Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 99-103.
Read more
Key insights
We like to sit quietly in our routine, but that is not the only reason to resist change. The resistance often hides some other problems that managers don’t see or want to see. The article we chose is about ways to change the negative side of resistance to change.
1. They assume that if only people stopped complaining and got on board, all would be well. But we quickly understand that it is not so right and so simple.
2. Resistance is a form of feedback, often provided by people who know more about day-to-day operations of the firm than leaders do. It can be turned into a vibrant conversation that gives the change effort a higher profile. Dismissing the feedback deprives leaders of potentially valuable information, costs goodwill, and jeopardizes important relationships.
3. If you learn to embrace resistance, you can use it as a resource and find your way to a better solution.
Managerial implications
In terms of implications, we have identified three.
First, resistance is rather a subjective concept. For example, in the article we have the views of three different people after a meeting and each person sees the resistance in a different way. So, it’s different to manage this concept.
Secondly, the concept of resistance needs an implementation of a new mindset within de company. It requires so a lot of change and organisation. If the company decides to change the vision of its employees, the people who are not involved in the planning need to understand not only what is about to change but also why their jobs are being upended.
Finally, the implementation of resistance requires a lot of efforts at the managerial level. but if the concept is correctly understood, the company’s performances can increase.
Limitations
We found 2 interesting limitations in the article.
Firstly, the definition of resistance was not clear in the article. They surely say that it depends on the manager’s vision because some would think that getting asked lots of questions is a good thing, it means that people are involved but other managers may think that employees are irritated by the change program. What about when people do not ask questions? Does it mean everything is clear and agreed upon or does it mean employees do not care at all? This confusion means that you could launch a change program that is not welcomed at all by employees.
Secondly, the article supports resistance and sees it as a resource and like every other resource, you should use it smartly. Employees from different departments may have conflicting incentives, so what do you do? Do you just make a list of every department recommendation and choose the common points? If they do not agree on anything you’re basically stuck, that’s why using resistance is a long-term process in which a company must explain why the change program brings benefits to everyone in the company.
Further references
We have chosen two articles as relevant peer-reviewed scientific articles that provide further insight.
1. Röth, T., & Spieth, P. (2019). The influence of resistance to change on evaluating an innovation project’s innovativeness and risk: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Business Research, 101, 82-89. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.014
2. Vos, J., & Rupert, J. (2018). Change agent’s contribution to recipients’ resistance to change: A two-sided story. European Management Journal, 36(4), 453-462. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2017.11.004
Show lessAdner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Right Tech, Wrong Time. Harvard Business Review, 94(11), 60-67.
Read more
Content:
The overall objective of this article is an explanation of the dynamics of change. The pace of a technology substitution does not only depend on the technological advantage itself, but also its suppor- ting ecosystem and the competition between the new and the old ecosystem. The new technology is analyzed along two dimensions: The first dimension includes its adaptation skills to the existing ecosystem. It seems logical that the less adaptation it needs, the faster the pace of implementation. The second dimension is the old technology’s room for improve- ment within its ecosystem. If the old technology can still be improved a lot, change will be slower. By combining both dimensions, a framework with four possible scenarios can be derived: creative destruction, robust resilience, robust coexistence, and illusion of resilience. For example, creative destruction is a scenario expecting the new technology to achieve market dominance in the short term. The new technology does not require much ecosystem adaptation, the old technology has a limited potential to improve (e.g. dot matrix vs. inkjet printing).
Implications:
Depending on the quadrant they are in, managers can align their company’s strategy and resource allocation. In case of creative destruction, incumbent firms should try to invest in the new technology and become part of the change, or use their existing product to find a niche position in the market. New players should find investors for the new technology and try to gain market dominance by becoming a first mover. In robust resilience scenarios, managers of incumbents can make use of their technology’s room for improvement, while raising the entry barriers to the mar- ket. New players should simultaneously improve their own product and work on its ecosystem align- ment. Partnerships between both parties would allow new players to make use of existing knowledge and enter the market quicker, while incumbents can ensure long-term success.
Limitations:
The framework is only applicable if you are able to define clearly what the old technol- ogy is. Defining the “old technology” as a competitor is necessary to place the innovation in the matrix. Talking about this, it does not consider or define a difference between competitors and sub- stitutes. Taking e-scooters as an example: What are competitors, what are substitutes? Cars? Bicy- cles? Public transportation?
Another limitation is that the framework serves as a forecast of the implementation pace and thus requires a prognosis of upcoming new technologies. In some cases, this is not possible, for example when technologies have been existing for a long time without any market take-over or success, and “suddenly” become successful (e.g. steam ovens that had already been invented by the Greeks thousands of years ago, but were never commercialized)
Further References:
Stringham, Miller, & Clark (2015). Overcoming barriers to entry in an established industry: Tesla Motors. California Management Review, 57(4), 85-103.
Talmar, Walrave, Podoynitsyna, Holmström & Romme (2020). Mapping, analyzing and desig- ning innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101850.
Show lessHoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406-420.
Read more
Market research is often faced with a lot of imprecisions when it comes to predicting the utility of a really new product (RNP). Whereas for incrementally new products (INP), it is easier to accurately estimate the utility and sales forecasts. So first of all it’s important to make the difference between a really new product which is a product with a totally new feature like a camera 3 dimensions for example and a incrementally new product which is a product with updated features like a camera with a big zoom for example. The purpose of this paper is therefore to improve research techniques for predicting preferences of RNPs. In order to achieve this, 3 studies were conducted. The first one validated the central hypothesis that people predict with much more uncertainty the benefits of an RNP than an INP. The second study was designed to test whether modifications to conjoint analysis, the most widely used preference measurement technique today, could improve the prediction of RNPs. Two types of products were tested in this study (RNP and INP). The result was that the use of modifications such as mental simulation or the use of analogies did not really improve the predictive ability of RNP (except a little bit for mental simulation), unlike INP whose prediction was improved by all 3 types of modification. In Study 3, subjects were offered only one type of product (RNP) and were asked to mentally simulate the use of this product in their everyday life. It was found that this did improve the predictive ability of an RNP.
One of the possibilities for obtaining the most reliable results is mental simulation. Indeed, putting the respondent in a situation of use helps to stabilise preferences. This implies that the facts reported by the respondent are equivalent to the real results perceived by the respondent during the survey, which makes the results true and more reliable. In addition, putting the person in a situation of use allows him or her to become aware of all the characteristics of the product that might be hidden at first sight. In this way, the real utility can be perceived in order to respond in the most truthful way.
In addition, it is essential for the manager to take a step back from measuring the preferences of potential future customers. It may be worthwhile for him to consult with other actors in the company when drawing up an NPR study. A variety of opinions are needed in order to produce a quality study. This will also limit the errors and ambiguities that the study may contain. In order to avoid this, it is also possible to carry out a pre-survey to predict whether the voice you are heading for is a good one or not. The manager therefore plays an important role in the design of the studies that are key to the successful implementation of an RNP in the market.
One of the limitations of this paper is that people were made to think about products in a different way than they would have used during the product adoption decision. Indeed, the results of the three studies could be different from reality because respondents were given only 60 seconds to evaluate the advantages, disadvantages and the social implications of the product. It is necessary to inquire whether real preferences or preferences that were integrated into the measurement exercise are reflected.
Another limitation about the type of people interviewed in the different surveys. In each survey, the people interviewed are exclusively students. The manager should be careful as these studies are not representatives for the whole population. The products tested are products of the daily life. It would be interested to interview a more varied sample of the population in order to have more global answers.
The final limitation is the way the survey maker presents information by focusing on existing materials or materials that are comparable to those that the consumer may find in the marketplace. Therefore, the RNPs’ attributes and benefits are skewed because the respondents are relying their responses on existing products and thus overlook new, truly creative aspects.
Rylander Eklund, A., Navarro Aguiar, U., & Amacker, A. (2021). Design thinking as sensemaking—Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re)introduce sensibility. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Published. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12604
Vettorello, M., Eisenbart, B., & Ranscombe, C. (2021). The Innovation System Roadmap : A novel approach to instil futures‐oriented reasoning in strategic decision making. Creativity and Innovation Management. Published. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12472
Joško Brakus, J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zhang, S. (2014). Experiential product attributes and preferences for new products : The role of processing fluency. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 22912298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.017
Show lessKleijnen, M., Lee, N., & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 344– 357.doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.004
Read more
Based on the literature, the authors identified three reactions that a user can have towards an innovation: Postponement (consumers delay the adoption of the innovation), Rejection (consumers do not find the innovation attractive) and Opposition (consumers are hostile to the innovation and actively reject it). There are also eight different factors of resistance to innovation: Conflict with traditions and norms, Conflict with existing usage patterns, Perceived image, Information overload, Physical risk, Economic risk, Functional risk and Social risk. Next, the authors organised several focus groups on the three different reactions to innovation (postponement, rejection, opposition) in order to identify the most discussed factors.
In order to find concrete solutions that business leaders could put in place to reduce consumer resistance, we have some proposals. First resistance: procrastination. First, an interesting idea to counter the perceived economic risk would be to offer consumers extremely attractive prices at the launch of the innovation so that consumers see an opportunity to buy the product at launch. Later, when the product is widely adopted, the company can afford to increase its prices. Second resistance: Rejection. To reduce the impact of functional risks, we advise managers to allow future customers to try the innovation for X amount of time, why not 1 month, to let them decide if the overall performance and functional characteristics of the product are suitable for them. The company should also try to promote the image of its product because the perceived image is important. Third resistance: Opposition. It would be more interesting to create innovations that are in line with the target’s beliefs and that respect the social and environmental issues of our world. Regarding physical risks, we believe that companies should carry out safety tests before launching a product.
We have encountered some limitations in this article. Firstly, the lack of empirical studies to draw on and explicit investigation, it implies: sociological effects not studied in depth, the need for more studies on perceived image, the lack of emphasis on price effects, the need to separate service innovation from product innovation and it does not take into account complex interactive relationships. Secondly, the population observed is very limited whereas the focus group is supposed to represent the whole population. This leads to a lack of coherence between the groups studied (only two groups for reporting), the irrelevant result on information overload. Finally, the results obtained concern groups rather than individuals. Indeed, there is a generalisation due to the interview process. Some people might not have the opportunity to express their opinion.
On the basis of the article, we think that some items could be added to have a more representative result.
Baccarella, C. V., Wagner, T. F., Scheiner, C. W., Maier, L., & Voigt, K.-I. (2020). Investigating consumer acceptance of autonomous technologies: the case of self-driving automobiles. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1210–1232.doi:10.1108/ejim-09-2019- 0245
Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2018). Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services: Challenges and Barriers in the Internet of Things Era. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5), 780– 807.doi:10.1111/jpim.12463
Radaelli, G., Currie, G., Frattini, F., & Lettieri, E. (2017). The Role of Managers in Enacting Two- Step Institutional Work for Radical Innovation in Professional Organizations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4), 450–470.doi:10.1111/jpim.12385
Show lessFeldman, M.S. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science, 11(6): 611-629
Read more
The purpose of this article is to identify the (often underestimated) potential for changing routines across organizations. The study was carried out for the housing organization of the university.
Key Insights:
The dynamics of routines: There are three main reasons why participants change their routines. First, if their actions do not produce the desired results, but results that create new and undesirable problems, they repair their routine. Secondly, when their actions result in the production of new resources and therefore new opportunities and alternatives, they expand their routine to deepen what is possible to undertake or what might be interesting to try. Thirdly, they strive their routine when the results do not identify new opportunities.
The performative model: This model proposes an internal dynamic within the routines, which favours continuous change. It can be schematized as a cycle with 4 stages: plan, action, results and ideals. Each of these parts can be linked to a mode for knowledge, which are then interconnected also. The four identified modes are: internalization, socialization, externalization and combination.
The phenomenon of routines will be more intense if the participants in the routines are considered as agents because they think, feel and get involved. Their way of acting is ordered by will and intention.
Managerial implications:
Firstly, from a managerial point of view, it could be interesting for managers to implement organisational routines within the company. Employees would then reflect on what they are doing and adapt their way of acting. Opportunities for change would then arise for managers to continue their quest for innovation. After all, change in an organisation should not only be a response to the external environment, it should also be taken into account within the company itself.
Secondly, in order to be able to best manage innovation in their organisation, managers should not be afraid to change these routines if it is in the interests of the organisation. In general, managers should deal with different situations on a case-by-case basis. For organisational issues, it is important for managers to implement routines within the company, but they should not be closed to change and adaptation of these routines either.
Through all of this process, managers should think of the process of change in organizational routines as a process of organizational learning. This organizational learning also has to be combined with an organizational part which can be seen as the movement between the level of the individual and the collectivises to which the individual belongs. Indeed, while actions can be made individually in a company, a company is an organization, which means that outcomes come for every member of the company. This implies that outcomes and how they relate to ideals and values have to be socially structured.
Limitations and outstanding issues:
The dynamics of routines are related to internal change, which constitutes one of the limitations of this article. External factors can lead to radical changes, which is something that is not really mentioned either by the author. Indeed, this article covered a lot of incremental changes, as the author talks mostly about “increasing”, “decreasing”, “improving”, and does not mention straight changes.
A second limitation that we could bring is the fact that the author has been so involved in her work and close to some participants, that she could have lost a bit of objectivity in her analysis. In a certain way, this proximity with the incumbents probably helps her to be more accurate in comparison with a situation where she would have been just looking from the outside of the company. But it is also very important to be able to take a step back, and in our opinion, she couldn’t do it properly.
Further references:
• Stiles, P., Trevor, J., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stahl, G. K., & Wright, P. (2015). Changing Routine: Reframing Performance Management within a Multinational. Journal of Management Studies, 52(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12111
• Lin, H., Chen, M., & Su, J. (2017). How management innovations are successfullyimplemented? An organizational routines’ perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4), 456–486. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-07-2016-0124
• Lin, H., Qu, T., & Hu, Y. (2020). How do organizational routines paradoxically affect organizational innovation? European Journal of Innovation Management, ahead-of(ahead-of-print), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-03-2020-0093
(Article) Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, Reprint 95204
Read more
Key insights:
The article aims to tackle the eight main errors that often cause the failing of transforming businesses and identifies the key phases. According to John P. Kotter, the most general lesson that needs to be considered is that the change process of the business goes through several phases and that every one of these steps must be completed, without wanting to speed up the process. Moreover, the article also outlines the 8 key steps to transforming an organization and illustrates that skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. It seems that having a vision of the change process and the typical errors can actually prevent a team from making them and reduce the error rate.
Managerial implications:
We have identified three concrete actions that we believe managers should focus on in order to better manage innovation. First, the manager should focus on the leadership of the company. Without a good leadership or great leaders, the expected change might not happen. Moreover, having leaders in a company is an asset because they can identify the need for a major change. Creating a new system and successfully implementing it always requires a leader. Beyond leadership, it is very important to have a strong coalition among employees. Including employees from different hierarchical levels and as many stakeholders as possible will make them feel ownership of the change and will facilitate their contribution and increase their interest to carry out the change. At last, a company’s vision is a very important element. It is essential for a company to clearly define its vision and to adapt it to changing trends. Without a clear vision, the company could commit to certain projects that do not correspond to the image it wants to give. A good vision should be something short, simple, specific to the business and that leaves nothing to interpretation.
Limitations:
We have identified 3 situations in which theses managerial implications would be difficult to apply. First, the article mentions the importance of creating a sense of urgency within the company. However, during the COVID-19 crisis, the urgency was already there. Firms did not have the responsibility to create it and communicate about it. Managers were then forced to adopt the situation instead of implementing the plan they had prepared. The companies worked against the theoretical plan of action. Secondly, the article highlights the importance of not rushing but taking the time to complete each step. But if we take the example of the development of the covid-19 vaccine, the laboratories and companies responsible for it are expected to hurry up. Indeed, the world is waiting for this vaccine. Therefore, they do not have the time to think about each of the 8 steps proposed in the article. The fifth step cited in the article calls on companies to empower others to act on the vision. In the case of Viagra, they had a clear vision regarding the heart drug. When Viagra’s side effect on erection came to light, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer did not seek to remove the side effect but kept it. While the article advised removing the barriers, Pfizer preferred to change the purpose of its product. Having a very clear and well-defined vision can therefore sometimes limit the creation of new things.
Further references:
5 ways to lead in an era of constant change | Jim Hemerling. (2016, 3 novembre). [Vidéo]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watchv=urntcMUJR9M&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2Ts0UaIh9U4Jpvb_ZC6H0LglLxBP_uwwnJgSTIP94B5huroIsKgctgKQI
In this video, Jim Hemerling mentions 5 strategies to change the way we transform organizations so that instead of being exhausting, it is empowering and energizing.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Right Tech, Wrong Time. Harvard Business Review, 1 9. https://enterprisersproject.com/sites/default/files/right_tech_wrong_time.pdf
This article answers the question: “How to make sure your ecosystem is ready for the newest technologies”.
Micheli, P., Schoeman, M., Baxter, D., & Goffin, K. (2012). New business models for public-sector innovation: Successful technological innovation for government. Research-Technology Management, 55(5), 51-57.
Read more
This scientific article talks about the introduction of new technologies in the public sector and its difficulties due to the resistance to change, the risk of aversion and the hierarchical structure. To innovate, the public sector will use new business models such as the commercialization partnership that is a collaboration between a private company and a public sector organization. The private sector will provide business development expertise and technology solutions and in exchange the public sector will provide access to specific assets. In fact the commercialization partnership can help the public sector overcome the three barriers and so introduce technological innovations. It can benefit citizens, businesses and government.
This second paragraph explains the managerial implications of the commercialization partnership model into the public sector and identifies three key actions that managers should focus on. To reduce the barriers that were mentioned earlier, the public sector is adopting new concepts and business models that allow them to improve their partnerships with private organizations. The private sector provides the expertise and the technology solution while the public sector provides the facilities to develop the technology and the patents. This kind of new business model improves the public sector and therefore the lives of citizens, who are in fact the consumers of these new technologies. Moreover, enabling a private organization to improve technological innovation leads to the development of new skills and ideas in the public sector, and thus helps overcome risk aversion and resistance to change.
Surveys and case studies have highlighted three main factors managers should consider in the implementation of a commercialization partnership business model which are focusing on customer priorities, the engagement route and the sharing of intellectual capital and skill. The first point helps the diffusion of innovation and is beneficial for the public sector as well as for the private organization, one must look beyond the immediate technological aspects. The second point shows that the private organisation needs to know how and why it is committed to bringing its technology to the public sector and wants to have the necessary skills to develop market share. Finally, the third point illustrates that property rights need to be discussed in advance.
As for limitations, the first we have noted is that there may be differences of opinion between a private sector company and a public sector company as to the purpose of an innovation. In this case, managers must be careful that the purpose of the innovation is clearly defined so that it is not limited by a difference in objectives. A second limitation we discovered is that while a marketing partnership between a private company helps overcome risk aversion and resistance to change, some partnerships still fail to break down these barriers. Managers must therefore always be aware of the barriers to innovation so that innovation is not limited by them.
FURTHER INSIGHTS
Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2019). Public sector innovation: The effect of universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 596-614. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1007/s10961-017-9636-2
Shakirova, R. (2017). An investigation of government employees’ support for public-private partnerships. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(5), 467-486. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2016-0093
Elias, A. A., & Davis, D. (2018). Analysing public sector continuous improvement: A systems approach. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(1), 2-13. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2016-0135
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Accelerate! Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 45-56
Read more
Workshop 1:
In his article “Accelerate!” J. Kotter introduces the hypothesis that the greatest challenge business leaders face today is that they must maintain the competitiveness of their businesses in an environment more disruptive than ever, while old transformation processes that worked in the past are failing them.
The key message of the paper is that while a hierarchical management structure works well for the daily business, it is unsuited for disrupting changes in contemporary markets. The implementation of an agile network like operating system is proposed, as it is expected to weaken the limitation of the hierarchical approach. Both systems should be run in parallel as a dual operation system is needed to thrive in a fast-changing world.
From this article, two main implications can be highlighted. The first implication is that, to manage chance successfully, a guiding coalition within the scope of the network like system is needed. It consists of a working team of volunteers representing all levels of hierarchy. The guiding coalition aims to break change resistance and to use the knowledge of employees on every level. The second implication is that managers should celebrate even small wins with their team during the change process. This is expected to help to keep up the momentum and thus contribute to a fast change.
However, possible limitations of the proposed methodology are that employees use the “being voluntary part of the guiding coalition” as an excuse to neglect their daily businesses. Moreover, the systems could clash when an employee following his network role undermines the authority of an employee in the hierarchical system. Furthermore, the CEO has a very important role as she must be fully committed to the change process in order to convince her employees to follow. Thus, the dual operating system would not work under frequently changing CEOs.
In conclusion, the dual operating system is a recommendable strategy that is dependent on the voluntary participation and the stewardship of the CEO as well as the managers.
Further readings:
Warner T., (2016). Overcome Resistance to Change by Enlisting the Right People. Harvard Business Review, 2-4
Spain E., (2020). Reinventing the leader selection process. Harvard Business Review, 98 (6), 78-85
Show lessKotter, J. P. (2012). Accelerate! Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 45-56
Read more
Kotter introduces the hypothesis that the greatest challenge business leaders face today is that they must maintain the competitiveness of their businesses in an environment more disruptive than ever, while old transformation processes that worked in the past are failing them.
The author details the trade-off between the daily operations of a company and the elusiveness allowing them to adapt to changes in the market. Old processes are well adjusted to daily business but struggle with identifying threats and opportunities early enough while fostering a fast implementation of creative strategies.
Kotter proposes adding a second more agile operating system dedicated to the implementation of strategy and running in parallel with the traditional managerial processes. The network like system allows quicker decisions and more creativity. It is intended to complement the existing system and to reduce its weaknesses. Both systems are considered as equals. Employees hold a role in the hierarchy and a more fluent role in the network at the same time.
The author identifies eight accelerators needed for a well function strategy network. The most important accelerator is the creation urgency around an innovation opportunity. The other factors are a change guiding coalition consisting of organizational volunteers, the formulation of a vision and the design of change initiatives to realize the vision, the effective communication of the vision to create a volunteer army, the acceleration of the movement due to removing barriers, the celebration of small-wins along the way, the continuation of the vision fulfilment- process and finally the institutionalisation of the executed strategic changes into the organizational culture.
Potential drawbacks are that change volunteering could potentially harm the daily business. However, Kotter doubts this risk will materialize because of the nature of the network design. The guiding coalition and the C-level have to maintain a close communication to ensure that both operating systems do not drift apart. The sense of urgency around the vision is the biggest lever to create momentum. A dual operating system evolves. Thus, it prevents the organization from a sudden dramatic change by changing it gradually.
Kotter believes that immediate and long term success will be seen for all stakeholders. He states that companies will have to adapt this approach or will fail in the long run.
Show lessDamanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009, July 1). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of managers. Journal of public administration research and theory, 19(3). doi:10.1093/jopart/mun021
Read more
This article is an econometric analysis made in 2008 about the link between innovation characteristics and innovation adoption on one side, and the role of managers and innovation adoption on the other.
The authors of the article use data from 2 sources, one from 1997 and the other from 2003. They use control variables representing environmental and organizational conditions such as urbanization, population growth, economic health, unionization, and organizational size… It came out that innovation characteristics play an important role in determining innovation adoption. Beyond environmental and organizational factors, the study considers 3 factors: the innovation impact, cost and complexity. They found out that only the two first have an influence. Considering managers’ personal characteristics, they have significant direct effects, but they do not moderate the influence of innovation attributes on innovation adoption.
The article may have 2 great implications. First, Managers tend to give a greater weight to the impact of innovations, they may therefore be long-term focus. We advise managers, especially in public companies, to not only pay attention to the innovation impact but also to the cost on short term for the company and the complexity of the innovation. Although R&D spending is expected to increase with “Europe 2020” objectives in Europe, it seems important that governments should control their spending in the innovation sector in order to limit any public debt.
Then secondly, Companies should pay attention to diversify their manager’s profiles so that their innovation-oriented behaviours will be diversified. It came out from the article that the main managers characters linked to innovation adoption was a pro-innovation orientation and the job tenure, negatively. Accent should be put on managers who resign to adopt innovation because of their routine. They should be sure they consider all options regardless of their own considerations.
Considering limitations of the article, we need to consider the fact that this analysis is made in the American institutional market. It led to an ambivalent political orientation specific to the USA: liberal and conservative for managers role as well as only administrative innovations. Therefore, most innovations were incremental and we need to consider that, further than the impact, the radicalness of an innovation may also have an influence on a innovation adoption. The article also addresses the factors that explain the adoption of an innovation but not those that explain its viability over time. It appears that legitimacy of the innovation, cultural compatibility and knowledge management can be responsible of the discontinuation of a compulsory innovation but when it comes to voluntary innovation, sunk cost of innovation appears to be a determinant factor too.
FURTHER REFERENCES:
Bozbay, Z., & Yasin, B. (2008, July 1). The impact of perceived innovation characteristics on technology adoption. The international journal of technology, knowledge and society: annual review, 4(4), 117-128. doi:10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v04i04/55910
Chor, K., Hoagwood, K., Horwitz, S., & Wisdom, J. (2013, April 3). Innovation adoption: a review of theories and construct. Administration and policy in mental health, 41(4). doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0486-4
Show less(Article) Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 99-103.
Read more
BODEUX, Augustin; DE FOY, Adrien; FERON, Solène; MEURMANS, Augustin
Jeffrey D. Ford & Laurie W. Ford. (April 2009). Decoding Resistance to Change. Change Management.
KEY INSIGHTS:
One of the major default of managers and change agents is that sometimes they want to be so right in their thinking that they forget their initial objectives. They want to make progress and therefore don’t understand the resistance of some people against their plan.
But what they don’t know, is that resistance is an important form of feedback and that it leads to better results if this resistance is properly taken into account. To understand the resistance to a program, you need to start by adjusting your own mind-set. Ask yourself two questions: “Why am I seeing this behaviour as resistance?” and “If I viewed the resistance as feedback, what could I learn about how to adjust the initial change?”
After that only, you can begin to see resistance as a resource. The article gives five ways you can use resistance to introduce the change more productively.
1. Boost awareness
2. Return to purpose
3. Change the change
4. Build participation and engagement
5. Complete the past
Taking everything in consideration, resistance, understood as a retroaction, is not a bad thing at all. In fact, it can be an important resource to improve the quality and the clarity of change strategies and thus increase the chances of success.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are 2 actions on which managers could focus more in order to truly change their own mindset and achieve better results in the end. It is indeed necessary to step back and gain a thorough understanding of resistance, which is often considered a threat and not a resource to be exploited.
First of all, it is essential for managers to move down the hierarchy and initiate a dialogue with workers. Better communication will allow managers to take advantage of employees’ feedback and obtain their agreement more easily afterwards. Through these meetings between change initiators and the entire organization’s staff, it is also essential that all employees are aware of the changes that are happening and understand why it will be so beneficial to them.
Another action that managers must take is to understand the history of the organization before proposing a change plan. Managers are also responsible for recognizing past failures and reacting accordingly in order to regain the trust of their employees. Managers should therefore not hesitate to change their initial change plan, in full knowledge of the employees’ concerns but also of the organization’s past, and to update it to make it more effective.
LIMITATIONS:
The proposed concepts can be keys to managing change in the best possible way. However, like all theoretical concepts, they have their own limitations.
The first concept concerns communication. It proposes to move down in the hierarchy to dialogue with the workers most affected by the change. In this case, the manager will have to show compassion to show his employees that he considers them. Otherwise, the dialogue that is supposed to facilitate change could have the opposite effect. This first concept also proposes to communicate the change to all employees in the company to make it more effective. In this case, the manager must remain critical. He must take into account the size of his company and the extent of the change. In some cases, communicating with all members of the company may be irrelevant and a waste of time.
The second concept suggests that the manager adapts his change plan according to the company’s past and his negative change experiences. If the manager offers compensation to certain employees due to past events and broken promises, he must be careful to explain the reasons for this regularization to the other members of the company. If he does not do so, he risks attracting the lust of other employees. The objective here is to clarify the situation to avoid abuses in the future.
FURTHER REFERENCES:
In order to deepen our analysis and better understand the reasons and consequences of resistance to change, we decided to choose two other sources.
We first choose an article: LEADERSHIP ROLE IN HANDLING EMPLOYEE’S RESISTANCE: IMPLEMENTATION OF INNOVATION. INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS. MAY 2012 VOL 4, NO 1. As we now, for several years, technology has fundamentally revolutionized the way we work. Innovation is at the heart of all organizations and change is everywhere.
So, it is essential for compagnies to take this permanent change into account. This article has taught us more about the fundamental role of a leader in order to manage this changes and guide his team.
Employee’s resistance to change is one of the situations which leaders face nowadays. Leaders always face resistors and this is how they can handle employee’s resistance:
– Leaders must win the employees beliefs and mind in order to manage the innovation and avoid their resistance.
– Employees won’t resist the innovations if the leader directs the employees in the right path and if they take rationals decisions.
– A leader must understand employee’s individual needs and demonstrating the solution to the conflict of needs will reduce and eliminate resistance.
– To overcome resistance leaders need to teach people tools or skills to handle change, and support those employees who are afraid of change.
This scientific articles offers further insights on the notion of resistance. Nowadays leaders play a crucial role in organization and one of their most difficult job is to convince people to change.
The second source we have chosen is a TeDx video:How to Deal with Resistance to Change from Heather Stagl. This author known for her work on resistance encourages us to think about the hidden resistance to change. All her life she has been looking for ways to influence people and overcome resistance. In her TedX, Heather Stagl explores the notion of resistance as well as the solutions to be put in place in order to fight it and understand it.
We mostly see resistance behavior in people but what we don’t see is the source of this resistance.
A lot of times when people resist change it is because their is something going on below the surface.
If you want to make resistant people change start by treating resistance not by something to overcome but by something to uncover.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Read more
de POTTER d’INDOYE Séverine, GILSON Marie, NAMORADO Pedro, SCHOCKAERT Evrard : Groupe 4
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Workshop 1 – Group 4: Resistance to change
The article we have chosen talks about resistant behaviors and communication and emphasizes the aspect of “Strategist for change and implementers”.
The first important point to remember from this article is to broaden resistance in 3 ways. First, consider it as a selfish and potentially self-fulfilling label, given by change agents who try to make sense of the reactions of change beneficiaries to change initiatives. Second, examine how change agents contribute to the occurrence of reactions they describe as resistance through their own actions and inactions. Finally, consider that certain circumstances may cause resistance to contribute to change.
Resistance can be considered as a psychological and implicit contract. People may seek revenge or retaliation and engage in sabotage. In addition, change agents can make intentional false statements to encourage beneficiaries to participate, look good or avoid losing face and looking bad. Furthermore, adverse deviations can lead to perceptions of misrepresentation, unfairness and breach of trust that undermine the credibility of officers and increase recipients’ expectations of future inconsistencies.
When change agents do not treat communications from change beneficiaries as authentic and legitimate, or as extensions and translations of change, they can be considered resistant. The cost of this defensive attitude is the resistance of the resistance and its escalation into a vicious circle in which resistance generates resistance. One way for agents to resist resistance is not to talk about it in the mistaken belief that recognizing something is giving it power and credibility.
The article emphasizes that resistance is a form of conflict. Resistance can provide a similar reinforcement value during change. Also, change agents consider any resistance as dysfunctional. However, in a world where there is absolutely no resistance, no change is possible and recipients would fully accept the plea of all messages received, including those that are harmful to the organization. One of the possible consequences of resistance is therefore a potentially stronger commitment on the part of beneficiaries to change.
In addition, there are few tools that help change agents: to repair damaged trust resulting from broken agreements, to address problems of abuse or injustice, to recognize mistakes that could lead to the loss of other measures that give credibility, and to end and turn the situation.
Resistance to change can be better understood as a dynamic between three elements. One element is “beneficiary action”, which is any behavior or communication that occurs in response to a change initiative and its implementation. The second element is the “agent sensemaking”, the agent’s interpretation of the beneficiaries’ actual or anticipated actions, as well as the measures they take based on their own interpretation and meaning. The third element is the “agent recipient relationship” which provides the context in which the first two elements occur and which shapes and is shaped by agent-recipient interactions.
The article explains that resistance can be restored from a psychological to a systemic phenomenon by shifting attention from the “private” or “internal” resistance of beneficiaries to the public behaviors, conversations and observable activities that constitute the interactions between agents and beneficiaries. This is not to say that recipients cannot and do not have a variety of thoughts, feelings and attitudes about the changes or those who sponsor them. Second, there is no resistance to change that exists as an independent phenomenon other than the agent of change. Finally, “overcoming resistance” is a question of effective management of the agent-beneficiary relationship by agents, including the public integration of the recipient’s resistance and the agents’ perception in the discourse of change.
Other References :
*Resisting resistance: Counter-resistance, consent and compliance in a consultancy firm : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0018726709334880
*Resistance Through Compliance: The Strategic and Subversive Potential of Frontstage and Backstage Resistance : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840617709305
*Anthropological Behaviour : Presentation of Olivier Wathelet
Chakravorti, B. (2004). The new rules for bringing innovations to market. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 58-67.
Read more
According to this article, markets have taken the characteristics of networked markets which give rapid diffusion of news, ideas, and, in theory, innovations. However, the players in the market are increasingly interconnected and interdependent. This makes innovation harder to implement than if each participant was to act independently. Indeed, the motivation of other players to switch to a new product will become stronger only once enough players in a networked market have decided to do so.
The objective of this article is first (1) to learn more about the network characteristics and secondly (2) to give some key points to break into networked markets to launch innovations successfully. The 3 network features that allow innovations to take off are the network externalities, the equilibrium and the network hubs. And the four crucial parts to break into networked markets are to consider the market equilibrium you want and implement only strategies that will create that equilibrium, to position your innovation as a complementary product to the ones of influential players, to change the behavior of key players by aligning their incentives to switch to your offering and finally, to keep some flexibility.
From these key insights, several managerial implications can be derived. First, before designing a concrete innovation and market entry strategy the potential future network needs to be analyzed. This can be done by listing all respective players, mapping their interdependencies and identifying network hubs. In a second step, the innovation strategy should be developed. To do so, the developing firm needs to determine all of its’ possible actions and the corresponding counteractions of the other network players first. After that, the desired endgame can be selected and the strategy derived using backwards engineering. An innovation is more likely to spread throughout the network if it is accepted and adopted by the network hubs. Therefore, the endgame selected should relate the innovation to the network hubs (by means of complementarity or licenses).
As far as limitations are concerned, a crucial part of breaking into networked markets is to offer coordinated switching incentives. However, a situation in which a change is beneficial to all stakeholders is not always easy to implement. All actors must feel concerned about innovation and benefit from it. For example, if an innovator cannot convince a distribution network and wants to sell his product through that channel, he will not be able to reach the end customers. Conversely, if an end consumer is not interested in buying the product through this distribution network, this will also be a problem. Another important element is trying to consider all possible future situations in order to put in place a large number of “plans B”. However, it is not always easy to see how the various technological advances will progress and how they will be adopted by competitors and consumers. Another main limitation of this article is that it was written in 2004. We must keep in mind that nowadays innovation goes much faster than 15 years ago. They talk about finding the equilibrium you want and planned everything to get it, it’s a waterfall management vision. For innovations, you should need to have an agile management vision.
Further references:
• Mathias Beck, Andrea Schenker-Wicki, « Cooperating with External Partners: The Importance of Diversity for Innovation Performance”, University of Zurich, Institute of Business Administration, UZH Business Working Paper No. 331, 2013. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2228015
• Laperche Blandine, Munier Francis, Hamdouch Abdelillah, « The collective innovation process and the need for dynamic coordination: general presentation », Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 2008/2 (n° 2), p. 3-13. DOI : 10.3917/jie.002.0003. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2008-2-page-3.htm
• Hamdouch Abdelillah, « Networking, clustering and innovation dynamics in the global economy: general presentation », Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 2009/2 (n° 4), p. 5-13. DOI : 10.3917/jie.004.0005. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2009-2-page-5.htm
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Right Tech, Wrong Time. Harvard Business Review, 94(11), 60-67.
Read more
Key insights:
The article aims to tackle the challenge to define precisely the timing for technological change, by exploiting the idea that the time needed for transformative technologies to dominate the market, do not entirely depend on the technology itself, but also depends on the surrounding ecosystems, both from the incumbent technologies as for the new technologies. Trough analysing the two different ecosystems, the new technology’s ecosystem as well as the old technology’s ecosystem, in particular, the rate at which the new technology’s ecosystem can overcome its emergence challenges comparing to the rate at which the old technology’s ecosystem can improve.
Managerial implications:
The author proposes a framework, “A Framework for Analysing the Pace of Technology Substitution”, on which the company can assess the threat of disruptive change, after trying to identify which scenario best applies to its current situation, and later choose the best strategy to address it. The framework includes four different possible scenarios: creative destruction, robust resilience, robust coexistence, and the illusion of resilience. For each scenario, we propose a different action plan for the company which hold the new technology.
A. The creative destruction scenario, concerns when the new technology is ready to be introduced in the market, and simultaneously, there is limited space to improve the old technology’s ecosystem, consequently, the substitution will be fast. This is the ideal scenario for the new technology. After the product entering the market, the project manager should concentrate on possible bottleneck’s appearance. The strategic action would be to introduce directly the product on the market. The innovators should aggressively invest in the new tech. While others should look for niche positions where they can survive in the long term with the old technology. For example, pagers were largely replaced by cell phones, but they are still used by emergency service providers.
B. Regarding the robust coexistence scenario, the new technology is compatible with the existing ecosystem, although, the old technology’s ecosystem has several opportunities to improve and as a result, the substitution will take place later. To contradict this tendency, the company could develop a system where the consumer can test the product before buying it. In addition, the project manager could also refine the offering with the segments that are potentially receptive (early adopters). The key concrete decisions for the innovators would be to speed up the improvement of the new technology. They should also refine the offering with the segments that are potentially receptive like the early adopters and let them test their product. Incumbent firms can continue to invest in the old technology and aggressively invest in improvements to the ecosystem, knowing that the new and the old technologies will coexist for an extended period. They should also seek niche positions for the old tech for the long term.
C. Concerning the illusion of resistance scenario, the new technology’s ecosystem still needs improvement, and the old technology’s ecosystem still has room to be improved, therefore the substitution only will occur after a long period. However, companies can invest in developing the ecosystem surrounding them. The ecosystem emergence challenge is high so the strategy would be to resolve their ecosystem challenge and develop complementary elements. Incumbents must make only incremental improvements, with an eye toward sunset; it is not the time to redouble innovation efforts in the old technology.
D. The robust resilience scenario occurs when the new technology’s ecosystem still needs to be improved, additionally, the old technology can be improved in the prevailing ecosystem, therefore the transition will be a slow process. In order, to try to reduce the period of technological transition we recommend that the manager first do a market study to understand better the consumer’s requirements, to try to meet as possible their expectations. For the old technology, the firms should invest aggressively in upgrading their offerings. Innovators should be clear-eyed about working to resolve the ecosystem constraints they face. Firstly, they have to think through the economics of serving those they can succeed with. And then, think to the future, that necessitates both a significant level of the resource investment and considerable patience regarding investment returns. They have to do a lot of efforts to educate buyers and understand their requirements in order to resolve their ecosystems constraint.
Limitations:
Firstly, the analyse of the degree of novelty of the product is overlooked in this framework. In fact, the resistance to change that the majority of the consumers have is one of the biggest challenge companies face when realising a new product into the market. Moreover, the value perceived by consumers is also an imperative factor for further studies. Also, the employees are on the front line as regards innovation changes and newness. The implementation of an innovative product/services/process cannot be successful unless the people of an organization are willing to accept the possibility of change and business reform.
Further references:
MIT Technology Review (Aug 21, 2019). Young pioneers on their hopes for technology, and older trailblazers on their regrets. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614157/younger-people-want-to-better-the-world-older-people-wish-they-did-more/
Adner, R. (2016). Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review.
Sakkthivel, M. (2011). Modelling of determinants influence consumer behaviour towards different technology products. International Journal of Electronic Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 84-103.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐ curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 625-648.
Tweel, C. & Lopez, L. (2014). Print the legend [movie]. USA: Netflix.
Show lessAdner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐ curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 625-648.
Read more
This article explains why some new technologies emerge and quickly supplant incumbent technologies while others take years or decades to take off. In fact, although there are plenty of innovations, the pace of the substitution can depend on the context, the period, the dynamics of emergence and the extension opportunities.
Key insights
But what is substitution? It is viewed as the race between the old and the new ecosystem. In fact, it happens when the consumer stops using the old technology and replaces it by the new one.
The 1st key insight is the understanding of the difference between (1) the as-developed performance which is the performance of the component of the product and (2) the as-used performance which includes the components and the complements of the product. In our case, we’ll mainly focus on the second performance type, the as-used performance.
The 2nd key insight is the analyse of the pace of substitution, depending on 2 big influencing factors: (1) the evolution capacity of the new technology after the new has been introduced and (2) the role of ecosystem elements on determining the performance in-use gap between the old and the new technologies.
Thanks to those 2 factors, we can the 3rd insight of our article, the identification of 4 substitution regimes:
A. Creative destruction: In this quadrant, there is a low emergence challenge for the new technology and a low extension opportunity for the old technology. It happens when a new product quickly replaces the old technology. The new one will achieve market dominance very quickly. There is a high pace of substitution and so, the substitution is the fastest. The evolution of the camera is a good example of creative destruction.
B. Robust resilience: It’s the opposite of the quadrant A, it’s therefore the slowest substitution. There is a high emergence challenge for the new technology and a high extension opportunity for the old technology. It happens when we try to implement a new technology but the performance is constrained by the lack of progress in its environment and, the old technology benefits from improvements in its own components. There is a low pace of substitution.
C. Robust coexistence: This substitution is gradual, which means the pace is intermediate. In fact, there is a low emergence challenge for the new technology and a high extension opportunity for the old technology. There will be a robust competition between the technologies that will coexist during a long time before the substitution takes place. As an example, we can take the hybrid and the traditional cars (Adner, R., Kapoor, R, 2016).
D. Resilience illusion: This substitution will first be stasis and then rapid. There is a high emergence challenge for the new technology and a low extension opportunity for the old one. The substitution is delayed until the emergence challenges are resolved but once it’s resolved, the pace is very quick. The old technology keeps a high market share but the market growth doesn’t expand. After, there is an inversion and the new technology goes over the old.
Implications
Those articles findings have 2 implications for the managers. At first, the managers should investigate to know if their current technology has reached or not its maturity. If the old technology needs plenty of effort and doesn’t increase the as-used performance, firms should stop investing this technology. By doing this study, the firms can understand if the market is saturated or not. Secondly, the managers must do some market researches before launching a new project. Indeed, if the revolution technology is not ready, the company will not catch the consumers’ needs and it will be a failure.
Limits
Also, there are some limits to this article that could enforce the definition of the as-used performance. First, the forces that arise from the interaction between producers, users and institutional players are not considered. Also, the interactions between technologies in the ecosystem are overlooked while innovations in different sectors are linked. Moreover, it’s impossible to set a clear date of substitution. To counter this, the managers must consider tiered relationships and overlay additional technological and non-technological factors.
A situation where the implications would not apply is the switch for 2G to 3G. In this case, we don’t exactly know the pace of substitution because there are many influencing factors: the effects of the marketing and messaging strategies, the regulatory environment, and the role of funding sources and the institutional context that underline the social construction of technologies and markets (Shahzad, A., Raghu G., 2009).
Further references
Sérgio Cavalcante, Peter Kesting, John Ulhøi, (2011) “Business model dynamics and innovation: (re)establishing the missing linkages”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 Issue: 8, pp.1327-1342.
San Cristóbal, J.R., “The S-curve envelope as a tool for monitoring and control of projects”, in Procedia Computer Science, Volume 121 (2017), pp. 756-761.
Yang L., Diwei L., Ying Y., Felix, A., Jiang, W., “Improvisation for innovation: The contingent role of resource and structural factors in explaining innovation capability” in Technovation (2018), Volumes 74-75, pp. 32-41.
Other sources
Shahzad, A., Raghu G.,”Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical systems: The case of mobile communications” in Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue2 (2009), pp. 382-392.
Adner, R., Kapoor, R., “Right tech, wrong time” in Harvard Business Review (2016), pp.60-67.
Brodo, R., “The Danger of Too Much Business Innovation Too Soon” https://www.advantexe.com/blog/the-danger-of-too-much-business-innovation-too-soon, consulted the 16/11/18
Aaslaid, K., “50 Examples of Corporations That Failed to Innovate” https://valuer.ai/blog/50-examples-of-corporations-that-failed-to-innovate-and-missed-their-chance/, consulted the 16/11/18
1) https://search.proquest.com/docview/216218463/9564D11804D840DCPQ/1?accountid=12156
2) 2 https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17410390610645085
Read more
GROUP4
“Establishing relationships between innovation
characteristics and IT innovation adoption in
organisations: A meta-analysis approach.”
This paper examined different innovation characteristics to understand which of those had a real
impact on the information technology (IT) adoption in organizations. The goal of this paper is to value
the productivity of the major determinants of IT adoption so as to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of companies.
To do so, the paper used what is called a “Meta-analysis”. A meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical
analysis of a very large sample of studies in order to find an average outcome, in this case a statistical
significance that reflect the influence of the innovation characteristics on IT adoption.
The study results show that relative advantage, compatibility, cost, observability and trialability are
the key innovation determinants having the strongest correlation with a successful IT implementation
whereas complexity has no impact on this decision.
Managerial Implications :
Considering all the study results about how certain innovation characteristic influence the IT
innovation adoption we believe that the managers besides having to bear in mind the most relevant
factors during the innovation process they also should focus on the following three planning
decisions. Firstly, managers must restructured the organization according with the new innovation
implementation, this mean elaborate a consistent new management plan that fulfill all the objectives to
achieve in the future with the adoption. The manager can resort to Plan Do Act Check cycle method
which allows him to choose the best option and with more financial benefits. Secondly, taking into
account the thought of our first implication some changes or improvements have to be done so the
adoption can be successfully implemented. For instance, training the employees in order to avoid
employee’s resistance for the new IT innovation. Thirdly, organizations have to meet the needs of the
end-users so that they can achieve the goal without facing a high level of risk and uncertainty
managers should firstly implement prototype to test the viability of the innovation.
Limitations :
One of the restrictions about restructure a hole organization, in order to implement the new innovation
plan, it’s related to the type and the size of the organization the manager needs to manage. The paper
suggests that small organizations due to their size and limited resources lag behind in adopting new
technologies, they also face substantially greater risks in IT adoption due to its limited IT knowledge
and resources for its implementation. So if a manager it’s really looking forward to implement a new
IT Innovation adoption and make restructure modifications, he needs to be really aware of 3 things;
the type of organization, the size of it and the risks within the adoption.
In this research, at first, authors classified with the word IT, but the regions of IT are very large, so the
authors can sort with the specific role of IT. For example, according to one of the ILO’s discussion
paper, they separate IT into some parts: software, database, network, hardware. In addition, if the
authors can sort with industry instead of the type of organization such as manufacture or service.
When we connect the information about the role of IT with the industry which companies belong to,
managers can forecast the impact of the IT adoption more precisely.
New sources:
Furthermore, we found some relevant and interesting papers that complement our study such as “A
review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research” that provides an
opinion of different impactful characteristic on the IT. (1)
““IT innovation adoption in the government sector: identifying the critical success factors.” which aims to underlying how IT is adopted in private sector organizations (2)
Quentin Timperman,
Catarina Santos,
Kensuke Shimazaki,
Elias Carrasco
Organizational routine as a unit of analysis, Brian T. Pentland and Martha S. Feldman
Read more
For the first workshop, we chose to work on an article called “Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change » published by Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. in 2005. We will in this paper give the main points of our work which are the objectives and key insights of the article, the managerial implications of those insights, their limits and finally a few relevant sources that helped us understand the subject of the paper.
The aim of this paper is to understand the internal dynamics of routines to better control organizational phenomena, such as stability and change, flexibility and rigidity. We highlighted three main key insights. The first one is that organizational routines are composed of two aspects: ostensive, the abstract patents, and performative, the observable performances. Then, we learned that artefacts, physical manifestations of routines such as written rules and procedures, are used by the direction to materialize those aspects. Finally, another important point of this article is that there are three different methods that can be used to analyse a routine: the black box, focusing on a specific part of a routine or analysing the interactions between parts of it.
The managerial implications of the previously mentioned insights are that the black box method can be used as an effective way to analyse the inputs and outputs of a system without focusing on its internal structure. Another implication is that it is essential to align the artefacts with the ostensive aspect of routines in order to decrease the risks of divergence of purpose between managers and employees. Finally, divergences between the performative aspect and artefacts can be the sign of resistance to the rules by employees, bad comprehensions of those rules or that the organization is using obsolete models. Those are symptoms showing that something is going wrong inside the organization. Therefore, managers need to make sure that the performance of their employees goes along with the rules created.
Those implications of course have limitations. The first and most important one is that routines are complex and dynamic by nature. We can only study theoretical models which are most likely not fully representative. The black box method, for example, is often too simple and therefore not accurate, especially if the routine is variable. Furthermore, analysing interactions between parts of routines is not always as simple as it might seem. Regarding the managing of the performances, it is important to keep in mind that it is not possible to control and evaluate everything. Indeed, there will always be differences between artefacts and the performative aspect.
We found three different articles that gave us another point of view on that matter.
– Unpacking ostensive and performative aspects of organisational routines in the context of monitoring systems: A critical realist approach, Federico Iannacci Kyriakos S.Hatzaras, 2012
– Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations, Teppo Felin, Nicolai J. Foss, 2009
– Explaining the effects of performance measurement on performance: An organizational routines perspective, Andrey Pavlov, 2011
Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579-1590.
Read more
Intro
This executive summary gives the results of a study divided in three parts : the impact of the entrepreneurs’innovativeness on the intention to innovate, the link between the innovativeness and the personality of the entrepreneurs and finally it compares the predictive power of their new alternative model built thanks to the study.
Key points
First part of the article speaks about the fact that many scientist tried to identify if there was a tendency or orientation to adopt innovation.
To show this orientation they based their paper on the concept of innovativeness which is defined as the capacity of innovation. This concept is divided into 2 components: GI (general innovativeness) and SI (specific innovativeness).
Nevertheless, the marketing literature has provided unclear mixed result between the two concepts. We also have to distinguish innovators (do things differently) from adaptors (do things better).
The second key point considers a correlation between the personality traits and innovativeness: a positive one for some traits and a negative one for others.
To understand it, it’s useful to know the Five-Factor Model which is a model of the personality description. It takes into account 5 personality traits: the agreeablenesswhich (compassion and caring about others),the conscientiousness (preference for goal-oriented activity and degree of organization), the extroversion/introversion (predisposition towards social interactions), Openness to experience (degree of tolerance through new ides) and Neuroticism/emotional stability (keeping emotions and impulses under control).
It has been pointed out that innovators have a high Openness to experience and a low Conscientiousness.
Regarding the last step of this paper, they have developed one of the most accepted theory on this field, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen). To sum up, it focuses on the intention to engage in a behavior that can be assumed as the best predictor of the actual adoption of innovations.
After a theoretical framework and comparisons, they found out that the Theory of planned behavior shows a lower ability to explain the intention to adopt innovations than the alternative model based on innovativeness.
Implications
A first implication concerns recruitment. We have to prevent difficulties before they appear by improving flexibility in the organization. To be innovative, the firm must hire innovative people while considering psychological characteristics such as creativity in problem seolving, openness to experience or even conscientiousness. But to firm needs also to continue hiring adaptors.
Then, having two different types of employees is one thing, but making them work together can create new issues for the company. That’s why managers need to find a way such as encouraging reciprocal trust, cooperation or communication.
The third implication we can point is that the managers should work with the schools and universities in order to develop the future innovators’ potential. On one hand they can work on primary and secondary level with basic creative techniques. On the other hand they ccan work with highest education to create more connections.
Limitations
This article and the recruitment solutions are given for SME. Actually, we think that it could be as useful as for bigger companies because of many reasons: the amount of their funds, the importance of the staff, etc. You also have a higher probability to have a well-balanced mix in the composition of your team members.
Also, changing the population in the statistics could lead to really different results (here there were only 188 Italian companies tested).
Further ref
• « Ces managers qui étouffent l’innovation, mais savent la vendre », Xerfi Canal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6tqSQ5rjf4
• « Critique of the five factors model of personnality », Gregory J. Boyle, January 2008.
• « Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers », Fariborz Damanpour & Marguerite Schneider, November 7, 2008.
Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Read more
Key Insights
A. According to this article, it is possible to distinguish two major types of change, respectively evolutionary and strategic change. The first one consists in limited changes affecting specific aspects of the organization that aim to improve the current business situation. The second one consists in radical change that imply a total transformation in the organizational processes, usually in order to catch a new competitive advantage. However, every change consists in a mix of those two poles.
B. We can define resistance as “a phenomenon delaying the change process and trying to keep the status quo”, as an equivalent of inertia. There are 5 types of resistance to change: (1) A wrong initial perception of change which can appear for many reasons (management mistake, communication barriers, …). (2) A low motivation to change related to high costs or a good current position on the market. (3) A lack of creative response due to fast and complex changes. (4) Political deadlocks which come from a negative climate, particular departments resistance or deeply rooted values. (5) Five other sources of inertia which do not fit to the fourth first categories.
Implications
A. From the identification of these different kind of changes and inertia, we identified several managerial implications. Firstly, it seems important for a manager who wants to initiate change to refer at the inertia typology in order to identify which kind of resistance could potentially delay the change process. Keeping a continuous analysis is essential because resistances can occur at each step of the process.
B. It is obvious that resistance to change couldn’t totally stop the change process. However, we determined that the existence of deep-rooted values opposed to change still remains at a prominent position. A manager should then make sure that the organization is able to overcome these core values before implementing a change. Management also needs to make sure that the organizational culture fits with the change objectives, and implement tools and processes to counter to most likely sources of inertia.
Limitations
Logically, the greater the change, the greater the resistance. It means that strategic changes could potentially face bigger inertia. However, it must not bring companies to develop reluctance to this kind of change which could be essential to rethink its core business. As an example, the manager of Microsoft operated such a change. He aimed to eliminate the destructive competition between different business units of the organization by promoting a limited set of goals and values that increased employee engagement and allowed them to share a new sense of mission.
Further references
A. Article: Ford, J., Ford, L., D’Amelio, A., (2008). Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
B. Article: Klonek, F., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Kauffeld, S., (2014). Dynamics of Resistance to Change: A Sequential Analysis of Change Agents in Action. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, 334–360.
C. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LI2fkNZ2k, How to Deal with Resistance to Change | Heather Stagl | TEDxGeorgiaStateU.
Seligman, L. (2006). Sensemaking throughout adoption and the innovation-decision process
Read more
The purpose of the article is to understand Karl Weick’s description of sensemaking from his book
“Sensemaking in Organizations” as a starting point for a sensemaking-based perspective on the
adoption of an innovation.
Sensemaking is defined as the process by which individuals give meaning to an experience. The concept
was introduced in sociology of organizations by Karl E. Weick who defined sensemaking through its 7
properties (grounded in identity construction, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, focused
on and by extracted cues, social, ongoing and driven by plausibility rather than accuracy). After all this
explanation of what sensemaking consists in and its implications on the adoption process of an
innovation, Rogers describes the innovation-decision process as: the process through which an
individual (or other decision-making unit) passes (1) from first knowledge of an innovation, (2) to
forming an attitude toward the innovation, (3) to a decision to adopt or reject, (4) to implementation of
the new idea, and (5) to confirmation of this decision. These five stages describe the types of activities
undergone by the individual during the innovation-decision process.
The sensemaking perspective provides a lower-level view, describing the evolution of the adopter’s
mental framework. At each of Rogers’ stages, sensemaking compels the individual to sensible action,
causing him to progress through the stages. Therefore, Rogers’ model charts a progression of activities
during the adoption process, whereas the sensemaking perspective explains the adopter’s mental
mechanics at each stage.
The managerial implications are first of all to inform the managers of this deeper mental-level in the key
stages on the adoption of an innovation. In this way to help the managers to better manage the mental
adoption process in order to have a more successful innovation implementation.
The concrete actions are going to be mostly to identify what makes sense for an employee or a consumer
in order to identify what are their needs in term of innovation. Then, because what makes sense for an
employee or a customer is linked to the good or the bad past experiences it will also be for example
important to organize workshops to inform and form them to the new innovations. We could also
imagine some “innovation test periods” in order to understand the sense costumers give to an innovation.
Concerning the limitations, the first limit is the fact that the different steps are presented in a particular
order in the paper. But in practice, the environment, the context and the state of mind of the adopter has
to be taken into account. As a result, the order can be different. The managers have to stay flexible and
to adapt themselves to the context. It is so difficult to standardize this model.
Then, the second limit is the confusion between individual and collective sensemaking. Although the
concept of sensemaking of Weick is a collective perspective, its integration in the model of Rogers
makes a focus on the individual process.this article seems to talk about individual sensemaking because
we are focusing on the adopter himself and the way he is thinking. We don’t talk about groups or team
who are part of the organization. But an individual search of meaning can deviate in a collective one. In
an organizational context, it is essential to take care about the collective sensemaking. The managers
have to pay attention to this and have to involve their employees in the decision process by making
workshop or groups discussion for example.
Further references:
1. Hall H., Khan B. (November 2012) New economy handbook: Adoption of new
technologyhttps://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/HallKhan03%20diffusion.pdf
2. Jennifer P., Ka Ho Brian C., Kimberlay E. and Sarah M. (2014) Adme Policy Ment Health:
Innovation Adoption: A Review of Theories and Constructs ,volume 41(4): 480-502
3. Maurel D. (2012) Études de communication ; Sense-making : un modèle de construction de la
réalité et d’appréhension de l’information par les individus et les groupes
4. Rahrovani Y., Addas, S. & Pinsonneault, A. (2014). Exploring the Long Shadow of IT
Innovation Adoption Decisions on IT Value. Systèmes d’information & management, volume
19, (4), 31-87.
5. Sargent, K et al. (2012) Factors influencing the adoption of information technology in a
construction business’, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (2)
72-86
Vuori, T., & Huy, Q. (2016). ‘Distributed Attention and Shared Emotions in the Innovation Process: How Nokia Lost the Smartphone Battle
Read more
1. Key insights
According to this article, the different appraisals from top and middle managers on threats and the fear perceived by middle manager are amplified by the hierarchical status of Nokia. Indeed, the top managers are focused on external threats of Nokia and didn’t hesitate to put the pressure or to shout at the middle managers to have faster performance. While the middle managers are focused on the requirements of top managers and have provided too optimistic reports because they had fear of them. That generated a vicious cycle due to the assessment gap between the top and the middle managers. We can conclude that this process caused a temporal myopia. In other words, the employees of Nokia had only a short-term vision and the long term was completely forgotten.
2. Managerial implications
Due to the bad internal communication between the managers caused by a fear atmosphere, we suggest to implement a culture where everyone dare to say their thoughts without being judged. This could be done by creating a charter, where it will be interesting to integrate a notion of empathy and respect of others. Another problem linked with the lack of communication is that Nokia putted on the market inappropriate products. However, a few employees were aware of this bad products. At each step of the conception of the product, we suggest to carry out regularly tests to be sure it’s reliable. The aim of this is to make appropriate decisions like to increase budget or improve a certain technology used for example. Moreover, to solve the lack of technological skills of the top managers, we can implement a basic training. Then, Nokia was mainly focused on the short term and not on the long-term strategy. The best solution to this is to organize meetings on regular basis where the long-term strategy is discussed and improved if needed.
3. Limitations
Furthermore, the first limitation is the specialization of Middle managers in software creation. In addition, they were not aware of the customer’s expectations while the Top managers only knew what the customers wanted. This problem had as consequences that the product didn’t correspond to the needs of the customer. Moreover, the second limitation of this article is the fact that they assume that the hierarchy increases fear in the organization and competition between employees. This problem isn’t a generality; a lot of organizations are using a hierarchical structure and didn’t fail.
4. Further references
1) LINKE, A & ZERFASS, A. (2010). Internal communication and innovation culture: developing a change framework. Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 15 No. 4. pp. 332-348.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le9Isb03RY8, Are Emotions Contagious in the Workplace? | Brandon Smith | TEDxEmory, 15:18, published on 20th July 2016.
Stock, R., von Hippel, E., & Gillert, N. (2016). ‘Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success’
Read more
This article links the Five-
Factor Model of personality to success in three innovation process stages by consumer-innovators.
The “Big Five” Personality traits are: (1) Openness to experience, (2) Extraversion, (3) Agreeableness,
(4) Conscientiousness, and (5) Neuroticism. The three basic innovation process stages are: (1)
generating an idea for a new product or product improvement, (2) developing a prototype that
implements that idea, and (3) diffusing the innovation to others. Typically one same person carries
out all stages. So, one with a highly favourable personality is more likely to bring all stages to success.
For the first stage, openness to experience and extraversion have a positive correlation with success,
while agreeableness and neuroticism have a negative one. In stage two, success is found in persons
with low extraversion (introverts). For the third, success in offline non-commercial diffusion is found in
open, contentious and agreeable individuals, while online non-commercial is successful by those
who are open and neurotic; commercial diffusion is thrives when one is extravert and conscientious.
Lastly, personality traits impact the decision of becoming an entrepreneur as they, compared to
managers, tend to be more open to experience and conscious but less agreeable and neurotic.
We found that this article’s findings imply:
A. Innovators ought to seek spaces that sponsor communication and collaboration, such as forums.
Managers should develop platforms for their community to interact (the video game industry is
a success example, as is Lego). HR units must care for recruitments that lead to multidisciplinary
teams (consulting companies have also been using this approach for a number of years).
B. While traits cannot be learned, they should be developed and trained (like skills). Managers can
capitalize on consumers’ and employees’ innovativeness potential by incentivizing trait
enhancement with workshops, awards or contests.
C. Firms should exploit the intrapreneurship of employees: act as an entrepreneur inside the firm.
These individual’s traits often match those needed across the three stages of the said innovation
process. Hence, by helping their ideas come to life, a firm can profit from the new invention.
However, these implications are not without limits:
A. Firms typically ask partners and employees to sign NDAs that limit innovative interaction with
outsiders. Protection of intellectual property leads some firms to state that augmentations to their
product are owned by them. In collaborative projects, not everyone may adapt to working with
people with different habits and cultures, leading to a clash of personalities.
B. Being informed on new trends, ahead of the curve in adoption of new technology, and having
a sparkle for innovation does not correlate with predisposal to enrol in personality development
workshops. More, there is a positive link between being an introvert and prototyping.
C. Intrapreneurs face boundaries as they have to meet the company’s goals and values. They are
creating value for someone else and their innovative ideas are ultimately owned by the
company. This can be seen as a source of demotivation and a negative incentive.
References:
• Stock, R., von Hippel, E., & Gillert, N. (2016). ‘Impacts of personality traits on consumer
innovation success’. Research Policy, 45, 757-769.
• Today at Apple. (2017). Today at Apple – Apple (BE).
[online] Available at: https://www.apple.com/befr/today/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
• Investopedia Academy. (2017). Investopedia Academy.
[online] Available at: https://academy.investopedia.com/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
• Bowyer, R. (2017). Intrapreneurship Definition – Characteristics of an Intrapreneur. [Blog]
Business Blog For Successful Entrepreneurs.
Available at: https://in-business.org.uk/intrapreneurship-definition-characteristics-intrapreneur/
[Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
• Antorini, Y. M., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Askildsen, T. (2012). Collaborating with customer communities:
Lessons from the lego group. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 73-79.
New sources identified:
• To make a link between the Mayers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the 5 personality traits:
Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and individual
differences, 21(2), 303-307.
• To learn more about the gap that usually exists between the consumer’s intentions to adapt
innovation and the actual adoption behaviour and to compare these behaviours with the
personality type results of the main article:
Arts, J., Frambacha, R. & Bijmoltb, T. (2011). Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption:
A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 28(2), 134-144.
• To deepen the phenomenon of the personality traits affecting the decision of becoming an
entrepreneur (see key point 3):
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.
Personality and individual differences, 51(3), 222-230.
Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., & Nguyen-Thi, T. U. (2015). The differentiated impacts of organizational innovation practices on technological innovation persistence. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 110-127.
Read more
Firstly, the objective of this paper is to test the main determinants of the persistence of technological innovation of firms at the product and process level. To be clear, technological innovation includes both product and process innovations. To answer this question, a sample of 287 firms is analyzed over two-time waves. Because to empirically assess the persistence of innovation, the observations of innovation must cover different time periods. The degree of innovation persistence of a firm is defined as the number of consecutive years during which it has recorded innovative output.
Secondly, we can see that organizational innovation influences the persistence of technological innovation. It is therefore the main determinant. More specifically, knowledge management has a crucial effect on the persistence of product innovation. And workplace organization is rather associated with the persistence of process innovation.
And finally, a very important factor is the link with R&D. Firms with intensive R&D activities are more likely to be persistent innovators in both products and processes. Constant innovators could become persistent innovators. For a company that has innovated in the past is also more likely to innovate in the future. But beware because R&D has start-up costs that are usually not recoverable.
To improve process innovation, which is a part of technological, a possibility is give more importance to R&D.
R&D exploring a learning process, discovering new useful ideas, and reorganizing existing concepts so their past innovation therefore affects their current innovation.
But to have this innovation successful, the company needs to have enough internal cash flow to finance his or her R&D expenditure, and to have persistent innovation the manager needs inter-temporal stability of R&D efforts.
But to improve innovation is not enough to focus process innovation, it is important to complement them with organizational innovations. Because these innovations increase the productivity of the company, which improves its competitive advantages and profitability. This allows more investment in technological activity and therefore supports the innovative activity of the company in the medium term.
They also improve flexibility and creativity, which also facilitate technological innovation developments
To conclude, organizational innovations improve technological innovations and companies that introduce both technological and organizational innovations have a better competitive advantage over firms that do not innovate.
Several limitations are possible. One of them is that technological innovation depends on the level of involvement and the degree of change that companies are willing to implement in their processes. This leads to knowledge management in all its stages, but also in the organization of the workplace or in external relations with suppliers or other companies.
Further References
TEDx Talks (Réalisateur). (2015, octobre 29). Why innovation is all about people rather than bright ideas | Alexandre Janssen | TEDxFryslân. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7chxarBJ98
Van Beveren, I., & Vandenbussche, H. (2010). Product and process innovation and firms’ decision to export. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 13(1), 3‑24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870903546267
Show less