Exploring individual foresight: Implications for organizational learning and innovation in firms

Innes, Melissa L Article Exploring individual foresight: Implications for organizational learning and innovation in firms Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK) Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Innes, Melissa L (2024) : Exploring individual foresight: Implications for organizational learning and innovation in firms, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100604 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327506 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-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring individual foresight: Implications for organizational learning and innovation in firms Melissa L Innes * University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs, Queensland, 4556, Australia ARTICLE INFO JEL Codes: D23 D83 O15 Keywords: Individual foresight Organizational learning Innovation Knowledge management ABSTRACT Corporate foresight (CF) is considered an organizational capability that contributes to the innovativeness and sustained competitive advantage of firms, particularly in the presence of organizational learning (OL). The business literature positions individuals as important to the CF process but it provides limited clarification about how individuals do foresight or, more specifically, how they experience foresight in organizations. Embracing the resource-based view of the firm, this study provides understanding of how individuals use tacit knowledge in individual foresight (IF) and engage in OL mechanisms to contribute to innovativeness. The micro-foundations of IF are examined to determine how employees experience IF in an organizational context. Adopting a phenomenological approach, 27 interviews were conducted with employees across the finance and insurance and utilities industries, resulting in a theoretical framework of IF. Examining the lifeworld of individuals as they experience foresight revealed a rich tapestry of both personal and intra-organizational social capital interactions useful in demonstrating the role of IF for innovation in firms. Storytelling, mentorship, and group reflection, supported by appropriate culture, leadership, and human resource strategies, confirm the value of fostering IF to encourage innovation. This study advances foresight research by broadening understanding of IF from an employee perspective—specifically, how IF is experienced and can foster OL and innovation outcomes for firms. Implications for firms and opportunities for a future research agenda are proposed. Introduction Knowledge is one of the most valuable resources of any organization. Combined with foresight, knowledge can result in organizational-level foresight competence, with powerful outcomes leading to radical innovations and competitive advantage for firms (Fergnani, 2022; Tiberius, Schwarzer & Roig-Dob´ on, 2021). Yet, there is limited understanding of how tacit knowledge unique to individuals in workplaces is used and shared in the foresight process, and how this influences innovativeness. A greater understanding of individual foresight (IF), defined as the ability of humans to imagine future scenarios by drawing on past experiences, planning future actions, and assessing these actions to determine future success (Innes, 2023), offers multiple opportunities for firms and future researchers. First, the value of corporate foresight (CF) practices to organizations has been well established (Fergnani, 2022; Rohrbeck & Schwarz, 2013), yet despite the call to understand how foresight is manifested and experienced at the individual level (Hodgkinson & Clarke, 2007; Marinkovi´ c, Al-Tabbaa, Khan & Wu, 2022; Tapinos & Pyper, 2018), few studies have explored this phenomenon, with process models failing to clearly define the cognitive abilities undertaken in the process of foresight (Horton, 1999; Voros, 2003). Second, a greater understanding is needed of the benefits of future-thinking or “an ability to project the self forward in time to pre-experience an event” (Atance & O’Neill, 2001, p. 537) in organizations. The ability for people to engage in future-thinking and consider future consequences of decisions and actions contributes to positive behavioral outcomes (Probst, Graso, Estrada & Greer, 2013), improvements in innovative choices, and more accurate decision-making (Ballance et al., 2022; Eisenbart, Lovallo, Garbuio, Cristofaro & Dong, 2023). Finally, several cognitions involved in the foresight process, including analysis, translation, interpretation, and prospection (Slaughter, 1995; Voros, 2003), can require third-party involvement because of the cognitive limitations of individuals (Horton, 1999). Thus, social learning, where valuable knowledge stems from the exchange of tacit knowledge between employees (Hamel, 1994; Nonaka, 1994), becomes essential for the processes of foresight and innovation (Ganguly, Talukdar & Chatterjee, 2019; Obrenovic, Du, Godini´ c & Tsoy, 2022). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Innovation & Knowledge journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jik https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100604 Received 26 July 2024; Accepted 18 October 2024 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 Available online 9 November 2024 2444-569X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ). Underpinned by the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), the knowledge-based view posits that organizational knowledge is one of the most important resources of an organization (Antunes & Pinheiro, 2020; Grant, 1996). Personal knowledge and experience involved in the IF process is often tacit in nature (Innes, 2023), meaning that it is held by individuals. This presents challenges to firms, in terms of how this knowledge can be shared and fostered to produce key outcomes at individual and organizational levels. Firms seeking to capitalize on innovative endeavors must address this challenge because tacit knowledge plays a vital and positive role in a firm’s innovations (Antunes & Pinheiro, 2020; P´ erez-Lu˜ no, Alegre & Valle-Cabrera, 2019). This paper extends existing foresight research and presents unique insights into the individual world of foresight for employees. Through the phenomenological exploration of IF undertaken across two industries, this paper defines IF in organizations and positions IF as a valuable contributor to learning and innovativeness in firms. Responding to the central research question—How do employees experience individual foresight in organizations and how does this contribute to organizational learning and innovation outcomes for firms?—this study revealed insights used to develop a theoretical framework of IF. Theoretical contributions to foresight literature, knowledge management (KM), organizational learning (OL), and innovation are presented, along with practical implications for firms, limitations of the study, and a future research agenda. Literature review Corporate foresight CF has recently been defined as “a continuous process, that involves CF initial conditions (i.e., motivations), internal mechanisms (i.e., activities and tools), boundary conditions (i.e., moderators and influencing factors), and output (i.e., CF multiple outcomes)” (Marinkovi´ c et al., 2022, p. 291). Further, and relevant to the internal mechanisms noted in this definition, CF has been positioned as one of the micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities (Schwarz, Rohrbeck & Wach, 2020), thus increasing the need for research focused on understanding the role of managerial cognition and other dynamic managerial capabilities at the individual level in the CF process. There has been limited progress thus far, in understanding the role of individuals in CF. Slaughter (1995, p. 47) originally positioned individuals as key to the foresight process, describing foresight as a part of “the rich world of understanding and perception made possible by the human brain/mind systems.” But while Slaughter (1995) acknowledged that several cognitions were required in the foresight process, such as assessing, detecting, and interpreting situations, Slaughter also described the methodology of futures work in terms of using formalized tools such as environmental scanning, scenario analysis, and Delphi survey methods. To better understand how individuals contribute to the foresight process, an exploration of individual-level cognition and other foresight skills is required. Helfat and Martin’s (2015) positioning of managerial cognition as a contributor to dynamic managerial capabilities supports this approach, thus positioning individual-level foresight as a potential contributor to the core capabilities of a firm. Following Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) seminal work that established dynamic capabilities as a key contributor to organizational competitiveness, Major, Asch and Cordey-Hayes (2001), p. 103) proposed that foresight is a firm’s “core competence.” Given that one of the key characteristics of core competencies is collective learning in organizations (Chuang, Chen & Lin, 2016), positioning foresight as a core competence has positive implications for investigating IF, due to the emphasis on collective learning inherent in individual abilities. This research responds to Major et al. (2001) call to investigate how IF ability is transferred into firm foresight capability, leading to a culture of organizational foresight. Further, and given the prevalence of groups in decision-making in organizations and the established role of both individual and group cognition in the foresight process (Rohrbeck, Battistella & Huizingh, 2015), this study answers the call for a clear understanding of how individuals in organizations experience foresight, ultimately contributing to a firm’s foresight capability. Individual foresight IF is defined as “the ability of humans to imagine future scenarios by drawing on past experiences, planning future actions, and assessing these actions to determine future success” (Innes, 2023). The phenomenon of projecting oneself into the mental past (remembering) or future (imagining) is accorded the term mental time travel (MTT) (Suddendorf & Corballis, 1997) and originated from the early work of Endel Tulving (1972). To facilitate humans’ ability to remember and imagine, the process of MTT involves several memory systems: their function essential in understanding foresight ability in humans. Wheeler, Stuss and Tulving (1997) explained that the episodic memory system mediates MTT because it facilitates the recollection of personal happenings and events from a person’s past, as well as the mental projection of events in a person’s future. Tulving (2001) clarified that episodic memory is a past-oriented memory system that enables humans to reexperience our memories. Put simply, episodic memory “…allows us to remember personally experienced events, and to travel backwards in time to re-experience those events” (Atance & O’Neill, 2001, p. 533). However, in foresight, episodic memory depends on semantic memory to remember and then imagine future scenarios (Tulving, 2001). Semantic memory is our “general knowledge about the world, of the sort that is normally common to people of a given culture…” (Suddendorf & Corballis, 1997). The value in understanding these different memory systems comes in considering the relevance of employee knowledge and experience to IF, in addition to the nature of tacit and explicit knowledge in firms. Episodic memories are tacit in nature (Eisenhardt & Santos, 2002)— that is, they are linked to the individual and are very difficult and sometimes impossible to articulate. Although tacit knowledge is difficult to access, sharing this knowledge is deemed crucial to OL and innovation (Antunes & Pinheiro, 2020; Ganguly et al., 2019; Obrenovic et al., 2022). This holds implications for KM and OL in organizations, and points to the advantage of exploring the IF experience in organizations to understand strategies that can be used to transfer knowledge in the IF process. Human resource (HR) practitioners could play a vital role in facilitating OL strategies that could potentially draw on IF insights. Antunes and Pinheiro (2020) argued that HR practices are key in creating, sharing, and using knowledge that is generated in organizations. Given the potential role of IF in knowledge creation and sharing, it would be beneficial to understand how individuals experience IF or interact as part of the IF process to empower HR practitioners to strategize for OL and innovation outcomes. Nonaka’s (1994) modes of knowledge creation demonstrate the opportunities for sharing potentially tacit IF knowledge in organizations. For example, if IF knowledge is deemed tacit in nature, yet beneficial to other stakeholders in the organization, activities associated with Nonaka’s socialization mode, such as on-the-job training or mentoring, should be prioritized, given that these activities successfully facilitate knowledge transfer between workers (Al-Zoubi, Masa’deh & Twaissi, 2022; Farnese, Barbieri, Chirumbolo & Patriotta, 2019; Nonaka, 1994). If this IF knowledge was then deemed important to the wider organization, Nonaka’s internationalization mode, such as OL strategies, could be prioritized for knowledge sharing, and so forth (Nonaka, 1994). Understanding the individual-level cognition involved in IF will make a unique contribution to CF research. Marinkovi´ c et al. (2022) established a gap in CF research, where future efforts should focus on the micro-foundations of a firm’s dynamic capabilities to better understand how cognition and decision-making contribute to CF activities. This supports earlier research by Voros (2003) and Horton (1999) which M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 2 identified several cognitive processes undertaken by individuals engaged in the foresight process, including analysis, translation, interpretation, and prospection. Interestingly, managers often required a third party in this process (Horton, 1999), highlighting the value of social learning in organizations, where valuable knowledge stems from the exchange of tacit knowledge between employees (Nonaka, 1994; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Seeking further clarification on how individuals draw on either formal or informal social networks in foresight, and how they experience foresight at an individual level, would assist organizations and HR practitioners in designing relevant work systems and practices to support OL and related phenomena such as IF and innovation. Organizational learning and innovation OL and KM have long been associated with firms’ innovation performance. KM benefits firms through “organizational learning, improved customer interaction, innovations, increased profit, enhanced operational processes, and faster decision-making” (Idrees, Xu, Haider & Tehseen, 2023, p. 8). Firms seeking to develop a culture of OL to support knowledge sharing must foster autonomy, open communication, interactivity, and individual considerateness, and generate perceived organizational support which leads to innovative behavior by employees (Tsai, 2018). Given the proposed tacit nature of IF knowledge, insights gained from researching IF in firms could play a vital role in understanding how IF knowledge is generated, shared, and captured through OL practices that foster a culture that supports innovative and foresightful outcomes. Along with culture, leadership style plays a significant role in fostering or hindering foresight and innovation behavior in firms (Lei, Leaungkhamma & Le, 2020; Schwarz et al., 2020). Scott and Bruce (1994) showed many years ago that employees who perceive the relationship with their supervisor as high in trust, support and autonomy will feel that their organization supports them to be innovative. More recent studies demonstrate the ongoing importance of the supervisor–employee relationship for innovation, indicating that employees with healthy supervisor relationships feel more confident that their innovative behavior will result in performance gains (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). These employees are also more likely to be creative and seek new and improved ways of undertaking their work (Darvishmotevali, 2019). However, the dearth of research investigating leadership or supervisory approaches that encourage IF behavior in organizations highlights the value of this study in gaining insights about fostering a foresightful culture, leading to beneficial OL and innovation outcomes. Current strategies that encourage innovative individual and group behaviors in organizations could be more effectively aimed toward employees’ IF pursuits. This is particularly important given the argument presented by Fergnani (2022), that foresight, as an organizational-level capability (Rohrbeck et al., 2015), is stronger when a greater number of employees at different levels of the organization are empowered to contribute to the foresight process. In the innovation realm, Tsai (2018) demonstrated that knowledge workers’ innovative behaviors (defined as opportunity exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and idea implementation) increases with pay-for-performance incentives that incorporate valued social exchange attributes such as relative position, control, and personal importance. Demonstrating the value of a supportive culture, Tsai (2018, p. 1716) also confirmed that perceived organizational support, defined as “the perceptions of employees that the organization values their work contribution, cares for their well-being, fulfils their socio-psychological needs and helps them to solve work problems” has a more positive effect on innovative behavior than perceived pay equity. Without understanding how employees undertake or engage with IF in organizations, it will be difficult for HR practitioners to plan appropriate strategies to pursue foresight capability. OL has been shown to create competitive advantage for firms, with KM and innovation activities strengthening this relationship (Kamya, Ntayi & Ahiauzu, 2011). The positive relationship between knowledge creation and innovation is supported by Rezaei, Allameh and Ansari (2018), who argued that knowledge creation has a positive effect on OL. But firms need to continue to foster a culture of innovation. Lam, Nguyen, Le and Tran (2021) found that an innovation culture with established mutual trust, collaboration, and learning, facilitated by supportive and participative leaders will lead to increased KM practices resulting in enhanced innovation capability (Lam et al., 2021). This presents several opportunities when considering the potential role of IF in knowledge creation and learning. The perceived nature of an employee’s work may affect their innovativeness. An employee can be less motivated to apply new ideas when they don’t perceive that new ideas are helpful to their work or believe that others will judge their ideas as invalid (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Given that future-thinking, a main feature of IF, generates positive behavioral outcomes (Probst et al., 2013), improved innovative choices and greater accuracy in decision-making (Ballance et al., 2022; Eisenbart et al., 2023), organizations would benefit from understanding how to foster a culture that encourages IF and a perception of opennes to new employee ideas or improvements. Organizations that foster future-thinking concurrently create knowledge, increasing their competitive advantage (Eisenbart et al., 2023). Firms would need to consider the value of retaining this new IF corporate knowledge through longer-tenured employees, given that the knowledge base of firms increases with greater retention (Du Plessis, 2007). IF in organizations is a potentially valuable source of knowledge creation. As such, and aligned with Zheng, Zhang and Du (2011) theoretical model of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities (KBDC), IF could be positioned as a vital contributor to the knowledge-generating capability of the firm, or the “ability to develop and refine the activities and processes that facilitate creating/generating new knowledge” (p. 1039). This study provides new insights that can help academia and practitioners across multiple industries increase their understanding and enhance their practices related to fostering IF in firms. Exploring individual foresight in firms The literature reveals a dearth of knowledge centered on the individual experience of foresight in organizations and how IF could contribute to valuable OL activities and innovation outcomes. Given the positioning of CF as a dynamic capability of the firm (Schwarz et al., 2020), and of managerial cognition as a key contributor to dynamic managerial capabilities (Helfat & Martin, 2015), this study will provide much needed insights regarding the individual experience and processes undertaken in IF at the individual level in organizations. Further, given the importance of collective learning in developing core competencies in firms (Chuang et al., 2016), investigating IF as one of the micro-foundations of foresight capability will respond to the call by Major et al. (2001)) that greater knowledge is needed about how IF ability is transferred into firm foresight capability if we are to pursue foresight capability in firms. Investigating IF, with its valuable component of future-thinking (Atance & O’Neill, 2001), presents an important opportunity to understand the role of IF in driving improved decision-making, both in individual and group settings—responding to Rohrbeck et al. (2015) recommendation to better understand individual and group cognition in the foresight process. Inherent in employee decisions–—and in IF—is the tacit knowledge possessed by employees. Greater understanding of how employees use their personal knowledge and experience, and how they might share their knowledge during IF, is crucial in establishing strong OL practices that support knowledge creation, sharing and dissemination for innovation in firms. HR practitioners would benefit from these insights when developing clear HR strategies targeted at fostering foresightful and innovative organizational cultures. In turn, M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 3 supervisors and leaders would better understand the behaviors that encourage innovative and foresightful decision-making from employees, and HR policies around performance, recognition and reward could support firms’ endeavors for innovative outcomes. To explore these many new aspects of foresight, each focused on the individual experience of foresight in firms, this study needs to examine IF as a new phenomenon. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) posited that qualitative research is ideal for exploring new phenomena because of its interpretive and naturalistic approach. A qualitative approach involves interpretive practices that address research problems through their application in a natural setting—considering the people and places central to the study—to arrive at a final interpretation of the problem (Creswell, 2013). Hermeneutical phenomenology focuses on the interpretation of texts to understand the lifeworld of the participant relevant to the phenomenon and would be ideally suited to this study. However, several academics have proposed alternative qualitative approaches to emphasize the importance of hermeneutics, ideography, and symbolic interactionism in phenomenology (Eatough & Smith, 2008; Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009), and these differences are captured in the newer phenomenological approach of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), which was adopted for this study because of the symbolic interactionism implied from researching participants (employees) in their lifeworld (their organization). In terms of developing the research question, van Manen (1990) explicated that the phenomenological researcher “must ‘pull’ the reader into the question in such a way that the reader cannot help but wonder about the nature of the phenomenon in that way that the human scientist does” (p. 44). In its essence, phenomenological research demands that we steer away from the magnetic pull toward theoretical abstraction in order to inspire the reader into an inquisitive mindset to “question deeply the very thing that is being questioned by the question” (van Manen, 1990, p. 44)—in this case, the phenomenon of IF in organizations and its relevance to OL and innovation outcomes. Therefore, the following inductive qualitative research question aims to address the opportunities highlighted in the literature to improve understanding of the phenomenon of IF in organizations and explore its implications for OL and innovation: How do employees experience individual foresight in organizations and how does this contribute to organizational learning and innovation outcomes for firms? Methods Methodology The intention for this study is to focus on the lived experience of individuals experiencing the phenomenon of IF in their organizational context. The interpretive paradigm supports the implicit nature in which researchers seek to understand the social world as it is; that is, to interpret the social world subjectively, through the personal experience of those experiencing their social world (Burrell & Morgan, 1992). Therefore, researching IF in organizations implies an interpretive paradigm. Interpretive social science emphasizes the unique experience of humans and aims to capture the social nature of human life (Neuman, 2007), with an emphasis on capturing the role of individuals’ subjective experiences as communicated through text (i.e., language) (Neuman, 1997). When describing the structure of the interpretive paradigm, Burrell and Morgan (1992) identified hermeneutics and phenomenology as two possible approaches. Hermeneutics involves the interpretation and development of understanding of outputs from the human mind (Burrell & Morgan, 1992). Dilthey (1976, as cited in Burrell & Morgan, 1992) argued that to understand a phenomenon and gain objective knowledge about that phenomenon, we must first experience the phenomenon through recalling the lived experience of the participant with that phenomenon. In relation to this study, given the individual (idiosyncratic and not nomothetic) experience in which IF is being explored within their lifeworld, and the emphasis on interpretivism, hermeneutical phenomenology is a more closely aligned epistemological approach. Hermeneutical phenomenology is concerned with research that is interested in the lived experience of individuals. van Manen (1990) described hermeneutical phenomenology as focusing on the interpretation of life texts to understand the lifeworld of the participant, relevant to the phenomenon. He defined the lifeworld as “…the world as we immediately experience it pre-reflectively rather than as we conceptualize, categorize, or reflect on it”; with life text in literal terms meaning written materials (for example, an interview transcript or written descriptions) which provide insight into the lived human experience of a phenomenon (van Manen, 1990, p. 9). For this study, the lifeworld of the participant is the organization in which they work, with IF being the phenomenon studied. The aim of this study, therefore, is to research the lived experience of employees in organizations who are engaging with, or doing, IF, and then consider the implications of these empirical findings for OL and innovation in firms. Thus, the phenomenological approach of IPA has been adopted for this study. Proponents of the IPA and hermeneutical phenomenological approach have argued that bracketing out the researcher’s experience and understanding from the analytical process is not possible (Finlay, 2012; Rennie, 2000). The role of the researcher is a unique and important aspect of the IPA approach; thus, it is relevant to understand the researcher’s experience and role in the study. In this study, through a variety of research and leadership positions, the researcher’s skills in professional communication, coupled with abilities to empathize, listen actively and probe effectively during interviews, aided in the collection of rich data. Self-awareness of biases facilitated an intended “withholding” of personal viewpoints to allow the participants maximum opportunity to reflect on their own lifeworld. A log was maintained to record “hunches, speculations, [and] thoughts about the relations among categories”, termed theoretical memoing (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, as cited in Rennie, 2000). This process was used following each interview, which objectified the hermeneutic process through which the researcher arrived at an understanding of IF in organizations. Research context and case selection This study adopted a purposive sampling approach of judgement sampling (Cavana, Delahaye & Sekaran, 2001). Six HR experts provided insights to reveal which two industries and which employees would be most appropriate for the study. The researcher approached organizations in these industries via email and provided employees with information about the study and appropriate contact details. Participants then contacted the researcher if interested in taking part. The final sample comprised 27 IPA interviews across managerial and non-managerial positions. Interviews lasting between 40 and 60 min each were held with 12 employees from an organization within the finance and insurance industry (six females and six males), and 15 employees from an organization within the utilities industry (three females and 12 males) in Australia. As the final sample of 27 is a large IPA sample, Smith et al. (2009) suggested establishing recurrent themes and identifying percentages (e.g., 30%, 75%) of the sample for which the theme is present. The IPA interview protocol and process The interview protocol was developed in alignment with Bevan’s (2014) three key interview domains for descriptive phenomenological interviewing: contextualization, apprehending the phenomenon, and clarifying the phenomenon. Contextualization provides an opportunity for participants to begin their interview as close as possible to their lifeworld using descriptive/narrative context questions (Bevan, 2014). Apprehending the phenomenon focuses the participant’s experience on M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 4 the phenomenon of interest itself, and using repeated descriptive questions is recommended to overcome the issue that participants may experience many “modes of appearance” of a “thing or experience” (Sokolowski, 2000, as cited in Bevan, 2014, p. 140). Finally, to clarify the phenomenon, the use of free imaginative variation is required, which van Manen (1990, pp. 106—107) described how the researcher determines which themes of a phenomenon are essential, compared to those which are “more incidentally related” to that phenomenon. Providing some context and preparation for the interview is consistent with Smith et al. (2009) recommendation to socialize participants by providing them with information useful for their interview preparation (i.e., expected timing, an interview schedule, or a summary of main principles). Bevan’s three-stage process of moving from contextualization through to imaginative variation captures the essence of the Smith et al. (2009) discussion around rhythm in the IPA interview. Here, the authors attempt to provide guidance to the researcher on the nature of IPA interviews moving from the specific to the generic. Incorporating these aspects into the interview process maximized the opportunity to gather quality data and maintain authenticity (trustworthiness, rigor, and validity) of the phenomenological inquiry, as described by Guba and Lincoln (2005). Data collection Participants received an email one week prior to their interview with information about the IF phenomenon. The objective was to build a shared understanding of the phenomenon of IF that would be explored during the interview. The researcher asked participants to recall two or three key instances in their working life where they have been required to draw on personal experience to make decisions about their current actions, which have then impacted on their future job outcomes (i.e., using IF). The purpose of the IPA interview is driven by the research question. The interviewer helps the participant to tell their story; the interviewer’s task is simply to listen (Smith et al., 2009). Prompts were positioned in the protocol to overcome case questions that were too general or abstract (Smith & Shinebourne, 2012). Interviews were conducted in private settings and audio recorded with full semantic records of the interview being transcribed as a requirement for IPA data analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2004; Smith et al., 2009). Transcriptions were first processed through Otter.ai (a web-based speech to text transcription technology software) and then checked for accuracy and de-identified. Data analysis The analytic process of IPA is described by Reid et al. (2005, as cited in Smith et al., 2009, p. 79) as: …a set of common processes (e.g., moving from the particular to the shared, and from the descriptive to the interpretive) and principles (e.g., a commitment to an understanding of the participant’s point of view, and a psychological focus on personal meaning-making in particular contexts) which are applied flexibly, according to the analytic task. Table 1 details the IPA analysis process advocated by Smith et al. (2009) and the activities undertaken in this study for each step to arrive at the emergent themes that underpin the results of this study. For Steps One and Two, notes were developed as the researcher progressed, to form part of the reflexive memoing process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, as cited in Rennie, 2000). Initial noting (Smith et al., 2009) was undertaken and although it was an extremely time-intensive and detailed method, it enabled the researcher to get as close as possible to the participants’ experiences at an exploratory level. Each transcript was examined from three different perspectives: descriptive (normal font), linguistic (italics font) and conceptual (underlined font), and comments were added for each (see example in Table 2). Table 1 IPA analysis process. IPA analysis process Analytical Activities for this study Step One: Reading and re-reading Step Two^: Initial noting ^Steps 1 and 2 merge following the initial transcript reading, such that reading, and note-taking will occur at the same time through the analysis The researcher immersed themselves in the original data, beginning with the first original transcript Interviews were recorded, researcher listened to the recording of the interview while reading transcript and imagining voice of participant for future readings The researcher read and re-read the transcript to orient to a slower process of focusing on the participant as the focus of analysis Immediately following each interview, the researcher undertook reflexive memoing (journaling) to contribute to the objective nature of the write-up of results. This aligned with Smith et al. (2009) recommendation that the researcher records their own observations about the interview recollection, and record the most striking observations in a journal to bracket them off while orienting to the participant experience during this initial stage The researcher maintained an open mind and noted anything of interest within the transcript (this process became Step Two, initial noting) This step represented a free textual analysis (i.e., there is no requirement at this stage to divide text into meaning units) Initial noting was undertaken observing the following approach: Descriptive comments: production of a comprehensive and detailed set of notes and comments on the data (first level annotation) Linguistic comments: Focusing on language use to note when language use and content are clearly interrelated (for example use of repetition, change in tone) (second level annotation) Conceptual comments: Shifting in focus towards the participant’s overarching understanding of issues they are discussing. This is a time-consuming process of conceptually interpreting the data through discussion, reflection, trial-and-error and refinement of ideas (third level annotation). As part of Step 2, Theoretical memoing (Glaser and Strauss in Rennie, 2000) was undertaken for each individual transcript where a log was kept to record “hunches, speculations, [and] thoughts about the relations among categories.” This approach involved the researcher addressing the double hermeneutic process by developing theoretical memos after revisiting each transcript case. Step Three: Developing emergent themes Using larger data set comprising original transcripts and notes, the researcher reduces the volume of detail (i.e., transcript and original notes) whilst maintaining complexity, in terms of mapping the interrelationships, connections and patterns between exploratory notes Focusing on discrete chunks of transcript the researcher analyzed exploratory comments The original whole of the interview became a set of parts (which comes together in a new whole at the end of the analysis in the write up) (continued on next page) M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 5 In Step Three, the researcher proceeded with developing emergent themes. This required careful observation of the initial noting comments to ensure authenticity and integrity in staying as close as possible to the participant’s lifeworld while developing statements or phrases that are “revealing about the phenomenon or experience being described” (van Table 1 (continued) IPA analysis process Analytical Activities for this study Emergent themes reflected the participants’ original words and thoughts and the researcher’s interpretation. Step Four: Searching for connections across emergent themes Transcripts were transferred into NVivo where Emergent Themes (codes in NVivo) were developed and observed from one case to the next Researcher developed NVivo project maps for each case identifying connections across emergent themes within each case arriving at case-specific conceptual maps Working with the sets of themes developed, the researcher developed a sunburst chart for each case Researcher worked on how themes fit together (i.e., clustering related themes) developing tables representing an emergent theme (or set of themes) As per Smith et al. (2009) some themes were discarded (not all need be incorporated), dependent on RQ, the researcher’s innovation and organization of analysis In searching for patterns and connections between emergent themes, the researcher included abstraction, subsumption, polarization, and contextualization of the themes to arrive at superordinate themes (refer to Smith et al. (2009) for further explanation of these suggestions) Step Five: Moving to the next case In studies with multiple cases, Smith et al. (2009) suggest the researcher moves to the next case and repeat the process, treating each case on its own terms Researcher repeated the process, bracketing ideas that emerged from the analysis of each case as they progressed the analysis (with reflexive memoing) There is acknowledgment that during the repeated analyses of cases, the researcher will be influenced by what they found in earlier cases. However, an important skill in IPA is to allow new themes to emerge with each case Following the development and analysis of emergent themes, the researcher returned to the initial script for each case (now being aware of the final set of emergent themes), and without referring to the data from NVivo, 1) developed final reflexive memo notes for each case (in Excel), 2) identified the top three to five emergent themes relevant to each case (in Excel), and 3) compared these with the results from NVivo to check reliability of the process, and validity of the emergent themes Although slight variations existed, this was deemed highly appropriate, given the qualitative nature of the data, and the consideration of smaller, or less frequently coded themes that may be key to the case and emerged from the data This process informed the development of superordinate themes observed across every case (see Step 6). Step Six: Looking for patterns across cases Researcher brought together emergent themes from Steps 4 and 5, seeking connections between cases and themes Questions in this step include: What connections are there across cases? How do themes in one case illuminate a different case? Which themes are the most potent? Using Excel and the themes emerging across cases, this led to the development of superordinate themes which were shared Table 1 (continued) IPA analysis process Analytical Activities for this study across cases This step identified ways in which participants represented unique idiosyncratic instances and shared higher order superordinate themes within the group The outcome of this step was a table summarizing emergent themes as nested within superordinate themes, illustrating consideration of themes from each case. Table 2 Example of Hugh’s initial noting process. Interview transcript excerpt Initial noting example I’m constantly assessing the tasks that the situation is, and then making sure that I’m dealing with the highest priorities. And then coming back down and checking on the next lower ones and some of that’s mental, and some of that we, you know, we have an incident management room that is set up and designed to help us facilitate that thinking. So, we write our actions up on the board. We are, you know, we know, we’ve got the time for our next sequence to be issued out to people, we’ve got key steps. Referring to cognitive process: Prioritizing of tasks and ensuring no tasks have been neglected. Both mental (tacit) cognition but also explicit knowledge-sharing in formal mechanisms such as on a board. “Constantly assessing” might indicate it’s an iterative process—the internal cognitions. Role of tacit versus explicit KM and generation of ideas, and facilitation of explicit means of processing information through formal work structures (rooms/teams/boards) Table 3 Example of Hugh’s initial noting process with emergent themes. Interview transcript excerpt Initial noting example IPA emergent themes 1. I’m constantly assessing the tasks that the Referring to cognitive process: Prioritizing of tasks and ensuring no tasks have been neglected. Both mental (tacit) cognition but also explicit knowledge-sharing in formal mechanisms such as on a board. “Constantly assessing” might indicate it’s an iterative process—the internal cognitions. Role of tacit versus explicit KM and generation of ideas and facilitation of Assessing or prioritizing situation Cognition Using formal work structures 2. situation is, and then making sure that I’m 3. dealing with the highest priorities. And then 4. coming back down and checking on the next 5. lower ones and some of that’s mental, and 6. some of that we, you know, we have an 7. incident management room that is set up and explicit means of processing information through formal work structures (rooms/teams/boards) 8. designed to help us facilitate that thinking. So 9. we write our actions up on the board. We are, 10. you know, we know, we’ve got the time for our 11. next sequence to be issued out to people, 12. we’ve got key steps. M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 6 Manen, 1990, p. 93). In Table 3, emergent themes are noted in bold font, in the right-hand column, following the development of the initial notes as demonstrated earlier. Hugh’s example (see Table 3) shows the emergence of three codes, determined as follows. For the “Assessing or prioritizing situation” theme, the descriptive comments regarding the prioritization of tasks were closely reflected by Hugh’s description of his quote “dealing with the highest priorities” on line three, and then his “checking on the next lower ones” on lines four and five. For the “Cognition” theme, the linguistic comment of “constantly assessing” on line one represents Hugh’s internal thinking. Finally, the theme “Using formal work structures” was reflected in Hugh’s comments about the “incident management room” on line seven and the action taken to “write our actions up on the board” in line nine, which was captured in both the descriptive and conceptual noting comments. The process of developing emergent themes was facilitated by the transfer of data to the qualitative software, NVivo. In Step Four the researcher searched for connections across emergent themes using several coding strategies (e.g., abstraction, subsumption) (Smith et al., 2009), and prepared conceptual maps for each case. Prior to Step Five (repeating previous steps) and to ensure robustness, the researcher introduced a process applied to all 27 cases: (1) re-reading the post-interview reflexive memos, (2) re-reading the transcripts, (3) writing new reflexive memos reflecting new knowledge the researcher possessed, (4) observing superordinate themes from transcripts, (5) creating a list of key themes (recorded in Excel), (6) comparing the themes with those in the hierarchical data produced from NVivo (to check for consistency—the results were extremely encouraging), (7) developing a “sententious” statement for each case (van Manen, 1990), and finally (8) observing and recording any higher order qualities or concepts emerging from cases to be analyzed in Step Six. In the final step, superordinate themes were recognized from across cases. Each superordinate them incorporated key themes from previous steps of the analysis, which emerged through asking proposed questions aligned with Smith et al. (2009), p. 101) IPA process. Questions included, for example, “What connections are there across cases?,” “How does a theme in one case help illuminate a different case?,” and “Which themes are the most potent?”. The detailed process undertaken in Step Five to pull out key themes and support transcript excerpts made the task of ensuring idiosyncratic representation straightforward, transparent, and highly valid, staying close to the lifeworld of participants. Section 6 details the findings and a discussion incorporating direct quotes from participants. Findings and discussion The IPA analysis and emergent themes resulted in the development of a theoretical framework for IF (see Fig. 1). Responding to the research question—How do employees experience individual foresight in organizations and how does this contribute to organizational learning and innovation outcomes for firms?—four major elements, along with related superordinate themes, emerged that encapsulate the IF experience in organizations (see Table 4). Findings are focused on IF, OL and innovation implications. Table 5 presents textual examples taken from the data and representative of key emergent themes. Individual foresight: the person The IPA analysis revealed three superordinate themes for The Person element of IF: (1a) personal knowledge and experience, (1b) intuition, and (1c) individual skills and disposition. Personal knowledge and experience was a shared theme for all 27 participants, reflecting the role of personal knowledge in the IF process. Given IF’s reliance on personal knowledge, most participants referred to relevant past experience and/or lessons Fig. 1. A theoretical framework of individual foresight. M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 7 learned. Learning outcomes were evident when participants made references to past learning that assisted them to make better decisions for favorable work outcomes: “It’s trying to predict…the outcome of that change, so that you can…proactively learn from your past mistakes, rather than making those same mistakes over and over again” (Alan). Future-thinking and reflection (established as superordinate themes for IF element The Process) emerged as closely associated with personal experience and knowledge, where participants undertook a process of reflection to learn from their experience. This is relevant for innovation as employees who partake in future-thinking make more accurate decisions, and choose more promising innovative ideas (Eisenbart et al., 2023). Geoffrey explained: I remember we decided this was the right way to [go, but wondered] are we just now about to make the same mistake again? [we] debated [why] it did not work last time…reflecting back and filtering those scenarios through previous experiences [enables you] to be able to project things forward. Relevant to innovation, Gill referred to the potential limitations for creativity when using past experience in a work scenario: “So when you only take from past experience, I think it can hinder the other options or opportunities that there are.” This highlights that organizations should ensure that learning mechanisms (e.g., scenario-planning or visioning) are in place to encourage reflection and knowledge-creation or -sharing to overcome a lack of diversity or creative thinking when applying past experience. The emergent theme of existing knowledge captured several insights related to OL. New insights regarding employee experience with IF and corporate knowledge were found. Howard described an incident requiring the combined knowledge of his team, highlighting the benefit of retaining corporate knowledge and conveying frustration with existing workforce planning strategies: …if this had of been a brand new [team], we would have really struggled to identify those options so quickly…corporate knowledge was invaluable here…as much as corporate entities love…having people come in—and bring in fresh ideas—and that’s important and there needs to be a blend of that. It’s also important to retain that corporate knowledge…and so we rely on the collective wisdom of the group. Howard’s comment emphasizes the central role of effective KM practices that foster collaborative learning in the workplace. Despite references by participants that highlight the importance to them of OL mechanisms that support their work, some participants raised the issue of a negative culture that hindered innovative thinking associated with foresight: “… people are punished for passing on relevant information based on foresight” (Janelle). This issue is revisited in The Context section of the analysis. When discussing IF, 20 of the 27 (75%) participants referred to intuition. One of the memorable observations made by Bonnie related to Table 4 Key elements and contributors to IF experience in organizations. Element of IF Key dimensions (Superordinate Themes) 1. The Person 1a. Personal knowledge and experience 1b. Intuition 1c. Individual skills and disposition 2. The Process 2a. Learning collaboratively 2b. Developing understanding 2c. Cognition, reflection, and future-thinking 3. The Outcomes 3a. Organization policies and procedures 3b. Decision-making 3c. Taking action 4. The Context 4a. Organizational culture, incorporating 15 emergent sub-themes (e.g., trust, leadership style, job role/ design) Table 5 Master table of selected themes demonstrating data supporting IPA analysis. Elements of IF & Superordinate Themes Related Emergent Themes Representative Quotes 1. THE PERSON 1a. Personal Knowledge and Experience Personal learning from past experience Alan: you can try and proactively learn from your past mistakes Bonnie: wizened up to, you know…have obviously gone through many experiences Matt: past experience, is it something that you’re familiar with? Have you felt like this before? And you’re linking up to that… Alistair: You’ve sort of been around the industry long enough where–you’ve got a reasonably good appreciation. 1b. Intuition Intuition Byron: I’ve had that impending feeling before [] looking and listening [] getting that sense in your gut and in your head that something isn’t quite right. Geoffrey: Just trusting your gut [] being raised by parents that empowered me to trust my gut [] empowered me to make decisions Howard: I could understand why some people would do that. But when it’s high stakes, you can’t rely on intuition. 1c. Individual Skills and Disposition Personal ability to assess or prioritize a situation Impact of length of service Alan: you can throw out just many different options. And then you can start thinking about the pros and cons of each of those options. Brad: So, I’ve really got to understand the now, and what’s happening and sort of put everything in its place Hugh: I’m constantly assessing the tasks that the situation is–and then making sure that I’m dealing with the highest priorities. Amanda: they trusted that you can do it [] you’re just showing them why they shouldn’t trust you [] you’re just being so doubtful of yourself Edward: older blokes [] been here a long time probably don’t like to share that information [] they just feel like if I tell somebody–I’ll lose my job Gill: you can take somebody who’s brand new into the business [] they don’t really have the same pattern recognition that we have Ronnie: with an old culture [] people here [] have been institutionalized [] they don’t have to use foresight–because their job is to go from A to B 2. THE PROCESS 2a. Learning Collaboratively Sharing knowledge Developing others Vincent: And you come out with your idea and I [] shut you down [] that’s just not proactive [] it’s got to be sort of an open [] discussion or relationship Brad: on a big sheet of brown paper–a tool–we’ll map everything out step by step by step–everyone gets a chance to speak Sarah: So, and then it’s kind of a (continued on next page) M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 8 Declaration of competing interest Attached as requested References Acheampong, N. A. A. (2021). Reward preferences of the youngest generation: Attracting, recruiting, and retaining generation z into public sector organizations. Compensation & Benefits Review, 53(2), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886368720954803 Al-Zoubi, M. O., Masa’deh, R. E., & Twaissi, N. M. (2022). Exploring the relationship among structured-on-the job training, mentoring, job rotation, work environment factors and tacit knowledge transfer. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2022-0199 Antunes, H.d. J. G., & Pinheiro, P. G. (2020). Linking knowledge management, organizational learning and memory. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.04.002 Atance, C. M., & O’Neill, D. K. (2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(12), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01804-0 Atance, C. M., & Sommerville, J. A. (2014). Assessing the role of memory in preschoolers’ performance on episodic foresight tasks. Memory (Hove, England), 22(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.820324 Balarman, K. K., & Sundarraj, R. (2017). Individual foresight capability in organizations: Role of information acquisition [Paper presentation]. In IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON) 2017, Santa Clara, CA, USA https ://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7998396. Ballance, B. C., Tuen, Y. J., Petrucci, A. S., Orwig, W., Safi, O. K., Madan, C. R., et al. (2022). Imagining emotional events benefits future-oriented decisions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(12), 2332–2348. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 17470218221086637 Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0107 Ben Hador, B. (2016). How intra-organizational social capital influences employee performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1119–1133. https://doi. org/10.1108/JMD-12-2015-0172 Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710 Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1992). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Ashgate Publishing Company. Campbell, T. T., & Armstrong, S. J. (2013). A longitudinal study of individual and organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 20(3), 240–258. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09696471311328479 Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. John Wiley & Sons. Chuang, M. Y., Chen, C. J., & Lin, M. J. J. (2016). The impact of social capital on competitive advantage: The mediating effects of collective learning and absorptive capacity. Management Decision, 54(6), 1443–1463. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-112015-0485 Conway, M. (2022). Exploring the links between neuroscience and foresight. Journal of Futures Studies, 26(4), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202206_26(4).0003 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications, Inc. Dane, E., Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. (2012). When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. obhdp.2012.07.009 Darvishmotevali, M. (2019). Decentralization and innovative behavior: The moderating role of supervisor support. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 8, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2019.60204 Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13673270710762684/full/html Eatough, V., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig, & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Sage Publications Ltd. Eisenbart, B., Lovallo, D., Garbuio, M., Cristofaro, M., & Dong, A. (2023). Future thinking and managers’ innovative behavior: An experimental study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(6), 1660–1679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0102 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. (2002). Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management. Sage Publications Ltd. Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Puumalainen, K. (2008). The role of trust in organizational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2), 160–181. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14601060810869848 Farnese, M. L., Barbieri, B., Chirumbolo, A., & Patriotta, G. (2019). Managing knowledge in organizations: A Nonaka’s seci model operationalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02730 Fernandez, V., & Gallardo-Gallardo, E. (2021). Tackling the HR digitalization challenge: Key factors and barriers to HR analytics adoption. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 31(1), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-122019-0163 Fergnani, A. (2022). Corporate foresight: A new frontier for strategy and management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 36(2), 820–844. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amp.2018.0178 Finlay, L. (2012). Debating phenomenological methods. In N. Friesen, C. Henriksson, & T. Saevi (Eds.), Hermeneutic phenomenology in Education (pp. 15–37). Sense. Ganguly, A., Talukdar, A., & Chatterjee, D. (2019). Evaluating the role of social capital, tacit knowledge sharing, knowledge quality and reciprocity in determining innovation capability of an organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(6), 1105–1135. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0190 Goh, A. Y. S. (2019). Rethinking reflective practice in professional lifelong learning using learning metaphors. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0158037X.2018.1474867 Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, & Y.& S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Hamel, G. (1994). The concept of core competence. In G. Hamel, & A. Heene (Eds.), Competence-Based Competition (pp. 11–33). John Wiley & Sons. Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281–1312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314561301 Hodgkinson, G. P., & Clarke, I. (2007). Conceptual note: Exploring the cognitive significance of organizational strategizing—A dual-process framework and research agenda. Human Relations, 60(1), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726707075 Horton, A. (1999). A simple guide to successful foresight. Foresight (Los Angeles, Calif.), 1 (1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636689910802052 Idrees, H., Xu, J., Haider, S. A., & Tehseen, S. (2023). A systematic review of knowledge management and new product development projects: Trends, issues, and challenges. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), Article 100350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jik.2023.100350 Innes, M. (2023). Exploring the Lived Experience of Individual Foresight in Organisations. University of the Sunshine Coast Research Repository. https://doi.org/10.25907/ 00774 [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Sunshine Coast]. Kamya, M. T., Ntayi, J. M., & Ahiauzu, A. (2011). Organizational learning and competitive advantage: Testing for the interacting influence of knowledge management and innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 10(4), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2011.043097 Kim, S., Park, H., & Kim, B. (2021). Impacts of perceived value and trust on intention to continue use of individuals’ cloud computing: The perception of value-based adoption model. Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/ 10.14400/JDC.2021.19.1.077 Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2014). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. In R.& J. Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions (pp. 227–247). Routledge. Kollmann, T., St¨ ockmann, C., Kensbock, J. M., & Peschl, A. (2020). What satisfies younger versus older employees, and why? An aging perspective on equity theory to explain interactive effects of employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21981 Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The relation among organizational culture, knowledge management, and innovation capability: Its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010066 Lei, H., Leaungkhamma, L., & Le, P. B. (2020). How transformational leadership facilitates innovation capability: The mediating role of employees’ psychological capital. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(4), 481–499. Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Ali, A. M., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061594. Article 1594. Major, E., Asch, D., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (2001). Foresight as a core competence. Futures, 33(2), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00057-4 Marinkovi´ c, M., Al-Tabbaa, O., Khan, Z., & Wu, J. (2022). Corporate foresight: A systematic literature review and future research trajectories. Journal of Business Research, 144, 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.097 Martin-Ordas, G., Atance, C. M., & Caza, J. S. (2014). How do episodic and semantic memory contribute to episodic foresight in young children? Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00732. Article 92089. Mazorodze, A. H., & Buckley, S. (2020). A review of knowledge transfer tools in knowledge-intensive organizations. South African Journal of Information Management, 22(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v22i1.1135 Mehralian, G., Farzaneh, M., Yousefi, N., & Haloub, R. (2024). Driving new product development performance: Intellectual capital antecedents and the moderating role of innovation culture. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jik.2024.100503. Article 100503. Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Auantitative Approaches (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon. Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. Neves, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2014). Perceived organizational support and risk taking. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-072011-0021 M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 15 Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 Obrenovic, B., Du, J., Godini´ c, D., & Tsoy, D. (2022). Personality trait of conscientiousness impact on tacit knowledge sharing: The mediating effect of eagerness and subjective norm. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(5), 1124–1163. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2021-0066 P´ erez-Lu˜ no, A., Alegre, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2019). The role of tacit knowledge in connecting knowledge exchange and combination with innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(2), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09537325.2018.1492712 Phillips-Wren, G., & Adya, M. (2020). Decision making under stress: The role of information overload, time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty. Journal of Decision Systems, 29(1), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1768680 Probst, T. M., Graso, M., Estrada, A. X., & Greer, S. (2013). Consideration of future safety consequences: A new predictor of employee safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 55, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.023 Purba, D. E., Oostrom, J. K., Born, M. P., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2016). The relationships between trust in supervisor, turnover intentions, and voluntary turnover. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(4), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1027/ 1866-5888/a000165 Rehman, K., Poulova, P., Yasmin, F., Haider, S. A., & Jabeen, S. (2021). Empirical investigation of the impacts of knowledge management on organizational learning: A case study of higher education institutions. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1–15. Rennie, D. L. (2000). Grounded theory methodology as methodical hermeneutics: Reconciling realism and relativism. Theory & Psychology, 10(4), 481–502. https:// doi.org/10.1177/095935430010400 Rezaei, A., Allameh, S. M., & Ansari, R. (2018). Impact of knowledge creation and organizational learning on organizational innovation: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 16(1), 117–133. https://doi. org/10.1504/IJBIR.2018.091087 Rohrbeck, R., Battistella, C., & Huizingh, E. (2015). Corporate foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.002 Rohrbeck, R., & Schwarz, J. O. (2013). The value contribution of strategic foresight: Insights from an empirical study of large European companies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1593–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2013.01.004 Sadler-Smith, E. (2008). The role of intuition in collective learning and the development of shared meaning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308320065 Schon, D. A. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New ed.). Arena. Schwarz, J. O., Rohrbeck, R., & Wach, B. (2020). Corporate foresight as a microfoundation of dynamic capabilities. Futures & Foresight Science, 2(2), e28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.28 Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.5465/256701 Singh, S. K., Gupta, S., Busso, D., & Kamboj, S. (2021). Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 128, 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2019.04.040 Slaughter, R. (1995). The Foresight Principle: Cultural Recovery in the 21st Century. Praeger Publishers. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Sage. Smith, J., & Osborn, M. (2004). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In G. Breakwell (Ed.), Doing Social Psychology Research (pp. 229–254). The British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Smith, J., & Shinebourne, P. (2012). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. American Psychological Association. Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 123(2), 133. Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(03), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975 Tapinos, E., & Pyper, N. (2018). Forward looking analysis: Investigating how individuals “do” foresight and make sense of the future. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.025 Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2017). Creativity in innovation design: The roles of intuition, synthesis, and hypothesis. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5 (3–4), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2017.1313132 Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Tiberius, V., Schwarzer, H., & Roig-Dob´ on, S. (2021). Radical innovations: Between established knowledge and future research opportunities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(3), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.09.001 Tsai, S. (2018). Innovative behaviour of knowledge workers and social exchange attributes of financial incentive: Implications for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(8), 1712–1735. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-20170293 Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. Organization of Memory, 1, 381–403. Tulving, E. (2001). Origin of autonoesis in episodic memory. In H. L . Roediger, III, J. S . Nairne, I. Neath, & A.& M. Surprenant (Eds.), The Nature of Remembering: Essays in Honor of. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Routledge. Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight (Los Angeles, Calif.), 5 (3), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680310698379 Weick, K. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Wheeler, M. A., Stuss, D. T., & Tulving, E. (1997). Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 331. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.331. Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995 Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Xue, Y., & Yang, J. (2018). Impact of environmental regulations on green technological innovative behavior: An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.013 Zheng, S., Zhang, W., & Du, J. (2011). Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111179352 Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3086025. M.L. Innes Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100604 16