The nokia case
Therefore it got beaten even in its marketing strategy. And this was, in retrospect, a classic case of a company being enthralled and, in a way, imprisoned by its past success.
This all made downfall of Nokia. Comparatively, when Nokia entered the new trend it failed in its lower end also of manufacturing best model.
Nokia was in the mindset that the touch screen concept will get failed and people will come back to the QWERTY keypad. They acknowledged this in interviews with us. It also underestimated how important the transition to smartphones would be. This led to the departure of vital members of the executive team, which led to the deterioration of strategic thinking.
A new CEO—Stephen Elop--hired later that year decided that Nokia would be better off buying software from elsewhere and formed an alliance with Microsoft in By , the limitations of Symbian had become painfully obvious and it was clear Nokia had missed the shift toward apps pioneered by Apple. They acknowledged this in interviews with us. This conflictual way of working slowed decision-making and seriously dented morale, while the wear and tear of extraordinary growth combined with an abrasive CEO personality also began to take their toll. The game was lost, and it was left to a new CEO Stephen Elop and new Chairman Risto Siilasmaa to draw from the lessons and successfully disengage Nokia from mobile phones to refocus the company on its other core business, network infrastructure equipment. Innovation impotence The high external fear among top managers and high internal fear among middle managers led to a decoupling of perceptions between the two groups of top and middle managers about how quickly Nokia could launch a new smartphone and develop advanced software to match the iPhone. Even more strikingly, Nokia was hardly a technological laggard—on the contrary, it came up with its first smartphone back in , and built a prototype of a touch-screen, Internet-enabled phone at the end of the nineties. Top managers failed to motivate the middle managers with their heavy-handed approaches and they were in the dark with what was really going on. As Huy pointed out in other research , those able to identify varied collective emotions are seen as effective transformational leaders.
One way to explain this is to point out that Nokia was an engineering company that needed more marketing savvy. While Symbian had given Nokia an early advantage, it was a device-centric system in what was becoming a platform- and application-centric world.
Nokia was very slow to cope up with the prevailing trends like that of the touch screen, sending of the emails and the importance of software with that of the hardware could be some of the reasons of Nokia downfall.
Conclusion From the articlewe conclude that the failure of Nokia was, in short, the bad decisions that were taken by it and the avoidance to cope with the advancing world, lack of adoption of new technologies and unfocused innovations.
InNokia launched the N95 smartphone, which had full music features, GPS navigation, a large screen albeit not a touch screen and full internet browsing capability.
The nokia case
What were the decisions made by the company has led it to a massive downfall from a stronghold stand? He is the programme director for the Managing Partnerships and Strategic Alliances programme. Fearing the reactions of top managers, middle managers remained silent or provided optimistic, filtered information. In less than a decade, Nokia emerged from Finland to lead the mobile phone revolution. When it was a phase going on to built for the touch-screen phones when the other brands were busy in working on it. We argue that it was none of the above. Therefore it got beaten even in its marketing strategy. Nokia gets failed firstly because of its own decision to get it sold to the Microsoft, reflecting its image of incapability to manage its firm. In short, Nokia people weakened Nokia people and thus made the company increasingly vulnerable to competitive forces. It also underestimated how important the transition to smartphones would be. In these times of technological advancement, rapid market change and growing complexity, analysing the story of Nokia provides salutary lessons for any company wanting to either forge or maintain a leading position in their industry.
Based on the findings of an in-depth investigation and 76 interviews with top and middle managers, engineers and external experts, we find that this organisational fear was grounded in a culture of temperamental leaders and frightened middle managers, scared of telling the truth.
based on 109 review