An Analysis of the European Journal of Innovation Management - Case Study Example

An Analysis of the ‘European Journal of Innovation Management: Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation.’ Introduction The concept of organizational culture (OC) is one that attracts a vigorous debate due to the little consensus so far established on what it actually means. This is not withstanding the fact that OC influences employees’ and employer’s behavior. Additionally, there is a concern as to whether leaders can change organizational culture or not. Despite this, it has universally been agreed that organizational culture exists and, that it indeed plays a very crucial role in shaping people’s behavior in organizations (Alvesson 2012). The lack for a universally agreed on definition for organizational culture presents a difficulty in understanding its connections to other key organizational elements like structure and insensitive systems. This further complicates efforts aimed at the development of meaningful approaches for evaluating, stabilizing and changing cultures. Therefore, a clear definition of organizational culture would provide a lever on how to not only diagnose problems, but also design and develop better cultures (Abu-Jarad et al 2010). In this assignment, various issues have been identified for examination and analysis. The European Journal of Innovation Management will be used in this analysis for a better understanding of organizational culture. The issues include the determinants of organizational culture, their influence on creativity and innovation, the existing relationship between creativity, innovation and culture as well as the importance of organizational culture. Implications of the analysis will be also be discussed. The recommendation will be provided based on the analysis done and conclusive remarks drawn. Main body The central theme for the research was to establish the determinants of OC that have an influence on stimulating organizational culture in organizations. More specifically, the research sought to establish the role of OC to organizations, how dimensions for OC may be described, what is understood by creativity and innovation in organisations, the relationship between creativity, innovation and OC, the determinants of OC that have an influence creativity and innovation in organizations and how a culture that is supportive of creativity and innovation may be built. The research applied descriptive method in literature study to accurately describe the phenomena via use of literature from managerial sciences. Various scholars have attempted to establish the meaning OC. Such meanings as provided are majorly based on the individual’s perspective and opinion on OC, its meaning and the ascribed importance. Robbie Katanga for instance, expresses it as how organizations ‘do things.’ The consistent, observable patterns of behavior can also be used to explain the meaning of OC. As Aristotle puts it, ‘we are what we repeatedly do.’ By his explanation, he has laid less emphasis on what people feel, think or belief while underscoring repeated behavior and/or habits as culture’s core. This definition additionally focuses attention on the powers that contour behavior in organizations thereby creating a dilemma in understanding culture and distinguishing whether culture is defined by these forces (structures, processes and incentives) or, if it simply comprises of behavioural outputs. Alec Haverstick argues that culture is shaped by incentives, further explaining that employees will behave in a certain way as they have been incentivized (Martin & Frost 2011). Referring to incentives as both monetary and non-monetary rewards e.g. sanctions, recognition, status and advancement, to which organization’s member are subjected to. This further raises the question of whether such incentives result to behaviour patterns or whether the incentives have been shaped in ultimate ways by both beliefs and values that reinforce culture. Bruce Perron provides another perspective of looking into OC and states that it expresses a jointly shared account of an organization from inside. Further, he expresses that ‘sense-making’ is the process for culture, whereby sense-making is defined as a collaborative process where an environment of shared awareness and understanding is created out of diverse people’s perspectives and different interests. The definition’s focus shifts from behavior patterns to the demesne of jointly-held dogmas and elucidations of ‘what is.’ This definition further provides that culture is aimed to orient members of an organization to ‘reality’ in such a manner as to align determination and shared action(Yoon et al 2010). The journal provides many scholars’ definitions of OC and a deduction established from these definitions is that it is the routine behaviours, values, norms, philosophies and rules of the game in an organization that create its culture which also forms the integral part of the general functioning. For instance, if people begin every work day with a morning prayer, it becomes routine and continues from year to year thus eventually the culture of holding a prayer meeting at the start of every work day becomes cultural to that organization. Similarly, there are organizations that routinely hold staff meetings bi-monthly which once done overtime, becomes the organization's culture. If the culture of an organization is strong, then everyone is on the same track. The other issue as observed in the journal is the role of OC to organizations which can be seen from two angles; for one, the functions of OC and two, its influences to the different processes in the organization. As Furham and Gunter (1993) observe, the functional roles basically involve internal integration and coordination. For instance, it is through adherence to the OC, that a new employee will easily be oriented and socialized into the organization thus allowing for a smooth transitioning. Coordination function on the other hand involves competitive edge creation and making sense of environment for instance, ensuring social stability and that the behavior of employees’ behavior is acceptable. The efficiency of an organization may be affected in the event that an organization’s OC does not satisfactorily fulfill these function (Alvesson 2012). For instance, if the reporting time to and departure from work is not clearly defined in the OC, employees will report late and leave early which will most likely affect their output, ultimately negatively affect the organization's efficiency. The research findings in this journal show various organizations may use various resources and processes as guides for behavior and change. It however, fails to specify such resources and processes which would otherwise guide managers who will utilize these study findings as a source of literature on developing a good organizational culture. Apparently, the research findings have stated the various ways in which OC is, and may be communicated; symbolism, feelings, language use meaning, behaviours, artefacts as well as physical settings. It has also emphasized the fact that culture through its expressive practice, provides more of a reflection of the way things are in a particular organization. To solidify this argument, the study expresses that an organization’s mission and goal statements are an indication of the role of OC. Martins (2000) provides that OC is the direction indicator that maintains that strategies are on the right track and this is ensured through closing the gap between what is formally announced and the actual happenings. Thirdly, there is the issue of the determinants of OC which are the structure, strategy, support mechanisms, behaviour that encourages innovation and open communication. The research’s report explains of a model applied (developed by Sathe), which is criticized for having only considered internal factors as influencers of OC, i.e. influence of leadership, organization’s systems and personnel on the actual and expected behaviour patterns, the resultant effectiveness as well as the level of personnel satisfaction brought about by the behavior patterns. However, other models have been explained in this study including the works of Schein (1985) and Martins (1987) whose model examines the interaction between organizational sub-systems (goals and values, structural, managerial, technological and psycho-sociological sub-systems), the two survival functions i.e. the external (environment (social, industrial and corporate culture), and internal environment (artefacts, values and basic assumptions) and culture dimensions. This model as discussed in the study’s findings goes on to explain the inclusions of culture dimensions but does not intensely detail the determinants of OC. John Brennan observes that culture is a result of the interaction of the people in an organization and gives fives determinants of OC. First, he highlights leadership (structure) and examines facts like status’ importance in an organization, nature of rewarding and recognition, between leaders’ communication with their subordinates, and the nature of leaders’ trustworthiness. If trust, open communication, rewards, and recognition are present, employees will be motivated and output will be increased. Secondly, he argues that the expected workload from an employee should be predictable and equitably distributed i.e. employees should be aware of what tasks lay ahead for the day every morning they come to work (strategy). Thirdly, employees’ capabilities should be scaled up by ensuring they are frequent trained for better job mastery as John observes. He subsequently explains that training opportunities will boost the employees’ know-how thereby motivating them to handle more challenging tasks and increase output (room for innovation is created through increasing employees’ capabilities). Fourth, are there social norms at the workplace that encourage and support relationship building? These are support mechanisms. For instance, an organization with a trustworthy grievance system will positively contribute to quick response to employees' complaints, in turn, reducing stressful experiences which ultimately would affect output due to demotivation (Tsai 2011). Lastly, John Brennan talks of controls. Just how much guidance is provided at the workplace? Is there close supervision for instance, checks, appraisals or even random sampling? Do supervisors provide regular feedback on employees’ performance? This will potentially create room for growth when evaluation is done and recommendations regularly provided, thereby motivating the employee and increasing their output ultimately (Zheng et al 2010). Forth, is the issue of how these determinants of OC influence creativity and innovation. Creativity happens when a person conveys a change in a domain, a change that will be communicated over time. There are many factors that can create opportune for an individual to be creative either by their personal qualities, social situation that allow them time to try-out, a good position in respect to the domain et cetera (Hogan & Coote 2014). The determinants of OC (open communication, behaviors that support innovation, strategy, structure, and support mechanisms) when at their best and in that order, create this favourable opportunities for heightening an employee’s level of creativity. For instance, an employee whose work is flexible will afford more time to engage in creative activities as well as conduct research on the same. Another example would be from earlier scientists like scientists who had the resources and free time and could afford putting up own laboratories and focus on their thoughts as they conducted tests e.g. Galvani. With the increased technological advances, organizations need to adopt it accordingly. Consequently, organizations through training, for instance, a support system and determinant of OC, should promote creativity which will advance to innovation overtime. Creativity is not only for the development of products but also the creation of new ways to solve problems or compete to competitive pressures so as to maintain their competitive edge. In this regard, having in place strategies, structures, good communication systems, support mechanisms and behaviors that support innovation will surely lead to an increment of chances for employees to stay creative and innovative, thereby maintaining the competitive edge of the organization primarily due to a good OC (Sanz-Valle et al 2011). The fifth issue in the research findings as described in the journal is the existing relationship between creativity, innovation, and culture. Many people interchangeably use creativity and innovation but just as the research results in the journal state, the two concepts are very distinct. Creativity is more inclined to, personal characteristics, thought processes and intellectual activities applied to create new insights (Hogan & Coote 2014). It can also be viewed and evaluated at an individual, industrial, organizational and professional level. Therefore at the context under analysis, an organization, creativity may be looked at in terms of creation of new ideas about products, processes, services and procedures by either individuals or groups and in precise organizational contexts (Wang et al 2011). On the other end, the process of bringing forth a new idea of problem solving is referred to as innovation. It is the actual implementation of ideas, products, processes and services that are new. Better put, while creativity is all about imagination, innovation is more about putting creative ideas into action. The research findings failed to underscore the measurability of both concepts; creativity is unquantifiable while innovation can be measured. Also worth noting is that there can be no innovation without creativity, and the impact of creativity to the world is felt through innovation. Culture is the key determinant in an organization to creativity and innovation. Sanz-Valle et al (2011) have emphasized that the OC for any particular organization defines its ability to promote creativity and innovation. Less hierarchical and centralized cultures, for instance, provide more room for open communication and subsequent fostering of innovation. Similarly, cultures that are more tolerant to uncertainty and conflict and less resistant to change, and with sympathetic values of trust, socio-economic support over the more unequivocal values of independence and competition, do promote creativity and innovation. The research findings in the journal have majorly focused on the cultures that often encourage creativity and innovation only mentioning little on those that do discourage. More conservative cultures are often less open to new ideas. Therefore there is a strong relationship between culture, creativity and innovation with the former greatly affecting actualization of the last two. The last issue focuses on the importance of OC. According to Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (2011), OC is therefore very key as it not only brings a sense of unity to employees from diverse demographics due to shared norms, values and beliefs, but also helps them to stay loyal to the organization’s management enabling them to want to contribute to the success of the institution. Moreover, it leads to a healthy competition among the employees as they seek for recognition and rewards from their superiors which further boosts their output overall benefiting the organization (Baird et al 2011). Further, OC provides direction to the employees through expected tasks to be accomplished. Lastly, the identity of an organization is determined by its OC as the formation of its brand image is guided by the beliefs and values held. The implications of this analysis if well noted can be beneficial to organizations that focus on establishing a good OC. This is specifically due to a commitment to establish well on the determinants for organizational culture. The analysis has recognized both the positive and negative effects of underrating each of the OC determinants (structure, strategy, open communication, behaviours that support innovation and support mechanisms). Further, for managers who wish to boost creativity and innovation, the kind of cultures to adopt have been well highlighted in this analysis. Moreover, the analysis has also unveiled the importance of having a good OC as it shapes the company’s brand image as well as its reputation to its customers while strategically and competitively positioning the organization among its competitors. Recommendation For institutions that wish to establish and maintain a goodwill, an excellent OC must be put in place. This will not only competitively distinguish the organization from its competitors, but also provide it with an identity. To keep at par with the on-going technological advancements, organizations' leadership must create cultures that are tolerant to competition, open to change and non-conservative. They must adopt a culture that promotes and encourages creativity and innovation through the institutionalization of structures, strategies, support mechanisms, open communication and behaviors that promote innovation (Keyton 2011). Employees must feel that they are empowered and their autonomy to make decisions heightened. There must be clear rewarding and recognition systems for employees as a way to motivate them if organizations wish to increase output. In other words, organizations must invest in building the human capital (Colquitt et al 2011). An institution’s OC can and may be changed if it is negatively affecting operations or motivation levels of the employees (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2015). For instance, if there is too much centralization of functions and hierarchy, the organization's speed of tasks implementation is likely to drag ultimately affecting output. Similarly, lack of open communication will cause demotivation amongst employees lowering their morale to work and so will lack clear grievances reporting system. Such a challenge is realized, the management should consider changing such a culture and adopt one that will improve the situation and especially fasten on decision making. Conclusion The research findings presented generalized facts as the study did not involve a case study. However, through out the discussion, more emphasis as observed was laid on factors that contributed to the positive and they were extensively discussed. Risky factors that may lead to a negative incident were occasionally left out. For instance, in the analysis of the relationship between culture, creativity, and innovation, the focus was on cultures that promote creativity and innovation. Organizational culture is very important it distinguishes an institution from the rest and shapes its reputation while building its reputation and brand name (Schneider et al 2013). It further gives the employees a sense of unity, provides direction, and encourages them to be loyal. It is shaped by the kind of structures, communication and strategies in place, as well as the support mechanisms and a presence of behaviors that support innovation. Culture has a profound impact on creativity and innovation. Management should therefore ensure they adopt cultures that allow for knowledge-based development (Colquitt et al 2011). Bibliography Abu-Jarad, I.Y., Yusof, N.A. and Nikbin, D., 2010. A review paper on organizational culture and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3). Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S., 2015. Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge. Alvesson, M., 2012. Understanding organizational culture. Sage. Auernhammer, J. and Hall, H., 2014. Organizational culture in knowledge creation, creativity and innovation: Towards the Freiraum model. Journal of Information Science, 40(2), pp.154-166. Baird, K., Jia Hu, K. and Reeve, R., 2011. The relationships between organizational culture, total quality management practices and operational performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(7), pp.789-814. Colquitt, J., Lepine, J.A. and Wesson, M.J., 2011. Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Griffin, R. and Moorhead, G., 2011. Organizational behavior. Nelson Education. Hogan, S.J. and Coote, L.V., 2014. Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein's model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), pp.1609-1621. Keyton, J., 2011. Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experiences. Sage. Martin, J. and Frost, P., 2011. The organizational culture war games. Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships, 315. Naranjo Valencia, J.C., Sanz Valle, R. and Jiménez Jiménez, D., 2010. Organizational culture as determinant of product innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), pp.466-480. Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R., 2011. Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), pp.55-72. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Perez-Caballero, L., 2011. Linking organizational learning with technical innovation and organizational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), pp.997-1015. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G. and Macey, W.H., 2013. Organizational climate and culture. Annual review of Psychology, 64, pp.361-388. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C., 2011. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Tsai, Y., 2011. Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC health services research, 11(1), p.98. Wang, D., Su, Z. and Yang, D., 2011. Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability. Journal of knowledge management, 15(3), pp.363-373. Yoon, S.W., Song, J.H., Lim, D.H. and Joo, B.K., 2010. Structural determinants of team performance: The mutual influences of learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human Resource Development International, 13(3), pp.249-264. Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G.N., 2010. Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business research, 63(7), pp.763-771. Read More