**5. Discussion**

The cataloged micro and meso effects, alongside the superordinate effect areas illustrated in the concept matrix (refer to **Table 1**), shed light on how EDI influences individual employees and organizations. The matrix shows the areas thoroughly

explored in the literature and their intensity, thus permitting inferences regarding the central EDI effect areas, their prominence, and research breadth. Two-thirds of our findings originate from case study articles, while one-third comes from conceptual articles that synthesize the literature from a specific standpoint. This indicates a burgeoning exploration and significance of EDI in practical scenarios, suggesting a shift from traditional organizational innovation generation and development toward an increasing number of innovation channels, as depicted in **Figure 1**. EDI holds promise due to its comprehensive workforce integration and synergy effects such as improved employee development and satisfaction, cross-departmental collaboration, and motivation at micro- and meso-levels, as indicated by the literature landscape. During the literature review, a myriad of facilitators influencing these effect areas were also identified. When implemented judiciously, these facilitators can foster EDI and increase its impact. The combined results of our work and the facilitators can be found in **Figure 3** as a high-level framework.

At the micro-level, the effects are particularly valuable due to the concomitant improvement in the skills and knowledge of the workforce [3, 46], as demonstrated in several case studies [53, 55, 65]. The acquisition of new skills and knowledge can assist employees in making informed decisions in their day-to-day activities, as well as in EDI projects that also affect their work variety and satisfaction [8, 23, 38]. As EDI is primarily a bottom-up innovation concept, motivation and engagement are key areas to achieve vibrant innovation behavior in the workforce, as the findings show [42, 63]. Although less frequently mentioned in case studies, employees' affiliation to their organization can be reinforced by providing them with a voice and the opportunity to carry out independent EDI projects [38, 68].

More effect areas have been identified at the meso-level, one of which addresses the effects on organizational innovativeness [4, 11, 50, 60]. The positive influence in that area represents a core idea of EDI and is likely the primary motivation for organizations to adopt it, whether private or public. Furthermore, outcomes of EDI endeavors, such as the creation of new or enhanced artifacts, as well as the connection to entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and the decentralization of the innovation process, are often mentioned [6, 30, 54, 64]. The communication and perception of ideas also play a crucial role in bridging decision-makers with submitted ideas [29, 34, 59]. Trust emerged as a critical issue, as employees are often reticent to share their ideas for fear of being appropriated by others or due to apprehension regarding negative perceptions if the idea is deemed inadequate [34, 50]. Moreover, EDI can help foster a culture of innovation and an open mindset among employees when organizations empower them to participate and reward their efforts [43, 46, 53, 66]. Although rarely mentioned, topics such as innovation process agility, collaboration, and knowledge exchange represent promising research streams, given their centrality to successful and productive EDI implementations [6, 45, 56, 62].

The institutional, societal, and industry-wide implications can be anticipated when considering potential macro-level effect areas. These effect areas are inferred from the authors' logical deductions and several established theories, as they have not been thoroughly examined in the literature based on our research. The institutional theory [70] postulates that organizations adapt to prevailing phenomena such as EDI in their environment in order to maintain and improve their competitiveness. In the same vein, mimetic institutional isomorphism [71] plays a significant role. According to this theory, organizations base their further development on other organizations that are perceived as exemplary, either as a whole or in specific aspects. Furthermore, the human capital theory [72] and endogenous growth theory [73] suggest that

*Unfolding Effect Areas of Employee-Driven Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112160*

**Figure 3.** *EDI effect levels, areas, and facilitators.*

investments to enhance human capital, such as in intrapreneurial training, can lead to productivity gains, stimulate innovation, and foster knowledge generation, thereby accelerating economic and institutional growth. Additionally, the spillover effect [74] reinforces the knowledge exchange within and beyond organizational boundaries. Collaboration in cross-departmental settings and with customers is a frequent scenario in EDI projects, where this effect can be observed.

From this perspective, we assume several macro-level effect areas. EDI can *democratize innovation*, promoting a belief that everyone, irrespective of their status or background, has the potential to contribute to innovative initiatives. This may foster a diverse, inclusive innovation landscape. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of EDI could drive *economic and institutional growth*, for example, by creating new businesses and employment opportunities, such as EDI consulting firms, and by improving organizational productivity. One particularly promising effect area of EDI begins at the micro-level and extends to the macro-level: *Workforce development* regarding skills and competencies. When organizations recognize the significance of innovation (knowledge) and invest in employee development, the industry could benefit from a better trained and more innovative workforce. The collective of these effects can strengthen *sustainable practices* and accelerate adaptability to changes.

In addition to identifying the effect areas, we extracted EDI facilitators from the literature (refer to **Figure 3**) to ascertain the organizational elements that promote EDI when judiciously implemented. Thereby, one particularly prominent facilitator is leadership. Inappropriate leadership approaches can stifle employees' innovative potential [42, 52]. Hence, middle management, being the direct link between the workforce and top management, plays a critical role [23]. Ensuring autonomy and

independence at work, both by leadership and through the adopted work model, is also essential [10, 42, 46]. These findings also show the possible reciprocal influence of facilitators. To increase extrinsic motivation, communication of EDI should be coupled with incentives for participation, which requires a reward system [8, 43, 50]. Another facilitator that has substantial potential is digital tools. These can support the EDI process and enhance employee engagement [30, 31, 38]. Examples include idea management systems enabling employees to submit their ideas through a centralized digital platform and guide them through the process [29]. These systems also enable decision-makers to assess ideas, manage the documentation, and simplify knowledge exchange [4]. Overall, facilitators can have a positive impact on EDI effects and effect areas at the micro- and meso-levels, but they can also have a negative impact if inappropriately implemented [34, 53].

Our findings offer several opportunities for further exploration, mainly through practical case studies. The concept matrix reveals that the EDI effect areas collaboration and knowledge exchange (11%), (EDI) innovation process agility (11%), and organizational affiliation (6%) are less frequently mentioned and warrant further research. The impact of facilitators on effect areas and their interactions also merit further study. Here, research can provide more insights into how organizations can establish EDI to engender more participatory, inclusive innovation processes. However, while our work provides insights into the effect areas and facilitators of EDI, it is important to note potential challenges. For example, employees may not welcome the additional opportunities EDI offers and may be uncomfortable sharing their ideas or feel pressured to participate. Further, increased decentralization could lead to coordination issues or conflicting initiatives if there is no careful management. Therefore, organizations must thoughtfully establish an EDI process and create an innovation-friendly environment where employees feel safe and valued in their innovation pursuits.

This systematic literature review has limitations that may affect the validity of the findings. Although we aimed for high reproducibility within a rigorous review, it is likely that relevant papers were not included due to missing databases and search terms, subjective perception, or author bias during the filtering and screening process. We attempted to mitigate subjective perception and author bias by having two authors independently review the first 10 papers and then discuss their relevance to reach a shared understanding. This article includes a representative amount of literature but does not claim to cover the entire research area exhaustively. However, it provides a comprehensive foundation that can be supplemented and updated by further research to reflect new developments. In addition, although we identified and collated facilitators during the literature review, we did not systematically analyze them, unlike the EDI effect areas. This omission highlights another opportunity for future research.
