ArticlePDF Available

From Creativity to Innovation: The Social Network Drivers of the Four Phases of the Idea Journey

January 2017
Academy of Management Review 42(1):53-79

DOI:10.5465/amr.2014.0462

Authors:

Università commerciale Luigi Bocconi

Interest has burgeoned, in recent years, in how social networks influence individual creativity and innovation. From both the theoretical and empirical points of view, this increased attention has generated many inconsistencies. In this article we propose that a conceptualization of the idea journey encompassing phases that the literature has so far overlooked can help solve existing tensions. We conceptualize four phases of the journey of an idea, from conception to completion: idea generation, idea elaboration, idea championing, and idea implementation. We propose that a creator has distinct primary needs in each phase: cognitive flexibility, support, influence, and shared vision, respectively. Individual creators successfully move through a phase when the relational and structural elements of their networks match the distinct needs of the phase. The relational and structural elements that are beneficial for one phase, however, are detrimental for another. We propose that in order to solve this seeming contradiction and the associated paradoxes, individual creators have to change interpretations and frames throughout the different phases. This, in turn, allows them to activate different network characteristics at the appropriate moment and successfully complete the idea journey from novel concept to a tangible outcome that changes the field.

The Idea Journey Phases and Needs

…

The Idea Journey in Different Settings

…

The Idea Journey a

…

Figures - uploaded by Pier Vittorio Mannucci

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Pier Vittorio Mannucci

Content may be subject to copyright.

QAcademy of Management Review

2017, Vol. 42, No. 1, 53–79.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462

FROM CREATIVITY TO INNOVATION: THE SOCIAL NETWORK

DRIVERS OF THE FOUR PHASES OF THE IDEA JOURNEY

JILL E. PERRY-SMITH

Emory University

PIER VITTORIO MANNUCCI

London Business School

Interest has burgeoned, in recent years, in how social networks influence individual

creativity and innovation. From both the theoretical and empirical points of view, this

increased attention has generated many inconsistencies. In this article we propose that

a conceptualization of the idea journey encompassing phases that the literature has so

far overlooked can help solve existing tensions. We conceptualize four phases of the

journey of an idea, from conception to completion: idea generation, idea elaboration,

idea championing, and idea implementation. We propose that a creator has distinct

primary needs in each phase: cognitive flexibility, support, influence, and shared vision,

respectively. Individual creators successfully move through a phase when the relational

and structural elements of their networks match the distinct needs of the phase. The

relational and structural elements that are beneficial for one phase, however, are det-

rimental for another. We propose that in order to solve this seeming contradiction and

the associated paradoxes, individual creators have to change interpretations and

frames throughout the different phases. This, in turn, allows them to activate different

network characteristics at the appropriate moment and successfully complete the idea

journey from novel concept to a tangible outcome that changes the field.

Although creativity was initially conceived of as

a function of innate personality traits (e.g., Barron

& Harrington, 1981; McCrae, 1987), the notion that

creativity is a social process has increasingly

gained prominence. In contrast to the lone ge-

nius view, theorists suggest that interactions

with others influence various aspects of the crea-

tive process (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Simonton, 1984;

Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). This perspec-

tive is consistent with accounts from notable and

historic creative organizations. For example, ac-

counts of Bell Labs describe how the culture and

physical space influenced collaboration and in-

teraction with other scientists (Gertner, 2012). In the

realm of innovation, creativity’s close cousin, re-

searchers have extensively used a social view

of innovative behavior and a social network ap-

proach (e.g., Burt, 1980; Ebadi & Utterback, 1984;

Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Obstfeld, 2005; Tsai,

2001). At the same time, social networks have

been increasingly used as a lens through which to

understand the effect of social context on creativity

(e.g., Brass, 1995; Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007;

Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Sosa, 2011). These

trends have resulted in a merging of macro ap-

proaches to innovation with micro approaches to

creativity.

Greater attention and more research, however,

have revealed inconsistencies. In many cases the

discrepant logic and results may appear less

significant within a single research domain but

become evident as different research streams are

melded. For example, it is widely accepted within

the network literature that structural holes facili-

tate access to novel information and creativity

(Phelps, Heidl, & Wadhwa, 2012); however, em-

pirical support linking structural holes and crea-

tivity is equivocal. Burt (2004) found a positive

association between structural holes and “good

ideas,”but others (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006; Zhou,

Shin, Brass, Choi, & Zhang, 2009) have found no

association between measures of structural non-

redundancy and creativity. As another example

within the network literature, closure and trust

are widely thought to facilitate cooperation and

knowledge transfer (Morgan & Sørensen, 1999;

We extend our gratitude to associate editor Sherry Thatcher

and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback

throughout the review process. We thank Kevyn Yong for his

insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We

also appreciate the feedback we received from organizers and

participants of the symposium “Networks and Innovation: The

Multilevel Journey”at the 2014 Academy of Management an-

nual meeting.

holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Morrison, 2002; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Ac-

cordingly, some studies suggest that bringing

people together is critical for innovative activities

(Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Lingo & O’Mahony,

2010; Obstfeld, 2005). Yet, at the same time, these

structures have been described as promoting

conformity (Fleming et al., 2007; Uzzi & Spiro,

2005)—the antithesis of creativity (Goncalo &

Duguid, 2012; Woodman et al., 1993). Finally, the

findings are discrepant related to strong versus

weak ties. Are strong ties—rich with trust and

support—best for creativity (e.g., Chua, Morris, &

Mor, 2012; Sosa, 2011), consistent with creativity

theorists’emphasis on positive affect and support

(e.g., Isen, Johnson, Metz, & Robinson, 1985; Isen &

Patrick, 1983; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002)? Or

are weak ties—rich with breadth and reach—best

(e.g., Baer, 2010; Perry-Smith, 2006; Zhou et al.,

2009), consistent with network theorists’emphasis

on different information and recombination (e.g.,

Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973)?

One important tenet of this body of research has

been implicit assumptions about the phases of the

idea journey—that is, the path followed by a novel

idea from its conception to its successful dis-

semination. Creativity scholars have primarily

underlined the importance of generation, or com-

ing up with a novel and useful idea (e.g., Amabile,

1983). In contrast, innovation scholars have

stressed the importance of the implementation of

the idea and its effects on the field (e.g., Frost &

Egri, 1991; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Maidique, 1980).

In both the creativity literature and innovation

literature, however, scholars have independently

come to recognize that between the start (the

generation of an idea) and the end of the journey

(its implementation), there also are intermediary

phases. Creativity scholars have highlighted that

after an idea is generated, it requires further de-

velopment and validation checks (Campbell, 1960;

Ford, 1996; Harvey, 2014; Staw, 1990). Moreover,

innovation scholars have elucidated the impor-

tance of championing activities prior to the suc-

cessful implementation of an idea (e.g., Frost &

Egri, 1991; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Maidique, 1980).

Despite the importance of these phases for the

idea journey, research taking a social and rela-

tional approach primarily has emphasized either

idea generation or implementation, neglecting

key intermediate phases (i.e., elaboration and

championing), or it has confounded the two by

not clearly specifying either. Some social net-

work researchers have begun to emphasize single

phases other than generation or implementation

(e.g., Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010), whereas other

researchers have considered multiple phases

simultaneously (e.g., Fleming et al., 2007). How-

ever, even these studies do not explain or clarify

where each phase is situated within the broader

idea journey.

An explicit distinction among phases and a

conceptual framework for considering the entire

idea journey are warranted to help resolve in-

consistencies in the literature and to integrate and

reconcile prior research. Their absence makes

it difficult to understand how and when a novel

idea either successfully moves through the en-

tire journey, ultimately changing the field, or gets

“stuck”in any one phase or loop between phases,

therefore potentially being abandoned prema-

turely. For example, some creators might come

up with groundbreaking ideas but never voice

them because of a fear of being seen as different

(Zhou & George, 2001). They either abandon

a promising idea before presenting it to the rele-

vant gatekeepers or strip theidea of its potentially

groundbreaking novelty. Others may get stuck in

championing; they may be geniuses at generation

and elaboration but find themselves unable to

effectively get support from others (e.g., Elsbach &

Kramer, 2003). Thus, without explicitly considering

the journey in its entirety, it is difficult to un-

derstand the social factors that drive success in

each phase and, ultimately, how creators can

succeed through all stages of the idea journey.

In this article we conceptualize four phases of

the journey: generation, elaboration, champion-

ing, and implementation. We articulate the dis-

tinct primary needs of each phase, and by doing

so we reconcile contradictory research about the

role of relationships and social networks in the

complete idea journey process, from creativity to

innovation. While it provides clarity on the social

network drivers, however, our theorizing also re-

veals a series of tensions: the network character-

istics that facilitate one phase undermine the

next. These seeming contradictions suggest a

number of paradoxes that ultimately highlight

why successful movement through all phases

may be a rare and difficult occurrence. Integrating

emerging network activation research (e.g.,

Bridwell-Mitchell & Lant, 2013; Mariotti &

Delbridge, 2012; Smith, Menon, & Thompson,

2012) with sensemaking literature (e.g., Gioia &

Thomas, 1996), we posit that these looming par-

adoxes can be resolved when creators change

54 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

interpretations and frames and subsequently call

to mind different networks. This activation fluidity,

although difficult in some cases, exposes them to

the need-facilitating network characteristic at the

right moment.

THE IDEA JOURNEY PHASES AND

RESPECTIVE NEEDS

To clarify the network drivers, we first concep-

tualize each phase in the idea journey process.

Integrating literature across a variety of research

domains, we define each phase and articulate the

primary needs associated with each. For sim-

plicity, we assume the creator remains the pri-

mary driver and developer of his or her creative

idea throughout the idea journey.

We conceive of

needs as the primary socially derived ingredients

that facilitate success in each phase. In contrast to

the flow perspective (Borgatti & Halgin, 2011;

Podolny, 2001), our concept of needs emphasizes

the less tangible yet more proximate inputs.

These needs may not flow directly from social ties

yet can be affected by them. For example, Burt

(1998) highlighted the importance of emotional

and cognitive resources that come from “living

among”particular types of ties, rather than more

tangible resources, such as information, that one

may directly receive from a tie. Importantly,

although our emphasis on needs differs from an

emphasis on tangible resources accessible through

ties, our approach is complementary. Needs are the

by-product of resources that are accessed via re-

lationships. See Table 1 for a summary of each

phase and need.

To illustrate each phase, we use the running

example of a screenwriter, thus focusing on a

specific setting. Nevertheless, we believe these

phases generalize to a variety of contexts. See

Table 2 for examples of each phase in other

contexts.

Idea Generation: Need for Cognitive Flexibility

We define the idea generation phase as the

process of generating a novel and useful idea.

Through an associative variation process, crea-

tors generate many different ideas and then

self-select one (Campbell, 1960; Mednick, 1962;

Simonton, 2003). This phase concludes when the

creator selects a single, novel idea that he or she

deems more promising, useful, or valuable than

others (Amabile, 1983; Woodman et al., 1993). This

differs from brainstorming, in which the goal is to

generate a high number of novel ideas that may

or may not be useful (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993;

Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). Importantly, the se-

lected idea is merely a vague idea or core concept

to be elaborated upon in future phases. We as-

sume generation initiates within the creator’s

mind (Campbell, 1960) yet is indirectly influenced

by the social context (Cronin & Weingart, 2007;

Mueller & Kamdar, 2011).

As an illustration, consider the case of a

screenwriter. Screenwriters’ideas for new movies

can be inspired by different elements, such as

a book, a real-life event, or an anecdote. For ex-

ample, Wes Anderson, the famous screenwriter

and director, got the initial inspiration for the

story of The Royal Tenenbaums by the chance

purchase of a CD of Maurice Ravel’smusic.

WhilehewaslisteningtoRavel’s“String Quartet

inFMajor,”he started thinking about “an F. Scott

Fitzgerald-type New York story. I pictured it be-

ing set in the 1960s, though. It was probably a bit

like Good Night and Good Luck, something like

that!”(Seitz, 2013: 28). This anecdote underlines

the randomness and unpredictability of the

idea generation process, which is largely uncon-

scious and often serendipitous (Campbell, 1960;

Mednick, 1962; Zhong, Dijksterhuis, & Galinsky,

2008) and can be affected by a variety of environ-

mental stimuli.

While complex, nonredundant knowledge is

generally thought to facilitate the generation of

new ideas (Granovetter, 1973; Taylor & Greve,

2006), creativity theorists suggest that it is not the

accumulation of new knowledge that matters

but, rather, its effect on cognitive structures in

the mind (Amabile, 1983; Dane, 2010). For exam-

ple, additional knowledge may elicit more rigid

In some cases the originator of an idea may be plural, and

attributing the generation of an idea to any one creator might

be difficult (e.g., Harrison & Rouse, 2015). However, some

scholars have argued that the origin of any creative act resides

first within the creator’s mind (Campbell, 1960). While the idea

can later be developed and extended by the collective, in the

words of Nobel Laureate John Steinbeck, “The group never in-

vents anything”(1952: 130). For example, in their study of cre-

ative collectives, Hargadon and Bechky (2006) showed that the

idea for the Reebok Pump originated from a single inventor

and was subsequently elaborated by the collective. Never-

theless, we conceptualize the “creator”as the entity originat-

ing the idea. This may be a single creator, which we reference

for simplicity, but may also be multiple creators, in which case

multiple creators can be considered the focal entity, with

“contacts”being all persons outside of this entity.

2017 55Perry-Smith and Mannucci

cognitive pathways, making it less likely in-

dividuals will connect previously disconnected

elements (Amabile, 1996; Mumford & Gustafson,

1988). These rigid pathways limit the extent to

which one is ready to accept and integrate new

knowledge (Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Mueller &

Kamdar, 2011). At this stage, therefore, the fun-

damental requisite is cognitive flexibility—the

ability to shift schemas and cognitive categories

(Amabile, 1983; Guilford, 1968; Mednick, 1962).

This flexibility involves a flat associative hier-

archy, which enables remote and uncommon as-

sociations between conceptually distant ideas

(De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008; Mednick, 1962;

Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Simonton, 1999, 2003).

With this cognitive structure and organization of

content in the mind, the creator has the capacity to

integrate content from the social environment to

generate novel ideas that depart from existing

practices within the field.

Idea Elaboration: Need for Support

We define the elaboration phase as the process

of systematically evaluating a novel idea’s poten-

tial and further clarifying and developing the idea.

Creativity theorists have recognized the impor-

tance of elaboration for the creative process both

explicitly (Ford, 1996; Mainemelis, 2010; Staw, 1990)

and implicitly (Amabile, 1983, 1988; Torrance, 1988).

TABLE 1

The Idea Journey Phases and Needs

Phase Description Need Example

Outcome

Idea generation The process of generating

different creative ideas

and selecting the most

promising one

Cognitive flexibility The screenwriter

generates different

ideas for new movies,

selecting the one he or

she judges to have the

highest creative

potential.

Core concept of the idea

(e.g., idea for a movie)

Idea elaboration The process of

systematically

evaluating the novel

idea’s potential and

further clarifying and

developing it

Support The screenwriter starts

working on the idea to

develop a more

detailed summary of

the movie,

a“treatment,”or a first

draft that can be

presented to potential

producers during

a pitch meeting.

More detailed description

of the idea (e.g.,

treatment, first draft)

Idea championing The active promotion of

the novel idea, aimed at

obtaining the green

light for pushing it

forward and,

consequently, the

resources in terms of

money, talent, and

political cover to

implement it

Influence and

legitimacy

The screenwriter tries to

sell the idea for the

movie to studio

executives. He or she

must convince

producers of the novelty

and potential of the

idea. This may happen

during a so-called pitch

meeting.

Greenlight to develop and

produce the idea (e.g.,

approved final script)

Idea implementation The process of converting

the idea into a tangible

outcome that can

subsequently be

diffused and adopted

Shared vision and

understanding

The screenwriter finalizes

the script. The

production and creative

crew work to realize the

movie. Once the movie

is finished, its success

is evaluated by the

extent to which it is

recognized as creative

by peers and critics.

Detailed blueprint or

finished product (e.g.,

movie)

See Table 2 for examples from other industries.

56 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

After a core idea has been generated, creators

refine it by checking for inconsistencies and

making improvements (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997;

Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Mainemelis, 2010). Im-

portantly, given that a creative idea is unique and

potentially discomfiting, the creator must balance

some uncertainty and risk with traditional as-

sessments of potential; the creator may anticipate

initial resistance to the idea’s merits and may

even pursue elaboration without authorization

(Criscuolo, Salter, & Ter Wal, 2013; Mainemelis,

2010; Staw, 1990).

During this phase, the creator clarifies the initial

idea and makes it ready to share with gatekeepers.

Ideally, the idea moves from a vague concept in the

creator’s mind to a more developed form that is

sharable with others, unless the creator abandons

the idea, at which point the idea journey ceases.

The elaboration phase is a success if the creator

decides to present the idea, which has retained its

novelty, to a wider audience. Consider again the

case of a screenwriter. Once the screenwriter has

generated and selected an idea, he or she will start

to develop a synopsis—a short summary of major

TABLE 2

The Idea Journey in Different Settings

Setting Generation Elaboration Championing Implementation

Academic publishing Core idea for the paper,

including research

question

Development of

extended abstract or

first draft

Submission of the

paper to a journal/

conference

Writing the full paper;

iterating from first

draft to final paper

Receiving the decision

letter and drafting

response to editor

and reviewers

Advertising

Core idea for the ad, prior

to or during

brainstorming session

Development of the

concept of the ad:

key message, look

and feel,

catchphrase, etc.

Presentation of the

elaborated concept

to the client during

a competition

Realization of the

advertising

campaign across

different media:

detailed images for

posters and

magazine ads, fully

produced video ad,

specific images and

viral videos for

online media, etc.

Industrial patenting Core idea for a new

product or process that

can be protected by

a patent

Researching existing

patents

Submission of

application to the

national patents

office

Realization and

industrial

production of the

product/process

protected by the

patent

Lab tests and

prototyping to test

the viability and

feasibility of the

idea

Broadway musicals Core idea for the plot,

music, and lyrics of the

musical

Development of

detailed plot and of

sample music

Selling the musical to

a theater and/or

a producer

Finalization of plot,

music, and lyrics

Realization of the

musical, including

final production,

involving others

(director, prop

designers, actors,

etc.)

While in advertising the origins of an idea may seem to reside with a collective rather than any one individual, we assume the

idea’s origins can often be traced to an individual creator. For example, a creator comesup with an idea and then decides to present

it to others during a brainstorming session. If the idea is selected by the team, the individual becomes the primary driver of the idea

(e.g., creative director) throughout the remainder of the process. In this way the individual creator goes through a “mini”idea

journey in that he or she briefly elaborates on the idea before disclosing it to other brainstorming participants (i.e., elaboration) and

then has to persuade the team of the soundness of the idea so that it is selected for presentation to the client (i.e., championing).

2017 57Perry-Smith and Mannucci

plot points—and/or a treatment—a more detailed

summary of each major scene of a proposed movie.

The screenwriter will elaborate on this until it is

ready to be presented to potential producers dur-

ing pitch meetings.

During the elaboration phase, creators need

support, in two forms, from others. They need

emotional support in order to reduce uncertainty

and to be motivated to push the idea further and

not abandon it (Madjar et al., 2002). Intrinsic mo-

tivation “flourishes in contexts characterized

by a sense of security and relatedness”(Ryan &

Deci,2000: 73), as with those providing emotional

support. Given the uncertainty associated with

novel ideas, people voicing them assume some

risk of potentially negative feedback from those

individuals they share them with (Detert &

Edmonson, 2011; Zhou, 1998, 2003; Zhou & George,

2001). Because of this, creators could decide to

abandon ideas that are very novel if they do not

receive encouragement in the form of emotional

support. This is particularly critical because many

creative projects initially look like bad ideas, only

to reveal their full potential after elaboration

(Catmull & Wallace, 2014; Harvey, 2014).

Creators also need constructive feedback and

suggestions to help them identify ways to im-

prove and expand their ideas (Harrison & Rouse,

2015). To have a positive effect on creativity, feed-

back has to be delivered in an informational way.

Creators who receive feedback that helps them

develop and grow are more likely to perceive it as

constructive and supportive (Zhou, 1998), increas-

ing their intrinsic motivation toward tasks and

their sense of self-determination (Pittman, Davey,

Alafat, Wetherill, & Kramer, 1980; Ryan, 1982). In

contrast, controlling feedback, more critical and

evaluative in nature, can undermine intrinsic

motivation and creativity (Shalley & Perry-Smith,

2001). For example, Chris Bangle, BMW director

of design, stresses the importance of creating

a“fortress”around designers so as to shield them

from “hurtful criticism”prematurely (2001: 7–8).

According to Ed Catmull, CEO of Pixar Animation

Studios, a brand new idea is often an “ugly baby.”

As such, it needs to be evaluated with candor and

honesty, but harsh criticism too early can prevent

the creator from trying to fix and ameliorate

problems or, even worse, from generating future

ideas. Thus, while creators need feedback to help

refine their ideas and solve challenges, it is criti-

cal that the feedback not undermine the ideas’

novelty or result in premature abandonment.

Idea Championing: Need for Social Influence

and Legitimacy

The championing phase is the active promotion

of a novel idea, aimed at obtaining approval to

push the idea forward and, consequently, also

obtaining money, talent, time, or political cover

(Howell & Higgins, 1990; Kanter, 1983, 1988;

Maidique, 1980; Staw, 1990). At this point the

creator begins putting the idea in front of the

field’s“gatekeepers,”articulating a compelling

argument in its favor and underlining the positive

impact it would have on the organization or field

(Howell & Higgins, 1990). Given that highly novel

ideas have a high risk of rejection, these are not

easy tasks. At the end of the championing phase,

the idea either is abandoned or receives the green

light to be further developed and, ultimately,

implemented (Fried & Hisrich, 1994; Frost & Egri,

1991; Markham, 2000; Rothwell et al., 1974). Con-

sider again the example of a screenwriter. During

this phase, the screenwriter tries to sell the idea

to film studio executives. This will happen dur-

ing the so-called pitch meetings, in which the

screenwriter attempts to persuade producers of the

novelty and potential of his or her idea, as well as

of his or her own ability to develop it into a movie

or television series (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003).

To be successful, champions need to possess

influence and legitimacy. Influence is funda-

mental to protecting ideas from encroachment

and criticism, removing obstacles to their accep-

tance, and persuading relevant decision makers

to provide their approval and resources for

implementation (Anand, Gardner, & Morris, 2007;

Anderson & Bateman, 2000; Chakrabarti, 1974;

Chakrabarti & Hauschildt, 1989; Howell & Higgins,

1990; Schon, 1963). Moreover, a creator’s reputation

and perceived legitimacy serve as cues about his

or her performance and ability to implement an

idea (Podolny, 1994). Decision makers are more

likely to approve and support ideas proposed by

creators they perceive as legitimate and compe-

tent (Cattani & Ferriani, 2008; Hargadon, 2005;

Shane & Cable, 2002).

Idea Implementation: Need for Shared Vision

and Understanding

Idea implementation is broken into two sub-

phases: production and impact. While scholars

have either emphasized production (e.g., Ahuja,

2000; Obstfeld, 2005) or impact (e.g., Abrahamson &

58 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Rosenkopf, 1993; Klein & Sorra, 1996), both sub-

phases represent important facets of the imple-

mentation of an idea (Van de Ven, 1986; West, 2002).

During the production subphase, the idea is

turned into something tangible—a finished prod-

uct, service, or process. This phase includes chang-

ing the core concept into a “blueprint,”with detailed

steps to follow as the idea is converted into a fin-

ished product. For example, after a screenwriter

obtains the green light to develop his or her script,

the screenwriter will include the specifics that

help the production team convert the script into an

actual movie, like informa tion on shooting angles,

lighting, and settings. At some point the screen-

writer will share the detailed script with the pro-

duction and creative crew that will be put in

charge of the realization of the movie. The crew

can get involved earlier or later in the process, but

the final production of the movie always requires

the active involvement of others with necessary

competencies and skills.

During the impact subphase, the innovation is

accepted, recognized, and used by the field. The

acceptance of ideas is socially shaped, with so-

cial systems making judgments about products’

novelty and whether to incorporate them in the

wider culture (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Simonton,

1999). A contribution that departs from existing

practices may be dismissed as crazy, face re-

sistance from field members, and ultimately be

forgotten (Anand et al., 2007; Hargadon & Bechky,

2006), unless it is considered and reused by others.

If an idea changes industry standards and be-

comes a new creative reference point for the field,

the idea has successfully affected the field. For

example, in order to be considered successful,

a screenwriter’s work cannot just be turned into

a movie and distributed; it also needs to be rec-

ognized as creative by peers and critics by re-

ceiving awards and nominations, and other

screenwriters need to “cite”the work or write

similar scripts in terms of content and style. Uzzi

and Spiro (2005) illustrated this with the example

of a Broadway show: high-impact shows include

a particular creative approach that influences the

development of future shows.

The literature on team innovation and creativity

has emphasized the importance of shared vision

for an effective implementation phase. Shared

vision is a common understanding of a valued

outcome that is perceived as a higher-order goal

(Cardinal, 2001; West, 1990; West & Anderson,

1996). During the production subphase, a shared

vision provides several advantages. In partic-

ular, it facilitates high commitment, better infor-

mation sharing, and enhanced helping behaviors

(Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Lingo & O’Mahony,

2010). Moreover, it increases the sense of owner-

ship, purpose, and responsibility (Cardinal, 2001;

Fleming et al., 2007; Gilson & Shalley, 2004),

resulting in an enhanced motivation to work to-

gether and, ultimately, a more efficient collective

production process. In a meta-analytic study,

H¨

ulsheger, Anderson, and Salgado (2009) found

that shared vision is the most important determi-

nant of a group’s ability to produce innovative

outcomes. During the impact subphase, a shared

vision is needed to overcome the potential re-

sistance from field members. Without fully un-

derstanding the idea and buying into its creative

potential, field members may see the idea as

simply a threat to their power, or they might

just discard it as crazy or nonsensical. Shared vi-

sion and understanding helps overcome inter-

pretive problems, creates a common language

that guarantees that the idea is correctly com-

municated to other field members, and ensures its

successful interpretation and acceptance (Carlile,

2004; Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003).

SOCIAL NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND

NEED FACILITATION

The conceptualization of phases and needs

provides an overarching logic for when and how

contextual characteristics matter for the idea

journey. Given that creativity and innovation are

essentially a social process, we consider the so-

cial drivers of each phase in the form of network

characteristics. Figure 1 depicts key papers in the

literature and the phases on which they explicitly

and implicitly focus.

Delineating phases suggests different degrees

of desirable active involvement of contacts and

purposeful action of creators to facilitate the

respective needs. This can be depicted as a con-

tinuum (see Figure 2) where the influence of the

social context is similarly strong but contacts’

involvement and creators’intentionality vary.

For example, in the generation phase, we have

suggested that others’effect on the birth of a new

idea is serendipitous, which reflects low creator

intentionality. Like other serendipitous networks

(Kilduff & Tsai, 2003), the creator’s interaction with

others is not necessarily premised on fulfilling

a predefined goal, compared to later phases in

2017 59Perry-Smith and Mannucci

which the creator may seek others for more in-

strumental reasons (e.g., high creator intention-

ality). The elaboration phase best illustrates

when contacts’involvement can be low. Here the

need for support suggests that contacts react to

the creator’s idea, but it does not necessarily

require them to work alongside the creator to

directly shape the idea. In the implementation

phase, in contrast, while the originator remains pri-

marily responsible for the idea’s development, the

need for a shared vision requires contacts to form

and progress the idea’s content in a collaborative

FIGURE 2

Continuum of the Idea Journey

Generation Elaboration Championing Implementation

Contacts’ involvement

Creators’

intentionality

Indirect, passive

Serendipitous

Direct, active

Intentional

FIGURE 1

Examples of Explicit and Implicit Focus on Phases in Current Research

Paper

Generation

Elaboration

Championing

Implementation

Baer (2010)

Baer (2012)

Burt (2004)

Chua, Morris, & Mor (2012)

Delmestri, Montanari, & Usai (2005)

De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens

(2011)

Fleming, Mingo, & Chen (2007)

Hargadon & Sutton (1997)

Lingo & O’Mahony (2010)

Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt (2002)

McFadyen & Cannella (2004)

McFadyen, Semadeni, & Cannella

(2009)

Mueller & Kamdar (2011)

Obstfeld (2005)

Perry-Smith (2006)

Perry-Smith (2014)

Rodan & Galunic (2004)

Sosa (2011)

Tortoriello & Krackhardt (2010)

Uzzi & Spiro (2005)

Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, & Zhang

(2009)

Zou & Ingram (2013)

Phase the paper implicitly focuses on

Phase the paper explicitly focuses on

60 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

fashion (e.g., high contact involvement). This

continuum of creator intentionality and contact

involvement undergirds our social network

propositions.

We focus on both tie strength and structure as

relevant social network characteristics. We de-

fine strong ties as ties with a high level of emo-

tional closeness, given the importance of affect for

creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw,

2005; Bledow, Rosing, & Frese, 2013; George &

Zhou, 2002) and its prominence as a key prop-

erty of tie strength (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008;

Marsden & Campbell, 1984; Rost, 2011). Duration

and frequency are also relevant dimensions of tie

strength (Granovetter, 1973); however, given our

articulation of needs, we see them as being sec-

ondary dimensions. We conceptualize structure

as local ego-network structure, or the system of

relationships among a creator’s direct ties. When

two of the creator’s contacts do not share a tie, the

creator is spanning a structural hole (Burt, 1992).

On the contrary, triadic closure exists when

a creator’s direct contacts maintain ties to each

other (Coleman, 1988; Phelps et al., 2012). Al-

though we focus on local structure, our logic ex-

tends to research referencing global structure

(e.g., Cattani & Ferriani, 2008; Ibarra, 1993), or the

pattern of relationships within an entire field or

organization (Scott, 1988), which we reference

where relevant.

Our central premise, elucidated throughout this

section, is that dyadic tie strength is critical for

facilitating the micro needs of the early phases,

while structure is critical for facilitating the more

socially embedded needs of the later phases.

While providing clarity, our logic also will reveal

that as the idea progresses across phases, the

primarily beneficial network characteristics re-

verse. That is, the network features that are

helpful for one phase are not necessarily helpful

in the next phase.

Idea Generation and Elaboration: The Weak

versus Strong Tie Paradox

The standard logic commonly used to predict

the optimal tie strength and structure for novel

ideas can be summarized as follows: tie strength

and structures that provide access to non-

redundant knowledge content facilitate recombi-

nation and, ultimately, creativity (see Perry-Smith

& Mannucci, 2015, and Phelps et al., 2012, for re-

views). Theorists typically suggest that weak ties

provide access to content that differs from what

the creator already knows, because weak ties

tend to be nonredundant connections to different

social circles (Granovetter, 1973, 1983; Ibarra &

Andrews, 1993). In addition, creators whose net-

works are rich in structural holes get access to

more diverse information (Aral & Van Alstyne,

2011; Burt, 1992). As we discussed previously,

however, creators do not necessarily automati-

cally recombine disparate knowledge. To generate

novel ideals, creators need cognitive flexibility in

order to successfully recombine disparate knowl-

edge into new associations (De Dreu et al., 2008;

Mednick, 1962).

While structure may provide access to diverse

knowledge, tie strength affects how creators in-

terpret and process content and, ultimately, the

cognitive organization of content in the mind

(e.g., cognitive flexibility versus rigidity). Crea-

tors desire cognitive and social balance among

their social ties and the knowledge held by those

ties (Phillips, 2003; Phillips & Loyd, 2006; Phillips,

Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld, 2004), and they ex-

pect contacts they know well to hold similar per-

spectives and agree with one another. When

emotionally close contacts disagree by providing

nonredundant knowledge content, the disagree-

ment leads to a state of imbalance that hampers

cognitive processes. Moreover, since creators are

motivated to restore balance, the lack of it might

lead them to discard the content received from

strong ties (Phillips et al., 2004). Despite the in-

tuition and self-reports that individuals pay more

attention to information coming from strong,

trustworthy ties (e.g., Levin & Cross, 2004), results

show that the above logic, rather than trust, is

explanatory. In an experimental study, Perry-

Smith (2014) showed that creators receiving

information from strong ties spend less time

integrating it, since the information merely so-

lidifies existing cognitive pathways, resulting in

uncreative solutions. In contrast, receiving dif-

ferent knowledge from weak ties is a cognitively

balanced situation and results in more time spent

considering different options and higher creativ-

ity (Perry-Smith, 2014).

These arguments emphasize number of weak

ties rather than a single weak tie. Several studies

have shown that weak ties facilitate creativity

over and above nonredundant structure (e.g.,

Baer, 2010; Perry-Smith, 2006, 2014; Zhou et al.,

2009), supporting the unique role of tie strength.

Importantly, the measure in each study is closer to

2017 61Perry-Smith and Mannucci

generation than other phases. Although too many

weak ties generally can become detrimental (Zhou

et al., 2009), we expect that during idea generation

specifically, the benefits will outweigh the possible

costs.

Our arguments suggest that the structural

features of ties may be less relevant for the gen-

eration phase, although nonredundant structure

may facilitate championing, as we suggest later.

Consistent with this line of thinking, there is

little empirical support for the theorized benefits

of brokerage, despite the almost taken-for-granted

logic relating structural holes and creativity.

For example, several studies (i.e., Rodan &

Galunic, 2004; Zou & Ingram, 2013) found no di-

rect effect between spanning structural holes

and innovativeness, although the researchers

noted moderating effects. The lack of main effect

was explained by suggesting that structural

holes provide “political maneuverability”rather

than diverse knowledge (Rodan & Galunic, 2004),

or that the key to creativity is maximizing differ-

ences, which ties that span structural holes

within organizations do not maximize (Zou &

Ingram, 2013).

Two influential studies may at first glance

appear to contradict the lack of empirical sup-

port (Burt, 2004; Fleming et al., 2007). However, in

both the researchers adopt logics or measures

encompassing other phases. Burt’s (2004) logic

emphasizes the ability of brokers to navigate

complex political environments and diverse con-

stituencies to successfully convince others of the

merits of their ideas (i.e., championing). Fleming

and colleagues (2007) confound different phases

by using measures such as patent subclasses,

which are considered finished products that

have already been elaborated and championed

(Oldham & Cummings, 1996).

Taken together, our arguments and existing

empirical evidence suggest that weak ties rather

than structural holes should be beneficial during

the idea generation phase.

Proposition 1a: The number of weak ties

facilitates idea generation.

Proposition 1b: The number of weak ties

rather than nonredundant structures

(i.e., structural holes) facilitates idea

generation.

Although weak ties are expected to facilitate

generation, they do not facilitate elaboration.

Because someone highlighting a novel idea might

be perceived as incompetent (Hofmann, Lei, &

Grant, 2009) or have his or her idea abruptly dis-

missed (Zhou, 1998; Zhou & George, 2001), trust

is theorized to facilitate sharing unique ideas

(Chua et al., 2012; Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010).

Via trust, strong ties reduce concerns over opportu-

nistic behavior (Kachra & White, 2008; Krackhardt,

1992; Levin & Cross, 2004; Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003)

and concerns about having the idea criticized or

rejected (McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003; Tortoriello,

Reagans, & McEvily, 2012). Trust thus increases

the chances that the creator will decide to dis-

close the idea rather than abandon it; when cre-

ators perceive trust, they are free to present

counternormative perspectives without filtering

or changing them to mee t the anticipated needs of

the contact (Zhang & Zhou, 2014; Zhou & George,

2001). This level of trust helps ensure that the idea

will move beyond the creator’s mind, an impor-

tant first step.

Once the creator shares an idea, strong ties are

more likely to provide the support needed during

the idea elaboration phase. Close relationships

are associated with emotional support (e.g., De

Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Buyens, 2011; Sosa, 2011).

Moreover, the feedback emotionally close con-

tacts provide is likely to be perceived as more

encouraging and informational than overly di-

rective or critical. Emotionally close contacts

serve the important function of validating one

another’s views (Cross & Sproull, 2004; Reis &

Shaver, 1988), and their feedback is perceived as

both constructive and useful and is more easily

accepted (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2001; Sniezek

& Van Swol, 2001). This suggests that people who

are emotionally close are more likely to use an

informational feedback style, not imposing their

point of view and demands and providing sug-

gestions constructively.

The elaboration phase does not require many

ties, as the generation phase does, nor does it re-

quire that strong tie contacts belong to the crea-

tor’s field. Rather than belonging to the same field,

the strong ties must simply connect the creator

with a trusted contact, one with whom the creator

feels safe presenting a rough version of an un-

usual idea. For example, Alfred Hitchcock, the

famous director, used to present all his ideas for

new movies to his wife, Alma Reville, before

pitching them to producers. Ms. Reville played an

indispensable role in the making of her husband’s

movies: “She was his closest confidante, his most

62 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

trusted ally”(Anderson, 2012: AR16). She provided

him with feedback about the creative potential of

his ideas, pushing him to pursue them even when

he did not seem to believe in them (O’Connell &

Bouzereau, 2004). Thus, the support required for

elaboration comes from one emotionally close tie,

or a tie within the creator’s“inner circle.”

A close look at extant empirical research is

consistent with our rationale. Madjar and

colleagues (2002) show that support from fam-

ily and friends facilitates creativity; they argue

that this is due to the creator’s enhanced motiva-

tion and enthusiasm to pursue a generated idea.

Sosa (2011) suggests that strong ties have a posi-

tive impact on creativity because they increase

support and motivation to share ideas. In another

example, Chua and colleagues (2012) show that

cultural metacognition facilitates creativity via

affect-based trust; they argue that deep knowl-

edge about another is required to make oneself

vulnerable and buffer the anxiety associated with

sharing novel ideas. While some scholars have

found that the number of weak ties with culturally

diverse others facilitates creativity (Per ry-Smith &

Shalley, 2014), this work emphasizes the genera-

tion of ideas rather than the sharing and elabo-

ration of them.

As with generation, we expect strength to be

more important than structure for idea elabora-

tion. Pockets of interconnected and redundant ties

may at first glance appear to provide some of the

same benefits of strong ties for elaboration. These

networks are characterized by greater trust and

support among members (Aral & Van Alstyne,

2011; Chua, Morris, & Ingram, 2010; Coleman, 1988;

Uzzi, 1996). Individuals are more likely to feel

psychologically safe to share ideas within dense

networks, since they promote a sense of shared

ownership and mutual understanding (Fleming

et al., 2007). Moreover, closely tied contacts tend

to develop cooperative norms that generate

social pressure to help each other (Coleman,

1988; Granovetter, 1973, 1985). Dense struc-

tures can also promote conformity (Granovetter,

1973), however, inducing people to eliminate

the most innovative features of their ideas so as

to comply with existing ways of thinking (Janis,

1972; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Sosa, 2011).

Although motivated to cooperate, these close

ties can inadvertently squash novelty and

uniqueness as creators in dense collectives

move toward similarity of perspectives over

time (Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). In contrast, dyadic

support from one to two strong ties provides

creators the emotional and motivational bene-

fits without the conformity pressures that dense

structures generate.

Proposition 2a: A limited number (i.e.,

one or two) of emotionally charged

strong ties facilitate idea elaboration.

Proposition 2b: Strong ties, rather

than structural closure, facilitate idea

elaboration.

Idea Championing and Implementation: The

Sparseness versus Closure Paradox

Scholars have argued that structural holes

are a relevant source of influence and legiti-

macy. Individuals spanning structural holes

control the flow of information and resources

between disconnected contacts, and they can

use this control to gather support for their ideas

and initiatives (Burt, 1992; Seibert, Kraimer, &

Liden, 2001). In addition, these brokers are thought

to have a vision and translation advantage that

helps them sell good ideas to different audiences

by understanding what resonates and what does

not (Burt, 2004). Accordingly, their ideas are rated

as “good”ones by others in the field. So while

brokerage—occupying network positions that

span structural holes—may not facilitate the

generation of new ideas, this line of reasoning

suggests that brokerage may be critical during

the championing phase.

But can creators directly leverage the ad-

vantages of structural holes? Not necessarily.

For creators to successfully navigate the cham-

pioning phase, field members must have a gen-

erally positive impression of the creators’ability

and efficacy (Gl ¨

uckler & Armbr ¨

uster, 2003). This

is inherently difficult in the case of truly novel

ideas because of the lack of benchmarking

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1999). Because new ideas

are characterized by high uncertainty and ques-

tionable legitimacy, decision makers use vari-

ous cues to determine whether they will support

the ideas’implementation (Elsbach & Kramer,

2003). Some of those cues may be the charac-

teristics of the creator, whereas others derive

from the structural position of creator’s contacts.

In general, researchers assert that individuals

can “borrow”influence and legitimacy to reduce

the perceived uncertainty by associating with

2017 63Perry-Smith and Mannucci

well-regarded contacts (Anand et al., 2007; Gl ¨

uckler

&Armbr

uster, 2003; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Stuart,

Hoang, & Hybels, 1999). After all, the perceived at-

tributes of a creator’s contacts are often attributed to

the creator as well (Blau, 1964; Kilduff & Krackhardt,

1994; Uzzi, 1996).

This notion of borrowing, which applies to

structural holes in particular, offers several ad-

vantages for idea champions. When a creator

borrows the structural holes of another, the crea-

tor’s legitimacy stock increases. Moreover, via

borrowing, the creator is not cognitively con-

strained by the established social norms and

paradigms within the field (e.g., Cattani &

Ferriani, 2008) or by the complexities associated

with maintaining structural holes. Several em-

pirical studies support the benefits of borrowing

structural holes when legitimacy is questionable.

For example, Burt (1998) found that for female

managers in male-dominated firms, being a bro-

ker (e.g., spanning structural holes) did not dem-

onstrate the expected positive relationship with

career outcomes generally found in the litera-

ture, but being connected to a broker did. Brands

and Kilduff (2013) found that women in male-

dominated contexts are less likely to be perceived

as brokers than men, and if they are, they expe-

rience social sanctions. Ibarra (1993) found that

centrality is related to innovativeness; her ag-

gregate prominence measure, which is based on

the centrality of a creator’s contacts, is consistent

with the notion of borrowing the centrality of

another. Directly bridging structural holes may

therefore not always be an effective strategy

during the championing phase.

Proposition 3a: Direct andborrowedstruc-

tural holes facilitate idea championing.

Proposition 3b: Borrowed structural

holes, more than direct ones, facilitate

idea championing.

Direct and borrowed structural holes are more

useful than tie strength in the championing

phase. The premise behind the argument that

strong ties are critical for championing is that

friends have more social influence over friends

(Krackhardt, 1992). Strong ties are character-

ized by norms of reciprocity that facilitate the

exchange of favors and mutual support (Kanter,

1983), and individuals connected through strong

ties are motivated to help and support each

other’s initiatives (Granovetter, 1983). This assumes,

however, that the friend is in a position to help

by providing the resources needed in this phase.

We suggest that the structural characteristics

of the contact’snetwork,aswellastheresulting

access to others, are primary. This is what will

determine whether the contact can provide the

needed social resources. Notably, this kind of

borrowed structural hole connection is some-

what similar to a buy-in relationship—that is,

ties to others whose support may increase the

likelihood of idea implementation (Baer, 2012;

Podolny & Baron, 1997)—but our emphasis is on

the structural features of the contact’s ties, rather

than the “importance”ascribed to the tie by the

creator. Inherent in the notion of borrowing is

that the tie between the creator and the contact is

solid enough for the contact to “lend”his or her

structural holes to the creator. This action does

not require the type of emotional depth typical

of strong, emotionally laden ties, however. We

therefore propose that structural borrowing is

the primary mechanism that facilitates idea

championing.

Proposition 3c: Borrowed structural holes,

rather than strong ties, facilitate idea

championing.

Although structural holes facilitate champion-

ing, they do not facilitate implementation. We

posit that, in the production subphase, closure

(i.e., fewer structural holes) among those involved

in the realization of the idea is most beneficial.

Creators belonging to closed networks are able

to reduce perceived uncertainty by drawing on

others’behavioral cues (Coleman, Katz, & Mentzel,

1966). In addition, closure promotes normative

pressure to work collaboratively toward common

objectives (Lingo & O’Mahony, 2010) and enhances

information sharing (Ahuja, 2000; Granovetter, 1985;

Uzzi & Spiro, 2005), thus helping create a shared

vision about the idea. For example, in the case

of dense structures, if one collaborator is tempted to

go in a direction inconsistent with the creator’sob-

jectives, the presence of ties between the collabo-

rator and other collaborators in the production team

will help bring the wayward contributor “in line”

with the creator’s vision. Admittedly, closure can

become problematic in some cases. For example,

collaborators in highly dense structures may get

stuck and have difficulty considering alternative

approaches (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Oh, Chung, &

Labianca, 2004; Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). In the production

phase, however, executing an idea, not generating

64 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

new ones, is primary. Moreover, research on team

processes (e.g., Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Fuller & Aldag,

1998; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Park, 1990; Whyte,

1989) has begun to refute the notion that cohesion

only undermines performance. We thus expect

closure and the associated cohesion to generally

benefit production.

We further suggest that closure combined with

reach provides the best structural opportunity for

successful impact. In particular, outside ties—

those crossing a relevant boundary—that are

embedded in dense structures are ideal. In that

scenario the creator and contacts outside of the

production team are connected to one (or more)

common third party (Krackhardt, 1998). The liter-

ature contains many examples of the importance

of outside contacts (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;

Oh et al., 2004; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014). In

particular, Uzzi and Spiro (2005) and Tortoriello

and Krackhardt (2010) found that outside ties

either embedded in or emanating from dense

structures are associated with successful inno-

vations, presumably because they ensure that the

idea circulates and is effectively understood, ac-

cepted, and used. The outside tie thus allows for

the spread of the idea to different groups, and

dense local structures facilitate the creation of

a shared understanding.

Proposition 4a: Structural closure within

the creator’s ego network facilitates

idea production.

Proposition 4b: Outside ties emanating

from a creator’s dense ego network

structure facilitate idea impact.

As in the championing phase, we expect struc-

ture to be primary in the implementation phase.

In line with empirical results (Tortoriello &

Krackhardt, 2010), we argue that during the im-

pact subphase of implementation, the strength of

outside ties is less important than the character-

istics of the local structure in which they are em-

bedded. Some aspects of strong ties may facilitate

understanding of an idea, since they favor value

recognition (Friedkin, 1980), creation of a common

language (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010), and

development of heuristics and shared meaning

(Uzzi, 1997). There are downsides to maintaining

lots of strong ties outside the team, however. For

example, strong ties can be costly because of the

time, attention, and reciprocity involved (Mueller

& Kamdar, 2011; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). In

addition, too many strong ties outside the team

could undermine internal team dynamics, as

loyalties become divided (Keller, 2001; Nelson,

1989; Oh et al., 2004; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2014).

Although researchers have argued that strong

ties are necessary for sharing tacit knowledge

(Hansen, 1999), the cohesion and shared vision of

embedded outside contacts are enough to enable

the flow of tacit knowledge within and outside the

group (Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010). We suggest

that ties that span team boundaries and are em-

bedded in dense local structures provide the best

combination of reach, vision, and understanding,

without the costs of strong ties.

Proposition 4c: Outside ties embedded in

dense structures, rather than strong out-

side ties, facilitate idea implementation.

NAVIGATING THE IDEA JOURNEY

Taken together, our propositions and logic

suggest a series of contradictions or paradoxes.

First, creators need weak ties to facilitate cogni-

tive flexibility, but in the elaboration phase, the

lack of support in weak ties will undermine

elaboration by reducing the likelihood that crea-

tors will share ideas in the first place. As a result,

the very tie strength (or lack thereof) that sets

someone up to do well in one phase will set that

individual up to do poorly in the other. Second,

creators need to borrow structural holes to facili-

tate influence and legitimacy, but they also need

closure to facilitate carrying out a shared vision.

Yet those very structural holes are not expected to

facilitate implementation, but the converse (clo-

sure) will. Last, creators need to rely on strength

and not structure in the earlier phases, but they

should rely on structure and not strength in the

later phases.

Because the tension inherent in paradoxes can

often result in reinforcing cycles (Lewis, 2000) in-

stead of a linear progression of ideas through

each phase, we may see three recursive loops in

the process. For example, the tension related to tie

strength may result in a continuous loop between

generation and elaboration: the creator never

feels confident enough to present the idea to ex-

ternal gatekeepers. Consider also the transition

between elaboration and championing. The ten-

sion between strength and structure may result in

an idea cycling between the two phases since

strong ties to emotionally close contacts might

2017 65Perry-Smith and Mannucci

prove useless during championing, when broader

network characteristics are more beneficial than

close contacts. The process may spiral (e.g.,

Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995), circling back

and forth between two adjacent phases and then

either moving to the next phase or “dying”as the

creator goes back to generation to start over.

Consider the example of Bolt, an animated

movie by Walt Disney Animation Studios. The

movie had already received the green light to

advance to the production phase. When the new

executives of the studio, John Lasseter and Ed

Catmull, noticed problems with the plot, visuals,

and characters, they asked the team to work on

those issues. This started a never-ending, unfruit-

ful loop between movie production and pitches to

Lasseter and Catmull that lasted more than ten

months. Ultimately, Catmull and Lasseter were

forced to restart the project, sending it back to

the elaboration phase. Retrospectively, they

identified the problem as the lack of trust and

cohesion within the production team. According

to Byron Howard, the new director they assigned

to the project, the team was like “a dog that

had been beaten again and again”: everyone

preferred to stay quiet and consider his or her self-

interests rather than voicing problems and trying

to fix them together (Catmull & Wallace, 2014:

259–262). What happened with Bolt is simple: the

network around the core creator—the writer/

director—was sparse, not dense. While this had

been an advantage when it came to convincing

producers to approve the project, it proved detri-

mental when it came to making the movie.

Figure 3 provides a visual depiction of the idea

journey across each phase and the loops likely to

arise because of the inherent tensions. Although

we emphasize the social network drivers of re-

cursive loops, there may be a variety of reasons

loops occur; for instance, the idea at its core may

be a bad one. Nevertheless, the figure represents

the general paths a new idea is likely to take over

time. At an aggregate higher level, movement

across these phases can be linear, but at a more

micro level, the interplay between phases can be

recursive and cyclical.

Network Activation

It may at first appear difficult if not highly un-

likely for a creator to achieve the ambidexterity

required for each competing aim. Individuals

tend to rely on relationships and paths that

worked in the past because of tie inertia

(Dahlander & McFarland, 2013). Creators may

cling to prior approaches (Lewis, 2000) and stay

FIGURE 3

The Idea Journey

Journey forward

Journey backward

Direct journey

Generation

Elaboration

Championing

Implementation

The loops likely to be affected by the strength paradox and the structure paradox are noted with solid lines. The loops affected

by the transition between strength and structure are denoted with dashed lines.

66 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

within a comfortable and familiar social space

(Ford, 1996). Although the specific ties may

change and vary over time (Soda, Usai, & Zaheer,

2004), network patterns and structures are thought

to generally remain stable (Sasovova, Mehra,

Borgatti, & Schippers, 2010). In addition, like other

paradoxical situations (e.g., Sitkin, See, Miller,

Lawless, & Carton, 2011; Smith & Tushman, 2005),

different elements appear to be in competition

with one another. This is a problem because the

capacity for social ties is somewhat fixed, and

creators only have the capacity for a limited

number of ties (Hansen, 1999; Mariotti & Delbridge,

2012). As a consequence, an idea may not easily

move through the idea journey.

While these contradictions make the idea jour-

ney appear untenable, the fact that social networks

are not only fixed, objective social structures may

suggest otherwise. Individuals generate cogni-

tive representations of networks, or mental maps

of whom they know, who is connected to whom,

and who occupies certain positions (Carley, 1986;

Krackhardt, 1987, 1990). While one line of work

emphasizes accuracy, or the extent to which

cognitive social structures match actual social

structures (e.g., Casciaro, Carley, & Krackhardt,

1999; Kilduff, Crossland, Tsai, & Krackhardt, 2008;

Kilworth & Bernard, 1976), another line of work

suggests that, accuracy aside, cognitive repre-

sentations influence to whom a person ultimately

goes for resources (Krackhardt, 1987). The acti-

vated network, the cognitive subset of the avail-

able network (Bridwell-Mitchell & Lant, 2013;

Smith et al., 2012), is made up of all the ties that

individuals call to mind in a specific situation.

The available set of ties that can be activated in-

cludes latent ties—inactive or dormant relation-

ships (Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012; Starkey, Barnatt,

& Tempest, 2000)—and embryonic ties—ties that

may exist but are very weak—but excludes po-

tential ties (Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012)—possible

ties that do not exist yet.

Importantly, activated networks are continu-

ously reconstructed depending on the situation.

Different contacts are brought to mind at certain

times owing to situational or individual trig-

gers (Carley, 1986; Casciaro, 1998). In this way,

acreator’s social structure can be considered

malleable, consistent with process theory ap-

proaches (e.g., Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999;

Sonenshein, 2014), since cognitive social structures

shift or change depending on how a creator acti-

vates his or her network. This malleability implies

that individuals’ability to satisfy the needs of the

different phases of the idea journey does not so

much depend on the structure of their networks as

it does on the subset of their networks that they

cognitively activate. In addition, if network acti-

vation is dynamic and can change over time, then

the network context that influences behavior also

can change across phases of the idea journey.

But what prompts activation? What influences

the ties and structures creators activate at any

moment in time? The cognitive representation of

a network depends on the frames that are used to

define a situation (Bridwell-Mitchell & Lant, 2013;

Carley, 1986; Smith et al., 2012). In any situation

frames provide a structure of assumptions and

rules that help creators answer the question,

“What is going on here?”(Bartunek, 1984; Goffman,

1974; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986;

Weick, 1995). Frames can affect activation ex-

plicitly or implicitly. In the first case, creators

consciously activate the portions of the network

they believe have the resources to match their

current needs (Bridwell-Mitchell & Lant, 2013;

Lant, 2005; Nebus, 2006). Or, if this process is im-

plicit, rather than activating networks based on

a purposeful matching of people and resources,

creators can have certain situations invoke psy-

chological states that prompt a particular type of

network activation (Smith et al., 2012).

Extant literature suggests three example frames

that are relevant to network activation and the

idea journey process. The first frame, political

versus strategic, applies to explicit activation.

Creators can frame issues either politically,

emphasizing creators’attitudes and goals and

the negotiation process between them, or stra-

tegically, emphasizing rationality, planning, in-

formation collection, and organizational goals

(Bridwell-Mitchell & Lant, 2013; Gioia & Thomas,

1996). Creators who frame issues strategically

activate contacts they perceive to have broad

expertise and information, whereas creators who

frame issues politically activate contacts they

perceive either as more influential or as more

trustworthy (Bridwell-Mitchell & Lant, 2013). This

distinction suggests that strategic framing is ben-

eficial during idea generation, because it prompts

creators to anchor less on trust and thus activate

distant sections of their network. On the other

hand, framing the problem politically should have

a positive effect during the elaboration phase,

prompting creators to activate strong, emotionally

close ties.

2017 67Perry-Smith and Mannucci

The second frame, threat, is an example of

implicit activation. It is related to perceptions of

harm and ambiguity and their effect on sub-

sequent action (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Jackson &

Dutton, 1988). Smith and colleagues (2012) found

that a high-threat orientation leads to the activa-

tion of closer ties, whereas a low-threat orienta-

tion leads to the activation of broader, more

expansive networks. Consistent with the asser-

tion that perceived threat hampers creativity by

narrowing a creator’s focus (Amabile & Conti,

1999; Pally, 1955), this logic suggests that a low-

threat orientation is good for generation, since cre-

ators activate expansive networks. A high-threat

frame, however, may be best for elaboration, since

creators who see their idea as potentially risky

will activate ties from their “inner circle.”Im-

portantly, interpretations and frames can vary

across creators facing thesameissue.Forex-

ample, Smith and colleagues (2012) show that

individuals losing their jobs exhibit different

frames and subsequent activation: individ-

uals who frame job loss as a high-threat situa-

tion activate a tighter and narrower subsection

of their network, whereas individuals who

adopt a low-threat frame activate sparser sec-

tions. This variation suggests that, unlike for

elaboration, a low-threat frame may benefit

championing as it facilitates the activation of

sparser ties.

A third frame, locus of control, is also an ex-

ample of implicit activation. It derives from the

literature on social movements and motivation

(e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1980; Rotter, 1966; Snow et al.,

1986). When creators assume that they are driving

and controlling a given event, the creators are

said to be adopting an internal locus of control;

this is opposed to the assumption that overall

performance and control reside outside the

creator—the so-called external locus of control

(e.g., Ferree & Miller, 1985; Klandermans, 1984;

Snow et al., 1986). The locus of control frame is

less about the extent to which creators interact

with others and more about the extent to which

creators believe they ultimately control the

outcome. Creators who frame a situation as in-

ternally controlled prefer to rely on themselves

and tend to view contacts only as providers

of resources (Ng & Feldman, 2011) rather than

as people to directly involve in their activities.

This preference suggests that an internal locus

ofcontrolframemaybemorebeneficialduring

the early phases of the idea journey, when

structure and collaborative action are less

important than tie strength. In contrast, an ex-

ternal locus of control frame may be positive for

later phases, with collective action being more

effective since it prompts creators to consider

the interconnection among contacts and acti-

vate network ties in terms of structure.

Altogether, these example frames suggest that

in order to activate the appropriate network in

each phase, creators need to continuously switch

frames and reshape existing interpretations and

assumptions across phases. Given the impor-

tance of activating different networks, creators

who cognitively reconfigure their networks by

activating different parts of the networks across

phases may succeed across all phases and suc-

cessfully bring an idea from generation through

implementation.

Proposition 5: Creators who change

frames across different phases will be

more likely to cognitively reconfigure

and dynamically activate the distinct

need-facilitating part of their networks

required in each phase.

Proposition 6: Creators who cognitively

reconfigure their networks by activat-

ing the need-facilitating part of their

networks in any given phase will gen-

erate ideas that succeed across the en-

tire idea journey, from generation to

impact.

The Limitations of Network Activation

While network activation may facilitate the

kind of fluidity in network structures that allows

success, in some circumstances the effectiveness

of activating different networks may be limited.

Activation fluidity—activating different networks

in different phases—may in fact come with criti-

cal social and personal strain. Weak ties in-

tuitively may appear to be a prime source of

problematic social strain, since these ties are

particularly susceptible to decay (Dahlander &

McFarland, 2013; Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012), and

activating weak ties in one phase but not others

might cause the ties to become latent and then

nonexistent. Weak ties require low costs to main-

tain and establish (Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999),

however, and there are minimal expectations of

the level of resources exchanged through them.

Moreover, weak tie churn can actually help

68 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

during the phase when they are most useful

(generation) by providing a fresh assortment of

new perspectives and information.

In contrast, activation fluidity might engender

problems when the creator pivots from strong ties

or dense structures. In close relationships and

dense social structures, contacts expect loyalty

and reciprocity (Coleman, 1988; Tortoriello &

Krackhardt, 2010). When their expectations are

not met, contacts may view the offending creator

as disloyal—an outgroup member who is not up-

holding his or her end of the implicit social con-

tract (Adler & Adler, 1995; Coleman, 1988; Smith,

2005). This dynamic may lead to a variety of social

sanctions. Evidence from social networks re-

search suggests, in fact, that creators who span

structural holes within cohesive contexts are

sanctioned and excluded from the group (Xiao &

Tsui, 2007).

In the same fashion, creators in dense struc-

tures who are left out by any member of the clique

will find themselves expelled by other members

of the clique as well (e.g., Adler & Adler, 1995). A

creator who activates some people in one phase

and others in another may experience similar

social sanctions, since contacts may expect to be

consistently involved with the idea across all

phases of the idea journey in exchange for their

help and input. For example, if a creator activates

and mobilizes a dense network to implement an

idea and then activates a broader network to ob-

tain extra funds, members of the network may

regard the creator as opportunistic and an out-

sider. If a creator activates a strong tie during the

elaboration phase and then activates a structur-

ally dense network for implementation that ex-

cludes the strong tie, the strongly tied contact may

perceive the creator as inauthentic and utilitar-

ian because of the way the creator strategically

either remembers or forgets the contact. Ulti-

mately, contacts may partially or fully withdraw

from the relationship, either denying the creator

access to the intangible or tangible resources the

network provides or making the relationship de-

cay. As a result, the creator may have to develop

new strong ties to replace those that decay or may

have to exhibit extra effort to repair and maintain

degenerated relationships.

In addition, the creator will likely experience

a host of negative intrapersonal consequences

associated with this social strain. First, the crea-

tor may feel rejected. Rejection emanating from

contacts who provided support and goodwill

may create emotional discomfort, reduced moti-

vation, and decrements in cognitive performance

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Baumeister, Twenge,

& Nuss, 2002). Further, membership in a stable

social group provides an important sense of

belonging, and a loss of this sense is a threat

to identity (Adler & Adler, 1995; Baumeister &

Leary, 1995). In addition, the creator may ex-

perience feelings of inauthenticity. More spe-

cifically, acting in ways that are inconsistent

with true preferences can engender negative

consequences for the creator, such as emo-

tional dissonance (e.g., Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987)

and additional threats to identity, resulting in

depression, distress, and burnout (Erickson &

Wharton, 1997; Morris & Feldman, 1996). In gen-

eral, instrumental networking makes people

feel “dirty”and inauthentic (Casciaro, Gino, &

Kouchaki, 2014). In short, if creators no longer

feel a part of their “inner circle,”they may ex-

perience a threat to their identity, negative

feelings of inauthenticity, and a degree of social

isolation that may distract them from their cre-

ative focus.

In summary, the social strain and intrapersonal

consequences of activating different networks

limit the likelihood of activation fluidity in the

first place and the effectiveness of activation if it

occurs. Essentially, maintaining one’s ties and

structure in the network requires one to behave in

ways consistent with the expectations of those

ties and structures (e.g., Dahlander & McFarland,

2013). This is particularly problematic in the case

of strong ties and dense network structures. Net-

work activation fluidity is therefore likely to be

more difficult when transitioning from strong tie

and dense network activation to other types of

networks.

Proposition 7: Network activation flu-

idity is likely to be more difficult and

less effective when transitioning from

strong tie and dense network activation

than when transitioning from other

types of ties and structures.

In addition to being limited by the problems

engendered by strong ties and dense structures,

the effectiveness of network activation may also

be limited by the extent to which an idea gets

caught in recursive loops between phases. With

each loop back to a prior phase, the balance be-

tween viability and novelty shifts. A creative idea

possesses a balance between novelty—bringing

2017 69Perry-Smith and Mannucci

something new to the field—and viability—

producing economic advantages for the organi-

zation (Amabile, 1996; West, 2002). Very novel

ideas have a very high risk of rejection (Howell &

Higgins, 1990), and getting stuck in a loop might

prompt the creator to make the idea more

acceptable—more viable—to get it implemented

and diffused. Novelty and viability often di-

verge (Berg, 2014; Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo,

2012) and emerge from different antecedents

(e.g., Amabile, 1983; Fleming et al., 2007; Morris &

Leung 2010), however. For example, Lee and col-

leagues (Lee, Walsh, & Wang, 2014) found that

team size has an inverted U–shaped relation-

ship with idea novelty but a direct and positive

relationship with usefulness and impact. This

suggests that, with a shift toward viability, the

needs associated with a particular phase may

change. If the needs change from support to ex-

pertise for making the idea more viable, for ex-

ample, the association between strong ties and

elaboration may be weaker. Consequently, the

network elements that were beneficial during the

first iteration might have diminishing benefits in

further iterations.

For instance, if a screenwriter’s pitch to a pro-

ducer does not go well, the screenwriter will

revise the idea before presenting it to another

producer. During this repeat elaboration, re-

ceiving support is still important for giving the

screenwriter confidence to continue with the

novel idea. To move forward, however, the creator

also needs advice from knowledgeable screen-

writers in order to understand what is not working

in the pitch and fix it. As an illustration, consider

the case of Dallas Buyers Club, a movie that won

three Academy Awards and earned three more

nominations in 2014. Craig Borten, the screen-

writer, unsuccessfully first pitched the story in

1992. Initially, he kept elaborating the plot on his

own, getting feedback from family and close

contacts. After receiving several rejections from

different producers, he decided to go to another

screenwriter, Melissa Wallack, to ask for help in

re-elaborating the story. He and Melissa were not

close, but a mutual friend introduced them, and

she could provide expert advice. Borten recalls, “I

was tired. I needed another eye, and she’s an in-

credible writer. She helped elevate everything I’d

started.”Thanks to Wallack’s suggestion, the plot

improved enough to attract the attention of Uni-

versal Pictures, which optioned the film (Shaw,

2013). The pro blem Borte n experienced was

generated by a change in needs during the loop

back from championing to elaboration.

Recursive loops also solidify existing habits,

making activating different networks increas-

ingly difficult. While some creators may actively

reframe and reconstruct their networks, others

get stuck in their interpretation and invoke only

incremental variations within an existing frame

(Argyris, 1993). In some cases failure can be a

significant event that triggers new interpreta-

tions (Weick, 1995) and the activation of a differ-

ent portion of the network. But habitual action

and cognitive entrenchment (Dane, 2010; Ford,

1996) suggest that the longer the creator gets

stuck in one loop, the more difficult it is for the

individual to activate different networks. This

pattern holds despite the fact that changing needs

actually produce greater reactivation demands

on the creator, since changing needs suggest an

increasing number of required frame and activa-

tion changes.

In summary, with each cycle back, work to en-

hance the viability of the core idea is associated

with a shift in needs, different network require-

ments, and, in turn, greater activation demands. If

the loops between the phases last for a long time,

the change in needs grows larger, leading to the

creation of a vicious circle (Masuch, 1985). Thus,

we propose the following.

Proposition 8: The more extensive the

recursive loop between phases, the

lower the success of network activation

fluidity.

DISCUSSION

Articulating four distinct phases of the idea

journey clarifies a social view of creativity and

innovation. We define each phase—generation,

elaboration, championing, and implementation—

and suggest the unique socially derived needs of

each phase. Among the first two phases, the

generation phase requires cognitive flexibility,

and the elaboration phase requires feedback

and emotional support. Among the latter two

phases, championing requires influence and le-

gitimacy, whereas implementation requires

shared understanding and vision. By first articu-

lating the needs, it is possible to have a better

understanding of the relative importance of net-

work ties and structure in each phase. Currently,

the literature suggests seemingly contradictory

70 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

results (see Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2015). More

specifically, we propose that weak ties facilitate

generation, whereas strong ties facilitate elabo-

ration. In the latter two phases, in contrast,

borrowed structural holes facilitate champion-

ing, and a combination of closure and outside

ties facilitates implementation. While providing

clarity, the full picture emerging from our theo-

rizing simultaneously suggests paradoxes, in

which the network elements that are beneficial in

one phase are detrimental in the next. We suggest

that these contradictions can be resolved if the

creator activates different parts of his or her net-

work in different phases, and that this depends on

the creator’s ability to change interpretations and

frames across phases.

We contribute to and extend existing theory in

a number of ways. First, we contribute to general

theory of creativity and innovation by answering

the call for a stronger integration of the creativity

literature and innovation literature (Anderson,

Potoˇ

cnik, & Zhou, 2014; George, 2007). In many

cases creativity research and innovation research

draw on separate and parallel bodies of litera-

ture, probably reflecting different disciplinary

origins. Creativity and innovation are closely re-

lated, however, and in some cases the underlying

ideas are interchangeable. Take, for example,

Schumpeter’s theory of recombination. This no-

tion that innovation requires old ideas com-

bined in new ways is very similar to the notions of

broad categorization (Campbell, 1960) and remote

association (Mednick, 1962). Nevertheless, net-

works are the linchpin that has brought the two

bodies of literature together. Our investigation of

the idea journey from generation to acceptance by

the field helps illuminate how the creativity lit-

erature can inform the innovation literature, and

vice versa.

Second, our articulation of intermediate phases

can potentially clarify debates within the crea-

tivity literature and innovation literature beyond

networks. Although speculative, we can envision

how a careful consideration of the idea journey

phases can be helpful. For example, there are

some inconsistencies about the role of positive

versus negative mood in the creativity literature

(Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Davis, 2009). It may

be, for example, that dual tuning (George & Zhou,

2007)—in which both positive and negative mood

facilitate creativity—is applicable to generation

owing to the divergent thinking and dissatis-

faction with the status quo that each suggests;

however, positive mood alone (e.g., Amabile et al.,

2005) may be more beneficial in the case of elab-

oration, given the need for enhanced confidence.

Another example is the debate about the role of

rewards (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Shalley,

Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). It may be that rewards

negatively affect generation, since a reward may

detract from the cognitive generation process, but

they may be beneficial during the elaboration

phase, when a creator is at risk of abandoning the

idea. A third example emerges from innovation

research on the effects of resource constraints

(Katila & Shane, 2005). On one side, scholars have

proposed that a lack of resources negatively af-

fects innovation (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;

Teece, 1986); on the other side, the entrepreneur-

ship literature has shown that resource con-

straints can promote venture generation and

innovation (e.g., Baker & Nelson, 2005). It may be

that resource constraints favor idea generation,

following the logic of “necessity is the mother of

invention,”while abundant resources are needed

to elaborate on the idea and to implement it.

While speculative, our point is to suggest that

future research can apply our phased approach to

other concepts beyond networks.

Third, our theorizing contributes to network

theory. Granovetter’s strength-of-weak-tie theory

(1973), while initially counterintuitive, is now

a classic within the field and is recognized as

one of the most important overarching network

theories (e.g., Borgatti & Halgin, 2011). Yet, at

the same time, tie strength has been relegated

to “stepchild”status relative to structure; theory

and research on networks emphasize the struc-

tural mechanism inherent in Granovetter’s ideas

(Kilduff & Brass, 2010). Naturally, then, attention

has shifted to structure as the more proximate

mechanism. Our theorizing, consistent with

existing empirical work (Baer, 2010; Hansen, 1999;

Zhou et al., 2009), sheds light on the role of strength

separate from structure. We suggest mechanisms

related to emotional support and cognitive readi-

ness that rely on strength separate from structure.

Last, our perspective informs the growing body

of work focused on activated networks (Mariotti &

Delbridge, 2012; Smith et al., 2012). This approach

is situated within the cognitive approach to

networks (e.g., Kilduff et al., 2008; Kilduff &

Krackhardt, 1994). Our logic is that creators can

change the networks they activate if they change

interpretations or frames. This logic suggests that

a dynamic view of networks may be captured

2017 71Perry-Smith and Mannucci

not only by the extent to which creators lose or

gain new ties (e.g., Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012;

Sasovova et al., 2010) but also by the extent to

which creators activate different ties from their

potential network. This is a novel approach to

understanding creativity in the social context.

Although the importance of changing frames for

creative problem solving has been acknowledged

(Mumford, Mobley, Reiter‐Palmon, Uhlman, &

Doares, 1991; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor

Boes, & Runco, 1997), our application to social

networks extends its importance beyond gener-

ating novel solutions.

Our propositions suggest a number of possible

empirical and theory-based avenues for future

research. First, while we suggest that dyadic tie

strength and structure are more beneficial in

certain phases, this does not mean that the non-

primary network characteristic can never be

beneficial. Rather, our proposition is that one is

more beneficial than the other because of the

characteristics of the phase and the associated

need. Future research could identify conditions

under which one element is more or less benefi-

cial than another, and vice versa. Another poten-

tially fruitful and interesting avenue for future

research is the role of cognitive networks. Given

the importance of changing frames, the anteced-

ents of changing frames and how they affect the

choice of activated networks deserve further ex-

ploration. Possible mechanisms worth exploring

include creators’cognitive approaches, as recent

literature seems to suggest (L ¨

uscher & Lewis,

2008), or their expertise. In fact, creators’expertise,

or the extent creators have experienced creative

success, has a variety of interesting additional

implications. For example, the need to borrow

structural holes may be lower for expert creators

than for novices, but the need for weak ties to

generate the next big idea may be more impor-

tant. Finally, future research could measure and

test the mechanisms implied by our theorization

of primary needs. For example, research could

explore whether weak ties foster generation via

cognitive flexibility, as we theorize, or if the pos-

itive effect of closure is due to a shared vision.

In conclusion, this article posits that different

network elements are beneficial at different

points of the idea journey, and that an idea’ssuc-

cessful journey depends on the creator’s changing

frames and activating different networks. In doing

so,weadvanceexistingresearchonnetworks,

creativity, and innovation, and we offer a useful

framework to solve existing theoretical debates

and guide future research.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. 1993. Institutional and com-

petitive bandwagons: Using mathematical modeling as

a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Man-

agement Review, 18: 487–517.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. 1995. Dynamics of inclusion and exclu-

sion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly,

58: 145–162.

Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes and

innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 45: 425–455.

Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. 1993. Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of

the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group

decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113: 533–552.

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A

componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 45: 357–376.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10:

123–167.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M.2005.

Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 50: 367–403.

Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. 1999. Changes in the work envi-

ronment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of

Management Journal, 42: 630–640.

Anand, N., Gardner, H. K., & Morris, T. 2007. Knowledge-based

innovation: Emergence and embedding of new practice

areas in management consulting firms. Academy of

Management Journal, 50: 406–428.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Demography and

design: Predictors of new product team performance.

Organization Science, 3: 321–341.

Anderson, J. 2012. Alfred Hitchcock’s secret weapon becomes

a star. New York Times, November 16: http://www.

nytimes.com/2012/11/18/movies/hitchcock-and-the-girl-

remember-alma-reville.html?_r50.

Anderson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. 2000. Individual environ-

mental initiative: Championing natural environmental

issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 43: 548–570.

Anderson, N., Potoˇ

cnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and

creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review,

prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Jour-

nal of Management, 40: 1297–1333.

Aral, S., & Van Alstyne, M. 2011. Networks, information and

brokerage: The diversity-bandwidth tradeoff. American

Journal of Sociology, 117: 90–171.

Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming

barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

72 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. A meta-analysis

of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone,

activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin,

134: 779–806.

Baer, M. 2010. The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on crea-

tivity: A comprehensive examination and extension.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 592–601.

Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation

of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 55: 1102–1119.

Baker, T., & Nelson, N. E. 2005. Creating something

from no thi ng: Resource c onstruction thro ugh entre-

preneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,

50: 329–366.

Bangle, C. 2001. The ultimate creativity machine: How BMW

turns art into profit. Harvard Business Review, 79(1): 47–55.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and

personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32: 439–476.

Bartunek, J. M. 1984. Changing interpretive schemes and or-

ganizational restructuring: The example of a religious

order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355–372.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong:

Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental

human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. 2002. Effects of

social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated

aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 83: 817–827.

Berg, J. M. 2014. The primal mark: How the beginning shapes

the end in the development of creative ideas. Organiza-

tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125: 1–17.

Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York:

Wiley.

Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. 2013. A dynamic perspec-

tive on affect and creativity. Academy of Management

Journal, 56: 432–450.

Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Orga-

nization Science, 22: 1168–1181.

Brands, R. A., & Kilduff, M. 2013. Just like a woman? Effects of

gender-biased perceptions of friendship network broker-

age on attributions and performance. Organization Sci-

ence, 25: 1530–1548.

Brass, D. J. 1995. Creativity: It’s all in your social network. In

C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in orga-

nizations: 94–99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N., & Lant, T. K. 2013. Be careful what you

wish for: The effects of issue interpretation on social

choices in professional networks. Organization Science,

25: 401–419.

Burt, R. S. 1980. Innovation as a structural interest: Rethinking

the impact of network position on innovation adoption.

Social Networks, 2: 327–355.

Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Burt, R. S. 1998. The gender of social capital. Rationality and

Society, 10: 5–47.

Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American

Journal of Sociology, 110: 349–399.

Campbell, D. T. 1960. Blind variation and selective retention

in creative thought as in other knowledge processes.

Psychological Review, 67: 380–400.

Cardinal, L. B. 2001. Technological innovation in the phar-

maceutical industry: The use of organizational control in

managing research and development. Organization Sci-

ence, 12: 19–36.

Carley, K. 1986. An approach for relating social structure to

cognitive structure. Journal of Mathematical Sociology,

12: 137–189.

Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, translating and transforming:

An integrative and relational approach to sharing and

assessing knowledge across boundaries. Organization

Science, 15: 555–568.

Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. 2003. Into the black box: The

knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science,

49: 1180–1195.

Casciaro, T. 1998. Seeing things clearly: Social structure,

personality, and accuracy in social network perception.

Social Networks, 20: 331–351.

Casciaro, T., Carley, K. M., & Krackhardt, D. 1999. Positive

affectivity and accuracy in social network perception.

Motivation and Emotion, 23: 285–306.

Casciaro, T., Gino, F., & Kouchaki, M. 2014. The contaminating

effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can

make us feel dirty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59:

705–735.

Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. 2008. When competence is irrele-

vant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 655–684.

Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. 2014. Creativity Inc.: Overcoming

the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration.

New York: Random House.

Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. 2008. A core/periphery perspective

on individual creative performance: Social networks and

cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry.

Organization Science, 19: 824–844.

Chakrabarti, A. K. 1974. The role of champion in product in-

novation. California Management Review, 17(2): 58–62.

Chakrabarti, A. K., & Hauschildt, J. 1989. The division of labour

in innovation management. R&D Management, 19: 161–171.

Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Ingram, P. 2010. Embeddedness

and new idea discussion in professional networks: The

mediating role of affect‐based trust. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 44: 85–104.

Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. 2012. Collaborating

across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based

trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 118: 116–131.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human

capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement):

S95–S120.

Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Mentzel, H. 1966. Medical innovation.

New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

2017 73Perry-Smith and Mannucci

Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. 2013. Going un-

derground: Bootlegging and individual innovative per-

formance. Organization Science, 25: 1287–1305.

Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. 2007. Representational gaps,

information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse

teams. Academy of Management Review, 32: 761–773.

Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. 2001. Beyond answers:

Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23:

215–235.

Cross, R., & Sproull, L. 2004. More than an answer: Information

relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization

Science, 15: 446–462.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. Society, culture, and person: A

systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The

nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological per-

spectives: 325–339. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1997. Creativity: Flow and the psychol-

ogy of discovery and invention. New York: Harper

Perennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. Implications of a systems per-

spective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity: 313–338. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Dahlander, L., & McFarland, D. A. 2013. Ties that last: Tie

formation and persistence in research collaborations

over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 69–110.

Dane, E. 2010. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise

and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 35: 579–603.

Davis, M. A. 2009. Understanding the relationship between

mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 25–38.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1980. The empirical exploration of

intrinsic motivational processes. Advances in Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 13: 39–80.

De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and

activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a

dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 94: 739–756.

Delmestri, G., Montanari, F., & Usai, A. 2005. Reputation and

strength of ties in predicting commercial success and

artistic merit of independents in the Italian feature film

industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 975–1002.

De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Buyens, D. 2011. Self-

regulation of creativity at work: The role of feedback-

seeking behavior in creative performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 54: 811–831.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories:

Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461–488.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. 1999. Multilevel

theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sense-

making perspective. Academy of Management Review,

24: 286–307.

Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic is-

sues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Man-

agement Review, 12: 76–90.

Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. 1984. The effects of communi-

cation on technological innovation. Management Sci-

ence, 30: 572–585.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. 1996. Detrimental effects of

reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51:

1153–1166.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 2003. Assessing creativity in

Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process

model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management

Journal, 46: 286–301.

Erickson, R. J., & Wharton, A. S. 1997. Inauthenticity and de-

pression: Assessing the consequences of interactive ser-

vice work. Work and Occupations, 24: 188–213.

Ferree, M. M., & Miller, F. D. 1985. Mobilization and meaning:

Toward an integration of social movements. Sociological

Inquiry, 55: 38–51.

Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. 2007. Collaborative bro-

kerage, generative creativity, and creative success.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 443–475.

Ford, C. M. 1996. A theory of individual creative action in

multiple social domains. Academy of Management Re-

view, 21: 1112–1142.

Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R. D. 1994. Toward a model of venture

capital investment decision making. Financial Manage-

ment, 23: 28–37.

Friedkin, N. 1980. A test of structural features of Granovetter’s

strength of weak ties theory. Social Networks, 2: 411–422.

Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. 1991. The political process of innova-

tion. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13: 229–295.

Fuller, S. R., & Aldag, R. J. 1998. Organizational Tonypandy:

Lessons from a quarter century of the groupthink phe-

nomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 73: 163–184.

George, J. M. 2007. Creativity in organizations. Academy of

Management Annals, 1: 439–477.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods

foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context

and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87: 687–697.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive

context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative

mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity.

Academy of Management Journal, 50: 605–622.

Gertner, J. 2012. The idea factory: Bell Labs and the great age

of American innovation. New York: Penguin.

Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long

way: An examination of teams’engagement in creative

processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453–470.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issue

interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in

academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370–403.

Gl ¨

uckler, J., & Armbr ¨

uster, T. 2003. Bridging uncertainty in

management consulting: The mechanisms of trust and

networked reputation. Organization Studies, 24: 269–297.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

74 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Goncalo, J. A., & Duguid, M. M. 2012. Follow the crowd in a new

direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group

creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 118: 14–23.

Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American

Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network

theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1: 201–233.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure:

The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of

Sociology, 91: 1420–1443.

Guilford, J. P. 1968. Intelligence, creativity, and their educa-

tional implications. San Diego: R. R. Knapp.

Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of

weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization

subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82–111.

Hargadon, A. B. 2005. Bridging old worlds and building new

ones: Towards a microsociology of creativity. In L.

Thompson & H.-S. Choi (Eds), Creativity and innovation

in organizational teams: 199–216. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erl

From Creativity to Innovation: The Social Network Drivers of the Four Phases of the Idea Journey

Abstract and Figures