Organizational Innovation Free Essay Example

In an article of Michie and Sheehan’s “HRM Practices, R&D Expenditure and Innovative Investment: Evidence from the UK’s 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey” in 1999, they discovered that typical HR departments in UK offers HRM mechanism that supports R&D technology and employs HR practices that are motiveless such as short-term contract. Another article is by Laursen and Foss’ “New Human Resource Management Practices, Complementarities, and the Impact on Innovation Performance” in 2003, a survey of 1,900 Danish companies which portrayed that human resource procedures affects the performances of employees and results innovation.

In addition to that, Therrien and Leonard in 2003 claimed through their “Empowering Employees: A Route to Innovation” article that the one-size-fits-all policy of human resource department is not the best procedure since the gains would only be more attuned to the employers’ and on the other hand the employees were unsatisfied with their job.

Analysis of the Holistic View of Organizational Innovation There had been various studies on the organizational innovation that can be seen in a holistic way.

As a consequence the Archer’s Realist Morphogenetic framework was constructed so as to give more holistic description of the processes of the development of innovation.

Consequently, the framework represents the creation of Six Sigma which is a multifaceted group of tasks that takes place through via series of socio-ideational-political that comprises intricate exchanges between stimulus such as agencies, cultures, and structures that can affect the company in due course.

According to Bovermann and Russell (2004), in order to completely utilize the innovation of the company’s culture, majority of firms as well as institutions necessitated a highly developed and holistic tactics.

It is inevitable for an organization to draw-up a holistic model of innovation culture that interconnects the following: (1) Leadership (visioning values), (2) Strategy (Innovative orientation), (3) Structure (the course in acquiring targets and purposes), (4) Organization Culture (which intertwines organizational core values) and (5) Innovation culture (the “ground” for the application of all procedures.

In addition to that, the innovative model is established from five practical fundamentals that were all interconnected: (a) leadership, (b) structure, (c) strategy, (d) organizational culture, and (e) the innovation culture as the end result. Given that all these fundamentals are combined the innovative model would be realistic in every sense.

This presents aims for the managers to encourage changes in the organizations that would enable the fabrication of innovative results; it redesigns the organizational structure that would buttress the assigning of tasks and the communication culture of the organization; the construction of the strategies that would pave the way for new breaks and innovative ideas; and the recreation of the culture of the whole organization that present to employees what a nurturing company they are in that way employees would be motivated to internalize company’s administration, mission and vision.

In this light, it could be inferred that the creation of a holistic innovational structure within a company is a forceful and continual process. An instance of this is the introduction of Business Process Orientation (BPO) to the employees which would highlight every organizational task that was designed to produce financial upshot and customer satisfaction. It enables the company to focus on what is important to them: the principal tasks.

It would then necessitate evaluation of every department, organization, countries among others. There are three main measurements can be implemented though the BPO model: First is the Process Management and Measurement which evaluates aspects of procedures such as the quality of the output, the time cycle, the expected cost of the procedures and the changeability of the customary accounting process that was employed.

Second is the Process Jobs, when the position of the worker defines the work process itself for instance, one could use “product development process owner” instead of “research manager”. Third is the Process View, here the documentation of the whole process is executed and even evaluated. McGregor’s Theory X, Theory Y model Douglas McGregor had projected two divergent viewpoints on nature of humans–one a destructive or negative view, Theory X, and one a constructive or positive view called Theory Y.

As a consequence, when managers perceived his staff as inattentive even laid-back, they would have to be categorized under Theory X and are gauged in the following mode of characteristics: (1) these are workers who inherently have a distaste for work and makes great attempt to escape it, and so in order to resolve that, workers have to be convinced, prohibited, or else warned to accomplish their assigned tasks (2) there are also staffs who escapes responsibilities and attempt to get severe way to escape it in the most attainable way (3) quite the reverse, majority of the personnel perceives their security to hold their jobs above additional occupational basis nonetheless they show signs of insufficient resolve to succeed.

In contrast, Theory Y managers distinguish human resources as trustworthy, steadfast and even engage in the subsequent tasks that shows that employees are capable to consider their profession as being as regular as a reprieve or even pastime (2) they are committed to their objectives and will be self-directed and self-controlled (3) their distinctive personnel is proficient in becoming skilled as to identify as well as search for tasks without any commands from the authority (4) diverse workers is similar to their managers who has creative, administrative or organizational skills and (5) indispensable substantiation is lacking thereby the dependent variable that could be inferred had to be focused on. Organizational Innovative Processes: Fit or Unfit Various organizations have their share of challenges as well as shortcomings. And holding-up in spite of the shortcoming in order to deal with challenges is one of the reasons why organizations search for lead in the course of the exploitation of proficiencies. These capabilities does not only in the subject of the employee’s salary however it also consist in the training, preference, progression, management of performances and other sides of managing ones human resources. Thus there is importance in the early diagnosing of situations if the innovative processes would be befitting or not.

Given this solution the company can effectively deploy competencies that are oriented to its organization in the future. In addition, there will be an anticipated great need for a hypothesized relationship, and that the process of innovation is systematic and that would correspond to the existing level in the organizational development that can be seen in the production of goods or services of the company in addition to the tactics that would eventually result to competition and growth. The stage of maturity of the company results to accumulated profits and stable benefits that would make them established in the market. Moreover, some companies would merge with other companies or buy other companies that are intended to refurbish their expansion.

However, when the organizational innovative process is not befitting the company would likely end up declining- the company stopped hiring additional employees, the quantity their products in addition to their products are also cut-off. They were obliged to downsize their human resources, reengineer their working process yet again. Nonetheless, if the company can not be resuscitated then the owners would either find buyer or shut down. Compare, Contrast and Integrate Course Learning It is undoubtedly true that the connection involving the organization as well as the innovation is a very multifarious and at the same time compelling one. Literatures on this field are both distinct and enormous.

Perspectives such as the connection amid innovation and structural forms of the organization, innovation per se is the progression of construction of the organizations know-how, and the capability of the organization to acclimatize as well as modify have been crucial decisions for owners/CEO’s in the implementation of organizational change. And even though these three are related to each other and even linked to each other some time or another their identities remained distinct. In addition to that, there is no specific and lucid theoretical background that would enable researchers to fully comprehend the depth of the occurrence of innovation in an organization. It can be inferred that the possible reason for this is that there is a wide theoretical indistinctness in ‘organizational innovation’ as is. However, the said search may show the way to fresh representation and even directorial accomplishments.

And this would pave the way for significant basis for inventive change in the organization. This could be viewed from two latest reviews by Damanpour in 1991 and Zammuto & Connor in 1992, wherein it depicts objectives that would adapt sociologists to generalize that had surfaced and deems for the sociologists to broaden their former studies into three typical methods: basically, through focusing on the division of labor in the organization as well as its intricacy. Then, the review recommended an additional and contemporary field that needs to be studied. They also propose the integration of the organizational innovation to a wide-ranging issue such as change in the organization.

In this way, it will systematically expand the sound and organized studies that had been collected. In addition to that, one can make use of innovation research that could address wide-ranging critical, sensible and even speculative concerns. Value of the Studying of Leading Innovation and Change The objectives I chose were: 1. Examine the characteristics of innovation and creativity in organizations (Program Outcomes: Research; Communication; Decision Making). 2. Research and analyze innovation processes through these five levels: individual; team; network; organizational; industrial (Program Outcomes: Research; Critical Thinking; Information Literacy). 3.

Analyze and evaluate the solutions to the challenges of leading and managing innovative and creative processes, in diverse, multicultural organizations (Program Outcomes: Research; Critical Thinking; Problem Solving; Leadership). 4. Describe and evaluate the principles and practices involved in implementing innovative change processes, within organizations (Program Outcomes: Research; Communication; Problem Solving; Decision Making). 5. Select and defend an appropriate organizational theory, to solve and lead innovative change processes (Program Outcomes: Research; Communication; Critical Thinking; Decision Making; Leadership). In view of the aforementioned theories of organizational innovation, innovation necessitates positive engagement that would result to employees’ focusing on reaching their personal and professional aims or targets.

In this regard, managers should exercise additional time that would “re-humanize” the place of work by doing things in the vein of the following: (1) harmonizing employee responsibilities to reach effects that would improve the interaction and behavior of employees to each other, (2) expel conducts that are malevolent particularly in the place of work, (3) draw-up and implement effectual acknowledgment measures that would motivate employees (4) concede to the core cultural behaviors that would spawn productive relations, healthy interdependence, sharing of best practices, teamwork, prolifically sincere attitude, gaining additional knowledge for personal and professional growth, broadmindedness to errors, and an environment where innovation is embraced (5) grant managers remuneration and acknowledgment for constructing a realistic and humanitarian working environment that would buttress employees to take part to the organizational success, and (6) refer people by name so as to make the laborer at ease so that he would not be aggravated to rebel against the company. Given this topic the writer construe that organizational innovation studies involves across-the-board topics that is adaptable to reality.

For instance, realistically the development of the economy of a nation is based mainly on the continual introduction of up-to-the-minute goods and due to this the governments are focusing on creating innovative products as well as improved services. Also, because of this new product there would be additional jobs that would surface and buttress the jobseekers. In this way it shelters the country’s growth domestic product (GDP). Moreover, according to Blau (1973) the analysis of innovative organizational change brought forth scientific revolution, improvement in the quality of armed gears, and the construction of programs in higher education that is connected to each other.

In addition, as Bell (1973) and Hage & Powers (1992) claimed, the theoretical impact of organizational innovation studies unlocks new-fangled viewpoints on current countless and out of the ordinary concerns which consists of evolution in the society, changes in the institutions, societal infiltration of learnings when it comes to the macroscopic and microscopic analytical stages. Outside the sociological arena, innovation in the organization may possibly inculcate vital offerings or assistance to various crucial fields of modern economic researches. Lundvall in 1992 asserts that studies on a country’s innovative procedures are in the same way pertinent to the growth in economy especially with regards to the endogenous economic theory. References: Bovermann, T. and Russell. (2004).

The Culture of Innovation and the Building of Knowledge Societies. UNESCO, Bureau of Strategic Planning 2003. Blau P. 1973. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: Wiley-Intersci. Bell D. 1973. Post–Industrial Society. New York: Free Press Damanpour F. 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad. Mgmt. J. 34: 55590 Hage J, Powers C. 1992. Post-Industrial Lives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Lundvall BA. 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Michie, J. and M. Sheehan. 1999.

“HRM Practices, R&D Expenditure and Innovative Investment: Evidence from the UK’s 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey. ” Industrial and Corporate Change 8, 211-34. Laursen, K. and N. J. Foss. 2003. “New Human Resource Management Practices, Complementarities, and the Impact on Innovation Performance. ” Cambridge Journal of Economics 27: 2, 243-63. Therrien, Pierre and Andre Leonard. 2003. “Empowering Employees: A Route to Innovation”, Statistics Canada: Ottawa. Catalogue no. 71-584-MIE. Zammuto R, O’Connor E. 1992. Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies benefits: the role of organizational design and culture. Acad. Mgmt. Rev. 17: 70128