How Apple will not survive after the death of Steve Jobs - Research Paper Example

? How Apple will not survive after the death of Steve Jobs It will not be an over ment to say that Steve Jobs is Apple. Without Steve Jobs, Apple will not survive the competition in the market of which Apple in the first place intensified. Track record will speak why Apple will not survive without Steve Jobs. First, there will be no Apple without Steve Jobs because he cofounded the company with Steve Wozniak in his parents’ garage back in 1976. He was fired by the company he founded and Apple struggled to near bankruptcy in 1997 (Isaacson, 2012). His return did not only resuscitate the company but also disrupted seven industries: personal computing, animated movies, music, phones, tablet computing, retail stores, and digital publishing (Isaacson, 2012). Under Jobs leadership, Apple became a innovative company that introduced products in the market that rendered other product obsolete and revolutionized the industry itself. Today, Apple is the world’s leading brand due to the innovation and leadership that Steve Jobs introduced in Apple without which, Apple would be nowhere near its status as the world’s leading brand today. This success is attributed to Steve Jobs management style of structured leadership and organizational behavior that has been both criticized and lauded by its critics but nevertheless made Apple of what it is today. There are many literatures that described Steve Job’s management style. Almost everybody is unanimous in their assessment about Steve Job’s passion for product excellence that drove Apple towards innovation. Steve Jobs is extremely engrossed not only towards the details of Apple’s products but also on how it is marketed. He is known to push people to accomplish goals and objectives more than they thought they could achieve. He also stretched the possibilities of hardware and software design that yielded revolutionary products of which we enjoy today that often drove his people nuts(time). He was known to become rude, [slave driver at times], unreasonable, fickle, arrogant and even took credit for other’s ideas (time). But despite these seeming weaknesses, Job’s leadership have undeniably drove the company from near bankruptcy to become one of the most envied companies in the world. This kind of leadership was aptly encapsulated and articulated by Geil Browning as structured in the article entitled “Why Steve Jobs' Exactitude Mattered as Much as His Vision” at it dissected why Steve Jobs was effective as leader with his management style. Structured leadership meant having a road map on how to get things done such as “definition of objectives, develop process and road maps, pinpoint roles and responsibilities, develop timelines and schedules, establish milestones and checkpoints, determine success metrics, and identify control mechanisms” (2013).  To be specific, this kind of management style continues to learn by doing which is why Apple was always ahead on the learning curve of smartphones and gadgets. This is supported by practicality and straightforwardness which critics have branded Steve Jobs as rude for his forthrightness in communicating. Structured leadership is also sequential such as Jobs which drove his subordinates’ nuts because he does not seem to get contented with vague ideas. In sum Steve Job’s structured leadership boils to “communicating a specific, desired outcome, providing the tools to complete the assignment, and articulating how to do it. Then just leave your employees alone. The work will get done--on time, on budget, and with precision” (Browning, 2013) particularly the precision part of which Job was known because he was precise to the minutest details. This management style of Steve Jobs however is no longer emphasized in the present leadership of Apple. Being such, Apple is bound to fail without Steve Jobs because the leadership and organizational behavior that was instilled by Steve Jobs that drove the company to excellence and produce radical innovation is already gone. Its new CEO Tim Cook did not have the same drive towards excellence nor have the genius of Jobs to think of revolutionary products that would shake the industry. And due to this shortcoming, he is more predisposed towards what he calls as “incrementalism” which is essentially just to make things that Steve Jobs did to be better (Gustin, 2013). And this new organizational behavior is dangerous because it is one of the management traps that lead a company into a downfall. This is the management leadership trap that Robert Schaeffer articulated in the article “Mistakes Leaders Keep Making” of failing to push for significant improvement for fear that people are already overwhelmed (2010). As a result, Apple is no longer growing and its former competitive edge of being radically innovative is no longer there. In an industry where change happens at a dizzying pace and products become obsolete overnight, this organizational behavior will not survive the intense competition of which Apple itself under the leadership of Steve Jobs has intensified debunking other major players such as Research in Motion (Blackberry) and Nokia which previously led the market. Apple became what it is today not because it can make things or products better but rather it changes on how things are made. In effect, Apple did not just compete in the market but also created a new market rendering other market obsolete and made the new market very competitive of which it dominated. Apple’s iPhone created the smartphone market, the iPod rendered Sony’s Walkman obsolete, iPad created the computer tablet industry of which it all dominated. And Apple was able to do these things and created these products because Job’s management style demanded and stretched the capabilities of his people beyond what they thought they could do (Schaeffer, 2010). Under Steve Jobs leadership, Apple always have a “man on the moon” project of stretching targets having ambitious goals and “creating aspirations beyond the company’s existing resources or current approaches to the delivery of products” (Prahad and Mashelkar, 2010 pg 141). He was also known to innovate, often radical that changes or disrupts industry which according to Prahald and Mashelkar an essential for the company to survive and thrive. And these driving forces are already gone under the leadership of Tim Cook who seemed to be contented on how to do things better with his “incrementalism”. And we can see the effect on the market. Apple may not admit but competition is slowly overtaking them. It may have enjoyed a head start in the smart phone industry and computer tablets (courtesy of Steve Jobs) but rivals are already fast catching up. Its closest competitor Samsung became as the largest handset maker in the world overtaking Apple and Google’s Android is now the world’s top mobile operating system. And what is more disturbing is that over the last year, Apple stock price had fallen to that it lost more than $100 billion in market capitalization (Gustin, 2013). The future of Apple’s leading product which is iPhone also seemed to become bleak. For the first time, Apple had been criticized for inability of not being able to create something new with its new iPhone 5S series which is very uncharacteristic with the reputation that Apple has built for itself. Meanwhile, its competitors both in the hardware and software market are eating its market share. Samsung, the Korean titan is poised to take over Apple’s position in the smartphone market while Google’s Android has already dominated the OS market. The industry that Apple is in is very competitive that it cannot rest on its laurel which is grounded on the past glory which Steve Jobs has created for the company. More than its products, its leadership style and organizational behavior must be appropriate with the fast changing and competitive environment for it to continue to create products that are radically innovative and groundbreaking that created markets that never existed before. This is the impetus that catapulted Apple to where it is today. And the management style that is appropriate the structured leadership from its people that demanded more than what they thought they could do with a laser like focus that gets the seemingly impossible done. The present new focus on “incrementalism” over innovation will not sustain Apple in its present position nor its emphasis on operation of making things better over ingenuity can keep its competitive edge. Apple’s decline is already manifesting. Its stock market price is already declining and its products such as iPhones are already threatened by obsolescence and if the current management practice and organizational behavior will continue, it will not be long that Apple will be back to its 1997 level – nearing bankruptcy. This time, it can no longer survive because Steve Jobs is no longer around to save the company. References Browning, G. (2013, May 16). Why Steve Jobs' Exactitude Mattered as Much as His Vision . INC Magazine. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.inc.com/geil-browning/leadership-communication-structured-thinking.htmldeath-is-apple-a-different-company/ Business & Money. (n.d.). Business Money Two Years After Steve Jobs Death Is Apple a Different Company Comments. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://business.time.com/2013/10/04/two-years-after-steve-jobs-death-is-apple-a-different-company/ Harvard Business Review Case Studies, Articles, Books, Pamphlets - Harvard Business Review. (n.d.). Harvard Business Review Case Studies, Articles, Books, Pamphlets - Harvard Business Review. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://hbr.org/2012/04/the-real-leadership-lessons-of-steve-jobs/-death-is-apple-a-different-company/ Prahalad, C.K. and Mashelkar, R.A. (2010). Innovation’s Holy Grail. Harvard Business Review Schaeffer, R (2010). Mistakes Leaders keep Making. Harvard Business Review Read More