5.5. Novelty and innovation

What is innovation? How is innovation different from radical creativity? Can innovation be radically creative?

---

“What is radical creativity?” asked Oana Velcu-Laitinen, the writer of this chapter, from Andrzej Tarasiuk, a former Aalto master student in Creative Sustainability Master’s degree program and currently a Research Assistant at the Department of Design at Aalto University.

“A conscious awareness of pursuing creativity with the intent to disrupt”, replied Andrzej who pursues his creativity through making art and wrote his Master’s thesis on Mechanical Trees.

Indeed, one way to understand radical creativity is as a conscious choice of a challenge in society or a domain of specialization that might lead to innovations that break up the usual way of thinking and doing.

In this subchapter, we will discuss the meaning of innovation, including the types of innovations that have taken place in economies. We’ll end with a discussion on the differences between radical creativity and innovation.

What does innovation mean?

Innovation has its roots as far as the 15th century.

---

The term “innovation” in the sense we use it today – introducing something new or making changes to something established by the introduction of new elements or forms – is often attributed to the economist Joseph Schumpeter. He used the term extensively in his writings on economics during the early 20th century, particularly focusing on how innovation drives economic development and business cycles.

In fact, Joseph Schumpeter did not coin the term “innovation”. The word is derived from the Latin “innovatus”, which means “to renew” or “to change”. The word has been in use since the 15th century, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The earliest evidence for “innovation” in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1548, in Acts of Parliament. However, Joseph Schumpeter popularized the term in his book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”, describing the process by which new products and technologies replace old ones, a concept he termed “creative destruction.”

“The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates.” (Schumpeter, 2010, p. 73)

His work significantly influenced how we understand the role of innovation in economic growth and industrial transformation.

Three types of innovation: incremental, disruptive and radical

Incremental and disruptive

---

“Innovation” is a word that appears mostly in business management and leadership contexts. For example, the presence of “disruptive innovation” in business publications has increased fivefold between 2007 and 2014. (see Figure below).

 

Figure 5.5.1. Frequency of the term, ”disruptive innovation”. Source: Christensen et al., (2015)

Peter Drucker’s view on innovation is as follows:

“Innovation is the specific function of entrepreneurship, whether in an existing business, a public service institution, or a new venture started by a lone individual in the family kitchen. It is the means by which the entrepreneur either creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth.” (Drucker, 2002).

According to Peter Drucker, innovative business ideas come from analyzing seven areas of opportunity. Four areas of opportunity can be observed within a specific company or industry and can consist of unexpected events, incongruities, process needs and changes in the industry. Three areas of opportunity exist within the social and intellectual environment outside the specific company: demographic changes, changes in perception and new knowledge. Once you notice an opportunity, you’ll need to use your creative thinking and expertise to arrive at an innovative solution.

Different types of innovations unfold, which require different strategic responses from the organizations developing them and change in different ways people’s lives. Most of the time, businesses focus on improving their products and services for their most demanding and profitable customers (Takeuchi & Quelch, 1983). This is incremental innovation, which Clayton Christensen, the proponent of disruptive innovation theory, calls “sustaining innovations” (Christensen et al., 2015).

Incremental innovation makes quality products better in the eyes of existing customers. For instance, smartphone cameras involve continuous improvements in camera resolution, low-light performance, stabilization technologies, and features like portrait mode or high dynamic range (HDR) photography. Each new smartphone model typically offers slight enhancements over its predecessors, contributing to better image and video quality for consumers. These improvements enable firms to sell more products to their most profitable customers.

By contrast, small companies with fewer resources can successfully challenge companies established in the market, known as incumbent businesses, through disruptive innovation. The disruptors target overlooked segments, position themselves by delivering a novel offering, with usually a more suitable functionality and at a lower price, and then gradually move upmarket, eventually displacing established competitors.

Personal computers are a classic example of disruptive innovation. In the late 1970s, the computer industry was dominated by large, expensive mainframe computers that were accessible only to large businesses and universities. In the early 1980s, personal computers such as the Apple II and later the IBM PC were introduced (Montoya & Kita, 2017). These were significantly less powerful than the mainframes of the time but were also much more affordable and accessible to a broader range of people and smaller businesses.

Initially, these PCs didn’t directly compete with mainframes because they served a different market segment – individuals and small businesses who could not afford the large, expensive systems. However, over time, the capabilities of personal computers grew rapidly. As PCs became more powerful, they started fulfilling the needs of larger businesses and other organizations that had traditionally relied on mainframes.

This shift was disruptive because it completely changed the structure of the industry. PCs ultimately became the standard computing tool across most applications, effectively displacing the older, larger computers and dramatically altering the competitive landscape of the computing industry.

The introduction of personal computers in the market illustrates the essence of disruptive innovation: a simpler, cheaper solution that initially targets the lower end of the market but eventually evolves to displace established competitors. Lower-end market innovations are possible because incumbents are paying less attention to less-demanding customers. This opens the door to a disrupter initially focused on providing those low-end customers with a “good enough” product.

Moreover, not all disruptive innovations start from the lower end of the market. Some disruptors create a new market by finding a way to turn non-consumers into consumers. One prominent example of disruptive innovation that created a new market and significantly affected consumer lifestyles is the introduction of the smartphone, particularly exemplified by the Apple iPhone.

This innovation essentially created a new market segment; not just for a more sophisticated mobile phone but for a multi-functional device that could replace multiple standalone gadgets like the MP3 player, camera, GPS device, and even portable gaming systems. Thus, the introduction of the Apple iPhone in 2007 attracted several groups of non-consumers into consumers by offering features and capabilities that were previously unavailable or less accessible in traditional mobile phones. Here are two groups that were notably attracted:

• The youth. While younger people often had mobile phones, the iPhone’s integration of music, videos, games, and social media appealed directly to younger users, offering a single device that catered to both communication and entertainment needs, thus expanding its use among this group.
• Business professionals in need of greater functionality. Prior to the advent of the iPhone and subsequent smartphones, many business professionals carried multiple devices – for example, a cell phone, a PDA for managing contacts and appointments, and maybe even a Blackberry for emails.

To recap, the iPhone made mobile phone use more versatile by integrating advanced features like a touchscreen interface, a mobile browser, and an app ecosystem. In fact, what mostly contributed to the iPhone becoming a disruptive innovation was the facilitated network that connected the application developers with phone users. Thus, the iPhone created a new market for internet access for users who didn’t need to possess a laptop to go online.

To date, the impact of smartphones, in general, on consumer lifestyles is profound and multifaceted:

• Communication and human connection. Beyond calls and texts, smartphones enabled social media interaction, video calls, and instant messaging apps, changing how people connect with each other.
• Access to information. Smartphones provide instant access to vast amounts of information online, whether it’s news, educational content, or entertainment.
• Services at one’s fingertip. With apps for basically every need, from online banking to ordering food or booking travel, smartphones have made many everyday tasks more convenient.
• Ongoing entertainment. The smartphone has become a primary device for personal entertainment, used for watching videos, playing games, and streaming music. When was the latest when you watched your favorite series on your smartphone?

This shift to smartphones not only altered consumer behavior but also set a standard for what users expect from mobile technology.

The theory of disruptive innovation has been applied not only in computer technology but also in other industries around the world such as retail, printing, motorcycles, cars, semiconductors, cardiovascular surgery, management education, financial services, management consulting, cameras and communications. Although its principles are touted to have influenced the thinking of numerous entrepreneurs and executives, it doesn’t mean that applying the principles of disruptive innovation is a sure guarantee to succeed.

Christensen et al. (2015) acknowledge that when an innovative product is developed, the project owner should approach disruption theory with a grain of salt as guidance towards experimentation with new business models, before making a strategic choice between taking an incremental or disruptive path.

To sum up, the focus on the client is a key difference between incremental and disruptive innovation. Incremental innovations focus on the existing and most profitable customers. Disruptive innovations focus on neglected and possible customers. It takes time for innovations to disrupt traditional markets. And again, in decades, disruptive innovations become incremental innovations. Since 2007, babies in the Western world have been born in homes where smart phones are everyday objects.

Disruptive and radical

---

In the previous section, we discussed incremental innovation as quality improvements to existing offerings of large established organizations to their most profitable customers. By contrast, disruptive innovation is a process in which entrants challenge incumbent firms, often despite inferior resources. Researchers consider disruption as a combination of technology and business model innovation (Hopp et al., 2018).

In this section, we discuss radical innovations as products that stem from the creation of new knowledge and the commercialization of completely novel ideas.

To maintain their leading position and sustain competitive advantages, organizations need to also focus on developing radical innovations and new businesses. This strategy ensures that they can create and capture entirely new markets in the future. For this reason, organizations are increasingly prioritizing the development of cultures that encourage and support innovative behavior. This approach aims to make employees so accustomed to change and innovation that they are not just participants but active creators of it (Nordström, M., 2017). Research on radical innovation therefore focuses on the types of organizational behavior, capabilities and structures that enable and predict the commercialization of breakthrough ideas.

Whereas incremental innovation – e.g. enhanced camera resolution – helps firms to stay competitive in the short-term, radical innovation focuses on long-term impact and may involve displacing current products, altering the relationship between customers and suppliers, and creating completely new product categories. According to Hopp et al.’s (2018) systematic review of 40 years of innovation research, radical innovations are related to topics such as organizational culture and capabilities, social and human capital, and project management. They completely transform the way firms engage with the marketplace, and they require completely new technical skills and organizational competencies by firms pursuing this path.

As a result, the literature on radical innovation is focused on people. Imagination and the ability to envision the future of technology are important to the generation of the novel ideas required for radical innovation. Therefore, hiring more capable and creative employees increases the likelihood of an organizational culture of proactivity to change. Of course, it may not ensure against disruption when the innovation experts misunderstand customers’ needs.

For instance, if iPhone is considered the disruptive innovation of 2007, iPad would be the radical innovation of 2010 (Dimitrov, 2014). Through iPad, Apple created a new product, between smartphones and laptops, popularizing tablet computing and impacting personal computing habits, media consumption, and business applications.

In other words, companies that are interested in radical innovation focus on having the right people to generate breakthrough ideas, complementary to the core business. Radical innovation is perceived as a protection against entrant’s disruptive innovations. For small companies that engage in disruptive innovation, the key to growth is in foreseeing customer needs and offering a product based on new technology and innovative business models.

---

Summing it all up, disruptive and radical innovation are two distinct concepts in the innovation literature and business contexts (see Figure below).

Figure 5.5.2. Narratives of disruptive innovations versus narratives of radical innovations.

Although both disruptive and radical innovation significantly change existing markets or create entirely new ones, the difference consists of who initiates the change. What is the company that creates the innovative product with all the ripple effects in the market?

Disruptive innovation reflects the actions of an unexpected and small player in a specific market. Radical innovation stems from the actions of large organizations that manage to reinvent themselves by creating a new market. From the consumer perspective, the effects of disruptive and radical innovations are experienced in similar ways – as new technologies that necessitate new behaviors.

These types of innovations – incremental, disruptive, and radical – originate from creative minds who identify a consumer need or problem at the intersection of technology and business. In addition, we can have innovations in varied areas of society, like science, technology, engineering, etc. Therefore, one way to start innovating in the area where you have mastery and a sense of meaning is by taking the consumer or end-user perspective. Who are the people who would benefit from your innovative ideas?

Who are the people whose lives you want to make better?

• Pupils in a school.
• Students at a university.
• Co-workers in the existing job.
• Children of the next generation.
• Who else?

What is the non-human species whose lives you want to improve?

May the innovation experiment begin!

How does radical creativity differ from radical innovation?

Next, let’s consider the differences between radical creativity and innovation as a type of thinking, as a process, and as an outcome.

---

As we saw in the previous section, innovation is a complex concept that interests innovation researchers and practitioners alike to understand how to create value for the customers and have a profitable business. In real life, innovative products and processes exist and are constantly developed in varied societal areas, such as business, humanities, education, health, technology, and science. The existing quality of life in a particular society is the outcome of innovations.

So, when we define radical innovation as a new and useful product or process that transforms a company, industry or society, then the two concepts of radical creativity and innovation are similar. Yet, they are distinct concepts, to date having been developed within different disciplines, psychology and economics, with different assumptions, principles and goals, as described by Andrea Botero Cabrera, Associate Professor at the Department of Design in Aalto.

“In your opinion, what is similar and what is different between these two concepts, radical creativity and innovation?”, Oana, the writer of this subchapter, asked Andrea in an interview. Here is Andrea’s reply:

“From a very pragmatic entry point, I would say that the two concepts are very related, but they come with a different knowledge and a different history. In my mind, my understanding of creativity is something that’s rooted probably more in disciplines of psychology and human cognition that try to understand, you know, how humans make sense of the world and create stuff. But, of course, that’s also changing. I understand that nobody in psychology would ever now say that creativity is something that one has, but it’s more kind of a relational quality. So, I place creativity in that box.

Then, innovation comes from another discipline, more interested in how humans make sense of the world and make stuff through a process that involves inventions and technology. Because of the background of this discipline, they are not interested in inner lives and sensibilities and emotions, but more in how things work.

Innovation has its creativity and creativity can work without innovation. They’re just concepts that illuminate different aspects.”

Indeed, creativity researchers investigate the phenomenon of radical creativity not only as a groundbreaking result but also as the personal, social and environmental factors that enable individuals and teams to pursue high-risk ideas with the potential to have a transformative effect (Madjar et al., 2011, Tang and Naumann, 2016, Malik, et al., 2019, Zhang et al., 2022). In this course, for instance, we covered aspects such as inner motivation (subchapter 2.2), creative identity (subchapter 2.4), collective creativity and leading for creativity (subchapter 4.5).

Also, throughout the course, we repeatedly distinguished radical creativity from incremental creativity, which involves more modest and gradual improvements within the existing framework of knowledge or technology. Radical creativity stands out through the highest degree of novelty and paradigm-changing of the generated ideas and outcomes.

As serendipity plays a crucial role in the development of a highly unusual idea, you cannot plan for the respective idea to result in a radically creative outcome. Yet, you can decide to engage in a project that you anticipate that might have a transformative impact in your area of specialization and beyond. We thus believe that radical creativity can be experienced through the sense of risk-taking for key stakeholders at crucial phases of the respective project, as follows:

• The individual experience – when the creative person decides to engage in learning, exploration and experimentation of an idea that involves a high level of uncertainty and risk and lack of understanding from others.
• The team experience – when the team of radical creatives decides to allocate time and resources to implement an idea that involves a high level of uncertainty and risk and lack of support from other stakeholders.
• The gatekeepers experience – when the experts in the field of specialization accept a radically creative outcome as a paradigm change, being aware that other experts may not see it in the same way.
• The individual consumer experience – when the first adopters of a radically creative outcome change their lives in accordance, while people in their close network are raising their eyebrows.

But how is radical creativity different from radical innovation?

Although radical creativity and innovation can be used interchangeably, referring to a transformative impact, they are, otherwise, concepts that differ in their focus and the contexts they are used. Whether we define them as a type of thinking, a process or an outcome, here’s how they differ:

 

As a type of thinking

• Radically creative thinking originates from the creative brain. It manifests through the observation of ideas that are fundamentally new and different from existing paradigms and that others may ignore or not notice. Also, it is the thinking that enables some creative individuals to look at a particular challenge or problem from a groundbreaking perspective.

“What would radical creativity be?” reflects Andrea Botero Cabrera in the interview with Oana Velcu-Laitinen. “I think that it would be a creativity that’s rooted and challenging at the same time.”

For instance, in the field of co-design research, Andrea is interested not so much in “what do we need to create?” but “what do we need to unmake to make this world?”.

This bold thinking is an example of radically creative thinking in co-design. In sum, radically creative thinking is the collaboration of the creative brain and mind of individuals with a deep curiosity to experiment, drive change and innovate.

• Innovative thinking is underlined by mechanisms of creative thinking, with its subcomponents of creative imagination, inspiration and intuition. Yet, it is more concerned with the practical application of a creative idea to result in value creation for an individual, company or business eco-system or in society. Innovative thinking can also be incremental and radical. In both cases, innovative thinking is reflected in work behaviors and knowledge.

This is how Mari Lundström, the Vice Dean for Research and Innovation at the School of Chemical Engineering, describes the pool of competencies in the respective school:

“The current competences at the School of Chemical Engineering allow us to proactively address several topical challenges in hydrogen economy, power-to-X, batteries, CO2 capture, bioeconomy, textile and metals recycling, just to mention a few. High quality research that we have, combined with realistic innovations will enable us to fully realize the potential of our school”.

Mari herself is an innovative researcher, contributing to a newly founded company that is based at Aalto University and focuses on innovative electrochemical metals recovery.

So, innovative thinking is a subset of radically creative thinking, focused on creating value at a process, organizational or consumer level.

 

As a process – risk and validation

• Radical creativity as a process. When an individual or a group get an intuition that an experiment can be done, they will engage in creative behaviors that are different from anything they had done before. They will thus sense higher levels of risk, anxiety and discomfort as their behaviors challenge not only others existing norms of social interaction but also their own comfort zone.

In addition to acknowledging the need to do things differently during the implementation of a radically creative idea, there are two other foci: having shared beliefs and understandings of key concepts among those involved in creative collaboration and accumulating validation and support from key stakeholders.

ICEYE is the company that developed SAR satellites which provide a new way of collecting data around the globe, at every hour and throughout any kind of weather. Its creation shows how a start-up can be born from a radically creative process. The ICEYE team developed from the Aalto-1 university nanosatellite group, which was formed in a joint course by Aalto Business School and Stanford University’s Technology Ventures program in Spring 2012. The team evolved from a group of students led by their professor into specialists in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology. Their approach was hands-on, learning through doing, without relying on a structured innovation process.

To conclude, radical creativity as a process is an ongoing interaction and negotiation of meanings between the creative individuals developing groundbreaking ideas and the institutional cultures and larger communities where they activate.

• Innovation as a process. While also risky, the individual and collective efforts in innovation projects are often more managed and mitigated, especially in an organization where there are established structures, leadership and culture for innovation. Innovation processes are experimentations with a product prototype or a new business model and often follow from noticing opportunities in societal or user needs or market gaps.

In innovation environments, leaders usually set a direction by identifying the challenges that need innovative solutions, as we can see from Mari Lundström’s testimony:

“Climate crisis goes hand in hand with ‘molecular crisis’, as e.g. energy transition is increasingly raw material intensive. This highlights the increased importance of research in energy materials and storing, but furthermore the need for increased understanding on raw material dependency, their production, limitations, and recyclability”.

To sum up, the difference between radical creativity and innovation as a process consists in the fact that in the latter case, there are established processes, structures and leadership for experimentation, change and innovation. Individuals and teams involved in radical creativity do not have innovation roles officially recognized in the larger organization.

 

As an outcome

• Radical creativity as an outcome reinvents existing organizational cultures, systems, theories, or practices. The outcome can vary from engineering, social, technological, scientific and business innovation to change in social norms and lifestyles.

For instance, an outcome of radical creativity is the research project Open Forest, developed by Andrea Botero Cabrera and three colleague researchers at Aalto University. Open Forest is an experimental project that looks at forests in new ways, focusing not just on the trees but on the entire ecosystem and how different creatures interact with it. The goal is to challenge traditional views that see forests merely as resources to be used. Instead, it explores creative, respectful ways to engage with them.

The activities include experimental walks in the forest, interactive art installations, group discussions, and other immersive experiences. People are encouraged to visit different forest areas around the world and share their personal stories about these visits. The goal is to gain a deeper understanding of how different stakeholders view and use forest information, to rethink what forest data could include, how it can be collected, and who should be involved in the process.

The outcome of radically creative ideas and projects that inspire change in thinking and values in society facilitate further creativity, exploration and innovation from other society members.

• Innovation as an outcome is about a valuable and useful impact through the creation of a tangible new product, new business model, new work process, etc. The success of an innovation is measured in Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) reflecting its ability to solve practical problems related to market needs (Osterwalder & Euchner, 2019; Osterwalder, 2018).

Innovations and radical creativity are closely linked. Innovations need creativity; radical innovations need radical creativity. Yet, radical creativity is a concept coming from psychology, referring to new thinking, processes, outcomes that can happen in all areas, fields and disciplines. It may or may not involve commercial activities – think of the ICEYE company versus the Open Forest project.

Radical creativity is more about changing perspective in how you think for knowledge breakthroughs and fundamental changes. Innovation is rather focused on practical application and the successful implementation of new ideas, with the goal of creating new value.

To conclude, in this subchapter, we looked at what innovation is and what are the similarities and differences between radical creativity and innovation. We covered the following key ideas:

• To innovate is a word derived from Latin, “innovatus”, and means “to renew” or “to change”.
• Joseph Schumpeter, a key figure in the study of economics in the 20^th century, introduced this idea of innovation in the field of economics under the term “creative destruction”, which was described as the creation of new consumers goods, new methods of production, new markets, and new structures in the industrial organization.
• In 1997, Clayton Christensen, economist, professor and author, proposed the theory of disruptive innovation, as the type of innovation that causes shifts in an existing industry through the creation of new markets or new consumer needs. In addition, the innovation discipline recognizes two other types of innovation: incremental and radical. Incremental innovation is about improving the quality of an existing product for short-term profits. Radical innovations are about an organization’s capabilities to reinvent its organizational culture and structures so that the employees can have space for innovative behaviors and projects that would protect the company from disruptors in the long run.
• Radical creativity and innovation are concepts from different fields: psychology and economics, respectively. While they both deal with new and transformative impacts, radical creativity is mainly about creating new knowledge and shifts in societal values to create a better future. Innovation, as discussed in business studies, is more focused on getting right the implementation of new business ideas and creating value.

Put on the innovator’s hat

---

Let’s pretend that you are an individual with aspirations to innovate in your domain of expertise. Let’s draw the map of an experimental business model, shall we? A business model provides the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers and captures economic value (see figure below).

These are the six building blocks of your experimental business model:

1. Customers. Who are the individuals whose needs you would love to serve?
2. Value proposition. What is the offering that you are planning to provide to your customers?
3. Channels. How are you going to cater to your customers?
   • Communication: _____________ .
   • Sales: _______________ .
   • Transport: _______________ .
4. Key resources. What are the assets that are you going to use to deliver your promise to your customers?
5. Key activities. What are the activities that you will perform so that you can keep your promise to your customers?
6. Key partnerships. Who are the individuals and organizations who are going to provide you the necessary input so you can perform your key activities?

References

Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston MA: Harvard Business School.

Christensen, CM., Raynor, M.E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is Disruptive Innovation?. Harvard Business Review. Article published online: What Is Disruptive Innovation? (hbr.org).

Dimitrov, D. (2014). Text-based indicators for architectural inventions derived from patent documents: the case of Apple’s iPad (Master’s thesis, University of Twente).

Hopp, C., Anthons, D., Kaminski, J. and Salge, T.O. (2018). What 40 Years of Research Reveal About the Differences between Disruptive and Radical Innovation. Harvard Business Review. Article published online: What 40 Years of Research Reveals About the Difference Between Disruptive and Radical Innovation (hbr.org).

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022416

Malik, M. A. R., Choi, J. N., & Butt, A. N. (2019). Distinct effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards on radical and incremental creativity: The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9-10), 1013-1026.

Montoya, J. S., & Kita, T. (2017, June). Towards an improved theory of disruptive innovation: Evidence from the personal and mobile computing industries. In The Asian conference on the social sciences 2017: Official conference proceedings (pp. 125-144).

Nordström, M. (2017). From incremental to radical innovation and corporate entrepreneurship.

https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/29332

Osterwalder, A. (2018). The Four KPIs to Track in Innovation Accounting, online article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/4-kpis-track-innovation-accounting-alexander-osterwalder/.

Osterwalder, A., & Euchner, J. (2019). Business model innovation: An interview with Alex Osterwalder. Research-Technology Management, 62(4), 12-18.

Schumpeter, J.A. (2010). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Taylor & Francis Group.

Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2016). The impact of three kinds of identity on research and development employees’ incremental and radical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 123-131.

Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Gu, J., & Tse, H. H. (2022). Employee radical creativity: the roles of supervisor autonomy support and employee intrinsic work goal orientation. Innovation, 24(2), 272-289.