Managing Creativity and Change in Organizations - the of Apple Incorporated - Case Study Example

?Introduction In the midst of tough competition, firms will have no other choice, but to find for creative and innovative means on how to compete andoperate in order to generate a substantial market share. In fact, it has long been recognised that creativity and innovativeness are critical competencies in the organisations in the 21st century (Cekmecelioglu and Gunsel, 2013). This calls for permanence and development in the midst of competition as necessary, which can only be realised in working with creativity (Taleghani, 2012). This supports the thought that creativity is always good (Hon, 2013). While everybody seems to be doing what is necessary in the future, the need to embrace creative and innovative approach in the human capital is necessary, because this will have to take into account the optimization of concepts or ideas that will promote a competitive advantage for an organisation. The organizations with the right ideas and concepts are more likely to create an advantage for penetrating in an industry. In line with this idea, the work at hand discusses the statement “In the future, hierarchical management structures will be less evident. The management of intellectual capital will require skills that nurture creativity and innovation in workforce rather than compliance as in the past.” To start with this, a good starting point will be to consider the case of Apple Incorporated and how it deals with creativity, innovation and manage its intellectual capital. The case of Apple Incorporated as an example The case of Apple Incorporated is sheer evidence that hierarchical management structures will be less evident in the future. Instead, nurturing creativity and innovation in the workforce will be a must rather than doing a requirement of compliance for hierarchical management. What Apple exactly did is a depiction of innovation, a significant change that opens the door for more innovative business approach in the future. Apple Incorporated has primarily dealt more with specialisation, leading to the progress of its product offerings in terms of technological advancement. However, what is clear in its case is the ability to promote creativity and innovation concerning the skills of the manpower to develop something new. At Apple Incorporated, it does not matter who the boss is, for as long as everybody has something new innovative to offer that is in line with the firm’s vision to go for change and lead in the industry. Aside from the fact that Apple has been producing new innovative products in the market and has become the leader in its industry due to this approach, it has also successfully made an innovation in its business model, and together these have called for effective management of skills prior to creativity and innovation. In other words, the company’s business culture is more of a deviation from the traditional business model. The old traditional model of hierarchical management Hierarchical management is the old way of conducting or doing business. It is survived by the ability of the entire workforce to adhere to bureaucracy and maintain the harmonious implementation of the chain of command (Farrel, 2011). This adheres to the authority of the higher-ranking officials and their tendency to implement anything that will go for the act of subordination. This means that a certain component or department in an organisation, except one, is subordinate to the other (Zhou et al., 2011). There must be evidence of hierarchy especially in the organisational structure. There is an inclusion of different levels of management, power and authority within the hierarchy and this is what commonly applies to majority of corporations, government and religious groups today. However, it is important to understand the remarkable implication of this structural model in an organisation. It is good to understand that a hierarchical management structure may limit the creativity and innovation capacity of a certain department or the human resource (Daft and Marcic, 2011), because the entire workforce will have to initiate whatever is necessary to be implemented as commanded by the higher ranking authority at the top level of management. In fact, each level of hierarchy may have varying power or authority (Pitagorsky, 2007; Philips, 2012), but each is still subject to a unified chain of command and nobody has the freedom to initiate creativity and innovation. This is a clear identification of what a hierarchical management structure is all about and its probable implication on the level of creativity and innovation. Another important thing to consider about hierarchical management structure is the speed of decision-making process (Eardley and Uden, 2011). It is true that compared to sole proprietorship, a corporation will have to take time creating the actual decisions. This is because everything will have to undergo a consensus and there are various paths by which what has to be implemented will walk on. In other words, the speed of implementation may be slower, because of the need to employ the hierarchy, and such will also have to consider the power or authority in order to finally do the implementation process. This definitely will have to limit the potential creativity in the implementation process knowing that other departments might have the better perspective on how to exactly implement things, but the hierarchy is a significant barrier for such implementation. This therefore will have to call for a very structured approach and a costly and detailed understanding of the entire system. There are other major significant drawbacks linked to a hierarchical management structures when it comes to the enhancement and implementation of creativity and innovation in the organisation. It is also important to consider that as globalisation is trying to create the entire world as one market, a tough competition prevails. This calls for doing something new in order to make a difference and create a significant need or demand for a certain product or service offerings and eventually generate a potential market share for them. Apple Incorporated and other related companies have tried to capture this trend, and what they essentially do is to invest more in their creativity and innovation. This therefore means trying to outdo or change an existing management structures. In the case of Apple, it has substantially embraced a specific strategy in order to ensure the implementation of creativity and innovation in the entire structural system of the firm (O’Grady, 2009; Katie, 2013). It was formulated so as not to limit the creative or innovative means of the human resource and every department especially the support groups. In this case, every department in the organisation will have to contribute something new for the firm to create something new and offer something new to the target markets. This eventually is the good starting point of change and a formulation of competitive strategies. The idea of competitive strategies The future is all about change. As change is the only constant in this world, firms have no choice but to initiate change too. A company that is very slow to change in today’s setting will have to be left behind in the race of competing firms, brands and products. After all, change enhances creativity (Choi and Thompson, 2005). That is why in the future, firms will have to consider differentiating their product and service offerings. This means there is a necessity to employ a strategic move for innovation in order to generate a remarkable competitive advantage (Tsanis, 2010; de Kluyver, 2010; Pollock and Hodgson, 2004). As much as possible, the ability to be considered in the market is a great area of consideration that calls for a remarkable concern among firms especially those with mature management. After all, managers of mature industries can be dynamic at promoting creativity (Cekmecelioglu and Gunsel, 2011). Along the way, they have become active in formulating competitive strategies. Based on Porter’s idea, there are underlying common competitive strategies that a certain firm will most likely to employ. One of them is the differentiation strategy. This will call for creating an output that has to be unique that at least for a certain span of time other competing firms can hardly emulate (Porter, 1998; Ireland et al., 2010; Goodman et al., 2006). In this case, the rightly differentiated offerings or innovative products will have to create a competitive advantage especially if they have substantially generated a significant demand or market share (Friar, 1995; Gebauer et al., 2011; Angelmar, 1990; Becerra et al., 2013; de Olieveira and Kaminski, 2012). The unique product offerings of Apple are creating significant demand in the market, and this means the firm is trying to establish a competitive advantage. However, Apple will hardly create highly differentiated offerings if this firm did not employ a new or differentiated approach for its management structures in the first place. Prior to the creation of its highly differentiated offerings, Apple was able to undergo change in its management structures. Thanks to Steve Jobs who made such idea. Today, Apple is among the most widely considered companies in the world when it comes to understanding the most effective means in order to generate a competitive advantage in a specific industry. Apple is a depiction of creativity and innovation, not only in its product offerings, but including its management structure. This is due to conformity within the entire firm. Conformity pressure stimulates group creativity (Goncalo and Duguid, 2012). This momentarily leads to the creation of a new management structure and in the case of Apple, an innovative management of intellectual capital. The good thing about new management structure and management of intellectual capital There are many reasons why Apple and other related or relevant firms employ a new management structure and management of intellectual capital, and even many major companies in the future will have to consider undertaking these approaches. First, hierarchical management structures may eventually limit creativity and innovation capacity of an organisation, as stated earlier. In this case, a firm will also have to limit its capacity to compete or stay competitive in its industry and target market niche. One thing that has to come in mind especially in the case of products that have reached its peak in the product life cycle will have to consider innovation in order to maintain certain level of acceptance in its target market. Aside from this, the firm should have to consider innovation because this will guarantee creation of unique products that will still matter to the target market and still continue to create a significant market share. Creativity and innovation will have to go together especially in creating a unique product or service offerings in the midst of competition (Tsai and Yang, 2013). For instance, to succeed in product development means that the organisation must have to carry a high level of creativity (Brattstrom et al., 2012). Second, as hierarchical management structures may eventually delay decision-making process (Gunningham, 2007). Firms will have to consider a system by which they can minimise time delays. Time delays will have significant impact on the business especially in the midst of tough competition. It means a significant opportunity will have to be forfeited for the advantage of those who might have remarkable time management approach. Certainly, no organisation will have to accept this reality to stand against them, but they have to create a remarkable change in order to generate their competitive advantage. This will be the moment that every department in the firm will have to be given freedom to employ their creative means in order to produce an output that will support the entire firm just at the right time and as it is necessary. For example, there will be a need to consider the best practices and if they have potential implications on the entire business in line with the advancement, they will be considered a remarkable model for the rest of the working departments. In other words, every department in the firm will have to consider employing creative means in order to optimise their support for the benefit of the entire firm. Each department will certainly have the freedom to initiate what is necessary for the generation of competitive advantage of the firm. Third, the management of intellectual capital will be the center of everything because it is here where the source of ideas flows. Business idea generation requires divergent thinking (Gielnik et al., 2012). This is a manifestation why intellectual capital is necessary. Thus, firms will have to require skills that nurture creativity and innovation in the workforce rather than compliance based on hierarchical management structures. For example, in the case of creation of a new product, everything starts with the right ideas and concepts. Various companies rely on research, as this will be their ultimate means of identifying what needs to be done prior to the actual decision-making process. Apple Incorporated before trying to come out with a new concept relies on research activities as these are essential tools for them to understand what the customers may value so much. Other firms are trying to initiate researches because this move will be an important component for them to find a new market opportunity. In the case of many companies that would want to create a significant market share for their product and service offerings, the ideas linked to market segmentation and customer analysis are interesting views for consideration. Market segmentation is necessary for them because this is a way for them to know the target market for their product and service offerings (Schnaars, 1998). The case of McDonalds and other fast food chain companies have proven this work good for them (Russ, and Kirkpatrick, 2011; Bovee and Thill, 2011). The cases of Amazon and eBay have proven that there are various opportunities in bringing the retailing industry online (McDonald, 2012; Michman et al., 2003; Keegan and Green, 2002). There are other important cases like these, but the bottom line, the force behind them lies on the human capital that has become enhanced by creative and innovative approach. However, along the way, this requires research investigations. Intellectual capital is necessary. Whatever information that will be generated from the relevant research investigations will have to be used as information for the implementation process. In the implementation process, firms have no other choice, but to consider the skills like creativity and innovativeness of the human resource in order to effectively promote what is necessary. Conclusion The work at hand just presented and illustrated the views concerning why hierarchical management structures will be less evident in the future, but there will be higher engagement into the management of intellectual capital linked to skills for creativity and innovation in the workforce. As shown, the tough competition might be a significant factor why an organisation must go for change. To remain focus on a traditional hierarchical management structures means there will be remarkable drawbacks in order to compete effectively, but the employment of competitive strategies linked to creativity and innovation have promised competitive advantages. Competing firms are looking forward to this. This means that as competition has become tougher, the need to go for change in both of the management structures, intellectual capital and product or service offerings has become a reality now, which will have a positive continuance in the future. References Angelmar, R. (1990) ‘Product innovation: A tool for competitive advantage’. European Journal of Operational Research 47(2), 182-189. Becerra, M., Santalo, J., and Silva, R. (2013) ‘Being better vs. being different: Differentiation, competition, and pricing strategies in the Spanish hotel industry’. Tourism Management 34, 71-79. Bovee, C. L., and Thill, J. V. (2011) Marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Brattstrom, A., Lofsten, H., and Richtner, A. (2012) ‘Creativity, trust and systematic processes in product development’. Research Policy 41(4), 743-755. Cekmecelioglu, H. G., and Gunsel, A. (2013) ‘The effects of individual creativity and organisational climate on firm innovativeness’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 99, 257-264. Cekmecelioglu, H. G., and Gunsel, A. (2011) ‘Promoting creativity among employees of mature industries: The effects of autonomy and role stress on creative behaviors and job performance’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 24, 889-895. Choi, H. S., and Thompson, L. (2005) ‘Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 98(2), 121-132. Daft, R. L., and Marcic, D. (2011) Understanding management. 8th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. De Oliveira, A., and Kaminski, P. C. (2012) ‘A reference model to determine the degree of maturity in the product development process of industrial SMEs’. Technovation 32(12), 671-680. De Kluyver, C (2010) Fundamentals of global strategy: A business model approach. New York, NY: Business Expert Press. Eardley, A., and Uden, L. (2011) Innovative knowledge management: Concepts for organizational creativity and collaborative design. New York, NY: IGI Global. Farrel, A. (2011) Network management know it all. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Friar, J. H. (1995) ‘Competitive advantage through product performance innovation in a competitive market’. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12(1), 33-42. Gebauer, H., Gustafsson, A., and Witell, L. (2011) ‘Competitive advantage through service differentiation by manufacturing companies’. Journal of Business Research 64(12), 1270-1280. Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., and Kampschulte, A. (2012) ‘Creativity in the opportunity identification process and the moderating effect of diversity of information’. Journal of Business Venturing 27(5), 559-576. Goncalo, J. A., and Duguid, M. M. (2012) ‘Follow the crowd in new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not)’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 118(1), 14-23. Goodman, S. H., Fandt, P. M., and Michlitsch, J. F. (2006) Management: Challenges for tomorrow’s leaders. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Gunningham, N. (2007) Mine Safety: Law Regulation Policy. Marrickville, NSW: Federation Press. Hon, A. H. Y. (2013) ‘Does job creativity requirement improve service performance? A multilevel analysis of work stress and service environment’. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35, 161-170. Ireland, R, D., Hoskisson, R. E., and Hitt, M. A. (2010) Understanding business strategy concepts plus. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Katie, J. (2013) Critical marketing audit: The case of Apple Inc. Munich: GRIN Verlag. Keegan, W. J., and Green, M. C. (2002) Global marketing management. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McDonald, M. (2012) Market segmentation: How to do it and how to profit from it. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Michman, R. D., Mazze, E. M., and Greco, A. J. (2003) Lifestyle marketing: Reaching the new American consumer. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. O’Grady, J. D. (2009) Apple Inc. Westport, CT: ABC-CLIO. Philips, J. M. (2012) Human resource management. 1st ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Pitagorsky, G. (2007) The Zen approach to project management: Working from your center to balance expectations and performance. New York, NY: New York Publishing. Pollock, J. T., and Hodgson, R. (2004) Adaptive information: Improving business through semantic interoperability grid computing, and enterprise integration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Porter, M. E. (1998) Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press. Russ, F. A., and Kirkpatrick, C. A. (2011) Marketing. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Company. Schnaars, S. P. (1998) Marketing strategy. New York, NY: Free Press. Taleghani, M. (2012) ‘Impact of Attitudes on Managers Creativity’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 40, 65-70. Tsai, K. H., and Yang, S. Y. (2013) ‘Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition’. Industrial Marketing Management 42(8), 1279-1294. Tsanis, K. (2010) The impact of the 2007-2009 subprime mortgage crisis in the integrated oil and gas industry. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Zhou, Z., Xie, S., and Chen, D. (2011) Fundamentals of digital manufacturing science. London: Springer. Read More