In the innovation field, the existing theories have suggested that organizational culture affects the capacity of a corporation to innovate. Most organizations have been unable to innovate because of the prevailing culture that inhibits the propensity of the workforce to generate and effectively use new ideas. This paper has highlighted organizational cultural aspects that tend to create and enhance the level of innovation. To clearly understand the link between organizational culture and innovation, the ABC Consulting case study has been considered. The paper has also given some recommendations on how to create an appropriate organizational culture that promotes innovation in organizations.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Organizational culture and cultural diversity is a context that dominates the area of leadership, employees’ development, and innovation in most organizations. The diversity in culture heightens the challenge faced by managers in keeping organizational staff motivated to innovate and change the existing corporate structures. With most organizations operating in culturally diverse environments, it is essential to check the nature of organizational culture, its impacts on innovation and management development in culturally diverse contexts (Melitski, Gavin & Gavin, 2010).
This paper relates to the wider field of management to a specific area of organizational culture. It argues that organization leaders will have difficulties in changing an existing organizational culture. The paper explores how the prevailing organizational culture influences change and creative behaviours. It finally offers recommended actions and strategies to make sure that proper culture is created.
The connection between organizational culture and innovation
Successful organizations can take innovation into their organizational culture as well as management processes. Organizational culture stands at the core of organizational innovation. Moreover, organizational culture affects the level at which innovative solutions are supported, promoted, and implemented. A culture that supports creativity promotes innovative ways of undertaking the representation of problems and obtaining solutions. “Unlike operations where the activities are formalized and pre-specific, innovation is a non-routine activity where there is a fair amount of uncertainty around the tasks to be performed”(Dasanayaka, 2006, p.6).
An organizational culture where there are no laid down “rules of the game”, can obstruct creativity and also motivate innovation. It is pointed out that while entrepreneurial organizations expand through the effective and successful applying of innovative ideas, they go through a ‘crisis of leadership” (Dasanayaka, 2006, p.3) An increase in the number of workers makes it to be more difficult for a manager to manage efficiently through the informal communication channels.
Innovation is a greatly complex process that calls for having effective relations among many individuals and sub-unit in the innovating business. Therefore, there is a need to offer command leadership through proficient managers. Moreover, “innovation deals with uncertain problems” (Dasanayaka, 2006, p.3). In an environment like that, the structural innovations, like formal procedures, are mostly not effective. Culture promotes innovation through the creation of an organizational climate that institutionalizes the activity of innovations as being significant. Moreover, putting the focus on legitimate innovation, “a supportive culture helps to motivate and sustain the complex, interactive process of the social exchange necessary for successful innovation” (Dasanayaka, 2006,p.4). Organizational culture serves as a very important vehicle for the implementation of organizational change. Although not all organizational changes call for innovation, on the other hand, all of the “organizational innovation involves change” (Dasanayaka, 2006,p.4). The resources of an organization as well as its values and processes, contribute to its capacity to take up innovations (Dasanayaka, 2006).
Not every culture within an organization would promote the process of innovation and thus, setting up the innovative capability in the organization. It has been found out that “within the same national culture context, some organizational level cultural dimensions are essentially important for sustained competitiveness in the market” (Peters and Waterman, 1982, p.16). Some other researchers have engaged in studying the link between innovation and culture have come to suggest that a relationship between the two exists. An important observation has been made that smaller organizations are not essentially less able to implement highly developed technologies. But on the other, it is as well true that organizations that are small in size have the environment as well as limitations of their own which are not found within the large firms, and there is a need to investigate to find out whether the research findings are applicable within the small industry in the same way (Dasanayaka, 2006).
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
“Need for Having Radical Innovation”
There can be considering of innovation as existing along a continuum, “from incremental innovation, in which effort is focused on trying to do better yet more of the same to radical innovation in which ideas that are new to the company or new to the industry are actively being considered” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.1). This principally resonates with the ideas presented by McFadzean (McFadzean, 2000). On the part of incremental innovation, a lot is known regarding process management, and the process of innovation is usual and regular, and its modelling can be carried out simply. On the other hand, radical innovation is not very much well-known, and process management is not clearly defined, and its modelling can be very much more complex (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).
It is clear that innovation matters a lot, and it is of great importance in achieving success in manufacturing as well as design companies. Innovation is found to be universally effectual at offering a response to the evolutionary changes in markets. In case an organization is seeking levels of growth that are remarkably higher as compared to the industry growth, then it has to critically think about radical innovation (Bessant et al., 2004). Such a view has received support from McDermott and Handfield (2000) where they present an argument that; to realize the long-term growth, business organizations are supposed to make either fresh substitutions that are “new to market products, or breakthrough products”(McDermott and Handfield, 2000, p.40).
Companies that put their focus just on incremental innovation are seeking to evade risk. However, such companies are also missing opportunities. Radical innovation is more beneficial than incremental innovation in one most important way: this is that; radical innovation helps in the creation of products that do not substitute or displace other products but rather bring in something fresh (Bessant et al., 2004, p.29).
“The role of organizational culture in radical innovation”
Even if there is a large number of dimensions that influence radical as well as incremental innovation, for instance, the labour markets and the national systems; in general terms, it has been agreed that the organizational culture has a very important influence on an organization’s inclination towards innovation. Whereas there is a lack of agreement regarding how most excellent to engage in organizing for radical innovation, a larger number of business managers have the same judgment that radical innovation is always a practice that is uncertain and confused in comparison to incremental innovation; which is an ongoing process that has a more organized approach towards change. The initial motivation to innovate is a personal or technological curiosity that individuals have and for a large number of operating firms, this is an ‘unnatural activity’ because the level of uncertainty is too high, and the time horizon is very long, “and the investment too large, given the risks” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.4).
The various types of innovation call for using different types of “organizational hardware-structures”, different types of “software-human resources”, and culture. In the course of the incremental change, firms can depend on components that have comparatively official responsibilities as well as roles, central procedures, cultures that are oriented towards effectiveness, powerful sales, and manufacturing abilities, and older and skilled human resources. Such units are marked by a great level of inertia, emphasizing efficiency, continuous development, and teamwork. On the other hand, in the course of discontinuous innovation, firms need an “entrepreneurial ‘skunkworks’ type of units” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.4). In relative terms, these components are minute, and they have tentative structures, powerful entrepreneurial capabilities, and comparatively younger and diverse workers. They set up fresh experience bases as well as knowledge systems. Most of the time, incremental innovation puts weight on the cost or advancing of features in the accessible commodities and greatly relies on the exploitation capabilities. On the other hand, the main concerns of the radical innovation are on the coming up with fresh product lines or business, basing on the notions or technologies, or on the remarkable price decrease which changes the firm’s economics and calls for exploration capabilities (Bessant, 2003).
It has been suggested that among the systems which boost incremental innovation, some are “counter-productive to radical innovation” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.4). It has been argued that radical notions seem to require room to develop, they seem to alter shape as well as extent, and thus, proposition systems, which are the incremental innovation’s base, are not favourable for the radical innovation. The organizational cultures which help in the facilitation of radical innovation are inclined to be lenient to taking 3222of risks, and the lack of certainty plays a big role in the facilitation of this kind of innovation (Claver et al., 1998).
The radical innovation is intrinsically disorganized, burdened with unfamiliarity, and uncertainty (Veryzer, 1998). This process is stochastic and greatly explorative, and it involves investigating and learning instead of aiming and developing. Organizational culture and devotion to the process, which can be found in big organizations tend to push efforts to the “low-risk incremental innovation” (Tidd, 2009, p.4). Not much has been discovered regarding the development process’s effectual managing of radical innovation as compared to incremental innovation. It is not clear what the radical new product development’s scenery looks like, and instead of it being a conventional process, the development of the radical innovations is associated with considerable risks and calls for having foresight as well as insight (O’Connor and Veryzer, 2001).
It has also been argued that radical as well as incremental innovations call for having quite different business conditions and processes (Von Stamm, 2003). It is also pointed out that “it is not reasonable to expect that successful practices associated with new product development may be significantly different for discontinuous and incremental projects” (McDermott and Handfield, 1996, p.371). An organizational culture that promotes incremental innovation may not serve similarly to undertake the facilitation of radical innovation. Research shows that the enablers of organizational culture, as well as the inhibitors, affect an organization’s inclination towards innovation in the NPD. It has been indicated that mature organizations mostly lose this inclination towards becoming innovative, since the systems that make it possible for them to attain success turn out to inhibit innovation (Leifer et al., 2001).
Innovation Culture and the Conceptual Framework
Schein’s model helps understand the innovation culture. Using this model, Schein presents a suggestion that organizational culture is what is discovered by a group over time while the group finds solutions to the continued existence problems. Culture is a trend of fundamental assumptions that have undergone an evolution, identified or set up by a particular group while it learns how to put up with problems of inner integration and outer adaptation. This model has the following levels: “basic assumptions, values and artefacts” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.6). The model goes in line with the cultural web.
Artefacts refer to the observable organizational processes and structures. These include language, physical space, as well as apparent conduct of individuals. These are divided into three levels. The first level is regarding “physical artefacts” such as the firm symbols and logos. Law two concerns behaviour or conduct and this includes the organizational rituals and routines. Level three concerns organizational stories and legends, and organizational champions, and bad characters (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).
On the other hand, values refer to the main social beliefs as well as objectives and principles that are regarded in the organizational culture as having inbuilt significance. Values define what the members of a firm are concerned with. These are unwritten rules, which make it possible for the members of a particular culture to be aware of what they are supposed to do or how they are supposed to conduct themselves. Organizational culture offers an expression of the values of the workers within the business organization. By utilizing the value, members of the organization are in a position to come up with decisions that enable them to deal with problems and to eventually find solutions (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).
Considering the basic assumptions, these are found to be the most imperceptible level of this model. They are attitudes and practices of insight, feelings, and thoughts that are not taken seriously and hardly are made clear. In a situation where an answer to a particular problem works in a recurring manner, it turns out not to be considered seriously. The assumptions turn out to be “learned responses” which offer guidance to conduct and decide how the members of the organization engage in reasoning, belief, and do things. Schein’s model “is a dynamic model” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.7). It gives a proposition that the three levels have constant interaction to offer a growing view of organizational culture (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).
Schein’s perspective puts focus on what values, as well as artefacts, disclose concerning basic assumptions. There is a re-occurring of all the processes in an ongoing production of culture in its unwavering and shifting circumstances and shapes. This model reverberates with the innovation culture point of view as being a continuum starting from incremental to radical (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).
There is bringing in of the idea of the archetype to undertake facilitation of an expressive representation of the characteristics of the two innovation kinds of innovation – “radical and incremental” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.7). The management systems, as well as organizational structures, are better comprehended by keenly looking at the broad patterns instead of looking at organizational properties sets which have been intently drawn (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). This viewpoint is a holistic one. The second one is that the patterns are found to be a function of ideas, attitudes, and values the mechanisms of “an interpretative scheme – that underpin and are embodied in organizational structures and systems” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.7). Therefore, an archetype consists of systems as well as structures, which give a likeness of one explanatory arrangement. It is suggested that systems and structures do not exist as neutral tools but represent purposes, desires, and goals (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).
Schein’s viewpoint of organization culture goes suitably with the organization design standpoint presented by Hinings and his fellow researcher, Greenwood. Schein points out that culture is what is acquired through the process of learning by a group over time, while the group finds solutions to its continued problematic existence (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). He presents an argument that culture is a trend of basic or fundamental assumptions, which have undergone an evolution, identified and set up by a certain group while it learns to put up with its issues of inner integration and external adaptation. Schein’s model proposes that organizational culture is found at three levels. On the other hand, Hinings and his colleague Greenwood present an argument that archetypes give a manifestation of the “holistic approach to the study of organizational arrangements and recognize interpretive schemes as providing the basis of pattern” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.8). The holistic viewpoint held by Schein “resonates with this interpretative scheme” (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.8).
100% original paper
written from scratch
specifically for you?
The manifestation of idyllic positions of organizational culture at any of the two ends of the continuum can be presented by the two archetypes. Type one is found to be an incremental approach, and it is associated with the propensity to keep or develop in little incremental steps or “a do better attitude” (Tidd, 2009, p.9). This type is mostly found in mature organizations. On the other hand, the “type two” archetype is found to be a radical approach, and there is a longing to undertake exploration and to engage in pushing boundaries. This type is common among start-up or entrepreneurial companies (Tidd and Bessant, 2009, p.9).
Organizational culture theories, Organizational cultural environment and its impact on change and innovation
Organizational culture and the general social and cultural environments can be considered to interlock each other in that, people enter organizations from surrounding societies and bring their culture and social life with them. Therefore, the changing social and cultural environment influences corporate culture and is a big challenge to managers endeavouring to change the corporate culture. Forces in this environment are those that affect changes in how people live and work. Managers must be responsive to those changes that take place in the surrounding societies as they affect all aspects of corporate culture, yet most corporate managers will have little knowledge about those changes. (Mohanty and Rath, 2012).
For instance, new organization leaders are tasked with the development of corporate ethics and well-being to initiate change. Sims (2009) considers corporate ethics as one element of corporate culture that is hard to change, as ethics are defined differently by each organization. No wonder huge ethical scandals such as Enron and Hewlett-Packard have plagued hundreds of United States firms. Unethical organizational cultural behaviours injure a firm’s standing and cost the firm the goodwill of employees as well as customers. Moreover, the losses could lead to financial and economic damage to the firm. Managers who wish to change such a culture are required to set up an ethical code that defines acceptable behaviours and develop a framework of rewards and punishments to make ethical codes.
However, to some firms, social or ethical responsibility means doing any action if it is legal. In such a culture, developing a code of ethics that helps the firm to protect its reputation and make sure the goodwill of employees and customers is hard for new managers. As Sims (2009) notes, the challenge is to build an organizational culture where members oppose the temptation to act in ethical manners that promote interests at the cost of the firm or promote the interest of the firm at the cost of the society. Indeed, many executives have been unable to take effective measures when confronted by an ethical, cultural scandal. For example, Citigroup suffered dearly from a cultural scandal, and the executives could only choose corporate silence to support the reputation of the company (Jeffrey, Liker & Hoseus, 2008).
Workforce diversity is also a big challenge for managers wishing to change an existing organizational culture. While an organization is legally and socially committed, it must include employees from different environments. Some organizations are not sensitive to the diversity issue, while others have overemphasized the issue. The demographic composition of workers has changed considerably, meaning that managers must address this cause when fostering or changing organizational culture (Moran, Harris & Moran, 2010). While this is an important consideration to managers, some existing organizational cultures discourage such efforts to the extent of making just that diversification lowers the quality of management. The belief makes it difficult for managers to change the culture, as it requires the commitment of both the managers and employees.
How the nature of organizational culture impacts the innovative environment
One element of organizational culture that firms have focused on is innovation. Almost every organization creates a culture that might make the employees more creative. The most significant driver to innovation is an information technology (IT) and its integration in business operations. In as much as IT is important to organizational activities, it poses a major challenge to today’s managers. They have no other alternative but to involve IT when changing the organizational culture. However, to promote organizational innovation, learning, and creation of knowledge; corporations must use IT to define, acquire, arrange, organize, input, manipulate, transmit, and store information. Organizational learning can only occur if the employees can manage knowledge and information to obtain a better understanding of the need to change (Melitski, Gavin & Gavin, 2010).
Regarding technological innovation, organizations are increasingly operating in uncertain, decentralized, and networked environments, where the adoption of creative ideas has become essential to organizational change (Melitski, Gavin & Joanne, 2010). Indeed, organizational cultures institutionally shape the way firms choose to use technology and add new innovative ideas. There are environmental factors that influence employees’ enthusiasm to innovate and become accustomed to new technology. When the organizational culture is supportive, the probability of innovating and adopting creative new ideas is substantially higher. For employees who work in firms where work is well organized, their opinions are considered valuable, and they are well-informed on how relevant issues in the firm will be adopted to enhance the level of technology (Melitski, Gavin & Joanne, 2010).
Unfortunately, most organizations do not have a supportive culture that can enhance the willingness of employees to innovate and adapt to new technologies. Recently, changes in organization creative culture have taken many directions about technology, work, and employment relationships. Technological innovation and adoption have been associated with downsizing, growth of temporary workers or contingents, outsourcing, and employees no longer spend their full careers with one firm. As a result, organizational managers have to work with employees whose confidence in the firm is fainted by cultural changes taking place within, and hence are likely to resist innovative ideas and cultural change (Scheffknecht, 2011).
How organizational culture influences change and innovative behaviours
In most organizational contexts, culture affects innovation-related behaviours in many ways. This may be a direct or indirect effect of improvement about external rivalry, the dimension of the firm, technical variables, and managerial assets. First, an organization with well-built cultural ethics such as the Toyota Company may be stalled, and other aspects may help the production performance. In cases where employees make morals and norms that emphasize openness to newly crafted ideas and innovation, the next activities and practices will augment the productive capacity of individual innovativeness. In Toyota, the efficiency of modernization might be affected by optimistic group value plans that direct and inspire people towards innovation. To facilitate the progress of cultural adoption among organizational employees, Toyota has established communal principles that foster innovation (Jeffrey, Liker & Hoseus, 2008).
The degree of innovation depends on different variables such as power allotment, participating judgment, people, and vocation progress as well as support and joint venture. In some organizational groups, culture may entail willing to control and guard the schedule of individuals in an organization. Therefore, the available assets and information are mutually influenced across different areas and levels of the organization. Participation and sincerity in the decision-making process have been highlighted as an area that might enhance organization innovation. However, there is a need for having open group cultures that engross employees from various corporation levels as depicted in the case of Toyota(Scheffknecht, 2011).
Organizational culture normally enables employees to help and support one another in developing thoughts and getting things done. Other groups, however, tend to encourage seclusion through demoralizing teamwork and support, hence reducing the capacity to innovate. In some groups, culture may stipulate individuals’ involvement in informal education or training programs that would enhance capacity expansion. There are other culturally formed groups in organizations that tend to discourage learning and the ability to generate new ideas. Thus, to increase the level of individuals’ dedication and involvement to innovate, act freely, and come up with fresh ideas, and organizational culture must compel its workforce to participate in the decision-making process(Jeffrey, Liker & Hoseus, 2008).
Some organizational cultures tend to discourage the generation of fresh ideas and fail to motivate employees to take risks. To overcome this, the prevailing culture in an organization must increase sincerity and reduce panic by enhancing group effort and support. This can be fostered by facilitating teamwork and communication to nurture and give confidence to innovative dreams. Such a culture will enable the workforce to care about innovation for organizational good. Support and cooperation as a culture tend to increase traverse-fertilization of ideas, thus, influence individual productivity. Thus, Toyota encourages a participating culture that increases communication and information sharing to enhance innovation (Jeffrey, Liker & Hoseus, 2008).
The Impact that Leaders may have on an organizational Culture
The question that comes in is whether or not leaders shape culture, and in case they do, how do they do it? Some primary mechanisms for embedding culture are identified and these include;
- What the leaders focus on
- The reaction of the leaders to crucial incidents
- The criteria for allocating the resources
- Coaching, teaching as well as role modelling
- The observed means of reward and status allocation
- The observed criteria utilized in recruiting and selecting employees, promoting them, and in retirement as well as ex-communication (Northern Leadership academy 2007)
If a manager’s starting point is found to be organization culture as being the greatest determinant of the organizational effectiveness, this implies that the effectiveness of leadership will be consistent with the leaders’ impact on “symbol, language, ideology, belief, ritual and myth” (Pettigrew 1979, p.570).
By employing a complex systems perspective of culture, it is found out that the system’s leaders are supposed to engage in sustaining processes that make it possible for the system to capitalize on its ability to adapt. In the actual sense, this approach calls for having constant attention to information as well as to relationships and identity (Wheatley & Rogers 1998).
It has been found out that, the leaders are not supposed to just focus on the identity structure such as language and rituals, but they are as well supposed to pay attention to how identity helps in shaping the way members engage in making sense of “their context, their impact, ad their work together” (Northern Leadership academy 2007, p.7). Here, the task that leaders have is to engage in questioning the basic assumptions which give shape to the decisions made, interpretations; and to persistently expand the ‘lens’ through which the organization interprets and makes sense of its environment and its activities” (Northern Leadership academy 2007, p.7).
Applying the 7s framework
According to this framework, business managers are supposed to consider all the seven factors for them to be assured of success in implementing any strategy. The seven factors are interdependent, and therefore, in case one fails to pay appropriate attention to any of them, this leads to failure of the whole strategy implementation process. However, the relative significance of each of these seven factors varies with time, and a manager is not in a position of telling how that change takes place. This framework is very important in checking whether all the bases have been covered.
The diagram below shows the 7s framework:
The seven factors include strategy, structure, systems, style, staff, superordinate goals, and skills. Strategy refers to that set of actions that one begins with and has to maintain. Structure refers to how the organization of tasks as well as people is carried out. The systems refer to the information flows as well as all processes which hold together the organization. Style refers to the way managers conduct themselves. Staff refers to how one develops the present as well as future managers. Moreover, superordinate goals refer to “longer-term vision, and all that values stuff, which shapes the destiny of the organization” (Famous Models: 7sFramework 1999). Last but not least, skills are dominant capabilities which are found within the organization
To understand the link between culture and innovation in an organization, a case study of ABC Consulting PTY Ltd is considered. The ABC Consulting Company has more than two hundred employees across Australia, and its headquarters are in Sidney. The company has regional divisions that are also subdivided into states. At the state level, the structuring of the company is carried out in line with functional departments based on support functions as well as technical functions that are divided further into various departments (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002).
The ABC Consulting Company is found to be a company that focuses on setting up innovative and “value-added service for their clientele, resulting from a culture which stems from entrepreneurial people continuously enhancing their professional capabilities” (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002, p.6). The focus is put on the promotion of individual as well as team innovative effort and also employee volunteerism (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002).
The work activities in this company are found to be organized around the teams instead of being organized around individuals. The teams are formed basing on the knowledge as well as experience that surround a wide and diverse range of the operation, which are needed in completing the tasks to the satisfaction of the customers. The diversity that the involved team members have as well as their experience and skills were found to play a very important role in enhancing the team members’ capability to engage in applying resources successfully on the “project team basis” required in designing and building the complex facilities efficiently and effectively (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002).
It has also been found out that team orientation in ABC Consulting plays a major role in enhancing productivity as well as work satisfaction regarding fulfilling the “needs of ‘affiliation’ and ‘humanistic encouraging’ amongst organizational members which are representative of a constructive culture” (Cooke & Lafferty 1986, p.14). Moreover, it has also been established that the meetings, as well as discussions that are held constantly among the team members and other members in the organization, have promoted innovation and creativity not just at the group level, but at the individual level as well. Although there is the centring of work around the teams, there is also taking into consideration of the “individual expression of interest” (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002, p.7).
Basing on the analysis of the existing literation of culture and innovation in organizations, it can be pointed out that the ABC Consulting Company’s culture promotes innovation. As a result, there can be establishing a link between the culture of the organization and innovation. It is realized that ABC Consulting’s human assets serve as a source of the competitive advantage they have and thus, there exists strategic awareness of the need to preserve the human assets and to greatly be committed to preserving these assets. The ABC Consulting Company is found to be “high on the outcome, team, and people-orientation and was also aggressive in nature when competing with external actors in the environment” (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002, p.9).
As on the one hand some kind of “clan mechanism” is found to be common in ABC Consulting, on the other hand, the company tends not to be strong on the rewards as well as incentives symbolic representations. The company has also been found to be low regarding tolerating risk as well as experimentation. However, “there is a high acceptance of ambiguity, prevalent within the environment” (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002, p.9). There is counteracting of this by the positive and powerful inter-relationship networks with the internal as well as external players. However, this company has been in a position to set up an interaction between the organization’s environmental and cultural factors, which guide positive, aggressive conduct towards competition, while guiding the members of the organization towards the creation of a supportive as well as the cooperative environment in work to carry out operations.
There has been observing a high encouragement level for the group as well as individual creativity and innovation. This, together with the great commitment to developing human resources, makes it possible to generate ideas constantly. The ABC Consulting Company’s job security levels, as well as people orientation, are found to promote a great loyalty sense towards the organization and “motivation and support for the organization activities” (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002, p.9). Therefore, there was perceiving of the drive for the innovative effort in this company. The company has engaged in maintaining its status for “offering value, innovation and service excellence through its organization culture i.e. shared values, beliefs and norms” (Edwards, Kumar & Ranjan, 2002, p.9). In conclusion, innovation, as well as innovation linked norms, must be a component of the organization’s functioning. Over time, these norms turn out to be entrenched in the organization’s culture, which turns out to drive innovation itself.
Culture in any organization plays a decisive role in how businesses have opted to carry out their activities. As a management model, corporate culture is among the different mechanisms that could be utilized by the corporation management in growing vibrant groups. The management of an organization, however, instigates the creation of cultural practices that demand the enforcement of the devotees’ prospects and suppositions. A suitable culture that enhances innovation and change can just be instituted through constancy in distributing comprehensible signs on organization viewpoints, ethics, and precedence. There are recommended actions and strategies that are primarily embedded in mechanisms that could be used by organizational leaders to create a suitable culture that promotes innovation (Ulijn and Weggeman, 2001). The recommendations include;
The management practices and appraisals that should be considered regularly
Proper organizational culture can be created when corporate organizers and management accurately communicate precedence, viewpoints, and ideals that should be given awareness as it has been indicated in the ABC Consulting case study. Anything that corporate management appraises in the end and underlines might have a considerable upshot on corporate culture. This is the most powerful tool that can be used to communicate messages when managers are steady in their behaviours. The intensity of management constancy propels corporate ideas, morals, and priorities to every sector and the corporation will just display such standards. Both unconstructive and constructive indicators should be exploited to draw the employees’ awareness of what the corporation and its management feel is essential (Ulijn and Weggeman, 2001).
Company management should constantly inspire and sanction employees as well as attend to principled and decent actions. Having an organization’s code of conduct is hardly enough. Leaders must monitor operating procedures and policies besides giving very strong signals that would enhance the creation of appropriate culture. The management of a company can also build a suitable culture by offering incentives for devotion and penalties for any non-cooperation. For principled actions, the management strategies must reproduce the behavioural models, ideals, attitudes, and positions of corporate working culture, in the course of imitating what the corporate management views, a suitable culture built on good and principled conduct might be implemented in a corporation culture (Ulijn & Weggeman, 2001).
The executive response to predicament and significant occurrences
When calamities occur within an organization, everybody knows about it. Most important is the organization management reactions. The way organizations react to calamities presents general organizational culture. Deeper cultural values of people are exposed during crises, and such exposures increase the prospective of either changing or reinforcing the existing culture. When a calamity occurs, the organization executive should influence those cultures that enhance moral behaviour and appropriate values. Hence, crises within the organization should be taken as an example of compliance with the moral values of the organization (Ulijn & Weggeman, 2001).
Assigning status, recompense, and resources
The organizations normally assign resources depending on the values and postulation of the company’s top leadership. Organizations find it essential to allocate their resources fairly as this brings about improved efficiencies, create satisfaction in clients and employees, and most importantly, improves the organization’s value. To create an appropriate organizational culture, therefore, the beliefs of the management must be financially supported strongly. Areas in the organization with an indication of improvement and that provide the company with increased profits should be prioritized when resources are being allocated. Equitable resource allocation steers the performance of an organization to higher potential areas.
Organizational culture is equally affected by ethical and moral behaviours. The organization executive should point out actions that are penalized and those that are worthwhile. To enhance appropriate organizational culture, leaders need to evaluate the employees’ effectiveness by using performance appraisal systems. Employees’ resourceful applying of existing skills or generating new technological know-how should be motivated through increased wages, endorsement for higher ranks, or commendation. When an organization unconstructively reacts to innovatively new ideas through ridiculing the involved parties, others will have strong feelings that new ideas are not desirable. Finally, firms are capable of generating appropriate values through proper orientation and training as well as through purposeful role modelling. This can be realized through excommunicating, promoting, and recruiting qualified personnel (Ulijn & Weggeman, 2001).
Bessant, J 2003, High involvement innovation, John Wiley, Chichester.
Bessant, J, Birkinshaw, J &Delbridge, R 2004, ‘Theories of Creation’, People Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 28-31
Claver, E, Llopis, D G & Molina, H 1998, ‘Organizational culture for innovation and new technological behavior’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Cooke, R, A &Lafferty, C 1986, Human synergistics , Plymouth Press, Plymouth.
Dasanayaka, S W 2006, Implications of organizational culture on innovation: An explanatory micro study of Sri Lankan gift and decorative-ware sector firms, Web.
Edwards, R, Kumar, P & Ranjan R 2002, Understanding organization culture and innovation: A case study approach, Web.
Famous Models: 7s Framework 1999, Web.
Jeffrey, B, Liker, K & Hoseus, M 2008, ‘Toyota culture: the heart and soul of the Toyota way’, The DNA of Toyota Lies in Its Culture, pp. 3-33.
Johnson, G n.d, Mapping and re-mapping organizational culture: a local government example, Web.
Leifer, R, O’Connor, G & Rice, M 2001, ‘Implementing radical innovation in mature firms: the role of hubs’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 102-113.
McDermott, C & Handfield R 2000, ‘Concurrent development and strategic outsourcing: do the rules change in breakthrough innovation?’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 35-57.
McDermott, C & Handfield, R 1996, ‘Does the parallel approach make sense in the development of discontinuous innovations?’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Technology Management IEEE, pp. 370-374.
McFadzean, E 2000, ‘Techniques to enhance creative thinking’, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3/4, pp. 62-72.
Melitski, J, Gavin, D & Gavin, J 2010, ‘Technology adoption and organizational culture in public organizations’, International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, vol.13 no.4, pp.546-568.
Mohanty, J & Rath, B 2012, ‘Influence of organizational culture on organizational citizenship behavior’, Global Journal of Business Research, vol.6 no.1, pp.65-76.
Moran, R, Harris, P & Moran, S 2010, Managing cultural differences: global leadership strategies for cross-cultural business success, Routledge, New York.
O’Connor, G & Veryzer, R 2001, ‘The nature of market visioning for technology-based radical innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18, No.4, pp. 231-246.
Northern Leadership academy 2007, How does leadership make difference to organizational culture and effectiveness, Web.
Peters, T & Waterman, R 1982, In search of excellence: lessons from america’s best run companies, Harper and Row, New York.
Pettigrew, A 1979, ‘On studying organizational cultures,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.24, no.4, pp.570.
Rice, M, O’Connor, G, Peters, L & Morone, J 1998, ‘Managing discontinuous innovation’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 52-58.
Scheffknecht, S 2011, ‘Multinational enterprise-organizational culture vs. national culture’, International Journal of Management Cases, vol.13 no. 4, pp.73-78.
Sims, R 2009, ‘Toward a better understanding of organizational efforts to rebuild reputation following and ethical scandal’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.90 no.4, pp.453-472.
Tidd, J. & Bessant, J 2009, ‘Developing an organizational culture that facilitates radical innovation and in a mature small to medium size company: Emergent findings’, Working Paper Series, pp.1.
Ulijn, J & Weggeman, M 2001, ‘Towards an innovation culture: What are its national, corporate, marketing and engineering aspects, some experimental evidence’, in Cooper et al, The International Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Wiley, Chichester.
Veryzer, R 1998, ‘Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 304-321.
Von Stamm, B 2003, Managing innovation, design and creativity, John Wiley, Chichester.
Wheatley, M & Rogers M 1998, ‘What do we measure and why? Questions about the use of measurement’, The New England Nonprofit Quarterly, vol. 1, no.1, pp1.10.
Diagram ‘A’ shows that an innovative organization needs to have three levels namely individual, departmental, and organizational levels. While all levels are apparently independent, any cultural at a particular level can unavoidably influence cultural changes at other levels.
Cultural change interventions plan
The table below shows the cultural attributes that when well nurtured or changed could foster organizational innovation and workforce creativity.
|Dimensions for change||Details|
|Development and training||Organizations should train and develop their employees|
|Communications||Enhancing both the horizontal and vertical channel communication across the entire corporation|
|Climate that supports innovation and creativity||Introducing adhocracy and clan cultures that are climatic elements that can support organizational innovation and creativity|
|Motivating individuals and groups||Establishing extrinsic and intrinsic motivational schemes|
|Cultural change leaders and pioneers||Organizations need to conduct team building and leadership training in order to select innovation pioneers and change leaders|
|Developing organizations through values||Adopting and communicating sets of supportive ethical codes and values|
|Structuring organizational changes||To be innovative, organizations must develop team work and flexible structures across all functions. That is, organizations need to implement flattened structures|