As mentioned before, there are several key factors that shape the process and the outcomes of innovation. One of the most important factors is the role that stakeholders play when introducing and implementing an innovation. To start with, there should be a climate for change, meaning that employees’ and managers’ perceptions of the importance of innovation implementation should be present within the organisation. According to Klein & Knight (2005), managers play a critical role in the implementation process as they should show “strong, convincing, informed, and demonstrable management support” (p.245) to make employees see the usefulness of the innovation implementation. As Repenning (2002) stated, “managers may be understandably suspicious of the recommendation that, once they choose to adopt an innovation, they support it wholeheartedly irrespective of any reservations concerning lack of appropriateness. To do otherwise, however, insures that the implementation effort will fail” (p. 124-125). For the implementation of an innovation, the more employees should be working together, which shows a positive relationship between management support and implementation success according to Sharma & Yetton (2003). Another key factor is managerial patience which means a long-term time orientation focused on the positive outcomes of an innovation. Committed managers should understand that innovations cost money, time and effort on the short-term but can make a profit for the organisation on the long-term. Productivity and efficiency will go up when patience is kept and when managers understand that time and effort should be divided between immediate tasks and the innovation implementation. “Managers must devote great attention, conviction, and resources to the implementation process” because “in the absence of effective implementation, the benefits of innovation adoption are likely to be nil” (Klein & Knight, 2005, p. 246).
When including people during the introduction phase, it is assumed that motivation and acceptance play an important role. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) start their implementation study by describing the fact that many researchers assume that participation of the people who are eventually going to implement the innovation is an important process and assumed to be an effective strategy and of major importance. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) also emphasize the fact that not many studies on implementation have answered questions about the intensity of participation but two studies did measure variations in participation in relation to implementation outcomes. Berman and Pauly (1975) who have done research in organisational implementation in schools, note that “if teachers felt they did not participate in day-to-day decisions as the project was implemented, implementation is more difficult, and the chance of success, of fidelity to the project design, and of teacher change were reduced” (p.61). According to Fullan and Pomfret (1977), other research indicated that active involvement in the development process appears to be the critical factor, more than only participation itself. Also, these participators in previous research had greater knowledge of the purposes and use of the application of the process compared to people who were not actively involved. Interviews with people involved indicated that shared decision-making was valued strongly. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) describe two stages involved in the innovation process; initiation which includes adoption, and implementation.
Implementing strategic human resource planning 21 The initiation stage involves commitment of the managers as they co-decide, accept or have no direct say in the decision. The implementation phase is involved with planning the implementation and actual use of the innovation. This includes a managerial and user perspective of which the former is involved with fidelity of the managers and the latter is focused on the adaptive perspective (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977). Both phases ask for an active role of managers in participating in the development process. It is likely, too, that participation is related to the extent of uncertainty and hence to receptivity (Waugh & Punch, 1987). Underlining that when managers are uncertain about the implementation of a certain innovation, like SHRP, there is a greater chance of people being receptive to change. Cancian (1972) confirms this by saying that, innovative efforts represent situations of uncertainty and receptivity to change is related to uncertainty leading managers actions while having substantial lack of knowledge. This indicates that managers should be informed thoroughly and timely to be able to grab their attention and to create cooperation.
In general, many innovations are incorrectly and ineffectively implemented. Failure of an innovation not to be adopted by for example a person or organisation is common. This does not necessarily mean that the innovation is ineffective but that the implementation process is ineffective (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Innovations may fail because they are not used with “the consistency, skill, and care required to achieve its expected benefits” (Klein & Knight, 2005, p. 243). Especially new technological innovations have an ease of breaking down or have flaws in use because of the newness of the innovation. At the same time, the choice for adoption of the innovation is decided by the top hierarchy in the organisation, in most cases not the most regular users of the innovation. Nutt (1986) concluded that “managers’ strategies in guiding innovation implementation are ‘persuasion’ and ‘edict’, both of which involve little or no user input in decisions regarding adoption and implementation” (Nutt, 1986 as seen in Klein & Knight). Also, to be able to implement an innovation, individuals are expected to change roles, routines, and norms (Klein & Knight, 2005). This is easier said than done as employees are used to their daily tasks and might not be familiar with sharing information on a regular basis. Changing individuals’ tasks might also disrupt status hierarchy, sometimes asking employees to work as peers while before a managerial role was performed. Klein & Knight (2005) also underline that the implementation process is “time consuming, expensive, and, at least initially, a drag on performance” (p.244). While introducing a new innovation, employees will have to attend training, attend meetings and regularly evaluate the innovation progress. In this way, time has to be spent on other activities than regular tasks and will initially work against current performance and profit. Therefore, in some cases there will be chosen for less risky innovations or sticking to current ways of doing business. Baer and Frese (2003) and other authors estimate the rate of attempts of innovation in nearly 50% to end in failure. Eventually, when patience is kept, the fruits of innovation can be reaped.
Implementing strategic human resource planning 22