Mapping the landscape of positive and negative organizations in innovation implementation

Introduction: The successful implementation of innovation is a crucial factor in the survival of organizations in a competitive environment. This study aims to analyze how communication practices in positive and negative organizations influence the implementation of innovation, combining a literature review with a bibliometric analysis of international scientific production published between 1997 and 2024.

Methods: A total of 132 documents were analyzed, extracted from the Scopus database and processed with the support of VOSviewer software, allowing the identification of publication patterns, authors, and the most relevant journals. The utilization of bibliometric indicators enabled the characterization of the current state of international research.

Results: A review of the literature reveals that organizations that promote a collaborative and transparent work environment tend to be more conducive to innovation. Conversely, organizations characterized by internal conflicts and resistance to change can act as obstacles to innovation. According to a bibliometric analysis, the results show a growing academic interest in this field, with a greater production of articles in recent decades. The literature review identifies gaps in the literature, indicating a need for further empirical studies that examine the relationship between positive and negative organizations and the implementation of innovation.

Discussion: This study contributes to the literature on organizational communication by highlighting the central role of internal communication in promoting positive and innovative organizational environments, offering useful recommendations for professionals who wish to drive innovation in their organizations.

1 Introduction

In the current competitive environment, there is a continuing debate in both academic and business circles about the elements that drive competitiveness and firm performance (Daugaard and Ding, 2022; Huang et al., 2023). On the one hand, innovation has emerged as a key mechanism for distinguishing firms in a globalized and constantly changing environment. This has prompted several studies to investigate the factors underlying innovation (Mallén-Broch and Domínguez-Escrig, 2021). On the other hand, there has been a growing concern about the conditions under which organizations conduct their activities and achieve their objectives, including innovation, in the context of economic, financial, and moral scandals (Mallén-Broch and Domínguez-Escrig, 2021).

As posited by MacDonald et al. (2017, 2018), the capacity to survive and flourish in both business and social terms has historically depended on the ability of individuals to establish and maintain social organizations. The intrinsic need of humans to express their creativity and to feel part of a group can be met by promoting organizations with a positive approach, thereby contributing to the construction of a more meaningful society. One of the main failures of organizations lies precisely in the absence of an efficient and effective social structure (MacDonald et al., 2017, 2018).

It is therefore imperative to incorporate a humanistic perspective into organizations. This perspective motivates individuals to help others, to act altruistically, or to serve others. It contrasts with a perspective that focuses exclusively on selfish goals.

However, despite recognition of the role of culture and organizational climate in promoting (or blocking) innovation, there is still a lack of clear systematization of the types of organizations - positive and negative - that favor or inhibit innovation. This gap is rarely explored in an integrated manner in scientific literature. For example, the study by Tan et al. (2021) shows that proactive and innovative organizational climates are associated with more innovative behavior among employees, while rigid environments that are not very open to change tend to inhibit innovation. However, the literature points out that there is still a lack of robust theoretical models that clearly systematize the types of organizations according to their relationship with innovation. Despite recognition of the importance of organizational culture in promoting innovation, existing literature does not sufficiently document the specific characteristics of an organizational culture that supports innovation. There is a need for a more detailed view and clear explanation of the cultural processes that lead to innovative behaviors within organizations (Hogan and Coote, 2014).

This research seeks to fill this gap through a literature review and bibliometric analysis, with the aim of understanding how the type of organization—positive or negative—influences the implementation of innovation. To this end, an analysis of scientific output indexed in the Scopus database is carried out, complemented by visualization tools such as VOSviewer. In this sense, this research seeks to combine both facets. It analyses how positive or negative organizations can influence the implementation of innovation.

This article has two main objectives. First, it aims to answer the question “What is the impact of positive and negative organizations on the implementation of innovation?” Through a literature review, we aim to provide valuable information on this topic by identifying patterns, best practices, and knowledge gaps in academic literature. In addition, we aim to contribute to the development of practical recommendations for organizations wishing to improve their performance through the adoption of innovation. The second objective is to identify the growth of positive and negative organizations and the adoption of innovation in scientific literature. This is achieved through a chronological analysis of publications, author productivity, scientific journals, and countries.

To achieve the proposed objectives, a bibliometric study of major international journals was conducted. This study employed the Scopus database, widely acknowledged within the scientific community. It spanned the years from 1900 to 2024. Selecting Scopus as the database and including international scientific journals enhanced the validity and representativeness of the research. Furthermore, extending the period of analysis to 2024 enabled a comprehensive examination of the evolution of publications related to the topic under study.

Unlike previous studies that address innovation or organizational culture separately, this article proposes an integrated view, with a specific focus on organizational communication as a factor that either enhances or inhibits innovation. Based on the results, practical recommendations are presented for organizational communication professionals, particularly with regard to creating collaborative and transparent environments that encourage innovative practices.

This study makes several important contributions to the field of positive and negative organizations in the context of innovation implementation. First, it provides a comprehensive review of scientific literature, allowing for the consolidation of existing knowledge and the identification of research gaps. In addition, the bibliometric analysis carried out offered a more complete understanding of the temporal evolution, the productivity of authors, the main scientific journals, and the leading countries in the field. These quantitative analyses complement the qualitative literature review and provide a comprehensive view of the current state of research. Another relevant contribution is the identification of emerging trends in the research on positive and negative organizations and their relationship with the implementation of innovation. By highlighting these trends, the study can guide future research and practice in this area, helping to anticipate areas of interest and development. Finally, based on the results of the literature review and analysis, this study can provide practical guidelines for organizations seeking to improve their performance through innovation. These evidence-based guidelines can be useful to policy makers, managers and practitioners seeking information to improve their organizational practices and strategies.

This study is divided into five different sections. The first section consists of a detailed introduction that addresses the research problem, the background that contextualizes the study, the research objective, the research questions that will guide the work, and finally the contribution and originality of the study. The second section focuses on the review of previous studies, presenting the relevant theoretical foundations related to innovation and positive and negative organizations. The aim of this part is to deepen the understanding of the main concepts and theories that underpin the research. The third section details the methodology used to collect and analyze the data. The fourth section, entitled “Results,” is dedicated to the presentation and explanation of the tables and figures resulting from the analysis. It visualizes and interprets the data collected to present the results in a clear and objective manner. Finally, the fifth section presents the conclusions of the study, its limitations, and suggestions for future research.

2 Literature review

2.1 Innovation

The importance of innovation in business competition is a concept widely recognized in scientific literature (Agazu and Kero, 2024; Freeman and Soete, 2007; Koo and Le, 2024; Liu and Zhao, 2024).

Innovation, in its broadest sense, describes the process of developing and implementing ideas, products, processes, and/or behaviors in an organization (Damanpour, 1996). It is a multifaceted concept that encompasses a variety of activities ranging from product and process development to administrative processes and organizational structures (Damanpour and Aravind, 2012; Suarez-Perales et al., 2017). In this sense, innovation is defined as the creation of value through the utilization of pertinent knowledge and resources to transform an idea into a new product, process, or practice, or improvements to an existing product, process, or practice (Varadarajan, 2018).

Innovation goes beyond mere invention and involves the exploration of new ideas that often emerge from complex interactions among individuals, organizations, and institutional contexts (Edwards-Schachter, 2018).

Innovation can be categorized into different types, namely (1) radical versus incremental, (2) technological versus marketing, and (3) product versus process (Klarin, 2019). Radical innovation represents a complete and new change, consisting of large-scale technological developments that create significant or revolutionary changes in their environment (Klarin, 2019), while incremental innovation involves adjustments or modifications to existing products or services (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013; Sood and Tellis, 2005). Technological innovation refers to the adoption of new technologies (Sood and Tellis, 2005), while marketing innovation relates to the internal processes that support the delivery of a service or product and has been identified as the search for creative and new solutions to problems and needs (Ungerman et al., 2018). Finally, product innovation focuses on the creation of a new or improved good or service, while process innovation seeks to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of production (Al-Sa’di et al., 2017; Chang and Ahn, 2005; Utterback and Abernathy, 1975).

In addition to these classifications, the literature has highlighted more recent approaches, such as open innovation, proposed by Chesbrough (2003), which breaks with the closed model and emphasizes collaboration with agents external to the innovation process. Firms are constantly seeking to innovate more effectively, both within and outside their core markets and product lines. According to Witzeman et al. (2006), this has led to the practice of “open innovation,” in which firms recognize that not all components of an innovation need to come from within, that they can accelerate their own efforts, or perhaps even broaden the scope of those efforts, by acquiring some of the necessary technology externally (Witzeman et al., 2006). Open innovation is important because it helps reduce costs, accelerates time to market, increases differentiation in the market, and creates new revenue streams for the firms (Chesbrough, 2007).

Open innovation is commonly divided into two main streams: inbound, where the organization seeks external knowledge and technologies; and outbound, which refers to the exploitation of internal ideas outside the company’s boundaries, such as through licensing or spin-offs (Chesbrough, 2003).

The hybrid model, also known as the coupled model, emerges as a synthesis between input and output approaches, being particularly relevant in contexts that require collaborative innovation (Ulhøi, 2004). In these cases, organizations not only absorb external knowledge, but also actively share it, integrating multiple knowledge flows. This model is valued, for example, in partnerships between large companies and startups, promoting distributed innovation in dynamic networks (Pinto and Tamanine, 2022).

In addition to the various types of innovation presented above - including open, closed, incremental, radical, and hybrid approaches - it is important to examine how organizations simultaneously manage different strategic orientations in their innovation process.

While the types of innovation described above refer mainly to organizational structures, sources of knowledge, and the degree of novelty introduced, exploratory and exploitative innovation introduces a behavioral and temporal dimension related to the organization’s orientation toward risk, learning, and knowledge management over time (Filippini et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2006). The distinction between exploratory innovation (exploration) and exploitative innovation (exploitation), as introduced by March (1991) remains central to the debate on organizational innovation (e.g., Jiang and Liu, 2022; Nadal and Vasconcellos Sobrinho, 2024; Xie and Wang, 2021). Exploratory innovation is characterized by experimentation, the development of new products, processes, and markets, and is often associated with high risk and uncertainty. Conversely, exploratory innovation entails the refinement of extant competencies, efficiency gains, and incremental improvements (March, 1991).

Furthermore, it is imperative to conceptualize innovation as a multifaceted process, comprising multiple interdependent phases. This procedural approach has been the subject of extensive discussion in seminal studies, including those by Rogers (2003), who identified five distinct stages, namely: (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and (5) confirmation. Cooper (1990) developed the Stage-Gate model, which organizes innovation into distinct phases (ideation, screening, development, testing, and launch) with decision points positioned between these phases. This perspective enables more effective innovation management by aligning resources, strategies, and objectives at each stage (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).

Innovation is thus widely recognized as a dynamic, continuous, and complex process rather than an isolated event. This perspective highlights that innovating is not just about introducing something new but managing a coordinated set of activities - from idea generation to implementation and dissemination - that occur in a context of uncertainty and interaction between multiple actors (Barrett et al., 2008).

In conclusion, understanding innovation and its implications is fundamental to organizational success and economic development. It is imperative for organizations to innovate in their ways of doing business to gain competitive advantage and improve their performance (Mohapatra and Patra, 2017). According to Srivastava et al. (2017), there is a positive correlation between the competitiveness of firms and their innovation capability.

2.2 Positive and negative organizations

According to Luthans (2002, p. 59), Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) is defined as “the study and application of the psychological strengths and capabilities of positively oriented human resources, which can be measured, developed and managed effectively to improve performance in today’s workplace.” This definition emphasizes the importance of individuals’ strengths and capabilities, covering areas such as attitudes, motivation, and talents, all of which are relevant to positive psychologists (Luthans, 2002).

In addition, the definition emphasizes the concept of development, highlighting the focus of positive organizational behavior on malleable constructs, similar to states that can be changed, such as emotions and behavioral intentions in the workplace (Luthans, 2002).

Positive organizational development can be characterized as a form of organizational approach that has three distinct characteristics, namely: (1) it promotes the idea that positivity and recognition contribute to building resources and expanding the capacity of social systems; (2) it focuses on the study and learning of positively deviant performance or the extraordinary organization; and (3) it focuses on the vital elements present in organizations as manifestations and facilitators of our highest qualities as human beings (Cameron and McNaughtan, 2014; Pavez, 2019; Spreitzer and Sonenshein, 2004).

Subsequently, Wright (2003) offered an alternative perspective to the aforementioned definition of positive organizational behavior, emphasizing the importance of employee happiness and health as essential goals of POB, as opposed to purely utilitarian goals such as performance.

Thus, positive organizational behaviors refer to the appreciation of employees’ strengths and skills that can be cultivated in the workplace (Mo, 2023). These behaviors have a positive impact on the perception of organizational support and the reduction of employee turnover intentions (Dutta and Khatri, 2017). By adopting a positive approach, it is possible to promote the creation of a favorable organizational environment, foster solid working relationships, establish effective communication patterns, and strengthen the values that permeate work challenges and obstacles (Mo, 2023).

In this context, as outlined by Luthans and Youssef (2007), positive organizations are distinguished by an environment that fosters employee wellbeing, stimulates creativity, and encourages collaboration. This environment facilitates innovation, as employees feel motivated and secure in proposing and conceptualizing new ideas.

The literature suggests that positive leadership, including interpersonal support among coworkers and professional development initiatives, plays a significant role in promoting employee health and wellbeing (Cartwright and Cooper, 2014). In addition, there is evidence that authentic leadership is positively correlated with employee safety and wellbeing (Rahimnia and Sharifirad, 2015).

This brings us to the role the leader plays in positive organizational behavior. Organizational leaders are a key indicator of employee success and retention (Clark, 2024). A positive leader tends to lead the way in applying the principles of positive psychology in the workplace (Abbas et al., 2022). For example, according to Malinga et al. (2019, p. 214), positive leadership is defined as “an approach to leadership that is characterized by the demonstration of leadership traits such as optimism (…) as well as leadership behaviors that include creating a positive work environment, developing positive relationships, focusing on results, and communicating positively with employees.”

Despite being an elusive concept, Blanch et al. (2016), states that positive leadership has three basic components, namely: (1) it focuses on people’s strengths and capabilities, reaffirming their human potential; (2) it emphasizes results and facilitates above-average individual and organizational performance; and (3) its targets for action focus on essential virtues of the human condition.

It is believed that all leaders fall somewhere to a continuum, depending on the degree to which they exhibit behaviors that align with these components (Wooten and Cameron, 2009).

As far as negative organizations are concerned, literature is rather scarce.

As mentioned by Au-Yong-Oliveira (2022b), negative organizations are characterized by the ability of powerful individuals to maintain a negative strategy that does not benefit the organization but perpetuates their own power.

According to Au-Yong-Oliveira (2022a), a negative organization is one in which individual merit and innovation are subordinated to the status quo and the maintenance of power relations that dominate the organizational structure.

One characteristic that can lead to negative organizations is envy (Walter and Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022). Envy can lead to good employees being ostracized and leaving the organization if they generate negative feelings because they are innovative (Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022b; Walter and Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022).

Negative organizations are usually associated with toxic leadership. A toxic leader’s behaviors are essential to show their superiority and visibility within the organization, negatively affecting their subordinates (Krasikova et al., 2013). Toxic leadership is positively and significantly associated with turnover intentions (Nunes and Palma-Moreira, 2024). In a study carried out by Lopes et al. (2025), they also concluded that toxic leadership becomes relevant to boosting the turnover intentions of employees with high levels of emotional intelligence compared to those with low levels of emotional intelligence.

Byrne et al. (2017) examined how positive and negative perceptions of organizational policies are interpreted as sources of stress and affect employee outcomes through their influence on the social environment. The authors concluded that negative organizational politics lead to negative outcomes for the organization as employees (1) become less engaged, (2) reduce the focus of their engagement, or (3) disengage. However, these responses are beneficial to the employee and lead to their positive wellbeing (Byrne et al., 2017).

2.3 Positive and negative organizations regarding the implementation of Innovation

Positive and negative organizations have different effects on the implementation of innovation. According to Au-Yong-Oliveira (2022b), positive organizations are those that promote their own growth and sustainability, are based on meritocracy, and are committed to increasing their competitive potential. On the other hand, negative organizations are characterized by a lack of focus on global strategies, a tendency toward self-destruction, and an organizational culture that prioritizes maintaining the status quo over innovation (Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022b).

The implementation of innovation is a dynamic process that can lead to a variety of outcomes, both positive and negative (Simpson et al., 2006). In this case, we are dealing with a culture of innovation, i.e., the culture that underpins the work is characterized by experimentation, flexibility and looking to the future (Quinn and Cameron, 1983). However, a research culture taken to the extreme can become negative because it is constantly chaotic, experimenting with yet another new idea and underestimating the achievement of predictable results. In negative organizations, one can observe the perpetuation of an unfavorable strategy that does not contribute to the benefit of the organization, but rather to the maintenance of the power of certain individuals. As a result, this can create a toxic work environment that acts as an obstacle to innovation (Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022b).

According to the results of Cen et al. (2024), task interdependence and a generally positive organizational environment have a negative effect on employees’ counterproductive knowledge behavior when analyzed as moderators. On the other hand, job discomfort, negative organizational environment, internal competition, and time pressure have partial and positive effects on employees’ counterproductive knowledge behavior. Competitive organizations, where a culture of objectives predominates, tend to emphasize speed and results (Quinn and Cameron, 1983), which, when taken to extremes, becomes negative because it generates self-interest and conflicts and neglects people’s more human issues. In business management, employees can obstruct the flow of knowledge throughout the organization. These actions are collectively referred to as counterproductive knowledge behavior (Afshar-Jalili et al., 2020). In addition, as mentioned by Park and Kim (2022), it is crucial for organizations to create a positive organizational environment that values individual contributions and demonstrates concern for employee wellbeing. Organizations with a supportive culture are geared toward involvement and building commitment over time (Quinn and Cameron, 1983). Furthermore, dedicating efforts to ensuring procedural justice, which includes establishing a transparent organizational culture, can inspire and increase employee motivation (Park and Kim, 2022).

Lee et al. (2022) concluded that conflict has a significant impact on resistance to innovation. Therefore, during the organizational innovation process, respect among members is essential to reduce ignorance and friction. In addition, they observed that fear of adaptation has been shown to have a significant impact on resistance to innovation. In this sense, the firm must establish a system that empowers individuals with an institutional mechanism that allows them to conceive a new approach and implement organizational innovation. In addition, the authors found that resistance to innovation has a significant impact on resistance to organizational innovation. When a culture of rules predominates in an organization, control can become negative, leading to bureaucracy and stagnation (Quinn and Cameron, 1983). Thus, organizations must clearly communicate how to coexist through innovation rather than following the previous method of operation so that employees do not feel unconditional resistance to innovation in their organizations. Finally, they observed that sabotage has a significant impact on resistance to organizational innovation. Therefore, firms should adopt a more proactive approach in analyzing the ideas for change proposed by members and properly implement innovation in the organization (Lee et al., 2022).

Thus, the literature suggests that the successful implementation of innovation is inextricably linked to organizational culture, internal environment, and effective management of human resources. Positive organizations that foster a collaborative, transparent work environment that values individual contributions tend to be more conducive to innovation. On the other hand, negative organizations, characterized by internal conflict, lack of overall strategy and resistance to change, can act as barriers to progress and the effective implementation of innovation.

3 Methodology

To understand the evolution of research on positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation, we conducted a bibliometric study covering the main international journals from 1990 to 2024. Using the Scopus database (SCImago Research Group), we conducted a bibliometric analysis, applying quantitative statistical techniques to citations and publications. The aim was to identify the most influential works, the keywords associated with the topic, the influential authors, and the most relevant publications in the field (Small, 1973; Zitt and Bassecoulard, 1999). Through this bibliometric analysis, we sought to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the trajectory of research on positive and negative organizations and their relationship with the implementation of innovation over the period analyzed.

Before moving on to bibliometric analysis, it is important to clarify the methodological approach and provide a brief description of the use of bibliometric techniques as a tool for evaluating the existing literature in a given area. Bibliometric analysis is widely recognized as a popular and rigorous method for exploring and analyzing large amounts of scientific data. This approach makes it possible not only to understand the evolving nuances of a given field, but also to identify emerging areas within that field (Donthu et al., 2021). Its growing popularity is due to the advancement, availability, and accessibility of bibliometric software such as Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer, as well as scientific databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. In addition, the transdisciplinary nature of bibliometric methodology, ranging from computer science to business research, contributes to its widespread acceptance. It should be noted that the popularity of bibliometric analysis in business research is not just a passing trend, but a reflection of its usefulness in managing large volumes of scientific data and producing high-impact research (Donthu et al., 2021).

The research was conducted using VOSviewer software, version 1.6.20, to construct and visualize bibliometric maps and identify clusters and their reference networks. This software was chosen because of its ability to efficiently handle large data sets and because it offers a variety of mapping and clustering options to help researchers identify hidden patterns in the vast scientific literature (Waltman et al., 2010).

The search for relevant articles was performed in the Scopus database without time restrictions.

The methodological process followed the guidelines proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) for systematic reviews in the field of management and consisted of the following steps: (1) definition of the research question and review protocol; (2) identification of relevant studies; (3) screening and selection of documents; and (4) bibliometric analysis using specialized software.

The search strategy and criteria used to extract the data indexed in Scopus are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Search strategy and criteria used to extract data indexed in the Scopus.

The following inclusion criteria were defined: (1) documents published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; (2) documents that directly or indirectly addressed the relationship between organizational innovation and positive or negative characteristics of organizations; (3) period covered: no time restrictions, focusing on developments from 1990 to 2024; and document types: scientific articles; conference papers; books; book chapters and review articles. The exclusion criteria applied were: (1) Duplicate documents; (2) Non-scientific works (e.g., editorials, technical notes, prefaces).

The search focused on the areas of Business, Management, Economics and Social Sciences. The selected search terms included the words “Innovation” OR “Organization* Innovation” OR “Implementation of Innovation” OR “Adoption of Innovation” OR “Technology and Innovation” OR “Organization* Development” OR “Knowledge Management” OR “Organization* Leadership” AND “Positive Organisation*” OR “Negative Organisation*” OR “Positive Organization*” OR “Negative Organization*” and included “Article Title, Abstract, Keywords” as a search field, with no time restrictions.

The search strategy was constructed iteratively and validated based on previous studies on organizational innovation and knowledge management (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1996) which demonstrate the strong interconnection between knowledge management, organizational development, and innovation, especially in contexts of positive or negative organizational cultures (e.g., Büschgens et al., 2013; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Rai, 2011). Regarding the justification of the keywords used, it is important to clarify that the expression.

“Knowledge management” was used as a complementary term inserted in the context of innovation. The literature recognizes knowledge management as a strategic facilitator of organizational innovation (Donate and de Pablo, 2015; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1996), and it is also closely linked to leadership and organizational culture—central elements in the distinction between positive and negative organizations (Amabile et al., 2005; Cameron and Dutton, 2003).

After obtaining the initial sample of documents (202), a screening process was carried out to ensure the relevance and quality of the publications included in the analysis. Initially, the inclusion criteria mentioned in Table 1 were applied. In addition, one of the authors read the titles and abstracts of the identified documents in order to eliminate publications that did not fit the scope of the research, namely those that dealt with irrelevant topics or did not explicitly address the link between innovation and positive or negative organizations. Subsequently, the remaining authors validated the selection made, ensuring agreement on the adequacy of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, the full availability of the selected documents was verified, ensuring that all texts were accessible in full for bibliometric analysis.

After screening, the final sample consisted of 132 documents. The data were exported in CSV format and processed using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20). The search was carried out on April 27, 2024. The samples extracted included different types of documents, and more than half of all publications (104/132 ≈ 78.8%) were reduced to scientific articles, published in the 27-year period between January 1997 and April 2024.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Origin of the study of positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of Innovation

This topic was first introduced into the literature in 1997 by Allert and Chatterjee (1997), with the publication of a review article entitled “Corporate communication and trust in leadership” in the journal Corporate Communications: An International Journal. This article emphasizes the fundamental role of the leader as a listener, communicator, and educator in formulating and facilitating a positive organizational culture. The authors argue that the central principle of effective leadership is the establishment, consolidation, and maintenance of successful relationships. These relationships are increasingly recognized as the foundation of the interpersonal skills needed to manage and lead organizations in the 21st century, where an empowered workforce plays a key role based on trust. This 1997 article highlighted the role of leadership as a critical characteristic in building a positive organization.

It wasn’t until 2002 that another article on the subject was published by Luthans and Jensen (2002) entitled “Hope: A New Positive Strength for Human Resource Development.” Based on the theory of hope used in the emerging movement of positive psychology and positive organizational behavior, this article is the first to examine the role that hope can play in effective human resource development (HRD). First, hope is conceptually defined as a disposition or trait and, relevant to effective HRD, as a development or state. The results of initial workplace research indicate a positive relationship between managers’ and employees’ levels of hope and performance.

Although the articles discussed the importance of leadership, human resource development, and positive psychology in the organizational context, none of them focus specifically on the dynamics of positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation. This suggests a gap in the existing literature (until 2002). In this sense, it is interesting to investigate whether later studies have explored how the characteristics of positive and negative organizations influence the process of innovation implementation. This would include analyzing how an organizational culture based on trust, collaboration, and stimulation of creativity can promote the successful adoption of new ideas and innovative practices. On the other hand, it is important to understand how organizations characterized by resistance to change, rigid hierarchy and lack of support for employees can face challenges in implementing innovation.

Although the articles by Allert and Chatterjee (1997) and Luthans and Jensen (2002) do not directly address the dynamics between positive/negative organizations and the implementation of innovation, their inclusion is justified for two main reasons, namely: (1) foundational theoretical relevance and (2) consistency with the methodological strategy of the bibliometric review. Both articles contribute to the consolidation of the theoretical foundations that underpin the concept of positive organizations. Allert and Chatterjee (1997) emphasize the importance of ethical leadership and organizational trust, which are central to the creation of positive organizational cultures. Luthans and Jensen (2002) introduce positive psychology into the organizational context, highlighting the role of forces such as hope and human development—elements that would later be central to understanding positive organizations as facilitators of innovation. The inclusion of these articles stems from the bibliometric extraction process, which identified publications with greater centrality or co-occurrence of terms related to positive organizations, leadership, trust, hope, and organizational change. Although the direct interconnection between the key concepts of our study was not fully developed in these articles, they represent the first steps in the theoretical construction of the field. Excluding them because they do not simultaneously address “positive/negative organizations” and “innovation implementation” would result in a decontextualized and limited analysis of the evolution of the theme.

4.2 Characterization of the documents under study

Figure 1 shows the evolution of the number of publications of the 132 studies from 1997 to 2024. The number of publications peaked in 2015 with 12 publications, followed by 2019, 2022, and 2023 with 11 publications each. This trend suggests a growing interest in studying positive and negative organizations in relation to innovation over time. In fact, Figure 1 shows that this area of research has become more prominent in literature, especially in recent years. This may reflect a growing recognition of the relevance of organizational dynamics in promoting or inhibiting innovation, as well as a greater awareness of the importance of effectively managing these aspects for organizational success.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the number of publications under study. Source: Scopus (2024).

This upward trend is not merely quantitative; it signals a theoretical and practical shift in how organizations are perceived as agents of change or resistance. The increasing number of studies aligns with the growing emphasis on the role of organizational climate and culture in facilitating or hindering innovation processes (Cameron and McNaughtan, 2014; Luthans, 2002). The observed increase in the number of publications in recent years may be indicative of broader global challenges, such as digital transformation, crisis resilience, or workplace wellbeing, that have led to an increased focus on the role of internal organizational dynamics in shaping innovation outcomes (Clark, 2024; Lee et al., 2022).

Moreover, the increasing number of publications in recent years corresponds with broader trends in the literature that underscore the significance of organizational climate and employee wellbeing in propelling innovation (Malinga et al., 2019). This assertion finds particular relevance in contexts characterized by accelerated digital transformation and post-pandemic recovery, where organizational readiness and culture exert a pivotal influence (Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022b; Clark, 2024).

Table 2 shows the five most cited articles in the final sample with more than 50 citations, starting the next stage of the bibliometric review process.

Table 2

Table 2. Most cited.

Table 2 shows that the most cited article, by King et al. (2007), published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, occupies the top position in the ranking of the 5 most cited articles. This is followed by the article entitled “Exploring the role of employee voice between high-performance work system and organizational innovation in small and medium enterprises,” by Rasheed et al. (2017), which ranks as the second most cited article. It is worth noting that the table is ordered based on the number of citations from Scopus but also includes the number of citations from Google Scholar. The inclusion of Google Scholar citations is relevant because it covers a wider range of sources, such as theses and internal projects, and thus provides a more comprehensive view of the impact of these articles in terms of citations. This highlights the importance of these works in academic literature, demonstrating their influence and recognition in different research contexts.

4.3 Most productive countries, journals, and authors

Cooperation between countries is an important factor to consider, as the exchange of knowledge from different sources is useful for academic success and development. A total of 49 countries were extracted from the dataset. Table 3 lists the 7 most productive countries in order of productivity.

Table 3

Table 3. Countries under study ranked in terms of productivity.

The United States tops the list of most productive countries with a total of 54 published documents, followed by Australia with 16 publications and Canada and the United Kingdom with 10 articles each. These four countries stand out because they account for more than half of the published articles (≈ 68.18%). This data suggests that academic debate in this field is predominantly influenced by English-speaking countries with a long tradition of organizational research.

In terms of citations, the positions of the countries change slightly: this is the case of Canada: despite having fewer published articles (only 10) than Australia (16), it has more citations (859 citations). The same is true for India, which, despite having fewer published articles than the United Kingdom, ranks fourth in terms of citations. However, the United States still tops the list with 1914 citations.

The persistent leadership of the United States, both in terms of number of publications (54) and citations (1,914), may reflect the existence of centers of academic excellence, greater research funding, and an institutional tradition that values scientific production in this field. On the other hand, the underrepresentation of countries in the Global South raises questions about epistemological diversity and the inclusion of different cultural perspectives in the theoretical construction of organizational innovation. This geographical asymmetry may limit the generalization of results and points to the need to expand international collaboration networks, promoting a plurality of contexts for analysis.

Table 4 shows the 10 scientific journals with the highest number of articles published on the topic, out of a total of 108 sources extracted from the dataset. While the number of citations is an indicator of the influence of journals, the number of publications is an indicator of productivity (Kumar et al., 2020). The journal with the highest productivity is the Journal of Knowledge Management, with 5 articles published on the topic. This journal also has the highest number of citations (492). The prominence of the Journal of Knowledge Management as the journal with the highest productivity indicates not only an ongoing commitment to the topic, but also the relevance and recognition that the journal has in the field. On the other hand, Human Resource Development Review has a significant number of citations despite having fewer articles published, highlighting the importance of quality over quantity in assessing a journal’s impact.

Table 4

Table 4. The 10 most productive scientific journals.

In terms of authors, Table 5 shows that Eljiz, K. is the most prominent author in terms of the number of articles published, followed by Kim, M. These results provide valuable insights into the main contributors to the field of study, highlighting their contributions and influence in academic literature.

Table 5

Table 5. The 10 most productive authors.

4.4 Keyword analysis

4.4.1 Cooccurrence of keywords

Word cooccurrence analysis is a technique that examines the actual content present in the publications themselves (Donthu et al., 2021). Academics often turn to cooccurrence analysis because it has proven to be an effective way to address research trends in a particular topic (Shi and Li, 2019).

The keyword cooccurrence network is observed based on keywords that occur together more than 5 times in the set of 132 documents. This means that keywords are represented on the bibliometric map when two keywords occur together more than 5 times in a document (Khatib et al., 2022).

This method resulted in 18 keywords out of a total of 603 keywords studied. The result of the keyword cooccurrence map (Figure 2) shows that the theme of positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation is mainly focused on the study of knowledge management (11 occurrences), leadership (10 occurrences), and the human question (9 occurrences). This is followed by the words “organizational culture” and “organizational development” with 8 occurrences each. It should be noted that the word “innovation” occupies the podium with 22 occurrences, which is logical since it is the main theme.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Cooccurrence of keywords. Source: VOSviewer (1.6.20 version).

However, it is surprising to note that the words “positive organizations” and “negative organizations” do not appear in this list of cooccurring keywords, indicating that they did not appear together more than 5 times in any one document. While these concepts are pivotal to the present analysis, their limited use as recurring keywords (with fewer than five co-occurrences) suggests two possible interpretations. Initially, it may signify a theoretical and terminological gap in the extant literature, wherein studies address the positive or negative implications of innovation without necessarily resorting to these labels. Secondly, this absence may reflect a lack of consensus or conceptual uniformity regarding the definition of these terms, making it difficult to systematize them as stable constructs in the field of organizational innovation.

This finding reinforces the idea that, although there is a growing body of studies focused on organizational practices that promote or inhibit innovation, the field still lacks a common language and consolidated theoretical models that clearly articulate “positive” and “negative” organizational typologies. Thus, this result opens the door to new research that explores and clarifies these concepts, offering an opportunity for theoretical advancement in this field.

4.4.2 Research front in the field of positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation

To identify the “research front” in positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation over time, we used keyword cooccurrence analysis, considering a minimum of five keywords. The “research front,” as defined by Price (1965), represents the expanding frontier of literature, and characterizes the evolving nature of a research area. This analysis is dynamic, influenced by changes in the research domain and the evolution of a particular research domain over the years. Identifying the “research front” helps scholars to delineate the latest trends in literature (Boyack and Klavans, 2010).

As shown in Figure 3, there has been a shift in the focus of research in recent years toward a more innovation-centered perspective. Looking at organizational development, organizational culture, and leadership (keywords highlighted in purple), there has been an increased emphasis on issues that emphasize the need for positive organizational behavior and transformational leadership (keywords highlighted in blue). In addition, in recent years there has been a growing interest in issues such as knowledge management, the valuation of psychological capital, and the emergence of positive organizational learning (keywords highlighted in green), with a more recent and significant focus on innovation, creativity, and performance (keywords highlighted in yellow). This evolution reflects a paradigm shift in research, indicating a greater awareness of the importance of innovation and positive organizational behavior for organizational success.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Temporal overlay on a keyword co-word occurrence map. Source: VOSviewer (1.6.20 version).

In recent years, there has been a notable shift from a traditional approach focused on organizational development, culture, and leadership to a broader perspective that emphasizes the importance of positive organizational behavior and transformational leadership. This phenomenon suggests a paradigm shift in the understanding of organizational dynamics, with an increased focus on innovation, creativity, and performance. In addition, the emergence of issues such as knowledge management, valuing psychological capital, and positive organizational learning indicates a growing awareness of the importance of human capital and organizational culture in driving innovation and organizational excellence. This evolution reflects not only the adaptation of organizations to the demands of an ever-changing environment, but also the recognition of the transformative potential of positive organizational behavior and inspiring leadership. Thus, the trend observed in Figure 3 suggests that research on positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation is moving toward a more holistic and forward-looking approach that recognizes the interrelationship between organizational culture, leadership, and innovation and the importance of fostering a work environment that stimulates creativity, collaboration, and the personal and professional growth of employees.

In this sense, these results reveal a clear convergence with the main theoretical contributions identified in the literature review. As pointed out by Cameron and Spreitzer (2012), the Positive Organizations paradigm is based on creating contexts that promote human flourishing, resilience, and exceptional performance. The growing presence of keywords such as positive organizational behavior, psychological capital, and transformational leadership indicates that these premises have been progressively incorporated into the most recent studies on organizational innovation.

The emphasis in recent years on topics such as creativity, performance, and positive organizational learning also aligns with the perspective of Seligman (2011) and positive psychology applied to the work context. These authors argue that sustainable organizational development requires more than formal structures and traditional management practices—it requires a commitment to employee wellbeing, trust, and empowerment.

At the same time, the emergence of topics such as knowledge management and psychological capital indicates that research frontiers are incorporating contributions from related fields, such as strategic knowledge management (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1996) and dynamic capabilities theories (Teece, 2007). This broadens the understanding of innovation beyond technological and structural practices.

In summary, the observed patterns confirm the evolution of the literature toward a more holistic, people-centered approach. This evolution is in line with theoretical contributions that support the importance of relational, emotional, and symbolic contexts in organizational innovation. The convergence of empirical data and theory emphasizes the importance of studying innovation from the perspective of positive organizations and challenges researchers to more effectively operationalize their key constructs to ensure the continuity and depth of the field.

4.4.3 Clusters: positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation

To obtain an overview of the main lines of research, keyword cooccurrence analysis was used to identify the main themes in the knowledge base on positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation (Figure 2). With a minimum of 5 co-occurrences per keyword and a total of 18 keywords, the topics most frequently studied by academics on the topic under study are grouped into four themes.

It is important to note that, according to the analysis carried out, the same article can be in different groups if it contains keywords that are part of several groups. The different groups are detailed in Table 6.

Table 6

Table 6. Clusters of keywords.

Regarding Cluster 1 (red), it can be concluded that the articles tend to focus on various aspects related to management and organizational development, focusing on an approach geared toward the internal resources of organizations - namely human capital, knowledge, and leadership - as critical drivers for innovation. The presence of the keyword’s “creativity,” “knowledge management” and “performance” suggests an interest in promoting creativity and effective knowledge management as drivers of organizational performance. In addition, the inclusion of keywords such as “Human Resource Management” and “Transformational Leadership” indicates special attention to human resource management and transformational leadership as a means of influencing organizational behavior and achieving positive results. Therefore, there appears to be a significant interest in understanding the dynamics of leadership, human resource management, and knowledge management as key elements in promoting innovation and achieving positive organizational outcomes. These keywords suggest a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges and opportunities that organizations face in their pursuit of excellence and sustainability.

This configuration is in line with the contributions of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1996), who highlight knowledge management as a driver of organizational innovation, and with Bass and Riggio (2006), whose theory of transformational leadership describes leaders who intellectually stimulate their teams, promoting creativity and change. The link between human resource management and innovation is also well documented by authors such as Aryanto et al. (2015) and Amarakoon et al. (2016), who demonstrate how innovative human resources practices enhance learning and performance. An example of this can be found in the article by Imran et al. (2022), which aimed to summarize the possible organizational outcomes related to knowledge management capabilities. The authors found that knowledge management capabilities help promote organizational effectiveness, innovation capability, organizational change, value creation, competitive advantage, organizational learning, and performance (Imran et al., 2022). In addition, the authors Valldeneu et al. (2021), concluded that leaders should adopt a more transformational leadership approach and avoid attributes of passivity to increase positive organizational outcomes as well as firm success and recognition. Thus, this cluster reflects a strategic and systemic approach to innovation, focused on concrete practices that shape organizational behaviors. As pointed out by Imran et al. (2022), knowledge management capabilities are directly linked to value creation, competitive advantage, and organizational change, reinforcing the centrality of these topics.

Cluster 2 (green) suggests a focus on the interaction between people and organizations and the elements that influence organizational dynamics and effective management of organizations. The terms “human” and “people” suggest an interest in individual characteristics and human behavior in the organizational context, possibly exploring issues such as motivation, leadership, decision making, and job satisfaction. On the other hand, the terms “Organization” and “Organization and Management” indicate a focus on the structure, functioning, and management of organizations, including topics such as organizational design, strategy, governance, and decision-making processes. Finally, the keyword “organizational culture” suggests a specific interest in organizational culture, which includes shared beliefs, values, norms, and practices that shape behavior and interactions within the organization. For example, according to Palumbo (2021) findings, engagement in the workplace promotes health professionals’ willingness to participate in improving organizational processes and practices. The positive effects of employee engagement on innovative work behaviors are catalyzed by good employee-manager relationships and a positive organizational environment. Employee motivation and engagement, fostered by positive relationships and a healthy work environment, are key to triggering proactive and innovative behaviors. However, the persistence of rigid or hierarchical organizational cultures can be a significant barrier, demonstrating that the success of innovation depends on careful management of culture and human capital. This understanding reinforces the need for internal policies that promote the active participation of employees in organizational transformation. This cluster thus highlights that innovation is not only a matter of structure or strategy, but also of psychological and social environment. The literature analyzed thus points to the existence of a paradox: while organizational culture is presented as a facilitator of innovation, it is also often identified as a conservative force that protects the status quo and resists disruption. This ambiguity is visible in negative organizations, where culture becomes an obstacle to experimentation and learning, reproducing ineffective routines and blocking divergent ideas. This dimension is rarely addressed in more positivist articles, pointing to a theoretical gap: the need to study how hybrid or contradictory organizational cultures operate in real contexts.

Cluster 3 (blue) introduces a newer, emerging approach focused on employees’ psychological resources as mediators of organizational innovation. The keyword “innovation” suggests an interest in the introduction of new ideas, processes, or products within an organization, emphasizing the importance of innovation for competitiveness and organizational success. “Positive Organizational Behavior” and “Positive Organizational Scholarship” indicate a specific focus on the positive approach to the study of organizational behavior and functioning. This includes analysis of organizational practices, processes, and characteristics that promote a positive work environment in which employees can thrive and reach their full potential. Finally, “psychological capital” refers to the set of psychological resources of individuals, such as hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience, which can positively influence performance and adaptation at work. The study by Kassa and Tsigu (2022) shows that by combining the resource-based view with social exchange theory in corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement and innovation can be integrated as a basis for developing organizational competitiveness. Moreover, according to Au-Yong-Oliveira (2022b), positive organizations, which are much more addressed in the management literature than negative organizations, may not be as prevalent in the market as one might think. In this sense, he raises the question: “In fact, as the status quo is indeed very strong, are we witnessing a generalized inefficiency at the organizational level, whereby existent relationships triumph over innovation on a daily basis and on a tremendous scale?” (Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022b, p. 13). This discrepancy between theory and practice highlights the complexity of organizational innovation and the need to deepen our understanding of the mechanisms that block transformation, even in contexts that value psychological capital.

Finally, Cluster 4 (yellow) focuses on the study and analysis of organizational development. This suggests an interest in understanding how organizations grow, change, and adapt over time, exploring areas such as organizational change, organizational culture, organizational learning, leadership development, and other topics related to the development and evolution of organizations. For example, research by Oncioiu et al. (2022) shows that successful performance management is important for the survival and success of any organization in today’s highly competitive and constantly evolving environment. As you might expect, the management of an organization transcends time, and the role of the leader of the future is to ensure the long-term growth of shareholder wealth and the prosperity and wellbeing of the firm they lead. However, the literature review points to a persistent challenge: performance evaluation practices often favor short-term metrics, discouraging experimentation and learning—fundamental pillars of innovation. The tension between control and innovation remains largely unresolved, and the literature still explores only to a limited extent the negative effects of poorly designed performance systems on creativity and organizational change.

The analysis of the four clusters reveals a fragmented but complementary structure of the field. Although positive paths to innovation are identified (e.g., transformational leadership, psychological capital, employee engagement), these are often addressed in isolation, without critical integration with structural or cultural factors that condition innovation in a real context.

The positive clusters (1 and 3) tend to emphasize the transformative potential of human and psychological resources, while clusters 2 and 4 point to more deeply rooted elements, such as culture, structure, and control, which can either reinforce or counteract this potential. This misalignment between “what is desirable” and “what is practicable” reveals the need for more realistic and contingent models that recognize the systemic limitations and trade-offs inherent in the innovation process.

Finally, the literature tends to neglect negative organizations, whose behaviors of resistance, passivity, or mistrust are little explored despite their empirical relevance. As Au-Yong-Oliveira (2022b) points out, the perpetuation of the status quo represents a real threat to innovation—a phenomenon that requires greater critical and analytical attention from the scientific community.

5 Conclusion

Positive and negative organizations have different effects on the implementation of innovation. As the literature shows, successful implementation of innovation is closely related to organizational culture, internal environment, and effective human resource management. Organizations that cultivate a collaborative, transparent work environment that values individual contributions tend to be more conducive to innovation. On the other hand, organizations characterized by internal conflict, lack of an overall strategy, and resistance to change can act as barriers to progress and effective implementation of innovation (Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022b; Cen et al., 2024).

The hybrid approach combining literature review (qualitative component) and bibliometric analysis (quantitative component) has proven effective in assessing the rates of production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, as well as identifying multi-level patterns (such as authorship, citations, and sources), contributing to a broader and more evolved understanding of the relationship between positive and negative organizations and the implementation of innovation.

The relationship between positive and negative organizations and the implementation of innovation was investigated by analyzing a total of 132 articles selected from the Scopus database. Based on the results obtained, it is possible to draw some conclusions.

Regarding the first question: “What is the impact of positive and negative organizations on the implementation of innovation?,” the bibliometric and literature analysis carried out reveals not only the importance of knowledge management for organizational performance, but also its close relationship with innovation. Just as effective knowledge management is essential for improving the economic performance and competitiveness of organizations, it is also crucial for promoting a culture of innovation. In this context, understanding the dynamics of positive and negative organizations becomes imperative for the long-term success of firms. The analysis shows that while positive and negative organizations may differ in terms of culture, leadership, and management practices, both play a significant role in how organizations deal with innovation. While positive organizations can foster an environment conducive to creativity and innovative thinking, negative organizations may face the challenges of resistance to change and lack of support for innovative efforts.

Therefore, to be successful in implementing innovation, organizations must strive to cultivate a positive culture that encourages collaboration, continuous learning, and openness to change. In addition, it is essential that leaders recognize the impact of their management practices on the organizational environment and are willing to adopt approaches that foster a culture of innovation.

Ultimately, this study highlights the importance of a holistic approach to organizational management that recognizes the value of knowledge management, organizational culture, and leadership in fostering innovation. By embracing the principles of positive organizations and mitigating the effects of negative organizations, firms can position themselves more competitively and respond effectively to the challenges of the ever-evolving marketplace.

Moreover, as the analysis shows, this is a relatively new field of research, beginning with the first article published in 1997, and it has attracted constant interest from academics over the years, with a significant increase in the number of articles in the last 10 years.

In addition, it is a multidisciplinary field of research that primarily affects the field of business and management, but also includes social studies, economics, political science, technology and innovation.

In terms of the distribution of scientific production by country, the United States stands out as the most influential country, both in terms of the number of articles published and the number of citations.

According to the results obtained and the premise that scientific knowledge is collaborative and progressive, it can be concluded that the Journal of Knowledge Management is the journal with the greatest impact on the literature of the subject under analysis, based on the number of citations, and is also the one that has published the most articles, according to the sample considered.

As for the authors responsible for the 132 documents analyzed in the sample, Eljiz and Kim emerge as the most prolific in this field of study.

This study provides an overview of the research landscape in positive and negative organizations in relation to innovation, suggesting some interesting directions for future research and offering a complementary approach to the more traditional analysis of the literature.

The added value of this study lies in its comprehensive approach and detailed analysis of the relationship between positive and negative organizations and the implementation of innovation. By integrating a bibliometric analysis with a qualitative analysis, this study offers a broad and evolving view of the subject, highlighting the importance of knowledge management, organizational culture, and leadership in promoting innovation.

5.1 Theoretical and practical implications

From a theoretical point of view, this study contributes to the maturation of an emerging field by proposing an integrated view of how organizational characteristics - positive or negative - influence the implementation of innovation. The analysis of the 132 articles identified relevant conceptual gaps, namely the scarcity of consolidated theoretical models that systematically explain how elements such as leadership, organizational culture, and knowledge management interact to facilitate or hinder innovative processes.

In addition, the results highlight the lack of consensus on the definition and operationalization of what constitutes a “positive” or “negative” organization. Many of the studies analyzed refer to organizational practices and environments that are favorable or unfavorable to innovation without a clear conceptual framework. Thus, the present study proposes a more structured approach, anchored in four major theoretical domains: leadership and human resource management; organizational behavior and culture; organizational performance and innovation; and environmental and institutional factors. These domains can serve as a basis for the construction of new explanatory models and analytical frameworks, promoting a more systematic dialogue between positive organizational psychology, innovation studies, and the literature on organizational behavior.

On a practical level, the results offer useful guidance for leaders, managers, and organizational communication professionals. First, they confirm that innovation does not depend solely on the introduction of new technologies or processes, but requires an organizational environment that supports creativity, experimentation, and continuous learning. In this sense, management practices that value active listening, performance recognition, employee autonomy, and constructive error management are essential to fostering a culture of innovation.

Additionally, this study highlights the strategic role of organizational communication as a link between leadership, culture, and innovation. The way leaders communicate their vision of innovation, manage expectations, and reinforce desirable behaviors has a direct impact on employees’ perception of the organizational climate. Transparent, two-way, and emotionally intelligent internal communication can help mitigate the effects of toxic or ambiguous environments while boosting motivation and commitment to innovative goals.

Finally, the results suggest that organizations that ignore signs of organizational dysfunction - such as low cohesion, high turnover, latent conflicts, or demotivation - are at greater risk of failing to implement innovative initiatives. Thus, regular analysis of the organizational climate and investment in organizational development practices (such as coaching, structured feedback, and wellness programs) become fundamental tools for ensuring an environment conducive to sustainable innovation.

5.2 Agenda for future research

This study also highlights a significant gap in the existing literature in this area. In fact, the research available to date does not provide a solid empirical basis for fully understanding the impact of positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation. Although there is a consensus that organizations that foster a collaborative, transparent work environment and value individual contributions tend to be more conducive to innovation, there is still a lack of empirical evidence explaining how exactly this happens. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies that directly address this relationship between negative or positive organizations and the implementation of innovation. The identified gap reveals an urgent need for further research in the area of positive and negative organizations in relation to the implementation of innovation. The lack of a solid empirical base is a significant obstacle to the advancement of knowledge in this important area of organizational management. Therefore, there is a clear need for empirical studies that explore these issues in more detail. Future research in this area should aim to fill this gap by using robust methods and representative samples to empirically examine the relationship between positive and negative organizations and innovation implementation. Only through rigorous and sound research can we improve our understanding of this fundamental issue and develop effective strategies to foster innovation in organizations. In this sense, we propose longitudinal studies to examine the evolution of positive and negative organizations over time and their impact on the implementation of innovation.

Additionally, based on the literature review and identified clusters, we propose a structured agenda for future research. We recommend that empirical studies: (1) use longitudinal and comparative methods to analyze the evolution of positive/negative organizational cultures and their impact on innovation over time; (2) explore the mediation of organizational communication between leadership, culture, and innovation; (3) analyze specific organizational contexts (e.g., startups vs. large companies, public vs. private sector); and (4) investigate the relationship between toxic climates and turnover, burnout, or stagnation in innovation.

5.3 Limitations

As with any study, this work is not without limitations. First, it may be relevant to use other databases to expand the corpus of literature and highlight differences and similarities with the analysis presented. It may also be useful to use different bibliometric indicators to deepen the research in the areas studied. The VOSviewer 1.6.20 software was used for this work. Although this tool has achieved a broad consensus among researchers, it has some limitations, since it offers a limited number of relationships, based on similarity and co-occurrence techniques, which only consider the frequency of the keywords analyzed. This can be a limitation if the research area is too fragmented. It is also important to note that this study considered the number of citations as an indicator of the impact and relevance of the articles, which means that more recent articles are at a disadvantage compared to older ones, thus generating a temporal bias in the analysis.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

DM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. JP: Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RJ: Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AP-M: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MA-Y-O: Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This project was financed by the Erasmus+ project PROMPTS2TEACH - code 2024-1-DE02-KA210-VET-000255761. Research has led us to perceive that positive organisations are the foundation of innovation implementation and of effective and innovative teaching and learning. Especially for VET - vocational education and training efforts. Bringing AI technology to VET may constitute a radical innovation and should be addressed as such. AI and its role in the development of positive organisations is also being researched.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1577944/full#supplementary-material

References

Abbas, A., Saud, M., Suhariadi, F., Usman, I., and Ekowati, D. (2022). Positive leadership psychology: authentic and servant leadership in higher education in Pakistan. Curr. Psychol. 41, 5859–5871. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01051-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Afshar-Jalili, Y., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., and Fatholahian, M. (2020). Identifying and modeling the antecedents of counterproductive knowledge behavior: a three-study analysis. J. Knowl. Manag. 25, 1362–1386. doi: 10.1108/JKM-05-2020-0343

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agazu, B. G., and Kero, C. A. (2024). Innovation strategy and firm competitiveness: a systematic literature review. J. Innovation Entrepreneurship 13:24. doi: 10.1186/s13731-024-00381-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Allert, J. R., and Chatterjee, S. R. (1997). Corporate communication and trust in leadership. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2, 14–21. doi: 10.1108/eb046530

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-Sa’di, A. F., Abdallah, A. B., and Dahiyat, S. E. (2017). The mediating role of product and process innovations on the relationship between knowledge management and operational performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 23, 349–376. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2016-0047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alzghoul, A., Elrehail, H., Emeagwali, O. L., and AlShboul, M. K. (2018). Knowledge management, workplace climate, creativity and performance: the role of authentic leadership. J. Work. Learn. 30, 592–612. doi: 10.1108/JWL-12-2017-0111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., and Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Admin. Sci. Q. 50, 367–403. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amarakoon, U., Weerawardena, J., and Verreynne, M. L. (2016). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation and competitive advantage. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 29, 1736–1766. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1209228

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aryanto, R., Fontana, A., and Afiff, A. Z. (2015). Strategic human resource management, innovation capability and performance: an empirical study in Indonesia software industry. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 211, 874–879. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.115

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2022a). Negative organisations and how to overcome them: Fighting to promote innovation and change. Faro: Sílabas & Desafios.

Google Scholar

Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2022b). Negative organizations and [negative] powerful relationships and how they work against innovation—perspectives from millennials, generation Z and other experts. Sustain. For. 14:17018. doi: 10.3390/su142417018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barrett, P., Sexton, M., and Lee, A. (2008). Innovation in Small onstruction firms. 1st Edn. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Bass, B. M., and Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Google Scholar

Blanch, J., Gil, F., Antino, M., and Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. (2016). Positive leadership models: theoretical framework and research. Pap. del Psicol. 37, 170–176.

Google Scholar

Boyack, K. W., and Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 2389–2404. doi: 10.1002/asi.21419

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., and Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and innovation: a meta-analytic review. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30, 763–781. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Byrne, Z. S., Manning, S. G., Weston, J. W., and Hochwarter, W. A. (2017). All roads lead to well-being: unexpected relationships between organizational politics perceptions, employee engagement, and worker well-being. Res. Occup. Stress Well Being 15, 1–32. doi: 10.1108/S1479-355520170000015003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cameron, K. S., and Dutton, J. E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Google Scholar

Cameron, K., and McNaughtan, J. (2014). Positive organizational change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 50, 445–462. doi: 10.1177/0021886314549922

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cameron, K. S., and Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Cartwright, S., and Cooper, C. L. (2014). “Towards organizational health: stress, positive organizational behavior, and employee well-being” in Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach. eds. G. F. Bauer, O. Hämmig, G. F. Bauer, and O. Hämmig (Berlin: Springer Netherlands), 29–42.

Google Scholar

Cen, Y., Wang, C., and Huang, Y. (2024). Role of organizational characteristics on counterproductive knowledge behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Knowl. Manag. 28, 1329–1365. doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2023-0031

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chang, S. G., and Ahn, J. H. (2005). Product and process knowledge in the performance-oriented knowledge management approach. J. Knowl. Manag. 9, 114–132. doi: 10.1108/13673270510610378

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.

Google Scholar

Clark, A. L. (2024). “Leaders as drivers of change in cultivating a social emotional learning workplace,” in Transformative social change in organizations and institutions: A DEI perspective, 1–18. IGI Global.

Google Scholar

Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Bus. Horiz. 33, 44–54. doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(90)90040-I

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Crossan, M. M., and Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manage. Stud. 47, 1154–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models. Manag. Sci. 42, 693–717.

Google Scholar

Damanpour, F., and Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Manag. Organ. Rev. 8, 423–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Daugaard, D., and Ding, A. (2022). Global drivers for ESG performance: the body of knowledge. Sustain. For. 14:2322. doi: 10.3390/su14042322

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Donate, M. J., and de Pablo, S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 68, 360–370. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., and Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133, 285–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dutta, S., and Khatri, P. (2017). Servant leadership and positive organizational behaviour: the road ahead to reduce employees’ turnover intentions. On Horizon 25, 60–82. doi: 10.1108/OTH-06-2016-0029

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Edwards-Schachter, M. (2018). The nature and variety of innovation. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2, 65–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ijis.2018.08.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Filippini, R., Güttel, W. H., and Nosella, A. (2012). Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. J. Bus. Res. 65, 317–324. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.04.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Freeman, C., and Soete, L. (2007). Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: what we can learn from the past. Res. Policy 38, 583–589. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

George, G., Haas, M. R., McGahan, A. M., Schillebeeckx, S. J. D., and Tracey, P. (2023). Purpose in the for-profit firm: a review and framework for management research. J. Manag. 49, 1841–1869. doi: 10.1177/01492063211006450

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., and Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 693–706. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hogan, S. J., and Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a test of Schein’s model. J. Bus. Res. 67, 1609–1621. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huang, Y., Li, K., and Li, P. (2023). Innovation ecosystems and national talent competitiveness: a country-based comparison using fsQCA. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 194:122733. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122733

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Imran, M. K., Fatima, T., Sarwar, A., and Amin, S. (2022). Knowledge management capabilities and organizational outcomes: contemporary literature and future directions. Kybernetes 51, 2814–2832. doi: 10.1108/K-12-2020-0840

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jiang, Z., and Liu, Z. (2022). Policies and exploitative and exploratory innovations of the wind power industry in China: the role of technological path dependence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 177:121519. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121519

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kassa, A. G., and Tsigu, G. T. (2022). Corporate entrepreneurship, employee engagement and innovation: a resource-basedview and a social exchangetheory perspective. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 30, 1694–1711. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2172

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khatib, S. F. A., Abdullah, D. F., Hendrawaty, E., and Elamer, A. A. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of cash holdings literature: current status, development, and agenda for future research. Manag. Rev. Q. 72, 707–744. doi: 10.1007/s11301-021-00213-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

King, E. B., De Chermont, K., West, M., Dawson, J. F., and Hebl, M. R. (2007). How innovation can alleviate negative consequences of demanding work contexts: the influence of climate for innovation on organizational outcomes. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80, 631–645. doi: 10.1348/096317906X171145

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klarin, A. (2019). Mapping product and service innovation: a bibliometric analysis and a typology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 149:119776. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119776

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Koo, K. J., and Le, L. (2024). It capability and innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 203:123359. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123359

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., and LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: a theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. J. Manage. 39, 1308–1338. doi: 10.1177/0149206312471388

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Sureka, R., and Colombage, S. (2020). Capital structure of SMEs: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Manag. Rev. Q. 70, 535–565. doi: 10.1007/s11301-019-00175-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, J. H., Kang, J. M., and Lee, J. S. (2022). A study on the psychological characteristics of members affecting the denial of innovation in organizations. Organizational Cultures 22, 41–53. doi: 10.18848/2327-8013/CGP/v22i02/41-53

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lisak, A., Erez, M., Sui, Y., and Lee, C. (2016). The positive role of global leaders in enhancing multicultural team innovation. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 47, 655–673. doi: 10.1057/s41267-016-0002-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, X., and Zhao, Q. (2024). Banking competition, credit financing and the efficiency of corporate technology innovation. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 94:103248. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103248

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lopes, T., Soares, A., and Palma-Moreira, A. (2025). Toxic leadership and turnover intentions: emotional intelligence as a moderator of this relationship. Adm. Sci. 15:26. doi: 10.3390/admsci15010026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological strengths. Acad. Manag. Exec. 16, 57–72. doi: 10.5465/AME.2002.6640181

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Luthans, F., and Jensen, S. M. (2002). Hope: a new positive strength for human resource development. Hum. Resource Dev. Rev. 1, 304–322. doi: 10.1177/1534484302013003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Luthans, F., and Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. J. Manage. 33, 321–349. doi: 10.1177/0149206307300814

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

MacDonald, I., Burke, C., and Stewart, K. (2017). Systems leadership: Creating positive organisations. Oxford: Taylor and Francis.

Google Scholar

MacDonald, I., Burke, C., and Stewart, K. (2018). Systems leadership: Creating positive Organisations. 2nd Edn. Oxford: Taylor and Francis.

Google Scholar

Malinga, K. S., Stander, M., and Nell, W. (2019). “Positive leadership: moving towards an integrated definition and interventions” in Theoretical approaches to multi-cultural positive psychological interventions. eds. L. E. Van Zyl and S. Rothmann (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 201–228.

Google Scholar

Mallén-Broch, F. F., and Domínguez-Escrig, E. (2021). When leaders forgive: encouraging radical innovation in more altruistic organizations. Balt. J. Manag. 16, 712–728. doi: 10.1108/BJM-02-2021-0068

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2, 71–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mo, Y. H. (2023). A study on positive organizational scholarship and social worker self-care in Guangdong region, China. Qual. Soc. Work. 22, 249–265. doi: 10.1177/14733250211057107

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohapatra, S., and Patra, D. (2017). Retaining competitive advantage in commodities. Emeral. Emerg. Mark. Case Stud. 7, 1–25. doi: 10.1108/EEMCS-06-2016-0111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nadal, J. J., and Vasconcellos Sobrinho, M. (2024). Explorative and exploitative innovation and the organizational environment in the public sector. Int. J. Organ. Anal. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-03-2024-4409

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, H. N., and Mohamed, S. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge management practices: an empirical investigation. J. Manage. Dev. 30, 206–221. doi: 10.1108/02621711111105786

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1996). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Long Range Plan. 29:592. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(96)81509-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nunes, A., and Palma-Moreira, A. (2024). Toxic leadership and turnover intentions: the role of burnout syndrome. Adm. Sci. 14:340. doi: 10.3390/admsci14120340

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oncioiu, I., Kandzija, V., Petrescu, A. G., Panagoreţ, I., Petrescu, M., and Petrescu, M. (2022). Managing and measuring performance in organizational development. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 35, 915–928. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.1951317

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Palumbo, R. (2021). Engaging to innovate: an investigation into the implications of engagement at work on innovative behaviors in healthcare organizations. J. Health Organ. Manag. 35, 1025–1045. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-02-2021-0072

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Park, J., and Kim, W. (2022). The impact of perceived organizational support on innovative work behavior through psychological empowerment: focusing on the moderated mediating role of organizational procedural justice. J. Tech. Educ. Train. 14, 178–191. doi: 10.30880/jtet.2022.14.01.015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pavez, I. (2019). Making sense of positive organization development. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2019:132. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.132

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinto, T. D. C. L., and Tamanine, A. M. B. (2022). Corporate challenge canvas: visual tool to systematize open innovation challenges. Rev. Bras. Gestão Inov. 10, 146–170. doi: 10.18226/23190639.v10n1.07

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers -the pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the research front. Science 149, 510–515. doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Quinn, R. E., and Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: some preliminary evidence. Manag. Sci. 29, 33–51. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.29.1.33

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahimnia, F., and Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authentic leadership and employee well-being: the mediating role of attachment insecurity. J. Bus. Ethics 132, 363–377. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2318-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rai, R. K. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational culture: a theoretical integrative framework. J. Knowl. Manag. 15, 779–801. doi: 10.1108/13673271111174320

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rasheed, M. A., Shahzad, K., Conroy, C., Nadeem, S., and Siddique, M. U. (2017). Exploring the role of employee voice between high-performance work system and organizational innovation in small and medium enterprises. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 24, 670–688. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-11-2016-0185

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ritala, P., and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition-the role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30, 154–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th Edn. London: Free Press.

Google Scholar

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. London: Free Press.

Google Scholar

Shi, Y., and Li, X. (2019). A bibliometric study on intelligent techniques of bankruptcy prediction for corporate firms. Heliyon 5:e02997. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02997

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A., and Enz, C. A. (2006). Innovation orientation outcomes: the good and the bad. J. Bus. Res. 59, 1133–1141. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.08.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24, 265–269. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sood, A., and Tellis, G. J. (2005). Technological evolution and radical innovation. J. Mark. 69, 152–168. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.3.152.66361

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Spreitzer, G. M., and Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. Am. Behav. Sci. 47, 828–847. doi: 10.1177/0002764203260212

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Srivastava, S., Sultan, A., and Chashti, N. (2017). Influence of innovation competence on firm level competitiveness: an exploratory study. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrepren. 11, 63–75. doi: 10.1108/apjie-04-2017-021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Suarez-Perales, I., Garces-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., and Suarez-Galvez, C. (2017). Is strategic proactivity a driver of an environmental strategy? Effects of innovation and internationalization leadership. Sustainability 9, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/su9101870

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tan, C. H., Kaur, H., Mary, A. A. S., Baluyot, M. B., Jimenez, M. D. D., Ventayen, R. J. M., et al. (2021). How organizational climate mediates employee innovative work behavior among food manufacturing industries in covid-19 pandemic: implications to business economics and management. Estud. Econ. Apl. 39, 1–18. doi: 10.25115/eea.v39i12.6031

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 28, 1319–1350. doi: 10.1002/smj.640

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manage. 14, 207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ulhøi, J. P. (2004). Open source development: a hybrid in innovation and management theory. Manag. Decis. 42, 1095–1114. doi: 10.1108/00251740410565145

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ungerman, O., Dedkova, J., and Gurinova, K. (2018). The impact of marketing innovation on the competitiveness of enterprises in the context of industry 4.0. J. Compet. 10, 132–148. doi: 10.7441/joc.2018.02.09

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Utterback, J. M., and Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3, 639–656. doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Valldeneu, M., Tarrats, E., and Ferràs, X. (2021). Leadership styles and organizational outcomes: a study across international hubs. Organ. Dev. J. 39, 13–22.

Google Scholar

Varadarajan, R. (2018). Innovation, innovation strategy, and strategic innovation. Rev. Marketing Res. 15, 143–166. doi: 10.1108/S1548-643520180000015007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walter, C. E., and Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2022). An exploratory study on the barriers to innovative behavior: the spiteful effect of envy. J. Organ. Change Manag. 35, 936–960. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-02-2022-0034

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., and Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J. Informetr. 4, 629–635. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Witzeman, S., Slowinski, G., Dirkx, R., Gollob, L., Tao, J., Ward, S., et al. (2006). Harnessing external technology for innovation. Res. Technol. Manag. 49, 19–27. doi: 10.1080/08956308.2006.11657374

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wooten, L. P., and Cameron, K. S. (2009). “Enablers of a positive strategy: positively deviant leadership” in Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work. eds. P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, and N. Garcea (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Wright, T. A. (2003). The incubator - positive organizational behavior: an idea whose time has truly come. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 437–442. doi: 10.1002/job.197

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Xie, X., and Wang, H. (2021). How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems. J. Bus. Res. 124, 299–311. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.058

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zitt, M., and Bassecoulard, E. (1999). Internationalization of communication a view on the evolution of scientific journals. Scientometrics 46, 669–685. doi: 10.1007/BF02459619

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar