The paper "Mattel Company - Leadership and Ethics" is a perfect example of a management case study. From the toxic triangular analysis of Mattel Company, there are many factors that contributed to the failure of that firm. The leader of the company was charisma that made the company not be innovative. The company was affected by the negative life theme where the competitors were cautioning the consumers about the diverse effects of the Barbie product on their children lives. The was a negative ideology that was used to discredit the products of the company by assuming that all the products that are manufacture in China have some defects and consumers should refrain from purchasing them.
Further, the company has bad values when it recalls the toys that were originally sold due to poor quality which tarnished the reputation of the business in the world market. There was also unable to meet the needs of its customers and there were some perceived threats such as changes in the consumer trends that negatively affected the company. The company was also affected negatively by its cultural values as the employees and the structure as there were much shifting and reorganization that interfered with the smooth operations.
The company also was non-compliance with the legal requirements that resulted in legal liabilities and also instabilities that were caused by the disease and political crisis that affected the areas of operations. Moreover, I learnt several lessons in the case of Mattel failures. Poor leadership, instabilities, non-compliance and other factors can make a company to make losses that eventually leads to existing from the market. A toxic triangle is a tool that is usually used to gain the meaning and interpretation of the reality that affects a given business entity in the market.
The toxic triangle consists of the destructive leaders, Susceptible Followers, and the Conducive Environment. Mattel is a company that is located in California, United States (U. S) and other offices in other countries across the world. The company manufactures the toys products Mattel is one of the firms that were recently declared as a failed business entity in the corporate world, and therefore toxic triangle can be used to analyze the causes of failures. Destructive Leadership Charisma Leader There is a disastrous leadership at the Mattel Company.
According to Motley Fool, the company is facing challenges with technological development. The physical toys that the firm is manufacturing are currently having shorter life spans as compared to those that were being produced in the previous years. During the holiday season, the company started introducing less innovative products in the market (Story and Barboza, 2007). The company was able to report low sales from some of its principal markets such as the U. S in the third quarter of 2016.
The company lost its glory in the market to other world’ s biggest companies such as Danish that also deals with the toy products. The problem of innovation is believed that it was caused by the bureaucratic culture that diminished chances of creativity in the company. Creativity is one of the most important elements of success in the toy industry (Story and Barboza, 2007). The problem is believed to have been caused by a lack of charisma leadership that was brought by the C. E.O of the company, Mr.
Stockton. The C. E.O is described as an individual who is affable and smart, however, he not a charisma leader.
Choi, Y., & Lin, Y. H. (2009). Consumer responses to Mattel product recalls posted on online bulletin boards: Exploring two types of emotion. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2), 198-207
EARTH, S. (2008). Many multinationals think they under-stand, and have tried to mitigate, the serious risks posed by operating in China—intellectual-property-rights violations, corruption, lack of transparency, potential politi-cal instability. Yet one of the highest risks of all—China’s massive environmental degradation—is barely discussed in corporate boardrooms. Environmental Management: Readings and Cases, 40.
Economy, E., & Lieberthal, K. (2007). Scorched earth: Will environmental risks in China overwhelm its opportunities?. Harvard Business Review, 85(6), 88.
Egels-Zandén, N. (2007). Suppliers’ compliance with MNCs’ codes of conduct: Behind the scenes at Chinese toy suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 45-62.
Egels-Zandén, N. (2014). Revisiting supplier compliance with MNC codes of conduct: Recoupling policy and practice at Chinese toy suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 59-75.
Hienerth, C., Keinz, P., & Lettl, C. (2011). Exploring the nature and implementation process of user-centric business models. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 344-374.
Ko, M. (2013). A Study on effective factors to attract the private companies for official development assistance at the viewpoint of Public Private Partnership (PPP) (Doctoral dissertation).
Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817-831..
Lyles, M. A. (2008). Appreciating cultural differences in China: An interview with Robert A. Eckert, Chairperson of the Board and CEO of Mattel, Inc. Business Horizons, 51(6), 463-468.
Oppenheimer, J. (2009). Toy monster: The big, bad world of Mattel. John Wiley & Sons.
Peijuan, C., Ting, L. P., & Pang, A. (2009). Managing a nation's image during crisis: A study of the Chinese government's image repair efforts in the “Made in China” controversy. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 213-218.
Roloff, J., & Aßländer, M. S. (2010). Corporate autonomy and buyer–supplier relationships: The case of unsafe Mattel toys. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 517-534.
Sethi, S. P., Veral, E. A., Shapiro, H. J., & Emelianova, O. (2011). Mattel, Inc.: global manufacturing principles (GMP)–a life-cycle analysis of a company-based code of conduct in the toy industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 483-517.
Story, L., & Barboza, D. (2007). Mattel recalls 19 million toys sent from China. The New York Times, 15(8).
Tang, C. S. (2008). Making products safe: process and challenges. International Commerce Review, 8(1), 48-55.