HUMAN CHALLENGES IN

INNOVATIONDr Karen Becker

Faculty of Business, QUT

A VIEW OF INNOVATION… Innovation can be about doing things better

(incremental innovation) or doing things differently (radical innovation)

If we want to improve anything in an organisation; product, process, positioning or ways of managing, then change is necessary

The changes that are usually required to innovate are that people think and/or behave differently

Therefore, innovation is ultimately about how well we facilitate change in people

Resistance to change is often cited as the “evil” when we are seeking to innovate

RESISTANCE – MACHIAVELLI WAS RIGHT…

“It must be realised that there is nothing more difficult to plan,

more uncertain of success, or more dangerous to manage

than the establishment of a new order of [things];

for he who introduces [change] makes enemies of all those

who derived advantage from the old order and finds but lukewarm defenders

among those who stand to gain from the new one.”

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CHANGE Incremental/continuous improvement vs

discontinuous/radical transformation Lewin’s model – simplistic but often underlies

more complex models Often consider organisational level, but not

always individual perspectives Resistance isn’t necessarily negative -

resistance to change is a natural process even for those in favour of change

Recognise emotions & resistance as opportunities – logical and rational arguments are not enough

“Experts” are often the most likely to resist change

WHO’S WHO IN THE ZOO...

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/resistance_change/resistance_zoo.htm

PERHAPS A KEY? UNLEARNING The Issues

Pace of changeResistance to changeLack of attention to individual issues in

innovation research and practiceHow do individuals relinquish past practice?

Unlearning – a background and overview Case Studies A model of unlearning

UNLEARNING DEFINITIONSCegarra-Navarro &

Dewhurst“Organisational unlearning… is defined as the dynamic process that

identifies and removes ineffective and obsolete knowledge and routines, which block the collective appropriation of new knowledge and opportunities” (Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst, 2006, p. 51)

Hedberg “Knowledge grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as reality changes. Understanding involves both learning new knowledge and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge” (Hedberg, 1981, p. 3)

Newstrom “…the process of reducing or eliminating preexisting knowledge or habits that would otherwise represent formidable barriers to new learning.” (Newstrom, 1983, p. 36)

Prahalad & Bettis “Unlearning is simply the process by which firms eliminate old logics and behaviours and make room for new ones.” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 498)

Starbuck “Unlearning is a process that shows people they should no longer rely on their current beliefs and methods” (Starbuck, 1996, p. 727)

• ...the process by which individuals acknowledge and release prior learning (including assumptions and mental frameworks) in order to accommodate new information and behaviours (Becker 2007, 2008)

A TYPOLOGY OF LEARNING SITUATIONS(BASED ON NEWSTROM, 1983, P 37)

Situation No.

ModelOld - New

Objective of Change Significance of

Unlearning

1 0—A Create a new behaviour Negligible

2 B—B Sustain a previous behaviour Low

3 B—B+ Increase amount of behaviour or skill level available

Moderate

4 B—B- Decrease amount of behaviour or skill level available

Moderate

5 B—B+C Add a new behaviour to existing repertoire

Low

6 B—D Replace one behaviour with another Maximum

CASE ORGANISATIONS

Case 1Mineral extraction and processing (change

of safety system, policies and procedures)

Case 2Mining machinery manufacturer (change of

systems and culture)

CASE STUDY 1 A minerals extraction (mining) and processing company

– located in a regional area, reporting to a corporate office in an Australian capital city

History of ownership change 213 staff, including full-time, part-time and casual

employees plus 3 key contracting firms (additional 130 staff)

Labour turnover 20% (stabilised following a period of up to 25%).

Growing awareness of potential safety issues and the increasing occurrence of minor incidents in the workplace

The organisation then commenced a process of employee workshops, communication, involvement and ongoing development to implement a behaviourally based safety system (referred to as ‘BBS’).

A PICTURE TELLS A THOUSAND WORDS…

Safety and production trends 1993-2005 (T/Employee to LTIFR)

APPROACH AND OUTCOMES Sharing of safety records in order to emphasise the urgent

need for change Groups of employees chosen to be involved in the choice of

the most appropriate safety system Communication back to the workforce via the chosen

employees Training for all employees throughout the system

implementation (facilitated by employees trained in facilitation skills)

Collection of data relating to the system implementation and results

Ongoing and regular communication by senior managers Results

Reduction in the lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) to below industry average for the first time in the history of the organisation.

Ongoing commitment to this system and the continued enhancement to the system have lead to widespread adoption throughout the workforce.

CASE STUDY 2 Engineering maintenance and manufacturing located in a large

regional centre servicing the mining industry (tight production schedules and expecting fast turnaround times)

Employs 120 -150 staff, fluctuating with work demands The structure - engineering, sales and service function; production

coordination and planning function; and operations function. Low labour turnover but a shortage of skilled tradespersons New strategy to increase the numbers in the workforce by

recruiting part-time trades assistants to work in teams during school-friendly hours

A radical redistribution of duties, restructuring of work patterns and a review of all internal processes, particularly those relating to quality assurance.

APPROACH AND OUTCOMES Analysis of the tasks within the operational units Redesign of jobs to reallocate tasks not requiring

trade qualifications Communication with and input from the workforce in

relation to the redesigned positions Recruitment and selection of appropriately skilled

work teams to undertake trade assistant tasks Training of new work teams Supervision and mentoring of new work teams Results:

fewer bottlenecks in internal processes full use of tradesmen positive impact on the organisation’s cost structure (penalty

rates were no longer required on a regular basis – 35% saving in the cost of production hours)

A PROCESS MODEL OF UNLEARNING

TESTING

UNEASE/RESISTANCE

CONTEXTUAL

EMBRACING

AWARENESS

EXPECTATIONS

RELINQUISHING

IndividualFactors

OrganisationalFactors

Positive Prior Outlook

Individual Inertia

Feelings & Expectations History of

Organisational Change

Positive Experience & Informal Support

Understanding the Need for Change

Assessment of New Way

Organisational Support & Training

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Level of feelings and expectations linked to

unlearning during change - those implementing change must be skilled in dealing with these issues

Planning for adequate support measure during change; both formal and informal

Consider resistance to change as a natural process (eg Dent & Powley, 2002; Waddell & Sohal, 1998) - even for those in favour of the change will feel initial unease when asked to relinquish past practice

“The illiterate of the 21st Century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.”Alvin Toffler

REFERENCESBecker, K (2007), ‘Unlearning in the Workplace: A Mixed Methods Study’, unpublished

thesis. QUT, Brisbane.

Becker, K. (2008). Unlearning as a driver of sustainable change and innovation: three Australian case studies. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 42, No. 1/2, pp. 89-106.

Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Dewhurst, F. W. (2006). Linking shared organisational context and relational capital through unlearning. The Learning Organization, 13(1), 49-62.

Dent, E. B., & Powley, E. H. (2002). Employees actually embrace change: The chimera of resistance. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 56-69.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design (Vol. 1). London: Cambridge University Press.

Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The Management of Unlearning: Exploding the ''Clean Slate'' Fallacy. Training and Development Journal, 37(8), 36-39.

Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The Dominant Logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485-501.

Starbuck, W. H. (1996). Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7/8), 725-737.

Waddell, D. M., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543-548.