 Normalizing vs. analyzing: Drawing the lessons from failure to enhance firm innovativenessErwin Danneels and Alex Vestal Journal of Business Venturing, 2020, vol. 35, issue 1 Abstract: The popular business press and academic articles have promoted the virtues of failure, particularly in the pursuit of innovation. Surprisingly, there has been very little systematic empirical study to support this belief. This article distinguishes two organizational approaches to failure: normalizing it (tolerating failure as a necessary part of the innovation process) and analyzing it (purposeful attempts to convert failure experiences into knowledge). A longitudinal study of 106 U.S. manufacturing firms indeed finds that mere tolerance for failure has no effect on firm product innovativeness. In contrast, firms that make deliberate efforts to analyze past failures introduce more innovative new products. Further, this effect is contingent on a climate of constructive conflict within the firm. Hence, to foster firm innovativeness, organization members need to extract lessons from failure, and such analysis must take place in a climate of constructive conflict that enables open and honest discussion. Keywords: Tolerance for failure; Learning from failure; Constructive conflict; New product exploration; New product advantage (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jbvent:v:35:y:2020:i:1:s0883902618301071 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.001 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Business Venturing is currently edited by S. Venkataraman More articles in Journal of Business Venturing from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.