Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Change management isn't just about implementing new processes—it's about understanding why some organizations thrive during disruption while others collapse. You're being tested on your ability to recognize the patterns that separate successful transformations from catastrophic failures: leadership vision, cultural alignment, strategic timing, and organizational agility. These case studies aren't random business stories; they're evidence of how theoretical frameworks like Kotter's 8-Step Model, Lewin's Change Model, and resistance management play out in real corporate environments.
When you study these cases, don't just memorize company names and outcomes. Ask yourself: What made the difference between IBM's revival and Kodak's bankruptcy? Why could Netflix pivot successfully when Nokia couldn't? The exam will push you to analyze root causes, compare leadership approaches, and evaluate change strategies—not just recall who succeeded and who failed. Master the underlying principles, and you'll be ready for any case-based question they throw at you.
These cases demonstrate what happens when established companies fail to respond to technological shifts. The core mechanism is organizational inertia—the tendency for successful companies to double down on existing competencies rather than cannibalize their own products.
Compare: Kodak vs. Xerox—both companies invented disruptive technologies but failed to commercialize them due to organizational inertia and fear of cannibalizing existing revenue. If an FRQ asks about innovation failure, these are your strongest paired examples.
These transformations succeeded because leaders fundamentally reimagined their companies' identities. The mechanism here is transformational leadership—creating urgency, communicating vision, and systematically dismantling resistance to change.
Compare: IBM under Gerstner vs. Microsoft under Nadella—both inherited struggling tech giants and executed successful pivots through cultural transformation. Key difference: Gerstner focused on customer relationships while Nadella emphasized internal culture change. Both approaches demonstrate that turnarounds require addressing how employees think, not just what they produce.
These cases show how companies successfully anticipated market shifts and repositioned before disruption forced their hand. The mechanism is strategic foresight—recognizing industry inflection points and acting before competitors.
Compare: Netflix vs. Starbucks—both succeeded by redefining what they were selling (entertainment access vs. community experience) rather than just improving existing products. Netflix disrupted its own business model; Starbucks disrupted customer expectations. Both illustrate that successful change often means changing your industry's rules.
These cases demonstrate how internal cultural change drives external business results. The mechanism is organizational culture alignment—ensuring values, incentives, and behaviors support strategic objectives.
Compare: GE under Welch vs. Ford under Mulally—both used structured accountability systems to drive performance, but Welch emphasized competition while Mulally emphasized collaboration. Exam tip: If asked about leadership approaches to cultural change, these cases represent the "tough love" vs. "team building" spectrum.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Innovator's Dilemma / Disruption Failure | Kodak, Nokia, Xerox |
| Visionary Leadership Turnaround | IBM (Gerstner), Apple (Jobs), Microsoft (Nadella) |
| Proactive Business Model Pivot | Netflix, Starbucks |
| Cultural Transformation | GE (Welch), Ford (Mulally) |
| Self-Cannibalization Strategy | Netflix, IBM |
| Technology Timing Failure | Kodak, Nokia |
| Customer Experience Innovation | Starbucks, Apple |
| Organizational Inertia | Kodak, Xerox, Nokia |
Compare and contrast: What do Kodak and Xerox have in common regarding innovation, and what does this reveal about the relationship between invention and commercialization?
Which two successful turnarounds best illustrate the importance of cultural change over strategic change, and what specific mechanisms did their leaders use?
If an FRQ asked you to explain why market leaders often fail during technological disruption, which case study would you use as your primary example and why?
How do Netflix's and Nokia's responses to technological change differ, and what organizational factors explain their opposite outcomes?
Identify two cases where leadership explicitly prioritized collaboration over competition. What were the measurable results of this approach?