Mindful infrastructure as an enabler of innovation resilience behaviour in innovation teams

Purpose. This paper aims to investigate the principles of high reliability organisations (HROs), present in safety and crisis teams, as applied to innovation teams. Safety and crisis teams cannot fail, as failure leads to disaster and casualties. Innovation teams cannot fail either, as this harms the organisations’ competitiveness and effectiveness. Do HRO principles, rooted in mindful infrastructure, enable innovation resilience behaviour (IRB)? Design/methodology/approach. A study of 18 innovation projects performed by project teams was carried out. A survey by team members/leaders of these teams was completed; team members/leaders of other projects were added to achieve a larger sample. Mindful infrastructure consists of team psychological safety, team learning, complexity leadership and team voice. The analyses assessed the teams’ mindful infrastructures as a causal condition enabling IRB. Findings. Applying qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), the findings indicate that mindful infrastructure enables team IRB, which is a set of team behaviours indicating their resilience when encountering critical incidents. Teams apply different “paths” to IRB. Research limitations/implications. The exploratory study’s generalizability is limited. The findings nonetheless indicate the usefulness of non-linear techniques for understanding different roads to successful innovation processes. Practical implications. HRO principles are applicable by non-HROs. These require investments in organisational learning. Originality/value. HRO studies fail to account for the antecedents of HRO principles. This study groups these antecedents of team behaviour into a mindful infrastructure. QCA has not been applied within the domain of HROs before and only scarcely within the domain of innovation teams.

[1]  Joshua L. Ray,et al.  Organizational Mindfulness in Business Schools , 2011 .

[2]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: Contents , 2012 .

[3]  Barbara Vis,et al.  The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses , 2012 .

[4]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[5]  K. Weick,et al.  Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. , 1999 .

[6]  R. Sitgreaves Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[7]  Katherine A. Lawrence,et al.  Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire ☆ , 2009 .

[8]  A. Edmondson Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[9]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Redesigning social inquiry , 2008 .

[10]  K. Weick,et al.  Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. , 1993 .

[11]  Timothy J. Vogus,et al.  Creating Highly Reliable Health Care , 2016 .

[12]  Timothy J. Vogus Mindful Organizing: Establishing and Extending the Foundations of Highly Reliable Performance , 2011 .

[13]  S. Dhondt,et al.  Can teams benefit from using a mindful infrastructure when defensive behaviour threatens complex innovation projects , 2016 .

[14]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: Potential pitfalls and suggestions for solutions , 2012 .

[15]  Ralph Stacey Complexity and Organizational Reality: Uncertainty and the Need to Rethink Management after the Collapse of Investment Capitalism , 2009 .

[16]  L. V. Dyne,et al.  Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity , 1998 .

[17]  Carsten Q. Schneider,et al.  Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis , 2012 .

[18]  J. A. Lepine,et al.  Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  Stephen K. Markham,et al.  Perspective: New Product Failure Rates: Influence of Argumentum ad Populum and Self‐Interest , 2013 .

[20]  Timothy J. Vogus,et al.  Organizational Mindfulness and Mindful Organizing: A Reconciliation and Path Forward , 2012 .