Promote Organisational Creativity And Innovation In Microsoft Corp

Question: Imagine an organisation that you aspire to work for after your graduation (my chosen organisation would be Microsoft). The organisation has decided to recruit a graduate to support the promotion of creativity and innovation in anticipation that they can benefit from the application of knowledge and skills gained through your recent studies. You have been successful in the early stages of the selection process and are now through to the final stages. The salary is highly competitive but competition is fierce and you are keen to succeed in securing the job. The challenge is to answer the questions below: 1. Drawing on the work of influential contributors on climate for creativity and innovation why is intrinsic motivation central to supporting and sustaining creativity and innovation? 2. How might Human Resource Management and Development support creativity and innovation? Your suggestions will need to draw on climate models and you will need to be creative in the ideas that you propose. Remember that competition is fierce and you will need to impress to succeed in securing the job. Answer: 1.0 Introduction: 1.1 Context Microsoft Corp is better recognised as the new age technological trend setter and the organisation that helped the society acknowledge and adapt to the technical changes happening in the global environment (Ander and Kapoor, 2010). Microsoft Corp is one of the top most brands in the business segment and also a leader in the technology sector. Headquartered in Redmond, USA, Microsoft has always tried to be the first one in introducing technological growth to the public (Microsoft, 2014). The vision of the company is to help organisations and individual recognise their full potential in context of technological support and growth. The company was founded in the year 1975 by Paul Allen and Bill Gates (Microsoft, 2014). Since then, Microsoft Corp has constantly evolved itself and gained the top position in the corporate industry. With over 128000 employees working all over the world in various subsidiaries and partners of the company, Microsoft has ensured that their customers are not left unattended (Microsoft, 2014). The organisational structure of Microsoft has been developed in alignment with their strategic objectives and the complex work culture of the firm. The operational structure of the company is customised to suit the needs of the employees as well as the managerial team. The top authority has been designed in accordance with the hierarchical structure however the operational work structure is similar to the matrix model. The success of the company can also be identified from their financial performance as they touched $86.83 billion in revenues in the year 2014 (Microsoft, 2014). 1.2 Necessity of enhancing creativity and innovation In the contemporary scenario, competition and technology are the driving forces in the corporate sector (Chesbrough, 2009). The business processes are trying to sustain in this competitive atmosphere by developing sustainable practices and innovating new business management and planning procedures. According to Kossek et al. (2007), the technology has transformed the process of business operations and also helped in intensifying the competition within the industry. Based on this statement, it can be observed that the need for innovation and creativity have increased in the technological segment. An additional evidence that supports the requirements for creativity and innovation is the increasing use of technological products among the consumer base (Hurson, 2007). Consumers are adapting to the technological changes in a rapid manner and this has also enhanced their need for using better and improved technology. For instance, Smart Phones were launched not even a decade ago and today it is one of the necessities of life (Wiki Invest, 2009). The example observed in Wiki Invest (2009) also enforces the need for the technology firms to stay ahead of competition and regularly fulfil the needs of their customers. In context of Microsoft, it can be stated that organisations such as Google and Apple are being listed above the concerned company considering their brand value and demand of products and services among the consumers. This highlights the urgency for Microsoft to engage in a strategic sustainability process which will elongate and improve the innovation and creativity among its employees. 2.0 Application and analysis: 2.1 Interactionsist Model The interactionist model was developed by Woodman for defining and identifying the contusion of creativity in various work processes within an organisation (OShea and Buckley, 2007). The interactionist model focuses on creativity in three different organisational segments namely, individual, team and organisation (Woodman, 1993). The interactionist model not only focuses on the attributes of these three groups but also highlights the relationship and influence of each of these groups on each other. For instance, the organisational characteristic such as culture influences the work structure and the performance of a team which in turn influences an individual (Shalley, Zhou and Oldham, 2004). The creative behaviour of all these three groups along with the situation developed for creativity results in the overall creativity within an organisation. Focusing on the case of Microsoft, the internal culture of the organisation has undergone a huge change in the year 2008-09 (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009). The much debated and criticised stack ranking performance monitoring system of the company was removed for motivating the employees to perform better. This change was accepted by the employee base which allowed more space to work in an innovative atmosphere rather than the competitive environment. The existing organisational culture is focused on value addition in every functional aspect of the business by embedding quality and innovation (Price, 2007). However, the changes in the operational process and work culture of the organisation have created some barriers to creativity and innovation. The requirements for the industry are yet proving to be too high for Microsoft and they are struggling in their core segments such as in search engine and browser segments. Furthermore, the key product of Microsoft Windows Operation Systems for p ersonal computers, laptops, mobile and other devices has not been upgraded according to the preference of the consumers since the launch of Windows 2007 (Jassowalla and Soshittal, 2009). These factors signify the need for innovation and creativity within the work structure of the company. 2.2 Climate Theories Creativity and innovation are often considered as one aspect or a subsidiary concept of one another (Prajogo and Sohal, 2008). However, both innovation and creativity are different psychological aspects of a person which prompts the nature of an individual to think and perform beyond the average imagination (Bates and Khasawneh, 2007). The climatic theories are also developed on this notion and reflect the variables which trigger creativity within an individual, team or an organisation. Amabiles Keys are also developed for identifying the process which helps in promoting a creative and innovative work culture. This model mainly focuses on the cultural aspect of a firm which can be used for managing the work process and directing the performance of the employees in the desired manner (Lau and Ngo, 2007). In order to implement the Amables Keys in Microsoft, it has to be noticed that the business culture of Microsoft is run in a decentralised manner and includes a huge workforce. As mentioned above, the work culture and structure of Microsoft has been changed recently, the employees are already facing a changing scenario which is impacting their productivity (Tellis, Prabhu and Chandy, 2009). In such a situation, Microsoft can highlight the five key variables of Amabiles Keys that are encouragement of creativity, autonomy or freedom, resources, pressure and organisational ingredients to creativity to their workforce which will act as a motivating factor and also help the management of the company to design the required work setup. 2.3 Promoting creativity and innovation 2.3.1 HRM As opined by Pokien (2006), the role of human resource department has transformed over time and has become an intrinsic aspect of organisational growth and development. The human resource department of a company is not only responsible for developing the workforce but also ensures that the performance of the employee base of a company is in accordance with the organisational objectives of the firm (Proctor, 2010). Further analysis of this notion reflects that operational aspects such as performance monitoring and performance measurement are also being included in the HRM activities. In context of creativity and innovation, it has been observed that both these performance factors need motivation, reward, encouragement and support from the organisation. Intrinsic motivation is one such aspect of HRM that helps in enhancing creativity among the employees (Taylor and Callahan, 2005). The motivational process can be initiated with the help of rewards or other appraisal processes but loyalty and a self dedicated nature promotes the urge for performing above the average (Jassowalla and Soshittal, 2009). This sentiment can be used to define the impatience of culture and HRM in the development of creative and innovative culture within an organisation. For instance, as mentioned the stack ranking process of performance monitoring employed in Microsoft had increased the productivity of the company momentarily but it also increased the job dissatisfaction among the workforce (OShea and Buckley, 2007). The employee turnover increased and performance decreased for Microsoft. On the other hand, the change in nature of work has helped the company regain its previous status in the technological industry. 2.3.1 Leadership Leadership styles and processes employed by business firms forms the base of their management and organisational culture (Lussier and Achua, 2009). Relating to this, McKee, Boyatzis and Johnston (2008) stated that leadership styled deployed by a company is based on the organisational culture and the management objectives of the company. The above sentiments reflect that management, leadership and organisational culture are related and dependent variables. The influence of leadership on the employees is undoubtedly immense however; the nature of leadership and the work culture must align with each other for creating a positive impact (Pearson, 2012). In context of creativity and innovation, leadership is best utilised when the capability of the workforce is accurately known (Yan, 2011). One of the most apt examples of technological leadership was set by arch enemy of Microsoft, Apple Inc. Ex CEO Late Steve Jobs changed the use and meaning of smart phones when he introduced the first iPhone in the market (Pearson, 2012). This marked the beginning of a new era for Apple and many more innovative products followed under the leadership of Steve Jobs which further strengthened the foothold of Apple in the technology industry. It is said that Steve Jobs despite of his numerous success was an autocratic leader and was not participative. However, McKee, Boyatzis and Johnston (2008) observed that it is not an individual but his/her vision which marks the success of leadership. Similarly, Microsoft needs to ensure that the vision set by the top authorities is transparently carried out to the employees that will help them in identifying and understanding their roles in the workplace and develop a creative and innovative atmosphere. 3.0 Conclusion Creativity and innovation are essential elements not only in the technological industry but in any organisation or corporate sector. The basic impression of developing creative and innovative work process is based on sustainable improvement. It is essential for business houses to recognise the difference between creativity and innovation and implement them accordingly in the work culture. The process of developing a creative work culture as reflected in the interactionist model or the Amabiles Keys can be used in case of Microsoft. However, the nature of the existing work culture, capability and perception of the employees and the leadership process are of crucial importance. The HRM department of the company has to measure and identify the probable barriers to creativity and innovation and design the implementation of any of the mentioned models accordingly. On the other hand, the operational process, leadership, HRM and the organisational objectives must be aligned with each other and be properly communicated with the workforce of the firm. These factors are some basic steps towards the development of creative and an innovative work culture within the functional aspects of Microsoft. 4.0 Recommendations The existing work culture of Microsoft Corp has been recently changed with the removal of the stack ranking system and the change has created some barriers to performance for the employees. Considering this situation, Microsoft should first identify the barriers and problems being faced by their employees. The employees should also be given a chance to communicate the problems being faced by them to the managerial authorities. Based on this, the company will be able to design the appropriate work structure which supports the organisational needs and also solves the employee problems. The leadership style will be decided upon to support the changed work structure of the firm. The entire process must be monitored by the HRM department to assess the contribution and efficacy of the new system with regards to the development of a creative and innovative work process. Reference List: Ander, R. and Kapoor, R., 2010. Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generation, Strategic management Journal, 31, pp. 306-333. Bates, R. and Khasawneh, S., 2007. Organizational Learning Culture, Learning Transfer Climate and Perceived Innovation in Jordanian Organizations, International Journal of Training and Development, 9(2) pp. 96-109. Chesbrough, H. W., 2009. Business model innovation: Its not just about technology anymore. Strategy and Leadership, 35, pp. 12-17. Hurson, T., 2007. Think Better: An Innovator's Guide to Productive Thinking. 1st ed. s.l.:McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. Jassowalla, A.R. and Soshittal, H. C., 2009. Cultures that support product innovation processes, Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), pp. 42-54. Kossek, E. E., Young, W., Gash, D. C. and Nichol, V., 2007. Waiting for innovation in the human resources department: Godot implements a human resources information system. Journal of Human Resource Management, 33, pp. 135-159. Lau, C., and Ngo, H., 2007. The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation, International Business Review, 13(6)., pp. 685-703. Lussier, R. N. and Achua, C. F., 2009. Leadership: Theory, Application, Skill development, London: Cengage Learning. MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N., 2009. Engaging for Success: Enhancing Performance through Employee Engagement. A report to Government. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. McKee, A., Boyatzis, R., and Johnston, F., 2008. Listening to your wake-up calls, Becoming a Resonant Leader, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, pp. OShea, D. and Buckley, F., 2007.Towardsanintegrative modelofcreativity and innovation in organisations: A psychological perspective. Irish Journal of Psychology, 28(3/4), pp.101-128. Pearson, C. S., 2012. The Transforming Leader: New Approaches to Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, 5th ed. London: Chapman and Hall. Pokien, A., 2006. Organizational Culture and Innovations, Engineering Economics, 1 (46), pp. 45-50. Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S., 2008. The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining quality and innovation performancean empirical examination. Technovation, 24, pp. 443-453. Price, R. M., 2007. Infusing innovation into corporate culture, Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), pp. 320-328. Proctor, T., 2010. Creative problem solving for managers. London, UK: Routledge. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., and Oldham, G. R., 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, pp. 933-958. Taylor, M. A., and Callahan, J. L., 2005. Bringing creativity into being: Underlying assumptions that influence methods of studying organizational creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, pp. 247-270. Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C. and Chandy, R. K., 2009. Radical Innovation Across Nations: The Pre-eminence of Corporate Culture, Journal of Marketing, 73, pp. 323. Wiki Invest , 2009. CompetitionThe information technology industry is intensely competitive, and competitive pressures could adversely affect prices (including pricing practices or pricing models) or demand for our products and services. Woodman, R., 1993. Toward a Theory of Organisational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review , 18(2), pp. 293-321. Yan, J., 2011. An Empirical Examination of the Interactive Effects of Goal Orientation, Participative Leadership and Task Conflict on Innovation in Small Business. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 16(03), pp. 393408.