Gina Colarelli O'Connor

Innovation management research demonstrates that political behavior is necessary for project leaders to conduct breakthrough innovation (BI) projects successfully. Although it is known that project leaders' political behavior contributes to BI project success by maintaining continued support for the projects, this study focuses on another function of organizational politics: the uncertainty‐handling function. Project leaders encounter uncertainties during their BI projects and are tormented by unintended project stagnation. While scholars and practitioners have developed several logic‐based responsive approaches to address uncertainty problems, project leaders also employ political behavior. The realization provokes questions such as, what type of uncertainty in particular triggers a project manager's political behavior in the context of BI development? Is there any specific linkage between a particular type of uncertainty and particular political behavior? What mechanisms underpin those relationships? To answer these questions, we investigate six BI projects in five mature Japanese companies through the lens of the meaning management perspective. The analysis reveals that (1) project leaders use political behavior to address a specific situation in which two uncertainties are intertwined; (2) project leaders use different political behavior depending on the type of intertwined uncertainties; and (3) project leaders resolve intertwined uncertainties with political behavior and then address each uncertainty in their BI projects. This study contributes to the innovation politics literature and innovation management practices by identifying specific conditions under which BI project leaders use political behavior and suggesting the fit between particular political behaviors and uncertainty conditions.

Just over two decades ago, in a Perspective article in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), Tomkovick and Miller, called for the professionalization of new product development (NPD). Professionalization of innovation management (as the broader function in which NPD is embedded) was posited to require a combination of scientific knowledge coupled with specific expertise. We revisit that call to (1) assess whether innovation management has established itself as a formal, professional function similar to human resources or marketing, and (2) critically discuss whether (and if so, how) the professionalization of innovation management impacts both academic research and professional practice in the field. We suggest four tests as hallmarks of a profession and apply them to the emerging field of innovation management. Based on our findings, we propose a set of actions for innovation management academics and practitioners. We also recommend directions for future research to promote discussion on this topic within the JPIM community.