Organizational change in companies is influenced by various forces. There are forces that drive the company towards change while other forces prevent the company from changing. The forces that drive the companies towards change include competition, dynamic workforce, internal pressures, political changes, technology, and economic changes. The forces that make companies resist change include resistance from people, and organizational resistances. Apple and Microsoft are two major companies that have undergone organizational change. The two companies have different approaches towards organizational change. Apple and Microsoft have experienced many challenges in their approaches towards change.
Apple had an organization that flowed through Steve Jobs when he was still alive (Yarow, 2013). Presently Apple has adopted an approach that is more collaborative. The organizational changes in Apple are subjected to collaborative decisions made by the people in the organization. The teams handling different products within Apple are now collaborating with each other for the smooth performance of the company. An example is where the team handling hardware collaborates with the team handling software. During the era of Steve Jobs such collaborations did not exist. The organizational change that has led to collaborations among different teams has made the company more deliberative regarding various issues (Yarow, 2013). The time taken to deliberate can lead the company to delay major projects.
Competition is one of the forces that drive Apple towards organizational change. Apple is operating in a highly competitive industry. Some of Apple’s competitors include Samsung and Microsoft. Samsung competes with Apple on a large scale in the area of smartphones. Microsoft competes with Apple in software and tablets. The high competition forces Apple to make organizational changes that will enable it to have a competitive edge. Apple also faces competition from new entrants that are very aggressive in the market.
Apple’s organizational change is driven by the internal pressures within the company. The company has profit margins that it has set up, but it erodes these margins due to the pressure of performance and efficiency. Apple undergoes the pressures to expand so as to meet the needs of its large customer base. The consumers of Apple products have different tastes and preferences. The company has to keep on diversifying its products so as to suit the needs of the customers (Yarow, 2013). It is also working on retaining customers through customer loyalty. The company has to keep on changing so as to keep up with the dynamic needs of its customers.
Apple operates in a very dynamic industry. Technology is very dynamic, and the company has to dedicate itself to innovations so as to keep up with the technology. The constant development of products that are of the latest technology attracts the consumers. Customers are always waiting to purchase the latest products in the market. The company informs people of the date it is launching its newest product so that it can have a ready market.
The collaborative organizational structure of Apple is better than the previous structure where Steve Jobs controlled everything (Yarow, 2013). The various divisions are able to focus on various products and share ideas on how to improve the quality of the products. Decisions can be made quickly because there are various people sharing great ideas. The drawback to this structure is that time can be wasted as people try to reach an agreement.
Microsoft has operated as a divisional organization that focuses on the various divisions of the company (Thompson, 2013). The move to change it to a functional organization was not accepted by many people. A functional organization is seen as a very risky way of running an organization. The company’s move organizational change was resisted by both the organization and the people. They saw it as a direction towards failure.
The divisions operate based on the products that the company produces. Each product division operates as a sub-company of Microsoft. The various products of the company share a few functions such as HR and Legal functions, but they operate the other functions by themselves (Thompson, 2013). The organization tends to compete within itself based on the various product divisions. Determination of the performance of each division was clear and easy. Microsoft’s divisional organization was liked by many people because it enabled the company to effectively manage its capital reserves as well as its employees.
Microsoft’s change from divisional organization to functional organization was faced with a lot of resistance from people and the organization. The role of the CEO expanded because he had to foresee all the product teams. Microsoft faced a lot of challenges because all the products touched on all the functions of the company.
The organizational change by Microsoft made the workers nervous because it meant that the company had to reshuffle (Thompson, 2013). A functional organization requires employees who are specialists. The previous divisional organization suited specialists and general employees. The organizational change in Microsoft is faced with resistance from the employees. The employees are used to the old way of doing things and fear being rendered redundant. Resistance in Microsoft is also due to the fact that the people have fear of the unknown.
Works Cited
Yarow Jay. Apple’s New Organizational Structure Could Help it Move Faster. 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-new-organizational-structure-could-help-it-move-faster-2013-5
Thompson Ben. Why Microsoft’s Reorganization is a Bad Idea. 2013. Retrieved from: http://stratechery.com/2013/why-microsofts-reorganization-is-a-bad-idea/
