Gorenje DD Evolution Or Revolution Case Solution

1. Discuss the Types Of Change In This Case.

This case is filled up with turnarounds with Gorenje facing many ups and downs. Gorenje started up with the aim of producing agricultural machines and later changed its product line and started to produce home appliances like cookers, washing machines and refrigerators. In 1991, Gorenje got a huge setback in the form of war, where Slovenia declared independence. As a result of this, Gorenje lost its most loyal market, and its supply chain got disrupted, and it almost went bankrupt. Under these conditions, the flag to lead was agreed in hand of charismatic and dynamic leader, Stanic.

Under his dynamic leadership, the employees had high morals. He took risky decisions while employees supported him. They continued their support even they lost production facility from fire. Because of this disaster, Gorenje outsourced its production. Despite of things, not in their favor, company never compromised over quality. Tireless efforts of Stanic moved the company from near bankruptcy in 1991 to the second largest exporter in 1993. During that era, Gorenje organized itself and focused on branding activities. Doing so, they won the award for user friendly home appliances. It was time to change; Gorenje was enjoying a great reputation and profits from Western Europe. Stanic vision central Europe to be their next destination (Ni, 2007).

In 2003 organization took another U turn, when Stanic announced his retirement. Bobinac headed the board that had two new members, against the preaching of Stanic, of developing internal talent. Under this new leadership, the company came across major strategic change and moved from selling products under their brand names to partnerships. Under this new leadership, company has many plans including diversification in European Union, at the same time, there are many concerns. It has a long way to go and a bright future ahead. It was successful in getting up after facing many setbacks and one can be optimistic that it will continue to be successful.

2. Could the organization evolve or would change require nothing less than a revolution? Why? Why not?

In one's view, the organization would change, require nothing less than a revolution. This case pointed put the difficult situations faced by the organization. However, organization was able to sustain within the hard times making it possible through creative and effective moves. Because of this, one can say that the organization has changed than actually being evolved. Gorenje started its journey with a producer of agricultural products, but, when it saw an opportunity in the home appliances it shifted its focus towards home appliances. Not only was it successful in gaining a good reputation, but also won an award for the best home appliances.

Next revolutionary period was, the period of war, during which Slovenia declared independence. The organization lost its most loyal customers and caused a disruption in the supply. This time revolution came under the leadership of Stanic. Stanic motivated the employees, promised them to never lay them off. He brought in revolution by winning the trust of employees, through being a partner, a friend rather than a boss. Based on this trust he made many risky decision and employees supported him (Singer, Alpeza, & Balkić, 2009).

Moreover, Gorenje got its production facilities destroyed due to fire. This time was really hard for the organization, but in order to have a change, and saving business they outsourced the production. Moreover, they did a revolutionary work to get the production facility within the period of six months. Once call this more of revolution then being evolution because, organization got set back, but never ended up and evolved again rather they kept of struggling.

After that, management board was changed that was headed by Bobinac. Its constitution was against development of internal talent as it contained two new members. The employees showed their dedication towards the organization and continued to support the management decision. One can argue that this revolutionary attitude and trust on management was a primary factor in sustainability of organization during hard times (Bechtold, 1998).