@article{HoelzleBjoerkBoer2021, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie and Boer, Harry}, title = {Light at the end of the tunnel}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {30}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford [u.a.]}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12427}, pages = {3 -- 5}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{BjoerkHoelzleBoer2021, author = {Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Boer, Harry}, title = {'What will we learn from the current crisis?'}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {30}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford [u.a.]}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12442}, pages = {231 -- 232}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{HoelzleBoerBjoerk2020, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Boer, Harry and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie}, title = {Creativity in and from people, processes, objects, and war zones}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {29}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12405}, pages = {377 -- 379}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{RoseHoelzleBjoerk2020, author = {Rose, Robert and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Bj{\"o}rk, Jennie}, title = {More than a quarter century of creativity and innovation management}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {29}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12361}, pages = {5 -- 20}, year = {2020}, abstract = {When this journal was founded in 1992 by Tudor Rickards and Susan Moger, there was no academic outlet available that addressed issues at the intersection of creativity and innovation. From zero to 1,163 records, from the new kid on the block to one of the leading journals in creativity and innovation management has been quite a journey, and we would like to reflect on the past 28 years and the intellectual and conceptual structure of Creativity and Innovation Management (CIM). Specifically, we highlight milestones and influential articles, identify how key journal characteristics evolved, outline the (co-)authorship structure, and finally, map the thematic landscape of CIM by means of a text-mining analysis. This study represents the first systematic and comprehensive assessment of the journal's published body of knowledge and helps to understand the journal's influence on the creativity and innovation management community. We conclude by discussing future topics and paths of the journal as well as limitations of our approach.}, language = {en} } @article{HenikeKamprathHoelzle2020, author = {Henike, Tassilo and Kamprath, Martin and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {Effecting, but effective?}, series = {Long range planning : LRP ; international journal of strategic management / Strategic Planning Society}, volume = {53}, journal = {Long range planning : LRP ; international journal of strategic management / Strategic Planning Society}, number = {4}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0024-6301}, doi = {10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101925}, pages = {16}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Business model (BM) visualisations have become popular instruments with which to explain and manage today's complex business interactions. Using verbal and graphic elements, they provide simplified representations of reality and can support BM tasks that go beyond working memory's capacities. Visualisations thus reduce cognitive load and represent how practitioners and researchers think about BMs. However, they can also affect their thinking. This constitutes a thus far insufficiently explained tension between effectively reducing reality's complexity and the resulting cognitive biases. Building on cognitive load and framing theory, we qualitatively analysed 103 BM visualisations to explain how visual elements affect visualisations' cognitive effectiveness (helpfulness and ease of applicability) and unfold visual framing effects. By identifying five visual framing effects, we contribute to the cognitive BM perspective and explain how this set of cognitive factors affects BM management and research. We also found that most BM visualisations are not cognitively effective because they consist of unclear and non-parsimonious elements, limiting their cross-contextual application. Furthermore, the analysis revealed certain visualisations with strictly operationalised BM dimensions. These findings provide essential contributions to the literature on BM methods. We conclude by discussing how practitioners and researchers can use BM visualisations and their cognitive impacts accordingly.}, language = {en} } @article{RoseGroegerHoelzle2021, author = {Rose, Robert and Groeger, Lars and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {The Emergence of Shared Leadership in Innovation Labs}, series = {Frontiers in Psychology}, volume = {12}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers in psychology}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.685167}, pages = {1 -- 13}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Implementing innovation laboratories to leverage intrapreneurship are an increasingly popular organizational practice. A typical feature in these creative environments are semi-autonomous teams in which multiple members collectively exert leadership influence, thereby challenging traditional command-and-control conceptions of leadership. An extensive body of research on the team-centric concept of shared leadership has recognized the potential for pluralized leadership structures in enhancing team effectiveness; however, little empirical work has been conducted in organizational contexts in which creativity is key. This study set out to explore antecedents of shared leadership and its influence on team creativity in an innovation lab. Building on extant shared leadership and innovation research, we propose antecedents customary to creative teamwork, that is, experimental culture, task reflexivity, and voice. Multisource data were collected from 104 team members and 49 evaluations of 29 coaches nested in 21 teams working in a prototypical innovation lab. We identify factors specific to creative teamwork that facilitate the emergence of shared leadership by providing room for experimentation, encouraging team members to speak up in the creative process, and cultivating a reflective application of entrepreneurial thinking. We provide specific exemplary activities for innovation lab teams to increase levels of shared leadership.}, language = {en} } @article{HoelzleRhinow2019, author = {H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Rhinow, Holger}, title = {The Dilemmas of Design Thinking in Innovation Projects}, series = {Project Management Journal}, volume = {50}, journal = {Project Management Journal}, number = {4}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {8756-9728}, doi = {10.1177/8756972819853129}, pages = {418 -- 430}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Organizations have discovered Design Thinking as a promising framework or language for innovation-focused project teamwork. The goal is to develop new products and services by being customer-centric and working iteratively and in an interdisciplinary way, using specific working principles and methods to create a common language among all stakeholders. The empirical results in this article show that Design Thinking teamwork is different from other forms of teamwork. The difference in Design Thinking team-based project work is that the teams go through a specific learning process that poses individual challenges but also provides the individual with experience-based learning. We show that teams going through this learning process repeatedly find themselves in seemingly insolvable conflicts-so called structural dilemmas-within the framework of project deadlines and under the influence of strategic guidelines of the organization. We explore these structural dilemmas and develop ways to overcome them.}, language = {en} } @article{SchmeissHoelzleTech2019, author = {Schmeiss, Jessica and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Tech, Robin P. G.}, title = {Designing Governance Mechanisms in Platform Ecosystems: Addressing the Paradox of Openness through Blockchain Technology}, series = {California Management Review}, volume = {62}, journal = {California Management Review}, number = {1}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {0008-1256}, doi = {10.1177/0008125619883618}, pages = {121 -- 143}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The paradox of openness is inherent to all platform ecosystems-the tension in enabling maximum openness to create joint innovation while guaranteeing value capturing for all actors. Governance mechanisms to solve this paradox are embedded into the technical architecture of the platform, addressing the dimensions of access, control, and incentives. Blockchain technology offers unique ways to design novel governance mechanisms through the standardization of interactions. However, the design of such an architecture requires careful consideration of the cost associated with it.}, language = {en} } @article{GoepelHoelzleKnyphausenAufsess2012, author = {G{\"o}pel, Monique and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina and Knyphausen-Aufsess, Dodo Zu}, title = {Individuals' innovation response behaviour a framework of antecedents and opportunities for future research}, series = {Creativity and innovation management}, volume = {21}, journal = {Creativity and innovation management}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0963-1690}, doi = {10.1111/caim.12000}, pages = {412 -- 426}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Innovation response behaviour is defined as individuals novelty-supporting or novelty-impeding action when navigating innovation initiatives through the organization. A typology of innovation response behaviour is developed, distinguishing between active and passive modes of conduct for novelty-supporting and novelty-impeding behaviour, respectively. The antecedents of innovation response behaviour are delineated based on West and Farr's five-factor model of individual innovation. Moreover, we argue that within organizational contexts, individuals often fail to implement their ideas due to innovation barriers, perceived as factors that are beyond their control. Based on the theory of planned behaviour, we reveal how these barriers influence individuals intentional and exhibited innovation response behaviour. Propositions about proximal and distal antecedents of individuals innovation response behaviour are derived. Proposing a research framework to study the organizational process of innovation from an actor-based perspective, this paper intends to link existing research on individual innovation with the process of innovation at the organizational level, explicitly accounting for the socio-political dynamics and arising managerial problems associated with successful innovation implementation within organizational realities. Implications for research in innovation management are discussed and avenues for future research outlined.}, language = {en} } @article{PuteanusBirkenbachHoelzle2015, author = {Puteanus-Birkenbach, Katja and H{\"o}lzle, Katharina}, title = {Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneur oder der Begriff des unternehmerischen Denken und Handelns}, series = {Entrepreneurship education: das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}ndungslehre und -beratung}, journal = {Entrepreneurship education: das Potsdamer Modell der Gr{\"u}ndungslehre und -beratung}, publisher = {BoD}, address = {Norderstedt}, isbn = {978-3-7357-6095-1}, pages = {85 -- 95}, year = {2015}, language = {de} }