When Failure is the Only Option: How Communicative Framing Resources Organizational Innovation

Abstract

Innovation is valuable for organizational success, yet it presents contradictions for workers who must choose between pursuing novel courses of action or practicing established strategy. One challenge is that many efforts at innovation are not successful, making workers reluctant to pursue novel projects. In this study, we seek to answer the question: How do individuals responsible for facilitating innovation in organizations communicatively construct and frame failure? Abductive analysis of interviews with 36 professionals in innovation-related roles reveal that these workers communicate in a way that frames the idea of failure in a way that bolsters innovation efforts. This framing is enacted through a variety of language tools, a mindset aligned with the frame, and the development of organizational strategy that communicatively supports this framing. The article argues that innovation failure is resourced via communicative framing as an asset that aids organizational learning. Overall, findings indicate that communication plays a central role in constituting innovation practices and facilitating change in organizations.

Keywords

innovation framing failure learning organizational change

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvesson

(2004). Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford University Press.

Alvesson

Spicer

(Eds.) (2011). Metaphors we lead by: Understanding leadership in the real world. Routledge.

Anand

Gardner

Morris

(2007). Knowledge-based innovation: Emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 406−428.

Andrews

D. C.

(2017). A space for place in business communication research. International Journal of Business Communication, 54, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675842

Ashcraft

K. L.

Kuhn

T. R.

Cooren

(2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 1−64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903047186

Brown

J. S.

Duguid

(1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40−57.

Browning

L. D.

(1992). Lists and stories as organizational communication. Communication Theory, 2, 281−302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00045.x

Burt

(1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University.

Burt

(2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349−399.

10.

Christensen

(1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.

11.

Contu

Willmott

(2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14, 283–296.

12.

Cornelissen

Werner

(2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181–235.

13.

Damanpour

(1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555−590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406

14.

Decker

Durand

Mayfield

C. O.

McCormack

Skinner

Perdue

(2012). Predicting implementation failure in organization change. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 16, 29.

15.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51−58.

16.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems and prospects for leadership. Leadership, 1, 165−185.

17.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2011) The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. John Wiley and Sons.

18.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Sarr

R. A.

(1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership (Vol. 50). Jossey-Bass.

19.

Feldman

M. S.

(2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15, 295−309.

20.

Feldman

M. S.

Pentland

B. T.

(2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94−118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620

21.

Feldman

M. S.

Worline

M. C.

(2012). Resources, resourcing, and ampliative cycles in organizations.In Spreitzer

G. M.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 629−641). Oxford University Press.

22.

Fleming

Mingo

Chen

(2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 443−475. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.443

23.

Gherardi

Nicolini

(2002). Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices: Canon or dissonance? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 419−436.

24.

Glaser

(1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. The Sociological Press.

25.

Glaser

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

26.

Goffman

(1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper Colophon.

27.

Hage

J. T.

(1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 597−622. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.597

28.

Hult

G. T. M.

Hurley

R. F.

Knight

G. A.

(2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 429−438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015

29.

Iyengar

(1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.

30.

Janszen

(2000). The age of innovation. Pearson.

31.

Kahneman

Tversky

(2000) Choices, values, and frames. Russell Sage Foundation.

32.

Katz

(2004). The human side of managing technological innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

33.

Kotter

(1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.

34.

Kvale

(1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

35.

Leonardi

P. M.

(2011). Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organization Science, 22, 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0529

36.

Lewis

L. K.

(1997). Users’ individual communicative responses to intraorganizationally implemented innovations and other planned changes. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(4), 455−490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318997104003

37.

Lewis

L. K.

Seibold

D. R.

(1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation adoption: Predicting users’ behavioral coping responses to innovations in organizations. Communication Monographs, 63, 130−157.

38.

Lewis

L. K.

Seibold

D. R.

(1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association, 21(1), 93−152. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1998.11678949

39.

March

J. G.

(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71−87.

40.

Mason

(2019). Media frames and crisis events: Understanding the impact on corporate reputations, responsibility attributions, and negative affect. International Journal of Business Communication, 56, 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416648951

41.

Mellahi

Wilkinson

(2010). Managing and coping with organizational failure: Introduction to the special issue. Group and Organization Management, 35, 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110383404

42.

Miron-Spektor

Erez

Naveh

(2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740−760. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870100

43.

Moenkemeyer

Hoegl

Weiss

(2012). Innovator resilience potential: A process perspective of individual resilience as influenced by innovation project termination. Human Relations, 65, 627−655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711431350

44.

Orlikowski

W. J.

(1992). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. In Proceedings of the 1992 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 362−369). https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143549

45.

Orr

J. E.

(1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. ILR Press.

46.

Poole

M. S.

(2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 3−31). Oxford University Press.

47.

Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 562−578.

48.

Price

Tewksbury

Powers

(1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481−506.

49.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Banghart

(2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 65−171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421

50.

Roxas

Battisti

Deakins

(2014). Learning, innovation and firm performance: Knowledge management in small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12, 443−453.

51.

Sanderson

(2010). Framing Tiger’s troubles: Comparing traditional and social media. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 438−453.

52.

Shepherd

D. A.

Patzelt

Wolfe

(2011). Moving forward from project failure: Negative emotions, affective commitment, and learning from the experience. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1229−1259. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0102

53.

Smith

W. K.

Tushman

M. L.

(2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522−536.

54.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

55.

Suddaby

Greenwood

(2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35−67. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35

56.

Timmermans

Tavory

(2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30, 162−186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

57.

Tracy

S. J.

(2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley.

58.

Tripsas

(2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “the digital photography company”. Organization Science, 20, 441−460. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0419

59.

van Burg

Berends

Raaij

E. M

. (2014). Framing and interorganizational knowledge transfer: A process study of collaborative innovation in the aircraft industry. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 349−378.

60.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607.

61.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M. S.

(1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 510−540.

62.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Rogers

E. M.

(1988). Innovations and organizations - critical perspectives. Communication Research, 15, 632−651.

63.

Yoo

Boland Jr

R. J.

Lyytinen

Majchrzak

(2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23, 1398−1408.