Structure and Standardization Stifles Innovation?

¶ … structure and standardization stifles innovation? Why or why not?

I think that to some degree, structure and standardization does stifle innovation and the main reason for this is that it creates a more rigid framework in which innovation has to take place. Usually, we may assume that innovation is more stimulated by an open working environment, free brainstorming sessions and communication without barriers that can get ideas from one level of the organization to the other in a quick and efficient manner. When structure and standardization enter the picture, this usually means that communication channels have to respect a more systematic bureaucracy.

On the other hand, standardization itself means that innovation is stimulated or encouraged only at particular moments in the production cycle, probably when a new series of the product, somewhat improved and addressing a wider range of consumers, needs to appear. This periodic innovation process will probably also induce a tendency for employees to be less innovative in the rest of the time, which may mean that their innovative skills will not be at their best when time for innovation does come.

2. Describe a situation that got out of hand, where conflict escalated. What could you have done to avoid or resolve the conflict?

In a software producing organization, at some point there was a conflict between two different programming teams relating to the technological solution that was to be adopted and its implementation within the application. The conflict had a positive aspect to it, given the fact, first of all, that its aim was to generate the best ideas and subsequent mode of action, however, once the two best solutions were clearly identified, it became less effective for the two teams to constantly battle it out in order to obtain the implementation of one of the two.

The innovative solution to resolving the conflict would have been to create a mixed working team between the two teams, with the common objective of coming up with a solution that would take the best out of the two solutions the teams had proposed. Such a solution to the problem would have had several advantages. First of all, it would have allowed the two teams to interact and communicate in the scope of reaching a coming objective rather than each of them working out separately to obtain the implementation of its own solution.

On the other hand, it would also have likely created the best technological solution out of the two proposed by bringing together more resources to debate the best alternative.

3. What practices of or observations about managing conflict do you find offered by your leader - Carly Fiorina? How would they react to the concept of "healthy tension?"