Analysis

It is extremely essential for an organization to adapt itself to the changing situations in the market scenario, in order to survive in the long run. For that purpose of maintaining the status quo of its survival, organizations embark upon a constant endeavor to innovate itself by implementing the models of creativity (Glisson 2015). This particular report shall be concerning itself with the task of providing a critical analysis of two chosen models of innovation, the climate model, and the creative leadership and human resource management strategies, for the development of an organization. The central question that motivates this particular report is to select certain aspects from the two chosen theoretical propositions on the basis of the critical analysis and recommend them as the paths to be taken by ‘The Diwan of the Royal Court’ to innovate itself and imbibe the spirit of creativity in its mode of functioning. This is supposed to be the subject matter of discussion in the following sections.

A set of value orientations, goals, objectives, symbolisms form the basis of the culture of an organization. It is something which is static and is the factor which affects the organizational climate (Barbera 2014).

Organizational climate is synonymous to the work environment that prevails in a particular organization. Thus it can be said that Organizational Climate refers to the overall behaviour and reaction of the employees to the organizational culture (Huyghe and Knockaert 2015). The Climate Model is a set of five models which generates an impact in affecting creativity and innovation in an organization.

The Autocratic Model has its basis in the theory of McGregor. The central argument of the theory harps upon the fact that personnel placed at a position of authority must have the capacity and the scope to command. Cameron and Green (2015) mention that the premise from which this sentiment emanates is that for the proper functioning of an organization it is extremely necessary that managers command and the maintenance of the hierarchal arrangement is inevitable. McGregor had provided a negative image of human nature. Cummings and Worley (2014) point out that human beings are reluctant to work unless there is some coercive mechanism. The Autocratic Model prescribes that the employees are constantly motivated to innovate and be creative by the threat of sanctions and by keeping the employees perpetually under a disciplined set up which shall deter the employees from underperforming.

The Custodian Model on the other hand focuses upon generating organizational creativity and innovation by inspiring the employees through a system of perks and privileges. The basic premise on which this particular model is based is on the fact that the lure of perks and privileges tend to inspire the spirit of creativity in people. The Custodian Model seeks to utilize the drive of an employee to achieve the monetary benefits and also the aspirations to be promoted in the higher echelons in the organizational hierarchy (Burke 2017).

The Supportive Model of organizational behaviour seeks to shift the focus from power, authority and financial perks and privileges to boost the climate of creativity and innovation by means of forging inter personal relationships between the managers and the employees. The basic philosophy behind this motivational model in the organizational climate is that the human nature is essentially cooperative it needs to be inspired by appealing to it. Hence the role of the managers and the human resource managers are quite important as this particular model prescribes that for the sake of generating a climate of creativity and innovation, the hegemonic and leadership capabilities of the personnel placed at the higher echelon of the organizational structure is important (Cummings and Worley 2014).

Organizational culture

The Collegial Model, is quite similar to the Supportive Model, the only difference being that the latter harps upon the motivational strategy which involves an interaction between the higher authority and the employees at the lower level, which makes it more vertical. Belias and Koustelios (2015) opine that while the Collegial Model lays emphasis on a horizontal model of motivation. This particular model seeks to disseminate the idea that the climate of inspiring creativity and innovation is supposed to be the duty of the fellow team members. In that process the intra team solidarity shall be maintained which is crucial for innovation to proliferate.

Luthans, Luthans and Luthans (2015) mention that The System Model considers the role of the employee in an organization with a great deal of importance hence it stresses that the motivational strategies should be consider the contribution of the employee not just a matter of exchange relationship between the organization and the employee. Hence the emphasis should be more on having trust upon the employee that he or she shall be committed to devoting their enterprise to the organization as a matter of duty and not just as a transaction. This trust on part of the organization on the employees shall be beneficial in generating a climate of innovation and creativity in the organization (Chemers 2014).

The second model for generating the climate of creativity and innovation focuses on the role of the Human Resource Management and the Organizational Leadership. It is supposed that the lower level employees shall be looking up to the employees having an authoritative hold on the affairs of the organization, the managers and the directors for example. The leadership must be bringing the best out of the potential of the employees. The Human Resource Managers must ensure that they mobilize the employees properly and provide the necessary personal touch to the functioning of the organization, so that the personal concerns of the employees can be taken care of. In this way the climate of innovation and creativity can be maintained in the organization (Luthans, Luthans and Luthans 2015).

Creativity and innovation are the cornerstones for competitive advantage and leadership in business organizations. Bock et al.(2015) mentions that innovation heralds productivity in business organizations. Jamieson and Shaw (2017) strengthens that decision making and leadership are dynamic processes since their application in organizations. The main role of leadership is leading the organisations across challenges and threats which the latter face in the market due to changes in the macroeconomic situations. The management of business organisations as a result require to form plans to promote creativity and innovation in the organisations. The two models which business organisations can follow to promote innovation and creativity are custodian model and supportive model. The third model which would play a very important plan would be participative leadership model. Lumbasi et al. (2016) mentions that first step of innovation plans would be gaining participation of all the staff members. The managers would require to exercise participative leadership style and educate their subordinates about the importance of innovation to bring about improvement in productivity. Laursen and Foss (2014) points out that embracing innovation and creativity would require the employees to be trained on the new ways of operations. It can be pointed out that two models would come into play in the second step of innovation and creativity promotion namely, human resource management and organisational leadership model and supportive model. The employees of the organisations would be required to be imparted training which is a very important aspect of HRM and organisational leadership model.  The management would be required to provide the resources required to train the employees like training rooms and training classes. Dhar (2015) point out that these training resources which the management provides to the employees are the supports which elevate the motivation of the employees to embrace innovations. The management is the main driver of innovation and creativity. The management would train the employees and monitor the performances which would be the fourth step in the innovation promotion plan. Sung and Choi (2014) strengthens the discussion by mentioning that management on recognising flaws in the performances post training, should take steps to rectify the flaws. This would be the last and the fifth step of innovation and creativity promotion across the length and breadth of the organisational operation.

Autocratic Model

Conclusion

The Autocratic Model is applicable only when the key to motivating employees to be innovative and creative in the organizational climate is concerned with the satisfaction of the physiological needs of the employees (Burke and Noumair 2015).

The Custodian Model seeks to increase the level of dependency on part of the employees. This particular climate model seeks to explain human nature in a very materialistic and utilitarian way, hence the organizational climate has to generate creativity by providing more rewards to be achieved (Burke and Noumair 2015).

Compared to the Autocratic Model and the Custodian Model, the Supportive Model is non materialistic and it is more inspirational in its orientation. The method of inspiring innovation and creativity is more psychological as it aims to derive the best out of an employee by instilling the positive spirit, without coercing (Burke and Noumair 2015).

The Collegial Model is significant as it seeks to generate the spirit of democracy in the climate of an organization and encourage the free flow of ideas. This particular model is thus very Aristotelian in nature as it is based on the premise that human beings are but social animals, and in collectivity the best out of human beings can be derived out (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad 2016).

The System Model views the human resources as the most important component in the integrated system called the organization. It seeks to generate a climate of innovation and creativity by conveying the idea that employee is of utmost importance in the organizational structure (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad 2016).  

The role of the Organizational Leadership and the Human Resource Managers are but a combination of the various models that form a part of the Climate Model of Organization. Their roles call for striking a balance between the various aspects of the Climate Model, and apply them as and when necessary (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad 2016).

As it has already been mentioned that the role of the Leaders and the Human Resource Managers are but an amalgamation of the aspects discussed in the Climate Model, the discussion shall now be devoted to recommend the best possible techniques for implementation to generate innovation and creativity for the chosen organization, ‘The Diwan of the Royal Court’. The recommended aspects of the Climate Model ought to be implemented by the Leaders and the Human Resource Managers of ‘The Diwan of the Royal Court’ should be the Supportive, Collegial and System Model (Anand, Vidyarthi and Rolnicki 2018). These are being recommended as they have the inherent feature of valuing the contribution of the employees and seeks to convince the employees which is very essential. Coercion and the lure of material benefits does not ensure the retention of employees in the long run. Valuing the humanness of the employees is of prime importance for an organization to keep up the smooth functioning. The Autocratic and the Custodian Model seeks to view the employees as mere agents of production and reduces their contribution as a mere commodities. The models tend to view the employees as beneficiaries of the organization, which is a mistaken and a parochial approach, since the professional relationship between the employees and the management are complementary to each other, not of dependency (Anand, Vidyarthi and Rolnicki 2018).

References

Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. and Rolnicki, S., 2018. Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), pp.489-500.

Barbera, K.M., 2014. The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture. Oxford University Press.

Belias, D. and Koustelios, A., 2015. Leadership style, job satisfaction and organizational culture in the Greek banking organization. Journal of Management Research (09725814), 15(2).

Bock, A.J., Eisengerich, A.B., Sharapov, D. and George, G., 2015. Innovation and leadership: When does CMO leadership improve performance from innovation?. SAGE Open, 5(2), p.2158244015586812.

Burke, W.W. and Noumair, D.A., 2015. Organization Development (Paperback): A Process of Learning and Changing. FT Press.

Burke, W.W., 2017. Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2015. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers.

Chemers, M., 2014. An integrative theory of leadership. Psychology Press.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage learning.

Dhar, R.L., 2015. Service quality and the training of employees: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Tourism Management, 46, pp.419-430.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A., 2016. The nature and outcomes of destructive leadership behavior in organizations. Risky Business: Psychological, Physical and Financial Costs of High Risk Behavior in Organizations, p.323.

Glisson, C., 2015. The role of organizational culture and climate in innovation and effectiveness. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(4), pp.245-250.

Huyghe, A. and Knockaert, M., 2015. The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), pp.138-160.

Jamieson, M.V. and Shaw, J.M., 2017. Applying metacognitive strategies to teaching engineering innovation, design, and leadership. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).

Laursen, K. and Foss, N.J., 2014. Human resource management practices and innovation. Handbook of innovation management, pp.505-530.

Lumbasi, G.W., K’Aol, G.O. and Ouma, C.A., 2016. The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on the Performance of COYA Senior Managers in Kenya.

Luthans, F., Luthans, B.C. and Luthans, K.W., 2015. Organizational Behavior: An EvidenceBased Approach. IAP.

Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N., 2014. Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(3), pp.393-412.

Dees, J.G., 2017. 1 The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. In Case Studies in Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainability(pp. 34-42). Routledge.

Drucker, P., 2014. Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.

Edwards-Schachter, M., García-Granero, A., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Quesada-Pineda, H. and Amara, N., 2015. Disentangling competences: Interrelationships on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, pp.27-39.

Galindo, M.Á. and Méndez, M.T., 2014. Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work?. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), pp.825-829.

Sahut, J.M. and Peris-Ortiz, M., 2014. Small business, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42(4), pp.663-668.