Managing Organizational Change and Creativity

Because of the long-term gains to the company, creativity is now at the top of most executives' management agendas (Coelho et al., 2011, p.35). If the corporate climate grows more competitive, executives must focus on developing strong client relationships and exploiting competition to retain leadership in different sectors. In most situations, workers may be included in actions that specifically affect their job environment in order to prevent elevated levels of confusion. Creativity is described as the generation of new entrepreneurial ideas that can lead to the establishment of a company or the continuation of established enterprises. Appropriate brainstorming capacity among the employees in an organization is a prerequisite to prosperity. Notably, a favorable environment creates an opportunity for workers to channel their creative mind in ways that are beneficial to the business. Failure to actively involve the employees in development processes cripples the likely success (Amabile & Khaire 2008, n.p). Based on these grounds, this write-up seeks to examine the management responsibility in fostering an appropriate enabling environment for employees’ creativity.
Change from Physical to Cognitive Approaches to Work
Sewell (2005, p.686) debated the physical toil of manufacturing as expressed in the Marxist labour process theory (LPT) which pointed out the existence of limited creativity among the employees. The initial management approaches emphasized excessive workplace control. In the classical LPT, the managers sought to exercise control over both the cognitive and the physical aspects of workforce. It provided an opportunity for complete subordination and employees were mainly entitled to specific processes that equated them to machines. As a result, the workforce status yielded a considerable gap between the national capacity and the outcomes. It is on these grounds that Sewell (2005, p.686) noted that the employees during the classical period worked more with their hands. Marx in its theory pointed out that lack of control in the production processes among the labourers as source alienation. It implied that the work organization created value but allowed the managers to exercise monopoly powers upon the employees. Given the classical scenario, the process of labour subjected employees to minimal brainstorming, but with much physical work. The management approaches also emphasized excessive control over the employees to the extent that the working environment became unconducive for new ideas.
However, the changing economic conditions across the globe necessitate more brainwork than physical efforts (Slatten et al., 2011, p.269). There is an increasing competition across the industries for limited resources and the market share. The human capital that is employees plays a significant role in determining the success of an organization. Bridging the gap between the labour power and the productivity is a key managerial role in the current business environment. It implies that executives have come to the reality of the fact that they do not monopolize the knowledge regarding effective work solutions. It is agreeable that employees are a source of innovative ideas that can be implemented to promote business success. In as much as there is constant need to create a working environment whereby workers have the freedom to express their opinions, workplace control is still a significant barrier to creativity (Anderson et al., 2014, p.1309). Therefore, knowledge management is an essential factor in maintaining organizational success. Creativity results in better outcomes than the excessively controlled workplace.
Marxist labour process theory focused on the physical aspects of labour. However, Sewell (2005, p.696) validates the hypothesis because management control of the body that yield coordination of knowledge is vital to organizational success. Employee autonomy is only essential to the extent of management control that creates compliance to the existing moral standards. According to Dyer (2015, n.p), creativity is reinforced by the organizational incentives resulting from observations in the workplace. Creating an environment where all employees have autonomy in their roles results into positive experience among the clients. For example, the food prices were increasing at Zingerman’s Roadhouse restaurant. It took the help of a dishwasher to observe the vast remains of food that were wasted and to suggest an idea (Dyer 2015, n.p). Working with other team members, the management opted to reduce the volume of fries offered and free refills to avoid wastage. As a result, the restaurant successfully saved costs without a change in service delivery.
In this competitive age, creativity is a necessary aspect that draws the line of success among the business organization. It is the central concern that Sewell referred to as working with head rather than hands (Sewell 2005, p.695). The working environment has become more dynamic and requires that creativity is considered as part of the necessities for the managers. However, workplace control cannot be entirely disregarded. It is the role of the managers to guide the creative opinions and draw diverse groups into a cohesive unit that results in meaningful outcomes. Notably, organizations are governed by laid down structures most of which are hierarchical. It implies that the existing channels of communication restrict to some extents the idea sharing among the employees. The process of the invention is usually characterized by differing opinions which must be guided to be selective of the ideas that are considered creative. Sewell (2005, p.700) contended that the knowledge economy is impotent in the face of excessive power that is control over the cognitive and physical components of labour. Therefore managers should strike a balance between the aspects of control and autonomy in order to enhance performance within the organization.
Changes in Working Arrangements and Expectations in the Knowledge Economy
The turn from pure technologically based research as the only source of organizational changes to the knowledge economy has altered the working arrangements and expectations among employees (Jessop 2012, p.64). Overemphasis in the former aspects of research and development resulted in routine economic activities which provided minimal opportunity for open innovation. With the dawn of the new era, knowledge is considered as the primary source of innovation. Meanwhile, the inventions, in this case, are science-based, non-rivalry, and result in economic and social change. There is tangible evidence in the production processes and management approaches that indicate the turn in economic dimension. For instance, the current quality of cars is not determined by metal fabrications but by the creativity in the use of technology to provide entertainment and increase the safety of the users. Other aspects include the transfer of business operations to online platforms and the increase in the availability of information goods (Johannessen & Oslen, 2010, p.507). The stated changes are a reflection in the domains of work arrangements as well as expectations from the workers.
Independence and search for meaning are the main expectation in the knowledge economy. Chen and Huang (2009, p.109) argue that most managers begin to learn the importance of allowing employees gain high autonomy in the work roles. Increase in information technology has vastly promoted the desire for independence, especially among the millennial population. Employees derive a lot of satisfaction in what they do through their initiative than the work roles that are based on the command. Most people consider an ideal working opportunity to be found on the level of autonomy. In this case, there are set objectives that an employee is expected to meet under the guidance and limited supervision. The reduced tendencies of micromanagement among executives are a significant boost to the independence that professionals seek. It is also an opportunity to exploit employees’ potential and increase productivity due to creative ideas. The workers are given tasks, and the managers receive updates in the form of feedback to ensure they are on target (Jessop 2012, p.80). The essence of creativity is based on the process of accomplishing the roles which can then be developed to inform future improvements.
Employees also search for meaningful lives in the various workplaces as part of their expectation following the new era of a knowledge-based economy (Hirst et al., 2009, p.290). Flexibility in the working environment creates an opportunity for socializing and interaction among employees. It allows the workers and the teams to freely connect with other professionals, express their emotions, and pursue their passions without stringent restrictions. The knowledge-based economy has improved the ability of connection between people in different geographical regions. The efficiency of an employee depends heavily on their achievements unlike their presence at the workplace as demonstrated in the previous economic order. When the working environment fails to provide the necessary room for creativity, it also remains unattractive mainly for best talents. In such cases, the nature of employment limits the worker's ability to interact and socialize with colleagues (Anderson et al., 2014, p.1318). It is the reason most companies invest in mobile business operations to take advantage of the small social attachments which give employees a more meaningful experience that facilitates creativity and innovation.
Additionally, the knowledge-based economy which focuses on the information as the key driver of performance is also characterized by changes in the work arrangements (Chen & Huang 2009, p.110). There is increasing the tendency of the reduced boundary in within the organization. The trend is attributed to the need for different talents to work together more efficiently to promote performance based on teamwork. As a result of information sharing and openness in communication, the formerly existing hierarchies in the structuring of leadership become more decentralized or are getting replaced by fewer layers and cross-unit groups. It enables the management to harness the diverse opinions to generate creative ideas that can boost productivity and the overall performance. The managers strive to form productive teams which act as the building blocks to improve the entire processes and generate feedback that can inform the decision making and guide improvements. There are also constant changes to reorganize the leadership, approaches to business activities, and create room for accommodating innovation. It is the result of continually changing preferences as new ideas set in the economy and the competitive landscape changes. Finally, the managers no longer serve as the commanders who monopolized knowledge and labour power as in the case of Marxist Labour Process Theory (LPT) (Sewell 2005, p.686). Instead, they mainly serve as coaches enabling them to support the creative initiatives from the employees and other stakeholders for the overall increase in performance.
There are also significant changes in the workplace arrangement regarding the design, engagement, and the relational aspects among the employees (Johannessen & Oslen 2010, p.505). The knowledge-based economy necessitates the development of value system that matches the existing economic trends. It implies that the managers must establish a workplace relationship that conducive to the customers and the employees to facilitate collaborative efforts in the search for better ideas. Denver Federal Center is an example of workplace adjustment to create space for interaction among employees. The socialization process ongoing in the organizational café, pool table, and exercise room among other places is cited as the source of improved social outcomes within a short period (Heerwagen et al., 2016, n.p). The new designs have indicated the reduction in costs estimated to be about 37-60% for the case of CISCO Systems (Heerwagen et al., 2016, n.p). Technological advancement is creatively used to facilitate communication between employees. Instead of the former workplace designs that enabled managers to confine employees to the assigned roles without an opportunity to share their opinions for the corporate good.
The terms of engagement have also changed as part of the work arrangement and produced limited commitment and time burdens among the employees (Jessop 2012, p.63). While the emphasis is laid in knowledge management and improvements, the employees are subjected to rigorous training and development which has both personal and corporate benefits. Upon the decision to move to another organization in search of better pay or the more challenging environment, the worker does not leave behind the skills gained through training. Moreover, the instances of outsourcing and downsizing have created further time constraints among most of the employees. As a result, the employees have tight time schedules to balance the volume of work to do and the available timeframes. Other aspects of engagement including highly flexible work arrangements limit the choice of employees regarding the location and when to perform the tasks (Sewell 2005, p.692). The technological advancements that have resulted in the effective communication yet it has failed to create sufficient time for social life.
The altered work arrangement in the face of the knowledge based economy has both merits and demerits to creativity (Coelho et al., 2011, p.40). The resulting impacts due to change has primarily promoted the role of human capital unlike the absolute dependence on technology to provide solutions to the social and economic problems. The approaches to contemporary issues using the knowledge-based techniques in job places have yielded growth and improved productivity. It also the emblem of creativity and innovation within the organization since it gives an opportunity for interaction and consideration of the new ideas from all stakeholders. However, the emphasis resulting from the work arrangements continue to enlarge the income and unemployment gaps between the skilled and unskilled labour. In as much as most entrepreneurs focus on the creation of information based industries, the high specialized workforce market continues to shrink as the few available professionals use machines and to cover a lot of tasks (Anderson et al., 2014, p.1304). The trend will continue to change the workplace arrangements and expectations among the employees and managers.
The Role of Management in Supporting Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is viewed as a significant step in leveraging competitiveness as well as proper business positioning (Slatten et al., 2011, p.277). Management has the responsibility to promote innovation among its employees to gain from more imaginative approaches to solving business problems. There are several ways for managers to achieve organizational creativity including building intellectual challenge. Notably, the workers have their periodic objectives which they are required to provide feedback at designated intervals. In the process of undertaking such tasks related to the achievement of the desired goals, it is vital that managers challenge the employees to see the different creative levels among them. Amabile and Khaire (2008, n.p) contend that intellectual challenge is a source of motivation among the employees, especially in the research and development departments. They further noted its ability to enhance innovative output and increase independence among the team members.
Moreover, managers should provide a favourable environment for the generation of ideas as well as its commercialization (Gumusluoglu Llsev 2009, p.465). In as much as most people have the creative capability, the realization of their existence is not a sign of support. An organization is like any other bureaucratic institution which requires the support of different departments to accept a new idea. Changes resulting from creative work may not suit the interest of all stakeholders. Therefore, it will receive resistance at different stages and from separate personalities within the organization. It is the role of the managers to be committed to the course innovation that an idea can survive to maturity. Creating a suitable surrounding also imply the availability of freedom to pursue individual passions. It enables the employees to spend more time pursuing what best suits them (Damanpour & Schneider 2008, p.501). There exists a great diversity among the staff member with some more radical than others. As a result, the managers will be able to harness creativity by matching interests with capability and passion.
The process of generating new ideas is usually accompanied by specific failures. Managers play a significant role in handling the creativity outcomes in a manner that encourage employees and provide psychological safety (Slatten et al., 2011, p.280). Instead of reacting to failures through humiliations and punishments, managers who develop mechanisms to enable workers to learn from the unsuccessful attempts stand a better position of improving future outcomes. According to Amabile and Khaire (2008, n.p), the achievements of XM and Sirius in satellite radio industry was a product of 15 years of constant struggle amidst failures. The managers can, therefore, support organizational creativity by focusing on positive progress despite the obstacles. They also need to be more appreciative of the employees who make efforts to establish new approaches to existing problems. In this case, many people are motivated to confidently face the challenges and think of innovative ways that promote productivity and performance.
Conclusion
Apparently, creativity is a vital asset that requires an enabling environment provided by the management in an organizational setup. The increased emphasis on the human capital as the source of corporate creativity and success accompanied by unique economic and social conditions that plague companies necessitate working with heads more than with hands. Sewell pointed out the classical period based on the Marxist labour process theory which emphasized command among managers. In this ace, they exercise control over the personnel power as well as the physical capabilities of the employees. The increasing awareness of the gap between the knowledge and outcome has promoted the desire to institute autonomy in the work processes. Additionally, the turn in knowledge economy has impacted the working arrangements and expectations regarding the organizational structure, working space and terms of engagements in the organizations. Finally, managers can support corporate creativity and innovation through the intellectual challenge, appreciating efforts by employees, and providing a suitable environment to create an opportunity for harnessing new ideas.


Bibliography
Amabile, T and Khaire, M., 2008.Creativity and the Role of the Leader. Harvard Business Review.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K. and Zhou, J., 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), pp.1297-1333.
Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W., 2009. Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), pp.104-114.
Coelho, F., Augusto, M. and Lages, L.F., 2011. Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline employees: The mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), pp.31-45.
Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M., 2008. Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), pp.495-522.
Dyer, B., 2015. Why creativity is absolutely crucial in the workplace. fortune. [Online] (updated 2017) Available at: [Accessed November 6, 2017]
Gumusluoglu, L. and Ilsev, A., 2009. Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), pp.461-473.
Heerwagen, J., Kelly, K., and Kakschroer, K., 2016. The changing nature of organizations, work and workplace. [Online] (updated 2016) Available at: [Accessed November 6, 2017]
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D. and Zhou, J., 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), pp.280-293.
Jessop, B., 2012. A cultural political economy of competitiveness. The knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning (pp. 57-83). SensePublishers.
Johannessen, J.A. and Olsen, B., 2010. The future of value creation and innovations: Aspects of a theory of value creation and innovation in a global knowledge economy. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), pp.502-511.
Sewell, G., 2005. Nice work? Rethinking managerial control in an era of knowledge work. Organization, 12(5), pp.685-704.
Slåtten, T., Svensson, G. and Sværi, S., 2011. Empowering leadership and the influence of a humorous work climate on service employees' creativity and innovative behaviour in frontline service jobs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3(3), pp.267-284.