Motivation, Innovation, Bureacracy

Fundamentally, state run organisations appear slow and often unresponsive to those outside the structure of the organisation. How does innovation get oxygen in this context? I have been reflecting and writing upon the topic of motivation, and how it might relate to organisational culture. In order to get some perspective and distance myself [somewhat] from my own biases, I have been conducting research to establish some idea of the work that has been done in this area. Further to this the comments regarding motivation and how it interfaces with innovation posted on cph127 have further piqued my interest...

The extract reproduced here from the link above relates more specifically to the context of organisations with beauracratic structures that almost certainly, inherently inhibit innovation.It is instructive in clarifying the causes and some strategies in dealing with the problem at least from a management point of view.

Employees in most organizations would like to feel that their ideas can make a difference in their workplace. For many people, in fact, there are few things more motivating than seeing--and assisting with--the successful implementation of an idea they suggested. The scarcity of this motivational force may be one of the biggest reasons why so many government employees feel that they are powerless and unable to change "the system."

All too often, supervisors overlook the possibility that their employees may be an untapped gold mine of good ideas. Sometimes this may be out of hubris, with the manager feeling that he/she knows best. In other cases, managers may ignore line employees' ideas out of insecurity, feeling threatened by subordinates who prove to be highly competent and creative.

No one has a monopoly on good ideas, however. Managers who are aggressive about eliciting the ideas of their staff find that getting everyone involved in the effort to improve the operation has an incredible multiplier effect on the rapidity of the change process and the commitment of employees to those changes. To do this, managers need to foster a climate of openness that gets employees engaged in the process of innovation and organizational renewal.


The following two links are very clear in their assertion that beauracracy is fundamentally a block to innovation within organisational culture...

"Some confuse the bureaucracy with the cause of the success - rather than - the parking brake on that success."

"The bureaucratic obsession with rules leads to the ignoring of results."

"Classical" bureaucracy, we are told, worked well in a stable environment, when tasks were simpler and change more glacial. But bureaucracy cannot cope with our age of "breathtaking" change, with its complex and interdependent social problems, because it operates through a detailed sub-division of tasks and the constant generation of new rules.

Ends and means get inverted, as Robert Merton argued, and the bureaucratic obsession with rules leads to the ignoring of results.

For the serious design professional whose role and in fact natural instinct is to bring new ideas and impliment them, this is an eternal frustration that inevitiably requires [it appears] either a forfeiting of this professional fundamental, or a change of role to a more suitable and accomodating climate...The question remains - Can bureacracy cope with innovation?