Consequences of innovations that have already happened. Changes in the organization

IN production sector the emergence of a new idea often leads to a devaluation of labor not only individuals, but also entire groups. In addition to envy, which appears at a primitive level, or fears of a prestigious nature, which appear at a more high level, the cause of the conflict between the innovator and his colleagues and the administration may be commitment to previous values, conservatism.

A possible cause of conflict may also be a system of motivation and interest in which the benefit for the innovator is generated to the detriment (real or imagined) of the interests of a structural unit or the entire organization.

It is precisely because of the traditionally negative perception of conflicts that the social climate is not conducive to the spread of innovative activities, even those that are certainly justified from an economic point of view, and often slows them down.

1.2 The concept of innovation conflict

As mentioned above, conflict is understood as the most acute way of resolving significant contradictions that arise in the process of interaction, which consists in the opposition of the subjects of the conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions.

Necessary and sufficient conditions for the emergence of a conflict are the presence of oppositely directed motives or judgments among the subjects of social interaction. And also the state of confrontation between them.

As for innovation conflicts, they can be defined as a separate type of conflict, the cause of which is the issue of introducing certain, hitherto unapplied innovations into social relations.

At the same time, an innovative conflict can be both intrapersonal and social (interpersonal, intergroup, between an individual and a group), that is, the separation of innovative conflicts into a separate group is determined not by the subject composition, but by the object of the conflict, its cause, which in any innovative conflict the issue of introducing into life certain innovations relating to various aspects of social life comes up.

Any innovation is associated with the development, “breaking through”, dissemination and use of innovations in production. In this case, a contradiction arises between supporters and opponents of the innovation. The reason for this lies in the differences in the results and consequences of innovations for social groups workers on the one hand, and the organization as a whole on the other. Objectively, quite contradictory relationships will arise between them. Thus, situations are possible when an innovation is beneficial to the enterprise (organization as a whole), but does not meet the interests of certain groups of its employees, or, conversely, is unprofitable to the enterprise, but suits certain groups of employees. At the same time, the results of innovation may have different content for the enterprise and employees. For example, from the point of view of the interests of the organization (enterprise), the main result may be an increase in production obtained through the creation of special conditions in one of the departments (teams) working under a collective contract. In teams, the results can be expressed, first of all, in increased income, expanded participation in management, and enriched labor content. And in other units that produce the same products, the result of this innovation may be expressed in a worsening of their situation due to the limitation of equipment that was transferred from the department to the contractor.

Often more attention is paid to experimental units, while attention to other groups is reduced. As a result, contradictions may arise, such as:

The social effect may have the opposite “sign” in relation to the economic one;

The consequences of innovation can counteract the results;

The same results and consequences of innovations can be assessed differently by members of the organization’s team. The relationship between the results of innovation and the costs of them are perceived differently by employees and the organization and can give rise to a conflict situation and even conflict.

Conflicts that arise as a result of innovations in an organization, like all others, can be partly functional and partly dysfunctional.

Conflicts can both facilitate and hinder the implementation of innovations. At the same time, employees who actively resist innovation become participants in the conflict. It is important to note that employees who actively resist innovation become participants in the conflict, but will not necessarily be the wrong party in it.

It should also be borne in mind that the process of introducing innovations and its final result can be dangerously influenced by so-called passive workers. Because they do not openly oppose innovations, so it is difficult to identify them and enter into dialogue with them. There may be quite a few of these in the team.

Thus, based on the above, we can define an innovation conflict as a contradiction that arises for various reasons between individual members of a team, social groups regarding innovations undertaken in a team, in society (that is, innovation is an object of conflict).

1.3 Types of innovation conflicts

Innovative conflicts in organizations can be business and interpersonal.

Business innovation conflicts arise between people who are in one way or another connected by production and economic relations.

Perestroika gave impetus to many organizational and managerial innovations that changed the organization of production and management. New organizational forms are associated with the creation of cooperatives, rental, family contracts, etc. A feature of many organizational forms is their flexibility and focus on meeting consumer needs. At the same time, new organizational forms give rise to new conflicts and contradictions.

An internal motivator for innovation activity is the need of people for creativity, inherent in the very character of a person, manifested in the constant desire to update and improve the production environment. The presence and high development of these needs is inherent in innovators who are sensitive to new problems and for whom the process of introducing innovation is interesting. They can take part in it without even receiving any rewards for it. But as creative people, they are interested in recognition of their contributions and achievements, for which they are often capable of conflict.

Interpersonal innovative conflicts. The collision of oppositely directed, incompatible needs, motives, interests, thoughts, feelings gives rise to interpersonal innovative conflicts. They can arise both in the sphere of official and non-official relations between supporters and opponents of innovations. Such conflicts can have a situational and characterological basis.

Situational prerequisites for conflict include:

Feelings of uncertainty and insecurity;

Insufficient or distorted information;

Non-recognition of the employee by the team;

Injustice.

Characterological prerequisites include:

Character traits;

Tendency to be aggressive;

Reduced self-criticism;

Intolerance for the shortcomings of others;

Bad manners.

An employee becomes a source of conflict when the direction of his activities and values become incompatible with the interests and values of the team, i.e. when the moment of his “inadequacy” comes to the goals and objectives of the group. For example, an active innovator works in a team where it is “not customary” to engage in innovation, or, conversely, a passive worker ends up in a team that is intensively updating production.

A person obsessed with an idea, ready to achieve his goal in any way, also becomes conflict-prone. It is difficult to find people with such personal qualities that would guarantee conflict-free behavior. Almost anyone can enter into conflicting relationships.

2.1 Causes of innovation conflict

An innovative conflict is, figuratively speaking, a Genie who, having once received freedom, is in no hurry to return back to the magic lamp. Of course, any innovation requires considerable emotional costs and is accompanied by intrapersonal conflicts of the innovator himself. However, as soon as the innovator brings his “brainchild” to the discussion of colleagues or begins to actively develop the innovation, the conflict develops into an interpersonal one. Innovators and conservatives. Resistance to change. This is what any innovation faces, especially in the field of information technology and management. It is precisely this situation that is, in its essence, an innovative conflict, a phenomenon that slows down the development of society in favor of its conservative views and values.

The likelihood of an innovation conflict increases if:

1. the innovation is large-scale;

2. in innovation process involved a large number of of people;

3. the innovation is radical;

4. the innovation process occurs quickly;

5. There is no information support for the process, its propaganda preparation.

Figuratively speaking, innovative activity, as a rule, is collective; it requires the participation of many people belonging to various professional and job groups. And what large quantity people are involved in the innovation process, the more intensively it proceeds, the more opportunities arise for the emergence of conflict situations that are generated by the difficulties that accompany most innovations.

The main reasons causing innovation conflict include the following:

1) passivity of workers interested in innovation. This is due to the fact that many employees are afraid of salary cuts, increased work during implementation, are afraid of not being able to cope with new responsibilities, and do not have material and moral incentives during implementation. In other words, workers fear a deterioration (as a result of innovations) of their socio-economic situation;

2) shortage of material and technical resources. It should be noted here that sometimes organizations have resources of more than Low quality than required, sometimes they have to be obtained externally, sometimes the required equipment and tools are not produced by domestic industry;

3) deterioration of relationships between managers and chief specialists of the organization with managers and specialists of departments;

4) the presence of opposite orientations. Each individual and social group has a certain set of value orientations regarding the most significant aspects of social life. They are all different and usually opposite. At the moment of striving to satisfy needs, in the presence of blocked goals that several individuals or groups are trying to achieve, opposing value orientations come into contact and can cause conflicts. Conflicts due to opposing value orientations are extremely diverse. The most acute conflicts arise where there are differences in culture, perception of the situation, status or prestige, and attitude towards the need for innovation;

5) ideological reasons. Conflicts arising from ideological differences are a special case of a conflict of opposing orientations. The difference between them is that the ideological cause of the conflict lies in different attitudes towards the system of ideas that justify and legitimize relations of subordination, dominance and fundamental worldviews among different groups of society. Here it is appropriate to talk about the lack of proper propaganda preparation for upcoming innovations, insufficient level of explanatory work;

6) the need for managers and chief specialists to restructure their work. (Today, the problem of employment and retraining is becoming increasingly relevant not only for managers, but also for ordinary members of the workforce).

7) the opposite motivations of the participants in the conflict. It has been proven that innovation conflict is multi-motivated. The motivations of opponents are different. For an innovator they are more socially oriented, while for a conservative they are more personal oriented. 1

Overcoming these and other difficulties and a more rational approach to the innovation process will reduce conflict in organizations.

Every new thing is born in the struggle with the old. This is what dialectics teaches.

Innovation processes are no exception to this rule. Resistance to innovation in an organization can be active and open or passive and hidden. The manager would prefer open resistance - then he sees and understands why people are unhappy, what they want from him and what should be done to improve the innovation itself. From all this he can form a program for himself organizational actions. Thus, resistance to innovation can be considered as a unique form of organizational behavior of people. A passive or, worse, hidden form of resistance is another matter. Everyone seems to agree, nothing seems to raise objections, but innovations are not implemented and there are no results.

Staff resistance to innovation can be caused primarily by reasons such as uncertainty, a sense of loss and the belief that change will not bring the expected results.

In addition, the reasons for employee resistance to innovation can be divided into several groups. The first includes economic reasons associated with the potential possibility of losing income or its source. For example, workers employed in production may believe that innovations in technology will lead to their dismissal, reduction of working hours, intensification of work, and deprivation of benefits and privileges.

The second group of reasons causing staff resistance to change is: organizational: reluctance to change the existing system of relations, to disrupt the existing balance of power, fears for a future career, the fate of an informal organization.

There is also a group social reasons causing staff resistance to innovation. As stated earlier, innovation involves innovators (authors of ideas, projects), organizers who plan and finance the development and implementation of innovations, as well as users working with innovations. The actual effect of innovation implementation depends on the interest of all participants in the innovation process. Their interests may merge or diverge. Thus, in construction, when brigade contracting grew into collective contracting, middle management experienced significant changes. The previous petty supervision and constant monitoring of the work of the team on their part became inappropriate. For engineering preparation of production, organizational mechanism Strict requirements were imposed on the provision of work (especially supplies), and in a number of cases the middle level was painfully confronted with the need to introduce a new method and began to slow down its spread.

The same problem arises with the source of innovation initiative. The initiator can be employees, management or higher authorities. From the point of view of implementation efficiency, it is better when the initiators and users act as one person. When some shift their functions to others, the results of innovation activities are significantly reduced.

The next – fourth – group of reasons includes personal, associated primarily with psychological characteristics of people. We are talking about the force of habit, inertia, fear of the new, the unknown. Many people find it difficult to perceive a change in the usual course of events, and in the process of change there inevitably arises the threat of demotion, increased personal power of the leader, fear of loss of status, position in the organization, respect in the eyes of management and fellow workers. A change in the objective position of people affects their interests, hence such an important reason as the resistance of the human factor.

Finally, a fifth large group is identified socio-psychological reasons for resistance to innovation, characteristic not only of individual members of the enterprise and their groups, but also of the organization’s personnel as a whole. Among these reasons are the belief of people that innovations “will not bring anything good”, “the planned changes will not solve problems, but will only multiply their number”, and in addition, dissatisfaction with the methods of implementing changes, their imposition, suddenness; distrust of change initiators; the threat of destruction of the existing organizational structure of values; unfavorable moral and psychological climate; the desire to preserve the “old”, “good” orders and traditions; the confidence of the majority of organization members that impending changes will occur solely in the interests of management.

Strengthening resistance is largely determined by such circumstances as long-term stability commercial results ensuring long-term satisfactory operation of the enterprise without additional costs; insufficient qualifications and high staff turnover; internal staff turnover; unhealthy internal environment; the predominance of authoritarian leadership methods.

The strength of resistance of the organization's personnel to the introduction of innovations depends most of all on the degree of destruction of established life principles, principles and norms, the speed and intensity of the process of change, as well as on the nature and scale of the threat of a change of power.

From a review of the reasons for staff resistance to innovation, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. Resistance to restructuring is an objective phenomenon caused by the system’s desire to maintain the relative stability of connections. And any innovation in relation to the existing structure of connections is perceived as a destabilizing factor.

2. System resistance to certain innovations should not be considered only as a negative reaction. Being an objective phenomenon, such resistance creates the necessary preconditions for a kind of “testing” of a new idea and its refinement in the process of linking it to specific conditions.

3. Although resistance to the introduction of innovations is objective and natural, its source is the subjective element of the system - the person. Since production is social system, then the subjective factor is decisive. A person can play both an organizing and a disorganizing role in the system. The success of establishing and implementing new functions and connections depends on people’s desire to work, their interest, skills and initiative.

If the source of resistance to innovation is the subjective element of the system, then subjective motives should be considered as the motivating reason for this objective phenomenon. These include, first of all, the so-called fear of new things. However, this fear has understandable and far from identical reasons for different individuals who act as objects or participants in the innovation process. As research shows, several groups of reasons are identified that are important for the organization’s personnel.

In the first place is the fear of material losses. For managers, on the same level is the fear of responsibility or loss of existing job status. Sometimes this is associated with the possible elimination of the position held or the limitation of the rights granted in accordance with it;

in second place is the fear of losing a job;

on the third – fear of the new, associated with the expectation of an increase in the volume and complexity of work or level of responsibility;

in fourth place is the fear of a possible professional inadequacy of the level (complexity) of new tasks or designed functions;

in fifth place is the fear of losing some moral advantages, authority, status, the ability to make decisions, and finally, the loss of power.

Subjective motives for resistance to the new may also consist in what is sometimes called inertia or conservatism - reluctance to any changes that could disrupt the usual, even ineffective, forms of work, communications, etc. Any change requires at least relative activity, which itself in itself is highly desirable in many cases. Conservatism can manifest itself both passively and in the form of active opposition.

So, the main reasons for the fear of the new are: lack of information, uncertainty and incompetence, professional unpreparedness of personnel for innovations.

The process of renewal (transformation) of an organization is understood, based on the introduction of innovations in organizational processes. The relevance of changes and innovations is due to the need to adapt the organization to the requirements of external and internal environment, to mastering new knowledge and technologies, which is especially important in the conditions market economy. The amount of knowledge that humanity possesses doubles approximately every five to seven years, and accordingly, the number of new situations requiring an adequate solution also doubles. This leads to increased importance of change management tasks. Minor adjustments to the main parameters of the organizational environment (structure, tasks, processes, personnel, etc.) are recommended to be carried out regularly in the organization, major adjustments - once every four to five years. The purpose of change is to implement progressive changes to move the organization into a highly effective state.

The reasons for organizational changes and innovations can be economic, ideological, organizational, informational, personnel, etc. The most common are change external conditions work (actions of competitors), the emergence of advanced technologies for solving management tasks(automation and computerization), bureaucratization of the management apparatus (increase in management costs).

Diagnostic signs that determine the need for change can be direct and indirect: deterioration or stabilization of organizational performance indicators, losses in competition, passivity of personnel, unreasoned protest against any innovations, lack of a procedure for canceling ineffective ones management decisions, a gap between the formal responsibilities of staff and their specific work, a high frequency of punishments in the absence of incentives, etc.

Innovations can be divided into 3 groups:

technical and technological (new equipment, devices, technological schemes etc.);
product (transition to the production of new products, materials);
social, which includes:
- economic (new material incentives, indicators of the wage system)
- organizational and managerial (new organizational structures, forms of labor organization, development of decisions, control over their implementation, etc.)
- actually social, that is, targeted changes in intra-collective relations (election of foremen, foremen, new forms of publicity, educational work, such as mentoring, creating new public bodies etc.)
- legal, mainly acting as changes in labor and economic legislation.

Sometimes economic, organizational, and legal innovations are combined with the concept of “managerial”.

Classification of changes and innovations:

on organizing the event:

planned
unplanned;

by timing:

short-term
long-term;

in relation to staff:

increasing staff efficiency;
improving the skills of employees;
aimed at improving the climate, increasing job satisfaction, etc.

According to the method of implementation, innovations should be distinguished:

experimental, that is, going through the stage of testing and testing;
direct, implemented without experiments.

By volume:

dot (rules);
systemic (technological and organizational systems);
strategic (principles of production and management).

By purpose:

aimed at: production efficiency;
improvement of working conditions;
enrichment of labor content;
increasing the manageability of the organization;
improving product quality.

Possible positive impacts of innovations:

cost reduction;
reducing the harmfulness of work;
advanced training, etc.

Possible negative impacts of innovations:

financial costs for their implementation;
decrease in work efficiency at the initial stage;
social tension, etc.

To successfully implement a transformation, it is necessary to analyze their causes, objects, positive and negative sides, clearly formulate goals and only then make changes.

Any innovations as certain changes in the labor process are inevitable, since they are caused mainly by objective factors. At the same time, it must be emphasized that reorganization is not an end in itself, but a means of implementing new tasks and areas of activity.

Reorganization of an enterprise can be carried out in various forms: merger, accession, division, separation, transformation, reduction, repurposing. With each of these types, there is a corresponding restructuring of the management system, which entails changes in the structure, technology, personnel, organizational culture and other essential parameters of the organization’s functioning.

The priority goal of changes and innovations should be to achieve more high results, mastering advanced tools and labor techniques, eliminating routine operations, implementing progressive changes in the management system.

Organizational Change Policy

Change management should be viewed from two aspects: tactical and strategic. From a tactical point of view, change management means the ability to carry them out in an adequate time frame, achieve set goals, reduce resistance to change, and increase employee adaptation to it. In a strategic context, change management means incorporating ongoing change into management practices to the extent that it becomes habitual and expected for all personnel in the organization and their temporary absence would cause anxiety and concern. It is the provision strategic management changes can lead to a significant increase in the competitiveness of the organization.

Change management can be implemented based on two principled approaches:

Reactive approach— allows you to respond to current events, adapt to changes, and mitigate their consequences. In this case, there is a time lag in internal changes in response to external influences, which can lead to the loss of the organization’s competitive position.

Proactive (preventive) approach- makes it possible to foresee events in external environment, get ahead of them and initiate changes yourself. In this case, the role of the manager is to carry out constant organizational changes that allow him to control the very “destiny” of the organization. This approach allows you to radically manage change.

Changes based on frequency are divided into one-time and multi-stage; in relation to the staff - into those perceived positively by the majority of staff and those perceived negatively.

The main objects of organizational changes and innovations are:

goals of the personnel and the organization as a whole;
organization management structure;
technology and tasks labor activity personnel;
personnel composition.

One of the components of introducing innovations is the organization’s mastery of a new idea. The author of the idea needs:

identify the group's interest in the idea, including the consequences of the innovation for the group, the size of the group, the range of opinions within the group, etc.;
develop a strategy to achieve the goal;
identify alternative strategies;
finally choose a strategy of action;
draw up a specific, detailed action plan.

People tend to have a wary and negative attitude towards all changes, since innovation usually poses a potential threat to habits, way of thinking, status, etc. There are three types of potential threats when implementing innovations:

economic (decrease in income level or its decrease in the future);
psychological (feeling of uncertainty when requirements, responsibilities, work methods change);
socio-psychological (loss of prestige, loss of status, etc.).

When introducing innovation, the organization of work with people is carried out in accordance with the principles:

informing about the essence of the problem;
preliminary assessment (informing at the preparatory stage about the necessary efforts, predicted difficulties, problems);
initiatives from below (it is necessary to distribute responsibility for the success of implementation at all levels);
individual compensation (retraining, psychological training etc.).

The following types of people are distinguished according to their attitude to innovation:

Innovators are people who are characterized by a constant search for opportunities to improve something. Enthusiasts are people who accept new things regardless of the degree of its elaboration and validity. Rationalists - accept new ideas only after carefully analyzing their usefulness, assessing the difficulty and possibility of using innovations.

Neutrals are people who are not inclined to take the word of a useful proposal.

Skeptics are people who can become good inspectors of projects and proposals, but inhibit innovation.

Conservatives are people who are critical of everything that has not been verified by experience.

Retrogrades are people who automatically deny everything new.

Policy options for introducing innovations in a team

Directive policy. Its essence boils down to the fact that innovations are carried out by the manager without the involvement of team members. The purpose of such a policy is rapid changes in conditions crisis situation, and team members will be forced to come to terms with changes due to their inevitability.

Negotiation policy. The manager is the initiator of innovation; he conducts negotiations with the team, in which partial concessions and mutual agreements are possible. Team members can express their opinions and understanding of the essence of innovations.

Policy for achieving common goals. Its essence is that managers, attracting consultants - specialists in the field of management, not only obtain the consent of the team to introduce innovations, but also set goals for introducing innovations for each member of the organization, defining their responsibility for achieving goals, both personal and overall. organizations.

Analytical policy. The manager attracts specialist experts who study the problem, collect information, analyze it and develop optimal solutions, without involving the team of workers or taking into account their personal problems.

Trial and error policy. The manager cannot define the problem clearly enough. Groups of workers are involved in the implementation of innovations, who try approaches to solving the problem and learn from their mistakes.

Managing change in an organization should be viewed from two perspectives: tactical and strategic. WITH tactical from a point of view, change management means the ability to carry them out in an adequate time frame, achieve set goals, reduce resistance to change, and increase employee adaptation to it. IN strategic In the context, change management means incorporating permanent changes into management practices so that they become habitual and expected for all personnel in the organization, and their temporary absence would cause anxiety and concern. It is the provision of strategic change management that can lead to a significant increase in the competitiveness of the organization.

Change management can be implemented based on two principal approaches:

· Reactive approach– allows you to respond to current events, adapt to changes, and mitigate their consequences. In this case, there is a time lag in internal changes in response to external influences, which can lead to the loss of the organization’s competitive position.

· Proactive (preventive) approach– makes it possible to anticipate events in the external environment, get ahead of them and initiate changes yourself. In this case, the role of the manager is to carry out constant organizational changes to control the very “destiny” of the organization. This approach allows you to radically manage change.

Changes by frequency divided into one-time and multi-stage; in relation to staff– positively perceived by the majority of personnel and negatively perceived.

Main objects organizational changes and innovations are:

· goals of the personnel and the organization as a whole;

· organization management structure;

· technology and tasks of personnel labor activity;

· composition of personnel.

One of the components of introducing innovations is the organization’s mastery of a new idea. The author of the idea needs:

1. identify the group's interest in the idea, including the consequences of the innovation for the group, the size of the group, the range of opinions within the group, etc.;

2. develop a strategy to achieve the goal;

3. identify alternative strategies;

4. finally choose a strategy of action;

5. draw up a specific, detailed action plan.

People tend to have a wary and negative attitude towards all changes, since innovation usually poses a potential threat to habits, way of thinking, status, etc. Highlight three types of potential threats when implementing innovations:

Economic (decrease in income level or its decrease in the future);

Psychological (feeling of uncertainty when changing requirements, responsibilities, work methods);

Social and psychological (loss of prestige, loss of status, etc.).

When introducing innovation, the organization of work with people is carried out in accordance with the principles:

1. informing about the essence of the problem;

2. preliminary assessment (informing at the preparatory stage about the necessary efforts, predicted difficulties, problems);

3. initiatives from below (it is necessary to distribute responsibility for the success of implementation at all levels);

4. individual compensation (retraining, psychological training, etc.).

The following are distinguished: types of people in their attitude to innovation:

Innovators – people who are characterized by a constant search for opportunities to improve something.

Enthusiasts – people who accept new things regardless of the degree of its elaboration and validity. Rationalists– accept new ideas only after carefully analyzing their usefulness, assessing the difficulty and possibility of using innovations.

Neutrals – people who are not inclined to take the word of a useful proposal.

Skeptics – people who can become good controllers of projects and proposals, but inhibit innovation.

Conservatives – people who are critical of everything that has not been verified by experience.

Retrogrades – people who automatically deny everything new.

Policy options for introducing innovations in a team

Directive policy. Its essence boils down to the fact that innovations are carried out by the manager without the involvement of team members. The goal of such a policy is rapid changes in a crisis situation, and team members will be forced to come to terms with changes due to their inevitability.

Consequences of innovations that have already happened- it should be remembered that innovation is not only a specific change, but also a socio-cultural phenomenon in itself. The essence of it is change existing forms and structures. The consequences of the implementation of innovations determine the attitude towards innovations as such, that is, towards the necessity and admissibility of change. And, accordingly, it influences the perception of subsequent innovations in all areas.

Since innovation opens up new prospects for changing flexibility to changes in supply and demand, i.e. the old is being replaced by the new, this objectively gives rise to social contradictions. The fact is that transformations, as a rule, affect people's interests, their plans, and expectations. The more radical and large-scale the changes carried out, the more often they cause contradictions and conflicts generated by the struggle between the old and the new. Any innovation is associated with the development, “breaking through,” dissemination and use of innovations in production. In this case, a contradiction arises between supporters and opponents of the innovation. The reason for this lies in the difference in the results and consequences of innovations for social groups of workers, on the one hand, and the organization as a whole, on the other. Objectively, quite contradictory relationships will arise between them. Thus, situations are possible when an innovation is beneficial to the enterprise (organization as a whole), but does not meet the interests of certain groups of its employees, or, conversely, is unprofitable to the enterprise, but suits certain groups of employees. Conflicts that arise as a result of innovations in an organization, like all others, can be partly functional and partly dysfunctional. Conflicts can either facilitate or hinder the introduction of innovations. At the same time, employees who actively resist innovation become participants in the conflict. Innovation conflict can be interpreted as opposition between supporters of innovation (innovators) and opponents (conservatives), which is accompanied by experiences of negative emotions towards each other. Currently, in-depth comprehensive research into innovation processes in economic science much attention is paid. Issues of the degree of influence of innovation on the duration of innovation processes, the cyclical occurrence of innovation conflicts were considered in the works of S. Kara-Murza, N. Kondratyev, G. Mensch. Since in matters of increasing operational efficiency, innovation is an inevitable process, the more significant it is in its implementation organizational changes at enterprises, the more strongly the psychological security mechanisms of employees assert themselves. These mechanisms trigger a process opposite to change - resistance, which is the cause of conflict. The likelihood of conflict during the introduction of an innovation increases in proportion to the scale of the innovation. Large-scale innovation involves a large number of people with different interests in the innovation process, which increases the frequency of conflicts. The radical nature of innovation increases the likelihood and severity of conflicts. Fast process innovation, as a rule, is accompanied by the emergence of conflictogens. In the process of innovation conflict, innovators expect to improve the operation of the enterprise and personal life as a result of the introduction of innovation. Conservatives fear that life and work will get worse. The position of each of these parties may be quite justified. In the struggle between innovators and conservatives, both may be right. The majority of conflicts between innovators and conservatives (66.4%) occur during the implementation of management innovations, every sixth - pedagogical, and every tenth - material and technical innovations. Most often (65.1%) these conflicts arise at the stage of innovation implementation. Technical innovations are the most favorable from the point of view of the occurrence of negative consequences of their implementation. In social innovations, the benefits are not as obvious and demonstrable as in the case of technical innovations. For social innovations, it is difficult to calculate their effectiveness. Also costs for them Money may be relatively small compared to technical or other types of innovation, but this does not mean that social innovation is truly cheap. One of key factors success and failure in innovation is speed. Planning changes involves determining deadlines and budgets, and distributing responsibilities. Very often, due to the lack of constant monitoring key indicators, allowing us to understand how the implementation process is going, innovations are delayed. And the longer an innovation is drawn out, the less likely it is to be successful.