Dimensions that Influence the Innovation Process in Justice Organizations Outros Idiomas

ID:
60100
Resumo:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify dimensions that can influence the innovation process in justice organizations. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a qualitative approach. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview script. In all, 23 in-depth interviews were undertaken with lawyers, public defenders, judges, prosecutors and public officials from the five regions of Brazil. These data were analyzed using content analysis techniques. Findings – The perceptions of the interviewees show that the process of innovation in justice organizations can be influenced by five dimensions: Institutional Environment (institutional level), Leadership (organizational level), Organizational Resources (organizational level), Cooperative Relations (interorganizational level) and Innovative Behavior (individual level). These dimensions may promote or restrict innovation. Originality/value – The results indicate that there are growing efforts to introduce innovations designed to improve the performance and service delivery of justice organizations. However, there is resistance to innovation because these organizations are highly institutionalized and consequently seek stability and absence of change.
Citação ABNT:
CASTRO, M. P.; GUIMARAES, T. A. Dimensions that Influence the Innovation Process in Justice Organizations. Innovation and Management Review, v. 17, n. 2, p. 215-231, 2020.
Citação APA:
Castro, M. P., & Guimaraes, T. A. (2020). Dimensions that Influence the Innovation Process in Justice Organizations. Innovation and Management Review, 17(2), 215-231.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-10-2018-0075
Link Permanente:
http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/60100/dimensions-that-influence-the-innovation-process-in-justice-organizations/i/pt-br
Tipo de documento:
Artigo
Idioma:
Inglês
Referências:
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. (Vol. 70). São Paulo, Brazil: Edições.

Borins, S. (2001). The challenge of innovating in government, Arlington, VA: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.

Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 467-476. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210449357.

Castro, M. P.; Guimaraes, T. A. (2019). Dimensions of innovation in justice organizations: proposition of a theoretical methodological framework. Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 17, 173-184. doi: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395167960.

CNJ. (2017). Justiça em números 2017. www.cnj.jus.br/files/conteudo/arquivo/2017/09/e5b5789fe59c137d43506b2e4ec4ed67.pdf.

Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. New York, NY: Suny Press.

De Vries, H.; Bekkers, V.; Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94, 146-166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209.

Duysters, G.; Hagedoorn, J. (2000). International technological collaboration: Implications for NIEs’. in Kim, L.; Nelson, R.R. (Eds), Technology, Learning and Economic Development: The Experiences of the Assian Newly Industrialized Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 93-215.

Fontanella, B. J. B.; Luchesi, B. M.; Saidel, M. G. B.; Ricas, J.; Turato, E. R.; Melo, D. G. (2011). Sampling in qualitative research: a proposal for procedures to detect theoretical saturation (Amostragem em pesquisas qualitativas: Proposta de procedimentos Para constatar saturação te orica). Cadernos de Saúde Pública], 27, 388-394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2011000200020.

Gieske, H.; Van Buuren, A.; Bekkers, V. (2016). Conceptualizing public innovative capacity: a framework for assessment. The Innovation Journal, 21, 1. www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/2016_21_1_1_gieske-buuren-bekkers_public-innovate.pdf

Gomes, A. O.; Guimaraes, T. A.; Souza, E. C. L. (2016). Judicial work and judge’s motivation: the perceptions of Brazilian state judges. Law and Policy, 38, 162-176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12050.

Greenwood, R.; Raynard, M.; Kodeih, F.; Micelotta, E. R- Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317-371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299.

Guimaraes, T. A.; Gomes, A. O.; Guarido Filho, E. R. (2018). Administration of justice: an emerging research field. RAUSP Management Journal, 53, 476-482. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP 04-2018-010.

Gupta, A. K.; Tesluk, P. E.; Taylor, M. S. (2007). Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18, 885-897. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0337.

Hargrave, T. J.; Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 864-888. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527458.

Heidenreich, S.; Landsperger, J.; Spieth, P. (2016). Are innovation networks in need of a conductor? Examining the contribution of network managers in low and high complexity settings. Long Range Planning, 49, 55-71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.03.003.

Hess, H. C. (2010). O princípio da eficiência e o poder judiciário. Revista da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de São Paulo, 105, 211-239. doi: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8235.v105i0p211-239.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039-1050.

Jung, D. D.; Wu, A.; Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 582-594. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007.

Khalili, A. (2016). Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovationsupportive climate. Management Decision, 54, 2277-2293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03- 2016-0196.

Kim, L. (2005). Da imitação à inovação: a dinâmica do aprendizado tecnol ogico da coréia, São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Unicamp.

Kim, Y.; Lui, S. S. (2015). The impacts of external network and business group on innovation: Do the types of innovation matter? Journal of Business Research, 68, 1964-1973. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.006.

Lam, A. (2004). Organizational innovation (no. 11539), Germany: University Library of Munich.

Li, V.; Mitchell, R.; Boyle, B. (2016). The divergent effects of transformational leadership on individual and team innovation. Group and Organization Management, 41, 66-97.

Meijer, A. (2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 198-206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001.

Mendes, G. (2009). A reforma do sistema judiciário no brasil: elemento fundamental Para garantir segurança jurídica ao investimento estrangeiro no país. www.stf.jus.br/ repositorio/cms/portalStfInternacional/portalStfAgenda_pt_br/anexo/discParisport1.pdf

Sadek, M. T. (2004). Judiciário: mudanças e reformas. Estudos Avançados, 18, 79-101. doi: https://doi. org/10.1590/S0103-40142004000200005.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1984). Capitalismo, socialismo, democracia. São Paulo, Brazil: Zahar Editores S.A.

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, 580-607.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shalley, C. E.; Gilson, L. L.; Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489-505. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41330806.

Sousa, M. D. M.; Guimaraes, T. A. (2014). Innovation and performance in judicial management: uncovering conceptual and methodological gaps (Inovação e desempenho na administração judicial: desvendando lacunas conceituais e metodol ogicas). Review of Administration and Innovation - RAI, 11, 321-344. doi: https://doi.org/10.5773/rai.v11i2.1373.

Van der Vegt, G. S.; Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729-751. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00033-3.

Vermeulen, P. A.; Van Den Bosch, F. A.; Volberda, H. W. (2007). Complex incremental product innovation in established service firms: a micro institutional perspective. Organization Studies, 28, 1523-1546. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607068082.

Weber, B.; Heidenreich, S. (2018). When and with whom to cooperate?Investigating effects of cooperation stage and type on innovation capabilities and success. Long Range Planning, 51, 334-350. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.003.

West, M. A.; Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behaviour, 4, 15-30. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-31447-001

Yukl, G.; Gordon, A.; Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 15-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900102.

Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303.

Anderson, N.; Potocnik, K.; Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-thescience review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128.