Organizational Culture and the Rise of "Made Men" (2011)

The capacity for a corporation to evolve and innovate is characteristically linked to its prevailing culture. Throughout modern history, corporations that have left their marks on history and reshaped and reinvented their industries have all exhibited a rich culture. This is because a well articulated and widely rooted culture strengthens a sense of direction, purpose, cohesiveness, and more importantly a sense of belonging and identification among members of the organization. This allows them to focus on priorities and how to achieve them effectively. Back in the 1980s, scholars and practitioners alike accentuated the importance of organizational culture not only in securing high performance but also in adaptability to changing environmental conditions. Recently, in an interview with McKinsey Quarterly, two leading executives, Eric Schmidt of Google and Pierre Beaudoin of Bombardier, attributed the success and outstanding performances of their respective corporations to organizational culture. Both executives focus on the ability to deliver value to customers and on enhancing performance. Schmidt, in particular, addresses the need to develop a culture people actually are going to what they're going to do and where most industries transform, rather than disappear. Though both points are relevant to organizational culture, the latter is at the core of adaptive organizational culture. It tackles the nature of change and evolution on the economic scene and the ability of an organization to be a major player in the marketplace. This brings us to a recent report in Fortune magazine (April, 11, 2011). The report brought to the forefront an organizational culture issue with destructive potential; the presence of men in an organization. The emergence of men on the organizational scene and their survivability and resilience represents a major organizational challenge, and dealing with it is a testimony to the ability of an organization to overcome obstacles without major disruption to organizational normalcy and function. The Fortune report, in the context of Microsoft, defines men as who earned their bones during the 1990s when Microsoft was riding high and now can no wrong, even as they bungle decision after decision. In particular, the report identified CEO Steve Ballmer as one of the men who is blocking any innovative and creative idea that does not fit with his devotion to Windows. Fortune interviewed several critics who argued that Microsoft has missed many opportunities to reinvent itself. Furthermore, these critics indicated that Microsoft has a weak board and that Steve Ballmer is backed by Bill Gates making it impossible for the CEO to rethink his approach. While critics acknowledge that Windows is the primary source of profit at Microsoft, they underscore the fact that attention to the changing market landscape and actions by competitors is a prudent. Competitive corporations have to be adaptive and foster innovations in emerging areas especially those which have a profound impact on people's quality of life, work environment, and the global economy. Competitive corporations cannot afford to leave things to chance. They must be ahead of competitors in predicting market change and in being able to define the competitive game in their industry. It is possible that Microsoft looks at Windows from the perspective of generated total revenues and profit. In 20 1 0, Windows generated $ 1 3 billion in profits on $ 1 8 billion in sales. This, according to Fortune, has more than made up for the absence of a portfolio of cool phones, music players, and tablets. This is an impressive performance but should not blind the senior management team to the fact that other competitors are changing the competition landscape and are redefining the industry. Indeed, both Apple and Google have made major inroads in mobile devices and digital music, thereby challenging Microsoft in its traditional market. …