Please answer  to the post below. Please add intext citations to…

GeneralPrairieDogPerson880 Please answer  to the post below. Please add intext citations to…Please answer  to the post below. Please add intext citations to support answers. Please list references below. Please use APA 7 formatting.  ———————————————————————————————————————–Post:   Particularly, Kharub and Sharma (2017) noted that due in part to globalization and rapid technological advances, businesses must develop and build upon their core competencies and strategies to gain a competitive advantage. Based on my experiences in national defense research and development (R&D) contracting over the past fifteen years, I can confirm that this concept holds true; and furthermore, that as time progresses the rate in which businesses must adapt and mutate to stay competitive is ever changing. For instance, while cloud computing and data storage have been around since the mid 1990’s (Foote, 2023) as well as large-scale use of computer aided design and analysis capabilities sine the 1980’s (Geddes, 2020), the focus on a fully defined end-to-end digital engineering thread as a Department of Defense strategy has only been a major initiative since around 2018 (Department of Defense, 2018). As such, in response to this initiative, many companies have executed projects in order to add digital engineering as a core competency to stay competitive such as BAE Systems’ Model-Based Systems Engineering (BAE Systems, Inc., 2020), General Dynamics’ model-based-data-as-a-service (MBDaas) approach (FedScoop Report, 2023). Though, while businesses are continually undertaking these types of efforts to stay competitive, it is not clear the extent in which proper and effective management, leadership, and motivation play in the businesses ability to succeed; which leads us into this weeks focus of discussion, management and leadership. In a 2018 article of the Journal of Management and Organization, Kollenscher et al. (2018) highlight that one of the keys to the success of Steve Jobs revitalization of Apple in 1997 was his shift from the current organizational infrastructure to a more integrated leadership methodology in which clear delegated authority to managers in their respective areas of expertise was granted. By shifting to this new organizational infrastructure, Apple was able to capitalize on each of the individuals’ strengths rather than be dependent upon one individual (Kollenscher et al., 2018). While not a new concept, as is noted by Kollenscher et al. (2018), what is notable in the case is the extent in which a shift in leadership structure and methodology can affect the overall success of a business. By granting managers more flexibility in how they lead their sectors, Apple’s leadership became more motivated to excel (Kollenscher et al., 2018), which ultimately ties into the leadership function of management, which Zeimetz (2018) defines as encompassing the influence and motivation of individuals to excel. So, now that we know that a sift in management and leadership methods can increase motivation, we can now look into how increased motivation effects creativity and innovation. In a recent European Journal of Innovation Management article, Bollinger (2020) points out that creativity and innovation are critical for business growth while at the same time Fischer et al. (2019) highlight that in 2016, research has identified meaningfulness, progress, affect, and extrinsic motivation as being large contributors to increased creativity and innovation. As such, based the findings noted by Fischer et al. combined with Bollinger’s (2020) notion of a need for creativity and innovation as well as Zeimetz’s (2018) definition of leadership, it could be said that motivational leadership can yield creativity and innovation and as such, should be one of the core strategic management approaches in any given business for potential success. Though, in a survey performed by Adobe Systems Incorporated (2016), 83% of respondents indicated that there was more pressure to be more productive than to be creative, while at the same time, 62% noted that creativity was expected. This also appears to be true in my past experiences, as creativity and motivation are publicized as the business policy while at the same time, individuals continually told not to “solution” and only provide requirements and leave the solution creation to others; thus, directly contradicting the concept of motivation and drive for creativity and innovation.BusinessBusiness – Other