100% found this document useful (2 votes)
186 views6 pages

Nokia's Change Management Failure Analysis

Nokia was once the dominant mobile phone brand but failed to adapt to changes in the industry. As touchscreen smartphones rose in popularity, Nokia clung to traditional keypad phones and resisted adopting Android. This allowed competitors like Apple and Samsung to gain market share with innovative new products. Nokia's failure to accept changes internally and externally led to its decline as the market leader.

Uploaded by

Hichem Taouaf
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (2 votes)
186 views6 pages

Nokia's Change Management Failure Analysis

Nokia was once the dominant mobile phone brand but failed to adapt to changes in the industry. As touchscreen smartphones rose in popularity, Nokia clung to traditional keypad phones and resisted adopting Android. This allowed competitors like Apple and Samsung to gain market share with innovative new products. Nokia's failure to accept changes internally and externally led to its decline as the market leader.

Uploaded by

Hichem Taouaf
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Nokia Change Management

We didn't do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost."


- Stephan Elop, ex-CEO of Nokia
Once a booming company, Nokia is considered as an example of 'change management failure'. So,
why did Nokia fail to implement and manage change? What caused Nokia to fall behind its
competitors? Let's take a look.

Introduction to Nokia
Change is not a new thing for Finnish telecommunication giant Nokia. The company was founded
in 1865 on the banks of the River Nokia, as a single paper mill operation and moved in different
industrial sectors like rubber boots, cable, paper products, tires, televisions, and finally mobile
phones. The company we see today that is focused on telecommunications began its journey in
1990.

The first GSM call was made in 1991 using Nokia equipment. By 1998, Nokia was the best-selling
mobile phone brand in the world. In 2001, Nokia launched its first phone with a built-in camera,
and by 2004, Nokia 3G phones could capture video, browse the web, download music, watch TV on
the move, and more. In 2004 the Nokia corporation reduced the number of its business units to
four. The change was made in a week. This was aimed at helping Nokia meet consumer needs.

The year 2007 can be termed as 'turning point' for Nokia. It is where its downfall began. No, it is
not because Apple launched the iPhone, it is because the company recalled 46 million phones due
to potentially faulty batteries. Nokia partnered with Microsoft in 2010 to compete with the iPhone
but it did not claim Nokia its throne back. Finally, Microsoft bought Nokia's mobile manufacturing
unit for £4.6 bn in 2013 just to sell it in 2016 to HMD and Foxconn.

With all these ups and downs, Nokia is far from a dead company. Nokia's phones returned to the
market in 2016. Nokia is mainly concentrating its attention on telecommunication 5G equipment. In
2021, Nokia is hoping to expand its 5G network solutions in Europe and Western countries.

What is change management?


Strategic change is a change in a company's scope, resource planning, competitive advantages,
and synergy. Changes can be incremental (gradual changes) or disruptive (sudden changes).
Change management is the process of managing responses to changes in the internal and
external environment of a business.
It is the leadership's responsibility to lead the company into a changing phase. The organisational
culture plays a crucial role in implementing change. It is imperative to say that it is not the
organisation that changes but each employee in the organisation does. The vision and ability of
leadership to make fast decisions help smoothen the transition.
The Nokia change management failure is a great example of what can happen if leadership resists
change.

Analysis of key drivers of change for Nokia


In the case of Nokia, external influences forced the company to change. The telecommunication
market was developing fast and Nokia failed to keep up with it.

1
The external influences of the industry included:

1. The competitive environnement

Nokia ignored the threat posed by Apple when it launched the iPhone in 2007. The iPhone did not
use a QWERTY keypad but the touchscreen. The iPhone had better software compared to Nokia.

Google introduced Android in 2008. Other major players like Samsung, Huawei, and Motorola
jumped on it but Nokia ignored it. Nokia did not accept android but rather started developing the
Symbian operating system.

2. First-mover advantage

First-mover advantage refers to the benefits enjoyed by the firm as a consequence of its early
entry into a new market.

Nokia missed an opportunity to launch android phones and touch screen phones as well. This
opportunity was captured by Apple when it launched a full touch screen iPhone.

Nokia change management failure


In the year 1998, Nokia was the largest cell phone maker and overtook Motorola. This move shocked
many business gurus back then. So what happened if Nokia was the market leader? Nokia failed
because it resisted the change. Nokia clung to its fundamental ways and did not change with market
developments. The reasons for Nokia's change management failure are as follows (see Figure 1
below).

1. Not accepting Android: Nokia leadership did not see the android operating system as an
advancement. They believed that customers prefer QWERTY keypad phones over touch screen
phones. At the same time, companies like Samsung and Motorola launched Android-based,
cheap, and user-friendly phones. With the launch of Android and iPhones, the demand for
touch screen smartphones increased exponentially. Nokia realized their mistake and they
introduced the Symbian operating system. Symbian was inferior when launched compared to
Android. By then, Samsung and Apple had made a strong impact on the smartphone market.
2. Shaking hands with Microsoft: Microsoft partnered with Nokia to launch Windows phones
when Microsoft itself was making losses. In this case, two negatives did not make a positive.
Windows phones were not successful because there was nothing new for customers to switch
from their old phones. The lack of innovative features made the windows phone a failure. Nokia
was on brink of bankruptcy due to huge losses. On the other hand, Apple and Samsung were
innovating, launching new product lines, and taking over different markets.
3. Failed umbrella marketing strategy: Another factor that contributed to the downfall was
the wrong marketing strategy.

Umbrella branding can be defined as when a company sells different products under the
same brand name.

Samsung 'Galaxy' series is one such example of Umbrella branding. Nokia tried to do the same
under the 'Lumia' series of phones but as there was no uniqueness as compared to its
competitors, the Lumia series could not fetch any success for Nokia. Nokia faced problems with
branding and distribution that led to practically no sales for Nokia mobile phones.

2
4. Not working enough on software: Anyone who has used Nokia phones will surely vouch
for the sturdy hardware of the Nokia phone. But when it comes to software, Nokia has taken a
back seat. Nokia did not try to change software innovatively and quickly enough, giving other
major players an upper hand in business. Android had already gone through some iterations
when the first version of Symbian was launched. Employees knew Symbian would take years
to catch up with Android. Employees did not convey actual problems to management because
they thought their efforts would go in vain and rigid management would not heed to it.
5. Nokia thought they were too big to fail: Nokia enjoyed customer loyalty when it was at
its peak of success and believed it would still be the favorite option of mobile phone buyers.
This did not happen (even when Nokia finally accepted Android). Nokia is still struggling to
improve the software at its core.
6. Not innovating enough: Apple and Samsung launch at least one flagship phone every year
with some innovative advancements. Nokia is far too behind to catch up.
7. Dysfunctional organisation: Nokia opted to be a matrix structured organization in 2004. It
caused many conflicts as many managers had equal power. It led to the power struggle in
some departments and complete dysfunction in others. Some executives left Nokia and many
workers lost trust in management. Employees became insecure regarding their jobs and started
to hide facts. Many employees knew Symbian was way behind the Android but engineers did
not tell the truth to the higher management believing that it is of no use. The tagline of Nokia
is 'Connecting people' but during those days it seems like employees failed to connect with
each other.
Studying Nokia change management failures has helped many companies to avoid pitfalls. We can
apply change management models and processes to understand what Nokia did wrong when
external factors forced Nokia to change.

Change management Nokia example: Lewin's force field analysis.


Kurt Lewin proposed a model, the Force Field Analysis, which provides an overview of the
different factors and issues that influence change within an organization. If influencing and
restraining forces are equal, then the organization is said to be in equilibrium. The state of
equilibrium should be disturbed to bring out the change. If the analysis indicates that forces are
unbalanced, then the organization should change itself.

Lewin's force field analysis is done to check whether Nokia should or should not have changed their
business practices immediately in 2008 when Android was launched.

For scoring, we are using a Likert scale (1 = Weak, 5 = Strong). The forces are rated according to
their influence on the company:

Forces for change score Forces against change score


A volatile market (Android, iPhone) 5 Commitment towards existing stakeholders 2

Existing customer base who preferred


Disruptive technologies (touch screen) 5 3
QWERTY over the touch screen

Changing trends (software-centric) 4 Current strong market position 4

Declining team morale (Fear-driven work


3 Resistance due to company politics 4
culture)

Increase profitability 3 Existing organizational structures 4

Total 20 17
Table 1 - Lewin's Force Field Analysis Example for Nokia

3
The analysis shows that Nokia should have changed its strategy in 2008. The Nokia change failure
cost Nokia its mobile phone business. The organizational culture was also toxic at that time.
Leadership did not provide a way to pass information and communicate effectively among the
organisation.

As change often comes with an attitude of resistance, Nokia faced resistance at every level of
management.

1. Fear of the unknown: The leadership was not transparent about the vision or goals they wanted
to achieve. This instilled the fear of the unknown in their employees.
2. Misunderstanding: No proper communication channels caused inter-departmental
misunderstandings.
3. Organisational politics and self-interest: There was always a struggle for power in the
organisation. Many either resisted the change to prove the decision 'wrong' or to hold their
power longer.

Nokia change management plan


In order to change quickly according to internal or external influences, organizations have to be
flexible. Nokia should have embraced the characteristics of a flexible organization and made a
change management plan considering the characteristics of a flexible organization.
Figure 2 shows the characteristics of a flexible organisation.

1. A flexible workforce: this makes it easy to increase or decrease the workforce efficiently and
quickly.
2. Information management: information management systems help share knowledge quickly at
scale within the organization.
3. Research market trends: analyzing and predicting the market would have helped Nokia make
the right decisions on time
4. Internal analysis: Nokia should have conducted a deep SWOT analysis. This would have made
them aware of potential pitfalls.

Once Nokia becomes a flexible organization, it can overcome resistance by using a strategy based
on Kotter and Schlesinger's Overcoming Resistance to Change Model. The model includes six ways
for managing resistance:
1. Education: Nokia informs employees about changing processes by communicating effectively.
2. Participation: Nokia gives resisting employees a chance to speak their minds, get their inputs
to develop new processes.
3. Facilitation: Nokia supports employees during the time of change.
4. Negotiation: Nokia compromises to make some changes rather than not addressing it with their
employees.
5. Manipulation: In manipulation, employees are offered rewards to change. Nokia could have
done that to make changes quicker.
6. Coercion: When other methods are not viable, Nokia has no choice but to transfer, terminate,
or promote employees.

With all the above considerations, Nokia's change management plan might have worked better.
We have discussed what happened with Nokia in the past. But what is Nokia doing after the takeover
by HMD and Foxconn? Will Nokia's change management plan be successful under the new
leadership of CEO Pekka Lundmark? As per the report released by Nokia in March 2021, Nokia has
announced plans to reduce costs and invest them back into R&D. The future areas of focus will be
5G, cloud, and digital infrastructure.
4
The mobile network business group aims to top in wireless mobile networks and associated services.
Nokia owns many patents related to 5G standards. In October 2020, Nokia's research arm, Bell
Labs, recorded a $14 million contract from NASA to install the first 4G network on the moon. The
opportunities look promising for Nokia. However, Nokia will only be able to conquer this quest if it
implements a change management plan successfully.

Nokia Change Management - Key takeaways


• Nokia ignored Apple as a potential competitor in the mobile market.
• Nokia took a steady approach towards innovation while other competitors were fierce in bringing
out new technologies.
• Nokia did not accept Android.
• Nokia invested a lot of resources in developing the Symbian operating system, which was lacking
when compared to Android and iOS (Apple).
• Nokia's work culture was toxic. Employees were always under the fear of losing their jobs.
• The untimely partnership with Microsoft did not work for any side.
• The higher management of Nokia thought Nokia was too big to fail.
• Nokia overestimated brand value and customer loyalty.
• Nokia had good hardware but the lack of efficient software cost Nokia its market position.
• Nokia resisted change due to rigid organizational structure, internal politics, and the power struggle
between managers.

Sources:
1. Lieberman, Marvin (2016). First mover advantage. 10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_602-1.
2. Hofer, GW & Schendel, DE Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, St. Paul, MN: West Pub. Inc., 1978.
3. Kotter, JP, & Schlesinger, LA (1979). Choosing strategies for change.
4. eWeek, [Link]
5. Satellite Today, [Link]
nasa-tipping-point-contract/

5
FAQ about Nokia Change Management
1. Why did Nokia fail in its change management program?
2. Why did Nokia fail - case study?
3. What adjustments does Nokia's management need to make to its
products?
4. How will Nokia's values help execute the change in business strategy?
5. What should Nokia have done differently?
These questions are indicatives and will be part of your study.

Common questions

Powered by AI

A flexible organization is characterized by adaptive human resources, efficient knowledge management systems, proactive market analysis, and robust internal assessments such as SWOT analysis. Adopting these characteristics could have significantly benefited Nokia by enabling quicker responses to market and technological changes. A flexible workforce would have allowed the company to allocate resources dynamically, while effective information management could facilitate better communication and faster innovation. Proactively analyzing market trends might have helped Nokia anticipate and take advantage of consumer shifts sooner, and internal assessments would have highlighted strategic weaknesses in time to address them before substantial losses occurred .

The lack of software innovation was a critical factor in Nokia's decline. While Nokia excelled in hardware, it severely lagged in developing competitive software, as evidenced by its unsuccessful attempts to upgrade Symbian. This was compounded by the rapid advancements in rival operating systems like Android and iOS, which offered superior user interfaces and app ecosystems. By failing to prioritize software as a key component of the consumer experience, Nokia could not keep pace with evolving market standards, resulting in a diminished appeal and a significant loss of market share to more innovative competitors .

Nokia's decision-making processes during market transitions were largely ineffective due to several critical missteps and a lack of agility. Decision-makers at Nokia clung to outdated business models, as evidenced by their refusal to adopt Android and slow response to touchscreen innovation, despite clear market signals. Instead of leveraging their position to lead in new technology trends, they opted to protect legacy systems like Symbian, ultimately falling behind more adaptable competitors like Apple and Samsung. Nokia's processes were hindered by internal politics and a lack of cohesive vision, which created a significant lag in adapting to and capitalizing on market transitions .

The partnership with Microsoft did not improve Nokia's market position; instead, it resulted in significant setbacks. Microsoft's own struggles in the mobile market compounded the negative effects. The collaborative launch of Windows Phones failed to capture consumer interest due to a lack of compelling features and the failure to differentiate from existing smartphones. This misstep, coupled with decreasing enthusiasm for Symbian phones, left Nokia vulnerable as competitors like Apple and Samsung introduced more advanced and user-friendly devices .

Nokia's attempt at umbrella branding with the Lumia series failed to replicate the success of competitors like Samsung's Galaxy series due to a lack of differentiation in product offerings. The Lumia series did not offer compelling technological innovation or unique features compared to its competitors, resulting in lukewarm consumer interest. Additionally, Nokia failed to leverage the branding to create a cohesive and attractive product ecosystem, which further limited its appeal. This ineffective branding strategy, combined with inherent product weaknesses, compounded Nokia's larger challenges in competing effectively within the smartphone market .

Nokia's belief in its invincibility contributed significantly to its failure by fostering complacency and resistance to industry shifts. This overconfidence, stemming from a historically dominant market position and loyal customer base, led Nokia to underestimate the transformative impact of smartphone innovations brought by competitors like Apple. The assumption that customer preferences for Nokia's traditional strengths in hardware would endure prevented timely strategic pivots, such as adopting Android and embracing touchscreen technology. This hubris, combined with a disorganized internal structure, waned Nokia's responsiveness and adaptability, culminating in its dramatic market downfall .

Nokia's organizational culture played a detrimental role in its failure to effectively manage change. The culture was characterized by internal politics, power struggles among managers, and a lack of transparent communication from leadership. This led to a work environment where employees feared losing their jobs and were discouraged from voicing concerns or proposing new ideas. Consequently, critical feedback about the Symbian operating system’s deficiencies relative to Android wasn't communicated to management. Additionally, Nokia's rigid hierarchical structure and resistance to change further compounded its inability to adapt to external technological shifts .

Nokia made several strategic errors regarding Android and touchscreen technology. Firstly, it underestimated the threat posed by these innovations, choosing to focus on the Symbian OS instead of embracing Android, which quickly became the industry standard for smartphones. Secondly, Nokia's steadfast commitment to the traditional QWERTY keypad format delayed its entry into the touchscreen market, allowing competitors to capitalize on this new trend. These decisions reflected a failure to recognize shifting consumer preferences and technological advancements, and they significantly contributed to Nokia's loss of market leadership .

Internal politics and power struggles within Nokia created a dysfunctional management environment that hindered effective change and adaptation. The matrix organizational structure, intended to enhance flexibility, led instead to conflicts among managers with equal authority, creating decision-making bottlenecks and inefficiencies. This environment discouraged open communication, as employees feared reprisals for suggesting innovations or reporting shortcomings, notably regarding the underperformance of the Symbian OS. The political climate thus stifled risk-taking and reinforced a culture resistant to change, ultimately impeding the organization's ability to respond swiftly to external technological advancements .

Applying Lewin's Force Field Analysis to Nokia reveals key insights about its change management challenges. Forces favoring change, such as the volatile market and disruptive technologies like Android and the iPhone, scored high, indicating a strong need for transformation. However, forces resisting change, including commitment to existing stakeholders and internal organizational structures, nearly matched this, leading to a state of organizational inertia. The analysis suggests Nokia should have acted to disrupt this equilibrium and align more closely with industry trends in 2008 but failed to do so due to internal resistance and poor communication of the change necessity. Ultimately, this inertia led to their downfall in the mobile market .

You might also like