Beretta 2021

Received: 20 April 2020 Revised: 7 May 2021 Accepted: 2 June 2021
DOI: 10.1111/caim.12449
REGULAR ARTICLE
Employee behaviours beyond innovators in internal

crowdsourcing: What do employees do in internal
crowdsourcing, if not innovating, and why?
Michela Beretta | Helle Alsted Søndergaard
Department of Management, Aarhus

University, Aarhus, Denmark Firms increasingly implement internal crowdsourcing to access the creative inputs of
their wider crowd of distributed employees. Although internal crowdsourcing initia-
Correspondence
Michela Beretta, Department of Management, tives have attracted increasing attention from research, there is still a limited under-
Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Alle 4, 8210
standing about employee participation in these platforms. Previous studies have
Aarhus, Denmark.
Email: micbe@mgmt.au.dk mainly focused on the participation of employees as innovators, disregarding other
forms of employee participation occurring in these interactive platforms. Building on
the literatures on employee-driven innovation and motivation, the main goal of this
study is to investigate the behaviours performed by employees to support and refine
others' ideas and their underlying motivations to do so, thus going beyond the role of
innovators. Based on data collected from an internal crowdsourcing platform of a
large European organization, we combine cluster analysis, social network analysis,
interpretative content analysis and qualitative interviews to explore the content of
employees' supporting behaviours in these initiatives and their underlying motiva-
tions. Overall, by looking at what employees contribute in these initiatives and why,
this study contributes to generate a more comprehensive understanding of how
internal crowds can be leveraged not only for idea generation but also for the sup-
port and refinement of others' ideas. Implications for innovation management
research and practice are discussed.
KEYWORDS
crowdsourcing, employee innovation, idea management, ideation, social network analysis,
user innovation and communities
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N strategically relevant ideas that better align with the firm strategy
compared with external crowds (Malhotra et al., 2017). As such,
Internal crowdsourcing has received increasing attention from both developing a better understanding of internal crowdsourcing as a
research and practice. These platforms enable the gathering of ideas channel to foster a broader employee involvement in ideation activi-
and feedback from a wider crowd of distributed employees (Björk ties becomes relevant. Nevertheless, the use of crowdsourcing within
et al., 2010; Malhotra et al., 2017). Employees represent an important the organizational boundaries is a less understood phenomenon
source of innovation for firms (Terwiesch & Ulrich, 2009). Although (Malhotra et al., 2017).
internal crowds tend to be less diverse and adept to generate novel Studies that have investigated the participation of employees in
ideas compared with external crowds (Poetz & Schreier, 2012), internal crowdsourcing have mostly focused on their role of idea gen-
employees still possess an in-depth understanding of the organiza- erators, primarily shedding light on characteristics and behaviours
tional context which enable them to generate more feasible and leading to the generation of innovative ideas (Björk &
542 © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/caim Creat Innov Manag. 2021;30:542–562.
BERETTA AND SØNDERGAARD 543
Magnusson, 2009; Deichmann & van den Ende, 2014). However, it is As such, understanding the types of supporting behaviours employees
increasingly common for firms to integrate community functionalities engage in can provide useful insights to managers on how to use
into these platforms, in the form of voting and commenting (Haller crowdsourcing initiatives in a more collaborative manner. Second, and
et al., 2011; Hutter et al., 2011; Malhotra et al., 2017). These func- relatedly, this also calls for a better understanding of employees' moti-
tionalities make these platforms interactive, enabling new forms of vations to engage in these supporting behaviours. Most research has
online participation and collaboration to emerge. This implies that focused on unveiling the motivations of individuals to participate in
employees can participate in internal crowdsourcing not only by gen- external crowdsourcing initiatives (Dahlander et al., 2019). These
erating ideas but also by supporting others' ideas and by contributing motivations, however, may not necessarily apply to an internal organi-
to their further refinement, thus assuming supporting behaviours for zational context (Wendelken et al., 2014; Zuchowski et al., 2016). Fur-
innovation (Beretta, 2019). For instance, the interactive character of thermore, the few studies that have focused on employee motivation
these platforms enables employees to engage in supporting behav- in the context of internal crowdsourcing have either investigated ini-
iours through the submission of different types of feedback to help tiatives that restrict employee participation to idea generation activi-
refine others' ideas. Yet current research has not systematically ties (Fairbank & Williams, 2001) or have not distinguished between
explored employee participation in internal crowdsourcing and, relat- types of participation (Wendelken et al., 2014). As such, we have lim-
edly, the content of the feedback provided by employees when ited knowledge about what drives employees to engage in supporting
engaging in refining and supporting others' ideas. and refining others' ideas in these platforms.
Our study draws on the literatures on employee-driven innova- Our study provides a number of contributions to innovation
tion (EDI) (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Høyrup et al., 2012; Perry- research. First, we extend and complement studies on internal
Smith & Mannucci, 2017) and motivation (Amabile, 1997; Grant & crowdsourcing (Björk & Magnusson, 2009; Malhotra et al., 2017;
Berg, 2012) to explore the supporting behaviours enacted by Stieger et al., 2012) by providing a more comprehensive understand-
employees in internal crowdsourcing and their underlying motivations ing of employee participation in these platforms. Our findings show
to do so. We thus address the following questions: ‘Which supporting that employees engage in five supporting behaviours (innovators,
behaviours do employees assume to encourage and refine others' socializers, legitimizers, passive evaluators and passive observers) and
ideas in internal crowdsourcing? And why do employees engage in that these behaviours differ in the content of the feedback provided
these supporting behaviours?’ We follow previous studies that have to refine and support others' ideas. Furthermore, we show how these
combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to identify different supporting behaviours are linked to the selection outcome of the
types of behaviours and contributions in online settings (Füller ideas generated. This has important implications for crowdsourcing
et al., 2014; Moser et al., 2013). To address our research questions, research, as it indicates that the supporting behaviours enacted by
we employ a mixed method approach that combines cluster analysis, employees indeed are important for the elaboration and refinement of
social network analysis, interpretative content analysis and qualitative ideas, increasing their chances of moving forward. Moreover, we
interviews. Based on measures developed from the social network show that intrinsic motivations such as altruism and organizational cit-
analysis, we conducted a cluster analysis to identify distinct types izenship play a major role in driving employees to engage in
(clusters) of supporting behaviours performed by employees in inter- supporting and refining others' ideas. Second, our study contributes
nal crowdsourcing. We then performed additional analyses to unveil to the literature on EDI. We address recent calls for how EDI is
the content of the feedback provided by each identified employee enacted in web-enabled platforms (Bäckström & Lindberg, 2019;
type (through an interpretative content analysis) and their underlying Høyrup et al., 2018). While EDI research has focused on how ordinary
motivations to engage in these supporting behaviours (through inter- employees voluntarily engage in innovation activities beyond their
views). Such combination of methods is important in order to unveil formal work responsibilities, such engagement has only been investi-
not only the patterns of interactions conducive to the emergence of gated in offline settings. We extend this research by generating new
specific supporting behaviours but also their actual meaning and con- insights on the types of supporting behaviours the broader crowd of
tent (Moser et al., 2013). employees voluntarily enact in online crowdsourcing platforms. From
Building on this, we argue that investigating employee participa- a managerial perspective, our findings provide important guidelines to
tion in internal crowdsourcing, both in terms of supporting behaviours innovation managers for how to design interactive and collaborative
and motivations, is important for two reasons. First, as internal crowdsourcing platforms that enable the engagement of employees in
crowdsourcing platforms are increasingly collaborative, it is important the support and refinement of others' ideas.
for both research and practice to better understand how the broader
crowd of employees can be leveraged for the refinement of others'
ideas by looking at what employees actually contribute in these plat- 2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
forms. In fact, many firms have realized that engaging employees only
in the generation of ideas restricts participation in these platforms 2.1 | Internal crowdsourcing
(Malhotra et al., 2017). Many employees may not have new ideas to
submit, but they still possess relevant knowledge and expertise Crowdsourcing is defined as the outsourcing of innovation-related
to help refine and move forward others' ideas (Malhotra et al., 2017). tasks, such as idea generation, to a wider crowd of distributed
544 BERETTA AND SØNDERGAARD
individuals (Dahlander et al., 2019). Crowdsourcing studies have, so mere participation in idea generation activities (Beretta, 2019;
far, mostly focused on the engagement of external crowds and their Malhotra et al., 2017; Stieger et al., 2012). Employees can comple-
contributions (Dahlander et al., 2019; Füller et al., 2014), while placing ment ideas with additional feedback prior to their selection through
less attention on the involvement of employees. However, recent their commenting activities on the platform, in this way assuming
studies highlight that crowdsourcing can also be applied internally to supporting behaviours (Adamczyk et al., 2012). Ideas submitted to
channel the ideas and expertise of firms' own employees (Malhotra these platforms are often ‘raw materials’, not being sufficiently elabo-
et al., 2017; Zuchowski et al., 2016). Internal crowdsourcing enables rated, and thus may benefit from additional feedback from employees
firms to bridge intraorganizational boundaries and involve a larger to become more detailed proposals. Such feedback can also better
crowd of employees beyond R&D in ideation activities inform managers when making selection decisions (Beretta, 2019).
(Pohlisch, 2020). It thus differs from traditional innovation practices Nevertheless, how employees engage in the refinement of others'
because it entails self-selection, as the wider crowd of employees can ideas and the content of the feedback provided by them have been
voluntarily decide to participate in ideation beyond their formal work investigated only to a limited extent. Most studies focus on the feed-
responsibilities (Malhotra et al., 2017). Moreover, differently from tra- back provided by firms to submitted ideas, while disregarding peer
ditional innovation practices, crowdsourcing entails the participation feedback (Deichmann & van den Ende, 2014; Piezunka &
of a large crowd of employees. This is why internal crowdsourcing is Dahlander, 2019). The few studies that examine the feedback pro-
typically used by firms with a large size, as there is the potential to vided by employees in internal crowdsourcing have mainly focused on
access the knowledge and expertise of employees working across var- the positive/negative character of such feedback, the timing of the
ious locations and functions in the organization (Björk et al., 2010). feedback or the diverse backgrounds of the feedback providers
Internal crowdsourcing differs from external crowdsourcing initia- (Beretta, 2019; Chen et al., 2019), thus only providing limited insights
tives on a number of aspects. While the aim of external on this aspect.
crowdsourcing is to access more distant knowledge (Dahlander Moreover, the interactive character of crowdsourcing opens up
et al., 2019), internal crowdsourcing is typically used by firms to con- opportunities for firms to involve the wider crowd of employees in
duct a local search for ideas, remaining in the vicinity of the firm's cur- decision-making activities (Di Vincenzo et al., 2020). Through a voting
rent knowledge base (Simula & Ahola, 2014). In fact, employees system, employees can participate in the selection of ideas, signalling
possess localized knowledge and an in-depth understanding of the their endorsement and support toward promising ones (Malhotra
organizational context, which enable them to generate ideas that et al., 2017). The use of a voting system represents a way to leverage
more closely link to the strategy and objectives of the firm compared the expertise of the wider crowd of employees to assess the potential
with external crowds (Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010; Malhotra et al., 2017; of ideas in early stages of the filtering process, in this way reducing
Simula & Ahola, 2014). As such, there is less potential to use internal the cognitive burden for experts (Hutter et al., 2017). Employee
crowdsourcing for the generation of radical ideas (Björk et al., 2010; engagement in voting activities is, however, typically discussed as rep-
Simula & Ahola, 2014). Moreover, differently from external resenting a less demanding form of participation, entailing the invest-
crowdsourcing, long-term employment relationships exist between ment of less cognitive resources and efforts compared with
employees and the firm, with interactions among employees being engagement in commenting activities, which entails greater efforts in
work-related and directed at generating and refining ideas as part of order to help refine others' ideas (Hutter et al., 2017).
the firm innovation strategy (Björk et al., 2010; Wendelken Overall, studies on internal crowdsourcing highlight that the
et al., 2014; Zuchowski et al., 2016). Internal crowdsourcing is charac- broader crowd of employees can be involved not only in the genera-
terized by higher levels of goal congruence and shared purpose than tion of ideas but also in the further refinement and support of others'
external crowdsourcing, as the interests of employees tend to be ideas. However, these supporting behaviours (and their meaning and
more closely aligned with the interests of the firm with respect to content) have been explored only to a limited extent. In order to gen-
innovation (Simula & Ahola, 2014). As employees are part of the same erate more in-depth insights on this aspect, we draw on research
organization, implicit expectations and norms of helping and on EDI.
supporting the innovative efforts of other colleagues may be present
(Tortoriello et al., 2015), something that further distinguishes internal
crowdsourcing from external crowdsourcing. However, the use of 2.2 | Employee-driven innovation
internal crowdsourcing can also create risks such as feelings of work
overload for employees from having to engage in yet another Internal crowdsourcing can be related to the broader phenomenon of
work activity, problems of getting buy-in from employees or middle EDI. Unlike traditional innovation approaches that focus primarily on
managers and creating discontent if generated ideas are not properly employees with innovation-related duties and expertise (such as R&D
handled by the firm (Malhotra et al., 2017). employees), EDI research focuses on the voluntary involvement of
The collaborative and interactive character of internal ordinary employees in innovation activities, going beyond their formal
crowdsourcing has received increasing research attention. This is dis- work responsibilities (Høyrup et al., 2012). Much EDI research has
cussed with respect to the possibility to engage all employees across focused on how ordinary employees engage voluntarily in idea gener-
the organization in refining others' ideas, thus going beyond their ation activities (Axtell et al., 2000). However, there has been
increasing interest in investigating the involvement of ordinary connections, to interact with each other and contribute to others'
employees in other phases of the innovation process, such as idea ideas. These platforms thus act as ‘loci of social connections’, enabling
development, selection, promotion and implementation (Høyrup new types of interactions to be established among widely distributed
et al., 2012; Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). employees. This also suggests the importance of unveiling the under-
When it comes to idea development, EDI research highlights the lying motivations driving employees to engage in internal
importance of the social processes underlying innovation activities, crowdsourcing to support and refine others' ideas.
pointing to the interactions between employees as an important unit of
analysis, as these interactions facilitate the combination of diverse
knowledge and expertise (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Perry-Smith & 2.3 | Employees' motivations to engage in
Mannucci, 2017). Different studies have investigated the types of innovation
supporting behaviours employees voluntarily engage in to help refine
and support others' ideas (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), thus infor- A widely adopted distinction to understand the motivation of
mally performing the function of assisting their colleagues' innovative employees to engage in innovation activities relates to intrinsic and
efforts (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Obstfeld, 2005). This is especially extrinsic motivations (Amabile, 1997). Intrinsic motivation relates to
discussed with respect to employee engagement in feedback seeking the enjoyment of performing the task itself (Amabile, 1997). Studies
and feedback giving behaviours to help other colleagues. For instance, highlight that fun and enjoyment, autonomy (opportunity to develop
Hargadon and Bechky (2006) identified four activities performed by ideas), opportunities to connect with other employees in the organiza-
employees during engagement in idea elaboration: help seeking tion and feelings of empowerment (opportunity to participate in the
(soliciting inputs from others and inviting them to join the innovative development and selection of others' ideas) constitute key intrinsic
effort), help giving (providing needed assistance that responded to motivations that drive employees to engage in innovation activities
requests for help), reflective framing (providing inputs that enabled (Grant & Berg, 2012; Smith et al., 2012; Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Studies
to give new meanings and perspectives to others' contributions) and also point to prosocial behaviours such as altruism (the desire to
reinforcing (supporting and acknowledging the inputs provided by voluntarily help others) and organizational citizenship as important
others, both in the form of help seeking, help giving and reflective fram- intrinsic motivators for employee engagement in innovation (Grant &
ing). Obstfeld (2005) distinguished between employees informally act- Berg, 2012). In this case, employees are motivated by the desire to
ing as major contributors, playing a key role with their feedback in contribute to the organization, acting as ‘good citizens’. Employees
shaping others' ideas, and minor contributors, who were involved only to characterized by greater organizational citizenship behaviours are
a limited extent in the refinement of others' ideas. During the idea elab- argued to be more sensitive to the needs of other colleagues and thus
oration phase, employees can also informally contribute by providing more motivated to help them (Constant et al., 1996). This construct
different forms of feedback, such as emotional support to show their has, in fact, been related to greater willingness to assist and help the
endorsement toward others' ideas, positive feedback to highlight the work of other colleagues, as well as to greater identification with, loy-
key benefits of an idea, constructive feedback to help improve others' alty and commitment toward an organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
ideas and negative feedback to highlight certain limitations of an idea Another important intrinsic factor relates to generalized reciprocity.
(Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Moreover, employees can informally Generalized reciprocity ‘emerges when people have positive regard
assume championing roles to support and promote others' ideas and for the social system in which requests for help are embedded and
attract attention and legitimacy toward them, in the attempt to signal show respect for it through offering help’ (Constant et al., 1996,
their value to other organizational members (Howell & Boies, 2004). p. 122). In this case, there may be implicit expectations that, by
Taken together, EDI research suggests that, in addition to the role providing support and feedback to other colleagues, employees would
of ideators, ordinary employees voluntarily perform different receive support in return.
supporting behaviours to contribute to the refinement and support of Extrinsic motivation is typically driven by factors stemming from
others' ideas. However, these supporting behaviours have only been outside the task (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Studies show that monetary
explored in offline settings (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Recent stud- compensations or rewards, signalling/career-related issues (the possi-
ies emphasize the need to investigate employees' enactment of EDI, bility to signal own competence to others to achieve, for instance,
especially when enabled by web-based tools, as in the case of internal promotion), opportunity to enhance own reputation, individual-related
crowdsourcing (Bäckström & Lindberg, 2019; Høyrup et al., 2018). benefits (possibility to enhance own expertise and learn from others)
We argue that internal crowdsourcing represents a relevant setting to and opportunity to gain recognition from other colleagues and the
explore supporting behaviours that offline settings offer few opportu- firm constitute important extrinsic motivators for employees to partic-
nities to study: namely, social contexts organized in such a way that ipate in innovation activities (Amo, 2006; Montoro-S
anchez
geographically distributed employees, in many cases being strangers, et al., 2011). Moreover, employees may be motivated to participate in
can voluntarily support one another's innovative efforts. This is mainly innovation because they are expected to do so by their superiors
due to the wide and open scope of these initiatives, which enable (Zuchowski et al., 2016).
employees working in different geographical locations and functions, Overall, studies focusing on EDI highlight that different intrinsic
who typically lack opportunities to establish innovation-related and extrinsic motivations drive employees to contribute to innovation
activities (Hammond et al., 2011). In the context of crowdsourcing, for the further discussion of ideas in an open setting and thus to fos-
studies have shown that different types of intrinsic and extrinsic moti- ter collaborative relationships among employees.
vations play an important role in driving individuals to participate To better understand employees' supporting behaviours in inter-
(Dahlander et al., 2019). However, much crowdsourcing literature has nal crowdsourcing, we extracted log-file data from the platform over
focused on the motivations of external crowds to participate in exter- the course of 11 months, since its inception in April 2015.1 All col-
nal crowdsourcing, while placing limited attention on understanding lected data were collapsed into one dataset. These data include 1744
the motivations of employees to participate in internal crowdsourcing. employees who participated to the platform by generating ideas
The few studies that have investigated employee motivation in the and/or by providing comments or votes to others' ideas.2 Subscribers
context of internal crowdsourcing have either focused on initiatives who never participated to the platform through any of these activities
where employee participation is restricted to idea generation activities were discarded from the analysis. A total of 1156 ideas were gener-
(Axtell et al., 2000; Fairbank & Williams, 2001; Frese et al., 1999) or ated in the platform, with 143 ideas being selected by experts for fur-
have not distinguished between types of participation across phases ther development and implementation. A selection decision entails
of the innovation process (Wendelken et al., 2014). Yet, it is argued that the assigned expert becomes the implementation owner, being
that, in order to generate more in-depth insights into employee partic- responsible for bringing the idea to realization.
ipation in internal crowdsourcing, motivations need to be linked to
the types of behaviours assumed by employees when participating in
these initiatives (Battistella & Nonino, 2012). As such, we have limited 4 | METHODS
knowledge about which motivations play a major role in driving
employees to engage in the refinement and support of others' ideas in We employed a mixed method approach, based on the combination
these platforms, going beyond idea generation (Zuchowski of cluster analysis, social network analysis, qualitative interpretative
et al., 2016). analysis and qualitative interviews.
First, social network analysis constituted an important tool to
generate insights into employees' interactions in the internal
3 | D AT A crowdsourcing platform (Füller et al., 2014). We view this online plat-
form as loci of social connections, where relationships between
3.1 | Research setting employees emerge through their commenting and voting activities.
Second, we conducted a cluster analysis to identify the types of
We collected data from an internal crowdsourcing platform supporting behaviours enacted online by employees. Third, we
implemented by a large, international organization operating in the focused on unveiling how the behaviours identified through cluster
manufacturing sector. The organization operates in more than analysis differ in their content and meaning by applying a qualitative
10 countries and has more than 16,000 employees worldwide. The interpretative analysis of the comments submitted by employees
platform was launched in April 2015. It is considered an additional (Moser et al., 2013). Finally, we conducted interviews with some of
channel to encourage innovation and collaboration among employees these employees to gain a better understanding of their underlying
distributed across different functions, locations and hierarchical levels. motivations for contributing to the support and refinement of others'
Although participation is voluntary for employees, the use of this ini- ideas. Overall, the combination of these multiple methods, both quan-
tiative is encouraged and promoted throughout the organization, titative and qualitative, is beneficial to increase the trustworthiness
being supported by top management. The platform was managed by and reliability of the data (Füller et al., 2014). It also provides a more
the continuous improvement department, contributing to the firm's comprehensive and fine-grained understanding of employees'
value creation activities. A team of innovation managers is assigned to supporting behaviours, based not only on the structural dimensions of
its management, being responsible for the development of participa- their interactions but also on their actual meaning and content (Moser
tion guidelines and incentive schemes, mainly based on providing rec- et al., 2013). Such holistic understanding would thus not be possible if
ognition through virtual badges and points. Monetary rewards are not one would use only one these methods.
provided to employees for their participation. Moreover, the virtual
badges and points are not linked to receiving gifts or other compensa-
tions, being purely symbolic. The firm saw them as a way to provide 4.1 | Quantitative methodology—Employees'
visibility and recognition in the platform based on employees' contri- supporting behaviours
butions. The platform is designed around four main areas to favour
the generation of strategically relevant ideas aligned with the needs Following previous studies (Füller et al., 2014; Moser et al., 2013), we
of the organization: improvement of existing products and services, used social network analysis to identify the employees' supporting
creation of new products, improvement of internal processes and behaviours emerging in internal crowdsourcing. We considered the
environmental sustainability. Finally, the system is designed to be col- existence of a tie between two employees if one employee provided
laborative and interactive through the use of community functionali- at least one comment or vote to an idea of another employee. Com-
ties, such as commenting and voting. This was considered important menting and voting indicate the extent to which employees engage in
supporting behaviours toward others' ideas. A commonly used net- Index (ARI) in STATA to test the accuracy of each cluster solution
work measure is degree centrality, which measures participants' activ- (Hubert & Arabie, 1985). This test indicates that the four-cluster solu-
ity levels and visibility (Füller et al., 2014). We operationalized out- tion is characterized by lower levels of accuracy (0.76 per cent) com-
degree centrality as the number of comments/votes posted by an pared with the five- and six-cluster solutions (reporting similar levels
employee to others' ideas. In-degree centrality is operationalized as the of accuracy: 0.82 per cent and 0.88 per cent, respectively). We also
number of comments/votes received by employees to their ideas relied on the permtab command in STATA as an additional measure to
(Füller et al., 2014). Furthermore, we included coparticipation intensity compare the cluster solutions, which seeks to maximize the Cohen's κ
to measure the degree to which employees interact with others non- as an index of agreement (Halpin, 2017). We obtained similar results,
randomly (Moser et al., 2013). We constructed an affiliation network with the four-cluster solution being the less accurate (κ = .78), while
where a tie between two employees exists if they have commented the five- and six-cluster solutions are very similar in their accuracy
on the same ideas. The more ideas two employees share, the stronger (κ = .83 and .84, respectively). We noticed that the five- and six-
their link. These measures were calculated using the UCINET software cluster solutions were very similar in their interpretation. The only dif-
(Borgatti et al., 2002). Finally, we included the number of ideas submit- ference was that the six-cluster solution created a small additional
ted by each employee as an additional measure to capture engage- cluster that included employees who engage only to a limited extent
ment in idea generation activities. Figure A1 and Table A1 provide an in the generation of ideas. However, this distinction is already cap-
overview of the network analysis and measures. For instance, tured by the clusters provided by the five-cluster solution, and the
Figure A1 shows the network configuration with groups of employees six-cluster solution does not provide additional valuable insights on
occupying a core position within the platform and others occupying a employees' behaviours from a theoretical point of view. We follow
more peripheral position. Employees in the core of the community are previous studies that highlight that, when cluster solutions report sim-
highly connected to each other (thus intensively engaging in providing ilar levels of accuracy, the choice of the cluster solution is often a mat-
and receiving comments and/or votes), while many marginal partici- ter of what is also deemed as most interpretable and meaningful by
pants only engage in such activities to a limited extent. This indicates the researcher, and thus, it is also partly driven by researchers' judge-
that employees differ in the way they interact and participate, ment (Fuger et al., 2017; Füller et al., 2014; Ketchen & Shook, 1996).
supporting our assumption of the existence of different types of Hence, based on the tests of accuracy, supporting literature and the
employee behaviours. This thus provides support for conducting a usability for interpretation (Fuger et al., 2017; Füller et al., 2014), the -
cluster analysis. five-cluster solution is selected for this study.
4.2 | Cluster analysis 4.3 | Interpretive methodology—The content of

employees' feedback
Performing a cluster analysis is important in our study to identify dis-
tinct groups of employees (clusters) based on their activities on the To generate a more comprehensive understanding of employees'
platform. That is, this procedure enables to categorize employees into supporting behaviours, we complemented the network and cluster
a number of groups which are, in relation to the variables under inves- analyses with a qualitative interpretative analysis. This was impor-
tigation, as homogenous as possible (minimizing the variance within tant to better understand the content and meaning of employees'
clusters) and at the same time as different as possible (maximizing the supporting behaviours. This analysis was based on the entire set of
variance between clusters). Hence, the use of cluster analysis enables comments submitted to the platform (3949). The coding process
us to identify distinct types of supporting behaviours performed by was deductive and started with a set of predefined coding instruc-
employees in internal crowdsourcing: each cluster includes employees tions and content categories. We built on the literature on EDI to
who share similar supporting behaviours. The cluster analysis serves classify the content of employees' supporting behaviours with
as a basis for performing additional analyses to better understand the respect to the feedback provided. More specifically, we drew inspi-
content of each identified supporting behaviour. We used the devel- ration from the studies by Hargadon and Bechky (2006) and Perry-
oped network measures to perform a two-step cluster analysis (Moser Smith and Mannucci (2017). These studies highlight different types
et al., 2013) and thus categorize the behaviours exhibited by of employees' supporting behaviours and content of the feedback
employees into distinct clusters. We first employed the Ward's provided, enabling us to develop a more fine-grained categorization
method based on squared Euclidean distances, a widely used hierar- of employees' contributions. First, we the two authors indepen-
chical clustering technique (Ward, 1963). We used the Calinski and dently and separately coded a random subset of comments (100) as
Harabasz pseudo-F-statistic and the Duda and Hart pseudo-T2 values a way to pretest the developed coding scheme by reading through
to identify the number of clusters (Füller et al., 2014). This procedure the comments and dividing them into the established categories.
suggested four to six-cluster solutions. We then employed the non- After this double-blind coding, we compared the codes with the aim
hierarchical (k-means) clustering procedure, where we used the cen- of detecting similarities and differences. Following Campbell
troids obtained from the Ward's clustering solutions as the initial et al. (2013), in order to achieve agreement, we discussed our inter-
starting points (Füller et al., 2014). We calculated the Adjusted Rand pretations of the coded categories to clarify differences in an effort
to reconcile them. Then, we adjusted the coding scheme accordingly subset of comments (400) based on the revised coding scheme. A
and refined the initial categories as we reached shared understand- comparison of the categories led to a Cohen's κ of .82, which is
ing and agreement. This process resulted in six final categories: considered a good indicator of intercoder reliability (Cohen, 1960).
emotional support, positive feedback, negative feedback, construc- The remaining comments where then coded by one of the authors.
tive feedback, help seeking and help giving. After this alignment, a Table 1 provides a description of the identified categories, how they
third coder (an innovation management student who was trained by link to the mentioned studies we build upon, and illustrative
the authors on these six categories) was asked to code a random examples.
TABLE 1 Content of employees' feedback
Related categories from

Category Description literature Illustrative examples
Emotional support Comments that express support for an idea Emotional support ‘Great idea!’
without providing reasons for support. Perry-Smith and ‘What a brilliant idea xxx. I definitely think
Mannucci (2017) that this idea deserves more attention’.
Positive feedback Comments that express support for an idea, Positive feedback ‘Wow, it's really a step up for building
providing detailed reasons for support and Perry-Smith and creativity. Animal is very close to us and
elaborating on its benefits. Mannucci (2017) can help the child better understand habits
of this animal, because during assembly will
have discussion with parents about this
animal’.
‘Ambient RF, very interesting … Low (no)
power xxx could potentially enable
unlimited smart uses for our xxx platform
both within play and other …’
Constructive Comments that focus on further elaborating Constructive feedback ‘This looks really cool! I saw something similar
feedback an idea and others' contributions by adding Perry-Smith and a while ago, where a Japanese company
additional perspectives and suggestions for Mannucci (2017) recycled their bras into shopping bags
improvement, sharing knowledge and Reflective reframing (while still using them as bras)—maybe not
experiences about specific practices and Hargadon and the most realistic use, but the idea of using
approaches that may be useful, and linking Bechky (2006) waste to create a reusable bag is definitely
the idea to similar ideas for further useful’. http://inhabitat.com/no-eco-
expansion and knowledge recombination. shopping-bag-bra/
Negative Comments that highlight limitations and Negative feedback ‘While I think tapping into popular shows and
feedback issues related to an idea but still having an Perry-Smith and movies has been a proven boom for xxx,
informational content. Mannucci (2017) I'm not sure all of those shows mentioned
match up with well the xxx values. Here in
our store we have had a decidedly divided
reception to the xxx with a fair amount of
parents commenting that the show is not
something they want their children to
watch’.
Help seeking Opening up the discussion by asking Help seeking ‘Hi xxx, thanks for sharing your idea with us! I
questions about an idea to solicit Hargadon and personally love Airbnb and have gotten
clarifications or further insights. Bechky (2006) great uses out of it—often much more
unique and affordable experiences than
when booking hotels. However, I also know
that it can be unreliable in terms of service
for some, so I'm wondering if you see this
used as on an individual basis or managed
through HR/Facilities?’
Help giving Comments that link together other parts of Help giving ‘Hi xxx, yes, there is a KPI board they are
employees' communications. They include Hargadon and working to make xxx standard, is not
helping (i.e., providing replies to requests Bechky (2006) optimal for quick overview and still need a
for clarification with the required Reinforcing lot of work to make it a perfect
information), thanking employees for their Hargadon and replacement. Further, the department have
inputs, soliciting information on the status Bechky (2006) to be a global department before they can
of the idea and acknowledging previous use it, otherwise they will be declined. A
contributions by summarizing important digital board brings so much more to a
inputs. department and the management, and a
much better overview …’
4.4 | Qualitative interviews—Underlying them. This resulted in the identification of two final aggregated
employees' motivations dimensions: intrinsic motivations and extrinsic motivations. Figure A2
shows our data analysis process, including first-order codes, second-
For each identified employee behaviour, we contacted and inter- order themes and aggregated dimensions.
viewed a number of employees with the aim of better understanding
their specific motivations to participate. Our aim was to especially
uncover the motivations of employees to engage in supporting behav- 5 | FI ND I NG S
iours, going beyond the generation of ideas. In each cluster, we
selected participants to interview who were ‘representative’, engag- 5.1 | Initial categorization of employees'
ing in the behaviours characteristic of that cluster. We contacted supporting behaviours
30 employees in total who participated more or less actively in the
platform across the five clusters. However, only 14 employees As a first step, we present the employee behaviours identified based
accepted to be interviewed. Hence, we conducted a total of on the cluster analysis. This classification enables us to present in the
14 semistructured interviews with participants. The interviews lasted following sections the key findings of this study, related to the con-
between 15 and 45 min, were recorded and transcribed to ensure tent of employees' supporting behaviours and underlying motivations.
transparency. The interviews were very focused—that is, our inter- Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations and number of obser-
view guide was short and focused solely on the motivational aspects vations for each cluster, while Figure 1 provides an illustration of the
of employee participation, in line with our objective. We asked identified behaviours.
employees open questions with a focus on getting insights into their
main motivations—that is, why they participated in the platform to
support and refine others' ideas and their experiences. There was
quite some variation between employees with respect to how much
they elaborated on their answers. Table A2 provides a more detailed
overview of the interviewees.
Our data analysis was characterized by both inductive and deduc-
tive approaches and entailed different cycles of coding, inspired by
Gioia et al. (2013). In the first cycle, we conducted a more open,
inductive coding where we read through the interview transcripts to
identify employees' motivations to participate in supporting behav-
iours. We coded these motivations either by directly using the terms
provided by the interviewees or a label that summarized what was
said by them. We started with a more open approach because we
wanted to capture all the different motivations mentioned by
employees. In the subsequent cycles of coding, we iteratively consul-
ted relevant literatures to aggregate, refine and categorize the identi-
fied codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We built on EDI studies on
employee engagement in innovation to better refine and label our
F I G U R E 1 Employee supporting behaviours. The y axis reports
codes. In the third cycle of coding, we focused on comparing the iden- the (standardized) mean values from Table 2 [Colour figure can be
tified second-order themes and on detecting relationships among viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
TABLE 2 Cluster analysis
Employee type Innovators Legitimizers Socializers Passive evaluators Passive observers

Out-degree comments 20.49 (2.65) 1.21 (1.30) 4.45 (2.37) 0.45 (0.78) 0.148 (0.173)
Out-degree votes 12.75 (1.26) 4.55 (2.27) 1.63 (2.05) 1.16 (1.45) 0.204 (0.30)
In-degree comments 18.77 (2.56) 2.53 (1.6) 3.073 (2.69) 0.96 (1.01) 0.19 (0.23)
In-degree votes 13.85 (2.011) 4.33 (1.95) 1.19 (1.55) 0.79 (0.81) 0.168 (0.172)
Number of ideas 18.34 (4.38) 3.64 (1.5) 1.62 (1.83) 0.905 (0.81) 0.181 (0.211)
Coparticipation intensity 13.08 (9.52) 0.73 (0.796) 5.47 (2.61) 0.423 (0.77) 0.146 (0.29)
No. of observations 3 15 21 152 1,553
Level of engagement Major contributors Major contributors Major contributors Minor contributors Minor contributors
Note: Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of the five clusters (based on standardized variables).
5.1.1 | Innovators 5.1.4 | Passive evaluators
This type of contributor represents a very small portion of employees. This type of participant acts as a minor contributor, participating only
These employees are the most productive idea generators in the plat- to some extent in the platform by providing votes to others' ideas.
form, playing the role of innovators. They are characterized by extreme Similar to legitimizers, these employees seem interested in participat-
values in all the measures (highly above average) and thus by high levels ing in the evaluation of others' ideas. On the other hand, they are only
of participation in the platform. They also act as major contributors in to a limited extent engaged in generating ideas and in contributing to
the platform, being engaged in establishing interactions with other others' ideas through their commenting activities.
employees and in providing a variety of feedback to others' ideas, both
in the form of votes and comments. These contributors are popular and
visible participants in the platform as they receive a large number of 5.1.5 | Passive observers
comments and votes to their ideas, thus attracting the attention of other
members. Hence, their ideas tend to be highly popular in the platform. This type of participant constitutes the majority of employees partici-
pating in the platform. These employees are characterized by low
levels of engagement in commenting and voting others' ideas as well
5.1.2 | Legitimizers as in generating their own ideas. They thus play the role of minor con-
tributors in supporting and refining others' ideas in the platform.
This type of participant engages actively in the platform especially by Overall, the cluster analysis reveals five types of employee behav-
providing votes to others' ideas. Hence, these employees act as legiti- iours: one small group of innovators who also act as major contribu-
mizers and evaluators by providing support and endorsement to others' tors in refining and supporting others' ideas, two other groups of
ideas in order to move them forward. They play an important role in sig- major contributors who primarily differ based on whether they
nalling to the organization which ideas are considered relevant. They actively contribute in evaluating (legitimizers) or commenting on
also engage in idea generation to some extent. Their ideas tend to be others' ideas (socializers) and two groups of minor contributors who
quite popular within the platform as reflected by the large number of engage in these activities only to a limited extent. The identified
attracted votes. Their behaviour is characterized by little engagement behaviours thus reflect different levels of cognitive efforts invested
in the platform in terms of providing comments to others' ideas, indicat- when engaging in internal crowdsourcing: innovators and socializers
ing less interest in establishing interactions with other employees. are the employees who engage in higher effort activities such as idea
generation and commenting to refine others' ideas. Legitimizers and
passive evaluators tend to mainly engage in lower effort activities,
5.1.3 | Socializers focusing on voting on others' ideas. In the next section, we explore
employees' contributions further by investigating the content of the
This type of participant is also a major contributor in the platform, feedback provided by them through their commenting activities.
being highly engaged in contributing to others' ideas through their
commenting activities. This indicates that these employees are very
social members, interested in establishing interactions with other 5.2 | The content of employees' feedback
employees and in providing feedback to their ideas. They are also
characterized by high levels of coparticipation intensity, showing a Pearson and likelihood chi-square tests (p < .01) reveal significant dif-
tendency to discuss others' ideas with the same employees. Despite ferences between the identified behaviours with respect to the con-
generating a moderate amount of ideas, they are able to attract a content of the feedback provided to others' ideas (as shown in Table 3).
siderable number of comments to their ideas (above average), thus In general, the majority of comments provided by employees fall
indicating that their ideas are quite discussed by other employees. into the categories of positive feedback (943 comments), constructive
TABLE 3 Content of employee feedback
Comment type Innovators Legitimizers Socializers Passive evaluators Passive observers

Emotional support 16.43 10.74 11.43 17.59 25.43
Positive feedback 28.19 26.86 20.99 24.43 23.6
Constructive feedback 19.68 28.51 32.12 28.81 28.73
Help giving 26.37 27.69 22.86 21.06 14.36
Help seeking 6.49 2.48 8.77 4.92 3.29
Negative feedback 2.84 3.72 3.84 3.19 4.58
Note: Proportion of comments for each cluster. The numbers in bold highlight, for each category of feedback, where the employee type provides the
greatest proportion of comments.
feedback (1122 comments) and help giving (817 comments). This 5.3 | Distribution of employees' contributions and
reflects a greater focus and effort of employees on providing feed- impact on idea outcome
back that can help refine others' ideas, going beyond mere emotional
support. To provide further insights on employees' supporting behaviours, we
Innovators are highly engaged in providing different types of feed- explore how often these types of contributors are present across
back to others' ideas. For instance, they provide the highest propor- ideas. One dimension according to which submitted ideas differ is
tion of positive feedback, focusing on providing detailed explanations their degree of elaboration, as ideas can be more or less elaborated
for why the idea is regarded as good by them. These comments can when they are submitted in a crowdsourcing platform. We calculated
thus be important to complement an idea and increase its understand- the average length description of the ideas submitted to the platform,
ability by focusing on highlighting its potential benefits. On the other and based on this average, we distinguished between ideas with a
hand, these employees provide the lowest proportion of constructive lower and higher degree of elaboration (below and above average).
feedback, which all the other supporting roles do to a larger degree, Figure 2 shows that a greater proportion of employees (across the five
both major and minor contributors. Thus, although participating only clusters) engage in supporting and discussing ideas characterized by a
in a limited manner, even the group of minor contributors (passive lower degree of elaboration in their formulation. Their inputs can thus
observers and evaluators) is interested in providing helpful feedback be important to further extend ideas during the refinement phase,
to their colleagues that can contribute to further improve their ideas. something that may help managers make more informed selection
Constructive feedback entails adding additional perspectives and sug- decisions. Table A3 reports an example of an idea with a low degree
gestions for improvement to further complement an idea, adding new of elaboration and subsequent discussions from the different
perspectives and meanings to the inputs provided by others to an employees to further refine it. Furthermore, we distinguished
idea, sharing knowledge and experiences about specific practices that between types of ideas, based on the four areas used by the firm to
may be useful in relation to the idea, and linking the idea to similar categorize them, and explored the distribution of the identified
ideas to favour knowledge recombination. On the other hand, innova- employee types. Figure 3 shows that all the five identified clusters
tors provide the second highest proportion of comments related to engage with a greater proportion in ideas related to internal process
help giving, focusing on linking together inputs provided by employees improvements. This is in line with previous crowdsourcing studies,
to an idea and on providing inputs that respond to requests for which point to the localized knowledge held by employees (Malhotra
clarification. et al., 2017). Having an in-depth knowledge about the organizational
Differentiating between major and minor contributors, the results context, these employees can leverage their localized expertise to
show that especially help giving and help seeking are done to a larger provide inputs directed at improving internal processes and organiza-
extent by the major contributors. Legitimizers, although engaging in tional activities.
commenting activities only to a limited extent, provide the highest Furthermore, we explored how the identified employee behav-
proportion of comments related to help giving. This indicates that, iours influence the selection outcome of the ideas generated in this
when legitimizers engage in providing comments to others' ideas, they platform. This is important in order to understand to what extent the
devote their time and efforts in assisting other colleagues by providing engagement of employees in the refinement of ideas through differ-
replies to requests for clarification with the required information, ent supporting behaviours can help move these ideas forward in the
soliciting support from other employees and acknowledging previous process, increasing their chances of becoming selected by experts.
contributions (i.e., agreeing with previous comments and summarizing We performed t tests to compare how the ideas that were selected
the points discussed in previous conversations). Socializers show the
highest amount of constructive feedback and help seeking behaviours.
By asking questions and clarifications related to an idea, these
employees both give feedback and encourage other colleagues to pro-
vide further insights to better clarify and extend its content.
Regarding the minor contributors, passive observers provide the
highest proportion of emotional support, being engaged in providing
encouragement to their colleagues with their comments. Emotional
support is concerned with providing encouragement to other
employees for their ideas and relates to positive expressions such as
‘Great idea!’ As such, these comments do not provide content in the
form of knowledge or new perspectives but carry a certain valuation,
providing legitimacy and support to an idea. Moreover, this cluster
provides the highest proportion of negative feedback. This can also be
seen as a way for these employees to contribute to the refinement of
F I G U R E 2 Frequency of employee types across idea elaboration
ideas, by highlighting certain limitations or issues that need to be con- (based on comments) [Colour figure can be viewed at
sidered by the ideator and other employees (see also Table 1). wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 3 Frequency of employee types

across categories of ideas (based on comments)
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
T A B L E 4 Comparing selected and

Employee type Selected ideas (N = 143) Rejected ideas (N = 1013) Significance level
rejected ideas with respect to the
Innovators 0.42 0.42 distribution of comments from employee
**
Legitimizers 0.33 0.19 types
**
Socializers 1.30 0.77
**
Passive evaluators 1.20 0.88
Passive observers 0.99 0.91
Note: Mean values are reported in the table.

**
p < .05.
and rejected by experts differ in the distribution of employees' possible explanation for this result could be that innovators are more
supporting behaviours (see Table 4). focused on generating and discussing their own ideas in the platform
The results show a significant difference between selected and rather than on contributing to refining others' ideas in a valuable man-
rejected ideas for many of the employees' supporting behaviours. ner compared with the other employee types, that is, through con-
That is, ideas that were selected by experts tend to have, on average, structive feedback. In relation to passive observers, these employees
a greater number of passive evaluators, legitimizers and socializers are the least active in the platform, and when they engage in refining
participating in their refinement through their commenting activities others' ideas, they focus more on providing emotional support. This
prior to selection. One explanation could be that passive evaluators type of feedback, although providing legitimacy, may be less useful
and legitimizers, despite engaging in commenting activities to a limited for the actual improvement of an idea, as it lacks informational
extent, focus their efforts on refining those ideas that they deem most content.
promising and valuable for the firm (in line with their role of evalua-
tors), especially through the provision of help giving and constructive
5.4 | Motivations underpinning employees'
feedback. This may contribute to make the value of these ideas more
supporting behaviours
obvious and to help them move forward in the process. The important
role played by socializers for the elaboration of ideas prior to selection Our analysis of the interviews indicates that employees are motivated
is also indicated in the result. These employees are characterized by to perform supporting behaviours in internal crowdsourcing driven by
the greatest proportion of constructive feedback and help seeking both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. However, we found that
comments provided to others' ideas. Such inputs may thus be valuable intrinsic motivations in the form of prosocial behaviours played a
to complement these ideas, increasing their chances of becoming major role in motivating employees to engage in supporting and refin-
selected. Being highly social members, the inputs of socializers could ing others' ideas, being highlighted by all employees as constituting
also help attract further attention to these ideas and gather needed the most important driver for their participation.
inputs and clarifications from other employees. On the other hand,
Table 4 shows that there is no significant difference between selected
5.4.1 | Intrinsic motivations
and rejected ideas with respect to the participation of innovators and
passive observers. It is important to highlight that, although innova- All the identified employee types mentioned altruism as a key motiva-
tors are very active, they represent a very small cluster. However, one tor. That is, many employees were driven by the unselfish interest in
helping to improve their colleagues' ideas by providing feedback to mentioned by some socializers and innovators, who highlighted their
them or in supporting others' ideas to move them forward. Many expectation that, by supporting other colleagues in the platform, they
employees highlighted that internal crowdsourcing represented a plat- would receive feedback and help on their ideas in return: ‘It was also
form where they could use their knowledge and expertise to help about providing and expecting feedback in return (Logistic engineer)’.
others with their ideas. As stated by an employee: ‘If I saw something
that I thought was a good idea, and I saw a way that it could be
improved, then I wanted to contribute, add value, so that the person 5.4.2 | Extrinsic motivations
who put up the idea could use it (Lean consultant)’. This not only
related to providing feedback that could extend others' ideas, but it Employees' motivation to participate in supporting behaviours was
was also seen as important to provide support and encouragement to also linked to receiving personal benefits. Extrinsic motivations, how-
others for their efforts. Helping was, in fact, seen as an important, ever, did not play a predominant role and were only mentioned by
implicit norm of being part of the same organization. Various inter- few employees. For instance, innovators highlighted motives such as
viewees highlighted that the firm was characterized by a very collabo- the possibility to earn recognition and status through their contribu-
rative culture, where assisting others' colleagues in need of help tions both from the firm and their colleagues. They especially liked
represented an important element of such culture. Moreover, the possibility to earn virtual points and badges through their contri-
employees in all clusters, apart from socializers, mentioned organiza- butions in the platform, in order to gain visibility. As stated by an
tional citizenship as a key motivation to participate. Participation was employee: ‘If you were commenting on ideas, you would receive a
seen as part of the company's culture and of being a good ‘company badge as being a commentator. If your ideas were implemented, then
citizen’. In fact, being a good company citizen was linked by many you would receive another badge … so you could get different badges
employees to the importance of helping drive innovation within the for different behaviors … I'm a competitive spirit I can say, and for me
organization: ‘It is important to participate in these four areas [the it was quite rewarding to be able to see everything (Packaging engi-
four categories of ideas in the platform] and help drive innovation, neer)’. A few passive observers reported that helping others was also
these areas closely relate to our main company values (Quality con- a way to signal to the firm that they possessed relevant competences,
troller)’. Many interviewees revealed a strong commitment to the hoping for career-related opportunities. Moreover, various employees
organization as a whole, pointing to the importance of collaborating reported that they enjoyed contributing to the platform due to an
with each other for the benefit of the organization. They considered it inherent interest in innovation. They also saw participation as
important to help their organization better innovate, viewing an opportunity to learn more about innovation from other colleagues
crowdsourcing as an organizational tool/resource to support the firm's as well as to enhance own expertise. For instance: ‘It was something I
innovation strategy. Some employees also saw participation as a natu- started doing because I was interested in it. I thought it was interest-
ral continuation of their work role and thus as a way to further con- ing to see new ideas (Portfolio manager)’.
tribute to innovation, by helping to advance and refine others' ideas
that could contribute to the whole organization in a valuable way. As
stated by an employee: ‘Primarily, I was reviewing ideas and trying to 6 | DI SCU SSION
provide inputs and voting for the ones I thought would be value
adding to the company (Global master trainer)’. Interestingly, despite Our analyses have revealed five types of behaviours voluntarily
the platform being supported and promoted by higher level manage- assumed by employees when participating in internal crowdsourcing,
ment, none of our interviewees expressed that they participated in namely, innovators, socializers, legitimizers, passive evaluators and
the platform because they were expected or ‘forced’ to do so by their passive observers. Linking these behaviours to the literature on EDI,
superiors. Rather, it was emphasized that their participation was we observe that a small group of innovators constitute the main initia-
linked to being a good company citizen and that they saw helping tors and major contributors in the platform (Obstfeld, 2005). We also
others as a valuable element of being part of the same organization. found two other types of major contributors, socializers and legiti-
As stated by an employee: ‘Because that was in my field of expertise, mizers, who are active in the platform by providing feedback to
I was able to provide technical comments to an idea … if it would be others' ideas through their commenting activities and by providing
feasible, it would take too much, or would be too much out of the support and endorsement to them both through voting and com-
box. We are [firm name] and it is important to help your own col- menting (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017).
leagues (Senior equipment engineer)’. This focus on prosocial behav- The minor contributors in the platform (Obstfeld, 2005), that is, the
iours also aligns well with the communicative content displayed by passive evaluators and passive observers, constitute the majority of
many employees, for instance, with respect to providing constructive participants and engage in these activities to a lower extent. However,
or positive feedback and help giving and help seeking forms of feed- these employees are still interested in providing feedback and support
back. Some employees also mentioned that they participated in the to others' ideas through their comments. Based on this categorization
platform because they saw it as a fun and engaging activity. Finally, of employee behaviours, our study provides three key findings. First,
we found that another organizational-oriented factor driving partici- we show how these behaviours differ in their content and meaning,
pation related to norms of generalized reciprocity. This was mainly with employees focusing on providing different types of feedback to
refine others' ideas. Second, we show that employees, through their and help seeking behaviours identified by Hargadon and Bechky (2006)
supporting behaviours, especially focus on elaborating ideas with are clearly apparent in the analysis of comments and are to a
lower degrees of elaboration, thus benefiting from additional perspec- larger extent provided by two of the major contributor groups,
tives and inputs. We also provide initial empirical evidence for how legitimizers and socializers. Idea championing (Howell & Boies, 2004;
these supporting behaviours are linked to the selection outcome of Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) is thus also somewhat initiated in the
supported ideas. Third, we provide new insights into the underlying platform through comments that give and seek help to facilitate the
motivations of employees to perform these supporting behaviours, refinement of others' ideas and through comments that provide
pointing to the important role of intrinsic motivations, especially in support and legitimacy to them.
the form of prosocial behaviours. Hence, by complementing the network analysis with an interpre-
tative qualitative analysis, we are able to ‘fill networks with meanings’
(Moser et al., 2013). This enables us to provide a more elaborate cate-
6.1 | Theoretical contributions gorization of the content of the feedback submitted by employees in
internal crowdsourcing. Our interpretative analysis brought to the sur-
Our findings complement research on internal crowdsourcing. Previ- face different forms of feedback (such as help seeking and help giving)
ous studies have discussed design-related aspects (Lüttgens that have received limited attention in the context of crowdsourcing,
et al., 2014), network structures and behaviours of employees as ide- both internal and external. By doing so, we extend the work by Ber-
ators and the types of ideas generated by them (Björk & etta (2019) and Chen et al. (2019). These studies have investigated
Magnusson, 2009; Deichmann & van den Ende, 2014). Recent studies the content of employee feedback only to a limited extent, showing
have, however, advocated the need to better understand how firms that employees differ in the tone of the feedback provided in internal
can leverage the potential of internal crowds for the refinement of crowdsourcing, being more or less positive toward others' ideas, as
ideas, thus benefiting from the collaborative and interactive character well as in their knowledge background, which enables them to provide
of crowdsourcing (Beretta, 2019; Malhotra et al., 2017). We comple- different types of inputs to ideas. Moreover, our findings differ from
ment these studies by providing a more comprehensive understanding previous studies on external crowdsourcing. For instance, the study
of the different types of behaviours enacted by employees to support by Füller et al. (2014) shows that participants in external
and jointly refine ideas, thus going beyond idea generation. In the fol- crowdsourcing especially focused on providing support and encour-
lowing section, we unfold more in detail the contributions of this agement to others' ideas through their comments (emotional support),
study. while providing feedback with informational content to a lower
extent. In contrast, while employees also provide emotional support,
in our study, the majority of the submitted comments relate to cate-
6.1.1 | Content of employee feedback gories such as positive feedback, help giving and constructive feed-
back, which point to the interest of many employees to help refine
We contribute to the crowdsourcing literature by providing a more in- others' ideas. Moreover, studies on external crowdsourcing highlight
depth understanding of the content of the feedback submitted by par- that external crowds engage in knowledge sharing behaviours espe-
ticipants in these platforms during the idea elaboration phase, as cially when they received clear instructions and incentives to help
called for by recent studies (Beretta, 2019; Malhotra et al., 2017; stimulate such behaviours (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). This was
Piezunka & Dahlander, 2015). We find that employees provide differ- not the case in the context of the internal crowdsourcing platform
ent types of feedback to support and complement others' ideas. We studied (we elaborate more on this in the sections below).
built on studies on EDI to provide a better understanding of the con-
tent of such feedback. More specifically, we found that emotional sup-
port (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) is to a larger degree provided by 6.1.2 | Idea elaboration
the passive observers through short, encouraging comments that pro-
vide legitimacy to certain ideas. Passive observers also focus on Building on this, we complement crowdsourcing studies by showing
providing negative feedback (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) as a way that employees, through their supporting behaviours, tend to
to refine others' ideas by pointing to limitations. All the identified especially focus on refining ideas with a lower degree of elaboration.
employee behaviours, except innovators, are highly focused on pro- Studies on both internal and external crowdsourcing have looked
viding constructive feedback (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) by at the effect of idea elaboration on the selection of ideas by
adding new inputs to help extend an idea as well as by providing new experts, showing that ideas with a lower degree of elaboration tend
perspectives to other employees' contributions to the idea. The latter to be disregarded in these platforms (Beretta, 2019: Piezunka &
form of feedback can be related to the behaviour of reflective Dahlander, 2015). This is mainly due to a lack of understanding of
reframing discussed by Hargadon and Bechky (2006), where these ideas by experts, lacking enough details in their description. Our
employees build on each other's inputs to refine ideas. On the other findings show that employees can play an important role in refining
hand, innovators focus to a greater extent on providing positive feed- these underelaborated ideas with additional inputs and feedback that
back (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) to others' ideas. The help giving can further complement them. Relatedly, a key contribution of this
study is to link employees' supporting behaviours to the selection out- colleagues' innovation efforts, where implicit norms of helping each
come of the supported ideas. This enables us to provide insights into other exist, regardless of being distant colleagues located in different
which employees' behaviours play an important role during idea elab- functions or geographical locations. These prosocial behaviours thus
oration, helping supported ideas to become selected by the firm. Pre- become a more important driver than other types of motivations. As
vious studies on external crowdsourcing have examined how the such, internal crowdsourcing provides an environment for leveraging
identified roles in these platforms differ in the quality and outcome of the ‘kindness of strangers’ for innovation purposes and for fostering
the ideas they have generated, showing that the most active partici- employees' intrinsic motivation (Constant et al., 1996).
pants are also the most innovative ones (Füller et al., 2014; Hutter
et al., 2011; Kathan et al., 2015). To our knowledge, this is the first
study that attempts to link employee participation to others' ideas with 6.1.4 | Employee-driven innovation
the selection outcome of these ideas, something that crowdsourcing
studies have paid less attention to. Our analysis indicates the key role Finally, our study extends and complements studies on EDI
played by socializers, passive observers and legitimizers for the selec- (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Høyrup et al., 2012; Perry-Smith &
tion of supported ideas, and we provide some explanations for why Mannucci, 2017). These studies have mainly investigated the
this might be the case. Future research should conduct further ana- supporting behaviours enacted by employees in offline settings, while
lyses to better understand the influence of these different supporting such supporting behaviours are seldom investigated in online con-
behaviours on innovative outcomes in these platforms and underlying texts. Our study addresses recent calls for how EDI is enacted through
mechanisms. web-based online tools, with respect to the behaviours performed by
employees to support the innovation process (Bäckström &
Lindberg, 2019; Høyrup et al., 2018). We extend this research by
6.1.3 | Underlying motivations showing that employees voluntarily enact different supporting activi-
ties for innovation in online crowdsourcing, focusing on the support
We further extend crowdsourcing and EDI research by providing a and refinement of others' ideas. As such, internal crowdsourcing rep-
better understanding of employees' motivations to voluntary engage resents an alternative channel to leverage the competences of a larger
in supporting behaviours for innovation in these platforms. By doing number of distributed employees for the early phases of the innova-
so, we address previous calls to investigate the different types of tion process.
employees participating in these platforms and their set of motiva-
tions (Wendelken et al., 2014). We shift the attention from
motivations to engage in idea generation activities, which have been 6.2 | Managerial implications
the main focus of previous studies (Axtell et al., 2000; Fairbank &
Williams, 2001; Frese et al., 1999; Wendelken et al., 2014), to motiva- Our findings indicate that organizations implementing internal
tions of employees to engage in idea elaboration and championing crowdsourcing should be aware of the value of engaging not only
activities in internal crowdsourcing. On the one hand, our findings innovators but also the marginal participants playing a supportive
align with previous studies by showing that extrinsic motivations such function to innovation. The findings from this study can provide
as gaining recognition, career signalling and individual-related benefits insights into the development of participation architectures for the
matter for some employees for contributing to internal crowdsourcing voting and refinement of ideas that target different types of
(Fairbank & Williams, 2001; Wendelken et al., 2014). On the other employees as well as regarding employee motivation. Table 5 provides
hand, in contrast to these studies, our findings show a more predomi- specific managerial recommendations for each of these dimensions.
nant role of intrinsic motivations in the form of prosocial behaviours. We argue that addressing these aspects is crucial for the proper
We find that especially altruism and organizational citizenship behav- design and management of these platforms over time and to harvest
iours are central for internal crowdsourcing initiatives. the benefits of employee engagement in innovation. Our results indi-
This also indicates an important difference between internal and cate that such initiatives can be designed for more than merely moti-
external crowdsourcing initiatives. When it comes to external vating innovators, they are also a setting where firms can fertilize
crowdsourcing, studies show that both extrinsic and intrinsic motiva- employees' sense of belonging to the organization and their commit-
tions play an important role. However, intrinsic motivation is typically ment to innovation in general. This is done by providing a space
discussed in relation to aspects such as fun, intellectual challenge and where ideas are not only shared but also where employees can inter-
autonomy and less in relation to prosocial behaviours such as altruism act and communicate around these ideas.
and organizational citizenship (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2009). Other
studies have found that participants' cooperative behaviours in exter-
nal crowdsourcing are driven by curiosity and reciprocity to a greater 6.3 | Limitations and avenues for future research
extent (Bullinger et al., 2010; Kathan et al., 2015). In contrast, our
study shows that internal crowdsourcing initiatives represent a chan- Our study has a number of limitations that open up opportunities
nel that enable employees to support the organization's and for further research. First, our study should be complemented by
TABLE 5 Managerial implications
Dimension Managerial implications

Participation architecture • Integrate gamification principles in the platform in the form of badges and virtual points. This is important to
(gamification) consider as some employees may be interested in gaining recognition from the firm and peers.
Participation architecture (idea • Integrate community functionalities to enable new forms of interactions and collaboration in internal
refinement) crowdsourcing, thus allowing employees to engage in supporting behaviours in internal crowdsourcing. This is
also important considering that engagement of employees in supporting behaviours can help move ideas
forward in the process.
• This can be done by introducing a commenting function that enables employees to provide different forms of
feedback (positive, emotional support, constructive, help seeking, help giving and negative feedback) to help
refine others' ideas.
• In the platform studied, the commenting function allowed employees to reply to each other's comments. This is
important to enable them to build on each other's inputs and add new perspectives.
• In the platform studied, the firm made it as easy as possible to submit ideas. This can then enable employees to
participate in further elaborating on ideas that have lower degrees of elaboration.
• Making the platform interactive through a commenting function is also important to link to the needs of some
employees to learn from others and to interact with colleagues from other functions and locations.
Participation architecture • The introduction of a voting system enables employees especially interested in supporting and championing
(voting) others' ideas, such as passive evaluators and legitimizers, to engage in these types of supporting behaviours.
They can then play an important role in signalling to managers which ideas are considered relevant or promising
to evaluate.
Motivation • The establishment of a commenting function can attract employees motivated by altruism, reciprocity,
reputation and organizational citizenship, by giving them the opportunity to help refine others' ideas.
• In the platform studied, the firm made use of tags to better categorize ideas. This can help employees to
participate in refining those ideas that more clearly link to their area of expertise and thus to foster their
intrinsic desire to help colleagues and the organization.
• The definition of strategic categories of ideas can foster the intrinsic desire of employees to help the firm
innovate, providing employees with a sense of purpose and significance. In our case, these areas were linked to
the core values of the organization and thus were seen as meaningful by employees.
longitudinal analyses. This would provide insights into the dynamics OR CID
of participation and how to better use these initiatives to support Michela Beretta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2139-5879
innovation activities. Interesting questions for future research relate Helle Alsted Søndergaard https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6461-0946
to how employee behaviours evolve over time, to what extent
employees change behaviours and whether we can observe ENDNOTES
changes in the content of the feedback provided by them. It would 1
After March 2016, as a consequence of different internal changes hap-
also be relevant to conduct additional analyses on the impact of pening within the organization, the internal crowdsourcing platform was
the different types of employees' behaviours and feedback on the transferred to another system (a Yammer platform) and the ownership
of the platform was assigned to other employees. These changes
selection and implementation of ideas. Moreover, our analysis is
prevented us from continuing the data collection process.
based on a single crowdsourcing platform, raising questions about 2
We excluded an extreme outlier from our analysis. This was represented
the generalizability of our findings. Future research should investi- by a community manager in charge of stimulating conversations in the
gate whether the identified employee behaviours can be observed platform. This employee displayed a high out-degree centrality for com-
in other internal crowdsourcing initiatives. Finally, given the ments provided to ideas, while not engaging in any of the other activi-
ties, resulting in a single-employee cluster. We also discarded the
limited number of conducted interviews, future research should
comments provided by this employee.
further investigate employees' motivations and whether differences
can be identified in the motivations across employee types.
Despite these limitations, our exploratory study provides a more RE FE RE NCE S
Adamczyk, S., Bullinger, A. C., & Moslein, K. M. (2012). Innovation con-
comprehensive understanding of employee participation in internal
tests: A review, classification and outlook. Creativity and Innovation
crowdsourcing.
Management, 21(4), 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12003
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review,
The authors would like to thank Christine Moser and seminar partici- 40(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921
Amo, B. W. (2006). What motivates knowledge workers to involve them-
pants at Aarhus University, CINet Conference and AoM Conference
selves in employee innovation behaviour? International Journal of
for the valuable feedback. The authors would also like to thank the Knowledge Management Studies, 1(1–2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.
reviewers and editor for their constructive feedback. 1504/IJKMS.2006.008851
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & development—A social network perspective. Information Technology
Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion for Development, 23(3), 438–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.
and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organiza- 2017.1353947
tional Psychology, 73(3), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1348/ Füller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Matzler, K. (2014). User roles and contri-
096317900167029 butions in innovation-contest communities. Journal of Management
Bäckström, I., & Lindberg, M. (2019). Varying involvement in digitally Information Systems, 31(1), 273–308. https://doi.org/10.2753/
enhanced employee-driven innovation. European Journal of Innovation MIS0742-1222310111
Management, 22, 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2018- Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative
0008 rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organiza-
Battistella, C., & Nonino, F. (2012). Open innovation web-based platforms: tional Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/
The impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration. Innova- 1094428112452151
tions, 14(4), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.4.557 Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2012). Prosocial motivation at work. In The
Beretta, M. (2019). Idea selection in web-enabled ideation systems. Journal Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford Univer-
of Product Innovation Management, 36(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10. sity Press.
1111/jpim.12439 Haller, J. B. A., Adamczyk, S., Bansemir, B., Bullinger, A. C., &
Björk, J., Boccardelli, P., & Magnusson, M. (2010). Ideation capabilities for Möslein, K. M. (2011) Tell me how good I am—An empirical investiga-
continuous innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), tion of the impact of peer feedback in IT-based innovation contests.
385–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00581.x 18th IPDM Conference. Delft.
Björk, J., & Magnusson, M. (2009). Where do good innovation ideas come Halpin, B. (2017). SADI: Sequence analysis tools for Stata. The Stata Jour-
from? Exploring the influence of network connectivity on innovation nal, 17(3), 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1701700302
idea quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011).
662–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00691.x Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psy-
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: chology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90.
Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies. Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives
Boudreau, K., & Lakhani, K. (2009). How to manage outside innovation. become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 69. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.
Bullinger, A. C., Neyer, A. K., Rass, M., & Moeslein, K. M. (2010). Commu- 1060.0200
nity-based innovation contests: Where competition meets coopera- Howell, J. M., & Boies, K. (2004). Champions of technological innovation:
tion. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(3), 290–303. https:// The influence of contextual knowledge, role orientation, idea genera-
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00565.x tion, and idea promotion on champion emergence. The Leadership
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding Quarterly, 15(1), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.
in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and inter- 12.008
coder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), Høyrup, S., Bonnafous-Boucher, M., Hasse, C., Møller, K., & Lotz, M. (Eds.)
294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475 (2012). Employee-driven innovation: A new approach. Palgrave Macmil-
Chen, Q., Magnusson, M., & Björk, J. (2019). Collective firm-internal online lan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137014764
idea development: Exploring the impact of feedback timeliness and Høyrup, S., Redien-Collot, R., & Teglborg, A.-C. (2018). Introduction. Inter-
knowledge overlap. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(1), national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 22(4),
13–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-0045 317–322.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa- Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of Classifica-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/ tion, 2(1), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01908075
10.1177/001316446002000104 Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Füller, J., Mueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011).
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: Communitition: The tension between competition and collaboration in
The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organiza- community-based design contests. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
tion Science, 7(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.119 ment, 20(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00589.x
Dahlander, L., Jeppesen, L., & Piezunka, H. (2019). How organizations Hutter, K., Nketia, B. A., & Füller, J. (2017). Falling short with
manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract and select. In Managing participation—Different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluat-
inter-organizational collaborations—Process views. Emerald Publishing ing behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50(3),
Limited. 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.005
Deichmann, D., & van den Ende, J. (2014). Rising from failure and learning Kathan, W., Hutter, K., Füller, J., & Hautz, J. (2015). Reciprocity vs. free-
from success: The role of past experience in radical initiative taking. riding in innovation contest communities. Creativity and Innovation
Organization Science, 25(3), 670–690. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc. Management, 24(3), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12107
2013.0870 Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2010). Employee-driven innovation: Extending
Di Vincenzo, F., Mascia, D., Björk, J., & Magnusson, M. (2020). Attention the license to foster innovation. Management Decision, 48, 65–84.
to ideas! Exploring idea survival in internal crowdsourcing. European https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014463
Journal of Innovation Management. Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in
Fairbank, J. F., & Williams, S. D. (2001). Motivating creativity and enhanc- strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic
ing innovation through employee suggestion system technology. Management Journal, 17(6), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
Creativity and Innovation Management, 10(2), 68–74. https://doi.org/ 1097-0266(199606)17:6%C441::AID-SMJ819%E3.0.CO;2-G
10.1111/1467-8691.00204 Lüttgens, D., Pollok, P., Antons, D., & Piller, F. (2014). Wisdom of the
Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion crowd and capabilities of a few: Internal success factors of
systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of crowdsourcing for innovation. Journal of Business Economics, 84(3),
Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1139–1155. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 339–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0723-7
(SICI)1099-1379(199912)20:7%C1139::AID-JOB946%E3.0.CO;2-I Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Managing crowds in innovation chal-
Fuger, S., Schimpf, R., Füller, J., & Hutter, K. (2017). User roles and team lenges. California Management Review, 56(4), 103–123. https://doi.
structures in a crowdsourcing community for international org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.103
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Kesebi, L., & Looram, S. (2017). Developing Tortoriello, M., McEvily, B., & Krackhardt, D. (2015). Being a catalyst of
innovative solutions through internal crowdsourcing. MIT Sloan Man- innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure.
agement Review, 58(4), 73–79. Organization Science, 26(2), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An 2014.0942
expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.
Montoro-Sanchez, A., Soriano, D. R., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Utilitari- Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.
anism or romanticism: The effect of rewards on employees' innovative https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
behaviour. International Journal of Manpower. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people partic-
Moser, C., Ganley, D., & Groenewegen, P. (2013). Communicative genres ipate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal
as organising structures in online communities–of team players and of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2–3), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.
storytellers. Information Systems Journal, 23(6), 551–567. https://doi. 1016/S0963-8687(00)00045-7
org/10.1111/isj.12022 Wendelken, A., Danzinger, F., Rau, C., & Moeslein, K. M. (2014). Innova-
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and tion without me: Why employees do (not) participate in organizational
involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), innovation communities. R&D Management, 44(2), 217–236. https://
100–130. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100 doi.org/10.1111/radm.12042
Perry-Smith, J., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: Zuchowski, O., Posegga, O., Schlagwein, D., & Fischbach, K. (2016). Inter-
The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. nal crowdsourcing: Conceptual framework, structured review, and
Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10. research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 166–184.
5465/amr.2014.0462 https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.14
Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2015). Distant search, narrow attention:
How crowding alters organizations' filtering of suggestions in
crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 856–880. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0458
Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2019). Idea rejected, tie formed: Organiza-
tions' feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Academy of Management Jour- Dr. Michela Beretta is assistant professor of innovation manage-
nal, 62(2), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0703
ment at Aarhus University. Her main research and teaching activi-
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoreti- ties revolve around crowdsourcing, idea management, creativity
cal and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal and open models of innovation. She published in leading journals
of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/ such as the Journal of Product Innovation Management, Creativity
014920630002600307
and Innovation Management and Technovation.
Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users
really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Dr. Helle Alsted Søndergaard is associate professor of innovation
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256. https://
management at Aarhus University. Her main research interests lie
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x
Pohlisch, J. (2020). Internal open innovation—Lessons learned from inter- within the broad term of open and collaborative innovation,
nal crowdsourcing at SAP. Sustainability, 12(10), 4245. https://doi.org/ focusing on the internal organizational aspects of openness and
10.3390/su12104245 strategy, and exploring the behaviour of different actors involved
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A
in collaborative innovation processes. She has published in Inter-
review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/ national Journal of Technology Management, Technology Manage-
annurev.psych.52.1.141 ment Review and Technovation.
Simula, H., & Ahola, T. (2014). A network perspective on idea and innova-
tion crowdsourcing in industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 43(3), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.
12.008
How to cite this article: Beretta M, Søndergaard HA.
Smith, P., Ulhøi, J. P., & Kesting, P. (2012). Mapping key antecedents of
employee-driven innovations. International Journal of Human Resources Employee behaviours beyond innovators in internal
Development and Management, 12(3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10. crowdsourcing: What do employees do in internal
1504/IJHRDM.2012.048629 crowdsourcing, if not innovating, and why? Creat Innov Manag.
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F.
2021;30:542–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12449
(2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for
strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.44
Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2009). Innovation tournaments: Creating and
selecting exceptional opportunities. Harvard Business Review Press.
APPENDIX A.
F I G U R E A 1 Network configuration of the internal crowdsourcing

platform. Figure A1 reports the full network based on employees'
commenting and voting activities. This figure shows a network
configuration with groups of employees occupying a core position
within the platform and others occupying a more peripheral position.
Employees in the core of the community are highly connected to each
other (thus intensively engaging in providing and receiving comments
and/or votes), while many marginal participants only engage in such
activities to a limited extent [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE A2 Coding of the

interviews
TABLE A1 Descriptive statistics

Criteria Mean Median SD Variance Skewness
In-degree centrality comments 1.92 0 7.23 52.27 11.29
In-degree centrality votes 20.2 0 92.4 8540.4 14.8
Out-degree centrality comments 1.673 0 7.396 54.713 13.78
Out-degree centrality votes 3.896 1 9.918 98.376 7.1230
Number of ideas generated 0.660 0 2.41 5.841 13.124
Coparticipation intensity 18.08 0 71.06 5050.4 11.14
Note: Table A1 reports the descriptive statistics of the network measures used for the cluster analysis.
Both Figure A1 and Table A1 indicate that great variation exists in employees' engagement in internal
crowdsourcing, hence hinting to the presence of different employee behaviours. This provides support
for conducting a cluster analysis.
TABLE A2 List of interviewees
ID Job title Role related to crowdsourcing Time (min) Data collection

1 Team coordinator Passive observer 16 Skype interview; recorded
2 Packaging engineer Innovator 30 Skype interview; recorded
3 Senior marketing manager Passive observer 25 Skype interview; recorded
4 Senior development manager Legitimizer 26 Skype interview; recorded
5 Senior portfolio manager Socializer 35 Skype interview; recorded
6 Continuous improvement manager Socializer 43 Skype interview; recorded
7 Job trainer Passive evaluator 23 Skype interview; recorded
8 Portfolio manager Socializer 45 Skype interview; recorded
9 Senior equipment engineer Passive observer 25 Skype interview; recorded
10 Senior manager specialist Legitimizer 15 Skype interview; recorded
11 Quality controller Passive evaluator 22 Skype interview; recorded
12 Lean consultant Passive evaluator 32 Skype interview; recorded
13 Logistic engineer Innovator 27 Skype interview; recorded
14 Global master trainer Legitimizer 30 Skype interview; recorded
TABLE A3 Example of an idea and subsequent discussions
Submitted idea
Small containers with lid instead of bags in the xxx
Subsequent comments Content of the feedback Employee role

‘What if it was tested within a theme, Constructive feedback Passive evaluator
kind of like the “digital xxx” idea within
xxx? Maybe have the ideas xxx or xxx
or xxx, or a theme where people are
already expecting a more premium
experience, and might appreciate the
little extras’.
‘Maybe good compromise would be to Constructive feedback Passive observer
much improve the offer of various
storage xxx/sort boxes—it is more
efficient because only those interested
will buy them. Now I can say the offer
online which I can see is really poor—I
have found only one retired sorting
box: http://xxx. So if we can supply
more xxx storage boxes I think many
people will be happy—generally it is
great idea to provide them some
solution for improving “xxx order”:)’.
‘This sounds a bit similar to what larger Constructive feedback Passive evaluator
xxx had in the mid-90s. They were
showcase style boxes with
compartments for the different parts,
see image. It's from xxx in 1994’.
‘I do like the idea, however, using plastic Negative feedback Legitimizer
boxes instead of bags would result in a
larger consumption of plastic for the
packaging as one container inevitably
requires more material than one bag. I
do not know how many consumers
really keep the packaging, but I think
far from all do. That way I would fear
that we create more scrap with such a
solution. Or?’
‘I must admit it does not make sense to Negative feedback Passive evaluator
me, even if it is for bigger xxx only. The
consumer will simply end up with a lot
of unwanted containers. Also, I should
think the amount of plastic used in
creating containers would be many
times more than the one used for
plastic bags. So, eventually, the amount
of plastic going in the environment
would increase dramatically’.
‘Wouldn't this radically increase the cost Negative feedback Passive observer
on all fronts? The packing machinery
would need to be completely
reprogrammed and reassembled. The
weight of the boxes would be
increased, thus increasing the cost of
shipping (and consumption of fuel to
do so). I think it goes without saying
that the boxes themselves would cost
more than little plastic baggies. And if a
box ever was damaged in transit, of
course they'd need to be replaced too
if we wanted to sell the box damaged’.
(Continues)
TABLE A3 (Continued)
Submitted idea
Small containers with lid instead of bags in the xxx
Subsequent comments Content of the feedback Employee role

‘Seems like it could make the boxes more Positive feedback Passive evaluator
robust, as well. Less prone to being
crushed in shipping’.
‘I can only see pros from this idea. It Positive feedback Passive observer
would take part of the noise away from
xxx when you do not have to open up a
crackling bag all the time. Also when I
xxx with bags I open the bag and try
and sort the xxx out on the table.
Having your own box with the xxx
already sorted in, makes building so
much easier, and a lot less messy’.

Beretta 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beretta 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beretta 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 20 April 2020 Revised: 7 May 2021 Accepted: 2 June 2021

Employee behaviours beyond innovators in internal

Michela Beretta | Helle Alsted Søndergaard

Department of Management, Aarhus

4.2 | Cluster analysis 4.3 | Interpretive methodology—The content of

TABLE 1 Content of employees' feedback

Related categories from

TABLE 2 Cluster analysis

Employee type Innovators Legitimizers Socializers Passive evaluators Passive observers

5.1.1 | Innovators 5.1.4 | Passive evaluators

TABLE 3 Content of employee feedback

Comment type Innovators Legitimizers Socializers Passive evaluators Passive observers

F I G U R E 3 Frequency of employee types

T A B L E 4 Comparing selected and

Note: Mean values are reported in the table.

TABLE 5 Managerial implications

Dimension Managerial implications

F I G U R E A 1 Network configuration of the internal crowdsourcing

FIGURE A2 Coding of the

TABLE A1 Descriptive statistics

TABLE A2 List of interviewees

ID Job title Role related to crowdsourcing Time (min) Data collection

TABLE A3 Example of an idea and subsequent discussions

Small containers with lid instead of bags in the xxx

Subsequent comments Content of the feedback Employee role

Small containers with lid instead of bags in the xxx

Subsequent comments Content of the feedback Employee role

You might also like