Leadership and Innovation by Barsh, J., Capozzi, M.M. & Davidson, J.
A reflection by [insert full Name]
Barsh et al. (N.d.), in their article called ‘Leadership and Innovation’, insist that innovation is just a term theoretically understood by senior executives, but not pragmatically applied. This is exhibited by a research where 70% of senior executives assert that innovation is critical in the next three years for expanding companies both financially and globally. However, despite the known fact, 65% senior executives are not conversant of how to apply innovation into transforming organizational fortunes to the better. Furthermore, the authors also positively relate leadership with innovation, where the presence of good leadership in an organization was associated with innovative ones.
In analysing the article, it is evident that the authors’ target audience are professionals in respective fields, and senior executives. On the part of professionals, there is a conception that they rely so much on their colleagues in the same field to give them feedback on their work. This is an innovation inhibitor where nothing new can come up in their consultations. Hence, the article is on-point in educating them that diversity and networking with other experts is a recipe for innovative ideas. Senior executives also fall short in innovation because it is not a priority in companies, and depend on a few individuals to run innovation in the companies. This is not the way to harness innovative ideas as they have to set it as a priority in operations and design innovative networks.
The article provides a support that professionals and senior executives are at the forefront of advocating for innovation and yet they fail. The article provides a research where both groups were interviewed on what inhibited them from being innovative. In the interview, many professionals—150% more than senior level managers—responded that culture inhibited them innovative. Senior level managers—82% more than professionals—showed that they did not have the right people who would spearhead innovation in businesses. Therefore, this proves that the two groups are the central focus for Barsh et al. in their article.
The article concludes by asserting that innovation is a key concept that drives organization forward. However, it is not applied effectively. The recommendations put forward are two and include designing innovative works, and building an innovative culture. Innovative works are designed through connecting right-minded people, setting boundaries and engage, supporting and governing, and managing and tracking the design. Also on building the innovative culture, the authors recommend that team members to embrace innovative culture, turn certain managers into innovative leaders, and creating opportunities for innovation and quick success.
The authors have been candid and educative in highlighting the relationship between leadership and innovation. Innovation has been increasingly depicted to result in growth and expansion of enterprises. Good leadership has not been left behind and results in innovative firms. A good leader will inspire employees to be innovative and confident in their ideas. However, despite the positive acclamations of innovation, majority of firms do not advocate for it, some of them applying it informally or when necessary. Therefore, the value of the message from the article to the reader is that innovation is the cogwheel that drives every change in the society, and not societal systems and structures. Hence, the final comment I can make is that innovation is theoretical and has not achieved the practicality it is intended in enterprises.
