Apple Inc as an Organism Defined by Analysis Metaphors by Morgan - Essay Example

? Company Analysis: Apple Inc. Introduction The modern business environment involves adaptive problem solving approaches as opposed to the traditional ad hoc undertakings. Innovation and creativity thus play a critical function in organisations, requiring business leaders to be on the forefront in stimulating ideas and solutions from each and every level of the respective organisations. Among the most challenging tasks that business leaders encounter, change management stands out across the globe as a critical task which leaders need to be critical of, thus the reason for Morgan (2006) giving simple metaphors to guide on the same: organisations as an organism, machine, brain, psychic prison, political system, culture, instruments of domination and flux and transformation. According to Rahmati and Fard (2012) and Sease (2013), metaphors refer to a form of speaking where one thing would be expressed in the light of another so as to describe the character of the subject. They play an important role in understanding and interpreting organisations. To bring this into perspective in this paper, two metaphors borrowed from Images of Organisation, namely, organisation as an organism and political organisation will be used to describe Apple Inc., as the chosen case organisation. Apple Inc. Apple Inc. is a multinational corporation with its headquarters in Cupertino, California dealing with designing, developing and selling personal computers, computer software and consumer electronics. The American company known for its hardware products such as Mac computers, iPhone smartphones, iPad tablet computers and iPod music players and software such as iTunes media browser and Safari web browser among others was founded by Steven Wozniak and Steven Jobs in 1976 and incorporated in the following year. In the first year of its incorporation, the firm released the first Apple computer, Apple I. Today, Fortune 500 Magazine (2012) documents Apple Inc. as the second largest information technology company globally, after Samsung Electronics, by revenue and has been ranked third largest as a mobile phone maker. In 2008 through 2012, it was documented by Fortune 500 Magazine as the most admired firm in America and globally. Going by market capitalisation, it ranks second among the largest publicly traded corporations globally with its value as of January 2013 estimated at USD 414 billion. Its 2012 annual revenue was USD 156 billion as retrieved from its website (http://www.apple.com/). The Late Steve Jobs has been widely accredited for the success that Apple Inc. enjoys today. Together with Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs co-founded Apple Computers Inc. in 1976, having both dropped out of college (Mittan, 2010). Following the success of their computers in the market, Steve Jobs and the then president, Michael Scott got entangled in power struggle. Though Scot resigned in 1981, tension continued to escalate causing Jobs to quit the company he had co-founded in 1985. NeXT, the company consequently formed by Jobs was purchased by Apple in 1996 seeing the re-entry of Jobs who later in 1997 became the CEO, steering the firm to greater achievements. In 2011, Tim Cook took up Jobs’ roles after his resignation from being the Chief Executive so as to have ample time to concentrate on his deteriorating health, but died later in the same year. Cook has since steered forward the corporation in its operations. Analysis of Apple using Morgan’s Metaphors Apple as an organism Morgan (2006) uses this organism metaphor of organisations to describe their survival through varied environments. According to Black (2003), this metaphor makes humans to view organisations as living units or organisms which must adapt to the changing environment in order to survive. In this case, Apple Inc. considered as an organism would be pegged on its evolution through varied business environments over time. On its inception in 1976, the firm started as a company dealing purely in computers. With time and due to demand, the company diversified to deal with varied electronic equipment including music players and mobile phones and also in computer software (Apple Inc., 2013). This necessitated the need for change of name from Apple Computers, Inc. to Apple Inc. in 1977. Similarly, so as to maintain its profitability in the changing business environment, the company had to change its management from time to time in an attempt to retain performers at the helm of the firm. This is the reason that saw the decision to re-hire Jobs to head the company and fire Gil Amelio in 1997 (Mittan, 2010). All these measures were undertaken to enable Apple adopt in the changing environment, just as an organism would adapt to the changing environments. This organism metaphor by Morgan (2006) points out to the need for paying attention to the needs of an organisation and its relationship to the environment in which it exists. The complex needs that employees have must be met for them to function effectively within the organisational unit. The culture of Apple as engineered by Jobs has always promoted innovation and creativity among employees. Employees would be given an opportunity to share their ideas on how to improve the organisation and its products. In line with caring for its employees, the widespread rumour that Apple’s employees in China worked under poor conditions saw the firm launch an investigation into the same and involved its manufacturers and suppliers in ensuring that its employees worked in acceptable working environment (Mittan, 2010). To motivate employees, Apple Fellows program awards individuals who have contributed extraordinarily to personal computing in the firm. The stock options granted to executives annually encourages them to be more productive (Apple Inc., 2013). Studies have pointed out to the social needs in organisations and have indicated the importance of motivation so as to make work more meaningful and get people to be more involved in their roles and responsibilities (Ocal, 2011). Just as organisms would be sensitive to their environments, organisations need to be sensitive to their employees, this being their immediate environment so as to ensure sustainable competitiveness. Considering the environment in which an organisation exists plays a critical role in comprehending the organisation’s life cycle from its inception, growth and development to the declining stage and finally death and how such an organisation has adapted through this cycle in the changing environment. Rahmati and Fard (2012) appreciate organisations as being open to the environment hence the need to fit the tasks involved to the environment so as to make them better placed to adapt to the changing environment. This informs the reason for Apple purchasing several companies including NeXT and Nothing Real so as to create a pool of professionals and customer-oriented staff to itself. Hill and Jones (2008) observe that during this period when Apple adopted the strategy of purchasing endowed companies, the power of computer was fast growing due to high innovation and turbulence in personal computer industry. Additionally, it informs on the relationship with other organisations and the evolution of inter-organisational ecology, a fact that explains the association of Apple and Microsoft, another big player in computer software, to develop new Microsoft Office versions for Macintosh. This association saw Microsoft invest USD150 million in Apple’s stock in 1997 without voting rights (Mittan, 2010). The population ecology view postulates that the survival of organisations depends on the resources in the environment, and as such organisations have to compete with rival organisations for such resources. With resources being limited by nature, only the fittest survive. It is for this reason that Ocal (2011) argues for consideration of how industries survive in an organisation as opposed to considering how an individual organisation in an industry survives. Critique of organism metaphor The organism metaphor of organisations has benefits that could enable organisations succeed in their operations. Its first strength is in the fact that it emphasizes on the organisation’s relationship with the environment arguing on the organisation as an open system as opposed to being a static system (Morgan, 2006). Indeed, taking the case of Apple supports this observation as the organisation operates as an open system, faced with changes in technology and consumer preferences. Secondly, this metaphor also focuses on survival, a process, as opposed to goals, the endpoints. It acknowledges the importance of paying attention to organisational needs that should be met for the survival of the organisation. Apple adopted survival approaches throughout its life cycle so as to survive the turbulent environment it operates in. As such, survival stands out as the main task for organisations making the goals not as the end in themselves but rather as mediums for survival. Finally, focusing on needs helps in viewing organisations as a chain of interacting processes which have to balance internally and externally with regard to the environment. Technology, structure, managerial, strategy and human dimensions are subsystems that have living needs which need to be satisfied mutually. This reason explains the sensitivity of Apple to its employees’ welfare, the technology it used for its products and the management of the firm. External relations with other firms, including Microsoft enabled Apple to fit within its environment of operation. Organisations that fit within the organism metaphor have been noted to have more choices of design and tend to be more innovative as they focus on inter-organisational relations. Nonetheless, this view has limitations as it is overly mechanistic and thus fails to auger well with the social phenomenon which forms the basis of its argument. The metaphor elicits a view of organisations in a rather too concrete manner. While nature would be presented as being objective and real, this ceases to be the case when considering organisations as they would be better understood as social constructs. The shape and structure organisations adopt have been noted to be more tentative and fragile as opposed to the structural material in organisms. More so, a majority of organisations would not function well under this metaphor as their elements fail to cooperate. The organism metaphor could mislead one to believe that organisations would be selected by the environment in which they are to survive or that they need to adapt to their environment when in essence, organisations choose either to collaborate or compete in their environment. It is not the environment for instance that determines the survival of Apple, but rather how Apple collaborates with other organisations and how it avoids some associations that cause it to remain competitive in the marketplace. Critically considered, the actions of collaborating organisations would impact the environment as opposed to the opposite action. Finally, Morgan (2006) indicates that this organism metaphor could easily be an ideology. Apple as a political organisation Many countries around the world nowadays have adopted democratic governance allowing its citizens to make own decisions, have own opinions and be treated equally. But in organisations, whether in democratic or autocratic countries, Morgan (2006) notes that employees do not have such freedom; the only freedom available to them would be to quit. Political principles inform the concept of power, authority and superior-subordinate relationships which would be found in organisational management. Originally, politics was meant to allow people to be able to reconcile their divergent opinions through negotiations and consultations (Rahmati & Fard, 2012). But a majority of organisations would be ruled by autocratic managers vested with all the decision making powers. Here, things would be done the managers’ way as opposed to the bureaucratic way where rules apply. Even though Apple has been credited as among the largest organisations in the world and one that takes care of its employees’ needs, the organisation has for long been considered to propagate Jobs’ ideas. Employees considered him as autocratic according to Millett (2012). This has been largely considered as Jobs’ way of propagating his own interests, widely appreciated as focus on the firm’s key projects. The Board of Directors also fronted their own interests, firing managers that did not promote the company’s profitability. In fact, the re-entry of Jobs was a result of the board firing the then CEO, Amelio, considered as a non-performer. People are said to have diverse interests, which could come into conflict with the organisational interests or that of other people in the organisation. Such interests led to the fall-out between Steve Jobs and the then Apple president, Michael Scott. The president was later to resign in 1981 and Jobs made the CEO (Mittan, 2010). This becomes political when people start sharing interests or forming coalitions aimed at advancing their interests. When opposing interests arise, conflict emerges. According to Morgan (2006), conflicts are common in many organisations and could occur between coalitions, groups or people and could be inherent in the organisation’s structure. Stereotyping, mental programming, competition for scarce resources and beliefs foster such conflicts. In Apple, power struggles was the order of the day, and such was the reason that Jobs resigned from the company following disagreement between him and the Board of Directors and the then president Sculley. Jobs then founded his own company, NeXT that he successfully run for about eleven years. When managers and employees have divergent interests, conflicts could arise, making it difficult to achieve organisation’s aims and objectives (Morgan, 2006). The constant power struggles in Apple and the varied interests in the stakeholders could explain the dwindling performance of the corporation during the pre-Jobs re-entry period. Nonetheless, others have influential powers over others. In Apple, Jobs possesses what Morgan (2006) refers to as formal power, where other people accept the legitimacy of another to rule as they obey the power. The CEO had the power of coping with uncertainties as he foresaw changes and made prior provisions for the same. Indeed, Jobs gives a clear indication of how power could be used to further acquire power, having started as a co-founder of Apple. Hence, interests, conflicts and power form important organisational components. Therefore, the management bears the task of controlling the workforce, a responsibility that would call for possession of power. Even though managers would be in most cases perceived as power holders, Morgan (2006) acknowledge that employees could be empowered by way of regulations and rights, protected by professional bodies and trade unions. Managers would thus be required to have the power of control of counter-organisations so as to be effective in the execution of their mandate. The solution to conflicts lies in determining who gets what, how and when. Critique of political organisation metaphor Considering the political metaphor of organisations, politics would be appreciated as inevitable in organisations with activities in organisations being based on self interests. These self interests were the reason for power struggles in Apple and the reason for a high turnover of Chief Executives before the re-entry of Jobs in 1997. Additional strength in this political organisation metaphor according to Morgan (2006) lies in its acknowledgement of all organisations having a political dimension, that is, goals would be negotiated between teams and individuals and also between different interests. Similarly, conflict has been appreciated as a feature of organisations, both internally and externally. Considering the Apple case, other than employees’ interests, the management, Board of Directors, customers and shareholders had varied interests in the corporation. These interests would at times lead to conflicts, both internally and externally. Even so, this metaphor has the limitation of risking an increase in politicisation of organisations (Morgan, 2006). It postulates that stakeholders in all organisations have diverse interests which result in conflicts, hence the politics in organisations. The perception of people on politics could be confrontational and negative such that compromise and conflict would be interpreted as manoeuvring and manipulation. Perhaps such postulates explain the consideration of Jobs as autocratic by Apple employees (Mittan, 2010), considering him as a manager seeking to front his interests. Rationale for the Selection of the Metaphors Morgan (2006) provides eight different metaphors in which to describe organisations. Millett (2012) acknowledges that an organisation could be described using more than one metaphor, just as Apple has been described in light of the organism and political organisation metaphors. Apple being an organisation that deals with highly technological products faces turbulent environmental changes based on the rapidly changing nature of technologies (Hill & Jones, 2008). As such, adaptation to this turbulent environment forms a key component of its survival just as would be the case with an organism. The second metaphor on the political metaphor of Apple was informed by the fact that the politics dominated Apple’s operations and even edged out its co-founder. Furthermore, the constant power struggles has seen the leadership of the corporation keep changing due to its board protecting its interests and that of the shareholders. As such, it provides an appropriate case to study how interests, conflicts and power operate in an organisation. Conclusion From this task, I have learnt that Gareth Morgan’s metaphors serve as a critical tool in helping organisational facilitators in handling interests and changing environment. Indeed, all the theories that explain the operation of organisations, in themselves, are metaphors. Apple being a firm concerned with technological products would be better likened to an organism which needs to swiftly adapt to the constantly changing business environment so as to ensure its survival. The constant power struggles and conflicts due to varied interests compare it to a political organisation. Even though these metaphors have limitations, I have found out that they serve an important role of putting up a way for people to describe their perception of organisations. References Apple Inc. (2013). Retrieved 22 April 2013 from http://www.apple.com/ Black, L. (2003). Adult and distance education management: An application of the metaphor “organisations as organisms.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(4). Retrieved 22 April 2013 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter64/black64.htm Fortune 500 Magazine (2012, May 1). Fortune 500. Retrieved 21 April 2013 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/ Hill, C. W. L. & Jones, G. R. (2008). Essentials of strategic management (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Millett, B. (2012). Understanding organisations: The dominance of systems theory. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 1(1), 1 – 12. Mittan, S. R. (2010). Apple: A case study analysis. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University Press. Morgan, Gareth (2006). Images of Organisation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ocal, K. (2011). Evaluating organisational culture with metaphors. African Journal of Business Management, 5(33), 12882 – 12889. Rahmati, M. H. & Fard, S. M. H. (2012). Metaphorical approach to organisation: As the focus of intersecting spectrums. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(8), 8363 – 8374. Sease, R. (2013). Metaphor’s role in the information behaviour of humans interacting with computers. Retrieved 22 April 2013 from http://www.ala.org/lita/ital/sites/ala.org.lita.ital/files/content/27/4/sease.pdf Read More