Donna Dubinky and Apple, Inc. Case
Donna Dubinsky and Apple Computer, Inc. Case
Analysis
Dubinsky’s primary mistake was relying on her position and reputation rather than mounting an effective, persuasive, and fact-based argument. As noted by Jay Conger in The Necessary Art of Persuasion, today’s employees are not content to accept a decree from above and seek to understand the reasons behind a decision. She should have taken Jobs’ JIT proposal seriously from the beginning and, as soon as she heard of it, worked to make her case affirmatively using comparative data.
Additionally, she should have engaged Coleman as soon as she heard the rumors of the proposal. While it was wrong for Dubinsky to have been left out of the initial distribution discussion, she should not have sat back and waited to be pulled in but should have made her expertise available and convictions known from the beginning. There are other instances where Dubinsky could have managed corporate politics better and worked to gain allies rather than antagonizing management by acting churlish in the task force and then reversing herself, embarrassing Scully at the Leadership Retreat, and embarrassing Campbell by giving him slapdash, unimpressive work to present at the Executive Retreat.
Dubinsky was certainly not the only party who contributed to the unfortunate situation. Jobs, Scully, Coleman, Campbell, and Weaver could all have handled themselves differently. Like Dubinsky, Jobs also should have exercised his persuasive skills to sell the JIT proposal to Campbell, Weaver, and Dubinsky rather than trying to force a top-down decision. Jobs recruited Scully specifically to organize the company, but simultaneously undermined him. Putting distribution back under each product group would undo the combined corporate structure Scully established when he was hired. Jobs should allow Scully to do his job and rationally consider the evidence for the JIT proposal. Scully also could have improved the situation by acting forcefully to
Analysis
Dubinsky’s primary mistake was relying on her position and reputation rather than mounting an effective, persuasive, and fact-based argument. As noted by Jay Conger in The Necessary Art of Persuasion, today’s employees are not content to accept a decree from above and seek to understand the reasons behind a decision. She should have taken Jobs’ JIT proposal seriously from the beginning and, as soon as she heard of it, worked to make her case affirmatively using comparative data.
Additionally, she should have engaged Coleman as soon as she heard the rumors of the proposal. While it was wrong for Dubinsky to have been left out of the initial distribution discussion, she should not have sat back and waited to be pulled in but should have made her expertise available and convictions known from the beginning. There are other instances where Dubinsky could have managed corporate politics better and worked to gain allies rather than antagonizing management by acting churlish in the task force and then reversing herself, embarrassing Scully at the Leadership Retreat, and embarrassing Campbell by giving him slapdash, unimpressive work to present at the Executive Retreat.
Dubinsky was certainly not the only party who contributed to the unfortunate situation. Jobs, Scully, Coleman, Campbell, and Weaver could all have handled themselves differently. Like Dubinsky, Jobs also should have exercised his persuasive skills to sell the JIT proposal to Campbell, Weaver, and Dubinsky rather than trying to force a top-down decision. Jobs recruited Scully specifically to organize the company, but simultaneously undermined him. Putting distribution back under each product group would undo the combined corporate structure Scully established when he was hired. Jobs should allow Scully to do his job and rationally consider the evidence for the JIT proposal. Scully also could have improved the situation by acting forcefully to