Microsoft 2013 Structural Changes

Exam 1

It wasn’t too long ago when Microsoft was a dominant corporation solely focused on its operating system and software applications such as Microsoft Word and Excel. Back then they ruled their market share since they were the early pioneers of their respective product offerings. Of course, there were other factors besides having a clear and precise single strategy, but nevertheless this was a key factor which paved the way for continuous dominance over their market. Fast forward about a decade, and Microsoft finds themselves emerged into offering different services due to technological advances which opened new markets such as Cloud Services and Online Gaming Consoles. In 2013, Steve Ballmer, with the help of senior executives, decides that it’s time for a restructure of the entire company to increase the existing market share across the board. The focus of this restructure is to have a single vision, where everyone is focused on the same goal.

This single strategy approach bodes perfectly to the idea of fostering collaboration and innovation within the organization. It’s not a secret that when a team is focused on one main objective, they are less likely to be distracted by side goals and therefore able to maximize their efforts. Not only will there be less distractions, but this will only encourage co-workers to work together by helping each other and discourage internal competition. One analogy that can be used is a professional basketball team trying to make it to the playoffs. If the front office decides that the team’s main goal is to make the playoffs, then it is easier for the coach to relay this message to all the players. In contrast, if the front office has multiple goals like clearing cap space while trying to make the playoffs, then it is much harder for the coach to manage his team and achieve the final goal. Another key advantage of this strategy is having the ability to quickly implement changes to the existing goal. Since all departments share the same strategy, it would be a lot easier transitioning to a new single vision once innovation comes knocking on the door.

The Microsoft management system restructure is another key element into fostering collaboration and innovation. By specifically appointing team leaders from different subdivisions based on that person’s level of expertise, innovative team members will be more motivated to share new ideas. However, it doesn’t just stop there. Because of the high level of mutual respect that a team member has for their leader, the innovative team member will be given encouragement and therefore expand on new ideas. In contrast, team members can be discouraged by team leaders if every single one of their inventive ideas gets denied quickly due to lack of shared interests or time from the team leader.  The restructuring of the business model to five new reporting segments will also serve for a seamless channel of communication from services in similar categories. By enforcing this, implementing a single vision would be more manageable since these centralized groupings are related and are encouraged to work as singular and concise entities.

A struggling corporation can implement multiple structural changes, but they won’t make any significant difference without adapting to a healthy culture to complement these changes. Before this structural change, Microsoft’s culture was described as, “A culture of warring factions, mistrust, and a void of shared values and common purpose” (Hanft). This briefly summarizes an unhealthy culture which is utterly incompatible with the new structure. By analyzing this culture more closely, one can make a strong argument that the culture lacks in innovation & risk-taking. This is caused by the mistrust and lack of accountability between team members and leaders. The history of Microsoft’s constant management changes has discouraged personnel in all levels leading to co-workers competing against each other in an unhealthy environment. The stories of unannounced firings against the more innovative workers also creates an unhealthy culture which dissuades future graduates to consider Microsoft as their top employer of choice. The culture value of having different goals between departments has caused internal friction between this corporation. Internal friction only leads to a hostile environment, where politicking is your only way to survive by forming coalitions. With this culture, most the workforce will feel trapped due to the lack of belonging and the thought in the back of their head of possible termination.

Rather than continuing to embrace this toxic culture, there are some cultural alterations that can be done to complement the new proposed structure. Instead of constantly reassigning management in key departments, there needs to be stability once the highly-qualified manager gets appointed. Not only would the new management need to be a stable choice, but they would need to successfully communicate the new structure vision to their team and form a sense of unity. With this stability, the main work force will be more trusting of the leadership and enforce accountability. If done correctly, the clear line of communication would help emphasize performance expectations across the board. Another suggestion would be for Microsoft to implement an individual and team reward system in all levels of the organization. This reward system would encourage employees to work together on innovative ideas, rather than being afraid of termination, if their idea doesn’t show immediate success. This would be an enormous step in giving back employees the freedom to explore different ground-breaking ideas with their team, without the need of back-stabbing each other for personal gain.