Bold Flash Case Essay

BoldDisk, currently k without delayn as Boldflash, was founded in 1982 in Waltham Massachussets. Origin aloney manu positionuring 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 partnership began offering customers contemporary solutions in flash memory for products such as digital cameras, mp3s and most strategicly smartphones, the latter accounting for 40% of the general market .However, the inability of the conjunction to keep up to date with the combat-ready nature of this 20 billion dollar market has led to the reject of the fellowship in regards to product innovation and customer satisfaction. Even though there atomic number 18 macroeconomic factors that brought about this predicament, the effect of managerial inefficiency as considerably as has to be taken into account. This essay will do as such by critically viewing the top-down management approach this company has used from both the human relations and top executive perspectives.The situation that the company currently finds itself in can be attributed to several factors. When expression at Boldflashs management from a human relations perspective, the issue of seriously management becomes more apparent(a). The previous ungodliness presidents decision of tackling issues through a top down approach can be one realise to the companys failure in creating value for customers. One paradox with this autocratic approach in an innovation company is that it leads to the breakdown of chat and teamwork. The numerous conflicts betwixt 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 seek 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 thus innovation in the company. Another problem with this management approach is that it acts as hindrance to the growing of new products.The ramifications of taking this McGregors Theory x approach, neglects non economic factors such as act appraisal and participation which are considered as key motivators. Moreover, Maslows theory supports the argument that autonomy and get on 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 mien of management had an effect on the companys anatomical structure is relative ly 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, precedent misdeed president Jim Harrison commanded a rather strictregiment and had a management call that can be described as autocratic. That suggests the assumption that he do use of Lukes first dimension of power, namely orders. A intelligibly visible way of solving conflicts with the results he was in favour of. Its hardly surprising that this proceeding didnt lead to a miscellaneous 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 honorable 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 deve lopment group was being led by the marketing department. Disregarded by Harrison ,Cahill exposes a loose form of leadership, which in his view does not copy 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 photo 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 ofdecision and past 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 distributively division that decisions makers must keep in perspicacity as they make specific decisions in the front).One can now notic e that a formal communication exists -limited to transmission of results- between Cahill and the supervisors of each department. Nevertheless we can focus on what create a disagreement between all workers. It is mainly due to the divisions culture. We notice that even if all the members work at the same final aspirations, 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 goose egg will treat it they are on guard and make their ruff to keep their territory safe, acting without considering the others.In conclusion, the top down regulate used by the late Jim Harrison and its autocratic nature hinders organizational performance in respect to understanding the market as well 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 overall success and profitabil ity, as is the case with BoldFlash.Considering that Fiona Wilson wrote a whole book sceptical 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.