Bold Flash Case Essay

BoldDisk, currently k immediatelyn as Boldflash, was founded in 1982 in Waltham Massachussets. Origin ally manu detailuring computer storage medias like floppy disks for original equipment manufacturers and consumer markets, BoldFlashs product mix has evolved in due course of time. In 2012, the party began offering customers contemporary solutions in flash memory for products such as digital cameras, mp3s and most centrally smartphones, the latter accounting for 40% of the boilers suit market .However, the inability of the bon ton to keep up to date with the self-propelling nature of this 20 billion dollar market has led to the stock of the party in regards to product innovation and customer satisfaction. Even though there argon macroeconomic factors that brought about this predicament, the effect of managerial inefficiency overly has to be taken into account. This essay will do as such by critically viewing the top-down management approach this telephoner has used from bot h the human relations and superpower perspectives.The situation that the company currently finds itself in can be attributed to several factors. When feeling at Boldflashs management from a human relations perspective, the issue of spoilt management becomes more bare. The previous fault presidents decision of tackling issues through a top down approach can be one piss to the companys failure in creating value for customers. One problem with this autocratic approach in an innovation company is that it leads to the breakdown of converse and teamwork. The numerous conflicts mingled with manufacturing and sales can be attributed to the simple fact that the culture of the company was not based on communication between the two parties, it was based on following orders from corporate. This lack of vertical loading, or dispersal of authority, has on one hand an effect of inefficiency in act to create value for the company and its customers, but it also causes the employees to feel neglected.This apparent disconnect between management and workers can and has caused conflicts within the organization that when not addressed can become, according to Herzberg, hygiene factors that inhibit motivation and therefore innovation in the company. Another problem with this management approach is that it acts as hindrance to the tuition of new products. The ramifications of taking this McGregors Theory x approach, neglects non economic factors such as deed appraisal and participation which are considered as key motivators. Moreover, Maslows theory supports the argument that autonomy and inhabit for personal growth are the key motivators for employees to add value to their company through the process of satisfying their own need for self actualization.When looking at this company from a political perspective, the question of how Harrisons carriage of management had an effect on the companys grammatical construction is relatively obvious. It is more important to emphasize that the crux of the matter was the major deficits in product development (2nd paragraph further examined pp.2). According to the present paper, condition guilt president Jim Harrison commanded a rather strictregiment and had a management musical mode that can be described as autocratic. That suggests the assumption that he do use of Lukes first dimension of power, namely orders. A clear visible way of solving conflicts with the results he was in favour of. Its hardly surprising that this proceeding didnt lead to a motley company culture, or a structure which encourages employees to bring in their ideas. in fact, it shows a second possible reason for BoldFlashs failure in the tablet-chip market the markets potential was not recognized to its extensive extent and was therefore the opportunity was underplayed by management.Another side of BoldFlashs structural problems are highlighted by the fact that the actual product development group was being led by the marketing department. Disregarded by Harrison ,Cahill observations a loose form of leadership, which in his view does not be in integrating the talents of the employees. Contrarily to the general culture of strict orders, power is not used much in this group leaving Cahill with the printing that there were neither clear achievements nor direction in which to move the company.However. the structure of the company is changing as a result of the new vice president. under the structure of a divisionalized form, Robert Cahill leaves to its managers of divisions (Sales, Marketing etc.) the freedom of decision and hence controls the results. This enterprise makes sure that the standardization of outputs are respected through an important performance control. (meetings definitions of targets, objectives and strategies for for each one division that decisions makers must keep in sound judgement as they make specific decisions in the front).One can now notice that a formal communication e xists -limited to transmission of results- between Cahill and the supervisors of each department. Nevertheless we can focus on what create a dissension between all workers. It is mainly due to the divisions culture. We notice that even if all the members work at the same final finishs, they all have a different vision of how to perform. Thus their main goal becomes to keep it like a treasure and make sure that zero will treat it they are on guard and make their topper to keep their territory safe, acting without considering the others.In conclusion, the top down homunculus used by the late Jim Harrison and its autocratic nature hinders organizational performance in respect to understanding the market as soundly as having a cooperative and innovative environment. this approach neglects the inputs of employees and affects their performance as well as their ability to stay motivated, ultimatly affecting the companys boilersuit success and profitability, as is the case with BoldFla sh.Considering that Fiona Wilson wrote a whole book mocking the totalitarian ambition of management theories, it is not surprising that a vice president with an ambition like that analogically narrows the view of the whole organization.