Management of Change

Management of change process

In any organization, changes are inevitable for survival. The changes enable the organizations to respond to developments in the external environment that may hinder the business from achieving its goals. A business that fails to stay at par with industry needs informed by changes in various aspects may lose out fast with its products becoming obsolete. The case of Microsoft and Sony is not different as they needed changes. The changes were dire given that their closest competitors that Google, and Apple, were quickly gaining ground. The moves made by the two latter firms had not been anticipated by the two technological giants. Apple and Google were taking up the market position previously held by Microsoft and Sony. Due to the stiff competition from the two companies, both Sony and Microsoft were quickly losing their market share. Google and Apple were becoming increasingly innovative, and as such, their compounded growth between the 2010 and 2013 was higher that of Microsoft and Sony. In other words, the restructuring of the organizational structure before 2010 cultivated internal competition instead of collaboration both Microsoft and Sony. Consequently, the different products by Microsoft were incompatible while those by Sony lacked cross-functional benefits.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Management of change form

Restructuring initiative by both Microsoft and Sony was inevitable to regain the market position and more so, to increase competitiveness. For both companies, the solution lays with the restructuring with the motive of enhancing collaboration across the organization. Such restructuring need not be hurried as it always has to be planned and in line with the firm’s changing needs However, the initial changes in the organizational structure were ineffective because they created internal competition that undermined collaboration. Both focused on creating divisional structures that were independent. They had killed internal communication that makes cross-functional or cross-divisional collaboration possible. When internal communication became impossible it meant a lot of inefficiency in the way the functions run.

The restructuring did not embrace the technology as a major component for change. Instead, it created internal competition in which the divisions worked hard to outdo each other. The consequence is the duplication of work which results in the wastage of resources. The wasted resources would be useful in other initiatives that would make the companies more innovative. Lastly, the failure of the restructuring to enhance collaboration made the devices by the companies incompatible with other divisional equipment. It is one of the areas in which Apple beat Sony in the market. Apple has always managed to stay ahead of its competition by researching on customer needs and promptly taking action to gain the first mover advantage.

Management of change procedure

Collaboration is the ultimate tool for organizational performance in the market. Collaboration speeds the rate of innovation by putting the different minds together to contribute in developing a single product. Both the divisional and functional organizational structures are unable to produce highly innovative products when they do not collaborate due to specialization. However, the different areas of specialization can be brought together through collaboration and consequently develop a superior product. Both Sony and Microsoft can make collaboration possible by making changes in the organizational structure and corporate culture.

The One Sony and One Microsoft strategies by both Sony and Microsoft respectively advocate for collaboration. However, Sony needs to adopt the functional structure as Microsoft. The functional structure has the advantage of quelling internal competition and restricting the organizational members to their role. Instead, the members are united by the same corporate goal. Additionally, the functional organizational structure is effective in nurturing collaboration as the culture of the organization since the members perform their functions separately and then pass it on to the next to perform their function. In essence, it creates individual and team responsibility in that when one fails, the whole company fails. Finally, even with the functional structure in place, collaboration is made possible by the leadership. The management in both organizations must play an active role in nurturing the collaboration. The managers play an influential in organizing the other members to play their role efficiently and competently. They are also responsible for creating shared goals that nurture deliberate effort by the members.