Making Employee Driven Innovation Achievable Approaches and Practices For Workplace Learning 1st Edition Justina Tan

Making employee driven innovation
achievable Approaches and Practices

for Workplace learning 1st Edition
Justina Tan
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/making-employee-driven-innovation-achievable-appro
aches-and-practices-for-workplace-learning-1st-edition-justina-tan/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Training and

Employee Development Kenneth G. Brown
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-cambridge-handbook-of-
workplace-training-and-employee-development-kenneth-g-brown/
Deep Learning Approaches to Cloud Security Deep

Learning Approaches for Cloud Security 1st Edition
https://ebookmeta.com/product/deep-learning-approaches-to-cloud-
security-deep-learning-approaches-for-cloud-security-1st-edition/
Innovation District Planning: Concept, Framework,

Practice 1st Edition Tan Yigitcanlar
https://ebookmeta.com/product/innovation-district-planning-
concept-framework-practice-1st-edition-tan-yigitcanlar/
Architecting Data and Machine Learning Platforms:

Enable Analytics and AI-Driven Innovation in the Cloud
1st Edition Marco Tranquillin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/architecting-data-and-machine-
learning-platforms-enable-analytics-and-ai-driven-innovation-in-
the-cloud-1st-edition-marco-tranquillin/
Transformative Digital Technology for Effective
Workplace Learning 1st Edition Ria O'Donnell
https://ebookmeta.com/product/transformative-digital-technology-
for-effective-workplace-learning-1st-edition-ria-odonnell/
Smart Energy Management: Data Driven Methods for Energy

Service Innovation 1st Edition Kaile Zhou
https://ebookmeta.com/product/smart-energy-management-data-
driven-methods-for-energy-service-innovation-1st-edition-kaile-
zhou/
Educational Technology for the Global Village Worldwide

Innovation and Best Practices 1st Edition Les Lloyd
https://ebookmeta.com/product/educational-technology-for-the-
global-village-worldwide-innovation-and-best-practices-1st-
edition-les-lloyd/
Innovations in Learning and Technology for the

Workplace and Higher Education Proceedings of The
Learning Ideas Conference 2021 1st Edition David
Guralnick
https://ebookmeta.com/product/innovations-in-learning-and-
technology-for-the-workplace-and-higher-education-proceedings-of-
the-learning-ideas-conference-2021-1st-edition-david-guralnick/
Leadership for Deeper Learning Facilitating School

Innovation and Transformation 1st Edition Jayson W.
Richardson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/leadership-for-deeper-learning-
facilitating-school-innovation-and-transformation-1st-edition-
jayson-w-richardson/
This is one of the first comprehensive studies on EDI in an Asian context. The book
by Justina Tan and Wing On Lee impresses not only with its scientific foundation
but also with its relevance. It thus builds a valuable bridge between research and
practice and opens a new chapter in EDI research.
Peter Kesting, Associate Professor of Strategy and
Organizational Behaviour, Aarhus University, Denmark
Innovation especially EDI is widely recognised and accepted by organisations. The key
challenge faced by many leaders is the difficulty of putting in place a pragmatic and
sustainable system to support EDI. This book is a much-needed guide on how to
translate aspirations into practice.
Lee Kheng Hock, Senior Consultant, Deputy CEO (Education
and Community Partnerships), SingHealth Community Hospitals, Singapore
Innovation is widely recognised as key to vibrancy, growth and success of organisations.

More so if it is embedded in the culture of organisations and imbued in all their
employees. Accordingly, EDI should be sought after, but the key challenge faced by
many leaders is the difficulty of putting in place a pragmatic and sustainable system
to support EDI. This book is a much-needed guide on how to translate aspirations
into practice.
Cheong Hee Kiat, Professor, Founding President of
Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), Singapore
MAKING EMPLOYEE-DRIVEN
INNOVATION ACHIEVABLE
This volume guides workplace trainers in teaching the significance of

Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) and recognising that each and every employee
is capable of being the driver of innovation. Given that innovation has become
imperative to unlock competitive advantage, and that employees are increasingly
regarded as a quintessential aspect of innovation, this focus on EDI and how to
enable it is both necessary and opportune.
The book is split into three parts: first focusing on helping trainers to address the
challenges of getting employees to engage in innovative work besides their regular
job tasks. How can organisations instil this mindset in their employees who see
themselves as stalwarts of status quo? The book then turns to how organisations can
engage employees in innovation, with an accompanying emphasis that the enactment
of EDI may not follow a prescribed or planned flow. It then closes by offering
real-world examples of the unfolding of EDI in both the Finnish and Singaporean
contexts.
The book is aimed at educating enterprises, both employers and workplace
trainers, and adult educators in the practices and approaches to engage employees
in innovation. It seeks to bridge, specifically the theory-practice nexus of EDI, and
nudge the enterprises and TAE (training and adult education) practitioners that
have yet to involve or engage employees systematically in innovation to seriously
consider it.
Justina Tan is Director of Learning and Professional Development at the Institute

for Adult Learning, Singapore University of Social Sciences. She holds Doctor of
Education (EdD) degrees from University College London, Institute of Education
and Nanyang Technological University. Justina leads the IAL in helping enterprises
deepen workplace learning and engage in employee-driven innovation.
Wing On Lee is the Executive Director of the Institute for Adult Learning and
concurrently serves as a professor at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.
Before that, he was Distinguished Professor and Director of the International
and Comparative Education Research Centre and the Central Plains Education
Research Centre at Zhengzhou University. He is the Series Editor of Springer
Education Innovation Series; the Routledge Critical Issues in Asian Education
series; and Routledge Character, Values and Citizenship Education series. He
is former President of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies
(2010–13). In 2022, he was awarded the International Adult and Continuing
Education Hall of Fame (IACEHOF), Class 2021, in America.
Routledge-IAL Series on Adult Learning
for Emergent Jobs and Skills
Series Editors
Renee Tan, Wing On Lee and Helen Bound
This Book Series, supported by the Singapore Institute for Adult Learning (IAL),
provides a platform for publishing research and practical volumes on topics related
to adult learning, emergent jobs and skills particularly in economies that are filled
with volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, VUCA economics, changing
social and economic circumstances, and social and economic inclusivity.
The books in the series are for graduate and post-graduate students, academics
and practitioners such as adult educators, human resource personnel, and consultants
who are change agents.
--
Workplace Learning for Changing Social and Economic Circumstances

Edited by Helen Bound, Anne Edwards, Karen Evans and Arthur Chia
Making Employee-Driven Innovation Achievable

Approaches and Practices for Workplace Learning
Edited by Justina Tan and Wing On Lee
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-IAL-Series-

on-Adult-Learning-for-Emergent-Jobs-and-Skills/book-series/RIALAL
MAKING EMPLOYEE-
DRIVEN INNOVATION
ACHIEVABLE
Approaches and Practices
for Workplace Learning
Edited by Justina Tan and Wing On Lee

Designed cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 selection and editorial matter, Justina Tan and Wing On Lee;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Justina Tan and Wing On Lee to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-032-13179-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-13180-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-22801-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003228011
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xii
List of Contributors xiii
Series Editor’s Foreword xvi
1 Making Employee-Driven Innovation Achievable: Paving

the Way 1
Justina Tan and Joel Sim
2 Innovation Mindsets – A Framework to Understand

Employees’ Motivation to Act on Opportunities for Innovation 11
Malte Krohn and Cornelius Herstatt
3 Forging an Innovation Mindset: Practices in Small to

Medium Size Enterprises 33
Chong Wan Har, Joel Sim,Calvin M. L. Chan
and Stephen Billett
4 Moving Beyond the Innovation Mindset 53

Laura McLaughlin and James McLaughlin
5 Employee Empowerment as a Foundational Approach to

Foster Employee-Driven Innovation 72
Chukwuemeka Echebiri
x Contents
6 Emergence of Employee-Driven Innovation: The Dynamic

Interplay of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes 87
Izabelle Bäckström and Wafa Said Mosleh
7 Employee Capability and Knowledge as Driving Forces

for SMES’ Competitive Advantages 107
Sam Boran Li
8 Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) in Finland 126

Esa Hiltunen
9 Understanding Employee-Driven Innovation Through

Positioning Theory Lens: Insights From Singapore 146
Justina Tan
10 Making EDI Work From Theory to

Practice – Encapsulating the Essence 163
Wing On Lee and Justina Tan
Index 177
FIGURES
2.1 Conceptual opportunity recognition model for frugal innovation. 21

2.2 Research framework for mindset-based research in EDI. 25
4.1 The path to an idea. 56
4.2 Elements of a creative endeavour. 60
4.3 Persistence drives the innovation process. 62
4.4 The spark plug of ideation. 63
4.5 An innovation process model. 63
4.6 SIT ideation methods. 65
4.7 Common sequence of steps for idea generation or ideation. 65
6.1 Phases of the formal employee innovation process at the global
IT-firm’s Swedish units. 96
6.2 Stages of how the innovation platform was designed. 98
7.1 Relationship of institutional base, dynamic capability, adaptive
capability and competitive advantage. 119
TABLES
1.1 List of Recommended Practices for Organisations to Motivate

Employees to Innovate. 4
3.1 Forging a Growth Mindset: Individual Enablers. 39
3.2 Forging a Growth Mindset: Organisational Enablers. 44
4.1 Extracted Survey Comments on Random Innovation Beliefs. 54
4.2 Extracted Survey Comments on Structured Innovation Beliefs. 55
4.3 Extracted Survey Comments on the Creative Environment. 59
4.4 Extracted Survey Comments on Constraints. 68
7.1 European Commission SME Definition. 109
7.2 SMEs Contribution Across Sectors. 110
9.1 An Overview of Participants From Delight Transport. 151
9.2 An Overview of Participants From Cape Financial. 151
CONTRIBUTORS
Dr. Izabelle Bäckström is senior lecturer and researcher at Lund University, Swe-
den. She holds a Ph.D. degree in Industrial Engineering and Management and her
research interests include innovation management, particularly inclusive forms of
innovation such as employee-driven innovation in private as well as public organi-
sational contexts.
Stephen Billett is Professor of Adult and Vocational Education in the School of

Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Aus-
tralia. His research interests are in learning the capacities required for paid work,
through experiences in and across working life, educational institutions and their
integration.
Calvin M. L. Chan is Associate Professor and Director (Office of Graduate Stud-

ies) at the Singapore University of Social Sciences. His research and teaching re-
volves around the implementation and impact of Digital Transformation, covering
the public (e.g. e-Government, Smart City), private (e.g. Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises), and people (e.g. Elderly) sectors.
Chong Wan Har is Associate Professor at the Psychology and Child & Human
Development Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Techno-
logical University, Singapore. Her research interests include student motivation and
engagement, and self-processes in learning.
Chukwuemeka Echebiri is Associate Professor at Inland Norway University of Ap-

plied Sciences (INN), Norway. He holds an MSc degree in Business from Nord
University, Norway, and a PhD degree in Innovation in Services from INN. His
xiv Contributors
main research interests include employee-driven innovation, employee empow-

erment and leadership behaviour. He has previously worked within banking and
insurance.
Cornelius Herstatt is a leading German researcher and university professor for in-
novation management with a chair at the Technical University Hamburg. He is the
Managing Director of the Institute for Technology and Innovation Management at
the TUHH and heads the Center for Frugal Innovation. One focus is his research
regarding technology and innovation.
Dr. Esa Hiltunen is Senior Lecturer at Department of Business, University of East-

ern Finland. He has extensive work experience in service sector organisations. His
research interests are in innovation management and he has received many awards for
conducting high-level case studies (Sage Best Case Awards 2020 and 2021).
Malte Krohn recently defended his Ph.D. thesis at Hamburg University of Tech-
nology – his research focuses on the role of mindsets in innovation efforts. He is a
Faculty Innovation Fellow at the University of Stanford, the author of The Mindful
Startup, and he now works as a freelance coach and consultant.
James McLaughlin is a consultant in aerospace product and technology strategy

with expertise in R&D, innovation, strategic analysis, and management. He has
taught courses on Effective Teams and Global Innovation Strategy. Jim is also a com-
munity leader where he applies his skills for analysis, strategic communications and
policy development.
Laura McLaughlin is a professor of education teaching undergraduate and graduate

courses. Laura has over 20 years of experience working with adult learners provid-
ing training, professional development and coaching in corporate and educational
settings. Laura’s research focuses on developing learners in innovation, creativity and
using technology to engage learners.
Prof. Wing On Lee is an Executive Director of the Institute for Adult Learning and
a Professor at the University of Social Sciences. He edits/co-edits for four eminent
book series, namely Routledge Critical Studies in Asian Education, Routledge Citizen-
ship, Character and Values Education, Routledge-IAL Series on Adult Learning for Emergent
Jobs and Skills and Springer Education Innovation Education.
Wafa Said Mosleh is a senior CX consultant at Danske Bank, Copenhagen, Den-

mark. She holds a Ph.D. degree in Participatory Innovation from the Department of
Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management, University of Southern Denmark.
Mosleh works at the intersection of design, anthropology and complexity sciences to
understand organisational processes of innovation.
Contributors xv
Joel Sim is a research executive from the Centre of Workplace Learning and Per-
formance, Institute for Adult Learning, Singapore University of Social Sciences. He
is involved in research related to improving employee engagement in innovation at
the workplace.
Dr. Justina Tan is Director of Learning and Professional Development at the Insti-
tute for Adult Learning, Singapore University of Social Sciences. She holds Doctor
of Education (EdD) degrees from University College London, Institute of Educa-
tion and Nanyang Technological University. Justina leads the team in helping enter-
prises deepen workplace learning and engage in employee-driven innovation.
SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD
This is not just one of the books on workplace learning, but a book that introduces
Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) as a conceptual and practice framework that
will engage employees as the key driver for workplace learning. Unlike many other
concepts of workplace learning that focus on training employees to produce what
the enterprises require and hence often a top-down approach from employers, EDI
emphasises self-driven initiatives in the process of workplace learning.
The concept of workplace learning emerged in the 21st century, with varied ter-
minologies, such as work-based learning, work-integrated learning, on-the-job train-
ing, etc. These terms represent different perspectives on how to, how should, learning
take place in the workplace. Oftentimes, these terms were used interchangeably, mak-
ing the concept of learning rather unclear – that is, workplace learning may mean
different things to different people, even though we all agree that workplace learning
is a significant strategy to enhance productivity, especially in terms of the quality of
work, standards of the products, and the potential towards innovation. However, what
we find is that most tend to treat workplace learning as a kind of on-the-job training.
Cheah and Wong (2019) have tried to distinguish the different meanings of some
of these terms. For work-based learning, the driver/owner is the educational insti-
tutions; the participants are mainly trainees; the purpose is to expose participants
to meaningful and relevant workplace experiences to better connect their learning
to the workplace and deepen their skills before graduation; and the outcome of
work-based learning is to produce skilled and work-ready graduates. In contrast, for
workplace learning, the driver is the employer, who may partner with consultants
and educational institutions to offer training; the participants are employees; and the
purpose of workplace learning is to address skills gaps, improve performance and
develop staff. The major difference, as compared to work-based learning, is that it is
an ongoing work-learn process, aiming at continued improvement in performance,
and can become a strategy for professional development.
Series Editor’s Forword xvii
Beyond the comparison of work-based learning and workplace learning, there

are also many interpretations, models and methods of workplace learning. However,
most versions of workplace learning focus on training. When the focus is on training,
workplace learning is generally top-down, and the methods would become prescrip-
tive. In such circumstances, employees are only a means of production, and this will
lead to fatigue and lack of ownership. Without ownership, the work process will be
driven by the employer, and unavoidably, the working attitude will tend to be passive.
This book aims to make a specific contribution to optimise the potential of work-
place learning by adopting an employee-driven model (EDI). If the focus is shifted
from the employers to the employees, it will lead to significant transformation of
organisational culture: Employees will be the key players in workplace learning; EDI
emphasises self-driven improvement on the job, and the accumulated improvements
will be shared among staff of organisation, and thus require leadership support, and
middle managers to convey message between employers and employees. The accu-
mulated improvements will generally enhance the quality of production and generate
new ideas for doing things in different (and better) ways, thereby turning work into
learning, leading to continuous improvement into innovation. Most importantly, EDI
requires change of mindsets, a culture of trust, and the adoption of positioning of vari-
ous players involved in the process of work and production. As employees are the key
players under the EDI model, they will generate ownership in the work-learn process.
If learning, improvement, and innovation create job satisfaction, this will do away with
fatigue and routine among employees. Instead, every day, they will be excited by the
improvements and innovative perspectives as well as the satisfaction that comes along
with new learning. I mentioned the significance of employee-driven approach for
workplace learning, and as will be elaborated in various chapters of this book, EDI
provides a very good conceptual and practice framework. However, EDI also needs
to be employer-driven, as leadership is important in supporting EDI, and organising
sharing of informal knowledge generated in the process of work. Employers, there-
fore, play a crucial role in adopting and implementing EDI.
I strongly recommend this book to you, to learn about the wonders the EDI can
bring about in generating drives at work and innovative perspectives in the working
process.
Wing On Lee
Series Editor
Professor & Executive Director
Institute for Adult Learning
Singapore University of Social Sciences.
Reference
Cheah, S.M., & Wong, Y. (2019, June 24–28). Proceedings of the 15th international CDIO
conference, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/
wolee/Downloads/CDIO2019_03-WorkplaceLearningforDevelopingFacultyCompeten-
cyinSupportingSpiralCurriculum.pdf.
1
MAKING EMPLOYEE-DRIVEN
INNOVATION ACHIEVABLE
Paving the Way
Justina Tan and Joel Sim
Introduction
“Innovation” has become the buzzword of the business world today. Many enter-
prises ranging from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to Fortune 500 enter-
prises espouse innovation as key to maintaining an enterprise’s survivability and
competitive advantage. The practice of engaging employees, encouraging them to
innovate, is known as employee-driven innovation, otherwise known as EDI. EDI
refers to “the generation and implementation of new ideas, products and processes –
including the everyday remaking of jobs and organizational practices – originating
from interaction of employees” (Høyrup, 2012, p. 8). The core idea is that employees
have a huge repository of experience and knowledge of their jobs. This places
them in a good position to come up with ideas to make incremental changes or
modest improvements to improve the efficiency of their work processes or give
feedback on the enterprise’s products and services based on their interactions with
stakeholders. However, engaging employees in EDI is not easy as employees are
usually comfortable with established routines at work and may not want to chal-
lenge the status quo. Furthermore, employees tend to perceive innovation as the
responsibility of key personnel and that it is not their duty to engage in innovation
(Aaltonen & Hytti, 2014).
Engaging Employees in Innovation

Research shows that unless there is a “crisis, shock, or strong external challenge to
the organisation” (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006, p. 170), organisations may not em-
bark on innovation as the process is often perceived to be costly and risky. In the
absence of such strong motivation, organisations looking to engage employees in
DOI: 10.4324/9781003228011-1
2 Justina Tan and Joel Sim
innovation should seek to create awareness of the importance of leveraging on in-

novation to ensure the survivability and longevity of the organisation (Kotter, 1996;
Single & Spurgeon, 1996; Krozer & Nentjes, 2006). It has been shown that employ-
ees are more likely to ideate when they discern a sense of urgency for innovation
within the organisation (Kotter, 1996; Single & Spurgeon, 1996; Krozer & Nentjes,
2006). The management should also reiterate the imperative of innovation.
Communication of the sense of urgency to innovate to employees should include
but not be limited to the organisation’s vision of how innovation can be integrated
into employees’ work and how the organisation intends to realise the vision. Subse-
quently, the organisation has to constantly reinforce the same message to employees
to encourage them to subscribe to the innovation narrative. Communicating the
innovation narrative to employees and reinforcing the message to employees are im-
portant. Often, employees are steeped in work routines that have been established in
the organisation for a long time (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006) which over time may
contribute to organisational inertia as they become embedded within an organisation
(Gilbert, 2005). Gradually, employees may become habituated to these routines and
may show less proclivity to generate ideas (AlKayid et al., 2022). In this case, a lack of
communication, or not providing timely and accurate information about the innova-
tion narrative, may frustrate organisations’ efforts to overcome the inertia to innovate
as it may result in feelings of uncertainty amongst employees regarding the innovation
narrative and affects employees’ confidence in management’s plans to steer the organi-
sations towards innovation (Bordia et al., 2004; Van Dam et al., 2008). In contrast,
constant communication on the part of organisations on how they plan to develop
their innovation narrative increases employees’ self-efficacy to cope with changes as-
sociated with innovation (Parker et al., 2013) and reduces feelings of anxiety and
uncertainty (Allen et al., 2007; Rafferty & Restubog, 2010). By applying communi-
cation practices such as providing clear and consistent messages to educate employees,
explaining how the changes associated with innovation help them and motivating
employees to support the organisation’s new direction (Barrett, 2002), employees are
more likely to support and adapt to changes in the organisation (Bordia et al., 2004).
In addition to communicating the sense of urgency to innovate, organisations
can also leverage on other affordances to encourage employees to ideate (Zhou,
1998; Axtell et al., 2000; Krause, 2004; Markova & Ford, 2011). Organisations, for
example, may consider implementing reward systems which can include monetary
and non-monetary incentives to encourage employees to give ideas and suggestions
(Markova & Ford, 2011). Monetary incentives refer to financial compensation in the
form of a one-time cash payment or increasing the salary of employees who surfaced
feasible ideas. Non-monetary incentives tend to focus on recognition and praise and
may take the form of an acknowledgement of a job well done or “hand-written
thank you letters” (Markova & Ford, 2011, p. 815). Knowledge workers tend to
prefer non-monetary rewards such as increased knowledge gained through partici-
pating in innovation, which results in the organisation assigning them with more
interesting tasks to apply their newfound knowledge. In considering the incentives
Making Employee-Driven Innovation Achievable 3
to encourage employees to innovate, organisations may want to assess employees’

profiles and expectations before deciding on the incentives.
Another crucial enabler of innovation mentioned by extant literature is leadership
and management support. This can take the form of providing employees with
opportunities to participate in decision-making or granting them autonomy in
performing their work tasks. By involving employees in the organisation’s decision-
making processes, employees have access to a window of insights regarding the or-
ganisation’s current situation. This can influence employee innovation positively as it
promotes the perception amongst employees that their current work setting requires
change (Krause, 2004). In turn, employees may be driven to generate, test and im-
plement ideas. Furthermore, participation in the decision-making process leads to
employees becoming more accepting and open towards changes (Wanberg & Banas,
2000) and therefore more likely to support management in their quest to innovate.
Leaders and management can also support employees by granting them a certain de-
gree of task autonomy, which allows them to have some freedom to decide how to
complete their job tasks. When employees are given a high level of task autonomy to
enhance their space to try doing the same things in different/innovative ways, they
are more likely to provide innovative ideas (Zhou, 1998; Axtell et al., 2000).
Studies also show that employees, despite their initial willingness to embrace in-
novation, may gravitate back towards familiar ways of working due to unfamiliarity
of the ideas being implemented (Lewin, 1947). Employees especially those who are
not involved in the ideation phase may be sceptical about the utility of the proposed
idea and if they do not see it as being helpful to them, they might even resist and not
implement them at all (Haapasaari et al., 2018). Other employees may also perceive
the implementation of new ideas as a threat to their job security and choose not to
implement the ideas in their work (Amarantou et al., 2018). To deter employees
from relapsing into familiar ways of working, organisations may consider identifying
and addressing the gist of employees’ concerns regarding the ideas being imple-
mented and communicating the benefits of implementing the ideas. According to
Schaarschmidt (2016), employees tend to implement ideas when they feel that these
ideas help to make their jobs easier (Schaarschmidt, 2016).
To further encourage implementation, the role of middle management is cru-
cial. Middle managers form the bridge between senior management and frontline
staff and serve as information gatekeepers who can influence the implementation
of ideas within an organisation. Birken et al. (2012) theorised that middle manag-
ers can positively influence the implementation of ideas by giving employees the
required information about the implementation; synthesising and making informa-
tion about the implementation relevant to different groups of employees; justifying
the implementation and encouraging employees to use the innovation consistently;
and providing employees with the necessary tools to implement these ideas. Middle
managers may also consider establishing bi-directional communication with em-
ployees to encourage them to implement new ideas which has been shown to be
effective in driving implementation efforts (Engle et al., 2017). The communication
can include the effects of the implementation on their job security, which has been
identified as a factor that deters employees from innovating.
As mentioned by Birken et al. (2012), another strategy to encourage the imple-
mentation of ideas is to provide employees with the necessary tools to implement
them. The tools in question can take different forms such as providing learning
opportunities for employees to be exposed to the new ideas being implemented.
Learning opportunities may refer to training by a subject matter expert or even
peers who have completed the initial training. This promotes role clarity, enhancing
employee understanding of the idea, making them more likely to implement them
(Cadwallader et al., 2010). In addition, learning opportunities help to promote em-
ployee perception of their ability to accomplish responsibilities associated with their
job roles, which is crucial in driving individual innovative performance (Chen et al.,
2013). As innovation necessitates changes to employees’ job roles, providing clarity
and improving their perceived ability to take on their modified job roles is crucial to
encourage them to implement innovations.
Table 1.1 provides a list of recommended practices discussed in this chapter which
organisations may refer to motivate employees to innovate.
TABLE 1.1
List of Recommended Practices for Organisations to Motivate Employees to
Innovate.
Innovation Process Recommended Practices
Ideation Establish a sense of urgency by prioritising an issue that the organisation is

facing that might affect the survivability of the organisation and identify
how innovation will help to resolve it
Practise good communication when communicating the sense of
urgency to senior management and employees. This includes
practices such as providing clear and consistent messages to educate
employees; what the changes associated with innovation mean to
them; and motivating employees to support the organisation’s new
direction (Barrett, 2002)
Design reward systems to encourage employee participation in ideation.
Design the reward system with an understanding of the employees’
profiles and factors that motivate them the most
Involve employees in decision-making processes and empower them by
granting them some task autonomy to decide how to complete their
job tasks
Implementation Address the root cause of employees’ concern about implementing the
idea(s). For instance, organisations can educate employees on the
potential benefits of implementing the proposed idea(s) to reduce their
scepticism about the benefits of the idea(s)
Deploy middle management to actively communicate with employees
to implement the ideas. Middle management works most closely with
frontline staff is in the best position to influence employees.
Provide employees with the necessary tools to implement them. This
can take the form of learning opportunities to equip them with the
necessary knowledge and skills to implement the proposed idea.
Besides the practices discussed, cultural characteristics such as employees feeling

proud about working for the organisations, management and employees showing
reciprocated trust in each other, and employees seeing improvement and innovation
as central to their jobs also foster employee engagement in innovation (Amundsen
et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2012). Kesting and Ulhøi (2010) postulated that organisa-
tions with low power distance encourage employees to innovate as they inspire a
culture that cultivates respect for opinions and encourages employees to embark on
initiatives. They also posited that Scandinavian countries, in particular, support the
enactment of EDI as they have traditions of employee participation and close col-
laborations between and among employees and management. The Nordic Council
of Ministers concurred likewise that Nordic leadership, generally considered non-
authoritative and employee-centred, fosters employee engagement in innovation.
EDI Relevance Beyond Nordic Borders

Generally, Nordic organisations observe fewer rules and managers are more open to
experimenting and challenging the unknown. They are also likely to go along with
the unwritten rules and judge of their experience (Smith et al., 2003). According to a
seminal cross-cultural study that involved 40 countries, Nordics scored the lowest in the
power distance index defined as the extent to which less powerful members of a society
accept and expect that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980). In countries
which scored lowly on power distance indexes, individuals often identify themselves as
equal even though they may not exercise the same influence. The hierarchical distance
between superiors and subordinates in Nordic corporate environment is also purport-
edly minimal and they favour discussion with one another. It is also observed that
Nordic employees have few qualms about approaching their bosses and they can always
share their thoughts on work practices with management (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
Also, Nordics scored fairly low for uncertainty avoidance characterised as the extent to
which people are threatened by ambiguous and uncertain situations (Hofstede, 2001).
Similarly, Nordic corporate milieu veer closer to collectivism than individualism
(Chen, 2014) on the individualism-collectivism continuum described as the extent
to which people value individual interests and goals versus group. While independ-
ent thinking and expression are encouraged, Nordic management gives preferenti-
ality to teamwork. It also values seeking consensus and resolving conflicts through
compromise as Nordic corporate culture tends towards femininity. In brief, Nordic
workplaces generally have a flat structure; leaders embolden employees to express
their opinions and call for them to work in teams to engender and implement inno-
vative ideas and solutions. These are the favourable factors for the working of EDI.
Along this reasoning, it appears difficult to enact EDI in countries rated highly in
power distance and masculinity. An example would be China, a hierarchical coun-
try defined by high power distance and top-down leadership which are traits said
to discourage employee involvement in innovation. Kesting et al. (2016), however,
found otherwise. In their study of 620 medium-sized and large Chinese companies,
employee participation is commonly practised in Chinese companies, and it is in fact
a driver of innovation. This is not unexpected to Zhang and Zhou (2015) as they
have posited that cultural characteristics which seemingly impede innovation could
plausibly support innovation. High power distance, for example, can possibly thwart
innovation as it discourages creativity. However, in circumstance where leaders have
clarity on the strategic vision of how they want to lead innovation, and where sub-
ordinates have respect for authority and carry out manager’s decision, high power
distance makes possible the implementation of concrete innovation policies and
action plans that help companies achieve success.
Collectivism is another characteristic that presumably hinders innovation, and
which the Chinese espouse. It brings about a confluence of behaviour that suppos-
edly holds back innovation as it deters diverse views which are critical in cultivat-
ing creativity. In today’s loosely coupled world, the same collectivism, according to
Zhang and Zhou (2015), could support collaborative innovation and development.
Kesting et al.’s study (2016) corroborates what Zhang and Zhou (2015) have posited
and that is, EDI “applies beyond the Western world” (p. 1074) and is “robust towards
cultural context factors, at least for the case of China” (p. 1074).
Similarly, in our research that examines the unfolding of EDI in Singapore which
despite being set in a cultural mosaic of “East meets West” has a culture of hierarchy
and practises group-centredness (Tan & Sim, 2022; Tan, 2022), we found that the
EDI precept “applies beyond the Western world” and is “robust towards cultural and
context factors” (p. 1074). While we observe that employees are by and large capable
of coming up with new ideas to improve work practices and performance, the work
of innovation is in fact initiated by a few. To help employees regard improvement
as an integral part of their jobs whether it is ideation or implementation, middle
managers whether they carry the titles of team leader, production supervisor, or
marketing and communications manager play an important role as they are the ones
responsible for the day-to-day work. To be able to do that, middle managers should
discern the advantage of involving employees in generating and enacting new ideas
and be prepared to be questioned by the employees.
They should also embark on innovative work behaviour to encourage others to
do likewise. It is therefore important for senior management to cultivate a cadre
of middle managers that can motivate employees to innovate. Companies want-
ing to boost their innovative capabilities may also want to invest efforts to create a
culture of respect for employees and constantly communicate to them how their
work contributes to the overall success of the business as our findings also concur
that employees are more likely to participate in innovative work if they take pride in
working for the companies (Amundsen et al., 2014; Tan, 2022). Our findings also
demonstrate that it is important for companies to empower individuals especially
experienced ones with the autonomy to implement the ideas they have which are
very possibly within the scope of their work where they are considered experts.
While our aforesaid studies are nascent efforts taken to understand employee en-
gagement in innovation in the context of Singapore, it seems that the EDI unfolding
in Singapore may have more similarities with the EDI that emerged in the Western
context, specifically the Nordic than envisaged.
Forthcoming Chapters
The chapters that follow attempt to define the characteristics and practices that
foster EDI. Krohn and Herstatt’s chapter “Innovation Mindsets – A Framework to Un-
derstand Employees’ Motivation to Act on Opportunities for Innovation” focuses on the
innovative behaviour of individuals from the mindset perspective. They home in
on the pre-decisional phase of goal pursuit which involves assessing the desirability
and feasibility of potential courses of actions and calls for a deliberative mindset.
Though their research context is frugal innovation, they posit that the conceptual
model which they developed to understand opportunity recognition for frugal in-
novation could be adapted to understand how attitudes of managers and employ-
ees, subjective norm such as influential colleagues and superiors and perceptions of
autonomy and behavioural control to perform innovative behaviours bear on the
deliberation process towards engaging in and supporting EDI within organisations.
Chong, Sim, Chan and Billet’s chapter “Forging an Innovation Mindset: Practices in
Small to Medium Size Enterprises” goes beyond the deliberative mindset to explore
the implemental and actional mindsets in the initiation, enactment and sustain-
ment of EDI practices at workplaces. In their chapter, they delve into the growth
mindset and identify the individual and organisational enablers that foster growth
mindset which may possibly influence employees’ engagement in innovation in the
context of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Singapore where EDI concept
is not well-researched. McLaughlin and McLaughlin’s chapter “Moving Beyond the
Innovation Mindset” argues that engaging in innovation goes beyond having an
innovation mindset. It involves being schooled in proper skills and techniques. Their
chapter suggests ways that employees and organisations can engage in ideation.
Echebiri’s conceptual chapter “Employee Empowerment as a Foundational
Approach to Foster Employee-Driven Innovation” underlines the significance of
empowering employees to take on more active roles in the innovation processes.
Embedded within this perspective is an understanding that employees are impor-
tant actors in the innovation processes and organisations can encourage employees’
participation in innovation at both macro and micro levels. In his chapter, he identi-
fies the empowering practices that can enhance employees’ involvement in innova-
tion at organisational and individual levels. Bäckström and Mosleh’s chapter “The
Emergence of Employee-Driven Innovation and the Interplay of Top-Down and
Bottom-Up Efforts” explores the interplay of top-down and bottom-up efforts of
employees and managers and how it affects the emergence of EDI using the dis-
course analysis framework. In their chapter, they highlight the significance of human
interactions in the emergence of innovations. According to Bäckström and Mosleh,
the decisions made or processes planned that emerge are in fact co-created by in-
dividuals involved in the social interactions despite the engagement of managerial
tools, interventions, and structures. They also underscore the unpredictability that
characterises the interactions between employees and managers.
The subsequent three chapters of the book traverse the narrative of EDI in the
contexts of the United Kingdom (UK), Finland and Singapore, categorically on
how SMEs can capitalise on employees’ diverse capabilities and develop their initia-
tives to innovate to achieve competitive edge. Li’s chapter explores how SMEs in
the UK harness their employees’ knowledge and networks to drive innovation and
business performance. It also proposes an adaptive SME framework which deline-
ates how employees’ knowledge and capabilities can be engaged to achieve success.
Understanding how SMEs can develop employees’ dexterity to innovate is pertinent
because they make up the greater part of organisations and play a substantive role in
global economic growth.
Hiltunen’s chapter “Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) in Finland” discusses
EDI in the Finnish service context centring on empowerment, co-creation, ante-
cedents and barriers of EDI. It presents how EDI can be contextualised and espoused
to acquiesce to the nature of the industry, focusing particularly on the support of
good practices to engage employees in innovation in the service sector. It also con-
jectures that more inspirational, empowering and innovation-oriented leaders are
needed to support EDI in organisations. Tan’s chapter “Understanding Employee-
Driven Innovation Through Positioning Theory Lens: Insights From Singapore”
postulates that individuals show measure of flexibility and plasticity in the way they
behave and uses the positioning theory to discuss the unfolding of EDI in two
Singapore SMEs. It discusses notably the positionings that the senior management,
managers and employees can assume to foster employee engagement in innovation
against the milieu that some employees are considered more capable than others in
generating and implementing ideas. It is apparent as a construct, EDI is appealing as
it recognises that every employee has the ability to innovate but as with many other
constructs, its realisation in practice is impacted by considerations. The conclud-
ing chapter recaps the major concepts and practices presented by the contributing
authors on how some of these considerations may be managed and circumvented
resulting in a promising enactment of EDI in practice.
References
Aaltonen, S., & Hytti, U. (2014). Barriers to employee-driven innovation: A study of a re-
gional medium-sized bakery. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 15(3),
159–168. https://doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2014.0157
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B.E. (2007). Uncertainty during organiza-
tional change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Manage-
ment, 7(2), 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701563379
Amarantou, V., Kazakopoulou, S., Chatzoudes, D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2018). Resistance to
change: An empirical investigation of its antecedents. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 31(2), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0196
Amundsen, O., Aasen, T., Gressgård, L., & Hansen, K. (2014). Preparing organisations for
employee-driven open innovation. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Man-
agement, 9(1), 25–35. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/190651
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., & Harrington,
E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of
ideas. Frontline employee motivation to participate in service innovation implementation.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265–285. https://doi.

org/10.1348/096317900167029
Barrett, D.J. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic employee communication to
facilitate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 219–231.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280210449804
Birken, S.A., Lee, S.Y., & Weiner, B.J. (2012). Uncovering middle managers’ role in
healthcare innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7(1), 28. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-28
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2004). Uncertainty during or-
ganizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 18(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028449.99127.f7
Cadwallader, S., Jarvis, C.B., Bitner, M.J., & Ostrom, A.L. (2010). Frontline employee moti-
vation to participate in service innovation implementation. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 38(2), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0151-3
Chen, G., Farh, J.L., Campbell-Bush, E.M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative
systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 98(6), 1018–1027. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0032663
Chen, M. (2014). Elements of the Nordic leadership framework, origins, and transferability. Syracuse
University Honors Programme Capstone Projects.
Engle, R.L., Lopez, E.R., Gormley, K.E., Chan, J.A., Charns, M.P., & Lukas, C.V. (2017).
What roles do middle managers play in implementation of innovative practices? Health Care
Management Review, 42(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000090
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H.G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change
in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00570.x
Gilbert, C.G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine ri-
gidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2005.18803920
Haapasaari., A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2018). From initiatives to employee-driven
innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(2), 206–226. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2016-0085
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organi-
zation, 10(4), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organiza-
tions across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Høyrup, S. (2012). Employee-driven innovation: A new phenomenon, concept and mode of
innovation. In S. Høyrup, M. Bonnafous-Boucher, C. Hasse, M. Lotz, & K. Møller (Eds.),
Employee-driven innovation: A new approach (pp. 3–33). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kesting, P., Song, L., Qin, Z., & Krol, M. (2016). The role of employee participation in
generating and commercialising innovations: Insights from Chinese high-tech firms. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(9–10), 1059–1081. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09585192.2015.1060512
Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2010). Employee‐driven innovation: Extending the license to foster inno-
vation. Management Decision, 48(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014463
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
Krause, D.E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to in-
novate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006
Krozer, Y., & Nentjes, A. (2006). An essay on innovations for sustainable development. Envi-
ronmental Sciences, 3(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430600804354
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social sci-
ence; equilibrium and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F001872674700100103
Markova, G., & Ford, C. (2011). Is money the panacea? Rewards for knowledge workers. In-
ternational Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(8), 813–823. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17410401111182206
Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and devel-
opment in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., & Johnson, K.M. (2013). General self-efficacy influences affec-
tive task reactions during a work simulation: The temporal effects of changes in workload
at different levels of control. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(2), 217–239. https://doi.org/10
.1080/10615806.2011.651616
Rafferty, A.E., & Restubog, S. (2010). The impact of change process and context on change
reactions and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1309–1338. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206309341480
Schaarschmidt, M. (2016). Frontline employees’ participation in service innovation imple-
mentation: The role of perceived external reputation. European Management Journal, 34(5),
540–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.005
Single, A.W., & Spurgeon, W.M. (1996). Creating and commercializing innovation inside a
skunk works. Research-Technology Management, 39(1), 38–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08
956308.1996.11671035
Smith, P., Andersen, J., Bjorn, E., Graversen, G., & Rpop, A. (2003). In Search of Nor-
dic Management Styles. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19(4), 491–507. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0956-5221(03)00036-8
Smith, P., Ulhoi, J., & Kesting, P. (2012). Mapping key antecedents of employee driven in-
novations. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 224–236.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2012.048629
Tan, J. (2022). The interplay of employees and innovation: Why it matters. In Third interna-
tional handbook of lifelong learning. Springer.
Tan, J., & Sim, J. (2022). Driving employee-driven innovation through workplace learn-
ing: The story of Singapore SMEs. Hungarian Educational Research Journal. https://doi.
org/10.1556/063.2021.00103
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to or-
ganizational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development climate,
and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 313–334. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00311.x
Wanberg, C.R., & Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132–142. https://psycnet.apa.
org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
Zhang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2015). The source of innovation in China: Highly innovative systems.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orien-
tation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2),
261–276.
2
INNOVATION MINDSETS – A
FRAMEWORK TO UNDERSTAND
EMPLOYEES’ MOTIVATION TO ACT ON
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION
Malte Krohn and Cornelius Herstatt
Introduction
Today, organisations are increasingly aware that innovation needs to be at the core of
their business activities. This alertness expands to various actors within innovation
ecosystems, such as companies, policymakers or universities (Kahn, 2018). Further-
more, organisations increasingly realise that their employees represent a substantial
potential for innovation (Hansen et al., 2017). Frequently, innovation is understood
as an outcome in the form of innovative products (Calantone et al., 2006), improve-
ments in a company’s supply chain (Arlbjørn et al., 2011) or entirely new business
models (Osterwalder, 2010). Yet, innovation can also be understood as an organi-
sational process that leads to respective innovative outcomes (Baregheh et al., 2009)
and research explored the dynamic interaction of innovation processes and out-
comes (Utterback & Abernathy, 1975). Expanding this view, Kahn (2018) recently
proposed a typology that integrates the human factor in his mindset-process-outcome
typology of innovation. The typology suggests that while innovation as an outcome
answers the question – “What do you want to happen?” and innovation as a process
answers the question – “How will you make it happen?”, innovation as a mindset
answers the question – “What should be instilled and ingrained to prepare for the
what and the how?” (Kahn, 2018, p. 459). In this regard, Kahn (2018, p. 459) sug-
gests that:
Mindset aligns employees and manifests the culture needed for innovation to
happen. . . . It is about instilling and ingraining a mindset that prepares the indi-
vidual and organization for innovation so that there is proper engagement in the
innovation process to achieve the desired innovation outcome.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003228011-2
12 Malte Krohn and Cornelius Herstatt
Arguably, such an environment is also needed to foster employee-driven innovation

(EDI). More specifically, an employee involvement climate has been found to foster
EDI and, consequently, innovation in a wider sense (Wallace et al., 2016).
While academic literature suggests that mindset-based perspectives are impor-
tant to develop a deeper understanding of innovative behaviour, mindset con-
ceptualisations across and within fields often diverge substantially, resulting in the
coining of the term fuzziness of mindset research (French II, 2016). Indeed, scholars
have taken mindset-based perspectives in the context of various innovation-related
phenomena, such as open innovation (Engelsberger et al., 2021; Salampasis et al.,
2015), design thinking (Brenner et al., 2016; Groeger & Schweitzer, 2020; Sch-
weitzer et al., 2016), service-driven innovation (Töytäri et al., 2018) or frugal
innovation (Soni & Krishnan, 2014; Krohn & Herstatt, 2019). Mindset concep-
tualisations in the field of innovation management often differ substantially across
various aspects. Furthermore, previous research found that mindsets in the con-
text of innovation seem to be conceptually and empirically understudied (Krohn
et al., 2021). One open question is represented by a suitable level of analysis to
study mindsets in the context of innovation. Kahn (2018, p. 459) suggests that
innovation as a mindset might be understood as either an individual mindset or
an organisational culture. Naturally, both levels of analysis have to be studied dis-
tinctively and might be based on different theoretical foundations. In order to
address this challenge, we propose a theory-driven approach to mindset research
in the field of innovation management focusing on the individual level. After all,
explanations of social theory on the macro level are often based on examinations
on the micro level (Coleman, 1990). Therefore, future research on the collective
level might build on the framework provided in this chapter, facilitating coher-
ent conceptualisations across different levels of analysis. The next section will
thoroughly introduce several established mindset theories and present Gollwitzer’s
(1990) mindset theory of action phases as a suitable theoretical framework for the indi-
vidual level. In the remainder of this chapter, the mindset theory of action phases
will be complemented with Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour (TPB). This
combination of theories has provided a suitable framework to conduct empirical
mindset-focused research in the domain of entrepreneurial behaviour (Delanoë‐
Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019).
Before proceeding to a theoretical discussion of mindset concepts, we need to
address a central point in our discussion, and that is the focus on the individual
level. While the collective outcome of innovation contributes to an organisation’s
competitive advantage, it is essentially rooted in the innovative behaviour of in-
dividuals (Schweisfurth & Raasch, 2020). Innovative behaviour can be defined as
“the intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas within a work
role, group or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the
organization” (Janssen, 2000, p. 288). Furthermore, innovative behaviour can also
occur more passively by supporting novel ideas of other organisational members
(Goepel et al., 2012). Correspondingly, Kesting and Ulhøi (2010, p. 66) suggest that:
Innovation Mindsets 13
“employee-driven innovation (EDI) refers to the generation and implementation of

significant new ideas, products, and processes originating from a single employee
or the joint efforts of two or more employees who are not assigned to this task”.
Hence, by its very definition, EDI builds on the idea of innovative behaviour. Con-
ceptualising EDI as a set of intentional behaviours (i.e. generation, implementation
and support of new ideas) allows researchers to also draw on theories from social
psychology. Doing so bears great potential to better understand innovative employee
behaviour and its cognitive antecedents.
Theoretical Foundations of Mindset Research

Scholars in the field of innovation management are not the first to explore human
behaviour with mindset-based perspectives. Therefore, this section will provide a
brief introduction to several established mindset theories and discuss why Gollwit-
zer’s (1990) mindset theory of action phases currently offers the most promising frame-
work to explore innovative behaviour in the workplace.
Sparked by a motivation to understand organisational leaders’ challenges of man-
aging in an increasingly globalising world, scholars explored leadership behaviour
on the premise of a global mindset (Rhinesmith, 1992). Rather resembling the idea
of a cognitive filter (French II, 2016), Rhinesmith (1992, p. 63) put forward a broad
view of the mindset and defined it as “a predisposition to see the world in a par-
ticular way that sets boundaries and provides explanations for why things are the
way they are, while at the same time establishing guidance for ways in which we
should behave”. The global mindset itself is commonly defined as “an openness to
and awareness of diversity across cultures and markets with a propensity and ability
to synthesize across this diversity” (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002, p. 117). Scholars’
continuing interest in the phenomenon focused on the role of a global mindset in
succeeding with internationalisation efforts (Nummela et al., 2004) and its cultiva-
tion among managers and organisations (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002). While the
notion of a global mindset and vast number of corresponding publications emphasise
the relevance of mindset-based perspectives, it is not particularly suitable to un-
derstand innovative behaviour in the workplace. First, mindset-based perspectives
should be embedded into their specific socio-economic research context (Krohn
et al., 2021). For example, the global mindset is rather embedded in the context of
organisational endeavours to prevail in a globalising world. Hence, it is arguably not
directly transferable to the context of organisational innovation. While globalisa-
tion strategies call for local responsiveness (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002) and hence,
suitable new products, aspects such as the overall organisational structure of a firm
only indirectly concern the context of innovation. Second, Gupta and Govindarajan
(2002) discuss the cultivation of a global mindset as an organisational phenomenon
and the authors do not address the individual level in particular. Therefore, the
global mindset currently provides limited direction to conceptualise mindsets in the
context of innovation.
Another popular mindset-based perspective is Carol Dweck’s dichotomy of the

fixed and growth mindset (Dweck, 2006). According to Dweck (2006), a certain set
of beliefs distinguishes two types of people: first, individuals who believe that chal-
lenges provide an opportunity for learning, developing their talents and personal
growth are characterised by a growth mindset (Dweck, 2016); second, individuals
who are less prone to embracing these potentials for learning, try to keep up ap-
pearances and believe in fixed abilities are characterised by a fixed mindset (Dweck,
2016). However, according to Dweck, mindset changes are possible (Dweck, 2016)
and have been shown to contribute to academic success (Yeager & Dweck, 2012;
Yeager et al., 2019). This empirical confirmation on the effect of mindsets and the
notion of the malleability of mindsets are important insights for mindset research in a
more general sense. Even more so, because the fixed and growth mindset are increas-
ingly discussed in the context of workplace settings (Rattan & Ozgumus, 2019) and
were shown to contribute to entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Burnette et al., 2020).
However, our analysis suggests that the traditional educational focus of Dweck’s
theory (see studies earlier) currently limits its potential to study innovative behav-
iour. While the beliefs underpinning the fixed and growth mindset should be ubiq-
uitous and transcend contexts, we are not aware of research on their behavioural
implications in the context of innovation. Hence, further conceptual work would be
required to transfer the fixed growth mindset dichotomy from educational contexts
to innovative workplace settings.
Due to its more general nature, a promising theoretical framework is provided
by Gollwitzer’s (1990, 2012) mindset theory of action phases. Gollwitzer (1990)
proposes four distinct phases of human behaviour in the context of goal pursuit: the
pre-decisional phase, the pre-actional phase, the actional phase and the post-actional
phase. Correspondingly, these phases involve certain tasks namely deliberation of
goals, planning actions, implementing action and evaluation of actions (Gollwitzer,
1990). Most importantly, the theory proposes that:
becoming intensely involved with the solving of a given task activates exactly those cognitive
procedures that help task completion. The created mindset (i.e., the sum total of the acti-
vated cognitive procedures) should consist of the cognitive orientation that is most conducive
to successful task performance.
(Gollwitzer, 2012, p. 528)
The pre-decisional phase primes a deliberative mindset, which is focused on assess-

ing the desirability and feasibility of potential courses of action (Gollwitzer, 1990).
The pre-actional phase is more concerned with where, when and how to act and
primes an implemental mindset (Gollwitzer, 1990). Notably, clearly formulating
when, where and how to act in an implementation intention is conducive of actual
goal achievement (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Arguably, proceeding with actual
implementation is often subject to external influences, which indicates the necessity
of continued volition to navigate potential obstacles in the pursuit of readily made

decisions (Gollwitzer, 2012). Furthermore, the theory proposes an actional mindset for
the actional phase and an evaluative mindset for the post-actional phase (Gollwitzer,
1990). However, the actional and evaluative mindsets are less studied and await fur-
ther empirical confirmation (Gollwitzer & Keller, 2016), notably, the mindset theory
of action phases facilitated longitudinal empirical research to explain entrepreneurial
behaviour (Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019). This empirical confirmation speaks
for the theory’s applicability in the context of innovative behaviour. After all, entre-
preneurship and innovation are synergetic activity systems in organisations (Zhao,
2005). Hence, our study adapts this dynamic and process-wise developing theory
of goal elaboration, goal setting and goal striving. Building on previous conceptual
work, we define an innovation mindset as (Krohn et al., 2021, p. 18):
the willingness and ability to intentionally create, introduce, apply and support new ideas
as an individual, within a work role, group or organization and continuously maintain
volition to promote idea development along the innovation process, in order to generate in-
novative outcomes.
In that regard, Kahn’s (2018) notion of engagement in the innovation process and
Kesting and Ulhøi’s (2010) suggestion of idea generation and implementation are incor-
porated in the definition. Hence, we can proceed to a discussion of operationalising
the innovation mindset. Here, our analysis draws on empirical mindset research from
the field of entrepreneurship (Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019) and suggests that
deliberation- and implementation-related mindset aspects need to be operational-
ised in distinct ways. In the remainder of this chapter, the focus lies on operation-
alising the deliberative mindset aspects of an innovation mindset. Operationalising
the implemental mindset aspects of an innovation mindset provides an interesting
opportunity for future research. For example, by identifying relevant gestation actions
(Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019; Van Gelderen et al., 2019) that may serve as
proxies for an implemental innovation mindset. Following Delanoë‐Gueguen and
Fayolle (2019), our operationalisation of deliberation-related aspects of the innova-
tion mindset is based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). The
TPB suggests that intentions are the closest cognitive antecedent to actually observ-
able behaviour and that intentions can be explained by individuals’ attitude, subjective
norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC) regarding the behaviour in question
(Ajzen, 1991). These relationships received substantial empirical confirmation in
various contexts (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Kautonen et al., 2013). Furthermore,
the TPB provides a suitable framework to understand individuals’ motivation to
support innovative activities (Goepel et al., 2012) and individuals’ perspectives on
applying novel approaches to innovation (Bartl et al., 2012; Nedon, 2015). Lastly,
the TPB is a means of operationalising desirability and feasibility considerations or
opportunity recognition (Krueger, 2007), which resembles the cognitive procedures
underlying the deliberative mindset (Gollwitzer, 1990). However, to the best of our
knowledge, the TPB has not been linked to the mindset theory of action phases in
the innovation context. Hence, future research should further investigate the prom-
ising link between mindset and intention theories in the innovation context with
conceptual and empirical studies.
Scholars discussed various innovation-related phenomena with regard to mind-
sets, such as the design thinking mindset (Schweitzer et al., 2016; Groeger & Sch-
weitzer, 2020), an open innovation mindset (Engelsberger et al., 2021; Salampasis
et al., 2015) a suitable mindset for service-driven innovation (Töytäri et al., 2018)
and a frugal mindset (Soni & Krishnan, 2014; Krohn & Herstatt, 2019). Our analysis
suggests that mindset-based perspectives should be discussed in a specific socio-
economic research context. In this chapter, we apply the TPB to derive a model of
organisational members’ motivation to engage in frugal innovation projects. However,
our study also provides a promising perspective to advance the understanding of in-
novative behaviour in the context of EDI.
Frugal Innovation as a Research Context

In the remainder of this chapter, the focus lies on organisational members’ delibera-
tion processes on initiating and supporting frugal innovation initiatives. Frugal in-
novations represent an exciting research context, because they:
seek to minimize the use of material and financial resources in the complete value chain
(development, manufacturing, distribution, consumption, and disposal) with the objective of
reducing the cost of ownership while fulfilling or even exceeding certain pre-defined criteria
of acceptable quality standards.
(Tiwari & Herstatt, 2012, p. 98)
These “good-enough” solutions (Zeschky et al., 2011, p. 38) are mainly character-
ised by a concentration on core functionalities, an optimised performance level and
significantly reduced costs (Weyrauch & Herstatt, 2016). Since, the global economic
middle class grows quickly in major economies in India and China (Ernst & Young,
2015) and the emerging global middle class has specific expectations when it comes
to affordability of products, frugal innovation might play an increasingly important
role for firms. However, Western organisations have traditionally neglected the busi-
ness opportunities provided by catering cost-conscious customers with affordable
solutions that fit local needs (Prahalad & Hart, 2002). Indeed, frugal innovation
scholars suggested that:
Western companies must change their mindset and see low-income populations as potential
markets that offer great business opportunities for the right products.
(Zeschky et al., 2011, p. 43)
Correspondingly, Soni and Krishnan (2014) propose a typology that divides fru-
gal innovation into a frugal outcome, a frugal process and a frugal mindset. The
question of a frugal outcome received substantial scholarly attention and research-
ers suggested various definitions for frugal innovations, such as “high-end low-cost
technology products” (Ojha, 2014, p. 8), “high-value, low-cost, and scalable prod-
ucts” (Ahuja, 2014, p. 55) or as “meeting the desired objective with a good-enough,
economical means” (Soni & Krishnan, 2014, p. 31). In that regard, Weyrauch and
Herstatt’s (2016) conceptualisation proposing three clearly defined criteria (substan-
tial cost reduction, concentration on core functionalities and optimised performance
level) seems to establish a consensus around the question of a frugal outcome (Pisoni
et al., 2018). However:
In contrast to the proliferation of work on frugal products, an understanding of how compa-

nies can design their processes to successfully address resource constraints remains underde-
veloped, and frugal processes remain undertheorized.
(Knizkov & Arlinghaus, 2020, p. 667)
Addressing this apparent research gap and investigating how firms can minimise
the use of material and financial resources along the entire value chain (Tiwari &
Herstatt, 2012), Knizkov and Arlinghaus (2020) recently provided a deeper under-
standing about the frugal process perspective. According to Knizkov and Arlinghaus’
(2020) multi-method study, frugal processes indeed concern distinct processes along
the entire value chain, product development, procurement, production and distribu-
tion. To be characterised as frugal processes, value chain activities need to minimise
waste creation, be facilitated by technology, simplified, self-sustaining, localised and
collaborative, they are often focused on the bottom of the pyramid populations and
they are iterative as well as aiming at continuous improvement (Knizkov & Arling-
haus, 2020, p. 681). In that sense, frugal processes strongly resemble the three criteria
offered by Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016).
Nevertheless, while a consensus around the frugal outcome seems to be estab-
lished and more insights regarding the frugal process are offered, the mindset-based
perspective remains understudied. Correspondingly, Pisoni et al. (2018) suggest that
organisational issues and collaboration among actors in the frugal innovation process
are underexplored. This is surprising, because motivated leaders who are committed
to realising the economic potential offered by frugal innovation can have a catalysing
role on frugal innovation projects (Ramdorai & Herstatt, 2015) and employees rely
on the support of their superiors to implement frugal innovation projects (Krohn &
Buse, 2019). Hence, we aim to shed light on the mindset-based perspective of frugal
innovation and provide a deeper understanding of why managers and employees
engage in or support frugal innovation projects.
As our study conceptualises individuals’ mindset as a dynamic and process-wise
developing phenomenon, we believe that different mindset facets have to be defined
and studied individually. Resembling Gollwitzer’s (1990) mindset theory of action

phases, previous research defined the deliberative frugal mindset as:
a cognitive orientation, which is characterized by the belief that offering innovations with a
substantial cost reduction, a concentration on core functionalities and an optimized perfor-
mance level provides viable business opportunities and that the individual and organization
is capable of taking the necessary actions to successfully develop these frugal solutions.
(Krohn & Herstatt, 2019, p. 172)
and proposed that the implemental frugal mindset is:
driven by the goal to offer innovations with a substantial cost reduction, a concentration
on core functionalities and an optimized performance level. This action focused cognitive
orientation is characterized by a tuning towards deepening the understanding of customers’
needs and contexts as well as creatively and efficiently using available resources to develop
frugal solutions.
(Krohn & Herstatt, 2019, p. 172)
In that sense, the deliberative frugal mindset is motivational in nature and is preceded
by goal elaboration-specific processes of desirability as well as feasibility considera-
tions. Thus, it can be operationalised by applying Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned
behaviour (TPB) (Krueger, 2007; Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019). We will now
discuss how we developed our opportunity recognition model for frugal innovation
based on the TPB.
The Deliberative Frugal Mindset – Opportunity Recognition

for Frugal Innovation
The TPB has received substantial empirical confirmation in various research fields
(Armitage & Conner, 2001; Kautonen et al., 2013) and has been successfully applied
to operationalise deliberation-related considerations in the context of entrepreneur-
ial behaviour (Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019). The theory proposes that inten-
tions are the closest cognitive antecedent to actually observable behaviour (Ajzen,
1991). While Gollwitzer (1990) proposes that the process of deliberation entails
cognitive processes of desirability and feasibility considerations, which eventually
lead to a goal intention, the mindset theory of action phases offers limited guidance
in operationalising these processes. In that regard, Krueger (2007) suggests that the
TPB offers a complementary and empirically proven theory. The theory suggests
that the process of forming a behavioural intention is mainly a process of three types
of considerations, the personal attitude towards a behaviour, subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991). Notably, the former two rep-
resent desirability considerations, the latter construct concerns feasibility considera-
tions and the entire process can also be conceptualised as a process of opportunity
recognition (Krueger, 2007).
This section will briefly introduce the theory’s main variables and consequently
proceed to adapting them to the specific context of frugal innovation. Intentions
are “indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort
they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181).
In turn, the stronger a behavioural intention, the more likely is an engagement in
actual behaviour. In that regard, Ajzen (2002a) suggests applying the principles of
compatibility and specificity/generality when defining the components of a TPB study.
Therefore, all constructs should be clearly defined with regard to target, action, con-
text and time of behaviour and intention (Ajzen, 2002a). This definition can then be
more specific (e.g. within the following two weeks) or general (e.g. at some point in
the future). Nevertheless, the level of specificity should be the same for all constructs
in the model to increase its predictive power (Ajzen, 2002a). The attitude towards
behaviour “refers to the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable
evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). It usually
covers experiential and expectancy-value aspects (Ajzen, 2002a). Subjective norms
reflect the perceived social environment and its expectations towards performing a
behaviour or opposing it (Ajzen, 1991). This construct usually covers the degree to
which influential others are believed to perform a certain behaviour and the degree
to which they expect oneself to behave in certain ways (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).
Besides the direction of expected support or objection, it also includes a person’s
motivation to comply to these expectations (Ajzen, 1991).
This is an interesting part of the theory because it shows that individuals’ oppor-
tunity recognition processes can be operationalised, but they inherently integrate a
social component. Additionally, PBC covers the perceived ease or hardship of per-
forming a behaviour under consideration (Ajzen, 1991). Accordingly, studies usually
include beliefs that address items that cover the control over performing a behaviour
under consideration and the ease or difficulty of performing a behaviour (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 2005). In the context of organisational innovation processes, the notion
of collective efficacy (Krueger, 2007; Bandura, 2000) is particularly noteworthy. In
dynamic organisational environments that depend on the interplay of various actors
for successful innovation (Gemünden et al., 2007), individuals need to be convinced
of the collective ability to realise desired outcomes. Lastly, scholars frequently in-
clude domain-specific background factors, such as education, socioeconomic as-
pects, emotions or previous experiences as antecedents to attitude, subjective norm
and PBC (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). In some cases, scholars also diverge from the
established relationships of the TPB. For example, in the context of innovation
management, Bartl et al. (2012) have included management position and personal
innovativeness as predictor variables for behavioural intentions. Nonetheless, they
were not able to find significant effects of these variables on intentions.
While the TPB offers a suitable theoretical approach to operationalise desirabil-
ity and feasibility considerations prior to actually observable behaviour (Armitage &
Conner, 2001; Kautonen et al., 2013; Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019), it requires
dedicated pilot work (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2002a). Therefore, we will now discuss how
we applied the TPB to the specific case of opportunity recognition for frugal innovation.
Methodology
Proposing Gollwitzer’s (1990) mindset theory of action phases as a suitable the-
oretical perspective on the role of mindsets in innovative behaviour and Ajzen’s
(Ajzen, 1991) TPB as a suitable approach to operationalise opportunity recognition
processes for frugal innovation, the next section will derive a respective research
model. The TPB has facilitated empirical research in a variety of settings (Armit-
age & Conner, 2001), but it requires rigorous pilot work (Ajzen, 2002a), which has
not been previously conducted in the case of frugal innovation but is conducted in
the remainder of this chapter.
Following a theory-driven approach to scale development (DeVellis, 2016), we
applied a standard procedure applied in management research (Turker, 2009). Cor-
respondingly, we defined our constructs based on theoretical considerations and re-
view of the literature, generated items by conducting a systematic literature review
(SLR) (Tranfield et al., 2003) and refined our results in expert and academic focus
groups as well as small-scale pilot studies (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2002). Due
to the limited scope of this chapter, we will only provide a summary of our pro-
cess. More details about methodology, conceptual considerations, item generation
and refinement are provided in earlier contributions (Krohn et al., 2019; Krohn &
Herstatt, 2019; Krohn & Herstatt, 2018).1 At the point of writing this chapter, valida-
tion of our scales is still ongoing. Hence, we will not provide the preliminary scales.
Following Tranfield et al. (2003), we initially conducted an SLR of 95 publica-
tions in the domain of frugal innovation and related concepts to identify aspects
that potentially contribute to the deliberation process of employees’ and managers’
intentions to support frugal innovation initiatives. Discussing our initial model and
respective items in an expert focus group with 16 practitioners as well as an academic
focus group with seven researchers complemented our conceptual considerations.
Subsequently, we refined our model and measurement instrument in two small-
scale pilot studies (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2002). The first pilot study is mainly
built on eight semi-structured interviews among managers in two German multi-
national companies and aimed at testing practical issues as well as wording of the
items. The second pilot study was conducted among 36 managers and employees in
German manufacturing companies and aimed at testing and refining our measure-
ment models. The next section will present the derived research model and discuss
the relationships within the model.
Conceptual Model
A multi-stage procedure resulted in the conceptual model in Figure 2.1. As dis-
cussed, our research considers behavioural intentions as a proxy for the prevalence
of a deliberative frugal mindset. Accordingly, the cognitive procedures of desirabil-
ity and feasibility considerations are represented by individuals’ attitude, subjective
FIGURE 2.1 Conceptual opportunity recognition model for frugal innovation.
norm, collective as well as individual PBC and a premium innovation bias. The
premium innovation bias and two background factors emerged as an interesting ad-
dition to the model during the pilot studies and will be discussed in more detail. The
following sections will introduce the variables in more detail and provide arguments
for the suggested relationships within the model. Hence, it illustrates how mindset
research can be embedded into its socio-economic research context.
Intention
As behavioural intention serves as a proxy for the prevalence of a deliberative fru-
gal mindset, it needs to capture a breadth of relevant subsequent behaviours. For
example, Ramdorai and Herstatt (2015) find that committed leaders show various
supportive behaviours for frugal innovation projects, such as providing resources
and legitimising the radical cost focus of frugal innovation. Krohn and Buse (2019)
show that “front-line employees” are equally important because they need to con-
duct market research and develop innovative solutions for identified customer needs.
This resembles the discussion around innovative behaviour in general, which ac-
knowledges that it can be more passive or active in nature (Goepel et al., 2012),
different actors in the firm will take different roles in promoting innovative projects
(Gemünden et al., 2007) and employees rely on leadership support (De Jong &
Den Hartog, 2007). Furthermore, items in established measures for innovative work
behaviour cover facets, such as idea generation, idea exploration, idea champion-
ing and idea implementation (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). Hence, intention
constructs should include a breadth of behavioural intentions supporting frugal in-

novation. Items might address initiation of frugal innovation projects, active en-
gagement in frugal innovation projects, support of frugal innovation projects and
integration of frugal innovation into the overall company strategy.
Attitude
In line with the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), the model assumes a positive attitude towards
frugal innovation to have a positive influence on forming behavioural intentions
that promote frugal innovation within firms. As previously discussed, this should
cover experiential as well as expectancy-value considerations (Ajzen, 2002a). With
regard to expectancy-value considerations, the literature offers various advantages
of frugal innovations, such as providing economic growth opportunities (Ray &
Ray, 2010; Banerjee & Leirner, 2014) by creating access to new markets (Govin-
darajan, 2011; Prahalad, 2006) and improving the efficiency of organisational in-
novation processes (Agnihotri, 2015). However, literature also acknowledges that
frugal innovation projects might come with a fear of cannibalising existing product
market shares (Immelt et al., 2009; von Janda et al., 2018; Winter & Govindarajan,
2015) and lower profit margins (Corsi et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2013). Hence, the
expectancy-value component of assessing new approaches to innovation might
depend on a deliberation of advantages and disadvantages (Bartl et al., 2012). Cor-
respondingly, salient advantages and disadvantages need to be considered in the
operationalisation of the attitude towards behaviour. For example, employees and
managers might be motivated or demotivated by experiential aspects of supporting
frugal innovation projects. Again, several measures should assess if organisational
members expect their behavioural engagement to be easy or difficult, pleasurable
or not, etc.
Subjective Norm
Furthermore, subjective norm was found to significantly influence behavioural in-
tentions in various contexts (Armitage & Conner, 2001). That is, if individuals ex-
pect influential colleagues and superiors to support their innovative behaviour, they
are more likely to form a behavioural intention (Bartl et al., 2012; Nedon, 2015).
Yet, it would also be interesting to integrate a measure of modelling behaviour of
important others, like discussed by Ajzen and Fishbein (2005). Do superiors and
influential colleagues personally engage in frugal innovation projects? Our model
assumes that a supportive perceived social environment positively contributes to
forming behavioural intentions. As frugal innovations concern the entire value chain
(Knizkov & Arlinghaus, 2020), various actors rely on mutual support and the exper-
tise of others. This should also manifest in the desirability and feasibility considera-
tion of organisational members.
Perceived Behavioural Control

Lastly, the TPB offers as a variable to explain behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 1991).
Individuals might be convinced of the desirability of a potential path of action and
anticipate support from their social environment, but is the behaviour under con-
sideration feasible for them? Especially in organisational settings, this construct is an
interesting addition to the model. Innovation relies on the interaction of various roles
(Gemünden et al., 2007) and individuals rely on active and passive novelty-supporting
behaviour (Goepel et al., 2012). However, individuals should, at least, have some
degree of autonomy or behavioural control to perform innovative behaviours. In the
context of frugal innovation, critical aspects might be focusing the market orientation
of a firm on emerging markets (Borini et al., 2016; Pisoni et al., 2018; Reinhardt
et al., 2018) establishing ambidextrous capabilities (Reinhardt et al., 2017; Winterhal-
ter et al., 2016) and establishing new development practices (Ahuja, 2014; Winter &
Govindarajan, 2015; Weyrauch, 2018). However, individuals rarely act in social isola-
tion (Bandura, 2000) and a measure of collective PBC offers additional explanatory
potential for TPB studies (Krueger, 2007). Hence, crucial feasibility consideration
should be covered by individual and collective PBC items. Consequently, higher col-
lective and individual PBC should lead to stronger behavioural intentions.
Management Position
Considering the context of EDI, PBC is a particularly interesting construct. Natu-
rally, organisational members in higher hierarchical positions have more autonomy
in organisations. Here, the TPB offers a promising framework to quantify this au-
tonomy and identify critical barriers to innovative behaviour. Including individu-
als’ management position offers additional potential to understand the underlying
dynamics. Previous research included management position as a direct antecedent
to behavioural intentions in the context of innovation (Bartl et al., 2012), but found
no significant influence. Hence, our model assumes that management position is
rather a predictor of individual PBC, as shown in Figure 2.1. Therefore, individu-
als from higher managerial positions are expected to have higher individual PBC in
the context of innovation. While our model applies to the specific context of frugal
innovation, this combination of constructs is a promising avenue for research in the
EDI context.
Premium Innovation Bias

Some studies have challenged the assumption that the established TPB variables
adequately explain behavioural intentions and deviated from the theory (Bartl et al.,
2012; Venkatesh et al., 2003). In the case of frugal innovation, our pilot studies in-
dicate that organisational members in Western companies seem to mentally contrast
the approach of intentionally providing cost-effective innovations with established
innovation strategies. For example, German companies have traditionally catered to

the needs of high-end market segments (Plötner & Kupp, 2010). Hence, the model
includes a premium innovation bias variable. Respective items focus on contrast-
ing the desirability and feasibility of frugal innovations with innovations aiming
at higher market segments. Other innovation contexts, such as open innovation,
sustainability-driven innovation or EDI, might offer the potential of including dif-
ferent context-specific constructs.
Premium Innovation Exposure

Lastly, the TPB can be complemented with background factors, such as demo-
graphic factors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005) or past experiences (Ajzen, 2002b; Carr &
Sequeira, 2007). Hence, the theory does offer not only the potential to explain the
antecedents to behaviour but also the antecedents to beliefs underlying this behav-
iour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). Organisations often face the dilemma of organisa-
tional path dependencies and:
Organisational members, with their cognitive schemata, learning habits, response patterns,
and so forth, do play a role in path-building processes in organisations.
(Sydow et al., 2009, p. 705)
Potential “self-reinforcing loops” (Sydow et al., 2009, p. 695) could be explored by

including past behaviour in TPB studies in the innovation context. For example,
our research assumes that the premium-driven innovation strategies that Western
organisations pursued for decades might reinforce the premium innovation bias and
have a negative influence on the other TPB constructs. Again, our model integrates
frugal innovation as an illustrative example. In the context of EDI, organisations
might have relied on their R&D departments and executives to introduce innova-
tive ideas into the organisation in the past. Thus, front-line employees might think
“this is how innovation works” and adopt respective beliefs. Beliefs that shape em-
ployees’ attitudes, subjective norms and PBC, and consequently inhibit behavioural
intentions to perform innovative behaviour. Systematically addressing these belief
patterns, then, offers avenues out of organisational path dependencies and towards
recognising the opportunities provided by innovation.
Implications for Employee-Driven Innovation Research

The collective outcome of innovation is rooted in the innovative behaviour of in-
dividuals (Schweisfurth & Raasch, 2020). Taking the example of frugal innova-
tion, this chapter illustrates how a combination of Gollwitzer’s (1990; 2012) mindset
theory of action phases and the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) might inform future mindset-
based research in the field of innovation management and improve researchers’ un-
derstanding of the antecedents to innovative behaviour. This theoretical framework
has facilitated successful longitudinal research explaining the cognitive processes un-
derlying entrepreneurial behaviour (Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019) and the
present study suggests that it can also be applied in the context of innovation. Just
like frugal innovation, EDI represents a specific socio-economic context in the field
of innovation management. Hence, we will now derive implications for future EDI
research and practice. Based on the discussion of this chapter, taking an “employee
innovation mindset” perspective could be an interesting avenue for future research.
How does such a mindset manifest among employees and managers in organisations?
Which previous experiences could jeopardise such a mindset? Accordingly, practice
could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of the cognitive processes under-
lying innovative behaviour in the context of EDI. In this regard, Jimmieson et al.
(2008) utilise the TPB to investigate employees’ intentions to support organisational
change. Correspondingly, this section explicates several interesting opportunities for
EDI research.
The conceptual model of opportunity recognition for frugal innovation could be
adapted for the case of EDI. Understanding how managers and employees relate to
EDI through their attitudes, subjective norms and PBC offers exciting insights on the
deliberation process towards engaging in and supporting employee-driven innova-
tion activities within organisations. Particularly, integrating the management position
variable as an antecedent to PBC would allow to quantify the impact of hierarchical
differences on employees’ innovative behaviour. However, like any TPB study (Ajzen,
2002a), this would require pilot work. For example, the premium innovation bias
construct is likely not suitable for the context of EDI. Bartl et al. (2012) and Nedon
(2015) conducted TPB studies in the innovation context and might offer further prac-
tical guidance. However, our research suggests that intention research is ultimately
limited in unravelling the complexity of behavioural interactions in organisational set-
tings. After all, TPB studies usually apply self-report measures and, thus, on individu-
als’ anticipation of future events. Therefore, our research speaks for an integration of
Gollwitzer’s (1990; 2012) mindset theory of action phases with intention research.
A respective research framework is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
FIGURE 2.2 Research framework for mindset-based research in EDI.

When employees perceive a potential path of action as desirable and feasible,

they should be motivated to introduce and work on new ideas. Correspondingly,
managers might form an intention to support their employees. These initial in-
tentions could be investigated with a first survey wave, based on the TPB vari-
ables. In the domain of entrepreneurship, an integration of mindset theory of action
phases and intention research builds on longitudinal, quantitative research designs
(Delanoë‐Gueguen & Fayolle, 2019). This approach might help to reveal an in-
tention-behaviour gap for EDI within organisations. Hence, the actual extent of
innovative and support actions could be investigated with a second survey wave.
Furthermore, complementing such an approach with qualitative data collection
methods might offer additional potential to generate rich data on the underly-
ing mindset changes of organisational members and antecedents to these changes.
Unravelling crucial social interactions in the context of EDI could be facilitated by
integrating the roles of different innovation promoters (Gemünden et al., 2007) and
their mutual novelty supporting or impeding behaviour (Goepel et al., 2012) along
the innovation process. Qualitative longitudinal research, then, could investigate
what kind of barriers employees are confronted with along the innovation process,
how they are supported by other employees and managers and how this ultimately
results in innovative outcomes or fails to do so.
Conclusion
Innovation is frequently conceptualised as a desirable organisational outcome or a
process of idea generation, development and implementation. However, ultimately,
innovative outcomes on the organisational level depend on innovative behaviour
of individuals (Schweisfurth & Raasch, 2020). To be fully understood, innovation
should be conceptualised as an outcome, a process and a mindset (Kahn, 2018).
Nevertheless, diverging conceptualisations across disciplines have contributed to the
fuzziness of mindset research (French II, 2016). Previous research found that this
fuzziness also applies to the field of innovation management (Krohn et al., 2021).
This study suggests that the domain of social psychology offers promising theories
to address this theoretical challenge. We call for the conceptualisation of mindsets in
the field of innovation management based on the mindset theory of action phases
(1990; 2012), complemented with Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour.
Hence, our research conceptualises individuals’ mindsets as adaptive, process-wise
developing phenomena. An innovation mindset, then, reflects individuals’ willing-
ness and ability to engage in the innovation process or support other organisational
members in doing so along the innovation process (Krohn et al., 2021). Taking the
example of FI, this chapter introduces the TPB as a suitable theory to operationalise
desirability and feasibility considerations of organisational members to engage in
the innovation process, as proposed by Krueger (2007). Building on previous aca-
demic literature (Goepel et al., 2012), the presented model offers a means to better
understand the cognitive processes determining individuals’ willingness to engage in
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
—Wa’tte? beefde ontsteld bange Plomp,.… watte sait tie?.… wa’
mo’k mi’ die tieme?.…
—Stil, we sitte hier tussche vier koddebaiers, klankloos fluisterde

Delker,.… aa’s die f’rrekkelinge ons in ’t stroatje pakke.… kenne wai
de krentetuin in!.… Nou Piet, Plomp uitkaike!!.… aa’s t’r g’foar is!.…
roep je wachtwoord: Hoarelim.… aa’s ’t goed goan.… Aimuide?.…
kenne sullie deurgoan.… Enn aa’s de wind lait.… leg gie op s’n
buik.… jullie ook.… kè je bestiger hoore ankomme!.…
—Mo’k jou achteròp, vroeg Piet?.…
—Stil, dâ’ goane hullie, heeschte zachter Delker, sloan d’r bakkesse
in mekoar aa’s se je pikke.… aa’s hullie mi Kees an de stok kraige.…
steek ie hullie rejoal deur d’r donder.…
Breugel zat op z’n knieën, voorover in duistering, met lichtbak aan

touw om z’n hals. Kees hurkte naast ’m, z’n geweer ladend en zacht
bemorrelend.
Even schimde rossig kerelstoetje òp in ’t waskaarsvlammetje van

Breugel, die diep in den bak gebukt, beschut door jassen en lijven,
de lamp aanstak. Na wat gepeuter en geknars van [231]’t schuifglas,
dat ie op en neer trok, was ie klaar. Plots schoot flikkerende
lichtstraal, als goud zoeklicht bliksemend over duisteren weigrond,
die sneeuwbevracht lag.—Maar snel had Breugel, gonjen zak over
den bak geslagen.
—Hailige moagd, schrik-schreeuwde Plomp, t’met sien se ons.…

aa’s die bak.…
—Hou je bek, woede-fluisterde Kees, die nu klaar met ’t geweer aan

schouder, in de donkering wachtte op Breugel.—
—Alles kloar.… wachtwoord.… kloar?.… Kloas?.… Piet? Delker
kloar?.…
—Ja,.… presint.… merkeer de pas.…
—Merkeer de paas, dofte stem-gesmoord Klaas terug, ikke

konsteteer van ’n prêchtig weertje.… die regen en windbeweging is
prêchtig, lolde ie springend van joligheid.
Plomp begreep niks van den kerel. Hij rilde van angst, en nattigheid
droop van z’n pet en haren den nek in. De wind joeg als ’n razende,
ongrijpbare reuzenstoet van dol-kermenden, langs z’n kop en in
kleeren, dat ie rilde tot op ’t gebeente. Huilen kon ie, grienen van
woede en angst, onbestemden angst, dat ie mee was gegaan, daar
nou zoo maar stond in ’t stikke duister, of ze ’m geblinddoekt hadden
en dwongen met stooten en boffen voort te gaan.—Piet en Delker
stonden ’n eind van elkaar af. Delker zweepte luchtigjes z’n teenen
door de lucht, in suisgeraas, tegen weer zachteren wind in.
—Da’ ken je hullie ’n sneebeweging van gaife.… op da’ terain! lachte

Klaas gesmoord, alweer vergeten dat er niet gebabbeld mocht
worden. Een bof van Kees in z’n rug deed ’m schrik-stil zijn. Breugel
stond nog even te morrelen aan ’t schuifglas van z’n lichtbak en z’n
nektouw. ’n Endje van ’m af lag Delker al op z’n buik, met z’n oor op
den grond gedrukt, te luisteren, nu de wind klaag-ver zacht schreien
bleef uit boschduin.
Inéén liet Breugel zakpunt van lichtbakglas afsullen. ’n Felle stroom

goudlicht schoot ’t donkere weiland over, tot aan heuvelige
duinglooiing ver, heel ver. Kees stond soms hoog in rosgloed als
achter vlammen, doorsmoord van donkeren rook, [232]waar éven
rosse tongen uitlekken, in zwartbronzen brandschijn naast Breugel,
die in snelle kring-zwenkingen den lichtbak, voor z’n buik open neer
bewoog en schommel-cirkelde over de wei, in al breeër lichtbaan.—
Dat had Kees noodig; overal moest ie zien. Ingebukt, ’t hoofd scheef
’n beetje, stond ie met z’n hand aan den trekker, soms wild, grillig
verlicht even, dàn plots in ’t duister, dàn even beglansd weer op dij
en rug. Vlak achter hen, in d’r diep-zwarte schaduwen stappend,
donkerde Koome. ’n End in duistering achteraf, bleven Piet en
Delker de wachters, meezwenkend met lichtbaan, in staar
rondloerend de duisternis in, achter de kerels. Plomp, schuchter,
stond angstig met z’n zwiepende teenen in de hand, beweegloos.
Snel ging Kees’ stap, en statiger in rossig roodgoud gekring,
slingerwijd kaatste fellen brand, door fonkelende reflektors
uitgeschoten, over den schichtigen sneeuwgrond.—
En in duizel-drom, helsch-geheimzinnig, sloop stroopersstoet in felle

schaduw, breed goud omrand, als ingebeiteld met lichtende kontoer,
beweeglijk op den vlam-sneeuwigen weigrond, spraakloos in
spanning, tegen de windbuldering in, die weer orkanen kwam.
Plomp sidderde. Z’n beenen strakten soms als werden ze

vastgemoerd aan de aarde. En voort toch, in wassenden angst,
stapte ie mee, met de groep voor ’m, in helschen schroei, tegen de
lichtduizeling over wei. Soms bij plotsen zwenk van lichtbak,
rossigde uit stikdonker òp, achter Breugel en Kees, buldogkop van
Klaas, den „hazewind”, met z’n handen vooruit, dan weer ineen, bij
nieuwen lichtschommel als weggeslingerd in duister duinbrok.
Bij nieuwen zwenk stond hoog, in één weer, achterhoofd en arm van
Kees in ’t goudrood bevlamd. Hun schaduwen schommelden wijd
rond, telegraafpalig, mager-verrekt, als dronken silhouetten,
kruipend, inbuigend de wei langs, in kopstoot tegen glooiingen òp,
soms in één gebroken, al langer, bang-langer van lijf.—Dan in ééns
hield Kees in z’n stap, was er donker geschuifel, slopen de
schaduwen, korter fel-zwart op rossigen sneeuwgrond, als turend en
peinzend spel van schimmen, soms [233]plots, bij snelle lichtbak-
wending van Breugel, in donkere aardeworsteling elkaar
bevechtend. De stroopers-voeten sidderden in rossig licht,
verdwenen weer plots, als ander weibrok vergloeide, in gouïge
vochtdamping te trillen lag in vervliegende lichtbaan. Gejaagd, in al
sterkere schommeling zwierf de lichtbak voor ’t lijf van Breugel,
hijzelf in ’t donker, als levend, hijgend vuurbeest.—Onverwacht
blondden zacht, twee konijntjes in ’t licht. Stand hield de bak-drager.
Eén dierke zat rechtop, verbluft kijkend uit z’n rooiïge oogjes, als
blindgeworpen met helle lichtglansjes. ’n Poefknal galmde achter
hevigen windpats en angstige windhuil suisde om den loop-mond
van zijn geweer. Snel laadde Kees, ingedrongen z’n beenen,
vastgeplant in drassigen weigrond, schoot ie weer dat vuurvonken
zigzag bliksem-blauwig uit z’n loop kronkelend wegflitsten in den
dreignacht; liep ie door, snel in duizeling van licht om z’n voeten,
tusschen den zwaveligen kruit-stank van schotwalm. Zwaarder
knalde ’n schot, vergalmend nu wind uitgebulderd, klagelijk zacht
rond-doolde.—Koome was achterop gehold, om ’t geschoten wild te
grijpen. Konijntje, dat Kees ’t eerst geraakt had, kroop nog voort met
pieperige kreuntjes, langs sneeuwgrond in donkerend bloedspoor. In
wilden storm, voortstappend tusschen de zwabberende
lichtstroomen, die alweer andere hoeken induizelend, over de
snelstappende beenen heenschroeide, greep Klaas ’t weghinkend
konijntje. Geweldig, beefzwaar van hartstocht, duwde ie den kop in
z’n mond, beet ’t bloed-bespatte dierke met tandenhap den nek in.—
Nou was ’t afgemaakt, kon ’t den zak in. Snel bukkend en spring-
jolig, als ’n verhit dier, rende ie af op konijntje twee, door Kees
geraakt. Uit zijn strot gromde kwaadaardigen drift, als ’t zacht-
grommende keel-onweer dat ’n hond maakt vóór ie te blaffen dreigt.
—Magge sullie hoarlemèrdaikies moake in de sak!.… lolde ie, nà ze

den kop ingebeten te hebben. Voort, zonder rust, laadde Kees
opnieuw, klaar-staànd, z’n ingedoken reuzige gestalte soms even
beflitst van lichtbak, in koorts van jacht, niets voelend van helleweer,
nacht en angst. Plomp sidderde [234]en kreunde. Moe holde ie mee
over de vlakte, aldoor denkend weg te zinken in greppel of sloot, als
ie struikelend verzakte in drassigen kuil of aan den kant tegen
sloothakhout opliep. Telkens voelde ie op z’n nek, sprong van
koddebeiers, zooals ze ’m verteld hadden, dat ze deden. Piet joeg
mee, half buiten adem, ongerust, niet wetend waar ie stond, hij, die
dacht van heel Wiereland en Duinkijk elke duimbreed te kennen.—
Maar stil bleef onrust in ’m woelen. Plomp mopperde achter hem
aan. Heel alleen bleef ie in z’n angst, volgend den stoet, omdat ie
niet staan dùrfde blijven, toch niet wetend wààr ie was.—Telkens als
wind even stomde, hoorde ie suiszwiep van Delkers teenen, die al
maar loerde, àchter, opzij, om hem heen.—Alles viel Plomp nou in.…
Alderlei gehoorde avontuurtjes dwarrelden in z’n kop.….. die k’naine,
die soo moar hinkend en half dood s’oafens de sak uitkrope.… en
van de bijpatters.… drie.… vier gulde boete!.… aa’s tie d’r s’n aige
nou erais stilletjes liet graipe? Want hai was toch allainig
baipatter!.… niks droeg ie.… niks!.… gelukkig.… z’n tieme had ie
allang weggegooid.… Kaik.… nou net.… weer.… doar had ie weer
gedochte van die koddebaier die se pakt hadde an de ruïne van
Braale.… ’s nachts.… nog net soo.… da’ hullie tòen met d’r viere
vastgebonde hebbe.… op ’n plankie.… en soo ommekeerd boven ’n
sloot hebbe hongere loàte.… wâ benauwing.… hailige moagd.…
aa’s se nou d’rais dochte, da’ hai da’ mee an doan had.…
meeholpe.…?
Langs ’m donkerden Delker en Piet.
—Kaik uit Plomp! ’t is hier heet … puur heet!… hullie loere van alle
kante t’glaik.…
Met ’n woeste lichtslingering, die als zoeklicht over beenenstoet

vlam-rossigde, was Breugel plots gekeerd, langs ’n duinglooiïng bij
slootkant, laag den lichtbak tegen één plek grond richtend.
Verdonkerd nu, zwartten hun rompen in snelleren schaduwgang, met
évene beenbeschijning in fel rosgoud.—Langs prikkeldraad
silhouette stoetje ’t donker in, als schichtig bevlamde spoken-
opstand.—Klaas Koome dwarrelde [235]achter en om den lichtbak, in
hazewindsprongen, soms dwars over lichtbaan heen, in z’n
ophitsend, zacht gegrom wetend, dat als ie nou zou spreken, Kees
’m ’t geweer perdoes op z’n hersens zou stuk slaan. Plots klonk
bang-kort, kreet-angstig.… Hoarlem!.…
De lichtbak doofde.… strakke duisternis staarde op ’t weiland, helle-

duister. Visioen-bang was rossige lichtstoet verzonken in den nacht.
Van ’t nabijë kanaal dreunde òp ontzettende pijp-zang in winterweer,

van reuzige boot, klaag-bas, diep en geweldig aanzwellend, als
jammerende mammouth-stem in oer-nacht. Orkaangier zangloeide
na, diep uit ’t duister. Plomp had in doodelijken angst, doorloopend,
zich plots omklemd gevoeld om z’n beenen. Niet beseffend wàt er
gebeurde had ie noodkreet uitgestooten, in angst-reflex om iets
maar te doen. Nou, ingekrompen, gebukt in den loeinacht, zag ie,
voelde ie niets op zich aandreigen, niets dat ’m knellender
vastgreep. Snel, in goochel-routine had Breugel den lichtbak
gedoofd en van z’n hals gelicht. Met de anderen was ie, zeker in z’n
sprong, de sloot ingestapt. Kees stond met z’n stukgevreten
modderlaarzen en doorrotte zolen in ’t nat, tot z’n knieën. Ril-kou
sloeg om z’n beenen, ijzigend voelde ie ’t water op z’n naakte karkas
inzuigen. Giftig stoof in ’m òp wilde dierlust om ze neer te hakken,
zich in speelschen schijn even te laten pakken. Maar de kou
verkoelde z’n gift, beet op ’m in, nuchter, verkillend. Heel z’n
toestand, zag ie weer klaar, met stroopersroutine. Maar wat donder
woar bleef Delker?.… en Koome?.… gromde ’t in ’m.
Die waren ’n eind verder neergehurkt in ’t donker, roerloos voor de

sloot. Ze wisten allemaal wel, dat ze met den lichtbak, tusschen de
koddebeiers doorgemanoeuvreerd hadden, dat t’r heet was, maar
nou kwam er niks, hoorden ze niks.
Want dâ was ook wel hoarlie stiekeme pakmenier.… blaif sitte,

jonges, sitte, bromde Klaas zacht voor zich uit. Piet lag zwaar-
ingehouen ademend te loeren in ’t duister nachtgat voor ’m, te
luisteren of ie stappen hoorde.… maar de wind [236]gierde áán.
Eindelijk stond Klaas zacht overeind, keek ’t diepduizelige donker
in.… Nergens hoorde ie geloop of aandreigend geschreeuw.
Kees floot licht.… Dat kon ie niet langer verdragen.… Zacht seinde
Breugel hem terug, wachtend op windstootrust. Koome en Delker
hurkten vlak bij elkaar, zonder dat ze ’t wisten. Delker, hoorend vaag
signaal, sloop òp, stootend tegen Koome.… Alleen Piet en Plomp
durfden zich niet roeren van hun plaats. Want zeker had ie ’t
gevoeld, Plomp, dat ze an z’n beenen getrokken hadden.—
Kees woedend en doorbibberd van kou, was uit de sloot

gesprongen, zong met zachte stem hoe.… éét.… hoe.… ééét!—Op
’t geluid àf nu, naderden de donkere kerels elkaar..
—F’rrek Delker, wá’ hai je roepe.. d’r is g’n vlieg op ’t pad..
—Ikke hep g’n bek ope doan.… ik docht dá’ Piet roept.…
—Ikke?.… ikke?.… hep niks sait.… Plomp waa’s ’t!..
—F’rrek, waa’s ’t die snaiboon?… woedde Klaas Koome, heul goed

snurkert, we motte je weer meehebbe foàdertje.… op da terain
poàtertje.… die skreeuwbeweging is nie kwoad f’rdocht.… ikke
konsteteer van dà’ j’ mi’ moedwil dàan hep.… op dâ terain bin ik
deùrpokt en deùrmoàseld.… nou legge de k’naintjes f’rdomd achter
de poap!
Even klonk stemmengedreig van Delker en Breugel in ’t duister,
tegen Plomp. Uit de nachtbefloersde koppen gromden zware
vloeken.… Koome kon niet ophouên. Nijdig hakte Kees in
stemmegefluister de ruzie door, met korte beveelwoorden, tegen
gierwind in. Rondom den duisteren kerelsstoet, zwol ààn uit alle
duinhoeken, helsch stormorkest, saamgeschald in nachtspraak.—
Bange, sidderlange fluitgeluiden stegen hoog in woest-gillende
vervoering, boorden dóór schaterende krakingen van dooreen
gewaaide orgelklanken, met warrenden jammer van violen, wild en
ijlend. En vèr.… vèr.… bòven laag toongestorm en gedreig, georgel
en gezang,—als plots stòm bleef ’t fluitgeluid,—droefde klagelijk
weemoed van diepen hobo-toon, die moduleerde, àl moduleerde, als
zangstem van zingende waanzinnige in eenzaamheid, meestijgend
en dalend [237]met ’t duistere lied van de nachtzee. En soms weer, uit
helsch donkerdiep nachtzwart, kaprioolden vreemde gonggalmen,
geluiden en zangen van nooit gehoorde instrumenten, mysterieus en
angstig-ver.… Geschrei dat zong, zong, versidderend van weenende
harpen uit duisteren nacht, zachte mijmeringsklanken van aëolienen
en gitaren.…. rondo’s en stakato’s, ijl-verzwevend boven ’t woest
donderend stormorkest. En lager, lager, in grondtoon, demonisch
breed, ’t dieper gezang van adagio’s, doorstormde
klankenplechtigheid, stukgeslagen akkoorden uit nachtkathedraal
aangewaaid, smachtend en zwellend door ’t duister; zwellend van
mijmerende melodie naar woeste klankschalmei.—Scherzo’s
afgestooten en verslierd in jubel, in snerpende triolen, gracieus van
spot, als schaterende karbouterstemmetjes.—En zacht, ijl,—in
stilstand even van vlagen, bij pauzen van donkere razing, dreighevig
als zwarte stormgolven, aangedonderd uit zeeduister—weer
mijmerend nageklaag van motieven, weenende harpenzang uit
duister, en weemoed van ronddolende ziels-mandolines.
Onbewust voelden de stroopers iets van de stemmen-mysterie

rondom. In het duister orkaangeraas liepen ze dichter bijéén, tegen
de stil-donkere duinruggen, die dreigden dààr, in hel nachtzwart,
hoog en geweldig in hun aaneenrijging. Breugel stapte naast Kees,
die z’n achterlader weer be-hageld had. Barre wrevel wrokte weer op
tegen Plomp.
—Aa’s sullie tog van achtere komme.… gaif je hullie tog ’n poar
strieme.… daa’se veur meroakel legge.… da’ tuig.… op da’ terain.…
barstte Klaas uit.
—Joa, moar.… haperde stem-angstig Plomp, die niet wist, hoe zich
te verdedigen nou er geen koddebaiers op ’m gesprongen waren,
zich doodschaamde voor de kerels.… ze hadde main tog fideel beet
van ondere.…
—Wá’ beet.… beet, bosluis.… se moste je mostere.… waa’s

netuurlik ’n struikbeweging woa’ je mi’ je pootjes in vasthoakt bin.…
stoan doar ommers de paas te merkeere.… sloerie.… Is je spuit in
orde Kees? hée Breugel!.… gaif màin effe de brom.… ik hep
stikkedorst.… ’n urretje ken [238]ik best likke nou.… warrempies
hier.… wà jou?.… tussche drie loer-miroàkels!.…
Koome kon niet stil zijn. Plomp beefde als ’n aar.… Nou zag ie nog
niks.… aa’s tie nou moar van ’t pad weg snappe kon.…
Kees en Breugel stapten spraakloos naast elkaar.
—Hier Breugel.… hier Kees! jai ook ’n slok.…? sî heete suuker in.…
f’rvloekt lekker!.…
Kees gaf geen antwoord, dronk nooit onder ’t stroopen, Delker en

Piet sjokten weer achter Klaas aan, met Plomp midden in, voort,
almaar voort. Ze zouen ’t maar weer eens probeeren. Plomp bromde
in zich zelf, dat ie nou z’n bek zou houen al sprongen d’r tien
kottebeijers te gelijk op ’m af; al worgden ze ’m. Bibberend van kou
en regennat sjokte ie, toch wat minder bang voort, tusschen de
kerels in. Hij voelde nou ook minder angst voor Kees, die ’m geen
woord verwijt gedaan had. Eerst dacht ie, dat ie ’m ’n hagelschot
door z’n rug zou jagen.… Dat hadden ze’m van alle kanten gezegd
als ie meegong en hai deed wat tegen Kees’ zin. Nou gromde dìe ’t
minst en lichter voelde ie zich met z’n stappen, in ’t zwarte, eeuwig-
zwarte voor ’m, rustiger ook, nu stormgerucht schrei-zachter
verklonk.
Bij ’n woest duinbrok, dat hoog lag, als donkere dreiging tegen éven
doorschijnenden luchtkring, morrelde Breugel weer aan z’n lichtbak,
gingen Delker en Kees ’m dekken. Plots schoot zoeklicht van fellen
reflektor over ’t sneeuw-modderig duinpad en hevig-hoog, in ’t licht,
rossig-goud bevoet, aan den top dampiger lichtgeel, onder helle-
zwart, drongen uit duistering de duinbulten òp, schuw aangegloeid,
omknellend aan alle kanten de donkere kereltjes. Als reuzige
mensch-stierruggen, hoog bijéén, stuttend elkaar dromden ze áán
tegen ’t kleine menschenstoetje in. En telkens uit anderen hoek, in
lichtslingering van bak, rugden ze op, zwijgend rond de kereltjes, nu
kleingeslagen tot dwergjes in ’t woeste licht, ’t ros-wilde licht, dat
éven gloeide over de opéen dringende, en starend-blinde,
besneeuwde minotaurus-kudde. [239]
Op en àf sloop ’t stroopersstoetje en dwars in den lichtbrand, met

woesten rem, schoot schaduwspel dooréén, zich bemoeiend in
jachtpassie der kerels. Telkens stond nieuwe dreighoek in ’t rosgouïg
licht te dampen, staarde de Nacht boven de lichtkringels uit, bòven
bang-hooge rugbulting, als duistere heerscher, opjagend den
reuzigen minotaurus-stoet tegen de poerende mannetjes; slingerde
weer wèg de lichtbaan, viel dicht over de ros-sneeuwige ruggen de
nacht in nog angstiger zwart, dan vóór den kaatsbrand. En zwaar, in
stomme razernij tuimelden de schaduwen mee, gebroken doorhakt
in brokken, als spottend, springend in den grondbrand, plots weer
verdwijnend in donkering. Verder door de nachthel, in sluip,
kromden, kropen en joegen ze voort bij lagere duinbulten, die als
stomgeslagen in schrikboei, roerloos ’t licht langs zich slingeren
lieten, verbaasd in rossigen staar; weer wègsliertten uit slingerkring,
de duistering in, vóór ze schreien konden, méé met den al zwakker
kermenden windzang.
En voort ging ’t stoetje, in de weenende eenzaamheid van loeinacht

en verstervend stormgerucht, om kronkelpaden, overal omdreigd
van de stom-zwijgende zee-wachters, ingekneld tusschen den
mensch-stierigen opstand, aandrommend in rosgouën damp. Voort
stapten de stroopers, nu levend in één loer, één adem, niets
beseffend van nachtangst, vastgemoerd in hartstocht van vangst.
Snel en zeker, zonder struikeling, gingen Kees en Breugel voorop, in
lichtdonkeren beenengang. Maar nergens nog verschichtigde wild.
Breugel vloekte van nijd. Sneller wentelde ie z’n bak, dat de cirkels
in golfstroom over de titanische duinwezens den nacht inrilden, als
goud-schel weerlicht.
Plots stònd Kees, knalde ’n schot, nog een, nog een.…
Koome vloog achterop in wilden dans, greep toe, stopte in dol

gebaar van hartstocht alles den grooten zak in. Even bukte z’n
schooier-mager lijf, met belichting van rooien halsdoek, bloederig in
den fellen lichtslag van reflektor, en zwaar beefden z’n lippen van
jacht-passie. Telkens éven schoot ie tusschen Kees en Breugel dóór,
soms vlak ònder windvlaag verschreienden geweermond, waaruit ’n
noodlots-stem klaagde; [240]sprong ie terug, plat op den grond, of
bukte in rossigen lichtbak-brand, dat z’n vurige tronie vlamde, z’n
beeflippen weer zwollen in den gloeistroom. Woest schroeide z’n
tronie, met bloedvlekjes om z’n mond gespat, trilden nog wittige
haartjes op z’n beeflippen, van woesten nekbeet aan elk konijntje dat
vóór den greep nog krampte en hinkend klagelijk verpiepte,
smartgeluidje op den sneeuwgrond.
Tien passen van Kees af, zat ’n konijn recht op, met trillenden
schrikstand van de lange stijve ooren, oogjes beduizeld van licht, z’n
gelig-wit bedonsd haarborstje bevend, pootje over z’n angstig
bewegelijk neusje te wrijven.
—Mo’ je nog ’n booskap.… lolde Koome.… doen t’ met.… aers gain

tait.…
’n Schot dof brandde uit; vuurvonken en blauwige lichtjes kronkelden

vlamgrillig om Kees’loop. Achter ’m ààn, sprong Klaas, z’n schaduw
woester meeslingerend in den grondbrand. Even sleurde z’n zak
langs de sneeuw.… wou ie wat lollen, toen Kees dreigfluisterend ’m
roerloos hield.
—Blaif doar!.… sitte nog twee!.…
—Woar snof’rjenne?.… ik sien puur niks!.…
Weer knalde ’n schot, daver-echoënd als ’n slag van onweer en met

geelwit borstje sprong hoog in duizelkramptrek, ’n ander in de
lichtbaan, voor Kees’ voeten; kermend klein lijfje, donker bebloed.
Koome, gretig, snoof bloedgeur, greep toe, beet konijntje den kop in,
vlug en tandscheurend-raak, in ’t weeke beenderenstel, dierke
neerkwakkend op zakbodem.
—F’rrek, juichte z’n stem; wat ’n lampies die vint hep.… f’rvloekt aa’s
ik nie docht daa’t ’n molshoopie was.… waa’n lampies!.…
—Hou je bek driftte Kees, die één loer was, elk grasje zag trillen, elk
plekje bewegen op het lichtbrok dat voor ’m uitcirkelde, in duizel.—
—Kristis, juichte gesmoord Klaas, nou he’k sain ook in de lampies,
twee langoore!.…
—Bek dicht, heeschte Kees, en langzaam even mikte ie, in lichte

kromming van romp, dat noodlots-geschrei van zachten [241]wind
vóór zuiggat van geweerloop angstiger verklonk in de stilte, alsof de
naakte Duivel zèlf in z’n knokige pezigheid ingehurkt zat te blazen op
helschen misthoorn.
Knal-donderend spatte schot uit, en zonder te weten of ie raak was,

zeker van Kees, holde Klaas in de baan vooruit, vlak achter het
davergeluid dat verwaaid nog natrilde, tusschen de duinruggen in.
Piet keek telkens verbaasd naar Klaas’ sprongen, vergetend dat ie
zelf uit kijker was. Alleen Delker loerde in den nacht, op verren
afstand goud-zwart-rossig stoetje volgend. Plomp holde weer mee,
dan hier, dan daar, in zweetangst, van vetten Breugel naar Kees,
vóór Klaas, die ’m wegduwde en stompte, als ie ’m voor de beenen
liep. Dàn voelde Plomp zich benauwd, benauwd, dat Kees per
ongeluk hem raken zou in lichtbakzwenk. Bij elk schot rilde huivering
door z’n lijf, tot z’n teenen, zag ie uit ’t duister de kottebijers klaar in
hun sprong. En telkens had ie lust den bak uit te blazen omdat die
ze zoo brutaal aanwees wáár ze stroopten.—
Maar niks gebeurde, niks om ’m.
Nog ’n uur sjouwden de kerels, zonder dat er geschoten werd. Kees

was met Breugel anderen kant van ’t duin ingeslagen, bij ’t landgoed
van van Ouwenaar, vlak bij ’t bosch.
—Hoe loât is ’t, vroeg Breugel, doodop, zak-lap voor lichtbak éven
wegtillend om Koome te kunnen laten zien op z’n horloge.—
—Vaif uur, t’met Piet, aarzelde Klaas uit, bukkend in den gloei-
flakker van reflektor.—Van Ouwenoar lait op s’n ruggetje, lolde ie
voort, naar Hassel, die achter z’n hielen aanliep.
—Nou ik stop!.… gromde Kees, ik goan terug!.…
—Nou.… ikke ook, zei Breugel, ik sterf van de kou en natte.…
—Trug vraier?.… wai hebbe nog niks t’met, zei Klaas, stem-ontsteld.
—Ke nie dondere.… m’n vingers stoan aa’s hoakies.… ken gain
poot meer an de trekker sette.… en d’r komp tog g’n luis.…
hoeveul?.… [242]
—Twintig k’naine.… drie langoore.… gommenikki.—Verleje week hai

je’r veertig.… en vaif hoase!.…
—Ke’ nie bokkeme.… ikke set stop!.…
—Nou, en ik bin saik tut op main botte, klaagde Delker.—
Bij elkaar dromde ’t stoetje. Snel had Breugel z’n lichtbak gedoofd.
Als in stemmebetasting naderden ze elkaar in ’t dikke duister.
—Nou van Ouwenoar, lolde Klaas weer, nou mo’s je wete dá’ wai
hier stoane!.… op dâ terain ke je de paas nie merkeere poatertje?
zeg Breugel, jai nog ’n slok?.…
—Nou ikke ook, wâ hèe?.… verweet Delker, die gulzig inzoog

jenevervocht uit de kruik, en in donker op tast ’m weer Klaas terug
gaf.
—La’ stikke.… die kerel.… verslikte ie hoesterig.—
Kees was over scheerdraad heengesprongen met de kerels achter

aan. Plomp, langzaam, moest geholpen worden door Piet, die ’m er
half oversleurde dat z’n broek haken bleef in de pennen.…
—F’rrek! nou kost ’t main nog ’n broek!.…
—Allo!.… kaik!.… woar sit je.… kom!.… ik sien hoarlie nie meer.…
skàr.…, nijdigde Piet, die geen weg wist en niet van den stoet af wou
dwalen.…
Breugel giftte nog tegen Klaas.—
—Ze frete main heule tuin op.… die meroakels van k’naine, f’rleje
joar hebbe se main heule oogst f’rwoest.… die krenge.… om hullie
he’k nie betoale kenne.… die stinkpoone!—
—Nou, hitte Klaas, aa’s ’k half dood ben, goàn ’k se nog achter
skot.…
—Jai!.… jai!.… da’ doen jai veur je pelsier.… moar wai noakende
rotte.… wai hebbe ’r van te laie.… de groote heere hebbe d’r lol
van.… moar wai niks aa’s ongeluk en f’rdriet.… ’t is puur onhail!.…
—Hou toch je snoàters, snauwde Kees, wie f’rkoopt?.…
—Wâ!, je ken nou sooveul babbele aa’s je lust.… geweer [243]en

bakkie in ’t sakkie.… nou is ’t ’r nie eens meer ’n baipad te
moake!.… op dâ teràin.…
Plomp dobberde weer mee in ’t duister, achter den zak van Breugels
lichtbak. Hij gromde in zichzelf, dat ie ’t nooit zou leeren. Nooit had ie
docht, dat ’t soo gevoarlik was. Nou aas tie doar nou wa’ mee mos
bai f’rdiene, kon is s’n aige wel ophange.…
Z’n angst verzonk, toen ie hoorde, dat ze waren op publieken weg

bijna, en nou vast wist dat de lichtbak uitgedoofd in de zak bleef.
—Seg Kees, begon Klaas Koome weer, loopend en sprekend ’t

duister in, wee je.… nog verleje week? Seg Breugel!.… da’ ha je bai
motte weuse.… ses hoane hep ie skooie!.… soo.. poeff! in ’t
donker.… uit de boom!.… Piep.… sait t’r één, bai ’t bossie.… piep!
sait d’aer op ’t Hoàneprejeeltje.. piep-piep! sait derdes en vierdes in
’t Kruisgrot je.… se snertte d’r so t’met uit de takke.… dá’ waa’s d’r ’n
piepbeweging op da’ terain.… Ik konsteteer van daa’ tie ’r ses soo
hep neersmete!.… allegoar in ’t donker.… op ’n aere plek.… hep ie
hoarlie paas loate merkeere.… enne toe gong hai moar verder!.…
Enne.… op de terugtocht hep hullie in vaif menute al die meroakels
vonde.… Dá’ noem ’k werk hée? da’ heppe hoarlie de paas loate
merkeere.… Op da’ terain is t’r nie ééne!.… seg moar hoe ie ’t
lapt.… soo al die plekke in s’n test!.… hee?—
—Wá’ he je weer te klesseneere, snauwde Kees.… wie f’rkoopt?.…
Maar Klaas hoorde niet. Woest voelde ie nog in zich ’t genot van de
vorige week.…
—Nou, as se sain.… op de hiele hadde sete, hei Piet.… wa’ jai? se

hebbe mit d’r achte op ’m loert.… en nie eens ’n baipad.… ha! ha!
ha! wat ’n kuikes.… verleje moand hep ie nog sprenkels had, al s’n
strikke hebbe sullie ganneft.… op da’ terain!.…
—Hep ie wa’ vange nog?
—Of ie!.… éen hoas, mit s’n veurpoot d’r afdroaid.… [244]jemi!
kroemi!.… wa da’ kreng skreeuwde.… hai hep se rejoal d’r
afknepe.… de sprenkel!.… je had sain ’n smoel motte sien trekke.…
toen ’k sain de borst indrukt hep!.… Moar de strikke hebbe sullie
pakt.… sullie lagge op de loer.. en van Delker hebbe sullie de strikke
pakt.… en s’n spoor!.. da’ kuike hep ’n nieuweling meebrocht die in ’t
sand loope hep!.… doalik hadde se s’n spoor!.… hai hep achtien
doage had!.… wa’ ’n vuile hée?.… da’ heerskap van de droaibank.…
hee.… op da’ terain.…
—F’rrek,.… achttien doage? vroeg ongeloovig Delker.
—Nou wa’ sou ’t.… daa’s al drie keere.… dat ie ’n prent thuis
kraigt.… kè se waif an ’t beskot hange.… veur ’n pronkie.…
—Kerel hou je bek nou.… wie f’rkoopt? drong Kees aan.
Piet en Plomp telden niet mee; wouen niks hebben. Piet vloekte.…
Nog nooit was ’t ’m zoo ellendig naar ’t hart geslagen, de kou en de
beroerderigheid. Was dat lol?.… hij rilde van koorts! Liever vaif steek
diep, elken dag, dan soo’n grap!.… Doorzogen was ie tot op z’n
huid. De eerste en laatste keer.… Jesis, wa’ begreep ie nou goed,
dat Kees d’r de pest an had. Kapot was die d’r van!.… Kapot.… en
de slaap duizelde in z’n kop.… Kloas was ’n kwoàje.… moar
Kees!.… Kees, gain stom woord had ie t’met teuge sain sait.…
Plomp, dood op, vroolijkte bij, nu ie geen gevaar meer voelde.
Wind loeide nog maar bij eenzame vlagen zwaar bulderend achter
ze aan, uit ’t duister, al uit duister.…
Bij ’t duinpad waar Kees krot lag bleven ze even staan.
—Nou g’nacht!.… aa’s ’k poar uur slape hep.… goan ik mi sprenkel

van Joap ’t duin in.… Seg.… Kloas.… goan je bai pelier van ’t
slangetje.… breng murge moar sinte.. ’t k’nijn nie minder aas vaiftig
sint!.… ’k si droog..
—Bestig kapetain!.… op da’ terain wee’k ’n eenige

pelierbeweging.… hai merkeert de paas bai ’t bruggetje van
Woagestroat in Aimuide.… ikke konsteteer van da’ tie duizend
k’naine p’r dag.… f’r.… [245]
—Nou nacht manne, brak Kees af.… ’t zwart-stille pad òpstappend,

tegen ’t donkere krot aan.
Stil van ’m af, donkerde ’t stoetje den modderweg naar Wiereland
op.
[Inhoud]
III.
Zacht had Kees de deur van de klos gelicht en zachter nog stapte ie
binnen. Benauwing van duffen slaapstank wasemde uit ’t stikduistere
slaapkrot op. Hij rilde, z’n lijf dreef in nattig, drabbig vuil en z’n plunje
dampte regenlucht uit naar z’n hoofd. Onder het uittrappen, moeilijk
en hijg-zwaar, van z’n kleef-zuigende hooge schoenen hoorde ie
zwak-weeke stem van z’n vrouw slaperig zang-neuriën:
Sloap, maideke sloap

d’r buite lo-oopt ’n skoàp
Hai hep vier wi-tte voetjes
Hai drink se mellikie soe-oetjes.
’n Wilde wrevel steeg ’m naar ’t hoofd.… f’rdomme was die maid nou
weer an ’t skreeuwe.… Nou da’ hai d’r juus tukke gong.… Was da’
nou nie moedwil van ’t waif.…
’n Stoot, dof-krakend tegen ’n kruk had ’t kindje weer uit den dommel
gescheurd. Krijscherig-scherp jammerde met langen kramphuil in
zuigelingdrift ’t kindje uit ’t donkere bedholletje.—Wimpie woelde
rond en-om, zonder wakker te worden.
Dol-driftig liep Kees naar de bedstee, en heeschte in stikwoede, die

bij vlagen in ’m ophitten kwam, door niets te temperen:
—Is ’t weer soo wait?.… Kâ se d’r bek nie houë.… waif!
—D’r bek houë?.… ’t Skoàp hep taa’nndjes.…
—Rooit na’ niks! ’k mo’ d’r in.… taa’nntjes!.…
—We’ ja! Hier-oppan!.… skreeuw Wimpie wakker!.. leg je aige moar

neer.… hee?.… [246]
Heviger gistte er razernij in Kees.… Hij zou d’r ’n pats tegen d’r kop
geven aa’s se nog ’n woord zei.…
—La’ die prop d’r bek houë.…
Hij kon bijna niet meer van drift-moeë nijdigheid.
Maar heftiger krijschte zuigeling, in barstende zwelling van huil-kreet

er doorheen.
—Je bek dicht, duifel! helhoak! spoog ie uit, meppend ’t kind in

donker tegen Ant’s lijf aan.
—Hierop-pan!.… sloan d’r van mekoar, nijdigde Ant ertusschen, we-

joa.… f’rmoor d’r moar.…
Kees voelde dat ie z’n drift moèst temperen. Hij zou Ant en ’t kind
anders tegen elkaar plat slaan.…
Over zuigeling heen, was ie met z’n regenstinkende modderplunje

nat en vuil in ’t slaapholletje gesprongen. Andere bedekking dan wat
rotlappen was er niet.… En hij trilde te veel om zich uit te kleeden.
Ant had zelf driftig ’t kind op d’r haverdoppenzak gesmakt, was

opgestaan, om ’t lampje aan te steken.—Maar alléén zich voelend,
krijschte heviger ’t kind òp, dat Wimpie schokte in z’n bedje.…
—Hou je smoel satansprop! donderde Kees weer uit, ’t
onbeschermde kind nu, van uit z’n hoek op ’t kopje patsend in
driftwaanzin, dat dof de klappen bonkten en z’n ellebogen stootten
tegen ’t beschot. In wilde rammeling schudde ie ’t lijfje heen en weer,
dat ’t kind stuipiger aankrijschte, heviger in zwelling.
—Godskristis, t’met sou die d’r hersens te pletter sloan, teuge de

grond.… aa’s se d’r bek nie hield.… raasde ’t in Kees.… Ant was
toegehold, had ’t kind opgelicht en in d’r armen gesust. Kees kòn
niet meer, wou stilte, slaap, niks dan slaap, slááp, hijgend òp van
vermoeienis en aftobbing. Op ’r vuile voeten, maatgangde Ant, heen
en weer wiegelend, ril-koud, in ’r smerig hemd. Laag groezelde ’t
lampje wat licht neer in ’t killige vertrek.—
Zachter nu dreinde de zuigeling.… z’n eeèè’s.… eè.… èèè’s,

afgebroken door sus-schokjes van Ant’s been. Ze was
[247]neergeslobberd op ’n stoel. Haar borst hing roodgebeten van ’t
persend-mummelende zuigelingsmondje. Niks meer had ze er in.
Zwaar-rood gezwollen kransten er donkere pijnkringen om de tepels.

Maar dóór gulzigde zuigelingsmondje naar zwarte zog, slap-
voedselloos néérhangend aan grove borst. Driftig frommelde Ant vuil
doekje naast ’r, tot ’n propje, beet ’t week, met sterke tandhappen,
dodderde er speeksel op en duwde ’t zóó, klefferig doorzogen,
gulzig-kreunende zuigelingsmondje in. Zwaar-rampzalig schraapte ’r
triest-zwakke stem in huivering, door ’t zwak-gelende kamergrauw,
onder zacht maatbeweeg van één been:
—Sloap.… maideke sloap.… d’r buite lo.. oopt ’n skoap..
Droef en diep-eenzaam bleef zeurig nagalmen ’r tobstem, in den hel-

nacht, lang, heel lang, ééndeunig. En ingeslonken verschrompeld,
bibber-kleumde ’r afgebeuld lijf, ’r beenen gespreid tot schoot, waar
zuigeling met z’n kopje plat in wiegelde.

Making Employee Driven Innovation Achievable Approaches and Practices For Workplace Learning 1st Edition Justina Tan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Making Employee Driven Innovation Achievable Approaches and Practices For Workplace Learning 1st Edition Justina Tan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Employee Driven Innovation Achievable Approaches and Practices For Workplace Learning 1st Edition Justina Tan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making employee driven innovation

achievable Approaches and Practices

The Cambridge Handbook of Workplace Training and

Deep Learning Approaches to Cloud Security Deep

Innovation District Planning: Concept, Framework,

Architecting Data and Machine Learning Platforms:

Smart Energy Management: Data Driven Methods for Energy

Educational Technology for the Global Village Worldwide

Innovations in Learning and Technology for the

Leadership for Deeper Learning Facilitating School

Innovation is widely recognised as key to vibrancy, growth and success of organisations.

This volume guides workplace trainers in teaching the significance of

Justina Tan is Director of Learning and Professional Development at the Institute

Workplace Learning for Changing Social and Economic Circumstances

Making Employee-Driven Innovation Achievable

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-IAL-Series-

Edited by Justina Tan and Wing On Lee

ISBN: 978-1-032-13179-5 (hbk)

1 Making Employee-Driven Innovation Achievable: Paving

2 Innovation Mindsets – A Framework to Understand

3 Forging an Innovation Mindset: Practices in Small to

4 Moving Beyond the Innovation Mindset 53

5 Employee Empowerment as a Foundational Approach to

6 Emergence of Employee-Driven Innovation: The Dynamic

7 Employee Capability and Knowledge as Driving Forces

8 Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) in Finland 126

9 Understanding Employee-Driven Innovation Through

10 Making EDI Work From Theory to

2.1 Conceptual opportunity recognition model for frugal innovation. 21

1.1 List of Recommended Practices for Organisations to Motivate

Stephen Billett is Professor of Adult and Vocational Education in the School of

Calvin M. L. Chan is Associate Professor and Director (Office of Graduate Stud-

Chukwuemeka Echebiri is Associate Professor at Inland Norway University of Ap-

main research interests include employee-driven innovation, employee empow-

Dr. Esa Hiltunen is Senior Lecturer at Department of Business, University of East-

James McLaughlin is a consultant in aerospace product and technology strategy

Laura McLaughlin is a professor of education teaching undergraduate and graduate

Wafa Said Mosleh is a senior CX consultant at Danske Bank, Copenhagen, Den-

Beyond the comparison of work-based learning and workplace learning, there

Justina Tan and Joel Sim

Engaging Employees in Innovation

innovation should seek to create awareness of the importance of leveraging on in-

to encourage employees to innovate, organisations may want to assess employees’

Innovation Process Recommended Practices

Ideation Establish a sense of urgency by prioritising an issue that the organisation is

Besides the practices discussed, cultural characteristics such as employees feeling

EDI Relevance Beyond Nordic Borders

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265–285. https://doi.

Arguably, such an environment is also needed to foster employee-driven innovation

“employee-driven innovation (EDI) refers to the generation and implementation of

Theoretical Foundations of Mindset Research

Another popular mindset-based perspective is Carol Dweck’s dichotomy of the

The pre-decisional phase primes a deliberative mindset, which is focused on assess-

of continued volition to navigate potential obstacles in the pursuit of readily made

Frugal Innovation as a Research Context

In contrast to the proliferation of work on frugal products, an understanding of how compa-

and studied individually. Resembling Gollwitzer’s (1990) mindset theory of action

and proposed that the implemental frugal mindset is:

4 Moving Beyond the Innovation Mindset 53

8 Employee-Driven Innovation (EDI) in Finland 126

2.1 Conceptual opportunity recognition model for frugal innovation. 21