USHA MARTIN UNIVERSITY, JHARKHAND

(Established by Jharkhand Government under Sec.2(f) of UGC Act 1956

ASSIGNMENT (EVEN 2020)

MBA SEMESTER II

MBA - 2001, Organisational Effectiveness & Change

STUDENT NAME: SUJAN KUMAR SAMANTA

ROLL NO: 19MBA057
COURSE: MBA
SUBJECT CODE & NAME: 2001 OEC
SUBMITTED ON: 24.04.2020
SUBMITTED TO(FACULTY NAME): Dr. ANUPAMA VERMA
MAXIMUM MARKS: 10

Q1) Differentiate between Organisational Effectiveness and Effeciency. (5)

Q2) Select any two organization of your preference from different sectors and prepare the profile
of it on following guidelines: (5)

1. Company name
2. Founder name
3. Year and place (Head quarter) of establishment
4. Brief profile of company

Q3) Identify the change programs taken upon in both the organization for the development. (30)

1. Change Programs and its Objective

2. Intervention taken up
3. Level/ area of organisation
4. Process or stages to complete the Change/ development
5. Swot Analysis
6. Conclusion
Q1) Differentiate between Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency .

Introduction

In any given organisation, productivity and efficiency are highly regarded. Most managers and
employees get their feedback based on these two factors. But what exactly do we mean when we
say productivity or efficiency? Apparently there are some questions around this topic that
haven’t been answered yet.In order to explain the differences between productivity and
efficiency, we must first understand what they exactly mean. To put it in simpler terms, we are
talking about differences between quantity and quality. It is nearly impossible to obtain 100%
quality, while having productivity levels up at maximum. There should be a middle ground in
order to optimise your results.Both productivity and efficiency are absolutely crucial for building
a fantastic work ethic. If you manage to learn how to handle both of them and what makes them
distinctly important, you and your business will thrive. As a beginner, you may be tempted to
focus too much on efficiency and although this isn’t a bad thing to do, understanding the key
variables between efficiency and productivity is imperative

Organizational performance stimulation has always been a priority in private as well as in public
sectors, since it is directly associated with the value creation of the entity. Organizations are
constantly striving for better results, influence and competitive advantage. However, most
organizations are struggling to get it right. Management is not always aware of the adequate
assessment of their organizational performance. Plethora of models, frameworks or methods for
conducting entities valuation creates unnecessary stress for management to select the path that is
congruent with organizations believes and cultural philosophy (Richard, 2009). Common
measures of the organizational performance are effectiveness and efficiency (Bounds at all,
2005; Robbins, 2000). For managers, suppliers and investors these two terms might look
synonymous, yet, according to Mouzas (2006), each of these terms have their own distinct
meaning. Most organizations assess their performance in terms of effectiveness. Their main
focus is to achieve their mission, goals and vision. At the same time, there is plethora of
organizations, which value their performance in terms of their efficiency, which relates to the
optimal use of resources to achieve the desired output (Chavan, 2009). The question is, whether
there is a difference if the organization is effective yet inefficient and visas versa

Effectiveness vs. efficiency

There are various opinions regarding valuation of the organization. Mouzas (2006) emphasized
two indicators to assess the performance: the efficiency and the effectiveness. For managers,
suppliers and investors these two terms might be synonymous, yet, each of these terms have their
own distinct meaning. The findings revealed that efficiency information provides different data
compared to effectiveness one. The primary difference between organizational effectiveness and
organizational efficiency is that you can use effectiveness to evaluate just about every process
that makes your business run. Efficiency, however, is always about the financial costs and the
results of doing something. Efficiency is especially important when it comes to measuring the
return-on-investment of marketing and sales. As a small business owner, you’re probably not
working with unlimited resources, so you need to find ways to maximize the resources you do
have.

If you go back to the computer software sales example discussed above, you would have
assumed that your company is effective if your sales team can make 50 prospect calls a day. That
doesn’t necessarily mean that your company is efficient, however, because you would need to
know how many of those 50 prospect calls are converted into actual buyers. In this example, the
difference between effectiveness and efficiency is the difference between achieving an objective
(making 50 prospecting calls) and achieving measurable results (the percentage of calls that
become sales).

Everyone wants to be as productive as possible, but there are always problems of various sorts
that keep us from getting the job done. Firstly, don’t waste more time than necessary when
completing a task. Try and set your own rhythm and pace and stick to it. Try and write down
every step necessary in order to complete a certain task and follow that process religiously. Once
you have the whole process set in stone, you will see that the amount of time you require will
steadily decrease.

Many people ask if it is possible to be productive and efficient at the same time and the answer is
yes. All you have to do is analyse the task at hand and try and find out what it requires more;
whether it is quantity or quality.

It all comes down to the importance of the task. As an example, let’s talk about employee
enquiries towards the HR department. We all know they must be dealt with in a respectable
amount of time. This type of task is considered to be more on the productive side, due to the fact
that it is the same process over and over again, with the same forms and documentation that need
to be filled out every time. You can finish all the enquiries quickly and with complete certainty
that their quality is top notch as long as you deal with them in the correct manner.

With efficiency tasks, most often than not they do not have a precise and by the book approach.
These tasks obviously require more time and a high level of due diligence. In this scenario,
quality trumps quantity. Of course, every task has a deadline. But if you happen to have the
misfortune of dealing with it poorly, it doesn’t necessarily matter too much. You should always
work at your full potential, but given the fact that the assignment doesn’t have a methodological
way of dealing with it, you have some wiggle room and the possibility to improve it.
As mentioned earlier in the article, it is very important for both productivity and efficiency to be
part of your workflow. It provides you with time, expertise and discipline in order to handle
distinct assignments. Balancing productivity and efficiency may seem troublesome at first, but
once you find it, certain tasks will stop being such a burden on you.

In conclusion, one more idea that is important to remember is this: never sacrifice your work. If
you need to do good, solid work then don’t rush it by any means, and when you are looking for
quantity don’t get yourself lost in too many details. With this in mind, you can accomplish
anything you want. Do the work you have to do the way it was meant to be done and never
compromise. It is essential you know and understand the differences between these two practices
in order to ensure your work never has to suffer again.

Conclusion

The fundamental difference between organizational assessment using either effectiveness or

efficiency measuring methods lies in the fact, that effectiveness is much broader perspective,
which takes into account quality, creation of value added, employee satisfaction, output
interaction with the social and economic environment. While efficiency measures the
relationship between inputs and outputs or how successfully the inputs are being transformed
into outputs. ‘‘Social Transformations in Contemporary Society’’, 2013 (1) ISSN 2345-0126
(online) 52 Effectiveness and efficiency are exclusive performance measures, yet, at the same
time, they influence each other. As the findings revealed, effective yet inefficient organization
might survive, while efficient yet ineffective one will bankrupt slowly. In order to achieve the
excellence in competitive performance, organizations should strive to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness indicators evenly.

Q2) Select any two organization of your preference from different sectors and prepare the
profile of it on following guidelines: (5)

Company name - Huawei

Founder name- Ren Zhengfei

Year and place (Head quarter) of establishment- 1987 Shenzhen China

Brief profile of company-

During the 1980s, the Chinese government tried to modernize the country's underdeveloped
telecommunications infrastructure. A core component of the telecommunications network was
telephone exchange switches, and in the late 1980s, several Chinese research groups endeavored
to acquire and develop the technology, usually through joint ventures with foreign
companies.Ren Zhengfei, a former deputy director of the People's Liberation Army engineering
corps, founded Huawei in 1987 in Shenzhen. The company reports that it had RMB 21,000 in
registered capital at the time of its founding.Ren sought to reverse engineer foreign technologies
with local researchers. At a time when all of China's telecommunications technology was
imported from abroad, Ren hoped to build a domestic Chinese telecommunication company that
could compete with, and ultimately replace, foreign competitors.During its first several years the
company's business model consisted mainly of reselling private branch exchange (PBX) switches
imported from Hong Kong. Meanwhile, it was reverse-engineering imported switches and
investing heavily in research and development to manufacture its own technologies. By 1990 the
company had approximately 600 R&D staff and began its own independent commercialization of
PBX switches targeting hotels and small enterprises.The company's first major breakthrough
came in 1993 when it launched its C&C08 program controlled telephone switch. It was by far the
most powerful switch available in China at the time. By initially deploying in small cities and
rural areas and placing emphasis on service and customizability, the company gained market
share and made its way into the mainstream market.Huawei also won a key contract to build the
first national telecommunications network for the People's Liberation Army, a deal one
employee described as "small in terms of our overall business, but large in terms of our
relationships". In 1994, founder Ren Zhengfei had a meeting with Party general secretary Jiang
Zemin, telling him that "switching equipment technology was related to national security, and
that a nation that did not have its own switching equipment was like one that lacked its own
military." Jiang reportedly agreed with this assessment.

In the 1990s Canadian telecom giant Nortel outsourced production of their entire product line to
Huawei. They subsequently outsourced much of their product engineering to Huawei as
well.Another major turning point for the company came in 1996 when the government in Beijing
adopted an explicit policy of supporting domestic telecommunications manufacturers and
restricting access to foreign competitors. Huawei was promoted by both the government and the
military as a national champion, and established new research and development offices.

Huawei’s Transformation

As discussed above, Huawei operates in an environment, which is subject to change (political,

economic, etc.). In order to succeed in this environment it has developed a unique culture
combining winning aspects from its aspiration, drive, values, and its staff. It has faced, and will
continue to face, many changes in order to survive and thrive. A number of critical changes have
been observed in Huawei, which have tapped into this culture.
Q3) Identify the change programs taken upon in both the organization for the development. (30)

Change Programs and its Objective

Intervention taken up

Level/ area of organization

Process or stages to complete the Change/ development

Swot Analysis

Conclusion

From Imitator to Leader

Unsurprisingly, Huawei has transformed itself from a technology imitator to technology leader
(Liu, 2013). This is not incidental; this is a clear reflection of its re-orientation, adaption, tuning,
and recreation strategies.

Huawei has about half of its staff working on R&D with over 16 R&D centers and 28 joint
innovation centers around the world (Huawei, 2013). Its wide range of products includes not
only the traditional net- work equipment, but also wireless infrastructure, optical networking,
datacom, enterprise solutions, and handsets. It was a world leader in designing and employing
the world’s first 3G network, it has led, and is continuing lead, the world in the development of
the 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) network (Telecoms 2012), and it has recently delivered the
world’s fastest high performance computer (FNN, 2013). In par- ticular, with its far-sighted
vision, while 4G is still new, it has already commenced work on 5G, which is expected to be
commercially delivered by 2020 (Forbes, 2013). 5G will give mobile broadband speed up to 10
gigabytes – 100 times faster that 4G mobile.

These R&D initiatives have played a critical role in propelling Huawei through this change into a
position of global leadership.

From China’s Countryside to Developed Countries

Huawei’s initial markets were in China’s rural countryside. Its well-quoted strategy during this
period was to encircle countryside first and then capture cities (Business Today, 2009; The
Economist, 2012; IntoChina.Asia, 2012). Through the years, its international forays included
Southeast Asia, Russia, Af- rica, Latin America, and Europe. Over the years, Huawei has tuned
and adapted its strategy to “develop- ing countries first, developed countries after” (Frost &
Sullivan, 2007). This tuning and adoption allowed Huawei to gain sustainable traction in the
international market, and helped it to transform its internal or- ganizational structure and gear the
company towards establishing an international presence. In 2004, Huawei’s overseas sales had
surpassed that of the domestic market. It now has most of Europe’s major telecommunications
corporations among its customers. Its Europe, Middle East and Africa region con- tributed US
$12.4 billion to its revenue, nearly one third of its global revenue (ZDNet, 2013).

Global Operation Expansion

Even with the uncertain political environment, Huawei strategically set out to gain economic and
techno- logical advantages in different geographic areas. It has employed “re-creation” to
increase its speed of internationalization since 2001 by creating its localized operations globally.
The following examples demonstrated Huawei’s global expansion.

Initially launched a small software development operation in India in 1999, then opened an R&D
cen- ter in 2001. The Indian R&D center now is the largest and most important asset outside
China.

Launched FutureWei, a fully owned US subsidiary, in 2002, demonstrating its commitment to

inter- national business, and in particular, to the North American market.

Huawei’s European headquarters are strategically located in the UK in order to tap into this
dynamic and innovative telecommunications market and raise its profile in the European
markets.

Building Strategic Alliances

Entrepreneurial partnerships have become pillars of an overall international venturing strategy

for Huawei (Lou et al., 2012). Huawei applies a “re-creation” strategy to make multiple strategic
alliances with uni- versities and companies, including competitors and world leading companies,
such as Intel, Texas Instru- ments, Altera, Motorola, Oracle, and Sun. Some of Huawei’s joint
ventures are listed below:

joint venture with Siemens for developing 3G mobile communication technology products;
joint R&D center with Motorola to develop UMTS technologies;

joint-venture with security firm Symantec to develop security and storage solutions to market to
telecommunications carriers; and

joint venture with a UK-based marine engineering company, Global Marine Systems, to deliver
un- dersea network equipment and related services.

Huawei’s mergers and acquisitions support its strategy to become impregnated with its partner’s
technol- ogy by internalizing it, leading to a more efficient and cost effective method than
developing the technol- ogy in-house, and at the same time increasing market reach and
leveraging brand equity (Lou et al., 2012).

A Change Agent

Huawei is a great change agent. Its entrepreneurial growth strategy is in many ways reflected in
the entre- preneurial characteristics of the change agent - Ren Zhengfei (Luo et al., 2012). The
change agent’s criti- cal role cannot be over played enough.

Ren is the change catalyst and the agent who initiates, sponsors, leads, and executes changes. For
exam- ple, he realized the necessity of expanding abroad as early as 1995 and pointed out, “We
should not wait to expand abroad until everything is ready. Instead, we will get familiar with the
markets and then con- quer them in the process of learning from our international competitors…”
(Luo et al., 2012). When he realized the importance of having international management
operations, he made the decision to spend up to 3% of revenues buying advice from Western
companies like IBM (The Economist, 2012).

With Ren’s far-sighted vision and unwavering support and drive, Huawei was undergoing
constant organ- izational change leading it to become an indisputable telecommunications giant.

Sense of Urgency

Sense of Urgency is the first and most critical step in John Kotter’s 8-step process of leading
change (Kot- ter, 1996). An “emotional stir up” is critical in order to “break open the shell of
complacency and self- righteousness” in organizations (Lewin, 1951, p. 229). Huawei has this
sense of urgency well induced.

Ren once said, “We don’t have the reputation and networks that our international rivals do. Thus
we have no choice but to make strenuous efforts. We can make good use of our rivals’ coffee
time” (Lou et al., 2011). He cautioned his employees that that complacency leads to crisis in the
highly competitive tele- communications market. “It is spring now, but that means winter is not
too far away, so we will have to ponder about the problems in winter during spring and
summer… Huawei must prepare itself” (Wagstaff & Yee, 2012). Ren shares his deep pools of
insight about life, strategy, and the company through speeches and publications with his
employees. This strong sense of urgency imbued by Ren permeates in Huawei and stirs
Huawei’s employees to constantly change and transform.

Collective Learning

Lank and Lank (1995) emphasize that the quality of individual and organizational learning is an
important determinant of organizational effectiveness. De Geus (1988) also states that the ability
to learn faster than competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage. Learning
plays a pivotal role in organiza- tion development and change. Huawei is a living example of
applying organizational learning, which con- sequently renders it a sustainable competitive
advantage.

Ren once said, “We have not yet got rid of our guerrilla style, and the new management style for
interna- tional expansion has not yet established. We must learn from our international
competitors” (Lou et al.,

2011). In order to catch up to the international best management practice, Huawei imported a
world-class management system of technology from IBM to establish and refine the technology
management. It ac- tively cooperates with leading management and consultancy companies such
as IBM, Hay Group, KPMG, and PwC.

On the R&D front, after the realization that it needed to develop its own technological
capabilities be- cause of the fierce competition amongst manufacturers, Huawei tirelessly learned
from its competitors and collaborators in order to catch-up and Lead (Liu, 2013). As Barbieri et
al. (2013) commented, Huawei’s “double face identity” allows it to be a contributor as well as be
a learner in alliance with dif- ferent leading prestigious companies. The ability to learn from its
alliance-based network from leading players has been critical and a springboard for Huawei to
shorten its learning curve, stimulate R&D in- vestment and enhance its technological innovation
(Zhang & Duysters, 2010).

These collective learnings allow Huawei to acquire and assimilate essential advanced knowledge
to in- crease its global profile.
Communication

Organizational scholars have long acknowledged the importance of the communication process
in ena- bling successful organizational change. Lewis et al. (2009) in particular, demonstrate how
communication can enhance understanding of change implementation activities.Huawei has
established information and communication channels to ensure timely acquisition of informa-
tion, including its online forum for employees, communication channel for customers &
suppliers, and the management meetings at all levels. Managers and process owners regularly
organize training programs on business process, internal control to ensure information is up-to-
date and is available (Huawei Annual Report 2012). Huawei’s quarterly magazine, Huawei
People, is not only an inspiring read but a powerful communica- tion vehicle – communicating
the vision and inspiration for its company and its employees.

Q2) Select any two organization of your preference from different sectors and prepare the
profile of it on following guidelines: (5)

Company name - Nokia

Founder name- Idestam, together with friend Leo Mechelin

Year and place (Head quarter) of establishment- 1865. Nokia's headquarters are in Espoo

Brief profile of company-

The company has operated in various industries over the past 150 years. It was founded as a pulp
mill and had long been associated with rubber and cables, but since the 1990s has focused on
large-scale telecommunications infrastructures, technology development, and licensing. Nokia is
a major contributor to the mobile telephony industry, having assisted in the development of
the GSM, 3G and LTE standards (and currently in 5G), and was once the largest worldwide
vendor of mobile phones and smartphones. After a partnership with Microsoft and subsequent
market struggles, its mobile phone business was bought by Microsoft, creating Microsoft
Mobile as its successor in 2014. After the sale, Nokia began to focus more extensively on its
telecommunications infrastructure business and on Internet of things technologies, marked by the
divestiture of its Here mapping division and the acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent, including its Bell
Labs research organization. The company then also experimented with virtual reality and digital
health, the latter through the purchase of Withing. The Nokia brand has since returned to the
mobile and smartphone market through a licensing arrangement with HMD Global. Nokia
continues to be a major patent licensor for most large mobile phone vendors. As of 2018, Nokia
is the world's third-largest network equipment manufacturer.

Q3) Identify the change programs taken upon in both the organization for the
development. (30)

Change Programs and its Objective

Intervention taken up

Level/ area of organisation

Process or stages to complete the Change/ development

Swot Analysis

Conclusion

Introduction

Nokia has undergone a major organisational restructuring, in which it has revived its
organisational goal, vision, mission and objectives into clear and specific new strategies as per
the current market requirements or competition (Amanda, 2013). In the past recent years Nokia
has lost its market throne to its competitors Samsung and Apple, because Nokia failed in
adopting latest mobile technologies, because of which the company struggled to regain its profit
and revive its market top position again. This project thus focuses on how Nokia has brought
major organisational strategic change by adopting Windows Phone Platform (Muhammad,
2010).

Organisational Change At Nokia

Change is an unavoidable process or a phenomenon. An organisational change can be achieved

only bringing behavioural changes in the individuals of the organisation. A change in the
organisation cannot be achieved by bringing changes in the group, teams or company. An
organisational change can only be achieved when individual changes (Kotze, 2006, p.17)

At Nokia Company the major organisational change happened with the initiation of “Booster
Programme” in the year 2008. The Booster Programme was introduced looking at the ever
changing customer aspirations and development of latest technologies among the competitors. In
the Booster Programme, the company restructured its nine business units into four business units.
With the purpose to include rapid production and innovation, the company also restructured all
its manufacturing and development processes into just three horizontal business units (Amanda,
2013).

The Booster Programme came up as a daunting organisational Change programme for Nokia.
This programme was brought in effective in just one week by providing 100 new jobs. With the
onset of new jobs, the old Nokia employees jobs were saved and they were not required to switch
other jobs. The only change these employees faced was that the teams to which they belonged
were reconfigured. This reconfiguration of teams was done with a mindset of skilfully and
rapidly reconfiguring its human resources so as to meet the ever changing customer needs and
demands

With the implementation of team reconfiguration, the Nokia’s senior teams were totally
committed to deeply involve the employees into organisational strategies and implementing the
organisation’s structure based on projects. Now looking at the adoption of latest technologies by
the various competitors, Nokia shifted its strategic change towards the development of
technological platforms through which millions of people worldwide can join together easily and
rapidly. Thus the company’s long term success was seen in its capacity of bringing innovations.

At the worst time of recession in 2009, the company’s innovative ideas of involvement and
constantly strategising were put on test. During this time the decision taken by Nokia was to
actively involve all its employees worldwide into the business transformations. At this time the
company’s whole focus was on its Market business, which was a newly formed enterprise whose
focus was on retaining the customers and creating new and prompt customer solutions. In the
past years, Nokia’s major emphasis was on developing a flexible and adaptive organisation by
using the talents of its employees present in the market business. This was the time when the
Company Nokia entered its Booster Programme (Martin, 2010)

The origin of the Nokia’s Booster Programme was marked in the year 2008. This programme
began with a team comprising of Maximilian Kammerer and Ian Gee and two other designers,
whose aim was to boost the awareness and skills of each Nokia employee by motivating the
regional teams to work efficiently and effectively across various functions. Another aim was to
enhance the capacity of utilising and acquiring the external resources so as to meet the
organisational performance goals. The last aim was to transform the whole business units from
line based structure to an organisation where all the competencies can be pooled through a
pragmatic or a project structure. Nokia was very ambitious for this program and thus it ensured
to cover all the 5000 employees and encourage the concept of cross-functional and cross-
hierarchical working. Above all the budget and time for this programme to be rolled was very
less i.e. just three months and Nokia successfully implemented this program within the decided
timeline and budget.
The Nokia’s design team was very clear with the point that if they follow top to down traditional
approach in bringing the change then it will be a very slow process and will not allow the timely
involvement of employees being a part of the solution by using emerging technologies. With the
rapid onset of social latest network technologies a new environment has been created in which
Nokia has to make a long term commitment for its employees by involving them to play at a
faster rate and come out with innovative and critical thinking (Zell, 2003).

The team for Booster Programme decided working on two streams of activities. One was two
day face to face workshops with the team leaders and the second was creating online social
network community which ensures the broader involvement of all communities. The two day
workshops were designated to major location in the World like Beijing, New York, London,
Dubai and Paris where about 100 change leaders were allotted to each workshop. These
workshops were designed to teach the employees about the major change the Company will be
undergoing and to tell them why change is important and how they will be benefitted so that
minimum resistance come at the time of implementation (Cameron, 2012)

After the completion of the workshops, around 700 employees returned back to their teams and
engaged themselves in the ongoing process of change. At this point the online social committee
created came into the picture. The design team with the specialist partners or designers came up
with an intranet site which was accessible to al the employees of the markets business and
workshop participants. This intranet site helped the senior managers and change leaders to easily
conversate and exchange ideas with the experts and community members. Thus the combination
of traditional workshop and latest online community proved to be a success where 5000
employees joined the booster programme and made the communication and interaction among
the employees, community members and senior managers a easy task.

Resistance

When the company announced for manufacturing windows based phone- Lumia, thousands of
employees protested as they were shocked that they might lose their jobs. They also argues that
Nokia Lumia phone is not capable of adapting different hardware. With this decision, there were
waves of resignation by the top leaders like Chairman, vice president, CTO (Culcmsralte, 2012).

Apart from employees Nokia saw the resistance from the market and customers too because they
disliked the Microsoft and its offerings. Also the network operators were against the Windows
phone because they got worried with the skype (Yarow, 2012) feature available at Windows
phone which will risk their international calling business. The shareholders also showed
resistance because their share price drastically dropped by 10% (Amanda, 2013)
Managing Resistance To Change

Nokia can manage the resistance by adopting various strategies. It could have educated the staff
about the change and explained them why it is important and how they will be benefitted.  The
staff could have got the support from their managers who timely educate them about the change
and help them to overcome their fear and anxiety. The resignations could have controlled by
offering incentives and benefits after implementing the change. In case if employees are still not
ready for change then forcefully they have to make accept the change by threatening them to loss
of their jobs (ADKAR, 2013).

Conclusion

The Nokia is really working hard in connecting its people. The best example we discussed above
is its Booster Programme. The company is bringing organisational changes to cope with the
competition but the employees are affected with such changes. The effectiveness of change
management is measured by how the stakeholder’s goals and interests are satisfied (Paton,
2000).

Nokia’s decision to switch to Windows phone has been a controversial discussion. This decision
has been logical but was not totally nonsense. This decision was made in a rush because of which
all the stakeholders were shocked and lead to disastrous consequences (Wall Street Journal,
2010).

Thus from the above project we can conclude saying that Organisation first should identify the
reason for change. In an Organisation there are different people working together whose mindset
and risk taking capacity is different. They have creative mindsets and when the ideas get
insufficient then comes the entry of brainstorming sessions. Thus we can say that Organisational
changes are good for the organisation if they are properly planned, managed and executed.
Although Nokia started its Booster Program to eliminate the gap of communication at the time of
change and initiated the workshop programs but still its decision towards Windows Platform
mobile application did not proved to be a success.