Grassroots Innovation: A Promising Innovation Paradigm for Pharmaceutical Companies - Innovation and Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry - page 126

type of intrinsic reward in their works as well, but managers and commercial
constraints may give them less of an opportunity to do so” (p. 61).
In contrast, some self-determination theorists argue that tangible incentives, such
as monetary or other rewards contingent on task performance, may undermine
intrinsic motivation (Collins and Amabile 1999 ; Condry 1977 ; Deci et al. 1999 ).
Yet, not all authors agree with this claim. Baer et al. ( 2003 ), for instance, found
more complex relationships whereby the effects of extrinsic rewards depend on job
complexity and employees' creative problem-solving style. In psychology,
Eisenberg and Cameron ( 1996 ) argue that the detrimental effects of extrinsic reward
occur in restricted and easily avoidable conditions.
Hence, prior literature suggests that trying to enforce an entrepreneurial mindset
solely through tangible incentives is unlikely to yield benefi ts in terms of innovation
performance. This does not mean that allowing entrepreneurs to participate in the
commercial success of their idea is counterproductive. In fact, prior research has
shown that senior management can promote innovation by rewarding—through tan-
gible incentives such as bonuses and opportunities for career progression—creative
performance (Abbey and Dickson 1983 ; Jung et al. 2003 ). However, these tangible
incentives will most likely be more impactful for employees who are already intrin-
sically motivated for innovation or whose motivation can be triggered with adequate
organizational mechanisms.

4.3.2 Innate Psychological Needs: Competence, Autonomy,

and Relatedness

In order to better understand and explain variation in intrinsic motivation, Deci and
Ryan ( 1985 ) introduced cognitive evaluation theory (CET), which suggests that
intrinsic motivation can be enhanced by supporting three innate psychological
needs: competence , autonomy , and relatedness (Ryan and Deci 2000 ).
In the context of grassroots innovation programs, competence refers to partici-
pants' perceived capability, or self-effi cacy, to transform their original ideas into a
viable and implementable idea for a new business. Successful innovation in
technology- intensive fi rms requires access to knowledge diversity and to channels
capable of enabling the transfer of complex knowledge (Wuyts et al. 2004 ). At a
microlevel, the need for innovation teams to have adequate levels of knowledge
depth and diversity is also well-established (e.g., Griffi n and Hauser 1996 ; Nakata
and Im 2010 ; Pinto and Pinto 1990 ). This entails, for example, being able to actively
contribute to the success of a new venture team, write a business plan, and pitch a
business idea to senior management. As such, feelings of competence should be
higher for people or teams with access to the relevant knowledge sources, which can
be spurred by mechanisms such as team formation, training, and coaching. For
example, allowing participants to form their own teams (self-assembled team for-
mation) and providing participants with skills facilitation training and professional
coaching should facilitate the team's knowledge depth and diversity.