Innovative Democracy
The structure of Gore and Associates versus Tidd’s and Bessant’s ideas for innovative organizations
The founding of Gore and Associates
Gore and Associates was founded by Gilbert L Gore and his wife, Genevive. Gore had worked for DuPont for seventeen years before deciding to quit and start his own company. Gore resigned his position at DuPont because the work environment at DuPont did not support innovation. Gore yearned for a work environment where all employees were free to get in touch with their innovative side and contribute to the growth of an organization freely. Therefore, Gore was founded based on creating a non-hierarchical company where all workers enjoyed a certain level of innovation democracy.
The history of Gore and Associates
Gilbert Gore founded Gore and Associates after quitting his job at DuPont. Although Gore had a good career at DuPont, the work environment was bureaucratic, and employees were not free to push their innovative ideas due to the many hierarchical stages involved. The entrepreneurial and creative fire in Gore was fueled further when the DuPont management underestimated the potential of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and the capacity of the compound to get used in the productions of the company. The same PTFE compound was the breakthrough of Gore and Associates when the son of Gore discovered a way of stretching the compound to a more durable and porous product. PTFE became the springboard for hundreds of products, including the family of fabrics that make up the company’s most significant business.
Gore’s Lattice Organization structure and its alignment with Konopka’s theory
Konopka’s theory of group work states that all members of a team must participate fully for a task to get accomplished fully. As such, the lattice organization at Gore and Associates aligns with Konopka’s theory since all operations of the organization are based on group work.
Business structure/leadership at Gore and Associates
Gore and Associates use a decentralized form of business structure. At Gore and associates, lines of communication are direct rather than up and down as in a hierarchical structure. There is no formal channel of communication since employees of all levels are free to interacts and exchange innovative ideas. Also, the leadership at Gore and Associate is an open form of leadership since there are no ranks or titles. Leaders are chosen by teammates depending on their capacity as a teambuilder. Also, employees are free to select and replace leaders, depending on the qualities they required.
Comparison to DuPont’s business model
The business model at Gore and Associates is different from the one at DuPont. The business model at DuPont is hierarchical, whereas the one at Gore and Associates is non-hierarchical. At DuPont, employees have to go through specific formal procedures of approval when pitching an innovation idea. On the other hand, the employees at Gore and Associates are free to pursue their ideas and present them to other employees for further evaluation. At DuPont, any innovations that do not uphold the traditional business model of large scale production of primary industrial material are discarded. However, at Gore and Associate, the organization is open to innovative ideas from any field. For instance, Gore and Associates took up the idea of guitar strings by one of its employees. Although Gore and Associates had no presence at the music industry, the innovative, and experiments by Dave Myers, Gore now sells one of the best guitar strings in the world.
Tidd’s and Bessant’s ideas for innovative organizations
According to Tidd and Bessant (2013), innovation is increasingly about teamwork and the combination of different disciplines and perspectives. The designs by Tidd and Bessant require the need for a shared vision and the will to innovate. A shared vision and the intention to pursue an idea is the basis of any innovative organization. All employees should have a common goal and a desire to achieve it. Also, Tidd and Bessant suggest capable team working for an innovative organization to succeed. Groups have more to offer than individuals and as such, balancing roles in a group has more chances of yielding fruits rather than individualized work. Another critical idea by Tidd and Bessant is the need for a creative climate. The staff of an innovative organization should be free to experiment on their ideas.
Efficiency versus innovation tradeoffs at Gore Associates
Efficiency is opting for the more natural way out of a situation. Many leaders in bureaucratic organizations use their power to get work done. The employees perform their duties out of compliance rather than commitment. However, since it is an efficient way of running affairs, many organizations use hierarchical business models. The innovation tradeoffs require some compromise. Gore and Associates use innovation tradeoffs to ensure innovation is upheld. Although the company could make more profits by opening off-shore manufacturing centers, the company chooses cross-business learning compared to the gains. As such, Gore and Associates shun any ideas that would compromise innovation democracy.
References
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2013). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley.
Hamel, G. A. R. Y., & Breen, B. (2007). Building an innovation democracy: WL Gore. The future of management.