Could you suggest any articles linked with topic: harming innovation by managers - managerial behavior that disturb innovation (braking resistance, counteract, sabotage)?
Here some recent resources. In the first paper, you will find analyses about innovation failure. The second article gives a social and cultural view points of innovation propensity and succes.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2013.03.004
Harnessing Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254583219_Harnessing_Creativity_and_Innovation_in_the_Workplace, makes the point that, with exceptions, most managers do not stifle creativity on purpose. Yet, in the pursuit of productivity, efficiency, and control, they often undermine it. Creativity flourishes in organizations that support open ideas: these organizations create environments that inspire personnel and maintain innovative workplaces; those that fail are large organizations that stifle creativity with rules and provide no slack for change. Assuredly, there is a role for management in the creative process: but it is not to manage it; it is to manage for it. Why? Because creativity does not happen exclusively and tacitly in a person’s head but in interaction with a social context wherein it may be codified. The article reproduces useful tables with which to assess a workplace’s friendliness to creativity and innovation and the psychological environment for creativity.
Article Harnessing Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace
Dear Katarzyna Szczepańska-Woszczyna
greetings,
Please find the two attached files about you topic may be interesting for you ,
Best Regards,
Hi Kataryna,
Research shows that knowledge transfer enhances innovation. This means that if managers are not knowledge-intensive or unsupportive of knowledge-oriented culture, innovation will be impeded. The following articles give evidence of managerial behavior which are not knowledge-oriented and in turn leads to poor innovativeness for their organizations.
1. Idris, A. and Tey, L.S. 2011. Exploring the motives and determinants of innovation performance of Malaysian offshore international joint ventures. Management Decision 49(10).
2. Tey, L.S. and Idris, A. 2012. Cultural fit, knowledge transfer and innovation performance: a study of Malaysian offshore international joint ventures. Asian Journal of Technology 20(2).
Happy reading!
Conducive organization culture helps in creating a learning organization, where organizational knowledge transfer mechanism encourages building human capital and creating organizational agility, thereby encouraging innovation. All these happen due to enlightened, inspiring and transformational management. The management which is non participatory, does not value human potential, non transparent and unethical, cannot create a favorable organizational culture for knowledge transfer and innovation.
Given the surfeit of papers already mentioned, I will, instead, give some examples from my own experience. More than twenty years ago, I proposed the development of robotic vacuum cleaners but the Director of Engineering thought I was crazy, living in fantasy world. Jules Verne in his day was probably seen as a fantast. Today, we have robotic vacuum cleaners from many firms.
I happened to be in Singapore about a week ago, and visited a fair and saw several versions of robotic vacuum cleaners, amongst other technological innovations. The irony is that the company for which I worked is still in the vacuum cleaners business and is, unbelievably, marketing under its own brand name robotic vacuum cleaners designed and built by an Asian company! Did somebody not say that the 21st century will be the Asian Century?
An American start-up company founded by two men and a woman at MIT, was the first to bring to the market robotic vacuum cleaners. Had the company for which I had worked, taken up my idea, it would NOT be selling such robotic cleaners from Asia but it’s very own. We might, arguably, have beaten iRobots by being the first. But that was not to be, due to a lack of vision in the top layers of management.
When I was in charge of technology at a US firm, operating in Europe, I had many innovation ideas but the company was not prepared to fund the R&D work, as it was “downsizing”. I found a solution by getting Dutch Government R&D funding. I could argue seeking government funding was also being innovative. Here, I was acting as an innovation champion or gate-keeper. Innovations are more likely to be fruitful if there are innovation champions, innovation gate-keepers. Managers left to their own operating behaviours, or devices, often have a tendency for short-term views, which are not conducive to innovation. Bright engineers will be frustrated and leave. I have encouraged a few to leave for greener pastures, when I could get no support for some of my ideas or their ideas which I embraced but could find no funding. Bright ideas die because of some silly manager, who lacks the vision and the gumption to chart an innovative passage through the organizational labryinth.
Dear Katarzyna,
Not-invented-here syndrome is the most important topic to consider at this moment.
Please check our last publication about it.
Regards,
Article NOT-INVENTED-HERE SYNDROME AND INNOVATION PERFORMANCE: THE C...
- Badges
- Science topic