Business and Management (Organisational Learning and Development) - Case Study Example

Business Management REVISION SECTION 01 First 02 5.0 Add recommendations 19 APR 2008 0 Objective This paper aims to determine the feasibility of stimulating, encouraging, and rewarding creative and innovative practices within Emerson Network Power through a case study of an employee engaged in creative processes. This is done by examining the company in three levels: small team operations, owner/line managers’ encouragement, and HR Department Support. 2.0 Review of Related Literature As companies proceed this 21st century, there is a need for managers to be innovative and responsive in new ways. The reason for this is that companies also need to innovate as its long-term survival depends on it. (Ancona & Caldwell 1987) Therefore, managers must initiate change in order to foster a creative climate within their workgroups. (Sharman & Johnson 1997) In the times past, however, this was not so as organizations leave little room for creativity so as to avoid chaos. In fact, traditional organization theory teaches that organizations must forecast and keep control. (Stacey 1996) To meet the demands of the present time, innovation is encouraged by requiring managers to be proactive. As a matter of fact, numerous publications suggest that proactive behavior on the part of the manager is now a necessary component of job performance. (Crant 2000). In addition to that, managers should also trust their subordinates enough to empower them. That is why Pape et. al. (2005) emphasize the need of employees to have leaders who empower them and whom they could follow. Managers must also foster an organizational culture that encourages innovation on the part of the employees. Krause et. al. (2007) mentioned that two styles of leadership that compliment one another – delegative-participative and consultative-advisory leaderships. Whether their leadership style is one or the other, they can use this to create a favorable culture to innovation. An organizational culture which stresses learning, development and participative decision-making would have higher level of innovativeness. The higher the level of innovativeness in the company is, the greater the capacity for employees to adapt and innovate. (Hurley & Hult 1998) In the research done by Westwood and Low (2003), it was found out that culture has an effect on creative and innovative processes. However, they cautioned that these findings can neither be treated simplistically nor can it be considered a universal law. A close relative of innovation is creativity. There is a common notion that creativity comes form the person’s interaction with the situation he/she is in. (Hunter et. al. 2007) According to Oldham (1996), employees flourish in their creativity when they have possess traits that are relevant to creativity, the have a complex and challenging work and there is a non-controlling supervision that is supportive. This finding was also supported by Hunter et. al. (2007). There is actually a connection between the individual and his environment and this can be explored. In highly pressured and competitive environments, for instance, one can predict how creatively staff would perform by considering their support and autonomy. (Hunter et. al. 2007) There are other factors affecting creativity. Product characteristic is one of them. According to Puccio et. al. (1995), creative style and product characteristics are positively correlated. Another factor is human resource development. Waight (2005) found out that there is also a connection between creativity and human resource development. This can be explored by checking the on the job training, entrepreneurship, knowledge workplaces, projections of workforce and occupation and work values. Creativity and Innovation may be encouraged in a number of ways. First, it could come by supporting or assisting another person’s idea. Another means is by providing new information to the individual which can potentially lead to new ideas and alternative solutions. (Madjar 2005) Conflicts can also help. In a study made by Carsten Dreu (2006), it was found out that those teams that work together becomes more innovative if there is a moderate level of conflict. Neither high nor low conflicts, on the other hand, do not promote innovation. One of the main problems in managing innovation is attention management. (Van de Ven 1986) The reason for this it the gradual adaptation of individual to their environment such that the level of their awareness of need declines while action thresholds are pegged at crisis level to prompt action. (Scott & Bruce 1994) Another factor is the company’s demand that individuals be innovative and creative. Livingston et. al. (1997) found out that higher job satisfaction and lower stress is dependent on how fit the demand for ability with the individual’s ability to meet this demand. 3.0 Findings An employee of Emerson Network Power was asked to participate in this study. He was asked to answer some questions on Creativity and Innovation – both written and oral. His written answers can be found in the Appendix while the oral answers have been incorporated in this section. His case is worth studying because he acts both a staff and a manager. He is a staff in the sense that he reports to the design manager with regarding latest product development which includes parametric testing, electro-magnetic compatibility, safety engineering compliance, quality assurance engineering compliance, and advanced manufacturing engineering compliance. He is a manager in the sense that during the production phase, there is also a team of people under him including a team secretary, process engineers, manufacturing technicians and production staff. According to the respondent, creativity and innovation are the bread and butter of his work. For him, creativity “is birthing and growing new ideas.” Innovation, on the other hand, “is marrying old ideas with new ones.” His typical day would start early in morning by checking his email which would contain various concerns ranging from simple documentation issues to critical design issues. For instance, internal product specification that was received by the Document Control Department that is due for release was signed by the design engineer and was checked by the senior design engineer but was not signed by the team manager. This document, therefore, cannot be released despite the fact that the factory needs it. Therefore, the Design Engineer can also expect email from the factory asking for the status of the internal product specification and why it has not been released yet. There would also be times when the Design Engineer would receive rather distressing email from Advance Manufacturing Engineering that as per Schematic Diagram provided by the team, there are certain components in the Bill of Materials (BOM) that are missing. Therefore, assembly is at halt and shipping to customer will be delayed. Both these cases discussed above were actual cases and there were reasons why such issue arose. In the case of unsigned internal product specification, the design engineer did his job by dumping it on the right folder. Perhaps due to the fact that the team secretary also has tremendous work load, she just placed it in the “For Signature” folder of the manager. Towards the end of the day, she just assumed it was already signed, so she got it from there and submitted it to Document Control. In this case, the internal product specification remains to be the responsibility of the originating engineer. This problem, however, is too trivial for him to focus much of his work on. Therefore, was to raise this issue during the team meeting which is held every week. Apparently, this was also a concern of his co-engineers. Therefore, during this meeting wherein the team manager was present, they brainstormed on how this could be solved. Suggestions were welcome but were still for approval of the higher management. Among the suggestions that came out was putting a deadline on the submission of documents by the staff and also a designated time for signing of documents by the manager. For their team, they agreed that documents must be in by 5 PM everyday so that the manager can approve them. He would have until 6 PM to finish approving the documents. Afterwards, the team secretary would retrieve it and submit it to the Document Control Department. However, through the entire process, the design engineer would still have to take an active role such as calling up the manager or the secretary just to make sure they are doing their jobs. This forms a system of check and balance. The best suggestion, however, which everyone in the team wanted – especially the secretary – was to hire another secretary. They all agreed that she was already handling too much work and therefore, her performance was not optimal. The team manager agreed to present this to his superior, the senior design manager. During that time, however, it was not approved due to supposedly due to lack of workspace. The engineers, however, offered part of their work area but it would take about another year before this suggestion was finally adapted. Later in the day, the Design Engineer would do bench work. Going back to the critical issue mentioned about missing components in the bill of materials, the design engineer would have the liberty on his way of addressing the issue. Creatively, he must solve the problem. Based on his experience, he was able to formulate several options. First, he could contact the customer and inform them of that the shipment would definitely be delayed. However, he still would have to make a justification for this in addition to his boss not liking this idea. Therefore, the first option would be the least of the options. Second option is to find an equivalent component that is already in the Bill of Materials. For example, the missing cap is a 275 V Y-capacitor, he can look at the current BOM and look for the capacitor with the same specification and the one missing. If such capacitor exists, then he would have to test this in the power supply unit. Here again is where creativity is needed. Since there is very limited time, the design engineer must design and conduct the test in such a way that critical parameters are tested in the least possible time. For example, in the case of the 275 Y-cap, suppose only a 300 Y-cap is available in the BOM. Electrically, it would be possible to use the 300 Y-cap but it would have enormous implication on the electro-magnetic compatibility of the power supply unit he is working on. Therefore, as part of the creative process in order to ship the unit on time, he may opt not to do board level testing and proceed immediately to the power supply unit testing. On the one hand, this is good since it would yield results in faster time. On the other hand, this is dangerous since it is possible for the Y-cap not to pass in the board level in the first place due to its electrical response characteristic, for instance, which is frequency-dependent. Most of the times, the Design Engineer would also have to render overtime. Due to the urgent nature of the issues, they all have to be addressed and usually, they couldn’t all be addressed during the regular working hours. Because of this, many employees are not quite happy with it. The company tried to compensate by providing additional benefits such as overtime food and transportation allowances, and of course, overtime pay more expensive that the design engineer’s hourly rate. However, for most of the employees, they still prefer spending time with their families and unwinding after a day’s work rather than being forced to stay for overtime. 4.0 Discussions As Ancona and Caldwell (1987) asserted, Emerson Network Powers long term survival is dependent on the creativity and innovativeness of its employees. In fact, being a technology-based business, it is their bread and butter. The design of power supply systems, for instance, is a very dynamic business. As such, if Emerson Network Power is not very keen on creating new ones and improving the old ones, it will be defeated by its competitors. Take changes for Motorola phones, for instance. Based on the interview, it was found out that Motorola is a regular customer of Emerson. Every year, Motorola produces new cellular phones. Recently, it has produced phones with cutting edge specifications such as identity resistor. Basically, the identity resistor works by identifying if the charger connected to the phone is for Motorola or not. Therefore, even if the power rating of say, a particular charger, is same as that of Motorola (as generic charger produced by small business in bulk), it still would not charge the Motorola phone if the has no resistor ID or if it is incorrect. Now, if Emerson Network Power didnt innovate, it wouldnt be able to integrate this new customer specification into its standard charger design. Because of this, they would definitely lose profit that could have otherwise be earned had they kept Motorola. However, without satisfying the new customer requirement of ID resistor, there is no keeping Motorola. That is why in response to this, managers must ensure that the climate in the company must be creative as Sharman and Johnson (1997) emphasized. In Emerson Network Power, this is done in the context of teams. Each department is organized in the Design Engineering department, the creative arm of the company, into smaller group of 10-12 people called teams. Each team, in turn, is responsible for a specific product type. For instance, team 1 could be assigned for servers, team 2 to chargers and team 3 to adapters. It is through this organization that their creativity is developed and harnessed. By working together in a particular project, they sharpen one another as they test and prove one anothers idea towards the betterment of the project. According to the respondent, teamwork happens as soon as a project is given. For example, team 1 is assigned to design and develop a 4,000 watt server power supply. The manager, being the most experienced, would present and give the general idea to the senior design engineers. Now, the senior engineers would discuss among themselves how to go about the design. Almost always, there would be a heated discussion on which topology can best be used, what material components are appropriate, what characteristics should the choke have etc. Once they have agreed on this, they would assign parts of the project to the junior design engineers. The mechanical design engineer would be given the general physical requirement of the power supply. The junior electrical design engineers, on the other hand, would be in charge of design of particular blocks of the power supply such as the digital signal processor, the power factor correcting system, the AC/DC converter etc. The junior engineers, in turn, would think of how to best meet the specifications given to them and test if it really works. They would give the results, then, to their senior. If the results are good, they would try to make it better. If the results are bad, they would think together on how to make it good. In all these, creative juices must be constantly flowing. Otherwise, there would be no project and no earnings. Now, there would be cases when engineers would have different approach to the same problem. For example, there is a conducted electro-magnetic interference failure of 1.4 dB. Senior Design Engineer A would probably approach this by redesigning a choke in the power supply correction block. Senior Design Engineer B, however, thinks it would be better to improve the casing. So, they would debate on this, reviewing the merits and demerits, and then test their solution. Suppose this issue cannot be resolved, Junior Engineer C would then be assigned by the Senior Engineers to test their theory. Now, after the test, results showed that the unit is conducted electro-magnetic interference compliant, then the one with cheaper cost shall be chosen. Here, creativity and innovation is encouraged when the junior engineer supported the theories of his senior engineer by experimentation. (Majar 2005) Now, suppose that for this case, redesigning the choke has been found to be the better solution. Then, the design is submitted to the Mechanical Engineer for scrutiny. Now, if this the Mechanical Engineer does not OK this due to safety considerations, then the whole team would now have a problem of integrating the solution to the existing system without violating any mechanical engineering constraints. In any case, people become more creative as the pressure to meet customer shipment deadline escalates. Conflicts, however, were dealt in a very professional manner. Therefore, conflicts dont go beyond the boundaries of engineering, and therefore maintaining it a just moderate level. That is why in the case of Emerson Network Power, Carl Dreus (2006) theory that conflicts help was validated in this case. After all, conflicts in the case of the company was not low due to design considerations nor high to transcend even personal boundaries. As can be seen from this example, therefore, forecast and control is almost non-existed as proposed by traditional organizational theory. (Stacey 1006) Thus, from the discussion so far, it can also be seen that participative-decision making was rampant. In addition, they engineers have support and autonomy in a highly-pressured environment which are good indicators of how creatively staff would perform.(Hunter et. al. 2007) Another noticeable feature of this company is having proactive managers which actually help the employees improve their job performance. (Crant 2000) Managers dont just sit around and wait for the results. They also go to the bench areas to see what the design engineers are doing and extend help if necessary. Another characteristic which can be observed is that managers are empowering which boosts team performance all the more. (Papa et. al. 2005) As attested by the the respondent in the survey, they were only given the specifications and deadlines. It was really up to them to decide on how these specifications can be achieved. Therefore, as long as specifications are being achieved by any means, the manager leaves the design engineer to do his own thing. Another organizational feature of Emerson is emphasizing learning and development. Engineers are always encouraged to learn new things. The respondent even mentioned several modules which he attended such as Advanced Switching Power Supplies, Electromagnetic Theories and Practices, and Safety Regulation. In a casual talk with the human resource manager over lunch, it was also found out that they even have programs that encourage engineers to take graduate level studies. For instance, if a particular engineer decided to take six credits of graduate course within the term, the company would pay for their education provided they dont get a score lower than 80% in any subject. In exchange, they would be asked to render return service equal to twice the time they enjoyed this benefit. In any case, there exists on the job training and also human resource development which, according to Waight (2005) is also connected to creativity. This emphasis on learning and development, together with the culture of participative decision-making lead to a higher level of competitiveness and resulting to a greater capability of employees for adaptation and innovation. (Hurley & Hult 1998) Also, having design engineering as the backbone of the company – necessitating individuals to have creative traits combined with technical expertise – and having a complex and challenging work environment where the managers are not controlling but supportive, it can be said that employees indeed flourish. (Oldham 1996). Moreover, the very product that Emerson Network Power, being design-related, is stimulates, and therefore affects creativity. (Puccio et. al.) An area of concern, however, is job satisfaction which is supposedly higher when the engineers creative ability fit well the demand of his job. (Livingston et. al. 1995) Based on the results of the survey, however, it appears that this is not so. Even though the ability of the Design Engineer was matched by the demands of his job, he seemed to be stressed by the fact that there is too much overtime. It is thus recommended that this area of stress be further studied to see its correlation, if ever it exists, to job satisfaction and creativity. 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations It is therefore concluded that stimulating, encouraging, and rewarding creative and innovative practices within Emerson Network Power is feasible. It is also recommended that creativity and innovativeness of employees be further harnessed by encouraging them to engage is other recreational activities outside work. By encouraging “play” time, employees would be able to function better in their design responsibility in work because of a relax mind. Moreover, it is recommended that overtime be discouraged. Usually, the Law of Diminishing Returns affects even the best employees, making them less productive in their overtime where they are paid at a higher rate. Instead, employees should be encouraged to finish all their tasks before their workday ends. In this way, their creativity could be further harnessed since they have to think of ways to be able to finish their work without overtime. Another advantage of this is that they would also be able to have more time outside of work which they can use for recreation. Finally, it is recommended that regular consultation with the employees be made to be able to determine their job satisfaction. If job satisfaction is low, creativity can be affected. (Further research on this correlation, if it exists, is also recommended.) 6.0 Bibliography Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. 1987. Management issues facing new product teams in high technology companies. In Scott, S. & Bruce, R. 1994. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal. 37(3), 580-607. Crant, J. 2000. Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management. 26(3), 435-462. Hunter, S., Bedell, K. & Mumfornd, M. 2007. Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review. Creativity Research Journal. 19(1), 69-90. Hurley, R. & Hult, T. 1998. Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing. 62(3), 42-54. Krause, D., Gebert, D. & Kearney, E. 2007. Implementing Process Innovations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 14(1), 16-25. Madjar, N. 2005. The Contributions of Different Groups of Individuals to Employee’s Creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 7(2), 182-206. Oldham, G. & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work. 39(3), 607-634. Pape, T., Guerra, D., Muzquiz, M., Bryant, J., Ingram, M., Schranner, B., Alcala, A., Sharp, J., Bishop, D., Carreno, E., & Welker, J. 2005. Journal of Continuing Education in Nurshing. 36(3), 108-116. Puccio, Treffinger, & Talbot. 2000. Examining Creative Performance in the Workplace through a Person-Environment Fit Model.. Journal of Creative Behavior. 34(4), 227-247 Scott, S. & Bruce, R. 1994. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal. 37(3), 580-607. Stacey, R. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Sharman, D. & Johnson, A. 1997. Innovation in all things! Developing creativity in the workplace. Industrial and Commercial Training. 29(3), 85-87. Van de Ven. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. In Scott, S. & Bruce, R. 1994. Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal. 37(3), 580-607. Waight, C. 2005. Exploring Connections Between Human Resource Development and Creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 7(2), 151-159. Westwood, R. & Low, D. 2003. The Multicultural Muse. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 3(2), 235-259. Read More