A typology of crises and innovation configurations: a paradoxical perspective

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to develop a new typology of crises to illuminate how firms manage different innovation configurations during them. From a paradoxical perspective, we integrate insights from problemistic search logic and threat-rigidity logic to theorize paradoxical innovation configurations within each type of crisis in our typology. Design/methodology/approach: Based on time (imminent vs. latent) and space (internal vs. external) dimensions, we develop a typology of crises (i.e. imminent internal crises, latent internal crises, imminent external crises, and latent external crises). Using the configurational theorizing approach and case studies, we develop propositions for paradoxical innovation configurations within each type of crisis. Findings: In the time dimension, imminent (latent) crises trigger short-term (long-term) innovation as the primary response, supplemented by long-term (short-term) innovation. In the space dimension, internal (external) crises require knowledge-deepening (knowledge-broadening) innovation as the primary response, supplemented by knowledge-broadening (knowledge-deepening) innovation. Overall, imminent internal crises foster short-term knowledge-deepening innovation as the primary approach, supplemented by long-term knowledge-broadening innovation; while latent external crises foster long-term knowledge-broadening innovation as the primary approach, supplemented by short-term knowledge-deepening innovation. For imminent external crises and latent internal crises, either configuration (short-term knowledge-deepening innovation supplemented by long-term knowledge-broadening innovation, or vice versa) is possible, and the specific choice depends on the slack resources available to firms. Originality/value: Our study extends the literature on organizational crises by theorizing the coexistence of negative (i.e. survival threats) and positive (i.e. development opportunities) framing, which shapes firms' paradoxical innovation configurations as a response. In particular, we develop a new typology of crises to offer novel and fine-grained insights into the different innovation configurations under distinct types of crises.

This publication has 98 references indexed in Scilit: