Leadership and Change

As in Kouzes and Posner’s second practice, inspire a shared vision by envisioning the future and enlisting others in the common vision to aspire the possibilities within an organization 4, the same initial steps are taken within the innovation process during the Initial Period. Examples from three studies started with this process. The research emphasized that it took collaboration to get these innovation projects off the ground. I empathetically laughed when I read plans were essentially “sales vehicles” (23) as I recently had to complete a plan designing how some fifty projects would unfold over several months. Our department was told to fit into a model that was designed for one project at a time, not multiple projects with different staff roles than the model. While I was consistently told the way we work doesn’t fit their model, I still needed to make it work. It became complex and we realized “the plan” became an outline for the initial thoughts, as new facets were constantly causing enough change and deviation from the plan.

During the Development Period, I related to characteristics on how idea tangents can become chaotic to control, a sponsorship that stays the course and collaboration amongst competition. But there were characteristics that change was not as prevalent in projects I’ve worked in. For me, the most notable are the experiences of innovation participants. Research indicated that it was a “gut-wrenching” (24) experience for the participants due to high turnover. That often participants had no experience with innovation but new personnel had new ideas and contributed to the process. Even so, departing personnel also parted with information. Different emotions were at different stages. I can imagine that projects endured longer due to this continual change and how frustrating the situation may be to some. It would seem the more accepting you are to change, the easier this working environment would appeal. Research indicated that people were more driven by “greater intrinsic motivation and satisfaction “ (44) in the role they participated in than by job security, also eluding participants were less allegiant to the organization but more so to the innovation.

While leaders built up support, the overlying organizational structure played several roles, upon project initiation, collaboration within the structures and the guiding principals that generated support for participants or prohibited growth. Innovation ideas generated more ideas and permeated throughout an organization when it was larger, and did not limit boundaries between the organizations. Collaborative projects were more limited crossing boundaries and smaller organizations tended to spurt out even less ideas. However, would you agree that a smaller organization also had clearer understanding on the broad initiatives occurring within their organization which may have fostered less ideas due to resources but also because they may have been more efficient by not tapping into ideas they knew others were already venturing? Their approach may have been more grass roots with momentum starting at the smaller scale creating many wins, as the company Qnetics put out varied innovative ideas, mixing up the potential gains they could win by having other companies buy a spun idea or by sampling demand by what direction they should head for more success.

Studies concluded that during the journey, it is filled with ambiguity, often uncontrollable and incurs a great deal of luck. Luck! How did they measure that? I could say that if the process were drawn out, you could consistently stop the process and realign some plan associated with steps and that luck was a description to how it all came together in the end; stating you couldn’t predict all the outcomes due to time and other factors but the probability is that most events occurred for a reason or a reaction to another event than by chance. I’d be interested in seeing the measures in the luck factor for successful innovation projects.

The authors state the twelve steps does not ensure innovation success, but rather they convene to a basic caveat for success: “Entrepreneurs and managers cannot control innovation success, only its odds.” (65) They state that fundamental change is necessary to conventional management’s control philosophy. I found this to be fascinating as the innovators doing the work often override the need for management to assure they are doing it because they often form collaborative groups to keep the momentum going, to keep each other in check. Management then needs to assure they have the resources, help pave the way so to speak, and not prohibit their process. I agree that leaders, management that control need to open to new ideas, inhibit growth, and encourage participation to cross boundaries to stimulate innovative ideas.

Although the focus was on large scale innovations, I was hoping that some research was on a smaller scale, an innovation process within a unit perhaps. I generally enjoy a chaotic creative situation and would like to be involved in innovation projects so I wondered if the map would be different on a smaller scale, e.g. Mike’s reflection presented a relationship to our class blog, given many of us may have not experienced innovation on such a grand scale. I was not able to locate supporting arguments against the studies presented. This research chapter ties into our current readings, even though it has varying degrees by how they relate, from Kouzes and Posner’s creating a vision to organization management to a more somewhat drawn out systematic approach to innovation as in Kotter‘s eight steps to transformation 5. I thought innovation sparks quick turn around, the projects do prove that, within a characteristic scale it is constantly changing but I admittedly was surprised that the process often took years. Lastly, I’ve posed a few questions to Professor Van de Ven to find out if newer studies show shifts to “the map” from their initial research. I’m interested in how factors such as time and technology, if any, has changed the process. I’ll share any response I receive.

I’d like to hear from you. Does your organization encourage innovation? Do you have experiences in a grand scale in an innovation project and if so, would you agree with the generic map as it applied to your project? Do you find yourself agreeing with our authors that it takes luck to be successful? What about processing the journey “out of control”, as the research implies it might take to actually succeed in innovation? What about changing the perception that management must be in control and how does that relate to a process that is moving “out of control”; in that situation, how do you engage whether the path you are heading down projects success?

1 Academy of Management, 24 Feb. 2008 http://www.aomonline.org/

2 Thomson - ISI Essential Indicators, cited 26th most highly cited economist in the world, and one of its 30 scholars short-listed for the Nobel Prize in 2002 (or later). 24 Feb. 2008 http://www.in-cites.com/rsg/

3 Van de Ven, Andrew W. Home page. Carlson School of Management Dept. University of Minnesota. 24 Feb. 2008 http://webpages.csom.umn.edu/smo/avandeven/AHVHOME.htm

4 Kouzes, James M. and Posner, Barry Z. The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

5 Kotter, J. P. “Leading Change: The Eight Steps to Transformation.” In J. A. Conger, G. M. Spreitzer, and E. E. Lawler (eds.), The Leader’s Change Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.