Leading Innovation ’In the Trenches’:
Toward a Continuum of Innovation in Singapore and Beyond
ERNEST K. NG
MICHELLE C. BLIGH
Claremont Graduate University
School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences
123 East Eighth Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: (909) 607-3715
Fax: (909) 621-8905
Email: ernest.ng@cgu.edu
Email: michelle.bligh@cgu.edu
ABSTRACT
Innovation is critical to the growth and success of any organization. This paper seeks to clarify
misconceptions about innovation and provide practical measures to encourage greater
participation around innovation, especially in countries and cultures like Singapore that have
traditionally lagged in innovation. By breaking down innovation into three categories
(incremental, incremental with side effects, and radial), delineating seven types of innovation
opportunities, and differentiating between the innovative process and product, we will illuminate
the often vague concept of innovation. With the greater clarity around innovation, Singapore will
be used as a case study to examine the incongruities between the research and the cultural reality
faced on the day-to-day. Focus group responses from 43 Singaporean managers were used to
uncover the everyday reality managers face. Resource constraints, cultural constraints, and a
general lack of leadership skills that support an innovative culture were identified as primary
barriers to innovation. Nevertheless, these barriers provide valuable lessons around what type of
innovations to pursue, what cultural characteristics can be leveraged, and what type of leadership
development needs to occur so Singapore and other nations with similar cultural contexts can
compete globally through innovation. Through understanding the constraints experienced by
practicing managers, the cultural context, and the academic research, we merged theory with
practice, creating pragmatic steps to foster innovative organizations.
“Innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity” – Michael Porter (1980)
”Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit change as an
opportunity for a different business or a different service” – Peter Drucker (1985)
The concept of innovation has been continually touted as a “silver bullet” to many
organizational and international problems. Innovation has been suggested as a solution to a wide
range of issues like fixing the US educational system to compensating for a nation-state’s natural
“comparative disadvantage” associated with a small domestic market. With almost every new
issue, innovation is offered as a critical component to the solution. Innovation is therefore
increasingly a hot ‘buzzword’ in the global business community these days, but the meaning and
implications to practicing managers and executives is rather unclear. Too often, top leaders
understand the necessity of innovation on a conceptual level, but fail to consider the complexities
and implications of an innovation-driven policy in the reality of daily organizational life. In fact,
a 2007 Bain & Co. study states that 9 out of 10 innovation die in the pipeline, and 3 out of 4 of
those innovations that make it to market fail. As a result, it is imperative to clearly define what
innovation really means and develop actionable solutions that are in line with reality.
In this article, we examine the discrepancy between theoretically-based recommendations
and the reality of the business context when it comes to implementing solutions that facilitate
innovation. Using research we conducted with managers in Singaporean organizations as an
illustrative example, we apply some of the research insights in a culturally pragmatic way to
highlight areas that might foster innovation. The reason for choosing Singapore was research
demonstrated conflicting values between traditional Asian cultural norms/Singaporean culture
and an innovative culture. As a result of this conflict in culture, research has found that
Singapore produces fewer entrepreneurs per capita than almost all other advanced economies.
Nevertheless, Singapore has made becoming an innovation-based economy a strategic priority
and consistently receives top 10 rankings on innovation indices in global studies conducted by
institutions like Boston Consulting Group and INSEAD. This paradoxical situation demands the
development of a framework that seeks to understand the impact of culture, context, and the
reality on the ground first, and then applying research theory accordingly into practice.
How to Foster Innovation
Both research and practice have offered many different ideas of how to foster the levels
of organizational agility and employee creativity that in turn can facilitate successful innovation.
These ideas fall into two broad domains that ideally are thought to work in conjunction with one
other: structure and culture. Within these two domains, we provide an overview of the types of
recommendations currently offered to facilitate innovation.
Spurred by the development of “it depends” contingency theories and the realization that
structure plays a vital role in the execution of strategy, many different structures can arguably
support innovation. Some recommendations have emphasized reducing layers of management
and creating flatter organizations to encourage teamwork and idea sharing. Conversely, other
recommendations include building complex matrix structures around project and crossfunctional teams to obtain more diverse perspectives and ideas. Even more radically, some
researchers have advocated eliminating internal structure altogether by creating virtual
organizations created through developmental alliances and outside networks. Each of these
competing structural changes has been promoted as a means to establish a culture of open
communication, collaboration, and rapid adaptation.
While restructuring is a daunting task, restructuring can seem like a relatively simple fix
when compared to cultivating an ‘innovative culture’. Research has found that innovation is
fostered in cultures that promote risk-taking and experimentation, support organizational
learning, and legitimize conflict. By freeing all employees to reflect upon and learn from
mistakes, a culture of change is gradually legitimized and accepted as a necessity of doing
business in a competitive and unstable environment.
A clear example of this interplay in a culture of innovation is how Pixar Animation
Studios fosters creativity and consistently develops successful innovative products. In a 2008
Harvard Business Review article, the president of the studio, Ed Catmull, suggested that
management’s job was “not to prevent risk, but to build the capability to recover when failure
occurs. It must be safe to tell the truth.” Under these conditions, he was able to empower his
creative employees, create a peer culture where people help each other produce their best work,
free up communication, craft a learning environment, and use post-mortems to stimulate
discussion and challenge assumptions. Within this environment, innovation flourishes because
all employees were engaged and wanted to be involved. To this day, Pixar hold 90-plus patents
demonstrating cutting edge technology development, and 24 Academy Awards demonstrating
quality movie making. Through embracing change and understanding the value of transparent,
constructive feedback at all levels of the organization, a culture of creation and innovation
emerges from the bottom-up, while continually reinforced through top-down decision of leaders.
Though there are many other case studies on innovative organizations, it is a sense of equality,
the democracy of ideas, and necessity of change that are thematically at the core of the results
and findings.
Clarifying misconceptions: Toward a continuum of ‘innovation’
But what about cultural settings in which open communication, collaboration, and fluid
exchange of ideas are not currently the norm, like Confucian-based/authoritarian cultures? For
the vast majority of these managers, fostering structural and cultural changes can be a daunting,
politically risky, and seemingly impossible task. For these reasons, organizations may need to
shift the way they conceptualize and approach innovation. Peter Drucker defined innovation as
“the effort to create purposeful, focused change in an enterprise’s economic and social
potential.” What this definition does not address – and what most people associate with
innovation in everyday language – is anything approaching the new, novel, state-of-the-art, or
revolutionary changes that most managers associate with innovation. From Drucker’s
perspective, innovation is not necessarily about creating something new, but is about looking for
opportunities in the environment to add value to products or services that already exist. Whether
taking advantage of new technologies to create something novel or merely making something
easier to use, if it adds value, it is innovation.
But also important to note in Drucker’s definition is that innovation is also purposeful
and focused. A novel product or service that serves no purpose is thus not an innovation.
Innovation is not serendipity, and it does not happen ‘out of the blue’ in a moment of seemingly
divine inspiration. In contrast, innovation has to be coaxed out, developed, and nourished with
great persistence and discipline. In sum, both employees and managers can benefit from viewing
innovation less as an occasional game-changing product breakthrough and more as an ongoing
pattern of strategic behavior ingrained in all operations. With this definition, innovation entails
openness to new ideas, but without the aggressive rejection of social convention making the idea
of innovation more palatable in cultures where open communication, fluid hierarchies, and risktaking are not the norm.
Another factor that frequently complicates discussions on innovation is that managers fail
to discriminate among various types of innovations. Products and services can be thought of as
falling into a continuum of innovation as displayed in Figure 1. On one end are incremental
innovations, which represent small changes to existing products or services. These can range
from slight changes in processes that increase efficiency, or small design changes that can make
for a better user experience. These innovations or refinements are very valuable to the
development of products and services because they are able to sustain existing product lines.
Nevertheless, these innovations do not capture the “glamour” usually associated with innovation.
On the other end of the continuum are the more sensational, revolutionary or transformational
innovations. These innovations change the way business is done, and frequently relegate existing
products or services into relative obscurity. For example, digital technologies have completely
revolutionized numerous industries: for example, digital cameras supplanted film, digital music
distribution changed the music industry, digital content creation and distribution caused havoc in
the traditional print media, and so on - digital technology has literally transformed these
industries.
The idea of a continuum of innovations is helpful, because it allows managers to think
about and illuminate the space in between the ends. This space is rarely highlighted in
discussions about innovation, and rarely pursued with much strategic thought and purpose;
nevertheless, it is this type of innovation that Drucker and other authors have been advocating for
decades. Between the extreme ends of this continuum is a third type of innovation: incremental
innovations that have one or more side effects. These are innovations that, in part due to the
social and environmental context, produce transformational changes to an industry by creating
new types of markets or generating entirely new revenue streams. For example, Google’s
incremental innovation of targeted syndicated ads created a whole new online industry. Online
advertising was not new, but by slightly changing the distribution of ads and tailoring the types
of ads to the online content, as well as sharing advertising revenue with content creators,
individuals and companies can now make all or part of their living creating content online.
Bloggers, social networking sites, and online media became viable businesses due to this small
incremental innovation of matching ads to content and sharing ad revenue with the content
creator.
Another example from the finance industry, for better or worse, was the creation of the
collatorized debt obligation (CDO). Bonds were not new creations, but slight changes in the
packaging of bonds and loans together and creating a type of asset-backed securities that could
be traded transformed an industry. These incremental innovations created transformational
change without the large monetary investment typically associated with transformational
innovations, in part because they capitalized on the changes taking place in the surrounding
environment. Whether transformational, incremental, or incremental with side effects, the
foundation of all successful innovations starts with a clear understanding of the social and
environmental context.
The continuum of innovation also focuses attention on the social nature of innovation,
another aspect of innovation that is rarely discussed in the business press but nonetheless
fundamental to its understanding. Where an innovation falls on the continuum is context
dependent, because an innovation is only as good as what is currently known and needed.
Marquis found that three-fourths of successful innovations are initiated by the recognition of
demand rather than technical potential. As such, Peter Drucker recommends innovating for the
present, because the future takes much longer to develop than is usually anticipated. If the
market is not ready for the innovation, the organization is likely to run out of money well before
the innovation takes hold. Therefore, it is critical to understand how the innovation can operate
in the present and how it can possibly shape the direction of the future to be truly successful. All
great innovations result from when an idea meets a current need. Displayed in Table 1, Drucker
(1985) delineates seven types of innovation opportunities to meet people’s needs: unexpected
occurrences, incongruities, process needs, industry and market changes, demographic changes,
changes in perception, and new knowledge. By searching for how an organization’s strengths
can capitalize on these opportunities, diverse forms of innovation can be developed.
Confusion is also frequently created when managers emphasize innovation but do not
distinguish between the innovative product and the innovating process. Innovations are the result
of a very complex and paradoxical process. The factors that facilitate this process are very
fragile, and disruptions in any part of the process can prevent an idea from becoming a viable
innovation. The innovation process within an organization can be conceptualized as a value
chain consisting of three main steps: idea generation, conversion, and diffusion. Much of the
work involving innovation either focuses on idea generation or diffusion, and not how they work
in sequence. Research demonstrates that some of the organizational characteristics vital to idea
generation can negatively influence diffusion, and vice versa. For example, a certain amount of
dissent, disruption, and disorder are needed for idea generation, while structure, submission, and
support are needed for the other links in the innovation chain. It is this inherently paradoxical
nature of innovation that often leads to mixed results in attempts to implement innovation
programs. While a flatter organizational structure and open democratic culture may produce
many great ideas, this very same structure and culture might prevent an efficient and effective
conversion of those ideas to viable, sustainable, and profitable products. Within this context,
competent leadership becomes the linchpin that allows the innovation process to flow across the
different environments in the value chain.
In sum, contextual factors, the various types and forms of innovation, and the
complexities of the innovation process itself tend to create confusion in both research and
practice. Empirical research and popular literature on innovation highlight case studies of highly
successful and innovative companies and leaders. While these studies can provide valuable
information and new insights, they rarely provide the depth of contextual information needed to
understand the generalizable components of the innovation process. As a result, the business
press is replete with suggestions, ideals, and generalizations, but applying and executing those
themes in practice is often more difficult than imagined.
Research versus Reality in the Singaporean Context
The stark reality many organizations face today is one of increased global competition,
relentlessly shrinking profit margins, an increasing emphasis on efficiency and productivity, and
a mentality of “doing the most with the least.” As an interesting case example, we sought to
explore innovation in Singapore, a particularly challenging context that provides valuable insight
into the complexities managers face in fostering innovation as an organizational strategy amidst
increasing competition and cultural values that make innovation increasing challenging.
Singapore is famous for the strictness and impartiality of its laws, and is considered one
of the “world’s purest meritocracies.” Characteristic to a merit-centered culture is the
Singaporean preference for predictability and order. Geert Hofstede’s early work confirmed
these cultural assumptions by finding Singaporean managers to be high in both power distance
and uncertainty avoidance. In this context, failure becomes unacceptable, so risky projects are
avoided in favor of small, measured projects with tangible and sustaining effects on the bottom
line. In a cultural climate such as this, the spirit of innovation within indigenous firms, perhaps
not surprisingly, remains low. In addition, the relatively low level of innovative spirit is also not
helped by Singaporean managers’ over-dependency on multi-national corporations (MNCs) for
taking much of the risks in developing innovations. Since the appetite for risk is small for most
Singaporeans, they leave much of the innovating to the more resource-rich MNCs.
Nevertheless, Singapore has many of the conditions that make it ripe for innovation.
Research on forward-thinking cultures has reported Singapore emerging as the most future
oriented culture, meaning there is cultural support for delayed gratification, planning, and
investment. In addition, Singapore’s multi-cultural population is a possible facilitator, as research
has found that diversity can increase creativity and innovation. In fact, the Boston Consulting
group, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Manufacturing Institute released
an international innovation index in 2009 that ranked Singapore number one based general
business environment quality consisting of factors like supportive and friendly government
policies, quality general and IT infrastructure, and an educated population.
Through small focus groups with 43 Executive MBA students enrolled in a leadership
class at the Singapore Institute of Management, we were able to explore the Singaporean
perspective on innovation from the perspectives of managers who are trying to foster innovation
within a challenging context. While these managers mentioned several possible facilitators of
innovation in their organizations, they often consisted of the typical ‘textbook’ recommendations
such as empowering employees to ask questions, creating more teams, and developing a more
innovative culture, and provided examples that focused primarily on supporting small
incremental changes that lead to better customer service.
When these executives did give ideas, they were somewhat counterintuitive to prevailing
wisdom, and revolved around increasing monetary rewards and creating a more disciplined
structure around ideation. These suggestions reveal how important understanding the cultural
context is in exploring innovation, and related to many of the issues they saw as barriers to
innovation. Singaporean managers were more forthright in describing barriers and provided
concrete examples of issues they run into as they try to execute concepts they read and learn in
classes on innovation. These barriers fall into three main categories: resource constraints, cultural
constraints, and lack of leadership.
Resource Constraints
According to executives and managers in Singapore, most Singaporean organizations do
not have the human and/or financial resources to devote to innovation. While it is an academic
and business topic that inspires great passion and interest among them, it is “easy to say, but it's
really tough to push innovative ideas through.” With the tight margins they work under, there is
very little redundancy built into the organization, so each employee is already stretched. One
executive commented, “Today, you have four engineers but they are trying to cut down one, and
the next day you have three then two then one.” As such, there is not enough time and attention
to develop ideas, champion innovative ideas, gather the necessary resources to develop them, and
to diffuse the innovation throughout the organization. The difficulty is heightened because their
jobs and careers are ultimately dependent upon meeting tight deadlines and striving mainly for
productivity improvements. In this context, there are simply not enough human and financial
resources to allow employees the attention necessary to reflect upon how to improve upon
processes, let alone develop innovations.
Talent retention at indigenous enterprises is also increasingly difficult. For those
positions where innovation is a job requirement, the stability and prestige of working at an MNC
is an irresistible lure that drains indigenous enterprises of the talent needed to develop and
innovate successfully. Executives cited that even with government subsidies, local companies
find it difficult to compete with multinational corporations in the war for talent. One executive
commented that even with government programs that allow local companies to hire researchers
paid by the government to work on development projects for one to two years, “after that they
are not usually able to retain scientists to continue to work for the company as permanent staff.
Those people after two years will go back and join some bigger company.”
Cultural Constraints
The resources, structure, and security found at a multinational corporation also play
directly into cultural needs. Within a multinational company, employees can focus on
accomplishing tasks, doing a ‘good enough’ job, and not having the stress of the company's
success resting on their shoulders. They can maintain a harmonious existence, keeping work and
family separate. One executive even commented, “I don't want to have the responsibility to
innovate. If I have that, I can't do this.” In their opinion, innovation is not part of the job
description, and venturing out of the job description to innovate exposes them to the possibility
of professional and/or personal failure. One executive commented that “the cost of failure is high
in our society, when there is a failure, the cost of it is very high.” The reward for a successful
innovation is not very attractive either. One executive frankly remarked to overwhelming support
from the focus group, “The reward for a job well done is more work, more responsibility. Who
wants more work on top of their current workload?” Even if an employee or manager wants to
take on that added responsibility, their individual ambition can be seen as a potential threat to the
social harmony within the organization. One executive commented that over-achievers tend to be
discouraged culturally, because one person's over-achievement can be interpreted as the rest of
the team’s under-achievement. Therefore, in the name of preserving social harmony, deviation
from the job description is socially discouraged.
In addition, executives described a cultural phenomenon in Singapore called the Kiasu
syndrome, which translates roughly to “being afraid to lose or the fear of being left behind.”
Singaporeans want what is best and what is the newest. Translated into how they approach work,
they want jobs that are the best and hold the most prestige and security. As a result, why would
they choose to dedicate years to an indigenous startup company that if it fails will leave them
behind in terms of status and job prospects? It is this mindset, taken together with the others
mentioned above, that represent fundamental challenges to innovation within the Singaporean
culture. In addition, these factors potentially work in conjunction with each other to create a
strong risk aversion that impacts the flow of talent nationally and within individual
organizations, which in turn affects innovation and competitiveness.
Lack of Leadership
Cultural factors also impact how organizations are led. Past research has found a distinct
leadership pattern in Asia known as paternalistic leadership. The paternalistic leadership style is
characterized by clear and strong lines of authority, combined with concern, considerateness, and
elements of moral leadership. The organization is seen as a small society or a large family where
the manager assumes the role of the parent. This leadership style is widespread in Singapore, and
is perhaps best exemplified by the government and Singaporeans’ reliance on the government to
lead on issues. Several executives commented on how innovation is primarily government led
and government supported. The government funds certain projects, creates an agenda, develops
social supports, and communicates the importance of innovation.
While being concerned about preventing subordinates, or in this case, citizens from
failure and giving them direction is noble, the paternalistic relationship also can create barriers to
motivation and ambition. By emphasizing adherence to rules and clear lines of authority through
paternalistic leadership, the already risk adverse will only have the motivation to do what is
asked of them and nothing more. In addition, paternalistic leadership fails to develop leaders, but
also creates good followers who look to the leader to provide. This causes employees in the
organization and society, in general, to view innovation as the pursuit of only a select few. When
those select few step-down or leave to pursue other opportunities, there is a dearth of talent
ready, willing, and able to take up the challenge of leading and nurturing innovation.
Some of our participants demonstrated the results of this type of leadership within their
own organization. When asked how they specifically facilitate creativity and innovation, one
executive captured the sentiment of many by saying, “I provide my followers with sufficient
avenue to bring up their ideas and make sure that I hear them out…should time permit.” While
openness to ideas is encouraging, merely waiting for ideas to be brought up does not demonstrate
the necessary leadership to drive innovation. By leaving innovation to chance and an individual’s
own motivation, it is not surprising to see very few ideas that have a substantial impact given the
cultural constraints on the population. In fact, the Singapore Competitiveness Report 2009
released by the Asia Competitiveness Institute at National University of Singapore concluded
that while Singapore scores high on many innovation indices, in actuality, the innovation outputs
lag significantly behind its inputs. Translating scientific potential into economic outcomes
requires leaders and entrepreneurs, both of which seem to be lacking according to the study.
Lessons learned from the Singaporean context
While together these cultural constraints may seem to reflect McGregor's ‘Theory X’
orientation that employees are lazy and extrinsically motivated, making an innovative culture
nearly impossible to foster by most normative standards, this is not necessarily the case. Seen
through the proper lens, these issues can become contextual opportunities as opposed to barriers.
These constraints reflect a common pattern that permeates throughout Asia. Whether it is due to
Confucian ideals or decades of subjugation due to colonial or totalitarian rule, the culture of
Confucian Asia has maintained the collectivist mindset at the core of these cultural constraints.
By understanding this context and how it differs from the western context, solutions can be
developed that are more culturally appropriate and practical.
First and foremost, we assume that an innovation-based economy is the right goal for a
nation like Singapore. With a small population, limited natural resources, and shifting
manufacturing base, knowledge work is the key to sustained growth and development. The focus
on productivity efficiencies, especially in manufacturing, have been the driving factor in
Singapore’s economic competitiveness, but efficiencies can only sustain growth for a limited
period. A ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of cost is unsustainable; therefore, innovation becomes
the key to growth in an economy transitioning away from manufacturing. But many of the
current endeavors regarding innovation fall short of prevailing expectations primarily because
individuals are paralyzed by the uncertainty of the word “innovation” and lack clear direction in
understanding the continuum of possible innovative activities. Therefore, we offer three
pragmatic areas that Singaporean organizations, and organizations that face similar constraints,
can focus on to foster increased innovative behavior and performance.
Shifting towards a mindset of strategically-oriented incremental innovations
First, organizations in Singapore have to recalibrate their ideas and conceptions of
innovation. Most managers spoke of innovation as the “transformational” kind, and as such think
they do not have the ability or resources to do that kind of innovation. For many indigenous
organizations within Singapore, this may very well be true. In reaction to this reality and the
popularity of the concept of “innovation”, many business leaders have used innovation to
describe any sort of minor change, and have given all employees the ability to “innovate.”
Empowering employees with the ability to innovate is noble, but it is important not to confuse
problem solving with innovation. While innovations do solve problems, not all solutions to
problems are innovative or innovations. In fact, if every employee is making changes with no
strategic purpose, this potentially hinders growth and productivity because processes and
products are constantly changing. Constant changes frustrate users and hinder adoption of any
future innovations, regardless of whether the innovations are good or not. Therefore, while
encouraging grassroots innovation in all employees is necessary, it is important to have a clear
and transparent vetting process that aligns innovative ideas to a strategic direction.
Developing a strategic direction for innovations provides the structure and guidance that
employees require. This is especially important in cultures that are risk-adverse, more
hierarchical, and resistant to change like the one in Singapore. Some researchers have noted that
increased structure and monitoring might actually increase employee well-being in Asian
cultures. The direction and charge to innovate in a pre-approved area provides employees the
license to think beyond their current job responsibilities and innovate. For Singaporean
organizations, given the nature of their employees, clearly defining what innovation means is
integral to success.
Transformational innovations may be a stretch, but that does not mean settling for small
incremental innovation. Organizations in Singapore looking to innovate should focus on
developing incremental innovations with side effects that have the ability to create new ventures
or sustain business. Understanding these innovation opportunities allows one to think
strategically about the problems being solved. Problem solving is looked at an isolated individual
event and developing a solution. Innovating is finding a solution that solves the root cause of
issue, so other users do not experience the same issues. By understanding the market, the
customer, and the product, small changes can go a long way. Innovations with side effects can
also allow an organization to leverage the continuous potential of an innovation. For example, by
leveraging Singapore’s position as the financial hub of Southeast Asia, the further development
of Islamic investment funds provides financial companies innovations with side effects that have
a large growth potential due to demographic and economic changes around the world.
Alternately, utility companies can capitalize on expertise regarding how to maximize usage of
limited natural resources that can result in innovations around efficient and affordable green
technologies to be leveraged as services that extend beyond the local population. Especially for
indigenous Singaporean organizations, it is necessary to throw off the mythology around
innovation as “the next big thing,” and focus on developing strategically guided products and
services around innovations with side effects.
Leveraging cultural characteristics
Second, organizations can focus on viewing their culture as a facilitator of innovation
rather than a barrier. Asian cultures contain several aspects that are possible cultural advantages
in developing innovations with side effects. The collectivist orientation promotes trust that can
lead to increased innovation. By leveraging the trust and commitment to the in-group, greater
effort, dedication, and commitment can be obtained. Researchers have found that Asian cultures
are willing to exert a high level of effort for goal attainment. Therefore, if clear and specific
goals are set, and proper incentives are provided, there will be no shortage of effort.
While some researchers have found that rewards and monitoring significantly reduce the intrinsic
motivation needed for innovation and creativity, our research demonstrates that without clear
rewards, external motivation, and properly defined channels Asian employees in the region are
content to maintain the status quo. Without external cues and specific directions, it becomes
difficult to preserve social harmony and employees are satisfied at maintaining wu wei1.
Consistent with this idea, one study found that once Chinese students were given permission to
be creative, their creative products were judged as creatively no different than U.S. students.
When the Chinese students were not specifically given the instruction to be creative, their
products were significantly less creative than U.S. students. Therefore, the creative potential of
the Asian employee is present, he or she may just have to be unleashed and given direction,
structure, and feedback to maintain commitment to the goal.
Additionally, the guan xi relationships that are characteristic to Asian business culture are
another possible cultural advantage. Guan xi is understood as a network of business relationships
that cooperate together and support one another. These relationships go beyond casual business
contacts and are rooted in cultural obligations to maintain “face” for all parties within the
network. Guan xi relationships can lead to greater efficiencies in bringing a product to market,
increased cross-fertilization of ideas, and minimization of risk in any developmental alliance due
to the pre-established trust and the fact that each party involved does not want to disappoint the
other party. In that way, innovation development is conducted more efficiently by leveraging the
potential for successful collaboration within the network of relationships.
Finally, another important strategic cultural advantage in Singapore is the government’s
dedicated support of the effort to innovate. The Singapore government has attempted to develop
the proper environment with substantial resource investments and infrastructure development.
But putting the resources and infrastructure to work effectively, currently, requires better
leadership and visioning. Setting high goals and giving employees the avenues and ability to do
1 Taoist philosophy that has been translated as “creative quietude,” or the art of letting be. whatever it takes to achieve those goals is paramount. But care must be taken by leaders to
preserve these relationships and maintain the social harmony. The guan xi and in-group
relationships that represent a potential benefit, if soured, will result in significant decreases in
productivity, efficiency, and employee well-being.
Leadership development
The last recommendation of leadership development is the most critical. Leaders can be
the linchpins that hold the organization together and drive it forward. But research has
demonstrated a low occurrence of leadership behaviors, especially transformational leadership2,
within Singaporean organizations. Therefore, leadership development is needed to add specific
ideas around innovation to the Singaporean implicit notion of a leader, and needed to encourage
people to more readily take up the challenge of being a leader.
First, the leadership role needs to go beyond directing employees to accomplish tasks, but
organizing and facilitating an environment conducive to employee success and productivity.
Good managers manage people and processes, and while the Singaporean culture cultivates a
natural performance orientation that tends to facilitate efficient processes and accomplish tasks,
encouraging mastery orientations in employees can also be used to facilitate the development of
effective and innovative people. In practice, an employee is not purely performance or masteryoriented, but depending upon the context and task needs different types of motivation to get work
accomplished. Therefore, the path-goal theory of leadership might be a particularly relevant
theory to apply because of the contingent nature of the innovation process as well as the goal
orientation of most Asian employees. (In support of this point, several managers mentioned this
in their focus group responses). This approach allows leaders to capitalize on the
2 James Burns developed this concept and defined it as the process in which leaders and
followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation. goal/performance orientation of the Asian culture within the context of the contingencies of the
individual employee and his or her unique work situation. An emphasis on teams and team or
shared leadership may require more time to develop, as the high power distance and uncertainty
avoidance of the Singaporean culture is not entirely compatible with these ideologies
Second, as Singaporean managers reported an overall hesitancy to take risks and fear of
kiasu, managers would benefit from developing a “learning from errors” orientation. Although
there is an abundance of literature on leadership and performance outcomes, relatively little
research has been done on the impact of leadership on learning outcomes, particularly in the
realm of learning from mistakes. This gap is surprising given increasing demands for innovation
and growth. As Peter Drucker noted, the increasing reality is that knowledge workers “by virtue
of their position or their knowledge … make decisions in the normal course of their work that
have significant impact on the performance and results of the whole [organization].” However,
the innovation literature suggests that risks and errors are often an inevitable byproduct of the
innovation process. Errors are defined as 1) a deviation or nonattainment of an expected goal
that is 2) unintended and 3) potentially avoidable. The value of learning from errors is that they
represent a form of negative feedback, providing the individual with valuable information about
how to alter one’s course of action to ultimately achieve a goal.
Managers can help employees to learn from errors through developing competencies in
eight key areas:
•
Communicating learning as a core values: managers should believe that one of their core
responsibilities is to facilitate learning and develop employees
•
Developing a problem-solving focus: when problems are encountered, managers should
maintain a positive outlook, focus on the solution, talk and through problems with
employees, and work to provide resources and proactively remove obstacles
•
Empowering others: transferring ownership to employees, getting buy-in, and reinforcing
accountability
•
Institutionalizing learning processes: Conducting learning discussions, reviewing and
debriefing incidents, assessing and evaluating implemented solutions, and
institutionalizing reflection
•
Broadening awareness: Helping employees broaden or shift their perspectives, and
helping employees to see things in a new light or from a different viewpoint
•
Fostering psychological safety: Creating transparency of processes and policies and
reinforcing fairness
•
Managing errors: Taking personal responsibility, being visibly involved in mistakes,
admitting failures in public, and sharing failure stories
•
Communicating and teaching: using illustrative analogies, scenarios, and examples to
provide feedback
Conclusion
As economies transition away from manufacturing, innovation becomes an essential
component to any successful business, but to become an innovative organization is “easier said
than done.” Theory does not always correspond to reality, and our research shows that especially
in some national and organizational cultures, like Singapore, there are constraints that need to be
addressed before an effective innovation policy can be executed. Management practices and
strategies developed in Western organizations do not directly transfer well into Eastern
organizations. Leadership, resources, and culture need to be dedicated to innovation, but in a
strategic way that takes into account the current culture and attempts to leverage current
strengths. Through understanding the constraints felt by practicing managers, we have attempted
to merge theory with practice, and formulated some practical steps to help foster an innovative
organization within Singapore. Nevertheless, these steps in applying theory to practice are not
specific to Singapore. The process of understanding the culture first and then developing targeted
strategies can be applied in any culture.
Innovation does not happen overnight. It takes dedication and a steadfast resolve to learn
from mistakes. The constraints raised in this article are issues that managers can influence in how
they promote and shape leadership practices and policies. By reducing the psychological barriers
to innovation like fear of failure and focusing beyond transformational-style innovations,
managers can facilitate an environment that fosters success instead of one that prevents failure.
The greatest aspect of innovation is that it can be done by anyone, anywhere. When a great idea
meets a great need, a great innovation arises. It is a leader’s job to facilitate the discovery of
ideas and needs in a way that allows innovation to flourish. More research on innovation ‘in the
trenches’ is needed to better understand how culture and management practices interact to
develop more targeted innovation solutions.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
You can find information on Drucker’s concept and sources of innovation and the
importance he places on it in his 1985 book titled Innovation and Entrepreneurship by Harper
Collins, NY, NY. The lecture by Douglas Merrill from Google, Inc. called “Innovation at
Google” (http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GtgSkmDnbQ) provides additional perspective on
the concept of innovation. In addition, the article by Hansen and Birkinshaw titled “The
Innovation Value Chain,” Harvard Business Review, 85, 121-130 provides a good conceptual
overview on innovation as a process.
For more information on path-goal theory, see Robert House’s 1996 article entitled,
"Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory," Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 323–352. To read about how leadership and innovation interact, see J. Lee’s 2008
article entitled, “Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness,” Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 23, 670-687 and de Jong and Den Hartog’s 2007 article titled, “How
leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour” in the European Journal of Innovation
Management, 10, 41-64. Additional perspectives on managing the human side of innovation can
be found in M.D. Mumford’s 2000 article titled, “Managing creative people: Strategies and
tactics for innovation,” Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313-351, and C.J. Nemeth’s
1997 article titled, “Managing innovation: When less is more,” California Management Review,
40, 59-74.
To learn more about the importance of learning from mistakes on organizational
performance, see Edmondson’s 2004 article entitled, “Learning from mistakes is easier said than
done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error” in the
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 66-90, and Gaddis, Connelly, & Mumford’s 2004
article entitled, “Failure feedback as an affective event: Influences of leader affect on subordinate
attitudes and performance” in Leadership Quarterly, 15, 663-686. Schyns & Hansbrough’s
edited book titled, When Leadership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes and Ethical
Failures by Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT provides greater insight on the negative
consequences of ignoring mistakes.
Overviews on how ethnic/national culture impacts organizations can be found in G.
Hofstede’s 1980 book entitled, Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related
values by Sage, Beverly Hill, CA. Specific issues about management issues in Singapore and
Asia can be found in M. Warner’s edited book titled, Culture and management in Asia by
RoutledgeCurzon, London, and in R. Westwood’s edited book entitled, Organizatiaonal
Behaviour: Southeast Asian Perspectives by Longman, Hong Kong. The Singapore
Competitiveness Report 2009 can be obtained through contacting the Asia Competitiveness
Institute at the National University of Singapore. Additional information about the construct of
guanxi can be found in Park & Luo’s 2001 article titled, “Guanxi and Organizational Dynamics:
Organizational Networking in Chinese Firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 22, 455-477. M.
Javidan’s article in the July 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review titled, “Forward thinking
culture,” details how the Singaporean culture facilitate some necessary conditions for innovation.
Figure 1. Continuum of Innovation and Examples
Incremental •
•
•
Better battery life
Operation system
upgrades
Larger amount of
pixels in a digital
camera
Incremental with Side Effects •
•
•
•
Google AdWords
Synthetic collateralized debt
obligations
Social network games and microtransactions
Total Quality Management
Radical •
•
•
•
Digital
technology
Jet turbine
Microprocessors
Internet
Table 1. Drucker’s Sources of Innovation
Sources
The unexpected
Incongruence
Process needs
Industry and market structures
Demographics
Changes in perception, mood, and
meaning/cultural values
New knowledge
Examples
• Natural disasters
• Unexpected success like the Post-It at 3M
• Disruptive innovators like Japanese carmakers
making cars customers need and can afford,
not what they desire
• Total quality management
• Eliminating functional organizational
structure in favor of a process structure to
facilitate better client service
• Increase in online distribution
• Deregulation of banking
• Large aging population
• Growing middle class in China
• Growth in individual’s concern about their
health
• Rise of women in the workplace
• Discovering a new drug molecule
• Creating the microchip