Purpose: Innovation intermediaries have become key actors in open innovation (OI) contexts. Research has improved the understanding of the managerial challenges inherent to intermediation in situations in which problems are rather well defined. Yet, in some OI situations, the relevant actor networks may not be known, there may be no clear common interest, or severe problems may exist with no legitimate common place where they can be discussed. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the research on innovation intermediaries by showing how intermediaries address managerial challenges related to a high degree of unknown.Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw upon the extant literature to highlight the common core functions of different types of intermediaries. The authors then introduce the “degree of unknown” as a new contingency variable for the analysis of the role of intermediaries for each of these core functions. The authors illustrate the importance of this new variable with four empirical case studies in different industries and countries in which intermediaries are experiencing situations of high level of unknown.Findings: The authors highlight the specific managerial principles that the four intermediaries applied in creating an environment for collective innovation.Originality/value: Thereby, the authors clarify what intermediation in the unknown may entail.

Simple instructions have been shown to robustly influence individual creativity, which is key to solve local problems. Building on social labeling theory, we examine the possibility of nudging individual’s creativity using “creative” and “not creative” labels. Study 1 showed that subjects labeled as “creative” or “not creative” performed better in a creative task than unlabeled subjects and established the moderating effect of self-perceived creativity. Among subjects scoring low on self-perceived creativity, those labeled as “creative” performed better than those labeled as “not creative”. Conversely, among subjects scoring high on self-perceived creativity, those labeled as “not creative” tend to perform better than those labeled as “creative”. Study 2 and Study 3 further explored the psychological mechanisms at play in both cases: specifically, Study 2 showed that applying a “creative” label has the ability to increase creative self-efficacy through self-perceived creativity, whereas Study 3 demonstrated that applying a “not creative” label has the ability to increase individual creativity performance through a higher involvement in the creative task.