The primary motivation of this paper was to evaluate various models of change and how they can be applied to help a company in introducing change successfully. The researcher was able to address all the task requirements for the research. The study relied on secondary data collected from books, journal articles, and reliable online sources. The findings of the project show that creativity and innovation are essential in enhancing change within an organization. Creativity and innovation are the primary factors that often propel change within an organizational setting. They emphasize the need to do things differently as a way of improving the overall performance within a firm. The review found out that Beer and Nohria’s theory E and O, Lewin’s change model, and Hayes’ model of change are some of the theoretical models that can help an organization introduce and manage change. It was also evident that leadership is critical when it comes to change management. The researcher concluded that leaders must understand and appreciate the relevance of change so that they can develop effective policies for implementation that would help achieve the desired level of success.
Managing change is a critical factor that defines the ability of a company to overcome both internal and external forces that may affect normal operations. As Barroso-Tanoira (2017) explains, many people often appreciate the significance of the change in an organizational setting, but few are willing to embrace what it takes to facilitate it. In the current competitive business environment, many leaders are keen on ensuring that their entities adjust accordingly to the changing environmental forces. When a new technology is introduced or a new concept emerges in the industry, it is the responsibility of those in leadership to assess it, determine its relevance to the organization, and formulate new policies that can be used to introduce it. Creativity and innovation have become essential tools for effecting change. Many successful companies have adopted unique strategies meant to promote creativity among employees. It helps to introduce new ideas for tackling the current and any future challenges that an organization may face. An organization that embraces creativity and innovation finds it easy to manage change. In this study, the researcher seeks to provide a critical review of models that managers of both for-profit and non-profit entities can use to manage change. The paper looks at how a change process in an organizational setting can either be successful or unsuccessful. The researcher also provides personal reflection and assessment as a leader of innovation and change.
Understanding Concepts of Creativity, Innovation, and Change
The current business environment is getting increasingly competitive because of globalization, technological advancements, integration, and numerous other factors. According to Andriani and Cattani (2016), before and soon after the Second World War, many large international corporations, especially from Europe and North America, did not have to worry about competition. There was a ready market for their products in the global market and few competitors. However, that changed as technology transformed the world into a global village because of the ease with which people can move from one part of the world to another and communicate easily. The language and geographic barriers have been broken in the current society and the change has made it easy for numerous firms to emerge and compete for the market share against some of the established companies. These trends have created an environment where companies have to find ways of offering their customers unique value that outsmarts what rival firms have. Creativity and innovation are some of the concepts that have emerged as effective tools that enable companies to achieve the goal of remaining unique in the market. They help in fostering positive change and propelling organizations towards excellence in their normal operations. It is necessary to look at each of these concepts individually to understand how they can help a firm to embrace change in different industries.
Creativity and Innovation
Creativity has become an important tool in effecting change within an organization. Khalili (2016) defines creativity as the use of imagination to create something new. One has to use the power of imagination to create something that is useful and capable of addressing a real-life problem. On the other hand, creativity refers to the ability to act independently, using new ideas, to solve a given challenge within a firm or introduce change. Creativity and innovativeness are often used interchangeably though they have some differences. As Dubinsky (2018) observes, while creativity focuses on the potential of the mind to unleash a new idea, innovation focuses on introducing change into a system that is relatively stable. Both focus on bringing about change within an organization as a way of improving productivity or solving a challenge in a completely new approach.
Companies can pursue different types of innovation based on various issues that they face in the market. According to Hatch (2018), a company may be interested in overcoming competition in the market. Another may be interested in introducing a new revolutionary product. A firm may pursue innovation to help it solve a current or potential problem that might disrupt its operations in the market. The goal that a given entity has often defines the type of innovation that it will embrace. In many cases, Chapain and Stryjakiewicz (2017) explain that innovation is often broken into two dimensions, which are technology and market, which results into four different types of innovation as shown in the figure below:
Incremental innovation is one of the types of innovation that many companies use to achieve specific goals in their operations. Goffin and Mitchell (2017) note that it is the most common type of innovation that is widely used. As indicated in its position within the map above, it involves the use of existing technology in the existing market (Grzeskowitz, 2019). A company will use the available technology to improve the value of its products within the current market. It may involve changing the design, creating additional features on the product, or even eliminating some features that customers do not consider necessary. The goal is to ensure that the product offers a better value to customers. Incremental innovation in nature does not involve doing something that is completely new to competitors and stakeholders in the industry. A firm will be using technology that other players have knowledge about to create a unique value. Goldberg (2018) argues that this type of innovation is highly popular because it does not involve spending time and resources to invent a new technology or target a new market. It is also popular because it supports continuous change within an organization as a firm struggles to ensure that its products continue to meet the changing tastes and preferences of customers in the market. This type of innovation will be part of the focus of this investigation.
Disruptive innovation sometimes referred to as stealth innovation, is another common type that is often used by companies to gain a competitive edge over rival firms. In this case, a firm will use new technology in the existing market. Disruptive innovation is often a result of a careful research done by a company that focuses on solving current market challenges in a completely new approach. Barroso-Tanoira (2017) explains that it is often referred to as disruptive because it involves a rapid change at a time when the market is relatively calm. In most of the cases, it introduces superior features to an existing product. It may also entail introducing a completely new product based on the new technology. According to Moultrie and Young (2009), Apple Inc. has perfected the art of using the disruptive innovation to outsmart its rivals in the market. It spends a lot of money to conduct market research to understand expectations of its customers in the market. It then uses the information to introduce something that is new in the market.
Most of the iPhones that the company introduces in the market periodically are often focused on meeting existing and emerging needs of customers (Khalili, 2016). Although it is not as common as incremental innovation, it is an effective approach of meeting or even exceeding expectations of customers in the market. Many companies may not use it, especially those that avoid new technologies before they are tested. The fact that it involves the use of money to conduct research and introduce something new into the market may be another reason why it is not as common as the one discussed above. However, it is one of the best ways that a company can ensure that it not only remains sustainable in the market but also superior to its rivals. The study will also focus on thus type of innovation and its role in motivating change in an organization.
Architectural innovation focuses on using existing technology in a new market. Improved transport network and communication has transformed the world into a global market. It is now easy for an American company to have its branches in China, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because of the global integration (Dubinsky, 2018). This type of innovation simply requires a firm to use a concept that has been tried and tested in the home market in a foreign market. As the name suggest, a company is expected to replicate the same model in a different setting. Khalili (2016) warns that sometimes architectural innovation may fail to yield expected outcome in a new market if local environmental forces are ignored. For instance, a business model that is successful in Saudi Arabia may not work in South Africa because of the socio-economic and political differences.
It means that sometimes the innovation may require some form of tweaking when it is evident that there is a significant difference between the environment in the home market and that in the foreign country. The primary goal of this form of innovation is to tap into the new market with an already existing product or technology. The company does not need to spend much time and resources on developing a new product for the market. It only needs to ensure that it understands the local forces in the foreign country when making its entry. Although this is a common and effective form of innovation, it will not form the basis of this study.
The fourth type of innovation, as shown in the classification given in Figure 1 above, is radical innovation. It focuses on using new technologies in new markets. As the name suggests, it entails making a radical shift from what has been the practice within a given industry. When a company embraces it, the focus is not just to introduce a new revolutionary product for the current market but to also target new markets (Hatch, 2018). In the communication sector, the emergence of social media was a radical innovation. Before then, people relied on phone calls, mails, and other traditional forms of communication. However, when these new platforms emerged, such as Facebook, it transformed the way people communicate. It did not target just one country where the technology first emerged. Instead, it spread very quickly to the rest of the world as it became more effective than traditional forms of communication. In the figure above, it is indicated that radical innovation primarily targets new markets. However, Dubinsky (2018) explains that it is relevant both in the new and existing market. It goes beyond geographical and technological limitation.
The biggest challenge is that it is often not easy to introduce something that is relevant across the world. The introduction of airplanes was revolutionary in the transport sector across the world. It is common to find cases where a product is highly successful in one country but fails in another. Amazon.com has used radical technologies to achieve massive success not only in the United States but also the global market. The firm developed a unique model of selling products that has proven highly effective, making it easy to expand into many markets in North America and Europe. This type of innovation is effective and deserves a lot of attention from scholars, but it will not form the basis of discussion in the study.
Managing innovation is one of the biggest challenges that many organizations face in their normal operations. Goffin and Mitchell (2017) explains the future of innovation management in the current business environment. They explain that every successful company has learned the science of innovation management. A firm must invest in research to understand the current market forces, how they affect normal operations, and ways in which they can be managed to help enhance operations of a firm. As Hatch (2018) observes, organizations must remain flexible, especially when operating in a highly volatile industry. It may be dangerous to adopt a new technology very fast before it is tried and tested in the market. At the same time, waiting for too long to adopt a new technology may deny a firm from enjoying its benefits, leading to a situation where rivals overtake the firm. Constant research is the best way of managing innovation. Incremental and disruptive innovations are essential in ensuring that a company is able to deal with challenges that it faces in the existing market. Dubinsky (2018) notes that companies can use different models and approaches to managing innovation as long as it entails conducting regular market research and focusing on continuous improvement of quality to customers.
The primary focus of the study was to investigate how creativity and innovativeness can promote positive change within an organizational setting. Barroso-Tanoira (2017) defines change as a process or an act through which a practice or a thing becomes different. Change is a strong force that an organization cannot ignore if it is keen on remaining sustainable in its operations. According to Hatch (2018), change within an organization may be driven by either internal or external forces. Internally driven change occurs when the organization takes the initiative to introduce a new practice or a product that is superior to what is already existing in the market. The process requires regular market research and innovativeness to help develop new ideas. The management must remain committed to investing in such initiatives and empowering employees so that they can remain creative within their workplaces.
Change may sometimes be driven by external forces in the environment. It occurs when the process is initiated by the industry leader or any other company within the industry. In such cases, the firm has to find ways of embracing the new superior practice that the industry has adopted. Externally driven change may sometimes be based on emerging technologies. For example, the retail market has been transforming over the years because of the changes in technology. Brick-and-mortar business model was popularly used as the only way of making products available for customers in the market (Barroso-Tanoira, 2017). However, emerging technologies is changing this strategy. Online marketing platforms have emerged as potential avenues through which companies can sell their products. Amazon.com has perfected the art of selling its products through online platforms and it has achieved massive success not only in the home market but also in other countries around the world. Advertising is also changing because of technological advancements. Traditionally, mass media was the most effective way through which companies could reach out to their potential customers. However, the emergence of social media has redefined strategies that companies use to promote their products (Hatch, 2018). Platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have become some of the platforms through which firms can promote their products.
Change is a force that allows a company to do something new or to take a different approach to undertaking various operational tasks as a means of lowering the cost of operation, improving productivity or both. A firm cannot afford to ignore change for long, especially if it involves making a radical shift from what has always been the practice in the industry. Through it, a firm can eliminate practices that may be limiting its ability to achieve success in the market. However, Barroso-Tanoira (2017) observes that great care should be taken to ensure that the proposed change has the desired impact on the organization. Not every process of change will have the positive impact that the organization desires. Change may be successful or unsuccessful in helping a firm to achieve specific goals. The approach that a firm takes to introduce change may also define whether it will be successful. Although many people appreciate the need for a firm to remain dynamic in its operations, sometimes the process of changing from one practice to another may be painful to stakeholders, which means that they can frustrate its introduction. Addressing these concerns before and when introducing change always defines the level of success of the process as discussed in the theories below.
Critical Review of Theories of Change
Change as a force cannot be ignored for long, especially if it involves introduction of a product or practice that is completely new in the industry. However, effecting change can sometimes be a challenging process. Every time a firm announces the intention to introduce it, there is always the fear among stakeholders that may make them resist its implementation. Some of them may fear losing their current position within the firm while others may feel that their relevance to the company may be lost. Failing to address these fears may negatively affect the process of effecting change within an organization. Scholars have developed theories meant to explains the change process and make it less stressful for both the management unit and employees (Barroso-Tanoira, 2017). In this section, the researcher focuses on discussing these theories.
Beer and Nohria’s Theory E and O
Theories E and O focuses on different issues when it comes to introducing change within an organization. According to Nohria and Beer (2000), Theory E focuses on economic value in the management of change. It is the most commonly implemented strategy, especially when a firm is facing economic challenges in the market. It holds the view that the legitimate measure of success in the corporate world is to improve shareholder’s value. It means that when introducing change, practices such as restructuring, layoffs, and downsizing are common practices. Often referred to as hard change, this theory emphasizes the need to protect the profitability of the firm and to increase value for shareholders irrespective of the implications that it may have on employees. It is important to note that this theory has its strengths and weaknesses that the management should understand before its implementation.
The main strength of this theory is that it promotes profitability within an organization. It focuses on identifying major weaknesses with the current system, then it proposes ways of managing them (Grzeskowitz, 2019). A company that uses this strategy is likely to attract investors because they know that their interests will be given priority. Such a firm will avoid practices that may be costly but with minimal financial benefit. However, Barroso-Tanoira (2017) warns that the strategy also has some weaknesses that should not be ignored. One of such weakness is the impression it creates that interest of employees is not important when effecting change. The human resource forms the most important aspect of any organization and without which a firm cannot operate. Making them feel less valued may create dissatisfaction and as a result, they may lack the motivation needed to enhance their performance. The strategy also fails to take into consideration the need to ensure that employees are taken through regular training to enhance their skills.
Theory O is the alternative to Theory E when managing change within an organization. Nohria and Beer (2000) explain that “Theory O change strategies are geared toward building up the corporate culture: employee behaviors, attitudes, capabilities, and commitment” (p. 2). Leaders who subscribe to this theory believe that focusing exclusively on stock price may be harmful to the ability of a firm to achieve success in the market. As such, it takes a soft approach to change where the goal focuses on developing a corporate culture that emphasizes the need to maintain continuous improvement. It also prioritizes human capabilities as a way of enhancing the overall productivity of the firm.
The main strength of this theory is that involves empowerment of employees to ensure that they can perform better in their respective places of work. Even when the company is facing financial challenges, this strategy avoids any strategy that may be harmful to the well-being of its employees. It creates an environment where employees remain committed to the firm and motivated to deliver improved performance (Nohria & Beer, 2000). However, the strategy has some fundamental weaknesses, which has made it less popular compared with Theory E. It minimalizes the significance of protecting the interest of shareholders. It is not sensitive to the stock price. As such, investors may avoid companies that embrace this strategy because of the fear that they may incur losses. Figure 2 below provides a comparative analysis of the two theories to change management
Kotter’s Theory of Change
Kotter’s theory of change has gained popularity in practice when introducing a new concept within an organization. The theory provides 8 steps that should be followed when introducing change, as shown in figure 3 below. The first step is to create urgency (Grzeskowitz, 2019). This process is meant to make employees and other stakeholders understand the need to change from the current system to another. The second step is to form a powerful coalition that would lead the change process. The management is expected to create a unit that will take the primary responsibility of guiding the rest of the stakeholders in implementing the new system. The third step is to create a vision for change so that everyone can understand where the organization should be when the change process is completed (Chapain & Stryjakiewicz, 2017). The team should then communicate the vision to all stakeholders in the organization as defined in the fourth step (Goldberg, 2018). It helps to ensure that everyone understands the path that should be taken to achieve the intended goal.
Empowering action is the next step where the management starts to implement strategies meant to introduce change within the organization. The model encourages the team leading the change to make quick gains in the initial stages, as shown in the sixth stage. The goal, in this case, is to convince those who are still doubtful of the process that the strategy taken is capable of yielding the desired results. The seventh stage involves building on the change (Grzeskowitz, 2019). The team will be facilitating a permanent shift from the old practices to the new one. The final stage is sticking to the newly introduced change. The management and the entire team involved in the change process should ensure that once the new system and practice is introduced, everyone sticks to it. The main strength of this theory is that it provides a detailed explanation of the steps that should be taken when introducing change within an organization (Chapain & Stryjakiewicz, 2017). However, some have criticized it as one that provides numerous stages to change, some of which may not be necessary.
Lewin’s Change Model
Kurt Lewin’s change model is often considered a simple but highly effective tool of managing change within an organization. It provides 3 stages that an organization should observe to introduce a new concept or practice as shown in figure 4 below. The first step, known as unfreezing, involves effective preparation of employees to ensure that they are ready for change. The management is expected to explain the planned change, its significance, and the role that employees will play under the new system. The process not only equips these workers but also eliminates fears that they may have, which may affect effective implementation of the new concept. The second stage is the execution of the intended change (Goldberg, 2018). The assumption at this stage is that the entire team is effectively prepared for the new system. The management will be expected to continue empowering employees during this stage of introducing change. The last stage is known as the refreezing process (Goffin & Mitchell, 2017). The management will ensure that the change introduced becomes permanent. The main advantage of this theory is that it is a simple but very effective way of managing change in an organization. However, some managers often feel that it is too simplistic, and may not provide effective guidance when trying to introduce a complex change within an organization.
Factors That Impact Creativity in an Organizational Setting
In an organizational setting, creativity is affected by numerous factors. According to Khalili (2016), it is the responsibility of the top management unit to create an environment where employees can be creative enough to develop new ideas of undertaking their responsibilities. Ekvall’s model focuses on the need for an organization to create a creative climate that can facilitate the desired change. The model identifies ten factors needed to create such a climate within an organization, as shown in figure 5 below. They include ideal time, risk taking, challenge, freedom, and idea support on the one hand, and conflicts, debates, playfulness, trust, and dynamism on the other hand (Goffin & Mitchell, 2017). These factors help in creating an environment where employees’ skills are constantly improved and they are free to try new strategies in their workplace.
Leadership is another factor that defines creativity within an organization. According to Barroso-Tanoira (2017), leaders who are very strict and keen on avoiding mistakes among employees often limit creativity within an organization. Some of the new ideas may not achieve the desired outcome in their first trial. When the leader is too strict and rigid, employees will fear making mistakes, and that may have devastating impact on their ability to be creative. Various models and theories of leadership should be applied to promote an environment where workers can be innovative. The processes of bringing about innovation and change within an organization requires a leader to work closely with subordinates to in facilitating positive change. Transformational and transactional theories are some of the competing concepts that can be applied interchangeably depending on the market forces to achieve the desired objective. Issues of power and stakeholder engagement should also not be ignored. Figure 6 below shows some of the steps that an organization can follow to promote stakeholder engagement. It involves policy commitment, assessing impacts, integration and action, tracking and reporting performance, and remediation where it is necessary.
Innovation and Change at Company X
Company X was operating in a highly competitive business environment. Rival firms were offering similar products and it became apparent that differentiation was one of the strategies that would help it outperform competition. The top management unit realized that the majority of the competitors were focusing on pricing as a way of achieve an edge over its rivals. However, Barroso-Tanoira (2017) warns that price war is not a sustainable strategy and it hurts all the companies. As such, instead of using price wars, the company opted to use a completely different approach to achieving competitive edge over its rivals. It focused on introducing new products. The head of the production department, Manager Y was assigned the role of leading the process of introducing a new product at the company. The instruction that was given to the department was that change had to be based on innovation.
The manager at the production department understood the need for change and informed all the employees of their role. To this end, he was on the right path because he understood that anyone could come up with a revolutionary product for the company. As Goldberg (2018) explains, innovativeness is not a preserve of the most learned or senior managers in a company. Sometimes junior officers may have unique ideas that can transform a given organization. Similarly, it is common to find cases where a highly experienced employee but with limited education developing unique ways of undertaking a given task. Manager Y knew this fact, and encouraged everyone to develop ideas that could help achieve the goal of the company. However, the manager failed to get actively involved in the change process. He did not provide relevant guidelines and incentives that would have facilitated the needed change. Employees also complained that the existing culture at the company during this period was not conducive to introduce change.
Workers were expected to complete their normal tasks before creating an additional time to focus on innovation. It led to dissatisfaction of many of the people who were meant to introduce change. As such, the first attempt was a failure. The entire team of employees in the production department could not develop a new idea that was implementable. Most of them refocused on their original duties, ignoring the call for them to facilitate the needed change. Given that the threat in the market had not been eliminated, the top management unit of Company X had to find a way of solving this problem. The head of the department had demonstrated that he lacked the capacity to deliver the expected result. For that reason, a decision was made to transfer him to other responsibilities within the firm. Manager A was promoted to head the department and given the same responsibility of facilitating change through innovation.
When the new manager took over the leadership of the production department, he realized the both incremental and disruptive innovation were needed to achieve the set goal. The market was the same, but the company had to develop a unique product that would outperform what rival firms offered. He took a completely different approach to change compared with what the predecessor did. Instead of instructing employees to come up with a new concept, he became part of the team involved in the change process. Finally, one of the employees within the department developed a new idea that was screened and proved to be effective. It involved using a new technology to introduce a new product in the same market. It was in line with the directive that the top management unit had proposed. The idea of using disruptive technology to introduce change within the firm was seen as appropriate in dealing with the problem of constant price wars within the market. It would enable the company to stand above the rivals, making it easy to dictate pricing in the market.
The challenge that Manager Y had to address was introducing change within the department. The new product meant that the entire production process had to change in line with the new systems and structures. Although everyone knew that change was inevitable, most of the employees were evidently not ready for it. However, the new manager knew how to deal with the problem. He created a conducive environment for change. Using Kurt Lewin’s model discussed above, he used three stages of managing change. First, he prepared everyone for change by explaining the need to embrace a new approach of operation and the role that everyone had to play. The unfreezing process helped everyone to understand the new expectations within the department. The manager and his team then introduced the actual change. As the new product was introduced, workers were facilitated to ensure that they understood their new role within the organization. New systems and structures were also introduced to facilitate effective production. Working closely with the top management unit, the head of the production unit made sure that the necessary resources were made available for the change process. The last stage was the refreezing process within the department. The manager made sure that everyone understood their new roles and in case any assistance was needed, the transition team provided it.
The approach that was used to introduce change was based on Kurt Lewin’s theory. It involved taking time to prepare everyone for the eminent change. When it was confirmed that the team was ready to transform to a new system, the actual change was introduced. Finally, there was a follow-up program meant to ensure that everyone understood what was expected of them in the change process. According to Goldberg (2018) leadership style plays a critical role in ensuring that there is success in the change process. As explained above, the first attempt to introduce change was a failure because of the management approach that was embraced. It forced the top management unit to appoint a new person to lead the change process.
The new head of the department introduced transformational leadership style to achieve the objective that had been set by the top managers. Instead of issuing instruction, the leader became part of the team guiding members of the department on how to operate under the new system. He was able to understand strengths and weaknesses of every team member and offer appropriate guidance on how to work under the new system. Most importantly, this leader eliminated fear among workers within the department. Grzeskowitz (2019) explains that one of the reasons why employees sometimes resist change is the fear of the unknown. Some feel that they may lose their jobs or positions within the new systems. Others may fear added responsibilities or being assigned more challenging tasks. The new leader was able to address these challenges effectively, making it easy for the company to make the needed transition when the new product was introduced.
Personal Reflection and Assessment
Creativity, innovation, and change are critical factors that enables a firm to achieve success within a given market. I strongly believe that these concepts should be driven by people within an organization instead of having a system where those in leadership dictate everything that happens in an organization. I have played a leadership role in my current organization to guide a change process. I have led various teams in managing change, especially when introducing new technologies. I have held the belief that leaders are expected to guide their subordinates towards the vision instead of issuing instructions without proper assistance. In my current position, I have found it crucial to allow junior workers to engage me whenever they find it difficult adopting a new practice. I have also been championing for the provision of the needed resources and creation of an enabling environment that can support change. I would classify my role in the change process within the organization as a catalyst that promotes the process and helps those who find it difficult to fit into the new system. As a junior manager within this organization, I know that my effort may not have the desired impact. However, I do believe that the small gains made through my guidance can be critical in helping the organization to achieve its goals.
In my effort to promote change within this organization, I do appreciate that I have strengths and weaknesses that directly affects actions that I take and the level of success that I can achieve. My main strength is that I am a flexible person who can embrace change with ease as long as it is relevant. I work well in a highly diversified environment and as a young leader, I believe in motivating my subordinates to achieve the outcomes in every assignment given to them. However, my main weakness is always the desire to achieve success within the shortest period possible. Sometimes it makes me to exert undue pressure on those who are working with me on a given project. My perfectionist attitude towards undertaking tasks has also been questioned by my colleagues in the past.
The business environment is getting increasingly competitive and companies are under pressure to find ways of coping with this challenge. The study shows that the best way of overcoming the numerous challenges in the business environment is to embrace creativity and innovativeness. The two concepts help in facilitating positive change within an organization. Instead of focusing on destructive strategies such as price wars, a firm can easily concentrate on improve its products to ensure that they are of superior value. Customers will always pay more when they are convinced that the value offered is superior. Creativity and innovation can also help in introducing effective operational strategies that lower the cost of production, which then increases the profit margin without forcing the firm to increase its price. The paper has discussed various models and theories that can help facilitate positive change within an organization.
Andriani, P., & Cattani, G. (2016). Exaptation as source of creativity, innovation, and diversity: Introduction to the special section. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(1), 115-131.
Barroso-Tanoira, F. (2017). Motivation for increasing creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. An experience from the classroom to business firms. Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 55-74.
Chapain, C., & Stryjakiewicz, T. (2017). Creative industries in Europe: Drivers of new sectorial and spatial dynamics. Springer.
Dubinsky, A. (2018). Innovation, the currency of the 21st century: Shaping an organizational culture of creativity and innovation. München GRIN Verlag.
Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Innovation management: Effective strategy and implementation (3rd ed.). Red Globe Press.
Goldberg, E. (2018). Creativity: The human brain in the age of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Grzeskowitz, I. (2019). The change-maker mindset: How innovation and change start with inner transformation. Mango.
Hatch, M. (2018). The maker revolution: Building a future on creativity and innovation in an exponential world. John Wiley & Sons.
Khalili, A. (2016). Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-supportive climate. Management Decision, 54(9), 77-93.
Lynch, W. (2020). A Comprehensive guide to Kotter’s 8 step model of change. Web.
Moultrie, J., & Young, A. (2009). Exploratory study of organizational creativity in creative organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 299-314.
Mumford, M. D., & Hemlin, S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of research on leadership and creativity. Eeward Elgar Publishing.
Nohria, N., & Beer, M. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 4(1), 1-2.