Abstract

This review study consolidates the academic research on innovation management literature in relation to the innovative behaviour of employees. This study is based on a systematic review of the literature published on the topic of innovation management and employees' roles during the last 36 years (from 1990-2022). This review comprises '118' studies, including Empirical papers, Review papers and Conceptual papers. Various research streams and perspectives are extracted from the consideration set of this study as components of innovative behaviour, including Determinants of innovative behaviour and Dimensions of innovative behaviour. Also, numerous measures of both determinants and dimensions of innovative behaviours are studied during the narrative analysis of the selected articles. A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Innovative Roles of Employees in Organizational Innovation Management is mentioned as a finding of this study. In the end, the study's contribution, implications and limitations are stated.

Key Words

Components of Innovative Behavior, Innovation Management, Innovative Roles        

Introduction

Innovation management was firstly defined by Schumpeter during the late 1920s, and he stressed upon "novelty" aspect associated with innovation. (Hansen & Wakonen, 1997) has mentioned, as per Schumpeter, innovation appears as a novel output, as a new quality of a good, as a new method of production, discovers a new market, manages any new source of firm's supply, establishes a new organisational structure, and finally, he has summed up innovation as “doing things differently”. In management as well as in scientific literature, innovation management has been becoming an increasingly studied topic for the last 40 years, and the emergence of this concept has been made with the notion that firms strive for innovation as they compete for profit or market share (Neely & Hii, 1998). Further, public organisations go for innovation when they want to improve their goods and services (Hurley & Hult, 1998). (Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz, & Lundvall, 2007) has developed an argument that for firms, the need for innovation management is imperative. Finally, as per (Cooper, 2005), “innovation is a war: innovate or die”. A comprehensive definition of the term innovation management has been extracted from the contents of this study: "innovation management appears as adoption or production, assimilation and novelty in the social or economic sphere of any organisation". 

In this dynamic environment, innovation is considered to be a critical source of advantage for firms. According to (Mone, McKinley, & Barker, 1998), managing innovation in organisations is the most important element in emerging organisations. Unrestricted academic publications search using the keyword "innovation" generates thousands of empirical and conceptual studies, yet meta-analysis and reviews are rare and focused narrowly. Further, in previous reviews, emphasis is either on innovation determinants, covering various levels of analysis (individual, firm, consumer/organisational group, industry, nation and region) or on any of the dimensions of innovation (innovation process or innovation outcome). Fairly, this narrow focus helps to deepen the understanding of various aspects of innovation management. Innovation is receiving widespread attention in today's business world and now appears with various measures, including innovation indexes and innovation rankings, but still, it remains undiscovered what role is played by employees in the phenomenon of innovation management. The intent to undertake this study was to group together all proverbial parts along with an exploration of employees' role in innovation management while establishing connections among disparate traces of literature.  

The substantial objectives of this study are: 

1) To review the role of employees in organisational innovation management.

2) Extraction of employees' innovative behaviour-based framework from the findings of this study.  

This review begins by describing the methodology first, followed by a review and classification of the findings. Being aware of the comprehensive meanings and nature of the topic under study, in the first step, the review of included literature was made, and in the second step, the categorisation of the literature results was established. Revealed categories were synthesised in order to develop a comprehensive framework of organisational innovation, which was found to be comprised of two progressive components, including Determinants of Innovative Behavior and Dimensions of Innovative Behavior. In the end, the implications of this study's findings (both theory and practical) are mentioned, along with proposed avenues for future research on this topic. 

Methodology

Choosing a Methodology 

According to (Ginsberg & Venkatraman, 1985), to evaluate the contribution of a given body of literature, a carefully selected analytical review scheme is necessary. An explicit procedure is used to conduct this systematic review based on a cautious and critical search and evaluation of the available literature. Conscious efforts are made that this systematic review should generate a transparent and reproducible course which improves the quality of any review procedure, as argued by (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Keeping in view the general approach of any review process, this review also consists of three parts, including data collection, data analysis and study synthesis. The rigour behind following these steps was to establish a quality review for future scholars.  

Data Collection: As explained by (Tranfield et al., 2003), for systematic literature reviews, data collection could be done in various ways, including using knowledge from existing literature to finalise the articles for review, engaging experts to identify the relevant papers, or searching various data basis while using relevant keywords. In this review, a prede?ned selection procedure based upon using of keywords approach is used. 

Data Analysis: Vital goal associated with this review was to generate a comprehensive conceptual overview rather than empirical consolidation. So, this review is methodologically focused and limited to descriptive analysis only instead of applying statistical methods in the analysis of the results. In other ways, depth has been sacrificed for breadth. The nature of collected data is qualitative, and it is beyond the basics of the categorisation of the studies (kinds of used theories, conceptualised forms of constructs, and offered explanatory rationale). From available qualitative data analysis techniques, "Pattern Matching and Explanation Building" prescribed by (Yin, 1994) were felt best suited and used for this review.

Data Synthesis: it is a core value-added product of any review and is based upon the approach to consolidating the existing knowledge through careful analysis. Grounded upon the analysis procedure prescribed above, two organisational innovation components appeared in this study's consideration set. These components were then mapped into a sequential framework based upon the Determinants of innovative behaviour and Dimensions of innovative behaviour. Finally, determinants of innovative behaviour and their associated measures were presented in a multi-dimensional framework of organisational innovation management in relation to employees' roles in this procedure.

Methodology Description

It was felt important to select a methodology which could better deal with the extensiveness of the innovation management field, so the review methodology prescribed by (Tranfield et al., 2003) was selected, which consisted of three sequential parts a) Planning, b) Execution and c) Reporting.  

The planning part was comprised of Review Questions and Study Objectives along with identifying main data sources. The objectives of this study were kept broad to establish a comprehensive literature basis and to evaluate a range of conceptual, theoretical and operational similarities as well as differences that exist in the domain of this study. At the execution stage of this review, the identification of selection criteria, search terms and keywords were finalised. At reporting stage, study results and synthesis were finalised. 

Sources of this study were limited to peer-reviewed journals, as these are considered to exhibit validated knowledge and have a tendency to show high impact factors. The "ISI Web of Science database" was selected as the main database for records because it is considered to be the most important and comprehensive database for peer-reviewed journals in the category of social sciences. The selected time span for this review was from 1990 to 2022.   

General selection requirements were applied in order to maximise the inclusion pool of relevant studies. The initial search was made on ISI Web of Science with the keywords as “Innovation Management” And "Employee' Role" in the topic, document type, "articles", and subject area "business, management, economics and finance", without applying any further additional selection restrictions. This resulted in an initial pool of 459 papers. This initial pile of papers was considered to be fixed as the basis for a whole future analysis.    

Book reviews, narrowly focused, non-business and difficult to generalised papers were excluded. Those papers were also excluded in which 'innovation management' was metaphorically used as a substitute for strategic change and creativity. 




Grouping the Publications 

The main purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the broad theoretical foundations of the area under study. Following groups of publications were established, keeping in view vital interests associated with this study. 

Group I: The first group of interest consisted of relevant narrative reviews and meta-analyses, which were found to meet the inclusion criteria from an initial pool of papers. A total of 12 papers were found to be included in this study. Out of which, 4 were meta-analyses, and 8 were narrative reviews. This category covered approximately a 09 per cent portion of the total included papers.   

Group II: The second group of interest consisted of empirical papers found to meet the inclusion criteria from an initial pool of papers. This group covered the largest pool of included papers, and a total of 98 papers were appearing under this group. Out of which 10 papers used a Mixed-Method research strategy, 24 papers used a Qualitative research strategy, 60 used a Quantitative research strategy, and 01 studies used using Experimental research strategy, whereas, in 3 studies, the research strategy was not mentioned. Research design-wise, 91 Cross-sectional design studies and 07 longitudinal design studies appeared in this group. This category covered approximately 83 per cent portion of the total included papers.

Group III: It was the third group of interest and consisted of conceptual papers which were found to meet the inclusion criteria from an initial pool of papers. A total of 08 papers were included in this group and was covering approximately a 07 per cent portion of the total included papers.

Summing up, all the included papers from all three groups total 'of 118' papers, were found to be included in this review, so all the proceeding analysis was based upon the above-prescribed number of papers. A breakdown of articles by paper type is given in Figure-01 of Appendix I.

Results

In this section, descriptive analysis along with theoretical fields of the study are presented in order to shape out preliminary conceptual mapping of this review.

 

Descriptive Analysis

The fragmented structure of the various fields of this study revealed the multi-dimensional nature of the innovation management domain. (Gopalakrishnan, 1997) has proposed various components of innovative behaviours and innovation management, including innovation determinants which cover levels of innovative behaviours as top, structural and operational level innovative behaviours and innovation dimensions, including innovation processes and innovation outcomes. Keeping these components as the basis of this comprehensive review, various sub-divisions of both innovation processes as well as innovation outcomes are identified in relation to the role of employees in each. Details of all these are discussed in the synthesis section of this study. Approximately 44 per cent of papers discussed the employee's role in relation to determinants of innovation management (innovative role at either level: top, structural or operational) solely. Approximately 42 per cent of articles discussed the employee's role in relation to either dimension of innovation (process or outcome). Approximately 14 per cent of articles discussed the employee's role with both components of innovation (with innovation determinants as well as with innovation dimensions).

The level of analysis in all included studies was either: Organizational (where one organisation was studied, Industrial (where two or more organisations from the same industry) or Cross-Cultural (where more than one culture was studied). A breakdown of articles by analysis level is given in Figure-03 of Appendix A.

 

Scoping Out the Theoretical Fields of the Study

In order to understand how different theories correspond to explain the role of employees in the innovation process, various theories were found in the literature employed in the consideration set of this study. Firstly, the spectrum of various theories, models and perspectives was reviewed under a theoretical lens for all three groups of the consideration set in this study. Later on, all these were organised, either dimension-wise or determinant-wise.

Surprisingly, in Group II, most of the Empirical studies were descriptive and were not tended to exhibit any theoretical basis for innovative behaviours. Only 22 (out of n=98) studies invoked any theoretical basis. From Group III, only 03 (out of n=08) papers invoked any theory. So in total, approximately 21 per cent of studies exhibited any theory. Evolved theories correspond with innovative behaviour' determinants as well as innovative behaviour' dimensions. In 07 studies, theories corresponded with innovative behaviour' determinants as well as with innovative behaviour' dimensions. In the rest of the 18 studies, theories corresponded with innovative behaviour' determinants only.

 The distribution of these theories was distinctive. Leadership theories correspond with innovative behaviours' determinants component mainly, whereas learning and knowledge-based theories correspond with the dimensions component of innovative behaviour. In summary, many of the studies from Group II were not testing any previously developed theory or model and were generally corresponding with one component of innovative behaviour of employees only.

There was not found any single overarching and comprehensive framework of an employee's innovative behaviour in the consideration set of this study. Included review papers which were consolidating existing research was incorporating: innovative leadership models and theories (Kozio?-Nadolna, 2020), technical innovativeness typologies (Garcia & Calantone, 2002), Critical success factors of innovative behaviours (Van der Panne, Van Beers, & Kleinknecht, 2003),  innovation process models (Becheikh, Landry, & Amara, 2006; Eveleens, 2010), Cultural perspective of innovativeness (McLean, 2005; Ta?tan, Davoudi, & Research, 2017; Wam Danne, 2007), Conceptual model of organisational innovativeness factors (Damanpour, 1991; Smith, Busi, Ball, & Van Der Meer, 2008) and team-level innovative behaviour model (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Findings are summarised in Table 01 below.  




 

Table 1. Theories used in Empirical and Conceptual Papers

	Innovative Behavior Components
Theories Used to Explain Innovative Behavior	Determinants	Dimension/s	Author/s
Model of Champion Emergence	Top	Outcome	(Howell & Higgins, 1990)
Transformational Leadership Theory	Top	Process	(Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009)
Yukal Model on Leadership Roles, 1994	Top	Process	(De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007)
Leader-Member Exchange Theory	Operational	Process	(Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004)
Bowen and Lawler’s Conceptualization Model of Employee Empowerment	Operational	Outcome	(Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2012)
Effectuation theory	Structural	Process	(Berends, Jelinek, Reymen, & Stultiens, 2014)
Social Exchange Theory and The Signaling Theory	Structural	Process	(Mutlu, 2014)
Goal Orientation Theory	Operational	Process	(Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009)
Corporate Entrepreneurship Model	Top	Outcome	(Amo & Kolvereid, 2005)
Role Identity Theory	Operational	Outcome	(Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-Mcintyre, 2003)
Team Climate Theory	Operational	Process	(Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008)
LMX Theory	Structural	Both	(Scott & Bruce, 1994)
Theory of Planned Behavior, Theory of Reasoned Action	Operational	Process	(Taylor & Todd, 1995)
Theories of organisational structure and Innovation Adoption	All	Both	(Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1998)
Transformational Leadership Theory	Top	Process	(Waldman & Bass, 1991)
TQM-Organizational Learning-Innovation Performance Model	Process	Process	(Hung, Lien, Yang, Wu, & Kuo, 2011)
Dominant Design Theory	Structural	Both	(Gassmann, Enkel, & Chesbrough, 2010)
Team Climate Theory	Operations	Both	(Eisenbeiss et al., 2008)
Theory of Innovation, Evolutionary Perspective	Top	Outcome	(Staw, 1990)
Creativity and Service Innovation Theory	Structural	Process	(Engen & Magnusson, 2015)
Contingency Theory, Prospect Theory	All	Both	(Mone et al., 1998)
Simons' (1995) Levers of Control Model	Top	Outcome	(Strambach, 2001)
Amabile’s (1988) Componential Theory of Creativity and Innovation	Structural	Process	(Horng, Wang, Liu, Chou, & Tsai, 2016)

 




Synthesis

This is the main section of this review, and it synthesises the overall data obtained for this review in a comprehensive and multi-dimensional framework of innovative behaviour of employees while covering the overall objectives of the study. Here discussion starts with the organisation of innovative behaviour components, which emerged from the thorough review of obtained literature in the consideration set of this study. In the end, the consolidation of the components in a multi-dimensional framework of innovative behaviour of employees along with measures of this behaviour is mentioned.       

As mentioned already from the traces of collected literature for this study, innovation management appears with two components where employees exhibit their innovative behaviour. So these two components, along with their measures, are discussed below in detail.   

Determinants of Innovative Behavior

While keeping in view the objectives of this review, conscious efforts were made to identify actionable determinants of innovative behaviour, which appear under the realm of organisation at broader and individual at a specific level. The list of determinants starts with the seminal work conducted by (Gemünden, Salomo, & Hölzle, 2007), in which they have consolidated an inclusive inventory of innovative behaviour' constructs at three levels of organisations as Top Level, Structural Level and Operations Level. This inventory is further enhanced while incorporating additional sub-measures of employee' innovative behaviours at all three identified levels and are placed sequentially in the multi-dimensional framework of innovative behaviour of this study.         




Innovative Behavior at Top Level

This layer showed employees' role type as "individual or group leadership", and they appear as CEOs,  Board of Directors and Top Management Teams of the organisations (Cruz, Frezatti, & Bido, 2015). (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Nwachukwu, Chládková, & Fadeyi, 2018) have also summarised their findings while describing the role of top managers in the formulation of innovative missions, goals and strategies (Aragón-Correa, García-Morales, & Cordón-Pozo, 2007). It has presented multiple roles of top leaders and mentioned that they not only assimilate the initial stage of innovation management and creativity in the organisation rather they create conditions in the organisations for subsequent implementations of organisational innovations. Afsar & Umrani (2019) have further added that top-level leaders' behaviours show the functions of their experiences, their personalities and above all, their values.

At the individual level, top-level employees present openness to experience and self-confidence (Drosos et al., 2021), Originality (Choi, Kim, Ullah, & Kang, 2016), unconventionality and rule governance (Scherer & Voegtlin, 2020), authoritarianism (Smith et al., 2008), independence (Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2012), proactivity (Staw, 1990),  personal initiatives (Stoyanova, Iliev, & Research, 2017) and determination to success (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and above all managerial tolerance for change, revolution and transformation process (Damanpour, 1991). 

Few more variables corresponding to the innovative behaviour of top-level employees were identified at the group level. This suggested that the characteristics and compositions of top-level employees yield better in teams and bring stronger innovative outcomes than a sole leader's characteristics (Mone et al., 1998). This includes in accumulation of education, experience and working tenure (Naqshbandi & Jasimuddin, 2022), Extra-industry ties (Czakon, Niemand, Gast, Kraus, & Frühstück, 2020), institutional shareholding and executive stock option (Gemünden et al., 2007). 




Innovative Behavior at Structural Level 

This layer consolidates innovation management at "managerial levers of the organisation", and the role type appears here as General Managers, Dept./Div. Heads and All Middle Managers (Engen & Magnusson, 2015). According to Mutlu (2014), foundations of variations in innovation come from various sources among firms which are consolidated by managerial lever to develop new products to introduce in the marketplace. Studies appearing under consideration set of this review have mentioned five types of managerial controls by structural level employees during the implementation of innovation management: propagating innovative missions, goals and strategies formulated by top-level employees (O’Brien, 2003), Implementing innovative systems and structures (Berends et al., 2014), promoting innovative culture (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002), managing innovative resources (Broshi-Chen & Mansfeld, 2021) and managing innovative learning as well as knowledge management tools (García?Morales, Lloréns?Montes, & Verdú?Jover, 2008). All of these help to manage essential assistance for innovative practices and processes at the structural level of organisations.    

 

Innovative Behavior at Operations Level 

This layer exposed employees' role types at the "business processes tier", and role types appeared here as Production Managers, Operations, Managers, Line Managers and Supervisors (Mutlu, 2014). Operations level innovative behaviour appeared as a supportive factor and consolidated business processes level variables.   

As per accumulative studies of this review, the context of innovative behaviour of employees at this level appeared as initiation (Gopalakrishnan, 1997), development and implementation of innovative production processes (Carlsson, Corvello, Schroll, & Mild, 2011), portfolio management (Cooper, 2005), commercialisation (Berends et al., 2014) and project management (Carlsson et al., 2011).    

    

Dimensions of Innovation 

As per adopted components of innovation management in this study, innovative behaviour of employees appeared in two dimensions, Innovative Processes and Innovative Outcomes. Here, innovative processes proceed with innovative outcomes. Therefore, it was felt important to separate the innovative roles of employees at both dimensions. In the process of a systematic review of all the articles appearing under the consideration set of this study, papers were carefully tagged in order to group the dimensions of innovative behaviours of employees. All the extracted dimensions of innovative behaviours were categorised either under the innovative processes dimension or the innovative outcomes dimension. The former was answering the question 'How' of innovative behaviour, whereas later was answering 'What' question of innovative behaviour. Both are discussed below, with their related measures found during this review.   




Process Dimension of Innovative Behavior

As this dimension pertains to the 'how' type of innovativeness, so there was a total of five sub-dimensions of innovative processes were found, including: 

Level: This delineates three measures in innovative processes as Individual, Group and firm-level innovative behaviour in the process of innovation management, which are studied by (Li, Mitchell, & Boyle, 2016; Mutlu, 2014; Puranam, Singh, & Zollo, 2006; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Strambach, 2001; Vaccaro et al., 2012; Waldman & Bass, 1991).

Drivers: these could be either internal for the organisations or external. The internal measure of Drivers is innovative Integration and Customisation, whereas external measures of innovative behaviours are innovative Collaboration and Capturing Best Market Opportunity as mentioned by (Alpkan, Bulut, Gunday, Ulusoy, & Kilic, 2010; Cooke & Wills, 1999; Howells et al., 2003; Hung et al., 2011; Kong, 2015; Laursen & Salter, 2006).

Direction: which has measures of the innovative processes as Top Down and Bottom Up and studied by (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Eveleens, 2010; Pantano, 2014).

Source: which again has internal and external measures of innovative behaviour, where Invention appears as internal and Adoption, Attaining and Commercialization appeared as external sources of innovative behaviour as analysed by (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Damanpour, 1991; Wam Danne, 2007)

Locus: which has three measures of the innovative process: Developing Alliances, Improving Growth Rate and Enhancing Network Positions as worked out by (Bogers & West, 2012; Gann & Salter, 2000; Gassmann et al., 2010; Job, 2012; Orfila-Sintes & Mattsson, 2009).  

Comprehensive structural arrangements of the innovation process, along with their measures extracted during the study, are mentioned in Figure-01 of Appendix II. 




Outcome Dimension of Innovative Behavior

To have a distinction between innovative behaviour during the innovative process and innovative outcomes is sometimes very blurred. Sood (2005) has mentioned that separating these two facets of innovative behaviour is intrinsically problematic. As already mentioned, dimensions pertaining to innovative behaviour as an outcome should bring an answer to 'What' or 'what type' questions. So from the pile of collected literature of this study following innovative outcomes are extracted as Form: for which (Gassmann et al., 2010) have mentioned, the outcome as a form of innovative behaviour must not be confused with innovative processes. Innovative behaviour forms could appear as new business procedures/ models, new firm’ products or services and new market products' or services' and all of these could have different innovative processes (Gassmann et al., 2010; Link & Bozeman, 1991; Lorenz & Valeyre, 2006; Shin, Yuan, & Zhou, 2017; Von Hippel, 2005) has further added.

Referent: which establishes ‘benchmark’ and appears as newness in products and services of the firm. It could be New to the Industry, New to the Firm or New to the Market to whom it serves (Jensen et al., 2007; Link & Bozeman, 1991). 

Type: which appears with its measures as Technical and Administrative innovation. Technical innovativeness in technologies used to generate innovative products and services, whereas administrative innovativeness directly relates to managerial aspects of the organisations as worked out by (Cruz et al., 2015; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002; Jensen et al., 2007; Jiménez-Zarco, Martínez-Ruiz, & Izquierdo-Yusta, 2011; Subramanian & Nilakanta, 1996), 

Magnitude: This indicates newness in the innovative outcomes. Literature presents the magnitude of innovativeness as radical or incremental. Former is revolutionary and disruptive whereas later brings fundamental changes in the existing practices in the organization as mentioned by (Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Koberg, Detienne, & Heppard, 2003; Pantano, 2014; Santos-Vijande & Álvarez-González, 2007; Staw, 1990) 

Nature: dimension has its measures as tacit or explicit (García?Morales et al., 2008; Van der Panne et al., 2003). Innovative outcomes for products appear tacit, whereas, for services, it remains unarticulated (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). 

Confrontation: dimension deals with all types of possible conflicts and oppositions which are expected to be faced during the formalisation of innovative outcomes, and it has been found to have four types of outcomes from literature, including resistance, avoidance, compliance, and commitment (Klein & Sorra, 1996). 

Comprehensive structural arrangements of innovation outcomes, along with their measures extracted from this study, are mentioned in Figure-02 of Appendix II. 

Conclusion

The findings of this systematic literature review provide enriching material for establishing a framework of innovation management. Prior reviews have typically focused on either innovation management aspects with less focus on innovative behaviour of the employees whereas, here, attempts are made to consolidate innovation management through the lens of innovative behaviour of the employees. Here, a comprehensive approach is applied, which has integrated the maximum components of innovative behaviour (including determinants and dimensions of innovative behaviour). Along with the same, attempts are made to incorporate maximum studies appearing under consideration period of this review, which are testing, describing or explaining any theory, model, perspective or concept related to innovation management.

Though the phenomenon of innovative behaviour management of employees has multiple causes with complex feedback loops but still in this study, the basic building blocks of this phenomenon are presented in a 

As this systematic literature review was started with two specified objectives. Where first was, to review the role of employees in organisational innovation management and this objective was met when determinants of innovative behavior were extracted from consideration set of this study. Second objective was the extraction of employees' innovative behavior based framework from the findings of this study and this objective was met when below mentioned framework of employees' innovative behavior was formulated.   

Figure 1

Framework of Employees’ Role in Innovation Management






Study Contribution

This study develops a multi-dimensional framework of organisational innovation management in relation with empoloyee' role in it while describing two sequential components side by side (innovation determinants and innovation dimensions) which generates a comprehensive view of  the phenomenon.

This study presents a diversified pool of articles grouped in specified categories so review of diversified articles has generated a broad literature basis for future readers in this field.     




Study Implications

Managerial Implications

This study focuses on organisational innovation in relation with the role of employees at Top, Structural, and Processes levels and it has been driven by an intention to be practical in the orientation of results by focusing on various innovative actions by the employees. So experts can focus/adopt various innovative roles and actions discussed in this study in order to enhance their innovative performance in routine official tasks. 

Scholarly Implications

Presented theoretical framework in the study is significant for the future scholars in order to draw a  testable conceptual framework (in primary research) by utilising various constructs identified and presented in this study. 




Study Limitattions  

Keeping in view time constraints, this review is using only one database, although the most recognised one, but still probabilty is there that it may have omitted any of a relevent papers which would may generat any other stream for this study.  

It is a sole author study whereas previous reviews are mostly conducted by more than one authors on  the selected area in this study (Elkinsb, et. al., 2003, Crossan, et. al., 2010, Van der Panne, et. al., 2003)

This study is using only previously published articles and reviews as its basis, whersas many already conducted reviews also included book reviews, published reports and thesis etc. as well. 

Appendix I

Figure 1

Breakdown of Articles by Paper Type




Figure 2

Analysis Wise Breakdown of Articles




Appendix II

Figure 1

Process Dimension of Innovation Management and its Measures




Figure 1

Process Dimension of Innovation Management and its Measures



Figure 2

Outcome Dimension of Innovation Management and its Measures

References

• Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. J. E. J. o. I. M. (2019). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate.
• Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., & Kilic, K. (2010). Organisational support for entrepreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance. Management decision, 48(5), 732-755.
• Ã…mo, B. W., & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Organisational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(01), 7-19.
• Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial marketing management, 36(3), 349-359.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European industrial training, 14(5),
• Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation, 26(5), 644-664.
• Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Reymen, I., & Stultiëns, R. (2014). Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(3), 616-635.
• Beugelsdijk, S. (2008). Strategic human resource practices and product innovation. Organisation Studies, 29(6), 821-847.
• Bogers, M., & West, J. (2012). Managing distributed innovation: strategic utilisation of open and user innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 61-75.
• Boutcher, F., Berta, W., Urquhart, R., & Gagliardi, A. R. (2022). The roles, activities and impacts of middle managers who function as knowledge brokers to improve care delivery and outcomes in healthcare organisations: a critical interpretive synthesis. BMC health services research, 22(1), 1-17.
• Broshi-Chen, O., & Mansfeld, Y. (2021). A wasted invitation to innovate? Creativity and innovation in tourism crisis management: A QC&IM approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 272-283.
• Carlsson, S., Corvello, V., Schroll, A., & Mild, A. (2011). Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D: An empirical study on open innovation adoption in Europe. European Journal of innovation management, 14(4), 475-495.
• Choi, S. B., Kim, K., Ullah, S. E., & Kang, S.-W. J. P. R. (2016). How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers.
• Cooke, P., & Wills, D. (1999). Small firms, social capital and the enhancement of business performance through innovation programmes. Small business economics, 13(3), 219-234.
• Cooper, P. (2005). A study of innovators' experience of new product innovation in organisations. R&D Management, 35(5), 525- 533.
• Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐ dimensional framework of organisational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.
• Cruz, A. P. C. d., Frezatti, F., & Bido, D. d. S. (2015). Leadership Style, Management Control and Innovation: The Role of Control Levers. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 19(6), 772-794.
• Czakon, W., Niemand, T., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Frühstück, L. (2020). Designing coopetition for radical innovation: An experimental study of managers' preferences for developing self- driving electric cars. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 119992.
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organisational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management journal, 34(3), 555-590.
• Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organisational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 1-24.
• De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management, 10(1), 41-64.
• Drosos, D., Kyriakopoulos, G. L., Gkika, E. C., Komisopoulos, F., Skordoulis, M., & Ntanos, S. (2021). Managing change and managerial innovation towards employees satisfaction at workplace. TEM Journal, 10(2), 597-606.
• Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied psychology, 93(6), 1438.
• Engen, M., & Magnusson, P. (2015). Exploring the role of front-line employees as innovators. The Service Industries Journal, 35(6), 303- 324.
• Eveleens, C. (2010). Innovation management; a literature review of innovation process models and their implications. science, 800(2010), 900.
• Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management journal, 46(5), 618-630.
• Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2012). Using employee empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, mus008.
• Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000). Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Research policy, 29(7), 955-972.
• Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of product innovation management, 19(2), 110-132.
• García‐Morales, V. J., Lloréns‐Montes, F. J., & Verdú‐Jover, A. J. (2008). The Effects of transformational leadership on organisational performance through knowledge and innovation*. British journal of management, 19(4), 299-319.
• Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221.
• Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Hölzle, K. (2007). Role models for radical innovations in times of open innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(4), 408-421.
• Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organisational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy of management review, 10(3), 421-434.
• Gopalakrishnan, S. a. D., F. (1997). ‘A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management’. Omega – International Journal of Management Science, 25, 15-28.
• GumusluoÄŸlu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation: The Roles of Internal and External Support for Innovation*. Journal of product innovation management, 26(3), 264-277.
• Hansen, S.-O., & Wakonen, J. (1997). Innovation, a winning solution? International Journal of Technology Management, 13(4), 345-358.
• Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management journal, 52(2), 280-293.
• Horng, J.-S., Wang, C.-J., Liu, C.-H., Chou, S.- F., & Tsai, C.-Y. (2016). The Role of Sustainable Service Innovation in Crafting theVision of the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability, 8(3), 223.
• Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated- business-unit performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 78(6), 891.
• Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding, and supporting champions of technological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, 19(1), 40-55.
• Howells, J., James, A., & Malik, K. (2003). The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed innovation processes and dynamic change. R&D Management, 33(4), 395-409.
• Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied psychology, 94(5), 1128.
• Hung, R. Y. Y., Lien, B. Y.-H., Yang, B., Wu, C.- M., & Kuo, Y.-M. (2011). Impact of TQM and organisational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International business review, 20(2), 213-225.