scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

Collaborative innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship

Jean Hartley1, Eva Sørensen2, Jacob Torfing2•
Open University1, Roskilde University2
01 Nov 2013-Public Administration Review (Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.)-Vol. 73, Iss: 6, pp 821-830
TL;DR: In this article, the authors use institutional and organizational analysis to compare three major but different public innovation strategies: New Public Management, Neo-Weberian State and Collaborative Governance.
Abstract: There are growing pressures for the public sector to be more innovative but considerable disagreement about how to achieve it. This paper uses institutional and organizational analysis to compare three major but different public innovation strategies. The paper commences by confronting the myth that the market-driven private sector is more innovative than the public sector by showing that both sectors have a number of barriers as well as drivers of innovation, some of which are similar while others are sector-specific. The paper then systematically analyses the three strategies for innovation. These are: New Public Management which emphasises market competition; the neo-Weberian state which emphasises organizational entrepreneurship; and collaborative governance which emphasises multi-actor engagement across organizations in the private, public and non-profit sectors. The article concludes that the choice between different strategies for enhancing public innovation is contingent rather than absolute. Some contingencies for each strategy are outlined.

Summary (3 min read)

Jump to: [De deux sociologies à la création d’un projet pluridisciplinaire ?] – [A. Le droit chez les pères fondateurs] – [E. Le mouvement Critique du droit] – [2. Des courants contemporains éclatés] – [C. Le droit : un ensemble de règles (in)formelles] – [La seconde tendance, proche de la sociologie des organisations] – [D. Droit et Société : la sociologie juridique comme objet] – [3. Caractéristiques de la sociologie du droit en France] – [B. La séparation entre les sociologues ou les politologues et les] and [C. Science, discipline ou champ ?]

De deux sociologies à la création d’un projet pluridisciplinaire ?

  • La sociologie du droit en France, au même titre que la sociologie juridique dans n’importe quel autre pays, est déterminée par les conditions historiques dans lesquelles le champ juridique s’est construit, ainsi que par les relations qui se sont établies entre le droit, le pouvoir politique et l’État.
  • Ses travaux récents portent sur le fonctionnement de la justice et la structuration du champ juridique en France, aux Etats-Unis et en Amérique Latine.
  • Aude Lejeune est docteure en sciences sociales et politiques.
  • La conception politique du droit qui s’impose pendant la Révolution française et qui s’accompagne notamment d’une codification et d’une mythification de la loi ont contribué à modeler le champ juridique et à influencer le contenu et la portée de la sociologie du droit.
  • Nous expliquerons ensuite les différents groupes, courants et tendances qui la composent à l’heure actuelle (2).

A. Le droit chez les pères fondateurs

  • La réflexion socio-juridique remonte au temps des pères fondateurs de la sociologie française et, en particulier, aux œuvres de Montesquieu et d’Alexis de Tocqueville (Lascoumes et Serverin 1986).
  • Puisqu’il considère le droit comme un élément central et constitutif de la solidarité sociale, il lui paraît inconcevable de l’étudier sans mobiliser les sciences sociales.
  • Elle fait tout au plus l’objet de débats en tant que curiosité interdisciplinaire (Carbonnier 1978 : 114-115).
  • Alors que la sociologie du droit de G. Gurvitch n’a pas un eu grand impact dans les facultés de droit, les écrits de J. Carbonnier et, en particulier, son célèbre manuel publié en 1972, intitulé Sociologie juridique, sont quant à eux très appréciés et continuent à être utilisés et étudiés aujourd’hui dans les facultés de droit.

E. Le mouvement Critique du droit

  • La décennie 1970 est une période de débats.
  • Ce courant s’inscrit dans un contexte où se constituent, partout en Europe, des mouvements contestataires nourris en grande partie par la pensée marxiste de l’époque15.
  • La seconde période, de 1980 à 1984, est quant à elle marquée par un ralentissement de l’activité de ces auteurs.
  • 15 Surtout dans les œuvres de Nicolas POULANTZAS et Louis ALTHUSSER (Poulantzas 1972; Althusser 1971).

2. Des courants contemporains éclatés

  • Après cette présentation des différents courants qui constituent l’histoire de la sociologie du droit française, il s’agit à présent d’exposer les principaux projets et tendances identifiables aujourd’hui dans ce champ17.
  • Si ces différents courants de la sociologie du droit ont de nombreux points communs, les différences semblent pourtant prédominer, tant du point de vue méthodologique que théorique ou politique.

C. Le droit : un ensemble de règles (in)formelles

  • Quelques sociologues et politologues du droit en France s’intéressent au droit en le considérant non seulement comme un ensemble de règles qui établissent des devoirs et des droits, mais aussi comme un ensemble de règles qui créent des opportunités d’action pour les acteurs sociaux.
  • Celui-ci indique : « dans [cette approche], les droits sont analysés comme une opportunité politique contingente qui, quand ils sont utilisés de manière opportune, peuvent constituer une contribution utile au changement social » (Scheingold 2004 [1974]: préface de la seconde édition).
  • Pour ce faire, le sociologue doit analyser les règles informelles24 et les négociations entre les acteurs.
  • Ainsi, « l’édifice juridique, pour solennel et formaliste qu’il soit, n’est habitable que si l’on y inclut une part d’informel – les ententes tacites et les accords négociés visant à résoudre les divergences éventuelles et à assurer en pratique le bon déroulement de l’activité judiciaire » (Bastard et Ackermann 1993 : 60).

La seconde tendance, proche de la sociologie des organisations

  • Et du pouvoir, a été dirigée par Pierre Lascoumes – l’un des auteurs les plus reconnus de la sociologie juridique en France –, qui porte une attention particulière aux jeux de pouvoir et aux opportunités d’action qui se déclarent dans le droit.
  • Ses écrits reposent en grande partie sur les œuvres de Michel Foucault et de Max Weber.
  • Dans une perspective de science politique, P. Lascoumes définit le droit non seulement comme un espace de pouvoir mais aussi comme un mécanisme de contrôle.
  • M. CROZIER et E. FRIEDBERG expliquent comment, dans presque chaque situation, les acteurs ont une certaine liberté fondée sur le fait que les règles (ou les lois) laissent une marge d’incertitude à partir de laquelle les acteurs développent des pratiques informelles.

D. Droit et Société : la sociologie juridique comme objet

  • Interdisciplinaire En 1966, Renato Trevès (1907-1992), sociologue du droit italien, affirme que la sociologie du droit française se trouve à michemin entre la sociologie et le droit.
  • À cette époque, les résultats d’une enquête sur l’enseignement et l’investigation en matière de sociologie du droit sont publiés dans la Revue trimestrielle de droit civil25.
  • C’est pourquoi il propose une méthodologie ethnographique attentive à la construction du droit.
  • Cette idée a eu très peu d’impact dans le champ juridique français où l’unité et l’efficacité de l’État sont des postulats quasiment indiscutables.
  • Enfin, Pierre Noreau, juriste et politologue, membre du même centre d’investigation, travaille également sur des thèmes liés au pluralisme juridique, tout en les combinant à un intérêt particulier pour l’institutionnalisation des relations sociales.

3. Caractéristiques de la sociologie du droit en France

  • Comme l’illustrent les courants que nous achevons d’exposer, les tendances, groupes et associations qui composent la sociologie du droit en France sont moins importants qu’aux Etats-Unis.
  • 30 Ces deux théoriciens du droit sont membres et directeurs du Séminaire interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis de Bruxelles.
  • A. La centralité de la loi dans le droit et la prééminence des professeurs Dans l’Ancien Régime, les juges étaient issus de l’aristocratie et exerçaient leur profession de manière largement arbitraire.
  • La France révolutionnaire a donc tenté avec vigueur de limiter et de contrôler leur exercice par le biais de la codification ainsi que de la soumission de la coutume et de la jurisprudence à la loi.

B. La séparation entre les sociologues ou les politologues et les

  • Entre les sociologues et les juristes, les tensions sont courantes.
  • Cette division entraîne, en outre, un certain mépris pour ce qui est normatif dans le cas des premiers et, dans le cas des seconds, pour ce qui a trait aux régularités sociales.
  • Parce que la justice est une institution de l’État, avec des prérogatives propres du pouvoir public, elle est conçue comme une institution ne pouvant ni faire débat ni susciter des réflexions de la part des sociologues ou des politologues.
  • En France, la sociologie juridique des juristes et celle des sociologues sont si différentes que Renato Trevès parle de la coexistence de deux sociologies du droit, chacune ayant ses propres publications, son propre public et ses propres thèmes de recherche (Serverin 2000 : 5).

C. Science, discipline ou champ ?

  • Pendant de nombreuses années, la sociologie du droit française a voulu résoudre le problème de son identité épistémologique (Commaille et Perrin 1985 : 118 ; Arnaud 1989).
  • « La sociologie juridique et son emploi en législation », Communication de Jean Carbonnier à l’académie des sciences morales et politiques, L’Année Sociologique, vol. 57, n°2, p. 393- 401.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Figures (1)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Open Research Online
The Open University’s repository of research publications
and other research outputs
Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to
market-competition and organizational
entrepreneurship
Journal Item
How to cite:
Hartley, Jean; Sørensen, Eva and Torfing, Jacob (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to
market-competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6) pp. 821–830.
For guidance on citations see FAQs.
c
2013 The American Society for Public Administration
Version: Accepted Manuscript
Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/puar.12136
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright
owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies
page.
oro.open.ac.uk
Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market-
competition and organizational entrepreneurship
Jean Hartley, Eva Sørensen and Jacob Torfing
Professor Jean Hartley
Open University, UK
Jean.hartley@open.ac.uk
Professor Eva Sørensen
University of Roskilde, Denmark
Eva@ruc.dk
Professor Jacob Torfing
University of Roskilde, Denmark
jtor@ruc.dk
In press: Public Administration Review 2013. Doi in October 2013; paper copy in
November/December issue of the journal
Abstract:
There are growing pressures for the public sector to be more innovative but considerable
disagreement about how to achieve it. This paper uses institutional and organizational
analysis to compare three major but different public innovation strategies. The paper
commences by confronting the myth that the market-driven private sector is more innovative
than the public sector by showing that both sectors have a number of barriers as well as
drivers of innovation, some of which are similar while others are sector-specific. The paper
then systematically analyses the three strategies for innovation. These are: New Public
Management which emphasises market competition; the neo-Weberian state which
emphasises organizational entrepreneurship; and collaborative governance which emphasises
multi-actor engagement across organizations in the private, public and non-profit sectors. The
article concludes that the choice between different strategies for enhancing public innovation
is contingent rather than absolute. Some contingencies for each strategy are outlined.
Keywords:
Innovation, public innovation, new public management, competition, organizational
entrepreneurship, collaboration, neo-Weberian state, co-creation.
2
Introduction
There is a growing demand and pressure for the public sector to become more innovative
(Borins, 2008; Osborne and Brown, 2011) in response to rising citizen expectations, dire
fiscal constraints and a growing number of ‘wicked problems’ that due to their complexity
cannot be solved by standard solutions or by increasing the funding of existing mechanisms.
While the effects of public innovation are sometimes evaluated differently by public and
private stakeholders and may contain significant trade-offs (Abrahamson, 1991; Hartley,
2005; Tidd and Bessant, 2009), there is a growing perception that innovation can contribute
to growing productivity, service improvement and enhance problem solving capacity in the
public sector, though not all innovations are effective or involve improvement. However,
there seems to be considerable disagreement about how to spur and sustain public innovation.
Therefore, in order to better understand the drivers as well as the barriers to public
innovation, this article endeavours to compare three different public innovation strategies in
order to show that, although market-driven and bureaucratic innovation strategies have
important qualities, a collaborative approach to public innovation seems to have some
comparative advantages in certain contexts.
In the last two decades proponents of New Public Management (NPM) reforms have claimed
that the public sector should imitate or learn from the private sector. The public sector should
become more innovative, flexible and efficient by introducing market-based competition and
private sector management techniques (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Critics claim that that
the marketization of the public sector has not helped to make the public sector more
innovative. They suggest instead that public innovation should be enhanced by means of
strengthening organizational entrepreneurship in neo-Weberian bureaucracies through a
combination of transformational leadership (Bass and Riggio, 2006), institutional and
3
organizational integration (Christensen and Lægreid, 2010), trust-based management (Nyhan,
2000) and increased responsiveness towards the demands from citizens and users of specific
public services (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). Although both of these strategic
recommendations, under the right conditions, may help to spur public innovation, we will
argue that the dichotomous opposition between market-based competition and bureaucratic
reform is an unfortunate and false choice. Unfortunate because both strategies tend to favour
‘in house’ innovation (i.e. by managers and staff) and thus fail to reap the fruits of inter-
organizational, inter-sectoral and open innovation. False, because a collaborative approach to
innovation highlights the role of multi-actor engagement to inform the understanding of the
problem to be addressed as well as how to create and implement innovation and to garner
support and ownership of the problem and the innovation. However, although collaborative
innovation seems to be supported by new trends associated with New Public Governance
(Osborne, 2010), there are both merits and limitations to this particular strategy and it may
require the development of new kinds of innovation management.
The argument proceeds in the following way. First we confront the myth that the market-
driven private sector is more innovative than the public sector by showing that both sectors
are characterised by a number of barriers as well as drivers of innovation, some of which are
the same and others are sector-specific. These insights are used to critically scrutinize the
extent to which NPM can enhance public innovation. After having identified the limitations
as well as the drivers in the market-competition approach of NPM, we briefly explore the
limitations and drivers of the second innovation strategy which is based on reforming public
bureaucracies in order to enhance organizational entrepreneurship. Finally, we analyse the
comparative merits of the collaborative approach to public innovation and discuss how the
drivers and barriers here might be harnessed through developing new kinds of innovation
4
Citations
More filters
Posted Content•
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation

[...]

Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson
01 Jan 2006-Research Papers in Economics
TL;DR: The Oxford Handbook of Innovation as mentioned in this paper provides a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation, with a focus on firms and networks, and the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment.
Abstract: This handbook looks to provide academics and students with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. Innovation spans a number of fields within the social sciences and humanities: Management, Economics, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Psychology, and History. Consequently, the rapidly increasing body of literature on innovation is characterized by a multitude of perspectives based on, or cutting across, existing disciplines and specializations. Scholars of innovation can come from such diverse starting points that much of this literature can be missed, and so constructive dialogues missed. The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Innovation have carefully selected and designed twenty-one contributions from leading academic experts within their particular field, each focusing on a specific aspect of innovation. These have been organized into four main sections, the first of which looks at the creation of innovations, with particular focus on firms and networks. Section Two provides an account of the wider systematic setting influencing innovation and the role of institutions and organizations in this context. Section Three explores some of the diversity in the working of innovation over time and across different sectors of the economy, and Section Four focuses on the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment. An introductory overview, concluding remarks, and guide to further reading for each chapter, make this handbook a key introduction and vital reference work for researchers, academics, and advanced students of innovation. Contributors to this volume - Jan Fagerberg, University of Oslo William Lazonick, INSEAD Walter W. Powell, Stanford University Keith Pavitt, SPRU Alice Lam, Brunel University Keith Smith, INTECH Charles Edquist, Linkoping David Mowery, University of California, Berkeley Mary O'Sullivan, INSEAD Ove Granstrand, Chalmers Bjorn Asheim, University of Lund Rajneesh Narula, Copenhagen Business School Antonello Zanfei, Urbino Kristine Bruland, University of Oslo Franco Malerba, University of Bocconi Nick Von Tunzelmann, SPRU Ian Miles, University of Manchester Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley Bart Verspagen , ECIS Francisco Louca, ISEG Manuel M. Godinho, ISEG Richard R. Nelson, Mario Pianta, Urbino Bengt-Ake Lundvall, Aalborg

3,040 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis

[...]

Gerald Vinten
01 Jul 2000-Managerial Auditing Journal

1,987 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda

[...]

Hanna de Vries1, Victor Bekkers1, Lars Tummers1•
Erasmus University Rotterdam1
01 Mar 2016-Public Administration
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation, published between 1990 and 2014, and develop an empirically based framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public-sector innovation.
Abstract: This article brings together empirical academic research on public sector innovation. Via a systematic literature review, we investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation, published between 1990 and 2014. These studies are analysed based on the following themes: (1) the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents of innovation and (5) outcomes of innovation. Based upon this analysis, we develop an empirically based framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public sector innovation. We put forward three future research suggestions: (1) more variety in methods: moving from a qualitative dominance to using other methods, such as surveys, experiments and multi-method approaches; (2) emphasize theory development and testing as studies are often theory-poor; and (3) conduct more cross-national and cross-sectoral studies, linking for instance different governance and state traditions to the development and effects of public sector innovation.

678 citations

Cites background from "Collaborative innovation: A Viable ..."

  • ...On the other hand there are also a number of publications that try to grasp the meaning and importance of public sector innovation in a more conceptual way (Osborne & Brown, 2011; 2013; Hartley et al., 2013), sometimes combing this with a more normative approach (Bason, 2010)....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Transforming the Public Sector Into an Arena for Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward

[...]

Jacob Torfing, Eva Sørensen, Asbjørn Røiseland1•
Nord University1
01 May 2019-Administration & Society
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore whether co-creation offers a viable path for the public sector and explore the role of the public service in the transformation from a legal authority and a service provider.
Abstract: This article explores whether co-creation offers a viable path for the public sector. After an initial account of the transformation of the public sector from a legal authority and a service provid...

253 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Public value creation through collaborative innovation

[...]

Barbara C. Crosby1, Paul 't Hart2, Jacob Torfing3•
University of Minnesota1, Utrecht University2, Roskilde University3
28 May 2017-Public Management Review
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore how public managers can use insights about public sector innovation and public value governance to make more than incremental progress in remedying society's most pressing needs.
Abstract: This article explores how public managers can use insights about public sector innovation and public value governance to make more than incremental progress in remedying society’s most pressing needs. After outlining the features of public innovation, it considers some traditional barriers to achieving it. It then considers the usefulness of the public value framework for managers seeking to design innovative solutions for complex problems, and examines the type of leadership that is likely to foster collaborative innovation and public value. It finishes by offering levers for achieving innovation by adopting design logics and practices associated with inclusive, experimentalist governance.

235 citations

Cites background from "Collaborative innovation: A Viable ..."

  • ...Creating public value through collaborative innovation requires a special kind of leadership work (see e.g. Bason 2010; Crosby and Bryson 2010; Williams 2012; Ansell and Gash 2012; ‘t Hart 2014; Hartley, Sørensen, and Torfing 2013)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Book•
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation

[...]

Jeanne Lave, Etienne Wenger
01 Jan 1991
TL;DR: This work has shown that legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice is not confined to midwives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, non-drinking alcoholics and the like.
Abstract: In this important theoretical treatist, Jean Lave, anthropologist, and Etienne Wenger, computer scientist, push forward the notion of situated learning - that learning is fundamentally a social process. The authors maintain that learning viewed as situated activity has as its central defining characteristic a process they call legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). Learners participate in communities of practitioners, moving toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community. LPP provides a way to speak about crucial relations between newcomers and old-timers and about their activities, identities, artefacts, knowledge and practice. The communities discussed in the book are midwives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, and recovering alcoholics, however, the process by which participants in those communities learn can be generalised to other social groups.

43,846 citations

Book•
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

[...]

Joseph A. Schumpeter
01 Jan 1942
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a history of the first half of the 20th century, from 1875 to 1914, of the First World War and the Second World War.
Abstract: Introduction. Part I: The Marxian Doctrine. Prologue. I. Marx the Prophet. II. Marx the Sociologist. III. Marx the Economist. IV Marx the Teacher. Part II: Can Capitalism Survive? Prologue. V. The Rate of Increase of Total Output. VI. Plausible Capitalism. VII. The Process of Creative Destruction. VIII. Monopolistics Practices. IX. Closed Season. X. The Vanishing of Investment Opportunity. XI. The Civilization of Capitalism. XII. Crumbling Walls. XIII. Growing Hostility. XIV. Decomposition. Part III: Can Socialism Work? XV. Clearing Decks. XVI. The Socialist Blueprint. XVII. Comparison of Blueprints. XVIII. The Human Element. XIX. Transition. Part IV: Socialism and Democracy. XX. The Setting of the Problem. XXI. The Classical Doctrine of Democracy. XXII. Another Theory of Democracy. XXIII. The Inference. Part V: A Historical Sketch of Socialist Parties. Prologue. XXIV. The Nonage. XXV. The Situation that Marx Faced. XXVI. From 1875 to 1914. XXVII. From the First to the Second World War. XXVIII. The Consequences of the Second World War. Preface to the First Edition, 1942. Preface to the Second Edition, 1946. Preface to the Third Edition, 1949. The March Into Socialism. Index.

16,667 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.

[...]

Steven B. Andrews, Ronald S. Burt
01 Jun 1995-Administrative Science Quarterly
TL;DR: In this article, structural holes are defined as network gaps between players which create entrepreneurial opportunities for information access, timing, referrals, and for control, and the structural holes also generate control benefits giving certain players an advantage in negotiating their relationships.
Abstract: The study analyzes the social structure of competition. It addresses the consequences of voids in relational and resource networks. Competitive behavior can be understood in terms of player access to \"holes\" in the social structure of the competitive arena. Those \"structural holes\" are network gaps between players which create entrepreneurial opportunities for information access, timing, referrals, and for control. A player brings capital to the competitive arena and walks away with profit determined by the rate of return where the capital was invested. The rate of return is keyed to the social structure of the competitive arena. Each player brings three kinds of capital to the competitive arena: financial capital, such as money and investments; human capital, such as his or her natural qualities and skills; and social capital, i.e. networks of other players. Social capital is the final determinant of competitive success. Something about the structure of a player's network (his or her relations with other players, such as colleagues, friends, and clients), and the location of the player's network in the structure of the arena defines the player's chances of getting higher rates of return. These chances are enhanced by two kinds of network benefits for those who can exploit structural holes: information and control. Opportunities for success are many, but it is information that plays a central role in seizing them; structural holes determine who knows about opportunities, what they know, and who gets to participate. Structural holes also generate control benefits, giving certain players an advantage in negotiating their relationships. Following sociological theory, a player who derives benefit from structural holes by brokering relationships between other conflicted players is called tertius gaudens. The essential tension in tertius strategies is not hostility of participants, but rather uncertainty; no one has absolute authority in the relationship under negotiation. The findings of empirical research indicate that structural holes are advantageous to suppliers and customers, but not to producers in their negotiated transactions, because suppliers and customers benefit from competition among producers. The information and control benefits of structural holes are advantageous to managers, and the managers who develop those benefits are an asset to the firm employing them. Managers with networks rich in structural holes often reach promotion faster. Hole effects are most evident for managers operating on a social frontier, i.e. in places where two social worlds meet. Social frontiers involve continual negotiations of the expectations of the manager and those of the people across the frontier, and thus more entrepreneurial skill is required. The most serious frontier is the political boundary between top leadership and the rest of the firm. To move up the corporate ladder, a manager has to transform his or her frame of reference from that of an employee protected by the firm, to that of a leader responsible for the firm. The findings also indicate that women and entry-rank men tend to be promoted earlier because they build hierarchical networks around a strategic partner who helps them break into higher ranks. Although the reported differences between the manager networks have clear implications for promotions, there are no differences among managers in their tendencies to have one network rather than another, which is especially striking with respect to the sex and rank differences that are observed to be important in distinguishing network effects. Structural holes provide a theoretical connection between micro and macro levels of sociological analysis. The structural hole argument extends other theories, such as personality theory, interface theory of markets and population ecology, and resource dependence and transaction cost theory

12,103 citations

Book•
Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition

[...]

Ronald S. Burt
01 Jan 1992
TL;DR: In this paper, the Tertius Gaudens Entrepreneurs Secondary Holes Structural Autonomy (SSA) model is used to control the number of holes in a network.
Abstract: Acknowledgments Introduction 1. THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF COMPETITION Opportunity and Capital Information Structural Holes Control and the Tertius Gaudens Entrepreneurs Secondary Holes Structural Autonomy Summary 2. FORMALIZING THE ARGUMENT Network Data Redundancy Constraint Hole Signature Structural Autonomy Summary 3. TURNING A PROFIT Product Networks and Market Profit The Study Population Hole Effects Market Hole Signatures Summary Appendix: Weighing Alternatives 4. GETTING AHEAD Contact Networks and Manager Achievement The Study Population Hole Effects Hierarchy Institutional Holes Selecting a Network Summary Appendix A: Weighing Alternatives Appendix B: Causal Order 5. PLAYER-STRUCTURE DUALITY Structural Unit of Analysis Players and Structures Escape from Attributes No Escape Summary 6. COMMIT AND SURVIVE Holes and Heterogeneity Interface and the Commit Hypothesis Population Ecology and the Survival Hypothesis Summary 7. STRATEGIC EMBEDDING AND INSTITUTIONAL RESIDUE The Other Tertius Strategy Hypothesis Formal Organization as Social Residue Personality as Emotional Residue Summary Notes References Index

10,616 citations

Book•
Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

[...]

Henry Chesbrough1•
Dartmouth College1
01 Mar 2003
TL;DR: Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology as discussed by the authors is a book by Henry Chesbrough, which discusses the importance of open innovation for creating and profiting from technology.
Abstract: The article reviews the book “Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology,” by Henry Chesbrough.

8,644 citations

Related Papers (5)
Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present

[...]

15 Mar 2010-Public Money & Management
Jean Hartley
Collaborative governance in theory and practice

[...]

17 Oct 2007-Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Christopher Ansell, Alison Gash
The New Public Governance? 1

[...]

01 Sep 2006-Public Management Review
Stephen P. Osborne
A public management for all seasons

[...]

01 Mar 1991-Public Administration
Christopher Hood
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning

[...]

01 Jun 1973-Policy Sciences
Horst W. J. Rittel, Melvin M. Webber
Frequently Asked Questions (12)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Collaborative innovation: a viable alternative to market-competition and organizational entrepreneurship" ?

This paper uses institutional and organizational analysis to compare three major but different public innovation strategies. The paper commences by confronting the myth that the market-driven private sector is more innovative than the public sector by showing that both sectors have a number of barriers as well as drivers of innovation, some of which are similar while others are sector-specific. The paper then systematically analyses the three strategies for innovation. The article concludes that the choice between different strategies for enhancing public innovation is contingent rather than absolute. 

In addition to this defensive reason for public innovation as a means of ‘ doing more with less ’, there are also proactive reason for boosting innovation: increasing the capacity of organizations and groups to address the growing number of wicked problems and realizing political goals for the future development of society. All three innovations strategies have particular strengths and weaknesses and a key task for future research is to develop a contingency theory that specifies and explains when, where and why each of the three strategies, or perhaps a combination of them, is beneficial. However, NPM critics have suggested that instead of returning to traditional forms of public administration, which can create innovation but often blunts innovative intent and motivation ( Hartley, 2005 ), the authors should instead aim to foster a new kind of organizational entrepreneurship, predicated on a distributive and trust-based leadership, institutional integration and more and better information about, and interest in, users. However, both strategies suggest that public innovation is created and implemented inside particular organizations, be it private firms or public organizations. 

Continuous service improvements, integrated planning processes and strategic re-allocation of public resources are also needed to deal with changing demands of citizens and service users. 

Networks and partnerships between competing clusters of firms provide an important driver of innovation in high-tech industries (Powell and Grodal, 2004). 

Collaborative innovation strategy can enhance both policy and service innovation, although service innovation will not tend to increase efficiency and reduce costs unless the private actors are shouldering some of the fiscal burden or engage in co-produced service provision. 

in order to create well-functioning interactive arenas with active and committed actors, innovation leaders and managers must act as conveners (see also Newman, 2011). 

Despite recent attempts to create public quasi-markets, market-based competition still carries limited weight as a motivating factor and there are other drivers of innovation. 

The concern with risk in public service production also encourages middle managers to extend and develop rules in order to maintain standards and avoid risk (Brown and Osborne, 2013). 

the role of senior managers is to support elected politicians in formulating the overall goals and targets and in defining the legal, economic and discursive framework for public regulation and service production. 

If public innovation is less motivated by market-based competition, there appears to be other sector-specific drivers, some of which tend to be more prevalent in the public sector than in the private sector. 

The institutional perspective on innovation is important because it draws attention to the organizational and cultural conditions that might hamper or drive social and political actors aiming to produce innovative solutions. 

the presence of strong professions in the public sector may also act as a barrier to innovation (Ferlie et al. 2005). 

Trending Questions (1)
What are the main innovation strategies for turning public welfare into more collaborative forms?

The main innovation strategies for enhancing public welfare through collaboration are New Public Management, neo-Weberian state, and collaborative governance, each with unique emphases on competition, entrepreneurship, and multi-actor engagement.

See answers from 5 other papers