Leading Innovation & Change
You need to write 13 pages (3500 words). It should be 6000 words including the previously completed part attached.
Please read and follow this critical review of the first draft of the assignment. You have an abstract, and this is reasonably good, in particular in its first part, where you describe the areas of literature you examined. You then get a little too specific about leadership – rather than pointing out you have addressed the other two requirements too. The abstract is a single paragraph built around the (typically hidden) structure of background/motivation/methods/results/conclusion. The abstract “sells” your paper – for academic work, you must convince the marker you have addressed the brief fully. The abstract should not appear in the table of contents, as it is a construct outside the paper itself. A further level (or levels) of section headings (subsections) may have been helpful too. You only need to provide a list of references here (the difference between the two being that references are all cited in your paper, while the bibliography may also include sources you have read but have not specifically discussed). “According to West, (1997), change entails the introduction of more improved and new methods of doing things during work. On the other hand, Porter and Ketels, (2003) view innovation as a” There is no comma between author name and year of publication, so “West (1997)”, and “Porter and Ketels (2003). Also, these sources are now 21 and 15 years old respectively – so using past tense would be more appropriate, not to mention trying to see if more recent publications from the same authors exist – they do sometimes change their minds! Your review so far shows some promise, but could further be developed to be more critical rather than just listing different theories and authors. Given the limited scope of the draft, it is somewhat normal, but remember for the final to remain critical in your review, showing not only what the theories are, but what their weaknesses and strengths are as well. Here is a metaphor that may make understanding ‘critical review’ easier: imagine you had to describe the contents of a pencil-box to a blind man. It would not be enough to tell them there is a green highlighter and a blue-ink fountain pen (listing of the theories). You would also have to explain what each of them does, what are the pros and cons of using them in different situations (critical analysis): the green highlighter is useful to mark up large chunks of text, allowing text to still be read even when highlighted. The downside is that, due to its large tip, it cannot be (easily) used for handwriting. Similarly, the fountain-pen is fine and can and Review.be used in handwriting, but it would be rather difficult to use it to draw attention to large chunks of text in the same way a highligther would. A short introduction to creativity, innovation and change would be beneficial, showing the links between these concepts and setting the stage for a deeper discussion of innovation and change types. What factors impact creativity in an organisational setting? You could speak here of Amabile, Ekvall, Andriopoulos, or Von Stamm’s studies. A good start. What IS innovation? What types of innovation can we talk about? This is crucial to help understand the types of change as well. More importantly, HOW do we manage for innovation (Goffin and Mitchell, Tidd)? What IS change? A deeper discussion is needed here, and above all, not only a presentation of the different theories, but a critical analysis (what are their strengths and weaknesses, how do they compare to each other?) What about Beer and Nohria’s Theory E and O? How does it compare to soft/hard changes, or to incremental/big bang ones? I am confident you will expand this for the final. Your review should not miss a critical analysis of: -leadership of innovation and change – different models and theories, including skills, attitudes or traits of leaders of change – this will be the basis for your self-reflection section -processes of bringing about innovation and change, and competing theories here -issues of power and stakeholder engagement – these will be critical in your analysis of the change examples. A review missing fundamental models such as Kotter’s, Lewin’s or Hayes’ (and a critique of them at that!) will be seriously weakened. Not only what they are, but what their strengths and weaknesses are. Lewin’s force field analysis is a very simple tool that is amenable for simple yet powerful analysis of change cases. In conjunction with other models this will greatly improve your analysis. Do not ignore stakeholder issues! This is an area that needs as much attention as possible. Your two cases seem to focus on personal challenges, rather than on innovation or change in an organisation setting – probably not the best examples to analyse using theory pertinent to this module. I would suggest you look at finding two better ones, in which you had a leadership role ideally, even if they seem ‘smaller’ or less interesting. Remember they should contain just enough background information to allow the reader to understand the organisation’s status quo and your role in the change process. You must remember to stay focused on analysing the change process itself and, as applicable, the innovation aspects of these processes. Was there an innovation, and if yes, what kind of? What type of change was needed, what type of change was being introduced? Using several different theoretical frameworks (Lewin’s FFA, Kotter, etc.), analyse how the change process was approached, what kind of leadership style was used, and so on. It is a retrospective analysis, so it is ok if the change process itself did not actually USE these models, but you can show where the change adhered to the model and where not, and what were the implications. It is very important to mention explicitly the authors/theories concerned by using in-text citations. A strong analysis in this section will make your self-assessment follow naturally. It is the analysis part that should take more space than the description part. Make sure the analysis stays critical and examines all aspects you covered in the theoretical review (including things such as stakeholder engagement, and power issues). Not only whether a stakeholder analysis was performed or not, but actually do it yourself retrospectively! In graphical form this will take no space at all, but will bring clarity and above all proof that you are able to perform it! Your self-assessment has a good start, but can be improved in the final through deeper connections to relevant theory. At the end of this section the reader must have a clear picture of what works and, above all, what does not in your leadership approach. You are not limited to the analysis you have previously done in the change examples, so here you can bring in more evidence towards your leadership skills, if applicable. Remember to make use here of the theories you will have previously discussed (such as Aitken and Higgs, Hayes, Buchanan, Goleman) and show this through in-text citations. The analysis must be specific and linked to your personal leadership development. Not only strengths, but also what are the areas for development that you identify? Your list of references looks good, but needs not be numbered. This makes me think you are not using an automatic list of references generator, I suggest you revisit Unit4 in Induction and have a look at the tutorials on how to use an automatic list of references generator in your specific version of document processor. This will be a great time and effort saver later on, and especially at dissertation level. There is a 5 minutes tutorial in Unit 4 of the Induction (Resources – Bibliography management in Word) that you might find helpful. Remember to remain critical in all your writing and above all do not forget to always demonstrate awareness of the theories through in-text citations, not only in the review, but also in the personal experience parts (change examples and personal assessment). Overall you have a good start towards the final, so take these comments into account and good luck! P.S. “However, the truth regarding truth is that change usually is personal and it should be addressed first at an individual level.” – proof reading will help catch issues like this “truth regarding truth”.
Client: Please write an essay of maximum 6000 words, (ideally) in PDF format, that includes: The assignment must include a clear structure with abstract, list of references, appendices, and diagrammatic representation where appropriate. You must make appropriate use of journal articles, research papers and texts. 1. A critical review of theories of innovation and change, including the leadership of innovation and change 2. An evaluation of one successful and one less successful innovation / change of which you have personal experience, related to relevant theory. 3. A reflection on, and assessment of, your own performance as a leader of innovation and change, which identifies your strengths and weaknesses Failure to address any of these points will trigger automatic failure in the module.
Client: it must have 60 citations
Instructions for the completed paper attached.
1. Write a critical literature review of theories of innovation, change, and leadership of innovation and change (900 words).
Follow and make use of the supplied list of authors and their theories
2. Two examples of changes you have directly experienced, one successful, one less so, critically analyzed (not described!) through relevant theoretical frameworks (700 words)
Make use of the supplied material to analase this. For instance, John Kotter vs John Hayes contrasting theries