Substantive feedback to:

I decided to go with a company that serves as a how to NOT handle change example. Kodak once had a billion dollar per year company that held 90% of the market share for the photography industry (Abbas, 2023). In the 1980s the digital camera was coming around and Kodak, while dipping its toes in the digital world in the beginning, decided against making the investment to move forward with technology. Interestingly, in 1981 Kodaks management conducted a very extensive study and predicted that digital photography would take over eventually, giving the company about 10 years to find an answer (Mui, 2012). The management failed. CEO after CEO came and went. The problem was that every CEO the board appointed was in a mindset of risk aversion, as was the culture of the company. They were not able to adapt their culture to embrace the changing conditions that were being forced at them. The old school hierarchy business model also slowed decision making and cut off on-the-ground employees from expressing and communicating innovative opportunities. From 1962, sales surpassing $1 billion, to bankruptcy in 2012, Kodak willingly missed every opportunity to continue to thrive, choosing to view the new technology as the enemy to fight instead of a new partner to run with.