- Email: [email protected]
Putting innovation on the right track
O M E G A Int. J. of M g m t Sci.,Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 445--446, 1990 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0305-0483/90 $3.00 + 0.00 Copyright © 1990 Pergamon Press plc
EDITORIAL Putting Innovation on the Right Track LET IT NOT BE SAID that obfuscation continues to reign supreme [2]. The literature on professionals and innovation is almost exclusively obsessed with the meta-theoretical framework of structuralfunctionalism [1]. Many researchers have hypothesized a positive relationship between professionalism and innovation, some authors seeing it as one of six major determinants while others position it as one of 14 key variables. A compendium of diffusion findings shows that 76% of studies positively relate innovation to cosmopolitanism while 2 4 0 do not. The future of innovation depends on whether radical-structural principles are incorporated into theory building and testing, but forging a useful synthesis between structural-functional and radical-structural perspectives can form the basis for a powerful paradigm to highlight the sociological and psychological framework for examining intraprofessional structural differences. External ideational inputs, increased boundary-spanning activities, psychological commitment of professionals, and many other obscurant factors all contribute, in an undifferentiated fashion, to the adoption and promotion of innovation in industrial organizations. Contradictions in prevailing theories have been explored by Bloggs (1966), Counterbloggs (1971), Minibloggs (1978) and further refuted by Bloggs (1988). This has led the radical-structuralists to focus on the macro-level of the analysis, which will remain highly idiosyncratic, marked by equivocality and instability. In conclusion [1], "the management and organizational literature has examined the study of professionals and innovation almost exclusively within the metatheoretical framework of structural professionalism . . . . The perspectives normally associated with a radical-structural orientation have been introduced as a supplement to this singular view. Innovation researchers have a unique opportunity to extend current research, and clear up contradictory empirical findings by building theories of innovation and professionalism that integrate both viewpoints into a logical and useful synthesis." 445
446
Editorial
So there you have it. It is all crystal clear, and I feel sure that senior executives in industry are now better equipped to plan and evaluate the innovation process in their organizations. SAMUEL EILON
Chief Editor REFERENCES 1. Drazin R (1990) Professionals and innovation: Structural-functional versus radical-structural perspectives. J. Mgmt Studies 27, 245-263. 2. Eilon S (1985) Management Assertions and Aversions, Chaps 18-19. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
0305-0483/90 $3.00 + 0.00 Copyright © 1990 Pergamon Press plc
EDITORIAL Putting Innovation on the Right Track LET IT NOT BE SAID that obfuscation continues to reign supreme [2]. The literature on professionals and innovation is almost exclusively obsessed with the meta-theoretical framework of structuralfunctionalism [1]. Many researchers have hypothesized a positive relationship between professionalism and innovation, some authors seeing it as one of six major determinants while others position it as one of 14 key variables. A compendium of diffusion findings shows that 76% of studies positively relate innovation to cosmopolitanism while 2 4 0 do not. The future of innovation depends on whether radical-structural principles are incorporated into theory building and testing, but forging a useful synthesis between structural-functional and radical-structural perspectives can form the basis for a powerful paradigm to highlight the sociological and psychological framework for examining intraprofessional structural differences. External ideational inputs, increased boundary-spanning activities, psychological commitment of professionals, and many other obscurant factors all contribute, in an undifferentiated fashion, to the adoption and promotion of innovation in industrial organizations. Contradictions in prevailing theories have been explored by Bloggs (1966), Counterbloggs (1971), Minibloggs (1978) and further refuted by Bloggs (1988). This has led the radical-structuralists to focus on the macro-level of the analysis, which will remain highly idiosyncratic, marked by equivocality and instability. In conclusion [1], "the management and organizational literature has examined the study of professionals and innovation almost exclusively within the metatheoretical framework of structural professionalism . . . . The perspectives normally associated with a radical-structural orientation have been introduced as a supplement to this singular view. Innovation researchers have a unique opportunity to extend current research, and clear up contradictory empirical findings by building theories of innovation and professionalism that integrate both viewpoints into a logical and useful synthesis." 445
446
Editorial
So there you have it. It is all crystal clear, and I feel sure that senior executives in industry are now better equipped to plan and evaluate the innovation process in their organizations. SAMUEL EILON
Chief Editor REFERENCES 1. Drazin R (1990) Professionals and innovation: Structural-functional versus radical-structural perspectives. J. Mgmt Studies 27, 245-263. 2. Eilon S (1985) Management Assertions and Aversions, Chaps 18-19. Pergamon Press, Oxford.