Is It Possible to Manage Innovation and Creativity - Essay Example

?Is it possible to ‘manage’ innovation and creativity? Managing innovation and creativity has proved a challenge to many managers as innovation requires questioning the rules and regulations in place to discover new solutions. Innovation and creativity require the diversification of thought process while management in order to have an easier job is supportive of streamlining the thought process in order for specialization to take place as well as for there to be easier communication in the work environment. The more efficiently management does its job, the harder it is to have different ideas being brought up in the production process. Some processes such as ISO 900 have been criticized for their bureaucratic processes, which make it harder to introduce novel methods into a company (Henry 2001, p.39). Another reason for the inability of a manager to manage creativity is the fact that change whether positive or negative will always receive criticism when introduced to a firm. It is not the role of management to create animosity in its daily operations and it will therefore not push for changes in production unless the methods proposed will lead to a very significant change in productivity (Kreitner 2009, p.434). The role of creativity and innovation although important in any field could be expensive as finances are necessary in order to conduct research into the feasibility of the new proposals. Therefore, management might not always be inclined to invest in this research as it does mean diverting resources into risk prone areas when already proven departments in a company might need money to fund other methods of production and projects whose profit is guaranteed (Finney 2010, p.149). Therefore, for creativity to grow in a company, management should strive to reduce its level of supervision in the company’s daily operations. This can be done through several ways; management through proper policies can enforce discontinuous change that takes place in a firm if employees are resistive to it. Discontinuous change is always a challenge as no past practices are merged with the new ones but are instead suddenly stopped. The management must also find ways to manage the sources of innovation within the company, there are several factors to consider when evaluating the components of a creative work environment. These include the employees’ freedom to operate, encouragement from their work group, encouragement from their immediate supervisor and as well as encouragement from the team as a whole (Williams 2008, p.159). Other factors to consider would be occupational obstacle due to policy and the degree of sophistication of the work, by evaluating these factors the management can see how to promote creativity in the organization. This is such as by increasing the difficulty of the work for the employees, the firm will see innovativeness nurtured as the employees will be forced to think critically as opposed to when doing repetitive rudimentary tasks. Creative people tend to have a disregard for rules and therefore do not stay in places with many policies and procedures it is therefore imperative to give them space to perform lest they become discouraged (Andriopoulos and Dawson 2009, p.339). Although creativity cannot be managed, management must find a way of dealing with the demands of creative people lest they demoralize them and lose out. Why is environmental awareness important and what are the likely consequences to organizational effectiveness of failing to take account of environmental factors? Environmental awareness is very important for any business especially in this error where preservation of natural resources has been put as a priority by most governments. The environment always changes and it is important for a business to respond to emerging trends in a good time before it is viewed as irrelevant and therefore surpassed by its competitors. Detecting trends before they have become mainstream is very important for businesses as its gives them an edge over others in product design and branding. This is such as when the demand for businesses to be environmentally friendly arose, those that had already identified themselves as using environmentally friendly production techniques suddenly realized a significant increase in goodwill and thus more customer loyalty (Lemkin, 2011). When a business is expanding, it is important for the company to be aware of the market they are moving into if they are to realize profit; different places will have different consumer habits. Moreover, if the business does not do sufficient research on consumer habits it could suffer major losses and even fail in the new market (Steger, Lu and Fang 2003, p.26). Environmental awareness leads to better understanding between a business and its consumers both in the country and out of it as to what practices are acceptable and those that are not. A business’s practices affect its corporate image and therefore it is important to understand what the feelings of the community both local and international are before engaging in certain activities. When the Royal Dutch Shell Company wanted to set up an oilrig in the Atlantic Ocean, there were protests all over Europe against the move. Due to pressure from other countries, Shell had to withdraw and legislation was made to prevent placementof future oil rigs in the Atlantic Ocean by it and other European countries (Fernando 2006, p.43). The penalties for lack of environmental awareness are severe both socially and economically; the first effect that will be felt is the increased costs of production as the business fails to take advantage of organizational methods that are environmentally friendly. As discussed above change is not always easily accepted by organizations, as they prefer to stick to the more familiar organizational methods. The lack of awareness will harm them as they will continue incur unnecessary costs for operational such as with electronic disposal. In 2008 it was discovered that 88 percent of SMEs in The United Kingdom were not aware that the law was changed in 2007 that made the duty of disposal of electronic waste lie with the manufacturer they continued to incur the cost of disposal of the waste due to their own ignorance (Turton 2008). Moreover, another consequence of the apathy of environmental issues is the tarnishing of the firm’s image as it becomes associated with wastage and people move on to other firms, which are more concerned about their environment. Even multinational corporations are not immune to this and a reputation, as pollutants will cause them to have decreased sales (Ridley and Channing 2008, p.63). In extreme cases, a business can be fined or forced to shut down its operations until it has better organization and an environmental policy in place as governments have put in place policies to ensure that dumping is regulated. Independent bodies also serve as watchdog committees that will raise awareness if an organization proves that it is not committed to better methods of production this occurred in Russia when Exxon Mobil was made to change its production methods due to pressure from environmentalists, as it was not supposed to discharge any water from its plant (Gallagher 2008, p.89). Compare and contrast three theoretical approaches to understanding organizations Which in your view is best and why? Illustrate your key arguments with organizationally based examples There are several theoretical approaches to understanding the structure of organizations and one of them is Fayol’s principle of management also known as the administrative theory that was categorized as a classical theory. Fayol identified six key activities, which were performed in all industrial centres these being: Technical, financial, commercial, security and managerial activities. The first five were frequently mentioned however very little had been studied about the role of management (Cole 2004, p.14); Fayol’s theory therefore described the role of management as entailing broad-planning and resource allocation. Management was never solely allocated to the group labelled as managers by the organization but they did have the responsibility of reviewing the policies in place annually. Fayol also stated that the principles were capable of modification as was necessitated but recommended the fourteen be used as guidelines. The first principle was division of labour, which would cause faster production as people specialized in different fields. Authority was defined as the right to give someone instructions, which they were to follow but it should be conferred with some responsibility and checks in place to ensure that the ones in charge do not abuse their power (Murugan 2004, p.55). The discipline, unity of command and unity of direction were the next principles that emphasized the signs of respect between an employer and employee as well as the fact that instructions should be given from a specific person allocated the role of manager and all should work to achieving the same goal respectively (Tulsian 2008, p.15). The administration theory also emphasized the subordination of ones individuals interest in order to benefit as a group and that payment should be established with a fair method of evaluating the work done to give a decent compensation. Centralization of operations but in accordance to the company’s capacity was the eighth with a scalar order of authority being put as the ninth principle. The scalar order was the arrangement of vertical communication in the company and was vital for centralization. Fayol’s 10th principle was of order and showed the importance of having the right person doing the right job to optimize efficiency in the company. Management would also have to establish some systems of equity in order to avoid daily conflict and employees were to have security of tenure reasonable for their level in the firm and the quality of work that they did (Harvey 1997, p.33). Fayol’s thirteenth principle was initiative and said that management should encourage each employer to start things without being pushed to do it first provided it had some rules and regulations in place to ensure they did not overstep their boundaries. Fayols’ 14th principle was Espirit Du Corps and said that all employees should work together in unison to ensure that management should promote teamwork and cooperation (Rao 1999, p.43). Fayol was the first to establish a management system and although its critics have pointed out the emphasis of structure, Fayol did recognize that cooperation was as important and therefore emphasized harmony and initiative as key to the management of a company (Bagad 2009, p.23). While there have been critics who believe that his model is now outdated and that it was not based on scientific analysis, it must be remembered that all information that was gathered was from observation from his long tenure as a manager at a mining operation (Fells, 2000, p. 345). Taylor developed his principles in order to have a better understanding of the modern approaches to management as he believed that it should have the aim of achieving the highest output for its employer. Output for the employer would be seen by ensuring that all branches of the business are developing and would not merely include the profit motivation, his principle supported the use of critical analysis and not accepting general beliefs in the development of better techniques. This is seen such as when workers receive their methods of production from generation to generation (Taylor 2013, p.32). The workers will therefore improve their techniques based upon the knowledge available to the current generation and will therefore not have management investing in training modules to develop their skill. Management’s challenge lies in developing methods that will motivate employees into implementing the most economical methods to work. However it is not within employees’ interest of the to find the most efficient methods this is where the task of management is crucial as they have to find a method that will result in the development of initiative by the workers (Albarran 2013, p.69). Therefore, Taylor said that were several scientific methods were imperative to the analysis of production by management. By analysing the time spent working with different motions more efficient methods of working were to be developed, this measurement was to be done using a stopwatch and the workers would be physically studied in order to come up with the new methods. By differentiating the pay of workers, the management could realize higher levels of production and this could be done by paying workers per number of goods produced and adding the rate of pay once the worker reaches a certain number of goods (Tripathi 2008, p.16). Taylor’s theory of management also allowed called for called for supervision to be reorganized so that it was two tasks instead of one and these would be planning and doing as well as functional foremanship. The planning role would focus with the analysis of past organization practices and develop an outline for future actions that were to be implemented while the duty of the foreman is related to implementing and administration in the corporate outline formed through planning. Taylor’s scientific management theory has often been said to place excessive emphasis on employee dehumanization instead focussing on ‘tricks’ to get positive results (Sandrone 2013). Taylor had proposed drastic re-organization in the recruitment of staff as well as the requirement for there to be a scientific method of evaluation of workers and to aid in their development (Miles 2003, p.120) however this was mainly effective in workers with very basic educational levels performing jobs that required a very low set of skills. The duty of developing the worker would fall onto the manager and they are required to find methods that would bring out their most beneficial qualities and thus lead to a higher quality of work however this would prove a challenge with workers of high skills as they would already have designed efficient production methods on their own. Management would also have to initiate conversation between workers and thereby foster a closer relationship with them leading to a better understanding between staff members and thus better comprehension during production as both staff and supervisors should be interested in higher productivity. Taylor’s Theory has since then been improved on by several management theorists including Gantt who added that the incentive to use correct methods and skills was as important as having the skill in the first place. The human factor was therefore just as important in organization and so he proposed for further incentives to be given to lead to faster rates of production (Sheldrake 2003, p.37). Critics of the scientific approach to management cited that economic incentives are not the only factors that can lead to increase in productivity and that human beings have other intrinsic values that if not addressed can lead to lower production rates. Taylor’s study of duration and employees motion is also not accepted as the most scientific method to evaluate efficiency in working methods. There is no most efficient working motion that can be said to be most suitable for all workers. The neo-modernism organizational theory was developed last century and placed a lot of emphasis on the role of human psychology in the development of proper management skills (Sapru 2013, p.296). The approach was perceived as a modification of scientific management models already seen previously and therefore greatly directed towards placing people at the forefront of the progress of the firm. The theory had two main principles which remained consistent while others have changed, the first principle was the application of social science knowledge in the study of management; the main sources of neo-modern theory ideas on management were sociology, anthropology and psychology as it had strong emphasis on the relationships formed between co-workers as administrative styles were viewed as outdated (Walonick 1993). It was seen that for the successful operation of an organization, the person had to be integrated into it and human diversity therefore recognized as core to the organization. Neo classical theory states that the individual exists to achieve personal material and economic reward of a certain framework that they set for themselves. Economically, the theory supports the reward of those employees who meet the target of the company while socially the neo-classical approach emphasized the free market and had a capitalist outlook as it encouraged entrepreneurial activities (McAuley, Duberly and Johnson 2007, p.85). As regards the running of a business in modern day, Taylor’s principles have the best insight due to their emphasis on employee motivation and its relationship to quality of production. Although Taylor did attempt to over analyse the evaluation methods of efficiency by using a stopwatch to measure employees doing work, he did point out that the financial motivation of the employee was crucial to their performance, a notion that even modern day managers concur with (Bagshawe 2011, p.24). The discovery by Gantt that apprenticeship was not always a guarantee to efficiency also made it possible for managers to replace employees with those who did not necessarily have a background in the job. The theory therefore brought forth the notion of employee motivation and made leaders realize that they would have to find some form of incentive to employees in order to realize higher production values as well as a higher quality of work. It is due to Taylor’s scientific approach that neo-modern theories of organization were developed making his theory irreplaceable. References Albarran, B. 2013, Management of Electronic and Digital Media, 5th ed. Cengage, Massachusetts. Andriopoulos, C & Dawson, P. 2009. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation. Sage, London. Bagad, S. 2009. Principles of management. Pune, New Delhi. Bagshawe, A, 2011,How to Improve Motivation. Ventus, London Cole, A.2004. Management: Theory and Practice. Cengage, London. Fells, J. 2000, ‘Fayol stands the test of time,’ Journal of Management History. Vol 6, pp. 345-360. Fernando A.C. 2006 Business Ethics and Corporate governance. Pearson. New Delhi. Finney, A. 2010, The International Film Business: A Market Guide Beyond Hollywood. Routledge, New York. Gallagher, K, 2008, Handbook on Trade and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts. Harvey, N. 1997, The Challenge of Supervisory Management. Oak tree, Dublin. Henry, J, 2001, Creativity and Perception in Management. Sage, London. Kreitner, R, 2009, Management. Cengage. Toronto. Lemkin, J, 2011. How Environmental Awareness Builds Business. [Online] Available at:http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/11/22/how-environmental-awareness-builds-business/ [Accessed 5 August 2013] Mcauley, J, Duberly, J, & Johnson, P, 2007, Organization Theory: Challenges and Objectives. Prentice Hall, Oxford. Miles, D. 2003, The 30-Second Encyclopedia of Learning and Performance: A Trainer's Guide to Theory, Terminology, and Practice. Amacom, New York. Murugan, S, 2004, Management Principles and Practices. New age, New Delhi. Rao, V. 1999, Bank Management. Discovery, New Delhi. Ridley, R. & Channing, J. 2008Safety at Work. Elsevier, Oxford. Sandrone, V, 2013, F. W. Taylor & Scientific Management. [Online] Skymark http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp [Accessed 10 August 2013] Sapru, K, 2013 Administrative Theories and Management Thought. PHI, Delhi. Sheldrake, J, 2003, Management Theory. Thomson, Cornwall. Steger, U, Lu, W & Fang, Z. 2003, Greening Chinese Business: Barriers, Trends and Opportunities for environmental management. Greenleaf, Sheffield. Taylor, W. 2007, The Principles of Scientific Management. Classic scientific work Tripathi, P, 2008, Principles of Management. Mc-Graw-Hill. New Delhi. Tulsian, C, 2008, Business Organisation and Management. Dorling, New delhi. Walonick, S 1993 Organizational Theory and Behavior. [Online] http://www.statpac.org/walonick/organizational-theory.htm. [Accessed 10 August 2013] Williams, C, 2008, Effective Management. Thomson, Boulevard. Read More