Search results

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the effect of culture on innovation within the workplace. Special attention has been paid to Middle East and North Africa (MENA) culture features and their impact on employees’ adaptation to the innovation within their organizations.

Approach/methodology: To achieve this objective, a theoretical study has been carried out. Given its popularity in culture-related research, the Hofstede model has been used to understand the specificities of MENA region culture. An extensive literature review has been employed to investigate the relationship between culture and innovation in the workplace.

Findings: Based on the relevant literature, it can be said that the country’s culture has a considerable impact on how the employees adapt to the changes within the workplace. Some issues of Arab culture that managers should be aware of and suitable solutions have been underlined to improve the adoption of innovation within the organizations in Arab countries.

Research implications: This study contributes to knowledge regarding the association between innovation and culture within the workplace in the MENA region. Findings provide straightforward ways for managers to improve the adaptation of their employees to the growing innovation required by the global market.

Originality/value: This study is among the earliest to focus on the association between innovation and culture within the MENA region. In addition, it is among the rare studies, which explore the main issues of Arab culture that make the adaptation to innovation a complex phenomenon that requires further efforts from managers for successful innovation performance. The limitations, as well as the future research pathways, have been mentioned at the end of this study.

In the knowledge economy, greater togetherness is the prerequisite for innovating and having more: selflessness extends scope while selfishness increases limitations. But human beings are not automatically attracted to innovation: between the two lies culture and cultural values vary widely, with the egoistic accent or the altruistic intonation setting the scene. In the representations of open innovation we submit to the reader’s attention, selfishness and selflessness are active in the cultural space.

Popularized in the early 2000s, open innovation is a systematic process by which ideas pass among organizations and travel along different exploitation vectors. With the arrival of multiple digital transformative technologies and the rapid evolution of the discipline of innovation, there was a need for a new approach to change, incorporating technological, societal and policy dimensions. Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) – the result of advances in digital technologies and the cognitive sciences – marks a shift from incremental gains to disruptions that effect a great step forward in economic and social development. OI2 seeks the unexpected and provides support for the rapid scale-up of successes.

‘Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come’ – this thought, attributed to Victor Hugo, tells us how a great deal is at stake with open innovation. Amidon and other scholars have argued that the twenty-first century is not about ‘having more’ but about ‘being more’. The promise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is that they enable us to extend and amplify human intellect and experience. In the so-called experience economy, users buy ‘experiences’ rather than ‘services’. OI2 is a paradigm about ‘being more’ and seeking innovations that bring us all collectively on a trajectory towards sustainable intelligent living.

Many companies worldwide are currently involved in open innovation processes (OIPs), through which they aim to collect innovative insights and ideas from the crowd. The phenomenon has grown – and is destined to continue to grow – massively. As a result, there is strong interest from scholars and practitioners in rebuilding the relevant processes and developing a set of best practices. What seems to be missing from this developing topic of research is a focus on its antecedents and consequences. Since the phenomenon is so new, a focus on its consequences seems untimely. A focus on its antecedents, on the other hand, seems both promising and intriguing.

The fact that more and more companies are involved in OIPs suggests that they have already developed an organizational open innovation (OI) culture. If an OI culture already exists, how widespread is it and to what extent is it shared among those involved in knowledge ecosystems? With this question in mind, it seems worthwhile to investigate whether OI is supported culturally at both social and individual levels.

Finally, this chapter summarizes the state of the art of OI culture at social, organizational and individual levels and considers how an OI culture developed at company level may serve to drive its development at the social and individual levels.

Purpose: Culture is not only shared, and it is often interpreted and expressed over time. Also, culture may lead to the promotion of creativity and innovation within a specific region and motivate individuals or groups to cultivate an entrepreneurial spirit. This chapter explores how companies can apply cultural influences differently and how governments/higher offices encourage cultural influences in innovation.

Design/methodology/approach: The chapter mainly aims at the technology trends in infrastructure and innovation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The chapter aims to demonstrate how culture is shaped by innovation in education, patterns, and how the education system has developed, benefiting upcoming entrepreneurs in regions like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.

Findings: This chapter examines the cultural history of various cultures, improving and promoting economic innovation and competitiveness. Thus, innovation involves new product creation, whereas innovation involves using the existing application with a creative approach to address the problems. Innovation and entrepreneurship are interlinked and dependent on each other, which considers aspects like practices, tasks, and responsibilities.

Originality/value: This chapter of the book focuses on culture and innovation mainly, which affects technological trends and entrepreneurship. Also, the chapter would be beneficial for the educational department that progresses in development and encourages students toward creativity.

For an organization to be competitive, it needs to constantly innovate. For this to happen, you need the right combination of leaders, talented people, organizational characteristics, and culture. In the chapter, the authors included different perspectives of leadership and models of organizational culture. Both are relevant topics in the field of organizational behavior related to innovation as well as organizational effectiveness.

In some organizations action is taken to stimulate creativity and innovation. The right steps may have been taken, such as involving employees in decision making, recruiting and appointing employees who evidence characteristics of creativity, setting standards for work performance and giving regular feedback, yet creativity and innovation are hampered in some way. The culture of an organization may be a factor contributing to the extent to which creativity and innovation occur in an organization (Johnson, 1996; Judge et al., 1997; Pienaar, 1994; Shaughnessy, 1988; Tesluk et al., 1997; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997 in Martins & Terblanche, 2003). The current organizational culture and the demands of creativity and innovation may lead to a conflict situation.

We develop a new look on leadership for innovation and propose that effective leaders alternate between a broad range of behaviors and tune their approach to the changing demands of innovation. This is referred to as ambidextrous leadership. As the importance of different leader behaviors varies not only across time but also across contexts, ambidextrous leadership takes different shapes depending on contextual conditions. We discuss culture as an important contextual condition that holds implications for effective ambidextrous leadership. Cultures have different strengths and weaknesses for innovation that can be leveraged or compensated. We use the cultural characteristics identified by the GLOBE project to discuss how leaders can take culture into account when leading for innovation.

Purpose: The importance of creativity and innovation can’t be overstressed today. Especially in the context of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) world, firms cutting across businesses have to pay special attention to building a culture of creativity and innovation around business processes.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The study uses an extant literature review and practical cases to highlight the parameters required to build a culture of creativity and innovation in companies. These parameters lead to the development of the conceptual framework that can help firms sustain innovation even amidst a fast-changing business environment.

Findings: The findings suggest that focus on internal and external forces is required to keep up innovation efforts in the VUCA world. Being agile with a discrete focus on learning is essential to remain creative and innovative for business sustainability.

Research Limitations/Implications: The study is crucial for academicians, practitioners, and policy makers. It is expected to open new avenues of research for further contributing to the body of knowledge related to the field of creativity and innovation while expected to help society by bringing them more innovative products at pocket-friendly prices.

Originality/Value: The study is unique as it delineates the relationship between creativity and innovation in the context of the VUCA world. The research also offers an innovation framework that is a valuable addition to both fields of academia and corporate.