Nokia's Organizational Design and Governance Failures
This paper analyzes Nokia's organizational design and governance structure to explain why the company lost its position as a mobile phone industry leader. It traces how Nokia's horizontal, multidivisional structure combined with poor executive decision-making led to strategic failures, including its ill-fated commitment to the Symbian operating system over emerging smartphone platforms. The paper reviews Nokia's governance model, its board and CEO responsibilities, and the new four-group strategic restructuring announced in 2020. It argues that without visionary, centralizing leadership, even an innovative company culture cannot translate into competitive organizational performance or lasting shareholder value.
- Introduction: Nokia's decline amid competition and structural weaknesses
- Organizational Design: Horizontal structure and leadership failures behind market loss
- Governance Structure: Board, CEO roles, and Nokia's 2020 strategic restructuring
- How the Problem Affects Nokia's Strategies: Poor vision led to Symbian overcommitment and strategic drift
- Conclusion: New leadership must align design, strategy, and environment
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in peer-reviewed business history research, particularly Lamberg et al. (2021) and Vuori and Huy (2016), giving its claims academic credibility rather than relying solely on business press sources.
- It connects theoretical concepts — such as Roberts's (2007) organizational fit model — directly to Nokia's real-world failures, demonstrating applied analysis rather than abstract description.
- The use of Nokia's own public disclosures (the 2020 strategic announcement and the Leadership and Governance page) adds primary source balance alongside the scholarly literature.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates problem-cause-solution structuring: it identifies Nokia's competitive decline as the problem, traces it to specific organizational design and leadership failures as the cause, and closes by outlining the strategic reforms needed. This technique keeps the argument focused and avoids the common student error of describing a company without evaluating it analytically.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a context-setting introduction that names the core thesis. Two body sections — Organizational Design and Governance Structure — build the diagnostic case. A third body section then connects those diagnoses to strategic consequences. A short conclusion synthesizes the findings and returns to the central argument about leadership and organizational fit. This five-part structure is concise and appropriate for a focused analytical memo or short business essay at the undergraduate level.
Introduction
The challenge for Nokia is that the growth of the telecommunications industry and stiff competition from rivals has caused Nokia to fall behind as an industry leader. Nokia is particularly behind in the area of 5G rollout, as the company has lost key contracts in China to rivals like Ericsson (Amine, 2021). Price erosion and loss of market share have also presented problems for Nokia in recent years. Additionally, its organizational structure is in need of overhaul. The main issue, however, is that Nokia has lacked leadership capable of providing a centralizing force for its loose structure. This paper examines the firm's design and structure to explain why, in spite of an innovative culture, Nokia needs strong leaders to harness the firm's energy and human resources in order to create new products.
Organizational Design
The specific organizational design at Nokia is horizontal and multidivisional, structured to allow maximum flexibility within the company. The structure is relatively informal, and employees are granted considerable autonomy. This essentially leads to a blurry chain of command. Strategic planning is overseen by the board, but operational planning is loosely managed due to the lack of centralized control across departments. As Roberts (2007) explains, the problem of organizational design is that strategy should facilitate the activities of the organization within the environment in which it operates. Design is about ensuring a good fit among the organization, its strategy, and its environment.
For Nokia, the main reason it lost market share to Apple and Samsung was that leadership made poor choices "in technology and organisational design that jointly constituted sufficient cause for the abandonment of the mobile phone business" (Lamberg et al., 2021, p. 574). Instead of focusing on the rising platforms of the smartphone industry, Nokia chose to invest heavily in its own outdated Symbian software platform, essentially doubling down on a product that was not working and throwing good resources after bad. Nokia's poor design choices stemmed from its "dominant management philosophy of the era, called 'strategic agility'" (Lamberg et al., 2021, p. 576). The problem was that leadership lacked adequate decision-making capacity and proper guidance for lower-level departments, resulting in "sluggish decision-making at the top and fierce internal competition between alternative technological platforms at the lower levels of the organization" (Lamberg et al., 2021, p. 576).
Vuori and Huy (2016) laid the blame on the company's CEO, who had a hostile temper and a combative leadership style that caused widespread problems for the organization. The current CEO now faces the challenge of repairing damaged relationships and rebuilding a unified culture with clear direction and purpose.
Governance Structure
The governance structure at Nokia is comprised of the board and its CEO, who jointly oversee strategies and operations. The governance of the firm is compatible with Finnish law. The Board of Directors reports to shareholders, while the CEO and the board report to one another and are both subject to internal and external auditing. The ultimate purpose is to create shareholder value, as Nokia is a publicly traded company (Leadership and Governance, 2022).
The new focus for Nokia centers on the following strategies:
The new structure gives each of the four groups a specific focus. However, there is no clear indication that the leadership is in place to provide Nokia with a unified vision and approach in a highly competitive marketplace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a lack of organizational design clarity and effective leadership caused Nokia to make poor decisions about its operating system and its approach to the smartphone industry. This led the company to lose significant market share to Apple and Samsung. Nokia today has new leadership and a new strategic model built around four distinct business groups. However, the company must ensure that its design fits both the environment and its strategies. Only then will performance improve, and shareholder value be created as a result of the firm generating new customer value — guided by the vision of its leadership and the governance of its Board.
References
Amine, Y. E. (2021). Nokia warns of challenges in 2021 as it lags behind rivals. Retrieved May 16, 2022, from https://www.insidetelecom.com/telecoms/nokia-warns-of-challenges-in-2021-as-it-lags-behind-rivals
Lamberg, J. A., Lubinaitė, S., Ojala, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2021). The curse of agility: The Nokia Corporation and the loss of market dominance in mobile phones, 2003–2013. Business History, 63(4), 574–605.
Leadership and Governance. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nokia.com/about-us/company/leadership-and-governance/
Nokia. (2020). Nokia announces first phase of its new strategy. Retrieved from https://www.nokia.com/about-us/news/releases/2020/10/29/nokia-announces-first-phase-of-its-new-strategy-changes-to-operating-model-and-group-leadership-team/
Roberts, J. (2007). The modern firm. Oxford University Press.
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 1154–1178.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.