Sunday, March 31, 2019

An Innovation-Seeking Leader Understands the Nature of Innovation

According to creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1939), technical progress involves two activities: process innovation and product innovation.  The relationship between innovation and productivity may differ in relation to diverse markets and industrial sectors (Castellacci & Zheng, 2010).  Thus, an innovative leader understands that while technical progress is part of innovation, the practice of innovation involves more than technology alone. 
Schumpeter (1939) advocated that innovation could be found in either production of new types of goods, changes in the properties of existing goods, or the introduction of new methods of production.  Such changes could be the result of new scientific discoveries, opening of new markets, the use of new sources of raw materials and intermediate goods, and new organization of production.  Herein let’s explore the leader’s role in identifying emerging trends, harnessing opportunities, and leveraging organizational capabilities to optimize innovations.  We will also do well to critically review leadership methods for mitigating individual as well as organizational resistance
Innovation could take many forms or formulations provided business value has been created.  Business value can be found through either incremental improvement to existing services and products, the development of new services and products, or through reduction of costs related to the process of production.  While technical progress is associated with changes in the best practices of production, technical efficiency growth involves improvements in the organization’s ability to make increasingly efficient use of already existing techniques (Castellacci & Zheng, 2010).   
In part, sustained success relies upon how effectively an organization’s leadership can “anticipate change, demonstrate authentic leadership, maximize the power of their talent, and embrace social responsibility” (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007, p. 22).  To optimize these abilities an effective leader must hone skills that will promote “agility, authenticity, connectivity to their talent, and sustainability” (p. 23).  This requires a leadership development strategy aligned with and supportive of the leadership strategy (Pasmore, 2013).  A well-conceived and aligned “leadership development strategy will return benefits at the individual, team, and organizational level” (Pasmore, 2013, p. 22).
An innovation-seeking leader should seek to establish an effective collaborative culture that supports organizational learning, continuous improvement, and sustained change.  Senge (1990) identified five primary disciplines of a learning organization.  These include: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning (Senge, 1990).
A leader embracing organizational learning encourages professional learning communities (PLC).  The leader understands this requires a commitment to establishing a clear, shared vision, developing a collaborative culture focusing on learning, engaging in collective inquiry, remaining action oriented, committing to continuous improvement, and remaining results oriented (Dufour et al., 2015).  Efforts to change organizational viewpoints must be holistically cultural and not merely structural.  Sustained improvements become possible only when the revised culture successfully embeds “the assumptions, beliefs, values, expectations, and habits that constitute the norm for that organization” (Dufour et al., 2015, p. 90).
To leverage organizational capabilities while creating new demand and exploring potential markets, leaders must be ever more cognizant of the important roles and required capabilities and experiences required to optimize effectiveness.  This pursuit must far exceed global, virtual, generational, political, or national contexts.  As discussed in the January and February 2019 blogposts, the GLOBE Project (House, et al., 2004) demonstrated effective leadership covers diverse contexts ranging from issues of culture, ethics, societal values, gender, trust, learning communities, incorporating global, virtual, and generational issues. 
An innovation-seeking leader understands the selected organizational structure needs to consider more than reporting lines.  This is true regardless if the organization adopts a traditional structure, which is based on functional division and departments; a functional structure, which functionally classifies people based on the function performed in their professional life or within the organization; a divisional structure, which groups employees based on the organization’s products, markets and geographical locations; or a matrix structure, which combines the product and function systemic structure.  The organizational structure must be designed to optimize innovation based on consideration of factors that include: “flexibility, adaptability” (Beinhocker, 2007), the “size of the organization” (McKinney, Steglich & Stever-Zeitlin, 2002), “the degree of flatness required” (Boehm & Phipps, 1996), and even “the role of virtual organizations in today's world” (Blomeyer, 2002). 
A four-step balanced scorecard process was designed by Kaplan and Norton (1992).  Any selected evaluation process ideally establishes a structure ensuring strategic change planning will positively impact the organization’s capability for innovation.  Strategic change planning first identifies where the organization wants to be in the future and then determines how it will achieve established objectives and goals. 
Employees respond well to encouragement, reinforcement, support, and coaching (Stober, 2008).  Leaders wisely seeking to inspire innovation mitigate conflict between staff goals, the organization’s mission, and the leader’s expectations and desire to lead rather than merely manage (McGregor, 1960).  Inspiring, transformational leaders possess high emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002).  Such a leader exhibits an inclination to work with individuals to enlarge the “in group” rather than segregating the “out group members” (Northouse, 2009, p. 155).  As a result, staff may begin exhibiting higher self-efficacy, more creativity, and greater innovation as they experience empowerment, self-fulfillment, and intrinsic motivation (McGregor, 1960).
Effective leaders desiring to create an innovative organizational culture understands the existence of a natural resistance to change from individuals and cultures within the organization (Kan & Parry, 2004).  Organizational politics have the potential to facilitate or confound the process of leadership.  Reinforcing his argument that an unconscious conspiracy exists in contemporary society that prevents leaders from taking charge and making changes regardless of their original vision, Bennis (1989) contended organizational and social forces are working to prevent change.  The culture of innovation is optimized when the leader uses tactics that create a learning organization.  Creation of a culture sustaining the learning organization both engages and empowers employees. 
Tichy (2006) believes the best thing a leader can do is be a teacher and develop other leaders while the organization keeps winning.  Bettinger (2006) discovered a strong, direct correlation between developmental opportunities revealed by the 360 process and an individual’s personality or behavioral profile.  To be truly effective, best practice for a 360-degree evaluation process suggest focusing upon specific leadership behaviors that the organization confirms as relevant to its values, culture, and success.  The process must also include professional development planning and continuous reinforcement 
Individual motivation impacts whether an initiative is learned, valued, or sustained.  Intrinsically driven learning correlates to higher self-efficacy, which identifies the expectation for success in an activity or in performing a task.  High self-efficacy is linked to outcome and efficacy expectations.  Outcome expectations include belief that particular actions lead to particular outcomes.  Efficacy expectations include the belief that requisite knowledge or skills to achieve an outcome are readily available or already present (Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber, 2008).  By contrast, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) requires three innate needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.  The beliefs underpinning efficacy theories demand professional development and on-going education be part of the organization’s innovation-seeking culture. 
By utilizing the disciplines outlined by Senge (1990), facilitating the learning of its workers, and making transformation part of a continuous improvement process, an innovation-seeking organization exhibits the essential cultural features of a learning organization.  This mitigates the fallacy that staff already possess all the necessary skills for success.  The leader recognizes ongoing competency-building must be part of the organizational culture.

Additionally, an innovation-seeking leader knows a holistic and systematic approach is required for determining how organizations are structured.  As a result of effective utilization of evaluations such as the balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) and development processes such as 360 degree leadership (Bettinger, 2006), the best possible organizational structure can be developed.  Ideally, an optimal organizational structure will align with strategic change planning to ensure positive impact upon the organization’s capability for innovation.  



To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (March 31, 2019) An innovation-seeking leader understands the nature
of innovation  [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/


References

Beinhocker, E. (2007). The adaptable corporation. The McKinsey Quarterly (2),76-87.

Bennis, W. (1989).  Why leaders can’t lead: The unconscious conspiracy continues (1st ed.).  San
            Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bettinger, C., & Bettinger, C. (2006). The 360 Degree leadership development process. Cass
Bettinger & Associates Retrieved from
Boehm, R., & Phipps, C. (1996). Flatness forays. The McKinsey Quarterly (3),128-143.

Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2008). Ed Psych: Modules. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Brandel, M. (2006). Noel Tichy: A leader on leadership. Web page interview. Retrieved from

Castellacci, F., & Zheng, J. (2010). Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation
and firm-level productivity growth. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(6), 1829-1865.

Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
            behavior. New York, NY: Plenum

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2015). Revisiting professional learning communities at
            work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Goleman, D. (1998a), "What makes a leader?", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, 93-104.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., Ed. (2004). Culture,
            leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications, Inc.:
            Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kan, M., & Parry, K. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in
            overcoming resistance to change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 719-719. Retrieved from

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: measures that drive performance,
Harvard Business Review 70(1), 71–79

Kaplan, R. S, & Norton, D. P, (2008). The execution premium—linking strategy to operations for
competitive advantage.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Retrieved from

Kaplan, R. S.; Norton, D. P.; & Barrows Jr., E. A., (2008).  Developing the strategy: Vision,
value gaps, and analysis.  Balanced Scorecard Report.  Retrieved from

McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X: The Traditional View of Direction and Control. In , Human
            Side of Enterprise (pp. 33-44). Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McGregor, D. (1960). Theory Y: The Integration of Individual and Organizational Goals. In ,
            Human Side of Enterprise (pp. 45-57). Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McKinney, B., Steglich, D. M., & Stever-Zeitlin, J. A. (2002). Small schools, big lessons.
The McKinsey Quarterly (2), 122-133.

Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-4129-7488-2.

Pasmore, W. (2013) A critical ingredient for organizational success. Center for Creative
            Leadership. Retrieved from

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007) Managing tomorrow’s people: The future of work to 2020.
Retrieved from

Schumpeter, J.A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis
of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw Hill

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. London ENG: Century Business
Stober, D. R. (2008). Making it stick: coaching as a tool for organizational change. Coaching: An
            International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 1(1), 71-80.

            doi:10.1080/17521880801905950


No comments:

Post a Comment