The statement of the issue claims that constant innovation and change within an organization are likely to
demage the organization, just like they are likely to improve it. The seemingly simple and straight-forward
issue has a complex nature, therefore there are hardly any certainly answers to it. To some extent, I agree
with the author's viewpoint that constant innovation and change within an organization may not always be a
good thing for an organization. However, as different people may hold different opinion due to distinctive
education levels, family backgrouds, value judgements and life experience, we can not simply conclude that
constant innovation and change within an organization are in all cases, like to demage the organization. To
discuss this complex issue we need to perform a careful case-by-case analysis as discussed below.
Firstly, the issue that constant innovation and change within an organization are likely to demage the
organization, just like they are likely to improve it, is correct in some cases. For example, for a small company,
the expense of innovation and change might be too expensive for them to afford, if they kept constant
innovation and change that might demage the company's finance and it may fall bankruptcy. Also, the same
applied to more traditional companies, like corporate finance side of the investment banks, they earn credits
because they provide constant good services to their corporate clients, not because they kept changing the
way of financing the debts. The more tradtional ways are preferred in the sectors which orgainizations are
expected to perform constant and stable.
On the other hand, the issue is only partically correct, due to differenct natures of different organization
sectors. Admittedly, the bank's corporate finance and probably also the private banking sector should not
always come up with new ideas as the clients want them to be safe and stable. However, other divisions in
an investment bank, say Information Technology or Fixed Income products divisions, need a lot of innovation
to be successful. For instance, in order to improve the business, one of the largest investment bank, Goldman
Sachs, invested a huge amount of money in the research of their Fixed Income, Currency and Derivatives
department, and as a result, they earn excessive return in this business. This investment is not wasted, but
in the opposite, save the company from the recent subprime crisis. I belive that is a very good example to
illustrate that in many cases, still, the innovation and change within an organization are valuable.
In addition, we need to take into accout the pros and cons of the innovation and change within an
organization. Carefully weighing the cost and benefits and find the break-even point of the two are crucial.
For example, if the cost of the innovation and change is higher than the benefit of it, we should not put
money into the innovation and change within an organization. In the opposite, if the cost of the innovation
and change is lower than the benefit of it, we should certainly invest in the innovation and change within an
organization.
To sum up, although the claim that constant innovation and change within an organization are likely to
demage the organization as they are to improve it, has some merit due to the fact that smaller companies
and traditional companies may not benefit as much in the innovation, is still not convincing in certain cases as
I discussed in the third paragraph. To take all these factors into account, we can safely arrive at the
conclusion that, the constant innovation and change within an organization is morely likely to benefit largers
organization in the emerging markets and high technology markets than the more traditional ones and the
smaller ones.
ASTE.
