Pemancar has been subjected to a strategy and top-management-shift. From a well-performing & people-oriented organization, where the complex was kept simple by ‘as long as the bottom line looks good, we are all happy’ fueled by the trust for its people (Abdullah & Siti-Nabiha,2012) – the new strategy is semi-rigid, initiated by Nova. The new procedures leave very little room for multidimensional novelty (Miron-Spektor & Erez,2017) and all are expected to do ‘more with less’. The culture has deteriorated by constant problems without solutions, as Nova makes the high expectations on individuals very clear, yet indirectly stripping the organization of skills retention, power of diversity, and other factors necessary for the expected and intended performance. The ‘what’s in it for me’ aspects (Zigarami,2009) and autonomy from an individual perspective becomes lost in translation by inconsiderate trade-offs.
Many changes occur simultaneously, leaving the employees with a sense of chaos and low self-esteem in performance (Abdullah & Siti-Nabiha,2012), by a lack of information, and poor communications/goals for shop-floor workers. The Catch 22 of aiming for growth – yet end up in a worse place due to ignoring vital business and human factors and local adjustment is a difficult situation to recover from. Danial has a rocky road ahead, to re-gain the trust of the stakeholders, and to differentiate approach from theory (Nasim & Sushil,2011) will require a balance.
To balance the paradox of sustainable continuity, and crucial change is critical. Pemancar requires a flexible framework, despite the pressure of semi-rigid processes, and the perception of that ‘one global size fits all’- even for an organization new to the East Policy (Abdullah & Siti-Nabiha,2012).
All organizations will at some point experience contradictions, and to find a way to see the logic in what is not always logical can be a challenge. Especially whilst under the scrutiny of a manager being expected to spend more time on meetings and financial reports (Abdullah & Siti-Nabiha,2012) than on actually leading the people through change. The risk of positivity and paralyzation is also vast, by lack of skills, uniform processes and de-motivation from little empowerment. The information flow must, therefore, be improved to start with.
Not everything is solved by reviewing .e.g a balanced scorecard (Nasim & Sushil,2011). Hence, performance from various aspects of what is value-adding and what is not must be considered, to motivate the staff, by proving to all stakeholders that productivity and progress comes in many shapes, depending on from what angle it is being viewed.
The theory of higher productivity by cutting staff often looks good on paper, but not in practice when suddenly our key-skills are lost, creating gaps between e.g. quality and costs. Danial’s influence in bringing the management as well as employee mindset back on track will play a crucial part going forth. By adhering to the team-perspective (Li, She & Yang, 2018) the individuals can be fostered to understand the world from other views – by collaboration and by the leader’s capability of balancing control/authorization with collaboration/individualism where all voices can be heard in a paradox leadership style. To maintain a high perspective (Li, She & Yang, 2018) – the information gap must firstly be filled (Zigarami,2009).
Finding the balance between continuity and change by viewing each challenge from a paradox lens with ideas that are both feasible and useful can bring the innovation management to its essence (Miron-Spektor & Erez,2017).
THOUGHTS – PLEASE USE ACADEMIC JOURNALS ONLY – ANY 3 OF YOUR CHOOSING OR FROM THOSE THAT ARE UPLOADED