Cultural Innovation by Cultural Organizations
Xavier Castañer, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Abstract
This chapter assesses the theories and related empirical evidence regarding the factors that explain cultural innovation by cultural organizations. It begins by defining key concepts, including what is meant by a cultural organization, cultural innovation, and the innovation referent. The chapter identifies two main disciplines that have been interested in cultural innovation or innovative programming by cultural organizations: sociology and economics. The focus, contributions, and overlap of these two disciplinary approaches to cultural innovation are discussed, and the chapter concludes by identifying some gaps and putting forward some suggestions for future research.
Keywords
Cultural organization; Cultural innovation; Performing arts; Programming decisions
JEL Classification Codes
D23; Z11; Z13
11.1 Introduction
At the outset it is important to clarify the definition of concepts that are relevant to the study of innovation in cultural organizations. In this section we review definitions of a cultural organization, what is meant by cultural innovation, and the concept of the innovation referent.
11.1.1 Cultural Organizations
Authors differ in the way they conceptualize cultural organizations. Most authors take a sector-listing approach. For instance, some simply refer to performing arts organizations (theaters, opera houses, and dance companies) and heritage organizations (museums, archives, and libraries). Others also include the organizations in the cultural industries, referring to audiovisual, recording, and publishing organizations. Rather than a sectoral listing, a content definition is used here. The term ‘cultural organization’ is taken to refer to formal organizations (with a legal entity) that preserve and/or provide goods that use, develop, and/or nourish a community’s culture and sense of identity, as well as goods that carry emotional content and/or attempt to generate emotions in those who are exposed to them. This includes traditional, folkloric, or popular culture (such as castells or sardanes in Catalonia), performing arts (theater, opera, circus, dance, and music), heritage sites (museums, archives, and historical sites), and the cultural industries (audiovisual, video games, and publishing) to the extent that the operations of these industries are carried out by formal organizations, including enterprises, public agencies, associations, cooperatives, or foundations, and not by an individual or set of individuals outside a formal organization. Formal organizations can be public, private, or not-for-profit and have different legal forms.
11.1.2 Cultural Innovation
The term ‘cultural innovation’ refers to innovations in the goods or services offered by a cultural organization. This definition excludes administrative or managerial innovations concerned with how cultural organizations are structured and managed. Most research on cultural innovation has focused on repertoire or programming innovation by cultural organizations (Martorella, 1977; Heilbrun, 1998; Neligan, 2006; Pierce, 2000). Interestingly, in most of these organizations – whether in the performing arts or in cultural industries – the generation of new cultural products or services does not take place within organizational boundaries, but outside (outsourced or purchased).
Innovation is traditionally distinguished from invention, where the latter refers to a scientific discovery that is sometimes reflected in a patent (Rosenberg, 1976). Inventions are new principles or designs not yet embodied in actual goods, whereas innovations are often conceived as the actual embodiment of inventions into actual commercializable goods (Kamien and Schwartz, 1982). In the artistic and cultural fields, inventions arise in various ways such as the creation of different musical forms (i.e. sonata, concerto, symphony, etc.), and the evolution of different genres in music (baroque, classical, romantic, dodecaphonic, new age, etc.), in writing, in visual art, or in other cultural domains. Nevertheless, these inventions of forms or genres are already embodied in a particular piece that can be performed or exhibited and are thus innovations at the same time. Further, only the individual pieces are legally protected through copyrights (Towse, 2001). Thus, one can say that in the cultural or artistic fields, the distinction between invention and innovation – or between research and development – is less clear than in the scientific and technological fields.
For the most part cultural innovation by cultural organizations constitutes more the adoption of externally generated innovations rather than internally generated innovation such as is the case with R&D, design, or product development departments in non-cultural firms (Castañer and Cavotta, 2010). In cultural industries such as publishing, as well as in museums and in most performing arts fields such as opera, theater, and music, content innovation does not take place inside formal organizations. Instead, organizations program, exhibit, publish, or broadcast works conceived by individuals such as composers, writers/authors, painters, sculptors, photographers, and playwrights who usually come from outside the organization, except for when they are in residence. One exception in the performing arts sector is dance companies, where choreographers are usually the artistic directors. Another exception in the cultural industries is audiovisual firms and video game companies that have internal R&D and production teams that develop new movies, TV series, or games. It is also true that theaters, orchestras, and opera houses sometimes commission new works, but these are a minimal part of their programming.
In internal R&D or new product development, there is substantial technological uncertainty in terms of whether the internal team will be able to come up with a valid design that can be manufactured and successfully commercialized (Teece, 1986). In cultural organizations that program works created by outsiders, this technological uncertainty has already been resolved, although for commissioned works this uncertainty still exists. However, even in programming already-conceived works, commercial uncertainty remains.
As in the case of the adoption of administrative/managerial or technological innovations (Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Damanpour, 1991), programming organizations can assess to what extent a new work or a similar one has been adopted by other organizations in the field, such as other theaters, opera houses, or symphony orchestras. This may lead to imitation (mimetism) and emulation – an important topic in research on cultural innovation. Most studies focus on whether the programming of a focal organization conforms or deviates from the other domestic organizations in the sector; examples include studies of US opera houses (Pierce, 2000), US symphony orchestras (Heilbrun, 2001; Pompe et al., 2011), US theaters (DiMaggio and Stenberg, 1985a,b), and German theaters (Neligan, 2006).
Whereas imitation or herd behavior is a topic of interest to both economics and sociology (Banerjee, 1992; Birchandani et al., 1992), the sociological literature, and in particular institutional theory, seem to have had a stronger impact in the framing of research on cultural innovation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Institutional theory is to a large extent concerned with how a field’s institutions, including beliefs that are taken for granted about appropriate goals and norms, influence organizational behavior. For sociological institutionalists, organizations are compelled to conform to and adopt institutional prescriptions if they want to garner the support of different stakeholders who endorse the field’s institutions. As a key proponent of institutional theory, Paul DiMaggio, together with Kristen Stenberg, aimed to explain conformity and diversity in American resident theater (DiMaggio and Stenberg, 1985b). However, in a companion article (DiMaggio and Stenberg, 1985a), they referred to the lack of conformity as innovation, generating substantial confusion in the literature subsequently. Several authors, including Pierce (2000), Heilbrun (2001), and Neligan (2006), adopted the term innovation to refer to non-conformity as DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985a) had done.
However, as Castañer and Campos (2002) have argued, innovation and conformity are two different concepts. In the institutional framework conformity refers to whether actors comply with institutional expectations. In the context of resident theaters this led DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985a,b) to study the drivers of a given theater adopting the ‘conventional’ repertoire, identified as the works performed by the greatest number of theaters in their sample. Those theaters performing works not pertaining to that list were considered ‘innovative’. However, these ‘innovative’ pieces – relatively little programmed by other theaters in the same period – are not necessarily innovative relative to established theatrical genres or performing traditions. For example, in the operatic world, programming a Haydn opera is uncommon, but it can hardly be considered innovative in artistic terms, as Haydn’s classical genre is well known and well established. Haydn’s operas are not esthetically new (i.e. innovative) from a genre perspective. Furthermore, unusual programming relative to other field organizations is not necessarily innovative for the organization that programs them, given that it might have programmed them before. Unfortunately, this conventionality measure has been adopted by many to measure repertoire innovation.1
There is probably again a significant and important difference between cultural organizations and organizations in other sectors. In general, the fact that other organizations have already adopted an innovation creates an institutional pressure to conform in order to not to appear as a deviant; however, in the cultural sector there is probably an inherent pressure to innovate (Born, 1995), since artists and most artistic/cultural organizations are expected to create (i.e. to provide new works) and not just to preserve or perform existing works. Even organizations such as museums, whose mission is to display existing works, are expected to showcase that work in a new way. Creativity and innovative novelty are central values in the cultural sector, constituting part of the core of artistic and cultural ideology, together with its polar opposite (preservation and tradition).
Innovation conventionally refers to some degree of newness, which might consist in the novel recombination of existing elements (Schumpeter, 1942; Van de Ven, 1986; Galunic and Rodan, 1998). Indeed, the innovation literature makes a classical distinction between incremental and radical innovation that attempts to capture the extent of departure from the prior state of the art (Hage and Aiken, 1967; Mohr, 1969; Downs and Mohr, 1976). In the artistic field it is important to make a distinction between new works and innovative works. A symphony orchestra or an opera house can commission a new piece by a composer, but whether the new piece is considered innovative is another issue; (i) the new piece might not differ from the composer’s known style and (ii) the worldwide première performance of a contemporary piece entails newness relative to the organization’s programming but whether it is innovative it depends on whether it has programmed contemporary pieces before, pieces of that genre, or pieces from the featured composer.
Castañer and Campos (2002) distinguish two types of artistic innovation regarding the object of innovation: the content and the form. Content innovation refers to the creation or programming of innovative works in that they combine different components (or genres) that have not been previously combined or they deviate from existing genres. Form innovation refers to innovation in the way of presenting or performing a work. For instance, whereas programming Bach’s Magnificat may not be considered innovative programming per se, performing it with ancient instruments and with early music interpretation criteria may represent form innovation for an organization that has not programmed such a kind of performance before.2
Both content and form innovation are what Bakhshi and Throsby (2010, 2012) refer to as innovation in art form development. These authors have extended this typology of cultural innovation by adding three more types: innovation in extending audience reach through the use of new information technologies (technological innovation), innovation in value creation (new possibilities to exploit cultural assets and create greater value for audiences), and innovation in business management.3 The present chapter focuses only on art form innovation.
To summarize, in this chapter cultural innovation refers to newness manifested and recognized in cultural goods and services offered by formal organizations. Of course, the term culture can be conceived in a broader way to refer to the assumptions, values, norms, rituals, and artifacts of a society or community (Geertz, 1975). However, this chapter is restricted to the narrower sense of cultural goods that contain an aesthetic and/or artistic dimension, being produced primarily for human enjoyment, entertainment, and/or education.
11.1.3 The Innovation Referent
An issue that has been raised in the literature on cultural innovation is that of defining the innovation referent. Several contributors do not clarify what the referent is – in relation to what is the new work innovative? (Rogers, 1995). Castañer and Campos (2002) identify three possible referents: the innovating organization’s own past (‘new to the organization’ or self-referential), the organization’s local field (‘new to the industry’), and the organization’s field at the regional or worldwide level (‘new to the world’). To illustrate the last-mentioned, consider the redefinition of circus performance and experience that the originally Canadian company Le Cirque du Soleil brought to this world. In the theatrical domain, the Catalan company La Fura dels Baus gained worldwide notoriety with its performance at the inauguration of the Barcelona 1992 Olympics.4 In the musical field, the originally named Hesperion XX ensemble was one of the first to contribute to the development of the early music movement, together with Les Arts Florissants founded by William Christie, or la Petite Bande led by Sigiswald Kuijken (François, 2006).5 In the world of museums, the Museum of Ideas and Inventions of Barcelona (MIIBA) is innovative in two ways: (i) because of the originality of its content and (ii) for the way it proposes to the visitor to interact with the inventions exhibited as well as to generate new ideas on the site.
11.2 The Determinants of Cultural Innovation by Cultural Organizations
Two main research communities have investigated the antecedents of cultural/artistic innovation by cultural organizations: sociologists and economists. Some management/organizational researchers taking a more interdisciplinary approach have tried to combine them.6
11.2.1 The Sociological Perspective
Sociologists are probably the first to have been interested in cultural innovation in general and in the programming of cultural organizations more particularly.7 They have fundamentally looked at two main types of determinants of cultural innovation or innovative programming by cultural organizations: external and internal factors.
11.2.1.1 External Factors
Several sociological studies such as Hirsch (1972) have focused on how the external environment of organizations affects the programming of cultural organizations, drawing to a large extent from institutional theory and its emphasis on the pressure on an organization to adopt a given practice that institutions (shared values and norms in the field of activity) exert through government, professions, or organizations in the field (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In this stream, authors argue that organizations feel compelled to conform to the canon or set of conventions about what is appropriate to program and thus will not program works that deviate from this canon. Some studies, such as DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985a,b), have tried to provide empirical evidence for this institutional pressure in theaters, for example. These studies derive the programming canon or institution from the existing programming (i.e. they identify the pieces most performed in the field). It can be argued that this constitutes an empirical fallacy: while the most played works might indeed be part of the canon, this is not necessarily the case. In the cultural arena, the canon is usually established by experts and critics, who defend the established tradition(s), but also tend to encourage and welcome innovation in general.
Further, the fact that an organization programs works that are programmed by few other organizations in the field – the so-called ‘conformity’ index referred to above – means that its programming is different but not necessarily innovative (new) relative to its own past or the others’ past. As we noted, despite certain criticisms, the conformity index remains a measure still used in the context of experimentation and innovation in the cultural sector, probably because it is easy to calculate. Nevertheless, judging whether a piece is innovative relative to the organization’s own past and relative to the field is subjective and requires expert knowledge.
11.2.1.2 Internal Factors
The other research stream in sociological studies of cultural innovation has focused more on internal factors like the background of the key organizational decision makers, sources of organizational income, and organizational size and age.
The background of decision makers such as the managing director and the artistic director of a cultural organization reflects the influence of broader professional orientations, values, or ideologies. Studies in this area attempt to capture the impact of the external environment on organizational behavior and, in particular, the extent to which professions and professional values permeate organizations – what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) called normative isomorphism. For instance, in the US theatrical sector, DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985a,b) distinguished between artistic and managerial backgrounds of the top decision makers in their sampled theaters, and found that theaters whose decision makers came from an artistic background were likely to be more unconventional than theaters with decision makers from a managerial background. In this way, these authors assumed that an artistic ideology values innovation, deviance, and experimentation, whereas a managerial ideology discourages it.8 However innovation, and more precisely the development of new goods, is a central and essential part of management and management education (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995); product innovation is one of the critical sources of differentiation, which is in turn one of the key sources for competitive advantage (Porter, 1985). While it is true that managers tend to focus on efficiency through the reduction of variability and the establishment and enforcement of routines (March and Simon, 1958; March, 1991), organizations also engage in search and innovation (Levinthal, 1995; McGrath, 2001; Castañer, 2002; Benner and Tushman, 2003).
After DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985b), few studies have addressed the role of the background of key decision makers in affecting cultural programming, but this has been a fertile stream in general management studies in the area known as top management team (TMT) demographics (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). This stream has examined not only the educational background or industry experience of organizational decision makers, but also the role of other managerial demographics such as age, gender, education level, tenure, and team diversity in TMT as determinants of organizational decisions and actions. Diversity seems a particularly interesting factor to study in the promotion of conflict, deviance, experimentation, creativity, and innovation (Simons et al. 1999), including in cultural organizations.
We turn now to the relative importance of different sources of income for cultural organizations – box office, public funding, and private funding from individuals, corporations, and foundations (Martorella, 1977; Alexander, 1995). While income is an organizational attribute, it also reflects the extent to which the organization depends on external actors such as donors and clients; these external stakeholders are sometimes represented in the governing bodies of cultural organizations, particularly in foundations. Castañer and Campos (2002) describe factors such as the sources of organizational income as lying in the meso level that deals with the interface between external forces (macro) and internal organizational processes (micro), often physically permeating the organization through representatives of these forces such as funders/patrons or cultural professionals.
Studies in this area tend to assume that a focus on the box office and private funding lead to the commercialization of programming or the programming of conventional, non-controversial works that the majority of the public holds in high esteem (Anheier and Toepler, 1998). In contrast, public funding is expected to increase experimentation, non-conventionality, non-conformity and thus innovation. Contrary to these expectations, Pompe et al. (2011) found that ticket sales for their sample of 62 US symphony orchestras actually increased experimentation while state and federal public support did not have a significant effect. Only local government support increased non-standard programming, contrary to the expectation that local public funding would encourage the programming of popular works.
Drawing on resource dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), Castañer and Campos (2002) suggest another avenue for funding research that has been little investigated to date. They argue that the fragmentation of income sources might provide latitude or discretion to cultural organizations to experiment, such that they can be autonomous with regard to any particular funder. Some evidence for this is provided by Camarero et al. (2011, pp. 261–262) in their study of 491 museums in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Spain; they found a quadratic effect for public funding on organizational innovation and innovation in technology.
11.2.2 The Economic Perspective
It is probably accurate to say that economists – and in particular cultural economists – became interested in the determinants of cultural innovation by cultural organizations after sociologists. However, not all economic studies, which have been published mainly in the Journal of Cultural Economics, take into consideration the prior sociological literature on cultural innovation or artistic programming.9 Part of the reason might be that economists generally take a market perspective to cultural innovation and thus internal factors such as decision makers’ background are neglected. That said, cultural economists have also investigated the role of some organizational factors such as size, as discussed further below.
Most economic studies focus on the demand for innovative programming,10 which is approached from two aspects. (i) Economists have investigated the demand from the local population by taking into account average or median education and income. (ii) Economic research has captured another expression of (social) demand through the different sources of external funding, private sponsorship, donations, and public subsidies.
With regard to funding sources, it is important to discuss the assumptions associated with the different sources of organizational income. Private funding is usually associated with a more commercial orientation, particularly when it comes from corporations in their sponsoring activities. Nevertheless different corporations have different strategies; while corporations dealing in mass distribution goods may favor more conventional programming, high-tech companies might want to be associated with experimental work. A more fine-grained approach to this issue would clearly require the industry and the strategy of the company to be taken into account. Moreover, private funding from individual donors and foundations seems unlikely to have a particularly commercial orientation.
Public funding is usually assumed that it is more likely to encourage innovative cultural programming. This is highly debatable. Most studies focus on the US context where it is argued that federal funding ‘may create more risk-taking … because the federal government provided a more stable source of funding … or it was less intrusive in dictating programming’ (Pompe et al., 2011, p. 179). In turn, local government funding is often associated with less experimentation because local officers are supposed to be concerned with catering to the entire population and thus being more mainstream or popular (Pierce, 2000). Overall, it seems likely that the political orientation of the governing party at any government level would have an important effect on promoting innovation in programming; right, center, and left political parties probably have different views not only about government subsidies to culture, but also about goals or priorities in their cultural policies relating to matters such as access/cost, diversity, and innovation.
As noted above, one of the internal aspects that cultural economists have looked at is organizational size.11 Size is usually considered an indicator of resourcefulness and thus the ability to experiment. In this respect, the organizational literature traditionally talks about slack (Cyert and March, 1963) and not size, where slack is defined as unused or unabsorbed resources that can be used for new activities such as experimentation; the issue of whether slack contributes to innovation in cultural organizations has not yet been researched.12
Some authors have argued that large organizations can more easily buffer themselves or remain unaffected if an experimentation flops. However, size can also trigger inertia or lack of flexibility (Acs and Audretsch, 1990), due to bureaucracy and complacency (Sørensen and Stuart, 2000). In fact, complacency is based on success, which can at least in part be measured separately. A key economic variable that is supposed to affect individual and thus organizational behavior (i.e. incentives, whether economic or reputational) has not attracted much attention from researchers interested in cultural innovation in cultural organizations. However, it could be argued that the different sources of funding constitute incentives or inducements whenever they come with strings attached about programming. It would seem that interesting insights might be yielded by an analysis of the extent to which innovative programming is affected by the compensation scheme of decision makers, their careers, their networks, and the professional labor market (Menger, 1999).
11.3 Conclusion: Summary and Future Research
This chapter has distinguished four dimensions of cultural innovation (substance, origin, newness versus innovativeness, and referent) as well as differences from the meaning of innovation in other fields. These definitions provide food for further research in the following ways. (i) The definition of cultural organizations focuses on the attributes of the goods and services produced by such organizations, rather than the typical sectoral list associated with performing arts and cultural industries. This represents a redefinition of the scope of cultural organizations to include a wider set of enterprises whose goods also deal with the same traits of emotion, identity, and esthetics.13 (ii) The different dimensions of cultural innovation suggest the need for a more precise typology of cultural innovations that should be covered by future research.
The analysis of the literature on the determinants of cultural innovation in cultural organizations in this chapter paid particular attention to the influence of external versus internal factors. With regard to external influences, when a cultural organization decides to program a cultural innovation, an important research focus should be on the link between the decision makers and the external environment. In that regard, network studies that examine the links between gatekeepers and external actors – in this case creators such as composers, painters, photographers, playwrights, sculptors, and writers – should be useful to examine the nature and structure of their relations (Coleman, 1988; Burt, 1992; Cattani and Ferriani, 2008). In particular, links in professional communities can be expected to have an important role in programming (Burt, 1987).
In contrast, when the cultural innovation is internally generated, a stronger emphasis on truly internal factors such as incentives, organizational identity, climate, and culture would seem to be necessary. In this respect, the literature on organizational creativity (Amabile et al., 1996) and innovation (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Damanpour, 1991; Bolton, 1993; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Drazin and Schoonhoven, 1996) as well as on new product development (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995) could offer interesting pointers. It seems paramount to separate organizational resourcefulness and munificence (measured as free-cash flow or slack) from organizational size and structure.
Finally, it can be noted that the institutional framing put forward in the pioneering sociological study by DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985a,b) focuses on conforming to an existing institution or canon. In this framework, innovators – those who program works outside the canon – are deviants (Mainemelis, 2010). It can be suggested that further research on cultural innovation might focus more on deviance than on conformity.
References
1. Acs Z, Audretsch D. Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990.
2. Alexander V. Pictures at an exhibition: conflicting pressures in museums and the display of art. American Journal of Sociology. 1995;101:797–839.
3. Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal. 1996;39:1154–1187.
4. Anheier HK, Toepler S. Commerce and the muse: are art museums becoming commercial? In: Weisbrod BA, ed. To Profit or Not to Profit The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998;233–248.
5. Bakhshi H, Throsby D. Culture of Innovation: An Economic Analysis of Innovation in Arts and Cultural Organization. London: NESTA; 2010.
6. Bakhshi H, Throsby D. New technologies in cultural institutions: theory, evidence and policy implications. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 2012;18:205–222.
7. Banerjee AV. A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1992;107:797–817.
8. Becker H. Art World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1982.
9. Benner MJ, Tushman ML. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review. 2003;28:238–256.
10. Birchandani S, Hirshleifer D, Welch I. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy. 1992;100:992–1026.
11. Bolton MK. Organizational innovation and substandard performance: when is necessity the mother of innovation? Organization Science. 1993;4:57–76.
12. Born G. Rationalizating Culture: IRCAM, Boulez and the Institutionalization of the Musical Avant-Garde. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1995.
13. Bourdieu P. Les trois états du capital culturel. Actes Recherches Sciences Sociales. 1979;30:3–6.
14. Brown S, Eisenhardt K. Product development: past research, present findings and future directions. Academy of Management Review. 1995;20:343–378.
15. Burns T, Stalker GM. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications; 1961.
16. Burt R. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology. 1987;92:1287–1335.
17. Burt R. Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
18. Camarero C, Garrido MJ, Vicente E. How cultural organizations’ size and funding influence innovation and performance: the case of museums. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2011;35:247–267.
19. Castañer, X., 2002. Diversification as learning. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
20. Castañer X. Management Challenges of Cultural Heritage Organizations. In: Rizzo I, Mignosa A, eds. Handbook of Cultural Heritage. London: Edward Elgar; 2013;209–230.
21. Castañer X, Campos L. The determinants of artistic innovation: bringing in the role of organizations. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2002;26:29–52.
22. Castañer, X., Cavotta, V., 2010. Creativity and innovation in cultural organizations. Paper Presented at the 16th International Conference on Cultural Economics, Copenhagen.
23. Cattani G, Ferriani S. A core–periphery perspective on individual creative performance: social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science. 2008;19:824–844.
24. Chiapello, E., 1994. Les modes de contrôle des organisations artistiques. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université Paris IX Dauphine.
25. Cloake M. Management, the arts and innovation. In: Fitzgibbon M, Kelly A, eds. From Maestro to Manager Critical Issues in Arts and Culture Management. Dublin: Oak Tree Press; 1997;271–296.
26. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94:S95–S120.
27. Cyert RM, March J. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1963.
28. Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal. 1991;34:555–591.
29. DiMaggio P, Powell W. Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 1983;48:147–160.
30. DiMaggio P, Stenberg K. Why do some theaters innovate more than others? An empirical analysis. Poetics. 1985a;14:107–122.
31. DiMaggio P, Stenberg K. Conformity and diversity in American resident theaters. In: Balfe J, Wyszomirski M, eds. Art, Ideology and Politics. New York: Praeger; 1985b;116–139.
32. Downs GW, Mohr LB. Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1976;21:700–714.
33. Drazin R, Schoonhoven CB. Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 1996;39:1065–1083.
34. Eisenberger R, Fasolo P, Davis-LaMastro V. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1990;75:51–59.
35. François P. Le monde de la musique ancienne. Economica 2006; Paris.
36. Galunic DC, Rodan S. Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal. 1998;19:1193–1201.
37. Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books; 1975.
38. Hage J, Aiken M. Program change and organizational properties: a comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology. 1967;72:503–519.
39. Hambrick DC, Mason PA. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review. 1984;9:193–206.
40. Heilbrun, J., 1998. A study of opera repertory in the United States, 1982–1983 to 1997–1998. Paper Presented at the 10th International Conference on Cultural Economics, Barcelona.
41. Heilbrun J. Empirical evidence of a decline in repertoire diversity among American opera companies, 1991/92 to 1997/98. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2001;25:63–72.
42. Hirsch P. Processing fads and fashions: an organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems. American Journal of Sociology. 1972;32:87–107.
43. Kamien MI, Schwartz NL. Market Structure and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
44. Kimberly JR, Evanisko M. Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal. 1981;24:689–713.
45. Levinthal D. Strategic management and the exploration of diversity. In: Montgomery C, ed. Resource-based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis. Boston, MA: Kluwer; 1995;19–42.
46. Mainemelis C. Stealing fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review. 2010;35:558–578.
47. March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science. 1991;2:71–87.
48. March JG, Simon HA. Organizations. New York: Wiley; 1958.
49. Martorella R. The structure of the market and musical style The economics of opera production and repertoire: an exploration. International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music. 1975;6:241–254.
50. Martorella R. The relationship between box office and repertoire: a case study of opera. Sociological Quarterly. 1977;18:354–366.
51. McGrath R. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal. 2001;44:118–132.
52. Menger PM. Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology. 1999;25:541–574.
53. Mohr LB. Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review. 1969;63:111–126.
54. Neligan A. Public funding and repertoire conventionality in the German public theatre sector: an econometric analysis. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2006;38:1111–1121.
55. Nohria N, Gulati R. Is slack good or bad for organizational innovation? Academy of Management Journal. 1996;39:1245–1265.
56. Peterson R, Berger D. Cycles in symbolic production: the case of popular music. American Sociological Review. 1975;40:158–173.
57. Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row; 1978.
58. Pierce J. Programmatic risk-taking by American opera companies. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2000;24:45–63.
59. Pompe J, Tamburri L, Munn J. Factors that influence programming decisions of US symphony orchestras. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2011;35:167–185.
60. Porter ME. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press; 1985.
61. Rogers R. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995.
62. Rosenberg N. Perspectives on Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1976.
63. Schumpeter JA. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row; 1942.
64. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal. 1994;37:580–607.
65. Seaman B. Competition and the non-profit arts: the lost industrial organization agenda. Journal of Cultural Economics. 2004;28:167–193.
66. Simons T, Pelled LH, Smith KA. Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal. 1999;42:662–673.
67. Sørensen J, Stuart T. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2000;45:81–112.
68. Teece DJ. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy. 1986;15:285–305.
69. Towse R. Creativity, Incentive, and Reward. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2001.
70. Van de Ven AH. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science. 1986;32:590–608.
1See, for example, Heilbrun (2001), Neligan (2006), and Pierce (2000).
2This was innovative for the ensembles performing such works at the beginning of the early music movement (François, 2006).
3See Camarero et al. (2011) for a recent application.
4This company has remained innovative in operatic performances such as Mozart’s The Magic Flute.
5In several of these cases we find individuals taking leading roles such as Jordi Savall in the case of Hesperion XX (which has now become Hesperion XXI). However, despite the importance of these leading individuals, these organizations would not have been able to function without the contribution and collaboration of other individuals in the organization, as Becker (1982) has pointed out.
6See, for example, Cloake (1997), and Castañer and Campos (2002).
7For example, Becker (1982), Bourdieu (1979), Hirsch (1972), Martorella (1975), Peterson and Berger (1975), and DiMaggio and Stenberg (1985a,b).
8See also Chiapello (1994).
9Note, for instance, the differences in the references cited in Pompe et al. (2011) and Camarero et al. (2011).
10It should be noted that in many instances there is only one organization such as a symphony orchestra or an opera house in a given city. This tends to reduce competition for customers’ time across the different leisure possibilities (Seaman, 2004).
11See, for example, Camarero et al. (2011).
12See Nohria and Gulati (1996) for a study in another sector.
13See, for instance, Castañer (in press) for an analysis of the differences between cultural heritage and other service organizations.