Organizational Disruption
Scenario 1: Apple as the Disruptive Leader to BlackBerry and Nokia
Innovation and disruption are the hallmarks of the technological world, and hardly thereof passes a moment when we are not doing, thinking, or talking about these pertinent issues. In light to this, one of the critical questions arising within this topic is why successful companies (or products) keep being disrupted. Technological pundits managed to correctly predict that these original leaders in the manufacturing of smartphones paid a hefty price for their perpetual missteps to react the iPhone disruption. Arising questions thereof include whether the managements at these two technological giants were that inept. Or, whether there exists a different explanation to the inexorable decline of the globe’s most valuable business franchise?
Joshi, Saxena, and Tarkas (2015) posit that in the face of the economic disruption, various strategic choices ought to have been made by these companies: that in an instance iPhone proved that consumers had grown an appetite for not only just better phones but also internet access devices with an aesthetic value. More interestingly, arising questions also include the organizational designs that the companies ought to have made to augment the odds of conceptualizing successful strategies in light of a rapidly metamorphosing industry (Cojocaru, & Cojocaru, 2014). Whereas admittedly silver bullets might lack in the face of transformation, these companies ought to have taken at least two important steps: diversify their top leadership, and build a cooperate culture marked by salubrious paranoia.
Justly enough, peril might have been problematic to foresee in the judicious times of 2007. BlackBerry had managed to ensconce emails in the mobile hands and pockets of the entrepreneurial class around the globe. Its refined systematic designs accomplished tasks in any part of the world and were both data and bandwidth efficient. Nokia, on the other hand, cracked a way to increase the production of small phones; fitting them with long-lasting batteries (Rusko, 2012). These and more other innovations earned the companies many postings among the “most innovative lists,” including “Can Anyone Stop Nokia?” cover story in the November 2007 Fortune magazine issue (Anthony, par. 5-11). The answer was a reverberating “yes.” Nokia’s market cap that once surpassed the 110 billion Euro mark ($149.4 billion) as of 2013 was sold at a shadowy figure of about $5 billion to Microsoft. Research in Motion’s market value stood at $83 billion the same year, but later made an announcement that it would sell its market portion for not more than $5 billion (Anthony, par. 7-12).
Rusko (2012) posits that within a year of the imminent disruption from iPhone, the managements at Nokia and Blackberry came to face with the grave dangers that their businesses were in. In the face of these, they never managed to respond adequately, even as the Android version from Google proved that such could be achieved. Apparently, business organizations with more than a decade of business scaling have such a leadership that grew up living the model (Cojocaru, & Cojocaru, 2014). On attainment of certain scales, these companies acquired board members from other major businesses to help run their large global enterprises. The resultant deficiency in diversification made it easy to default to perpetuating a company’s business quo, sometimes though unintentionally (Anthony, 2017).
Both Nokia and BlackBerry featured an impressive number of external members on their boards, Nokia on one hand boasted the services of the German software giant SAP CEO Henning Kagermann and then the CEO of the publishing enterprise Pearson, Marjorie Scardino. Sitting on Blackberry’s board were the COO of the Royal Bank of Canada and innovation leader Roger Martin. Whereas such had a management had exceptional reputations, literature posits that a leadership team facing stark industrial transitions ought to have a diverse experience in areas as (a). Working in various enterprises, including a first-hand experience of working with the drivers of industrial transformation (personal computing and internet based commercial companies) (Hardy, Ness, & Mecca, 2017). (b). Non-business associated tasks that demand radical frameworks of references to help tap non-linear insights into projects (Anthony, 2013). (c). Situations characterized by extreme uncertainties that will help guide business operations through the fogs of innovation. (d). Previous experiences in market transitions.
Such is best exemplified by Apple’s board. Eric Schmidt who was an acquisition from Google brought different disruptive industry lenses. Bill Campbell toiled at Apple in the early 1990s, functioned as a CEO of another starting company before becoming the CEO for Intuit. The onetime V.P. AL Gore brought different frames to the discussions. The uncertainty card could be efficiently played by Art Levinson based on vast experiences gained as a Genentech scientist. Whereas BlackBerry and Nokia had their leaderships apparently tooled for compliance, management and demands of scale, Apple’s Steve Jobs construed a management team focused at encouraging “creative destruction”. In reality, Anthony (2013) notes that Nokia’s president was among the persons invited to endorse the 2003 “The Innovator’s Solution,” a playbook authored by Clayton Christensen on disruptive innovation. Admittedly, fundamental differences exist between the academic cognition of a concept and its actual transformation into a thriving business culture.
Anthony (2013) explains that “confirmation bias” is one of the major forces capable of derailing corporate culture. Any prospering business venture encounters various indications that it is on the path to success. Looking at the surge in Blackberry and Nokia’s shares even at the inception of Google and Apple into the market were indicators for diversification. A challenge to transformation, thereof is that by the instance that such data becomes actionable, plenty of time has passed (Chatchawaphun, Julsuwan, & Srisa-ard, 2016).
In their publication, Hsu et al. (2014) indicate that an enterprise encompassing healthy paranoia misgives such data, thereof hunting for newer business models. On a positive note, organizations perpetually explore new spaces and markets; exemplifying BlackBerry’s tablets and Nokia’s Maps. Telltale signs of abundance, however, emerge from efforts of these companies as published in reports; both companies after numerous discussions and pondering decided to compromise (Anthony, 2013). Paranoid organizations thereof either innovate a degree of fierceness that will allow them keep up with radical market changes (Anthony, par 13-15). Survival is only for the paranoid organizations. Such paranoia can either result or be fed from regular and consistent mechanisms tailored to tap into the peripheries of an industry – points of emergence of new technologies and trends
According to Passmore (2007), transitions in the marketplace after all never fall out of skies. Leaderships need to tap into the stated peripheries by building outpost innovation centers in hot spot areas (such as Singapore, China and Israel), have their executives make regular visits to these markets and spend times with the bleeding edge consumers such as the “digital natives” whose novel established customs will be the mainstream in tomorrow’s technological world (Anthony, 2013). Such undertakings will help leaders to foresee shifts and make appropriate changes soon enough (Hsu et al., 2014).
Scenario 2: President Trump and the Immigration Ban.
The American understanding of disruption in relation to Trump’s executive order to ban immigrants from Syria and other targeted countries revolves around their firmly held traditions, ideologies and core values of freedoms envisioned within the Bill of Rights (Schake, 2016). The American colonies were settled and built by disruptors. The American Revolution, and thereof their constitution gave birth to a beautiful nation not based on divine rights or family but a set of shared values. Probably their greatest founding fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson breathed meaning into both the need for rebellions every so often, and the equally need for safety valves (the frontiers) so that such rebellions could find outlets for new lives (Illing, 2017). Disruption defines the American people.
The greatest and most disruptive force in the nation’s history has been immigration and the fact that they welcome newcomers from all lifestyles, ultimately watching them pass their dreams to their children to regenerate the American spirit (Schake, 2016). Contrary to this, America has a rich history of barring targeted persons from entering the country, exemplifying the barring of Irish Catholics in the mid-19th century, the Socialists from Germany, and Irish Catholics who pushed the exclusion of Chinese in the 1870s and 1880s (Illing, 2013). Additionally, the neo world’s Trump posts a radical stance from both politics and policies in Washington, with promises to restore the strengths of the White House and the country all while ignoring political correctness and established traditions.
Frenzies surrounding President Trump’s ban have garnered various discussions. Theoretically, and majorly reflecting on the Jewish Holocaust, some discussions might as well sound noxious to those opposing Trump: he ran for the presidency on the exact sorts of ideas that he is implementing. Carens in the interview by Illing (2017) makes a contemporary reflection of refugees, with a shadowy reflection of the Holocaust. In the wake of their annihilation, Western countries such as Canada and the US declined to accept them. Ironically, the duty to protect the refugees was later announced on the Holocaust Remembrance Day by the same countries (Illing, par 5-11). Trump’s 120-day ban of refugees and indefinitely those from Syria may in some way be analogous to the Holocaust that the American people vowed never to let this happen again, and to the contrary, that is what Trump is doing in the case of Syria (Schake, 2016).
Schake, (2016) posits that discussions on the legality of Trump’s ban have deeper ethical objections. The aim of the policy, he argues, is to cut down on the threat of terrorism in the US in the face of the turmoil in Europe. Many objections to this and rightly thereof posit that the actual effect of the policy would likely result in an increase in the terrorism threat. The ban will probably annihilate Muslims, confirming the claim held by ISIS that the US is a fundamentally hostile to the Islamic religion (Illing, 2017).
Spiegel and Rubenstein, (2017) posit that improvement on President Trump’s approach as leader will entail changing the strong positions held and adopting visions that encompass moral obligations. The American people, including their leaders have a moral obligation to admit refugees. Three major points can argue the basis for this. First, the American people need to acknowledge that their country sometimes plays a role in an individual becoming a refugee. This is best exemplified by people in Afghanistan and Iraq who have assisted American troops in various capacities thereof being put at risk for their service (Illing, 2017). There are new stories of such being excluded from admission (hence safety) as a result of the policy.
Secondly, it is a humanitarian duty to help people in desperate times. Within the American context, such duty is founded on the strong religious and ethical traditions (Schake, 2016). The US has previously admitted refugees more than any other country (although in the past few years Germany has surpassed it). The complete banning of immigrants and refugees and the following reduction of such people by half will be regarded as a failure to fulfill these humanitarian obligations (Spiegel, & Rubenstein, 2017).
Thirdly, the US acknowledges the international state system that obligates accepting and protecting refugees (Illing, 2017). After the failure of major democratic countries to protect the Jews from the Nazis, the US-led efforts to actualize mechanisms that would keep from happening such morality failures. Notably, such regimes as of now suffer from intense shortcomings which the Trump administration seeks to further undermine. American leaderships will have to contend with the fact the openness to refugees and immigrants has played a pivotal function in transforming the US to what it is currently and is one of the core elements in the American ideal. The distinction between refugees and immigrants within the Trump administration will be critical to aligning their policies to international guidelines on humanity. Such will not entail denying the reality practices of exclusion and marginalization of foreigners within the American history. On the contrary, it will reflect a steadfast and sincere ficity on purpose to live up to the ideal American as not to repeat the horrors of the past.
Objections to Trump’s administrative policy should focus on ideals and values, and in the same respect, form foundation for their moral arguments. Carens in the interview by Illing (2017) explains that admitting problems within distributive justice system such as doing nothing to make a country accept refugees are some of the obstacles to humanitarian respect. Although Trump and the US, in general, are not obligated to accept refugees, they have to reconsider their positions. On the other hand, and within limits, making decisions on what he wants the US to be is clearly the sort of thing that democratic politics ought to be. The restriction of immigrants and refugees violates fairness and social norms.
References
Anthony, S. D. (2013). The real lessons from the faces of BlackBerry and Nokia. Bloomberg.
Chatchawaphun, P., Julsuwan, S., & Srisa-ard, B. (2016). A development program to enhance Strategic Leadership of Secondary School Administrators. International Education Studies, 9(10), 34.
Cojocaru, S., & Cojocaru, C. (2014). New trends in mobile technology leadership. Manager, 19(X), 79.
Hardy, J. H., Ness, A. M., & Mecca, J. (2017). Outside the Box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Difference, 104(X), 230-237.
Hsu, C. C., Tan, K. C., Jayaram, J., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). Corporate entrepreneurship, operations care competency and innovation in emerging economies. International Journal of Production Research, 52(18), 5467-5483.
Illing, S. (2017). Why Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a moral failure, explained by a political theorist: if America doesn’t take Syrians who will? Ethics of the “Muslim ban” explained. VOX,
Joshi, S., Saxena, S., & Tarkas, J. (2015). Analysis of the innovative strategies for value creation in the smartphone market: A case study using Blue Ocean Framework. International Journal of Management. 8.
Passmore, J. (2007). An integrative model for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(1), 68.
Rusko, R. (2012). Strategic Processes and Turning Points in ICT Business: Case Nokia. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy, 3(3), 25-34.
Schake, K. (2016). Republican foreign policy after Trump. Survival, 58(5), 33-52.
Spiegel, P., & Rubenstein, L. (2017). The academic case for repealing Trump’s refugee and travel ban. The Lancet. 389(10070), 679-80. Doi. 0.1016/S0140-6736(17)30332-X
