0 Innovation and Leadership

Introduction

Innovation is inevitable in the corporate world today (Howells 2005, p.1-7; Senior & Fleming 2006, p.1-12). The dynamic and uncertain environment that it operates in has challenged it to adopt innovation as a necessity. The question every corporate is left to answer is; what is it that we need to implement innovative strategies in our organization? They are faced with the issue of understanding the dynamics of innovation and exactly the drivers of the whole aspect. The question is not whether to innovate or not. Rather, they ask how they can successfully innovate.

The most general definition of innovation is introduction of something new into any one given field (Zaccaro 2001, p.1-5). However, this is only a general definition of the aspect. Many people, depending on the field of operation understand innovation differently. The difference comes in when one is considering the change that will be introduced and the expected results. In the production field, innovation means introduction of a new product in the market. In the same line, it could also mean technological innovation to venture into a new the market. To another field, faster means of operation would dominate the definition of innovation.

Despite varied means of defining innovation, there are three key terms that are never wanting in these definitions (Birnbaum 2004, p.345-370). These include the word new, movement from one state to another, and finally the translation of the idea in the organization. Innovation is about shifting from the old and ushering in something new. The success of the whole process is when the idea is translated into a good or service. Stacey (1992, p. 67-74) argue that all that an organization needs is leadership to achieve innovation (Stacey 1992, p.67-74). Theories have been developed to justify this fact. However, in this paper, I critically evaluate whether this is necessarily true. The paper goes ahead to evaluate the truth behind this theory, while at the same time going beyond its confines.

Innovation in The Past

Innovation can be traced from the days of state owned organizations (Arthur 1988, p.15-22; Senior & Fleming 2006, p.1-12). The state, in many countries managed the organizations, which brought about much inefficiency. The main aim for this era was to minimize the costs of production. Mass production of goods coupled with manipulation of demand and supply by the state owned organizations was a specialty in those days (Howells 2005, p.1-7). Their aim was not easy to achieve because of overproduction.

Much as the business environment was stable, the consumer’s preference was highly ignored (Tarde 1903, p.5-7). The economists supporting this kind of an approach failed to see the gap created between the corporate and the consumer. Then change happened, and innovation was ushered into the manufacturing (Howells 2005, p.1-7. Industrialization and invention that came with it set the pace for the innovative corporate we experience today.

The new means of production focused on several aspects, which were more efficient (Iordanis 2003, p.3-11; Joseph 1950, p. 17-56)). For one, the products were fewer but more specialize to fit the consumer’s preference. Secondly, the aspect of incorporating knowledge in the production would defeat the competition that constantly becoming stiff. Thirdly, the technological innovation would reduce the costs while at the same time allowing the chance for flexibility (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.1-12; Howells 2005, p.1-7). Further, there was the incorporation of services after offering the goods to the consumer. The feminism was also considered in the manufacturing.

The whole aspect of invention and innovation was a major breakthrough for the consumer (Birnbaum 2004, p.345-370). The products defined the needs of the consumer and were able to tap into the market that was once ignored. The success of many organizations from then on became dependent on the ability to innovate. There are still many government owned enterprises today. Their operations may sometimes exhibit the older Fordism approach (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.1-12). However, they have highly incorporated the aspects of the post fordism. Value addition is spoken everywhere, be it in the government owned organization or in the private sector.

Invention may sometimes be confused with innovation (Nelson 1993, p. 5-12). While they cannot be separated, they have slight difference in the result. Invention focuses on converting new knowledge into consumers good or services. On the other hand, innovation goes ahead to ensure that the product is made into use.

The Importance of Innovation

Competition is something that every organization is keen to consider while developing its strategies (Stacey 1992, p.67-74). No given organization ignores this aspect because it determines how well their products will fair in the market. Therefore, this drives the corporate world to carefully consider how they can improve their operations and introduce something new. The whole aspect of innovation is the new that will improve the current situation in an organization.

The globalization experienced in the corporate world today stiffens the competition (Zaccaro 2001, p.1-5). The global world is innovative and progressive. There is a great risk in the corporate that fails to differentiate itself through innovation. The consumers of the era have more say in the production of a good or a service. Their particular needs must be met at most, in which failure leads to slow achievement of goals and objectives. At the extremes, the organization exposes itself to losses or even closure (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.17-22). There is need to avoid wastes in the production organ of the corporate (Birnbaum 2004, p.345-370). The innovative means of production helps minimize a number of wastes. These include overproduction of goods and services, delays because of slow production, unneeded motion among other factors (Rogers 1962, p.230-235).

At the macro level, innovation helps a country achieve its national goals and objectives. Innovation is not only necessary in the corporate world but also to the states around the globe.

Achievement of significance change in countries GDP is correlated to the innovative approach in all the aspects of the states (Nelson 1993, p. 5-12). For example, this can be supported by the surveys done on U.K’s economy. They agree to one fact; that the ability for the firms to get competitive solely depends on their ability to get innovative. It is evident that productivity is still lagging behind compared to other countries. The difference is traced to their lack of innovative approach in UK’s organizations. Less investment on research and development together with wrong priorities in production can explain why this lag is experienced (Stacey 1992, p.67-74; Howells 2005, p.1-7). While one cannot deny that GDP is increased greatly, the gap created between U.K and other countries is still present.

The Role of Leadership in Innovation

Some people argue that for innovation to thrive, all that is needed is leadership (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.15-32). They have their reasons and varied evidence for this. It is therefore important to consider the role that leadership plays and whether this is the only factor that is vital in innovation. A leader is anyone who is able to influence other people towards a certain direction (Nelson 1993, p. 5-12; Goffin & Mitchell 2005, p.31-35). This ability may be inborn or even developed through learning.

 According to Christensen (2002) p.32-38, a leader may come from anywhere in the organization. He argues that it is possible to have the lowest ranking worker being able to influence others in any capacity in an organization. According to him, this differentiates them from managers, who are most times crowned so even though they are not leaders. However, it is still possibility to have management team who has the characters of a leader.

Roughead et al (2007, p.514-520) looks at leadership and innovation in two ways. One is that of innovation leadership and the other, leadership for innovation. In both aspects, there are several aspects involved. There are differences in the definitions and how the leader is expected to operate (Howells 2005, p.1-7. However, several aspects show similarities. According to Smith (2006, p.35-59), innovative leadership is defined to as the ability of an individual to influence others to a certain goal, using new methods, skills and ideas. On the other hand leadership for innovation is defined to as the ability of a leader to create an environment where innovation can thrive (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.1-12).

Every organization, as argued by Christensen (2002, p.32-38) requires the skills that come with innovative leadership. Innovative leadership requires that a leader be prepared for uncertainty and ambiguous situations. It requires the leader to have innovative skills and get to think innovatively. The aspects of intuition and asking the question on what would happen if the unexpected presented itself in the future becomes vital (Rogers 1962, p.230-235). It calls for creation for an extra room for the dynamic strategy to be utilized.

Where the leaders are well equipped and trained on innovation, then it is possible that the organization is well braced for innovation (Shelton &Darling 2001, p.264-273). The innovative thinking skills are very important in an organization. For one, an innovative leader pays good attention in all that is done in the organization. They are able to some aspects that may be ignored in any type of an approach in leadership. Innovation yearns for the chance to see details and act accordingly.

Innovation calls for personalization, which is the other vital aspect of innovative leadership (Nelson 1993, p. 5-12). The leader takes time to understand the demands of every consumer and employees. An innovative leader is imaginative (Fairholm 2004, p.32-54). Their ability to use other tools such as metaphors and pictures bring in more aspects into the issues in question. The words are unable to reveal all that there is to see in an issue.

Sometimes breaking rules and protocol is all that is needed to innovation (Salge & Vera 2009, p.54-67; Goffin & Mitchell 2005, p.31-35). Innovative leadership gives room for serious play. This helps the leader to focus on other aspects that could arise as surprises in the future. Further, innovation is impossible without collaboration between different people and organizations. It is not possible to take heroic role in the aspect of innovation. Rather, many other people and organizations are called on board to ensure that innovation is successful (Rogers 1962, p.230-235). This is what innovative leadership offers. The leader takes the time to call others for dialogue before setting the course for innovation.

The other way to look at the relation between innovation and leadership is the aspect of leadership for innovation (Rogers 1962, p.230-235). Innovation needs an encouraging environment for it to grow and affect the organization. This only happens when the leadership takes deliberate measures towards this. The measures taken should encourage the employees to bring their ideas into a table of discussion (Birnbaum 2004, p.345-370; Rogers 1962, p.230-235).

Some of the innovative ideas could be the only thing needed to ensure that success is achieved. Incentives in this case are given and the efforts rewarded (Siltala 2010 p.234-256; (Goffin & Mitchell 2005, p.11-25). The barriers towards innovation are eliminated through leadership for innovation. For example, the culture of the organization is made cohesive for innovation. This means dealing with issues such as criticism and internal politics. Fear is also eliminated and resources provided for innovation. Further, the employees are given freedom to express and explore all the new concepts that they may have.

Leadership can come from any level within a corporate (Stacey 1992, p.67-74). Sometimes some lower ranking departments have leaders who can guide people towards innovation. This lays a very good beginning for innovation. All that is needed is to in an organization is identifying in an organization is to identify any able leader in any department. From here, the organization can celebrate innovation. Every department can be led towards in this aspect if only these leaders are identified. This however should include training them further to ensure that innovation is effective (Senge 1990, p.231-237). The bottom up approach gives the best results as far as innovation is concerned.

Innovation and creativity are intertwined in every way (Christensen 2002, p.32-38; Goffin & Mitchell 2005, p.11-25). One cannot be innovative unless they are creative enough to come up with new ideas. Leadership is directly related to creativity, which is the beginning point for innovation. A creative leader is open to varied options and accepts ambiguity as a chance to learn further and become better. They are also very curious to know all that is happening around them and can take risks.

Innovation is about energy and determination (Stamm, 2003 p. 35-56). Sometimes the dynamics of innovation are impossible to go through for an organization, unless there is good leadership. Risks are not easy to take and they must be approached through caution. A leader gives direction in such a case and motivates the employees the motivation they desperately need. In case of failure, all eyes look to leadership, at least for encouragement to go on even amidst of the problem. Sometimes the employees are confused on the direction they need to take while trying to be innovative (Roth 2009, p.231-252). The leadership offers the solution by encouraging them and working together with them.

One case scenario that can support the argument that leadership is critical in innovation is that of Kodak films (Bridges 1991, p.153-178; Berry 1994, p.322-330). For a long time, Kodak enjoyed the benefits of economies of scale in film production (The Economist 2012 p.61-62). The firm acted as a monopoly for along time, and even the Fuji film would not come close to their profit margins. They had remarkable investment on research and development. They were also well marketed in most of the countries and had good community relations. Further, they manufactured their products sin such an impeccable way that they established themselves as a brand. It was all well until the film industry was interrupted by the smart phones industry.

Technological change interfered with the once stable film industry (Thomke 2003, p. 225-267; The Economist 2012 p.61-62). Despite the fact that they had invested heavily on digitized camera, they never saw further innovation coming. This is traced back to the leadership struggle of the time. They were inconsistent, with inner political struggle that could not withstand change. The new strategies adopted at that time were carried out by new leadership. This was already a misdoing for the film firm. The leadership focused majorly on the market share of the perfect products that they did on more innovation on what was already in the market.

Further, the employees of the organizations had no incentives to bring on board their innovative ideas (Avolio et al 2003, p. 277–307; The Economist 2012 p.61-62)). On the contrary, some of them were fired in the basis of their inability to perform. They were also crowned irresponsible, which works against innovation. Once the employees are treated this way, innovation will never thrive. For Kodak, their last moments were already spelt out.

Collaboration also lacked between the firm and other industries (Afuah 2003, p.1-5; Perez & Rushing 2007, p.23-25). According to The Economist (2012 p.61-62), they failed to outsource some of the production processes, with the confidence that they had it all figured out. This was already an indication that innovative leadership could have noticed to save the situation. However, Kodak did not act accordingly and ushered in failure. For Fuji film, they were lucky to have sponsored the Olympics in 1984. This gave them good publicity to help them survive the technological shock.

            The apple as a corporate has given the world a good role model to emulate as far as innovation leadership is concerned. According to Masaaki (2003, p.35-56), the leadership has managed to give the employees clear responsibilities towards innovation. The culture cultivated here is that is of teamwork, thanks to good leadership. Consequently, the corporate is more competent than any other in its capacity is. This just shows us show much good leadership can play a key role in innovative strategies (Afuah 2003, p.23-35).     

Other Determinants of Innovation

There is a clear indication that the leadership in an organization plays a key role in innovation (Goffin & Mitchell 2005, p.11-25). However, it is important to consider whether there are other factors that carry the same weight, as is leadership. The question to assess is; does an organization have it all together with the presence of able leadership? In Kodak’s situation, are there other factors that led to failure?

Wilson (1994 p.23-59), argues that the policies that the government adopts on this given area will determine how well innovation will work in an organization. He considers the countries where the government gives incentives for innovation to grow. This includes encouraging research and development on technological inventions. Still, Fairholm (2004, p.32-54) agrees to the fact that the government may have lesser tax or none at all to encourage innovation. The legislative policies could also act to protect the intellectual properties in the organization.

These key factors would hinder innovation even if the organization has the very best innovative leadership. For example, in UK, it would not matter what a leader does to make innovation work (EuDaly et al 2009, p. 56-69). This is because the government has not invested adequately on the area. On the contrary, Japan has invested on technology, giving an obvious incentive towards innovation.

Secondly, innovation needs financial investment to be successful. According to Davila et al (2006, p.23-57), leadership only offers guidance, not finances. This means that every organization must be ready to consider the financial ability to encourage innovation. Sometimes getting finances from the banking institutions and other lenders is not easy (Fairholm 2004, p.32-54). There is a need to prove without reasonable doubt that money will be put into good use (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.18-42; Rogers 1962, p.230-235)). However, innovative ideas are risky to finance consideration the chances for loss if in case of failure. The organization therefore becomes derailed in their bid to be innovative, even though willing.

According to Henry & Mayle (2002, p.36-57), the porters demand model explains why some countries are more innovative than others are. It is explained in four points, which despite good leadership play an important role in innovation. For one, the factor conditions play a key role in innovation (Fairholm 2004, p.32-54). This is mainly involves the factors that are at the exposure of an organization in a given for innovation. For example, an organization that has highly skilled employees is bound to adopt innovative strategy with ease.

Still, if a country is endowed with some of the natural resources needed for innovation, then there is a competitive advantage (Rogers 1962, p.230-235). Examples in this case are countries such as Denmark and Switzerland that have accumulated technological advancements. These cannot be compared to other countries that have lesser technologies. The other example is that of metallurgy in Japan and Sweden. The second aspect of porters demand model is the demand condition (Henry & Mayle 2002, p.36-57). Good demand for products in the local industry encourages innovation and change in a countries industry. For example, in Japan the local demand for electronics is positive, leading to innovation and improvements on the products.

The third aspect is that of the related and supporting industries of an organization (Dale 2001, p.23-76). The ease of obtaining raw materials for innovation is directly related to competitive firms in an economy. The case scenario forth is the manufacture of Italian shoes. Without the competitive industries around the organizations, innovation would lag behind.

The last aspect of the porter’s model is the structure of the firm, its strategy and rivalry (Masaaki 2003, p.35-56). The structure of leadership and management will highly influence innovation. Some structures, for example, the hierarchical one in Germany has led to innovation for the countries in question. The strategy towards achieving goals and objectives may also hinder or foster innovation (Smith 2006, p.35-59). Strategies can be analyzed based on two perspectives. One is that of demand forces that would pull innovation (Bessant and Tidd 2007 p.23-45). The other is technological push that creates innovation. It is important that a firm’s strategy give way for innovation to take place.

Lastly, the aspect of rivalry gives a firm the challenge to innovate lest their rivals take their rightful place (Bessant and Tidd 2007 p.23-45). For the companies who are unchallenged, for example, the monopolies, the need to innovate is minimal. In the case of Kodak’s film company, there are aspects, more than leadership that contributed to their failure (The Economist 2012 p.61-62). For example, the company was not challenged through competition for the better part of their operations. They therefore enjoyed a monopoly, up and until their sad point of failure. Their poor strategy did not help either in helping the situation.        

These factors clearly indicate that innovation is broader than leadership (Tidd et al 2009, p.231-238; Perez & Rushing 2007, p.23-25)). While it is evident that leadership plays an important role, some of the factors are of equal importance. Innovation is a broad topic that should be looked at from many angles. It is important therefore that all factors are married to make innovation possible (Smith 2006, p.35-59). None can do without others, whether one carries more weight than others do. Everything must work in cohesion with others to get smooth implementation of innovation.

In the year 2011, Nokia released its strategic plan into the press, indicating how it would accomplish its strategic goals and objectives. The plan was that through innovation, leadership, structural changes, and new strategies, it would accomplish its overall corporate goal (Bessant and Tidd 2007 p.23-45). To achieve innovative goals, they planned to collaborate with Microsoft to come up with the best Smart phones in the market. New leadership would further support this. According to the CEO, Stephen Elop, the leadership would have to be competent and apply innovative thinking skills to achieve the strategic goals of the company. From this example, we can clearly see that innovation is broad; innovation is a combination of various important aspects (Burnes 2004, p.10-27). We realize that innovation needs to be looked as whole unit with many vital subdivisions.

Looking at the challenges of innovation in an organization, there are several factors to consider. The aspects cover both the leadership role and other factors influencing innovation (Henry & Mayle 2002, p.36-57). For one, the government policies adopted against innovation will hinder innovation. The technological innovations for example need a lot government back up to thrive (Senior & Fleming 2006, p.1-12). Lack of the factors incorporated in the porter’s model will also hinder innovation. On leadership, the absence of visionary leaders in an organization will be a hindrance towards innovation. In general, all the key factors of innovation must be present for effective innovation to take place.

The way forward for many organizations is towards sustainability (Tushman & Anderson 2004 p.54-67; Burnes 2004, p.10-27)). It is one thing to allow innovation to take place but it is another to see innovation is sustained in the organization. The culture of innovation is not easy to maintain. An organization must consider several aspects. First, research and development should be a continuous process. Collaborating with other organizations and, sometimes outsourcing research will keep the company innovative.

 The information received will always show variations from the previous findings (Smith 2006, p.35-59). This creates the chance for innovation and prepares the organization for surprises in the near future. Working together as a team does go a long way to sustain innovation. The collaboration between all the stakeholders for example, the government, research firms, and competitors is one easy way of sustaining innovation (Perez & Rushing 2007, p.23-25).

Lastly training and creating awareness to every body within the corporate helps sustain innovation (Burnes 2004, p.10-27). Some people do not take the move towards innovation because they do not know the importance of it. The global economy calls for an innovative corporate, and none should be left behind. Educating everyone on the need to innovate and the benefits will help develop sustainability.

Conclusion

Innovation is of great importance in the global corporate that faces stiff competition. The leader in every organization plays a key role in coordination and harmonizing all the activities towards the same. The innovative leadership skills bring in the needed break through in this field. The motivation and the inspiring role that the leader plays help create an environment necessary for the growth of innovation. However, other factors may carry the same weight as that of leadership. For example, the government policy and the porter’s model may hinder or foster innovation. This maybe experienced despite the presence of innovative leadership in an organization. While not disputing the key role of leadership in innovation, it is important to look at the whole picture. There is a call for the change of approach towards innovation. The barriers posed in the filed can be dealt with through training, collaboration, and research in the field. The ultimate goal to remain competitive in the global economy will hence become achievable. Other innumerable benefits of innovation would be the cream of all the efforts of innovation. 

References

Afuah, A 2003, Innovation management, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.

Arthur, G 1988, The new leadership: managing participation in organizations, Prentice-Hall New Jersey.

Avolio, B., Sosik, J., Jung, D & Berson, Y 2003, ‘Leadership models, methods, and applications’, Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. pp. 277–307: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Berry, F1994, ‘Innovation in public management; the adoption of strategic planning’, Public Administration Review, 54(4), 322-330.

Bessant, J & Tidd, J 2007, Innovation and entrepreneurship, Wiley and sons Inc, New York. 

Birnbaum, B 2004, Strategic thinking a four piece puzzle, Douglas Mountain Publishing, California.

Bridges, W 1991, Managing transition: making the most of change. Addison Longman, New York.

Burnes, 2004, Managing Change, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Christensen, C 2002, ‘The rules of innovation,’ Technology Review 105 (5): 32–38.

Dale, J 2001, ‘Information technology and the U.S. economy’, American Economic Review Vol. 91, pp. 1-32.

Davila, T., Epstein, M & Shelton, R 2006, Making innovation work: how to manage it, measure it, and profit from it, Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River.

EuDaly, K., Schafer, M., Boyd, Jim., Jessup, S., McBridge., A & Glischinksi, S 2009, The complete book of north American railroading, Voyageur Press.

Fairholm, M 2004, ‘A new sciences outline for leadership development’, Leadership And organizational Development Journal, Vol.25, No.4, 369-383.

Goffin, K & Mitchell, R 2005, Innovation management, strategy and implementation using the pentathlon framework, Palgrave.

Henry, J & Mayle, D 2002, Managing innovation and change, Sage publications.

Howells, J 2005, The Management of innovation and technology, Sage Publications.

Iordanis, P 2003, ‘The dynamic effects of general purpose technologies on Schumpeterian growth’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics Vol.13, p. 577-605.

Joseph, S 1950, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York.

King, N & Anderson, N 2002, Managing innovation and change, Thomson.

Masaaki, H, 2003, ‘Nonlinear dynamism of innovation and business cycles,’ Journal of Evolutionary Economics vol. 13: 549-576.

Nelson, R, (editor) 1993, National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.

Perez, T & Rushing, R 2007, ‘The city-state model: how data-driven government can increase efficiency and effectiveness’ Center for American Progress Report. Pp. 1–18.

Rogers, E 1962, Diffusion of innovation, Free Press, New York.

Roth, S, 2009, ‘New for whom? Initial images from the social dimension of innovation’, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 4(4), pp. 231-252.

Roth, S., Wetzel &Muller, K 2010, ‘Going beyond the hard core of innovation: non-technological and non economic dimensions of innovation systems’, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Vol. 3, No.1, pp 1-1.

Roughead, E, Lopert, R, & Samson, L, 2007, Prices for innovative pharmaceutical products that provide health gain: a comparison between Australia and the United States Value in Health Vol. 10, pp.514–20.

Salge, T & Vera, A 2009, ‘Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance', Health Care Management Review, Vol. 34, Issue 1, pp. 54-67.

Senge, P 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, Doubleday, New York.

Senior, B & Fleming, J 2006, Organisational change (Third Edition), FT Prentice Hall.

Shelton, C &Darling, 2001, ‘The quantum skills modeling management: a new paradigm to enhance effective leadership’, Leadership And organizational Development Journal,   Vol. 22, No.6, pp. 264-273.

Siltala, R 2010, Innovativity and cooperative learning in business life and teaching, University of Turku.

Smith, D 2006, Exploring innovation, Mc Graw Hill

Stacey, R 1992, Managing the unknowable, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Stamm, B 2003, Managing innovation, design & creativity, Wiley and sons publications.

Tarde, G 1903, The laws of limitation, H. Holt & Co, New York.

The Economist, 2012, ‘The last Kodak moment?’ Technological Change.

Thomke, H 2003, Experimentation matters: unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation, Harvard Business School Press.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J & Pavitt, K, 2009, Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change, (4^rd Edition) Wiley and sons Inc, New York.

Tushman, L & Anderson, P 2004, Managing strategic innovation and change, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.

Vaill, P 1996, Learning as away of being: strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Wilson, I 1994, Strategic planning isn’t dead-it changed, Long Range Planning

Zaccaro, S 2001, The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.