Leadership and Innovation

Defining the problem Right now, we find ourselves in the ‘Age of Knowledge’.

In this age, power and control happen to be approved via ideas, individuality and creativity. Information and education are our primary commodities. It produces knowledge and technological innovations as the key goods in these times. In many organizations innovative work is something special, and very often running outside the routine business processes. But innovation activities should go into ‘flesh and blood’ of organizations, and thereby achieving real breakthroughs in the market.

But not only geniuses can produce real progress or innovations. In the past, we found out that innovation have very often been an achievement of team, which were led by creative leaders.Defining innovation According to Jim Selman, innovation means ‘intentionally ‘bringing into existence’ something new that can be sustained and repeated and which has some value or utility’. For Selman, innovation is not just change, but as change can be simply seen as a random event or accident, this definition is not concrete enough. For Selman, innovation is something practical, tools or processes which helps us to accomplish something specific. Innovation can be the accomplishment of some sustainable change whether large or small, continuous or breakthrough.

Leadership and innovationTo reach significant change, leadership is necessary. But in the long term, passion for change seems to be better than control by the leaders. Good leadership also means, there should be a balance of strict and laissez-faire management, depending on the situation and circumstances. Selman considers innovating as a ‘primary element in leadership’. The goal for leaders is always to reach a breakthrough, as leadership aims to break with the status quo.

Another way to distinction of leaders and innovators is that leaders deal with relationships between other people. Selman tries to define our ‘relationship with change’. He claims that there is a relationship to circumstances and change, and the way we deal with these circumstances are defined, as they ‘become the foundation for our being leaders and opens or closes possibilities and opportunities for innovating’. Selman distinguished six different ways to relate circumstances and changes: ResistanceOpposition to circumstance is a very common way to react to change. There are many different ways to show that.

You can disagree with changes, or just slyly agree with it. The most drastic proceed is sabotaging the new policies. All ways of resistance can be seen a very counter-innovative. A negative attitude towards changes will lead to stagnation and, even worse, to resignation for the employees who want to make innovation. Concerning leadership, the fixing of status quo is the most dominant goal.

This very negative approach can be seen as very ineffective.CopingCoping can be seen, in opposite to resistance, as a positive reaction to new circumstances. Energy for dealing with new situations is used for problem solving. But this also explains the situation as overcoming problems created by others. Innovation itself is not seen as something everybody wants to accomplish. When you just cope with new circumstances, it is only a reaction, but not really positive approach.

Leaders with that kind of approach will tend to find excuses or limitations in their actions.RespondingResponding to circumstance is a form of personally chosen actions. Selman describes it as ‘owning the circumstances’, which means that the person or leader feels responsible for the new circumstance, and highly feels responsible for positive actions. This is seen as the beginning of innovation, as we make a commitment and try to find something new with value for our organization.

Leadership with responding approach means, we are not just attempting to solve or fix problems. Leaders of that type are also look at intended purposes, which have a high value in the future.ChoosingThat means, we are accepting the new circumstances, even if we do not really like them or even see them as negative. Firstly, we try to observe the possibilities and all sorts of choices we have. Leaders then are choosing the best way to get positive results for the future.

This will lead into innovation, and this process is already seen as something positive and creative. There is no resistance and there is a high commitment and acceptance for changes.Bringing forthThis means, we are trying to create our own circumstances. If there is a very difficult situation, in which it is very challenging to find new ways to cope with it, it is sometime necessary to find a new, or better, creative approach.

The results may be not predictable, and sometimes a higher risk has to be taken. But this attitude can be seen as very innovative. That kind of leadership is definitely not easy to learn, as that talent to go ahead is considered to be visionary and even charismatic.MasteryMastery is described as the highest standing way of dealing with new circumstances, and seen as crown of innovation. People who have the rare talent to act like that are creating the context for change. This means that kind of leader even feel responsible for creating the background within the new circumstances appear.

These ‘masters of innovation’ try to foresee what can happen or even not happen in the future. That kind of leadership is a form of ongoing invention and innovation.Conclusion Selman thinks that the potential of innovation depends on a ‘function of our commitments, what we want to accomplish and our relationship with the circumstances we perceive we are in’. No innovation will be generated if we react with resisting or coping.

The change in form of improvement can be achieved when we react to circumstances with responding or choosing. The reaction of bringing forth or creating is the best prerequisite for innovation. That also summarizes that the type of leadership is deciding of how and at which level innovation will be converted. Various articles in business journal recommend seeing innovation as a must for especially the Western companies.Just planning and keep up the old work is definitely not enough. We have to make some kind of experiments.

But it takes courage from the leaders to make these sometimes risky steps. Only improvement in processes could be to slow in our fast running world. Leaders should encourage their employees to make totally new definitions of their processes, and as a result, try to find fundamental new solutions.