Organizational Change and Innovation - Essay Example

Name Lecturer Organizational Change and Innovation Date The two terms; innovation and change are common terms on various every day phenomena. They are interrelated to each other in some way. Poole & Van de Ven (2004) highlights the fact that “innovation is a crucial partner to change”. One cannot mention innovation without mentioning change. Despite being related to each other, the two terms differ. Many people have always confused the two terms and it is for this reason that both are discussed in unison. Many scholars have come up with their own explanations as to why organizations adopt change (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). Theories of change and theories of changing have been discussed extensively by these scholars together with how they apply in modern day organizations. Theories of change have been helpful in the understanding of how various bodies change while theories of changing have been helpful in explaining how change can be managed in organizations (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004: 4). To achieve a better understanding, these scholars borrowed facts from other disciplines. Poole et al. (2000) have argued that scholars have borrowed many concepts, metaphors, and theories from other disciplines such as child development in trying to explain how organizations change. It has been argued that the study of organizational change and innovation is a crucial issue for managers. Perhaps the best way to begin this discussion is by defining these two terms. Being a multifaceted phenomenon, it is quite difficult to define the term change separately. However change can be defined with ease with reference to a specific phenomenon such as organization. Some scholars have tried defining this term alone. Austin & Claassen (2008) for example defines change as “the implementation of a new idea or behavior and this could be in terms of policies, programs, services or process”. Others have defined change with regards to organizations. Poole & Van de Ven (2004: xi) defines organizational change as “a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity. Entities encompass work units, individual jobs, subunits of an organization, entire organization and groups of organizations (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004: xi). In the same way as Poole & Van de Ven defines this concept, Austin & Claassen (2008) defines organizational change as that manner in which an organization recognize, considers and enact new concepts. The theme of organizational change has become very important to an extent that it has found its way to psychology disciplines (Hosking & Anderson, 1992: 1). Change is measurable after a certain period. It can assume several forms; it can either be planned or unplanned. Change is a continuous process, thus it requires attention especially when it comes to planning and implementation process. As a matter of fact, it is undeniable that change is inevitable in modern day organizations just like it is in daily life. Organizational change occurs as a result of individual change. Kotze, (2006:17) argues that it is the individuals who change but not groups, companies or their teams. Changes are being effected to counteract impediments posed by various causative forces such as globalization, competition, government policies, changes in economic conditions and technological innovations. In the same way, innovation on the other hand is a commonly used concept on various disciplines. Just like the term ‘change’, defining innovation is quite difficult without specific emphasis on a particular study. Damanpour & Evan (1984) posits that innovation is always defined in accordance to the obligations and attributes of a particular field of study such as organizational change. Basing our definition on this field of study, innovation can be defined as response to changes in environment and it can involve enactment of new technical or administrative idea (Damanpour & Evan, 1984: 393). Poole & Van de Ven (2004) considers innovation as the source of social and economic growth and also as a driving force of liberated exchange of ideas. Considering these two definitions, it is quite evident that innovation results to the introduction of new ideas to an organization. Additionally, changes could result from innovation strategies being implemented in an organization. It is for this reason that it can be argued that these two concepts are quite inseparable. In fact, many authors have presented their organizational change discussions without failure to mention innovation. By discussing change in detail in this essay, we are considering the fact that they are as a result of innovation strategies. As earlier mentioned, change occurs as a result of driving forces pushing. These driving forces can either be originating from within an organization or outside an organization. These forces whether internal or external push organizations out of their ‘comfort zones’ and move in a direction they dislike (Russell, J. & Russell, K., 2006: 1). As a result of change, managers find it difficult to effect changes due to opposition they get from employees. Organizations can be compared to objects in Sir Isaac Newton’s first law which states that “A body remains in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.” Even though this law gives a description of how objects move, it can equally apply too to organizations. Like objects in this principle, entities of an organization tend to resist change. For change to be effective and meaningful to an organization, all these entities need to accept it and its purpose ought be well defined and understood (Russell, J. & Russell, K., 2006: 16). The purpose of change can be defined through the identification of driving forces which can either be internal or external. Examples of external forces causing change include; economy, market niche, technology, demographic shifts, social needs and government policies. These forces originate from outside the organization. On the other hand there are internal forces that can cause change and they include; leadership and vision, challenges in performance, workforce demographics, employee satisfaction and new concepts. These factors originate from within an organization. With regards to organizational change, Nokia Corporation has been an epitome. Nokia was initially started in 1865 by Fredrik Idestam in south-western Finland as a woods’ products company (Nokia Company, 2013). Organizational changes and innovations have seen this company setting its feet on the communications technologies. Currently, it is among the leading companies dealing in mobile technologies. The company manufactures mobile phones worldwide and software used in mobile handsets. Realization of the need to effect change has helped this company to excel in mobile technology market. Currently, internet and communication are converging. Both internal and external forces have driven this company to change. Innovations and changes in social needs are good examples of external forces that have pushed Nokia Corporation towards change. In a quest to move with technological innovations, Nokia Company has been changing. A good example of a response to technological innovations is the current release of Nokia Lumia 920, 800 and 710 handsets operating on Windows operating system (Nokia Company, 2013). Advent of these handsets operating on a common platform ‘Windows Platform’ is at par with current competition being posed by other mobile phone companies. Competitor companies have manufactured mobile handsets running on Android system which is more advanced compared to Nokia’s old operational platform ‘Symbian’. Windows Platform has more advanced capabilities compared to its predecessor ‘Symbian’. Russell, J. & Russell, K. (2006: 18) highlights the fact that technological innovations offer organizations competitive advantage in the worldwide market. The push is also as a result of response to customers’ needs. As earlier stated, technology is moving towards converging internet and communication. These changes have affected all the facets of this organization ranging from management to its employees. In the year 2010, Stephen Elop formerly the president of Microsoft was appointed in a quest to introduce innovative ideas to this competitive industry (Nokia Company, 2013). Changes in customer aspirations resulted to the company initiating the Booster Programme in 2008 (Maemo.org, 2009). Human needs change with time. Russell, J. & Russell, K. (2006: 18) has argued that changes in social trends shape the personal preferences of humans. Changing social needs have a robust effect on people’s expectations. This factor has been quite evident in telecommunications companies such as Nokia Corporation. Booster programme was initiated to “bolster employees’ awareness and skills by enlarging the capacity of regional teams to perform their functions efficiently” (Maemo.org, 2009). This programme was meant to encompass all employees approximated to be around 5000. On the other hand, internal forces that have caused major organizational changes in the Nokia Corporation are introduction of new ideas and leadership, and vision. Innovative ideas of converging the internet and communications have resulted to changes in this organization. By appointing Stephen Elop who had vast experience in software and management (Nokia Company, 2013), Nokia Corporation was responding to the need to introduce new ideas and strong management. He was an ambitious leader with vast experience. On his first day at the Nokia Corporation, he sent email to all workers for them to recommend what they thought could deem helpful to the company (Riley, 2012). The focus was twosome; leadership and new ideas. Formation of partnerships with Microsoft in the year 2011 truly reflects the effects of this change in leadership (Nokia Company, 2013). These changes affected all entities of Nokia Corporation. According to Mullins (2007) it can be difficult to identify resistance to change at times thus; becoming difficult to solve. People resist change due to the psychological perception of imminent shock (Toffler, 1970: 27). In order to reduce operational costs, Nokia Corporation went on with a retrenchment strategy of a fifth of its employees in the year 2012 and closing down some branches such as the one in Finland (Riley, 2012). The need to focus on software led to the closure of these sub units. A major problem faced by the new CEO was overcoming the culture within the organization. Bureaucracy and lack of accountability was a major characteristic of the previous culture of Nokia Corporation before his arrival (White, 2011). Junior employees did not contribute at any instant towards decision making. Three major barriers at that instant were insufficient communication, bad leadership and overcoming cultural issues. Together with these barriers, the company was facing the challenge of missing a crucial change in the market; introducing smartphones (Riley, 2012). Nokia Corporation being a big company was at risk of having communication barriers. Shavinina (2003) points out the fact that small firms have some merits such as communication, and friendlier work climate compared to big firms. Despite this, the management decided to use workshops and online social community network that were quite appropriate in allowing employees to be part of the solution (Maemo.org, 2009). These two strategies would help in eliminating the problem of resistance to change to a larger extent. The two strategies used proved effective. It is for this reason that the company has survived stiff competition from market partners. Even though change can be seen as unfavorable by employees, it is an important activity that enables organizations to survive in the market. References Austin, M. J. & Claassen, J. 2008. Impact of Organizational Change on Organizational Culture: Implications for Introducing Evidence-Based Practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Practice, 5(1/2): 321-359. Damanpour, F. & Evan, W. M. 1984. Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of “Organizational lag.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3): 392-409. Hosking, D. M. & Anderson, N. 1992. Organizational Changes and Innovations: Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe. New York: Taylor & Francis. Kotze, R. S. 2006. Performance: The Secrets of Successful Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Maemo.org, 2009. Case Study-Nokia organisational change. 20th April 2013. Retrieved from Mullins, L. J. 2007. Management and Organizational Behaviour (ed 8). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Nokia Company. 2013. The Nokia Story. 20th April 2013. Retrieved from Poole, M. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. 2004. Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H, Dooley, K. & Holmes, M. E. 2000. Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research. Oxford: Oxford University Riley, J. 2012 June 14. Nokia and Strategic Change - the Essential A2 Business case. 20th April 2013. Retrieved from Russell, J. L. & Russell, L. 2006. Change basics. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Shavinina, L. V. 2003. The International handbook on innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Toffler, A. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Random House. White, T. 2011 February 10. Nokia: A Business Culture Problem. 20th April 2013. Retrieved from Read More