Business
Govindarajan and Trimble (2010), in their article ‘Apple Beats Microsoft at Change Management’, assert the importance of innovation in the growth of organizations. The article outlines common mistakes that corporations make with regards to implementing innovations and managing change. It asserts that the main reasons why corporations fail at innovation include failures at imagination and failures to execute. It further explains that the former is hardly applicable for many organizations because they have an abundance of brilliant minds to generate new ideas. According to them, failures to execute are the major reason since these organizations have intense internecine warfare between innovative teams and ongoing operations that cripples innovative efforts. The solution prescribed by these authors is building constructive partnerships between these two teams based on mutual respect and on the understanding that neither can succeed without the contribution of the other.
Today’s market place has become highly competitive. I agree with the author that failures at imagination is a minor cause of innovative failure for big companies since they attract highly qualified employees. However, this is not as simple as the authors suggest because the downward side to having too many ideas lies in the uncompetitive nature of products that are released into the market. Such companies become so preoccupied with maintaining their normal income streams that they only react to the market when smaller competitors release new innovations. To defend their market position, they embark on reactive innovation and end up releasing half-baked products that have been inadequately researched and tested (Yezersky 2008).
The article accurately asserts that failures to execute are the major barriers to innovation. It does not matter how many brilliant ideas a company has if it cannot successfully implement them to produce viable results. Brass (2010) affirms that such failures arise from inept marketing, poor timing, bad company image, destructive internal competition, and the tendency to cling to strategies that have worked in the past. The authors’ choice of Microsoft Corporation as an example is appropriate since the company has faced the aforementioned problems. Established teams often view promising innovators as a threat to the status quo, so they frustrate their efforts. The result is a mass exodus of these budding minds from the organization. The article however omits pertinent challenges that hinder innovation such as lack of visionary leaders, absence of an organizational culture that facilitates innovation, not focusing innovation in the right areas, imbalance between creativity and commercialization, and lack of a comprehensive innovative strategy (Wagner, France and Mott).
It is true that partnerships based on mutual respect are key in solving warfare among teams as the article states. However, the authors did not consider the fact that this solution is ineffective in itself because partnerships must be founded on the culture and structure of the organization. A culture that is open to ideas from employees and rewards creative effort will provide an anchor from which mutual respect will stem. In addition, an organizational structure that promotes inter-departmental collaboration and less bureaucracy will easily eliminate the suspicion that shrouds many departmental activities (Wagner, France and Mott).
Despite the strong arguments made by the authors, the article is characterized by bias against Microsoft Corporation. Their opinions might have been influenced by the antitrust troubles that have soiled its image till today. The authors have only highlighted its negative aspects and seem happy with the prospect of its collapse in the market. The article would have earned more credibility if it had mentioned some of the major contributions that the corporation has made towards improving the welfare of society such as employing thousands of people over the years and philanthropic gestures spearheaded by its former founder, Bill Gates.
OECD (1997) defines innovation as all scientific, technological, organizational, financial, and commercial activities necessary to create, implement, and market new or improved products or processes. Innovation is a strategic tool that any organization aspiring to remain competitive in the market should employ. However, innovation without comprehensive steps to manage the change associated with the new creations is futile. For effective change implementation in an organization, two important factors must be in place. These include supportive leadership and a culture that promotes change and innovation. The management team should consist of visionary leaders to provide vision, advocate for new ideas, appeal to the emotions of employees, and create urgency for change (Kotter 1979). Such leaders will inspire employees to embrace change without the tedious effort of threatening them into conformity. Secondly, corporations should re-structure their operations in a manner that encourages cross-functional cooperation. This will eliminate bureaucracy and encourage sharing of knowledge among employees of different expertise, thus promoting formation of effective partnerships. In addition, corporations should adopt modern innovation models such as the chain-linked model (Kline & Rosenberg 1986) that incorporates both the market and technological factors in generating new products.
In conclusion, innovation and change management go hand in hand. Innovation is needed to create new products in order to remain competitive in the market, while change management is needed to inspire employees towards embracing innovation and successfully releasing the product in the market. This article clearly underscores the importance of innovation in business growth, and the challenges highlighted are very key if corporations are to succeed. However, the apparent undertones of bias in the authors’ words may make this article lack credibility in some audiences.
Reference List
Brass, D., 2010. Microsoft’s Creative Destruction. The New York Times, [Online] Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/> [Accessed 2 June 2014].
Govindarajan, V., and Trimble, C., 2010. Apple Beats Microsoft at Change Management. Forbes, [Online] Available at: <http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/08/apple-microsoft-innovation-change-leadership-managing-human-capital> [Accessed 2 June 2014].
Kline, S. J., and Rosenberg, N., 1986. An Overview of Innovation. In Landau, R. and N. Rosenberg (Eds) The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Kotter, J. P., 1979. Organization - Texts, Cases, and Readings on the Management of Organizational Design and Change. R. D. Irwin.
OECD, 1997. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris: Organization for Economic Corporation Development.
Wagner, D., France, C., and Mott, C., n.d. How leaders can build an innovation engine. [Online] Available at: <http://www.mmc.com/knowledgecenter/viewpoint/The_Innovation_ Imperative.php> [Accessed 2 June 2014].
Yezersky, G., 2008. An Overview of the General Theory of Innovation. The Triz Journal, [Online] Available at: <http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2008/04/06/> [Accessed 2 June 2014].
