The process of organizational change is a complex phenomenon that involves a number of significant factors, conditions and aspects. It is traditionally observed as a process that goes through several stages. The number of stages and their specific features vary. The process of organizational change is generally introduced as a model. Creativity and innovation are seen as the key aspects of organizational change. Most theoreticians do not make a clear distinction between these two terms but try to discuss them as related issues. Though, the latest studies try to address them separately and emphasize the role of creativity in the whole process of organizational change while innovation is seen as the ground for organizational change.
The essay suggests a distinguishing characteristics of creativity and innovation as independent phenomena though they are discussed in relation to organizational change both playing a significant role in the process of change. Theories and models of organizational change are reviewed in the essay offering the analysis of their practical implementation and possible obstacles. The ways of different models of organizational change integration are communicated in the essay as well. The role of the leadership in the process of change, effective leader characteristics and leadership challenges are observed in the paper. The essay discusses team-work as the key aspect of organizational change. The importance of team work at various stages of the process of organizational innovation and change is emphasized in the work. The practical part of the paper provides analysis of the successful and less successful change in relation to the theories of organizational changed mentioned in the theoretical part of the work. The last part of the essay gives a self-observation of leader qualities including a personal action plan for further development as an effective leader.
Creativity and innovation in the context of organizational change
Creativity and innovation are traditionally seen as the phenomena that stand very close. Though, creativity must be observed as an interdisciplinary issue. In its general sense creativity means the discovery of new ideas, strategies, structures which can give a basis for some beneficial novelties and changes in the whole process of work. In the context of organizational change creativity should be seen as a crucial factor of a successful change while creative thinking must be an essential characteristic of a change agent. Creativity in the context of organization functioning can be a way to cope with routines, resistance to changes and innovative processes (Monaco and Guimaraes 2007). West and Farr (1990) state that creativity may be manifested by any individual worker under appropriate conditions and atmosphere. King and Anderson (1990, pp. 81-100) suggest that creativity at work may have some core aspects like ‘cohesiveness, group longevity, leadership, group structure and group composition’. Creativity and innovation require an atmosphere of free expression of ideas and openness. Creativity and innovation flourish in the environment where people are able to get to know each other better and to interact freely as a team. Amabile (as cited in Monaco and Guimaraes 2007, pp. 24-25) provides several obstacles and stimulants for creativity and innovation in team work.
They include general climate inside the organization; corporate culture, encouraging or discouraging innovations; risk; organizational structure; the channels of interaction and the system of rewarding. The second group of factors involves ‘the style of management’ and the last group represents ‘resources’ like personnel, finance and time. Social and psychological factors are very important for establishing the atmosphere of creativity and innovation. External and internal environment of people working as a team, their interpersonal relationship, trust, respect etc. should be taken into consideration by those who are responsible for establishing the atmosphere of creativity and innovation inside the team. Thus, we can definitely agree that leadership and team-work should be seen as substantial factors for creativity and innovation in organization change process. The process of organizational change requires deep analysis, quick reaction and constructive decisions. Every particular situation organization faces should be analysed in a different way and it demands creative and innovative solutions. In this respect, change agents should carefully consider the role of creativity and innovation in organizational change process.
Organizational innovation and change theories review
The terms ‘innovation’ and ‘organizational change’ have become the key concepts of modern study of management. Successful innovations and changes have been the most discussed issues for the last twenty years still defining the terms remains quite problematic.
‘Organizational innovation’ and ‘organizational change’ are often used with close or even the same meaning. Though, several attempts have been made to differentiate them. One of the most essential and detailed characteristics of ‘organizational innovation’ was suggested by Michael West (West and Farr 1990; King and West 1987). Innovation is seen as intentional product, procedure or process which is new for this particular organization or unit and is introduced in order to enhance the productivity of the organization or its particular unit, for the benefits of the personnel or any individual related to the company. Innovation should not be seen as a new idea, while the new idea can be just a starting point of organizational innovation. Innovations may concern the better product or service quality, higher productivity, working conditions improvements or better cooperation within the organizational units. Organization innovations can be classified as technological, administrative and ancillary ones (Damanpour and Evan 1984; King, 1990. Technological innovations respectively concern equipment, new tools or technique implementation or adoption of some new system to the manufacture. Administrative innovations are mainly connected with organization structure of some administrative decisions.
Ancillary innovations may be directed to re-arranging the cooperation between the personnel, administration and customers of the organization. West’s definition of innovation can not be accepted as universal one. This definition means that any change introduced as intended, new and beneficial for the particular unit or organization should be accepted as an innovation. Others insist on the change which only has had a substantial impact on the organization productivity to be taken as an innovation. West (1990) puts ahead the idea that the quality and the quantity of organizational innovation should be taken into consideration. He suggests assessing the quality of innovation according to its newness and efficiency to the organization. In general, West’s definition reflects the key points of the term and is quite relevant for management studies.
The term ‘organizational change’ is even more difficult to treat. It usually involves macro-level approach which is more focused on the organization as the whole system and its major structures but not on individual or small groups work (King and Anderson 2002). Thus, organizational change is mostly concerned with large-scale shifts while organizational innovations can be locally implemented and may have no much impact on the whole organization performance. To make the essence of organizational change more clear it is necessary to discuss several theories and approaches to this phenomenon.
Kurt Lewin (as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004; Carnall, 2007) introduced the model of organizational change which is based on the idea that driving forces of change should overweigh resisting forces for a change to happen. He suggested three stages of change which involve ‘unfreezing’ (when people engaged into the process realize that the situation must be changed); ‘moving’ (when new ideas are being generated and tested) and ‘refreezing’ (when new policy, attitude, skill etc. is stabilized and implemented to achieve the purpose of change). Lewin’s idea may be very useful for managers who need to analyse and agree about the driving forces and the resisting forces of organization change. His approach can help in moving to the next steps of change process. Bullock and Batten (as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004) designed their own model of change involving the stages of ‘exploration’, ‘planning’, ‘action’ and ‘integration’. The stage of exploration focuses on confirming the necessity for change and discussing the required resources. Planning includes discussing the plan of actions or technical improvements needed for the change to be accomplished. After the plan of actions has been designed ‘the action’ stage begins. It is realized according to the plan and involves feedback techniques. After ‘the action’ ‘the integration’ stage starts. It is directed to aligning the change with the whole organization system and formalizing it as an established documented policy, mechanism or instruction. This approach to organization change shows that any change may be planned and established in the organization work system on a permanent basis. Kotter ( as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004) suggested eight steps model of organizational change. The fist step is establishing a sense of urgency which involves discussing of existing problems, possible further developments and verifying the necessity of change. The next step is forming a guiding coalition which relatively means creating a group of people who are able to work together effectively. The third stage involves creating a plan of actions to guide efforts and strategy together to achieve the targetable change. Kotter emphasizes the forth step which is focused on communicating the plan of actions and strategies. The next step allows people to experiment and to participate in establishing and testing of the plan. After this step the final plan should be worked out and short-term goals and improvements should be set. The next step must include summarizing all the improvements and establishing more change. At this stage the process of change should be empowered by new ideas, projects, resources and people. At the final stage all the improvements and new approaches should be institutionalized.
Thus, everybody should understand that new policy or approach helps to achieve higher productivity and success. Kotter’s view on organization change may seem requiring many efforts and resources, though it can be simplified and easily integrated with other approaches and applied in any situation when organization change is needed. Cameron, Green and Page (2004) offer their own model of organizational change based on Kotter’s approach, though they avoid linear models while cycle is more preferable for them. Their model include ‘establishing the need for change, building the change team, creating vision and values, communicating and engaging, empowering others, noticing improvements and energizing, and consolidating’ (Cameron, Green and Page 2004, pp. 91-92). Dawson’s approach to organizational change includes three stages: ‘conception’, ‘transition’ (when we set tasks, discuss further activities and decisions) and ‘operation’ including new organizational arrangements (as cited in Carnall, 2007, p.70). Beckhard and Harris (as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004) introduced their change formula which represents the process of change and identify the conditions that are necessary for change to be accomplished. They insist on change factors overweighing the perceived costs and individuals or a group of people being dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. In this case people won’t resist the coming shifts; although, they admit resistance as a norm of organizational change. Beckhard and Harris put an emphasis on the factors for change; each of them must be very significant. Nadler and Tushman (Cameron, Green and Page 2004) suggested quite a different approach to organizational change.
Their model is focused on the factors that influence the success of the change and they try to show the dynamics of the processes happening within the change procedure. This approach understands organization as a system consisting of various subsystems which investigate the external surrounding in search of changes which happen there. This model represents organization as a system which uses both external and internal sources to transform them into its benefits or improvements. Nadler and Tushman’s approach does not provide any specific salvations but initiates ideas on what can happen in a particular organizational situation as information and resources are obtained both inside and outside organization. This model is focused on the idea that organizational performance and success is based on social, technical, managerial, strategic aspects and all the factors are linked together and interdependent. Thus, all the elements of the organizational structure and productivity should be developed and agreed with each other to achieve a high performance of the company. Nadler and Tushman’s model of change (as cited in Cameron, Green and Page, 2004, pp. 94-95) includes four elements: ‘the work’ which involves routine individual or group procedures, processes; ‘the people’ which includes skills and background of personnel, their needs; ‘the formal organization’ referring to the structure and internal policy of the company; and ‘the informal organization’ which may include some unplanned and situational activities or circumstances. The authors of this model suggest that effective organizational changes should touch all four components. Nadler and Tushman’s model can be rather effective and useful in change management. Though it is mostly focused on the problematic issue but does not provide a solution. It can be effectively applied in the analysis of the accomplished change pointing to the drawbacks or ineffective decisions within the previous stages of change process. McKinsley seven ‘S’ model ( as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004, pp. 96-97) represents another approach which can be a good starting point for organization which needs a change. This approach involves ‘staff, skills, systems (routine activities), style (managerial strategy), shared values (key principles), strategy (plan of actions) and structure. Bridges ( as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004, p.96).speaks about the distinction between ‘planned change’ and ‘transition’. He emphasizes on transition being more complicated phenomenon of the two. Bridges tries to make a distinction between some functional change and natural process of people’s realization of change and their getting accustomed to new state of affairs. Bridges’ ‘transition’ includes three steps: ‘ending’, ‘neutral zone’ and ‘new beginning’. The first phase of transition should involve clear understanding of what you loose and all the possible results should be considered before starting something new. Neural zone phase should be a period for creative decisions and team-work. New beginning should include encouraging and supporting new initiatives. Bridges( as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004, p. 97) offers four main components for new beginning: ‘the purpose behind the change, a picture of how this new organization will look and feel, a step by step plan to get there, a part to play in the outcome. The author emphasizes that the beginning can be achieved when people display emotional readiness to behave in a new way. This approach is very useful for those organizations facing unavoidable changes. Though, difficulties can occur at the stage of neutral zone as it often takes much time to get through. Sometimes it can also be difficult for managers to arrange the change process in the proper way for all people who are engaged into the process to go from stage to stage simultaneously, as staying at different phases of the change process makes it impossible to be accomplished. Colin Carnall (as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004) suggested that the effectiveness of change relies on previous effective transitions, focusing on the culture of the organization and organizational politics establishing. It means that a livable atmosphere should be created for people when they are adapting to changes, organizational internal culture should be reconsidered and improved, organizational politics and tactics should be developed in a necessary direction, taking into account all the current needs like coalitions, associations, applying to outside specialists etc. Carnall’s model puts ahead a manager as the leading force in the process of organizational change rather than concentrating on the process of change. Though, it can be rather helpful for managers who plan changes. One of the most significant concepts of change is provided in the book, The Dance of Change, (Senge et al 1999). They communicate that the most important and notable changes run counter to our traditional system of management. Most of the decisions are based on the situational approach ignoring deep and systematic study of the problem. All the efforts are combined to solve a current hardship or obstacle. But problems very often have deeper roots. Thus, changes should rely on deep analysis of the whole organization as a system. The authors insist on starting with small shifts which may be supplemented by step by step measures. They do not advise to develop the whole plan of changes at once. This approach is quite different from the previous ones as they were mostly focused on the first stages of change process: planning, strategy, vision and etc. However Senge’s et al model of change relies on longer-term goals. They suggest initiating changes, putting them into practice and finally conducting a sustainable analysis. It allows to rethink the strategy and to redesign the process of change within the process. A manager should take into consideration that this approach requires more time and deeper analysis. Thus, the model can hardly be applied in urgent situations. Ralph Stacey (2001) and Patricia Shaw (2002) suggested nontraditional approach to organizational change. They stick to the idea that the process of change can not be under our total control and is impossible to be managed at all. They state that change can be achieved naturally in the process of people’s interaction, communication and as a result of some internal conflicts. They see managers not as controlling power but as a part of the whole organizational system. The approach is rather complicated and actually do not provide any guidance in organizational change process. Though, it emphasizes that we should be aware that our expectations of change can differ from the actual results of the change process.
Leadership and team work in the context of organizational innovation and change
The theories of organizational change are quite different and based on various principles and approaches. Though, all the models of organizational change put an emphasis on the manager as the leading power in organizational change process. So, it is reasonable to speak about the leadership of innovation and change.
Most of the organizations acknowledge that effective organizational innovation and change process requires a wise leader. In its turn, leadership must include skills, practical knowledge and experience for a leader to take responsibility for organizational change. Though, effective leader is expected to possess a number of cognitive, functional and social competences which play an important role in his performance as a change agent. It is generally known that any change process faces some resistances and an intelligent leader is someone who is able to cope with all the obstacles and successfully accomplish the change process. Different types of changes have their peculiarities and require a different style of leadership. Incremental changes are based on step by step strategy and they do not require many efforts and high level of leader’s participation. They are adopted gradually and people easily handle them. Though, radical changes require more efforts and competences, leaders have to make people realize the necessity of such shifts and stimulate their willingness to move forward and accept the innovations. Radical changes demand creativity and risks considering. Bennis and Nanus (1995) speak about four main types of leadership styles. They are commanding, logical, inspirational and supportive ones. Different types of leadership styles can be applied at different stages of change process. A leader must choose the one appropriate for the current situation. Logical and inspirational styles are mostly related to radical changes. Effective leaders have to be concerned about the vision of organizational change. The vision becomes an important factor in implementing changes.
Intelligent leaders discuss and develop a clear vision of change. Logical leaders focus on innovations and they discuss the vision. Change leaders are also responsible for creating an acceptable atmosphere for change among the people who are engaged into the process. Leaders put ahead new strategies of culture or interaction of people working in the organization. Culture of the organization includes values and attitudes of its personnel. It may also involve some external rules or instructions, not necessary documented. Thus, the leader should instruct, support and consult people who experience the process of organizational change. However, the most significant factor in culture renewal is leader’s support. Another sphere of organization functioning where leadership can be very important is technology. Here we can identify two aspects of leadership: transactional leadership and transformational one. The first one is focused on technological innovations and improving technical skills but little attention is paid to the personnel and the actual problem and its ways out. The second one gives the priority to the necessity of technological innovation and takes into consideration inter-human relations. The last type of leadership appears to be more effective in innovation and change implementation process. Intelligent leader should consider the system of rewarding as it motivates the employees and can stimulate them to creative thinking and accepting planned innovations and changes. Various types of rewards should be considered and training courses should be provided as well. Ideal organizational environment allows independent work and strong responsibility. Leaders are responsible for creating this kind of atmosphere.
The role of the leadership in the process of innovation and change is very important, though other factors should be considered as well. Internal and external forces can influence the result of organizational innovation and change. In this respect, the role of the leader is quite limited. Productive process of organization innovation and change relies on leader’s personal characteristics. Some of leaders’ competencies are more significant for innovation and change success. Leaders must have a clear vision. Vision empowers the leader to analyse possible outcomes of change and act carefully. It can also help the leader to stimulate other members of the team. Creativity and innovative approach represent other important characteristics of an intelligent leader. Effective leader can become a key factor for successful organization innovation and change process. Besides intelligent leader, organizational innovation and change process requires a qualified team work. Team work plays an important role at all the stages of the organizational innovation and change process. First of all, team work should be initiated at the beginning of the process to find out the necessity of change and how all the potential participants realize the need of innovations. Team work usually gives more productive and true results than narrow discussions. When people work as a team they join their efforts for the common purposes while in case of organizational change managers get an opportunity to obtain a generalized and clearer vision of the state. Team work makes people cooperate with each other, allowing them knowing each other better, creating the atmosphere of trust, openness and freedom. As we know, this kind of environment is stated as the most effective for organizational change success. Team work also allows managers to be informed about how the process of change is going on different levels of the organization. It means that we get a continuous monitoring of how the process is developing. At the finishing stages of change project team work can be very effective in collecting the results and analysing the outcomes of the process. One of the main conditions of effective team work is wise management. It requires experience and training. Most of the ideologist of innovation and change insist on group work implementation for successful innovation and change. The practical value of team work in the process of innovation and change can be obviously assessed at the last stage of the process as we can evaluate the effectiveness and success of the whole project and examine any stage of the process independently.
Organizational change: the history of success and disillusionment
Practical experience takes the leading part in understanding the essence of organizational innovation and change. Speaking about an example of a successful change, we would like to suggest organizational change designed based on the formula of Beckhard and Harris (as cited in Cameron, Green and Page 2004, p.92). The leaders chose highly consultative strategy. The decision of the change necessity was previously discussed on higher levels of the organization. Still, the vision was not agreed and settled. This model of change implies several factors as the conditions for change. So, the next step was a survey of the employees to capture general state of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs at that stage of the change process. The next reasonable decision was that the survey was fed back to all the participants. The discussion of the survey was arranged at small group meetings. In such a way the participants managed to share their ideas and complaints while the managers could summarize the general situation. This tactics fully corresponds to Beckhard and Harris’ factors mentioned in the formula. The first factor is ‘level of dissatisfaction of the status quo’. Thus, this condition was kept. Dissatisfaction was observed from the points of a clear grounding and a realized necessity of urgency. The component of ‘desirability of the proposed change or end state’ was achieved by the suggested strategy of teams working locally focusing on the analysed feedback. The teams had to design their own vision and put ahead the plan with their first steps. The managers also asked the team leaders to define clear deadlines and stick to them. Moreover, the teams had to discuss the most important initiatives in detail, proving the list of necessary resources. In such a away, the generalized idea of organizational change desirable result was stated. Besides, that was a platform for the next component of the formula ‘practicality of the change’. The project managers had to arrange discussions of their projects of change at the early stage. Much attention was paid to possible risks and some unexpected outcomes discussions. The brainstorming method and other methods were used to make the discussion more productive. The results of the workshops were analysed and summed up to make a risk list. Impartial panel was involved to consider ‘cost of changing’, another component which Beckhard and Harris suggest as a counterbalance to the factors mentioned before. According to the formula, the important condition of a change is that the factors should outweigh the costs of change. The analysis showed that this condition was achieved as well. Though, the success of this organizational change was supported by other significant factors as well. The managers applied a creative thinking and integrated their own strategies into the process. They worked with team leaders individually and provided training courses for them. Moreover, the system of rewards offered various benefits for the most active participants of the process. After reaching the desired state team workshops continued their activity on analyzing the outcomes of the reform. It provided a good ground for further changes.
An example of less successful organizational change is connected with the merging of two companies process. This step is usually very responsible and may be rather painful for both companies’ administration and personnel. It is very important to work out a clear and wise strategy to avoid possible mess and negative consequences. The change strategy for the companies was designed based on William Bridges’ model of transition. This approach presupposes a three-step tactics of change. Though, every stage involves a number of important factors, conditions and cautions. The first step was informing all the engaged personnel about the organizational change and considering possible losses for both organizations. The complexity of this step was related to the large number of people engaged into the process. Another disturbing problem was how to coordinate the process in both organizations as the final result should have been achieved by joint efforts. At this stage the companies decided to work independently. They both organized large group meeting with their personnel and the administration explained what was going to be changed. The explanation was not detailed, thus, people had no opportunity to figure out the consequences of the change for every individual. The attempts of the managers to move to the next stage of the change process were not successful. It revealed that the ‘ending’ stage did not work for all the people engaged into the process. We can suppose that the mistake was in independent strategy of the companies. They failed to start effective cooperation from the very beginning. The managers could have suggested some creative initiatives of exchanging the experts or top managers to make a mutual analysis of the state of affairs in both companies at that period of time. It could bring good results and be very helpful in working out their plan of actions. Another possible omission was the lack of detailed discussion of the change and its consequences for all the people engaged into the process. It could be arranged as small team workshops, surveys, round-table discussions etc. In such a way, the personnel had to realize the coming change, its outcomes and what exactly they had to do not to be out of the organizational change process. Instead, top managers had already set a plan of actions for themselves and were ready for radical actions. The next stage of the process was so-called ‘neutral zone’. In this particular situation all planning and strategic work was focused in the level of top managers. They designed the whole strategy without consulting the other participants of the process. We can suppose the there was an atmosphere of loss and disorientation among the personnel. The people realized that great changes were coming but they could not distinguish their role in the process and direct their efforts to organizational change procedure. To our mind, the leading side had to initiate a kind of feedback procedure to understand at what stage of the change process other participants of the process were. It could show the problematic aspects earlier and give chance to correct the whole situation at the early stage. Instead, the companies moved to the next stage ‘the new beginning’. At the beginning of this stage the managers had to report the administration about the shifts of some personnel work specifications and the results of these shifts. They had to explain the way how the whole system was going to work after total merging. The managers initiated workshops with the personnel and the results of these workshops showed that their plan or actions and the expected outcomes did not coincide with the real state of affairs. We can suppose that the reason of this failure was that team work had been initiated too late. As a result, the managers were not aware that the personnel of the company were experiencing difficulties in moving forward. The people were at different stages of the process and not all of them could explain and realize how the specification of their work had changed or was going to change after the process had been accomplished. After team work and its analysis the corrections were made in the whole plan of actions and most units of the company were provided with the continuous consultative assistance to improve their participation in the organizational change procedure. In this situation experience, analytical and creative thinking were required to put the suggested model into practice successfully.
Assessment of own leadership skills
To my mind, any intelligent leader should not stop developing himself. As any individual, a leader possesses strong and weak characteristics. Observing myself as a leader, I would like to mention that I do have leadership skills and I continue to develop myself obtaining new competences. I would like to emphasize the importance of social qualities for a leader. To my mind, I have rather strong interpersonal skills which are very important as any leader is always centered by his team and work with people.
Communicating skills play an important role in his performance as a leader. I think that my ethical skills allow me to be rather an effective leader. They can help to gain trust and respect among the members of your team. I have a considerable experience of working in a team, so, I suppose it will be very useful for my leading practice. I can also add good motivational skills to my social competences. My functional skills as a leader include good communicational skills which, to my mind, are the core ones for any leader. I think, my skills or planning career and setting goals can be very helpful as well. I am self-confident and sure in my knowledge but I think that ‘knowledge skills’ is a growing category and we should improve our knowledge skills during our life. My cognitive skills involve creativity, analytical thinking, good consulting skills and critical approach to the problems. I am a future oriented person and I am able to work for long-term goals achievement. As we know, leaders are usually defined as formal, informal and situational. Looking critically at myself as a leader, I would like to mention that I consider myself to be a situational leader. Situational leader is a person who is able to act as a strong leader in critical situations. In such situations my leader qualities become more evident. When the situation is not identified as a critical one I can pass the initiative to other people if I see that they are ready to act or suggest a wise decision.
I think that I have quite many essential qualities for a leader but I need to develop my competences. Many skills are mostly possible to be developed practically. Thus, my further development as a leader requires gaining experience. I think that my personal action plan for further development as a leader will include the following points. As any leader should be universal and able to work in any environment, I suppose I need to improve my cross cultural skills and my integration capabilities. One more quality I am planning to develop is flexibility. I hope that practical experience can develop my managerial skills as I do not think that only theoretical knowledge makes a good manager. In relation to good managerial abilities I am planning to improve my decision making skills and problem solving competence. Rich practical experience can facilitate my stress management skills development. I suppose that technological or some special knowledge and skills can be developed in case the situation requires. Thus, I hope that my training and learning capabilities will allow me to obtain necessary technical knowledge if it is necessary for my performing as a leader. As we have already mentioned, leadership theoreticians identify several styles of leadership. I am planning to master different styles of leadership practically as every style can be very effective in a particular situation.
Creativity and innovation are seen as closely related phenomena that overlap in a number of essential characteristics. Though, the essence of creativ¬ity lies in generation of new and nontraditional approaches and ideas while innovation should be studied as the process related to capturing the suggested ideas and approaches, their analysis and filtration, further modification and practical implementation. Thus, creativity can be considered as the initial aspect of the innovation process. Successful organizational change requires taking into consideration both creativity and innovation as two core aspects of organization renewal process.
The process of organizational change has been introduced in a number of theories suggesting various models of organizational change process. The success and effectiveness of change depends on various factors and conditions. However, there is no universal model for organizations to follow. Any particular situation of organizational change requires creative approach and unique strategy depending on the external and internal conditions of the organization. An approach to organizational change should be based on a relevant model supplemented by own analysis and own plan of actions. Much attention should be paid to the monitoring of every stage of the process of organizational change. Resources and needs should be defined in relation to the particular situation.
Most theoreticians emphasize the role of leadership in the process of organizational innovation and change. Leaders take responsibility of the whole process, so the success of change depends on their skills and competences. Leaders are responsible for creating the atmosphere of creativity within the organization. They have to arrange effective cooperation of the participants of the process. Arranging team work and its analysis and summarizing of the results are their responsibilities as well. Leaders are the last instance of vision and plan of actions setting. They choose the key strategy, consider and control every stage of the process. Team work should be seen as another important aspect of any organizational change. It plays a significant role at every stage of organizational innovation and change process.
The suggested examples of the successful and the less successful organizational change show that following a particular model of organizational change does not provide good results without own creative and critical approach. The outcome of innovation and change can not be 100% predicted. Thus, every stage of the process should be monitored and necessary corrections should be done timely. The mentioned examples put ahead the role of both leaders and team work as well. Success is achieved by effective work of leaders and effectively organized team work. Monitoring and joint of all the participants guarantee success.
Self-observation of leader’s qualities allowed making an effective personal action plan of development as a potential leader. Self-analysis showed that both theoretical knowledge and practical experience make an effective leader. Thus, some necessary competences can only be obtained and developed practically.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: the strategies for
taking charge. New York: Haper and Row, Vol 24, No 4.
Cameron, E., Green, M. and Page, K. (2004) Making Sense of
Change Management: a complete guide to the models, tools & techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Limited.
Carnall, C. (2007) Managing change in organizations.
King, N. and Anderson, N. (2002) Managing Innovation and
Change: a critical guide for organizations. Cengage Learning EMEA.
(1990) Innovation in working groups. In West, M.A. and Farr,
J.L. (Eds.) Innovation and Creativity at work. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Senge, P., Keliner, A., Roberts, C., Roth, G. and Smith, B.
(1999) The Dance of Change. London: Nicholas Brealey,.
Shaw, P. (2002) Changing conversations in Organizations.
Stacey, R.D. (2001) Complex Responsive Process in
Organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1990) (Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Damanpour, F. and Evan, W.M. (1984) Organizational innovation
and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, pp. 392-409.
King, N. and West, M.A. (1985) Experiences of Innovation at
Work. Journal of Management Psychology, 2, pp. 6-10.
Liu, Y. (2009) Analysis and Evaluation of Organization Change
Approaches. International Journal of Business and Management, 4 (12), pp. 234-238.
Monaco, F.F. and Guimaraes, V.N. (2007) Creativity and Innovation in the context of Team-Work: an Evaluation in the Self-management Cells and Quality Control Circles of Ambev S.C. Branch. BAR, 4(1), pp. 21-34.
Nnanna, U.J. (2009) Managing Innovation: An Imperical Study of Innovation and Change in Public and Private Companies. Journal of Management Research, 1(2:E10) pp. 1-9.
Pagon, M., Banutai, E. and Bizjak, U. (2008) Leadership
competencies for successful change management, a preliminary study report, University of Maribor, Slovenia, pp. 1-25.