Disentangling workplace innovation: a systematic literature review
| Pages | 1254-1279 |
| Date | 16 October 2017 |
| Published date | 16 October 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2016-0267 |
| Author | Iryna Prus,Raoul C.D. Nacamulli,Alessandra Lazazzara |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
Disentangling workplace
innovation: a systematic
literature review
Iryna Prus, Raoul C.D. Nacamulli and Alessandra Lazazzara
Department of Human Sciences for Education,
Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to consolidate the state of extant academic research on workplace
innovation (WI) by proposing a comprehensive conceptual framework and outlining research traditions on
the phenomenon.
Design/methodology/approach –This papersystematically reviewedthe literature published over thepast
20 years, basing on a predefined research protocol. The dimensions of WI were explored with the help of
thematic synthesis, while the research perspectives were studied by means of textual narrative synthesis.
Findings –The analysis suggests that there exist four research traditions on WI –built container,
humanized landscape, socio-material macro-actor, and polyadic network –and each of them comprises its
own set of assumptions, foci of study, and ontological bases. The findings suggest that WI is a heterogeneous
process of renovation occurring in eight different dimensions, namely work system, workplace democracy,
high-tech application, workplace boundaries, workspaces, people practices, workplace experience, and
workplace culture. The analysis showed that over years the meaning of innovation within these dimensions
changed, therefore it is argued that research should account for the variability of these categories.
Practical implications –The paper includes implications for developing and implementing WI programs.
Moreover, it discusses the role of HR in the WI process.
Originality/value –This paper for the first time systematically reviews literature on the topic of WI,
clarifies the concept and discusses directions and implications for the future research.
Keywords Qualitative, Workspace, Work practices, Workplace innovation, Workplace design,
High-performance work systems (HPWS), Working life development
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Nowadays organizations are operating and competing in a rapidly changing,
hypercompetitive, and unpredictable environment. In order to develop competitiveness in
these conditions, it is claimed that innovation is paramount and imperative for success
(Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996; Dess and Picken, 2000; Friedman, 2011). Whereas for
years the only domain of innovation was technology, product and service, recently new
domains of innovation have appeared (e.g. social innovation, organizational innovation,
grassroots innovation, user innovation). Among these, workplace innovation (henceforth WI)
has gained much attention and was recognized as a main driver of economic growth (Dhondt
and Totterdill, 2014). European Commission made WI a priority in the reinforced EU
Industrial Policy Communication (Kesselring et al., 2014), and different countries recognized
the importance of the WI in their policy agenda on the national level (Alasoini, 2009).
Despite an enormous amount of writings on WI, up to today there is no clear
conceptualization of WI. Different authors include under this umbrella-term modernization
aspects of management, organization, space, skills, labor relations, workplace culture, HR
Personnel Review
Vol. 46 No. 7, 2017
pp. 1254-1279
Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2016-0267
Received 4 October 2016
Revised 17 January 2017
Accepted 21 April 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
© Iryna Prus, Raoul C.D. Nacamulli and Alessandra Lazazzara. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article ( for both commercial
and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors.
The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1254
PR
46,7
practices, etc. (Eeckelaert et al., 2012; Kesselring et al., 2014). Such polysemy and low
conceptual development is a serious impediment for the consolidation of the field of WI, as it
drives to fragmentized knowledge, difficulties with the development of measurement scales,
and theorizing problems. Moreover, WI seems to involve disparate or dual tendencies
(Oeij and Vaas, 2016), thus it can be distorted if relying on a single and overly simplified
model. Therefore, it is important to outline the conceptual framework that can account for
the internal contradictions of the phenomenon of WI.
In HRM literature there is a general consensus to consider WIs as a bundle or system of
practices (Lepak et al., 2006). However, considering all practices is impossible, while
considering only some of them requires applying certain selection criteria. Moreover,
the logic of a systemraises the problem of how different componentsare related to each other.
Past research proved that the interdependence between different practices may produce a
significanteffect on performance (Delery and Gupta, 2016). Therefore,at one hand, we cannot
neglect the inter-relatedness, but at the other hand, there is no theoretical framework for
understanding whether some practices are redundant, complementary to others, significant
for performance, unnecessarily constrained, etc.
In order to take the configurational perspective on HRM practices, we need to
understand how researchers’attention should be allocated. With this intent scholars have
developed numerous typologies and categories of innovative practices (MacDuffie, 1995;
Totterdill and Exton, 2014). Given the multifaceted role of practices, the creation of
meaningful categories is still challenging. Traditionally in management studies, the
categorization has been based on prototype theory (i.e. consensus on definitional
properties) (Durand and Paolella, 2013). Yet, such approach cannot explain the fuzziness
of categories. More recent approaches see fuzziness as inherent in the category itself.
This means that categories may extinguish, and their boundaries may extend either
horizontally (i.e. growing to encompass new situations) or vertically (i.e. repositioning
within a hierarchical structure of a field) (Delmestri and Greenwood, 2016). Therefore,
if we admit that there may exist some categories that help to elucidate the concept of WI,
their variability should be addressed as well.
Moreover, in HRM literature, scholars usually approach workplace as a social system
without taking into account the interplay of spatial and material factors (Kornberger and
Clegg, 2004). But the field of socio-material studies of organizations highlights that practices
are deployed within a material and symbolic space (de Vaujany and Mitev, 2013). To deepen
this perspective, HRM field may benefit from integrating a place-based view on practices
and entering in dialogue with such fields of research as, for example, architecture,
ergonomics, science and technology studies, etc. This implies that some common
ontological, epistemological and methodological bases in different disciplines shall be
established first. With this purpose, the identification of different research traditions on WIs
within the management field is an essential step in creating an interdisciplinary dialogue.
Basing on these premises, the purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the WI concept by answering the following questions:
RQ1. How has the concept of WI been approached in the academic literature?
RQ2. What are the dimensions through which WI has been explored?
RQ3. How have the meaning and contents of these dimensions changed over years?
In order to answer these research questions, we applied the systematic literature review.
We investigated different academic databases for a series of WI-related keywords and
retrieved citations on topic from 1996 to 2016. We then applied the methodology of narrative
synthesis andthematic analysis to qualitativelyinterpret the findings. After presenting initial
theoretical insights into WI, we introduce our findings on four research traditions on WI.
1255
Disentangling
workplace
innovation
To continue reading
Request your trial