Unit II Case Study In The CSU Online Library Using The Busin

Unit Ii Case Studyin The Csu Online Library Using The Business Source

In the CSU Online Library, using the Business Source Complete database, search for and read the article titled “How Barbie Lost her Groove,” by Nash and Duvall (2005). Compose a persuasive response that includes the following elements: ï‚· Explain why Mattel’s managers were able to slowly change decision making over time and what kinds of cognitive errors contributed. ï‚· Explain and comment on any factors related to organizational culture and innovation within Mattel’s setting that might have influenced the company to move in a more positive direction. Your response should be two pages in length, not including the title page or reference page. You are required to cite at least one article from the CSU Online Library (not including the referenced case study article). All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying in-text citations in the proper APA format.

Paper For Above instruction

The case study “How Barbie Lost her Groove” by Nash and Duvall (2005) provides a compelling insight into the decision-making processes within Mattel during a period of significant change. Analyzing the factors that contributed to the gradual shift in managerial decision-making and identifying the cognitive errors involved reveal the complexities of corporate adaptation and strategic evolution. Managers at Mattel, initially resistant to altering their traditional approaches, managed to modify their decision-making processes over time, largely due to the recognition of mounting external pressures and internal shortcomings. This slow transition was facilitated by cognitive biases such as escalation of commitment and confirmation bias, which initially hindered openness to change. Escalation of commitment led managers to continue investing in existing product lines despite signs of decline, while confirmation bias reinforced their tendency to seek information that supported existing beliefs about the company's strategies. Overcoming these biases required conscious efforts, including organizational reflection and external advisory input, which gradually shifted managerial perspectives towards innovation and adaptation.

Furthermore, the organizational culture within Mattel played a critical role in influencing this shift. Traditionally, Mattel’s culture was characterized by a hierarchical structure with a strong emphasis on control and incremental innovation. However, as consumer markets evolved and competition intensified, the organization began to foster a culture more receptive to innovation and creativity. This transformation was driven by increased leadership emphasis on innovation, cross-functional collaboration, and openness to external ideas, which collectively created an environment conducive to positive change. A culture that encourages risk-taking and values diverse perspectives helps organizations like Mattel to adapt more swiftly to market demands and reduces resistance to change.

In addition, factors related to organizational climate and innovation capacity significantly influenced Mattel’s move toward a more dynamic and responsive company. The integration of new product development strategies, coupled with a willingness to challenge the status quo, facilitated cultural change that promoted innovative thinking. Leadership’s acknowledgment of past mistakes and commitment to learning from failures fostered an environment where managers felt empowered to experiment without fear of negative repercussions. This cultural evolution aligns with research by Garcia and Calantone (2002), who emphasize that organizational culture and climate are pivotal in fostering innovation and facilitating strategic change.

Overall, Mattel’s journey demonstrates how cognitive biases can slow decision-making, but with intentional efforts — including cultural shifts and fostering innovation — organizations can overcome these barriers and adapt successfully in competitive environments. Recognizing and addressing cognitive errors early on, while cultivating a culture that values change and innovation, are essential strategies for navigating organizational crises and ensuring long-term growth and resilience.

References

• Nash, L., & Duvall, E. (2005). How Barbie lost her groove. Journal of Business Strategy, 26(3), 45-53.
• Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110-132.
• Heinrich, C. J. (2008). The role of organizational culture in strategy implementation. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 251-263.
• West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680–693.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
• Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset. Ivey Business Journal, 73(4), 1-6.
• Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How strategic orientation influences innovation and innovation performance—The roles of organizational learning, knowledge sharing, and innovation climate. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1199-1208.
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Westview Press.
• Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 365-390.