Is Microsoft’s new structure well suited to fostering collaboration and innovation? If yes, why? If not, why not? What structures might be...

One reason why it can be argued that Microsoft is structured to foster collaboration and innovation is because the company has recently been realigned to focus on one single strategy rather than on multiple strategies per department. Their new single strategy is to produce a "family of devices for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most" (Steve Ballmer, "One Microsoft: Company realigns to enable innovation").

In contrast to the single strategy focus, many large companies treat individual divisions and brands of the company as separate and distinct profit centers, measured and evaluated separately and distinctly from the company at large. While doing so may make it seem that measuring profits and losses is easier, in reality, a whole does not function without the sum of its individual parts. Looking at individual parts makes it impossible to measure the health of a mega-company overall. Similarly, a sports coach will not prepare for a championship game just by measuring the performance abilities of each individual player.

Using a single business strategy is more advantageous for a mega-company, like Microsoft, for multiple reasons. First, just like a sports team, integrating the performance ability of individual members creates a stronger force. Second, when individual departments are integrated to fulfill one goal, they do not feel the need to compete with each other, which creates a more positive atmosphere conducive to achieving progress. Third, management has an easier time guiding employees to the larger goal because management's time and interests are not divided between multiple separate departments of the company. Fourth, the single goal strategy makes it easier for management to accept or reject new innovation plans since different departments do not have to juggle multiple strategies; instead, all departments are aligned with the same strategy, so management can quickly see whether or not a new innovation plan will or will not help the company achieve its one strategy goal. Finally, having a fully aligned company makes it easier to adjust the goals of the company as need arises.

Microsoft's management system is a second reason why Microsoft's new structure is conducive to fostering collaboration and innovation. Often, in large companies, innovation gets pushed aside because innovative team members are unable to find approval for their ideas. In the past, employees of other companies have been able to circumvent the problem by running their ideas past supervisors "who were too busy to pay attention"; according to Brett Biship, Capital One's Managing Design Strategist, his strategy team "got [their] quick wins while no one was paying attention, then had the proof point to do more" (as cited in Wunker, "5 Strategies Big Businesses Use," Forbes). To counter the problem, Microsoft has created a system to prevent innovators from receiving a quick "no" by choosing team leaders of different divisions based on their expertise and interests in the division's specific field. If the team leader is just as experienced in a device or operating system and just as dedicated to improving it as the team members, then the team members will be more likely to receive a speedy "yes," leading to faster innovation.