Introduction
To construct a profile of the company, Motorola was chosen as a struggling organization with management-specific issues. First, it is essential to mention that this corporation was one of the most successful mobile phone manufacturers worldwide (Anderson, 2008). However, particular wrong steps and managerial mistakes led it to struggle and, consequently, be eliminated from the smartphone market.
Motorola’s Management Issues
To identify the reasons for this, paying attention to the company’s management planning practices and the rhetoric of directors and its leaders will be essential. Notably, Rick Osterloh, the president of Motorola in 2011, conducted specific actions to save the prestige and reputation of the company (Fishman, 2014).
Motorola Corporation faced struggling times and internal problems due to the wrong politics of the leader and its managerial system. His managerial planning was depicted by ignoring current drawbacks and harmful situations. In his speech, he claimed that Motorola showed particular growth in mobile phone sales compared to the previous year. According to Fishman (2014), “he feels good about the future of Motorola Mobility, and of Chicago, he says” (p. 2).
However, his strategy in planning practices was wrong due to the prohibition of the company’s optimal functioning. The fact is that he was not comparing the organization with other players on the market. Consequently, even with particular growth in sales, Motorola had only 2 percent of the global smartphone market (Fishman, 2014). These management issues significantly harmed the corporation’s planning practices while neglecting relevant problems and the need for changes.
Remarkably, the issues mentioned above contrast with the fundamental principles of management. Among them, one should state planning and decision-making processes (Carpenter, 2013). While assuring everyone that there were no problems and no reduction in the company’s compositeness, the actual situation was the opposite (Anderson, 2008).
This situation occurred due to the wrong operation with statistical data. On the one hand, Motorola’s sales showed considerable growth. On the other hand, these increases were barely noticeable compared to other corporations such as Google. These aspects correlate with management planning and communication within the company.
The Employees’ Perception and Organizational Culture
The abovementioned issues related to a leader’s behavior and vision are closely connected with employees’ perception of the company’s functioning and organizational culture. Notably, as followers, workers tend to act according to the leader’s strategy. However, the middle and the managers are another essential part of this chain.
Carpenter (2013) identifies the impact of a leader’s vision on other workers in the corporation. The following influence is that leader influences managers, and, consequently, managers impact followers (Carpenter, 2013). It means managers convey and influence the leader’s ideas to workers. Therefore, the adverse effect of Osterloh’s politics gave the employees a wrong perception of the situation through the management’s performance.
The Role of Communication in Employee Performance
In the case of Motorola and its struggle, one should state that communication played a role in propaganda. This means specific drawbacks that made the company less competitive were consciously hidden. Managers were not willing to deliver problems to the employees. Therefore, particular blindness was established within the corporation.
As Anderson (2008) states, “Motorola jogged at its own pace, more like a monopolist than a paranoid competitor” (p. 4). Notably, it is essential to communicate sincerely and constantly with workers to address internal and external challenges (Carpenter, 2013). Due to the neglect of this management principle, Motorola could not increase employee performance and struggled significantly.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is vital to underline the significant drawbacks of Motorola’s management system. Notably, the adverse effect of its leader’s influence constructed the negative impact of neglecting essential factors. Among crucial aspects, it is vital to state the unwillingness to contribute to the competition with other market players but following only personal goals in isolation. Therefore, Motorola faced struggles due to internal issues and was unable to compete.
References
Anderson, H. (2008). 10 reasons why Motorola failed. Networkworld. Web.
Carpenter, M. (2013). Principles of management version 2.0(2nd ed.). MBS Content.
Fishman, T. C. (2014). What Happened to Motorola. Chicago. Web.