GM and Microsoft Organizational Change Strategies Compared
This paper compares the organizational change strategies undertaken by General Motors (GM) and Microsoft, focusing on the rationale and driving forces behind each company's restructuring. GM reorganized its North American sales and marketing division into a flatter structure to improve customer service and competitive speed, separating marketing expertise from sales and service functions. Microsoft, by contrast, combined its Global Agencies and Global Accounts divisions to strengthen advertising differentiation and public image. The paper identifies internal and external forces behind each change and concludes that both strategies, though structurally opposite, were equally valid responses to each company's specific competitive challenges.
- Introduction: Overview of the two companies compared
- GM's Organizational Change Rationale: GM flattens structure to improve sales focus
- Microsoft's Organizational Change Rationale: Microsoft merges ad divisions for differentiation
- Key Differences Between GM and Microsoft: Contrasting structural approaches and client needs
- Conclusion: Both strategies equally valid for their contexts
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a clear parallel structure to compare two real-world corporate cases, making the analysis easy to follow and academically credible.
- Distinguishes between internal and external forces driving change, applying a standard organizational behavior framework consistently across both cases.
- Maintains a balanced, non-prescriptive conclusion that avoids overstating the superiority of either strategy, which reflects analytical maturity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative case analysis: two organizations facing similar pressures (competitive market conditions) are examined side by side, with structural differences (division vs. integration) used to illustrate how context shapes strategy. This technique is common in business and management studies and requires the writer to identify both shared variables and distinguishing factors.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with GM's case, covering rationale and structural outcomes, then transitions to Microsoft's case using GM as a reference point. A dedicated comparison section highlights the critical structural difference — GM separated divisions while Microsoft merged them — before a concise conclusion synthesizes the shared logic underlying both changes. Each section is tightly focused and citation-supported.
Introduction
This paper compares the organizational change strategies of General Motors (GM) and Microsoft, examining the rationale and driving forces behind each company's restructuring and identifying the key structural differences between their approaches.
GM's Organizational Change Rationale
The main rationale for General Motors' organizational change focused on the functioning of its sales and marketing division. The historically combined sales and marketing organization had become uncompetitive in a marketplace where faster sales created a better competitive edge. Faster sales also meant that better customer service was required. To accomplish these two goals, the company created a flatter structure in which qualified personnel were appointed to roles requiring specific expertise (Luft, 2010).
The focus became singular: marketing experts were concerned exclusively with creative strategies to showcase products, while sales and service personnel focused exclusively on working with customers and dealers. In this way, customer service improved, which in turn created a better competitive edge, as satisfied customers tend to spread favorable reports about a company.
External forces driving this change included increasing competition from other vehicle manufacturers working to recover from the economic downturn. Internal forces centered on the drive to align personnel expertise with the areas where it could best serve the company and its customers. The developed structure aimed to simplify sales operations, placing as few layers as possible between the executive in charge, the dealer, and the customer.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.