Identificación de Actores Vulnerables de la región

Overall, this thesis contributes to research on producer- and user-led innovation in several im-portant ways. Congruent with the thesis’ research goals, its first theoretical/conceptual contri-bution lies in advancing research on drivers of the two innovation paradigms, particularly with regard to leadership and user innovators’ work environment. To this end, the thesis theoretically developed and empirically verified the conception that reliable and sustainable leadership ap-proaches for innovation must address central stages of the innovation process, focus on organ-izational units as drivers of innovation, and include efficiency dimensions. Evidently, the thesis’

exploratory study of dual innovation leadership could benefit greatly from future research adopting the suggested cross-dimensional perspective and exploring dual innovation leader-ship’s applicability in a variety of settings. Specifically, future studies should consolidate dual

Contributions and Future Avenues for Research 105

innovation leadership’s success in fostering different innovation types, for example, by com-paring its impact on tangible product vs. intangible service innovations, or internal-organiza-tional vs. external consumer-targeted innovations. Alternatively, future studies may also con-tribute to more differentiated insights by assessing its applicability to different industries, small/medium vs. large organizations, or organizations from different countries.

Moreover, the thesis introduced a cross-domain perspective and merged research on employee innovation with research on user innovation to develop a conceptual framework for the study of consumer innovators. Building on this framework, the thesis empirically substantiated the importance of user innovators’ job requirements as a source for acquiring job-related resources for HHS innovations. Accordingly, future research should strive to expand the cross-domain perspective by comprehensively and systematically assessing user innovators’ work environ-ment. With regard to work-related factors, for example, the thesis’ literature review (Section 2.3.2.2) identified several other work-related drivers that may be applicable to user-led innova-tion. Here, a promising area for further investigations lies in singling out those drivers that are capable of fostering cross-fertilization between the two innovation spheres.

The thesis’ second theoretical/conceptual contribution lies in expanding previous research on interactions between the producer- and user-led innovation paradigms by encouraging an inte-grative perspective on the two innovation spheres. Previous work by Gambardella et al. (2017) and Raasch/von Hippel (2012) has identified two directions, innovation designs and innovation support (Section 2.1.3), by which producer and user innovation spheres may interact. However, research on the latter direction has been scare, with only few empirical studies focusing on direct forms of producer support for user innovation (e.g., Franke/Piller 2004; Füller et al. 2011;

von Hippel/Katz 2002; West/Lakhani 2008). By investigating user innovators’ work environ-ment, study 2 expands and complements this work with insights on indirect support mecha-nisms. However, the study did not assess how much resources producers, e.g., leaders of the consumer innovators’ organization, invest to generate the work environment that eventually enables consumer innovators to acquire job-related resources. Relatedly, the study did not as-sess the benefits that producers gain by investing resources into designing this work environ-ment. Consequently, more research is needed to address these questions and expand knowledge on additional areas for indirect support by producers as well as its effect on their resources.

In addition, further research into the intricate interaction mechanisms will also contribute to exploring cross-fertilization effects between the two paradigms. Building on the combined in-sights of study 1 and study 2, as well as resource-based theories, this thesis discussed the po-tential of (dual innovation) leadership in enabling cross-fertilization between the two para-digms. To this end, benefits for producers as well as consumer innovators were illustrated. Yet,

irrespective of their profound theoretical foundation from study 1 and 2, the proposed benefits require empirical support. Accordingly, future research may advance knowledge on (dual inno-vation) leadership as a driver of cross-fertilization by designing empirical studies that simulta-neously investigate its effects on (1) employee performance, (2) employed consumer innova-tors’ job-related resources, and (3) the return transfers of knowledge and ideas from consumer innovators to the work domain, as well as their subsequent impact on organizational perfor-mance.

Last but not least, empirical research exploring cross-fertilization effects may also benefit from a deeper and consistent theoretical grounding. As an interdisciplinary field that spans research on producer/employee-, user-, and open innovation, as well as psychological studies on crea-tivity and innovation, research on cross-fertilization faces the challenge of defining a common framework, agreeing on methodological standards, and unifying its varied terminology. Hence, if research is to progress in the long run, diverting attention to these theoretical advancements will prove inevitable to ensure comparability of results and the integration of insights on pro-ducer- and user-led innovation.

Finally, the thesis’ methodological contributions from employing SEM analyses with time-lagged and multisource data (see Chapter 3 and 4 for details) also shine a light on future avenues worthwhile to pursue. Specifically, future research may consider complementing the employed SEM methodology with longitudinal and/or objective data. For example, in order to expand research on dual innovation leadership, the temporally delayed measure of executives’ assess-ment of their units’ performance could be compleassess-mented by additional, objective data sources.

These objective measures could contribute to more holistic performance implications by as-sessing if and how dual innovation leadership affects performance in other units through spill-over effects, and how leaders engaging in dual innovation leadership affect organizations’ spill- over-all performance. Alternatively, future research may also consider combining data sources from executives and their employees via multilevel modeling in order to measure the effects of dual innovation leadership on employees’ innovative behavior and their individual performance (Raudenbush/Bryk 2002; Tabachnick/Fidell 2014).

Conversely, with regard to methodological advancements to research on user innovators’ work environment, it may be worthwhile to address shortcomings of the cross-sectional research de-sign of study 2 by conducting longitudinal surveys (Bono/McNamara 2011; Lindell/Whitney 2001; Rindfleisch/Malter/Ganesan/Moorman 2008). While study 2 strived to alleviate the lim-itations of SEM analyses regarding causality implications with the use of two data sources (i.e., consumer innovators and independent raters), longitudinal research designs could further sup-port the validation of the causal effects between job requirements and the acquisition of

job-Contributions for Management and Policy Makers 107

related resources, as well as the effects between job-related resources and the outcomes of HHS innovation efforts.