CASE STUDY 2

Donna Dubinsky and Apple Computer, Inc (A)

Background

Apple Computer was founded in 1976 and in 1977 it came out with Apple II . Steve Jobs, the
companys cofounder, brought in John Sculley in 1983 as the president of the company. Early
1984, the Macintosh computer was introduced which initially had impressive sale, however by
1985 the sales fell short of their projected figures and that caused tension between Apple II and
Macintosh divison and also resulted in strained relationship between Jobs and Sculley.
Donna Dubinsky, who has had a promising career, joined Apple in 1981 as customer
support liaison and there her boss was Roy Weaver who was the head of distribution, service,
and support groups. Roy Weaver recognized the skills and potential she had and expanded
her responsibilities. In 1985, Dubinsky

became

director of distribution and sales

administration. She had refined and formalized much of the Apple product distribution
policy, and she worked closely with the six distribution centers spread across the country.
Jobs tried hiring Dubinsky for his Macintosh, however Dubinsky stayed back with
Weaver as he continually rewarded her and provided new challenges. Weaver who
was her first and longest-term supervisor, valued her clear, precise thinking, her
presentation skills and voice command, and the power of her presence. She fought for
her subordinates and for the Apple dealers and customers.
In September 1984, with great confidence Dubinsky and weaver presented the business
plan of the distribution, service, and support group to the Apple executive staff. This plan was
challenged by Jobs and that surprised both Weaver and Dubinsky. Weaver also felt unsure of
his relationship with his new boss, Campbell who was hired by Sculley for his teaching ability
and marketing leadership.
In fall of 1984, Jobs came to know about IBMs just--in-time (JIT) distribution process
from CEO of Federal Express and he then assigned Macintoshs director of manufacturing, Debi
Coleman, to look into JIT for their division, convinced that their plant could efficiently
incorporate the distribution function. JIT could bring some cost savings for the company and
with Macintosh weak sales and in view of that JIT was an attractive avenue.
According to Dubinsky and Weaver going on JIT path would be a mistake.

As a response to

Jobs challenges, Scully and Campbell called for a distribution strategy review and recommended
improvements around mid-December. Dubinsky worked w i t h Dave Kinser, controller for the

distribution, service, and support group on a research project intended to defend the
existing distribution system.

She was convinced that her experience, judgment and past

record of effectiveness would carry more weight than Colemans radical JIT proposal.
Nevertheless, alarmed by rumors of the sophisticated presentation being prepared by Coleman,
Dubinsky requested an extension as the deadline for her report was approaching.
Dubinsky was confused when she learnt that Colemans proposal would be presented at an
executive retreat and she, as distribution manager, was not the one to address the topic. A
counter proposal was made by Dubinsky which was to be presented at retreat by Weaver and
Campbell observed that the counter proposal was embarrassing as it reflected lack of thorough
re-examination of the distribution process. After the debate at retreat, it was decided to entrust
the distribution problem to a task force which included Dubinsky, Kinser, Weaver, Coleman, and
other manufacturing and neutral members. Campbell was the in-charge of the taskforce and the
executive staff would accept its recommendations.
The task force met over the next four months and met stalemate after stalemate as
Dubinsky objected to Colemans proposals and morale just kept going down. In April 1985,
Dubinsky was asked to attend a leadership experience intended to break down barriers, to
encourage communication and creativity, and to challenge participants to find new perspectives
and new solutions to old problems. On the second day of the workshop, Dubinsky directly
challenged Scully during a presentation to which he responded angrily. Later on the same day,
Dubinsky realized the distribution debate could affect the fate of the entire company and that
prompted her to take action. Soon after that she had a meeting with Campbell during which she
acknowledged her previous blind spots and requested an additional 30 days to prepare her
distribution strategy. She insisted that, because distribution was her area, she must evaluate the
strategy herself without interference of the task force. If Campbell did not agree to her terms,
Dubinsky would leave Apple. Campbell agreed to discuss with Scully and give her an answer
Monday.

Problem Statement
There was a conflict of ideas between Steve jobs and Donna Dubinsky and that led to the
situation where Dubinsky had decided to quit the company unless

an extension was

granted to her to prepare and evaluate a distribution strategy without any interference by
an outside task force.
Apple was not able to cope with the market situation, which had become highly competitive and
changing rapidly. Jobs idea of dealing with that was to go for cost reduction, and his first move
was to try to dismantle Dubinsky's department by shutting down the distribution channel, a move
not supported by Dubinsky as she felt it would totally paralyze the company. Jobs should have
exercised his persuasive skills to sell the JIT proposal to Campbell, Weaver, and Dubinsky rather
than trying to force a top-down decision. Dubinskys rejection of offer made by Jobs to join
Macintosh also could have influenced Jobs' attitude against Dubinsky, thus making his obsession
for change irrational and his actions biased by disappointment. On the other hand, Dubinskys
mistake was to rely on her position and reputation rather than mounting an effective, persuasive,
and fact-based argument. She should have taken Jobs JIT proposal seriously from the beginning
and, as soon as she heard of it, worked to make her case affirmatively using comparative data.
Besides Jobs and Dubinsky, Scully, Coleman, Campbell, and Weaver could all have handled
themselves differently. They could have intervened at the right time with the right strategies to
resolve the conflict when it emerged and prevented its escalation. Scully could have acted
forcefully to assert his organizational structure and independence from Jobs. Scully should not
have given Dubinsky an extension to make her proposal in December 1985 and then heard
Colemans proposal without warning Dubinsky. Coleman should have involved Dubinsky early
on and focused on finding the appropriate solution to Apples distribution needs rather than
working to prove Jobs preconceived conclusion. Campbell could have helped Dubinsky to
make her report more effective and also conveyed her ideas to upper management in a manner
in which they could understand them best. Weaver should have recognized weakness of
Dubinsky at selling her ideas and acted as her manager to help her improve in this area. Also, he
should not have been passive during the debate.

Alternatives
There are following three alternatives for Campbell with which to respond to Dubinskys
ultimatum:

1)

He can delay the decision so that Dubinsky gets the required time to

complete her thorough analysis and

at the same time he should inform the task force

members about their valuable input and explain them the reason for disbanding the task
force for a limited time. Once Dubinsky has done her thorough analysis then either she
will have real good reasons to retain the existing distribution service or she will realize
that JIT is definitely going to be beneficial and that acknowledgement coming from her
is better for the company as there will be no resentment anywhere.
2)
Another option would be to agree with Dubinskys demands and inform
Scully about that. Dubinsky has a strong record of performance and holds many of the
key dealer relationships. Campbell describes Dubinsky as a unique asset and having her
quit would have an overall negative impact on Apple. This way Dubinsky will be staying
with the company and will be able to redeem herself. However, this will go against the
previous decision regarding making a task force. As during the workshop session
Dubinsky had criticized Scully, this option will also make it difficult for Campbell to
persuade Scully to defend her.
3)
Allow Dubinsky to quit. Considering the amount of time she had she
should have done her homework properly. She could not persuade the executives as well
as the task force as she was not good at selling her idea. Moreover, going her path would
have required disbanding the task force and would feed resentment among the task force
members .
Recommendation
I would recommend the first alternative. A meeting should be called by Campbell in which
all executives are present . In that meeting Campbell should first appreciate the effort put in by
the task force who had provided valuable information for decision making and then highlight
that doing away with existing distribution service would be a big decision and there could be
some blind spots therefore one final review would be done by Dubinsky for which she would
be given 30 days during which she would finish her thorough analysis and present her own
distribution strategy then we will have another debate after which the appropriate decision will
be taken . At the same time Campbell must ensure that Jobs does not anyway force the company
to accept the JIT proposal. As Dubinsky is poor at selling her ideas, Campbell should take an
active role in the next debate and make Weaver to help Dubinsky persuade the others. This time
after thorough analysis Dubinsky would have facts and figures that either support retaining the

existing distribution services or they dont in which case Dubinsky would be willing to go JIT
way.
Through proper communication like in meetings the rigid thinking can be reduced. Rigid
thinking lessens the ability to see trade-offs necessary to integrate a win-win solution ( Corvette,
B. A. B. (2007) Ch.3,

p36).

References:
Jick, Todd D., and Mary C. Gentile. "Donna Dubinsky and Apple Computer, Inc. (A)." Harvard Business
School Case 486-083, February 1986. (Revised September 2011.)

Corvette, B. A. B. (2007). Conflict management: A practical guide to developing negotiation strategies.

Pearson Prentice Hall.