Homeworks academic service


Case study on organisational change in apple

Both behemoth companies of the tech industry have recently undergone significant leadership changes in the last six years and the companies have changed significantly. Now, of course, Microsoft is still a great company with huge customer loyalty and some great products.

But this pales in comparison to its market dominant position of the 1990s.

  1. Apple is a huge company with a humongous amount of cash on the balance sheet and no obvious places to invest it. Keeping strategy easy to understand is important.
  2. Unlike Cook, Nadella had two jobs.
  3. Cook had big shoes to fill.
  4. Create more personal computing. Build best-in-class platforms and productivity services for a mobile-first, cloud-first world To carry this out he outlines three core tenants.
  5. Unlike Cook, Nadella had two jobs.

It could be argued that antitrust legislation has had some negative effect on Microsoft, but closer analysis shows that it has failed to give consumers what they really want; innovative products that constantly push boundaries.

Apple, on the other hand, has flown in completely the opposite direction. It has taken its customers from the iPod to iPhone to iPad. Everything had to go through Jobs and that slowed things down. Jobs expected the best from people and demanded excellence at all times. He was famous for firing people, seemingly on whims in the hallways.

This take charge may have been the kind that was needed when Jobs took over.

An analysis of Apple’s culture under Job’s

He stripped the product line down to just four products. Drastic action was needed as well as energy and creativity. Redesigning the Mac, becoming perhaps the best personal computer in the world, with the new OSX to go with it. Apple also led the digital music revolution with the iPod and iTunes. Reinvented the mobile phone with the iPhone and led mobile computing with the iPad. But such a leadership style does have its negatives. The challenges of an autocratic leadership style, no matter how much information is solicited in decision making, is that it underutilises employee creativity and collaboration.

Jobs may have been the right person with the right leadership style at the time Apple needed it. Tim Cook wrote this in his first email as CEO when he took over from Steve Jobs in 2011 as Jobs had stepped down after diagnosed with cancer.

Cook had big shoes to fill.

As Cook took over there was a great deal of scepticism on his ability to successfully lead the company and maintain the innovative output that had made it famous. Cook knew the company well and presided over much of its success from the background. Not involved in product design, for which Apple is famous, Cook was an operator: Inspirational, inclusive and collaborative.

During Jobs tenure, he insisted many decisions went through him, which slowed things down. Cook changed that, modifying the structure and culture to allow for more decentralized decision making, autonomy and collaboration. Strategy Apple is a product company with core competencies in product design and extending that user experience all the way through to the buying experience of sales and service. Where to from here? Apple is a huge company with a humongous amount of cash on the balance sheet and no obvious places to invest it.

There is scope to sell more iPhones in India and China, but the market for smartphones does appear to be maturing. Unlike Cook, Nadella had two jobs: This was an imperative.

  • But this pales in comparison to its market dominant position of the 1990s;
  • The brick wall to innovative progress You can have all the creativity and free thinking available to you, but unless you can transfer these ideas onto the shop floor and then through to customers in a meaningful way then innovation will stay on the drawing board.

Annually, this costs U. That is why one of the toughest parts of managing, especially in a high-tech business, is to recognise the need for change and make it while you have a chance.

Sometimes lasting eight hours. Openness and collaboration from secrecy and silos. Diversity Nadella then turned his attention to strategy. Keeping strategy easy to understand is important. Build best-in-class platforms and productivity services for a mobile-first, cloud-first world To carry this out he outlines three core tenants: Build the intelligent cloud platform.

Create more personal computing. The results speak for themselves. The hardware division has been a hit with the Surface Book, which is developing a loyal following. In this division is also the virtual reality play of Hololens. The failure to innovate generally comes in two guises. This imagination relies on people. Freethinkers, who accept the responsibility of innovation, perhaps even creating new markets in the process, are attracted by companies that will allow them to indulge their creative side.

Both Apple and Microsoft are able to attract top talent. This top talent produces the creative ideas that go on to produce the innovative products that customers love. Apple had the balance right under Jobs, and while concentrating power at the top, was able to exploit the collaboration required to turn out great products people loved.

Cook is driving the collaboration still more. Microsoft under Ballmer somehow went wayward and would seem to be better exploiting collaboration for innovation under Nadella.

Microsoft has seen tablet PCs and smartphones come from its creative pool of talent. Yet it is Apple that has emerged as the now dominant force in the new consumer markets. The result is clear to see: The brick wall to innovative progress You can have all the creativity case study on organisational change in apple free thinking available to you, but unless you can transfer these ideas onto the shop floor and then through to customers in a meaningful way then innovation will stay on the drawing board.

Innovation has its feet firmly in the shoes of small steps.

Change Management Lessons from Microsoft and Apple [Case Study]

They are experimental in nature and part of an innovative culture is the acceptance of failure. The problem that organisations like Microsoft face is marrying up these small, experimental innovations — with their inevitable failures on route to big successes — with their need to generate revenue. And that is rarely, if ever, a fair fight.

  • But such a leadership style does have its negatives;
  • Inspirational, inclusive and collaborative;
  • Everything had to go through Jobs and that slowed things down;
  • Now, of course, Microsoft is still a great company with huge customer loyalty and some great products.

Existing operations are large, established, and revenue and earnings generative. Managers of these operations have the clout to get their way: On the other hand, innovation is by its very nature risky with no guarantee of profit generation.

Experimentation distracts focus from existing businesses. The most vociferous of enemies to innovation is to be found inside an organisation. Solving the internal conflict between innovation and the status quo Clearly, Apple succeeded in doing what Microsoft has consistently failed to achieve: Both Nadella and Cook transformed the organisational culture with a focus on collaboration to aid innovation.

Microsoft needed to change both strategy and culture. The importance of leadership in managing change for innovation With such internal conflicts and the resistance to innovation an unequal battleground, senior management must take a senior role in not only establishing but then promoting an environment where innovation is embedded in the culture of the organisation. It may be that leaders will have to get their hands dirty, becoming case study on organisational change in apple in the adjudication of low-level conflicts.

While these conflicts may be concentrated between the self-interests of the innovators and the existing business, it is likely, also, that as the innovation culture grows the number of bright ideas will explode. Trying to do too much at one time is as damaging as doing nothing. Steve Jobs had the magic formula and Cook is extending it in a new way. There is the need to produce profit today and innovate for a profit tomorrow. Posted on February 11, 2014.