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