File Name: the influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities .zip
Innovation leadership is a philosophy and technique that combines different leadership styles to influence employees to produce creative ideas, products, and services. The key role in the practice of innovation leadership is the innovation leader. David Gliddon developed the competency model of innovation leaders and established the concept of innovation leadership at Penn State University.
Over the past century, breakthroughs such as brand management and the divisionalized organization structure have created more sustained competitive advantage than anything that came out of a lab or focus group. By perfecting the industrial research laboratory, for example, General Electric won more patents than any other U. Yet most companies focus their innovation efforts on developing new offerings or achieving operational efficiencies—gains competitors quickly copy. To stay ahead of rivals, you must become a serial management innovator , systematically seeking breakthroughs in how your company executes crucial managerial processes. The keys to serial management innovation?
The purpose of this paper is to identify dimensions that can influence the innovation process in justice organizations. This study uses a qualitative approach. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview script. In all, 23 in-depth interviews were undertaken with lawyers, public defenders, judges, prosecutors and public officials from the five regions of Brazil. These data were analyzed using content analysis techniques. The perceptions of the interviewees show that the process of innovation in justice organizations can be influenced by five dimensions: Institutional Environment institutional level , Leadership organizational level , Organizational Resources organizational level , Cooperative Relations interorganizational level and Innovative Behavior individual level.
These dimensions may promote or restrict innovation. The results indicate that there are growing efforts to introduce innovations designed to improve the performance and service delivery of justice organizations. However, there is resistance to innovation because these organizations are highly institutionalized and consequently seek stability and absence of change. Castro, M.
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article for both commercial and non-commercial purposes , subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors.
Innovating implies the development and implementation of new products or processes, improvements to existing products or processes, new forms of marketing, new markets, new organizations or new sources of raw material Schumpeter, The concept of innovation, initially applied to enterprises, has been used in other types of organization, including those of the justice system.
Innovation in justice is a topic that has captured the attention of policy makers in several countries. Innovation in justice aims to improve the efficiency and quality of judicial services provided to society. Innovation involves complex activities and takes place in an environment characterized by uncertainty and conflict of social and technical interests.
Meijer highlights a wide range of structural barriers to innovation, such as organizational capacity, financial resources and culture. In the field of public administration, these barriers can be heightened. Justice organizations are highly institutionalized and seek stability rather than change, which can complicate innovation. Therefore, criticisms of the performance of justice organizations are common. According to Sadek , since the colonial period, voices have been raised about the ineffectiveness of justice in Brazil.
Nowadays, difficulties in accessing justice inhibit the full realization of citizenship. Ignorance of individual and collective rights, and the perception that justice is expensive and slow, are common among the population. The notion is widespread that justice organizations, in addition to being unable to respond to the growing demand for judicial services, are anachronistic and resistant to innovation.
Hess , when dealing with the mismatch between time in the judicial process and time in the modern world, suggests that the paradigm of justice should be modified from only acting in the past, to restore the rights of the injured parties, to rescue right in present. Mendes notes that improvements in justice services involve the management of organizations of justice and the search for efficiency.
In Brazil, Constitutional Amendment No. Innovation recognition awards to public service practices can also drive innovation. According to Sousa and Guimaraes , innovation in justice is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. These authors argue that there are only a few studies on innovation in the justice system and more are needed, examining the antecedents of innovation at different levels of analysis.
There is a growing effort to foster a culture of innovation in justice organizations in Brazil, but, as a new phenomenon, it is not completely clear how innovation process could influence those organizations. In this context, this paper addresses the following question: which dimensions influence innovation in justice organizations? This paper identifies dimensions that can influence the innovation process in justice organizations. Considering the social importance of the justice system and the lack of research in this domain, this paper reduces the theoretical gap and, at the same time, generates insights into improving the administration of justice.
Innovation in justice can be understood as the introduction, adoption or adaptation of new practices aiming to improve organizational processes and judicial services provided to citizens. The literature indicates that generally innovation is at least a two-level phenomenon: the actor himself and the environment in which he is embedded.
Innovation process in justice is best studied from different levels of analysis: the individual level: encompassing characteristics and capabilities of those individuals involved in the innovation process, as well as their relationships;. Institutional arrangements constitute an important level of analysis that influences the innovation process in Justice.
The personality traits of each individual may influence innovative behavior Gupta et al. Scott and Bruce state that when a workgroup supports an individual in a way that allows innovation to emerge, the individual is more likely to see the organization as supporting innovation. With organizational support for innovation, employees realize that their working environment encourages, recognizes, respects and rewards those who are creative Shalley et al.
Connective capacity, skills that generate and sustain internal resources, and external cooperative relations that facilitate meaningful connections are important attributes of innovative organizations Gieske et al. It is important that organizational leaders pay attention to how employees experience management practices and leadership policies. Leaders can encourage or restrict the creativity and innovation of individuals in the organization Khalili, Creating an innovation-friendly organizational climate requires engaging members of diverse work teams, instituting awards, sponsoring ideas, recognizing and promoting innovative individuals.
To articulate innovation at the individual and organizational levels, employees must share knowledge and develop a feeling of being part of the organization Jung et al. Other important aspects in the innovation process are formal networks and cooperative information.
Trust is an important asset for cooperation networks as it reduces uncertainty raised from conflicts of interest or opportunistic behavior. These relationships highlight the importance of cooperation throughout the innovation cycle, from new ideas, through selection and experimentation, to implementation of the new idea Gieske et al.
Organizations are involved in multiple institutional logics that provide guidance on how institutions rules of the game can be interpreted and how to act socially Greenwood et al. These authors point out that interest in innovation in justice has increased in Brazil, because of investments made by courts in new technologies, especially after the creation of the National Council of Justice CNJ in Taking into account different levels of analysis — individual, organizational, interorganizational and institutional — Castro and Guimaraes suggest a multilevel analysis of dimensions that can influence innovation process in justice organizations: institutional environment institutional level , leadership organizational level , organizational resources organizational level , cooperative relations interorganizational level and innovative behavior individual level.
This research uses these dimensions as parameters, and Table I gives their constitutive definitions. The constitutive definitions on Table I bring an integrative, nonlinear view of factors that may influence innovation process in justice organizations. These definitions were used to structure an interview script, as well in the analysis of the research results. This research has qualitative character and exploratory orientation.
Data collection was undertaken from May to March A semi-structured interview script with 13 items was used to identify inducers and barriers to innovation process in justice organizations. Three pilot interviews validate the instrument. From the group of individuals who submitted innovative practices to the Brazilian Innovare Award, 23 interviews were conducted with lawyers, public defenders, judges, prosecutors and public officials who work in the following bodies: Federal Attorney General 2 , Private Attorney 3 , Security Council 1 , Public Defender 2 , Public Prosecution Service 9 , Secretariat of Justice 1 and Courts 5 , located in 14 states, in the five regions of Brazil.
Of the 23 respondents, six approximately 26 per cent were female and 17 approximately 74 per cent male. Eleven interviews were conducted in person, 11 through Skype or telephone and one written and received by email. Respondent selection was based on their profile. All individuals in the sample developed innovative practices in the justice system.
The interviews were concluded when saturation of the data collected was reached. For Fontanella et al. This saturation occurred after 13 interviews, but ten more interviews were carried out, as they were already scheduled and the interviewees came from two regions not yet represented in the survey.
Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis, as proposed by Bardin , involving three phases: pre-analysis, exploration of the material and treatment of results, inference and interpretation. In the pre-analysis phase, the interviews were fully transcribed and classified according the organization each interviewee belonged to.
Interviewee statements were cut and tabulated for each item of the script. In the content exploration phase, the comments were categorized and schematized around the a priori dimensions defined — institutional environment, leadership, organizational resources, cooperative relations and innovative behavior — to compare the perceptions of respondents.
In the third phase, an attempt was made to make the data meaningful and valid to understand the influences on the innovation process in justice. Table II presents the a priori dimensions and themes used in the research that may influence innovation in justice organizations. It also describes coding units, extracted from the interviews, which help confirm the dimensions and themes.
According to most respondents, the innovation process is already a reality in the Brazilian courts. Interviewee E7 underscores this feeling and shows that while the justice system is conservative and seeks to maintain the status quo as a means of preserving legal certainty, innovation is slowly being introduced as a means of addressing social challenges and improving the performance of justice:.
The judiciary is a very conservative institution […] It is not an environment conducive to innovation […] But from the perception that the judiciary needed to do something new because it was being run over by social demands, it […] sedimented a clear perception […] of the need to get out of the box and look for something new[…] Technology has generated thousands of novelties and possibilities for innovation and has been well used in court, […] in favor of effective […] improvement, generating greater efficiency E7.
In this new scenario, which values innovation, actors in the justice system are ready to develop innovations to mitigate and predict problems.
There are innovations in justice with educational and conciliatory content, especially in the Public Defender's Office and Public Prosecutor's Office, to reduce court proceedings.
Non-judicial dispute settlement reduces the country's procedural congestion rate, which is around 73 per cent in Brazil, according to the Justice in Numbers report CNJ, It was possible to identify innovations in legal norms; service and technological innovations are concomitantly associated with the introduction of incremental changes in organizational procedures. The implementation of legal norms can lead to changes in management processes, as well as technical routines that enable effective implementation of legislation.
Lam , p. This suggests that the introduction of legal, service and technological innovations in justice organizations also promotes the implementation of organizational innovations. After this overview of the results related to innovation in justice, the following sections present and discuss results according to the dimensions used. From the s, some actions were introduced in Brazil encouraging the development of an institutional environment for innovations in justice: the Republican Covenants for a more accessible, responsive and effective justice system in and in ;.
Constitutional Amendment No. According to Scott , elements of the institutional environment regulate social behavior. Zucker suggests that organizations are influenced by normative pressures from external and internal sources. Therefore, the institutional environment directs the behavior of organizations.
Given a framework that fosters innovation in the justice system, the institutional environment can influence organizations to innovate. Data collected in this research show that the institutional environment influences, differently, the organizations that make up the justice system. For example, in the courts, institutional pressure exerts greater influence on organs responsible for strategic planning and court management.
The CNJ acted to change court goals and performance metrics. Thus, with the creation of the CNJ, there were changes and innovations in the institutional environment of Justice. The role of the CNJ was mentioned 87 times by respondents, especially 11 of them who thought this organ has induced innovations in the judiciary.
However, the body is still perceived with some distrust and resistance by some actors in the judiciary, who believe that courts have lost autonomy because of the regulatory pressure exerted by the CNJ. Many interviewees recognize its importance for justice modernization, as shown in the following statements:.
The purpose of this paper is to identify dimensions that can influence the innovation process in justice organizations. This study uses a qualitative approach. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview script. In all, 23 in-depth interviews were undertaken with lawyers, public defenders, judges, prosecutors and public officials from the five regions of Brazil. These data were analyzed using content analysis techniques. The perceptions of the interviewees show that the process of innovation in justice organizations can be influenced by five dimensions: Institutional Environment institutional level , Leadership organizational level , Organizational Resources organizational level , Cooperative Relations interorganizational level and Innovative Behavior individual level. These dimensions may promote or restrict innovation.
How relevant is their research to the practical challenges leaders face? In this article, the authors present highlights of the research presented and the discussion of its implications. Leaders must tap the imagination of employees at all ranks and ask inspiring questions. They also need to help their organizations incorporate diverse perspectives, which spur creative insights, and facilitate creative collaboration by, for instance, harnessing new technologies. The participants shared tactics for enabling discoveries, as well as thoughts on how to bring process to bear on creativity without straitjacketing it. Though points of view varied, the theories and frameworks explored advance the understanding of creativity in business and offer executives a playbook for increasing innovation. And that calls for major doses of creativity.
Despite extensive literature on leadership and its impact employee innovative behavior, few studies have explored the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior. To address this gap, this study aimed to investigate how inclusive leadership influenced employee innovative behavior by examining perceived organizational support POS as a mediator. We used multi-wave and multi-source data collected at 15 companies in China to test our theoretical model. Results revealed that inclusive leadership had significantly positive effects on POS and employee innovative behavior.
The journal aims to provide a forum for publication and dissemination of scientific research conducted in the fields of management, as well as promote the interconnection of academic research with practical reality. It is intended to disseminate the scientific results obtained by academics and professionals, both nationally or internationally. The journal is based on a process of double blind review. Organizational innovation has always been considered as a powerful tool to sustain competitive advantage and to provide high value to customers. The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate the role of transformational leadership and knowledge management process on predicting product and process innovation.
Знает ли она, что именно вы собираетесь сделать с Цифровой крепостью. - И что. Хейл понимал: то, что он сейчас скажет, либо принесет ему свободу, либо станет его смертным приговором. Он набрал в легкие воздуха.
Я ничего не упустил. Он в последний раз бросил взгляд на труп на алюминиевой столешнице. Покойный лежал на спине, лицом вверх, освещаемый лампами дневного света, вроде бы ничего не скрывая. Беккер непроизвольно снова и снова вглядывался в его странно деформированные руки.
Он отстаивал перед директором свои идеи со спокойствием невозмутимого боксера-профессионала. Даже президент Соединенных Штатов не решался бросать вызов Фонтейну, что не раз позволял себе Стратмор. Для этого нужен был политический иммунитет - или, как в случае Стратмора, политическая индифферентность. Сьюзан поднялась на верхнюю ступеньку лестницы.