Signe Vikkelsø, Mikkel Stokholm Skaarup and Julie Sommerlund
Innovation partnerships are a popular model for organizing publicly supported innovation projects. However, partners often have different timelines and planning horizons…
Abstract
Purpose
Innovation partnerships are a popular model for organizing publicly supported innovation projects. However, partners often have different timelines and planning horizons, understanding of purpose and concepts of value. This hybridity poses organizational challenges pertaining to trust, goal setting, learning and coordination, which may lead to “mission drift,” i.e. compromising or displacement of intended goals. Despite the risk mission drift poses, its underlying dynamics are not sufficiently understood, and the means to mitigate it are unclear. This study aims to address these questions.
Design/methodology/approach
Through eight broad and one deep case study of innovation partnerships funded by Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD), the authors investigate how partnerships reconcile multiple expectations and interests within the IFD framework and how this might lead to mission drift. The authors draw upon existing theories on the organizational challenges of innovation partnerships and supplement these with new empirically based propositions on the risk of mission drift.
Findings
This study identifies a core tension between partnership complexity and the degree of formalization. Depending on how these dimensions are combined in relation to particular goals, the partnership mission is likely to become narrower or more unpredictable than intended. Thus, the authors theorize the significance of partnership composition and requisite formalization for a given innovation purpose.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of mission drift in innovation partnerships by opening the organizational black box of partnerships. The findings underscore the value of explorative case studies for specifying the contingencies of organizational design and governance mechanisms for different innovation goals.
Details
Keywords
Julie Sommerlund and Sami Boutaiba
The paper aims to examine the notion of the boundaryless career, arguing that the notion is problematic, and that simultaneous co‐existence of different types of careers makes…
Abstract
Purpose
The paper aims to examine the notion of the boundaryless career, arguing that the notion is problematic, and that simultaneous co‐existence of different types of careers makes both “new” and “old” types of careers possible.
Design/methodology/approach
The approach is twofold: a theoretical argument, and a qualitative ethnographic study, involving observations and interviews.
Findings
The theoretical argument questions the underlying premise and promise of the notion of the boundaryless career, namely that modern careers amount to a higher level of personal freedom. This empirical study will serve to illustrate the co‐constitutive nature of different career stories.
Research limitations/implications
The research is qualitative and thereby limited in the following way: it serves to give a deep understanding of the phenomena at hand, but is not easily generalizable. However, the methodology can inspire scholars to explore the findings observed in this paper.
Practical implications
The idealization of the boundaryless career is problematic, as it poses problems to those concerned with the career. A more flexible ideal of careers would be preferable to researchers and organisational actors alike.
Originality/value
The paper gives a practical and empirical input to a debate that has been largely conceptual or generalized.