Throughout the course of the last decade, corporate giants have experienced a tumultuous run due to changes in technology and evolving competition strategies. Companies that have failed to embrace effective change management strategies have ended up facing fierce competition from their rivals that has threatened their business continuity. All this can be attributed to poor organization change management techniques employed by these companies. The failure of big organizations to adjust to changing conditions is one of the principal perplexes in the realm of business. All businesses in the contemporary business world are seeking ways that can transform them to become competitive thus increasing their productivity (Cook, Macaulay, & Coldicott, 2004). Every so often, a troublesome technology, for example, computerized imaging, tags along and wipes out a whole industry.
An inability to implement technologies that have as of now been produced and negligence for changing client demands has influenced the failures. The economy can have both negative and positive impacts on an organization. In addition, a complacent disposition towards new competitors has expanded risks to business continuity. A thriving economy that is driven by balanced demand and supply requires organizations to keep changing their product and services to remain competitive. In most cases, the source of disappointment is more common and avoidable. In most cases, overcoming resistance to changes is regularly one of the greatest difficulties for constant change practitioners. For instance, Nokia Corporation has endured a series of rough business operations that have seen it lose to its competitors in the last few years because of failing to implement effective organizational change management strategies. From that perspective, this paper seeks to present reasons why organizational change management is crucial based on the case of Nokia Corporation (Gover & Duxbury, 2012).
Nokia Corporation is a Finnish global information and communications organization that was set up in the 1865. Nokia is a noteworthy contributor to the mobile communication industry. Like it has done throughout the years, Nokia has changed the concentration of its operations many times. At present, the Nokia is building mapping and network innovations, among different initiatives. In the early 2000s, Nokia was one of the world's biggest merchant of cell phones on the planet (Steinbock, 2001). As from 2009, a struggling Nokia at long last recognized that it was slow to respond to the changes in the market. Its competitors such as Apple, BlackBerry, Samsung, LG, and HTC were taking over the market especially with the development of smartphone software such as iOS, RIM, and Android (Maghnati, Ling, & Nasermoadeli, 2012).
After many years of dominance Nokia lost its grounds with the rise of smart-phones. Nokia's benefits initially disintegrated in the wake of turning into the top phone maker on the planet in the year 2001.This should have been wake up call to the management of the company. Nokia's tumble from the highest point of the mobile phone pyramid is because of managers who did not grasp organizational change. Such an ending is disappointing considering Nokia used to claim a huge portion of the mobile phone industry before the rise of Apple's iPhones. Some economists contend Nokia was in fact inferior compared to its rival Apple Inc. However, its management was careless and its leaders did not see the rise of iPhone coming. In reality, consumers have ended up used to the idea of outdated nature of mobile phones and are most likely not interested by lugging behind an inconvenient smartphone.
Nokia's decision to ignore Android Mobile Operating system was one of its failures to embrace change. This allowed its competitors to leap forward. For instance, Samsung picked Android at the opportune time and benefited from the development of the open-source platform. Samsung was sufficiently clever to take advant