Kodak: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Innovation, and Organizational Structure
This blog post is based on a section of my (unpublished) book. I've decided to pre-release over several months and get feedback. I've started a signup page so if you're interested in helping, and would like to reading the material early, I'd encourage you to signup.
Kodak was once synonymous with photography. The company dominated the market for decades, pioneering film technology and capturing the memories of millions. At its peak, Kodak was an industry giant, a trusted brand known worldwide. Yet, despite its success—and in many ways because of it—Kodak failed to adapt to the digital revolution, ultimately filing for bankruptcy in 2012.
The Kodak story is a textbook example of how entrenched power structures, centralized decision-making, and corporate inertia can lead to the downfall of even the most dominant companies. It is also a stark illustration of Kane’s Law: The structure of an organization dictates the distribution of power, decision-making authority, and its capacity for innovation or adaptation.
In this post, we explore how Kodak’s rigid hierarchical structure prevented it from capitalizing on its own innovation, why power dynamics stifled change, and what leaders can learn from this historic failure. Lets jump in ...
How Kodak’s Structure Became Its Downfall
At its core, Kodak was built on a centralized, hierarchical structure designed for efficiency and control. In the early 20th century, this model was highly effective, allowing Kodak to tightly manage production, distribution, and sales, leading to decades of market dominance. However, this structure also concentrated power at the top, leaving little room for decentralized decision-making or grassroots innovation. Decision-making was slow, risk-taking was discouraged, and executives prioritized short-term gains over long-term innovation. These structural factors created an environment where disruptive ideas—like digital photography—were seen as threats rather than opportunities.
Kodak Invented the Digital Camera—Then Ignored It
Perhaps the most ironic part of Kodak’s downfall is that it wasn’t blindsided by digital photography—it actually invented the digital camera in 1975. Engineer Steve Sasson developed the first prototype while working at Kodak, but when he presented it to executives, the reaction was underwhelming.
Kodak leadership saw the technology as a direct threat to its highly profitable film business. Rather than investing in digital and positioning itself as a leader in the new era of photography, Kodak shelved the idea. Executives feared that digital cameras would cannibalize film sales, hurting short-term revenues. The problem wasn’t just a lack of foresight—it was a failure of power distribution. Decisions were concentrated in the hands of executives who had built their careers around film. Their positions, incentives, and financial success were tied to the existing business model. As a result, they resisted change even when it was clear that the industry was evolving.
The Structural Flaws That Led to Kodak’s Decline
As the 1990s and 2000s progressed, digital photography began overtaking traditional film. Companies like Sony, Canon, and Nikon aggressively pursued the digital camera market, while Kodak remained focused on film and printing. Kodak’s top-down decision-making stifled innovation, and risk aversion prevented bold moves. The company’s leadership, deeply entrenched in the film industry, was reluctant to embrace digital because it threatened their core business. By the time Kodak fully committed to digital, it was too late. Competitors had already taken the lead, and Kodak struggled to differentiate itself in an increasingly saturated market.
The Lessons from Kodak
Kodak’s failure isn’t just a lesson in business history—it’s a warning for organizations today. In a rapidly changing world, companies that cling to outdated structures and power dynamics risk irrelevance and decline.
To remain competitive, organizations must empower employees at all levels to identify and act on new opportunities. Decentralized decision-making structures allow companies to be more agile and responsive to change. Leaders must also recognize when a business model is becoming obsolete and proactively invest in the next wave of innovation rather than protecting short-term revenue at the expense of long-term survival. Additionally, companies must actively assess whether their structure is inhibiting adaptation. If key decision-makers are incentivized to maintain the old way of doing things, meaningful change is unlikely to happen.
Conclusion: Adapt or Be Left Behind
Kodak’s story is a case study in how entrenched power and rigid structures can lead even the most dominant companies to failure. The company had the talent, resources, and even the technology to lead the digital revolution—but its structure and power dynamics prevented it from doing so.
The lesson is clear: Power distribution and organizational structure determine a company’s ability to innovate and adapt. No matter how successful a business is today, failure to recognize and address structural barriers to change will leave it vulnerable to disruption.
For today’s leaders, the message is simple: If you want to build an organization that thrives in the face of change, examine where power lies, how decisions are made, and whether your structure is designed for innovation or stagnation.