Abstract
In the contemporary world, change and innovation are the main drivers of the successful development of organizations. A critical review of theories of innovation and change provides an assessment of the benefits of the primary methods of introducing change in organizations. Simultaneously, case studies of applying change theory to innovation in Companies X and Y are also presented. This permits an assessment of the importance of applying the correct theory to the needs of the organization and the correct execution of the theoretical steps. In addition, in the research, there is an assessment of my leadership abilities and a reflection on me as an innovative leader.
Introduction
It is significant to note that change management is a structural approach to transferring individuals, teams, and organizations from the current state to the desired future condition. This organizational process empowers employees to accept and support changes and innovations in their current business environment (Hayes, 2022). Many factors influence the success of innovation in an enterprise, but leaders and their ability to implement change play a special role. This is because a leader is the most authoritative member of a group who determines and manages its activities to achieve group objectives.
Various theories have certain advantages and disadvantages when implementing changes and innovations. Therefore, it is essential to establish the basics of innovation and change theories, evaluate successful and negative examples of their application, and assess my own performance as a leader.
Theories
The Theory of Diffusion of Innovations
The fundamental theories of innovation and change have particular strengths and limitations. Accordingly, the theory of diffusion of innovations is a concept that explains how innovations are perceived by society and according to what regularities their spread can be accelerated (Dearing and Cox, 2018, p. 183). Indeed, it is a theory according to which people in society react differently to change, and this model can be used to predict the reaction to the introduction of innovation.
In general, the diffusion of innovation refers to a temporal, spatial model of introducing and disseminating new products, methods of production, and organizational management structures. This model involves the processes that result in the adoption of innovation by society and the distribution of new goods and services to potential consumers (Olson et al., 2020). According to this theory, innovations are most often technical or organizational. However, the high degree of formalization limits the possibility of diffusion of organizational innovations.
The Elements of the Diffusion of Innovation
Moreover, the diffusion of innovation is understood as a type of activity implemented in successive stages with the participation of obligatory elements. Rogers distinguishes the following details in the diffusion of innovations (Olson et al., 2020). According to the first, the innovation of the use in this or that sphere of activity results in intellectual work on the creation of new or improvement of the existing system. On the other hand, communication channels are tools by which the transfer of information between agents is realized.
In addition, the third element of the theory is time, that is, the period required to decide on the implementation of innovation (Cameron and Green, 2019). For these elements to work together, a social system requires a set of interrelated elements with common goals whose actions are coordinated over time. As additional components of diffusion of innovations, it is possible to allocate concepts of critical mass, which means the occurrence of a sufficient quantity of consumers loyal to innovations, stages of diffusion assuming a sequence of consumer actions at decision-making.
The Stages of the Diffusion of Innovation
Furthermore, the process of innovation diffusion undergoes certain stages to introduce new changes into an organization. Hence, there is the next stage: recognition of information about the innovation reaches the consumer for the first time, but it is not enough to make a decision. After receiving the information, potential buyers are interested and seek additional information about the product. In the case of an organization, employees will try to learn more about the new leadership method (Daft, 2021).
Then the evaluation process takes place; after studying all the available information, consumers decide to purchase, and employees decide whether to support the changes in the company. Finally, the adoption stage involves using innovation, which leads to recognizing and further applying the changes or their rejection.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations
Additionally, the diffusion of innovations theory has a significant drawback in that it works better with the adoption of behavior than with the cessation or prevention of behavior. Accordingly, the theory does not focus on resources or social support for people to support the introduction of innovation (Daft and Marcic, 2022). Nevertheless, on the positive side, the diffusion of innovations theory focuses on how consumers adopt a new product or employees adopt a new management strategy. Accordingly, this theory is valuable in identifying trends in a team and quickly mobilizing efforts to sustain or terminate them.
Kotter’s Model of Change Management
It is also essential to remember that Kotter has an eight-step change model. Accordingly, Kotter’s model of change management is an algorithm of eight sequential steps that allows people to be involved in implementing the changes necessary for the organization (Galli, 2019). The model is based on the idea that employees will contribute to its implementation if they understand the benefits of change.
The Steps of the Change Process
Moreover, the steps in the change process include the following elements (Galli, 2018). First, the leader needs to create a sense of urgency, form strong leadership coalitions, and develop a vision and strategy. This is necessary to ensure the transfer of vision, removing obstacles, and empowering employees to take action. Then, leaders need to create short-term wins, consolidate gains, and reinforce change by reinforcing cultural change.
Additionally, a sense of urgency must be created to drive organizational change. According to Kotter, the first stage is crucial for workers to realize the need and urgency of organizational change (Laig and Abocejo, 2021). Moreover, managers must engage in an open, honest, and persuasive dialogue with employees to gain their support for change.
After this, it is necessary to create a leadership team (Laig and Abocejo, 2021). This is another method of establishing a change leadership group whose members are accountable for guiding all changes and inspiring a constructive attitude among all staff members. Team members should represent a variety of functions and have different backgrounds to ensure that the change leadership team can connect appropriately with staff from multiple divisions.
Furthermore, leaders must develop a strategic vision and initiatives to implement the changes. Therefore, developing a distinct vision enables each employee to recognize what the organization wants to attain and achieve in a specified period. Leaders must maintain an alignment of execution strategy with the company’s vision to support employees in fulfilling their responsibilities (Nicholls, 2018).
This can be reached by delivering the message of change to staff. This step should secure employee acceptance and engagement with the organizational change. Accordingly, leaders should continuously use the opportunity to present the new direction to staff and take their responses and concerns about the changes seriously.
Another element of Kotter’s change model is the ability to act by removing barriers. Managers should address any obstacles to organizational change, whether employees oppose change or have inefficient internal frameworks (Nicholls, 2018). At the same time, managers need to promote risk-taking and innovation. This can be incentivized by creating short-term wins because success motivates employees the most.
In addition, managers can create short-term tasks, and when employees accomplish them, they can reward them for their contribution to the transformation process (Nicholls, 2018). The benefits of this approach are that it builds stronger motivation for the overall company to change and gives everyone a chance to understand that the company is in the process of transformation.
It is imperative that leaders also maintain the acceleration of change. Kotter remarked that many changes experience failure because companies announce success prematurely, while change is a slow progression (Griffin, 2021). The short-term aims achieved in the previous step are only short-term victories, and the company has to continue to correct the new plan until the vision is implemented. Once the company’s workers have adapted to the changes, leaders need to embed the new approaches in the culture. The leaders must explicitly explain to employees the causal connection between the new improvement behaviors and the organization’s success (Griffin, 2021). This is crucial to the continued engagement of change behaviors and reinforcing the corporate culture’s spirit of transformation.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Kotter’s 8-Stage Change Model
Nevertheless, it is crucial to consider the main advantages and disadvantages of Kotter’s 8-stage change model. Accordingly, the benefits include the model focusing on getting support from key employees to ensure success. Kotter’s theory is suitable for companies with a traditional organizational structure and a leadership system (Griffin, 2021). Another positive feature of the idea is the clear steps that every manager can implement to make changes in the organization.
However, Kotter’s 8-stage change model includes the following basic disadvantages of the top-down model (Griffin, 2021). That is, leaders may not use the potential opportunities that all team members can offer. This is because the core vision of the changing concept is developed by the leader and communicated to employees. Furthermore, the model does not explain how to sustain the change once it is implemented in the organization (Griffin, 2021). In general, Kotter’s 8-stage change model offers a sequential process that can support leaders in changing organizations.
Hall’s Concerns-Based Adoption Model
Hall’s Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), which is based on introducing changes and innovations, explains company innovation processes. The model was developed and used in the 1970s (Kerzner, 2019, p. 43). The concept assumes that the critical factor in any successful innovation is the person who implements it. The effective implementation of any innovation is adequate for the personal change of the person who brings the innovation to life. According to Hall’s concept, there are six basic assumptions: change is a process, not an event, and is implemented by individuals (Kerzner, 2019). Meanwhile, people’s personal experience is valuable for effective change implementation, which ensures further progress of changes.
The author notes that change is best understood in operational terms. As a result, there are three components of CBAM, formed of six assumptions that inform the leader’s planning change (Kerzner, 2019). These are the innovation configuration map, concern stages, and SoC use levels. All these stages consider the individual characteristics of the environment where the change is supposed to occur.
Stages of Innovation
Additionally, to group the risks of change, there is an SoC scale demonstrating seven stages of innovation. Accordingly, the team initially has questions about the upcoming changes and wants to learn more about them. Then, employees feel anxious because they perceive innovation as a threat to them (Kerzner, 2019). In addition, it encourages them to consider when users perceive innovation as a personal threat. They may have doubts or self-doubt about their ability to use the innovation. This stage usually occurs on the first day after the news of the change is announced when employees still need sufficient information.
In the next step, staff reflects on the potential impact of the innovation on future global operations (Kerzner, 2019). Therefore, once the team has sufficient knowledge of the changes, coordination with administrators and team leaders starts. Nevertheless, when teams are formed that are ready for change, the next stage occurs when workers worry that they will not be able to implement the new experience effectively.
The following phase is the refocusing of problems when, in real conditions, the proposed innovation is adjusted in accordance with the issues that arise from its implementation (Kerzner, 2019). Thus, it enables the adaptation of possible changes to the needs of a particular innovation and team.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Hall’s Concerns-Based Adoption Model
Accordingly, the theory’s positive characteristics are a comprehensive and well-founded concept of change. It provides a step-by-step way to organize and prepare changes and innovations to adapt them to the organization’s and employees’ real needs. However, the negative aspect of Hall’s Concerns-Based Adoption Model is that the model is designed for changes in the educational process environment (Kerzner, 2019). As a result, other organizations need to adapt them further to the conditions of specific institutions.
The Chocolate Model
In addition, innovation and change are described in the chocolate model, which has recently emerged and is adapted to modern conditions. Accordingly, innovation and change were discussed in the recent Diane Dormant model (Steiss, 2019). The Chocolate model focuses on innovation and change related to the organization and is structured around four elements. Therefore, these are changes, adherents, change agents, and organizations, respectively, and these components are required for the introduction of changes to be complete.
In contrast to Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory, the chocolate model can be used when planning organizational change and implementing innovations (Steiss, 2019). Accordingly, the process is as follows: first, the changes, their necessity, and innovation structure are analyzed. The theory requires analyzing the two parties involved in the change and identifying the main agents. At the same time, at this stage, a plan is developed according to which the agents will act. Thus, agents can study possible risks that occur during the implementation of changes.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Chocolate Model
Moreover, the chocolate model has significant advantages, such as adapting change strategies to address possible resistance from agents. Furthermore, this model is relatively simple, which allows agents to understand the changes quickly. Additionally, the theory allows for the adaptation of change strategies to the local conditions of organizations and the culture that exists in the association (Hickman and Silva, 2018). Another positive aspect is that this theory has a positive influence on social change because the theory adapts to the social influence of agents on each other.
Nevertheless, the chocolate model has some drawbacks that need to be considered. First, agents responsible for innovative changes may not always receive feedback from adherents, which negatively affects the overall perception of innovations. Secondly, the model needs to pay more attention to the dissemination of information about upcoming changes and the adaptation of employees to them (Hickman and Silva, 2018). Thus, it demonstrates the need to combine several theories in practice for successful innovation in organizations.
The Path-Goal Theory
Additionally, there is a theory that emphasizes the importance of leadership in driving innovation in the organization. The essence of the path-goal theory is that the leader is supposed to support his subordinates in achieving their goals (Nasser and Al-Taie, 2021). They are supposed to provide guidance or encouragement to ensure that their subordinates’ goals are in line with the purposes of the respective group or organization (Nasser and Al-Taie, 2021).
According to the path-goal theory, a leader’s behavior is acceptable to their subordinates insofar as it is seen as a direct source of current or future satisfaction. Leader behavior is motivational insofar as it makes the satisfaction of subordinates dependent on their performance and provides the coaching, guidance, encouragement, and rewards necessary for employees to perform effectively. Consequently, by developing an appropriate leadership style, supervisors can introduce innovative changes to the organization.
Four Models of Leader Behavior
In order to test these points, House identified four models of leader behavior. A directive leader lets his subordinates know what is expected of them, plans their work, and makes specific recommendations on how to perform it (Olowoselu, bin Mohamad and Mohamed Farag Mohamed Aboudahr, 2019).
A caring leader is characterized by friendliness and sensitivity to the needs of subordinates. This characteristic, in fact, is attentiveness, which is necessary for employees to perform their assignments well. The leader-partner consults with his subordinates and takes their opinions and suggestions into account when making decisions. A result-oriented leader sets high goals and expects associates to commit themselves to work fully.
Hence, the path-goal theory argues that the same leader can exhibit either of these behaviors depending on the situation at hand (Olowoselu, bin Mohamad and Mohamed Farag Mohamed Aboudahr, 2019). Consequently, depending on the reverse model of leadership, they use different methods to implement changes and innovations in the organization.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Path-Goal Theory
Nonetheless, it is possible to identify the main disadvantages and advantages of the path-goal theory. Accordingly, the model is characterized by relative simplicity and flexibility. That is, managers can choose their own leadership style and, in accordance with it, introduce innovations and support changes in the organization.
Another disadvantage is that the theory does not provide a clear algorithm for choosing a leadership style depending on specific criteria (Olowoselu, bin Mohamad, and Mohamed Farag Mohamed Aboudahr, 2019). Thus, there is a possibility that the chosen style will not correspond to the goals of the organization or managers, and as a result, the introduction of innovations will not be successful.
Evaluation of Innovations
Company X’s Case
Case Background
The experience of implementing the changes that took place in Company X is a positive example of the application of the change process. Accordingly, Company X needed more employee engagement to perform tasks efficiently. This is due to the fact that many of Company X’s employees were working to ensure a decent living while studying at the coeducational center. As a result, some of them missed a lot of classes and did not gain valuable knowledge, and others did not graduate from college at all.
Executive A decided to make changes to the company’s policy and provide employees who already had experience with the necessary knowledge. At the same time, a program was developed specifically for the company’s employees to cover the costs of their training on online learning platforms. In addition, Company X provided each worker in need of education with additional conditions, including job security and financial assistance. The purpose of such a program was focused on the long-term perspective, which would allow employees to be more efficient and productive in the future.
The implementation of the program was successful, and Company X’s objective was achieved in the long run. However, there were some difficulties in implementing the innovation; for example, only three employees graduated in the first year. Nevertheless, after the quality of their work improved and their salaries increased, other workers decided to take additional training. Thus, the following year, Company X had one hundred employees who had completed the required training. Gradually, the program gained popularity among employees due to positive feedback from those who successfully completed it (Tidd and Bessant, 2020). Therefore, Company X was able to implement a successful innovation and reap the benefits in the long run.
The Application of the Diffusion of Innovation at Company X
The successful innovation program at Company X was implemented using the theory of innovation diffusion as shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, if we consider the main elements of Rogers’ theory, namely innovation, communication channels, social system, and time, Company X’s program completely corresponds to the postulates of the theory. First, the idea of using online programs to train experienced employees who need more theoretical knowledge is an innovation in this case. Secondly, the communication channels were internal company channels, such as the Company X website, informing subordinates about new opportunities and information exchange between workers.
In addition, Company X has created a social system aimed at providing material and moral support to employees. Additional vacations, free training, and managerial support are elements of the social strategy used by the management of Company X. In general, the vision of the company’s management is since it is essential to give a chance to capable people who, due to adverse life circumstances, could not get a decent education.
Thus, the social component of innovation is largely dependent on the vision of leaders in Company X, not just to make a stable profit but to help employees and benefit from the innovation in the long run. Additionally, in accordance with the theory of innovation diffusion, the program was set to last for four years (Tidd and Bessant, 2020). Accordingly, the manager of Company X decided that four discharges of experienced employees could demonstrate the need to extend or cancel the program.
Moreover, when introducing an innovation program in Company X, the focus changes between those who implement changes and those who receive them. This can be explained by the fact that company leaders who develop a plan for implementation can be considered change agents (Tidd and Bessant, 2020).
At the same time, the employees who carry out the performance, such as employees of the human resources department of Company X who deal with employee benefits, the admissions office that ensures the submission of applications for training, and academic advisors, can be considered those who implement innovations. Throughout the system, the final consumers of the innovation are the student workers of Company X. Hence, this modification theoretically allows for an improved system and a higher probability of innovation.
Stages of Change at Company X
Company X managers used stages to gradually familiarize staff with the innovative change. Accordingly, at first, Manager A posted a message on Company X’s website that employees were offered free training. Consequently, the workers were able to learn about the innovation and become interested in the details of the program. After that, employees began to ask Company X managers about the training on their own, which enabled leaders to assess whether employees were interested and supportive of the changes.
Then, Manager A held explanatory meetings with Company X’s leaders to provide them with information about the training. Manager A provided stimulating information about the benefits that employees will receive if they complete the training offered by the company. As a result, in the next stage, the workers began to make decisions about whether they thought the training was necessary for them and whether they supported the idea.
In the case of Company X, in the first year, only three employees agreed to take the training, which indicates a lack of trust in the innovation. However, after the first employees received additional knowledge that was noticeable in their work, other employees started applying for training en masse. Thus, this proves that the most effective channel of information exchange was peer-to-peer communication. Thus, over the next three years, the company’s employees appreciated the need for innovation and began to participate in the changes.
After the innovation program was completed on time, the company’s management began to evaluate the first achievements and downsides of the change (Tidd and Bessant, 2020). The leader of Company X decided that the costs of training the staff were less than the benefits they brought through improved performance. Consequently, if new staff needed to be trained, this program would also be implemented in accordance with the successful experience.
The Results of the Diffusion of Innovation for Company X
Therefore, the theory of innovation diffusion allowed Company X first to assess people’s reactions to the changes and then gradually start implementing innovations. The primary benefit for the company of using the theory of creation was the gradual gaining of employees’ confidence. This is evidenced by the fact that in the first year, the number of people who volunteered to start was insignificant. However, the managers’ work and the distribution of information among employees were effective, and the following year the innovative changes were already popular among the workforce, which could appreciate the first positive results of the innovation.
Moreover, the time constraint, as a component of the theory, encouraged workers to decide more quickly whether they wanted to participate in the changes. Accordingly, within four years, almost all employees of Company X who needed additional training successfully acquired new knowledge. Therefore, the short timeframe of the innovation program allowed employees to move from laggards to innovators quickly. As a result, innovative changes promptly became widespread in Company X, and almost all staff members were involved in them.
Company Y’s Case
Case Background
It is worth mentioning an example of innovative changes introduced by Company Y, which was less successful than in Company X. In the case of Company Y, the management decided to create a response zone for employees. Accordingly, at the general meeting, the managers decided that it was necessary to create a virtual reality room equipped with innovative technologies. Thus, in addition to a place where employees can drink coffee and eat, this room will have places for training.
The managers came to the conclusion that people needed to change their activities for better performance, so they installed simulators in the break room that could teach people how to fly airplanes or sail yachts. Moreover, the manager of Company Y decided that changing activities were effective, so he approved the innovative changes without first studying such practices in other companies.
The Application of Kotter’s Change Implementation Model at Company Y
Meanwhile, to implement innovations in the team, the leaders used John Kotter’s change implementation model, as shown in Figure 2. This model consists of 8 steps that every organization that wants to make innovations a daily occurrence in its environment should go through (Stouten, Rousseau, and De Cremer, 2018).
Step 1
In the first stage, managers create a sense of urgency and the need for change among employees. However, in order for employees to really want to innovate and consider it necessary, it was required to provide statistics on the effectiveness of such methods for effective work (Jayatilleke and Lai, 2018). Instead, the leaders only informed the employees that the company was making changes to its workplace rest policy. Thus, the employees did not have enough information about the innovation, and therefore they perceived it as a threat.
Step 2
Additionally, change often requires strong leadership and visible support from key people in your organization. According to Kotter’s theory, to bring about change, leaders need to assemble a coalition or team of influential people whose power comes from various sources, including position, status, and experience.
In Company Y, it was decided to implement this step only at the top management level. As a result, people who could support and stimulate change were not selected from ordinary employees. Thus, most of the employees of Company Y needed to understand why the break room should be changed and needed to appreciate the rationale for creating training spaces. They believed that additional training on various topics could be provided outside of working hours and that they could choose the course or term of study themselves.
Consequently, the problem of employee dissatisfaction with innovation arose in the second stage, according to Kotter’s theory (Jayatilleke and Lai, 2018). Therefore, a dissonance arose between the desires of employees who were not involved in the collaboration and the company’s top management.
Step 3
When managers noticed that employees were not interested in change, they immediately moved to the third step of the change theory. In this way, a change vision was created, according to which the values of Company Y were associated with those that would bring change to the team. Accordingly, the leaders argued that an innovative approach to recreation correlated with a concern for employee health. This step was done well, and the managers were able to justify how the change in activities would have a positive impact on employees’ stress resistance, performance, and effectiveness.
Step 4
In accordance with the theory of change, the fourth step is to communicate the vision of the innovation to the masses (Jayatilleke and Lai, 2018). As the coalition of employees that should support the change was not formed at all levels in Company Y, problems emerged. Accordingly, the managers’ message was in strong competition with other daily communications within the company. Consequently, most employees should have addressed it or considered the innovative change seriously. Hence, the support for the new type of work break and relaxation in Company Y was insignificant.
Steps 5 – 7
The next step in introducing an innovative change involves identifying and dealing with obstacles. According to Kotter’s theory, removing obstacles can help the people Company Y needs to realize its vision, and this can help the change move forward. In this stage, the managers began to analyze employees’ reactions and attitudes toward change. Then, they concluded that most ordinary workers were not interested in innovation. Hence, the managers and the supervisor were faced with the task of identifying the problematic point in the implementation of Kotter’s theory that could lead to the ineffectiveness of the new break room (Jayatilleke and Lai, 2018). To determine the gap, the managers began to communicate with the regular employees and tell them about the new changes; that is, they acted as a coalition that would promote the idea at all levels in Company Y. After the people responsible for implementing the changes discovered that Kotter’s previous steps did not reach the regular employees, they decided to hold a large meeting.
Thus, all staff members of Company Y were invited to the meeting, where they could listen to the leader’s speech and learn about the benefits of the innovative break room from the brochures that were distributed to them. Employees were able to ask managers about all the points they were interested in and received comprehensive answers. It helped to increase the spread of knowledge about the innovative break room and attract more people to support it. This was the main method of implementing Kotter’s theory in the Company Y team because only the desire of employees to try innovative ways of relaxing could lead to positive changes in their work.
Moreover, in order to correct previous mistakes, the leaders invited employees selected at random to test one simulator. They created an environment where several employees could take an hour in the middle of their workday to distract themselves and brush up on their fishing, driving, or other non-work-related skills.
Thus, during the week, employees tested this innovative type of recreation, and their managers assessed significant improvements in their work productivity. The study was communicated to all Company Y staff, giving them a sense of short-term victory. Hence, it convinced employees that innovative changes could be beneficial for them. As a result, almost all employees started to support the modernization of the break rooms and expected changes.
Nevertheless, during the testing of the innovation room, the managers identified several shortcomings that needed to be addressed to ensure continuous change. Accordingly, they had to add more activities for each employee to find their hobbies and create accounts for each employee so that only they could control their own results. At this stage of Kotter’s theory, the company’s managers had effectively fulfilled their roles to ensure that the changes were qualitative (Jayatilleke and Lai, 2018).
Step 8
The last step to implement the changes was to anchor the changes in the corporate culture. Thus, when the innovative break rooms became available to all employees, the leaders continuously supported their use and emphasized the positive impact on the daily activities of the employees.
The Results of the Change Implementation at Company Y
Accordingly, Company Y used John Kotter’s change implementation model to introduce innovative changes. Because, in the first stages, the leaders could not follow the steps outlined in theory, the introduction of innovative break rooms had some difficulties. At first, most employees were distrustful and wary of the changes. Nevertheless, after analyzing the risks, managers began to correct the problematic issues and create mechanisms to engage Company Y’s employees actively in innovative changes.
Thus, the transformation in Company Y was successful, but due to mistakes made while implementing Kotter’s model, not all employees appreciated the changes. As a result, about twenty percent of Company Y’s employees disregard the new simulations and believe they can work effectively without the snake of activities offered by the simulations. Thus, managing innovative change in Company X was more successful than in Company Y.
Evaluation of My Performance
It is significant to note that innovative leadership is distinguished by the fact that the leader constantly broadcasts a creative version of the organization’s future development. Nevertheless, not only the CEO and top managers implement changes, but also ordinary employees. The innovator works closely with the team and inspires subordinates. Thus, in this leadership style, it is essential to work on oneself, constantly honing professional skills continuously (Rosenbach, 2018). Even though the economic environment is changing rapidly, such leaders need to confirm a high level of competence and take on complex tasks.
Meanwhile, I believe that I have the ability to unite people and implement innovative changes in the company. I have an ability that is contagious only to innovative leaders, namely, to operate in unfamiliar environments and experiment without fear of negative consequences. I took many courses and seminars aimed at improving my leadership skills. This allows me to hear experts’ opinions on how to apply specific theories of change and leadership in practice. Consequently, I use their experience in my work to avoid risks for employees and the company as a whole.
Nevertheless, it has been a long learning process to develop my own leadership style that would inspire people and their trust. At the beginning of my career, I had problems building trust when introducing innovations characterized by high risk. Some ideas that are recognized as progressive will not lead the company to victory, and my employees understood this.
At first, I initially had yet to learn how to communicate the changes to the team enough to gain their trust. It was only after attending additional training and reading a lot of literature that I was able to use the theory of innovation diffusion. Therefore, I started to use social adoption, which is determined by how often people share an innovation with others, how other people perceive it, and how quickly they start using the innovation. Moreover, as an innovation leader, I had the capacity to spread the necessary information about the changes in the team and to ensure that employees trusted the innovations and my ideas.
Therefore, as an innovation leader, I can develop a strategy. The company should have guidelines on which areas of innovation will lead to a breakthrough (Busari et al., 2020). This will make it obvious to the team members where the company’s activities are directed to achieve success. However, I often face a problem that requires removing obstacles and getting rid of stereotypes that hinder change. For this purpose, it is required to consider the identified problems from different perspectives and listen to subordinates’ suggestions (Rosenbach, 2018). I attempt to follow these steps to ensure that innovative changes are implemented correctly, but I am often afraid of obstacles.
At the beginning of my career, I often did not complete projects because of the risks and threats of failure. Even now, I always consider stopping an innovative change if the team does not support it. However, for an innovative leader to be successful, it is vital to look for ways to solve problems, not to stand back in the face of difficulties (Bednall et al., 2018). Hence, in this aspect, my own activities need to complete the basic postulates of innovative leadership.
Accordingly, I have problems with introducing innovations in the organization and adhering to the style of an innovative leader. At the same time, I am constantly trying to find ways to solve these shortcomings, which is why I study a lot of literature on innovative leadership. As a result, this gradually allows me to enhance my skills and ability to work with a team.
In summary, my assessment of my own interpretation as a leader of innovation and change is not favorable. However, I am constantly trying to become better and use theories of change and innovation to implement my own ideas effectively. Moreover, I have developed general leadership qualities, and constant work on mastering innovative leadership will ensure that I will achieve high goals in the future.
Conclusion
Therefore, leadership is one of the most effective ways of influencing subordinates, involving comprehensive self-analysis, a method of activating and motivating employees. At the same time, theories of innovation and change are designed to help innovative leaders consistently implement changes in the organization. As a rule, they are divided into certain stages, which allows for consistent implementation of innovative projects and timely response to their risks.
Moreover, adherence to such basic theories as diffusion of innovation, Kotter’s 8-stage change model, Hall’s concerns-based adoption model, the chocolate model, and the path-goal theory permits for gradual implementation of changes in companies. Moreover, there are prosperous and less successful examples of applying these theories in practice. This is due to the ability of leaders and managers to adhere to the basic postulates of the theories and to implement them in practice.
Accordingly, it is necessary to strictly follow the recommendations provided in theory and choose the appropriate method of innovative changes adapted to a particular company’s needs. I consider that I have the abilities of an innovative leader, but to successfully develop the ornamentation, I need to enhance my leadership skills. Hence, I will continue my studies and identify my weaknesses in practice to correct them.
Reference List
Bednall, T. et al. (2018) “Innovative behaviour: how much transformational leadership do you need?” British Journal of Management, 29(4), pp. 796-816. Web.
Busari, A. et al. (2020) “Transformational leadership style, followership, and factors of employees’ reactions towards organizational change,” Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14(2), pp. 181-209. Web.
Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2019) Making sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Daft, R. (2021) Management. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Daft, R. and Marcic, D. (2022) Understanding management.Boston: Cengage Learning.
Dearing, J. and Cox, J. (2018) “Diffusion of innovations theory, principles, and practice,” Health Affairs, 37(2), pp. 183-190. Web.
Galli, B. (2018) “Change management models: a comparative analysis and concerns,” IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(3), pp. 124-132. Web.
Galli, B. J. (2019) “Comparison of change management models: similarities, differences, and which is most effective?” R&D Management in the Knowledge Era: Challenges of Emerging Technologies,1, pp. 605-624. Web.
Griffin, R. (2021) Fundamentals of management. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Hayes, J. (2022) The theory and practice of change management. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hickman, C. R. and Silva, M. A. (2018) Creating excellence: managing corporate culture, strategy, and change in the new age. Milton Park: Routledge.
Jayatilleke, S. and Lai, R. (2018) “A systematic review of requirements change management,” Information and Software Technology, 93, pp. 163-185. Web.
Kerzner, H. (2019) Using the project management maturity model: strategic planning for project management. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Laig, R. and Abocejo, F. (2021) “Change management process in a mining company: Kotter’s 8-Step change model,” Journal of Management, Economics, and Industrial Organization, 5(3), pp. 31-50. Web.
Nasser, A. and Al-Taie, A. (2021) “The behavior of the security leader and its impact on achieving strategic initiatives within the framework of (path-goal) theory,” PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(10), pp. 1400-1415.
Nicholls, A. (2018) Managing educational innovations. Milton Park: Routledge.
Olson, K. et al. (2020) “The concerns-based adoption model and strategic plan evaluation: Multiple methodologies to understand complex change. Educational Research: Theory and Practice,31(3), pp. 49-58.
Olowoselu, A., bin Mohamad, M. and Mohamed Farag Mohamed Aboudahr, S. (2019) “Path-goal theory and the application in educational management and leadership.” Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(2). Web.
Rosenbach, W. (2018) Contemporary issues in leadership. Milton Park: Routledge.
Steiss, A. (2019) Strategic management for public and nonprofit organizations. Milton Park: Routledge.
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M. and De Cremer, D. (2018) “Successful organizational change: integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures,” Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), pp. 752-788. Web.
Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. R. (2020) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change.Denver: John Wiley & Sons.
Appendix
