Diagnosing Change

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Congruence Diagnostic Model

The important thing that was not initially is that Sony and Microsoft were not performing as they would have expected. It was realized that something should have been done and that certain changes needed to be implemented through the reorganization of the corporate structure. It is a question that would disturb many as why some firm would thrive on a certain corporate structure while others struggle on the same structure (Burke, 2009). It is important that we understand the forces or drivers that dictate performance and what relationship exists between the forces. This can only be done through the help of the congruence model. It determines what is happening the wrong way and then looking at means of fixing them (Burke, 2009).

The model is based on the fact that in order for the organization to perform, there are four important elements which are; people, culture, work and structure. The performance of the organization will improve only the above factors are showing congruence. It is understandable that one may have the best team of people working for the organization but once the culture, the structure and the type of work is wrong, then the firm will still struggle. The companies, Sony and Microsoft had the best of technology, and the best team of experts, but they still could not perform as it had been expected due to a culture that was much bureaucratic and therefore decisions took very long to be made, therefore at times the companies lagged behind. The model therefore intends to avoid such quagmire and this is through systematic way of considering the root elements that would drive organizational performance (Hatton, 2004).

SWOT Analysis

Strength

The two companies had several strengths that would have worked on their side had they managed to have all the four elements working harmoniously together. Both Sony and Microsoft had superior technology that would have ease the work done by their team of employees. The work done therefore would be based on better and efficient applicability (Hatton, 2004). The other strength is the expert employees or people that work for both the organizations. Work done by expert is usually so efficient in terms of material management. The two companies also have made a brand name for themselves and therefore it will be easy to market them abroad and at home (Hatton, 2004).

Weakness

The companies had organizational structures that were not effectively running their affairs. The structure was quite bureaucratic and it was difficult for decisions to be made. This was also based on the fact that the different departments were not pulling together in synergy; therefore there was a lot of wasted efforts (Nadler & Tushman, 2010).

Opportunities

Opportunities that exist for both Sony and Microsoft are the emerging markets, and the new technologies that they can be able to create. The two companies are finding new forays in the African market which has become a hub for oversee businesses. Therefore they have a potential of making more sales through the African market. This will be important in order to avoid the competition back at home. The companies also have experts who are talented and can be able to develop new ideas and utilize new technologies as effectively as possible (Nadler & Tushman, 2010).

Threats

The threat that the companies have been facing is the emergence of counterfeit materials that are creating havoc in the market. The companies are losing sales to products that bear their names yet they don’t belong to them, and therefore it has taken the companies a lot of effort and money in patenting their products (Nadler & Tushman, 2010). There have also been suits brought to court against the firm with complaints over what can be referred to as counterfeit products in the market, which have affected the customers.

Effective changes that have been made up to date (Comparison of the two companies)

The two companies have been able to change the corporate and management structures, and now they are operating on a different and more efficient platform. Arguably, the firms are now better coordinated and they are more efficient (Stone, 2007). It has meant that decision making is faster and there is no breakage in the coordination of the synergic factors. The only difference is that the structural changes in Microsoft did not involve the overseas branches; it only affected the local firm. The structural changes in Sony did affect businesses overseas and that gives the reason as to why recently the United States accused the China sources of hacking their website.

Areas of resistance and recommended strategy

Many people do not like to act under different supervisors over the periods that they are engaged to the company. Therefore they will most of the time find it difficult to be shifted to different departments during structural changes and therefore they will resist. It will be important that when making changes, the only areas that are affected are those that do offer the actual technical work. This is because any dissatisfaction to this people will lead the company to fail (Stone, 2007).

References

Burke, E. (2009). Reflections on the revolution in France. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue.
Hatton, R. (2004). Sisters country weather and climate. Bend, Or.: Maverick Publications.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (2010). The organization performance model. New York [N.Y.: OR & C [for] AT & T.
Stone, J. (2007). The relationships between perceived stress and job satisfaction, locus of control, and length of teaching experience.