Such alignment optimizes organizational performance. The rest of the strategies have a supporting role in the computer hardware and software business.
The competitive landscape faced by Microsoft today consists primarily of companies founded after After Bill Gates left his post inSteve Ballmer took over as chief executive officer and Ray Ozzie was brought in as chief software architect.
As ofGates was practically phased out, and began dedicating most of his time to his non-profit.
Comparing financials among these technology giants clearly shows that Microsoft is struggling to keep pace with its rival brands. But what qualitative evidence complements this claim?
We can begin to shed some light on the issue by considering two major changes in the role of technology companies. The first is sheer product line expansion.
Companies competing in the large-scale tech space serve consumers through more product functions than ever before, including mobile, cloud, tablet, PC, music, television, and enterprise services. This perpetual creation of new product types forces the supporting organization to adapt by constantly adding new sub-units to its structure in order to accommodate the new market.
The second change in the role of technology companies is the shift from product-centric to customer-centric design and service. This is evidenced by the increasing importance of marketing, customer relationship management, and more importantly, company culture.
It is widely suggested and logical to assume that the companies who will survive are those that adapt to these two changes most efficiently. Upon the departure of Bill Gates, Microsoft was at a distinct cross road in the context of its long-term strategy: Microsoft is divided up into five main business units: However, Microsoft is also in a steady state of competition within several other product marketplaces with mobile phone companies, online advertising companies, gaming companies, business-to-business consultancies, and as of recent, search engines.
Considering that most of this diversification has occurred over the last ten years, it definitely makes sense that we are seeing shifts in power and structure. The departure of Bill Gates from day-to-day operations is being cited as the end of an era.
For Microsoft, this means that it will become increasingly difficult to be the disruptive innovator it once was. Henceforth, Microsoft will have to become aware of the fact that products like Microsoft Word are overdeveloped to a certain extent, which means that they are extremely susceptible to market share theft from disruptions such as Google Docs.
Does this mean that Microsoft will forever be on the defensive? A move like this proves two things: The success or failure of this partnership will subsequently answer the question of whether technology companies should be run by engineers or by business people.
If we take a look at Apple, Facebook, and Google, we will find that they all differ from Microsoft in only a few key organizational characteristics. By contrast, Steve Jobs is renowned for being a refiner rather than a leader.
This type of relationship between organization and leader seems to be working in a variety of business and non-business contexts i. Based on strategic contingency theory, on paper it is easy to predict positive growth for Microsoft. They are hiring and firing in a logical manner and they unquestionably have the experience to know how to manage risk.
Technical expertise is being given more value and presumably more compensationstrategic partnerships are arising, and investment in the future via research centers is being maintained. Surprisingly, the problems have very little to do with Bill Gates.
With the wide range of new products comes an even wider range of departments, buildings, locations, and so on. This, of course, means that Microsoft is also fighting to maintain its culture and identity. Another comparison of Microsoft to its big three competitors yields an interesting insight: Microsoft on the other hand is a giant in Redmond, Washington neighbored by few tech companies.
The supply chain of new ideas, if you will, is far more robust in locations such as Silicon Valley. While it is not a proper description to say that Microsoft is full-out resisting change, it is easy to see that they are also not actively positioning themselves for it.
This weakness is materializing itself in the success and failure of certain Microsoft products. The Xbox, the Bing search engine, Internet Explorer, Windows Mobile, and Hotmail for example are all products that did not achieve their predicted levels of success.
Microsoft Office, on the other hand, continues to dominate the market and has become a worldwide standard for information sharing. This foundational suite of products also continues to improve through a well-managed, finely tuned, iterative engineering process.
The sooner that top management realizes this, the sooner they can make the right changes. We can now look at the recent events at Microsoft from another vantage point — that of cultural change.
The new of shakeups in management at Microsoft are indisputably indicative of an attempt to shift their corporate culture in a new direction. Organizational culture is defined as the basic pattern of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs considered to be the correct way of thinking about and acting on problems and opportunities facing an organization.Microsoft Corporation’s organizational culture ensures workforce resilience and capability to address business needs in the dynamic market for computer hardware and software products.
A company’s corporate culture refers to the values, traditions and behavioral expectations among employees. Organizational Behavior (OB) is a systematic approach that evaluates how employees operate within an organization. OB is a method that identifies the underlying causes of an employee's behavior.
It is a way in which management can address the root cause of problematic behavior before it spirals out of control. To download Microsoft People Problems case study (Case Code: HROB) click on the button below, and select the case from the list of available cases:» Human Resource and Organization Behavior Case Studies.
One Microsoft under Ballmer: A sweeping reorganization of the company; One Microsoft under Ballmer: A sweeping reorganization of the company. on Microsoft’s new organizational structure, he.
Education competencies: Organizational agility.
This competency is one in a set of complete functional and behavioral qualities that, when fully realized, can help lead to professional success. Mar 14, · Analysis of Microsoft’s Power, Culture, and Innovation Software giant Microsoft is 36 years old and struggling.
The competitive landscape faced by Microsoft today consists primarily of companies founded after In addition to the obvious age disparity, there are various (and well documented) differences in organizational structure, company culture, and product orientation that .