Does Quality Inhibit Innovation

Quality Vs. Innovation

In the video “Enemies of Innovation,” Judith Estrin, CEO of Packet Design, LLC discusses how she believes that quality has become the enemy of innovation (The & Estrin). She claims that processes put in place to help ensure quality limit the intricacies of the business process that once led to innovative new methodologies. In an article in The Irish Times, the author states that, “There is at least a 200-year history behind manufacturing innovation. It's an area surrounded by university labs, R&D budgets, EU research projects and nationally-funded prototyping facilities. Service innovation has none of these” (Shaughnessy, 12/10/2007). I believe that Estrin is trying to get at this point; most managers seem to discount the fact that innovation can be initiated outside of an R&D lab.

I do agree with some of the things that Judith Estrin said about quality being the enemy of innovation but furthermore I would take the side of the gentleman from Google, who unfortunately remains unnamed. He brings up a great idea in regard to identifying the culture of your business environment in order to decide how to manage innovation within your organization. He makes a really great point in that different organizations are going to require different methods, there is no uniform way to do it as much as that may be an issue for the rest of corporate America.

Having had the benefit (if you want to call it that) of working for an organization that went through a massive culture shock I can easily relay an example of two different scenarios that describe how culture can breed or inhibit innovation. Many years back, before the organization I worked for was purchased by a behemoth, I had come up with an easy carry pricing grid that could be readily used by any team member to help give quick quotes to customers. The rest of the company loved the idea and it was soon launched throughout the region; and possibly released nationally, I was never told how far it went. I had an idea that the company enjoyed and then they dispersed it throughout the organization. The company didn’t care where the idea had come from but they saw the direct benefits and ran with it. This is how the man from Google claims innovation works for them.

Currently, after the culture switch, our organization has a staunch uniformity policy. There is a monthly guidebook that all centers receive; it is at least 200 pages long and describes all merchandising decisions for the month and center arrangement. As far as things like marketing signage and product placement; every month we are told what to do as to make sure customers can go from center to center and not have any troubles recognizing how things function. This is a quality approach that does make some sense. The trick to this is that every retail space they own is shaped differently. This causes a great deal of issue as to the placement of certain items in each center. The company cares very little and as a manager you are expected to make it look the way they have the layout in the book. The company tries to adhere to a quality standard that is unreasonable and thereby inhibits innovation much in the way that Estrin suggests.

The Creosote Phenomenon

Estrin also brings up something called the Creosote Phenomenon. This results when a company becomes successful to the point of negligence and the over amount of confidence let’s innovation pass them by. At my current organization the behemoth that purchased our original company was a master at what they do. Their core product and our core products made us valuable business partners but because they do what it is they do so well, they never have been able to figure out what it was we did that made us as good as we were. Now, years later, there’s a whole new crop of employees that are just confused and don’t fully understand our product lines because their training is haphazardly divided and the full side of either organization is not fully explored. It’s sad because I have tried on numerous occasions to discuss this with upper management and have been met with a brush off of the corporate shoulder.

Skill sets and Innovation

I would say that managing innovation does not require a different set of skills than does that of a quality oriented manager; as innovation is found in all areas of an organization I would say that being able to manage innovation successfully should be included in a successful manager’s skill set. Whether it be in finance, accounting, human resources, or research and development innovation is there. It’s in the hands of the organizations employees and it is the manager’s job to recognize this and improve upon it to help more efficiently and effectively achieve the goals of the organization.

Works Cited

Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., Fandt, P. M., & Michlitsch, J. F. (2007). Management: Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Shaughnessy, H. (12/10/2007). Serving Up Some Real Innovation. The Irish Times , 47.

T. W., & Estrin, J. L. (n.d.). Enemies of Innovation. Retrieved 02 25, 2010, from bing.com: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/enemies-of-innovation/3xgdnmg1

Change Assessment

On the "Are you good at change?" self assessment I scored a massive 36 points! According to the test I, “welcome every change that comes into your life—even the tough ones—believing that each one serves a purpose and will eventually lead to good,” (Bonvoisin). I would say that I agree with this score as I generally view change as something exciting and different; however my current manager tried to tell me the other day that I feared change.

The situation goes back to several years ago where the company I work for experienced a buyout. Initially I was ecstatic about the merger however after about a year it became abundantly clear that the acquisitioning firm had no idea as how to utilize us, market us, or support us aside from their already pre-existing product line. Since then I have been lobbying extensively for the upper echelons of management to re-evaluate how they are going about their efforts as year after year we have been experiencing substantial negative growth. The new management tells me that I am too attached to the old ways and that I need to look to the future. My response is always, “I am not attached to the old ways, we can come up with a brand new way, but the way you’re doing it is a substantial failure and if you’d take the time to ask your employees, they’d tell you the same thing.”

In an article from the Academy of Management Proceedings about organizational change the authors write, “the ways things are framed and talked about plays a significant role in shaping how change agents, impacted employees and other stakeholders, think about and respond to an organizational change related issue or situation” (Grant & Marshak, 2009). This was the overall problem with change in management at my organization. There was much talk of how things would work and the next week that would change. The following week it would change again. The week after that would bring another set of brand new policies and procedures that replaced the ones from the week prior. This has been an ongoing theme over the course of the past five years. In order to implement successful change it is the responsibility of the management team to construct a broad based plan and adhere to it firmly. If the employees in the face of change can’t find anything structurally sound to grasp onto, they become disenfranchised and lose all positive motivation that had gained momentum before the change was initiated.

As my assessment results clearly show, I am not adverse to change. I tend to get excited and embrace it just as I did in the case of my own company, but the chaos that erupted on the management level ripped through the organization and has yet to redeem itself. Every day I find myself in talks with management about alternative ways we could do things to help re-empower and re-motivate our employees. I come up with new ideas as well as suggest old ones that had previously been very successful. All these suggestions are met with opposition. I would in fact say that it is management who is afraid of change; however they seem to like constant change. As big of a change supporter as I am, I do believe that changes on the part of management need to be well thought out as they affect all aspects of the company and can have disastrous results if not implemented in a secure fashion. I definitely look forward to the day management figures out what it is they want to do and dig their heels into the dirt. That will be one change I will be ecstatic to see.

Works Cited

Bonvoisin, A. d. (n.d.). Change Quiz. Retrieved 02 04, 2010, from Barnes and Noble: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/pimages/resources/pdf/Change_Quiz.pdf

Grant, D., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). A Discourse-Based Theory of Organizational Change. Academy of Managment Proceedings , 1(6) 02/04/2010.

Wikipedia: A Case Study

Wikipedia

Wikipedia; a company dedicated to the accessibility of information, but at what cost does accessibility come. Wikipedia has been under much scrutiny as the open source information website allows its users to make edits to its content to ensure the information is constantly evolving and relevant. The controversy comes in light of making sure the information is accurate and unbiased which has plagued Wikipedia since its inception. College professors across the globe are forbidding students from using it as a valid research tool stating the website is not to be trusted (Maslanka, 2006). In a Wikipedia search under “Reliability of Wikipedia” the site states that the reliability of the site, “is assessed in several ways, including statistically, comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the writing process” (Reliability of Wikipedia).

Wikipedia understands that its content may not contain fully accurate information or even biased information; it is the idea that the demand for accuracy will eventually overcome and through debate and discussion will create for a more factual representation of information (About - Wikipedia). Fundamentally speaking this is a sound approach as the supply and demand model tends to shape the world we live in. It seems reasonable, yet possibly unconventional, to apply this concept to knowledge. It involves taking a leap of faith and using more than one source for your information; which from personal experience, most professors have you do anyway.

Controlling Information

Wikipedia uses a variety of methods to try and control their content. Of course is their principle philosophy of the user being the fundamental control over the information provided. Other methods of control used by Wikipedia are, “peer review, good article assessment, and the featured article,” (About - Wikipedia). The good article assessment is something that Wikipedia assigns an article after it has been reviewed; this allows the reader to understand that the content is of good, reviewed quality. The featured article also puts articles out in a very visible sense to ensure that people are reading it and hopefully, review the content for accuracy.

Also, an article on unethical editing practices taking place at Wikipedia mentions a new source of control called the WikiScanner. The WikiScanner, “consists of a publicly searchable database that links millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to the organizations where those edits apparently originated,” (WikiScanner). This can help to track down bias or self serving edits which is intended to lead to a more honest level of wiki editing.

Wikipedia searches the three modes of control in the sense that the initial information input into the wiki serves as the input. The input is then subject to the process which involves peer review, professional review, and information sourcing. The output comes in the form of the final results of the reviewed and corrected information.

Evaluation

Whereas many make the argument for Wikipedia’s relevance as a research tool the argument could be made that Wikipedia is the best place to start your research. Wikipedia does not at any point make the claim that the information on their site is valid, but because it is subject to constant peer review it is an excellent place to springboard ideas from.

The primary argument that gets left out of the Wikipedia debate is that when conducting research, your factual information needs to come from more than one source anyway; regardless of whether it’s been the subject of a peer or professional review. I think this argument is exemplified in the article titled “Academics question Wikipedia’s credibility”.

In the article an English professor talks about his experience with Wikipedia and how he came across “factual” errors in a post. He would make the changes but the original author would just change it right back. This professor now advises his students not to use Wikipedia as a resource (Maslanka, 2006).

The problem with this debate is that the professor is assuming he has the correct information, as does the original author. Since there is an obvious stalemate further research needs to be conducted to hopefully uncover the realities of the information and students should use Wikipedia in this sense. I often use Wikipedia as a starting point for my research but because professors will not allow it I wind up not being able to use it as a citation reference. The reality of the situation is that I’m not quoting or using information directly from Wikipedia, but I’m finding information to help develop my research.

To not allow Wikipedia as a reference source is to do a great discredit to the act of research. Research is the act of sorting through information in the pursuit of a conclusion. Many well researched conclusions have been discredited but the discredited information is what allowed for the actual conclusion to be reached. Wikipedia is at its core, this process in action.

Room for improvement

One proactive measure Wikipedia could take would be to enhance their “good article” label and take it a step further into a full blown grading system. Articles would be graded based upon the level of review of their content and edits should be allowed based upon the grade. Any edits made to an article with an A+ grade would have to come with full source information and be subject to a professional review before inclusion into the article. An article with the grade of F would allow for greater flexibility in the editing process but would indicate to the reader that the article has not been professionally reviewed. This measure allows Wikipedia to continue on functioning as they do yet provides a higher level of transparency into the quality of the content to the reader.

Resources

Works Cited:

About - Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Using_Wikipedia_as_a_research_tool

Haas, E. (2007, 10 26). Will Unethical Editing Destroy Wikipedia's Credibility? Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/media/61365

Hubbard, B. (2010, 02 14). Wikipedia edits warp candidates by the minute. The Denver Post , pp. A-01.

Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., Fandt, P. M., & Michlitsch, J. F. (2007). Management: Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Maslanka, K. (2006, 04 20). Academics Question Wikipedia's Credibility. Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from The Ithican: http://www.ithaca.edu/ithacan/articles/0604/20/news/6academics.htm

Pallaris, C., & Costigan, S. S. (2007). Shared Knowledge, Join Pursuits; International Relations Beyond the Age of Information. Chicago, IL.

Reliability of Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia

WikiScanner. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiscanner

Apperances: A Case Study

The Situation:

A major salesperson at Techno Inc. is about to make a major multimillion dollar deal with Apex Co. Apex, a company with a firm commitment to diversity, would like the companies it deals with to mirror this philosophy. Whereas Techno Inc. does also believe in diversity, its sales team doesn’t necessarily reflect this. In an effort to make Techno Inc.’s team seem more diverse the salesperson decides to ask a minority to join the sales panel for the transaction.

The conflict arises when the minority begins to feel that they are being used for their skin color in order to deceive Apex Co. The sales person assures the minority that they’re not being deceptive because the company does employ a diverse work force and that they’ve worked together in the past in order complete transactions which had nothing to do with skin color or perceived diversity. There is an intermediary HR person (Maura) who wants to find a solution.

What to Do:

Maura should advise the salesperson (Jack) to not pursue his course of action. Adding a person to the sales panel purely based off the color of their skin is both wrong and deceptive. Letting Jack go ahead with this could not only lead to the loss of the transaction but could also tarnish the overall reputation of Techno Inc. Furthermore this could lead to a lawsuit from Jim (the minority) because he’s being asked to do something purely based on the color of his skin. Race, under penalty of law, is a protected class and being asked to do or not to do something based of a protected class status is illegal.

Ethical Approaches:

Jack used a teleological construct and an individualistic approach to the diversity situation. He was hoping that in the end the means would be justified; however, it’s just as likely that the situation would go awash and do more harm than good.

Jim on the other hand used a deontological construct with a human rights approach. Jim felt it was his duty to not let his company abuse him in this fashion and that it would paint a deceptive portrait of the company if the truth should come to light. Jim felt that he was being used because of his skin color and that based off of that, no matter the intent, it was wrong.

Universal Violations:

I feel confident in saying that Jim’s universal human rights are in violation; although not in the way these violations are typically thought of. In the preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights they state that the, “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Whereas no “barbarous acts” are being committed and this could in fact create a mutually beneficial outcome it is still a decision based off of the distinction of race. In article two of the declaration the U.N. goes on to say that ,” Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Since Jim is being pressured to pursue a course of action where the initial decision was primarily based off of his race, a clear distinction is being made and if Jim is not comfortable doing this then it is within his right to say no without further question or pursuit.

Leadership theories:

Maura needs to take a Theory Y approach and let Jim make a decision without undue duress from Jack. She needs to bow down take the position of a servant leader and let Jim make the decision he is comfortable with and then enforce that decision to its fullest even if it includes reprimand for Jack. Maura should also employ a level of emotional intelligence and apply a little empathy in the direction of Jim. Jim has probably had to deal with race issues in the past, some maybe harmful and some maybe not as much, but he should not have to deal with it in his workplace at all for any reason.

Conclusion:

Maura should end this situation immediately. Since Jim has already expressed disinterest and a certain level of disgust at the idea; the idea should die there. It is Maura’s responsibility to make sure that Jack understands Jim’s position because further pursuit could result in harassment based off of a protected class which would be crippling to the organization. In an example cited in CQ Researcher a major oil company was found to have overstepped their bounds and, “agreed to settle an embarrassing racial discrimination suit in November by promising to pay $140 million to black employees, hire and promote more minority employees and provide diversity training sessions for all 29,000 of the giant oil company's employees,” (Diversity in the Workplace, 1997).

Works Cited:

A Question of Appearances. (2002). HRMagazie , 47 (4), pg. 54 (3p).

Diversity in the Workplace. (1997). CQ Researcher , 7 (38).

Lewis, P. S., Goodman, S. H., Fandt, P. M., & Michlitsch, J. F. (2007). Management: Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders. Mason: Thomson South-Western.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948, 12 10). Retrieved 02 14, 2010, from un.org: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml