Apple is a Global Giant (Essay Sample)

APPLE IS A GLOBAL GIANT
by Student’s Name
Code+ course name
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date
Apple is a Global Giant
Introduction
The organizational theory gives a clear understanding of organizations and organizing processes. It offers a fair appreciation of various perspectives that form the knowledge concerning organizations (Daft 2007). Different schools of organizational thought are categorized basing on micro and macro levels of organizational study resulting into four primary perspectives: structural and natural selection, strategic and collective-action. These perspectives represent different ideas of the organizational change, management, structure, and behavior.
The structure of any organization is the relationship between duties in the organization and its various sections. The organizational structure is important in the allocation of responsibilities and aid in the achievement of its objectives (Linstead 2003). The strategic choice of any perspective concerns various forces and variables in the external business environment and affects business strategies through its interactions. Apple Inc is a large multinational company. The two organizational theory perspectives will aid in the analysis of its networks and influences.
Theoretical Framework
Apple Inc is the manufacturer of Apple computers and other assorted electronics. Most apple customers are drawn to its quality, stylish and innovative products (Pride & Ferrell 2006). Currently, the company is the most valuable brand globally at $ 153 billion. What sets Apple apart from other businesses is its business model. To many, the success of the company is founded on the managerial skills of its leaders, the unique corporate culture and innovativeness.
Application of the Perspective 1
The structure of the organization is both visible and invisible strands that connect all aspects of the organization so that they can function in tandem. One way of presenting the organizational structure is to use a chart. According to Miles (2012), it has been a long held view that organizations require a hierarchical organizational structure to function. The technological and industrial development during the industrial revolution altered the way businesses are operating. During this period, non-tangible structures have the received limited attention.
The design of early organization was also influenced by the classical thinking of time. Such intellectuals like Galileo, Newton, and Descartes advocated for the belief that the world was the massive clockwork managed by conventional general laws. This line of reasoning encouraged the development of linear organizations and reductionism mentality. It underscored the significance of labor division and the organizational structure that was composed of linear compartments (Baligh 2005).
The 20th century saw the adoption of management theory and practice. Henri Fayol, that is considered to be the father of modern management, advocated for the system being hierarchical, specialized and centralized in every component having its own unique place. Fayol has developed a theory of management known as scientific management. Based on this theory, scientific methods are utilized for the measurement and analysis, and all tasks are broken down to small and repetitive parts. This was utilized in the Ford Motor Car industry to the immense success. Most organizations have adopted a linear, hierarchical and segmented organizational structure in the 20th century (Standish 2000). Larger organizations have larger structures with many branches. The head of organization used to be a chief executive officer.
Towards the end of the 20th century, many organizations began to move away from larger organizational structures to slim structures in order to be more effective and flexible. This was in response to a rapidly changing business environment. One of the strategies used was connected with down-sizing their structures, but this resulted into more challenges such as the loss of expertise; thus, employees became insecure. Other results were the poor decision making, overworking of employees, cooperate infighting, and the rise of work related stress.
Down-sizing also proved to be an ineffective strategy as many organizations failed to take the advantage of restructuring and failed to put in place supportive systems. These changes failed to improve the effectiveness of organization. This was due to the lack of knowledge concerning the significance of relationship between the organizational structure and both internal and external systems and human behaviors, which showed a limited understanding of doctrines of the organization structure.
The process of re-engineering was another method adopted by organizations to improve the efficiency and to rid the organization of bureaucratic structures. Cost cutting, which is associated with the reduction of employees, became the best way of reducing the bureaucratic burden, but chief executive officers were still under control. According to Hatch & Cunliffe (2006), this was a chaotic era because many organizations were attempting to experiment with new approaches of outsourcing, the virtual types of organization and networking. It resulted into different types of organizational structures being still in use. Bureaucracy is one of them, and it is made up of the hierarchical structure where the control and authority are exercised at the highest level. The organizational structure is made up of compartments based on the reductionist approach (Baligh 2005). Although delayering has taken place in most modern organizations, reshaping strategies, teamwork and job design are still bureaucratic by their nature.
Decentralization became a key strategy for most organizations. Corporate responsibilities were devolved into particular units and divisions. Strategic business units were given more independence compared to divisional units. The disadvantages of this strategy are that the strengths and advantages associated with large organizations have been lost as well as the links that facilitated sharing of competitive advantages.
Another organizational structure that arose is the de-structured form. Organizations that adopted this structure are described as the high performance companies that focus on creating knowledge, and are process based, ad hoc and borderless. These structures attempt to free themselves from bureaucratic tendencies. In the de-structured organizational design, the size, the clarity of roles, the specialization and control being the characteristics of a typical organizational structure have become less significant.
Organization structures grounded on the purpose and core values emerged courtesy of this transformation. Apple Inc is the company the organization structure of which has defied this transformation. The organizational structure of Apple can be summarized as centralized. Many organizations associated with the centralized organization structure in the 21st century have failed to be efficient, but Apple remains competitive and profitable despite this structure (Brunner et al. 2009).
Before its demise in 2011, everything in Apple revolved around its founder Steve Jobs. He had been termed a corporate dictator that made all critical decisions concerning the company. During his last days at the company, he concentrated on institutionalizing his style of doing business, mainly on secrecy, constant feedback and attention to every detail. This was a way of preparing the company for the future without him.
The organizational structure in Apple is simple and flat by its nature. It is headed by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) being in the center of the organizational chart. It also has about 70 Vice Presidents being the head key divisions at the company (Segil 2002). The communication path is directly from the executives to junior level employees. There are no committees at the company; and the idea of general management is not favored. The only individual being responsible for profits and losses is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Most companies associate their profits and losses with the manager, but in Apple, this is the responsibility of the CFO alone. The ultimate result is the command and control structure in which the ideas originate from the top.
The company limits the divisions, and instead it favors its functions. Due to this approach, the company has been able to move fast despite its large size. Since the decisions are made by the executive, any changes made by the company are instantaneous. Another advantage for this approach is that the company can move quickly to grab some business opportunities compared with the companies that need deliberations by committees.
The specialization is a key management ingredient in Apple. Apple employees concentrate on the area of expertise; they seldom venture outside it. This is the way of having the best professionals in the right fields to perform the tasks they are best suited for. This departs from the general manager’s structure being common in such companies as the General Electric. In Apple, potential employees are invited to executive meetings to familiarize themselves with the decision making processes (Christensen & Raynor 2003).
For many years, Apple has been operating without the human resource department, which Jobs had considered unnecessary. This is a major departure from the management practice because all business organizations of such size as Apple have the human resource departments. He established the Apple University and hired Joel Podolny, a dean of Yale University School of Management, who was later named as the Vice President of Human Resources. This move appears to have been a preparation for the life without him. The organization’s structure of Apple was revolving around Steve Jobs, who ...