Environmental factors impacting the motivation to innovate: A systematic review

Soleas, Eleftherios Article Environmental factors impacting the motivation to innovate: A systematic review Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Soleas, Eleftherios (2021) : Environmental factors impacting the motivation to innovate: A systematic review, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ISSN 2192-5372, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 10, Iss. 1, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-021-00153-9 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/259631 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ REVIEW Open Access Environmental factors impacting the motivation to innovate: a systematic review Eleftherios Soleas Correspondence: [email protected] Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada Abstract The environments where innovation occurs are often as varied as the areas of endeavors that aspiring innovators could pursue. This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Campbell Collaboration and PRISMA to consolidate the findings of 74 studies into the Expectancy-Value-Cost motivation theoretical framework as a means of usefully isolating for decision-makers the environmental factors that impact the motivation to innovate. The results of this review reveal that additional study of interdisciplinary samples is needed to gather deep narrative and case-driven data that considers the experiences of innovators in addition to organizations. Leaders, including decision-makers, teachers, and supervisors, can set a precedent for their learners and workers to use their past experiences and to feel safe to take intelligent risks and make reasonable mistakes in pursuit of innovating. Ensuring that project teams have a mix of experiences and backgrounds can make for more productive collaborations. Proactively addressing costs can increase workplaces’psychological safety and stability, which enables workers and learners to better focus on the endeavors at hand. The articles’evaluation illustrates that conversation about innovation promotion is dominated by business, which reduces the opportunity to learn from other innovation-driven disciplines or take truly interdisciplinary approaches. Keywords: Innovation, Environment, Motivation, Expectancy-value, Innovation education, Systematic reviews, Interdisciplinary approaches Introduction Innovation has diverse conceptualizations and foci in different contexts, such as generating wealth through ideas driven by entrepreneurship in business settings and applying creativity in psychology (Baregheh et al., 2009; Carayannis et al., 2018). The amorphous meaning of the word causes problems with a unified definition of innovation for society and knowing who exactly innovators are and what can be done to support them (Arafeh, 2015; Johannessen et al., 2001; Nager et al., 2016; Soleas, 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Therefore, it is important for society’s progression that students, workers, and leaders (henceforth all referred to as learners) live and work in environments supportive of their innovating. These environments are often as varied as the areas of endeavors that aspiring innovators could pursue. This © The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurshi p Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-021-00153-9 article aims to consolidate the available knowledge in the literature to comprehensively identify the ways that environment can contribute to the motivation to innovate. It does so through a systematic review methodology and uses the Expectancy-Value-Cost Theory framework (Barron & Hulleman, 2015) to organize the findings to comprehensively answer the research questions. Expectancy-Value-Cost Theory (EVC) is a motivation framework that conceptualizes the motivation to complete a task as an interaction of the factors that make it more likely arrayed against those that actively detract from the motivation to complete the task in question. Expectancies (e.g., built expectations of success, perceived self-efficacy, and acquired confidence) and the subjective task values (interest, fulfillment, utility) are the promotive factors, while “perceived costs”are the hindering factors that make it less likely that a task is completed such as stress, financial considerations, external pressures, and the implications of failing at the task (Flake et al., 2015). This dynamic presents an opportunity to ascertain the characteristics of working and learning environments that influence the motivation to innovate. For instance, what learning or work environments increase the confidence of learners for innovating? What structural or environmental factors can reduce the costs of innovating to the point where more learners are willing to give it a try? This two-pronged approach of evaluating the literature offerings on both innovation-promotive and hindering motivation factors would provide an interdisciplinary view of the environmental factors that could make innovation more likely and approach hindering factors that need to be addressed. Systematic reviews are structured literature reviews where researchers retrieve all available evidence on a given topic; they synthesize, categorize, and appraise all the actual knowledge pertaining to a topic of inquiry (Heyvaert et al., 2013; Liberati et al., 2009; The Campbell Collaboration, 2017). In this case, the review sought all articles through an EBSCOhost all database search on environmental for promoting individuals’ capacity to innovate. A systematic review is an ideal methodology for consolidating knowledge from a varied range of disciplines (Liberati et al., 2009; The Campbell Collaboration, 2017), albeit an uncommon one in a domain with as much interdisciplinary interest as motivating innovation, which has made disciplinary siloing a far more academically comfortable outcome (Soleas, 2020). Methodology In searching, collecting, and reviewing literature for this study, the Campbell Collaboration’s protocols (The Campbell Collaboration, 2017), as well as the PRISMA Statement for systematic reviews (Liberati et al., 2009), were closely followed to ensure that the required information was provided for rigor and replicability such as databases searched, search terms, and the dates when searches were conducted. In this case, the registered systematic review (osf.io/up83s) consolidated and analyzed empirical studies through an EBSCOhost all database search of peer-reviewed scholarly contributions (books, articles, chapters, peer-reviewed conference proceedings) about the environments, which includes context, cultural, and situational factors, guided by the following research questions: Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 2 of 18 1. What does the existing literature tell us about environments that motivate and sustain human innovative behavior? a. What is found in the literature about environments that build expectations of success and self-efficacy of individual innovative behavior? b. What is found in the literature about environments that build subjective task values for individual innovative behavior? c. What is found in the literature about environments that mitigate the perceived costs of individual innovative behavior? Specific consideration was given to the design of environments that build human expectancies and help mitigate the perceived and unperceived costs or risks of innovative behavior. This systematic review followed an all database (n=375) search through EBSCOhost initially performed on January 2, 2018, and expanded upon on April 6, 2019, in addition to Google and Bing search engine use. The latter review captured all the previous review contributions but with the benefit of additional articles published in the elapsed time. A challenge with the current literature on innovation and a key reason why a systematic review is necessary is the nebulous and often conjectural ideas defining and explaining innovators’motivation. Innovation is deeply entangled with concepts such as invention, entrepreneurship, and novelty (Carayannis et al., 2018; Weisenfeld & Hauerwaas, 2018). To manage this issue, only empirical studies specific to innovation, with human participants that examined individuals’motivations as a unit of analysis, were included. Additionally, only English-language articles and articles with verified English-language translations were considered. There were no restrictions on the years of included studies, with the earliest studies dating back to 1967 and the most recent published in early 2019. Similarly, when contacting authors of the included papers for additional sources to consider, there were no date-of-publication restrictions. Seventy-eight studies from outside the database search were obtained this way, while an additional 64 studies were found to be already included in the search and removed as redundant. Database searching was concluded on May 6, 2019, and the last of the article-yielding author replies was retrieved by May 8, 2019 (Fig. 1). Search strategy In Abstract AND Paper: Innovat* AND (Motiv* OR Promot* OR Support*) AND (environ* OR climat* or context*). Related word substitutions are allowed. As secondary search procedures, Google and Bing were also searched using an analogous process with Boolean search code operators. The authors’email addresses were extracted, and these authors were contacted, resulting in 111 previously undiscovered prospective studies after eliminating redundant duplicates. Research assistants were employed to facilitate the screening process by abstracts and titles. Study reviewers operated in dyads. Each member did independent reviews of each abstract and title by deciding whether they would be relevant and within the inclusion criteria. Each abstract and title was therefore reviewed twice to adjudicate inclusion or exclusion (Fig. 2). Disagreements were resolved through the study being included in the full paper review to avoid removing a potentially eligible study. Cohen’s Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 3 of 18 Kappas were calculated using the tabulated data in the aggregate review (see Table 1). The Kappa value (0.895) indicates very good agreement among the reviewers. Two hundred twenty-six studies were full-text reviewed, of which 78 final studies were assessed to be fully eligible for inclusion in findings extraction. Findings were extracted from the final papers using qualitative data analysis software, Atlas.ti v8.0. In this way, salient hypotheses, methodologies, findings, conclusions, participant data, and other articles for consideration were isolated from the full-text PDFs. From the methodology, the paradigm (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixedmethodology) and tradition (e.g., case study, experimental design, or pre-post-test) were isolated and extracted. A few authors appeared on two manuscripts; however, these were very few and far between. There were no discernible patterns in the home institution of authors beyond a distinct prevalence of western institutions such as those in North America and Europe and far fewer from Africa, South America, and Asia, though we note that in recent years this trend is no longer quite as true. However, in terms of journal distribution of included articles, Frontiers in Psychology (5), Product Information Management (4), Occupational and Organization Psychology (2), Creativity Research Journal, Creativity and Innovation Management (2), Research Policy (2), and Industrial Marketing Management (2) were the only journals to have more than one article included in this synthesis. Fig. 1 Flow of information in this systematic review study Fig. 2 Flow diagram of the study selection Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 4 of 18 Business workers and employees were the most common study participants (41.9%), followed by service consumers (17.6%), business leaders (13.5%), students (10.8%), entrepreneurs (8.11%), teachers (4.05%), higher education faculty (1.35%), libraries (1.35%), and astronauts (1.35%) (see Table 2for a complete listing of studies by participant type). Many studies examined managers’or leaders’activities as crucial for promoting the innovative behavior of other workers. For simplicity’s sake, the term leader will be used for individuals who influence subordinate, worker, or learner groups in their care. In the case of schools, leaders would be those leading classes, namely, teachers and administrators. When comparing the results of analyzing articles by discipline, the disciplinary breakdown of articles mirrored the findings of Soleas (2018), including the disproportionate representation (55.3%) of innovation conceptualized in from business disciplines such as economics, management, and entrepreneurship compared to public sector studies (17.6%), construction and engineering (9.5%), and small minorities from primary and secondary education (6.8%), psychology (5.4%), higher education (4.1%), and design (1.3%) (see Table 3for a complete study listing by discipline). Thevastmajorityofstudiesinthesample were quantitative (75.7%), with qualitative as a sizable minority (18.9%), and mixed method studies as the rarest (5.4%) (see Table 4for a complete study listing by methodology type). In terms of research design, surveys were by far the most common design (63.5%), followed by case studies (12.2%), meta-analyses (8.1%), interviews (8.1%), experimental and quasi-experimental designs (6.7%), and then sequential explanatory mixed methods (1.35%) (see Table 5for a complete listing by design.) Expectancies in the literature: can I do this? Innovation stands as an interesting case for EVC as the factors that might potentially motivate innovation are numerous. In terms of the expectancies (self-efficacy and efficacy expectancies; see Bandura, 2001; Wigfield, 1994), persons who see themselves as potentially able to innovate because of an acquired efficacy or confidence should hold a higher expectation of being able to innovate and thus become more invested in the task of innovating. Indeed, EVC and expectancies as a construct have been much clarified by Bandura’s works in explaining the role of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986,2001,2006). Higher investment in the task results in a higher degree of motivation sourced from the self-held conviction that the individual can innovate. An expectancy of success begets well-being, which begets further expectancy of success in innovation and elsewhere. Leaders and managers in organizations assigning simpler innovation tasks early in a program and then building to harder problems according to this logic line should steadily build esteem and self-efficacy. Table 1 Screening phase: review of titles and abstracts—relative agreement as indicated by Cohen’s Kappa Aggregate Kappa = 0.895 99.07% agreement Reject Keep SE of Kappa = 0.016 91.13% of the agreement could be explained by chance Reject 4193 18 95% CI = 0.864 to 0.927 Keep 23 185 Rated as very good Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 5 of 18 Environmental characteristics that build expectancies Expectancies within the innovation literature were portrayed as being dynamic across contexts and related to individual demographics and personality at least as much as to the environment or situation where innovation was to occur (Monge et al., 1992;Ozorhon&Oral,2017;Parketal.,2004). The dynamism and relatively differential impact suggest that the current understanding is that there is not one universal strategy for building the confidence to innovate, but rather that theenvironmentsneedtobeinformedbythe motivational dynamics of the individual and group at hand. Table 2 Study participant groupings of included studies Business employees Business leaders Consumers 1. Aalbers et al. (2013) 1. Cordero et al. (2005) 1. Bolderdijk et al. (2018) 2. Aarikka-Stenroos et al. (2017) 2. Hosseini and Narayanan (2014) 2. Brandstätter (2011) 3. Amabile (1997) 3. Hsu (2009) 3. Costa et al. (2015) 4. Apergis and Pekka-Economou (2010) 4. Jermias (2007) 4. Duverger (2012) 5. Armstrong et al. (2018) 5. Liu and Chan (2017) 5. Füller et al. (2012) 6. Bergendahl et al. (2015) 6. Lukoschek et al. (2018) 6. Hasan et al. (2019) 7. Bessonova and Gonchar (2017) 7. Manimala et al. (2006) 7. Hopkins (2016) 8. Chen et al. (2019) 8. Naidoo and Sutherland (2016) 8. Kraft and Bausch (2018) 9. Chi et al. (2018) 9. Weisenfeld and Hauerwaas (2018) 9. Mc Fadden and Gorman (2016) 10. Curran and Walsworth (2014) 10. Wu et al. (2013) 10. Ng and Feldman (2013) 11. de Jong and Flowers (2018)Teachers 11. Ozorhon and Oral (2017) 12. Delmas and Pekovic (2018) 1. Gorozidis and Papaioannou (2016) 12. Park et al. (2004) 13. Demircioglu and Audretsch (2017) 2. Lam et al. (2010) 13. Thapa et al. (2015) 14. Ederer and Manso (2013) 3. Messmann and Mulder (2014)Astronauts 15. Fernandez and Pitts (2011)Entrepreneurs 1. Brcic (2010) 16. Ford (1999) 1. Fischer et al. (2019)Students 17. Galia (2008) 2. Griffin et al. (2009) 1. Bastian et al. (2018) 18. Gopal and College (2011) 3. Jiang and Thagard (2014) 2. Chis et al. (2018) 19. Hartmann (2006) 4. Shane et al. (2003) 3. Dietrich et al. (2016) 20. Lerner and Wulf (2018) 5. Susha et al. (2015) 4. Joy (2004) 21. Lettl (2007) 6. Todt et al. (2018) 5. Kung and Chao (2019) 22. Li and Yu (2018)Academics 6. Mack and Landau (2015) 23. Maria Stock et al. (2017) 1. Kandiko (2013) 7. Pihie (2007) 24. Minarcine and Shaw (2016)Librarians 8. Reznickova and Zepeda (2016) 25. Monge et al. (1992) 1. Koloniari et al. (2018) 26. Montani et al. (2014) 27. Öberg and Shih (2014) 28. Pihlajamaa (2017) 29. van Acker et al. (2018) 30. Vansteenkiste et al. (2005) 31. Wang et al. (2018) Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 6 of 18 Relevant experience and past success Studies found that environments that facilitated the use of relevant experiences and past successes tended to support innovative behavior due to increased confidence. The effects of experience were varied. It was found in many studies that experience and past success tended to increase the efficacy of other expectancies as collaborations with a mixture of experiences tended to be more fruitful than homogenously experienced teams (Bastian et al., 2018; Bolderdijk et al., 2018;Joy,2004;Kraft&Bausch,2018;Kung&Chao,2019;McFadden & Gorman, 2016;Parketal.,2004; Thapa et al., 2015; Weisenfeld & Hauerwaas, 2018). Similarly, Füller et al. (2012), Chis et al. (2018), and Apergis and Pekka-Economou (2010) found that experience or training in creative settings tended to increase confidence when participating in the innovative process. Another idea in innovation literature is the Table 3 Disciplinary groupings of included studies Business/management Public sector 1. Aarikka-Stenroos et al. (2017) 22. Hsu (2009) 1. Aalbers et al. (2013) 2. Amabile (1997) 23. Jermias (2007) 2. Demircioglu and Audretsch (2017) 3. Apergis and Pekka-Economou (2010) 24. Kung and Chao (2019) 3. Dietrich et al. (2016) 4. Armstrong et al. (2018) 25. Lerner and Wulf (2018) 4. Duverger (2012) 5. Bergendahl et al. (2015) 26. Li and Yu (2018) 5. Fernandez and Pitts (2011) 6. Bessonova and Gonchar (2017) 27. Lukoschek et al. (2018) 6. Hasan et al. (2019) 7. Brandstätter (2011) 28. Mack and Landau (2015) 7. Jiang and Thagard (2014) 8. Bolderdijk et al. (2018) 29. Maria Stock et al. (2017) 8. Kraft and Bausch (2018) 9. Chen et al. (2019) 30. Minarcine and Shaw (2016) 9. Manimala et al. (2006) 10. Chi et al. (2018) 31. Monge et al. (1992) 10. Mc Fadden and Gorman (2016) 11. Curran and Walsworth (2014) 32. Montani et al. (2014) 11. Thapa et al. (2015) 12. de Jong and Flowers (2018) 33. Naidoo and Sutherland (2016) 12. van Acker et al. (2018) 13. Delmas and Pekovic (2018) 34. Ng and Feldman (2013) 13. Vansteenkiste et al. (2005) 14. Ederer and Manso (2013) 35. Öberg and Shih (2014)Education 15. Fischer et al. (2019) 36. Shane et al. (2003) 1. Chis et al. (2018) 16. Ford (1999) 37. Susha et al. (2015) 2. Gorozidis and Papaioannou (2016) 17. Füller et al. (2012) 38. Todt et al. (2018) 3. Lam et al. (2010) 18. Galia (2008) 39. Wang et al. (2018) 4. Messmann and Mulder (2014) 19. Gopal and College (2011) 40. Weisenfeld and Hauerwaas (2018) 5. Pihie (2007) 20. Griffin et al. (2009) 41. Wu et al. (2013)Higher education 21. Hopkins (2016) 1. Kandiko (2013) Construction/engineering Design 2. Koloniari et al. (2018) 1. Cordero et al. (2005) 1. Lettl (2007) 3. Reznickova and Zepeda (2016) 2. Hartmann (2006)Psychology 3. Hosseini and Narayanan (2014) 1. Bastian et al. (2018) 4. Liu and Chan (2017) 2. Brcic (2010) 5. Ozorhon and Oral (2017) 3. Costa et al. (2015) 6. Park et al. (2004) 4. Joy (2004) 7. Pihlajamaa (2017) Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 7 of 18 association of ideas, known as knowledge transfer in other literature, increased confidence and capacity for innovating (Jiang & Thagard, 2014). Minarcine and Shaw (2016) and Park et al. (2004) found that it was exceedingly rare for people to be adventurous in careers where they had little or no experience. The increase in confidence was dependent on the relatedness between the endeavor the aspirant was pursuing and their relevant experience—the individual’s previous career and the endeavor they wished to undertake. For example, a cutting-edge hairstylist would be more adventurous when going out on their own to open a hair salon; then, they would be starting their own winery. Thus, innovators who had experience related to the endeavor they were considering were much more likely to attempt them. These experiences were found to impart or develop the confidence to be innovative (Armstrong et al., 2018; Chis et al., 2018; Griffin et al., 2009). There was universal agreement that Table 4 Methodology type groupings of included studies Quantitative Qualitative 1. Aalbers et al. (2013) 29. Hosseini and Narayanan (2014) 1. Aarikka-Stenroos et al. (2017) 2. Amabile (1997) 30. Hsu (2009) 2. Armstrong et al. (2018) 3. Apergis and Pekka-Economou (2010) 31. Jermias (2007) 3. Brcic (2010) 4. Bastian et al. (2018) 32. Joy (2004) 4. Gopal and College (2011) 5. Bergendahl et al. (2015) 33. Koloniari et al. (2018) 5. Griffin et al. (2009) 6. Bessonova and Gonchar (2017) 34. Kraft and Bausch (2018) 6. Hartmann (2006) 7. Bolderdijk et al. (2018) 35. Kung and Chao (2019) 7. Jiang and Thagard (2014) 8. Brandstätter (2011) 36. Lam et al. (2010) 8. Kandiko (2013) 9. Chen et al. (2019) 37. Lerner and Wulf (2018) 9. Lettl (2007) 10. Chi et al. (2018) 38. Li and Yu (2018) 10. Manimala et al. (2006) 11. Chis et al. (2018) 39. Liu and Chan (2017) 11. Minarcine and Shaw (2016) 12. Cordero et al. (2005) 40. Lukoschek et al. (2018) 12. Naidoo and Sutherland (2016) 13. Costa et al. (2015) 41. Mack and Landau (2015) 13. Pihlajamaa (2017) 14. Curran and Walsworth (2014) 42. Maria Stock et al. (2017) 14. Reznickova and Zepeda (2016) 15.de Jong and Flowers (2018) 43. Messmann and Mulder (2014)Mixed 16. Delmas and Pekovic (2018) 44. Monge et al. (1992) 1. Mc Fadden and Gorman (2016) 17. Demircioglu and Audretsch (2017) 45. Montani et al. (2014) 2. Ng and Feldman (2013) 18. Dietrich et al. (2016) 46. Ozorhon and Oral (2017) 3. Öberg and Shih (2014) 19. Duverger (2012) 47. Park et al. (2004) 4. Susha et al. (2015) 20. Ederer and Manso (2013) 48. Pihie (2007) 21. Fernandez and Pitts (2011) 49. Shane et al. (2003) 22. Fischer et al. (2019) 50. Thapa et al. (2015) 23. Ford (1999) 51. Todt et al. (2018) 24. Füller et al. (2012) 52. van Acker et al. (2018) 25. Galia (2008) 53. Vansteenkiste et al. (2005) 26. Gorozidis and Papaioannou (2016) 54. Wang et al. (2018) 27. Hasan et al. (2019) 55. Weisenfeld and Hauerwaas (2018) 28. Hopkins (2016) 56. Wu et al. (2013) Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 8 of 18 innovators. This focus on survey research precludes the possibility of having concrete details and rich articulation of narration from innovators on their thinking. Survey methodology, while a useful tool of scholarship, does not provide deep narrative and personal understanding in the same way that interview, focus group, or other openended question-driven methodologies could. As well, the relative lack of interdisciplinary participants should be concerning as it means that studies are still largely disinterested in cross-disciplinary efforts to make innovation more likely, hinting at a continuance of siloed efforts to promote innovation. Although there is an emergent field of study on innovation education, this field has yet to consider the unique motivation of aspiring innovators as foretold by existing innovators’experiences. Abbreviation EVC: Expectancy-Value-Cost Theory (Barron and Hulleman 2015)—A major theory of motivation that theorizes that the motivation for a task is the function of the expectancies (expectations of success, confidence, self-efficacy) and the values (a direct or indirect, tangible, or intangible benefit for performing the task) balanced against the perceived costs of performing the task. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank all research assistants for their work reviewing and extracting data from the articles. Their work analyzed available knowledge and made the authorship of this manuscript possible. Author’s contributions This manuscript was authored solely by the corresponding author. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Availability of data and materials Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. However, lists of analyzed articles are available in the manuscript in the tables and the references. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable for this study Competing interests The author declares no competing interests. Received: 27 April 2020 Accepted: 24 February 2021 References Aalbers, R., Dolfsma, W., & Koppius, O. (2013). Individual connectedness in innovation networks: On the role of individual motivation. Research Policy, 42(3), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.007. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D., & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to manage innovation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indma rman.2017.09.014. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921. Apergis, N., & Pekka-Economou, V. (2010). Incentives and female entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from panel firm level data. International Advances in Economic Research, 16(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-010-9277-9. Arafeh, L. (2015). An entrepreneurial key competencies’model. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1). https://doi. org/10.1186/s13731-016-0048-6. Armstrong, A., van der Lingen, E., Lourens, R., & Chen, J. Y.-J. (2018). Towards a new model of grit within a cognitive-affective framework of self-regulation. South African Journal of Business Management, 49(1), 1–8. http://10.0.16.6/sajbm.v49i1.13 Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts. Journal of Technology Transfer,44(2),313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,4(3), 359–373. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/1 0.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x. Baranchuk, N., Kieschnick, R., & Moussawi, R. (2014). Motivating innovation in newly public firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(3), 578–588 http://10.0.3.248/j.jfineco.2013.11.010 Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 15 of 18 Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578. Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-Value-Cost model of motivation. In J. S. Eccles & K. Salmelo-Aro (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). London: Elsevier. Bastian, B., Jetten, J., Thai, H. A., & Steffens, N. K. (2018). Shared adversity increases team creativity through fostering supportive interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(Article 2309), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02309. Bergendahl, M., Magnusson, M., & Björk, J. (2015). Ideation high performers: a study of motivational factors. Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1088266. Bessonova, E., & Gonchar, K. (2017). Incentives to innovate in response to competition: The role of agency costs. Economic Systems, 41(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.09.002. Bolderdijk, J. W., Brouwer, C., & Cornelissen, G. (2018). When do morally motivated innovators elicit inspiration instead of irritation? Frontiers in Psychology, 8(Article 2362), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02362. Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality & Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230. http://10.0.3.248/j.paid.2010.07.007 Brcic, J. (2010). Motivational profile of astronauts at the International Space Station. Acta Astronautica, 67(9–10), 1110–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.06.044. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F. J., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R and D Management, 48(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12300. Chaiechi, T. (2014). The broken window: Fallacy or fact–A Kaleckian–Post Keynesian approach. Economic Modelling, 39, 195– 203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.02.025. Chen, J. X., Sharma, P., Zhan, W., & Liu, L. (2019). Demystifying the impact of CEO transformational leadership on firm performance: Interactive roles of exploratory innovation and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 96, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.061. Chi, M., Wang, W., Lu, X., & George, J. F. (2018). Antecedents and outcomes of collaborative innovation capabilities on the platform collaboration environment. International Journal of Information Management, 43(September), 273–283. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.08.007. Chis, A. E., Moldovan, A.-N., Murphy, L., Pathak, P., & Hava Muntean, C. (2018). Investigating flipped classroom and problembased learning in a programming module for computing conversion course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 232–247. http://proxy.queensu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132 598185&site=ehost-live Cordero, R., Walsh, S. T., & Kirchhoff, B. A. (2005). Motivating performance in innovative manufacturing plants. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2005.06.005. Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order metaanalysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002. Curran, B., & Walsworth, S. (2014). Can you pay employees to innovate? Evidence from the Canadian private sector. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12036. de Jong, J. P. J. J., & Flowers, S. (2018). Free in, free out? Outbound transfer of user innovations in small UK firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 73(December 2017), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.008. Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3163-1. Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.004. Dietrich, M., Znotka, M., Guthor, H., & Hilfinger, F. (2016). Instrumental and non-instrumental factors of social innovation adoption. Voluntas, 27(4), 1950–1978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9639-2. Duverger, P. (2012). Variety is the spice of innovation: mediating factors in the service idea generation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00621.x. Ederer, F., & Manso, G. (2013). Is pay for performance detrimental to innovation? Management Science, 59(7), 1496–1513. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1683. Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2011). Understanding employee motivation to innovate: evidence from front line employees in United States federal agencies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678500.2011.00726.x. Fischer, C., Malycha, C. P., & Schafmann, E. (2019). The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137. Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, D. B., Welsh, M. E., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002. Ford, C. M. (1999). Interpretive style, motivation, ability and context as predictors of executives’creative performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00136. Füller, J., Matzler, K., Hutter, K., & Hautz, J. (2012). Consumers’creative talent: Which characteristics qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of asymmetrical effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00650.x. Galia, F. (2008). Intrinsic-extrinsic motivations and knowledge sharing in French firms. ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 56–80. Gopal, G., & College, E. (2011). Using reward systems to motivate employees for innovation. Niall Hoarty, Medtronic Corporation, Galway, Ireland Dr. Gurram Gopal, Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, IL Dr. Laurence P. Elwood, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland. Global Education Journal,56–67. Gorozidis, G. S., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2016). Teachers’achievement goals and self-determination to engage in work tasks promoting educational innovations. Learning and Individual Differences, 49,46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.014. Green, E. (2013, June 20). Innovation: The history of a buzzword, (p. 20). The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/a rchive/2013/06/innovation-the-history-of-a-buzzword/277067/ Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 16 of 18 Griffin, A., Price, R. L., Maloney, M. M., Vojak, B. A., & Sim, E. W. (2009). Voices from the field: How exceptional electronic industrial innovators innovate. Journal of Product Innovation Management,26(2),222–240. http://10.0.4.87/j.1540-5885.2009.00347.x Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in construction firms. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170610710712. Hasan, R., Lowe, B., & Petrovici, D. (2019). An empirical comparison of consumer innovation adoption models: Implications for subsistence marketplaces. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(1), 61–80. http://10.0.4.153/0743915618813348 Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813479449. Hopkins, V. (2016). Institutions, incentives, and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Studies Journal, 44(3), 332–348. https://doi.org/1 0.1111/psj.12132. Hosseini, S. M. P., & Narayanan, S. (2014). Adoption, adaptive innovation, and creative innovation among SMEs in Malaysian manufacturing. Asian Economic Papers, 13(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.1162/ASEP_a_00279. Hsu, Y. (2009). Exploring design innovation and performance: The roles of issue related to design strategy. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(6), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802043609. Jermias, J. (2007). The effects of corporate governance on the relationship between innovative efforts and performance. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 827–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701707045. Jiang, M., & Thagard, P. (2014). Creative cognition in social innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 375–388. https://doi. org/10.1080/10400419.2014.961774. Johannessen, J.-A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: What is new, how new, and new to whom? European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060110365547. Jones, P., Klapper, R., Ratten, V., & Fayolle, A. (2018). Emerging themes in entrepreneurial behaviours, identities and contexts. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 19(4), 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750318772811. Joy, S. (2004). Innovation motivation: The need to be different. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2–3), 313–330. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10400419.2004.9651461. Kandiko, C. B. (2013). Leadership and creativity in higher education: The role of interdisciplinarity (H05). London Review of Education, 10(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.691283. Koloniari, M., Vraimaki, E., & Fassoulis, K. (2018). Fostering innovation in academic libraries through knowledge creation. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 793–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.016. Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2018). Managerial social networks and innovation: A meta-analysis of bonding and bridging effects across institutional environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 865–889. http://10.0.4.87/jpim.12450 Kung, F. Y. H., & Chao, M. M. (2019). The impact of mixed emotions on creativity in negotiation: An interpersonal perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(Article 2660), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02660. Lam, S., Cheng, R. W., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning & Instruction, 20(6), 487–497 http://10.0.3.248/j.learninstruc.2009.07.003 Lehmann-Ortega, L., & Schoettl, J.-M. (2005). From buzzword to managerial tool: The role of business model in strategic innovation. In Paper presented at the CLADEA annual assembly http://www.businessmodelcommunity.com/fs/Root/8jvaaBusinessmodelsantiago.pdf Lerner, J., & Wulf, J. (2018). Innovation and incentives: evidence from corporate R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 634–644. Lettl, C. (2007). User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 24(1/ 2), 53–75. http://10.0.3.248/j.jengtecman.2007.01.004 Li, J., & Yu, D. (2018). The path to innovation: The antecedent perspective of intellectual capital and organizational character. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(Article 2445), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02445. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., …Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100 Liu, A., & Chan, I. (2017). Critical role of the learning transfer climate in fostering innovation in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479 Lukoschek, C. S., Gerlach, G., Stock, R. M., & Xin, K. (2018). Leading to sustainable organizational unit performance: Antecedents and outcomes of executives’dual innovation leadership. Journal of Business Research, 91(December 2017), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.003. Mack, T., & Landau, C. (2015). Winners, losers, and deniers: Self-selection in crowd innovation contests and the roles of motivation, creativity, and skills. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37,52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jengtecman.2015.08.003. Manimala, M. J., Jose, P. D., & Thomas, K. R. (2006). Organizational constraints on innovation and intrapreneurship: insights from public sector. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 31(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920060104. Maria Stock, R., Zacharias, N. A., & Schnellbaecher, A. (2017). How do strategy and leadership styles jointly affect co-development and its innovation outcomes? Journal of Product Innovation Management,34(2),201–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12332. Mc Fadden, T., & Gorman, M. (2016). Exploring the concept of farm household innovation capacity in relation to farm diversification in policy context. Journal of Rural Studies, 46, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.05.006. Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2014). Exploring the role of target specificity in the facilitation of vocational teachers’innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12035. Minarcine, S., & Shaw, C. (2016). Motivations for entrepreneurship. International Journal of the Academic Business World, 10(2), 47–56 Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamic of organizational innovation. Organization Science, 3(2), 250–274 Montani, F., Odoardi, C., & Battistelli, A. (2014). Individual and contextual determinants of innovative work behaviour: Proactive goal generation matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joop.12066. Nager, A., Hart, D., Ezell, S., & Atkinson, R. D. (2016). The demographics of innovation in the United States. https://itif.org/ publications/2016/02/24/demographics-innovation-united-states Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 17 of 18 Naidoo, S., & Sutherland, M. (2016). A management dilemma: Positioning employees for internal competition versus internal collaboration. Is coopetition possible? South African Journal of Business Management, 47(1), 75–87. http://www.redi-bw. de/db/ebsco.php/search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=116077091&site=ehost-live Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.012. Öberg, C., & Shih, T. T. Y. (2014). Divergent and convergent logic of firms: Barriers and enablers for development and commercialization of innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2 013.12.010. Ozorhon, B., & Oral, K. (2017). Drivers of innovation in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001234. Park, M., Nepal, M. P., & Dulaimi, M. F. (2004). Dynamic modeling for construction innovation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:4(170). Pihie, Z. A. L. (2007). An analysis of academic experience to develop entrepreneurial attributes and motivation among at-risk students. The International Journal of Learning, 14(6), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14 i06/45363. Pihlajamaa, M. (2017). Going the extra mile: managing individual motivation in radical innovation development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 43, 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.01.003. Reznickova, A., & Zepeda, L. (2016). Can self-determination theory explain the self-perpetuation of social innovations? A case study of slow food at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (Vol. 55, Issue 1, pp. 3–35). Rochester: University of Rochester Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: The Guilford Press. Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017-2. Smith, K. R. (2006). Building an innovation ecosystem: Process, culture and competencies. Industry and Higher Education, 20(4), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006778175801. Soleas, E. K. (2018). Get off my lawn: Why capitalism’s monopoly on innovation is bad for us all and what educators can do about it. Graduate Student Symposium Selected Papers, 12, 91–107 Soleas, E. K. (2020). Expectancies, values, and costs of innovating identified by Canadian innovators: A motivational basis for supporting innovation talent development. Journal of Advanced Academics,1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20904772. Susha, I., Grönlund, A., & Janssen, M. (2015). Driving factors of service innovation using open government data: An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries. Information Polity, 20(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150353. Thapa, B. E. P., Niehaves, B., Seidel, C. E., & Plattfaut, R. (2015). Citizen involvement in public sector innovation: Government and citizen perspectives. Information Polity, 20(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150351. The Campbell Collaboration (2017). Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines. Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1, 10(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1. Todt, G., Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2018). Mitigating negative side effects of innovation project terminations: The role of resilience and social support. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(4), 518–542 http://10.0.4.87/jpim.12426 U.S. Department of Education (2014). What do we mean by “innovation”?Abouted.https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001939.8. van Acker, W., Wynen, J., & Op de Beeck, S. (2018). Illuminating the Gender Divide in Public Sector Innovation: Evidence From the Australian Public Service. Public Personnel Management, 47(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017747299. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Witte, H., & Feather, N. T. (2005). Understanding unemployed people’s job search behaviour, unemployment experience and well-being: A comparison of Expectancy-Value Theory and Self-Determination Theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 269–287 Wang, G., & Huang, H. (2015). Effect of Chinese employees’emotional creativity on their innovative performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 43(7), 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.7.1147. Wang, Y., Liu, J., Zhu, Y., & Bastian, B. (2018). Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and follower creativity: a cross-level investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(Article 1727), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0172. Weisenfeld, U., & Hauerwaas, A. (2018). Adopters build bridges: Changing the institutional logic for more sustainable cities. From action to workset to practice. Research Policy, 47(5), 911–923. http://10.0.3.248/j.respol.2018.02.015 Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-Value Theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78 Wu, A., Su, J., & Wang, H. (2013). Internal innovation or external innovation? An organizational context-based analysis in China. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(2), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2013.09.006. Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Soleas Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2021) 10:17 Page 18 of 18