not be considered as a panacea. It is true indeed that innovation is
placed in the locus of the capitalist economy. This cognizance addresses a
fundamental question of why we need innovation in general, underscoring a debate
between innovation and adaptation. The financial industry failed to adapt to a
dynamic changing environment on a global scale and this failure actually
accelerated its nearly total destruction. This financial meltdown has completely rewritten the rules of business and capital management and has pointed towards the
direction of changing mentality and dominant culture (Dahrendorf, 2010). It is very
important to conceive that openness and innovation are not always the answer to the
P a g e | 148
148
new trends and demands. The unprecedented and uncontrolled call for more
innovation in the financial industry led to the baptising of products and services as
innovative in alter for short-term growth, primarily incentivised by the strong
emphasis put on liquidity (Bootle, 2012) and monetary satisfaction of shareholder
value, completely forgetting the primary function and purpose of the industry per se.
“The financial system is the economic equivalent of nuclear power. The market
cannot be allowed to play out a discovery process with such dangerous material”
(Bootle, 2012, p.8). Following the recent experience of the financial crises, this
research calls for more attention and urges the financial industry not to treat the open
innovation paradigm in the same way. Learning from the overall failure case of the
financial system, financial institutions need to establish a managerial culture that
will help them learn the why, the how and the when to adapt and adopt an open and
collaborative approach towards innovation. This critical approach to open
innovation addresses the question of what the actual benchmark for success is for
the financial industry per se. In this frame of reference, open innovation in the
financial industry also calls for expulsion of ignorance, irresponsibility and
information asymmetries, regarding the consequences of employing risky
behaviours both by financial institutions and individuals. “Playing with other
people’s money” simply increases the distance between risk and responsibility
(Guillén and Suárez, 2010).
The adoption of open innovation practices engrained under the prism of trust seeds
within the locus of the financial industry a societal purpose. Doing good for the
society implies good growth and good business protecting the long-term interests of
the society per se. “The public is no longer satisfied with corporations that focus
solely on short-term profit maximization. People want corporations to consider
broad human needs” (Eccles et al., 2012, p.43). Operating within an environment
that has no rules and accepted norms and practices are constantly challenged, the
trust embedded open innovation mindset will help financial institutions challenge
their short, medium and long-term strategy planning in accordance to the volatile
shift of the trends on a global scale. In other words it means to “keep your eyes
firmly fixed on the long-term goals, while navigating through the immediate
turbulence” (Nally, 2014, p.4). This argument is also in line with the fact that the
future is unpredictable and the only certainty is disruption, especially in the eyes of
the recent shaping and developments of Global FinTech Innovation Labs and
entrepreneurial activities in the technology start-up scene (mobile payments, money
transfers, loans, fundraising, asset management, alternative forms of finance, big
data etc), showcasing emerging disruptions of trans-disciplinary nature, along with,
P a g e | 149
149
the associated reworking of financial regulations, transparency, customer behaviour
and sustainable growth.
The adoption of open innovation practices in the financial industry will help
financial institutions reach out, beyond the existing and prevailing narrative of
innovation and look far ahead the traditional industrial and organizational
boundaries. The nurturing of collaboration and perceived openness will help
financial institutions maintain and leverage on their market leadership by utilizing
technologies, know-how, talent, values and norms from different industries but also
from organizations within the financial industry itself, so as, to develop and lead
significant breakthroughs. Open innovation introduces words such as connectivity,
mobility and experimentation. Tapping into a multitude of disciplines that financial
institutions traditionally overlook, will leverage the true meaning and purpose of
innovation within the financial industry that will not only lead to financial value but
primarily create sustainable societal impact and purpose for humanity.
P a g e | 150
150
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
7.1. Concluding remarks
This dissertation responds to the need for further investigation of the underdeveloped human side of open innovation (Chatenier et al., 2010; Chesbrough et al.,
2006; Gassmann et al., 2010; Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2014). Furthermore, it
acknowledges the fact that “heterogeneously distributed among firms” individuals
become focal players in the open innovation implementation process, requiring
different skills to perform diverse tasks (Bianchi et al., 2011, p.827). Moreover, the
choice of the empirical setting addresses the necessity for further research in the role
of open innovation in the financial industry, a sector of the economy not yet vastly
explored in innovation studies (Gianiodis et al., 2014, Mention and Torkkeli, 2012).
In addition, this dissertation emanates trust as a foundational prerequisite of open
innovation, an element that has not been adequately considered within this
innovation paradigm (Salampasis et al., 2014a).
Trust is a concept, which is being constantly abused since its core meaning is
usually neither understood nor always appreciated enough. The emergence of trust is
observed within an ecosystem of people who share the same beliefs. The author
argues that trust is a social reality and should be perceived as a human experience. It
stems from a collective sense of common values, behavioural norms and beliefs. The
uniqueness of trust is observed in the inherent element of vulnerability and risktaking attitude, since it nurtures a sense of confidence towards experimentation and
risk-taking, a welcoming towards failure but ne plus ultra it empowers this inner
strength to proceed to the exploration of the unknown. Trust caters for survival,
since it creates a sense of purpose, a sense of cause and a sense of why. Trust creates
real human connections and human bonding. Within an organizational environment
trust plays a fundamental role in the creation of a feeling of individual and collective
fulfilment and the establishment of globalized business ethics. This feeling is
reflected within individual experiences (values and beliefs) and human interactions.
The elevation of trust as a foundational element within the organization caters for
the restoration of the human within the organizational humanity and establishes
human organizations that respect the individual by creating a sense of individual and
collective purpose.
It is important to realize that companies operate within a global environment
characterized by five global trends: advances in the technology and IT, changes in
demographics, global economic shifts, urbanization, limited resources and climate
P a g e | 151
151
change. All these global trends, which are engulfing both developed and emerging
economies, have a direct impact of the way businesses operate but also on the
expectations society has from the business sector itself. In this context the alignment
of business behaviour to societal expectations, shows the level of business
trustworthiness. This trustworthiness “is the foundation of a business’s licence to
operate in any region or industry” (Nally, 2014, p.1). On these grounds, the
elevation of trust as a core element of the corporate environment can ride waves of
change, which will fundamentally reshape the economy and the society as a whole,
conditional upon the proven showcase of readiness (individual and organizational).
The trust-embedded approach to open innovation facilitates the formation of a
human connection with the people inside the organization. People have long been
neglected in the process of building up innovative organizations. People are the ones
who embrace an innovative mindset and strive towards facilitating the meeting of
business objectives and putting themselves in the centre of the innovation process.
Collaboration among the key parts of the organization will take place provided that
there is solid layer of trust. This trust-embedded approach to open innovation
encourages the establishment of internal and external unbolted and uncluttered
channels of communication that run interference for listening to these people,
understanding who they are, what they care about and how they work.
Understanding, acknowledging and really appreciating the fact that people are the
drivers for making (open) innovation possible, this is what really fosters human
connections. In this frame of reference, open innovation must be recognised both as
a tool to solve people’s problems and meet businesses’ objectives.
The financial industry operates within an environment full of complexity,
uncertainty and interconnectedness. This means that “there is nothing inherently
predetermined or inevitable” (Guillén and Ontiveros, 2012, p.65). The economic
environment is very unstable and uncertain on a global scale. The financial industry
needs to grow by leading a global mindset and by understanding the method of
operating in a slow-growth environment. This dissertation argues that the adoption
of an open and collaborative mindset towards innovation introduces the right
vocabulary into a new way of management thinking. In addition, the author argues
that existing sequential models of innovation management, which have been shaping
policies, expectations and corporate strategies, must be revisited. In that event, the
author argues that open innovation cannot thrive in organizations that do not
demonstrate the right readiness to understand, adopt, implement and benefit from it,
along with organizations that do not pay attention to the people and do not
encourage the creation, advancement and evolution of human and stable working
P a g e | 152
152
relationships. Financial institutions need to adopt a new managerial attitude and
vocabulary, must re-think and re-consider what vision, growth, strategy and value
mean, how the industry positions itself in the overall economic circle and how to
focus on strategies that are non-prescriptive and more broadly sensitive to market
changes and firm evolution.
Financial institutions must drive a purpose, which is socially emplaced in the locus
of their corporate vision and strategy. The appreciation and the proper attention
given to the fundamental role of trust and the people’s side of open innovation can
leverage in a potentially effective way the organizational transformation of the
financial industry. It can also empower the real meaning of financial dynamism and
innovation, calling for transparency, responsibility and skilled human resources; all
these encapsulated within a system that caters for equilibrium between regulation,
strategic foresight and human relationships. In addition, the adoption of open
innovation in the financial industry could potentially foment and put back in the
agenda the importance of ethics in economy and finance in the global sphere.
Innovation, in and for financial services, needs to regain trust and stop being
perceived suspiciously. In this framework, the author encourages financial industry
professionals to perceive the financial crisis as an opportunity for transforming the
economic mentality and the adoption of a trust-embedded and human approach to
open innovation shall remind to all that the financial industry serves humanity.
The introduction and adoption of the trust-embedded approach to open innovation in
the financial industry acts as a catalyst towards perceiving innovation through the
lenses of a human-centricity mindset. This anthropological view of open innovation
needs to be ingrained in the strategic intent of the financial industry and promote
active interaction among all the key facilitators and players within this strenuous
process. This realization shall offer distinctive advantage and open new doors and
horizons in relation to the meaning and focus of the next-generation of financial
services and redefine organizational and financial innovation and enable new
capabilities. To that respect, the author argues that the introduction of this human
aspect, also in relation to financial innovation, can facilitate the challenge, which is
“to create products and provide services that address the functions of finance
without abusing client trust” (Scholes, 2011, p.18).
“In today’s world, all companies need to be able to function in chaotic,
unpredictable business environments” (Guillén and Garcia-Canal, 2012, p.104). This
dissertation aspires to provide incentives and insights applicable and relevant not
only to the financial industry but also to other businesses regardless of origin and
P a g e | 153
153
sector. The trust-embedded approach to open innovation, introduced in this research,
calls for realizing that massive transformations within the globalized business
environment are yet to come. This approach to open innovation in the financial
industry shall facilitate the shaping of all these changes giving the opportunity for
developing the right efficacious critical tools for creating and managing human
financial institutions towards the driving of a long-term sustainable, socially
responsible and democratic success and growth prospect on a global scale. Overall
the adoption of a trust-embedded approach to open innovation and the integrative
attention to the human aspect will seek to play a constructive role towards laying the
foundations for a new global financial architecture nurturing a societal impact. This
dissertation argues that while this can take years, a major rethink of the role and
structure of the financial industry is already in order.
7.2. Implications
7.2.1.
Academic implications
This dissertation brings in the open innovation research agenda a number of
important academic implications. It contributes to the emerging theme of building a
theoretical foundation around open innovation, while at the same time puts great
attention on the human agenda, which has been so much neglected, unappreciated
and not systematically addressed by existing research. In this frame of reference, it
embraces a multidisciplinary mindset in the exploration these different or soft angles
of the open innovation paradigm, which tend to be become the really hard ones. By
synthesising different streams of literature from various disciplines it opens up the
open innovation research agenda by going beyond the traditional research narrative
of innovation management.
The existing profound level of research on open innovation shows an abundant
prism of different views and approaches, endorsing at the same time the relevance of
the open innovation paradigm for academia, practice and policy-making. On the
other hand, the author believes, that this explosive phenomenon also shows that
open innovation is also in a sense lost in translation and moving too fast than it
should. With still many unanswered questions related to definitional challenges,
conceptualizations, theoretical foundations and lack of capturing the real meaning
and applicability of this new paradigm, existing research tries to jump into
measurement of firm performance, indicators and constructs. This speed is also
projected into the limited adoption of open innovation practices in different
industries. That shows a vicinity of understanding and multilingualism around what
P a g e | 154
154
open innovation really is and where it should go further. In this frame of reference,
the author has observed that the majority of the financial industry professionals
interviewed for this research, either had not heard of the term open innovation
before or were not sure how open innovation was defined and applied in their daily
working life and professional context. This shows an immediate necessity for
academic scholarship to delve into the definitional elements of the open innovation
paradigm and bring forward idiosyncrasies and particularities, beyond the traditional
innovation narrative.
In a similar manner, the author argues that the existing research on open innovation
has, to a greater extent, been primarily based on traditional innovation studies,
failing to capture the novelty and the new elements of this openness to innovation,
also in terms of utilizing research methods that usually lack creativity, intuitiveness
and imagination. By this research, the author wishes to put emphasis on the need to
embrace alternative methods, approaches and a novel research mindset by looking
beyond the existing innovation discourse, entwining open innovation into alternative
prims and disciplines that can help enrich the content, the context and the unique
value proposition of this paradigm. In the same token, the author calls for revisiting
the core of the open innovation paradigm and understand all the underlying
mechanisms and their vital importance for the individual, the organization, the
ecosystem and the society.
Moreover, this research, by introducing an anthropological point of view, provides
an alternative aspect in terms of understanding the human side of open innovation
by departing from the prevailing research mantra that human is identical to
individual, a stance that has mostly been adopted by existing literature. The author
believes that this kind of differentiation is extremely important and relevant for
current and future research, encouraging collaboration between management and
anthropology research scholarship. Considering the multidisciplinary approach and
research philosophy adopted in this dissertation, the author is definitely in favour
such of collaboration49.
This research is one of the first to explicitly bring on the agenda the element of trust
as a conditional pre-requisite of the open innovation paradigm. Even though the aim
For a detailed analysis around the obstacles and hurdles beyond this kind of collaboration please
refer to the recently published paper by Stewart, A., and Aldrich, H. (2015). Collaboration
between management and anthropology researchers: obstacles and opportunities. Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol.29, No.2, pp.173-192.
49
P a g e | 155
155
of this research context is not to explore the role of trust in relation to innovation
performance or openness, it contributes to the conceptualization of open innovation
and to the understanding of the underlying mechanisms that need to be put in place
for open innovation to function and thrive. Moreover, it is one of the first studies to
explore the human dimension of open innovation in the financial industry via the
lenses of an innovative theoretical contribution, combined with primarily data,
capturing novel and rigorous insights from practice, endorsing both the relevance of
the research for the industry but at the same time highlightening the necessity for
similar studies that delve into the core of the open innovation DNA and explore all
the hidden variables and elements, which are difficult to understand, capture and
interpret. All in all, this dissertation raises the attention of embracing a holistic
approach calling the research community for perceiving the big picture towards
appreciating the eminence and power of open innovation.
7.2.2.
Managerial implications
The ultimate goal of open innovation is the creation of economic growth via the
creative, sustainable and consistence utilization of internal and external knowledge,
practices and pathways to market. It is all about reaching outside the organizational
boundaries and facilitating the establishment of vertically disintegrated networks of
innovation by connecting and bringing on board numerous and diverse companies
into ecosystems. This innovation paradigm is based on openness and the continuous
collaboration and interaction with all the integrative players of the value chain at all
stages of the innovation lifecycle. Such an innovation paradigm needs to be
embedded within an open governance system, bolstering the exchange of
knowledge, while upholding technological breakthroughs in order to create new
business opportunities for economic and societal impact. This open system,
however, requires the nursing of a new set of capabilities, skills, mindset, habits and
cultures, so as, to manage inbound, outbound and coupled knowledge exchanges.
New innovative and cutting-edge methods of training delivery, dedicated training
curricula customized to industrial needs must be put in place. Furthermore, it is
important to comprehend and determine the learning outcomes, while bringing on
board and adopting practices and methods of informal and non-formal education.
Education is the cornerstone for sustainable development, responsible competition
and continual business relationships. Educating, teaching and training for open
innovation is an ever-lasting learning process and is the driver for bringing in new
sets of skills, nourishing an open, connective and collaborative framework, while
opening doors to a newly-framed approach to innovation management by supporting
P a g e | 156
156
all the mechanisms standing in need for open innovation to thrive and sustain
competitiveness.
Learning to trust and acknowledging the importance of trust within organizations is
a foundational element and it needs to be nurtured. Trust is “the unspoken, unwritten
bond between fellow citizens that facilitates transactions, empowers individual
creativity, and justifies collective action. In the global economic conditions with
which we are currently faced, the social capital represented by trust is as important
as physical capital” (Bruhn, 2001, p.5). To that respect the HR function, also within
financial institutions, needs to empower this mindset by nurturing and encouraging a
collective action towards collaboration and openness, making sure that strategic
actions are translated into tangible deliverables and at the same time
employees΄rights, motivations, willingness and aspirations are being acknowledged,
respected and taken into account within the decision making process. This means
developing a new business ethos that embraces not only capital growth and
profitability but also other measures of business success, such as happiness, wellbeing etc. Furthermore, the HR function must become the important strategic partner
of top management and be in the nexus of business and employee-employer
relationships safeguarding the transition to the new era of open innovation within the
financial industry, putting in place all the necessary integrative mechanisms and
processes that shall foster and not hinder this endeavour.
The discussion around the trust-embedded open innovation adoption within the
financial industry puts at disposal many challenges for the managerial agenda.
Nurturing and encouraging new forms of leadership, while cultivating a new
mindset requires substantial changes in the organizational design and architecture
but most importantly a behavioural change, a change in customs and traditional
organizational and corporate narratives. The role of management and leadership is to
bring up front the elements that establish and nurture a sustainable layer of trust
within the organizational sphere, a trust mechanism that can act as a safety net and a
persuasion pattern when it comes to reaching out to the outside world. Financial
industry leaders have a long way ahead in terms of understanding the importance of
innovation, openness, collaboration and cooperation with partners and stakeholders
within and outside the silo-driven organizational and industrial barriers and need to
adopt and institutionalize new mechanisms for reaching out to the rest of the world
by bringing on board new skills, know-how, competences, behavioural norms,
values and cultural elements. It is also a matter of adopting new forms of managerial
practices and leadership components that shall assist them into understanding and
appreciating the employees and allowing time and space for experimentation and
P a g e | 157
157
innovative design thinking. This mindset will facilitate individual and organizational
success away from the institutionalized short-term, market-estimate-driven business
context that prevails nowadays.
Another important parameter within the managerial sphere, but also interlinked to
the policy agenda is the streamlining of dedicated innovation departments within
financial institutions and the creation of chief innovation officer or open innovation
leader functions. This shall assist the integration and consolidation of innovation
activities and planning within financial institutions and at the same time bring on
board new a talent within multidisciplinary job descriptions. But in order to do that
it is important to put in place the right organizational design and architecture
mechanisms that shall ease and facilitate the initiation of such practices.
Another important parameter is related to the trustworthiness of the employees and
the motivational elements individuals bring when it comes to working in financial
institutions. The financial industry tends to attract employees due to the provision of
high wages and bonuses. Here comes a matter of trustworthiness in relation to the
pool of individuals interested in working within financial institutions. Managers
should pay attention to the cognitive ability, personality and motivation of existing
and potential employees and understand the incentives behind their choice to work
for the industry. This realization can have implications in relation to the protection
and promotion of products and services transparency.
Lastly, this dissertation argues that the adoption of a trust-embedded approach to
open innovation can have a positive impact on the reputation of financial
institutions. By definition reputation is the “perpetual representation of a company’s
past actions and future prospects that describes its appeal in specific contextual
circumstances with respect to the different reputation criteria and a specific
stakeholder group, when compared with a standard” (Ruiz et al., 2012 cited by Ruiz
and Garcia, 2014, p.2). This means that the establishment of an open, transparent
and trustworthy organizational environment can act as a major catalyst for adopting
open innovation practices. This kind of organizational design can put in place
relevant policies that can determine the level of reputation financial institutions wish
to achieve towards improving competitiveness and safeguarding success and
survival in the long-run.
7.2.3.
Policy implications
The adoption of a trust-embedded approach to open innovation as a way towards
building more human financial institutions has an impact on the way policies, in
P a g e | 158
158
relation to enterprise and financial sectors, are being formulated. It is important to
realize that the multi-dimensional role of trust, its mechanisms and the way it is
perceived cater for more formal protection. Financial institutions can become the
democratizing agent and driver for wealth and prosperity, while at the same time
caring about innovation and societal impact. This requires ceasing the obsession to
maximize and satisfy shareholder value (to the expense of the customers, the
employees, the industry and the provision of products and services) and start taking
into consideration other stakeholder and societal concerns. For example a number of
banks in Luxembourg, in relation to cooperation with partners, so as, to develop new
or improve existing services adopt several modalities during inter-firm cooperation
for innovation: contracts (e.g., non-disclosure agreements, partnership agreement,
and etc.) (48.6%); secrecy (28.6%); intellectual property law (e.g., copyrights law,
trademarks law, patent law, industrial design law, and etc.) (11.4%); and none (i.e.
reliance on trust) (11.4%) (Martovoy et al., 2012) accentuating the relevance and
importance of trust-embedded partnerships, in the realms of adopting open
innovation practices. Hereby, the role of regulation probably contributes into
safeguarding operations and assists in the formalization of the benefits of trust. To
that respect, Mayer (2008, p.618) argues that trust, emerging from an ecosystem of
informal relations, plays an equal and integrative role in the financial development
as institutionalized and formal arrangements. He also believes that “to date
inadequate attention has been devoted to them in comparison with their more formal
regulatory counterparts”.
7.2.4.
Societal implications
The attention to the human side of open innovation in the financial industry also
looks beyond the traditional narrative of innovation by emanating the role of the
human element in relation to the creation of a sustainable societal impact, by means
of social prosperity and security, through the empowerment of human development.
To that respect, the nurturing of the trust-embedded dimension of open innovation
needs to become the new convention within the financial industry, since it can
empower the societal side of innovation and explore how the human side of open
innovation can be linked to human development in terms of addressing
contemporary worldwide challenges. In the same token, this approach can emanate
and strengthen the humanity-society pillar of sustainable development and
encourage socially responsible investments. Financial education, financial access for
underbanked societies, creation of jobs, financial education and literacy, financial
innovation and financial equality are the key challenges for human development,
which must be addressed for a more sustainably developed future and the financial
P a g e | 159
159
industry, by embracing the trust-embedded approach to innovation and paying
serious attention to the human element, can bring down the prevailing
dehumanization mindset and become the pioneer of this social change.
7.3. Limitations and avenues for further research
While this research makes an innovative contribution in the existing open innovation
research scholarship, the author acknowledges that there are several limitations
worth noted. These limitations however are perceived as an incentive to take these
respective research outcomes forward and open new and complementary pathways
for further research in the topic and still in-infancy or emerging themes in the open
innovation research agenda.
The author acknowledges that even though the introduction of the trust-embedded
approach to open innovation is founded both on existing seminal theories and
practices, there is still limited conceptualization to that respect. It is important to
ground open innovation in existing seminal theories of innovation, management and
economics and try to analyse the phenomenon from different aspects contributing to
a new theory development that would capture the whole grandeur of the open
innovation paradigm. The author believes that open innovation requires an open
approach in terms of conceptualization and suggests that not one but several theories
could contribute towards the understanding of this paradigm. The theoretical
foundations could capture different aspects of the open innovation paradigm. More
explicitly, the linkage between trust, open innovation and human side in the realms
of Theory X and Theory Y is one example, which, even though, it requires deeper
conceptualization and testing, it still provides novel and cutting-edge insights on the
magnitude and impact open innovation has in the existing research, endorsing the
need for perceiving this paradigm with the eyes of multidisciplinarity.
In the same token, this respective research considers open innovation as a whole
without differentiating and examining the different and peculiar mechanisms and
characteristics of the three open innovation processes or dimensions: inside-out,
outside-in and coupled, or inbound and outbound and coupled accordingly. The
author believes that in the endeavour to contribute to the theoretical discussions
around open innovation, especially in the realms of putting together elusive notions,
such as trust, the delineation of open innovation and the separate exploration based
on each of the three processes and dimensions would have been extremely difficult
and would have created more complexity. Further research is needed in terms of
operationalizing the trust-embedded conceptual model in relation to each of the
P a g e | 160
160
modes, while at the same time explicating the underlying mechanisms that can
safeguard readiness for open innovation along with the individual characteristics
required for excelling and being successful within each open innovation mode.
Lack of statistical causal effect analyses considering potential moderation and
mediation of trust. The notion of trust is extremely broad and wide and the literature
revolving around the different element of this concept is literally boundless. Trust
can be a social virtue but also a measurable economic driver that can have an impact
on performance. Trust can have different definitional components and
conceptualization in relation to the level and unit of analysis, the discipline, the
empirical setting and can be operationalized according to the ad hoc research
processes and expected research outcomes. There it shares an inherent difficulty in
terms of understanding, measuring and improving. The author believes that potential
casual moderation and mediation is a useful type of analysis that can help towards
the explanation of complex and elusive phenomena, such as, trust. This realization is
extremely crucial both for academia and practice. In the realms of this research, the
author has been very careful in terms of choosing the right literature following a
different set of criteria. Naturally, not all literature has been covered in this research
and the notion of trust has not been operationalized in the context of the financial
industry. Future research should aim at positioning trust in the realms of the open
innovation paradigm by exploring the potential moderating, mediating and other
effects in accordance to the conceptual model, the organizational antecedents of
open innovation and the interrelated variables. Furthermore, future research should
take into consideration the organizational enablers and barriers to open innovation in
the process of operationalizing trust within an empirical setting. Organizational trust
can be quantified and measured in relation to trust levels, trust components and trust
effects. Other elements of trust measurement can include leadership trustworthiness
(Kouzes and Posner, 2010) and employees trust within the organization (Gabarro,
1978).
No measurement of individual and organizational readiness. The trust-embedded
approach to open innovation in relation to the building of readiness within the
financial industry does not offer any measurable indicators in relation to firm
performance. Assessing individual and organizational readiness for implementation
of trust-embedded open innovation practices is important in the realms of the
financial industry. Individual, organizational and system factors need to be
considered by future research, so as, to assess the influence of the trust-embedded
approach in the capacity of financial institutions to adopt open innovation practices.
The model suggested by Backer (1995) following the three stages of assessing,
P a g e | 161
161
contextualizing and enhancing readiness could serve as a basis. Suggested
measurable constructs can be the decision-making processes, organizational
resources, attitudes towards change and organizational support for innovation and
change (Panzano et al., 2005), institutional resources, motivational readiness,
organizational climate (Lehman et al., 2002), culture, leadership, roles and styles,
communication (Sharp et al., 2003 cited by Antoni et al., 2013), acceptance of new
ideas, ability to respond to change, support in developing new ideas, orientation to
improvement and innovation (Patterson et al., 2004), levels of awareness,
familiarity, agreement, self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, inertia of previous
practice (Cabana et al., 1999). Furthermore, the correlation between an employee΄s
relationship with management/leadership, job profile and deliverables, knowledge,
skills and social relations, as suggested by Hanpachern (1997, cited by Madsen et
al., 2006), could become a good basis for validation within financial institutions.
Lack of quantitative empirical examination of the correlation and possible causality
between trust-embedded open innovation and firm performance. The conceptual
model of trust-embedded open innovation comprising of the organizational
antecedents of open innovation and the interrelated variables is of relevance for the
research on open innovation contributing to theory building. Empirical evidence on
the potential causal relationship between trust-embedded open innovation and a
firm’s open innovation performance, in individual, organizational, economic and
societal terms is necessary. Future quantitative empirical studies can investigate the
potential multivariate casual relationships between trust-embedded open innovation
and open innovation firm performance also bearing in mind the related firm size.
Quantitative statistical causal effect analyses, considering the performance and
measuring indicators of the respective variables, related to the hereby proposed
conceptual model, are required to be developed in order to statistically project
potential causality.
An interesting aspect, in which these research outcomes could serve as a basis is in
the understanding of the role of trust-embedded open innovation in terms of creating
resilient societies. This type of research fits in the framework of the Horizon 2020 50
EU Research and Innovation Program and the Societal Challenge: Europe in
changing world-inclusive, innovative and reflective societies. The Societal
Challenge incorporates three pillars: inclusive societies, innovative societies and
For more information please refer to the official webpage of the program at
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ (Not for referencing purposes)
50
P a g e | 162
162
reflective societies. Potential research questions could revolve around the ways trust
can be achieved, the processes and mechanisms needed to create cultures of trust,
the ways in which trust can be engendered through collaborative and innovation
processes, shared experiences, and shared values.
The author acknowledges the fact that the limited, yet, diverse sample of the
interviews allows neither for the generalization of the findings for the overall
financial industry, nor for their transferability to other sectors. Similarly the author
would caution about generalizing these findings, however, the author believes that
the sampling, within the realms of a qualitative research, has been conducted, so as,
to ensure a wide range of characteristics, without aiming at a statistical
representativeness. This limited sample endorses the absence of a dedicated
organizational unit of innovation within financial institutions (Anderloni and
Bongini, 2009; Fasnacht, 2009) and the need for establishing and adopting all these
elements for developing and shaping a dedicated innovation function (chief
innovation officer or open innovation leader), a function that can nurture the
streamlining of efforts in terms of enabling (open) innovation to thrive within the
financial industry (Mention, 2012). In relation to the diversity of the sample, the
point of observation reflects the inherent difficulty of the researcher to approach and
receive information from financial industry executives due to confidentiality,
secrecy and institutional practices, which cannot be disclosed to the public. These
kinds of peculiarities prevail within financial institutions creating a hindrance for
research scholarship to study the industry in detail, an industry being so selfrestricted and sealed, by nature, but at the same time so important for the global
business world and economy.
Last but not least the financial industry, in the realms of this research has been
considered as a whole without always taking into consideration the potential
peculiarities for specific sectors within the industry itself. The author has embraced
the diversity of activities within the financial industry that require the lowest level of
knowledge intensiveness within an open innovation mindset. Within the financial
industry, there are specific operational modes. These modes are normally referred as
tailored or customised meaning that despite the fact that they might exist in many
sectors of the financial industry it does not necessarily mean that they can be applied
to the financial industry as a whole (Salampasis et al., 2014a). Future research could
segment the financial industry based on specific criteria and explore and explain the
operationalization of the conceptual model within specific sectors.
P a g e | 163
163
Additional avenues for further research can be questions related to the effective
actions that companies need to take in order to develop skills and competences for
open innovation, development of dedicated training programmes in order to nurture
capabilities needed for excelling within an open innovation environment, the
classification of concrete organizational structures that would nurture the adoption
of open innovation practices, the impact open innovation practices have on regaining
trust within the financial industry, the changes within trust, trustworthiness and
distrust towards financial institutions before and after the financial crisis, ways of
repairing trust within the organizational sphere and how open innovation adoption
could facilitate this process, the identification of approaches, tools, practices and
mechanisms different companies adopt, so as, to encourage openness, while putting
in place organizational change models that can help companies connect and manage
external partners and at the same time facilitate open, fair and transparent working
environment for the employees. Moreover, from a societal standpoint it would be
interesting to explore the relationship of the human side of open innovation with the
human development paradigm, operationalizing capabilities for a better societal and
human well-being and sustainable development.
P a g e | 164
164
LIST OF REFERENCES
Accenture, (2013). 2020 Banking Report. Available online at
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Banking2020-POV.pdf [Last accessed: 15.04.2015].
Adams, J., Khan, H. T., Raeside, R., and White, D. I. (2007). “Research methods
for graduate business and social science students”. SAGE Publications, London:
UK.
Alajoutsijärvi, K., Moisanen, H., and Salminen, R. T. (2011). In search of
relevance in management education: three perspectives. Problems and Perspectives
in Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 33-42.
Alexy, O., George, G., and Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective
revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 270-291.
Allee, V., and Taug, J. (2006). Collaboration, innovation, and value creation in a
global telecom. The Learning Organization, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 569-578.
Almirall, E., and Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation:
A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35,
No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Alvesson, M., and Kärreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: making sense of the
curious concept of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
38, No. 7, pp. 995-1018.
Alvesson, M., and Skoldberg, K. (2009). “Reflexive methodology: New vistas for
qualitative research”. (2nd edition). SAGE. London: UK.
Amburgey, T. L., and Rao, H. (1996). Organizational ecology: Past, present, and
future directions. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 1265-1286.
Amit, R., and Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Anderloni, L., and Bongini, P. (2009). “Is Financial Innovation Still a Relevant
Issue?” In Anderloni, L., Llewellyn, D. T., and Schmidt, R. H. (Eds.). (pp.41-63).
P a g e | 165
165
Financial innovation in retail and corporate banking. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Northampton: MA, USA.
Anderson, P. F. (1986). On Method in Consumer Research: A Critical Relativist
Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 155-173.
Antoni, C. H., Friedrich, P., Haunschild, A., Josten, M., and Meyer, R. (2013).
“Work-Learn-Life-(Im) Balance in der Wissensarbeit–Theoriebildung und
Handlungsstrategien” . In Work-Learn-Life-Balance in der Wissensarbeit (pp. 99175). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Germany.
Antwi, S. K., and Hamza, K. (2015). Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Paradigms in Business Research: A Philosophical Reflection. European Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 217-225.
Armenakis, A. A., and Fredenberger, W. B. (1997). Organizational change
readiness practices of business turnaround change agents. Knowledge and Process
Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 143-152.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., and Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating
readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 681-703.
Avenier, M-J., and Gavard-Perret, M-L. (2008), “Inscrire son projet de
recherche dans un cadre épistémologique”. In M-L., Gavard-Perret, D., Gotteland,
Ch., Haon and A., Jolibert (Eds). Méthodologie de la Recherche-Réussir son
mémoire ou sa thèse en sciences gestion, Pearson, Paris: France.
Bachmann, R. (2001). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations.
Organization Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 337-365.
Backer, T. E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness for change:
Implications for technology transfer. In Backer, T. E., David, S. L. and Soucy, G.
(Eds.), Reviewing the behavioural science knowledge base on technology transfer,
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, pp. 21-41.
Baily, N. M., and Elliott, J. D. (2013). “The Role of Finance in the Economy:
Implications for Structural Reform of the Financial Sector”. The Brookings
Institution. Available online at
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/07/11-financerole-in-economy-baily-elliott/11-finance-role-in-economy-baily-elliott.pdf
[Last accessed: March 8th, 2015].
P a g e | 166
166
Bain and Company (2012). “A World Awash in Money: Capital Trends through
2020”. Available online at
http://www.bain.com/images/bain_report_a_world_awash_in_money.pdf [Last
accessed: March 8th, 2015]
Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., and von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations
become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research
Policy, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1291-1313.
Baldwin, C., and von Hippel, E. (2011). Modelling a Paradigm Shift: From
Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization
Science, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1399-1417.
Barney, J. B. (1986a). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck and Business
Strategy. Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 1231-1241.
Barney, J. B. (1986b). Organizational Culture: Can It be a Source of Sustained
Competitive Advantage? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 656665.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
Journal of Management, No. 17, No. 1, pp.99-120.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for
Strategic Management Research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26,
No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Barney, J. B., Wright, M., and Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of
the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 625-641.
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., and Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes
management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 9-15.
Baumgartel, H. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, No.3, pp. 464-467.
Bennis, W. G., and O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 96-104.
P a g e | 167
167
Bennis, G. W. (1972). Chairman Mac in Perspective. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 50, No. 5, p140-149.
Bettis, R. A., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., and Mitchell, W. (2015). Qualitative
empirical research in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
36, No. 5, pp. 637-639.
Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., and Chiesa, V. (2011).
Organisational modes for Open Innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An
exploratory analysis. Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 22-33.
Bidault, F., Despres, C., and Butler, C. (1998). The drivers of cooperation
between buyers and suppliers for product innovation. Research Policy, Vol. 26, No.
7, pp. 719-732.
Bigliardi, B., Ivo Dormio, A., and Galati, F. (2012). The adoption of open
innovation within the telecommunication industry. European Journal of Innovation
Birkinshaw, J. (2012). “Reinventing Management: Smarter Choices for Getting
Work Done-Revised and Updated Version”. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco: USA.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, Y. M., and Tung, L. R. (2011). From a distance and
generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods
in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.
42, No. 5, pp. 573-581.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, Ph., Stanworth, M., Sheard, K., and Webster, A.
(1981). “Introductory Sociology”. MacMillan Education, London: UK.
Bobic, M. P., and Davis, W. E. (2003). A kind word for Theory X: Or why so
many newfangled management techniques quickly fail. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 239-264.
Bogdan, R., and Biklen, S. (1998). “Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and practice”. Allyn and Bacon, Boston: USA.
Bogers, M., and West, J. (2012). Managing distributed innovation: Strategic
utilization of open and user innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 61-75.
P a g e | 168
168
Boon, S. D. (1995). “Trust”. In A. S. R. Manstead and M. Hewstone (Eds.),
Blackwell encyclopaedia of social psychology (pp. 656-657). Blackwell, Oxford:
UK.
Bootle, R. P. (2012). The limits to the market-lessons from the financial crisis.
(pp. 1-24). The 2012 Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture. Available online at
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/120308123202KeithJosephlecture2012.pdf [Last accessed: March 10th, 2015]
Bradley, J., Loucks, J., Jameson, P., O’Connel, K., and Barbier, J. (2014).
Reimagining the Digital Bank: How U.S. Banks can Transform Customer
Interactions to Increase Profitability. Cisco Consulting Services. Available online at
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/executiveperspectives/Internet-of-Everything-executive-summary.pdf [Last accessed: May 5th,
2015].
Brattström, A., Löfsten, H., and Richtnér, A. (2012). Creativity, trust and
systematic processes in product development. Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.
743-755.
Bridges, T. (2015). BNP Paribas, leveraging Open Innovation to build the ‘Bank
of Tomorrow’ (Sponsored). The Rude Baguette–France’s Startup Blog, April 30th
2015]. Available online at http://www.rudebaguette.com/2015/04/30/bnp-paribasleveraging-open-innovation-build-bank-tomorrow-sponsored/ [Last accessed: July
20th, 2015]
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change:
Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Brownlie, J., and Howson, A. (2005). ‘Leaps of faith’and MMR: an empirical
study of trust. Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 221-239.
Bruhn, G. J. (2001). “Trust and the Health of Organizations”. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York: USA.
Bryman, A. (2012). “Social research methods”. Oxford University Press, New
York: USA.
Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2007). “Business Research Methods”. (2nd edition).
Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK.
P a g e | 169
169
Burke, R. F., Martin, G., and Cooper, C. L. (2011). “Corporate Reputations:
Managing Opportunities and Threats”. Gower Press, London: UK.
Burns, R. B. (1997). “Introduction to research methods”. (3rd edition). Addison
Wesley Longman/Pearson Education, Boston: USA.
Burns, J. M. (2003). “Transforming Leadership”. Atlantic Monthly Press, New
York: USA.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). “Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis”. Heinemann, London: UK.
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.
C., and Rubin, H. R. (1999). Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice
guidelines? A framework for improvement. The Journal of the American Medical
Association, Vol. 282, No. 15, pp. 1458-1465.
Canals, J. (2009). “Seeking a Greater Impact: New Challenges for Business
Schools”. IESE Business School, Working Paper No. 838. Available at IESE
Business School-University of Navara: http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/di-0838e.pdf [Last accessed: August 20th, 2015].
Cappelli, P. (2013). HR for Neophytes. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91, No.
10, pp. 25-27.
Cappelli, P., Hamori, M., and Bonet, R. (2014). Who's got those top jobs?
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 74-77.
Carnap, R. (1952). “The continuum of inductive methods”. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago: USA.
Carroll, G. R., and Hannan, M. T. (1989). Density delay in the evolution of
organizational populations: A model and five empirical tests. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 411-430.
Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y.
Management Decision, Vol. 43, No, 3, pp. 450-460.
Chandler, A. D. (1963). “Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the
Industrial Enterprise”. MIT Press, Cambridge: USA.
P a g e | 170
170
Chatenier, E. D., Verstegen, J. A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., and Omta, O. S.
(2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams.
R&D Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 271-280.
Chenail, J. R. (2011). Ten Steps for Conceptualizing and Conducting Qualitative
Research Studies in a Pragmatically Curious Manner. The Qualitative Report, Vol.
16, No. 6, pp. 1713-1730.
Cheng, J. L., Henisz, W. J., Roth, K., and Swaminathan, A. (2009). From the
Editors: Advancing interdisciplinary research in the field of international business:
Prospects, issues and challenges. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40,
No. 7, pp. 1070-1074.
Chesbrough, H. (2003a). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston: USA.
Chesbrough, W. H. (2003b). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 35-41.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open
innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK.
Chesbrough, H., and Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: clarifying
an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In Chesbrough, H.,
Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (Eds.) New frontiers in open innovation, (pp. 3-28),
Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK.
Chesbrough, H. W., and Garman, A. R. (2009). How open innovation can help
you cope in lean times. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87, No. 12, pp. 68-76.
Chesbrough, H. W., and Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open Innovation and
Strategy. California Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 57-76.
Choi, M., and Ruona, W. E. (2011). Individual readiness for organizational
change and its implications for human resource and organization development.
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 46-73.
Choi, B. C., and Pak, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions,
objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and investigative medicine, Vol.
29, No. 6, pp. 351-364.
P a g e | 171
171
Christensen, C. M., and van Bever, D. (2014). The capitalist's dilemma. Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 60-68.
Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical Developments in Accounting Thought. Accounting
Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 601-632.
Clark, M. S., and Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and
communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No.
1, pp. 12-24.
Cohen, D. J., and Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative
research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Annals of Family
Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 331-339.
Cohen, L., and Manion, L. (1994). “Research methods in education”. (4th
edition). Routledge, London: UK.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2007). “Research Methods in
Education”. Routledge, London: UK.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). “Foundations of Social Theory”. Cambridge & Boston,
MA, TheBelknap Press of Harvard University Press, Boston: USA.
Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., and Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). Open innovation and
within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open
source software firms. Research Policy, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 891-902.
Cooke, B., and Mills, J. Al. (2008). The right to be human and human rights:
Maslow, McCarthyism and the death of humanist theories of management.
Management and Organizational History, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Connole, H., Smith, R. J., and Wiseman, R. (1995). “Research methodology 1:
Issues and methods in research”. Study guide. Deakin University.
Cooper, H. (2010) “Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step
approach”. (4th edition), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Cooper, D. R., and Schindler, P. S (2013). “Business Research Methods”. (12th
Edition), McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York: USA.
Corazzini, J. G. (1977). Trust as a complex multi-dimensional construct.
Psychological Reports, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 75-80.
P a g e | 172
172
Cornelissen, J. P., and Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: Developing
theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 995-1022.
Covey, S. (1989). “The seven habits of highly successful people”. Fireside/Simon
& Schuster, New York: USA.
Creswell, W. J. (2003). “Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches”. (2nd edition). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California: USA.
Creswell, W. J. (2012). “Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches”. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Cronbach, L. J. and Suppes, P. (1969). “Research for tomorrow’s Schools:
Disciplined Inquiry for Education”. MacMillan, New York: USA.
Crosman, P. (2015). BBVA Compass Takes Emulating Startups to Another Level.
American Banker (May 18th 2015). Available online at
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/bbva-compass-takesemulating-startups-to-another-level-1074384-1.html [Last accessed: July 20th, 2015]
Crotty, M. (1998). “The foundations of social research: Meaning and
perspective in the research process”. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California: USA.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum,
B., Rosenbloom, D., and Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A
longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 377-392.
Dahlander, L., and Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research
Policy, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 699-709.
Dahrendorf, R. (2010). After the crisis: back to the Protestant ethic? Six critical
observations. Max Weber Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 11-21.
Daft, R. (1998). “Organization Theory and
Thomson/Southwestern Publishing, Cincinnati: USA.
Design”,
(6th
ed.)
P a g e | 173
173
Davis, G. F., and Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and
future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 21-42.
Davis, F. G., and White, J. Ch. (2015). Changing Your Company from the Inside
Out: A Guide for Social Intrapreneurs. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston:
USA.
de Cremer, D. (2015). “Understanding Trust, In China and the West”, (February,
2015). Harvard Business Review.
Available online at https://hbr.org/2015/02/understanding-trust-in-china-and-thewest [Last accessed: March, 11th, 2015]
Den Haan, W. (2011). “Why do we need a financial sector?” VoxEU. org, 24
October. Available online at http://www.voxeu.org/article/why-do-we-needfinancial-sector [Last accessed: March, 10th, 2015]
Denzin, K. N., and Lincoln, S. Y. (2000). “Handbook of Qualitative Research”.
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Deshpande, R. (1983). “Paradigms Lost”: on theory and method in research in
marketing. The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 101-110.
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and
suspicion. Human Relations, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 123-140.
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Gage Revisited:
Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.
American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift
towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, Vol.
36, No. 3, pp. 333-346.
Douglas, A. R., Hill, A. L., and Robert J. Th. (2014). Building a Game-Changing
Talent Strategy. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 1/2, pp. 62-68.
Drees, J. M., and Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and Extending Resource
Dependence Theory: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.
1666-1698.
P a g e | 174
174
Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C., Schuwirth, L., van Tartwijk, J., and Vermunt,
J. (2005). The use of qualitative research criteria for portfolio assessment as an
alternative to reliability evaluation: a case study. Medical Education, Vol. 39, No. 2,
pp. 214-220.
Drucker, F. P. (1985). “Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and
Principles”. Heinemann, Oxford: UK.
Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D., and Schlösser, T. M. (2012). Trust as a social and
emotional act: Noneconomic considerations in trust behavior. Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 686-694.
Dyer, J. H., and Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and
sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 660-679.
Dyer, J. H. (1997). Effective Interfirm Collaboration: How firms minimize
transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 535-556.
Easterby-Smith, M. P. V., Thorpe. R., and Lowe, A. (2002). “Management
Research: An Introduction”. SAGE Publications, London: UK
Ebersberger, B., Marsili, O., Reichstein, T., and Salter, A. (2010). Into thin air:
using a quantile regression approach to explore the relationship between R&D and
innovation. International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 95-102.
Eccles, R. G., and Nohria, N. (1992). “Beyond the hype: Rediscovering the
essence of management”. Harvard Business School Press, Boston: USA.
Eccles, R. G., Perkins, K. M., and Serafeim, G. (2012). How to become a
sustainable company. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 43-50.
Eichler, M., Grass, M., Torti, A., and Künnemann, M. (2013). The Financial
Sector and the Economy: A Pillar or a Burden? Study of behalf of the State
Secretariat of Economic Affairs SECO, Strukturberichterstattung Nr. 50/1.
Eidfenössisches Department für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF,
Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO, Direktion für Wirtschaftspolitik,
Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft.
P a g e | 175
175
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). “The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the
enhancement of educational practice”. MacMillan Publishing Company, New York:
USA.
Elliott, R., and Timulak, L. (2005). “Descriptive and interpretive approaches to
qualitative research”. In, Miles, J., and Gilbert, P. (Eds.). A handbook of research
methods for clinical and health psychology. (pp. 147-159). Oxford University Press,
Oxford: UK.
Enkel, E. (2010). Attributes required for profiting from open innovation in
networks. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.
344-371.
Erickson, F. (1986). “Qualitative methods in research on teaching”. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edition, pp. 119-161).
MacMillan, New York: USA.
Evered, R., and Louis, M. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the
organizational sciences: “inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside”.
Academy of management review, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 385-395.
Fasnacht, D. (2009). “Open Innovation in the financial services: growing
through openness, flexibility and customer integration. Springer Science & Business
Media, Wiesbaden: Germany.
Felin, T., and Zenger, T. R. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving
and the governance choice. Research Policy, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 914-925.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). “Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of
human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market
pricing”. Free Press, New York: USA.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a
unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 689723.
P a g e | 176
176
Franke, N., and Piller, F. (2004). Value creation by toolkits for user innovation
and design: The case of the watch market. Journal of Product Innovation
Fredberg, T., Elmquist, M., and Ollila, S. (2008). “Managing Open InnovationPresent Findings and Future Directions”. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers
University of Technology.
Freebody, P. (2003). “Qualitative research in education: interaction and
practice”. SAGE Publications, London: UK.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). “Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity”.
Free Press, New York: USA.
Fulmer, C. A., and Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At What Level (and in Whom) We
Trust Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels. Journal of Management, Vol.
38, No. 4, pp. 1167-1230.
Gabarro, John J. (1978). “The Development of Trust, Influence and
Expectations” In A. Athos and J. J. Gabarro (Eds.). Interpersonal Behavior. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs: USA.
Gambardella, A., and Panico, C. (2014). On the management of open innovation.
Research Policy, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 903-913.
Gambetta, D. G. (1988). “Can we trust trust?” In: Gambetta, D. G. (ed.) Trust
(pp. 213–237). Basil Blackwell, New York: USA.
Garman, N. (1996). “Qualitative inquiry: meaning and menace for educational
researchers”. In P. Willis and B. Neville (Eds.). Qualitative Research Practice in
adult education (pp. 11-29). David Lovell Publishing, Ringwood, Victoria:
Australia.
Gassmann, O., and Enkel, E. (2004, July). Towards a theory of open innovation:
three core process archetypes. In R&D Management Conference (Vol. 6).
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., and Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open
innovation. R&D Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 213-221.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management
Journal. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 454-462.
P a g e | 177
177
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management
practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 75-91.
Gianiodis, P. T., Ettlie, J. E., and Urbina, J. J. (2014). Open Service Innovation in
the Global Banking Industry: Inside-out versus Outside-in Strategies. Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Giordano, Y. (2003). “Les spécificités des recherches qualitatives”. In Giordano,
Y. (Ed.) Conduire un projet de recherche: une perspective qualitative, (12-39).
Éditions ems: Management & Societe, Paris: France.
Giorgi, A. (1975). “An application of phenomenological method in psychology”.
Giorgi, A., Fischer, W. F., and von Eckartsberg, R. (Eds.). Duquesne studies in
phenomenological psychology (Vol. 2). (pp. 82-103). Duquesne University Press,
Pittsburgh: USA.
Givón, T. (1989). “Mind, code and context. Essay in pragmatics”. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative
Research. The Qualitative Report, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 597-607.
Golightly, J., Ford, C., Sureka, P., and Reid, B. (2012). “Realising the value of
open innovation”. Big Innovation Centre (The Work Foundation and Lancaster
University), London: UK.
Graebner, M. E., Martin, J. A., and Roundy, P. T. (2012). Qualitative data:
Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organization, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 276-284.
Grant, R. M., and Baden‐Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of
strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 61-84.
Greenwood, R., and Scharfstein, D. (2012). The Growth of Modern Finance (July
1, 2012). Available online at
http://www.people.hbs.edu/dscharfstein/growth_of_modern_finance.pdf
[Last
th
accessed: March 8 , 2015].
Greer, C. R., and Lei, D. (2012). Collaborative innovation with customers: a
review of the literature and suggestions for future research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 63-84.
P a g e | 178
178
Grix, J. (2010). “The foundations of research”. Palgrave Macmillan, London:
UK.
Groenfeldt, T. (2014). Banks have one more shot with customers-Maybe. Forbes
Magazine. Available online at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfeldt/2014/11/14/banks-have-one-moreshot-with-customers-maybe/ [Last accessed: May 5th, 2015].
Groysberg, B., and Abrahams, R. (2014). Manage your work, manage your life.
(cover story). Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 58-66.
Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). “Competing paradigms in qualitative
research”. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, (pp. 105-117), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). “The paradigm dialog”. SAGE Publications,
Newbury Park, California: USA.
Guillén, M. F., and Ontiveros, E. (2012). “Global Turning Points:
Understanding the Challenges for Business in the 21st Century”. Cambridge
University Press, New York: USA.
Guillén, M. F., and García-Canal, E. (2012). Execution as Strategy: how
emerging-market multinationals thrive amid turbulence. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 90, No. 10, pp. 103-107.
Guillén, M. F. and Suárez, L. S. (2010). “The global crisis of 2007–2009:
Markets, politics, and organizations”. In. Michael Lounsbury, Paul M. Hirsch (Eds.)
Markets on Trial: The Economic Sociology of the U.S. Financial Crisis: Part A
(Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 30 Part A). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, pp.257-279.
Heil, G., Bennis, W., and Stephens, C. D. (2000). “Douglas McGregor,
Revisited: Managing the Human Side of the Enterprise”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
Toronto: Canada.
Heckscher, C. (2007). “The Collaborative Enterprise: Managing Speed and
Complexity in Knowledge-Based Businesses”. Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT: USA.
P a g e | 179
179
Helfat, C. E. (2006). Open innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 86-88.
Heller, A. F. (1961). The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor.
Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 494-495.
Helmreich, St. (2007). Induction, deduction, abduction, and the logics of race and
kinship. American Ethnologist, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 230-232.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., and Foard, N. (2009). “A critical introduction to social
research”. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W., and Smit, B. (2004). “Finding your way in
qualitative research”. Van Schaik Publishers, Hatfield, Pretoria: South Africa.
Henwood, K. L., and Pidgeon, N. F. (1992). Qualitative research and
psychological theorizing. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 97-111.
Hernaes, Ch. (2015). The landscape for financial services is changing. Available
online at https://hernaes.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/the-landscape-for-financialservices-is-changing/ [Last accessed: April 20th, 2015].
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., and Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting
consensual qualitative research. The Counselling Psychologist, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.
517-572.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., and Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence
theory: A review. Journal of Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1404-1427.
Hipps, J. A. (1993). “Trustworthiness and Authenticity: Alternate Ways to Judge
Authentic Assessments”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.
Hoffmann, M. (1997). “Is there a “Logic” of Abduction”. In Proceedings of the
6th Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Guadalajara,
Mexico (pp. 13-18).
Holley, E. (2015). Banks scramble to keep up with digital race for pace. Banking
Technology (April 20th, 2015). Available online at
P a g e | 180
180
http://www.bankingtech.com/287492/banks-scramble-to-keep-up-with-digitalrace-for-pace/ [Last accessed: April 21st, 2015].
Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 10,
No. 1, pp. 42-61.
Hunt, S. D. and Morgan, R. M. (1995). The Comparative Advantage Theory of
Competition. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Hussain, M. A., Elyas, T., and Nasseef, A. O. (2013). Research Paradigms: A
Slippery Slope for Fresh Researchers. Life Science Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.
2374-2381.
Ili, S., Albers, A., and Miller, S. (2010). Open innovation in the automotive
industry. R&D Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 246-255.
Jackson, B. B. (1985). Build customer relationships that last. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 120-128.
Jacobs, D., College, H., and Marryland, F. (2004). Book Review Essay: Douglas
McGregor: The Human Side of Enterprise in Peril. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 293-296.
Janssen, W., and Goldsworthy, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary research for natural
resource management: conceptual and practical implications. Agricultural Systems,
Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 259-279.
Johnson, B. R. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.
Education, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 282-292.
Johnson, S. D. (1995). Will our research hold up under scrutiny? Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 3-6.
Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (1999) “Sources and dimensions of trust in service
relationships”. In: Swartz, T. A. and Iaccobucci, D. (eds.) Services Marketing and
Management, SAGE Publications. Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard
Kay, J. (2012). Obliquity. Capitalism and Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-9.
P a g e | 181
181
Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Fleming, A., and Miller, M. (2014). Making business
personal. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 44-52.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1983). “Foundations of behavioural research”. 3rd edition.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York: USA.
Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., and Dunn, M. B. (2011). From blue sky research to
problem solving: A philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production.
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 297-317.
Kleiner, A. (2013). Thought Leaders: The Dynamic Capabilities of David Teece.
Strategy+Business. Available online at
http://www.strategy-business.com/article/00225?pg=all [Last accessed: March,
10th, 2015]
Kostova, T., and Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions
of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 64-81.
Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (2010). “The truth about leadership”. (1st
edition). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California: USA.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). “Trust in Organizations: Frontiers
of Theory and Research”. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging
perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.
569-598.
Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahn, R., Strenziok, M., and
Grafman, J. (2007). Neural correlates of trust. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, Vol. 104, No. 50, pp. 20084-20089.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. 2nd edition.
International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science, enlarged, first published 1962. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago: USA.
Kuhn, T. S. (1972). “Scientific Paradigms”. In Barnes, B. (ed.), Sociology of
Science, Penguin, Harmondsworth: UK.
P a g e | 182
182
Lane, C., and Bachmann, R. (Eds.). (1998). “Trust within and between
organizations: Conceptual issues and Empirical Applications”. Oxford University
Press, Oxford: UK.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An
extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31,
No. 3, pp. 638-658.
Laursen, K., and Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in
explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 131-150.
LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analysing Qualitative Data. Theory into Practice, Vol.
39, No. 3, pp. 146-154.
LeCompte, M. D., and Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in
ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 31-60.
Lee, S. A. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretative Approaches to
Organizational Research. Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., and Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs-An
intermediated network model. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 290-300.
Lehman, W. E., Greener, J. M., and Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing
organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 22,
No. 4, pp. 197-209.
Leiblich, A. (1998). “Narrative Research: Reading, analysis and interpretation”.
Lewis, J. D., and Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, Vol.
63, No. 4, pp. 967-985.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and
future directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 7593.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). “Naturalistic inquiry”. SAGE
Publications, Beverly Hills, California: USA.
P a g e | 183
183
Lindgreen, A. (2003). Trust as a valuable strategic variable in the food industry:
Different types of trust and their implementation. British Food Journal, Vol. 105,
No. 6, pp. 310-327.
Lipton, P. (2004). “Inference to the Best Explanation”, (2nd edition). Routledge,
London: UK.
Lowe, K. B., and Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of the leadership quarterly:
Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, No.
4, pp. 459-514.
Luhmann, N. (1979). “Trust and Power”. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons,
Toronto: Canada.
Luthans, F., and Davis, T. R. (1982). An idiographic approach to organizational
behaviour research: The use of single case experimental designs and direct
measures. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 380-391.
Madsen, S. R., John, C. R., and Miller, D. (2006). Influential factors in individual
readiness for change. Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 93110.
Malone, C., and Fiske, S. T. (2013). “The human brand: How we relate to
people, products, and companies”. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco: USA.
March, J. G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 278-287.
MaRs. (2015). CIBC Announces Partnership with MaRS Discovery District to
Drive Innovation. MaRs Media Center (April 23rd, 2015). Available online at
http://www.marsdd.com/media-centre/cibc-announces-partnership-with-marsdiscovery-district-to-drive-innovation/ [Last accessed: July 20th, 2015].
Marshall, C., and Rossman, G. B. (1999). “The “what” of the study: building the
conceptual framework”. In Designing Qualitative Research, 3, 21-54, SAGE
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Martovoy, A., Mention A.-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2012). “Role of the inbound
open innovation in banking services” in Proceedings of the 2nd Innovation for
Financial Services Summit, ISPIM, Luxembourg.
P a g e | 184
184
Marx, B. P. (1961). The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor. The
American Catholic Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 74-76.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). “Qualitative Research Design: An interactive approach”
(2 edition). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
nd
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Mayer, C. (2008). Trust in financial markets. European Financial Management,
Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 617-632.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
38, No. 1, pp. 24-59.
McComb, L. W. (2014). Transformation Is an Era, Not an Event. Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, p34-34.
McGregor, D. (1960). “The human side of enterprise, Annotated Edition
(2006)”. McGraw-Hill, New York: USA.
McKibbon, K.A. (2006), Systematic reviews and librarians. Library Trends, Vol.
55, No. 1, pp. 202-215.
McNabb, D. E., and Sepic, F. T. (1995). Culture, climate, and total quality
management: Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity and Management
Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 369-385.
Mention, A.-L., and Torkkeli, M. (2012). Drivers, processes and consequences of
financial innovation: a research agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 5-29.
Mention, A. L. (2012). “Essays on the complex relationships between Innovation
and Performance in service firms, with particular reference to financial services: An
intellectual capital perspective”. Doctoral Thesis. Available online at
http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/111403 [Last accessed: March, 31st, 2015]
Merriam, S. B. (1998). “Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education”. Revised and Expanded from “Case Study Research in Education”.
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco: USA.
P a g e | 185
185
Mertens, D.M. (2005). “Research methods in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches”. (2nd edition).
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., and Alexander, L. (1992). “In-depth
Interviewing: Researching People”. Routledge, London: UK.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). “Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of
managing and management development”. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco: USA.
Misztal, B. (2013). “Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social
order”. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto: Canada.
Molina-Morales, X., Martínez-Fernández, T., and Torlò, J. V. 2011. The Dark
Side of Trust: The Benefits, Costs and Optimal Levels of Trust for Innovation
Performance. Long Range Planning, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 118-133.
Morey, N. C., and Luthans, F. (1984). An emic perspective and ethnoscience
methods for organizational research. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No.
1, pp. 27-36.
Mouton, J. (1996). “Understanding social research”. Van Schaik Publishers,
Hatfield, Pretoria: South Africa.
Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: from Georg Simmel to a theory of
expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, Vol. 35, 2, pp. 403-420.
Mukunda, G. (2014). The price of Wall Street's power. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 70-78.
Myers, D. M. (2009). “Qualitative Research in Business & Management”.
Nahass, Gr. (2014). Deals That Transform Companies: How to shift your
business model with M&A integration. Strategy+Business, Issue 75, Reprint 00246.
Nally, D. (2014). The Trust Agenda. Strategy+Business, Issue 75, Reprint 00253,
pp. 1-4.
Nidumolu, R., Ellison, J., Whalen, J., and Billman, E. (2014). The Collaboration
Imperative. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 76-84.
P a g e | 186
186
Niu, K. H. (2010). Organizational trust and knowledge obtaining in industrial
clusters. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 141-155.
Northcote, M. T. (2012). Selecting Criteria to Evaluate Qualitative Research.
Education Papers and Journal Articles. Paper 38, pp. 98-110.
Norton, R. (2011). The Thought Leader Interview: Henry Chesbrough.
Strategy+Business, Issue 63, Reprint 11210.
Office of Financial Research. (2014). 2014 Annual Report. US Department of
Treasury. Available online at http://financialresearch.gov/annual-reports/files/officeof-financial-research-annual-report-2014.pdf [Last accessed: May 5th, 2015].
Oliveira, P., and von Hippel, E. (2011). Users as service innovators: The case of
banking services. Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 806-818.
O'Leary, Z. (2004). “The essential guide to doing research”. SAGE Publications,
London: UK.
Orbell, J. M., and Dawes, R. M. (1993). Social welfare, cooperators' advantage,
and the option of not playing the game. American Sociological Review, Vol. 58, No.
6, pp. 787-800.
Packer, M. J., and Addison, R. B. (Eds.). (1989). “Entering the circle:
Hermeneutic investigation in psychology”. Suny Press, New York: USA.
Panzano, P. C., Seffrin, B., Chaney-Jones, S., Roth, D., Crane-Ross, D., Massatti,
R., and Carstens, C. (2005). The innovation diffusion and adoption research project
(IDARP): Moving from the diffusion of research results to promoting the adoption
of evidence-based innovations in the Ohio mental health system. New Research in
Mental Health, Vol. 16, pp. 78-89.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R.,
Maitlis, S., and Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate
measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 379-408.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). “Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods”. (3rd
edition). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
P a g e | 187
187
Peirce, C. S. (1878). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Popular Science
Monthly, Vol. 13, pp. 470-482.
Peirce, C. S. (1934/1960). “Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce”.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge: USA.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). “The essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings”.
Volume 2 (1893-1913), edited by the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, Bloomington: USA.
Penland, T. (1997). A model to create “organizational readiness” for the
successful implementation of quality management systems. International Journal
for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69-72.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). “The Theory of the Growth of the Firm”. Oxford
University Press, New York: USA.
Perret, V., and Séville, M. (2003). Fondements épistémologiques de la recherche.
Méthodes de Recherche en Management, Chapitre, 1, 13-33.
Perry, Ch., Carson, D., and Gilmore, A. (2003). Joining a conversation: Writing
for EJM’s editors, reviewers and readers requires planning, care and persistence.
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 5/6, pp.652-667.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978). “The External Control of Organizations: A
Resource Dependence Perspective”. Harper and Row, New York: USA.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research
on personal epistemology. In. B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 389414). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, New Jersey: USA.
Polonsky, M., Lawson, R., Uncles, M., Johnson, L.W., Wilkinson, I. and Alpert,
F. (1998). Perspectives on academic publishing; advice for those just starting.
Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 63-80.
Potter, J., and Wetherell, M. (1987). “Discourse and social psychology: Beyond
attitudes and behaviour”. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Powell, J. L. (2011). Towards a sociology of trust: community care and
managing diversity. Sociology Mind, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 27-32.
P a g e | 188
188
Prochaska, J. M., Prochaska, J. O., and Levesque, D. A. (2001). A
transtheoretical approach to changing organizations. Administration and Policy in
Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 247-261.
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., and Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change
Readiness A Multilevel Review. Journal of Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 110135.
Raynor, M. E., and Ahmed, M. (2013). Three rules for making a company truly
great. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 108-117.
Reichardt, S. Ch. and Cook, D. Th. (1979). “Beyond Qualitative versus
Quantitative Methods”. In Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation
Research, Th. D. Cook and Ch. S. Reichardt (Eds). pp. 7-32. SAGE Publications,
Beverly Hills, California: USA.
Reina, D. S., and Reina, M. L. (2006). “Trust and betrayal in the workplace:
Building effective relationships in your organization”. Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
Oakland: USA.
Reuter, V. G. (1977). Suggestion Systems: Utilization, Evaluation, and
Implementation. California Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 78-79.
Rigby, D., and Zook, C. (2002). Open-market innovation. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 80, No. 10, pp. 80-93.
Rist, R. C. (1977). On the relations among educational research paradigms: from
Disdain to Detente. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 4249.
Rosenfeld, B. R. (2008). All About People-Why Leaders Need to Know the
Human Side of Innovation. Leadership in Action, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp.13-17.
Rosli, M. M., and Mahmood, R. (2013). Moderating effects of human resource
management practices and entrepreneur training on Innovation and small-medium
firm performance. Journal of Management and Strategy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 60-69.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., and Camerer, C. (1998). Not so
different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 393-404.
P a g e | 189
189
Ruiz, B., and Garcia, A. J. (2014). “Banking Reputation in a Context of
Financial Crisis” in Proceedings of the 2014 INBAM Conference, June 24-27,
2014, Barcelona, Spain.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli, M. (2014a). Open Innovation and
Collaboration in the Financial Services Sector: Exploring the role of trust.
International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 466484.
Salampasis, D. (2014). Organizational Readiness for Open Innovation in the
Financial Services Sector: The missing element of trust. In Mention, A-L., and
Torkkeli, M. (Eds.) Innovation in financial services: a dual ambiguity, (pp. 295336), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle: UK.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli, M. (2014b). “Trust embedded open
innovation: Literature review, synthesis and research propositions”. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2014(1), doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2014.13668abstract,
Philadelphia, USA.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli, M. (2015a). Trust embeddedness
within an open innovation mindset. International Journal of Business &
Globalization, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 32-57.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli, M., (2015b). Human resources
management and open innovation adoption in the banking sector: a conceptual
model. International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 433-457.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli, M. (2015c). “Open innovation for
“humanly-embedded” financial institutions: individuals and organizations at a
crossroads”. Proceedings of the 2015 R&D Management Conference, Pisa, Italy.
Saldaňa, J. (2011). “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: Understanding
Qualitative Research”. Oxford University Press, New York: USA.
Satzger, G., and Neus, A. (2010). “Principles of Collaborative Innovation:
Implementation of Open and Peer-to-Peer Innovation Approaches”. In Innovation
and International Corporate Growth (pp. 219-237). Springer Berlin Heidelberg:
Germany.
Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., and Lewis, P. (2003). “Research methods for
business students”. (3rd Edition), Pearson Education, Essex: UK.
P a g e | 190
190
Sawhney, M., and Prandelli, E. 2000. Communities of Creation: Managing
Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets. California Management Review. Vol.
42, No. 4, pp. 24-54.
Schein, E. (2011). Douglas McGregor: theoretician, moral philosopher or
behaviorist? An analysis of the interconnections between assumptions, values and
behavior. Journal of Management History, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 156-164.
Schein, E. (1975). In defense of Theory Y. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, No.
1, pp. 17-30.
Scholes, S. M. (2011). “Challenges of Financial Innovation”. In G. Rosenfeld, J.
Lorsch and R. Khurana (Eds.), Challenges to Business in the Twenty-First Century,
(pp.8-19). American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge.
Schwandt, A. Th. (2000). “Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:
Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism”. In N. K. Denzin, and Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 189-213). SAGE
Schwandt, A. Th. (1994). “Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human
inquiry”. In N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative
Research. (pp. 99-136). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California: USA.
Schiele, H. (2010). Early supplier integration: the dual role of purchasing in new
product development. R&D Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 138-153.
Scotchmer, S. (2004). “Innovation and incentives”. MIT Press, Cambridge:
USA.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, Vol. 5, No.
4, pp. 465-478.
Sekaran, U. (2003). “Research Methods for Business: a skill building approach”.
(4 edition). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York: USA.
th
Seligman, A. B. (2000). “The problem of trust”. Princeton University Press, New
Jersey: USA.
P a g e | 191
191
Shamah, A. M. R., and Elsawaby, M. M. Sh. (2014). Trust as a nucleus key for
open innovation. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Vol. 9, No.
1, pp. 110-127.
Shamah, A. M. R., and Elsawaby, M. M. Sh. (2015). Facing the open innovation
gap: measuring and building open innovation in supply chains. Journal of Modelling
in Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 50-75.
Shank, G., and Villella, O. (2004). Building on new foundations: Core principles
and new directions for qualitative research. The Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Shepherd, D. A., and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Inductive top-down theorizing: A
source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36,
No. 2, pp. 361-380.
Silverman, D. (1993). “Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing
Talk, Text and Interaction”. SAGE Publications, London: UK.
Simanis, E., and Hart, S. (2009). Innovation from the inside out. MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 77-86.
Smith, P. L., and Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Denver, MA: USA.
Smith, J. A., Jarman, M. and Osborn, M. (1999). “Doing interpretative
phenomenological analysis”. In M. Murray and K. Chamberlain (Eds.) Qualitative
Health Psychology (pp. 218-240). SAGE Publications, London: UK.
Smuts, J. C. (1961). “Holism and evolution”. 1926. Viking, New York: USA.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., and Dillon, L. (2003). “Quality in qualitative
evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence”. London National Center
for Social Research, Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, UK.
Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., and Knockaert, M. (2011). Building absorptive
capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Srinivasan, A., and Kurey, B. (2014). Creating a culture of quality. Harvard
P a g e | 192
192
Stagner, R. (1961). The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor. The
American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 317-319.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). “Exploratory research in the social sciences”. SAGE
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires concepts of its own.
Management Decision, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp. 551-555.
Stewart, A., and Aldrich, H. (2015). Collaboration between management and
anthropology researchers: obstacles and opportunities. Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 173-192.
Strauss, G. (2002). Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Managing the Human Side of
Enterprise by Gary Heil, Warren Bennis, and Deborah C. Stephens, New York:
Wiley, 2000, 196 pp., ISBN 0-471-31462-5. Relations industrielles/Industrial
Relations, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 198-200.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). “Basics of qualitative research: Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory” (2nd edition). SAGE Publications,
Newbury Park, California: USA.
Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp. 200-215.
Svennevig, J. (1997). “Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of
spoken interaction”. Available online at
http://home.bi.no/a0210593/Abduction%20as%20a%20methodological%20.pdf
Swan, J. E. and Trawick, I. F. (1987). Building customer trust in the industrial
salesperson: Process and outcomes. Advances in Business Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 81113.
Sztompka, P. (1999). “Trust: A sociological theory”. Cambridge University
Press, New York: USA.
Teece, D., and Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an
introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 537-556.
P a g e | 193
193
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and
Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and
microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 28, No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2009). “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management”, Oxford
University Press, Oxford: UK.
Terjesen, S., and Politis, D. (2015). From the Editors: In Praise of
Multidisciplinary Scholarship and the Polymath. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 151-157.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent
qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 10, pp. 837-851.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for
Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic
Analysis. British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tyler, K., and Stanley, E. (2007). The role of trust in financial services business
relationships. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 334-344.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Trust within organisations. Personnel Review, Vol. 32, No.
5, pp. 556-568.
van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., and Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the
scope of open innovation: past research, current state and future directions.
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 52, No. 3/4, pp.221-235.
van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., and De Rochemont, M.
(2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges.
Technovation, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 423-437.
van der Meer, H. (2007). Open Innovation; The Dutch Treat: Challenges in
Thinking in Business Models. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No.
2, pp. 192-202.
van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational
research: a preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 520-526.
P a g e | 194
194
van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., and Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay
between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, Np. 4, pp.
1145-1154.
Vanhaverbeke, W., and Cloodt, M. (2006). “Open innovation in value
networks”. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West (Eds), (pp. 258281), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press,
Oxford: UK.
Vanhaverbeke, W., and Cloodt, M. (2014). “Theories of the firm and open
innovation”. In. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (Eds.), New
Frontiers in Open Innovation. (pp. 256-281). Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK.
Vanhaverbeke, W., van de Vrande, V., and Chesbrough, H. (2008).
Understanding the advantages of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in
terms of real options. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.
251-258.
Verma, G. K., and Mallick, K. (1999). “Researching education: Perspectives
and techniques”. Routledge, London: UK.
Vinten, G. (1995). Open versus closed questions-an open issue. Management
Decision, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 27-31.
Vitasek, K. (2015). “Innovation and Collaboration: It's Not An Either-Or
Proposition” Available online at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevitasek/2015/01/13/innovation-andcollaboration-its-not-an-either-or-proposition/ [Last accessed: March 8th, 2015].
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts.
Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 791-805.
von Hippel, E. (1988). “The Sources of Innovation”. Oxford University Press,
New York: USA.
von Hippel, E. (2005a). Democratizing Innovation: The evolving phenomenon of
user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 63-78.
von Hippel, E. (2005b). “Democratizing Innovation”. The MIT Press,
Cambridge: USA.
P a g e | 195
195
von Hippel, E. (2009). Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of
user innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2940.
Wallendorf, M., and Belk, W. R. (1989). “Assessing Trustworthiness in
Naturalistic Consumer Research", in SV - Interpretive Consumer Research, eds.
Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 69-84.
Walsham, G. (1993). “Interpreting information systems in organizations”. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, Toronto: Canada.
Wang, L., Yeung, J. H. Y., and Zhang, M. 2011. The impact of trust and contract
on innovation performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty.
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 134, No. 1, pp. 114-122.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement
Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 67.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). The Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 171-180.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After.
Wertz, F. J. (1983). From everyday to psychological description: Analyzing the
moments of a qualitative data analysis. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,
Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 197-241.
West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H. (2006). “Open innovation: A
research agenda”. In: Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds.)
Open Innovation, Researching a New Paradigm (pp. 285–307). Oxford University
Press, Oxford: UK.
West, J., and Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: a
review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 814-831.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., and Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open
innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 805-811.
P a g e | 196
196
West, J., and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of
firm investment in open‐source software. R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.
319-331.
Westergren, U. H., and Holmström, J. (2012). Exploring preconditions for open
innovation: Value networks in industrial firms. Information and Organization, Vol.
22, No. 4, pp. 209-226.
Whetten, D. A., and Cameron, K. S. (1998). Developing managerial skills.
Addison-Wesley Publications, Wesley Longman/Pearson Education, Boston: USA.
Whittington, J. L., and Evans, B. (2005). General issues in management: The
enduring impact of great ideas. Problems & Perspectives in Management, Vol. 2,
pp. 114-122.
Wilson, Sc. (2012). At the Court of King Henry. Deloitte Review, Issue 10, pp.
38-49. Available online at
http://www.sciencebusiness.net/eif/documents/US_deloittereview_Henry_Chesbr
ough_Jan2012.pdf [Last accessed: June 16th, 2015].
Wilson, Sc., and Wigginton, Cr. (2013). Making open innovation work in
mobile: Insights from the semiconductor industry. Deloitte Review, Issue 13, pp. 6983. Available online at http://dupress.com/articles/making-open-innovation-work-inmobile/ [Last accessed: June 5th, 2015].
World Economic Forum (2013). “The Role of Financial Services in Society: A
Multistakeholder Compact”. Available online at
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FS_RoleFinancialServicesSociety_Compa
ct_Report_2013.pdf
Wright, B. D. (1999). “Fundamental measurement for psychology”. In. S. E.
Embretson and S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement: what every
educator and psychologist should know (pp. 64-104). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: USA.
Yamagishi, T. (1998). “Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society”.
Tokyo University Press, Tokyo: Japan.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). SAGE
P a g e | 197
197
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 229-239.
Zook, Ch. (2015). The New Rules for Growing Outside your Core Business.
Harvard Business Review. Available online at https://hbr.org/2015/05/the-newrules-for-growing-outside-your-core-business [Last accessed: May 5th, 2015].
P a g e | 198
198
PART II: PUBLICATIONS
Publication I
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli, M.
Open Innovation and Collaboration in the Financial Services Sector: Exploring the role
of trust
Reprinted with permission from
International Journal of Business Innovation and Research
Vol. 8, No.5, pp. 466-484, 2014
© 2014, Inderscience Publishers
466
Int. J. Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 8, No. 5, 2014
Open innovation and collaboration in the financial
services sector: exploring the role of trust
Dimitrios Salampasis* and
Anne-Laure Mention
Public Research Centre-Henri Tudor,
29 Avenue John F. Kennedy,
L-1855, Luxembourg
E-mail: dimitrios.salampasis@tudor.lu
E-mail: anne-laure.mention@tudor.lu
*Corresponding author
Marko Torkkeli
Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Prikaatintie 9, FI-45100 Kouvola, Finland
E-mail: Marko.Torkkeli@lut.fi
Abstract: This paper aims at exploring the role of trust within the financial
services sector in relation to open and collaborative financial innovation.
Financial services nowadays represent considerable share of the global
economy. In the European Union (EU-27), financial services accounted for
5.9% of the gross value added in 2010 (Eurostat, 2011). There is a vast
discussion about open innovation and the need for collaboration and knowledge
sharing; however, in the process of building up this open and collaborative
framework, trust does not yet seem to have a place in the academic debate.
Relying on a review covering multiple literature streams and primary data
collected from interviews, the relevant antecedents of trust in the financial
services sector under this open and collaborative perspective, ex-post financial
crisis are identified.
Keywords: financial services sector; open innovation; collaboration; trust.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Salampasis, D.,
Mention, A-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2014) ‘Open innovation and collaboration in
the financial services sector: exploring the role of trust’, Int. J. Business
Innovation and Research, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.466–484.
Biographical notes: Dimitrios Salampasis is a business innovation
management researcher working at the Public Research Center Henri Tudor in
Luxembourg. He holds a BA on Public and Business Administration and two
Masters in European Studies and Educational Psychology. He is a recent
graduate of the Master in Entrepreneurship and Innovation by the University of
Luxembourg with first class honours. He is conducting research in the area of
business innovation management. He has been working on publications and
studies in the field of open innovation and innovation management. He
received the Best Paper Award at the Innovation for Financial Services Summit
in 2012.
Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Open innovation and collaboration in the financial services sector
467
Anne-Laure Mention is leading a research unit focusing on innovation
economics and management within the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor,
Luxembourg. She is actively involved in research projects, mainly focusing on
innovation and performance measurement and management in the financial and
business to business services industries. Her research interests mainly
concentrate on open and collaborative innovation, intellectual capital
measurement and management, innovation and technology management. She
has been a Visiting Researcher at McGill University, Canada and Ferrara
University, Italy. She received an IBM Faculty Award for the project entitled
‘Towards accrued transparency of operations in the fund industry’ in 2011
focusing on organisational innovation. She is also a founding member of WICI,
the Deputy Head of the ISPIM Advisory Board and a member of several
scientific committees.
Marko Torkkeli is a Professor of Technology and Business Innovations at the
Lappeenranta University of Technology in Kouvola, Finland. His research
interests focus on technology and innovation management, strategic
entrepreneurship, growth venturing, and decision support systems. He has
published in journals such as the Int. J. Production Economics, Int. J. Foresight
and Innovation Policy, Int. J. Business Excellence, Int. J. Technology
Management and Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning. He is a member
of the editorial boards of the Int. J. of Services Sciences and the Int. J. of
Innovation Management. He is a Visiting Researcher at INESC Porto, Portugal,
a Docent of Technology-based Business at University of Jyväskylä, Finland
and a Docent of Technology and Innovation Management at Helsinki
University of Technology, Finland. He serves as the Director of Publications of
the International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
1
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to identify the key antecedents of trust with the financial
services sector. It is an initial approach to bring upfront a highly important issue
regarding the role of trust towards the financial services sector under an open and
collaborative perspective. It is apparent that the era of globalisation and the worldwide
financial crisis have formulated a new set of rules within an extremely sensitive and
constantly changing business environment. Turbulent, uncertain, violent, demanding,
risky are some of the different words that have extensively been used by researchers and
scholars to describe this new environment.
The financial services sector would not have remained unaffected by the
abovementioned situation. The importance of the sector under a worldwide perspective
and the role of innovation bring upfront new issues regarding the role of the financial
institutions, the customers and the peripheral stakeholders. The financial sector belongs
to a broad ecosystem of financial institutions, regulatory bodies and service providers,
among which ICT, legal, consulting and audit firms play a dominant role. This ecosystem
is trying to get back on track by overcoming the consequences of the financial crisis and
by regaining customers’ trust. In order to succeed into this extremely strenuous effort,
there is a shift into “creating and then popularizing new financial instruments, as well as
new financial technologies, institutions and markets” [Lerner and Tufano, (2011), p.6]. In
other words, the focus lies up the adoption of innovative strategies and initiatives in
financial services, which is usually referred to as financial innovation. Financial
468
D. Salampasis et al.
innovation has been characterised as the “life blood of efficient and responsive capital
markets” [Van Horne, (1985), p.621].
Looking at different examples of financial services offered by providers such as the
digital wallet, the buying of company stock through Facebook, the cardless ATMs which
scan the user’s palm in Japan or the government-backed digital currency in Canada, it is
noticeable that there is a new opening in the paradigm of financial innovation which
derives from the effective collaboration and openness of different providers and the
financial sector per se. The establishment of different collaborative processes according
to the type of partnership is to be observed. This lies within the paradigm shift towards
open innovation and “whatever the process, setting up a trustful environment geared at
developing win-win collaboration is the golden rule for open Innovation to deliver long
term results” [Manceau et al., (2011), p.8].
2
Overview of the literature and conceptual development
Financial services are a vital sector in business and have received scarce attention in the
academic literature concentrating on open innovation. There is a broad range of financial
organisations providing financial services. These organisations include banks, credit card
companies, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, stock brokerages,
investment funds and some government sponsored regulatory enterprises (Chan and
Fengwei, 2010).
The contribution of financial services is of the utmost importance since they depict
the dyadic direction of consumer and professional investors’ involvement. According to
the 2008 OECD report, financial services firms had a major 7.9% contribution to the US
GDP and considered as major employers, accounting for 4.5% of total US employment in
2004. Furthermore, 5.77 million people are employed which is equal to around 6% of
total non-farm employment in the US (SIFMA Report, 2010). The report further states
that “the wealth generated by the financial services industry contributed nearly 6 percent,
or more than $828 billion, to 2009 US GDP” [SIFMA, (2010), p.4]. Haldane and
Mandouros (2011), economists at the Bank of England, underline the importance of the
financial sector stating that in 2009, financial intermediaries accounted for 8% of total
GDP and 10% in the USA and in the UK respectively.
Regarding the role of innovation in the financial services sector, two major and
contrasting trends can be observed. On the one hand, the 2007 McKinsey Global Survey
on Innovation in Financial services (2007, p.2) suggests that innovation “will be a major
competitive battleground in the financial services industry”. On the other hand, there are
voices which in relation to financial innovation underline a negative popularity
perspective. This raises voices such as Krugman (2009) stating that “it is hard to think of
any major recent financial innovations that actually aided society”. At the same time,
this brings upfront the realisation that financial innovation has a significant
differentiation point from innovation in other industries.
Financial innovation is perceived under the context of a strategic approach and
behaviour leading to value innovation or ‘conventional logic’ [Costanzo et al., (2003),
p.259]. Studies on the service context by Gadrey et al. (1995), by Frame and White
(2004) and by Avlonitis et al. (2001), identify types of financial service innovations
which “are associated with different development processes in terms of activities,
formality and cross-functional involvement as well as performance outcomes” [Avlonitis
469
et al., (2001), p.334]. Moreover, the emergence of the role of the user who is willing to
contribute both into the development of a service but also into the technology per se
behind the implementation of collaborative services since “users often develop and
self-provide important financial services before banks or other types of financial service
producers begin to offer them” [Oliveira and Von Hippel, (2011), p.806].
Financial innovation as a concept is a research niche since it involves a four-level
analysis. Financial innovation “embraces changes in the offerings of banks, insurance
companies, investment funds and other financial service firms, as well as modifications to
internal structures and processes, managerial practices, new ways of interacting with
customers and distribution channels” [Mention and Torkkeli, (2012), p.11]. In order
words, it encompasses the making and promotion of financial products and services
(product innovation), development of new processes (process innovation), interaction
with customers and development of new structures for the financial institutions
(Mention, 2011b).
All these changes and developments have had a great influence within the financial
sector since they consist of changes within the process, the product and the services per
se. This infusion of innovation is vital because it is related to the growth of the company
per se. And growth has a double interpretation. Firstly, if the market is growing but the
company fails to grow then the result is an immediate loss of market share (Costanzo
et al., 2003) and secondly the development of the appropriate mechanisms that a
company should possess in order to be able to achieve growth even within an already
mature industry.
Current examples of financial innovation depict a shift towards a more open and
collaborative paradigm which stems from the open innovation mindset. Chesbrough and
Crowther (2006, p.235) observe the potential applicability of open innovation models to
industries beyond high tech arguing that “Open innovation may indeed have broader
applicability, a crucial prerequisite if this concept is to supplant the current paradigm of
industrial R&D”. Fasnacht (2009) has developed an “integrative open innovation model”
presenting the dynamic environment which is perceived as a crucible of external factors
such as the market, policy and regulation, customers, technology and economy. These
factors combined with the global financial crisis are feeding the emergence of the need
for a shift from the closed innovation to the open innovation paradigm. Inside the
environment, Fasnacht depicts the necessary strategies to be implemented in order for
this transition to be achieved. This environment is perceived as the organisation per se
and the understanding of a new space and set of structural rules.
The discussion of the role of open innovation in the financial services sector comes
into a very unstable and uncertain period where global economies, especially in
2008–2009, experienced an unknowing global financial crisis with unparalleled and
unmet consequences in the global financial systems and especially the banking system.
The unexpected bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which is considered the biggest one in
the US history and which created an enormous wave that surpassed and affected all the
economies and financial markets around the globe, remains present in everyone’s mind.
The European Union defined the financial crisis as “the disturbance to financial markets,
associated typically with falling asset prices and insolvency among debtors and
intermediaries, which spreads through the financial system, disrupting the market’s
capacity to allocate capital” [Council, (2012), p.6]. In any case, open innovation in
financial services is a new research area since it calls for an interdisciplinary approach to
470
define the role of open innovation paradigm and the impact that it has within the financial
services industry (Mention, 2011a, 2011b; Mention and Torkkeli, 2012).
Discussing the role of open innovation and collaboration within the financial services
sector it becomes an apparent need to focus on the role of trust in the way this open
collaborative framework and innovation network is being developed. Professor Tamar
Frankel, Boston University School of Law, endorses this thinking by stating that that
“trust is the lifeline of finance-building trust is essential” [Cosgrove-Sacks and
Dembinski, (2012), p.8]. Tescher [World Economic Forum and Wyman, (2012), p.72] is
also calling for trust in the financial services industry since “Trust is the currency of the
financial services industry. One of the lasting consequences of the recent financial crisis
is a lack of trust, which in turn creates an inhospitable environment for innovation”.
3
Research context and methods
The methodological approach used denotes that this is an exploratory qualitative study
which combines the use of literature approaches and primary data gathered from
interviews. The reason for choosing to conduct an exploratory qualitative research is that
is more aligned to the intention of contributing to theory development and to
conceptualise the research area (Quint, 1976 cited by Knafl and Howard, 1984). This
approach is duly justified by the willingness to deepen the understanding of an abstract
notion, i.e. trust. The many complexities related to trust faced by managers and
organisational researchers, creativity and flexibility become an imperative ally and this
can be tackled via a qualitative approach (Gummesson, 2006). Furthermore, the use of
interviews and qualitative work in this context has enabled the understanding of the
meaning, enactment and participation of the interviewees (Cassell et al., 2006).
Figure 1
Conceptual framework (see online version for colours)
471
The exploratory literature review has been conducted by following a rational path leading
from the general perception down to the specific reasoning and understanding the need
for the elaboration of the research propositions. The conceptual framework which has
been used brings forward the areas of innovation, open innovation, services, financial
services, organisational behaviour and organisational change leading to the identification
of the research gap in the area of trust.
The aim has been to bring a ‘pragmatic approach’ [Lösch, (2006), p.135] in the study
of the role of trust in open innovation and collaboration by choosing the sector of
financial services. The intention here has been to identify the potential factors that
influence and are influenced by trust within the financial services sector and try not only
to communicate the view of the interviewees but also to emphasise on conceptual links
and theory formulation on the basis of the research question. In order to be able to collect
primary data it was decided to conduct interviews with professionals on the field who
would be open in sharing their insights based on their experience. The collected primary
data are used as “a catalyst for conceptualization” [Knafl and Howard, (1984), p.18].
It was considered of upmost importance to share a dyadic level in the analysis, by
having representative voices both from the consulting perspective aiming at capturing a
broader view of the financial services sector and then having also some more focused
business examples to see the real function of innovation and the role of trust within the
sector. Furthermore, this would allow the detection of potential generalisable and
common patterns, in order to support the theoretical propositions (Lösch, 2006).
The choice of the interviewees has been made according to their profiles, current
positions and their potential contribution outcomes. It is important to underline the fact
that the interviews, which most of them were not recorded for confidentiality reasons,
were conducted more within a discussion format rather than a formalised framework.
This is strictly in line with the willingness to capture the variety of perceptions from the
respondents rather than to adopt a narrow and closed perspective on the investigated
questions. Most of the interviews were conducted via Skype but also in person. Last but
not least the interviewees are coming from different parts of the world and not only from
Luxembourg leading to a more international rather than localised approach.
Figure 2
Theoretical framework in relation to open format questions (see online version
for colours)
472
The questions that have been used to formulate the interview guide consist of a mix of
open format and semi-structured questions. This type of questions allows the respondent
to think and reflect, give opinions and feelings and in a sense share the control of the
discussion with the respondent. During the discussions authentic, full of insight and
sometimes even quite unexpected answers were received. Qualitative questions belong to
the category of open format questions. Open format questions “simply establish the topic
for the respondent and then leave the respondent to structure and answer as is seen fit”
[Vinten, (1995), p.27]. Figure 2 depicts the rational flow of information that the open
format questions are driving in relation to role of trust within the open innovation
mindset.
The interpretation and analysis of the data has followed the qualitative data analysis
model proposed by Seidel (1998) who encapsulates into the model three interrelated,
interlinked and cyclical parameters; noticing, collecting and thinking. The variables
emerging from the interview guide are encoded in a way that they can enable further
investigation and discovery. On a first level they are seen as collection points denoting
the significance of the primary data. On a second level they enable the rationality of the
thought and dynamic feeling perceived from the discussant. On a third level they enable
the continuation of discoveries about realities which still remain buried deeply and still
need to emerge.
The approach has been interpretative and inductive and it was decided to let all these
variables emerge from the data as part of the noticing process that Seidel describes in his
model. Since trust as a concept is related to complex social behaviour from a sociological
point of view, this research strategy would bring a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
dimension in the level of the analysis (Cassell et al., 2006). This approach has been
chosen because many qualitative analytic strategies rely on the constant comparative
analysis since it has helped into the development of conceptualisations of the possible
relations between various pieces of data. In this qualitative study the purpose is to
generate knowledge combining common patterns and themes also in relation to the
experiences and ideas shared by the professionals interviewed, depicting this dynamic
relationship between data analysis and data collection.
The codes and the information emerging from the interviews cover a vast area of the
financial services sector but also the innovation management in general. It is not easy to
classify the attitudes of the interviewees but it is interesting to see the relation of
behaviours and attitudes following Polk’s classification in the four patterns of resilience;
dispositional, relational, situational and philosophical (Van Breda, 2001). The reason why
this classification has been chosen is because it mainly depicts the inflow of information
and attitudes of the interviewees leading to a formulation of a profile based upon the
individual’s roles in society, the relationships with others and the individual’s worldview
or life paradigm.
4
Towards a conceptualisation of trust in financial services
4.1 On the boundaries and definition of trust
Trust is a formation characterised by a definite multidimensionality (Brattström et al.,
2012) incorporating a number of elements and functions that exist individually, but
neither necessarily interdependently nor constantly (Tyler and Stanley, 2007). “Trust
473
tends to be somewhat like a combination of the weather and motherhood; it is widely
talked about, and it is widely assumed to be good for organizations. When it comes to
specifying just what it means in an organizational context, however, vagueness creeps in”
[McAllister, (1995), p.24]. Based on the extensive existing literature (Fawcett et al.,
2012; Gulati and Sytch, 2008; Schoorman et al., 2007), trust can be perceived in an
individual level interpersonal level, between individuals and organisations, between
organisations (interorganisational perspective) and between individuals and information
systems. Each of the abovementioned pillars is aligned with a number of individual, adhoc, calculative and non-calculative characteristics that assist the contextualisation of
trust.
By definition trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”
[Schoorman et al., (1995), p.712]. This is related to trustworthiness and on the
expectations that the person has concerning the expected behaviour of the other person
(Schoorman et al., 1995). Another definition of trust is “the mutual confidence that no
party to an exchange will exploit another’s vulnerabilities” [Parkhe, (1998), p.221].
The consideration of both definitions leads to some initial observations (Parkhe,
1998); trust as a concept involves uncertainty by nature. Trust implies vulnerability, i.e.,
the risk of losing something valuable. The extent of value and the extent of this potential
loss are normally perceived under an ad hoc perspective. Trust is proportional to
behavioural functions meaning that it is placed upon a person whose behaviour cannot be
controlled from the outside. This means that trust is put on something which cannot be
directly controlled but potentially partly influenced.
4.2 Setting up the field: organisational, interorganisational and network
For the scope of this analysis, trust is perceived under the interorganisational level. The
interpersonal level despite the fact that is the engine that puts the notion of
interorganisational trust in motion is undoubtedly related to psychological and
sociological studies and an extensive analysis would be outside the boundaries and
framework of this paper. The interorganisational prism is perceived under the facet of
collaborative innovation. “An open collaborative innovation project involves contributors
who share the work of generating a design and also reveal the outputs from their
individual and collective design efforts openly for anyone to use” [Baldwin and
Von Hippel, (2011), p.9].
A company should invest on the promotion and sovereignty of organisational trust in
order to be able to come closer and cooperate with other companies sharing primarily
organisational similarities (Gulati and Sytch, 2008). Organisational similarities are the
key elements and characteristics that constitute two companies belonging to the same
operational scope and based on existing research this leads to easier cooperation and
promotion of interorganisational trust. Kanter (2011, p.75) argues that “Great companies
assume they can trust people and can rely on relationships, not just rules and structures”.
On the other hand, there is a subsequent relation between organisational similarities, the
diversity of organisational backgrounds and the talent management which can on one
hand lead to creativity but on the other hand, it can also lead to communicative dilemmas
and usually conflicts.
474
The main perspective of inter-firm collaboration, even in the open innovation
paradigm is focused on the firm-centric perspective referring to the how the firm creates
value from an alliance rather than on how to jointly create value through the creation of
joint assets. Dyer and Singh (1998, p.662) refer to the term of ‘relational view’ arguing
that “as a supernormal profit jointly generated in an exchange relationship that cannot
be generated by either firm in isolation and can only be created through the joint
idiosyncratic contributions of the specific alliance partners”.
Trust under the interorganisational perspective analysis can be perceived either as
dispositional or relational (Gulati and Sytch, 2008). Dispositional trust mainly reflects
expectations about the trustworthiness of others in general (Gurtman, 1992) whereas
relational trust pertains to a specific dyadic partner (McAllister, 1995). It is argued that
relational trust is related to collaborative innovation. By definition collaborative
innovation is a part of open innovation focusing into the building of long lasting
relationships and collaborations that interrelate into the creation of commonly perceived
value while open innovation is the generic theory of inbound and outbound conception.
In the context of these collaborative frameworks trust has important psychological,
sociological and economic properties simultaneously (Parkhe, 1998).
Last but not least, an important angle which needs to be taken into consideration is
the impact of culture within the scope of trust meaning the role that both the intercultural
environment and cooperation affects the development of interorganisational trust and
what is the potential role of open and collaborative innovation within a multicultural
paradigm (Heffernan, 2004). Everyone involved in intercultural and international
partnerships and relationships is always concerned about trust (Davis et al., 2008).
However, it is important here to distinguish the context within two different levels,
intra-firm and inter-firm intercultural and international environment. Inter-firm trust is
depicted in the relationship between two companies whereas intra-firm trust it is
perceived within one company. This distinction is very important since it entails different
elements of understanding trust.
5
Trust and open innovation in financial services
In this paper, trust is perceived within the financial services sector under an
inter-organisational perspective, i.e., a B2B innovation network. Due to the complexity of
many of the financial services, trust plays a significant role in the development and
maintenance of successful relationships in the financial services sector (Chan and
Fengwei, 2010).
Vanston (2012) discusses two kinds of trust in relation to the financial services sector.
The first one is related to the trust developed between participants in a financial
transaction and the other one refers to the expression or trust by the population at large in
the financial sector. This paper concentrates on the role of trust and its drivers under the
organisational perspective in the realms of an open innovation collaborative mindset.
Open Innovation is based upon the establishment of trustful and open business model
partnerships. Partnerships adopting an open innovation mindset are bound to be built
upon trust. “Trust becomes a fundamental element to open innovation-internally as well
as externally” [Manceau et al., (2011), p.45]. Creating and maintaining relationships
which are based on trust leads to the reduction of transaction costs, risk and builds upon
long term relationships (Skardon, 2011). “Trust within the context of B2B innovation
475
networks is complex, as it depends on both the personal characteristics of the key staff
and the trust relationship between organizations” [Skardon, (2011), p.86].
The interpretative analysis of the interviews has shown a substantial number of
calculative and non-calculative factors which are related to the importance and
establishment of trust within the financial services sector under an open and collaborative
prism and which are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Calculative and non-calculative factors (see online version for colours)
Based on Figure 3, a highly important parameter to be explored and specifically
underlined lies within the fact that there is an observation of a circular relation between
both pillars and this relation is encapsulated around trust. This leads to the identification
of the antecedents of trust in the financial services sector within an open innovation and
collaborative perspective. The calculative and non-calculative factors presented in
Figure 3 are embedded in the antecedents of trust which are discussed in detail. The main
findings and outcomes deriving from the interviews on the role of trust are now
introduced, and confirm that trust represents a highly valid element emerging as an
absolute basis to all kinds of relations.
6
Organisational collaborative culture
Trust has a bottom-line part within the financial services sector in terms of operational
perspective, collaboration, branding and marketing of innovation. Trust requires a lot of
time and patience to be built however it is more likely that nowadays financial services
organisations despite the fact that they realise the role of trust, it is either not mentioned
or simply taken for granted. Trust is encapsulated within the organisational perspective in
476
relation to multicultural human resources and reflects upon the organisational trust and
image when it comes to cross-border relationships and collaborative activities.
Trust sometimes is more referred to confidentiality, security and execution
(Interviewee B. Personal Interview. 7 June 2012). This remark underlines a critical
parameter since it shows that trust is mostly related to the pragmatic and practical way
rather than something that is deeply imbued within and outside the organisational
boundaries. Trust encompasses different perspectives, elements and beliefs which are far
beyond official agreements. This is also related to the internal changes enabling the
connection of two or multiple different ecosystems into a collaborative value capture and
co-creation.
The future of finance lies through the collaboration of different actors to provide
services to clients (Interviewee E. Personal Interview. 8 June 2012). The collaborative
mindset fits into the added value of every partner since it is highly dependent on the
needs of the customers. Collaboration with other specialised organisations and
professionals in the field is of paramount importance since it brings upfront the creation
of a new collaborative platform which will change the ‘current shape’ and support real
substantive changes (Interviewee H. Personal Interview. 24 July 2012). These changes
have a reflection on the identity of the company, repositioning itself and a new corporate
culture which is based upon four values: service excellence, performance, expertise and
discretion.
It is important to understand that collaboration is not easy to accomplish. From an
organisational perspective, the way an organisation collaborates is dependent upon the
strategy of the mother company. Organisations need to be the orchestrators of
competences and drive the ability of adopting a new corporate culture since this
orchestration of competences brings the right competences together in order to be able to
find sustainable and long-lasting solutions for customers and partners (Interviewee H.
Personal Interview. 24 July 2012).
6.1 Proprietary legacy
Trust within the financial services sector is a part of the proprietary legacy an
organisation is coated within since it drives the way to open innovation and collaborative
initiatives (Interviewee B. Personal Interview. 7 June 2012). This legacy can be
understood in a dyadic level both positively and negatively; positively in the sense of
branding and marketing, the validity enacted within the experience and image of the
organisation. On the other hand, difficulty to change and institutionalisation of practices
based upon past paradigms can lead to the loss of trust. This of course is highly related to
the character and the history of a company and has a diversified impact on the
competitive advantage within the market.
In order for an organisation to reflect trust on the outside, the same organisation must
build an internal organisational trust paradigm. Trust among the staff must be built and
this must be the purpose of the strategic orientation of the organisation (Interviewee H.
Personal Interview. 24 July 2012).
6.2 Solid regulatory framework
The measurement of the downside concerning the conceiving of trust is also related to the
impact that the specific practice has on the customer per se. Trust needs time to be built
477
but only seconds to be destroyed. And for open innovation and collaboration trust plays a
paramount role which is directed by non-disclosure agreements since the approach is
perceived only after the formalisation of a specific collaborative framework.
This formalised framework can lead to partnering driven by a defensive and offensive
play since the main decision to be taken is the necessity to keep the existing market share
and continue with a business as usual but on the other hand put different angles and
criteria on the table realising the way to make people understand why they would change
what they are doing for something new.
It is important to look into innovative regulation and not a regulation that blocks
innovation on the level below (Interviewee I. Personal Interview. 24 July 2012). Laws
should be flexible enough to attract investors fostering a framework where trustworthy
partnerships can be initiated and not limited.
6.3 Societal orientation
Financial services organisations need to have empathy (Interviewee A. Personal
Interview. 5 June 2012), i.e., developing the right competence to learn how to listen
carefully and sense the needs of the public. The customer needs to be put on the core of
the product/service process and through this dynamic interrelation a collaborative spirit
imbued with trustworthy feelings will emerge. This new framework will lead to the
financial continuity and the durability of an open innovation and collaborative culture in
the financial services sector.
Trust depends on the willingness to contribute to the social act and it is an ability
embedded in the both human nature and the organisational culture. The word paramount
is explicitly used so as to denote the importance of trust within the open innovation
mindset and that trust through this openness and collaborative spirit will be amplified
throughout the individual cells to the society and to other institutions like banks and
financial services organisations.
6.4 Simplicity
A key antecedent of developing trust within the financial services sector is the role of
simplicity. Edward de Bono in his well-renowned book Simplicity (2010) underlines the
fact that simplicity can be discussed under the human nature and common sense
perspective. He also states that simplicity bares no natural orientation but it has to be
made to happen. Within the financial services sector it is becoming apparent that
simplicity has become a new buzzword and is highly related to trust. Simplicity can be
perceived dyadically; simplicity is related to clarity which leads to confidence and to
non-complicated tools which are easy to use but at the same time share many levels of
security. Springford (2011, p.7), taking into account the customer/consumer perspective
argues that “Consumers want a simple and clear interaction with financial services that
have a positive impact on their everyday lives and the industry must continue to respond
with innovative propositions that support this desire”. Solely creating a competitive
environment in the financial service marketplace does not denote a sufficient parameter
ensuring better agreements, trustworthiness and customer trust (Interviewee D. Personal
Interview. 8 June 2012). Financial products and services are characterised by a unique
nature and competition as such does not reassure consumer’s trust. Springford (2011,
p.15) believes that “encouraging a few more consumers to become a bit more active is
478
both wishful thinking and will not remove providers’ ability to exploit the inertia of the
majority”.
6.5 Entrepreneurial attitude
A highly interesting and unexpected angle is related to the ‘fertile ground’ that trust
needs to nurture (Interviewee I. Personal Interview. 24 July 2012). Cultivating an
organisational entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial mindset is definitely related to risk.
However, the differentiation point lies within the realisation co-risk taking, especially
within an open and collaborative framework. Clients and partners know immediately how
to work with entrepreneurs and they are more than willing to offer their ‘personal touch’
into value co-creation. So trust becomes the responsibility and the willingness of all
involved parties.
6.6 Financial education
Another very important parameter which has not been widely expressed is the need for
efficient and effective financial education and consumer protection (Interviewee C.
Personal Interview. 8 June 2012). Learning has always been connected with errors and
learning from mistakes always leads to the realisation of the problem and the
implementation of sustainable solutions. Financial education and financial consumer
protection does not only mean understanding the financial mechanisms of the market but
also being able to understand the usefulness of innovative, products, services and the new
interfaces provided by the financial services organisations. It is the way to make people
understand why they should change a current practice to something new not being pushed
but by being educated and led into every step of the process (OECD/INFE, 2012).
Trust plays a vital role here and it is directly proportional to the role of financial
education. Defined by the OECD as “the process by which financial consumers/investors
improve their understanding of financial products, concepts and risks and, through
information, instruction and/or objective advice develop the skills and confidence to
become more aware of (financial) risks and opportunities to make informed choices, to
know where to go for help, and take other effective actions to improve their financial
well-being” [OECD/INFE, (2012), p.7], it encourages the need for the human side of
innovation and the understanding that learning, experimenting and trying is the
investment for the future developments in financial innovation. Willingness to change
comes from awareness; willingness to contribute derives from trust so changing
organisational patterns, cultural hindrances by fostering effective and trustworthy
relationships is nurtured by education, by experiential learning and by the feeling or
globalisation and collaborative attitude.
Trust plays a vital role in the financial services sector and is highly related to the
customer. The profile of the customer today has changed a lot, since customers are much
better informed and much more careful when it comes to negotiations, asset and wealth
management agreements (Interviewee H. Personal Interview. 24 July 2012). This leads to
questioning and challenging the competences, the products and services offered. So as a
matter of fact, financial organisations need to invest on the customers through the
development of effective and efficient expertise, by being self-critical and by finding new
ways of development.
7
479
Discussion and conclusions
Trust is expressed as the most overused and abused word (Fawcett et al., 2012) in any
analysis that tries to fathom the correlation between different parameters which initiate
openness and lead to mutual long-term value creation (Dahlander and Gann, 2010). Trust
is usually taken for granted since it is perceived as an element of mere importance; yet
appreciating the concept under a down reaching spectrum it becomes immediately
apparent that trust is the conditio sine qua non of any kind of social, business oriented
interaction and cooperation.
Trust in the financial services sector is denoted bidirectionally. This means that the
customer, the client, the user has an expectation of an embedded trustworthiness in the
relationship with the organisation per se meaning that trust should be explored and not
exploited and be the starting point for a sustainable relationship. A relationship is
embedded within a partnership since this is the pathway to a collaborative framework and
perspective. Trust is also about sharing interest and passion since it allows by the
openness that it creates the emerging of ideas and their introduction to the people who are
living in different environments and have a certain social life but who are urged by their
willingness to contribute and take a step forward.
Financial innovation is related to trust in the process of changing. Financial
innovation is about understanding the customer, appreciating the information from the
partner and differentiating from the competition (Interviewee I. Personal Interview. 24
July 2012). Financial innovation is focused on the how, on the process of perceiving the
difference because at the end every client, every partner will get the same. A stronger
process innovation development leads to understandable tools, content and information.
Financial innovation also shows the ability to evolve in order to be ready for the
future. By evolving under an organisational and competences-oriented perspective based
on customer and partner needs easies the process of creating a competitive advantage by
differentiation. This requires a clear strategy and the ability to make choices. Innovation
means to have the ability to decide, to admit being wrong, to have the ability of fast
realisation and understanding that if something is not working it is the time to stop.
Innovation means to be able to make hard and difficult choices and the ability to say no
(Interviewee H. Personal Interview. 24 July 2012).
Trust is a critical aspect and this uncovers other aspects which influence open
innovation strategies, aspects that cover a vast space in the research. These factors have a
substantial impact in the managerial and strategic perceptions, the way the mechanism in
the financial services sector is functioning and the way the flow of information in relation
to the extensive need for organisational and substantial change of mindset with the
financial services sector as a whole and not only in the peripheral services.
Bearing in mind the current debt and subprime financial crises which have been
creating all these fundamental consequences, the necessity for substantial changes call for
the emergence of alternative mechanisms, of getting back to the basis and trying to
comprehend the way the globalised financial market and the financial services sector
functions in terms of sustainability, affectivity and efficiency (Interviewee F. Personal
Interview. 8 June 2012). Regaining trust both in terms of customer-oriented activities but
also within the sector per se will be the correct starting point in the changes yet to come.
Trust is broken from normal people to the financial services sector whereas within
professionals there is a trustworthy relationship within the clients (Interviewee I. Personal
Interview. 24 July 2012). Trust is a must within a professional or personal relationship
480
and it is more easily nurtured within a familiar environment deployed mainly into family
businesses (Interviewee D. Personal Interview. 8 June 2012)
Open innovation is the vehicle to regain trust (Interviewee G. Personal Interview. 2
July 2012) and at the same time trust plays a paramount role in open innovation as an
organisational mindset. In other words, trust is embedded within the open innovation
mindset and denotes the starting point for any collaborative activity.
Trust is very hard to achieve in management. It takes time and it is highly dependent
upon internal and external factors both intra and extra organisation. It is a matter of
behaviour, of attitude and of cultural adoption. Trust is not just a word and realising that
management is not a single entity but made up by diverse individuals, agendas and
mechanisms requires having consistency with ethical and moral values.
The financial crisis has created a new realisation of our financial world and has led to
the destruction of institutionalised practices and has emerged the motivation for change.
Regaining trust will be successful within change, within a creative destruction process
(Interviewee I. Personal Interview. 24 July 2012). The financial services sector needs to
change and start thinking differently both in terms of product, process and service
innovation.
The financial services sector needs to regain trust and this will come alongside
existing leadership styles in order to re-enforce credibility, leverage and impact and top
management should facilitate high performance teams, motivated workforce, respect and
effective and socially responsible strategies.
8
Implications, limitations and future research
In terms of the academic perspective, this study opens up the ground for new research in
the area of open innovation in relation to organisational behaviour, organisational change
and the role of trust as a core element of open innovation. The contextualisation of open
innovation within the financial services sector and the role of trust have a great impact
within the development of collaborative initiatives both on a local, national and
international level. Another parameter which gives room for further exploration is the
role of financial education and financial consumer protection and how to develop
guidance and implementation methodology that will assist policymakers into turning
these policies into effective practices.
In terms of managerial perspective, effective collaboration and financial innovation
have an impact in the financial services in terms of marketing and the profile of the
financial services user. Top management needs to realise the social and economic factors
affecting the demand for financial services and the implications that they have on the
needs and profile of the user behaviour. This is also applied to the building of sustainable
user relationships, the process of this relationship development and the impact that the
technology has in the delivery of the financial services.
It is important to underline the fact that there are some limitations deriving from this
study which deserve to be acknowledged. First, the choice of the sample may affect the
findings from this study. The reason behind this lies within the fact that financial services
organisations follow a strict disclosure of information policy, meaning that it is very
difficult to share information which is not required to be made publicly available such as
product features. Furthermore, the different professional background of the interviewees
might have an influence in their way of interpreting the questions and elaborating on their
481
answers during the discussion. Second, the generalisability of the results within the sector
itself is in question. Within financial services, there are may be specific forms of
innovation, let aside services in general. These forms are normally referred as tailored or
customised meaning that despite the fact that they might exist in many sectors of business
to business services does not necessarily mean that they can apply to the financial
services sector as a whole (Micuda, 2011). This is the fact that it is methodologically
correct to focus on the study of a single sector instead of trying to make generalisations
which argued of their rationale and feasibility. In addition to the above the calculative
and non-calculative factors have been identified but not explicitly classified. Moreover,
the analysis has been conducted ex-post the financial crisis. An interesting approach
would be a historical approach which would try to conceptualise trust combining ex-ante
and ex-post data of the financial crisis using time series and leading to a more
macroeconomic perspective or the role of trust. Replicating this study by using a large
sample of both financial services organisations and consulting professionals would
strengthen the exploratory findings of our study. Similarly, despite the fact that the
following questions do fall off the scope of the current analysis, we believe that it is
important to address the relationship between risk and trust, trust and distrust, violation
and trust despair and trust measurement in relation to open innovation, would be
important extensions of this study.
There is a need for new insights and studies in the area of open innovation in the
financial services sector. Since trust is a core important element and is completely aligned
with the theory of open innovation it definitely deserves academic attention, re-thinking
and revisiting. We hope that our propositions presented in this study will spur additional
research on the issues of open innovation, collaboration and trust both in the academic
field and also in the functionality of the financial services sector.
Acknowledgements
The authors would sincerely like to acknowledge the time and efforts of all their
interviewees and their generous contributions to this attempt to explore the role of trust in
the financial services sector.
References
Avlonitis, G.J., Papastathopoulou, P.G. and Gounaris, S.P. (2001) ‘An empirically-based typology
of product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and failure scenarios’, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18,No. 5, pp.324–342, Blackwell Publishing.
Baldwin, C.Y. and von Hippel, E.A. (2011) ‘Modelling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation
to user and open collaborative innovation’, Organization Science, Vol. 22, No. 6,
pp.1399–1417.
Brattström, A., Löfsten, H. and Richtnér, A. (2012) ‘Creativity, trust and systematic processes in
product development’, Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.743–755.
Cassell, C., Buehring, A., Symon, G. and Johnson, P. (2006) ‘Qualitative methods in management
research: an introduction to the themed issue’, Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 2,
pp.161–166.
482
Chan, W.T. and Fengwei, Y. (2010) ‘A relationship between the quality attributes and the trust in
financial services information systems’, TENCON 2010 – 2010 IEEE Region 10 Conference,
pp.1077–1081.
Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A.K. (2006) ‘Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation
in other industries’, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.229–236, Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Cosgrove-Sacks, C. and Dembinski, P.H. (2012) in Stückelberger, C. (Ed.): Trust and Ethics in
Finance Innovative ideas from the Robin Cosgrove Prize, Globethics.net Head Office,
Geneva.
Costanzo, L.A., Keasey, K. and Short, H. (2003) ‘A strategic approach to the study of innovation in
the financial services industry: the case of telephone banking’, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 19, Nos. 3/4, pp.259–281, Routledge.
Council, E. (2012) ‘Financial crisis: key terms in 23 languages’, P.I.D. of the G.S. of the Council
(Ed.): General Secretariat of the Council Directorate-General A – Personnel and
Administration Directorate 3 – Translation and Document Production, Belgium.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010) ‘How open is innovation?’, Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 6,
pp.699–709.
Davis, J.H., Lee, M. and Ruhe, J. (2008) ‘Trust: an intercultural comparison of consumer
perceptions’, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.150–165.
De Bono, E. (2010) Simplicity, Penguin Group (Canada), Toronto.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) ‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp.660–679, Academy of Management.
Eurostat (2011) Statistics Eurostat website [online]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search database (accessed
November 2012).
Fasnacht, D. (2009) Open Innovation in the Financial Services: Growing through Openness,
Flexibility and Customer Integration, p.209, Verlag, Springer, Heidelberg.
Fawcett, S.E., Jones, S.L. and Fawcett, A.M. (2012) ‚Supply chain trust: the catalyst for
collaborative innovation’, Business Horizons, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.163–178.
Frame, W.S. and White, L.J. (2004) ‘Empirical studies of financial innovation: lots of talk, little
action?’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.116–144, American Economic
Association.
Gadrey, J., Gallouj, F. and Weinstein,O. (1995) ‘New modes of innovation: how services benefit
industry’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.4–16.
Gulati, R. and Sytch, M. (2008) ‘Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust’,
Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 29, Nos. 2–3, pp.165–190, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.
Gummesson, E. (2006) ‘Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context and
persona’, Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 2 pp.167–179.
Gurtman, M.B. (1992) ‘Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis’, Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.989–1002.
Haldane, A.G. and Madouros, V. (2011) What is the Contribution of the Financial Sector? VOX
Research-Based Policy Analysis and Commentary from Leading Economists, 22 November
2011 [online] http://www.voxeu.org/article/what-contribution-financial-sector (accessed
November 2012).
Heffernan, T. (2004) ‘Trust formation in cross-cultural business-to-business relationships’,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.114–125.
Kanter, R.M. (2011) ‘How great companies think differently’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89,
No. 11, pp.66–78, Harvard Business School Publication Corp.
483
Knafl, K.A. and Howard, M.J. (1984) ‘Interpreting and reporting qualitative research’, Research in
Nursing and Health, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.17–24.
Krugman, P. (2009) Money for Nothing, 27 April, The New York Times, New York, NY, USA.
Lerner, J. and Tufano, P. (2011) ‘The consequences of financial innovation: a counterfactual
research agenda’, Annual Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.41–85.
Lösch, A. (2006) ‘Combining quantitative methods and grounded theory for researching e-reverse
auctions’, International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, Vol. 56, No. 3,
pp.133–144.
Manceau, D., Moatti, V., Fabbri, J., Kaltenbach, P-F. and Bagger-Hansen, L. (2011) Open
Innovation: What’s Behind the Buzzword?, ESCP Europe & Accenture [online]
http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-open-innovation.aspx (accessed September
2012).
McAllister, D.J. (1995) ‘Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations of interpersonal
cooperation in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.24–59,
Academy of Management.
McKinsey Survey (2007) Innovation in Financial Services, pp.1–8 [online]
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Innovation_in_financial_services_A_McKinsey_Global_S
urvey_1900 (accessed October 2012).
Mention, A-L. (2011a) ‘Intellectual capital reporting: an exploratory study on the practices in the
banking industry’, Journal of Management Control, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.279–309.
Mention, A-L. (2011b) Innovation for Financial Services, September, Innovation Management
[online] http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2011/09/13/innovation-for-financial-services
(accessed 10 June 2012).
Mention, A-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2012) ‘Drivers, processes and consequences of financial
innovation: a research agenda’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, Vol. 16, Nos. 1/2, pp.5–29.
Micuda, I. (2011) ‘Typologies of innovation in the financial services sector: limits and
implications’, Recent Advances in Business Administration, pp.27–31 [online]
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2011/Mexico/ICBA/ICBA-04.pdf (accessed June
2012).
OECD/INFE (2012) High-Level Principles on National Strategies for Financial Education, OECD,
Paris.
Oliveira, P. and Von Hippel, E. (2011) ‘Users as service innovators: the case of banking services’,
Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp.806–818.
Parkhe, A. (1998) ‘Understanding trust in international alliances’, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.219–240.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007) ‘An integrative model of organizational
trust: past, present and future’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.344–354,
Academy of Management.
Seidel, J.V. (1998) Qualitative Data Analysis. (Originally published as Qualitative Data Analysis in
The Ethnograph v5.0: A Users Guide, Appendix E, 1998, Qualis Research, Colorado Springs,
CO.) [online] http://www.qualisr esearch.com/qda_paper.htm (accessed May 2012).
SIFMA (2010) U.S. Financial Services Industry-Contributing to a More Competitive US Economy,
New York.
Skardon, J. (2011) ‘The role of trust in innovation networks’, Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Procedia, No. 26, pp.85–93.
Springford, J. (2011) A Confidence Crisis? Restoring Trust in Financial Services, Social Market
Foundation, London.
Tyler, K. and Stanley, E. (2007) ‘The role of trust in financial services business relationships’,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 5 pp.334–344.
484
Van Breda, A.D. (2001) Resilience Theory: A Literature Review, p.54, Pretoria, South Africa.
Van Horne, J.C. (1985) ‘Of financial innovations and excesses’, Journal of Finance, Vol. 40,
No. 3, pp.621–631.
Vanston, N. (2012) Trust and Reputation in Financial Services, Driver Review DR30, Foresight,
Government Office for Science, London.
Vinten, G. (1995) ‘Open versus closed questions- an open issue’, Management Decision, Vol. 33,
No. 4, pp.27–31.
World Economic Forum and Wyman, O. (2012) Rethinking Financial Innovation Reducing
Negative Outcomes While Retaining the Benefits, Geneva.
Appendix
List of interviewees
Interviewee
Name and surname
Role
Organisation
Country
A
Smorenberg Harry
Independent
Strategist in the
Financial
Services
Smorenberg
Corporate
Consultancy
Netherlands
B
JB McCarthy
Development
Director
Financial Services
Innovation Centre
Ireland
C
Gusev Daniel
Innovation
Adviser
Promsvyazbank
Russia
D
Eleanor de Rosmorduc
Communication
Officer
Luxembourg for
Finance
Luxembourg
E
François Drazdik
Senior Industry
Affairs Adviser
Association for the
Luxembourg Fund
Industry
Luxembourg
F
Tom Rasque
Coordinator
Private Banking
Group
Luxembourg
G
Prof. Hans-Gert Servatius
Professor,
Founder
Management
Systems Network
Germany
H
Patrick Schols
CEO
International
Wealth Insurer S.A.
Luxembourg
I
Dr. Laurent Müller
Partner
Muller & Associés
Luxembourg
Publication II
Trust embeddedness within an open innovation mindset
International Journal of Business and Globalization
Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 32-57, 2015
© 2015, Inderscience Publishers
32
Int. J. Business and Globalisation, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2015
Trust embeddedness within an open innovation
mindset
Dimitrios G. Salampasis* and
Anne-Laure Mention
L-1855, Luxembourg
Email: dimitrios.salampasis@tudor.lu
Email: anne-laure.mention@tudor.lu
Marko Torkkeli
Email: marko.torkkeli@lut.fi
Abstract: This paper explores the role of trust under the prism
of open innovation. There is a vast discussion about open innovation and the
need
for
collaboration
and
knowledge
sharing;
however,
in the process of building up an open and innovative organisation,
trust does not yet seem to have a place in this process. The approaches of
current literature fail to denote the relationship between the importance and
impact of trust within an open and collaborative environment under an
organisational perspective. The objective of this conceptual paper is to elevate
trust as a core element of open innovation, perceived as an organisational
mindset, by proposing a conceptual model leading to a re-contextualisation of
the current approaches to open innovation.
Keywords: open innovation; collaboration; trust; ambidexterity; culture;
mindset; diversity management; knowledge sharing.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Salampasis, D.G.,
Mention, A-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2015) ‘Trust embeddedness within an open
innovation mindset’, Int. J. Business and Globalisation, Vol. 14, No. 1,
pp.32–57.
Biographical notes: Dimitrios G. Salampasis is a Doctoral Researcher at the
Public Research Centre Henri Tudor in Luxembourg. His research is focused
on business innovation management and organisational behaviour and more
specifically in the field of open innovation in financial services. He is also
pursuing his PhD on Industrial Engineering and Management at the
Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland. He holds a Bachelor in
Public and Business Administration and three Master degrees in European
Studies, Educational Psychology and Entrepreneurship and Innovation
(First Class Honours). He has extensive working experience in the public and
private sector in Greece and abroad and has participated in numerous
conferences around the world as a speaker, facilitator, trainer and rapporteur.
He received the ISPIM Best Paper Award in September 2012.
33
innovation and performance measurement and management in the financial and
business to business services industries. Her research interests mainly
concentrate on open and collaborative innovation, intellectual capital
measurement and management, innovation and technology management.
She has been a Visiting Researcher at Singapore Management University,
McGill University, Canada and Ferrara University, Italy. She received an IBM
Faculty Award for the project entitled ‘Towards accrued transparency of
operations in the fund industry’ in 2011 focusing on organisational innovation
and an award for the project entitled ‘Measuring the impact of open innovation’
in 2013. She is also a founding member of WICI, the Deputy Head of the
ISPIM Advisory Board and a member of several scientific committees and
editorial boards.
Marko Torkkeli is a Professor of Technology and Business Innovations
at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Kouvola, Finland. His
research interests focus on technology and innovation management,
strategic entrepreneurship, growth venturing and decision support systems.
He has published in journals such as the Int. J. Production Economics,
Int. J. Foresight and Innovation Policy, Int. J. Business Excellence, Int. J.
Technology Management and Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning.
He is a member of the editorial boards of the Int. J. of Services Sciences and
Int. J. of Innovation Management. He is an affiliated faculty member at
Singapore Management University, a Visiting Researcher at INESC
Porto, Portugal, a Docent of Technology-based Business at University of
Jyväskylä, Finland and a Docent of Technology and Innovation Management at
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland. He serves as the Director of
Publications of the International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM).
1
Introduction
The aim of this conceptual paper is to develop research propositions on the role of four
specific concepts (knowledge sharing attitude, ambidextrous thinking, collaborative
culture and diversity management) on the adoption of open innovation practices and the
effect of trust based upon an extensive and consistent review of the literature. The
concept of open innovation, despite the fact that it is considered as a new area of
research, is hardly new. To some extent, innovation has always been open (West and
Gallagher, 2006). By definition, open innovation is “the use of purposive inflows and
outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand the markets for
external use of innovation, respectively” [Chesbrough et al., (2006), p.1]. Open
innovation puts under a functional umbrella the obvious: the fact that we all live in an
open knowledge space era where the flow of information is permanent, knowledge
transfer and access to information is beyond understanding and in order to succeed in this
highly competitive, constantly changing and demanding business world, openness and
collaboration are considered the key facilitators of this process.
34
D.G. Salampasis et al.
The added value of open innovation as a concept is the fact that it gave a name and
embraced practices and attitudes which have been in existence throughout time but would
take place subconsciously in the absence of an operational framework to structure them.
An emerging shift from a closed to an open innovation model is observed, where
valuable know-how, ideas, practices and experience come from both inside and outside
the company, leading to a remarkable flow of ideas and resources regardless their inward
or outward origin (Chesbrough et al., 2006; Dahlander and Gann, 2010).
Enkel et al. (2009) herald that not coping with open innovation under an
organisational perspective leads to serious competitive disadvantages. The driving force
for companies to adopt the model of open innovation is their propensity to establish a
competitive advantage and to be able to maintain innovation leadership within a highly
competitive business environment. Open attitudes allow a free knowledge flow between
the parties and therefore support the innovativeness of the firm (Päällysaho and Kuusisto,
2011). However, being too open is not necessarily interpreted as a benefit for the firm’s
innovation performance (Drechsler and Natter, 2012). Despite the fact that it is widely
acknowledged that open innovation is the key for future business success, it is not yet
vastly adopted in terms of company structure and approach (Buntz, 2010). For this
reason, this paper perceives open innovation from a different angle, since it is more than
a paradigm, a process, a framework (Chesbrough et al., 2006) or a business model
(Rasmussen, 2007); but an organisational mindset, which in order to be perceived under a
collaborative aspect requires another core element: trust.
This conceptual paper is based on an extensive and comprehensive review of the
literature, fostering the contribution to theory development and the conceptualisation of
the research area (Knafl and Howard, 1984). This approach is duly justified by the
willingness to deepen the understanding of an abstract notion, i.e., trust. The literature
review has been conducted based on a conceptual framework which brings forward the
research fields of open and collaborative innovation, organisational behaviour and
organisational change. This has helped the authors define with precision and accuracy the
research problem and to ensure its core understanding. The purpose of conceptualisation
was to get initially a basic insight into the topic and also valuable hints concerning the
design, research strategy and focus of the main study leading to the development of the
proposed conceptual model (Lösch, 2006).
This conceptual paper follows the cognitive processes proposed by Morse. These
processes involve comprehending, synthesising, theorising and recontextualising or
putting new knowledge back into the context of how the other researchers have
articulated the evolving knowledge (Walker et al., 2008).
In this context, trust is examined in relation to four main concepts which are proposed
as the organisational antecedents of open innovation; knowledge sharing attitude,
ambidextrous thinking, collaborative culture and diversity management. All these
concepts and their interrelated conceptual relationships are examined in detail within the
following sections. The conceptualisation enables the definition of the role of trust
towards open innovation as an organisational mindset.
2
Literature review: open innovation
The purpose of this review is to present the mainstream and contemporary literature in
the field of open innovation by introducing the concept of open innovation, its various
35
interpretations and approaches and to smoothly pave the way towards the identification
and exploration of the missing element of trust.
Open innovation is “a new way to bring innovations to market and create value from
company’s IP. It is in a contrast to a traditional closed innovation model where
company’s own research results are used to create new innovations and products only for
the company itself” [Viskari et al., (2007), p.1].
The concept of open innovation has received wide acceptance (Huizingh, 2011;
Lichtenthaler, 2011) but also criticism (Linstone, 2010; Trott and Hartmann, 2009). From
a management and strategy perspective, open innovation “has become the latest
management buzzword” [Hagel and Brown, (2008), p.27] because open innovation has
managed to “summarize a set of socio-political and economic changes” (Schroll, 2009a).
The core element of the concept is the interrelation between the inbound, outbound and
coupled processes (Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006; Gassmann and Enkel, 2004;
Lichtenthaler, 2011) referring to the mutual competence that companies should possess
and nurture in order to be able to receive and operationalise know-how from the outer
part and layer of the organisation per se and at the same time be able to avoid disclosure
of information, competences and R&D in terms of sharing and openness (Spithoven
et al., 2011).
The inbound process refers to the in-sourcing of external knowledge by means of
licensing in, spinning in, acquisition and collaboration alongside the value chain
(Savitskaya et al., 2010). The outbound process refers to the external utilisation of
internal knowledge and more specifically the performance of potential value creation
from the ‘surplus of research’ which would remain unused (based on the closed
innovation model) but now it can be utilised by fitting itself within another
business models [Savitskaya et al., (2010), p.11]. The coupled process is defined as
“linking outside-in and inside-out by working in alliances with complementary
companies during which give and take are crucial for success” [Gassmann and Enkel,
(2004), p.1].
Open innovation is a porous business model aligned to the notion of transparency,
openness and sharing [Chesbrough, (2003), p.37], or the fact that the boundaries of the
firm become permeable. Open innovation leads to an open culture, an open business
model and an operational absorptive capacity (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009;
Spithoven et al., 2011) which is elaborated through the correspondence and interrelation
of a substantial number of factors such as sincerity, long lasting relationships, long term
cooperation and common/mutual value creation. The absorptive capacity is related to the
exploration of external knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and the ability of the
firm to generalise ‘commercialisable outputs’ after having passed the procedure of value
recognition, validity, implementation and internal knowledge conceptualisation
[Kostopoulos et al., (2011), p.1336].
The functionality of open innovation lies upon the shift from a closed to an open
paradigm. Helfat clearly illustrates this propensity to the open paradigm. “Closed
innovation springs entirely from internal company innovation activity, largely in the form
of organized R&D” [Helfat, (2006), p.86]. On the other hand, the open innovation model
advances its emergence from “sources external to the company in combination with
supplementary internal company innovation activity” [Helfat, (2006), p.86]. Almirall and
Casadesus-Masanell (2010, pp.44) present a simulation model showing the trade-off
between benefits of discovery and costs of divergence, discussing that discovery “might
36
arise not from the exercise of full strategic freedom but from restricting the available
choices and learning from those made by others”.
Open innovation is defined as “systematically relying on a firm’s … capabilities of
internally and externally carrying out the major technology management tasks … along
the innovation process” [Lichtenthaler, (2011), p.77]. This is interpreted as an
interorganisational knowledge transaction which helps the firm sustain and develop
new knowledge. However, it is vital for organisations to bear in mind that it is
not only important to be able to acquire knowledge but also having the right
mechanisms to manage and implement it further. This is known as ‘knowledge
management capacity’ and it refers to the dynamic capability, “which reconfigures
and realigns these knowledge capacities” [Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, (2009),
p.1315]. Knowledge management capacity helps towards the better understanding
of the way a firm can profit from open innovation since it denotes the mechanism of
examining the inward and outward knowledge flows within the organisational
process. It is important to underline here the different perspective that this procedure has
on an ad-hoc basis. It depends upon the capacities, the mechanisms, the structural
foundations, the collaborative and learning culture which is infused within the
organisation per se.
Open innovation, as a concept, has developed throughout the years and has been
associated with several other concepts such as open source (West and Gallagher, 2006),
user co-creation (Franke and Piller, 2004), user centred innovation and customer
integration by von Hippel and distributed innovation (Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000).
Another classification, proposed by Schweisfurth et al. (2011), identifies five concepts
and research streams of open innovation; collective invention, user-innovation networks,
common based peer production, crowdsourcing and open-source innovation. Building on
that, the concept of open innovation has been identified in separated discussions within
the literature since there is an emergence of sub-areas of open innovation such as
“globalization of innovation (collaboration), outsourcing of R&D (utilization of external
knowledge), early supplier integration, user innovation and external commercialization of
technology” [Viskari et al., (2007), p.5].
Simanis and Hart (2009) bring upfront an alternative prism which lies upon the role
of structural and embedded innovation. The structural innovation paradigm has
substantial consequences in the societal, customer and environmental leads of life.
Societies are simply a group of consumers waiting for their needs to fulfilled,
relationships become transactions, the natural environment is used only as a source of
raw material and a general attitude of a mass consumer market which will lead to a better
quality of life is born.
The embedded innovation paradigm brings upfront the concept of business
intimacy. Business model intimacy is based upon the relational model of identity and a
community creation. It creates a sense of belonging, on shared vision practices and
creates a sense of responsibility to the community. Embedded innovation and
business intimacy symbolise a new conceptualisation of value creation which is not
based only on the competitive advantage but elevates the creation of long lasting
and trustworthy relationships. Through these relationships a unique platform for
sustainable growth is formulated and new horizons for companies and the society are
being opened. The embedded innovation paradigm promulgates collaborative attitudes
37
and mutual learning since it is enacted within a community based environment, giving
absolute emphasis on relationship, team building and equal partnerships. It encourages
the endorsement of engagement which is a new way of thinking by instilling
responsibility and commitment and creates an ecosystem of people and institutions that
respect the values of the enterprise. Through these community-based practices diverse
people are working together towards the creation of sustainable and common value.
“Innovation isn’t enabled by new relationships, it is the relationship” [Simanis and Hart,
(2009), p.83].
The authors argue that the embedded innovation paradigm (communities) is related to
the distributed innovation paradigm (Bogers and West, 2012), which encapsulates user
innovation by von Hippel and open innovation by Chesbrough and other processes such
as cumulative innovation, social production and co-creation. Distributed innovation is
perceived as a “metacategory for prior research on innovation processes that cross
organizational boundaries or take place entirely outside an organization” (Schroll,
2011b). It is important to underline here the difference of these perspectives stemming
from the motives, the nature, the relevance, the commercialisation and the nature of
innovation (Bogers and West, 2012).
Open innovation as a model enables businesses to build a structured “innovation
ecosystem that uses networks of external partners and focuses on developing core
internal competencies” (Trapp, 2010). This shows that open innovation is perceived
under collaborative innovation. A highly important element for the development
of new products and services is the encouragement of collaborative innovation with
customers or users (Greer and Lei, 2012). Collaborative innovation is set within a
framework of a peer to peer or network perspective and is managed through
synergies. “Firms that manage to create a synergy between their own processes and
externally available ideas may be able to benefit from the external creative ideas of
outsiders to generate profitable new products and services” [Dahlander and Gann, (2010),
p.704).
Collaborative innovation can be perceived dyadically via the involvement of lead
users (Oliveira and von Hippel, 2011), and the customers such “as through participatory
design, empathy, trust and modularization” [Greer and Lei, (2012), p.64]. It derives from
the structural differences within the organisation regarding the flow of information and
ownership besides the structural mechanism of coordinating this infusion of information
(Satzger and Neus, 2010).
“Open innovation is based on collaborative relationships-organisational alliances and
partnerships” [Slowinski and Sagal, (2010), p.38]. Going back to core of open innovation
it is apparent that collaborative relationships are of utmost importance since “in case the
asset is not available internally, the firm must locate the asset in the outside world”
[Slowinski and Sagal, (2010), p.38]. The context of open innovation depicts the mutual
engagement of two or more partners who are willing to work together by sharing ideas,
know-how, experiences and knowledge in a joint effort to generate value from innovative
outcomes (du Chatenier et al., 2010). Du Chatenier et al. (2010) perceive three levels of
collaborative innovation: management of interorganisational collaboration process,
management of the overall innovation process and creation of a new collaborative
knowledge.
38
Interorganisational collaboration takes place when organisations share both
authority and responsibility so as to formulate a planning and an implementation strategy
in order to find a solution to a problem (Zhao et al., 2012). Zhao et al. (2012,
p.617) describe it as the situation when “different organizations work together to address
problems through joint effort, resources, decision-making and share ownership
of the final product or service”. There are many types of relationships among
organisations such as information sharing, business transactions, etc. Collaboration is one
of them revealing the fact that there lies the creation of an interorganisational
collaboration network.
Collaborative innovation cannot be perceived under one single form. In order to
expand their competences, their know-how and create a substantial competitive
advantage companies share the need to form alliances, partnerships and collaborative
networks with outsiders in order to overcome potential capacity limitations, knowledge
gaps and be able to jointly work into new projects, services and promote innovative and
dynamic relationships (Pisano and Verganti, 2008). Successful business relationships are
built on trust meaning that the starting point of a relationship empowerment must be
related to trust (Kanter, 1994).
The abovementioned literature review reflects the emergence of a new paradigm
shift from closure to openness. It has shown that open innovation shares various and
complex interpretations, leading to a vast and alternative approaches catering for a
difficulty towards its adoption and implementation. Furthermore, it becomes apparent
that open innovation as a concept can be related to other fields of study and
elements demanding a multidisciplinary approach. Last but not least the inherent element
which belongs to the DNA of open innovation, i.e., trust has been merely discussed,
consisting a major gap in the existing literature, a gap that is addressed and investigated
in this paper.
3
Open innovation mindset and the role of trust
Linking open innovation and trust can be quite challenging due the lack of an
existing theoretical framework and the different research methods to be used to tackle
abstract and elusive notions. This section is dedicated to the exploration of trust as a
concept by bringing together and synthesising different research fields and
literature streams. This definition paves the way towards the identification of four
specific concepts (knowledge sharing attitude, ambidextrous thinking, collaborative
culture and diversity management) considered as the organisational antecedents of
open innovation. The investigation of the role of trust in relation to the four
organisational antecedents of open innovation leads to the realisation of open innovation
as an organisational mindset.
Open innovation can be perceived as a paradigm, a culture, a business model, a
concept, a notion, a strategy and a managerial buzzword. Understanding the role of open
innovation within the era of open knowledge, cooperation, interaction and mutual
understanding, the authors believe that open innovation needs to embrace all the relevant
core elements and perspectives that elevate it not as panacea or the ultimate solution
(Trapp, 2010), but as a natural perception, as something that is inherent, something that
flows in the organisation’s blood.
39
This paper argues that open innovation is an organisational mindset, is the ultimate
ensemble that drives the mechanisms of organisational culture, business model and
organisational behaviour, is the light that denotes identity, is the spark which promotes
creativity, collaboration and community engagement, is the pioneer of organisational
trust. A mindset (also known as dominant logic, cognitive map, mental model, strategy
frame and belief structure) refers to the knowledge structures that top managers use to
make strategic decisions. It is encompassed in two facets: complexity and
proactive/reactive thinking (Nadkarni et al., 2006).
In order to explore the role of trust within an organisational mindset such as open
innovation a prior understanding of the concept of trust becomes imperative.
3.1 Definition of trust
Trust is a formation characterised by a definite multidimensionality (Brattström et al.,
2012), incorporating a number of elements and functions that exist individually, but
neither necessarily interdependently nor constantly (Tyler and Stanley, 2007). “Trust
tends to be somewhat like a combination of the weather and motherhood; it is widely
talked about, and it is widely assumed to be good for organizations. When it comes to
specifying just what it means in an organizational context, however, vagueness creeps in”
[McAllister, (1995), p.24]. Based on the extensive existing literature (Fawcett et al.,
2012; Gulati and Sytch, 2008; Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2007) trust can be
perceived at an individual level, interpersonal level, between individuals and
organisations, between organisations (interorganisational perspective) and between
individuals and information systems.
By definition, trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”
[Mayer et al., (1995), p.712]. This is related to trustworthiness and on the expectations
that the person has concerning the expected behaviour of the other person (Mayer et al.,
1995). Another definition of trust perceives “the mutual confidence that no party to an
exchange will exploit another’s vulnerabilities” [Parkhe, (1998), p.221].
3.2 Setting up the field: organisational, interorganisational and network
The definition of trust brings upfront the need of determining the level of investigation:
individual, interpersonal, organisational and interorganisational. For the scope of this
analysis, trust is perceived under the organisational and on a second level of analysis on
the interorganisational level. The organisational prism is perceived under the facet of
collaborative innovation. “An open collaborative innovation project involves contributors
who share the work of generating a design and also reveal the outputs from their
individual and collective design efforts openly for anyone to use” [Baldwin and von
Hippel, (2010), p.9].
A company should invest on the promotion and sovereignty of organisational
trust in order to be able to come closer and cooperate with other companies sharing
primarily organisational similarities (Gulati and Sytch, 2008). Organisational similarities
are the key elements and characteristics that constitute two companies belonging
40
to the same operational scope and based on existing research this leads to easier
cooperation and promotion of interorganisational trust. Kanter (2011, p.75) argues that
“Great companies assume they can trust people and can rely on relationships, not just
rules and structures”. In this context, a subsequent relation between organisational
similarities, the diversity of organisational backgrounds and talent management can be
observed. This relation can promote creativity but can also lead to communicative
dilemmas and usually conflicts.
The main perspective of inter-firm collaboration, even in the open innovation
paradigm, is focused on the firm-centric perspective referring to the how the firm creates
value from an alliance rather than on how to jointly create value through the creation of
joint assets. Dyer and Singh (1998 p.662), refer to the term ‘relational view’, arguing
that, “as a supernormal profit jointly generated in an exchange relationship that cannot be
generated by either firm in isolation and can only be created through the joint
idiosyncratic contributions of the specific alliance partners.”
Trust under the interorganisational perspective analysis can be perceived either as
dispositional or relational (Gulati and Sytch, 2008). Dispositional trust mainly
reflects expectations about the trustworthiness of others in general (Gurtman, 1992),
whereas relational trust pertains to a specific dyadic partner (McAllister, 1995).
Voices such as Brownlie and Howson (2005), argue that trust depicts solely as a
relational entity and cannot be perceived under an isolation perspective. “Trust occurs as
individuals extract the known factors while bracketing off or suspending the
unknown factors to avoid confusing decisions with uncertainty” [Powell, (2011), p.29].
The authors argue that relational trust is related to collaborative innovation. By
definition, collaborative innovation is the implementation of open innovation focusing
into the building of long lasting relationships that interrelate into the creation of
commonly perceived value while open innovation is the generic theory of inbound,
outbound and coupled mechanisms. In the context of these collaborative frameworks,
trust has important embedded psychological, sociological and economic properties
(Parkhe, 1998).
An important angle which must be taken into consideration is the dyadic impact
of culture within the scope of trust. This impact refers to the effect that both
intercultural environment and cooperation have on the development of interorganisational
trust and to the potential role of open and collaborative innovation within a
multicultural paradigm (Heffernan, 2004). It becomes apparent that everyone being
involved in intercultural and international partnerships and relationships is always
concerned about trust (Davis et al., 2008). However, it is important here to distinguish the
context on two different levels: the intra-firm and inter-firm intercultural and
international environment. Inter-firm trust is depicted in the relationship between two or
more companies, whereas intra-firm trust it is perceived within the locus of one company.
This distinction is very important since it entails different elements of understanding the
role of trust.
3.3 Open innovation and trust
The non-existence of a theoretical framework linking open innovation and trust is the
driver of this research. Open innovation is a broad topic requiring a multidisciplinary
approach.
41
In order to develop the theoretical analysis, the research is based upon four concepts
the authors are considering as the antecedents of open innovation under an organisational
prism: knowledge sharing attitude (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009, 2010),
ambidextrous thinking (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a, 2004b; Probst et al., 2011),
collaborative culture (Zhao et al., 2012) and diversity management (visible, invisible,
talent management, organisational backgrounds) (du Chatenier et al., 2010; Thomas and
Ely, 1996). The following subsections further debate in detail the role of each antecedent
in relation to trust. At this point, it is very important to highlight that these four concepts
have been formulated by the authors based on various literature streams in order to
capture their overall essence. This means that these concepts have not been pre-defined
by the literature as such but they have been formulated by the authors, consisting of
additional sub-elements (defined by the literature per se) synthesising in each of the four
concepts the overall panorama of the different streams of literature.
Figure 1
Antecedents of open innovation-conceptual framework (see online version for colours)
Note: Developed by the authors
3.4 Knowledge sharing attitude
Both forms of open innovation are related to the knowledge management mechanism,
within the open innovation paradigm, are encoded within internal knowledge exploration
and external knowledge exploration based upon the effect that interorganisational
relationships have on the knowledge maintenance (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler,
2009). Inbound open innovation is related to the absorptive capacity of the organisation
(Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2010), which denotes the inherent ability of the
organisation to effectively and efficiently exploit external knowledge within the
framework of the fact that “the ability to evaluate and utilize outside knowledge is largely
a function of the level of prior related knowledge” [Cohen and Levinthal, (1990), p.128].
On the other hand outbound open innovation is related to the desorptive capacity of the
42
organisation referring to the “capability of external knowledge exploitation which is
complementary to internal knowledge application in a firm’s own products”
[Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, (2009), p.1321]. The way absorptive capacity is
perceived is through the identification of firms having the ability to distil and understand,
more efficiently than other companies, the core elements of value based on the abundance
of public information leading to competitive rarity (Torkkeli et al., 2009).
When firms are working with open innovation they are open in terms of knowledge
sharing, building up on existing platforms and creating new knowledge. New knowledge
is often perceived as a product of a firm’s capability to generate applications from
existing platforms (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009). Gaining access to external
knowledge means that firms need to be open and willing to transfer some of their own
knowledge (Chesbrough et al., 2006). This is related to the organisational connective
capacity which is the ability of an organisation to perceive knowledge outside of the firm
(Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009).
It is important here to distinguish the knowledge outflows and inflows under the
perspective of dual interests of two firms sharing and exchanging knowledge since in a
network of multiple firms trying to exchange knowledge the dynamic relationships and
the flow of information is more complex (Torkkeli et al., 2009). Within cooperation both
partners need to start sharing knowledge in order to contribute to the establishment of the
cooperation and put it in motion. This denotes the willingness of both parties to elaborate
further and to make sure that the cooperation unfolds in order to cater for more
knowledge sharing. Trust plays a vital role here since it leads to the creation of long-term
trustworthy relationships, openness and developed absorptive capacity.
“Knowledge sharing refers to the provision of task information and know-how to help
others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas or implement
policies or procedures” [Wang and Noe, (2010), p.117]. It is different from knowledge
transfer and knowledge exchange because on the one hand, knowledge transfer describes
the movement of knowledge and on the other hand, knowledge exchange consists of
knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking.
The emergence of an open knowledge-based environment, confronts the capability
and the capacity that organisations possess in the management of new projects and
actions taken so as to improve their performance within is changing, uncertain and risky
business environment (Aubry and Lièvre, 2010). “The organization’s ability to leverage
knowledge means finding, nurturing and supporting the communities that already share
knowledge about key topics” [Cheng et al., (2008), p.449]. The salient question lies upon
the development of the necessary mechanisms which shall enable the external
environment monitoring and the assessment of the shared data. This is related to the
firm’s ‘combinative capability’ referring to the ‘capability to synthesize and apply current
and acquired knowledge’ [Rasmussen, (2007), p.5], denoting that this knowledge transfer
and the firm’s combinative capability can drive the need for effective and efficient
collaborations.
Obtaining information and bringing new ideas and knowledge within the organisation
is not enough. Organisations cannot keep knowledge stored and unused. Strategic
leadership must ignite employees’ creativity by encouraging new ideas and curiosity.
This leads to the creation of a knowledge-sharing culture which incorporates trust and
real openness and builds upon new knowledge creation, learning, sharing and free
revealing. This means that inbound and outbound open innovation is highly related to the
creation of a knowledge-sharing organisational culture.
43
An interorganisational relationship with a specific integrated collaborative behaviour
can function as a forum for open and free exchange of information and as a platform for
the creation of shared perceptions (Simsek, 2009). Contemporary organisational
behaviour and management have the propensity to develop a more multidisciplinary
nature. This leaves space for openness to be perceived under different angles and
perspectives since openness can lead to creative solutions and knowledge sharing (Aubry
and Lièvre, 2010). Even though the development of a knowledge-sharing culture fosters
competitive advantage, knowledge sharing per se is highly difficult to accomplish. Ideas
by nature are intangible; nevertheless the transmission is really difficult to accomplish
(Cheng et al., 2008).
An open knowledge transfer mindset takes place within a knowledge-sharing
culture. Openness requires trust; Cheng et al. (2008), argue that trust is developed
and formulated through mutual respect. Trust is impossible without mutual respect
since it is a matter of managing values and principles that support the organisational
values, understanding and respect. Cheng et al. (2008, pp.450–452) present a model
describing the relationship among trust, knowledge sharing and firm performance. Firm
performance is divided into the two factors of short and long-term performance.
Cheng et al. (2008, p.452), denote the fact that “firm performance does not occur
in a vaccum but is determined by a certain set of strategic choices made by firm
managers”.
Knowledge sharing requires flexibility and freedom on how the available
solutions will be chosen. Verganti (1999) presents the need for an adoption of a
planned flexibility model which is related to the capacity of interactive shift from
the exploitation to exploration mode (ambidexterity) and the emergence of a new
quality of judgement and experience development. This is very important because it
depicts the interrelation of knowledge and ambidexterity in a sense that exploration
and exploitation are being put in the core of the organisational learning without being
treated as separate modes and solely under the prism of strategy implementation (March,
1991).
Proposition no. 1
Knowledge sharing affects open innovation adoption.
Proposition no. 2
Trust moderates open innovation adoption.
3.5 Ambidextrous thinking
The rationale behind the interrelation between open innovation and ambidexterity lies
within the dynamic capabilities an organisation perceives, in order to be able to sustain
competitiveness, promote differentiation and develop openness mechanisms in order to
support the knowledge sharing procedures. Teece et al. (1997, p.516), perceive dynamic
capabilities as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external
competences to address rapidly changing environments”. The authors argue that in order
to be able to talk about open innovation within organisations, it is important to lead an
ambidextrous thinking and strategy towards sensing the need of change and at the same
time being able to develop the right actions in order to reply to all these existing
opportunities and threats.
44
Ambidexterity is an organisational ability to master both adaptability and alignment
leading to long-term success (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004b). Exploration concerns the
‘experimentation with new alternatives’ while exploitation refers to the “refinement and
extension of existing competences, technologies and paradigms” [March, (1991), p.85].
The primary characteristic of an ambidextrous firm is the ability to both generate and
manage “familiar, mature, current or proximate knowledge (exploitation) and unfamiliar,
distant and remote knowledge (exploration)” [Filippini et al., (2012), p.318].
O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) propose five elements which are important for
managing ambidexterity. One of them is related to “the articulation of a common vision
and values which provide for a common identity within the organization” [O’Reilly and
Tushman, (2011), p.9]. Common identity creates a sense of belonging, a sense of trust
and a long-term cooperation which is enforced by the motivation work together under an
exploratory and exploitative prism. The authors argue that trust as a core element of
ambidextrous thinking, denotes a vital differentiation of the organisation per se since it
encapsulates other values such as fairness, accuracy; all these are depicted within the
strategic orientation of the organisation leveraging the trustworthy profile and making the
opening process smoother.
Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004b) denote the strong relationship between trust and the
building-up of contextual ambidexterity which calls for individual employees to make
choices between alignment-oriented and adaptation-oriented activities in the context of
their day-to-day work and on an organisational level can be perceived as the collective
orientation of the employees toward the simultaneous pursuit of alignment and
adaptability (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004b). In simple terms this means that the
incorporation of ambidexterity in the organisational trust, along with stretch, discipline
and support is one of the antecedents of ambidexterity which under an organisational
perspective enables individuals to bring forward initiative, cooperative attitude, brokering
skills and multitasking abilities (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a). Trust is part of the
social support behaviour-framing attributes which expresses the need for ambitious goals
establishment within a cooperative environment encouraging employees into a dynamic
interaction, collaboration and knowledge sharing. Trust is categorised in the social
support of the dimension of organisational context since it caters for security and latitude
both having an indirect impact on the organisational performance through the shaping of
individual and collective behaviours (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004b).
Probst et al. (2011) discuss the characteristics of ambidextrous leadership and
consider trust as an important element in relation to a non-micro-management attitude
and the building up of strong long-lasting relationships which can function both under an
official and unofficial perspective. Team building, the ability to work together as a team
and autonomy denote a framework which functions under a trust-based environment and
fosters constructive and effective relationships. Through this participatory style a creative
and trustworthy bonding is being created which advances the “emergence of a strong
superordinate identity shared by the team, which creates a sense of belonging and
commitment” [Probst et al., (2011), p.331].
Ambidexterity is related to dynamic relationships leading to mutual exploration of
new knowledge. Relationships are interpreted within a collaborative attitude,
incorporating new and existing knowledge into product, process and services
development. The authors argue that trust plays an important part both in the openness,
the propensity to something new and the building up from existing knowledge and ideas,
breaking up the boundaries, both within the organisation, as it redefines the frontiers
45
of knowledge transfer and externally, as it uses formal and informal forms of
communication and creativity, in order to develop effective coordination and
participation of partners in the enhancement of knowledge transfer and knowledge
sharing routines within a collaborative culture.
Proposition no. 3
Ambidextrous thinking affects open innovation adoption.
Proposition no. 4
3.6 Collaborative culture
Open innovation is aligned to collaboration in the development of new ideas, products
and services, consisting a vital element for true openness. Collaboration is emphasised
within the interorganisational cooperation with an impact not only on the company level
but also on the regional and country levels (Savitskaya et al., 2010).
Prabhu et al. (2010, p.11), bring upfront the role of corporate culture as a key to
radical innovation in firms. They consider culture as “a core set of attitudes and practices
shared by members of a collective entity such as a nation or a firm […] culture is
reflected in shared knowledge and standard operating procedures”.
“Innovation relies strongly on interaction and the ability to interact” [Tsou and Hsu,
(2011), p.361]. This means that innovation can be diffused only through relationships. A
collaborative culture is the element that fosters people to work together, to share and be
able to co-create long-lasting value. There is a relationship between emotional
intelligence, team trust and creativity mindset which develops a collaborative culture
within the firm (Barczak et al., 2010). This authors argue that this collaborative culture
enables the organisation firstly to launch a trustworthy image and secondly to nurture
successful partnerships working on innovative products and services. Furthermore, the
quality of collaboration has a positive impact on creativity and team performance which
are the key elements of successful partnerships (Barczak et al., 2010).
Blackwell and Fazzina (2008) argue that the future of open innovation is highly
related to the collaborative, team-based culture companies have embraced, since it
denotes a distinctive advantage towards the implementation and leveraging of open
innovation in comparison to the companies that have more rigid boundaries among
functions and lines of business.
Fadel (OECD, 2012), incorporates collaboration as a vital skill for the promotion and
the existence of innovation. Collaboration along with creativity, critical thinking and
communication, are considered as higher-order skills or 21st century skills, essential both
for work performance and knowledge absorption. Collaboration is a precursor to
innovation and is considered as an imperative element regarding the solution of long-term
structural difficulties on a societal perspective.
A key driver of collaboration is the establishment of a sustainable competitive
advantage (Mention and Asikainen, 2012). This means that a firm should be examined
based on its behaviour within an alliance or network rather than on a single basis.
Inter-firm collaboration is a means of organisational learning since it drives the
enhancement of all the necessary key competences leading to the acceleration of
innovation and effective collaboration. Powell (1998) argues that it is not only important
for firms to learn from collaborations but it is of utmost importance to understand the
46
importance of adopting a collaborative attitude and learning all the necessary
mechanisms of collaboration.
An important element to be explored, which is highly related to the empowerment of
collaboration within open innovation model, is the role of culture. Hofstede (1991, 2001),
presents the five dimensions of culture explaining that the behaviour depicted by
individuals and organizations stems from “their cultural peculiarities which are measured
through collectivism vs individualism, level of power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity or femininity and long-or short-term orientation” [Savitskaya et al., (2010),
p.13]. The role of trust plays a fundamental role within a collaborative environment since
it emerges from the cultural signs of a ‘collectivistic culture’ [Savitskaya et al., (2010),
p.14], leading to the formulation of long lasting partnerships and trustworthy
relationships.
Collaboration has many faces and can take place within different organisational levels
and globalised environment. Globalisation means international collaborations within
international business environments and an internationalised economy. Trust plays a
fundamental role in international collaborations since the nature and level of trust differ
across borders and also institutional and cultural matters have a substantial impact on the
way trust is perceived. The relation between trust and culture can be perceived either as
etic (culture-general or universal) or emic (culture-specific), in a cross-border situation
[Zaheer and Zaheer, (2006), pp.21–22]. Different approaches and interpretations of trust
have substantial implications in the international collaborations. Asymmetries exist
between partners and can be observed within the possession of resources, knowledge,
growth and capabilities. However, asymmetries can be also perceived under a social base
perspective such as the imbalance of trust which is influenced by national cultural
origins, prejudices and stereotypes (Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006). These types of
asymmetries have a substantial dual impact on the management and performance of an
interfirm relationship especially on an international perspective.
Chua et al. (2012), directly address the necessity of learning to work with people from
different cultures so as to collaborate creatively. Chua et al. (2012), bring upfront the
concept of cultural metacognition referring to a person’s reflective thinking about his or
her cultural assumptions. They argue that managers who are experienced in thinking
about their cultural assumptions (cultural metacognition) are more likely than other
managers to develop an affect-based trust perceptiveness in their structured relationships
with people from different and diverse cultures resulting in the empowerment of creative
collaborations. This is related to the metacognitive cultural intelligence which leads to the
engagement of sharing fostering intercultural creative collaboration (Chua et al., 2012).
In their paper, the authors also examine the role of cultural awareness in the development
of more effective innovation by using two types of trust; cognitive which is an intellectual
appreciation of another person’s skills, abilities and reliability and affective which is an
emotional belief that another person is willing to share the best personal and pure
interests. They argue that affective trust is really essential in creative collaboration since
despite the fact that collaboration merely involves the sharing of labour, creative
collaboration is dependent upon the sharing of new ideas. The authors argue that this
leads to the observation that only through the existence of high affective trust would two
partners share the willingness of starting to freely exchange new ideas. Furthermore, this
observation promotes an open attitude towards the appreciation and acceptance of
47
differences and the development of a culture that welcomes diversity, assimilation and
inclusive attitude.
Proposition no. 5
Collaborative culture affects open innovation adoption.
Proposition no. 6
3.7 Diversity management
A parameter of ultimate importance in the exploration of the role of trust within open
innovation, is the role of diversity within the organisation and how it is effectively,
efficiently and proactively managed. Diversity management becomes a vital element
since its effective implementation is directly proportional towards a more tolerant
organisational culture contributing to more universal products or services (Joubert and de
Beer, 2012). Diversity is a contextual phenomenon and this becomes evident since people
are not the same so it has to be observed on an ad-hoc basis (Hooghe et al., 2009). People
come from different backgrounds, different leads of lives, cultures, mindsets, they have
different needs, expectations, visions and perceptions. Diversity, as a concept, can be
perceived under a three-level perspective; demographic, informational and behavioural
(Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2003).
“Managing diversity is inextricably linked to trust” [Powell, (2011), p.32]. The key
challenge is the creation of a safe, trustworthy and inclusive environment open to
everyone who wishes to bring something new and create value. Powell observes perfectly
the fact that “trust is the missing cement to bind relationships based on managing
diversity” [Powell, (2011), p.27]. The rationale behind this lies within the fact that an
organisation driving specified strategy, visions and culture must be able to accomplish all
these by encouraging internal and external collaboration, active participation and give
equal chances and opportunities. Trust plays a major role within this framework since it
is the resultant which converges and brings together all the abovementioned factors to a
common aim. Trust is contextualised here both as organisational and individual.
Joubert and de Beer (2012, p.8356), endorse the abovementioned argument since they
consider mutual trust as the key “requirement for effective management of diversity”.
They observe that a low level of trust among employees leads to a substantial number of
hindrances to effective diversity management. Thomas and Ely (1996, p.79), argue that
“a diverse workforce increases organizational effectiveness. It will lift morale, bring
greater access to new segments of the marketplace and enhance productivity”. In a
nutshell, this denotes that diversity is good for the business.
A simple but core argument is the fact that a company should realise what diversity
means, how organisational diversity is defined and how the experience of being a diverse
organisation has an impact on the effectiveness, the image, the structure and the promise
to be delivered (Thomas and Ely, 1996). Diversity management is merely about
acceptance. It is about fundamental and substantial changes on the organisational
leaderships, the values, the attitudes, the behaviours and the culture diffusion within the
organisation per se. It about the encouragement of learning something new, of developing
the competence to accept something different, to delve into the deep understanding of a
new human entity, behaviour, attitude and cultural background.
48
The driver of diversity management is the call for equality and fairness. Thomas and
Ely (1996) argue that so far companies have implemented two practices which will be
discussed here; “the discrimination and fairness paradigm and the access and legitimacy
paradigm” (p.80). The first paradigm lies within the assumption that diversity can be
managed internally by increasing the number of different identity groups. It is apparent
that this practice simply does not foster diversity management within an organisation but
creates diversified clusters without any potential collaboration and interaction. The
second paradigm is based upon “the acceptance and celebration of differences” (p.83).
Every single person has something new to bring, something new to offer and carries
valuable experiences, ideas and approaches. The solution here is to create a framework so
as to subsume all these elements and factors for everyone to learn, use and share. In the
same study, Thomas and Ely (1996), propose a new paradigm which “connects diversity
to work perspectives and is called learning and effectiveness paradigm” (p.85). This
paradigm is based upon the propensity of employees to take decisions and choices at
work according to their own personal and cultural background and the attitudes that this
background underlines. It is also related to the realisation of the companies’ willingness
to incorporate all the abovementioned perspectives within the work of the organisation.
This means that the incorporation of different perspectives and their adoption within the
organisational framework can help the organisation frame a different strategic orientation
in terms of creativity, opening up to new insights and foresights and empowering the
dynamic ability to nurture a sustainable demographic composition within the organisation
per se.
In relation to the discrimination and fairness and the access and legitimacy
paradigms, the learning and effectiveness paradigm calls for organisational internalisation
of differences leading to effective learning and sustainable growth. It incorporates the
core ideas of the other two paradigms; promotion of equal opportunities and
acknowledgement of cultural differences among people and recognition of their value
and leads to the final argument that “we are all on the same team, with our differencesnot despite them” [Thomas and Ely, (1996), p.86].
Diversity management is not something that can be implemented individually.
Thomas and Ely (1996), underline the necessity for a holistic approach leading to the
designing of new processes, procedures and trainings which will lead on encouraging
group participation, team building effective collaboration within a trustworthy, open and
imbued by solidarity environment.
Proposition no. 7 Diversity management affects open innovation adoption.
Proposition no. 8 Trust moderates open innovation adoption.
The abovementioned analysis shows that trust plays a paramount role in every aspect of
life including business oriented perspectives, strategy, business innovation management
and relationships. On the other hand open innovation is interpreted and realised under the
organisational level within its antecedents: knowledge sharing attitude, ambidextrous
thinking, collaborative culture and diversity management. The non-apparent interrelations
among these elements and trust emerge from the analysis above determining the fact that
trust is embedded within open innovation practices and is highly related to organisational
culture, change, leadership and creative thinking.
49
3.8 Conceptual model
In order to be able to conceptualise the research field and try to study the linkage
between open innovation and trust, it is important to develop a conceptual model.
Figure 2
Variables related to the antecedents of open innovation (see online version for colours)
Note: Functional relation to trust.
Source: Developed by the authors
Looking upon the role of open innovation adoption and innovation performance as
dependant variables and the four antecedents of open innovation as independent
variables, the following figure summarises the factors discussed in the abovementioned
analysis in relation to trust, as per classification suggested.
In this context, the authors propose a re-contextualisation of the open innovation
definition which encapsulates all the elements and parameters discussed in the analysis
above.
“Open innovation is a dynamic organizational mindset that encourages the
exploration and exploitation of diverse knowledge inflows and outflows,
leading to innovation continuity and incremental organizational change,
through the establishment of trustworthy, culturally sensitive and sustainable
relationships.”
The authors also assume that the adoption of open innovation has a positive effect on
innovation performance, since open innovation as an organisational mindset “puts
forward the non-linear, dynamic and interactive nature of the innovation process”
[Mention, (2011), p.44] characterised by interaction, cooperation on innovation and
effective collaboration, ensuring a continuous committement to innovation (Mention and
Torkkeli, 2012).
50
Figure 3
A re-contextualised definition of open innovation (see online version for colours)
Source: Developed by the authors
Figure 3 depicts the relation between the four antecedents of open innovation towards the
adoption of an open innovation organisational mindset and how trust moderates in
between. On a second level analysis, it relates the adoption of open innovation and
innovation performance. The four antecedents of open innovation are ‘filtered’ through a
layer of trust, leading to the adoption of an open innovation organisational mindset. This
is a cumulative relationship between trust and the four independent variables, depicting
the actual embeddedness of trust in the core concept of open innovation.
4
Conclusions, limitations and avenues for further research
This section is dedicated to the presentation of some learning outcomes deriving from
this research. Furthermore, some limitations which are addressed in the research deserve
acknowledgment. Last but not least this paper recognises the importance of this research
and recommends some pathways for future research contributing to the field of open
innovation management and its multidisciplinary approach.
4.1 Conclusions
4.1.1 Building up an open innovation organisational mindset
Openness does not mean elimination of organisational structure. An important challenge
that firms face today is the creation of a “systematic openness’ to reconfigure their
51
existing knowledge capacities in order to be able to adapt within the current competitive
and highly demanding business environment [Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, (2009),
p.1334]. Openness means having the ability to create networks, to share information and
keep good ideas alive resulting to new initiatives and innovations. Kanter (2011, p.78)
perfectly denotes that “leaders in great companies can tell a different story about the basis
of their decisions. In doing so, they are able to produce new models for action that can
restore confidence in business and will change the world in which we live”.
Finding good ideas outside the organisation by following the not invented here
mindset is easy. The most difficult task however is to be able to implement and set up all
the necessary processes to be able to “find, capture and commercialize ideas and creating
a corporate culture that promotes and protects these processes” [Jaruzelski and Holman,
(2011), p.1]. So the two core elements of open innovation are initially an open culture to
new ideas and effective and efficient processes to capture and act upon these ideas.
The challenge is to be able to develop the appropriate skills within the organisation in
order to be able to find the correct partners and foster sustainable and long lasting
affiliations. Choosing the right mode of collaborative innovation falls into the
consideration of a substantial number of variables and elements (Pisano and Verganti,
2008). However, it is important to accentuate that the mode of collaborative innovation
which will be chosen to cater for the incentive of the firm per se, is highly related to the
role and extent of trust that is flourished among the potential key players.
In order to really adopt an open innovation mindset, substantial organisational
changes need to take place and most importantly for the companies to realise the
importance of these organisational changes. The organisation per se, must have the right
mechanisms in order to be able to manage both the external and internal knowledge and
make an effective and efficient use of it. It is also important for an organisation to be able
to understand and foresee potential opportunities, be able to assess not only the monetised
outcome but also the long-term relationships, partnerships and potential growth. Aligned
with the need for important organisational changes is the fact that companies need to
change a lot of their processes and activities in relation to intellectual property (IP), since
IP unites various forms, informal and formal measuring of protection and open
innovation go hand in hand (Al-Sharieh et al., 2012). Of course all these changes share
substantial risk, time and cost and the key point for an organisation is to be able to
balance all these with the actual gains that the adoption of the open innovation mindset
can bring.
Open innovation is not for everyone. The authors agree with the argumentations by
Jaruzelski and Holman (2011), stating that open innovation has a meaning for the
companies whose strategies are driven by finding and testing as many ideas as possible
and having the ability and the right mechanisms to assess, integrate, engage, develop,
produce and bring the best ones in the market to cater for new customer needs and
insights. If a company for example is a fast-follower then it must cultivate and develop
other equally important and effective capabilities that will create a competitive advantage
and differentiation.
Open innovation is hard and it requires a lot of skills, competences and time in order
to bring success. The key word is discipline in order to be able to diagnose the way to
create economic value with open innovation, to be able to bring inside the organisation
all the new capabilities, tools and processes in order to support the right type of actions
for driving an innovative company ahead.
52
The authors believe that an open innovation culture is emerging; however, for the
time being it is not transformational but has an evolutionary and fragmented propensity.
Bearing in mind that losing control of intellectual property is a vital element for many
organisations and this remains the primary reason of showing reluctance to follow the
open innovation paradigm, should they need to be certain that advantages from potential
cooperation would outnumber disadvantages and monetised risk (Päällysaho and
Kuusisto, 2011).
4.1.2 Learning to trust
Trust is expressed as the most overused and abused word (Fawcett et al., 2012), in any
analysis that tries to fathom the correlation between different parameters which initiate
openness and lead to mutual long-term value creation (Dahlander and Gann, 2010). Trust
is usually taken for granted since it is perceived as an element of mere importance; yet
appreciating the concept under a down reaching spectrum, it becomes immediately
apparent that trust is the conditio sine qua non of any kind of social, business oriented
interaction and cooperation.
Trust plays a vital role and is directly proportional to the role of education since it
encourages the need for appreciating the human side of open innovation and the
understanding that learning, experimenting and trying is the investment for the future
developments in open innovation. Willingness to change comes from awareness;
willingness to contribute derives from trust, so changing organisational patterns, cultural
hindrances, by fostering effective and trustworthy relationships is nurtured by education,
by experiential learning and by the feeling of globalised and collaborative attitude.
This paper has shown that trust can be perceived in a multilevel perspective. The
main challenge is to create suitable conditions which will nurture the building of trust
“across personal-organizational-structural tiers in an increasingly uncertain world”
[Powell, (2011), p.27]. It is important to remember that trust is ‘fragile and intangible’
but at the same time it drives collaboration which is necessary under conditions of
uncertainty and risk [Jarzabkowski and Searle, (2003), p.2].
4.2 Implications
In terms of academic perspective, this study opens up the ground for new research in the
field of open innovation in relation to organisational behaviour, organisational change
and the role of trust as a core element of open innovation.
In terms of managerial perspective, it is important to stress out the fact that open
innovation within an organisation comes mainly from the top management. It is of utmost
importance for managers to be able to understand the need for the establishment of
trustworthy and sustainable relationships which can lead to innovative products and
services. It is important to underline the elements of the environment where top
management functions; an environment full of uncertainty, complexity and with
insufficient or incomplete information. This is related to the development of strategic
capacity and the ability to understand the signals deriving from the market and to foster a
collective and collaborative action. Furthermore, the realisation of the antecedents of
open innovation and the need for incremental and sometimes radical organisational
change formulate the mechanism of adoption, education, effective and efficient decision
making. This shares important implications in lifelong learning and training within
53
human resources management since it brings upfront the understanding and appreciation
of the link between organisational learning and development of the conditions for an
open and trustworthy environment.
From a social perspective, it is interesting to observe out the applicability of open
innovation as an organisational mindset in relation to developed and emerging markets.
Innovation is not only for developed but also for emerging markets. So there is a need for
tailored models regarding the role and implementation of open innovation within
organisations in emerging economies and their appreciation to openness and
collaboration. An open innovation mindset needs to be cultivated within an organisation
embracing vision and willingness to creatively collaborate.
4.3 Limitations
It is important to underline the fact that there are some limitations deriving from this
study which deserve to be acknowledged. First of all, trust being a contextual
phenomenon and an ‘intangible quality’ [Jarzabkowski and Searle, (2003), p.15] creates a
problem of generalisation since different interpretations can be conducted. Secondly, the
paper is solely based upon a literature review analysis without taking into consideration
data collected from interviews or other methods of research.
4.4 Future research
The authors believe that the linkage between trust and open innovation requires a strong
theoretical background, while at the same time this paper opens up the field for further
research in the area business innovation management. Qualitative and quantitative studies
measuring trust in relation to the open innovation organisational antecedents, adoption
and performance are necessary. Last but not least, the re-contextualisation of the
definition of open innovation as an organisational mindset, paves the way of a more
multidisciplinary approach in the research of open innovation.
References
Al-Sharieh, S., Salmi, P., Mention, A-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2012) ‘Open financial innovation and its
means of protection’, Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference-Action for Innovation:
Innovating from Experience, Barcelona, Spain, 17–20 June 2012.
Almirall, E. and Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010) ‘Open versus closed innovation: a model of
discovery and divergence’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.27–47.
Aubry, M. and Lièvre, P. (2010) ‘Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: a case study
from two polar expeditions’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.32–44.
Baldwin, C.Y. and von Hippel, E.A. (2010) ‘Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation
to user and open collaborative innovation’, Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper
No. 10-038, MIT Sloan Research Paper, 4764(09).
Barczak, G., Lassk, F. and Mulki, J. (2010) ‘Antecedents of team creativity: an examination of
team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture’, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.332–345.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004a) ‘Building ambidexterity into an organization’, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.47–55.
54
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004b) ‘The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity’, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2,
pp.209–226.
Blackwell, K. and Fazzina, D. (2008) Open Innovation: Facts, Fiction and Future, p.15.
Bogers, M. and West, J. (2012) ‘Managing distributed innovation: strategic utilization of open and
user innovation’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.61–75.
Brattström, A., Löfsten, H. and Richtnér, A. (2012) ‘Creativity, trust and systematic processes in
product development’, Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.743–755.
Brownlie, J. and Howson, A. (2005) ‘‘Leaps of faith’ and MMR: an empirical study of trust’,
Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.221–239.
Buntz, B. (2010) “The race for open innovation’, weblog [online]
http://www.emdt.co.uk/article/race-for-open-innovation (accessed 20 November 2012).
Chatenier, E. du, Verstegen, J.A.A.M., Biemans, H.J.A., Mulder, M. and Omta, O.S.W.F. (2010)
‘Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams’, R&D
Cheng, W., Hailin, L. and Hongming, X. (2008) ‘Does knowledge sharing mediate the relationship
between trust and firm performance?’, Information Processing (ISIP), 2008 International
Symposiums.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) ‘The era of open innovation’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44,
No. 3, pp.35–41.
Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A.K. (2006) ‘Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation
in other industries’, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.229–236.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New
Paradigm, 1st ed., p.373, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chua, R.Y.J., Morris, M.W. and Mor. S. (2012) ‘Collaborating across cultures: cultural
metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration’, Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 118, No. 2, pp.116–131.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.128–152.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010) ‘How open is innovation?’, Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 6,
pp.699–709.
Davis, H.J., Lee, M. and Ruhe, J. (2008) ‘Trust: an intercultural comparison of consumer
perceptions’, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.150–165.
Drechsler, W. and Natter, M. (2012) ‘Understanding a firm’s openness decisions in innovation’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp.438–445.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) ‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp.660–679.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O. and Chesbrough, H. (2009) ‘Open R&D and open innovation: exploring
the phenomenon’, R&D Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.311–316.
Fawcett, S.E., Jones, S.L. and Fawcett, A.M. (2012) ‘Supply chain trust: the catalyst for
collaborative innovation’, Business Horizons, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.163–178.
Filippini, R., Güttel, W.H. and Nosella, A. (2012) ‘Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge
management initiatives’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp.317–324.
Franke, N. and Piller, F. (2004) ‘Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design:
the case of the watch market’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21, No. 6,
pp.401–415.
Gassmann, O. and Enkel, E. (2004) ‘Towards a theory of open innovation: three core processes
archetypes’, Proceedings of The R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, Lisbon,
6–9 July.
55
Greer, C.R. and Lei, D. (2012) ‘Collaborative innovation with customers: a review of the literature
and suggestions for future research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp.63–84.
Gulati, R. and Sytch, M. (2008) ‘Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust’,
Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 29, Nos. 2/3, pp.165–190.
Gurtman, M.B. (1992) ‘Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: a circumplex analysis’, Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.989–1002.
Hagel, J. and Brown, S.J. (2008) ‘Creation nets: harnessing the potential of open innovation’,
Journal of Service Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.27–40.
Heffernan, T. (2004) ‘Trust formation in cross-cultural business-to-business relationships’,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.114–125.
Helfat, C.E. (2006) ‘Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology’, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.86–88.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe, Berkshire.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications, 2nd ed.
Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D. and Trappers, A. (2009) ‘Ethnic diversity and generalized
trust in Europe: a cross-national multilevel study’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 42,
No. 2, pp.198–223.
Knafl, A.K. and Howard, J.M. (1984) ‘Interpreting and reporting qualitative research’, Research in
Nursing and Health, Vol. 7, pp.17–24.
Huizingh, E.K.R.E. (2011) ‘Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives’,
Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.2–9.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Searle, R. (2003) Top Management Team Strategic Capacity: Diversity,
Collectivity and Trust, Research Paper RP 0301, Aston Business School Research Institute,
Aston University, Birmingham.
Jaruzelski, B. and Holman, R. (2011) ‘Casting and wide net: building the capabilities for
open innovation’, weblog [online] http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/StrategyandCasting-A-Wide-Net-Ivey-Business-Journal-March-2011.pdf (accessed 15 July 2012).
Joubert, T.Y. and de Beer, J. (2012) ‘Organizational team sport as a diversity management
intervention: a qualitative study’, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6, No. 28,
pp.8353–8361.
Kanter, R.M. (1994) ‘Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 72, No. 4, pp.96–108.
No. 11, pp.66–78.
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M. and Ioannou, G. (2011) Absorptive capacity,
innovation, and financial performance’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, No. 12,
pp.1335–1343.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2011) ‘Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions’,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.75–93.
Lichtenthaler, U. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2009) ‘A capability-based framework for open innovation:
complementing absorptive capacity’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46, No. 8,
pp.1315–1338.
Lichtenthaler, U. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2010) ‘Technology transfer across organizational
boundaries: absorptive capacity of desorptive capacity’, California Management Review, Vol.
53, No. 1, pp.154–170.
Linstone, H.A. (2010) ‘Comment on ‘Is open innovation a field of study or a communication
barrier to theory development?’ Technovation, Vol. 30, Nos. 11/12, p.556.
56
Lösch, A. (2006) ‘Combining quantitative methods and grounded theory for researching e-reverse
auctions’, International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, Vol. 56, No. 3,
pp.133–144.
March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.71–87.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) ‘An integrative model of organizational
trust’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.709–734.
McAllister, D.J. (1995) ‘Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations of interpersonal
cooperation in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.24–59.
Mention, A-L. (2011) ‘Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service
sector: which influence on innovation novelty?’, Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.44–53.
Mention, A.-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2012) ‘Drivers, processes and consequences of financial
innovation: a research agenda’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Mention, A.-L. and Asikainen, A-L. (2012) ‘Innovation and productivity: investigating effects of
openness in services’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 3,
pp.1–27.
Nadkarni, S., Perez, D.P. and Morganstein, B. (2006) ‘Mindsets and internationalization success:
an exploratory study of the British Retail Grocery Industry, Organization Management
Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.139–154.
OECD (2012) ‘OECD Yearbook 2012: better policies for better lives, OECD Publishing.
Oliveira, P. and von Hippel, E. (2011) ‘Users as service innovators: the case of banking services’,
Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp.806–818.
O’Reilly III, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. 2011’, Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How
managers explore and exploit’, California Management Review, Vol. 53, Nos. 5/6, pp.5–22.
Päällysaho, S. and Kuusisto, J. (2011) ‘Informal ways to protect intellectual property in knowledge
intensive business services businesses’, Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.62–76.
Parkhe, A. (1998) ‘Understanding trust in international alliances’, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.219–240.
Pisano, G.P. and Verganti, R. (2008) ‘Which kind of collaboration is right for you?’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 12, pp.78–86.
Powell, J. (2011) ‘Towards a sociology of trust: community care and managing diversity’,
Sociology Mind, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.27–32.
Powell, W. (1998) ‘Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.228–240.
Prabhu, J., Tellis, G. and Rajesh, C. (2010) Creating a Culture of Innovation, Advanced Institute of
Management Research (AIM), London.
Probst, G., Raisch, S. and Tushman, M.L. (2011) ‘Ambidextrous leadership: emerging challenges
for business and HR leaders’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.326–334.
Rasmussen, B. (2007) Open Innovation and the Networked Firm, Melbourne.
Savitskaya, I., Salmi, P. and Torkkeli, M. (2010) ‘Barriers to open innovation: case China’, Journal
of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.10–21.
Satzger, G. and Neus, A. (2010) ‘Principles of collaborative innovation: implementation of open
and peer-to-peer innovation approaches’, in A. Gerybadze, U. Hommel, H.W.W. Reiners, and
D. Thomaschewski (Eds.), pp.211–229, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Sawhney, M. and Prandelli, E. (2000) ‘Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation
in turbulent markets’, California Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.24–54.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007) ‘An integrative model of organizational
trust: past, present and future’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.344–354.
57
Schroll, A. (2009a) Is it Really Open Innovation?, weblog [online]
http://www.open-innovation.net/ (accessed 3 June 2012).
Schroll, A. (2009b) About the Dispute Between Open and User Innovation, weblog [online]
http://www.open-innovation.net/ (accessed 25 May 2012).
Schweisfurth, T., Raasch, C. and Herstatt, C. (2011) ‘Free revealing in open innovation:
a comparison of different models and their benefits for companies’, Int. J. of Product
Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.95–118.
Simanis, E. and Hart, S. (2009) ‘Innovation from the inside out’, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 50, No. 4, pp.77–86.
Simsek, Z. (2009) ‘Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding’, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp.597–624.
Slowinski, G. and Sagal, M.W. (2010) ‘Good practices in open innovation’, Research Technology
Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B. and Knockaert, M. (2011) ‘Building absorptive capacity to organise
inbound open innovation in traditional industries’, Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.10–21.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.509–533.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996) ‘Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 5, pp.79–90.
Torkkeli, T.M., Carl, J.K., P. A. S. S. (2009) ‘The ‘Open innovation’ paradigm: a contingency
perspective’, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.176–207.
Trapp, R. (2010) ‘Business analysis: ‘the need for companies to innovate has arguably never been
greater than at present’, The Independent.
Trott, P. and Hartmann, D.A.P. (2009) ‘Why ‘Open Innovation’ is old wine in new bottles’,
International Journal of Innovation Management, 27 July 27, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.715–736.
Tsou, H.T. and Hsu, H.Y. (2011) ‘E-service innovation within open innovation networks’, World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 73, pp.359–363.
Tyler, K. and Stanley, E. (2007) ‘The role of trust in financial services business relationships’,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.334–344.
Verganti, R. (1999) ‘Planned flexibility: linking anticipation and reaction in product development
projects’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.363–376.
Viskari, S., Salmi, P. and Torkkeli, M. (2007) Implementation of Open Innovation Paradigm.
Cases: Cisco Systems, DuPont, IBM, Intel, Lucent, P&G, Philips and Sun Microsystems, p.61,
Lappeenranta.
Walker, R., Cooke, M. and McAllister, M. (2008) ‘A neophyte’s journey through qualitative
analysis using Morse’s cognitive processes of analysis’, International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.81–93.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010) ‘Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research’,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.115–131.
West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006) ‘Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment
in open-source software’, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.319–331.
Zaheer, S. and Zaheer, A. (2006) ‘Trust across borders’, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.21–29.
Zhao, K., Yen, J., Ngamassi, L-M., Maitland, C. and Tapia, A.H. (2012) ‘Simulating
inter-organizational collaboration network: a multi-relational and event-based approach’,
Simulation, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp.617–633.
Publication III
Salampasis, D.
Organizational Readiness for Open Innovation in the Financial Services Sector: The
missing element of trust
Reprinted with permission from the Book
Innovation in financial services: a dual ambiguity
pp.295-336, 2014
© 2014, Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Publication IV
Trust embedded open innovation: Literature review, synthesis and research
propositions
Reprinted with permission from the Proceedings
Academy of Management Meeting, 2014
© 2014, Academy of Management
nu
al
M
ee
ti
ng
.
Trust embedded open innovation: Literature review,
synthesis and research propositions
An
Authors
Su
bm
iss
ion
#1
36
6
8a
cc
ep
ted
fo
rt
he
20
1
4A
ca
de
my
of
M
an
a
ge
me
nt
Dimitrios Salampasis, CRP Henri Tudor, Dimitrios.Salampasis@tudor.lu
Anne-Laure Mention, CRP Henri Tudor, anne-laure.mention@tudor.lu
Marko T. Torkkeli, Lappeenranta U. of Technology, marko.torkkeli@lut.fi
13668
Trust embedded open innovation: Literature review, synthesis and research propositions
ABSTRACT
The concept of open innovation has been thoroughly investigated. The shift from a closed to an
open paradigm is recognized as the main element that fosters organizational performance.
However, despite the abundant literature in the field, there is still an on-going debate about the
organizational aspects of open innovation. The aim of this paper is to develop a conceptual model
emanating the role of intraorganizational trust in relation to open innovation. Based on an
extensive and multidisciplinary critical literature review, the organizational antecedents of open
innovation are identified: knowledge sharing attitude, ambidextrous thinking, collaborative
culture and diversity management. Each of these antecedents is perceived and operationalized by
a number of sub-antecedents. This paper highlights the role of trust as the inherent part of open
innovation. In addition, this paper strongly suggests that: a) open innovation is an organizational
mindset perceived via the direct relationship between the four organizational antecedents and the
open innovation adoption and b) intraorganizational trust moderates the individual relationships
between the four organizational antecedents and the adoption of open innovation. By revisiting
the theory of open innovation, the paper develops research propositions depicting the interplay
between the organizational antecedents, the element of intraorganizational trust and the adoption
of open innovation. The paper shares academic and managerial implications by bringing an
alternative perspective in the field of open innovation.
Keywords
Open Innovation; trust; mindset; adoption; knowledge sharing attitude; ambidextrous thinking;
collaborative culture; diversity management; managerial; conceptual model
1
13668
Introduction
The concept of open innovation, despite the fact that it is considered as a new area of
research, is hardly new. To some extent, innovation has always been open (West, & Gallagher,
2006). By definition, open innovation is “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of
knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand the markets for external use of
innovation, respectively” (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006: 1). This reflects an
emerging shift from a closed to an open innovation model, where valuable know-how, ideas,
practices and experience come from both inside and outside the company, leading to a
remarkable flow of ideas and resources regardless their inward or outward origin (Chesbrough et
al., 2006; Dahlander, & Gann, 2010). Open innovation puts under a functional umbrella
practices and attitudes which have been in existence throughout time but would take place
subconsciously in the absence of an operational and structural framework.
Not coping with open innovation, can result in serious competitive disadvantages (Enkel,
Gassmann, & Chesbrough, 2009). The driving force for companies to adopt open innovation
practices is their propensity to establish a competitive advantage and be able to maintain
innovation leadership within a highly volatile and turbulent business environment.
Despite the abundant literature in the field of open innovation, there is still debate about
the organizational aspects of open innovation. This study aims at contributing to this debate by
perceiving open innovation from a different angle, since it is more than a paradigm, a process, a
framework or a business model; but an organizational mindset, which requires another core
element: the prior existence and establishment of intraorganizational trust.
This paper is based upon a thorough review of the literature, fostering the contribution to
theory development and the conceptualization of the research area. This approach is duly
2
13668
justified by the willingness to deepen the understanding of such an abstract notion as trust. The
literature review brings forward the research fields of open and collaborative innovation,
organizational behaviour and organizational psychology. This facilitates the precise and accurate
definition of the research problem and ensures its core understanding. This conceptualization
serves towards the initial capturing of the basic insight into the topic and the valuable hints
concerning the design, research strategy and focus of the main study leading to the development
of the proposed conceptual model.
Literature Review
This section is dedicated to an extensive review of the literature in the field of open
innovation and the introduction of the missing element of trust. This review synthesizes various
literature steams highlightening the need for a multidisciplinary approach in the field of open
innovation. The paper adopts the four cognitive and essential sequentially processes proposed by
Morse (1994), which involve the stages of comprehending, synthesizing, theorising and
recontextualizing or putting new knowledge back into the context of how the other researchers
have articulated the evolving knowledge (Walker, Cooke, & McAllister 2008). In this research
context, trust is examined in relation to four main concepts which are proposed as the
organizational antecedents of open innovation: knowledge sharing attitude, ambidextrous
thinking, collaborative culture and diversity management, enabling the definition and the role of
intraorganizational trust within the open innovation paradigm.
Open innovation is defined as “a paradigm that assumes firms can and should use
external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms
look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough, 2003a: xxiv). The core of the concept is the
triangular relationship among inbound (outside-in), outbound (inside-out) and coupled
3
13668
(bidirectional) open innovation processes (Chesbrough, & Crowther, 2006; Enkel et al., 2009;
Gassmann, & Enkel, 2004). As a concept, it has received both wide acceptance (Huizingh, 2011)
and criticism (Linstone, 2010; Trott, & Hartmann, 2009).
Open innovation is a porous business model aligned to the notion of transparency,
openness and sharing (Chesbrough, 2003b: 37), or the fact that the boundaries of the firm
become permeable. Open innovation leads to an open culture, an open business model
(Lichtenthaler, & Lichtenthaler, 2009; Spithoven Clarysse, & Knockaert, 2011), elaborated
through the correspondence and interrelation of a substantial number of factors such as sincerity,
long lasting relationships, long term cooperation and mutual value creation.
As a concept, open innovation has developed throughout the years and has been
associated with several other concepts such as open source (West, & Gallagher, 2006), user cocreation (Franke, & Piller, 2004), user centred innovation and customer integration (Baldwin,
Hienerth, & von Hippel, 2006; Baldwin, & von Hippel, 2011; Oliveira, & von Hippel, 2011),
peer to peer innovation (Satzger and Neus, 2010) and distributed innovation (Bogers, & West,
2012; Sawhney, & Prandelli, 2000).
Open innovation as a model enables businesses to build a structured innovation
ecosystem that uses networks of external partners and focuses on developing core internal
competencies, underlining its collaborative nature. A highly important element for the
development of new products and services is the encouragement of collaborative innovation
with customers or users (Greer, & Lei, 2012). Collaborative innovation is set within a
framework of a peer to peer or network perspective and is managed through synergies. “Firms
that manage to create a synergy between their own processes and externally available ideas
4
13668
may be able to benefit from the external creative ideas of outsiders to generate profitable new
products and services” (Dahlander, & Gann, 2010: 704).
“Open innovation is based on collaborative relationships-organizational alliances and
partnerships” (Slowinski, & Sagal, 2010: 38). In this context it depicts the mutual engagement
of two or more partners who are willing to work together by sharing ideas, know-how,
experiences and knowledge in a joint effort to generate value from innovative outcomes (du
Chatenier, Verstegen, Biemans, Mulder, & Omta 2010). In the realms of this collaborative spirit,
du Chatenier, et al., (2010) perceive three levels of collaborative innovation: management of
interorganizational collaboration process, management of the overall innovation process and
creation of a new collaborative knowledge.
In order to expand their competences, their know-how and create substantial competitive
advantage, companies share the need to form alliances, partnerships and collaborative networks
with outsiders in order to overcome potential capacity limitations, knowledge gaps, develop the
ability to jointly work into new projects and promote innovative and dynamic relationships
(Pisano, & Verganti, 2008). Successful business relationships are built on trust meaning that the
starting point of a relationship empowerment must be related to trust (Kanter, 1994) and more
specifically the establishment of intraorganizational trust.
The missing element of trust
Chesbrough (2012) identifies three main boundaries hindering the adoption of open
innovation; human capital mobility, the presence of internal R&D and the need for IP rules to
enable open innovation. There are voices, however, arguing that the primary factor is the lack of
trust (Molina-Morales, Martínez-Fernández, & Torlò, 2011; Wang, Yeung, & Zhang, 2011); a
realization leading to a trust embededness approach towards open innovation. Westergren and
5
13668
Holmström (2012: 210) argue that trust in an “underappreciated but potentially high valuable
source of value in open innovation networks”. The authors argue that open innovation and trust
cannot be perceived and analysed independently. In order to investigate the dynamic relationship
between open innovation and trust, it is important to firstly become accustomed to this elusive
and highly abstract notion.
Defining trust
“Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust, certainly
any transaction conducted over a period of time. It can be plausibly argued that much of the
economic backwardness in the world can be explained by the lack of mutual confidence”
(Arrow, 1972: 357). Trust is “instinctive, unstrategized and, as a feeling, is close to love”
(Blomqvist, 1997: 272). Furlong (1996: 1) regarding the conceptualization of trust, states that
“despite the plethora of material emerging on the subject [...] trust remains an elusive notion
[...] resulting in a confusing potpourri of definitions applied to a host of units and levels of
analysis [...] led to a proliferation of definitions each used in a different context”.
Trust has received wide attention as a phenomenon having been approached and
investigated under various research prisms and disciplines. As a concept it has undergone
sociological, psychological and cognitive conceptualizations contributing to the significance of
the notion while attracting considerable research efforts (Kramer, & Tyler, 1996; Kramer, 1999;
Lane, & Bachmann, 1998; Misztal, 1996; Seligman, 2000; Sztompka, 1999).
Trust is “one of the basic variables in any human interaction” (Blomqvist, 1997: 271)
since it shares a major influence towards every human aspect. Dunning, Fetchenhauer, and
Schlösser (2012) discuss trust not only as an economic act but as a social and emotional act.
Emotions do definitely play a fundamental part in the cognitive and psychological elaboration of
6
13668
trust in two ways; in terms of anticipated emotions and in terms of immediate emotions. This
leads towards a clear distinction between the cognitive and the emotional base of trust by
adopting the notion of “blending knowledge and ignorance” and “good reasons” and perceiving
trust as “a mix of feeling and rational thinking” (Lewis, & Weigert, 1985: 972).
Trust is a formation characterised by a definite multidimensionality (Brattström, Löfsten,
& Richtnér, 2012), incorporating a number of elements and functions that exist individually, but
neither necessarily interdependently nor constantly (Tyler, & Stanley, 2007). Based on the
extensive existing literature (Fawcett, Jones, & Fawcett, 2012; Johnson, & Grayson, 2005;
Gulati, & Sytch, 2008; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Ring, & van de
Ven, 1994; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007) trust can be perceived at an individual level,
interpersonal
level,
between
individuals
and
organizations,
between
organizations
(interorganizational perspective) and between individuals and information systems.
In terms of conceptualization, this paper adopts the definition proposed by Mayer et al.,
(1995: 712) that trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another
party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”, referring to the “extent
that people can trust others, they can work together to create benefits that each individually
cannot generate alone” (Dunning et al., 2012: 687).
This definition sheds light upon the different correlations between trust propensity,
trustworthiness and trust in the process towards the building upon organizational trust (Colquitt,
Scott, & LePine, 2007). These characteristics lead upon the conceptualization of organizational
trust which is perceived later on in the locus of open innovation.
7
13668
Setting up the field: organizational trust
For the scope of this analysis trust is perceived under the organizational level and is
defined as the “employees’ collective perception regarding the trustworthiness of their
organization” (Li, Bai, & Xi, 2012: 372).
Being a multifaceted phenomenon, several forms of organizational trust have been explored
by scholars, covering the fields of organizational behaviour, management, organizational
psychology, economics and sociology. Organizational trust can be perceived under the following
forms: interorganizational trust (i.e. the trust between two organizations), intraorganizational
trust which refers to the dyadic relationship between workers and supervisors, workers and
senior leadership (Dirks, & Ferrin, 2002; Starnes, Truhon, & McCarthy 2010), between workers
at the same hierarchical level (Chen, Chen, & Chu, 2008; Clark, & Payne, 1998; de Gilder,
2003) and interpersonal trust which is developed within work groups and teams and can be also
perceived under the prism of organizational trust (Dirks, 1999).
This paper argues that the precondition for interorganizational collaboration encouraging
the adoption of open innovation practices, is the prior establishment of intraorganizational trust.
Every company should first and foremost invest on the promotion and sovereignty of
intraorganizational trust in order to then be able to come closer and cooperate with other
companies sharing primarily organizational similarities (Gulati, & Sytch, 2008). On the other
hand there is a subsequent relation between organizational similarities, the diversity of
organizational backgrounds and the talent management which can on one hand lead to creativity
but on the other hand it can also lead to communicative dilemmas and usually conflicts.
8
13668
This interorganizational prism is perceived under the facet of collaborative innovation.
Interorganizational collaborative innovation takes place when organizations share both authority
and responsibility so as to formulate a planning and an implementation strategy in order to find a
solution to a problem. This is precisely the unique value proposition of the organizational aspect
of open innovation which is facilitated by the predominant establishment of intraorganizational
trust.
Exploring the relationship between Open Innovation and Trust
Trust engenders a substantial number of benefits on an organization level which can be
perceived in different perspectives; problem solving, communication, quality improvement,
employees commitment, employees satisfaction, reduction of transaction cost, productivity
enhancement, profitability, continuance of collaboration, team performance and organization
health (Sankowska, 2013).
Understanding the role of open innovation within the era of open knowledge, cooperation,
interaction and mutual understanding, the authors believe that open innovation needs to embrace
all the relevant core elements and perspectives that elevate it not as panacea or the ultimate
solution, but as a natural perception, as something that is inherent, something that flows in the
organization’s blood.
This is the reason why this paper perceives open innovation from a different angle
arguing that is more than a paradigm, a process, a framework or a business model. Open
innovation is a trust embedded organizational mindset. This is founded on the fact that open
innovation is not a solely knowledge-based process as prior literature depicts, but is driven upon
an entire ecosystem of values, characteristics and attitudes. Knowledge exchange and sharing is
one of the means but not necessarily the primary aim.
9
13668
The trust embedded organizational mindset is the ultimate ensemble that drives the
mechanisms of organizational culture, business model and organizational behaviour; is the light
that denotes identity, is the spark which promotes creativity, collaboration and community
engagement, is the pioneer of intraorganizational trust. A mindset (also known as dominant logic,
cognitive map, mental model, strategy frame and belief structure) refers to the knowledge
structures that top managers use to make strategic decisions. It is encompassed in two facets;
complexity and proactive/reactive thinking.
Due to the fact that open innovation is a broad topic and in order to develop the
conceptual model, the research is based upon four concepts the authors are considering as the
organizational antecedents of the adoption of open innovation: knowledge sharing attitude,
ambidextrous thinking, collaborative culture and diversity management.
-----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
-----------------------------------Knowledge Sharing Attitude
Nonaka (1991: 96) states that “in an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the
only sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge…” inspiring the development of
related concepts such as the knowledge-based organization (Blackler, 2002) and the knowledgebased advantage (McEvily, & Chakravarthy, 2002). Sustainable competitive advantage is related
to the knowledge-based view of an organization and can be realized via the process of
exploration, exploitation and knowledge retention (Schmitt, Borzillo, & Probst, 2012). The three
open innovation processes are related to the knowledge management mechanism encoded within
internal knowledge exploration and external knowledge exploration based upon the effect that
10
13668
interorganizational relationships have on the knowledge maintenance (Lichtenthaler, &
Lichtenthaler, 2009).
Inbound open innovation is related to the absorptive capacity of the organization and the
dynamics of inward technology transfer (Lichtenthaler, & Lichtenthaler, 2010) denoting the
inherent ability of the organization to effectively and efficiently exploit external knowledge since
“the ability to evaluate and utilize outside knowledge is largely a function of the level of prior
related knowledge” (Cohen, & Levinthal, 1990: 128). The absorptive capacity is also related to
the exploration of external knowledge (Cohen, & Levinthal, 1990) and the ability of the firm to
generalize “commercializable outputs” after having passed the procedure of value recognition,
validity, implementation and internal knowledge conceptualization (Kostopoulos, Papalexandris,
Papachroni, & Ioannou, 2011: 1336). Absorptive capacity is an intraorganizational phenomenon
and is perceived through the identification of firms having the ability to distil and understand,
more efficiently than other companies, the core elements of value based on the abundance of
public information leading to competitive rarity (Reference C).
Outbound open innovation is related to the desorptive capacity of the organization and the
dynamics of outward technology transfer, referring to the “capability of external knowledge
exploitation which is complementary to internal knowledge application in a firm’s own products”
(Lichtenthaler, & Lichtenthaler, 2009: 1321). In other words desorptive capacity crystalizes the
ability of the organization to identify technology transfer opportunities and to transfer technology
to the recipients (Lichtenthaler, & Lichtenthaler, 2010).
Open innovation is defined as “systematically relying on a firm’s … capabilities of
internally and externally carrying out the major technology management tasks … along the
innovation process” (Lichtenthaler, 2011: 77). This is interpreted as an interorganizational
11
13668
knowledge and technology transaction which helps a firm sustain and develop new knowledge.
However, it is vital for organizations to bear in mind that it is not only important to be able to
acquire knowledge but also to have the right integration, management and implementation
mechanisms. This is known as “knowledge management capacity” referring to the dynamic
capability, “which reconfigures and realigns these knowledge capacities” (Lichtenthaler, &
Lichtenthaler, 2009: 1315). Knowledge management capacity helps towards the better
understanding of the way a firm can profit from open innovation since it denotes the mechanism
of examining the inward and outward knowledge flows (coupled open innovation) within the
organizational process. It is important to underline here the different perspective that this
procedure has on an ad-hoc basis. It depends upon the capacities, the mechanisms, the structural
foundations and the collaborative and learning culture which is infused within the organization
per se.
When firms are working with open innovation they are open in terms of knowledge
sharing, building up on existing platforms and creating new knowledge. “Knowledge creation
partially mediates the relationship between trust and innovativeness; and knowledge transfer
partially mediates the relationship between trust and knowledge creation” (Sankowska, 2013:
85). New knowledge is often perceived as a product of a firm’s capability to generate
applications from existing platforms (Lichtenthaler, & Lichtenthaler, 2009). Gaining access to
external knowledge means that firms need to be open and willing to transfer part of their own
knowledge (Chesbrough et al., 2006). This is done in the context of creating an ecosystem of
intraorganizational and interorganizational knowledge maintenance and developing the right
capabilities of knowledge reactivation and knowledge channelling (Lichtenthaler, &
Lichtenthaler, 2010). This is related to the organizational connective capacity which is the ability
12
13668
of an organization to “retain knowledge outside its organizational boundaries” (Lichtenthaler, &
Lichtenthaler, 2009: 1320).
The emergence of an economy of knowledge confronts the capability and the capacity
organizations possess in the management of new projects and actions taken so as to improve their
performance within changing, uncertain and risky business environment (Aubry, & Lièvre,
2010). “The organization’s ability to leverage knowledge means finding, nurturing and
supporting the communities that already share knowledge about key topics” (Cheng, Hailin, &
Hongming, 2008: 449). The salient question lies upon the development of the necessary
mechanisms which shall enable the external environment monitoring and the assessment of the
shared data. This is related to the firm’s combinative capability referring to the capability to
synthesize and apply current and acquired knowledge, denoting that this knowledge transfer and
the firm’s combinative capability can drive the need for effective and efficient collaborations
(Kogut, & Zander, 1992).
Even though the development of a knowledge-sharing culture fosters competitive
advantage, knowledge sharing per se is highly difficult to accomplish. Ideas by nature are
intangible; nevertheless the transmission is really difficult to accomplish (Cheng et al., 2008).
Related to knowledge intangibility is knowledge retention within an organization especially due
to employee downsizing. Schmitt et al. (2012: 61) propose that “firms with high levels of
collaboration are less likely to experience knowledge losses through employee downsizing than
firms with low levels of collaboration”. This endorses the fact that collaboration plays a highly
critical role towards the transferring of tacit knowledge, fostering the multiple collaborations
between the employees and denoting an emerging shift from an individual to collective mindset
and knowledge sharing. This collective mindset can only be cultivated and constructed only
under the presence of intraorganizational trust.
13
13668
An open knowledge transfer mindset takes place within a knowledge-sharing culture.
Openness requires trust; Cheng et al. (2008: 452), argue that trust is developed and formulated
through mutual respect. Trust is impossible without mutual respect since it is a matter of
managing values and principles that support the organizational values, understanding and respect.
They present a model describing the relationship among trust, knowledge sharing and firm
performance. Firm performance is divided into the two factors of short and long-term
performance denoting the fact that “firm performance does not occur in a vacuum but is
determined by a certain set of strategic choices made by firm managers”. In this context “the
abundance of external knowledge has a direct impact on innovative performance and a firm’s
search strategy in terms of breadth and depth” (Garriga, von Krogh & Spaeth, 2013: 1134).
Knowledge sharing requires flexibility and freedom on how the available solutions will be
chosen. Verganti (1999) presents the need for an adoption of a planned flexibility model which is
related to the capacity of interactive shift from the exploitation to exploration mode
(ambidexterity) and the emergence of a new quality of judgement and experience development.
This is very important because it depicts the interrelation of knowledge and ambidexterity in a
sense that exploration and exploitation are being put in the core of the organizational learning
without being treated as separate modes and solely under the prism of strategy implementation
(March, 1991).
Proposition 1: Knowledge sharing attitude is related to ambidextrous thinking and vice
versa
Proposition 2: Knowledge sharing attitude affects open innovation adoption
Proposition 3: Trust moderates the relationship between knowledge sharing attitude and
open innovation adoption
14
13668
Ambidextrous Thinking
The rationale behind the interrelation between open innovation and ambidextrous thinking
lies within the dynamic capabilities an organization perceives, in order to be able to sustain
competitiveness, promote differentiation and develop openness mechanisms supporting
knowledge sharing procedures. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997: 516), perceive dynamic
capabilities as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external
competences to address rapidly changing environments”. Brem and Viardot (2013) argue that
more open innovation means more ambidexterity since there is an increasing number of
stakeholders involved in the exploration and exploitation phases.
Ambidexterity is an organizational ability to master both adaptability and alignment
leading to long-term success (Birkinshaw, & Gibson, 2004b). In ambidextrous organizations we
see a simultaneous presence of activities which can be either mature or emerging (van Looy,
Martens, & Debackere, 2005). The core of ambidexterity lies within the exploration and
exploitation practices. Exploration concerns the “experimentation with new alternatives” while
exploitation refers to the “refinement and extension of existing competences, technologies and
paradigms” (March, 1991: 85). The primary characteristic of an ambidextrous firm is the ability
to both generate and manage “familiar, mature, current or proximate knowledge (exploitation)
and unfamiliar, distant and remote knowledge (exploration)” (Filippini, Güttel, & Nosella, 2012:
318).
O’ Reilly and Tushman (2011: 9), propose five important elements in managing
ambidexterity. One of them is related to “the articulation of a common vision and values which
provide for a common identity within the organization”. Common identity creates a sense of
belonging, a sense of trust and a long-term cooperation which is enforced by the motivation work
15
13668
together under an exploratory and exploitative prism. Trust as a core element of ambidextrous
thinking, denotes a vital differentiation of the organization per se since it encapsulates other
values such as fairness and accuracy; all these elements are depicted within the strategic
orientation of the organization leveraging a trustworthy profile and making the opening process
smoother.
Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004b) connote the strong relationship between trust and the
building-up of contextual ambidexterity which calls for individual employees to make choices
between alignment-oriented and adaptation-oriented activities in the context of their day-to-day
work. On an organizational level it can be perceived as the collective orientation of the
employees toward the simultaneous pursuit of alignment and adaptability. In simple terms, this
means that intraorganizational trust, along with stretch, discipline and support as organizational
antecedents of ambidexterity enable individuals to bring forward initiatives, cooperative attitudes,
brokering skills and multitasking abilities (Birkinshaw, & Gibson, 2004a). Trust is part of the
social support behaviour-framing attributes which express the need for ambitious goals
establishment within a cooperative environment encouraging employees into a dynamic
interaction, collaboration and knowledge sharing. Trust is categorized in the social support of the
dimension of organizational context since it caters for security and latitude; both having an
indirect impact on the organizational performance through the shaping of individual and
collective behaviours (Birkinshaw, & Gibson, 2004b).
Probst, Raisch, and Tushman (2011) discuss the characteristics of ambidextrous thinking
and consider trust as an important element in relation to a non-micro-management attitude and
the building up of strong long-lasting relationships which can function both under an official and
unofficial perspective. Team building, the ability to work together as a team and autonomy
denote a framework which functions under a trust-based environment and fosters constructive
16
13668
and effective relationships. Through this participatory style a creative and trustworthy bonding is
created advancing the “emergence of a strong superordinate identity shared by the team, which
creates a sense of belonging and commitment” (Probst et al., 2011: 331).
Ambidexterity is related to dynamic relationships leading to mutual exploration and
exploitation of new knowledge. Relationships are interpreted within a collaborative attitude
incorporating new and existing knowledge into innovative product, process and service
development. Trust plays an important part both in the openness, the propensity to something
new and the building up from existing knowledge and ideas. It breaks up the boundaries, both
within the organization as it re-defines the frontiers of knowledge transfer and externally as it
uses formal and informal forms of communication and creativity in order to develop effective
coordination and participation of partners in the enhancement of knowledge transfer and
knowledge sharing routines, within a collaborative culture.
Proposition 4: Ambidextrous thinking is related to collaborative culture and vice versa
Proposition 5: Ambidextrous thinking affects open innovation adoption
Proposition 6: Trust moderates the relationship between ambidextrous thinking and open
innovation adoption
Collaborative culture
Open innovation is aligned to collaboration in the development of new ideas, products
and services, consisting a vital element for true openness. Collaboration is emphasized within the
interorganizational cooperation with an impact not only to the company level but also to the
regional and country levels.
17
13668
Innovation relies strongly on interaction and the ability to interact. This means that
innovation can be diffused only through relationships. A collaborative culture is the element that
fosters people to work together, to share and be able to co-create long-lasting value. This is
reflected within an inherent relationship between emotional intelligence, team trust and creativity
mindset which develops a collaborative culture within the firm (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010).
This collaborative culture enables the organization firstly to launch a trustworthy image and
secondly to nurture successful partnerships working on innovative products and services.
Furthermore, the quality of collaboration has a positive impact on creativity and team
performance which are the key elements of successful partnerships (Barczak et al., 2010).
Blackwell and Fazzina (2008) argue that the future of open innovation is highly related to
the collaborative, team-based culture, companies have embraced, since it denotes a distinctive
advantage in the implementation and leveraging of open innovation in comparison to the
companies that have more rigid boundaries among functions and lines of business.
The driver of collaboration is the establishment of sustainable competitive advantage.
Interorganizational collaboration is a means of organizational learning since it drives the
enhancement of all the necessary key competences leading to the acceleration of innovation and
effective collaboration. Powell (1998) argues that it is not only important for firms to learn from
collaborations but it is of utmost importance to understand the importance of adopting a
collaborative attitude and learning all the necessary mechanisms of collaboration. This
collaborative culture that will breed trust and cross-organizational collaboration can be put in
place also via the realization from a managerial standpoint that conflict is natural and necessary.
“Conflict so often viewed as a liability to be avoided whenever possible-can be valuable to a
company that knows how to manage it” (Weiss, & Hughes, 2005: 101).
18
13668
An important element to be explored, which is highly related to the empowerment of
collaboration within open innovation model, is the role of corporate culture. Prabhu, Tellis, and
Rajesh (2010: 11) consider culture as “a core set of attitudes and practices shared by members of
a collective entity such as a nation or a firm […] culture is reflected in shared knowledge and
standard operating procedures”. Trust plays a fundamental role within a collaborative
environment since it emerges from the cultural signs of a collectivistic culture, leading to the
formulation of long lasting and trustworthy relationships.
Collaboration is highly relevant within an international context and is directly perceived
within the open innovation paradigm. Globalization means international collaborations within
international business environments and an internationalized economy. Trust plays a fundamental
role in international collaborations since the nature and level of trust differ across borders and
also institutional and cultural matters have a substantial impact on the way trust is perceived.
In this culture context, the relation between trust and culture can be perceived either as
etic (culture-general or universal) or emic (culture-specific), in a cross-border situation (Zaheer,
& Zaheer, 2006). Different approaches and interpretations of trust have substantial implications
in the international collaborations. Asymmetries exist between partners and can be observed
within the possession of resources, knowledge, growth and capabilities. However, asymmetries
can be also perceived under a social base perspective such as the imbalance of trust which is
influenced by national cultural origins, prejudices and stereotypes (Zaheer, & Zaheer, 2006).
These types of asymmetries have a substantial dyadic impact on the management and
performance of an interorganizational relationship, especially on an international level. In this
context three major elements fostering this relationship are presented; cultural metacognition,
global dexterity and emotional intelligence.
19
13668
Chua, Morris and Mor (2012) directly address the necessity of learning to work with
people from different cultures so as to collaborate creatively. They bring upfront the concept of
cultural metacognition referring to a person’s reflective thinking about his or her cultural
assumptions. They argue that managers who are experienced in thinking about their cultural
assumptions (cultural metacognition) are more likely than other managers to develop an affectbased trust perceptiveness in their structured relationships with people from different and diverse
cultures resulting in the empowerment of creative collaborations. This is related to the
metacognitive cultural intelligence which leads to the engagement of sharing and fostering
intercultural creative collaboration.
Molinsky (2013a) presents a tool which facilitates the achievement of a simultaneous
behavioural adaptation to new cultural contexts while staying authentic and grounded in your
own natural style. This is a matter of developing the capability to switch behaviours and
overcome the emotional and psychological challenges of doing so. Global dexterity functions as
an antecedent to/predictor of organizational trust in the sense that the more global dexterity
people have within the organization, the more open are they likely to be towards innovative
practices. The authors demonstrate that in order to be able to foster a collaborative culture,
especially within globalized environments the psychological and emotional cross-cultural
behavioural adaptation is a paramount driving force crystalized within a trustworthy environment
(Molinsky, 2013b).
As a concept, emotional intelligence has been vastly examined in various contexts and
levels (Dulewicz, & Higgs, 1999; Goleman, 1995; Salovey, & Mayer, 1990). The authors
contend that emotional intelligence and emotional transparency belong to the core elements of a
sustainable relationship development and team building. Teams are considered as the foundation
of the organization and in order to work effectively they require the establishment of mutual trust,
20
13668
focus and commitment to the strategically set goals. Harvey, Bimler, Evans, Kirkland, and
Pechtel (2012: 629) argue that emotions “encapsulate interactional contexts and is a universal
phenomenon”. They bring forward a number of elements constituting the core of emotions;
emotional relationship, emotional acceptance, emotional availability, emotional philosophy,
emotion coaching, emotional attitude, emotional boundaries, emotional self-acceptance and
emotion regulation.
All these elements are crystalized within the way emotions are understood and managed
within their influential power towards a person, a team and an organization also in relation to
inclusion, creativity and performance. Under an intraorganizational and interpersonal perspective,
trust among members, a sense of group identity and a sense of group efficacy constitute the
essential elements of group effectiveness. This promotes an open attitude towards the
appreciation and acceptance of difference and the development of a culture imbued with
diversity, assimilation and inclusive attitude.
Proposition 7: Collaborative culture is related to diversity management and vice versa
Proposition 8: Collaborative culture affects open innovation adoption
Proposition 9: Trust moderates the relationship between collaborative culture and open
innovation adoption
Diversity Management
A parameter of ultimate importance in the exploration of the role of trust within open
innovation is the role of diversity within the organization and how it is effectively, efficiently and
proactively managed. Diversity management becomes a vital but at the same time an en vogue
element since its effective implementation is directly proportional towards a more tolerant
organizational culture contributing to more universal products or services (Joubert, & de Beer,
21
13668
2012). Diversity is a contextual phenomenon and this becomes evident since people are not the
same meaning that it has to be observed on an ad-hoc basis (Hooghe, Reeskens, Stolle, &
Trappers 2009).
People come from different backgrounds, different leads of lives, cultures, mindsets, they
have different needs, expectations, visions and perceptions. Polat (2012) identifies the
demographic, socio-cultural and individual characteristic differences contributing towards the
development of a diversified organization which must be effectively managed in order to create
an organizational synergy.
“Managing diversity is inextricably linked to trust” (Powell, 2011: 32). Lauring and
Selmer (2012) argue that group trust is positively associated with value, linguistic and
informational diversity. The key challenge is the creation of a safe, trustworthy and inclusive
environment open to everyone who wishes to bring something new and create value. Powell
(2011: 27) observes perfectly the fact that “trust is the missing cement to bind relationships
based on managing diversity”. An organization driving specific strategy, visions and culture
must be able to accomplish all these by encouraging intraorganizational and interorganizational
collaboration, active participation and give equal chances and opportunities. Trust plays a major
role within this context since it is the resultant that converges and brings together all the above
mentioned factors to a common setting.
Joubert and de Beer (2012: 8356) endorse the abovementioned argument by considering
mutual trust as the key “requirement for effective management of diversity”. They observe that a
low level of trust among employees leads to a substantial number of hindrances to effective
diversity management. Thomas and Ely (1996: 79), argue that “a diverse workforce increases
22
13668
organizational effectiveness. It will lift morale, bring greater access to new segments of the
marketplace and enhance productivity” denoting that diversity is good for the business.
A simple but core argument is the fact that a company should realize what diversity
means, how organizational diversity is defined and how the experience of being a diverse
organization has an impact on the effectiveness, the image, the structure and the promises to be
delivered (Thomas, & Ely, 1996). Diversity management is merely about acceptance. It is about
fundamental and substantial changes on the organizational leadership, the values, the attitudes,
the behaviours and the culture diffusion within the organization per se. It about the
encouragement of learning something new, of developing the competence to accept something
different, of delving into the deep understanding of human entity, behaviour, attitude and cultural
background.
The driver of diversity management is the call for equality and fairness. Ruigrok (2012:
17) discusses ways of overcoming the triple hurdle of diversity management. He explicitly argues
that “turning diversity rhetoric into action has been more difficult that more companies are
willing to admit openly. Companies are facing a triple hurdle in implementing diversity
management policies and most companies have only taken the first hurdle”. The three-hurdle
typology refers to: obtaining top executive support, making a difference and managing diversity.
An interesting parameter to be briefly explored falls in the realms of linking knowledge
sharing attitude and diversity management. The establishment of a knowledge sharing attitude
must take into account the diversity of national culture in which the organization exists and the
diversity within the organization. Hustad (2008: 399) argues that even though diversity may
depict some contradictory characteristics “may also enhance creativity and innovation where
radical new insights arise from different perspectives introduced by the participants”. This
23
13668
linkage is related to the personality factors that emerge within the organizational context and
facilitates the way of creating a positive attitude towards knowledge exchange and sharing. Last
but not least “diversity of teams plays an intriguing role in stimulating and inhibiting knowledge
sharing between team members” Rosendaal (2009: 4).
Diversity management is not something that can be implemented individually. It is
important to build upon approaches that facilitate the canalization of “the differences into work
through individual and organizational goals by accepting the individual differences the way they
are and without discriminating any individual or group” (Polat, 2012: 1410). Thomas and Ely
(1996), underline the necessity for a holistic approach leading to the designing of new processes,
procedures and training sessions, which will lead on encouraging group participation, team
building effective collaboration within a trustworthy, open and imbued with solidarity and the
development of concrete evidence on the ways and the rationale behind the relationship between
diversity management and organizational performance (Ruigrok, 2012).
Proposition 10: Diversity management is related to knowledge sharing attitude and vice
versa
Proposition 11: Diversity management affects open innovation adoption
Proposition 12: Trust moderates the relationship between diversity management and
open innovation adoption
Development of the Conceptual Model
The abovementioned analysis has shown that trust plays a paramount role in every aspect
of life. In relation to open innovation the authors observe an embededness of trust leading to the
realization of the open innovation paradigm as a trust embedded organizational mindset, sharing
strong organizational, managerial and societal implications at all levels of the organization.
24
13668
Hence, this trust embededness is highly related to organizational culture, change, leadership and
creative thinking.
The following table summarizes the factors discussed in the abovementioned analysis in
relation to trust, as per classification suggested.
-----------------------------------Open innovation is a highly complex phenomenon since it crystalizes many different,
interrelated disciplines and elements. This is why its adoption is only meaningful in human
organizations where trust must be seen as a catalyst.
The following figure depicts the relationships between the four organizational antecedents
of open innovation towards the adoption of a trust embedded open innovation organizational
mindset and how trust moderates in between. In simple terms, this figure shows that open
innovation must be primarily captured within the locus of the organization and cannot be
perceived without the existence of trust, primarily, on an intraorganizational and interpersonal
level and then on an interorganizational and alliance or network level. This means that trust is an
inherent element of the open innovation’s conceptual DNA.
-----------------------------------In this context, the authors propose a re-contextualization of the open innovation
definition, which encapsulates all the elements and parameters discussed in the analysis above:
Open innovation is a dynamic organizational mindset that encourages the exploration
and exploitation of diverse knowledge inflows and outflows, leading to innovation continuity and
25
13668
incremental organizational change, through the establishment of trustworthy, culturally sensitive,
diverse and sustainable relationships inside and outside the organizational boundaries.
The authors’ argumentation is in line with the fact that “implemented well, open
innovation should include a process-a set of activities whose purpose is to find or generate good
ideas, technologies and the infrastructure needed to adapt and support those activities. In this
way, open innovation becomes an organizational mindset” (Tuff, & Jonash, 2009: 3).
Conclusions
In this paper, the authors bring an alternative reading, contributing to the extensive and
existing open innovation literature by giving special attention to the core but neglected element of
trust. The aim of this paper is to see open innovation from a different research prism by exploring
the role of intraorganizational trust in relation to open innovation in terms of re-contextualizing
the existing definition of open innovation.
The originality of this study is founded on the fact that to the best of our knowledge no
studies in the field of open innovation management exist that explicitly emanate
intraorganizational trust as an inherent element in the open innovation DNA, perceiving open
innovation as an organizational mindset and bringing together a multidisciplinary approach in the
study of open innovation by combining the disciplines of organizational behaviour,
organizational and cognitive psychology, innovation management and sociology. This
multidisciplinarity is necessary when it comes to dealing with two multidimensional and
multifaceted phenomena; trust and open innovation.
26
13668
In this context some concluding remarks that capture the abovementioned analysis are
necessary to be presented at this final stage: these remarks share important academic and
managerial implications which will be discussed later on.
Trust is expressed as the most overused and abused word (Fawcett et al., 2012), in any
analysis that tries to fathom the correlation between different parameters which initiate openness
and lead to mutual long-term value creation (Dahlander, & Gann, 2010). Trust is usually taken
for granted since it is perceived as an element of mere importance; yet appreciating the concept
under a down reaching spectrum; it becomes immediately apparent that trust is the conditio sine
qua non of any kind of social, business oriented interaction and cooperation.
The study has shown that trust can be perceived in a multilevel perspective. The main
challenge is to create suitable conditions which will nurture the building of trust “across
personal-organizational-structural tiers in an increasingly uncertain world” (Powell, 2011: 27).
It is important to remember that trust is “fragile and intangible” but at the same time it drives
collaboration which is necessary under conditions of uncertainty and risk (Jarzabkowski, &
Searle, 2003: 2).
Open innovation is hard and it requires a lot of skills, competences and time in order to
bring success. The key word is discipline in order to be able to diagnose the way to create
economic value with open innovation, to be able to bring inside the organization all the new
capabilities, tools and processes in order to support the right type of actions for driving an
innovative company ahead.
The authors believe that an open innovation culture is emerging; however, for the time
being it is not transformational but has an evolutionary and fragmented propensity. Bearing in
mind that losing control of intellectual property is a vital element for many organizations and this
27
13668
remains the primary reason of showing reluctance to follow the open innovation paradigm,
should they need to be certain that advantages from potential cooperation would outnumber
disadvantages and monetized risk (Päällysaho, & Kuusisto, 2011).
Implications
This study brings upfront some very important academic, managerial and societal
implications.
From an academic point of view, it opens up the field for new research in the area of open
innovation in relation to organizational behaviour and the role of trust as a core element of open
innovation. It calls upon the need for a broader and multidisciplinary approach towards
innovation management and the exploration of the multidimensional phenomenon of open
innovation in relation to other disciplines and contexts.
In terms of managerial perspective, it is important to stress out the fact that open
innovation within an organization comes mainly from the top management and this is why it must
be considered as an organizational mindset. Managers should understand the need for trustworthy
and sustainable relationships which can lead to innovative products and services, increasing the
firm performance and creating a sustainable competitive advantage. This is discerned within an
environment full of uncertainty, complexity, with insufficient or incomplete information. Hence,
the development of a strategic capacity to facilitate the understanding of the signals deriving from
the market and to foster a collective and collaborative action, become imperative.
Especially from a human resources management side, the realization of the organizational
antecedents of open innovation and the need for change, formulates the mechanism of adoption,
education, effective and efficient decision making bringing upfront the understanding and
28
13668
appreciation of the link between organizational learning and the development of the established
conditions for an open and trustworthy environment.
From a societal perspective, it is interesting to observe out the applicability of open
innovation as a trust embedded organizational mindset in relation to developed and emerging
markets. Innovation is not only for developed but also for emerging markets. The authors observe
a need for tailored models regarding the role and implementation of open innovation within
organizations in emerging economies. A trust embedded open innovation mindset needs to be
cultivated within an organization embracing vision and willingness to creatively collaborate, cocreate value, elevate its competitive advantage, differentiate, avoid the commodity trap and
become more human.
Limitations and avenues for future research
This study shares some limitations deserving acknowledgement. First of all, trust being a
contextual phenomenon and an “intangible quality” (Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2003: 15) creates
a problem of generalization since different interpretations can be conducted. Secondly, the paper
is purely conceptual, solely based upon a thorough review of the literature, without taking into
consideration other sources of data. Furthermore, the choice of the four organizational
antecedents of open innovation is based upon the collective reflection and interpretation of the
literature and no other proxy has been used.
The authors also assume that the adoption of the trust embedded open innovation has a
positive effect on innovation performance, since open innovation as an organizational mindset
“puts forward the non-linear, dynamic and interactive nature of the innovation process”
(Reference A: 44) characterised by interaction, cooperation on innovation and effective
collaboration, ensuring a continuous commitment to innovation (Reference B). In this context,
29
13668
empirical testing (qualitative and quantitative) of the theoretical model in relation to its impact on
open innovation adoption, innovation performance, human resources management and openness
within an organization is necessary.
30
13668
REFERENCES
Arrow, K.J. 1972. Gifts and Exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1(4): 343-362.
Aubry, M., & Lièvre, P. 2010. Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: A case study
from two polar expeditions. Project Management Journal. 41(3): 32-44.
Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. 2006. How user innovations become commercial
products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy. 35(9): 1291-1313.
Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. 2011. Modelling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to
User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science. 22(6): 1399-1417.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. 2010. Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of
Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture. Creativity and
Innovation Management. 19(4): 332-345.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. 2004a. Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan
Management Review. 45(4): 47-55.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. 2004b. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of
Organizational Ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal. 47(2): 209-226.
Blackler, F. 2002. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and
interpretation. In Choo, W.C., & Bontis, N., (Eds): The Strategic Management of
Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: 47-63. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Blackwell, K., & Fazzina, D. 2008. Open Innovation: Facts, Fiction and Future. Nerac Inc: 115.
Blomqvist, K., 1997. The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 13(3):
271-286.
Bogers, M., & West, J. 2012. Managing Distributed Innovation: Strategic Utilization of Open and
User Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management. 21(1): 61-75.
Brattström, A., Löfsten, H., & Richtnér, A. 2012. Creativity, trust and systematic processes in
product development. Research Policy. 41(4): 743-755.
Brem, A., & Viardot, E. 2013. Evolution of Innovation Management: Trends in an
International Context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chen, T.-Y., Chen, Y.-M., & Chu, H.-C. 2008. Developing a trust evaluation method between coworkers in virtual project team for enabling resource sharing and collaboration.
Computers in Industry. 59(6): 565-579.
Cheng, W., Hailin, L., & Hongming, X. 2008. Does Knowledge Sharing Mediate the
Relationship between Trust and Firm Performance? Paper presented at Information
Processing (ISIP). 2008 International Symposiums: 449-453.
31
13668
Chesbrough, H. 2003a. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. 2003b. The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. 44(3):
35-41.
Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A.K. 2006. Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in
other industries. R&D Management. 36(3): 229-236.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. 2006. Open Innovation: Researching a New
Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. 2012. Open Innovation: Where we’ve been and where we are going. ResearchTechnology Management. Special Issue July-August 2012: 20-27.
Chua, R.Y.J., Morris, M.W., & Mor. S. 2012. Collaborating across cultures: Cultural
metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behaviour
and Human Decision Processes. 118(2): 116-131.
Clark, M. C., & Payne, R.O.Y.L. 1997. The nature and structure of workers’ trust in
management. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 18(3): 205-224.
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning
and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 35(1): 128-152.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., & LePine, J.A. 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A
meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 92(4): 909-927.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D.M. 2010. How open is innovation? Research Policy. 39(6): 699-709.
de Gilder, D. 2003. Commitment, trust and work behaviour: The case of contingent workers.
Personnel Review. 32(5): 588-604
Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for
research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87(4): 611-628.
Dirks, K.T. 1999. The effects on interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 84(3): 445-455.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. 1999. Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?
Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 20(5): 242-252.
du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, M.A.A.J., Biemans, A.J.H., Mulder, M., & Omta, F.W.S.O. 2010.
Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&D
Management. 40(3): 271-280.
Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D., & Schlösser, T.M. 2012. Trust as a social and emotional act:
Noneconomic considerations in trust behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology. 33(3):
686-694.
32
13668
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. 2009. Open R&D and open innovation: exploring
the phenomenon. R&D Management. 39(4): 311-316.
Fawcett, S.E., Jones, S.L., & Fawcett, A.M. 2012. Supply chain trust: The catalyst for
collaborative innovation. Business Horizons. 55(2): 163-178.
Filippini, R., Güttel, W.H., & Nosella, A. 2012. Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge
management initiatives. Journal of Business Research. 65(3): 317-324.
Franke, N., & Piller, F. 2004. Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The
Case of the Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 21(6): 401-415.
Furlong, D. 1996. Conceptualization of Trust in Economic Thought, Institute of Development
Studies. University of Sussex.
Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. 2013. Research Notes and Commentaries: How
constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal.
34(9): 1134-1144.
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. 2004. Towards a theory of open innovation: three core processes
archetypes. Paper presented at the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon. July 6-9.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. New York:
Bantam Books.
Greer, C.R., & Lei, D. 2012. Collaborative Innovation with Customers: A Review of the
Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. International Journal of Management
Reviews. 14(1): 63-84.
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. 2008. Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust.
Managerial and Decision Economics. 29(2/3): 165-190.
Harvey, T.S., Bimler, D., Evans, M.I., Kirkland, J., & Pechtel, P. 2012. Mapping the classroom
emotional environment. Teaching and Teacher Education. 28(4): 628-640.
Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D., & Trappers A. 2009. Ethnic Diversity and Generalized
Trust in Europe: A Cross-National Multilevel Study. Comparative Political Studies.
42(2): 198-223.
Hustad, E. 2008. Managing Structural Diversity: the Case of Boundary Spanning Networks. The
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. 5(4): 399-410.
Huizingh, E.R.K.E. 2011. Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
Technovation. 31(1): 2-9.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Searle, R. 2003. Top Management team strategic capacity: diversity,
collectivity and trust. Research Paper RP 0301. Aston Business School Research
Institute. Birmingham: Aston University.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. 2005. Cognitive and Affective Trust in Service Relationships.
Journal of Business Research. 58(4): 500-507.
33
13668
Joubert, T.Y., & de Beer J. 2012. Organizational team sport as a diversity management
intervention: A qualitative study. African Journal of Business Management. 6(28):
8353-8361.
Kanter, R.M. 1994. Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances. Harvard Business Review.
72(4): 96-108.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992, Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization Science. 3(3): 383-397.
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. 2011. Absorptive capacity,
innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research. 64(12): 13351343.
Kramer, R.M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1): 569-598.
Kramer, R.M., & Tyler, T.R. 1996. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research.
London: Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. 1998. Trust within and Between Organizations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. 2012. Openness to diversity, trust and conflict in multicultural
organizations. Journal of Management and Organization. 18(6): 795-806.
Lewis, J.D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces. 63(4): 967-985.
Li, P.P., Bai, Y., & Xi, Y. 2012. The Contextual Antecedents of Organizational Trust: A
Multidimensional Cross-level Analysis. Management and Organization Review. 8(2):
371-396.
Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. 2009. A Capability-Based Framework for Open
Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies.
46(8): 1315-1338.
Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. 2010. Technology Transfer across Organizational
Boundaries: Absorptive Capacity of Desorptive Capacity. California Management
Review. 53(1): 154-170.
Lichtenthaler, U. 2011. Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates, and Future Directions.
Academy of Management Perspectives. 25(1): 75-93.
Linstone, H.A. 2010. Comment on “Is open innovation a field of study or a communication
barrier to theory development”? Technovation. 30(11-12): 556-556.
March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science. 2(1): 71-87.
34
13668
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review. 20(3): 709-734.
McAllister, D.J. 1995. Affect and Cognition-Based trust as foundations of interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 38(1): 24-59.
McEvily, S.K., & Chakravarthy, B. 2002. The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an
empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic
Management Journal. 23(4): 285-305.
Misztal, A.B. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order.
Cambridge: Policy Press.
Molina-Morales, X., Martínez-Fernández, T., & Torlò, J.V. 2011. The Dark Side of Trust: The
Benefits, Costs and Optimal Levels of Trust for Innovation Performance. Long Range
Planning. 44(2): 118-133.
Molinsky, A. 2013a. Global Dexterity: How to Adapt Your Behaviour across Cultures without
Losing Yourself in the Process. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Molinsky, A. 2013b. The psychological processes of cultural retooling. Academy of
Management Journal. 56(3): 682-710.
Morse, J. (1994). Emerging from the data: The cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative
inquiry. In J. Morse (Ed.). Critical issues in qualitative research methods: 23-43.
London: Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization
Science. 5(1): 14-37.
Oliveira, P., & von Hippel, E. 2011. Users as service innovators: The case of banking services.
Research Policy. 40(6): 806-818.
O’Reilly III, A.C., & Tushman, L.M. 2011. Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How
managers explore and exploit. California Management Review. 53(4): 5-22.
Päällysaho, S., & Kuusisto, J. 2011. Informal ways to protect intellectual property in knowledge
intensive business services businesses. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice.
13(1): 62-76.
Pisano, G.P., & Verganti, R. 2008. Which Kind of Collaboration Is Right for You? Harvard
Business Review. 86(12): 78-86.
Polat, S. 2012. Organizational Values Needed for Diversity Management. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice. 12(2): 1409-1418.
Powell, J. 2011. Towards a Sociology of Trust: Community Care and Managing Diversity.
Sociology Mind. 1(2): 27-32.
Powell, W. 1998. Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology
and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review. 40(3): 228-240.
35
13668
Prabhu, J., Tellis, G., & Rajesh, C. 2010. Creating a culture of innovation: why corporate culture
is key to radical innovation in firms. AIM Research Paper-Executive Briefing. London:
Advanced Institute of Management Research.
Probst, G., Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. L. 2011. Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges
for business and HR leaders. Organizational Dynamics. 40(4): 326-334.
Reference A. Not disclosed in this conference submission to guarantee the anonymous character
for the review
Reference B. Not disclosed in this conference submission to guarantee the anonymous character
for the review
Reference C. Not disclosed in this conference submission to guarantee the anonymous character
for the review
Ring, P.S., & van de Ven, A.H. 1994. Developmental Processes of Cooperative
Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review. 19(1): 90-118.
Rosendaal, B. 2009. Sharing knowledge, being different and working as a team. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice. 7(1):4-14.
Ruigrok, W. 2012. Overcoming the triple hurdle of diversity management. The European
Business Review. 2012(1/2): 17-20.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality. In P. Salovey, M.A. Brackett, & J.D. Mayer, (Eds). Emotional Intelligence:
Key readings on the Mayer and Salovey model: 185-211. New York: Dude Publishing.
Sankowska, A. 2013. Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge
creation, and firm’s innovativeness. The Learning Organization. 20(1): 85-100.
Satzger, G., & Neus, A. 2010. Principles of Collaborative Innovation: Implementation of Open
and Peer-to-Peer Innovation Approaches. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Sawhney, M., & Prandelli, E. 2000. Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation
in Turbulent Markets. California Management Review. 42(4): 24-54.
Schmitt, A., Borzillo, S., & Probst, G. 2012. Don’t let knowledge walk away: Knowledge
retention during employee downsizing. Management Learning. 43(1): 53-74.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust:
past, present and future. Academy of Management Review. 32(2): 344-354.
Seligman, B.A. 2000. The Problem of Trust. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Slowinski, G., & Sagal, W.M. 2010. Good practices in open innovation. Research-Technology
Management. 53(5): 38-45.
36
13668
Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. 2011. Building absorptive capacity to organise
inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation. 31(1): 10-21.
Starnes, J.B., Truhon A.S., & McCarthy V. 2010. A primer on Organizational Trust-How trust
influences organizational effectiveness and efficiency and how leaders can build
employee-employer relationships based on authentic trust. Human Development and
Leadership Division. ASQ.
Sztompka, P. 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal. 18(7): 509-533.
Thomas, A.D., & Ely, J.R. 1996. Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review. 74(5): 79-90.
Trott, P., & Hartmann, D.A.P. 2009. Why Open Innovation is old wine in new bottles.
International Journal of Innovation Management. 13(4): 715-736.
Tuff, G., & Jonash, B. 2009. Open Innovation: No Longer an Option: Principles and Actions
for Getting It Right. Monitor Company Group Limited Partnership.
Tyler, K., & Stanley, E. 2007. The role of trust in financial services business relationships.
Journal of Services Marketing. 21(5): 334-344.
van Looy, B., Martens, Th., & Debackere, K. 2005. Organizing for continuous innovation: on the
sustainability of ambidextrous organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management
Journal. 14(3): 208-221.
Verganti, R. 1999. Planned Flexibility: Linking Anticipation and Reaction in Product
Development Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 16(4): 363-376.
Walker, R., Cooke, M., & McAllister, M. 2008. A Neophyte’s Journey through Qualitative
Analysis Using Morse's Cognitive Processes of Analysis. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods. 7(1): 81-93.
Wang, L., Yeung, J.H.Y., & Zhang, M. 2011. The impact of trust and contract on innovation
performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. International Journal of
Production Economics. 134(1): 114-122.
Weiss, J., & Hughes, J. 2005. Want collaboration? Accept-and actively manage-conflict.
Harvard Business Review. 83(3): 92 -101.
West, J., & Gallagher, S. 2006. Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in
open-source software. R&D Management. 36(3): 319-331.
Westergren, U.H., & Holmström, J. 2012. Exploring preconditions for open innovation: Value
networks in industrial firms. Information and Organization. 22(4): 209-226.
Zaheer, S., & Zaheer, A. 2006. Trust across Borders. Journal of International Business Studies.
37(1): 21-29.
37
13668
Figure 1: Organizational antecedents of open innovation adoption
38
13668
Figure 2: Organizational antecedents of trust embedded open innovation
39
13668
Figure 3: The organizational aspect of open innovation adoption (conceptual model)
40
Publication V
Human resources management and open innovation adoption in the banking sector: a
conceptual model
International Journal of Business Excellence
Vol.8, No.4, pp.433-457, 2015
© 2015, Inderscience Publishing
Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2015
433
Human resources management and open innovation
adoption in the banking sector: a conceptual model
Dimitrios G. Salampasis* and
Anne-Laure Mention
L-1855, Luxembourg
Email: dimitrios.salampasis@tudor.lu
Email: anne-laure.mention@tudor.lu
Marko Torkkeli
Email: Marko.Torkkeli@lut.fi
Abstract: Open innovation has received wide attention and has been explored
in various sectors of the economy. However, despite the abundant literature in
the field, there is an on-going debate around the organisational aspect of this
paradigm. This conceptual paper aims at contributing to this debate by
developing a conceptual model, which explores the relationship between
human resources management practices and open innovation adoption in the
banking sector. Based on an extensive literature review, the role of human
resources management towards the adoption of open innovation in the banking
sector is investigated in relation to two fundamental organisational elements:
trust and readiness. The authors highlight the role of human resources
management as a fundamental element towards the adoption of open innovation
practices in the banking sector and strongly suggest that; a) human resources
management affects the adoption of open innovation in the banking sector and
b) trust and readiness moderate the relationship between human resources
management and open innovation adoption. The proposed research
propositions depict a shift towards a more flexible and open human resources
management system in the banking sector and the emergence of an innovative
mindset empowering organisational performance.
Keywords: banking sector; open innovation; trust; financial services; human
resources management; organisational readiness; fair process; workplace
bullying; human side of open innovation.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Salampasis, D.G.,
Mention, A-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2015) ‘Human resources management and
open innovation adoption in the banking sector: a conceptual model’,
Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.433–457.
Biographical notes: Dimitrios G. Salampasis is a Doctoral Researcher at the
Public Research Centre Henri Tudor in Luxembourg. His research is focused
on business innovation management and organisational behaviour and more
specifically in the field of open innovation in financial services. He is
434
also pursuing his PhD on Industrial Engineering and Management at the
Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland. He holds a Bachelor in
Public and Business Administration and three Master degrees in European
Studies, Educational Psychology and Entrepreneurship and Innovation (First
Class Honours). He has extensive working experience in the public and private
sector in Greece and abroad and has participated in numerous conferences
around the world as a speaker, facilitator, trainer and rapporteur. He received
the ISPIM Best Paper Award in September 2012.
innovation and performance measurement and management in the financial
and business to business services industries. Her research interests
mainly concentrate on open and collaborative innovation, intellectual capital
measurement and management, innovation and technology management. She
has been a Visiting Researcher at Singapore Management University, McGill
University, Canada and Ferrara University, Italy. She received an IBM Faculty
Award for the project entitled ‘Towards accrued transparency of operations in
the fund industry’ in 2011 focusing on organisational innovation and an award
for the project entitled ‘Measuring the impact of open innovation’ in 2013. She
is also a founding member of WICI, the Deputy Head of the ISPIM Advisory
Board and a member of several scientific committees and editorial boards.
Marko Torkkeli is a Professor of Technology and Business Innovations at
the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Kouvola, Finland. His
research interests focus on technology and innovation management, strategic
entrepreneurship, growth venturing and decision support systems. He has
published in journals such as the Int. J. Production Economics, Int. J. Foresight
and Innovation Policy, Int. J. Business Excellence, Int. J. Technology
Management and Int. J. Technology Intelligence and Planning. He is a member
of the editorial boards of the Int. J. of Services Sciences and the Int. J. of
Innovation Management. He is an affiliated faculty member at Singapore
Management University, a Visiting Researcher at INESC Porto, Portugal, a
Docent of Technology-based Business at University of Jyväskylä, Finland and
a Docent of Technology and Innovation Management at Helsinki University
of Technology, Finland. He serves as the Director of Publications of the
International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
1
Introduction
The aim of this conceptual paper is to address the role of human resources management
towards the creation of an environment that paves the adoption of open innovation
practices in the banking sector. The banking sector is perceived in a world full of
variability and uncertainty. By embracing open innovation, banks respond to the “calls
for a more heterodox, opening approach […] and seem eager to bring ideas from outside
the old macroeconomic core” [Fox, (2013), p.98]. This feeling of relative openness, while
driving an innovative mindset and attitude, requires from the banks to put in place human
resources management policies and practices that bring into being employees who are
open, collaborative, flexible, risk averse, tolerant to ambiguity and uncertainty and who
are imbued with motivation and incentives, leading to better innovation outcomes (Chen
Human resources management and open innovation adoption
435
and Huang, 2009). In this context, a need for a more participative management practices
challenging the strategic orientation of human resources management strategies in the
banking sector is observed (Sparrow, 1996).
This research contributes to the literature by putting a special focus on the
organisational prism and perspective of open innovation, touching upon the
under-developed and poorly investigated human side of open innovation and innovation
in general (du Chatenier et al., 2010; Fredberg et al., 2008; Gassmann et al., 2010;
Kanter, 2006) in the context of the banking sector.
The current volatile, turbulent and constantly changing world, creates challenges in
the management of an organisation regardless the aim, function, orientation and size.
“Globalization, worldwide competition, deregulation and ever-new technologies drive the
ongoing reassessment of the organization” [Burton et al., (2011), p.3]. This is related to
the fact that financial markets are prone to instability, a fact that is an inherent proclivity
towards the paving of a future full of uncertainty. This leads to required changes in the
organisational design which include structural components (goals, strategy and structure)
and human components (work processes, people, coordination, control and incentive
mechanisms). The human side of an organisation is the core element in this changing and
challenging globalised environment and is the linkage of the interplay between the
execution of the organisational strategy, the innovation life-cycle and the firm
performance. Needless to say that this process of change, elaborated in the DNA of the
organisation, is ongoing, including changes in the human and structural components on a
short-term and long-term perspective.
Human resources management in the banking sector has been facing numerous
challenges, especially after the near collapse of the financial system due to the current
debt and subprime crises. These crises have created a new set of rules in the global
business and financial market and have a substantial impact within the financial services
sector ecosystem; an ecosystem, which is undergoing a tremendous loss of trust under a
financial, marketing and organisational aspect. This new set of rules has been paving the
way towards structural changes, including more tight regulatory requirements,
consolidation of companies, increasing competition, more demanding and informed
customers, continuous advances and technological developments and higher costs in the
new service development (Niebudek, 2013).
The rationale behind this research is in line with both “the human and the
organizational side of open innovation, areas that are highlightened as important fields
for further research” [Elmquist et al., (2009), p.326]. The paper develops a conceptual
model, connecting human resources management practices and open innovation adoption
via the interrelated organisational elements of trust and readiness. The paper develops
research propositions exploring the role of human resources management towards the
adoption of open innovation practices in the banking sector, especially within such an
ever-unpredictable world. The quality of human resources management is an inherent
element of this organisational readiness (Low et al., 2011). Roper et al. (2008, p.972)
argues that “high quality human resource contribute strongly to both the product and
process innovation decisions and innovation process” and is one of the major antecedents
and necessary elements of open innovation (Wang et al., 2012).
The core of the concept of open innovation falls in the realms of open organisational
boundaries and the constant inflow and outflow of knowledge. The role of human
resources management is critical since knowledge and experience is being transferred and
436
exchanged among firms also through the transfer of human resources. Human factors
denote a highly critical element in the innovation process but the primary requirement is
the establishment of the right work environment (Prather, 2010).
In this context, open innovation as a concept is perceived as a trust embedded
organisational mindset (Salampasis et al., 2013) and its adoption and actual
implementation require prior substantial changes within the organisational and
managerial setting (Gassmann et al., 2010). This is highly relevant particularly today,
“when trust levels among both employees and customers are so low and background
noise is so high, organizations must work very hard to communicate what’s going on if
they are to be heard and believed” [Goffee and Jones, (2013), p.102]. Managing change is
a highly challenging task prerequisiting important and prompt readiness on an
organisational level, especially, in human resource management, an organisational unit
highly critical in open innovation but, at the same time with the lowest level of autonomy
(Chesbrough and Brunswicker, 2013).
The conceptual character of the paper is driven by a multidisciplinary approach,
synthesising different streams of literature: human resources management, open
innovation, organisational behaviour and organisational psychology. The authors strongly
assert that this multidisciplinary approach is the most appropriate method to investigate
such a complex and multi-level field of research endorsing the need for more studies
towards the direction of clustering the organisational side of open innovation in the
banking sector.
2
Literature review
This paper explores the interplay between open innovation, human resources
management and organisational behaviour in the banking sector, contributing to the
strand of literature on the role of open innovation in the aspect of its drivers and impacts.
It is important here to highlight the fact that apart from the mainstream academic
literature, policy and managerial reports have been used from various consultancy firms
with dedicated activities in the banking sector. The authors argue that this source of
knowledge is vital towards the conceptualisation of a concrete, precise and contemporary
picture of the banking sector and the enrichment of the research field with cutting-edge
insights that share valuable implications on a managerial and policy level.
The new and highly challenging worldwide business and economic environment
requires adaptation, flexibility and immediate replies to change. It becomes apparent that
the involvement of a modern human resources management function becomes an
imperative action and is required to show both support and realisation towards the
business and the strategies per se (Mayo, 2012). The development of consistent human
resources management practices cater for the achievement and realisation of the strategic
objectives of the firm (Huselid et al., 1997).
Unfortunately, things are not as easy as they seem. The effectiveness of human
resources management depends upon the initiation of mindsets, cultural behaviourism,
processes and capabilities.
The human factor is an inherent part of organisational climate and the amalgamation
of behavioural norms has an impact on this climate. Climate can be conceptualised via
six different factors that have an influence towards an organisation’s working
environment: “its flexibility-that is, how free employees feel to innovate unencumbered
437
by red tape; their sense of responsibility to the organization; the level of standards that
people set; the sense of accuracy about performance feedback and aptness of rewards; the
clarity people have about mission and values; and finally the level of commitment to a
common purpose” [Goleman, (2000), p.81].
Human resources management is often described by various terms such as
organisational management, manpower management, talent management, personnel
management and people management. It is important here to underline that there is a
strong debate and numerous concerns regarding the prevailing terminology in the field.
This debate derives from the fact that human beings cannot be seen as only as
commodities or resources, underlying the fact that there a creative and social aspect
behind human beings working in a productive enterprise. This paper does not aim to
address this debate further, because such an analysis would be outside the primary scope
of this research.
Human resources management encapsulates three different but highly interrelated
fields: organisational theory, industrial engineering and behavioural science. The
organisational theory looks upon the needs of the human beings and explores the ways
that human resources management can drive a pragmatic approach based upon an
adjustment attitude and specific situation. The industrial engineers theory presents a
mechanistic orientation and an economic motivation and human resources management
should be able to provide “incentives and working conditions in a way that facilitates the
most efficient use of the human machine” [Herzberg, (2003), p.92]. The behavioural
science theory appreciates individual and collective attitudes in relation to the established
organisational and psychological climate. The human resources management priority
should be the creation of a safe environment that aligns the organisational strategy and
climate to the values of the employees via incentives, motivation and education and the
empowerment of the human side of the enterprise that would foster organisational
development and improves organisational culture (McGregor, 1960).
Following upon the traditional view of human resources management, for managerial
and non-managerial employees, three major areas can be identified: staff recruitment,
motivation, training and performance management and the development of capabilities
aligned to the individual, team and organisational level towards the realisation of the ad
hoc business strategy (Finegold and Frenkel, 2006). In this context Ulrich (1996)
perceives human resources management via four functions: alignment of human
resources and business strategy, reengineering of the organisational processes, a listening
and responding attitude towards the employees and the management of change and
organisational transformation.
These abovementioned functions effectively contribute to the mobilisation of human
capital and offer an alternative view in the way human resources management has been
traditionally perceived. Human capital along with physical capital and organisational
capital belong to the resource ecosystem of an organisation (Tsai and Liao, 2011). “The
concept of human capital is most usefully viewed as a bridging concept-that is, it defines
the link between HR practices and business performance in terms of assets, rather than
business processes” [Baron and Armstrong, (2007), p.6]. Human capital is one of the
main linkages in the bank’s search for excellence and the service-profit chain (Harker and
Zenios, 1998). This means that the human capital consists of the value of knowledge,
skills and experience inherent to the individual employees of an organisation (Edvinsson
438
and Malone, 1997). This value is inherent both on an individual and organisational level,
the latter, being perceived as a human ecosystem.
A substantial body of the literature leverages the importance of human resources
management in relation to the competitive advantage an organisation seeks to establish
(Collins and Clark, 2003; Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Martinsons, 1995; Wright et al.,
2005). Kanter (1983) argues that firm performance is highly dependent on progressive
human resource practices. “Human resource management perspective, has long argued
the need to develop effective methods of recruiting, evaluating and compensating
employees to enhance organizational performance” [Marcoulides and Heck, (1993),
p.222]. Rupietta and Backes-Gellner (2013, p.2) identify four taxonomies that combine
human resources management systems and human capital pools to achieve superior
performance: single skill concentration, empowerment, vocational skill mix and
organisational learning, arguing that these four taxonomies “substantially differ in terms
of human capital diversity, application of human resource management practices and the
environmental dynamism of the firm”.
People are considered as the cornerstone of an organisation and the role of human
resources management is multifaceted and highly challenging since it mobilises human
capital. From an organisational perspective this means that the management of people
within the organisation must be an essential element of the firm’s ability to reach and
realise its goals. “People represent the intellectual capacity of the firm. This is especially
true in today’s knowledge-intense enterprise” [Burton et al., (2011), p.125]. This
intellectual capacity is related to the human capital which subsumes both individual skills
and knowledge, both of which can be found both inside and outside the organisational
boundaries (Sarkar and Costa, 2008). It is important to underline that human resources
management cannot be perceived holistically since there is a great number of parameters
that reflect upon the individuality with the primary one being the kind of the organisation.
However, reflecting upon the existing perception of the role of human resources
management we see a surprising oxymoron; the management of the human resources is
still being mainly driven by procedural, operational and bureaucratic attitudes lacking a
place in the locus of strategic thinking and innovation process (Sheppeck and Militello,
2000).
Human resources management can be seen via a multiple level spectrum. A
high-level framework is developed in the architecture level. Policies cater for the
operationalisation of this framework. The critical part is the alignment of architecture and
operationalisation to the human resources so as to achieve maximum value. “In large
complex organizations such as banks, different subsystems of human resource
management govern different groups of employees and these subsystems should also be
properly aligned” [Harker and Zenios, (1998), p.12]. This alignment is expected to
maximise the value and foster the adoption of innovation. In this context, Büschgens et
al. (2013, p.6) believe that “an organizational focus on innovation is positively related to
the presence of a developments culture” linking the role of human resources to the
creation of an organisational developmental behaviour and ecosystem. This means that
the cultivation of an innovative intention and mindset falls in the realms of human
resource development. This brings a contradictory view towards the administrative aspect
of innovation which is related to the managerial aspects of an organisation and it includes
organisational structures, administrative processed and human resources (De Massis
et al., 2013).
439
Human resources management practices have a direct effect on the adoption of
innovation practices within an organisation especially when they are combined with “the
decentralization of decision making, delegation and knowledge sharing and various
pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives” [Fu, (2012), p.513]. Human resources have a
substantial and primary influence to the whole organisational and institutional entity
contributing to the character, the identity and the entire organisational culture.
Furthermore, “human resource systems can be powerful tools for communicating aspects
of organizational culture” [Kondra and Hurst, (2009), p.46]. Human resources contributes
to the building of organisational knowledge-based performance (Minbaeva, 2013) since it
is of highest importance regarding the success of professional services firms (Swart and
Kinnie, 2010). An important parameter to be addressed here is related to the participation
of human resources in the inter-organisational knowledge and skills which are catered by
the adoption of open innovation.
Open innovation as a concept has received both wide acceptance and strong criticism
and has attracted a substantial body of research. Open innovation is realised in the realms
of the fact that innovation becomes more democratic and ideas can originate from any
organisation and any individual (King and Lakhani, 2013). Under this perspective
Chesbrough (2001) argues that “not all the clever people work for us: we must find a way
to tap into these other human resource”. This is related to the role of human resources in
terms of empowering external knowledge sources that lead to effective internal labour
efficiencies and create a positive environment and ecosystem that fosters innovation
(Gianiodis et al., 2010). The 2012 Report on Open Innovation by the European
Commission (p.25) endorses this direction by stating that: “within a knowledge society,
intellectual capital to enable innovative competence requires human capital to release
their individual intellectual capital in cooperation with organizational knowledge
acquisition processes”. The reason why firms adopt open innovation is because they “are
seeking to embed open innovation more deeply in their cultural DNA” [Euchner, (2012),
p.11]. Open innovation adoption has already been investigated in different scopes and
industries, both in the manufacturing and services sectors, SMEs and large enterprises
(Spithoven et al., 2013) also in relation to environmental influences (Savitskaya, 2011).
Approaches include the bio-pharmaceutical industry (Abd-Elaziz, 2012; Chiaroni et al.,
2009), health care (Bullinger et al., 2012), manufacturing firms (Laursen and Salter,
2006), food and drink industry (Bigliardi and Galati, 2013; Lazzarotti et al., 2012),
software firms (Harison and Koski, 2010), the telecommunication industry (Bigliardi
et al., 2012), the transportation industry (Ollila and Elmquist, 2011), the public sector
(Lee et al., 2012; Papadopoulos et al., 2013) and most recently in academic medical
research (Guinan et al., 2013) and the global banking industry (Gianiodis et al., 2013).
The managerial and organisational barriers towards the adoption of open innovation
are related to organisational and cultural issues especially when it comes to the
interaction with the external ecosystem of partners, stakeholders, customers and
competitors (Bigliardi and Galati, 2013). Surprisingly, even though open innovation is a
vastly discussed and debated topic “scarce attention dedicated to study the organisational
and managerial implications of this new paradigm” [Chiaroni et al., (2009), p.287].
The exploration of the role and the new issues related to the human resources arena
(Petroni et al., 2012), especially with regards to the openness of the firm and the extent of
collaborative initiatives (Fu, 2012; Lazzarotti and Manzini, 2009) deserves further
investigation. Petroni et al. (2012, p.171) argue that the traditional model “for managing
440
human resource has been abandoned as a result of the introduction of open innovation
practices”.
Dasgupta (2012, p.3) connects human resources to the creation of a learning
organisation, which by definition is “an organization which facilitates the learning of all
its members and continually transforms itself”. This requires the positioning of the
human resources strategy in the core of the overall corporate strategy by the
encouragement and establishment of human resources development initiatives across the
whole organisation.
du Chatenier et al. (2010) while exploring in detail the competences needed towards
the adoption of open innovation, underline the need for further and deeper examination of
the human side of open innovation. This human side of open innovation contributes to the
appreciation of personnel education and realisation of the need to adopt organisational
open innovation strategies that foster both the inside-out and out-side in environment by
creating value (Podmetina et al., 2013). In the realms of the shifting of the locus of
innovation outside the strict boundaries of big companies, the role of human resources
management is considered as the catalyst towards the promotion of an environment of
open innovation (Chesbrough and Vanhaverbeke, 2011) and becomes the key KPI
towards the measurement of the open innovation process (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007).
Human resources, being an integrative part of the intellectual capital have an
important effect on the extent and the level of organisational absorptive capacity and as a
rational result on the adoption of open innovation (Harison and Koski, 2010). Robertson
et al. (2012) take this consideration a step further with the necessity of retention and
operationalisation by the human resources. Spithoven et al. (2013, p.545) address the
issue of firm size and organisational internal resource, arguing that “larger firms are in a
better position to engage in innovative collaboration as they do have the human resource
[...] to collaborate effectively with different types of innovative partners”.
Salampasis et al. (2013) bring upfront a different prism in the capturing of the
concept of open innovation by focusing on the human and organisational side of open
innovation and more specifically in the core element of trust. “Innovation is the key
challenge of the knowledge-based economy and innovation requires the exchange of
ideas, which in turn depends on trust” [Kim and Mauborgne, (2003), p.9].
Intraorganisational trust is an inherent part of the open innovation’s DNA and is
primarily connected to the management of human resources. Tzafrir (2005, p.1600) while
underlining the linkages between trust, human resource practices and firm performance
argues that “HR managers are more likely to offer training and shape internal promotion
system when trust is high” and that “firms exhibited higher organizational performance
when trust is high”. Vanhala and Ahteela (2011) analyse the effect of human resources
management practices on interpersonal organisational trust requesting the promotion of
fairness and functioning of human resources management practices.
In the same context, the OECD Policy Brief on ‘Open innovation in global networks’
[OECD, (2008), p.6] states that: “successful open innovation also depends on trust and
the open character of the business model. As knowledge become companies’ key
resource, open innovation needs to be embedded in an overall business strategy that
explicitly acknowledges the potential use of external ideas, knowledge and technology in
value creation. Owing to the integration of different technologies, industry borders are
shifting or even disappearing, necessitating new business models and organizational
structures, including the effective management of human capital”.
441
Since this paper explores the role of human resources management in the banking
sector, a sector belonging to the financial services ecosystem, a brief but concise
description of the relationship between service innovation and human resources
management is required. “Service innovation is cross-disciplinary and multidimensional.
It is often in deep synergies with other intangible assets (human capital, information
system, clients, stakeholders, brand and reputation” [BusinessEurope, (2011), p.4]. This
is in line with the human side of services and the adaptations required addressing service
innovation challenges (Bitner et al., 2008). In this context it is important to develop “new
measures on the human capital which role is central in services firms and structural
capital in the context of service-sector firms” [Mention, (2011), p.51].
The 2013 Deloitte Report on the ‘Elements for successful growth in financial
services’ emanates human resources as one of the four categories of the growth strategies
in the financial services sector. The report states (p.22) that: “No discussion of growth
would be complete without addressing the role of talent. As members of a service
industry, financial services companies rely on the skills of their people to prosper. New
business models, new products, and new markets require managers and employees who
can not only develop strategies for growth, but also execute them effectively”. This
means that human resources becomes one of the key elements in the discussion of
sustainable growth in the financial services sector, an element that distinctively caters for
the success of the sector in such turbulent and highly uncertain and unstable environment.
In this context, employees’ satisfaction combined with performance evaluation, feedback
and recognition become core incentives with regards to the relationship between human
resource management and organisational performance in the banking sector (Bartel,
2004).
“Banking has been and will always be a people business”. This is the argumentation
of Dr. Chakrabarty, Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India since human
resources management becomes an inherent part of the DNA of banks, because banking
is a service industry. Human resources development and management is highly related to
the competitiveness of the banking sector since it brings value both on an individual and
organisational level (Singh, 2013). Human resources management is linked to enhanced
corporate performance especially in the banking sector and the organizational success
(Hartel et al., 2007). This means that bankers “are expected to adopt innovative human
resource management practices as an important tool of copying with turbulence
associated with the banking sector” [Adegoroye and Oladejo, (2012), p.174].
This adoption of innovative practices however can meet hindrances such as
contextual factors, organisational behaviour, national culture, technical and strategic
inefficiencies (Afiouni, 2007). These hindrances share important linkages and a variety of
intensities which must be taken into consideration while implementing a human resources
management strategy. Last but not least Gianiodis et al. (2013) in their upcoming paper
‘Open service innovation in the global banking industry: inside-out versus outside-in
strategies’ question “the delivered wisdom that service innovation is inconsistent with
private and public returns in this industry and that organic innovation is the low cost
strategic alternative choice for changing institutions in this context”. They argue that both
approaches can share successful results.
The management of human resources towards the adoption of open innovation
practices can lead to the development of an innovative culture. Thompson and Heron
(2006) present three dimensions of employment relationship which have a direct effect on
442
innovation performance: psychological contract, affective commitment and knowledgesharing behaviours. They argue that the socialisation of employees and the forging a
strong personal identification and the alignment of individual and organisational values
and purposes bring better value rather than the solely knowledge-driven behaviour. In
other words open innovation adoption has a better performance outcome if a holistic
ecosystem of knowledge, value, behaviour, attitude and culture is being created, i.e., an
organisational climate.
3
Organisational climate for the adoption of open innovation in the
banking sector
The abovementioned literature review has brought upfront an emergent challenge
towards the development of an organisational climate that can embrace the adoption of
open innovation practices. The main source of this climate formation is the people who
create a trustworthy environment encouraging internal collaboration, knowledge sharing
and opening up existing silo-driven attitudes on the one hand and on the other an
organisational readiness towards open innovation which initiates a destruction of
corporate boundaries and the establishment of open business models.
Tagiuri and Litwin (1968, p.27) define organisational climate as: “a relatively
enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that a) is experienced by
its members, b) influences their behaviour and c) can be described in terms of the values
of a particular set of characteristics (or attitudes) of the organization”. Burton et al.
(2004) developed two dimensions of this organisational climate: tension and readiness
to change. By definition tension is “the degree to which there is a sense of stress or
a psychological edge in the work atmosphere” [Burton et al., (2011), p.143]. The
abovementioned psychological edge is incorporated by a number of organisational factors
and for the purpose of this analysis we focus on the elements of trust and readiness.
Trust has received wide attention as a phenomenon having been approached and
investigated under various research prisms and disciplines. As a concept it has undergone
sociological, psychological and cognitive conceptualisations contributing to the
significance of the notion while attracting considerable research efforts (Kramer and
Tyler, 1996; Kramer, 1999; Lane and Bachmann, 1998; Misztal, 1996; Seligman, 2000;
Sztompka, 1999).
In terms of conceptualisation this paper adopts the definition proposed by Mayer et al.
(1995, p.712) that trust is: “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”,
referring to the “extent that people can trust others, they can work together to create
benefits that each individually cannot generate alone” [Dunning et al., (2012), p.687].
Organisational readiness as a concept being associated with change has been vastly
explored in different sectors including the public sector (Nor et al., 2011; Cinite et al.,
2009; Maheshwari and Manjari, 2010), the private sector focusing on the corporate level
(Abdinnour-Helm et al., 2003), the information systems (Cui and Liu, 2010; Mouzakitis
and Askounis, 2010), the educational sector (Nordin, 2012), the health care sector (Fuller
et al., 2007; Gagnon et al., 2011; Snyder-Halpern, 2001; Hagedorn and Heideman, 2010;
Stamatakis et al., 2012; Williams, 2011) and the health services sector (Helfrich et al.,
2009; Rütten et al., 2009).
443
By definition, readiness is: “a mindset that exists among employees during the
implementation of organizational changes. It comprises the beliefs, attitudesand
intentions of change target members regarding the need for and capability of
implementing organizational change. Readiness for organizational change is important to
any change effort because the state of readiness for change may influence the strategy
followed throughout the change effort” [Armenakis and Fredenberger, (1997), p.144] or
“an individual’s beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes
are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes”
[Armenakis et al., (1993), p.681]. This means that readiness for change is a combination
of organisational (Armenakis et al., 1993) and individual models (Prochaska et al., 2001).
Change requires adaptation and this incentive for change has a positive effect on firm
performance. “Climate is a main source of inertia as well as an effective means to guide
innovation. Leaders, by creating a clear vision, can reduce the ambiguity surrounding
employees. This creates shared sense of the world that guides employee actions for better
organizational performance” [Burton et al., (2011), p.153]. In order to explore the highly
intense relationship between human resources management, trust and readiness on an
organisational level, the paper perceives a different angle by investigate the role of fair
process and workplace bullying. The raison d’être behind the choice of these two
organizational elements lies within the fact that both of them perfectly depict the way the
internal environment of the organisation really functions and are denoted as the
integrative element of the human side of this organisational climate.
Fair process, a dimension of human psychology, is an inherent human need striving
for individual recognition, aiming at the development of organisational mechanism that
fosters collective thinking and decision making, giving the opportunity to the employees
to share ideas, have their ideas taken seriously and being offered the chance to understand
the rationale behind the decision making process and the outcomes that have a collective
effect to the organisation as a whole (van der Heyden et al., 2005).
Employees are not only interested in the outcome but also in the actual process that
leads to the explicit outcome. “For a decision process to be seen as fair, the people
affected must have the opportunity to give input and possibly influence the decision, and
the decision process and rationale must be transparent and clear” [Wu et al., (2008), p.1].
This is also related to the perceived trustworthiness of the authority in terms of
non-exploitation or threatening of the employee’s social identity (van den Bos et al.,
1997). Various studies argue that this fair process has a substantial impact on the firm
performance, the employees’ commitment and motivation and the development of trust of
all the individuals involved in this process (Kim and Mauborgne, 2003; van der Heyden
et al., 2005). In this context this trustworthiness stemming from this fair process acts as a
facilitator towards collaborative initiatives and motivation for sharing knowledge, ideas
and psychological norms.
Transparency and clarity moderate the relationship between the employees and the
management since they are one of the most empirically important drivers of fair process
(Cao et al., 2011). The inherent psychological mechanism that people possess so as to
identify cheating, i.e., in situations which are characterised by ambiguity, malicious
intentions and vagueness can lead to an emotional resignation or trigger retributive
justice, situations which have a highly negative impact towards the establishment of a
trustworthy environment (van der Heyden et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2008). This means that
trust and cooperation between employees and organisational systems thrives when
444
employees participate in a fair process, regardless the outcome and because the later
“have contributed to shape them, have been given a chance to make them their own and
hence appreciate them much more” (van der Heyden et al., 2005, p.21). When employees
become part of the problem and contribute to the solution, they embrace a collective
responsibility attitude, they safeguard and re-estate their commitment and motivation
towards the solution of the problem. By embracing a voluntary cooperation demeanour,
they share knowledge, apply their creativity and willingness to offer. This is why
employees must be primarily seen and valued as human beings and not only as resources,
assets or capital (Kim and Mauborgne, 2003).
The authors argue that unfair processes within the organisation can be perceived as an
indirect form of workplace bullying endangering a trustworthy environment and fostering
a loss of faith both among employees and also between employees and management. A
number of studies, has shown that workplace bullying exists among banking employees
and is becoming a serious problem especially because of the financial crisis (Giga and
Hoel, 2003; Gök, 2011; Spyridakis, 2009).
Heames et al. (2006, p.348) define workplace bullying as the: “repeated actions and
practices that are directed to one or more workers, which are unwanted by the victim and
which may be done deliberately, or unconsciously, but clearly cause humiliation, offence
and distress and may interfere which job performance and/or cause an unpleasant
working environment”. The phenomenon of workplace bullying has been associated with
other terms such as harassment (Björkqvist et al., 1994), victimisation (Einarsen and
Raknes, 1997) and emotional abuse (Einarsen et al., 2003). Gök (2011) argues that
workplace bullying negatively affects organisational performance, job satisfaction and
has a substantial impact to the employees. Workplace bullying also caters for economic
and legal risks leading to sometimes unbearable economic costs for the organisation.
Poilpot-Rocaboy (2006) strongly states that workplace bullying is a serious
phenomenon of psychological harassment and that HR managers are the ones who must
combat it within organisations. This psychological harassment caters for more serious
consequences in the psychological, sentimental and cognitive behaviour of the employees
rather than the physical violence. Workplace bullying is explicitly linked to the
organisational culture in terms of individual encouragement to reveal such behaviours. “If
perpetrators may indeed have some common characteristics making them prone to
bullying, they will not exhibit such behaviour unless they are in an organizational culture
that rewards, or at least is permissive of such behaviours. The interaction of individuals
and the work context is an essential component of the psychological harassment
behaviour” [Poilpot-Rocaboy, (2006), p.7].
Di Martino et al. (2003) highlight an interesting parameter of workplace bullying in
relation to organisational change in the context of sustaining an organisational
competitive advantage. Dramatic change processes can have a consequential effect on the
development of employee relationships. This is also connected to the fair process
parameter since organisational restructuring, if perceived via an autocratic prism, can
lead to the loss of trust and be discerned as a risk factor of bullying (Poilpot-Rocaboy,
2006).
Spyridakis (2009) approaches the phenomenon of workplace bullying under an
anthropological prism within the banking sector. In this context, he argues that the
emergence of this phenomenon is due to the relational interplay between power and
authority, which is observed and developed within the workplace. In his research,
445
Spyridakis approaches the phenomenon within an ecosystem of existing conditions that
facilitate the formation of perceptions, attitudes, behavioural norms and relationships.
Spyridakis (2009) observes a horizontal deployment of the phenomenon within the
workplace arguing that the phenomenon is multi-level and multi-dimensional, not solely
limited to the managerial level but also developed in the interpersonal and employee
level. It also is important to bear in mind that workplace is an arena that formulates
dedicated organisational culture and behaviour and is perceived as a collective crucible of
a dynamic co-existence of expectations, attitudes, opinions, rivalries and identities.
In the context of the banking sector Spyridakis (2009, p.359) argues that employees
intensively experience the phenomenon of workplace bullying “acknowledging the fact
that it shares a submissive attitude and production of a surplus value and catering for
inhuman and under pressure working conditions” [quoted from Spyridakis (2009) and
translated from Greek into English by the authors]. Banking employees are being
constantly challenged to safeguard not only their personal dignity and value but their
inherent right for work.
The organisational environment is the core antecedent of the creation and
establishment of an environment in which collaboration, openness and trust can thrive
and foster the adoption of open innovation practices in the banking sector. Human
resources management must fend for the organisational culture and the way work is
organised and become the leveraged mechanism that contributes to the establishment of
the right quality circumstances under which work is taking place.
At this stage it is important to underline the fact that the development of this
conceptual model is being built upon the authors’ prior research emphasising the role of
trust and readiness on the organisational level as the main antecedents of the adoption of
open innovation (Salampasis, 2014). This prior research is acting as a facilitator towards
the development both of the conceptual framework but also the research propositions.
The abovementioned overall analysis leads to the development of a number of research
propositions. All these research propositions are being conceptualised in an integrative
conceptual framework that depicts all the relevant dynamic relationships.
•
Research proposition no. 1: Human resources management affects the adoption of
open innovation in the banking sector.
•
Research proposition no. 2: Trust moderates the relationship between human
resources management and the adoption of open innovation in the banking sector.
•
Research proposition no. 3: Organisational readiness moderates the relationship
between human resources management and the adoption of open innovation in the
banking sector.
•
Research proposition no. 4: The characteristics of trust shape the characteristics of
organisational readiness in the banking sector and vice versa.
Figure 1 highlights the role of human resources management in terms of creating a
trustworthy and organisationally ready internal environment that can adopt open
innovation practices. This adoption of open innovation offers a world-class opportunity to
the firm in terms of opening up the silo-driven organisational boundaries and cultivating
an organisational climate built on resilience that through its diversity expands the
corporate horizons. This means that the management of human resources requires: “a
marked departure from traditional management principles, processes and practices or a
446
departure from customized organizational forms that significantly alters the way the work
of management is performed” [Hamel, (2006), p.4].
Figure 1
4
Conceptual model: the organisational aspect of open innovation adoption in the banking
sector (see online version for colours)
Discussion
Our analysis depicts a new trend in the banking sector towards the adoption of open
innovation practices and the realisation of the importance of human resources
management as an inherent ally in the process. This process of strategic transformation
and the fact that the simultaneous delivery of both results and attention to issues both on
short and a log term perspective requires a new set of rules in the way human resources
management is perceived in terms of an embedded next-generation capabilities
development culture and the revision of the actual role and importance of human
resources in the organisational level.
Regarding the role of human resources management in the evolving financial sector
we support the fact that even though banks, security house and insurance companies offer
increasingly similar services “the educational and occupational profiles of their
workforces have not become substantially more alike” [Demsetz, (1997), p.1].
The banking sector is trying to recover from the almost devastating financial crisis
and this recovery is slow and complex, especially in the realms of such a competitive
industry. Words such as growth, sustainable profitability, transparency, integration and
management of big data strategic orientation, capital adequacy and the development of
new and reliable resource of revenues originating from customised products and services
are put back into the agenda and always under the fact of empowering and augmenting
the business value stemming from the customer relationships especially today that
customer behaviours and expectations are becoming more and more demanding.
447
The highly complex regulatory environment can be seen both as a safety net but also
a hindrance towards this development since time and regulatory compliance, especially
within a worldwide spectrum remains one of the top challenges the banking sector is
facing. This is in line with the emerging technologies era and the extensive use of social
media that bring flexibility, adaptability, standardisation, integration, efficiency and
effectiveness.
Even though there is a strong debate around the adoption of open innovation in the
banking sector, an emerging shift and transformational attitude of the industry can be
observed which can open up the environment for the development of a more flexible,
open, competitive and collaborative organisational culture. The development and
maintenance of such an environment will only come through highly skilled human
resources and the realisation of the value of the people in the banking sector. Better
education and training of the human resources in the banking sector “will strengthen
many of the behavioural aspects of open innovation, including networking and
collaboration skills and corporate entrepreneurship” [Wang et al., (2012), p.422]. This
training will support banking development and encourage the cultivation of skills which
are an inherent part of the institutional strengthening process (Carlson, 1997).
In the realms of this ecosystem, the management of human resources can become a
vehicle putting the sector in the locus of open innovation practices. This mindset will also
facilitate the regaining of trust, especially from the side of the customer/user perspective,
which has been severely damaged or even lost to a great extent because of the financial
crisis. This is in line with the findings of the 2013 PWC Global Private Banking and
Wealth Management Survey that a more dynamic human capital, resulting from an
effective and efficient human resources management, will be the inherent element
towards the rebuilding of trust and reputation and the answer to the operational and
organisational efficiency attitude. “Human capital management increasingly will be the
source of competitive advantage. Organizations need to increase their focus on talent
management and building a culture where employees can flourish” [PWC, (2013), p.28].
This competitive advantage will originate from employees who possess both the skills
and qualifications required but at the same time showing the capacity of quick response
and adaptation in all the current and future challenges.
Overall, a changing role on the human resources management can be perceived in the
banking sector through the realisation that effective human resources management must
involve leaders, managers and the employees. Human resources management must be put
in the core of the corporate strategy as new concepts such as employee engagement and
employment branding begin to emerge. Human resources management seems to start
forming a partnership with management and a desired organisational decentralisation as
part of developing skills, competences and leaders and by giving incentives and
opportunities. Furthermore, there is an emerging trend of building human organisations,
where a foundation of trust is being established and the fact that we recruit and hire
whole people and not simply resources or capital.
Management is inherent to human beings and we believe that open innovation can
only be realised within such human organisations. This means that the people need to be
put in the locus of the open innovation process so it is important to realise the key factors
that engender and enable the human side of open innovation requiring cognitive changes
in the mindset of the management (Bigliardi et al., 2012).
448
Openness does not mean elimination of organisational structure. An important
challenge that firms face today is the creation of a systematic openness to reconfigure
their existing knowledge capacities in order to be able to adapt within the current
competitive and highly demanding business environment [Lichtenthaler and
Lichtenthaler, (2009), p.1334]. Openness means having the ability to create networks, to
share information and keep good ideas alive resulting to value capture and value
co-creation. Kanter (2011, p.78) perfectly denotes that: “leaders in great companies can
tell a different story about the basis of their decisions. In so doing, they are able to
produce new models for action that can restore confidence in business and will change
the world in which we live”.
Finding good ideas outside the organisation by following the not invented here
mindset is easy. The most difficult task however is to be able to implement and set up all
the necessary processes to be able to “find, capture and commercialize ideas and creating
a corporate culture that promotes and protects these processes” [Jaruzelski and Holman,
(2011), p.1]. So the two core elements of open innovation are initially the existence of an
open culture to new ideas and the establishment of effective and efficient processes
capturing and acting upon these ideas.
The challenge is be able to develop the appropriate skills within the organisation in
order to be able to find the correct partners and foster sustainable and long lasting
relationships. Choosing the right mode of collaborative innovation, falls into the
consideration of a substantial number of variables and elements (Pisano and Verganti,
2008). However, it is important to accentuate that the mode of collaborative innovation
which will be chosen to cater for the incentive of the firm per se, is highly related to the
role and extent of trust that is flourished between the potential key players.
Banks must be very cautious when adopting set performance metrics to specific
elements of an open innovation effort. In order for the above to be realised and to really
be able to talk about a pure and not spurious or simply rhetorical open innovation
adoption, an adoption leading to tangible performance outcomes, it is necessary to
prioritise upon the managerial perspective of building upon the management of human
resources, i.e., the people who will be the ones to become the drivers of open innovation
adoption and focus upon their skills, competences and cognitive capabilities
identification and building.
5
Conclusions
The aim of this paper has been to identify the role of human resources management
towards the creation of an environment that would embrace and encourage the adoption
of open innovation practices in the banking sector.
Banks need to be part of the era of disruptive change. The authors argue that in order
to do that, banks need to look inside, rethink their internal culture and structure and start
from the people. This means that the employees are the agents of this change since they
will understand it, support it and embrace it as their own. Change in the banking sector
requires, responsiveness, transparency and trustworthiness and all these objectives must
be reflected, reinforced and encouraged by the organisational culture. The unique value
proposition of open innovation is to moderate this new approach.
Human resources management becomes the inherent element by the establishment of
an organisation that would encourage the employees to cut across organisational
449
boundaries and adopt such practices in the organisational structure. On the other hand the
creation of a trustworthy, fair and safe environment will pave the way of engaging
management and employees in a collective process to freely experiment, exchange ideas,
learn to collaborate and diffuse this culture across the entire organisation. Open
innovation is about sharing ideas and entrusting collaboration across companies. In order
to succeed on that, ideas need to be shared and collaboration between individuals must be
initiated.
6
Implications, limitations and avenues for future research
6.1 Academic implications
The paper opens up the research of open innovation in the field of human resources
management by paving the way to a more multidisciplinary approach. The human side of
open innovation is still quite underdeveloped taking also into consideration the fact that
open innovation as a concept even if it is considered a mainstream buzzword is not yet
vastly adopted especially in the banking sector. Opening the discussion of the emerging
role of human resources management in the banking sector regarding the establishment of
organisational trust and readiness of the industry towards the adoption of open innovation
practices, caters for a broadened approach and study of human resources management.
This study also bridges different research streams and disciplines creating knowledge
valuable both under an academic but also a practical perspective.
6.2 Managerial implications
This paper shares important managerial implications that apply both the management of
the banking sector but also in the pure human resources departments. It is important to
realise that transformation is not easy and requires investment, time and understanding.
Biro (2012) presents some key elements regarding the role of human resources
management in relation to effective leadership: investment in leadership development,
creation of a collaborative culture, development of communication skills, driving and
sustaining real accountability, being human and rewarding emotional intelligence.
Another important element to be explored by the banking leadership is the necessity
to build on diversity both in terms of talent but also in terms of knowledge. This diversity
will create value via the development of innovative products and services and will foster
the establishment of trust embedded partnerships with other banking intuitions, externally
and the building of a global organisation internally characterised by a culture of openness
and innovation. The role of human resources management here is paramount towards the
provision of employees possessing a vision and imagination to nurture future generations
of innovators. Human resources must be considered as the driver for organisational
evolution and it becomes a unique opportunity for the banking sector and financial
services to invest on the management of human resources and “subsequently hardwire
into their organization’s DNA the ability to generate breakthrough innovation on a
continuous basis” [KPMG, (2013), p.16].
Regarding the role of open innovation, a more social human resources management
attitude must be perceived and it is the realisation of leadership to appreciate the role of
human resources by creating a communal ethos within the organisation through the
450
development and engagement of employees. This employee-employer relationship needs
to be characterised by an extracted and instilled value, the matching between personal
and organisational values and the non-attention solely to shareholder value (Goffee and
Jones, 2013). This will also facilitate both a transformation of the industry to the adoption
of more open and innovative strategies and the regaining of trust both inside the company
and also outside of the strict corporate boundaries.
The adoption and development of an active social media policy will empower the
focus on social engagement and lead to proactive communication strategy with the bank
customers and also become more responsive to offering solutions. The industry needs to
stop functioning within a silo and become more open with a cross-cultural perspective
and a global outlook (Unruh and Cabrera, 2013). This means that different services,
information and attitude need to be reflected under the functional umbrella of a single
brand.
The adoption of open innovation will create a forward looking, social-banking
institution. This is the actual meaning of open innovation: moving from the institution to
the individual. This caters for the realisation that if the banking sector wants to regain
trust, then things must start evolving from the inside of the organisation. You cannot ask
for trust if you are not trustworthy as an organisation. Last but not least human resources
management becomes a crucial element to bank stability since a positive relationship
between human resources formation and financial sector development is observed
(Outreville, 1999).
6.3 Limitations and avenues for further research
There are some limitations that deserve to be acknowledged. Firstly, the paper is purely
conceptual, solely based upon a thorough review of the literature, without taking into
consideration other means of data. Secondly the paper investigates the banking sector as a
whole without taking into consideration potential differences between retail banking,
investment banking, universal banks, central banks and Islamic banks.
This paper also paves the avenues for further research on the human side of open
innovation in the banking sector. Empirical testing of the conceptual model by means of
qualitative and quantitative studies discussing the role of human resources management
and how open innovation adoption in the banking sector has an effect on corporate
performance, measurement of open innovation performance and the way human
resources management is changing the current business models and the perceived value
of these changes are necessary.
References
Abd-Elaziz, A. (2012) ‘Investigating the critical success factors and infrastructure of knowledge
management for open innovation adoption: the case of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in Egypt’, in
Ezz, I. et al. (Eds.): Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.4022–4031.
Abdinnour-Helm, S., Lengnick-Hall, M.L. and Lengnick-Hall, C.A. (2003) ‘Pre-implementation
attitudes and organizational readiness for implementing an enterprise resource planning
system’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, No. 2, pp.258–273.
Adegoroye, A.A. and Oladejo, M. (2012) ‘Strategic human resource management practices in the
post consolidated Nigerian commercial banks’, European Journal of Business and
451
Afiouni, F. (2007) ‘Human resource management and strategy in the Lebanese banking sector: is
there a fit?’, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.63–69.
Armenakis, A. and Fredenberger, W. (1997) ‘Organizational change readiness practices of business
turnaround change agents’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.143–152.
Armenakis, A., Harris, St. and Mossholder, K. (1993) ‘Creating readiness for organizational
change’, Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp.681–704.
Baron, A. and Armstrong, M. (2007) Human Capital Management: Achieving Added Value
through People, pp.1–229, Kogan Page Limited, London.
Bartel, P.A. (2004) ‘Human resource management and organizational performance: evidence from
retail banking’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp.181–203.
Bigliardi, B. and Galati, F. (2013) ‘Models of adoption of open innovation within the food
industry’, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.16–26.
Bigliardi, B., Dormio, I.A. and Galati, F. (2012) ‘The adoption of open innovation within the
telecommunication industry’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp.27–54.
Biro, M.M. (2012) ‘5 great challenges ahead for HR and leaders’, Forbes Magazine [online]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanbiro/2012/11/11/5-greatest-challenges-ahead-for-hr-andleaders/ (accessed 10 December 2013).
Bitner, M., Ostrom, A. and Morgan, N.F. (2008) ‘Service blueprinting: a practical technique for
service innovation’, California Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.66–94.
Björkqvist, K., Osterman, K. and Hjelt-Back, M. (1994) ‘Aggression among university employees’,
Aggressive Behaviour, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.173–184.
Bullinger, C.A., Rass, M., Adamczyk, S., Moeslein, M.K. and Sohn, S. (2012) ‘Open innovation in
health care: analysis of an open health platform’, Health Policy, Vol. 105, Nos. 2–3,
pp.165–175.
Burton, M.R., Obel, B. and DeSanctis, G. (2011) Organizational Design: A Step-by-Step Approach,
2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, New York.
Burton, R.M., Lauridsen, J. and Obel, B. (2004) ‘The impact of organizational climate and strategic
fit on firm performance’, Human Resources Management, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.67–82.
Büschgens, T., Bausch, A. and Balkin, B.D. (2013) ‘Organizational culture and innovation: a
meta-analytic review’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.1–19.
BusinessEurope (2011) Fostering Innovation in Services-a Key Driver for Growth, pp.1–10,
Position paper [online] http://www.businesseurope.eu/content/default.asp?PageID=
568&DocID=28694 (accessed 24 November 2013).
Cao, H.H., Han, B., Hirshleifer, D. and Zhang, H.H. (2011) ‘Fear of the unknown: familiarity and
economic decisions’, Review of Finance, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.173–206.
Carlson, G.D. (1997) ‘Building human capital for banking’, in McNaughton, D. (Ed.): Banking
Institutions in Developing Markets: Building Strong Management and Responding to Change,
Vol. 1, pp.125–168, 4th Printing, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Chen, C. and Huang, J. (2009) ‘Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance-the
mediating role of knowledge management capacity’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62,
No. 1, pp.104–114.
Chesbrough, H. (2001) ‘The intel lockout: rethinking corporate research: why does the world’s
biggest chip maker outsource so much research?’, MIT Technology Review [online]
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/401232/the-intel-lookout/ (accessed 3 December
2013).
Chesbrough, H. and Brunswicker, S. (2013) Managing Open Innovation in Large Firms. Executive
Survey on Open Innovation, Fraunhofer Society, pp.1–40 [online]
http://openinnovation.berkeley.edu/managing-open-innovation-survey-report.pdf (accessed
15 November 2013).
452
Chesbrough, H. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011) Open Innovation and Public Policy in Europe,
pp.1–34, Research Report, ESADE Business School and The Science I Business Innovation
Board AISBL, Science|Business Publishing [online] http://www.sciencebusiness.net/Assets/
27d0282a-3275-4f02-8a3c-b93c2815208c.pdf.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2009) ‘Investigating the adoption of open innovation in
the bio-pharmaceutical industry: a framework and an empirical analysis’, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.285–305.
Cinite, I., Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2009) ‘Measurement of perceived organizational readiness
for change in the public sector’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.265–277.
Collins, C.J. and Clark, K.D. (2003) ‘Strategic human resource practices, top management team
social networks and firm performance: the role of human resource practices in creating
organizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 6,
pp.740–751.
Cui, G. and Liu, K. (2010) ‘Organizational readiness analysis for enterprise information systems
implementation’, Journal of Software, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.554–561.
Dasgupta, M. (2012) ‘Conceptual paper: organizational learning and its practices’, SAGE Open,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.1–11.
De Massis, A., Frattini, F. and Lichtenhaler, U. (2013) ‘Research on technological innovation in
family firm: present debates and future directions’, Family Business Review, Vol. 26, No. 1,
pp.10–31.
Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. (1996) ‘The impact of human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4,
pp.949–969.
Deloitte (2013) ‘Elements for successful growth in financial services. Poised for opportunities.
global financial services industry’, Deloitte, pp.1–27 [online] http://www.deloitte.com/assets/
Dcom-Guam/Local%20Assets/Documents/Financial%20Services/Elements%20for%
20successful%20growth%20in%20financial%20services.pdf (accessed 20 December 2013).
Demsetz, R.S. (1997) ‘Human resource needs in the evolving financial sector’, Current Issues in
Economics & Finance, Vol. 3, No. 13, pp.1–6.
Di Martino, V., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2003) ‘Preventing violence and harassment in the
workplace’, Bruxelles: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions [online] http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2002/109/en/1/ef02109en.pdf
(accessed 12 January 2014).
du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J.A.A.M., Biemans, H.J.A., Mulder, M. and Omta, O.S.W.F. (2010)
‘Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams’, R&D
Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D. and Schlösser, T.M. (2012) ‘Trust as a social and emotional act:
noneconomic considerations in trust behaviour’, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 33,
No. 3, pp.686–694.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realising Your Company’s True Value
by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, 1st ed., pp.1–240, Harper Collins, NY.
Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B.I. (1997) ‘Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men’,
Violence and Victims, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.247–263.
Einarsen, S.E., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2003) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the
Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, London.
Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T. and Ollila, S. (2009) ‘Exploring the field of open innovation’, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.326–345.
Euchner, J. (2012) ‘Looking back on a decade of open innovation’, Research Technology
European Commission (2012) Open Innovation. Directorate-General for the Information Society
and Media, pp.1–144, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg [online]
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/node/66734 (accessed 15 December 2013).
453
Finegold, D. and Frenkel, S. (2006) ‘Managing people where people really matter: the management
of human resource in biotech companies’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 17. No. 1, pp.1–24.
Fox, J. (2013) ‘What we’ve learned from the financial crisis’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91,
No. 11, pp.94–101.
Fredberg, T., Elmquist, M. and Ollila, S. (2008) Managing Open Innovation: Present Findings and
Future Directions, VINNOVA Report VR 2008:02, VINNOVA – Verket für
Innovationssystem/Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, pp.1–60 [online]
http://www.rcc.gov.pt/SiteCollectionDocuments/VINNOVA_ManagingOpenInovation.pdf
(accessed 9 December 2013).
Fu, X. (2012) ‘How does openness affect the importance of incentives for innovation?’, Research
Policy, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.512–523.
Fuller, B., Rieckmann, T., Nunes, E., Miller, M., Arfken, C., Edmundson, E. and McCarty, D.
(2007) ‘Organizational Readiness for change and opinions toward treatment innovations’,
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.183–192.
Gagnon, M.P., Labarthe, J., Legare, F., Ouimet, M., Estabrooks, C., Roch, G., Ghandour, E.K. and
Grimshaw, J. (2011) ‘Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic
care’, Implementation Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, p.72.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E. and Chesbrough, H. (2010) The future of open innovation. R&D
Management, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.213-221.
Gianiodis, P., Ettlie, J. and Urbina, J. (2013) ‘Open service innovation in the global banking
industry: inside-out versus outside-in strategies’, The Academy of Management Perspectives,
(Published ahead of print) [online] http://doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0126 (accessed 14 January
2014).
Gianiodis, P.T., Ellis, S.C. and Secchi, E. (2010) ‘Advancing a typology of open innovation’,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.531–572.
Giga, S.I. and Hoel, H. (2003) Violence and Stress at Work in Financial Services, Sectoral
activities programme working paper, Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO), October, WP
No.210.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2013) ‘Creating the best workplace on Earth’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 91, No. 5, pp.98–106.
Gök, S. (2011) ‘Prevalence and types of mobbing behaviour: a research on banking employees’,
International Journal of Human Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.318–334.
Goleman, D. (2000) ‘Leadership that gets results’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 2,
pp.78–90.
Guinan, E., Boudreau, J.K. and Lakhani, R.K. (2013) ‘Experiments in open innovation at harvard
medical school’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp.45–52.
Hagedorn, H. and Heideman, P. (2010) ‘The relationship between baseline organizational readiness
to change assessment subscale scores and implementation of hepatitis prevention services in
substance use disorders treatment clinics: a case study’, Implementation Science, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp.2–12.
Hamel, G. (2006) ‘The why, what and how of management innovation’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 84, No. 2, pp.72–84.
Harison, E. and Koski, H. (2010) ‘Applying open innovation in business strategies: evidence from
Finnish software firms’, Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.351–359.
Harker, T.P. and Zenios, A.S. (1998) What Drives the Performance of Financial Institutions,
Working Paper Series, The Wharton Financial Institutions Center, The Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania, pp.1–27 [online]
http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/98/9821.pdf (accessed 2 November 2013).
454
Hartel, E.J.C., Fujimoto, Y., Strybosch, V.E. and Fitzpatrick, K. (2007) Human Resource
Management: Transforming Theory into Innovative Practice, pp.1–438, Pearson Education,
Australia.
Heames, J.T., Harvey, G.M. and Treadway, D. (2006) ‘Status inconsistency: an antecedent to
bullying behaviour in groups’, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.348–361.
Helfrich, C., Yu-Fang, L., Sharp, N. and Sales, A. (2009) ‘Organizational readiness to change
assessment (ORCA): development of an instrument based on the promoting action on research
in health services (PARIHS) framework’, Implementation Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.1–10.
Herzberg, F. (2003) ‘One more time: how do you motivate employees?’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 81, No. 1, pp.87–96.
Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1997) ‘Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance’, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.171–188.
Jaruzelski, B. and Holman, R. (2011) ‘Casting a wide net: building the capabilities for open
innovation’, Ivey Business Journal, March/April2011, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp43–46.
Kanter, R.M. (1983) The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Kanter, R.M. (2006) ‘Innovation: the classic traps’, (Cover story), Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 84, No. 11, pp.72–83.
No. 11, pp.66–78.
Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2003) ‘Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp.1–11.
King, A. and Lakhani, K. (2013) ‘Using open innovation to identify the best ideas’, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.41–48.
Kondra, Z.A. and Hurst, C.D. (2009) ‘Institutional processes of organizational culture’, Culture
and Organization, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.39–58.
KPMG (2013) HR as a Driver for Organizational Innovation: A Unique Opportunity, pp.1–19,
KPMG International [online] http://www.kpmg.com/GI/en/IssuesAndInsights/
ArticlesPublications/Documents/hr-driver-organizational-innovation.pdf (accessed 20 October
2013).
Kramer, R.M. (1999) ‘Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring
questions’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.569–598.
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research,
pp.1–429, Sage, Thousand Oaks, London.
Lane, C. and Bachmann, R. (1998) Trust Within and Between Organizations, pp.1–334, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006) ‘Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.131–150.
Lazzarotti, V. and Manzini, R. (2009) ‘Different modes of open innovation: a theoretical
framework and an empirical study’, International Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.615–636.
Lazzarotti, V., Garcia, M., Manzini, R. and Sanchez, M. (2012) ‘The open innovation in practice: a
survey in the food and drink industry’, Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference-Action for
Innovation: Innovating from Experience, 17–20 June 2012, Barcelona, Spain.
Lee, S.M., Hwang, T. and Choi, D. (2012) ‘Open innovation in the public sector of leading
countries’, Management Decision, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.147–162.
455
Lichtenthaler, U. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2009) ‘A capability-based framework for open innovation:
complementing absorptive capacity’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46, No. 8,
pp.1315–1338.
Low, C., Chen, Y. and Wu, M. (2011) ‘Understanding the determinants of cloud computing
adoption’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111, No. 7, pp.1006–1023.
Maheshwari, M. and Manjari, S. (2010) ‘Organizational readiness for performance-related pay:
focus on government of India employees’, The Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 35, No. 1,
pp.63–73.
Marcoulides, A.G. and Heck, H.R. (1993) ‘Organizational culture and performance: proposing and
testing a model’, Organizational Science, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.209–225.
Martinsons, G.M. (1995) ‘Knowledge-based systems leverage human resource management
expertise’, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.17–34.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) ‘An integrative model of organizational
trust’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.709–734.
Mayo, A. (2012) Human Resources or Human Capital? Managing People as Assets, pp.1–339,
Gower Pub Co., Surrey, England.
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mention, A-L. (2011) ‘Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service
sector: which influence on innovation novelty?’, Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.44–53.
Minbaeva, D.B. (2013) ‘Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of organizational
knowledge-based performance’, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp.378–390.
Misztal, A.B. (1996) Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order,
pp.1–304, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Mouzakitis, S. and Askounis, D. (2010) ‘A knowledge-based framework for measuring
organizational readiness for the adoption of B2B integration systems’, Information Systems
Niebudek, M. (2013) ‘Customer integration into new financial services development’, Proceedings
of the XXIV ISPIM Conference-Innovating in Global Markets: Challenges for Sustainable
Growth, 16–19 June, Helsinki.
Nor, S., Abdul, K., Norshidah, M., Lili, M.A. and Mohamed, J.M.R. (2011) ‘Understanding
organizational readiness for knowledge management in the Malaysian public sector
organization: a proposed framework’, 2011 International Conference, Research and
Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS).
Nordin, N. (2012) ‘The influence of leadership behaviour and organizational commitment on
organizational readiness for change in a higher learning institution’, Asia Pacific Education
Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.239–249.
OECD (2008) ‘Open innovation in global networks’, OECD Policy Brief, November, pp.1–8
[online] http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/41721342.pdf (accessed 18 October 2013).
Ollila, S. and Elmquist, M. (2011) ‘Managing open innovation: exploring challenges at the
interfaces of an open innovation arena’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 20,
No. 4, pp.273–283.
Outreville, J.F. (1999) Financial Development, Human Capital and Political Stability, UNSTAD
Discussion Paper 142, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva,
Switzerland [online] http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dp_142.en.pdf (accessed 14 December 2013).
Papadopoulos, T., Stamati, T., Nikolaidou, M. and Anagnostopoulos, D. (2013) ‘From open source
to open innovation practices: a case in the Greek context in light of the debt crisis’,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80, No. 6, pp.1232–1246.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007) ‘University-industry relationships and open innovation:
towards a research agenda’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp.259–280.
456
Petroni, G., Venturini, K. and Verbano, C. (2012) ‘Open innovation and new issues in R&D
organization and personnel management’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Pisano, G. P. and Verganti, R. (2008) ‘Which kind of collaboration is right for you?’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 12, pp.78–86.
Podmetina, D., Volchek, D., Dąbrowska, J. and Fiegenbaum, I. (2013) ‘Human resource practices
and open innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 17, No. 6,
pp.1–22.
Poilpot-Rocaboy, G. (2006) ‘Bullying in the workplace: a proposed model for understanding the
psychological harassment process’, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management,
Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.1–17.
Prather, C. (2010) Manager’s Guide to Fostering Innovation and Creativity in Teams, McGraw
Hill, New York.
Prochaska, J., Prochaska, J. and Levesque, D.A. (2001) ‘Transtheoretical approach to changing
organizations’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services
Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.247–261.
PWC (2013) Global Private Banking and Wealth Management Survey 2013. Navigating to
Tomorrow: Serving Clients and Creating Value. PWC, pp.1–60 [online]
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/banking-capital-markets/private-banking-wealth-managementsurvey/assets/pwc-global-private-banking-wealth-management-survey-2013.pdf (accessed
8 January 2014).
Robertson, P.L., Casali, G.L. and Jacobson, D. (2012) ‘Managing open incremental process
innovation: absorptive capacity and distributed learning’, Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 5,
pp.822–832.
Roper, S., Du, J. and Love, H.J. (2008) ‘Modelling the innovation value chain’, Research Policy,
Vol. 37, Nos. 6–7, pp.961–977.
Rupietta, C. and Backes-Gellner, U. (2013) How to Combine Human Resource Management
Systems and Human Capital Portfolios to Achieve Superior Innovation Performance, Leading
House Working Paper No. 89, pp.1–41, The Swiss Leading House on Economics of
Education, Firm Behaviour and Training Policies, Universität Zurich.
Rütten, A., Röger, U., Abu-Omar, K. and Frahsa, A. (2009) ‘Assessment of organizational
readiness for health promotion policy implementation: test of a theoretical model’, Health
Promotion International, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.243–251.
Salampasis, D. (2014) ‘Organizational readiness for open innovation in the financial services
sector: the missing element of trust’, in Mention, A-L. and Torkkeli, M. (Ed.): Innovation in
Financial Services: A Dual Ambiguity, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne,
forthcoming.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A.L. and Torkkeli, M. (2013) ‘An integrative model of trust embedded
open innovation: special focus on managerial implications’, Proceedings of the International
Workshop ‘Multidisciplinary Approaches on Innovation, September 9th 2013, University of
Porto, Porto.
Sarkar, S. and Costa, A.I.A. (2008) ‘Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry’, Trends in
Food Science and Technology, Vol. 19, No. 11, pp.574–580.
Savitskaya, I. (2011) Environmental Influences of the Adoption of Open Innovation: Analysis of
Structural, Institutional and Cultural Impacts, Published Dissertation, Lappeenranta
University of Technology, July, 2011.
Seligman, B.A. (2000) The Problem of Trust, pp.1–240, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey (second printing and first paperback printing).
Sheppeck, M.A. and Militello, J. (2000) ‘Strategic HR configurations and organizational
performance’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.5–16.
Singh, R. (2013) ‘Human resource management in the Indian banking sector’, Journal of Human
Resource and Sustainability Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.21–28.
457
Snyder-Halpern, R. (2001) ‘Indicators of organizational readiness for clinical information
technology/systems innovation: a Delphi study’, International Journal of Medical Informatics,
Vol. 63, No. 3, pp.179–204.
Sparrow, P.R. (1996) ‘Transitions in the psychological contract: some evidence from the banking
sector’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.75–92.
Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Roijakkers, N. (2013) ‘Open innovation practices in SMEs
and large enterprises’, Small Business Economics, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.537–562.
Spyridakis, M. (2009) Authority and Harassment at Work, pp.1–392, Dionikos (in Greek).
Stamatakis, K., McQueen, A., Filler, C., Boland, E., Dreisinger, M., Brownson, R. and Luke, D.
(2012) ‘Measurement properties of a novel survey to assess stages of organizational readiness
for evidence-based interventions in community chronic disease prevention settings’,
Implementation Science, Vol. 7, No. 65, pp.1–10.
Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2010) ‘Organisational learning, knowledge assets and HR practices in
professional service firms’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.64–79.
Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory, pp.1–214, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Tagiuri, R. and Litwin, G. (1968) ‘Organizational culture: a key to financial performance’, in
Schneider, B. (Ed.): Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2006). ‘Relational quality and innovative performance in R&D based
science and technology firms’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.28–47.
Tsai, C.T. and Liao, W.F. (2011) ‘A study on the framework and indicators for open innovation
performance via AHP approach. Technology management in the energy smart world
(PICMET)’, 2011 Proceedings of PICMET ‘11.
Tzafrir, S.S. (2005) ‘The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, No. 9, pp.1600–1622.
Ulrich, D. (1996) Human Resource Champions. The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering
Results, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
Unruh, C.G. and Cabrera, À. (2013) ‘Managers with a cross-cultural perspective are in high
demand’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp.135–139.
van den Bos, K., Lind, E.A., Vermunt, R. and Wilke, M.A.H. (1997) ‘How do I judge my outcome
when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect’, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 5, pp.1034–1046.
van der Heyden, L., Blondel, C. and Carlock, S.R. (2005) ‘Fair process: striving for justice in
family busines’, Family Business Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.1–21.
Vanhala, M. and Ahteela, R. (2011) ‘The effect of HRM practices on impersonal organizational
trust’, Management Research Review, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp.869–888.
Wang, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Roijakkers, N. (2012) ‘Exploring the impact of open innovation
on national systems of innovation-a theoretical analysis’, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp.419–428.
Williams, I. (2011) ‘Organizational readiness for innovation in health care: some lessons from the
recent literature’, Health Services Management Research: An Official Journal of the
Association of University Programs in Health Administration/HSMC, AUPHA, Vol. 24, No. 4,
pp.213–218.
Wright, P.M., Snell, S.A. and Dyer, L. (2005) ‘New models of strategic HRM in a global context’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.875–881.
Wu, Y., Loch, H.C. and van der Heyden, L. (2008) ‘A model of fair process and its limits’,
Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.1–17.
Publication VI
Open innovation for “humanly-embedded” financial institutions: individuals and
Reprinted with permission from the Proceedings
R&D Management Conference, 2015
© 2015, R&D Management
Open innovation for “humanly embedded”
financial institutions: individuals and
Dimitrios G. Salampasis1, Anne-Laure Mention2 and
Marko Torkkeli3
1
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Luxembourg. Dimitrios.Salampasis@list.lu
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Luxembourg. anne-laure.mention@list.lu
3
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland. marko.torkkeli@lut.fi
2
This qualitative empirical paper, by talking across discipline lines and adopting a multidisciplinary
approach, aims at shedding light to the highly neglected and under-developed human side of open
innovation by bringing insights from the financial industry. It contributes to the limited existing
literature, unveiling the peculiarities of the dynamic interconnection between the individual and the
organizational spheres. This multifaceted interconnection captures a) the profile of an open
innovation leader and b) the organizational ingredients, practices and mechanisms contributing to
the creation of an open innovation corporate environment. Primary data has been collected from 21
in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted with C-level Executives of major financial
institutions in Europe, Americas and Asia-Pacific. This paper argues that there is an emergent need
for sharpening the understanding that for open innovation to be meaningful and successful, in the
financial industry, the human element must be put back on the agenda and strategic intent of the
industry, per se, especially in the face of unprecedented global and organizational challenges. This
paper shares novel academic and managerial implications on the dynamic co-dependence of the
individual and organizational spheres towards embracing open innovation within “humanlyembedded” financial institutions.
1. Introduction
Human nature is a complex collage; difficult to
understand, unveil and unpack all the hidden and
respective peculiarities, along with unpredictable human
actions, distinct attitudes, goals, motivations and
behavioural explanations. In addition, organizations are
living systems with all their integrative parts entangled,
characterized by complexity, primarily, when working
with human beings, the “raw materials” of the
organization’s process (Hasenfeld, 1983), making it
almost impossible to fully capture their way of
functioning and the ecosystem of interrelated dynamics
involved (Weick, 1979).
At the same time, in the context of the financial
industry, an emergent need for an inherent contextual
understanding and appreciation of the role individuals and
top management play in the process of value creation,
value capture and value sharing from adopting and
implementing open innovation practices is observed. This
necessity is driven by a combination of emerging
challenges, trends and customer needs the landscape of
the financial industry is facing (mobile applications, big
data analytics, sharing economy, social media, payments,
lending, savings, third-party solutions/platforms/utilities
etc), especially with regards to the role of technological
innovation, regulatory changes, compliance requirements,
the loss of relevance of traditional financial services from
a customers’standpoint (Accenture 2020 Banking Report,
2013; Millennial Disruption Index) and the fact that
financial institutions are no longer deemed trustworthy
(Edelman Trust Barometer, 2014). To that respect, the
driving forces that shape the industry resolving around
technological developments, collaboration models,
consolidation activity, interoperability across players and
penetration of market participants, change the nature of
the industry itself. Within this fierce competition, the
financial industry must be prepared for change, within an
environment that is no longer “business as usual”, in
terms of institutional adaptation, modernization and
change of mindset in order to sustain its relevance and
competitive advantage, leaving also room for becoming a
globally effective social industry, economically and
socially sustainable (Davis and White, 2015). For this to
happen, financial institutions need to adopt open
innovation practices that will help them “embrace the
technology-driven changes and look for new opportunities
rather than protecting and preserving antiquated business
models” (Hernaes, 2015, n.g.) in terms of remaining
relevant to their customers. “It is encouraging that many
banks are receptive to the idea of open innovation,
collaboration and Fintech investment and also are
prepared to sacrifice current revenue in order to move to
new business models. But banks need to innovate faster,
become more nimble and develop a more entrepreneurial
culture if they are going to compete effectively and meet
customers’needs” (Holley, 2015, n.g.).
In this context, in order for open innovation to succeed,
it is important for financial institutions to understand the
emerging role and characteristics of the open innovation
leader, while at the same time create the right conditions
within the corporate environment for this human nature to
excel and thrive, especially within conditions of
uncertainty. All in all, it is of moment to acknowledge that
the human and organizational elements are totally
intertwined in the process of making open innovation
possible within the financial industry.
This view is emboldened by the fact that organizations
are perceived as a way of ordering the flux of human
action, catering for its channelling to some kind of
outcome by formalizing meanings, rules and norms
(Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Furthermore, this view caters
for a reflection on Peter Drucker’s management theories
and his heuristic approach on the fact that organizations
must operate within the societal norms of morality and
ethics, taking always into account the fact that, on the one
hand, people are the most valuable resource for an
organization and on the other hand, top management must
seek to support people to freely perform. This way of
thinking is indeed once again contemporary, especially
within the financial industry, where an emerging devoir to
realize the upcoming human to human business
philosophy and paradigm shift, comes to light.
To that respect, acting in response to the need for
further investigation on the under-developed human side
of open innovation (du Chatenier et al., 2010; Elmquist et
al., 2009; Gassmann et al., 2010; Perkmann and Walsh,
2007; Salter et al., 2014; Sartori et al., 2013; West et al.,
2006; Wynarczyk et al., 2013), this paper introduces a
“humanly-embedded” approach to open innovation in the
financial industry. By analysing internal management
structures and elements along with the identification of
individual characteristics, this paper contributes to the
discussion on the role of open innovation within the
financial industry, an industry, not yet vastly explored in
innovation studies, despite its primary contribution to the
overall worldwide economy (Gianiodis et al., 2014;
Mention and Torkkeli, 2012, 2014; Schueffel and Vadana,
2015). In this frame of reference, the following two
research questions are hereby being discussed:
1. What is the profile to excel and lead in an open
innovation environment, within and across
organizational boundaries?
2. What are the organizational ingredients and ways
contributing to the creation of the right corporate
open innovation environment and culture, within and
across organizational boundaries?
Twenty one in-depth semi-structured interviews with
C-level Executives of major financial institutions have
been conducted, offering an abundant vicinity of insights,
foresights and perspectives.
The rationale behind the need to focus on open
innovation and explore the embeddedness of the human
element within the organizational sphere of financial
institutions, is not only prescribed by the literature, but
also from the necessity to integrate an alternative prism in
the ways financial institutions perceive their business
relationships with individuals and especially with their
employees. This relationship, especially within the
context of the financial crisis, has been experiencing a
tremendously strenuous impact and loss of trust both
inside-out and outside-in, according to the recent findings
of the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer. Hence, its
redefinition is really about promoting a long-term
financial security and trustworthiness (Fergusson, 2011)
by forming a human connection with the people inside the
organization, in the realms of open innovation, as a
connection-driven innovation paradigm (Salampasis et al.,
2014). Furthermore, the authors consider this discussion
topical since the ability to innovate becomes a strategic
prerequisite for the financial industry’s growth and
success and the adoption of open innovation practices can
foster collaboration and facilitate the rethinking of the
industry’s existing business model and value proposition,
within an increasingly complex and volatile world.
The paper is structured as following: Section 2,
projects an overview of the relevant literature. Section 3,
presents the methodological tools and the argumentation
regarding the appropriateness of the methodological
approach. Section 4, expounds a comprehensive analysis
of the research outcomes, offering a detailed analysis and
synthesis towards addressing the two research questions.
Sections 5, manifests the research contribution,
concluding remarks, implications for academia and
practice, while, acknowledging limitations and putting
emphasis on avenues for further research.
2. Literature Review
Despite the vast acknowledgement of the importance of
the role of the human element within the open innovation
research agenda, the organizational aspect is the one that
still prevails at most (Shalter et al., 2014). The “humanly
embedded” organizational culture of managing people and
the collective prism of behaviours and skills, which is
considered as the “soft side” of business, is usually
neglected (Pfeffer, 1994).
A conditional factor for successful open innovation
management is the development of organisational
capabilities and managerial competence fostering the
exploration, exploitation and retention of internal and
external knowledge (Wynarczyk et al., 2013). This
realisation is encapsulated within the complex interplay
between individuals and teams towards a formation of an
organisational culture and strategy (Lichtenthaler et al.,
2011) and the existence of specialised knowledge, skills
and learning structures (Lichtenthaler, 2004). EasterbySmith and Prieto (2008) underline the importance of
human processes as a dominant element, which cannot be
overlooked by knowledge management.
Open innovation means adopting a new mindset and
paying attention to the development of diverse and
expanded capabilities within a corporate framework (Van
de Vrande et al., 2010). In relation to this change of
mindset, Salter et al (2014) observe an incompatibility
between the requirements for open innovation and the
existing modus operandi, resulting in numerous
challenges (getting the right mindset, building
partnerships, starting the conversation and taking
advantage) in terms of daily work execution, formal and
informal procedures and development of individual work
roles.
The human factor of open innovation, along with
resources, organizational systems and culture, belongs to
the internal barriers of open innovation adoption (Sartori
et al., 2013). The role and new issues related to the human
resource management (hereinafter HRM) arena, especially
with regards to the openness of the firm and the extent of
collaborative initiatives, show that the traditional model
“for managing human resource has been abandoned as a
result of the introduction of open innovation practices”
(Petroni et al., 2012: 171).
Open innovation adoption requires personalisation,
communication and a collaborative mindset; organizations
need to start collaborating and opening up, first internally
and then externally (Salampasis et al., 2014). To that
respect, open innovation is purposeful when collaboration
among key parts of the organizational sphere takes place
only when a solid layer of organizational trust exists
(Salampasis et al., 2015a). Innes et al. (2007) depict the
formal and informal nature of collaboration under the
prisms of a network approach, while Innes and Booher
(2010) introduce the existence of “collaborative
rationality” in relation to the creation of a participatory
environment. Surowiecki (2005: 57) evinces the fact that
“collective decisions are likely to be good ones when
they’re made by people with diverse opinions reaching
independent conclusions, relying primarily on their
private information”.
Due to the financial crisis, the landscape of the
financial industry has been drastically altered. Adopting
open innovation practices is difficult due to various
organizational factors and monetary reasons (Schueffel
and Vadana, 2015). Salampasis et al. (2015b) argue that
there is a need to adopt a “human-centered” mindset and
attitude towards open innovation in the banking industry.
This means developing practices within an organizational
culture, which contribute to the formation of a
“humanistic behavioural norm”, which can act as a
catalyst for open innovation leaders in the financial
industry to “reach out beyond the confines of their
organization for ideas and solutions, for the innovations
that will enable their organizations to excel” (Seltzer and
Mahmoudi, 2012: 3). This is particularly relevant for the
financial industry, which is often characterized as being
dehumanized (Salampasis et al., 2015b), mainly, due to
perplexed hierarchical structures and a silo-driven
mindset, hampering the incentive, motivation and impulse
for organizational transformation and change (Vermeulen
et al., 2007).
Padilla-Melendez and Garrigo-Moreno (2012) argue
that moving from the organizational to the individual
level, various factors including motivation, recognition
and training in dedicated skills, motivate the engagement
in knowledge transfer exchanges. Salampasis et al.
(2015b), introduce additional factors including
intraorganizational trust, fair processes and leadership, in
the course of action to adopt open innovation practices in
the banking industry.
The human side creates an ecosystem of social
relations, cultural factors and sense-making. In this
context, management must “unleash the human potential
of employees and build the flexible company only by
stripping away mechanistic assumptions and trappings
and dealing with the human side of the organization”
(Kelly, 2000: 145). Skills, knowledge and commitment
are considered as constitutional elements of innovation
towards the prevailing of a value creation mechanism
(Youndt et al., 1996), requiring effective HRM practices
and determining the employer-employee relationship
(Rousseau and Greller, 1994). Furthermore, open
innovation leaders need to create a trustworthy
environment, integrate individual and partner goals and
establish equilibrium among different levels of power (du
Chatenier et al., 2010).
Human skills and capabilities share substantial
influence towards the adoption of open innovation
practices (Mortara et al., 2009; Schroll and Mild, 2011).
Mannix and Neale (2005) underline the existence of
skills, personal traits, psychological and cultural norms,
social network, demographic attributes and values, while
Mortara et al. (2009) classify four types of open
innovation skills: introspective, extrospective, interactive
and technical. Martino and Bartolone (2011) identify the
soft skills for open innovation success by sketching the
profile of employees dealing with open innovation
processes, around intrapreneurial skills, communication
skills, inherent relationship building and maintenance
capacity, fast learning, tolerance in terms of uncertainty,
passion and optimism.
This human aspect is also directly linked to
organizational performance (Felin and Foss, 2005)
contributing to the appreciation of personnel education. In
this context, the role of education, the development and
the diffusion of human capital, act as a major catalyst
towards the promotion of an environment of open
innovation (Podmetina et al., 2013) becoming the key KPI
towards the measurement of the open innovation process
(Perkmann and Walsh, 2007).
This paper, by building upon the existing open
innovation research scholarship, aims at contributing to
the discussion around the human and organizational
aspect of open innovation by providing insights from the
financial industry in terms of investigating the intersection
between the individual and the organizational
peculiarities. It aspires to understand and appreciate the
importance of the human element and unveil ways and
mechanisms for succeeding and excelling in open
innovation (both within as well as across organizational
boundaries) in the realms of the financial industry, an
industry where “the concept of open innovation is only
very scarcely applied” (Schueffel and Vadana, 2015: 1);
an industry striving to redefine its identity, its strategic
intent and its relevance.
3. Research Design
The qualitative research approach, adopted hereby, caters
for the generation of new insights by providing rich
context about empirical phenomena, either in terms of
extending prior research outcomes or by exploring new
research questions (Bettis et al., 2015).
The employment of qualitative interviews, following
an inductive reasoning, allows the unravelling of the
interviewees ’own perspectives and points of view, while
understanding valuable insights on what is relevant and
important for the interviewee per se, in relation to each of
the topical areas, along with flexibility and emergence of
new concepts and ideas (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Twenty one qualitative interviews have been conducted
with Chief HR Officers, Chief Innovation Officers and Clevel Executives of major financial institutions in Europe,
Americas and Asia-Pacific. This mosaic of views reflects
the need to drive a globalized strategic orientation
approach within the financial industry. Additionally, it
ensures appropriateness and a wide range of
characteristics of interviewees, accrediting pluralism and
emergence of views and experiences under the prism of
diverse organizational, cultural, societal, ideological,
educational and political backgrounds.
Table 1: Overview of Interviewees
The theoretical sample has been chosen based on: a)
the reputation and trust benchmarking according to the
2014 Thomson Reuters Trust Index, b) the size of the
workforce, the age (Van de Vrande et al., 2009) and
location of the representative financial institution and c)
the historical and actual attention to innovation,
communicated externally, based on the 2014 KPMG
Luxembourg Banks Insights and the 2014 Global
Innovation Index. The interviewees have been chosen
according to their position, knowledge and portfolio,
following a course of pre-interviewing in order to
safeguard the alignment of their profiles to the research
strategy. It is also important at this stage to mention the
inherent difficulty of the financial industry to share
information and accept having executives be interviewed,
primarily due to confidentiality purposes and regulatory
restrictions.
The interviews followed a semi-structured, open-ended
pattern, taking the form of “guided conversations” (Yin,
2003: 89), establishing “the topic for the respondent and
then leave the respondent to structure and answer as is
seen fit” (Vinten, 1995: 27). All interviews, conducted
within a period of seven months, either in person or via
teleconference (Skype calls), lasting approximately 60
min. each, were fully recorded and transcribed, keeping
the wording intact. Each transcript, with a debrief note
including the interviewer’s “reactions to participant
attitudes, insights and the quality of the interview”
(Cooper and Schindler, 2014: 157), was sent back to the
interviewees for additional corrections and comments. A
written validation was provided by each interviewee along
with a non-disclosure agreement, due to confidentiality
reasons and to minimize potential bias. When available,
secondary data from additional organisational knowledge
channels e.g. annual reports, charts, available registers,
company websites etc. were integrated in a triangulation
process, ensuring construct validity and avoiding post-hoc
rationalisation.
The abovementioned table shows the profile of the
interviewees, the sector and the location of the
organization. All interviewees represent multinational
financial institutions, being in line with existing research,
which suggests that larger and older firms share the
likelihood of being more involved within open innovation
practices leading to internationalization activities contrary
to smaller and younger companies (Clausen and Pohjola,
2009; Van de Vrande et al., 2009), without of course
disregarding the fact that young, micro and SMEs practice
open innovation (Wynarczyk, 2013).
4. Findings
4.1. Open Innovation Leader
Mapping the profile of an open innovation leader in the
financial industry is really about encouraging the adoption
of a different kind of employee; an employee who is
primarily aligned to the corporate culture: “… we are
looking closely on each skill and experience that we
require […] we are really working to make sure that the
person is matching […] we check the personality, the
attitude […] that matches our culture or can provide
something to Maitland. We also make sure that the person
has the skills, the technical skills required […] someone
has the right skills, the right experience and the right
attitude […] sometimes the attitude that the person has,
does not match to the company culture. The person could
be perfect for another company but not in ours, just
because our culture is not the culture that person has”. In
agreement, “… you look for the value fit of individuals,
but first you look at your own values as a company”
(Interviewee, I, com.pers).
Education plays a very important role, especially,
nowadays, due to globalization and the fact that people
are being constantly exposed to new ideas, know-how,
experience, multi-cultural and multi-lingual environments.
“We recruit people, who were trained in a country which
is not based on their nationality. We think that this gives
the company a collective entry point and we focus on this
kind of opening in terms of this mentality to the external
world” (Interviewee, F, com.pers).
An open innovation leader in the financial industry
encapsulates a range of vision related to strong technical
and theoretical expertise. Mix of business and legal
studies, understanding and interpreting the regulatory
framework, international exposure and orientation,
multilingual competence, cultural dexterity, open mindset,
willingness to multitask and collaborate; all coated within
an entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial mentality. “You
need to be an entrepreneur; always looking for excellence
in providing a very high quality of services” (Interviewee,
C, com.pers). On top of strong analytical skills,
argumentation and negotiation skills and focusing on
detail are of preeminent value.
Leadership skills and traits are more focused on the
ability of an individual leader, or a leader to be, not only
to subsume contradictory and multiple views and
decisions, but mainly to execute. Execution is a really
essential aspect, since executives often remain in the
sphere of strategy and innovation without proceeding to
the execution phase. “It is a blend of good technical
knowledge that is backed up and supported by an ability
to actually get things done […] We are not looking just
for technical persons or just for project management. We
are looking for the best people to have skills on both
sides. You do not find them very often but these are the
sort of people that are looking for and have as a priority”
(Interviewee, J, com.pers).
An additional characteristic, which deserves
recognition, is the proof of flexibility, which is about
safeguarding that an open innovation leader is adaptive,
self-disciplined and can survive within complex
organizational entities full of perplexed reporting
procedures, multiple decision-making bodies and hubs.
This requires people who are patient, showing willingness
to try hard, not get easily disappointed and drive a longterm solution mindset. “And I may say that I am not
looking for someone just doing what I ask to do, I am
looking for someone who is going to do what I ask to do
and also suggest recommendations and see where the
business is going” (Interviewee, E, com.pers).
For a financial industry open innovation leader, the
“market view” is indispensable, requiring a mixture of
strong operational experience as much as having the
ability to work with other organizations. “They have their
environment view of the company in, which they work in,
but they do not always have the view of what they have
on the outside” (Interviewee, M, com.pers). What’s more,
flexibility means, being comfortable to work in
collaborative borderless environments and eager to share
sufficient information, listen to the information, build
upon the respective requirements and then convert them
into such a way that it can bring an added value.
The discussion with the interviewees materialized
additional elements, which share an axiological
importance and acknowledgement within the open
innovation paradigm: a) advanced relational skills to build
meaningful relationships; part of the meaningfulness of
the relationship is about the 1) common understanding, 2)
willingness to add value and part of that means openness,
b) curious confidence, i.e. trying to make a difference,
being able to challenge and acknowledging mistake.
“Because from that basis you can share things without
worrying whether they are right but also the fact that they
are potentially wrong allows you to learn. And this isn’t
about being brave or being the most outspoken; it is a
kind of an internal confidence about that it is OK to say
this, because I am doing this with the right intention and I
am going to make my intention known” (Interviewee, G,
com.pers) and c) dialogue skills, encased in maturity and
respect; understanding the nature of dialogue, being
proficient in using incisive questions, caring enough to
think carefully about the questions to be asked, the
question that are incisive towards the ad hoc situation.
“That’s a fairly rare commodity because it is something
we do not tend to nurture […] so there is definitely
something about dialogue skills and I do not believe that
interviews tend to allow us to bring those out”
(Interviewee, U, com.pers).
The following table (developed by the authors) depicts
the multifaceted spectrum of characteristics an open
innovation leader within the financial industry needs to
possess, nurture and constantly develop, so as to excel
individually and collectively, within and across
organizational boundaries, accelerate and unlock the
potential of the organization within numerous constantly
changing conditions of the global business environment.
The development of the table has been based on the
interviews but also on information received from industry
forums and real job descriptions and openings so as to
strengthen the relevance of the findings.
Table 2. Leadership Traits of an Open Innovation Leader in the Financial Industry
The heretofore mapping of the profile of an open
innovation leader in the financial industry, unveils
multiple peculiarities and challenges, which need to be
addressed internally, requiring changes in many aspects of
the organizational sphere. This realization is in line with
the argumentation posed by Tsoukas and Chia (2002: 570)
that “we need to stop giving ontological priority to the
organization, making change an exceptional effect,
produced only under specific circumstances by certain
people (change agents)”. Open innovation within the
financial industry entails the elements of ambivalence and
unpredictability, requiring a many-sided and different
logic leadership to realize and nurture it, while coping
with the unknown and in great uncertainty. This on-going
metamorphosis of global dynamics makes change being
always present, necessitating the overall understanding of
the organization.
The authors argue that the required individual elements
reflect, in a sense, the collective culture and the
components, which are vital for establishing open and
collaborative organizations. Furthermore, this mapping
shows an amalgamation of multiple facets and particulars
that frame the individual sphere and cover multipolar
aspects of the human nature.
Far-reaching is also the fact that the profile of an open
innovation leader in the financial industry reflects the
evolution of a new type of leader. “I think the need for
leadership qualities will increase […] I am not saying that
we do not need the other profile, I am saying we need
both, but I think we need to focus also on the fact that if
you want a competitive edge you need to have the right
people driving this competitive train and acknowledging
that relations and relationship building and all these are
much more important than just an ordinary chat with your
colleague” (Interviewee, T, com.pers).
4.2. Organizational Readiness for Open Innovation
The previous paragraphs have sketched the individual
characteristics of an open innovation leader in the
financial industry. Attracting such talents, means that the
corporate environment must be able to offer this kind of
workplace, by putting in place the necessary mechanisms
and conditions to nurture such individual characteristics,
while embracing the preferences of the next generation
(Davis and White, 2015). The purpose of this section is to
investigate, based on the components of the individual
sphere, the respective ingredients of an open innovation
corporate environment and the pathway to its successful
creation, within the context of financial institutions.
Traditional financial institutions are usually
characterised by introversion and a silo-driven
environment, mainly driven by the brand name of the
respective organization, which does not always allow the
exploration of the market and the competitors. “We are so
good, so great that we cannot see, or do not want to see, or
we believe that it is worthless looking at our competitors”
(Interview A, com.pers). In any context, business or
people, especially in the framework of organizational
change, introversion is a serious hindrance. The only way
to move forward and foster an environment of open
innovation is by becoming extrovert. “Open innovation
practices can be applied if the mindset and spirit of
collaboration and openness is in place” (Interviewee O,
com.pers). In the same frame of reference Johnson (2010:
42) argues that “the trick to having good ideas is not to sit
around in glorious isolation and try to think big thoughts.
The trick is to get more parts on the table”.
To accomplish this endeavour, there is an inherent need
to create conditions that promote trust, destroy silos and
encourage dialogue and free expression of ideas and
thoughts. It is essential to be organized in such a way so
as to believe in collaboration and partnership, at all levels
of the organizational entity. It means working very
actively across different countries, with different skillsets, different organizations (banks, technology
companies, governments etc). Top management must be
visible across countries, manifest the leadership,
especially when not being in the same geographical place,
which certainly is an exhilarating challenge. At the same
time, this requires the establishment of a very open culture
towards working with other organizations and a robust
intellectual property i.e. a vast amount of activities with
other financial institutions, customers, the public and the
private sector. It requires shifting from a very silo-driven,
a very narrow framework to one that is much broader,
inclusive, much more strategic, much more open, one that
embraces diversity, encourages complementarity in the
respective working groups and gives individuals the
opportunity to develop within an organization in a much
more holistic way.
Integration is one of the key internal sorts of behaviour
trades that must be engendered between the different
areas. Top management should go beyond the comfort
zone, leading the endeavour of finding out about other
areas and how the organization works by means of
educating other people and learning from them. This
practice denotes a two-way process of going beyond the
barriers, the kind of invisible barriers that exist within the
organization. Within the open innovation paradigm this
shall run the interference for knowledge-sharing,
knowledge-creation (cross-divisional knowledge) while
vouching for the nurturing of organizational trust.
Furthermore, top management should be approachable
to work with each one the employees in different areas, to
embrace willingness to delegate, acknowledge and reflect
the willingness to trust the employees to deliver their
duties in a proper way without having to adopt monitoring
and surveillance practices and actually embrace the
willingness to work and bring everyone on board. It needs
to embrace an alternative way of thinking, far from
controlling people and provision of monetary incentives
as a form of motivation (McGregor, 1960). These
practices “grease the wheels” for challenging the
organization to do better and adapt to new ways of
working. “The partners in our firm are very open, they
adopt an open-door policy that is really working well
here, they invite any employee to listen something about
new business developments […] employees are really
involved in the business and the life of the organization”
(Interviewee, Q, com.pers).
This approach is educational, collaborative, is about
mutual trust and about giving the employees a sense of
responsibility by delegation. It encourages employees to
come on board, to become motivated by being creative,
more motivated by developing new financial products and
by having a greater purpose and social benefit. “I am
trying to share with them and to recognize their work […]
actually I am trying to build this relationship with
everybody […] but to do that we need make people much
engaged and to get them motivated and feel happy within
the company and that is what I am trying to do […] push
them to do more than they can do”. (Interviewee, R,
com.pers).
Open innovation in the financial industry is meaningful
when the organization’s culture is translated across
organizational, national and international boundaries.
Creating more human financial institutions requires this
key glue: “it’s the organization’s values, the
organization’s culture, what does the organization stand
for, what does it want to achieve, who are the senior
leaders for everyone irrespective the country and the
operation” (Interviewee B, com.pers).
In order to build an open innovation corporate
environment within the financial industry two major
practices have been identified: talent acquisition-retention
and training.
Open innovation adoption in the financial industry
displays a willingness to innovate and adopt know-how
and practices from other industries. Bringing in new skill
sets from other companies, skills that have slightly
different forms of incentives, opens doors to new
incentives. From a human standpoint, the real value is on
finding the right people. To that respect, the trends in the
talent acquisition and retention, especially within big
organizations, will be towards resource process
outsourcing,
pooling
labour
resources,
shared
management development, shared training methods,
shared R&D and shared recruitment in the direction
towards the development of employee referral plans and
establishment of an employer brand.
The establishment of an employer brand will be built
upon a shared value between companies that have the
skills, companies that are focused on niche markets
requiring specialized profiles and this can happen by
outsourcing and sharing the value chain. So within the
talent acquisition process, open innovation can play a
strategic role in terms of realizing the power of words and
communication towards the creation of common
understandings in opening up all stages of the recruitment
process. This openness leads to a formation of a galaxy of
players that collaborate within the talent acquisition
lifecycle creating new dominant designs, which are
adopted by financial institutions as solutions to their
unmet needs. It is important to underline that this process
does not only lead to the identification of new talents, but
also to new business opportunities, new partnership
opportunities, building business cases that together with
marketing and sales functions shall also strengthen the
reputation of the respective financial institution with a
major impact on the firm’s innovation strategy and
performance, both in terms of breadth and depth.
An opportunity towards building collaborative and
open financial institution emerges also through training
sessions. This is an operation in relationship-based
cultures, providing the employees with the necessary
technical and sub-skills. “It is really about learning from
managers’ own experiences; so we get our own managers
to come and talk and then we bring out some external
speakers to talk about leadership and about culture and
about innovation” (Interviewee, H, com.pers). They serve
as a quality indicator, securing that the employee is
properly trained, complying with the existing regulation,
the spectrum of activities and services provided by the
financial institution and the needs of the respective
market.
Additionally, they serve as team-building activities
letting on for a collaborative spirit in the working
environment, encouraging and cultivating an interdepartmental and multi-level approach to the management
of employees, the understanding of their needs, attributes
and motivations. “People are working with everybody so
there a valuation from each part with everybody”.
(Interviewee, K, com.pers). For that to look different, in a
learning organization, enlightened managers are needed;
managers who understand the value of training, managers
who communicate that to their staff making sure they
understand. This is the actual inner spectrum; that’s about
a learning organization, that’s about a leader that is
embedding learning and development in practice.
This collaborative environment, increases the learning
objectives, allows the nurturing of skills and competences,
required by the market, increases the employability range
and makes employees curious enough to adapt themselves
and be open to new subjects and specializations by
cultivating an open mentality. Furthermore, this kind of
interactions provide time and space for the upbringing of
a creative, connective and collective mindset. Successful
communication aligned to the strategic goals is a
challenging and strenuous task. Training sessions assist
employees (especially the ones belonging to the lower
levels of hierarchy) to comprehend and appreciate the
internal functions, the combinative forces of the
interrelated internal dynamics and perceive the criteria
and the rationale behind both certain actions and
decisions.
Based on the abovementioned analysis, open
innovation in the financial industry is meaningful only
within organizations that embrace learning and
development. The evolution of open innovation within the
financial industry will begin with an evolution in learning.
It is observed that even though the strenuous process to
create an open innovation corporate environment is
primary related to top management, the interrelated
internal dynamics and combinative forces, that shall bring
the employees on board this process by creating a
communal ethos within the organizational sphere, must be
put in place so as to translate the required the individual
and organizational ingredients to a corporate environment.
To sum up, in order for open innovation to make a
difference and patronize a foundational change in the
financial industry, the starting point is about profiling the
organization and creating an organizational and
innovation identity: strategic vision, insights and
foresights, profile and types of people. This is
encapsulated within the talent acquisition and retention
process, making sure that the right people enter and fit
within the organizational culture. Then it is about
leadership development, motivation and nurturing of the
employees to innovate with purpose and within the course
of business ethics. This is done via training sessions that
safeguard that people develop themselves in alignment to
the organizational culture, behaviour and strategic intent,
translating the individual sphere across the organizational
boundaries.
Figure 1. Organizational Readiness for Open Innovation in the Financial Industry (Developed by the authors)
5. Conclusion and avenues for further
research
5.1. Contributions
The research outcomes address cutting-edge topical
issues of the human aspect, encapsulated within a
dynamic interplay between the individual and
organizational sphere in relation to open innovation
adoption by providing novel insights in the context of
the financial industry on a) the profile of an open
innovation leader and b) the ways to build an open
innovation corporate environment In this context, some
closing remarks deserve attention and consideration.
The role of open innovation within the financial
industry is interpreted as finding solutions to complex
problems (streamline operations, capture new market
niches and establish a competitive advantage) and
meeting business needs and objectives, while
safeguarding trust through human branding and
operational transparency. Furthermore, the open
innovation leader constitutes a new type of leader
epitomizing interconnected and interrelated elements
that cover a wide spectrum of multidimensional
characteristics. This profile captures the integrative
interplay between the cognitive space (mental/physical
skills and intellectual potentialities) and the
motivational space (individual needs, psychological
conditions, behavioural assumptions and cultural
expectations), along with personal attributions and
traits, including various demands on the job,
perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative
behaviour, while at the same time sharing numerous
challenges ahead in terms of talent acquisition,
retention and training.
The financial industry open innovation leader is
positioned at the core strategic DNA being responsible
for infusing and diffusing an innovation culture within
the organization. The open innovation leader is
responsible for creating value and competitive
advantage by reaching out and systematically
identifying and commercializing new products and
services developed with external partners, safeguarding
market and customer relevance. The open innovation
leader is the driver of creating an integrated open
innovation capability within the financial institution,
providing enthusiasm, methodology and creative
thinking, translating challenges to opportunities,
aligned to the ad hoc regulatory and compliance
framework.
Within the financial industry, open innovation is
meaningful within learning organizations that show
willingness to primarily understand the people and the
individual working relationships, along with
organizational values, visions, strategies and place in
the market, reach out to attract the right people on a
global scale and then safeguard constant development
by putting in place all the respective mechanisms and
organizational elements that shall empower the creation
of an open innovation corporate environment. Financial
institutions need to invest a lot in becoming actual
learning organizations by infusing and nurturing to
their employees the willingness to learn to collaborate,
to open-up and create an inclusive culture. This will be
done by bringing on board the right people (talent
acquisition and retention) and by aligning existing and
future workforce to the culture, behaviour and strategic
intent of the organization (training). This process
depicts the dynamic trajectory from the micro level
(profile and career perspectives) to a macro-level i.e.
developing the right profile to perform and become
economically competitive in the global landscape
(Hoffman et al., 2014).
Organizing for open innovation is a continuous and
incremental learning process that brings forward issues
related to open corporate governance. It includes
patterns that cannot be pre-determined especially when
relations between people and organizational entities are
developed within unpredictability and uncertainty.
These patterns on the one hand safeguard sustainability
but on the other hand act as drivers of change within
the continual remodelling of organizational dynamics.
The authors argue that open innovation is a
participatory innovation paradigm meaningful within
human organizations that embrace collaboration and
transparency,
while
cherishing
openness,
trustworthiness, respect and assiduity to the human
element. Open innovation for “humanly embedded”
financial institutions captures the creation of a human
brand focusing on novel approaches to leadership and
to engaging with people in financial institutions. In the
same manner, the quality of HRM practices and people
is an inherent element of this organizational readiness
and the authors believe that this is one of the major
antecedents and necessary elements of open innovation.
Within this process, open innovation can play an
integrative role, since it can be the driver of regaining
trust and building upon more human financial
institutions, while defining a new sustainable growth
trajectory for the industry.
5.2. Implications
In relation to academic implications, this research, by
talking across discipline lines and different
backgrounds, explores the multifaceted human side of
open innovation in the financial industry, responding to
the call for further research regarding the consideration
of the organizational context and environment
(Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). The rationale behind
this research is in line with both “the human and the
organizational side of open innovation, areas that are
highlightened as important fields for further research”
(Elmquist et al., 2009: 326).
This paper opens up the research of open innovation
in relation to the human element by paving the way to a
more multidisciplinary approach. The human side of
open innovation is still quite underdeveloped taking
also into consideration the fact that open innovation as
a concept, even if it is considered a mainstream
buzzword is not yet vastly adopted, especially in the
financial industry, where is still quite amorphous
undergoing various interpretations. The discussion on
the emerging role of the human element and the
organizational readiness for open innovation in the
financial industry caters for a broadened approach and
research, synthesizing different research streams and
disciplines to create valuable knowledge both under an
academic and a practitioner perspective.
From a managerial standpoint, top management
needs to realize that human beings are considerably
complex entities having distinct skills, attitudes,
motivations and goals. Working in an organizational
environment means that people experience conflicting
goals, unequal knowledge and are exposed to different
levels of challenges and controls. In this context,
adopting open innovation practices is definitely a
challenging and incremental procedure for top
management in the financial industry. This study
provides both the tools and rationale for creating an
open innovation-friendly environment while facilitating
the process of turning open innovation into an
organizational capability.
Open innovation are very scarcely applied within the
financial industry. This realization was strongly
depicted by all the interviewees, who many also
showed a lack of understanding of the actual meaning
and interpretation of open innovation. In order for the
industry to benefit from the adoption of such practices
there is a need for establishing formal, well-structured
open innovation management teams, with a dedicated
portfolio, diversification of roles and complementarity
in terms of scientific/technological knowledge and nonscientific/technological expertise. This open innovation
management team shall facilitate the adoption,
management, implementation and utilization of open
innovation practices and establish new norms of action
within financial institutions.
Open innovation within an organization comes
primarily from the top management, being responsible
for nurturing this kind of mindset within the
organization. Within the financial industry it is of
utmost importance for top management to be able to
understand the need for establishing trustworthy and
sustainable relationships, which can lead to innovative
products and services. Trust along with friendship and
team-working are considered as “socially complex
resources ... difficult to imitate” catering for the
creation of competitive advantage (Barney, 1995: 55).
This is a leadership philosophy; it is about leading and
motivating people. If an environment of trust can be
created, greater trust with the clients that want to work
with the organization will be engendered. So it is of
note for leaders in the financial industry to understand
the substantial impact of trust and engagement within
organizations.
This realization is reflected into the employeeemployer relationship. The authors embrace the
suggestion by Hoffman et al (2014) regarding the need
to establish an employee-employer alliance: companies
investing in career transformation/career trajectory by
embedding
transferable
learning
across
the
organizational sphere, while individuals investing into
making the company adaptable within the respective
industry and driving a competitive advantage. This type
of alliance suggests a new model for organizing in
terms of employment and building a trustworthy
corporate environment for open innovation to thrive.
It is important to underline the elements of the
environment where top management functions; an
environment full of uncertainty, complexity and with
insufficient or incomplete information. The adoption of
open innovation practices in the financial industry can
help into the development of a strategic capacity and
the ability to understand the signals deriving from the
market and foster a collective and collaborative action.
Finally, the authors also argue that this “humanlyembedded” aspect can also culminate the discussion on
the role of the financial industry per se, by becoming
the catalyst to the strenuous endeavour of redefining
capitalism (on a macro-level) and moving from an
economic-driven to people-driven organizational and
strategic rationale.
5.3. Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
While this paper contributes to the understanding of the
role the intersection between the individual and
organizational spheres plays in adopting open
innovation practices within the financial industry, the
authors acknowledge there are several limitations worth
noted. The limited, yet, diverse sample allows neither
for the generalization of the findings for the overall
financial industry, nor for their transferability to other
sectors. Similarly the authors would caution about
generalizing these findings, however, they believe that
the sampling, within the realms of a qualitative
research, has been conducted so as ensure a wide range
of characteristics, without aiming at a statistical
representativeness.
Since individuals being “heterogeneously distributed
among firms”, become focal players in the open
innovation implementation process, they require
different skills to perform diverse tasks (Bianchi et al.,
2011: 827). This heterogeneity is conceptualised within
an ecosystem of skills, personal traits, psychological
and cultural norms, social network, demographic
attributes and values. To that respect, future research in
the financial industry is needed to a) develop variables
and metrics to capture this “humanly-embedded”
approach and individual open innovation behaviour in
the workplace, b) assess the impact on open innovation
performance and the overall strategic intent, c) unveil
the different categories of skills, competencies,
behavioural norms, personality traits and d) investigate
the integrative role of HRM practices in relation to
open innovation adoption and performance.
Furthermore, questions about mindset, motivations,
emotional factors and how the human factor challenges
organizational complexity of open innovation are
indeed seeking answers. Indicators of performance
should also embrace aspects not strictly related to
financial and economic performance (e.g. well-being
for employees, employee and customer retention,
growth) in a sort of chain-like fashion.
Moreover, the shift of financial institutions towards
becoming learning organizations requires the
development of dedicated training curricula to embrace
open innovation practices. It is important to determine
the learning outcomes, the methodology and the
learning approaches along with the acknowledgement
of skills and capabilities retained from non-formal
learning. This depicts a shift to an integrated capability
development mindset with fundamental changes in
performance assessment, career development, talent
retention and acquisition and use of technological
breakthroughs to redefine and engage employees within
the organizational sphere.
Despite the limitations, the authors believe that the
research outcomes offer a newly-framed, multipolar
approach by contributing to the larger discussion on the
importance of the human and organizational aspects of
open innovation in the financial industry, in a world
characterised
by non-linearity,
disorder
and
unpredictability. Understanding the people and creating
human organizations are the prerequisites for open
innovation to have a meaning and impact. The financial
industry as the driving force of the worldwide economy
needs to look outward and grasp the full sight of the
global picture. This can happen by embracing this
“humanly-embedded” mindset moving from knowledge
to human economy, nurturing a human capitalism and
philosophy within the complexity and uncertainty
norms of the 21st century.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the interviewees
and the respective financial institutions for their
willingness to share information, insights and valuable
know-how and for embracing this research with
enthusiasm and professionalism.
References
Accenture, (2013) 2020 Banking Report. Available online at
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/
Accenture-Banking-2020-POV.pdf
[Last
accessed:
15.04.2015].
Barney, J. (1995) Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage.
The Academy of Management Executive, 9, 4, 49-61.
Bettis, R.A., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., and Mitchell, W.
(2015) Qualitative Empirical Research in Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 5, 637639.
Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., and Frattini, F. (2011)
Exploring the role of human resources in technology outlicensing: an empirical analysis of biotech new technologybased firms. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 23, 8, 825-849.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. and Bogers, M. (2014) Explicating Open
Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for
Understanding
Innovation.
In
Chesbrough,
H.,
Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (Ed.), New Frontiers in
Open Innovation: 3-28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clausen, T.H. and Pohjola, M. (2009) International
competitiveness: internal capabilities and open innovation
as sources of export performance. Working Paper No. 05,
University of Oslo.
Cooper, R.D. and Schindler, S.P. (2014) Business Research
Methods (12th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Davis, F.G. and White, J.Ch. (2015) Changing Your
Company from the Inside Out: A Guide for Social
Intrapreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J.A.A.M., Biemans, H.J.A.,
Mulder, M., and Omta, O.S.W.F. (2010). Identification of
competencies for professionals in open innovation teams.
R&D Management, 40, 3, 271-280.
Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., and Ollila, S. (2009) Exploring
the field of open innovation. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 12, 3, 326-345.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008) Dynamic
capabilities and knowledge management: an integrative
role for learning? British Journal of Management, 19, 3,
235-249.
Felin, T. and Foss, N.J. (2005) Strategic organization: A field
in search for micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3,
4, 441-455.
Ferguson, W.R.Jr. (2011) Long-term financial security. In
Rosenfeld, G., Lorsh, W.J., and Khurana R. (Ed.),
Challenges to Business in the Twenty-First Century: 3-7.
Cambridge: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., and Chesbrough, H. (2010) The
future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40, 3, 213221.
Gianiodis, T.P., Ettlie, E.J., and Urbina, J.J. (2014) Open
Service Innovation in the Global Banking Industry: Insideout versus Outside-in strategies. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 28, 1, 76-91.
Hernaes, Ch. (2015) The landscape for financial services is
changing.
Available online at
https://hernaes.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/the-landscapefor-financial-services-is-changing/
[Last accessed: 20.04.2015].
Hasenfeld, Y. (1983) Human Service Organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hoffman, R., Casnocha, B., and Yeh, J.C. (2014) The
Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age. Boston:
Harvard Business Review Press.
Holley, E. (2015) Banks scramble to keep up with digital race
for pace. Banking Technology, 20th April 2015. Available
online at http://www.bankingtech.com/287492/banksscramble-to-keep-up-with-digital-race-for-pace/
[Last
accessed: 21.04.2015].
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D. (2010) Planning with Complexity:
An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public
Policy. New York: Routledge.
Innes, J.E., Connick, S., and Booher, D. (2007) Informality as
a Planning Strategy. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 73, 2, 195-210.
Johnson, S. (2010) Where Good Ideas Come from: The
Natural History of Innovation. New York: Riverhead
Books.
Kelly, P.E. (2000) Douglas McGregor. Revisited: Managing
the Human Side of the Enterprise. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14, 3, 143-145.
Lichtenthaler, U., Hoegl, M., and Muethel, M. (2011) Is your
company ready for open innovation? MIT Sloan
Management Review, 53, 1, 45-48.
Lichtenthaler, E. (2004) Organizing the external technology
exploitation process: current practices and future
challenges. International Journal of Technology
Management, 27, 2/3, 255-271.
Mannix, E. and Neale, M.A. (2005) What differences make a
difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in
organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
6, 2, 31-55.
Martino, G. and Bartolone, J. (2011) Soft Skills for Open
Innovation Success. In Sloane, P. (Ed.), A Guide for Open
Innovation and Crowdsourcing: Advice from Leading
Experts: 98-105. London: Koganpage.
McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of the enterprise. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Mention, A. L. and Torkkeli, M. (Eds.). (2014) Innovation in
Financial Services: A Dual Ambiguity. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mention, A. L. and Torkkeli, M. (2012) Drivers, processes
and consequences of financial innovation: a research
agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 16, 1, 5-29.
Mortara, L., Jakob, J., Imke Slacik, N., and Minshall, T.
(2009) How to implement open innovation: Lessons from
studying large multinational companies. Centre for
Technology Management, Cambridge, Institute for
Manufacturing, University of Cambridge.
Padilla-Maléndez, A. and Garrido-Moreno, A. (2012) Open
innovation in universities: What motivates researchers to
engage in knowledge transfer exchanges? International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 18, 4,
417-439.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007) University-industry
relationships and open innovation: Towards a research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9,
4, 259-280.
Petroni, G., Venturini, K., and Verbano, C. (2012) Open
innovation and new issues in R&D organization and
personnel management. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23, 1, 78-86.
Pfeffer, F. (1994) Competitive advantage through people.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Podmetina, D., Volchek, D., Dabrowska, J., and Fiegenbaum,
I. (2013) Human resource practices and open innovation.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 6, 122.
Rousseau, M.D. and Greller, M.M. (1994) Human resource
practices: Administrative contract makers. Human
Resource Management, 33, 3, 385-401.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli M. (2015a) Trust
embeddedness within an open innovation mindset.
International Journal of Business and Globalization, 14, 1,
32-57.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli M. (2015b)
Human resources management and open innovation
adoption in the banking sector: a conceptual model.
International Journal of Business Excellence, 8, 4, 433457.
Salampasis, D., Mention, A-L., and Torkkeli M. (2014) Trust
embedded open innovation: Literature review, synthesis
and research propositions. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2014(1), Philadelphia, USA.
Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., and Ter Wal, A. L. (2014) Coping
with Open Innovation: Responding to the Challenges of
External Engagement in R&D. California Management
Review, 56, 2, 77-94.
Sartori, R., Favretto, G., and Ceschi, A. (2013) The
relationships between innovation and human and
psychological capital in organizations: A review. The
Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,
8, 3, 1-18.
Schroll, A. and Mild, A. (2011) Determinants of open
innovation: an empirical study on organizational, market,
and human drivers of open innovation adoption across
Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional
Development, 3, 5, 465-485.
Schueffel, P. and Vadana, I. (2015) Open Innovation in the
Financial Services Sector-A global literature review.
Journal of Innovation Management (forthcoming)
Seltzer, E. and Mahmoudi, D. (2012) Citizen Participation,
Open Innovation, and Crowdsourcing: Challenges and
Opportunities for Planning. Journal of Planning Literature,
28, 1, 3-18.
Surowiecki, J. (2005) The Wisdom of Crowds. New York:
Anchor Books.
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) On Organizational
Becoming:
Rethinking
Organizational
Change.
Organization Science, 13, 5, 567-582.
Tzafrir, S.S. (2005) The relationship between trust, HRM
practices and firm performance. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16, 9, 1600-1622.
Van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., and Gassmann, O.
(2010) Broadening the scope of open innovation: past
research, current state and future directions. International
Journal of Technology Management, 52, 3/4, 221-235.
Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J.P., Vanhaverbeke, W., and De
Rochemont, M. (2009) Open innovation in SMEs: trends,
motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 6,
423-437.
Vermeulen, P., Van den Bosch, F.A., and Volberda, H.W.
(2007) Complex incremental product innovation in
established service firms: A micro institutional perspective.
Organization Studies, 28, 10, 1523-1546.
Vinten, G. (1995) Open versus closed questions-an open
issue. Management Decision, 33, 4, 27-31.
Weick, K.E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organising.
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., and Chesbrough, H. (2006)
Open innovation: A research agenda. In Chesbrough, H.,
Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. (Ed.), Open innovation:
researching a new paradigm: 285-307. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wynarczyk, P., Piperopoulos, P., and McAdam, M. (2013)
Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises:
An overview. International Small Business Journal, 31, 3,
240-255.
Wynarczyk, P. (2013) Open Innovation in SMEs: A dynamic
approach to modern entrepreneurship in the twenty-first
century. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 20, 2, 258-278.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods
(3rd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Youndt, M.A., Snell, S.A., Dean Jr, J.W., and Lepak, D.P.
(1996) Human resource management, manufacturing
strategy and firm performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 4, 836-866.
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS LAPPEENRANTAENSIS
631.
ERKKILÄ, ANNA-LEENA. Hygro-elasto-plastic behavior of planar orthotropic material.
2015. Diss.
632.
KOLOSENI, DAVID. Differential evolution based classification with pool of distances
and aggregation operators. 2015. Diss.
633.
KARVONEN, VESA. Identification of characteristics for successful university-company
partnership development. 2015. Diss.
634.
KIVYIRO, PENDO. Foreign direct investment, clean development mechanism, and
environmental management: a case of Sub-Saharan Africa. 2015. Diss.
635.
SANKALA, ARTO. Modular double-cascade converter. 2015. Diss.
636.
NIKOLAEVA, MARINA. Improving the fire retardancy of extruded/coextruded woodplastic composites. 2015. Diss.
637.
ABDEL WAHED, MAHMOUD. Geochemistry and water quality of Lake Qarun, Egypt.
2015. Diss.
638.
PETROV, ILYA. Cost reduction of permanent magnet synchronous machines. 2015.
Diss.
639.
ZHANG, YUNFAN. Modification of photocatalyst with enhanced photocalytic activity for
water treatment. 2015. Diss.
640.
RATAVA, JUHO. Modelling cutting states in rough turning of 34CrNiMo6 steel. 2015.
Diss.
641.
MAYDANNIK, PHILIPP. Roll-to-roll atomic layer deposition process for flexible
electronics applications. 2015. Diss.
642.
SETH, FRANK. Empirical studies on software quality construction: Exploring human
factors and organizational influences. 2015. Diss.
643.
SMITH, AARON. New methods for controlling twin configurations and characterizing
twin boundaries in 5M Ni-Mn-Ga for the development of applications. 2015. Diss.
644.
NIKKU, MARKKU. Three-dimensional modeling of biomass fuel flow in a circulating
fluidized bed furnace. 2015. Diss.
645.
HENTTU, VILLE. Improving cost-efficiency and reducing environmental impacts of
intermodal transportation with dry port concept – major rail transport corridor in Baltic
Sea region. 2015. Diss.
646.
HAN, BING. Influence of multi-phase phenomena on semibatch crystallization
processes of aqueous solutions. 2015. Diss.
647.
PTAK, PIOTR. Aircraft tracking and classification with VHF passive bistatic radar. 2015.
Diss.
648.
MAKKONEN, MARI. Cross-border transmission capacity development – Experiences
from the Nordic electricity markets. 2015. Diss.
649.
UUSITALO, ULLA-MAIJA. Show me your brain! Stories of interdisciplinary knowledge
creation in practice. Experiences and observations from Aalto Design Factory, Finland.
2015. Diss.
650.
ROOZBAHANI, HAMID. Novel control, haptic and calibration methods for teleoperated
electrohydraulic servo systems. 2015. Diss.
651.
SMIRNOVA, LIUDMILA. Electromagnetic and thermal design of a multilevel converter
with high power density and reliability. 2015. Diss.
652.
TALVITIE, JOONAS. Development of measurement systems in scientific research:
Case study. 2015. Diss.
653.
ZUBEDA, MUSSA. Variational ensemble kalman filtering in hydrology. 2015. Diss.
654.
STEPANOV, ALEXANDER. Feasibility of industrial implementation of laser cutting into
paper making machines. 2015. Diss.
655.
SOKOLOV, MIKHAIL. Thick section laser beam welding of structural steels: methods for
improving welding efficiency. 2015. Diss.
656.
GORE, OLGA. Impacts of capacity remunerative mechanisms on cross-border trade.
2015. Diss.
657.
AURINKO, HANNU. Risk assessment of modern landfill structures in Finland. 2015.
Diss.
658.
KAIJANEN, LAURA. Capillary electrophoresis: Applicability and method validation for
biorefinery analytics. 2015. Diss.
659.
KOLHINEN, JOHANNA. Yliopiston yrittäjämäisyyden sosiaalinen rakentuminen. Case:
Aalto-yliopisto. 2015. Diss.
660.
ANNALA, SALLA. Households’ willingness to engage in demand response in the
Finnish retail electricity market: an empirical study. 2015. Diss.
661.
RIABCHENKO, EKATERINA. Generative part-based Gabor object detector. 2015. Diss.
662.
ALKKIOMÄKI, VILLE. Role of service and data reuse in enterprises. 2015. Diss.
663.
VÄNTSI, OLLI. Utilization of recycled mineral wool as filler in wood plastic composites.
2015. Diss.
664.
KLEMOLA, KATJA. Tuottavuuden, vaikuttavuuden ja kustannusvaikuttavuuden arviointi
alueellisesti integroiduissa sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluissa – palvelujen käyttöön
perustuva malli ja esimerkkejä. 2015. Diss.
665.
HEROLD, KRISTIINA. Impact of Word-of-Mouth on consumer decision-making: An
information processing perspective in the context of a high-involvement service. 2015.
Diss.
666.
OLABODE, MUYIWA. Weldability of high strength aluminium alloys. 2015. Diss.
667.
VANHALA, ERNO. The role of business model in computer game development
organizations. 2015. Diss.

trust-embedded open innovation: towards a human

Transcription

Similar documents

Pimp my memory - Temple University

CONTENTS OF HISTORIA SCIENT/ARUM: International Journal of

Volume 1 Mentor Texts

List of Audel Guides

Deborra-lee Furness launches #AdoptChange

1512-1594 Gerardus Mercator, or Gerard Kremer as he was called

preface - Philippine Journal of Science

HAIRCOLOR QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE

Utilization of Base Model to create 3D Mobile

Social Support, Impression Management and Well-Being