Creativity and Change Management

Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and

organizations from a current state to a desired future state. One of the most crucial
elements in driving successful change is creativity, as new ideas, methods, and
innovations are often required to navigate and manage transitions effectively. The
psychology of creativity offers valuable insights into how novel ideas emerge within
organizations, providing a foundation for enhancing creative performance in the
context of change management.

The Starting Point: Innovation and Creativity

Innovation begins with an idea, which may stem from either individual insight or
collaborative efforts within a team. In the realm of change management, this can
mean recognizing new ways to address existing problems or applying tried-and-tested
strategies to new contexts.

Example: When an organization faces resistance to adopting new technology, creative

solutions such as gamification in training or peer-to-peer support networks can help
facilitate the transition.

Psychology of Creativity in Organizations

Understanding how creativity works is essential for change management, as

innovation often involves breaking free from existing frameworks and norms. By
focusing on the psychology behind creativity, managers can better foster
environments where new ideas thrive.

Creativity can emerge through:

o Individuals working alone (e.g., a solitary R&D scientist discovering

a breakthrough).
o Collaborative efforts (e.g., cross-departmental teams brainstorming
solutions during a company restructuring).

For example, when an organization undergoes a merger, individual employees may

suggest small but significant changes in workflow that improve efficiency, while
teams may work together to design new systems that integrate the merged entities.

Enhancing Creativity in Change Management

There are numerous resources available for organizations looking to enhance

creativity, including training programs, idea elicitation tools, and selection
instruments. However, assessing the effectiveness of these tools is crucial, as they
often lack proper evaluation.

Practical Approach: Incorporating creativity training into change management

strategies can help employees think outside the box when facing new challenges.
Using tools like brainstorming sessions, design thinking workshops, and lateral
thinking exercises can encourage creative problem-solving.
Defining Creativity

Creativity is often categorized into three distinct areas:

The Creative Person: Focuses on individual abilities, personality traits, or

achievements that make a person creative. This approach is relevant in change
management when identifying employees or leaders who naturally exhibit creativity
and can lead the change initiative.

Example: An innovative project manager may be tasked with leading a change

management initiative due to their proven ability to come up with unique solutions.

The Creative Process: Involves the mental steps and activities that result in creative
outcomes, which may include recognizing problems, generating hypotheses, testing
solutions, and communicating results.

Example: During a digital transformation, the creative process might involve

analyzing the gaps in current technology, hypothesizing new workflows, testing
software, and communicating results to stakeholders.

The Creative Product: Refers to the tangible output that is novel and appropriate for
the situation. In the context of change management, this could be a new strategy,
workflow, or product design that successfully addresses the challenges faced by the
organization.

Example: A creative product might be a new remote work policy developed in

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, offering both flexibility and productivity for
employees.

Mental Processes in Creativity

Creativity is often seen as a mental process leading to solutions or ideas that are both
unique and novel. In change management, this mental process is critical for devising
strategies that can solve complex problems arising from transitions.

Torrance (1988) outlines creativity as involving several steps, such as:

 Sensing problems or gaps.

 Formulating hypotheses.
 Testing and revising ideas.
 Communicating solutions.

This structured approach aligns closely with the problem-solving nature of change
management, where identifying gaps and testing solutions is essential for overcoming
resistance to change.
The Creative Product: Novelty and Appropriateness

For something to be considered creative, it must be novel—meaning it differs

significantly from existing solutions—and appropriate to the context. In change
management, the creative product must offer a practical solution that fits the
organization's needs.

Novelty: It is essential that the proposed change differs from past methods to truly
qualify as innovative. However, the degree of novelty may vary, with some changes
being entirely unique to the organization and others being novel to the individual or
team.

Example: When implementing a new software system, the creative product could be a
new integration process that has never been used in the company before but may be
common elsewhere.

Appropriateness: The creative solution must also be suitable for the problem at
hand. In change management, a creative idea must not only be innovative but also
feasible and relevant to the situation.

Example: Designing a car with square wheels might be novel but not appropriate for
solving the problem of transportation efficiency. Similarly, in change management,
the creative solution must improve performance or address a critical issue.

Evaluating Creativity in Change Management

In evaluating creativity during change initiatives, organizations can assess:

Effectiveness: Does the creative idea solve the problem?

Impact: How well does the creative solution fit within the organization’s overall
strategy?

Reception: Do employees and stakeholders recognize the value of the creative

solution?

Example: In a restructuring, if a new communication platform is introduced to bridge

gaps between departments, its success can be evaluated by tracking communication
flow and employee feedback on its ease of use.

Measuring Creativity in Change Management

Creativity is a key driver of innovation and adaptability, especially during

organizational change. Understanding how creativity is measured helps managers
identify creative potential and improve decision-making processes. Various
approaches to measuring creativity exist, broadly categorized into person-based,
process-based, and product-based methods. Each approach offers unique insights into
how creativity manifests in individuals and teams.

Person-Based Measures of Creativity

Person-based measures focus on the characteristics of individuals that influence

creative thinking and behavior. These measures are divided into three main types:
personality inventories, biographical inventories, and creative ability tests.

1. Personality Inventories

Personality inventories aim to identify traits commonly associated with creative

individuals. These traits often include originality, confidence, and resourcefulness, as
measured by self-reports or expert evaluations. For instance, the Creative
Personality Scale developed by Gough (1979) includes adjectives like clever and
informal that are positively correlated with creativity, and traits such as cautious or
conventional that are negatively associated.

The challenge with personality inventories is that creativity is often viewed as a

normally distributed trait. This makes it difficult to differentiate between levels of
creativity in those who do not exhibit exceptional creative ability. Additionally,
studies have shown mixed results regarding the generalizability of personality
measures across different populations, raising questions about their utility for broader
applications.

2. Biographical Inventories

Biographical inventories focus on the life events and experiences that shape a
person’s creative development. These inventories assess factors like family
background, education, hobbies, and personal relationships, under the assumption that
these life experiences contribute to one’s creative potential. The biographical
approach recognizes that creativity is not solely an inherent trait but is also influenced
by external factors throughout a person's life.

One limitation of biographical inventories is that they often rely on assumptions about
which life experiences foster creativity. Without systematic research linking specific
biographical factors to creative outcomes, there is a risk of oversimplifying the
relationship between life history and creativity.

3. Tests of Creative Ability

Creative ability tests are some of the most widely recognized tools for measuring
creativity, and they share similarities with intelligence tests. These tests often assess
divergent thinking, or the ability to generate multiple, diverse solutions to a problem.
One well-known test of divergent thinking is Torrance’s Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT), which evaluate creativity through dimensions such as fluency, flexibility,
originality, and elaboration.

While these tests provide a structured way to assess creativity, they have been
critiqued for several reasons. First, they often measure cognitive skills linked to
creativity, rather than creativity itself. For example, a person who scores highly in
divergent thinking may not necessarily be creative in practice. Additionally, these
tests may lack predictive validity in terms of real-world creative achievement. The
influence of motivational factors, domain-specific expertise, and the test environment
can also impact performance, further complicating the interpretation of results.

Process-Based Measures of Creativity

Process-based measures focus on the cognitive and psychological stages involved in

creativity, viewing it as a multi-stage process that includes problem recognition, idea
generation, evaluation, and refinement. A key concept is the distinction between
divergent and convergent thinking. Divergent thinking involves generating multiple
solutions to a problem, fostering creativity, while convergent thinking focuses on
narrowing down these ideas to select the most effective one. Successful creativity
requires fluid movement between these two modes of thinking, particularly when
addressing complex challenges.

Process-based evaluations emphasize cognitive flexibility, problem sensitivity, and

the ability to redefine problems, all of which are critical for innovation. However,
capturing the dynamic and non-linear nature of creativity is challenging. The creative
process often involves iterative cycles of idea generation and refinement, which are
difficult to measure directly. One rare attempt to assess creativity this way is Ghiselin
et al.'s (1964) Creative Process Checklist, which sought to understand how scientists
experienced insight. While this checklist provides valuable insights, it relies on self-
reported experiences, assuming that individuals can accurately describe their mental
processes. Many researchers argue that creativity involves subconscious thought,
making it difficult to fully capture through such verbal descriptions.

Product-Based Measures of Creativity

Product-based measures assess the tangible outcomes of creative efforts, focusing on

the novelty and appropriateness of the product. Novelty refers to the originality or
uniqueness of the product, while appropriateness assesses its relevance and
effectiveness in solving a given problem. This method is commonly used in fields
such as design, engineering, and the arts, where the end product can be clearly
evaluated. By focusing on the product itself, it avoids the subjective biases tied to
personal traits.

One notable example of this approach is Simonton’s (1980) method of quantifying the
originality of musical compositions based on note combinations. While product-based
measures provide concrete evidence of creativity, they can still be influenced by
evaluator subjectivity. What one expert sees as a novel and fitting solution may not be
viewed the same by another, often due to cultural and personal differences.
Additionally, a product’s success can depend on factors like timing and market
conditions, which may not directly relate to creativity itself.

Despite these limitations, product-based measures can provide a more structured

approach. However, focusing solely on the final product risks ignoring the creative
process that led to its creation. For instance, someone photocopying King Lear would
be judged as creative as Shakespeare if only the product was evaluated. Theresa
Amabile (1983) supports product-based assessment but emphasizes that creativity
must involve problem definition. She argues against striving for purely objective
criteria and advocates for a consensual assessment method, where experts in the
relevant field subjectively judge creativity, taking into account the creator's role in
defining and solving the problem. According to Amabile, subjective judgment is
inevitable, as creativity is deeply tied to cultural and historical contexts.

Strategies for Creativity Enhancement in Change Management

Organizations looking to enhance the creative output of their members during change
management can implement several effective strategies. These strategies not only
foster innovation but also support adaptability, which is crucial when navigating
transitions. Here’s an in-depth exploration of four strategies:

Introducing Procedures for New Idea Generation

To stimulate creative thinking, organizations can establish structured procedures that

encourage idea generation. One well-known method is brainstorming, introduced by
Alex Osborn in 1953. This technique helps teams bypass barriers that inhibit
creativity, such as fear of criticism.

In the context of change management, brainstorming can be used to address specific

challenges. For example, a company undergoing digital transformation might hold
brainstorming sessions to gather employee input on how to improve user experience
with new software. This participatory approach helps employees feel valued and
promotes a sense of ownership over the changes being implemented. By encouraging
free-flowing ideas, organizations can generate a variety of potential solutions,
increasing the likelihood of identifying innovative approaches to facilitate change.

Training People for Creative Performance

Training initiatives focused on enhancing creative skills can significantly improve an

organization’s ability to innovate. Workshops that teach techniques for creative
problem-solving, such as lateral thinking, empower employees to think more
creatively.

Organizations can implement targeted training programs during major changes, such
as mergers or restructurings. For instance, a company that is merging with another
might conduct creativity workshops to help employees develop new strategies for
collaboration and integration of processes. Equipping employees with creative skills
not only enhances their problem-solving capabilities but also prepares them to handle
the uncertainties and complexities associated with change.

Recruiting Creative Individuals

Identifying and recruiting individuals who demonstrate strong creative abilities is

essential for enhancing an organization's innovative capacity. In periods of significant
change, organizations can leverage psychometric assessments and interviews to select
candidates with high creative potential for critical roles.

For example, during a company’s transition to a more agile structure, recruiting

individuals who excel in creative thinking for leadership positions can drive
innovative approaches to team dynamics and project management. By strategically
placing creative individuals in pivotal roles, organizations can foster a culture of
innovation that thrives during change initiatives.

Altering Organizational Characteristics

Organizations can modify their structural and cultural characteristics to promote

creativity, creating an environment where innovation is encouraged and supported.
For instance, shifting from a traditional hierarchical structure to a more decentralized
model can empower employees and facilitate creative thinking.

Such changes can lead to a more dynamic organizational culture that supports
experimentation and collaboration, which are essential for successfully navigating
change. A company aiming to innovate its product offerings may adopt a flat
structure, allowing teams to experiment with new ideas without excessive oversight.

Idea Elicitation Techniques in Change Management

Idea elicitation techniques help individuals and teams generate effective ideas in
specific contexts, especially useful during change management as they provide
structured approaches for creative thinking.

Brainstorming in Change Management

Brainstorming aims to generate a wealth of ideas without immediate evaluation,

thereby encouraging free expression among team members. This technique can be
particularly valuable during change management efforts.

The principles of brainstorming include deferring judgment, welcoming freewheeling,

seeking quantity, and encouraging combination and improvement. For instance, a
team working on improving internal communication during a merger might use
brainstorming sessions to identify innovative methods, such as developing a new
intranet platform or establishing cross-departmental newsletters. This approach can
lead to a rich pool of ideas essential for devising effective change strategies, fostering
an environment where employees feel safe to express their thoughts.

Evaluating Ideas After Brainstorming

Once brainstorming sessions have concluded, it is essential to evaluate the ideas

generated to identify the most feasible and impactful solutions. Organizations can
form a smaller group to assess these ideas based on established criteria, such as cost,
feasibility, and implementation timeline.
For example, after generating a list of ideas for enhancing employee training during a
system upgrade, a dedicated evaluation team can rank these ideas based on their
potential impact and practicality. This systematic evaluation ensures that the best
ideas are selected for implementation, aligning with the organization’s strategic
objectives.

Testing Brainstorming in Organizational Change

Research has extensively tested brainstorming's effectiveness in fostering creativity.

Understanding these findings can help organizations refine their approach to idea
generation in the realm of change management.

Deferring Judgment and Its Effects

Studies indicate that deferring judgment enhances productivity during idea generation.
Keeping idea production and evaluation separate is crucial for maintaining a creative
flow. Organizations can emphasize the importance of separating these phases during
brainstorming sessions, explicitly stating that the focus during initial sessions is
purely on idea generation, with evaluation reserved for later meetings. This clarity can
create a more conducive environment for generating innovative ideas, ultimately
leading to more successful change initiatives.

Group vs. Individual Brainstorming

Numerous studies show that individual brainstorming often yields more ideas than
group brainstorming due to factors such as production blocking, where individuals
cannot express their thoughts due to group dynamics. To overcome this, organizations
might consider using a hybrid approach, such as the I-G-I (Individual-Group-
Individual) model, which includes individual idea generation before group
discussions. In a restructuring scenario, employees could first develop their ideas
independently, which are then compiled and discussed as a group, eliminating
redundancies. This method can lead to higher idea quality and quantity, addressing the
challenges posed by traditional group brainstorming methods.

Overcoming Brainstorming Challenges in Change Management

1. Free-Riding

In group settings, some members may contribute less due to the perception that their
input will not be recognized individually, leading to reduced overall productivity.
Organizations can implement measures to ensure accountability and encourage active
participation. For example, using anonymous suggestion platforms where team
members can submit ideas without attribution ensures that everyone feels comfortable
contributing. By promoting active involvement, organizations can enhance the
effectiveness of brainstorming sessions and improve idea generation.

2. Evaluation Apprehension

Despite attempts to create a non-judgmental environment, individuals may still

hesitate to share unconventional ideas due to fear of criticism. Reinforcing the
importance of a supportive atmosphere and providing mechanisms for anonymous
feedback can alleviate concerns. During brainstorming, facilitators can remind
participants that all ideas are welcome, emphasizing the value of diverse perspectives.
Creating a culture of psychological safety encourages individuals to share bold ideas,
which is crucial for successful change initiatives.

3. Production Blocking

When only one person speaks at a time, others may forget their ideas or hesitate to
share, reducing productivity. Implementing electronic brainstorming tools or
collaborative platforms that allow simultaneous idea entry can mitigate this issue.
Utilizing online brainstorming software where team members can contribute ideas in
real time, visible to all participants, minimizes production blocking and enhances
overall idea generation during brainstorming sessions.

The Role of Heterogeneity in Change Management Brainstorming

Research suggests that diverse groups tend to generate more innovative solutions
compared to homogeneous groups, which is particularly relevant in change
management contexts where varied perspectives can lead to richer discussions and
ideas. Organizations can deliberately assemble diverse teams for brainstorming
sessions to leverage a wide range of experiences and viewpoints. For instance, in a
global corporation undergoing a market entry strategy change, forming teams with
members from different regions and departments can produce more comprehensive
and adaptable strategies. This approach enhances the organization’s ability to
innovate, as varied insights lead to more robust solutions to complex challenges.

Synectics and Other Idea Generation Techniques

Synectics: Understanding the Concept

Synectics, derived from Greek meaning the joining of seemingly unrelated elements,
is a creative problem-solving technique developed by William Gordon in the late
1940s and 1950s. Gordon’s observations of problem-solving groups revealed that
creative solutions often emerged from drawing analogies between disparate contexts.
Notably, he studied the experiences of eminent creators, recognizing that analogy
plays a crucial role in innovative thought. A famous example is chemist August
Kekulé, whose vision of snakes biting their own tails led to the discovery of the ring
structure of benzene.

At its core, synectics emphasizes "making the strange familiar" and "making the
familiar strange." This dual approach involves connecting unfamiliar problems to
personal experiences and skills to understand the task better. However, simply
familiarizing oneself with the problem isn’t enough; it’s essential to view it from
various perspectives, even bizarre ones, to unearth genuinely novel solutions.
In synectics sessions, leaders encourage participants to employ analogies and
metaphors to explore underlying concepts of problems, prompting fresh viewpoints.
Examples from real synectics groups include:

 The Indian Rope Trick for developing a hydraulic jack.

 A machine gun belt for creating soluble tape to ensure even seed spacing.
 The properties of wet leaves for solving packaging issues for Pringle’s crisps.

While synectics is more complex than traditional brainstorming, its structured

approach can yield significant creative solutions.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Synectics

Numerous organizations across various sectors, including manufacturing and public

services, have reported positive outcomes from employing synectics groups. For
example, the Remington Arms Company utilized synectics in the 1960s to solve
problems such as securely holding gun stocks on conveyor belts, drawing an analogy
with how earthworms grip their holes.

While anecdotal evidence supports the effectiveness of synectics, it is essential to

question the representativeness of such testimonials. Failed synectics efforts may not
be reported due to the significant time and financial investment involved. Compared
to brainstorming, there have been fewer experimental studies on synectics, making it
harder to evaluate its overall efficacy systematically. However, some research, like
Bouchard's (1972) study on personal analogies in brainstorming, suggests that
enhancing traditional techniques with elements of synectics can improve creative
outcomes.

Other Idea Generation Techniques

In addition to brainstorming and synectics, several other straightforward techniques

can effectively elicit creative ideas:

1. Checklists

Checklists are simple yet powerful tools for idea generation. They prompt individuals
to consider various aspects of a problem and potential solutions. For example,
Osborn’s checklist includes questions that encourage manipulation of problem
elements, such as:

 Put to other uses?

 Adapt?
 Modify?
 Magnify?
 Minify?
 Substitute?
 Rearrange?
 Reverse?
 Combine?
These questions can stimulate diverse ideas. For instance, if a manufacturing firm
aims to enhance communication with suppliers, the question "substitute?" might
suggest using email instead of traditional methods.

2. Mind Mapping

Mind mapping involves visually organizing information around a central concept. By

branching out ideas and making connections, individuals can explore different facets
of a problem. This technique is particularly useful in identifying relationships between
concepts and generating comprehensive solutions.

3. Role Storming

In role storming, participants adopt different personas or roles while brainstorming.

This technique encourages thinking from various perspectives, allowing individuals to
explore ideas they might not consider in their own roles. For example, a team could
brainstorm product development ideas while role-playing as customers, competitors,
or even critics.

Idea Generation Techniques: Attribute Listing and Forced Relationships

Attribute Listing

Attribute listing is a focused method for idea generation where problem-solvers

systematically identify the attributes of elements within a problem situation. By listing
these attributes, individuals can explore various modifications and potential
applications, fostering innovative solutions. The key aspect of this technique is to
defer judgment during the idea generation stage, similar to brainstorming.

For instance, consider the example of finding new uses for a paperclip. The attributes
of a paperclip include its material (metal), shape (thin), flexibility (can be bent), and
functionality (sharp ends). By examining these attributes, one might brainstorm new
applications. Focusing on the attribute of "sharpness," for example, could lead to the
design of a paperclip that also serves as a letter opener. This technique encourages
lateral thinking and can generate a range of creative ideas.

Forced Relationships

The forced relationships technique involves linking normally unrelated ideas or

objects to generate new concepts. Participants are encouraged to create connections
without initial criticism, which allows for free-flowing ideas. For example, combining
the concepts of "bed" and "book" might inspire innovations such as a bed that folds
open like a book, a book holder for reading in bed, or a headboard with built-in
storage for books.

This technique promotes creativity by challenging conventional associations and

encourages participants to think outside the box, facilitating the discovery of novel
solutions.

Creativity Training: Enhancing Creative Performance

Beyond specific idea generation techniques, creativity training aims to equip
organizational members with skills that enhance creative performance in various
contexts. While many creativity training programs include techniques like
brainstorming, the goal is broader: to cultivate a mindset that fosters creativity in
everyday work.

The Parnes Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) Program

One of the most well-known creativity training programs is the Creative Problem-
Solving (CPS) program developed by Sidney Parnes. Rooted in Osborn’s
foundational ideas, the CPS program encompasses a wide range of techniques beyond
brainstorming. Initially described in Parnes' 1967 publications, the CPS framework
has influenced many contemporary creativity training initiatives.

Parnes outlines a five-stage process in creative problem-solving:

1. Factfinding: Gather relevant information about the problem.

2. Problemfinding: Clarify and restate messy problems to encourage idea
generation.
3. Idea finding: Generate a diverse range of potential solutions.
4. Solution finding: Establish criteria for evaluating the generated ideas.
5. Acceptance finding: Present the chosen solution persuasively while
anticipating resistance.

Participants in the CPS program learn various techniques applicable at each stage,
including brainstorming principles, checklists, and forced relationships. The program
typically spans sixteen sessions over three days, ideally facilitated by an instructor for
optimal effectiveness.

Evaluating Creativity Training Programs

Research indicates that participation in creativity training programs like CPS can lead
to improved creativity scores on standardized tests. However, many evaluations focus
predominantly on brainstorming aspects, raising questions about the generalizability
of results to real-world situations. Critics, including Morris Stein and later reviewers
like Boris Kabanoff and John Rossiter, have highlighted the need for comprehensive
assessments of long-term effectiveness in organizational contexts.

A notable alternative is the creativity training program developed by Min Basadur,

which operates on a three-stage model: problem finding, problem solving, and
solution implementation. Basadur’s approach emphasizes both ideation and
evaluation, recognizing the tendency for individuals, especially in technical fields, to
favor evaluation over creative thinking.

In Basadur's studies, engineers participated in a two-day intensive training program.

The results showed that the training led to cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral
changes that persisted into job performance, at least in the short term. Subsequent
studies indicated that while attitudinal changes were evident shortly after training,
they began to diminish over time.
Selecting for Creativity

Organizations aiming to enhance creativity can adopt various strategies, including

improving the performance of current staff and selecting new members based on their
creative abilities. This section explores the different approaches to selecting for
creativity, focusing on personality measures, creative thinking assessments, and
evaluations of candidates’ creative outputs.

Personality and Biographical Measures

Personality Tests

One of the most common methods for assessing creativity during the selection process
is the use of personality tests. These can include conventional trait measures,
biographical inventories, and attitude and interest inventories, typically administered
as paper-and-pencil assessments. Well-known personality assessments, such as
Cattell’s 16PF and the Occupational Personality Questionnaire, are often employed to
gauge creativity-related traits.

The appeal of these instruments lies in their widespread availability and familiarity to
personnel managers. Moreover, the stability of personality traits over time allows
them to serve as indicators of long-term creative potential and insights into
candidates' past creative performances.

However, the use of personality measures is not without challenges. A significant

issue is the potential for candidates to "fake" responses to present themselves as more
creative than they may be. This is particularly problematic in selection contexts, as
self-reported creativity can be transparent in its intent, making it easier for candidates
to manipulate their answers to align with perceived expectations.

For example, items designed to assess creativity on personality measures might

include prompts like "I often come up with original ideas" or "I enjoy taking risks in
my work." Candidates applying for roles where creativity is emphasized may be
inclined to respond in a way that casts them in a positive light, regardless of their true
creative abilities.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personality Measures

While personality assessments can provide valuable insights into a candidate's

potential for creativity, their limitations must be acknowledged. The risk of faking
responses can undermine the reliability of the results. Additionally, the correlation
between personality traits and actual creative performance may not always be strong,
as creativity is influenced by various factors beyond personality alone.

Organizations should consider supplementing personality assessments with additional

evaluation methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a candidate's
creative capabilities.

Alternative Approaches to Assessing Creativity

 Creative Thinking Skills Tests: These tests directly assess candidates'
creative thinking abilities through standardized measures that evaluate
divergent thinking, problem-solving, and idea generation. Examples include
the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and the Remote Associates
Test (RAT). While these tests can provide objective data on creative potential,
they may not fully capture the nuances of creativity as it manifests in real-
world situations.

Quality of Creative Products: Assessing the quality of candidates' previous

creative outputs—such as portfolios of work, projects, or innovations—can
provide insights into their practical creativity. This approach allows
organizations to evaluate not only the originality of the ideas presented but
also their applicability and effectiveness in a given context.

Selecting for Creativity: Key Considerations

When organizations aim to enhance creativity through selection and assessment, they
face a series of challenges related to the myriad traits associated with creativity. It's
essential for organizations to articulate what they mean by creativity and ensure that
their selection tools align with this understanding.

The Trait Approach

One significant issue with a trait-based approach to selecting creative individuals is

the vast array of traits that can be linked to creativity. For instance, traits like
openness to experience, risk-taking, and resilience have been associated with creative
thinking. However, the relevance of specific traits can differ markedly across various
fields; for example, a successful creative engineer may possess technical problem-
solving skills and analytical thinking, while a creative advertising copywriter may
excel in storytelling and emotional intelligence.

To enhance predictive validity, organizations should consider using a combination of

trait measures alongside other selection methods. For example, a tech company might
assess candidates for both their openness to new experiences (a trait associated with
creativity) and their ability to collaborate effectively in team settings. This
combination would help ensure that they identify individuals who can innovate while
also fitting into a collaborative work environment.

Biographical Inventories

Biographical inventories, also known as biodata inventories, offer several advantages

over traditional trait measures. These inventories often focus on domain-specific
predictors of creativity, tailored for fields such as scientific research, design, or the
arts. For instance, Schaeffer’s (1970) "Biographical Inventory: Creativity" includes a
broad range of life experiences and accomplishments, such as educational background
and notable achievements. This diversity makes them less transparent and, therefore,
less susceptible to manipulation compared to conventional trait assessments.

However, biographical inventories have their limitations, especially for school-leavers

and recent graduates who may lack extensive work histories. For example, a recent
graduate might have limited data to provide in a biodata inventory focused on past
work experiences. Furthermore, most inventories have been developed and validated
primarily in the U.S., raising questions about their applicability in different cultural
contexts. There’s a pressing need for research to identify biographical predictors of
creativity relevant to diverse settings.

The Role of Motivation

Research has consistently shown that motivational qualities play a crucial role in
distinguishing creative individuals from their less creative counterparts. Traits such as
a strong work ethic, a preference for self-direction, a desire for originality, and
flexibility in problem-solving are significant indicators of creative potential. Theresa
Amabile’s (1983) work suggests that intrinsic motivation—deriving satisfaction from
the task itself—promotes greater creativity compared to extrinsic motivation, which
focuses on rewards or avoidance of punishment.

For example, a software developer who is passionate about coding for its own sake is
more likely to innovate than one who is solely motivated by a paycheck or
recognition. This insight supports the idea of developing "motivational inventories"
that assess candidates’ intrinsic motivations during the selection process, allowing
organizations to identify individuals who are not only capable but also genuinely
passionate about their work.

Creative Thinking Tests

A variety of tests exist to measure creative thinking ability, each focusing on different
aspects of creativity. However, caution is necessary when selecting these tests. Many
tests marketed as measures of creative thinking primarily assess divergent thinking,
which is just one facet of the broader creativity spectrum. For instance, a commonly
used test might ask participants to generate as many uses as possible for a paperclip—
a measure of divergent thinking. However, this doesn’t encompass other crucial
elements of creativity, such as convergent thinking, which involves synthesizing
information to arrive at a single, effective solution.

Research emphasizes the domain specificity of creative thinking skills, indicating that
a test effective in one field may not yield the same results in another. For example, a
test designed for advertising professionals may not be appropriate for assessing
creative potential in scientific research. A more effective approach could involve
using a combination of general creative thinking tests alongside domain-specific
assessments. For instance, a company hiring for a creative role in marketing could
administer a general creative thinking test while also using a tailored test that
evaluates skills relevant to their specific advertising context.

Assessing Creative Products

Evaluating creative products—such as portfolios, writing samples, or project reports
—offers both practical and theoretical advantages in measuring creativity. This
method is effective because creativity is often best judged through tangible outcomes.
Hocevar and Bachelor (1989) argue that assessing past behavior is the most reliable
predictor of future behavior, making product-based evaluations a valuable component
of the selection process.

For example, graphic designers and photographers are often asked to provide a
portfolio showcasing their best work. Similarly, academic researchers may be
required to submit samples of their published papers. This approach is generally more
straightforward when assessing roles that involve tangible outputs. However, in fields
where creativity manifests primarily through ideas—such as management—the task
becomes more challenging. In these cases, interviewers might ask candidates to share
instances where they have solved problems creatively, enabling assessors to gauge
their potential based on past experiences.

Despite its advantages, assessing creative products has limitations. Inexperienced

candidates, particularly recent graduates, may have fewer relevant examples to
showcase compared to seasoned professionals. Moreover, past creative behavior does
not always predict future potential; some individuals may excel in lower-level roles
but struggle to maintain that creativity in senior positions. This underscores the
importance of evaluating candidates’ creative motivation alongside their past
achievements to ensure a comprehensive assessment.

Organizational Characteristics and Creativity

While enhancing creativity through selection and training is crucial, organizational

characteristics can significantly impact the effectiveness of these initiatives. Factors
such as authoritarian leadership, rigid job structures, and bureaucratic cultures can
stifle creativity by limiting individuals' freedom to work in ways that inspire them.
For instance, in an organization with a strict hierarchy, employees may feel
discouraged from sharing innovative ideas, fearing they will be dismissed or
criticized.

Motivation and communication are central to this dynamic. Many factors that inhibit
innovation restrict autonomy, leading to extrinsically motivated states that are less
conducive to creativity. Theresa Amabile’s (1983) research demonstrates that
environments fostering intrinsic motivation enhance creative output. Additionally,
poor communication can stifle the free flow of ideas, preventing valuable insights
from reaching decision-makers. For instance, if an organization has siloed
departments with limited interdepartmental communication, innovative ideas may
never gain traction or be implemented.
Conclusion: Enhancing Organizational Creativity

Organizations have numerous strategies available to enhance creativity, from idea

generation techniques to comprehensive selection processes. No single approach is
definitively superior; rather, organizations should choose strategies that align with
their specific needs and resources. A multifaceted creativity enhancement program
that incorporates idea elicitation techniques, creativity training, focused selection
processes, and an examination of organizational characteristics is likely to yield the
best results.

However, the unpredictability of creativity presents challenges in evaluating the

effectiveness of these strategies in real-world settings. Creativity can be influenced by
numerous factors outside management’s direct control, leading cautious managers to
view these strategies as risky. Yet, the greater risk may lie in failing to respond
creatively to the rapidly changing environment. By adopting a thoughtful,
comprehensive approach to enhancing creativity, organizations can better position
themselves for success and resilience in an ever-evolving landscape.
 The Antecedents of Organizational Innovation

Organizational innovation is a key aspect of sustaining growth and adapting to

changing environments. Research on organizational innovation seeks to identify the
factors that make some organizations more innovative than others. The roots of this
research lie in sociological and anthropological studies on the diffusion of
innovations, which explain how new ideas, products, or processes spread through a
population. The work of Everett M. Rogers is particularly influential in this field,
with his studies identifying characteristics of early and late adopters at both the
individual and organizational levels (Rogers, 1983). For example, the spread of
snowmobiles in the Arctic, medical innovations in the British NHS, and commercial
dairying in Mexico are all instances of innovation diffusion studied through this lens.

From a change management perspective, four major factors have emerged as

influencers of organizational innovation:

 People
 Structure
 Climate and Culture
 Environment

1. People

The role of people in influencing organizational innovation is often centered around

leadership and other decision-makers, although change agents and informal
champions also play a significant part.

Leaders

Initially, research focused on the individual characteristics of leaders, such as

personality traits, values, and experiences. For instance, Hage and Dewar (1973)
found that elite values among organizational leaders predicted high levels of
innovation. However, the challenge with this approach is that leader traits alone do
not consistently predict innovation across all settings. For example, Kimberly and
Evanisko (1981) found that organizational structure was a better predictor of
innovation in American hospitals than leader characteristics. Similarly, Mohr (1969)
noted that leader values were more significant in organizations with high resources
compared to those with limited resources.

Consequently, attention shifted towards leadership style, especially participative and

democratic styles, which foster innovation by involving subordinates in decision-
making and encouraging the proposal of new ideas without fear of reprimand.
However, some argue that a contingency approach is more appropriate, where the
style of leadership depends on factors such as the organization's environment and its
members’ openness to change. For example, Manz et al. (1989) found that different
leadership styles were required at different stages of innovation processes, indicating
that leadership must adapt to the specific context and phase of innovation.
Example: In a stable environment, a participative leadership style may work well to
promote innovation, while in a turbulent environment, a more authoritarian style may
be necessary to push innovations through.

Change Agents

Change agents are individuals, either internal or external, who have the responsibility
of overseeing the introduction of changes within an organization. Everett Rogers
(1983) outlined eight actions and characteristics of effective change agents, such as:

 The effort made to contact clients,

 Empathy with clients,
 Compatibility of the innovation with clients’ needs, and
 The agent’s credibility within the organization.

The change agent’s ability to work through opinion leaders and increase the clients'
own ability to evaluate innovations are also critical to their success.

Ideas Champions

These are informal figures who champion new ideas within the organization, often
driven by personal commitment rather than formal responsibility. Their success
depends on their ability to persuade powerful organizational members of the value of
the innovation. For example, a technical specialist may champion a new technology
they believe will improve organizational performance.

Example: An IT specialist in a large firm might advocate for the adoption of a new
software system, taking personal responsibility to demonstrate its benefits to higher
management.

2. Organizational Structure

Organizational structure refers to the formal allocation of work roles and the
administrative mechanisms for controlling and integrating activities within the
organization. The structure can significantly influence an organization’s ability to
innovate.

Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures

The seminal work of Burns and Stalker (1961) differentiated between two types of
organizational structures:

 Mechanistic structures: These are rigid, hierarchical, and highly formalized.

They work well in stable environments where efficiency is the primary goal.
 Organic structures: These are flexible, decentralized, and promote
collaboration. They are better suited for turbulent environments where
innovation is needed to respond to rapid changes.
Example: A manufacturing firm with a stable market may use a mechanistic structure
to optimize efficiency, whereas a tech startup in a rapidly changing industry may
adopt an organic structure to foster innovation.

The Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) model built on this idea, suggesting that
organizations operating in unstable environments need greater structural
differentiation between departments. For instance, the production department in a
volatile market might have a more mechanistic structure, while the sales department
needs to be more organic to quickly respond to changing customer demands.

Is Organic Structure Always Best for Innovation?

Burns and Stalker's work has had a profound impact on the perception of
organizational structures conducive to innovation. The organic structure, which
promotes decentralization, flattened hierarchies, short-term project groups, and lateral
communication, is often seen as the ideal framework for fostering innovation. This is
because these characteristics allow for a higher degree of flexibility, creativity, and
employee discretion, encouraging the emergence of "ideas champions." For example,
in the U.S., many organizations have adopted such structures, replacing the rigid
authority lines of Frederick Taylor's 'scientific management' model, which
emphasized specialization and centralized decision-making.

However, promoting organic structures as universally optimal for innovation is an

overgeneralization. While they may work well in some cases, success is not always
attributed solely to the structure. Other factors, such as market position or economic
and political circumstances, often play a critical role. Companies once hailed for their
innovative structures, such as IBM, have faced difficulties as market and economic
conditions changed. Therefore, organic structures can facilitate innovation but are not
a guaranteed solution.

Organizational Structure and Stages of the Innovation Process

Zaltman et al. (1973) provide an alternative perspective on how organizational

structure influences innovation by focusing on different stages of the innovation
process. They divide innovation into two stages:

1. Initiation: The organization becomes aware of an opportunity for innovation

and decides to pursue it. This stage benefits from low centralization, low
formalization, and high complexity because these conditions maximize
freedom to discuss and propose new ideas.
2. Implementation: The innovation is introduced into the organization. Here,
high centralization, high formalization, and low complexity are more
beneficial as they provide clear authority, reduce uncertainty, and facilitate
methodical execution.

Zaltman et al.’s view highlights the ‘innovation dilemma,’ where structures that
facilitate the adoption of innovation may inhibit its implementation and vice versa.
For example, while initiation thrives in decentralized, informal environments,
implementation needs more control and structure to succeed. This suggests that
organizations may need to adjust their structure based on the innovation stage.
[Link] Climate and Culture

In recent years, there has been a shift away from focusing solely on structure toward
an emphasis on organizational climate and culture as key factors in innovation.
Gareth Morgan (1986) highlighted the importance of cultural change as a driver for
organizational transformation. Modern management consultants and writers have
embraced this, advocating for changes in culture, sometimes even symbolic changes
like logos and newsletters, to facilitate innovation.

Culture refers to the values, norms, beliefs, and assumptions that define
organizational life, while climate is related to the feelings, attitudes, and behavioral
tendencies that can be measured through employee perceptions (Nystrom, 1990).
Successful climates for innovation are often characterized by openness to change,
support for risk-taking, and a playful approach to ideas. For example, British Telecom
spent around £50 million on a rebranding campaign in the 1980s, demonstrating the
perceived importance of cultural change to organizational success.

Structural Approaches to Culture

Some approaches link organizational structure and culture, with Charles Handy’s
(1985) typology of four organizational cultures being particularly influential:

1. Role Culture: Found in bureaucratic organizations, where multiple layers of

hierarchy and clearly defined roles prevail. These cultures thrive on stability
but struggle with radical change, making them poor innovators.
o Example: A government agency with rigid procedures might find it
hard to implement disruptive technologies.
2. Power Culture: Centered around a strong individual or leader, these cultures
are more flexible than role cultures but may struggle with innovation if the
central figure cannot control all aspects of the organization.
o Example: A startup with a charismatic founder may be quick to
innovate but could falter as the organization grows.
3. Task Culture: Found in matrix structures, task cultures promote flexibility,
adaptability, and egalitarianism. They are often seen as the best for innovation
because of their project-focused nature and lateral communication.
o Example: An advertising agency working in short-term project teams
might excel in creative industries due to its task culture.
4. Person Culture: This type focuses on individual autonomy and is often found
in professional partnerships. While fostering individual creativity, they may
struggle to translate this into organizational innovation due to the need for
consensus and focus on relationships.
o Example: A law firm where individual lawyers have significant
independence might produce brilliant individual ideas but may lack
cohesion for larger organizational innovation.

Interpretative Approaches to Culture

Interpretative approaches to culture focus on symbols, rituals, and myths within an

organization. Cultural change, from this perspective, involves altering these symbolic
elements and communicating them to both staff and customers. For example, British
banks in the 1980s moved away from high counters and glass screens to open-plan
layouts to create a more client-friendly culture.

However, while these cultural symbols can influence perceptions, empirical support
for their effectiveness in driving innovation is limited. In fact, Nystrom’s (1990)
study found that while the most innovative divisions in a Swedish company had
playful, idea-supporting climates, they also experienced high levels of conflict and
disharmony. This suggests that while innovation requires freedom and creativity, an
overemphasis on pro-innovation values can have negative consequences, such as
neglecting other important priorities like profitability and customer orientation.

Additionally, organizations are not monolithic; they often contain subcultures that
may conflict with the dominant organizational culture. This was observed in the
British NHS when new managerial models clashed with the professional values of
doctors and nurses. Therefore, managing innovation through culture requires
recognizing and navigating these subcultural dynamics.

Environment

When analyzing factors that influence innovation in an organization, focusing solely

on internal features such as structure, climate, and culture is insufficient. The external
environment in which the organization operates plays a crucial role. From a
psychological perspective, two primary areas of interest emerge: how the organization
communicates with its environment and the assumptions it holds about its external
surroundings.

Research shows that organizations that maintain robust communication channels with
their environment tend to be more innovative. For instance, the existence of
boundary-spanning roles (Tushman, 1977) and professionalization of
organizational members (Daft, 1978) are linked with innovativeness. Boundary
spanners and professionals who engage with external networks are exposed to new
ideas that they can apply to their own organizations.

Another important factor is environmental scanning, where organizations actively

search for external ideas. This scanning is often influenced by the organization's
perception of its relationship with its environment. Miles and Snow (1978) classify
organizations into four strategic types based on these perceptions: defenders,
prospectors, analyzers, and reactors. For example, defenders see their environment
as stable and focus on efficiency, while prospectors view their environment as
uncertain, placing high value on innovation.

A notable example is provided by Meyer (1982), who studied how American

hospitals responded to a doctors’ strike. The prospector-type hospital increased its
innovation efforts, viewing the crisis as an opportunity, while the defender-type
hospital relied on its financial reserves to continue operations.

Additionally, Morgan (1986) argues that organizations often fail to innovate due to
rigid perceptions of their boundaries. For instance, typewriter manufacturers ignored
the rise of word processing technology because they did not view microprocessing as
part of their environment.

Types of Innovation
Different types of innovation require different facilitating and inhibiting factors. This
is evident in research that focuses on specific types of innovation, such as managerial
innovation (Kimberly, 1981), product innovation (Normann, 1971), and medical
innovation (Stocking, 1985). However, systematic comparisons of innovation types
remain rare.

Innovation Typologies

Innovations can be classified in various ways. Three common methods include

categorization by the socio-technical system, the characteristics of the innovation,
and the source of the innovation.

Socio-Technical Systems

Damanpour and Evan (1984) distinguish between technical innovations, which occur
within the organization’s primary work activity, and administrative innovations,
which involve the organization of work and relationships between members. In
American public libraries, administrative innovations often triggered technical ones,
but the reverse did not occur. A third category, ancillary innovations, spans
organizational-environment boundaries. These might include career development
programs for the community.

Damanpour (1990) found that organizational performance was best predicted by

administrative innovations, although technical innovations were perceived as more
effective. This aligns with Nelkin’s (1973) claim that technological innovations often
come with unrealistic expectations about their ability to solve organizational
problems.

Characteristics of the Innovation

Zaltman et al. (1973) offer a typology of innovation characteristics based on three

dimensions:

1. Programmed-Non-programmed: Programmed innovations are pre-planned,

while non-programmed ones occur as responses to crises or opportunities.
Non-programmed innovations can be further subdivided into slack
innovations (due to available resources) and distress innovations (triggered
by crises). Pro-active innovations, introduced by individuals or groups, often
face more obstacles.
2. Instrumental-Ultimate: Instrumental innovations serve as means to enable
further innovations, while ultimate innovations are introduced as ends in
themselves.
3. Radicalness: This dimension combines novelty and risk. Highly radical
innovations challenge the status quo and are assumed to face greater
resistance. However, research by King (1989) in a hospital setting showed that
a pro-change climate can reduce resistance to radical innovations.

Innovation Source

Innovations can also be classified by their source:

  Emergent: Innovations initiated within the organization.
 Imported: Innovations adopted from other organizations.
 Imposed: Innovations forced upon the organization from external pressures.

Each of these sources has distinct innovation processes, antecedent factors, and
organizational reactions. For example, Sauer and Anderson (1992) found differences
in how these innovation sources develop, and how they are perceived within
organizations.

General and Specific Theories of Innovation

Despite recognizing different innovation types, creating general theories and models
of organizational innovation remains important. Universal predictions about
innovation are challenging and often problematic. However, a general framework can
serve as a starting point for developing type-specific models. Abandoning general
theories may lead to an overly fragmented field. Researchers and managers alike must
balance the need to acknowledge the differences in innovation types with the need to
recognize commonalities.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Research into the Antecedents of Innovation

The diffusion model continues to influence how we think about the antecedents of
innovation. Two notable trends emerge from this:

1. Innovation Adoption Decision: Research often focuses on the adoption of

innovation rather than what happens afterward. Adopting an innovation
doesn’t guarantee successful implementation, as some innovations may never
be routinized into the organization.
2. Cross-sectional Research: Most research is cross-sectional, making it
difficult to establish cause and effect. For example, findings that organic
structures are more innovative (Burns & Stalker, 1961) could indicate that
organic structures foster innovation, or that innovation leads organizations to
become more organic. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify these
relationships.

Moreover, the literature on antecedents is often normative, suggesting that specific

factors (such as participative leadership or strong task culture) will facilitate
innovation in almost any organization. While this “cookbook approach” is appealing
to managers, it risks oversimplifying the complex dynamics of organizational change.

That said, the antecedent factors approach has its advantages. It allows for integrating
multiple levels of analysis (individual, group, and organizational) and can help
identify the variables that influence innovation. Large-scale surveys across different
organizations are particularly useful for identifying the range of factors involved in
innovation. However, more sophisticated research questions are necessary to advance
the field beyond the simple inquiry of “what makes some organizations more
innovative than others.” Instead, managers need answers to more targeted questions,
such as which parts of the organization need to become more innovative, and in
what ways?
 The Innovation Process

The journey of innovation within organizations is complex and multifaceted,

involving a series of interconnected activities that span from the initial idea to its
eventual integration into everyday practices. The traditional understanding of
innovation often focuses on the decision to adopt a new idea or technology. However,
this perspective overlooks the critical pre-adoption activities such as research, strategy
formulation, and consensus building, as well as the post-adoption efforts that include
implementation, refinement, and routinization. Critics, notably Everett Rogers, have
argued against this simplified view, suggesting that focusing solely on the decision to
innovate is misleading and intellectually deceptive. Rogers advocated for a more in-
depth, longitudinal approach to studying innovation, capturing the dynamic processes
involved over time.

Activities Surrounding Adoption

The decision to innovate initiates a series of interconnected activities both before and
after the formal adoption of an innovation. Key activities include:

 Fact-finding: Organizations often conduct thorough research to assess the

potential benefits and risks associated with the proposed innovation. This
involves gathering data on existing solutions, market trends, and user needs.
 Political maneuvering: Navigating internal politics is crucial for the success
of any innovation. Different stakeholders within an organization may have
conflicting opinions about the innovation, requiring skilled negotiation and
consensus-building to align their interests.
 Discussions and negotiations: Both formal and informal discussions among
team members, departments, and leadership are essential for clarifying roles,
responsibilities, and expectations regarding the innovation process. Open
communication can help identify potential roadblocks early on.
 Resource allocation: Negotiating the resources needed for implementation—
such as budget, personnel, and time—becomes a key part of the innovation
process, influencing its feasibility and success.

These activities highlight that innovation is not merely a single decision point but a
continuous series of efforts that engage multiple facets of the organization.

The Value of Longitudinal Studies

While many studies offer snapshots of the innovation process, longitudinal research
provides a deeper understanding of how innovations evolve over time. Longitudinal
studies track innovations through various stages, allowing researchers to observe
shifts in initial plans and expectations. Pelz and Andrews (1966), for instance,
conducted a longitudinal study that emphasized the importance of understanding how
organizations respond to new ideas over time. Retrospective studies, despite being
limited by memory biases, can still shed light on the entire lifecycle of an innovation.
By combining interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis—such as reviewing
meeting minutes—researchers can construct a more comprehensive view of the
innovation process.

Models of the Innovation Process

Since the 1960s, various models have emerged to describe the innovation process,
with three common features across these models:

1. Theoretical speculation: Most models are rooted in theoretical frameworks

rather than empirical data, often reflecting an idealized version of how
innovation is expected to occur.
2. Normative approach: These models prescribe a sequence of steps that
innovations are expected to follow, assuming a logical progression from idea
generation to implementation.
3. Stage-based structure: Innovations are described as moving through distinct
developmental stages, with the assumption that each stage must be completed
before moving to the next.

Stage-Based Models

Stage-based models have been the predominant way of understanding the innovation
process. One of the most influential models was proposed by Zaltman et al. (1973),
which divides the process into two major stages:

1. Initiation: In this phase, the need for innovation is recognized, and

preliminary research or brainstorming begins. Organizations explore various
possibilities, assess risks, and determine the feasibility of the proposed
innovation.
2. Implementation: Once a decision has been made to proceed, the innovation is
integrated into the organization’s operations. This involves both the technical
aspects of implementation and ensuring that employees accept the innovation
and incorporate it into their daily routines.

Within these broad stages, Zaltman et al. further break down the process into two
phases:

 Pre-adoption activities: These are the efforts leading up to the decision to

adopt an innovation, which include information gathering, stakeholder
engagement, and strategic planning.
 Post-adoption activities: These efforts focus on integrating the innovation
into everyday practices, monitoring its impact, and making necessary
adjustments.

The pivotal moment in these models is the decision to adopt the innovation, which
marks the transition from initiation to implementation.

Innovation Trigger: The Performance Gap

A common trigger for innovation is the identification of a performance gap—the

difference between an organization's current performance and its potential
performance. When organizations recognize this gap, they are often motivated to seek
innovations that can bridge it. However, it is important to note that not all innovations
arise from perceived underperformance; external pressures such as regulatory
changes, industry competition, or societal expectations can also drive the need for
innovation.

Example: In the UK, schools were mandated to adopt compulsory testing as part of a
government initiative. This innovation did not stem from a perceived performance gap
within the schools but was driven by external legislative requirements.

Routinization of Innovations

The final stage in many innovation models is routinization, where the innovation
becomes embedded in the organization's regular operations. While some stage-based
models treat routinization as a straightforward outcome, Rogers (1983) offers a more
nuanced perspective, suggesting that innovations undergo a clarifying stage. During
this stage, the meaning of the innovation evolves as the organization navigates
challenges during implementation. Only when the innovation has been redefined and
fully integrated into the organizational culture can it be considered routinized.

Criticisms of Stage-Based Models

Despite their widespread use, stage-based models face several criticisms:

1. Lack of empirical support: Although stage-based models provide a

structured view of the innovation process, real-world studies have shown that
innovations rarely follow a strict linear progression through stages. King
(1992) pointed out that Zaltman et al.’s stages could not be consistently
applied to innovations in practice, highlighting the need for more flexible
frameworks.
2. Inflexibility: Innovation is often a messy, non-linear process. Unforeseen
setbacks, organizational changes, and evolving external factors can
significantly alter the trajectory of an innovation. Schroeder et al. (1989)
emphasized that innovation rarely proceeds in a step-by-step manner and
proposed a more adaptable approach.
3. Normative bias: Stage-based models often prescribe how innovations
“should” occur, potentially oversimplifying the complexity of organizational
change and the various factors that influence the success or failure of an
innovation.

Alternative Perspectives on Innovation

Schroeder et al. (1989) offer an alternative model based on their longitudinal study
of seven innovations. Rather than viewing the innovation process as a series of
discrete stages, they propose six key observations that account for the complexity and
unpredictability of innovation:

1. Shocks trigger innovation: Innovations frequently arise in response to

internal or external shocks that challenge existing practices or systems.
 2. Proliferation of ideas: Initial concepts typically evolve and diversify as the
innovation process unfolds, often leading to unexpected outcomes.
3. Setbacks are inevitable: Organizations experience unforeseen challenges and
obstacles throughout the innovation process, prompting adjustments and
learning.
4. Old and new coexist: During the transition period, organizations often
operate with both old and new systems simultaneously, creating a complex
landscape for employees.
5. Organizational restructuring: Innovations may necessitate the restructuring
of teams or departments to facilitate successful implementation and alignment
with new practices.
6. Top management involvement: Leadership plays a crucial role in driving the
innovation process, providing direction, resources, and support as needed.

The Social Dimension of Innovation

Innovation is fundamentally a social process, shaped by interactions among

individuals and groups within the organization. Different stakeholders may have
varying perspectives on the innovation, leading to tensions and conflicts. For instance,
top management may believe that an innovation has been successfully implemented,
while employees directly affected by the change may feel that the process has been
incomplete or ineffective. This disparity in perceptions can result in internal conflict
and political maneuvering, complicating the innovation process.

Example: In a study examining the implementation of a new computer system in a

hospital, Aydin and Rice (1991) found that the innovation process was experienced
differently across various departments. The success or failure of the innovation was
contingent on the unique social and occupational dynamics within each department.

The Role of Organizational Culture and Change

The organizational culture plays a significant role in the innovation process. Bouwen
(1990) emphasized that the values, beliefs, and norms within an organization can
either foster or hinder innovative efforts. Organizations with a strong culture of
openness and collaboration tend to encourage the sharing of ideas and
experimentation, while cultures that prioritize conformity may stifle creativity and
innovation.

Bartunek (1984) further elaborated on the relationship between organizational

change and innovation, arguing that successful innovations often require a shift in the
underlying organizational culture. Change initiatives must be accompanied by efforts
to reshape cultural norms, beliefs, and practices to align with the new direction. This
alignment is crucial for ensuring that innovations are not only adopted but also
sustained over time.

VARIATION OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION:

THE KEY-WORKER SYSTEM AT WATERSMEET HOME FOR ELDERLY
PEOPLE
The case of the key-worker system at Watersmeet Home for Elderly People presents a
fascinating examination of how organizational innovation can be implemented in a
nuanced manner, especially in settings with varying needs and personnel dynamics.
Given the insights from the text and a broader understanding of organizational change
and innovation, here are several pieces of advice for Mrs. Brook:

1. Recognize the Need for Contextual Adaptation

 The different floors at Watersmeet have unique resident populations and staff
dynamics. Mrs. Brook should consider that a one-size-fits-all approach may
not work. Instead, she should encourage Carolyn Smith's perspective that each
floor's needs should dictate the form of the key-worker system. Customizing
the system for each floor can facilitate smoother adoption and better fit the
specific context.

2. Engage Staff in the Decision-Making Process

 Involve care assistants and other staff in discussions about the key-worker
system. Their insights can provide valuable information about what has
worked or failed previously and can help in designing a system that aligns
with their preferences and the realities of their work. This inclusion can also
enhance buy-in, reducing resistance to change.

3. Address Potential Resistance to Change

 Anna Walsh mentioned older staff's suspicion of change as a possible barrier

to reintroducing the key-worker system on the top floor. It's essential for Mrs.
Brook to recognize that resistance can arise from fear, lack of understanding,
or previous negative experiences. Workshops or training sessions explaining
the benefits of the key-worker system and how it can improve care practices
may help alleviate these concerns.

4. Pilot the Key-Worker System

 Before a full implementation, consider running a pilot program on one of the

floors to test the modified key-worker system. This trial phase allows for
adjustments based on real feedback and outcomes. Successful implementation
in one area can provide a model for broader adoption across other floors.

5. Monitor and Evaluate the System Continuously

 After implementing the key-worker system, establish mechanisms for ongoing

evaluation and feedback. This includes assessing care outcomes, staff
satisfaction, and resident experiences. Continuous evaluation will provide data
to inform necessary adjustments and demonstrate the system's value to
stakeholders.

6. Foster a Culture of Collaboration

  Encourage teamwork and collaboration among staff, particularly on the top
floor, where team cohesion is important. If the key-worker system is
introduced, create opportunities for team-building activities that enhance
relationships among staff while still allowing for the responsibilities that come
with the key-worker roles.

7. Clarify Roles and Responsibilities

 To ensure a smooth implementation of the key-worker system, it is crucial to

clearly define the roles and responsibilities associated with being a key-
worker. This clarity will help staff understand what is expected of them and
how they can best serve their residents.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mrs. Brook's leadership is pivotal in fostering an environment

conducive to innovation at Watersmeet. By customizing the key-worker system to fit
each floor’s unique circumstances, engaging staff in the process, addressing resistance
proactively, and monitoring outcomes, she can create a more supportive and effective
care environment. This careful, context-sensitive approach can enhance both resident
care and staff morale, ultimately benefiting the entire organization.

GENERAL OR TYPE-SPECIFIC MODELS?

The Challenge of a Universal Model

The discourse surrounding innovation often presents the process as singular,

suggesting that a universal definition could apply to all cases, irrespective of the type
of innovation or the organization involved. However, this notion merits scrutiny due
to several critical observations:

 Variation by Type of Innovation:

o Research indicates that different types of innovations exhibit distinct
antecedent factors and developmental trajectories. For example, Pelz
(1983) observed that complex, radical innovations tend to progress in a
non-linear manner, diverging significantly from the more
straightforward path often associated with simpler, non-radical
innovations.
o Similarly, in a study of hospital ward innovation, King (1992) found
that stage-based models were most relevant for less radical
innovations, suggesting that the innovation process is highly context-
dependent.
 Influence of Context:
o The environment in which innovation occurs can also dictate its path.
Sauer and Anderson (1992) highlighted that innovations originating
from external pressures (e.g., regulatory changes) tend to follow more
complex developmental patterns compared to those that emerge
organically within an organization.
Pros and Cons of General Models

As the innovation landscape reveals its complexities, the debate over whether to adopt
a general or type-specific model becomes crucial.

 Positive Aspects:
o Facilitating Comparisons: A general model allows for broader
comparisons across diverse organizations and innovation types,
enriching our understanding of innovation psychology. For example,
Schroeder et al. (1989) managed to derive common process
observations from varied innovations, such as a weapons system, a
medical innovation, and a new hybrid wheat strain. This implies that
while processes may differ, there are underlying commonalities worth
exploring.
o Framework for Guidance: General models provide a framework that
practitioners can use to navigate the complexities of innovation,
potentially streamlining efforts to foster successful change.
 Negative Aspects:
o Risk of Oversimplification: A universal model may become
perceived as the ideal process for all innovations, leading managers to
inappropriately apply a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Such rigidity can
overlook the unique requirements and contextual factors critical for the
success of specific innovations.
o Potential for Misguided Management: When managers feel
compelled to fit unique situations into a predetermined model, they
may overlook vital insights from the specific context, ultimately
jeopardizing the success of their innovation efforts.

Future Research Directions

In light of the challenges associated with both general and type-specific models,
researchers could explore a dual model construction approach:

 General and Type-Specific Models: Developing both types of models can

facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of innovation processes. By
comparing the outcomes and features of type-specific models against a general
model, researchers can identify distinctive characteristics that inform effective
change management in specific contexts.

HOW MANAGEABLE IS THE INNOVATION PROCESS?

The Complexity of Manageability

As the nature of innovation processes becomes increasingly complex, the notion of

their manageability comes into question. A critical examination reveals several key
points:
  Lack of Predictable Sequence: Innovations rarely follow a linear path, with
variations depending on the type of innovation and external factors. This
complexity necessitates a nuanced understanding of how change unfolds
within organizations.
 Occupational Psychology Insights: The term "illusion of manageability" has
been coined to describe a common tendency to overestimate the extent to
which senior management can control and direct change processes. This
perception is prevalent in both scholarly literature and everyday management
practices, leading to unrealistic expectations about the manageability of
innovation.

Overestimation of Control

The assumption that change can be effectively directed from above fosters the belief
that outcomes are largely predictable and directly attributable to managerial
competence:

 Misleading Assumptions: Popular management texts often perpetuate the

idea that by adhering to established protocols, managers can ensure successful
innovation and change. This creates an illusion that the ability to manage
change is straightforward, neglecting the complex, multifaceted nature of the
processes involved.
 Reality Check: Despite possessing hierarchical power, managers often find
that their influence over change outcomes is limited. For example, unforeseen
events, resistance from employees, and the emergence of competing interests
can significantly impede the effectiveness of management strategies.

Components of the ‘Illusion of Manageability’

The phenomenon of the "illusion of manageability" can be deconstructed into three

interrelated components, each contributing to a skewed understanding of managerial
control in the innovation process:

1. The Illusion of Linearity

 Simplified Models: Many change management frameworks present

innovations as a straightforward sequence of stages, leading less experienced
managers to overly rely on these simplified models. A classic example is Kurt
Lewin’s (1951) force field analysis, which outlines a simplistic three-phase
model: unfreeze-move-refreeze.
 Reality of Complexity: In practice, change processes are seldom linear.
Managers may encounter:
o Non-Linear Progression: Innovations often involve setbacks, with the
possibility of moving backward as well as forward. This
unpredictability highlights the limitations of relying on linear models.
o Multiple Change Processes: Various levels of analysis may undergo
different changes simultaneously, adding layers of complexity to the
management of innovation.
 o Conflicting Pressures: Managers often face divergent pressures from
superiors, peers, and subordinates, complicating their ability to
navigate change effectively.

2. The Illusion of Predictability

 Overestimating Predictability: Building on the illusion of linearity, many

managers operate under the belief that change processes can be largely
anticipated, allowing them to foresee the next phases of the process.
 Empirical Support: Research supports the notion that change processes are
riddled with unexpected events. For instance, Schroeder et al. (1989) found
that organizations often face major diversions from planned processes that
require agile responses and adjustments.

3. The Illusion of Control

 Comfort in Control: During periods of significant change, the belief in one’s

ability to exert control can be comforting. Managers may derive confidence
from the notion that their strategies will yield predictable results.
 Reality Check: The truth is that even the most skilled manager, equipped with
well-formulated change strategies, can only exert limited influence over
specific outcomes. Factors such as:
o Unforeseen Events: Sudden developments or crises can derail even
the best-laid plans.
o Resistance to Change: Employees may resist change initiatives,
creating additional hurdles that undermine managerial control.
o Emerging Competing Interests: Various stakeholders may pursue
their agendas, further complicating the manager’s ability to maintain
control.

Implications of the Illusions

The interplay of these illusions can lead managers to experience a dissonance between
their perceived authority over the change process and the reality of limited control.
Recognizing this dissonance is critical for effective change management, enabling
managers to adapt their strategies in response to the complexities of organizational
change.

CONCLUSION

Reevaluating Managerial Influence

The central thesis is not that managers lack the capacity to influence change
processes; rather, the prevalent belief in their control is often overstated. This
"illusion of manageability" arises from multiple sources:

 Influence of Management Literature: Many management texts perpetuate

overly simplistic notions of control and predictability in change processes.
 This can lead to misconceptions about the ease with which change can be
managed.
 Political Pressures: Managers often feel compelled to project an image of
control and authority, despite facing unpredictable challenges in practice.

The Need for a Balanced Perspective

To navigate the complexities of change management effectively, a more nuanced

understanding of the limitations of managerial influence is essential. Key points
include:

 Awareness of Limitations: Managers must recognize the limits of their

influence on change processes. This acknowledgment is not merely academic;
it has practical implications for their approach to managing innovation.
 Preparedness for the Unexpected: Recognizing the potential for unforeseen
shocks and surprises during organizational upheavals is critical. Managers
who can anticipate these challenges are better positioned to respond
effectively.

Key Characteristics for Effective Change Management

Two critical attributes emerge as essential for managing innovation and change
processes:

1. Vigilance: Managers should cultivate a heightened awareness of potential

unforeseen issues, enabling early detection and intervention.
2. Flexibility: Adaptability in response to evolving circumstances is crucial for
successfully navigating the complexities of change.

By acknowledging the limits of control and preparing for uncertainty, managers can
significantly enhance their effectiveness in guiding organizations through the
multifaceted landscape of change. This balanced perspective fosters a more realistic
approach to managing innovation, ultimately contributing to better organizational
outcomes.
Leading Innovation Change - The Kotter’s Way

1. INTRODUCTION

The discourse around business innovation took shape in the late 1990s, spearheaded
by Professor Clayton Christensen from Harvard Business School. He advocated for
businesses to embrace either disruptive or sustainable innovations as a means to drive
growth. This idea catalyzed a shift in corporate strategies, emphasizing the need for
innovation in an increasingly competitive global market. Over the years, however, the
rush to innovate has led many organizations to adopt strategies like Open Innovation
and Crowd Sourcing. While these methods have their merits, they have often fallen
short in equipping corporations with the necessary tools to innovate effectively and
consistently.
For instance, a study highlighted in Fortune magazine revealed that from 2000 to
2008, Pfizer achieved FDA approval for only nine drugs, costing approximately $6.7
billion each—a figure unsustainable for long-term profitability (Ekling et al., 2008).
Traditional methodologies for fostering creativity, such as TRIZ (theory of inventive
problem solving), have not evolved to meet the demands of the Internet age or the
mass innovation required in today’s knowledge-driven economy.

Research indicates that conventional innovation methods yield returns of about 20

cents per dollar spent, whereas innovations tailored for the knowledge age can
produce returns of around 80 cents on the dollar, making them far more appealing to
investors. The gap in understanding between traditional methods and emerging
practices signifies a pressing need for a structured framework that fosters a culture
conducive to innovation.

To address this, the author adapted John Kotter's change management model to
facilitate the necessary innovation within the corporate environment. Kotter's eight-
stage process is aimed at equipping corporate leadership to better embrace and lead
innovation in the 21st century:

1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency

2. Creating the Guiding Coalition
3. Developing a Vision and Strategy
4. Communicating the Change Vision
5. Empowering Employees for Broad-based Action
6. Generating Short-term Wins
7. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

2. BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATION FRAMEWORK

Alongside Kotter's change management process, the author presents the

Brinnovation™ framework, a unique approach for fostering breakthrough
innovations within organizations. This framework draws inspiration from the
innovative strategies employed by visionaries such as Albert Einstein and Thomas
Edison, the latter holding over a thousand patents in his lifetime.

The Brinnovation framework emphasizes the cultivation of employees' natural talents

and simplifies the innovation process, consisting of the following components:

1. Sustaining Profitable Growth: A fundamental strategy that prioritizes

continuous and profitable growth for the organization.
2. Innovation as a Function: It defines innovation as an interplay of effort,
knowledge, play, and imagination.
3. Rule of 2: A guideline for assessing the extent of breakthrough innovations.
4. Holistic Creativity Rules: A set of principles to encourage innovative
thinking.
5. TEDOC Methodology: An acronym for Target, Explore, Develop, Optimize,
and Commercialize, which serves as a structured process for developing
profitable innovations (Keathley et al., 2015).
 6. Measures of Innovation: Metrics that recognize employee contributions,
innovation ideas, and revenue growth.
7. Innovation Portfolio: A categorization of innovations into Fundamental,
Platform, Derivative, and Variation types.
8. Business Innovation Maturity Model (BIMM): A framework outlining five
maturity stages—Sporadic, Idea, Managed, Nurtured, and Sustained—that
organizations can progress through to optimize their innovation processes.

3. CULTURE FOR INNOVATION

Organic growth within a company relies heavily on fostering a culture of innovation,

which actively engages employees and encourages their intellectual contributions.
However, creating an innovative culture is complex and often underachieved because
it encompasses all organizational processes, values, and behaviors.

To understand organizational culture, one must consider its various components,

which may differ across companies, countries, or communities. Common elements
that define an organization’s culture include:

 Vision, Objectives/Purpose/Goal: Clear direction and purpose for the

organization.
 Rules and Standards: Established protocols for operations and behavior.
 Code of Ethics: Principles guiding employee conduct.
 Work Atmosphere: The overall environment and conditions under which
employees work.
 Social Responsibility/Caring: The organization’s commitment to ethical
practices and community engagement.
 Listening: Openness to feedback and communication from employees.
 Bureaucracy: The speed and efficiency of decision-making processes.
 Communication: The flow of information within the organization.
 Preferences and Interests: Understanding and accommodating employee
motivations.
 Hierarchy/Structure: The organizational design and chain of command.
 Shared Benefits: Recognition of mutual advantages and collective success.
 History/Traditions: Acknowledgment of the organization's background and
evolution.
 Rewarding Failures: Encouraging risk-taking and learning from mistakes.
 Recognizing Successes: Celebrating achievements and contributions.
 Motivation: Strategies for inspiring and driving employee engagement.
 Help/Support: Providing necessary resources and assistance to employees.

By fostering an innovative culture, organizations can cultivate practices that inspire

and reward creativity, ultimately leading to sustained growth and adaptability.
Professor John P. Kotter’s change model facilitates this cultural shift by guiding
executives in identifying, inspiring, and executing actions that promote innovation.

STAGE 1: ESTABLISHING A SENSE OF URGENCY FOR INNOVATION

In many organizations, leadership often prioritizes short-term profits over long-term

innovation strategies, implementing cost-cutting measures such as Lean Six Sigma.
Unfortunately, this focus often undermines the potential for growth that innovation
can offer. Instead of seeing innovation as an investment, it is frequently viewed as an
expense, depriving it of the serious attention it deserves.

Surveys consistently reveal that while innovation ranks as a top priority for business
executives, there is often a significant discrepancy in resource allocation toward
innovative initiatives. The IBM Global CEO Study indicates that creativity in
leadership is increasingly vital for navigating the challenges of the modern economy.
Yet, many leaders fall into the trap of complacency, focusing on immediate gains
rather than sustainable, innovative growth.

The need for organic innovation is heightened by global competition and changing
market dynamics. However, to catalyze a sense of urgency around innovation,
corporate leaders must fundamentally shift their focus. They should not merely seek
profits but aim to create value for their customers and society as a whole. When
businesses excel in serving their customers, profitability naturally follows.

To establish a genuine sense of urgency for innovation, leadership must commit to

sustained profitable growth by articulating a strategic vision that prioritizes innovation
as a core component of business objectives. This includes:

1. Articulating the Fundamental Strategy: Leaders must clearly communicate

the importance of innovation in achieving sustained growth.
2. Portfolio Development: Create a balanced portfolio of innovations that
account for both short-term and long-term objectives, with allocations for
various time frames (e.g., 3-6 months, 9-15 months, 30-36 months, and
beyond).
3. Resource Allocation: Ensure adequate resources—financial, human, and
technological—are directed toward innovation efforts.

Without this strategic approach, organizations risk over-reliance on existing products,

complacency among leadership, and an ineffective understanding of the innovation
process. Moreover, corporate leadership must recognize that sustainable growth is
achieved through a symbiotic relationship with the community and that neglecting
this relationship can hinder long-term success.

In summary, creating a sense of urgency for innovation involves redefining corporate

priorities, fostering an environment where innovation is seen as essential rather than
optional, and committing to a strategy that aligns innovation efforts with broader
business goals.

STAGE 2 – CREATING THE GUIDING COALITION FOR INNOVATION

A successful innovation initiative hinges on establishing a guiding coalition that

effectively represents the organization, transcending mere leadership representation.
This coalition should include individuals who possess power but are free from ego, as
well as members from middle management and operations. Diversity in gender,
experience, and cultural backgrounds is crucial; the broader the perspectives included,
the more innovative the coalition will be in approaching organizational change.
The guiding coalition should be characterized by enthusiasm for the organization’s
success, a genuine concern for people, and knowledge of effective innovation
methodologies. These members must also have an interest in measuring innovation
performance. By assessing corporate performance, the coalition can identify
profitable growth opportunities and craft a persuasive and engaging message about
innovation, aligning it with the idea that innovation can be enjoyable.

In today’s digital age, the coalition may incorporate external members such as
professors, consultants, or industry associates. Utilizing social media tools can help
disseminate the innovation message to employees, supply chains, and stakeholders.
It’s essential for the coalition to foster a culture of trust and empathy among all
employees, as everyone plays a role in driving innovation within the company.

Historically, organizations have viewed employees as mere human capital, often

reducing them to cost-cutting figures. This perspective can create a tense, competitive
environment that stifles creativity and innovation. Conversely, a focus on long-term
growth cultivates a risk-taking culture where failures are tolerated, fostering a more
enjoyable and productive workplace. When employees feel inspired and respected,
they are more likely to contribute positively to the organization.

Innovative companies often emphasize a culture of fun, incorporating elements like

vibrant workspaces, non-routine activities, and opportunities for free thinking. This
kind of environment not only encourages creativity but also enhances employee pride
in their work.

STAGE 3 – DEVELOPING A VISION AND STRATEGY FOR INNOVATION

A core characteristic of effective leadership is the ability to articulate a compelling

vision that engages followers. In the context of innovation, this vision should illustrate
a desirable future that can be achieved through strategic initiatives. It must be
logically sound, experiential, and aligned with the organization's current resources.

Creating a vision requires a mindset akin to that of a startup. Leadership must reassess
existing strategies, business models, and operational competencies to inspire a vision
that aligns with evolving market conditions and customer demands. The focus should
be on sustainable, profitable growth, requiring a blend of acquisitions and innovation
—whether organic or open.

The strategy for innovation should include a portfolio that balances short-term and
long-term initiatives. This portfolio can encompass variations, derivatives, platform
innovations, and fundamental changes, allowing for effective allocation of resources.
Innovation can also be utilized to enhance existing processes and products rapidly,
necessitating a comprehensive approach that includes both immediate and future-
oriented strategies.

Leadership’s commitment to innovation must be evident in resource allocation and

support for risk-taking. A well-rounded vision is crucial, emphasizing growth
opportunities and the importance of innovation as a vital aspect of organizational
success.

STAGE 4 – COMMUNICATING THE CHANGE VISION FOR INNOVATION

A clearly articulated vision is essential for successful implementation of innovation

initiatives. Historical examples, such as President Kennedy’s moon landing goal,
illustrate how a compelling vision can inspire collective action and lead to
groundbreaking achievements. In a corporate setting, frequent communication of this
vision is necessary for it to be perceived as credible and actionable.

There are various effective methods to communicate the vision, such as storyboards,
pocket cards, and town hall meetings. The key is to present a vision that resonates
with employees, highlighting the benefits not only for the company but also for
customers and society at large. A vision should be clear, devoid of jargon, and
directly relevant to stakeholders.

Leadership’s commitment to the vision is demonstrated through resource allocation,

risk acceptance, and support for innovative ideas. This commitment should alleviate
any employee concerns and encourage bold actions aligned with the vision. The
vision must challenge employees intellectually, requiring collaboration to achieve
desired outcomes.

STAGE 5 – EMPOWERING EMPLOYEES FOR BROAD-BASE

INNOVATION

The term “empowerment” can evoke skepticism; however, it is vital for fostering an
environment conducive to innovation. Empowerment means actively listening to
employees, investing in their education, and granting them the authority to make
decisions related to their responsibilities. For employees to be fully engaged, they
must feel both enlisted and empowered.

To institutionalize innovation, organizations need to create incentives that promote

creativity and remove bureaucratic barriers. Open communication and collaborative
spaces are crucial for fostering innovative thinking. Moreover, encouraging reflective
thinking and play can stimulate creativity, helping employees tap into their
intellectual potential.

A roadmap, such as the Business Innovation Maturity Model (BIMM), can guide
organizations in establishing a systematic approach to innovation. This model outlines
various stages—from sporadic innovation to sustained results—that clarify
expectations for leadership and employees alike.

Despite the inherent creativity present in all individuals, organizations often fail to
harness this potential effectively. Providing training in innovation techniques and
methodologies is essential for cultivating a workforce capable of delivering
innovation on demand. This includes setting up dedicated innovation spaces and
integrating innovative practices into the organizational routine.

It is crucial that middle managers and supervisors support the innovation strategy to
ensure employee engagement. Rather than focusing on limitations, leadership should
encourage exploration and support innovative ideas, fostering an environment where
employees feel empowered to contribute beyond the status quo.

Stage 6: Generating Short-Term Wins to Innovation

In the realm of change management, generating short-term wins is crucial for the
successful implementation of innovative initiatives. Drawing from the experiences of
the Six Sigma program at Motorola, managing small wins can significantly enhance
the overall change process. Short-term wins serve as a catalyst for change by
addressing several key areas:

1. Building Confidence and Support:

o Successful initial deployments instill confidence in employees and
encourage them to embrace change rather than hesitate.
o Example: When a new methodology is introduced, initial success
stories create a sense of assurance, prompting employees to try out the
new system.
2. Encouraging a Culture of Innovation:
o Short-term wins can emerge from adopting new tools and processes,
which facilitate the development of an innovative culture within the
organization.
o For instance, a company might celebrate successful product launches
that demonstrate the potential financial impact of innovation.
3. Diverse Areas of Innovation:
o Innovation can occur at various levels, including processes, products,
services, business models, and strategies.
o Organizations must have established processes in place to handle both
expected and unexpected elements of innovation, enabling a balance
between chaos and organization.
4. Portfolio of Innovations:
o Short-term wins can be categorized into a portfolio comprising various
types of innovations, such as process improvements, product
enhancements, and business model shifts.
o A balanced approach—where some innovations contribute directly to
profit while others drive revenue growth—helps accelerate the
innovation process.
5. Learning from Failures:
o Not all short-term wins will lead to overwhelming success; initial
failures provide valuable lessons that inform future endeavors.
o Recognizing that some projects may not meet expectations allows
organizations to refine their approaches and build stronger foundations
for future innovations.
6. Justifying System Changes:
 o Short-term wins serve as tangible evidence that the innovation
initiatives are worthwhile, reinforcing the need for system changes.
o Celebrating these successes helps build morale, fosters enthusiasm for
ongoing innovation, and counters skepticism.
7. Management Buy-In:
o Visible successes gain support from management at all levels,
including finance departments, encouraging a broader commitment to
innovation initiatives.

Stage 7: Consolidating Gains and Producing More Innovations

Once short-term wins have been achieved, it’s crucial to build upon these successes to
foster greater innovation within the organization. This stage emphasizes the
importance of consolidating gains and institutionalizing innovation practices:

1. Building on Initial Successes:

o Initial wins should act as a springboard for expanding and enhancing
innovation efforts throughout the organization.
o Example: Companies that have successfully launched a new product
can leverage that momentum to explore further innovative products or
services.
2. Nurturing Innovation:
o Organizations must cultivate an environment where innovation thrives,
emphasizing employee engagement and collaboration across
departments.
o Publicizing success stories can inspire employees and encourage
participation in innovation initiatives.
3. Overcoming Departmental Silos:
o Collaboration across departments is essential, as misunderstandings
about priorities can stall innovation projects.
o Leadership must encourage teamwork and accountability to propel
innovation forward after initial successes.
4. Redefining Corporate Culture:
o To sustain innovation, the corporate culture must be realigned with
values that promote creativity and risk-taking.
o Leadership roles should be defined to ensure effective deployment of
innovation initiatives, and every employee should be encouraged to
contribute to innovative practices.
5. Training and Development:
o Investing in innovation education and training ensures that employees
have the skills necessary to support innovation efforts.
o Periodic reviews and measures of innovation processes help maintain
focus on continuous improvement.
6. Standardizing Innovation:
o This stage aims to establish innovation as a standardized process across
the organization, ensuring it is integrated into everyday practices.
Stage 8: Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

For innovation to become ingrained in an organization, it must be anchored in its

culture. This involves several critical actions:

1. Creating a Lasting Culture of Innovation:

o Organizations must hard-wire innovation into their corporate identity,
ensuring that it becomes a foundational aspect of their operations.
o Example: 3M’s allocation of unaccounted time for employees to
innovate reflects a commitment to embedding innovation in the
company’s culture.
2. Aligning Corporate Vision and Policies:
o The corporate vision, policies, and procedures must consistently reflect
a commitment to innovation, reinforcing its importance at every level
of the organization.
o New employees should be oriented toward innovation as a core
expectation from their first day.
3. Maintaining Consistency:
o Leadership must exemplify a commitment to innovation, ensuring that
they align their actions with the company’s goals.
o Regular communication about innovation efforts and outcomes, even
incremental improvements, keeps innovation top of mind for all
employees.
4. Expectation Management:
o As a company becomes known for innovation, stakeholders will expect
innovative products and services, shifting the leadership’s focus from
cost-cutting to growth through innovation.
5. Sustaining the Innovation Drive:
o Establishing measurable goals for innovation helps maintain
momentum and encourages employees to engage in innovative
thinking regularly.
6. Learning Organization:
o Organizations that successfully anchor innovation in their culture are
perceived as learning and adaptive entities, creating an expectation for
continued innovation.

Conclusion

The challenges of pursuing innovation remain prevalent, with many CEOs expressing
uncertainty about how to implement effective innovation strategies. Factors
contributing to this innovation aversion include:

 Lack of confidence in innovation processes

 Extended product development cycles
 Limited incentives and plans for handling failures

To overcome these hurdles, leadership must focus on creating a culture that supports
and engages employees in innovation initiatives. By effectively managing the change
to an innovation-oriented culture, organizations can harness the collective creativity
of their workforce to produce meaningful, lasting innovations.

A proven framework for leading innovation change provides executives with the tools
necessary to successfully launch and sustain innovation initiatives, ultimately
ensuring their organizations thrive in an increasingly competitive landscape.